[quote="RAGEdemon"]No company in their right mind would sell a product for $10 if they could sell it for $20 and shift a similar volume. In fact, it is illegal to do so, as by the company's and country's own rules and regulations - the articles of association et al.
The people who run the company, i.e. the directors and executives - their primary goal above anything (even token ethics policies put into place by HR solely to avoid lawsuits) is to increase shareholder wealth. If they can't do that, then they won't get their bonuses at the end of the year and the board will find someone who can (hence the usual short sighted strategies of companies).[/quote]
I often see this idea repeated, and because I'm stupid that way, I feel the need to correct the record. It is not true that companies are legally required to maximize their profits.
It's always possible that elsewhere in the world this is true, but I can say for a fact that in the US there is no such law.
There are incentives, no doubt, but no law requires companies to put money above other factors in the business. You see this in big name companies all the time, Tesla for example. Amazon for example. Running losses for nearly ever. If there were a law, they would have been sued.
Besides which, there is no way this could be enforced. It makes no sense to treat all businesses the same regarding shareholder value. Does Amazon running losses for 10 years to become a giant constitute a good strategy, or a bad strategy... at the time? If shareholder value is the only thing that matters, then why does Mark Zuckerberg have all the voting rights for how the company is run?
Please do not continue to repeat this falsehood.
RAGEdemon said:No company in their right mind would sell a product for $10 if they could sell it for $20 and shift a similar volume. In fact, it is illegal to do so, as by the company's and country's own rules and regulations - the articles of association et al.
The people who run the company, i.e. the directors and executives - their primary goal above anything (even token ethics policies put into place by HR solely to avoid lawsuits) is to increase shareholder wealth. If they can't do that, then they won't get their bonuses at the end of the year and the board will find someone who can (hence the usual short sighted strategies of companies).
I often see this idea repeated, and because I'm stupid that way, I feel the need to correct the record. It is not true that companies are legally required to maximize their profits.
It's always possible that elsewhere in the world this is true, but I can say for a fact that in the US there is no such law.
There are incentives, no doubt, but no law requires companies to put money above other factors in the business. You see this in big name companies all the time, Tesla for example. Amazon for example. Running losses for nearly ever. If there were a law, they would have been sued.
Besides which, there is no way this could be enforced. It makes no sense to treat all businesses the same regarding shareholder value. Does Amazon running losses for 10 years to become a giant constitute a good strategy, or a bad strategy... at the time? If shareholder value is the only thing that matters, then why does Mark Zuckerberg have all the voting rights for how the company is run?
Please do not continue to repeat this falsehood.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Now now bo3b, let's not play the nitpicking game. I too, am a stupid guy, but there is a difference between a well meaning strategy not working out (business judgement rule), and knowingly not maximising profits for some personal ideology, e.g. save the animals, or 'don't be evil' as once was the google motto ;-)
[quote="bo3b"]It is not true that companies are legally required to maximize their profits.
It's always possible that elsewhere in the world this is true, but I can say for a fact that in the US there is no such law.[/quote]
Umm, mate, The Delaware Court would like to disagree with you. Its decision in eBay v. Newmark is literally the opposite of the "fact" that you presented:
[code]The Delaware court's decision in eBay v. Newmark
has been viewed by many commentators as a decisive affirmation
of shareholder wealth maximisation as the only legally permissible
objective of a for‐profit corporation.[/code]
This is set precedent, and now pretty much every corporation has to abide by it under US law.
The general rule is still that the board has wide discretion based on the business judgement rule. In other words, as long as the decisions they're making are based on reasonably prudent business basis, they're going to be allowed to do so without a court getting involved.
Shareholders want returns on their investment above anything else, including save the animals (within reason of course, unless all the shareholders indeed want to save the animals at the cost of their precious profit).
The shareholders select directors on their promise for such profits for shareholders, which includes strategy. They are then rewarded with bonuses for their performance. This is where Bezos @ Amazon comes in - convince shareholders that getting bigger now although means less profit now, it does mean a much bigger profit later.
Zuck is similar, - he has controlling vote too IIRC so can do what he likes. The same goes for Elon Musk and Tesla / SpaceX. The controlling vote/share can do whatever the hell they like because they ARE the majority shareholder/voters and they OWN the company.
If the directors mislead shareholders knowing fully well that they are not maximising profits for them for the sake of some personal ideology etc, then not only can the shareholders sue, but it is seen as fraud, a legal offence punishable by prison and fine.
