AMD thread performance

Yes, yes they have. They come at around the same as intel's high end.

>>59063734
Proof or it didn't happen.

>>59063679
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143/amd-launch-ryzen-52-more-ipc-eight-cores-for-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd

Ryzen 7 1800X has the same single threaded performance as the i7 6900k

>>59063761
Are you literally mentally challenged. That says "AMD's benchmark". Give me an actual benchamrk from an actual human that is not FUCKING AMD ITSELF.

>>59063792
There's videos of benchmarks running on AMD's systems all over the place now.

>>59063761
6900K has worse single-threaded than even an i3. Look at OP. Also your "benchmark" is an AMD ad, not an independent one.

>>59063792
>>59063820
Cry more, little kids.

File: file.png (23KB, 598x138px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 598x138px

>>59063761
That's a 3.7GHz chip. Are AMD shills even trying? My haswell runs at 4.6GHz for years.

>>59063834
Are you literally mentally challenged or just being paid? You are going to get a shitty chip, not me. Those "comparisons" are done *BY AMD* on cherry picked Intel chips that run on ~3.5Ghz. Most people here run chips at least on 4.2Ghz.

I'll wait for the Passmarks on the CPU before saying a verdict, but as someone that used Intel exclusively until now I think Ryzen looks pretty good. I want to see the single-threaded Passmark before jumping the gun though.

>>59063842
>b-b-b-but my overclocked chip is faster than this other one at stock speeds!

>>59063864
Yeah, you're a pathetic crying little kid.
Cinebench isn't a cherrypicked benchmark.
You kike shills really have no soul or sense of decency whatsoever.

>>59063873
I clearly see a repetition of their last shilling. "Look at our 100% multithreaded benchamarks only". They didn't even us an Intel CPU that goes above 3.7Ghz.

>5.1ghz OC with liquid nitrogen

AMD is finished

>>59063895
I'm someone that believes other factors matter more than just frequency. That said I am using a i5 2.8Ghz so I am in no place to complain, if Ryzen is better than Intel CPUs in that same range while delivering plausible single-core performance I'm down.

>>59063882
Are you literally a junior high school drop out? Nobody is trying to trick you here. Those benchmarks are done against an intel that literally run 1Ghz lower than most people's chips today.

>>59063895
>b-b-b-bb-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bbbut muh frequency!
They're comparing two stock parts, you pathetic little kid.

>>59063917
Its beyond sad that you're this desperate.
Full fledged kike damage control.

>>59063937
Your anger shows you are full of shit. Nobody is trying to trick you here. You are sticking your tongue inside the arsewhole of AMD so deep you don't see you are quoting THEIR OWN BENCHMARK on intel chips that literally ONE GIGAHERTZ LOWER than most people's chips today.
Literally fuck off and die.
Shill.

File: AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X-Cinebench-R15-Benchmark-Leak.png (257KB, 841x1203px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 841x1203px

>>59063679
Yes, it's great

>http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/

>>59063973
>AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
>259 bucks
>has the same power as
>Intel Core i7 6950x
>1723 bucks

What the fuck

File: Power.png (20KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x400px

>>59063962
>bubububububbubut these factory stock chips are lower than muh overclocked
>how dare anyone compare performance of two stock chips
>b-b-b-but intel isn't that bad guys
>plz buy intel
>t-t-t-the results are cherry picked
>plz I need money for a trip to Israel

The Ryzen 7 1800X is faster than the i7 6900k.
Its also a 95w part compared to 140w for the i7.

Must suck to be a kike shill right now, you filthy heeb.

>>59063998
The intel prices are the 'intel monopoly' prices.
You're watching a monopoly get shit on by sudden competition.

>>59063998
10 cores/20 threads.

That is why.

>muh multithreaded benches
>moar corez
bulldozer all over again
these little kids are so god damn annoying

>>59064062
Ryzen 7 1800X CB15 single threaded score - 162
4ghz Skylake i7 6700k only scores 182.
Cry more.

>>59064062
yeah shit just gets confusing. going to stick with my i5-4460 here and just get a 470 or 1050 ti desu heh

File: 779e913b7a6ea3148570e30c11bffd78.jpg (15KB, 400x246px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x246px

>>59063679
>mrw an intel shill tries to suck my dick so i spend 5 times more money for less performance

who would be so retarded

>>59063998
>why can I only buy from Standard Oil :---DDDD

>>59064062
Dude Intel is moarcorez company nao, expect moarcorez in Coffee Lake aka desperate attempt to compete with memezen.

