minervx

Consoles are good if you want raw performance to price, and you don't have a high budget.   Convenience, plug and play.
 
PC for customization/mods, high framerate, access to thousands of indie titles, game engines, creative applications, etc.

Nope. I'm 31 years of age, if I want new PC components, I buy them.  Being able to game and relax and have something to look forwards too makes me better at the other things you listed.  I go the gym, I am currently learning japanese, I help out at local animal shelter and being able to game a few hours in the evening keeps me sane.

This is my bad.  I could've worded my original post in a way that was informative to beginners without being controversial or having biases.  Its kinda ruined now

Just a totally subjective opinion.  They sit somewhere between a smartphone and watch, and to me, they feel eclipsed by both.  A phone has far more utility.  A traditional watch is more convenience.  
 
With a smart watch, the time it takes to navigate through the OS on a tiny screen, you could've already done the same via your smartphone.  And traditional watches don't need to be charged every few days.

Use the stock cooler for now and save that $50+ toward your next build.

Cavaet: People have different values.  Some people may want to spend more to have a cooler that is very quiet or near-silent.  Some people may value aesthetics.   Not everyone is solely focused on performance-to-price.
 
But if your main priority is performance-to-price, you may not need to spend more than $50 on cooler.
 
A video from Hardware Canucks compared a $40 air cooler (Thermalright Assassin) to $90-110 air coolers.  Not only were the temperature differences marginal, but even having 2 less degrees doesn't seem to meaningfully increase your framerates on games.  I've seen other videos with similar points about cooling.  (I'm not saying I have expertise in this just because I watched a few videos and if there are test that have found different results, let me know)
 
A common mistake I see are builds with mid-range CPU's but expensive coolers.  The CPU is way more important than the cooler.  You get better performance from $300 CPU/$50 cooler than $200 CPU/$100 cooler. 
 
If have the best CPU possible for your needs (maybe the latest Intel i7/i9 or the highest consumer level Ryzen), and you're an enthusiast that wants to spend an extra $50-100 to get a few more frames in game, then get the $100+ air cooler or AIO.  But this probably isn't the majority of people.
 

@8tg Thermals and acoustics are factors, but it's also the extent.   How many less degrees of temperatures and how many less decibels of sound do you get from the $80-90 cooler compared to the $40 cooler?  
 
Most tasks aren't demanding; even a lower-end cooler with a fan curve can run quietly for them. 
 
And gaming (the task that does require a higher fan speed), you'll have headphones or speakers playing to where fan noise won't be noticeable unless it's extremely loud.  You may not want a loud fan when gaming, but you don't need a silent one either.
 
But for recording sound, I totally get it.  

Salt shouldn't be added to 99% of foods.
 
Especially since bread already has salt in it.  And some foods like cheeses and tomatoes already have a salty flavor.

Just a totally subjective opinion.  They sit somewhere between a smartphone and watch, and to me, they feel eclipsed by both.  A phone has far more utility.  A traditional watch is more convenience.  
 
With a smart watch, the time it takes to navigate through the OS on a tiny screen, you could've already done the same via your smartphone.  And traditional watches don't need to be charged every few days.

Salt shouldn't be added to 99% of foods.
 
Especially since bread already has salt in it.  And some foods like cheeses and tomatoes already have a salty flavor.

Intel's desktop CPU's remain competitive in performance to price against AMD, and that's the main thing consumers in this space care about.  Intel still has most of the mobile Windows market.
 
Intel was capable of succeeding without a GPU line, so how does the fact that it's GPU line isn't successful, if it doesn't need that portion of the market?

Don't idolize anyone.  Don't idolize Elon.  Don't idolize Linus.  If you're judging people by a litmus test of whether they like Elon Musk, it's a sign you're over-invested in politics and over-invested in your news feed.
 
There will be a point where people you're a fan of may diverge from your views or whatever, and if it's that serious, maybe you just have to move on.
 
But personally I don't see an issue.  People watch Linus for information on PC building and wacky entertainment videos - not for his political views.  I wasn't even aware of his stance on Twitter - nor do I care. 
 

this thread will probably get 6-8 pages of heated discussion and a lock.  

Don't idolize anyone.  Don't idolize Elon.  Don't idolize Linus.  If you're judging people by a litmus test of whether they like Elon Musk, it's a sign you're over-invested in politics and over-invested in your news feed.
 
There will be a point where people you're a fan of may diverge from your views or whatever, and if it's that serious, maybe you just have to move on.
 
But personally I don't see an issue.  People watch Linus for information on PC building and wacky entertainment videos - not for his political views.  I wasn't even aware of his stance on Twitter - nor do I care. 
 

Don't idolize anyone.  Don't idolize Elon.  Don't idolize Linus.  If you're judging people by a litmus test of whether they like Elon Musk, it's a sign you're over-invested in politics and over-invested in your news feed.
 
There will be a point where people you're a fan of may diverge from your views or whatever, and if it's that serious, maybe you just have to move on.
 
