Posts by Angela Flores4

Exactly that. Thanks.

I’m on a desperate hunt for a specific 4-pin fan extension cable. I feel like I’ve practically paced a hole through half the electronics stores in Washington, D.C., yet all I can find are clueless clerks trying to sell me useless Molex adapters or some ridiculous 2-pin nonsense that won't do a thing.

Here are the photos for reference:
http://www.llamatronics.com/comp/cables/fan4-ext.jpg

Robert Rodriguez2 said:Your Phenom is going to die first because it’s running at temperatures way beyond what the manufacturer intended without adequate cooling, rather than some overclocked processor that’s actually being cooled properly regardless of how much voltage you've cranked up.

Not necessarily; aside from the obvious heat issues, degradation can also be triggered by electromigration, which will eventually tear apart those internal interconnections if you push the voltage too high.

Timothy Kim60 said:nemesis $143is

Hey there.
Does anyone have a solid recommendation for some high-performance 140mm fans? I’m looking for something powerful yet incredibly quiet—like, whisper-quiet. 😁

It sounds pretty much like any other game I wouldn't dream of logging into on a public computer. Honestly, you might be better off just buying twenty PlayStations instead.

Melissa Ward said:I really have to agree with that! Honestly, I think that’s the core "genetic" reason why there's zero spark there. It’s like trying to look at a sibling or a childhood best friend and suddenly seeing them as a romantic prospect—it just doesn't click, right? If you grew up alongside someone since you were kids, that biological switch just stays flipped to "family mode." You simply can't view them as a partner after all that time. 😁

I honestly feel like the whole concept of "health" in relationships doesn't mean much anymore! It’s just... it's lost its way. I mean, look around—you see plenty of perfectly healthy, stable couples out there who just can't seem to have children, right? And don't even get me started on those other connections that are built entirely on physical chemistry alone. It's all a bit skewed these days!

I honestly think we’re running into this wall because society is just too stuck in its ways. We keep clinging to these old-school moral codes inherited from our ancestors, but let's be real—holding onto those outdated values today feels about as useful as trying to practice celibacy before marriage. It's like trying to use a rotary phone in a world full of iPhones; it just doesn't fit the current rhythm of life!

In reality, isn't it the exact same reason you don't feel any spark toward close family members or those childhood friends you grew up alongside? It all boils down to that intense proximity from such an early age. I can't quite recall the specific scientific paper I came across, but wasn't there something about how that prolonged period of growing up together essentially neutralizes any potential sexual chemistry?

As for distant relatives, I think the logic is pretty straightforward. Once you categorize someone as "family" in your mind, you instinctively lump them into the same bucket as your immediate kin. Just take a second to imagine hooking up with your own sister. Gross, right? You'd probably hit your head against a wall three times just to induce enough amnesia to forget the thought even existed. You'll likely have that same visceral reaction, albeit perhaps a slightly more muted one, when you consider a distant cousin.

You really ought to consult your motherboard manual to see exactly how to seat those sticks for dual-channel mode, since the color-coded slots don't mean the same thing on every board. That said, isn't it highly probable that your headache is stemming from the fact that these modules just aren't playing nice together because they come from different manufacturers? In the real world, why would anyone bother mixing different brands of RAM when you can just avoid the headache entirely?

I don't see the dilemma here; with something like Camtasia, I can simply set my video to compress and auto-upload overnight while I sleep. Why on earth would anyone waste their precious daylight hours waiting for a progress bar to finish?

Andrew Peterson2 said:rowdybadger18, look, a buddy of mine is trying to find ways to shrink his files just so he can get them uploaded faster. I realize how difficult it is to compress anything without losing quality, but wouldn't things be much better if we just had a codec that outperformed x264 in terms of compression efficiency?

So, what you're saying is he wants a codec that somehow surpasses what is essentially the gold standard of compression currently available? 😵

In my opinion, the most logical solution isn't chasing magic software, but rather upgrading to a more reliable internet connection. Or, if patience is an option, why not just set the upload to run overnight while he sleeps? With a measly 50kb upload speed, he could manage about 1400 MB over an eight-hour stretch.

Alternatively, he could look into fiber optics, 5G, or even certain providers that offer much higher upload speeds if the cost is worth it to him.

And honestly... was 480p even considered high definition back in the early nineties?

Timothy Kim60 said:Check out this review of the R9 390 (factory overclocked version)

PowerColor Radeon R9 390 PCS+ 8GB review

The performance is actually quite impressive; in a wide variety of titles, it holds its own remarkably well against what I assume is the reference GTX 980

Just buy one more fan and you’ll basically have yourself a quadcopter🤣

You can actually pick up a GTX 970 over at ADM for just $967.

When I originally pulled the trigger on this one, it stood out from the other three options as having the absolute best bang for my buck; I had my eye on the 5960X initially, but I quickly realized that for what I actually needed at the time, it would have been a complete waste of money, especially since I had no idea I’d eventually require something this much more powerful. And as for the difference in processing speeds... we're talking five times faster... which is just massive 😁
I can simply feed the software a hundred tasks to churn through overnight, and if a single task takes about five minutes, you're looking at roughly eight hours of work. But once you divide that by five, suddenly you've got everything wrapped up in an hour and a half.

