• EU accused of crippling future graphics cards
    168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The fox;38014762]From destroying fish to keep the prices up[/quote] In Swedish so I have absolutely no way of checking its accuracy, wording, or bias. [QUOTE=The fox;38014674]to violating the freedom of speech and privacy on the Internet;[/quote] Another instance in which the US is no freer than the EU as you claim it is. That article is on a supposedly leaked and un-executed plan to monitor internet communications. In essence, something not even confirmed to be true, and yet even if it is, not being done. Need I remind you of our ordeal with SOPA and ACTA? [QUOTE=The fox;38014674]To the heads of state saying that a European Union will threaten the democracy of the whole of Europe.[/quote] One. Literally [I]one[/I] head of state making uncited claims about other European nations trying to emulate the Nazis and destroy European democracies. [QUOTE=The fox;38014674]But I guess you can just convientionaly avoid that alltogether.[/quote] The word you're looking for is 'conveniently', and no I'm not ignoring it, the ridiculousness of your claims did not warrant rebuttal and in fact some of them I could not rebut because I am not Swedish.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;38014809]no, but this graphic card regulation is an obvious starting point to more power usage caps concerning other components of computers. The regulation also applies to integrated graphics cards, which are becoming more and more powerful with the boost in the laptop market. Fox, please stop with this EU conspiracy. Unatco will find you.[/QUOTE] Again. They are already fucking doing this because they see the market, regardless of regulations. Look at the second demo. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wthvk50F5g[/media] Under 8 watts. 8 fucking watts. The fuck else do you want? You are going to gain more 'green' by making screens more efficient so the backlights consume less power, because as it is right now with [I]working[/I] prototypes, the processors can already maintain considerable performance for less total power than the LEDs keeping your screen readable, and less power than keeping your hard drive writing data.
[QUOTE=Megafan;38014840]In Swedish so I have absolutely no way of checking its accuracy, wording, or bias.[/quote] Then let us run it through Google Translate; And this is the result; You can do this, yourself, of course, I have not edited anything beyond highlightened certain parts; [quote]EU decision opens the way for dangerous animal diseases [b]EU Commission demands that Sweden stop testing cattle for paratuberculosis. Now we fear that diseases that have long been extinct in Sweden to come back and endanger both human and animal health, writes Helena Jonsson, LRF. Sweden a unique infectious state. Swedish cattle, for example, tuberculosis, brucellosis and paratuberculosis, writes LRF's Federal Chairman, Helena Jonsson.[/b] Sweden a unique infectious state. Swedish cattle, for example, tuberculosis, brucellosis and paratuberculosis, writes LRF's Federal Chairman, Helena Jonsson. Photo: Leif R Jansson / Scanpix October 4, 2012 at 01:26, Updated: October 4, 2012 at 19:03 FOCUS | ANIMAL HEALTH Helena Jonsson We encourage the government with Eskil Erlandsson made by the Minister to proceed to the next instance. Helena Jonsson Sweden has a very good position in terms of disease control in animals. We have a low density and a long experience in the prevention and control of diseases. In comparison with other European countries, Sweden has a unique infectious state. Swedish cattle, for example, tuberculosis, brucellosis and paratuberculosis. This has been possible thanks to the Swedish farmers with relevant authorities worked hard and contributed great financial efforts to eradicate several serious diseases. The result is healthier animals and better animal welfare. Thanks to the good infection control mode applied for Sweden on so-called additional guarantees for EU entry. Additional guarantees for certain diseases directly granted while others are still not finalized. Because of this, Sweden may require sampling at the entry of animals, reducing the risk of infection. [b]Now the EU Commission that Sweden stop testing cattle for paratuberculosis. In a 'reasoned opinion, the Commission considers that it is contrary to the EU's free movement and constitutes a barrier to cross-border trade in live animals. A reasoned opinion is a warning and the last step before a lawsuit in the European Court of Justice. Now we fear that diseases that have long been extinct in Sweden to come back.