There's no benefit in the PS4 having eight weak-ass cores. If the complete package was powerful because of it then fine but it's not, it's a weak CPU. Even the AMD pieces at ~4 GHz with 8 cores can't keep up with 4 core Intel ones for gaming. The i3 6100 as said beat the FX-6300 in many games regardless of the later having three times the more cores and it's clocked twice as high as the PS4!
The AMD CPUs perform like shit and AMD knows it.
Here you have the weak-ass Athlon X4 860K, it should be very similar to what you have in the PS4, it's quad-core here but running at 3.7 GHz instead: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX...
Feel free to compare it straight to the PS4, it's clocked twice as high but with half the cores so it should be about right I guess: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-...
Also you got links to videos of actual game-play and I guess that's what matter the most, that account for less optimization with the PC games and for the lacks DirectX 11 have with poor multi-threading and draw calls which use up lots of processing power but it still perform ok.
What matters IS PERFORMANCE, THE AMD CHIPS DOESN'T HAVE IT!
Also your "argument" make no sense because the PS3 was the Cell one there the cell part had 8 SPEs of which 6 was used for gaming and one for OS and then one Power core. So I guess PS4 gamers viewed that as 7-9 core.
Who said anything about twitch-streaming? But yeah I figured I'd throw that in for good measure too, how well does the PS4 do that with it's weak-ass processor? The AMD chips at-least on PC encode video with more of a penalty than the Nvidia chips to. The GTX 950 have encoding on the graphics card so it drop close to nothing for encoding game videos.
Of course you don't see enough of a difference! This $600 PC with an i3 6100 + GTX 950 wasn't there to BE SUPERIOR TO THE PLAYSTATION 4! It was there to state what a PC with at-least as good performance would cost! Sure you can spend $3000 on a gaming-PC but then it will be much much much much better than the PS4, for $1000+ you could get the i5 + GTX 970 PC but then that would totally smoke the PS4 and give you ~60 FPS gaming in Ultra in 1080p in more or less all titles. The PS4 doesn't do that and yes a PC which do that cost $1000 or thereabout (maybe even more, it will do more than 60 FPS in some titles of course.)
The i3 6100 + GTX 950 is still enough to beat the Playstation 4 and that cost as said around $600 or 50% more than the similar PS4 console.
Now if you want to see a difference.. Here, have some Star wars: Battlefront Ultra 4K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... You won't be able to play that on a $600 i3 6100 + GTX 950 machine though but I never said you would. On a $2000-2500 machine yes.
Just in case you don't trust me when I say the i3 6100 beats the FX-6300: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/C... Advantage i3 6100: Single-core speed: +58% Quad-core speed: +24% Advantage FX-6300: Multi-core speed: +8%
But games and DX11 aren't really good in taking care of many cores, and that's still a six core 3.5 GHz chip vs the PS4 eight core 1.6 GHz one.
The i3 6100 beats the FX-6300 which is six-core 3.5 GHz. The CPU in the PS4 is eight-core 1.6 GHz, it's complete garbage.
Maybe even an Athlon X4 860K (quad-core 3.7 GHz) would beat the PS4 processor, that's a processor for $75.
The i3 6100 is DEFINITELY better than the PS4. The GTX 950 is also better graphics than what the APU in the PS4 has.
And Intel quad-core like the i5 4460 would beat an FX-8350 for gaming and the FX-8350 is eight core 4.0 GHz. You're totally exaggerating the shitty performance of AMD APUs and think the PS4 have much more power than it has and the i3 6100 much less than it has. The i3 6100 may be dual-core but it's not too bad.
The Samsung EVO 850 250 GB SSD cost more than a 1 TB 7200 RPM drive but sure, go ahead and replace it with a 1 TB or 500 GB drive if you want to. SSDs cost about 8 times more / GB than HDDs and if the PS4 got a 500 GB HDD in this case I had replace it with an SSD only half the size so you shouldn't be complaining. I used the SSD because it's quick and the space may be enough for some (Steam let you download games as many times as you want anyway..), replace it with a cheaper 1 TB HDD or a 2 TB HDD for about the same price if you want too, I don't care.
Fact is that the i3 6100 and the GTX 950 are both more competent hardware pieces than the PS 4, will they run games better? I don't know, possibly.
GTA V on setting very high on i3 6100 + GTX 950 in 60+ FPS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's a 30 FPS 1080p title on the Playstation 4.
A stinking AMD eight-core at 1.6 GHz isn't powerful at all and the INTEGRATED GRAPHICS used in the AMD APU in question is a bit more powerful than in general AMD APUs but by today calling it mid-range would kinda be stretching it.
Fallout 4 high - ultra @ 55-60 FPS avg. 43 FPS low here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... That's a 30 FPS 1080p title on the Playstation 4.
So as you can see the i3 6100 + GTX 950 is at-least as good as the Playstation 4, I'm not sure the GTX 750Ti is better, at-least not when you consider the higher optimization on the Playstation 4.
I don't know what GPU you have but the R9 290 if that's what you have stop may do better than the GTX 970 and even more so in higher resolutions, the GTX 970 over-clocks better and I don't know what win then. But sure, I'd let you have that R9 290 on occasion has been cheaper.
As for the processor though nowadays the FX-8350 and the i5 4460 would cost about the same and the i5 4460 would be the better gaming CPU.
I don't know what we'd compare at the time of when you purchased your machine, what did the FX-8350 cost relative say an i5 2500K?
Nowadays even the i3 6100 may hold up against/beat the i5 2500K and the FX-6300.
Not that it wasn't ok but that it consider the GPU the problem and not the processor. I guess the GPU was so bad for their tasks that the CPU wasn't the one holding it back, I can't imagine the CPU is enough with say a GTX 970 even though that picture would suggest that it was.
Since Mac users are willing to pay more for quality hardware
More willing to pay a lot for Apple hardware. I can go as far as grant you "custom built computers" rather than standard off the shelves cases and components, also I'd accept that they may have had better screens because Apple had made that decision for the consumer.
As for everything else you said.. mac users has been so very clear telling me over and over again that you shouldn't get a mac for gaming and that macs are for professional/serious work (sound like PC guy with his spread-sheets) and not for gaming. You've been so proud telling yourself and the whole world that's the case so enjoy the pit you've dug for yourself. Also Apple haven't cared either. People who buy Apple products may spend more money but they don't get the best GAMING machines and many of them likely DON'T PLAY GAMES AT ALL. Harsh reality is that Windows has been dominating for computer gaming for so long and have many more titles that you're more likely to find a gamer there, some Mac users likely run what they can and accept that situation.
Someone posted a Steam survey above which said that 4% of the Steam users ran OS X and 1% ran Linux, I think I've read like 10% of the Steam users are those who have very many games and there's so many which like only have Dota2 or CS:GO or whatever and more or less only play that. So for this VR gaming stuff you're likely looking at the entusiasts which if they are 10% of the 95% of the Valve users who play on PC still make up 9.5% of all users whereas the Mac users only make up 4%. Those PC users have lots of games whereas likely very few of the OS X users do. Of all 95% Windows users more will have a better machine than the 4% OS X users.
Sure the average OS X user maybe would have more money to spend on hardware (I'm not convinced they buy more games if nothing else because less is available for OS X) but in total they don't and won't spend more money than the Windows users and they will have weaker machines than the top of the Windows users.
OpenGL performance are most often "very" (30%?) slower than DirectX 11 and with DirectX 12 performance will become even better. I know OS X have Metal and I know they will make Metal-Vulkan or whatever it was called but if nothing else that's more work and the stuff which are normally used will still run slower.
21.5" iMac only ship with integrated graphics. Totally useless for what they want to create with VR. 27" iMac cost a fortune and still only ships with MOBILE graphics chips.
Macbook Pro still expensive as it ever has been, I thought they cost less now. All 13" models only have integrated graphics, the most expensive 15" one have integrated graphics + mid-tier MOBILE graphics chip.
So the 27" iMac would come closest but it will likely still not be able to keep up with the lowest recommended R9 290 or so because it uses MOBILE chips.
