Slashdot Mirror

Also, here are image/article sources showing the same behavior I'm describing (Quick Removal as default) on

Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8.x
Windows 10

There's been an MLG arena in Columbus Ohio for years.

https://www.tomshardware.com/n...

Shoot, they are building another $10M one as well as part of some $2B larger complex.

https://esportsobserver.com/pl...

What else? Maybe Cisco? https://www.tomshardware.com/n...

I hope they've changed their ways.

Vizio has been in trouble for this kind of stuff.

Sony runs frcking Google Android.

Lets hope Panasonic's Firefox OS is better.

Given the abundance of other Chinese (PRC not ROC) manufacturers not given even a side glance IMO it's more plausible that Huawei has refused some type of mandate from the 3 letter agencies for access to their devices. The number of back doors found just this year in Cisco networking gear is staggering. Huawei is a market leader in routers and switches and the 3 letter agencies want to have access to all internet traffic. Their harassment of Huawei smacks of retribution.

It is not a service for Windows 10 to steal every possible scrap of data from your computer so that they can sell your computer to advertisers!

Except neither of those things is true, which is why Windows 10 really isn't that big of a deal for the vast majority of people. The insistence of people like you that this overly dramatized thing is indeed happening does the community as a whole a disservice by normalizing the idea you're presenting. Stop trying to normalize problematic behavior!

Microsoft explains what data their telemetry collects and certainly the only advertising is a one-line text "suggestion" in the start menu that you can simply turn off in the settings.

I like the TR parts but they really need to cut down the idle power, 100W+ at idle (!)

Tom's Hardware says 35 watts for the 2990WX at idle.

For my trusty Ryzen 1700 box, the entire system power measured at the wall is 38 watts at idle.

Yes, perhaps you should do that, I already did (2xxx).

I'm just going to have to go ahead and point out that your retort qualifies as kind of snippy, considering that you actually said "Ryzen 2 (2xxx)" which is wrong, or at best adds to the confusion.

Well, I do kind of already using the thousand terminology that you have pointed out above and AMD website refers to the series as 2nd Generation Ryzen Processors, while many publications have dubbed them as either Ryzen 2nd Gen, Ryzen+, or Ryzen 2. Asking me to use the thousand terminology without addressing your own use of "Ryzen 2 on 7nm" is well.. not fair. What exist today is Zen 2 architecture on 7nm, and whatever product that uses it is not yet named

Then again, if money is no object and you have the need for speed, Core i9-9900K is the CPU to buy.

Also, out of curiosity, from where are you getting this 90% more expensive from?
The 9900K has an MSRP of $488, the 2700X has an MSRP of $329.
Now, I'm no mathematician, but $488 != $625.

Actually, i9-9900K is 90% more expensive than Ryzen 2700X. And Intel had to fiddle the gaming benchmarks to make it look faster than it really is. These are on Intel's 14nm process, they were hoping to be on 10nm by now but that isn't happening until some time next year. Meanwhile Ryzen 2 on 7nm will be out while Coffee Lake is still shipping, oops. .

Ryzen 2 (2xxx) series is based on 12nm process, which are already in the market. You are referring to Zen 2 architecture (Probably will be released as Ryzen 3 series)

Actually, i9-9900K is 90% more expensive than Ryzen 2700X. And Intel had to fiddle the gaming benchmarks to make it look faster than it really is. These are on Intel's 14nm process, they were hoping to be on 10nm by now but that isn't happening until some time next year. Meanwhile Ryzen 2 on 7nm will be out while Coffee Lake is still shipping, oops. Ryzen 2 will probably probably put AMD even in IPC and ahead in GHz. Intel's last remaining bragging points gone. And Intel isn't going to catch up any time soon, by the time they finally have 10nm online TSMC will already be sampling its next gen EUV process.

This is easy: go Ryzen and put that 90% Intel markup in your pocket, ready to spend on 7nm Ryzen 2 next year.

To make good use of the micro code bugs you usually need root/admin. And if somebody's got that you're already boned.

