AMD BTFO RYZEN IS FINISHED

>>58935261
Source?

>>58935261
The results really only make sense if the quad and hex core are closer to 4GHz with XFR while the 1700X is running at base clocks, as far as their relationship to each other Ryzen CPU... but that doesn't make sense with their relationship to Intel CPUs, because we have the example where the 3.4GHz 8-core Ryzen is awfully close to the 6900k (which is actually probably running 3.6Ghz, unless turbo was disabled).

>>58935304
https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen

File: AMD-Ryzen-3DMark-Physics-Score.png (14KB, 927x482px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 927x482px

>>58935261
>Not posting the other pic

>>58935381

Holy shit I'm scared, what does this mean for Intel??

File: index.jpg (8KB, 154x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 154x194px

>>58935399

Uhh so its IPC is close to Skylake?

Gee thanks for stating the obvious and a Kaby Lake clocked 1.3GHz higher is faster by a significant margin?

>single core benchmarks
what is this? the 90s?

>>58935399
not much.

At the end of the day, the higher turbo speed will mean more to most people than having more cores will.

>>58935261
I'm kind of curious why the per-core performance isn't scaling up with the GHz, but I guess XFR has something to do with it. Though one way to look at it is that this is simply demonstrating diminishing returns with number of cores in the Fire Strike demo.

>>58935381
>>58935261
trash

>>58935399
Intel about to get BTFO really really hard

File: 1482772469937.jpg (5KB, 200x178px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x178px

>>58935381

>mfw waiting for Ryzen is going to pay off

>>58935261
>same IPC
>has 2 times more cores
Okay? What are you trying to prove? That Ryzen will be good?

>>58935261
Intel: 3893
AMD: 2545

AMD BTFO
B T F O
T
F
O

File: 20170129190931screenshot.png (4MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x1440px

>>58935261
I don't give a fuck faggot

Show me benchmarks next to the 4790k and we shall see if it'd worth an upgrade.

Couldn't care less about meme lake or kameme lake. Cunts

>>58935601
>playing shitty boring version of Supreme Commander
Hoyl fuck.

>>58935261
>6900k and 6950x even lower
Feels extremely good. I can finally ditch this 3570k.

>>58935261
>literally Broadwell IPC
>bad
Per core performance still beats all those i5-2500k @ 4.4Ghz people are waiting to replace.
100% more cores are worth an upgrade. 30% more performance per core was not.

>>58935261
>4.0 turbo chip has same per core performance as a 3.2 turbo chip of the same arch

Yeah, legit as fuck

>>58935261
>3 ryzen chips scored nearly identically regardless of clock speeds
>lowest scoring one had higher clocks than the top 2
what the fuck?
Seems pretty rigged imo.

I already knew its fucking IPC, I want to know how much it can overclock.

amd has been working on this for like 10 years and still cant beat intel .....

>unnamed ryzen chips compared to intel chips all at various clock speeds

aite then

>>58935261
>>58935584
One would expect, that shilling is done in a way, that it can't be identified as shilling, yet the shills even developed a signature

>>58935399
It means that Intel is selling CPUs for 1100 dollars that are outperformed by a 500 dollar chip.

In other words Intel's precious profit margins just got fucked really hard

File: 1486575156534.jpg (195KB, 1599x664px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1599x664px

>>58935261
lmao

I remember some AMD kiddos telling me that the single core performance would only improve from the early downclocked samples.

Guess they lied - again.

>>58935760
Intel's training regiment doesn't teach subtlety.

AYYYMDPOOJEETS ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>58935261
3.3, 3.2, and 4.0 clocked chips have the same score

?????
Is that 4.0 broken or something?

>>58935808
the person who made OPs graph got it by doing "math" on this graph
>>58935381

>>58935833
That's even stranger, the 6 core at the bottom gets 50% more performance from 50% more cores.

That scaling is impossible.
Not even GPUs begin to approach that scaling, much less fucking CPUs

>>58935584
Intel: almost 5 nigghurtz
AMD: barely over 3

This test looks shody at best, clocks and performance don't match at all, its almost as if the 8 core with more cache is significantly slower per clock than a 6 core, which makes about as much sense as Nvidia open sourcing their drivers.
Then there's the linear scaling..