The Mac Pro can't be much of the complete Apple market, 5% at best? 2-3%? Even less? It cost a shit-ton and is decent at best relative the systems you'll see actual run the VR headsets.
Of those 4% OS X users on Valve how many will be laptop users? 3/4? More? 80? How many have 27" iMacs or Mac Pros? at most 10%? That's 0.4% of the Steam user-base.
Whereas of the 95% of Windows users how many have a PC which can beat those macs? 20-25%? Or 40-50 times more?
The guy above didn't say what GPU he had, it was likely an R9 290 or R9 290X (more likely the later maybe?)
Your R9 270 would most often be slower than the GTX 950 I think but maybe better than the GTX 750Ti over in the Nvidia camp but the requirements is higher for what they intend (high quality graphics in a high resolution at very high frame-rates.)
Your processor isn't the problem and you two just happen to have different graphics cards.
What I find more interesting and unexpected are the stats for Language. The US has 41 million native Spanish speakers and only Mexico has more.
English 46% Russian 18% Simplified Chinese 6% Spanish 5%
While quite a few speak Spanish more people speak English.
I think one can run Steam in Swedish but I don't run either that or Windows or my browser (and gimp and so on) in Swedish I run them all in English because trying to find out what Swedish word they have used as a replacement for the English one is just disturbing and I guess I can read the English text at-least as well.
Either I can spend north of $1000, and countless hours dicking around with a "gaming computer", or I can spend $400 and get a PS4. Hmmm... tough decision...
Yeah, if you want to do that whole VR thing that is.. Or at-least with the fidelity they want, I guess I'm not convinced something with say Mario 64 lookalike graphics (but higher resolution) wouldn't be enjoyable in VR, doesn't have to look realistic.
Anyway, the PS4 can't do what the.. let's be realistic here - a 980Ti PC is more likely $1500, computer can do.
As of right now we're not even sure if the PS4 can do it alone or whatever it will use some sort of external device which bring more power to it.
If you want to build a PC which can perform like a PS4 you don't need to spend $1000. i3 6100 cost what? $120? H110 motherboard? $70? 8 GB of RAM? $50? GTX 950, $160? PSU + case $80? 250 GB SSD? $70?
I don't live in the US. $550 there + controller $600, maybe cheaper. Online gaming would cost money on the PS4 but on the other hand you get free games with that so I guess I'm ok calling that a subscription service and setting the price on $0. If one do that the PC cost ~50% more than the gaming console.
That could happen. If the U.S. mandates backdoors, the market (and some of the companies) will shift to countries where the policies are different. Of course we don't know the contents of TTIP which could have an effect on the ability of Finland to be one of those countries.
I don't know if Iceland is part of TTIP, they aren't an EU member at-least.
My country does useless stuff with the tax-payers money but who (ok, maybe someone) didn't wanted to experience space travel in their life time and so on?
USA & NASA has done so much in the area and I think it would had been ok if other nations such as mine (Sweden in this case) would had chipped in to do even more. ESA may do some but to get the really big things done you need the real big budgets I guess =P.
Guess the same could be said about say the North korean rockets and the money spent previously in Germany and later in USA vs Russia. Guess there's a benefit in coming up with different designs too but I guess we would had reached further without duplicated efforts.
As for the big guns isn't that for national (power struggle and might) conflicts whereas maybe the actual human conflicts (self-rule and protection) could had been solved with smaller arms instead. Accurately played music for this topic:D https://youtu.be/XNkMzWPbM0o?t...
Why are the examples always nazis? How about "Ever wonder how seemingly normal people were able to become communists and commit such atrocities?" The communists killed far more than nazis.
Or what about drone pilots / young american men wherever they happen to be deployed at the moment?
The genocide aspect is different but as far as war goes are there much difference? The threat factor? If _YOU_ travel over the sea to a different country was it really a threat to you BEFORE that at-least? And in the case of a drone strike no.. not against you.
Genocide are bad but mostly Germany just lost.
"We nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima and stopped the war!"
more Michael Jackson. It's funny how the entire Arab Spring went bust after the public lost interest when M.J. died.
