Huh, what are you blathering about? For gaming, 1080 means 1080p, because 1080i is only for videos. Shouldn't need to tell you that. And 60 Hz is just a refresh rate, in fact the standard refresh rate for low end monitors. Your "big distinction" is just you being confused.
If you want to know how RX 580 does at 1080 (1080p if you insist on being an anal retard) then this article explains it as well as any. TL;DR "clearly the RX 580 is the better card in more of the games that we've tested, with the AMD card coming on top in seven of our nine tests at 1080p, and every time at 1440p." Not only does the 580 outperform its closest competitor the 1060, it sells for less and has way more VRAM. Frankly, it's hard to believe that Nvidia has the gall to sell a midrange card with 3GB, but they do. Could be just the card for you.
If you put together these elementary particles, it turns out that an odd number of them forms a composite fermion, while an even number of them forms a composite boson. If you want to think about it in terms of the spin-statistics theorem you referred to: you can put together two spin-1/2 fermions to form either a spin-0 or a spin-1 composite particle, and either one would be a boson. But if you put together three spin-1/2 fermions, the result has to be a spin-1/2 or spin-3/2 particle, which is again a fermion.
Thanks much for the island of cluefulness in a sea of stupidity. Caveat: I am not a physicist, far from it, but my understanding is that the sum-of-spins definition of boson is an approximation superceded by the current definition from quantum field theory, a quantum system with a symmetric wavefunction.
As of today 1080 is the most popular gamer resolution by far, 60%.
1024 x 768 0.64% 1280 x 1024 2.16% 1280 x 720 0.42% 1280 x 800 0.82% 1360 x 768 1.95% 1366 x 768 14.02% 1440 x 900 3.60% 1536 x 864 0.25% 1600 x 900 3.60% 1680 x 1050 2.54% 1920 x 1200 0.90% 1920 x 1080 60.48% 2560 x 1080 0.96% 2560 x 1440 3.97% 3440 x 1440 0.48% 3840 x 2160 1.48% Other 1.73%
The next most popular is 768, 14%. So roughly 95% of PC gamers are "not serious" and will be well served by RX 580 as of today, hence #1 bestseller. Future proof? No way, that's not in dispute. But it's a great way to conserve your cash waiting for the next generation to arrive because frankly, the current generation sucks in terms of value for money anywhere outside the 1080p mainstream.
One thing you should not skimp on is VRAM because you are going to get game breaking stutters and stalls if you do.
And before you quibble about system ram vs vram, here's the consensus on Steam. "For newer titles no unless you're content with Medium to Low settings. You will need 4GB+ of VRAM if you wish to game at 1080p at an acceptable framerate. 1440p and higher you will need 8GB+ of VRAM."
Get a clue. Is 2GB enough? Answer: no. Why does everybody know that except you?
AMD redefined the new high end bar as 16GB. The dirt cheap will be 4GB and 2GB only good enough for your grandma's email or adding video to a Ryzen box not used for graphics. As of today 8GB cards already outnumber 4GB two to one on Amazon's bestseller list.
580 is a respectable midrange card that was one of the most popular for crypto mining because of its excellent hash rate to power draw, and is currently fine for 1080p gaming, hence its popularity. Looks like it's going to be selling well for quite some time to come. It's hard to argue with the price.
4-5 years? I think, anybody who gets this expecting it to be a high end card at a bargain prices is going to be having constant second thoughts about ram that will be less than even low end cards within a year.
Mid-range cards are similar to their high-end counterparts but with the expensive parts stripped off. RAM is expensive, and we don't really need more than 6GB now, so it makes perfect sense.
But it does mean that "future proof" is a term that does not apply to this card. Very shortly, 8 GB will be a minimum even for low end cards. The current #1 bestseller on Amazon is a Radeon 580 with 8GB, $190.
The more I think about it, the more I see 6GB as a killer misfeature for a midrange card. Soon there will a bunch of premium games with texture assets targeted at 8GB cache. Not fitting in cache can actually be more of a problem for performance that cut down processing units or lower clocks.
The cutout is small and unobtrusive because it doesn't occupy the valuable top center screen real estate. The other sensors have been moved to the tiny bezel, look closely. All very sensible and obvious, Apple just blew it and will pay by losing more market share.
The most marvelous aspect of all, for me, is how we are born with some of these networks pre-trained. How is that encoded? Does the encoding propagate entirely via genes or are there side channels?
Another problem with your argument is the extreme gap between these.5 Hz waves and ~2 GHz cell phone frequency, ten orders of magnitude. These brain waves are not electromagnetic in nature at all, rather they propagate by electrostatic coupling. There is no relationship with cell phone radiation other than that both involve photons.
