|
Speaking of PCI-E risers 
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
repiv posted:Speaking of PCI-E risers 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:58
|
|
repiv posted:Speaking of PCI-E risers Bravo ASRock, milk those idiots. 
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
There's no way that's real. That can't be loving real. I refuse to believe it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
repiv posted:Speaking of PCI-E risers A whole 16x slot seems wasteful, why not have a 16 slot 1x breakout board?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:There's no way that's real. That can't be loving real. That said, I thought mining bitcoins was long past rentability?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
I like how the bitcoin miners have these weird rigs with 12" long pcie ribbon cables. Also, I thought bitcoin mining via gpu was no longer profitable?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
I think the buttcoins de jour are 'Ethereum' now and the miners have bought pretty much every AMD 580 card available anywhere to mine them. IIRC, Ethereum was designed to thwart the use of dedicated ASICS, but I'm no expert(thankfully).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
priznat posted:Also, I thought bitcoin mining via gpu was no longer profitable? Bitcoin mining is not, no. But several other buttcoins still are. Just a different flavor of the month.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
priznat posted:I like how the bitcoin miners have these weird rigs with 12" long pcie ribbon cables. FPGA boards.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:I think the buttcoins de jour are 'Ethereum' now and the miners have bought pretty much every AMD 580 card available anywhere to mine them. IIRC, Ethereum was designed to thwart the use of dedicated ASICS, but I'm no expert(thankfully). Yeah, there's no more ironic time to proclaim the death of cryptocurrency than right now, the moment when RX 580 cards are sold out literally everywhere because the Ethereum price is up. If anyone has an RX 580 sitting around you can literally sell it and trade up to a 1070 right now for even money. Possibly even a little extra even factoring in shipping/fees.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:FPGA boards. Are those actually a thing for buttmining now? Jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Are those actually a thing for buttmining now? Jesus. Yeah, like 4 years ago. Now they have custom ASICs so FPGAs are obsolete too.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:They already had H61 and H81 versions. It's not bitcoins any more, it's Ethereum and probably a handful of others. Then one trades them for bitcoins, and then eventually cash.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Ah I haven't been keeping up.. Last I had heard even FPGA solutions weren't really cost effective for Bitcoin, but didn't realize the number of different flavours have exploded so much. We have all sorts of fpga boards sitting around that are used for asic emulation but currently idle, with some pretty stonkin large fpgas on them too. Kind of a shame it's going to waste!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Iirc, FPGA designs were used more because of power draw and efficiency, hashes per watt, etc. GPUs still beat them back then in raw performance, though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Iirc, FPGA designs were used more because of power draw and efficiency, hashes per watt, etc. GPUs still beat them back then in raw performance, though. First, raw performance doesn't matter when you're trying to make more fake money than the real money you're paying for electricity. Second, even that performance advantage only held for the earliest FPGA designs, before optimizations came in, so that brute forcing it on GPUs didn't make sense anymore. The GPUs inherently have a lot more performance for most tasks, but most of their performance doesn't mean anything for the mining task.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Right, which is why GPUs aren't more favorable than FPGAs, and why people started looking into them in the first place
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
So who the gently caress is going to buy the i9 7980xe? The 6950k is still a wooping 1200ish usd so will this replace it or push the top even higher and just be a halo product that no one even looks at buying?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:So who the gently caress is going to buy the i9 7980xe? The 6950k is still a wooping 1200ish usd so will this replace it or push the top even higher and just be a halo product that no one even looks at buying? Companies/organizations with expense accounts and grant money.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
DrDork posted:Companies/organizations with expense accounts and grant money. Don't forget the ever-important Saudi Prince market.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The GPUs inherently have a lot more performance for most tasks, but most of their performance doesn't mean anything for the mining task. (not a direct reply to you, just expounding on this a bit) Bitcoin, in particular, has almost no memory usage whatsoever. Apart from 1 kB or whatever to fit the block you're hashing, the only other input is the nonce you're trying, so you could literally just have a GPU chip and no memory. This is actually not a good thing, because it allows using FPGAs and ASICs to trivially accelerate the searching. The modern approach to cryptography is that slower is better. You only need to incur those costs once to validate but an attacker needs thousands/millions of times the resources and time to brute-force things, so modern cryptosystems like bcrypt allow you to tune how fast a hash will run. If you take a full second to log a user in, then oh well, but even with a custom ASIC that gets 100x the performance you are only trying 100 keys per second per core which is going to be painful. So this is the better way to store stuff hashed in a DB. The next trick is, you make it consume lots of memory too. If you need like 128 MB of scratchpad to try one candidate solution, then your GPU needs to have enough scratchpad memory to fully occupy the cores. This is one thing that differentiates Ethereum from Bitcoin, it's designed to be memory-hard. Of course at the end of the day you can still design an ASIC and attach a ton of memory to it. But you can make it so that the ASIC ends up looking an awful lot like a general-purpose GPU or CPU processor, so everyone is competing on an even playing field within some scalar multiple of each other's performance.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:So who the gently caress is going to buy the i9 7980xe? The 6950k is still a wooping 1200ish usd so will this replace it or push the top even higher and just be a halo product that no one even looks at buying?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:So who the gently caress is going to buy the i9 7980xe? The 6950k is still a wooping 1200ish usd so will this replace it or push the top even higher and just be a halo product that no one even looks at buying? The person who bought this (is there one?) will be looking to upgrade.  https://www.caseking.de/en/8pack-orionx-i7-6950x-4-4-ghz-i7-7700k-5-1-ghz-extreme-oc-system-sipc-186.html (I just read the description, somebody should have told them that virtualization is a thing)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
eames posted:The person who bought this (is there one?) will be looking to upgrade. That would actually be pretty baller with a mITX Ryzen to do your video encoding/serve files, and a 7700K main desktop to run your games. Cooler Master makes a "Stacker" series that lets you do something similar. You can remove the top/bottom of the case and mount another case on top or bottom. You can even run components between the two, so for example you could have the mITX board connected to HDDs inside the main case, or mount your main radiator inside the NAS case. Downside, it's ugly as gently caress IMO.  I actually kinda wish you could turn that case on its side and stack multiple PCs vertically like a server rack, with a big/slow/quiet fan at the top pulling hot air out. Server-grade fans are not really intended for home usage. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
I've seen a lot uglier cases that were a lot less functional, frankly.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Wccftech leak but someone had the i9 7920x (the 12 core) up for $1649 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
C'mon Intel. You can do better than that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The 12C is obviously going to go above the previous 6950X pricing, probably like $1700. Bingo. I'm mildly interested in the 6C for $439 if Skylake-X performance is as good as the leaks are making it seem. That's basically the same MSRP as the 6800K, at Microcenter pricing it shouldn't be too bad. I could strip the rest of my system and either flip my old mobo+CPU or turn it into a server or something.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
eames posted:The person who bought this (is there one?) will be looking to upgrade. Phanteks makes a case that can have an ATX and a mini ITX motherboard in it and has a splitter to use a single PSU. I don't have any use case for that but I still think it is neat.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
eames posted:The person who bought this (is there one?) will be looking to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
I mean, wccftech and all, but: 6C: 439$ 8C: 649$ 10C: 1099$ 12C: 1649$ http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-x-skylake-x-pricing-leaked-core-i9-7920x-7900x-7820x-7800k-i7-7740k-i5-7640k/ Now lets see what AMD does. Their 16C for 1299$, or something like that, would be a hilarious reaction.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
The 1700 is 329. Watch Threadripper come in at an even thousand.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:30K€ what the gently caress? That's not remotely worth it. I wouldn't be surprised, if there was at least one sucker who sprung for it. I was going to point out that EUR 30k was actually a pretty solid deal for 8x 6950X, 32x Titan XP, and 8x 7700K in parts value alone but then I realized I drastically misread that. 8-pack is the model name of the system 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:The 1700 is 329. Watch Threadripper come in at an even thousand. Id almost slam dunk buy the 16 core ripper at 1k even tho i have no real use for it
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:The 1700 is 329. Watch Threadripper come in at an even thousand. The 1800X is $439 or something though. And it's stupid to compare prices directly based on core count when there's a difference in single-threaded performance. As always, the bottom end of the scale is fairly reasonable. For a little bit more than a 7700K you get 6 cores. Intel is already sitting on a small lead in single-thread performance (~5-10%), and Broadwell-E was the shittiest release in years. If they can get some IPC and clock gains then they'll easily be sitting on a 25% lead in single-thread performance which puts their 6-cores in the same ballpark as an 8-core Ryzen (minus 5% or so). So $400 is a pretty fair price for the 6C, all things considered. The 8C is reasonably justifiable in performance terms although expensive... past there the high-end stuff is totally nuts as always, but there's not really any reason you need 12 cores for gaming. Still wish the 6C and 8C had 44 lanes though. I would be as glad as anyone else to see Threadripper really increase the core counts at the lower price points but if AMD is aiming these mainly at the commercial workstation and enterprise markets they may be going higher on the price. I also wonder whether these will be unlocked, as that could disrupt their market segmentation even further. I would be astonished to see the 16C part at anything less than $1000 and I think $1300-1500 is probably more in the ballpark. The people who are buying these are going to be relatively price-insensitive, these are not the types of people who say things like "well gee I could buy two 8C workstations for the same price". It's really easy to justify spending on hardware simply by looking at the labor costs of skilled personnel, which starts at about $75 an hour and goes rapidly upward. Or even just the cost of the rest of the system. Dual socketing and that kind of stuff saves cost even if the CPUs are more expensive. But yeah if it's $1k for a 16C then that's an amazingly tempting price for serious workstation/small business server builds.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I mean, wccftech and all, but: The price delta between $649 and $1099 makes me hope there's a 44-lane octacore at $799 (which is the absolute maximum I'd ever pay for a CPU since I have to assume X299 boards are going to be $$$). That being said, Intel could make me feel a lot more secure in upgrading if I knew there'd be another chip or two 'guaranteed' for the X299 board. All this talk of LGA1151V2 and there being a Z370 *and* Z390 for Cannonlake is giving me pause.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The people who are buying these are going to be relatively price-insensitive The only problem with this logic is that it's describing the existing market, not the market that could potentially be created here. It's the same kind of logic that's kept Intel on 4 cores for consumers. They're right, frustratingly, that consumers don't need more, but that is in part because consumers don't have more than 4 cores for applications to be designed to take advantage of. Ouroboros, eat tail. I know a lot of software developers who are stuck using an i5-class machine, because the alternative is 6 times more expensive for only 3 times the performance. A $1000 16c32t would be, like, 7 times the performance for maybe 50% more. That completely changes things.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
I've a feeling Intel won't adjust their prices at all, seeing as how even though Ryzen has a staggeringly impressive amount of cores, the interconnects between the dies isn't as good. ~versus~  It just looks like the difference between "CPUs in CF/SLI" versus "one and done."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Have any of you folks used tried any of the newer Celerons (e.g. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117748)? Thinking about getting one for my HTPC but I've been burned in the past with low-end CPUs that just can't hack any kind of intensive media playback. Also, didn't there used to be an HTPC thread? Couldn't find it but I might be blind.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 01:09
|
|
