The thing I love about AMD

[podkall]

19 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Aside from you couldn’t? The 1700X performed worse than the cheaper i5 from the previous generation and the 1500X performed around the same as the cheaper i3 or worse than the cheaper i5 from 3 years before. It’s was the same price as a 6400 and performed much worse. The only chip that was around the price of a pentium was a 2200g which was nowhere near the level of an i3 never mind an i5. That’s all not taking into account that RAM was fucking expensive at the time and you required the much more expensive 3200Mhz+ RAM, preferably Samsung B for performance and compatibility. Cheaper RAM also frequently didn’t work as Zen 1st gen and partially 2nd had horrible RAM compatibility. 
 

What the fuck are you smoking?

I don't know, I guess you bought the wrong Ryzen?

[Imbadatnames]

8 minutes ago, podkall said:

I don't know, I guess you bought the wrong Ryzen?

Those are the prices and products available at launch. They didn’t outperform Intel and they didn’t offer better value. When the 2nd and 3rd gen came around they picked up but the 1st gen was rocky and not a good value, especially because of the RAM shortage and requiring the pricier kits. Hell I still couldn’t use Corsair RGB RAM with my 2600 and went with Dominator just for guaranteed compatibility. 

[podkall]

7 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Those are the prices and products available at launch. They didn’t outperform Intel and they didn’t offer better value. When the 2nd and 3rd gen came around they picked up but the 1st gen was rocky and not a good value, especially because of the RAM shortage and requiring the pricier kits. Hell I still couldn’t use Corsair RGB RAM with my 2600 and went with Dominator just for guaranteed compatibility. 

Interesting, do you feel better after ranting about it on a thread about embracing AMD?

[Imbadatnames]

5 minutes ago, podkall said:

Interesting, do you feel better after ranting about it on a thread about embracing AMD?

What are you talking about? Maybe don’t fanboy after a company and get the better product for you rather than jizzing over a logo?

[podkall]

14 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

What are you talking about? Maybe don’t fanboy after a company and get the better product for you rather than jizzing over a logo?

I did get better product, why are you fanboying Intel?

[Motifator]

1 hour ago, Imbadatnames said:

Those are the prices and products available at launch. They didn’t outperform Intel and they didn’t offer better value. When the 2nd and 3rd gen came around they picked up but the 1st gen was rocky and not a good value, especially because of the RAM shortage and requiring the pricier kits. Hell I still couldn’t use Corsair RGB RAM with my 2600 and went with Dominator just for guaranteed compatibility. 

Sorry, but buying Vengeance RGB for Ryzen completely disregarded everything you said in this thread. That's like the shittiest RAM you can buy for this platform.

Seriously though, Zens got price cuts a lot more often than Intels as far as I've been aware. I bought my 3900X for far, far less than a 10900K from some random site.

By the time the second gens and the AF chips were out, you could buy most of the chips for really good prices and the platforms fixed the RAM issues. Motherboards were cheaper too. In fact, there has been a time I was on Discords when almost nobody built an Intel setup. It all went directly to MAX boards and AMD chips. That was like the time AMD sold a lot more than Intel and mindfactory.de confirmed this. You might think we're sucking Lisa Su here but she didn't work her way out to get the best ceo award that time for no reason.

[Imbadatnames]

31 minutes ago, Motifator said:

Sorry, but buying Vengeance RGB for Ryzen completely disregarded everything you said in this thread. That's like the shittiest RAM you can buy for this platform.

Seriously though, Zens got price cuts a lot more often than Intels as far as I've been aware. I bought my 3900X for far, far less than a 10900K from some random site.

By the time the second gens and the AF chips were out, you could buy most of the chips for really good prices and the platforms fixed the RAM issues. Motherboards were cheaper too. In fact, there has been a time I was on Discords when almost nobody built an Intel setup. It all went directly to MAX boards and AMD chips. That was like the time AMD sold a lot more than Intel and mindfactory.de confirmed this. You might think we're sucking Lisa Su here but she didn't work her way out to get the best ceo award that time for no reason.

But the RAM worked completely fine on my 6600K. 
 

The 3900X isn’t as good as the 10900K might be the reason for that. 
 

No they weren’t. They were still miles behind in single thread vs Intel and they had RAM issues until the 3rd gen. 
 

Intel has a massive lead in market share to this day so that’s just not true. 

[Imbadatnames]

1 hour ago, podkall said:

I did get better product, why are you fanboying Intel?

I’m not? And you didn’t. I literally have an AMD CPU dude, I’m just not a fanboy making false claims. 

[Motifator]

41 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

But the RAM worked completely fine on my 6600K. 
 

The 3900X isn’t as good as the 10900K might be the reason for that. 
 

No they weren’t. They were still miles behind in single thread vs Intel and they had RAM issues until the 3rd gen. 
 

Intel has a massive lead in market share to this day so that’s just not true. 

That's not an excuse for buying absolute shit RAM you have done absolute zero research on RAM about. That right there actually does indeed goes to show how late you caught up with the hardware market. Only people with no clue buy that RAM. Granted the issues have mostly been resolved, they have been at large back in the day. With some Intel platforms as well.

I took the 3900X over the 10900K because I didn't want another CPU that will make my room a living hell after the 7900X. Even Intel's mid range SKUs are about as efficient as tits on a skateboard.

As a matter of fact, the CPUs increased single efficiency at large after 2nd gen and single started mattering a lot less back then with titles like MSFS making use of multiple cores, the single most demanding chill game of its time - which I still play.

It is true that AMD had more market share, these numbers are taken from the biggest German retailer of that time.

[Imbadatnames]

2 hours ago, Motifator said:

That's not an excuse for buying absolute shit RAM you have done absolute zero research on RAM about. That right there actually does indeed goes to show how late you caught up with the hardware market. Only people with no clue buy that RAM. Granted the issues have mostly been resolved, they have been at large back in the day. With some Intel platforms as well.

I took the 3900X over the 10900K because I didn't want another CPU that will make my room a living hell after the 7900X. Even Intel's mid range SKUs are about as efficient as tits on a skateboard.

As a matter of fact, the CPUs increased single efficiency at large after 2nd gen and single started mattering a lot less back then with titles like MSFS making use of multiple cores, the single most demanding chill game of its time - which I still play.

It is true that AMD had more market share, these numbers are taken from the biggest German retailer of that time.

You’re missing the point. With Intel you could use any RAM, you didn’t have to even think about it before Zen and you haven’t had to since, with Ryzen there literally had to be lists published because a large number of sticks would not work with the first and second gens. 
 

They weren’t near Intel until Zen 2 (3000) Zen+ was only a moderate bump. 
 

MSFS launched in 2020, the year after 3rd gen…

 

Or you could look at actual use rather than one retailer in a relatively small market. 
 

You don’t even know when generations are or the performance of generations dude please stop embarrassing yourself 

[Motifator]

47 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You’re missing the point. With Intel you could use any RAM, you didn’t have to even think about it before Zen and you haven’t had to since, with Ryzen there literally had to be lists published because a large number of sticks would not work with the first and second gens. 
 

They weren’t near Intel until Zen 2 (3000) Zen+ was only a moderate bump. 
 

MSFS launched in 2020, the year after 3rd gen…

 

Or you could look at actual use rather than one retailer in a relatively small market. 
 

You don’t even know when generations are or the performance of generations dude please stop embarrassing yourself 

You're a bad troll, so what if MSFS launched in 2020? Does that make my 2019 CPU something?

Then you talk like RAM incompatibilities don't exist outside of Zen, and I should let you know they do. My X299 to this day doesn't work with every Hynix RAM, this includes Vengeance. Vengeance is Hynix, Nanya and several other cheap grabbag shit randomized chips. In fact, they changed the ICs in those sticks so many times the RAM has become a meme... and you bought it. QVL lists don't exist for no reason. RAM incompatibilities go long before the dawn of Ryzen.