Well, Michael Jackson has contributed more value worth to the world than all of the Middle-east and North and central Africa combined so no surprise there.
Considering one can get an 18 core 2.2 GHz Broadwell-EP chip for $999: http://wccftech.com/ebay-xeon-...... that make one wonder what the 10 core and 8 core Broadwell-E chips will actually end up costing?
8 core Zen-chip maybe will reach up to what you ask for vs your 4 core chip but what about against the 6, 8 and 10 core Broadwell-EP ones?
Or maybe AMD will let a 16 core Zen out for normal desktop users too, if it fit the same cheap motherboard I guess that could be somewhat disruptive.
We're going to standardize our family computers around that CPU. We don't need more GPU power than that APU provides, and the power (and money) savings are significant.
Why not wait for a Zen equivalent?
(Early processors for the same socket seem to be of the old design.)
Slashdot Mirror
You need to figure out shit at all.
There's no benefit in the PS4 having eight weak-ass cores. If the complete package was powerful because of it then fine but it's not, it's a weak CPU. Even the AMD pieces at ~4 GHz with 8 cores can't keep up with 4 core Intel ones for gaming.
The i3 6100 as said beat the FX-6300 in many games regardless of the later having three times the more cores and it's clocked twice as high as the PS4!
The AMD CPUs perform like shit and AMD knows it.
Here you have the weak-ass Athlon X4 860K, it should be very similar to what you have in the PS4, it's quad-core here but running at 3.7 GHz instead:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX...
Feel free to compare it straight to the PS4, it's clocked twice as high but with half the cores so it should be about right I guess:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-...
Also you got links to videos of actual game-play and I guess that's what matter the most, that account for less optimization with the PC games and for the lacks DirectX 11 have with poor multi-threading and draw calls which use up lots of processing power but it still perform ok.
What matters IS PERFORMANCE, THE AMD CHIPS DOESN'T HAVE IT!
Also your "argument" make no sense because the PS3 was the Cell one there the cell part had 8 SPEs of which 6 was used for gaming and one for OS and then one Power core. So I guess PS4 gamers viewed that as 7-9 core.
Who said anything about twitch-streaming? But yeah I figured I'd throw that in for good measure too, how well does the PS4 do that with it's weak-ass processor? The AMD chips at-least on PC encode video with more of a penalty than the Nvidia chips to. The GTX 950 have encoding on the graphics card so it drop close to nothing for encoding game videos.
Of course you don't see enough of a difference! This $600 PC with an i3 6100 + GTX 950 wasn't there to BE SUPERIOR TO THE PLAYSTATION 4! It was there to state what a PC with at-least as good performance would cost!
Sure you can spend $3000 on a gaming-PC but then it will be much much much much better than the PS4, for $1000+ you could get the i5 + GTX 970 PC but then that would totally smoke the PS4 and give you ~60 FPS gaming in Ultra in 1080p in more or less all titles. The PS4 doesn't do that and yes a PC which do that cost $1000 or thereabout (maybe even more, it will do more than 60 FPS in some titles of course.)
The i3 6100 + GTX 950 is still enough to beat the Playstation 4 and that cost as said around $600 or 50% more than the similar PS4 console.
Now if you want to see a difference ..
Here, have some Star wars: Battlefront Ultra 4K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You won't be able to play that on a $600 i3 6100 + GTX 950 machine though but I never said you would.
On a $2000-2500 machine yes.
Just in case you don't trust me when I say the i3 6100 beats the FX-6300:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/C...
Advantage i3 6100:
Single-core speed: +58%
Quad-core speed: +24%
Advantage FX-6300:
Multi-core speed: +8%
But games and DX11 aren't really good in taking care of many cores, and that's still a six core 3.5 GHz chip vs the PS4 eight core 1.6 GHz one.
This person compare a G3258 (dual-core without hyper-threading) with a GTX 750Ti vs Playstation 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
i3 4130 + GTX 750Ti in Witcher 3 vs Playstation 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, no need for a quad-core.
The i3 6100 beats the FX-6300 which is six-core 3.5 GHz.
