Random Hardware topics

[neogunhero]

Sapphire Radeon RX 9060 XT Pulse OC 16 GB Review - An Excellent Choice

The Sapphire Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB sells close to MSRP, yet it features a factory overclock and higher power limit. In our testing, its cooler remained whisper-quiet even at full load. Interestingly, this model uses Samsung memory, whereas all other cards we've tested so far use Hynix.

www.techpowerup.com

Posted early by accident sorry.

I think the RX 9060 is the one thats gone OEM only, there arent good reviews for that yet I dont think.

Makes sense, the ones I'm seeing on Amazon are the 9060 XT's. Maybe if it dropped down closer to $300-350, it would be a much better value over the 5060 8GB, but if you can find a 5060 Ti 16GB at MSRP that would be the way to go.

 

[Colif]

saving up a little and buying a better card with more vram is a smarter idea than being tempted by a low price on a card that shouldn't exist

i spent all night making sure one thing I want to buy was the best choice. All the alternatives fail one way or another Just need to resist buying it this week. I have wanted it since December so its only a matter of time - not PC related - My PC replaced it as a more interesting thing to save for.

 

[neogunhero]

saving up a little and buying a better card with more vram is a smarter idea than being tempted by a low price on a card that shouldn't exist

i spent all night making sure one thing I want to buy was the best choice. All the alternatives fail one way or another Just need to resist buying it this week. I have wanted it since December so its only a matter of time - not PC related - My PC replaced it as a more interesting thing to save for.

I think it boils down to prices fluxuating so much. The 5060 8GB is at MSRP for a reason, it's not very desirable to most people. To me yeah, only because it will be a big upgrade from my 6 year old card, but to most others it's not a very smart choice. Popular cards are the ones that fluxate the most in price, so the 5060 staying at $300 is what was pulling at my wallet.

Done with this topic, it will only reinforce my bad thought processes

 

[Colif]

The 5060 8GB... big upgrade

How soon you forget

For me it really should be, as like you said going from 6gb to 8gb isn't a huge upgrade... performance wise may be better but longevity suffers at the sake of cost. The price tag is just really good and was tempting me, but really shouldn't waste the money on such a small upgrade. If I plan on using a card for long time like my current card, it needs to be more substantial. the 5060 Ti 16GB would be a much better choice, but those aren't at MSRP like the 8GB non-Ti versions are, could be another point why I was getting tempted.

My next PC is likely Intel but they have to exist and be competitive to let me buy one

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Makes sense, the ones I'm seeing on Amazon are the 9060 XT's. Maybe if it dropped down closer to $300-350, it would be a much better value over the 5060 8GB, but if you can find a 5060 Ti 16GB at MSRP that would be the way to go.

I think for the most part I would go for a 5060Ti 16GB over a RX 9060XT for 50 more, but its not a wash for the 5060Ti in all games. Path Tracing is still way better on Nvidia though and obvs DLSS is a bit better than FSR, but its not the big gap it was.

 

[neogunhero]

My next PC is likely Intel but they have to exist and be competitive to let me buy one

All the negative stuff I hear going on at Intel these days seem to never mention the GPU department of the company. The CPU's aren't doing as well, networking is being spun off, CEO is apparently in hot water because our president hates the fact that he's Chinese or something like that? Yet I never hear anything bad going on with the GPU side of the business. I hope that means they are focusing on strengthening that side, they have some interesting stuff going on. Always welcome to new competitors, as long as they can survive... btw didn't watch the video yet, Steve probably says something about how the GPU's are doing terribly idunno

 

[Colif]

The video mentions the GPU area are the only ones who seem to have any good ideas. Or products people want to buy now.

One German website showed sales figures from July 25
AMD CPU: 12000 units sold
Intel: 1100 sold (no, I didn't forget a 0)
there is no demand for their product on desktop. Or server... Laptop is only market they dominate in pure numbers sold, and a lot of their dominance is from old sales, not new ones.

Video also fleshes out why the CEO might be under scrutiny. Something to do with his previous job.

Steve was giving news, it wasn't opinion as much. No real mention of GPU hardware.

Intel in a slump, AMD were here 20 years ago. It took them 10 years to dig their way out again, they bet the company on Zen and they sure were lucky it worked. Intel not so much.

 

[neogunhero]

Time for a minor but significant upgrade. After searching for what feels like forever, I have found a great SSD that hits all the right boxes at an affordable price. I picked up the Teamgroup T-Force G-50 2TB SSD for $104 USD. I could have spent an extra $20 on something a bit better, but that $20 went towards a new cover for my headphones headband which was needed for a long time as well.

This drive is DRAM-less but I've come to realize that is not the most important thing when it comes to SSDs. DRAM is nice to have but often more expensive by a solid $30-40 than what I paid for my new drive with almost unnoticeable performance benefits in real-world usage. DRAM-less drives have also come a long way and are not all made the same, I've since realized being DRAM-less is not an umbrella term for being a bad drive. TLC/SLC cache size is more important when choosing budget drives. In my case with my WD Blue SN570, the SLC cache size was a meek 15GB, meaning downloading anything above ~10GB to that drive caused it to fill up the cache immediately and slow download speeds to a crawl. The drive I picked up as a whopping 600GB cache size, meaning I will almost never see it perform slower than expected.

It is also PCIe 4.0 which is faster than the slot I have on my mobo, so I will basically get the max speed of what my hardware can support all the time. Technically should be faster too, since the WD Blue maxes at 3500MB/s while the slot can hit up to 4000MB/s. Not like I ever could use the WD Blue at that fast of a speed though anyways.

Also being 2TB is a big benefit over 1TB of course. I will use this as my main drive, and keep my SATA and SATA M2 SSDs installed for extra storage. I may wipe the WD Blue drive and try to sell it for cheap. Good drive if you don't ever game or do anything intensive on your PC. This means I will need to do a clean installation of Windows, I may bite the bullet and just jump to Win11.

 

[neogunhero]

One review for that headband cover I linked above was basically stating "with the cost of this and new earcups, you're already up $50 from the original price of the headphones, may as well save some more and buy a new set".

I disagree with this in my specific situation. I've used these headphones for a good 5-6 years already, and don't want to get rid of them simply because they are the best in their price range, and the fact that the chassis itself is incredibly well built. The earcups and headband suffer from using faux-leather, the kind that flakes off, same as cheap office chairs. The extra parts were a bit expensive but I'd much rather spend a few dollars here and there to extend it's life than buy a brand new set each time my old one breaks. Sound quality is still as great as ever.

The earcups I have are cooling-gel cushioned, so the feel is a bit stiffer but still very comfortable. I like how they are a bit stiff against my head rather than the cotton-like cushion of the original earcups that sort of molded to your head with how soft they are.

The headband cover is a soft-touch silicone, which is not my ideal material of choice, but would be leagues better than the faux leather. There were only a couple other choices for headband covers, this seemed to be the best. One complaint is that the zipper rattles around, a small bit of electric tape will fix that.

It's not unheard of for audiophiles to keep headphones in great working condition for 10+ years, though I wonder how far my milage will go with these gaming headphones. 5-6 years in, no signs of slowing down besides wear and tear.

 

[Colif]

Technically should be faster too, since the WD Blue maxes at 3500MB/s while the slot can hit up to 4000MB/s. Not like I ever could use the WD Blue at that fast of a speed though anyways.

If the drive has any steam games on it, you may see your max speed during updates.
3500mb/s is most you likely see on pcie3 anyway. Its what I used to get on my Evo 980.
The controller and nand on the nvme are what limit them to 3500
pcie 4 is about 7500 though normally less. I only see it in Steam updates or Benchmarks:

pcie 5 is about 15000 if you on AMD, 12000 on Intel
PCIe 6 isn't out yet.

The faster they get the less you notice any increase in speed unless you transfer massive files around all the time.

It's not unheard of for audiophiles to keep headphones in great working condition for 10+ years, though I wonder how far my milage will go with these gaming headphones. 5-6 years in, no signs of slowing down besides wear and tear.

if you happy with something, who cares what other people think?
if there is nothing newer that competes, why replace them.

I totally understand replacing parts on some audiophile headphones, like pads on my Arya - way cheaper than replacing the entire set. Though the headphones are only $550USD now, almost becoming cheap. They were originally 1600 though... not a cheap pair to throw away.
Sennheiser HD600 headphones were first released 25 years ago, they are still a standard, and people will use them for years and replace almost all the parts.
People modify Koss headphones to make them last, Or have different cables ... and they are cheap.

I only replace things normally if they break and I can't fix them. Or if I am bored and want something new - this apples to my next headphones. I don't really need them but I am still buying them. Maybe next week.

Most of my things die from old age.

Headphones mostly die when cables break... that isn't so much of a problem if you can buy replacement cables. But I used Earbuds for most of my life and they don't come with replaceable cables... so I wasted a lot of money on crap headphones before I found IEM which do have replaceable cables.

Most cheap headphones don't have replaceable cables. You meant to just buy another pair. I refuse to play that game now.

Wireless headphones mostly die when the battery does. or in case of wireless earbuds, when you lose one of them - this is main reason I never bought any.

I haven't been in a position where I needed to replace the IEM cables yet, the only time a cable broke on me I was able to replace entire set as it was under warranty. I now take care of that set better than I had been.

I already replaced the cables for the HD600 and Arya, not because they broke, but to get longer cables and a different connector type for my amp.

 

[neogunhero]

If the drive has any steam games on it, you may see your max speed during updates.
3500mb/s is most you likely see on pcie3 anyway. Its what I used to get on my Evo 980.
The controller and nand on the nvme are what limit them to 3500

I think updates are fine, but downloading a new game to it fills the cache immediately and slows the download to a literal crawl. Start, stop, start, stop. First 30 seconds go full speed then that cache hits it's limit and just craps itself lol. This new drive has over 600GB of cache, shouldn't have this issue anymore.

Red line is my drive's sustained write test, and you can see it falls off immediately, quicker than any other drive on this test. That cache is miniscule. I had no idea about any of this when I got it, so that was my fault.

My new drive can sustain full speed for the first ~600GB written, and I will never download/write/read 600GB at once.

My question now though, does this also apply to storage on the drive? Meaning, if I have over 600GB worth of data saved to the drive, does the speed also suffer? I know this test is for sequential write speed to fill up the entire drive, but is that cache also used for already downloaded data? I know rule of thumb is to not fully max out the storage of these cheaper budget SSDs, but I wonder just how much I can fill it before noticing a speed decrease.

if you happy with something, who cares what other people think?
if there is nothing newer that competes, why replace them.

It was a bit more of a rant against people who simply buy things to replace broken stuff that can be easily fixed. If its broke but I like it, I'll find a way to fix or improve it before choosing to do a full replacement. Some people would replace the entire headset the moment the earcups start to flake.

 

[Colif]

Red line is my drive's sustained write test, and you can see it falls off immediately, quicker than any other drive on this test. That cache is miniscule. I had no idea about any of this when I got it, so that was my fault.

Green line is my old drive that sat at 3000 until it falls off a cliff at 60 seconds and ends up slower than yours at that time... but its likely the average for it is higher due to running at 3k for 1 minute

My new drive can sustain full speed for the first ~600GB written, and I will never download/write/read 600GB at once.

I found the same chart
the 4tb drive would have a longer time before it slows down, mainly as it has a larger slc cache.

My drives are overkill lol. And yet I could have gone nuts and bought PCIe 5 but they run too hot to be worth it.

never say never... you don't know.

My question now though, does this also apply to storage on the drive? Meaning, if I have over 600GB worth of data saved to the drive, does the speed also suffer? I know this test is for sequential write speed to fill up the entire drive, but is that cache also used for already downloaded data?

do you mean, does it apply if you move files between drives? Yes, it does.
It applies on all write operations involving writing data to that drive.

 

[neogunhero]

do you mean, does it apply if you move files between drives? Yes, it does.
It applies on all write operations involving writing data to that drive.

To clarify, if I have more than 600GB worth of games downloaded to the drive already, and I begin to download another large game... am I going to see the write speed decrease due to cache being full? Or does the cache only fill up like that if you are downloading 600GB+ at all once? I know you're not supposed to keep the SSD completely full, but I wonder if write speeds will suffer as the drive gets fuller.

 

[Colif]

Any download of over 600gb will have that drop off, it doesn't matter if you used any space. The cache clears once its completed a download, so every write gets the benefit. If you never download that much at once, you don't have to worry about drop off.

Your main cache is your ram on motherboard. It doesn't physically work to have 600gb of cache in your ram after a download when you don't have 600gb of ram

All it does is uses the ram as a holding spot while it writes it to the drive. Steam downloads will stop and wait for the drive to write the date before putting any more in ram. Sounds to me like its using virtual memory to hold the info until it writes it... windows can lie to programs about how much ram you have. It does it all the time.

The amount of ram it uses is set by its controller on the ssd. Adding more ram won't help.

On my 4tb drive, I have an slc cache of 442gb which means it stays at full speed until that is used up.
Hypothetically I could fill the drive to point I start to lose that cache as it uses empty space on drive. So yours is better in that regard.


The rule about not filling drive past 90% still applies though. That will reduce speed. On all ssd. That is more to do with error correction and giving drive space to shuffle files during downloads.

your drive:

mine

I cut it off mine, but they share one thing... the speed when cache exhausted on mine is 1600mb/s like yours. Must be speed of the nand.

i wonder if any benefit to having a large slc cache and using dramless approach, and use both caches before it touches the nand... need a smarter controller I guess to manage it all. In theory that would give 1tb cache before it slowed down...

What slot in motherboard you use can effect speeds to. My 2tb drive is faster than my 4tb drive at sequential writes mainly as its connected directly to my CPU whereas the 4tb is connected via chipset and will be slower because of that. It beats the 2tb in random read/writes.

 

[neogunhero]

If you never download that much at once, you don't have to worry about drop off.

That was my main concern, as I'll never download that much at once. With the old drive though, 14GB+ downloads were common at least a few times a week. I dealt with the issue for the past two years, my main solution has been using my SATA M2 drive as my main games drive, but that caps out at 500MB/s. I wonder if I will see any improvement on load times. Games on my WD drive tend to load a bit faster, could just be placebo, but also I rarely have large AAA games on that drive, mostly smaller ones that can download without that cache issue.

Steam downloads will stop and wait for the drive to write the date before putting any more in ram. Sounds to me like its using virtual memory to hold the info until it writes it... windows can lie to programs about how much ram you have. It does it all the time.

This was partly the issue I was seeing, but that wait could take a minute or more. The download goes full speed for about 30 seconds, then falls all the way down to 0MB/s, and stays there for a good while. Max download speed is roughly 45MB/s, then goes to 0, then in small spurts it may download a few megabytes at no more than 10MB/s before dropping to 0 again for a while. Theoretically the new drive should never have this issue with normal usage, which is the most important thing to me.

The rule about not filling drive past 90% still applies though. That will reduce speed. On all ssd. That is more to do with error correction and giving drive space to shuffle files during downloads.

I think I read on a forum post somewhere that my new drive doesn't automatically apply overprovisioning, I'll have to make sure to check that and enable it if not.

What slot in motherboard you use can effect speeds to. My 2tb drive is faster than my 4tb drive at sequential writes mainly as its connected directly to my CPU whereas the 4tb is connected via chipset and will be slower because of that. It beats the 2tb in random read/writes.

Not sure what's connected to CPU and what isn't... all I know is the PCIe slots. Main one is PCIe 3.0 x4, which online I've read has a max theoretical speed of 4000MB/s, is that right?

Here's a screenshot from the Gigabyte website:

 

[Colif]

A minor correction: When I refer to ram usage on your card, I actually mean Memory. There is a difference, windows also counts page file as memory which helps explain where it hides that 600gb. Page file is on C... which makes me wonder, is the new drive C or storage?
might slow it down a little if its using same drive as location of page file that it is copying too.
its also possible windows doesn't exactly tell the nvme where the files are exactly

What Are Host Memory Buffer or HMB NVMe SSDs

We discuss what a Host Memory Buffer, or HMB, NVMe SSD is, why it exists, and some of the features of drives with the technology

www.servethehome.com

This was partly the issue I was seeing, but that wait could take a minute or more. The download goes full speed for about 30 seconds, then falls all the way down to 0MB/s, and stays there for a good while. Max download speed is roughly 45MB/s, then goes to 0, then in small spurts it may download a few megabytes at no more than 10MB/s before dropping to 0 again for a while. Theoretically the new drive should never have this issue with normal usage, which is the most important thing to me.

that is normal for any drive on a big download. Only difference is how much it can download before it runs out. Only way to avoid that would be for HMB cache to be bigger. I need to work out what max amount it can be is. Windows may restrict how big it can be.

Not sure what's connected to CPU and what isn't... all I know is the PCIe slots. Main one is PCIe 3.0 x4, which online I've read has a max theoretical speed of 4000MB/s, is that right?

its likely the top slot is connected to CPU. That is always how it works. Distance from the CPU is actually a factor. the pcie 2 slot would be connected to chip set.

My top slot is actually above the GPU socket, whereas the 3 below it are closer to the chip set so makes sense to run them off it

It would be really hard to be closer to the CPU than where mine is without mounting nvme directly to back of CPU on motherboard - might be next
I need to remove GPU & CPU cooler just to remove the heatsinks that cover my Nvme... so not in a rush to add any more

I haven't seen them in 3 months.

I think I read on a forum post somewhere that my new drive doesn't automatically apply overprovisioning, I'll have to make sure to check that and enable it if not.

Most ssd have extra space you can't access, put aside for error correction. Over provisioning is just peace of mind but may not be needed. I set it up on my last PC and then proceeded to not even use half of the space on C, making it a waste of time. I haven't done it on this PC. For similar reasons. I don't use space... I never have.

 

[neogunhero]

A minor correction: When I refer to ram usage on your card, I actually mean Memory. There is a difference, windows also counts page file as memory which helps explain where it hides that 600gb. Page file is on C... which makes me wonder, is the new drive C or storage?
might slow it down a little if its using same drive as location of page file that it is copying too.

The new drive will be C:, so I'll have Win11 and my game storage on the same drive. Only alternative would be use my M2 SATA drive as C and use the new one for storage. What would you recommended? Keep everything on my new drive, OS and main game storage, or put OS on the slower SATA drive? Or would there not be much of a noticeable difference...

that is normal for any drive on a big download. Only difference is how much it can download before it runs out. Only way to avoid that would be for HMB cache to be bigger. I need to work out what max amount it can be is. Windows may restrict how big it can be.

"As expected for a value SSD, a DRAM cache chip is not installed, but the SSD will use up to 64 MB of system memory through the HMB (Host-Memory-Buffer) mechanism." TechPowerUp

I don't use space... I never have.

I have 2.5TB across three drives currently, will jump up to 3.5TB with the new drive. I don't think I've ever hit close to a full 2TB total storage on my PC, so this new one is a bit overkill realistically but rather have more than less at the end of the day.

 

[Colif]

HMB - I didn't mean your drive, I just meant I wonder if there is a max amount it can set, I suspect any server grade drives that use this tech can access more memory. I haven't looked into it myself.

The new drive will be C:, so I'll have Win11 and my game storage on the same drive. Only alternative would be use my M2 SATA drive as C and use the new one for storage. What would you recommended? Keep everything on my new drive, OS and main game storage, or put OS on the slower SATA drive? Or would there not be much of a noticeable difference...

I would use the new one as C only as the other drive is sata. How big is the sata drive?

I have 2.5TB across three drives currently, will jump up to 3.5TB with the new drive.

If its a fair size, I would use it for games... the only advantage to nvme really is install speed. game loading speed isn't that much faster compared to sata ssd - Plenty of videos show that.

Only reason my 4tb nvme is my games drive, and not my sata drive, is it was installed two weeks before I put ssd in. SSD was a mistake... long story. Now its just extra space.

 

[neogunhero]

I would use the new one as C only as the other drive is sata. How big is the sata drive?

M2 SATA is 1TB while SATA cable SSD is 500GB. The SATA cable one is my main creative drive, has photoshop and music making software installed there. That won’t get touched for anything else besides that.

