What CPU? Single vs Multi core in real life (no games)? Future?

[Mr. Scram]

It does not but you'll regret when your files get screwed and you notice the issue only after some time. FWIW you can get EEC cheaply. Ryzen + unbuffered ECC RAM. Needs motherboard which supports it, though. Non obvious RAM issues sucked enough of my blood so I do care having ECC.

ECC is nice to have, but I've literally never seen problems I even remotely suspected would have been prevented by it. For mission critical systems it simply makes sense, although it's limited in what issues it solves.

[Kilrah]

It does not but you'll regret when your files get screwed and you notice the issue only after some time.

I've been using computer systems for 2 decades now and never came across such a scenario that could be attributed to RAM even once. I'd consider that the "one in a billion stroke of bad luck".
A drop in the ocean compared to countless crashes from simply buggy software.

[wraper]

It does not but you'll regret when your files get screwed and you notice the issue only after some time.

I've been using computer systems for 2 decades now and never came across such a scenario that could be attributed to RAM even once. I'd consider that the "one in a billion stroke of bad luck".
A drop in the ocean compared to countless crashes from simply buggy software.

I had a very bad luck with RAM, problems with multiple PCs I had. Something like OS crashes once in a few weeks and even more often software crashes. And problem completely undetectable by RAM tests even if left running for a whole day. Only changing RAM fixed those problems. And that RAM was not even faulty (stumbled on faulty RAM as well). It worked just fine in different PCs.

A drop in the ocean compared to countless crashes from simply buggy software.

Many of those issues might be caused by RAM, and not buggy software as you think.

[nctnico]

For the last decade the latter is no longer true. For just computational power using the CPU PCs have not really become much faster. Nearly a decade ago I got an i7-950 based PC. A couple of years ago I replaced it with a much more expensive Xeon based PC. The increase in performance is less than 20%. Back in the old days (the 90's and early 2000's) you could buy a new CPU every year and you'd end up with a PC which was significantly faster.

Part of what you saw is caused by Xeon being one or two generations behind on the mainstream platform. People who buy servers tend to prefer proven hardware. Not only is the technology lagging, clocks are also sacrificed for core count in Xeon class chips.

Ofcourse I'm writing about comparable CPUs when it comes to cores and clock frequency; both for workstation use. I know there are server optimised Xeons with lots of cores but these don't have very good single thread performance so they wouldn't compare well to a CPU which is optimised for workstation use.

[nctnico]

It does not but you'll regret when your files get screwed and you notice the issue only after some time.

I've been using computer systems for 2 decades now and never came across such a scenario that could be attributed to RAM even once. I'd consider that the "one in a billion stroke of bad luck".
A drop in the ocean compared to countless crashes from simply buggy software.

No. Software crashing can often be attributed to bad memory or bad hardware in general. You just don't know it. My previous PC initially had a bad memory module which caused the flaws wraper is writing about. It took a couple of hours for memtest to find what was wrong. After replacing the memory all was well. ECC memory really is worth having.

[rhb]

It does not but you'll regret when your files get screwed and you notice the issue only after some time.

I've been using computer systems for 2 decades now and never came across such a scenario that could be attributed to RAM even once. I'd consider that the "one in a billion stroke of bad luck".
A drop in the ocean compared to countless crashes from simply buggy software.

In 1991 my Sun 3/60 had a bad ECC  DIMM.  I linked a new kernel and deleted some drivers.  As a result if it had been up for a week and I used the tape drive it would kernel panic.  Immediately after the reboot it worked fine and would for a day or two.  I repeated this experiment many times.  I eventually went back to the stock kernel which mapped the bad memory to a  driver I did not use.

My Z400 workstation, also ECC DRAM, running Solaris 10 will crash if it's been up for a week and I do a ZFS scrub.  Immediately after a reboot the scrub works fine.

I concluded from the symptoms that there is a spot in memory that gets initialized at boot, but which doesn't quite refresh reliably.  A memory diagnostic program won't find it because it's reading and writing.  The only thing I can think of that would locate it is to write a bare metal program that initializes all of memory and then does a read at intervals which double until it reads back a wrong value.

I'd certainly agree that most OS crashes in the Windows world are buggy device drivers for which MS takes the heat.  And most application crashes are buggy applications.

I'm accustomed to systems running non-stop for long periods.  At work an admin wanted to patch my system.  Out of curiosity I took a look at uptime.  It had been up for 467 days.  My Z400 S10 system gets shutdown if I go out of town,  but it ran for years without a hiccup until recently when the scrub issue appeared.

I'll probably resolve the S10 problem by buying 24 GB of ECC DRAM to replace the current 12 GB.

[nctnico]

I concluded from the symptoms that there is a spot in memory that gets initialized at boot, but which doesn't quite refresh reliably.  A memory diagnostic program won't find it because it's reading and writing.  The only thing I can think of that would locate it is to write a bare metal program that initializes all of memory and then does a read at intervals which double until it reads back a wrong value.

