INTEL BTFO. RYZEN BEATS BABY LAKE ON GAMING PERFORMANCE.

>>59085777
Trips confirm. Intelcucks forever and always BTFO.

>>59085777
>not 144hz
into the trash it goes.

Intel i7-7700K was clocked @4.2Ghz

Ryzen 1700X at stock speeds @3.4Ghz

Have you ever seen such beauty?

>>59085777
DELETE THIS

File: 1346016393228.jpg (40KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x500px

>>59085777
Clearly fake clickbait. Ryzen will smash Intel without the need for this kind of nonsense.

>>59085777
Sauce? I thought the 1700X would be a bit slower for gayming.

>>59085896
>>59085901
It was a video benchmark released today. MemeTube was quick to remove it.

>>59085952
>>59085777

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fy87gUVisQ

>>59086033
DELET THIS!

File: amd3.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>59085777

>different scenes

topkek

>>59086100
>literally blind

Keep getting cucked by jewtel

File: 1487801576360.png (234KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 800x612px

>>59085777
NOOOO DELET

>>59086033
>Stock ryzen clocked lower than stock 7700k
>Potentially can OC further
>95w R5 will still probably beat the 7700k and for $259

>>59086177
At this point AMD doesn't need to beat them anymore in raw benchmarks. They win the performance per dollar, and that has been always the selling point of AMD.

Ryzen is like the good old Ahtlon back in the day.

>>59085777
i didn't know GTA was so CPU bound

>>59085777
That's fake, look at caches

File: f4d.gif (494KB, 387x305px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 387x305px

>>59085777
>>59086033
>>59086133
>>59086177
>>59086255

All these dubs and trips of truth

>>59086033
>Ryzen is only about 5 frames faster

This literally means nothing, Intel is still superior to PooMD.

>>59086292
Less is more, g-goy!

>>59086301
>g-goy!
>>>/pol/

>>59086272
It is. It's even more crazy on Battlefield 1 or CSGO.

>>59086292
Poor faggot, you deserve monopoly prices and buttrape.

>>59086319
>Mfw imagining breaking the 1000 fps barrier on CS:GO with an 1800x

File: Untitled.png (39KB, 710x269px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 710x269px

>>59085777

Nah I call bullshit, look at how there's more detail on the Intel side. There are more background props and distance of view (or whatever they call it) is more detailed. This is clearly staged to make Intel look bad.

And before you say anything, I don't care about brands, I just buy whatever is cheapest and never buy stuff newer than 3 years. Also I don't even game or anything. Pic related is the stuff I purchased for Christmas and it should be proof that I have no reason to shill (brands).

>>59086403
>Nah I call bullshit, look at how there's more detail on the Intel side.
Looks the same to me. Only noticable difference to me is that one is slightly more zoomed in.

>>59086319
CS:GO is just terribly optimized as it runs on a engine that was released in, what, 2004?

On my X5650 the FPS scales pretty much linearly from 2.67GHz to 4.5GHz, from something around 140 to 250-ish on a GTX970 at 1080p max settings.

>>59086403
>distance of view (or whatever they call it)
Almost had it right, it's called Draw distance, but it also known as view distance or render distance.

>>59086272
Oh hell yeah. I have a 3570K and there is a noticeable difference in the amount of fps lag spikes that occur if I OC (4.4GHz) or run stock (3.4GHz).

File: 111.jpg (142KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1280x720px

>>59085777
Given how the 1700 does on average, I think the benchmark can be legit.

>>59086255

really not a shill, but how if comparing to the 7700k for single core performance, aka I play video games and the 7700k for $330 bucks seems fucking hardcore.

>>59085777
GTA has a benchmark built in. Why would you test it in free play

>>59085777
I actually believe it although more info would be good. GTA5 is one of those games that actually use more than 4 cores so no matter what your clock speed is 8c is gonna beat something like 7700k every single time.

Anyone have the Dr. Su thong pics?

File: 1467296306101.png (91KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 653x726px

>>59086477

Dis. They know that Ryzen is not good in gaming benchmarks, so they use free play to cover this.

>AMD reveals Ryzen
>it "BFTO" Intel
>Meanwhile Intel has had such are large lead, they are now working in more important markets like Mobile
>meanwhile AMD is still stuck on the past

AMD is going to end up like Blockbuster and Eastman Kodak, a failure.

>>59086563
i thought they gave up on mobile and started their diversity program instead

>>59085777
Psh, who even cares about 16fps

>>59086582
>starts shit over a 2fps difference when his platform is "winning"
>says who cares about 16fps when his platform is losing

anyone know when the lower tier ryzen CPUs will be available? specifically the 4 core

>>59086582
^this

They eye can't see past 60 fps, anything higher is irrelevant.

>>59086615
NEVER EVER

>>59085777
>40fps with fraps running? i dont believe it, has science gone too far?

also, nice source

>>59086563
Both of those companies were successes. Not everything has to last multiple lifetimes.

File: Intel.png (162KB, 633x900px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 633x900px

>>59085777

>>59086477
probably because ingame bench will put my cpu up to 60+ fps for extended periods of time but when it comes to gameplay its never above 30

>>59086582
it matters at lower frame rates. 30 FPS is like ~32 milliseconds of frame latency. 60 is ~16 milliseconds. so if you could have 16 more frames on 30 FPS you'd have ~24 frame latency instead of 32. more is pretty much always better so yea additional 16 frames is significant.

>>59086563
how's your c2000 doing pal?

>>59086655
ty ive been too lazy to make one of these

>>59086630
You would only say that if you've never compared 120 FPS and 60 FPS side by side.

>>59086100
Why is the ryzen fanboy black?

>>59086710

Yeeeeeeee boiiiiiiii

>>59086777
Bigger dicks

>>59086796

and low IQ

File: 1485947736725.jpg (30KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x720px

>>59086292
>lower framerate at higher clocks
>superior

>>59086822
>tfw to smart to get the better value CPU

>>59086462
> 1700, 7700k base, 7700k OC all at within a few fps of each other

can somebody explain to me how GTAV didn't respond whatsoever to an overclock at 1080p?

You people are full of retards to really think that Ryzen would beat a similar priced Intel CPU at gaming.

How stupid can you be? (rhetorical question).

AMD also has never made such claim as you braindead people.

Also, posting a video with no source or proof that the person actually is running a Ryzen CPU.

Here, have something from Currytech then.

>http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

28fps min.fps to 38fps against a standard clocked i7-7700K.

>>59087094
https://youtu.be/QN2X16Aqwls?t=11m5s

how sore is your asshole right now?

>>59086362
What's the point you still suck.

>>59087170
>i7-6900K

Like I give a fuck about these kind of Intel CPUs.

Let me repeat it for you retard.

Where are the game benchmarks comparison between the 1700(X) and the i7-7700K which are priced around the same range?

I let you live in your dreams for another week until reviews catch you back to reality.

Cheers

File: 1487648296068.png (430KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 680x680px

>>59087094
>wccftech

File: 1482336217657.jpg (17KB, 542x540px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 542x540px

>>59087219
>T-t-that cpu is beating one that's three times the price, it doesn't count!

gonna need so many body bags for 28 Feb, incels will be blowing their brains out all over the place

File: 1394918838551.png (311KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 500x365px

>>59086292

File: AMDRyzenVsKabylakeSingleTHreadedTestIPC.png (20KB, 493x280px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 493x280px

>"BB-BUHT MUH SINGEL THREAD!!!!11 \:("
AMD beat that shit too lmfao

>>59087247
I give Currytech more credit than some shitters here posting some random video with 0 hints whether it is correct or not.

>>59087261
>28 Feb

Atleast get your date right, retard.
They are gonna be released on 2nd March.
It's amusing to imagine small headed people like you sitting there on the 28th Feb and waiting 24 hours to get nothing at all, because you don't even have basic reading skills.

>>59085777
source? other leak shows worse perf of ryzen 1700

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niVGhThMo5E

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-i7-7700K-IPC-single-threaded.png (10KB, 493x141px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 493x141px

>>59087330
>not even mentioning what specific Kaby Lake was run

Have fun getting it past 4Ghz without resorting to very expensive cooling systems.

>there are retards on the internet who actually do believe that it's gonna be overclockers' dreams even though it is pretty much common sense that the more core the CPU packs, the less headroom for more increase of clock it has.
The thermal leakage power gets out of the hand with a 8core CPU compared with a 4core CPU

>>59086033
so where is proof that he own that cpu? i could make same video with shit like this

Game devs surely are optimizing for multicore AMD64 these days for console's sake.

File: 1484857165b9Q0qmS6fl_1_6.png (13KB, 620x336px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 620x336px

>>59087534
>what is disabling 4 cores and OC the rest to hell
Anyway it's still crazy how ryzen has beaten intel's latest cpu micro architecture. It's athlon 64 days all over again. Intel is responding by releasing blazing housefires only this time they jizzed shitty TIM making them extra warm and toasty.

