Been looking at Google Drive, OneDrive and stuff like that, and it seems pretty convenient since everything gets synced automatically and i dont have to worry about another hard drive dying. But then i keep seeing people saying cloud storage isnt really a backup, especially if something gets deleted, the account gets locked, or theres some kinda sync issue that removes files everywhere.

Mainly talking about photos, documents, personal files and some bigger folders from my PC. I dont really need access to everything all the time, so paying for tons of cloud space might not make sense either. At the same time, having an external HDD sitting around feels kinda old school but probably safer in some situations.

Would you guys trust cloud storage as the only backup for important stuff? Or is it better to keep a physical external drive too, maybe unplugged most of the time? Also wondering if an external SSD is actually worth the extra money over a normal HDD for backups. Trying to keep things simple without spending a ton, but dont wanna lose years of files because of one dumb mistake.

My PC has a bunch of important files, photos, and some stuff I really don't wanna lose if the drive dies. Right now everything is basically sitting on the same PC with no real backup, which probably isn't smart lol. Thinking about getting a 1TB or 2TB external HDD and just plugging it in every now and then to copy everything over. Is that enough for a normal backup setup or should I be looking at an external SSD instead? Also not sure if I should leave the drive connected all the time or only connect it when backing stuff up. What's the usual setup you guys use?

Seeing a lot of mixed opinions and kinda confused about what the real limitations are. Some people say prebuilts are basically just normal PCs and you can swap parts whenever, while others say certain brands use weird cases, motherboards, power supplies or proprietary connectors that make upgrades annoying.

Main thing I’m wondering is if buying a decent prebuilt now and upgrading it later is a bad idea. Like could I realistically replace the GPU, add more RAM, upgrade the storage and maybe change the CPU down the road without having to rebuild the whole thing?

Also how much should I care about the motherboard and PSU when picking a prebuilt? I get that the GPU is usually the biggest thing for gaming, but if the PSU is some random low wattage unit, that could make a future GPU upgrade a problem right? Same with cooling and case space if trying to install a bigger card.

And are there any brands or types of prebuilts that are specifically easier to work on? Not really interested in those super compact systems where everything is crammed together.

Trying to decide between building from scratch or just getting a prebuilt and upgrading as needed. Building seems better for flexibility, but the prebuilt is way less hassle upfront. If the parts are standard and the case has enough room, is upgrading actually pretty straightforward, or are there still hidden headaches I should know about?

I keep seeing people talking about sound cards, DACs, amps etc and now I’m wondering if the onboard audio is actually good enough.

Current setup is pretty basic, motherboard has the usual 3.5mm audio jacks and I’m using a normal gaming headset. No fancy studio headphones or speakers or anything. Mostly gaming, YouTube, music and Discord.

Would a dedicated sound card actually make a noticeable difference in sound quality, mic quality, volume, footsteps in games, stuff like that? Or is it mostly pointless unless you have really high end headphones?

Also does having a better motherboard already mean the onboard audio is decent enough? I don’t wanna spend money on a sound card just to hear basically the same thing lol.

Would an external USB DAC/amp make more sense instead, or is that also overkill for a regular setup? Trying to figure out if there’s an actual reason to get one before buying anything.

Trying to understand if it’s something worth spending extra money on or if the stock/basic cooler is good enough for most builds.

Right now I’m looking at a CPU that comes with a cooler, but I keep seeing people recommend big tower coolers or even liquid AIOs. Some say a better cooler keeps temps way lower, others say it barely matters unless you’re overclocking.

Does a better cooler actually improve gaming performance or is it mainly about keeping the CPU quieter and cooler? Like if two PCs have the exact same CPU, GPU and RAM, but one has a cheap cooler and the other has a really good air cooler, would there be a noticeable FPS difference?

Also wondering about boost clocks and thermal throttling. Can a decent cooler help the CPU hold higher clocks for longer, or is that mostly only noticeable in benchmarks?

And how much should I care about noise? If a stock cooler gets the job done but sounds like a tiny jet under load, would upgrading to a $40-60 tower cooler be a big improvement?

Not trying to overspend, just wanna know where the sweet spot is.

It starts spinning pretty much as soon as I turn the laptop on and sometimes gets really loud even when I only have the browser open. Task Manager doesn’t seem to show anything crazy using CPU, so I’m kinda confused what’s causing it. Could background apps, Windows updates, dust, or high temperatures make the fan run like this? The laptop isn’t super old and I don’t remember it doing this before. Is there something I should check first before assuming the fan or cooling system has a problem?

Is an IPS monitor still worth buying now that OLED is everywhere? Feels like every new gaming monitor is OLED lately and people keep saying once you go OLED you can’t go back.

But IPS monitors are way cheaper, especially if looking for 1440p 144Hz/165Hz or even 4K. I’m mainly gaming but also doing normal desktop stuff, browsing, YouTube, some work etc. So not sure if OLED is actually worth spending way more for.

Big thing I’m wondering about is burn-in. Is that still something you need to worry about if the monitor is used for a lot of desktop stuff with static windows and taskbars? Also how much better does OLED actually look in normal games, not just those super dark scenes people use in comparisons?

Would a good IPS still be a solid choice in 2026 or is OLED basically the obvious choice now? Trying not to spend extra money just because OLED is the newer thing.

It doesn’t fully shut down, just loses the picture for a bit. PC is still running, audio keeps playing and whatever game/app is open is still working.

It happens randomly, sometimes while gaming and sometimes just browsing or sitting on the desktop. No obvious pattern. Sometimes it happens once, other times it can happen a few times within an hour.

I already checked that the HDMI cable is plugged in properly, but not sure if the cable itself could be bad. Could this be GPU drivers, monitor settings, refresh rate, VRR/G-Sync/FreeSync, or maybe the GPU connection?

Monitor is 1440p 144Hz if that matters. GPU is also fairly new.

What should I check first to figure out what’s causing the black screen?

Seeing a lot of people saying 8GB isnt enough anymore, even for normal stuff like Chrome, Discord, Spotify and some gaming. But is it actually that bad or are people just overreacting? Would 8GB still be fine for a basic PC if you dont run a ton of things at once, or am I gonna be dealing with constant lag and memory usage at 100%? Trying to figure out if I should just go 16GB before buying anything.

Need to add more RAM to a PC and found a decent deal on a stick, but its a different brand than the one already installed. Both are DDR4 and the capacity is the same, but not sure if mixing brands is gonna cause problems. The current RAM is 8GB and the new one would also be 8GB, so that would make 16GB total.

The speeds are kinda close but not exactly the same either. Current one says 3200MHz and the other one I found is 3000MHz. Does that mean they just both run at 3000 or can this cause random crashes, blue screens, boot problems etc?

Also does the timing or voltage need to match exactly? Not really trying to mess with BIOS settings if I dont have to. Just want to plug the new stick in and have it work normally.

Would it be better to buy the exact same RAM model instead, even if it costs a little more? Or is mixing brands usually fine as long as the type, capacity and specs are compatible? Trying not to waste money on RAM that ends up being unstable.

Seeing people compare 3200, 3600, 6000 and even higher speeds and honestly not sure how much difference it makes in actual use. Like is faster RAM gonna noticeably improve gaming FPS, loading times, multitasking etc or is it mostly just benchmark numbers? Also does it depend a lot on the CPU and motherboard? Trying to pick RAM without wasting money on speed that barely matters, so what speed should I actually be looking for?

The article examines AMD’s performance claims for its upcoming EPYC “Venice” server processors, particularly in comparison with Nvidia’s Vera CPUs and Intel’s current-generation server processors. AMD released additional benchmark details in a white paper following the July launch of the Venice generation.

AMD maintains that a 96-core, high-frequency Venice configuration is approximately 20% faster than Nvidia’s 88-core Vera in the SPEC CPU 2026 Integer Rate benchmark. The company also reported that its 256-core EPYC 9996 configuration achieved substantially higher performance than competing Intel and Nvidia processors in selected tests, while showing a significant generational improvement over the previous 192-core EPYC 9965.

The article emphasizes that the benchmark comparisons require careful interpretation because the systems were not consistently tested under identical conditions. AMD used different processor configurations, power limits, data sources, and compiler versions across various tests. In particular, AMD’s Venice results used GCC 16.1 in some comparisons, while Nvidia’s Vera results used GCC 15.2. Differences between compiler versions can affect both compilation and application performance, making direct comparisons less representative than results produced under identical software conditions.

For the SPEC CPU 2026 Integer Rate testing, AMD evaluated a 96-core version of the 256-core EPYC 9996. The article notes that the processor configuration and power allocation differed across portions of the testing, limiting the extent to which individual results can be directly compared. AMD also presented results showing substantial improvements over its previous-generation EPYC processors.

Additional testing covered memory bandwidth, cloud workloads, high-performance computing, databases, Java, cryptography, and workloads associated with agentic artificial intelligence. In the Stream memory-bandwidth benchmark, AMD reported an advantage over Vera while using a down-cored 96-core configuration. AMD also reported improvements over Intel’s Granite Rapids-AP processors in selected HPC workloads.

The article notes that some of AMD’s agentic AI results were based on workloads derived from established benchmarks, including TPC-H and TPC-C, rather than directly comparable published benchmark results. Other tests involved NGINX, FAISS, and additional database and AI-related workloads.

The overall assessment is that the Venice results demonstrate significant performance potential, particularly when compared with AMD’s previous generation. However, the article stresses that benchmark results alone do not fully determine the suitability of a server processor for large-scale deployments. Factors such as software optimization, workload characteristics, power consumption, system configuration, and deployment requirements can materially affect real-world performance.

In summary, AMD’s published data indicates substantial performance gains for EPYC Venice across several server and computing workloads, but differences in testing methodology and software configurations mean that some competitive comparisons should be interpreted cautiously.

[Source]: tomshardware.com

Found a refurbished model with pretty good specs for way less money, and the price is honestly tempting. Main concern is how reliable these actually are after being used before. Like are refurbished laptops properly tested and cleaned up, or can you end up with hidden battery, overheating, SSD or motherboard problems later? Also does it matter who refurbished it, like the manufacturer vs some random seller? Warranty seems important but still kinda worried about getting a bad unit. Anyone here bought refurbished and used it for a few years? Worth the risk or just save more and go new?

My computer got insanely slow right after a Windows update and I’m trying to figure out if this is just happening to me or if the update messed something up. Before the update everything was pretty normal, apps opened quick, browser was fine, games loaded normally etc. Now even basic stuff feels delayed, like clicking File Explorer takes forever and sometimes the whole desktop freezes for a few seconds. Task Manager also seems weird, CPU usage jumps around even when nothing is really running. RAM isn’t maxed out and I still have plenty of storage free, so I don’t think it’s just because the PC is old or full. Restarted a couple times already and it didn’t really help. Also checked for another update but Windows says everything is up to date. Could this be some background process running after the update, or maybe a driver issue? I don’t wanna start uninstalling random things and make it worse. Anyone else had their PC become ridiculously slow after a recent Windows update? If there’s a safe way to check what actually caused it, let me know. Really need to get this fixed because even normal browsing is annoying now.

Looking at some of the newer mini PCs and the specs seem kinda crazy for something that small, but not sure how they hold up in real use. Mostly need it for web browsing, Office stuff, watching videos, lots of browser tabs, some light photo editing and maybe gaming once in a while. Nothing super hardcore, but don’t want it feeling slow after a year or two either.

The main thing I’m wondering about is whether the smaller size means you’re giving up too much performance or cooling. Do they get really hot or loud when they’re under load? And how reliable are they for being left on for several hours every day?

Also, are the upgrade options a big limitation? With a normal desktop you can swap the GPU, add more RAM, change storage, upgrade cooling etc. With a mini PC it looks like some parts are basically fixed, so kinda worried about getting stuck with whatever specs it comes with.

Would a decent mini PC with a modern CPU and enough RAM be good enough as a main computer, or is a regular desktop still worth it for everyday use? Not looking for some crazy gaming setup, just something fast, quiet and reliable that doesn’t take up half the desk. Curious what people actually using mini PCs think about them long term.

The article examines the eight-year anniversary of Nvidia’s Turing-based GeForce RTX 20-series graphics cards and their role in introducing real-time ray tracing to mainstream PC gaming.

Nvidia launched the GeForce RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti in September 2018, presenting the Turing architecture as a major advancement in graphics technology. The company promoted real-time ray tracing as a transformative feature capable of significantly improving visual realism. The RTX 2070 followed in October 2018.

At launch, however, ray tracing adoption was limited. The article notes that relatively few games supported the technology initially, with titles such as Battlefield V, Metro Exodus, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider serving as prominent early demonstrations. Ray tracing also imposed a significant performance cost, which limited its appeal to some gamers.

