Friday, October 16, 2026

Yes, your 10 year old graphics card is "low end"

 So I apparently ruffled a few feathers online lately by calling cards like the GTX 1080 and 1660 ti/super "low end." I keep being told that, in fact, these cards are NOT low end, and they're still very capable cards today. However, I want to remind people that the GTX 1080 came out 10 years ago. And while it was a powerful card for the time, and it is still reasonably powerful on paper, again, it's a 10 year old card. It lacks modern features, and can't run many modern games. 

I mean, here's how I see it. The minimum requirement for modern games is a GPU with: 

1) 8 GB VRAM

2) Support for ray tracing and modern APIs

3) Roughly 5-6x GT 1030 performance (yeah, I'm still using 1030s as a unit of measurement). 

 Generally speaking, the minimum cards that meet this are cards like:

RTX 2060 12 GB 

RTX 2060 super

RTX 3050 8 GB

RX 6600 

Arc A750

I would say those are, generally speaking, the minimum that you need to run modern games. Anything less than that is dated and "low end." To explain why I call some cards low end:

 GTX 1070/1080/1080 ti- Lacks RT support and support for modern APIs

RX 5700 XT- Ditto, lacks RT support and support for modern APIs

GTX 1660 ti/super- Lacks RT support, support for modern APIs, and has only 6 GB VRAM

RTX 2060 6 GB- Has only 6 GB VRAM

RTX 3050 6 GB- Has only 6 GB VRAM, only 4x GT 1030 performance

RX 6500 XT- Lacks VRAM and power 

"But but...it runs everything I throw at it!"

Sure, it might play what you play, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that it runs all modern titles decently. Try playing Doom the Dark Ages on a card like that, or Gears of War E day, since that's tne newest title that's making or breaking a lot of cards. 

Also, let's keep this in mind, "low end" is relative. Every low end card was once high end. Low end is what used to be acceptable 5 years ago in a lot of cases. But you gotta keep in mind, 5 years ago was 2021. A lot of the above cards are MUCH older. GTX 1000 series was sold in 2016/2017. 16 series cards were sold in 2019-2021. RTX 2000 cards were sold in 2018-2021.  RX 5000 series cards were sold 2019-2020. I mean, we're talking 7-10 years old here. A RX 6000 series or RTX 3000 series card came out in 2020-2022. Most of them still work for modern games, so requirements are doing what they always did, targeting 4-6 year old cards. Stronger cards from 8 years ago still work like the RTX 2070 and above. Even a 2060 is still fine IF it has 8-12 GB RAM. Cards like the RX 6500 XT or the 3050 6 GB were specifically designed to be cut down and crappy and if you bought them, you bought crap. I mean, you should've known that. Sorry to say it but reviews were never generous to these cards. 

And yeah. The market is the market. And I guess it sucks if you decided to hold onto your 2010s era card through that 2022-2025 prime age of upgrading and now you're stuck on a really dated card through RAMpocalypse, but yeah, I mean...you had years to buy. And it wasnt like the signs of the cards that are dated being dated havent been there for a while. Games started pushing modern standards in 2023 when we left the "cross gen" period between gen 8 and 9 consoles where gen 8 was cut off. And the gen 9 consoles are basically running RX 6650 XTs or 6700s. If you don't have at least the minimum mentioned above, youre gonna have a bad time. And for a while, that minimum was easily accessible for $200-300. I admit, if the market were healthier, we shouldve seen sub $200 for that stuff, but the closest we ever got was maybe $180-190 for a RX 6600. 

And yeah. Idk. I'm not doing this to spec shame people. I just get annoyed when people get super defensive over their quite frankly old hardware that by historical standards is REALLY old. Like, to explain how this looks going even further back, imagine acting like your 8800 GT from 2007 wasn't old by 2016. Imagine thinking a HD 5850 or GTX 460 wasn't old in 2018 or something. You'd be laughed out of the room given you could get $80 GT 1030s back then. I get that the market has stagnated since then, and it has allowed such old cards to remain relevant for longer, but even if some of them are powerful enough, they dont have the modern RT or API support, and some of them lack VRAM. So...yeah. Again, I know the market is really REALLY terrible and that the current crisis is basically COVID 2.0 as far as pricing goes, but again. No, your 8-10 year old card isn't good any more. It's good for you if it still does everything you want it to, but it IS time to consider it "low end" or incapable of running the most demanding modern games. Because it is. 

