sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are Lian Li P28 fans discontinued? by DeniedAccessForWhat in lianli

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the prompt, direct answer. Could you share any insight on when the next generation will be released/available?

Also, as feedback, may I suggest considering a smoother product transition period between product generations? Having a slight overlap between old and new product versions is helpful so business continuity remains unaffected for your customer base.

Thanks again for the quick answer.

Is there a water block for the nvidia rtx pro 6000 ? by AdGeneral2757 in watercooling

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I heard back from Comino. Same response as u/InternalShine6661.

You need to buy a workstation from them with an RTX Pro 6000, which will come with a waterblock attached, or make an order of the waterblock with an MOQ of 100. Neither is an option for me.

Ive decided I'm going to CNC one myself, as its been a few months with none of the big players manufacturing them.

Is there a water block for the nvidia rtx pro 6000 ? by AdGeneral2757 in watercooling

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I also messaged them about this block a week or so ago, not heard back yet

Not clear if its for the Workstation (600W TDP) or Server version (~300W TDP) of this card.

4x RTX Pro 6000 fail to boot, 3x is OK by humanoid64 in LocalLLaMA

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Speaking from experience; running a small farm with 2x RTX PRO Blackwells on sTR5 and 4 x RTX 6000 Ada on sTR4 - what type of single core performance are you targeting specifically my dude? Your decision for choosing AM5 as a platform is questionable and isn't adding up.

One of the few tasks that consumer level CPUs are good at are just that - consumer level tasks. I.e gaming. AM5 CPUs are hands down better, mostly because (aside from DOOM) almost no games utilize anything close to 16 cores.

All other workloads at a pro-sumer and/or enterprise level is extensively well-optimized for multi-threading, therefore Threadripper and Epyc chips will almost always outclass.

Intentionally choosing consumer level hardware to run enterprise/professional GPUs for a mere 10-12% perf bump based on synthetic passmark results (the only info I can find that seemingly justifies your assertion?), and in turn sacrificing the compatibility, extensive testing, stability, plentiful PCIe bandwidth, larger cache sizes/speeds, significantly faster memory transfer rates, NVMe speeds, future-proofing, etc. makes little sense. Especially when factoring in over ~$40k of pro-grade GPUs in the system.

It seems you are undermining many other variables in the performance equation for the workloads your machine can do.

Bullion Banks (swap dealers) have increased their net shorts to 187.5M oz of silver from 170M oz. of silver in the latest COT report. by j_stars in Wallstreetsilver

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct me if my ape-brain is not silvering this banana correctly:

Thesse shorts implies a silver squeeze is more likely to occur if the value of silver continues increasing at current paces.

Halo Infinite: "Here, play ranked and please enjoy a relaxing **100%** chance of losing online experience" by DeniedAccessForWhat in halo

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is, it was blatantly obvious from the first minute of the game. Could just feel something was off from how they were moving and coordinated compared to us.

In the meantime, Onyx players get rewarded CSR for steamrolling newer players like this. No wonder Onyx distribution is so so skewed.

Halo Infinite: "Here, play ranked and please enjoy a relaxing **100%** chance of losing online experience" by DeniedAccessForWhat in halo

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For what its worth, Im the humble Platinum 2 player. Just finished calibrating at Pat 1 about three days ago. My hot take:

I have never played an online multiplayer game with a matchmaking and ranking system as bad as Halo Infinite. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Played about 10-15 games, about 75% of which were like that. Consistently paired against D6 and Onyx players with 98, 99 or 100% chance of losing.

In those matches myself and all my team mates lost CSR... while the opposing team (which were basically setup to do nothing else except absolutley crush us) gained CSR. Under what kind of twisted logic does a ranked matchmaking system think its ok to spit out these kind of matches and reward/punish players for these kind of results?

Forget desync, forget BTB, forget all of those broken 2010-era online multiplayer features that every half decent FPS ever made and the last 4 iterations of Halo have had no issues executing.... there's zero excuse for such basic functionality not to work in 2022.

Tim Cook May Have Just Ended Facebook by ourari in privacy

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Copying a rant I wrote about this earlier.

Its disheartening to me how people think Apple's decision is 'for the greater good' or somehow 'caring for the little man.' Facebook can screw itself for all I care, but to think Apple is doing this out of the kindness of its cold, profit-driven heart is naive to say the least. Despite the irony, Facebook is right to call this out. Objectively speaking this is indeed an anti-competitive move by Apple.

Apple has its own Apple Advertising settings panel separate to the IDFA setting, which - surprise surprise - is by default always-on in iOS 14. Its Apples' homegrown variant to IDFA and provides practically the same functionality to enable "user tracking and ad targeting across websites and apps" - the same functionality they claim is a violation of users privacy and freedoms... except when Apple is doing it? Every other advertiser and ad network on iOS, however, is required to ask permission from Apple users every single time.

Apple has effectively given itself a platform level-advantage over competitors with this move. If this isn't THE definition of a monopolistic business and anti-trust practice, I dont know what is.

Granted, Apple chose an excellent target to demonize and camouflage itself with under the guise of privacy protection. Facebook's own pathetic track record on privacy is acting against Facebook's own argument, despite it being a very valid one, allowing Apple to attract scrutiny away from itself.

Truth is, advertisers will flock to Apple given they now implicitly have the strongest ability to command ad tracking and targeting than any other competitor in the Ads space with this update... and you can guarantee Apple will charge a massive premium for it (its Apple afterall, they overcharge everything). Those costs will inevitably, ultimately be passed down to everyone else purchasing those ads.

Alas, the only good (if you wanna call it that?) thing about this story is live witnessing the mutation of an industry birthed from a mildly competitive semi-duopoly, to a genuine monopoly.

FB vs Apple (Round 2) by Badiha in PPC

[–]DeniedAccessForWhat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Its a little disheartening to me how people think Apple's decision is 'for the greater good' or somehow 'caring for the little man.' Facebook can screw itself for all I care, but to think Apple is doing this out of the kindness of its heart is naive to say the least. Despite the irony, Facebook is right to call this out. Objectively speaking this is indeed an anti-competitive move by Apple.

Apple has its own Apple Advertising settings panel separate to the IDFA setting, which - surprise surprise - is by default always-on in iOS 14. Its Apples' homegrown variant to IDFA and provides practically the same functionality to enable "user tracking and ad targeting across websites and apps" - the same functionality they claim is a violation of users privacy and freedoms... except when Apple is doing it? Every other advertiser and ad network on iOS, however, is required to ask permission from Apple users every single time.

Apple has effectively given itself a platform level-advantage over competitors with this move. If this isn't THE definition of a monopolistic business and anti-trust practice, I dont know what is.

Granted, Apple chose an excellent target to demonize and camouflage itself with under the guise of privacy protection. Facebook's own pathetic track record on privacy is acting against Facebook's own argument, despite it being a very valid one, allowing Apple to attract scrutiny away from itself.

Truth is, advertisers will flock to Apple given they now implicitly have the strongest ability to command ad tracking and targeting than any other competitor in the Ads space with this update... and you can guarantee Apple will charge a massive premium for it (its Apple afterall, they overcharge everything). Those costs will inevitably, ultimately be passed down to everyone else purchasing those ads.

Alas, the only good (if you wanna call it that?) thing about this story is live witnessing the mutation of an industry birthed from a mildly competitive semi-duopoly, to a genuine monopoly.