First day officially sold, already out of stock, so many preorders made

NDA lift at 15:00 GMT+2 my dude

twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1028798973694423041

anandtech.com/bench/product/2128?vs=2123

>Intel 18 cores beating AYYMD HOUSEFIRES 32 cores in many benchmarks

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYYMDPOORFAGS CONFIRMED ON SUICIDE WATCH

>Epyc
>not 2990WX
nice try shill

Attached: nope.png (865x249, 50K)

>CPU Cooler Not Included
How are you supposed to cool this monster?

Even in AYYMD HOUSEFIRES own slides it shows 32 cores HOUSEFIRES not beating the 18 cores in many benchmarks

You AYYMD ASSLICKER fuckers are so getting creamed by the 28 cores Cascade Lake soon :^)

>geekbench

Why are you shilling for closed hardware? Not only that, but x86 is objectively shit.

t. ARM cuck

how's that Qualcumm Shitdragon handling video rendering???

Air

My 6th gen i5
>4 cores
>8 threads
>3.2GHz
>1/9th the price
>Better real world performance
>Doesn't draw enough power to trip breakers
>Doesn't double my cooling bill
Typical AMD manlet cope. Throwing money at it won't make you any taller or your dick any less small

Attached: 1531076447657.jpg (1200x1500, 198K)

this bad boy

Attached: IMG_8499.jpg (2952x2523, 2.74M)

Smart people buy Intel with reliable chipset, not designed by Asmedia garbage, reliable Gigabit Ethernet and 10G Ethernet controllers made by Intel, not Realtek crab garbage

AYYMD can't offer anything but glued on garbage that has terrible latencies and high power consumption

>i5
cores
threads

Attached: 1473904892658.jpg (1106x1012, 362K)

Wrong.

My bad. I'm currently kicking your AMDlet ass with only 4 threads

Attached: 1534097486743.png (271x293, 122K)

heh owned you hard, kid

nice pictures...come back when you grow up.

>hahaha your machine is more efficient than you think! RETARD!!
>>fucking pwned him huh lads?
cope

Attached: 1534015956046.jpg (2508x3541, 770K)

wtf i love amd now

Attached: 1533361477865.png (1024x749, 196K)

>x86 is objectively shit
that's why AMD created the AMD64.

It's just a 64-bit implementation of x86. You're either very stupid or trying to make an unfunny joke. Either way, you should just fuck off.

Is there an open source alternative? oh there isn't? okay then

Attached: 1509602347975.jpg (1167x740, 75K)

>Is there an open source alternative?
Yes, there is a lot of open hardware.

Oh let me just run all my x86 applications on this ARM processor, oh wait I can't

>a 64-bit implementation of x86
brainlet

I am correct. Stop being stupid. This isn't something you should be getting wrong. Step away from this conversation now and cut your losses.

There are alternatives, which is what you asked for. Now you want to narrow that to an alternative which is 100% compatible with x86. You will keep adding caveats so you can delude yourself into thinking that you need x86. But if you truly wanted an alternative you wouldn't be scrambling to knock down every alternative by setting an unrealistic bar.

ARM is not an alternative to x86. There is no open source alternative to x86, stop deluding yourself.

There are many alternatives. If you actually wanted an alternative you could adapt to another architecture. Just admit that you WANT to use x86.

I don't care that if it is x86 or *. What I do know is that x86 solves the most problems for me. None of the "alternatives" come close, and therefore would not serve as realistic alternatives. I will not use something that is useless.

>anandtech.com/bench/product/2128?vs=2123
So it's official, Intel shill has to dip into the desperate tries, that AMD fanboys used five years ago. Intel is going into a darkage, how long or short it'll be, i don't know. But three years in the tech business is a long time.

I'm always impressed when i see the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Attached: dunning-kruger-0011.jpg (660x330, 122K)

>You AYYMD ASSLICKER fuckers are so getting creamed by the 28 cores Cascade Lake soon :^)
Not even assuming it doesn't burst into flames when you try to boot it.

OpenPOWER exists and is superior in literally every way except software compatiblity(which is only a problem if you're a cucked botnet user, anyway).

