12900k @ 5.3 Ring @ 4.7
16g DDR4 @ 4000 with tightend timings (45ns in aida)
Msi 3070
Super Stripped win 10
dxlevel 81
Custom cfg
Benchmark_test
1920x1080
4812 frames 7.412 seconds 649.18 fps ( 1.54 ms/f) 71.038 fps variability
640x480
4812 frames 7.118 seconds 675.99 fps ( 1.48 ms/f) 78.582 fps variability
Pretty much bottlenecked by cpu speed at this point, would be fun test a delided 13900k
12900k @ 5.3 Ring @ 4.7
16g DDR4 @ 4000 with tightend timings (45ns in aida)
Msi 3070
Super Stripped win 10
dxlevel 81
Custom cfg
Benchmark_test
1920x1080
4812 frames 7.412 seconds 649.18 fps ( 1.54 ms/f) 71.038 fps variability
640x480
4812 frames 7.118 seconds 675.99 fps ( 1.48 ms/f) 78.582 fps variability
Pretty much bottlenecked by cpu speed at this point, would be fun test a delided 13900k
I5-10400f @ 4.1GHz
Radeon RX5500 XT @ 1.5 GHz
16GB DDR4 @2133MHz
MSI B360M Mortar
Driver version : 22.11.2
TF2 installed on a m.2 NVMe
benchmark1.dem
dxlevel 81
1920x1080 (fullscreen)
J_4rb1's TF2 FPS config (custom config) (shadows off)
CleanTF2+ (no hats, no hands&feet, no weapon gibs, no gibs)
-novid -reuse -noforcemaccel -noforcemspd -noforcemparms -nohltv -refresh 240 -full -w 1920 -h 1080 -nojoy -nosteamcontroller -particles 1 -noquicktime -precachefontchars -nostartupsound -softparticlesdefaultoff
2639 frames 10.157 seconds 259.82 fps ( 3.85 ms/f) 23.831 fps variability
2639 frames 10.081 seconds 261.77 fps ( 3.82 ms/f) 20.621 fps variability
benchmark_test.dem :
4812 frames 15.347 seconds 313.55 fps ( 3.19 ms/f) 39.315 fps variability
After i decluttered my disc from 20gbs of stuff
4812 frames 15.139 seconds 317.85 fps ( 3.15 ms/f) 41.890 fps variability
I5-10400f [b]@ 4.1GHz[/b]
Radeon RX5500 XT [b]@ 1.5 GHz[/b]
16GB DDR4 [b]@2133MHz[/b]
MSI B360M Mortar
Driver version : 22.11.2
TF2 installed on a m.2 NVMe
benchmark1.dem
dxlevel 81
1920x1080 (fullscreen)
J_4rb1's TF2 FPS config (custom config) (shadows off)
CleanTF2+ (no hats, no hands&feet, no weapon gibs, no gibs)
-novid -reuse -noforcemaccel -noforcemspd -noforcemparms -nohltv -refresh 240 -full -w 1920 -h 1080 -nojoy -nosteamcontroller -particles 1 -noquicktime -precachefontchars -nostartupsound -softparticlesdefaultoff
[code]2639 frames 10.157 seconds 259.82 fps ( 3.85 ms/f) 23.831 fps variability
2639 frames 10.081 seconds 261.77 fps ( 3.82 ms/f) 20.621 fps variability[/code]
benchmark_test.dem :
[code]4812 frames 15.347 seconds 313.55 fps ( 3.19 ms/f) 39.315 fps variability[/code]
After i decluttered my disc from 20gbs of stuff
[code]4812 frames 15.139 seconds 317.85 fps ( 3.15 ms/f) 41.890 fps variability[/code]
crespicpu: i7 2820QM @2.30 (I think it goes up to 3.14 though?)
graphics: AMD radeon HD 6750M
dxlevel 81
1600x900
full-screen
chris highframes
shadows enabled
two monitors, aero disabled
2639 frames 31.072 seconds 84.93 fps (11.77 ms/f) 8.020 fps variability
2639 frames 23.376 seconds 112.89 fps ( 8.86 ms/f) 6.254 fps variability
Man oh man, what a difference 9 years makes...
