pyrojoe34

Just let it go. He has no intention of ever admitting that the difference exists even if he cannot see it. For the rest of us the difference is huge and we choose the setting that works best for us. He can use whatever works best for him. There's a reason I upscale of my YT-bound videos to 4k, for the extra bitrate and decreased artifacting (especially true on my videos which are skiing/mountain biking and the rapid motion leads to terrible artifacts). Almost any other video editor (and likely the majority of consumers) will benefit from the decreased compression of using the 4k setting. At a certain point continuing to argue starts to reflect poorly on both parties, just let it go.

What is his deal? Even if he can’t see the difference, why does it matter so much to him? For the rest of us the difference is night and day. I can instantly tell the difference between 1080p and 4k YouTube no matter what resolution the monitor is. The bitrate difference is massive and the artifacting at 1080p is relatively massive. But at this point that’s not what this is even about anymore he’s adamant to the point of bigotry... it’s almost funny to watch the conversation from the outside. Oh well, he’s convinced himself that we’re all delusional and he’s the only one who can see through it. Que sera, sera.

3000-3200Mhz

I wouldn't bother if I were you. Just use the second SSD as an independent drive, move your files and larger programs to it and keep the OS on the main SSD. Less hassle, much less risk than raid, and allows you to manually distribute loads to the drive you prefer,

Right but he says the PC is not connected to LAN and does not have WiFi, so he could try to use bluetooth as a alternative (obviously will only work locally).

If your motherboard supports it I think you can enable USB power on (keeps USB ports active even when off). I'm not sure if it works from cold start but it works from S3 for sure. Then you have to get a USB bluetooth adapter and try to configure it to get a signal from the phone to wake (you might have to play around with a few custom scripts if an app doesn't exist yet.)

What are the reported water temps of the cooler (when the CPU has been stressed for at least 10min)? If the water temp is not within ~25C or so of the CPU temp (after it has stabilized) then you have bad heat transfer. This could be because of the very stiff tubes causing you to not get a perfectly flush mount. I found it helps to mount the block first (with the tubes relaxed) and make sure the screws are even pressure and done diagonally in steps. then install the rad in the case. You should also ready my signature and make sure the issue outlined there is not causing you problems. You're sure the pump is running fine? Yes the fans that come with it kinda suck... Also the default fan curves are terrible and you should go custom. I personally keep mine running at 25% then slowly ramp up speed starting at 38C (water temp, not CPU temp). Then start to rapidly ramp up at about 45C (40%) and have it set to hit 80% by 50C. Make sure the water temp stays below 50C, mine never gets above 47C (~60%) with this fan curve even after hours of load. This keeps my CPU at a max of ~62C.

Unless it's a budget build, I would go with 16GB over 8 at this point but you don't need more than 16GB. In some games I see my RAM usage go up to ~12GB of RAM and many games go above 8GB. Especially if you run things in the background while gaming. As for 2x8 vs 4x4: If you have a CPU/mobo that can only use dual channel then get 2x8. If you have one that can take advantage of quad channel and has 8 slots (so you can upgrade if needed in the future) then go with 4x4.

Careful with such generalizations, especially for a newbie. Although you are generally correct that the top tier consumer Intel CPUs (ie 8700k) are better for gaming than top tier consumer AMD CPUs (ie 1700-1800), you can't just say that Intel > AMD for gaming. You might cause someone to assume that a Pentium or i3 would beat an R5 in gaming. It's true the other way around too. If you compare the 8700k to an R5 (and even R7s in most cases) the 8700k will win even in content creation (despite having the same number or less threads. For example the 8700k will beat the 1700 in most tasks using 1-14 threads, even though it only has 12 threads). This is especially true with programs like AE that don't parallelize well. It's not as cut and dry as "Intel is better for gaming and AMD is better for content creation" (even if you do compare similarly priced products).

With streaming sites (especially YouTube) it absolutely does make a huge difference... but it has nothing to do with the resolution. It’s because the bitrate served is resolution dependent. You can try it yourself. Use a 1080p screen and compare 1080p YouTube vs 4k YouTube (especially with moving scenes and foliage artifacting). You will notice a massive difference in video quality (even works with 1080p vs 1440p). I always watch YouTube videos at 4k on 1080+p screens and watch in 1080p or 1440p on my laptops (which are 768p and 900p). There is absolutely a massive increase in quality even considering the interpolation. For example: YouTube uses ~8Mbps for 1080p30 and ~35-45Mbps for 4k30. Personally, when rendering 1080p30 h.264 videos I use at the very least 45Mbps to minimize compression artifacts. That’s also why you should upscale 1080p footage to 4k before uploading, you get a noticeable increase in quality compared to uploading in its native 1080p resolution due to YT’s compression metrics.

Yea I don't buy it. Plus that Cinebench score is about stock 1500X levels. With a beefy enough OC (probably would need LN2) you could probably get a 1200 to that score with its normal core count. At best he just changed something to report incorrect core count or maybe found a way to unlock the SMT, but most likely it's completely fake. Even a stock 6c 1600 beats that score by like 300+ points.

Photons are what EM waves are made of (visible light, microwaves, radio waves, UV, IR, etc). (light is both a wave and a particle, look at the double-slit experiment for more. The wave-particle duality and quantum properties of light are counter-intuitive but amazing to learn about.) They are considered "massless" (for practical purposes) so they don't factor into the equation (their energy does though). The neutrons and protons (together known as nucleons) have mass (both equal ~1) and so do electrons and positrons (both ~0.05). The "large" particles are made up of smaller subatomic particles like bosons/leptons/quarks which give them properties (like charge, nuclear force, mass, etc). Anyway, I'm not a physicist (just a biomedical scientist) so at this point things get way beyond my knowledge. It's really fun to learn about though, keep reading up, the world of particle physics is a fascinating rabbit hole to fall down.

Sorry I just modified the post, I wrote it too quickly and screwed up. A small amount of mass (0.1%) IS converted energy in a fission reaction (kinetic energy and photons). However, the energy released is equal to the mass lost so it is still conserved in the reaction.

Yea that's about right. But keep in mind they do split into two atoms of smaller mass, the mass is still (mostly) conserved in the neutrons that are released. However, about 0.1% of the mass is converted to energy so you do end up with a little less mass. Example of fission reaction: Uranium 235 gets hit with (and absorbs) a neutron to form Uranium 236. This splits into Krypton 92 and Barium 141 (which add to 233), AND releases 3 neutrons (as well as some gamma photons and a ton on energy) which makes the total mass of the products 236. You can see that nothing is lost in the reaction, only rearranged.

No, not at ultra. Many new games can't even manage 60fps at 4k ultra with a 1080Ti. If you turn down the settings a bit then yes it's possible. Right now there is no single card that will breeze through new AAA games at 4k Ultra with high framerates. To give you an idea: the 1080Ti at 4k gets ~55fps in GTAV, 58fps in BF1, 40fps in ROTR, 50fps in Wildlands, 68fps in Witcher 3. Source There's just no card (even SLI won't manage it) that will do 4k Ultra at 144hz yet.

256MB of 400Mhz VRAM and a 300Mhz core clock?? Why bother? Any idea how many compute units it has? With those specs I can't see this beating even the entry level Intel iGPUs... Although it's obviously not meant for gaming, it's just there to drive the display. Which I guess is fair considering it's a 2-in-1 for $800...

The issue is your have a rate-limiting-step so it won't let you download it any faster. Your computer connection is 1Mbps, so if your download from the server the download goes at 1Mbps. Now if you download to the remote computer, which has 1Gbps, it will download it much faster from the server. Now is where you run into the issue. To get the download from the remote computer onto your computer you will have to use your 1Mbps connection, so no matter what, you will still be limited by your internet speed. Do you get why doing what you're suggesting won't actually improve anything? The only way to take advantage of the faster connection of the remote computer is to physically connect to it (via USB or a local network) so you can bypass your slow connection. Otherwise you are just adding an extra step in there with no benefit. Unless you're just not articulating your idea well and we are misunderstanding you, what you're suggesting is not going to help anything.

Driving a second monitor takes basically no GPU performance, you will not notice any difference. I have both of mine plugged into the GPU, just do that and call it a day. That also means only one active driver and less possibility of issues.

Do you have the USB 3.0 drivers installed from your motherboard manufacturer?

Likely there is not much you can do since it's a result of physical distance and packet pathways controlled by your ISP, but there are a couple things you can try. 1. Go into your router's QoS settings and make your PC's MAC address the highest priority, you can also prioritize by port for each specific game. 2. Do a packet trace to a server near the game server (or the server itself if you can find the IP address) see where the latency is being introduced. 3. Upgrading your modem to a 32x8 channel modem can help your access more channels for your packets to use (especially true during peak hours). 4. If the game supports it you can host your own server for the best possible ping.

So you want to game on a triple monitor setup with those? There are several issues I see: 1. You will have to turn all your settings way down to be able to drive 2x1080p + a 4k monitor in games to get even close to 60fps. 2. They have a different PPI so things will not scale well from one to the other, the image on the 1080p monitors will be oversized relative to the other ones and not line up at the edges. 3. You would (IMO) get a much better gaming experience out of a single high refresh rate, g-sync, 1440p 27" or 21:9 34" than that setup. That setup would be fine for productivity (although the PPI issue will still be there and windows won't match up, but that's not usually a big deal with productivity), but not be great for gaming...

If you haven't yet, you should make sure it's the RAM that's bad and not the DIMM slot itself. Take the stick you know works and put it into the second slot (or vice versa with the "bad" stick).

By this logic then mattresses are too cheap. Lets say you pay $1000 for a bed that lasts 10 years. That means you're paying less than $0.04 per hour for the bed. Since other things are more expensive per hour that obviously means that beds are too cheap. Computers are also too cheap. If you buy a $1500 laptop that you use for an average of 4hrs a day for 3 years then it's only $0.34 per hour. The internet is also too cheap. If you use it 5hrs a day and pay $50 a month that's only $0.33. All entertainment should obviously be the same cost per hour... since concerts are about $30 per hour we should raise the price of everything to match that price... What a ridiculous way of quantifying the value of something... cost per hour... really? I'm not saying that the price of games is too much/little or that prices can't be adjusted, but using this as a justification is a complete false equivalence and useless metric.

Probably a CPU bottleneck. What is the thread usage? You probably have one of the threads at 100% constantly.

PCIe 2.0 gives you 500MB/s/lane, so PCI 2.0 x2 can give you 1000MB/s compared to SATA III which can do 600MB/s. Having said that, you're probably better off saving your money and going with a SATA SSD as the difference is not noticeable for most users outside of benchmarks. The manual for the board says the M.2 port can do 10Gb/s (1.25GB/s) which is strange since most x99 boards (including mine) can do full PCIe x4 32Gb/s.