The conclusion of the video was basically to just crank the fabric clock as high as it can suffer. You can do some minimal performance testing before/after to check if performance has changed after that.
from what I know g-sync and g-sync compatible are almost identical in terms of performance but if u want to get a g-sync monitor it is a pretty good buy and the refurbisher is Acer certified so you should be good
ok..... so no modification?
really good quality screen, you have owned one how would you know, thare are more than resolution to a screen.
wii u was more of a prototype switch
-257 to 260$ to make https://www.vg247.com/2017/04/06/nintendo-switch-estimated-to-cost-257-to-manufacture/
Hope you don't mind me asking this here, but do you have any plans to make your aluminum parts available separately? I like the look of the A240G kit, but I'd really like the ability to add another radiator or potentially another GPU block.
I had an i5 4440 for a while because I built a budget system with a 750ti. After upgrading to a gtx 1070 I noticed that in games like bf1 I wasn't able to hit 60fps max settings with a 4440/1070 at 1080p. I figured doing a somewhat small jump to a used i7 4790k would hold me off from upgrading for a year or so when I was ready to spend a lot of money for a really good CPU. I chose the 4790k because it was my cheapest option for what I wanted out of my system for gaming. I also didn't get an r5 1600 or 7700k because of all the controversy between which is better. So I figure in a year or so that with newly arrived competition from AMD, Intel will step up their game and in theory, both companies should put out some great CPUs and that's when I'll upgrade
Your sentence says more than I think you meant it to. It's the entire point of CPU benchmarks to push the CPU as hard as possible. The fact that the 7700k when not GPU bound can sit at 100% utilisation is a good thing. It's not a good thing that essentially no game can make use of all of a 1700. Once again, if it turns out that the limitations of writing software with so many interdependence -- both on other threads and the user themselves -- mean that it is simply infeasible for games to max out 16 logical processor cores at a time then the situation for the 1700 will never improve. This "future potential" will never be realised. I think the assumption that every task can be made infinitely parallel and so justify more cores as an investment is an assumption based on a lack of understanding and wishful thinking. Especially when due to the specific Zen architecture itself, using more than 4 of these cores at a time comes with an order of magnitude increase in latency every time data needs to be transferred between them.
I don't see the difference in your second paragraph. When you buy a 1700, 1700X, or 1800X you are paying either the same amount or much more for something that is worse on the promise that at some nondescript time in the future it will suddenly be better. With a 5960X you are buying something that doesn't so as well as a 4790k on the promise that sometime -- maybe a decade from now, maybe never at all -- it will benefit from having double the core count in mainstream games.
I really don't see the value of Ryzen 7 for gamers. Ryzen 5 is another story because it's largely at price/performance parity with the cheaper i5s and games very much do make use of 4 cores and SMT, but when the 1700 and 7700k are basically the same price, for me it's a no-brainer which to go for. Unless you are going to use those extra cores right now, the i7 makes much more sense.
There's logic to it, but it's flawed imo. The 1700 genuinely does have much more computational performance than the 7700k. The problem is that this comes from its core count, rather than per-core performance. For a game to be able to utilise this, games would have to be monumentally more parallel than they are currently, in ways that I'm struggling to see being possible from a software perspective. Games are so complex, and have so many calculations that are dependant on eachother, and then also depend on user input as well. The potential is theoretically there, but even if it is possible I can see it taking five years or more before we see Ryzen 7 actually gets full utilisation in most games.