Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About CarlBar

  • Title

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Apple can get away with dropping support for older software because it's user-base isn't heavily biased towards people that care about that. Microsoft on the other hand has a much larger and more diverse customer base that, (particularly on the lucrative business side), cares a lot about backwards compatibility. If they released a version of windows that dropped the majority fo support for older software a massive percentage of their customer base would refuse to upgrade. And that would cost Microsoft a fortune in income.
  2. As STDragon mentioned once you get upto a big enough mass of data it actually becomes the case that for a lot of situations the caching approach is better. The issue here is RejZoR is treated everyone lik they'll use 10Tb of storage minimum before they replace their PC. And how many systems have any games at all installed? Answer very few. How many have multiple games installed, Again very few. By the time the majority of people can fill a 1-2TB SSD they'll be buying a new PC. And they probably won't bother to transfer anything over, they'll just reinstall and start from
  3. Personally i totally understand the advantages of the system in terms of speed and how it works, and i'd love to see it integrated as a default feature into windows disk management tools. But my point is people who use enough storage to make HDD + SSD caching more cost effective than pure SSD storage are in the minority. Most people do not have enough data stored to make a HDD cost efficient compared to an SSD, and pure SSD is at worst as good as, and at best better than the caching solution. Simply put most people won;t see any advantage because most people will never have enough
  4. Yeah i might use up several TB of data like it's nothing, so might a fair few other here, but your average PC user barely has any games installed if any at all and they watch/listen to media on their tablets or smart tv's. They just don't need more than a couple of TB of storage for what they do.Even thats often overkill. Some cna get by on a 1Tb or even 512GB SSD no problem. The thought of the latter gives me anxiety.
  5. Add me to the the list that will be inserted at some future point for adding to my NAS, (UNRAID based for the curious, not entirely sure where that falls on the data vs hardware thing @leadeater is talking about). NAS's have a "Big Drives go BRRRRRRR!" attitude.
  6. Not the case in the UK i can confirm that, both my old TalkTalk router and my new Virgin one come with built in wifi passwords.
  7. Is there anything of substance here or is it just an expert offering his opinion? Only got to around halfway but so far he hasn't reference specific laws or past precedents or done anything other than "I say this". on top of that he hasn't touched on the different nationalities and the complications of that that are involved and he's repeatedly referenced the EULA. Even in the US those are dodgy legally speaking, outside the US it gets even worse. I also don;t buy that the whole ROM thing is the issue personally, there are too many high profile groups out there, (including games do
  8. Did any of you actually read the OP or did you engage your mouths without first engaging your eye's? It says right there in the Op that the reason they're in trouble is because a huge mass of loans to cover that 20 billion never got organised because the Chinese national government decided to stop funding most of the Chinese chip fabs. Not sure why the Whuan local government has stepped in though, probably a classic case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
  9. Which speedrunners and some competitive gamers routinely do. Seriously how do you think things like crowd control and randomiser races work. they eitheir involve modding the console or inserting somthing between the console and the media to modify the data as the console reads it.
  10. Again what some chips could do is not the same as what all chips could do. They wheren't common but even some 9900K's wouldn't do 5Ghz all core. Claiming every chip that came out of the factory would do 5Ghz all cores is simply flat out wrong. Would a goodly percentage do it? Sure, but not remotely all. Also yes the frequency climb is a binning thing. Thats what improving an existing process node does, it raises the average binning level of silicon produced on it meaning either power efficiency at a given clock speed, or peak achievable clock speed, will improve. Also more cores ma
  11. Crap for power efficency yes, not improving no. And no frequency has not been stagnant, at the start of 14nm they where at 4.2Ghz, now they're upto 5.3Ghz. Could some 6700K's reach 5Ghz+ overclocked? Sure, but don;t mistake what some processors could do for every processor can do. Thats the difference between a 6700k and a 10900k. Every single 10900K that rolls out the factory is guaranteed to hit 5.3Ghz boost. Also again, improving the architecture whilst they're stuck on 14nm isn;t going to help them in anything but single core, and will probably hurt them in multi-c
  12. Neither of those claims about changes in process node is the least bit acurratte. Both have seen noticeable power efficiency, (and just as importantly clock speed), uplifts. We like to meme about the Intel +'s but according to Intels own statements 14nm is now significantly ahead of where 10nm was supposed to be in power efficiency and peak clock speed. Where Intel is suffering is that their maximum yield able die size, (at an acceptable production cost and volume), puts a hard cap on the number of transistors they can squeeze onto a die, and that limits what they can do. 10nm once the get it
  13. It is true. Intel normally does an architecture refresh followed by a node shrink, when 10m failed to mature on time they just held of on the next architecture update and kept tweaking the existing one. Not that an architecture improvement would have helped IMO. They're doing an architecture refresh next year on desktop and based on current info the performance per watt and maximum multi-core [performance isn't actually moving, it may even regress slightly. It's a pure single core performance boost.
  14. Large numbers of people throwing large numbers of money and man hours at somthing plus they don;t allways find them especially quickly.