Posts by Michael Jackson10

darkowl72 said:My bad. You're absolutely right. 👍

Look, since we started out talking about just three workstations, nobody mentioned thousands of entries being logged every single day. Based on what I've seen and dealt with over countless years, I immediately pictured a small office with three desks, a machine, filing cabinets overflowing with folders, and maybe three clerks processing 200-500 orders daily for about fifteen different clients. If I'm wrong and we're actually dealing with double those amounts, it's still not enough volume or revenue to justify a serious server and a "real" database capable of handling thousands of daily queries.

I agree on the backup situation too. That’s why I suggested two mirrored drives, and an additional backup—just like we discussed in that other thread—can be automated to a USB drive.

In setups like this, you usually have one terminal serving a single client's database, but even if all three 😬 hit it at once, it's still well within the capabilities of a DBF file. Honestly, a huge chunk of accounting services still run through a Command Prompt using applications built on generations of Oracle and Visual Basic, while the rest use modified legacy apps adapted for some tiny, free SQL solution.

I know the era of DBF solutions is long gone and plenty of firms implemented proper SQL solutions ages ago, but given the state of our economy, it’s honestly amazing that any service can even think about buying new gear instead of struggling on machines where an IBM port is the only way to connect a printer. 😬

Bottom line is, I jumped the gun here and rushed into things without asking the right questions. It's a perfect example of how years of experience can actually work against you, and just proof that you never stop learning.

Nah, you didn't mess up at all. Maybe I just know my way around this field a little better than most? You know how it goes.
Look, logic says one thing—business processes, resources, all that stuff—it all looks like it’s on your side. But reality? Reality is a whole different beast. That's why I always tell people to start with the software house first. Get them to lay out the bare minimum, or even the ideal, system requirements right out of the gate. Why? Because the second a problem pops up, you're going to get stuck in this endless game of ping-pong between the hardware guys and the software devs. And guess who always ends up taking the blame? It’s always the other guy.
So, I was looking at some recommended hardware setups for a local medical clinic recently. They’re looking at a two-computer setup—one "server" and one "client"—that basically just runs everything through a browser and a tiny local database for patient records. They have to stay connected to the Social Security Administration systems, too. Get this: they’re asking for an i5 and an i3 combo, and they’re actually recommending Windows 7??? Seriously? Right when everyone is scrambling to transition away from Windows XP because support is ending, they’re suggesting an OS that’s literally next in line to be retired. Makes any sense to you?

Wait, hold up. When we first started talking about this, we were only mentioning three workstations. Nobody mentioned thousands of orders being logged every single day! Based on everything I've seen and dealt with over the years, my brain immediately pictured a single room with three desks, a couple of computers, and filing cabinets overflowing with paperwork. I'm picturing maybe three office assistants cranking out 200 to 500 orders a day for about fifteen different clients. If I've miscalculated and we're actually talking about double those numbers, that's still a pretty small workload. Is that really enough revenue to justify dropping serious cash on a heavy-duty server and a "real" database capable of handling thousands of queries every single day?

You nailed the visualization there, but I know for a fact that for the same workload, people were also pitching SQL Server running on its own dedicated Windows server. It’s just a setup where you have a file server and then clients hitting the data through desktop apps. Simple enough, right?

I'm totally on board with the backup idea. That’s exactly why I suggested running two disks in a mirror. Plus, we can just set up an automated routine to dump an extra backup onto a USB drive—just like we were talking about in that other thread. Easy, right?

In setups like that, you usually see just one terminal handling a single client's database. But hey, isn't it always fun when all three decide to crash at the exact same time? 😬 It’s the same old story when it comes to that DBF domain. Honestly, a huge chunk of accounting services out there are still running on legacy MS-DOS apps built back in the day with Visual Basic and Oracle. Then you've got the other half just scraping by using old-school DOS setups that were patched together with some tiny, free SQL Server Express solution. Isn't it wild how much of this stuff is still hanging on?

So, why is that even the case? 🤷I'm not exactly an expert on SQL, but I'm guessing this was their way of making concurrency easier to manage. If they didn't go this route, they’d probably be dealing with constant table-level locking issues. Or maybe row-level locking just makes their business logic, referential integrity, or relations a total nightmare? Who knows how they actually put this whole thing together... Bob knows.

You’re pretty much spot on. Some of these solutions are functionally "polished" straight from the old Visual Basic days, then ported over to modern platforms using Borland or something similar. Honestly? That’s more than enough to get the job done. At the end of the day, the real headache here is the lack of synergy between the devs and the actual industry experts. Once you finally get that connection dialed in, it’s a massive pain to break it apart just to start building everything from scratch again, isn't it?
Some old-school apps were practically perfected back in the MS-DOS days using procedural programming. They squeezed every ounce of efficiency out of keyboard shortcuts—because let’s be honest, using a mouse for repetitive tasks just slows you down. When you port those solutions today, they keep that killer ergonomics but get a massive boost from object-oriented coding and multi-window support.
For databases, any solid desktop solution works fine. Whether it's Firebird or SQL Server Express, the main thing is that it's way more stable and secure than an old DBF file. You want something where a crash doesn't wipe out the whole database, maybe just losing the last record you entered...

I know the era of DBF solutions is long gone, and plenty of service providers moved to real SQL solutions ages ago. But given how our economy works, it's honestly amazing that there are still businesses capable of even thinking about upgrading their gear instead of being stuck on machines where an IBM port is the only way to connect a printer.😬

The problem is that users don't really care or even want to change. They're constantly being pushed by shifting regulations, fake certificates, total digitalization, exporting data into specific formats, and automating reports—you can't do all that without some kind of GUI report generator...
Even though the core principles of the job haven't changed in hundreds of years, the tools are getting insanely complex. To get the same result, you need beefier hardware, and time is becoming more precious and expensive... I mean, you could probably build almost everything in Excel, but users would mess it up so badly within a day that the whole system would collapse...

Look, the bottom line is that I messed up here. I rushed into things without asking the right questions, which just goes to show how years of experience can actually become a blind spot sometimes. It's a classic case of "you live and you learn." :top

Experience is built on common sense, and that's exactly what you followed. The government, however, seems to think "change is the only constant," so you're never fast enough, and you can never stay sane.
Everything points to the fact that any modern PC should run this without a hitch. I take that with a grain of salt, though; I prefer my computer to be reasonably fast and still have some life left in it, rather than being at its absolute limit from day one and struggling later.

Anyway, I always stick to the rule of "read the manual and ask the pro," especially when it comes to work. Since these kinds of questions get asked here on the forum, your response is totally fair and expected. A serious professional should talk to their vendor first—especially if they aren't looking for a "turnkey" solution—because they're the ones who have to live with the software. Trying to save money on business operations by following random advice from a forum? That's just asking for trouble...

Honestly, instead of geeking out over network topology, I’d much rather hear about the actual applications first. That’s where the real decisions happen, right?
There are tons of ways to go about it—you could stick with desktop versions using Firebird or SQL Server Express, or go full throttle with heavy-duty SQL Servers. Sure, those are usually total overkill, but developers love them because they get that sweet flexibility for workstations and seamless access to the same tables at once...
The days of messing around with DBF files are long gone; any version of SQL is pretty much the industry standard now. Between Word, Excel, a mountain of certifications, and constant antivirus updates, you're basically looking at the bare minimum for a functional environment. What really matters is lightning-fast access and, more importantly, backup, backup, and more backup! The problem is, all those fancy graphical reporting tools just eat up your resources... tasks become repetitive, and before you know it, you're just sitting there waiting for things to load.

Sent from my M2 Note via Reddit

Robert Rodriguez2 said:Is it just me, or does the graphics card look like it's sagging at the top?