i7-13700k
Radeon 5700
32GB DDR4 @3600mhz
DXlevel 90
Mastercomfig Medium-High
1920x1080 fullscreen
2639 frames 7.283 seconds 362.33 fps ( 2.76 ms/f) 33.025 fps variability
[quote=crespi]
cpu: i7 2820QM @2.30 (I think it goes up to 3.14 though?)
graphics: AMD radeon HD 6750M
dxlevel 81
1600x900
full-screen
chris highframes
shadows enabled
two monitors, aero disabled
[quote]2639 frames 31.072 seconds 84.93 fps (11.77 ms/f) 8.020 fps variability
[/quote]
[quote]2639 frames 23.376 seconds 112.89 fps ( 8.86 ms/f) 6.254 fps variability
[/quote][/quote]
Man oh man, what a difference 9 years makes...
i7-13700k
Radeon 5700
32GB DDR4 @3600mhz
DXlevel 90
Mastercomfig Medium-High
1920x1080 fullscreen
2639 frames 7.283 seconds 362.33 fps ( 2.76 ms/f) 33.025 fps variability
Results from my new PC:
i7-12700f
Radeon 6700XT
16 GB DDR4-3200
mastercomfig medium
dxlevel 95
1920x1080 fullscreen
benchmark1.dem
2639 frames 9.629 seconds 274.06 fps ( 3.65 ms/f) 27.514 fps variability
I feel like this score is way lower than it should be, versus comparable hardware posted ITT. During normal non-benchmark pub server gameplay, I frequently get fps drops below the refresh rate on my 240Hz monitor.
Is there some hidden-yet-important setting I can change to fix this, or do I just need to go to a lower graphics preset?
I've already tried disabling the Intel E-cores and playing with some of the AMD graphics driver settings, but didn't seem to get any performance changes from them.
Results from my new PC:
i7-12700f
Radeon 6700XT
16 GB DDR4-3200
mastercomfig medium
dxlevel 95
1920x1080 fullscreen
benchmark1.dem
2639 frames 9.629 seconds 274.06 fps ( 3.65 ms/f) 27.514 fps variability
I feel like this score is way lower than it should be, versus comparable hardware posted ITT. During normal non-benchmark pub server gameplay, I frequently get fps drops below the refresh rate on my 240Hz monitor.
Is there some hidden-yet-important setting I can change to fix this, or do I just need to go to a lower graphics preset?
I've already tried disabling the Intel E-cores and playing with some of the AMD graphics driver settings, but didn't seem to get any performance changes from them.
IsoResults from my new PC:
I feel like this score is way lower than it should be, versus comparable hardware posted ITT. During normal non-benchmark pub server gameplay, I frequently get fps drops below the refresh rate on my 240Hz monitor.
I would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?
[quote=Iso]Results from my new PC:
I feel like this score is way lower than it should be, versus comparable hardware posted ITT. During normal non-benchmark pub server gameplay, I frequently get fps drops below the refresh rate on my 240Hz monitor.
[/quote]
I would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?
crespiI would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?
No difference on dxlevel 90:
2639 frames 9.540 seconds 276.63 fps ( 3.61 ms/f) 19.854 fps variability
I think I have XMP enabled, but I'm not 100% sure of that because ASRock's bios settings are in broken English. This is what Windows sees as my RAM timings, though:
https://i.imgur.com/PTHwuyT.png
[quote=crespi]I would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?[/quote]
No difference on dxlevel 90:
2639 frames 9.540 seconds 276.63 fps ( 3.61 ms/f) 19.854 fps variability
I think I have XMP enabled, but I'm not 100% sure of that because ASRock's bios settings are in broken English. This is what Windows sees as my RAM timings, though:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/PTHwuyT.png[/img]
By the way, for anyone missing benchmark1 file
bakonbrgrdont have benchmark1 and links are dead so cant test that
Here's the copy of it that I had saved: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/916933591664054282/1079632447265849504/benchmark1.dem
By the way, for anyone missing benchmark1 file
[quote=bakonbrgr]dont have benchmark1 and links are dead so cant test that
[/quote]
Here's the copy of it that I had saved: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/916933591664054282/1079632447265849504/benchmark1.dem
IsocrespiI would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?
