It sure was. It was also my favorite pet processor at the time. I had one of those massive 64-pin DIPs that I used for my hobby fun.
I was so disappointed to see it replaced on the market by such inferior parts.
Maybe the same people that got their heads lopped off in France adapted to our "evolution" to bend us over and fuck us harder. Maybe it's time to play fair.
I can't figure out how you can't both see that you're both right.
The pay you will be able to command will be based upon the value you can produce, and whether or not they can find someone to do it for cheaper.
Your skill and your scarcity are both factors in the equation.
Your hypothetical malboge programmer isn't worth millions, because his value is essentially zero, period. Doesn't matter what scarcity factor your add to it, it's still zero.
In my particular line of work, there's a very small amount of people who can do exactly what I do, and for companies that need that, we can command a high price. If there were a lot of people who could do that, that price would go down, because we use our scarcity to drive it up. We're playing the capitalism game like everyone else- supply and demand.
That's basic economics.
And hoarding really is the fucking problem in my eyes with those people.
Their money hidden under their $80,000 bed, so to speak, doesn't do the economy one bit of good, and they go through extensive troubles to make sure their assets are safe from the risks that other people have to endure. This is why the rich get richer, even when the market blows out through the floor.
I've never had a problem with rich dudes making fuck tons of money for being successful.
How, I think anyone who doesn't look at the current situation and see just what level of wealth they have acquired in comparison to everyone else, and immediately see a huge fucking problem should be shot while there's still fucking time.
Tsk. Tsk.
The 25-point platform of the NSDAP was back when the scary folks in there still had to share power with the socialists. Then this thing called The Night of the Long Knives happened.
You see, this dude named Röhm was in control of this thing called the Sturmabteilung. They were the socialists with guns.
Röhm was unhappy that by 1933 the Nazi party had complete power, but hadn't implemented any of the socialist points in the 25-point program.
Hitler never had any intentions of doing so, because the doctrine of fascism, which Hitler subscribed to, didn't really hinge upon socialist ideals.
So he killed Röhm, and every other socialist in power in the NSDAP and seized power for himself, and removing any socialist elements from the party he had usurped.
Now, I'm not saying the SA and Nazis of the '20s were great chaps themselves, but when you misleadingly lump the Nazis who started WW2 with the socialists of the 1920s, which is exactly what you're trying to do, you're being a misleading pile of shit. Or stupid. Never can tell which whenever I hear people throwing around the "Nazis were socialists" tripe.
I don't think many people would be able to yield a usably better one in that girl's place.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Probably not many beauty pageant participants, or high school drop-outs, or athletes that rode a railroad to fame based on their talent, and education was a distraction, but believe it or not, there are many of us who have to answer far more difficult questions on the spot on a daily basis. Fortunately, high school generally preps you for being able to do that. Or at least it did "back in my day"
I mean no disrespect toward, or intent to generalize the women in beauty pageants, but do you for some reason think that particular program selects for education or intelligence?
Motorola, especially. The 680x0 chips had a solid showing on the personal computer market, and Intel based offerings didn't catch up with them until long after the companies making those machines went bankrupt, or fell into relative obscurity. Bad business decisions by non-Intel personal computer manufacturers can explain most of why Intel became the dominant PC processor.
In the end, it's all good and fine. I doubt we'd really be any further ahead today if Intel hadn't won the processor architecture war.
I'd be more impressed if they were targeting AMD's overall performance and cost.
Yes, but I don't think their shareholders would.
AMD's overall performance is hinged upon building processors with a very large number of cores, processors that are currently being outsold by top of the line consumer-grade Intel desktop processors by a factor of 3 to 1, depending on the source.
Not trying to get involved in the processor holy war, but I feel like the market is making it pretty clear that the path of ridiculous single-threaded performance is more valuable than the aggregate performance of 32 cores.
ARM, taking aim at the dominant player, claims its chips will equal and potentially even surpass Intel's in single-threaded performance.
The given context of ARM providing chips to beat Intel's current offering was specifically regarding single-core performance, an area where Intel still dominates AMD with a significant lead.
If ARM succeeds in that goal, they beat AMD in their given performance metric by default.
Eh, that's a definition in a specific statute that only applies to that statute.
As to whether or not the courts have decided this, I don't know, but given you so severely fucked up your initial assertion, I'm not terribly inclined to give your second one much consideration.
Because that is how adults conduct a discussion.
You can't be bothered to read? So you're just trolling. Got it. I think I've made my point, dotard.
