AMD BTFO ; Ryzen DOA None of the faggots raving about this pile

Isn't this literally 100% the same meme they pulled last time? "more koars are better always". Have fun with your flop amdcucks.

>>59083785
>@3.4GHz
K

the thing I find more baffling is that for MAYBE
a 5% increase in performance you'd be willing to pay twice as much

>>59083845

Exactly. AMD fags will never learn.

>>59083864

>Higher Price
>no iGPU/APU
>Twice as many cores
>still almost the same performance
>Only excels at rendering High-Quality Video
>implying 15 y.o. AMD-Commies will be constantly rendering 4k Videos
>implying AMD-shills won't be buying ryzen for the sole purpose of playing gaymez

This is bate

File: 1483188927149.png (147KB, 268x401px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 268x401px

>>59083933
>no iGPU/APU

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

66KB, 568x612px

>>59083785
DELET THIS

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-23 at 19.21.44.png (369KB, 1840x1324px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1840x1324px

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

>>59083933
but league of legends and minecraft need all 16 threads

>>59083845
Except you're getting double the koars for the same price here, and each of said koars is just as powerful as Intel's.

>>59084123

>3.8GHZ
>Not the 4.2 GHz BASE clok speed like in the OP

analphabetic AMD nigger spotted

>>59084123
>we overclocked one chip to get it to run at the stock speed of the other chip, look how superior we are

kek

>>59083785
>Uses different software
>Accurate

File: old.jpg (29KB, 477x477px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 477x477px

>>59083785
have fun living in the past, gramps.

File: fgt.jpg (6KB, 250x230px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x230px

>>59084106

>Not sporting a superior PCI-passthrough set-up for flawless VM implementation

>>59084172
>both chips overclock equally easily but somehow stock speed should be the decisive metric

>>59084205

DELET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>59084203
overclocking one to the max and not the other is a deceptive jew tactic.

>>59084203

there are no non propaganda "turbo enabled" ryzen benchmarks, faggot.

>>59084241
What is a non-propaganda ryzen benchmark? One that doesn't have turbo enabled?

>>59084188

>it's new so it's gud
>it's AMD so it's gud
>I render 4k video all the time, I mean who doesn't need such a feature ?
>people who disagree are just old and not as hip as me

Did you just compare a 5.1GHz chip to a 3.4GHz and used that as a metric for IPC? I'm gonna assume you're a paid shill because I don't want to live in a world where people retarded enough to do that exist.

lets break it down for the dumb people in the thread.

>clock for clock it beats intel
>cheaper
>moar coars
>way better at multitasking like playing games and streaming.
>lower TDP
>the 4core version WILL clock waaaaaaaay fucking higher and will crush intels IPC
>better thermals because of non retarded heatspreader
>cheaper motherboards compared to X99
>100% better performance/$ over X99 cpus
>the 1700 costs 289$ and performs similarly to a 7700k but with double the cores.
>intel is afraid at the moment.


The positive outcome will be that intel drops their prices to compete. because no fucking way is a 6950x worth 1500$ now.

the 7600k will drop in price, and will be the golden standard of measurement for noobs which is a fucking win for everyone.


you intel idiots need to realize that AMD doing a good job means we as customers win. get of your fake horses and start sucking your mommas dicks please.

>>59084261

A benchmark that has been performed by a neutral party, not by AMD themselves.

>>59084205
Sauce?

>>59084287

>7700k STOCK > 7 1700 STOCK
>7700k price < 7 1700 price

>>59084294
a clock for clock test can't actually be done without overclocking ryzen chips, which already puts it behind the curve.

>>59084294

>clock for clock it beats intel
wrong

>cheaper
wrong

>moar coars
doesn't matter, it's a meme

>way better at multitasking like playing games and streaming.
""""streaming""""22 kys yourself m8

>lower TDP


>the 4core version WILL clock waaaaaaaay fucking higher and will crush intels IPC

delusional

>better thermals because of non retarded heatspreader

wrong

>cheaper motherboards compared to X99

ASRock exists

>100% better performance/$ over X99 cpus

wrong

>the 1700 costs 289$ and performs similarly to a 7700k but with double the cores.

wrong

>intel is afraid at the moment.

Wrong, they make 20 times as much as AMD, if you honestly think that intel as a company is in any way scared because some faggots on a taiwanese sewing forum will buy Ryzen you are delusional and should check intel's market value

>>59084205
>avg is only down by a few fps to a 5gz oc intel cpu
Bretty gud

File: uhonestmate.jpg (29KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x270px

>>59084294

>it's better at streaming

>>59084294
>more to do less is better


welp m8 you guys sure are shiling hard

>>59084355

>28 FPS

>>59084341
>>cheaper
>wrong

>>cheaper motherboards
>wrong

Spotted the intel shill.

>>59083785
>that everything
gr8 b8 m8

Its like devilsfoodcake is shilling for Intel.

>>59084294

>intel is afraid at the moment.

intel is way bigger than AMD, economically speaking. They are under no threat, even if they lose the compared to their other branches unbelievably small "enthusiast market" [spoiler](read: faggot market)[/spoiler] [spoiler]which they won't[/spoiler]

>>>59084403

>>>cheaper
>>wrong

>>>cheaper motherboards
>>wrong

>Spotted the intel shill.

prove it faggot

>>59083785
I could just write 6900k into your post and it wouldn't make a difference.

>>59084494

Think of it this way: Not only did it took AMd years to catch up to intel, intel was also completely stagnating all this time.

>>59084205
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bwl0QndhS0

>No sight of the Ryzen chip itself, all the shots are angled in a way that the glare would prevent your from seing the markings
>No sight of the new Ryzen stock coolers, which were marketed to have RGB included, which was another selling point.
>He took the time to OC 7700k and not the Ryzen chip?
>Tests only on GTA V, when he has Witcher 3 gameplay on his channel

Fuck off

File: 1487776171813.png (447KB, 1885x956px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1885x956px

>>59084341

File: 8coreswin.png (66KB, 651x702px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 651x702px

>Muh single core
Not even true for games anymore.

inb4 Intelfags call an average of 14 games "cherrypicked"

>>59084516
It's almost as if they were stagnating because there was no competition to make a better chip :thinking:

>>59084538

>AMD is centering their whole marketing campaing about catching up to intel's shit-fest that is kaby lake

pathetic

>>59084457
>>>>59084403(You)
>
>>>>cheaper
>>>wrong
>
>>>>cheaper motherboards
>>>wrong
>
>>Spotted the intel shill.
>
>prove it faggot

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>8/16 AMD $300-$500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>8/16 Jews $1000+

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AM3+ $45-$340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1151 $45-$600

AM4 boards haven't been released yet.

