are you going to abandon intel for ryzen?

To each their own. Personally running NT6+ on anything for longer than an hour drives me insane. When I need to access a control panel item for example I have to click through 20 times more than on XP and have to use my brain to figure out which exact link I need to click, since apparently icons are no longer fashionable. It wastes my time I could be using doing something important, maybe you say that one time doesn't make a difference but in a day those times get compounded and it ends up making a difference. XP just works and it works the way a desktop OS is intended to, without the quirks without the bloat.

I don't understand you guys who have gotten used to it, maybe you have forgotten how good an OS was and you accept your NT6+ as optimum... in that case I feel sorry for you, I really do.

I think we're just willing to adapt. I find it quicker to get to most things in win 10, instead of having to click through control panel, then find the item I want, I just click start and type in the first few letters of what I want and bam, it shows up. For example, I frequently have to adjust my odbc datasource settings, so I click start and type od and it's right there. It would take a few more clicks to find it in XP. Or, you can get to it without your hands leaving the keyboard, win, od, enter. 4 key presses in about the same time it'd take me to move my hand from the keyboard to the mouse. Device manager is win, dev, enter. Still quicker than even grabbing my mouse.

Plus, for anything accessed that frequently, you can just short cut it on the start bar and it becomes 2 clicks if you don't want to touch the keyboard.

You just need to learn to adapt, you'll discover new and better things instead of being stuck in the past.

Also, control panel in win10, right click on start, click control panel. Then you can have it set to either categories or individual icons (just like your beloved XP) and with the same amount of clicks.
 
Last edited:
Look I wanna be clear, I am not the one who is trying to push my ideals onto you. If Windows 10 as you say, bobzdar, works for you better than XP, I am only happy for you. That is in fact the beauty and the point of the free market where we have different options and are not dictated to use one system or the other - we are all individuals with our own personal needs, use cases etc. That will translate to different things working for different people, and that is wonderful. So please continue doing what works for you and I will do what works for me - that's the only way we will get forward as a society :D

I have to say though, I'd have nothing against living in the past... I would love to personally.
 
I get it, I do. It's like those that prefer carbs over fuel injection even though fuel injection is better in every single way. Some people are just used to carbs and know their way around them.

Difference is, there are still aftermarket parts and kits available for them. WinXP is pretty much dead.
 
WinXP is pretty much dead.

Far from it at still roughly 10% marketshare. Not to mention that there is a very active community of enthusiasts around it as well, who do things I've described earlier like code patches and add new functionality through reversed libraries (although that's not really required as much as on Win2k). It's probably just hidden from the mainstream, so you don't get to hear about it as much. At the underlying kernel level, it is really not THAT much different than modern windows versions so any sort of incompatibilities are mainly caused by unwillingness on the programmers side.
 
Let's go through your rather rude remarks while trying to stay civil/respective.



"Hopefully", tell that to the guy who got his bank account emptied - "but there is a patch so it won't happen again! yay!"
So in other words there is no higher risk so long as you yourself keep up with security vulnerabilities and make sure to patch them accordingly (yes, you yourself, not relying on someone else, how crazy eh?) (I don't necessarily mean coding a patch either, most remote exploits can be made ineffective by simply turning off a certain service/part of the OS)



This is another popular myth circulated outside of the cybersec community. And I'm referring to the part where you say malware targets company networks, this was very much true throughout the 1990s and up to mid 2000s, but from my experience today the majority of the big botnets actually have no interest in specifically targeting companies not to mention POS's. They'll happily add those to their victims list too but the intent is not as it was 10 years ago, as malware authors have learned that instead of trying to write complex exploits like LSASS/NetBus and even Conficker that were mainly intended to attack local networks (in companies) and servers they can get significantly better return on their "investment" by focusing on home PC users and more recently android mobiles. It's just those are the environments where there is to be money made from jacking paypal / bank accounts, credit card details and so on. I think the underlying reason for that is the growth of PC's at home, 15 years ago people actually used their work PC's to buy things on ebay, pay their bills etc. but nowadays all that is done at home. So the biggest malware authors have adapted to that change in user behavior, plus the increased security in business networks (you really can't bypass a company firewall) have made it more difficult for them as well.

