dragosudeki

At first I thought it meant the fan spinning would cause no sound at all, but if its just stopping the fan, then its really not a true 'fan with 0db'.
I think they just modified the PWM feature so if it reaches a low enough speed, they just make it stop spinning instead. Probably could emulate similar things with software fan curves anyway, instead of having the fan decide for itself.

At first I thought it meant the fan spinning would cause no sound at all, but if its just stopping the fan, then its really not a true 'fan with 0db'.
I think they just modified the PWM feature so if it reaches a low enough speed, they just make it stop spinning instead. Probably could emulate similar things with software fan curves anyway, instead of having the fan decide for itself.

They're good devices, but not nearly as successful as the 3DS. If specs were the only thing that mattered, then according to that same logic, the PS Vita should have been more successful because it was more powerful.
 
Also, there are a couple of games that sometimes run past the 30fps on Nintendo 3DS. I find it hard to believe that Nintendo would say "30fps games only" when there are many games that reach higher rates (disregarding the stupid 3D feature).

ont hat note tho, mostly out of curiousity, what would you rather have out these two options, in terms of docked mode:
- locked to 30FPS but a "buttery smooth" 30FPS without a hitch.
- 60FPS, but with dips down to 45 depending on what's going on. (to pull up an example, grenades going boom)
 
not saying this directly related to the switch, but more so as a curiousity in terms of choosing between two evils.

Isn't that what most games are (the same thing over and over)? Each iteration of Pokemon, Monster Hunter, Super Smash, Zelda game is just about the same as each iteration of Call of Duty, Battlefield, Fallout, and many other series...

And I'll add to this that it's not even necessarily a bad thing… if a game's design formula is excellent, it can still be worth playing many entries into the series. Even if the mechanics are literally identical, it can still be seen as new content for what may be your favorite game.
 
Dark Souls III is far more similar to Dark Souls I than probably any two Zelda games are to each other. Yet I will play each and every Dark Souls game past, present, and future for hundreds of hours and there's still nothing I'd look forward to more than another Souls game or a Bloodborne port to PC.

It's not even the coolers. The 16% number comes from the 4k results. Neither of these cards are 4k gaming cards. OP is using a clickbait title, and refusing to provide the details to those numbers within his thread. Allow me to break down the math for everyone.
 
(GameGPU) 1080p DX12: GTX 1060 average FPS = 61, R9 480 average FPS = 65. Difference of 7% in favor of the R9 480
(GameGPU) 1080p DX12: GTX 1060 minimum FPS = 42, R9 480 minimum FPS = 35. Difference of 20% in favor of GTX 1060.
(ComputerBase) 1080p DX 12: GTX 1060 FPS = 49.4, R9 480 FPS = 55.2. Difference of 12% in favor of R9 480.
(ComputerBase) 1080p DX 11: GTX 1060 FPS = 51.2, R9 480 FPS = 52.9. Difference of 3% in favor of R9 480. 
(ComputerBase) 1080p DX11 vs DX12: GTX 1060 DX11 = 51.2, R9 480 DX12 = 55.2. Difference of 8% in favor of R9 480.
 
This is just factoring in 1080p. At 1440p, the results become even closer to each other. The only result in which the R9 480 showed a 16% gain over the GTX 1060, was in 4k, with a mere difference of 3fps. This title is misleading, and needs to be changed or updated to reflect that it's 16% in 4k. Anyone could easily make a post, showing the GTX 1060 winning by 20%, and neglect to tell people it's in minimum FPS. It would be just as misleading, don't you guys think?

Disagree, we don't need more "PC like" consoles. If Nintendo were to release another one of those, we will be back to the GameCube days or even worse. There is nothing innovative or interesting with another "PC like" console, the PS4 and the Xbox One already occupy this space and frankly Nintendo would find it difficult to standout.

Demos are not the real problem. The real problem is the refund policy for games.

Just to add to your points, I am one who pirates games that have not got me interested enough to buy, but interested enough to want to check it out. There's been many occasions where I have bought the said pirated game afterwards because it I found out I would enjoy it (whether it be right away or after waiting for a better sale or more content). If I spend a lot of time playing a pirated game, I almost always just buy the games right away.
Maybe if there was an actual proper refunding for games, then I would be more into buying the game to try it out (Steam's refund policy is not that great and doesn't apply to keys bought on other sites like GMG, HumbleBundle, etc.). Physical products you can usually return after a month or week (does not track usage, unless its visible you broke it in which warranty may just kick in instead) if you don't like it, but digital games do not have the same system.

Demos are not the real problem. The real problem is the refund policy for games.

Just to add to your points, I am one who pirates games that have not got me interested enough to buy, but interested enough to want to check it out. There's been many occasions where I have bought the said pirated game afterwards because it I found out I would enjoy it (whether it be right away or after waiting for a better sale or more content). If I spend a lot of time playing a pirated game, I almost always just buy the games right away.
Maybe if there was an actual proper refunding for games, then I would be more into buying the game to try it out (Steam's refund policy is not that great and doesn't apply to keys bought on other sites like GMG, HumbleBundle, etc.). Physical products you can usually return after a month or week (does not track usage, unless its visible you broke it in which warranty may just kick in instead) if you don't like it, but digital games do not have the same system.

