5.0GHZ out of the box clock speeds. Why aren't you using

multithreading a shit for all games

File: 66034.png (40KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x600px

>>55718990
AMD are you even trying?

>clock speeds matter more than single core performance

4ghz i3 =/= 4ghz i7

>220W CPU

literal housefire

File: 1426036533229.jpg (76KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1000x1000px

>>55718990

>>55719071
>>55718990

Beaten by a 84W Intel CPU, well, 84W without boost, benchmarks scores are obviously with boost.
But yeah, the FX is barely beaten by a 4 years newer Intel CPU.... AMD sucks.

>>55718990

This thing needs serious cooling thats why.

>>55718990
>AMD kiddys think it's all about clock speeds
top kakkles

>>55718990

>220

someone out there put one of these in a shitty $50 970 board with a stock cooler and started a fire

>>55719116
I run a FX 6350 with a 52€ AIO cooler at 5.2GHz, no problems...

>>55718990
>It literally destroys anything that Intel has put out.

Pretty much

>destroys VRMs
>destroys PSUs
>destroys your power bill
>destroys any chance of getting sex

File: 1468261648292.jpg (55KB, 312x560px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 312x560px

>>55718990
>OP

>>55718990
>tfw you fell for the fx meme
I'm still mad, I should have bought a used i5

>>55719132
>destroys any chance of getting sex
Jelly ass virginfag detected

>>55719145
I bought a FX back in 2012 for 1/3th the price of a i7, back then Intel had nothing to compete the FX, took them a year to catch up.
Could have waited a year and gotten something slightly faster in single core performance from Intel, but the cheaper FX did the job good for years to come.

>>55719116
The motherboard also needs to be a top-of-the-line AM3 board to handle the wattage.

>>55718990
Funny that they still sell this even it's 3 years old cpu. It's been like 6 years since AMD had good cpu.

>>55718990
Are you trying to kill yourself?

>>55719148
>falling for the eternal vaginal jew

2d > 3d

>>55718990
MORE CORES MORE CLOCK YEAH

>>55719235
So
>destroys any chance of getting sex
Is actually a good thing then

File: lol2.png (36KB, 1077x494px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1077x494px

>>55719210

and yet people still buy it instead of an i7. amazon and newegg reviews are filled with "runs too hot pc isn't stable"

File: eca86ba0526e15aea47506.jpg (90KB, 949x630px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 949x630px

>>55719253

>>55719318
Mostly guys who doesn't bother to do any research buy it. They don't realize that it is 3 years old.

>>55719318
>>55719343

>yfw I know someone who did this because 'AMD has 8 cores and Intel only had 4"

>>55719378
meme in 2010 was that soon all games will support all 6 cores when I bought x6 1055t. It never happened.

>>55718990
I don't want to burn my house.

>>55719170
>I bought a FX back in 2012 for 1/3th the price of a i7, back then Intel had nothing to compete the FX, took them a year to catch up.
Nothing except i5's and i7's.

>>55719416
Hopefully it'll happen soon!

>>55718990
>over 200w tdp
AMD housefire
Performance wise it roughly matches a 6700k. The 6700k runs at lower wattage and lower clock speed. In terms of IPC, AMD sucks.

>>55718990
Dead socket

>>55718990
fuck yeah

the future has arrived I say

>>55718990
>Why aren't you using the fastest CPU around?
Why aren't you? Are you retarded? Do you think clock speed is all that's important?

You're a fucking moron.

>>55719129
Your IPC is lower though. That 5.2ghz is the equivalent of an i7 under 4ghz.

6 Ghz when

When it was new, even the most diehard AMD fanboy didn't defend that thing. It's a terrible CPU no matter how you look at it.

ARM will get 6 GHz first

>>55719548
I'm sure some defended it.

>>55719378
AMD "cores"
I hate that they did this. It's 4 cores with AMD's version of hyperthreading.

>>55719115

Good Goy. You may have one shekel.

>>55719518
Zen is going to be competing directly with Kaby Lake CPUs, so hopefully they will deliver. If Zen fails then AMD will probably close up their CPU division completely and concentrate on Radeon and APUs which will probably be used in consoles for quite some time.

>>55719596
I thought Zen will be just behind 4690k.

>>55719170
Top kek, Intel already had their Ivy bridge out and still kicks AMD's ass up to this date.

Because my i3 2120 is more than enough for watching porn, TV shows and movies, shitposting and using Excel.

>>55719170
Actually i5 3570k kicked fx 8150 with lower tdp's and better performance.

>>55719071
holy shit i never realized how bad those chips are... My laptop has a 4770HQ and it scores ~575cb, which is only 30% less than that 9590...

The craziest part is that the 4770HQ is a 47W chip while the 9590 pulls 220W!

9590: 3.31 cb/W
4770HQ: 12.78 cb/W

CRAZY!

>>55718990
and the i5 2500k still beats it

>its all about the highest jiggabutz

Are you twelve, or from 1994?

>>55719596
AMD's only chance is to get the edge on power efficiency. People see the brick wall and won't upgrade for a 2% gain.

>>55719541
Depends what i7, there are plenty shitty i7's around with even less IPC then the FX core.
Also, hes FX is probably 4x cheaper too then an i7 under 4GHz.

>>55719682
At Bulldozer release a i5 750 from 2009 and the 8core bulldozers were about even matched, the only thing the FX was good at was media encoding and virtualization since most i5s lack instruction sets for that.

File: 1469166280236.jpg (38KB, 396x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 396x500px

>>55719089
Nigga;
Single core Passmark:
3.9GHz i3-6320: 2,245
4GHz i7-6700K: 2,332
Basically the same score, the 6700K is no doubt OC'ed but listed as 4GHz and 6320 is only at 3.9GHz

i3=i7 single core

>>55719548
>>55719578
Explain? The FX did good when it came out, it hold the best performance on the market for almost a year?

>>55719585
No, wtf? I hope you're trolling, for each two integer cores, there is one floating-point core.

lmaoing at the hurt feelings ITT

>>55719590
>>55719115
kek, got the intel jew joke

>>55718990
>2016
>still falling for the megahertz myth

>>55719485
Yeah, but it took like 9 months for those i5's and i7's to come to the market that could outperform the FX.
I remember crealy because I did a few builds that year.

>>55719518
But the 6700k is almost a 4 year newer CPU?

