leadeater

Well the problem is ARM server CPU's actually aren't, neither are they low specific power usage either. There are workloads where something like the Altra Max is massive lower perf/watt compared to both AMD and even Intel due to the drastically lower performance while still drawing 300W-400W.
 
One of the biggest problems you'll face with your thought process is that any improvements we make to power efficiency will just be used to increase performance rather than lower chip power usage. While companies want maximum possible performance we'll continue to 400W-600W CPUs and GPUs and they are buying more of them so actual power consumption is not doing down with improvements to power efficiency. 
 
Power efficiency and power usage, low power usage in  particular, are not the same thing or even all that directly linked squarely because you have to convince buyers to not want to utilize 400W+ for even greater performance aka not likely. 

Our neighbours in Germany usually have pretty similar laws to us (Netherlands). That being said. Here if you buy something that happens to be stolen or illegally obtained, but you yourself paid for it in good faith, you are not at fault. Good faith is an important clue here. If you have no suspicion whatsoever, and the price seems reasonable, then you cannot be charged for any crime. Worst case you'll have to spend some time to explain the situation to the police.
 
However, if you're buying stuff and you know the price is too good to be true, i.e. grey market license keys, or a $5 bicycle with a destroyed lock, that's where good faith ends and lawful pursuit begins. So long story short, it all depends on the intent here. Like you said.

Well the problem is ARM server CPU's actually aren't, neither are they low specific power usage either. There are workloads where something like the Altra Max is massive lower perf/watt compared to both AMD and even Intel due to the drastically lower performance while still drawing 300W-400W.
 
One of the biggest problems you'll face with your thought process is that any improvements we make to power efficiency will just be used to increase performance rather than lower chip power usage. While companies want maximum possible performance we'll continue to 400W-600W CPUs and GPUs and they are buying more of them so actual power consumption is not doing down with improvements to power efficiency. 
 
Power efficiency and power usage, low power usage in  particular, are not the same thing or even all that directly linked squarely because you have to convince buyers to not want to utilize 400W+ for even greater performance aka not likely. 

Just to add to what @LIGISTX said if you can't do the transcode on an older ~6 core cpu then GPU transcode is the correct solution rather than a costly, high power usage, CPU. You don't even need a good or new GPU, just anything good enough like a GTX 1050 Ti which is already more than required for transcoding.

Things that help much more towards preventing climate change, and most of them we already have technology to do plenty more of than we are currently doing:
Replace all gas and resistive heating with heat pumps. Increase insulation of buildings. Build and use more public transport. More electric cars and busses. Build more clean energy production, including nuclear power. Make items people buy last longer. Make people and companies keep what they have for longer. Make datacenters use spare heat for for example heating up nearby buildings. Repurpose materials more than we currently do. New server hardware do become more and more efficient over time already and it would be much harder to accelerate that.

you are confusing energy usage with efficiency

Efficiency is watts to solve a problem. 
ARM is NOT more efficient then x86 overall, it only is at sub 5W, but saying that also muddies the waters

If you have a server pulling 1500W to do a petaflop of math
a 1.5W microcomputer has to do more then a teraflop of math to be considered more efficient. If its only doing sub 1 teraflop, the 1500W server is MORE efficient. 

So yes you see Nvidia keep upping the wattage every generation with their server parts, but its doing MORE math. a 1.5x increase of power for a 2.25x increase in math performance is worth it. And cooling has gotten more efficient, and better at using water with new data center practices. 

 
  
All risc chips do µops now as well, 
CISC and RISC chips (other then like one oddball arm core that uses a microwatt that is placed inside HDMI repeaters) are all Out of Order execution, and are superscalar. 

CISC just has well... more instructions, aka the more complicated front end. and thats is the main reason it struggles to compete at sub 1 watt because you cant simplify that. x86 has always done µops even back with the 8086. 
ADD AL, Memory location. 
Is two uops, and was an ASM command on the 8086. 

