Tuesday, December 24th 2019

ADATA to Expand its Product Offerings to Monitors, Laptops and Gaming PCs

ADATA is a company currently selling only memory solutions like SSDs and DRAM, however, the company now wants to try something different in 2020. For starters, ADATA wants to launch more products that will be a part of its Xtreme Performance Gear lineup called XPG shortly. XPG will start offering new products like monitors, laptops, gaming PCs and PC cases with a goal of capturing new market share and try to establish itself as a strong brand of PC gaming products. The new lineup will get revealed with more details at CES 2020, however, we have information of what the new lineup contains.

For starters, XPG will begin with a laptop called Xenia 15, a 15.6-inch gaming laptop with 1080p IPS display and 9th gen Intel core i9 CPU. Next up the chain is a gaming PC called XPG Gaia - 5 liters mini PC with one PCIe slot for a graphics card that's up to 8-inches long. In addition, XPG will showcase a new monitor called Photon equipped with a 27-inch panel that features PixelDisplay's Vivid Color Eye-Safe Display technology which is essentially a technique for blocking out blue light. There is also going to be a new case called XPG Volta, a cylindrical case made out of premium materials such as tempered glass and metal. It is supposed to fit up to E-ATX motherboard and have plenty of room for water-cooling setups. Last but not least, XPG will have two concepts of RGB DDR4 memory modules, with both of them having speeds of up to 4800 MHz and having capacity of up to 32 GB per DIMM.
Add your own comment

45 Comments on ADATA to Expand its Product Offerings to Monitors, Laptops and Gaming PCs

#26
cucker tarlson
Vayra86Take another look at TPUs results. I beg to differ... the 4000 mhz kit is top and bottom of those charts, even changing spots per game per res....
tpu has 2133 running same averages as 3866. need I say more ?
lower latency=better. what is there to discuss ?
Posted on Reply
#27
Vayra86
cucker tarlsontpu has 2133 running same averages as 3866. need I say more ?
lower latency=better. what is there to discuss ?
Your unsubstantiated claim that higher is always better when it comes to RAM. We have no data for that. So if you do, shoot
Posted on Reply
#28
cucker tarlson
Vayra86Your unsubstantiated claim that higher is always better when it comes to RAM.
lol,where did I say that.point me to that,please. :kookoo:
I said lower latency is always better,and higher frequencies impact latency.you made up the rest.
Posted on Reply
#29
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonlol,where did I say that.point me to that,please. :kookoo:
I said lower latency is always better,and higher frequencies impact latency.you made up the rest.
You just repeated it again. Higher speed translates to lower latency, please dont play the fool youre not, just because it is convenient

Data!
Posted on Reply
#30
cucker tarlson
Vayra86You just repeated it again. Higher speed translates to lower latency, please dont play the fool youre not, just because it is convenient

Data!
of course it does,latency is speed and timings,isn't it ?
Posted on Reply
#31
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonof course it does,latency is speed and timings,isn't it ?
Great conclusion, now step two: find gaming results that prove your claim that lower latency always translates to better performance. So far we dont see it in either TPU or Toms results. Its your turn.

A page, now. You are not this thick.
Posted on Reply
#32
cucker tarlson
Vayra86Great conclusion, now step two: find gaming results that prove your claim that lower latency always translates to better performance. So far we dont see it in either TPU or Toms results. Its your turn.

A page, now. You are not this thick.
yes,cause past 3200 cl15 it stops.it's an even better one.
just cause it stops scaling upwards doesn't mean it's not there.
Posted on Reply
#33
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonyes,cause past 3200 cl15 it stops.it's an even better one.
just cause it stops scaling upwards doesn't mean it's not there.
Its only there if you can prove it with a result. Otherwise its a meaningless number and coming back to your first comment about having 4800 on Intel is somehow better/no compromise for certain workloads equals horse shit.

But I already know this ;)
Posted on Reply
#34
cucker tarlson
Vayra86Its only there if you can prove it with a result. Otherwise its a meaningless number and coming back to your first comment about having 4800 on Intel is somehow better/no compromise for certain workloads equals horse shit.

But I already know this ;)
lol,you are not well.

the guy was throwing tantrums about not including ryzen,but how was ryzen even possible with 4800mhz ram,that's what I pointed out.
Posted on Reply
#35
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonlol,you are not well.

the guy was throwing tantrums about not including ryzen,but how was ryzen even possible with 4800mhz ram,that's what I pointed out.
You pointed that out, like this:
cucker tarlsonyes,this is not a budget/value oriented build.therefore it gets 64gb ofg 4800mhz ddr4 and an i9,not ryzen and 16gb of 3600.
there are other games than fortnite too,I think.
who is it for?for someone who doesn't care about performance per dollar but performance overall.
cucker tarlsonlol,one game,good review. :laugh:
lower latency euqals better gaming performance.I thought this needs not be explained on a tech forum like TPU but I was wrong apparently.
So, come again?? Please, do I need to put it in bold capital too?
Posted on Reply
#36
cucker tarlson
Vayra86So, come again?? Please
Is 4800 (even at cl19) better than your 3200 c15 ? of course it is. it's 39ns vs 48ns.

please,I'm not going to discuss which number is lower.
Posted on Reply
#37
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonIs 4800 (even at cl19) better than your 3200 c15 ? of course it is. it's 39ns vs 48ns.

please,I'm not going to discuss which number is lower.
Discuss less and prove that the lower number translates to performance, its what we have 2 pages full of right now. You talk an awful lot for not wanting to discuss...
Posted on Reply
#38
cucker tarlson
Vayra86Discuss less and prove that the lower number translates to performance, its what we have 2 pages full of right now. You talk an awful lot for not wanting to discuss...
I did.
lower latency is better.
just like higher frequency is better.

please,prove me wrong,since you're in the mood for destroying every sensible thing you said on TPU.
Posted on Reply
#39
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonI did.
lower latency is better.
just like higher frequency is better.

please,prove me wrong,since you're in the mood for destroying every sensible thing you said on TPU.
There are already several sources in this thread to serve that purpose... but you discard them only to put nothing up against it in response except 'muh latency number is lower so must be better'... there are several posts here proving you wrong on that statement....
Posted on Reply
#40
cucker tarlson
Vayra86There are already several sources in this thread to serve that purpose...
yeah yeah yeah
:laugh:

it's a good thing that 3200 is all we ever need for gaming

it's already proved 3600 c16 is faster than 3200 c15


3600 c15 can regularly scale 5% faster than 3200 c15 in cpu limited scenarios
www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,3

that's not insignificat considering that's what you're often getting from 400mhz on the cpu too

now tell me 4000 c16 or 4800 cl18 isn't gonna be faster than 3200 c15
Posted on Reply
#41
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonyeah yeah yeah
:laugh:

it's a good thing that 3200 is all we ever need for gaming

it's already proved 3600 c16 is faster than 3200 c15


3600 c15 can regularly scale 5% faster than 3200 c15 in cpu limited scenarios
www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,3

that's not insignificat considering that's what you're often getting from 400mhz on the cpu too
Since when is 3600 cl 15 the same as 4800?!?!... of which 3600 ALSO runs on the Ryzen setup by the way so this does not support your case in the slightest ;)

So again. Prove that 4800 benefits ANY workload, until then you are talking out of your ass. Dont change the goal post now, be a man

You might learn something who knows
Posted on Reply
#42
cucker tarlson
Vayra86So again. Prove that 4800 benefits ANY workload, until then you are talking out of your ass. Dont change the goal post now, be a man
get your reading glasses,I can't help it.

can Ryzen support 64gb running at 3600,let alone 4800mhz too ? :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#43
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonget your reading glasses,I can't help it.

can Ryzen support 64gb running at 3600,let alone 4800mhz too ? :rolleyes:
I did. Here is what I see...

Diminishing returns above 3000 already, and only a gain when a CL 15 can be maintained. Does this keep scaling? Nobody can tell. It can easily flatline already at 4000 CL15. Let alone show gains at 4800 with higher CAS.

So again. 4800 is not 3600 and your claim in the first post here was wild and unsubstantiated. It still is. You still haven't proven jack shit.

So now you jump to 64 GB. OKAY. But how does that relate to gaming, now? I like to talk about substance, not assumption.

But back to the core of this discussion. Your statement earlier implied that Adata chose Intel 'because it offers something faster' but in reality it chose Intel clearly because it points these systems at rich kids with money to burn and zero sense - and that is exactly the target market for >2000 dollar 'gaming' products. In their mind, Intel is still king, and that is why these rigs get an Intel CPU. This was never about no compromise performance at all.

Just call it what it is, please. God almighty

Posted on Reply
#44
cucker tarlson
Vayra86I did. Here is what I see...

Diminishing returns above 3000 already, and only a gain when a CL 15 can be maintained. Does this keep scaling? Nobody can tell. It can easily flatline already at 4000 CL15. Let alone show gains at 4800 with higher CAS.

So again. 4800 is not 3600 and your claim in the first post here was wild and unsubstantiated. It still is. You still haven't proven jack shit.

So now you jump to 64 GB. OKAY. But how does that relate to gaming, now? I like to talk about substance, not assumption.

But back to the core of this discussion. Your statement earlier implied that Adata chose Intel 'because it offers something faster' but in reality it chose Intel clearly because it points these systems at rich kids with money to burn and zero sense - and that is exactly the target market for >2000 dollar 'gaming' products. In their mind, Intel is still king, and that is why these rigs get an Intel CPU. This was never about no compromise performance at all.

Just call it what it is, please. God almighty

lol,a paint line,really.and if you knew percenatges you'd know 2400 to 2133 is 12.5% while 3600 to 3333 is 8%,that's why you're seeing the curve flatten.

no,I'm not NOW jumping to 64gb,you'd know that if you READ MY DAMN POSTS :roll:

you're still arguing about curves,I thought you of all people would understand the point.

I'm not defending a 4800mhz ram purchase as a value option,I'm saying it's possible on one platform only.you think XPG are selling a budget pc with 64gigs of 4.8ghz ram ? is that what you're debating.
well,good luck.pointless.

@Vayra86 3200 to 3333 and then to 3600 is altogether 0.5% less than 2133 to 2400 alone.Yet if you look at min/avg fps the performance increase is the same ~5.5% :rolleyes:

Any questions ?

@Vayra86 64gb is literally mentioned in my first post.yet you're acting like it's my last resort.

you're in the troll mode today ?
Posted on Reply
#45
Vayra86
cucker tarlsonlol,a paint line,really.and if you knew percenatges you'd know 2400 to 2133 is 12.5% while 3600 to 3333 is 8%,that's why you're seeing the curve flatten.

no,I'm not NOW jumping to 64gb,you'd know that if you READ MY DAMN POSTS :roll:

you're still arguing about curves,I thought you of all people would understand the point.

I'm not defending a 4800mhz ram purchase as a value option,I'm saying it's possible on one platform only.you think XPG are selling a budget pc with 64gigs of 4.8ghz ram ? is that what you're debating.
well,good luck.pointless.

@Vayra86 3200 to 3333 and then to 3600 is altogether 0.5% less than 2133 to 2400 alone.Yet if you look at min/avg fps the performance increase is the same ~5.5% :rolleyes:

Any questions ?

@Vayra86 64gb is literally mentioned in my first post.yet you're acting like it's my last resort.

you're in the troll mode today ?
No questions, no troll mode, read back a bit, I have invited you to explore what the jump to 4800 would mean; is it worth that and how does that relate to your statement of 'must be Intel'. You're not incorrect. But I question the value of that statement, because you went on for quite a few posts defending its merit. The curve matters, because if it flattens out when you're up to, or long before 4800, why bother.

The debate on page 1 started with that, and I kept trying to get you back to thát.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 25th, 2024 12:42 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts