Jump to content

fghdgdfdfgfgf

Frozen-Inactivity
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    925

  • Donations

    $25.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fghdgdfdfgfgf

  2. Posted

    2 hours ago, w6kd said:

    That's exactly the opposite of both my experience and what I'd characterize as the long-standing conventional wisdom.

    The higher the number of devices (DIMM modules), the more variability you introduce, the higher the current load on the IMC, and the more possibility that the timing ranges on all the devices won't have enough overlap to find a common set of timings where they all will run reliably (at least not anywhere near the rated overclocked speed).  I've never seen a manufacturer with a top-end 4-DIMM set that was as fast as the same manufacturer's 2-DIMM matched set using the same ICs.

    Most manufacturers will tell you not to try and combine two 2-DIMM sets to make a 4-DIMM set...and if you do, don't expect it to run at its advertised (overclocked) settings.

    Regards

    Not the pros at Asus. I believe the OP is/or going to use a Maximums XI Formula .....do yourself a favor and look it up over at the Rog forum.

    ......and I'll refrain from ever making a hardware recommendation on these forums again.

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, FoxMulder1982 said:

    🙂

    as usual, I have additional question 🙂

    I have read on some overclockers forum that if CPU and MOBO are only dual-chanel it is better to buy only 2 memory modules instead of 4 because it there is higher probability that 2 module setup will work better.

    Based on your experience, can you confirm it?

     

    I think the rule of thumb for best performance these days is to populate all four slots with a 4 stick kit, ie. 4x8GB (32gb) for example.  But you can buy and happily use a two stick kit.

  5. Posted

    I recently upgraded my memory.

    I bought the same 4400 kit Rob used + a new cpu, in case I needed a stronger integrated memory controller.

    Long story short: I got a nice memory upgrade but not with the memory kit but rather the new CPU. Yeah, my existing 3200 c14 kit totally blew away the 44000 kit ...the memory upgrade came from the new cpu not the memory kit. I returned the memory kit and kept the cpu.

     

    While you probably don't have the resources to bin 5 mobo's, 5 ram kits and 5 cpu's like Westman, you might wanna try a 4400 kit vs a 3200 with two different cpu's ....return the losers.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    47 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    @westman@FunknNastyAnd what is FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.01 all about? I thought P3D didn’t need tweaks?

    Ray, I put your +/- with regard to your contributions to these forums in the solid + range but, like a few others around here, I get the sense that your appreciation of P3d is a bit on the shallow side. I see the FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=XX as more of a resource than a tweak.

  9. Posted

    26 minutes ago, Gabe777 said:

    Totally.

    I reduce Autogen from very dense to Normal and get a 30 percent boost !

    Why would I pay over a 1000 quids to upgrade from a 7700k at 4.5 auto boost, plus a 1080 GTX , to a 9xxx and a 2080 ti, for a 25 percent boost ?

    Equally, why fry my CPU - which never exceeds 65 degrees, for a boost of 5 to 10 FPS...?

    FLIGHTSIM  has never looked so good... I run on a 32 inch MVA 2K monitor and P3D is gorgous.

    I'll say it - I'm not afraid - I will not be greedy.

    In 2 or 3 years, when a 6 or 700 quid investment will give me a 60 or 70 percent boost - without any stoopid overclocking - I may THEN upgrade, and my current hardware can be relegated to a media PC, for running 16K video at 1000 fps !

    My processor runs at 70c and processes 2x what yours does.

    I probably paid 20% more for my hardware than you did for yours but I'm probably getting 2x the performance ...greedy? I call it surplus value.

    I ran a Sandybridge at 5.0 for 5 years ....the 1st of year of use I was publishing benchmarks at 5.4 Ghz .... The person I sold it to says it's still running strong.

  10. Posted · Edited by FunknNasty

    2 hours ago, westman said:

    Ray its all up to you and Gabe77, can give you a small hint this system is atleast 30% faster and 2 more cores then your 8086k with slow 3000mhz mems.

    I think you're underestimating the 9900K at 5.4/5.0 with 4000+ low latency memory ....I'd like to see Rays hardware configuration vs yours, with the p3d settings you run, set a with a FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.01.  <vbg>

  13. Posted · Edited by FunknNasty

    1 hour ago, John_Cillis said:

    ....but there seems to be something changed in the MAX vs. the rest of the 737 fleet, especially when you look at the round the clock 700/800/900 flights SWA flies all over the US.  What that is, I do not know, .....

    John

    You're kidding us, right?  When you find the time you may want to read the thread, that you started. The difference of the Max vs the NG have been clearly articulated.

    The reason for the MCAS is because the new engines (placement) make the craft inherently unstable due to the engine placement that makes the craft want to pitch up making trim duties a crapshoot, especially right after the flaps are up.

    • Upvote 1

  14. Posted

    15 minutes ago, PaulGR said:

    I have my 9700K tuned on the conservative side and it is surpassing all expectations.

    This is rock solid stable and I'm already in the process of testing 5.2GHz while staying under 1.35 and below 80 Celsius.

    Liquid cooled with single fan.

    No delid or anything out of ordinary.

    I upgraded from 8700K which was liquid cooled with Corsair H150i PRO and 5.0 was the only sold stable OC i was able to achieve while staying within 80 Celsius. **I use XTU with default BIOS settings. I run OC when I need it while under clocking it to 3.6 for everything else.bLg5fbj.jpg

    Looking good! WTG.

