Started By
Message

re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts

Posted on 4/22/19 at 12:57 pm to
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22542 posts
Posted on 4/22/19 at 12:57 pm to
What you posted.
Posted by bluebarracuda
Member since Oct 2011
19362 posts
Posted on 4/22/19 at 12:58 pm to
I deploy the same ones at my work. I have like 5 of them set up in my office for testing

I don't see much use for them at the house though. Sweet machines for work though
Posted by bluebarracuda
Member since Oct 2011
19362 posts
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:00 pm to
They're shitty PCs (usually atom based) with a bootable Linux kernal that remotes into a server for use
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 1:00 pm
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/22/19 at 1:57 pm to
quote:

don't see much use for them at the house though. Sweet machines for work though

I love any thin client. Hypervisor server theb just run VMs off it.

It is a fun thing to have in your home lab.
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 3:52 pm
Posted by bluebarracuda
Member since Oct 2011
19362 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 1:53 pm to
I wish I could pay Fedex/UPS/USPS to have something I bought shipped faster. My asian x79 motherboard got shipped via Fedex Smartpost international and has been sitting in the fricking midwest US for like a week and not supposed to get here until next wednesday
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 3:43 pm to
What was the X79 Mobo? Server?

I have an X79 MSI something you could have if you could use. I don't have any 2011 non v3 chips anymore.
This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 3:44 pm
Posted by bluebarracuda
Member since Oct 2011
19362 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 4:31 pm to
quote:

I have an X79 MSI something you could have if you could use.


Damn son, I would have paid you for this instead of getting an asian x79 knockoff

The board I ordered
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 4:59 pm to
Have you ever bought anything from me? Have it is just going to waste. Let me know if the "import" disappoints you.
This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 5:01 pm
Posted by bluebarracuda
Member since Oct 2011
19362 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 6:12 pm to
Only thing that's kind of annoying about the "import" is lack of OCing

I heard those 16xx series xeons are pretty sweet OCers
Posted by UltimateHog
Thailand
Member since Dec 2011
69399 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 7:52 pm to
I'm getting bored, is it July yet? I am ready to see Ryzen 3 and Navi in action.

Need to update my case, but waiting for Ryzen 3 so I can upgrade while everything is out. If these rumors that the 3700X 12c/24t 4.2 base 5.0 turbo 105w are true for just $329 then gat damn sign me up. Still hoping for a 10 core offering but that appears unlikely 8/16 to 12/24 and then 16/32.

Top end 3850X at $499/$549 16c/32t 4.3 base 5.1 turbo 135w.

I just don't know how much I trust the "leaks" though.

8c/16t Ryzen 3 at 4.8/4.8 for just $229? That would be insane.
This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 8:11 pm
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:33 pm to
Get your Ryzen but get an nVidia card.

Enough with the fckking around UH.
Posted by UltimateHog
Thailand
Member since Dec 2011
69399 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:37 pm to
Unlikely, not a big fan of the 2080 or ti for the money. Same reason I passed on Radeon 7.

Actually pretty excited for Navi and will get the 3080 until full Navi early next year (rumored to be skipping to 7nm+ and full Navi completely).
This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 8:38 pm
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:39 pm to
quote:

8c/16t Ryzen 3 at 4.8/4.8 for just $229? That would be insane

@ 1.65 draw

It's not new arch but refined with increased cores. That would be asking a lot. If they hit 4.8 base 8C/16T and hit under $300.

They won't stay on shelves.
Posted by UltimateHog
Thailand
Member since Dec 2011
69399 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:41 pm to
No at 95w, zero chance it would be that high.

7nm truly is the game changer we thought it would be. Large performance gains with much less power despite much higher clocks.

This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 8:43 pm
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:43 pm to
That is not what TDP means in a sense.

Plus each company defines TDP different ly. Intel, AMD and nVidia.

It's fckked up but that isn't a good measure of power draw. It defines an envelope. Posted shtt explaining over the years and why I hate it used to compare products.