>>55719677
Yea, I get 13 cb/W but I don't think using low power processors is a fair comparison because the AMD processor in question is a high end desktop consumer part which are not known for being power efficient.

However, the omnipresent i7 6700K which is not the most power efficient processor gets like 10 cb/W. Though it is on a different node.
The i7 3930K which is an older high end desktop part gets 8.4 cb/W..
So in the end it looks bad either way. But not as bad.

>>55719774
At 200W TDP budget, you could overclock your i7 Ivy Bridge,Haslel/whatever to like 5GHz+ and beat it. It also cost a lot of money at release. I don't remember what the price was, but I know it was over 500 dollars.

>>55719585
No, it`s not. Hyperthreading is SMT, or symmetrical multithreading which is one core functioning as 2 cores on the front end. AMD is using cluster multithreading and has 2 physical logic units per module that share resources. It`s more accurate when trolls call them "half cores."

>>55719813
It's gigahertz, not megahertz

>>55719609
See
>>55719814

>top kek
truly my newfriend

>>55719850
oh yeah definitely, I know it's not fair to compare them but its just crazy to see the difference! Lookingn at those 12c24t xeons that are like 45w would be a crazy figure as well.

>>55719850
>At 200W TDP budget, you could overclock your i7 Ivy Bridge,Haslel/whatever to like 5GHz+ and beat it.
Lmao, even custom loops could not run an Ivy Bridge over 5GHz stable, I have one now.

The 990FX chipset is so fucking old. It sucks that the FX procs have to be saddled to it.

>>55719761
Even my thirteen year isn't as delusional as you about this shit.

>>55719942
Hes pretty close to the truth tho.

File: 1466741176084.jpg (10KB, 241x230px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 241x230px

>Megahertz war

>>55719883
Who said anything about stable? The FX 9590 appears to be anything but stable. Pretty sure you'd still out perform it at 4.5GHz anyway which is babbys first overclock.

>>55719253
You got one thing right.

>>55719953
He specifically chose single core because it otherwise would shatter his argument. Some games might only use single-core, but the OS still needs to run in the background. Shit doesn't magically stop because you run a game.

>>55720017
Appears to be anything but stable? I had one with an AIO cooler boosting up to 5.2 and never had a problem with it.
Yeah, now-a-days there are plenty of Intel CPU's that would out perform it at even 4.5GHz, but those are way newer CPU's.

>check newegg and amazon reviews
>there are recent reviews of people who unironically bought it

How?

How can someone be so retarded?

>>55720278
>I need a new computer
>oh this looks fast!
>buy it and post review

It will work for most every day tasks, people that are buying it in today's market aren't looking at reviews, or running benchmarks on it or using it for anything intensive

>>55720215
According to the numbers I can find, a 4.2GHz i7 3770 will beat the FX 9590 at stock in multi core workload (cinebench). I think that the 3770 has about 300MHz of overclock headroom at that point. I don't know about the FX 9590.

Isn't the i7 3770 from about the same era as the FX 9590? It's not a significantly newer processor, I know that much for sure.

>>55720278
It's more then enaught for most things.

>>55720333
Source? I can only find exactly the opposite benchmarks, the FX beating the 3770 in multicore.

File: 3ICC2iV.png (354KB, 621x652px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 621x652px

I run an fx 6300 @ 4.3 with a cheap zotac air cooler, a 50 dollar mobo, and a gtx 970. No regerts

>>55720325

It takes like 30 seconds of Google to realize that it is a piece of shit.

>>55720353

Is this bait or what?
A fucking housefire with tons of issues who gets beaten by any 6-year-old Intel i5?

It's not enough for anything, it belongs in the trash.

File: r.png (9KB, 363x170px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 363x170px

>>55719071
Here's the cinebench results for FX 9590 >>55719071

in the image I've included with this post is cinebench reference score for a i7 3770. When 3770K is overclocked to about 4.2GHz, the result I'm finding on google is about 730 cb. Although I admit it's pretty hard to find CB scores for this thing overclocked to such specific clocks. Most of the results are for 5-5.5GHz.

>>55720449
>>55720379
Meant as a reply to you.

>>55719761
i3 have to focus on single threaded performance since they only have two cores. Otherwise they would be utter shit.

File: 1447396292065.jpg (126KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1440x1080px

>>55719071
>220W

Starting housefires with their GPUs wasn't enough, now they're developing incendiary CPUs?

>>55720443
>beaten by any 6-year-old Intel i5?
Sauce?

>>55720449
Oh no wonder, I wasn't checking the 12 core CPU's, their single core performance at the same clock is literar shit.

File: whodrunkhere.jpg (31KB, 563x493px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 563x493px

>>55720563
poast more patlabor

>It literally destroys anything that Intel has put out.
AHAHAHAHAAAAHAA

>>55720621
What? The 12 core CPUs aren't relevant.

FX 9590 is 8 cores and 3770 is 4 cores.

>>55719548
>It's a terrible CPU no matter how you look at it.
yep. It has around the same IPC as AMD's netbook Jaguar cores. It performs worse than Phenom II, chuggs more power and only manages slightly higher clockspeed.
They would have been better off by rehashing Phenom again.

>>55720449
for the cost of a single xeon cpu with 12 cores you could probably build at least 3 fully equipped pcs with a FX 8350 cpu with 8gb RAM, 320GB HDD, motherboard, case and psu. Would probably waste more electricity but only under load.

>>55720579

Piledriver IPC is abysmal compared to anything that Intel has to offer past the Nehalem Architecture. Hell, I bet even that older Core 2 Quads like the Q9650 can go hand to hand with the FX chip, while consuming half the power.

Except for heavily multi-thread optimized software, the FX9590 can't do shit.

>>55720676
Do you read the posts? Because we are comparing overclocked i7-3770 and 9590. Obviously the 12c Xeon is going to shit all over both of them in multi core workload, but that's not in the discussion.

>>55720139
we all knew that the i7 would be better when using all its cores compared to the i3 using all its cores

>>55720715
I don't even understand the purpose of this discussion. The only thing AMD is good at is the price/performance ratio. Intel offers CPUs that are better at everything except price.

>>55720563
You have seen nothing. When you clock it to 6ghz it eats over 350 watt.

It has actually a potential of 8ghz on liquid nitrogen, but then it requires a small nuclear plant to power it.

>>55719132
>>destroys your power bill
I don't understand this. How much of a difference do you really think you will see on a monthly basis?

