Paddi01

Not using Antivirus is like not backing up your important files. Of course if you're not super careless you can go for years without ever having to have actually needed it. But if you ever do need it the impact can be pretty huge. Sometimes things slip through the cracks or things that happen that are out of your control. Do you trust all the devices on your Home/Work/School LAN? Do you trust the machines you have to VPN to for work?
 
There's a reason why Antivirus exists, it's the same reason why if you talk to anyone even remotely connected to IT professionally they will (or should) rattle on about the importance backups. Shit happens and when it does it can be pretty devastating. The only reason you should ever be so flippant about things like backups and antivirus is if you have nothing to loose. And, well, I think we all have something to lose if our HDDs were wiped and accounts logged into.

Both the PS4 and the Xbox One have been largely reliable. Microsoft didn’t want to take chances with the cooling on the Xbox One, so they went rather liberal on how it’s cooled, while the PS4 was just better at thermals than the PS3. 
The unreliability of the earlier Xbox 360s and PS3s can be chalked up to a couple of factors: unfamiliar manufacturing of high end, high power chips and relatively mediocre cooling.

Can't wait for PS5 to release and all the #REDDITPCMASTERRACE_GAM3RS to laugh at how a $600 console is slower than a $6000 PC.

Please note that demos are always impressive. I mean they have 3-4 or even 5 years they worked on getting this demo highly optimized to run properly (30fps).  That is unacceptable in a game world, you do a whole game in 3-4 years. If you follow Unreal demo team model, by the time your game comes out, as a studio, there would be even better technology that will come out, which would have made all your work useless (as much less work would/could result in similar end results, or even better, with much less work).
 
Also, they focus on rocks faces based on actual high fidelity data. This is nice and all, but that is the 'easy part'. How is it with actual challenges like complex field of grass that interact with objects, wind, wind+object, characters, wind+characters, with alpha blending and light bouncing on each strands of grass and plants. Doing all this, on a fast field without visible pop-in and wide field of view is computational intense. 
 
Looking at the video, we can see that the character model is not that impressive, and doesn't fit into the world created due to the much reduced details. The water as she ways on, looks like crap to be honest. I mean it would be beautiful, but it doesn't fit in the hyper-realistic world. And to get both to the same level would be too taxing.
 
And another note, Unreal said that this engine and visuals is not unique to the PS5. This means that the coming up XBox and most likely current PC would have no problem running it either. Also, keep in mind that  the engine is not even officially released, that means that assuming the engine is released day of the console lunch, expect 3-4 years before a game is released using it (unless they have been releasing it to select studios in beta shape, for those interested).
 
All I am saying, is don't get too excited. We seen tech demos like this with every console generation (and GPUs on PC)... and the games are not coming close to what is being presented in these demos. In other words, don't buy a console because of tech demos. Exciting to see, but don't jump in, as you are going blindly. Get the console with the games that reflect your liking.

Alle games I see mentioned in the post (including the 'want to play' games) are third-person adventure-esque games.
 
Perhaps try exploring other genres, maybe even something you haven't played before.
If you have a controller, a 2D platformer or racing game might be to your liking?
You could also try to play some games you used to play in the past. Perhaps you're just longing for similar experiences with gaming that you had in the past, but can't seem to replicate now.
 
What usually helps for me when I am not enjoying games is typically by switching up what I play.
For example, I usually play games in 'bursts'. For example I had hours of fun in Dirt 3 some while ago. Had gotten the game for free years ago, purchased an Xbox One controller and now have logged over 100 hours in the game (not a lot by any means, but a sizable amount for a free game).
I'm now playing through some Grid 2, which also happens to be quite fun.
 
Same with Pokemon. Stopped playing it for years, but this past summer I had some fun with it again.
 
What might also help, if you want to spend time on your PC, but not game (or think of gaming) is by picking up another PC hobby.
Maybe video editing, digital design (like drawing or logo design), programming, etc. Is something you like.
 
May sound weird, but I actually kinda like making spreadsheets for just random kind of stuff..

pc has advantages
 
i personaly like both
 
you cant deny the simplicity of consoles, on pc you have to fight with virus, licenses, drivers, windows, well, alot, on consoles is all so simple
 
the lack of keyboard and mouse is what makes people hate consoles i think

So let's discuss history from the 5th generation and on, when consoles were going into 3D territory and speculate why the hardware they have was chosen:
 
Sega Saturn
This was a mixture of a sunk cost due to developing a CPU chip with Hitachi (the SuperH chip) and finding out it wasn't powerful enough for where 3D games would likely go. So they added another. Then they found out the capabilities of the PS1 and added another Video Display Processor (VDP) on that. It was likely the VDP was based on the Sega Model 1's graphics system, since Sega wanted to leverage hardware from their arcade presence at the time.
 
Nintendo 64
The Nintendo 64 was based on hardware from SGI because of Nintendo's relationship with the company at the time.
 