>>59087534

You do know the AMD overclocker tool lets you overclock specific cores, right?

So if I want 4 cores, 4 threads overclocked, I can crank those all the way up as high as the silicon will let me, while I keep the other 4 idle and undervolted

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

Ryzen underperforms on single-threaded shit
also gets much worse results on GTA V

>>59087660
You could even turn off the other 4 cores.

>>59087730
Modest OC solves that.

File: 1467834003880.jpg (30KB, 489x426px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 489x426px

>>59086292
>Better performance and more cores for less money and with lower TDP
>Intel is still superior

>>59087801
this

>>59087845
I honestly can't tell if anon is shilling or actually that fucking stupid.

>>59087534
4.5ghz is it's boost range, i have my 7700k at 5.1 and on an air cooler it doesn't go above 72 - 75c so you're full of shit there. this is also ryzen overclocked vs stock boost, this benchmark shows nothing more than intel has more headroom and could probably beat amd's latest offering.

>>59087534
>>59087330

if you look at the average single core score on userbench yourself for the 7700k you will realise it's 140 and these charts are both bullshit.

>>59086980
bottlenecked by gpu

File: sketch1487807394105.png (149KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 720x1280px

>>59087888

Is it time to sell my Haswell based rig? or is this gonna be another scam like Bulldozer?

>>59087906
seems as legit as the other benchmarks considering when you look at the averages the numbers are wrong.

>>59087913
wait for vidya benchmarks

>>59087913
Are you literally retard?

>>59087927
Yes, asking things turns me into a retard.

>>59087730
The fuck is wrong with this test? ~40fps drops on 7700k?

>>59087866
filtered

Wait what

TELL ME RIGHT NOW if I should sell my X99 CPU and motherboard while there is still people buying them on eBay

If I can get better frames and +€100 I'll be more than happy

>>59085811
how can you tell? it's not hitting a the frame cap and it's not verifiable that vsync is turned on.

>>59086462
How come their averages are so close but the 1700 has lower peaks and troughs? Something to do with worse single threaded performance maybe?

>>59087978
yeah that's a gamble.

and you're losing out on the platform girth. pci-e, storage, ram

if all you do is fps that platform was overshooting anyways fewer cores higher clocks is best when looking at 6-8 slow cores vs 4 cores on meth

>>59087978

Hard to say since we don't know what CPU you have.
If it's anything under the performance of 5820k/6800k then the answer is yes, sell the damn thing and get Ryzen.
If you have either one of those CPUs or a better one, then don't sell it.

>>59087970
thanks

>>59086317
>>>israel

>>59087913
Mark for benchwaits

>>59085861
wrong he posted screenshot which showed that i7 was clocked at 4.0ghz which is lower than stock 4.5ghz

>>59086403
>I just buy whatever is cheapest and never buy stuff newer than 3 years.
Xeon

>get Ryzen
>Overclock first 4 cores like mad but leave the rest as normal
>get Intel-killing single core performance without having CPU burst into flames

how sound of strategy is it?

>>59088300
Bad. 8 coarz is still 8 coarz.

File: intel.png (495KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1070x601px

>>59086292
>i-it's only a few frames guys, d-doesn't matter

File: 2ej1v84h.png (370KB, 759x422px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 759x422px

>>59088321
>b-buy Intel, goy

>>59088344
10/10 shop

File: 1487499711881.jpg (86KB, 720x810px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 720x810px

>>59088300
>>get Ryzen
>Can't oc well without expensive $220 asus mobo
>AMDKEKFACE.JPG

>>59088317
yes but overclocking all 8 cores would use way too much power and the only point of overclocking is because of shitty applications that dont take advantage of multicore anyway

>>59088419
It almost feels like he's a secret ARM project to ruin Intel once and for all. He's so fucking retarded.

yeah this is not enough better

>>59088454
this is why i don't even oc the old way anymore, i just tell the software figure it out and it and the os do a good job of putting 4.4 here and 300mhz there...

but it's always fun to enable 1 core or module whatever at a time and find which ones clock best lol.

