Cookybiscuit

I hope this trend continues and in 2-3 years the 8700K is considered like we consider the FX-8350 now, but I doubt it. I just hope GPUs don't follow the same shitty stagnating trend as CPUs did between Sandy Bridge and Kaby Lake. Either way, a eight-core 8700K is pretty fucking great, such a thing makes one wonder why the mesh bullshit was ever necessary.

I'm sure that'll happen any day now, it's only been a couple of years since AMD cards have been not worth buying for gaming.

I'm sure someone will pull the numbers and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain neither Nvidia, AMD or Intel give too big a shit about the PC gaming crowd as it's such a small market. AMD essentially pulling out of it for the next 2+ years proves this. This is of course assuming this is all true, it is WCCF.

Yep. Then just install the program again and copy paste over it.

Unless you intend to use the card 24/7 or near-24/7 I wouldn't give any consideration to temperatures so long as they are under 90C. You'll not be able to set up a fan curve like you describe as it'll just keep cycling the fans on and off even if you have a large hysteresis. Best is to decide what temperature you want to run at, have a conservative fan curve below that and a aggressive one above that. It'll need tweaking to get it right, considering ambient temperatures fluctuate, dust accumulates and different applications draw different amounts of power regardless of them all causing the card to be at "100%" usage. This is of course all assuming you care about noise, if not, just set a aggressive profile and be done with it.

Copy pasting the whole folder always worked fine for me.

The Skyrim vid was funny but it's obvious that 76 is going to be non-canon shit.

The continued absence of quality in your posts is very commendable, you're quite consistent.

You can get a bunch of bullshit free or discounted as a student if you look into it, enjoy it while it lasts.

Marijuana is a CIA psyop, it's no different to when they used to feed dissidents LSD in the 60s and throw them out of windows.

If you're happy with the performance you're currently getting there isn't much point upgrading. Thankfully, the CPU market is pretty competitive right now so it pays to wait. As to if or not you should overclock it, you should have done that years ago when you first bought it.

Probably Jensen panic selling his gear before 1100 so he can buy a new leather jacket for the announcement.

It's because you've paired a semi-powerful modern graphics card with a crappy CPU that was obsolete upon its introduction six years ago and are trying to play relatively CPU demanding games. You can confirm this is the problem by reducing the resolution of your games to 800x600, if you still get the same FPS you know it's the CPU causing the problem. Also, I see you're using some flavour of Rivatuner, potentially Afterburner, if you dig into the settings there's an option to enable per-core monitoring of CPU usage, if you do that you'll more than likely see a couple of cores are being used at 100%, hence your issue. Your first image though shows you're getting 125FPS, I wouldn't be losing any sleep over that at all regardless of what your system usage is.

Unless you have a really obscure usage scenario it's typically best to leave hyperthreading and SMT related shit turned on, the couple of percent you might lose in a game in a hypothetical scenario are more than made up by the near doubling of performance in other applications. Same goes for the second question, things like Intel speedstep are super conservative and will clock up the CPU with a fairly minor load, if you opened Chrome and tried to open a couple of tabs at once that would probably be enough to clock up most Intel CPUs, a game would definitely be enough to make them enter the highest performance state. There isn't much reason to turn it off unless you're overclocking or having a problem with it.

I agree there's little sense in buying a big res, 144Hz+ monitor if the PC someone intends to power it with is trash, but it's just dumb when people suggest that unless you're at 144FPS your 144Hz monitor was a wasted investment.

Protip: 144Hz > 60Hz regardless of what FPS you're at, you don't need 144FPS for 144Hz to be worth it, I get almost as tired of reading that as I do "hurr 2K isn't 1440p".

Look at the floor and only aim up when you hear someone.

It's a driver thing, the Nvidia driver detects retarded benchmarks (such as Furmark) and intentionally downclocks the card to prevent damage. It's because people used to use Furmark to destroy cards and get a free RMA. The simple solution is not to use Furmark, it hasn't been relevant software for years. If you're trying to stability test use something like Unigine Heaven.

The card is at 0% load so it downclocks itself to save power, when you apply load (i.e. run a game or benchmark) it'll come out of this low power mode and go to the clock it should be at. The reason it's at 1100MHz and not 300MHz (which is the typical idle range) is because you're running dual monitors and one is 144Hz. The 1000 series doesn't really have a base clock speed like 99% of cards in the past have had, they'll all run in the same 1800-2000MHz range regardless of what's written on the box. Also you're going to want to tame your offset by about 250MHz or so because no way in hell is 2240MHz going to be stable.

Anyone who has used Linux for more than five minutes will say yes.

17% more performance in a best case scenario, not too hard if you can spend an hour or two reading some guides and have the patience for stability testing, which a lot of people don't, which is why you see posts like "I ran Cinebench and it passed so I'm stable guys".

What's the problem here?

Considering 4.6GHz to 4.7GHz is a 2% performance increase, unless your 8700K build (which would require a better motherboard and cooler) is only 2% more expensive, no. But the point of a K series is that you overclock it. The 8700 has a all-core turbo of 4.3GHz, you can overclock the 8700K to 4.8GHz+ pretty easily. If you're happy overclocking, it might be worth it, if you're not, don't bother.

The answer to the question in your title is a flat no. This thread didn't need to run onto two pages.

VR on a $800 system isn't happening, and still, a $1000 system is like a 8400 and a 1060 GB, I really wouldn't bother with VR on a system like that as it'll be a sub-optimal experience. Even with a 1080Ti and 5GHz 8700K a lot of games chug. If you want a better system now, maybe do something like buy a 8600K/8700K build and a mid-grade card now, wait for the next generation of VR headsets to launch in a year or so and buy a 1180/Ti to go with it at the same time. Or, you could hope that Jensen is kind enough to give us some more powerful cards in the next couple of months.