Ryzen DOA because of plain science. >le more cores are better

File: file.png (113KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x375px

The reality is the red line hre. Literally no gayme does more than 10%.

File: file.png (47KB, 770x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 770x400px

The pink line here is practically 90% of desktop usage. at best.

File: 1460137970766.jpg (125KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 600x800px

I don't understand these graphs. Please explain.

>Being THIS afraid that you have to start arguing inverse of Bulldozer

>It is named after computer scientist Gene Amdahl, and was presented at the AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference in 1967.
>1967

>>59081836
Some people actually have a use for a bunch of threads. Just because not all programs are capable of using all of them doesn't mean a 16 thread processor is useless. Go back to /v/.

lol you don't even understand fag
16 ryzen threads @ 4Ghz = 96Ghz
get rekt

>>59082114
>>59082090
>using a high performance CPU for gaming and general desktop usage
nice strawman

>>59082515
POWER8 BTFOs everything then
>12 cores @ 3.5GHz
>8 threads per core
>336GHz

>>59082342
it would be less than 10% of the mainstream market.

>>59082549
yeah but you cant run windows on that

>>59082671
So you're complaining that AMD has cheap processors with a ton of threads because most have no use for it? What about the ones that do?

>>59082673
You say that like it's a con.

>>59082700

>So you're complaining that AMD has cheap processors with a ton of threads because most have no use for it? What about the ones that do?

wasn't complaining at all i'm not op, if people want to waste the money investing in an 8 core cpu that they won't utilize it's there prerogative. just don't run around telling other people they're getting jewed.

>>59082342
Even if an application can use all these threads it's limited by how fast an individual thread completes - single thread performance. Thus, you'll only see any boost in long sustained loads.

>>59082526
99% of business industry gets by fine with 10 year old celerys.
The only people who buy processors these days are manchildren interested in gaming. Don't even pretend your special snowflake neckbeard 'projects' are even remotely mainstream.

>>59082748
Virtual machines exist, anon. I don't use any applications that have massive parallel performance but 16 threads definitely won't go to waste in my machine.

>>59082549
>Nvidia
>2000 cores at 1GHz
>2THz
Wow!

>>59081836
This doesn't matter. One of the main selling points for Ryzen is that for the exact same price you would be willing to pay for an Intel CPU, you can get much more potential performance. If they're practically equivalent for single core tasks, which they are, then why not buy AMD and get better performance when you want to compress some videos or some shit? It's illogical to still buy Intel under these conditions.

>>59082777
>on my super secrit haxxor machine
Or you can just install it on a throwaway junk celeron machine and run it native

>>59082799
That's the most retarded thing I've read in quite a while. Why would I have a bunch of shitboxes when I can have one nice machine that does it all?

>>59081836
The hype with Ryzen is that it has the same performance per clock as Intel. You're a bit late for criticizing AMD for the "just add more cores" approach; bulldozer was released in 2011.

>>59082814
because it's more cost effective to do so and you don't really 'need' it. It's just nice to have so you spend thousands of dollars on stuff you don't need then justify it by saying you do.

>>59082838
>pulling figures out of your ass to justify a bullshit argument
Can you start using a trip so I can just not see your posts?

>>59082873
This is my 3rd post in this thread. Did mommy not hug you enough?

>>59082873
Mum vm machine. So fucking autistic. Please tell me why you need a vm. For muh program testing? Fing loser.

>>59082890
I don't care how many shitposts you've made itt I'd still like to avoid them in the future. Even better yet, just go back to /v/.

>>59082920
Stfu super elite hacker. Kill yourself.

>>59082920
You can always go on your virtual machine and close the window on your shitposting method of choice.

>>59082912
For running more than one OS on the same machine at the same time.

File: 10044019.jpg (31KB, 318x322px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 318x322px

>>59081836
Intel's hired PR on maximum damage control

>>59082912

Security.

>>59082932
/bread

>>59082931
I know. Literally why? Why would you ever need to do that?

>>59082954
>security
Nobody cares if you shitpost anon

>>59082963
So I literally never have to reboot. Why would I stop what I'm doing on one OS to do something on another OS when I can just keep all of them running? Look, it's all fine and dandy if you're okay with living in 2006 but don't go ripping on people for taking advantage of modern technology's capabilities on a goddamned technology board.

>>59082988
>modern technologies capabilites to do shit that you don't really need to do
>I can't possibly have two systems running at once on two different machines this is against brock rules

Please kys

>>59083007
See >>59082814 and follow your own advice.

