JayD

Got the WAN sweatpants in medium/short and asked if I could exchange for medium/medium. Was ready to ship them back, but LTT store have really good customer service. Will happily buy clothes from them again.

Summary
The next iteration of the Qi induction charging standard, creatively called Qi2, is going to integrate Apple’s self-aligning and self-adhering magnets (although in a new slightly different configuration), and eventually higher maximum wattage, NFC authentication, support for smaller non-smartphone devices like smartwatches. 
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Apple does it again and greatly influences the future of a standard, just like they shaped the future of the web with webkit, they shaped thunderbolt/usb4 and usb-c, they shaped Matter by giving it pieces of Homekit, and so on.
 
What this means for Apple users
- cheaper magsafe accessories to charge iPhones at 15W (and more) instead of 7.5W 
- potentially magsafe as a standard feature in cars, since now it’s universal and not just an Apple thing
- potentially magsafe surfaces everywhere (airports, Starbucks, Ikea furniture, etc.)
- finally charging the Watch with the same wireless charger we use for iPhone/Airpods
- BUT it looks like we’re gonna need to buy new hardware (new Qi2-compatible iPhones), because of the new magnets configuration 
 
What this means for non-Apple users:
- getting magnetic wireless charging in their devices by default and enjoying its self-adhering and self-aligning properties, including non-charging accessories (mounts, tripods, pop-up phone holders, gaming related accessories, etc.)
 
My questions
- what about data transfer? I’d like to have high speed short range ultrawideband data transfer to make Qi2 a complete alternative to lightning/usb-c. Maybe Apple will introduce “Magsafe2” as a superset of Qi2 and also include data transfer in it? Maybe that was the original plan before the EU forced usb-c upon them?
- will the next batch of new iPhones and Apple Watches next September be already compatible with the new standard?
- is wireless charging also coming to iPads, as rumored in the past?
- if Magsafe2+Qi2 gets data transfer, can Apple release iPhones with no usb-c at all in the future and still be compliant with EU laws?
- if it does get data transfer and it does get adopted by car manufacturers, will the data channel be used for fast/reliable wired-like Carplay?
 
 
Sources
https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/3/23538131/qi2-wireless-charging-apple-samsung

table.glenwing th { background-color: RGBA(128,128,128,0.2); } table.glenwing td, table.glenwing th { padding: 8px 10px; border: 1px solid RGBA(128,128,128,0.5); } div.glenwing_indent { padding-left: 2.5em; } h1.glenwing { font-size: 160%; } Nothing to get too excited about, this is more like a completion of some items that were left unresolved in version 2.0. There are no new transmission speeds or notable new features. The main topics are:
Cable certifications USB4 integration improvements Cable Certifications
Version 2.1 incorporates the new certifications tiers (DP40 and DP80) that were announced by VESA back in February of this year, and also restructures the lower certification levels a little bit.
 
The DP40 and DP80 certifications validate cables at the UHBR10 and UHBR20 speeds introduced in version 2.0. The names refer to the bit rates; UHBR10 = 10 Gbit/s per lane = 40 Gbit/s aggregate, hence DP40 certifies cables for 40 Gbit/s transmission, and likewise DP80 is for 80 Gbit/s (UHBR20 speed or 20 Gbit/s per lane).
 
The new standard also reorganizes the lower certification tiers, which have been a bit confusing over the years. Back in the DisplayPort 1.2 days there were no tiers; cables were either certified or they weren't, and any certified cable was good for the maximum allowed speed at the time (HBR2, 21.6 Gbit/s, i.e. 4K 60 Hz). However, this was no longer true once HBR3 speed (32.4 Gbit/s, 4K 120 Hz) was introduced in version 1.3, so VESA added the "DP8K" certification in 2018 (here). The original certification level (HBR2 and below) was then referred to as "standard DisplayPort certification".
 
So during this time, cables could have either a "standard DisplayPort certification" (good for up to HBR2) or "DP8K certification" (up to HBR3). Then version 2.0 was published, introducing three new speed tiers (UHBR10, 13.5, and 20). No new cable certifications were included (although this is common practice, I'll explain more below), but VESA did state that any DP8K certified cable should also be good for up to UHBR10 speed. In the words of Anandtech from the DP 2.0 release:
 
Now, we arrive at today, with the DP40 and DP80 certifications, with DP40 being (also?) for UHBR10 speed and DP80 for UHBR20. Given the above context, one might expect that there is really only 1 new certification, DP80, and that the previous "DP8K" tier has simply been renamed to DP40 to align the names a bit better. Strangely, no; DP8K still exists as a separate tier, and VESA has quietly dropped the line about DP8K being suitable for UHBR10, so it's back to being an HBR3-level certification.
 