And you are boned for being stupid.

Spectre/Meltdown are a problem because they enable a bunch of exploits that let you get out of a hypervisor and into the host OS. If you're in a data center that's a huge deal. If you're a gamer it's, well, not.

The boneheadedness is strong in this one. I hope that nobody ever listens to you about anything.

In order for someone to even exploit the flaw, they would already have to have remote access to the system.

Completely wrong. Please stop spreading dangerous disinformation. Meltdown can be exploited by Javascript, meaning that any website you visit can end up owning any private data you have on your Intel machine. Meltdown is not just a problem for web host operators, but anyone running a browser with Javascript enabled.

The problem with the discovery of the extra chip is the need to use the internet to send back the data.
Advanced AV and firewalls along with really skilled staff selected on merit are going to notice that "extra" data moving out from deep in their secure networks.

Of course because we all know all those firewalls are being run on safe routers and by extension any separate firewall-only hardware is safe. It's not like the data could be flagged in any way to just bypass any router/firewall rules. Nope, entirely impossible. That's why vPro and PSP don't exist on high-end servers...

The real fail with this is having to use the internet and never get detected.
Smart people with real skills will notice extra data on their secure networks.

Maybe. Maybe not. And as others have pointed out, do you think that most companies have "smart people with real skills" posted to watch 24/7 for intrusions?

Sure they still do, but China is beginning to manufacture X86 CPUs directly. It's only a matter of time until they catch up and crush Intel and AMD through undercutting, and throwing money at the problem. https://www.tomshardware.com/n...

Except that this would be wrong for the games in question here. The differences don't vanish.
For example here we have a comparison between the i7-8700k and the R7 2700X in Kingdome Come: Deliverance, on a fully patched Windows 10 as far as I know. If you watch the graphs for frame times, you can easily see that Intel delivers a way more consistent experience.
Security mitigations are also pretty irrelevant if you're mostly gaming with your PC. So why would the affect gaming performance in meaningful ways?
And as you appear to see Tom's Hardware as a trustworthy enough source here, you may be interested in their analysis of how the security mitigations impact gameplay. Spoiler: Apparently its effects neither impact Intel nor AMD in a significantly negative way as far as gaming is concerned. So it's not like that these mitigations artificially crippled performance on AMDs in order to make Intel look better in comparison (as far as gaming is concerned of course). Although I must be honest here and say that those averages and min frame rates do not tell the entire story. More thorough testing would be required. According to that data, I'd say the impact on performance is well within the margin of error.
So I don't know what else to say on this. Personally I don't have that much faith in Tom's Hardware because they used to be hardcore Intel fanboys in the past. Maybe the situation has changed since they've made their tests. More recent benchmarks would confirm the trend that was shown by their tests. So until someone manages to come up with a better analysis that proves all these findings wrong, you can't really say that your claim is backed up by facts.

I've come to expect such misinformation from post-purchase rationalizing AMD fanboys. You can't just be happy with having an amazing CPU that is waaaay more cost effective for general purpose use than anything Intel has to offer, forcing Intel to finally make some more significant changes for the first time in a long time. No you must also see to it that nobody on the internet possibly considers buying and Intel, even though it may fit their very specialized niche purpose.
Of course this phenomenon is not isolated to AMD. There's plenty of Intel and nVidia fanboys out there as well. But that doesn't make these self-righteous AMD fanboys less obnoxious.

You want the best high end desktop build? Go AMD.

Nope. Blah blah blah blah swear swear fume spit dribble blah blah blah.

AMD’s 2000-series Ryzen chips came on strong in 2018, with the Ryzen 7 2700X knocking Intel’s similarly priced Core i7s to alternate pick territory

Now swear some more :)

> Right, the important thing is to buy a reputable product like a Thinkpad.

Even then-- if you buy the Thinkpad X1 ultrabook, you end up with a socketed NVME drive.... but if you buy the Thinkpad X1 convertible laptop, you end up with soldered-down storage.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg..

