Just Monika

16GB is a very healthy amount of RAM to the point where it's effectively "unlimited RAM" for gaming/streaming purposes (ie: you never have to monitor your RAM usage - go wild with it). You won't need anything more probably for the lifetime of your PC. I have 16 GB RAM myself and the most I've ever seen used in my system at once was ~10GB playing various games with several Firefox tabs open (about 10-20).

Not bad, I thought I spent more on games than I did. $493 Current account value $409 Total cost with sales 4 Steam level $7.14 Average price $3.93 Average price per hour 77 Games owned 3,362h Hours on record 96.1h Average playtime 42 Games not played 55% Games not played

Awesome. The exact year I'm set to retire my current build.

I "got" myself some Bluetooth earbuds (Jaybird X3) for my phone for $99 CAD + taxes and free shipping. By "got" I meant got them on backorder on Best Buy and and highly unsure of whether the order will actually go through.

My desktop has 400+ wallpapers cycling every 10 minutes, so it's never constant. My phone wallpaper never changes though.

Honestly can't think of a "single" game. My childhood is an incoherent blur. Doom 1 & 2 Wolfenstein 3D Neopets Runescape (today known as "Runescape Classic") StarCraft 1 (base game) Pokemon Red/Blue

My own death doesn't bother me as much as "normal" people. I'm more afraid of dying a slow death, in other words, more afraid of the process of dying rather than the death itself. Hard to be afraid when you're dead.

I "made" money from donations for creating and releasing script packages for Arma 2/3 DayZ and related spinoff mods. I say "made" in quotes because my goal wasn't to earn any kind of income, I only set up a donation method after repeated requests to make such an option available. I wouldn't recommend donations as a money-making method at all, unless you were some hugely popular Twitch streamer with 10K-100K+ followers (then again, such people probably have sponsorships...). I also didn't spend much of the money on myself, I used most of the donation money to buy a legit copy of Arma 2 for myself (reasons) to continue my code-writing hobby and a copy of Arma 3 + DLCs when it was released to continue supporting my users who would move to A3.

I just checked my monitor color settings and they seem to be factory default, I had changed them before but they seem to be lost. The color settings are also default in the Nvidia CP, I've uninstalled and reinstalled the Nvidia software so many times that I've forgotten to re-apply my color settings. Brightness is 77% while contrast is 75%, but besides that everything is factory default. I am using the ICC profile which was bundled with the Dell monitor drivers. I've read that people consider the factory ICC profile "washed out" but I don't see it personally (like I said, my eyes have low standards!). I've tried looking for a non-factory ICC profile but I've only been able to find profiles for the S2716DG.

Here are some pictures of an image on the S2417DG and the MX259H and the image itself for comparison. There was "calibration" but I highly doubt it's properly calibrated. The images on the two monitors look very "gridline" in the photos even after several attempts but I don't know why. I think its a phone camera or lighting issue. There is no gridline effect when viewed on the actual monitors. http://imgur.com/a/3rfKp Don't know if the images are of any help. I'm not a good photographer by any stretch of the imagination. :\

What the hell is with the war against porn lately?

Not at all, Windows 10 automatically applies 125% scaling so it should look the same as 24" inch 1080p but with the image sharpness benefit of 1440p. However with 1440p/24 inch you have to balance a few pros and cons. You do lose the benefit of increased desktop space of 1440p by using 125% scaling. 100% scaling gives you back the desktop space but makes everything uncomfortably small. But with 24", the smaller viewing angle of TN monitors becomes almost a non-issue, while 27" (S2716DG) users have commented on color shifting due to the larger screen size. I do like the higher PPI of 24" + 1440p. I have a 25" 1080p IPS monitor next to my S2416DG as my secondary monitor, and the PPI difference is night and day. On the 25" 1080p I can actually see the pixels on the grey LTT background (I use day theme) while they're far too small to see on 24" 1440p. If you prefer increased image sharpness over desktop space, 1440p is not a problem with 24". The higher PPI also means there is less need to use AA while gaming, which means you can regain lost performance that would have otherwise been spent on AA. Since you say you would like to keep your monitor for a longer period of time, I would suggest you go big on the S2417DG. The price might sting at first, but all the features will keep you satisfied for the 4+ years you'll be using it. Plus you'll have reason to keep it for longer, while with a 60 Hz/non-Gsync monitor you may be tempted to upgrade each time you look at a monitor with better features. You'll have to make the final decision for yourself based on your own financial situation though and whether you intend on staying with Nvidia for your next GPU upgrade due to the vendor lock-in of Gsync.

