Intel Officially Launches 9th Generation Processors Including the 8-Core / 16-Thread Core i9-9900K

[trparky]

rather than standing there and yelling into the camera about how things were done wrong.

The video was meant to rip Intel a new asshole, objective achieved.

 

[GoldenX]

Bad presentation, totally valid points. I can consider myself lucky if I can upgrade something every 5 years, I didn't know GTA V changes settings after hardware changes, I didn't know the difference in performance for RAM set-up at XMP would be that big with different motherboards.
Someone at Intel is giving jobs to the fired FX marketing people.

 

[notb]

Please explain the not gimping in any way when the actual used 2700X results were way worse then the results the factchecker got by using the exact same setup.

Similar hardware, but different setup. Intel-ordered comparison was using a fairly off-the-shelf AMD setup (no tweaking).
Intel's setup was optimized (using a better cooler etc).

That's how you get the "up to" thing. Seriously, I'm shocked this is so difficult to understand for people here. It's like this was the first time you've contacted a phenomenon called "marketing".

To be honest, I'm quite a fan of the approach. That's how casual PC using should look. I'll keep saying that the amount of PC knowledge one has to possess to reproduce (mostly AMD-based) results from online reviews is way to high.

And the 2 vs 4 DIMM Ryzen issue is just ridiculous.
Actually, I noticed something this morning and I wonder if AM4 "upgrade path" worshipers have thought this through as well.
If 2 years from know I decide to upgrade both my CPU and RAM, am I expected to sell the 2 dies and buy 2 larger ones instead? With that in mind, it doesn't seem such a great deal anymore.

I can't believe we're getting this in 2018.
The last time I had to care so much about BIOS settings etc was 15 years ago (coincidentally, also with AMD CPU).

I watched the entire video, and paid close attention to everything that was said. My eyes have yet to roll back forward so I see right. That sounded like my 17-year-old son complaining because I wanted him home at 1 AM on a Saturday night. This guy really needs to work on his presentation skills as he might have some valid points, but he ends up sounding like a whining child, like I find many forums posters do from time to time. That's not how you get people to listen to what you have to say.

IMO his looks and behaviour are intentional. I think that's exactly how he attracts a certain following.

 

[GlacierNine]

I love that you guys are just tone policing and criticising his style choices while implying he somehow limits his credibility by the fact he's willing to criticise manufacturers or other outlets.

It's almost as if his criticisms are valid and you don't want to admit it.

Then again, I suppose you'll also have an issue with the fact they literally went to Principled Technology's offices unannounced, within 20 minutes of publishing that video, and got an interview to allow PT to explain themselves:

PT also published a response to the criticism they've received (From the tech press in general, not just GN) - https://www.principledtechnologies....ng_PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf


Even then though, the question remains as to exactly why the Ryzen system so dramatically underperformed in their testing, when it's trivial to look at their 8700K/2700X performance disparity and identify that it is FAR larger than the disparity reported in reviews of the 2700X from Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, or even TPU itself.

 

[notb]

PT also published a response to the criticism they've received (From the tech press in general, not just GN) - https://www.principledtechnologies....ng_PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf

Even then though, the question remains as to exactly why the Ryzen system so dramatically underperformed in their testing, when it's trivial to look at their 8700K/2700X performance disparity and identify that it is FAR larger than the disparity reported in reviews of the 2700X from Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, or even TPU itself.

You've read the document above? Everything is well described there.
It's simple stuff, really. You need to tweak Ryzen to work well. Gaming reviewers do that. PT didn't.

 

[R0H1T]

You've read the document above? Everything is well described there.
It's simple stuff, really. You need to tweak Ryzen to work well. Gaming reviewers do that. PT didn't.

You could say the same about Intel, for instance you can't buy a 65W TDP cooler for this chip, hell 95W won't allow it to "spread" it's legs. Then there's XMP, which isn't enabled by default.

 

[GlacierNine]

You've read the document above? Everything is well described there.
It's simple stuff, really. You need to tweak Ryzen to work well. Gaming reviewers do that. PT didn't.

Oh please stop with the ridiculous FUD. It's not even a valid criticism - Intel requires exactly the same degree of "Tweaking".

And the ridiculous fact of it is that you obviously know this and are arguing in bad faith. Your post history makes it clear you know how to overclock in general terms, which means the following should take you less than 30s even on a machine you've never seen before in your life:

1 - Boot to the BIOS/UEFI
2 - Find and enable XMP or DOCP, whichever is relevant to your platform.
3 - Hit F10 to save and exit.

