Pounds

Sorry everyone! This is the winning comment.

Linus, stopped saying costs are irrelevant in setting prices! Costs are extremely relevant! If prices were only based on what people will pay, does that mean I want to price my graphics card extremely low so I can sell tons of them for a little money, or do I want to price it extremely high so I can sell a few for a lot of money? It depends, because what I'm actually trying to maximize is PROFITS, which takes costs into account. As illustrated in this supply and demand graph, price and quantity are both affected by my supply and market demand. You keep talking about market demand, but my supply (affected by costs) also changes the prices. In this particular graph, we can think of the increase of supply being caused by a new manufacturing process that lowers the amount of time/labor required to assemble a graphics card. I can now make more at a lower price, which shifts my supply curve to the right, increasing the quantity of graphics cards and also lowering the price. So price IS affected by me and my costs, not JUST what people are willing to pay (which only affects the demand curve). PLEEEEEASE stop saying that prices are only determined by what people are willing to pay. There's always people willing to pay any price. There are people out there that will pay $2,000 for a 980. There are even more that are willing to pay $200 for a 980. I could probably sell more than 10 times as many 980s if the price is $200, meaning my revenue would be much higher is I priced it that low. But if my costs to make one is $250, I'm not going to price it that low. COSTS ARE IMPORTANT TOO!!! That's the second WAN show in a row where you've tried making a firm point that prices are only based on what people are willing to pay. Knock it off! You're too smart to be saying things like that! PS: If any white knights feel the knee-jerk obligation to defend Linus and argue with me, please don't be annoying about it.

Love the look on these cards. Love the 900 series in general! Forcing down prices like crazy, which isn't something you see when Nvidia introduces something new. Normally they're new stuff has a price premium that puts it out of the range of many budgets, but these are just damn reasonable.

But is it heavily modded Skyrim? Yes that's important to note. There are games that can be heavily modded but still take little effort to run.

I thought the same thing, but there's something funky with the link. If you look at the top of the page, the path to this link is Linus Tech Tips → Community Portal → Troubleshooting Strange, because I also got here thought the "hot deals" page.

Cure for cancer, world peace, and you won the last Linus Tech Tips giveaway. What, you didn't hear?

Love the forums. Love the LTT videos. And definitely love that the subscribers has exploded to such an amazing number! I've been noticing over the last year that not just the number of subscribers has been going up dramatically, but also the number of unique views that each video is getting. It must be exciting since this opens so many opportunities, whether it means expanding the LTT team, being able to purchase more gear that you want to review, or just roll around in a bed of money! Whatever it is, I'll be watching the video after you post it :lol:

Sapphire for video cards. I've never had a problem with the ones I've purchased and I always give them the edge if there's similar price and performance to their competitors. Intel for cpus. I still recommend AMD cpus to other people in certain budget builds, but I could never bring myself to buying one. I'd rather wait and save up more money than settle on an AMD cpu. Audio Technica for headsets. I only purchased one and that won me over! I have no plans to buy anything else. I am planning on buying a few M50s for presents for Christmas. I will turn my friends and family into believers of doesn't audio. I just hope that none of them waste their money on anything before then. Theo for chocolate! I love that damn Seattle chocolate factory! If I see a Theo chocolate bar in a store (not commonly found outside of Washington/Oregon) I will always buy one.

1. Day of the Tenticle 2. Monkey Island (played all of them) 3. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis ....yeah I really was addicted to that genre... Others would be Tie Fight and Age of Empires II

with the cable management, air flow improved as well. On top of that aesthetics really became a part of the game, which wasn't as much as option back then. Pretty lights and matching the color of ram and case fans to the motherboard wasn't really something people did back then.

I know you said your cpu doesn't really bottleneck you, but that's what I'd go for. I'd try for a 4690k and a decent motherboard (in the $120-$160 range). I'd do this because I prefer a strong foundation before getting the flashy graphics card. Sure a 290 will increase your FPS right now, but the 760 is already a great video card. The 4690k would last you years, but a 1440 monitor might be crap in just two (seriously, 4K is getting damn cheap!). Next I'd get the graphics card and THEN the monitor. By then you could get a 4k monitor because the price would be cheap enough. And you would want to get the graphics card first so you can actually enjoy the gaming experience on it. And who knows, maybe you'll want the GTX 970.

But you didn't actually cite any evidence either. You say it's backed by evidence but didn't cite anything. Can you please? Or is this more like a new religion when you get to say anything you want and tell us that you're right until we disprove you?

I'm having some problems getting all three monitors to work on my Sapphire 7970 Ghz graphics card. I'm not looking to do any triple monitor, eyefinity gaming. I plan on gaming on one, and using the other two as passive monitors (for web browsing or Netflix while I game). Basically, two work fine, but when I plug in the third, my main monitor goes dark and the third begins to work as if it were the new main monitor, leaving me with only two working again. I read on AMD's site about needing one monitor to be connected via a "Native" connections and the other two via "Legacy" connections. I believe I know what I need to purchase, but I just want to make sure before I go out and purchase things. Here's the connections I have right now: Main (center) monitor: QX2710LED QNIX 27” – DVI monitor -> DVI in graphics card (currently connected) Left monitor: Hanns G HZ251 25” – DVI monitor -> HDMI in graphics card [this monitor also is able to use VGA or HDMI outputs to connect to the graphics card] (not currently connected) Right monitor: ViewSonic 24” – DVI monitor -> DisplayPort in graphics card (currently connected) These connections are the used because they are the only cables I have (these connections are the cables that came with these three monitors). The graphics card has two DVI (single linke and dual link), a DisplayPort, and HDMI inputs. I have my main and right monitors connected, but when I connect the left, the main goes black. I read that the "Native" connection that I need is basically a DisplayPort to DisplayPort. And the other two monitors may be "Legacy". So I need a "Native" connection for one of the monitors, because the right monitor's DVI->DisplayPort ain't cutting it. So I'm thinking that monitor's cable acts as a passive adapter, thus making it a "Native" connection. So I'm thinking that I purchase a DVI->DVI connector for my right monitor, which frees up the DisplayPort. And then I get an active HDMI->DisplayPort adapter for my left monitor, which effectively will make it connect using DVI->HDMI->(active adaptor)DisplayPort. Anyone have some solid knowledge of whether this will work? I believe it will, in theory, but want some confirmation before I spend $40 on this stuff. Other specs: it 4770k, Windows 8.1 (64 bit), Gigabyte Z87 UD3H, GSkill ripjaw X Series 16BG, Sapphire Vapor-X 7970 Ghz (latest drivers), 840 Evo 250GB SSD, Toshiba 7200 3TB, Seasonic 660W Platinum, Corsair H100i.

God forbid any has to learn new software! Yes, let's all have the mindset of 70 year old people that refuse to use the internet because they don't want to learn something new. Seriously, I hate seeing these types of comments in a tech forum. A place where people should be open minded to advancing software/hardware. Maybe Teamspeak, or whatever anyone else likes, is the best option, be let's hear some legit reasons why.

I think Windows 7 is a poor choice. Windows 8.1 is faster and you can set it up to just look like Windows 7 (if you don't like the default). Also, it will be updated more and for longer than Windows 7. Definitely not worth saving $10 by going with Win 7. If you already have a Win 7 key, that's another story.