I honestly don't get why everyone ditched that old-school move: adding a removable side "rail" with sliding card holders.
With high-end cases like this one, you'd think people would be stuffing serious hardware inside instead of some cheap all-in-one setup. And let’s face it, heavy-duty components are still massive pieces of gear with chunky heatsinks; over time, they can warp the board, lose contact, or even bend the slots.
Adding that feature to parts this expensive would barely change the price, but manufacturers get so caught up in rearranging layouts and playing with "modular" gimmicks that they forget such a simple fix.
Even twenty years ago, the Macintosh tackled the whole "overheating" issue by using smart thermal zones and targeted cooling. Sure, it wasn't always using standard component formats—it used more proprietary stuff—but these guys could have learned a thing or two from them. Moving the power supply to the bottom was a huge win, but then they just cram extra space for the cooler at the top... the rest feels like they just got lucky with the layout.

Fractal Design has been my go-to for ages, but I’ll admit I’m a little biased because they just get my vibe. I love those clean, monolithic, minimalist lines without all the extra fluff, plus the space utilization is great. Everything feels high-quality and straightforward, and I really dig how they play around with separate cages and layouts...
I recently put together an "all-in-one" workstation build and went with that micro model, Core 1100. Everything is solid and works perfectly, except for this annoying trend where everyone seems to be using super thin sheet metal lately. You really notice it with models that have those flat, clean surfaces—it's even more obvious with the larger Define models... but hey, at least it doesn't wobble like some cheap off-brand case. Everything fits together flawlessly, and you don't feel like you're going to dent the panels just by touching them...

jadebison17 said:Man, you really went for it with that write-up! Seriously, props to you for being so thorough. But honestly? You’re actually hitting the nail on the head in one specific way. We're looking at a low-power processor here, kind of like those mobile chips you see in laptops. For a chip like that, even the stock cooler is basically total overkill. 😁

Maybe a stock cooler works fine for an i3, but for an i5? That really depends on how you’re actually using it. And as I mentioned before, Intel labels the Core i7 as an "enthusiast" or workstation-class chip, so they're aiming at power users who actually give the thing a reason to work hard.
Stock coolers are designed for some kind of "average" workload, which is honestly just marketing BS—kind of like how printer companies talk about "average page coverage." They just assume your CPU won't be pinned at max load constantly, but rather sitting there waiting on you most of the time.
If we look at Intel's user tiers, the professional line should really kick in with the Xeon processors, which implies stuff like server racks and dedicated AC for the hardware, blah, blah, blah.
They push people toward those pricier lines specifically because the stock cooler isn't overkill for a Core i7—it's actually undersized, which is exactly what we're talking about here. Like I said earlier, Intel lists the TDP based on more moderate states, but once you actually put a heavy load on it, the CPU hits a wall. Then the internal thermal management starts its little dance to throttle the clock speeds, and that's when you notice your PC starting to stutter...

jadebison17 said:But he did say (well, write) that everyone is swimming in cash? Hah! Trust me, I'm not exactly rolling in it either, yet I still squeeze every bit of performance out of my hardware. Honestly, why not just grab a used Cooling fan, maybe an Ereboss one if you're lucky, and pair it with a Noctua NH-D15. (You could snag the cooler for about $50, and a brand new fan at a shop like Best Buy for $67). For around $350, you'll have absolutely killer cooling performance, just like what I'm running in my backup PC 🙂. I don't know what anyone else's philosophy is, but hey, that's just my two cents!

Then do me a favor and drop a link to some listing for a used Ereboss cooler. It feels like the secondhand market is absolutely flooded with them lately. Just make sure it's within a reasonable driving distance from you. There’s no point in all that extra cooling performance if shipping costs and the risk of getting ripped off end up canceling out the whole benefit, right? ☕

Let’s look at this logically. The CPU has a TDP of 65W, and that Best Buy cooler is supposedly rated for 180W TDP—which sounds way too optimistic if you ask me, but whatever. Once you hit a continuous load and establish a steady thermal flow from the CPU to the cooler to the air, this thing should handle that processor easily. It’s got plenty of headroom. Obviously, it isn't going to soak up all 65W at once because that’s physically impossible, but it'll dissipate enough heat to stay totally stable without saturating.
When you actually look at how Intel handles TDP, it’s kind of wild. This processor is pulling its full 65W even when it's just idling, yet once you actually put it under load, it starts running hot just like a standard Intel Core i7-4790. Makes you wonder why, right?
So, I've been thinking about the power-to-performance ratio between the Intel Core i7-4790 and the Core i7-4790S. Is there actually a noticeable difference when you're pushing them hard? What's the real-world gap here? Does that lower TDP on the "S" model actually save you much, or are you just leaving performance on the table? I'm curious if anyone's run some benchmarks through AIDA64 to see how they stack up side-by-side. Let me know what you think!

Just make sure you read this all the way through before someone jumps in with an "I told you so." Turns out, under heavy load, more than half of the Core i7-4790S cores actually settle down, generating slightly less heat than the standard model. Obviously, performance takes a bit of a hit too, but I guess that's just the trade-off the buyer has to weigh. That weird anomaly where the 4790S pulls more power than the standard version during our "hero's" single-threaded tests shouldn't be a huge deal. That's not what this chip is designed for anyway, and even then, we aren't talking about enough wattage to stress this cooler. Plus, the core temperatures stay lower regardless.

Look, when you actually sit down and crunch the numbers on value versus performance, it becomes pretty obvious. Why pour massive amounts of cash into something that doesn't give you a proportional boost? It’s technically impossible to get that kind of linear return anyway. But even for the upgrades that *do* work? Honestly, they just aren't worth the price tag.

Time to put this cooler to the test!

So, looking at the numbers, the gap between that Ereboss cooler and the LC setup—plus a bunch of those other hyped-up options—is only about 2°C when idling. Pretty negligible, right? But what’s actually interesting is that the difference holds steady even under a full load. It goes to show that the LC guys actually hit the mark on this one.
The real kicker here is the actual improvement over the stock Intel cooler, which is exactly what we’re looking at. We're talking about a jump from a 12°C difference at idle to over 20°C once you hit a full load. Even with the Cooler Master TX3, you're staying well within the Intel thermal limits. Not bad, right?
So, it really just comes down to one thing: making sure the user can actually move all that heat this Cooler pulls off the CPU and push it out of the case. You need to vent it effectively and keep that airflow steady so the air inside doesn't just get saturated and trapped. Honestly, though? The temperature delta this thing provides is more than enough to handle a continuous workload.

I don't even care how some budget manufacturer pulled this off, but they actually nailed it. The way those heat pipes are laid out is way smarter than what you see on most rigs; instead of being lined up one after another right in front of the fan, they're spread out so the airflow hits all of them equally. Plus, the pipes make direct contact with the heatsink. Sure, the finish isn't exactly premium, so you’ll definitely want to use some high-quality thermal paste to compensate. At the end of the day, there's a sweet spot you have to hit. Once you pass it, any extra cash you throw at a cooler just gives you these tiny, marginal gains that aren't worth the headache. Why waste money there? You're better off putting that cash toward other parts of your cooling loop. What's the point of buying an ultra-turbo cooler to fix one specific hot spot if everything else just ends up cooking inside a "sealed" case anyway? It makes zero sense.

Angela Flores4 said:Look, my only priority here is ensuring this thing stays properly cooled without breaking a sweat. We just ran a stress test using Aida64—running the stock Cooler with a fresh application of thermal paste—and the processor overheated and started throttling within literally a minute or two. In a real-world scenario, wouldn't you expect it to actually survive a full 12-hour Aida stability test before we could call it reliable?

Honestly, I don't think even Intel anticipated a scenario where the CPU gets absolutely hammered at 100% for that long. Besides, the Core i7 falls into that "enthusiast" tier anyway, where you're expected to rely on third-party cooling solutions and let the CPU's internal management handle things based on power draw and TDP.

Whatever cooler you pick—whether it's air or liquid—you've gotta remember that the cooler is just one link in the chain. It’s the first link, sure, but what good is a beastly cooler if your case airflow sucks? If the case isn't ventilated well, the cooler just ends up soaking in hot air, and its efficiency drops off a cliff. Plus, room temperature matters too; that air is the medium moving the heat in any setup.
We aren't talking about a silent build here; everything has to be dedicated to cooling. You need a properly sized, high-airflow case, clean cable management (get those wires tucked away behind the backplate to stop resistance and turbulence), and an open mesh design on the front and top/back with intake and exhaust fans that actually match up in airflow. Maybe you can cut down on noise by using bigger fans... but without all that, you won't sustain a full load for long, and the cooler itself won't even be the bottleneck.

jadebison17 said:Actually, any processor can be overclocked if you push it right, so this one isn't off the table! If you want to stick with air cooling and really nail it, I'd highly recommend grabbing a Noctua NH-D14. Or, if your case has the room for it, you could always go the liquid route with either a Corsair H90i or a Corsair H110i. It really just comes down to whether your chassis can handle the setup! :')

Look, the guy isn't even planning on overclocking. Why would he need all that extra juice for a chip with a 65 W TDP? Even a basic cooler handles that just fine, and honestly, that's the smart way to go—unless, of course, he's trying to be the big shot in his neighborhood. It’s not hard to Google some exotic, high-end parts that cover every possible scenario, so you really can't go wrong... but it feels like your main goal here is just suggesting the most expensive fix possible. To you, "optimal" clearly doesn't mean anything. Let's get real for a second; not everyone is swimming in cash, and nobody needs massive overkill for components in a field where everything basically becomes obsolete overnight anyway...

You're probably running that Corsair equivalent power supply, which is honestly total garbage based on old designs. If that NVIDIA GeForce equivalent was working fine on your old setup (just to clarify: the 7000 series is the whole family, while the 7700 is just a specific line, and something like a GTX 1050 would be a specific model—see how the numbers get more specific?), it’s likely because the old motherboard could handle the power draw through the PCIe slot alone. It probably didn't even need an extra power connector since it pulled everything straight from the board (I'm just guessing here since I don't know your exact model).
From what I can tell, your current power supply doesn't even have the right cables to support a decent card...

So, when you say that GTX 1050 "works but is dying," it sounds like you haven't even sorted out the extra power requirements either... I can only imagine.
Look, if you just want to play Solitaire or Poker, any old GPU will do, or even integrated graphics (which you don't have). Your CPU isn't exactly top-tier either, so really, it all comes down to what you actually want to do with this thing and what your budget looks like...
If it were me? I'd swap out that power supply first. You can't build a reliable PC on a shaky foundation like that.

First off, you gotta figure out what kind of power supply we're actually dealing with. What's the exact model? How old is it? You need those details first...
Then, check the specific graphics card model. Just saying it's an NVIDIA GeForce equivalent isn't enough—you need the actual series, not just a vague category...
I mean, if you aren't even playing games (do you even play them at all?), then honestly, any basic graphics card will do fine...

Brian Campbell36 said:It prints, but every time a page comes out, this little cloud of white smoke puffs out.

I don't get why it heats up so fast that it starts smoking. What could be going on? 🤔

So, basically, everyone kind of gave you the answer already:
The issue is the connection between room temperature, humidity, and paper quality. It happens with pretty much all laser printers. With these little "toaster" models, it's way more obvious because they work faster than the old school printers, and since the path through the machine is shorter, that hot paper pops right out immediately.
When the paper is damp (which is super noticeable on rainy days), those rollers heat it up instantly to bake the toner at over 200°F—because that's literally their job! Once it hits the air, that moisture escapes as a cloud of steam. One time, a guest actually tried to pour soda on my printer because he thought it was catching fire!
The colder the room and the higher the humidity, the sooner you'll see this "problem." Also, pro tip: don't leave a big stack of paper sitting in the printer if you aren't printing constantly. These models don't have a proper paper tray or even a lid, so the paper just sits there soaking up moisture. In my experience, if you're in a dusty spot, it also picks up debris that can wreck the drum or mess up the toner, leaving you with smudgy, streaky prints that look like a cheap refill.

