xFluing

Yes, only turned it off and then trying to power on the PC to drain the caps.

Here's all the info beforehand: I came home today to install this 8GB dual channel kit, to replace my old 4GB one, while I took off the 4GB stick I think I felt a sting, I probably shorted something or touched a charged cap idk, but after installing the 8GB one and turning on the PC, I would get 6 short beeps (which MSI says it's "memory issue", just as I suspected). It only did this a couple of times, then it stopped. However, the PC would still not POST with both sticks on, so I tried with only one in the slot closest to the CPU and it did indeed work, after plugging in the second one as well, it still worked but would need more convincing to POST consistently, but the BIOS still saw only 4GB out of the 8 total, even though Windows says I have 8GB total (4 of which being "hardware reserved", setting 8GB from MSCONFIG did NOT help), and CPU-Z telling me that both slots were occupied and read all the metadata from the stick, the BIOS's board explorer told me both slots were occupied; turning on XMP did not help, nor did setting the timings manually. When I went back to install the 4GB kit that I knew would work, it suddenly also stopped working, just refusing to POST, again, only one stick in the closest slot would work, but this time a stick on the other slot would just cause weird artifacts on the monitor instead of just being a black "pre-post" one. I KNOW FOR A FACT THOSE ARTIFACTS ARE NOT CAUSED BY THE GPU because I'm writing this from the PC in question (and because they only appeared in a fixed region on the screen as opposed to covering everything up). I haven't tried re-seating the CPU, but I doubt that's the issue, I will try, but not now because I've been at this RAM thing for hours trying to figure it out and I'm just tired of it. Now I'm currently running in single-channel off that one 4GB stick, and I suspect that slot to have died, but if it did then how could have CPU-Z and the board explorer told me what was in it? And if it did not die, then what could have happened?

He's written paragraphs on how much he loves ubisoft and fc5, i fear he might not be a troll.

Yeah guess I could report him, but a block is still unwarranted, I've grown to hate that feature more and more over the years, because it allows people to create glass bubbles and echo chambers.

I'm above that

This guy started arguing with me about Far Cry 5 and ubisoft being unoptimised and he kept insisting that the reason I don't like FC5 is because I'm "jealous I can't run it", even though I kept bringing up arguments on why I didn't like the game he kept insisting on his idea that I'm "jealous" and the only way he "won" the argument is I just had to let him "win" so he would leave me the fuck alone, so if you see this guy either stay away from him or for the love of god DON'T start a ubisoft argument with him, he will suck ubisoft's dick so hard I'm surprised he hasn't imploded yet.

Windows's gamma setting is a fucking joke, I mean it does the job right, but it has no steps on it, no marks on it, just whatever, and getting those dots to disappear every single time is a pain I would have calibrated properly if AMD allowed me to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Seriously now, all jokes aside, the AMD calibration did do its job well enough, however Nvidia just does it better.

OK so, moving around the sliders would do nothing, not in +/-1 neither in +/-2 +/-3 OR +/-4, it's only at +/-5 that I see any change happening, and it's very big, however with nvidia it's much more granular, a +/-5 on nvidia does not look as drastic as a +/-5 on AMD. I would record a video for an example, but I don't have the AMD card on me currently, besides nvcp also comes with gamma, something completely missing from radeon settings, setting which I've used more than once on both my monitors. Edit: and yeah this AMD issue happens with both of the monitors, so the monitor being the issue is out of the question.

Those "increments" of 1 do jack shit, the only steps they do anything in is "5"

Move the birghtness / contrast sliders around, see how you only see any change once every 5 steps Granted, kinda the same happens with nvidia, with it going 2-3 steps at once, but it's much finer than with radeon settings.

Alright, so for the longest time I've been using AMD cards. For about 3 years I've been using an R7 250 I had bought in desperate need for an upgrade (PC couldn't even run half life 2 on high without throttling), recently I bought two HD 7850s second hand, but I had to take them back because for some reason they've been cooked, and about at this time I've become more enthusiast than ever: I'd mess with contrast, brightness etc. in the driver settings, even was running overclocked off two monitors However, it was only after I got this Nvidia card that I realized how limited Radeon Settings was in terms of image calibration (brightness / contrast sliders would only affect anything in increments of 5 which is so coarse it makes me sick) and video settings (90% of games couldn't have their settings forced), but with Nvidia, holy shit NVCP is my wet dream: the monitor calibration is so fine, and forcing video settings actually works. So my conclusion, in the endless Nvidia vs AMD war is this: If you're just a casual gamer, looking to just play games and not dabble into the nitty gritty of image calibration, just get whatever is in your budget. If you're a tweaker / enthusiast, definitely go for Nvidia, this seems to be their target audience, at least until AMD fix their messy Radeon Settings.

Given that there's Bitcoin AND Ethereum ASICs currently, GPU mining will probably die this generation.

+30%* unacceptable IMO

I noticed no fps improvements since getting the SSD so it shouldn't be a problem.

Just did this, C: is SSD and E: is HDD, hopefully the page file should be written to the HDD now.

I should upgrade the RAM before those 5 years, also the SSD is 240GB in size.

Right, so I have this budget PC I had built 3 years ago, and have since upgraded (check sig), however the RAM has remained at 4GB. While it's enough for most games, it seems to be too little for the likes of Killing Floor 2, I tested with an 8GB stick (that was unstable, and it also ruined my framerate down to 30 from 45-60), and it was using 5GB of RAM so it's definitely writing to the page file. Now, there's also the fact that I have an SSD and I'm worried that the system is writing A LOT to the page file which will kill it significantly sooner. While I'm aware the page file doesn't really lead to an SSD's death, most of those people have enough RAM to not require a lot of page file writing.

What do you mean? I have 16:10 the only thing that's gonna happen to youtube if you record at this resolution is it's gonna pillarbox on the sides.

I just noticed there is a huge difference between AMD's VSR and Nvidia's DSR, namely that anything DSR would consider below 4x scaling is either blurry or jagged, whereas in the same resolutions with VSR it's perfectly sharp, so how can this happen?

Depends, if you can live with turning down some settings (shouldnt affecat a game's aspect at all nowadays) then 1060 works for 1440p 60hz very well, I'm doing 1440p 60 on a gtx 960 so it really shouldnt be a problem for a 1060, but then again i play mostly old / well optimised games

It's a laptop

It might very well be dead, I just had this happen to me during the past month with two HD7850s I had bough second hand, it turned out the caps were fucked because whoever had them before the guy had stuck them in the oven, at least that's what we theorize

It was one of those kingston valueram sticks, but I have a cheap Zeppelin kit and that's the 4gb kit that works perfectly...

Yesterday I was messing around with one 8 gb stick (as opposed to my regular two 2gb sticks), and well, my chipset didn't really agree with it running at its rated speeds (1066/1333): blue screens, game crashes, webpage crashes Anyway, I clocked it all the way down to 800mhz and it seems to have stopped blue screening, however webpages and games would still easily crash, BUT that's not what I'm here for. What I AM here for, though, is that running that one stick at 800mhz seems to have heavily impacted performance: I would get half the fps in Killing Floor 2 (maxed at 30 instead of 60), and I was wondering if the Athlon x4 860k is sensitive to memory speeds similar (but not as drastic) to ryzen, OR if it was running like ass only because I was running single channel as opposed to dual channel (though that only happens with iGPUs)

Cursed image.