As far as an ongoing event it's fucking obvious it happen here in Sweden if the destruction of our people / breed or whatever you wanna call it is what it is about.
As for whatever it's planned and on purpose I don't really think matter much but for some antiracists who don't want it to be possible to claim "I'm.." they likely want the mixing. some immigrants likely want more of their people here. I know for a fact Erdogan wanted more Turks in Europe and more Turkish children in it. Maybe more for loyality and alliances than to replace Europeans but. We've also got Gadaffi who meant the Muslims were winning and achieving the conquest of Europe (simply by immigration.) For all I care those who want to claim there "are no races" or "all Swedes are immigrants" or whatever and then let the replacement happen they are actors and cause it. As for the Jews theres definitely Jews who are in such positions. Then again it's not weird if whatever immigrant is in a position where they work for minority rights or view on immigration or such because that relate to them and may be important to them but it of course doesn't necessarily line up with the ideas and will of the natives.
(Similarly with all the people who think democracy is good one more likely of democracy would be a push for assimilation and less immigrant influences as long as they are a minority. These people rarely understand why democracy and the rule by the majority is bad and not as liberal as they think and claim.)
Throw in the Ryzen 5 2400G in there instead and you'd still be at a lower price but have better performance all around together with 2-3 times as high gaming performance.
The intention was never to estimate the cost of Apples part.
My original claim was ".. and for gaming a Ryzen 3 2200G would work better and cost $100"
The point was never to tell what an i3 8100 cost or what the Apple system should cost or what building one yourself would cost. The point was to say that I thought it was a stupid choice of CPU (specifically said for gamers) and that one could get a better system for less.
The reason the i3 8100 is a bad choice for gamers is that the Vega 8 or Vega 10 integrated graphics in the 2200G and 2400G have a higher performance. The 2200G would have a slightly lower performance as CPU as the i3 8100 but for gaming on integrated graphics that wouldn't be the problem but the problem would be the weak graphics performance of the i3 8100. The i3 8100 could had been a better choice for games if one used a discrete graphics card together with it but I doubt that's the case for the Mac Mini. The 2400G adds SMT as in 2 threads per core and a bit larger GPU but since it cost 60% more it may not be worth it. Up to each and every one to decide but you'll getting into a territory where something like the i3 8100 + GT 1030 could be bought instead where the graphics part would be just about the same though you still have to spend more money on the i3 8100 + GT 1030, add even more money and get the 1050Ti instead and you're above the performance of those two Ryzen APUs but I doubt the Mac Mini have that.
As a cheap compact system my choice would definitely have been the 2200G or possibly 2400G instead, maybe both as options for the customer to decide. The i3 8100 is a stupid choice.
Sweclockers also include 1080p results but that likely hurt the 8100 even further if anything since it's the weaker one. So the 2200G which is cheaper than the i3 8100 perform 100-180% better in games or 2-3x as good.
Cinebench multi-core: 2200G just below i3 8100 in performance, 2400G more than 1/3 faster. x264 encoding: 2200G slower than i3 8100, 2400G faster. 7-zip compression: 2200G a tiny bit slower than i3 8100, 2400G faster. Blender: 2200G a bit slower than i3 8100, 2400G faster by 30% of the time. Photoshop Lightroom Export: i3 8100 a bit faster than both the 2200G and 2400G Veracrypt: Both 2200G and 2400G beat the i3 8100, the 2400G beat it by 70%.
So as can be seen for a small system with integrated graphics there's not even a contest; the AMD chips are way better. For gaming so much that the i3 8100 doesn't belong in any system whatsoever. For non-gaming tasks the 2400G still beat the i3 8100 by a decent margin so that chip should had been avoided.
Yeah, didn't counted anything just thought it was a weird number.
I was looking a lot into the i7 5820K back in late 2014 wanting to buy one even though people said 4790K was better and 4690K enough. I then regreggeted not buying one because I was stuck with my old junk because the SEK tanked vs the soaring USD and deals went away. The processors cost basically the same but the X99 and DDR4 cost twice as much as Z97 and DDR3.
