I suppose it does make sense from a design perspective, kind of like those, movie "rides," but the thought never occurred to me. My brain just does what it needs to do to land the headshot, lead the target, or acquire the lock. Thank you for elaborating on this.
So we need 50 people in a thread of circle liking (sounds rude) and we all get a badge :)
I'm down. I would like to Ryzen up my liked posts total.
So, something is weird. Gamers Nexus pushed their ryzen 7 1700 video and apart from joker no one is using the chip as a subject for a video.
What the hell? Isn't that the most interesting of them all? If I can set a clock manually and save 200,- bucks, I'm fine with that. Why is there hardly any video covering this CPU?
If I had one of play with it & review but I don't so.
Yeah, and I have two on order now from different places but so far .... nothing.
Question: Will the Ryzen provide a cheaper/better processor for doing high load science computations. My university has a small cluster that performs mostly single thread computations over lots of jobs (we run a job scheduler) and it has aging i7s right now and I'm looking at options for a future funding proposal. I've consider the Intel 14-core/28-thread Xeons as replacements, however, at lots of $$$ per chip it is interesting to consider Ryzen as a cheaper alternative. If money isn't an issue I would just go with the Xeons but if money does become an issue I would like options.
Oh, yes, I'm at a small university so tech support is limited. Students, myself, and another faculty member do 90% of the work and maintenance.
Wait for naples, the AMD ZEN server platform. That might be more interesting for you.
Oh, cool. I've had my head stuck up Intel so long I didn't realize that AMD was releasing a server platform.
OK, random rambling....
So, the maximum difference between a 1700 and an 1800X is probably around 300-400 MHz depending on silicone. 3.8-3.9GHz for the R7 1700 vs. 4-4.2GHz on the 1800X. And that last figure seems to be unlikely from everything I read. Basically you accept 5-10% less clockspeed at max and pay 200,- Euros less. (german pricing)
Of course that also brings the R7 1700 in spitting distance to the 6900K. And now we are not talking about half the price of the Intel, we are talking less than one third. I'm pretty sure you can build two R7 1700 rigs for the price of one 6900K system.
I see now why AMD was using the word disruptive a lot on the last RYZEN event.
After this launch the R3 and R5 CPUs will probably take over the consumer market by storm.
And if naples comes even close to that price/performance ratio, Intel will have problems. Big ones.
ZEN really looks like a boot to the face for Intel.
Progress. Finally. Thank you, AMD.
1700 is like a really great deal.
A new bit of unconfirmed news; nVidia drivers are also not cooperating that well with Ryzen.
Yup, nailed it! I'm the best. Just sayin'. Totally true, ask anyone. Don't do that. Still true.
A splash of light here and there and even the most boring things can look like this.
How can anyone not do photography?
I got a little bit lucky it seems according to Silicon lottery.
1700 - 3.9Ghz - Peaked 1.320 volts - 10 Runs Realbench - On air cooling, And blowing away the 6950X 10C16T in CPUz Bench.
It's not a matter of not being able to do photography, but people don't want to bother with learning the knowledge and putting in the work it takes to make good pictures. (However, you can take many good pictures with minimal effort, still requires a sound foundation in theory though.)
I looked and while your first shot is OK, I'm not impressed by your second shot. Particularly how you framed/cropped it so the heatsink takes up exactly half the frame and how the CPU butts right up against that dividing line. It throws the harmony out of whack.
If you're referring to the awful lighting and camera work in the video in the post preceding yours, then I agree, your work is much better. They would look great in motion, but as stills, they leave much to be desired. Do not assume just because you know how to manipulate light for stills that photography is "easy" for anyone.
I'm not. My statement is supposed to stand for itself.
I also disagree with you on your last sentence.
Then you probably don't relate well to others. Please don't teach.
Nope, my statement still stands. You can walk around with a point-and-shoot, not worry about lighting (other than what your environment provides) and still take great pictures. Yes, you're working with limitations, but at the same time you're not. You can even take great pictures with the camera on your phone!
This is getting off-topic. I have nothing further to say.
I agree. ... That was my point. o0
But I'm fine with you not saying anything ever again.