KEK "There's a problem with the high-end Ryzen TDP.

doesnt really matter, as long as they hit desired performance, and cost less people will buy it since they probably already have firehouse running PSU's at 750-1000W

>>58870151
I don't think anyone gives a fuck if the top binning slips to 110-125W TDP or whatever, especially since nobody thought Zen would even hit 3.2 GHz a few months ago.

Intel had the Jew dial turned up to 11 for too long, when they could have trivially killed Zen hype by making Kaby Lake 6 core and <$400, but they didn't and fucked themselves, so now I'm laughing.

File: babylon.jpg (247KB, 1410x764px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1410x764px

>>58870151
>It's okay when Intel do it
>AMD CPUs magically use more power at the same wattage
>Trust me guys I'm your friend

The shill campaign is really stepping up.

>>58870151
Given that Broadwell-E needs 140W to achieve the same clock with the same number of cores and ISN'T an SoC, that's still fairly impressive. They'll probably have to downclock the R7-1800X or up the TDP rating to 125W and delay their flagship Ryzen by a few weeks for recertifying.

>>58870302
>AMD CPUs magically use more power at the same wattage
they literally aknowledge themselves they measure TDP differently, you idiot

>>58870508
Of course, Shlomo! AMD chips all use 200W minimum when they state 25W TDP. Intel chips actually use 5W when they state 140W. It's just facts and why I only buy superior Intel products!

>>58870151
Fool, do you think we actually will believe this obvious misinformation?

>>58870508
They don't measure it differently. They treat it differently. Intel just says "this is a 140W chip" regardless of what the actual TDP is. It just means the chip tries to run at 140W with turbo boost.

>>58871333
so canard is always right about amd except when it delivers bad news?

>>58870151
>So, ready for literal 150W chips?
Intel's 8C CPUs are 140W, 150W is still pretty much the same shit. All I care about is whether they can match Intel OC vs. OC while costing less than half.

Also, doesn't Ryzen have some feature that pushes it as high as possible if the cooling can handle it?

AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

>>58871333
You should because canard pc is legit and said the same thing last week 3.6/4.0 model is 105W. Mind that it will be marketed as the top dog overclocker edition SKU, so extra 10W doesn't matter because 4.0Ghz looks good on paper when marketing
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/828666744432652290

Other 8 core models will still be 95W and AMD never mentioned anything about 65W 8 cores so OP is still a faggot. Su herself said base line 8 core zen is 3.4Ghz, with unknown turbo it shouldn't be much behind

>caring about turbo clock and TDP when most if not all the chips will be unlocked

See what's interesting is that we still don't know how AMD's new turbo works when running multiple cores, Intel for example doesn't turbo when a lot of cores are active and stays on base clock to not exceed TDP

Zen has no chance really, Kaby Lake is around 60% more efficeint than Broadwell

>>58871481
Who said I ever believe don't French idiots?

okay let me get this right

>AMD shows 3.2ghz Ryzen chip at 95w TDP
>silence for a while
>bunch of leaks come out of the blue promising 3.6GHz base/4GHz boost also at 95w TDP
>they are completely unverifiable
>they are not associated with the tech press or AMD itself in any way
>most have been proven fake
>somehow this is AMD's fault
>somehow this is bad news when power draw should still be below Broadwell-E levels

the mental gymnastics you Intel fanboys go through is impressive

>>58871592
Yeah, anyone who says anything under 3.4 ghz or anything other than 95w is full of shit.

These specs were explicitly stated by the CEO, therefore they are fact until either a real divergent part is discovered or the company states otherwise.

>>58872588
They had a 3.6 ghz part at ces, and 3.4 is the stated minimum with 95w tdp stated as the only tdp

>>58871633
that, and the fact that "half the cores are active" on an 8c chip equals "all cores are active" on a 4c one.

>>58872757
>get 8c16t ryzen
>3.4ghz
>use an app that uses less than 8t
>turns off one module and overclocks the other to 4.5ghz

>>58870151
>hope and dreams

>>58872813
That would be real nice but your CPU and OS is smarter than that, even running some shit console port you'll see all 8 cores being used, not by a lot but they'll be used.
And I certainly hope AMD's turbo can go nuts (like some mobile Intels that have a 1.2GHz+ turbo) when it has room to do so, would be a real winner for single thread stuff.

>>58872813
that would be the best-case scenario, yes. worst-case would be
>more than 2t active
>all cores locked to base clock

>>58872588
>>they are completely unverifiable
AMD had 3.6ghz/3.9ghz chips available for testing at CES. These were chips with an F3 OPN. Word from OEMs came that there were newer F4 chips with a 100mhz higher boost, confirmed by multiple vendors. They still have the same 3.6ghz base clock so this isn't even remotely close to a stretch.
CanardPC a few weeks ago mentioned that these chips might be pulling 105w, largely based on power figures they saw from overclocking their own test chip. Its not a big deal like OP is implying. Its also not proof that the chips getting release will have a higher TDP.