peanuts104

Just something in the way the game is made, but I know they were able to consistently get results on the 6600k/7600k, so I think it is likely that is the case with your 8600k. As far as I know R* hasn't addressed it. Like I said, just limit your FPS to 75 fps with the RivaTuner Statistics Server program, which comes with MSA afterburner. You can't see above that on your monitor anyways, but if you wanted to get a higher refresh rate monitor I would bet that the problem with GTA would persist with your CPU. Might have to upgrade to an 8700k, which in my opinion, wouldn't be worth it just to get high refresh rate in one game, but that's for you to decide.

The 6600k and 7600k both had similar stuttering issues with high frame rates. I know the 8600k has two more cores but this could be the culprit. Try turning a frame rate limiter on to limit it to 75hzfps. Here's gamersnexus video on it the stutter effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUNAvkY6Ops

Bumping for more opinions.

It's not the hardware, it's the HDMI and hardware support for Netflix 4k and other services, etc. Hence my **** hollywood comment. It has little to do with the ability of the hardware and everything to do with the hardware being "compliant" among various erroneous standards streaming. Fortunately, both my RX 480 and my GTX 1050 TI seem to meet the requirements.

It's running off of an i5 6600...and the mobo and CPU don't support 4k playback on a variety of platforms, which is why I got the 1050 TI to begin with (**** you hollywood).

I mean, generally speaking probably, but it is also title dependent. I generally think of the 580 and 480 as fairly equivalent to the 1060 in terms of performance, just because there is variance between games. Either way, I still conclude that $150 for an RX 480 is a solid deal.

You don't think the performance difference between the two warrants holding onto the RX 480?

Based on? Not saying you're wrong. Just googled and checked various peoples benchmarks, the 290 is better in some titles and worse than others versus the 480. IDK, $150 seems like a good price. I'd go for it if you're interested.

I'm not positive on this statement, but as far as performance, I'm pretty sure that the r9 290 is superior to the RX 480 in terms of performance (though it draws a crap load more power).

Long story short, I just purchased an RX 580 off of craigslist for a good damn deal. That leaves me with an option. My HTPC in my living room is currently running a GTX 1050TI. It's a pretty decent RX 480 variant, the Powercolor Red Devil, though mine wasn't a great overclocker. The RX 580 is replacing an RX 480. Should I: A) Sell the GTX 1050 TI on craigslist and put the RX 480 on my HTPC (power draw is not a major concern of mine) B) Sell the RX 480 on craigslist, presumably for more than I could get for the GTX 1050 TI, and recoup most of the purchase of the RX 580 OR C) Put both on craigslist and see which one goes for the most? Probably C, but dealing with two different ads is annoying because...well, I'm lazy.

I just bought an RX 580 sapphire nitro + today for $160 and thought it was a pretty good deal. I bought mine off craigslist though. Good deal imho.

Considering the price differential between the 9900k and the 2700x, the difference in performance between them is really important from a price to performance scenario. If the 2700x was gimped, whether on purpose or by flawed testing practices, when compared against the 9900k, it does a disservice to potential buyers.

I did. It mentions nothing about giving shops extra spare parts which is usually the real time sink for 3rd party repair shops as I understand it based on stuff both Linus and Louis Rossmann have said. This is nice but I don't think it will make the process that much faster.

It'd be even quicker if they let repair shops have spare parts on hand. This is like putting a band aid on a bleeding artery.

I agree, and generally I wouldn't mind it, especially in a futuristic or sci-fi setting, but for me there is too much cognitive dissonance when one guy can take magdump after magdump after magdump and he's not in an Iron Man suit.

I'm actually okay with the bulletsponge stuff here. You can at least make sense of it in terms of most people are using bodymods and shit. Unlike the division where it's normal people with no or limited amounts of armor sopping up bullets. I couldn't do the division for long. Too immersion breaking.

Triggered. I need a safe space.

After about a year of trying on both tinder and OkCupid, I'm beginning to agree with this.

Isn't dealing with perverts part of online dating? I'm a guy and even I have to deal with unwanted and unsolicited stuff. I guess I fail to see the point of this app, especially since it's not university specific. If it had a way to filter by university, then it'd make more sense to me.

Wat Wat

No, that's not the case. There are other ways to determine guilt and innocence in terms of criminality. LEAs don't necessarily need the data in those messages to do their job, it just makes it easier. And it won't cost you "a bit" of your privacy, it will cost you all of it. Not only that, you're giving all governments, essentially, the ability to do whatever they want with data because once the tool is created, every government will do anything they can to acquire it. They will literally know everything, and if they know everything, it's pretty easy to control the herd and squash dissenting opinions. This tool would be acquired and used by despotic regimes around the world, and would be used to literally jail or even kill detractors, just so police in Australia have an easier time conducting their investigations. Is that a world you want to live in? Are those consequences not dire enough for you to change your mind?

I agree with almost all of your rant. This practice in general stretches the limits of the system and I would agree that it is abusing the system. My only point is that other companies are doing this too and the title of the topic suggests that it's only Apple that is undervaluing their properties when protesting their assessments, which is super clickbaity and a misrepresentation of the situation as a whole. If Google is averaging approximately $20 million in value discrepancy per property you're disputing, it's safe to say they are severely undervaluing their properties. The only way to know for sure what other companies, like Google, lowballed would be an open records request and I don't care enough to do that. And I'm not saying you like Google or any other company that does it either, I'm just using them because they are a good example of another tech giant that is doing this. I despise Apple's anti-consumer practices and the Apple fanboys that think their company can do no wrong, but this is is a different situation than that. And frankly, I think some of the blame must rest with the state of California on this. This, according to the article, has been going on for decades, yet there has been no effort, as far as I can tell, to shorten the appeal process. Where I work, properties are reassessed every year. If you appeal your assessment, usually it's just a few day process. If you want to drag it out longer, maybe a few months, but at the end of the day the countymakes sure they collect their taxes that year. If companies can still be appealing stuff going all the way back to 2004, something with the appeals system is broken and should be fixed (but it won't be because of lobbying from all of the tech giants in California).

Literally no insurer would insure it at that value. Also, a good insurer wouldn't rely on the tax assessment for property value.

If you're trying to haggle for the lowest price and you don't know what the floor is, why would you set it? It makes no sense to say $500 mil if you could literally get $200 dollars for it. It's obviously absurd, but it gives nothing away as to what you actually think it's worth, putting the ball firmly in your opponent's court. If you think that's dishonest, fine. I agree that it is. But as it stands, it appears this is a common practice among at least tech companies in the area, if not most major businesses in California that have significant holdings in real estate. If you want to demonize the practice, then so be it. But this isn't about Apple in particular. As has been shown, multiple tech companies appeal their taxes and I would reckon most companies that own significant real estate holdings in California do, because it saves them money, and companies like money. I cannot understand why you are being so obtuse. If Santa Clara County, the final authority on the matter, comes out and says they accept that Apple's campus is worth $200, I will literally rip my 7700k out of my system and smash it with a hammer.

It really isn't, though it does have convenient access to highways. But Apple going in there was going to change the dynamics of the neighborhood. It wasn't just any old office that was being built. With these big tech companies, prime estate isn't necessary because they're bringing in the traffic to the neighborhood, instead of relying on the neighborhood for the traffic. Access to highways was probably a big factor. Pretty close to 280 and the 85/280 interchange. Also pretty close to the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. If you haven't heard of this airport, I wouldn't blame you. I hadn't either before I looked for the closest airport. However, for big international tech companies, it's a lower key entry point than your traditional airports.