psychoak

The engine lends itself poorly to tactical combat. Directional shields can't be replicated, expendable ammunition can, but it would be a major undertaking, and have poor visibility. Energy consumption would also be a major undertaking, and horribly limited. I could get ships working that ran off power, but there would be no gui, the ability to tune them would necessarily be limited. You'd only have 4 or 5 ability slots to control everything, it's just not e

I broke 16 without that stuff, I was beta testing GC3 with messengers, web browser, etc, and doing other stuff between turns. :) It was burning through 12 or so on it's own at the time, I'm sitting at 4.9 here with just the browser above my normal always on stuff, the biggest hog of which is slack at ~230MB between six executables presently.

I haven't actually used 32 yet, but I've used a lot more than 16. That's a Bill Gates worthy statement, it will probably only be a few years before software has bloated to the point where 32 is a minimal approach to gaming. :) If you run multiple VM's for work, you can hit 32 real fast.

Skylake is also 2 channel. The maximum memory bandwidth on an i7 6700k is 34.1GB/s, DDR4-3200 is only capable of 25.6GB/s. Unless you can use more than two thirds of the bandwidth the processor is capable of handling, you can't achieve this with most tasks to begin with. Things like video encoding, compiling. You can handily outperform the Skylake architecture with different architectures on certain tasks because of that limitation, but it's a

More specifically, at present it's the difference between a nearly empty two lane highway, and a nearly empty four lane highway. You're still doing the speed limit anyway. Even the biggest memory hogs in gaming aren't touching it. Going forward, if people actually start making software to utilize the hardware, it will make a big difference. Benchmarking shows available bandwidth takes a huge dive when you use dual channel, it's not quit

I'm not sure why it pisses anyone off... Everything goes on sale eventually. Things going on sale before they're even released is pretty damn special ed, but that's another issue entirely. When something is new, it does indeed have a higher value, and any wishful thinking on the part of a particular game designer doesn't change that. It may not have a higher value to a particular individual, but people are not logical s

With your case design, mounting a single or double radiator in the top is a piece of cake. You can do all in one water cooling these days, you don't need to mess with putting pipes together or anything like that, just seat the heat sink and mount the radiator. If you're going to overclock, just go with water. If you're not, don't bother with replacing the stock cooler.

Pretty sure jokes don't start the separation of the races. These days its started by race baiting lowlife assholes who make their living by telling children the legal system is rigged against them, the police are out to kill them, and everyone is racists for not hiring them when they've got a hubcap hanging from their neck, a mess of dreads in their face, gang tats down their arms, pants hanging off their ass, and the english skills of a three year old.

It all depends on what you're playing, the current trend makes the power of your processor less relevant, not more so. A hyper-threaded quad is already more horsepower than you should ever need for a video game in the next several years. If you've stopped playing anything like Sins, sure, it's not really a concern. If you're still burning a few hours a week on it and you'd really like to play a huge game without it being a slideshow, you want as much hors

Be aware that the 6800K is as much slower than a 6700K as it is faster than my 2500K from 5 years ago for it's single threaded performance. Not a problem going forwards, but it will impact games like Sins, which is where a few of us are posting from. Edit: I would wait for the AMD release even if you wouldn't buy an AMD if they were twice as fast. Regardless of whether you'd ever want one, there are good odds of price cuts

[quote]Unless you're going to do some heavy Virtual Machine work or A/V encoding work, save the cash & drop from an i7 to an i5 if you run into the budget wall -- This will save you around $100-$140 if prices are similar to the 6000 line[/quote] This is not the case anymore, as the 6700K is 500Mhz faster than the 6600K even without the other advantages.. The i5's have a smaller amount of memory to work with as well, they're essentially hamstrung in

Is this a serious question? Seriously, if your computer can't handle GC3, there's something wrong with it. It's massively more powerful than necessary.

These are people with 4-8GB of ram, not the guy with 16. He's nowhere near running out of space. Yes, there is a recommendation for a 3*RAM maximum size, but this recommendation is based on the typical computer buyer that gets a piece of crap from Dell that shipped with 4-8GB of ram in an era where your browser can burn through a gig by itself. If you've got 16 today, you probably wont ever use a page file in your daily operations, if you've got

Having a warm case is a foreign concept to me, but it's probably not problematic as far as the video card is concerned. You're only hitting 61C on a burn in test, which is a whopping 1 degree above the fan shutoff, as in you aren't getting any temperature climb at all once the fan starts running. I'm guessing you could run a burn in test all day and still not overheat the card.

I expect either of those would be fine, but you might not be able to achieve your goal regardless. After a certain point, you wont be GPU limited and your CPU and RAM will bear the brunt. I'm on an old GTX 680 and the game runs pretty smooth, a 460 isn't much weaker than it is and far more modern a design with twice the memory(the models folder is 3.8GB, so I have to do a lot of swapping in and out of VRAM with only 2GB, which leads to hiccups), but with hundreds of planet

[quote]The OS will not allocate more RAM than it thinks it can manage within the size of the swap space it is allowed to allocate. Also note that the game is not what allocates RAM, it is the OS that allocates RAM.[/quote] This is horrible misinformation. Memory in ram is not "backed up" in your page file, nor does it require one in any way. There are, due to poor programming and a lack of foresight, programs that will not run without a page file because the

Unless AMD is outright lying, it actually is surpassing Broadwell-E CPU's in at least rendering, they just haven't given us any indication that it can meet or break the speeds Intel is reaching.

That would be a yes. I'm actually really surprised at the performance you're getting with a 530, it's raw power is about a tenth of a top end card, and even a five year old card will be a multiple of it's power.

Considering they finally discovered that their single thread performance blows and decided to engineer with that in mind, a lot higher than they were for anything since the Athlon X2. Don't expect them to leapfrog Intel though, it's highly implausible. They've been comparing it favorably against Broadwell-E performance, but that line is a dog in the single thread performance category. The fastest out there taps out with a 3.8Ghz turbo and is dwarfed by the 4Ghz H

Yeah, I actually carried my boat anchor out to be dumped recently, 70 pounds for 22 inches is a bit severe these days.

Seriously! That POS is from an age when LCD's were still vastly inferior to my $800 CRT, it was still a pretty big step down when it died in 2008 and I had to replace it. :(

Ahh... the death of a company... It's too bad really, I rather like my SSD's and the beautiful display I'm typing this on, but I'm guessing they're in serious financial trouble at this point...

... You built that monster and used a 1680x1050 piece of shit from the dark ages of LCD technology? Priorities man, priorities... I'd have gouged my eyes out years ago.

These are the same fucking idiots who still sell computers with a one button mouse implementation, when has the rest of the programming world ever given their abject stupidity the time of day?

[quote]Nonsense. Your memory on Sins is just plain wrong. Anyone could open up a scenario in notepad and make their own. It's easy. Sins is not that easy to mod. It's that modders took the time to take it apart.[/quote] You respond to a comment on how modding capabilities were discussed, or in the case of Ashes, not discussed, by saying a veteran Sins modder that pioneered ability design has a faulty memory about how easy it is