3000 was more than a moderate bump, it was a far better CPU than the 2700X in several ways.

The actual use was published on tech sites, but a troll like you would make up excuses and say that for the biggest German retailer that takes numbers from every shop (including other retailers).

I think you are the one that should just stop.

[Imbadatnames]

3 hours ago, Motifator said:

You're a bad troll, so what if MSFS launched in 2020? Does that make my 2019 CPU something?

Then you talk like RAM incompatibilities don't exist outside of Zen, and I should let you know they do. My X299 to this day doesn't work with every Hynix RAM, this includes Vengeance. Vengeance is Hynix, Nanya and several other cheap grabbag shit randomized chips. In fact, they changed the ICs in those sticks so many times the RAM has become a meme... and you bought it. QVL lists don't exist for no reason. RAM incompatibilities go long before the dawn of Ryzen.

3000 was more than a moderate bump, it was a far better CPU than the 2700X in several ways.

The actual use was published on tech sites, but a troll like you would make up excuses and say that for the biggest German retailer that takes numbers from every shop (including other retailers).

I think you are the one that should just stop.

FS didn’t support more than 4 cores at launch as it was DX11 which is why the 3600X was worse than the 9th gen i5 
 

You mean X299 which is a workstation board and is optimised for ECC memory not standard sticks? Why the fuck would you buy an X299 board and not use ECC memory? 
 

I literally said Zen + was the moderate bump dude, learn to read. 
 

Dude you really have no idea what you’re talking about and now you’ve forgotten how to read. 

[Motifator]

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

FS didn’t support more than 4 cores at launch as it was DX11 which is why the 3600X was worse than the 9th gen i5 
 

You mean X299 which is a workstation board and is optimised for ECC memory not standard sticks? Why the fuck would you buy an X299 board and not use ECC memory? 
 

I literally said Zen + was the moderate bump dude, learn to read. 
 

Dude you really have no idea what you’re talking about and now you’ve forgotten how to read. 

Quad cores, especially older gen ones have become utter shit by the time that game was released.

X299 is not a full-on workstation product, neither is optimized solely for ECC sticks. Stop making shit up. You have no clue what you're talking about. Anybody who bought X299 at that time also had a quadruple of B-Die sticks on it and tweaked it. Why would I use ECC memory on it? It's a HIGH END ENTHUSIAT PLATFORM. That's literally what HEDT stands for, do I have to rub everything in your face for you to understand? Names aren't seemingly the only thing you're bad at. You either forget everything or you're just so much of a bad Intel troll, you have no argument other than "hurr durr old Intel quadie better than 3600X", which is incorrect.

Edging out by 5 FPS does not make a quad core 9th gen better than a 3600X. There are times, for example, your anti-virus decides to throw a scan and the HCC AMD CPU deals with it better. The leftover cores are always a bonus.

On the matter of RAM, I have a 12400 setup here that doesn't work with Patriot 4000 sticks... in case you don't know what they are, they are Samsung B-Die bins. I mean, it should work right? B-Die is guaranteed to boot with everything? Guess what, it doesn't. I had to go ahead and pull out another kit of B-Die from G-Skill to make it work. My buddy used to work in a big PC store, he always got RAM incompatibilities with those old Intel CPUs you spoke of - because he dealt with a lot of PCs. It's not like RAM is a problem only on Ryzen, never been.

[Imbadatnames]

3 hours ago, Motifator said:

Quad cores, especially older gen ones have become utter shit by the time that game was released.

X299 is not a full-on workstation product, neither is optimized solely for ECC sticks. Stop making shit up. You have no clue what you're talking about. Anybody who bought X299 at that time also had a quadruple of B-Die sticks on it and tweaked it. Why would I use ECC memory on it? It's a HIGH END ENTHUSIAT PLATFORM. That's literally what HEDT stands for, do I have to rub everything in your face for you to understand? Names aren't seemingly the only thing you're bad at. You either forget everything or you're just so much of a bad Intel troll, you have no argument other than "hurr durr old Intel quadie better than 3600X", which is incorrect.