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, 757FO said:

    do you have any evidence that backs up your claim? 

    It’s this kind of #&#$$##& that just grabs me by the boo boo. It’s the US tax payer that is going eat these two crashes ( so far) not the Boeing investor.

  17. Posted · Edited by FunknNasty

    18 hours ago, John_Cillis said:

    Oh, again did not know that, I am learning more, but what surprises me is we have not heard of the older models having this same issue.  Could this problem be caused by inadvertent spoiler deployment?  Or again, 

    I’m surprised by the fact that the flight characteristics of the max is totally different than that of previous generations of the 737 due to the forward and raised engine placement on the Max .....the main reason for the new mcas, hasn’t been brought up in this thread.....sorry if I missed it.

  18. Posted · Edited by FunknNasty

    2 hours ago, Holdit said:

    I heard this morning that there are about 500 737-MAX aircraft in service. Let's assume each does three flights a day. That's 1500 flights per day. Now times this by 180 days and we get 270,000 flights in a six month period, of which two have crashed. That's .0007 crashes per flight, meaning that statistically you would need to take over 1800 flights in a 737 MAX in order to be involved in a crash. It also means that during that time there were 269,998 737 MAX flights where nothing bad happened.

    As for the 300 dead in six months, on average the fatality rate for road crashes in the U.S. over same period in the region of 16,000, over 50 times higher.

    Not trying to minimise the tragedy, or the notion that one might think...thoughts...if scheduled to fly on a MAX, that's only natural. but it's better to ease up on the hysteria pedal a bit, and leave that to those who know sweet F.A. about aviation yet insist on talking about it a lot, like simmers, oops I mean the press. :smile:

     

     

     

    Well. as someone who lives under the flight path of where these POS's fly, and at the point where the flaps are up and the MCAS kicks in, I'm a feeling a little uneasy when I go to bed at night. Furthermore, I'm not feeling to good about Southwest Airlines right now.  Maybe Boeing should've called that plane A-LIL-OverMax.

  20. Posted

    2 hours ago, Louibarnes said:

    hi there to anyone that can help. 

    Around 2 weeks ago i was running p3d with all addons at around 30/40 fps no problems. Then i went to austria for a week, come back and its running on 6fps. I didnt change anything prior.

     

    The very 1st thing I'd try is unplugging the computer from the wall and then plugging it back in after a minute or so.

  22. Posted · Edited by FunknNasty

    30 minutes ago, westman said:

    seen the same but the z390 is worse, did a aida not bad much work to explore.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss2qs4t5fw4ngxz/cachemem.png?dl=0

    Well, I’m bummed now. I had a 4400 c18 kit that I tested with the 8600 and 8086 on the 1401 bios but NOT the 1801 .... wonder if the 4400 kit would have worked as advertised on the newer bios , they were horrible on the 1401.

    ....kicking myself for NOT trying the 4400 kit on the 1801 .....was going to do it but got lazy about it and then was up against the rma date.

    edit: nice Aida score ....real nice

  23. Posted

    7 minutes ago, westman said:

    The 9900k have problems with Older B-die that ones for Z370 and Z270 on Z390 mems that do 4133-4266 with cr1 cant make that on Z390  about 100 mhz less, on the other hand the new kits is dont like cr1 you ar often stuck at cr2.

    run P3D at 5.5ghz avx0 HT-off ,here a CB15 HT-off with little bclk, its very good cpu not need much vcore thats the key to have decent temps, 

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy8b9rzl4kopf8w/snaphsot0100.png?dl=0

    Glad you mentioned the memory ....my memory does not like bios 1801, which I assume is geared up for the 9xxx coffee lakes. It runs about 5 to 7% slower than bios 1401. One of the reasons I went with the 8086. Well, that and I was pretty much guaranteed a 5.3 clock at voltages under 1.4.

  24. Posted

    14 minutes ago, SunDevil56 said:

    Well, the Hades level heat for sure, but i've flown in to and out of KPHX many dozens of times in the 3 hottest months (June, July, August) and I honestly don't ever recall getting a bumpy ride. OTOH, i've never landed there in the middle of a late summer Monsoon (yes, they do call them Monsoon's believe it or not.)

    FWIW, the Phoenix area, and most of southern Arizona for that matter, has near perfect flying weather almost the entire year.

    I'm talking about getting a 747 out of there with the engines intact ... 🙂

  25. Posted

    2 hours ago, Gabe777 said:

    Daft question....  is it really worth the extra stress / instability / reduced life expectancy / expensive cooling etc etc..... for a 10 percent boost in clock speed ?

    If you are getting 60 fps, we are talking 5 or 6 fps between 4.5 and 5 Ghz.

    At a more common 30 fps target.... we are literally talking 3 ..... yes, THREE FPS.

    Why do people push there systems so high for 3 to 6 fps benefit ? 

    I can understand faster RAM and NvMe drives, as the synergy of these components leads to a much smoother experience.

    ......But ..... I have never understood why people will push their CPU an extra 100 to 200 Mhz, in turn raising the temperatures from 60 to over 80 degrees C, just for a few FPS.... ESPECIALLY, when turning down 1 or 2 sliders - just 1 notch - will probably DOUBLE that FPS gain !

     

    I take it you didn't fly into LAX this morning.  Off the charts beautiful -the broken clouds, city lights and lightning over the San Gabriel's  ....totally worth the price of admission.

×
×
  • Create New...