- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,162 (0.20/day)
- Location
- I live in Norway
Processor | R9 5800x3d | R7 3900X | 4800H | 2x Xeon gold 6142 |
---|---|
Motherboard | Asrock X570M | AB350M Pro 4 | Asus Tuf A15 |
Cooling | Air | Air | duh laptop |
Memory | 64gb G.skill SniperX @3600 CL16 | 128gb | 32GB | 192gb |
Video Card(s) | RTX 4080 |Quadro P5000 | RTX2060M |
Storage | Many drives |
Display(s) | AW3423dwf. |
Case | Jonsbo D41 |
Power Supply | Corsair RM850x |
Mouse | g502 Lightspeed |
Keyboard | G913 tkl |
Software | win11, proxmox |
So, if their 22nm chipsets aren't efficient enough to be sold in US, then tell me please how Z370 or X299 does just fine on 22nm? Or why didn't this energy commission, or EPA, or Greenpeace, or antarctic penguins swept up all of those uber-inefficient Ryzen motherboards w/ 55nm chipsets? Maybe they'll go after 65+nm SuperIO ICs next time, cause they are so-o-o inefficient, regardless of sub-1W package... You are talking absolute nonsense.
The only logical explanation is that Intel have decided to try out 14nm lithography for chipsets on the lowest-of-the-low H310, so if something goes wrong, then replacing a $50-60 motherboard will not create as much fuss or outrage as a high number of faulty/defective high-end Z370 boards, or B360-based enterprise PCs. In most cases it may even go unnoticed, cause "cheap stuff breaks".
AMD actually had to do something for B450, it's something in it but 22 nm is just fine.