Drak3

It's not just you.

Motherboard has to specifically support that, it's not something you can add to any system. Check that yours will actually support that. But Corning makes optical USB 3.0 cables that go up to 100ft.

Buy a house. Buy a chassis cab truck. Buy a V6 AWD Challenger. Buy a V8 Hemi challenger. Either an M82, M107, or Serbu BFG-50A. And bank the rest.

Just light your wallet on fire. That's how.

Incorrect. Studies have proven that the nutrients in red wine are healthy. Red wine itself, is not, as it contains alcohol, which is a poison that contains no health benefits. Eating grapes or drinking a high quality grape juice would have the same benefits as red wine, but without alcohol outweighing those benefits.

Yeah alcohol is pretty uniformly bad for you. Red wine included.

I can kinda see how the shape resembles the eraser off of a pencil. But that's about it.

It's not because of the alcohol. It's because of the nutrients in the grapes that end up in the wine.

I thought it was just a really shitty streaming service.

It's not that dumb of an argument, in the context of modern vehicles slowly getting heavier and larger to accommodate more safety equipment. Going too slow is an issue in many situations, such as merging onto highways. Plus, an inline 4 or a boxer engine has different space requirements that can work better in certain designs. As far as GM goes, they talk up the bulk of their vehicles through highly questionable (and IMO invalid) JD Power awards, with only a handful of vehicles that are on par with the competition, and a smaller selection that occasionally might be better. Though, new GM 1/2T trucks are safer than Toyota's Tundra, so if you're willing to put forth the work to improve the truck, it's an option.

The notion that Turbocharged engines are more efficient because they're turbocharged. They're not. Mazda's non turbo Skyactiv engines have proven this. Turbos are only good at making power, hence why they're added to efficient (but low power) base engines to get decent performance while still being able to get decent MPG.

And still outclassed by the 2070 Max Q, which there are offerings ranging from $1500 to $2500, with the low end of the pool going one generation older on the hexacore i7 and skimping out on storage (but still having better cooling, that isn't a high bar to pass). Combine that with the piss poor game selection on OSX (something Apple isn't making any effort to fix) and craptastic mouse acceleration, still no one should be looking at a Mac for gaming. Even if they're (stupid enough to) plan on running it through Bootcamp.

Desktops will bring more bang for the buck. Laptop components like GPUs are always weaker than their desktop counterparts. They're upgradable if you want one that's about half of the size of a Node 202.

You already did that when you claimed to be Florida Man.

Liar. There is only one Florida Man. Just like how there is only one Australian Man. Or Ellis Dee.

I don't speak Italian.

Yeah, I could go for a taco too.

Just beat it. Not the strongest mainline game in the series, IMO. Not horrible though.

Try 1911 Officer.

Except that we've already seen that not all CPUs with better multicore performance actually perform better than the 7700K. However, the chips that actually have a significant edge outside of margin of error all share this trait: better L3 cache arrangements. And I've done what you said, that's a key reason I specifically use hexacores for gaming: to keep background processes on their own two cores and games on their own four. But Windows does a good enough job that going through the effort isn't worth it either.

Apple solders the NAND directly to the logic board. So, effectively every single Apple laptop with more than 1 NAND chip is RAID 0. And every other SSD on the planet with multiple NAND chips being managed by a single controller.

We can trust benchmarks. For relative results. But their benchmarks can be skewed from real life by press release drivers, non retail components, updates (JayzTwoCents did a video about how the Windows update dealing with Meltdown/Spectre invalidated some of his older benchmarks that he wanted to reuse for another video), and what software they do and don't run. There's some limiting factor, whether it be physics being tied to framerate (looking at you Bethesda), engine limitations, bottleneck (Ryzen's 8+8 cache or Intel's Mesh, cache latency, cache clock, stock DDR3 speed with the 5775C), or arbitrary limits (locked framerates). How are you not aware of the 5775C? It quickly became famous amongst enthusiasts because its 128MB eDRAM acted as L4 cache and allowed it to compete (and in some cases outshine) with the 6700K before DDR4 ram speeds increased to what we see out of box today. If it weren't for the eDRAM, it'd be a quadcore with a clockspeed deficit that the miniscule ~1% IPC increase (when comparing Haswell-E and Broadwell-E) didn't account for.

Change the selection. You'll see that the roughly 20FPS difference is maintained across medium, high, and ultra. Given that it's a 5775C, a moderate clocking quadcore running on stock DDR3, that shouldn't be possible if the assumption that ACO likes cores. But that's not the case. Games don't care about your extra cores. Those are nigh worthless to the games. What they care about is cache, the ability to store more information in a faster storage medium to be able to bang out more computations in a serialized workload is king. Your 9900K performs better because it has 16MB of L3 on tap and a significantly higher clockspeed. 8MB more than the 7700K. On the other hand, the 9600K has a meager 9MB and a marginally higher clockspeed. They perform within margin of error. And Zen's architecture renders it as effectively being 8+8MB of cache with a performance penalty that using more than 8MB of cache results in. That impacts gaming performance. I trust it for comparison against his other benchmarks. Same with GPU check. For what I could actually expect in the real world, I don't trust either.

Most games don't see much performance uplift from multithreading. Even at somewhat lower clockspeeds, scaling upwards with more cores will generate a performance uplift (hence why, despite lower clockspeeds, the octocore Ryzens were faster at various workstation workloads that scale with more cores than higher clockspeed chips like the 7700K). Scroll down. It lists 23 processors released last year, including the 9900K. It's at 225FPS with low settings, the 5775C is 207.

9600K R7 2700 8600K 2700X R7 1700 OC'd R5 2600 R7 1700 R5 1600 Those all lost to the 7700K at stock. Those all have more cores. Where they're lacking is cache performance. Not cores. The vast majority of games don't give a shit about hexacores, because games are highly serial in nature. And are you honestly going to tell me that 100+ FPS is now considered the bare minimum? BTW, according to this, the 5775C, a quadcore with moderate clockspeeds (3.7GHz TURBO) is too close to the 9900K given the clock difference and that ACO supposedly likes more than 4 cores. https://www.gpucheck.com/game_gpu/assassins-creed-origins/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti/intel-core-i7-5775c-3-30ghz/low