>>59063973
That's 10 points below a $50 Pentium G4560.

>>59063679
>Has anyone done any purely single threaded benchmarks to assess what we'll do in reality for most existing software?

Yes, those leaked too. Lrn2google. 1800x was on par with overclocked 6700K. or something.

Is it just me or does /g/ just become shit around he time that new CPU/GPUs are supposed to be released but there still aren't any official benchmarks.

Just shut the fuck up. These threads are useless until the product hits store shelves.

>>59063820
i3 i5 and i7 have litteraly the same single thread perforance, multy thread is what sets them apart

>>59064143
They already hit the shelves today.

>>59063973
>can't even keep up with new Pentium or i3
HAHAHAHA IT REALLY IS BULLDOZER 2.0

File: certified shit wrecker.jpg (13KB, 381x286px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 381x286px

Ryzen 7 1800X:
Faster in Cinebench 15
Faster in Blender
Faster in Handbrake

The only thing faster than a Ryzen 7 processor is the Jew execs at intel wiping the nervous sweat off of their foreheads.

>>59064146

THIS

There is no difference between an I3 I5 or I7 CPU in single threaded apps; same architecture, same core structure, same everything.

What sets them appart is the number of cores, frequency and SMT

only retards will say "hurr durr it can't even beat an I3 even though the 1700 dollars I7 scores even lower hurr durr"

>>59064166
Do you think pre orders count as released?

>>59064184
yeah but is it faster in things that actually matter?

>>59064180
Single-threaded and running 400MHz faster. And if that's the line you're taking, I'd also point out that that same i3-4300 - a Haswell chip - is outperforming the $1700+ 10-core i7-6950X.

So, what's your point?

I'd expect someone on /g/ to know what clock speed is

>>59064000
trips have spoken

>>59064198
Yes. And cheaper and lower power too

>>59064198
do you actually own an enthusiast cpu or are you just trying to defending intel?

>>59064219
This one anon has been spamming the same shit in every thread. He is an honest to god intel marketer, probably some Indian making $0.20 per day, or he is an autistic fanboy trying to defend his favorite brand.

>>59064219
he's just a shill

>>59063679
any info on temps?

File: Singlecore.png (18KB, 1008x279px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1008x279px

>>59063679
>>59063973
>>59064062
>>59064085

Bulldozer never scored competitive in a single core Cinebench.

It's over. A minor advantage in single thread performance won't save you, especially not in 2017.

I will see forward to the 28th respectively 2nd of March when it's validated by third parties.

>>59063973
>>59064180
>>59064203

It also is just one point away from a 6800k and above the 5930 and 5960X. Almost like it's similar per clock
You cannot be more desperate.

>>59064286
so far there are no 3rd party coolers for the am4 socket so even if there where temps i wouldent trust them

>>59064108
I guess that makes the Pentium 4560 superior to a 6800k as well.

>>59064319
Holy fuck I can hear you screaming from here, shill

>>59064356
>so far there are no 3rd party coolers for the am4 socket

Intel fuccboi is so used to changing motherboard for every new socket that he thinks that every new socket requires new mountings.

The majority of people won't spend more than 300 bucks on the CPU.

The Ryzen 7 1700 costs 359€ in Europe.

As usual, people on the internet love shitposting, even though at the end of the day they are surely not gonna buy the 1800X.

>>59064356
212 evo supports AM4.

>>59064458
Don't forget that the Ryzen 7 1700 has lower single-thread performance (= performance in games) than a Pentium G4560.

>>59064413
am4 is wider than am3 = need new mounting bracket
noctua has said they will ship you one for free if you have one of thier high end coolers

>>59064513
lol theres no way you can know that, you don`t have the cpu on hand

>>59064513
source?

>>59064539
>>59064564
Just wait until the review NDA is lifted.

>>59064513
Nice bullshit claim pajeet.

I wonder when the Ryzen 5 CPUs are gonna be released.

>>59063917
>>59063962
if this isn't a troll I really admire you

>>59064513
Ryzen has the same single-thread performance as Broadwell, putting it 2-3% lower than Kaby Lake at the same clock speed.

The only thing we don't know yet is how well they clock. They are unlikely to get to 5 GHz like the i7-7700K can, so anything using <=4 cores will favour Kaby Lake for now.

>>59064513
The 1700 features a 3.7GHz Turbo, depending on the boost it will already match your shitty 3.5GHz Pentium with its little Cache on stock. It's also overclockable and will nuke your 2C/4T on everything utilizing more than two threads. SMT can't replace cores.