The CPU in the PS4 is eight-core 1.6 GHz, it's complete garbage.
Maybe even an Athlon X4 860K (quad-core 3.7 GHz) would beat the PS4 processor, that's a processor for $75.
The i3 6100 is DEFINITELY better than the PS4. The GTX 950 is also better graphics than what the APU in the PS4 has.
And Intel quad-core like the i5 4460 would beat an FX-8350 for gaming and the FX-8350 is eight core 4.0 GHz. You're totally exaggerating the shitty performance of AMD APUs and think the PS4 have much more power than it has and the i3 6100 much less than it has. The i3 6100 may be dual-core but it's not too bad.
The Samsung EVO 850 250 GB SSD cost more than a 1 TB 7200 RPM drive but sure, go ahead and replace it with a 1 TB or 500 GB drive if you want to. SSDs cost about 8 times more / GB than HDDs and if the PS4 got a 500 GB HDD in this case I had replace it with an SSD only half the size so you shouldn't be complaining. I used the SSD because it's quick and the space may be enough for some (Steam let you download games as many times as you want anyway ..), replace it with a cheaper 1 TB HDD or a 2 TB HDD for about the same price if you want too, I don't care.
Fact is that the i3 6100 and the GTX 950 are both more competent hardware pieces than the PS 4, will they run games better? I don't know, possibly.
GTA V on setting very high on i3 6100 + GTX 950 in 60+ FPS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's a 30 FPS 1080p title on the Playstation 4.
A stinking AMD eight-core at 1.6 GHz isn't powerful at all and the INTEGRATED GRAPHICS used in the AMD APU in question is a bit more powerful than in general AMD APUs but by today calling it mid-range would kinda be stretching it.
Fallout 4 high - ultra @ 55-60 FPS avg. 43 FPS low here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's a 30 FPS 1080p title on the Playstation 4.
So as you can see the i3 6100 + GTX 950 is at-least as good as the Playstation 4, I'm not sure the GTX 750Ti is better, at-least not when you consider the higher optimization on the Playstation 4.
No you wouldn't.
I don't know what GPU you have but the R9 290 if that's what you have stop may do better than the GTX 970 and even more so in higher resolutions, the GTX 970 over-clocks better and I don't know what win then. But sure, I'd let you have that R9 290 on occasion has been cheaper.
As for the processor though nowadays the FX-8350 and the i5 4460 would cost about the same and the i5 4460 would be the better gaming CPU.
I don't know what we'd compare at the time of when you purchased your machine, what did the FX-8350 cost relative say an i5 2500K?
Nowadays even the i3 6100 may hold up against/beat the i5 2500K and the FX-6300.
This was surprising for me:
http://pasteboard.co/1LEbgwTV....
Not that it wasn't ok but that it consider the GPU the problem and not the processor. I guess the GPU was so bad for their tasks that the CPU wasn't the one holding it back, I can't imagine the CPU is enough with say a GTX 970 even though that picture would suggest that it was.
(What specs? See the image ;D)
Since Mac users are willing to pay more for quality hardware
More willing to pay a lot for Apple hardware. I can go as far as grant you "custom built computers" rather than standard off the shelves cases and components, also I'd accept that they may have had better screens because Apple had made that decision for the consumer.
As for everything else you said .. mac users has been so very clear telling me over and over again that you shouldn't get a mac for gaming and that macs are for professional/serious work (sound like PC guy with his spread-sheets) and not for gaming. You've been so proud telling yourself and the whole world that's the case so enjoy the pit you've dug for yourself. Also Apple haven't cared either. People who buy Apple products may spend more money but they don't get the best GAMING machines and many of them likely DON'T PLAY GAMES AT ALL. Harsh reality is that Windows has been dominating for computer gaming for so long and have many more titles that you're more likely to find a gamer there, some Mac users likely run what they can and accept that situation.
