By giririsss Go To PostI'm basing these answers on my Galaxy S5, assuming they're at least similar.Thanks for this!
When you hit the drop down, the icon next to it (in the top right) should change into a pencil / pen, click this to edit the default list of what settings are and aren't shown where. I think you can find the screen by searching for "notification panel" from the settings screen search box.
You can also edit the "recommended apps" in this section, which is the list of default apps shown when you plug in an accessory.
I've figured out the lock screen notifications (you swipe down and then touch to open) and screen shot situation. But the notifications panel quick settings has a different layout than what you've described with the S5. I'll keep searching and messing with it and see if if it's possible to get what I'm looking. Thanks again though.
By Smokey Go To PostFor stuff like video processing, photo work, streaming the more cores the better. From benches I've seen, video processing loves more cores. All of these chips can OC into the 4.3ghz+ range so you get the best of both worlds in speed and more cores to usr, however for gaming the 6 cores are a bit behind the 6700k but not by much.
Also the Enthusiast line does not equal Extreme. The enthusiast line is usually geared more towards workstation type work. The Haswell-E (X99 platform) lineup is 5820k, 5930k, and 5960x. The x model is the extreme CPU and is usually differentiated by more L2 cache or cores. In this case the 5960x is a 8 core proc. The other two are 6 core. The extreme CPU is always $1,000+. For the upcoming Broadwell-E line, the extreme CPU is rumored to be a 10 core proc.
By diehard Go To PostAnything that can spawn multiple threads is helped by cores. Video work can be iffy because the most intensive work should be done through the OpenCL API or Nvidia'd CUDA, so the GPU is what matters there. Some "workstation" applications like CAD won't be helped by more cores either, Inventor or anything from Autodesk that relies on the AutoCAD engine is single-threaded (with certain extensions that can run on other threads) so clock rate is really what you want there. There are some other things like CIFS that are still single-threaded too, or any storage protocol that uses SMB.
Another reason besides cores to go X99 is you get more PCI-E lanes, most won't need them but its nice to have.
So the benefit you're seeing isn't really more cores, it's the extra PCI-e lanes. That makes sense.
I know that anything that spawns multiple threads will be helped by more cores, that's what they're about. But the task of splitting sequential processing up into multi threads is really complicated and conditional. Which is why I was surprised.
Thinking about buying a new tv for the new house. Narrowed it down to 3 models for the moment: all 3 are 50", all 3 have 200 hz refresh rate and all 3 regular full hd.
Now I discovered a fourth one, while a bit more expensive had UHD at 48". The refresh rate is 100 hz which can be boosted to 1400 hz if I'm supposed to believe the site.
So now the question is, anyone know the 'real' difference between the regular refresh rate and optimised refresh rate?
Now I discovered a fourth one, while a bit more expensive had UHD at 48". The refresh rate is 100 hz which can be boosted to 1400 hz if I'm supposed to believe the site.
So now the question is, anyone know the 'real' difference between the regular refresh rate and optimised refresh rate?
Why does the refresh rate matter so much in w TV for you?
A higher refresh rate just means your TV will be able to support content with a higher frame rate. Unless you like watching your movies where they double the frame rate so it looks like a TV soap opera, I wouldn't pay it much mind. AFAIK no one even produces content above 60hz, and that's only live sports at that.
I'd worry about the picture panel quality and features.
A higher refresh rate just means your TV will be able to support content with a higher frame rate. Unless you like watching your movies where they double the frame rate so it looks like a TV soap opera, I wouldn't pay it much mind. AFAIK no one even produces content above 60hz, and that's only live sports at that.
I'd worry about the picture panel quality and features.
Opted to order 8GB of ram and a 500GB SSD for my MBP. I'll install those first and assess performance, and if I'm still unhappy I'll start considering new machines.
Does your MBP have a SSD already? The one thing that'll prevent you from future upgrades is your GPU btw.
By reilo Go To PostWhy does the refresh rate matter so much in w TV for you?
A higher refresh rate just means your TV will be able to support content with a higher frame rate. Unless you like watching your movies where they double the frame rate so it looks like a TV soap opera, I wouldn't pay it much mind. AFAIK no one even produces content above 60hz, and that's only live sports at that.
I'd worry about the picture panel quality and features.
