Mihle

Ah, I'm not sure anyone really wants that though. The Pro cards already have no actual limit on number of encode streams just performance/quality limit and they can do over 30 streams per card on Ampere at 1080p/30 high enough bit rate.
 
 
 

 
https://docs.nvidia.com/video-technologies/video-codec-sdk/12.1/nvenc-application-note/index.html

The only real-time transcoding YouTube does is for Live Streams, they don't and haven't done any VOD playback transcoding in more than a decade. I would say ever but I don't know what YouTube did when it first existed.
 
16 versions of a video is absolutely less costly than transcoding, also it's likely much less than 16 versions, more than 10 is unlikely. Compute no matter if it's CPU, GPU, ASIC costs more than storage and it also doesn't scale anywhere near, like 100 times less, than file storage space and direct download.

No, as one pixel on 1080 would be exactly 2x2 pixels on 4k, while on 1440p its not even close to a whole number of pixels, it would have decimals. I believe there would be one 1080p pixel per 1,333333....x1,33333... Pixel on 1440p. If my math is right.

If the 4k monitor and 1440p monitor is the same size, 1080p should look worse on the 1440p monitor than the 4k one, theoretically.

I have 4k monitor, 3072x1728, aka 80% look good to me in games. Change it in game and not in windows/drivers.
 
More and more games have seperate display resolution and game/render resolution. Have display resolution at native resolution and change the render resolution. It looks better.

Well the problem is ARM server CPU's actually aren't, neither are they low specific power usage either. There are workloads where something like the Altra Max is massive lower perf/watt compared to both AMD and even Intel due to the drastically lower performance while still drawing 300W-400W.
 
One of the biggest problems you'll face with your thought process is that any improvements we make to power efficiency will just be used to increase performance rather than lower chip power usage. While companies want maximum possible performance we'll continue to 400W-600W CPUs and GPUs and they are buying more of them so actual power consumption is not doing down with improvements to power efficiency. 
 
Power efficiency and power usage, low power usage in  particular, are not the same thing or even all that directly linked squarely because you have to convince buyers to not want to utilize 400W+ for even greater performance aka not likely. 

Things that help much more towards preventing climate change, and most of them we already have technology to do plenty more of than we are currently doing:
Replace all gas and resistive heating with heat pumps. Increase insulation of buildings. Build and use more public transport. More electric cars and busses. Build more clean energy production, including nuclear power. Make items people buy last longer. Make people and companies keep what they have for longer. Make datacenters use spare heat for for example heating up nearby buildings. Repurpose materials more than we currently do. New server hardware do become more and more efficient over time already and it would be much harder to accelerate that.

If anything we need more air conditioning systems, in the form of reversible heat pumps. A cold climate air source heat pump is 3 to 5 times more efficient than resistive electric heating. Even high efficiency condensing gas furnaces are less efficient than a heat pump running off electricity generated by that same fuel in a power plant.
 
Those roll-around portable air conditioners and window units at the big-box store are bronze age tech in comparison.

You can just sew it on so it's fits you, but you can't adjust it anymore.

What some people don't seem to get is that, opening the walls a little doesn't make the experience worse for those that only are inside of it. It only improves it for those that aren't.
 
Opening it up a little doesn't have to change how well your AirPods works with you iPhone, or iPhone with your Mac.
Its not a zero sum game for users.

Never said it would be hard, its just another thing you have to do.

1. A pool at your personal residence is not a business expense no matter how many times you shoot a video in it.
 
2. I like your user name.

I live in Sweden. Our tax system is very different. But to answer your question, I do not use any tricks or clever accounting to try and minimize or maximize the taxes I pay. 
 
 
You can dislike both the system and the people/companies that abuse the system. It's not like "I am just following the law" is a blanket statement that removes any personal responsibility and makes you immune from criticism. 
 
If the law allowed me to hit you in the face I'd still be a bad person for doing it, even if I'm just "following the law". I could simultaneously also think that the law allowing me to hit you in the face is dumb and should be changed. 
 
I'd like to think that we can hold people and companies to slightly higher standards than the absolute minimum that doesn't make them literally criminals. 

that's already wrong. you want the light level to 'match' the surroundings, so that it's easy to read, but not overly bright.
 
past that, make sure they're at eye height, and the distance between your eyes and the monitor is adjusted well so you can easily read any text you may encounter.
 
also - i'm of the opinion the "illuminated room" thing is mostly a myth. you want light level to match between the display and the surrounding room. that's ofcourse easiest if the light level is set artificially too, but that doesnt mean it has to be all bright all the time. i find bright rooms straining in general, wether or not a display is involved.

That is a complete BS and these websites are a joke. Just ignore it...
 
1.) There is no way to calculate a bottleneck for general use
2.) There will always be a bottleneck somewhere in the system no matter how much money you'll spend

Why are you upgrading?  The 5700X is perfectly fine for gaming, especially 1440p.
 

It's not a situation where it is either Apple or pharmaceutical companies. They could do both. What you are doing here is called a "fallacy of relative privation".
But it is most likely easier to tell Apple "hey, stop deliberately making it hard for users to leave your ecosystem" than it is trying to reform the field of medical research. Making changes to IP law for medical stuff could have devastating effects as well if not done carefully and correctly. Telling Apple that they have to support RCS, or telling Apple to stop restricting what developers can communicate to their users for example is way easier and far less risky.

What some people don't seem to get is that, opening the walls a little doesn't make the experience worse for those that only are inside of it. It only improves it for those that aren't.
 
Opening it up a little doesn't have to change how well your AirPods works with you iPhone, or iPhone with your Mac.
Its not a zero sum game for users.

What some people don't seem to get is that, opening the walls a little doesn't make the experience worse for those that only are inside of it. It only improves it for those that aren't.
 
Opening it up a little doesn't have to change how well your AirPods works with you iPhone, or iPhone with your Mac.
Its not a zero sum game for users.

The good thing about opening things up is that you still get to stay in the walled garden if you want and enjoy all those benefits. It's just that others who may not feel exactly like you could also benefit in some other ways. 
 
If you want an analogy, it's like if some restaurant added some vegan options to their menu, while keeping all the old stuff there as well. Just because the restaurant now has more options and can appeal to more people doesn't mean you have to order the new stuff. You can keep ordering the old non-vegan meals if you want. 

Or, think of it from another perspective. Having alternative app stores doesn't affect you in any way. You aren't forced to use it. You can still use you Apple branded stuff. Same with peripherals, I don't think there has been active call to make those work with other devices. Playstation brand peripherals don't work with Xbox either, and I don't see much crying over that. So I think you are confusing it there to lessen proprietary charging solutions. As in Apple being forced to make their products USB-C compatible. Which they already could do before that ruling, but decided not to. Their defense was cost effectiveness, to them as business and to customers who already have their chargers. But that defense kinda falls flat when they stop supplying chargers with devices and ask VERY high price for those chargers bought separately. So someone already in the ecosystem might benefit, but those coming in would have high entry in terms of fees.
 
So Apple being asked to be more consumer friendly does not lessen your experience, but might enrich others. Which means, this kind of ideology is indeed "walled garden", but not in the way you see it. But as "we don't want those who aren't elite" way. Such gatekeeping is stupid imo. It wasn't the ideology Apple was founded by Steve's, its ideology of new generation of Apple bosses.
 
If you think through things that Linus for example asks of Apple:
Include chargers. If you insist of having proprietary connectors, this is must. If you agree of using USB-C, then you can skip. Have USB-C. Goes with above. They already can do it, but choose not to in order to generate more profits. There's no other valid reason. Touchscreen on Macbooks. This is ancient style of thinking used devices. And also, Apple wants more profits. They want to their users to have one of each. Phone, tablet and PC. Not giving all features that they could to those, forcing consumer to get the next or previous step to do something basic. Whereas they could take some professions by storm. Like adding convertible Macbook with touchscreen to semi-professional or freelancers working with photo/video field. Repairability. Apple is actively blocking 3rd party repairs. Their reasoning has been privacy and making sure products are within spec. This works as long as device has warranty. But after that, Apple can deny repairs as in their eyes, devices is EOL. Whereas 3rd party repair shops can keep them running for years on years. This essentially would lessen the profits for Apple. As the people who otherwise would need to buy new devices can go for repairs instead. Here I have real-life story. A person I know had to buy new iPhone after previous broke. I don't know what happened to it or whether it was under warranty or not. Repairs would have costed more than getting new device, when the repairs were done by licensed shop. Easier/cheaper upgrades. So this is addition to above, but mainly when it comes to Macbooks and Mac Pro's. The first config is already on high side in terms of pricing of some products. For example, storage and RAM are priced WAY beyond free markets and even competition (consoles and Dell/HP/Lenovo). Again, why is that? Some of that high price can be attributed to quality control. Apple wants to make sure these parts will work. But at some point, that just isn't going to be OK as reason. The high pricing has two other reasons. One, because they can. And two, because you have to do it in shop, you can't do it yourself. So they control things and you as consumer are at their mercy.  Cooling. This is mostly about Mac Pro which is constantly noted to be really bad with cooling. Sinister side of me thinks its to bring in more repair and spares money to Apple. Since you can't improve things on your own, and having things run hot will shorten their lifespan. The luxury effect. This comes from cleaning cloths, unremovable cables etc. Which even Jonathan Horst, a Mac guy inside LMG, has given Apple note about. But its luxury decision. You want to show you have money? You buy expensive stuff just because its expensive, not because it would be better for something. I would bet that cleaning cloth I get with my Boss glasses for free works as well as something you have to BUY SEPARATELY from Apple. Those are just things I remember from LTT videos. Additionally, my gripe is that Apple wants to be included with the world, but doesn't want to do anything about it. So when the rest of the world is going for open-source in files and handling connectivity, Apple does their own thing. Meaning that when Apple user needs to interact with rest of the world, they expect others to bend to please their quirks. As in HEIC image format, non-compatible document formats, even PDF files that doesn't display correctly on Windows machines vs Apple.

It sounds like you're overthinking things... the amount of power saved by reducing the resolution is extremely minor - you'll get more savings by reducing screen brightness by a few percent. 

Wait, who?

The general consensus is that VRR is less important on high refresh rate displays and high frame rate games because it's less noticeable the higher you go. Like @Mihle already said, that's because the image tear is visible for a smaller amount of time.
 
Especially on lower refresh rates like 120 Hz or less, VRR is much more important, as tearing is extremely noticeable when it happens.
 
Case in point: I recently played around with the Nvidia settings and within the first 10 seconds of starting the next game, I could tell that VRR wasn't working. Especially when you've been used to G-Sync for years, you will be able to spot tearing instantly.

I don't know if I quite understand what you are saying, but I am quite sure that is not how it works. If a monitor is sent a frame before it completes the previous, it is sent a frame before it completes the previous. No matter what frequency it is.
 
If anything, a tear stays on a 60hz screen for longer time than it does on a high frequency screen, and therefore can be more noticeable. Aka on for example 240hz it will be less visible because its just on screen for a very short time.