Thursday, October 15, 2026

Discussing Kyle Kulinski's views on roller coasters

 So, I wasn't gonna cover this story, it didn't seem political, and even if it was, it didn't seem important enough to discuss, but Kyle just had a take on the situation that I really resonated with HARD. So...there was a freak roller coaster accident in Georgia the other day. And idk, I just looked at it as "wow, that's a messed up tragedy" and kinda moved on, but then kyle's rant here kinda inspired me. 

I mean...first, his take on roller coasters. He doesnt like them. Neither do I. He doesnt enjoy being thrown around at high speeds, neither do I. I dont get the appeal either. I've always been iffy on roller coasters. There was a phase when I was like 9-12 or so where I was kinda into them. I know I went on some down in Busch Gardens when I was finally tall enough to and found them fun. But then I started getting sick on them and yeah, I very quickly grew out of them. i think the last time I went on one I was, idk, 12-13? It was the Phoenix in Knoebels. And after I got off of the thing, I felt like I was gonna hurl for like an hour and I was like never again. I kinda outgrew amusement parks after that. I never liked the idea of being thrown around and feeling G forces. 

And Kyle here...has another interesting point. How well maintained are these rides? like they're SUPPOSED to be maintained to be safe, but Kyle is framing this like they kinda knew the ride was defective and kept it open anyway for profit. And you kinda gotta admit, yeah, a lot of corporations would do that if the negative outcomes they get when deaths happen, either in PR or lawsuits/regulation enforcement, aren't severe enough. It's a lot like the ford pinto case where Ford figured it was cheaper to pay out legal settlements from lawsuits than to recall the car. So how safe are these rides really? Well, there's always a risk of something going wrong, and it's best to avoid that entirely.

Kyle also kinda goes further than me. He was bashing air travel for example too. And I got a lot of issues with air travel where I'd never wanna go on an airplane, between the tight schedules, long lines for security, etc., but then he's going on about air traffic controllers being replaced with AI now and how when things go wrong, they go horribly wrong, like worse than car crashes...and eh...I'm more mixed here. I mean, air travel is statistically safer. yes, when something goes wrong youre dead, but still, the odds of that happening are FAR lower than with cars. Last year, there were around 37k deaths from car accidents in the US, whereas there were only around 320 aviation deaths a year in the last recorded year. 

I mean, sure I get the fear, I certainly wouldnt wanna die in a flying metal tube as kyle said, but my issues with air travel are more how expensive and inconvenient I find it and factors surrounding it, rather than a fear of death itself. Cars actually are far more dangerous and an accident on a local highway or interstate going 60-70 MPH is probably going to be more likely to kill you than air deaths were. Not super important to the roller coaster story, but kyle mentioned it so I figured I would too.

Still, I definitely feel kyle on coasters. I dont like being thrown around either. I havent done amusement parks since I was like a YOUNG teenager, like again, 13ish. I kinda got out of the hype surrounding amusement parks once I hit puberty. And I dont enjoy being thrown around until i puke to be quite honest either. But yeah, I didnt even consider this tragedy a political issue, but it kinda is. And I guess I am on the page of "yeah I dont like amusement parks either" here. Just wanted to discuss it. Quite frankly, for that kind of money, I'd rather buy video games, or if I go out, go see a movie or even...gamble, right after I wrote an article bashing gambling. But again, make a day of it. Go to a casino, play some slots and horse racing. Go home not spending any more than if I blew $50-100 getting into an amusement park. Again, you see why I can honestly say that gambling can be fun in moderation? Because if you know what you're doing and you're responsible, it's not gonna cost any more than a day out anywhere else. It's just about playing RESPONSIBLY. And I find it to be far more fun than spending half the day waiting in line and then being thrown around until I wanna puke. Just saying. 