Something's fishy here.

File: zen.png (46KB, 927x482px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 927x482px

>>58935381
OP sucks cock

>>58935261
>For the above chart, physics scores were divided by the number of cores each CPU has.
This is the shit you get when you trust Videocardz for CPU benchmarks.
OP's chart is literally worthless.

File: 1482941581140.png (18KB, 417x500px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 417x500px

>>58935261
>per core performance comparable to proper i7s
>amd-approced core count, which seems to be four times as much as software developers has already adapted
i'm so buying this

Will there ever be an honest use for graphs and statistics?

>Show x has bigger number
>Ignore context

"HAHAHA MY CONSUMER CHOICES WERE GOOD, THEREFORE MY TEAM IS WINNING AND THUS I AM WINNING"

>>58935917
OP does indeed suck cocks.
Ryzen at 4ghz across all 8 cores isn't going to be a 95w chip though.
And to make it an honest comparison the all core turbo speeds of the Broadwell-e chips should be listed. The i7 6900k runs at a solid 3.5ghz on all cores, thats its normal all core turbo. Its effectively a 3.5ghz CPU in multithreaded benches and workloads.

>>58935940
>OP's chart is literally worthless.
Yep. Thats why he posted it instead of the actual scores.

>>58935261
Do my eyes fucking deceive me? Is AMD's 2x128bit FPU about the same speed as Intel's 2x256bit FPU?

That's insanity, either Intel's bullshitting somewhere or AMD simply has a far superior branch predictor and scheduler.
There's no way a FPU with half the width is as fast as one double its size.

What is this retarded bullshit? How can the same architecture have the same performance at 3.3 and 4.0GHz?

>>58936016
pls explain in stupid

>>58936016
Doubling the width of an FPU doesn't mean you double throughput in everything.
Zen isn't lacking to any large degree in 64bit or 128bit ops. AMD built it to excel in 128bit ops, just not anything larger.

File: amdramadan.png (507KB, 578x644px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 578x644px

>>58935261
>4GHz AMD part does worse than the 3.3Ghz part

No drivers.

>>58935992
>Ryzen at 4ghz across all 8 cores isn't going to be a 95w chip though.
That's why he put a plus sign there, you turbofaggot.

>>58936090
Accurate clockspeeds aren't being read by the program.

>>58935261
>I took the liberty of dividing scores across cores from here >>58935381 using """""""""""""""math"""""""""""""""" : the chart

What in the fucking fuck?

>>58936168
No its not. He put that + there because its listed on the page, because its listed by the product. It refers to the cooler needed to utilize XFR.

>>58935261
nice try Goldberg

>>58935966
>>58935966

>>58935381
DOES NOBODY FUCKING SEE THE LAST TWO RYZEN CPUs, HELLO PEOPLE, THERE'S TWO EXTRA CORES ON THE M6 AND ITS 50%+ FASTER THAN A FOUR CORE

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, THAT'S 50%+ scaling with 50% MORE HARDWARE
HELLO PEOPLE THAT'S FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE, PHYSICALLY
IN THE FIRST PLACE NO FUCKING APPLICATION ON THIS PLANET SCALES SO LINEARLY


BULLSHIT CHART AND CAPS THANK YOU HAVE A NICE DAY

>>58936191
Nice try, but the topic at hand is whether it's clearly marked in that picture that the chip is going to be 95+ or just 95W -- not "where did the plus come from".

>>58936140
But 512bit ops are everywhere, like in CAD and protein mashing and calculating Pi and. and.. and

>>58936240
what if it's not that the extra 2 cores give it 50%+ performance, but rather the lack of cores gimps the performance by about 50%? it becomes a bottleneck rather than impossibly linear scaling

You guys are so fucking stupid
Can you all just shut the fuck up about AMD BTFO INTEL DEAD IN THE WATER LMAOOOOOOOOOOO AMD WINS INTEL STILL BEAT ROFL CHECK'EM
Filtered

>>58935261
That's nice and all but am I going to have to buy liquid nitrogen to cool off this nuclear reactor of a CPU?