[/b] As recently as last week criticized the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli, the Commission is very concerned by the rise in antibiotic resistance. He stressed the importance of strengthening the preventive work to reduce the emergence and spread of resistance. It is of course a welcome signal for us that he takes the issue very seriously - but the EU then with the other hand requires that Sweden ends test for paratuberculosis is verging on hypocrisy. One of the most important aspects to keep antibiotic consumption is the fact that the animals are healthy and that it is possible to protect a region against new animal diseases. Sweden has a significant low antibiotic use in livestock farming of animals, which depend on the state of health of our animals is unusually good. This is an important characteristic for us and we are very keen that it should remain so. A report from the European Medicines Agency shows that sales of veterinary antibiotics in Holland is about nine times higher than in Sweden. And in neighboring Denmark is about three times as high. Sweden ranks lowest among the EU countries included in the study. It is noteworthy that the Commission notifies Sweden to the European Court of Justice. The decision to ban the tests against paratuberculosis odds with the EU's objective of preventing infections and reducing antibiotic use. If we do not act now, we risk an increased morbidity in our animals, resulting in a higher antibiotic consumption and an increase in antibiotic resistance in the community. Therefore, we must join forces to defend the ability of a region to maintain good animal health and thus a low antibiotic consumption. We encourage the government with Eskil Erlandsson made by the Minister to proceed to the next instance. In Sweden we simply can not accept when diseases that we long ago been eradicated once again taking hold in our country. It would turn back the development and endanger both human and animal health. HELENA SMITH Federal Chairman LRF[/quote] [quote]Another instance in which the US is no freer than the EU as you claim it is. That article is on a supposedly leaked and un-executed plan to monitor internet communications. In essence, something not even confirmed to be true, and yet even if it is, not being done. Need I remind you of our ordeal with SOPA and ACTA?[/quote] SOPA and ACTA are already realities within the EU; Without the EU Supreme Court doing anything about it. [quote]One. Literally [I]one[/I] head of state making uncited claims about other European nations trying to emulate the Nazis and destroy European democracies.[/quote] The man speaks the truth; And being head of a whole country, I believe he holds a bit more truth and value to his words than a random person on the internet does.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38014853]Again. They are already fucking doing this. Look at the second demo. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wthvk50F5g[/media] Under 8 watts. 8 fucking watts. The fuck else do you want? You are going to gain more 'green' by making screens more efficient so the backlights consume less power, because as it is right now with [i]working[/i] prototypes, the processors can already maintain considerable performance for less total power than the LEDs keeping your screen readable, and less power than keeping your hard drive writing data.[/QUOTE] Yes intel is already doing this, and kudos to intel for that, but what they are trying to do is push other companies to do this.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;38014864]Yes intel is already doing this, and kudos to intel for that, but what they are trying to do is push other companies to do this.[/QUOTE] Do you have any understanding of how capitalism works? If the other companies (well company since it's only AMD) don't do this, they default on their chances to have ANY foothold in the entire mobile market, which is beginning to absolutely DOMINATE the personal computing scene. Intel is doing this because they recognize the insane potential for raking in the dosh in this developing market. If AMD doesn't contend with them, they can kiss their entire existence as a company goodbye.
