Janne

3900X because i think having this many cores is cool

3900X because i think having this many cores is cool

You don't need the opinion of the community. Just looking at benchmarks you can see intel's single core performance is faster

Probably not, i've observed that this CPU works basically like modern graphics cards, it tries to boost as high as possible with the available resources. And if temperature isn't limiting you then i really doubt lowering voltage will help. It will probably make you lose performance

I think AMD should send a pamphlet with this info with every zen 2 CPU they sell:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/
 

Yes 140 W can't be correct, it's higher

Yes 140 W can't be correct, it's higher

You can apply hysteresis with stuff like SpeedFan. I just run my stuff at fixed speeds because i have a custom loop. I can see why it can be annoying on normal air cooling though

I don't know anything about them. Last time i checked out any Beats headphones they were absolutely appalling. Garbage sound&build quality for premium price. But maybe they are better these days, i don't know

I don't know anything about them. Last time i checked out any Beats headphones they were absolutely appalling. Garbage sound&build quality for premium price. But maybe they are better these days, i don't know

I'm not one to ask about software or anything like that, the thing i appreciate/pay attention to is sound quality. For example EQ app is useless for me, i have an EQ on all my machines already so they are useless. 
I'm only saying that the JBL cans have better sound. Decide for yourself

Both are shit but JBL is better out of those imo. Both have the same problem of having too much bass

I just know that pretty much all RAM at those speeds are B-die, also there's this website:
https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/
 
easiest way to check quickly is to press "advanced" and search with the part number/sku

they all are

Looks normal on pcie2x2

Considering that PCIE 2.0 x2 speeds are (theoretically) 1GB per second, this is about the most you could really get out of a drive.

My 970 actually overclocks better with stock voltage. It gets less stable with increased voltage and some times it throttles. Every card is different so you just have to try it out, generally you should get better frequencies with higher voltage.

can't you stream the video in your LAN? 

I'm not sure why you think their service is bad, they gave you a new card after more than 2 years and in less than a month. Ofc it's not fast but I don't see the problem. 

The biggest difference between this card and say a FTW... is that this card uses a reference PCB so has less VRM's for power delivery for high end overclocking. That being said even the FTW doesn't need the extra VRM's to supply enough power for overclocking outside of say ln2

Yeah, it's dying.

yep
time to buy a new gpu

Uses =/= requires.
 
I have seen 2GB cards tank, I'm not arguing against that. But the shift to 3GB being too low is not emperically proven, atleast not to my knowledge.

try fps_max 0, locked at the normal 300 your gpu probably downclocks
 

1. How much VRam is USED; and how much is NEEDED are 2 completely different things.
Even if it uses 6gb, that doesnt mean, it would even a tad worse on 4gb.
2. BF1 used up 6gb Vram in 2160p + Ultra settings. That something, the RX 480 won't be able to do playable.
In 1080p + ULTRA it's 3200 MB.
http://www.gamestar.de/_misc/images/original.cfm?pk=2762611
 
Hell, even 1440p + Ultra has NO RELEVANCE here, since the RX 480 can manage 43 fps~ here. This is NOT smooth.
And even at These settings, It only uses up 4gb Vram. Anything more than that, and it gets even less smooth than it already is.
64 fps on 1080p + Ultra (3200 mb VRAM), which is just barely fine for a Shooter.
And even then. See #1. How much it uses, and how much it "needs" are 2 entirely different Things.
 
And the Fact, that you completely ignored the fact, that it's unplayable in those settings, that "consume" 6gb Ram, means, that you have not enough Knowledge to discuss this whole Topic. All you want is find any half-true reasons to bash against Nvidia, and push your AMD to the Front.
 
3. GTX 1060 also has vulkan support.
4. There is ONE vulkan game out. This is a pure AMD Fanboy argument. Nvidia Drivers are buggy with Vulkan, and they are working on a Fix.
Plus: Gamersnexus testet the Talos Principle on Vulkan. GTX 1060 is 71% faster.+
 
ANYTHING regarding Vulkan is 100% pure speculation. Everyone who claims different doesn't clearly know what he's talking about, and i suggest logic. You can't say which is better when there is only ONE game out yet. And every AMD fanboy jerks off over this one Game.
 
i'll give you DX12 tho. Out of 7 Games, 5 run better on the RX 480, which let us have a good tendency/direction, where it's heading. However, it CAN turn around, or nvidia CAN catch up to Equali grounds. We still have the FIRST Pascal Driver, there can be much done with optimizations. And this is the exact same Speculation, like DX12 or even more Vulkan.
See above. Vram is not an issue, nowhere.
Any Settings, that "NEEDS" more than 6gb Ram, are Settings, where the GTX 1060 and also the RX 480 don't have enough Power anymore to give out any playable fps. Even if the RX 480 gets 15 fps, where the GTX 1060 gets 12 fps (25% more performance), both is the same Dia show.
Just some people can't understand this  
 
2. CF/SLI doesnt matter too, since it's a retarded stupid idea. Crossfire/Sli with midclass cards was a stupid idea 8 years ago, and is still a stupid idea. Even 2 RX 480 8gb is a stupid Idea. You are just searching for ANYTHING to throw Against the 1060, no matter if it has any relevance or not.
 
Too many disadvantages. Need driver profiles for new games, some games (even today's new games) don't have a good Multi-GPU support. MUCH more heat, power consumption, Noise, micro stuttering depending on setup, etc.
And it scales bad. In some games Crossfire with 2 RX 480 scales with only +50% performance, some with +96% performance. Overall it's around 75% more Performance.
I've seen tests, where under 1080p a GTX 1070 (460€) had MORE fps than 2x RX 480 (2x 300€).
 
It's ALWAYS in ANY situation a better Choice to get 1 GTX 1080, instead 2 RX 480.
Instead, listen to this AMD Fanboy?
 
Sorry to tell you that, but i don't think that YOU have the knowledge and right to tell, which of those cards is just good and which is great.
Why? I explained above. Just alone your BF1 argument is a complete utterly Joke.
 
What about the Cons of the RX 480?
- Consumes 30-50 Watt more (It consumes even More than a GTX 1080 in some cases)
- Most Custom designs are not silent
- Overall right now, still 13% SLOWER (despite consuming 30-50 watt more).
- 20-40 Bucks more expensive than the Nvidia GTX 1060.
 
If you are Fanboying around, at least get your Facts straight, and say ALL facts. Not just those, that fit into your AMD Fanboy mind.