Hadwell

having a ton of pcie lanes is only useful if you're really doing things that require multiple SSDs running at GB/s, like some how trying to max out your read/writes on multiple drives at once... most people have 1 videocard, that even running at 16x won't use more bandwidth than 8x, and the chipset will relocate bandwidth to other pcie lanes... have 1 or 2 SSDs and if they have multiple ssds, a single game isn't split between them... most people won't use more bandwidth than 16 pcie lanes will provide, if they even can... having extra pci-e lanes is a gimmic for the average home user, kinda like if you were to put 16gb vram on a GTX1050 or something.... or how many people do you know that'll be running 4 or 5 SSD's at their max read/write speeds 100% of the time while they're streaming a game running two 1080tis both at 100% load...?

no such thing as a 1060ti, there's only 3gb and 6gb 1060s anyone who says otherwise has never actually looked...

so lets say you disable all but 1 core on an intel cpu and on an AMD cpu, you set them both so they both give exactly the same performance... to simplify things we'll set the intel cpu at 1ghz, in order for the AMD cpu to get the same performance it will need to be at 1.14ghz add on top of that the fact that the intel cpus can also hit 4.8ghz easy, and amd cpus on average 3.8ghz, intel cpus are much faster than amd cpus. so lets say you get lucky and get an intel cpu that'll hit 5GHz, the AMD cpu will need to hit 5.7ghz to get the same performance, and it can't. the only time amd cpus really pull ahead are on heavily multithreaded things such as video editing, or the 5 or 6 games that actually make good use of it... so then, what is better depends on the things you do... if core speed is important, then intel cpus are more than 30% faster(when overclocked)... once the 8700K comes out, that'll increase by another 3-5% if more, slow cores is better for what you do, then AMD is better... the 8700K will be a 6 core cpu, so the more core advantage will be even less of a thing.

I have the GW2765HT, very good image quality, easy on the eyes, and still good for gaming, if you're looking for 1440p, I'd recommend it

yes, easy, but not as quiet as an AIO cooler...

if you can wait another few months, get coffee lake the 8700K, is supposed to have 11-15% more single threaded performance (IPC)than the 7700K (depending on what source you read) the boost clock is 4.7ghz, so it should be able to overclock to 5ghz with a decent cooler, and it's a 6 core cpu plus it's a mainstream cpu, not a high end desktop cpu, so it'll probably cost less than 500$

there used to be a full sized keyboard where each key was an LCD display, but it was like 2000$ and they only made a few of them...

I have the PG278Q, very good monitor, any 144hz g-sync monitor is good though... as for VR... yeah it depends on how you play DCS, and how good your eyesight is, the better your eyesight, the worse VR looks, and the more effective you want to be in combat, the more pixels you need, in other words, while VR gives you the whole depth perception, and good head tracking, it's like looking through these, except all pixely, with low framerate like 50 fps max, with low graphics settings, no matter how good of a computer you have.

anyone who uses the AIM-120 shouldn't have a problem with an AI in the rio seat, since the aim-120 is a mini AI controlled kamikaze fighter as soon as its active radar kicks in... and any missiles the f-14 are going to launch won't be as good as the aim-120, except maybe the aim-54, though we'll have to see...

I run my 2600K at 4.6ghz with a GTX1080ti and at 1440p with 2xAA I get between 50 and 130 fps with mirrors off, with mirrors on, around 40 fps. I get screen freezes every once in a while on a super busy multiplayer server when a bunch of people spawn in at the same time, but that goes away when i get away from the airfield...

you'll see one of your cores is at 100% and another will be at 15-25%, and the other two won't be used at all, your cpu is the bottleneck.

if it's making wierd noises it's usually because there's something overheating/failing could be a bad capacitor or because a transformer is vibrating, the transformers have metal sheets instead of solid metal cores, sometimes one of the plates comes loose, and then the magnetic field from the coil causes the loose plate to vibrate... or if your monitor isn't an LED backlit one, one of the lights could be failing... there's many things that could be wrong... the fact that the noise goes away when it's on for a while tells me it's an electrolytic capacitor that's failing, but no real way to tell without checking... if it is a bad capacitor, eventually it will short and blow a resistor or fuse or worse, blow an IC

I use 2560x1440, DCS i've seen use 6.7gb vram, I got a 1080ti, and with my 2600K I get between 90 and 130 fps, I haven't tried it with VR yet.

because with a game like DCS, it's not real life, and when you can't die, then using something that isn't as good, making it more of a challenge for yourself is more fun... is why i can't understand why people even use aim-120s in DCS... i mean it makes sense in real life, but in a game it just gives such an advantage that it's just not fun... and having a better radar and missiles doesn't make the mig-21 an su-27... it's still a mig-21...

it doesn't say what the actual problem is, or how it effects the cpu, or that it even is a problem... there's no info anywhere from any reliable source... seems to me this is someone just trolling... it's like if someone on this forum just stated AMD cpus have a defect that could possibly maybe cause hats to start coming out of rabbits...

I think they were overvolting on their cpus... most of the benchmarks i've seen have it running at 4.6-4.8ghz at 1.25 volts, but these guys have it running at 1.4 volts, so its obvious why they're drawing so much heat... any cpu running at that voltage will be hotter than hell...

so here's my planned build, different motherboard though, they didn't have the one i'm getting in the list... https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/M8cpkT

yeah but i've been saving up for years for a new computer, i've got a 3000$ budget, and I don't need to buy a new videocard because i already have a 1080ti... considering how long my 2600K has lasted me, if that's any indication, buying a more expensive computer will hopefully again last me a couple more years than if I went for a lesser CPU... like most people i know that bought a 2500K had already upgraded long ago, whereas most people are only upgrading from a 2600K since the 7700K came out...

I think im going with the AORUS Gaming 9, I like the sound card, tho i really hate this new LED fad going on...

yeah, it's my next CPU, supposed to go on pre-order this week, will be a massively huge upgrade from my 2600K couple more benchmarks https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/06/16/intel-core-i9-7900x-and-x299-chipset-revie/1 http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-7900x-review-cpu-gaming-oc-performance/

1000USD... so £780... 100c at 1.3v, but they clocked it at 4.7ghz at 1.25v... it IS 10 cores... maybe actually make use of a 360mm rad, rather than just for show... also, like with ryzen, the motherboards bios has issues that are being ironed out...

so the first benchmarks for the 7900X are out... http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/?page=3

TVs generally have a lot slower processors, and you get a huge delay between when you press a button and the screen actually showing it... your average PC monitor has around a 4ms delay, your average TV has between a 20 and 50ms delay

does anyone know when the 2000 series cards (doesn't make sense, should be 1100 series cards) are coming out? while i agree the 1070 is a pretty new card, it is a hell of a lot slower than a 1080ti, and if you want the performance, and don't want to wait another 6 months or more for another 10-15% more performance than you could have right now, you could just sell the 1070...