Cores vs frequency for muhgayms

>>59097469
You're a faggot

We don't know how well Ryzen will overclock yet. If the quad or six-core processors can hit 4.2-4.6GHz they'll keep up with Baby Lake. If not Ryzen might be a workstation chip.

>>59097469
Then why is a 5Ghz fx-9590 performing like a 3.4Ghz core i7 in your little unnamed benchmark? For many DX11 games or serial processing tasks in general performance is dictated by BOTH clock for clock efficiency and overall clock-speed.

>>59097469
those fx processors don't have hyperthreads, what the shit is this chart?

>>59097519
>Then why is a 5Ghz fx-9590 performing like a 3.4Ghz core i7
Because Bulldozer has very weak cores? Duh, it doesn't even have 8 FPUs so it's not even in the same ballpark.

Also these are like 17 games aggregate.

>>59097469
At worst we're looking at similar performance to current Intel processors, however you also get the benefit of more cores, which could still apply to games if you do other things at the same time, like stream/encode video.

>>59097539
4M8T. They don't have 8 cores.

>>59097539
4 modules 8 threads you halfwit.
Only Intel has 'hyperthread', it's fucking SMT and 'hyperthread' is just a marketing name.

>>59097469
>can raise mhrz count just be changing some options
>can't raise core count

AMD wins again

>>59097542
Exactly my point to OP, just because you have a high core clock does not mean your performance will be better then a lower clocked design that has a higher clock for clock efficiency. Its not just Ghz if it were netburst Pentiums would have been awesome at something other then space-heating.

Nobody needs more than 4 cores if they do they're just pretending to need them

Modern games are mostly garbage gameplay and story-wise but at least they started using more than 2-4 cores, it's inadvisable to get a 4 core now when an 8 or 6 core is similar to the 4 core's price and has per core performance within 5% of the 4 core.

>>59097469
>Core count doesn't matter all you need is more MHz this is literally another bulldozer for gamers

whynotboth.jpeg
Intel BTFO

>>59097542
So what you're showing is that there is a measurable difference between 4, 6 and 8 cores right now?

That's what I'm seeing.

>>59097895
>So what you're showing is that there is a measurable difference between 4, 6 and 8 cores right now?
Of course there is? Even in gaming.

>>59097610
Nobody needs more than 1 core, if they do they're just pretending to need them.

>>59097500
We do know one thing, the 6 core won't OC any better than the 8.

'Ryzen Master' allows you to disable cores entirely, so an 8core will always be able to OC to the same level as a 6core (since both are 2x 4core complexes, 6core just having 1 core per complex disabled)

Who knows about 4 core though, could be a single complex could be 2 complexes with 2 cores disabled per complex.

Games don't utilize more than 5KBps of Motherboard Transfer Core Power

>game doesn't use more than 4 core
>higher clocked 4 core wins by some 5%

>game uses more than 4 cores
>higher clocked 4 core gets its shit wrecked literally
Obviously, there's no way a some 500MHz can keep up with more cores when cores are actually needed, and they'll just be more needed in the future.

Now if you only tested 2010 games the 4 core would win.

>>59097956
The 8 core reached 5.2 stable on all eight cores when heat was removed as a factor (LHe cooling). That's about as good as Haswell-E gets under the same conditions.

If Ryzen can reach the frequencies Haswell-E can, Intel is fucked

>>59098052
I've been hearing some guy mention he got the 1700(cheap $320 8 core at 65W) to 4.1, but unknown if its with the new amd tool or through the BIOS

If so that's good indication the X versions should be pretty decent.

>>59097551
they're fucking listed as 8 cores everywhere. fuck off

>>59098052
With all 8 cores enabled.
It should do better than that with only 6cores enabled.

That's one thing Intel can't do on the fly, disable cores.

>>59098052

>intel fucked by AMD housefires barely closing the gap

>>59098109
>AMD housefires
Way to out yourself as either a shill or fanboy...

>barely closing the gap
They closed the gap, AMD has better IPC than Kaby Lake.
Moreover they're doing it cheaper than Intel.

>>59098148
>better IPC than Kaby Lake.
Hey hold your horses, this claim needs proof.
And proof of not just a single thread benchmark testing the FPU and leaving the int units to sleep, show me benchmarks where it does both better then you can claim this is true.

>>59098148

Well unlike me, you don't need to "out" yourself.

>>59098163
Not that guy, but it's pretty close.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7500/3915vs3648

>>59098078
They aren't 8 core processors fuck boy.
They share cache and can't effectively compute at the same time

>buy 4c/8t Ryzen CPU for $199
>overclock it to 4.2Ghz with stock cooler
>performs exactly the same as 7700k
problem solved

>>59098233
Doesn't count.

>>59098109
Can you provide a source to a report of a modern (last 10 years) AMD CPU or GPU actually being determined to be the root cause of a lost property fire or disaster?
Thank you.

>>59098264
Or better yet buy the 6 core for $250
Overclock it to 4.2
Performs better than 7700k

>>59098233
IPC depends on the workload, and should therefore be averaged over a wider range of benchmarks.
I'm not saying that Zen's IPC isn't good or that this benchmark is wrong, just that it won't be ahead of Kaby Lake in every workload you throw at it.

>>59098279
Why?

>>59098290

Can you deny AMD's over ten years of just forcing more power and always having shit thermal performance all around?

Ofcourse you can, wouldn't be a real fanboy if you coudln't.

File: 1446085732343.jpg (68KB, 638x630px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 638x630px

>>59097469
That graph is percentage of a baseline chip, but doesn't have the 100% chip listed for some reason. Oh, and Computerbase has mentioned they have a R7 1800x in for testing, but has to wait for the NDA to expire before they can say anything about it. ;)

>>59098319
It's not reliable.
Only after you put a benchmark that hammers two main compute parts of the core (fpu/alus) can you claim the IPC is better than kaby lake.

Personally I'm expecting AMD to lose the FPU by a few % with ops that aren't higher than 256b but win the integer race, so tl;dr depends on the workload, cinnebench for example is more FPU centric.

>>59098233

I love that bench so much as an AMD customer.

>>59098291
exactly, that's an even better suggestion

just need to stop letting people meme the idea that the 8c/16t 65w R7 1700 is worth buying for gaming when a 6c/12t 95W 1600x is 10x better

>>59098345
>Performance[in nazi](FPS)

Clearly it's not percentage.

>>59098368

Anyone thinking the 1700 is for gaming and not a budget workstation chip is going to be disappointed.

1700 with a B350 is a steal for a great all around desktop though.

>>59098349
Userbenchmark does, it tests Int and FP separately and then in a combined test.
Not to worry, only 7 days until we can see Sandra results along with Linpack and sysbench.

>>59098372

>Data in percent

>>59098404
So Sandy Bridge is 50% slower than new chips in gaming?

SANDYMANGINA KEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>59098418
Depends on the game, but newer games compiled with recent compilers - yes.

Intel's perf hasn't really moved much in 5 years, (you can see as much if you test with older benchmarks that are provided binary only) - but it also has, a lot.
Newer instructions cut down on clocks required to the get the same result and there are more clocks too.

