Intel Says AMD EPYC Processors "Glued-together" in Official Slide Deck

Wait because this can be more hilarious still. This emphasis from certain media to focus on the "glued-together" wording found in one slide of Intel presentation looks like a huge FUD campaign to divert attention from the important stuff: that Skylake Xeon is very fast, efficient, selling well. and customers are happy with it.

The same media is ignoring the rest of slides of the presentation including the next one with customers sharing their own benchmarks on SKL Xeon

Xeon-software-testers.jpg
 
Last edited:
lol, are you serious? Your looking at the future here - dies will not just get bigger and bigger and bigger, they will be more like EPYC. GPU's as well. I see Intel doing this eventually as well. Looks like AMD will make some inroads back into servers. About time.

I really hope not, soldering (more PC than gluing?) dies onto a flip-chip package is hardly the most efficient way to increase core count. If you do this to combat the thermals of a die then eventually you will run into a very hot package with potential to compromise solder balls akin to Tesla 1.0, perhaps why Intel abandoned it in those days. I'm sure both AMD and Intel are going to develop more adequate ways to move forward after Moore's Law.

I don't think AMD is going to win much of the server market. I hope I am wrong and we see cheaper dedicated servers but with CPU's being a miniscule part of overall cost there (and very conservative customers) I don't see it happening.

Wait because this can be more hilarious still. This emphasis from certain media to focus on the "glued-together" wording found in one slide of Intel presentation looks like a huge FUD campaign to divert attention from the important stuff: that Skylake Xeon is very fast, efficient, selling well. and customers are happy with it

Regarding "glue" we could argue about the chemical properties of TIM being similar to certain glues used in electronics, but I won't go there. Intel also did what AMD is doing with Pentium D and Core2Quad, so it's hypocritical of them to be focusing on that point alone. Shittalking your competitor in general is a bad marketing move, and since this is not a consumer product launch, I question the necessity of this kind of advertising.

However it seems to have been successful, since everyone is now reporting these slides that would otherwise not been shown outside of conference rooms providing more publicity for Skylake-SP. Intel was able to capitalize on AMD fanboys blowing a gasket and thus captured the news cycle which would otherwise be saturated by AMD Epyc and Threadripper. Bravo! :)

With that said I think there is too much time allocated to arguments amongst the enthusiast/gaming community regarding products that were never meant for that market segment.
 
With that said I think there is too much time allocated to arguments amongst the enthusiast/gaming community regarding products that were never meant for that market segment.

well we got nothing else to do with our time until trustworthy threadripper benchmarks come out so we might as well debate about this crap, lol.
 
Wait because this can be more hilarious still. This emphasis from certain media to focus on the "glued-together" wording found in one slide of Intel presentation looks like a huge FUD campaign to divert attention from the important stuff: that Skylake Xeon is very fast, efficient, selling well. and customers are happy with it.

The same media is ignoring the rest of slides of the presentation including the next one with customers sharing their own benchmarks on SKL Xeon

Xeon-software-testers.jpg
Still not proof, this is a marketing slide. And the articles only spoke to the wording of the title. most only linked the slide deck with the forum posters posting the slides. Doesn't change the rest of the slide deck where Intel is shaking in their boots and tries with all their might to smear EPYCs image. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, AMDs outlook amongst the community including IT professionals from all markets is GOOD.
 
Last edited:
Wait because this can be more hilarious still. This emphasis from certain media to focus on the "glued-together" wording found in one slide of Intel presentation looks like a huge FUD campaign to divert attention from the important stuff: that Skylake Xeon is very fast, efficient, selling well. and customers are happy with it.

The same media is ignoring the rest of slides of the presentation including the next one with customers sharing their own benchmarks on SKL Xeon

Xeon-software-testers.jpg

1. It's only FUD if it's based on false/inaccurate information. That marketing slide deck isn't a work of fiction, so the use of the word "FUD" is completely inappropriate.

2. If you have a product that is objectively superior in every single metric, then simply show the benchmarks and don't sling mud at your competitor.
 
PCS are manufactured with a kind of therosetting plastic like epoxy or a vinyl ester. Glue is the wrong word and Intel looks bad for dissing AMD.
 
^that's going a bit too far.

I'd say the mud slinging from Intel simply means they recognize EPYC as a very tangible threat to their Xeons. I mean we never heard a peep out of Intel back in the Bulldozer days did we?
 
