I have moved some potentially off topic things to the end of the posting, with the most off topic stuff last.
with a note saying where the off topic comments start.
GPU prices rarely drop below MSRP. On the contrary, when new GPUs are launched, their price often rises over MSRP due to high demand.
potentially I should get the GPU now?
do you have a purchase link for the 4060?
possibly I can buy the 4060, but initially not install it, to assess what the system is like without the GPU.
then some weeks later install the GPU.
As of new GPUs to come, we are expecting Nvidia RTX 50-series around end of 2024, beginning of 2025.
All GPUs come with their own dedicated cooler that is designed to cool the GPU if no additional airflow is present. But additional airflow helps. Also, build i suggested does fine in terms of cooling, given that you go with Noctua fans and install all of them.
Most people have their vision between 30 and 60FPS. People who have used PCs for longer (e.g office workers or gamers), can tell a difference up to 120/144 FPS. Hardcore gamers (e-sports, especially first person shooter games) can tell a difference up to ~240FPS. Any higher than that, brain/eyes won't register (which makes me wonder, why monitor manufacturers have produced 500+ Hz monitors, like this Asus Rog Swift Pro PG248QP, specs:
https://rog.asus.com/monitors/23-to-24-5-inches/rog-swift-pro-pg248qp/ 
).
I consider myself a casual gamer (i used to be hardcore gamer back in the day) and i was able to tell a diff when i moved from 60Hz monitor to 144Hz monitor. On higher refresh rates/FPS, things (games), are a bit smoother but other that that, not much improvement. At least to my eye. Also, i don't care about FPS count in-games. As long as i get ~40FPS, i'm good. 30FPS is also doable but 20FPS is almost like a slide show.
Seeing colors is individual. Every person sees colors a bit differently. And some are colorblind (especially elderly people).
I think colour blind people will discern a much higher frame rate, also their vision could be 3 x higher res in terms of area, squareroot(3)=1.732 ie 73.2% higher res linearly. because one cone per retina pixel, whereas with colour vision, 3 rods per pixel. colour blindness is better for low light, is higher resolution, and faster response.
if response time is important, the top people may well be colour blind!
This is expensive but also the safest way to upgrade RAM. Most people can't afford it. Though, i've done it once, with Haswell build and cheap DDR3 RAM. Build initially came with 1x 8GB 1066 Mhz RAM. I replaced it by buying 2x 8GB 1866 Mhz RAM, while keeping the single stick in storage, as a backup, just in case.
you could mitigate by purchasing the lowest capacity that you can tolerate, and then later going for the highest price that you can allow. this is a good MO, to go lowest end possible for something, then later go highest end viable where you junk the earlier purchase!
RAM is one such thing that as time moves onwards, it gets cheaper. Same with SSDs and HDDs too. CPU and MoBo prices usually remain same as they were at launch. But GPU and PSU prices usually rise. E.g my Seasonic PRIME 650 80+ Titanium PSU costed me €206.80 in 2016. But if i were to buy this PSU today, i'd be looking towards €350 or so.
I see a business opportunity here! buy such a PSU, keep it factory sealed, wait some years and sell it online, rake in healthy profits. that price rise looks like a viable business MO.
on ebay, if it is still good for today, people will fight to get factory sealed stuff from years ago
as soon as it is opened, its value will drop, you'll still sell it. dont try to remove any price labels from such items, because you can damage the underlying box. also keep the receipt to supply with the purchase.
you can then list it as new.
Yes.
RAM overclock profiles that are built-in to the DIMMs, are the "safe" ones, since RAM manufacturer has tested the RAM beforehand and fine-tuned the overclock profile (where frequency, timings and voltage values are playing nicely with each other). So, there is no harm to enabling built-in RAM overclock profile (EXPO/XMP).
ok, I am definitely getting the 2 x 48G option below 10ns, that seems an optimal decision, good value for money, top end speed, without dangerous overclocking.
I think I am ready now to start purchasing, I need to study my credit card balances also, as I think I just have some £3000 balance on one, where I want to keep some £1000 balance, thus I have to buy using different credit cards, in order to keep a reasonable balance on each. I dont use debit cards as these dont have the same protections.
as a different matter, I will have to study what further cables to get.
