>intel

>>61839404
Is Intel potentially open to lawsuits due to these CPUs not performing as advertised if you only use the 140W TDP cooler that they claim is all you need?

File: dirty AMD liar.jpg (189KB, 1196x1389px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1196x1389px

nice try shylock

>>61840179
at those lowered clock speeds it would be nowhere near close the 1920X

>>61839404
lel

File: oy.png (36KB, 1268x336px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1268x336px

>>61840114
Intel´s jewish lawyers are well aware, they use vague language to describe TDP, so they can deflect any potential lawsuit

File: consider the following f148024496.jpg (23KB, 343x284px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 343x284px

>>61840179
Question though. This is Intel we're talking about. Could it be possible they pulled a Volkswagen and the throttling is disabled by default when it detects benchmark processes? This seems like a really convenient way to show higher benchmarks and shift the blame for the power consumption.

File: 1484686763369.gif (36KB, 265x200px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 265x200px

>>61840470
I don't think they are even 140W at base frequency. I'm pretty sure it'll throttle lower than the base frequency if you use a 140W TDP cooler.

However... they have that
>under an Intel-defined ... workload
caveat which could be an incredibly light worklight, you're right.
Just wow.

>>61839404
and retards are going to parrot the bullshit TDP values like AMD is the housefire here

>>61840628
It's way easier to just bribe the benchmark makers. Which is what they probably did.

>>61840179
Why is Intel's HEDT ecosystem so shit?

File: 10 cores uses more power lol.png (486KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1920x1080px

>>61839404

>>61839404
hasn't this been known for quite a while? TDP numbers have different meanings for intel and amd. intel conveniently talks about typical usage or some shit...

Zenripper is for idiots who actually use their computers. Just look at the idle consumption

File: anandtech TR.jpg (132KB, 1086x762px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1086x762px

>>61840628
Seems to be a mobo issue

toms mentions "rules" for the benchmark, but I dont know what they are referring to
anandtech doesn't have this issue.

>>61840968
idle
86w intel
93w amd
93/86
intel-8%
load
281 intel
257 amd
281/257
amd-9%

it doesn't fucking matter either way you go

>>61840758

It is because they have been coasting on evolution of Core 2 design and fab technology for a decade.

>>61841025
>Seems to be a mobo issue
Where are they getting these mobos that still have P-state issues? I assume they updated the BIOS on them before testing. What the fuck is even going on with X299?