^that's going a bit too far.

I'd say the mud slinging from Intel simply means they recognize EPYC as a very tangible threat to their Xeons. I mean we never heard a peep out of Intel back in the Bulldozer days did we?

They did both with Barcelona and Bulldozer.
 
1. It's only FUD if it's based on false/inaccurate information. That marketing slide deck isn't a work of fiction, so the use of the word "FUD" is completely inappropriate.

2. If you have a product that is objectively superior in every single metric, then simply show the benchmarks and don't sling mud at your competitor.

1. The FUD part is when some people takes that slide and claims that EPYC is not getting desing wins because Intel is playing dirty.

2. I have a better idea, leave potential customers to evaluate your product and get heir own conclusions. Intel did that, and customers are now sharing their experiences/benchmarks with SKL, whereas all what AMD has are slides and demos where the performance of Xeons is 'debatable'...

PCS are manufactured with a kind of therosetting plastic like epoxy or a vinyl ester. Glue is the wrong word and Intel looks bad for dissing AMD.

The use of the term "glue togheter" doesn't imply the use of ordinary glue.

Quarks are the building blocks of protons, neutrons, and more-exotic entities, whereas gluons are massless particles that glue together quarks.

has carefully picked and chosen the shreds of evidence she wants the jury to glue together.

In sum, we have used linear logic as a glue language to provide instructions on how to glue together or assemble meanings, based on the relations between the syntactic structures they correspond to.

In above examples, physicts, prosecutors, and language experts aren't implying that quarks, shreds of evidence, and words are joined with ordinary glue. When Intel says that EPYC are four dies glued together, Intel doesn't imply ordinary glue has been used.
 
1. The FUD part is when some people takes that slide and claims that EPYC is not getting desing wins because Intel is playing dirty.

Haven't seen any of that in here so far.

2. I have a better idea, leave potential customers to evaluate your product and get heir own conclusions. Intel did that, and customers are now sharing their experiences/benchmarks with SKL, whereas all what AMD has are slides and demos where the performance of Xeons is 'debatable'...

Intel did more than just that when they included the "glued together" slide. This much is fact and not up for debate.
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-amd-die-fabric-slides,5125.html

Tom's Hardware has taken the time to, in their own words,

One presentation stuck out more than the rest. Intel presented a deck that outlined what it considers to be its advantages against AMD’s EPYC CPUs. The slides generated a lot of controversy over the last week, but they haven't been presented in context. We’re going to fix that.

Intel covered the broad Purley strokes, then dove deep into architecture, performance, high-performance computing (HPC) applications, communication service provider use-cases, artificial intelligence, and storage, among other topics. Of course, the company also outlined what it feels are its competitive advantages relative to AMD's processors. Intel worked with the data it had at the time, but AMD released far more information after the fact, so a few of Intel's projections are dated.

We'll present every slide in the presentation, so nothing is taken out of context. We also include slides from AMD's EPYC tech day to clarify the company's features. Intel's slides have a white background (except the first one), while AMD's have a blue background.
 
I really hope not, soldering (more PC than gluing?) dies onto a flip-chip package is hardly the most efficient way to increase core count. If you do this to combat the thermals of a die then eventually you will run into a very hot package with potential to compromise solder balls akin to Tesla 1.0, perhaps why Intel abandoned it in those days. I'm sure both AMD and Intel are going to develop more adequate ways to move forward after Moore's Law.

I don't think AMD is going to win much of the server market. I hope I am wrong and we see cheaper dedicated servers but with CPU's being a miniscule part of overall cost there (and very conservative customers) I don't see it happening.



Regarding "glue" we could argue about the chemical properties of TIM being similar to certain glues used in electronics, but I won't go there. Intel also did what AMD is doing with Pentium D and Core2Quad, so it's hypocritical of them to be focusing on that point alone. Shittalking your competitor in general is a bad marketing move, and since this is not a consumer product launch, I question the necessity of this kind of advertising.