Here's your board >>>/v/

stop pretending to be retarded, shill

File: 1.jpg (62KB, 584x560px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 584x560px

>he bought intels 7000 series back in january

>>59064723
Good investment, nothing wrong with that.

Unless you actually really need moar cores.

>>59064761
>not needing more cores
you mean games? ryzen could be faster than 7000 series intel cpus, they already confirmed it with battlefield
anything that is not a game will profit from more cores
>>>/v/

File: stop_stop.jpg (4KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x57px

>passmark

>>59063792
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUndzpdo1I

>>59064843
>could

It won't be though.

If you most of the part use your PC for gaming purposes, Intel CPUs are still way ahead.

>>59064000
You destroyed him. Rip in peace.

File: 1486749307497.jpg (33KB, 600x474px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x474px

>>59064871
but it is faster, you stupid kike in denial

>>59064885
>more cores = faster

I see, an IQ89 dude.

File: implying.jpg (28KB, 280x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 280x400px

>>59064916
but the IPC is the same, see >>59064870

kike shill in denial

>>59064761
>pc hardware
>investment
>7xxx series before ryzen

How in the name of everything that you hold ear can you be so retarded and how can you post being this cripling stupid?

>>59064992
>another waiting faggot

Go away retard.

He needed a new CPU in January.

I will buy the 1800X

>>59064964
I don't need an Intel i7-6950X either.
And that CPU has less IPC than an i7-6700K.

>>59065010
>ryzen was unveiled as kaby release
>everyone said it was coming Q1
>it happened
>implying waiting 2 months is not acceptable
3 or more months is when you shouldnt wait

>>59065055
no it doesnt. intel is just clocked higher.

>>59065010
>needed
>wanted

How in the name of everything that you hold dear can you be so retarded and how can you post being this cripling stupid?

>>59065083
To be fair, Skylake is slightly ahead in IPC - but we're talking about 8% from that Cinebench result.

I guess it's a point if you couldn't afford a 7700k either, but we'll see when their 6C and 4C parts launch.

File: 1486624348994.jpg (39KB, 770x760px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 770x760px

Whats the release date gain?

>>59065237
march 2

>>59065217
the fact AMD can undercut Intel's top chips for half the price shows that kikes gonna be kikes and im not going to support them.

>>59065217
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9

Skylake is 4% higher than Broadwell in CB15 ST at equal clocks. Less than a 3% uplift in MT.

>Shitting on Intel from such a great height they will think its 1946 again.

DELET!
R
E
E
E
E

>not including the ryzen benchmark
>not including that ryzen is also better in single and multithread
kys faggot

>>59064855
>waaahh this benchmark does not conform with what i bleieve
>this not biased benchmark does so i agree with it
Kill yourself. The difference between the two benchmarks is that one is user-based and the other is done by the company that's trying to sell it's product.

7 1700X for me. The streaming benchmarks 7700K vs 7 1700 say it all, still so much fps lag on a CPU released months ago apparently meant to be multithreaded. Unless you solely want single task gaming performance and don't care about production, work, lower rendering speeds, future proofing, etc. then a 7700K might get you better value.
I suppose anyone with 4 cores will inevitably be taught in 2 years when 6 cores are the minimum, while higher core enthusiasts will be cruising with peak cores and thread counts for 4 years at a lower cost
Also simply the magic of how they managed an 8 core 16 thread CPU better than the 6900K at 67.8% of the wattage

>>59065377
everyone with a brain knows that passmark is unreliable and innacurate because it combines a fuckton of various hardware combinations.

if you want accurate benchmarks you do so with similar hardware so the only difference in performance shown is that between the things you are comparing

>>59065251
The irony. If you invest in the 80% shareholders that can easily (and do) raise prices when they corner the market, you're an idiot

>>59063761

AMD's marketing team is run by a bald wife-beating alcoholic who has attempted to silence anyone who criticizes him in the past. I'd wait for independent benchmarks.

>>59065572
still getting more for my money than intel

File: ryzen-is-shit.png (51KB, 924x482px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 924x482px

>>59063679
Core per core, Ryzen is absolute garbage.

Basically if you do any gaming, do not buy Ryzen.

