Untitled

Attached: 1500647453955.jpg (250x250, 9K)

COPE

>TIM ON SUICIDE WATCH
Thanks JIM.

too much fucking power
does that mean we get more lanes?

The amount of lanes is limited by the socket, desktop processors on AM4 can't have more lanes than they have pins for. The APUs lose out even further on some lanes because they need pins for video out.
The Zen2 parts will probably mirror their Zen1/Zen+ predecessors when it comes to total lanes, but they are PCI-E 4.0 allegedly.

No, but you get PCIe 4.0

>but they are PCI-E 4.0 allegedly.
Its confirmed they are pcie4. Vega supports it. ryzen 3000 supports it.

You guys keep waiting, I'm fine with this for a while.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (397x402, 81K)

what kind of cooling are you using?

this.
this was kinda obvious wasn't it?
It makes me think mama Lisa was playing coy by showing the 8 core version on stage. Or some Sun Tzu shit, shows the 8 core when it's abundantly clear that a 16 core is quite literally one lego piece away.

By the time that image was posted his house burnt down getting that shit to 5ghz

congratulations user!
you have the most retarded cpu ever made.
priced as hedt when it's main stream.
16 pci lanes.
dual channel memory
and it doesn't even hit stock settings consistently, throtles like a mofo and it's a legit housefire.
oh, and 14nm, naturally.

NH-D15. The temps get to about 80c using cinebench 4 times in a row. but that's expected i guess.

I see you own one to because you know so much about it.

5ghz of fire
Boiling AIOs and sending fans back to Taiwan in molten puddles

Based intel

I got it to push a 160hz monitor and it does it rather well.

Attached: intel-9900k-review-fc5-1080p.png (892x694, 68K)

amd: we gonna give a cool box for our high perf quad channel, high core count, 64 pci lanes enthusiast parts, just to add something cool to it
intel: we gonna add a weird box so you can feel differentiated when you get our flagship mainstream part for 600 dollars.

a 1770W chiller

Attached: AMD wins, Intel BTFO.jpg (700x565, 73K)

are you quite literally retarded? Incapable of checking the most basic specs of your own cpu?
en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/core_i9/i9-9900k

You guy can keep waiting for your lopsided amd chip.

seething

I don't really get the 14nm hate though. For quite some time now shrinks haven't contributed that much to performance, and at this point a shrink can even be worse than a bigger but mature process, as intel's 10nm fiasco proves. The only reason TSMC's 7nm is better than 14/12nm is that those weren't particularly good to begin with, compared to intel's 14nm. And even with that, AMD's I/O chip has to be done on the old node because I/O components downscale really poorly.

here, have some symmetry.

Attached: amd_rome-678_678x452.png (678x541, 525K)

DELID THIS

To be fair this chip is very beautiful

Attached: Intel Grave.png (1200x800, 164K)

>I don't get it
it's funny because the biggest chip maker in the world can't do it while a couple of chinks (tsmc) and gooks (samsung) could.

Good goy!

That aged like fine wine didn't it

Attached: 220px-AMD_FX_Logo.png (220x186, 37K)

I own a 2700x and it's the most unstable pos I've ever owned.

AMD VS INTEL QUICK RUNDOWN:
DESKTOP MAINSTREAM: AMD [X] Intel []
DESKTOP HEDT: AMD [X] Intel []
SERVER: AMD [X] Intel []
MOBILE(TABLET, Intel Y series): AMD [] Intel [X]
MOBILE(LAPTOP, U series): AMD [] Intel [X]
MOBILE(LAPTOP, H/M series): AMD [] Intel [X]
EMBEDDED: DEPEND ON USE CASE

who else upgrading from their 1800x?

Someone's copying someone huh

Attached: kekeke.jpg (2560x1442, 812K)

Probably upgrading my 1600X. My 1700 will stay.