However it seems to have been successful, since everyone is now reporting these slides that would otherwise not been shown outside of conference rooms providing more publicity for Skylake-SP. Intel was able to capitalize on AMD fanboys blowing a gasket and thus captured the news cycle which would otherwise be saturated by AMD Epyc and Threadripper. Bravo! :)

With that said I think there is too much time allocated to arguments amongst the enthusiast/gaming community regarding products that were never meant for that market segment.
I would disagree, getting core count up by using multiple sockets and even more racks will consume more space and power then combining more cpu's on a socket. If bigger more complex cpu's are made they too can be placed on interposer which also allows space savings, faster communications between the cpus. This maybe will get very interesting once EPYC becomes available, at least we will get a good idea now viable AMD has made it. Hopefully not too much growing pains will come with it.
 
I would disagree, getting core count up by using multiple sockets and even more racks will consume more space and power then combining more cpu's on a socket.

Right, it would go against the benefits of integration.
 
I would disagree, getting core count up by using multiple sockets and even more racks will consume more space and power then combining more cpu's on a socket. If bigger more complex cpu's are made they too can be placed on interposer which also allows space savings, faster communications between the cpus. This maybe will get very interesting once EPYC becomes available, at least we will get a good idea now viable AMD has made it. Hopefully not too much growing pains will come with it.

There really isn't any power saving doing it. Its all the physical space size. And using interposers got their own limitations and cant really be scaled to any meaningful way. You would need something without the size limitation for that like EMIB stitching or other solutions. And without these and the proper interconnect you sit back with a lot of penalties. A good example on how important the integration is can be seen in the consoles. Their 190 cycle penalties pretty much made the last cluster useless.
 
Last edited:
There really isn't any power saving doing it. Its all the physical space size. And using interposers got their own limitations and cant really be scaled to any meaningful way. You would need something without the size limitation for that like EMIB stitching or other solutions. And without these and the proper interconnect you sit back with a lot of penalties. A good example on how important the integration is can be seen in the consoles. Their 190 cycle penalties pretty much made the last cluster useless.
You know what sucks about this post, it says almost nothing. A bunch of inference without any clarification.

Power savings? I think when Intel eventually releases their HEDT 16c and you can compare it directly to TR then we can have a better well informed analysis.

Physical space size? Not sure what inane point you were attempting here.

Interposers limitations and scaling. BS Limitations yes but that is definitely offset by scaling, we see this with EPYC and its PRICE against the fleecing of Intels customers.

And what can be seen with the consoles? The consoles in no way are related to ZEN in any form.

Maybe instead of these quips and vague negative tones you might enlighten us more with greater detail. Honestly doesn't look like you have much or are intentionally being daft to obfuscate any positives on the AMD front. It is known that what AMD has done with ZEN is where virtually every chip designer is going, just AMD got there first.
 
You know what sucks about this post, it says almost nothing. A bunch of inference without any clarification.

Power savings? I think when Intel eventually releases their HEDT 16c and you can compare it directly to TR then we can have a better well informed analysis.

Physical space size? Not sure what inane point you were attempting here.

Interposers limitations and scaling. BS Limitations yes but that is definitely offset by scaling, we see this with EPYC and its PRICE against the fleecing of Intels customers.

And what can be seen with the consoles? The consoles in no way are related to ZEN in any form.

Maybe instead of these quips and vague negative tones you might enlighten us more with greater detail. Honestly doesn't look like you have much or are intentionally being daft to obfuscate any positives on the AMD front. It is known that what AMD has done with ZEN is where virtually every chip designer is going, just AMD got there first.

Even comparing a 16C to 16C is pointless due to the different uarchs. At best you would have to compare socket counts. But here is a hit, try check an EPYC server board vs a Xeon and tell me how many phases there are on each.

Consoles is the same issue, then you can pretend its otherwise.

Even ARM is going against the Zen setup. ARM got an 8 core mesh with A75.

What is this price you talk about? Consumer line prices was unaffected by Ryzen. And Xeon line is unaffected by Epyc. AMD Q2 result is on the 25th, then you yourself that hype and reality is 2 separate things.
 
Even comparing a 16C to 16C is pointless due to the different uarchs. At best you would have to compare socket counts. But here is a hit, try check an EPYC server board vs a Xeon and tell me how many phases there are on each.

Consoles is the same issue, then you can pretend its otherwise.

Even ARM is going against the Zen setup. ARM got an 8 core mesh with A75.