I am not denying that there surely are still malware coders who do target those types of devices, but those are not as high profile as the botnet authors I am talking about. In fact most POS exploits of example have not even been from malicious types, but rather whitehat security researches presenting them as PoC at conferences for example.

It's just not really true what you're saying. The big players in the malware business simply target the newer OS's, and while there is a small percentage that do intend on infecting legacy software they just don't have enough man hours put into that therefore minimizing the impact on the threat level overall.



This is where you lose me completely. That part in bold is exactly the type of BS meaningless marketing that Microsoft tries to use to push you into purchasing their new products. "Wide open" on top of being a very silly term, is also inaccurate, as we have established it is no more (or less) exploitable than the newest OS available. If you disagree then provide me CVE numbers of unpatched remote exploit vulnerabilities in Windows XP that cannot be mitigated by the user in some way (turning off a service etc). Counter those with the amount for newer OS types. I want exact CVE ID's.



Indeed let's throw in an ad hominem attack against my credibility because you don't agree with what I'm saying.
I'm not an "IT expert" - that are underpaid clowns asked to come on TV shows and speak the bs points they were told they'd be paid by Microsoft to talk about. I actually have proper credentials.

I don't think I have an interest in having a further discussion with you if you can't act in a respectable manner, as I have towards you.

Sorry, I'll tack my CISSP # in the next post so you can show I at least have SOME credentials. To hit your points:

SOME exploits can be disabled by turning off or altering services. But not all. Some exploits DO require patches, at least if you want your machine to actually work. I can disable the NIC to secure my computer, but a properly patched driver might be a better solution. While you may be an amazing security expert and programmer, you're one guy, and you can't possibly secure something as complex as XP alone.

Malware targets EVERYONE. Some goes after larger corporate servers and systems, some goes after personal computers, some after phones, some after IOT devices. How they're used depends entirely on the actor and their goals. Might be some 16 year old kid with some old XP hacks who happens upon your system and wants to experiment and cause some chaos. Might be an organized group looking for credit card numbers. I doubt you'd be a target for state actors, but you'd be a soft target running an unpatchable OS. And you mention yourself, you're not "high profile", i.e., you're going for the security through obscurity method, running something the "big players" aren't going to target.

I'm not sure how I lose you at saying "wide open"...yes, you have the best security XP can buy. But it's inherently LESS secure than a fully-patched modern OS. So perhaps it's a bit much to say you're wide open, but you're no where near what you could be, and you're never going to improve from your current security with XP.

As much as I'd enjoy spending a few hours in a CVE database on your research project, you do realize my initial point I hope. If you take a properly managed W10 box vs a properly managed XP box, you will see the W10 system is more secure overall. MS isn't perfect by any means, but they do learn, they do patch their systems, and they do work to make things more secure over time. Disabling services as you mentioned works great, unless it's a service you need to work.
 

Sorry, I'll tack my CISSP # in the next post so you can show I at least have SOME credentials. To

Unlike you, I never questioned your personal credentials at all. Quite frankly I don't think it matters, it just struck me as a very rude thing to say, nothing more.

Malware targets EVERYONE. Some goes after larger corporate servers and systems, some goes after personal computers, some after phones, some after IOT devices. How they're used depends entirely on the actor and their goals. Might be some 16 year old kid with some old XP hacks who happens upon your system and wants to experiment and cause some chaos. Might be an organized group looking for credit card numbers. I doubt you'd be a target for state actors, but you'd be a soft target running an unpatchable OS. And you mention yourself, you're not "high profile", i.e., you're going for the security through obscurity method, running something the "big players" aren't going to target.

The "XP hacks" you mention would be already patched in XP since there are no new exploit sources released to the open for XP since about 2008. Basically the same time the old rBot/RxBot clones died off and the malware business moved to a more mature direction, started targeting NT6 and the focus shifted to mainly financial gains rather than "kids having a laugh". Indeed malware targets everyone in hopes that it can bring the authors/criminals financial gain. These people are not stupid and they are going to focus their efforts on the most efficient and profitable manner of doing this, this means effectively putting more man hours into exploiting modern systems rather than focusing on the people running XP - most of which I accept are people from third world countries or PC enthusiasts like me as I already explained. Now you can throw the "security through obscurity" card around as much as you want but if you really think it is otherwise, and that the malware authors prefer making less money by putting more manhours into old systems, you're living in a pipedream.

