Jump to content

PC Community Thread


stepee

Recommended Posts

Quote

HaLow is a low-power, long-reach version of Wi-Fi based on the IEEE 802.11ah standard. It operates in the sub-GHz range (850-950 MHz) which allows it to penetrate obstacles, walls and buildings, and lets it connect larger numbers of IoT devices at much longer distances and using far lower power. This equates to an impressive 10x the range, 100x the coverage area, and 1000x the volume of traditional Wi-Fi technologies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Remarkableriots said:

 

I fully expect this to be achieved like the compression software in Silicon Valley and it's so fast it drops a ton of data lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWW.PCGAMESN.COM

Intel Bartlett Lake S, the last hurrah for LGA 1700, could come with 12 P-Core versions, ditching E-Cores for pure desktop performance.
Quote

The new Bartlett Lake-S (possibly due to be called Intel 15th gen Core) rumors suggest we could see a 12 P-Core variant (SKU) of the new chips that are expected to arrive sometime this year. This compares to just 8 P-Cores in the company’s current flagship 14th gen CPU, the 14900K. The E-Cores of that chip are surprisingly capable, but P-Cores are better, plus removing E-Cores takes out any potential performance bottlenecks or system overhead due to managing whether to run processes on P-Cores or E-Cores.

We’ve seen the likes of CD Projekt Red introduce a Cyberpunk 2077 hybrid core update that allows users to force the game to only run on P-Cores, so opting for a pure P-Core chip would eliminate the need for this.

In comparison, AMD’s current desktop CPUs all use a single type of CPU core that’s broadly the equivalent to an Intel P-Core, so those chips don’t introduce this potential point of confusion/performance bottleneck.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@stepee @Mr.Vic20 @Spork3245 

 

In a few weeks I will have the money to officially buy a top of the line PC. I'm talking about th the best of the best.

 

Now, I'm a console guy right now and I think I will be until next gen. When would be a good time to buy everything I need to be ready for next gen. When I say ready, I want the very top of the line that will propel me through the next generation.

 

When I say I have the money, I mean I can drop $5K easily on this proposition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, best3444 said:

@stepee @Mr.Vic20 @Spork3245 

 

In a few weeks I will have the money to officially buy a top of the line PC. I'm talking about th the best of the best.

 

Now, I'm a console guy right now and I think I will be until next gen. When would be a good time to buy everything I need to be ready for next gen. When I say ready, I want the very top of the line that will propel me through the next generation.

 

When I say I have the money, I mean I can drop $5K easily on this proposition. 

I won't pull the trigger on a new build until AMD/intel drop their new CPUs this year, depending on which CPU vendor you prefer that would be Q2/Q3 for AMD and Q3/4 for intel.

  • stepee 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some follow up questions:

 

* What will be the primary three things you use your PC for? 

* How "handy" are you and how fiddley is too fiddley for you regarding PC builds? /do you plan to buy a pre-built?

* What will be your primary display? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr.Vic20 said:

Some follow up questions:

 

* What will be the primary three things you use your PC for? 

* How "handy" are you and how fiddley is too fiddley for you regarding PC builds? /do you plan to buy a pre-built?

* What will be your primary display? 

 

The PC would strictly be for gaming. I'm not handy so yea, I'd probably buy a pre-built machine if that is still going to get me the best of the best. 

 

My primary display will be a new OLED TV around the time I get the PC. Most likely an 8K TV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, best3444 said:

 

The PC would strictly be for gaming. I'm not handy so yea, I'd probably buy a pre-built machine if that is still going to get me the best of the best. 

 

My primary display will be a new OLED TV around the time I get the PC. Most likely an 8K TV. 

IF you are going 8K, and honestly I wouldn't recommend that, definitely wait for the 5xxx Nvidia series as Keyser indicated. 8K is still working out its warts, high price, but not a stabilized feature set and Processors that keep up just yet. I'd hold off on 8K until around 2026. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr.Vic20 said:

IF you are going 8K, and honestly I wouldn't recommend that, definitely wait for the 5xxx Nvidia series as Keyser indicated. 8K is still working out its warts, high price, but not a stabilized feature set and Processors that keep up just yet. I'd hold off on 8K until around 2026. 

 

Well I'd get this pc in 2027 so the TV lines up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stepee said:

 

Yeah like everyone said it’s best to wait until at least 5000! 

 

Well I'm thinking next gen hits in 2027. So it looks like the 6xxx series with an 8k oled will be my purchases. Jesus that will be incredible lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, best3444 said:

 

Well I'm thinking next gen hits in 2027. So it looks like the 6xxx series with an 8k oled will be my purchases. Jesus that will be incredible lol. 

