gt710

Not all speedtests are implemented the same way and how they are reported can vary between them as well.
 
Fast.com is run on Netflix backbone so your ISP may just have good peering with them.
 
If you want to read more how that figure is reported: https://ripe74.ripe.net/presentations/105-Ripe74-Fast.com-1.pdf

I had this problem, i've actually had this problem a number of times. I tend to find it was a time in my life when i had something else to do and gaming just was the distraction i thought i needed - maybe gaming just isn't your thing right now, plenty of other hobbies to spend your time doing.
 
in the end things will change, and for me - i found a few solid titles that I was just determined to finish. - you never really leave this life..  Something with a strong story usually helps rather than just grinding away. Although saying that Destiny and Battlefront 2 definitely brought me back.

There's no simple answer to this. it will depend on who you are and what type of games you're into.
 
And the types of games you were into in the past simply might not fit you anymore.
 
The best I can offer is: find games that genuinely interest you. Maybe look at games you didn't consider in the past, but might actually suit you these days.

im shocked how good the fps are for such an old chip and a 1650

thanks i will check them now

580

Can’t tell if you're saying this out of disgusting transphobia or harmless ignorance.
 
People do not choose their sexuality or their gender. They are who they are. This means they can’t be influenced into being trans or gay as much as they cannot be influenced into being straight. If your logic worked then there would be “no more gay” people in the first place because being heterosexual has always been the prevalent thing in society while people in the LGBTQ+ community have always faced harassment.
 
You shouldn’t be asking “but why are there so many trans people now in the last couple of years?”
You should be acknowledging the bravery it takes to come out as trans and that you should be proud that we’ve arrived at a cultural point where more people feel safe enough to express themselves.

oh that's good for her glad they came out 🙂

but why are there so many trans people now in the last couple of years?
feel like more and more people each day are coming out as trans soon kids growing up well might be influenced by trans people in the media and online  the next generation of kids there may be no more straight people 

Nope.  Most of my trans, gay, and lesbian friends raising kids have straight non-trans kids.  What we are seeing is the surge of gay / lesbian visibility in places like medicine and the normal office because it became OK to talk about your spouse if they were the same gender.  We are currently fighting to have trans people just be accepted as part of the norm.
 
In reality, us non-binary and other trans people will always be a minority, even if we lived in world where there is no stigma with just existing.

I think the GE is for OEM's only and is rated for 35w instead of the G's 65w. The G also has slightly higher boost clock at  3.9ghz vs GE's 3.5ghz single core and 3.7ghz vs 3.2ghz all core. They are the exact same silicon however.

Yeah well me either, i can just be in the middle of Labs with complete nobody around me and i would get random hitches. Its just really bad, and specific to me is that the skybox is fuzzy too right now.

G203 is a good option
Razer deathadder is also a nice mice if you can fin within the budget

You're probably using a VGA cable with that monitor.
 
The monitor has a processor in it which takes the analogue signal (vga) and converts it into digital signals similar to the ones that come through HDMI or DVI or DisplayPort.
 
For backwards compatibility, the analogue to digital converter part in the processor has to support a wide range of refresh rates, for example anything from 48 Hz to 100 Hz because some devices that output vga video signal may be locked at a particular refresh rate, and the monitor wouldn't be able to display any image with those inputs otherwise..
However, this doesn't mean that the image on the LCD screen updates more than 60 times a second. The converter takes whatever frames (snapshots) it receives and throws out whatever is above 60 frames a second, the refresh rate the monitor supports.
 
So, if you use refresh rates in Windows higher than 60 Hz, you won't actually get more than 60 updates a second, you'll only reduce the image quality you get on the screen, because you're pushing more data through the VGA cable, and each pixel data pushed through the cable can be affected easier by external noise and the analogue to digital converter will have a harder time decoding the pixels, only to throw out those extra frames afterwards.
 
