NuclearPeace

TRIGGERED
 
[Insert massive rant here]
 
FFS. Please Jesus. I have $150 USD Sennheiser Headphones. Not cheap garbage. It's not easy for me to buy new $150 USB-C headphones and why should I?

Anyone who thinks that the headphone jack being removed off the iPhone or the Macbook for the user's benefit or to advance technology is kidding themselves.
 
Its all about money. Apple is a publicly traded company and shareholders demand that profits constantly rise. When the sales of the 6S and the 6 are falling like a cliff because new phones provide little incentive to upgrade, then Apple needs to look for a new revenue source, which is licensing fees through accessories.
 
Every adapter, splitter, or dock with Lightning has to pay Apple licensing fees. Apple didn't make a cent when people bought 3.5mm audio jack equipped headphones, but they do when people buy Lightning headphones or card readers. Apple also gets a cut when people buy Beats or have to go buy new cheap earbuds that sell like wildfire when they break their current ones. Even with Bluetooth, Apple wins. They will sell those $160 Airpods which are most likely going to have cheap build quality that will make it easier for them to break. Even if one earbud gets lost, damaged, or stolen, you're looking at dropping another $160.
 
The same lunacy happened on the Macbook. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know why just having one USB C port is dumb. If you need to charge and use a mouse at the same time? Well, Apple sells you this $80 splitter for that function. If you damage that USB C port and literally have no way to charge it again? Oops, I guess you should have bought AppleCare.

Anyone who thinks that the headphone jack being removed off the iPhone or the Macbook for the user's benefit or to advance technology is kidding themselves.
 
Its all about money. Apple is a publicly traded company and shareholders demand that profits constantly rise. When the sales of the 6S and the 6 are falling like a cliff because new phones provide little incentive to upgrade, then Apple needs to look for a new revenue source, which is licensing fees through accessories.
 
Every adapter, splitter, or dock with Lightning has to pay Apple licensing fees. Apple didn't make a cent when people bought 3.5mm audio jack equipped headphones, but they do when people buy Lightning headphones or card readers. Apple also gets a cut when people buy Beats or have to go buy new cheap earbuds that sell like wildfire when they break their current ones. Even with Bluetooth, Apple wins. They will sell those $160 Airpods which are most likely going to have cheap build quality that will make it easier for them to break. Even if one earbud gets lost, damaged, or stolen, you're looking at dropping another $160.
 
The same lunacy happened on the Macbook. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know why just having one USB C port is dumb. If you need to charge and use a mouse at the same time? Well, Apple sells you this $80 splitter for that function. If you damage that USB C port and literally have no way to charge it again? Oops, I guess you should have bought AppleCare.

Anyone who thinks that the headphone jack being removed off the iPhone or the Macbook for the user's benefit or to advance technology is kidding themselves.
 
Its all about money. Apple is a publicly traded company and shareholders demand that profits constantly rise. When the sales of the 6S and the 6 are falling like a cliff because new phones provide little incentive to upgrade, then Apple needs to look for a new revenue source, which is licensing fees through accessories.
 
Every adapter, splitter, or dock with Lightning has to pay Apple licensing fees. Apple didn't make a cent when people bought 3.5mm audio jack equipped headphones, but they do when people buy Lightning headphones or card readers. Apple also gets a cut when people buy Beats or have to go buy new cheap earbuds that sell like wildfire when they break their current ones. Even with Bluetooth, Apple wins. They will sell those $160 Airpods which are most likely going to have cheap build quality that will make it easier for them to break. Even if one earbud gets lost, damaged, or stolen, you're looking at dropping another $160.
 
The same lunacy happened on the Macbook. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know why just having one USB C port is dumb. If you need to charge and use a mouse at the same time? Well, Apple sells you this $80 splitter for that function. If you damage that USB C port and literally have no way to charge it again? Oops, I guess you should have bought AppleCare.

Anyone who thinks that the headphone jack being removed off the iPhone or the Macbook for the user's benefit or to advance technology is kidding themselves.
 
Its all about money. Apple is a publicly traded company and shareholders demand that profits constantly rise. When the sales of the 6S and the 6 are falling like a cliff because new phones provide little incentive to upgrade, then Apple needs to look for a new revenue source, which is licensing fees through accessories.
 
Every adapter, splitter, or dock with Lightning has to pay Apple licensing fees. Apple didn't make a cent when people bought 3.5mm audio jack equipped headphones, but they do when people buy Lightning headphones or card readers. Apple also gets a cut when people buy Beats or have to go buy new cheap earbuds that sell like wildfire when they break their current ones. Even with Bluetooth, Apple wins. They will sell those $160 Airpods which are most likely going to have cheap build quality that will make it easier for them to break. Even if one earbud gets lost, damaged, or stolen, you're looking at dropping another $160.
 