[QUOTE=The fox;38014862]Then let us run it through Google Translate; And this is the result;[/quote] Alright then, fair issue and that should be done away with. Still not evidence for any move that the EU should be abolished or that it is even overall a bad thing.[/quote] [QUOTE=The fox;38014862]SOPA and ACTA are already realities within the EU; Without the EU Supreme Court doing anything about it.[/quote] Well SOPA literally cannot have been, since that was a US bill, not EU or UN or anything like that. As for ACTA, the US and Canada are signatories, as is the EU and nearly all of its member states (Germany, Slovakia, Cyprus, and Estonia were covered under the EU signature, and thus did not sign). [QUOTE=The fox;38014862]The man speaks the truth; And being head of a whole country, I believe he holds a bit more truth and value to his words than a random person on the internet does.[/QUOTE] Nice how you conveniently ignored your inflation of the figure in the name of your own bias. "Oh what's that? I said head[I]s[/I] of state? Oh right it was only one, but anyway you know he's speaking the truth and fighting the good fight!" [editline]12th October 2012[/editline] And more hilariously still, the European Parliament (remember, elected by the European people) rejected ACTA after the fact (signed in 2010 and 2011, rejected July 4th, 2012). [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTA[/url] "On 4 July 2012, the European Parliament rejected the agreement in plenary session, with 478 voting against the treaty, 39 in favour and 165 MEPs abstaining.[10]"
Just keep backpedaling fox Also, I don't think you understand a god damned thing about Sopa, Acta, or anything the european union has thought about signing in relation to internet freedoms.
So what The graphics of a game like BF3 are pretty fucking awesome, how much better do we need to go? Global warming is a real and terrible thing, and that thing shouldn't be ignored because nerds want super 1337 HD 1080p graphics across 3 monitors. How many games today actually max out current gen graphics cards? And how many of those games have a noticeable difference between ultra and high and medium when you are actually playing the game?
[QUOTE=Megafan;38014952]Alright then, fair issue and that should be done away with. Still not evidence for any move that the EU should be abolished or that it is even overall a bad thing.[/quote] Still is a dent in the putrid cesspool that is the EU. [quote]Well SOPA literally cannot have been, since that was a US bill, not EU or UN or anything like that. As for ACTA, the US and Canada are signatories, as is the EU and nearly all of its member states (Germany, Slovakia, Cyprus, and Estonia were covered under the EU signature, and thus did not sign).[/quote] [url]http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/directive/index_en.htm[/url] [quote]Nice how you conveniently ignored your inflation of the figure in the name of your own bias. "Oh what's that? I said head[I]s[/I] of state? Oh right it was only one, but anyway you know he's speaking the truth and fighting the good fight!"[/quote] I am not sure where you get heads of state from; In the original post I linked, I said "EU Supremancy threatens European democracy", so, unless you can find exactly where I posted this, I would suggest refraining from lies. [quote][editline]12th October 2012[/editline] And more hilariously still, the European Parliament (remember, elected by the European people) rejected ACTA after the fact (signed in 2010 and 2011, rejected July 4th, 2012). [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTA[/url] "On 4 July 2012, the European Parliament rejected the agreement in plenary session, with 478 voting against the treaty, 39 in favour and 165 MEPs abstaining.[10]"[/QUOTE] This while passing, and allowing, several other laws in other countries restricting freedom of Speech in at least two countries, [b]Germany, Sweden[/b], and allowing Internet wiretapping without court orders for any level of security, in at least one country, [b]Sweden.[/b] While stating themselves that this should become standard to combat terrorism throughout the European Union; Thusly forcefully forcing all countries within the EU to monitor all user acitivty, and even more so, as I linked earlier.
[QUOTE=The fox;38014762] To the heads of state saying that a European Union will threaten the democracy of the whole of Europe.[/QUOTE] [editline]12th October 2012[/editline] Good job with your memory there.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38015060][editline]12th October 2012[/editline] Good job with your memory there.[/QUOTE] One would hope a mere mistyping of "Head of states" would be bypassed; Apparently not. What I meant was Head of State; But if the one arguing for it wishes to grasp for grasp straws and incline my misspellings due to my mother tongue not being English; Along with the fact that it is quite late, in order to, in some pecculiar way, discredit all that I say, then feel free to.
What you're saying can all be discredited with simply how many times you contradict yourself and misrepresent information.