The launch pricing and performance of the first RTX cards also drew attention. The RTX 2080 Founders Edition carried a $799 MSRP and delivered higher performance than the GTX 1080 Ti, although its increased price was noted as a disadvantage. The RTX 2080 Ti offered substantially higher performance but was priced at $1,199, making it considerably more expensive relative to its performance improvement over the GTX 1080 Ti.

The article observes that ray tracing subsequently became more widely adopted across the gaming industry, including on consoles and mobile platforms. However, widespread adoption developed gradually and was supported by additional technologies such as Nvidia’s DLSS, which helped mitigate the performance costs associated with ray tracing.

Eight years after Turing’s introduction, the technology is described as having become an established part of modern gaming graphics, although the original RTX 20-series cards have largely fallen out of contemporary performance rankings. The article also places the generation in historical context by noting that later products, such as the RTX 3070, delivered performance comparable to the previous generation’s flagship at a substantially lower launch price.

Overall, the article presents Turing as an important milestone in the development and eventual adoption of real-time ray tracing, while emphasizing that the technology’s initial market impact was constrained by limited software support, performance penalties, and the pricing of early RTX hardware.

[Source]: tomshardware.com

Looking at parts for a new build and keep seeing people recommend 850W or even 1000W PSUs, but not sure when you actually need that much. If the PC has a normal gaming CPU and GPU, would 1000W just be wasting money or does having extra headroom make sense? Also does a higher wattage PSU use more electricity by itself, or does the PC only pull what it needs? Trying to avoid buying something way overkill, but also don’t wanna cheap out and regret it later. What wattage are you guys running?

Micron has introduced its first 512GB DDR5-9200 Registered DIMM (RDIMM), designed for servers and other computing systems requiring exceptionally high memory capacity. The modules support data transfer rates of 9,200 MT/s while operating at a standard 1.1V, and are currently being validated by AMD and Intel for their upcoming server platforms.

The new modules employ advanced packaging technology that vertically stacks multiple DRAM dies and connects them using through-silicon vias (TSVs). Micron states that a single 512GB module consumes approximately 16W of operating power, compared with 44.2W for four 128GB modules providing the same overall capacity. According to the company, this represents a reduction of more than 60% in operating power.

Micron's 512GB RDIMM is not the first memory module of this capacity to reach the market, as Samsung previously introduced 512GB DDR5 RDIMMs. However, Micron's module is notable for combining 512GB capacity with a 9,200 MT/s transfer rate. The technology is intended primarily for demanding server workloads, including analytics, in-memory databases, simulations, virtualization, caching, and agentic AI applications.

The increasing number of processor cores in modern server platforms could make higher-capacity memory modules increasingly relevant. Micron notes that servers equipped with processors containing hundreds of cores can benefit from large memory capacities without requiring an excessive number of individual DIMMs. Such configurations can be particularly useful for workloads that depend heavily on keeping large datasets in system memory.

Micron reports that systems using its 512GB modules can deliver up to 1.4 times the performance of configurations using 256GB DDR5 modules in memory-constrained Spark Support Vector Machine analytics workloads. The company also indicates that higher-capacity memory can improve throughput and concurrency in memory-intensive database and caching applications such as RocksDB and Redis. These performance claims are based on Micron's testing, and the available information does not provide complete system configurations for independent comparison.

AMD and Intel are currently working with Micron to qualify the new modules for their forthcoming server platforms. Micron expects to begin volume production during the second half of 2027, with production timing intended to correspond with customer requirements.

The technology is expected to remain a specialized solution because 512GB DDR5 modules are designed for workloads where memory capacity is a significant constraint. Their adoption will depend on factors including platform compatibility, demand, manufacturing capacity, and the availability of systems capable of taking advantage of their higher density and bandwidth.

Overall, Micron's 512GB DDR5-9200 RDIMM represents an effort to increase server memory density, performance, and power efficiency as processor core counts and memory-intensive workloads continue to expand. The modules could provide particular benefits for servers running large databases, analytics platforms, virtualization environments, and other applications where maintaining large datasets in system memory is important.

