Based on AMD's numbers, the 3800x will beat the 2700x by ~25% on single threaded performance. We'll have third party benchmarks to confirm when it launches July 7th.

Yes. The ~10% increase in clock speeds with 3rd gen Ryzen, plus AMD's claims of 15% better IPC compared to 2nd gen Ryzen is enough to comfortably put them in the lead.

Now, we don't have third party benchmarks yet, but the the single threaded performance gap was only in the 10-15% range (though with fairly large swings in both directions, depending on the benchmark) for 9900k vs 2700x. So even in the worst case scenario where that IPC improvement is close to zero (and we have no reason to expect this), they should still generally break even.

If by behind Intel you mean way way ahead of Intel, then yes, definitely. AMD is winning on absolute single threaded performance, multithreaded performance, cost and power efficiency, at least based on what we know so far (third party benchmarks will be more definitive), plus they will be first to market with PCIe 4 support (which Intel hasn't even released a roadmap for yet). When 3rd gen Ryzen launches in less than a month, Intel will be so comically uncompetitive in CPUs on every front, you'll wonder how they're still in business.

On the GPU side, Navi is still pretty yawntastic though. They didn't even bother comparing to the 2080, much less the 2080 Ti, which means they're still not even trying to compete at the high end there. They will play the perf/$ game again in the mid range and capture some sales, but still won't hold the overall performance crown.

The games industry is laughing all the way to the bank, that's why. Steam pioneered the idea of renting games to people (for an indeterminate period of time) at full retail price and the market ate it up. Now everybody does it and finding games that aren't infested with DRM is the exception, rather than the norm. Oh, we need people to buy Battlefield n+1? Just shut down the servers for Battlefield n, done fixed!

Unquestionably, Google is extremely privacy hostile. However, I'd say it's a toss up between them and Facebook for #1 offender.

However, for producers, of course it is. Next question?

Only 50%? Filthy casual.

You obviously didn't read the summary. In the Bay Area, there's not enough people to fill low wage entry level jobs, probably because you can't possibly hope to survive on that wage in that area. People with more education could take those jobs if they wanted, but they're choosing not to. If you look at the country wide stats you'll see that the trend reverses, and those with more education have drastically lower unemployment rates.

Also, if the first few years immediately after high school are your most productive (zero knowledge required manual labour jobs?), your job is probably going to be automated away within the next 5-10 years if it hasn't already.

This is baloney. Oft repeated baloney, but baloney nontheless. Human eyes can readily tell the difference between refresh rates up to at least 240 fps. We're not yet sure what the upper bound is, but lab tests suggest it may even be beyond 1000 fps. Try some of the tests here with a 144 or 240 Hz monitor and tell me you can't see the difference.

24 fps is utter garbage. I wish we could get away from it in film, every time I see a camera pan in a movie, it makes me want to vomit because it just looks awful.

The reason we started with 24 fps was due to technical limitations of the film format which haven't been an issue for at least 50 years. The reason we're still on 24 fps for film is due to people's completely misguided perception that smooth motion = cheap and choppy motion = expensive.

As the YouTube generation grows up watching 60 fps+ streams, perhaps we can finally get movies shot at 60 or 144 Hz. We may need to wait for a couple older generations to die off first though.

If you're jaywalking and a car has to slow down, swerve or otherwise change course to avoid you, then you deserve to get hit by that car, the end.

If you can't even bother to attempt to preserve your own life, why should others be expected to?

Do you mean this E5-1680 v2, that launched Q3 2013?

Yes, extremely elastic loads are also a good example of where cloud makes sense. In my experience, they're not that common though. Even if you look at something extreme like a Black Friday sale for an online retailer, they're probably not going to see more than, say, 4x the load of a normal day (numbers estimated, few retailers would share them). Also, find me an online retailer that doesn't see Black Friday coming from a mile away and I'll find you an online retailer that's going out of business soon.

What is more common is people deluding themselves about how elastic their workload is going to be, like the startup that claims their business is going to grow 50000% next week. Congrats if it does, but it probably won't.

If you want to brute force some encryption, then sure, spin up a billion cloud servers for a day or two. Few businesses find this a worthwhile endeavor though... except for the NSA, who already has several entire DCs of their own doing this around the clock (making it not particularly elastic anymore).

It's one example that I was personally(-ish) bitten by. The free tier was a non-starter as it doesn't offer the XML based API that GSS used to offer. Luckily we already had a replacement for GSS ready to go before the announcement, but I'm sure not everybody was so well prepared.

Yes, they did this to Google Site Search. There was a paid tier that no longer exists as of April 2018. If you used features that were exclusive to the paid tier (for example, no ads), you're SOL now.

Guess what, having someone else manage the hardware for you is only a teeny tiny portion of the workload involved in managing IT infrastructure. Everything you build on top of said hardware still falls on your plate to maintain, cloud or not.