Edging out by 5 FPS does not make a quad core 9th gen better than a 3600X. There are times, for example, your anti-virus decides to throw a scan and the HCC AMD CPU deals with it better. The leftover cores are always a bonus.

On the matter of RAM, I have a 12400 setup here that doesn't work with Patriot 4000 sticks... in case you don't know what they are, they are Samsung B-Die bins. I mean, it should work right? B-Die is guaranteed to boot with everything? Guess what, it doesn't. I had to go ahead and pull out another kit of B-Die from G-Skill to make it work. My buddy used to work in a big PC store, he always got RAM incompatibilities with those old Intel CPUs you spoke of - because he dealt with a lot of PCs. It's not like RAM is a problem only on Ryzen, never been.

So the Zen 1000 and 2000 that didn’t beat those quad cores are equally shit no? 
 

Um…. Yes it is dude? It really wasn’t for gaming and you were just putting more cores onto a chip and games didn’t use more than 4 cores. When games actually started to the product line was killed. 

 

I never said an old Intel Quad core is better than the 3600X, I actually said the opposite you just can’t read 

 

Again not my claim. Do you not know the difference between Zen+ and Zen 2?

 

Yeah BS dude. You could buy the shortest RAM on the market and as long as it was a kit, not mix and match, it would run on anything Intel during the core era at least. 

 

 

 

[Motifator]

1 hour ago, Imbadatnames said:

So the Zen 1000 and 2000 that didn’t beat those quad cores are equally shit no? 
 

Um…. Yes it is dude? It really wasn’t for gaming and you were just putting more cores onto a chip and games didn’t use more than 4 cores. When games actually started to the product line was killed. 

 

I never said an old Intel Quad core is better than the 3600X, I actually said the opposite you just can’t read 

 

Again not my claim. Do you not know the difference between Zen+ and Zen 2?

 

Yeah BS dude. You could buy the shortest RAM on the market and as long as it was a kit, not mix and match, it would run on anything Intel during the core era at least. 

 

 

 

2600 did beat a big chunk of old quad cores, it was not a shit CPU at all, many preferred it.

It wasn't the "when" of games using more than 4 cores, even when games only used 4 cores, those CPUs were already being taxed to %100 or close to full. This made a lot of titles suffer, making newer AMD chips superior to old Intel quad cores. In 2020 or even 2019, older Intel quad cores were basically DONE compared to 6 core AMD SKUs.

I do know the difference between Zen and Zen 2, you however know absolutely nothing about X299, their single best high end product at the time. You think it was meant for ECC but a simple Google would show you that error correction / parity check didn't even work on it. Only some boards booted with ECC RAM, that was it. They were meant to be worked with regular RAM.

That is not bullshit. Some platforms did not boot with some RAM. This is a matter of fact, you don't just take any RAM and put it into any platform. Otherwise manufacturers would never bother with QVLs.

[Imbadatnames]

23 minutes ago, Motifator said:

2600 did beat a big chunk of old quad cores, it was not a shit CPU at all, many preferred it.

It wasn't the "when" of games using more than 4 cores, even when games only used 4 cores, those CPUs were already being taxed to %100 or close to full. This made a lot of titles suffer, making newer AMD chips superior to old Intel quad cores. In 2020 or even 2019, older Intel quad cores were basically DONE compared to 6 core AMD SKUs.

I do know the difference between Zen and Zen 2, you however know absolutely nothing about X299, their single best high end product at the time. You think it was meant for ECC but a simple Google would show you that error correction / parity check didn't even work on it. Only some boards booted with ECC RAM, that was it. They were meant to be worked with regular RAM.

That is not bullshit. Some platforms did not boot with some RAM. This is a matter of fact, you don't just take any RAM and put it into any platform. Otherwise manufacturers would never bother with QVLs.

Aside from it doesn’t? In terms of ST it still loses to the 6600K which is what 2 gens old at that point beats it and the 7600K slaps it by over 10% in single thread. 
 