There have been rare cases where built-in overclock profile doesn't work in specific system and RAM isn't stable. In this case, user can manually enter the frequency/timings/voltage to get the RAM stable. Usually by loosening the timings a bit does the trick. Or running lower frequency than what the RAM is rated for by built-in overclock profile.
No and Yes.
As i said, MoBo has 1x USB type-C port that supports DisplayPort 1.4. - Hence: "No".
Now, you can buy a cable that on one end is USB type-C and on another end is HDMI, if you want to connect HDMI display to the MoBo directly. - Hence: "Yes".
do you have a purchase link for this?
my LG monitor is a 27UL500,
https://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/uhd-4k-5k/27ul500-w/
at the back it has 2 HDMI sockets, and also a socket I dont recognise called DP-IN
can you recommend what cables to get for both the HDMI and for the DP-IN if it is relevant?
the current PC is in the next room in order to get silence, so the longest cable possible will be best,
eg I have a seriously long HDMI cable at the moment, but maybe I can use an adapter for that, so maybe also a recommendation for a converter adapter from USB type-C to HDMI to connect the existing HDMI cable to, which will handle the data speeds.
I will try the new PC in the same room to see if quiet enough, but otherwise it might go in the next room, with a cable through the wall to this room.
--------- POTENTIALLY OFF TOPIC COMMENTS FROM HERE ONWARDS and even more off topic comments later, I can edit these out on moderator request. ----------
E.g i've had debates with my missus where i see blue-ish color while she sees green-ish color. In actuality, color was somewhere in-between the blue and green but based on how people see colors differently, doesn't make individual perceived observation wrong.
I have had similar discussions with people, where I say something is one colour and they say its another colour! could be because some people have more green cones than blue, or other such imbalance. where the person is more sensitive to one colour component. and as you suggest, some cones might deteriorate with age, causing further imbalance. if you eat purple fruit or veg, you'll find your colour vision greatly improves. thus some deterioration is probably from poor nutrition, eg where many people dont eat salad and fruit. I eat purple cabbage every day. (sometimes called red cabbage). maybe each colour needs different nutrition!
in one era I took a lot of red grape juice, and noticed a big improvement in colour vision, where red grapes are kind of purple also. they arent red like a tomato! red wine also is kind of purple. it is debatable what colour as quite dark.
eg an object is red because it doesnt absorb red light, so to detect red light you need blue + green = cyan, where if you shine a red light it will look black because total absorption. potentially eating cyan colour food could improve red perception. there is a theory that with food, you should eat of the different colours. eg carrots for orange, tomatoes for red, sprouts for green, etc. the italians like to have the colours of their flag with their meals, where they will often arrange red + white + green items.
our chemistry teacher told us that light and colours are caused by temporary transitions of outer electrons of atoms to the next electron shell. so colour directly relates to chemistry. where colour may be more important for biology than we attribute.
the german experiments would shine a red lamp, green lamp, blue lamp of different intensities on the same spot, and then another 3 lamps with different intensities on another spot and ask them if they looked the same. by doing a lot of such tests on a lot of people, they arrived at an average for colour perception. where they have a mathematical model for the perception. this is from long before the computer era. and is used for colour profiles for say printers.
colour profiles enable a print from say an Epson, a print from a Canon and the image on screen to look the same. but you can never make 2 images exactly the same unless its the same "technology", eg 2 different Epson ecotanks could produce an identical image if they use the same ecotank ink. eg my old ET4550 ( think 4550) and the ET2660 (I think 2660), used identical ink. but my new ET16150 uses a totally different ink.
if you get ink by a different manufacturer, it is guaranteed to be different! (unless it is black ink for text!) there are online firms where you can purchase a colour profile for your specific inks and paper. where they send you a test image to print, which you post to them, and they email you a colour profile.
I have done this a few times, and also bought a home colour profiler called ColorMunki, probably better to use an online service instead.
when HP printers say "only use HP inks to get best colours", that is because they have profiled their inks, but if alternative inks are much cheaper, you just have to profile those, and you'll also get best colours.
