Brainstew

So recently, I've been looking for a phone of the around $100 price range where I am, and I came across two options from two of my friends, both of which let me borrow for a while so I can try them out and see which is a keeper. The Samsung Galaxy S3, and the iPhone 4S. So which shall it be?
 
 

 
Now, consideration needs to be taken into how these phones are costing me $100. These are by no means power user phones by today's standards, and my main usage for them is just browsing Facebook, taking a few pictures every now and then, Snapchat, Kik, some web browsing, some YouTube, and most of all a lot of music listening, both locally and over Spotify.
 
Both are running the latest OS versions, iOS 8.3 on the iPhone and Android 5.1.1 on the Samsung. Both were used on Bell Canada. This is the Canadian SGH-I747 (dual-core Snapdragon) version of the S3, not the international I9300.
 
Display and form factor: Samsung Galaxy S3
 
The iPhone 4S's screen may be nice, but I just can't see myself seeing it as acceptable in today's usage compared to the S3 and other, larger smartphones that people have grown accustomed to. Sure, some people may prefer the smaller size of the iPhone, but you'll want at least an iPhone 5 for it to be usable.
 
In modern apps like Facebook Messenger and Kik, you'll only see at most 3 single-line messages between the top of the top of the entry field and the bottom of the title bar when the keyboard is present. When the messages get long you'd be hard pressed to see one full message on the screen at once and it really starts to get on your nerves. The S3's much larger screen is just far less cramped to read off of, and Android often hides the title bar in favor of using the hardware menu and back keys (vs menu and back included as part of the title bar on iOS), giving you even more screen real estate. 
 
Sure the 4S's screen has more accurate colors then oversaturated Super AMOLED, but that alone is not enough to make up for the poor usability experience. The S3 has a larger footprint in the hand and in your pocket, so it's harder to grip the whole thing, however the flat back and edges on the iPhone make it not the best ergonomically to hold, either. 
 
Camera: Draw
 
The S3's camera seems to take the sharper shots (without oversharpening), and takes much better photos in the dark, even if the viewfinder frame rate does noticeably dip compared to the iPhone. However the iPhone often has better exposure in very bright situations which can cause the S3 to become overexposed and too bright or washed out. It also seems to be better for close-up shots. Either is fine for causal social media pictures. 
 
Front camera however, the S3's 720p front-facing selfie camera wins hands down over the iPhone's VGA front camera.
 
Battery: Samsung Galaxy S3
 
Both phones are on their original batteries, I've used both phones plenty today, and actually used the S3 more heavily then the 4S. The S3 is at 79%, the 4S is at 52%. Nuff said. As usual with iPhones, standby time is better, but really either of these at this point in their battery age will require charging every night anyways. For people who aren't satisfied with one charge, the S3 allows for easily swappable batteries to get you right back up to 100% in seconds, whereas the iPhone has to be plugged in, and although it charges fast, it's still not 0-100 as real quick as just swapping batteries. 
 
Connectivity: Samsung Galaxy S3
 
The S3 with it's LTE cellular connectivity, dual-band Wireless N and NFC definitely win over the 4S's 3G cellular connectivity, single-band Wireless N and lack of NFC. Even on 3G, the S3 is still faster, being capable of 21Mbps network speeds compared to the 4S's 14Mbps. 
 
OS: iPhone 4S
 
Let's be realistic, if I was comparing the two as-is I'd give it to the S3 as I use it with AOSP 5.1 Lollipop. However to the masses, they'll be using 4.4.2 KitKat with TouchWiz on top. Not only does this add more bloatware and cause for slower feeling UI navigation, there's just some features that Android took from iOS and added to Lollipop that make life so much easier, like notifications on the lockscreen. The S3 will not be updated officially past KitKat, while the iPhone 4S is confirmed to receive the upcoming iOS 9.
 
Many people do prefer the customization and more open access of Android, but it's just not worth it over iOS for TouchWiz. However on the other hand with a custom ROM updated to the latest version of stock Android, there are many reasons why the S3 would be the winner instead. 
 