It was pleasant running circles around you.
That link doesn't say that at all, fuckwit. How fucking stupid are you?
If a player with 1% of the market increases their market share 100%!!!!!1111, that doesn't in any way make the rest of the market sweat. The rest of the market sweats when they increase their share by 2000%. AMD increased from 8% to 12%. As to their stock market value, in case you were mistaking that as their market share, I'm pretty sure *that* is not an argument you want to get into.
Again, you're a fucking idiot who can't stop proving he doesn't know how to read or even see a logical thought in his head through to its conclusion.
Why would I swear at that? That dude is entitled to his opinion. The market doesn't reflect it- at all, but he's entitled to it.
He seems to be placing "cores per dollar" as a metric for a gaming CPU, which is fascinating. He also seems to be using some very specific benchmarks to support his conclusion that the 2 processors are tied generally speaking for games, an assertion he is wrong about. But ignorant benchmarking is hardly unusual as you so kindly demonstrated for us earlier. To quote the reviewer,
But those advantages don’t tip the scale in favor of Intel for most users.
That is quite literally a falsehood, since the i7-8700K is outselling the 2700X, at a higher price, without a cooler, by a factor of 2 to 3.
Try to cherry pick your reviews better.
This is representative of the market, and you seemed to like this site.
The fact that an 8700K beats a 2700X in any workload utilizing less than 7 threads, by rather significant margins, and the fact that most games use 1-2 is all you need to know. Basic logic should tell you that any benchmark showing such a workload as performing evenly is flawed by a non-CPU bottleneck. You're searching for other peoples' opinions now to match your own and give it validity. That's just silly.
You're wrong about that too, this is a recent phenomenon.
2 years is a fucking while you goddamn moron.
Today AMD unquestionably offers better value in both low end and high end.
Pretty sure I said that. But hey, everyone needs a parrot.
You want the best low end desktop build? Go AMD.
Yup.
You want the best high end desktop build? Go AMD.
Nope. That's where you keep fucking up. You keep using your previous argument to prove this argument. You really are a dim-witted fucking human.
Only inertia and AMD's production capacity keeps the market from flipping completely on its head.
What a reeking pile of horse shit.
You having trouble sourcing AMD parts? Me neither. Dude, go to bed. You're too fucking stupid to communicate with. You have demonstrated a clear lack of even basic reasoning skills, willful disregard for intellectually honest debate, and a pathological desire to use strawmen to prove arguments that were never made because you fucking lost this one. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't even understand the basics behind the initial premise of the argument, indicating that you were literally arguing just because a couple of barely functional neurons in your brain perceived the Intel > AMD in any context as a threat to their very existence. Sorry dude. Really, I am. If you feel so rotten about that AMD you've got, just go turn it in. Hell, send me your paypal, and I'll pay for your new 8086K.
Huh?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
If you're playing a game with settings that binds its performance to the GPU performance, you're not testing the CPU.
For example, if the fill rate and shader performance of a GTX1080 Ti can only pump out ~85fps in Middle Earth: Shadow of War @ 1440P, then *any* processor that can feed that particular GPU enough to maximize its performance will come up with equal performance.
Me, I've got 2 GTX1080 Ti GPUs, so my benchmarks are considerably better than those.
The goal is to have enough GPU performance that the game test is CPU bound instead of GPU bound. In benchmarks where the benchmarker failed that, they were either too stupid to understand what they were doing, or they were trying to sell to people who were too stupid to understand what they were doing. In this case, I suspect you got caught up in the latter.
I think in the future, you should just limit yourself to arguing topics within your comprehension envelope.
Nobody buys AMD? More strawmen! You sad little person, lol.
I'll quote myself-
AMD has owned the value-hunter market for a while.
AMD has value. They really do. Value-hunters have a whole host of great options in the generations of AMD parts out there.
If I were hunting for value, I'd go AMD, hands down. If my desktop PC weren't a headless box sitting behind my couch that streams games, and were instead a workstation where I did lots of intensive parallel tasks, I'd go AMD.
And finally,
I appreciate you pounding in that final nail for me.
I actually began to pity you at the end. You're one of those guys who I suspect knows they're really fucking wrong but has a pathological need not to be, throwing up as many logical fallacies as they can conjure for as long as it keeps the shame of being wrong at bay.
Now planning my Threadripper 2 build like many others, but don't worry your pretty head about that.