The TV I had at my old home was a plasma with a 800 refresh rate. Games looked great on it and never a weird motion feeling or some tearing which I have seen on some Blu-rays/games with other models. But even if it's 100 he I shouldn't mind then? I know some TV tech but still a beginner.
Maybe we are getting our terms confused here. Are you talking about European TVs? As long as your TV supports 60Hz, any game that runs at or below 60Hz shouldn't feel weird in motion. The only reason you'd see tearing is if the game engine itself wasn't optimized and kept jumping frames (e.g. first Uncharted), your TV wouldn't cause that.
By giririsss Go To PostSo the benefit you're seeing isn't really more cores, it's the extra PCI-e lanes. That makes sense.
I know that anything that spawns multiple threads will be helped by more cores, that's what they're about. But the task of splitting sequential processing up into multi threads is really complicated and conditional. Which is why I was surprised.
No. The extra PCI-e lanes come in play for SLI/TRI SLI+ configurations. If you have a single GPU in a X99 system, the extra PCI-E lanes don't effect you.
By reilo Go To PostMaybe we are getting our terms confused here. Are you talking about European TVs? As long as your TV supports 60Hz, any game that runs at or below 60Hz shouldn't feel weird in motion. The only reason you'd see tearing is if the game engine itself wasn't optimized and kept jumping frames (e.g. first Uncharted), your TV wouldn't cause that.
Yeah EU tvs, ah OK, but one that runs at 50hz but has an optimized rate for 800hz is also OK?
I mean, yeah. 800hz won't make your games perform better, but it'll most likely give you the option to display your game at that refresh rate, but that doesn't mean the game will actually run at that rate. All it will do is multiply its native frames per second by a number to match that refresh rate and copy the frames to fill in the gaps. Hope that makes sense.
By diehard Go To Postany extra refresh rate is terrible for games, it just adds latency.Oh yea, that for sure, too. If you're playing games, run it in its native resolution, unless you really like the look of fake 60FPS.
Ahh OK, I read somewhere on a guide a year or two back that more hertz = better motion.
So an UHD model at 50hz is good enough then, for Fifa and Blu-ray, as long as picture quality is good.
So an UHD model at 50hz is good enough then, for Fifa and Blu-ray, as long as picture quality is good.
More hertz allows for better motion, BUT the content has to support it. If you're watching a movie that was filmed in 24fps (which, outside of a select few movies, is the norm), even 50hz won't matter. But the standards seem to be 30fps and 60fps for videogames (unless you PC game), so you want a TV above 50hz to be safe. With that being said, my own personal preference is to let the content dictate your refresh rate and not your TV mangling it for you.
Waiting for 4k OLED with acceptable input lag before I jump. My next TV won't be anything except for OLED. Will have to use this shitty Samsung LED TV from 2011 until it happens.
If you're going to play on the TV then it's input lag and not refresh rate that is important. Many serious reviewers always test input lag in the sets so check the reviews for the set you're thinking about.
A couple of sites for input lag listings:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag
http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/video-games/input-lag
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag
http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/video-games/input-lag
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
By reilo Go To PostDoes your MBP have a SSD already? The one thing that'll prevent you from future upgrades is your GPU btw.No. Still has the 500 GB standard HDD that it came with.
I've been working from home today and my computer has handled stuff better than I remembered. I could still use a serious upgrade though, and I think adding the SSD and doubling RAM will fix most of my problems.
By KingGondo Go To PostNo. Still has the 500 GB standard HDD that it came with.
I've been working from home today and my computer has handled stuff better than I remembered. I could still use a serious upgrade though, and I think adding the SSD and doubling RAM will fix most of my problems.
If you open up your MBP it should have a 4GB RAM module in there with a single leftover slot to use. That is how my MBP 2011 is. I just took a 2GB from old laptop and throw it in for 6GB a few years ago.
You can opt for a single 8GB instead of 2x 4GB ram and get your Macbook Pro to run with 12GB RAM.
i SHOULD work with 1600mhz, but it only officially supports and runs at 1333mhz.
By KingGondo Go To PostNo. Still has the 500 GB standard HDD that it came with.Oh SSD is gonna make such a huge difference.
I've been working from home today and my computer has handled stuff better than I remembered. I could still use a serious upgrade though, and I think adding the SSD and doubling RAM will fix most of my problems.
It's been so long that I've used SSDs that I now can't remember when I first got one. Seemed like desktop users really lagged behind the laptop market in that respect. The products were there, obviously, but desktop users kept valuing space over comfort of use. That people have not made the jump today kind of reminds of how I had to fight with my mother to get her to buy a flat HD screen (...I eventually had to buy her one and put it in her living-room against her will. Yeah.).
I remember adding a 64GB SSD to my 2007 MacPro and the difference was phenomenal. The only thing that held it back was the lack of GPU upgrade.
By Gabyskra Go To PostIt's been so long that I've used SSDs that I now can't remember when I first got one. Seemed like desktop users really lagged behind the laptop market in that respect. The products were there, obviously, but desktop users kept valuing space over comfort of use. That people have not made the jump today kind of reminds of how I had to fight with my mother to get her to buy a flat HD screen (...I eventually had to buy her one and put it in her living-room against her will. Yeah.).They were insanely expensive for a very long time.
Then they were just tiny.
I had a 128gb hdd and it ran out of space constantly. Had a 256 and ran into same. I'm on a 512 now, and it's fine. But yeah, the space thing mattered.
By giririsss Go To PostI had a 128gb hdd and it ran out of space constantly. Had a 256 and ran into same. I'm on a 512 now, and it's fine. But yeah, the space thing mattered.But... how does it matter? I could absolutely live with 128gb today. Get a small one, install a couple of games, add some USB hard drive for whatever takes space, you're good to go. What do you need to store that needs to be on the main drive? I have like 300 gb (/1 TB) in the cloud for work, and random usb HDs for photos, etc.
128GB SSD was like $250 when they first came out. $299 if you valued performance. That's a steep price.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-price-per-gb-ssd-performance,2942-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-price-per-gb-ssd-performance,2942-5.html
By reilo Go To Post128GB SSD was like $250 when they first came out. $299 if you valued performance. That's a steep price.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-price-per-gb-ssd-performance,2942-5.html
That was already the best $/performance you could get.
By Gabyskra Go To PostThat was already the best $/performance you could get.Right, and that's crazy expensive when 1TB HDDs were going for < $100 back then. It's fine now, but that's the way of technology. Like, we all can ask in three years why everyone didn't buy a 4K HDTV sooner, but I think the answer is self-evident.
By reilo Go To PostRight, and that's crazy expensive when 1TB HDDs were going for < $100 back then. It's fine now, but that's the way of technology. Like, we all can ask in three years why everyone didn't buy a 4K HDTV sooner, but I think the answer is self-evident.Not the same thing at all. There's almost no content for 4K TVs, and it makes sense to wait for cheaper options and technological improvements for when we will get the content (which is contingent on internet speed truthfully). SSDs changed the speed at which you do so much immediately.
By Gabyskra Go To PostBut... how does it matter? I could absolutely live with 128gb today. Get a small one, install a couple of games, add some USB hard drive for whatever takes space, you're good to go. What do you need to store that needs to be on the main drive? I have like 300 gb (/1 TB) in the cloud for work, and random usb HDs for photos, etc.Core windows install is ~20 gig. Add in core apps (to me) and you're at 30 gig with out blinking.
If I were doing anything dev related like app development you can kiss another 20gb away easily, before you even know it. And if you're running a few images for a few different devices .... you can blow through space very easily (not installed at the moment). Visual Studio is 10gb too.
I formatted this pc 4 months ago. I've got 4 games installed (Dota (14gb), Lol (5gb), FF7, PS2 (16gb)) and the only media I keep on it is my music, and I'm at 150gb used.
And this is without any blizzard games installed. WoW is ~32gb alone. Overwatch is going to be between 6 - 8gb apparently.
I run 4 large HDD's along side my SSD (have around 10TB of storage). But I want games and stuff on my SSD to reduce loading times. I really only want media like video files on externals or HDD's.
I wouldn't use an external. Why use externals? they're slower, more prone to braking, require cable swapping. Much prefer to have large internal HDD's. And thumb drives? all the above (minus cables).
And unless the cloud storage is local it's not relevant for anything of size.
I look at my laptop that only has dev / uni stuff on it and that's at 190 of 220.
The whole point to having SSD's is to reduce loading times and speed up your whole experience. Having to store anything but media (photo's/video's) on HDD's defeats the entire point. Particularly if you're swapping between multiple drives/devices, and certainly isn't convenient.
By Gabyskra Go To PostNot the same thing at all. There's almost no content for 4K TVs, and it makes sense to wait for cheaper options and technological improvements for when we will get the content (which is contingent on internet speed truthfully). SSDs changed the speed at which you do so much immediately.
Funny you should say that............
By giririsss Go To PostThe whole point to having SSD's is to reduce loading times and speed up your whole experience. Having to store anything but media (photo's/video's) on HDD's defeats the entire point.You mention 4 games and app development. I don't develop programs, and in almost 30 years of gaming, I really never play 4 games at once on PC (3 max, and even that is pushing it). Getting an SSD just for the OS and core activities just works so well. Once the game is loaded, an SSD will not really change your gaming experience ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh3Dk3Ss5c0 ). Booting up in 5 seconds, having word immediately show up, etc, these are big changes that SSDs bring, but loading CS:GO in 5 seconds instead of 15, I can't be bothered... 10 seconds out of a usage of 2 hours is nothing.
That is somewhat related but a tangent, I have a Pixel 2015, and I do just fine on 32 gb. It is absolutely my day-to-day, it's a writer's dream, it's perfect for internet, 95% of my computer time is on it. There's something super satisfying about being able to focus, and I feel like a desktop computer gets unnecessarily cluttered very rapidly. It's like working in a messy room. I remember hoarding tons of songs and movies... I'm so over that. I don't know about how the usage of most will evolve, but even when it comes to photography, i don't always feel like busting out lightroom... relatively to the public at large, i'm a power user, but I want more simplicity.
By reilo Go To PostA couple of sites for input lag listings:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag
http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/video-games/input-lag
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
yo i got the KDL42W705B a year back and that shit has been good to me in regards to gaming.
I think I got my choices narrowed down to either a SAMSUNG UE50JU6800, a LG 49UF850V or the SONY KD-49X8305C.
The Samsung seems to have the highest input lag, so I might be leaning more towards the LG or Sony.
The Samsung seems to have the highest input lag, so I might be leaning more towards the LG or Sony.
Wow. Upgraded to an SSD and more RAM and it feels like a new computer.
Glad I didn't drop a grand or more on a MacBook Air.
Glad I didn't drop a grand or more on a MacBook Air.
By reilo Go To PostGo 60" 😏
Don't quite have the space for it :) might crank it up to 55", depends on my salesbonus.
Got my mom a 2015 Moto G for her birthday. dumbfounded by its cheap price. Already has Marshmallow. My G3 is still rocking Lollipop.
Super solid phone and a massive upgrade for her.
Super solid phone and a massive upgrade for her.
By reilo Go To PostGo 60" 😏i didn't even know they made TVs this small anymore.
By Dipro Go To Posti didn't even know they made TVs this small anymore.Dipro out here flopping it around like it aint no thang.
dat March Nexus 6P update sooo good
By GQman2121 Go To PostHas anyone used Samsung Pay? Is it as easy as it seems? I'm trying to get this $30 gift card.you may get the cops called on you for "hacking" the pay terminal if you are in a stupid area/store
How important is the Safe Browsing feature on Chrome mobile? Chrome is taking forever to load pages with Safe Browsing enabled. I'm using the Samsung browser but I don't like it. It's functional though.
By Prototype Viktor Go To Postdat March Nexus 6P update sooo goodUsed it at Best Buy yesterday without issue. Still had to manually type in my four digit pin since I selected debt, but it was painless. Gift card is a done deal too. Chipotle for dinner was not equipped to handle the feature though.
you may get the cops called on you for "hacking" the pay terminal if you are in a stupid area/store
By Elchele Go To PostChrome for Android is a mess. Too heavy.How so? Is it really slower? I've never had any issue with it. Have I been missing out on faster speeds?
By Gabyskra Go To PostHow so? Is it really slower? I've never had any issue with it. Have I been missing out on faster speeds?I too have never had any issues on my previous four Android phones (two HTC/two Sony) with Chrome. It always just worked the same for me as my desktop version.
On my S7 it's taking anywhere from ten to even twenty seconds to load this and other sites. If I go into the privacy settings and disable safe browsing, it speeds up considerably, but you're apparently more susceptible to attacks. The play store ratings show that I'm not alone so I'm hopeful Google figures things out sometime soon. For now I guess the stock browser will have to do. It's working as expected for a $700 phone.