As to WHY it's 70 Hz at such lower resolutions... I think it has to do with really old backwards compatibility.  720x400 , 720x480 etc are also known as text modes, kind of "safe mode" of video cards. 720x400 is perfect for text, 80 rows x 25 columns ... so each character gets a 9 x 16 rectangle of pixels.
As far as I know, 720x400 was the default resolution that BIOS used on monitors, and the same resolution used by default in DOS
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VGA_text_mode#PC_common_text_modes
 
Some of the ancient standards like CGA, EGA probably specified some minimum operating frequencies (as in how slow or how fast pixels are transferred to the monitor) so at that low resolution, probably it was required in those standards to update the screen 70 times a second to have that minimum frequency above that threshold.
 
With CRT monitors, most people needed at least 85 Hz or 85 refreshes a second otherwise they could get headaches and would notice flicker, but that's no longer an issue with LCD monitors and they defaulted to 60 Hz because it's same refresh rate as TVs and the TV broadcasts (which used 60Hz because the AC power also used 60 Hz, so it made TVs easier to manufacture and less sensitive to the AC power quality) and because it made it easier to film movies and broadcasts at  30 fps or 24 fps to save money on film.
 
Because you're giving the video card much much less stuff to work with, when you use low quality.
 
Anisotropic filtering is a method of improving the image quality by improving the EDGES of objects in the picture you're seeing, the video card builds the picture it's gonna send to the monitor... and then the video card works on making those edges smoother.  At 1360x760 those edges may be 2000 pixels long in total,  but at 720x480 those edges may only be 600 pixels in total (because you have much fewer pixels, 1/3 actually - 1360x768 is 1,044,480 pixels, 720x480 is 345,600 pixels) so even if you use a x16 setting for the filter, it's just a little more work compared to the higher resolution. Also, in ultra quality, the textures and everything in the image are from the start much smoother, making the edges of objects in the picture smoother, so the anisotropic filtering doesn't have to work as hard to improve the quality.
 
The quality setting changes the size of textures used in the game, and changes other things like amount of shadows applied after the image is produced and other things.
But let's take just texture size into account. 
Let's say you're in the game, a 3D shooter,  and you're walking down the street and there's a poster on the wall to your right. 
In each frame, the video card has to take a square or rectangular texture and resize it and stretch it and then put the texture over the area where you would see that poster - you're not looking at that poster straight ahead, perpendicular, your character is looking at an angle and as it walks ahead and gets closer to the poster, the poster becomes bigger and the angle changes a bit, so with every movement the video card has to recalculate how to stretch and deform that texture to apply it over the poster area.
 
In low quality that texture may be as low as 256 x 128 pixels and may be only 256 colors, so the video card "cores" will deform/stretch/adjust that texture to how your character sees it very fast, and can move on to process other things, and build the whole picture that's sent to the monitor.
In ultra quality mode, that texture may be 1024 x 256 pixels and may have 65k colors, so the video card may need up to 8 times more processing power just to show you that poster on the wall.
At 1360x768,  your video card has to fill 1 million pixels in each pixel with information from various textures, objects and all that, then apply shadows, and do that anisotropic filters. There could be 5000 objects that are seen (fully or partially in the picture) ... the road, the walls, buildings, posters, windows, everything that forms the picture.
 
At 720x480, there's only a third of the pixels that have to be filled,  and some of those 5000 objects could be completely obscured or so small they wouldn't be seen (what used to take 10 pixels on 1360x768 may only take 2-4 pixels at 720x480) so let's say there's only 3500 objects to be drawn, so even it takes 4-8 times more due to "ultra quality", the video card will still manage to get you that 60 fps or more.
 
 
 

There isn’t a write protect tab like there was on floppies or sd cards.  It’s basically a HD though, so one could use the same stuff to make it hard to erase.  Permissions and whatnot.  Just like the SD and floppy stuff though there would still be ways around it.  With the stuff with switches or hole there was scotch tape.  You could maybe stop it from accidentally happening though. Carts were more inviolate but they were ROMs. Different technology.  There is an old saying “you can make most things foolproof but nothing can be made damnfool proof”

A little bit. As in .2ghz higher clock. If you can upgrade for free then yeah go for it!

Well most likely not, but really depends on what the laptop's BIOS is like. A VM would definitely be possible though, but may not run well.

Probably one of the middle to higher clocked Pentium IIIs would be about on par with an Atom N270/450.