![]() 09/16/2016 at 22:47 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Would get the joke. If it’s kind of in poor taste, please let me know and I’ll take it down.
![]() 09/16/2016 at 22:51 |
|
So what’s the joke. Explain and we’ll decide if it gets taken down (*not)
![]() 09/16/2016 at 22:55 |
|
Are AMD products that bad?
![]() 09/16/2016 at 22:57 |
|
AMD products - without drivers - are horrible. I’d link another picture but it’s not exactly appropriate here.
![]() 09/16/2016 at 22:58 |
|
It depends. As a budget product, it has its point in a niche part of the market but as a contender to NVidia cards?
I know PS9 might disagree with me, but they’re far, far from being a threat to Jen-Hsun Huang’s agenda.
![]() 09/16/2016 at 23:01 |
|
I would’ve gone with a 1980-1981 Mustang. Moar cylinders, but only 120 hp, and mediocre fuel economy. Meanwhile, Intel’s selling a 3-cylinder turbo making twice the power and using 1/8th the fuel.
![]() 09/16/2016 at 23:06 |
|
Isn’t that more of an Nvidia joke? (970, I’m looking at you!)
![]() 09/16/2016 at 23:08 |
|
I really wanted the 480 to be good, but couldn’t justify going that way when it had the same power draw as a 1070. It may be price competitive, but from a heat/noise perspective it’s really unimpressive by comparison. I’m curious if the design just sucks, or if Global Foundries 14nm process is really that bad compared to TSMC’s 16nm one.
![]() 09/16/2016 at 23:11 |
|
I was making a joke about AMD and selling MOAR CORES... that are all slower than Intel’s low-end stuff.
And the 970 joke would be that Nvidia’s selling a turbo V8 with the intake valve missing from one cylinder... but the R9 290X, while also being a turbo V8, overheats and pulls boost, so it’s slower.
![]() 09/16/2016 at 23:16 |
|
... And I forgot about the Bulldozer. Holy crap, was I lucky to avoid that hot mess.
![]() 09/17/2016 at 07:52 |
|
Eh, i like my richland a10 5750 in my laptop.