AMD Can't Shake Off US Class-Action Lawsuit over Bulldozer "8-Core" Advertising

[OutOfPhase]

No, core will not receive some legal definition. Your examples of mpg and torque are simply math. What comprises a core is not static.

Reference: see all cpus made from the very first, to now, and in the future.

 

[mope54]

It's in dispute because the plaintiffs are saying that AMD's cores cannot perform like Intel's cores. Performance is the crux of this argument, whether you want to admit it or not. And once again, for the umpteenth time, PERFORMANCE IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO WHAT MAKES A CORE. Which, once again, makes this lawsuit entirely frivolous and unproductive, and is merely a cash grab and/or publicity stunt by the plaintiffs.

Once again, the definition of a core cannot be compared to MPG ratings, or HP ratings, or TQ ratings, something you seemingly are entirely incapable of comprehending. MPG, HP, and TQ ratings are most similar to benchmark scores.

I am capable of understanding the distinctions. The intersection between law and society is the very subject of my phd--literally, so I'm well qualified to be explaining these processes in this thread. If you don't want a free crash course in law and society, that's your prerogative, but every time you insult my comprehension you demonstrate that you don't have a firm understanding of the conversation that is occurring in front of your eyes.

I never said that torque or MPG were equivalent to cores.

I wrote that, like the "core" definition, MPG and torque (among other things) were marketed in specific ways that were beneficial to the companies making those claims until they were sued into adhering to legal standards. That's why you now see peak torque ratings and the claim is noted with whether it's power to the flywheel or the wheels.

Just like "core," no one really knows or cares about the literal power; they care about how much performance is translated to their wheels on the pavement. Also like "cores," companies would market power to the flywheel and customers would not get the performance they expected from those types of claims.

Rinse and repeat with MPG.

Rinse and repeat with horsepower ratings (which are now linked to when the power is produced in marketing). Before that was forced, companies would simply say, we've got a 400 hp motor for you! But no customer was ever able to actually realize 400HP because it didn't happen until 8K RPMs. Now companies have to put, 400 HP@8000 RPMs (and you can now indirectly compare that to a rival company making a more realistic 90HP@1700 RPMs, which may in fact be the same thing or possibly more powerful but you have to suss it out from the data the marketing literature provides--you don't have to go to 3rd party sites to obtain that information and you should not have to).

They didn't used to that and they only did that because law made them do it. Otherwise marketing campaigns would feed consumers as much shit as they'll swallow. You keep talking about all these standards that exist as if you just stepped into this society yesterday! There's a legal history here, and I've been accurately explaining it to you and encouraged you to look it up, which you clearly have not yet.

 

[mope54]

No, core will not receive some legal definition. Your examples of mpg and torque are simply math. What comprises a core is not static.

Reference: see all cpus made from the very first, to now, and in the future.

You are still misunderstanding the point.

"Cores" also have an objective reality to them, but that's a separate argument from what people can claim when they market something. I literally described how this court case will create a legal definition whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you believe me or not. None of that matters, because in our legal system we use precedent and this is how the process works.

I don't know what you think you are pointing out by stating the obvious that torque and MPG are mathematically derived. That has nothing to do with the law requiring companies to calculate their marketed MPG figures in a standard fashion and display their HP/torque claims in a standard way for consumers to grasp easily and not be misled.

 

[mope54]

BTW, here's an interesting article from 13 years ago that refutes your premise that horsepower and torque are simply "math."

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...r-horsepower-confusion-and-resolution-column/

You'll notice parallels between that article and what I'm describing--if you're approaching this discussion in good faith.

The sad part is the people personally insulting me while I'm giving them what would otherwise be a pretty expensive course in law and society for free on my off time, lol, but whatever such is life.

 

[Tsumi]

I am capable of understanding the distinctions. The intersection between law and society is the very subject of my phd--literally, so I'm well qualified to be explaining these processes in this thread. If you don't want a free crash course in law and society, that's your prerogative, but every time you insult my comprehension you demonstrate that you don't have a firm understanding of the conversation that is occurring in front of your eyes.

I never said that torque or MPG were equivalent to cores.

I wrote that, like the "core" definition, MPG and torque (among other things) were marketed in specific ways that were beneficial to the companies making those claims until they were sued into adhering to legal standards. That's why you now see peak torque ratings and the claim is noted with whether it's power to the flywheel or the wheels.

Just like "core," no one really knows or cares about the literal power; they care about how much performance is translated to their wheels on the pavement. Also like "cores," companies would market power to the flywheel and customers would not get the performance they expected from those types of claims.

Rinse and repeat with MPG.

Rinse and repeat with horsepower ratings (which are now linked to when the power is produced in marketing). Before that was forced, companies would simply say, we've got a 400 hp motor for you! But no customer was ever able to actually realize 400HP because it didn't happen until 8K RPMs. Now companies have to put, 400 HP@8000 RPMs (and you can now indirectly compare that to a rival company making a more realistic 90HP@1700 RPMs, which may in fact be the same thing or possibly more powerful but you have to suss it out from the data the marketing literature provides--you don't have to go to 3rd party sites to obtain that information and you should not have to).

They didn't used to that and they only did that because law made them do it. Otherwise marketing campaigns would feed consumers as much shit as they'll swallow. You keep talking about all these standards that exist as if you just stepped into this society yesterday! There's a legal history here, and I've been accurately explaining it to you and encouraged you to look it up, which you clearly have not yet.[/I]

And I am saying that cores are nothing like MPG and HP ratings, which means all your "learned expertise" means absolutely nothing. But hey, continue to try being superior to us. All it's doing is showing off how incorrigible you are.

Once again, if you want to make analogies to the car world, cores are most similar to the number of cylinders. Architecture can be most closely ascribed to DOHC vs SOHC vs pushrod, exhaust system, intake system, valves per cylinder, etc, all of which a car manufacturer does not need to advertise but can do so if they so choose. The fact that a 5.3 L V8 pushrod makes less HP than a 5.0 L V8 DOHC does not make it any less of a V8.

BTW, here's an interesting article from 13 years ago that refutes your premise that horsepower and torque are simply "math."

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...r-horsepower-confusion-and-resolution-column/

You'll notice parallels between that article and what I'm describing--if you're approaching this discussion in good faith.

The sad part is the people personally insulting me while I'm giving them what would otherwise be a pretty expensive course in law and society for free on my off time, lol, but whatever such is life.

There is no good faith in anything you are posting because you absolutely refuse to see the logic of the matter. But hey, I probably shouldn't be surprised you would keep up an argument like this because this is how people like you make a living.

 

[HAL_404]

from [H]ard|OCP:

"The first thing I’m going to do is address the elephant in the room which is the VRM design of the Maximus XI Formula. Long story short, it’s the same anemic design we saw with the ASUS Maximus XI Hero. What bothers me is not the fact that this is a 4-phase design, but rather the fact that it’s being marketed as an 8-phase design. "Twin 8-Phase" is what ASUS calls it and that’s nonsense. "

so tell me ... what's the difference between "nonsense" and "law suite" ?

 

[mope54]

from [H]ard|OCP:

"The first thing I’m going to do is address the elephant in the room which is the VRM design of the Maximus XI Formula. Long story short, it’s the same anemic design we saw with the ASUS Maximus XI Hero. What bothers me is not the fact that this is a 4-phase design, but rather the fact that it’s being marketed as an 8-phase design. "Twin 8-Phase" is what ASUS calls it and that’s nonsense. "

what's the difference between "nonsense" and "law suite" ?

That's an excellent example of the problem before us.

Technology is moving faster than our laws and that has made possible for marketing teams to operate in a largely unregulated space. Those of us who study these kinds of things call it, "culture lag" and it causes all kinds of problems. I guess most consumers haven't really taken them to task for it, maybe because we've all been along for the ride and it's fun to be in the wild wild west until someone gets hurt? Or maybe because the public doesn't really know how unregulated it is? Not sure, but it could make for an interesting article or dissertation if anyone is in grad school and thinking about that stage shoot me a PM and I'll give you a structure for it.

 

[OutOfPhase]

You are still misunderstanding the point.

"Cores" also have an objective reality to them, but that's a separate argument from what people can claim when they market something. I literally described how this court case will create a legal definition whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you believe me or not. None of that matters, because in our legal system we use precedent and this is how the process works.

I don't know what you think you are pointing out by stating the obvious that torque and MPG are mathematically derived. That has nothing to do with the law requiring companies to calculate their marketed MPG figures in a standard fashion and display their HP/torque claims in a standard way for consumers to grasp easily and not be misled.

And I am saying, this court case will not create a definition of core. It is an evolving science, and attempts to pin it down for a (frivolous) lawsuit are a waste of everyones time.

At best - should they succeed, companies will just use a different word with even less meaning. Not unlike my shampoo, which apparently has Pro Vita V(tm). Cpus will have PowerQuads(tm).