>tfw you realize Intel is truly the best bang for the buck
AMD is like Ferrari (except with no one giving a fuck about them) all noise cause muh cores muh gigabuttz but performs just ok while Intel is like a Corvette, might look overpriced cause it's a fucking chevy but it's actually quite well engineered, way cheaper in the long run, future proof and faster than italian craps that breaks and overheats all the time, not to mention the triple maintainance costs through electric bill.

File: 1468500029919.jpg (26KB, 500x333px)

26KB, 500x333px

>>55720487
>if the product were complete garbage it would be utter shit
Thanks for your explanation, doc
>>55720139
>2 physical + 2 virtual threads < 4 physical + 4 virtual threads
Wow who would've guessed

The original comment I was replying to stated:
>>clock speeds matter more than single core performance

>4ghz i3 =/= 4ghz i7

Clock speeds and single core performance

I've shown you that 4GHz i3 has the same single core performance as 4GHz i7

>>55720799
These discussion is about AMD processors having bad performance combined with bad power consumption.

>>55719071
get 5 of those and you got a toaster oven

>>55719071
>amd uses nearly twice the wattage to get 60 score increase
wow what were they thinking

>>55718990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r32LcBqiv7I

>>55720826
Around 2-3 freedom bucks a month.

>>55719102
>>55719127
>>55719132
>>55719453
>>55720563
>>55720865

AMD is secretly run by former military commanders who refused to accept the United States' defeat in Vietnam.

This CPU is their magnum opus, a card capable of burning down the jungle once more

File: 1455379508190.gif (514KB, 221x231px)

514KB, 221x231px

>>55718990
>5ghz
>8 cores
Something tells me this thing pulls the same bullshit as those APUs. Careful not to fall for it.

>>55720947
Dumb raymooposter.

File: 1460266872478.gif (194KB, 389x297px)

194KB, 389x297px

>>55720982

>>55720856
Isn't that obvious? The CPUs are 4 years old, they had a bigger transistor size than intel back then and they fell for the multicore meme (most devs dont give a fuck, see Arma 3 with their single AI thread). Zen will be manufactured by global foundries at 14nm and they actually have a non meme architecture now.

>>55718990
Holy shit, they are still stuck in the NetBurst era. Can't wait to see them rip off hyper-threading and finally move away from PGA.

>>55721015
The discussion was in the context of 2014, 3770k vs 9590 so back then their processors weren't 4 years old. I dunno what Zen will be like, but I don't have high hopes for it. It may very well be a meme architecture.

>>55721033
>rip-off hyperthreading
By using SMT which can do 4 threads per 1 core, and generally be superior to Hyper-Threading™?
You fell for the goy meme, hard
>finally move away from PGA
AM4 is PGA dumbo
And why would LGA>PGA? It doesn't affect fucking anything

>>55719416
Fuck you senpai the THUBAN was the bee's knees back in the day.

>>55720932
you're right in that the power envelope amd is working in is wider than the gaping chasm of niki minajes minge

it's a crime against humanity but workable in cold climates like canada and russia

>>55721079
>fuck up pins, have to replace the expensive CPU
>fuck up pins, have to replace the mobo
Which one would you prefer, you moron?

>>55721103
>fucking up pins
>ever
Literally retarded.

File: 1458835407889.png (42KB, 653x726px)

42KB, 653x726px

>>55719416
It finally happened, newer games make good use of all 6 cores. Unfortunately the Phenom II doesn't support some of the new instructions sets they use and flat out can't run some games and the 3DMark Time Spy DX12 benchmark.

File: fishy fishy.png (90KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x501px

>>55721103
>fuck up pins
How can *ANYONE* be retarded enough to do so?
And *IF* you bend pins, they are way, way easier to bend back on a CPU than in a socket

>>55721128
>implying that the average consumer would be able to outsmart a potato

File: 1469043040577.jpg (59KB, 412x418px)

59KB, 412x418px

>>55721162
>implying that the average consumer would be putting together pc parts
>implying that the average consumer would be smart enough to open the case, locate and unmount the heatsink, open the socket and take out the CPU to do *whatever* with it and bend the pins in the process

>>55721103
>can't put a fucking cpu in place without fucking it up
congratulation you have fat sweaty fingers in addition to your hands growing from your ass

>>55721174
>implying that PC gamers don't exist
Take a look at Linus Tech Shills, /v/tards build their computers too.

>>55721138
It's pretty easy to do since you need to handle the CPU with your fingers.

>unlatch CPU socket
>carefully lift up CPU
>one of your fingers slips below
>you just bent like 10 pins

Meanwhile, if the pins are on the motherboard, it's much better because you don't need to handle the CPU socket.

>unlatch CPU
>remove CPU without worries
>done

If AMD doesn't use the LGA design on their new Zen chips, I will consider it a massive failure on their part and I hope you will too. Using the same design that my CPU had in 1996 is just unacceptable. What is AMD even thinking?

I suppose this is the same company that brought us the massive failure that is the RX 480, so we shouldn't really be surprised here.

File: nigg.jpg (56KB, 607x1080px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 607x1080px

>>55721198
>everything that wasn't invented in the last year is shit
nigga, you are seriously retarded

>220w tpd
It's better to buy 8350, but intel is still way better

File: 1460204037792.jpg (36KB, 632x479px)

36KB, 632x479px

>>55721188
Yea, and /v/tards aren't the average consumer which use pre-build HTPCs or laptops as facebook machines

>>55721198
Literally how the fuck would that happen?
Do you have motor skills of an infant that your finger just slips around the object you're handling?
You're an idiot, people never bend the pins undeliberately

>If AMD doesn't use LGA design on their new Zen chips, I will consider it a massive failure on their part and I hope you will too.
Well and I thought you might not be an idiot for 1 second.
>Using the same design that my CPU had in 1996 is just unacceptable. What is AMD even thinking?
What are *you* even thinking?
>I suppose this is the same company that brought us the massive failure that is the RX 480, so we shouldn't really be surprised here.
Radeon technologies are a completely different department, they just happen to be owned by the same company.
The same deal as youtube.com and google.com under Alphabet


You should just stop posting, forever

>>55721279
Why would Linus Tech Shills put up all these computer building related videos? There are "enthusiasts" who enjoy "vidya" (a.k.a. shit, because modern games are trash.)

>>55721198
see
>>55721181

File: loads of shekels.gif (509KB, 450x241px)

509KB, 450x241px

>>55721312

>Why would Linus Tech Shills put up all these computer building related videos?

