Dude, no, it's not. Matter of fact, there is about as much evidence for X390 existing at all as i have material in my Ph. D thesis. That i never had.Dude, the X390 is on the AM4 platform
He softly tells you that you were a damn fool for believing random rumor mills without a single grain of salt applied. It's weird he does that with your "bold" predictions, but i'll let it slide.Not even sure what you are upset about here, or what your questions are suppose to answer?
Anything posted on the internet is real these days? It screams fake from a mile away.
Ignoring this is a table that anyone could have created, ignoring the stupid naming scheme, ignoring the incredibly large number of SKUs, ignoring the large number of TDP tiers, that official speed memory support tops at quad channel 3200Mhz (when Ryzen starts from dual-2666 & EPYC 8x2400, really? ), but the number of PCI lanes should signal clearly fake. TR is half of EPYC, that has 128 PCIe lanes, so TR should have 64.
So, what you are saying is that you are just choosing to arbitrarily dismiss all of it & facetiously pretend NONE of it is true.?
lol..
And here:
Study closely^.
Not sure what you are beating your head over and trying to understand. Or even what you are rambling on about.
Agree. This is the needed start.It will be interesting to see how applications start to scale for all these new HEDT platforms that are becoming the new norm. I wonder how soon games will require at least 6 threads, and content creation apps start to really scale past 10 threads.
Indeed, suddenly that best gaming cpu, Core i5, starts feeling kind of inadequate with all these new stuffs from both the Intel/AMD camps.Agree. This is the needed start.
Push.
I anticipate seeing a laser-engraved "Threadripper" on a IHS in the near future... yes it's cheesy. Yes I like it.
Threadripper definitely is shaping up to be competitive, but it's disappointing that we got no detailed info on SKUs and pricing.
I don't know if this is AMD's usual, but it's more than disappointing, it's concerning. That tepid hand-clapping at the end was really telling. Their main competitor just released a whole slew of processors, and they can't even show a Blender score? And it's shipping "summer"? While Epyc is out next month? That implies, to me, that there are problems. If I were in the market, I'd be making plans to buy Skylake, and once those systems are sold, "upsell" to TR is more than just a little uphill. AMD has to know this. My only conclusion is that TR isn't competitive. Presumably because of clocks, especially if Epyc is shipping.
Hey, and good on them for not pushing a non-competitive product, it's a marathon, after all, not a sprint. But yes, very disappointing.
I wonder if there's already jokes penned on TR, it certainly sounds double entendreishI called it on May 17. Threadripper *is* laser-engraved on the IHS:
A lot will depend on Intel's next set of moves, there's also the possibility that TR will be much cheaper but x399 may not especially wrt x299 from Intel.Threadripper definitely is shaping up to be competitive, but it's disappointing that we got no detailed info on SKUs and pricing. This was a remarkably thin and content-light Computex event.
If clocks are only in the 2ghz range or something like that, then threadripper will anemic.
As for saying that them not releasing info means its non-competitive, thats absurd.
Given the hype, disappointment and backlash surrounding their graphics products, they should stop with teasers and demos altogether and just release their products at a certain launch date.That had to be one of the most attrocious AMD presentations I've seen. Why can't they take a leaf out of Nvidia's book? All we got was another teaser essentially.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
I agree except i wouldnt frame it as give "credit" to amd or Intel sitting on their ass. Its not in any way a moral step as "credit" could imply merely a consequence of the new zen tech. Intel does what they are expected to do. And as we can expect in a more monopoly like market we had for years. Its what happens - things slow down. Its quite normal. The same goes for amd. They did what is expected and innovated.The good news to take away from all of this...
If AMD had not of come out with it's hardware, would Intel even bother releasing it's i9 line? I thought it was interesting that most of the news in the mainstream media is focusing on Intel and i9. With only a small line about the thread ripper and how intel had an answer for that.
Intel has never shown any real interest in going above 4 cores. To this date, the largest consumer core count on their processors has been just 8 cores, with the sweet spot being the Intel Core i7-5820K a 6 core part, if you didn't want to pay the insane price of the 8 core part.
The point is, Intel has been sitting on it's ass where it's been selling 95% of all it's consumer grade chips at just 2 and 4 core chips. If anything has come from this, at least we are headed in the right direction... For just twice as much money now we getting an i9 part with more than twice the core count. Might have not even happened if it wasn't for AMD to step up and come out with the Thread Ripper.
So... in conclusion, we are all winning ... It has been long overdue that we needed massive CPU's to push the envelope. I believe in the "build it and they will come" philosophy. With more cores, developers and programmers will be pushing the software side to take advantage of the new hardware. Maybe one day, a new app or game will be out and the box will say 8 cores minimum and 16 highly recommended! I give AMD a lot of credit for taking charge and opening the door for these new multi core processors, for that alone I am not disappointed at all!
Given the hype, disappointment and backlash surrounding their graphics products, they should stop with teasers and demos altogether and just release their products at a certain launch date.
If AMD had not of come out with it's hardware, would Intel even bother releasing it's i9 line? I thought it was interesting that most of the news in the mainstream media is focusing on Intel and i9. With only a small line about the thread ripper and how intel had an answer for that.
But yes, absolutely AMD shook Intel loose. There would never have been more than 12 cores, and there might not have even been a 12 core from Intel given their previous path. It's what I've said to anyone who asks me why I bought a Ryzen system -- if my purchase helps bring better hardware sooner, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.