But even with iOS's victory, two words have to be said: FUCK ITUNES
 
Performance: Samsung Galaxy S3   Although I said that there wasn't going to be too much performance-oriented comparisons, some people still want to play some casual games on their phones and for this the S3 definitely wins. Even in simple games like Crossy Road, ZigZag and Jelly Jump there was noticeable lag on the 4S that wasn't present on the S3. And in games like CSR Racing and Nitro Nation online, the stuttering was to the point where I didn't even want to play it on the 4S, while I could definitely live with what was there on the S3.    Little things: Samsung Galaxy S3   There's just those few little things that are present on the Galaxy S3 that I can't help but realize make a big difference when switching over to the iPhone. The LED notification light, MicroSD expansion slot, open file system access, easily accessible SIM card that doesn't need a paper clip... just little things that make life easier with the S3.   Conclusion:   So which phone is more worth your ~$100? Definitely the Samsung S3. Sure it might not be fancy all-metal-and-glass or have an Apple logo on it, but it's just an overall much better experience if you're looking for something cheap that gets the job done. Especially if you're able to install a custom ROM on it and rid yourself of TouchWiz. And it seems like iPhone 4S sell for slightly more then S3 do where I am, so with a deal you might actually save yourself a decent amount going for the S3 as well.

I got one of those tempered glass achieva shimian monitors - 27" 2560x1440 screens, but for the first time today I saw something horrific.
 
 
There is a tiny little spider behind the glass layer that covers the display.  I saw the little spider go all the way to the edge and it went BEHIND the actual display and you could still see its outline.
 
 
This is a disaster, I can't have a spider standing between me and my monitor.  What if it dies in there and starts to rot right in the center? ?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!???
 
 
I think I will have to remove the glass, but it looks pretty solidly fastened on.  Whatever happens, I have to find a way to get rid of it.  I can already sense it judging me for what it sees on my display.  It has to die, it has seen too much.

Can't blame them. I'd hate to be known as the lesser option also

Imagine how rad those skater dudes would look like if they had TressFX on their long hair...

Again 4k screen and crap mobile gpu?
 

i have a 1gb card...
 
im sad

I bench all the time. I benched 970 the other day. GTX at that. 
 

That scene was right in the feels. Especially when she was droning "Onii...chan..."

i cant think of anything that i thought was creepy or scary really about the only thing i can think of is fma when the scientist transmutats his daughter

grab one of these

Edzel and Brandon should have their own periodic shows on the channel. For example Edzel can do Peripherals and Brandon can do Cameras and stuff. Post your opinions below.

I know right. I remember last time download a 5 megabyte song took me about 30 mins. those were the days.

The file isn't on my computer which confuses me.  The letter had the title in it.  The file was called BRAZZERS-MilfsLikeItBig-Lisa Ann- Club Cougar Steals The Cock- December 12,2014 NEW.mp4.  And no I didn't leave it logged in I had no body over who would have done it anyways.

It's awfully convenient that she blames it on you, isn't it? The perfect plan. 

Please read before commenting
 
People trash the GTX 960 here because apparently its "bad" and "overpriced" among other insults. My post here is not to hate on anyone, be a fanboy, or cause an uproar, but to show that the GTX 960 is actually pretty awesome. 
 
I wanted to compare the GTX 960 to something that outperforms it, so I went with the R9 280X. The GTX 960 beats the R9 280 more times than not so I chose not to use that.
 
Price: (I kept out rebates because they change and are not what the prices stay at)
 
The cheapest GTX 960 at the moment is the Gigabyte Overclocked GTX 960 for $199. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SD9KZA0/?tag=pcpapi-20  
The cheapest R9 280X is the XFX DoubleDiss for $240: Link here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150678&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=  
videocardbenchmark.com says that the GTX 960 is a better price-to-performance value than the R9 280X.   
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html#  
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+960  
Performance:
 
Now this is where the R9 280X wins. There is no doubt that the AMD card is better. However, I have a few points to make. 
 
1) Overclocking. The GTX 960 is very capable at overclocking, and while many people will say overclocking is not "fair" in a comparison. If so, then why do respected and experienced people like Linus and Jayz always do their reviews with the card overclocked? I'll leave this on that note.
 
2) Futureproof. Many respected members here say it (better than I) futureproofing is a joke. (Upgrade-ability and upgrade path are different) You buy for today and today only. However, for people that really need to know which will last, here is my answer (which in no means is right). The GTX 960 will "last longer" than the R9 280X due to newer architecture. Both cards, however, will run out of juice before their memory size ever becomes an issue. 
 
3) Power/Heat. Now this is sometimes completely irrelevant for some people, but I do find it important sometimes. The GTX 960 has a power draw of nearly half the R9 280X's, at 120W and 230W. Heat is around 5 degrees different. 
 
