cdawall
where the hell are my stars
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 27,680 (4.26/day)
- Location
- Houston
System Name | All the cores |
---|---|
Processor | 2990WX |
Motherboard | Asrock X399M |
Cooling | CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL |
Memory | 4x16GB G.Skill 3600 |
Video Card(s) | (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's |
Storage | 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB |
Display(s) | Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz |
Case | Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal |
Audio Device(s) | Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood |
Power Supply | Seasonic Prime 1200w |
Mouse | Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller |
Keyboard | Keychron K8 |
Software | W10P |
They once talked about this at PCPerspective. When Intel has a chip to produce, they sit down with engineers at CPU design and fab factory and they talk things out and adjust stuff to produce best chips possible. In AMD's case, they design the chip based on what they know about the given process, hand the design over to Global Foundries and they make the stuff. It's obvious this can't ever produce same quality. It's a shame AMD doesn't have the capabilities it once had if they really were as good as you say (I was out of loop with Phenoms as I had cheapo E series Intels back then). Having Polaris and Ryzen on good fab would make a massive difference for sure and with potentially higher clocks, they'd be devastating for Intel.
I absolutely agree.