No difference on dxlevel 90:
2639 frames 9.540 seconds 276.63 fps ( 3.61 ms/f) 19.854 fps variability
I think I have XMP enabled, but I'm not 100% sure of that because ASRock's bios settings are in broken English. This is what Windows sees as my RAM timings, though:
https://i.imgur.com/PTHwuyT.png
Those timings looks very loose and dosent tell what the sub, sec and tri timings are (abit overkill but good to know what the MBs memory training does).
What ver of windows are you running?
Have turned off Cstates?
what does ur turbo go up to when you play and is it stable?
What mb do you use?
What ram do you use?
Tf2/source barely gives a damn about gpus and heavly dependet on freq, latency and ramspeed (till an certain point).
[quote=Iso][quote=crespi]I would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?[/quote]
No difference on dxlevel 90:
2639 frames 9.540 seconds 276.63 fps ( 3.61 ms/f) 19.854 fps variability
I think I have XMP enabled, but I'm not 100% sure of that because ASRock's bios settings are in broken English. This is what Windows sees as my RAM timings, though:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/PTHwuyT.png[/img][/quote]
Those timings looks very loose and dosent tell what the sub, sec and tri timings are (abit overkill but good to know what the MBs memory training does).
What ver of windows are you running?
Have turned off Cstates?
what does ur turbo go up to when you play and is it stable?
What mb do you use?
What ram do you use?
Tf2/source barely gives a damn about gpus and heavly dependet on freq, latency and ramspeed (till an certain point).
IsocrespiI would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?
No difference on dxlevel 90:
2639 frames 9.540 seconds 276.63 fps ( 3.61 ms/f) 19.854 fps variability
I think I have XMP enabled, but I'm not 100% sure of that because ASRock's bios settings are in broken English. This is what Windows sees as my RAM timings, though:
https://i.imgur.com/PTHwuyT.png
Hey bud.
It looks like your RAM is at 1600hz which is HALF of what it could be! Easiest way to know for sure is just open Task Manager and go to performance > memory and it will tell you right there in "speed"
So yeah verify with task manager what your RAM speed is and if it's actually 1600 or anything other than 3200 then you definitely need to get in your BIOS and enable XMP or equivalant setting.
Once you've removed that variable, test again and let me know.
[quote=Iso][quote=crespi]I would be interested in knowing the difference after you test again but in dxlevel 90 instead of 95. Would you mind trying that and letting me know? Of course make sure to remove the -dxlevel 90 from your launch options after the first launch and then test.
I also feel compelled to ask if you enabled XMP settings or any other feature required to get the full speed of your RAM?[/quote]
No difference on dxlevel 90:
2639 frames 9.540 seconds 276.63 fps ( 3.61 ms/f) 19.854 fps variability
I think I have XMP enabled, but I'm not 100% sure of that because ASRock's bios settings are in broken English. This is what Windows sees as my RAM timings, though:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/PTHwuyT.png[/img][/quote]
Hey bud.
It looks like your RAM is at 1600hz which is HALF of what it could be! Easiest way to know for sure is just open Task Manager and go to performance > memory and it will tell you right there in "speed"
So yeah verify with task manager what your RAM speed is and if it's actually 1600 or anything other than 3200 then you definitely need to get in your BIOS and enable XMP or equivalant setting.
Once you've removed that variable, test again and let me know.
dram freq in cpu-z is gonna be half the speed the rams running at
dram freq in cpu-z is gonna be half the speed the rams running at
BeaVerNThose timings looks very loose and dosent tell what the sub, sec and tri timings are (abit overkill but good to know what the MBs memory training does).
I don't know what those timings mean, do you know how I can view them? My BIOS currently just has those settings on "Auto"
What ver of windows are you running?