>l-let's suggest a comparison with a totally unrelated uarch, that'll show them
try COPING harder next time

But does it really count that much if gook 7nm perform like intlel's 14nm? There seem to be kinda different goals here, where intel aims at having the highest performing process as that's their main market interest while gooks are more into performance per watt sacrificing being able to clock as high due to heavy involvement in mobile products.
We can laugh at their silly failures now but they'll eventually succeed with a process that beats their own 14nm+++++++++++++, and by that also gook 7nm and probably even 5nm (if their perf/watt focus doesn't change) in reachable performance.

Unstable?
Does it fall over or something? My 2700X is pure joy.

Why are you so poor?

>gook 7nm perform like intlel's 14nm
youtube.com/watch?v=NsLI752TauY

>Vega supports it
only enterprise and workstation cards. VII won't use PCIe 4.0
>source
tech jtubers

i predict 4ghz base with a 4.8 hard xfr for the next chip. And that will only be for one or two cores. It's a bust

>over 120Hz/FPS on a non e-sport title
if you're happy i guess...

amd have better cpus and apus for laptops though
laptop are the prime case where ryzen shines because of lower power requirements, more rounded performance and maximizing on price/performance for a closed platform like a laptop
cool slide attempt intelshill

why are you so jewish?

>node shrinks haven't contributed that much to performance
What are you smoking? The only reason it seemed that way was because Intel kept withholding the core counts. The IPC steadily climbed even with Intel gimping THEIR OWN processors.

Okay I understand I'm talking with an AMD fanboy, but I'm looking at it from a neutral perspective (rolling an AMD cpu and gpu in my rig myself). On the cinebench presentation the ES was equal to 9900K running at stock clock (seriously, if it had any turbo going on, they'd have boasted about that, that'd be a really major victory).
Considering it's an ES and everyone's expecting 4.2-4.5GHz+ base frequencies, it's probably running at a similar frequency to the i9. So yeah we're talking similar performance between TSMC 7nm and intel's 14nm++++++++++(+). Obvious and expected advantage of the 7nm is of course power consumption, but once intel finally releases something new, it'll also have improvements there.

Power budget you retard

Attached: 1541542283130(2).jpg (3638x960, 382K)

NNNNNNOOOOO INTELBROOOOS

Attached: 1536470666185.png (682x792, 339K)

okay
now I undestand I'm talking to an intel fanboy in denial.

Attached: 2dec17c39e83c323f15198e59d8e50728e258eca_hq.gif (385x383, 2.42M)

>tfw owning 6 machines, 4 AMD and 2 Intel, and I literally can't tell the difference when using them which is which.

Why does this brand shilling war continue? If my machine turns on, compiles at a reasonable speed, and runs any software I want without the CPU being the bottleneck, I couldn't give a shit what logo is on it.

>he says without posting some sort of proofs

>150 points over
>whilst 20% less power draw
...
>equal
sure kid

also, lets not forget, it was the 8 core part, which will most likely be towards the bottom of the line for the 3xxx series. So a 200-50ish chip vs a 600 one.

Attached: 1515285223865.jpg (600x600, 40K)

since we practicly know that there will be a 16c ryzen 2
this means that this ES sample is the 3600x literally a midrange cpu competing with your top notch housefire

let it sink for a bit

look between the chair and the computer and you'll find the problem

Okay okay guys I'm sorry I, for a split second, forgot this board is completely infiltrated by AMDrones with absolute lack of an objective view on tech matters when the company they masturbate to is involved.

Meanwhile any normal human being untouched by corporate fanboyism uses whatever is currently the best deal for their need.

My bad.

This, the only reasonable voice in this thread(board?)

Its better than ivy bridge in the current year and is way cheaper.

Ohnononononon

I might, especially if it works well on a B450 which seems like it might be the case. I was a retard when I built my gayman pc because I forgot that total war titles want more powerful CPUs so while my 2600 works, it would be nice to have whatever that 8c/16t turns out to be.

The other thing about PCI-E 4 is that supposedly some of the higher tier boards already meet the spec. So some x370 and x470 boards (Crosshairs off the top of my head) are supposed to get a BIOS upgrade that will designate the first x16 slot as PCI-E 4.

Intel wont have 10nm until holiday 2019 and from itll probably be mobile first since they indicated devices for back to school, ie laptops. AMD is ahead this gen, especially in data center space

Except we wont see 7nm apus till next year and currently intel is ahead. New generation of Intel laptops claim up to 24hours, AMD came out and said 12hr. The battery estimates are by oems so AMD is fucked

Ryzen 5 3600 beat i9 9900k at 50% less power.
Cope

>not wanting to be able to see your game when the camera is moving
Your loss, faggot

you just made moronic assumptions which everyone here understood to be stupid, regardless of fanboyism.
>seriously, if it had any turbo going on, they'd have boasted about that
no they wouldn't. Especially because it was an early ES presented on stage. First they make triple sure to have it as stable as fucking possible, letting an algo take care of that is a risky bet. But in the case the xfr, or whatever method of default turbo boost was already working perfectly, they still wouldn't mention it because it'll become a marketing buzz that'll keep under wraps for the launch.
>Considering it's an ES and everyone's expecting 4.2-4.5GHz
no, first, people are either expecting higher freqs than that in one camp and stagnation in another. You just posted what's the most safe bet for the ES freq running on stage. Either way, although it makes some sense it's still unprovable; no one but AMD insiders have anyway of knowing wtf the freq was.
also
>similar frequency to the i9.
this proc is mess, 3.6 base, 5ghz boost (nominally). Who knows the fuck it usually runs at. Housefires throttling and all.
>So yeah we're talking similar performance between TSMC 7nm and intel's 14nm++++++++++
so yeah, I just said a whole bunch of nothing that came from the fumes of my own arse and proved my own argument according to myself. That's called a tautology, or recursive reasoning since you need smaller words.

just shut the fuck you disgusting moron.

You got any sources on that? I'm not saying you're wrong because it would be awesome if that were the case

4.8GHz will still be pretty based, 9900k was a fucking disastrous housefire

oh, since it was only implicit I'll spill it out for you again: you were trying to compare IPC based on two unknown frequencies. To add to injury, you were also determining the overall perf of different fabrication nodes with that whole bunch of idiotic guesstimates. So, yeah. Just go fuck yourself.

my body is ready

Attached: 1547051816101.jpg (1021x503, 168K)

HEIL!

>ipc
>>/v/

You mean 2025?

anandtech.com/show/13699/intel-architecture-day-2018-core-future-hybrid-x86/9

>Q: How is 10nm? Has it changed?

>R: It is changing, but it hasn't changed.

are you legit retarded?

no but someone using the buzzword IPC is

>AMD has better process node than Intel
WHAT TIMELINE IS THIS

a decent one. now if I could only tunnel to a timeline in which WW2 was won by the good guys...

but the good goys won

*NEW* Process shrinks don't matter!

The 9900K was overclocked to 4.7

>beats Intel in benchmark
>using prototype (assume higher clock, worse firmware than shipped product)
>using less power
AMD's longer, better firmware support (improving performance instead of removing multithreading, for example) suggests that the top tier non-server from AMD will be straight up better. The only questions now are "how is the single-core performance compared to intel?" and "is intel's 10nm process enough of an improvement to put them back on top?"
The answer to the first question is "probably not as good as intel, as usual" and the answer to the second question is "maybe," but I'm leaning toward "no" since Intel has had so much trouble even getting something workable for 10nm

You could always kys and join them

You're not even one of those AMDrones are you?
You're just jelly

Shove a CoC up your ass, tranny

>The answer to the first question is "probably not as good as intel, as usual"

And what leads you to this conclusion? Zen2 is going to have further IPC improvements and is going to clock higher than it's predecessors. Chances are it's either going to match or slightly outperform Intel's single thread performance.

Attached: IdontEven.gif (350x196, 1.52M)

AMD has been inching closer to Intel's IPC for years now and ryzen hasn't brought them close enough yet. I see no reason for this generation to be any different, especially without a separate SC benchmark. Can you imagine the media+Jow Forums shitstorm if AMD released an explicitly single-core benchmark where they matched or exceeded a 9900K?

if you're asking the intel shills, it was "OVERCLOCKED, CHERRY PICKED ENGINEERING SAMPLE" despite only drawing 75w.