Clarifying/reiterating my position on "skill games"

 So the ban has gone into effect and everyone on social media is whining about it. Some are saying the only people who want this are the casino lobbies and stuff, and given I basically have a position of "you should gamble in a casino", I wanted to reiterate my position.

Look, when i was growing up gambling outside of the lottery was BANNED in Pennsylvania. And I thought that was BS. I think gambling should be legal. And when it was legalized in 2006 I thought it was a good thing. In the 2010s, I started doing casual gambling at PA casino/racetracks like hollywood casino in harrisburg, parx in philadelphia, mohegan sun in wilkes barre, and delaware park in wilmington DE. I wouldnt gamble much, just like $5-10 on slots a day, maybe spend the day playing horses betting $2-4 a race, ya know, REAL casual stuff. Sometimes I'd win, sometimes I'd lose, I'd lose more than I win on average, but hey, as I like to say, cheap days out, all things considered. Cost less than going to see a movie or going to an amusement park, and I'll be getting to amusement parks later in a different article tonight. 

But....I also had a lot of time to sit on the experience and think about the negatives with casinos. I mean, I'm intelligent. Like, I studied stats in college, I understand these places are there to make money. The house "always wins" in the long term, any wins you get from casinos are temporary and if you play long enough, they'll win their money back. The only winning move is really, not to play, or if you do get lucky, RUN while you're up. 

But I also understand I'm not everyone. A lot of people develop gambling addictions and get pathological about them. They dont understand the odds and probabilities in the real world and they just keep throwing their money at the situation. Eventually they lose the house, they ruin their lives, they're blowing their brains out in the parking lot. And reading stories from casino employees on reddit, yeah, that stuff happens. I also notice that when people go, you get these slots zombies who will sit there throwing their money at the machines until they win, and you always hear about the wins, not the losses. I know my dad told me a story about my great grandma gambling so much at a casino in atlantic city back in the 1970s that the rest of the family had to intervene to make her stop. I mean, it happens. And the older I get, the more I kinda understand that, gee, the prohibitionists have a point. I mean, gambling IS a vice, it IS an addictive behavior, not everyone CAN resist the temptation, and while I certainly dont wanna go back to BANNING it outright, eh, I do believe it should be regulated somewhat. 

And in the 2020s, I feel like the pendulum has swung the other way, from full prohibition all the way to "let's have gambling on your phone, let's have it in the grocery store, or the laudromat, or the gas station, or the local diner." And it gets...excessive. I liken gambling addiction to alcoholism. No, we shouldnt ban alcohol entirely, and doing so is harmful for society. People are gonna do it anyway to some degree if there arent legal alternatives, and we're just gonna return to the days of rampant organized crime if we make it full on illegal. And as someone who DOES enjoy it on aforementioned casual level that IS responsible, I certainly dont want it made illegal because OTHER people can't handle it properly. 

So...for me, it's about a balance, and the right level of legality is somewhere more permissive than "ban it entirely" and somewhere less permissive of "let's have unregulated betting everywhere on everything." I mean, I'm not even getting into prediction markets and how corrupt those are and how they're creating all kinds of perverse behavior. Apparently politicians are basically doing and saying certain things to make money off of bets on these markets and thats problematic. Gambling in sports can possibly create corruption in sports. I mean, unregulated gambling on EVERYTHING can create really perverse incentives and corruption in our society as well, that's another argument. 

So yeah....again, don't want it entirely banned, but I'm certainly not for unregulated everything. Even if I liken myself a libertarian, I'm not CRAZY about it, and do believe in sometimes regulating behaviors for harm reduction. And I think limiting gambling is fine.

I think we should rein in prediction markets and sports betting, for example. I dont think people should have unlimited access to real world gambling from their smartphones. I don't think that we should have slot machines sitting in every day places people go. I do think that it should be relatively inaccessible. Not as in, illegal, as in, you should have to go to a designated site that is designed specifically for the activity, like a casino, a racetrack, an OTW site, etc. It shouldnt be made too open and convenient, because there is some segment of the population that has a legit addiction problem, and pushing it in everyone's faces everywhere is just straight up predatory. It should be there for those who want it, and out of sight, out of mind for everyone else. Just my opinion. 