I'm glad about this- that really is a cool chip. I hope the market for it expands. It will never conquer the desktop market, because 32 cores is... well, not applicable to that market- but I'm glad for its existence.
No. That's a tapped out GPU benchmark. But you knew that, didn't you?
You want to cut that 8700K lead even more, go find some 4K benchmarks;)
Do 1080P tests on games that perform extraordinarily well on a Ryzen, and 1440P tests on games that don't. Super clever. I'm not even close to surprised you bought it.
Pro-tip: If you see a 2700X vs. 8700K benchmark that appears neck and neck- the GPU is the limiting factor, except in the very very tiny amount of cases where the game is massively multithreaded. You should know better.
Also from your own link- of AMD's 45%, and Intel's 55%- 47% of Intel part sales were newest generation chips, compared to 18% for AMD, and 16% for the generation before that.
Intel's 8700K and 8600K revenue is more than all of AMDs revenue, combined.
Those are the top-end i7 and i5 chips.
AMD has value. They really do. Value-hunters have a whole host of great options in the generations of AMD parts out there.
But the performance seekers, they're going Intel. Your own fucking numbers back that up resoundingly.
That was actually my initial argument, if you can remember that far back.
I appreciate you pounding in that final nail for me.
That's about an i5 and a 2400G. More moving of the goalposts. AMD has owned the value-hunter market for a while.
Nobody contested this. You're building strawmen, because you lost 20 posts ago.
We were talking the top end desktop processors. We were talking about the performance crowd- gamers.
You just keep throwing spaghetti at that wall.
From your own link:
Of AMD's 45%, and Intel's 55%, the 8700K sells somewhere between 2x and 3x as many parts as the R7 2700X, and the 8700K even costs more.
From Amazon's best selling CPU list- #1 i7 8700K. Not only the best selling part, period, but the best selling Intel part. Remember, the Intel guys are the performance crowd. AMD? Best selling part? R5 1600. Value part.
If I were hunting for value, I'd go AMD, hands down. If my desktop PC weren't a headless box sitting behind my couch that streams games, and were instead a workstation where I did lots of intensive parallel tasks, I'd go AMD.
You're still losing this argument. Next straw man.
Slashdot Mirror
It sure was. It was also my favorite pet processor at the time. I had one of those massive 64-pin DIPs that I used for my hobby fun.
I was so disappointed to see it replaced on the market by such inferior parts.
Maybe the same people that got their heads lopped off in France adapted to our "evolution" to bend us over and fuck us harder. Maybe it's time to play fair.
You'll hear no argument from me.
I can't figure out how you can't both see that you're both right.
The pay you will be able to command will be based upon the value you can produce, and whether or not they can find someone to do it for cheaper.
Your skill and your scarcity are both factors in the equation.
Your hypothetical malboge programmer isn't worth millions, because his value is essentially zero, period. Doesn't matter what scarcity factor your add to it, it's still zero.
In my particular line of work, there's a very small amount of people who can do exactly what I do, and for companies that need that, we can command a high price. If there were a lot of people who could do that, that price would go down, because we use our scarcity to drive it up. We're playing the capitalism game like everyone else- supply and demand.
That's basic economics.
That's basically the model the US had from FDR until Reagan.
*However,
And hoarding really is the fucking problem in my eyes with those people.
Their money hidden under their $80,000 bed, so to speak, doesn't do the economy one bit of good, and they go through extensive troubles to make sure their assets are safe from the risks that other people have to endure. This is why the rich get richer, even when the market blows out through the floor.
I've never had a problem with rich dudes making fuck tons of money for being successful.
How, I think anyone who doesn't look at the current situation and see just what level of wealth they have acquired in comparison to everyone else, and immediately see a huge fucking problem should be shot while there's still fucking time.
Tsk. Tsk.
The 25-point platform of the NSDAP was back when the scary folks in there still had to share power with the socialists. Then this thing called The Night of the Long Knives happened.
You see, this dude named Röhm was in control of this thing called the Sturmabteilung. They were the socialists with guns.
Röhm was unhappy that by 1933 the Nazi party had complete power, but hadn't implemented any of the socialist points in the 25-point program.
Hitler never had any intentions of doing so, because the doctrine of fascism, which Hitler subscribed to, didn't really hinge upon socialist ideals.
So he killed Röhm, and every other socialist in power in the NSDAP and seized power for himself, and removing any socialist elements from the party he had usurped.