Its just arm makes me go

LDR R0, Memory location
ADD R1, R1, R0

But ARM I can also do

LDMIA {R0,R3} 
and thats like 8 uops if I had to guess. 

People put to much stock in the RISC/CISC debate. 

Every new version of ARM adds more instructions, "complicating" the front end more, its just far more selective then x86. But that also makes it... so it cant do task accelerated. like there are media decode commands for x86 that make it ASIC like for those kinds of tasks. AKA more efficient then ARM. 

 
  
I would argue you have that backwards, x86 is a master at many things, just not at being generalized. 
The MORE specific the task, the better x86 is then arm. until you get to the point where you want an ASIC. 

ARM generally only has generalized instructions that you have to chain together to do your specific task which is less efficient. 

FWIW, that's a pretty outdated definition given how moderns µarches look like. A Mx chip from apple is hella complex and the front-end is just a minor part of it.
x86 also decodes many of its instructions into µops that are pretty risc-like.

How much of the world's total power consumption is accounted by personal computers, though?
 
People who make (a lot of) money from computers and pay the corresponding power bill care much more than consumers about efficiency and density, and they aren't exactly rushing away from Epycs and Quadros yet. There are reasons for that, as @igormp points out. That may change, but make no mistake, ARM isn't some form of magic when it comes to transforming power into useful outputs. Just like driving a pick-up truck for your daily suburban commute is stupidly inefficient, yet you can't replace it efficiently with a fleet of beetle-like cars when it comes to actual heavy lifting.

It is not. Just because your low power phones (which are MEANT to be low power) use less power, and because Apple did a pretty good chip (good luck finding another ARM chip that is as efficient), that doesn't mean that any ARM chip is that good.
 
Since you mentioned servers, the best ARM CPUs at the moment (Ampere Altra) use 250~350W of power each, their efficiency wasn't much better than the Epycs that were released at the same time, and now they get heavily beaten by both Intel and AMD with their current offerings on both power consumption and performance.
 
Apart from that, others have already explained that we did improve on the efficiency part, but we require even more performance and push that to an extreme nowadays.

Nuclear power
 
Moore's law is/isn't dead, and GPUs have gotten dramatically more efficient. In the race for more performance though, there's a limitation in physics that we've hit.
 
The RTX 4090 is an extreme example and can go above 600W, not 500W. Its a 450W TDP card that has a factory vBIOS that allows 133%. The card having 675W available to it, which it can reach in my experience.
 
An argument against your narrative is the Steam Deck, which can comfortably play AAA games at decent settings at a total 15W TDP.
 
If you're expecting RTX 4090 performance for <400W, then you'll have to wait for a dramatic improvement in computer engineering, since its simply a limitation of physics at the moment. Sure, we might incrementally get closer, something that DLSS does assist with. In a game like Warframe, I get lower power draw when enabling DLSS with little to no change in visual quality, demonstrating that running 1440p with AI upscaling to 4K is more efficient than raw rasterization of 4K.
 
Daily drive a Steam Deck or ROG Ally, its a very acceptable experience and is environmentally friendly with regards to the power draw. I did it for over 3 weeks between house closing dates living in a hotel, having only my phone and Steam Deck OLED.

They were ancient Egyptian farmers.

What the hell are we even talking about here? I feel like someone lost the plot. 

It's unlikely to be about having to investigate and do any real work as the buyer, there are times where it's obvious to reasonable suspicion that something is not legit and that is more than likely what the law seeks to address. Without that people already do skirt that responsibility and liability through the defense of "not knowing 100% if legitimate or not".
 
Any reasonable suspicion that a good or service sold at only 10% the regular price is suspect and going through with the purchase makes you liable if it is indeed not.
 
Applying laws, particularly in court isn't always so straight forward, mitigating factors count and there is also a lot more to the actual written laws nobody reads, I don't read every law in full, that would be insanity heh.  That is also if something makes it to court, police do not have to charge, they can apply common sense to a situation.

