Mira Yurizaki

I should also point out the advertised speed is likely: Under ideal conditions With a blank drive With a certain test that none of us know what they did to get the numbers. For example, in AnandTech's review of the 2TB 960 Pro, they listed the Sequential Read speed as 3,500 MB/sec. However, in their sequential read tests, they never got that number: So basically, take the read performance with a grain of salt. SSDs in consumer use cases are more about their IOPS.

It's a factor that could affect testing. If you wanted to ensure you're getting accurate results, you can't test the OS drive because the OS may be doing things that cause storage drive activity.

Testing the OS drive may also be affected by the fact it's the OS drive and the OS and applications still need to run and grab data from it.

You only need to change the cable (UK to IEC 60320 C13/C14) or use a passive plug adapter. The only thing of concern is whether or not the PSU can take UK's power of ~240V/50Hz, which I'm sure it can.

I'm pretty sure the only thing they did was split the arms into two groups and have an actuator on each so the groups can move around independently. The image is very likely not representative of any actual drive. Besides that, hard drives come in a variety of different platter/head numbers.

Skimming the marketing, it doesn't look like it's for latency. It's for throughput.

As every PCIe x16 slot is every other slot, you can only use the 3-slot version. EDIT: Apparently 3-slot means it's three slots ahead. So it'd be 2 or 4 slots depending on where you end up putting the video card

It can service two different data requests at the same time, assuming the data lives on separate halves. So at best you're looking at double the performance, at worse, as much as a single actuator. And it's likely the firmware will make sure data doesn't mostly live on one half or the other.

I normally do: Disassemble the case panels Install/rearrange fans if needed Install PSU into case Install drives if they're not going to be in the way Prep the motherboard for the cooler if needed (e.g., installing a backplate) Install CPU onto motherboard Install motherboard with I/O shield into case Install CPU cooler Install RAM Install other storage drives if they weren't Connect all the cables Install video card and plug in the PCIe cable Power on, check UEFI that everything is detected, set up things, restart to make sure PC is still good Button everything up except the side panel I install the video card last because it gets in the way otherwise.

I feel like the creator's post about what they're doing deserves a mention: Not to downplay their work, but it's the same techniques that's been used for a while.

You can give this a shot: https://pureinfotech.com/download-older-iso-windows-10/

The advertised boost clock speed is the maximum speed if only one or two cores are loaded. Try running Cinebench in single thread mode and see if you can get the advertised boost clock.

Here's one way you can tell there won't be a problem when having more than one storage drive or partition already available when installing Windows: Is there a "System Reserved" partition? If not, then there's no bootloader. And I'm pretty sure Windows won't go "oh, I'll just put a bootloader on the first drive I see even though the user selected another one" since I've installed Windows plenty of times on my PCs with multiple storage drives and the OS drive was not the first one listed. Besides that, if there's already a partition on the drive, it's covering the entire drive, and you didn't select it to install Windows onto, Windows can't put a bootloader on that drive anyway because it requires shrinking the existing partitions. Which, you know, is a big no-no.

I would argue online communities do that just fine. And if anything else, I believe the multiplayer aspect of Pokemon has been primarily designed around the idea that you should go out and meet people. I don't see how seeing any other PCs in the world would change anything, especially if there's little to no content that revolves around doing something with said PCs other than PvP (which I don't care for either). Plus again, an MMO requires a lot of resources to start up and maintain. How do you expect them to handle it? I'd rather not have microtransactions or subscription fees in a mainline Pokemon game.

One of the things that I really wanted to see was an actual die shot of NVIDIA's Turing die. NVIDIA did present something to the press, but I felt like it was too conveniently mocked up to look like the block diagrams they were also presenting: GP102 (GTX 1080 Ti) vs TU102 (RTX 2080 Ti) TU102 Block Diagram So I've always wanted someone else to provide a die shot of Turing in some form. More or less to verify what NVIDIA showed was the real deal. Recently I came across someone who did just that: they took a picture of a Turing die. Though not the TU102, but the TU104, which is used in the RTX 2080. TU104 (RTX 2080) Die shot And just for kicks, this is the TU104 block diagram: So far... the die shot doesn't really resemble anything like the block diagram. Though thanks to the block diagram, we can make some guesses as to where things are as certain things are duplicates of each other. So it's reasonable to assume the memory controllers and GPCs will look the same. And then you can infer other things like there should be 8 memory controllers and 6 GPCs. With that in mind, this is what it comes down to: With this, let's zoom in on a GPC and try to figure out where things are. I'm sure the one thing everyone wants to know is "WHERE ARE THE RT AND TENSOR CORES????" Turing GPC According to the block diagram, there should be four TPCs. Each TPC has two SMs, with each SM having a cluster of four INT, FP, and tensor cores, an L1 cache blob, and an RT core. Within my guess of the GPC, I marked off where I thought the TPCs should be. Then within a TPC I tried looking for pairs of something. While I didn't find any discrete borders, I did notice some symmetry in areas so I figured I could mark half of it off and see what I come up with. Note that this isn't indicative of where any of the components of an SM are. The middle portion may contain the PolyMorph Engine since there's only one in each TPC and there are four areas that look the same. The rest I'm not sure, but it's likely part of the raster engine. So how does this compare to Pascal? Well, let's bring up the GP102 along with areas marked off. This is convenient because the GP102 and TU104 have about the same performance so it's a neat comparison. First things first: this has very little, if any resemblance to what NVIDIA showed in the presentation. For good measure, this is GP102's block diagram. So according to this, there should be 6 GPCs and 12 memory controllers Within each TPC there should be 5 TPCs. So zooming in on a GPC... Note that I'm not sure what part in the middle counts as a TPC, since there appears to be 15 of something and I can't see where those 15 things would lay on the block diagram. So we can't really compare a Pascal TPC to a Turing TPC, but we can compare their GPCs. So then, how does Turing stack up against Pascal? These are scaled to about what they should be. As to method: GP102 has a die area of 471 mm^2. TU104 has a die area of 545 mm^2. Which means TU104 is about 1.157 times larger than GP102 Taking the two die shots, I scaled them to the same horizontal resolution of 1920. This resulted in the TU104 picture having resolution of 1920 x 1778 and the GP102 picture having a resolution of 1920 x 1543. Comparing their areas (TU104 total pixels / GP102 total pixels) gets me around ... the TU104 being 1.152 times larger than GP102. That's within spitting distance. Taking the two GPC images side by side, they're almost identical in resolution. Which means that Turing must've taken something away from Pascal in order to fit the RT and tensor cores. So let's figure out what's in each SM Pascal 4 schedulers 8 instruction dispatch units 256 KiB of registers 128 shader units 32 Load/Store (LD/ST) units 32 Special Function Units (SFU) 8 Texture units 96 KiB of shared memory + 48 KiB of L1 cache Turing 4 schedulers + dispatch units 256 KiB of registers 64 INT + 64 FP shader units (128 total) 8 Tensor cores 16 Load/Store (LD/ST) units 16? Special Function Units (SFU) (the block diagram of a Turing SM shows 1 SFU but it appears to be split into 4) 96 KiB of L1 cache 1 RT core So the only things that Turing lost over Pascal were LD/ST and SFUs plus some cache. I don't think that's covers a lot of space on the die. But in short, despite how big the RT and tensor cores look on the block diagram, they don't appear to be "to scale" References: TU104 die picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/130561288@N04/48116463052 Additional TU104 pictures: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/nvidia-tu104.g854 TU102 pictures: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/nvidia-tu102.g813 GP102 pictures: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/nvidia-gp102.g798 Turing Whitepaper: https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-zz/Solutions/design-visualization/technologies/turing-architecture/NVIDIA-Turing-Architecture-Whitepaper.pdf GTX 1080 Whitepaper:https://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/pdfs/GeForce_GTX_1080_Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf

I think the other problem with sharp corners is structural. Especially with metal.

A "Primary" partition just means it can support booting into an OS. This is opposed to an "Extended" partition which has more flexibility at the cost of not being able to boot into an OS.

Oh, yeah, that's a fun one.

Funny you say that:

If there's nothing on the 2TB partition, you can delete it, then make a new one in the empty space.

Some builds may be sponsored. In which case they may feel around for someone for parts as part of a sponsorship deal. Whoever gives them the better deal will get their part in the computer. I think this happens a lot with high-end builds too.

... So again, why do I need a ROM hack to get a challenge if you spelled it out right here?

Random thoughts: I'm not even sure what this means, since GPUs already have a hardware scheduler.* Unless it means that there's going to be something on the GPU or supplementary to it at that assists in scheduling. *Contrary to popular belief, NVIDIA's GPUs do have a hardware scheduler. The thing that got moved to drivers was dependency tracking, since NVIDIA figured out on their GPUs they could predict when a dependency would become available. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/dxr-1-1/ So basically, it's the same as before, just with improvements. And apparently if the GPU already supports 1.0, it can do 1.1 with a driver update. I was wondering when this was going to be a thing. It was something NVIDIA mentioned in the Turing Whitepaper and apparently some developers are excited for it (http://www.reedbeta.com/blog/mesh-shader-possibilities/)

I'm surprised you even bothered picking up the game. I thought you were convinced Game Freak wasn't going to give you what you wanted. So instead of voting with your wallet to express your complaints, you just went ahead bought the game going in with the low expectations and zoning in on the faults you can find to further dig yourself deeper in what you believe. So are you just upset you wasted your money supporting the company that you were so certain wasn't going to give you what you want? Because that's what it sounds like.

This sounds bog standard for the handheld games anyway. "The story has zero depth" - Well yeah. The story's always been "go get badges, go beat up the 'Team' because they want to take over the world, go win against the Elite 4 and the Champion" "game has no challenge at all" - I can't recall any Pokemon game that was remotely challenging because literally all you have to do is figure out what the next boss specializes in, figure out what level the game expects your team to be at, and take one or two Pokemon at said level or above who can beat the type the boss uses. The only difficulty the game has is the leveling curve. Relatively speaking against other RPGs I've played, Pokemon is boring as hell. It's a game meant for 6 year olds to play. The thing they have to learn for the MSQ of the game is learning the type chart because all it is is a giant 17-way rock-paper-scissors game.