So....with that said, yeah, I'm okay with banning "skill games". Also, another hilarious argument I keep seeing the advocates of these machines whining about. "OMG THIS IS DESTROYING JOBS!" OH NOES NOT THE JOBS! Okay, that last part is sarcasm on my part, but I HATE this argument. I dont even think everyone should work. I hate job creation for its own sake in principle, and if the jobs are doing predatory things, those are BS jobs that not only dont help society, but probably hurt it. I mean, these jobs fall under the role of "goons" if we wanna take David Graeber's BS jobs into consideration. They're jobs that potentially harm people that dont really need to exist, but only are seen as a good thing because we insist on forcing everyone to work for a living and we probably shouldnt. So yeah, I'm not gonna argue that such jobs are useful. Maybe they contribute to GDP on paper, but they dont actually provide a useful function for society and if anything are actually harmful. I just wanted to address THAT given my own niche interests on THAT topic. 

But yeah. I'm fine with the skill games ban. If you wanna gamble, go to a casino. Make the conscious effort to drive to a designated places that allows gambling and gamble. I dont want this crap shoved in peoples' faces everywhere. It's not healthy for society in my view. And yeah, that's my view, I'm sticking by it, and yeah. If you don't like it, tough, I don't care.  

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

So let's discuss what's happening with gaming

 So...I won't go into details, but I'm seeing some crazy stuff online recently. Apparently, due to AI, every gaming system it seems is being jailbroken, and people are acquiring a lot of paid content for free if you know what I mean. No, I won't be showing it or discussing the details for obvious legal reasons. But uh...yeah. This isn't really good. It could blow up the entire current business model for gaming, and odds are, in the long term, the industry is going to strike back. I know some people are framing this as "gamers won", but uh...no, we haven't we really haven't. 

To preserve their profits, this kind of largescale jailbreak is going to lead to drastic action by the industry. It's probably gonna end this console generation and force the next out, even if it isn't affordable to the masses yet. Based on videos I've seen discussing cracks on previous consoles, yeah, that's what drove a lot of businesses like nintendo and sony to create new consoles. They feared piracy eating into game sales, so they'd jump ship, trying to create the next generation of hardware that was supposed to be unhackable, until people find a way, and then things would continue from there. 

Normally, it would take long enough for cracks to happen that by the time they did, the businesses will have made their money and they could comfortably jump ship. And, of course, emulation is tricky where it requires systems FAR more powerful than the original hardware to pull off. By the time it becomes common, the console has largely been defunct for a long time and it doesn't really cost the industry much money. 

 However, AI is kind of changing things. It's figuring things out in seconds that it would take humans a lifetime to, meaning that it's now effortlessly bypassing traditional security measures, AND decompiling games, allowing for them to be ported to other platforms natively. AI has long been criticized of taking IP from the little guy, but now it's doing so on a level that's destructive enough to cost MAJOR industries money. And what I fear most is the reprisals for this.

The closest analogue to what we're seeing is going to be similar to what happened in the early 2000s when file sharing allowed for people to just effortlessly download music that they used to have to buy on CDs and records, etc. And the industry reacted negatively, going so far as to sue individual users for downloading pirated content. We might see a return to that again. 

Some fear that we will never get a console again. Like, with RAMpocalypse, there's real debate over whether we will ever really "own" our own hardware again. Future consoles might rely solely on game streaming to ensure that individuals never have access to files ever again. After all, if AI can crack that stuff effortlessly, then the existing industry might lose money. We might also see future operating systems be more locked down to discourage people from operating outside of the closed ecosystems that the industry wants for us. That's why people fear the end of physical media in the first place. "You will own nothing and be happy" is actually the direction the businesses want to go in, and that's why some are celebrating now. But again, this is gonna be just a short term victory so to speak. IN the long term the industry will likely win. They'll lobby the government to change the rules, or push for stricter enforcement of IP laws, or they'll change the business model for the worse.