I'm not sure how I lose you at saying "wide open"...yes, you have the best security XP can buy. But it's inherently LESS secure than a fully-patched modern OS. So perhaps it's a bit much to say you're wide open, but you're no where near what you could be, and you're never going to improve from your current security with XP.

As much as I'd enjoy spending a few hours in a CVE database on your research project, you do realize my initial point I hope. If you take a properly managed W10 box vs a properly managed XP box, you will see the W10 system is more secure overall. MS isn't perfect by any means, but they do learn, they do patch their systems, and they do work to make things more secure over time. Disabling services as you mentioned works great, unless it's a service you need to work.

No I do not accept your premise of one being more or less secure than the other without providing proof to back it up and falling back to the "generally accepted herd mentality". I assume we agree that patches to exploits take time to be coded, verified and released so therefore on top of the 0-day period there is also more lag in actually pushing those updates to the clients, not to mention that many clients do not even bother to update. As such even if you believe that patches actually fix the problems and are enough to secure a system, you still have a period where those patches do not even reach the client but that's a different issue.

Fundamental point is you are claiming the world about these patches that account for a small amount of mostly high enough profile exploits that have warranted Microsoft's attention should provide you a false sense of security using that OS. It's not the case, you are only protected against a small subset of exploits that are now well documented and malware authors looking into ways to use other newer ones. And you are still at risk. So I think it is really misguided for you to tell people on Win7 they can sleep calm knowing their shit isn't gonna be owned or has a "lower chance". No such thing when it's your bank account that got emptied with 1 transaction to Kazakhstan.

And as I said I don't even agree to your premise of having a "lower chance" - according to fucking who? That's where the CVE ID's come in place that I was waiting for you to show me, detailing how XP supposedly has more remote exploits that can bypass the firewall and are completely unpatched. Ok it would have been fun to make you look for them but since you cba (I don't blame you man) I'll give you the hint - you won't find them. The worst in recent years is CVE-2014-0301 that affected nearly all Windows versions since XP and it was patched...

And while we are having this interesting theoretical discussion let me just remind you for a minute that Microsoft does in fact provide patches for security vulnerabilities for Windows XP. It is called POSready and it is receiving these security patches you love until April 9, 2019. You can receive those in a non-POS XP installation with a simple registry change. And even if you are too lazy to enable that, Microsoft has actually provided patches for serious vulnerabilities after the "EOL" for that expired. I don't recall what that vuln ID was right now but you can google it if you want, was a few months after EOL in 2014.

With that said I have personally made a decision to reject those patches on my computers because I need to adapt to a world where my security is my own responsibility and I don't rely on big daddy Microsoft to eventually release a patch for certain vulns but not others. This is an approach I actually do recommend people adopt in their life in general, except for certain people that can't handle that. I mean, you're asking ME to take responsibility for MY SHIT? Insane!

EDIT: By the way I don't think any of this "pissing contest" as pendragon1 put it is gonna produce anything worthwhile. At the end you will still think your way and I will think my way, and I will think you are dead wrong (and vice versa). Therefore I don't see the point in continuing this nonsense waste of time.
 
it doesn't run hot.

I actually hope it runs hot meaning it throttles at 105C like Intel chips have done for over a decade.

With that said I fully expect it to be significantly more energy efficient than AMD processors have been since the release of bulldozer in 2011.
 
Last edited:
Unlike you, I never questioned your personal credentials at all. Quite frankly I don't think it matters, it just struck me as a very rude thing to say, nothing more.