The alternatives are hardly useless, you're just stubborn. You can stick with x86 and closed architecture as much as you want, I'm not going to force you into using an open RISC architecture. But don't act like a whiny child by suggesting that no alternatives to x86 just because they don't meet your nonsense standard of total compatibility with x86.
If you can't back up what you claim, then leave. Nobody cares about your silly little memes. If you want to be snarky while not daring to stick your neck out then you should stay on twitter or something.

>itanic too big to sink they said

s e e t h i n g

>People have different use cases. Wow!
>Let me still peddle this dog shit even though it solves none of your use cases.

Alright

Attached: 1509602945122.jpg (403x497, 37K)

>give me an alternative to x86
*gives alternatives*
>n-no, not that one!

>If you can't back up what you claim, then leave
Dude, this is Jow Forums. this is Jow Forums. If you want to be elitist, formal and implementing an academic level discussion, you should leave. You're far to good for this place sir.

>Dude, this is Jow Forums. this is Jow Forums
This isn't /v/ or /b/. We used to be able to discuss things without meme spouting and snarky jabs here.

I guess it was too much to ask for a single alternative that's actually useful.

>there aren't any alternatives to x86 because for something to be an alternative it would need to be identical to x86 in every way
Stop being retarded and kill yourself.

You already got two, you're just a retarded piece of shit.

You want something that can match you level of compatibility for x86, that is unrealistic. The amount of compatibility for alternatives is growing already, and you could help. Unless, of course, you want proprietary software. In that case you will have to wait for those specific developers.

>how can intel even compete at this point?
Simply put, they aren't.

Never said that.

Nope. I can tell you for certain I have a higher IQ than you.

This guy gets it. I don't care about proprietary or open source.

I've been browsing for far to many years, and no it wasn't. I was underage when the GTX 400 fermi meme hit the floor, just to name one instance. If you REALLY believe it was much better, then i feel sorry for you, because then you obviously spent so much time on here, that your brain feels nostalgic for "the good old days". The fermi meme train wasn't better, it was worse. The HD 5xxx series hype, just as childish as the next thing. Things wasn't better, it was different, but Jow Forums has always been a shitshow. Which is why I've been lurking since i was around 15 probably, some 10 years ago.

b-but muh 5GHz

x86 does almost everything better than any alternative though. This flexibility is a huge plus. Can you prove otherwise?

>I've been browsing for far to many years, and no it wasn't
Yes it was. Maybe not among the gamer kind who shitpost about graphics cards and start their little brand wars, but we used to have good discussion on a wide variety of topics. Now not even generals are worth posting in. The only way to have any good discussion is on IRC.

>Never said that.
You might as well have, because that IS what you're asking for. So just stop being retarded and kill yourself already.

with a big guy cooler.

Trust me. I don't want x86 to exist, but it does. And it's the best. Get over yourself.

The only thing it has over other architectures is compatibility. That is it. It is closed, it is CISC, it is less powerful, and so on. It does not stand out in any way besides compatibility.

It's best only because your definition of "best" is "identical to x86 in every way". Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

What? Oh are you talking only about the ISA and not real world implementations?

My bad.

>Cascade Lake
>less cores
>more heat
>more shekels
HOW WILL AMD EVER COMPETE

Yeah I guess I should make it clear: I don't care one bit about the ISA.

I would use ARM tomorrow if it gave me the same benefits.

Now what? You're going to say ARM sucks because it's basically x86?

That is only one facet, so no. I am not solely talking about that. But being CISC is a negative.

I'll utilize might right to disagree. The intelligent discussion on Jow Forums is a rare sight, and the shitshow is a daily, in my opinion.

>less cores
premium price for Intlel's big monolithic dies

Now, yes. But we used to have good discussions almost daily.

CISC means nothing to your average consumer. Why do you think RISC/CISC is important to anybody except someone looking to solve a specific problem. Mind, end-users should not know any details about the ISA. If they have to, your product failed.

>CISC means nothing to your average consumer.
I don't care. Why do you think I would care? Are we talking about selling this shit or are we going to talk about the benefits of RISC over CISC? I really couldn't care less about "consumers". Where did you get the notion that this conversation is in any way related to moving products into the hands of consumers?

Maybe you should read the thread. Somewhere along the lines you or someone else moved the goalpost from "Tell me a single alternative to an x86 CPU" to "Tell me a single alternative to x86 ISA".

That's a very different question now. I never intended to go in that direction and was always using the consumer point of view. I know you guys can't win against that point of view so you moved the goalpost to ISA.

