u/NintendoManiac64

Intel owns x86 even if in the hypothetical amd has more sales.

Don't forget that AMD owns the 64bit extensions part of x86 that's basically required nowadays (both Windows and Linux don't even come in 32bit flavors anymore).

DISCLAIMER: I'm a computer hardware geek, not an investor. I found this thread when searching for the theoretical situation of Nvidia acquiring Intel.

Are you by chance the same person that PM'd me on the Beast's Lair forum?

If not, I do technically still have the original patch, but it's since been integrated into non-beta 1.0+ versions of Ultimate Edition among other fixes and features (this is actually why I intentionally updated the patch to a temporary file host—because I knew it'd be fixed in future versions).

It's more likely that PC is slow due to having a mechanical hard drive and/oor by having less RAM than would be ideal for newer versions of Windows which would subsequently overflow over to the aforementioned mechanical hard drive.

Ivy Bridge isn't that much slower than modern CPUs which have "only" like maybe twice the IPC despite being over a decade by now?

(though the newer CPUs also clock like 50% higher and obviously have at least twice as many cores, but an older PC is also more likely to be a desktop while a newer PC is more likely to be a laptop, thereby mitigating differences in clockspeed and core counts since the likes of an i7-3770 was a base 3+GHz 4core/8thread which is basically what even the top Intel CPUs in laptops were seen with the mobile 11th gen aka "Tiger Lake"; an easy example being what was available with the first generation Framework Laptop where even the top CPU configuration was base 3GHz 4core/8thread. Even AMD's laptop offerings didn't become more than 4core/8thread until the Ryzen 4000 series.)

SOURCE: self; am DIY computer hardware geek that even uses Linux (not Arch btw—I'm much more of a software n00b)

Presumably you made a typo and meant 970 rather than 960?

I say this because the 970 and 580 are very comparable and are both nearly twice as fast as the 960.

The 580 was a mid-range GPU, but the i7-880 was a high-end CPU.

Mid-range GPUs from 2015 and 2016 compete well with high-end GPUs from 2011 or so.

(I can only assume OP made a typo and meant 970 rather than 960 since the 970 and 580 are very comparable and are both nearly twice as fast as the 960)

The original source has the image in what is essentually 8k resolution rather than "just" 2560x1600:

• https://unsplash.com/photos/zNN6ubHmruI

(I only know this because I was using this image as my background a little over a year ago after I stumbled upon it via a Firefox extension that uses unsplash images for the background of new-tab pages)

Here's the original source in basically 8k resolution:

• https://unsplash.com/photos/zNN6ubHmruI

What you describe are "scubbed" releases which were also common with PS1 games and such.

WBFS games tend to not be scrubbed of any game data since the only time that's really of any use were for the couple of dual-layer games when you'd try to fit them onto a single-layer burned disc...but burned discs isn't even something you'd use WBFS for and therefore is a bit of a moot point.

An easy way to put it is that, for most WBFS copies, if you extracted all of the actual decrypted game data files and created SHA checksums of them and compared the same decrypted game data files extracted from an uncompressed ISO copy, there'd be no actual difference in data.

One thing is that I believe raw uncompressed ISOs (as well as RVZ) still retain the encryption while WBFS are unencrypted, but don't quote me on this.

At least on actual real hardware, usually the Xbox version of all multi-platform games was the best (not including PC versions)

However, there are various complications. The PS2 version of Need for Speed; Hot Pursuit 2 is different and generally viewed as the superior game (it has a whole course venue, Australia, not present in the other ports).

I also know that Midway Arcade Treasures 3 (most well known for its ports of the DreamCast versions of Rush 2049 and Hydro Thunder) can have crashing issues and save corruption issues on Xbox which do not exist in the PS2 version (or the GameCube version but, speaking of which...)

That being said, if you have a Wii or Wii U console, then those can play GameCube versions of games which can be graphically better than the PS2 versions but not quite to Xbox levels, but sometimes have some sub-par controls relative to the PS2 and Xbox due to having two fewer buttons (or 4 if you include the "button" of pushing in on the analog sticks, commonly called R3 and L3 in PlayStation lingo). However, amusingly, I can also say that the GameCube version of Midway Arcade Treasures 3 is actually worse than the PS2 version which clearly is the one that got the majority of bug-testing polish; Rush 2049's save profiles are locked to each player number, and has performance issues in specifically "single race" split-screen multiplayer that necessitate using the Wii or even Wii U's higher CPU clocks via Devolution or Nintendont to clean up performance (on a Wii, 2-player "single race" is flawless while 3-player "single race" is at least tolerable).