Right, the important thing is to buy a reputable product like a Thinkpad. It isn't enough to just avoid one brand known for repair-unfriendly products.

Errm. Yeah. Right. If a machines needs repairs from the start. it better be repairable easy. Especially, when one repair will not be enough.

> we can freely use strong encryption.

I'm afraid that we cannot. It's still restricted for export, and attempts to provide it in hardware or software, without escrow keys or backdoors available to government request without due process, will lead to no export permits for this and other goods from your company. I'm afraid that these policies are at the core of Cisco's security practices, which have been repeatedly exposed as containing back doors for government monitoring. The practice is described in Tom's Hardware, at https://www.tomshardware.com/n...

Apple is trying to get their own chip to market so that they don't have to give money to intel or AMD. Good luck to them, though. The number of architectures has been shrinking for a reason, and that reason is that amd64 has won.

X86 has won the battle but most probably not the war. Nothing technical stops ARM from invading X86 space at increasingly high performance points. When X86 tries to invade the low power space, its complex instruction set bites hard because that big chunk of die that decodes it (don't understate this, it is a good chunk of any modern x86 chip) eats battery power and takes up space that could be used for more cores or more integrated system components. In the long run ARM is going to catch up with X86 in single core throughput and clobber it in cores per dollar, thus winning the war. X86 will be relegated to a sliver or the market in a legacy role. ARM is already roughly tie with X86 in total ops/sec already shipped and ahead by an order of magnitude in units shipped.

The most competition produced the best products and now there's no reason for anything else to exist but amd64 at the high end and arm at the bottom.

Mostly agree, but IBM shows no signs of giving up on Power arch and System Z for its big iron. Also, the high high end segment keeps getting smaller and I think we will pretty quickly hit a situation where ARM and X86 are sharing it, and only legacy effects keep ARM out of the Windows sector. Most probably, my next laptop will be ARM based, maybe a repurposed Chromebook running Linux.

And so sad for intel, they have no arms. They had strongarm->xscale, but it didn't xscale down in power consumption so it got its ass whipped by arm implementations which did and now intel has nothing but some insecure-by-design antiques that it has to rehash.

But maybe I'm wrong and apple will manage to make an arm that can compete with amd64 on highly parallel workloads. Most creative tasks are highly parallelizable, which was how Apple managed to retain their professional user base during the powerpc era. The primary processing unit in the G4 is limp even by the standards of the day, but there was a fast vector coprocessor in there, and content creation apps could be accelerated by it. It's therefore not impossible, only unlikely.

Intel's sun is starting to set, I really can't think what they should do about it. But it's setting slowly, there are still many billions to be had out of the old Wintel cartel. Intel won't get into ARMs simply because they dread cannibalizing their own x86 market. It is just not possible to command the same margin for an ARM part as Intel has become accustomed to in its monopoly segment.

Yes, so low risk. For values of low that include near certainty, I guess.

Somebody please mod this fucking crap down!

creimer's child bride retired military buddy suggested to him to "hide in plain sight" so creimer picked up "The Fat Bastard" as his new sock puppet user name!

http://matias.ca/usb2keyboard/
http://www.tomshardware.com/an...

You don't understand the difference between "you" and "al'y'all". Microsoft couldn't give a shit about what "you" do. However aggregated data about everyone is used for development decisions. So feel free to download and read the Anarchists Cookbook, the police won't come knocking on your door.

So can you guarantee that any information that MS collects is protected and cannot possibly identify me in any way as to not sacrifice my privacy? That depends on how much I trust MS on their motives and their competency.

And so does MS which is precisely why they pulled the release before it was released to the general public. Admins everywhere should be cheering at their decision as a triumph of software development over marketing bozos pushing out garbage in favour of an artificial deadline.

Huh? Some publicly released updates have BSOD issues. That's the complaint and worry. Yes MS delayed the April update but a patch in March caused BSODs. A patch in October 2017 caused BSODs. The Windows 10 Fall Creators Update also caused BSODs.

The GTX 1060 is a Tier 4 GPU. Granted, the OP probably should be using a GTX 1080 for 4K res but we don't know what game and video settings the OP is using. Maybe the 1060 is good enough for their needs. Like you, I'm very skeptical, but unlike you, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt instead of prejudging before we have all the facts.

Regardless, this is just another sign that the OP is clueless.

And I suppose you have no idea how a mouse is working.

You suppose incorrectly.

There is no 'special support' needed for an 'old mouse' or 'old track ball'.

That's the problem. A serial mouse has been a very very rare device for decades and yet Windows 10 will still search for them on bootup. If it finds something chattering away on the port, such as a GPS unit, the OS assumes it's a mouse or trackball, will install the driver for such a device, and therefore messing with the proper function of this not-a-mouse device. I verified that Windows 10 still supports serial mice and people have been complaining about Windows assuming something is a mouse (or mouse-like) device and have been looking for ways to disable this for years.

https://what.thedailywtf.com/t...

People have been complaining about Windows still supporting serial mice since Windows XP and Windows 2000, more than 15 years now.

http://www.tomshardware.com/fo...

If you ever had used a decent operation system, like any Unix, Linux, MacOs and cared to make a "> cat /dev/mouse" you would know that.

I did know that. I have never needed to use a serial mouse because they've been obsolete since the PS/2 port came out in 1987 and was widely adopted less than 10 years later. Maybe serial mice were relatively common in the days of Windows 98 but they are all but extinct now. I bought a serial mouse just for grins and giggles 20 years ago because I happened across a serial mouse driver for MacOS and thought it would be fun to play with and have a three button mouse. (A multi-button mouse for Mac was a rare and expensive thing back then, but a serial mouse with three buttons could be had for less than $10. I suspect you knew that already.) Any "decent" OS will support USB mice and therefore not have a need to support something so rare today as a serial mouse. I suppose a "decent" OS might be expected to support a serial pointing device for someone that wants one, but this should be handled better than how Windows does. The serial mouse support in Windows appears to have become more troublesome than useful 15 years ago, and yet it remains.

Yes, if you find a serial to PS/2 adapter your mouse will still work ... or serial to USB.

Yes it will, I don't know why anyone would want to though. Any "decent" OS will support a USB mouse and there are all kinds of USB mice, trackballs, and other pointing devices that a serial device should be a special case, and the person should be expected to have to install a driver for it themselves. If someone is buying a serial to USB adapter today to plug in a serial mouse then they are an idiot. They would be a double idiot for using a PS/2 to serial adapter, and then a serial to USB adapter, to plug in the mouse. A triple idiot would have a USB to PS/2 adapter, PS/2 to serial adapter, and then a serial to USB adapter. I suppose that might be fun to experiment with, or somehow necessary for someone using a real odd operating system, but no one should even want to use a serial mouse any more. It would be cheaper and easier to just buy a new mouse instead of trying to force into service a mouse that must be 30 years old now.

A "decent" OS would be able to tell the difference between a serial GPS receiver and serial mouse on the port. Since Windows 10 can't do that then therefore Windows 10 is not a "decent" OS.

You are trying to distill a complex equation down to one number. /sarcasm If only we had a way to do that -- oh wait, we do! It's called a benchmark:

* 3DMark
* Unigine Valley Benchmark (2013)

Maybe you should stop reading shitty websites that don't show a normalized score.

Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table and Best GPU's of 2018 make it trivial to compare _how_ a GPU performs.

You are trying to distill a complex equation down to one number. /sarcasm If only we had a way to do that -- oh wait, we do! It's called a benchmark:

* 3DMark
* Unigine Valley Benchmark (2013)

Maybe you should stop reading shitty websites that don't show a normalized score.

Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table and Best GPU's of 2018 make it trivial to compare _how_ a GPU performs.

This was nothing more than a poorly sourced hitpiece.

