Camacha

Working your way up from the basics will work and work well, but sometimes it helps to dive into something and find out that you are hopelessly ill-equipped, only to gnaw your way out of the situation by shear determination and a lot of late night Googling.

The link is fixed now. Whatever the endpoint was (like a .pdf), it got routed through Facebook servers without much warning. Considering Facebook's reputation on tracking any and all traffic, it was not a great situation. Of course, links that actually go where they say they go are a common sense way of making the internet a little bit safer and internet etiquette to boot. Obfuscated links are a great way of ending up in deep waters sooner or later.

It is probably best to see which ones are free to use, compare those and pick the one you like the best. If there is no obvious winner, apparently it does not matter that much It also is a matter of preference and everyone likes different things.

I see a project that will teach you skills that will serve you far beyond the project itself. That makes it a success in my book, no matter the outcome of the actual project. What I think is irrelevant, though, It is what you think that matters

You sound like the typical inexperienced developer, which, coincidentally, is why I asked about experience. Having little experience is both good and bad. It is good, because you do not let your fantasy be hampered by real world or technical problems. Do not underestimate the value of that. Too many games get made exactly like the others, simply because people rehash what they already know. The bad part is that you might have bitten off more than you can chew. Lack of funds means you need to do it all yourself. This makes it a very big project with a very uncertain outcome. Do not let that discourage you, though. It does also mean you get to learn a lot about many subjects. Even if the final product never materializes, you will certainly have learnt many skills that will prove invaluable in the rest of your life. This type of project is as much about the journey, as it is about the end result. Let us see where this goes!

Do you have any game development experience?

It surprises me hyping a game still works, after so many disappointments. Especially the big developers seem to have a business model that depends more on marketing than on quality products. People believe all sorts of stories, pre-order a game or buy it upon release, only to be sorely disappointed yet again. When will we learn to hold off and wait until the proper reviews are in?

Why is the first link a Facebook link, even though the visible address suggests it is not? That seems intentionally misleading.

Out of Memory. Rebooting...

I have always found that playing games with godmode on becomes boring awfully fast. I would not enjoy becoming bored with the universe.

Even though I have not searched very extensively, I have not come up with any credible and significant results either.

This has been the case for decades. Through intentional sponsoring, or simply game developers developing on one brand of cards instead of the other, certain games have performed better with certain models and brands. That is the very reason you do benchmarks per game. A certain brand or card edging ahead is exactly what you want to test and see. So, again: why Forbes and why a benchmark that another technology reviewing site calls rather opaque? Admittedly, proper benchmarks seem surprisingly hard to come by.

Could you post quotes and sources? Considering the earlier inaccurate representation of the results, it is invaluable for us to have a look ourselves. Why is Forbes being pushed as an authority? I am not saying their results are worthless, but a business magazine doing hardware reviews certainly gives me pause. As far as I am aware the Steam Survey only tells us about popularity and not actual fitness for a certain purpose. This can also not be deduced from popularity in any meaningful way. Can you substantiate your claim? Nvidia was caught employing some very nasty business practices. Saying AMD is doing the same is a rather grave accusation.

We have seen that a while back with the HD4770. Even though that was, at that point, a small chip, AMD managed to achieve great yields on a new process by using a few smart tricks. Nvidia struggled to do the same, which meant their yields were much lower and the chips became much more expensive in return. Yields, binning and a few other factors are as important as raw chip area. You might be better off with a process you control well.

Traditionally, the high-end market has been a prestigious one, but not very profitable. Hitting the lower high-end to mid-range market is much more important and AMD seems to do well there. Having the performance crown is mostly a chest beating affair, even though it does seem to help sales a bit too. That being said, the top performance and efficiency of Nvidia in their latest generation is pretty impressive. Even their own high-end cards from just a generation before seem rather uninteresting by comparison.

This feels appropriate:

Which was blatantly untrue. The RX480 does best in two actual games, with the GTX1060 edging ahead in another. Do note that Tomb Raider shows a ~20% advantage for the GTX1060, but that the RX480 also has a ~20% over its rival in the Hitman benchmark. The final game is tied and the other benchmark is artificial. It is exactly these kinds of interpretations that lead to the feeling that your agenda is always to push the GTX cards.

I see two wins for the GTX1060, two for the RX480 and one tie. Are you looking at the same benchmarks?

To be fair, the projected numbers were never going to happen. They were the very typical project advertising you tend to see in relation to huge projects that simply are not economically or technically sensible. People want to see a project happen, yet know that it will never be funded that way. So what do you do? You make up numbers. It probably is a mixture of wilfully misleading people (due to personal or local interests) and feverishly wishing for something that just does not add up. You still see it happening today. It is the reason projects go over budget many times the original budget. Projects on this scale have little to do with engineering and sense and a lot more with politics.

That fully depends on what the experiences with them so far have been on the internet in that specific situation. What I always say: real world benchmarks are king. Building a Hackintosh is, by its nature, a rather experimental affair, so expect some surprising results either way.

Like I said, computers are vastly complex machines with many components, technologies and design choices interacting. Without detailed comments from engineers in the various companies that play a part, it is hard to make any apple to Apple comparisons.

The speed is there. It is just that computers are vastly more complex than just the speed of the hard drive, which makes the real world gains minor to often non-existent. Also, like I said before, people often neglect to take data security into account, which should probably be the primary concern when it comes to hard drives. Using a slight hyperbole, fast corrupt data is not very useful at all.

It should be noted that all these SSDs are really fast. You will not notice any real world differences and you probably will only ever see any difference if you look for it hard doing benchmarks. The differences being so small, my advice would be to opt for the more reliable and/or safe drives, as data protection is important.

The caption for KSP should read "The most awesomest game in the world".

We already established that that does not make a very good argument and most people will be smart enough to realize the same.