Help solve global warming with v-sync/g-sync/freesync

[Harry Voyager]

Better solution to climate change is to go nuclear. That way you don't require coal, and have enough power generation to do things like water the Sahara, with will do far more for both biodiversity and carbon capture than saving power will. 

 

Gen 4 is shaping up to be rather impresive, being both considerably safer that Gen 2&3 plants, more compact, and pushes us further down the fuel chain*. 

 

On the vsync/gsync thing, it would be worth while to better educate people on the capabilities of their hardware. When you're getting 200fps on a 60hz monitor, it's time to turn up the graphics. My monitors are 60hz IPS displays that do very nice color, and it hadn't occurred to me until recently that I could combine them into one triple wide display. It's very nice for my non-VR games. Granted in Il-2 GB, I'm still getting lows of 37 in VR with the render distance set to Ultra, but that ability to see for miles is so worth it! I'm probably going to get a new 3D card once the next generation is here to see if I can't get the frame rates higher or add more pixels to the mix. 

 

*Every element heavier than Iron can yield energy from fission. The issue is developing effective reactors for it. Some gen 4 designs work on thorium, and other can process fuel prior generations considered spent. Currently there is enough uranium of all the types that there's been little need to develop a reactor that can burn depleted uranium. 

[Mick Naughty]

That would be nice. Just seem that so many are afraid of it. Especially with the old GE reactors (I think that’s who made them) still around and after the poor implementation used in Japan. 

 

Not like Ike we will have a choice seeing the direction we’re going. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

39 minutes ago, Harry Voyager said:

-Snip-

And when the naysayers go "but Chernobyl and Fukushima!" Outside of, as you said, using outdated designs, at least with Chernobyl, the actual long term health and ecology impacts aren't as severe as one would expect. Which I would rather have this video explain it than me:

 

On another note, the one thing that bugs me about "clean energy," namely solar and wind, is that I haven't found a sufficient answer to the question: what are we going to do when those things reach the end of life? Last I recall, semiconductor processing is a pretty messy thing (this is on top of how incredibly toxic semiconductor manufacturing can get if left unchecked) and nobody really has a use for large wind blades made of single-use material.

[Harry Voyager]

Chernobyl was an unstable death trap designed by a society that viewed people as expendable widgets. You run any technology with the mindset that "a million deaths is a statistic" and you're going to get death on that scale. These are the same people that poisoned the Volga for a publicity stunt.*

 

*They were demonstrating how much fertilizer they could produce and ship, but didn't have the gas to ship it anywhere, so the truckers just dumped all of it in the river so they could say they delivered it somewhere. 

[Mick Naughty]

Most issues with them are always user error. Trying to balance two half’s of a core with a screw driver or using a rod to impale yourself to the ceiling. 

 

Think the answer is to just do it against the public’s will. A lesson learned from everyone’s testing back in the day. They won’t know until you mess up. As people don’t wonna change for the better. Want cheaper and sufficient power but don’t want a plant near them. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Honestly though, I think the bigger issue here is while we can do our part, we're not giving enough pressure to tell companies and energy firms to do theirs. For example, let's take say Google Stadia and pretend it works as intended and we're supposedly in the streaming future.

 

The problem is they have to operate at peak capacity most times for the energy use to matter. Servers sitting around doing nothing are wasted servers. Even if they use less energy idling than servicing a user, that's still energy wasted. At least with individual PC gamers, when they're not gaming they can either completely shut down the machine or use the machine for different tasks. And while I'm not sure if server farms can selectively shutdown or put servers to sleep, I'd imagine they wouldn't want to because it impacts operation QoL.

[JimmyHackers]

Just thought I'd add a smug reply to rub it in to the nay sayers.

 

LOOKS LIKE NIVIDIA ADDED MY TWO CENTS TO THEIR LATEST DRIVERS!!!!, going as far as to mention power savings etc in the frame cap description.

 

we now have a frame cap option and a low latency mode option in the nvidia menu......(not so sure about the image sharpening one though :P)

 

semi off topic p.s. i had a petrol motorbikist moan about how his bike hardly pollutes (after seeing my DIY leccy one) and why he shouldnt have to pay road tax.......i told him to put his mouth over his exhuast pipe for 5 minutes with the engine on then come back and tell me his bike isnt poisonous.

[Mick Naughty]

That would have gone without saying. Don't need some bs from nvidia to validate it. If the gpu usage is down, so would the power usage. Still a dumb idea. Power saving and frame capping is for console plebs.