Just to add to what @LIGISTX said if you can't do the transcode on an older ~6 core cpu then GPU transcode is the correct solution rather than a costly, high power usage, CPU. You don't even need a good or new GPU, just anything good enough like a GTX 1050 Ti which is already more than required for transcoding.

Igpu should make quick work of transcode, but regardless, 1080p transcode doesn’t take much at all even if you do it on CPU. Trying to transcode 4k isn’t super viable anyways, but it can certainly be done. 
 
I used to run my entire homelab on an i3 6100, and my Ubuntu VM which ran Plex only got 2 threads of the 4 total. It could transcode multiple 1080p to 720p movies at once… a 12600k would run circles around a 6100.
 
I posted some info about this the other day, I would give this a look. This was done on my current homelab, and my Plex VM gets 6 threads…. And my e5-2600 threads are much, much slower then 12600k threads. 
 
The post I linked didn’t have CPU usage from within the Plex VM itself, so see below for a 4k to 720p transcode on 6 threads of my much slower CPU… it’s transcoding at over 1:1 speed, and has headroom to spare. This is not the most intense 4k video as the bitrate is pretty low for 4k content, this matches up to the detail I provided in the linked post regarding the 4k bitrate of this file. 
 


 
A 12600k for a NAS is wild overkill. 

Any chance the account you are logged in to on your Gaming PC also exists on the Windows server/SMB Server? If yes then that is almost certainly your problem. Windows will automatically try and authenticate using current logged in credentials and if the account name exists on the remote server then it'll simply get an authentication failure.
 
If you want to force it to use the correct login context/domain and user account you can change this in the Map Network Drive settings.
 

 
Once you click Finish the Login Prompt will open and then enter Username and Password like below

 
By putting in remoteserver\ you are telling your client to use the account/password database of the remote server and not to try passwordless hashed login.
 
Also creating a VLAN and subnet and allowing traffic between it won't actually give you any extra security. Network compromises happen through 'client computers' and if that has the network drive attached then any malware will know both it's computer name and IP address while also having a valid account to login to the server defeating any point to a simple VLAN/subnet for that type of security purpose.
 
Unless you have lots of servers or other secure devices on that VLAN/subnet then there isn't much point to doing it, and if your SMB server gets compromised then attacks can/will originate from that compromised computer thus being able to attack locally within that network segment. Network segmentation isn't strictly and security mechanism, you have to combine it with other things like a firewall and put restrictions and scanning in place as well as ensure system security is up to scratch also. Honestly save yourself the hassle and have your SMB server on the same subnet.

Any time you want, doesn't alter the original console either. I wouldn't do it like weekly or anything. It's not a replacement for cloud saves but migrating between consoles is so painless and quick it's not an issue anymore. Not since PS4 anyway.
 
I haven't used my PS4 since I got my PS5 since I can play all PS4 games I have on the PS5. My old PS4 will likely just end up being a "Chrome Cast"/Blu-ray Player.

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

It wont happen, it can't happen. We've already got precedent with the PS4 Pro. Sony requires them to support the standard model. The vast installed base is PS5. Games will have to work on that. If studios want to optimise for the Pro, that's great. Even if they could do exclusives for it, it wouldn't be an earner for them because the install base wont be there.
 
Series S is more of a problem because it is out of step and more like a last gen device. You lower the floor, and that can lower the ceiling too.

Boys! Add me to the group of the biggest dummies ever. Turns out I set the "Limit the number of simultaneous users to" to 2. I thought this wouldn't be an issue since I was the only one testing everything. But my laptop and phone must have taken those connections even after I quit the app or turned off the screen... didn't see that one coming smh
 
I was doing some other testing and I was about to add another user to my system and test more. So I disconnected the server from my laptop in preparation, came to my gaming PC and everything started working just fine. I increased the number and all my devices can access the folder shares and everything across the VLANs (all clients on default to NAS) at the same time.
 
I'm a fucking idiot sometimes. But at least I didn't give up! Thank you guys for the suggestions and discussion. @leadeater thank you for suggesting I try to map it again. Without that error message I wouldn't have pushed my brain to think about users.
 
