TheRetiredSlave

Ever noticed how your videogame characters breathing doesn't match up to your own? Now with Oculus Respire™ Technology, you can! To enhance your immersion in the VR experience, now your breaths can have an affect on your gameplay! You know how you "hold your breath" to steady your rifle scope shooters? Now you can do that by literally holding your breath! Breath data is "anonomized" before it's sold to medical device companies.

Yeah it's all a single file. I had assumed I was basically screwed (or forced to do something complicated) because of that fact. Thanks. I'll have to try that tomorrow, or when I get around to it, or maybe never because the parts of the video that I thought were the best happened to be the least tainted. I can probably just simply scrap the rest of it if I need to. Thanks for the info. Looks promising.

(Really not sure where I should post this topic: sorry). I recently used Nvidia Shadowplay to record some game footage, but apparently had left the microphone set to "always on" in shadowplay. The result is that I have some cool (to me) game footage that's basically completely ruined by my random vague mutterings and some occasionally heavier breathing.. I'd rather not lose the game's sound effects, so is there any way to go in after the fact and delete only the audio that came from my mic?

'Meant to say that the 212 might not be big enough to run fanless with a 4790k.. Anywhoo, it doesn't hurt to try it fanless if you pay close attention to your temperatures. If it jumps up to 90 when you open a game, you may need to stick the fan back in there and look into other options. For instance, you may need to run the rear 140mm fan at a higher speed to help compensate for the missing 120. Aside from that, two other options are to get a higher quality aftermarket fan or buy a bigger heat sink. If you do try to run it fanless, it may not be a bad idea to try to undervolt the CPU a little bit to reduce its heat output. Not by much, though it may help a tiny bit.

You can run a heatsink without a fan, but you'll have to carefully watch your temperatures. With nothing forcing cool air through the heatsink, much of the heat will become trapped in the heatsink instead of being pulled away from the CPU. Generally, running fanless requires a much bigger heatsink to be used than one with with a fan. The 212 EVO fanless might not be big enough for a 4790K to be used at full load. It would probably be a better idea to limit the current fan to a slow fixed RPM instead of taking it completely off. You should be able to set a new fan curve in the bios.

If it's thick enough to have a reasonably sized battery (and no camera bump!), this may be my next phone. I had a short switch to an HTC One but just didn't like the size of a 5" phone, so I went back to my old iphone 5S which I still use. Edit: oh, and decent build quality. No unapologetic plastic.

That'd be an interesting change though.. As far as I'm aware, the current and previous K-series chips (on the LGA115x platform) haven't had VT-d while the non-K chips do have it.

Interesting.. I hadn't read that. That does make you wonder where this will go in the future. I guess an important consideration is how stable will motherboards and CPUs that aren't binned for OC'ing perform with their settings tweaked like that. I've had my 4770K mildly OC'd for about 2 years without having touched it's settings, but will a non-K series chip be able to do the same reliably given that it's not binned for high clocks? Of course, people have been saying for years that a overclockable i3 could a very enticing value. I'd look into it on a budget rig for sure. That screenshot was taken by a LN2 overclocker.. High voltages like that are the norm in that situation.

Technically the more direct equivalent to the i5-6600K would be the $230 i5-6600, not the $200 i5-6500. Anywhoo, base clock OC'ing isn't the same as multiplier overclocking. Since the base clock affects several things, you usually run into system instability much much sooner. It can usually help you squeeze a bit more performance out of a CPU, but you probably aren't going to push a non-K i5 to 4.5 Ghz using a BCLK OC (if the non-K i5 could even be stable at 4.5 on its own). Edit: Was unaware that Skylake moved PCIe and chipset away from the base clock.. Edit: @coolkingler1 What, you haven't heard of the new i6's? Get with the program, noob!

If it can run a very stressful program like Unigine at max clocks without overheating, crashing, or creating funky lines on the screen, then it's probably fine. Like I said before, it really depends on the game itself and how well the developers programmed it. Some games just simply won't run at a rock solid 60 FPS on any system due to the game developer not optimizing it properly. There's not much you can do, really. From what you've said, I believe the GPU is working properly.

It depends on the game, really. Some games are really CPU-heavy, so if the CPU isn't fast enough, the GPU will spend a lot of its time waiting for the CPU to give it instructions. MMOs are notorious for this. In heavily populated areas, getting a constant 60 FPS isn't likely even on a crazy high-end machine.

In theory yes it should. 4K (3840x2160) is exactly twice as many pixels wide and twice as many pixels tall as a 1920x1080 screen. This means that a single pixel of 1080p perfectly corresponds to a square block of 4 pixels on a 4K screen. Because of this, there shouldn't be any of the stretching, smudging, or general fuzziness that you usually get when you run an incorrect resolution on a screen.