Someone posted a Steam survey above which said that 4% of the Steam users ran OS X and 1% ran Linux, I think I've read like 10% of the Steam users are those who have very many games and there's so many which like only have Dota2 or CS:GO or whatever and more or less only play that. So for this VR gaming stuff you're likely looking at the entusiasts which if they are 10% of the 95% of the Valve users who play on PC still make up 9.5% of all users whereas the Mac users only make up 4%. Those PC users have lots of games whereas likely very few of the OS X users do. Of all 95% Windows users more will have a better machine than the 4% OS X users.
Sure the average OS X user maybe would have more money to spend on hardware (I'm not convinced they buy more games if nothing else because less is available for OS X) but in total they don't and won't spend more money than the Windows users and they will have weaker machines than the top of the Windows users.
OpenGL performance are most often "very" (30%?) slower than DirectX 11 and with DirectX 12 performance will become even better. I know OS X have Metal and I know they will make Metal-Vulkan or whatever it was called but if nothing else that's more work and the stuff which are normally used will still run slower.
21.5" iMac only ship with integrated graphics. Totally useless for what they want to create with VR.
27" iMac cost a fortune and still only ships with MOBILE graphics chips.
Macbook Pro still expensive as it ever has been, I thought they cost less now. All 13" models only have integrated graphics, the most expensive 15" one have integrated graphics + mid-tier MOBILE graphics chip.
So the 27" iMac would come closest but it will likely still not be able to keep up with the lowest recommended R9 290 or so because it uses MOBILE chips.
The Mac Pro can't be much of the complete Apple market, 5% at best? 2-3%? Even less?
It cost a shit-ton and is decent at best relative the systems you'll see actual run the VR headsets.
Of those 4% OS X users on Valve how many will be laptop users? 3/4? More? 80? How many have 27" iMacs or Mac Pros? at most 10%? That's 0.4% of the Steam user-base.
Whereas of the 95% of Windows users how many have a PC which can beat those macs? 20-25%? Or 40-50 times more?
The guy above didn't say what GPU he had, it was likely an R9 290 or R9 290X (more likely the later maybe?)
Your R9 270 would most often be slower than the GTX 950 I think but maybe better than the GTX 750Ti over in the Nvidia camp but the requirements is higher for what they intend (high quality graphics in a high resolution at very high frame-rates.)
Your processor isn't the problem and you two just happen to have different graphics cards.
What I find more interesting and unexpected are the stats for Language. The US has 41 million native Spanish speakers and only Mexico has more.
English 46%
Russian 18%
Simplified Chinese 6%
Spanish 5%
While quite a few speak Spanish more people speak English.
I think one can run Steam in Swedish but I don't run either that or Windows or my browser (and gimp and so on) in Swedish I run them all in English because trying to find out what Swedish word they have used as a replacement for the English one is just disturbing and I guess I can read the English text at-least as well.
That is why you are not a geek or a gamer.
If you were a geek you'd already have the computer, if you were a gamer you wouldn't be able to stand week platforms like PS4/Xbone.
Likely thought Slashdot was dating site for spectacular nerdy men.
Either I can spend north of $1000, and countless hours dicking around with a "gaming computer", or I can spend $400 and get a PS4. Hmmm... tough decision...
Yeah, if you want to do that whole VR thing that is .. Or at-least with the fidelity they want, I guess I'm not convinced something with say Mario 64 lookalike graphics (but higher resolution) wouldn't be enjoyable in VR, doesn't have to look realistic.
Anyway, the PS4 can't do what the .. let's be realistic here - a 980Ti PC is more likely $1500, computer can do.
As of right now we're not even sure if the PS4 can do it alone or whatever it will use some sort of external device which bring more power to it.
If you want to build a PC which can perform like a PS4 you don't need to spend $1000.
i3 6100 cost what? $120?
H110 motherboard? $70?
8 GB of RAM? $50?
GTX 950, $160?
PSU + case $80?
250 GB SSD? $70?
I don't live in the US. $550 there + controller $600, maybe cheaper. Online gaming would cost money on the PS4 but on the other hand you get free games with that so I guess I'm ok calling that a subscription service and setting the price on $0. If one do that the PC cost ~50% more than the gaming console.
That could happen. If the U.S. mandates backdoors, the market (and some of the companies) will shift to countries where the policies are different. Of course we don't know the contents of TTIP which could have an effect on the ability of Finland to be one of those countries.
