Technologically advanced pc setup

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonhartGR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The 8000 series was oem rebranding of the 7000 series. The '9000' series will be out next mont but the naming scheme is different. Eg: the 9870 would be a R9 280

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4
 
The idea with SSD drives is to put your OS and Applications/Games on them. You don't spend that much just for storage of your documents, music, films, etc.

The difference of running your OS and Apps on one is immense!
 
SSD are the best for stability. After my pc took a crap I picked one up and used that to install windows. You don't need anything all that big for the C\ anyway. Then just add your bigger hard drives as a data drive. I use two WD 2tb black drives in a raid one and install everything there. Works great for games.
 
It's simple, just get a Titan  ;D
Snarling Nvidia fanboy right on queue. Cool they fit it in such a small package and I wish cheap AMD cards were half as pretty. Too bad GTX cards are such bad performers in OpenCL. For people with money to burn and not much else to do with their comp than play DX games (and kids with rich mommys). If Nvidia starts making graphics cards that are as realistically priced as AMD then I'll scurry on back over since I have no loyalty whatsoever to any corporation. Loving my new 4770K. Totally smokes my Phenom II x4 Zosma but costs 3 times as much. You usually get what you pay for and with the TITAN you are paying for a lot of power and a lot of bling. I just want the power if they want a thousand dollars for it. Maybe the 7950 is a little further from the power of the TITAN than I'd like, but I can buy 5 of them or 1 TITAN. The 690 is a better choice all around, anyway, if you MUST have a 1000dollar Nvidia card, or 4 of them (even tho 3 may sometimes perform better than 4).     

But the main issue for me is the drivers, not money. I don't like the way Nvidia's drivers are done. I like how Catalyst drivers pretty much work for the entire Radeon series. I wish AMD would straight up copy Nvidia's physical designs for cooling and aesthetics (if they could) or Nvidia started making drivers like AMD. Then I'd switch regardless of price, though I almost never buy the latest and greatest, since my mommy isn't rich and I have to watch my pennies sometimes.
 
Well snarling is hard to do in text. :P It was partly an inside joke/dig to begin with because you and I have gone over this territory before, so I was attempting to be playfully aggressive... I kinda failed looking back and it's just more aggressive. :-(

I think there's always a bit of competitiveness in fanboy-ism. Obviously I wish I could reference 2 TITANs or even a single 680 but it's not realistic for me at the present time. I'm hopeful that the 7950 will be enough for what I'm trying to do and I can build a whole new 60fps at nearly max settings on 1 display type system for someone that will cost less than half of one of those cards.

In time I really want to do a three display racing simulator like this, so there is a lot more to consider than just how ugly or pretty is it and how much was this single component of the whole package. It ain't cheap.
 
Not all Nvidia cards are expensive. You can get a 2 gig 660 for $190 if you have Amazon Prime. If not, then it's $245. Provided you have good specs, a 660 can run even Metro:2033 on max settings DX11 with PhysX.
 
AMD is by far the superior value for budget gaming. Below about $400, an AMD card will almost always outperform a similar-priced NVIDIA card. Nonetheless, I stick to NVIDIA these days because I've had better luck with their drivers in the past, because I've had fewer shader issues with them (ff7's own issues with both cards aside), and because there's still quite a few apps out there that support CUDA but not OpenCL, giving them a significant performance boost only on NVIDIA.

Provided you have good specs, a 660 can run even Metro:2033 on max settings DX11 with PhysX.
Not at 1080p 60fps you can't. I've got a 660 Ti, and it's a great little card, but the fact remains that it's mid-range among the current generation of graphics cards. It's never gonna get top-end performance; even next to a 7950, it costs a bit more, and its gaming performance is a bit worse.
 
Eh, I got 60 fps on Metro with max settings when I had a 660, but that might have been because of my ungodly specs. Every setup is different I guess. Nevertheless you're probably more informed than me on AMD so I'll take your word. Nvidia is the way to go if money is not a factor though.
 
I'm gonna go ahead and call this $190 Powercolor (after rebate if it goes thru) 7950 V5E a big mfkg winner. Very nice boost in a lot of ways of this overpriced and overrated Asus7870Ghz edition I have here. I'm going to buy another one (and I won't have to do the rebate because only 1 per household). Just got it today and the single card is ripping sh*t up and I have it at stock. Running way cool 68 degrees so I'm hopeful it will also be a good overclocker and last long enough to get my money's worth.
 