Confused yet? Perhaps a table will help. Here's the cable certification lineup and the transmission speed each one is suitable for, as of version 2.1:
Cable
Certification Transmission
Speed Bit Rate Example Format
(Uncompressed) Standard VESA-certified RBR 6.48 Gbit/s 1080p60 HDR HBR 10.8 Gbit/s 1080p120 HDR HBR2 21.6 Gbit/s 4K60 HDR DP8K HBR3 32.4 Gbit/s 4K120 DP40 UHBR10 40.0 Gbit/s 4K144 HDR DP80 UHBR13.5 54.0 Gbit/s 8K60 UHBR20 80.0 Gbit/s 8K75 HDR  
I don't really mind the new additions of DP40 and DP80; if I were to nitpick, I'm not a fan of switching between per-lane bit rates and aggregate bit rates when deciding the names of cables versus transmission modes. I wish they'd pick one or the other. But moving beyond that, I'm still not a fan of the disjointed naming in the lower certification tiers. I would much rather they rename them to "DP20" and "DP30", or something like that. This would associate them with HBR2 and HBR3 speeds both by name and by bitrate (21.6 Gbit/s and 32.4 Gbit/s) while also harmonizing the names with the new DP40 and DP80 additions. But, we get what we get.
 
I should also comment on the fact that these new certification tiers weren't included when version 2.0 of the standard was published. It might seem odd to release the new standard which introduces UHBR10, UHBR13.5, and UHBR20 transmission speed, but not provide any certification for cables that can reach these speeds. This is, in fact, perfectly normal. Again I point to the DP8K certification published in 2018, for the HBR3 speed introduced in DP 1.3 (in 2014). We even had another standard revision (DP 1.4 in 2016) before the cable certification was ready. HDMI 2.1 was published in 2017, but the Ultra High Speed cable certification (while announced along with the specification) wasn't actually finished being written until the end of 2020 I think it was.
 
The simple answer is, it takes way longer to design and validate silicon than something like a cable, so when you finish writing the core design requirements, you publish them. That way, the people who are going to spend the next 3–4 years designing monitor controllers and GPUs can at least get started while you're still working on the other parts such as cable requirements, which don't take nearly as long to implement and can be published later no problem.
USB4
There are some technical improvements to integrate DisplayPort into USB better: Final Thoughts
It's likely graphics cards and other devices will skip straight to "DisplayPort 2.1" branding. Version 2.0 was a sort of intermediary document which I anticipate will be "skipped over", similar to DisplayPort 1.3; you never really saw any "DP 1.3"-branded devices; for the most part we went straight from DP 1.2 to DP 1.4 (I think there was a brief period when graphics cards were advertised as "DP 1.3 certified/DP 1.4 ready" because of the timing of the releases, but that was it). This was because the version 1.3 standard was quickly revised with version 1.4 only 2 years later (before the hardware design cycle was finished), so by the time devices got to market, DP 1.4 was the current standard and its changes were also incorporated in products. Like I said, DP 2.1 is basically a "completed" version of the DP 2.0 standard with no core changes (no new features requiring new silicon designs), so I expect the same thing to happen. To be honest, I'm surprised it wasn't named DP 2.0a.
 
As always, I will remind people that there are no "DP 2.1 cables" or "DP 2.0 cables" or "DP 1.4 cables". There are (well, hopefully soon will be) DP80 cables which are certified for 80 Gbit/s, DP40 cables certified for 40 Gbit/s, and... well, I'm just going to continue calling them HBR3 and HBR2 certified cables. I really don't care for the "DP8K" and "Standard VESA-certified" designations. But please don't use version numbers. DisplayPort standard version numbers are for document tracking. They are not a cable classification system (or for that matter, a device classification system, but that's another topic ;D). Some versions introduce multiple new speeds (version 2.0 introduced three), while other versions don't introduce any new speeds at all. The classification of cables does not align with the document version numbers in any way. Please don't refer to cables using version numbers. Thanks ❤️
 
Source: VESA
 
(Edit note: previously I commented that the lowest cable certification tier was called "HBR"; actually I believe this is an internal name that will not be used for actual labeling, so I have edited these comments out.)
 