[QUOTE=McGii;38015034]So what The graphics of a game like BF3 are pretty fucking awesome, how much better do we need to go? Global warming is a real and terrible thing, and that thing shouldn't be ignored because nerds want super 1337 HD 1080p graphics across 3 monitors. How many games today actually max out current gen graphics cards? And how many of those games have a noticeable difference between ultra and high and medium when you are actually playing the game?[/QUOTE] The argument, or at least my argument, is pretty straight forward. New technology is by definition inefficient. Later iterations of technology become more efficient. Not just because they can, but because there is [B]enormous[/B] financial incentive to push for that. Axing the inefficient 'early revisions' of hardware is solving a problem that doesn't actually exist, and it can very easily be argued that it may hinder long term progression towards more efficient solutions because it interferes with progress on the high end equipment. It's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock"]literally the cornerstone of Intels development cycle.[/URL] They release a new architecture. Then they make it smaller and more efficient. Then they change the architecture to improve performance. Then they shrink it to make it more efficient. Repeat.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38015132]What you're saying can all be discredited with simply how many times you contradict yourself and misrepresent information.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, because I say "heads of state" instead of "head of state" in one sentence, discredits all of the sources I have provided; and even more so, the further resources I can provide. I like your reasoning there, it makes true sense; Only on FP and when it comes to the EU, though.
[QUOTE=The fox;38015048]Still is a dent in the putrid cesspool that is the EU.[/QUOTE] Argument running off the assumption that the EU is by default bad. Nice. Stellar. [QUOTE=The fox;38015048][URL]http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/directive/index_en.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] All documents prior to the parliament's vote against ACTA in 2012, many or all of which I doubt you've read. [QUOTE=The fox;38015048]I am not sure where you get heads of state from; In the original post I linked, I said "EU Supremancy threatens European democracy", so, unless you can find exactly where I posted this, I would suggest refraining from lies.[/QUOTE] Not quite. Here, I'll even take a screenshot of it so you don't forget: [t]http://puu.sh/1egBj[/t] [B]"to the heads of state..."[/B] is even stated in general as if to suggest there was more than one, even if you had only written 'head'. [QUOTE=The fox;38015048]This while passing, and allowing, several other laws in other countries restricting freedom of Speech in at least two countries, [B]Germany, Sweden[/B], and allowing Internet wiretapping without court orders for any level of security, in at least one country, [B]Sweden.[/B][/QUOTE] Citation needed. [QUOTE=The fox;38015048]While stating themselves that this should become standard to combat terrorism throughout the European Union; Thusly forcefully forcing all countries within the EU to monitor all user acitivty, and even more so, as I linked earlier.[/QUOTE] Again, citation needed. You can't just claim that the EU is forcing all countries to monitor all user activity. For one, that would be a task without reasonable measure, the staff required for such an undertaking is preposterous in and of itself, and if it were the case, why vote against ACTA at all? [editline]12th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The fox;38015146]Ah yes, because I say "heads of state" instead of "head of state" in one sentence, discredits all of the sources I have provided; and even more so, the further resources I can provide. I like your reasoning there, it makes true sense; Only on FP and when it comes to the EU, though.[/QUOTE] Words have meanings. Your source was flimsy enough in that it quotes the Czech president making uncited claims about a hypothetical future EU state, but to then move from that source to then state more generally that "heads of state are foreseeing the end of European freedom and democracy" is ridiculous. Lovely how you just hand-wave it.