By now latest rumors are Epyc will have 8 core dies of 8 cores each and 32 MB cache and then a central non-core die for other things. The octa channel and 128 lanes may still be a thing I don't know but that's what Intel got to compete with..
Going up in cache from 16 to 32 MB / core die use up more space then again they did 8 core dies onto 14 nm before and 7 nm now so they had room to spare. Yields of such a 64 core + everything else 9 dies behemoth must be much much better than if everything was on one die.
.. and for gaming a Ryzen 3 2200G would work better and cost $100, add B450-motherboard, I don't know what a decent motherboard for the cpus with integrated graphics cost but let's be generous and put it at $120, 8 GB of ram easily below $100, if we call it $80 that's $300 for those parts. And then there's case, PSU and SSD, say another $200 and we're at $500 all in all (Windows optional.. =P)
There never was any desktop 8xx parts, only laptop, desktop went straight from 7xx to 9xx.
The PCI-express version is still 3.0, may have been 2.0 when Linus Tech Tips or whomever tested it back then but the graphics cards has become faster.
On the other hand AMD has abandoned CrossFire branding completely and SLI is pretty dead/unused too. In DX12 you may be able to even force rendering onto two cards but really close to no-one is using two cards for gaming and very close to no-one is using four for that purpose.
SLI didn't worked with a bunch of games and even when it work people complain on micro stutter so personally I kinda feel it may be more worth to get the most expensive model and considering those sit at ~$1300 now you gotta ask yourself how many spend that and how many are willing to spend two-four times more than that? Also those cards can do 60+ fps 4K gaming alone.
For textures the compression has improved which Nvidia argued compensated for the lower memory bandwidth. AFAIK SLI doesn't let you share RAM between the cards, I don't know what the SLI bridge actually do. The new cards use NVLink and as such at-least for the professional cards you can use all the RAM added up together and on the professional cards the connection is very fast but on the consumer cards it's slower but I don't know if they still add the VRAM together and if the typical scenario is just two cards maybe the lower bandwidth doesn't matter all that much.
Not SLI: https://www.techpowerup.com/re... 8x vs 16x: AC:O 1080p: 104.7 vs 114.5 fps. BF1 UHD: 95.8 vs 97.6 fps. CoD:WWII 1080p: 207.7 vs 217.0 fps. Civ VI UHD: 115.3 vs 122.7 fps. And so on. They lost 2-3% using 8x all in all over the various resolutions, that was just for a single card but hardly worth being upset about.
SLI: https://www.gamersnexus.net/gu... Ashes of the Singularity, UHD Crazy: 16+16: 127.2 / 47.7 / 42.8 (avg, 1% low, 0.1% low) 16+8: 125.1 / 46.9 / 41.8 (but in what situation will you ever have 16+8?) 8+8: 106.9 / 40.9 / 37.3 So with NvLINK/SLI it matter more than for a single card.
As for scaling: NvLink 2080Ti Sniper Elite UHD High DX 12: 209.8 / 145.1 / 132.1 2080Ti FE: 108.2 / 93.2 / 91.4 So a very good result there. SLI 1080Ti: 170.3 / 104.8 / 97.4 1080Ti: 86.6 / 75.1 / 72.2 So very good results both with new cards with NvLink and the old cards with SLI in that DirectX 12 title.
I don't really know what I wrote when I started this post but for a single card 8x seem to only make 2-3% difference, for two it's more like 20% difference and in a game which has great DX12 and scaling results using two cards whatever SLI or NvLink worked great.
Close to 0% buy two graphics cards. Even closer for four.
As for the number of PCI-express lanes if we remove what's used to connect the chipset then the Ryzen CPU offer: 20 lanes, of which 16 goes to the GPU slot(s.) Whereas the Intel one offer: 16 lanes. So that's one M.2 drive connected to CPU extra on Ryzen. However on the chipset side they offer: X470: 8x PCI-express 2.0. Z370: 24x PCI-express 3.0. Typically a secondary M.2 slot on an X470 board only run at 4x PCI-express 2.0 instead, on some boards it takes lane from the graphics card and run att 4x PCI-express 3.0 with the graphics card running at 8x instead.
