Profile overview for TechInfo.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

2 submissions to technology

1 submissions to introductions

1 submissions to space

This user has so far shared a total of 2 links, started a total of 2 discussions and submitted a total of 31 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 84 and downvoted 10 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 131 and downvoted 116 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Feels good when the "good guys" (AMD) win a round, submitted: 6/8/2017 11:13:56 PM, 72 points (+75|-3)

Microsoft announces Azure Virtual Machines running on AMD EPYC 64 core 128 thread 128 pci lane servers, submitted: 12/5/2017 6:03:41 PM, 6 points (+7|-1)

Hi. I'm not really new, but finally made an account :), submitted: 3/23/2017 8:57:48 PM, 4 points (+4|-0)

Wanderers - a short film by Erik Wernquist, narrated by Carl Sagan, submitted: 4/21/2017 11:12:57 PM, 2 points (+3|-1)

5 lowest rated submissions:

Wanderers - a short film by Erik Wernquist, narrated by Carl Sagan, submitted: 4/21/2017 11:12:57 PM, 2 points (+3|-1)

Hi. I'm not really new, but finally made an account :), submitted: 3/23/2017 8:57:48 PM, 4 points (+4|-0)

Microsoft announces Azure Virtual Machines running on AMD EPYC 64 core 128 thread 128 pci lane servers, submitted: 12/5/2017 6:03:41 PM, 6 points (+7|-1)

Feels good when the "good guys" (AMD) win a round, submitted: 6/8/2017 11:13:56 PM, 72 points (+75|-3)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

New Intel Logo submitted by Troll to technology

TechInfo 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago

The Meltdown design flaw (Intel CPUs from the past 10 years at least):

UNPATCHED: any program running on your INTEL computer (say javascript being run by your browser) can read (and then for example send back to an internet server) any other memory on your computer, even memory not in the same process (like your Word processor or Spreadsheet, which is typically isolated from each other).

So if you have a spreadsheet open with your banking figures, credit card payments, etc., that is all ripe for the picking by any other program because of the Intel design flaw.

PATCHED: this access-violation problem goes away, but then, depending on how often your program calls the OS/Kernel/system to access a shared resource (e.g. network, file, drives, USB) the CPU slows down up to 50% because you are defeating the cache (high speed memory internal to the CPU) and the patch forces the CPU execute extra hide/unhide instructions every time the OS takes your program's request, reads from a resource, and then returns back to your program.

The only permanent fix is: NEW HARDWARE. Intel has no "fixed" hardware in its pipeline.

AMD's processors are not affected by Meltdown. They do not have this design flaw.

New Intel Logo submitted by Troll to technology

TechInfo 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago

The whole point of the article is that the Intel CEO probably knew about the issue back in November and sold 66% of his shares, down to the absolute minimum he was required to hold as CEO. CEOs of the other two companies did not know nor sell anything other than minimum tax-event type sales on shares granted to them quarterly.

The Intel design flaw has 3 issues, and the (Meltdown) software "fix" incurs up to a 50% penalty, depending on I/O load. The other Intel flaw (Spectre) is exploitable in any kernel condition.

AMD is not affected by the critical flaw (Meltdown). The other flaw (spectre) in AMD's case is fixable with a 0-performance penalty patch. This patch isn't even needed unless you run the Linux kernel in a non-default configuration (eBPF enabled with JIT).

So again, nowhere near the same thing. It's like a rain drop hitting you in the face because you're looking up when it's raining (AMD's issue) versus wearing concrete boots and trying to tread water (Intel's flaw)

No member of Congress should be eligible for re-election if our country's budget is not balanced---deficits not allowed! 3:31 PM - 31 Jul 2012 submitted by Im_Brian to politics

TechInfo 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago

It will be interesting to see what happens now that Rand Paul has asked President Trump to get the Senate Majority leader on board with allowing Rand a 15 minute discussion and 15 minute vote on the Senate floor regarding this current budget, which Rand called more of the same "Obama-era deficit spending"

3 lowest rated comments:

Space shuttle Challenger landing after a successful mission submitted by killer7 to space

TechInfo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

Beautiful !

I wish I could go back in time and record all of these launches and landings in High Definition!

I did get to see one of each with my own eyes so maybe one day we'll be able to record our own memories in HD :)

Could someone with more PC building experience answer some questions? submitted by Marsog to AskVoat

TechInfo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

unless you're doing rendering or CAD or something like that, you're not going to be using many or any programs like that

That statement is no longer true as of about 6 years ago, when game engines started to move away from a max of 2-4 primary work threads (input/control/networking thread, audio mix thread, graphics render thread, game logic/AI thread) to the concept of thread pooling and multiple render threads.

