These are the assholes who kept 6C/8C away from us on mainstream sockets when they were capable of delivering it

>These are the assholes who kept 6C/8C away from us on mainstream sockets when they were capable of delivering it
>There are people on 4channel who still defend them

Attached: 2000px-Intel-logo.svg.png (2000x1327, 82K)

If they'd done that they would've probably killed amd, user. That would've been much worse. MUH CORES was the only thing amd had going for them for about 6-7 years.

>There are people on 4channel who still defend them
Did you just learn that apple, microsoft, nvidia, and intel have paid shills here?

The 8350 shit on the i7s in the same era.

Only reason you think otherwise is cause you play manchild games.

>tfw 8350 performs better than a 2600K multi at stock and better than a 3770K when OC'd to 4.4
>tfw all while costing less than 3570K
I bring that up whenever people are disregarding the FX-8350 but they don't care about price to performance.

Attached: CPU Store.png (720x720, 277K)

I had mine at 5GHz running on just a hyper 212.

People can say whatever they want, but my buddy had the extreme edition i7 (don't remember the gen) and it choked on 6 VMs when my 8350 was sailing past 15.

It also felt much snappier than my i5-6600 that is OC'd, but that's probably just due to W10.

>didn't list amd
Hmm. . . That company seemed like the most obvious, and egregious offenders on Jow Forums.

the fuck are you talking about retard, from what this board has been telling me for the past decade amd doesnt have enough money to pay shills

>15 VMs
The FX chips are basically cut down server chips, (even has hpc mode in bios) which is nice for doing real work and being a light home server.

no

blame amd for being absolute cr*p. look it up, skylake was supposed to be 6 cores and they scrapped it because of what a massive flop bulldozer was

Attached: 13AE3848-4BE4-4E5F-B8A2-E8F4BC755BBE.png (1920x1080, 1.38M)

Keep in mind that this is when AMD was delivering such a poor architecture that most operating systems were best served by treating their paired cores like hyperthreading.

>"Intel were being assholes and keeping 6 and 8 cores to the expensive X99 platform but it's AMD's fault

sort of how things work. if your competition is garbage, it doesn't push you to innovate. there's a reason why apple charges $750 for it's budget phone

hardware threads in a nutshell

>It makes sense for a company to eat into its own margins when they're already a market leader and the competition is trailing heavily
I don't know the intricacies of Intel's position at the time, it's possible they have a very good reason to do with yields or other limitations that they didn't push it faster, but AMD's Bulldozer farce wasn't exactly putting pressure on them to innovate any faster. Is it possible that Intel could've pushed past quad cores in their consumer line sooner? Quite possibly. Is Intel inherently evil for not doing so? Not really. By that same logic, you could argue that AMD were 'assholes' for not giving actual 8-core performance out of their 8 core chips.

>didn't list amd
You're on a freetard contrarian board, of course AMD is going to be shills similarly to how/why linux is

Attached: 1489421658644.png (653x726, 84K)

I like AMD user, but I'm not here to jerk them off.

>paid
They do it for free. No compensation. Not even for hot pockets.

People don't shill amd for free though, and anyone who claims otherwise is in fact lying.

You can say crap. I'm not getting the logic here - you have clear proof that Intel could have released a better product but then withheld it to make more money in the future. That's entirely Intel's fault. They're putting business first in a very dirty minor, which isn't surprising, but isn't the only path.

don't act like if the shoe was on the other foot it wouldn't be any different. there's no point in changing something when there's zero motivation to.

Do we know that they could've delivered that in a cost-effective way to their mainstream chips, though? You're assuming that having the technology and having the ability to put that technology in an affordable mainstream SKU are the same thing.

Bulldozer was AMD's Pentium 4, assuming you're old enough to remember that. Intel learned a lot from that debacle.

>he doesn't know that when Amd had the upper hand they kept innovating even to a fault
That coping is ridiculous. They are all out to make money, but intel is making money while fucking us in the ass.

innovating right into bulldozer right? :]

Disgusting windows desktop with kuroneko on it. She deserves better than this

she's too beautiful for ugly linux

>I want competition for free

Nvidia and Intel have automated scripts that post in threads on Jow Forums. You get the same pasta posted multiple times in different threads. Sometimes replying to posts that don't even match up to what is being pasted. The scripts just run off of key phrases. Then idikots reply to them and the script picks up on further key phrases and trolls the threads trying to shut down any negative comments. I doubt there are actually any real people defending Intel and Nvidia here.

