Who here looking foward to all the shilling when Intel releases their $600 dual ring bus cpu that beats the 3900X while...

>mfw Intel has worse perf per watt compared to AMD than Piledriver had to intel during Sandy Bridge

Attached: Screenshot_7.jpg (1919x1079, 348K)

Bullshit, I have 8400 and run it at constant boost 3.8 GHz 65 W, of course with -100mV

I really wish all CPU shills in general would fuck off back to /v/ and Reddit. This place has been brainlet central since the Ryzen release brought in shitloads of "look at my new gaming rig" retards and crossboarders.

Attached: 1554663639055.gif (413x243, 51K)

You do know that every consumer electronic that you use to shitpost on has a CPU, right?

Attached: smug hank.jpg (231x281, 20K)

Yeah right, we totally believe you

Attached: totally 65W.png (1303x1481, 50K)

The 9900k already has thermal issues at stock clocks. It's highly doubtful that Intel will be able to maintain those clocks on the Comet Lake 10-core without requiring absurd cooling solutions, no Intel dual ring bus has any chance of not having to sacrifice clocks and single threaded performance for additional cores.

It's ogre. Intel has no capacity to answer Ryzen 9 on a mainstream socket on 14nm++++++++ Lake CPUs.

Total system is not CPU

Yeah, that's why I'd like to actually talk about them instead of have them marketed to me by retarded shills using stale Jow Forums memes and gaming benchmarks.

I think Moore's law is dead put it quite whell when he said Intel knows brute force, I have the same feeling Intel is gonna glue together two binned 9900Ks, to make either a 14 or 16 core to beat the 3900X, sell it for $600 or more, and people will shill it on Jow Forums because it beats AMD's 12 core that uses half the energy, but power consumption doesn't matter if it wins by 20%

Power consumption really doesn't matter in desktops, so probably.

Here is the power consumption of Core i5 8400 when running Prime95, the power consumption is 61 W.
The -100mV is necessary for 65W consumption under heavy tasks. Some task even need lower Vcore. I wish this cpu wasn't being TDP locked.

Attached: StressTest.png (1600x900, 172K)

Are you suggesting they are going to try to glue together two 9900k's like Cascade Lake AP? That's probably the only play they've got, but the cost and thermals would be catastrophic.

Not to mention the humiliation when the 16-core Ryzen 3000 posterizes it at a way lower price.

I think you mean wins by 1% in Intel favoring benchmarks for 10 minutes before the Intel cpu goes full China syndrome and melts its way to the Earth's core.

Hell yeah I am, and they'll do it just to say they score higher on benchmarks than AMD's 12 core, it's like how I used to boast about matching the performance of a 4770 on my 8350 when overclocked to 4.5 even though it uses 50% more energy than a 95w i7, exept these days Intel is literally having to use double the energy to beat them.

The problem with that idea is that the Ryzen 3000 16-core will humiliate anything Intel could achieve with two 9900k's on one socket.

Attached: AMDRyzen916coreCinebench1000x563.jpg (1000x563, 106K)

It will be humilated by ryzen 12 core,but people are still gonna be autistic about small leads in gaming, you saw it during 2700X vs 9900K, the thing was double the money and energy, barely performed better and people still shilled, now they're btfo.