While the West is certainly struggling I fail to see how China is the preferable alternative from a political perspective. Care to enlighten me as to why it is better for its citizens which must be the goal and purpose of government no?
Dead accurate meme.
My protip if you really can’t bother with all that and just want to do expensive Legos is to go to an active forum for PCs where you can simply ask for a recommendation for a build.
What you need to supply is a budget example and what it needs to cover. I.e. if screen needs to be part of it or if you have one. If you do the resolution and refresh rate is good input (or just make and model which is printed on it). Finally you need an idea of what games you’ll play. With that a mini war will erupt between AMD and Intel and AMD and Nvidia around what would be the best build for the budget.
Keep in mind to pick a forum based in the same country as you, else the recommendations might not at all fit your budget due to local price variance.
Hell you could probably make do without a budget if you say you’re unsure how much is reasonable to spend to play the games you wish to play and you’ll get recommendations to that effect as well.
I’d say the problem isn’t so much optimization as it is scaling. The FPS delta between low and ultra is just stupid small in many games nowadays. Before dropping to low would make the game look like shit sure but it would also run on 5+ year old hardware. Now you get like 10 FPS+ and still slog around under 60 fps on 2-3 year old 6-series cards (X060/X600). Sure some games are CPU bound as well but that’s less common.
Really what needs to happen is devs need to add a potato mode so we can at least play the game.
I’ll however say that the source of the problem is of course consoles. On them settings are rather meaningless so it’s only for the PC market you need them and given how many gaming PCs outperform consoles and PC gamers generally expect the PC version to look better it’s no wonder that’s where they put their focus and effort. But a proper low setting that actually scales shouldn’t be too hard to achieve.
And no helm(et) or lifejacket in sight… Looks like a spectacularly dumb way to die given all the jagged rocks.
Highest among prosperous nations sure, but if we look to the whole world Korea does not have close to the highest rates of suicide.
Policy makers: “Why won’t they have babies?!? We need more babies the whole system will collapse! We must urgently do something! But what? What ever should we do??? We’ve tried EVERYTHING! We even give them straight cash if they have a kid! This is the greatest mystery of our time!”
The population in nearly perfect unanimous voice: “Work life balance is shit and we can’t afford to have kids, neither time wise nor monetarily”
Policy makers: “Such an enigma, truly so mysterious, woe is us, evil evil selfish young people that don’t have kids!”
…
Really cool stuff but I struggle to see what it truly enables to be able to deliver 100 metric tons to low earth orbit “cheaply”? A new cooler space station?
To me the real breakthrough would be in making space travel feasible. As it is now the time it takes and the radiation + small debris out there make it seem very distant.
But maybe this could be a step if they could build a space station so large that you could assemble a space ship there and launch from there with all the benefits of fuel savings that would entail? Realistically though there is no money in it until reaching the asteroid belt and mining there comes into reach. That would truly trigger a space age, if something came around that makes that feel within reach.
All but eliminates would be more accurate but still extremely surprising to me. I can’t say I’m a fan of the rising tension in India between Hindus and Muslims stoked on by Modi but they’re obviously delivering great results in combatting inequality and lifting people of out poverty.
The most encouraging numbers in there were for sure the decline in the Gini coefficient, most countries see worsening inequality so it’s very encouraging to see a nation as large as India being able to combat it.
I’ll add to the group saying things got better by 30. In my case having kids has helped me get my shit together and take better care of myself both physically and mentally.
Sure, but at least they should have chosen a better timing and not call out the increase in admissions to doctors programs. Since they did the government has support in revoking licenses, something they never would have if the protest was only against the working conditions. As it is now they’re protesting something that has been put forth as a solution.
Not arguing against that. But the optics of doing this strike now and dragging in the decision to increase admissions to doctors programs are absolutely horrible and is the reason this protest is so unpopular and the governments very stern reaction accepted.
I just don’t get this protest. It’s so obviously not going to be popular amongst the population and what they’re protesting could very well help solve their grievance. If there are more doctors the need to work 100 hour weeks will drop and then their pay matches the effort again. Sure there might be risk of their wages dropping with more doctors saturating the market but that’s not guaranteed and a good way to combat that is to collectively agree to not accept lowered pay and strike if it becomes reality. That strike would also garner much more sympathy than this one.
If you train AI models then you probably rely on CUDA and you’re really left without any meaningful choice. It also wouldn’t matter if AMD jumped 100% on AI even 5 years ago because CUDA has been so intensely adopted by the industry and AMD would need to do something completely novel and extremely impressive to have any chance of making a meaningful dent in just 5 years time.
As such I don’t really blame you, as I said in my above post as well. I blame the gamers, the people that don’t use CUDA and just play video games, the people complaining about how expensive GPUs have become while still fucking buying nVidia cards. The fact that AMD can deliver a product that costs less at the same performance point (without RT) is pretty impressive given their miniscule volumes compared to nVidia.
Yeah interesting thought there actually. In absolute numbers I wager more people believe in mythical beings of some form today in Europe than the 1700s. But as a share of the total population it’s going to be a lot lower, of course.