But personally I don't see an issue.  People watch Linus for information on PC building and wacky entertainment videos - not for his political views.  I wasn't even aware of his stance on Twitter - nor do I care. 
 

this thread will probably get 6-8 pages of heated discussion and a lock.  

1) AIO/Liquid coolers I'd only recommend for high end builds.  You'd get more performance from a cheaper air cooler on a $300 CPU than a $125 cooler on a $225 CPU
 
2) Isn't buying 2 144hz 1080p monitors redundant, since you're only gaming on one of them at a time.  You could do a 4K monitor and a 1080p/1440hz monitor to get the best of both worlds.
 
3) Intel and AMD are both great.   Passionate people on the internet will have their opinions, but the most practical answer is to use benchmarks and go with whichever brand CPU happens to have the best performance for your price range - and prices online do fluctuate.  So this can vary on a month to month basis. (Same with GPU's on NVidia vs AMD)

This is, no doubt, a capable build, but it crosses a law of diminishing returns.  64 GB RAM is overkill for gaming and streaming.  You won't notice the difference between 64 and 32.  And the $300 liquid cooler won't be leagues better than the $100 Noctua air cooler.
 
And do you really need a 4090 to play PVP games competitively.  Those aren't graphically intensive, and usually competitive players don't crank up all the settings to ultra anyway, as it's visual clutter.
 
It depends on how much disposable income you have and what your values are.  But going from a $2000 to $3000 build is significant, while going from a $3000 to 4000 build, you're spending an extra $1000 on maybe like a few extra percent better performance.
 
You can find windows licenses much cheaper too.
 

I'll put it this way.  In a year or 2, mid-range and high-end builds will still be great.  And in 5 years, all builds will be dated.
 
Futureproofing doesn't exist.  You're better off spending $2000-2500 on a build every 4-5 years.  Than to spend $3000-4000 on a build and try to make it last forever.
 
Not to say that the $4000 build will be bad in 4 years from now.  Just that it's overkill right now, and by the time you'd need that kind of hardware, it would probably be accessible in the mid-range market by then.
 

Yes, and this is mainly because it's more expensive on average (and they have a shorter lifespan).  Liquid cooling a mid-range CPU doesn't make sense.
 
Spending money on cooling has diminished returns.
 
You'd get more performance out of a $300 CPU with a $50 air cooler, than a $200 CPU with $100-150+ liquid cooling.

Yes, and this is mainly because it's more expensive on average (and they have a shorter lifespan).  Liquid cooling a mid-range CPU doesn't make sense.
 
Spending money on cooling has diminished returns.
 
You'd get more performance out of a $300 CPU with a $50 air cooler, than a $200 CPU with $100-150+ liquid cooling.

Yes, and this is mainly because it's more expensive on average (and they have a shorter lifespan).  Liquid cooling a mid-range CPU doesn't make sense.
 
Spending money on cooling has diminished returns.
 
You'd get more performance out of a $300 CPU with a $50 air cooler, than a $200 CPU with $100-150+ liquid cooling.

The AM5 7mm offset mount really puts the NH-D15 close 🙂 I used to be a mITX enthusiast for ~8 years before getting an RX 6900 XT then RTX 4090, both of which were way too large for mITX. This is my form of mITX without compromising.
 
Yes Optimum Tech can throw a 7800x3D and RTX 4090 in a tiny mITX case, but not at 133% TDP, that's for sure.
 
What I'd personally like to see is shorter but thicker graphics cards. Make them 5-6 slots but eATX length, and the case could be a lot less deep. Give the GPU a similar tower style design that would make the GPU only as long as the PCB but practically take up all avaiable PCIe slots.
 

 
The red line being how compact the case 'could' be, with the orange being how large the GPU would be, blue indication the direction of airflow through the GPU. Could probably get rid of the top fans as well in doing so since you could design a FD Torrent line wind tunnel from the front.

TLDR: Good mic.  Has a place in a microphone collection.  But not the end-all-be-all.  Not necessarily better than every mic under its price for every person and every use case.
 
----
 
SM7B is the microphone that many beginners without much audio knowledge buy when they want to upgrade their sound quality.  They see many podcasters and streamers use it.   But it's not necessarily the best choice for beginners and it's not for everyone.  If you're just looking to voice chat in games or stream on twitch, I'd argue it's overkill.
 
Shure's marketing is exceptional and it creates a positive feedback loop.  It established an advantage in the 60's to 80's and snowballed from there.  And it's easier to convince a company to have a business expense for a product that's from a well established company for 50+ years like Shure, than to justify an expense from a lesser known company.   If someone goes on a forum to ask for a mic recommendation under $500, you will see a lot of comments in favor the SM7B.  But did all those commenters try a wide variety of mics at that price point?  Probably not.  They know of the SM7B.  More people will have a favorable view of the SM7B than other mics because they've tried it or heard of it.  There are probably many mics as good as the SM7B that we haven't heard of or tested?
 