Last edited:
Well by the end of this decade we should have consumer level processors that use photonic light instead of silicon, and there are still some people trying to make 3d CPU's.  Also intel is working on a new programming language that mimics the way the human brain works.  When/if these all happen we will see another quantum leap in computing.  Intel seems pretty confident with its light based computing so that will probably happen, but the 3d chips are having serious heating issues and there is not a lot of new info about that new language so I can't say how practical it is.  As for the short term I am holding out for intel Skylake which is supposed to be a true SoC powerhouse.  I am kinda hoping intergrated graphics mostly catch up because intel graphics have the best open source support :D and I have given up on proprietary systems almost completely.
 
Reading what I have about neuroscience, we have no idea yet how the human brain works in any proper detail needed for this, so a processor based on it sounds extremely fanciful.  To give you some idea, a worm 1mm wide with 302 neurons and around 7000 connections took 10 years to document the connections alone (and the project to emulate it is prob still another 10-20 years away, even if possible).  Humans have around 85 billion neurons and 10E14–10E15 synapses.  We understand the very basics of the mind, and no more.  We don't even know why red looks like red (assuming my red even looks like your red).
 
Last edited:
Reading what I have about neuroscience, we have no idea yet how the human brain works in any proper detail needed for this, so a processor based on it sounds extremely fanciful.  To give you some idea, a worm 1mm wide with 302 neurons and around 7000 connections took 10 years to document the connections alone (and the project to emulate it is prob still another 10-20 years away, even if possible).  Humans have around 85 billion neurons and 10E14–10E15 synapses.  We understand the very basics of the mind, and no more.  We don't even know why red looks like red (assuming my red even looks like your red).
Watch this:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=V43t_S7VGJA&guid=&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google&gl=GB
 
Oh I am fairly sure that in time there will be a way to alter memories and function (at least to some extent), but the time scale we are talking here is a lot greater than people think.  Neuroscientists would give a much better indication of what is possible and how long it may take.

Since 1900 how far have we even come to beating cancer?  We still can't do it.  We can't beat the common cold and that's the entire history of mankind trying to tackle it.  We are simply very limited for the time being, and any breakthroughs are small, and take a loooong time, bit by bit.
 
Last edited:
Since 1900 how far have we even come to beating cancer?  We still can't do it.  We can't beat the common cold and that's the entire history of mankind trying to tackle it.  We are simply very limited for the time being, and any breakthroughs are small, and take a loooong time, bit by bit.
17-Year-Old Girl Creates Nanoparticle That Kills Cancer

The question is how BIG is the economy with cancer patients? I don't think that the 'Cancer-Lobby' is really interested in true cure of it, as long it would mean that they will lose theirs money hors.
 
That doesn't cure it though...

Like one guest has already mentioned, while it's obviously quite an accomplishment to create a nanoparticle at age 17, it's not worth much in cancer treatment. If she had created something that destroyed cancer cells but NOT ALL cells then it would be priceless.
Danipoo6

We need to stress that these were laboratory experiments, and there is no
evidence yet that salinomycin can treat cancer in humans. Salinomycin is
currently used as an antibiotic for chickens and cows, and it can be
toxic or even fatal to humans, causing serious muscle and heart problems

 It's a good achievement for her, but does nothing about cancer as a disease.  Also, I don't believe in that conspiracy theory, since the health service would make a TON more with a treatment that worked
 
Last edited:
As I said, there is no interest for the company's to find a cure. Money corrupts everything. It paralyses any development.
That is the point I want to make clear.
If you invent a TV with 2000Hz you wouldn't release it with that technology at instance. You will release first a TV with 800Hz, then 1200Hz, then 1400Hz, etc.
You make money with one invention multiple times.  This happens to every technology, because the question is ever 'How much money can we make with it.'
 
I am just going to say a few things.  The FDA (at least in my country) is literally on the paroll of big pharma.  It is illegal to sell a cure for anything if it is not classified as a drug, even if it has been independently tested and proven to work.  It is illegal to share clinical data to any non professional.  This means companies can sell drugs that they know kill people and not have to alert anyone of this fact until they find out years later (by which time they have made billions).  I think you are underestimating how profitable it is for people to buy drugs for the rest of their life vs a few herbs which begin to reverse the condition in a few months or years.  Especially since natural products can't be patented.  The fact is there is a littleral ton of scientific independant study that goes almost completely unacknowlegded by the great body of medicine because it uses natural products which cannot be pantented and are therefore not profittable.  The fact is big pharma is arguable the biggest industry outside energy/oil which is equally corrupt in similar fashion raking in trillions of dollars per year.  I have actually attended a pharmaceutical convention undercover and they literally used terms such as "reap" the working class for "all they are worth".