The list of vulnerabilities require administrator access. I doubt real security researchers would even consider that a vulnerability. There was nothing "disastrous" to report, and the claim by CTS Labs that it would "take 2 years to fix" the reported flaws was nothing short of outright lying. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel recently funded independent Israeli security researchers for goodwill.

http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...

Here's some benchmarks comparing the first Atoms, Intel CPU's without speculation and immune from these flaws against low end C2D and Sempron from the same era. http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

Which games require that much processing power purely for game logic? Can you give an actual example? Also, most game AIs are not trying to play at the best possible level, but to simulate a weak human to play against.

Oh gee can't be bothered to do a Google search because you would rather stick with confirmation bias. Here, I did it for you:

https://www.drgeeky.com/most-c...
http://www.tomshardware.com/an...

Now, I challenge you to refute those claims and present evidence for your own claim if you can actually be bothered to do it.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this article.

Condolences. But if you ponder long and hard, you might spot the pattern

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Older AMD CPUs (read: Phenom 2 and earlier) do not have any kind of management processor. I don't know about the desktop versions of the earthmover cores (the FX-series), but a fair few of the mobile chips (the A-series) have it (https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-beema-and-mullins-mainstream-and-lowpower-2014-apus-tested?page=2 and http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-tablet-processor,3813-2.html). Ryzen most definitely has this, and makes heavy use of it (http://techreport.com/review/32125/amd-epyc-7000-series-cpus-revealed).

The code for the Intel management processors is stored on the mainboard's flash chip. Intel's version is surprisingly modular and it's possible to remove at least some of the components (https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner). Note that said management processor has some rather strong self-preservation instincts and won't allow anything to write to its region of flash memory. Since it (not your x86 chip) is the true master of "your" computer, this means that you need to yank the power cable and program the flash chip directly using a Beaglebone or Raspberry Pi and a SOIC clip (https://libreboot.org/docs/install/rpi_setup.html). Annoying, but doable.

I do not know how AMD CPUs store the code for their management processor, but I'd guess that it's done in a similar manner to the Intel CPUs - in a region of the motherboard's flash memory. I don't know of any investigations into it yet, but one advantage you have there is that it's an ARM processor and as such there are a lot of very mature debugging and disassembly tools which can be used to investigate the code. Additionally, AMD uses the Trustonic codebase for their management processor (https://www.trustonic.com/news/company/amd-licences-trustonic-trusted-execution-environment/), which I've seen before in phones and was very modular with each "trustlet" (separate tasks dealing with things like kernel integrity monitoring, OAUTH tokens, or Widevine DRM) being a separate file on the filesystem - if this is the case on Ryzen, it might be possible to remove some of the more offensive components with minimal effort.

I'm not saying the calibration has nothing to do with it. Just that the calibration is a software setting that could (should) be available to the user.

This is what you said above: "There are many different explanations, most of which do not include any engineering on Apple's side." Sure seems like you're unwilling to give Apple any credit. Also you seem to ignore that the test DisplayMate did had nothing to do with user calibration settings. DisplayMate specifically is applauding Apple for their factory calibration settings.

When is it the last time a monitor reviewer said monitor XYZ works better with PC ABC because it has better calibration settings? Wouldn't that be kind of dumb?

You don't work in the field of professional imaging do you? Reviews for professional displays always look at the factory calibration. They also judge the monitor for color accuracy because that is what is most important if someone buys a professional monitor. For the vast majority of consumers, color accuracy isn't a main concern. If it's off, it's an annoyance. If it's part of your job, it's a detriment not to have a well-calibrated monitor especially since these displays are not $300 cheap.

Professional monitors always come at a premium price but for that extra coin you get multiple color gamut options, factory-certified calibration and often times the ability to create your own color presets with included software and instruments. When you need the absolute pinnacle of color accuracy, one of the screens can fulfill that need, usually without any initial adjustment.

What I understood from DisplayMate was that there was more than calibration settings in the difference between the two displays.