I am bowing out of this discussion at this point. It’s just paddling in circles, we’ve both said what we wish to say. I respect that you always remain civil while disagreeing. /salute

 

[mope54]

And I am saying, this court case will not create a definition of core. It is an evolving science, and attempts to pin it down for a (frivolous) lawsuit are a waste of everyones time.

At best - should they succeed, companies will just use a different word with even less meaning. Not unlike my shampoo, which apparently has Pro Vita V(tm). Cpus will have PowerQuads(tm).

I am bowing out of this discussion at this point. It’s just paddling in circles, we’ve both said what we wish to say. I respect that you always remain civil while disagreeing. /salute

Fair enough.

To be clear, I'm not saying that a judge gets to tell the world what a core is.

The process of law in this country is that while AMD is participating in this case, the evidence they use to defend themselves will in and of itself form a definition of a core (you can think it's not definable, but their defense will literally have to be: we said ours has 8 cores, and here is the evidence for why our processor has 8 cores; that is, here is *one* definition of a core).

And then another company will have to do it again some day.

And another company.

And each time they will point to the cases before them and argue, "they said a core was x" and "y" and "z" and now we are adding that a core can *also* be defined like this...and that over time is how the law comes to recognize all the salient features of a core.

The science evolves, as does law. I'm describing how law evolves.

The other way definitions come into legal existence is for politicians to define them outright.

I'm describing how a legal definition can evolve outside the explicitly definition of a politician. I haven't said it yet, but I believe the court process is better than the politician one, in this instance anyway. The arguments you've raised in this discussion is exactly why I believe that (that politicians, or no person not even a single judge, should define a core since it evolves and our definitions needs room to breath).

 

[Tsumi]

Please show me a lawsuit that contested marketing number of cylinders. If you can, I'll agree that there is merit in this case going to court, but will also use it as further evidence of how broken our law and judicial system is. If not, it's exactly why this case should have been tossed out from the beginning.

 

[BinarySynapse]

from [H]ard|OCP:

"The first thing I’m going to do is address the elephant in the room which is the VRM design of the Maximus XI Formula. Long story short, it’s the same anemic design we saw with the ASUS Maximus XI Hero. What bothers me is not the fact that this is a 4-phase design, but rather the fact that it’s being marketed as an 8-phase design. "Twin 8-Phase" is what ASUS calls it and that’s nonsense. "

so tell me ... what's the difference between "nonsense" and "law suite" ?

Theres a huge difference between the two. VRM phases are distinct in time. To say something has 8-phases means it has 8 distinct time domains that while maybe overlapping do not cover the same time periods or wholly envelope another phase's time domain. From the snippet, it sounds like Asus put 8 VRM circuits on the board to reduce current load on the individual circuits, but fed the only four distinct timing signals. That means that the benefits of having more phases (smoother power delivery, faster response to changes in current demand, etc) aren't there.

To be analogous, AMD would have had to produce a processor in which each module executed the same instruction in each core.

 

[Ebernanut]

AMD will have to prove that their definition is within industry standards. The standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, which is more likely than not (50.1+ vs. 49.9-).

AMD likely would be able to demonstrate to a jury's satisfaction that they weren't mis-using the term, but in the process (the process being discovery, written testimony, spoken testimony, industry papers, researched opinions, the trial, and eventual judgement one way or the other) a definition of a core will emerge.

The next time a company is sued for using "core" in a way that the consumer doesn't think matches what they believed (and it doesn't much matter the technical bona fides of a the consumer, since the definition of a core comes from the marketing teams primarily of Intel and AMD; that is, Intel and AMD have built up an idea on the marketplace of what a core is, what it does, and what it's relationship to performance is or should be--this claimant didn't just make that definition up out of thin air), the company will look back at v. AMD and cite the evidence and judgment (win or lose, the definition that emerges during this trial will become codified) and that will make a more clear definition of a core. Eventually, "core" will be well-defined, much like those other industry standards like MPG and torque that I used as examples and also had similar class action lawsuits that brought those industry standards into legal standards.

That's the process of law and society. The other way in which things get defined into law would be legislatures, which would be weird and polar opposites of what people are wanting in this thread. It's so bizarre, they just want to argue to argue without understanding our system of law.

In a marketplace, terms have to be defined. Things can't be accurately marketed and consumers don't have any assurances when things aren't defined. Compare this to when "organic" was unregulated and plastered all over every thing just to sell it. Then it was "Natural," then "All natural" which are all marketing phrases that have become regulated over time after politicians or court cases defined them into what they are today.

