THIS ISN'T FAIRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.techpoweru

>>56026236
Every time amd autist scream constantly how the upcoming amd shit will be the best ever and after they arrive and fail they scream how its going to be the best ever in the future

Pathetic pajeets

>>56026236
>Source: WCCFTech
Come on TPU, you are better than this.

>>56026236
New tech outperforming old tech? Now this is news!

File: Screenshot from 2016-08-11 14-49-14.png (52KB, 707x415px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 707x415px

>>56026415
>new tech outperforming old tech
Someone might wanna tell Intel that.

so it begins
>the shilling

>>56026236
Did nobody compare to a 6/8 core Intel at similar clocks yet?

>>56026236

This shit isn't even out and it's already outdated.

>>56026411
Moron, TPU reported from wccftech who reported from some forumpost that found the benchmark on the database

Why are you muslims so dumb?

>>56026557
Why not link to the forum post instead of linking to currytech?

>>56026557
If you are going to go with "muslims are dumb", then your number 1 priority would be to ditch wccftech:

http://wccftech.com/about/

>>56026497
Nice cherry pick there. In reality, the 6600k is 10% faster.

File: Screenshot from 2016-08-11 14-44-23.png (175KB, 815x879px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 815x879px

>>56026581
Sugoi monogatari, Onii-chan.

Are you gonna complain that this isn't a AVX2 workload now?

>>56026577
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_5p9wd2dk&feature=youtu.be

There is no way your gaming benchmarks are valid.

>>56026590

Get help, autistic fuck.

>>56026639
Adorable.

FUCK OFF AMD FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

>>56026236
>Haswell

Let me get my time machine.

>>56026541
>In this benchmark, a core i7 4790 at 4GHz beats the 8-core i7-5960X at 3GHz. Generally speaking, Vulkan has better performance with +4 threads than DX12.

File: 6600.png (61KB, 597x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 597x450px

>>56026590

>>56026694
12%
3%
10%
1%
5%
10%
3%
0%
1.5%


So on average it's 5% faster.
And that's with a Titan fucking X, on a nonsense resolution.

Ha
Ha

>>56026236
Doesn't matter much if they won't release in in 2016. Most people are getting new builds at black friday/cyber monday.
If they won't get it our until November their sales are dead.

Who cares, Kaby Lake is at least 40% more efficient and 15% more IPC than Haswell it also turbos at 4.6GHz with certain models going up to 5GHz.

AMD has no chance.

>>56026719
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,review-33276-7.html

Every single time, the 6600k is stronger.

Will you admit to being incorrect?

>>56026743
And then you and your crossboarding vermin cancerbag buddies woke up.

Id be happy with a 2011 6c/12t Xeon and compatible Mobo but board prices are rediculous.

fuck my 750k/7870le

>>56026757
So you admit that Intel's performance increased by a grand total of 5% over 3 years?

>>56026786
Add in Kaby Lake and you got a balling 7% over 4 years.

>>56026786
Closer to 10%, and I never claimed otherwise. It would be retarded to buy a 4690k vs 6600k in (current year).

Is that what you run, a 4690k?

>>56026805
I run a 3570k on the desktop on some 4C/8T Haswell on my laptop, think, it boosts to 3.4GHz

>>56026815
Nice. So you are about 20% behind a 6600k?

>>56026828
If Ivy is 10% slower than Haswell then I guess I am somewhere close to that.

File: 19553521_14219085400276_0.jpg (62KB, 617x497px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 617x497px

>amd virgins trying this hard

>>56026837
You could always run cpumark and post results

There is a very vocal subset of users that don't want to believe Intel's newer processors are no better than the older ones. It's mind boggling.

>>56026858
Justin Beiber is great I know.

>>56026862
It's better, but it sure as fuck isn't better enough to warrant upgrading!

>>56026236
It beats a 4 year old cpu in an AMD optimized game?

Amazing!

>>56026887
It's curious to me why people would even consider buying a new system every 2 years.

>>56026858
It's interesting that they are only a few percent worse than 2008. Their market share looks pretty stable.

>>56026236
Noice.
Too bad there is the trick "anti theft feature" inside

File: 1433301633818.gif (623KB, 360x263px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 360x263px

>>56026236
16 threads beat 4 threads by 10% damn... The single core must be shit.

>>56026921
CPU consoles Anon

>>56026976
I like how you mentioned that the game barely uses 6 threads and the AMD one is clocked significantly less.

>>56026236
Cool, I hope this is actually true.
>WCCFTech
But I'll wait for a source that isn't shit. Still, if it's legit that's great news. Maybe the next desktop rebuild I do will actually have an AMD CPU in it for once.

I just hope that their controllers are better than they currently are, because Intel's SATA controllers and Ethernet controllers for example are basically unbeatable. It's that side shit that AMD really needs to improve on with their new chipset.

>>56027112
I'm in the same boat as you. I would sell my 6600k if AMD would give us a competative product at a reasonable price. I would really like to have 8 cores for muh encoding. I'm just not sure an 8 core Zen chip is going to be as cheap as drones on here are speculating they will be.

>>56027157
If the performance it delivers is actually true, the 8-core Zen CPU only has to be cheaper than Intel's E- CPU offerings to be worth it. I too would like some more cores for encoding and was going to wait for Skylake-E CPUs to come out, but if Zen turns out to be legitimately this good, I'd gladly buy an octocore Zen CPU over like a hexacore or octocore Skylake-E.

File: dx12_cpu_ashes_of_the_singularity_beta_2_average_cpu_frame_rate_high_quality_19x10-100647718-orig.png (13KB, 1097x697px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1097x697px

>>56027018
Fuck your bullshit

File: 2016-07-27_13-13-11.png (13KB, 754x174px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 754x174px

intel will still win in the end
see the 480

>>56027345
This right here. If Intel couldn't supply enough Skylake chips to keep prices down for months, how can AMD? I've been saying this for months.

>>56027290
Yeah, barely uses 6 threads and gains another 10% with 8 cores.
So worth it to spend another $700 for those extra cores.

>>56027453
Maybe that's why they keep delaying it?