Windows 10 LTSC IoT Edition, 21H2 major update version
Have turned off Cstates?
No. I'll try playing with those next, but I don't think they'll make that big of a difference.
what does ur turbo go up to when you play and is it stable?
Turbo reaches 4.7 GHz and stays there, on all 8 cores, even the idle ones (likely from the "high performance" preset on windows). CPU temp never gets above 75 degrees when just running TF2.
What mb do you use?
ASRock B660M-C, latest bios version
What ram do you use?
Teamgroup T-Force Vulcan Z, DDR4-3200
Tf2/source barely gives a damn about gpus and heavly dependet on freq, latency and ramspeed (till an certain point)
I've noticed as much. I overclocked my ram to 3466 mhz and the benchmark fps improved a tiny bit:
2639 frames 9.324 seconds 283.04 fps ( 3.53 ms/f) 21.245 fps variability
[quote=BeaVerN]Those timings looks very loose and dosent tell what the sub, sec and tri timings are (abit overkill but good to know what the MBs memory training does). [/quote]
I don't know what those timings mean, do you know how I can view them? My BIOS currently just has those settings on "Auto"
[quote]What ver of windows are you running?[/quote]
Windows 10 LTSC IoT Edition, 21H2 major update version
[quote]Have turned off Cstates? [/quote]
No. I'll try playing with those next, but I don't think they'll make that big of a difference.
[quote]what does ur turbo go up to when you play and is it stable?[/quote]
Turbo reaches 4.7 GHz and stays there, on all 8 cores, even the idle ones (likely from the "high performance" preset on windows). CPU temp never gets above 75 degrees when just running TF2.
[quote]What mb do you use?[/quote]
[url=https://asrock.com/MB/Intel/B660M-C/index.us.asp]ASRock B660M-C[/url], latest bios version
[quote]What ram do you use?[/quote]
[url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07T62Y4YN?tag=teamfortresst-20]Teamgroup T-Force Vulcan Z, DDR4-3200[/url]
[quote]Tf2/source barely gives a damn about gpus and heavly dependet on freq, latency and ramspeed (till an certain point)[/quote]
I've noticed as much. I overclocked my ram to 3466 mhz and the benchmark fps improved a tiny bit:
2639 frames 9.324 seconds 283.04 fps ( 3.53 ms/f) 21.245 fps variability
Wow, my previous post of me just trying to help is being down fragged because I may have been wrong about cpu-z? I literally said "it looks like" and gave a method to confirm the RAM speed for sure. Really lovely community you guys got here.
Wow, my previous post of me just trying to help is being down fragged because I may have been wrong about cpu-z? I literally said "it [b]looks[/b] like" and gave a method to confirm the RAM speed for sure. Really lovely community you guys got here.
i7-13700kf
GTX 1070
2x8 DDR5 5200 MHz
mastercomfig medium-low
dxlevel 95
1920x1080 fullscreen
benchmark1.dem
2639 frames 5.879 seconds 448.89 fps ( 2.23 ms/f) 45.339 fps variability
i7-13700kf
GTX 1070
2x8 DDR5 5200 MHz
mastercomfig medium-low
dxlevel 95
1920x1080 fullscreen
benchmark1.dem
2639 frames 5.879 seconds 448.89 fps ( 2.23 ms/f) 45.339 fps variability
really sorry nobody upfragged corny sounding misinformation
really sorry nobody upfragged corny sounding misinformation
Brimstone corny sounding misinformation
I'm really sorry for posting "misinformation". As a non-expert, I violated TFTV policy by trying to help and not being 100% correct. Please someone post a fact check lest this misinformation spread and get someone hurt.
[quote=Brimstone] corny sounding misinformation[/quote]
I'm really sorry for posting "misinformation". As a non-expert, I violated TFTV policy by trying to help and not being 100% correct. Please someone post a fact check lest this misinformation spread and get someone hurt.
Crespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.
Meanwhile, I've also tried:
- Overclocking RAM speed further, to 3600mhz
Bumped fps just a tiny bit higher.