>>59098418

The 4 core versions are, in modern games.

>>59098444
But I was told 4 cores is all you need

>>59097469
No shit

Ryzen in real world is going to be a disaster, completely useless.

AMD keeps doing this shit over and over again.

>>59098418
>50%

Looks like 100% to me

100FPS is 100% of 50FPS, not 50%

>>59098449
2 cores is all you need tbqh. the pentium is the best budget cpu right now and only has 2 cores. it runs modern games perfectly fine according to all the reviews i've watched.

>>59098449

It is.

But why settle for what you need, and get what you want?

File: Screenshot from 2015-03-06 20:08:35.png (74KB, 242x269px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 242x269px

>>59098459
I feel like someone's lost in time and space.
Or just very good at selective filtering of unwanted information.

>>59098460
>100FPS is 100% of 50FPS
wew

>>59098473
IF YOU GOT 50FPS
AND YOU WANT 100 FPS
YOU NEED ANOTHER 50 FPS
BUT THOSE 50 FPS ARE YOUR ENTIRE FPS
SO THAT MEANS YOU WOULD HAVE TO NEED 100% MORE FPS

>>59098482
100% more = 200%

Why get 4.5Ghz 7700k instead of getting 3.7Ghz r7 1700 for cheaper? It's easy to overclock it to 4.0Ghz on all cores or 4.5Ghz on 4 cores reaching kaby lake single thread scores.

>>59097469
That's why in your graph 6900k, 6950x and 6850k are all shitting on 7700k and 6700k while still having a much lower clock frequency, right?

>>59098490
because the 1700 is a 65w part and is total shit at overclocking

you need a 1700x to achieve stable OC over 4ghz

this is just a prediction but it's well informed and probably correct

>>59098495
It's sarcasm.

Some people here like to pretend games are still in 2009, or they're just salty as fuck because they recently bought a 4 core for $350

>>59098490

Because the 1700 has a TDP of 65w and won't go past 4Ghz.

If you want to overclock, just grab the 1700X

>>59098509
>because the 1700 is a 65w part and is total shit at overclocking
If the 1700 can hit 4.0 on all cores then it's great, that would obliterate any Intel 8 core and put the 10 core in spitting range.

I can sacrifice some 200-300MHz for cheaper price, it's no problem, I won't sperg over 6% FPS

>>59098516
You can exceed the TDP you know...

>>59098509
>>59098516
4.0Ghz on 1700 already confirmed
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56422/amd-ryzen-7-1700-4ghz-1800x-performance-329/index.html
You just need a good phased motherboard to supply all the voltage needed.
If you want to overclock over 4.0Ghz turn off 4 extra cores.

>>59098326
Don't see how higher power consumption and thermals in the context of non flash point temperatures matters, especially not in the minor difference between AMD and Intel thermals. Regardless, don't see how it's a house fire without a report of actual house fire. Please help me understand your viewpoint in a clear and constructive manner.

>>59098540
Or just 2 cores even.
Or 6 cores if you're playing some old ass game that doesn't multithread at all on PC (like GTAIV) (graphics driver still needs a render thread, so don't go crazy and disable 7 cores)

>>59098561
Of course that is possible too. AMD new overclocking utility and (possibly UEFIs too) allow for turning off cores and tweaking per core voltages so you may not even need to turn off anything, put higher turbos on some cores and lower on others for optimal balance

>>59097956
doesnt the 1700x/1800x have a higher tdp than all the other ryzen variants?

File: playstation-4-pro-vertical-product-shot-01-us-07sep16?$TwoColumn_Image$.png (738KB, 1000x1007px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 1000x1007px

>>59097469
BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT I WAS TOLD NO GAMES WILL EVER USE MORE THAN 4 CORES

>>59098078
amd falsely advertised them as 8 cores, and got called out on it. it was everywhere, have you been living in a cave?

>>59098831
do you see the literal 5 fps difference. they fucking don't.

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

548KB, 851x475px

>>59097469
this. amd poorfags really want to believe that they can get a cheap 8 core that will be better in all situations even though it's common knowledge that you can't utilize that many cores outside of specific workloads such as video encoding

>>59098878
Obviously they do since the 8 core at the top of the chart is clocked 700MHz lower than a 7700k and on a older architecture.

>>59098878
it's specifically in watch dogs 2 which is one of the few games that can use more cores, and even then it's not a huge difference, and it looks like they ran the 7700k on stock clocks, with 5 GHz overclock it would be more fair

>>59098881
> Processor Base Frequency 3.40 GHz
>Max Turbo Frequency 3.60 GHz

Lmao so just overclock it by 200MHz and it's already faster than your 4 core?
Not to mention when it's actually at 4.3-4 most BDW-E can do it would obliterate your shit 4 core.

>>59098831
They do but besides, you shouldn't post a console with that comment. The target audience of consoles is entirely different from "gaming" hardware. You know, consoles are for people who actually have a job and just want to relax and play some games while PC gaming is basically for NEETs who get their money by screaming at their parents and defecating in the living room.

>>59098924
they're max overclocked 5 GHz 7700k vs 4.3 GHz 6800k. good luck beating them with ~3.7 GHz mid tier ryzen

>>59098930
Most PC games are console ports though, only the biggest shitports like Batman would use 2 threads.

https://www.techpowerup.com/230541/8th-gen-core-cannon-lake-over-15-faster-than-kaby-lake-intel

AMD tards BTFO cannon lake already 15% faster

File: Screenshot from 19-02-2017 14:41:07.png (959KB, 1677x940px) Image search: [Google]

959KB, 1677x940px

>>59098956
I like the fact that Kabylake was 15% faster than Skylake.

Really.

>>59098941
Canard PC get 5.1 Ghz on single thread with air already and that was engineering sample with a shitty motherboard.

>>59098972
>single thread
lolololol

>>59098952
One more reason to stop being a NEET and get a console so you can focus on the more important things

>>59098972
OCing depends on a lot of things, cooling, motherboards, silicon, patience.. Wait a few days.

>>59098982
>moar cores
AHAHAHHAA

>>59098995
there's a sweet spot in single-thread vs multi-thread performance vs cost. the typical user doesn't need 8c/16t

>>59099017
The typical user doesn't need more than 2 cores and a console.

These aren't typical user CPUs, for fucks sakes they're over $400 only those who need those will buy them.

>>59099017
>the typical user doesn't need 8c/16t
Two years ago users didn't need more threads as well, remember how i5 was recommended instead of i7? Trend has moved to 8 threads now, and even more threads will become mainstream in not so distant future. Even Intel sees this, new coffee lake will be 6c/12t. With Ryzen 1700 being cheaper than 7700k it's hard to argue against it.

>>59099045
>only those who need those will buy them

No, there are enough dumb kids with money, buying anything because it's produced by brand X.
There are enough people to pre-order hardware without having even read 1 review.

There's no point in sacrificing massive multi-threaded gains for 2-4% FPS in games, well.. unless everyone's suddenly a "competitive Counterstrike and DOTA/LoL gamer"

>>59099162
4 cores is more than enough for watching anime and shitposting

>>59099207
2 cores are more than enough for that.