Background Noise.  There's a myth that dynamic mics reduce background noise.  This is because they're less sensitive to gain and people under-supply them with gain, and the overall output volume is lower.  At lower volumes, background noise is quieter but that's because all noise is quieter.  The background noise information is still in the signal.  A microphone has no way of distinguishing the distance of where sound travels from, or arbitrary things like what noise the user views as essential vs. meaningless background noise.  At equal volume, the SM7B will pick up as much background noise as other cardioid mics.  But being even less sensitive to gain than many other mics out there.
 
(^ Same logic applies to opinions about it being great for loud vocals because you can scream into it as loud as you want.  You can scream into literally any mic, even the most sensitive condesner mic, if the gain is set appropriately)
 
Sound quality.  The frequency response is largely flat with a light boost at 5-6k and cuts at 7-9k (which reduce sibilance, but also presence; some people may want that treble in their voice).  I'd describe the tone of the mic as neutral, slightly warm, calming and soothing.  But there is subjectivity in tone.  This tone may be flattering for some voices, but it may not be for everyone.  And it would be fallacy to assume that just because it's a $400+ mic, that its tone is automatically better for your voice than any mic under it.
 
Design.  One reason why it sounds good on many people is because it's design encourages proper use.  The capsule is buried inside of the mic, so you don't get too close and have an excessive proximity effect sub-bass.  The windscreen is very generous in blocking plosives.  The mic has a swivel to adjust it to face your mouth.  But you can do all of these things with literally other any microphone; the SM7B is just more idiot-proof.
 
The truth.  Your mic choice isn't the only factor in your sound quality.  Your recording environment, mic placement, acoustic treatment and knowing how to use fx plugins are factors too.  Getting a higher-end mic doesn't fix these other factors.  In many cases, the solution is knowledge; not just throwing money at the problem.
 
Is this worth buying?  If you're a professional studio or have a lot of disposible income, yes.  It's a no-brainer for a studio; they already have an ideal recording environment, and of course, they're going to buy the mic that many of their clients want to use.  But if you only have several hundred to spend on an audio setup and you don't have an ideal recording environment, spend money on improving the environment.
 
 
 
 

TLDR: Good mic.  Has a place in a microphone collection.  But not the end-all-be-all.  Not necessarily better than every mic under its price for every person and every use case.
 
----
 
SM7B is the microphone that many beginners without much audio knowledge buy when they want to upgrade their sound quality.  They see many podcasters and streamers use it.   But it's not necessarily the best choice for beginners and it's not for everyone.  If you're just looking to voice chat in games or stream on twitch, I'd argue it's overkill.
 
Shure's marketing is exceptional and it creates a positive feedback loop.  It established an advantage in the 60's to 80's and snowballed from there.  And it's easier to convince a company to have a business expense for a product that's from a well established company for 50+ years like Shure, than to justify an expense from a lesser known company.   If someone goes on a forum to ask for a mic recommendation under $500, you will see a lot of comments in favor the SM7B.  But did all those commenters try a wide variety of mics at that price point?  Probably not.  They know of the SM7B.  More people will have a favorable view of the SM7B than other mics because they've tried it or heard of it.  There are probably many mics as good as the SM7B that we haven't heard of or tested?
 
Background Noise.  There's a myth that dynamic mics reduce background noise.  This is because they're less sensitive to gain and people under-supply them with gain, and the overall output volume is lower.  At lower volumes, background noise is quieter but that's because all noise is quieter.  The background noise information is still in the signal.  A microphone has no way of distinguishing the distance of where sound travels from, or arbitrary things like what noise the user views as essential vs. meaningless background noise.  At equal volume, the SM7B will pick up as much background noise as other cardioid mics.  But being even less sensitive to gain than many other mics out there.
 
(^ Same logic applies to opinions about it being great for loud vocals because you can scream into it as loud as you want.  You can scream into literally any mic, even the most sensitive condesner mic, if the gain is set appropriately)
 
Sound quality.  The frequency response is largely flat with a light boost at 5-6k and cuts at 7-9k (which reduce sibilance, but also presence; some people may want that treble in their voice).  I'd describe the tone of the mic as neutral, slightly warm, calming and soothing.  But there is subjectivity in tone.  This tone may be flattering for some voices, but it may not be for everyone.  And it would be fallacy to assume that just because it's a $400+ mic, that its tone is automatically better for your voice than any mic under it.
 
Design.  One reason why it sounds good on many people is because it's design encourages proper use.  The capsule is buried inside of the mic, so you don't get too close and have an excessive proximity effect sub-bass.  The windscreen is very generous in blocking plosives.  The mic has a swivel to adjust it to face your mouth.  But you can do all of these things with literally other any microphone; the SM7B is just more idiot-proof.
 
The truth.  Your mic choice isn't the only factor in your sound quality.  Your recording environment, mic placement, acoustic treatment and knowing how to use fx plugins are factors too.  Getting a higher-end mic doesn't fix these other factors.  In many cases, the solution is knowledge; not just throwing money at the problem.
 
Is this worth buying?  If you're a professional studio or have a lot of disposible income, yes.  It's a no-brainer for a studio; they already have an ideal recording environment, and of course, they're going to buy the mic that many of their clients want to use.  But if you only have several hundred to spend on an audio setup and you don't have an ideal recording environment, spend money on improving the environment.