Ryzen will be the biggest failrue of AMD that will drive

Sure thing Goldstein

>>58248809
You're the fucking failrue

I'll still upgrade my FX-8350 to it. It's still faster than Intel chips in multithreaded performance.

Ryzen will make it up to par in single thread peformance.

>>58248809
if dubs OP is true

if not, ryzen is only a little disappointment

>>58248911 (You)

>>58248911
Why Upgrade from the 8350 though?
Seems decent enough for any games (if you Into that).

>>58248809
>Broadwell i7s do not bottleneck any GPU
>Zen is at least a Broadwell equivalent CPU which is amazing for a first gen design on an inferior node.

They make AM4 mobos cheaper and offer i7 performance for i5 prices and they win. End of story.

If you have an OC capable mobo minus the bullshit of Z' boards for 70$ and an i7 4790K equivalent if not better CPU for 199$ or even 149$ and no one in their right fucking mind will buy intel.

The only thing intel would have is higher performance at the top OC range for kaby lake which would only effects frames at the 144hz+ range of gaming.

why does amd still exist

>>58248991
So Intel isn't broken into pieces

>>58248978
Except people will still buy Intel because they don't even consider AMD, it's a real shame.

>>58249066
They can (partly) blame themselves for it, after years of hyping sup-par products and straight out deceiving people

>>58248991
Because they've always been better than Intel if you don't play video games.

>Ryzen is on par with Skylake
>Intel on the suicide watch for the first time since AMD's phenom II
can't wait

>>58248809
I doubt it. Even if it is a failure, it'll be hard to top Bulldozer.

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

66KB, 568x612px

>>58248809
dumb inteldiot

>>58250857
phenom 2 was a joke. Last good amd cpu was athlon x2 before intel stomped them with core 2.

>>58248978
>which would only effects frames at the 144hz+ range of gaming.
Damn, that's exactly what I care about.

>>58248809
Have fun using shit as thermal paste, rajesh.

File: 1480931277008.jpg (52KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 568x612px

>>58248809
LOL just you wait intelFAG we will show you this time I promise

>>58248809
ES did 5ghz on air

File: 1482695406593.jpg (17KB, 319x317px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 319x317px

>>58248809
It's gonna be unimpressive but good enough to keep them afloat.

Threadly reminder that if the legal system wasn't a complete failure, intel's executives would be in jail right now.

>>58248977
Very poor ipc performance , most important thing for games mostly still

>>58255011
And your basis for this claim is..?

>>58251004
phenoms had ridiculous price:performance ratios. great chip is great

>>58255011
Rajesh: The Post

>>58255045
>ridiculous price:performance ratios
They didn't. They were cheaper but you could get c2q for about the same price which were better. Nehalems were expensive I give you that. Phenoms also lacked sse4.

>>58254608
yea, no, not ryzen, the 8000 series fx sure but it really meant dick all grand scheme.

>>58255034
damn near every single benchmark in poorly threaded games, which most games are very VERY poorly threaded.

Its getting better with newer apis, but the apis implementation is fucked in amy games so it defaults back to only really working on dx11

>>58249290
no, they have always been a valid alternative, but even then, bulldozer really fucked them for a while.

>>58255075
the only core 2 chips that offered better performance than phenom II's was the extreme editions, and then when the first gen I7's came along the phenoms kept up with it fairly well.

it wasn't till sandybridge that intel stomped amd hard.

the core 2 era was just intel returning to competitive.

>>58248809
I don't think there's any possibility of it being worse than Bulldozer. That was the flop of the decade, and no matter how Ryzen does, I don't think it's possible to be worse than Bulldozer.

If it's priced very low, real cheap it won't fail. Not a chance. Unless some stupid ass bug surfaces.

File: CPUs December 2008.jpg (287KB, 531x1444px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 531x1444px

>>58255045
A Q6600 is faster than the best Phenom even at 2.4 GHz and you could easily OC a Q6600 to 3.2 GHz.

>>58255075
>>58257496

you're both fucking idiots

core 2 == phenom II in performance

but phenom II was newer and on a newer platform, core 2 had been phased out in favour of nehalem by that time. Phenom II was slower than nehalem and sandy only widened the gap.

AMD's initial answer to core 2 was phenom. As in phenom 1, a complete failure of a chip. Low clocks, worse than c2q, TLB bug.

>>58257626
I still have a C2D OCed, I hope Ryzen is good. I need a good 6/8c chip.

>>58255011
Maxes out BF1 and gta5 though.
Dont know what you could complain about.

>>58258624
I3 maxes out BF1 and GTAV too, it doesn't take that much.

>>58257688
Don't hold your breath.

It will be like every other AMD cpu from the last 10 years, great at rendering stuff, shit at things that don't make use of all the cores.

>>58258653
It'll be good, not the best, but just good. What I'm worried about is price. Hope AMD doesn't listen to reddit shit tier advice like pricing 8 core n 6 core Zen at high end i7 price instead of putting them in the mainstream market where it matters. Unless they want to keep less than 10% market share for ever.

>>58258624
>>58258652
It's like most video games these days are performing well on shitty cores which are based off the low power low ipc low everything shitty things left in consoles. It's hard to go wrong these days.

It's pretty much only standouts are either coded like shit (fallout4) or are older games stuck on single threads (arma3, supcom). In general terms there's probably not going to be something standout bad on the market.

>>58257642
>phenom II was newer platform
That still lacked sse4&ssse3 and that shows in shit like pcsx2. It's one of the reasons why it was shit for emulation.

>>58258754
What I heard was the 8c/16t top binned was gonna be $500 and the lower clocked lower binned 8c/16t was gonna be $350, and the 6c/12t would start at $250 or so, I don't recall where it was from though, its been like a month since i heard of the pricing.

>>58260502
some russkie site?

>>58260524
It was in english, though that doesn't say much, it was something linked in a thread about Zen either late November or early December.

>>58260524
Some China site, prob fake.

File: 2GCJUuB.png (217KB, 1024x244px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1024x244px

>>58260524
Very likely fake.

File: Untitled-1.png (12KB, 750x554px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 750x554px

>>58260572

>>58257112
the es chip on the french magazine did reach 5ghz

amd never had any cold bugs so its easy for them

>>58260629
I think it was that but someone translated it, it was in english, I distinctly remember that, but that was what the graphics looked like.

>>58249066
i do, if they manage to create competetive product to i5 6600k and i5 7600k with more cores/same performance or a bit lower/and cheaper. New games would really benefit from 4/6 core + 4/6 hyperthreaded cores

>>58257642
phenom II x4 only lost out to the an i7, other then that, it was the go to for far cheaper, remember the initial everything below an i7 920 was a fucking joke.

>>58248809
fucking plebs. in my country someone is already selling ryzen PCs

http://articulo.mercadolibre.com.ec/MEC-410620273-ryzen-pc-gamer-la-computadora-perfecta-para-juegos-2017-_JM

>>58260502
you also get this impression from the gaming show case they did.

File: X5650 vs FX9590.png (41KB, 806x402px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 806x402px

>>58248911
Quad core intel chips sure, but even the oldest 6 manages to beat it, despite a core and clock speed deficit.

>>58258652
and if anything touches the processor when the game is playing you can kiss playable framerates goodbye, 8core 16 threads will to wonders for quality of life even if they dont hit the same highs in games.

>>58257626
That\s not the 1100t, that's not even a phenom II.