>>58936362
You buying a 140W Intel? Nah you can do with any cheapo $30 cooler.

>>58936248
You don't understand the point of contention.
"95w+" is a listed AMD has used for their 95w XFR enabled parts. They're still pulling 95w under load, but need more cooling to keep the tcase lower to provide thermal headroom for the XFR frequency boost.
The anon in question didn't put 95w+ on that bar to show it was pulling more than 95w, he put it there because he read it on the top of the page on the videocardz article. An overclocked Ryzen chip with 4ghz on all cores would be pulling more power.
Using that in comparison to the TDP of the Broadwell-E part is dishonest so I pointed it out.

>>58936308
>CAD
>using AVX3.1
Intel wishes.

>>58936372
I haven't honestly been paying any attention to PCs at all since I built mine. I have an i5-4690K is this gonna be a better bang for my buck CPU or what is the hype exactly?

File: topdog.jpg (40KB, 600x434px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x434px

>>58936366
thanks

>>58936447
Or you can just wait for a bit, get the 6 core, overclock it to the moon and be set for a few years?

Ayy lmao this just goes to show how the Internet isn't reliable.
>>58935261
>>58935381

Guys, I'm scared.
What if AMD make a 12 core die next year?

>>58935261
LOL AMD

>>58936668
>What if AMD make a 12 core die next year?

PC's will develop AI themselves, and wipe out the human race once and for all.
(except cute stocking ''girls'')

>>58937107
A traps world....we are fucked....

File: ayymdhousefires.png (314KB, 478x485px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 478x485px

>>58935399
OY VEY!!

>>58937324
>hardware is hot again
AMD HOUSEFIRE CONFIRMED

File: 1483514094254.png (234KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 800x612px

>>58935381
DELETE THIS NOOWWWWWWWWW

>>58935261
what you missed is that the 6950k is a 1400$ cp and its getting btfo and this is only per core test

>>58937427
>and this is only per core test
Except its not even that.
The retard who wrote the article simply divided the scores by number of core each chip has, then put it on a new chart to make it look official.
Its just bullshit.

>>58935917
400$ vs 1400$

>>58935769

This.

Anyone seriously rooting for Intel needs to be flogged until their bodies bleed lard. They've been dry-raping our asses for years because of fatnecks who circlejerk over benchmarks. AMD being even remotely competitive while hitting a VASTLY lower price is going to be a win/win

Even if you're an Intel shit, why wouldn't you want them to push themselves to make better/cheaper chips to compete?

>>58937454
shill btfo have fun buying a slower chip for 1400$

>>58937489
yes its good for the market and good for consumers

File: 1476627447983.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>58935381
>how can u intel bois even compete?

Should I buy Zen or wait for Zen+ or whatever it's called? I don't want to upgrade for another 5-7 years.
I was thinking about getting the 1700(x), but if they release a chip that overclocks better or has more cores for the same price, I'd rather wait a bit longer. Is Zen+ going to be 14nm or 7nm?

>>58937324

Do you think they've banged?

>>58937528
Zen+ is going to be 14nm. The 7nm node won't be entering volume production that soon, and AMD has stated new arch will come out every year.

File: oooohhh.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>58935917
>>58935381
OOOOOOOOOOOHHHH INTEL BTFO CHERRY PICKING DAMAGE CONTROL OH SNAP

>>58935381
This isn't fair, how can AMD do this to people? They paid $1000 for 8 cores.

>>58935381
please anticipate

>>58937803
People should consider a brain and they won't waste money on obsolete shit.

Props to those who actually needed the throughput of 8 cores, they're the minority.

Doesn't half your CPU get used up by GFX driver overhead when you use AMD?

File: 1485381436037.jpg (55KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 408x408px

>>58937870

>>58937886
Never played a DX11 game with an AMD card?

>>58937528
there is a strong chance that zen+ will be a drop in replacement.