>>59097469
Don't post this or Intelfags might start stabbing and burning you alive.

>>59097469
>>https://videocardz.com/66354/core-count-vs-frequency-what-matters-for-gaming
>https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-watch-dogs-2-fps

Sorry, don't buy it, I need actual tests from reputable sites in America instead of nazi shit and chinks

>>59098052
>(LHe cooling)
nobody cares about this childish bullshit

>>59099306
this. let us know if you can even do 4 GHz on all cores on air. and supposedly ryzen has around 93% the IPC of kaby lake so 4 GHz is only equivalent to 3.7 GHz on kaby lake

>>59097542
>>59097581
>>59097895
>>59097927
These benches clearly demonstrate that MOAR COREZ does not matter whatsoever. The determining factor is IPC and clock speed--it's that simple. If you guys can't determine this from these charts then I have no idea how you function in day-to-day life because you are simply unintelligent.

>Gibbo explained: "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".
lol you need to spend extra on a fancy motherboard to even max out at 4 GHz

>>59099335
Then why is a 6900k, you know a 8 core with 800MHz less base clock leading the pack?

>>59099322
the 1800x can do it out of the box, so "on air" with a Hyper212 (180W TDP) should be fine

>>59097469
Why are Intel shills are so obsessed over bulldozer which is years old and was DOA anyway?

guess i'm building a new intel rig :(

hope the prices come down

>>59099353
1800x is $500 tho, deluded poorfags are shilling 1700 as the be-all and end-all

>>59099351
Cherrypicked

>>59099351
Why isn't the 10/20 leading the pack? And why is the difference between the 4/8 and the 8/16 a mere 6 frames (~6%)? Because in reality moar corez is negligible beyond a certain point (4/8) which is why all that matters IN PRACTICE are IPC and clock speed. Yes, having more cores and threads is generally better, but how much better is the issue here. AMD is slower and has lower clocks, period, so MOAR COREZ is not a valid response. Inb4 you move the goalposts some more.
>w-w-well moar corez and...

>>59099389
this. it's only in watch dogs 2 and it's non-overclocked

>>59099395
>negligible beyond a certain point (4/8)
Intel switching to 6c/12t, you have no argument there.

>>59099395
yeah amd shills think a weak 8/16 is better in everything lol it's probably better for video encoding but besides that it's going to be worse in most other applications such as games

>Core count doesn't matter for shittily-coded games that have probably only been tested/optimized for Intel/NVidia anyway
Which is most of them, but not all of them/

>>59099379
I honestly don't know what they were expecting with the lower TDP rating
>>59099346
was that 8 core load testing?

>>59099395
Because scaling isn't all that great after 8 cores? And the 6900k is clocked even lower per core.

Anyhow, the 6900k is clearly faster while being significantly under the clockspeed of a 7700k, both can overclock but that would just put the 6900k even further ahead since its base clock is low from the start.

You have nothing to stand on, at most you can argue for being a poorfaggot since you can't afford an X chipset system.

>>59099418
you literally can't fully utilize more cores for a given task past a certain point. too many chefs on one soup. the best you can hope for is to add more stuff like have more characters and more explosions and things like that.

>>59097469
>Core count doesn't matter all
Your image proves the exact opposite, what the fuck kinda shitposting is this?

>>59099413
>Intel switching to 6c/12t, you have no argument there.
"switching to"
you are retarded
>>59099416
this
>>59099432
>You have nothing to stand on, at most you can argue for being a poorfaggot since you can't afford an X chipset system.
an X chipset system? Are you just shitposting for the sake of shitposting? Did you forget that we're arguing about AMD poorfag shit here?

>>59099497
>an X chipset system? Are you just shitposting for the sake of shitposting? Did you forget that we're arguing about AMD poorfag shit here?
Where's your response to a previous gen 8 core doing better than a significantly higher clocked 4 core in games you fucking kike?

>>59099497
Mad? Intel's response to Ryzen is MOAR COARZ!!!

>>59099538
>in games
>in watch dogs 2
FTFY

>>59097581
FREQUENCY IS ALL THAT MATTERS, AMD AND INTEL BTFO NETBURST IS THE FUTURE

>>59098930
Wat

>>59099546
>>59099546
I'm seeing 14 games tested there, including ShitDogs 2.

Try harder.

>>59098490

because you can't? The 1700 is £30 more than the i7 7700k atm.

People seem confused here, so let me inform you.


Game:
Uses 4 cores.
7700k (at 4.8-5.0) arbitrarily scores 80FPS
6900k (at 4.3-4) arbitrarily scores 74FPS

Game:
Uses 6-8 cores
7700k (at 4.8-5.0) arbitrarily scores 88FPS
6900k (at 4.3-4) arbitrarily scores 115FPS

Plus not only are your fresh new shitshow AAA games running better, everything else will run better too, unless you game on SuperPi all day.

Only poorfags can argue against more cores now, they could argue when the core was 50% slower, but not when it's 3% slower.

>>59099672
amazon.co.uk lists 7700k at 331.59 bongs and ryzen 7 1700 at 319.99 bongs.

>>59099691
But what if we're poor and can only afford Intel?

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

26KB, 659x320px

>>59099606
lol it's not a big difference and good luck with your r7 1700 fag and intel cpus overclock much better and ryzen only has 93% ipc so even if you overclock to 4 GHz on the best motherboard 7700k is still 35% better on a per-core basis and cannonlake is coming soon which will make ryzen obsolete

>>59099771
You seem assblasted anon

File: kekk.jpg (21KB, 208x271px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 208x271px

the single core performance difference is negligible. Whether you're getting 110 fps or 105 or even 47 instead of 50 really doesn't matter. What matters is that you're getting almost the same single core performance as 6700k/7700k fags AND the multi-thread performance of chips that cost 2-3x as much, which of course aforementioned fags don't care about because all they do is jerk off over their minecraft tnt fps and 3dmark physics scores.

Instead, Intel fanboys should be looking to the future, because for them it's going to be a bright one. It's like they have stockholme syndrome with intel's jewcock that has made dual and quad cores some of which don't even have hyper-threading, a technology developed fifteen (15) years ago the standard since 2009, and constantly inflated the cost of the """""""""enthusiast"""""""" platform while also offering almost nothing for that ever increasing pricetag except maybe another 2 cores every 2 gens if you were lucky. AMD putting them in their place means they are not only going to raise the bar for the low and mid range, but also offer more for less at the highest price points. It's a win no matter which company you support.

>>59098403

I pretty much agree with this guy though, this is basically going to be the proverbial coming down of the judge's gavel in terms of where Ryzen truly stands.

>>59099771
Why are you posting a images of a 8 core clocked far lower than that Intel 4 core doing better in games?
That doesn't support your argument, is this some kind of masochism?

>>59099771
and the benchmark is at stock clocks, it'd be more interesting with a 5 GHz 7700k and the others at max oc like >>59098881

>>59099800
r7 1700 isn't as good as 6900k you fucking dishonest amd shill

>>59099811
>r7 1700 isn't as good as 6900k you fucking dishonest amd shill
But a 1700X is, and a 1800X is even better.