>>59083024
>why
Kys elite hacker I need VMs because reasons

>>59083032
Why are you on a technology board if you're so against people using technology?

>>59082773
What? Every business I've ever worked for always has at least one high-performance machine for handling the tasks necessary for running the business (running the server(s), running any VM's, etc).
99% of business computers may be fine with being shit, but there's no way in hell that 99% of businesses don't have any need for at least one powerful rig.

>>59083045
>against people using technology
I'm not against people using technology, I'm just against people pretending they need things for bullshit reasons to justify their purchases. If you want it cause it's cool, just say so.
>I need it for VMs
Kek pls

>>59082786
>then why not buy AMD and get better performance when you want to compress some videos or some shit? It's illogical to still buy Intel under these conditions
Shilling much?

>>59083054
Yeah, but are you running your own business though 'Mr. Elite xXskillzXx Haxzor don't hack me i'm running VMs for security u scrub'.

>>59083104
What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?
Can I get an interpreter?

>>59083117
Run it through a VM, you might get the answers there

>>59083104
Are you seriously trying to imply that having employees running through a VM is less secure than just giving them unfettered access to the machine? People are retarded, and using a VM makes it incredibly easy to mitigate the damage.

>>59083081
So you're okay with people buying tech they have absolutely no reason to buy but it's bad when I've actually got a use for the technology? How fucking moronic are you?

>>59083098
Refute the logic or fuck off, nigger. If you can't make a case for buying Intel under the conditions I detailed then you are either a brainwashed fanboy or an Intel shill.

microkernel multiserver helps break smp barriers.

>>59082149
It basically says "if your program can only do 50% parallelism then after ~8 threads it's pointless to have more threads". Real problem is that most actual interactive programs people use can't even do 10 or 20% parallelism, so it will be even worse by far for the "add cores" meme. It's not the fault of the programmers either, interactive applications will always rely on a very fast global thread no matter what, no matter the wishful thinking of multicore memesters.
The only real exception to the rule is purely non-interactive software like for encoding or rendering because there you approach the 95% easily.

>>59082342
But /v/ is excited about muh cores because of dx12

>>59083559
except if you are running more than one program like streaming and playing on the same system(even though its smarter to have a dedicated pc for streaming) or just being a serious multi tasker

plus games are now starting to take advantage of 8 cores

>>59083633
>or just being a serious multi tasker
let that stupid meme die. I keep getting the cancer that "I run 10 programs on my desktop". No you fucking don't, they are fucking idea, using nearly 0% CPU while you are using your current fucking 1 tab on your 1 browser.

>>59083559
Many of the things that most people complain about can be effectively parallelized, but not necessarily in the way you're thinking. For example, a "slow" browser annoys a lot of people; having enough cores that you can run the entire browser (and its potentially hundreds of threads) on a completely separate CPU from other resource-intensive tasks would prevent it from ever being "slow," thus solving the problem without necessarily redesigning any of the software involved.

>More cores is somehow worse.

>>59084558
Y-yes, goyim, you only need 4 core for your gaymen purposes.

>>59082090
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test

>>59084578
But games only use 1 thread, get a 7350k for your needs.
Four realy cores? 7600k is the way to go then.
EIGHT THREADS? Why not get a real 8 core then. SMT threads are shit as we've already covered.

7700k has no market,

>>59084832
Y-yes goy, buy 7350k, it's great value.

boy that sure is some neat theory crafting shintelkun, how can ryzen possibly compe-

https://videocardz.com/66354/core-count-vs-frequency-what-matters-for-gaming

>>59083747
That's a stupid meme for the largest part: When Chrome opens up 150 tabs with an entire new instance of the browser on each, it does not mean that on fewer cores it made the current tab you are on slower, because even with 1 or 2 extra cores, he - the user personally - will only notice his own tab predominately.
In general more cores can run on the background, but if you haven't focused any of that background shit yet and if you need any of it yet, then that extra "power" is practically not not needed.

The new Ryzen 7 series only appeals to people who do rendering, streaming while gaming and similar stuff for hobby.

For real professional purposes, it's too weak.

But for the, let me call it the enthusiastic mainstream, these CPUs are too expensive for what they get in return.
But it is a great topic for you shitposters to build up high, to spread memes.

The 1600(X) on the other hand is more in the price range of what enthusiastic mainstream people are willing to spend on.

>>59081836
you can talk about amdahls law, when most software actually uses parallel processing to it's full potential. until then, shill somewhere else.

>>59081836
>8192
>20 times speedup

tell this to HPC guys and they will laugh at you simultaneously throwing saliva all over your face