>>58937870
>memes

>>58937959
pajeet said they're not making a new socket until DDR5

>>58937948
at least it's not 80% like intel/novidya HUEHUEHUHEUHUE

>>58937982
Yes I know, anon, just saying that with a bios update there is a chance that it will just work.

>>58938208
>a chance
most likely there wont be AM4+ if they say they're not making a new socket, since making changes like that is technically a new socket

>>58938229
The reason I say most likely is because they haven't explicitly said it.

There is no certainty, regardless of how much sense it makes, therefore, "a strong chance"

>>58938252
true they havent said that their next cpu line will be drop-in compatible with first gen mobos, but it's pretty much implied if they say "we wont make a new socket until DDR5"... they have never said something like this before so I would bet it will be just slap it in and go

>>58938324
How new are you? They say all the time that a certain socket will be around for a while.

Amd has been pretty consistent on this, but sometimes the newer CPUs will be drop in replacements and sometimes they won't.

For instance the original sabertooth 990fx just needed a bios update to support the FX 8350.

I had a previous am3 motherboard that housed my phenom II 955 but even with a bios update wouldn't support a 1100T

>>58938674
>How new are you?
not as new as you apparently cus you dont even understand basic fucking english

they never said the same thing about previous sockets as they did this one.

>>58935261
Funny with that lineup was ryzen againt intel high end cpus. Not a single i5 appear there

>>58938702
Because i5s aren't competitive in anything but very lightly threaded tasks.

>>58938702
>i5
Because something as simple as Battlefield 1 totally annihilates i5 chips

>>58938688
Yes they did child

Will there be an AM4 sabertooth?

>>58938750
>X socket will be around for a good while
is not the same as
>we wont be making a new socket until DDR5

back to school with you, kiddo

>>58938801
>we wont be making a new socket until DDR5
Where exactly was this stated?

>>58938749
It does actually it fucking sucks
About time though games actually become CPU intensive for good reason

>>58938821
I'd like to know this too

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=2015-01-13%202017-02-13&q=ryzen,skylake,kaby%20lake,coffee%20lake

>>58938801
They literally have said these things in the passed.

AMD isn't the change sockets company.

>>58938821
>>58938834
linus or level1techs quoted the AMD staff at the latest tech show

>>58938855
literally not

>>58938858
Thats not a source, and no one anywhere else on the web is claiming the same thing.

Is it finally time to upgrade from my 3570k? This may be the first CPU in the same price bracket that is worth the upgrade.

>>58936240
hard math, as in physics calculations does scale damn near linearly.

>>58938951
https://www.dvhardware.net/article65794.html

Any i5 with low end ryzens benchmarks?

It's probably going to be shit in real terms. The last time AMD was genuinely respectable was with their AMD 64 x2 and HD4850.

>>58938953
Name me one thing that your 3570k bottlenecks you at, you blind consumerist whore.

>>58939150
I get stuttering when driving in GTA V. Pretty sure it's from the CPU since I had it on both my old 7870 and new 1060 and across both Windows 7 and 10 clean installs. I also occasionally transcode music. Not a huge deal but, assuming Ryzen lives up to the hype, it still wouldn't be a bad time to get a great bang for my buck. It would also give me an excuse to get rid of my cheapo Rosewill case.

>>58939238

GTA V is a piece of fucking trash. I remember having stutters on it as well until I dialed something down, can't remember what, but one of the options had a really shitty implementation that caused stutters. I think it was the AA or something, dunno.

>>58935261
Still waaaaay fucking cheaper for these results

>>58939238
>>58939262
lmao, GTA5 is amazingly optimized and yes more threads does help increase your minimum fps and prevent random stuttering like that guy want.

File: Raja Koduri having a special moment with Ryzen PC-2.jpg (34KB, 544x365px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 544x365px

>>58937557
Raja only dates with Ryzen PC

File: satanya-gun.png (864KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1280x738px

>>58935381
DELET THIS

and this is why im still on my i7 920
I laugh at the clowns who upgraded every gen just so they could load web browser 0.............2% faster

>>58935381
>>58935261
>AMD shit at gaymen
No surprises here. But it'll be the fucking bees knees for my needs if the other scores are accurate.