The same lunacy happened on the Macbook. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know why just having one USB C port is dumb. If you need to charge and use a mouse at the same time? Well, Apple sells you this $80 splitter for that function. If you damage that USB C port and literally have no way to charge it again? Oops, I guess you should have bought AppleCare.

This is going to be destroyed by the Apple A10.

Regardless if it has the potential to damage motherboards or not its still exceptionally poor design from AMD. Stuff like this makes it hard for me to really get behind AMD as the underdog when they shoot themselves in the foot constantly. If this card was designed properly then there wouldn't have been any discussion about drawing too much current through the PCI-E slot.
 
Firstly, AMD should have stopped being so adamant about only having a 6 pin auxiliary plug. With a TDP of "150w", nobody is going to be using this on a 250-350w crappy no 80+ certified PSU as part of a prebuilt upgrade. 99% of RX 480s are going to be used by system builders who have quality PSUs equipped with 2x 6-8 pin power outputs or more. The 970, which uses the same amount of power, more or less, comes with a 8 pin AND a 6 pin on the reference board. That's 225w of in spec power just from the PSU which allows the card tons of headroom to operate safely. Leaving the RX 480 so little headroom with just a 6 pin isn't going to fool or impress anyone.
 
Secondly, why the hell would you wire half of the power phases up to the +12V PCI-E slot? In the event that the card needs to draw more power, the 6 pin is the safest way to do it due to the lower resistivity (and thus less  ohmic heating) of the 6 pin cables rather than the ultra thin PCI-E connectors. Not only that, but the PCI-E power sources its energy from the 24-pin motherboard power which also needs to power things such as the southbridge, I/O, and audio. Pulling too much power via drawing too much current through that 24-pin motherboard power slot exponentially increases resistance, which is also going to greatly increase the chance of failure via melting or even a fire.
 
I'm glad that add in board partners are fixing the lunacy of the reference design by adding things such as an 8 pin and a DVI connector.

If the 490 is dual Polaris... I cant even just fathom how dumb that would be. AMD is pretty slow when it comes to Crossifre profiles and they even abandoned trying to get rid of the bugs and issues out of some game's Crossfire profiles. Not only that, you would have a 300w+ card that would struggle to beat a ~160w 1080.
 
I thought AMD had a winner with Polaris but with each passing day it becomes more disappointing. After 5 years, the most real world improvements that AMD managed to get out of GCN is porting it to 14nm and getting maybe a 5-10% performance per core improvement.

RX 470's more than likely gonna hit at an MSRP of $149.99 as the R7 370 and R9 270 did.

The pictures above shows it pretty clearly.
But I think this comparison is even better (source: Stuff-Review).
 
To the left we got the Galaxy Nexus. It has a pentile display at 316 PPI.
To the right we got the HTC One X. Full RGB 312 PPI display.

 
 
Despite being a higher PPI, the pentile display looks lower resolution. This is especially noticeable if you look at the blur or red parts of the strip in the Instagram logo.
 
If you look at the screen labeled "RGB" you can see that there is one red, one blue and one green "sub-pixel" for each individual pixel.
For pentile displays, it is often (but not always) one red, one blue and two green, which together makes "two" "individual pixels". This is sometimes called RGBG
 
So on a phone with a resolution of 1920x1080, these are effectively the resolutions you will have:
Red: 960 x 1080
Green: 1920x1080
Blue : 960 x 1080
 
On a 5.5" display, your effective PPI for each individual color would be:
Red: 262 PPI
Green: 400 PPI
Blue : 262 PPI
 
 
That's the gist of it. That's not to say that the screen on the OnePlus 3 will look like a 262 PPI display though. There is more to it than that (like how the subpixels are organized, how much space is between them, how large/small they are, the shape of them etc). But for certain things involving the red and blue subpixels, it will most likely not be as sharp as a full RGB display would be.

I don't get why everyone is so focused on whether its easier to fix a LGA socket pin or a PGA pin. Its easier to bend a LGA pin due to the higher gauge but a motherboard in most cases is cheaper to replace than a CPU. Its easier to repair a PGA CPU due to the lower gauge and more space between pins, but then again its also easier to damage the CPU in the first place.
 
LGA allows for higher pen densities that PGA cannot reasonably achieve. This is why AMD uses Socket G34 for server CPUs; a 1,944 pin PGA socket would just make the socket/package take up too much room. This is also how LGA 115X takes up less room than AM3+ with around 200 more pins.
 
I can only really think of two good reasons to remain with PGA. PGA on AM4 means that there is a potential for compatibility with cooling systems designed for AM3+. A switch to LGA would make the socket smaller and thus the mounting holes would have to accomodate, making current AM3+ coolers require adapter plates. PGA also means that AM4 could be physically compatible with AM3+ CPUs. Personally I think the decision is down to option 1 as I don't think AMD would want to acknowledge Bulldozer derived CPUs exist after Zen hits.