>>59084556

inb4 intel releases a new chip and AMD takes another 5 years to play catch up.

I'm glad Ryzen arrived, it'll drop the prices on the i7 line for a bit. So I'll get a superior chip on the cheap.

>>59084205
How come beastly overclock is falling behind in average figures? Seems this """"test""" was run like shit. Can't trust.

>>59083864
turbo is turned off on the amd benchmark

>>59084570

>8/16 AMD vs 8/16 intel
>Koar numbah is all that matters
>every 8 core CPU is directly comparable.

You can fuck right of you tech illiterate faggot.

>>59084313
>a clock for clock test can't actually be done without overclocking ryzen chips, which already puts it behind the curve.

intel chips are already at their limit.

5.ghz 100c lololol

>>59084341

>ASRock exists

Lmao, Asrock x99 has one of the most expensive motherboards out there.

And intel is afraid. the layoffs and the lower income the past year kind of speaks for itself.

>>59084366
>>it's better at streaming

i said multitasking like gaming + streaming at the same time derpy.

Its a popular thing that is just growing in popularity. but im glad you found something to get your dick hard for kid.


you idiots dont have a leg to stand on with your dumbass arguments

LMAO
M
A
O

>>59084203
Kabylake is pretty much an overclocked version of skylake, what's your point?

>>59083785
what happened to be a smart buyer?
why is everyone suddenly a brand loyalist with 0 brains?

I will always do the logical choice and buy the better performing product that also costs less, and right now that seems to be the case for AMD, see: >>59084123

why did this board turn into a shitshow of brainless fanboys and brand loyalists?

>>59084612
>intel chips are already at their limit. 5.ghz 100c lololol

i get 5.1ghz and never go above 72.

fuck right off pajeet

>>59084612

>you idiots dont have a leg to stand on with your dumbass arguments
>multitasking like gaming + streaming at the same time derpy
>gaming + streaming
>derpy

sure, kid. If you want to spend daddies shekels on a inferior ryzen, I'm not going to stop you.

>>59084652

>I will always do the logical choice and buy the better performing product that also costs less

It's not cheaper and video rendering is the only area it is better in. The average consumer in 2017 does not need 8 cores, especially if they're going to be used for gaymen.

>>59084691
not cheaper? what are you talking about? the 1700x's intel counterpart is the 6900k, which costs more than twice as much

I'm not sure whether you're being a generic brand loyalist or a shill

>>59084691
>The average consumer in 2017 does not need 8 cores

Average consumer needs a smartphone and an underperforming macbook. You're grasping for arguments, lad.

>>59084384
>avg

>>59084691
>The average consumer in 2017 does not need 8 cores, especially if they're going to be used for gaymen.
benchmarks prove you wrong >>59084555

>>59084743

I'm talking about the average /g/, reddit, LTT tier PC "enthusiast". 8 cores are currently only useful for high brow video rendering.

>>59084735

No. The 1800x is the 6900k's counterpart.

really makes you think

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

Icelake will have 8 cores 16 threads and AYYMD can't compete with Broadwell-E level IPC & moar cores meme just doesn't work anymore after 8

>>59084772

They only prove that AMD FX is shit and the i7 is more than good enough.

>>59084779
So let me get this.

What you're saying is that

one should be buy a more expensive CPU with less cores than a better performing cheaper CPU with more cores because "8 cores is too much"?

>>59083785
>None of the faggots raving about this pile of shit will actually need the only advantage it has over the 7700k.

Yeah, but in case we ever do need 8 cores, it'll be pretty useful to have. It's like having 32GB RAM in your computer, or a gun, or a condom in your pocket. It's better to have it when you don't need it, than to need it but not have it.

It also has other advantages, namely better price/value, and not being made in Israel.

>Also thanks for making the i7 cheaper for non-faggots by supporting ryzen garbage.

That's also a big reason why Ryzen is good, and no one ever disputed that. Intel had monopoly for the past 5 years and look what we got: 5% average increase per generation, and overclocking limited down to 2 cpus.

>>59084787
More than 4 cores is not needed anywhere. Intel can shove it.

t. opportunist intel fanboy

>>59084779
and the 1800x is STILL 2x cheaper than the 6900k, while having the same performance, yet you said it doesn't cost less

you are not making any sense, what is your point, exactly?

#59083785 (OP) (You)
t. Intlel

>>59084825

No ? For regular use one should buy the i7 which is cheaper and performs better in areas 99,9% of people will need, instead of the 1700 which is more expensive and is on par with the i7 in all areas 99,9% of people will need, and only beats the i7 in areas only professionals will need.

>>59084865
The i7 is 30$ more expensive.

>>59084555
4 cores within 6 fps of 8 cores within 5 fps of 10

you just proved yourself wrong idiot.

>>59084838

The 1800x has a huge edge over it's intel counterpart (6900k). the 1700x does not. Learn how to read.

>>59084865
>>59084555

>>59084865
Are you seriously using Yuropean prices on an AMERICAN imageboard to suggest that the Intel offering is cheaper? American is the biggest market for processors, it alone will decide who comes out victorious in the end.

File: prices part 2.png (102KB, 957x583px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 957x583px

>>59084890
Even in yurop the i7 costs more.

>>59083933
This is just the Ryzen 7 release. Ryzen 5 is 6c/12t in a lower price bracket, and Ryzen 3 is 4c/8t in an even lower price bracket.

>>59084883
you're avoiding the question - what is your point, exactly? that if I could buy an 8 core 16 thread CPU for $329, I should instead get a 4 core 8 thread CPU for the same price and get less performance, because I "don't need that many cores"?

what kind of logic is that?

you're either a shill or a brainless brand loyalist

>>59084887

>>59084882

This applies to Ryzen as well. Therefore the i7 is the better choice.

