I’ve had good luck recently with Gigabyte. I know it’s circumstantial but my hope is that they are recovering.

deleted by creator

So sorry to interrupt your circlejerk about this guy’s opinion on 3d V-Cache technology with a tangentially related discussion about 3d V-Cache technology here on the technology community.

I fully understand the point you’re trying to make here, but just as you think my comments added nothing to the discussion, your replies to them added even less.

I was comparing the 7950x and the 7950x3d because those are the iterations that are available right now and what I have been personally comparing as I mentioned. I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough on that point.

My point was that the essence of the take, which I read to be, “CPUs with lower clocks but way more cache only offer major advantages in specific situations” is not particularly off base.

Ok so I am about to build a new rig, and looking at the specs the X3D does seem less powerful and more expensive than the regular 7950.

While I completely agree that this guy seems extremely biased and that he comes off like an absolute dickbag, I don’t think the essence of his take is too far off base if you strip off the layers of spite.

Really, it seems like the tangible benefit of the X3D that most people will realize is that it offers similar performance with lower energy consumption, and thus lower cooling requirements. Benchmarks from various sources seem to bear this out as well.

It seems like a chip that in general performs on par with the 7950x but with better efficiency, and if you have a specific workload that can benefit from the extra cache it might show a significant improvement. Higher end processors these days already have a fuckton of cache so it isn’t surprising to me that this doesn’t benchmark much better than the cheaper 7950x.

In your mind, do you really think that is the intention here? Seems more like a convenience for people who use both Linux and Windows.

I have to use both so I welcome it.