LAwLz

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those are duplicates because some stores put up the same model of card with slightly different names on for example Amazon, and that counts as a "different card" in those systems counting the SKUs. In other cases though, it's just the OEM bumping the clock speed up like 100Mhz (maybe better binning?) and then introducing that as a new SKU. I wouldn't be surprised if the old SKU just gets discontinued as time goes on but never gets deleted from those systems like PCPartPicker. According to PCPartPicker, Asus has 12 different versions of the RTX 4090. Some have different coolers. Some are the same cooler but with ~100Mhz different clock speed. Some are the same card but in different colors (like one white and one black). Some are special/limited editions. I guess the number of unique SKUs quickly gets out of hand once you start doing OC versions of cards as well as different colors.

If you use perfume or cologne instead of showering you are doing it wrong. Perfume should be used in addition to showering, not instead of showering. The purpose isn't to cover up bad smells but rather add a nice smell to an otherwise neutral/lack of smell. I use it sparingly, but if you go to a party or some event it adds a nice flair. For everyday occurances I shower and put on deodorant. Please, if you are a teenager or older then shower at least every other day and put on deodorant. That should be the bare minimum.

I am not sure what you are saying. What are "good models", and 50% compared to what? The claim is that Qualcomm are lying in their benchmarks. That the numbers they presented were "baked", as in made up. The programs they ran were arm-native, as you can see by my list. It would be really stupid to say they lied in their benchmark and then run different benchmarks and go "see, I get different numbers". Reporting the results in a benchmark is not lying just because the numbers from a different benchmark aren't the same.

So to get back to Charlie's claims of Qualcomm lying and the Elite X only being able to achieve about "far sub-50%" of the performance Qualcomm claims. So let's go back and look at the performance claims Qualcomm made during the announcement, and then let's write down what performance numbers Charlie claims we will get in the final product (below half). It will be interesting to see who is closest with their numbers once we start seeing hardware in reviewer and consumer hands. My guess is that the official numbers from Qualcomm will be far closer than the numbers Charlie claims we will get. If I had to guess, Charlie will backpedal and cherry pick some very specific benchmarks that Qualcomm never even mentioned. Like maybe he will take one benchmark where Qualcomm compared their chip to an AMD chip and the Qualcomm chip won by 10%. Then Charlie will find a completely different program, benchmark than, and in that test the Snapdragon might lose a lot, so Charlie will say Qualcomm lied because "they said the Snapdragon was faster than the AMD chip, but it isn't in this test". Or maybe he will run non-arm native benchmarks and the performance will be worse, which would be fair. But that doesn't mean Qualcomm lied when they showed their performance numbers using arm-native software. 80-watt TDP config: With the 23-watt TDP config the numbers look like this: Does anyone believe that the numbers we get in the final products are around half of this? Because that is what Charlie claims.

I have seen that too. People who say mods aren't allowed to delete posts because of "freedom of speech". I have however also seen people who say "the laws of freedom of speech doesn't apply here", when the other person is talking about the concept (not the law) of freedom of speech. To elaborate, a lot of times when people mention "freedom of speech" they refer to the concept, the principle, not a specific law. It can be more of a philosophical stance than a legal stance. They aren't saying "you aren't legally allowed to delete my post". They are saying "Deleting my post may be legal, but it is the wrong thing to do because it goes against the idea of free exchange of ideas and debate that enriches public discourse". "Freedom of speech" can refer to laws, but it can also refer to a philosophical concept. It is important to keep that in mind when discussing "freedom of speech" so that everyone is aware of which thing someone is referring to when discussing. Otherwise, you can end up in a situation where two people are using the same words but internally they have different definitions, and thus misunderstandings occur. 9 out of 10 times when I talk about "freedom of speech", I refer to the philosophical concept. The thing that is defined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not the thing defined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Apple sent out invites for their event on October 24. Qualcomm announced its event on June 2. I find it very hard to believe that Qualcomm rushed out their presentation so that they could get ahead of the M3 launch. Their event was planned long in advance. It's not like they could have rushed reporters and the media to Hawaii with a short notice. Seems more like a coincidence to me.

I think 2-5 sprays, especially if we are talking about perfume or eau de parfum, sounds like way too much. I'd say 1-2 sprays is enough. If you got a weaker concentration then it might be tolerable to go as far as 5 sprays. I would argue that if you can be smelt from more than a meter away then you use too much and come off as unkept and shabby. Of course it also depends on which smell you use. Lighter ones (think flowers, vanilla and such) are generally a bit more tolerable even in high concentrations compared to stuff like AXE and what teenage boys usually wear, or dark "musky" fragrances. I prefer fragrances are a nice surprise when you are close to a person (having a 1:1 conversation or hugging). They shouldn't be something you notice from across the room. All of this is of course just my opinion, but I don't think I am alone in thinking this way. Also, OP, this is one of those things you could just have googled. You would have gotten your answer a lot quicker, and probably better explained as well. But if you are still wondering then TetraSky is correct. It's a difference in concentration, which affects how long the smell lingers for. Please note that the fragrances also tend to last longer on clothes than they do on skin. So if you spray it on your clothes even something like eau de toilette will probably last all day, even though the rule of thumb says around 4 hours on skin.

It's also a question of scale. Getting censored on this forum has very little impact. If however let's say Google started using their power to restrict what websites could write about them then it would be a big deal, even though it's a "private platform". The more power you got, the more people get affected, and the type of thing that gets censored are all very important aspects to determine if the censorship is harmful. One person being censored for posting let's say nude images on a tech forum is not an issue. Google trying to cover up some illegal act by threatening websites that talk about it to cut off their ad revenue for example would be an issue, even though "it's a private company". I don't think you intended your post this way, but a lot of people on this forum seem to use "private company" as an excuse to allow any and all behavior, which I think is wrong. Just because you are a private company doesn't mean you can (or should) act however you want. There are still things that can be illegal and/or morally wrong to do.

lol Why is Charlie always so salty? He calls Qualcomm "pathetic" three times in two paragraphs. His style of writing always comes across to me as a whiney teenager. It doesn't help that he still calls Windows on ARM "WART", a phrase he himself coined in 2012 and nobody else uses. For someone who goes on about how the information provided by Qualcomm is "fluff" or "blurry", he himself is extremely light on details. For example he claims less than 50% of the performance score that Qualcomm showed, but he doesn't state which benchmark(s). He claims that the numbers are not "achievable with the settings they claim", but then never elaborates on which settings he is referring to. I always take what Charlie says with a few shovels of salt. Let's see if he is exaggerating like he tends to this time as well, or if what he says is true. Will we get less than half of the performance Qualcomm stated in their presentations? Maybe Semi Accurate would be taken more seriously and get more favorable treatment (which they seem to really want) if they didn't do things like: "plan to ask Qualcomm about their cheating on benchmarks". They don't exactly come across as open-minded or friendly if they go into an interview with the mindset that they will expose lies and put someone in their place. It's kind of like if I said "I am going to interview Linus and ask him why he is such a fucking dickhead", and they get surprised if he doesn't want to answer my questions. Charlie even admits that he is mad at Qualcomm in the other article he links to. It's hard to write objective articles when you are biased and out for blood because you feel personally wronged by a company. Even if what Charlie says is correct, he would be a way better writer/blogger if he cut the attitude. The whole "I don't a fuck and I am a badass" doesn't exactly give an impression of a rational and trustworthy person, at least not in my eyes. They compared it to the M2 because the M3 wasn't out. Apple announced the M3 just a few days after the X Elite SoC was announced. I think it will be interesting to see how the X Elite stacks up against whatever Apple offers at the time. My guess is that the Apple chip will offer better single-core performance, but lower multi-core performance. GPU-wise I wouldn't be surprised if Qualcomm gets the edge too, like they have on their phone SoCs. Apple will still have a massive lead on software though. So even if (and that's a very big if) the X Elite is better than the M-chip chances are it still won't be as good as the experience is on a Mac.

Yes, it is. It's far from the most outrageous or dangerous form of censorship, but censorship nonetheless.

I would still call that fixed function. It's just that they are using the same function in a slightly more flexible way to reuse silicon. The fact of the matter remains that those logics on the SoC is only used for decoding video, and the video formats they support are locked and can't be changed. The only difference it makes is that the same transistors that handle some parts of H.265 might also handle decoding H.264 for example. It's very much semantics that doesn't really change anything I said earlier. Are you saying some of the tasks for decoding the video stream is handled by the CPU or "general purpose" GPU cores on Intel processors? Because I am fairly sure all of the actual decoding work is done inside the media engine, not on the Xe cores or other execution units/shaders/TMUs/ROPs/etc. I guess you could argue that the GPU is involved because the decoded video gets copied into the video frame buffer and gets sent to the display, but that's very very pedantic. I guess things like rendering and upscaling could also be done on the CPU or GPU but that's very different from the actual decoding step. I am strictly talking about decoding here, since that's what is relevant to the news piece.

When I talk about HW acceleration I mean fixed-function hardware. In those cases, you don't run into scenarios where "part of the stream" is decoded in hardware and the rest in software. If you're thinking of scenarios like with the old CUVID implementation (no fixed function hardware, but decoding could be done on CUDA cores) then I'd file that under software decoding still. Yes, it offloads some stuff to the GPU but it's not in fixed-function hardware. I am not sure I've ever seen a vendor list a format as hardware accelerated or supported in hardware when they refer to GPGPU stuff. There might be exceptions, but pretty much all devices that say they support decoding of something mean they do it fully in discrete video decoding logics. Which is why I said:

Ah I see. Missed that part.

I am not really sure why people are surprised by this or what people are reading into this story. What did people think happened with old phones? That they magically became new phones? It's not like the phones being sent there for destruction are the latest model with zero issues. The phones that are in good shape and a somewhat new model gets sold as refurbished by Apple. Taking the phones and recycling the materials is very common in IT. When the article says "destroyed", it means recycled. I think the biggest story here is that an employee at GEEP apparently stole a bunch of phones and sold them. And before someone asks, a private person selling old iPhones on for example eBay or Craigslist can get away with selling partially broken or very roughed-up phones.