#1926
What do you mean it's at 100%?
Also if you didn''t put anything on the HDD nothing will be on the HDD. I don't understand the problem.

#1923
Why do you have an i7-4790K and want an i7-6700K if you're not going to overclock?
Also on stock clocks the 6700K isn't going to be any faster. That's not really an upgrade.

If you don't want things to be any faster you can just get a mATX mobo (if you don't already have one), a smaller case and another 16GB RAM and you're done.

If you want it to be faster then getting a CPU that's the same speed isn't the way to go. I still have no idea what you're doing but for rendering you're CPU bound most of the time. Rendering is also one of the very few things that scale perfectly with more cores.

So are you going for the same speed again just smaller or an actual upgrade?

#1924
If you want programs to be installed on the HDD then you need to install them on the HDD. The default is whichever disk windows is on.

#1921
Googling it takes literally 3 seconds.

#1918
Some effort involved, more expensive and it makes small form factors difficult. So I'd rather not if you don't absolutely want to for TF2 or whatever.

I'm referring to error correcting RAM.

January.

How will you be moving it? I mean if you have to move the monitor etc as well then mATX is probably fine.

So one 2.5" bay and one 3.5" bay should be enough.

Ah well. There's also the 1050, 1050 Ti and Titan X which are all newer so I was a bit confused. Btw the 1060 3GB and 1060 6GB are not the same card either.
nVidia has released at least 4 drivers this year that caused crashes on most system so idk if that'll improve.

Depends on the Quadro. Depends how much your GPU bound.

You should probably figure out what CPU/GPU balance you need. No point in getting a 1080 if it's stuck at 50% load because you should've gotten a CPU with 2 more cores instead. What's currently the weakest link? Current CPU?

#1919
USB installer.

#1915
Budget?
Overclocking yes/no?
What are you going to use it for?

#1916
Overclocking yes/no?
ECC yes/no?

When are you going to build? Zen should be very interesting for editing.

How portable? Depending on how many SSDs/HDDs you need mini ITX would be possible.

Which 3 new nVidia cards do you mean? No matter how I count it doesn't add up to 3.

Also are you absolutely sure this is about AMD vs nVidia and not just consumer vs professional? I mean did you confirm that it would run better on a GeForce. Because some things are down to OpenCL vs CUDA, but some are due to Radeon vs FirePro / GeForce vs Quadro.

Always blame windows first. Because windows is always to blame.

Is it fixed now?

You know what? I actually believe that you put 30 minutes into this and retyped everything. But man, copy pasting would've actually been better.

That's an instant -frag.

Yeah, you didn't understand what I meant.

You're still in the mindset "most ratings are correct, false ratings will quickly be corrected".
My point was if all ratings are random (which means most are completely wrong) then it'll not sort itself out quickly. It's just self perpetuating randomness.

Going back to my original points:
1. Rating systems are rather difficult because in most games results aren't 100% comparable and there's no real benchmark that you can use to get a few initial guaranteed correct ratings that you need for the system to work.
2. The global average winrate must be 50%. You will not deviate far from that in a perfect system and you won't either in a random system. So unless it's a system that's somehow far worse than random (or random with huge overreactions) your elo will only change very slowly if at all (within a certain range obviously) unless you actually improve. Which is one of the 2 main points of the elo/rating system.

"I have 50% winrate / my elo is not changing -> I must be stuck in elo hell" is simply not a logical conclusion. It could be a terrible system (or a localized area of randomness, e.g. all players start with the same elo in the "middle" and it needs some time to sort that out) or just as well Dunning-Kruger.

Any rating system that's not completely broken will get everyone close to 50% winrate. That's the easy part. The difficult part is to produce close games. If that happens then you can reasonably assume that the original goal, accurately rating the players' skill, was met.

So that's what I mean. If there's completely shut outs (both wins and losses for you) then the rating system is not working properly, if you have mostly close games and even very close games then it probably is. Your elo won't change much either way, but one means you actually are in elo hell and the other means you're exactly where you should be and should stop bitching and start improving if you want to get higher elo.

#12
Yeah, sample size is the problem though. Given enough time you'll get the usual bell curve and the better players will probably be higher up. But if you need 10000 games per player to get to that point because even the best player ever only gets a 51% winrate then it's rather irrelevant.