If you can't manage this, then you're better off buying a prebuilt or making a video on how to build PCs with The Verge. Don't forget your tweezers.

And no, that's not a swipe at people who just want to buy a machine and go with JEDEC specs and never touch the BIOS - if that's their ability level then fine. But you're acting like enabling XMP constitutes a high bar for technological prowess, and it's extremely obvious that you *know* how incorrect that is and are simply blowing smoke in order to make a facile and misleading point about AMD performance.

My grandmother, who struggles to switch the AV inputs on a television without my assistance, could easily enable an XMP profile with minimal instruction if she had to. If you can't manage it then that's your problem, not AMDs, and it certainly seems like memory manufacturers consider it your problem as well, as the bulk of every memory manufacturer's product lines literally require this step to function as advertised.

Unless of course you're equally outraged at Intel for creating XMP itself, and the entire memory industry since 2009, when this kit, which is listed in Intel's own documents for XMP, was released. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...intel-core-processors-datasheet-20181002.xlsx

 

[cadaveca]

Oh please stop with the ridiculous FUD. It's not even a valid criticism - Intel requires exactly the same degree of "Tweaking".

And the ridiculous fact of it is that you obviously know this and are arguing in bad faith. Your post history makes it clear you know how to overclock in general terms, which means the following should take you less than 30s even on a machine you've never seen before in your life:

1 - Boot to the BIOS/UEFI
2 - Find and enable XMP or DOCP, whichever is relevant to your platform.
3 - Hit F10 to save and exit.

If you can't manage this, then you're better off buying a prebuilt or making a video on how to build PCs with The Verge. Don't forget your tweezers.

And no, that's not a swipe at people who just want to buy a machine and go with JEDEC specs and never touch the BIOS - if that's their ability level then fine. But you're acting like enabling XMP constitutes a high bar for technological prowess, and it's extremely obvious that you *know* how incorrect that is and are simply blowing smoke in order to make a facile and misleading point about AMD performance.

My grandmother, who struggles to switch the AV inputs on a television without my assistance, could easily enable an XMP profile with minimal instruction if she had to. If you can't manage it then that's your problem, not AMDs, and it certainly seems like memory manufacturers consider it your problem as well, as the bulk of every memory manufacturer's product lines literally require this step to function as advertised.

Unless of course you're equally outraged at Intel for creating XMP itself, and the entire memory industry since 2009, when this kit, which is listed in Intel's own documents for XMP, was released. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...intel-core-processors-datasheet-20181002.xlsx

I guess you never had a Ryzen system then.

With any of the Ryzen chips, you can expect voltage to run up to 1.52V. This causes drastic overheating. Proper system optimization requires voltage tweaking to control the heat, and setting high memory speeds requires SOC voltage tweaks as well.

Ryzen really starts to shine when you get memory speeds over 3600 MHz. You don't see this often, but it is possible with most CPUs if you spend the time and buy the right memory.

With Intel, you only need 3200 MHz C14. For THAT, you simply set XMP and go, and voltages are almost always reasonable.

 

[notb]

You could say the same about Intel, for instance you can't buy a 65W TDP cooler for this chip, hell 95W won't allow it to "spread" it's legs. Then there's XMP, which isn't enabled by default.

All true. But Intel doesn't give you a cooler with the chip. You're expected to buy a powerful one.
AMD advertises Wraith as being good enough for 2700X (if you don't OC manually), don't they?
It's the precise argument PT used. I think it's acceptable.

As for XMP - I agree they should have left it off in all tested machines. But the impact on Intel CPUs isn't as dramatic as with Zen and IF.
Even if you deduct what Intel gains on XMP (few %?) and a powerful cooler (another few %?) it'll still be way ahead of Ryzen.