>>59065616
>>59065632
>unconfirmed leaks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUndzpdo1I

unsupervised direct access to the test rigs

>>59065632
>clocked at 3.2ghz outperforms 6950x by 400 points
>costs a fraction of a 6950x
>d-don't buy new amd c-cpus!!!

intel damage control team is here

File: 1483163611712.jpg (16KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 680x510px

>>59065632
>3.3, 3.2 and 4GHz
>All the same

thinking.png

File: fucking lel.png (52KB, 1153x434px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1153x434px

>>59065632
>Basically if you do any gaming, do not buy Ryzen.

its not 2008 anymore

>>59064000
THE TRITH

File: Ryzen.png (72KB, 837x418px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 837x418px

>Those prices
I thought AMD was supposed to provide better value?

>>59065632

>take multi-thread score
>divide by number of cores
>make chart


Hint: core scaling doesn't work that way.

>>59065723
Jewfactory is even more expensive
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-8x-3-4GHz_1144033.html

>>59065723

Given a 6900k is over double that it is value.

>>59065616
>this level of shilling
LOL

>>59065723
those are the high-end chips that compete with i7

So have we concluded the 1700 or 1700x? The 1700x is 100 dollar more but it has xfr and 95w compared the 1700 which is 65w. Will 1700x be thr value overclock king?

>>59065776

>anyone who argues for waiting for independent benchmarks and not being a brand loyal retard is a shill

hopefully your H1B visa will be revoked soon, raja

File: afsdadfa.png (42KB, 1007x719px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1007x719px

>>59065723
I don't know...

>>59065821
So the best Ryzen CPU is slower than the i7-7700K in the relevant test (single-thread) and it doesn't even have an iGPU?

>>59065843

Yes, but the more worrying part is that the 1800x is clocked 1ghz higher than the 6950x yet only matches the single thread score.

>>59065843
What's this obsession over iGPU:s?

>>59065821
this

File: 1487730850625.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>59065843
>iGPU
>$350 desktop component
>mfw

>>59065746
>link is even more expensive

File: exposed.png (57KB, 1584x719px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1584x719px

>>59065874
>Yes, but the more worrying part is that the 1800x is clocked 1ghz higher

>>59066054
Same price as a 6800K rofl

>>59065843
if for you single core is relevant test, then you shouldn't care about 8 core CPU to beging with.

>>59066126
>>59065843
Yeah better if you only wanna play games from like 2005 that are single threaded.
Anyone worth their salt as a CPU analyist would look at games that demand CPU like total war (where the 6800k still beats the 6700K by 20%)

>>59065843
>So the best Ryzen CPU is slower than the i7-7700K in the relevant test (single-thread)

So is the 6800, 6900K and 6950X. If you care about that 20% so much, you'd have to get a 7600 or 7700k, I guess.

We'll see how (Ry)Zen overclocks.

>iGPU

Not this shit again

>>59066120

turbo boost max isn't enabled by default and requires you to download a driver for it if you want to use it in place of a normal multiplier overclock

also, even going by the max boost clock of a 6950x, AMD is still 15% behind has/broadwell single thread perf, which is solidly in the territory of sandy bridge.

>>59063679
single threaded perf should still be marginally behind. if it's the only thing you care about then go for a mainstream i7. if you're going to try and convince me that single-thread is all that matters, you're probably a fanboy, or you've been living under a rock for the past 2 years.

what Ryzen does is basically render Intel's HEDT line obsolete, and give you the compromise of more overall computer power for worse single threaded perf in comparison to mainstream Intel chips.

>but isn't this the same as Bulldozer??
not really. Bulldozer had much worse single thread perf comparatively, performed terribly at floating point math overall and guzzled power like a motherfucker.

>>59065843
Single threaded my overclocked i3 6100 shits on all those scores. Does thay mean an i3 is better than an i7? No, because that's fucking dumb.

>>59065697
Fuck, I should have bought AMD shares when they were at fucking $2

>>59065723
>eurocucks

>>59065812
Nice try, kike.
>don't trust AMD because some guy I made up beats his wife and drinks
>b-buy intel, goyim!

Your people literally deserve extermination

I know the price are a bargain compared to Intel's offer, but they're still insane.

I remember getting my 2500k at like $180. With inflation and shit, i would've expected the 1700 at like $250.

1600x better be that price or less.

File: turbo.png (89KB, 626x685px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 626x685px

>>59065874
>Yes, but the more worrying part is that the 1800x is clocked 1ghz higher than the 6950x yet only matches the single thread score.
6950X, 6900k and 6850k all have 4.0Ghz max single core turbo, it should be obvious from that graph. 6950x has an all core boost of 3.4, 6900 all core is 3.5 and 1800x all core is 3.6.

Ok im a casual looking to build a computer. Should I wait for ryzen to come out or get an i5 6500 (700-800$ budget)

>>59066876
those are completely different beasts man.