So _weak_ electromagnetic fields _can_ have biological effects...That means there is a theoretical mechanism for (say) cell phone radiation to cause cancer.
You conflate "effect" with "causing an unintended chemical reaction". There is a partial answer from quantum mechanics. You seem to propose that cell phone electromagnetic radiation can cause unintended chemical reactions in organic molecules. This requires exciting electrons so that they move to higher energy molecular orbitals. If the energy is higher than the activation energy, then a molecule may dissociate or otherwise change state in without being catalyzed in the usual controlled way by an enzyme.
As you know, this depends only on the frequency of the electromagnetic energy, not the density (Einstein got a Nobel prize for explaining this.) The problem with your argument is the energy scale: cell phone radiation is in the neighbourhood of 10^-5 ev while organic activation energies are in the region of 1 ev. Note that deep UV does invade this range and x-rays are well above it, the latter being a well known carcinogen. Cell phone radio waves are not like that.
I am hardly qualified as either a physicist or an organic chemist, however these principles are easy enough for a layman to grasp. If you plan to go on worrying about the organic effects of cell phone radiation, at least be armed with some of the well understood underlying principles.
The bottom line: with a headphone jack, no notch, and one or two hundred dollars under Apple's prices with twice the storage, Samsung will eat Apple market share. Plus, Apple fanboy Google and every Android OEM that went with the ugly as sin notch has to switch to copying Samsung now.
You read it where? Not anywhere that I know of. Android tablet product lines have not been refreshed lately, mainly because Google (with its typical Apple envy) artificially restricts Android to be somewhere between awkward and useless for productivity applications because it only wants them to be media consumption devices. Consumers rightly perceive that tablets are not very useful, and so after the first wave, stopped buying them. Manufacturers moan about it but don't do anything about it.
This situation will not change as long as Android devices remain rom-locked with software fully under Google's control.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, what are you blathering about? For gaming, 1080 means 1080p, because 1080i is only for videos. Shouldn't need to tell you that. And 60 Hz is just a refresh rate, in fact the standard refresh rate for low end monitors. Your "big distinction" is just you being confused.
If you want to know how RX 580 does at 1080 (1080p if you insist on being an anal retard) then this article explains it as well as any. TL;DR "clearly the RX 580 is the better card in more of the games that we've tested, with the AMD card coming on top in seven of our nine tests at 1080p, and every time at 1440p." Not only does the 580 outperform its closest competitor the 1060, it sells for less and has way more VRAM. Frankly, it's hard to believe that Nvidia has the gall to sell a midrange card with 3GB, but they do. Could be just the card for you.
If you put together these elementary particles, it turns out that an odd number of them forms a composite fermion, while an even number of them forms a composite boson. If you want to think about it in terms of the spin-statistics theorem you referred to: you can put together two spin-1/2 fermions to form either a spin-0 or a spin-1 composite particle, and either one would be a boson. But if you put together three spin-1/2 fermions, the result has to be a spin-1/2 or spin-3/2 particle, which is again a fermion.
Thanks much for the island of cluefulness in a sea of stupidity. Caveat: I am not a physicist, far from it, but my understanding is that the sum-of-spins definition of boson is an approximation superceded by the current definition from quantum field theory, a quantum system with a symmetric wavefunction.
As of today 1080 is the most popular gamer resolution by far, 60%.
1024 x 768 0.64%
1280 x 1024 2.16%
1280 x 720 0.42%
1280 x 800 0.82%
1360 x 768 1.95%
1366 x 768 14.02%
1440 x 900 3.60%
1536 x 864 0.25%
1600 x 900 3.60%
1680 x 1050 2.54%
1920 x 1200 0.90%
1920 x 1080 60.48%
2560 x 1080 0.96%
2560 x 1440 3.97%
3440 x 1440 0.48%
3840 x 2160 1.48%
Other 1.73%
The next most popular is 768, 14%. So roughly 95% of PC gamers are "not serious" and will be well served by RX 580 as of today, hence #1 bestseller. Future proof? No way, that's not in dispute. But it's a great way to conserve your cash waiting for the next generation to arrive because frankly, the current generation sucks in terms of value for money anywhere outside the 1080p mainstream.
One thing you should not skimp on is VRAM because you are going to get game breaking stutters and stalls if you do.
And before you quibble about system ram vs vram, here's the consensus on Steam. "For newer titles no unless you're content with Medium to Low settings. You will need 4GB+ of VRAM if you wish to game at 1080p at an acceptable framerate. 1440p and higher you will need 8GB+ of VRAM."