The only way to dismiss the issue is to be entirely ignorant of it because the facts are overwhelmingly prevalent.  This is something that I deal with on a daily basis as part of my field of study.

There is also the fact that established and respected medical journals are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, which means anything that goes against their agenda will not get published period.  I am aware at this point of over 15 specific trials which proved certain natural products were more effective than the leading drug in a given area such as inflammation or heart disease and were not published specifically because the journal they submitted to was funded by the company who owned the leading drug.  Then there is also the fact that big pharma gives billions to universities and research firms for much the same purpose.

In fact, to date, there is only one genomically capable (state of the art) laboratory in the entire world dedicated to the research of natural products (and that only happened because of an immensely generous benefactor).  The rest don't even bother to study the natural world.  It is all sythesized materials.  If you know how DNA works you might understand how utterly rediculous this is.  Your DNA is like a long computer code with specific instructions for how to handle every chemical it ever cames across over its long evolutionary history, except many chemicals found in drugs do not appear in nature at all and therefore your DNA literally has no instruction what so ever on how to handle them.  Thus the radical side effects which are common place.  Also why it is an established fact that only about 9% of any given drug is actually absorbed into the body so your literally throwing money down the toilet.

The reality is this, these people do not have what you and I would call compassion.  They have methodically trained out of any such emotion over many generations.  They see things in terms of profits, margins and self interest.  Not only is keeping the public sick good for the medical industry in these respects (since you will be buy drugs for the rest of your life and will likely be perscribed more and more as the years go on).  But having a highly medicated and sick public is good also because they become easier to mislead, suggest or otherwise control. 

The facts are the facts.  Conspiracy is just a word that means a group of people coming together to formulate a plan in secret.  If you think this DOESN'T happen in EVERY industry on the planet in a society based entirely on COMPETITION then you sir are deluding yourself heavily.  Not to sound harsh but I am really sick of people dismissing such an immensely important issue.

In any case, this isn't just a localized issue.  There is an entire body of established science which goes unacknowledge by so called professionals in every filed.  Such is the nature of a society based of self interest.  This is simply the norm of our society and the bane of our species.  It is a mathematically sound fact, after all, that cooperation breads much more potential than outright competition and yet us "brilliant" humans fail to recognize such a simple mathematical constant.

But to get back on topic, this is what I was talking about.  It was IBM not Intel my bad.

http://io9.com/new-computer-programming-language-imitates-the-human-br-1080026417
 
Last edited:
On the subject of cancer research--people are working at it from all kinds of angles and applying Occam's Razor should make it an easy conclusion that there isn't any large-scale conspiracy to keep "cancer" from being cured. This is a very broad term anyway. I certainly can appreciate that certain herbs may fight or disrupt or "cure" certain types of cancer but you have to recognize the chaotic nature of these phenomena. One guy or 12 people beating such-and-such "killer cancer" using such-and-such magic-bullet like Ipilimumab or radio ablation doesn't take away from the fact that these things are just as likely to do nothing beneficial at all for someone else or another group of 12 people with the "same" type of cancer. We don't know why. I am confident that there are certain cancers that we know of and some that we don't because they have yet to develop, that we will never, EVER be able to consistently deal with. It's like the drunk driver that runs a light and kills you. You didn't stand a chance. Sometimes shit happens. 

It seems clear to me that for some cancers sugars play an integral role in the development and metastasis. I think it is possible that the high cancer rate in the US and other wealthy countries is partly related to peoples' vastly increased intake of sugars over the course of the 20th century. Nowadays sugar is in almost everything we eat if we eat out. It's in all kinds of things people may not even expect sugar to be in. Hamburger? There's a ton of sugar in the bun and in the hamburger meat, not just the ketchup. People are taking in way way more of certain chemicals than they should be. Besides, maybe you could fight that cancer off better if you didn't have diabetes, too, or fully-functioning kidneys?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top