Now, I'm not saying the SA and Nazis of the '20s were great chaps themselves, but when you misleadingly lump the Nazis who started WW2 with the socialists of the 1920s, which is exactly what you're trying to do, you're being a misleading pile of shit. Or stupid. Never can tell which whenever I hear people throwing around the "Nazis were socialists" tripe.
I don't think many people would be able to yield a usably better one in that girl's place.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Probably not many beauty pageant participants, or high school drop-outs, or athletes that rode a railroad to fame based on their talent, and education was a distraction, but believe it or not, there are many of us who have to answer far more difficult questions on the spot on a daily basis. Fortunately, high school generally preps you for being able to do that. Or at least it did "back in my day"
I mean no disrespect toward, or intent to generalize the women in beauty pageants, but do you for some reason think that particular program selects for education or intelligence?
Motorola, especially. The 680x0 chips had a solid showing on the personal computer market, and Intel based offerings didn't catch up with them until long after the companies making those machines went bankrupt, or fell into relative obscurity. Bad business decisions by non-Intel personal computer manufacturers can explain most of why Intel became the dominant PC processor.
In the end, it's all good and fine. I doubt we'd really be any further ahead today if Intel hadn't won the processor architecture war.
I'd be more impressed if they were targeting AMD's overall performance and cost.
Yes, but I don't think their shareholders would.
AMD's overall performance is hinged upon building processors with a very large number of cores, processors that are currently being outsold by top of the line consumer-grade Intel desktop processors by a factor of 3 to 1, depending on the source.
Not trying to get involved in the processor holy war, but I feel like the market is making it pretty clear that the path of ridiculous single-threaded performance is more valuable than the aggregate performance of 32 cores.
ARM, taking aim at the dominant player, claims its chips will equal and potentially even surpass Intel's in single-threaded performance.
The given context of ARM providing chips to beat Intel's current offering was specifically regarding single-core performance, an area where Intel still dominates AMD with a significant lead.
If ARM succeeds in that goal, they beat AMD in their given performance metric by default.
To lose something, one must have had it.
I lose millions of dollars every week because I'm not a billionaire.
What manner of straw man is this?
A bunch of words strung together isn't exactly the same as a coherent thought either, I suppose.
Eh, that's a definition in a specific statute that only applies to that statute.
As to whether or not the courts have decided this, I don't know, but given you so severely fucked up your initial assertion, I'm not terribly inclined to give your second one much consideration.
Well, that and a basic understanding of physics, in particular long-wave radiation absorption by certain molecular components of the atmosphere.
Because that is how adults conduct a discussion.
You can't be bothered to read? So you're just trolling. Got it. I think I've made my point, dotard.
It was pleasant running circles around you.
That link doesn't say that at all, fuckwit. How fucking stupid are you?
If a player with 1% of the market increases their market share 100%!!!!!1111, that doesn't in any way make the rest of the market sweat. The rest of the market sweats when they increase their share by 2000%. AMD increased from 8% to 12%. As to their stock market value, in case you were mistaking that as their market share, I'm pretty sure *that* is not an argument you want to get into.
Again, you're a fucking idiot who can't stop proving he doesn't know how to read or even see a logical thought in his head through to its conclusion.
He seems to be placing "cores per dollar" as a metric for a gaming CPU, which is fascinating. He also seems to be using some very specific benchmarks to support his conclusion that the 2 processors are tied generally speaking for games, an assertion he is wrong about. But ignorant benchmarking is hardly unusual as you so kindly demonstrated for us earlier. To quote the reviewer,
But those advantages don’t tip the scale in favor of Intel for most users.
That is quite literally a falsehood, since the i7-8700K is outselling the 2700X, at a higher price, without a cooler, by a factor of 2 to 3.
Try to cherry pick your reviews better. This is representative of the market, and you seemed to like this site. The fact that an 8700K beats a 2700X in any workload utilizing less than 7 threads, by rather significant margins, and the fact that most games use 1-2 is all you need to know. Basic logic should tell you that any benchmark showing such a workload as performing evenly is flawed by a non-CPU bottleneck. You're searching for other peoples' opinions now to match your own and give it validity. That's just silly.
The market has spoken, and you're still an idiot.
You're wrong about that too, this is a recent phenomenon.
2 years is a fucking while you goddamn moron.
Today AMD unquestionably offers better value in both low end and high end.
Pretty sure I said that. But hey, everyone needs a parrot.
You want the best low end desktop build? Go AMD.
Yup.
You want the best high end desktop build? Go AMD.
Nope. That's where you keep fucking up. You keep using your previous argument to prove this argument. You really are a dim-witted fucking human.