>>59084772
the benchmark proved that for hundreds in extra money you can gain a whole non-scaled 6 fps. you'd gain more by dropping that extra money in gpus.

>>59084914

https://www.amazon.de/Intel-BX80677I77700K-Quad-Core-Prozessor-Basistakt/dp/B01LTI1JEM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1487880988&sr=8-1&keywords=intel+i7+7700k

439 < 365

Alright, mate

>>59084882
>>59084925
why would you buy the 4 core if the 6 and 8 core are faster in both games and general applications and cost the same or less?
Unless Intel cuts the price of the 7700k to $200 there is no point in buying a quadcore anymore

>>59084946
>the €360 R7 1700 doesn't exist because I say so

>>59084924

>>59084946
>>59084882

This is my point. And no, intel are jews. If for no other reason, the intel ME is enough reason to hate them.

>>59084946
AMD is pitting the R7 1700 (359 euros) against the i7 7700, not the R 1700x...

christ, you shills are out in full force today

>>59084970

>implying it is on par with the 4,2 GHz 7700k

>>59084924
it's not less performance though once you figure in the average over clock of a 7700k is 4.8 - 4.9 you get literally the same core for core performance of the 1700x at 4.5 you just get 4 less cores and 8 less threads and a lot less heat to dissipate. unless you're video editing or streaming you don't need the extra threads, it doesn't scale in games beyond a few fps.

>>59084994

This. Either all AMD fags are all professional video editors or brand loyalist morons.

>>59084205
Stats 101 only way low,high change radical but avg minimum, is low and high begin almost round error.

>>59084992
>what are turbo clock speeds

>>59084994
>a lot less heat to dissipate
95W TDP disagrees.

>>59084976

Please read the OP image before embarrassing yourself.

File: 1399939605139.jpg (283KB, 782x788px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 782x788px

>>59084994
>Please buy the 4 core
>It's only a few fps slower anyway

>>59084973
well the thing is that I use my PC for things other than games, and I would gladly accept more cores, and if I can purchase an 8 core, 16 thread CPU for the price of a 4 core, 8 thread CPU, then I will gladly do so; it will perform better in multithreaded tasks and it will last me much longer than the 4 core, 8 thread CPU

I will also have the benefit of having 1 motherboard for at least 1 additional generation of CPUs from the AMD side, so if I decide to upgrade my CPU to Zen+, I won't have to get a new motherboard, unlike intel, who change their mobos with each new CPU release

not to mention the R7 1700 also uses less power, but such points are stupid to even bring up

all in all, I don't understand your point, seems like you're trying to get me to purchase an inferior product for the same price

>>59085035
>>what are turbo clock speeds
Lower than Intel's

>>59085035

>Stock 1700x is barely matching the stock 7700k excluding video rendering.

wew

>>59084994
reviews are already leaking, and the 7700k clocked at 5ghz doesn't even come close to outperforming the R7 1700 in highly multithreaded tasks...

>>59085049
>seems like you're trying to get me to purchase an inferior product for the same price
Except the i7 is literally a superior product in 99.9% of all scenarios

How hard is this to understand

>>59085082


really ? source ?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (27KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1440x1080px

>>59084205
So wait,

The i7 has a 60+ FPS lead on max and a ~20 lead in min, yet only averages around 3 more?

>>59085090
>99.9%
shill confirmed, thank you for outing yourself as one

>>59085093
this was posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bwl0QndhS0

>>59085082
>in highly multithreaded tasks...
Too bad 99.9% of everyday use is not highly multithreaded, so the i7 wins 99.9% of the time anyway

>>59085090

But muh video rendering

>>59085035
the 1700x is 145.

>>59085147
The 1700x is 95W, holy shit shills out in full force.

>>59085114
Could you tell me how sweaty the CEO of intel was when you went in for a debrief on how to discourage people from buying superior AMD products?

So, will they release a cheaper 4 cores or 2 cores CPU/APU?

>>59085147
>145W
>on a mainstream CPU
Holy shit, housefire confirmed

Can AMD even do anything right?

>>59085169
Those will never see the light of day, AMD will be dead before those get released

>>59085172

What's wrong? It's barely enough cooler for an intel.

File: df5c790c1108_thm[1].jpg (16KB, 414x130px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 414x130px

>>59085169
here's a full lineup list for you

I suggest you don't hang around here, there are so many shills here, it's unbelievable

>>59085166
>The 1700x is 95W
Then why is it shipping out with a 145W cooler?
AMDrone BTFO

>>59085206
>coolers are wattage marked

The lies of an Intel shill reach new heights with every drop of their stock lel

>>59085206
it's shipping out with a 95W cooler

the 1800X is shipping out with the 145W cooler

thank you for outing yourself as another shill :)

>>59085228
two different people pajeet.

>>59085253
ah, so there are more than two of you shills in this thread? thanks for the heads up

it doesn't matter what you say, what facts you try to twist and lie about to me, I will still purchase whatever performs better at a lower price

eat shit, shill

>>59085274
>I will still purchase whatever performs better at a lower price
That'll be the i7, then

>>59085283
lol you shills are fucking hilarious

>>59083845
But more coars are better always. The problem before was that each of those cores had low IPC, but not anymore.

>>59085308
>The problem before was that each of those cores had low IPC, but not anymore
They still can't compete with Kaby Lake in both IPC and clock speed

>>59085326
do you do it for free?

jesus, kikes tears are so delicious

>>59084309
So, you did compare a 5.1 GHz chip to a 3.1 GHz as a metric for IPC. Go be retarded somewhere else.

>>59085326
Well good thing most cases where I need performance are all multi-threaded where it does win.
I'm not even going to buy a CPU in this price range.

If you niggers thought for a second.

What age do we live in?
We live in an age where everyone wants to be a gamer, streamer, YouTuber.

Games are becoming more multi-core optimised, everyone is buying/pirating Magic VEGAS or Adobe Premiere, all trying to be next YouTube hit.

They all wanna be big hitbox/YouTube/Twitch streamers.

MULTICORE CPUS WILL HELP WITH THAT.

AMD is catering to the market that will lap up this kind of performance/application. You people are too dumb to see it because you're too busy installing LinCucks and arguing over desktops.

>>59085413
posting in this thread was a mistake, it's infested with intel shills, specifically there's one funny guy that constantly says how the 7700k is better in 99.9% scenarios, despite being shown otherwise

leave while you still can

>>59083871
Clock speed is still the single greatest determinant of processor speed. I'd much rather have a 4c/8t 4.0Ghz than a 8c/16t at 3.5 Ghz.

>>59085450
t. literal AMD poojeet

Guys, guys, guys.

GPUs matter a lot more than CPUs anyway.

>>59084205
R7 1700 is the eco-friendly SKU for green power saving PCs, consumes 2/3 the power of 7700K.

It's just not for gayming, that's what 1700X is for.

File: 1448772671656.gif (481KB, 499x315px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 499x315px

>>59085499
nice assumption, too bad you're wrong

>>59083785
Clock the ryzen at 4.2 and then cry yourself to sleep

>>59085515
>the $400 CPU is for gaymen
>when a 7700K is faster in almost all gaymes as well as cheaper
AMDrone delusion

>>59085413
Holy shit this, everyday computer use is a multithreaded workload

>>59085103
that benchmark is obviously fake but intel shills can't into math

>>59085462
>still believing the GHz myth
What is this? 1999?

File: intel is death process.png (90KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x720px

>>59083785
Fresh MEMe out of the oven

>>59085545
But not one that requires 16 ( S I X T E E N ) threads

>>59085598
If I'm already maxing out eight already, what should i do?

>inb4 streamline workflow
Get fucked nigger this isn't my workflow, and hardware shouldn't set your limitations

>>59084555
I'll be that guy but they literally cherry picked half of those games, then cherry picked the other half for intel.

wow, this is quite the shill infested thread.

I'll just post how I decided on a CPU/PC:

What do I want to do ?

>PCI-Passthrough VM: Linux <-> Windows 10 & 7
>Decent Gaymen performance
>Music Shit

What do I need ?

>iommu support
>UEFI
>iGPU
>decent GPU
>A lot of RAM
>1080p dual monitor setup

What will I get ?

>i7 7700k
>RX480
>32 Gb DDR4 RAM
>Z270 Mainboard

Why will I get what I'll get ?

>Cheaper than getting a 1700x and a second GPU, Great iommu support, Enough Performance
>Good Bang for the Buck
>VMs need a lot of RAM
>iommu support, RAM support, USB 3.1

There. I came to that decision without shilling and without cursing on the internet.

>>59083785

>4 cores vs 8 cores
>no OC benchmark for the R7 1700x (it affects the overall score)

Fucking imbecile. Here's a more relevant comparison:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Turbo-Disabled/3605vs3915

>>59085747
>7700k
>good bang/buck

anon, i.....

>>59085835

Not in general. But in the context of my set up.

I'll wait for reliable Ryzen Benchmarks though. i7 prices will probably drop as well.

>>59085835
>cheaper than the 1700X
>faster in the vast majority of scenarios
It most definitely is.

>>59085536
7700K is just quadcore. Quadcores are the new dualcores, they will be falling behind in 1-2 years.

>>59083785
After browsing /g/ for the last couple of days it's kind of crazy to think that there are people lurking and posting who are actually getting paid to promote their brand an banter against the opposing company.

Stay on your feet /g/entoomen and only buy what you think the best price/performance processor is for your budget, regardless of company.

>>59083785
>none of you needs 8 core processing power.

>doesn't run gentoo
>laughing whores.gif

Zen considers itself to be enthusiast platform but it has only 24 pcie lanes, what's up with that ? Why are we still being limited to so few pcie lanes for so long ?

>>59083785
>1 user benchmark
lmao bro

>>59085956
Gotta cut costs everywhere to keep price down, so they can go "LOOK AT ALL THESE CORES FOR THE MONEY" when in reality they're inferior to Intel's lineup

>>59085855
Not than the upcoming R5 1600X though mate.

There won't be a single budget point where getting an i7-7700K will make sense. As soon as it gets within budget to "upgrade" to one from Ryzen, that money would always be better spent on a better GPU.

>>59085956
So first it was
>8 cores is too much

And now suddenly enthusiasts are the main focus for the shills so they
>oh my only 24 pcie lanes, average consumer totally needs twice that!

>>59085990
The 1600X will be slower than the 7700K in every scenario, and slower than the 7600K in 99% of everyday usage

>>59083785
ultimate damage control mode engaged

File: 1467322047208.jpg (540KB, 1100x1002px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1100x1002px

>>59083785

>>59085956
keeps motherboards cheap.

if you're one of the 0.01% of people who run quad SLI setups by all means go with X99. Intel has a nice niche platform for you now.

>>59086019
Anything to back up your claim?

>>>/v/

>>59085910
Shills have been an actual thing on 4chan since 2005ish
Consolewar threads were the start of it on /v/ - the whole fanboy phenomenon is less fanboy and more shills + fanboys. It's only grown from there. It's really bad on any board that has to do with mainstream products - /mu/, /fa/, /tv/, /g/, /v/; the more internet-connected the product and customers, the more it gets shilled online.

Microsoft's been shilling online since before 2000. Slashdot used to be a common place for them to infest.

>>59086019
lol no, but even if it was you're forgetting that it'll be half the price. Like I said, at no budget point will the i7-7700K come out on top, for gaming at least.

>>59086107
The 7700K is already faster than the 1700X, why would the 1600X with half the cores and half the threads at the same (uncompetitive) IPC be any faster than the 7700K?

>>59086001
I never said average consumer needs it, but I considered Zen to be competition for X99, with only 24 lanes it simply cannot compete. And at the same time it sucks to overpay several hundred of dollars for that one overlooked feature, even if 0.01% of people use it, this is what enthusiasts look for.

>>59086158
>uncompetitive IPC
Nearly every single leaked benchmark we have seen puts Ryzen either equal to or better than Kaby Lake IPC.

The ONLY thing Kaby Lake has going for it is clock speed.

Before Ryzen
>gaming is for children
After Ryzen
>g-gaming performance is w-what matters
Never change /g/

>>59086158
Everything in this post is wrong

File: ipc.png (25KB, 454x419px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 454x419px

>>59083785

>>59085747
>4 core for VGA passthrough
Please don't do that to yourself.
You're either limiting your Linux host or Windows guest to dual core (or 3/1 if you're doing it that way)and the experience is terrible that way.

Who here is going to buy another KabyLake CPU as a big "F" you to amd?

I know I am.

>>59086269

Thanks for the input. I'll definitely wait for the Ryzen benches before i buy anything.

>>59086231
#sharkweek

>>59086158
>The 7700K is already faster than the 1700X
the 7700K is actually much slower overall. it only has the edge in lightly threaded workloads.

in comparison to the 1700X it will lose at the following
>well-programmed engines
>new graphics APIs
>production or development work
>running software and games in parallel
>multiple games at once (eg single player game while waiting on esport queues)
>power draw and cooling requirements
>virtualization
and just be a shittier product overall

thankfully for Intel they can rely on their legion on fanboys to carry them on the "m-muh single core... it's still 2011 guys..." premise until they make a better uarch

File: 1483292918938.jpg (225KB, 762x868px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 762x868px

>>59085462
>he didn't see amd OC tool which allows for custom clocks and turning off cores for different threaded workloads

silly

File: 1486335952367.gif (1MB, 640x319px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x319px

Those threads showed me that actual paid shills do exist. Or maybe it's actually really butthurt Intel owners getting their kick by defending an overpriced piece of hardware. I'm a 6700k owner myself and cause of the bad past AMD experience I wouldn't buy it AMD BUT I can't deny I got duped cause people who waited half a year will get a high end 6c/12t or entry level 8c/16t CPU for the price of my 4c/8t one. Intel isn't BTFO or DOA but it only shows how bad can things get when you have no competition and one massive Goliath of a company charges you 300% extra for no reason. And no I'm not defending any companies here. I'm sure AMD and Nvidia would do the same exact thing if they were in Intel's position. Nvidia at least has to somewhat try and AMD's latest fuck ups in GPU department already brought us a $100 higher price tag across the board when compared to 900 series.


My point is: There is absolutely no fucking reason for you to be upset. Even if you hate AMD or Intel with burning passion and because of bad personal experience you cannot justify buying one of them there is absolutely no reason for you to wish one of them dying. WE NEED competition as customers.

>>59085747
You do not want 4c CPU and AMD GPU for Linux and PCI passthrough, holy fuck

>>59086269
show me a vm hypervisor that can actually dedicate entire cores to a VM

most likely it'll just spread vCPUs across all logical CPUs available to it (in this case, threads) as efficiently as it can

8c/16t will definitely be at an advantage here, but 4c/8t does not limit neither the guest nor the host to 2 cores

>>59086340
t. AMD Shill

File: spec.png (77KB, 819x593px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 819x593px

>>59086359
.t retarded shitposter who gets his kicks from blatant shilling and false flagging while posting smug anime faces.

>>59086019
>slower than the 7600K
Maybe slightly slower in terms of single-core performance but that's it. As for the i7-7700K it's in a completely different price range than the R5 1600X.

>>59086358

libvirt / virt-manager

>>59086358
unraid

>>59086370
It's not even slower single core and the 1600x has more cores than a 7700k

File: 1316839860781.jpg (22KB, 195x195px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 195x195px

>>59083785
>Quad-Core 7700K at 5.1GHz
vs
>8 Core Ryzen at 3.4GHz
boi

>>59086392

Can you read ?

>>59086392
3.4 GHz is the best the 1700X can do. And it costs just $20 more!!

>>59086184
>/g/ is 1 person

These posts are the epitome of fucking plebbit.
>This!
>I saw what you did thereXD

I haven't been to leddit in over 4 years and the scars run deep. You have to go back

>>59086340
I just bought i3 6100 recently for itx build which i lug around often. AMD don't really have muh choice in ITX when comes to performance at a budgeted sector, the APUs they have don't really meet my thermal and performance needs.

But with AMD's ryzen its good it happened to knock prices down both side.

Daily reminder only the 1700 (not the 'X' model) comes with a heatsink/fan. WOF means "without fan".

>>59083933
>sole purpose of playing gaymez
>no iGPU

>>59085398
Literally nobody on this board gets the whole concept of IPC, and just screams about how intel at 5GHZ beats AMD at 3.4 thus intel is better. This like the reverse 9590 scenario, where intel needs to have high clocks to compare at all. Kaby Lake is the new FX 9590

>>59085413
The best part is all the LinCuck people who don't use it for any sort of actual work (90% of them) are probably also running Celeron-tier CPUs, so neither the i7s nor the Ryzen 7s should matter to them.

>>59085835
He was talking about the RX 480

I haven't built a PC in over 6 years, but I'm glad Intel vs AMD shitposts are back.

File: images.duckduckgo.png (15KB, 750x960px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 750x960px

>>59084192
>flawless VM implementation
>Tfw no VFIO, only stub

>>59088895
>using VFIO passthrough trash instead of vgpu god tech

File: passthrough.jpg (216KB, 857x1202px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 857x1202px

>>59089029
Wish I could shell out the shekels for one.

>>59089129
>AMD release this to consumer cards pls
i will jail my shitty win in vm so tight not even bill gates microdick can slip though the cracks

>>59086334
>tfw modern day musicians can't even stub each other to death 23 times due to artistic differences

>>59084106
>>59088690
no self respecting gamer uses the integrated bullshit anyways. wtf are you even on about?

File: file.png (258KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 568x612px

>>59084973
AMD has their own ME equivalent based on Trustzone, stupid nigger.

File: Another Major Disappointment.jpg (12KB, 495x91px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 495x91px

>>59084970
>We just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard, the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM’s were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I’d say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two.

https://www.amazon.com/ROG-Crosshair-VI-Hero-Motherboard/dp/B06W2L6GBX

>$255 mobo just to oc 200mhz more
>4.5ghz is out of reach on any r7
>max would be 4.2-4.3ghz on 1800x which nobody will buy since it would cost $750 with mobo and ram
>r7 1700 won't oc more than 3.8ghz like ever

AMD ON SUICIDE WATCH LIKE NEVER BEFORE, RYZEN CONFIRMED BULLDOZER 2.0 & DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL

File: hd1v9pd.png (802KB, 1074x1513px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 1074x1513px

>>59086370
> i7-7700K it's in a completely different price range than the R5 1600X.

wrong,

>>We just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard ($255), the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM’s were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I’d say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two.