What is this price you talk about? Consumer line prices was unaffected by Ryzen. And Xeon line is unaffected by Epyc. AMD Q2 result is on the 25th, then you yourself that hype and reality is 2 separate things.
16c to 16c is far from pointless. You make the point about power usage in response to the IF design of AMD with vague innuendos toward high power usage, where likely that Intel 16c is going to use far more power and clocks may very well be in question as well. Look at the 10c from Intel right now, adding 6 cores is going to make it far worse, but unlike most of you I am willing to wait and see how it pans out.

Price? Seriously it isn't hard to see that Intel has been fleecing you for years yet you pretend they are some kind of godsend to computing. Amds prices for equivalent performance is far better and only goes so far to prove Intel has been raping their customers. Defending the very company that never let ethics or morality stand in the way of a meager dollar.

And again these short quips are saying nothing, just a bunch of fear mongering inspired by ignorance and some unfounded desire to quell any positive views on a product proving to be far more superior than your expectations.
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-amd-die-fabric-slides,5125.html

Tom's Hardware has taken the time to, in their own words,

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-amd-die-fabric-slides,5125-2.html

Intel quoted Wccftech as a source reporting that "AMD Zen Architecture for...Naples will last four years." Upon checking the link at the bottom, it appears Intel referenced the article's headline, which reads: "AMD Zen Architecture For Ryzen and Naples Processors Will Last Four Years on 14nm – Future Zen+ Revisions To Improve Architecture."

Lordy someone please tell me this slide deck is a work of fiction :ROFLMAO:
 
More proof the marketing and PR guys are complete idiots who don't have a clue what they're doing
 
There really isn't any power saving doing it. Its all the physical space size. And using interposers got their own limitations and cant really be scaled to any meaningful way. You would need something without the size limitation for that like EMIB stitching or other solutions. And without these and the proper interconnect you sit back with a lot of penalties.

+1 for EMIB, that would be what I was referring to, I don't know why he figured I was advocating adding more sockets. I stated adding more dies onto an interposer in the classic way is not scalable since 2005, and we need new technologies to overcome the complexity and performance issus with interconnect wires. EMIB is imo so far the best solution that is cost-effective:

27ynaa.png


That said its a moot endeavor if your uarch's IPC is from the last decade, which is the more pressing reason why Epyc will fail.
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-amd-die-fabric-slides,5125-2.html

Intel quoted Wccftech as a source reporting that "AMD Zen Architecture for...Naples will last four years." Upon checking the link at the bottom, it appears Intel referenced the article's headline, which reads: "AMD Zen Architecture For Ryzen and Naples Processors Will Last Four Years on 14nm – Future Zen+ Revisions To Improve Architecture."

Lordy someone please tell me this slide deck is a work of fiction :ROFLMAO:

Tbf AMD has quoted WCCF before as well.

And both guys would be automatically fired for that.
 
+1 for EMIB, that would be what I was referring to, I don't know why he figured I was advocating adding more sockets. I stated adding more dies onto an interposer in the classic way is not scalable since 2005, and we need new technologies to overcome the complexity and performance issus with interconnect wires. EMIB is imo so far the best solution that is cost-effective:

27ynaa.png


That said its a moot endeavor if your uarch's IPC is from the last decade, which is the more pressing reason why Epyc will fail.
First you are in the wrong forum for Intel a**kissing. Second AMDs effective IPC is closer to Haswell , 4 yrs old. And one should never make baseless predictions as it usually comes back to bite you in your behind. EPYC will likely do quite well, not gonna break any records but with its price and I/O it will surely sell.
 
I don't get this... some peeps are saying EPYC is going to be huge success and will get big market share right away in data center market, other peeps saying they will not gain any market share at all because it will fail and there's nothing good about it. Don't you even remember (or maybe you are just too young) what happened when AMD actually released a SUPERIOR server cpu in the form of Opteron and how long it took to gain some meaningful market share. If my memory serves me, they went from single digit number at 2003 to little over 20% at 2006 when Core based Xeon was released. That's frigging four years with superior chip. And by then, they had over 50% market share in consumer market.

And now we have a situation where they have a chip which is competitive but not superior and while we (hopefully) don't have the same kind of situation where money changes hands under the table like back in the days, it is still going the be a uphill battle against the blue giant, especially when the current mind share is still completely blue. I can say with quite big confidence that the place where I am working atm will not have a single AMD based server from any of our customers until next year. And that would still happen even with a superior chip as there are contracts, done-deals, rentals, you name it, in play which has been negotiated already. And lets face it, server customers are more conservative when it comes to products from "new" manufacturer.