 

6000 will easily power 8k…but we need to hope 8k oled is reasonable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

How close do you need to sit to a TV to make 8k worth it?  And what kind of crazy FOV does that drive?

 

I will evaluate this for sure when the time comes. I may just get another 4K oled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

How close do you need to sit to a TV to make 8k worth it?  And what kind of crazy FOV does that drive?

I would imagine you'd need to sit within 2' or less to see jaggies. 8K really is a solution looking for a problem. The argument is that somewhere between 8K-12K there is zero need for anti-aliasing techniques, but of course the processing power needed to push all those pixels natively at 60FPS+ is absurd! Fortunately, reconstructive render like DLSS can eliminate a large chunk of that increased processing need, but is it worth the effort? Probably not. 8K's advantage really is having much larger displays that can exceed an equivalent but smaller 4K image in IQ through pure pixel density. For me, moving beyond 65" messes with my current room configuration in a meaningful way, so I'll probably hold off until I make space for a 77" + screen. :sun:

  • Thanks 1
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

I would imagine you'd need to sit within 2' or less to see jaggies. 8K really is a solution looking for a problem. The argument is that somewhere between 8K-12K there is zero need for anti-aliasing techniques, but of course the processing power needed to push all those pixels natively at 60FPS+ is absurd! Fortunately, reconstructive render like DLSS can eliminate a large chunk of that increased processing need, but is it worth the effort? Probably not. 8K's advantage really is having much larger displays that can exceed an equivalent but smaller 4K image in IQ through pure pixel density. For me, moving beyond 65" messes with my current room configuration in a meaningful way, so I'll probably hold off until I make space for a 77" + screen. :sun:

If I look at the charts for a 65" screen -- 6.5 feet gives you a 40 degree viewing angle (about the "recommended" for watching movies).  The band at which the human eye can perceive more detail than 4k on a 65" screen is closer than 4 feet.

 

IMHO, we've probably already hit the point that additional TV/screen resolution is probably not going to be worth it.

 

Your point about jaggies and other artifacts make a lot of sense, and maybe super sampling (or AI of some sort) is the solution -- I just haven't seen anything that has led me to think that 8k displays provide any real world benefit.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

If I look at the charts for a 65" screen -- 6.5 feet gives you a 40 degree viewing angle (about the "recommended" for watching movies).  The band at which the human eye can perceive more detail than 4k on a 65" screen is closer than 4 feet.

 

IMHO, we've probably already hit the point that additional TV/screen resolution is probably not going to be worth it.

 

Your point about jaggies and other artifacts make a lot of sense, and maybe super sampling (or AI of some sort) is the solution -- I just haven't seen anything that has led me to think that 8k displays provide any real world benefit.

 

What do you think is the next step in technology is then? As in something superior to 4K. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, again I think they kind of don't until you are dealing with fairly large screens where the IQ is directly impacted by pixel density. Its why most of the original 8K screens started at 77 or 85" and easily go up to 120" units. There is definitely a market application for the tech, but probably not for the average consumer. 

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, best3444 said:

 

What do you think is the next step in technology is then? As in something superior to 4K. 

There are several technology that can continue to improve on Image Quality when and manufacturing costs can be reduced. An example is Micro-LED displays. @AbsolutSurgen 's point is that Resolution specifically is quickly becoming a none factor for improving consumer displays. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I wound up scoring a Samsung Odyssey G8 OLED monitor for just under $700 bux. and I think Im keeping the 4090. YOLO :nerd:I know its not 4K, but I really want a UW monitor and the 4K ones are like 1300+. Id rather dump that towards a new TV. So now Im just waiting on my moddiy sff cables to come in and I can build this thing. 

 

As for TV - how is the Samsung 77” S89C? It has a QD-OLED panel and is only $1800 at BB. I havent seen a G3 go below $2800. 

  • Hype 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, atom631 said:

So I wound up scoring a Samsung Odyssey G8 OLED monitor for just under $700 bux. and I think Im keeping the 4090. YOLO :nerd:I know its not 4K, but I really want a UW monitor and the 4K ones are like 1300+. Id rather dump that towards a new TV. So now Im just waiting on my moddiy sff cables to come in and I can build this thing. 

 

As for TV - how is the Samsung 77” S89C? It has a QD-OLED panel and is only $1800 at BB. I havent seen a G3 go below $2800. 

I honestly have no experience with Samsung's line. I've been sticking with LG ever since they lead the high end OLED charge. At this point, I can't imagine having any display that isn't OLED, because I'm spoiled! 

  • True 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...