Also, while I've never played it, the GameCube version of Need for Speed: Underground 2 was the worst-reviewed version which makes me wonder if it, too, got the short end of the stick in terms of polish and bug-testing...?

And at least for reference, emulation-wise, it's generally the same as real-hardware except Xbox emulation is way behind PS2 and GameCube, thereby making GameCube commonly the best choice graphically with the same sort of caveats mentioned relative to PS2 as with real hardware. But at the same time, native PC versions of several of these games also exist which can very much be valid options.

There's a disappointing lack of Metal Wolf Chaos here in the comments... (random short video compilation of someone playing it for those unfamiliar with the game)

Fun fact: Despite the game using the typical realistic-style 3D graphics (realistic for 2004 anyway...), they made a westem-anime-esque trailer for the European release.

May I ask what specifically you did to test RAM, including how long and the like?

I had some previously-good RAM which I confirmed via memtest86+ that, after something like 8 years, started to bring up errors but only after reaching the 3rd or 4th pass of memtest86+.

Also, I have a DDR3 RAM kit that makes it through 11-some passes of memtest86+ with CAS timings of 9-9-9-24-1T on an Asus Z87-Pro yet will crash in OCCT EDIT: with media data set after anywhere between ~1 hour and ~90 hours (though usually around the 20-30 hour mark) unless I set the RAM kit to 9-9-9-24-2T

(I only discovered the latter because it seems the Asus Z87-Pro has some dumb firmware quirks, one of which is any RAM timings set to "auto" seemingly not retraining when you swap the RAM kit for a different one unless you manually change any RAM timing-related setting, meaning it could even crash at 9-9-9-24-2T if you set it to that with a different RAM kit before swapping kits—my MSI Z97 PC Mate specifically throws up a big message during POST about settings whenever you change RAM kits).

I know I'm a bit late, but sometimes the best answers are the most simple ones:

Because Bottles' first commit was only 6.5 years ago—October 2017.

At the time, flatpak was still quite new and didn't have all that much integration into OSes or the like—I particularly remember how the Linux Mint 18.x series didn't list flatpak applications in its Software Manager—something that I don't think was added until Mint 19 in mid-2018 since I know it was there in 19.2. Heck, Mint's built-in update manager (mintUpdate) didn't even support flatpak until 21.1 released at the beginning of 2023, and Mint is very much on the flatpak bandwagon with snap not even included by default (AppImage support is also included by default).

By comparison, Wine itself has been around for at least 2 decades by now EDIT: Holy crap Wine's initial release was in 1993?!

The instructions on that link are misleading as RVZ files cannot in fact be extracted using 7zip or WinRAR—to quote that article:

WinRAR or 7-Zip: to extract the contents of the RVZ file.

Open WinRAR or 7-Zip and extract the contents of the RVZ file.

This is not the correct process and trying to do this will result in a bad time.

On the other hand, Linux Mint 22.0 will ship with JPEG-XL support in Pix out-of-the-box:

• https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=4660

I know I'm insanely late, but I'm wondering if your oppinion differs when simply using something like the following gecko code to map various motion controls to button presses?:

B For Pound Down-B for Blow B+Directional for Roll by Thomas83Lin @ GameHacking

285C9E28 FBFF0400
025C9E2E 0000012C
E0000000 80008000
285CA4B0 FBFF0400
025CA4B6 0000012C
E0000000 80008000

In other words, is it just the lack of motion controls that make the 3DS version such a favorite for you? It's been long enough that Wii emulation can be done on pretty low-end hardware which is another way to avoid motion controls in that you can map various motions to keypresses or the like.

Use the following gecko code then:

B For Pound Down-B for Blow B+Directional for Roll by Thomas83Lin @ GameHacking

285C9E28 FBFF0400
025C9E2E 0000012C
E0000000 80008000
285CA4B0 FBFF0400
025CA4B6 0000012C
E0000000 80008000

Is it just me or have the updates moderately broken things in Firefox-derived browsers? 1-month-later UPDATE: This all seems to have been fixed at some point.

Even in the latest Firefox 124 in a live ISO of Xubuntu 24.04 daily build 2024-03-21 (therefore an extremely stock configuration of easy reproducibility) It never seems to actually apply the settings you've set despite showing them as being set as such, like it's still blurring supposedly-mature images in the search results despite doing a sanity check of having all of the visibility levels enabled and the blur setting disabled.

And when using proton pass' "hide my email" function to make a temporary account to test things with (Thank you for allowing this! It makes bug-testing WAY easier), I can't even delete the account afterwards as it throws up an error when trying to do so.

(I also noticed during the account creation step that it no longer fills out various fields on its own—is this also a bug, or intentional design change?)

Surely you didn't do the thing where you only tested in webkit-derived web browsers, right? (Chrome, Safari, Edge)

Minor update, I just found out that my "silicon lottery loser of an i7-4770K" actually requires more voltage when using integrated graphics which flies in the face of some previous results of mine on completely different CPUs, admittedly using less regimented and fine-tuned methods relative to what I've been doing nowadays (now I'm actually kind of considering revisiting those CPUs with my more updated testing methods).

Anyway, the main thing is that the 7800X3D has integrated graphics so, if you have any interest at all in maintaining your overclock even if just using integrated graphics, then it might be a good idea to try testing such a configuration as well (though it'd require reinstalling graphics drivers which might be more trouble than its worth at this time and might be more of something to just "keep in mind" for the future).

Of course, desktop Ryzen 7000 has the iGPU on a separate die from the CPU cores so who knows how that'd impact the CPU's voltage requirements (for reference, I found that integrated graphics on a motherboard results in a Phenom II needing less voltage compared to when using a discrete GPU—the exact opposite result of my i7-4770K which has graphics on the same die as the CPU cores).

though that while they optimized the vertical transfer, it would still be slightly more horizontally conductive (thermally)

I'm really not sure about that because it's literally vertical sheets that have been bonded together that then were cut into slices (at least according to Der8aur when being interviewed by Stephen Burke).

Like they start with a single sheet like this:

• ｜
• ｜
• ｜
• ｜

Stick multiple of them together like this:

• ｜｜｜｜｜｜｜
• ｜｜｜｜｜｜｜
• ｜｜｜｜｜｜｜
• ｜｜｜｜｜｜｜

And then cut them horizontally into thin slices like this:

• .......

(ignore the bullet points; I'm not a reddit-formatting expert)

"Static" rather than "Variable" is usually more useful for temperature testing rather than actual system stability testing, though your use of "small" perhaps implies that maybe you're actually testing for thermals?

But for actual stability testing, I already laid out how my many many months of testing led me to find Medium + Extreme + Variable to be the best for stability testing, but "Medium" causes less heat so I also strongly recommend adjusting your fans in order to intentionally make the CPU run hot (without actually throttling of course).

And personally I skip doing anything other than all-core tuning because it gets a bit maddening to consider all the bajillion different possible combinations you'd have to possibly account for—a combination of PBO and undervolting would probably work better if retaining turbo is of interest (but don't quote me on this as I don't have any such hardware).

A bit of a heads-up, you've mixed up some of the attributes of Kryosheet with Carbonaut.

• Kryosheet = vertically-alined graphene

• Carbonaut = horizontally-aligned graphite

I would not be surprised if your results with kryosheet would have been within margin of error if you stuck with a die-sized cutout rather making a pseudo-IHS out of the stuff due to its vertical conductivity.

Graphite pads are more comparable to middling thermal pastes with their main claim to fame nowadies being re-usability, especially the Innovation Cooling IC Graphite pad (it's much more durable than the Thermal Grizzly "Carbonaut" graphite pad). Speaking of Carbonaut, I did discover that, on direct-heatpipe coolers, there's like a 10c difference depending on which direction the "grain" of graphite pad goes (not sure if the Innovation Cooling pad behaves like that too).

It's the newer Kryosheet graphene and Honeywell PTM7950 pads that are comparable to or better than the best thermal pastes (EDIT: not including liquid metal...I think? I've never tried liquid metal...) but neither are reusable like graphite pads are. They're generally more useful for if you don't want to use liquid metal or it's a system that you don't ever want to re-paste ever again (the latter being an attribute also shared by liquid metal as well as graphite pads, but graphite pads have generally been superseded by graphene and PTM7950 pads for that specific use-case).

In fact I've been kind of wanting a second Innovation Cooling IC graphite pad for test-bench reasons for when my existing single pad that I bought years ago is occupied by some other temporary system rig-up, but that semi-uncommon use-case for me was never really worth the ~$15 that a new one costs—I don't suppose you've ever used /r/hardwareswap and would have any interest in throwing your "gathering dust" IC graphite pad my way assuming you live in the US? Shipping would probably be pretty cheap by just putting it in a simple envelope.

Back with the old free version of OCCT (like version 4?) I found large to be the best, but with newer ones up in the double-digit version numbers, I found large to actually be the worst for CPU stability by a moderate amount, i.e. it'll "pass" with considerably less voltage than small or medium.