I wouldn't really call it much of an improvement. If you benchmark the M.2 performance especially if you use RAID the Intel solution seem to perform better.
Now technically the zeppelin die (die used in Ryzen with two CCXs) should have 32 PCI-express 3.0 lanes (of which 4 goes to chipset) so there should be 8 more available so if they could let people use those that would be an improvement.
ThreadRipper originally used two such dies for 2*32 lanes and 2*" memory controllers and Epyc used four for 4*32 and 4*2 but some of these latest ThreadRippers use four dies but don't hook up everything so they use the 2*32 lanes from two of the dies and 2*2 memory controllers from two other dies meaning the core count is the same as on Epyc but the number of PCI-express lanes and memory controllers are half and half the dies & cores lack local lanes and memory.
Personally I feel like stuff like pesticides could have some to do with it but I also imagine some of those choosing organic may also chose less refined food all in all. They may also be wealthier or come from a culture which eat more greens affecting their life outcome and health.
It's not backwards if you accept the simple fact that the server is the software part which have multiple clients and will render the result onto hardware whereas it's clients are all the programs which want to draw something.
I have a hard time seeing how this is art, even if it would look good, since after all it's just copying not generating for a purpose or adding it's own touch so to say (as long as ANN and trained from other data and no randomization isn't enough of "own touch" =P)
Mean-while I do consider this https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Conspiracy - Chaos Theory, 64 kB intro demo) art. And it's gratis and easy to make more copies of..
If it actually is select start you should go change the Konami code page of Wikipedia. Personally I will accept their claim even though I have pressed select start too (but I'm pretty sure I've pressed BAAB (or possibly ABBA) as well.)
I'm not an idiot. Rather than trusting memory I googled it and used this as reference: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Seem like I must have added start myself / maybe the parent post to mine used it so I added it because of that. I was going to say that the English Wikipedia page said different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... But it doesn't. Neither mention start or select whatsoever.
I'm fully aware I've used select start too but on the other hand it wasn't mentioned there so I assumed that was game specific / not a necessity in all the cases. There's also the chance that neither select or start is part of the code but rather then playing Contra/Probotector or Ikari warriors we were told to press it like that because that changed the game to 2 player and launched the game as well. If you want to play with 30 lives for two players that become what you press. If select is only there to change the number of players then it's clearly not part of the code. And of course if start is just there to launch the game then it's not either.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm definitely a believer in white genocide.
As far as an ongoing event it's fucking obvious it happen here in Sweden if the destruction of our people / breed or whatever you wanna call it is what it is about.
As for whatever it's planned and on purpose I don't really think matter much but for some antiracists who don't want it to be possible to claim "I'm .." they likely want the mixing. some immigrants likely want more of their people here. I know for a fact Erdogan wanted more Turks in Europe and more Turkish children in it. Maybe more for loyality and alliances than to replace Europeans but. We've also got Gadaffi who meant the Muslims were winning and achieving the conquest of Europe (simply by immigration.)
For all I care those who want to claim there "are no races" or "all Swedes are immigrants" or whatever and then let the replacement happen they are actors and cause it.
As for the Jews theres definitely Jews who are in such positions. Then again it's not weird if whatever immigrant is in a position where they work for minority rights or view on immigration or such because that relate to them and may be important to them but it of course doesn't necessarily line up with the ideas and will of the natives.
(Similarly with all the people who think democracy is good one more likely of democracy would be a push for assimilation and less immigrant influences as long as they are a minority. These people rarely understand why democracy and the rule by the majority is bad and not as liberal as they think and claim.)
Throw in the Ryzen 5 2400G in there instead and you'd still be at a lower price but have better performance all around together with 2-3 times as high gaming performance.
The intention was never to estimate the cost of Apples part.
