|
Why the hell are you on r/AMD to begin with. It's basically a weird little cult. AMD good, r/AMD bad.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
People who a. want macOS, b. don't want to spend Mac hardware money and c. don't know/care about specs still buy them and will until they're unable to run modern software. Haswell is old but not obsolete and dual cores, while obsolete in the desktop space, are plentiful enough that most things the bargain (relatively speaking) computer user wants to do aren't about to stop working.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
It's a four year old laptop and it performs like one (yes, it's not great). But dual cores & 4gb ram is still a common laptop configuration, so it's not about to become unfunctional. The most important things to the people buying them is that it runs macOS (no one who isn't committed to this would ever buy one) and that it's as cheap as they can get a Mac. They've probably never used a computer that was noticably better (at least with regards to their use cases) and they probably don't care that it takes a few seconds to load things (or think they don't). Hell, they're buying a laptop-box to begin with. If you put them in front of a computer with a better processor & an SSD could you get them to upgrade? Maybe, but an entry level iMac costs twice as much, is still a dual core, and still has a spinning drive. It's not an easy sell to the target user.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
It's like a handful of software engineers in the 90s got absurdly lucky with regards to borth time and place that they made such an absurd amount of money that they're insolated from any future failures and as such have become convinced they're hyperintelligent Supermen, masters of all, instead of the one thing they know anything about (software engineering), and seeing as it's been 20 years, probably don't know much about at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:musk is a moneyman whose lovely payments company merged with paypal and he won the lottery Even moreso then, though it applies to a lot of people who struck it big in the tech boom, Musk just loves the spotlight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Up until coffee lake that was pretty much the matra of the parts thread. That said, the problem you're seeing in particular is that Sandy bridge really is showing its age at this point, and while it can OC well enough to overcome this deficit, the locked parts are at a marked disadvantage compared to modern parts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Rexxed posted:You got me, slugger. But I'm on to you, actual dogs can't type.  Unless you admit it!!!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:It wasn't too long ago where 200 for a cpu and 150 for a board was a solid build. Or am I remembering that wrong? Sure, just get an 8400 or 2600. They're the smart buys anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
3peat posted:(to get prices in $ just divide by 4; also those prices include 19% VAT) Ouch. Looks like a 1600 is comparably priced but other than that, oof.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:I should've specified that I was talking about the test where each CPU was clocked at 5GHz. Is it possible that more cores may lead to more latency and poorer performance? Or that the hardware fixes for Spectre and Meltdown have a performance cost? Intel has stated, if not in so many words, that the fixes do have a performance cost. They went on to say that it would be more than offset by other gains, but I don't remember if it was in reference to 9XXX chips or the next gen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, but with the 9900k's thermal issues, you'd better loving believe I want the three year warranty of the boxed version over a tray-sold CPU that only carries, oh, *nothing*: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000024255/processors.html It's kinda moot if you're going to OC though, innit it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Every time you change cards you have to go re-bench all the systems you're comparing it to to get an apples-to-apples comparison, it's not as easy as just putting X card in the test rig.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Quick and dirty - 1. Find a benchmark that's not GPU bound (e.g. 720p). 2. realize that CPU performance is resolution agnostic. 3. Boom, you have the maximum performance of the CPU, adjust expectations to your graphics cards ability to push your chosen resolution.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Guy at work bought a Dell Precision 3000 series with 32GB of RAM and Xeon 2186G. We don't support those and asked why since we support Dell Latitudes. He said the Lat's can't do what this does but from the things I am reading the i7 8700 is just as good. It's the same chip, but it supports ECC ram, more or less. Fantastic Foreskin fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Mar 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I don't think you get quad channel RAM until you go to LGA2066. Whoops, you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Sounds like he just wants the expensive poo poo. Any way to hook him up with a C2D?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Is there an advantage to bga or is it just cheaper/easier to make for a CPU that's never moving?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:For the love or Jesus Christ our lord and savior please let this be the console generation where all games will finally run at 60fps. Rehumanize yourself and face to
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
These things are also both running on AMD apus. Console optimizations count for a lot, but AMD isn't really in the 4k race currently, and I got my doubts there about to come out with a chip that'll do 4k60, with a sane amount of power consumption, at console-level pricing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Intel literally can't make enough chips to meet demand. Maybe if Zen2 clowns on them something will have to change, but right now they don't really need to do anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
The heart of the issue is that playing a movie or something is all of most people's computing needs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Also my house needs a dining room in case I host Thanksgiving here This hit home in a way nothing should, and I dont even have a dining room.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Props to Intel for having the wisdom and willingness to do the needful. Those can't have been fun conversations. E:^^^ yeah, but still half what it was before, which also had said retail markup.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
I'd hazard it was good enough for any use that wouldn't want a dGPU and they were fine with that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Their 5.2ghz are at 1.325, what are you on about? If they could hit 5.3 and have it be sufficiently stable they could charge like $600 more per processor than they are for 5.2, I don't think they aren't trying.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
For a top end processor not to be bottlenecked by a top end GPU, ever, either you're turning down settings, which people who buy top end GPUs aren't wont to do, graphics technology has stagnated to the point where they stop making higher resolutions or more processing intensive effects, or you're playing a strategy game. But y'all are right, people who are buying them are doing it just because it has the biggest numbers. Or are pro-tier e-thletes, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
The 9700k/9900k can do 10-20 more fps than AMDs offerings (or could, as of Zen2's launch), provided you're entirely CPU limited.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
There's absolutely no reason to buy a 16 core CPU for gaming anyways, outside of e-peen. It's not an upgrade for anyone, it's just stupid
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:The 3950x is cheaper than a 9900x, has 6 more cores, uses less power, and has a higher boost clock. There's no reason to buy a 9900X for gaming either  The guy I was responding to was comparing it to a 8700K, and the overlap in reasonable use cases between those processors is null. If you've got a use for the cores by all means go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Steam survey has AMD at 19+%, up 4% over a couple years ago and likely to climb as old i5s get retired.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Different ram chips/architecture. Gen 1 Ryzen had trouble with ram compatibility / overclocking and had the best results with ram sticks made with b-die chips. Turns out b-die and now e-die overclock better than other types.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
No, and I don't think anybody outside of Intel knows, respectively.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
If you're not having issues than clearly it's not dead. If it dies sooner for it then it does (and I don't know enough to say one way or the other), but may as well ride it out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
A 9700k and a 2070 is gross overkill for 1080p60.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Palladium posted:The only parts in that list standing a chance to draw at/below their rated TDP while sustaining their all-core boost are the 10400 and below. Those "65W" 8C/10C chips would be drawing north of 150W without power limited at the BIOS. Intel only rates TDP at base clocks anyways. By-and-large these numbers don't say anything at all about power consumption.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2020 13:48
|
|
|
They say at the end Intel hasn't shipped any review samples or indicated when or if they intend to do so. I agree it's not up to their usual standards, but they have to put out something on this and they're working with what they've got.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
Only if you're got what all the suffixes mean memorized and happen to know what the core count for given model is. Generally, for a given I#, higher numbers (the 4 that come after), higher equals better. But you have to sort out the mobile parts since unless they ended in Q they were dualcores for the longest time, regardless of what I# they were. Also changes in thread count between 8th and 9th gen muddy it a bit, depending on workload. And even then I'm not sure how lower end versions of a new gen compare to higher ones from the previous. Probably poorly. All this is to say, no, except in the most technical sense. Fantastic Foreskin fucked around with this message at 23:22 on May 1, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
For gen 1-7, non mobile parts i3 was 2C/4T, i5 was 4C/4T, and i7 was 4C/8T. For 8th gen i3 was 4C/4T, I5 6C/6T, I7 6C/12T. For 9th gen its I3 4C/4T, I5 6C/6T, I7 8C/8T, and I9 8C/16T. Mobile is a whole 'nother fettle of kish. For 7th gen and before I think (but haven't verified) anything without a Q is 2C, and with is 4C, no idea about SMT on the models across the gens. 8th and 9th gens added cores and I don't know what has what anymore.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No, Q has always meant quad-core. "Unless", my man.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Are there actually "unless" on that though? ? It says they were dual cores unless it had a Q. It could use some more commas I'll give you.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2020 14:43
|
|