porina

Correct on all those points, so I hope to see some good results soon. Right now there's no CPU that does every single task best, it's either THIS or THAT. It will be an interesting few years to come 🙂

The target customer is someone who wants the best CPU performance at any cost. 7800X3D might on average get ahead in most gaming, but not everywhere else. If it has customers, it isn't senseless.
 
The bad decisions were made perhaps 10+ years ago now. Their approach to fab progression fell apart. It isn't something you can fix overnight. They knew what they needed to do, and they're still doing it. The next year or two sees Intel returning to a competitive process node and Arrow Lake should be a major step forwards on the desktop as they get over two node uplift on top of updated core design.
 
Remember the original Ryzen series didn't do great at gaming too? If all you ran was Cinebench or similar, it was great. Ryzen wasn't really great in gaming until Zen 2 (3000 series), which was their first architecture to pass Skylake levels overall. It was so painful with the AMD fanboys talking about Cinebench like it was the only thing that mattered.

They've had bad takes in the past but this is pretty spot on. I have der8auer's video on my 2nd screen right now since it appeared in my feed. I'm not exactly giving it much attention as I write this reply! Basically it isn't terribly interesting to me either. At most I might look at the summary chart on TechPowerUp later.
 
Let's see what Arrow Lake brings.

I can never hate on the ks versions of chips. I think they are just dumb fun. Negative opinions on it always seem to just miss the point hard. its not there to try to beat ryzen, its just there to see how hard you can push it. Competition literally does not mater here. I dont even understand the "dont recommend" statements like that needs to be explicitly said. no one asking the question of what PC to buy is even looking at that budget, the same way you dont recommend a porshe 918. 

like a Dodge Demon hellcat, stupid fun, completely unusable. 

This is what BlurBusters says about driver-side V-Sync compared to in-game V-Sync:
 
 
Basically, only use the in-game option when the driver-side option doesn't seem to work in that particular game.

Two thoughts I had when I saw this video, and I am a bit scared that nobody else has pointed this out.
1) The video is super heavily edited. I am not even sure this is what he said because it is so heavily edited. Does anyone have the original video? In that 1 minute video I counted something like 18 cuts. That the large amount of cuts doesn't ring an alarm bell to anyone else is in my opinion a pretty big alarm bell. Are people just so used to the jump cuts that they don't notice them? Each and every cut could be taking out important context that may bring nuance or it could also just be stitching together words to form sentences that were never even said to begin with.
 
2) Is he really saying "don't learn computer science"? 
To me, the way I interpret what was said, is that while we used to hear people say "everyone should learn how to program" we are quickly moving towards a world where few people will need to learn how to code. That we should aim to make tools that makes it so that everyone can "program" without knowing a programming language. 
That people who used to need to learn programming to make their computers do something that was actually related to something else (like biology) will hopefully be able to just focus on the biology part in the future. Instead of needing to learn how to code because they need to write a program to check some protein reaction or whatever, they will hopefully in the future be able to just focus on learning the biology part and let the computer handle the "how to create a program to check this" part.
 
That we are moving away from "everyone need to learn programming because programming is a skill every job needs" to "you don't need to learn programming if that's not going to be your primary focus".
 
I might be misinterpreting what he said, but I think that is a fairly logical explanation and view considering some particular word choices and context.

Probably that.
 
 
I'd suggest looking at Kingston. This is their UK site but I you can try finding the regional equivalent.
https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingdom/en/memory/client/ddr4-3200mts-non_ecc-unbuffered-dimm
 
I found them when looking for JEDEC ram for my laptop. They're the only ones that let you pick configuration, so I got some sweet 2Rx8 modules. Keep well away from 1Rx16.
 
The datasheet doesn't show if they include lower JEDEC profiles but I'd be surprised if they didn't. Give me a moment and I'll extract the SPD table from my laptop ram as example.
 
Edit: 

Yup, it has JEDEC profiles for 2933, 3066, 3200. Probably lower but I'd have to get Thaiphoon Burner to try and read that.

It was rated at 50GB/s bandwidth, which is about double that of the standard DDR3-1600 ram of the time. It isn't clear to me if it worked both directions simultaneously, or not like normal ram.
 
Also note it was a victim cache. You don't access it like a separate pool. Recently used data fell into it when evicted from lower level caches. It really speeded up some CPU only workloads, in a broadly similar way to 3D cache.
 
I think they were priced appropriately, comparable to the equivalent Skylake -K offerings. I wasn't up to speed when Haswell was current but I wouldn't be surprised if they were similarly priced too.
 
They were likely only released by Intel for them to say they released it at all. They weren't regular desktop CPUs but the existing mobile offering shoved onto desktop socket. As much fun as some make of Intel's 14nm, it was the first product on that node. It had problems and was very late. It's prime sales window was a matter of months before Skylake came along - May to August 2015. Even Rocket Lake had longer than that - March to Nov 2021.
 