However, I think cache/uncore/ring bus might be a different story for small, medium, and large. At least with this silicon lottery loser of an i7-4770K, small and large dataset require 1.201v @ 41x for the cache/uncore/ring bus with a discrete GPU which is the exact same amount of voltage I determined with medium.

But with plain old core voltage, things were very different on at least my old Pentium G3258 that I was testing earlier this summer on the exact same motherboard before I got that i7-4770K from a friend; on the G3258, large data set passed with 1.231v @ 4.5GHz but small data set required 1.243v and medium data set required 1.244v.

By the way, to clarify what I mean by "silicon lottery loser of an i7-4770K", here's a photo I took a couple of weeks back when trying (and failing) to get help on if I'm just doing something wrong (which is still a possibility); the before setting is stable while the after setting is unstable (both with a discrete GPU); also decreasing core voltage or cache voltage by even 0.001v with the before 41x setting will cause it to fail with medium data set:

• http://archive.today/NFHvn

DISCLAIMER: I found out in March 2024 that this "silicon lottery loser of an i7-4770K" requires more core voltage and more cache/uncore/ring bus voltage when using integrated graphics.

I know that I'm extremely late, but I feel I have the experience to chime in with contrary results after dealing with an absolute silicon lottery loser of an i7-4770K (original owner had zero interest in overclocking, but the 4770 non-K wasn't available from Micro Center on launch day) combined with an Asus Z87-Pro that insists on running the cache (AKA ringbus) at full 39x turbo even with both multicore enhancement and turbo disabled resulting in instability on this bad-binned 4770K, I feel I've done waaaaaaaaaaay more stability testing than any sane person should ever do (literally months of 24/7 testing, not joking).

The thing is, I knew the CPU nor the motherboard were faulty because I previously stability-tested a Xeon E3-1246 v3 and Pentium G3258 in the same board, and the original owner of the i7-4770K silicon lottery loser "solved" the issues they were having by using a different model of motherboard altogether (an Asus Z97-A which, amusingly, has its own problems if you boot while having 2 disks connected, but that's something they never did).

With the context out of the way, the actual results are quite simple:

• Small = hottest temperature, most consistent temperatures, only a very teeny bit less stable than "Medium"

• Medium = best stability (i.e. requires more core voltage than any other setting)

• Large = worst for core voltage testing, maybe ideal for RAM testing? (I was testing CPU 99% of the time)

It's important to note however that a hotter CPU requires more voltage to retain stability so, if you're not able to control your fan speed or the like to make media data set be just as hot as small data set, then testing with medium is possibly not going to be any more stable than using small since medium only requires a teeny bit more voltage at a given temperature. That being said, I noticed that small has much fewer temperature fluctuations as well which at least makes things easier if you're not going all super-OCD hardcore using medium with manually-controlled temperature at just below the CPU's tjmax.

Also, the longer you run the test for, the more you can be assured that you're stable—I've had settings that just recently crashed after 96 and a half hours! In theory you'd never hit such instability in real-world workloads, but I'm a bit OCD and, again, running the motherboard with fully stock settings with this CPU was already resulting in instability so I didn't have much choice but to basically dial in all of the settings myself. Normally I would consider 100 hours to be a passed test but, after that 96+ hour crash, I'm thinking about going even longer at least on the final tests with settings I'm planning to actually use day-to-day.

Lastly, test with a discrete GPU. For whatever reason, using integrated graphics, regardless if it's on the same processor die or part of the motherboard chipset, results in needing less voltage for stability.

March 2024 EDIT: Whelp, turns out this "silicon lottery loser of an i7-4770K" requires both more core voltage and more cache/uncore/ring bus voltage (the latter substantially so) when using integrated graphics. This flies in the face of previous testing I did with a Phenom II, but that integrated graphics was on the motherboard itself which might make a difference, but I think it also flies in the face of testing I did on my G3258 (but that testing wasn't quite as regimented and fine-tuned as my methods are now, so now I kind of want to revisit my G3258 again...).

So the current going theory is, if your motherboard has integrated graphics, then test with a discrete GPU. If your CPU has on-die integrated graphics, then test with the integrated graphics (multi-chip dies where the iGPU is a seperate die from the CPU cores are an unknown, like is the case with Westmere as well as desktop Ryzen 7000)

I'm extremely late but, as stated in the lengthy reply elsewhere by another user, this will only be the case as long as the NAND chips haven't seen lots of writes since "worn" NAND will have their charge level for a given sector drift quicker.

And don't forget that older SSDs are likely to use fewer bits per cell, at least MLC (2bits per cell) if not even SLC (1bit per cell).