So if we assume it will also be true for 6c/12ht you would need to buy expensive mobo $255 just to able oc more than ~4.2ghz. Well then it would cost way more than i7 7700k with $100 mobo. And would still be underperforming vs 4.8-5.0ghz i7

>>59084294
You forgot to mention that not only is it cheaper, but it also actually comes with a cooler

>>59084159
So, what would happen if in the benchmark above the two processors were clocked the same?

>>59085291
the intel does perform better, the one in ops pic isn't even fully boosted let alone overclocked, do it to both i will bet it still outperforms.

>>59084159
it's base boost is 4.5

>>59092329
you would have to overclock ryzen significantly to match the boost of kaby or underclock kaby significantly. it would also be a terrible real world test.

>>59092038
>1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3
more like 5, but good try

File: aloe vera gelly cream.jpg (37KB, 493x289px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 493x289px

>>59092828
>more like 5, but good try

>>59085326
if an 8c could clock as high as a 4c then intel would have been trully on a suicide watch

on the same price bracket the 1700x is massivelly better option

>>59084588
the game is a mess nothing wrong with the test..

tho i wonder why they choose the lower 1700 and not the x hehe

>>59092964
I'm having fun watching all these Intelshits digging their own grave with "b-but muh single core" when 1600x is about to hit the dance floor

>>59092038
really? can you show me a 4.5ghz 8c intel that is stable enough on a daily basis?

That's it. Fight on behalf of the companies. Get ANGRY.

>>59083785
Lmao that's what I've been saying for ages

AMD is both more expensive and slower than Intel, it's sad really

Literally no reason to buy Ryzen

>>59084205
Fucking hilarious

Ryzen is such a fucking piece of shit

>>59092038

specifically, what other mobos did you test?

that ASRock Fatal1ty X370 mobo looked saucy 16 phases. build quality has only been going up for them through the years.

>>59085009
They're brand loyalist morons.

AMDtards are the worst possible creatures on earth. Buying clearly inferior hardware and actually bragging about it, seriously awful people.

>>59085855
This

7700K destroys everything in Ryzen. It's just fucking sad to be honest. AMD cannot compete at all anymore.

>>59086340
You retard look at the actual fucking benchmarks

AMD is getting destroyed by Intel's LAST GEN processors, it's pathetic.

>>59093163
>getting destroyed

oh yes kinda like the gta video choosing the 1700 instead of the x like we are some kind of an idiots

>>59086334
>implying itll get anything more the 300 niggerhrts

>>59083785
>None of the faggots raving about this pile of shit will actually need the only advantage it has over the 7700k. None of you renders fucking 4k video on a daily basis, none of you needs 8 core processing power.

Tell me, what does make's -j argument do?

>>59086334
ok.

>>59085462
my fx 9590 is at 4.7 ghz, does that mean its good?

>>59083785
>would buy ryzen to do GPU passthrough and give the windows VM a nice amount of cores
>no iGPU that would power be Linux environment

Yeah no. The one thing that more cores is useful for and I can't even use it without getting two graphics cards.

>>59085587
Kek. Too bad that movie was overhyped pseudointellectual garbage

>>59083785
it wins on workstation.

what more do you need?

Can wait for 1400x to toe to toe with 7700k
[spoiler]:^)[/spoiler]

>>59083785
4.4 vs 3.4 ghz

at least use same clock on both to compare performance per hz, since you are comparing single core performance

>>59084214
>>59093105

average performance keeps up with 7700k.

might be because of shitty board or slow ram

>>59083785
>none of you needs 8 core processing power
True. 8 cores is a step back. Even 16 cores is becoming constricting...

>>59083785
Are 1700 1700x and 1800x only diffeernt bins of same shit?

I an super thrilled to see their OC performans.
the X ones are just automated OC that nobody really needs because there's still manual OC.
Right?

>>59083933
How does windows get installed on it if it doesn't have an iGPU? Winshit has no graphic drivers by default. If it didn't have some sort of integrated graphics you'd be looking at a blank screen.
And a mere 2% gaymin performance difference doesn't mean shit.

File: file.png (27KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 800x600px

AMD BTFO

>>59095128
The entire ryzen series are different bins of the same shit.

I'm not a gaymer, I don't give a shit.

>>59084555
consoles use AMD hardware(CPU AND GPU), you can expect AMD to have a good advantage.

and since they use a multi core AMD CPU you can be fucking sure that multicore will give you better performance in games in the near future

+ it's a LOT easier for devs to port games onto PC because they don't have these stupid IBM cell/xenon CPUs

and buying a 4core for >=350€(7700k) is the most retarded thing you can do, especially if it runs on it's limit already and can't OC much out of it compared to others

>>59083864
this

lets look at peak o/c bench.

5.1/3.4 is 1.5. 50% higher clock
37% better performance.

5.1 is prob a delid on a custom loop.

>>59084205
>5ghz
>average goes down

what

>>59084494
With the difference that 6900K is not for mainstream

>>59095147

u wut m8?

I think even XP had basic gpu drivers.

>>59095181
Throttling

>>59084140
And yet the mentally ill that play this cant afford decent pc parts hence playing potato games.

>>59095147
>what is a software based renderer

>>59095407
>how many on here can honestly say they use programmes like blendr on a daily basis. (on their personal pc's)

>>59095459
I use blender to make 3d anthro pony porn.

>>59095471
mein gott.

>>59085898
>>59085536
Gaymers will be getting the 1600X/1400X anyway and putting the money saved on a better gpu

>>59095574
Actually getting a top end CPU and a mid-end GPU and then getting a new generation mid-end GPU is a better option.

>>59095574
so all the amd ones who cry shill and claim nvidia jews are killing the market will now be buying them as they can now actually afford them??