And then you have the fact that your playerbase is not static. New players messing things up etc.
Also improving a lot but only changing your winrate from 50.1% to 50.2% would be rather frustrating and unnoticable.

#9
I'm not sure if you didn't understand what I meant or if I don't understand what you mean.

I'm talking about completely random placement. So you get matched with a mix of far better, far worse and somewhat similarly skilled players against another random mix. The wins and losses will basically be random data. You will end up with ~50% winrate and wildly fluctuating elo.

If the system is good there should not be any long streaks, not if you get another one in the opposite direction or equal length right after that. If you were placed to low then a short streak is normal, maybe 2 or 3 losses after that if you overshoot and then pretty much 50% winrate. But if you were placed correctly, go up e.g. 400 elo and then go down 400 elo something is seriously wrong. Your chances of winning the later games were single digit percentages according to your original elo so if that were correct you would've just had a 1 in 100000 streak. Your elo must've been wrong. But if you then lose all that elo again then either you had a 1 in 100000 negative streak or your original elo was correct. If that happens regularly and/or to a fair share of the playerbase then the system is probably more random that accurate.

#5
The problem is that if elo is completely random you will get exactly the same 50% winrate.

Elo is incredibly difficult when you're talking about teams, different classes, different maps, single games and have no real way to gauge how close a match was.
Examples for each:
1. Teams: You have one player with way too high elo on your team. You might lose even though it's not your fault, but if you win their elo gets skewed even more. Unless you take individual performance into account the system can't tell who is dragging the team down until it gets a larger sample size.
2. Classes: Self explanatory, being good at class A does not mean you're good at class B. Class limits / meta can force you to play a class that you're worse at than your elo suggests. Unless you're equally good at all classes that might mean that you end up in the middle in terms of elo where you lose every game on classes you don't like, but win every game when you can play your main.
3. Maps: Self explanatory.
4. Elo relies heavily on larger series of games to judge whether a player is over or underperforming. You're not going to win every single time against someone with only slightly lower elo. If elo predicts a 75% winrate and you win 3 out of 4 rounds your elo is correct and should stay the same. A lot of system will only count the win and increase your elo instead. On the other hand if elo predicts a 40% winrate and you win 2 out of 5 rounds your elo should stay the same, but in most system you will lose elo instead. Then there's also the problem that "almost capping the point 5 times" will not show up in even the most sophisticated systems.

tl;dr
Perfect system gets you 50% winrate.
Completely random system gets you 50% winrate.
The difference is how close the games are.
If you either roll or get rolled the system is bad. If the games are close you have exactly the right elo.

#1911
The A10-7860K is not really a quad core. It's more like an i3, 2 cores, but runs 4 threads. It's not quite the same and it doesn't work nearly as well.
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-A10-7860K-and-A8-7670K-Review-Godavari-Refresh/Results-Cinebench-R15-TrueCryp
It's not even close.

So something like this would be best.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($138.98 @ DirectCanada)
Motherboard: ASRock H170M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($84.50 @ Vuugo)
Memory: Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg Canada)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB Mini Video Card ($254.27 @ Vuugo)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($39.99 @ NCIX)
Power Supply: Corsair CXM 450W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($42.98 @ NCIX)
Keyboard: Cooler Master OCTANE Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($65.50 @ Vuugo)
Total: $676.21
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-12-04 12:48 EST-0500

#1912
-4 RAM slots
-dual channel
-80+ Bronze at least.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock B150M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($68.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Kingston ValueRAM 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($43.50 @ Directron)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($48.60 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon RX 470 4GB Red Dragon Video Card ($154.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Deepcool TESSERACT SW ATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Rosewill 500W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Other: Windows 10 Home OEM Kinguin Key ($28.09)
Total: $499.13
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-12-04 13:06 EST-0500

EDIT:
Yeah I should've posted this sooner. Basically what #1913 said.

It did.

TN is in no way more desirable. It's simply cheaper.

This is not about vibrancy, it's about accuracy and colour gamut.

Colour gamut is a rabbit hole and you probably can't afford worrying a about it too much anyway so let's focus on accuracy for now.

The circles are where the colours should be, the coloured dots are what the monitor actually displayed.

http://i.imgur.com/QLLcCEm.png

And here's how it should look like:

http://i.imgur.com/5V8c7tv.png