2639 frames 9.182 seconds 287.40 fps ( 3.48 ms/f) 20.922 fps variability
- Adjusting various CAS latencies in BIOS
Every change I made there made Windows BSOD on startup, it doesn't seem like I can get anything better than 16-20-20-40 out of this kit
- Adjusting various CPU settings (disable C-states, disable E-cores, disable hyperthreading, disable thermal velocity boost optimizations, change whatever "boot performance mode" means, etc
All of these settings made 0 difference.
Crespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.
Meanwhile, I've also tried:
[list]
[*] Overclocking RAM speed further, to 3600mhz
[/list]
Bumped fps just a tiny bit higher.
[quote] 2639 frames 9.182 seconds 287.40 fps ( 3.48 ms/f) 20.922 fps variability[/quote]
[list]
[*] Adjusting various CAS latencies in BIOS
[/list]
Every change I made there made Windows BSOD on startup, it doesn't seem like I can get anything better than 16-20-20-40 out of this kit
[list]
[*] Adjusting various CPU settings (disable C-states, disable E-cores, disable hyperthreading, disable thermal velocity boost optimizations, change whatever "boot performance mode" means, etc
[/list]
All of these settings made 0 difference.
IsoCrespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.
It was -6 the entire time now it's -7. I wasn't even wrong, was just trying to help someone on my own free time just to be nice and people here can't help but be toxic. So I don't feel like helping anymore. Good luck.
[quote=Iso]Crespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.[/quote]
It was -6 the entire time now it's -7. I wasn't even wrong, was just trying to help someone on my own free time just to be nice and people here can't help but be toxic. So I don't feel like helping anymore. Good luck.
add me on steam and ill look into it :)
Also keep in mid that you need to stability test your ram after OC and adjusting timings, a proper memtest should take hours.
add me on steam and ill look into it :)
Also keep in mid that you need to stability test your ram after OC and adjusting timings, a proper memtest should take hours.
crespiIsoCrespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.
It was -6 the entire time now it's -7. I wasn't even wrong, was just trying to help someone on my own free time just to be nice and people here can't help but be toxic. So I don't feel like helping anymore. Good luck.
No, you were wrong. Just because you wrote "it looks like" doesn't mean you were any less wrong about it.
Even well-meaning misinformation will and should be downfragged, because it wastes people's time if taken seriously. Do not take that personally.
It seems like out of all the posters involved, you had the least knowledge to contribute and then decided to obsess over getting downfragged for it instead of actually trying to help anyone.
Learn from this that CPU-Z is correct, that MHz are not the same as MT/s even though DRAM marketing likes to pretend they are, so you can get it right next time, and move on.
[quote=crespi][quote=Iso]Crespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.[/quote]
It was -6 the entire time now it's -7. I wasn't even wrong, was just trying to help someone on my own free time just to be nice and people here can't help but be toxic. So I don't feel like helping anymore. Good luck.[/quote]
No, you were wrong. Just because you wrote "it looks like" doesn't mean you were any less wrong about it.
Even well-meaning misinformation will and should be downfragged, because it wastes people's time if taken seriously. Do not take that personally.
It seems like out of all the posters involved, you had the least knowledge to contribute and then decided to obsess over getting downfragged for it instead of actually trying to help anyone.
Learn from this that CPU-Z is correct, that MHz are not the same as MT/s even though DRAM marketing likes to pretend they are, so you can get it right next time, and move on.
SetsulcrespiIsoCrespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.
It was -6 the entire time now it's -7. I wasn't even wrong, was just trying to help someone on my own free time just to be nice and people here can't help but be toxic. So I don't feel like helping anymore. Good luck.
No, you were wrong. Just because you wrote "it looks like" doesn't mean you were any less wrong about it.
Even well-meaning misinformation will and should be downfragged, because it wastes people's time if taken seriously. Do not take that personally.
It seems like out of all the posters involved, you had the least knowledge to contribute and then decided to obsess over getting downfragged for it instead of actually trying to help anyone.
Learn from this that CPU-Z is correct, that MHz are not the same as MT/s even though DRAM marketing likes to pretend they are, so you can get it right next time, and move on.
You ignore the fact that I provided a completely valid method to verify the memory speed - through task manager - as I wasn't sure. Therefore nothing you said here is valid but for some bizarre reason you really want to shit on me. If you want to shit on me for no reason then just do it, but don't try to justify it by pushing misinformation of your own.
[quote=Setsul][quote=crespi][quote=Iso]Crespi, nobody cares. Just take the -3 frags (it was only -3 at the time) and move on.[/quote]
It was -6 the entire time now it's -7. I wasn't even wrong, was just trying to help someone on my own free time just to be nice and people here can't help but be toxic. So I don't feel like helping anymore. Good luck.[/quote]
No, you were wrong. Just because you wrote "it looks like" doesn't mean you were any less wrong about it.
Even well-meaning misinformation will and should be downfragged, because it wastes people's time if taken seriously. Do not take that personally.
It seems like out of all the posters involved, you had the least knowledge to contribute and then decided to obsess over getting downfragged for it instead of actually trying to help anyone.
Learn from this that CPU-Z is correct, that MHz are not the same as MT/s even though DRAM marketing likes to pretend they are, so you can get it right next time, and move on.[/quote]
You ignore the fact that I provided a completely valid method to verify the memory speed - through task manager - as I wasn't sure. Therefore nothing you said here is valid but for some bizarre reason you really want to shit on me. If you want to shit on me for no reason then just do it, but don't try to justify it by pushing misinformation of your own.
the fact that you lacked the technical experience/knowledge to even correctly interpret one of the most common applications in existence speaks volumes to your credibility. if you don't actually know how to help please understand the move that will make you look the smartest is to not post anything to begin with
the fact that you lacked the technical experience/knowledge to even correctly interpret one of the most common applications in existence speaks volumes to your credibility. if you don't actually know how to help please understand the move that will make you look the smartest is to not post anything to begin with
i7-10875h, 3070 mobile max-q
crappy ddr4-3200 (tightened it from 22-22-22-52 to 17-18-18-38)
dxlevel 81, headsfeet, mastercoms low
2560x1440:
4812 frames 11.915 seconds 403.87 fps ( 2.48 ms/f) 48.195 fps variability
640x480:
4812 frames 11.112 seconds 433.05 fps ( 2.31 ms/f) 52.386 fps variability
seems okay for an old 14nm++++ laptop
i7-10875h, 3070 mobile max-q
crappy ddr4-3200 (tightened it from 22-22-22-52 to 17-18-18-38)
dxlevel 81, headsfeet, mastercoms low
2560x1440:
4812 frames 11.915 seconds 403.87 fps ( 2.48 ms/f) 48.195 fps variability
640x480:
4812 frames 11.112 seconds 433.05 fps ( 2.31 ms/f) 52.386 fps variability
seems okay for an old 14nm++++ laptop
Brimstonethe fact that you lacked the technical experience/knowledge to even correctly interpret one of the most common applications in existence speaks volumes to your credibility. if you don't actually know how to help please understand the move that will make you look the smartest is to not post anything to begin with
The fact that you think you can judge someones technical experience/knowledge from such a petty, intentionally uncharitable interpretation of one thing they said, speaks volumes to your character as a human being, and your lack of credibility when it comes to soft skills. Enjoy your anonymity on this online forum but no decent person would talk like this to someone without justification, and being wrong about something isn't justification for treating people this way.