Just for quick reference. The 8350 TDP is like 125W or 135W but it actually draws closer to 200Ws.
This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 8:47 pm
Posted by UltimateHog
Thailand
Member since Dec 2011
69399 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:45 pm to
Right, I'm saying there is no way it's taking 1.65 to power 4.8GHz at 95 watts. 1.45 tops.
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:48 pm to
quote:

1.65

Yea no way.

That was just a joke.

Edt: Think it will be high since it's just refined and not new arch to hit those clocks for out the box base.

Not a knock on it, just what it is really.
This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 8:50 pm
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:52 pm to
quote:

What is TDP (Thermal Design Power)?

With every processor, Intel guarantees a specific frequency at a specific power, often with a particular grade of cooler in mind. Most people equate a chip's TDP rating directly to its maximum power draw, given that the heat energy that needs to be dissipated from the processor is equal to the power consumed in doing calculations. Normally, the TDP rating is that specific power.

But TDP, in its strictest sense, relates to the ability of the cooler to dissipate heat. TDP is the minimum capacity of the CPU cooler required to get that guaranteed level of performance. Some energy dissipation also occurs through the socket and motherboard, which means that technically the cooler rating can be lower than the TDP, but in most circles TDP and power consumption are used to mean the same thing: how much power a CPU draws under load.
Within a system, the TDP is a value that can be set in the firmware. If a processor used the TDP as its maximum power limit, then we would see the same benchmark produce graphs like this with a high-powered, many-core processor.

For the last however many years, this is the definition of TDP that Intel has used. For any given processor, Intel will guarantee both a rated frequency to run at (known as the base frequency) for a given power, which is the rated TDP. This means that a processor like the 65W Core i7-8700, which has a base frequency of 3.2 GHz and a turbo of 4.7 GHz, is only guaranteed to be at or below 65W when the processor is running at 3.2 GHz. Intel does not guarantee any level of performance above this 3.2 GHz / 65W value.

On top of the base values, Intel implements Turbo. As mentioned, something like the Core i7-8700 can have a turbo of 4.7 GHz, which draws a lot more power than the processor running at 3.2 GHz. The all-core turbo value for a processor like the Core i7-8700 is 4.3 GHz, which is well above the guaranteed 3.2 GHz. What makes it all the more complicated is when none of those turbo modes go down to the base frequency. It means that the processor will be operating above its TDP rating all the time, and that 65W cooler you purchased (or perhaps it even came with the processor) has become a bottleneck of sorts. If more performance is required, it needs to go in the bin, as you’ll need something better.

But the manufacturer doesn’t tell you that. If the cooling isn’t sufficient for the turbo modes, and the processor reaches its temperature limit, most processors will go into a power limited mode, reducing performance to stay within that power limit. All of a sudden that fast processor isn't living up to its peak capabilities.

So TDP is Meaningless?

Why is it now an issue?
Over the last decade, while the use of the term TDP has not changed much, the way that its processors use a power budget has. The recent advent of six-core and eight-core consumer processors going north of 4.0 GHz means that we are seeing processors, with a heavy workload, go beyond that TDP value. In the past, we would see quad-core processors have a rating of 95W but only use 50W, even at full load with turbo applied. As we add on the cores, without changing the TDP on the box, something has to give.


This post was edited on 4/23/19 at 8:56 pm
Posted by UltimateHog
Thailand
Member since Dec 2011
69399 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:53 pm to
Oh for sure, these things will sell like hot cakes. Absolute homerun while Intel has nothing to offer. Going to see more big gains for AMD this year.

I just wish there was a 10 core option, but I'll go 12/24 versus 8/16 especially if it's hitting at or near 5GHz. Why the hell not.
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
56416 posts
Posted on 4/23/19 at 8:54 pm to
quote:

Oh for sure, these things will sell like hot cakes. Absolute homerun while Intel has nothing to offer. Going to see more big gains for AMD this year

I think so too bro.
This post was edited on 4/24/19 at 7:28 am
first pageprev pagePage 1532 of 1912Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram