> the years is 2017 > intel announces the final levels

Do you not understand binning? They disable the extra cores because they're faulty, else they'd be sold as the higher end versions.

>>61797183
it's cheaper to have 1 type of cpu made than it is to have 2 separate assembly lines.

> "Starting today we are enabling the other 2 zepplin die's on all threadripper cpus"
How? TR have 2 real dies + 2 dummy dies.

>>61797168
In terms of single core, it's already pretty lopsided.

i9-7980XE - 2 cores at 4.4 GHz, $2000
1950X - 4 cores at 4.2 GHz, $1000

I know which one I'd pick.

>>61797205
So you don't understand product binning, okay. Look it up and then come back.

>>61797238
Thank you for choosing Intel™ Sir. Sir please get one of our watercoolers also Sir.

>>61797168
That's a beautiful story anon, but you won't ever be able to unlock extra dies on threadripper. They don't contain any functional transistors, it's literally just a blank piece of silicon.

>>61797281

thats what the press slides want you to think anon

>>61797281
This. I thought this was common knowledge by now?

In any case, unless bingmesh goes away AMD can ALWAYS beat them on core counts now if they really want to, they have the cheaper technology with almost no scaling issues.

Lisa Su is great at making impotent beta males rage.

>>61797709

shitty google translate:

"It would be better to kill something either G4560 or G4600 ... Fucked idiots"

Are you suggesting that amd shouldve ignored the hedt market?

While this isn't likely, it might be possible that they might start selling 24/32 core threadripper chips just for the sake of bragging rights

>>61797168
That's a woman?

>>61797183
Actually no they're just placeholders to hold up the IHS, zeppelin yields are so good they didn't have any to just throw away and disable

>>61800167
I forgot about AMD's glue. But still, the principle that there aren't 2 other dies to activate still stands.

>>61800167
also the good thing about the way these chips are made is that they dont have to throw away a large 16c die if its shit (wich intel has to do) , instead they use multible smaller dies and the ones of those that arent great become zen 6 or 4 cores

File: 1498288787774.jpg (33KB, 243x283px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 243x283px

MY POWER GROWS

>>61798332
Lisa is a better man than you'll ever be, while also still being best wife.

>>61800806

Looks like Lisa Su will win the darling bowl.

>>61798332
That's smugness in human form

>>61797277
>get one of our watercoolers also Sir.

And another watercooler for cooling the watercooler that cools the cpu.

>october b2 stepping of ryzen hits
>1800x now1850x
>4ghz stock
>4.8ghz on air
>5 on water

>>61804516
There won't be any signficant clock increases on the current process. It's just not designed for it (or even 4GHz, which is why it takes so much voltage to get there). The 7nm refresh will be where clocks reach Intel levels, and then the time of the Jew will truly be at an end.

>>61800511
dank

>>61804370
Sir we have special offer where we sell a full AC casing for your Intel™ i9™ CPU Sir. It includes freon, compressor and fan. For the very low price of $1499 Sir (does not include the CPU). For more information please email me at [email protected] . Use reference number: KF5W731LI1/11S
Thank you Sir.

File: image.jpg (71KB, 150x262px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 150x262px

>>61798332
It's best woman.

>>61797168
They are dummy cores, seems Intel shills arent the only retards

>>61804582
There is no 7nm refresh.
The only 7nm parts will be Zen2.

>>61807575
Same goddamn thing. They just changed the name from Zen+ to Zen 2 for marketing reasons. The IPC uplift will be Intel-esque, but the clockspeeds will be much higher.

>>61807755
New arch on a new process is the exact opposite of a refresh, pal.

>>61807556

Taking a greentext literally

>>61797168
> one week passes, lisa su picks up the mic
> the world is listening
kek

>>61804582
intel levels? Bitch fucking please, their current process is designed for 3ghz, their next one, which is as far as I know on track, targets 5ghz for its normal range.

what is intels normal range for processors? 3.5 to 4ghz? With the 10nm reporting massive fucking problems, and with current reports being a performance backpedal.

>>61807755
>""""""new arch""""""