That would make the M2 SATA the only one for games storage. Really though, if install speeds are the main difference, I’ll start by using the new drive as C and main game storage just to see how it works. If I notice the same issues, then I can easily reinstall Windows to the M2 SATA in the future.

 

[Colif]

i would get another larger ssd and use it for games. SATA ssd, would be enough. they not that expensive and you can have one drive just for games. Depending on age of the other 2 500gb drives, might be a nice replacement. you can use cloning software to move all the files on the music one across without needing to reinstall anything.

I have, for seemingly forever, left the drive windows is on game free. This means that if you have to reinstall windows, you only lose windows and any applications installed on it. I generally move the document folder to another drive as well, but mine is on Onedrive so I don't worry any more. Every document I make is auto backed up.

Steam games can be reused on a new install without redownloading them again, so having them on a separate drive can save time. Shame Xbox games for windows can't be reused as easily as Steam.

I may have weakened on last PC and put Diablo 4 on C as well, but its also been almost 12 years since my last drive died so I am starting to feel a little safer, that and at time the only other drive I had in PC was a hdd. This PC was meant to all be nvme but I had weakened at time of purchase and put a 3tb hdd in instead.

I later added a 4tb sata ssd and retired my hdd from use.
On current PC I didn't weaken and went all solid state.

The only thing on my ssd is my downloads folder. and other assorted files. 40gb total space used.

I have no idea what I ever use most of my space for. Even after installing most of my games I have only used 1tb of space on the games drive.

 

[Zed Clampet]

Its probable that faster storage would help on the initial setup of the cache, As that is likely a process only run once unless the GPU driver changes its format

I've run into a few games lately that do the shader cache thing every time you launch the game. I assume with Dune Awakening that this is because it's an mmo and the servers are sharing files with your PC, but I don't really know.

 

[Colif]

Dune: Awakening requires shader compilation during each launch due to its dynamic nature and the use of a pre-built shader cache. This process optimizes performance by ensuring the game can properly render various visual elements in the game world, which can change frequently in a multiplayer environment. While it may seem time-consuming, it's a necessary step for a smooth and stable gameplay experience.

link
Google AI gave that answer,

It might be the same for the other games

 

[neogunhero]

link
Google AI gave that answer,

It might be the same for the other games

"You have a restricted shader cache go to Nvidia app go to shader cache set to unlimited"

I've never heard of doing this before, is this real?

 

[neogunhero]

My motherboard has a M2 metal heatsink that sits on top of your SSD. It has a strange, translucent gummy pad underneath it. I don't know how well it works as I have not tested temps with and without it.

However, do you think it would be advisable to strip that gummy pad out and replace it with proper thermal pads? Surely it works fine, but also the motherboard was manufactured 7 years ago, so in that time there have been improvements to thermal pad material and design, and the gummy pad could perhaps has lost some thermal conductivity overtime.

This is entirely unnecessary I feel, but I wonder if I do this if there would be any improvement whatsoever. I have Arctic TP-3 Thermal Pads, their latest version, so in a way I feel it could be more effective than what's already on the heatsink.

 

[Colif]

That is likely going to be a thermal pad and you don't need to replace them. They can be reused. Up to you if you want to replace it.

most heatsinks for ssd have them. I know mine do.
Top heatsink on mine is massive, whereas the other 3 all live under one big heatsink with individual heatpads attached to it from factory.

Given size difference, I would have thought the 2tb run cooler than the 4tb and yet

I think reason the 2tb is warmer is because it is C and can't turn off as much as the 4tb nvme. The 870 runs cooler as it doesn't do anything either and is located right next to 3 intake fans.

Guess heatsink for the 2tb is really (I mean really) close to the Air Cooler for my CPU and could be getting heat from it. There isn't an exhaust fan in area to cool it down... but there are 5 intake fans so heat doesn't stick around long. I might put an exhaust in , in a few months time.

Note: Colif steps back... 5 years ago I thought 55c was cool for an nvme, then I got a better set of intake fans and found 45C was good... so getting 36c is way below what I started with and shouldn't complain