>>55721313
see
>>55721162

>>55721244
I'm pretty sure you're more retarded because you think LGA is an invention from last year. I mean I can accept not knowing server/non-x86 processors using it, but Pentium 4 was using it years ago. Or more like a decade ago.

>>55721328
see
>>55721174

just stop posting
you clearly have no competence in anything whatsoever

>>55721198
>LGA: 1996
>PGA: 1989
Wow, gramps AMD should really get on with the times...

Zen is just 1334 pins, it fits into PGA just fine. their server grade sockets are LGA with 1944 pins, that wouldn't fit too well as a PGA.

>>55718990

you realize your wasting electricity for a shitty bulldozer cpu when you could have gone for a intel around the same price that destroys that piece of shit you call a cpu

>>55721198
i've seen many bent pins on intel motherboards

>>55721337
>saying something dated back to 1996 is shit
>trying to evade when realized he is a retarded nigger
nigga, half of the shit you have in your pc is manufactued up to standards dated before your sorry ass was even a fucking sperm
back to your cave
now

>>55721354
>not 1337
complete shit
not falling

>>55718990
My Devil's Canyon i7 clocks that high with lower TDP.

>>55718990
I currently am running a Bulldozer. It works. It's not great, but it works. Have been planning to upgrade to the i5 6600k. Then a few days ago I saw this exact processor. Thought "Oh shit, maybe I will go that route." did a SIMPLE google search unlike yourself and found plenty of reasons not to. Use the internet for more than shit thread on 4chan, OP.

https://www.google.com/#q=fx-9590+vs+i5+6600k
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-9590
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NNwSDPo1Dg
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3503vs1812
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2789797/intel-6600k-amd-9350-amd-8350.html

File: 1453988083750.jpg (40KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x375px

>>55721198
>It's pretty easy to do since you need to handle the CPU with your fingers.

>>unlatch CPU socket
>>carefully lift up CPU
>>one of your fingers slips below
>>you just bent like 10 pins

>Meanwhile, if the pins are on the motherboard, it's much better because you don't need to handle the CPU socket.

>>unlatch CPU
>carefully lift up CPU
>one of your fingers slips below
>you just bent like 10 pins

Congrats, you're a retard either way, but in one of the cases, the pins are easier to bend back, while in the other case you'll only ruin even more pins because they're barely accessible and are supposed to be bent at an extremely awkward angle

>>55721455
Implying the average consumer would even *think* about fixing their stuff.

You don't seem to understand that there's a sea of morons around you.

>>55721455
im him and apologize for being a retarded faggot
can i haz the $100

>>55721485
see
>>55721174

>>55721404
I'm not the guy you're whining about. Also, no. The standards that things are manufactured today don't date back that far. When I bought my first computer, it was not ATX form factor. Even that didn't exist back then.

Very few of the standards from back then are still used that I know of. Oh, actually I guess PS/2 port still is used although my computer used serial port for mouse and a DIN connector for KB.

>>55721485
The average consumer isn't going to open the socket and take the CPU out to fuck anything up anyway

see
>>55721279
>>55721174

>>55721504
>implying there are no /v/tards who build their battlestations

>>55721528
Interesting that even the most retarded ones are always only seeking help with their drilled-through graphics card PCBs or wrongly plugged in cables and never bent pins... Huh

>>55721510

I swear for consumers ps/2 is only kept alive by mechanical keyboard autists.

>>55721565
Maybe that's because they bought Intel stuff.

>>55721576
>TFW GNU/Linux has trouble booting with nkro keyboards
>TFW I HAVE to use usb and be limited to only 6kro + modifiers
Well, I don't go over 4 keys at once with GNU Emacs.

>>55721587
see
>>55721455

>>55721510
>ethernet physical layer
>bios chips and various lowlevel comm standards (spi/i2c/smbus)
>rtc
and thats just of the top of my head
and dont go yelling hey we have and updated revision of spi or something else, that's nice, but your not using some high end electronic equipment, again, a lot of the shit you have on a mobo is built up to old standards, because it's not a fucking and thing to use something that works good and serves exactly it's purpose

>>55721638
>oh shit, I fucked up the pins
>good thing they weren't on the expensive CPU
People won't admit to their mistakes that easily.

>>55719129
Your 6300 draws 95W, the FX9590 draws over double that at 220W

>>55721653
>a fucking bad thing
typo

>>55721674

At 5.2ghz that 6300 is going to have a TDP in the region of 160w.

>>55719730
>I replace my CPU every year, so I don't even bother about the electricity bills

I was planning to use an fx 8350 in my new build, but seeing this thread gave me some after thoughts. Is there a better cpu within it's price range?

>>55721756
get a used recent gen i5 or just spend the 30$ more

>>55721653
You know what else is an old standard? The LGA socket. Maybe AMD should be building their processors to this old standard instead. I bet you want AMD to solder their processors directly to motherboard just because it's older than a PGA socket and serves exactly it's purpose. Which is to connect a processor to a motherboard.

>>55721774
you make no sense at all
try again please

>>55721822
Of course I don't make sense, you're retarded!

File: 1465680544771.jpg (7KB, 233x188px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 233x188px

>>55721843
kek

Amazing, saved

The exclamation mark makes it fokken perfect, too.

Solid one, anon

>>55718990
My locked i5 is better than a 9590 most of the time.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6500-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3513vs1812

>>55719071
>220w

top fucking kek

>>55719071
>220W
Holy shit

no amd fans in here?
this is sad.

File: speccy yo v3.png (51KB, 1063x679px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1063x679px

>>55721968

>>55722011
man, I still remember when I went from a reference 6950 to a tri-x 290, the gpu looked so fuckin good and performed so great

the 290/290x in general were great gpus

>>55721774
how exactly are you referring to anything that i've written
>I bet you want AMD to solder their processors directly to motherboard just because it's older than a PGA socket and serves exactly it's purpose
you really have trouble with understanding what you read don't you?
let me break it down for you:
>I bet you want AMD
i don't want anything from amd, don't have their cpu in any of my machines, and in none of my replies said anything about them
>just because it's older
never said that what is older is better
>serves exactly it's purpose
again, nope, it does not serve the purpose, you see, there is a need to replace the cpu sometimes, so no, it does not. hope this is elaborate enough for you

anyway, you are some really rare case of autistic and retarded faggot
go away please

>>55722011
Is it complete shit in games?
I'm about to build a new PC and choosing between an fx-8370 and an i5 6600K. Price-wise they are the same.