The "XP hacks" you mention would be already patched in XP since there are no new exploit sources released to the open for XP since about 2008. Basically the same time the old rBot/RxBot clones died off and the malware business moved to a more mature direction, started targeting NT6 and the focus shifted to mainly financial gains rather than "kids having a laugh". Indeed malware targets everyone in hopes that it can bring the authors/criminals financial gain. These people are not stupid and they are going to focus their efforts on the most efficient and profitable manner of doing this, this means effectively putting more man hours into exploiting modern systems rather than focusing on the people running XP - most of which I accept are people from third world countries or PC enthusiasts like me as I already explained. Now you can throw the "security through obscurity" card around as much as you want but if you really think it is otherwise, and that the malware authors prefer making less money by putting more manhours into old systems, you're living in a pipedream.



No I do not accept your premise of one being more or less secure than the other without providing proof to back it up and falling back to the "generally accepted herd mentality". I assume we agree that patches to exploits take time to be coded, verified and released so therefore on top of the 0-day period there is also more lag in actually pushing those updates to the clients, not to mention that many clients do not even bother to update. As such even if you believe that patches actually fix the problems and are enough to secure a system, you still have a period where those patches do not even reach the client but that's a different issue.

Fundamental point is you are claiming the world about these patches that account for a small amount of mostly high enough profile exploits that have warranted Microsoft's attention should provide you a false sense of security using that OS. It's not the case, you are only protected against a small subset of exploits that are now well documented and malware authors looking into ways to use other newer ones. And you are still at risk. So I think it is really misguided for you to tell people on Win7 they can sleep calm knowing their shit isn't gonna be owned or has a "lower chance". No such thing when it's your bank account that got emptied with 1 transaction to Kazakhstan.

And as I said I don't even agree to your premise of having a "lower chance" - according to fucking who? That's where the CVE ID's come in place that I was waiting for you to show me, detailing how XP supposedly has more remote exploits that can bypass the firewall and are completely unpatched. Ok it would have been fun to make you look for them but since you cba (I don't blame you man) I'll give you the hint - you won't find them. The worst in recent years is CVE-2014-0301 that affected nearly all Windows versions since XP and it was patched...

And while we are having this interesting theoretical discussion let me just remind you for a minute that Microsoft does in fact provide patches for security vulnerabilities for Windows XP. It is called POSready and it is receiving these security patches you love until April 9, 2019. You can receive those in a non-POS XP installation with a simple registry change. And even if you are too lazy to enable that, Microsoft has actually provided patches for serious vulnerabilities after the "EOL" for that expired. I don't recall what that vuln ID was right now but you can google it if you want, was a few months after EOL in 2014.

With that said I have personally made a decision to reject those patches on my computers because I need to adapt to a world where my security is my own responsibility and I don't rely on big daddy Microsoft to eventually release a patch for certain vulns but not others. This is an approach I actually do recommend people adopt in their life in general, except for certain people that can't handle that. I mean, you're asking ME to take responsibility for MY SHIT? Insane!

EDIT: By the way I don't think any of this "pissing contest" as pendragon1 put it is gonna produce anything worthwhile. At the end you will still think your way and I will think my way, and I will think you are dead wrong (and vice versa). Therefore I don't see the point in continuing this nonsense waste of time.

I'm not trying to start a pissing contest by any means, I just think we're looking at the same issue from different directions. I don't think you're "dead wrong", I just think we have different views on this topic.

I agree that your top-tier malware authors are probably not going after XP as their first target, because it's at something like 10% market share and falling all the time. But there are plenty of people doing it for "fun" or simple curiosity, and they're more than happy to release their code in the open if they find an exploit. With no patch coming once it's identified, it's only a matter of time before some other writer just adds that exploit into one of their big tool kits. The "security through obscurity" card I throw around does work in a lot of cases for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It doesn't work at all against a determined attacker, and in fact is detrimental if you've got the interest of the wrong group.

No OS is fully secure. Fully patched or not, there's always holes, some known and not fixed yet, some not known at all, some known and for sale at the right price. The only time I'd sleep well is when the computer is off and unplugged from the network. But security is a matter of degree, making yourself a hard target, and reducing attack surface. A fully patched OS does many of these things. There's an unending list of successful attacks that occurred using known vulnerabilities that the IT staff never got around to patching. So patches are a tool, but not a solution.