Nowadays (and the big shift to this model was underway in 2011), games will spawn as many graphics render threads as is useful to the game-engine. This also means it is dependent on the game-engine that the particular game uses. As long as the game-engine has technology to utilize more than 1 thread for render, the prevailing strategy is to utilize as many threads as there are available cores. On windows, the logical-core-count (16 for an 8C/16T CPU, 8 for a 4C/8T, etc) is retrieved via an OS call to:

GetSystemInfo()

and looking at the dwNumberOfProcessors variable. A multiple-render-thread game-engine will take that value and set up with different strategies for thread allocation based on the number returned from the OS.

Also, take a look at this screenshot from a side-by-side video of a Ryzen 1700 (not the top clocked version) running between 80% of an i7-7700k to 110% the speed of an i7-7700k (both systems were slightly overclocked) and were run at 720P resolution through multiple games.

https://files.catbox.moe/acmqmt.jpg

No game shown in that video has unused utilization of the additional (logical) "CPUs" on the Ryzen 1700, so it's obvious the various game-engines are using more than 8 threads for rendering.

Now, this is at 720P resolution, but as you increase the resolution, the bottleneck moves to the GPU anyway. Furthermore, screens are going to refresh up to their max refresh rate which might be 60Hz in the case of the OP. That's why I asked the OP what kind of monitor is being used.

Probably a better metric for game responsiveness and "feel" is minimum frame rate (or better, something like a 95% minimum frame rate to discount the odd hiccup or game buffering delay) and as long as that is above the monitor's max refresh rate, the rest is gravy.

There is a reason why game-engine design effort is shifting to utilize multiple cores, against the software-complexity of doing so. High frequency parts are harder to manufacturer (much less yield per wafer) and this drives up the cost. It is far cheaper to double the core count than to double the frequency. From a CPU-design point-of-view, going from 8 to 16 cores is a walk in the park when compared to making a 5 GHz part work at 10 GHz. You also need RAM capable of keeping up with a 10 GHz CPU or each cache-miss becomes more of a penalty (as compared to the alternative strategy of doubling the cores at the original frequency).

Heat is also an issue when you double the frequency because power consumption is proportional to:

Frequency x Voltage^2 x Capacitance (of the underlying transistors on the CPU)

Higher voltages are necessary for higher clocks, so the amount of power consumed increases with a linear component based on frequency, but also with a quadratric component because of the increased voltage that is required.

TL;DR: Long story short, expect future CPU performance to continue to improve via higher core-counts and clock frequencies to rise only slightly. High performance software (games included) will likely continue to accommodate this trend where possible.

Could someone with more PC building experience answer some questions? submitted by Marsog to AskVoat

TechInfo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

You didn't say what i7 chip you have, unless its an i7700 the AMD Ryzen system will be a better bang for the buck now and in the future, especially as future titles will accommodate designs with additional cores.

If you're going to buy a 1080 or 1080ti or VEGA graphics card and game at high-res than the Ryzen system will definitely be more future proof as it will have more cores to feed the GPU.

You can watch this video from AdoredTV to see the reasons why this is so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

The TL;DR on that video is that a prevailing assumption for how well system X will run software 4 years from now is to benchmark system X and its contemporaries on low resolution. The video goes on to explain that this theory doesn't really explain actual performance as the goal-posts and game construction methodology shifts to take advantage of additional cores.

I would go for moderately high clock speeds and the most cores possible for your budget. Again this is a Ryzen win for performance per $.

Regarding motherboards: I've used ASUS motherboards for the past 20 years with 0 issues outside of 1 that died with a few failed capacitors, but this was 16 years after putting it into service... Not a bad lifetime.

For my Ryzen 1800X system, I am thinking of going with an MSI or Gigabyte board initially (ASUS seem to be having some issues out of the gate but I'm still doing research on this).

If you want to run multiple graphics cards, I would go for 2 identical cards so this really doesn't address what to do with your 970. Multiple graphics cards means you need a X370 AM4 motherboard for Ryzen versus a B350 as X370 supports SLI/Crossfire.

Unless you are running 2 identical graphics cards, I would get get more bang for my gaming buck by putting the cash into more cooling (water cooling) and faster RAM. Ryzen scales its infinity fabric (communication between the two compute complexes -- think of a CC as a grouping of cores) in relation to the speed of the DDR4 memory clock.

16GB ram should be sufficient. Go with DDR4. If you're doing a Ryzen build, it is DDR4 only so you get the benefits of the higher clocks with DDR4.

Personally I like Windows 7 over Windows 8.1, but Windows 7 is right now limited to Direct X 11.1 versus DirectX 11.2 for 8. If your game takes any specific advantage of 11.2 features is another question. I would go for the professional package.

Hope this helps.