PlayStation
Apparently this was designed in-house by Kutaragi, who had a hand in developing the SNES's SPC700 sound processor and the scrapped SNES CD add-on. (https://www.ign.com/articles/1998/08/28/history-of-the-playstation)
 
Dreamcast
One of Sega's aims was to build the Dreamcast with COTS hardware. Originally the Dreamcast was to use a 3dfx GPU and a PowerPC 603e CPU, but at some point due to Sega's relationship with NEC and 3dfx disclosing their deal with Sega, switched over to the SuperH SH-4 and VideoLogic (as they were known at the time) PowerVR GPU, both manufactured by NEC. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4128/the_rise_and_fall_of_the_dreamcast.php?print=1)
 
The most likely reason people think Sega went with NEC is because NEC is a Japanese company. However, there are also practical considerations in that both the CPU and GPU are single sourced and the CPU is of a familiar architecture. The GPU was the only risk since tile-based rendering was new.
 
PlayStation 2
Can't seem to find any development history on the Emotion Engine or the Graphics Synthesizer, but both were likely designed in-house.
 
GameCube
Nintendo went with ArtX for the GPU and system bus. What heavily points to why they chose them is because ArtX was founded by the same people who created the N64's graphics system. (https://www.ign.com/articles/1999/03/13/its-alive-3)
 
IBM was likely chosen because the PowerPC at the time was cheap enough, had enough performance, and had good thermal characteristics. It's also likely that Nintendo could leverage a strategy used in previous consoles to get development started before the hardware was finalized: use readily available computer systems as devkits.
 
Xbox
The Xbox started off as a side project in Microsoft's DirectX team to put together a console due to game developers moving away from Windows. It's likely the final hardware is what it is because the initial development kits were literally PCs and the biggest reason to choose NVIDIA at the time was because they were the forerunner in PC GPUs.
 
Xbox 360
Microsoft chose ATI over NVIDIA likely due to one thing: NVIDIA soured their relationship. Because the Xbox was struggling to sell and Microsoft overestimated how much they would, it led to an issue where NVIDIA overproduced chips and they couldn't sell them at the price they wanted. So NVIDIA started legal action against Microsoft (https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidia-microsoft-settle-xbox-spat/) (Which makes me wonder why they didn't sell unsold NV2A's as GeForce 3s or 4s)
 
The CPU was chosen likely because Microsoft sent out a bid for the CPU and IBM showed them the specs of the PPE portion of the then upcoming Cell processor. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123069467545545011)
 
PlayStation 3
The CPU was from a joint effort between Sony, Toshiba, and IBM. It was probably to create the next generation of supercomputer CPU. I'm going to guess Sony wanted to use the Cell in the PS3 to give it some purpose and also because at the time, the "bit-wars" shifted to the "GFLOP wars"
 
The reason to go with NVIDIA eludes me. Maybe they wanted another shot at the console business?
 
Wii
Nintendo didn't want to compete in the high end, so they appeared to simply give the GameCube an upgrade, however slight.
 
WiiU
Considering its backwards compatibility capabilities, Nintendo kept with the same base foundations.
 
PlayStation 4 and Xbox One
To reiterate, here's why AMD was in a really good position to provide Sony and Microsoft the hardware:
But there's a lingering question: was NVIDIA ever considered in the bid? It turns out... No. NVIDIA voluntarily bowed out of making the GPU for consoles. Why? They didn't see it as a profitable enough business. Now you might go and think this is snobbish on NVIDIA's part, but NVIDIA was chasing after a market that was growing at the time: mobile devices. On top of the HPC market they were establishing a foothold in, adding yet another thing to do R&D work, even if all they had to do was recycle a consumer GPU, was likely not a good idea from a business point of view for long term growth.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2013/06/26/the-real-reasons-microsoft-and-sony-chose-amd-for-consoles/#6b1050d22185 https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/150892-nvidia-gave-amd-ps4-because-console-margins-are-terribl To vindicate NVIDIA somewhat on their decision, AMD's Q3 FY2018 earnings for the "Enterprise, embedded, and semi-custom" categories where revenue from console sales would be was in total, $750M (https://www.anandtech.com/show/13514/amd-announces-q3-fy-2018-earnings). NVIDIA would make $792 million alone in the "Datacenter" category (https://www.anandtech.com/show/13607/nvidia-announces-q3-fy-2019-results-lots-of-stock)*
 
*Note the article date, not the "Fiscal Year" thing
 
Switch
Since Nintendo was interested in making something more like a gaming tablet, it would make sense to look at the tablets that were already out on the market and who could provide the best hardware for their needs. So around 2015, if we assume this was when Nintendo was seriously looking for something, the "top-end" mobile GPUs at the time were:
Qualcomm's Adreno 530 Imagination Technologies' PowerVR GT7600 ARM's Mali T880 NVIDIA's Tegra X1 Out of all of these, the Tegra and PowerVR easily outperformed the Adreno and Mali. Except as far as SoC availbility goes, the PowerVR could only be found on Apple's SoC and the Tegra was on the Tegra X1. Since it's smart to pick something already available to minimize costs, NVIDIA seemed like the best candidate for a gaming centric tablet because there was no way in hell Nintendo would be able to mooch off of Apple.
 