I tend to only use the manufacturer's inks, and buy my Epson inks from Epson's website, as its the best prices.
with my samsung camera, which creates really lucid images. I once saw a very photogenic violet flower, photographed it, and compared the photo directly and it was the wrong colour! I think the photo was a dark blue. so they havent colour profiled it properly. but at the same time its a great camera, as really lucid images, and uses AA batteries, so is easy to rebattery.
for art and adverts etc, all that matters is an image looks good, doesnt matter if the colours are inaccurate.
As seeing colors, hearing sounds is also individual. I prefer digital sound due to it's clarity.
this is digressing a bit, but here goes:
that is probably because you havent heard a quality vinyl recording on a top end hifi separates system!
as that scene began vanishing around 1985 with the emergence of CDs.
if you sat in a hifi listening room for top end systems, you'd become obsessed with that instead.
people into this scene will generally be older than 55, most will be older than 60. so if you are younger than 55, I doubt you know this stuff.
the clarity of digital is because a lot of info is missing! where it sounds great for some music eg baroque music but is unsatisfactory when you have a wide gamut of simultaneous sounds, where you get noise.
digital sound loses info 2 ways, it discards between sample points on the x-axis, and then rounds to nearest quantum on y-axis. important point: human hearing isnt "additive" it is spectral, whereas digital sound is based on an additive assumption. thus when you hear a rich gamut of simultaneous sounds for real, it is a much richer sound than when it is digitised. because you have a hair in your ear for each frequency, that hair is unaffected by the sum of other frequencies. with digitisation a lot of those hairs are not stimulated.
basically human hearing is like having more than 3000 different primary colours, and not just 3. whereas digital sound is based on a sampling frequency of 1 specific colour. as the sampling frequency increases the quality will improve, but I found when I digitised my old cassettes with Audacity that the quality only became acceptable with huge audio files. and this was just to cope with 1 mm of cassette width per track!
CD quality was unacceptably substandard sound.
this is why sound is a much richer phenomenon than colour, each ear just listens to one pixel of sound, but with more than 3000 sound colours! the cochlea is basically a spectrometer for one pixel of sound, its on another level from digital sound which is mere amplitude sampling, the human ear is frequency sampling, with amplitudes for each of more than 3000 frequencies! your ear literally has more than 3000 cones of different colours for 1 pixel of sound. this is why you can listen to say 2 instruments playing and say: the one instrument is quiet, the other is loud, as this is a spectral assessment. humans have spectral analysis in hardware, stereo perception also allows us to spatially in 2D perceive each frequency.
there is no comparison, the main problem is digital sound is the work of engineers, 99.99999% of whom are clueless about zoology! the digital MO works better for images, as the eye cones are a kind of biological pixel, but also are different from computer pixels in that intensity is signal frequency, which is analogue. digital is a better match for the zoology of perceiving pictures than for sound. eye cones are binary, either on or off, but the brighter the light the faster the signals are sent.
analogue sound eg vinyl and magnetic tape is the only satisfactory approach as it has no frequency bias, other than a frequency response curve. master recordings were done I think with 24 track reel to reel tape.
digital music began emerging maybe 1980 with synthesizer music being used ever more.
the 1970s was the ultimate music era ever, digital music is a bit "cold". its good but is a cold sound.
when CDs first began appearing approx 1985, Dire Straits album "brothers in arms" was very popular because of the clarity. eg the Romeo and Juliet track:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC95MEenIxA
on a quality system that sounds much more metallic than in that video!
but if you listen to vinyl on a quality system, its a vastly richer gamut of sounds, like on a different level. most systems are garbage, where all CD decks sound better than most vinyl turntables, but if you get an upper range deck vinyl is vastly superior to CDs. you need to venture in the vanished hifi enthusiast scene to get to quality kit, eg I have a Dual CS505-mark 2 german deck from 1985, which won many accolades as the top midrange vinyl deck. eg it has a counterbalance which you have to set to perfectly balance the pressure of the needle. you balance perfectly and then add a small bias for perfect subtle needle pressure. and has belt drive, which means handles dirt better and less spurious sounds transmit from the mechanism to the deck. Also the playing deck has its own suspension within the outer deck. My brother has a Sony deck, and if you walk around the room the floorboards cause booming sound because it doesnt have proper suspension.
with the Dual, you wont get booming. also the Sony deck is direct drive, which isnt as good, its too "jumpy".
with the Dual, the motor turns a belt which indirectly turns the deck, this is much better engineering.