I’m old and slow, and I wasn’t fast when I was young. Assuming everyone is like me is ridiculous.

Another prison-window display offering.  Le Sigh.

It would be nice if you could optionally connect it to a Mac or Windows PC in case you wanted to run games with more horsepower. Regardless, the good thing about Apple entering this space is that you can guarantee that on day 1 there will be lots of AAA developers releasing lots of high quality games for it to get in that early adaptor $$$.

Many complain how Apple watch forces you to have an iPhone, but at the same time Apple Watch offers experience unlike any other watch that's not specifically connected to a phone. The way how everything works seamlessly on the watch is when you understand why they do it. I don't like it either because if I'll go with Android again, my Apple Watch 5 won't be any good, but I understand it.

It would be nice if you could optionally connect it to a Mac or Windows PC in case you wanted to run games with more horsepower. Regardless, the good thing about Apple entering this space is that you can guarantee that on day 1 there will be lots of AAA developers releasing lots of high quality games for it to get in that early adaptor $$$.

Both 5950X. When I was having issues with the first one not recognizing the memory, a friend lent me his 3000 series CPU, and it also worked instantly with all the memory at max speed. That's how I knew the first CPU was faulty.

Unfortunately it doesn't have a removable motherboard tray. 

Hey man sorry late reply, nah I never got it sorted I just settled for 32gigs and gave the other 32gig to my gf she's running my old 3700x which works fine with 64gigs of ram.
 
I think my only choice is to get rid of my 2x16gig and buy 2x32gig sticks of ram and only use 2 out of the 4 ram slots

Would it be too much trouble to put the model numbers on the spreadsheet, or links to the exact cable? I noticed only a few have links.

Obviously these full fat Fiji chips are scarse. AMD has to pick and choose sadly. People are putting too much into this.

It will just fit, but will require moving one of the fans up a bit. It's still recommended to get low profile RAM though. Also, don't get an ROG board, it's a waste of money.
 

I really hope that Zen and Arctic Islands are a hit.  It still seems very bleak even if they have success.  But here is definitely 110% hoping.  It would be rather cool to have a truly high performance all AMD system.

Mine is from 2008 though, need to upgrade even if 1200p is master race
 
I'm probably just going to get the XL2730Z.

Whaaaaa parents these days actually being responsible?? Surely we can't hold them responsible.
#sarcasm

Was my immediate thought after reading the quote from OP..

Translation: We fucking lied about the 4gb spec. 

Seems fishy still IMO.

Yeah no...that's just a terrible idea all around.

So PCPer got in touch with the first Freesync-monitor demos in AMDs showroom. Such monitors from different manufacturers and with different resolutions, aspect ratios, refresh rates and panel techs - basically a wide range of scenarios that pretty much puts Freesync to the test.

In a tl;dr way - Freesync works within the range of the monitors Hz (now we will have a new spec in the equasion wich is minimum Hz -or minimum frequency), and beyond or above such range V-Sync is either enabled or disabled (it's in the user power to make such decisions). What are the consequences of this? Does V Sync works in any different way with FreeSync monitors? Does it behave any different, either better, worst, or the same as G-Sync?

They already got answers for some old questions, others are still yet to be answered, and new questions were born.

One thing is sure, we are getting closer to one of the most anticipated fights of the past years. Not it's not Mayweather VS Pacquiao.

It's G-Sync VS Freesync.
 
What kind of fight will it be? Well with Variable Refresh Rates it will not only be face to face within the ranges of the monitors, but will also be in their own corners outside the ranges of the VRR frequencys!

Ah yes... It will definatly be a pain in the ass for hardware reviewers!




Source: http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/CES-2015-AMD-Talks-Technical-about-FreeSync-Monitors

They have no choice, you can't use more than 4GB of HBM until HBM 2.0 comes out in 2016. Until then 4GB is the maximum that can be used,
 

How about we hire on talents and skill sets? I'd appreciate that more.

16:10 is dead?! No. Anyone who does productivity work prefers them, and then you have people like me who use the monitor for productivity and gaming.