ADATA to Expand its Product Offerings to Monitors, Laptops and Gaming PCs

[Vayra86]

latency is both speed and timings related.how you achieve that it doesn't matter.

Take another look at TPUs results. I beg to differ... the 4000 mhz kit is top and bottom of those charts, even changing spots per game per res....

 

[cucker tarlson]

Take another look at TPUs results. I beg to differ... the 4000 mhz kit is top and bottom of those charts, even changing spots per game per res....

tpu has 2133 running same averages as 3866. need I say more ?
lower latency=better. what is there to discuss ?

 

[Vayra86]

tpu has 2133 running same averages as 3866. need I say more ?
lower latency=better. what is there to discuss ?

Your unsubstantiated claim that higher is always better when it comes to RAM. We have no data for that. So if you do, shoot

 

[cucker tarlson]

Your unsubstantiated claim that higher is always better when it comes to RAM.

lol,where did I say that.point me to that,please.
I said lower latency is always better,and higher frequencies impact latency.you made up the rest.

 

[Vayra86]

lol,where did I say that.point me to that,please.
I said lower latency is always better,and higher frequencies impact latency.you made up the rest.

You just repeated it again. Higher speed translates to lower latency, please dont play the fool youre not, just because it is convenient

Data!

 

[cucker tarlson]

You just repeated it again. Higher speed translates to lower latency, please dont play the fool youre not, just because it is convenient

Data!

of course it does,latency is speed and timings,isn't it ?

 

[Vayra86]

of course it does,latency is speed and timings,isn't it ?

Great conclusion, now step two: find gaming results that prove your claim that lower latency always translates to better performance. So far we dont see it in either TPU or Toms results. Its your turn.

A page, now. You are not this thick.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Great conclusion, now step two: find gaming results that prove your claim that lower latency always translates to better performance. So far we dont see it in either TPU or Toms results. Its your turn.

A page, now. You are not this thick.

yes,cause past 3200 cl15 it stops.it's an even better one.
just cause it stops scaling upwards doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Vayra86]

yes,cause past 3200 cl15 it stops.it's an even better one.
just cause it stops scaling upwards doesn't mean it's not there.

Its only there if you can prove it with a result. Otherwise its a meaningless number and coming back to your first comment about having 4800 on Intel is somehow better/no compromise for certain workloads equals horse shit.

But I already know this

 

[cucker tarlson]

Its only there if you can prove it with a result. Otherwise its a meaningless number and coming back to your first comment about having 4800 on Intel is somehow better/no compromise for certain workloads equals horse shit.

But I already know this

lol,you are not well.

the guy was throwing tantrums about not including ryzen,but how was ryzen even possible with 4800mhz ram,that's what I pointed out.

 

[Vayra86]

lol,you are not well.

the guy was throwing tantrums about not including ryzen,but how was ryzen even possible with 4800mhz ram,that's what I pointed out.

You pointed that out, like this:

yes,this is not a budget/value oriented build.therefore it gets 64gb ofg 4800mhz ddr4 and an i9,not ryzen and 16gb of 3600.
there are other games than fortnite too,I think.
who is it for?for someone who doesn't care about performance per dollar but performance overall.

lol,one game,good review.
lower latency euqals better gaming performance.I thought this needs not be explained on a tech forum like TPU but I was wrong apparently.

So, come again?? Please, do I need to put it in bold capital too?

 

[cucker tarlson]

So, come again?? Please

Is 4800 (even at cl19) better than your 3200 c15 ? of course it is. it's 39ns vs 48ns.

please,I'm not going to discuss which number is lower.

 

[Vayra86]

Is 4800 (even at cl19) better than your 3200 c15 ? of course it is. it's 39ns vs 48ns.

please,I'm not going to discuss which number is lower.

Discuss less and prove that the lower number translates to performance, its what we have 2 pages full of right now. You talk an awful lot for not wanting to discuss...

 

[cucker tarlson]

Discuss less and prove that the lower number translates to performance, its what we have 2 pages full of right now. You talk an awful lot for not wanting to discuss...

I did.
lower latency is better.
just like higher frequency is better.

please,prove me wrong,since you're in the mood for destroying every sensible thing you said on TPU.

 

[Vayra86]

I did.
lower latency is better.
just like higher frequency is better.

please,prove me wrong,since you're in the mood for destroying every sensible thing you said on TPU.

There are already several sources in this thread to serve that purpose... but you discard them only to put nothing up against it in response except 'muh latency number is lower so must be better'... there are several posts here proving you wrong on that statement....

 

[cucker tarlson]

There are already several sources in this thread to serve that purpose...

yeah yeah yeah


it's a good thing that 3200 is all we ever need for gaming

it's already proved 3600 c16 is faster than 3200 c15


3600 c15 can regularly scale 5% faster than 3200 c15 in cpu limited scenarios

Test pamięci DDR4 2133-3600 MHz na Intel Core i5-8600K | PurePC.pl

Test pamięci DDR4 2133-3600 MHz na Intel Core i5-8600K (strona 4) Test pamięci DDR4 na procesorze Intel Core i5-8600K - jakie pamięci wybrać do Coffee Lake? Jaka jest różnica między DDR4 2133, 2666, 3000 i 3200 MHz? Czy warto dopłacić?

www.purepc.pl

that's not insignificat considering that's what you're often getting from 400mhz on the cpu too

now tell me 4000 c16 or 4800 cl18 isn't gonna be faster than 3200 c15

 