Again no that’s not how it works. Most if not all games that used 4 cores didn’t 100% them all. Flight sim for example doesn’t load up all 4 cores it uses to 100%. 
 

Read again. Zen + and Zen 2. Zen and Zen + are not the same thing. 
 

You mean the boards people actually bought? And no their highest end products would be the server line with CPUs costing more than an entire computer from X299 and motherboards have dual sockets on that product line. 
 

Give an example then if it’s a matter of fact, not an anecdote. 

[podkall]

26 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Aside from it doesn’t? In terms of ST it still loses to the 6600K which is what 2 gens old at that point beats it and the 7600K slaps it by over 10% in single thread. 
 

Again no that’s not how it works. Most if not all games that used 4 cores didn’t 100% them all. Flight sim for example doesn’t load up all 4 cores it uses to 100%. 
 

Read again. Zen + and Zen 2. Zen and Zen + are not the same thing. 
 

You mean the boards people actually bought? And no their highest end products would be the server line with CPUs costing more than an entire computer from X299 and motherboards have dual sockets on that product line. 
 

Give an example then if it’s a matter of fact, not an anecdote. 

49 minutes ago, Motifator said:

2600 did beat a big chunk of old quad cores, it was not a shit CPU at all, many preferred it.

It wasn't the "when" of games using more than 4 cores, even when games only used 4 cores, those CPUs were already being taxed to %100 or close to full. This made a lot of titles suffer, making newer AMD chips superior to old Intel quad cores. In 2020 or even 2019, older Intel quad cores were basically DONE compared to 6 core AMD SKUs.

I do know the difference between Zen and Zen 2, you however know absolutely nothing about X299, their single best high end product at the time. You think it was meant for ECC but a simple Google would show you that error correction / parity check didn't even work on it. Only some boards booted with ECC RAM, that was it. They were meant to be worked with regular RAM.

That is not bullshit. Some platforms did not boot with some RAM. This is a matter of fact, you don't just take any RAM and put it into any platform. Otherwise manufacturers would never bother with QVLs.

 

So like @Imbadatnames idk if u noticed, I don't talk about AMD just from performance point but also value,

 

you keep bragging how Intel was better than ryzen, but by how much? And especially value wise.

 

Ryzen hit the sweetspot in both speeds and price, which is something Intel wasn't really doing during that time...

 

Speaking of anecdotes, you talked about multiple times how Intel was compatible with RAMs while early Ryzen had trouble with certain RAM sticks or dies or whatever,

 

wow, one flaw and you automaticaly throw AMD into the trashcan and start worshiping Intel like some kind of god.

 

And again, remember, it's not always about who is faster, because that's not even the point, and it doesn't really matter, AMD is faster? buy AMD, Intel is faster? buy Intel.

 

But if you were on a budget at Ryzen's birth, "oh wow this CPU is fast enough and is not overpriced unlike that Intel which is also less efficient with RAM I heared"

Edited November 7, 2022 by podkall
context

[Motifator]

33 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Aside from it doesn’t? In terms of ST it still loses to the 6600K which is what 2 gens old at that point beats it and the 7600K slaps it by over 10% in single thread. 
 

Again no that’s not how it works. Most if not all games that used 4 cores didn’t 100% them all. Flight sim for example doesn’t load up all 4 cores it uses to 100%. 
 

Read again. Zen + and Zen 2. Zen and Zen + are not the same thing. 
 

You mean the boards people actually bought? And no their highest end products would be the server line with CPUs costing more than an entire computer from X299 and motherboards have dual sockets on that product line. 
 

Give an example then if it’s a matter of fact, not an anecdote. 

Highest end for the end consumer. X299 was the desktop platform on the enthusiasts high end echelon. The server & pure workstation variants, C600 series chipset lines were WAY less common. Servers were either using old Xeons because they were commonly found, or AMD EPYC by that time. Intel's offerings were simply either too expensive or a lot less commonly found as far as X299 derived products were concerned. X299 could also as well be used for workstation / server purposes alongside of gaming and overclocking. It was basically a one do all high end product.

2600 losing to a 6600K on ST does not matter, like I said games and other stuff started using more cores already by the time 2600 was released. PUBG, the most common game of its time was doing it while already having in-works being done towards HCC CPUs. There are other bonuses like using a PGA instead of LGA to me. You can't as easily break PGA as you could with LGA and PGA is recoverable from freak vandal CPU mount efforts. Like, having shaky hands, which I happen to have. The CPUs cost less than their Intel equivalents, they also didn't require a whole new socket with a new chipset every time Intel released something new. You could actually slap a 5900X to an X370 board and that board would even have access to U.2 SSDs. Making it reach what X299 reached and even further on the desktop line. Optane SSDs and such, I'm running one U.2 with mine right now. I bought that SSD for very cheap from some leftover stock over a second hand site (it was new).

You only bring single core argument because you're an obvious Intel fanboy, as if single core is the only thing that mattered during recent years. This is a dumb argument just like you thinking people rocked ECC RAM with X299. The best thing here for me do to would be blocking you and ignoring content from further comments. You would be the first to go down that list in that case, I'd congratulate you for your genius towards reaching that point.

[Imbadatnames]

45 minutes ago, Motifator said:

Highest end for the end consumer. X299 was the desktop platform on the enthusiasts high end echelon. The server & pure workstation variants, C600 series chipset lines were WAY less common. Servers were either using old Xeons because they were commonly found, or AMD EPYC by that time. Intel's offerings were simply either too expensive or a lot less commonly found as far as X299 derived products were concerned. X299 could also as well be used for workstation / server purposes alongside of gaming and overclocking. It was basically a one do all high end product.

2600 losing to a 6600K on ST does not matter, like I said games and other stuff started using more cores already by the time 2600 was released. PUBG, the most common game of its time was doing it while already having in-works being done towards HCC CPUs. There are other bonuses like using a PGA instead of LGA to me. You can't as easily break PGA as you could with LGA and PGA is recoverable from freak vandal CPU mount efforts. Like, having shaky hands, which I happen to have. The CPUs cost less than their Intel equivalents, they also didn't require a whole new socket with a new chipset every time Intel released something new. You could actually slap a 5900X to an X370 board and that board would even have access to U.2 SSDs. Making it reach what X299 reached and even further on the desktop line. Optane SSDs and such, I'm running one U.2 with mine right now. I bought that SSD for very cheap from some leftover stock over a second hand site (it was new).

You only bring single core argument because you're an obvious Intel fanboy, as if single core is the only thing that mattered during recent years. This is a dumb argument just like you thinking people rocked ECC RAM with X299. The best thing here for me do to would be blocking you and ignoring content from further comments. You would be the first to go down that list in that case, I'd congratulate you for your genius towards reaching that point.

You can buy the C600 fairly easily dude. It’s just not a workstation platform but it is intels top end. The X299 was a workstation platform, that was its target market, not gaming. People who wanted more than 4 cores for workstation tasks but didn’t need the C600 chipset. 
 

Aside from they didn’t? 
 

Oh one game. Wow that’s so amazing. 
 

If PGA is so great why have AMD gone to LGA for the 7000 series whilst always using it for TRX and Epic? 
 

I literally have an AMD CPU dude. Generally single core is still the most important factor, especially in gaming. Even games that use more than 4 cores don’t load them all up to 100%. 
 

Stop spreading misinformation about shit you know nothing about. 

[podkall]

5 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You can buy the C600 fairly easily dude. It’s just not a workstation platform but it is intels top end. The X299 was a workstation platform, that was its target market, not gaming. People who wanted more than 4 cores for workstation tasks but didn’t need the C600 chipset. 
 

Aside from they didn’t? 
 

Oh one game. Wow that’s so amazing. 
 

If PGA is so great why have AMD gone to LGA for the 7000 series whilst always using it for TRX and Epic? 
 

I literally have an AMD CPU dude. Generally single core is still the most important factor, especially in gaming. Even games that use more than 4 cores don’t load them all up to 100%. 
 

