Dadbod Apocalypse posted:

8 @ 4.5+ is what I’ve been holding out for. C’mon already.

Dadbod Apocalypse posted:

dang, so jealous of my new 8@4.5 rig and it ain’t even out yet

Dadbod Apocalypse posted:

8 @ 4.5+ is what I’ve been holding out for. C’mon already.

Laslow posted:

I was curious, so it looked it up. My quad core Haswell Xeon has actually appreciated in value.

Anime Schoolgirl posted:

ring-bus

ufarn posted:

I wonder how many people /r/AMD drive to Intel. Reading up on some leaked benchmarks for 2800X, and people are using 1.45V OCs to compare to Intel and telling people that's perfectly acceptable.

Paul MaudDib posted:

Oh no, AMD actively encourages it. They've got AMD_Robert, AMD_James, and all kinds of other AMD leads posting there. Notably, AMD_Robert has posted bullshit like "thermal watts are not electrical watts" that just super grinds my gears. No, AMD has not managed to break the laws of thermodynamics, and a CPU is effectively a perfect resistor, so power in = heat out.

r/Intel is primarily modded by one of the r/AMD mods and has very little native traffic on its own, it's just overflow for when AMD does a thing and the r/AMD crowd wants to gloat. It has like 1/5th the subscribers or actives as r/AMD.

Nobody loves Intel as a company, they teabag their customers every chance they get. The line they ride is that their products are usually good enough to make it worth it. Usually.

Same for r/NVIDIA. It's like, mostly tech support and stuff. One guy who does benchmarks every driver revision come hell or high water (god bless his ). Nobody there is boosting NVIDIA, they are off playing games and poo poo.

r/AMD is the result of a rampant bunker mentality. AMD has been the underdog for 10 years now and people have attached their emotional identities to boosting it. They are doomed to a perpetual cycle of disappointment because they can't not run the hype train every time someone suggests a performance increase - "5-10% clockrate improvements" on Ryzen 2000 becomes "definitely 15-20% improvements across the board, and also 10% IPC improvements", and then people are super disappointed when they get 5-10% clockrate improvement and 2% IPC improvement. We saw the same thing with Crimson drivers, which r/AMD was convinced were going to boost performance by 15-20% across the board. 5-10% in specific games, became 10-15% across the board, and then was exaggerated even further. Actual result: 5-10% in a handful of games, 3% across the board.

Reddit is a game of chinese whispers that becomes totally disconnected from the underlying technical fundamentals. And if I try to point that out, I become the wet blanket who hates AMD.

Paul MaudDib posted:

r/AMD is the reason that I am perceived as unreasonably biased against AMD products. I read+argue against that poo poo all day and I just have no sympathy for those shenanigans here.

PerrineClostermann posted:

Sure it is.

Paul MaudDib posted:

It's super funny for a magatar to be trying to tone-police.

Paul MaudDib posted:

r/AMD is the reason that I am perceived as unreasonably biased against AMD products. I read+argue against that poo poo all day and I just have no sympathy for those shenanigans here.

Paul MaudDib posted:

Reddit is a game of chinese whispers that becomes totally disconnected from the underlying technical fundamentals. And if I try to point that out, I become the wet blanket who hates AMD.

Measly Twerp posted:

I agree with everything else you said, but you had to spoil it with a load of complete bollocks.

PerrineClostermann posted:

....a conspiracy against you is the point you're using to say r/AMD is bad?

Paul MaudDib posted:

Haha, and that's the tone policing right there. You agree with all of my points, just not with the point that I'm using them to make.

Anime Schoolgirl posted:

This is exactly why the x86 threads should be merged

We'd have five times the amount of this quality Content

Paul MaudDib posted:

I've got literally no idea what you're trying to say here. A conspiracy, what now? Please explain.

But also please don't, because your posts are mostly a bunch of worthless cheerleading. If you actually have a point to make, you'd make it, but you would rather snipe at my tone.

Measly Twerp posted:

What?

You've explained that you just don't want to get burned again and that's why you're biased to think negatively of AMD, which would be perfectly fine except you then like to make posts where you pretend to be objective and get super offended when someone suggests you might be overly negative. You should not be surprised when people get frustrated by this behaviour.

There is no conspiracy against you, it's your own actions and how you choose to present yourself that cause this.

Paul MaudDib posted:

What? No, I argued that r/AMD has repeatedly hyped themselves into a bunch of technically-indefensible positions, and that I try to be the voice of reason here, despite the bleedover between SA and Reddit. I don't like seeing technically-indefensible arguments made here, and I call them out when I see them.

Anyone is more than free to call me out on claims they think are indefensible, most recently on the whole "CTS labs = fake news" thing that I actually turned out to be 100% right on. But people get too upset about the tone, and they miss the whole part where I repeatedly said "serious vunerability, limited impact, will be quickly patched", because they are emotionally invested in "zero vulnerability, zero impact".

That's actually happened quite a lot. Ryzen has not overtaken Kaby's IPC, it does have some persistent memory/opcache stability problems (and/or needs more expensive RAM), CTS actually did find some legit exploits, etc. People just don't like the tone of me pointing those things out.

But by all means, the raison d'etre of this forum is technical poo poo, we're supposed to call it out when something is technically-indefensible on this forum. Go for it, as long as it's a technically-substantiative argument.

Measly Twerp posted:

Considering the questionable nature of the CTS release I think it was fair to dismiss it until it was verified by a third party. None of us had access to the actual white-paper which is what we would need to verify that the exploits where real ourselves. Your suspicions about the nature of the vulnerability were just that, suspicions.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I was not emotionally invested in there being no impact on AMD, if anything I was more emotionally invested in how poo poo capitalism can be. You're not going to get to the nuance of things if your first reaction to everything is getting defensive that someone disagreed with you.

We all need to have a little more patience. It's more satisfying to give people enough rope to hang themselves than it is to write a rant about what you think they believe and miss the mark.

Paul MaudDib posted:

That's completely fair on the CTS thing from an academic perspective, but my train of thought was that nobody would actually report "root access lets you do root things" as an exploit. Intuition: they have a weird disclosure policy. I read into the vulnerabilities exactly what I was supposed to read into the vulnerabilities. AMD confirmed it, everyone who downplayed it was wrong.

As for getting defensive, I also literally pointed out that Intel had had a similar exploit less than 6 months ago. I have no horse in this race. It's literally going to be patched in weeks, I am astonished it's not patched already. CTS Labs were always wrong on the whole "AMD can't patch this" bullshit and I said as much.

quote:

My greatest wish of all is that nobody would respond emotionally and just tell me in pure technical terms why I'm a loving idiot for thinking what I am. I really detest the whole "it's paul ignore it" cheerleading. That poo poo actually isn't even supposed to be allowed on SA. If I'm wrong tell me why.

quote:

(I do have a stake in the Spectre/Meltdown incident, as a 5820K owner, but time has proven that it's a non-issue for consumer usage... and most usage except DB and web-front-ends. Which is not something I am personally invested in, lol)

Measly Twerp posted:

Wirth1000 posted:

This never would have managed if Cyrix was still around!!!!

Paul MaudDib posted:

As for getting defensive, I also literally pointed out that Intel had had a similar exploit less than 6 months ago.

Anime Schoolgirl posted:

This is exactly why the x86 threads should be merged

We'd have five times the amount of this quality Content

Cygni posted:

Cyrix has been dead for 20 years my dude. NatSemi bought them, then flipped them to VIA, who used the ip to make their low power C3 chips. They were still repackaging it for the embedded market, even making a quad core version called Eden x4, but it’s not in production anymore. They are using ARM now.