marldorthegreat

Summary
The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.
If nuclear fusion can be successfully recreated on Earth it holds out the potential of virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy.
The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).
This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
The fusion announcement is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.
There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.
And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.
In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century
 
 
Sources
Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy - BBC News

Summary
The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.
If nuclear fusion can be successfully recreated on Earth it holds out the potential of virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy.
The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).
This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
The fusion announcement is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.
There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.
And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.
In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century
 
 
Sources
Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy - BBC News

That's better than the 320W and 350W TDP the 3080 and 3090 have

That's better than the 320W and 350W TDP the 3080 and 3090 have

By the looks of things, this outperforms the 3070 by a significant amount 

That's better than the 320W and 350W TDP the 3080 and 3090 have

That's better than the 320W and 350W TDP the 3080 and 3090 have

Wow , if this is true, this just looks almost unbelievably goo
Because the product speaks for itself

Yeah, as a gamer, a GPU upgrade would be money better spent

Yeah, as a gamer, a GPU upgrade would be money better spent

Yeah, as a gamer, a GPU upgrade would be money better spent

Wow , if this is true, this just looks almost unbelievably goo
Because the product speaks for itself

But also consumes more power (A lot more) , and literally doing anything else is faster on AMD. Not to mention the fact that AMD has a better platform, with newer features. Yeah gaming performance is better, but 3% misses that the CPU is more expensive, with more expensive motherboards on a socket that will be dead by the end of next year. 

So another day brings another "leak". Apparently there is a review of intel's latest flagship i9 10900k, and it isn't looking good for intel, and even worse when you consider that 4th gen Ryzen is coming this year
Sorce: https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-flagship-review-leaks-out/
Although this might not seem fair, considering the 3900x is a 12 core part, they are going to be the same price!
And I think the most interesting part of this, the 10 core intel CPU consume more power than a R9 3950x, a 16 core CPU. (It's like intel's FX 9590 moment) 
Power consumption

 
A Quick Summary
Personally I think If this is true, and it might very well be, Intel is going to be behind (Probably for the first time in over a decade) in gaming, and efficiency. For someone that started taking an interest in PC hardware during the FX 8350 days, this is truly amazing, AMD are back and will not be going anywhere soon. 
 
Potential talking point
- Ryzen 4th gen is rumoured to offer up to 20% IPC improvements over 3rd gen, and a bump in clock speeds. Could we see a CPU from AMD that is not only ahead of anything intel has, but ahead by 10-20% while using significantly less power?

It depends if they get used by the likes of cyberpower, people see Intel i9 and think they are getting the best performance possible so I think people who build it themselves or are invested a bit in the CPU market will care, but I can think of lot's of people who simply won't know or care. The fact that it's rated at a 125w tdp will almost certainly confuse people, and make them think it consumes less power than equivalent AMD cpu's.
I agree, this is not going to be a good CPU, yeah performance will be there for gaming, but it will literally consume more power than my GPU! (And I run a 980ti I got second hand for like £100 (~$120))

It depends if they get used by the likes of cyberpower, people see Intel i9 and think they are getting the best performance possible so I think people who build it themselves or are invested a bit in the CPU market will care, but I can think of lot's of people who simply won't know or care. The fact that it's rated at a 125w tdp will almost certainly confuse people, and make them think it consumes less power than equivalent AMD cpu's.
I agree, this is not going to be a good CPU, yeah performance will be there for gaming, but it will literally consume more power than my GPU! (And I run a 980ti I got second hand for like £100 (~$120))

But also consumes more power (A lot more) , and literally doing anything else is faster on AMD. Not to mention the fact that AMD has a better platform, with newer features. Yeah gaming performance is better, but 3% misses that the CPU is more expensive, with more expensive motherboards on a socket that will be dead by the end of next year. 

And when you consider that the most popular monitor type (I think) is 1080p 60hz monitors, it literally makes no difference since you literally don't really benefit from anything over 60fps

Only care about the zombies mode, So hopefully that gets better this time. I only play the solo campaign when my internet is down, and don't touch the multiplayer because it's shit. 
Probably going to have to buy a PS4 Pro, or maybe an Xbox One X since I sold my PC a few months ago.

It isn't a license and they're doing a pretty good job unlike those "other guys" that started the franchise. 
 
The Black Ops series have been the only worthwhile campaigns for me. Here's my hope for another wonderful installment. 

Why? Amd is making money. Why would they want to stop people buying them? Because gamers are not. 

Thats cool, actually might be a card that interests me. If its anything like the last nano card. Maybe 1070 performance using only a bit more power. 

The dual gpu will have lower clockspeeds. compare the fury x to the fury nano,by lowering clock speeds a  power consumption drops quite a bit. 275 ---> 175. 

They have, they showed off a vega/zen apu for laptops. 

There is a rumour of apple making their own cpu, instead of intel. Maybe this doesn't seem as bad.