New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by armourcore9brker

Not going to be the best for gaming because it doesn't clock very high in its 45W TDP envelope.I'd buy it but I care more about transcoding/server/compiling duties in my rigs than pure gaming.As with most server products, it's absolutely drool-worthy for those that need it and pretty meh for everyone else.
I'd say a board design that contains everything, and then just removing the chips/ports for lower end hardware is the more efficient design. The board itself is not expensive. The R&D is what is the major cost.
It was my mistake. It looked like the pci slot cover ended at the last displayport.I was thinking it would be tall like an evga kingpin.
I'd think the biggest problem might be how tall it is. It might not fit.
I think you might be talking about a different card. This card was announced today and doesn't have an MSRP. Release date is late summer.
AMD R9 Nano. 6in (152.4 mm) 2x Perf/Watt compared to the R9 290X. Releases at the end of summer. I know my next GPU.
You just need some other writers to call it a site and not a blog. I'm sure there are plenty of people here that obsess over SFF news.
Come to CES and rub some elbows with the PR reps. You just need to write some articles to get a press pass.
Gaming on it I would imagine is not very good. It would definitely bottleneck a GTX 960.
I think you're missing a source OP.Probably for balance and future uses like turning. It's copying the cheetah which isn't very consistent in the way it runs.They should work with Boston Dynamics to get their sensors working on BD's dogs.
New Posts  All Forums: