HKZeroFive

You'll be fine with a good 550W unit. The Cooler Master unit is good but there may be better options for the same price.

-Games -Settings -Resolution Those factors determine whether or not your CPU will become the limiting factor in a PC. And if it was, it's not a big deal anyway.

Focus Plus Gold > Integra M > M12II Whoever told you to not purchase the M12II is smart; it’s based on an old group-regulated design. The Integra M is a DC-DC regulated unit with a LLC resonant convertor on the primary, which is already a significant step-up from the M12II, but it does suffer from having a bad protection chip. Then there’s the Focus Plus Gold which is better than both. If that’s within the parameters of your budget, then I highly suggest getting it.

You want a better unit for that sort of high-end PC. Something like the Corsair RM550x or BitFenix Whisper M would do nicely.

The ASUS Prime Z370-P has a poor VRM with only six phases and it's missing quite a few features. The Tomahawk is quite a bit better. If you're not restricted to those boards, then have a look at ASRock's Extreme4 and Fatal1ty K6 as well.

The Tomahawk is significantly better...

By that same reasoning, we should also ban tired or elderly people from driving since it negatively affects their ability to function behind a wheel. Not to mention that in a country like Australia, a 0.02% BAC limit is not going to work out at all. So because the world isn't forgiving and all, it's alright to have a stricter punishment for a first-time offence? As I've said before, people make mistakes and there's been obvious cases of a mistake in judgement before. There's also a big difference between just being over the limit and being a first-time offender as well and being well above the limit or being a repeat offender. But that's not my argument. My argument is against the fact that putting someone in debt as a punishment so companies can profit from even the most trivial and minor of offences is somehow deemed as acceptable and "justified". That I don't get at all.

But it's not. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place. The punishment for 0.05% is already harsh enough with a $1400 fine and 10 demerit points. If you want to take it a step further by suspending the licence, then I'm fine with that. Not the interlock. Having 0.02% as a hard limit would be rather easy to overcome with a glass of light beer. At that point, you might as well make the limit zero and many would not be happy with that. It is an arbitrary figure because otherwise the rest of the world would be enforcing it, yet they're not. Again, depends on the person; some can feel the effects, some cannot. I've heard stories of people having a few drinks, then wait for a few hours and get caught just above the limit because they misjudged the timing. But the people just below the limit should be let go because there's a huge difference between the two, right? This is my problem with your argument and the entire change in policy in the first place; it obviously goes beyond the point of the "punishment" and into money-making territory. But since it's a "sin tax", people will let them get away with it. People act as if they're "holier-than-thou" and have never made a mistake before. These same people use the "you shouldn't have done it in the first place" as a justification for the overwhelming costs because it's part of their "punishment"... to the extent that even the most minor of infractions must punished for the good of society... There's a large amount of people who are dependent on cars so I don't see how that argument works. You're screwing them out of their finances either way. But no, since they definitely won't be deterred from the first time they're caught and won't learn their lesson, it's fine!

Completely different categories. The Aorus Gaming 7 is the best Z370 motherboard currently available. The Ultra Gaming is an entry-level motherboard with a mediocre VRM and terrible VRM cooling.

Domestic policy: "administrative decisions that are directly related to all issues and activity within a nation's borders". That includes traffic laws. Not hard to understand. This probably a roundabout at this point since we're both seemingly missing each other's points but this is still going to be mine; the punishment does not fit the crime. It's within the lower limits of the BAC and it also applies to first-time offenders. We're not talking repeat offenders or people with high BAC. If you want a punishment that doesn't put someone into debt then the government should be leasing the interlocking devices or just suspend their licence + fine them and not try to make it a money-grabbing scheme at the same time. I don't see how Victorians could back even more severe driving restrictions than the rest of the country. I'd say the current implementation is good enough and that's already quite strict. Not a standard drink. A small person with a large glass of wine can easily go over the 0.05% limit. It depends on the person, as I've already said. And was he a first time offender? And what was his BAC? Look, I despise drink drivers. But saying that "they deserve it" for a BAC that's legal in other countries doesn't help either. You can still be against drink driving and realise that the interlocking system is still an absolute scam. You want a system that works, then let the punishment suit the severity of the crime. I'd be fine if this was for repeat or high BAC offenders. But having first time offenders being required to have an interlock device? That's a tad too far.

Ah, yes... that's my mistake. I'm still going to say that the VRM on the Gigabyte board is better though. Would rather prioritise that than over the fancy watercooling.

Better VRM.

The STRIX.

That motherboard has been out for quite a while. Though I would consider the Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 7 to be a better buy at around the same price.

Whether something is "worth it" is relative. I'd say the £110 is an early adopter tax.