Since XeSS can run on AMD cards I feel that point is a bit moot. Further the best Intel can offer (in discrete GPUs) is miles and miles behind AMD even. As for Price / Performance the 6600 XT is neck and neck with the ARC 770 at basically the same price, depending on card and the day. Where I’m at the 6600 XT is generally the cheaper one. And that’s not even talking about the 7600 XT which demolishes the ARC 770 at also the same price point…
Nothing, rumor wise even, is indicating Intel will bring anything to the table to challenge 4070 or up.
To sum it up in my opinion it really is only the ARC 380 that I’ve been impressed by. Very cheap card with excellent server performance for stuff like Jellyfin. But for gaming? No AMD is by far the better option from a value perspective.
As for laptops it’s not that AMD doesn’t make the chips, the laptop makers know consumers want the Nvidia part.
Jesus, they really are one of the most egregiously lock-in focused and monopolistic companies around. It saddens me deeply that consumers (gamers) just don’t give a flying fuck about this and continues to pay a premium for Nvidia cards. 90% market dominance in gaming and probably at least that in GPGPU workloads.
All the while AMD tries to sell their cards on supporting / creating open standards like Freesync, FSR and Vulkan but because they don’t have CUDA (since it’s proprietary) they virtually can’t be bought by prosumers that want to do some GPGPU stuff as a hobby and gamers buy Nvidia for brand recognition, Ray tracing which they are stronger in (but I argue isn’t really all that outside a few notable exceptions like Alan Wake 2) and DLSS being ahead of FSR. But look at non-RT $/FPS and AMD wins easy at all price points and they don’t shaft the people who bought their cards by not giving them the new version of DLSS like Nvidia do. It’s just sad.
Vote with your wallet they scream, while everyone votes for the alternative that openly wants to squeeze every penny out of them because they are slightly better…
Valid, a poor assumption on my part.
Edited because I wrongly assumed the reply was from the person I responded to. Changed subject/pronouns below in response.
What.
They replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions. Not only my opinions but everyone calling themselves moderate or centrist, we’re talking millions of people you just said hold an inherently compromised position. That’s some seriously dumb shit. That doesn’t make them dumb, just that opinion and I clearly stated that paragraph was what I called out. I then addressed their other concerns and statements.
It’s them who are shutting down any debate here. Not me. And yeah “enlightened centrist” is for sure a problem, people that think their position is inherently better because it doesn’t adhere to an extreme. But I do not subscribe at all to that line of thinking and hold extreme opinions that I stand by.
And “civil” discussions are impossible over text, It’s literally impossible to read and respond correctly to feelings in text and human beings aren’t, by and large, capable of disconnecting their emotions from discussions, even less when it’s political. And I argue we really shouldn’t either. If we can’t respond to strong emotions then we’re not fit for debate either. Just look at literally any political debate anywhere in a democratic nation, it tends to get pretty heated. I argue more heated than necessary/reasonable right now but that circles back to my point about politics being too tied to morals and identity. But still, emotion is an inevitable and reasonable part of political debate.
That said my intention was never to hurt their feelings, my intent was to strongly reject what they stated, and “I strongly disagree” does not capture even close to how strongly I feel about that statement.
As such I’m sorry and I understand if they have no wish to engage in any debate. I really don’t even see anything to really debate here either. Unless they want to defend their first paragraph I guess.
That was the literal dumbest shit I’ve ever read in regards to your first paragraph. I don’t think any moderate or centrist describes their political leanings as “smack dab in the middle between X and Y”. I for one certainly don’t. But I’m centrist in that I hold viewpoints along the spectrum to both sides some for sure in the extreme ends on some matters, like for instance criminal justice.
Second paragraph you believe that I’m talking in general terms. I’m not dismissing Communism (and whatever we’d define as the opposite extreme) as extreme, I’m saying inside the spectrum of people considering themselves communists there are extreme opinions such as the USSR was a utopia. Or that Mao Zedong was a great leader. Non extreme takes there would be “The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we’ve seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality”. For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.
As for climate scientists the extreme take / opinion I often see is that the world is overpopulated and we need a drastic reduction, which is hardly what climate scientists propose but people read in all the time. That and eco terrorism.
Further we don’t have a perfect theory of civilization in terms of how to optimally structure society to maximize life quality for everyone. And even if we did there is no guarantee we could get literally everybody onboard. This is where politics come in and surprise surprise but there is no perfect solution to be had. Only the one we can agree on collectively or the one we can force through by virtue of the power we hold. And any agreement in a group larger than one is going to be a compromise and we need to be much better at trying to reach those. And not entrench ourselves in positions from which we cannot move without conflict of identity or morals. I.e. we can’t tie our political positions so tightly with neither identity nor morals such that we cannot reach a compromise to move further towards our desired state, if not directly towards it but diagonally.
So with that data point you’re saying China is the country to be born in 2024? Because while I’m not at all discrediting their incredible pace in improving the life of their citizens from an economic perspective.
But I’m personally far more concerned about questions about freedom of expression and of opportunities and as such would prefer to be born in any Nordic country as an example, or Switzerland as another. Sure you could argue the Nordic model doesn’t scale because a population of 10 mil is not the same as more than 1 billion. But that wasn’t really a part of the question here. To me economic growth is just one dimension, an important one but not the only one to judge a country against. So once again, from a political perspective, which is what we’re talking about here when we’re saying that the West is failing, how is China better? I mainly see the mainstream outlets and they show a bleak state of affairs from that perspective, can you counter that?