Under UK law:
-- Under the criminal offence of making a false statement as to the affairs of the company with the intent of deceiving shareholders or creditors of a company (section 19 of the Theft Act 1968);
-- Under the criminal offences under the Fraud Act 2006 of dishonestly making a representation which is untrue or misleading where the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading and dishonestly failing to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, both offences requiring the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another person (sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006);
-- For imprisonment (up to 10 years) or a fine if he is knowingly party to the company carrying on its business with intent to defraud creditors of the company or of another person or for any fraudulent purpose (section 993 of the Act );
Shareholders are the [b]owners[/b] of the corporation. They absolutely do and should have the right to decide how the corporation is managed by their own employees. If their employees are acting against their interest as owners, they should both have the right to fire them (i.e. replacing the board of directors), and suing them to force them to do the "right thing" i.e. maximise their profit.
I'll leave you with what you yourself said:
[quote="bo3b"]Please do not continue to repeat [your] falsehood.[/quote] From one stupid guy to another, all the best :)
Now now bo3b, let's not play the nitpicking game. I too, am a stupid guy, but there is a difference between a well meaning strategy not working out (business judgement rule), and knowingly not maximising profits for some personal ideology, e.g. save the animals, or 'don't be evil' as once was the google motto ;-)
bo3b said:It is not true that companies are legally required to maximize their profits.
It's always possible that elsewhere in the world this is true, but I can say for a fact that in the US there is no such law.
Umm, mate, The Delaware Court would like to disagree with you. Its decision in eBay v. Newmark is literally the opposite of the "fact" that you presented:
The Delaware court's decision in eBay v. Newmark
has been viewed by many commentators as a decisive affirmation
of shareholder wealth maximisation as the only legally permissible
objective of a for‐profit corporation.
This is set precedent, and now pretty much every corporation has to abide by it under US law.
The general rule is still that the board has wide discretion based on the business judgement rule. In other words, as long as the decisions they're making are based on reasonably prudent business basis, they're going to be allowed to do so without a court getting involved.
Shareholders want returns on their investment above anything else, including save the animals (within reason of course, unless all the shareholders indeed want to save the animals at the cost of their precious profit).
The shareholders select directors on their promise for such profits for shareholders, which includes strategy. They are then rewarded with bonuses for their performance. This is where Bezos @ Amazon comes in - convince shareholders that getting bigger now although means less profit now, it does mean a much bigger profit later.
Zuck is similar, - he has controlling vote too IIRC so can do what he likes. The same goes for Elon Musk and Tesla / SpaceX. The controlling vote/share can do whatever the hell they like because they ARE the majority shareholder/voters and they OWN the company.
If the directors mislead shareholders knowing fully well that they are not maximising profits for them for the sake of some personal ideology etc, then not only can the shareholders sue, but it is seen as fraud, a legal offence punishable by prison and fine.
Under UK law:
-- Under the criminal offence of making a false statement as to the affairs of the company with the intent of deceiving shareholders or creditors of a company (section 19 of the Theft Act 1968);
-- Under the criminal offences under the Fraud Act 2006 of dishonestly making a representation which is untrue or misleading where the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading and dishonestly failing to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, both offences requiring the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another person (sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006);
-- For imprisonment (up to 10 years) or a fine if he is knowingly party to the company carrying on its business with intent to defraud creditors of the company or of another person or for any fraudulent purpose (section 993 of the Act );
Shareholders are the owners of the corporation. They absolutely do and should have the right to decide how the corporation is managed by their own employees. If their employees are acting against their interest as owners, they should both have the right to fire them (i.e. replacing the board of directors), and suing them to force them to do the "right thing" i.e. maximise their profit.
I'll leave you with what you yourself said:
bo3b said:Please do not continue to repeat [your] falsehood.
From one stupid guy to another, all the best :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Making profit is only common Sense. Atleast from owners perspektive as if business goes Flat you are felt with nothing and benefits atleast in Finald atleast 6 month propably longer. Offcourse the situation changes Little when we are talking about shareholders and stock companys. They hardly own as much to be called entrepreniours so their benefits are not affected. Though on the other hands all this is propably only problem for people with not that much. If you have lots cash and stocks you propably never have to go to the unemployment of pickup benefits. So yeah companys. Especially big are greed but its still commonsense and it Also funds research.
I do hope there would be better tighter laws and rules for investors as many times time they are a cancer as everything keeps revolving around getting investors their money
Making profit is only common Sense. Atleast from owners perspektive as if business goes Flat you are felt with nothing and benefits atleast in Finald atleast 6 month propably longer. Offcourse the situation changes Little when we are talking about shareholders and stock companys. They hardly own as much to be called entrepreniours so their benefits are not affected. Though on the other hands all this is propably only problem for people with not that much. If you have lots cash and stocks you propably never have to go to the unemployment of pickup benefits. So yeah companys. Especially big are greed but its still commonsense and it Also funds research.
I do hope there would be better tighter laws and rules for investors as many times time they are a cancer as everything keeps revolving around getting investors their money
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@4.7
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
OK so now we know that tid bit is the new video cards gonna cost 1000 USD?? this is too soon gonna be another hobby I am going to have to dump as it is too costly and I am NOT rich in the slightest.. ;)
OK so now we know that tid bit is the new video cards gonna cost 1000 USD?? this is too soon gonna be another hobby I am going to have to dump as it is too costly and I am NOT rich in the slightest.. ;)
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GAMING X TRIO pictured:
[img]https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2018/08/MSI-GeForce-RTX-2080-Ti-GAMING-X-TRIO-1000x750.jpg[/img]
[url]https://videocardz.com/newz/exclusive-msi-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-gaming-x-trio-pictured[/url]
This one looks to be the $1500 card.
The non-Ti pictures also floating around, which is rumoured to be $1000.
I don't believe they'll be that expensive. I hope...
I'll get the Ti since I want the biggest performance jump I can get. I like that (if rumors are really true) they'll be releasing the Ti soon this time instead of having to wait even more.
I don't believe they'll be that expensive. I hope...
I'll get the Ti since I want the biggest performance jump I can get. I like that (if rumors are really true) they'll be releasing the Ti soon this time instead of having to wait even more.
They sound like a good step up, but fancy demos aside I'm not too bothered about ray tracing at this point. It takes a long time for new practices to catch on. Price aside, my concern is drivers.
I'm assuming they'll still support 3d vision, but this is a brand new GPU and it's possible Nvidia are going to make all sorts of driver changes.
Traditionally they add new feature sets with new architectures, let's hope they don't take anything out.
Also I'm really curious about Nvlink and how that's going to work. Will it be backwardly compatible with old SLI titles? Again, hope so but dangerous to assume.
They sound like a good step up, but fancy demos aside I'm not too bothered about ray tracing at this point. It takes a long time for new practices to catch on. Price aside, my concern is drivers.
I'm assuming they'll still support 3d vision, but this is a brand new GPU and it's possible Nvidia are going to make all sorts of driver changes.
Traditionally they add new feature sets with new architectures, let's hope they don't take anything out.
Also I'm really curious about Nvlink and how that's going to work. Will it be backwardly compatible with old SLI titles? Again, hope so but dangerous to assume.
Gigabyte RTX2080TI Gaming OC, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
SLI is almost dead. NVLink will be the new King?
[img]https://i2.wp.com/babeltechreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/main-chart.jpg?w=971&ssl=1[/img]
SLi might provide questionable performance increase for normal use, but for us 3DV users, the performance increase is substantial in most SLi supported titles.
[img]http://www.volnapc.com/uploads/3/0/9/1/30918989/6152204_orig.png[/img]
[img]http://www.volnapc.com/uploads/3/0/9/1/30918989/317808_orig.png[/img]
[img]http://www.volnapc.com/uploads/3/0/9/1/30918989/3746970_orig.png[/img]
NVLink, in my humble understanding, allow direct memory access to other GPU's memory, meaing that 2 cards = double memory. In theory, it *might* even mean that the game sees the 2 cores as a single core, thereby getting rid of SLi compatibility and limitations altogether (inverse hyperthreading).
One can hope...
SLi might provide questionable performance increase for normal use, but for us 3DV users, the performance increase is substantial in most SLi supported titles.
NVLink, in my humble understanding, allow direct memory access to other GPU's memory, meaing that 2 cards = double memory. In theory, it *might* even mean that the game sees the 2 cores as a single core, thereby getting rid of SLi compatibility and limitations altogether (inverse hyperthreading).
One can hope...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Is NVlink hardware like the Voodoo cards The Gpu and memory is doubled ?
Voodoo cards use this didn't need a profile and when adding another card benchmarks doubled
I often see this idea repeated, and because I'm stupid that way, I feel the need to correct the record. It is not true that companies are legally required to maximize their profits.
It's always possible that elsewhere in the world this is true, but I can say for a fact that in the US there is no such law.
There are incentives, no doubt, but no law requires companies to put money above other factors in the business. You see this in big name companies all the time, Tesla for example. Amazon for example. Running losses for nearly ever. If there were a law, they would have been sued.
Besides which, there is no way this could be enforced. It makes no sense to treat all businesses the same regarding shareholder value. Does Amazon running losses for 10 years to become a giant constitute a good strategy, or a bad strategy... at the time? If shareholder value is the only thing that matters, then why does Mark Zuckerberg have all the voting rights for how the company is run?
Please do not continue to repeat this falsehood.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Umm, mate, The Delaware Court would like to disagree with you. Its decision in eBay v. Newmark is literally the opposite of the "fact" that you presented:
This is set precedent, and now pretty much every corporation has to abide by it under US law.
