Here is a good article on how the m.2 is better, and faster. Again, you need to make sure the chipset. motherboard and chip can provide the PCI lanes for it. You are right that they are esentially just a growth from SATA to M.2, but M.2 is a better structure and utilizes the improvements to PCI in the last few years. Video cards are a whole other mess, we specially with the costs being off the wall, so I would go looking around at comparisons and finding just what you want for your specific application. The Quadros and Radeons are what I have seen people use who are using them for rendering only.

Thanks. Good info. I thought the big difference between M.2 and other SSDs was the I/O. SATA vs the M.2 interface to a lane(s).

Thoritsu, I am sold on SSD's and cost wise they have become fairly competetive vs disks drives, but the real saving is in the fact I have never had one die, and I have one of the original Intel SSDs (bought through the employee purchase program when the first came out 128 GB for 250.00, and that was cheap). Windows now takes care of all the cleaning and maintence in the background. I really like Samsung EVO as they are fast and seem impervious to any problems. Another bonus is I have never had a meltdown from windows on an SSD (I had several where an update would just kill some portion of the startp files, and I think it always was something to do with cache and rebooting and not completing the update) The M.2 is just a form factor, you can get 1GB now on them pretty cheap, but it still is an SSD. I have never gone Apple, so I cannot speak to it, but others here use them regularly, my complaint was always cost vs return on them. The PCI Lanes on a particular board or CPU usually will drive your cost, but they keep driving that down, if you are looking at Rendering for photos and video coding, then I would say you need to look at some specific groups where people will have recommendation, but I supported a web group on youtube called Trekyards and we used a I7 5930 and it only supported 28 lanes of PCI, you went up to 40 with the I7 5940. Since they are now "old" the newer ones need you to check how they enable lanes on it, as it is chipset and CPU driven now, and they control them to drive the price point. I did see a comparison on TomsHardware between the latest AMD offering vs Intel and they indicated that photo/video may benefit more from the AMD chip because they offer more cores and threads, vs Intel and Intel did better on gaming benchmarks and frame rates. So you may consider an AMD CPU. Memory is rather pricey right now so consider that as well,I have Win 7 on an I7 5930 running 16 GB and I use about 20% right now, and go up to 60% running photo editor with multiple images blending. As far as a case goes, no matter what else I strongly recommend you go with this one, as it is the most superbly laid out case I have ever used (and I have built probably 20 PCs over the years), for cooling as well as access, it is a bit wider, but you get a place in the back where you mount your SSD's and room for 6 more drives, as well as lots of neat ways to route cables and full filters you can remove and clean. I will not use anyother case, unless they go out of business:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B...

Thank you, great information and context.

I enjoy your commentary as well.

Don’t care that much about the cost, but don’t need to waste a lot of money.
Do internet, some programming, some programming of embedded devices (e.g Raspberry PI et al), do picture editing and want to get into rendering.
I like the power and upgradability of a PC, but also really like running Windows on a Mac using VM ware Fusion. It works great.
I am totally ok with building a computer. I’ve done it before, and am pretty technical.
I am just trying to decide:
M.2 vs The Apple Fusion(?) drive. Or SSD
The lanes on a PC vs Thunderbolt/USB3.1
An Nvidia 1080ti vs the Mac AMD cards for rendering.
Also wondering about the 7700k (iMac or PC) 79xx (PC), and Xeon (iMac pro)

Thanks for the explanations, Thor. I really enjoy your sharing your experience.

What do you want to do with the computer, what is your budget, which is more important budget or performance (or having a "popular" or "braggable" computer)?
Do you want to be able to upgrade it in the future?
I almost always build my own and I hate being stuck with proprietary soft/hardware that prevents upgrading. (But I have a limited budget and now upgrade with 4 year old technology- since it actually impedes my use very little. ;^) Building your own is easy once you set your requirements and budget.

It is from a collection of features. The Trimaran hull is efficient through the water. It breaks the hull length/speed barrier by disrupting the longitudinal wave down the side of the hull. However, it has a poor internal volume to surface area ratio. To save weight for the interior stuff, without making the ship huge (and therefore expensive), they used aluminum. Aluminum is different to weld, but once you are proficient it is straightforward. The main issue is the color of the metal doesn't change with its phase, so you can't "see" when it becomes liquid. You can also cute panels with a carbide skill saw blade (no kidding). If you go to Austal, you'll see them fabricating the ship with skillsaws. They can't really work in large scale steel there, so they are making a big push for aluminum.

Theycan put the 76mm on either LCS. We have confirmed theat with both shipyards, and can offer the 76mm for the same price as the 57mm. However, the Navy is sticking with the 57mm popgun with some BS story about standard ammunition, even with the change to the FFG(X). This means our frigates will be out gunned by about everything tin the ocean bigger than a fast patrol boat. Hopefully, this is just because missiles like the Harpoon.

Seems like airplanes are ahead, but they have a much higher draw for weight savings, and much shorter life. We make the hull cylinders for the Dreamliner. They are all composite. The main reason the composite is specifically required is to have larger windows. The composite allows non-isotropic strength, by changing the fiber orientation. This is largely (not entirely) impossible in metal structure.

I doubt composites will take over steel and limited aluminum for a long time in large military ships. Repair is so easy by welding, and there is inadequate weight attention.

My little brother teaches a class in aerospace structures, and one of his oolies (sp?) is that in each step ships, to cars to airplanes to spacecraft there is a 10x structural density requirement.

Ok, now your turn to enlighten me on my next PC. I am trying to decide between an all out gaming setup (no I don't game) and a iMac or iMac Pro.