>>58935261
>>58935381
If I wasn't already using a 4690k I would probably switch. All I do is gayming mostly anyways. Would require me to buy a new motherboard, ram and all that shit

>>58939262
fx 6300 with gtx 970. Not once did I get stutters in GTA V. Intel BTFO

>>58940955
i bet all you can do is load a web browser, anything more demanding makes your shit choke like white trash on nigger dick.

also most people every 3rd gen or so, very few do it every year.

>>58941010
my 7970 and i7 920 choke on browsers and totally don't run games at max fps, offering vastly superior performance to current gen consoles

sure bro, keep getting manhandled by intel if it lets you sleep at night

>>58941033
>implying "max fps" is any set limit
>implying your i7 920 doesnt get raped by a $60 Pentium G4560
>implying you could max out any AAA game made in the last 4 years at 1080p
top fucking kek.

>>58941143
>playing triple A games unironically

>>58941257
I like TWW even if it's DLCs are jewish dreams come true.

>>58941257
enjoy your TF2 n stuff, poorfag

>>58941303
I'd rather wait for the complete game first. Dumbed down mechanics would just disappoint me once the 'wow battles are so cool' thing has died off and you realize how shallow the gameplay is.

Fact is, nearly all AAA releases have been bitter disappointments.

>>58935381
MISTER PLEASE DELET SIR MY LOVELIHOOD PLEASE

>wccftech

Into thrash it goes.

File: 1479185219897.jpg (71KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 620x388px

>>58935261

Meanwhile at newvidya headquarters:

I-Increase the tessellation!

>>58941488
AMD's CPUs have nothing to do with their shitty GPUs that compete with 3 years old Nvidia mid tier line up. Poolaris was decent but still too expensive to stop bonobos from buying 1060. Looking at OP's benchmark Ryzen is also pretty much in IPC but being 3 times cheaper? Yes please.

>>58936240
Hyper threading. 15% is perfectly feasible.

>>58935601
^^This. I will stick with mine thanks.

File: wut.gif (3MB, 592x345px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 592x345px

>>58941497
>3 times cheaper

File: holy ryzen.jpg (537KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1920x1080px

Our Ryzen in heaven,
hallowed be AMD,
your IPC be high,
your clocks be high,
on air as on water.
Give us our needed performance.
Forgive us our sins,
as we forgive you for Bulldozer.
Save us in the time of benchmarks,
and deliver us from evil Intel.
Thank you based Jim,
based Lisa, based Raja,
now and for ever.

Ryzen

>>58941532

*deliver us from NSA

File: g.jpg (324KB, 1280x1410px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1280x1410px

I ahte you all so Goddamn much

>>58941567
Okay Brian, it's understandable.

>>58941567
>default 4chan extension
>not catalog view

>>58935261
Intel still wins in laptop market.
AMD has housefire "mobile" """power efficient""" 45W APUs from 2012 that can't into h264 1080p without stuttering.

>>58941607
Yes, wins, up until Raven Ridge comes.

>>58941607
Carrizo and Bristol Rridge scale to 12-15w, and are pretty decent, shill.
Raven Ridge sill slap the shit out of everything intel has at 35w and below.

>>58941607

>not using cloud on a laptop

File: Autism[1].jpg (1MB, 5246x3037px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5246x3037px

>>58941603

>>58941626
Cloud can't decode UHD HEVC Main10 mongolian throat songs with 7.1 Channel Dolby™ TrueSound locally, right?

File: nervous-merchant.png (129KB, 354x504px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 354x504px

>>58935381
DELET GOY

>>58941607
Vega soon, friend.

>>58941627
>plebian

>>58935261
wait why are the 6800k and 6850k stronger than the 6900k

were they made later?

File: 1393261678186.png (188KB, 298x273px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 298x273px

>>58935261
>3.3ghz unable to outperform 4.2ghz
gosh i wonder why

>>58941704
>3.2GHz

>>58941716
oh

>>58935261
>>58935381
so basically the intel chips have stronger individual cores, but the ryzen chips have better performance overall?

