pyrojoe34

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.

Of course it isn't, all depends on what settings you want to play at, if you like eye candy in story driven games and wishes as much graphical fidelity the 1080 Ti makes every sense in the world.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yea, lets be honest. It just can't. Even at max OC and with a program that uses all 16 threads, the 8700k will still come out even or slightly ahead (with 1-14 thread performance handily beating the R7, even though the 8700k only has 12 threads). I'm far from a fanboy (I have two Intel PCs and two AMD PCs), but emperically speaking, the 8700k just seems like a better choice (unless the price is massively different in which case an argument could be made for the R7, given the price of the build though and the other components, I just can't recommend going with the 1800x).

It generally doesn't make sense to get a 120mm AIO since you will get equal or better performance from an air cooler for half the price. If you want to get AIO then get at least a 240mm one.

Best bet is to take it apart and clean out dust/replace thermal paste.

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?

You are overheating, TJmax for FX chips is like 62C (TJmax of socket is 72C). Also unless you paid like <$50 for it I would return it and go with something else. Even an i3 or R3 will easily beat it in games.

Yea 4GB is a bit on the low end for even basic modern use. Especially if you're on a newer OS like Win 10. Even without anything running the OS wants ~1.5GB, add in a few background processes, a browser, and some office programs and you're out of RAM and relying slower virtual memory on the disk. Is it upgradable? I've got an older laptop (2nd gen mobile i5) but I upped it to 8GB of RAM with an SSD and it still works really well for any basic tasks like web browsing, office programs, etc.

No addon needed, it’s in the customize settings.

Yea but what fraction of the final cost is the raw silicon? If it takes 1$ worth of silicon for a $300 CPU then a 20% increase is only $0.20... not a huge factor.

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?

Yea but what fraction of the final cost is the raw silicon? If it takes 1$ worth of silicon for a $300 CPU then a 20% increase is only $0.20... not a huge factor.

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?

Where did you get these estimations from? You have to know how much the raw silicon contributes to the total cost of a product before knowing the effect. If the silicon is only like 1% of the total cost of a chip then the cost of manufacturing increase due to a 20% increase in wafer cost will only be like 0.2% which is almost negligible to the end user. I don't know what the contribution of the cost of silicon is to the final product but I doubt it's as high as you imply, this may only result in very minor price changes overall.

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?

I doubt it, RAM right now is super inflated already and will probably drop again once the market stabilizes. I don't know how much the cost of raw silicon contributes to chip price but I doubt it's a massive amount. Right now seems like the worst time to buy RAM. 18mo ago I bought a 4x8GB DDR4 kit for $120 which is now selling for $360, it's definitely not a good time to buy.

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?

Surprise, we're putting electronics into more things than ever and they're having trouble keeping up? You don't say! All this is going to take is increased production, both in the harvesting of raw resources and the production of wafers. This of course takes time, usually you have to have a couple years of sustained demand before a company will invest a great deal of money into infrastructure. You don't spend billions of dollars on factories in a knee jerk "oh wow there's been huge demand these past couple months!"
A 300mm wafer is ~$400.
The yield per wafer is apparently a guarded number, AMD gets around 150 per 200mm wafer? So for sake of a number we'll say a 300mm wafer gets 225 (could be more). So ~120 CPUs (graphics is a separate die). $3.33 per CPU, for a price increase of $0.66. Even at a multiple of 10, it's a $6.60 increase. Or a nice coffee.
Very, very rough numbers, but still. I didn't want to look that much into it
 
People are over reacting. Silicone, as you've said, is a small part of the process. This doesn't increase the greater costs; shipping, distribution, marketing, packaging, etc.
Samsungs investments into increased memory production should help with that greatly. I don't think RAM will go up that much. Gamers Nexus had a news article saying there will be a surplus of RAM, though I didn't watch the video.

So Firefox 57 is finally out and I have to say I personally really like it.
 
Article
 
From Mozilla:
 
 
A few things I have noticed already:
-It feels a lot faster overall, everything is just snappier.
-Uses less RAM than before, and way less than Chrome.
- I have been noticing it is a lot more power efficient as well. Watching a 4k video on Youtube used to draw about 160W and now sits at 140-145W (idle is ~138W so basically at idle). This may mean improved battery life for laptops but I haven't tested that yet.
-On my old shitty laptop I could not play youtube above 1080p without stuttering and frame drops. It can now playback 1440p smoothly and without any dropped frames.
 
I think they really delivered on this one. I have always preferred Firefox due to their privacy policies (much much better than Chrome or Edge) and now the performance is also better. Firefox is my main browser (except for Netflix which requires Edge to get 1080p/4k, Chrome and Firefox can only do 720p for some dumb reason).
 
What do you guys think of the update?