>>59095593
idk, I have zero brand loyalty so your words are lost on me

File: 1472745035467.png (154KB, 505x479px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 505x479px

>>59095111
>nobody writes parallel code

>>59093026
Because the 1700's stock clock is even lower than that of the 1700X. It would give Intel a slight advantage at stock clokcs given the IPCs are the same (as the 7700k is a whole 1.2GHz higher stock)

What they forget to mention is the fact that Ryzen has already busted OC world records that can survive Cinebench, and I'm just waiting for someone to push a 1700 to 8 or so GHz on He(l) cooling

>>59095574
>Gaymers will be getting the 1600X/1400X anyway
Only the retarded ones.
The smart ones will get either 1100, 1300, 1500 or 1700 and OC them themself instead of relying on the XFR shit.

File: From vid.png (64KB, 499x498px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 499x498px

>>59084529
>>59084214
>>59084355
>>59085034
>>59085103

Looks like a 8XXX chip sitting the the am4 socket to me. Like a cunt with 0 subs would get a chip pre release.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bwl0QndhS0

>>59095742
Oh, I hadn't read up on how Ryzen overclocks yet as I'm not in a position to upgrade. If that's the case, that's even better.

>>59085114
Why do people keep saying this? It's not true at all. Your operating system alone uses multiple threads.

Any game with an internet connection has AT LEAST 2 threads. Using a music player will take another 2 threads. Having a browser open will use 2+ threads. Having discord/Skype/etc is another 3+ threads. That right there takes up your 8 threads.

If you don't have more (or equal) threads than what you are using, then your processor threads are splitting time between your applications. The above example doesn't even account for OS drivers running.

ryzen is fucking overrated. you fucking underage shitkids are so fucking retarded. it's almost as bad as when you thought poolaris wasn't shit. unless you're doing multi-threaded workloads like video encoding you probably don't have much use for 8 cores @ <4 GHz vs 4 cores @ 5 GHz

File: AMD-Ryzen-Engineering-Sample-2.jpg (46KB, 800x607px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x607px

>>59095754


that's an engineering sample

>>59097207
>let's keep consumer technology stalled on 10 years old tech for the sake of sucking more kike cock.

>>59095147
Damn you're stupid as fuck bro

>>59097207
>less cores is better

I love intel damage control

>>59085114
YEAH 99.9% BETTER FOR 2000% THE PRICE LMFAO

>>59083785
>20% clock difference
>13% difference
OC it and it's parity. It actually is in almost-parity regarding IPC

Also
>have 50% more cores
>perform 59% better
How do they do it?

>>59097207
>We don't have multi-thread applications, you dont need more coars
You know why software is not made for more threads? Because nobody fucking has more of them, it's catch 22.

>>59097211
Weren't the neering samples lower clocked?

>>59097447


nope

though there's a 800 mhz difference between a stock R7 1700 and a stock 7700K

if you OC the R7 1700 to 4.2 ghz it's as good as a 7700K in singlethreading and destroys it in multithreading

>>59083785
don't know dude with dx12 vulkan etc games are starting to use more and more core

>>59097444
This. ARM CPUs have cores up the ass and even the most simple phone apps manage to make good use of them, you don't even need to do REAL WORK™ to be able to use of several threads. If we had to rely on intel, we'd be stuck on quad cores for 10 years more. Instead Mediatek said that enough was enough and started the core race, same as AMD in the x86 department now.

>>59097444
His premise inst even true. Every windows application uses at least 2 threads. Spawning a window in Windows takes one thread for listening to OS commands (like alt+ f4 to close) and then the actual application has 1+ threads for operation. Then typically another thread for handling application specific GUI, if it is used more than the CMD prompt

Anyone who believes programs aren't multi-threaded doesn't program or does webdev

File: 1463305343924.jpg (125KB, 1375x749px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1375x749px

>Some drop of info from the AIDA dev:
Many review sites have problems, as a lot of boards have buggy BIOS etc, which the manufacturers trying to iron out as fast as they can.
Plus there is some strange things going on with the Ryzens cache/memory latency, it's very high. The speed is great, but the latency is not so much, sources yet unknown.

File: muh cores.png (548KB, 851x475px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 851x475px

>>59097506
the threads aren't all in active use you fucking retard.
>what is a scheduler
besides, a 4 core i7 has 8 logical threads.

good luck getting 100% utilization out of 16 logical threads outside of very specific workloads

>>59097769
>gayming benchmark
Back to /v/ with you, ledditor.

>>59097790
>video encoding benchmark
lol so relevant for the typical user

>>59097769
see >>59086184
and kys yourself

>>59097800
see >>59097799
and you too

>>59097769
Exactly, you argued my point. A thread from a program won't be active 100% if the scheduler has to allocate resources for more threads than the number of threads available in the processor.

If each program uses 2+ threads and a chip has 8, then you can have 4 (max) running before the scheduler must begin forcing threads to share time.

So: one for your game (using at least 3: internet, window, GUI), music player (2 if local), voice comms (3). Now you have run out of free threads and performance will begin taking a hit if your processor can't perform all the necessary logic before the scheduler has it switch threads.

>>59097891
you're fucking retarded kill yourself i'm not wasting more time on you

if a thread is just waiting for input or something it's not being put to use, it doesn't perform better on a multi core cpu than on a single core cpu if the multi core cpu just has threads idling

look at your task manager right now. just because you have a bunch of shit running doesn't mean you have 100% cpu usage

>>59097912
You can keep raging, but it's not an actual argument.

Those aren't even the only active threads my dude.

You have:
A hardware listener, for your keyboard, mouse, etc
Various OS drivers, Ethernet card, monitors, etc.
Explorer (windows GUI)
You seem like a constant shitposter, so multiple browser will each take 2 threads.

That seems like more than 8 threads that aren't idle to me.

>>59097967
Unless you're looking at your process viewer while doing your most intensive activities, then it's not an accurate representation of your needs.

>>59084123
>We've compared it to a Ryzen 7 1700x "score" that's been "SCALED" up to 4.5 Ghz.
LMAO they didn't even try to overclock the ryzen chip they just "SCALED" the score oh boy...

>>59098152
NDA isn't lifted yet. they probably don't even have a chip either. in any case, the comparison is stupid. the 7700K can be OC'd too if you can be fucked to delid it.

I think Ryzen being within 90% of *lake IPC is a reasonable estimation.