Attached: [AK-Submarines] GIRLS und PANZER das FINALE - 01 [BCEC3F02].mkv_snapshot_15.52_[2018.03.28_22.51.31] (1920x1080, 134K)

>4.2ghz max boost

How do you guys even get excited about this garbage

>Somewhere along the lines you or someone else moved the goalpost from "Tell me a single alternative to an x86 CPU" to "Tell me a single alternative to x86 ISA".
No, I merely stated the inferiority of CISC compared to RISC together with my other points. You just seem to have latched onto that so much so that you believe the conversation has tilted towards that. But it hasn't. You are wrong.
>I never intended to go in that direction and was always using the consumer point of view
You never showed any signs of that until you started talking about what you believe "consumers" want. You should have asked for an alternative to x86 for "average consumers" to begin with, at which point I would have told you to fuck off because no one cares about what consumers want.

>Why are you shilling for closed hardware? Not only that, but x86 is objectively shit.

Thread started there, and look at OP topic. It's obviously about consumer hardware. It only started to be about ISA when goalposts were moved.

I believe x86 is shit ISA, I have already hinted at so. You keep putting words in my mouth to peddle your own products, so really I am probably talking to filthy merchant.

Is that real? I want one for my r5 1600

>Thread started there
I know, because that is my post.
>It's obviously about consumer hardware.
It's about consumer hardware, yes, but it is not about appealing to any particular consumer, or appealing to anyone for that matter. It is about x86 being shit, and there being far better alternatives. That is the point.
>It only started to be about ISA when goalposts were moved.
The goal posts were never moved. I simply mentioned that CISC is inferior. It was one of many points detailing the deficiency of x86, which remained the point of discussion. I don't know what you think it means to move the goal posts, but you are wrong.

It's 32 cores, retard. Try doing 5.0 with an acceptable TDP. Maybe they should use a water chiller?

I really hope people aren't buying WX for gaymen/streaming/rendering. The Xs will more than suffice for that.

Okay, then the conclusion:

In the end, there is no alternative to an x86 cpu for most users, especially including myself. I don't work with low-level assembly so it makes no difference to me what is below the compiler.

Attached: 1509687940194.jpg (634x522, 69K)

amd64 is not an implementation, it's an extension; an ISA implementation is completely different
brainlet.

>there is no alternative to an x86 cpu for most users
No, what you mean to say is
>there is no way I could possibly adapt to an alternative architecture
Wrong. Nice reddit meme, though. "Brainlet", yeah you are either very new or you have an extreme tolerance for dead memes.

Fug that is beautiful.
Maybe I am an idiot but I think that ryzen/threadripper color scheme/packaging/logo really added to popularity.

There is no way, that is correct. How can I spend my money in something that requires many times more hours to support? And to even have the same functionality I may have to write my own compiler depending on the architecture and language.

>" alternative" does not work with most production and entertainment software
> In practice it's useless and not an alternative for 99.99%

>REEEEEEEE it is, you are wrong!!!!
Ok.

>wrong
correct me then you dumb cunt and don't come at me with le i was pretending meme

This. I guess I have too much time to satisfy this guy.

Listing ISAs is not an alternative. If I have to write an OCaml compiler for * architecture what is the fucking point.

>There is no way, that is correct
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this.
>How can I spend my money in something that requires many times more hours to support?
Are you saying how can you justify it to yourself? I'm sure you know how transactions work.
>And to even have the same functionality I may have to write my own compiler depending on the architecture and language.
Not necessarily, but I don't see why that has to be such an obstacle.
Write your own "production and entertainment software", then.
Burden of proof is on you.

I was merely agreeing with you but you somehow find a way to interpret something else. Don't think too hard about it.

>Just create a new language, compiler, application stack, web client language, operating system
>All this because x86 is spooky boogy

Yeah I think you are legally retarded

A lot of that has already been done for you.

Well, that depends now doesn't it? LOL Jesus.

amd64 is a specification - Intel has their own implementation, AMD has their own implementation, via has their own implementation
now tell me how I'm wrong

It's all well and good to claim that, but you can't back it up.

He correct. Amd64 extended the ISA. Not just a 64 bit version of x86. Has new instructions and architecture. Just look at instructions list.

see