Tell yourself that again a year from now when every $200 card has 8GB.
Get a clue. Is 2GB enough? Answer: no. Why does everybody know that except you?
AMD redefined the new high end bar as 16GB. The dirt cheap will be 4GB and 2GB only good enough for your grandma's email or adding video to a Ryzen box not used for graphics. As of today 8GB cards already outnumber 4GB two to one on Amazon's bestseller list.
580 is a respectable midrange card that was one of the most popular for crypto mining because of its excellent hash rate to power draw, and is currently fine for 1080p gaming, hence its popularity. Looks like it's going to be selling well for quite some time to come. It's hard to argue with the price.
You should get clear on the difference between installed base and market share.
4-5 years? I think, anybody who gets this expecting it to be a high end card at a bargain prices is going to be having constant second thoughts about ram that will be less than even low end cards within a year.
Mid-range cards are similar to their high-end counterparts but with the expensive parts stripped off. RAM is expensive, and we don't really need more than 6GB now, so it makes perfect sense.
But it does mean that "future proof" is a term that does not apply to this card. Very shortly, 8 GB will be a minimum even for low end cards. The current #1 bestseller on Amazon is a Radeon 580 with 8GB, $190.
The more I think about it, the more I see 6GB as a killer misfeature for a midrange card. Soon there will a bunch of premium games with texture assets targeted at 8GB cache. Not fitting in cache can actually be more of a problem for performance that cut down processing units or lower clocks.
right now their Radeon cards are aging as well as Bulldozer did
Says you. Radeon 580 at $190 is the #1 bestseller on Amazon for several weeks.
Apple cultists are scary like Scientologists.
The cutout is small and unobtrusive because it doesn't occupy the valuable top center screen real estate. The other sensors have been moved to the tiny bezel, look closely. All very sensible and obvious, Apple just blew it and will pay by losing more market share.
Don't forget, time also bends.
The fields in question are electrostatic, not radio waves. But don't let that stop you from publishing your new paper.
The most marvelous aspect of all, for me, is how we are born with some of these networks pre-trained. How is that encoded? Does the encoding propagate entirely via genes or are there side channels?
Another problem with your argument is the extreme gap between these .5 Hz waves and ~2 GHz cell phone frequency, ten orders of magnitude. These brain waves are not electromagnetic in nature at all, rather they propagate by electrostatic coupling. There is no relationship with cell phone radiation other than that both involve photons.
So _weak_ electromagnetic fields _can_ have biological effects ...That means there is a theoretical mechanism for (say) cell phone radiation to cause cancer.
You conflate "effect" with "causing an unintended chemical reaction". There is a partial answer from quantum mechanics. You seem to propose that cell phone electromagnetic radiation can cause unintended chemical reactions in organic molecules. This requires exciting electrons so that they move to higher energy molecular orbitals. If the energy is higher than the activation energy, then a molecule may dissociate or otherwise change state in without being catalyzed in the usual controlled way by an enzyme.
As you know, this depends only on the frequency of the electromagnetic energy, not the density (Einstein got a Nobel prize for explaining this.) The problem with your argument is the energy scale: cell phone radiation is in the neighbourhood of 10^-5 ev while organic activation energies are in the region of 1 ev. Note that deep UV does invade this range and x-rays are well above it, the latter being a well known carcinogen. Cell phone radio waves are not like that.
I am hardly qualified as either a physicist or an organic chemist, however these principles are easy enough for a layman to grasp. If you plan to go on worrying about the organic effects of cell phone radiation, at least be armed with some of the well understood underlying principles.
Yah, sensible, and a broad pricing spectrum to cover different needs and pocketbooks.
Customers spoke out and Samsung listened.
The bottom line: with a headphone jack, no notch, and one or two hundred dollars under Apple's prices with twice the storage, Samsung will eat Apple market share. Plus, Apple fanboy Google and every Android OEM that went with the ugly as sin notch has to switch to copying Samsung now.
Headphone jack FTW.
Worth the price of admission all by itself.
It's never Apple, according to Apple.
And Apple astroturfers make me sick. How Apple of you.
You read it where? Not anywhere that I know of. Android tablet product lines have not been refreshed lately, mainly because Google (with its typical Apple envy) artificially restricts Android to be somewhere between awkward and useless for productivity applications because it only wants them to be media consumption devices. Consumers rightly perceive that tablets are not very useful, and so after the first wave, stopped buying them. Manufacturers moan about it but don't do anything about it.
This situation will not change as long as Android devices remain rom-locked with software fully under Google's control.
Yes! It has one.