Der8auer hits 5.0GHz on i9-7900X with AIO water cooling

[VagabondWraith]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I'm in the same boat man, exactly what I am debating right now. lol

I'm going to do the smart thing and wait for all the Skylake-X reviews to come out. After that is complete, I'll weigh the pros and cons of each CPU/Platform and decide if it's worth spending more money for Intel in what will likely not be a DRASTIC difference, but definitely a difference nonetheless.

 

Only thing really holding me back from Ryzen is the mobo selection. It's quite lacking in comparison to X299. Having a quality mobo is important to me as well as having a great memory controller/support.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, TahoeDust said:

 

 

You may like this...

 

 

Nice and thanks for sharing.  I saw the feature in AIDA64, but never bothered to investigate it much.  Looks pretty cool.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

AMD already hit 5 on AIOs like 4+ years ago.

5GHz isn't really impressive if the architecture is crap

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

5GHz isn't really impressive if the architecture is crap

I think/hope he was joking  Bulldozer is garbage and I think we all know that.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, I agree the i9 is crap and Intel's way of showing they're afraid of AMD.  

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

AMD already hit 5 on AIOs like 4+ years ago.

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

5GHz isn't really impressive if the architecture is crap

[tom_w141]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Did your mother never teach you not to feed trolls?

[done12many2]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

I think/hope he was joking  Bulldozer is garbage and I think we all know that.

 

Truthfully, I'd be all over Ryzen if it clocked higher as well.  Great bang for the buck, but I suspect AMD's pricing would be drastically different if they could have gotten the clocks up.  

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

Did your mother never teach you not to feed trolls?

But feeding trolls is fun

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

Truthfully, I'd be all over Ryzen if it clocked higher as well.  Great bang for the buck, but I suspect AMD's pricing would be drastically different if they could have gotten the clocks up.  

Let's hope that Ryzen 2 fixes that! If it does, I am definitely getting one!

[tom_w141]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

Truthfully, I'd be all over Ryzen if it clocked higher as well.  Great bang for the buck, but I suspect AMD's pricing would be drastically different if they could have gotten the clocks up.  

I think it'd be low anyway for regaining market share.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

 The point of the i9 is to destroy AMD in terms of performance

FIFY

[done12many2]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Actually, the point of the 9xxx chips was OCing binned chips.  They were good for that.  The point of the i9 is Intel is afraid of AMD tearing them a new one.

 

You obviously don't know the differences in sizes and profitability of the two companies.  I'm pretty sure Intel isn't worrying about AMD "tearing them a new one."  Sure they are concerned with competition and the impacts of such, but let's not exaggerate too much.  

[VagabondWraith]

2 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Your profile Pic and lil bios thingy suggest you are going with Intel  i'd say wait for it to be benched against Ryzen. An entire R7 platform will cost you <$350 whereas the cpu alone will cost you $600 for Intel and we can't say how much those mobo's will be. So you need to seriously consider if spending over 100% more is worth less than 50% gain  Its your money afterall. Lastly if it means Ryzen allows you to get a better GPU then thats going to make far more of a difference for gaming and rendering anyway.

I am biased towards Intel no doubt. But that certainly does not mean I would never buy an AMD product. Lately they haven't been competitive. It was an easy choice for me. I've always loved Intel and NVidia products. All the way from Nahalem to Kepler, I've never had an issue whatsoever. So why change when everything is great? But Ryzen does make it a difficult decision and I am thankful for AMD really delivering. Imo by the time Zen+ or Zen++ (whatever they call it), AMD CPUs will have better memory support, higher overclocking and stability to close the gap with Intel.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, done12many2 said:

You obviously don't know the differences in sizes and profitability of the two companies.  I'm pretty sure Intel isn't worrying about AMD "tearing them a new one."  Sure they are concerned with competition and the impacts of such, but let's not exaggerate too much.  

They could care less, most of their revenue comes from server CPUs and that's what really matters to them

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Really?  Intel acted like they had nothing to fear when Ryzen first launched.  Then AMD's sales started going far more north than they expected.  The i9 was a result of their fear of competition and their inability to not meet price to performance ratios.  I don't hate Intel, but the i9 was comical on their part.

