ITT: Obsolete tech

File: amd-ryzen.jpg (58KB, 840x473px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 840x473px

>>59084435
Anything AMD

File: 1335307089123.jpg (213KB, 681x475px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 681x475px

>>59084493
distribution, retail or shop?

>>59084460
that thing is a literal housefire

>220W TDP

File: 1428680932054.jpg (15KB, 689x534px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 689x534px

>>59086146

File: 1390868832095.png (334KB, 499x583px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 499x583px

>>59084460
>>59084477
>>59084493

Man I really want AMD to succeed as much as the next guy, but the shilling got really out of hand.

>>59086438
It's not even released yet. How do we shill something that doesn't exist. Wait and see the benchmarks before making a decision.

>>59086438
It just reeks of pure desperation
Bulldozer was the same.

>>59087458
No bulldozer wasn't like this. People were optimistic but AMD didn't release any benchmarks until almost release time if not release time. There wasn't so much hype as it was cautious optimism. Bulldozer failed to surprise and the high power usage scared everyone away.

>>59086438
>intelfags just want amd to be close in performance and pretend it's good competition
>they get assblasted when it surpasses intel

>>59087504
Bulldozer was hyped as fuck because of the high frequency and "cores" despite AMD saying it wasn't for great outside of heavily multithread use.

This time AMD is building the hype up to get as many preorders as possible.

Zen looks like it could be good for the price, but for fucks sake it's not going to be the next coming of x86 Jesus.

>>59084460
not wrong actually,
FX 9XXX CPU-s were literally housefires,
they were on the same line as the R9 295X2 was. It was replaced with Radeon Pro Duo and now Ryzen will replace FX 9XXX series

>>59084435
7700k outperforms the 1700x and 1700 in overclocked performance and raw performance when ryzen isn't overclocked

>obsolete

shilling that hard, good goy

>>59087518
hasn't surpassed intel
wont surpass intel unless you compare the $340 chip to amd's $500 chip

>>59087518
the 1700 which is meant to compete with the 7700k is well below it. the 1700x which is meant to be over the 7700 is only within 5% of the 7700k but only if it is overclocked to max and the intel chip is at stock speed. this is literally another "lets throw more cores at it" solution from amd.

it will compete but it isn't better

>>59086389
the fx is now obselete. seriously, there's no reason whatsoever tobuy that now. AMD will probably have cheaper, cooler, and faster offerings in the r5 lineup

Your penis

>>59087772
You can buy a FX-8300 for the third of the price of a Ryzen 1700 yet the Ryzen is not three times as fast.

>>59087728
>it will compete but it isn't better
However, it costs far less and if you don't actually need the peak performance it makes sense.

>>59084435

underrated post

>>59084435
Anything Intel after March 2.

>>59084493
Where's this from?
>QR code
HTTP://AMD.ATRK.NET/R7-9J32232K20152-93-sample-24

>>59088450

>advertising spyware

if only we knew the implications