Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mickulty last won the day on May 17 2019

mickulty had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

232 Excellent

About mickulty

  • Rank
    grunt bot


  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you! For what it's worth all the Cardea SSDs currently on TEAMGROUP's site are; Cardea (in db already) Cardea Zero (in db already) Cardea II (NVMe 3.0 x4) Cardea Liquid (NVMe 3.0 x4) Cardea Zero Z440 (NVMe 4.0 x4) Cardea Zero Z330 (NVMe 3.0 x4) Cardea Zero Z340 (NVMe 3.0 x4) Cardea Ceramic C440 (NVMe 4.0 x4) Cardea IOPS (NVMe 3.0 x4) Cardea A440 (NVMe 4.0 x4) https://www.teamgroupinc.com/en/products/t-force/t-force-ssd#product-box-84 EDIT: As an afterthought: there is the "CARDEA II TUF Gaming Alliance" but that's
  2. I have several SSDs to request the addition of. The SSD database is an extremely long way from complete, but these are disks that actually show up in the 1x AS SSD benchmark ranking at time of writing; Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus (NVMe - different to the Rocket NVMe 4.0) Teamgroup Cardea A440 (NVMe - at least I think that's what @mllrkllr88 is using? It's not the unqualified Cardea...) Samsung PM9A1 (NVMe) WD Blue SN550 (NVMe) HP EX900 (NVMe) Samsung PM981 (NVMe) Sandisk Ultra 3D (SATA SSD) SK Hynix BC501 (NVMe) FWIW I've attached my notes fr
  3. I know I'm sorta double posting here but I want to make a separate post for the on-topic stuff rather than the discussion that needs cleaning. Some community-oriented reasons to stick with 1-core valids; OC is sold to people as "drag racing for computers" - doing everything possible in hardware to get the score, including disabling, makes sense The people who say "yeah but it's only on 1 core" will just say something else like "yeah but it's not stable" instead (a little over 30 tech site comments about giga's score were sifted through on discord and the only one that compla
  4. They said clearly how it looks, not what it is. You attacked them as if they said that was what it is. EDIT: I wanna add that like, I get it. This has generated a reaction from a lot of people, and that adds up to a very strong reaction. That can be difficult to deal with. Posts start feeling like more of an attack than they are. I think this thread might just need cleaning of a lot of the responses to pro. It doesn't do any good to talk about the conspiracy idea anyway IMO because I don't think it's that relevant anyway.
  5. This is really the only sensible way to approach it IMO, I'd go further and say that you might as well include some stability test as well. @der8auer mentioned on the discord that part of the motive is making the value clear to non-overclockers; The problem is that if you enforce all-core and everything that just becomes; On the other hand, a separate category for measured frequency across a short stability test - not a 'full' test obviously, that would be horrendous for LN2, but maybe 1 minute of prime95 - would probably have much more value for PR. You could also do the sam
  6. DDR3L isn't relevant here, that's just DDR3 at a different voltage. LPDDR3 is different. I cannot stress enough that DDR3L and LPDDR3 are not interchangeable terms! Fundamentally LPDDR3 is not a Low Power version of DDR3. Rather, it is the third version of LPDDR memory, like how we have GDDR memory. This applies to other generations as well, from LPDDR1 to LPDDR5. The biggest difference I'd point to when it comes to LPDDR3 specifically is that the command/address bus is double data rate, as well as the data bus. Regular DDR isn't getting a double data rate cad bus until DDR5. H
  • Create New...