>intel now has bulldozer like performance in servers after all security patches

Attached: 1528269341610.jpg (466x591, 23K)

>tfw bulldozer chips are starting to shine because they don't deal with this security nonsense and have soldered spreaders.

>What is the affordable 5820K

no it didn't lmao

if (You) retarded its (You)r problem

Attached: UPGRADE2010.png (836x768, 17K)

the state of r/ayymd

and what is this reason other than apple being jews?

I shill ryzen for free, but their gpus are a mess now, they seem to only be capable of one market at a time.

Resetera intel shills BTFOREVER

Attached: 1539079592707.jpg (1035x1000, 189K)

You didn't need 6c/8c just face it
X99

Can't wait for 7nm Zen at 4.8GHz

Quad core? What do you need dual core for?

>The FX chips are basically cut down server chips
Not even cut down, just clocked higher than a server chip would be

That turd only shat on itself. It was bad even from a performance per dollar point.

Trully the chip to expose brainlets

>trully the chip to expose brainlets
isn't that all amd products

Go back to installing security patches on your core2duo, Ravij.

Prevented me from spending more money on hardware because the jumps in performance were so minimal. You could also turn your statement around and say that AMD was the reason for 6C/8C not becoming mainstream for so long because they couldn't deliver a good architecture. You could also say the same about GPUs by the way, we still don't have freedom of choice when it comes to 4k capable gpus.

(((people)))

>ORANGE LOGO BAD

>Intel goes full anti-trust
>offers Dell & HP upwards of $200M in yearly rebates to not use AMD chips in their OEM hardware
>New York, Germany, South Korean, Australia, Japan, all countries Anti-Trust investigation divisions raid Intel offices with warrants
>find that Intel violated anti-trust laws and acted in bad faith against the consumer market for well over a decade to such a high degree that they stiffled competition and nearly bankrupted their competitor

And somehow its still AMD's fault that their CPUs sucked during this era. Yeah, no faggot. It's literally Intel's fault. AMD had basically no fucking money. They hoped for higher core count with Bulldozer, in order to move beyond 2/4c configurations and force the industry to use more threads at lower clocks over sticking with single threads powered by fusion reactors.

Zen is a new uArch, but philosophically, its follows the path Bulldozer set out. High core count with TRUE SMT capability, that is power efficient while delivering extremely good performance. They ended up coming to like 85-90% of Skylake and Kabylake in a single generation.

Yeah, they were playing catch up, but 52% IPC uplift in a single generation is holy shit levels of insane. Zen2's IPC gains, all front-end improvements to feed the seriously beefy backend, chiplet integration, 7nm process and the fact that it will likely allow 4.3-4.5GHz base with all core/thread boost to 4.7-4.8GHz? The 9900k won't stand a fucking chance.

Now Intel's trying to increase core/thread count, but are charging you the cost of half your kidney for the part, while needing really strong aftermarket cooling to cool it well enough to deliver the marketed performance. Please, kindly, fuck right off with your bullshit insinuation.

>chan.org/

Attached: 1537755368478.png (575x641, 40K)

>all this coping

intel doesn't charge an arm and a leg, if anything intel is dominating the entry level and lower level pc building market because amd doesn't have an answer for it's pentium series.

>strong aftermarket cooler
absolutely wrong, i'm using a $30 air cooler on my i7 and it literally never goes above 70 degrees

none of what he said was coping, it was just facts.

>t. someone with a brain

>70 degrees

Attached: Hammond Banter.jpg (602x709, 106K)

They only had enough money to pay shills for marketing. It's literally the cheapest, and most cost effective type of marketing.

>coping
>projecting this hard

Intlelets are truly a delusional kind

>I shill ryzen for free
>for free
Doubt, and if you do then you really need to end your life.

this:

Attached: __.png (886x304, 54K)

nah just more team red retardation to try and make it seem like amd's consumer grade cpus are significantly cheaper

let me guess "b-but my 1600 running at stock with an aio never reaches above 55 degrees!"

retard

wrong

>52% IPC uplift in a single generation is holy shit levels of insane

It happened every 2-3 years on average before Ivy Bridge.