>>59088447
>get Intel
>can't overclock at at all without 250$ z-series chipset

File: 1483628859502.jpg (156KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 633x758px

>>59088507
>he doesn't know about i7 7700k

kek

>>59088565
What did he mean by this

File: stop_penis_erect_archer.gif (901KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 500x281px

>>59087330

File: amd named a best place to work LGBT equality.png (247KB, 631x427px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 631x427px

>>59088577

File: laugh.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>59086033
>change video settings
>get less fps
>record and add "ryzen" and "intel" to video
>trigger fanboys

>>59088507
You forgot about the removal of shitty TIM intel jizzed under the IHS. TIM which must be removed through deliding which risks permanent damage to the CPU.

>>59088599
why are people so obsessed with sexuality? are you really that insecure that you constantly bring it up?

File: it gets gayyier for LGBTPXYZ Amd faggotoyees.jpg (33KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x360px

>>59088628
degenerates should just kys like yourself they don't deserve praise for having their brains fucked

>>59086446
Can confirm

>>59088628
Because ever /pol/tard wants to put their ponos into vagoo but they can't because agressive neckbeards. It's basic projection.

>>59088565
see
>>59087638

I'm starting to think that there's a legitimate AMD campaign being run on /g/. That's a cute way of spending the non-existent budget AMD has

Fun fact: The AMD stock is seen as highly overvalued by most analysts, upwards of 50-60% more than it's "real" price (about $6 as opposed to the current $14.3) and the 52 week price range ($1.8 min; $14.3 max) is a sign of such insane volatility and unpredictability that no sane investor would touch it. Such a company ($13bil market cap while overvalued) cannot, I repeat, CANNOT compete with the R&D department of a $170bil market cap stable rival. So here comes the question - how did that company manage to make a supposedly better CPU than their huge rival's current models, something that has never historically happened? [spoiler]It didn't[/spoiler]

>>59088734
They made them the same way they raped Intel during K8 times: by hiring decent engineers led by Jim MOTHERFUCKING Keller.

>>59088709
see what? are you retarded? those are temps from replacing paste inside cpu not fps improvement from 8c to 4c

>>59088734
Not saying you are right (indeed, i doubt you are) but paid shills are actually very underpaid.
Thats why they usually are tracked down to 3rd world countries, where getting paid 1$/hour is alright or even a lot.

File: 1132478145091.jpg (61KB, 641x733px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 641x733px

>>59088734
>I'm starting to think that there's a legitimate AMD campaign being run on /g/.
As opposed to the influx of intel support in the last 24 hours. Shiggy Mc Diggy.
You faggots arrive in force like clockwork. Prior it was all reasonable discussion.
Not it's all one liners and tired wojacks.

File: fx cpus scam.jpg (219KB, 1435x819px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1435x819px

>>59087906
DELET MR INTVIDA

>>59088734
>campaign being run on /g/
>he's only NOW realizing this
>he thinks AMD are the only retards who think retarded shitposts by parrots will carry any sway with real world purchases
lmfao newfag.

>>59088645
lol, u mad?

>>59088778
Wow they could make more by collecting cow shit and piss for human consumption.

>>59088813
Technically it's not a scam. FX CPUs would be beasts if retarded devs actually used all the cores.

>>59088915
No, it's a scam.

The shilling is real. I fell for AMD and bought a Fury. Now I know what coil whine is.

>>59086843
Shhhh, he has buyers remorse over his i7 9590

>>59087888
If the average clock speed of a 7700k is 3.8 under full load on a synthetic benchmark, then why the fuck are people buying unlocked cpus anyway

>>59088628
Yes, yes I am

>>59086582
if it was other way round you'd shitpost that AMD got btfo'd

>>59088012
Why would you cap frames if you're trying to compare frame rates? What monitor that you know of has a frame rate of 110? Why couldn't you have thought of this yourself before commenting?

>>59089084
what here suggests a refresh rate anywhere at all

>>59088734
...are you like 15 years old or something? This has happened many times in the IC industry. Perhaps one of the most significant examples of this was with the Motorola 6800, which in 1974 retailed for $175, which pissed off one of their engineers. This engineer then went to work for another, much smaller company and showed the chip could be redesigned in such a way that made it profitable at $20-30. Sound familiar?

Talented ENGINEERS make good products, not dollar signs. Jim Keller is at the very top of the list when it comes to IC engineers.

>>59088915
>implying all works are parallelizable

>>59089202
>workloads*
fixed

>>59088734
Because intel hasn't spent any money on R&D in the last five years.

>>59087261
intel's high end offerings are stupidly priced because up until now they could be.

Most people are getting i5s.

that's what I want to see. $200-250 intel chip vs $200-250 ayymd chip.

I reckon the difference will be minimal.

>>59089243
in games of course. synthetic benchmarks are utterly meaningless to the average buyer.

>>59086255
AMD is beating Intel on pure performance in the enthusiast market right now, only a true housefire 8c Skylake-X or rebranded 8+c Xeon's could snatch it back
And even then, there's Naples and Snowy Owl coming later

>>59088619
>still believing in the subpar tim meme
By delidding to reduce the gap it has to be filled with TIM.
Anyway, Intel CPUs should come without IHS and be directly cooled, just like laptops

>>59089318
>Nipples

I bet that one's going to run hard if you can keep it cold.

>>59087748
This, just turn off the cores you aren't using at all and enjoy those massive clocks at ridiculously low power
I hope the per-program profiles in the new OC tool are really fucking comprehensive, shit would make the 1700X rape literally everything out there

>>59089186
And you're forgetting the Z80 being a direct jab at Intel that still stands in production, the Athlon 64 and Cyrix/VIA efforts, even Elbrus
And that's only touching Intel's x86, not their GPU efforts that were absolutely wrecked by ATi/Nvidia/3dfx for literally fractions of what Intel spent on R&D
>>59089365
I really doubt we will see Naples with XFR, it's entirely a server chip, and supplying enough power to 16-32 core parts at high clocks would be insane
Though if Intel goes full Fermi+Netburst and actually keeps at it we might see such beast

>>59088300
Bad. Unless.

A. You want to go into task manager and set the affinity every time you boot a program that you want to use all that pep, or;

B. You want to make .BAT scripts that strap the processes you want to the boosted cores at launch.

Otherwise, you don't really have mutch control over which cores the application is going to dump its instructions into. A more effective method would be to just turn off 4 of the cores and use the thermal savings to get a better clock, but by this point, you may as well save your money and get a 4 core.

That is unless you have applications that can use all 8 cores that you use on a regular basis. Then Setting the Affinity of selected programs may be ok in this circumstance.

>>59087534
What is disabling cores

File: gapestation.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>>59087845
>1800X @ 95W beats i7 6900K at 140W
>$499 vs $1050
Low effort b8, but I replied anyway

Anybody who thinks people are actually shills need to btfo

Who the fuck would pay someone to shitpost on /g/

Just think, you could be getting PAID right now!


Also, I'm interested in this discussion. Give me more details as I have never bought more than 65W CPU nor have I ever had more than 2 cores with hyperthreading and I have always preferred Intel since ~2006ish? I had an athlon before my first Intel build. Honestly the hyperthreading was always questionable to me.. never could explain it to a normie and I was "the computer guy" who could build computers

File: 500x_4867917986_77c52e54c7_b.jpg (124KB, 500x337px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 500x337px

>>59090086
This is the best way I can think of to explain hyperthreading to a layman.

Pretend that a core has 8 instruction zones, and each zone is responsible for different types of tasks.

let's say one instruction requires resources in zone 2 4 and 5, and another instruction requires resources in zone 1 3 and 8. Because both of these instructions will not interfere with each other when they are processed, you can send both instructions to the same core at the same time, instead of making the second instruction wait in a cue for the other to finish.

This allows one core to act like 2.

>>59086443
Why even bother wasting everybodie's fucking time pointing that out, you irredeemable sperglord neckbeard?

>>59086292
last time i checked 110 - 95 = 15

>>59090361
As long as the two processes don't require the same resources?

And this can be realized at some sort of software level?

I don't care about these benchmarks until I see the public get their hands on these chips... Only way for sure we can confirm these results.

>>59086462
>OC 7700k has higher max and min fps but lower average

Really gets that noggin joggin'

I wish I had a reason to upgrade from my 3770k

maybe it explodes during the next couple months or something.

File: 1481934157721.jpg (38KB, 393x393px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 393x393px

>>59086033
DELETE THIS RIGHT FUCKING NOW

>>59088061
Quit calling people goyim, ffs. And don't tell them to go to Israel, either.

But yeah, Intel-shills need to stop

>$400 chip beats $300 chip
You don't say!?

HOW DOES CPU AFFECT GAMING PERFORMANCE THAT MUCH?
>>59092084
literally no reason still

>>59086563

>Intel
>Mobile

lol my dude, my Intel is losing Billions in their failed mobile operations.

Qualcumm, nVidia, ARM, Atom and SJWs have crippled this cancer of a corp.

>>59086033
this looks shadier than anything I have seen. holy shit.

kudos to the guy, he is a good fisherman.