I have the S2417DG and currently using it as my primary monitor. It is a TN monitor above TN monitors for sure, although it supposedly doesn't quite compare to a standard IPS monitor (my untrained eyes can't tell the quality difference), it is much better than any TN monitor than I have used before. While my IPS monitor (Asus MX259H) completely blew my mind once it replaced my previous TN monitor (S24C300L), the S2417DG didn't look much worse (if at all) compared to the MX259H in terms of colors. Keep in mind that your opinions may differ, my eyes might just have low(er) standards. Gaming is a pleasure with the S2417DG. I have it paired with a GTX 1080 and everything I throw at it is smooth all the way, even with the usual +/- 10-20 FPS variations, which I don't notice at all. This is my first high-refresh (60Hz+) and Gsync monitor so I guess the smoothness is all thanks to Gsync? Personally I think the S2417DG and its 27-inch counterpart (S2716DG) are the safest 144Hz/1440p/Gysnc monitors to purchase in terms of quality issues. If you want those 3 features in an IPS monitor, there is currently a "quality lottery" to get a monitor that have issues like BLB. On the other hand, Dell has a good reputation for quality and there much less (if any) quality issues with their monitors. I did a lot of research when deciding between a TN or IPS 144Hz/1440p/Gysnc monitor, so that is what I've found. My recommendation is to wait for a good deal since the S2417DG and S2716DG go on sale very often on Dell's website. Besides the sale discount, there is also a coupon code for 10% off ( 10%OFFMONITOR ), a student discount, and cash back through Ebates. I don't know all the details off the top of my head, but you should go poke around Google to see what other deals and discounts you can get before you make your purchase. I think I saved about $250 (?) CAD with all the discounts stacked. So tl;dr - yes, definitely a good buy. Just a friendly reminder - "2K" doesn't mean 1440p, it is a resolution category that includes resolutions like 1920x1080 (aka: "1080p"). The sticky note in this forum section explains more on these resolution terms:

Sketchy SSD and a 1060... I'd call it a "life support kit" rather than "revival kit".

Well, I don't know how to simplify it even further. You basically get the idea it seems. You essentially have a "voltage bottleneck", not a CPU bottleneck. If it was a CPU bottleneck the message would be something like "Util", which could indicate low GPU utilization due to CPU bottleneck but more often just indicates low processing load.

Not exactly a downside, but a "working" monitor overclock could be suffering from frame-skipping, meaning your overclocked monitor might not be able to display all the frames it's getting. You can test for frame skipping using this online tool: http://www.testufo.com/#test=frameskipping . If frame skipping is found, you'll have to decrease the overclock until no frame skipping is found.

According to my best friend, "right click - search Google for...", Vrel means that the GPU core is at its maximum clock speed at the current voltage level, and can't boost clock speed any further without losing stability. In simpler terms, the GPU can't boost any further unless you give it more voltage.

It only looks like that in benchmark testing, but there is close to no real-world performance benefits. In some cases there are even performance decreases. On the whole, the cases of performance increases/decreases almost cancel themselves out with no real net gain, so it's not worth using. Also in the unlucky event of a power outage while data is cached in RAM, you might be screwed.

RAPID mode - uses RAM for temporary storage, so your RAM speeds are being displayed, not your actual SSD speeds. If I had a penny for each time a thread was made about high 840/850 EVO/Pro speeds due to RAPID mode, I'd have enough money to buy a first-world country.

I was amazed as you are, but there was a larger proportion of pro-forced update users back then. Something about stubborn Windows users disabling updates causing themselves to be vulnerable to security exploits, can't remember specifics but that was the gist of it. I am glad that people have largely wised up since then judging by the responses in this thread so far.

Forced automatic updates have never been a good idea from the start. I said the same thing months ago and was shot down by certain people, I hope those people had the misfortune of being this update's latest victims.

I am really praying to the CPU gods that AMD won't drop the ball on Zen. From what it looks like right now, I may seriously consider a AMD-based system for the first time in my next build in ~2020 if everything reported thus far is true.

What the hell kind of website is that?

Do not trust Task Manager for clock speeds. My 4690S regularly shows 4.0+ GHz speeds in Task Manager even though it is a locked CPU and cannot boost past 3.9 GHz on a single core.

Looks like a GTX 1080 for 1080p gaming soon won't be a lame joke but a sad reality.