I'm not going to attack your decisions on XP. I mean it's your computer, your free time, and your risk to accept or reject. I think you'd have a hard time with justification if you were instead protecting a client or customer's system. I do think it's very important for people to take responsibility for their own security, but there's a difference. You are an expert, and clearly aware of the issues at hand, and what actions you can take to defend yourself and your network. A more junior admin, or even your typical home user, would not have the time or skill necessary, and in their case, running a modern, fully updated OS is going to be their best defense.
 
Lots of strong statements getting thrown around this thread. How about some sources to back any of it?
 
IF it's not a POS on launch and trusted review sites show it to be decent, with an oc to 4.2-4.4ghz+ I will buy one to play with. I have several i5/i7 systems so something other than my sons AMD 8320FX would be nice to have. Whether I would move my gaming setup over to it would depend on if I suffered any gaming penalty by going AMD. If the experience was even transparent I would move just to try something new. However, if it was slower than my current i7 [email protected] I'd stay on that. I play older games like CSGO so I'm not sure I need that much horsepower anyway, but it doesn't really seem to benefit from added threads over say maybe 2-4; even then I think people run it fine on dual core setups. I do long for AMD to be a competitor again. If they exceed the speed/experience that would be icing on the cake, but I think we'd be lucky for even some near parity.
 
IF it's not a POS on launch and trusted review sites show it to be decent, with an oc to 4.2-4.4ghz+ I will buy one to play with. I have several i5/i7 systems so something other than my sons AMD 8320FX would be nice to have. Whether I would move my gaming setup over to it would depend on if I suffered any gaming penalty by going AMD. If the experience was even transparent I would move just to try something new. However, if it was slower than my current i7 [email protected] I'd stay on that. I play older games like CSGO so I'm not sure I need that much horsepower anyway, but it doesn't really seem to benefit from added threads over say maybe 2-4; even then I think people run it fine on dual core setups. I do long for AMD to be a competitor again. If they exceed the speed/experience that would be icing on the cake, but I think we'd be lucky for even some near parity.

I think 4.2 ghz might be reachable based on rumors but I think 4.4 ghz might be more unlikely or just fewer chips that can do that. I think quite a bit of that will depend on how hot the chip can get before it throttles.
 
Currently running a 4790k and have no plans to switch to an AMD processor no matter how good it is. My next upgrade will be a Z170 or Z270 platform with minimum of 32GB 3200Mhz DDR4.
 
Currently running a 4790k and have no plans to switch to an AMD processor no matter how good it is. My next upgrade will be a Z170 or Z270 platform with minimum of 32GB 3200Mhz DDR4.

That's an upgrade for minimal gain.
 
need more data before making a rash decision. But I dont think it'll take the place of my 3930k. Perhaps in the future here if need to upgrade a secondary pc, but lets wait and see real numbers from average joes.
 
1- post here what processor brand/model you have now?
i have an intel i7-4770k that i have been stone waiting for some better to come to replace it with something faster for almost 2 years i think. i must say guys jumping from a 4770k to a 6900k to me is just amazing.

2- and how soon will you do it and for what price do you think the ryzen cpu is worth?
honestly!? for me, 5-6 months i'll have enough money to buy the mobo+cpu+memory.
i think $350 is reasonable or maybe $50 more is not too much to ask, say $400 for the cpu.

you guys?

I have a 4770k and have never seen anything I do even remotely tax it. I have it o/c'ed to 4.5ghz on all cores and 4.2 uncore.

Every game I've ever played has the CPU maxed at like 50% --- so what's the draw to upgrade yet?
 
Currently running an I7-2600K and an I5-2500K system. Unless AMD prices themselves too high or additional benchmarks tell a different story, I'll be upgrading to Ryzen.
 
I've decided to go both "retro" and change platforms.

I've got some old Macs which were engineering samples.... and a very obscure engineering sample of the PPC 604 which was called "Helmwind".

Will load up the alpha of OS10 (Rhapsody) and play unreal tournament and the original Diablo on a 3dfx Voodoo 2.

No.. I'm not kidding.
 
Why does anyone have to abandon anything. If you can afford too and want too, just buy both. ;)
 
That's an upgrade for minimal gain.