[quote]Not quite. Here, I'll even take a screenshot of it so you don't forget: [t]http://puu.sh/1egBj[/t] [B]"to the heads of state..."[/B] is even stated in general as if to suggest there was more than one, even if you had only written 'head'.[/quote] Even if I treated this in the post above this; I am sure one can find examples amongst those nations suffering under the jackboot of the EU; i.e. Greece. [quote]Citation needed.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#European_Union[/url] [quote]a maximum term of three years in jail is optionally available to all member nations for "denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C2%A7_86a[/url] [quote]Again, citation needed. You can't just claim that the EU is forcing all countries to monitor all user activity. For one, that would be a task without reasonable measure, the staff required for such an undertaking is preposterous in and of itself, and if it were the case, why vote against ACTA at all?[/QUOTE] I covered this a page or two back, I will retrieve the link, once again.. infact, I can retrieve all of them; The one you want concerns "EU Threatens sovereignity of the Internet, freedom of speech, anonomity" [quote]"EU Bans testing cows and other animals for deadly diseases" - [url]http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/eu-beslut-oppnar-for-farliga-djursjukdomar_7552342.svd#article-comments[/url] "The EU is demanding that Sweden stops testing animals for deadly diseases, as they believe this infractions upon the free movement of goods within the Eurozone." "EU Destroys 17,000 tonnes of fish and other maritime food" - [url]http://www.svt.se/nyheter/varlden/eu-forstorde-17-000-ton-fisk-och-skaldjur[/url] "17,000 tonnes of maritime food was bought up by the fishing department of the EU during 2009, only to be disposed of as waste" "EU Superstate threatens European democracy" - [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9559937/Vclav-Klaus-warns-that-the-destruction-of-Europes-democracy-may-be-in-its-final-phase.html[/url] "EU Threatens the sovereignity of the Internet, freedom of speech, anonomity" [url]http://www.edri.org/cleanIT[/url], [url]http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.ch/2012/09/cleanit-annu-ett-hot-mot-natets-frihet.html?showComment=1348386367945#c3197051722305932116[/url] "EU considering imposing further fees on Cloud based services" - [url]http://computersweden.idg.se/2.2683/1.468522[/url] "The EU commission is opening up for further fees to be added upon cloud based service; As the already imposed fees on empty CDs, hard drives etc" "Proposed law to outlaw holocaust denial" - [url]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=537581[/url][/quote] Though, I am heading off, so I wont be responding for a few hours.
Yeah, I'm definitely not refuting claims I've already gone over again. Certainly not with such obvious bias signals like that "under the jackboot of the EU" bit.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;38011436]Mid range is best range, high end cards are really not worth the money unless someone wants to brag about it, or is making a server farm to mine buttcoins or whatever because i doubt the average user really wants to spend an extra 10 bucks on the electricity bill just to get 5 more fps or 1000 more marks on Vantage Personally, i wouldn't mind paying the extra, but it's just a silly luxury, but i'd rather have a high performance graphics card that consumes little and performs more.. better. For instance I upgraded to an HD7850 from a HD4850, the performance per watt is phenomenal, for instance, if i get 100 fps in call of duty with the HD4850 at lets say 90% GPU usage, i'm getting about 40% of usage with the 7850 at the same framerate. What this means is that i'm actually saving money despite both cards having similar TDP, without the limit i get about just under 300 fps, give it or take, this will bump the card to 80% give it or take So i lock the framerate because running a game at 100 fps or 300 is the same when it comes to fluidity , technically to prevent tearing you gotta have similar vertical refresh rate to the fps (Basically i have a CRT monitor working at 85Hz, if i get less than 85 fps i get tearing and everything does not look as smooth) But this is going way off topic, what i mean is that this upgrade is a really smart investment both for gaming because i don't get random stutter anymore and because i save money from the electricity bill. tip: if you have a good rig and get over 1 million fps, limit it to something smaller but still comfortable and you'll get a lot of energy savings.[/QUOTE] you get better input response the higher the fps, regardless of your monitor for example, the unreal engine 3 even shows your input lag when you use the stat_fps command to measure your framerate