WOW, that seems to be a rather large gap in capability between steel and Al. Why would they even consider Al as a hull material in the first place with that much gap? Especially given that heavy weather and even small cannon like 76 mm or even Gatling rounds would be able to shred the stuff pretty quickly. Seems like one A10 could take one out if it can breach it's air defense perimeter.

Thank you, I was really curious about the composite thing, since it seems they have gotten pretty good at manufacturing with it.

There are certainly some things I know, and some things I think I know. This one, I know.

See the discussion at the top of p245 in the attached and Figure 14.4:
https://www.asminternational.org/docu...

The main issue with AL superstructure is not so much strength or cracking as fires. Modern missiles and rounds will penetrate either, but AL burns. Also, in a fire, AL loses virtually all of its strength from strain hardening or heat treatment, and returns to a base AL, which is pretty weak.

Composite superstructures are used. DDG1000 has one. However, challenges in its manufacture and repair have caused the Navy to revert to steel or aluminum in most cases.
https://news.usni.org/2013/08/05/navy...

I see, I was referencing him just because he was a star in procurement, in building the Virginia class of SSN, and making them on time and under budget. He was also my first division officer in 1977/8. I had talke with several SKC's about procurement and contracts, because we often had issues with getting cards for our sonar system that were little square things about 3x5, and they would cost 10 grand and up, and yet were "not repairable" and we were flabbergasted that they were tossed. You couldn't even make sure they were bad, as there was no test unit for individual cards, as they had a standard 48 pin socket, but no machine was ever made available. Made you think someone was making deals somewhere's for something.

I would think that aluminum would have an endurance limit as proven by the Comet tragedy. Stressed over and over again (such as in pounding seas where your bow extends up with no support and then crashes down) would it not be subject to fatigue as much as steel? Remember the issues with the Liberty ships, where, although steel, would tend to fracture forward of the superstructure after just a few runs? Design, as well as materials all work together to determine the inherent strength of a hull, doesn't it? The use of aluminum in superstructure I would think would also be problematical after the Falklands test, and, I believe we also had a US ship in a similar situation didn't we? I assume you are much more well informed on specific stress and strength data. I would think maybe non metal materials may be the way to go for superstructures, it would be great to see a Kevlar like material developed that could be used, and yea to the Star Destroyer!

Aluminum does not have an endurance limit, but steel does. Aluminum will eventually fail under cyclic stress, regardless of the load. This is why some airplane parts must be replaced on hours, even if they look fine. There is a lot good about that hull, but not longevity or a real blue water Frigate mission.

All in on Star Destroyers!

He’s not the one. I’m also not clear if I am breaking any unwritten rules or protocol by even speaking of him without his permission, which I have now sought. He has not yet responded. One other list member does know him.

My only point was simply that there are highly capable and ethical people in government procurement, but they are bound by the rules that are set up by others. While he doesn’t discuss details, I do know he is often quite frustrated, no matter which side of the procurement he is on. There are highly capable and even brilliant and patriotic entrepreneurial people out there trying to do a good job but struggling under the "system."

Would it be this guy?

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/nav...

I have never understood the gun thing,I would want at least 2 127mm guns between me and most Russian ships, who also seem to be into the big gun camp.

Yes, modern torpedoes all are "keel busters" so they will go for the center of mass. Aluminium was proven in the Falklands to be a terrible thing for a ship as the Excoet proved, it burns, stops nothing, and shreds into really good shrapnel. I am sure the fatigue factor is much less than steel as well, and those ships take a pounding day after day at sea. I also saw several reports taht the mission module idea also was not working out as good as was advertised. I still like the FREMM, we need more Star Destroyers......

They are fast, but whimpy.

It is aluminum and cracks all over. Thses hulls will be lucky to serve for 15-20 years.

In addition, neither a torpedo, a naval gun or a missile would be targeted at or protected against by the outer hulls. A torpedo does not approach like the WWII movies, and a missile targets heat or radar returns. It will seek the center.

The purpose of the hull design is efficiency through the water and providing a large helicopter deck.

Queered by politics.

They are building FFG(X) to replace LCS (little crappy ship), which is militarily inadequate. They are keeping LM and Austal with their two LCS-based platforms in the competition to avoid massive political pressure.

The BIW, Ingalls and Fincanteri (Marinette Marine) offerings are far superior. They are based on the Spanish/Navantia F100, USCG Nationals Security Cutter and Italianversion of the FREMM respectively.

Another bit of nonsense is maintaining the 57mm gun as the main gun, with a range of ~7 miles. All our allies frigates use a 76 mm or 127 mm gun, with an available range of over 26 miles. More politics.

However, this ship should be more capable than the LCS.

Actually, the Independence class ship is an ingenious design, quite fast, very stable, and very maneuverable. The triple hulls give a wide base without the drag of a wide conventional hull. The fastest sailboats are triple-hulled. It's also designed with ballast tanks, to raise the hull depth in shallow waters, and drop it for more stability in rough seas. It's also more damage-resistant, as the outer hulls can take a shot from a torpedo or missile, and leave the center hull unharmed.

A good college friend of mine is chairman of one of the companies involved in this, and has been a Navy person (military and civilian) all his life. He finds the work challenging and stimulating, but will rarely talk about the politics involved. He went from submarine command as an admiral to shipbuilding in private industry and probably has some interesting tales to tell in terms of procurement, if he were able to share them. He's the type of person we should be glad to have doing this work - highly ethical and intelligent.