Lastly: paper quality matters!
The cheapest stuff absorbs moisture like crazy. Low-quality paper feels "limp" on rainy days, almost like laundry that didn't dry all the way. It gets sticky, hard to separate, and on older machines, the mechanism ends up grabbing multiple sheets at once. The paper curls, loses its shape, causes jams, and absolutely hates double-sided printing—it just jams constantly. (Back in the day, copy shops would switch to premium paper for double-sided jobs because the extra cost was cheaper than dealing with jams and wasted ink.)
If you're only printing small batches occasionally and the paper sits in a printer like this, it's worth spending a bit more on high-quality paper. You won't deal with nearly as many headaches. For low volumes, the price difference pays for itself by avoiding the frustration. For example, the green navigator 80 gr is top-tier stuff—it’s so crisp it feels like it could cut you. It handles humidity like a champ. I've run over 70,000 prints on it and had fewer than 100 jams, and most of those were on recycled paper.
Either that, or just keep your paper in the original wrapper and only take out what you need, then seal it back up to keep the moisture out. (Though that sounds a bit silly since the packaging on cheap paper is usually about as protective as a sieve.)

I honestly can't wrap my head around how those drives would just "shrink" on their own, especially since there wasn't even a UEFI update or anything like that happening. We're talking about two separate devices here. A motherboard issue might mess with how things run, sure, but it isn't going to magically shrink a disk's capacity with a magic wand. If the file system got corrupted? Fine, I get that...

And if you ask me, he was wrong to jump straight to blaming the firmware. The PC hadn't been used for six months and had been sitting in who knows what kind of conditions. Personally, I'd start by doing a deep dive into the actual hardware components first.
Plus, I still haven't figured out if he actually did anything regarding the RAM—he didn't mention a single thing about it...

Alright, let's assume you've already done the physical check on the RAM and ran some tests like I suggested earlier. Just one super basic question though: since you went ahead and did a Reset BIOS, did you actually hit "Load Setup Defaults" once you were back in the UEFI?

Also, I'm a little confused here—how did you even figure out the drives were messed up if the PC is totally bricked? Did you check them on another machine? Or maybe tried wiping them and re-initializing?
I feel like saying you "tried everything under the sun" doesn't really give us the full picture of what you've actually attempted. No offense intended, but we deal with all kinds of users here; for some, a simple fix is second nature, while for others, it's basically open-heart surgery...

Lawrence Patel69 said:I’m rocking a Dell Latitude running Windows 8.1... it never used to just shut itself off like this. I put it through the wringer pretty much constantly, so maybe it’s just overheating? It felt seriously hot to the touch a few times lately. I reached out to a buddy of mine to see what he thought, and his take was that I probably just need to blow out the dust and swap out the thermal paste to get it back in shape. But then a coworker of a friend—who also thinks he’s some kind of tech wizard—wasn't so sure, saying it might be something deeper than just heat. Please tell me my motherboard isn't totally fried.

Basically, doing a proper deep clean—I mean actually opening it up, not just blowing air at it from the outside—and swapping the paste will drop those temps significantly. A laptop really shouldn't feel hot to the touch unless there was some major design flaw from the factory.
The way people use laptops these days, dragging them around on beds, blankets, or in their laps... portability isn't about business mobility anymore; it's all about comfort. It’s high time we start treating our tech with a little more respect, especially since we're constantly using them in less-than-ideal environments.

Bottom line: occasionally blowing out the fine dust will do more for your laptop's lifespan than polishing the casing.
Don't let it get to the point where the chassis feels hot to the touch. That's bad news for the hardware. Usually, those tiny cooling fins in the exhaust vent get clogged with a layer of dust so thick it feels like felt. When that happens, the fan ends up running at full blast constantly, the hot air stays trapped inside, the fan starts making a racket, and the components just bake.
About that motherboard mention: usually, it's not the cause, it's the consequence of poor cooling. If a laptop overheats repeatedly over a long period, the board can definitely take damage. Sometimes a reflow works, but honestly, most of the time it doesn't. And if the motherboard goes, the whole laptop is basically junk because of repair costs.
So, preventative maintenance breaks that whole cycle of damage. Just head to a repair shop, have them open it up, give it a thorough cleaning, and put on fresh paste. That’s your first step anyway, then you'll see if anything else is wrong...

So, how is the RAM set up: 2 x 2GB?
First thing you should do is run some tests. Let MemTest86 run through a few cycles...