BTW: PT's results are usually compared to GPU-heavy benchmarks, which is a mistake.
If you look for a low resolution benchmark, you'll see that PT's finding aren't that far-off.
In TPU's 720p test 8700K beat 1800X by 27%
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/11.html

 

[Zyll Goliat]

A MUST see.....Principled Technologies on Intel Testing

 

[R0H1T]

A MUST see.....Principled Technologies on Intel Testing

Admit it PT, this was a hit job

The next follow-up point pertained to memory, chiefly the question of why 64GB was used. As our audience is likely aware, opting for higher memory capacities can result in lowered sustainable frequency and loosened timings – particularly tertiary and secondary, which were (as far as we’re aware) left uncontrolled by PT. In the on-camera interview (mark 19:20) we asked why 64GB was chosen, receiving the answer that it seems “normal” for the configurations. At best, this is disjointed from the buyer of the 2700X or 8700K CPUs. To purchase the kit of 64GB used in this test would cost $620, or around 2x the cost of the processors. Very few are reasonably purchasing this much memory and, given that this benchmark focuses entirely on gaming tests (and not “production” tasks), we must look at it from a gaming scenario. No meaningful gaming build with a non-HEDT platform is opting for 64GB of memory.

Intel is so transparent

https://www.gamersnexus.net/industry/3374-principled-technologies-interview-intel-testing-concerns

 

[Convexrook]

Soldered TIM across the lower end parts too? Interesting...

Yeah they are preventing us delidding. Punks

 

[R-T-B]

Yeah they are preventing us delidding. Punks

Almost no benefit (if any) with solder...

 

[Bluescreendeath]

You've read the document above? Everything is well described there.
It's simple stuff, really. You need to tweak Ryzen to work well. Gaming reviewers do that. PT didn't.

The most important problem is they enabled Threadripper's gaming mode on the Ryzen 2700x - which should not be enabled for Ryzen processors. It's a feature that should be exclusively limited to Threadrippers because it disables half the cores of the cpu and really only works for those Threadripper cpus with their crazy 16-32 something cores. AMD's manuals and guides specifically says this and tells people to not use it for the regular Ryzens.

So they basically went out of their way to gimp the Ryzen by turning it from an 8 core to a 4 core processor. That's intentionally "tweaking" Ryzen to make it run poorly.

BTW: PT's results are usually compared to GPU-heavy benchmarks, which is a mistake.
If you look for a low resolution benchmark, you'll see that PT's finding aren't that far-off.
In TPU's 720p test 8700K beat 1800X by 27%
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/11.html

I'm not sure why you're comparing an 8700K with the 1800X. The Ryzen 2 series improves the IPC and clockspeed from the Ryzen 1 series, and the Ryzen 7 2700X that PT reviewed is a Ryzen 2 series CPU. You should be comparing the 8700K to the R7 2700X, not the 1800X.

Furthermore, since you're bringing up 720p tests from Techpowerup, take a look at their more recent and more relevant tests that includes both the 8700K and the Ryzen R7 2700X. Even at 720p, the difference is only 16.8%. At the far more common 1080p test, the difference between the two shrinks to a mere 7%. So for real world gaming, the difference between the 8700k and R7 2700X is basically just 7%.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/12.html

 

[notb]

The most important problem is they enabled Threadripper's gaming mode on the Ryzen 2700x - which should not be enabled for Ryzen processors. It's a feature that should be exclusively limited to Threadrippers because it disables half the cores of the cpu and really only works for those Threadripper cpus with their crazy 16-32 something cores. AMD's manuals and guides specifically says this and tells people to not use it for the regular Ryzens.

Yeah, I love this part. Call a feature "game mode" and tell gamers to never use it.
It's like an essence of what I think about Ryzen.
Why didn't they call it "half core mode"? Why does it even appear in the menu when the CPU is not a TR?
WTF is happening in this company?

I'm not sure why you're comparing an 7800K with the 1800X. The Ryzen 2 series improves the IPC and clockspeed from the Ryzen 1 series, and the Ryzen 7 2700X that PT reviewed is a Ryzen 2 series CPU.

Because we don't have "independent" reviews of 9900K yet?
But we already know how the results will look. Most sites will just make normal 1440p and 4K comparisons and, as usual, we'll learn that all expensive CPUs are fast enough. Hurray.

Since you're bringing up 720p tests from Techpowerup, take a look at their more recent and more relevant tests that includes both the 8700K and the Ryzen R7 2700X. Even at 720p, the difference is only 16.8%.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/12.html

That's 16.8% on average. Many of games included are just maxed out at these settings and won't go further despite using a faster CPU. Look at Hitman or Resident Evil 7.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Yeah, I love this part. Call a feature "game mode" and tell gamers to never use it.
It's like an essence of what I think about Ryzen.
Why didn't they call it "half core mode"? Why does it even appear in the menu when the CPU is not a TR?
WTF is happening in this company?

Why would anyone use CPU-altering software features without reading the basic guidelines or instruction manual first? Why would they not even do a rudimentary 2 minute google of what the feature does?

