Yes, here I'm referring to actual ECC, not the on-die ECC. All DDR5 chips have on-die ECC as a prerequisite just to reach error levels comparable to standard non-ECC DDR4, but from a hardware analysis perspective, even with the on-die ECC, DDR5 still needs ECC more than DDR4 (which already needed it).

Yes, I liked using them for NAS builds. Great for ZFS machines.

Intel is weird with their stuff like that, I wrote about how they introduced and then dropped an SHA instruction that could be used to optimize hashing (useful for things like block checksum hashes on storage servers) before: https://neosmart.net/blog/will-amds-ryzen-finally-bring-sha-...

Wait until you find out that some lower-tier Intel CPUs can use regular RAM in an ECC mode, albeit losing some capacity and throughput.

I switch between a variety of displays throughout my day, ranging from 60hz up through 240hz and yes there’s an obvious visual difference, but I adapt to it in a matter of seconds.

It’s nice for games but I don’t really care for productivity use. In fact in that situation I’d take integer-scaled HiDPI density over refresh rate in that scenario.

I wish I could be like you, because going back to 60Hz feels like everything is stuttering for me.

How many watts are you saving with that, realistically? If that few minutes of extra battery is a game changer, you need a bigger battery, not a worse screen.

Never thought I'd meet someone who's eyes can't see "more than X Hz anyways".

What phone is that? I thought they all had variable refresh rate nowadays.

I have a 60hz monitor and a 144hz monitor and I simply can't tell the difference in normal usage. I can see a difference on something like http://testufo.com if I specifically look for it, and until I checked that I assumed the OS was just lying to me and the monitor was actually set to 60hz.