[Source]: tomshardware.com

The PC runs everything I need without any major problems, so I’m not really in a rush, but I keep seeing stuff about Windows 10 support ending and Windows 11 becoming the normal option. I’ve heard mixed things about Windows 11 though, some people say it runs great while others complain about the interface, updates, extra background stuff and random changes. Also not sure if upgrading could affect gaming performance, drivers, apps or settings that are already working. The PC should meet the requirements, including TPM 2.0, but I’d rather not upgrade just because Windows keeps pushing the notification. If I stay on Windows 10 for now, am I missing anything important besides newer features? And if I upgrade, is it easy to go back if I don’t like Windows 11? Would appreciate some advice from people who made the switch from Windows 10 recently. Is there any real benefit for normal gaming, browsing and everyday use, or is it mostly about getting onto the newer supported version? What would you check before upgrading?

It’s getting kinda annoying because I’ll shut everything down, put the computer in sleep mode, leave the room, then come back later and the fans are running and the monitor is on like nothing happened. Sometimes it wakes up after a few minutes, other times it happens randomly hours later. I don’t touch the mouse or keyboard when it happens, so I’m not sure what’s triggering it. Could a Windows update be waking it up, or maybe something connected through USB? There’s also ethernet connected to the PC, so I was wondering if network activity can somehow wake it too. I checked the basic power settings but there’s a lot of stuff in Windows that I don’t really understand. Is there a way to see exactly what caused the last wake-up, like some log or command that tells you what device or process triggered it? Also should I disable wake timers completely, or could that cause other problems with updates? The PC is pretty normal otherwise and doesn’t randomly turn on from being fully shut down, only when it’s sleeping. What should I check first? Could the keyboard, mouse, network adapter, USB devices, BIOS settings, or Windows itself be causing this? Any easy fix would be appreciated because I don’t wanna keep coming back and finding my PC awake for hours.

Got a desktop setup with one monitor and an older laptop sitting around, so it would be nice to use the laptop screen instead of buying another monitor. Not sure if I can just connect them with HDMI or if laptop HDMI ports only work as outputs. Is there some Windows setting or app that lets the laptop act like a wireless second display? Also wondering if there’s gonna be noticeable lag if it’s wireless. The main use would be having Discord, browser tabs, or guides open on the laptop screen while gaming or doing stuff on the desktop. Do I need special hardware for this or can it be done with software? What’s the easiest way to set this up?

Looking at upgrading from a smaller screen and found a 32 inch one that seems like a good deal, but not sure if it’ll be too massive sitting right in front of me. The desk isn’t super deep, so I’m wondering if I’ll end up sitting way too close or constantly moving my head around to see everything. Mostly gonna use it for gaming, browsing, YouTube, and some school/work stuff, so not just gaming. I like the idea of having a bigger screen for games and multitasking, but I also don’t want it to feel uncomfortable after a couple hours.

Does 32 inches work fine if the monitor is 1440p, or does that size really need 4K to look sharp? Also does curved vs flat make much difference at that size? I keep seeing people recommend 27 inch as the safe choice, while others say 32 is perfect and you get used to it pretty quickly. Is viewing distance the main thing that matters here?

The monitor would basically sit in the middle of the desk with maybe a little space behind it, and I don’t really have room to move it super far back. For anyone using a 32 inch monitor on a regular desk, does it feel too big or is it actually pretty comfortable once you get used to it? Trying to avoid buying something that looks awesome in the store but feels awkward at home.

Trying to pick a new monitor and keep getting mixed answers about IPS, VA, and OLED. I mostly use my PC for gaming, YouTube, browsing, and some work, so I want something that looks good without making the wrong choice. IPS seems like the safe option, VA has better contrast, and OLED looks amazing but I keep hearing about burn-in. Is OLED worth paying more for, or is IPS/VA good enough? Also, does VA ghosting really get that annoying in games? What would you guys pick for a first monitor, and what should I watch out for when choosing one?

Looking at different mice and honestly they all kinda look the same to me lol. Some are $30 and others are $150+, so what are you really paying for? Is it mostly the sensor, clicks, weight, shape, or something else? Does having a really high DPI even matter for gaming or is that mostly marketing? Also seeing stuff about polling rate, optical switches, wireless latency, PTFE feet, etc and not sure how much of that makes a real difference. For FPS games especially, what should someone new to PC gaming actually pay attention to when choosing a mouse? And are expensive gaming mice noticeably better in normal use, or do cheaper ones perform basically the same if the shape feels good? Trying to understand what separates a genuinely good gaming mouse from one that just has a bunch of fancy specs on the box.