According to the benchmarks the FX can't even carry the current gen cards properly, so if I will want to get another 480 to crossfire at some point, I'll have to overhaul all my hardware.

File: 1468921006593.png (268KB, 1924x1083px)

268KB, 1924x1083px

>>55722035

>were

The term is "are".

>>55721843
>>55721868
are you samefaggin again pajeet?

>>55722064

Go with the 6600k, hands down.

>>55722064

>Is it complete shit in games?

Just werks™ for me. Even though I love my AMD system to bits at this late stage I cannot in good faith suggest an 8370 over a 6600k given how AM3+ has maybe another year of life before AMD totally kills it for zen.

>>55721198
>>unlatch CPU socket
>>carefully lift up CPU
>>one of your fingers slips below
>>you just bent like 10 pins
Do you not have basic dexterity and hand-eye coordination?
Tough luck, consider buying a Dell.

>>55722113

>a Dell.

ATX IS DEAD, BTX STRONK, BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT BTX.

>>55721174
Terry Crews' son put his GTX 1080 build together on Youtube. So yes, the average consumer can do it now.

File: BASICS_figure.gif (68KB, 570x493px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 570x493px

>GloFo's 32nm PD-SOI
>utterly massive issues
>exacerbated issues present in their 45nm node
>and their 65nm
>Zambezi, Llano, Vishera, Trinity, and Richland all had perf/watt crippled to a significant degree from being on the node
>failure to hit target clocks, failure to hit power targets
>100w Llano-Richland APUs drew up to 140w
>Zambezi originally targeted clocks near 4.5ghz
>FX 8150 shipped with 3.6ghz base
>FX 8350 only jumped up to 4ghz base
>took until the end of 2014 to start producing decent volumes of high binned Vishera dies to be sold as the FX 8370E
>FX 8370E can hit 4ghz on all modules with a vcore less than 1.2v and draw under 90w
>if GloFo could have pulled this off from the beginning AMD wouldn't have been so bad off with the Bulldozer family

Thanks a lot, Global Foundries. Behind the curve even before 90nm.

>>55722098
>>55722089
6600K it is then. First intel in my life.

>>55722196

I envy you. I will be doing a 6600k build, soon. Will be my first intel as well.

>>55719730
No there aren't.

Excavator is around 5% high IPC than phenom ii. The original i7 has higher IPC than that. Then sandy bridge was a massive leap over that.

>>55722262

Let us not forget excavator has no L3 cache which really hurts when doing performance comparisons.

>>55722334
Still the highest IPC FX iirc

>>55722226
Is delidding it worth it? I looked up some safe delidding tools, but the price is pretty jewy, from $40 to $60.

>>55722334
It also has L2 cut in half compared to Steamroller, and that harms performance in certain workloads.
Average IPC increased, but gaming performance regressed for example.

Steamroller and Excavator are each only shadows of what they were originally meant to be. AMD stopped funneling money into the Bulldozer disaster after they saw sales crash with Vishera and equivalent Piledriver based Opterons.

>>55722353

It is, but L3 cache is extremely important to desktop class chips for performance (Intel's architecture really, really loves its L3) which is why predictions about zen are so difficult to make as nobody has any real way of guessing just how much of a factor L3 cache might be.

File: cinebench.jpg (43KB, 495x257px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 495x257px

Here's some cinebench cpu score shit.
I own 3, 4 and 6 here.

9590 @ 5.23Ghz
4820k @ 4.6Ghz
4770k @ 4.3Ghz

I'm disappointed in my 4820k.

>>55722391
Size of cache isn't as important as how cache is actually used. How associative is it, is it write back or write through, how is the L2 addressed by each core?
Intel uses a tiny, incredibly fast private L2. Their L3 is super associative, and isn't treated like a blanket dumping ground as in AMD's Bulldozer family. Their Xeons have higher perf/clock in a ton of workloads than their desktop processors and even i7E just because their cache interface is more efficient.

File: 1399502050328.jpg (28KB, 300x441px)

28KB, 300x441px

>>55720932
Post yfw the next architecture is named napalm and takes half a kilowatt to run it

File: 1466716419697.jpg (195KB, 553x936px)

195KB, 553x936px

>>55720932
>>55722509
>10KW later

>ULTRA HIGH PERFORMANCE 666 GHz OUT OF BOX
>64 CORES BECAUSE WE AREN'T FUCKING PANZIES LIKE THOSE INTEL COCK MUNCHERS
>ONLY 400° C ON IDLE

>ARE YOU EVEN TRYING INTEL FAGS!?!?!

>>55722473
Nobody's denying the 9590 pucks some punch. It would be a good CPU if electricity was be free and cutstom water loops would cost under $50.

File: cryorig r1 ultimate review - intro.jpg (129KB, 745x629px)

129KB, 745x629px

>>55722696

It can be air cooled you know.

>>55722745
Yeah but only around stock speeds. You need a custom loop or 10000 RPM fans to get 5.2Ghz. Not to mention very good airflow over motherboard VRMs.

>>55722745
What's the point of buying AMD if you ain't overclocking?

>Clock speed is directly related to performance.

Eeeyup

@55722817
idot

>>55722793

> You need a custom loop or 10000 RPM fans to get 5.2Ghz.

No, you don't.

>Not to mention very good airflow over motherboard VRMs.

Thats applicable to any and all cpu overclocks, regardless of board or cpu.

>>55722814

Virtual machines without paying Intel's jew tax.

>>55722842
>No, you don't.
Yeah you do. A 240 AIO cooler isn't going to be enough to keep one of those cool at overclocked speeds.

File: 965-top.jpg (74KB, 620x585px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 620x585px

>>55718990
Remember when AMD processors were good?

>>55722842
>No, you don't.
Yes, you do. AMD literally said you do need either closed loop liquid cooling or full system liquid cooling.

File: Thermalight-Reveals-Le-Grande-Macho-CPU-Cooler-2.jpg (105KB, 800x636px)

105KB, 800x636px

>>55722886

I don't think you understand just what sort of TDP those top end air coolers are rated for. The R1 ultimate is rated for 250w much like the D14/D15/ silver arrow or if you are truly insane, the 300w capable grand macho (with a fan - its 95w passive).