>>59066940
wait and find out

most likely though it'll come down to whether you want a system that gets as much FPS as possible, or a system that can do a bunch of shit at once without dipping

>>59066943
Well, of course, technological improvements and such.

But still, much like any line of products (be it TVs or something else), you have the High tier line, the mid tier one and the low tier one. And with every refresh/upgrade/whatever, the prices stays the same within those tiers. $1500 gets you the 2017 high end LG TV, $1500 got you the 2016 high end LG TV, $1500 got you the high end LG TV, and so on.

>>59066991
The 2500k wasn't the high end thou.
Those were the 2600k and the 2011 Socket SB's.

Regardless Intel's Jew monopoly drove the prices up, I mean could you imagine paying 150$+ for a dual core back in 2011?!

>>59063962
Your obfuscation is obvious

>>59065545
SMART POST
M
A
R
R
T

P
O
S
T

>>59065632
UNLABELED X AXIS
GET
THE
FUCK
OUT

>>59063864
>cherry picked Intel chips that run on ~3.5Ghz
This is so, how could i say, done in order to do a apples to apples comparison

R3-1100 benchmarks fucking when?

All I want is 6700k price drop to 200 maybe 250 dollars. I wouldn't touch AMD shit with a 10 ft long stick.

>>59067682

> I wouldn't touch AMD shit with a 10 ft long stick.

spotted the manchild

>>59065843
>and it doesn't even have an iGPU

People like you are what's wrong with this world and thid board. U just can't accept anything. If you are buying a cpu like Ryzen you are probably gonna buy a seperate gpu so no need for igpu, are u literally retarded, igpus are just a waste of space on the cpu nowadays. You are so fucking stupid, if I saw u in front of me I would fucking rage so hard. U are fucking mentally retarded to be asking shit like that fucking Intel jew, go suck off that 6700 igpu or whatever it is you'll never use it anyway go pay that 400$ for it u fucking retard. I am so pissed rn at how dumb u are, u are ruining this board and just making an idiot out of yourself. Please just stay off the internet in general if u are gonna ask questions like these u fucking attention seeking intel bastard. All u guys want is attention now because amd is the only one doing stuff. I bet you still live in your mum's house and suck ur dad off for that nice 6700 igpu. ITS SO NICE HAVING AN IGPU LOOK AT ME AMDFAGS HAHAHA AMD IS FINISHED NO IGPU, AMD BTFO. SHUT THE FUCK UP I WILL KILL YOU YOU STUPID FAG, STOP POSTING USELESS THREADS LIKE THESE U FUCKING RETARD. U made me so mad I wanna punch the wall and hope there's you on the other side so it would shatter your dumb skull you stupid fuck. I bet you are gonna make another shit thread after this one gets removed because it is SHIT just like your igpu and your shit intel cuck cpu. So fuck off to another board or off 4chan, because u can't handle us or even basic logic like why there isn't an igpu in ryzen cpu's. Can't wait for the release to see you cry and be mad at yourself for spending so much of your dad's money on a shit intel cpu with an igpu u won't ever need. JUST FUCK OFF!! AND IF U EVER MAKE A THREAD LIKE THIS AGAIN, I WILL MAKE SURE YOU WILL NEVER VISIT THIS SITE AGAIN. So bye intelfaggot and I hope I'll never get to see you or one of your threads ever again!!

>>59067104
>Regardless Intel's Jew monopoly drove the prices up, I mean could you imagine paying 150$+ for a dual core back in 2011?!

Dual core CPUs from both Intel and AMD were >$150 until 2011 when Intel released sandy vagina.

Ryzen pre-orders starting on my birthday, the only thing better would be being able to go down to fry's right now to pick one up.

Jim "intel expeller" keller making my birthday great again :^)

>>59065843

you forgot

>no iGPU
>trash overclocker unless full water cooled
>XFR is useless
>slower in single perf vs i5 or i7
>only windows 10

basicly overpriced dog shit with more cores

>>59067815

>average AMDegenerate
fuck off this board you nigger

>>59065874
the fuck are you talking about

>>59068488
Let me tell you what he's talking about

>INTEL BASE CLOCK OMG ONLY 3.0!?==!!1
>AMD TURBO OMG 4.0=???
>????
>AMD WHY LOL SO IPC LOL

[spoiler]
6950X turbos to 4.0 on a single core[/spoiler]
Hint
Hint

>>59068565
ah yeah makes sense he is an intel fag afterall