My original claim was ".. and for gaming a Ryzen 3 2200G would work better and cost $100"
The point was never to tell what an i3 8100 cost or what the Apple system should cost or what building one yourself would cost.
The point was to say that I thought it was a stupid choice of CPU (specifically said for gamers) and that one could get a better system for less.
The reason the i3 8100 is a bad choice for gamers is that the Vega 8 or Vega 10 integrated graphics in the 2200G and 2400G have a higher performance. The 2200G would have a slightly lower performance as CPU as the i3 8100 but for gaming on integrated graphics that wouldn't be the problem but the problem would be the weak graphics performance of the i3 8100. The i3 8100 could had been a better choice for games if one used a discrete graphics card together with it but I doubt that's the case for the Mac Mini.
The 2400G adds SMT as in 2 threads per core and a bit larger GPU but since it cost 60% more it may not be worth it. Up to each and every one to decide but you'll getting into a territory where something like the i3 8100 + GT 1030 could be bought instead where the graphics part would be just about the same though you still have to spend more money on the i3 8100 + GT 1030, add even more money and get the 1050Ti instead and you're above the performance of those two Ryzen APUs but I doubt the Mac Mini have that.
As a cheap compact system my choice would definitely have been the 2200G or possibly 2400G instead, maybe both as options for the customer to decide. The i3 8100 is a stupid choice.
Sweclockers, https://www.sweclockers.com/te...
BF1 720p low, average fps:
2400G: 83
2200G: 77 (150% faster)
8100: 31
BF1 720p low, 1% low FPS:
2400G: 66
2200G 55 (110% faster)
8100: 26
CS:GO 720p high, average FPS:
2400G: 148
2200G: 137 (110% faster)
8100: 64
CS:GO 720p high, 1% low FPS:
2400G: 105
2200G: 105 (210% faster)
8100: 34
Dota 2 720p high, avg:
2400G: 84
2200G: 83 (130% faster)
8100: 36
lows:
2400G: 46
2200G: 46 (100% faster)
8100: 23
Fallout 4 720p low, avg:
2400G: 56
2200G: 52 (130% faster)
8100: 23
lows:
2400G: 48
2200G: 44 (130% faster)
8100: 19
Fortnite: Battle royale 720p low, avg:
2400G: 124
2200G: 111 (180% faster)
8100: 40
lows:
2400G: 93
2200G: 82 (170% faster)
8100: 30
Sweclockers also include 1080p results but that likely hurt the 8100 even further if anything since it's the weaker one. So the 2200G which is cheaper than the i3 8100 perform 100-180% better in games or 2-3x as good.
Cinebench multi-core:
2200G just below i3 8100 in performance, 2400G more than 1/3 faster.
x264 encoding:
2200G slower than i3 8100, 2400G faster.
7-zip compression:
2200G a tiny bit slower than i3 8100, 2400G faster.
Blender:
2200G a bit slower than i3 8100, 2400G faster by 30% of the time.
Photoshop Lightroom Export:
i3 8100 a bit faster than both the 2200G and 2400G
Veracrypt:
Both 2200G and 2400G beat the i3 8100, the 2400G beat it by 70%.
So as can be seen for a small system with integrated graphics there's not even a contest; the AMD chips are way better. For gaming so much that the i3 8100 doesn't belong in any system whatsoever. For non-gaming tasks the 2400G still beat the i3 8100 by a decent margin so that chip should had been avoided.
Yeah, didn't counted anything just thought it was a weird number.
I was looking a lot into the i7 5820K back in late 2014 wanting to buy one even though people said 4790K was better and 4690K enough. I then regreggeted not buying one because I was stuck with my old junk because the SEK tanked vs the soaring USD and deals went away.
The processors cost basically the same but the X99 and DDR4 cost twice as much as Z97 and DDR3.
By now latest rumors are Epyc will have 8 core dies of 8 cores each and 32 MB cache and then a central non-core die for other things. The octa channel and 128 lanes may still be a thing I don't know but that's what Intel got to compete with ..
Going up in cache from 16 to 32 MB / core die use up more space then again they did 8 core dies onto 14 nm before and 7 nm now so they had room to spare. Yields of such a 64 core + everything else 9 dies behemoth must be much much better than if everything was on one die.
I didn't took the i3 8100 because it's a bad choice of CPU.
$100 for 2200G: https://www.newegg.com/Product...
$160 for 2400G: https://www.newegg.com/Product...
$110 for MSI B450I GAMING PLUS AC: https://www.newegg.com/Product... mini-ITX board.
$54 for cheapest 8GB DDR4: https://www.newegg.com/Product...
$64 for cheapest 2x4 GB DDR4: https://www.newegg.com/Product...
100+110+64 = $274 without case, ssd and psu for the reasonable setup.
.. and for gaming a Ryzen 3 2200G would work better and cost $100, add B450-motherboard, I don't know what a decent motherboard for the cpus with integrated graphics cost but let's be generous and put it at $120, 8 GB of ram easily below $100, if we call it $80 that's $300 for those parts. .. =P)
And then there's case, PSU and SSD, say another $200 and we're at $500 all in all (Windows optional
There never was any desktop 8xx parts, only laptop, desktop went straight from 7xx to 9xx.
The PCI-express version is still 3.0, may have been 2.0 when Linus Tech Tips or whomever tested it back then but the graphics cards has become faster.
On the other hand AMD has abandoned CrossFire branding completely and SLI is pretty dead/unused too. In DX12 you may be able to even force rendering onto two cards but really close to no-one is using two cards for gaming and very close to no-one is using four for that purpose.
SLI didn't worked with a bunch of games and even when it work people complain on micro stutter so personally I kinda feel it may be more worth to get the most expensive model and considering those sit at ~$1300 now you gotta ask yourself how many spend that and how many are willing to spend two-four times more than that? Also those cards can do 60+ fps 4K gaming alone.
For textures the compression has improved which Nvidia argued compensated for the lower memory bandwidth. AFAIK SLI doesn't let you share RAM between the cards, I don't know what the SLI bridge actually do. The new cards use NVLink and as such at-least for the professional cards you can use all the RAM added up together and on the professional cards the connection is very fast but on the consumer cards it's slower but I don't know if they still add the VRAM together and if the typical scenario is just two cards maybe the lower bandwidth doesn't matter all that much.
Not SLI:
https://www.techpowerup.com/re...
8x vs 16x:
AC:O 1080p: 104.7 vs 114.5 fps.
BF1 UHD: 95.8 vs 97.6 fps.
CoD:WWII 1080p: 207.7 vs 217.0 fps.
Civ VI UHD: 115.3 vs 122.7 fps.
And so on.
They lost 2-3% using 8x all in all over the various resolutions, that was just for a single card but hardly worth being upset about.
SLI:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/gu...
Ashes of the Singularity, UHD Crazy:
16+16: 127.2 / 47.7 / 42.8 (avg, 1% low, 0.1% low)
16+8: 125.1 / 46.9 / 41.8 (but in what situation will you ever have 16+8?)
8+8: 106.9 / 40.9 / 37.3
So with NvLINK/SLI it matter more than for a single card.
As for scaling:
NvLink 2080Ti Sniper Elite UHD High DX 12: 209.8 / 145.1 / 132.1
2080Ti FE: 108.2 / 93.2 / 91.4
So a very good result there.
SLI 1080Ti: 170.3 / 104.8 / 97.4
1080Ti: 86.6 / 75.1 / 72.2
So very good results both with new cards with NvLink and the old cards with SLI in that DirectX 12 title.
I don't really know what I wrote when I started this post but for a single card 8x seem to only make 2-3% difference, for two it's more like 20% difference and in a game which has great DX12 and scaling results using two cards whatever SLI or NvLink worked great.
Close to 0% buy two graphics cards. Even closer for four.
As for the number of PCI-express lanes if we remove what's used to connect the chipset then the Ryzen CPU offer:
20 lanes, of which 16 goes to the GPU slot(s.)