If you are set on buying a TV, I'd go 4K if you can afford it. You'll be able to run older and/or lightweight games at super sharp 4K, and you always have the option of rendering newer and heavier games at 1080p on your 4K screen. Go into the game's graphics menu and set the resolution to 1920x1080 fullscreen. Of course it will look smudgier than rendering at 4K, but it'll be the same if you had gotten a 1080p screen anyway.

Would 1440p be a better compromise? In my opinion, 1080p looks somewhat dated in 2015, especially on screens larger than 24". It really depends on what you want though; I much prefer image sharpness over "eye candy" effects, so I'd go high-res with low settings every time. If you prefer having the effects and don't mind a lack of sharpness, go 1080p. And then there's the issue of monitor price.. You could always buy a relatively affordable 1080p monitor now and upgrade both the GPU and monitor in the future when 4K prices come down more.

Usually vodka and cranberry juice, or whiskey and coke.

What are you doing that requires the hexcore 5820K and 32 GB of RAM? You'll probably get pretty much the same gaming performance with a 6700K and 8 GB of RAM, for much cheaper. Ditch the 1200W PSU. It's unnecessary, even for SLI. 2 mice and 2 headsets? What?

That will very heavily depend on how the "1080TI" actually performs and what it's price is.. We have no idea.

Technically you could, but there's a very high risk that you'll overheat and burn out the CPU. Totally not worth it at all. Wait until your cooler arrives before potentially burning out a $200 CPU.

Uhhhh, I may not be qualified to speak on the subject of detailed CPU specifications, but I'm about 99.9999999999% sure that he's completely speaking out of his ass.. The Xeon E3's are (AFAIK) the same chip as the quadcore i5's and i7's, with the only difference being ECC support (which will work with motherboards/RAM that either do or do not support ECC. If the mobo/RAM don't support ECC, the CPU won't run ECC, and everything will work just the same as an i5/i7). Edit: oh, and Xeons don't have integrated graphics. Other than that, Xeons support more. (Marginally more, and all things that you probably won't use either way. The result for your use is that a Xeon E3 is basically a cheaper and marginally slower i7.)

You could hold off buying the CPU cooler and thermal paste until a later date. Overclocking isn't necessary for gaming, and the stock cooler will do good enough at stock speeds. There are cheaper cases on the market, though that's more of an aesthetic choice that's up to you.. You could in theory get away with a ~500W PSU, but that might only save you $15 and it would probably be best to have a decent amount of headroom. As for the wifi card: get the Gigabyte GC-WB867D-I.. Slightly cheaper (depending on where you're buying), and supports AC, which is nice.

Usually you should just be able to plug the video cable into any of the ports on the motherboard.. If that doesn't work, you many need to plug in the X1650, and go into the BIOS to enable the HD 4000. After it's enabled, plug your video cable into a port on the motherboard.

Since going SLI would also require a PSU upgrade, I would probably upgrade to a more powerful single-GPU. The added cost of the PSU will offset the advantage of just buying a second 960. Which is cheaper? A $250 GPU + a $100 PSU, or a $350 GPU by itself? You would have to compare performance of the two 960s vs whatever other card you'd choose, but I believe the simplest and easiest upgrade is just to swap the GPU to a more powerful one. You can (maybe) sell the 960 for a bit of extra cash, or even just keep it as a backup in case of emergency. From my (limited) experience, two GPUs run much hotter and louder overall, because the bottom card tends to choke the airflow to the top card.

Well ya see, it's isn't really that bad of a troll system. Sure, the RAM is overkill, but the hard drive setup might make sense in some very specific situations depending on the user. Dual 390X's is (AFAIK) a decent balance of price and performance especially at 4K, though, power consumption is quite high and CF/SLI is generally worse than a more powerful single-card.. I generally advice against buying tons of aftermarket fans, but there's nothing wrong with doing so if you're one of those people who actually wants their fans to match and look all sexy-like (unlike my eclectic mix of brown Noctuas and white stock Fractals). 6.8/10 -Not a bad build.

Well, if the game doesn't need any more than 2 cores, the 5960X doesn't have any advantage. No no no.. He's asking you why you would bitch behind this person's back, instead of talking directly to him about his claim..

1. Are you willing to accept the higher monitor price? 2. Are you wiling to limit yourself to only being able to buy Nvidia GPUs over the course of your monitor's life? 3. Do you want it now and are otherwise unwilling to wait for Activesync to fully penetrate the market? If you answered "yes", then G-sync is worth it (to you). G-sync isn't dead because it was never really alive, per se. It was always a small expensive niche product with some caveats, and it will be replaced (eventually!!) by standardized products. The replacement of G-sync by Activesync could be considered it's "death", but for those with G-sync compatible displays and GPUs, you can use it as long as you like.