That might not work. Memtest is quite good at finding faults because it uses semi-random patterns to ultimately find the pattern which triggers the problem. In the 90's I had a PC repair service (instead of working at the grocery store). I still recall the customer which came to me to have his new PC diagnosed. He kept having problems but the store didn't want to take it back because according to the shop it was working fine. After some swapping & testing it turned out the motherboard was bad but it would only affect a certain version of Eudora which ran fine on other PCs. The customer was happy I found out his PC is faulty because for him buying a computer was a big expense and he couldn't stand the idea of losing his money. Truth to be told: he shouldn't have bought the cheap crap but that is another story.

[apis]

Memtest has helped me diagnose faulty memory a few times. Didn't show up with the standard patterns, only after several hours running random patterns. If it was easy to discover the problem they probably would have rejected it in the factory. Only had problem with new memory modules though, I have never seen good memory go bad over time.

[Mr. Scram]

I had a very bad luck with RAM, problems with multiple PCs I had. Something like OS crashes once in a few weeks and even more often software crashes. And problem completely undetectable by RAM tests even if left running for a whole day. Only changing RAM fixed those problems. And that RAM was not even faulty (stumbled on faulty RAM as well). It worked just fine in different PCs.

Many of those issues might be caused by RAM, and not buggy software as you think.

A whole day honestly isn't a lot for a RAM test. The more obvious faults tend to show themselves the 5 or so passes, but more insidious ones can take many passes before something shows. Having something show up in the 17th or 26th pass isn't unheard of.

[wraper]

I had a very bad luck with RAM, problems with multiple PCs I had. Something like OS crashes once in a few weeks and even more often software crashes. And problem completely undetectable by RAM tests even if left running for a whole day. Only changing RAM fixed those problems. And that RAM was not even faulty (stumbled on faulty RAM as well). It worked just fine in different PCs.

Many of those issues might be caused by RAM, and not buggy software as you think.

A whole day honestly isn't a lot for a RAM test. The more obvious faults tend to show themselves the 5 or so passes, but more insidious ones can take many passes before something shows. Having something show up in the 17th or 26th pass isn't unheard of.

You can run it for a week. But is it practical making PC unusable for such a long time? With ECC it's simple. If there were errors, you'll see them in a log.

[wraper]

I have never seen good memory go bad over time.

I had cruacial (micron) DDR3 memory stick going bad after about 1.5 years. A few addresses became bad. No overclock. Also I've seen GPU RAM becoming unstable at stock frequency. In those cases lowering temperature by some means, like replacing cooler to aftermarket or adding RAM heatsink solved the issue without IC replacement.

[Mr. Scram]

You can run it for a week. But is it practical making PC unusable for such a long time? With ECC it's simple. If there were errors, you'll see them in a log.

ECC only protects against a specific error subset. It far from protects against all errors.

[olkipukki]

Why would you care about X399 chipset?  Issues like bad RAM support were because of 1st generation CPUs, not chipset. And even most of that was fixed by bios updates.

That's good to know that they (MB manufacturers) finally managed to fix most issues , but I am not convinced, I would except a bit more effort for €400+ boards...

CES is not far away and I will wait and see what's planning for 2019

[wraper]

You can run it for a week. But is it practical making PC unusable for such a long time? With ECC it's simple. If there were errors, you'll see them in a log.

ECC only protects against a specific error subset. It far from protects against all errors.

It corrects not all errors. But you will know if they are happening. Without ECC you don't even know if there is an issue with RAM. And as most of consumer RAM available is factory overclocked, I'd be concerned about lack of ECC even more.

[KaneTW]

I've had a *lot* of very subtle RAM errors that only show up under specific loads and not in memtest. All I'm doing now is buying ECC RAM, forever.

[Zucca]

Thanks guys I was stuck on this thread and read about the ECC stuff like I found water in the desert.
Given that ECC/not ECC price difference, I go with ECC all the time. Anyway I try to use my brain every time for each case (and sometime I fail...  ).

For example in my used P51 Lenovo 16GB-->32GB  upgrade, I found a 16GB not ECC installed and I decided insted of banking out 32GB of brand new ECC, I got a 100$ 16GB not ECC stick and let it go. Done and move on. In a laptop used at most 3-5 hours/week (Altium or Solid works when I am out from my office...) I don't see the point to have ECC. If one day I will see a blue screen or find a RAM jerk bug, oh well then I will post here how stupid I was.
BTW: How many laptop support ECC? bah...

My pfSense box is on 24/7 and there I have ECC, could not be happier: rock solid with an used and forgotten gamer MOBO.

In my new Workstation I will go for ECC all the time. If you are building a new PC for work, ECC is a no brainer.
That's why I am irritated to see I9 do not support ECC.

Yes after CES2019 I will make my final choice, that's a wise chioce.

