By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

JEMC on 21 March 2017
QUAKECore89 said:
JEMC said:

No mechanical HDDs... congrats, I guess. I still have a few of them.

About that monitor, will you use those lateral panels, or are you going to use it as a normal person would?

In any case, I hope you like it. I'm so used to an IPS screen that I'd never consider going back to TN. I'll go to either another IPS or a VA monitor (OLED is out of the question for another few years).

Rarely will use laternal panels when i change position in the future.

There are three VA monitors existing closely like mine 240Hz, however they're ultrawide 30 or bigger inch and overclockable from 144Hz to 200Hz maxed(Using displayport) PLUS G-Sync or Freesync.

I don't have problems with 60Hz monitors so, If I have to choose between better picture quality or faster refresh, I'll always choose the former.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
vivster on 22 March 2017
JEMC said:
QUAKECore89 said:

Rarely will use laternal panels when i change position in the future.

There are three VA monitors existing closely like mine 240Hz, however they're ultrawide 30 or bigger inch and overclockable from 144Hz to 200Hz maxed(Using displayport) PLUS G-Sync or Freesync.

I don't have problems with 60Hz monitors so, If I have to choose between better picture quality or faster refresh, I'll always choose the former.

That's what I said before I went 144.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

JEMC on 22 March 2017
vivster said:
JEMC said:

I don't have problems with 60Hz monitors so, If I have to choose between better picture quality or faster refresh, I'll always choose the former.

That's what I said before I went 144.

Ok. Still it doesn't change the fact that I'll still choose picture quality over a faster monitor. Both things would be nice, of course, but then comes that little annoyance called price that settles it once and for all.

Besides, except for the ocasional FPS, I spend most of my time playing slow paced games like RTS, City builders or simulators, so having a monitor with higher refresh rate won't benefit me as much as it would to a fan of Rocket League or someone who plays lots of action games.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

TomaTito on 22 March 2017
JEMC said:
Captain_Yuri said:
"375GB SSD that sells for $1520"

Jesus

"Endurance: 12 Petabytes written"

Damnnn

But I will stick with my Samsung SSDs thankz

But it's not only an SSD drive. It can also act as system RAM. You connect that to the motherboard, set things up and boom! Now you have 375GB of aditional RAM.

...

Yeah, it's great for servers and such, but kind of useless for personal computers.

It's a technology launch price. Article mentions that this mainly for business now, consumer-oriented ones will come later.

What makes 3D XPoint interesting is that it offers read and write speeds that rival what you’d expect from DRAM memory. But unlike DRAM, you can use 3D XPoint for long-term storage, since it’s non-volatile memory.

The upshot is that not only can you do things like copy files and read data more quickly, but you can also use 3D XPoint as “virtual memory,” to get near-RAM speeds.

And as mentioned in the comments, the PCIe will be a bottleneck:

My guess is that using PCIe is a transitional stage to fit in with existing architectures. When this technology was announced a while ago much was made of the fact that there would need to be new connection and bus architectures for the full potential of this technology to be realised -particularly to take advantage of the potential speed of the new memory system. We can only wait and see how that what the scene evolves

Some future insights:

I’d say make a new architecture around it instead.

New CPU: direct access to this memory. Throw out the L2/3 cache, use it’s place to make a lot of registers. More registers make it easier to run multiple processes on the same core and make virtualization easier too. Cache on the other hand is only needed to prefetch from the relatively slow RAM, not needed anymore. Throw out branch-prediction, prefetch and long pipelines and ques, we only needed them to handle NOPs while waiting for memory, but not needed here. Use a simple RISC architecture. Instead make several cores that share the entire memory and hardware memory protection. RISC can do more instructions per clock.

We need a new filesystem to go with this, since it’s both fast and non-violate it needs to be less robust, but instead of partitions it should work as a RAM-disk and should be resizeable at any moment, so you can dedicate your RAM to storage or to the CPU depending on what you do. Linux can be most likely modded to work on this.

This would mean a computer that has less components and thus cheaper (with bigger volumes, the price for XPoint would drop), more power-efficient while also being faster and more robust and also easily scaleable.

This technology will have more impact on our computers and sooner than quantum-computing. Instead of increasing the raw processing power, the last decade was about slowly removing all the bottlenecks from the computer, the last step was SSD-s becoming mainstream. Now that all the puzzle-pieces are ready it’s time to throw out all the legacy stuff we’ve inherited from the ’70-ies and make a new type of computer, where all the parts perform on the same speed, the CPU don’t have to wait for the RAM or the storage. Legacy software can just be recompiled, as long as the kernel handles the new type of RAM well, it wouldn’t change much from an average app’s standpoint, malloc will still give you some memory, and that’s it.


