16c/32t 125W 3.1ghz stock

>16c/32t 125W 3.1ghz stock
>24c/48t 180W 3.5ghz stock
>32c/64t 250W 3.4ghz stock (500W overclocked) 6236 cb @3.9ghz 3200mhz
OH NO NO NO NO OH NO NO NO

Attached: Screenshot_2018-07-29 Overclocking, overclocking, and much more Like overclocking .png (662x199, 28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

amd.com/Documents/A-Hierofalcon-Product-Brief.pdf
scan.co.uk/products/intel-xeon-platinum-8176-s3647-skylake-sp-28-cores-56-threads-21ghz-28ghz-turbo-385mb-cache-165w-ret
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Your post is so inane I can't even make out who you're shilling.

This

Attached: 1532546161055.jpg (500x662, 55K)

250w on a package with 64 threads is perfectly reasonable, 3.4ghz isn't bad either.

I need this to play fortnight on

The ARM in your fucking smartphone is sufficient for this task. I welcome the enthusiasm for the platform, though.

Judging by the core count you dont even need a GPU.
Look at that shit a fucking 32 core desktop CPU at 3.4GHz

I don't believe an API exists that can achieve this though?

Software rendering is a thing for a while now.
I'm sure it can be done.

why are there no low power/clock multicore processors? higher clock/less cores works better for power consumption/efficiency or something?
t. brainlet.

You absolutely 100% still need a GPU.

Are you 12?

Clockspeed is rarely the limiting factor in fitting into a certain TDP. If you can make a dual core chip run at 3ghz and still fit under a 5w envelope you might as well run it at 3ghz.

there are and are usually sold for very dense servers that usually have web services as their main job.
amd bought seamicro along with their IP portfolio for that purpose but the market din't go too well.
Also they planned some arm chips for that but probably didn't have the money to push it.
anyhow, that market is mostly dead.

amd.com/Documents/A-Hierofalcon-Product-Brief.pdf

ok thanks i think i get it.

what is the difference between summit ridge and pinnacle ridge?

What's the problem? It's getting progressively more powerful and there seems to be a lot of choice for the consumer depending on their use case and needs.

...

About 3% IPC due to cache latency improvements, slightly better memory controller, slightly better clock speeds (and efficiency at a given clock speed).

Just a refresh basically.

>the 32 core threadripper still uses less power than the i9 1kw housefire

More about 5% average
In some programs it's as high as 11% but those are outliers

delid dis

>I9 8 cores @ 95w TDP (cough)
Extrapolating (not including how more cores = more power = more heat)

i9 @ 16 cores 180w TDP (most likely a lot more though due to the way it scales)
i9 @ 32 cores = 360w TDP (more likely requires nuclear fusion to power and be buried in the North pole)

Meanwhile TR2 does 32 cores at 250w TDP

Intel going into the oven where they belong.

Intel is literally fucked.

Intel is gonna get pulvarized.

scan.co.uk/products/intel-xeon-platinum-8176-s3647-skylake-sp-28-cores-56-threads-21ghz-28ghz-turbo-385mb-cache-165w-ret

$8xxx dollareedoos!

Two cores at 3ghz are more than enough for everyone.
My first workstation was a macintosh with a 33 mhz cpu.

Imagine being this much of a corelet.

Attached: 1453069364350.jpg (700x700, 297K)

You sound like a faggot