I know better than to listen to AMD marketing hype with how well Bulldozer went down.

Can't say that I really care about what AMD calls it as or what internal benchmarks they do. I would rather wait until third parties review the hardware than take the manufacturer at their word because both AMD and NVIDIA manipulate benchmarks to make their cards look better.
 
There's no point in getting would up by manufacturer hype just to be let down. Everyone saying that Polaris 10 or 11 or whatever the hell is called is going to be really great becasue it can play a game at 1440p and 60fps needs to realize that even my 380x could do that... get a golden chip, overclock the hell out of it, manipulate the game settings to what the card is strong at, and voila, you have 1440p and 60fps.
 
This is why its' better to wait for results from independent reviewers. You can check their testing methodology to see if its fair.

Can't say that I really care about what AMD calls it as or what internal benchmarks they do. I would rather wait until third parties review the hardware than take the manufacturer at their word because both AMD and NVIDIA manipulate benchmarks to make their cards look better.
 
There's no point in getting would up by manufacturer hype just to be let down. Everyone saying that Polaris 10 or 11 or whatever the hell is called is going to be really great becasue it can play a game at 1440p and 60fps needs to realize that even my 380x could do that... get a golden chip, overclock the hell out of it, manipulate the game settings to what the card is strong at, and voila, you have 1440p and 60fps.
 
This is why its' better to wait for results from independent reviewers. You can check their testing methodology to see if its fair.

Can't say that I really care about what AMD calls it as or what internal benchmarks they do. I would rather wait until third parties review the hardware than take the manufacturer at their word because both AMD and NVIDIA manipulate benchmarks to make their cards look better.
 
There's no point in getting would up by manufacturer hype just to be let down. Everyone saying that Polaris 10 or 11 or whatever the hell is called is going to be really great becasue it can play a game at 1440p and 60fps needs to realize that even my 380x could do that... get a golden chip, overclock the hell out of it, manipulate the game settings to what the card is strong at, and voila, you have 1440p and 60fps.
 
This is why its' better to wait for results from independent reviewers. You can check their testing methodology to see if its fair.

That's the difference. You like to drive. The vast majority of people don't. For most commuters, driving is a tedious and mundane chore that they have to do every day to get to work.

Whoa. Totally didn't know that. Cheers for that then.

there are literally so many WW2 games. There's a reason they went out of style, they became as oversaturated as the modern warfare genre from 2008-2014.
Also WW1 would be boring as hell if it was infantry, Airplanes I'd understand, but sitting in a trench ready to breath mustard gas which goes with the wind and kills a village a couple miles over seems pretty boring

Looks ugly.
 
I really like AMD'S RX 300 series of reference coolers. I generally like the cleaner look of them and they just look more mature and composed than the more gaudy NVIDIA reference coolers. I don't get why every new card has to look like an attack helicopter.

This forum can't pass up any occasion to bash Apple.
 
Comparing a gaming laptop to a Macbook is a a nonstarter because they are designed to do two different things. A gaming laptop is designed to be as fast as possible while still being somewhat portable. We all know that a gaming laptop will crush a Macbook in games, but then again it will weigh significantly more, suck down power like mad, and have worse build quality.

This forum can't pass up any occasion to bash Apple.
 
Comparing a gaming laptop to a Macbook is a a nonstarter because they are designed to do two different things. A gaming laptop is designed to be as fast as possible while still being somewhat portable. We all know that a gaming laptop will crush a Macbook in games, but then again it will weigh significantly more, suck down power like mad, and have worse build quality.

This forum can't pass up any occasion to bash Apple.
 
Comparing a gaming laptop to a Macbook is a a nonstarter because they are designed to do two different things. A gaming laptop is designed to be as fast as possible while still being somewhat portable. We all know that a gaming laptop will crush a Macbook in games, but then again it will weigh significantly more, suck down power like mad, and have worse build quality.

Directly trying to compare battery sizes with Android and iOS phones is foolish. Apple's SoCs are much more power efficient than Qalcomm's SocS and iOS is a way more optimized OS that doesn't have to sift through all the bloat that some manufacturers and carriers slap on.
 
If an Android phone had the battery size of a 6S, it wouldn't be able to last the whole day, especially if it wasn't on Marshmallow.

Directly trying to compare battery sizes with Android and iOS phones is foolish. Apple's SoCs are much more power efficient than Qalcomm's SocS and iOS is a way more optimized OS that doesn't have to sift through all the bloat that some manufacturers and carriers slap on.
 
If an Android phone had the battery size of a 6S, it wouldn't be able to last the whole day, especially if it wasn't on Marshmallow.

1024 SPs won't really do much unless Polaris is significantly more memory efficient than GCN 1.2 is. 50GB/s is also generous given how slow AMD's current DDR3 IMC is on Steamroller.