Lisa Perez50 said:Kovač says he agreed to some TV merger. I'm guessing it's either CNN or PBS? Anyone got the inside scoop?
The Republicans don't really tune into the liberal, "pro-American" vibe over at CNN, so I wouldn't assume it's them, even though they did offer up some space for a debate...
If Pleković doesn't agree to the confrontation, does it really matter if Kovač said yes? At the end of the day, he's the one standing his ground and insisting on it, isn't he?
Jerry Watson2 said:I'm not entirely sure about that G.Skill Aegis kit; the sticks themselves look a little thin to me.
It works exactly as advertised, giving you that full 32 GB... though pushing an overclock doesn't seem very likely, at least based on my experience where I couldn't quite get it to work without a lot of struggle.
Here are those Dell lab results for Adobe: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...-3rd-Gen-1628/
I’m having a hard time seeing how Intel actually crushes AMD in Adobe... the differences look pretty negligible to me. It feels like the Intel Core i7-9700K might actually be the smarter play if you're looking at that price-to-performance sweet spot.
P.S. If the OP happens to have enough left in the budget for an Intel Core i9-9900K or a Ryzen 3900x (though we don't really know their situation), I’d honestly suggest taking that extra cash and putting it toward a better GPU with at least 8GB of VRAM. Since Adobe is perpetually stuck in the past with such lackluster multi-threading scaling, they just keep porting more and more effects over to the GPU anyway, right?
In my experience, an AMD setup isn't going to struggle against an Intel AMD build unless you're planning on dropping a fortune on the absolute top-of-the-line Intel chip—but honestly, isn't that a bit overkill given your specific goals and the rest of your hardware? For roughly the same price point, AMD delivers performance in Adobe Premiere Pro that’s pretty much on par, especially since that software is notoriously reliant on single-core speed; besides, wouldn't you agree that AMD tends to be more efficient and much easier on the wallet when you start utilizing multiple cores for other tasks? If we're talking about professional-grade animation, what kind of work are we actually looking at here, and what resolutions are you targeting? Are you dealing with massive high-res assets? I have my doubts that a GTX 1650 with only 4GB of VRAM will provide enough muscle for your GPU-accelerated effects.
Yeah, I couldn't find anything at Chipotle either... But anyway, it’s all sorted now, so thanks to everyone for the help. It turns out I actually had that standoff/screw tucked away in its own little baggie inside the motherboard box, though man, getting it installed was a total struggle. Everything is just so tiny, isn't it? Between the CPU cooler, the edge of the case, and the graphics card, there's barely any room to move, so thank goodness my screwdriver is at least slightly magnetized... On a brighter note, the speeds on this fresh, blank drive are performing exactly "as advertised."
I feel like I’m burning through my entire budget here... I waited and waited for the right moment, but now the price of the Wilson A2000 has jumped from $500 to over $233...
wiredotter14 said:I get the whole argument about certain software being better optimized for macOS, but if that optimization is tied directly to the hardware, does that advantage even exist on a machine using an AMD processor that Apple doesn't officially support?
It's an interesting thought, isn't it? I honestly can't wrap my head around how you could have hardware optimization for components they don't even support, yet based on every benchmark I've run so far, AMD seems to perform just as well, if not slightly better, on macOS than it does on Windows...👍 Could it be that the operating system is simply coded so cleanly that it doesn't really matter which x86-64 processor is under the hood? One thing is certain, though; power management is definitely where things start to fall apart with AMD...
wiredotter14 said:Does a Hackintosh actually run well on AMD?
Wait, given how poorly Microsoft optimized for Ryzen, I figured things would be way worse with Apple since they don't even use AMD processors.
Or is it just down to certain specific programs running better on macOS?
BTW, setting up a dual boot isn't exactly rocket science.
It seems like Adobe programs have some quirks where you have to disable certain settings and such; I'm not entirely sure if that's linked to using AMD, but it feels somewhat expected from them... once everything is running, the speed is roughly comparable, and Cinebench 20 shows very similar results, though for Blackmagic Design software, performance tends to lean more toward the Mac side... I'd say overall performance depends heavily on the type of software, as some might just be better optimized for Mac versions since they don't have to worry about compatibility across a massive range of hardware vendors... for instance, AMD GPU support is native in newer versions of macOS, and it's quite clear that Apple's GPU drivers outperform AMD's drivers for Windows...
It isn't a major hurdle as long as you follow the instructions and don't make any silly mistakes like I did... like forgetting to reset the BIOS to default...
Look, you really need to be more specific about what "the rest" actually refers to here. If we're talking about working in DaVinci Resolve / Fusion, for instance, wouldn't it make more sense to put that extra budget into a 2080Ti rather than dumping it all into a beefier processor? On the other hand, if by "the rest" you mean things like Blender or Cinema 4D, then isn't the CPU and its core count going to be the absolute deciding factor?
And honestly, if you set up a Hackintosh on an AMD system, aren't you looking at a CPU that's roughly 35% faster in the same software, with a GPU that can sometimes perform twice as fast depending on the task? ☕
It feels like After Effects just can't seem to handle multi-core processing efficiently, and honestly, you have to wonder why they haven't fixed that yet—especially when they're so quick to charge us those subscription fees. Does it really make sense to go for something massive like the 3950 when it feels like such a letdown for AE workflows? You won't actually lose much performance by picking a slightly weaker, more budget-friendly Ryzen instead. I've rarely seen all the cores pinned at 100% in After Effects; usually, they aren't even hitting the 50% mark. Then there's the GPU side of things, which only kicks in for specific effects, though those tasks still run much faster on a dedicated card than on the CPU. In that regard, an RTX 2060 is actually a fantastic value for what you get. I’d definitely suggest sticking with Nvidia over anything else, simply because so many essential After Effects plugins are built specifically to rely on CUDA.
Looking back on it, I think my recommendation aligns pretty closely with what you can find in that Puget Systems report...
So, if I'm reading this diagram correctly, doesn't it look like we get a 2x multiplier if we're running two NVMe drives? (Just pick one of those boxes at the bottom)
Does the GPU actually drop down to x8 when you have two M.2 drives running simultaneously, or does one of those drives just pull its bandwidth from the chipset instead? It’s surprisingly tricky to find a definitive answer online. Maybe you could just fire up GPU-Z and check if the graphics card actually hits x16 while you're putting it under a heavy load?
fadedsailor17 said:Look, I'm actually at work right now so I'm not entirely sure which specific model I have on hand, but I'll check once I get home. Regarding what you mentioned about the fans making that rattling noise—this card has been running fine for over six months now, so is it really likely they'd fail already?? 😳 Okay, let's just assume for a second that you're right and the fans are indeed rattling—what's the next step? Is there an actual fix for this? I've seen a few videos on YouTube where people seem to swap out the fans themselves. 🤷
I think I phrased that poorly; what I meant to say was that maybe they aren't the highest quality components, so perhaps they might start making those little chirping noises a bit sooner than expected.
Ah, I see. If you look at most of the reviews out there, that specific card is pretty much notorious for having some of the worst thermal management on the market, and it’s still being stocked in stores across the US... I'm not entirely sure if that's directly causing what you're going through, but isn't it possible that the fans just aren't up to par and are starting to fail? That might be why they released the iPhone 15 version, though I'm not quite sure which one you actually ended up with...
I'm actually planning to put the money I saved on the GPU toward a better power supply... though it’s a bit of a bummer that workstations designed for heavy video editing or color grading usually favor blower-style cards because they vent all that hot air straight out the back. If I were to stack two open-air cards like these right on top of each other, wouldn't the cooling requirements just become a nightmare, even for high-airflow cases? I think I might have to scrap that idea altogether...
I’m not actually talking about gaming performance here. When it comes to video editing, the solo RX 580 really sits right in that sweet spot between a GTX 1060 and a 1070. Besides, isn't it true that DaVinci Resolve doesn't even support crossfire when you're trying to work with dual graphics cards?