I guess it says something about the shilling when the pro AMD thread is dead and the anti-AMD thread is thriving

>>58941786
There are barely ever any decent threads about new intel chips coming out. I think the majority of this board is just brainless consumer plebs and gamer trash from /v/ who know nothing about hardware.
Shitting on AMD is just a meme. Spewing memes is all they know.

>>58941754
they ran synthentic tests so in honesty until release and they get tested in the real world we dont know.

>>58941754
Only meme/kameme lakes have stronger singlecores, but they are rapidly approaching housefire territory.

>>58941811
>housefire
as hot as pentium d would get?

>>58941800

it's the shilling, alot of cash is in play

>>58941811
>What is 4790k
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

wrong.

>>58935261
>intel had to massively overcuck to be competitive
>new sku will be 112W TDP
this is p4 all over again.

>>58941815
Nah, but 6900k gets really-really hot when hitting 4.2ghz.
>>58941822
>4Ghz
Of fucking course it'll have good singlecore.

>>58941826
An i7 6900K at 4.2ghz~ is drawing over 200w, pretty hot chip.

>>58941647

stream it locally, besides kaby was essentially for decoding perf and power consumption but 4K usage is already niche enough to be integrated on laptops, """smart""" TVs decode that already on the fly

>>58941823
>new sku will be 112W TDP

source?

It's an open secret that the relevant upgrades will only be on Coffee Lake and Tiger Lake

>>58941840
>laptop
>stream it locally
You don't know what laptops are designed for, are you?

>>58941845
Kaby Lake X is 112w TDP on socket 2066.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/21/intel-corporations-kaby-lake-x-gaming-chip-promise.aspx

File: 1399249788733.jpg (32KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x400px

>tfw sitting happy on my 3770k
>will upgrade when zen+ finally arrives

>>58941854
>socket 2066
They are making ANOTHER socket?

>>58941861
Yeah, its the new enthusiast socket. They're putting a Kaby Lake SKU on it for whatever reason to justify an upgrade path. If you could even call it that.

>buy a new $200-$500 mobo
>but another $200-$300 Kaby Lake process
>so you can "upgrade" to a $600-$2000 Skylake-X processor later
Based merchants always giving us goyim such good deals!

>>58941826
You said only the skylakes would be better single core. I posted to show you how wrong you were.

>>58941885
Anything with ~Broadwell-E IPC clocked at 4ghz would have such singlecore.
>>58941884
>Skylake-X
Who the fuck would ever buy that?

File: 1476442411206.jpg (31KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 601x508px

>>58935261
That's really nice. The sad thing is that I can't justify upgrading my 3770. Even if I really wanted to.

>>58941854

Aren't smaller die processes supposed to use less power and create less heat?

>>58941919
Intel's arch is old as all shits.

>>58941901
>Who the fuck would ever buy that?
People who want 3% higher IPC than Broadwell-E.

>>58941919
Yes, but like most things in life there are nuances to it. Every given architecture has a sweet spot for clocks on a given process. There is an ideal range for efficiency in supply voltage and clock speeds.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-9.html

If you look at the data, you can extrapolate power per core at each given frequency. For Kaby Lake in the i7 7700 at 3.6ghz each core is pulling 12.5w, thats very respectable for how high their performance is, how many transistors each core is. Now look at the higher clocked i7 7700k. Increasing the base clock speed to 4.2ghz now increases power consumption per core to 21.5w~ Quite a large increase in power draw for that additional 600mhz of frequency.
The ideal range for the arch on the process in question is probably right around 3ghz, tailored for lower power laptop SKUs.

>>58941973
A few other examples. These are the power curves for AMD's Steamroller in the Kaveri APUs, and Excavator in the Carrizo APUs.

XVR with AVFS
3700mhz: 22.5w~
3500mhz: 16w~
3150mhz: 10w~
2800mhz: 7w~
2450mhz: >5w~
2100mhz: 3w~
1750mhz: >2.5w~

STR
3700mhz: 25w~
3500mhz: 20w~
3150mhz: 14w~
2800mhz: 10w~
2450mhz: 7.5w~
2100mhz: 6w~
1750mhz: 4.5w~


You can see that the sweet spot for Excavator tops out at 3.15ghz. With Steamroller the sweet spot tops out at 2.8ghz.
Every given core will show an efficiency curve like this with the ideal range at a higher or lower point.