1700 is only useful if you're gonna overclock it OR use it for VMs

>>59099825
>1700 is only useful if you're gonna overclock it OR use it for VMs

Why not both?

>>59099825
>But a 1700X is, and a 1800X is even better.
even if that's the case you're spending more money for a few percent performance increase depending on the applications you're using

>>59099756
>ryzen 7 1700 at 319.99 bongs
damn you bongs are getting ripped off hard

>>59099863
Did you forget how much the 6900k costs?

>>59099863
So price/perf is important now? I didn't know you were so poor.

Nobody's arguing that the 7700k is best price/perf, but that's what Intelfags were saying wasn't important for years, suddenly it's the most important thing.
Also your 7700k shits the bed whenever you do anything that's not gaming, I don't care to sacrifice massive performance boosts when running VMs/Handbrake/Photoshop/Batch conversion and compression jobs so I can have 6% higher FPS in <2013 games

Maybe you do, maybe you're a "competitive gamer" and all you need is 320FPS in LoL?
Then I don't know why you'd be even be arguing here, stick to a dual core at 5GHz

>>59099538
>Where's your response to a previous gen 8 core doing better than a significantly higher clocked 4 core in games you fucking kike?
>in one game
>6%
>"""significantly better"""
>at twice the cost
ok

This is why AMDfags are retarded. You don't care about the truth, you just want to rationalize your emotional attachment. Fuck off.

>>59099947
i'm comparing against 7700k. the main theme of the shilling is that the similarly priced r7 1700 is better for all use cases

>>59099442
That point never legitimately happens in games. How many things AREN'T parallelable in video games? The state logic of a character's behavior and that's about it. That should amount to about 0.0001% of all game code being run.

Programmers are just lazy and they only feel like mutlithreading some specific part of the graphics engine that can only be done on software and maybe a physics-based collision detection if they're feeling fancy.

Then again if games weren't terribly programmed you could be running them on Pentiums 4 with the astronomically few exceptions that actually are doing something fancy with procedural generation.

>games

Get out underage.

>>59099968
if you can actually make use of the cores, that's fine, i'm just arguing against the wishful thinking that the r7 1700 is better than 7700k for everything just because it's an 8 core cpu that amd poorfags can afford

>>59100013
If you can overclock it to at least 4.0(big if) it'll do more than fine, at stock I don't really expect it to, it's clocked way to low and is 65W to boot, it's clearly aimed at multithreaded perf/watt like a cheap server part.

I think these AMD shills are reading from a script.
>talk about general performance
>they post multithreaded synthetic benchmarks
>talk about MOAR COREZ not necessarily meaning anything and mention that this could simply be Bulldozer 2.0
>they post a largely irrelevant example of some Intel chips performing similarly to one another despite large differences in clock speed, core count, and price, with the only consistency being that high IPC and high clock speed = high gaming performance. At best, graphs demonstrate a weak correlation between moar corez and gaming performance and a strong correlation between IPC/clock speed and gaming performance
>point this out
>they finally resort to talking about how gaming is for children and how real men only need to run 7zip and transcode video all day long

They also like to switch between "it's a good value, it's all about price-performance, maaaan" and "IT'S SUPERIOR IN LITERALLY EVERY WAY WITHIN 5% IPC OF XYZ AND 200% BETTER IN HANDBRAKE AT THE SAME PRICE AHHH"

top kek

>>59100055
It'll do fantastic for a headless pfsense/VPN setup, a lot of high performance cores at decent wattage, Snort should do much better than a overpriced 2.0GHz Xeon-D

>>59099880

Not really. $ - £ ratio is low as fuck now and we have an automatic 20% increase for VAT. That means we are roughly on $ parity in prices.

>>59098469
G3258 @ 4.8GHz on both cores here
It struggles with a lot of modern games, GTA V, 2016 DOOM and Space Engineers don't work properly.

>>59099968
>Nobody's arguing that the 7700k is best price/perf,
Not even remotely true, 7700k has terrible price/perf. It has the best performance per core

>>59100114
I hope these have a adjustable TDP so I can put it at 45W, I'd have to undervolt for a 24/7 pfsense setup, adjustable TDP should do that job for me,

File: 516f9b08bb7bc969f1ff0c99bdfe2ca9c0a13a39743d5d6428b35e0562344c19.jpg (596KB, 1846x1923px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1846x1923px

damn intel shills are in full damage control mode

>>59100155
i think that new pentium is better because of hyper threading

>>59100173
The 4 core Intel without SMT and 2MB less L3 cache isn't even competition for gaming, there's a certain threshold that shouldn't be crossed and that's anything below the 7700k.

>>59100173
if you're buying 1700x/1800x just to have slightly better (sometimes worse) performance than 7700k then you're getting even worse price/perf

>>59100155
>space engineers
>working properly on anything
Keen loves their lord clang too much

>>59100207
also this, price/perf doesn't scale linearly, cheap shit is just out of the question depending on your requirements

>>59100204
>hyper threading
Look, this doesn't magically give you twice the cores, at most 1 SMT thread is 20% faster, and that's really really pushing it outside of synthetics.
So no, your HT Pentium is more like a 2,4 core instead of a 4 core.

>>59097469
so you compare a 7700k that has 400mhz max to oc
with 6c/8c/10c that have almost 1.2ghz if stable oc to play with?

honestly people dont even think about what they are posting

>>59097469
Nigger.

If it doesn't matter, Celeron with 1 core and 1 thread pushed over 7GHz in overclocking records would be the best CPU ever

>>59100250
Those are all stock parts, if the 8C/10C parts are overclocked to 4.4 the 7700k doesn't hold a handle.

>>59100263
my point exactly 7700k is already clocked to its nearly maximum

the others are not even trying imagine the huge lead they will have

>>59100226
there is a proven difference between the old pentium and the new one and most reviewers put it down to the hyper threading

>>59100304
Those higher core chips are much more expensive though, if the 1700X/1700 (lets be honest the 1800X is just penis-waving) can OC to 4.3 there would be no contest for gaming, much less anything else.

File: sfd.png (14KB, 1149x222px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1149x222px

>>59100211
More like negligibly less performance when playing shitty vidya that you won't actually notice in the real world, but way, way more performance doing literally anything else at nearly the same price.

>>59100207
>there is only one CPU for gaming and that's 7700k
>i5 poorfags
>broadwell-e foolz with their pityful single threads
>""""certain threshold that shouldn't be crossed""""
Oh lord, this is too much entertaining. I look forward to reading more next week after benches hit.

>>59100211
> you're getting even worse price/perf
For gaming? Absolutely true. Those that should only want gaming price/perf should go for r3 4c/8t

>>59100327
there is a reason as to why they didnt used the 1700x on that gta video lol

>>59100211
so you assume that a 20 bucks more 1700x with LESS clock speed MORE cores and LESS tdp is actually a worse price/perf? are we living in the same earth?

>>59100405
he's living in the world where everything he does uses 1-2 cores and he frequents forbes and his main hobby is staring at a fraps counter while playing csgo at low 720p and setting off tnt in minecraft and he never runs more than 2-3 applications at a time.