It was only considered slow because they didn't clock well. From memory they topped out around 4 GHz whereas Haswell refresh was pushing much higher than that.
 
I kept my 5775C system. Some day I'll get around to benching it with modern games. Don't hold your breath.

A bit more context would help. It sounds like this is a property that is relatively detached so there is no existing infrastructure reaching it, even if there is some nearby. If there isn't an explicit universal access requirement, then costs can be high. It sounds like this is a push towards something like universal access.
 
The minimum requirements listed might seem low, but for remote locations it could potentially be provided over the mobile network or even LEO satellite outside of pricing.

A bit more context would help. It sounds like this is a property that is relatively detached so there is no existing infrastructure reaching it, even if there is some nearby. If there isn't an explicit universal access requirement, then costs can be high. It sounds like this is a push towards something like universal access.
 
The minimum requirements listed might seem low, but for remote locations it could potentially be provided over the mobile network or even LEO satellite outside of pricing.

Now we're in March the Feb data has been out for a bit and I took a look at it. Before I get into the numbers, I know, there is uncertainty in how they were obtained and they can't be taken as absolutely representative of anything. Still, it is the best data set I'm aware of for PC gaming. I'd welcome any alternate sources which could supplement this.
 
One thing in particular is I've noticed occasional odd months where NV share spikes a little. Feb 2024 might be one of them. It is not as big as other spikes but it does feel like there is something there. NV overall share went up 2.7 percentage points from the previous month, with the three preceding months spanning less than one percentage point change. So this month's data probably isn't the best to look at for longer term trends especially comparing red vs green.
 
The biggest gains were in the mid range NV GPUs of recent generations, with the 3060, 4060, 3070, 2060, 4070 taking the top 5 spots in percentage point change. While new sales of 4060 and 4070 would be expected, there can't be that many older gens entering the market?
 
Of note is a new entry of the 4070 Super, which means with less than 6 weeks of sales it already has a presence bigger than all individual current gen AMD GPUs except the 7900 XTX.

Now we're in March the Feb data has been out for a bit and I took a look at it. Before I get into the numbers, I know, there is uncertainty in how they were obtained and they can't be taken as absolutely representative of anything. Still, it is the best data set I'm aware of for PC gaming. I'd welcome any alternate sources which could supplement this.
 
One thing in particular is I've noticed occasional odd months where NV share spikes a little. Feb 2024 might be one of them. It is not as big as other spikes but it does feel like there is something there. NV overall share went up 2.7 percentage points from the previous month, with the three preceding months spanning less than one percentage point change. So this month's data probably isn't the best to look at for longer term trends especially comparing red vs green.
 
The biggest gains were in the mid range NV GPUs of recent generations, with the 3060, 4060, 3070, 2060, 4070 taking the top 5 spots in percentage point change. While new sales of 4060 and 4070 would be expected, there can't be that many older gens entering the market?
 
Of note is a new entry of the 4070 Super, which means with less than 6 weeks of sales it already has a presence bigger than all individual current gen AMD GPUs except the 7900 XTX.

A bit more context would help. It sounds like this is a property that is relatively detached so there is no existing infrastructure reaching it, even if there is some nearby. If there isn't an explicit universal access requirement, then costs can be high. It sounds like this is a push towards something like universal access.
 
The minimum requirements listed might seem low, but for remote locations it could potentially be provided over the mobile network or even LEO satellite outside of pricing.

A bit more context would help. It sounds like this is a property that is relatively detached so there is no existing infrastructure reaching it, even if there is some nearby. If there isn't an explicit universal access requirement, then costs can be high. It sounds like this is a push towards something like universal access.
 
The minimum requirements listed might seem low, but for remote locations it could potentially be provided over the mobile network or even LEO satellite outside of pricing.

Running with 4 sticks often reduces the maximum working speed. 3200 isn't fast but not all CPUs will be stable with 4 sticks of it. Older Ryzen CPUs for example really struggled with it.
 
Was XMP on when running 2 sticks? Hopefully the mobo should detect the change in ram and use safe defaults, but in case it doesn't, put 2 sticks in to boot and make sure XMP is off when going to 4.
 
Give it more than one try, and give it some time too. First boot on a hardware change can take much longer than normal.

I miss the days when I used to frequent photography forums. Pixel peeping missing the bigger picture, bad pun intended.
 
I'm more surprised Nikon are still going along in a meaningful way. I've not kept up to date but they were looking in bad shape at the tail end of DSLR era - early mirrorless era. In peak DSLR and earlier it was always Canon vs Nikon but that switched to Canon vs Sony.
 
Still, getting a better presence in the video side certainly doesn't hurt. I don't personally look at pro video products so this is largely off radar to me in the context of the wider market.
 