>>58938749
I play any BF game, including Battlefront and Hardline at stable fps on my i5/1070 build. What are you guys even talking about.

>>58935769
Basically AMD has managed to create discounts for Intel CPUs for the first time in a decade and a half.

>>58935769
>Intel's precious profit margins just got fucked really hard
I'm sure they'll be crying into all their 10+ year monopoly currency.

>>58942037
Ye, they just fired 12k workers.

>>58942045
Good, no jobs for u

>>58941919
Only if it has smaller size. If the size stays the same, the heat rises.

I can't wait until March.
I'm not buying Ryzen, I'm just excited for the sales wars between Intel and AMD mid-tier processors

Hopefully the i5 kaby lake drops in price and I can nab a good deal

>AMD in charge of making competition

File: AMD-Ryzen-CPU-3DMark-Physics.png (25KB, 927x482px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 927x482px

>>58935261
>per core
>a 3.3GHz ryzen has better per core performance than a 6900k at 3.7GHz
>using all cores ryzen isnt only better than the 10 core option of intel

I see no problem here paying half of the price on those.

>>58942060
What AMDrones think will happen
>AMD WILL WIN THE CPU WAR AND RYZEN WILL INTRODUCE THE NEW GOLDEN AGE
What actually happens
>Intel gets 25-30% discount while some poor children get AMD processors for christmas.

Arrived too late to the party, not going to even consider upgrading from a stock 4790 for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully their CPUs on the next socket with DDR5 support would be good value for money at the mid to high end compared to intel.

>>58942126
>intel
>discounts

>>58942126
Intel will discount your paycheck if you keep saying lies. They will launch even more powerful and even more expensive Kabylakes (an i5 and an i7 with 200Mhz boost on the clocks).

>>58935261
FUCKING POOJEET COMPANY GO BANKRUPT ALREADY

File: 1411943361404.jpg (17KB, 292x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 292x320px

>>58935261
>scores per core
>4 GHz same as 3.2 GHz score

>>58942235
XFR could be keeping them all at the same frequency, but it is pretty questionable still.

>>58942285
It's not questionable, it's fucking stupid. Wccftech clearly state that that graph just takes the initial multi-core scores and divides by the number of cores. It just shows that the benchmark doesn't scale well with extra cores, nothing more.

>>58942311
Its from Videocardz, not wccftech.
It shows the bench scales perfectly with cores.

>>58942235
Whats the 5th one from bottom? looks like a 4ghz AMD cpu.

>>58942192
>Intel
>Not making sandy bridge die shrinks for a decade because releasing anything else would literally just be cannibalizing their own sales
>Thinking AMD FINALLY APPROACHING CLOSE TO PARITY A DECADE LATER is going to affect anything except prices.

>>58942491
Intel has nothing new, only die shrinks.

>>58942504
>Intel has nothing new
They haven't needed to do anything new. And they won't now even after ryzen releases. They'll be spending on R&D for the next generation though.
Till then Ryzen might achieve parity with a 10 year old CPU at 14nm. Bravo.

>>58942523
>They'll be spending on R&D for the next generation though.
New Itanic? New shitburst? Cool, but it'll pass.

>>58942547
>itanic
>shitburst
All they need to do is strike sandybridge gold again tho

>>58942559
They can't. They bolted P6 for as long as they possibly could, but now they need to start from scratch. And Intel is famous for shitting itself every time they tried something new.

>>58942584
>shit themselves
Then they'll just compete with price vs AMD.....
Protip: AMD have only approached parity

>>58942589
>AMD have only approached parity
Newshit.

>>58942601
>newshit
Post official benchmarks

>>58942609
No, you're a literal poo in the loo shill. Intel should pay you less.

>>58942612
>shill
I can't wait for intel price cuts. Thanks AMDrone.

