Pachuca

If you are looking for 1080p I would recommend this monitor: Viewsonic XG2431 the only downside is the bad osd functions
Here is a review of it from Optimum Tech: 
 
If you are looking for 1440p I would recommend this monitor: ASUS PG279QM also the Samsung Odyssey G7 is a great option
Here is a review of them from Hardware Unboxed: 
 

Thanks, the Viewsonic looks like a great option. It's under budget too!

Don't get threadripper, 5900 or 5950 should be a good jump from your cpu.

Not worth it
8700k is enough for a couple of years.

Just keep what you have and wait for DDR5.

I've been using CoreCtrl to undervolt my RX 480, so I assume it should work for RX 570/580.
https://gitlab.com/corectrl/corectrl/-/wikis/home
 
You may need to enable additional kernel parameters to be able to tune the card:
https://gitlab.com/corectrl/corectrl/-/wikis/Setup#full-amd-gpu-controls
https://gitlab.com/corectrl/corectrl/-/wikis/AMD-GPUs

It's possible the bios update changed some of your default settings. I don't remember the exact setting, but there is a bios option that basically makes the cpu run at full even if it's idle. It has to do with intel's P-state and C-state settings. You'll have to search through the bios to find it and change it.

Used Thinkpad.
 
X-series if you want small screen and lots of IO, T-series if you want bigger screen and lots of IO, T(S) series if you want a slightly thinner T-series, and X1(Carbon) if you want an ultrabook.

As long as you don't have a leak it's fine.

Both are solid coolers. You can't go wrong with either, but I would grab the Mugen 5 Rev. B because it's cheaper and better reviews.

My best guess, would be 204. Don't really need to count the pins. Just look at the length of it. If it long, then it is more for desktops. If it is short, similar to what is already in your laptop, then it's for the laptop. 

204, as its the much shorter SODIMM models. 240 will be DIMMs used by desktops

I would stick to intel cards. Broadcom and realtek cards are mostly hit and miss and their drivers are mostly shit on linux.

I like chrome too, but all the built-in security works better in Brave. 
 
"
The problem with some browser security features is that they can interfere with a website to such a degree that you can't access the content you came to the site for. For security-minded users, that means we may have to go through an often obnoxious process of disabling each of our security plugins or on-board features, one at a time, until we figure out which one is causing the hiccup. 
The best part of Brave's privacy suite is that it eliminates this game of broken website whack-a-mole, and makes it faster and less annoying to have a secure browsing experience. A single click on the Brave icon on your address bar allows you to see a small menu with simplified toggles that underlie the extensive, customizable security panel in the browser's settings pages.  "

I was thinking about proton too. I use their email service and have been very happy with what they do so I assume they will like wise do a good job with the vpn service too. Thanks for the vote of confidence for Proton. 

We lost one NVIDIA troop
 
RIP OP's GTX 1080TI
 
????? - 9/30/2019 7:30AM
 
May the PC God bless your GTX 1080TI, and walk with him to the heaven. In the name of the PC God I pray, ashoot.

For something along the same lines as the T4, the Hyper 212 black edition works pretty well, it comes in way under your budget if you want to save some money.

You certainly are mining on ethpool but you're looking at the address stats on ethermine to see the 0.00012 unpaid. Because you're not mining on ethermine, you won't see anything change there. As for ethpool that you are mining on, it has unique rules regarding who gets what. If you want to see a more immediate result then you want to change your settings to mine on ethermine which I believe uses the more traditional shares method.
 
Be aware though that if you do choose to mine with ethermine, you are competing against 42TH/s of compute power provided by 63,000 other people for whatever scraps you can get with your 160MH/s. That's not to say what you've got is bad though.