[Vayra86]

yeah yeah yeah


it's a good thing that 3200 is all we ever need for gaming

it's already proved 3600 c16 is faster than 3200 c15


3600 c15 can regularly scale 5% faster than 3200 c15 in cpu limited scenarios

Test pamięci DDR4 2133-3600 MHz na Intel Core i5-8600K | PurePC.pl

Test pamięci DDR4 2133-3600 MHz na Intel Core i5-8600K (strona 4) Test pamięci DDR4 na procesorze Intel Core i5-8600K - jakie pamięci wybrać do Coffee Lake? Jaka jest różnica między DDR4 2133, 2666, 3000 i 3200 MHz? Czy warto dopłacić?

www.purepc.pl

that's not insignificat considering that's what you're often getting from 400mhz on the cpu too

Since when is 3600 cl 15 the same as 4800?!?!... of which 3600 ALSO runs on the Ryzen setup by the way so this does not support your case in the slightest

So again. Prove that 4800 benefits ANY workload, until then you are talking out of your ass. Dont change the goal post now, be a man

You might learn something who knows

 

[cucker tarlson]

So again. Prove that 4800 benefits ANY workload, until then you are talking out of your ass. Dont change the goal post now, be a man

get your reading glasses,I can't help it.

can Ryzen support 64gb running at 3600,let alone 4800mhz too ?

 

[Vayra86]

get your reading glasses,I can't help it.

can Ryzen support 64gb running at 3600,let alone 4800mhz too ?

I did. Here is what I see...

Diminishing returns above 3000 already, and only a gain when a CL 15 can be maintained. Does this keep scaling? Nobody can tell. It can easily flatline already at 4000 CL15. Let alone show gains at 4800 with higher CAS.

So again. 4800 is not 3600 and your claim in the first post here was wild and unsubstantiated. It still is. You still haven't proven jack shit.

So now you jump to 64 GB. OKAY. But how does that relate to gaming, now? I like to talk about substance, not assumption.

But back to the core of this discussion. Your statement earlier implied that Adata chose Intel 'because it offers something faster' but in reality it chose Intel clearly because it points these systems at rich kids with money to burn and zero sense - and that is exactly the target market for >2000 dollar 'gaming' products. In their mind, Intel is still king, and that is why these rigs get an Intel CPU. This was never about no compromise performance at all.

Just call it what it is, please. God almighty

 

[cucker tarlson]

I did. Here is what I see...

Diminishing returns above 3000 already, and only a gain when a CL 15 can be maintained. Does this keep scaling? Nobody can tell. It can easily flatline already at 4000 CL15. Let alone show gains at 4800 with higher CAS.

So again. 4800 is not 3600 and your claim in the first post here was wild and unsubstantiated. It still is. You still haven't proven jack shit.

So now you jump to 64 GB. OKAY. But how does that relate to gaming, now? I like to talk about substance, not assumption.

But back to the core of this discussion. Your statement earlier implied that Adata chose Intel 'because it offers something faster' but in reality it chose Intel clearly because it points these systems at rich kids with money to burn and zero sense - and that is exactly the target market for >2000 dollar 'gaming' products. In their mind, Intel is still king, and that is why these rigs get an Intel CPU. This was never about no compromise performance at all.

Just call it what it is, please. God almighty

View attachment 140779

lol,a paint line,really.and if you knew percenatges you'd know 2400 to 2133 is 12.5% while 3600 to 3333 is 8%,that's why you're seeing the curve flatten.

no,I'm not NOW jumping to 64gb,you'd know that if you READ MY DAMN POSTS

you're still arguing about curves,I thought you of all people would understand the point.

I'm not defending a 4800mhz ram purchase as a value option,I'm saying it's possible on one platform only.you think XPG are selling a budget pc with 64gigs of 4.8ghz ram ? is that what you're debating.
well,good luck.pointless.

@Vayra86 3200 to 3333 and then to 3600 is altogether 0.5% less than 2133 to 2400 alone.Yet if you look at min/avg fps the performance increase is the same ~5.5%

Any questions ?

@Vayra86 64gb is literally mentioned in my first post.yet you're acting like it's my last resort.

you're in the troll mode today ?

 

[Vayra86]

lol,a paint line,really.and if you knew percenatges you'd know 2400 to 2133 is 12.5% while 3600 to 3333 is 8%,that's why you're seeing the curve flatten.

no,I'm not NOW jumping to 64gb,you'd know that if you READ MY DAMN POSTS

you're still arguing about curves,I thought you of all people would understand the point.

I'm not defending a 4800mhz ram purchase as a value option,I'm saying it's possible on one platform only.you think XPG are selling a budget pc with 64gigs of 4.8ghz ram ? is that what you're debating.
well,good luck.pointless.

@Vayra86 3200 to 3333 and then to 3600 is altogether 0.5% less than 2133 to 2400 alone.Yet if you look at min/avg fps the performance increase is the same ~5.5%

Any questions ?

@Vayra86 64gb is literally mentioned in my first post.yet you're acting like it's my last resort.

you're in the troll mode today ?

No questions, no troll mode, read back a bit, I have invited you to explore what the jump to 4800 would mean; is it worth that and how does that relate to your statement of 'must be Intel'. You're not incorrect. But I question the value of that statement, because you went on for quite a few posts defending its merit. The curve matters, because if it flattens out when you're up to, or long before 4800, why bother.

The debate on page 1 started with that, and I kept trying to get you back to thát.