Maybe you don't care about red dye #2, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant to know when it is or isn't in a product (eventually banned in the US). M&Ms even removed their red ones because of the hyped up threat over #2 (didn't actually have that dye to begin with) and took about a decade to recover.

So either definitions emerge through an iterative process where the industry leaders come into court rooms and show their reasoning for why they call something the way they do, or we have politicians creating rules about labels (and we see how well that works out from food dye to weapons), but under no circumstances do we live in a society where neither of those things occurs and people just sell stuff and call it whatever they want, label it however the best way to move product off the shelf, or whatever kind of "free" market people fantasize we live within.

The first sentence there shows why your whole argument is wrong. It would indeed be difficult for AMD to prove that their cores meet the industry standards because as you've pointed out there isn't a standard, however it's not AMD's job to prove that it's the plaintiff's job to prove that it doesn't which is just as difficult.

Since there is no standard and they were open and honest about what they were considering a core this lawsuit has no merit and should have been thrown out immediately.

 

[mope54]

The first sentence there shows why your whole argument is wrong. It would indeed be difficult for AMD to prove that their cores meet the industry standards because as you've pointed out there isn't a standard, however it's not AMD's job to prove that it's the plaintiff's job to prove that it doesn't which is just as difficult.

Since there is no standard and they were open and honest about what they were considering a core this lawsuit has no merit and should have been thrown out immediately.

This is a civil trial, not a criminal one, so both sides need to prove their case. Each side must argue their position and try to convince the jury beyond a preponderance of the evidence, which would be anything above 50%.

Have you been following the case?

The case has already passed the threshold of whether it should be thrown out. The judge already ruled that the case has merit so now it's headed to trial (likely resolution is AMD will settle--they don't want an ironclad definition of a core because they benefit by calling it whatever suits their sales' teams needs).

AMD already offered industry definitions of a core in their initial defense. I'm not sure why you think there is no standard of what is or isn't a core. AMD believes there is a loose, industry definition of one.

What I pointed out is that a legaldefinition of a core does not yet exist. This case, and others like it, will codify the industry standards of a "core" and that will become law over time.


Think of things like internet standards, like in web development. Not many are actually codified in law, but that's largely because they haven't had to be defined in law yet. Once technology gets to the point where a certain industry standard can be marketed then it will eventually have to be defined and then codified into law. Even something as benign as say, CSS or HTML.

 

[Ebernanut]

This is a civil trial, not a criminal one, so both sides need to prove their case. Each side must argue their position and try to convince the jury beyond a preponderance of the evidence, which would be anything above 50%.

Have you been following the case?

The case has already passed the threshold of whether it should be thrown out. The judge already ruled that the case has merit so now it's headed to trial (likely resolution is AMD will settle--they don't want an ironclad definition of a core because they benefit by calling it whatever suits their sales' teams needs).

AMD already offered industry definitions of a core in their initial defense. I'm not sure why you think there is no standard of what is or isn't a core. AMD believes there is a loose, industry definition of one.

What I pointed out is that a legaldefinition of a core does not yet exist. This case, and others like it, will codify the industry standards of a "core" and that will become law over time.


Think of things like internet standards, like in web development. Not many are actually codified in law, but that's largely because they haven't had to be defined in law yet. Once technology gets to the point where a certain industry standard can be marketed then it will eventually have to be defined and then codified into law. Even something as benign as say, CSS or HTML.

That's not how it works. The plaintiff needs to prove what they're saying, it is only >50% but the burden of proof is on them which is a major distinction and the whole problem with your argument.

 

[mope54]

You know how I described it is how it works in broad brush strokes. I'm not going into the minutiae of it for the sake of brevity since my posts are already monumental, but if you're in the legal profession you know exactly what I'm getting at without explaining the actual phases. If you're not in the legal profession the distinction you're trying to draw here isn't particularly relevant.

I'm not even talking about the actual case itself, so this point you're raising is moot. I'm talking about the court process itself and how it plays into codification of standards. AMD has already presented the industry standard of a core as part of their defense. It's pointless for you to try and nitpick as to the extent to which they'll continue providing evidence along that trajectory--it's clearly the only defense that can be mounted against this legal challenge unless you are suggesting they are going to rely on a dismissal after the claimants present their case (assuming this even goes to trial)!

 

[Tsumi]

You know how I described it is how it works in broad brush strokes. I'm not going into the minutiae of it for the sake of brevity since my posts are already monumental, but if you're in the legal profession you know exactly what I'm getting at without explaining the actual phases. If you're not in the legal profession the distinction you're trying to draw here isn't particularly relevant.