@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"
vivster on 22 March 2017
JEMC said:
vivster said:

That's what I said before I went 144.

Ok. Still it doesn't change the fact that I'll still choose picture quality over a faster monitor. Both things would be nice, of course, but then comes that little annoyance called price that settles it once and for all.

Besides, except for the ocasional FPS, I spend most of my time playing slow paced games like RTS, City builders or simulators, so having a monitor with higher refresh rate won't benefit me as much as it would to a fan of Rocket League or someone who plays lots of action games.

Why not both?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Monitor-Display-Hardware-154105/News/ROG-Swift-PG27UQ-mit-144-Hz-und-4K-1217477

Can't wait for this beauty.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
WoodenPints on 22 March 2017

When I got my 144 G-Sync monitor (Dell S2716DG) late last year it was hard to believe how good it is, It's kind hard to explain to anyone who hasn't used one and how smooth it is and you won't realise the difference until you try it.

I went out with intent to buy an IPS with as high image quality as possible but ended up grabbing a TN instead mainly due to what seemed to be bad quality control at the time with most good IPS G-Sync monitors monitors suffering bad BLB and didn't want to play the lottery on getting a good one and it turned out to be a great purchase, The price has shot up now I paid £399 for mine but Dell kept raising the price and they are now at £550+. It's hard to recommend the monitor at it's current price point but if it drops back down i would.



JEMC on 22 March 2017
vivster said:
JEMC said:

Ok. Still it doesn't change the fact that I'll still choose picture quality over a faster monitor. Both things would be nice, of course, but then comes that little annoyance called price that settles it once and for all.

Besides, except for the ocasional FPS, I spend most of my time playing slow paced games like RTS, City builders or simulators, so having a monitor with higher refresh rate won't benefit me as much as it would to a fan of Rocket League or someone who plays lots of action games.

Why not both?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Monitor-Display-Hardware-154105/News/ROG-Swift-PG27UQ-mit-144-Hz-und-4K-1217477

Can't wait for this beauty.

It will be a great monitor, if it lives up to the expectations and doesn't suffer from as many problems as other AOC based monitors, but 2,000 € is a hell lot of money.

I'd rather go with a 24-25" 1440p monitor like the Dell U2515H (that's 5 times cheaper at 400 € in this store, maybe less in others) or, and now I'm really pushing it for my budget, an ultrawide monitor like LG's 34UC98-W that's still less than half the price (on that same store) than the monster you've listed.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Pemalite on 22 March 2017
TomaTito said:

Some future insights:

I’d say make a new architecture around it instead.

New CPU: direct access to this memory. Throw out the L2/3 cache, use it’s place to make a lot of registers. More registers make it easier to run multiple processes on the same core and make virtualization easier too. Cache on the other hand is only needed to prefetch from the relatively slow RAM, not needed anymore. Throw out branch-prediction, prefetch and long pipelines and ques, we only needed them to handle NOPs while waiting for memory, but not needed here. Use a simple RISC architecture. Instead make several cores that share the entire memory and hardware memory protection. RISC can do more instructions per clock.

L2, L3, Branch Prediction, Prefetch, Advanced Pipelining will not be replaced. Even if the transfer rates of storage exceed the cache speed.

Cache is on-die. It's big advantage is latency. A CPU is wasting processing cycles waiting for the request to be sent to storage and for that information to arrive at the CPU.

Also. Internally CPU's these days are basically RISC anyway. Intel and AMD will take a Complex instruction and break it down into simple instructions.

Prediction is important as it can help hide the latency even when accessing the L2 cache.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

vivster on 22 March 2017

I just realized I might not be able to afford this beauty this year. I want to buy new bike and an Ultrabook which would set me back 2k each. Then there's the Japan trip I have to save at least 4k for. Then there are 3 hearthstone expansions too.

Could get a little tight budget wise throughout the year.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

JEMC on 22 March 2017

^lol! 1st world problems...

Look at it from the bright side, we don't know if those monitors (there's also an ACER one) will launch this year or will get delayed, and even if they launch this year as planned, by next year all/most of the initial problems will be solved and you won't have to go through them.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.