Another interesting read: ECC overclock? 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ze285/overclocking_ecc_memory_for_threadripper/

[wraper]

Another interesting read: ECC overclock? 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ze285/overclocking_ecc_memory_for_threadripper/

I'm overclocking 2133 ECC ram to 2800 on Ryzen 1700X system. The best about overclocking is that you see corrected errors in the log once it becomes unstable. I'm overclocking RAM only because I'm also gaming on this PC. Otherwise not worth it.

[Zucca]

I'm overclocking RAM only because I'm also gaming on this PC. Otherwise not worth it.

Why? Thanks in advance.

[wraper]

I'm overclocking RAM only because I'm also gaming on this PC. Otherwise not worth it.

Why? Thanks in advance.

On Ryzen gaming performance is highly dependent on RAM speed. In just about any other task difference is much smaller.

[Zucca]

Well because gaming needs an instense RAM data transfer, so all similar application will benefit from that... I suppose.

[Zucca]

€400+ boards...

Can we please stop to put RGB Led everywhere? Or Audio grade capacitor with some 120dB SNR DAC spec? Everytime I hunt an high end MOBO for my new workstation I want to cry, I don't want those feature but I have to pay them anyway.

https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X399%20Taichi/index.asp like the other flagship MOBO... 

[wraper]

Well because gaming needs an instense RAM data transfer, so all similar application will benefit from that... I suppose.

It also increases transfer speed between CPU cores. Apparently has a lot to do with Nvidia GPU drivers.

[Zucca]

I'll probably resolve the S10 problem by buying 24 GB of ECC DRAM to replace the current 12 GB.

Keep us posted! Good luck!

[macboy]

SSD is kinda mandatory for a fast PC nowadays

I would say NVME SSD.

NVMe SSD are very fast indeed, but truly are only incrementally faster than a SATA3 SSD. The impact in performance for most workloads is small. Granted, in some cases, that improvement is very important, but in most cases, it isn't so important. For most tasks, SSD disk access time is already so fast that even doubling or quadrupling the disk performance doesn't give such a great actual overall gain, all things considered.

In contrast, the performance difference between even the fastest HDD and an ordinary SATA SSD is extraordinary. The SSD is literally 3 orders of magnitude faster in terms of latency and operations per second, and several times faster in data transfer (MB/s). Just replacing a HDD with SSD can decrease boot time from say 2 or 3 minutes (to full usable desktop) down to 20 seconds. That is HUGE. Swapping that SATA SSD for a NVMe one (if the system can even boot from one) might reduce the boot time by another 5 seconds, maybe 10 tops. Noticeable, sure, but not mind-blowing like the change from HDD to SSD. When you already boot in just 20 seconds, you can't exactly shave 1 minute off the time, can you?

I've been trumpeting the benefits of SSD for years to my friends and coworkers, ever since buying my first 60 GB SSD several years ago.  Each and every time one of them has finally upgraded to an SSD, they remark that its "like a brand new computer".  I'd say that SSD is mandatory, and NVMe is a "would be nice".

[Mr. Scram]

NVMe SSD are very fast indeed, but truly are only incrementally faster than a SATA3 SSD. The impact in performance for most workloads is small. Granted, in some cases, that improvement is very important, but in most cases, it isn't so important. For most tasks, SSD disk access time is already so fast that even doubling or quadrupling the disk performance doesn't give such a great actual overall gain, all things considered.

In contrast, the performance difference between even the fastest HDD and an ordinary SATA SSD is extraordinary. The SSD is literally 3 orders of magnitude faster in terms of latency and operations per second, and several times faster in data transfer (MB/s). Just replacing a HDD with SSD can decrease boot time from say 2 or 3 minutes (to full usable desktop) down to 20 seconds. That is HUGE. Swapping that SATA SSD for a NVMe one (if the system can even boot from one) might reduce the boot time by another 5 seconds, maybe 10 tops. Noticeable, sure, but not mind-blowing like the change from HDD to SSD. When you already boot in just 20 seconds, you can't exactly shave 1 minute off the time, can you?

I've been trumpeting the benefits of SSD for years to my friends and coworkers, ever since buying my first 60 GB SSD several years ago.  Each and every time one of them has finally upgraded to an SSD, they remark that its "like a brand new computer".  I'd say that SSD is mandatory, and NVMe is a "would be nice".

You're not wrong, but SATA has been. It's lived its live. NVMe drives are barely more expensive, so it makes sense going for one. The massive bandwidth increase can be great. Not for the boot times or load times everyone always focusses on, but when you have two IO intensive tasks going you should start seeing solid differences. As soon as you start throwing a lot of data around within the system, SATA quickly chokes up.

The difference with a traditional HDD is indeed massive, but going for an SSD is pretty much a given at this point. They're not exotic or expensive any more and even the most masochistic folks shouldn't consider HDDs as boot drives any more.