>paying 13% more for a chip that has 9% less single core performance and only 80% more multi-thread performance

LOL AMD-KEKS BTFO STAY POOR

Ryzen can't oc.

>>59100596
this is the real issue. i'd take a 5 GHz on air ryzen any day but at 3.7-4.0 GHz it's a real dilemma of balancing single vs multi threaded performance. a 7700k still have 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores and it can do around 5 GHz on air. and coffee lake is coming this year

>>59100910
Heh, if you think 6c coffee lake is going to hit 5Ghz you are in for a surprise.

>>59100910
if it's clock speeds you want, the 1600X should be very nice. half the cores to power, 65W. more watts per core while producing less thermals than the 8c

>>59100970
i'll take a 4.6-4.8 GHz 6c coffee lake over 3.7-4.0 Ghz 8c ryzen any day

>>59100910
but muh 6c/6t part

>>59097610
I'm literally rendering 3D scenes

>>59101095
>3d rendering on cpu
>not using gpus or ray-tracing hardware
pleb

>>59101054
>i'll take a 4.6-4.8 GHz 6c coffee lake
You're dreaming now.
More cores are difficult to overclock than less cores, need more voltage, look at Broadwell-E and Haswell-E

>>59101054
Even 4.8 would be stretching it. 4.6 on all 6 core might be achievable.

Then again we don't know how far will 4 and 6 core Ryzens go up to. 4.6Ghz for 4 core and 4.4 for 6 would be similar to how Broadwell/E performs

File: what a fag.jpg (24KB, 500x392px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x392px

>>59101134
>thinks gpus can compute the same "effects" than cpus.
>thinks ray-tracing is all you need to produce a noice 3d image.

File: CPUvsGPU21.jpg (95KB, 1029x410px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1029x410px

>>59101469
if you can't get the same result with a modern gpu you just suck at programming

>>59101134
You couldn't have even made yourself out to be more of a /v/irgin if you tried.

>>59101563
get with the times grandpa

https://www.redshift3d.com/blog/five-reasons-to-adopt-gpu-rendering-in-2016

>>59098148

>They closed the gap, AMD has better IPC than Kaby Lake.

Oh wow! Unbelievable and without a single unit shipped!

>>59101514
>Let me google rendering gpu vs cpu
>let me post the first image
>thatll teach ya
Shiny surfaces doesnt prove nothing.
I havent read about the vray gpu thingie for a while but i do remember the following:
Translucency was a huge no no, ambient light (different from omni, ies, box, skyportal), displacement, 1 plane 2 face material and glossy mats specially using phong and blinn @ less than 1.0 looked like turds.

But sure, you probably know more than the guys who make the software for a living right?

>>59101580
read
>>59101812
Oh and i forgot, subsurface scattering.
That is all.

>>59101975
lol you think you can't do good subsurface scattering on a gpu

>>59101514
I'm a 3D artist, not a programmer. The industry software I use doesn't have readily available GPU support baked in. Plus, GPUs are very expensive and unnecessary. And I can't trust them to be as reliable and free from artifacts compared to a stable, powerful CPU?
No thanks.

>>59099771
that's all true except

>cannonlake coming soon

i doubt it will come before mid-late 2018 since they had issues with 10nm

>>59102138
It'll come to mobile by the end of this year and at best in desktops by July 2018.

Quite far away.

>>59102138
sorry i meant coffee lake

>>59102138
>>59102232
Cannonlake coming to desktops is doubtful because of yields. They might pull a Broadwell on that or entirely skip it in favor of Icelake.

>>59102319
True, it's just a Skylake shrink anyway, no tangible benefits besides lower idle power for desktop.

>>59102032
pls post an example

>>59102345
https://vimeo.com/75274802
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1DKFskGHvg

you can even get decent SSS in real time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5152RJW7dKc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Qw05BUuss

>>59102408
>That plastic looking face.
>Everything else shiny plastic surface.
You know making ANY sss isnt the same of making a good sss.
Even tron legacy young jeff bridges looks way better than those demos you posted and thats an old movie.

Thing is, gpus doesnt have the accuracy at floating point like cpus (https://developer.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/akamai/cuda/files/NVIDIA-CUDA-Floating-Point.pdf)
Thats why
>>59101812
all those things cant be done on a gpu (or cannot be done at the same level).

>>59102804
>For example, the double precision sin function
>in CUDA is guaranteed to be accurate to within 2 units
>in the last place (ulp) of the correctly rounded result. In
>other words, the difference between the computed result
>and the mathematical result is at most ±2 with respect
>to the least significant bit position of the fraction part
>of the floating point result.
>For most inputs the sin function produces the correctly
>rounded result. For some inputs the result is off
>by 1 ulp. For a small percentage of inputs the result is
>off by 2 ulp.
i'm literally shaking

>>59102892
>thinks rendering only uses ONE floating point operation

Are you trying to show how much of an imbecile you are?

>>59103035
you still have a huge amount of precision with FP64

>>59103056
You are missing completly the point.
Follow this statement:
>>59101134
Then read what this idiot wrote
>>59101514
Explaining there are things a cpu does better (or does AT ALL) than a gpu.
>>59102408
Post some examples of sss, all of them lack the depth of "effects" called by >>59101812
Gives one reason for it
>>59102804
And then you come running like a retarded donkey shitposting
>HURRRRRRRR MUCH PRECISION WITH FP64

>>59103138
do you realize that you just said pixar's renderman lacks """"depth""""

>>59103190
Yes.
In this context well take depth as in functionality because:
>The current version of RenderMan is a multi-threaded software application that generally does not rely on GPU's due to their additional expense and the current fluidity of graphics hardware and supporting software standards. However GPU's are an important aspect of the future direction of rendering that Pixar is currently researching, some of which has already demonstrated in public. For the first time, RenderMan 21 introduces GPU accelerated denoising, and as GPU's mature for comprehensive production usage, we will reveal more in future.
Meaning it only uses gpu denosing.
Arent you tired of showing how much of a donkey you are?

>>59103346
>show an example of gpu-rendered SSS
>here you go *slips in industry-leading pixar stuff*
>i-it's all shit
you got baited hard

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6900K-gaming-performance.png (19KB, 477x264px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 477x264px

Incels on suicide watch

>>59103967
now compare against 7700k @ 5 GHz

>>59103993

>7700k @ 5 GHz

if they have the same IPC the 7700K will have a clear advantage anon

why not doing a bench at the same clock ?

Some games benefit from more cores, but the majority works perfectly on a good 4/4 system.

The only thing Intel can do in response to Ryzen is a price war because they've invested so much into their current architecture already.

>>59104014
>why not doing a bench at the same clock ?
because someone who buys a 7700k will probably overclock it. and 7700k comfortably clocks higher than ryzen cpus so it's reasonable to run it at a higher clock (if you're comparing overall performance and not just IPC).

>>59104049

But we don't really know the R7's capabilities in term of OC.

