WhiteSkyMage

So basically, Apple has effectively a "monopoly" over the tablet market and although every single android company is competing against them, nobody has an Apple-like comparable expertise to make themselves an ecosystem out of android with their own tweaks and software (and custom ARM SoC architecture) other than Samsung (who seem to be the only ones actually trying in this market). Lenovo has gone into light Chrome devices... Guess android is best for phones, and for anything bigger...somewhat meh... but at least DeX works quite well. I aplaud Samsung for making this desktop environment for android. Ipads dont have macOS...

1 watt of pure electrical power to heat is 3.41 BTU/Hr.
 
So for the GPU you'd need about 2000 BTU/hr, assume another 2k for the CPU at full load.
 
In theory you'd only need a half ton chiller.
 
Remember that comfort AC is sized and designed to run at comfort cooling temperatures. I don't remember exact Ashrae numbers, but it's something around condenser air 90-100 and evap entering air at 77 or so? The colder you run the evap side, the less capacity you get. Running lower condensing temperature does help, so if you don't mind your Frankenstein AC dumping heat into your already conditioned space, you can assume condensing temps near your house ambient, or with less efficient units, 10 degrees above ambient.
 
There is a lot to consider, but I'd try to aim for a half to one ton unit. (6k-12k BTU/Hr) and have a fairly large water capacity. Cycling kills compressors, try to have compressor off time be a minimum of 1-2 minutes. Aim for a 12k unit or more if you want to bring temps really low.
 
Even better, look for a small water source heatpump. That way you already have a water coil and don't have to hack something together like Linus' old "chiller"
 

I don't know about the other Ryzen gaming benchmarks, and what you've seen from the press, but only judging by this benchmark, I could only just say - Ryzen is BETTER at gaming than a i7 7700k, and again, if you have bought that CPU, you will be sorry for it later down the line. YOU WILL! This is in BF1.

IMO you dont  https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Unreal-Engine-4-16-CPU-Comparison-Skylake-X-Kaby-Lake-X-Broadwell-E-Skylake-Ryzen-7-984/
 
Clearly shows your not going to get very much for going 6950x. I wouldnt suggest getting it but alas your choice

Thats pretty much the closest your going to get for a official benchmark.

I use a single 360 Swiftech rad to handle my 4790k overclocked and it's still reaching almost 80C, I can't imagine adding my 1080 to that loop without adding another rad. Hope your second rad shows up quick.

another one of those threads explaining what im saying. Just because vega can only match a 1080 at best in gaming and everyone is saying its a terrible card. A GPU doesnt have to be the fastest for gaming for it to be decent. Look at the decent performance and pricing, the higher memory bandwidth, its a good option for freesync. The past gen however AMD only managed mid end performance with the rx 480/580.
 
A lot of people dont even consider that gsync monitors cost more than freesync giving AMD an even better deal when it comes to performance and sync, did anyone even bother to consider this before posting why vega exists?

Vega is a success... 
And it does NOT matter how much power it draws. All other reviews are unreliable. Don't trust in-game benchmarks. 
Volta is NOT around the corner. There is no announcement of any consumer volta GPU.
AMD targeted the people who buy mid-high range GPUs like the GTX 1080 and 1070. Not many would pay $700 on 1080Ti. At least now you have the choice. Maybe an year late, but there IS competition.

1. AMD did not say anything about it competing with the GTX 1080Ti, they did not compare it to the 1080Ti in the first place so it was not meant to be a 1080Ti competitor.
People "assumed" that if it is after the release of 1080Ti, it would be competing with it and I am not blaming AMD for releasing it so late, I am blaming the fans for EXPECTING it to compete with the 1080Ti.
2. We don't know if it is the architecture pushing or is it the architecture ITSELF that trades compute performance for efficiency. In the end of the day, VEGA is only just 1 GPU. AMD doesn't have the cash to make multiple like nVidia and to optimize them for efficiency/performance/server. AMD has to deal with that on software level.
 
I have this whenever I do video editing. MY GTX 980 and my 5820K OCed is enough to heat my room to summer hot temperature. Do you know what I do - open the window  Yup....

yes it is

You are aware there for Hardtubing Only? I posted about LED fittings in other post, I repeat here only grab those LED if you runs are small & have very little bends. The longer light has to travel the more light with degrade & will not light up the entire tube. Not to mention all the wiring you have to hide.
 
I know someone who used those fittings & he said if he had to do it over again he would not get those fittings, due to all the wiring they have.
 
ThermalTake doesn't make the best quality of products. The controller box is very spotty.
 
If you want LED light inside the tubing I suggest using these: https://www.alphacool.com/alphacool/de-aurora-ht-led
 
RGB version is coming Soon.
 
There are other companies who make LED fittings too & work better.

@WhiteSkyMage
I run the original waterblock, an EK Titan Pascal and an additional 360 rad on it and I'm still fine with just 25% PWM power on it.
If you don't change the tube size and if you're fine with having 2 barb fittings then you don't need to change anything, but if you want to change one thing you'll need the adapter and 2 G1/4 fittings for that. The adapter just gives you a standard G1/4 thread on the pump like the one in the red circle.

I would look for a FreeSync variant, and no, G-Sync is not worth it for me, even if it does what FreeSync does but better. It's an nvidia proprietary tech. It will be expensive for you to buy one...but if you got the cash, go for it. Again, I will not buy a G-Sync monitor even if AMD ends up bankrupt one day and all the monitors on the market are G-Sync.

you will, but it will be less noticeable.
I highly suggest you wait for Vega and get a FreeSync monitor. If you can't then a GTX 1080 might be very well worth your purchase....even though this generation Pascal is over, meaning that you will get legacy support once Volta is released. That's not the case with AMD however.

Well all signs right now point towards Computex, which is I think end of May...emm...yeah 30th of May to 3rd of June. There is a rumor that Intel is going to release their Skylake-X earlier than August, because apparently AMD made enough stir with Ryzen and won some market back. Idk how much but we will see on the Q2 report. As for Vega, the end of June is the end of the first half of 2017, which Vega is said to release in. So if they are not gonna release it at Computex then they would probably have an event shortly after. If you can wait 2 months, i think it would be better for you, or you can buy a GTX 1080 now and be done with it. Let me just make it clear that nVidia's driver support only lasts for this generation. After that it's all "downhill" just like what was Kepler when Maxwell released, and as for now, all drivers have been optimized, where as Vega 10 is brand new and seeing how it did with only modded Fury X drivers in January, then I would expect something big when things get optimized in Vega's own driver that would come with it releasing.
 
Edit: seeing the 2nd Titan that released only a month after the GTX 1080Ti, I started distrusting nVidia - they have not only once fooled their Titan buyers, but twice. And no, I think this isn't the end of it - I think they have more Titans in there....so a GTX 1080 will be basically a mid-range card at some point. The reason they are trying to milk all the money they can from their customers is because the GPU market is a lot smaller than the CPU market. Basically, if AMD only gets 10-20% out of the CPU market with, then Nvidia will have a struggle to compete with AMD in later generations and that's not only their worry - Intel is their biggest enemy in AI....What I am trying to point out here is that we maybe getting a "2 birds fighting and the 3rd one winning" situation here.

I don't know about the other Ryzen gaming benchmarks, and what you've seen from the press, but only judging by this benchmark, I could only just say - Ryzen is BETTER at gaming than a i7 7700k, and again, if you have bought that CPU, you will be sorry for it later down the line. YOU WILL! This is in BF1.

In fact, if you add them the i7 is at almost 800% while the R7 is slightly above 800%. Which doesn't make sense to me, since the i7 has 4 cores, and that usually leads to 400% total usage reports when it's maxed out (you can find many misleading i5 vs i7 videos where they show "the i5 maxed while the i7 is at 50%" which of course is inconsistent with the actual differences in performance - it turns out both CPUs are maxed out).
The truth is, usage measurement with HT/SMT CPUs us a huge mess, and any way you do it is going to have problems, because at the end of the day the only thing for which you can measure meaningful usage are physical resources. The usage of "logical cores" can't possibly have a meaning, or better said, could have any meaning you want depending on the convention you choose.
 
So you are right, we don't learn much from the numbers on those screenshots. But look at the screenshots themselves. Such quality. Much screenshot. Wow
 
Anyway, I think the best case for "Ryzen doesn't suck at gaming" was calmly made by Jayztwocents. The leap from "doesn't suck" to "better than 7700K and everything RyzenMasterRace FTW!!!" is beyond my understanding. I'm not much of a gamer, but I start to notice a binary mentality in which everything has at most two values, hero or zero, and you can't escape from picking one or the other
To make it worse (or better?), it seems to be centered around brands. I haven't discovered a "6800K or 6900K sucks at gaming" vs "6800K better than 7700K" controversy so far, yet apparently it needs to exist as soon as the CPUs come from different manufacturers...

I don't know about the other Ryzen gaming benchmarks, and what you've seen from the press, but only judging by this benchmark, I could only just say - Ryzen is BETTER at gaming than a i7 7700k, and again, if you have bought that CPU, you will be sorry for it later down the line. YOU WILL! This is in BF1.

Depends on the games, but I think there won't be a problem for the non-cpu bound games. I would wait for prices to fall even further and probably go for an i7. Its price will fal further down to the cost of an i5 as Ryzen releases.

I'll have whatever you're having...

Yes, I was joking because you weren't being specific.

2.6 is actually the reason it surpassed Destiny in Dev funds. Id expect us to go over $160mil once 3.0 is out. 

They did drop prices only to adjust to the market, but, did they ever sell a gaming GPU for $1000+? What happened with the 1st tier GPUs that followed on from GTX 480? Why did people still buy nVidia when AMD had a 5870 performing A LOT better than whatever nVidia had to offer, and yet they made LESS THAN HALF the money for 3 years that nvidia later on made for just 3 months with a GTX 580? I am not blaming nvidia or AMD, i am blaming the people who DO NOT GIVE A DAMN, in other words, the people who refuse to do their research - they just buy because of the advertisement, and that's the only thing that changes their mind. SHEEP minds as we call them.

Guys let me tell you, my sister is 15, she played GTA San Andreas at about age of 8 and now Tomb Raider is her favorite game. I know the game is for 18, my dad knows, yet we actually HELP her rather than telling her that this is not a game she should play. Oh and let me mention that she does NOT like to see blood....and for some reason she has no damn problems with any of the blood & gore games, since she is able to make a very good distinction of what is game and real. 
 
I started playing COD at about 10, when Chivalry came out, it was my favorite game (until of course I didn't play M&B Warbrand, even though i was still under 18.
 
In conclusion: The age rating have no meaning for me. If I have a child, id gladly buy him any game he likes, depending on if I think he is mature enough to handle it. It is really a thing that parents need to judge and not based on the age rating. 

Guys let me tell you, my sister is 15, she played GTA San Andreas at about age of 8 and now Tomb Raider is her favorite game. I know the game is for 18, my dad knows, yet we actually HELP her rather than telling her that this is not a game she should play. Oh and let me mention that she does NOT like to see blood....and for some reason she has no damn problems with any of the blood & gore games, since she is able to make a very good distinction of what is game and real. 
 
I started playing COD at about 10, when Chivalry came out, it was my favorite game (until of course I didn't play M&B Warbrand, even though i was still under 18.
 
In conclusion: The age rating have no meaning for me. If I have a child, id gladly buy him any game he likes, depending on if I think he is mature enough to handle it. It is really a thing that parents need to judge and not based on the age rating.