Whereas the Intel one offer:
16 lanes.
So that's one M.2 drive connected to CPU extra on Ryzen.
However on the chipset side they offer:
X470: 8x PCI-express 2.0.
Z370: 24x PCI-express 3.0.
Typically a secondary M.2 slot on an X470 board only run at 4x PCI-express 2.0 instead, on some boards it takes lane from the graphics card and run att 4x PCI-express 3.0 with the graphics card running at 8x instead.
I wouldn't really call it much of an improvement. If you benchmark the M.2 performance especially if you use RAID the Intel solution seem to perform better.
Now technically the zeppelin die (die used in Ryzen with two CCXs) should have 32 PCI-express 3.0 lanes (of which 4 goes to chipset) so there should be 8 more available so if they could let people use those that would be an improvement.
ThreadRipper originally used two such dies for 2*32 lanes and 2*" memory controllers and Epyc used four for 4*32 and 4*2 but some of these latest ThreadRippers use four dies but don't hook up everything so they use the 2*32 lanes from two of the dies and 2*2 memory controllers from two other dies meaning the core count is the same as on Epyc but the number of PCI-express lanes and memory controllers are half and half the dies & cores lack local lanes and memory.
I assume it is that burning someone may get support from someone else and as such encourage that behaviour.
Also maybe some who write constructive comments get no love and as such feel the world think they are bad and stops.
1) The graphics cards need to come back in price / get a new generation.
2) $400 at most for a complete kit.
3) Games.
Personally I feel like stuff like pesticides could have some to do with it but I also imagine some of those choosing organic may also chose less refined food all in all. They may also be wealthier or come from a culture which eat more greens affecting their life outcome and health.
It's not backwards if you accept the simple fact that the server is the software part which have multiple clients and will render the result onto hardware whereas it's clients are all the programs which want to draw something.
I have a hard time seeing how this is art, even if it would look good, since after all it's just copying not generating for a purpose or adding it's own touch so to say (as long as ANN and trained from other data and no randomization isn't enough of "own touch" =P)
Mean-while I do consider this https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Conspiracy - Chaos Theory, 64 kB intro demo) art. And it's gratis and easy to make more copies of..
If for the same die that's the part they have problem with.
If you just mean use more of everything sure that give more performance but not with the cost and energy cuts.
I've though so about earlier updates and you run the latest (before this leaked one) and are happy with that so I don't understand your worries.
It's not meaningless for the stuff who lives in and consume the ocean.
It's likely pretty irrelevant my wellbeing.
It's not select to switch number of players and start to start?
I still have my NES (at-least I should have, I don't know where right now though) but I'm not all that sure how it worked.
If it actually is select start you should go change the Konami code page of Wikipedia.
Personally I will accept their claim even though I have pressed select start too (but I'm pretty sure I've pressed BAAB (or possibly ABBA) as well.)
I'm not an idiot.
Rather than trusting memory I googled it and used this as reference: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Seem like I must have added start myself / maybe the parent post to mine used it so I added it because of that. I was going to say that the English Wikipedia page said different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But it doesn't. Neither mention start or select whatsoever.
I'm fully aware I've used select start too but on the other hand it wasn't mentioned there so I assumed that was game specific / not a necessity in all the cases. There's also the chance that neither select or start is part of the code but rather then playing Contra/Probotector or Ikari warriors we were told to press it like that because that changed the game to 2 player and launched the game as well. If you want to play with 30 lives for two players that become what you press.
If select is only there to change the number of players then it's clearly not part of the code. And of course if start is just there to launch the game then it's not either.
Monitoring free monitor?
Fast-dry epoxy or a knitting needle into the mic-hole, tape over the camera. Problems fixed.
I misread and now there's gore and screaming. Should I try the epoxy?
The original Konami code is up up down down left right left right b a start.
Of course will have RGB in the future.
But seriously they need UV tubes too.
And they won't stop anything because all the surveillance possibilities and data that they too want access to.