>>59104067
see >>59099346

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-Core-i7-7700K-DinoPC_GTA-V.png (2MB, 2560x1312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1312px

>b-but muh cores

>>59104096

Then you take the R5 1600X which will probably overclock higher as it has only 6 cores.

the R5 serie looks like the sweet spot

>>59104111
Ryzen wins, that sweet avg score

>>59104152
the avg score is still lower and the lower min fps means it probably has obnoxious frame time spikes

>>59104169

>and the lower min fps means it probably has obnoxious frame time spikes

No, this diagram doesn't really tell us anything except for the overall performances; give us a real time benchmark to see the stability in full load.

Older games (NOLF,NOLF2.UT for example) all ran like shit on bulldozer, even with the cpu patches the games still were jerky/had timing issues. I used same exact mobo/ram/graphics combo, only diff was CPU (Phenom II x4 955 & FX 8300) Guess which cpu ran all games flawlessly as well as everything else? Hint; It wasn't the FX. So Higher clocks & more cores don't really do much if the underlying circuits aren't optimized for single thread tasks. Course the fact that 3D now extensions were removed from the FX line might have had something to do with it to. Now all other non gaming tasks the FX was ok. So it'd be good for workstation/server use. But I use my desktop for mix of everything so FX would not suit my needs. Moral of tale: Hang on to your Phenom II's if you got them. Invest in more ram or a SSD drive to gain more speed.

>>59104169
>no percentage stated

It probably won't matter in real world usage.

So if I get my R5 1400X to 4.5ghz I basically have an i7 7700k for half the price?

>>59104194
>>59104203
if the min fps is consistently lower and it wasn't just a fluke on this particular benchmark then it's most likely not as enjoyable to play.

>>59104196
this

>>59104231

get at least a R5 1500 to have 6 cores/8 threads then

>>59104231
that's a big if, especially on a budget motherboard, and it won't be quite as good as a 7700k but for a budget pc it might be a decent option

>>59104266


Performances falling just behind the 7700K and well above any I5 for the price of an I5 is still a very good investment in my opinion though.

>>59104246
Why? Won't the hexacores run hotter? Just for stupid gaymen I only need 4 fast cores and 8 threads...

>>59104480

Hotter ? dude non X versions have a TDP of 65 watts, that's less than any I5 or I7

More and more games use 4+ cores

Having a 6 cores/12 threads CPU is a great compromise for games to come

>>59104509
I mean, that's just the rating. I'm sure 6 cores is going to run hotter than 4...

>>59104530

hotter ? 65 watts TDP means it won't go over 45°c in full load with a good cooler.

2 more cores will add probably 3 more degrees but that's all

stop with this fucking house fire meme

File: 1481393540560.jpg (44KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 615x409px

The intel damage control ITT is off the charts. I don't think anyone was expecting Ryzen to have Skylake/Kaby Lake IPC, so the fact that it's in the ballpark makes it a no-brainer for people looking to upgrade. Basically everyone that isn't an asshurt intel child is overjoyed by this, even if you aren't planning on buying Ryzen.

>half the price
>double the logical cores
>intel being BTFO by the tech media

This is great no matter how you look at it. This isn't Bulldozer part 2. Even if in worst case scenarios it's 15-20% slower than overclocked Skylake/Kaby Lake in single threaded tasks, it's good enough, as in it's well above the "good enough" single-threaded power standards established by Sandy Bridge a long ass time ago and on top of that, it's offering threads that are off the charts for the price.

>>59104557
Housefire? What?

You need thermal headroom to get a good OC, it may be hard enough to get a Ryzen to 4.5ghz without having to worry about other thermal issues. If they run at the same temp, I might consider the hexacore, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

>>59104647

If you can get an 8 core CPU to 4 ghz, I guess you can try to reach at least 4.3 ghz with an hexacore

which is more worth it :

a 4c/8t at 4.5 ?
a 6c/12t at 4.3 ?

will the 200 mhz difference erase the """"massive"""" performance gap in multithreading between those two CPUs ?

>>59104709
Good point, still gotta wait for them reviews. The cheap hexacores might be binned from hell though,

>>59104764
I think it's a safe bet that anything without XFR might not be a great overclocker, but I bet all up and down the stack the XFR variants are going to be at least decent overclockers. AMD sounds very confident about the XFR chips.

>>59104709
you can't with how the CPU cores are grouped. 6 cores have the same OC as all 8. Need to go down to 4.

>>59104921

>mfw 6c/12t are just 8c/16t with 2 cores disabled by the firmware
>mfw it's all real

yeah I just realized that by looking at the die and the CCX complexes

>>59104955
usually 1 or 2 cores will be physically defective

>>59104921
Wrong, because the chip doesn't need to supply power to the ded cores and you aren't dealing with their heat. Liquid helium was needed for the 1800X to hit 5Ghz because of the heat.

>>59105039
This.

>>59104617
it's LITERALLY Intel shills lmao, most regular people are hyped

>>59105916
you're deluded, zen is interesting but it's not an intel killer

>>59104049
95% of people who can oc, don't.
Notice how the cpus for oc are just better than the ones that aren't? that is what most are bought for, not to over clock it but because they are base clocked 20-30% higher.

>>59104244
if the min was constantly lower, than it wouldnt average 85 with that low of a max.

>>59103950
But the examples were shit.

sss on gpu is shit compared to cpu sss because
>>59102804

>>59105997
people have been holding off for a higher than 4 core cpu for what is closing in on a decade now.

intel refused to do sane prices, amd didn't.

>>59097469
OK, but your image shows 10-cores and 8-cores ahead of higher clocked quad cores.

I feel like you're making a poor argument with that choice of images.

>>59103993
>MUUUHHHHH GHZ
Pentium 4 brescott all over again.
Ive got bad news for you my dear fagot friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCDbEXlLWio
Thats 1.5 ghz for some 5~10 frames here and there.

Fucking idiot.

>>59105997
But it is.
Ever since i got my 2600k i was thinking wouldnt be nice to upgrade my 4/8 cpu at least for a 5/10, 6/12 idk BUT NOOOOOOO.
Even to this day your beloved i7 7700k is fucking 4/8, and anything above that is crazy expensive.

>>59106943
>better by a handful of frames for triple the price.

>>59107052
it's not an intel killer, it's competition like the athalon was, but it hardly killed intel.

>>59104557
6core 1600x is 95W

>>59107005
5-10 frames is a lot especially outside of gaming because gaming performance doesn't scale as well with cpu speed

>>59107005
>most of the time 8 threads are idle no matter if you oc or not

really makes me think

>>59107131
You nasty brute.
Anon post a gaming benchmark.
Some fagot says
>HURRRRR compare to muh beloved ijew 7700k @ 5 gorillions ghz
Got told the following
>>59107005
Get this jewel of retardation:
>>59107131
>HURRRR outside of gaaaymeeess
You know it would be better if you just follow the macfagots mantra
>its just better i KNOW IT, it just werks

>>59107188
you're not even making much sense at this point

i think you need a hug

>>59097469
>that screenshot


I read that computerbase article and it literally said that that 8 cores > 4 cores when it comes to gaymen in 2017 tho. Is Schlomo forgiving you your Erbschuld yet Kevin?

File: Q2 3.14demo.gif (23KB, 789x598px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 789x598px

>>59107137
Multithreading is achieved in 2 levels.
1) Software level: optimizing the overall software architecture and or compilers (in some rare instances)
2) Hardware level: schedulers, branch predictors prefetchers and whatever magic happens in the l1,l2 and l3 cache.

Pic related is quake 2 demo (3.14) running on a i7 2600K. Why o why does it runs on 2 threads?
Also idk why fagots posting benchs cant make a simple resource monitor like this.

File: lol 5v5 haram.gif (45KB, 1481x909px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1481x909px

>>59107247
They post a video with multiple sources of information and i cannot look at everything at once.
And dont get me started on the fagots who post a screengrab from the fucking resource manager window.

>>59107220
if you only have weak cores like a bulldozer or r7 1700 it's not even better than a 4 core i7. see >>59104111

File: ps2 vidk.gif (20KB, 789x598px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 789x598px

>>59107279
Even planetside 2, wich btw is pelted by the community as a unoptimized cant-use-cores piece of shit, shows a clear use of multithreading.

>>59107247
how do you expect quake 2 to make a meaningful use of that many threads lmfao

>>59107317
it's a much more complex game than quake 2 and those games tend to use pipelining which add 1 or more extra frames of latency

File: wot t7 tiger p.gif (30KB, 1481x909px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1481x909px

>>59107289
Cant define a "weak" core can you?
Thats the whole point, bulldozer had this strange conectivity at some strange places (l1, l2 and l3 cache) the predictors were shit, the shared floating was wrong, the gigahurtz made no difference and so on.
But ryzen has a never before seen branch predictor, low penalty missprediction, low latency across all cache levels AND the bonus of knowing how to make high megahurtz designs.
So im guessing we all are in for a huge sorprise with oc'ing and stuff.

>>59107352
and it's effectively using no more than 4 threads because you're only getting ~50% cpu usage

>>59107358
it barely overclocks at all you deluded moron. see >>59099346

File: d3stupidshit.gif (26KB, 1398x909px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1398x909px

>>59107352
Thats what im talking a bout asshole, the cpu itself makes quake to run into 2 threads.
Back in 1997 nobody had an idea of multithreading and thanks to the cpu design it runs on 2 threads.
>Says"tend" to use pipelining
>adds 1 or more extra frames of latency
You dont even know what youre talking about right?

>>59107391
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Q_zHG3vqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Q_zHG3vqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Q_zHG3vqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Q_zHG3vqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Q_zHG3vqg

kill yourself fucking retard

>>59107377
You avoided his entire point about the Bulldozer cores not being comparable to Ryzen cores. You're the deluded moron here.
>it barely overclocks at all
>expecting great OC'ing from a 65w chip

>>59107411
you're just trolling at this point or you have serious mental issues

>>59107405
The fact that you have to post an hour long video instead of condensing it to relevant points means you have no argument at all.

>>59107366
>being this tard
Are you seriously saying that 4 cores running secuential instructions at are IN FACT faster than 8 instances running the same secuential instructions AT THE SAME TIME?
Really?

>>59107415
you still didn't address any points

>>59107440
yes i did

>>59107377
If you close your eyes and stop seeing the thing you dont want to see, i doesnt make it dissapear.
>One thing that we shouldn’t fail to mention is that all of the results we’re seeing, including the record breaking performance of an overclocked Ryzen 1800X is only the tip of the iceberg. These chips are fresh off the production line and how high they can clock will only get better as the 14nm LPP process AMD is using matures. It’s impressive enough that the company can already get its first ever 14nm CPU iteration to hit 4.0GHz straight out of the gate. It took Intel several years before its 14nm process was mature enough to produce quad-core CPUs that can hit 4.0GHz, let alone 8-core chips.

>>59107461
>muh OC on a 65w tdp chip
You sure convinced me with that argument

>>59107426
it explains that their game engine uses pipelining to achieve better multi-threaded throughput. this is not controversial. clueless RETARD.

>>59107472
>So im guessing we all are in for a huge sorprise with oc'ing and stuff.
(You)

>>59107477
Say you're in a formal debate event and your opponent starts making his point, would it make sense that, instead of arguing back, you begin to throwing large hardbound books at him?

File: doom.gif (32KB, 1481x909px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1481x909px

>>59107405
Wait are you really this TARD?
You arent making any point at all if i were to shitpost like you i would then say.
>hurrrrr go learn cpus design
Then i would put my smug face on and rejoice of my internet victory.

>>59107289
>r7 1700
>weak cores
This meme needs to die. I understand you underage shits can only associate AMD with Bulldozer-tier IPC because you literally have never been exposed to anything different, but you need to pull your heads out of your asses and realize that at worst non-XFR versions of Ryzen that "only" turbo to shit like 3.7 GHz at stock will be more in line with stock Ivy Bridge or Haswell IPC, not cutting edge but hardly anything to scoff at and certainly more than capable of delivering adequate performance in demanding single threaded tasks.

>>59107496
>>59107501
>>59107505
fuck off to reddit you literal spergs

File: 1475851290042.jpg (20KB, 480x451px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x451px

>>59107510

>>59107493
They were able to get 4.0ghz out of a low-binned 65w tdp rated chip. I don't know why you should expect less of the much higher end chips.

>>59107477
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA SHIT SON

So you dont know nothing about a cpu pipeline like the ebin 20 stage bentium 4 brescott pipeline.
Got it retard.

>>59107547
Sorry i meant BIPELINE.

>2018 confirmed for the year of the 7.0 GHz Cannon Lake featuring Kaby Lake part 2: hyperbipeline tegnology edition

>>59107505
No need to argue with this turd.
He got his ass stuffed with arguments by
>>59107358
and
>>59107470

Is this the new retard party general?

>>59107541
>I don't know why you should expect less of the much higher end chips.
the shills are literally saying that r7 1700 will be better than 7700k for around the same price. it's just wishful thinking. the r7 1700 is only better in multi-threaded tasks such as video encoding.

>>59107593
>graphs in a mongrel language proving anything
top kek brah

>>59107616
and it's already known that the higher end chips will only clock marginally above 4 GHz

>>59107547
confirmed for only knowing wccftech-tier hardwarefag buzzwords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_(software)

>>59107629
>it's already known

>>59107616
>>59107629
MUH GIGGAHURTZ

Who cares if your IPC is inferior in single threaded tasks if you're likely to be GPU bottlenecked in any respectable game anyway?

The only people that will still have any use for intel are people that want to emulate. People that are sane will sacrifice 5-10% of single threaded IPC for double the threads and

File: bentium itnium bipeline.jpg (20KB, 500x179px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x179px

>>59107573
>muh ipc
>muh megahurtz

Dude dont get me started on the bentium itanium fiasco.

>>59107687
enjoy your <30 fps dips and stuttering >>59104111

>>59107629
Do you honestly think that 5ghz kaby lake is the norm?

>>59107687
There's no and. FORGET THE AND.

>>59107622
Got told.
Playing the superior race/country/age/gender/social status/economical status/creed/etc/ card

Oh boy, what am i going to do?

>>59107696
no one thinks you're funny.