>>58942618
Poo in the loo poojeet.

>>58942628
>AMD will overtake Intel!
>Can't even fab
kek

>>58942641
Poo in the loo rajeet.

>>58942628
>Approximately 75% of Intel's semiconductor fabrication is performed in the USA

But pajeet, you are the pajeet.

>>58942651
No rajeesh main 14nm GloFo fab is also in USA.

>>58942670
>also in the USA
But Glofo is minuscule.
Intel has 9 Fabs around the world
6 in the USA....

>>58942698
>>58942670

Are you two chatting on 4chan. Please take that to IRC, Pajeet and Ameriburger.

>>58942705
Fuck off Qualcomm go sell your chinkshit elsewhere

File: alu.png (70KB, 601x801px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 601x801px

>>58942705
We're all pajeets here. Also Holocaust 2.0 incoming.

>>58942698
>But Glofo is minuscule.

Global Foundries ships more chips than intel does, they surpassed intel in shipments back in 2015.

>>58942722
>shipments
Global Foundries has 10k employees. Intel has 100,000.

>>58942728
The entirety of intel is not just their foundry business, genius.

>>58942722
>As of 2015, the firm owned ten fabrication plants. Fab 1 is in Dresden, Germany. Fabs 2 through 7 are in Singapore. Fabs 8 through 10 are in the northeast United States.

>2
Chink nazis go back

>>58942733
The large majority of their employees are in foundries, genius.

File: scw.jpg (25KB, 570x340px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 570x340px

>>58942719
what's his name again?

File: wafer_cap_min.jpg (58KB, 800x353px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x353px

>>58942739
Shifting goal posts after you get called out for making dumb statements is pretty low.
Global Foundries has higher total wafer capacity than intel, all fabs combined. Global Foundries ships more chips than intel does.
Global Foundries also recently announced they'd be increasing capacity by a targeted 20% to deal with heightened demand.

The point is that categorizing them as minuscule is stupid and factually wrong. If you cut out memory producers Global Foundries is the 3rd largest fab in the world by shipments.

>>558942783
>99% of that is ARM
>Literally fabbing other peoples shit
You have to go back, ranjit

>>58942797
Moving goal posts again. How shocking.
You made a dumb statement, you were called out for it, now you're shitposting like a little autist.
Just give it up.

>>58942812
Go back to making other peoples shit for cheap ranjit, shoo shoo poo in loo

>>58942830
Im not anon, but you really should fuck off. If you have to attempt a comeback that literally is that then I dont know why you are here.

>>58936142
>triggered this hard

>>58935381
/intel

>>58935451
About time Intel catered to my demographic. The demographic of people stuck in 1998.

>>58942964
I wish I could go back to 1998.

Also, which company is Poojeet again? I'm confused. I'm pretty sure lots of people named Ranjit, Rajesh, Pranjeet, Pradeep work for both intel and AMD. Basically this entire thread is filled with Pajeets.

>>58942999
We're all pajeets here. Also, checkem.

>>58942922
>All these Rajesh and Sanjeets all coming out of the woodwork to shill AMD

poo go home smelly smelly poo poo

>>58943012
go back to /b/ child. Its clear you dont know much so retort to this bollocks.
Im not sure why you even are involved, its not like you can afford any of this

>>58943039
>retort
Is that how you distill your poo essence, sanjay?

>>58942742

Shaft!

>>58939136
Don't mind me correct, the X2 "939", the AM2 was when they started to go good to stale, from there on its all underperforming shit.

>>58942742
Jim Bravura

>>58935261
>>58935381
so nothing changed ?
they're still behind in single threaded perf ?

>>58943528
No, they are pretty much exactly the same in single-threaded performance. Some benchmarks show Ryzen slightly ahead, some slightly behind at the same clock speed.

The benchmark used doesn't scale well with extra cores/threads, hence the results in OP's image, where all 8-core chips, including Intel's, are worse per-core than the 4-core chips. Notice the Ryzen is still better than i7-6900K in that graph.

File: 1473359415468.jpg (190KB, 1789x500px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1789x500px

>>58942719
>>58935261