Yes the results of the tests showed the iPhone X was better but please tell me what "more" are you talking about. The only thing DisplayMate did was praise Apple's calibration as the reason it got their best score. Anyone in the business like DisplayMate knows that how the manufacturer decides to calibrate a display is important. If they mess up, they can get terrible results. Some of the settings are however intentional as not all displays and manufacturers target a high level of color accuracy for every product.

For example, I have two ASUS monitors exactly the same size but with one being a model version higher than the other. The older model has far better color accuracy than the newer one. I thought it was that particular monitor but switching it out with the same model, I get the same problem: Blue is slightly purple but red is still red so it's not a color balance problem. No matter how I try to adjust the settings, I can't get rid of the color balance problems. Both models were consumer grade and my job doesn't require color accuracy but it is annoying when things don't look right side by side.

Intel claim 20x better power efficiency for EMIB compared to PCIe chip to chip here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...

https://i.imgur.com/q4cxMtU.jp...

According to Tom's Hardware, out of the three announced AMD laptops, two of them are going to use single-channel memory. Yeah, that will make AMD look good.

http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...

Unless you are a serious gamer, you should be able to put together a really fast machine for WAY less than $1500.

On that high of a budget, you should be able to run a Core i7, a GTX 1080, a really nice power supply, an SSD and a mechanical HD, etc. etc. That's not moderate, that's a f'in hotrod right there.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

You forgot the TDP scam also, basically under certain loads it basically doubles to 160W http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

95W TDP , Wink , Wink add 65w , 159 W in a torture loop at the rail, and it always consumes more power than an 1800x OC except when idle http://www.tomshardware.com/re... .

According to Tom's Hardware, this story is a misunderstanding, and does not represent the actual words of the presentation.

From TH:

Some media outlets are reporting that GlobalFoundries is working with Tesla on AI technology for its cars. This erroneous report stems from a comment GloFlo's CEO Sanjay Jha made on stage on Wednesday at the fab's annual get-together in San Jose. ...

But what Jha actually said—which we can confirm because we were present to hear it firsthand—was that GlobalFoundries is trying to attract companies as business models change:

"As we develop these new technologies, we are also seeing a big shift in the business model and the foundry business. What is happening is that system companies like Google, like Amazon, like Tesla, like Microsoft, are coming directly to foundries. They are working directly with IP companies and system development companies because they want to control the hardware and software."

Global Foundries is not saying that it's working with Tesla--but that's not to say that AMD isn't working with Tesla. Jim Keller, formerly the chief architect for AMD's microprocessors, is now VP of autopilot hardware at Tesla.
Last year, AMD lost what Tesla CEO Elon Musk called a tight race against Nvidia for the auto company's GPU/AI business. Since that time, AMD has continued to show strength across multiple sectors.
The CNBC report said that its sources tied AMD and Tesla together, but neither AMD or Tesla will comment on the situation. The report indicated that Tesla was on a mission to develop its own chip for autonomous cars in order to be more vertically integrated, but that Tesla was potentially relying on building that "on top of AMD intellectual property." That particular wording certainly paints a dotted line to GlobalFoundries.

Full story at http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...

I may have not misread your last sentence, but it is also not true. The 1800X uses about 35%-40% more power than the 7700K. Go check any review where they actually measure the power draw.

Video above. Wattage of of 7700K is slightly less.

As you can see at idle the i7 770K is 1.5 whole watt less than the Ryzen. When cranked up AMD wins in the AutoCad test in power consumption over Intel. In torture loop in the end Intel wins but AMD runs cooler.

I may add Tomshardware has been accused for 15 years now of being in the pockets of Nvidia and Intel and many would say biased in the link above.

They are pretty close as AMD measures power consumption differently. Some tests AMD is ahead. Go look at the crappy FX series? I am no AMD fanboy and the FX series and my underwhelming Phenom II that I had before it made me switch to Intel. AMD fired all the good architects last decade to cut costs and brought in H1b1 to do the job. Big mistake. FX bulldozer was terrible!

