Whiskers

Thread locked. Self advertising isn't allowed, but neither is backseat moderating. If you see a post or topic on the forum which doesn't comply with the Code of Conduct, please report it to the moderator team and leave it for us to handle.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

I must disagree. The PS4 is perfectly capable of rendering games with a decent graphical fidelity at 1920x1080, 60 frames per second. A very large number of titles on the system currently do this, and for many which don't it could arguably be attributed to a lack of optimisation. In any case, it is absolutely that they will release a more powerful version of the PS4. Never in the history of PlayStation (nor for that matter any console brand that I can recall) has this been done, and they are very unlikely to be setting such a precedent now. The console is still powerful enough to run games to a decent level for the masses, and launching a more powerful version now would be a foolish long-term business move. (It would cause fragmentation in the marketplace, increase difficulty and complexity for developers and lessen the gap between the PS4 and PS5 thus giving users less reason to upgrade in future.)

It might surprise you. The G3258 has pretty high IPC for a dual-core - it'll obviously suffer a little in multithreaded tasks, but should still hold its own pretty well in single-threaded tasks so long as it's not asked to perform too much at the same time. (For example, whilst at a LAN event earlier this year I tried to play Battlefield 3 inbetween rounds of Civilization V which I was accustomed to doing easily with my 3770k. Unfortunately whilst both games ran fine on their own, the performance in Battlefield 3 suffered badly when Civilization V was open.) Especially with the impressive overclocking potential for the chip. It should be able to hold its own for a good few years I think.

From what I recall the G3258 hits into voltage limits before temperature starts to become much of a concern. Realistically, even when pushing the chip to its maximum overclocking potential (barring extreme overclocking of course) the CPU should live for a good few years. Just don't push the voltage higher than around the 1.4V area for an extended period and it should be fine. Anything higher than that will pose more risk of degrading the chip faster. So in short, don't worry too much. As long as you don't overvolt your CPU to an insane level it should run well for quite a fair time. By the time degradation becomes obvious, the chip will likely be pretty outdated anyway.

If budget is a concern, 8GB should be enough for just now. But if you go for 8GB, I would strongly suggest buying a single 8GB DIMM rather than two 4GB DIMMs - this way you can easily throw in an additional DIMM at a later point to get 16GB, whereas if you buy two 4GB DIMMs you'll essentially be wasting money. Alternatively if budget isn't much of a concern, 16GB is probably a better deal at this point. 8GB can be pretty limiting these days considering how much memory applications and games can eat up. Browsers in particular can be pretty bad at eating up lots and lots of RAM.

It might suck, but realistically how many PC players would leverage the functionality? If it's additional work for them to include it in the PC version then they need to weigh the feasibility of doing so. Split screen gaming isn't as much of a thing even on consoles these days, and it has never been even the slightest bit popular on PC. Shame.

Initially I was going to say that this was a silly and pointless device, and was going to question its purpose in the world of highly competitive smartphones. But the truth is, we need more devices like this and we need them to be successful. The more divergent devices we start to see in the smartphone world the more innovation we can start enjoying again. I'm sure I'm not the only one bored of the stagnant world of smartphones right now - improvements these days are nothing more than a spec upgrade, at best.

I've seen some discussion about the suitability of an FX CPU in this topic, and just wanted to quickly chime in. The FX series chips at this point are quite far behind Intel's solutions. They have their benefits as a CPU (they tend to excel for price to performance when used for video rendering tasks and similar applications) however they lack in general purpose performance and gaming performance when compared to other solutions. Most games are significantly single-threaded (even those which support multiple threads usually load one core more than the rest), and AMD's single core performance is significantly behind Intel's - to the extent that even an i3 CPU can beat an 8350 in some specific circumstances. They're not entirely awful or pointless chips, however they are very much past their prime at this point. When launched, the 8350 was very comparable but still slightly behind the i5 2500k - however, given that each subsequent generation of Intel CPUs have slightly improved performance, the difference between an 8350 and a 4670k these days is rather large. Ultimately, the suitability of the CPU depends entirely on your situation and requirements. If you can find one for a really good price (and a motherboard likewise) then it's a decent enough CPU and should do you well. However if you're not able to find one at sale prices they're not particularly price competitive compared to Intel's solutions these days.

Locked. If you are unhappy with a thread of yours being locked or removed, send a PM to a moderator and we will discuss the issue with you. You are not free to re-post that topic, nor are you free to post another topic complaining about the injustices of the mod team doing their jobs by removing pointless troll threads from the forums.

Indeed. Samsung's sales figures are as successful as they are because of many factors. Arguably it is their issues with TouchWiz which have been holding them back the most for a while. Their market share decreased quite a lot last year. The majority of other successful Android manufacturers these days either employ a very lightly skinned Android (mostly cosmetic alterations such as new icons) or a completely stock one. This has been a growing trend since the release of Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) which was the first release of Android where Google were able to get a solid design scheme in place and make the stock version of Android look as good if not better than most of the customised ones that had existed up to that point. A quick look at the sales figures for 2014 is pretty good evidence of this - the only two highly successful companies with strongly divergent forks of Android are Samsung and Xiaomi.

Hey, we can be civil!* *intoxication required, civility not guaranteed

If any more personal insults or attacks take place in this thread it will be locked and those responsible will earn themselves some freshly cooked warning points. Keep it civil, please.

Locked. Please read the Off-Topic Posting Guidelines.

1080p is only marginally better than 720p on a <5" display, in my opinion. The Z30's display might have been lower in resolution, but it is the only example of an OLED screen I've encountered yet which has superb outdoor visibility. Plus, I'd wager that they decided to stick with 720p instead of 1080p owing to the improvements it would bring to battery life - a 720p screen requires less power and the GPU will not have to do as much work to render for it. Considering the fantastic battery life the Z30 has, that's definitely a trade-off I'm happy with. I never said it did. However I feel that the tech community are the most influential part of the Android market. Also, Samsung are an exception to most of these types of rules as they sell their devices on two things - absurdly expensive marketing and unparalleled brand recognition, two things BlackBerry does not have these days. It should be noted that less established manufacturers who have endeavoured to modify Android have been criticised heavily for doing such in the past, and it's generally acknowledged within the Android community that non-stock Android is a bad idea.

Moved to "Looking for Group" section.

Moved to the "looking for group" section.

Please post a thread only once - it is not necessary to post it more than that, as they will be locked. The original thread can be found here. If you see a repost, please click the "Report" button below the post and leave it for the moderator team to deal with.

I disagree. Android might be what people know and love, but it's a stagnant OS right now for manufacturers. It is a colossal market which is already fully saturated with phones of every conceivable type - unless you have a brand following or something very unique to bring to the table, it's very difficult to compete. BlackBerry don't have the brand recognition they once had, and their strength lies in their software not hardware. By throwing Android on their device they're playing with their weakest hand. They can't skin the OS too much to implement BB10 features because that would make the adoption of Android completely pointless - most of the Android fanbase appears to dislike the idea of anything other than the stock version anyway. I truly hope this turns out to be false, as I don't think it is a wise investment of their money and time. They should be focusing on further differentiating themselves in the market, by providing services and features that simply aren't available on other platforms. If they abandon BB10, they're done for.

Looking nice!