This will never not be funny

Intel on suicide watch?

>>61184519
Yes, mostly because no amount of bribes will save them from EPYC.

File: 1489100922662.png (246KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 882x758px

>>61184468
I HATE AMD SO MUCH

File: IMG_4594.jpg (46KB, 509x535px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 509x535px

Feels so fucking good

>>61184468
The problem is that Vega will be a disappointment and that is surely going to hurt AMD. They might have shot the blue giant in the foot but the green kikes stay strong.

File: market share.png (41KB, 789x492px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 789x492px

>>61184468
Nice shop, you fucking cum guzzling AMDrone.

File: 1489935357709.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>61184725
DELETE THIS

>>61184757
That's a nice survey for laptop users.

>>61184468
>>61184725
oh boy it looks like the graph has been ((((fixed))))

>>61184785
>laptop users on steam
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

>>61184646
Will the laptop CPUs use Vega? That would make it impossible for AMD to enter the laptop market. And I want my next laptop to be a super efficient AMD CPU.

>>61184845
>42.23% are poorfags with dual cores
lol, true gaymurs

>>61185222
>quadcore for gaming
Not yet retard.

File: vforce-fleshlight-review.jpg (53KB, 690x292px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 690x292px

>>61184468

>>61184797
>(((fixed)))
jesus christ, you are right
>https://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
(((Intel))): the goyim must not know

>>61185242
You're the most retarded person on this board right now. Even i5s are bottlenecking newer games.

>>61185118
Vega should be fine once TBDR and the variable width SIMD arrays are enabled in the drivers. Regardless it's more efficient than Gen is, and Zen is more efficient than Kaby already.

>>61185118
>>61186289
in a laptop, amd offers simply the best non discrete gpu options, intels, at least the only ones that barely match amd, are ungodly expensive for what you get and you would be better off with a discrete opposed to intel.

take a look at polaris and how much you can undervolt the average card and still maintain stock speed, if you are willing to knock stock speed down a bit, you can undervolt even further.

amd has a habit of overvolting what is needed, both on cpu and gpu just to make sure they have optimal good candidates, on laptop solutions they typically do not go the throw a blanket volt value on everything and instead segment a bit more based on voltage you can maintain, and if not amd then the oems do.

you can likely expect amd to be much better than intel all around in the laptop market as intel hits thermal throttles even on low clocked shit, while amd on a desktop and overclocked can't even hit its thermal limits even with a stock heatsink before it hits uncomfortable voltage.

>>61184797
>>61185376
>>61184468
both charts are skewed and fucked, they don't look at sales they only look at who is benchmarking their cpus on their specific software.

Im not shocked that the first graph had intel fucking tanking, many people who use the soft ware likely moved from intel 900-3000 to an amd 6 core or 8 core and wanted to see the boost.

The second graph also doesn't shock me if its real, as only enthusiasts are buying the cpus right now, it wont be till q3 and amd in laptops that you see a massive shift.

>>61185956
yes and no.

they are bottlenecking 60+ hz sure, even an i7 7700 at 5.x+ is bottlenecking those games at that hrz, its part of the reason people are moving to 1440 and 4k, we have the gpu power to play at a much higher resolution but we don't have the cpu power to play much faster than 144hz (really, closer to 90-110hz on newer games.)

>>61185376
Honestly that looks more accurate anyway. There weren't THAT many people buying Ryzen or throwing away their Intel builds.

File: 739.png (38KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 625x626px

>>61185242