 And that's something that's also very related to topics I normally discuss on here. How do I really feel about IP laws? I mean, I recognize they're necessary to some degree, but think they're written WAAAY too far on the side of the industry. And given the nature of technology evolving, it seems like we're artificially keeping antiquated models going so people can keep making money. We live in a society of artificial scarcity. We dont all need to work, but our society starves people out unless they do. We then talk about creating jobs and that being a good thing. We then try to push for artificial scarcity so people spend money to give to businesses. IP laws are one way of doing this. What AI is doing now, is just the core conflict with technology vs IP and the capitalist business model all along all over again. The internet kinda reminds me of that story with Jesus and the loaves and fishes. He just straight up copied that crap and fed the 5000. But in our current economy, that's "piracy", because think of how many jobs that Jesus destroyed. Fishermen and bakers make their money by selling stuff to consumers. But if Jesus can feed people for free, there aren't as many consumers. If there arent as many consumers, the businesses can't make money, and then they go out of business. And then they'll starve, even if we have free food for all, because some guy can just copy it instantly and distribute it for free. Capitalism requires gatekeeping and artificial scarcity to function, and it seems intent on enforcing that scarcity. IP laws are just a way of doing this. Taking a product that someone could take and distribute to free to everyone, and putting it behind a paywall to preserve the industry, its jobs, and its profits. Because that system being compromised or destroyed kind of causes economic chaos and capitalism is based on the idea of you work, you trade with others, and you pay each other for goods and services. When technology can reduce the marginal cost of something to zero, that's an entire industry destroyed.

Now, to be fair, with an industry like gaming, or music, or entertainment, it takes work to create something. If people dont pay for it, then there's no incentive to do it. And that destroys future creativity and ensures that the market adjusts so that no new media is created. Now, of course, creative individuals will likely still create things, youd still have a vibrant indie gaming scene. BUT....the AAA game industry as we know it would go out of business. So again, I'm not entirely against IP laws. I just support them to the bare minimum extent to preserve the core industry existing, even if I don't think that they should go as far as they do now.

And it does seem like, evolving past the early days of the web, an equilibrium came to exist. Sure, eventually hackers and jailbreakers would eventually win, but  by then, the industry will have made its money and moved on. AI is disrupting that balance. Again, it's dismantling complex security that take humans years to crack in seconds, and its able to rewrite apps natively to any platform so anyone can use them on any sufficiently powerful piece of hardware. That's kinda game over for the current form of the industry, unless they do something drastic. And that's where my fear comes in. They could do some crazy "war on piracy" where they start locking random people up and suing them into oblivion for downloading copyrighted material. They could change the business model where everything is done through weak hardware that can't run everything and game streaming, since native gaming inherently has security risks. Ideally, they'd just nerf the AI, but with AI being entirely unregulated and hurtling toward "superintelligence" as some say, odds are its effects are just going to get more disruptive to the current world economy (and possibly other things) because its reined in. I mean, AI in general SHOULD be regulated. There's talk that AI if left unchecked could basically nuke the world like every science fiction movie in my lifetime warned about. It could end up causing job destruction on such a massive scale that even my proposals (which rely on some semblance of the old world still functioning) arent enough to handle it. Seriously, AI could really upend the entire capitalist system if left unchecked. As I said, that whole you need to work and pay others for their work system? AI might obsolete ALL of that in such a rapid amount of time that we won't know what to hit us. Thankfully, AI will also be so fast it likely will have thought up all of the solutions to that before we can. And probably act on them. Or...it could just kill us all. I mean, that's a possibility too. 

But yeah. Scary times we live in. Even if I kinda WOULD like the work and profit based system as it exists to disappear in favor of post scarcity, I obviously would like it to happen on a scale where we can...you know...adjust to it properly. This stuff is just happening WAAAY too fast. And again, I really do fear that this could cause the special interests and businesses to use the force of law to crack down in draconian ways to preserve the status quo. This is not the first such challenge to ever threaten capitalism in this way. Back in the 1930s we were already talking post scarcity and how we were hurtling toward a world where we wouldnt have to work any more. We responded to it by creating this hell of the modern economy with its obsession of consumption and job creation. I really fear what happens next. I kinda fear the reactionary forces that wanna preserve current business models more than I fear the changes to some degree. Because they'll just use the force of law to FORCE things to stay the same, or to keep the rules written in their favor, and then enforce their ideas with extreme prejudice. 