I'm not even talking about the actual case itself, so this point you're raising is moot. I'm talking about the court process itself and how it plays into codification of standards. AMD has already presented the industry standard of a core as part of their defense. It's pointless for you to try and nitpick as to the extent to which they'll continue providing evidence along that trajectory--it's clearly the only defense that can be mounted against this legal challenge unless you are suggesting they are going to rely on a dismissal after the claimants present their case (assuming this even goes to trial)!

So basically, what you're saying is we're going to go through a meaningless necessary exercise in law so that everyone in the legal industry can fatten their pockets legal precedence can be set, just because some schmucks want to get a few dollars out of AMD and a judge is either technologically illiterate and/or needs something to keep him busy and justify his position because it is the right thing to do. This will come at the consumer's expense because judge time is paid by the taxpayers and AMD's lawyer defense comes out of AMD's profit that can be used for research or lowering prices. Yep, America's legal system is great, no problems to be fixed at all.

 

[likeman]

I'm not sure who started it, but i've had to correct many many people who go around on forums spouting off that FX isnt a true 6 or 8 core chip. It is, its just not as good, for technical reasons far beyond what most forum whiners could hope to understand.
Its a pity, cause the 6 core and 8 core dozers were and continue to be decent budget gaming chips. 1080p, 1440p, all current AAA games (as of last fall anyway), just work. Dont expect 144hz, but we're in budget land.
This lawsuit is garbage.

You should not even consider buying a used or new fx or type A cpu witch Is more a duel core cpu (not even free) as you can get a i5/i7 quad 4th gen used system/bits that is faster and probably same price or cheaper (faster at single core and normal muti threaded loads)

You find that statement is not true if you go past 4 threads the main game thread is running and there is other work that is on the same module you get very inconsistent fame rate

 

[travm]

You should not even consider buying a used or new fx or type A cpu witch Is more a duel core cpu (not even free) as you can get a i5/i7 quad 4th gen used system/bits that is faster and probably same price or cheaper (faster at single core and normal muti threaded loads)

You find that statement is not true if you go past 4 threads the main game thread is running and there is other work that is on the same module you get very inconsistent fame rate

6 Core FX > all 4 core I5's in well multi threaded games.
The FM2 A Cpu's were never good, not even on price. That remains. The FX however, got a bad rap for not being able to compete on the high end, being hot and underpowered compared to intel. However, they are actually 6, and 8 core chips. They perform better than intel 4 cores in some well multithreaded games.

 

[likeman]

6 Core FX > all 4 core I5's in well multi threaded games.
The FM2 A Cpu's were never good, not even on price. That remains. The FX however, got a bad rap for not being able to compete on the high end, being hot and underpowered compared to intel. However, they are actually 6, and 8 core chips. They perform better than intel 4 cores in some well multithreaded games.

Is it good enough yes but personal experience with them is no compared to what I can buy used

(i5 4570,4590 systems, 8gb ram, 250/500gb ssd)
Most people are asking for the price of the fx cpu or fx+mobo where I can buy a compleat system that is consistent speed cpu 4th gen i5

(to bad he did not add a 7700k/8700k in there and the i7 2700k/2600k as I find the HT does make a difference)


you be pushed if I would take a FX or type A cpu/system off you (depends if your giving it me or want some money)

If you have one then it should work well for you, but it won't be as snappy or Constant as ryzen or above a 3rd gen i5 (or even i3 in some cases)

 

[Nobu]

6 Core FX > all 4 core I5's in well multi threaded games.
The FM2 A Cpu's were never good, not even on price. That remains. The FX however, got a bad rap for not being able to compete on the high end, being hot and underpowered compared to intel. However, they are actually 6, and 8 core chips. They perform better than intel 4 cores in some well multithreaded games.

FM2 apus were great for undervolting. Got one in a silverstone SG06 with all the fans off right now, using it for my homeassistant server.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

FM2 apus were great for undervolting. Got one in a silverstone SG06 with all the fans off right now, using it for my homeassistant server.

Just because I am curious.

What is a "homeassistant" server?

I've run all sort of servers, but never heard that term...

 

[Nobu]

Just because I am curious.

What is a "homeassistant" server?

I've run all sort of servers, but never heard that term...

It's an open source...thing. Here. lol
You can set it up to read sensors, send notifications, adjust your thermostat, run scripts, etc, and it supports zwave, zigby, and probably a lot of other wireless automation systems.