We’re talking about an application here that handles some pretty heavy-duty statistical computations involving massive datasets. On my current processor—an Intel Core i7-5930K—a single calculation can drag on anywhere from a single minute to several dozen minutes, even when I'm running it at low precision. On average, though, we're looking at a few minutes per run. For instance, when I'm running this specific simulation to benchmark speed without any overclocking, it usually clocks in at about seven minutes; once I bump it up to 4.1 GHz, it drops to six. Ideally, I’d love to see that same calculation crushed down to a minute or even less. But, considering I'm already rocking a top-of-the-line i7, it looks like the only way to see that kind of performance leap would be to jump to a dual-CPU setup, maybe something like two Intel Xeon processors with 16 cores each, which just doesn't make financial sense for me right now. The only other avenue I've looked into that might actually be cost-effective would be an Intel Xeon Phi solution, but even that is on hold for a few months since I'm expecting some algorithmic improvements in the software itself.

I’m on the hunt for some actual CPU benchmarks—specifically focusing on multi-threaded performance—that demonstrate how these processors handle various real-world workloads by providing results in seconds rather than just abstract numbers.

It seems like every single benchmark I stumble upon online just spits out those generic, arbitrary scores that honestly don't mean a thing to me in any practical sense.

Timothy Kim60 said:I can push 4GB of assets at 4K if there’s enough headroom—though, honestly, that shouldn't necessarily dictate the final performance delta when comparing a 4GB card to an 8GB one. It isn't an issue as long as the memory allocation is straightforward; all this VRAM hysteria really started because of the GTX 970, where crossing that 3.5GB threshold caused a massive bandwidth collapse once you hit the second pool of memory. But even then, testing showed it wasn't actually a dealbreaker, with performance dips maxing out at around 6% compared to other standard 4GB cards.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-tested-2.html

Comparing the 290X with 4GB versus 8GB at 4K shows negligible differences:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...gb,3977-3.html

If you aren't rocking a 4K monitor, does anyone actually care about those extra 4 gigs?

Well, that seems pretty obvious, isn't it? From what I've seen, almost no modern game actually exceeds that limit yet. What I am genuinely curious about—and something that won't happen overnight, mind you—is what happens when a developer finally releases a title that immediately gobbles up 6 or 7 GB of VRAM? If I'm sitting there with a card that only has 4GB, or heaven forbid, just 2GB, what's the actual user experience? Are we looking at noticeably slower texture loading? Constant stuttering? Or will we just be greeted by that lovely "Not enough video memory" error message telling us to go out and spend more money on a better GPU?

Timothy Kim60 said:A 4K monitor? Of course the average Joe isn't exactly running that setup. Besides, if you actually bother to look at the reviews for the 290X, it becomes pretty obvious that even at 4K, there isn't much of a difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions in most titles—though in a few niche cases, things might change.

Exactly, I’m rambling here too, aren't I? You can count 4K gaming monitors on one hand, let alone those absolute monstrosities that push 144 Hz. As for GTA specifically, my mistake—that card barely scrapes by with 4GB at 4K resolution; I mistakenly thought it was already hitting its limits on 1080p or 1440p displays.

Timothy Kim60 said:I’d honestly rather pay $33 a bit more at Micro Center (let’s be real, a difference of 2800 x is basically $33 nothing) just to ensure I get at least a two-year warranty; that way, if I actually have to file a claim, I don't have to deal with some random local shop's excuses or shell out another $30 for shipping costs.

You make a fair point—if the price gap is that small, there's really no reason to sweat it, but if you had your heart set on something like an R9 295X2, you might have found it for $333 cheaper there than anywhere else in the US.

Timothy Kim60 said:The headquarters just posted the info online, though the actual shipment should be arriving in a few days. I think crimsonstag84 has a point here; prices tend to be inflated right out of the gate, and we might see them plummet on $900 pretty quickly—who knows, maybe they’ll hit the $2500 mark in a month or so? My only gripe is that most average users won't find much use for that 8GB of VRAM in their everyday tasks.

But does owning a 4K monitor and playing > really not qualify someone as an average user? It's true that > is more of an outlier than the norm, but am I wrong to assume that manufacturers are already aggressively chasing a 4K-heavy future?

Gary Anderson38 said:Check out this link $1600.

Now I’m starting to find it a bit surreal—how can one retailer be charging nearly $1667 while a third shop has the exact same card sitting at 2900? Does that even make sense? 🤔

Honestly, the pricing logic at these local online retailers is completely nonsensical. Personally, I don't even bother looking past Amazon; even after factoring in shipping costs, it usually ends up being a better deal than anything I find domestically. For instance, I just spotted a 390 over there for $907, shipping included. 😁

Sure, everything you say sounds perfectly logical, though I suspect the actual speed will fluctuate quite a bit depending on whether you're running on a USB or SATA standard.