 
So I figured out how it came to that conclusion

It's not dumpster diving, the manufacturing knowingly sells them off and doesn't care how or where they get used. As I mentioned on the other page a large supply of HP parts come from warranty supply when HP end support of the device.
 
Yes and in what way is this counter to anything I have said.
 
Again parts pairing is a supply chain control and not a measure of defense against stolen phones. Apple simply brands all parts in this situation as stolen because it suits them to do so. A big bust of ~10,000 devices of all kinds is pittance to the actual sale of non genuine parts that actually happen and even in your articles they aren't pointing to literally stolen phones from people.
 
It is critically important to differentiate between a phone being stolen from a person and broken down for parts and the sale of non genuine and/or unauthorized parts. It's important because the chain of events is different, the facts of the situation are different.
 
I don't think that iPhones aren't being stolen, I am countering the proposed scale of impact to the market of device parts specifically. 

I don't because it's not a thing, not for parts. Not only because this doesn't happen for not iPhones but because it has been widely known that non-genuine Apple parts are essentially worthless so the addressable market size for people not aware and willing to buy is not that large.
 
The phone theft crime statistics are poisoned by ~70% simply being misplaced phones. The vast, vast majority of crime reported phones are not actually stolen.
 
Not for a long time. Few have the devices and capability to unlock and wipe them making them able to be sold. You can only fob off so many that are still locked before it'll bite you like I already said.
 
This as I have already said don't originate from stolen phones, they come through the supply chain unauthorized, sold as "new"
 
Are stolen iPhones sold, yes, meaningfully so by numbers? Not really. Again Apple saying it is a problem doesn't make it so and Apple labels the mentioned unauthorized sale of parts as stolen. If everything is stolen then it's a problem right? Because it doesn't matter that thousands of QA rejected screens are passed off by the ODM and then end up on the market, that's the same as an iPhone stolen in NYC right?
 
Really the core issue and what I have been pointing to is that parts pairing is a supply chain control and not an anti-theft measure.

In which world are there resellers selling stolen parts from stolen devices? 0.1%? 0.2%?
 
Apple calls all parts not come from them as stolen, this does not mean taken from consumer devices that are stolen, parted out and then sold. What happens is what I pointed out, unauthorized distribution of parts aka stolen.
 
I see an issue of lying about what is really happening and pretending that consumer iPhones are being stolen in any meaningful quantity to harvest parts from, this isn't happening and not because of serial number pairing, this wasn't ever happening.
 
There is a very clear line between an iPhone being stolen from a person and parted out and unauthorized sale of parts, I really don't care that Apple ignores this line. These are categorically and objectively different event types.
 
You should really sanity check your examples, in which city would it ever be possible and realistic to steal 1000 phones a day? In all of Brazil, the whole country, just under a million phones are stolen a year and in the US about 3 to 4 million.
 
Then to follow on from that how many would ever actually be stripped for parts...
 
This is also phones not iPhones.
 
Correct, to on sell the stolen phone and not for parts.

Preventing theft derived repairs is squarely an Apple created narrative. If they say it's a problem then apparently it's a problem. Where as what we know from every other product ever is that the majority of non-guanine parts come from the supply chain itself either by non-certified "genuine parts", QA rejected, warranty spare supplies never used or dipped in to etc.
 
There are a lot of parts on the market that come from the manufacturer itself, multiple different ways, but don't have the proper authority of sale/existence.
 
Does it actually make sense that phones are being stolen on mass and parted down for repair? Why would any of even the most dodgy repair stalls go with suspected stolen good when they can get a "new, totally genuine *wink* *wink*" part for next to nothing and up charge it? Which isn't actually a crime unlike dealing in stolen goods.
 
Parts pairing isn't about stolen devices it's about the above, that's what Apple or really any tech brand (HP, Dell etc) actually care about. Only Apple is as ruthless about trying to stop it though.

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.