The only reason people kept screaming that it was fake is because they didn't wanna believe what they saw. "Oh noez!!1! no moar EFF ECKS??!! No DDR4 4 Kareezoh>??!! /wrists"
The question really should be whether AMD will do a big-core x86 processor past Vishera.
You're being needlessly pedantic."Big cores" are in Kaveri and will be in Carrizo.
"Big cores" are in Kaveri and will be in Carrizo.
You're being needlessly pedantic.
Why don't you just accept responsibility for your blunder? It's quite obvious as to what jp meant.How hard is it to simply say FX or "big-die" instead?
If you can't see how your embarrassing failure to comprehend jpneiro's post was a blunder, then I suppose I'm wasting my time. I'm not going to derail this thread further.LOL what blunder? You're the only one getting upset over it. All I did was offer a correction, the fact BD, PD, SR, and EX are all "big cores" and they are in fact inside the current and upcoming APU's. Whether or not AMD will continue with big cores beyond Carrizo/Basilisk is unknown.
I know the extreme edition Intel processors are a different price bracket than mainstream Z87 .
What I saying is that I dont think all AMD FX processors require 220W boards.
AMD FX processors which run at 4.6+Ghz require high end motherboards.
OCed 8320, 8350 & 9000 series.
Heck there are people on Overclock.net running 4.8GHz on the 99FX Pro R2.
Going 4.6+ Ghz on FX series demands an atleast decent quality board.
Plus the most expensive AMD board Crosshair V Formula is 220$.
One of the most popular Haswell mainstream board the Asus Z87 Pro costs 185$ right now.
35$ more is not that bad considering AMD doesn't change sockets every year.
Although AM3+ is EOL right now.
You get 4.8 ~ 5Ghz on Asus Sabertooth board and it costs the same as Z87 Pro and dont want to shell money for halo boards.
It is a myth that you require a 200$ board for FX.
To summarize, as I told you before that mainstream Intel processors when OCed could draw close to 200W and most regular Intel MOBOs handle that. If the manufacturers can use these kinds of components on Intel MOBOs than they can do it for AMD aswell.
If you can't see how your embarrassing failure to comprehend jpneiro's post was a blunder, then I suppose I'm wasting my time. I'm not going to derail this thread further.
I didn't 'fail' to comprehend what he originally meant at all. I knew what he meant when I made my post -- I was merely posting a small correction. YOU were the one who got your jimmies rustled for no good reason. Your original post literally wasn't even necessary. You just brought it up for the sake of an argument.
Why don't you just accept responsibility for your blunder? It's quite obvious as to what jp meant.
I think it is obvious that even though not technically worded correctly, people are using "big core" to mean more than 4 core chips and a successor to vishera.
Don't you remember the testing that IDC did with the 8350 which showed that it sucked down close to 200W at stock speeds?
And what about MSI (iifc) mbs throttling AMD cpus once they exceeded 140W or somewhere there.
Theres reasonable suspicion that AMD might not be following its own spec and also because it has changed its definition of TDP and has also not fully released that sort of info for the FX line, its likely that AMD is quietly releasing hot ones without regard for longevity since its bottom line is hurting so much.
Theres reasonable suspicion that AMD might not be following its own spec and also because it has changed its definition of TDP
The problem is, the i3-4130 trashes the 6300 in single-core performance, which means any non-game application like a web browser, etc, is going to run significantly smoother.