The general rule is still that the board has wide discretion based on the business judgement rule. In other words, as long as the decisions they're making are based on reasonably prudent business basis, they're going to be allowed to do so without a court getting involved.
Shareholders want returns on their investment above anything else, including save the animals (within reason of course, unless all the shareholders indeed want to save the animals at the cost of their precious profit).
The shareholders select directors on their promise for such profits for shareholders, which includes strategy. They are then rewarded with bonuses for their performance. This is where Bezos @ Amazon comes in - convince shareholders that getting bigger now although means less profit now, it does mean a much bigger profit later.
Zuck is similar, - he has controlling vote too IIRC so can do what he likes. The same goes for Elon Musk and Tesla / SpaceX. The controlling vote/share can do whatever the hell they like because they ARE the majority shareholder/voters and they OWN the company.
If the directors mislead shareholders knowing fully well that they are not maximising profits for them for the sake of some personal ideology etc, then not only can the shareholders sue, but it is seen as fraud, a legal offence punishable by prison and fine.
Under UK law:
-- Under the criminal offence of making a false statement as to the affairs of the company with the intent of deceiving shareholders or creditors of a company (section 19 of the Theft Act 1968);
-- Under the criminal offences under the Fraud Act 2006 of dishonestly making a representation which is untrue or misleading where the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading and dishonestly failing to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, both offences requiring the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another person (sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006);
-- For imprisonment (up to 10 years) or a fine if he is knowingly party to the company carrying on its business with intent to defraud creditors of the company or of another person or for any fraudulent purpose (section 993 of the Act );
Shareholders are the owners of the corporation. They absolutely do and should have the right to decide how the corporation is managed by their own employees. If their employees are acting against their interest as owners, they should both have the right to fire them (i.e. replacing the board of directors), and suing them to force them to do the "right thing" i.e. maximise their profit.
I'll leave you with what you yourself said:
From one stupid guy to another, all the best :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I do hope there would be better tighter laws and rules for investors as many times time they are a cancer as everything keeps revolving around getting investors their money
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@4.7
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Intel i5 7600K @ 4.8ghz / MSI Z270 SLI / Asus 1080GTX - 416.16 / Optoma HD142x Projector / 1 4'x10' Curved Screen PVC / TrackIR / HOTAS Cougar / Cougar MFD's / Track IR / NVidia 3D Vision / Win 10 64bit
https://videocardz.com/newz/exclusive-msi-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-gaming-x-trio-pictured
This one looks to be the $1500 card.
The non-Ti pictures also floating around, which is rumoured to be $1000.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I'll get the Ti since I want the biggest performance jump I can get. I like that (if rumors are really true) they'll be releasing the Ti soon this time instead of having to wait even more.
CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: MSI GeForce RTX 2080Ti Gaming X Trio
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-2080-and-2080-ti-an-overview-thus-far,1.html
Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55
Interesting NVLink connectors on them vs. old SLi type connector...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Around 1000 USD for 2080Ti and 800 USD for 2080.
It's 875 and 700€ plus tax.
.
i7 4790K @4.8Ghz / 2x 1080 8GB SLI @2000Mhz / 16GB @2400Mhz
Just click:
My 3D videos and crosstalk test pattern
3DVision Fixes:
HelixMod Site
Universal fix for UnrealEngine 4 Games
Universal fix for Unity Games
Universal fix for FrostBite 3 Games
Universal fix for TellTales Games
Compability Mode Unleashed
Please donate if you can:
-----> Donations to 3DVision Fixers
.
I'm assuming they'll still support 3d vision, but this is a brand new GPU and it's possible Nvidia are going to make all sorts of driver changes.
Traditionally they add new feature sets with new architectures, let's hope they don't take anything out.
Also I'm really curious about Nvlink and how that's going to work. Will it be backwardly compatible with old SLI titles? Again, hope so but dangerous to assume.
Gigabyte RTX2080TI Gaming OC, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
Gaming Rig 1
i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO
Gaming Rig 2
My new build
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)
i7 4790K @4.8Ghz / 2x 1080 8GB SLI @2000Mhz / 16GB @2400Mhz
Just click:
My 3D videos and crosstalk test pattern
3DVision Fixes:
HelixMod Site
Universal fix for UnrealEngine 4 Games
Universal fix for Unity Games
Universal fix for FrostBite 3 Games
Universal fix for TellTales Games
Compability Mode Unleashed
Please donate if you can:
-----> Donations to 3DVision Fixers
.
NVLink, in my humble understanding, allow direct memory access to other GPU's memory, meaing that 2 cards = double memory. In theory, it *might* even mean that the game sees the 2 cores as a single core, thereby getting rid of SLi compatibility and limitations altogether (inverse hyperthreading).
One can hope...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Voodoo cards use this didn't need a profile and when adding another card benchmarks doubled
Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55