File: chrome_2017-02-24_09-35-50.png (303KB, 957x618px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 957x618px

>>59084433
>intel isnt scared
>never mind the shilling going on on retail edge
>and the FIRST EVER SPRING SALE
>pls dnt buyy amd guyz <3

>>59095147
>-what is vga

>>59095754
it's dinopc they have like 45000 followers.

>>59095754
that is a crosshair vi, so it is an am4 socket board sitting in frame. it stands to reason it would likely be a ryzen review chip.

>>59098206

93% IPC of Kaby Lake.

And a massive fucking blow out in multicore benchmarks favoring Ryzen.

>>59097457
>if you OC the R7 1700 to 4.2 ghz it's as good as a 7700K in singlethreading

no, if you overclock the 1700 to 4.5 it catches up. but the 7700k's stock boost is there and most kaby chips have another .4 - .6 in them

>>59095147
Have you literally never installed any OS ever?

>>59090202
Did you even read his post? He was pointing out flaws in the chip, and one of them was how it has no integrated graphics, yet another point he made was that people buying Ryzen will only be using it for "gaymez". This invalidates the previous point, unless you only play Undertale and Stardew Valley.

>>59084151
5 GHz kaby lake vs 3.7 GHz ryzen... just as powerful... hmm...

>>59098206
you don't need to delid it to overclock.

>>59083785
>tfw no ufo cpu

File: 1480859500950.png (61KB, 1354x889px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1354x889px

>>59095147
wew

i got a i5 4670 (non k, cause im a fucking idiot)

do i upgrade anytime soon what do you guys think?

>>59086334
Rawlin

>>59099695
nah you're still good until coffee lake imo. upgrading in 2017 is more for people with sandy bridge or older like core2quad/core2duo.

I render 4K video every day. You gotta give your CPU a good workout if you want it to grow up big and strong

>>59100756
i meant cannon lake. maybe get a 6 core coffee lake (coming later this year) if you feel you have a need for it

>>59083785
I want to stream and game at the same time. 7700k was confirmed to drop frames when doing this.

https://youtu.be/3rUndzpdo1I?t=8m22s

>>59099251
3.7 at double the cores of an intel? Yea, probably even more powerful.

>>59099012
pretty much. intel chips will still have a place for people who want to game and nothing else.

IF their prices go down, that is.

>>59099332
you'd be gimping yourself though

>>59083845
It's not even remotely similar. Bulldozer sucked at floating point math, Ryzen shines at it, going off the site OP posted, it beats out Haswell clock for clock in that regard by about 3%.

The big issue with bulldozer is it guzzled power and sported LOWER IPC than AMD's previous offering, the Phenom II, all at a time when Intel were making strides in terms of performance gains with Sandy Bridge. Ryzen is a completely different situation and oh why am i even replying this is a troll.

>>59100795
This is important. My old Core 2 Quad is running like a current-gen i5 now. I stressed it often. My friend's Core 2 Quad (same model and everything) runs like an old Pentium 4.

Processors need to be worked out. I give mine potassium too.

>>59100950
in specific multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3.7 GHz 8 core ryzen is around 35-40% better than 5 GHz 4 core kaby lake according to my estimates, but in typical applications such as games a 5 GHz 7700k will beat a 3.7 GHz r7 1700 most of the time. also, coffee lake is coming this year which will make ryzen obsolete

>>59090202

>no self respecting gamer uses the integrated bullshit anyways
>self respecting gamer
>self respecting
>gamer

>>59101008
>coffee lake
>another 14nm piece
>improves another "15%" by virtue of having higher base clocks and even less OC headroom like every single release since Sandy, and TDPs creeping up to housefire levels
You fuckin intel drones never learn

File: Untitled.png (26KB, 659x320px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 659x320px

>>59101065
>cpus haven't improved since sandy bridge meme

>>59101065
>TDPs creeping up to housefire levels
> not watercooling your house

>>59101090
>no clock speed given
LOL
nobody runs their 2500k at stock
and all of those newer intel chips run at much higher clocks stock

>>59101120
>>no clock speed given
Because they're all stock.

>>59101131
>Because they're all stock.
>nobody runs their 2500k at stock
> all of those newer intel chips run at much higher clocks stock

What don't you understand? Are you so stupid that you don't understand that this is the difference here?

>>59100999
Stop anthropomorphizing your CPU to cover up the fact that your "friends" don't have a fucking clue about system maintenance.

Shit, they're so casual they probably think your the weird friend who always talks about "Lakes" and "raisins" that are coming out soon.

>>59101145
>What don't you understand? Are you so stupid that you don't understand that this is the difference here?

Even a 4.7 2500k is no match, it's 50% fucking behind, even if a 35% overclock with 100% clock scaling(no such thing exists) won't come close.

>>59101150
> being this insecure
> not responding to trips with Quads

I might finally retire the 2500K. Possibly for a Ryzen. I haven't had an AMD CPU since the goddamn Athlon 64 X2.

>>59101289
how much better are they than the 2500k ?

>>59101353
Dunno, waiting for more comprehensive benchmarks and general reviews.

>>59101353
Look at any overclocked 6900X and compare it to your overclocked 2500k to find out.
Should be plenty of those out.

>>59083845
You post this in every anti amd thread

>>59086334
Roll

>>59085747
Idiot. I've run multiple virtualization servers and workstations with xen and kvm. Get 8 cores or more, theyre as important as the ram. I'd get ecc ram, too. Use some $25 card for host.

Its stupid as fuck getting a newest chipset for anything linux use. Support for those are almosr always one generation behind, with memelake we dont still have perfect compatibility.

Wait for ryzen reviews

>>59085747
good choice anon

File: Capture.png (22KB, 726x273px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 726x273px

>>59083785
INTEL BTFO

>>59084594
>needing overclock as a default option

File: why bother.png (60KB, 607x483px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 607x483px

>>59101185
Clock for clock shows meager differences.

>>59102466
Those are all 4 cores, put a 6 or 8 core at 4.4GHz there.

>>59086334
roll

I wish tech illiterate faggots who only come to this board to discuss consumer electronics for their gaymes would fuck off back to /v/

>>59083785
>1 user benchmark
wow nice