But yeah. That's my reaction to this. It's just another front on this never ending war between technology obsoleting capitalism's institutions and capitalism trying to preserve them. The idea of something just being free and widely accessible to all is just unthinkable from the capitalist perspective, and they'll continue to find new ways to preserve artificial scarcity to force us to continue using the existing system and its institutions. Which is why I aint necessarily optimistic about this. Sure, "gamers have won" for now. But the industry will strike back and I fear what that's ultimately gonna look like.  

Saturday, October 10, 2026

PA "skill games" are basically just slot machines

 So, everyone is in a big fuss about so called "skill games" being banned. Why are they banned? Because they're basically slot machines. My opinion? Yeah, no crap. Like, it's not even subtle. The machines I see around PA look exactly or almost exactly like the machines that exist in casinos. And slot machines are basically designed to take your money. Doesn't mean you can't hit here or there. I was lucky on my last AC trip, but that's not the norm, and in the long run, you're gonna lose money. 

My honest opinion on gambling is this. I think there are some issues with it. I recognize not everyone has the education in stats that I do where they realize these things are rigged against them, and given capitalism is as messed up as it is, a lot of people will fall prey to them because let's face it, the idea of winning lots of money from gambling is more appealing than working. But much like with everything else capitalism, those delusions of success are often more appealing to people than the cold hard reality, and some people will just throw their money at the machines until they pretty much ruined their life.

This is why some want gambling to be banned. It's a "vice", like drinking, smoking, drugs. It's fine in moderation, it's addictive, and it can ruin lives. I dont agree with a full on ban, dont get me wrong, I am a libertarian and believe people should have the freedom to partake in vices. But that doesnt mean I dont support regulating them either. Im fine with say, "sin taxes" on marijuana or cigarettes. I'm fine with limiting gambling to casinos and limiting casino construction to certain zoning practices. I think the option should be there for anyone who wants it, but it should also be out of sight, out of mind. I dont like the proliferation of gambling as exists where people can throw money at sports betting apps or "prediction markets" willy nilly. I think it does prey on psychologically vulnerable people who do end up getting sucked in and making irresponsible decisions. 

Like, from my own perspective, as an EXTREMELY casual gambler, it's fine to go to a casino with a set amount of money, and spend the day gambling. I mean, people will spend $15 for a movie ticket and insane amounts on concessions for a 2 hour movie. People will spend significant money eating out or going to an amusement park. Concerts cost hundreds of dollars at times. What's the difference if they go to a casino and gamble instead? Ya know? if you're gonna spend a day out, there's nothing wrong with some casual gambling. Just like there's nothing wrong with going to a bar and ordering a drink or two. it's when the behavior becomes addictive, compulsive, and has negative outcomes that it becomes problematic. 

I do think there should be some restrictions on it. Not shoving these things into our faces in every store or restaurant or public place is a reasonable one. And we should probably have stronger restrictions against the people who keep going to the ATM and throwing money into things. I think that people should only be allowed to gamble so much a day, or within a 30 day or 365 day period. The amount can be reasonable, although admittedly it can be hard to decide how much is too much given the vast socioeconomic inequalities in this country. What is devastating for a lower wage worker can be pocket change to some rich new yorker spending the weekend at the borgata. Maybe put it at a percentage of income, but it can be hard to enforce that. So idk how that would work. Either way, there should be stronger protections to root out addictive behaviors and put limits on them before they ruin their lives. Casinos and betting apps already use algorithms to try to root out and limit intelligent gamblers who can beat the odds in sports betting. I know a lot of people complain about, say, draft kings for doing that, but they dont seem to root out problem gamblers who are ruining their lives. Quite frankly, there isn't a profit motive to do so. If anything casinos love these kinds of players as they make money off of them.

But yeah, there should be stronger laws there. And as far as getting rid of skill games sitting at the check out lane of your local grocery store, in a gas station, or in your local laundromat, yeah, that shouldn't be a thing. Again, you should actually have to drive to an actual casino to gamble. It shouldnt be pushed in your face at every moment of every day. That's just preying on psychologically vulnerable people at that point. It's totally unethical IMO. 

