From Tesla Model 3 Service Manual

The cooling system contains an ethylene glycol (phosphate and nitrate free) based coolant.

There are benefits to higher refresh rates beyond just reducing latency or reaction times. It improves motion clarity, that is, it reduces motion blur. There are other ways to do that, like black frame insertion or backlight strobing, but those have severe negative impacts on brightness, and framegen is a way to improve motion clarity without reducing brightness. Framegen shouldn't be about improving low framerates. It should be about taking something like 60 FPS and turning it into 240 FPS for better motion clarity. Or higher, 120 FPS into 480 FPS, where the latency penalty will be minimal. Taking advantage of those high refresh rate monitors to improve motion clarity.

4K is probably the limit of what we'll ever need on TVs, because that's well past the "retina" resolution even for TVs much larger than we have now at couch distances. There's a reason why 8K televisions failed and were mostly abandoned. There's a case to be made for monitors going higher than 4K, though. You're much closer to those. They fill much more of your field of view.

I'd dispute that. First because the first GPU to support full bandwidth DisplayPort 2.X didn't come out until 2025, and second because DisplayPort 2.X can't support uncompressed 4K 240 Hz with a 12-bit colour depth. It can do it with compression, or it can do 10-bit colour depth, but not uncompressed 12bpc. That's not a big loss, I'd bet you that nobody in practice could tell the difference between 10bpc with temporal (or even spatial) dithering (which GPUs do automatically) and 12bpc. And the consumer HDR formats that use 12bpc (like Dolby Vision) use chroma subsampling.

So your argument is that technological advancement is pointless because only high-end products can benefit today?

Multi-monitor is not a feature that HDMI has ever offered. That's always been a DisplayPort thing, and I don't see anything in this article about adding multi-monitor support. However, we do need more bandwidth for higher refresh rates. Many monitors on the market today exceed the 48 Gbps that HDMI 2.1 provides, and fall back on DSC or DisplayPort to do it.

It will become useful yesterday. Monitors that exceed the bandwidth of HDMI 2.1 have been on the market for some time now. They currently either rely on DSC or DisplayPort (or both).

Current 4K240 monitors require around 129% of the available bandwidth that HDMI currently provides. When operating in 10bpp HDR, they require 161%.

Considering that lower resolution monitors on the market today go up to 540 Hz, the appetite for increased connection bandwidth is insatiable.

FTFS:

"I was promised tech would make everything easier so I could enjoy life," author Brittany Moone said. "Now it's leaving me all the dishes and the laundry so AI can make the art."

That's funny, I saw that exact same sentence a while ago but not from Brittany Moore. It's almost like she trained on SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK! Now she's passing it off as her own, no attribution at all! That's what artists are so pissed off at AI about, right? Why aren't they all calling for Ms. Moore's head?

That's great for the hypothetical future where they implement backcompat and never release another console-exclusive. But that backcompat doesn't exist right now, and they do still occasionally release console exclusives.

That's Microsoft's strategy for first-party titles. They don't have control over third-party developers. And even then there are some exceptions. Halo 5 never got a PC release, and for something more recent, the 2023 remaster of Goldeneye didn't either.

If there aren't that many third-party xbox exclusives, that says more about the viability of the xbox platform than any specific strategy on Microsoft's part.

If Microsoft had managed to produce a usable game streaming service, I might agree, but nobody but nVidia has pulled that off (with GeForce Now).

By the same logic, you could call this a Playstation handheld, since you can run Sony's streaming service on it.

Besides, you can't really use a game streaming service unless you're tethered to a good home Internet connection, which renders a mobile gaming device somewhat useless.

If they're on PC Game Pass, then they're not Xbox games, they're PC games that happen to also have an Xbox port. Not every Xbox game has a PC port. Halo 5, for example. You can play it on your Xbox console, but not on the ROG XBOX ALLY X, because it's a PC, not an Xbox console.

The term "xbox game" does not appear at all on the page that you linked to (outside of the fine print and navigation), let alone the phrase "Play all your PC and XBOX games."

The closest this thing gets to letting you play Xbox Games is "Stream with Xbox Cloud Gaming (Beta)" which is just super laggy cloud streaming, and "Xbox remote play", which is just streaming it from a local Xbox console.

It's a Windows handheld with some tweaks/improvements rom the Xbox team. It doesn't currently play Xbox games. It only plays Windows games.

I'm not sure how it will let me "hold the power of the Xbox experience in [my] hands" if I can't play Xbox games on it.

Doing a direct comparison between the mobile 2050 (which is Ampere) against the Switch 2's T239 (which is modified Ampere) while only accounting for the differences in core count and theoretical clocks ignores, among other things, the difference in GPU architecture (there was some backporting of features from newer GPU generations), the difference in memory bus width and clockspeed, the differences in power/voltage/temperature curves, the difference in API and OS overhead, the difference in DLSS model (the Switch 2 uses a lighter-weight model), and for that matter even the difference in core config (it's not just "1536 versus 2048", the scaling factor of the CUDA cores is not necessarily the same as the scaling in shader processors, texture mapping units, render output units, RT cores, and tensor cores). There's so much they didn't account for that their comparison is meaningless.

Take the RTX 2050 mobile and RTX 3050 mobile, for example. They are actually both the GA107 die, and both have 2048 CUDA cores. So with the same CUDA count, you should be able to compare them directly only accounting for the clockspeed difference like Geekerwan did, right? But the RTX 3050 mobile has half as many RT cores and a quarter as many tensor cores, but it has 2x the memory bus width, 86% the memory clock, and 1.8x the max TDP. And who knows how the voltage/clockspeed curve or thermal throttling is different. So you can't compare them like this at all!

That's my point. Geekerwan's benchmark relies on the assumption that the *only* thing that affects performance is the CUDA core count and GPU core clockspeed. And that's an invalid assumption.

All the previous consoles they're comparing to would have been in the same boat.