But anyway in the past decade it was ATI graphics that kept them afloat after screwing up their CPUs. Now we see the opposite and I hope they remain in business.

Take a look at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-cpu,5167.html. Depending on the test, i7-7700K, i9-7900X, Ryzen 1950X and Ryzen 1920X trounce the competition.If speed is important to you, you'll have to look at the specific application to determine which processor is best.

"...but AMD is doing it at the continued cost of a significantly larger chunk of electricity..."

Talk about "having a perpetual favorite" :)

"...but AMD is doing it at the continued cost of a significantly larger chunk of electricity..."

Talk about "having a perpetual favorite" :)

What they hell are you talking about? Tom's hardware,the Ryzen chips came UNDER there TDP ratings. http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

Me, just as soon as I figure out how to do the whole process.

Any Instructables out there yet for the DIY crowd?

Do we know anything about the compilation flags of that copy of cinebench? If not, the assessment could be extremely unfair.

According to Tom's Hardware, Cinebench doesn't use AVX instructions at all. There's no source or discussion of the assertion though.

On a related note, Tom's Hardware called the 7900X "a factory overclocked chip". It generates so much heat at that it needs water cooling to run without throttling.
  http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

...except screen tearing isn't related to core count or RAM amount.

The only reason screen tearing happens on present-day OSes, and the reason dragging windows etc. isn't smooth (see: AmigaOS, BeOS, etc.) is because of the ridiculous number of abstraction layers between the video card and the userland program (UI) itself. More specifically: the amount of time you have available in VBlank is a static amount, and therefore in turn, you know definitively how many CPU cycles you have available to do what you need (i.e. VRAM updates) during that period of time. Things like abstraction layers (between device driver and kernel, and from kernel to userland), combined with things like dynamic frequency scaling (i.e. Intel SpeedStep, AMD Cool'n'Quiet, etc. -- god knows what else they're called nowadays), means that the exact amount of time in VBlank becomes variable/unknown. This same problem plagues PC games for the exact same reasons.

I'm sure someone will bring up Nvidia G-Sync or AMD's FreeSync as a solution to this problem (especially for gamers), except they introduce a problem that I've inquired about since day one of their inception: surely this works great in full-screen DX applications (not "borderless windowed full-screen", I'm talking native full-screen), but how does this work reliably with games which are in windowed mode? Initially the response from Nvidia was "G-Sync won't work in windowed mode" (understandably), but in mid-2015 Nvidia released drivers which did it anyway (their solution: let the foreground application act as the definitive source of whether G-Sync is used or not, so probably whether or not the foreground application is a native DX application or not, or maybe it's just in the "known .exes" list within the video driver, I don't know).

Apologies for the length of my post, but this subject comes up often, and there seem to be a number of people that don't understand what VSync (thus VBlank) *actually is* and why on present-day PCs it's a pain in the ass. The short of it is: yes, it is 100% achievable, but all the bullshit technology gets in the way (between the application (game, UI, etc.) and the video card). Nobody seems to care about the GUI any more (as Microsoft has proven with Windows 10), which is pretty sad, considering that's the thing people are in ~90% of the time they're using Windows. The only thing I've seen that is minimising the amount of BS layers between everything is Vulkan.

P.S. -- For a fun time, try using Windows 7 to drag-select (rectangle select) a bunch of icons on your desktop (the translucency feature is hardware offloaded). Do this with both an Nvidia GPU, then an Intel (on-die) GPU. Note how ridiculously choppy the rectangle becomes as it grows in size on Nvidia, while on Intel it's smooth as butter. I always thought this was a problem with Windows' DWM, particularly desktop composition, but that test rules it out (though, that Wiki article is a great example of just one of several layers of BS going on under the hood).

Try $500 for that required PC.
Games have to be built from the ground up for VR or else you get a poor experience; it's better that games don't slap on 'support' for VR. Given the install base of consoles and gaming PCs is far higher than that of VR headsets, it should be no surprise that only a small proportion of games are for VR.