4) Hardware. This is short, but some lower-end CPU's (like my pentium) will bottleneck the R9 280X, but not the GTX 960. Again, minor, as most people will be going for i3's and i5's (FX's for AMD)
 
5)  FPS: aka here is where I list benchmarks. But seriously, the GTX 960, even though not as "good" as the 280X, is still a very capable card. And it does not deserve the constant hate it gets. 
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-4.html  
Here is a an article between the GTX 960 and R9 280X. The GTX 960 only lags behind a bit, and keeps in line with the R9 285 (which can be the same price, its very up and down)    
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1422878645wFyjwPZgEn_6_3.gif  
Here is a GTX 960 overclocked against OC'd R9 285 and GTX 760. (full article here:http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/02/02/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_overclocking_review/1#.VRGPK_nF_uMvery interesting) Above 60FPS in BF4, with Ultra settings and 2X AA. This is the MSI version, but even at its $200 or so price tag, thats pretty damn impressive to me.  
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-960/fc4-fps.gif  
Here is a benchmark in Far Cry with an OC'd GTX 960. (full review here http://techreport.com/review/27702/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-graphics-card-reviewed/5)It lags behind the R9 280X 9 frames.  
Conclusion:
 
The GTX 960 is not a bad card.
 
When compared to a better card, i.e the 280X, it does not win, but still holds its ground. For 1080p, the GTX 960 is very capable. It handles anything you throw at it with a decent framerate, and when overclocked is an absolute beast from the east. 
 
Whats my goal? 
 
To stop the hate. You've probably noticed already that I do own a GTX 960, and let me first say this: this isn't buyer's remorse, or something of that sort. It just pains me when I browse through and see people calling it a piece of trash, and that even little R9 260X's blow it out of the water. The GTX 960 does have a place and is pretty awesome. I'm going to end this with some different points about the card, and hopefully help other people whom are looking at this and similar types.
 
GTX 960:
$200 Low power consumption (120W) Low heat output nVidia features beast overclocker brand new architecture  2GB 128bit R9 280X:
$240 hefty power consumption (220W) Higher heat output of about 5 degrees AMD features Doesn't overclock as crazy, but still a bit there older architecture (rebrand of the 7970) 3GB 384bit  
 
Cheers,
Alex

It was a joke....
 
I can't believe you thought I was serious.

People always take everything Bill Gates says out of context. Gates is saying that he wasn't in the same league as Jobs' in terms of presentation skills and the ability to market something to a person. Which is true, Steve Jobs could convince just about anybody that whatever he was talking about was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Funny. Google's OS won't even run properly... On Google's phones.

Woah. Better stop using horrible subs then.
 
Jk. I guess I'll go buy models and turn add blocker off.

oh i thought its like going to be plot twist linus has terminal cancer and he mentioned it in a tweet

welcome to puberty. your dick now controls your life. dont worry, youll learn to beat it soon. then it will understand and be more well behaved. no pun in tended.

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.
 
If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.
 
Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..
 
Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.
 
For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
 
I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.
My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.
 
The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
 

userid username password voornaam achternaam datum3 sandervdoorn gef5jne7/Xgrk Sander van Doorn 2014-12-16 12:57:021 alterlai geUlEgVXsTYIs Jeroen van der Laan 2014-12-15 23:03:012 alterlai22 gerM3WvMLwDXc jeroen jeroen 2014-12-16 09:59:334 test gehDQcFQQf48o test test 2014-12-18 13:30:488 Kiwi1 gex.wN0hUtkmQ Kiwi Kiwi 2015-01-03 13:07:557 Kiwi gejZjDhkSbYuw 2015-01-03 13:06:209 wesley ge5hTfyZUCHb. wesley wesley 2015-01-06 14:05:2112 linus geLjPlfKMNfGk Linus Tech Tips 2015-01-27 17:51:0311 krimik ge4CD3ujv2RhE fdsgd fdtgd f 2015-01-15 21:37:2114 efaefafaewefa gebSkT/3U.3R2 ffafafawf awfawfawfwafwa 2015-01-27 18:02:1715 somethingelse gef5aBJffUFtY something else 2015-01-27 18:28:5117 '); gejPCW90MdzZg 2015-01-28 19:22:3816 asd ge3MtKR4lXSpw asd asd 2015-01-27 19:47:1018 ekv' gerLoHNyCGCEs stefan stefan 2015-01-29 05:36:3721 Penis gewX71L8b7nG2 PENIS Vagina 2015-01-30 07:47:0719 ekv gec0h7MRomSm2 ekv ekv 2015-01-29 05:37:2420 ekv1 gepMAKyBPbwMA ekv1 ekv1 2015-01-29 05:37:58 This is "users" table.

I get a feeling people find this a very appealing activity...... 
 
What have i done????