Or, just pull all the sticks out first. Clean off any dust or oxidation on the contacts with a hard eraser (especially if the PC hasn't been used in a while), then try booting them up one by one...

electricharbor30 said:It depends, I guess... I used to have this 22" CRT that could technically handle a 2048*1536 resolution, but man, everything looked tiny and the refresh rate was absolutely abysmal... For me, the sweet spot was probably 1600*1200 at 100 Hz... generally, the higher the refresh rate, the better... though if you're working with an old, beat-up CRT, maybe it makes sense to dial the refresh rate back a little, but I wouldn't go any lower than 60 Hz.

Yeah, sure, if you care more about the "health" of some old junk than your own eyes.
What do you mean 60Hz, for crying out loud?
I thought the standard was at least 75Hz just to get a flicker-free image, though even that was kind of a flickering mess (just look at a monitor from a sharp side angle and you'll see the massive flickering).
Because of that, those later generations using Trinitron tubes or similar tech could push past 100Hz, obviously depending on what resolution you picked.
That’s why the rule is: you gotta run your CRT at its optimal resolution (linked to the screen size! A 17" and 19" usually had the same resolution, but the 17" made everything look smaller) with the highest possible refresh rate.
There’s no compromise there. Especially nowadays, why would you try to save your monitor when you specifically picked its quality based on what you needed?
Of course, this whole refresh rate thing doesn't apply to LCD monitors since the tech is totally different. You aren't dealing with electron beams hitting phosphor dots that glow and fade; instead, the backlight stays on until the next signal change, and the refresh rate just shows how often that update happens. So for static images, a standard 60Hz LCD is fine, but for fast stuff like gaming, a higher refresh rate helps prevent ghosting and motion blur...

Sure, it might be a bit old-school advice, but you buy gear to serve you. You push it to get the most bang for your buck. Why bother being stingy just to make a CRT last another 10 years?

Anthony Hayes82 said:

To prevent a pointless debate, I just put both builds together. When people are playing multiplayer, the i5 definitely eats the FX for breakfast.

Hmm, maybe if you're just running everything at stock settings. I have an FX 8300, and from what I've noticed, that CPU basically fights against itself when the BIOS is left on the default settings. For me, Grand Theft Auto V would stutter even on medium settings because of unnecessary CPU throttling. The load was only at 50%, and the gap to Tmax was only about 35°C. And don't even get me started on the voltage—it was hitting 1.4V per core.

After messing around with the BIOS, I managed to bump it up nicely from 3.3GHz to 4.0GHz. I set the voltage to 1.32V, and under load, it even dips down to 1.296V. I ran Prime for an hour, and it stayed perfectly stable. The gameplay improved significantly, giving me about 15 extra FPS, which actually let me turn the graphics settings up a bit. Not to mention the boost in performance during multi-threaded tasks like After Effects.

And speaking of heavy lifting, I can play a multiplayer game and record in 720p simultaneously with the FX without any noticeable FPS drops. I think the FX still holds an advantage with those 8 cores, since roughly 4 are handling the game while the other 4 stay free.

So, it isn't enough to just cram a good processor into a build; you have to know how to squeeze out the best performance possible.

As for the 95W TDP, honestly, at 4GHz and 1.32V, my LC-CC-120 handles it easily, provided the room temperature is around 68°F and the case has decent airflow—which is way more important.

Now, as for whether the actual power draw of the processor hits 125W? I haven't a clue. 🤷