@done12many2 Side effects of watching too many "X299 is a flop" YouTube videos

[tom_w141]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Actually, the point of the 9xxx chips was OCing binned chips.  They were good for that.  The point of the i9 is Intel is afraid of AMD tearing them a new one.

AMD is tearing Intel a new one but not in the way you think.

 

X299 was planned up to 10 core as a direct replacement to X99.

 

Ryzen came about and is far cheaper for 8 cores while being too comparable to the 10 core so a 12 core was added.

 

Seemingly Intel had no idea about threadripper and got entirely blind sided. This is the part where they start to fuck up a bit, they knee jerked so hard their legs broke. Madly declaring a 16 and 18 core variant with no specs other than price and canabalising Xeons to do it.

 

The Intel chips wont get much cheaper due to low yields due to the way the processor is designed they need 18 cores to all function to spec so the % chance is comparably low. However AMD's Ryzen has a yield of over 80% for the 8 cores. Threadripper is 2x 8 core dies (4 CCXs total), these yields are very high which means they are wasting far less and any failures can become R3 or R5s anyway. This is how AMD can price so low.

 

So the way they are "tearing" Intel a new one is not in top performance it is the fact that performance is close enough <20% max with the prices far lower.

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Really?  Intel acted like they had nothing to fear when Ryzen first launched.  Then AMD's sales started going far more north than they expected.  The i9 was a result of their fear of competition and their inability to not meet price to performance ratios.  I don't hate Intel, but the i9 was comical on their part.

 

Well, sure they responded.  I wouldn't say that they were worrying about AMD "tearing them a new one."

 

It would be stupid not to respond with something better.  You don't need to fear a company to respond to it.  

 

My point is you're exaggerating and sensationalizing Intel's reaction.  You get more "agrees" and "thumbs up" for that shit, but it doesn't make your point any more valid.  

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, Intel cares about not meeting price to performance and overcharging for their processors.  They hiked prices for years due to a lack of strong competition.  AMD is to blame for that for going the cores over instructions and single thread performance.  Due to that, they had to focus more on just OCing markets.  The i9 is Intel being afraid of competition.  Intel did that to themselves.  Both have royally screwed themselves at different times.

Whatever you think man, I am not going to continue arguing over this

[tom_w141]

5 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

You obviously don't know the differences in sizes and profitability of the two companies.  I'm pretty sure Intel isn't worrying about AMD "tearing them a new one."  Sure they are concerned with competition and the impacts of such, but let's not exaggerate too much.  

 

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

They could care less, most of their revenue comes from server CPUs and that's what really matters to them

I agree and let me assure you Naples aka Epyc bothers them greatly. They could care less about consumer desktop though.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

You get more "agrees" and "thumbs up" for that shit, but it doesn't make your point any more valid.  

Makes sense, shitting on Intel is the new trend!

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Makes sense, shitting on Intel is the new trend!

Shitting is not cool, calling out BS however is ok. Come on the PCIe lane thing and physical raid keys is BS and we all know it. No need other than trying to safeguard their Xeon line.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

Shitting is not cool, calling out BS however is ok. Come on the PCIe lane thing and physical raid keys is BS and we all know it. No need other than trying to safeguard their Xeon line.

Calling out BS is fine, but a lot of people are hating on them for no particular reason

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

I agree and let me assure you Naples aka Epyc bothers them greatly. They could care less about consumer desktop though.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Intel already has something to swirl an Epyc turd onto the AMD's server line.  They've just had too much time to milk companies with current tech while designing future tech.  Only time will tell, but I'd be very surprised.  

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

But, that's what you just did.

Fixed

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Whatever you think man, I am not going to continue arguing over this

 

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Well, sure they responded.  I wouldn't say that they were worrying about AMD "tearing them a new one."

 

It would be stupid not to respond with something better.  You don't need to fear a company to respond to it.  

 

My point is you're exaggerating and sensationalizing Intel's reaction.  You get more "agrees" and "thumbs up" for that shit, but it doesn't make your point any more valid.  

Their response seems to be a bit unorganized which is why people are saying that intel is scared. They think that a rushed response is indicative of fear otherwise they would do a more calculated slower response. Now I'm not going to argue one way or the other about the validity of this claim but I do see why some could come to that conclusion.