>>55721674
That's still over 20%less than a non-overclocked 9590, not to mention if you brought the 9590 up to the same clocks the power gap would just grow even more.

>>55722893
I'm using this exact one right now.

>>55719071

>220w

I guess that's ok if you're trying to cool a small sun in your case.

>>55722926
>le grand macho

Are these niggas serious?

File: silver arrow.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

>>55722953

They could be spanish. Personally I sort of want one just because, not because I need one.

>>55722893
I love mine.

File: single.png (21KB, 970x260px)

21KB, 970x260px

>>55719761

>>55722950

A good number of high end gpus are rated above that.

>>55722942
>>55722974
My niggas. I really miss mine, I only just recently upgraded. They were so piss easy to overclock, you could really be rough on them.

>>55722926
I've run my 9590 with a 240mm AIO cooler before, best I could get out of it was 5.05GHz at 1.475 vcore and that was just under throttling temps.

I also own a Silverarrow SB-E. With the fans at full speed it does perform a tad better than my 240mm AIO cooler but it's absolutely screaming loud. It's still not enough to control temps at the necessary voltages it takes to get to 5.2GHz.

File: SANY0406.jpg (1MB, 2848x2136px)

1MB, 2848x2136px

>>55723082

>It's still not enough to control temps at the necessary voltages it takes to get to 5.2GHz.

I would wager good money thats because your motherboard is frying rather than the cpu itself reaching thermal throttling - especially considering vrms are temperature sensitive for effeciancy.

File: my pc_compressed.jpg (105KB, 455x435px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 455x435px

>mfw i own a 9590

I have 2 noctua industrial fans aimed at the top and bottom of my board and a 360mm radiator with 3 more industrial pwm fans on it. It doesn't get that hot anymore (will not clock over 4.92Ghz)

>>55721216
Looks like the 9590 actually performs better in this case. I'd gladly trade 1.6 median FPS for almost 25FPS more guaranteed minimum.

>>55723118
Been there, done that. I'm using a 120mm fan though. I've also pulled off the VRM heatsinks put new thermal pads on them. I've experimented quite a bit with cooling solutions on this build, m8.

>>55719834
Even a i7-3770k (2012) would have much better IPC

File: gta-v-cpu-4k-vh.jpg (52KB, 806x532px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 806x532px

>>55723209

I admit thats a cherry picked image - but in all honesty at 4k cpu simply does not matter as no gpu in existence is fast enough cause a cpu bottleneck at that resolution.

File: vitalik.jpg (76KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 453x604px

your now aware that intel bribes the benchmark developers to make amd look bad

File: 1408410.jpg (1MB, 3440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3440x1440px

The 8120 i had half a decade ago was the same speed as the 9590 I had. For for years nothing could touch it for the price.

File: 9590.jpg (86KB, 416x419px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 416x419px

>>55723208
Hey brother. Push that vcore, don't be scared.

>>55723390
@ 1.525 i cant go past 4.92 with 210fsb oc

maybe my board isnt upto par

>>55723406

Outside of the sabertooth and formula Z the only other board really capable of taking them sort of clocks/voltage is MAYBE the asus 990fx pro.

Also: don't bother with fsb overclocking, just run straight multiplier so you don't have to worry about ram stability.

>>55723536
well im on a gigabyte 990fxa-ud5 r5 i cant justify upgrading to a new board this close to zen

>>55723566

Thats a decent board but I wouldn't really want to push beyond a 9590's stock clocks, even if the chip itself can take it as that is a LOT of stress on the vrms. realistically though as voltage doesn't scale linearly 5ghz is basically the upper limit for vishera anyway and even then its so far beyond what most motherboards can handle its not worth pushing further.

As long as you can keep the chip rock solid at 4.7ghz you are fine (getting the 9590 to turbo its a bitch).

>more GHz = faster
AMDtards logic

>>55718990
>>literally destroys everything
>>literally destroys itself in 6-9 month window
Yeah I love AMD but the 9550 is just an extremely oc piece of garabage. If AMD could actually put some work into makeing a decent 5ghz card that isnt just an 8550 on steroids thatd be nice.

>>55720799
Single core performance is important for many tasks that can't be parallelized

Why hasn't anyone posted single core benchmarks with it?

That's all I care about.

>>55723601
i can be stable at 4.7Ghz @ 1.425 and 4.8@ 1.525 4.9 is iffy as it sometimes stops working and 5.0 will only handle about 20% load before it locks down
>>55723637
I bought mine new on 1/14/15 no signs of death

>>55723683
ial single core bench if you tell me what to bench with

File: Kbrad.webm (2MB, 360x640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x640px

>2016
>amd cpus

>>55722893
Had 600 Mhz Athlon in 1999. Shit was cash.

File: 1467502484703.jpg (83KB, 734x689px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 734x689px

>>55723711
>2016
>shilling for free

>>55723701
cpumark

>>55723689

>will only handle about 20% load before it locks down

If the cpu itself is below thermal throttling its probably your mobo bursting into flames causing that. For hilarity trying putting the chip under load with the case side panel off and see if it still throttles.

>>55720931
So that's 36 bucks per year or potentially over 150 dollars over the CPU's life just because of AMD

>>55723784

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0

>>55723779
ive got 3 40$ industrial fans pointed right at the motherboard it doesnt help with the case off

>>55718990
You AMD fags just wait. Intel has a 115 watt 4 core that's coming out around the time of ZEN

File: capture image_compressed.jpg (129KB, 1816x206px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1816x206px

>>55723763
10094 total

>>55723901

>115w
>4 core

So its a TDP regression given their current 8c/16t chip is around 120w?

File: cpumark.png (68KB, 998x330px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 998x330px

>>55723914
Thanks Sempai!

Now do multi, that's where the FX should shine

File: cpu-z bench.png (46KB, 807x403px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 807x403px

>>55723933

Different anon, but consider this.

>>55723933
I did total multi is 10094 on this particular system with a bit of background things running

>>55723924
It either has to have a very powerful igpu, or very high clocks.

And they will also have 165watt 24 cores coming out as well

Stay biased.

File: CPU.png (63KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x400px

>>55723951

>>55723980

>It either has to have a very powerful igpu, or very high clocks

Intel tend not to be too forthcoming with TDP when their igpu is stressed and I highly doubt very high clocks as that reduces yields.

>>55723994

Nice. Though it does show - albeit for cpu-z's bench - how powerful some of AMD's chips actually are for some multi-threaded workloads.