But again, I do wanna point out, gambling is fine in moderation, and if you're responsible at it too. I don't advocate for banning it. Just limiting it to the right place and time. 

Why I don't recommend Intel Arc cards very strongly

 So, it's no question at this point that if you're the kind of buyer I am, intel Arc cards are some of the best value on the market in theory. The A380 is $160, and while not super powerful, it beats the sea of ewaste that the sub $200 market often is. At $210 you get the A750, a RX 6600 tier card that equals the 6600 in value when it was a thing. For around $300 you can get the slightly more powerful B570 or B580, which have 10-12 GB RAM respectively, and are basically your only option under $500 to get more than 8 GB. 

Considering how your options from Nvidia include 6 GB 3050s and 2060s at this price range, with AMD not even offering a decent card until you spend an eyewatering $340 for a 7600 (how much a 6700 XT used to cost), you might be tempted to get intel Arc. But then you also should keep in mind the asterisks involved. 

REBAR and older system compatibility

If you're considering intel Arc at the $200-300 price range, I'm guessing you're looking for a card for an older system, or building a new budget system. If you're building a new budget system, odds are you're looking at like an R5 5500 or 5600x, so you'll be fine. But if you're on an aging build with an old CPU, especially an older intel CPU, you might wanna think twice. Arc is highly reliant on a feature called REBAR, which, while I'm a bit hazy on it, has to do with how your CPU uses VRAM. Basically it lets you use all the VRAM at once instead of in 256 MB chunks, and on intel cards, TLDR, if you dont have it enabled, you're gonna have a bad time. 

Here's the catch. The techology only works on 10th gen intel processors or later, or 3rd gen AMD ones. This is a pretty generous bar these days. After all, we're talking 6-7 year old tech these days, but if you're like I was in 2022 buying a 6650 XT, and you basically were still running a 7700k or something, yeah, you're gonna have a bad time. 

To be fair, if you have a system that's that old, you probably should have upgraded by now. Intel 6th and 7th gen processors dont even run on windows 11, and windows 10 was discontinued a year ago. Still, 8th and 9th gen people, especially those with like an 8700k or 9900k still might have somewhat viable processors in gaming and yeah, the Arc cards should in theory pair well with them. But if this features doesnt work, you're gonna have a bad time. 

If you're on AMD, and you're on a 1000 or 2000 series processor, you should upgrade anyway, you can do a bios upgrade and just slide in a 5000 series processor relatively easily without needing expensive motherboard or RAM upgrades. 

So...is this a huge deal in practice? No, not really I guess. I mean, it's 2026, if you're still on 2018 tech or earlier, you should be upgrading by now. Still, I can see why people with older flagship systems like an 8700k or 9900k wouldn't want to. Anyway, I always mention it since pre 2023 I was on a 7700k and this actually was a huge deal for me. 

Game compatibility

So, I guess this is the bigger issue these games, but intel has spotty game compatibility. Nvidia and AMD (formerly ATI) have been making cards since the late 90s/early 2000s. They have mature driver ecosystems with a lot of support for legacy games. You can stick a new card in your system and still expect your old ### favorite game from 2001 or whatever to still work. 

You have no guarantees with intel. Intel cards tend to work fine on newer games, but if you're playing some legacy game from the olden days like I often do (I'm replaying a crappy RTS from 1998 lately that I loved back in middle school), eh....you might wanna think twice.

The problems were worst at launch, they've gotten better over time, although even now, some games tend to have some issues. Eh....I dont trust it, not gonna lie. Sure, Intel will patch the better known ones that are still popular, but again, if you want something that "just works" and you don't have to think about it, well...think twice. 

Quite frankly, researching this for this article, I'm convinced the issues aren't as bad as I thought they were or were back at launch. But yeah.  

Conclusion

 With that said, is Arc worth it? In this economy....I think you should consider it at least. The issues aren't AS bad as I thought they were when I research them somewhat and think about the market in 2026, BUT...if you're on an older intel system and dont wanna be forced to upgrade your CPU (AMD users can just upgrade to a 5000 series assuming they're on AM4), or you really are concerned about compatibility with older games, well....maybe reconsider. I personally would want a system that runs flawlessly on as many games across a wide period of time ranging from the 1990s to the present day, and fear the idea of an Arc card refusing to boot some old game from 20-30 years ago, so I'm a bit reluctant and would rather pay a little more for AMD.