[QUOTE=Megafan;38015283]Yeah, I'm definitely not refuting claims I've already gone over again. Certainly not with such obvious bias signals like that "under the jackboot of the EU" bit.[/QUOTE] He wont be responding for a few hours cause he is heading off, yet still finds the time to rate you dumb after saying that. Classy. :v:
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38015141]The argument, or at least my argument, is pretty straight forward. New technology is by definition inefficient. Later iterations of technology become more efficient. Not just because they can, but because there is [B]enormous[/B] financial incentive to push for that. Axing the inefficient 'early revisions' of hardware is solving a problem that doesn't actually exist, and it can very easily be argued that it may hinder long term progression towards more efficient solutions because it interferes with progress on the high end equipment. It's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock"]literally the cornerstone of Intels development cycle.[/URL] They release a new architecture. Then they make it smaller and more efficient. Then they change the architecture to improve performance. Then they shrink it to make it more efficient. Repeat.[/QUOTE] Doesn't reply to most of my post but AMD don't do this, they just keep making them more unnecessarily powerful each generation
[QUOTE=McGii;38016007]Doesn't reply to most of my post but AMD don't do this, they just keep making them more unnecessarily powerful each generation[/QUOTE] No they don't. Check the benchmarks. Bulldozers barely outperform phenom IIs on a core per core basis at equivalent clocks. They just have MOAR COREZ. It's been an absolute failure. AMD 4 years ago was trailing behind intel by 3-6 months, offering similar performance at a lower price, and frequently at a much lower power threshold. Now it's just hemorrhaging money. There's a reason why AMD has been nearly universally mocked for the past 2-3 years and has lost any foothold in the market that isn't 400 dollar prebuilts with 3 year old phenom IIs. Their bulldozer equipment is a black hole for electricity, and offers shitastic performance. Even intel's i3 line massively murders anything AMD brings to the table other than APUs. APUs have extremely niche uses due to poor upgrade paths (for now), mediocre performance marks at best, and minimal, if any, actual savings, even inside their niche. Regardless. This legislation is mostly aimed at GPUs. In that area, both AMD, and Nvidia have been successively ramping up performance at ludicrous rates, and making disgustingly huge progress in power efficiency. It actually does answer your global warming concerns if you extrapolate out a ways. There's still no need to put a cap on GPU power consumption. Nobody besides enthusiasts actually buys a 680 or a 7970, and part of buying that hardware is the knowledge that it's going to rack up your electrical bill. 2 years later, similar performance is offered at half the price, and half the power consumption. And guess what. That's STILL more computational power than anyone but enthusiasts care about. Yet, the market here is big enough to drive fuck tons of research into ever smaller form factors and efficiency because thats the only way to get more power. Once you get that efficiency, you release a product with 5% of the processing ability of your enthusiast hardware based off the same tech, so it consumes only a couple of watts, and presto. The average consumer gets the benefits of tiny tech with most of the research costs already covered. Seriously. What do you actually gain by restricting something like this? All I see is a very serious possibility of actually hurting overall progress on hardware development, potentially to the point where it hinders the efficient in the average consumer grade equipment. As I said before, they make up such a huge percentage, that their savings outweight the enthusiasts waste.
