- Joined
- Jul 11, 2016
- Messages
- 7,052
- Reaction score
- 2,183
I got p4s quad extreme q6600's and i7 920s son , meltem down and comibne them for the supa pcGot any more of those 3900x's?
Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread
- Thread starter Madmick
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 65,412
- Reaction score
- 35,357
The "rounding error" argument might work if you didn't specifically cite mm.
Wikipedia always cite device heights in both inches & mm.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 65,412
- Reaction score
- 35,357
Not on device pages, no, it doesn't, and this is the point. Unless this single link formed the entirety of one's knowledge on device dimensions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tablet_PC_dimensions_and_case_sizes
...one wouldn't be confused by that. If that is one's singular reference then there are not "many" 180mm tall devices lists on that page. There are only two, and one of them incorrectly lists that height-- it's much taller. Examples of device pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_7_(2013)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_HD
I'd be thrilled to see every one of these "many" tablets with a 7.049" or lower height listed.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
1. yup, you're literally arguing about .05" - one whole mm. or did you just backpedalfail to .001"? are you SERIOUSLY complaining about .001 inches now?
2. now this is about product pages on wiki? hahahahahahahaha. why would i have gone to any of those? why did you? holy hell, you're so tilted that you're on wikipedia product pages now?
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 65,412
- Reaction score
- 35,357
No, I've argued that in your ignorance you conflated screen size with height because you didn't know that tablet sizes classes are defined by the latter measurement. The details only reinforce the truth. You don't have a concept of what 7" "tablet-sized" tablet dimensions are. Go ahead and list every single 7" tablet's height that is 7.05" or below. I'll then list every 7" tablet with a height above 7.25" (a full 1/2" taller). Here. I'll do you the courtesy of linking Amazon's bestseller chart:
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Computer-Tablets/zgbs/electronics/1232597011
Spoiler alert: it's going to look like the "mixed" gaming results for the Ryzen 3700X vs. the i9-9900K.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 34,739
- Reaction score
- 25,484
I'm not putting on pom-poms for Kane, I believe mods should be held to the same standard as the rest of the posters on this forum. I got carded for the same shit you say, but when I report it I'm "abusing the report button."
It's not called perma-rustinling, it's expecting the rules being applied evenly. If the mods are going to have a different set of rules, that's fine. But at least let them be known.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
...so 2 posts ago, it was about 1mm (.05"). last post, it was about .001" (7.049" vs 7.05")
now you're back to pretending it was never about height again and shifting the goalpost to screen size. again. u mad? u mad.
btw, i championed the 3800x, not the 3700x.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
the double-standards are real... but/and they get real silly sometimes.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 34,739
- Reaction score
- 25,484
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 65,412
- Reaction score
- 35,357
I'll try talking slowly.
7.05" rounded up would be 7.1", not 7.0". The reason Wiki rounds down on that page is because 179mm actually equals 7.047". That's why they round down to 7.0". Ergo, finding every tablet with a 7" height (+.27" or .68mm) entails citing every tablet with a 179mm or smaller height dimension.
It could be the 3900X. It fares no better. You also predicted the 3800X and 3600X would be the bestsellers, but you were wrong about that, too, because you didn't know the history of AMD CPU seller history. Constant ignorance.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
...yes, now you're back to seriously arguing that 1 millimeter is a substantial difference.
why would it be the 3900x when the 3800x has higher clocks?
exactly. you're so wrong and tilted that you're backpedaling around 1 millimeter. and you evaded all that .001" bullshit. now you're floundering around 3700x and epic games and other arguments i never even made.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 65,412
- Reaction score
- 35,357
Concession accepted.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/676/AMD_Ryzen_7_3800X_vs_AMD_Ryzen_9_3900X.html
It has a lower boost frequency (not to mention fewer cores & L3 Cache). By this logic the 3400G & 3600X should outperform the 3700X. The 3200G should equal it.
Also, that wasn't the CPU you were championing. No 3800X reviews were out when you said the results for gaming benchmarks were "mixed". You also clucked about the AGESA patch thinking it would change those results because you don't understand how any of this stuff works. The AGESA patch itself had both positive and negative results on game performance, and BTW, that AGESA patch is associated with all sorts of glitches and instability issues. An AMD rep himself advised users on Reddit to not take that patch, or roll it back if they had.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all - yes, the 3800x has higher clocks. you don't know wtf you're talking about and resorting to the madmick tantrum, as usual.
false. omg. you're contradicting yourself now. you JUST criticized me favoring the 3800x. now you're talking about reviews. wtf? yeah, the 3800x wasn't reviewed... so i obviously didn't cite such. derp!
btw: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html yeah, same as when i posted this last time.
it's hilarious that your hate bias is so massive that you insist i was talking about diagonal screen lengths when i only mentioned heights of device. and now you're SIMULTANEOUSLY criticizing me for talking about the 3800x AND insisting i wasn't. what? HLUK NO MAKE SENSE. (yeah, hluk. minowaman!)
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all - yes, the 3800x has higher clocks. you don't know wtf you're talking about and resorting to the madmick tantrum, as usual.
false. omg. you're contradicting yourself now. you JUST criticized me favoring the 3800x. now you're talking about reviews. wtf? yeah, the 3800x wasn't reviewed... so i obviously didn't cite such. derp!
btw: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html yeah, same as when i posted this last time.
it's hilarious that your hate bias is so massive that you insist i was talking about diagonal screen lengths when i only mentioned heights of device. and now you're SIMULTANEOUSLY criticizing me for talking about the 3800x AND insisting i wasn't. what? HLUK NO MAKE SENSE. (yeah, hluk. minowaman!)
