- They lack DX11 support - The VRAM is pretty stingy by modern standards - You'd be looking at some serious overheating issues - Microstuttering is a massive headache when running CrossFire/SLI - My understanding is that pairing two Nvidia cards with mismatched VRAM just won't work, but don't quote me on that 🤷
Nvidia states: "Can I mix and match graphics cards with different sizes of memory?
When purchasing a second graphics card, you should try to match the memory size so that you are ensured full value and performance from your purchase. However, while it is not recommended, Nvidia does offer The flexibility to run graphics cards with different sized Memory by using CoolBits. Using CoolBits (value set to 18), you can force both of the cards to use the lower of the two memory sizes and operate them together in SLI mode. When dissimilar memory sizes are enabled to work together using CoolBits, the effective memory size for each card becomes the smaller of the memory sizes."
*But since this FAQ isn't in the official SLI documentation anymore, did they actually patch this in the drivers? Or is Using CoolBits still a necessity?
Christian Torres3 said:Look, I get it, I'm being biased because I had a nightmare experience with this drive myself. But if anyone's thinking about buying it, they should definitely go in knowing there's a much higher chance it'll just quit on them.
That's a fair point, no argument there. Honestly, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably be asking for an upgrade to a different SSD model during the RMA process if they'd let me pay the difference.
wiredotter14 said:I dump all my important stuff into Google Drive (100GB), but I’m definitely not looking to have my main PC drive just die on me—that’s a nightmare nobody needs. We aren't talking about standard failure rates here; we're talking about a product that shows inconsistent quality, like getting a 1-star experience when you paid for 5-star. Something's off. Besides, like you guys were saying, an SSD isn't primarily meant for mass storage. Personally, I'd rather grab a high-quality 120GB drive than some sketchy 240GB one, then just add an HDD for whatever extra space I need. If that’s your only drive, you're basically banking on it to hold all your photos, movies, and everything else people actually care about. Trying to force everything into the cloud is just absurd.
Look, if Blast is unreliable (though it might just be a bad batch, who knows?), I’d still choose a more affordable 240GB SSD over some overpriced 120GB model. Honestly, who can guarantee today that a Samsung 850 is actually more reliable than, say, an ADATA SP550? You rarely find solid data like that online. Usually, if a specific product is problematic, it only comes to light after a while, often long after the warranty expires. Take the last generation: the Samsung 840 was the gold standard for a while, but then it ran into issues, and plenty of people ended up regretting their purchase.
I remember one guy on a forum claiming Kingston HyperX drives were failing left and right—not that he was lying, he was just speaking from his own experience with several units—but when I looked up failure rate lists based on much larger sample sizes, they weren't even in the top five for returns. And that list definitely covers them, since a newer, better Kingston SSD was sitting at number five. Man, everything is relative.
And what happens if the hard drive dies? If we’re being realistic, you can't just rely on a single point of failure for anything critical. Personally, I toss my Word docs, PDFs, game saves, and other essentials onto my email, Dropbox, OneDrive, or even just keep them on USB sticks and external drives.
Look, anything can fail at any time—even the top-tier, premium SSDs if you just have a run of bad luck. A buddy of mine picked up one of these a few months back, and so far, it’s running perfectly fine. Honestly, it would be incredibly helpful if there were actual reliability statistics out there for all these drives, especially those budget brands like Kingston or Crucial, so we could actually make smarter buying decisions.
You can't overclock the non-K models. If I recall correctly, being able to bump up the multiplier was just a lucky break because they enabled it for those processors later on. You should honestly be glad you have that option at all, considering how Intel eventually locked those features down on newer chips via microcode updates through BIOS or Windows updates.
I’d steer clear of messing with the BCLK if I were you; you're more likely to cause headaches than see any gains. They aren't really designed for that kind of tinkering—it's not like working with Intel Skylake CPUs or AMD systems.
There's no way to configure the Turbo Boost.
I'm not entirely sure why you're hitting a wall with undervolting; it might be an issue with your chipset.
Whatever you do, stay far away from a 64GB SSD. Honestly, just skip it entirely. You really need at least 120GB, though if you look at current prices, grabbing a 240GB, 250GB, or 256GB drive actually makes more sense because they've become incredibly cheap lately. Plus, you might actually be able to squeeze a game or two onto it.
Your friend is being a total clown, but what can you do? Just send him that Linus Tech Tips video about high-speed RAM and let him deal with the consequences. Honestly, that ASUS motherboard is absolute garbage compared to what he could actually get for that kind of money.
wiredotter14 said:I’m really curious to see how current gen pricing will shift once the next big thing actually drops.
Has there ever been such a massive gap in manufacturing process shifts or these long rebranding cycles in previous years?
It never stalled quite like this during the 28nm era. That happened because the move to 20nm just wasn't viable for high-performance chips—it worked for mobile, sure, but not for desktop powerhouses. While FinFET technology makes things possible now, shrinking the node hasn't been nearly as smooth since we moved past 28nm.
He’s already running something like a GTX 970 from $867... though, looking at this $3,000 budget, it might actually be worth holding out for the next generation (fingers crossed)
When you look at those cards above the R9 390 and the GTX 970, the price-to-performance ratio is honestly abysmal compared to the older models. Plus, after three generations stuck on the 28nm process, we've got 14nm and 16nm architecture just around the corner. You’d have to be pretty bold to drop cash on high-end cards right now
Your VRM is losing speed, which means the CPU is throttling because of some specific feature—either the temperatures are too high or the voltages are just too much for your motherboard to handle. Because of that, your overclock isn't actually stable according to that stress test if the system can't even maintain its full clock speed. I saw that photo you posted over on the PC forums where you applied enough thermal paste to cover twenty processors; maybe that was part of the issue 😬 . Regarding stress tests, some of them are honestly unrealistic for real-world usage, and some are supposedly even harmful (certain versions of Prime95 for Haswell if they run for too long), so you should define your own criteria for what counts as a "stress test." It’s easy to check if you're throttling during actual gaming by using something like HWMonitor or checking your in-game clock speeds via HWInfo
If you're looking at 2GB cards, you're actually better off grabbing an R9 380. They're more budget-friendly—you can find models from ASUS and Gigabyte under $533—and they generally punch a bit harder than the GTX 960. Just make sure your power supply can handle the extra juice.