[QUOTE=McGii;38015034]So what The graphics of a game like BF3 are pretty fucking awesome, how much better do we need to go? Global warming is a real and terrible thing, and that thing shouldn't be ignored because nerds want super 1337 HD 1080p graphics across 3 monitors. How many games today actually max out current gen graphics cards? And how many of those games have a noticeable difference between ultra and high and medium when you are actually playing the game?[/QUOTE] Empty quoting because this is how I'd end up replying to that just in different words
What part about this am I not making clear? Enthusiasts want more powerful graphics. The chip makers respond by producing more powerful equipment. Because of the thermal limitations of materials they by extension MUST be more efficient in terms of performance per watt. Once that technology gets refined, they produce a product that only offers 5-10% of what enthusiasts use, often times even less, and the consumers get the power savings of the new tech. The average consumers outweigh the enthusiasts so much that their net savings covers the enthusiasts waste. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Preventing the enthusiasts from getting their toys that cause rolling blackouts in California quite literally eats into the research money to drive consumer product's power consumption even lower. In other words, trying to go green actually has a serious possibility of making your overall tech LESS green. EDIT: Please PM me if you want something more specific. I'm doing nothing but repeating myself, and that's just shitting up the thread (not that that hasn't already been accomplished)
[QUOTE=Megafan;38015283]Yeah, I'm definitely not refuting claims I've already gone over again. Certainly not with such obvious bias signals like that "under the jackboot of the EU" bit.[/QUOTE] He is obviously either trying to get a title or really just some weird person that was probably denied citizen status in the EU and is now angry at them. The fact alone that all his arguments were extreme examples like banana curving, shows there's no real way of arguing with him. Not to mention that the foreign sources he provides are complete bullshit, the german one for example is a law against neo-nazis and not a freedom of speech stopping device. It can only be used on people specifically referring to WWII anyway.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;38017165]He is obviously either trying to get a title or really just some weird person that was probably denied citizen status in the EU and is now angry at them. The fact alone that all his arguments were extreme examples like banana curving, shows there's no real way of arguing with him. Not to mention that the foreign sources he provides are complete bullshit, the german one for example is a law against neo-nazis and not a freedom of speech stopping device. It can only be used on people specifically referring to WWII anyway.[/QUOTE] AFAIK right winger mentality is blossoming in Sweden due to the recession. They like to blame immigrants and [I]"big brother"[/I] (the EU to them) for it. While they're completely ignoring the banking and investing industry that actually caused it. [B]EDIT:[/B] Forgot to mention, [B]PROPER[/B] regulation of the banking and investing industry could've prevented the global recession, but [I]nooooo[/I], EU is [I]BAAAAAAD M'kaaayyy[/I]
The funniest thing are Greece people that think it's outrageous that they should ever have to pay taxes.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;38017452]The funniest thing are Greece people that think it's outrageous that they should ever have to pay taxes.[/QUOTE] I've been there. At some point in the 2000's, not paying taxes became a badge of honour in Greece. Fun fact: if a Greek building is showing signs of still being under construction, it is not taxed. That's why every single building in Greece looks like they're still building something extra on top of the roof or it has a few beams sticking out from the roof. Same thing with empty swimming pools perpetually being under construction. And now they're mad at the EU. So yeah.
They are protesting in Nazi Uniforms and everything, then you learn that most of their workers are tax-free'd for no reason. It's like constant facepalming and questioning humanity.
I think it's a good thing. Yes it means that AMD and NVIDIA will have to work harder and put more money into more efficient products but it'll be better for the planet. Frankly I don't mind running a game at 75 fps instead of 80 if it means that my machine isn't damaging the planet as much
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38016348]What part about this am I not making clear? Enthusiasts want more powerful graphics. The chip makers respond by producing more powerful equipment. Because of the thermal limitations of materials they by extension MUST be more efficient in terms of performance per watt. Once that technology gets refined, they produce a product that only offers 5-10% of what enthusiasts use, often times even less, and the consumers get the power savings of the new tech. The average consumers outweigh the enthusiasts so much that their net savings covers the enthusiasts waste. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Preventing the enthusiasts from getting their toys that cause rolling blackouts in California quite literally eats into the research money to drive consumer product's power consumption even lower. In other words, trying to go green actually has a serious possibility of making your overall tech LESS green. EDIT: Please PM me if you want something more specific. I'm doing nothing but repeating myself, and that's just shitting up the thread (not that that hasn't already been accomplished)[/QUOTE] how bout the part where no game really maxes out the current gen cards, and even the most hardcore ones don't look and different if you run them on lower settings when you are actually playing. [editline]13th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;38017523]I think it's a good thing. Yes it means that AMD and NVIDIA will have to work harder and put more money into more efficient products but it'll be better for the planet. Frankly I don't mind running a game at 75 fps instead of 80 if it means that my machine isn't damaging the planet as much[/QUOTE] above 60 you can't even see the difference on a 60hz monitor
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.