Stop spreading misinformation about shit you know nothing about. 

So... can you summarise what's your point with less than 80 words?

[Motifator]

2 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

You can buy the C600 fairly easily dude. It’s just not a workstation platform but it is intels top end. The X299 was a workstation platform, that was its target market, not gaming. People who wanted more than 4 cores for workstation tasks but didn’t need the C600 chipset. 
 

Aside from they didn’t? 
 

Oh one game. Wow that’s so amazing. 
 

If PGA is so great why have AMD gone to LGA for the 7000 series whilst always using it for TRX and Epic? 
 

I literally have an AMD CPU dude. Generally single core is still the most important factor, especially in gaming. Even games that use more than 4 cores don’t load them all up to 100%. 
 

Stop spreading misinformation about shit you know nothing about. 

Lol, top end from ages ago that gets slapped by my 3900X (and the TR / EPYC) at stock, let alone the settings I had it on. They kept selling them and the X299 at inane prices even years after and only the shills bought them. The workstation boards based upon C600 were not common, overly expensive and required Xeon chips that were either bought illegally as Engineering samples from Ebay, or were just insanely expensive again. There were some server hardware using it, but the old Xeons took almost the entire market. When I lent a server for HL2: DM, they gave me older Xeons. Those were the most common stuff for a very long time in that market. Socket and the retention mechanism was the most shit on C600 as well. That X299? Was not solely a workstation chipset, it was also aimed at the enthusiasts. Literally look up on what HEDT abbreviation stands for.

PGA is a good implementation for a desktop platform, there is nothing inherited bad about it that keeps the CPU back. I personally prefer it for my shaky hands, because I can easily mess up a big LGA socket like the 2066, and I did in fact.

Single is not the most important factor for me, also if there's somebody here with no clue, it's you. The one who thinks X299 is meant to only work with ECC RAM.

His point is nothing really, he's blabbering BS and fanboying Intel. Even if he owns and mains AMD CPUs severally, which I doubt, he's still too upside down to understand anything.

[Imbadatnames]

22 minutes ago, Motifator said:

Lol, top end from ages ago that gets slapped by my 3900X (and the TR / EPYC) at stock, let alone the settings I had it on. They kept selling them and the X299 at inane prices even years after and only the shills bought them. The workstation boards based upon C600 were not common, overly expensive and required Xeon chips that were either bought illegally as Engineering samples from Ebay, or were just insanely expensive again. There were some server hardware using it, but the old Xeons took almost the entire market. When I lent a server for HL2: DM, they gave me older Xeons. Those were the most common stuff for a very long time in that market. Socket and the retention mechanism was the most shit on C600 as well. That X299? Was not solely a workstation chipset, it was also aimed at the enthusiasts. Literally look up on what HEDT abbreviation stands for.

PGA is a good implementation for a desktop platform, there is nothing inherited bad about it that keeps the CPU back. I personally prefer it for my shaky hands, because I can easily mess up a big LGA socket like the 2066, and I did in fact.

Single is not the most important factor for me, also if there's somebody here with no clue, it's you. The one who thinks X299 is meant to only work with ECC RAM.

His point is nothing really, he's blabbering BS and fanboying Intel. Even if he owns and mains AMD CPUs severally, which I doubt, he's still too upside down to understand anything.

You really aren’t reading anything are you? 
 

X299 served a purpose, not really anymore as i9 is a thing. Intel only had that platform because AMD were so shit up until Zen 2.

 

HEDT is workstation. 
 

Aside from its not or AMD would have stuck with it for AM5 wouldn’t they.

 

For gaming it is which is what the discussion is about. 
 

Literally owned more AMD chips than Intel dude and had an all AMD system for a decent amount of time 

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

On 11/6/2022 at 2:13 PM, Shimmy Gummi said:

I specifically said gaming and you rebut with other things. Did you even read my post?

 

You are conflating me with another person. I did not ever mention a 5 year gap, and yet you replied to me with that information.