By pure coincidence, I know of one setup running an AMD FX-8300. I'm not sure about the motherboard, but it's likely an ASRock. It’s got 8 GB of RAM, a Kingston Technology SSD (probably HyperX), and some mid-range graphics card. The power supply and case are total overkill, though, because it was originally meant to be some kind of office server: light software, web browsing, and a basic home-grade internal security camera app (which doesn't even work).
Right now, it’s being used as an average office PC. Those programs ran perfectly fine on an Intel Core 2 Duo, and on an i3 build with that same software package, the CPU stays mostly idle or barely breaks a sweat...
But on this AMD FX build, the system sporadically "freezes." Usually, there's just one program open, a browser with 3 or 4 tabs, and occasionally an email client. Everything runs smooth for a while, and then suddenly the whole thing just "freezes" for a second or two, or even the simplest task lags out... The problem is that installing all this business software isn't exactly easy, so there's no room to experiment or try reinstalling everything. There's a chance the initial setup just didn't go perfectly.
The fact remains that the computer works flawlessly most of the time, and then these sporadic "ice ages" happen. It feels more like something you'd see on a single-core processor getting choked by a bunch of threads, yet this chip should have plenty of breathing room. And there's no pattern to it either: "I did this, and then I noticed *this* specific task caused a lag"... It's seriously mysterious...

Anthony Hayes82 said:Fair point. Maybe us 5% who actually know our stuff should just start a business and charge those people for helping them figure out how to overclock... 😁

Hey, why not? Might be a decent little side hustle. 👏

Go for it! In this country, entrepreneurship is practically its own national pastime. You get your small business license for about $190, pay a few bucks in taxes... sounds like a pretty great initiative to me...

darkowl72 said:Did the service fee go down?

Some laptops need a total teardown just to reach the connectors. I wouldn't touch that job for $50, honestly...

Man, @taipan, when repair shops act like "robots" who just rip off poor customers without even explaining what's wrong 😁
Seriously though, when you pick up a laptop like that, there’s no sign anything was actually fixed (unless they leave a random screw left over, business as usual), so what are you actually paying for...

Bradley Lewis59 said:Did you mean terabytes instead of gigabytes? 😁

I've got two 3TB Western Digital Green drives. One's sitting in my NAS, running 24/7 for a few years now, and it's still going strong.

My bad! I've been staring at MB and GB all day, so I just slipped up out of habit... I think one thing and type another.

As you can see, everyone’s experience is different, and we all have different needs. The only time things really go south is if a manufacturer releases a specific series that's a total dud (the last thing that comes to mind was that 250 GB Western Digital issue with certain firmware, but back then, the factory tools would claim everything was fine even when the drives were totally shot 😁 )

If I remember right, with those 1.5 and 3 TB(!) models, they started moving toward higher areal density, sometimes even using just a single platter (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just typing from memory)
That doesn't really apply to the WD 3 TB, though, since they had their own evolution.

Your NAS setup isn't really comparable to this study. Your NAS is basically just serving a few family members, whereas a cloud service is dealing with millions of users. The study points out that they messed up by using power-saving models that aren't optimized for massive drive arrays, because those drives are programmed to constantly spin up and down to save energy. You probably aren't hitting your NAS with constant, heavy parallel requests 24/7.
That’s exactly why we have desktop, NAS, enterprise, and even surveillance models—they're built for continuous high throughput rather than constant spinning up and seeking...

Look, no drive is ever going to be bulletproof. If you check the conclusion of this article, you'll see massive discrepancies between different models. Since the stats were pulled by a cloud service where drive farms are running 24/7, you really have to take those numbers with a grain of salt. It looks like they’re primarily tracking performance under enterprise conditions, and consumer desktop drives just aren't built for that kind of heavy lifting. Plus, Western Digital seems to have the most issues with their 1.5 GB and 3 GB drives—those weren't even big sellers here (I think they were part of that same series during a density transition period, right?)?

At the end of the day, I personally stick with Western Digital and I've been super happy with them. The only time a drive failed on me was a Western Digital Blue in my laptop, and that happened totally out of nowhere. Someone else is going to say the exact same thing about Western Digital, while a third person will swear by IBM. Everyone praises their own brand until it finally dies on them...
Expect even worse stats from all manufacturers down the road. The tech isn't just mature; it's overripe and starting to rot. It's the only purely mechanical part left in a computer, margins are razor-thin, and companies are clearly cutting corners on materials and quality control just to stay profitable. With SSD prices dropping, they're slowly taking over as the primary drive market. It all feels like that old floppy disk scenario, remember? The first ones were incredibly reliable, but by the end, you'd buy a pack of ten and two or three would be dead on arrival straight from the factory...