HOUSEFIRE!!!! HOUSEFIRE!!!! HOUSEFIRE!!!!

>>60669892
Pricing is better than expected tho.
Sadly I can not be bothered to delidl billa kaufland the cpu because of tooth-paste jewing.
So I will just wait for ryzen+ and buy cheapest 8core version.

pissmark of 23k tho

>>60669892
>literally a 45 watt difference
thats a fucking laptop computer in terms of power.

Its ok when

>>60669892
Can't wait for benchmarks. If they're good then I'm in for one. If not I'll just get a used Intel for cheap.

>>60669969
laprop on a chip?

>>60669892
But ryzen has 24 lanes?

>>60669892
Being someone who couldn't give a rat's ass about these competitions, I would go with the AMD CPU.

>>60670025
This.

OP is fake news.

>>60670025
Yes. If you want more that's what their "thread ripper" chip is for.
It makes sense and probably helped save money.

>>60669892
>50% more TDP for same number of cores
>$100 more expensive
Why

>>60669892
AMD fucked themselves over for not including XFR into turbo numbers.

And XFR is exactly what Intel Turboboost 3.0 is.

File: 1492720912181.png (234KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 882x758px

>>60669892

>>60670025
Well it's Anandtech after all..

>>60670082
Intel doesnt want to go down too much in margin and their current arch has much worse yields than Zen. Even $599 is probably only priced that way because they have to compete with AMD. Their 10 core is $400 more expensive for only 2 additional cores - surely due to AMD not having released a competing offering there yet.

>>60670357
Thread ripper is the competition to the 10 cores and up

10 core threadripper could be cheap, 700-800 dollars

AMD's 140W 1850X when

>>60670406
There can be no 5 core Zeppelin dies. CCX is always power of two.

>>60670427
They could do a 6c and a 4c die in the same package. We don't know if the matched core count per CCX requirement extends off-die or not.

>>60670427
There can be When 12 core fails at two in negative aligment
Just like 6cores are now 8core failures
3 core 3 core.

>>60670082
high frequencies and avx cause that 140 tdp. just like ryzen will use more than 95 watt tdp when avx is used. my 1800x at stock settings will draw 114 watts when running a harsh stress test with axv enabled. like intel burn test avx edition.

intel and amd have different definitions for tdp and it varries with product line. amd for "mainstream" ryzen sets their tdp as an "average." so amd considers 95 watt to the be the average max. intel does the same with their mainstream line. a 7700k can draw up to 120 - 130 watts with an avx 2 workload at stock. but their hedt line they're a little more honest about it. 140 for an all core, avx 2 stress workload. but in most workloads it won't draw 140 watts. it will probably hover around 60 - 100 watts.

>>60670620
Intel running AVX will also go over their TDP.

Both intel and AMD use different TDP rating system.

>Intel's 91 TDP 7700K draws 120-130w on AVX
>AMD's 95 TDP 1800X draws ~ 115w on AVX

AMD's still much more accurate, especially given that its delta. 21% delta on AMD and 37% delta on Intel.

So even if you make the argument that Intel and AMD uses different TDP rating system, the argument is still very much valid and I could even say, AMD'd TDP rating is much more accurate than Intel.

>>60670086
Yep. Super shitty marketing saying it's 4GHz when it's really 4.1

>>60671053
So 140 TDP will be actually around 190?
This just keeps getting better and better

File: water heater.gif (1MB, 312x176px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 312x176px

Watercooling is the minimum requirement for the intel chips.
Why did they think that was acceptable.
$2000 chip on a expensive as fuck mobo,
Just to have pic related happen.

File: 1431697102631.jpg (20KB, 389x366px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 389x366px

>>60669892
>I-it's running fine just a tiny little itty wee bit hot
>it may only last for 2 years functionally but atleast i'm faster