[quote=Brimstone]the fact that you lacked the technical experience/knowledge to even correctly interpret one of the most common applications in existence speaks volumes to your credibility. if you don't actually know how to help please understand the move that will make you look the smartest is to not post anything to begin with[/quote]
The fact that you think you can judge someones technical experience/knowledge from such a petty, intentionally uncharitable interpretation of one thing they said, speaks volumes to your character as a human being, and your lack of credibility when it comes to soft skills. Enjoy your anonymity on this online forum but no decent person would talk like this to someone without justification, and being wrong about something isn't justification for treating people this way.
crespiBrimstonethe fact that you lacked the technical experience/knowledge to even correctly interpret one of the most common applications in existence speaks volumes to your credibility. if you don't actually know how to help please understand the move that will make you look the smartest is to not post anything to begin with
The fact that you think you can judge someones technical experience/knowledge from such a petty, intentionally uncharitable interpretation of one thing they said, speaks volumes to your character as a human being, and your lack of credibility when it comes to soft skills. Enjoy your anonymity on this online forum but no decent person would talk like this to someone without justification, and being wrong about something isn't justification for treating people this way.
Consider:
You didn't now the difference between MT/s and MHz and thought that Iso's RAM was running at the absolute minimum legal speed for DDR4, with even worse timings than JEDEC standard. This can't happen automatically, so it is you uncharitably interpreting it as Iso having manually crippled his RAM.
BeaVerN knew, or at least suspected, that 20-20-20-40 are the JEDEC timings for DDR4-3200W. Turns out he was right. Assuming Iso linked the correct kit, the XMP profile should be using 16-18-18-38.
So you guessed correctly, XMP was not enabled, but then you completely dropped the ball due to your lack of technical experience/knowledge. If you had just said "Looks like XMP isn't enabled, please double check" no one would've even noticed.
You were then presented with two choices: Learning from this mistake and expanding your knowledge, or whining about getting downfragged for being wrong about something outside of your expertise.
You chose the salt.
[quote=crespi][quote=Brimstone]the fact that you lacked the technical experience/knowledge to even correctly interpret one of the most common applications in existence speaks volumes to your credibility. if you don't actually know how to help please understand the move that will make you look the smartest is to not post anything to begin with[/quote]
The fact that you think you can judge someones technical experience/knowledge from such a petty, intentionally uncharitable interpretation of one thing they said, speaks volumes to your character as a human being, and your lack of credibility when it comes to soft skills. Enjoy your anonymity on this online forum but no decent person would talk like this to someone without justification, and being wrong about something isn't justification for treating people this way.[/quote]
Consider:
You didn't now the difference between MT/s and MHz and thought that Iso's RAM was running at the absolute minimum legal speed for DDR4, with even worse timings than JEDEC standard. This can't happen automatically, so it is you uncharitably interpreting it as Iso having manually crippled his RAM.
BeaVerN knew, or at least suspected, that 20-20-20-40 are the JEDEC timings for DDR4-3200W. Turns out he was right. Assuming Iso linked the correct kit, the XMP profile should be using 16-18-18-38.
So you guessed correctly, XMP was not enabled, but then you completely dropped the ball due to your lack of technical experience/knowledge. If you had just said "Looks like XMP isn't enabled, please double check" no one would've even noticed.
You were then presented with two choices: Learning from this mistake and expanding your knowledge, or whining about getting downfragged for being wrong about something outside of your expertise.
You chose the salt.
SetsulSo you guessed correctly, XMP was not enabled, but then you completely dropped the ball due to your lack of technical experience/knowledge. If you had just said "Looks like XMP isn't enabled, please double check" no one would've even noticed.
So you admit I was correct but your contention is that I should have said "please double check" that XMP is enabled even though I said:
crespiEasiest way to know for sure is just open Task Manager and go to performance > memory and it will tell you right there in "speed"...anything other than 3200 then you definitely need to get in your BIOS and enable XMP
It really sounds like you have no valid contention at all but have some sort of compulsion to be argumentative, condescending, and overly concerned with semantics and irrelavent technical details that make it appear like you know a lot more than others. In the more than 10 years I've been an IT professional, I've dealt with many people like you. It's interesting how far you're willing to bend the truth and ignore context just to try and make a stranger feel dumb.