My prediction is that AMD might snatch about 5-8% server market share in the span of next 12 months (and I believe even that is a quite optimistic), and that's mostly from their 1S platform as it looks very appealing. That is the place where Xeon is at its weakest against EPYC
 
There is a middle ground beyond huge success and utter failure, like Osjur says, 5-8% is possible, hell even 2-4% would be better than the 0.1% it has now, and it should bring much needed revenue to stabilize AMD for the future.
 
I don't get this... some peeps are saying EPYC is going to be huge success and will get big market share right away in data center market, other peeps saying they will not gain any market share at all because it will fail and there's nothing good about it. Don't you even remember (or maybe you are just too young) what happened when AMD actually released a SUPERIOR server cpu in the form of Opteron and how long it took to gain some meaningful market share. If my memory serves me, they went from single digit number at 2003 to little over 20% at 2006 when Core based Xeon was released. That's frigging four years with superior chip. And by then, they had over 50% market share in consumer market.

And now we have a situation where they have a chip which is competitive but not superior and while we (hopefully) don't have the same kind of situation where money changes hands under the table like back in the days, it is still going the be a uphill battle against the blue giant, especially when the current mind share is still completely blue. I can say with quite big confidence that the place where I am working atm will not have a single AMD based server from any of our customers until next year. And that would still happen even with a superior chip as there are contracts, done-deals, rentals, you name it, in play which has been negotiated already. And lets face it, server customers are more conservative when it comes to products from "new" manufacturer.

My prediction is that AMD might snatch about 5-8% server market share in the span of next 12 months (and I believe even that is a quite optimistic), and that's mostly from their 1S platform as it looks very appealing. That is the place where Xeon is at its weakest against EPYC
You might be mis-interpreting enthusiasm to mean huge marketshare when it mostly means no where to go but up. Hell 8% is a huge number. Server sales for most businesses isn't every year so it will take a few years for some of this to trickle into meaningful numbers. Likely most of the new Skylake Xeon sales were made months ago, not yesterday as some infer.
 
I don't get this... some peeps ar
e saying EPYC is going to be huge success and will get big market share right away in data center market, other peeps saying they will not gain any market share at all because it will fail and there's nothing good about it. Don't you even remember (or maybe you are just too young) what happened when AMD actually released a SUPERIOR server cpu in the form of Opteron and how long it took to gain some meaningful market share. If my memory serves me, they went from single digit number at 2003 to little over 20% at 2006 when Core based Xeon was released. That's frigging four years with superior chip. And by then, they had over 50% market share in consumer market.

And now we have a situation where they have a chip which is competitive but not superior and while we (hopefully) don't have the same kind of situation where money changes hands under the table like back in the days, it is still going the be a uphill battle against the blue giant, especially when the current mind share is still completely blue. I can say with quite big confidence that the place where I am working atm will not have a single AMD based server from any of our customers until next year. And that would still happen even with a superior chip as there are contracts, done-deals, rentals, you name it, in play which has been negotiated already. And lets face it, server customers are more conservative when it comes to products from "new" manufacturer.

My prediction is that AMD might snatch about 5-8% server market share in the span of next 12 months (and I believe even that is a quite optimistic), and that's mostly from their 1S platform as it looks very appealing. That is the place where Xeon is at its weakest against EPYC

That's partially because intel was bribing / coercing OEMs to use their CPUs

Additionally, people don't buy servers every year, or every 2 years. Usually we keep servers well past their service life as well, they just get demoted to non-critical path use. So buying new servers, it comes once every 5 years.
 
Last edited:
I really hope not, soldering (more PC than gluing?) dies onto a flip-chip package is hardly the most efficient way to increase core count. If you do this to combat the thermals of a die then eventually you will run into a very hot package with potential to compromise solder balls akin to Tesla 1.0, perhaps why Intel abandoned it in those days. I'm sure both AMD and Intel are going to develop more adequate ways to move forward after Moore's Law.

So how do you suggest they increase the core count in a post Moore's Law world? We'll probably get 7nm, maybe even 5nm, but after that, it's a dead end. Making the chip bigger and bigger will lead to lower yields and unmanageable thermals. Already, processors spend a huge amount of their power budget simply moving data around the chip to where it needs to be, and with a bigger chip, the power requirement would go up considerably.
The other option would be to simply make smaller, less complex cores and put more of them on the chip aka Xeon Phi - great for some applications but clearly not a general purpose solution.

From a power/thermals perspective, the MCM is indeed the most efficient way to increase core count. The Infinity Fabric only uses a couple of watts. Intel will switch to MCM's for their highest core count Xeons too in the next few years, I just don't see any other way for them to compete with Epyc core counts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
From a power/thermals perspective, the MCM is indeed the most efficient way to increase core count.

It goes exactly in the opposite direction. The MCM approach introduces extra power consumption (compared to a monolithic die) due to propagating signals as

die --> TSV --> interposser --> TSV --> die.

That is one of the reasons why everyone else does monolithic server dies: Intel, IBM, APM, Sun/ORacle, Fujitsu, Cavium,, Broadcomm,...

AMD uses MCM approach for reducing costs. They don't have the money to design and validate different dies for server/desktop.
 
I don't get this... some peeps are saying EPYC is going to be huge success and will get big market share right away in data center market, other peeps saying they will not gain any market share at all because it will fail and there's nothing good about it. Don't you even remember (or maybe you are just too young) what happened when AMD actually released a SUPERIOR server cpu in the form of Opteron and how long it took to gain some meaningful market share. If my memory serves me, they went from single digit number at 2003 to little over 20% at 2006 when Core based Xeon was released. That's frigging four years with superior chip. And by then, they had over 50% market share in consumer market.

And now we have a situation where they have a chip which is competitive but not superior and while we (hopefully) don't have the same kind of situation where money changes hands under the table like back in the days, it is still going the be a uphill battle against the blue giant, especially when the current mind share is still completely blue. I can say with quite big confidence that the place where I am working atm will not have a single AMD based server from any of our customers until next year. And that would still happen even with a superior chip as there are contracts, done-deals, rentals, you name it, in play which has been negotiated already. And lets face it, server customers are more conservative when it comes to products from "new" manufacturer.

My prediction is that AMD might snatch about 5-8% server market share in the span of next 12 months (and I believe even that is a quite optimistic), and that's mostly from their 1S platform as it looks very appealing. That is the place where Xeon is at its weakest against EPYC

The hype around EPYC is disproportionate. I have seen idiots predicting that EPYC will get 15% server marketshare by Q4 this year. The company's own predictions are much lower. AMD expects to get around 10% of market for 2020 (including Zen2). And they are still being too optimistic. Fortunately some analysts are cutting down the hype:

After the launch of AMD's and Intel's new server chips "and seeing third party bench marks for both, we believe the rubber is meeting the road and gain conviction [AMD's] Epyc will not gain enough traction to support [the] current valuation," Curtis wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. "We have conducted regular channel checks since the fall and are still hearing little to no material traction at the ODMs [original design manufacturers of computers], which is the ultimate gauge of success."

I have been saying something like the bold-green part for months.
 
Getting a market footprint is the first step, any market share is a gain and important on.
 
lol analyst opinions

If their predictions were worth a damn I'm sure they'd be out enjoying life rather than prognosticating the next big boom or bust ;)
 
So how do you suggest they increase the core count in a post Moore's Law world? We'll probably get 7nm, maybe even 5nm, but after that, it's a dead end. Making the chip bigger and bigger will lead to lower yields and unmanageable thermals. Already, processors spend a huge amount of their power budget simply moving data around the chip to where it needs to be, and with a bigger chip, the power requirement would go up considerably.
The other option would be to simply make smaller, less complex cores and put more of them on the chip aka Xeon Phi - great for some applications but clearly not a general purpose solution.

From a power/thermals perspective, the MCM is indeed the most efficient way to increase core count. The Infinity Fabric only uses a couple of watts. Intel will switch to MCM's for their highest core count Xeons too in the next few years, I just don't see any other way for them to compete with Epyc core counts.
Exactly - we just have to see how this all pans out. I am eager to see what Intel has in their 18core mammoth chip :ROFLMAO:, of course some will be be saying it will hit 5ghz too :playful:. Still I think AMD needs to do much better on the platform end with Threadripper and Epyc.
 
Back
Top