Even at 4.7ghz though vishera is only equal to a 3rd gen i5 for single threaded performance.

File: kaby lake.jpg (95KB, 800x450px)

95KB, 800x450px

>>55724028
What's your theory, then?

File: a7e31cd70e.png (115KB, 1290x681px)

115KB, 1290x681px

JUST

>>55724058
GT3e

>>55724058

One fuckoff huge slab of L4 cache and higher igpu clocks.

>>55724083

I find those results questionable - primarily for the almost nonexistant gain for the fx chip given cryengine is one of them ost well threaded engines in existance.

>>55724087
>>55724105

>GT3e
They are already going to introduce gte4, with a 95 watt tdp and 256mb of cache, double what's going around now.

Because I dont want my pc to melt and fx-8350@4Ghz is enough anyways.

>>55722157
That little ass kid didn't build it all by himself, ya moron. His father did.

FX is fucking shit nigga, I bet that 9590 cant even beat my i5 3470.

>>55722970
Can that take a third fan?

>>55722942
>>55722974
>>55723068
Is it cheap? I wouldn't mine throwing a build together for the fuck of it, just to have some fun overclocking and shit.

>>55724290
Maybe if you get it drunk and ask nicely.

>>55724290
Yes.

>>55723252
This. IPC is so bad on these FX chips.

>>55724304
Lol

>>55724314
Shit, that would cool down a chip nicely. Imagine 3 fans at 100% and some very good thermal paste.

>>55724290
>>55724376


It can (it ships with clips for it) but generally a 3rd fan doesn't do anything for dual tower heatsinks as its solely exhaust rather than pushing air through the fins. having a decent case fan behind the cooler more or less does the same thing.

>>55723951
WTF is that single core performance. I get around 1100 with a 2GHz processor. At least the multi core performance is decent as long as you close your eyes when you look at the clock rate and core count.

That CPU architecture AMDs pentium 4, but worse.

>>55724417

Its a chip from 2011 clocked balls to the wall, what do you expect?

>>55724302
must be around $50 now

>>55724409
Wouldn't that help a tad? If you have a third fan then

>>55724451
Whatever I'm expecting, it's not shit single core performance out a consumer pleb processor that is meant for workloads that don't scale well with threads.

I can understand my 2GHz Haslel having shit single core performance because it was never intended for the consumer market, but this I do not. It's just a bad architecture.

File: Screenshot_20160723-202956.png (765KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1440x2560px

>>55724525

>>55721129
I'm sorry anon

>>55724558
I have a third fan on my SB-E and it didn't show any noticeable improvement. Like that other anon said, it ends up acting more like an exhaust fan.

I actually removed my case exhaust fan when I put the third fan on.

>>55724577
We were talking about a 965. These are expensive.
B65 are bottom of the barrel ships, they won't overclock well. If you want try tinker with it get a decent chip.

>>55718990
I've already got an i7 6850K at 4.5ghz, good enough for me.

>>55724587
Oh I see.

>>55724624
Fuck it.

>>55718990
8350 fag here, running everything without any issue since 2014.

>tfw you didn't fell for the intel meme

File: 1374135547477.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>55720563

File: 1462319919134.jpg (174KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1280x720px

>>55724737

does AMD still make cpus? thought they were out of that business

File: I am truly shocked anon.png (267KB, 642x550px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 642x550px

>>55724871

yfw VIA still makes x86 cpus.

File: 892149019230.gif (15KB, 482x332px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 482x332px

>>55719071

>220 watt losing to 84 watt

ahahahhahaahahaa

enjoy your $300 electric bill

>>55724885
>VIA
sure but they have a 40nm process

>>55724944

They are also a fraction of the size of AMD, but the point stands - AMD is nowhere near close to dead.

>>55724885

i wish nVidia made x86 but they dont have a license to apparently so they could only make shitty chrome based shit

>>55724966

The cost to break into x86 is astronomical - Intel has such a lead nobody else has the captial to fight them head-on and actually make money. AMD gets a pass due tro x86_64 and VIA are totally irrelevant.

Nvidia doesn't have the sort of money required but AMR is fair game (and shocking Nvidia suck balls at it).

Side note: Intel is equally learning the hard way that building a GPU requires enormous software support and they really, really are not prepared to fix all the fuckery vidya devs do to make shit work. Its why both AMD and Nvidia have large software teams to unfuck the shit some code monkeys put put.

>>55725006

>Nvidia doesn't have the sort of money

im pretty sure nVidia has loads of money and would not be as incompetent in making x86 as AMD is. also intel integrated graphics are still mediocre but getting quite decent to the point where you can play some esports tiitles. imagine a nVidia APU that can run all titles without a dedicated card that would be truly amazing.

>>55725075

>im pretty sure nVidia has loads of money

I don't think you understand the sort of money it takes to build a chip that can rival Intel's offerings from scratch. Nvidia has lots of money, but not that much money. Even assuming they do have the sort of capital required, where is the profit? Intel basically has a monopoly and they will fight tooth and nail for it and I doubt anyojne can provide the sort of "deals" Intel does given Intel already own their own fabs and can afford to undercut anyone else just to keep them from competing.

Those reasons are why Nvidia went ARM - oits a growing market without too much of a monopoly (yet) so breaking into it is doable. Nvidia simply learnt the hard way that making cpus is a lot harder than it looks. equally if you flip this the other way it shows the sort of engineering talent AMD is sitting on if they can make both gpus and cpus.

>>55722359
Use a box cutter blade for 2$

>>55725006

my dream would be a intel/nvidia built APU but its never going to happen.

>>55725152

Even then sanding the heatspreader down requires a delicate touch.

>>55725200

Maybe one day, but consoles were a perfect platform for it and both Intel and Nvidia (especially Nvidia) fucked it up.

thinking about trading my 9590 for a 3960x

>>55725226

they were both too greedy. now AMD has the full console market with their midrange shit APUs that an old Quad can match.

>>55725271

AMD are the ant thats moved a mountain due to bigger players losing sight of the big picture.

>>55725294

kek i think they make more money building consoles APUs then their entire cpu market alone. considering that in one full year the "next gen" console will be available. the only console that used both intel and nvidia parts was the original xbox and it was actually much better graphically then the ps2 was hence why halo started the whole fps genre for microsoft.