Or he just likes having the latest Intel stuff and I am cool with that. I have no problem with someone sticking with what they like and I appreciate the same when it is clear I prefer AMD and will stick with them.
 
I prefer using Intel based platforms solely since the early DFI hybrid motherboard which combined Socket 775 on a motherboard with an AGP slot (forget the model). Before then I was pretty much an AMD devout having used AMD platforms with varying, yet positive, results. When I switched I found I could clock higher and get better performance than I could on an AMD platform. KT133A or nVidia solutions didn't match the Intel based solutions for my needs; not wants i might add.

That said, I am really not at all against AMD or using their products. Sure, the Zen/Ryzen does seem promising but me in my ways prefer to use time proven products. Currently, Intel last generation processors have proven reliability that I, and people I recommend them to, need. That is the major deciding factor for me.

well the wording "have no plans to switch to an AMD processor no matter how good it is" implicates a bias or "preference". like ford vs chevy...

Well, look at it this way: I will switch to Intel if that is all that is left. ;)
 
I prefer using Intel based platforms solely since the early DFI hybrid motherboard which combined Socket 775 on a motherboard with an AGP slot (forget the model). Before then I was pretty much an AMD devout having used AMD platforms with varying, yet positive, results. When I switched I found I could clock higher and get better performance than I could on an AMD platform. KT133A or nVidia solutions didn't match the Intel based solutions for my needs; not wants i might add.

That said, I am really not at all against AMD or using their products. Sure, the Zen/Ryzen does seem promising but me in my ways prefer to use time proven products. Currently, Intel last generation processors have proven reliability that I, and people I recommend them to, need. That is the major deciding factor for me.

It's your right to prefer Intel but this reliability thing and what you've written before... its better if you just say you like Intel and stick with it. Reliability? That's implying that Intel doesn't mess up or bake in flaws which is patently not true. Oh and there's the sata flaw aka B3 revisions. They done goof up like everyone else. And technically, I can't remember a time any cpu was so bad reliability wise it actually couldn't do its job shrugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/27/business/flaw-in-chip-made-by-intel-is-discovered.html

http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...he-processor-bug-that-shook-the-world-1270773

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...aw-in-intel-chips-opens-door-to-rootkits.html

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/flaw-in-intel-chips-could-make-malware-attacks-more-potent/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4142/intel-discovers-bug-in-6series-chipset-begins-recall
 
Abandon? I think they've made enough off me. Regardless I'm not going anywhere, my cpu is fine.
 
I don't care what brand of brain is in my PC case. I've most recently had 2 Intel rigs (2500K and now a 6700K) because that's where the price / performance has been for too long. Before that it was a Phenom 965 BE and before that a Windsor 6000+. I won't upgrade for a year or two, but if AMD is riding the lightning at that time I'll switch no problem.
 
I have gone AMD since my first K6-2 rig. The price to performance has always been great. I have to say though, I just built an i7 6700K rig for my son for Christmas and the damn thing is awesome. I'm upgrading this summer. We shall see.
 
If the price is right & it doesn't run hot. Yes.

I actually hope it runs hot meaning it throttles at 105C like Intel chips have done for over a decade.

With that said I fully expect it to be significantly more energy efficient than AMD processors have been since the release of bulldozer in 2011.

The old 65C threshold with the old AMD chips is a real downer. I don't want the chip to run hot, but I definitely hope it's got a higher threshold than 65C like the old Phenom chips. With the new auto overclocking these will do, if the chip is cool but the threshold high, we are going to see some crazy performance. Unfortunately, I do not know what anything past Thuban could do, so I don't have much to compare too.

As far as the performance demonstration, they castrated the Ryzen so it wouldn't overclock. I have a feeling these chips could have some untapped potential when given to enthusiasts. I'm guessing the boost clocks they market on the box will be directly related to the new Wraith cooler's potential. While drastically improved, the Wraith cooler is mediocre at best when compared to a decent AIO water cooler or twin tower Air cooler. Those with custom setups may see even further gain.

Also, please please please AMD do not cheap out and pull an Intel and not solder the heatspreader.
 
The old 65C threshold with the old AMD chips is a real downer. I don't want the chip to run hot, but I definitely hope it's got a higher threshold than 65C like the old Phenom chips. With the new auto overclocking these will do, if the chip is cool but the threshold high, we are going to see some crazy performance. Unfortunately, I do not know what anything past Thuban could do, so I don't have much to compare too.

As far as the performance demonstration, they castrated the Ryzen so it wouldn't overclock. I have a feeling these chips could have some untapped potential when given to enthusiasts. I'm guessing the boost clocks they market on the box will be directly related to the new Wraith cooler's potential. While drastically improved, the Wraith cooler is mediocre at best when compared to a decent AIO water cooler or twin tower Air cooler. Those with custom setups may see even further gain.

Also, please please please AMD do not cheap out and pull an Intel and not solder the heatspreader.

The temperature reported had nothing to do with reality. So no, the limit wasn't 65C. Just as you can find them long under ambient temperature or a heatsink with a higher temperature than the chip. They use uncalibrated sensors that could just as well show the value in bananas. However they do the job perfectly for what they should, the delta towards the max. Sensor location is also different for that matter.

http://help.argusmonitor.com/index.html?TemperaturemeasurementforAMDCPUs.html

I guess all this changes with Zen from the sound of it to an Intel style approach. Sensors in cores, uncore etc, calibrated and so on. But we have to see.

It got nothing as such about cheaping out to use TIM vs solder. Solder isn't some kind of universal better thing. AMD also uses TIM on their APUs.
 
Last edited:
Back when the Bulldozer refresh came out I picked up an FX 8320 and a Gigabyte 990FXa UD3 mainboard. It's been running at 4.8 GHz/1.45v ever since and works great.

When Ivy Bridge-E launched I bought a 4930k and an Asus X79 Deluxe. The IPC improvement wasn't worth the cost, I honestly can't tell the difference between the 4930k and the FX 8320 most of the time.
The mainboard cost 3x what I spent on the Gigabyte AM3+ board, doesn't OC well at all (I ended up just leaving it at stock), the onboard WiFi and all of the USB3 ports died a month or so ago, and finding a replacement motherboard is a bitch.

Needless to say I'm looking forward to dumping this Intel rig.
 
Does anyone know if there are there going to be NT4 drivers for it? I hate the start menu and windows 8 was a breath of fresh air. But since they've forced 8.1 and 10, I've just decided to revert everything back to NT4, who needs USB anyway? I guess if all else fails I can put ESXi on it and run 20 NT4 VMs and be set for backup machines.
 
Does anyone know if there are there going to be NT4 drivers for it? I hate the start menu and windows 8 was a breath of fresh air. But since they've forced 8.1 and 10, I've just decided to revert everything back to NT4, who needs USB anyway? I guess if all else fails I can put ESXi on it and run 20 NT4 VMs and be set for backup machines.

The listed requirement for Ryzen is Windows 10. Just as it is with Kaby Lake and partly with Skylake.

You are not getting NT4 drivers. Everything will be UEFI too.
 
'Abandon'?

You act like there is some sort of allegiance, performance is performance. That, a versatile platform to build upon, value, and reliability are what I will consider in any prospective build. Choices are nice, long live competition
 
I'll likely get a Ryzen chip upgrade for my HTPC, but not the high end stuff.
I'll be especailly interested if they make an APU combo of Ryzen and Polaris.
 
Threads like this make me lol. I don't have any loyalty to one or the other. If AMD releases a chip at the price point I'm interested in, and it out performs intel and has no disadvantages or it has advantages that outweigh the Intel chip, then yes I would buy one.
 
I'll likely get a Ryzen chip upgrade for my HTPC, but not the high end stuff.
I'll be especailly interested if they make an APU combo of Ryzen and Polaris.

The IGP in the future Ryzen APU may actually be Vega based.
 
The only computer I'm thinking of upgrading in the near future is the one I'm typing on, a cheap put together machine that I can drop a quadcore i5 or i7 in for a few hundred bucks. If Zen doesn't beat that, or if its going to cost me and arm and a leg to build a whole Zen system I won't be switching.
 
Back
Top