Who the hell installs and turns on programs without knowing what it does?

And a "professional review" company supposedly did this. Even if we lower the standards to that of an average gamer who decided to ignore the instruction manual and didn't even bother reading what the program does, even this person would have figured out something is wrong when their task manager says they lost half their CPU threads or when they see their gaming fps drop by large margins. There is zero excuse for a professional company to display this type of ignorance.

This is either gross incompetence or intentional deception.

Because we don't have "independent" reviews of 9900K yet?
But we already know how the results will look. Most sites will just make normal 1440p and 4K comparisons and, as usual, we'll learn that all expensive CPUs are fast enough. Hurray.

That's not what I asked. I'm asking you why you decided to use the 1800X instead of the R7 2700X when comparing it to an i7-8700k. What is being compared in the Principled Tech benchmarks and the Techspot/Techpowerup article is the R7 2700X and the 8700K. The Ryzen 2 series has better IPC and better clockspeed than the Ryzen 1. Nobody is comparing the 1800X here and the 1800X is irrelevant to the comparison as it is outdated.

Besides, Techpowerup actually has more recent up to date benchmarks that tests both the Ryzen 2 2700X and the 8700K in the same article. If you wanted to compare the 2700X and 8700K, you should have used the more recent benchmarks that actually tests the relevant gen 2 Ryzens CPUs rather than try to extrapolate off of an old test with the outdated gen 1 1800X.

That's 16.8% on average. Many of games included are just maxed out at these settings and won't go further despite using a faster CPU. Look at Hitman or Resident Evil 7.

It's 17% average at 720p resolution - a resolution that literally no gamer with a high end cpu like the R7 2700X or 8700K would ever use in reality. The real world scenario of 1080p gaming sees a mere 7% difference between the two.

Gaming at 720p is a very limited niche scenario that doesn't represent actual CPU performance in productivity, intensive programs, or benchmarks (where the 2700X wins over the 8700k), and doesn't represent real world gaming (where the 8700k wins by a small margin in common resolutions such as 1080p).

Due to the wide variation of CPU cores and clockspeeds, 720p CPU tests are no longer useful except for maybe testing CPU IPC - where they would need to disable cores to have the same core count across all CPUs, and clock all the CPUs to the same clockspeed.

 

[notb]

Why would anyone use CPU-altering software features without reading the basic guidelines or instruction manual first? Why would they not even do a rudimentary 2 minute google of what the feature does?

People don't read instructions.

Who the hell installs and turns on programs without knowing what it does?

An educated guess: everyone.

And a "professional review" company supposedly did this. Even if we lower the standards to that of an average gamer who decided to ignore the instruction manual and didn't even bother reading what the program does, even this person would have figured out something is wrong when their task manager says they lost half their CPU threads or when they see their gaming fps drop by large margins.

I'll make this easier for you. I've seen my girlfriend playing Call of Duty, SIMS, GTA and Need for Speed. She's casual... 2-3 hours a week. Healthy amounts.
She doesn't know what fps is. I've just checked to be sure. Moreover, I told her and she doesn't care.

There is zero excuse for a professional company to display this type of ignorance.

"Professional" means "doing something for money". Contemplate that for a while.

That's not what I asked. I'm asking you why you decided to use the 1800X instead of the R7 2700X when comparing it to an i7-8700k. What is being compared in the Principled Tech benchmarks and the Techspot/Techpowerup article is the R7 2700X and the 8700K. The Ryzen 2 series has better IPC and better clockspeed than the Ryzen 1

Oh, that's simple. I entered "720p" in the browser and it suggested 8700K review from my browsing history.

Nobody is comparing the 1800X here and the 1800X is irrelevant to the comparison as it is outdated.

I wonder if all the 1800X owners on TPU would agree. ;-)

I won't comment on the rest. There's a interesting cloud-related flame going on in another thread. I guess I'm just too old for AMD zealots.

 

[xorbe]

> up to; 440 FPS in CSGO

Oh, my god, did they actually go over into the corner, stare at the floor, and say up to 440 fps.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Who the hell installs and turns on programs without knowing what it does?

People don't read instructions.
An educated guess: everyone.
I'll make this easier for you. I've seen my girlfriend playing Call of Duty, SIMS, GTA and Need for Speed. She's casual... 2-3 hours a week. Healthy amounts.
She doesn't know what fps is. I've just checked to be sure. Moreover, I told her and she doesn't care..

And I'll make it easy for you. If people don't care about that stuff, they sure as hell won't go through the trouble of download extra software to supposedly boost their CPU. If they don't care, then they won't care enough to download and install all that extra stuff.

You can't claim people don't know or care about fps, but still for some reason care enough to download extra software to boost their computer, but yet still somehow don't care enough to read the basic instructions about that software.

"Professional" means "doing something for money". Contemplate that for a while.

Yes, and if you do something for money, one might assume you've done it enough times to have a decent or rudimentary level of knowledge in that area.

Oh, that's simple. I entered "720p" in the browser and it suggested 8700K review from my browsing history.
I wonder if all the 1800X owners on TPU would agree. ;-)
I won't comment on the rest. There's a interesting cloud-related flame going on in another thread. I guess I'm just too old for AMD zealots.

That's not the point. The Techspot, Techpowerup, and Principled Technologies were all using charts that were comparing the R7 2700X with the 8700K. You bringing up a totally different CPU in the form of an old 1800X benchmark from Techpowerup to compare and discuss PT's benchmarks made no sense. Nobody was even talking about the 1800X. The entire article was discussing how the PT nerfed the 2700X, not the 1800X.

If you want to claim Intel is better than AMD in gaming or claim that PT is somehow correct, then use the relevant CPUs that we and the articles are talking about: the 8700K and the 2700X. Don't try to use an 1800X-8700K benchmark comparison to extrapolate how a 2700X would compare to a 8700K when there are literally plenty of recent benchmarks that literally compare the 2700X to the 8700K.


As for AMD fanboyism, I don't even own an AMD cpu at the moment. My main computers have all exclusively used Intel, and I much prefer LGA over PGA.

 

[EatingDirt]

Similar hardware, but different setup. Intel-ordered comparison was using a fairly off-the-shelf AMD setup (no tweaking).
Intel's setup was optimized (using a better cooler etc).

That's how you get the "up to" thing. Seriously, I'm shocked this is so difficult to understand for people here. It's like this was the first time you've contacted a phenomenon called "marketing".

To be honest, I'm quite a fan of the approach. That's how casual PC using should look. I'll keep saying that the amount of PC knowledge one has to possess to reproduce (mostly AMD-based) results from online reviews is way to high.

So you'd be okay with AMD coming out with results of a 2700x with 3466 tweaked timed ram against a 9900k with the slowest bone stock 2133 RAM? You think this is how every CPU should be reviewed? The worst case against the best case? Do you understand how absurd that is? The only way that would be remotely acceptable is to have the best case & worse case scenario in every single CPU review, something that is not realistic. I'm not sure if you understand or just don't care how much you'd sound like a hypocrite if you'd say otherwise.

Where is it that you believe it's difficult for someone with little PC knowledge to get results similar to online results on AMD systems in reviews? Do you think reviewers of AMD CPU's are somehow tweaking their RAM in their release reviews to their fullest extent, rather than just setting the XMP profiles, just like the intel platforms they're reviewing? Spoiler Alert: They aren't.

 

[Melvis]

I guess you never had a Ryzen system then.

With any of the Ryzen chips, you can expect voltage to run up to 1.52V. This causes drastic overheating. Proper system optimization requires voltage tweaking to control the heat, and setting high memory speeds requires SOC voltage tweaks as well.

Ryzen really starts to shine when you get memory speeds over 3600 MHz. You don't see this often, but it is possible with most CPUs if you spend the time and buy the right memory.

With Intel, you only need 3200 MHz C14. For THAT, you simply set XMP and go, and voltages are almost always reasonable.

Ive built a few Ryzen systems this year and I haven't come across any of those issues, I was worried at first that I would have any of these problems but honestly naa not really and this was using last yr model boards with Ryzen 2000 series CPU's. Put the CPU in, install the memory, go into the BIOS, set the XMP press F10 and reboot, done, and they all been rock solid and no over heating issues at all (at stock speeds of course on stock heatsinks) No tweaking needed and these are machines I build for customers which HAVE to be stable or it make me look bad.

Yeah I agree 3600MHz is indeed where Ryzen starts to shine and sadly I havent been able to run mine at that speed yet stable, but I can do 3400MHz and under no worries at all. When I get more time I will sit down and tweak, but for now im happy at 3200MHz with nice tight timings.

@notb What are you system specs? all this talk and for all we know your running a P4 system.

 

[notb]

And I'll make it easy for you. If people don't care about that stuff, they sure as hell won't go through the trouble of download extra software to supposedly boost their CPU. If they don't care, then they won't care enough to download and install all that extra stuff.

I think they would. People have a high developed skill of installing programs they've found online.
It's also about the learning curve. You've read somewhere that Ryzen can be optimized with some tweaks. There's an app mentioned. It's quick and easy to install, but then you get bored and in the end you still don't know what XMP is.

To be honest, I've installed Nvidia drivers when I got this PC and I haven't touched them since. I don't know what the options do, I've never got through all the menus.
When I open GeForce Experience once in a while (to update the driver) there's a huge sign saying "Game optimization: Ready". I hope it makes my games run better, not turn off half of the GPU.

You can't claim people don't know or care about fps, but still for some reason care enough to download extra software to boost their computer, but yet still somehow don't care enough to read the basic instructions about that software.

I don't "claim". I know such people.
Just like I know dozens of people that use Excel, but don't know how it works. Or even more specialized things: databases, scientific scripting (like R) and so on.
That's the great thing about abstraction. You can use something and it makes your life easier, but you don't have to know how it works. But this concept needs to be well implemented.
Do you think "game mode" is a good name for something that ruins gaming performance?

If you want to claim Intel is better than AMD in gaming or claim that PT is somehow correct, then use the relevant CPUs that we and the articles are talking about: the 8700K and the 2700X. Don't try to use an 1800X-8700K benchmark comparison to extrapolate how a 2700X would compare to a 8700K when there are literally plenty of recent benchmarks that literally compare the 2700X to the 8700K.

Man, why are you so paranoid about it?
8700K was Intel's answer to 1800X. 9900K is an answer for 2700X.Do you really want to be the person who runs around praising AMD superiority, because there's a half year gap between release dates?

Furthermore, 1800X is just 1.5 year old and still available. It's not like I compared to Bulldozer.

@notb What are you system specs? all this talk and for all we know your running a P4 system.

And there you are with that specs fallacy. You're constantly reminding me that I have a cheap PC, so my opinion doesn't matter. That's really sad.
I've removed my PC info. At the moment I'm using 4 cores. But ask me again on Friday - I'll be 32 or 64 then.

What's your education? All this talk and for all we know you can't spell "you're" properly.

 

[Melvis]

And there you are with that specs fallacy. You're constantly reminding me that I have a cheap PC, so my opinion doesn't matter. That's really sad.
I've removed my PC info. At the moment I'm using 4 cores. But ask me again on Friday - I'll be 32 or 64 then.

What's your education? All this talk and for all we know you can't spell "you're" properly.

Well of course if you haven't got the balls to even show us what your running and continue to talk trash all the time of course we are going to talk your PC down, dir! Ok so you are running a Q6600 huh? so yep you are right you have a cheap PC and its clear we dont have to remind you then do we?

Well clearly better then yours if I can post what I have in my system specs and you cant hey?

 

[notb]

Well of course if you haven't got the balls to even show us what your running and continue to talk trash all the time of course we are going to talk your PC down, dir! Ok so you are running a Q6600 huh? so yep you are right you have a cheap PC and its clear we dont have to remind you then do we?

Man, you have such poor memory. Not so long ago you were laughing at my specs. I've removed them just few days ago.
I don't do much on my home PC anymore, but of course I need one. It's an i5-7500 and GTX1050 - soon to be replaced by an ultrabook, hopefully. This PC is an overkill for browsing and running SSH/RDP clients.
I moved to cloud for most tasks (private cloud at work and AWS for other things).

 

[Melvis]

Man, you have such poor memory. Not so long ago you were laughing at my specs. I've removed them just few days ago.
I don't do much on my home PC anymore, but of course I need one. It's an i5-7500 and GTX1050 - soon to be replaced by an ultrabook, hopefully. This PC is an overkill for browsing and running SSH/RDP clients.
I moved to cloud for most tasks (private cloud at work and AWS for other things).

Ummm you must have got mixed up with someone else as no it was me laughing at your specs, I have a bad memory but I dont remember that at all.

Wait.....so you want to replace it with an Ultra book but you said on Friday "ill be 32 or 64 then" so which is it? or you just talking more nonsense?

So yep your system is Intel no surprise there and its well average....so you really dont have much of an idea when it comes to these higher end parts then from ether camp, least we know now that yep everything you spit out is indeed just a troll post, thanks for clearing that up for is!