>>55718990
>slower than my old 2600k

nice bait desu m8

>>55725152
I don't want to waste $200 just because my hand slips and I accidentally cut 0.25mm deeper than intended.
I've never done it, since I always used AMD. So I'd be better off using a surefire tool.

>>55725356

The original gangster xbox was a very, very carefully crafted marketing machine designed entirely to stop sony basically rendering windows irrelevant for gaming (as that is what MS feared after sony's hype). it was a black hole for money and nobody but MS could afford to take that sort of losses and stay in business.

>>55720846
That's because you're comparing two CPUs with the same architecture, dumbass

>>55725469

yea it really contributed to pcs demise in the mid 2000s. nowadays can you even imagine having a console wipe the floor to a pc in performance this was the stuff of legends. also how is it that microsoft keeps losing money on selling those consoles and still be in business i thought they wanted to sell their entire gaming division after the 360s rrrod debacle.

>>55725518

These days MS uses xbox as a means to keep a stranglehold on the PC gaming market. realistically though xbox has never truly been worth the investment on a pure profit scale but market wise it wa a desivive blow to sony given nintendo has been on a slow route to marketshare destruction (note this does not mean they aren't earning profit either).

File: 1469255799850.png (378KB, 640x420px)

378KB, 640x420px

>>55725006
the shit nvidia is churning out is ACE tho. drones, selfdriving cars, scientific. nvidia+arm=future

>>55725653

They are doing that because they see their days as numbered within the dgpu market thanks to Intel's efforts. Still Nvidia has serious competition and isn't as prepared as they think for taking on a highly competitive cpu market.

File: intel_skylake_platform1.jpg (334KB, 1204x848px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1204x848px

>>55722601
NEW 10KW TDP CORE, I DUB THEE
>ANNIHILATOR
DUMPTRUCK

File: 1469255768597.jpg (130KB, 1024x682px)

130KB, 1024x682px

>>55725724
desktop is dead dead dead. everyone is moving on.

File: boat_hueg_11_11_1_1111_.jpg (23KB, 400x282px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x282px

>>55725356
>the only console that used both intel and nvidia parts was the original xbox and it was actually much better graphically then the ps2 was hence why halo started the whole fps genre for microsoft.

yeah but the original xbox came out a year and a half after the ps3 at a time when gpu technology was booming, even the gamecube had better graphics than the ps2 (also came out around a year later)

never mind the fact that the xbox was wtfhuge and could afford far, far better processing power due to the sheer cooling capacity between the two

>>55725887

Huang, pls.

>>55725129
But isn't the Tegra X1 very powerful? It can run Crysis 3 mane.

>>55725910
I sold my original xbox and ps2, they were both really good and fun consoles maybe in the future I would get.

File: 1308531261031.jpg (234KB, 1215x759px)

234KB, 1215x759px

so what CPU has the best single core performance per dollar? looking to upgrade from my 2500k eventually.

>>55726313
i5

>>55726360
i5 what? I've completely gotten lost in the generations/architecture. the last thing I remember was people saying skylake wasn't very good.

>>55719761
You do realize they have exactly the same cores ?, They have exactly the same IPC only the i7 have more cache and twice as many cores and is unlocked

>>55721674
TDP=/=draw
Thermal Power Design=/=power draw.
The 8350 has a TDP of 125W, but its actualy power draw in test came up to 200W under full load.
The 9590 has a TDP of 220W, but reached up to 400W power draw under load.
Consumer socket i7 for 11(55/50/51) usualy have a TDP below 100W, but end up with a real power draw of around 120W on load.

>>55719596
>used in consoles for quite some time.
I hope that after the disaster this generation caused Sony and MS will go back to the old way of a dedicated setup.

>>55727162
>I confuse total system power draw for CPU power draw: The Post

Hilarious

>>55719751
Bulldozer released 2011, we had SB in that year already.

>>55720215
You realise that the 9590 originaly was priced and should compete with the higher end semiprosumer 2011 CPUs (SB-E and IB-E).
It still draws much more than those and performance wise fails horribly compared to them.
Because of that and them being insanely unstable and hard to cool AMD drastically dropped the price.
They were originaly more than twice the price than your typical consumer i7 for 115X.

>>55721216
You know that you can read a big test on Anandtech on how CPU affects single, dual and tripple GPU.
I dunno what that guy did, but Intel easily outperforms AMD the GPUs are involved.
Your post reminds me of when all die hard AMD fanboys on/g/ were copypasting the shit from that one AMD youtube shill that performed tweaks on windows so Windows and all other software would run better with AMDs 8 core CPUs.
He magicaly beat any existing Intel CPU by a huge margin.
But for some reason no one could repeat his tweaks and get similar results.
Despite that AMD fanboys were annoying on /g/ as hell we had times with them posting that shit at like 20 threads simultaneously.

>>55721081
I know me my RWBY jokes when I see them!

>>55720838
Fucking kids.

>>55727209
Test was on the CPU not system draw, go back and read some test on from when the 9590 actualy released.
The 9590 performs horrendous.
AMD cannot into energy efficiency.
Same shit with the RX480 test show some drawing up 167W, thus playing in the same league as a 1080 which draws 160-180W on load.
It is you AMDtards that do not even know what TDP is and that TDP is not the actual power consumption.

You AMD tards are just sad to look at.

I really wish AMD was more of a competition, because in that case Intel and Nvidias price policy would not be such utter shit.
But sadly they are not and in the long run, their stuff adds up to a lot of additional cost.
Sure for you with your 4-9cents per kWh it might not make a difference.
But electricity is not that cheap everywhere on the world.
Her we are at 0.3€ per kWh, end of the year another raise will most likely come.

>>55721216
Adds a tilde on MEDIA but not on MAXIMA. That video must be from a dumb mexican.

>>55721576
PS/2 permits infinite key rollover.
USB is some fucking trash with latency and a shared buffer for all ports in the same controller.

>>55718990
I assume if you overclock you could get 6 or 7 ghz then?

File: Capture.png (16KB, 648x179px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 648x179px

>>55722085
Sorry to inform you, but he is no in fact "samefaggin" again, Sir.

Is this a good CPU for the winter?

File: 1467483000076.jpg (50KB, 599x563px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x563px

>>55726537
Yes, that's what I've been trying to prove to the idiot that said that
>i3 =/= i7
and pointed to IPC

And then I got called out that i7 beats i3 in every situation because it has twice the cores... NO ONE MENTIONED CORE COUNT, YOU BROUGHT IT UP FOR NO REASON