BUT....if you're focused primarily on newer titles, and you want something cheap and good, intel COULD work here. In a normal market it wouldnt be my go to option, BUT...given the insane price premiums both Nvidia and AMD cards are having in the sub $300 market, yeah I can see the A750 or B570 being decent options.  

Election Update 10/10/26

 So, I delay it a day and then only one poll comes out on Saturday, figures. The last two saturdays had TONS of polls come out, but i switch it up to account for that and I shift Texas by 0.2. Bleh. Anyway. Here's this week's update.

Senate

All in all, some mild change, mostly in favor of the democrats. Nebraska is dead heat with no clear leader. Kansas, FREAKING KANSAS is only R+0.2. Iowa remains a tossup, and Maine remains one.

Reflecting more on Maine, and having watched part of the debate, I think I figured out what's going on there. Susan Collins is a normie moderate republican who can successfully distance herself from the Trump administration, and Troy Jackson has the charisma of a wet blanket. The debate was SO BORING. I tried to watch it but it just couldnt keep my attention. Both these guys are like watching grass grow. For Susan Collins it feels like a welcome change of pace given the flair and pizazz of the Trump administration, but with Jackson it just...doesn't work. 

Anyway, those are the tossups. Alaska is lean D with a relatively weak margin. Minnesota is...idk wtf is going on there, should be D+6, not D+2. Texas, Ohio, and Michigan are all D+3ish. And yeah, the senate is looking pretty good for democrats. On the republican side South Carolina is R+2.4. That's kinda crazy. Florida is D+7, and then Montana is D+14, with Bodnar being held back by Bankhead refusing to drop out and allow the candidate with a chance a chance. 

House

 

So I added Alaska's district to the list of districts I auto flip. Unlike the others, it's not gerrymandering that does it, it's polling. The fact is, according to my model, the outcome is supposed to be D+9, so basically soft safe D. According to polling, it's supposed to be R+9 so soft safe R. Given my model and polling are 100% at odds with each other, I flipped this district, recognizing the flaws in my own model. Honestly, there are other districts where my model and polling disagree, but not like that. Most other disagreements are within the margin of error, or have polling within the margin of error. Like WA-03, my model predicts D+14, whereas the polling predicts R+1. A massive difference, sure, but R+1 still means 40% chance of democratic win, so I figured to just let that one ride. Another one is VA-01. My model predicts R+2, polling predicts D+4. These two numbers are within the margin of error of each other so I won't auto flip them. 

There isn't really enough polling to really justify making a full polling only model. Like seriously, we only have like 5 districts of 435 polled right now. And only around 75 or so are in play so to speak. So yeah, do the math, not worth my time. Polling that goes against the cook ratings also often ends up being wrong. Again, the Alaska polling is the exception. Not only are the differences massive, but cook still has it as likely R, the polling tells me likely-safe R depending on how lenient you are with ratings (5 point MOE and it's "likely" instead of safe). And only my model has it has like, safe D. So my model is very obviously wrong there. 

Anyway, this leads me to giving a R+3 correction to my model, where dems have 234 seats and republicans have 201, with the democrats still having a 99% chance of taking the house. Idk how reliable that is given my other system, but to be fair I dont trust that other system either. I'll go with this one for now as I seem apt at detecting errors and flipping outcomes that are out of line. 

Governors

 

Map is what it is. I have little to say on this one. Wtf at Oregon though. 

Conclusion

Anyway, that's this week's update. The senate is largely holding steady, we lost a tiny amount of ground in the house that is of little statistical significance, things are gonna fluctuate I guess, and the governors are where they are. I'll update weekly through election day, I'll probably make a couple predictions before election day itself like on Monday with me constantly editing it, and you'll have the final one by Tuesday afternoon before polls closed. 

Btw, I just voted today so....yeah. This crap is already going on. Love mail in ballots.