Thunder_Ruler0

The XPS 15 is very nice and thin, though.. in my opinion other brands can give you a better value for your money.
 

I use pages for my word processing too. it's so much faster than Office... I guess that's the advantage of using Apple exclusive software  

I get you. In my opinion, google docs is way easier to use and much more convenient. 

Curious. Both Office 2010 Word and Excell and LibreOffice apps open in three seconds on my notebook when opened for the first time after booting the computer. When reopening, LibreOffice apps come up faster than Office 2010.

I honestly don’t know. The last office program I bought is 2011 for Mac. Since I’ve been using Pages, Keynote, and Numbers. Google drive has also been used fairly extensively. 

Oh and I just re-read OP because I skimmed it, and I see you mention outlook...
 

Well for a dedicated desktop app that pushes notifications to your desktop, gmail really isn't there for that @Thunder_Ruler0
I have my gmail account connected to Outlook, fwiw it's kinda nice. I just wished at least in this version of the program it would allow you to have it come up as a start up program, minimized.

Read the TOS.  Google reserves the right to use any of your content for any purpose.

I don't get it either. I use a Mac and pages, numbers and keynote are free... they're Mac exclusive apps of course but still. 
 
I only have Office installed on my Mac because I could get it from school like you did... 

tbh i never really saw the point of it. steam runs perfectly fine under most distros. you are better off picking a stable distro that you like and installing the steam client

Yes, but if you're on a laptop, probably not because system builders usually don't allow that level of control.
 
Well let's take some scenarios:
From a pure, worst case standpoint, four cores at 1.5GHz is worse than two cores at 2.5GHz If you had a task that took say 1, 2, 3, and 4 seconds, the two cores at 2.5GHz is still better since the total run time is 4 seconds for four-cores at 1.5GHz and 3 seconds for two cores at 2.5GHz. This is a gross simplification, it does not account for any overhead involved with processing things such as task switching or grabbing data from cache. If you had tasks that all ran at nearly the same run time, then four-cores at 1.5GHz is better since two-cores at 2.5GHz does not have a theoretical performance to match four cores at 1.5GHz Considering that a lot of tasks people do are idling and are usually more sensitive to clock speed than core count, then sure, two cores at 2.5GHz would be better.
 
However, again, modern CPUs and OSes can fine tune their performance needs, which includes parking CPU cores if the system feels it doesn't need the extra boost. So I don't feel there's any real value in manually adjusting anything.
 
But we're all talking theoretical here. A hypothesis is kind of useless without the experiment to test it.

Well then tell you what. Run your daily rigamaroll with 100%, then again at 65% and see what difference you'll get in terms of battery life and performance.
 
That's pretty much the only way you'll find your answer.

If you don't do anything that CPU intensive, then it may be a good idea, was just saying that for anything intensive it may end up eating more battery because of having the screen on for longer etc. Try it and see is the only way to go really, if in your daily usage you notice it's actually using more battery that way, just chnage it back or make other changes.
I agree also that it might be better to just change the maximum % in the power options than to change it in the BIOS, at least it's more accessible to chnage it again of needed without having to restart etc.

Do it in BIOS if you can.
Otherwise, try Intel Extreme Tuning Utility.

Yea I saw that too and it caught me a little of guard. I'm sure it may just say that because it could have been specifically for constant video recording environments like surveillance rooms. Doesn't remove the main functionality of the drive so I'm 99% sure it'll work fine. 

... I think this thread is gonna get derailed real fast

This is something based on the old background that I had made, tell me what you guys think of this one and what I should change to make it better. 

 
 
*edit* There was some shading that was supposed to be added but just after saving the image the program had crashed and I lost the model
 

Nice work.

You do not need to install 7 and upgrade. You can just download the media creation tool from MS directly and install 10 straight without putting 7 on there.
 
Doing a clean install is always recommended when switching to SSD. Not just the optimization stuff but its also a good time to clean out unnecessary stuff and start fresh.

FX CPUs don't have the best of luck in CSGO, but 150+ FPS was perfectly in line with what you should be getting, not ~60.

Well, based on what you've said.
There does to seem to be a bit of artifacting going on whenever you get around the 600mhz range. Based on my experience, if you see artifacting, but it doesn't crash, then I would still consider it unstable. You want to slowly turn in down, probably by 25mhz each notch until you don't get any artifacting at all. Maybe test a few games out to see if its stable. IF everything runs fine, you don't see artifacting in the games (which BTW artifacting can happen in games even if you don't see it in Unigen Heaven, so be mindful). Then you've found the sweet spot. 
 
As for cooling... increasing the fan speed, and keeping it at a low temp will not remove any artifacting at all, since it's related to the chips maximum performance. If your card tops out at 70C with overclocking and without touching the fan speed, then way to go! You don't need to turn up the fan speed because that's a very nice temperature to be around. As long as you don't go into 85 - 90 territory, your perfectly fine. 
 
 

I am all for a game console to deliver a unique experience over the PC.. I mean else.. what's the point? I can plug my PC to my TV.. but my computer monitor is way better than my TV in any case. The console needs to justify the higher priced games, and other downsides from PCs.
 
To me, this deliver on this.
Nintendo Games. This isn't just 1 or 2 exclusive games. The company has a collection of games. Gaming anywhere at home and on the go, where you can continue your game where you left it. Even if battery life is..say 3-4h which is probably the case.. this is pretty good. I mean if you use it to go to school or work, you can charge it once there. I am sure there will be a charging cable. No installation of games (if cartridges used), bringing the old console of plug-in and play feel. Local multiplayer gaming.. Nintendo's forte. Something that is difficult to find on the PC (and other consoles).

As for other console: Most likely free multiplayer online... yes.. it will probably continue to lack behind XBox One and PS4 networks, and probably still lack voice chat while gaming... but it is free. Already on PC, I use Skype, as all other solutions (that I tried) has shitty audio quality. And, I am used to Skype with friend and family even when playing on a console... we all have phones or a laptop we can use for that. So to me, it is like PCs (in terms of free), but it is a console. The lower price point (rumor of $299, makes up for it in my book... I mean it doesn't try to be a $500 underpowered PC... ).

As long as it works smoothly and actually has games this time I would love to have this

i want one so bad

moved to troubleshooting

when i make my first game, it will not have physx, it will use openCL physics engine, so dont count on physx.
 
I've used dedicated physx in the past and in various odd ways and i can tell you that while it is nice it makes it unfair because you have to look at the various platforms out there. All 3 GPU brands (intel IGP, nvidia, AMD) all support openCL and many systems having IGP + dedicated means you can make use of the IGP for running some code.
 
You also have to look at other platforms. Consoles now all use AMD, dont think physx matters there. the PS3 even though it had nvidia GPU used its own cell CPUs to calculate physics and 3D and even the ps3 can run openCL. Tablets, phones, ultra portables, nvidia isnt the leader here, most of the market is filled with various implementations but what they all have in common is that many of them can run openCL as the powerVR GPU and even qualcomm's own snapdragons can run it but usually with games they will be bogged down with graphics work without any free resources for physics.
 
So what physx gives is very narrow to what a custom openCL based physics engine could support even if the performance may be lower.
 
I've tried having a card dedicated to physx before but i dont anymore. At first i used an eGPU with my laptop, the GTX 580 doing graphics while my laptop's onboard quadro doing physx and the performance was bad due to the PCIe x1 slot. Batman arkham asylum was a well optimised game that i would get above 40fps on a core2 laptop using the GTX 580 for physx. And than i had a GTX 285 in a desktop doing physx with AMD graphics using some sort of hack. Didnt play many physx games though but the GTX 285 did quite well in fluidmark with AMD doing the rendering.
 
Currently havok is much more widely used than physx as not only does havok take advantage of the SSE instruction sets but is also used on consoles too and isnt limited to hardware from on manufacturer. Less games use physx because not only is it restricted to nvidia cards but it will only let you use it if you also use nvidia for rendering. it is also still unoptimised on x86 so it doesnt make it makes it expensive to adopt as your console and PC game versions will be very different and expensive to create and maintain.
 
For running physx on the same GPU the GPU architecture needs to be compute focused (Fermi, pascal, not kepler) supporting better context swapping (stuff like good branching performance, etc) things that CPUs are good at. For running physx on dedicated GPU this does not matter. You should have a good amount of PCIe lanes ( SLI bridge is unfortunately not used for physx) and system ram bandwidth as with physx on dedicated GPU the GPU does not directly swap data from one GPU to another (all GPUs are capable of this but nvidia only allows this feature on their tesla line). This means that physx data has to be taken from the 2nd GPU, put into ram and transferred to the main GPU.
 
So many limitations with physx that it just doesnt take advantage of what there is available in hardware.