No you don't. It will all run at the speed/timings of the slower module, but they don't need to be identical.
@Jaasskk consult your motherboard manual to make sure you have the two (I am presuming it's two) sticks in the correct slots. Remove and reseat them in the slots.
1. you could go for much cheaper SSD and get the same results, perhaps SN750.
2. AIO is not relevant unless you chose it for the looks. a good air fan like Arctic Freezer 34 DUO or Noctua U12S will be just fine.
3. could go for B450 mobo and save a buck, no difference at all in gaming.
4. don't cheap out on your keyboard and headset come on man. you must get a decent mechanical keyboard and a good headset.
5. get a USB3 flash drive, it really doesn't cost much
You could try remote desktop, a good client for Linux is Remmina.
Otherwise I would look at parsec, which does have a Linux Client. Server as far as I know is Windows only however.
For Linux/Windows to Linux you could look at VNC or xrdp. Otherwise if your laptop is decent enough, you could setup a sftp folder and ssh into the Linux Desktop for working with your files and compiling on the desktop machine.
remote desktop? its a pretty common thing to use. Chrome remote desktop is pretty popular and easy to use, but its fairly basic. try that and see if you have any issues. remember, this requires good internet or the experience won't be good. you will always have latency and compression problems so it won't be perfect.
The good ol' mentality of "corporation bad, other corporation good" is really showing through with this forum yet again.
On a more relevant note, I'm kinda amazed at the password (singular) they used for the archive.
This is release 1 and it contains confidential NDA code. Its NDA for a reason...
Even if its just trade secrets its damaging and their stock price will likely show it.
Look into
https://www.cdw.com/product/Eaton-5P-1500-Rackmount-Compact-UPS-1100-Watt-1440-VA-lead-acid/4489163?cm_cat=google&cm_ite=4489163&cm_pla=NA-NA-Eaton Corporation_BA&cm_ven=acquirgy&ef_id=EAIaIQobChMIlaGM2ryH6wIV0cDACh3cigvaEAYYASABEgLVpvD_BwE:G:s&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlaGM2ryH6wIV0cDACh3cigvaEAYYASABEgLVpvD_BwE&s_kwcid=AL!4223!3!198550759593!!!g!338529335881!
RAM can be overclocked independently of the main part of the CPU.
The memory controller is integrated into the CPU, so if you overclock the RAM it technically counts as overclocking that part of the CPU as well. But it's very different from proper CPU overclocking, where the CPU cores run faster.
IIRC 1600mhz was the sweet spot for DDR3.
Why buy new? See if you can find it used for cheap. I wouldn't be investing tons into a platform that old.
You're paying almost as much for that pack of RAM as I did for an entire system with 16GB of DDR3.
GoG has announced that Epic Games now has official integration with Goglaxy 2.0.
Following that announcement, Tim Sweeney went on Twitter advocating for "universal ownership" of digital items - meaning the games and DLC that people purchase through digital storefronts. By "universal ownership", he means that when someone buys a game or DLC on one platform, they receive access to their purchase on all participating platforms.
Tim Sweeney's larger commentary is this:
Tim also made some replies in response to people commenting on his statements:
"If ownership of games is universal, then you don’t need every store or platform to operate forever, you just need some that do continue on."
"Epic's aim is to bring players in, not lock players in. Free games, exclusives, and free Epic Online Services for developers of other games are all part of this effort to bring players in. Interconnection of stores and accounts avoids lock-in."
"Each company is advancing in different areas, GOG with a universal launcher, Epic with account and purchasing integration. Epic Online Services (cross-platform friends, matchmaking, accounts, etc) support all platforms and stores!"
"Wouldn’t it be purely better for everyone if Steam purchases were available on other stores and platforms that hosted the game, and if Steam hosted the PC version of games you’ve bought on other stores and platforms?"
"The cost of download bandwidth is sooo small. Any store should be easily able to pay bandwidth costs for third party games from the money they do make by selling games, and any reasonable store would love to have customers frequently visiting."
This comment in particular ("possession!=ownership"), looked-at in the context of his emphasis on "universal ownership", seems to show that Tim Sweeney is actually on the side of game ownership. In acknowledging the difference between mere possession and actual ownership, he is saying that his statements of "universal ownership" take, as granted, that people own their purchased games:
Tim's expressed position on the matter is in agreement with GoG's own, as GoG openly supports the fact that people own their purchased games:
Related to the topic of game ownership, further down in the comments replying to Tim's posts, a lengthy debate took place between someone who claims to be a lawyer and another poster regarding the topic of game ownership. The lawyer argued that EULAs are enforceable in the US and that people don't own their games. The other person told them that's not so.
In the course of the debate the lawyer continually used false arguments including misrepresentations, inapplicable conflations between topics courts have ruled on, appeals to authority, and dishonest tricks in general to try to simply have their argument accepted as fact.
A more detailed look at the tricks they employed is here:
- They appealed many times to a Wikipedia list of court cases regarding use of online services where the verdict was in favour of the "clickwrap" user agreements. They claimed those verdicts in-favour of the clickwrap agreements show that EULAs are considered binding under law. However, all those cases were about the rights of a user of an online service who had to agree to a Terms of Service to use somebody-else's service, and not about the rights a person receives when they purchase a good. Their argument here was false and disingenuously tried to conflate the rulings regarding services to what the law is for goods, when the rules for services (which involves using somebody-else's property) are different than the rules for your purchased goods (which are your own property): You indeed have to agree to the terms of another person in order to use their property (such as their offered service), but, outside of the law, someone else can't dictate terms on how you may use your own property (which are your purchased goods).
- They repeatedly pretended that a lower court's older ruling on a matter (ToS agreement validity) which is irrelevant to the topic of purchased game ownership supercedes the higher Supreme Court's newer ruling on the exact matter of purchased good ownership. But when it comes to rulings, newer takes precedent over older, and higher court rulings overrule lower court rulings - and the Supreme Court is the US' highest court and its decisions apply to all of the US and take precedence over all the rest of the US' courts and overrule any prior ruling that is in contradiction to the Supreme Court's rulings.
- They claimed that the US Supreme Court's ruling which literally addressed and encompassed all goods was being interpreted too broadly when used to claim the first-sale doctrine applies to all goods, while simultaneously claiming that the Feldman v. Google ruling, which didn't at-all relate to the topic at-hand and was about a online user ToS agreement for a service, meant that EULAs are binding on purchasers of software goods - while also ignoring that even if that verdict had meant what they claimed (and it didn't), it would have still been superceded anyway by the newer Supreme Court ruling that the first-sale doctrine applies to all goods (with software being specifically mentioned by the Supreme Court as subject to the first-sale doctrine).
- They did the former while claiming that the Feldman v. Google verdict included mention of the decision applying to goods, when the Feldman v. Google court order only mentions the word "good" twice and neither time supports their claim. The two uses of the word "good" in the Feldman v. Google order are these:
"Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which eliminated the express contract claim and asserted instead claims styled as (1) breach of implied contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing"
“Standardization of agreements serves many of the same functions as standardization of goods and services; both are essential to a system of mass production and distribution."
Heck, that even shows the opposite of what the lawyer claimed: The court order states that 'goods vs services' is standardized, and essentially so, and so not open to interpretation based on the type of good or service it is or exemption based on a seller writing an EULA.
- They argued that a brief Wikipedia summation about the 2013 US Supreme Court ruling was evidence that the 2013 Supreme Court ruling only applies to foreign copyrighted works rather than all goods, while ignoring that the court explicitly explained in its ruling that the very reason why the first-sale doctrine must apply to foreign copyrighted works is because there can be no exception or exemption to the type of good which the first-sale doctrine applies to, with the judge specifically mentioning software as an example of a good which the first-sale doctrine applies to.
- They used ostentatious phrasing and repeated appeals to the authority of being a lawyer to try to suggest their argument wins by default on those grounds, despite that being a lawyer isn't a badge of credibility for a vested-interest legal argument because a lawyer is an advocate for hire and will argue and pull every trick they can to secure benefit and a win for their client's interests.
Their tactic, not as an internet troll but as a lawyer protecting their clients' interests and also their personal reputation as a paid-proponent of a certain line of argument which serves their clients' interests, was to keep making false claims about things, hoping that the other person wouldn't know the information which invalidated their claims and so would just accept the arguments as true and authoritative coming from a lawyer, so that people reading them would believe those arguments had been conceded to, and so they would be inclined to assume those arguments had validity and those people would be influenced by that going forward, effectively biasing public perception in favour of those who oppose game ownership.
Their many wilful disingenuous arguments shows what to be on guard for with a lawyer, and I think is a lesson to remember that a lawyer is not a purveyor of truth unless the topic they're speaking on is of no consequence to their personal practice, or if the truth is what they are being paid to argue in a particular case. A lawyer is an advocate for hire and they will bend every which way, as the one in this debate did, to argue and defend the interest of their employer. And even if they don't have a current client in the related field, if they are a lawyer who has a history of advocating for copyright holders or software publishers, or who has, themself, earned money writing EULAs, then they will consider it in their personal best interest to protect the interests of copyright holders and software publishers to the exclusion of others.
Here's a newer development concerning EGS and GoG's plan for universal ownership:
Is it fine when gaming/ under big loads and is your problem just limited to 1 or 2 times a day? Have you tried using programs to monitor other temps like cpu and gpu temps to check if a fan has failed or something. also running [sfc /scan now] (without square brackets) in a administrator command prompt to check for driver corruption. A good idea to check aswell is when booting check all fans including gpu and psu fan are spinning. Gpuz is usefull to give info such as gpu voltages and cpu and gpu temps. Just a few things to try aswell as checking for driver updates etc
Off the top of my head, things like an unstable overclock can cause this. Your description of the frequency suggests hardware degradation. It's not out of the question that it could be your PSU but you might also like to try removing a stick of RAM at a time and see if the system behaves.
It has an app or something that splits the monitor in a bunch of different ways to get around that. Don't think it would be that hard to tell it to split the monitor in half while still not having bezels, and then I could just play games native instead of messing around with NV Surround which screws up every time. And no, I'm not paying for Display Fusion to fix a problem that NV should've solved years ago.
And to add to the above, squeezing 2 of them in will kill your budget for what you actually want it to do, if they are to be included in the overall £1k budget as that will be taking up about a minimum of £290 of it from a quick look and if you are also needing mouse/keyboard etc.
sgteaglefort got a reaction from Blindsay in Looking to pickup a bigger UPS