Right now I don't have it doing anything, but will have it connected to my window/door sensors and thermostat (probably just to record temperature fluctuations) eventually.

 

[travm]

Is it good enough yes but personal experience with them is no compared to what I can buy used

(i5 4570,4590 systems, 8gb ram, 250/500gb ssd)
Most people are asking for the price of the fx cpu or fx+mobo where I can buy a compleat system that is consistent speed cpu 4th gen i5

(to bad he did not add a 7700k/8700k in there and the i7 2700k/2600k as I find the HT does make a difference)


you be pushed if I would take a FX or type A cpu/system off you (depends if your giving it me or want some money)

If you have one then it should work well for you, but it won't be as snappy or Constant as ryzen or above a 3rd gen i5 (or even i3 in some cases)

Missing the point.

There are games a 4 core i5 cannot run well enough to play.
Fx chips 6 core and up run them fine.

You couldn't pay me to take a 4 core i5.

 

[MMitch]

Missing the point.

There are games a 4 core i5 cannot run well enough to play.
Fx chips 6 core and up run them fine.

You couldn't pay me to take a 4 core i5.

My 2500K was doing fine before I moved to 2700X... anyway I can't believe people are still arguing over this...
There's no definition, people knew what they bought, all marketing team says the same thing.

I really find it way too much well aligned with Zen+/Zen2 .... This suit seems to only be there to slow AMD down and makes me wonder if Intel is financing it of some sort.

 

[likeman]

Missing the point.

There are games a 4 core i5 cannot run well enough to play.
Fx chips 6 core and up run them fine.

You couldn't pay me to take a 4 core i5.

Personally yes i7/ryzen for my use (main pc) and would recommend it just for smoother experience, fps is not everything if its jumpy (other PCs are fine without HT)

My 2500K was doing fine before I moved to 2700X... anyway I can't believe people are still arguing over this...
There's no definition, people knew what they bought, all marketing team says the same thing.

I really find it way too much well aligned with Zen+/Zen2 .... This suit seems to only be there to slow AMD down and makes me wonder if Intel is financing it of some sort.

No they don't, you be surprised how not computer literate people are, most believe what they have got on the bulldozer based cpus is 4-8 full speed cores, (some streamers or on discord when having issues) until been explained (most don't even notice that windows is showing the cpu as half of what it is kida)

I had one streamer that was going to attempt to use the stock cooler on a i7 8700 none K and his believe was why would Intel sell a cooler that's just good enough to cool it, well technically it is sufficient as long as you don't mind it running at 90c+ and thermal throttling (its the same cooler that comes with the i3 cpu) it was lengthy but he got an proper air cooler in the end so it does not thermal throttle (he streams and games on same pc) and he then bought 2166 ram to go with it (wonders why he can't do streaming 60fps 1080 obs with games)
he also did not want to get the 8700k because he not going to be overclocking (but the 8700k base speed is tad higher then the 8700 you don't have to overclock it) this is a system he going to be using for another 4-5 years over saving $100-200 CA on slow ram and 8700 non K

forgot even trying to get him to suggest a ryzen system as he did not even know what amd was as wanted a "stable system" (he knows windows, Intel and obs + games)

 

[Tsumi]

Personally yes i7/ryzen for my use (main pc) and would recommend it just for smoother experience, fps is not everything if its jumpy (other PCs are fine without HT)



No they don't, you be surprised how not computer literate people are, most believe what they have got on the bulldozer based cpus is 4-8 full speed cores, (some streamers or on discord when having issues) until been explained (most don't even notice that windows is showing the cpu as half of what it is kida)

I had one streamer that was going to attempt to use the stock cooler on a i7 8700 none K and his believe was why would Intel sell a cooler that's just good enough to cool it, well technically it is sufficient as long as you don't mind it running at 90c+ and thermal throttling (its the same cooler that comes with the i3 cpu) it was lengthy but he got an proper air cooler in the end so it does not thermal throttle (he streams and games on same pc) and he then bought 2166 ram to go with it (wonders why he can't do streaming 60fps 1080 obs with games)
he also did not want to get the 8700k because he not going to be overclocking (but the 8700k base speed is tad higher then the 8700 you don't have to overclock it) this is a system he going to be using for another 4-5 years over saving $100-200 CA on slow ram and 8700 non K

forgot even trying to get him to suggest a ryzen system as he did not even know what amd was as wanted a "stable system" (he knows windows, Intel and obs + games)

I can't believe I read through all of that.

 

[likeman]

I know

 

[Tsumi]

I know

That was not a compliment.