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 65,412
- Reaction score
- 35,357
No, it doesn't. The highest clock is the turbo. You're trying to talk about overclocks, but if we are talking about overclocks, then we are still talking about the highest possible clock. This isn't achieved on an all-core threshold. Do you even understand what you're citing? Maybe if you actually understood the game benchmark reviews you'd have realized the overclocked Ryzen processors typically performed worse-- or at best equally-- when overclocked due to the fact the all-core overclocks couldn't match the single core turbos. Overclocking Ryzen 3rd gen is widely regarded to be a waste of time. Nearly every reviewer mentioned this who tested OC vs. PBO vs. Stock on games including Steve Burke. Even Anandtech, who you tried citing for "mixed results", observed this truth in their single core Cinebench result:
At TPU the 3700X managed to squeak out an 0.1% victory over PBO/Stock @1080p running at a 4.25 GHz overclock: 0.05 GHz (-1.2%) below the highest overclock offered by Silicon Lottery for the 3800X across cores. Yet, notice it still lost to the 3900X at stock!:
UserBenchmark results suggest a 4.5GHz ceiling for either.
This is what happens when you pontificate by linking a website that you just learned about two weeks ago after you read a post written by the very person with whom you're arguing in that same thread:
Also, again, no 3800X reviews were out at the time. I'm not going to let that go. You said gaming results were "mixed" based on the 3700X and 3900X. You also don't seem to have any gaming results ready to quote for the 3800X against the 9900K/9900KF or 9700K/9700KF (particularly when these are overclocked). So who cares about synthetics. Here's some 3800X gaming benchmark reviews! Intel won every single game benchmark:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-3800x-review,6226-5.html
and
Keep derping it up.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
lolz @ being pissed at me for the internet not having ample 3800x reviews!
uberlolz @ pretending the 3800x doesn't have higher clocks because... i dunno, gn said it's not worth the extra money over the 3700x? (he also said the 3600x is $50 for a letter, but that also has better... it's as if worth and higher clocks are different arguments!)
so... you're telling me that you're right (despite... i dunno, nothing?) and siliconlottery is wrong. uh huh. totally.
so... siliconlottery is right when you cite it for intel, but they're moot when cited for amd? MADMICK LOGIC!
uberlolz @ pretending the 3800x doesn't have higher clocks because... i dunno, gn said it's not worth the extra money over the 3700x? (he also said the 3600x is $50 for a letter, but that also has better... it's as if worth and higher clocks are different arguments!)
so... you're telling me that you're right (despite... i dunno, nothing?) and siliconlottery is wrong. uh huh. totally.
so... siliconlottery is right when you cite it for intel, but they're moot when cited for amd? MADMICK LOGIC!
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 67,663
- Reaction score
- 40,097
No, it doesn't. The highest clock is the turbo. You're trying to talk about overclocks, but if we are talking about overclocks, then we are still talking about the highest possible clock. This isn't achieved on an all-core threshold. Do you even understand what you're citing? Maybe if you actually understood the game benchmark reviews you'd have realized the overclocked Ryzen processors typically performed worse-- or at best equally-- when overclocked due to the fact the all-core overclocks couldn't match the single core turbos. Overclocking Ryzen 3rd gen is widely regarded to be a waste of time. Nearly every reviewer mentioned this who tested OC vs. PBO vs. Stock on games including Steve Burke. Even Anandtech, who you tried citing for "mixed results", observed this truth in their single core Cinebench result:
As I previously linked the world champion German overclocker der8auer tested his own samples on LN2, and found the 3900X to have a higher overclock ceiling than his 3800X:
At TPU the 3700X managed to squeak out an 0.1% victory over PBO/Stock @1080p running at a 4.25 GHz overclock: 0.05 GHz (-1.2%) below the highest overclock offered by Silicon Lottery for the 3800X across cores. Yet, notice it still lost to the 3900X at stock!:
UserBenchmark results suggest a 4.5GHz ceiling for either.
This is what happens when you pontificate by linking a website that you just learned about two weeks ago by reading a post written by the very person with whom you're arguing in that same thread:
Also, again, no 3800X reviews were out at the time. I'm not going to let that go. You said gaming results were "mixed" based on the 3700X and 3900X. You also don't seem to have any gaming results ready to quote for the 3800X against the 9900K/9900KF or 9700K/9700KF (particularly when these are overclocked). So who cares about synthetics. Here's some 3800X gaming benchmark reviews! Intel won every single game benchmark:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-3800x-review,6226-5.html
and
Keep derping it up.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
https://computers.woot.com/plus/computers-staff-picks-5?ref=w_gh_cp_4_wp_1
lolz. 6.7" and 6.4" tablets... shorter than the totally not giant phone.
lolz. 6.7" and 6.4" tablets... shorter than the totally not giant phone.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 65,412
- Reaction score
- 35,357
You mean the Kindle Paperwhites, Kindle Voyage, and Kindle 5th Gen?
Those are eReaders.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2016
- Messages
- 10,476
- Reaction score
- 17,069
Guys stop that shit please.
And yes that phone is giant and it is double giant with that effing controller.
I doubt it will sell good, because it is still same old qualcomm inside, same as cheaper competition, and same limited number of meh games.
What would PROBABLY sell good would be a $100 universal gamepad-like controller for any 5.5-6.5 android phone with an external accumulator fitted inside.
And yes that phone is giant and it is double giant with that effing controller.
I doubt it will sell good, because it is still same old qualcomm inside, same as cheaper competition, and same limited number of meh games.
What would PROBABLY sell good would be a $100 universal gamepad-like controller for any 5.5-6.5 android phone with an external accumulator fitted inside.