I don't know if Iceland is part of TTIP, they aren't an EU member at-least.
My country does useless stuff with the tax-payers money but who (ok, maybe someone) didn't wanted to experience space travel in their life time and so on?
USA & NASA has done so much in the area and I think it would had been ok if other nations such as mine (Sweden in this case) would had chipped in to do even more. ESA may do some but to get the really big things done you need the real big budgets I guess =P.
Guess the same could be said about say the North korean rockets and the money spent previously in Germany and later in USA vs Russia. Guess there's a benefit in coming up with different designs too but I guess we would had reached further without duplicated efforts.
As for the big guns isn't that for national (power struggle and might) conflicts whereas maybe the actual human conflicts (self-rule and protection) could had been solved with smaller arms instead. :D https://youtu.be/XNkMzWPbM0o?t...
Accurately played music for this topic
who asked them to bundle that crap? just give me the damn AV... when i buy bread, nobody bundles the peanutbutter
Restaurant:
- You forgot to give me any butter!
- ??, that will be $2.
No - there's pretty much one choice if you don't plan on building entire, robust ecosystem from scratch (and you're not Apple).
And that one my friends is: Symbian! ;D .. or Maemo/MeeGo/Tizen.
So.. Nokia.. I think I've found your future product and chance! ;D
Why are the examples always nazis? How about "Ever wonder how seemingly normal people were able to become communists and commit such atrocities?" The communists killed far more than nazis.
Or what about drone pilots / young american men wherever they happen to be deployed at the moment?
The genocide aspect is different but as far as war goes are there much difference? The threat factor? If _YOU_ travel over the sea to a different country was it really a threat to you BEFORE that at-least? And in the case of a drone strike no.. not against you.
Genocide are bad but mostly Germany just lost.
"We nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima and stopped the war!"
I googled now:
http://www.sott.net/article/27...
20-30 millions since WW II?
How much would it cost to print a RealDoll-type sex toy on one of these?
I'm asking for a friend.
Wow.. I have a new idea.
Want to invest in my "meat in a tank meet 3D-printer technology"-vaporware company?
more Michael Jackson. It's funny how the entire Arab Spring went bust after the public lost interest when M.J. died.
Well, Michael Jackson has contributed more value worth to the world than all of the Middle-east and North and central Africa combined so no surprise there.
ÙfØÙر ÙØÙÙخر
http://pasteboard.co/1AjzgBuo....
What Iran really needs is a revolution to overthrow those theocratic motherfuckers.
What they need is 80s Swedish glam metal or whatever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sweden needs a cleanse.
Yeah, it's a 220 watt chip if I remember correctly.
But it's ~the fattest they have, so that's where 40% higher IPC would put them.
Intel has manage less than 10% better per generation for the last 4-5 generations.
Considering one can get an 18 core 2.2 GHz Broadwell-EP chip for $999: ... that make one wonder what the 10 core and 8 core Broadwell-E chips will actually end up costing?
http://wccftech.com/ebay-xeon-...
8 core Zen-chip maybe will reach up to what you ask for vs your 4 core chip but what about against the 6, 8 and 10 core Broadwell-EP ones?
Or maybe AMD will let a 16 core Zen out for normal desktop users too, if it fit the same cheap motherboard I guess that could be somewhat disruptive.
Their top of the line FX-processor vs yours:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-...
Not too much of a difference, so maybe +40% IPC will actually reach the ~50%, I were going to say it won't but yeah, maybe.
"let's just have more of them"
Maybe they are presenting a false pension savings plan.
The problem AMD have right now isn't affected by whatever people are ok with what they have or not.
Regardless of what people may feel AMD is losing some serious cash each quarter, that's their main problem.
As for in what categories they can deliver without losing even more money.. whatever stop them from losing money would be an advantage for them.
We're going to standardize our family computers around that CPU. We don't need more GPU power than that APU provides, and the power (and money) savings are significant.
Why not wait for a Zen equivalent?
(Early processors for the same socket seem to be of the old design.)