>>59107710
>5GHz and beyond
>Still, Asus' reputation for rock-solid reliability and overclocking performance continues with the Code. It is a high-end motherboard with a high-end price to match, but it (along with several other Asus boards) has a neat party trick: it can push the i7-7700K to 5GHz with a reasonable (read: no extravagant water cooling required) setup. There are a few caveats to that performance—the biggest being that Asus also supplied the i7-7700K for this review, which was likely binned from a large batch—but the company claims that most decent unlocked Core i7 and Core i5 Kaby Lake chips will hit 5GHz between a reasonable 1.29-1.35 volts.
where do you think all this 7700k 5 GHz benchmarks come from if it's such a rare thing

>>59107652
You are the one posting links to wikipedia son.
Either way im glad you are learning, maybe next time you wont think everything intel says is the absolute truth.

>>59107739
you're a fucking uneducated spic who doesn't know what he's talking about

>>59107706
Interesting graph but more info is needed.

Also, this is the 65W chip we're talking about here. The best XFR 6c12t chip that is ultimately cheaper than the R7 1700 will likely be a better gaming chip.

The R7 1700 seems like a niche chip geared more for productivity than gaming.

>>59107616
Like these
>>59107501
>>59107391
>>59107358
>>59107317
>>59107279
>>59107247
Show me a single thread piece of software.

>>59107768
almost all games do better with an overclocked 4 core 7700k than a lower clocked 8 core cpu
>>59098881
>>59104111

>>59107753
Ok then school him.
Because from the looks of it you did got told like super dupper hard.

>>59097469
Except the IPC went up 50% and the core clock is much higher than bulldozer.....

>>59107768
also a 7700k has 8 logical cores you fucktard and you're not getting full cpu usage

>>59107798
so were back to square one
>>59107005

>>59107804
>samefagging
so sad...

>>59107733
In the end, you're still comparing it to a low-binned 65w tdp chip that was fresh off of a fairly new production process. The fact that it was able to hit 4.0ghz was impressive enough.

>>59099346
>>59104096
>>59107377
>the worst binned CPU of the lot overclocks the worst
Who could have ever seen this coming.

>>59107819
kill yourself. 7700k performs objectively better than r7 1700 in the gaming benchmarks we've seen so far.

>>59107824
i'm not saying there's anything wrong with r7 1700. i'm just arguing against the deluded amd poorfag shill wishful thinking that it's better than 7700k for everything (including games) at around the same price.

>>59107824
>The fact that it was able to hit 4.0ghz was impressive enough.
only with a $250 motherboard. sad!

>>59107860
>low-binned 65w tdp chip fresh off of a fairly new production process

>>59104111
lmao 10 less minium frames

looks like another dead in the water AMD cpu

Reminder that once this trainwreck is released you will want to ALWAYS look for the min frames, thats what you're going to be missing with poor core to core performance.

>>59107813
8 logical cores?
The intel ark site says youre laying, it has 4 cores (physical cores that is) and 8 threads
or you get picky and really really want to use the word logical core is 4 physical cores and 4 logical cores for a grand total of 8 threads.
And you are still disregarding >>59107247
The only single threaded thing out there are fucking benchmarks.

>>59107867
the chipset itself is a limiting factor. by the time ryzen has "hopefully" matured we'll have coffee lake which just completely BTFOs ryzen and amd won't have anything to counter intel for at least another several years

>>59107837
>objectively

>>59107889
>the chipset itself is a limiting factor.
There's a reason why people hit different overclocks despite having the same mb and cpu

>b-b-but you can OC it easily!
yes that's why AMD didn't make that OC mark the stock, because they wanted to look bad

>>59107602
https://my.mixtape.moe/ucolyl.mp4

>>59107860
But if intel does it with its K line and special oc chipset everything is fine right?

>>59107875
>retard looking at minimum frames
>hasn't heard of 1% lows and 0.1% lows

>>59107931
lol go ahead and order a ryzen and enjoy your cactusy smooth gaymen

>>59107950
I was making a remark about your stupidity on relying on min frames instead of the much more accurate 1% low and 0.1% low metrics, not on the 1700's performance

>>59107982
>>59107875 is a much more reasonable comment than the garbage you've been spewing in this thread

>>59107996
>I would look at an objectively inferior metric because I'm a simple-minded retard that can only understand simple numbers

>>59108012
weaker cores = more likely to hit a "snag" during execution

>>59108034
>>59107982

>>59108012
>objectively

>>59097555
It's 4 modules 8 cores you dipshit

>>59107996
No matter how many cores or frames Ryzen can push, even in core friendly engines like Overwatch or Frostbite, their weak core performance will result in lower minimum frames aka frame dips.

These CPU's will be completely useless for gaming and will be another bulldozer.

>>59098869
>he doesn't understand the difference between a module and a core

>>59108049
They're only slightly weaker and is more on par with Haswell. Stop exaggerating

>>59108049
Do you really think the single threaded performance will still be bulldozer level?

File: image.jpg (71KB, 741x568px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 741x568px

>>59097469
>>59098459
>>59098995
>>59099045
>>59099335
>>59099395
>>59099416
>>59099497
>>59099977
>>59100094
>6900k
>3.2/3.7GHz
>Still beats a 4.2/4.5GHz 7700k on average
>Cores don't matter at all for gaming

>>59107289
>1700/1800 shown to have similar single-thread performance as the 6900k
>Broadwell-E is Bulldozer now

>>59108034
What is a weaker core, like, how can you put it in laymen terms?

>>59098233
Not so close when you compare with flagship KabyLake. Waiting until actual benchmarks for my final decision

>>59108049
this

AMD shills are like rabid libtards

oy vey SHUT IT DOWN

>>59108049
>>59108082

>>59108083
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700K/3915vs3647

>>59108080
6900 isn't considered to be a gaming cpu. 7700k is better in most cores

>>59108082
a core with lower performance than the core you're comparing it to you insufferable autistic spic

>>59108106
>7700k is better in most cores
in most games

>>59108106
But you're wrong.

>>59108117
not an argument. kys and fuck you for wasting my time with your inane bullcrap

>>59108106
It's still far from being Bulldozer-tier bad

>>59108143
no one made that claim. r7 1700 < 7700k. has nothing to do with bulldozer.

>>59108167
see
>>59108049
>These CPU's will be completely useless for gaming and will be another bulldozer.
>>59107289
>if you only have weak cores like a bulldozer or r7 1700
>>59097469
>this is literally another bulldozer

>>59108106
>>59108116
>6900 isn't considered to be a gaming cpu. 7700k is better in most cores
>in most games

There is only two cases where the 7700k wins, losing in an average of 14 games. The 12% obviously wouldn't be worth the premium, but I don't see how cores don't have any relevance in this case, especially not in contrast to AMD's upcoming CPUs which are believed to perform around the 6900k.

I guess it comes back to the 1700's boost behavior and overclocking potential.

>>59108127
Seems more like you're the inane retard making false claims.

>>59108204
t. autist

>>59108127
Because even if i post anything remotely close to an argument you turbo boost your shitposting 550%

this thread is literal cancer

FUCK YOU

Good thing this thread has 2 posts left