All single-core enthusiasts (we all know they are intel shills

>>59070250
I don't run an illegal trafficking ring of Bluray re-encodes so I don't give a shit about your 99-core encoding performance.

>>59070293
>opens second program
>has to wait for the first program to finish
fucking stone age

CPUs are not GPUs. They will always require single-threaded performance. The memes that you ONLY need multithreaded performance are for idiots.

>>59070318
Even a dual core can do that you autistic piece of cunt. Your 100-core processor is literally useless for 99% of people.

>>59070334
99% of people could use 500$ saved by not buying Intel. How's that for an argument?

>>59070334
I thought you were supporting single core. Dual core is fine for shitposting

>>59070378
Is it just me or does this take me back to the Bulldozer days where people were yelling and screaming about how nothing was optimized for AMDs shit "8 core" processor and not just admitting it was just bad to general use. Is Ryzen going to be the same way?

>>59070488
Zen will have low coar models too

Raven ridge will have dual cores for cheap laptops with Vega GPUs on die

>>59070488
Ryzen has enough single core performance. It's just the Intel shills autistically screeching that it's not 100% as good.

>>59070605
If they can get clock speeds more on par with kaby lake they could almost be just as good

>>59070334
>Your 100-core processor is literally useless for 99% of people.

if all you do is browse normiebook with 3 tabs open and pretty much nothing else, except games from 2008 then sure

but some people do actual work with their computers

File: amd more cores.jpg (96KB, 608x369px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 608x369px

kinda sad that memes from 2011 still apply today

>>59070826
>but some people do actual work with their computers
In other words, Ryzen is good if you're a programmer but also poor (?)
hurrr

>>59070488
>>59070838
Indeed, where AMDfags shilled for "muh 10% more in multicore" over Sandy Bridge, you're now shilling for "muh 10% more singlecore" over Zen.

Amusing how the tables might turn.

>>59070838
Yet they never actually add more cores, they split existing ones and end up worse than intel

>>59070853
>Spend half as much so you can spend more on other stuff
>hurrr

File: 1484937137414.png (85KB, 217x277px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 217x277px

>>59070838
>sad
>implying
The state of Intel shills

All I care about is dwarf fortress, and it demands the best single-core performance and fastest memory.

>>59070869
>10% more singlecore
LOL nah, at equal clocks it's been shown to be 15-20% in most of the leaked benches. This is why they haven't released any actual gaming benchmarks--it's going to be just like it was before, only not quite as bad. I'm not saying these chips aren't worth buying, just that they're clearly budget chips. I'm excited to be able to buy an overclockable 4/4 for $120, but I don't give a single shit about this meme 8-core shit processor. Intel has nicer stuff on the mid and high end, period.

>>59070795
Zen+ might come close. Don't know for sure yet.

>>59070293
TV capture for my own use is legal.

>>59071166
>including AMD's own
Kek

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

42KB, 1007x719px

>>59070968
>at equal clocks it's been shown to be 15-20% in most of the leaked benches.

There is only one (with current samples) where this applies and that one has weird results with different clock speeds matching together.

... Opposed to multiple others, including AMD's own, showing competitive performance.

But you're probably just shitposting anyway.

>This is why they haven't released any actual gaming benchmarks--it's going to be just like it was before, only not quite as bad.

Pulled out of your ass. LTT has a video where it shows the 1700 beating a 6800K in BF1.

>Intel has nicer stuff on the mid and high end, period.

Damage control

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 6.53.07 PM.png (244KB, 1862x616px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1862x616px

>>59071209
ftfy

File: i7-6900K Cinebench R15.png (33KB, 378x655px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 378x655px

>>59071209
How's that Ryzen OC, good buddy?

>>59071218
And what is your point here? I fucked up my first line so I corrected it.

>>59071239
Which clock speed?

We'll see how well Ryzen OCs. That LN2 one was quite disappointing though.

>>59071258
4.3GHz with a lot of applications running in the background

>>59071239
Good enough to break the 8-core cinebench world record so pretty awesome I'd say

>>59071305
>LN2
Who gives a shit what a CPU can do under unsustainable conditions?

>>59071299
>with a lot of applications running in the background

The 6900k is confirmed to score around 1560 at stock, so that score checks out.

>>59070250
Yeah you fanboys have been saying that since bulldozer.