PolosElite23

Oh sorry read that wrong, resource/task manager is really inaccurate, just stick with afterburner.

Phil Schiller's response is a "half-explanation"
 
"We couldn't because the Skylake CPU memory controller we're using doesn't support more than 16GB of LPDDR3..." - he left off the part after that that goes "... and while we could have easily added a a slightly bigger battery to counter the effects of using DDR4, we thought it was more important for our professional line of notebooks to be super super thin than for them to have the hardware specs that power users demand"
 
Apple could have easily offered a "professional" laptop with support for 32GB of RAM. They just didn't think it was as important to their users as size and weight.
 
Edit: And if the sales numbers are anything to go by, they were evidently 100% correct. But I don't have to agree with it.
 
So, bottom line - could we have done a better job of this video? Yes. We outright missed the detail that Skylake's memory controller is limited to 16GB if you're using LPDDR3, and Phil Schiller's statement hadn't come out yet at the time we wrote/shot this video.
 
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any swappable LPDDR3 modules, so YES we were stuck with a non-ideal apples to oranges comparison.
 
But it DOESN'T change the reason we were upset, or the fundamental disagreement we have with Apple's obsession with thin at the cost of better usability and performance. Our conclusion - they did it for space savings - is still correct even if we arrived there without a key piece of the puzzle.

Since when did performance scale with price??
Since never.

Here. Did it step by step using pictures.
Getting your driver.pdf

One day, you'll look back and see how wrong you were.

Just make sure you have the network drivers already downloaded for win10. The cases are extremely rare but I've seen a few occasions when Win10 installer didn't recognize the network device.

Does your IT Dept calling Microsoft for help with a Microsoft Silverlight problem and being told "it isn't a Microsoft product so we can't help you" before being hung up on count?

The missing stuff is paid sponsor stuff, which we leave out of the Vessel uploads as a service to our users on that platform.
 
I am fairly sure most people prefer it this way.
 
As for the PSU video comment, tagging @Slick since that was his baby.

CPU/MB/RAM:
 
http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/bGTmzy
 
(those are German prices, as i figured it was the closest to Serbia in the offered list. 

Best to ask a stupid question, than to assume and be wrong.

Do you already have that CPU?
If not, do not buy it, Intel has much better CPUs for that price. 

Intel CPUs have much better single core performance than AMD CPUs (which is important for gaming). More than 4 cores doesn't make much difference for gaming.

Where did you see that?
I can 100% say that that is not true. 

I would suggest you get neither

Games will not use all 8 cores. 
 
A lot of people look at the FX chips and go "it has more cores/GHz for less money" 
But it has 8 REALLY BAD cores. 
It is the same reason you buy 1 GTX 980 instead of 4 GTX 950s. 
the I5 4460 will perform better. 

The i5-4460, that is a good one. Since he doesn't plan to overclock, it would be best not to get an unlocked. Nice!

We are just trying to help. The AMD FX series of CPUs are dead, and should stay that way if they are going to be used for gaming. 

Would suggest looking here: 
 
 

What we are all trying to tell you is that the recommended CPU on steam is not correct. 
They are required to pick one from AMD and Intel, and the 8350 is AMDs best CPU (more or less)
The 4460 will get you much more performance in every game. 
We are just trying to prevent you from making a bad decision. 
 
I used to have an FX-8320, I upgraded to an I5 4690k, and it is WAY better. 

what sites say that?
http://cpuboss.com is not to be trusted. 
 
the I5 4460 is your best bet. 

True, but still better than negative pressure. And you can always get 140 filter.

Linus' video explains it pretty well

Personally, I would go with two 140s in the front. Larger fans spinning with bigger scoops. Extra points for ones that are pressure optimized, since they will force more air through. You also use less fan headers and such.
 
As for optimization, Linus' video basically states that the best config based on his findings were fans in the front and back. Front intake and rear exsaust. Adding fans to the top did not really affect temps as dramatically.
 
I'd go with an exhaust at the back. 140mm. You want to get more air in than out to prevent dust and such (positive air pressure is good). Radiator I would put in the front personally. 
 

That sounds like negative air pressure which you don't want. Funnily enough Jay posted a good video on the topic today.