Played for about 30 minutes today. Drove around the city for a bit. FPS hovered between 55 and 45, ocassionally dipping into the high 30's but remained fairly smooth for the most part. There were one or two instances of hitching, but nothing unbearable. I see a lot of detail in the grass, trees etc. and a lot of shadow detail as well. So I can see why it could be fairly demanding. It looks good, but not mind-blowing. 
 
It runs about as good as I expected it to, all things considered. I wouldn't call it "horribly unoptimized" but I also wouldn't call it "well optimized". Somewhere in between perhaps. Recorded some footage. Will post up once I get the time to upload. 

Ok where to start... From the beginning I guess.
 
No. You cannot say graphics card "xyz" should be able to play every game at 1080p ultra at 60fps+, regardless of any other factors or limitations. It is entirely game-dependent/specific. Some games are more demanding than others and that's just the reality of it. Do we want games to become more demanding? No. Are games going to become more demanding? Yes. Why? More complexity, more details, more AI, more physics, more everything. It's inevitable. Deal with it. If this were not the case, then further GPU development/advancements wouldn't be necessary and we'd still be playing games that look like Half Life 1 on GPUs from the early 2000's. To say games should not become more demanding is asking for the impossible.
 
Yes, games are certainly getting better and better. The reason we don't notice it as much in recent years is because the level of detail has somewhat plateaued. It's still increasing, but not at the rate it once was with each new game. The amount of time, money and man power required for such highly complex games is a limitation on development. Look how long it took to finalize a proper smooth-running port of GTAV. Regardless, games are getting better. Just look at the visuals of Battlefront. If you can't recognize improvements in modern games, perhaps you need glasses? 
 
Comparing consoles to PC, you're forgetting that PC is capable not only of running higher resolutions but also several times higher frame rates (30fps vs 60+). The demand and GPU horsepower to be able to do so also increases by several magnitudes. On consoles, they are running sub HD resolutions with AA filters and loads of motion-blur to cover up the weakness of their GPUs. On PC, we can run the same games at full HD+ and at 60fps+ and at higher graphics settings. The experience and visuals are significantly better on PC in most comparisons. Do I think the consoles and cross-platform parity has held back PC game development? Yes, to an extent. 
 
No, games don't look the same on console as PC at higher graphical settings. See above paragraph. In pretty much every single case, they look and play better on PC.
 
Despite what you think or believe, it could simply be that it's just a demanding game when the graphics are cranked up on PC. While you complain about getting 48fps at 1440p on ultra settings with a 1070, just remember the consoles are running it at 1080p or lower with lower graphics settings and just able to maintain 30fps. There's probably a lot more going on and being rendered in a given scene than you realize. The bottom line is; it still runs and looks better on PC. 
 
Please, stop trying to claim how the game should run. I'm assuming you didn't develop it and don't know what went into it or how complex the engine is. Be happy you game on PC and that we have the ability to experience higher resolutions, graphics settings and frame rates. If you really hate the game that much and hate Ubisoft that much, then stop buying/playing their games!

The problem is that they had a one guy doing all the PR saying all the stuff that you should've been able to do in the game. When it released, most of what that guy said was not available to do. It has nothing to do with how big/small the team is (Ex: 2K is getting a lot of hate for NBA2K17 because hidden patches and they are not fixing what the community wants). Its the fact that they didn't come clear and just say "you'll be able to do X on release and we plan to add Y later as paid/free DLC". Star Citizen is an example of doing it right, where it's made clear that many features will be added much later in the development cycle (Coming from someone who is not a fan of the game).

Always makes me shake my head when a new game is released and people complain that it requires a substantial GPU to run it well. Games are only going to get more demanding over time, even at 1080p. They're cramming more and more detail into these virtual worlds. It's a crazy amount of data and detail to render. 
 
It doesn't matter if 1080p is not considered that high of resolution these days. If there are substantially more objects and details to calculate and render in any given scene, it's going to be more demanding, period. 
 
Got a copy of this game free with the 1070 I just ordered. Once it comes in, I'll be curious to test it out. 
 
I can understand, some games really are crap, like the whole Arkham Knight and AC Unity situations, but some games just are simply demanding. 

Half Life 3 will win the "Test of Time" award every year.

Half Life 3 will win the "Test of Time" award every year.

Half Life 3 will win the "Test of Time" award every year.

If Bioshock Infinite doesn't get the "WHOAAAA DUDE" award, nothing will. And UT GOTY easily wins the "Test of Time" imo.

Macbook should become the macbook air
Macbook pro should become the macbook
Mac book should become the mac picture
 
then they release a real macbook pro during CES, not at CES, during CES, because reason, it should have 2 USB-C/TB3 ports, 2 USB-A ports, magsafe, SD card slot, 7th gen i cpu, start at 16GB on the base model upgradeable to 32, quadro dGPU, and a better ventilation solution.

Half Life 3 will win the "Test of Time" award every year.

Half Life 3 will win the "Test of Time" award every year.

Half Life 3 will win the "Test of Time" award every year.

Half Life 3 will win the "Test of Time" award every year.