[quote=Setsul]
[b]So you guessed correctly[/b], XMP was not enabled, but then you completely dropped the ball due to your lack of technical experience/knowledge. If you had just said "Looks like XMP isn't enabled, please double check" no one would've even noticed. [/quote]
So you admit I was correct but your contention is that I should have said "please double check" that XMP is enabled even though I said:
[quote=crespi]
Easiest way to know for sure is just open Task Manager and go to performance > memory and it will tell you right there in "speed"...anything other than 3200 then you definitely need to get in your BIOS and enable XMP
[/quote]
It [b]really[/b] sounds like you have no valid contention at all but have some sort of compulsion to be argumentative, condescending, and overly concerned with semantics and irrelavent technical details that make it appear like you know a lot more than others. In the more than 10 years I've been an IT professional, I've dealt with many people like you. It's interesting how far you're willing to bend the truth and ignore context just to try and make a stranger feel dumb.
man stop shittin up the benchmarks thread
man stop shittin up the benchmarks thread
crespiIT professional
codemonkey/dev/software engineer = pc build guru omegalul
[quote=crespi]IT professional[/quote]
codemonkey/dev/software engineer = pc build guru omegalul
crespiSo you admit I was correct but your contention is that I should have said "please double check" that XMP is enabled even though I said:
It really sounds like you have no valid contention at all but have some sort of compulsion to be argumentative, condescending, and overly concerned with semantics and irrelavent technical details that make it appear like you know a lot more than others. In the more than 10 years I've been an IT professional, I've dealt with many people like you. It's interesting how far you're willing to bend the truth and ignore context just to try and make a stranger feel dumb.
Nope, you're just failing at reading comprehension now or just refuse to accept that you could ever be wrong about anything.
You guessed correctly that XMP wasn't enabled. It is a good first guess without much to go on.
The screenshot shows that the frequency was what it should be, but the timings weren't.
You were, incorrectly, worried about the frequency, and completely missed the timings.
If you had not mentioned the frequency, no one would've noticed, because XMP was indeed not enabled.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, pretty much what brimstone recommended.
You are being downfragged because listening to your advice would've made things worse. Task Manager would've shown that the RAM was running at 3200 "MHz", but XMP still wasn't enabled. Task Manager won't show you that, because it doesn't show timings. That's why the CPU-Z screenshot is more useful. Everyone involved already knew that.
Why are you expecting gratitude for explaining a way to completely miss the problem?
Yes, I will judge you for giving harmful advice, and yes, I do think I know more than you. For example what DRAM timings are. I know this upsets you, and if it causes you to stop polluting the thread with your bruised ego, then I will have reached my goal.
That's it from me.
[quote=crespi]So you admit I was correct but your contention is that I should have said "please double check" that XMP is enabled even though I said:
It [b]really[/b] sounds like you have no valid contention at all but have some sort of compulsion to be argumentative, condescending, and overly concerned with semantics and irrelavent technical details that make it appear like you know a lot more than others. In the more than 10 years I've been an IT professional, I've dealt with many people like you. It's interesting how far you're willing to bend the truth and ignore context just to try and make a stranger feel dumb.[/quote]
Nope, you're just failing at reading comprehension now or just refuse to accept that you could ever be wrong about anything.
You [i]guessed[/i] correctly that XMP wasn't enabled. It is a good first guess without much to go on.
The screenshot shows that the frequency was what it should be, but the timings weren't.
You were, incorrectly, worried about the frequency, and completely missed the timings.
If you had not mentioned the frequency, no one would've noticed, because XMP was indeed not enabled.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, pretty much what brimstone recommended.
You are being downfragged because listening to your advice would've made things worse. Task Manager would've shown that the RAM was running at 3200 "MHz", but XMP still wasn't enabled. Task Manager won't show you that, because it doesn't show timings. That's why the CPU-Z screenshot is more useful. Everyone involved already knew that.
Why are you expecting gratitude for explaining a way to completely miss the problem?
Yes, I will judge you for giving harmful advice, and yes, I do think I know more than you. For example what DRAM timings are. I know this upsets you, and if it causes you to stop polluting the thread with your bruised ego, then I will have reached my goal.
That's it from me.
https://giphy.com/gifs/michael-jackson-6pJNYBYSMFod2
lol wtf there's a gettier case in the benchmarks thread
lol wtf there's a gettier case in the benchmarks thread