i don't know how you're equating 2019 with people doing their due diligence. Let me run thru this with you:
1. The little kid isn't doing research because he's a little kid
2. Even if he does research, his parents are the one going to best buy and paying for the rig, meaning they will find the cheapest one that says gaming or ask the rep for the cheapest gaming rig and any research he does is out the window
3. People do less research than they used to. When a product is expensive people will do more research and make sure the fortune they are parting with is well spent. when a product is so mass produced that it becomes a cheap household commodity, people do less research, because they aren't spending a small fortune on it. Most people are buying $300 laptops for a home computer right now.
4. You're conflating the average gamer with the average PC enthusiast. While many gamers are pc enthusiasts as well, you're forgetting console gamers entirely, along with the many who just like gaming and go buy a "gaming" computer without giving a crap what's inside.
5. the i7 is a single type of chip with a few variants. The 3000 SERIES is a SERIES. a series is not better than a single sku, remember the 3000 series includes ryzen 3 which i guarantee will not beat an i7 or an i9. Semantics, sure, but I believe in doing it right or not doing it at all.
6. There are no reviews so you have no clue what the performance will be or whether it's better than an i7 let alone an i9. You are making that up
7. Why would intel go bankrupt? AMD holds between 30-40% of the market share. that means if intel suddenly vanished, AMD would have to magically ramp production up 3 times over. AMD would not be able to reach the volume to cover intel's death. All this to say that intel will still be selling chips simply because there is demand. Also you're forgetting that gamers don't make up a large percentage of users, and we're not even talking mobile chips here. There's far more demand than AMD can handle at their current level. Intel is feeling the burn right now, but it's just a burn. Their arm isn't falling off, their skin isn't peeling, they're just gonna put some aloe vera on it and get back to making chips.
8. Between the lax comparison between a series vs an i9 chip, and the way you've been responding by just repeating your original claim that ryzen stomps an i9, I can either assume you have no clue what you're talking about or you know exactly what you're talking about and are trying to start a flame war between intel and amd fans. Either way, the post is presumptuous and ridiculous and best and intentionally inflammatory at worst, so I'm reporting this to get this nonsense locked up

They will lose market share and see reduced profits from their CPU's...
 
....that's all.

Like @LukeSavenije alluded to, bitches all be ridin' the hype train.

You can buy bigger sheets from an electronics distributor and cut the squares and rectangles you need.
 
Here's a bunch of thermal pads with thickness between 0.039" (0.991mm) and 0.0433" (1.1mm) : DIGIKEY Thermal Pads page (pre-filtered to thickness range and in stock only, sorted by price)
 
Look at the thermal conductivity, you want high value ... Thermal Grizzly says it's 8-W/mK so look for around 6W/m-K or higher. 5W/m-K will probably also be fine. 
try not to get conductive pads,
don't look for the cheapest per unit, also look at square area, you may find a bigger piece cheaper than buying 10 smaller pieces.
 
For example

36$ (0.0016 per mm2) 150mm x 150mm x 1.016mm 6W/m-K : https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/t-global-technology/H48-6G-150-150-1.0-0/1168-1294-ND/3042123
30$ (0.0005 per mm2) 288mm x 192mm x 1mm 5W/m-K : https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/t-global-technology/TG832-288-192-1/1168-2188-ND/7928340
8.5$ (0.0008 per mm2) 101.6mm x 101.6mm x 0.991mm  5W/m-K : https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/wakefield-vette/PL-1-5-1016/345-1524-ND/6680593
 
13.2$ (~ 0.0022 per mm2, 242mm x 24 mm) : 1.32$ x 10pcs x  [24.2mm x 24.2mm x 1mm] 6W/m-K : https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/t-global-technology/TG6050-24.2-24.2-1/1168-1692-ND/3300350
 

No, because actual grizzly bears make it and little elves do the delivery. Sheeesh, you guys think you know tech! 

In a 64 bit application, a pointer takes up 64 bits = 8 bytes (and on 32 bit, it's 4 bytes). The size of an int varies by platform, but is generally 32 bits = 4 bytes.
 
Optimising a couple of bytes is very definitely premature optimisation. However, in this case method 1 will be more efficient.
In terms of memory, method 1 has 4 bytes for x, while method 2 has 8 bytes.
In terms of speed, method 2 involves a pointer dereference, which is a minimum of one extra instruction (and in the event of a cache miss, it will take several cycles).
 
For that use case, it's usually a better idea to use preprocessor macros, which are resolved at compile time and have no runtime overhead
#define CUSTOM_C_DIMENSIONS 10 Then rather than accessing CustomC::x, you would just use CUSTOM_C_DIMENSIONS.

Dereferencing a pointer is when you use the data location the pointer is pointing to
int* i; *i = 5; //dereference  

They should come with some usually speaking but if not you need to make sure you get ones of the correct thickness for it's application. Some of the best one's would be the thermal grizzly ones but with that they come with a price, I usually recommend the stuff from 3M or what EKWB supplies.