Only inertia and AMD's production capacity keeps the market from flipping completely on its head.
What a reeking pile of horse shit.
You having trouble sourcing AMD parts? Me neither. Dude, go to bed. You're too fucking stupid to communicate with. You have demonstrated a clear lack of even basic reasoning skills, willful disregard for intellectually honest debate, and a pathological desire to use strawmen to prove arguments that were never made because you fucking lost this one. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't even understand the basics behind the initial premise of the argument, indicating that you were literally arguing just because a couple of barely functional neurons in your brain perceived the Intel > AMD in any context as a threat to their very existence. Sorry dude. Really, I am. If you feel so rotten about that AMD you've got, just go turn it in. Hell, send me your paypal, and I'll pay for your new 8086K.
Huh?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
If you're playing a game with settings that binds its performance to the GPU performance, you're not testing the CPU.
For example, if the fill rate and shader performance of a GTX1080 Ti can only pump out ~85fps in Middle Earth: Shadow of War @ 1440P, then *any* processor that can feed that particular GPU enough to maximize its performance will come up with equal performance.
Me, I've got 2 GTX1080 Ti GPUs, so my benchmarks are considerably better than those.
The goal is to have enough GPU performance that the game test is CPU bound instead of GPU bound. In benchmarks where the benchmarker failed that, they were either too stupid to understand what they were doing, or they were trying to sell to people who were too stupid to understand what they were doing. In this case, I suspect you got caught up in the latter.
Nobody buys AMD? More strawmen! You sad little person, lol.
I'll quote myself-
AMD has owned the value-hunter market for a while.
AMD has value. They really do. Value-hunters have a whole host of great options in the generations of AMD parts out there.
If I were hunting for value, I'd go AMD, hands down. If my desktop PC weren't a headless box sitting behind my couch that streams games, and were instead a workstation where I did lots of intensive parallel tasks, I'd go AMD.
And finally,
I appreciate you pounding in that final nail for me.
I actually began to pity you at the end. You're one of those guys who I suspect knows they're really fucking wrong but has a pathological need not to be, throwing up as many logical fallacies as they can conjure for as long as it keeps the shame of being wrong at bay.
Now planning my Threadripper 2 build like many others, but don't worry your pretty head about that.
I'm glad about this- that really is a cool chip. I hope the market for it expands. It will never conquer the desktop market, because 32 cores is... well, not applicable to that market- but I'm glad for its existence.
No. That's a tapped out GPU benchmark. But you knew that, didn't you? ;)
You want to cut that 8700K lead even more, go find some 4K benchmarks
Do 1080P tests on games that perform extraordinarily well on a Ryzen, and 1440P tests on games that don't. Super clever. I'm not even close to surprised you bought it.
Pro-tip: If you see a 2700X vs. 8700K benchmark that appears neck and neck- the GPU is the limiting factor, except in the very very tiny amount of cases where the game is massively multithreaded. You should know better.
Also from your own link- of AMD's 45%, and Intel's 55%- 47% of Intel part sales were newest generation chips, compared to 18% for AMD, and 16% for the generation before that.
Intel's 8700K and 8600K revenue is more than all of AMDs revenue, combined.
Those are the top-end i7 and i5 chips.
AMD has value. They really do. Value-hunters have a whole host of great options in the generations of AMD parts out there.
But the performance seekers, they're going Intel. Your own fucking numbers back that up resoundingly.
That was actually my initial argument, if you can remember that far back.
I appreciate you pounding in that final nail for me.
That's about an i5 and a 2400G. More moving of the goalposts. AMD has owned the value-hunter market for a while.
Nobody contested this. You're building strawmen, because you lost 20 posts ago.
We were talking the top end desktop processors. We were talking about the performance crowd- gamers.
You just keep throwing spaghetti at that wall.
From your own link:
Of AMD's 45%, and Intel's 55%, the 8700K sells somewhere between 2x and 3x as many parts as the R7 2700X, and the 8700K even costs more.
From Amazon's best selling CPU list- #1 i7 8700K. Not only the best selling part, period, but the best selling Intel part. Remember, the Intel guys are the performance crowd. AMD? Best selling part? R5 1600. Value part.
If I were hunting for value, I'd go AMD, hands down. If my desktop PC weren't a headless box sitting behind my couch that streams games, and were instead a workstation where I did lots of intensive parallel tasks, I'd go AMD.
You're still losing this argument. Next straw man.