[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/g/ - Technology



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1547230760722.png (840 KB, 1302x839)
840 KB
840 KB PNG
guys I don't feel so good
>>
>>69317041
Lisa Su already confirmed there would be variants with more than 8 cores, and once you put a second chiplet on there you're obviously going to have an 16c/32t version, so I don't know who you think you're fooling by crossing out the R7s and R9s.

Instead, you should be more worried that an early engineering sample of an R5 3000 at non-x TDP beat a 9900k in multicore, and therefore had to basically tie an 8700k (at minimum) in single core.

This means the final R5 3000 non-x is going to beat the 9900k by some margin, much less the R5 3000x version, and that Intel will not have any answer until they unfuck 10nm and roll out a new uarch.
>>
File: LEL.png (50 KB, 930x717)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
https://snew.notabug.io/r/Amd/comments/a44f4b/the_excel_spreadsheet_ryzen_leak_was_me_it_is_not/?limit=500
>>
File: australia.gif (564 KB, 800x430)
564 KB
564 KB GIF
>>69317128
>no final info mentioned at CES
>the retard already knows the SKUs branding and what was shown as engineering sample
>>
>>69317128
This but unironically.
Rip intel



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.