the Sony deck has very clear sound, but the Dual has vastly better midrange and lower frequencies. the japanese sensitivity to sound is upper frequencies, africans have sensitivity to lower frequencies, and europeans are midrange. when we were in Nigeria, this nigerian guy would say "your dad is arriving now", I asked "how do you know?", he said "I can hear his car". I couldnt hear anything and couldnt see the car out the window! then sure enough, a bit later my dad's car would appear in the distance. he could not only hear the car but could recognise which car, where I couldnt hear anything at all!
thus if you buy japanese kit, its usually good for upper frequencies, but no good for bass eg for reggae music, eg Pluto is great eg "dancing mood"
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtxdk27nnrs
my turntable was german, amplifier and loudspeakers british, cassette deck japanese (TEAC) really great deck with CrO2 + dolby C: if you buy cassette decks today, no Dolby C, and no CrO2 + metal tape, just iron oxide. CrO2 + dolby C was as good sound as vinyl, metal tape even better but too expensive, a metal cassette was more expensive than a vinyl album! a CrO2 cassette track is literally 1mm wide, and outdoes CD. think of what quality a 1cm track would be! but they never allowed this because people would pirate everything! I found Sony to make the best CrO2 cassettes. TDK werent as good.
I especially like smooth, low bass (have almost maxed out my headset equalizer on 32 Hz, 64 Hz and 125 Hz ranges
).
true hifi afficionados dont use equalisers!
because all electronics adds distortion. some top end amplifiers just had on off switch and volume, not even bass or treble, because these add distortion. the concept is that perfection cannot be improved upon!
its like if you enhance a photo on Photoshop, information is in fact lost, you cannot in general get back to the original image. so I always keep the original unenhanced image as a mastercopy. now the photoshopped image can look vastly better.
I bought some Sony headphones once, and they had enhanced bass, so I junked them, because the enhanced bass wasnt the true sound. eg famous people on the radio's voices sounded incorrect! the voice would be impressive, but so modified it was a different voice! I had no option but to junk the headphones!
hifi = "high fidelity", and the concept isnt that things should sound good, but that the hifi sound should be identical to the original sound, not better, not worse, but the same! ie the replaying should have high fidelity with the original! its a lost art!
a google definition of fidelity is "the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced." its not about the something being good but about being accurate.
your equalizers are like photoshopping, and are a no no for the hifi enthusiast!
non hifi people will push the bass and treble to max, but a hifi enthusiast will only move these from the midpoint to compensate for low quality loudspeakers. with quality kit you shouldnt use bass or treble or even worse equalisers as these add a whole row of distortions!
but you need to hear a top end system to properly understand, and I think those listening rooms have vanished, where they'd have the musical equivalent of Rolls Royces for the components.
the top turntables were german and scandinavian, british turntables were generally junk, but the british amplifiers and loudspeakers were top end. the best cassette deck I have heard is the japanese TEAC I bought, but for recording and playing CrO2, pre-recorded iron oxide cassettes arent proper hifi, you needed vinyl.
if you like bass, you ought to explore reggae, and explore beyond Bob Marley, eg Pluto is the best reggae musician in my opinion. I like the drumming of Selector's "on my radio",
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=074AfC9tw48
which possibly isnt classed as reggae but is related.
but that sounds much better on a quality hifi system, with proper bass woofer speakers, as my cheaper computer speakers cannot cope with the lower bass of the drumming. quality loudspeakers will have at least woofers and tweeters, and usually the bigger the better for bass, although Bose specialised in making big loudspeaker sound from small loudspeakers. my loudspeakers are big (not ginormous) by a small british firm, H53cm x W27cm x D26cm, where they have a hole at the back to allow air to flow out from lower bass sounds!
the turntable's recommended diamond needles by a specialised danish firm are still available new online, I think for about £50.
if I connect my PC's audio output to an input of my old amplifier, I can listen to my audacity recordings on my 1985 hifi system, and with a much higher sampling rate than CDs it is good.
Also, since my favorite music gerne is Trance, which is purely digital music, it is best to listen it digitally.
do you like KLF 3am eternal?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDsCeC6f0zc
). Also, since my favorite music gerne is Trance, which is purely digital music, it is best to listen it digitally.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram