Fulgrim

Cba taking pics, but my router is downstairs in the hallway, hidden ontop of a bookcase. I have the ethernet cable running under the carpets, it goes upstairs, over a doorframe and into my room.
 
Used to have wireless, until my mum was out for an entire day, and i put the cable in. She still thinks i'm using wireless.

There is another way... you savvy?

OP asks for lesser known bands/artists, and you post Tool, Alice in Chains &  Nirvana?  <_<

Aida64
 
I have the Jack Sparrow edition. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Aida64
 
I have the Jack Sparrow edition. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Firstly, sorry if this isn't the right place for this but i thought it'd garner some attention better here.

@Linus Tech  @Slick
Now, on to the topic at hand. When watching the Computex livestream i did notice that the visual look of each benchmark differed slightly, and the presumption that people jumped to was that the RX 480 benchmark, had lower settings to be able to match/beat the framerate of a GTX1080, when running two RX 480's in crossfire. It seems that in fact the numbers are legit, and not cherry picked/altered to make the card seem better than what it is. AMD_Robert from Reddit cleared this up.
 
Skip to 20:38 for the AOTS section.
 
Source

Below are 1440p benchmarks done of AOTS (not used in the livestream)
GTX 1080 AOTS benchmark
RX 480 Crossfire AOTS benchmark

Update: 
 
Thanks to @Notional for mentioning this tweet.

I prefer physical tbh, because it'll require registering online to a service like Steam/Origin/Uplay, and then i have the option of installing from disc, or just downloading directly. 

But some old games aren't purchasable in physical format any more, but that's where Steam / GoG come into play.

Firstly, sorry if this isn't the right place for this but i thought it'd garner some attention better here.

@Linus Tech  @Slick
Now, on to the topic at hand. When watching the Computex livestream i did notice that the visual look of each benchmark differed slightly, and the presumption that people jumped to was that the RX 480 benchmark, had lower settings to be able to match/beat the framerate of a GTX1080, when running two RX 480's in crossfire. It seems that in fact the numbers are legit, and not cherry picked/altered to make the card seem better than what it is. AMD_Robert from Reddit cleared this up.
 
Skip to 20:38 for the AOTS section.
 
Source

Below are 1440p benchmarks done of AOTS (not used in the livestream)
GTX 1080 AOTS benchmark
RX 480 Crossfire AOTS benchmark

Update: 
 
Thanks to @Notional for mentioning this tweet.

What is relevant is the implementation not the when. The argument can be made against Hitman, that async compute is basically doing nothing in that game, but not Total War or Quantum Break. Quantum Break uses it for their lighting and I don't need to tell you what it's used for in Warhammer. Maybe you want the info from the horse's mouth?
 
 

Firstly, sorry if this isn't the right place for this but i thought it'd garner some attention better here.

@Linus Tech  @Slick
Now, on to the topic at hand. When watching the Computex livestream i did notice that the visual look of each benchmark differed slightly, and the presumption that people jumped to was that the RX 480 benchmark, had lower settings to be able to match/beat the framerate of a GTX1080, when running two RX 480's in crossfire. It seems that in fact the numbers are legit, and not cherry picked/altered to make the card seem better than what it is. AMD_Robert from Reddit cleared this up.
 
Skip to 20:38 for the AOTS section.
 
Source

Below are 1440p benchmarks done of AOTS (not used in the livestream)
GTX 1080 AOTS benchmark
RX 480 Crossfire AOTS benchmark

Update: 
 
Thanks to @Notional for mentioning this tweet.

That doesn't make you right, you fucking twat.

Oh, you special little snowflake. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Irrefutable in the sense that they are benchmarks done within the game, and uploaded directly to AOTS servers. You can see the game settings, as well as the framerates for batch types etc.

Are you suggesting they are refutable? And if so, please explain how.

Oh, you special little snowflake. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Firstly, FX was found to be lacking years ago. Secondly, is this a recent discovery for you?

Not shocking at all. It's mainly because they're comparing the performance of graphics cards here, not cpu performance. Using different processors is an extra, unnecessary variable to prove something which we already know.  
 
If someone's wanting to spend ~£600 on a rendering machine, i'd still recommend an FX8350. Or for a really low budget gaming rig, an Anthlon x4 860k.
 
 
And wanting/trying to compare something like an i5 6600k / 5930k / 5820k to a much cheaper & older FX8350 is flat out retarded. The FX series of chips is severely outdated, this is a well known fact. But at the time of release, the FX8350 was a great choice for anyone going for a rendering/livestreaming rig, on a low budget.  And for those that got an FX 8350 instead of an i5, will get a significant boost with DirectX 12 due to better multicore utilization, than what an i5 would.

It's not shocking at all. I can kind of understand wanting to see how FX chips benefit from DirectX 12, with the new cards. But it's not that big of a deal. FX is over and done with, they're promoting their new products, not their old shit. And the fact is, that the majority of PC gamers will have an Intel quad core. Look at the Steam hardware survey...
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
 
You're a fucking tool if they're gonna focus on promoting their old FX chips. And it's already been shown that DirectX 12 will provide a boost for those that can't afford to upgrade.
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-03/hitman-benchmarks-directx-12/2/

The FX chips fit a small niche, as i state earlier. Something like a £600 rendering/streaming rig. But aside from that, FX chips are not worth recommending nowadays. And by new FX, are you referring to their APU's, or the "E" revisions they did  - the FX8320E & FX8370E?

Until we get benchmarks and a price tag, i don't give a fuck, and neither should you, OP.

Firstly, sorry if this isn't the right place for this but i thought it'd garner some attention better here.

@Linus Tech  @Slick
Now, on to the topic at hand. When watching the Computex livestream i did notice that the visual look of each benchmark differed slightly, and the presumption that people jumped to was that the RX 480 benchmark, had lower settings to be able to match/beat the framerate of a GTX1080, when running two RX 480's in crossfire. It seems that in fact the numbers are legit, and not cherry picked/altered to make the card seem better than what it is. AMD_Robert from Reddit cleared this up.
 
Skip to 20:38 for the AOTS section.
 
Source

Below are 1440p benchmarks done of AOTS (not used in the livestream)
GTX 1080 AOTS benchmark
RX 480 Crossfire AOTS benchmark

Update: 
 
Thanks to @Notional for mentioning this tweet.

If it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.

Although personally i would not do this.

And people blaming AMD for the result 

will do fam

Firstly, sorry if this isn't the right place for this but i thought it'd garner some attention better here.

@Linus Tech  @Slick
Now, on to the topic at hand. When watching the Computex livestream i did notice that the visual look of each benchmark differed slightly, and the presumption that people jumped to was that the RX 480 benchmark, had lower settings to be able to match/beat the framerate of a GTX1080, when running two RX 480's in crossfire. It seems that in fact the numbers are legit, and not cherry picked/altered to make the card seem better than what it is. AMD_Robert from Reddit cleared this up.
 
Skip to 20:38 for the AOTS section.
 
Source

Below are 1440p benchmarks done of AOTS (not used in the livestream)
GTX 1080 AOTS benchmark
RX 480 Crossfire AOTS benchmark

Update: 
 
Thanks to @Notional for mentioning this tweet.