EDIT: There's a recurring theme here among the console manufacturers: Use COTS products whenever possible. Instead of burning through R&D money to develop a new core chip, use someone else's. This is especially the case today when the cost of developing a high-performance chip from ground up can easily reach billions of dollars.

The Athlon 5350 uses the Jaguar core. So it's likely up to 4 times faster.

I would have suggested getting the PS4 too, but moot point since you already did. We have no idea if the PS5 is going to be worth the launch price or what the launch lineup will be. PS4's launch lineup was piss poor and IMO the system wasn't worth buying until early 2017 when NieR Automata, Persona 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Yakuza 0, and Nioh all got US releases in about a three month window. Until then the only really good PS4 console exclusives (not counting PS3 remasters) were Bloodborne (best game on the system IMO) and Uncharted 4. But damn when those five launched roughly together the PS4 became a must buy, and it has maintained that kind of momentum since. And it looks to do so over the next two years also with The Last of Us Part II, Death Stranding, and Ghost of Tsushima. It may be 30 fps mostly but it has an unbelievable game library and is the best console since the PS2 IMO.

Because of this:
 

The factor which play on CPU temps is electricity and in this case is the CPU core voltage and also the loads on it, so you will get idea how heat is produced on the CPU..
I'm not familiar with AMD desktop processors, but my AMD laptop is idling at 46C with 26C ambient temps, mind that it's a laptop with cramped enclosure which limits airflow, and yours is a PC desktop with higher interior volume to accommodate more airflow. So I think your idle temps are in the high side..
What's your ambient temps?
 
Many people say it can shorten the CPU lifespan, because the Prime95 tests are so abusive for the CPU.
 
I prefer the ASUS Realbench as it is known to simulate the test similar to real life max loads, not beyond that.. We can benchmark and stress test our system with Realbench for 8 hours, as that's the maximum stress test duration option available on it..

Ashes of the Singularity is the only game I know that still scales up when you add more cores, but only up to 12 for some reason.
 
I'm pretty sure Civ6 also scales up with cores to make CPU turns go faster.
 
But otherwise games are developed for the lowest common denominator to maximize the potential market share. Coming out with a game that demands 8 cores wouldn't net you much sales.

red dead 2 as well. Horizon zero dawn is really good too 

gta 5
 
bc it's very well made
 
I just installed watch dogs a couple of days ago, having played WD1 it's not that big of a change.
 
At least in game mechanics, the game is polished but not completely different. 
 
By no means am I saying WD is bad
 
It's just funny to see people to complain about bugs in GTA even though I've experienced way more BUGS in WD2

They are.

https://linustechtips.com/main/staff/

my kitchen table, because it's free most of the time

Keep in mind that the small screen plays a big role in giving you the illusion of superior graphics. That is like if (not a be exact comparison, but want to highlight the idea), a 4K screen on a 23inch format. You can disable a lot of visuals like AA, reduce draw distances, reduce textures resolutions, reduce polygon count, while still looking great, and very hard to notice against 1080p 23inch screen. Remember that the Switch already downclocks the GPU by half, itself when undocked, and only has 3h battery life with a battery larger than most phones (4,310 mAh).
 
So larger the screen, the worst the visuals will look (assuming performance is not increased)

I just see consoles for what they are: devices designed around the primary purpose of playing video games on and, in the case of Sony and Microsoft, to consume multimedia. Basically, to be an "entertainment system."
 
I feel like trying to say consoles are like PCs is just PC gamers wanting to find more ways to make themselves feel superior.

Assuming you're not running anything like a game, this is just the GPU trying to figure out if it can idle or not. Something else was likely keeping it busy.

Yeah agreed, it was both entertaining and educational. A that's an excellent combination.

Basically you buy Nintendo consoles to play only Nintendo games or exclusives. If you are buying them to play anything else, you are doing it wrong.

Malwarebytes with window firewall/antivirus is less intrusive from experience, I always find other software slow down my machine(more resources use) or output alot of false positive.
 
If you want to feel more secure go install a uBlocker and go to filter and add malware and tracking list and stick with window defender and just don't download and run everything by default. If it from new source it better to scan it using window or virustotal(website or window plugin). All of these option are free, don't go looking to pirate security program please, as these are never truly up to date.

Gigabyte and Asus tend to make pretty good cards. EVGA does as well.
 
MSI Gaming X is a good model, but I wouldn't personally buy much else from MSI.

this one is way better