Photography is like computing in a way. You want the best if things are never good enough, but once you do reach good enough, the question then is, how cheap can you get it? Laws of physics mean phones will struggle to match bigger sensor/optics but in many cases it has passed people's "good enough" threshold.

I would like to add, that TBW is calculated with ECC, like BCH and LDPC error correction algorithms. Not pure P/E of NAND cells.
 
the same 32l TLC micron nand, have 500P/E cycles in BCH ecc codes, and 1500P/E cycles in LDPC ecc codes. 
 
https://media-www.micron.com/-/media/client/global/documents/products/product-flyer/3d_nand_flyer.pdf
 
https://media-www.micron.com/-/media/client/global/documents/products/product-flyer/3d_nand_flyer.pdf  

The problem with that is the monthly rate is cheaper from the 3rd day on. The day rate is only cheaper if you only intend to use at most 2 days in a month.

Dunno if you saw my edit, it seemed to allow to decline additional features and essentially run in manual mode. I don't know if you can reconfigure an install as I selected options to do it on install I think. Based on that experience I'm not going to try it again myself.

Why are you even using it then? Uninstall it and Defender should pick up again by itself.
 
I did try it recently myself. It is very different from the old days. I chose to decline all "extra" services and trial stuff then it was more like the old versions.

Use the right tool for the job. While I agree that a SLR class camera, with someone who knows how to use it properly, and optionally post process, can get better results than a phone, that's missing the point. Most people, most of the time, are happy enough with the phone output.
 
To me dedicated cameras only make sense in certain use cases, and remain for those purposes. For my personal use cases, it's mostly due to reach. I tend to use longer focal lengths for most of my past photography. 300mm+ on APS-C sensor. No phone that I'd want to buy can do that. Sony tried add-on modules which were just an ergonomic mess. Even compact superzooms can beat phones in that space. Other use cases where higher end photography is used can include formal portraits, weddings, data gathering for example.
 
I do still take my DSLR out for fun, but a lot less than I used to. There's only so many variations of duck portraiture before it gets samey. I'm trying to transition to gulls now.
 
As for processing, we have clearly entered the computational photography era. Revisiting my old shots with current tools do enable things not possible then. I do feel there is a lot of untapped potential still in the realm of computational photography and using camera arrays will be the next step for higher end imaging on phones without requiring a fat lens.

Quite a conjecture. When I look back at my photo albums full of pictures I took as a child on a cheap point-and-shoot camera, I don't think "gee, I wish I'd taken these with the DSLR I bought 10 years later". I just look at the scenes in those pictures and the people within them and reminisce fondly. You seem to overestimate how much people value the fidelity of pictures over what memories they depict.

I don't think the people who say "DSLR killer" mean that smartphones are better than DSLRs. I think they are saying smartphones have gotten good enough that the use cases for a DSLR, for most people, is gone. 
 
I have a DSLR that I used to use a lot. Then when I got my galaxy S10 and found myself using the DSLR less and less. The phone was good enough, and far more convenient. 
 
I used my S10 exclusively on my trip to Japan. Could my DSLR have taken better pictures? Absolutely, but carrying it around would have made the trip worse because it would have been more of a hassle. The benefit didn't outweigh the drawback in my use case. 
 
You have to judge things in their entirety. When two competing products have strengths and weaknesses you can't stare yourself blind on a single factor. 
For the average person, is it worth spending the money to buy a DSLR, then carry that around instead of just using their phone's camera? 
Sales of digital cameras dropping by about 90% since 2010 indicates to me that people are satisfied enough with their smartphones. 
 
Also, something causing sales of X drop 90% is in my opinion a pretty good definition of an "X killer". 
If Samsung released a phone tomorrow that caused iPhone sales to drop 90% then I'd call that an "iPhone killer" too. 

I miss the days when I used to frequent photography forums. Pixel peeping missing the bigger picture, bad pun intended.
 
I'm more surprised Nikon are still going along in a meaningful way. I've not kept up to date but they were looking in bad shape at the tail end of DSLR era - early mirrorless era. In peak DSLR and earlier it was always Canon vs Nikon but that switched to Canon vs Sony.
 
Still, getting a better presence in the video side certainly doesn't hurt. I don't personally look at pro video products so this is largely off radar to me in the context of the wider market.
 
Photography is like computing in a way. You want the best if things are never good enough, but once you do reach good enough, the question then is, how cheap can you get it? Laws of physics mean phones will struggle to match bigger sensor/optics but in many cases it has passed people's "good enough" threshold.

It could be a naming thing. DLSS3 headline feature might be frame generation but it still also has upscaling and latency reduction. Basically without frame generation, it'll work as an upscaler as before.
 
If it supports XeSS, try that? In another game it looked better than DLSS or FSR 2+. FSR1 wasn't even worth trying for me.