Ryzen 3000 was trash in general compared to Ryzen 5000. The difference is staggering

[Motifator]

15 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You really aren’t reading anything are you? 
 

X299 served a purpose, not really anymore as i9 is a thing. Intel only had that platform because AMD were so shit up until Zen 2.

 

HEDT is workstation. 
 

Aside from its not or AMD would have stuck with it for AM5 wouldn’t they.

 

For gaming it is which is what the discussion is about. 
 

Literally owned more AMD chips than Intel dude and had an all AMD system for a decent amount of time 

I am but at this point I don't think I should be reading into your nonsense.

X299 served a purpose yes, offering more lanes, etc. These were all desktop features they bundled these things with, such as Optane sticks. High end desktop platform, as per se. Desktop being the denominator, not workstation. They would have named it high end workstation platform if it was going to be purely workstation. There's a difference between a desktop and a workstation platform. X299 was both in one.

For those CPUs, PGA was great. I don't know why AMD chose to go towards LGA, but there are many other issues with AM5 that I wouldn't buy it at all. Such as long boot times.

Yeah yeah, for gaming bla la bla. A 3900X was a perfect all rounder CPU, it outdid the X299 shitters back when Intel was STILL selling them at INSANE PRICES. You'd think they would reduce prices to clear stock, but no. This never happened properly time after time. Maybe a few times on the newer chips like the ones that came after Basin Falls, but they were so turd it didn't even matter. Like 9900X and 10900X, all were fucking trash. AMD? They kept working on the Threadripper and EPYC platforms. By the time Intel got to those late model X299 chips, AMD was already murdering them with Genoa & the alikes. Much less, finding a cooler for C600 is way, way harder than anything. Save for the Supermicro loud ass inefficient blowers.

Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to X299. I've had plenty of hardware in and out on that platform. It was good but it got outdone so quickly. Intel to this day doesn't have an equivalent, new CPUs have reported bugs. AMD is murdering them on that segment even today... how ironic.

[Imbadatnames]

7 hours ago, Motifator said:

I am but at this point I don't think I should be reading into your nonsense.

X299 served a purpose yes, offering more lanes, etc. These were all desktop features they bundled these things with, such as Optane sticks. High end desktop platform, as per se. Desktop being the denominator, not workstation. They would have named it high end workstation platform if it was going to be purely workstation. There's a difference between a desktop and a workstation platform. X299 was both in one.

For those CPUs, PGA was great. I don't know why AMD chose to go towards LGA, but there are many other issues with AM5 that I wouldn't buy it at all. Such as long boot times.

Yeah yeah, for gaming bla la bla. A 3900X was a perfect all rounder CPU, it outdid the X299 shitters back when Intel was STILL selling them at INSANE PRICES. You'd think they would reduce prices to clear stock, but no. This never happened properly time after time. Maybe a few times on the newer chips like the ones that came after Basin Falls, but they were so turd it didn't even matter. Like 9900X and 10900X, all were fucking trash. AMD? They kept working on the Threadripper and EPYC platforms. By the time Intel got to those late model X299 chips, AMD was already murdering them with Genoa & the alikes. Much less, finding a cooler for C600 is way, way harder than anything. Save for the Supermicro loud ass inefficient blowers.

Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to X299. I've had plenty of hardware in and out on that platform. It was good but it got outdone so quickly. Intel to this day doesn't have an equivalent, new CPUs have reported bugs. AMD is murdering them on that segment even today... how ironic.

You really aren’t. Are you like 6 or something because you clearly have no idea about platforms beyond 2020. 
 

X299 was launched in 2017 dude why are you comparing it to a chip from 2020? 

 

It was never good, it was always a terrible value milking money out of people who needed more cores and Intel taking advantage of AMDs abysmal chips up until Zen 2 came out in 2020, 3 years after X299 launched. 
 

Is X299 a workstation platform or not? You kept saying it wasn’t now you’re comparing them to TR and Epic. Make up your fucking mind. 
 

What is AMD murdering them in exactly? The 13900K beats the 7000 series nearly across the board at a lower price.