Are there any reliable gaming benchmarks that pit the Ryzen lineup

File: Screenshot_20170225_131912.png (45KB, 895x426px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 895x426px

>>59111148
>gaming benchmarks against a 7700k
No, because the 7700k isn't competition, it's $200 cheaper.

>games will be able to take full advantage of 8 cores?
They already do.
And the reliance on more cores will only increase with time and higher resolutions.
This is one of the good effect of consoles on the PC market.

>>59111191

You're just giving opinions while linking a benchmark that has nothing to do with what I asked. Most games today still only use 2-4 threads.

>>59111148
Not ones that are impartial as the majority are from AMD who of course ran tests under their controlled conditions.
Im hoping these cards are as advertised but until independant reviewers have done their tests I would take any you see with a pinch of salt.

>>59111148
>any reliable gaming benchmarks
No. Ryzen reviews and benchmarks are under NDA until March 2.

>>59111148
>Are there any reliable gaming benchmarks that pit the Ryzen lineup vs an OCd 7700k?
Not yet, the NDA on reviews hasn't lifted yet. They'll be up on the 28th I believe.

>how many cores do the AMD console CPUs have and is it a given that future games will be able to take full advantage of 8 cores?
The PS4 consoles and the Xbone are all using 8 of AMD's little Jaguar cores. We've already seen a ton of modern games scale well to 6 threads or more, though this trend was under way long before this console generation. The trend is only going to continue because the whole market is moving that way. Intel will be making a mainstream 6 core part with Coffee Lake. Everyone is on the more cores bandwagon.

>>59111148
ryzen 7 = content creators
ryzen 5 = mu gaymers

File: anon.jpg (5KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 259x194px

>>59111237
Dont like what we are discussing, go read other threads. Its not difficult.

>benchmark that has nothing to do with what I asked
we know that the different Ryzen 7 SKUs perform similar to a 6900k. Benchmark shows a 6900k. Ryzen 7 is going to be within a few % of that.

>>59111208
>Most games today still only use 2-4 threads.
the benchmark posted proves the opposite

>>59111216
>March 2
>2
>number two
>poo
>poo in loo
WOW will AMD ever recover from this

>>59111208
>You're just giving opinions while linking a benchmark that has nothing to do with what I asked. Most games today still only use 2-4 threads.

That image is average score of 15 games, clearly most games today do not only use 2-4 threads else a significantly lower clocked 8 core would not beat a 4 core.

File: 1464429524125.jpg (477KB, 991x639px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 991x639px

>>59111148
February 28 or March 2 or 3
These 3 days probable NDA lift date.

I would expect 6900k gaming performance at least in Ryzen 1700 which is 15% higher than 7700k in 8 games out of 10.

Nobody here runs a 6900k you autistic spergstations. It's what AMD cherry picked to look good. It's even a fucking 3.2Ghz chip with a max of 3.7 and most here literally run at least 4.6Ghz for years.
You literally pull the same shit with last time.
Enjoy your flop.

>>59111501
>>59111485
Noice, chic shitposting anon, High class.

>>59111501
>Nobody here runs prosumer hardware
Everybody here's a poorfag with a 2500k so no wonder.

>>59111516
things is, 6900k was never an option for gaming, now it is, people don't know a thing about how well modern games scale

>>59111501
yes amd cherry picked an 8core intel to showcase their 8 core cpus...

who would have thought of that...

thats why the video of gtav didnt use a 1700x and instead used a 1700 with 500 mhz less LOL

>>59111148

Nope, because ryzen isn't released yet.

Don't look at benchmarks too much or you'll be disappointed with the production units. It's not like they will be available to the general public anytime soon.

>>59111567
Blame those tech people from Youtube. While they have legitimate use for a fuckton of threads, their audience only know how to copy and paste builds.

>>59111596
>It's not like they will be available to the general public anytime soon.
ran out of things to lie about? 20 boards available day one, ample supply of CPUs with them
samples flying around everywhere at this point

>>59111623
AMD is saying initial supply of Ryzen is a million units. They've got tons of volume because yields are so high.
The lower tier SKUs are launching later because the gross majority of dies are fully functioning 8 core parts.

Intel's retail edge shills are scared.

>>59111148
Not very many and absolutely not.
The reason amd got ass raped by intel is because they put all their money on parallel processing.
There is no general method of converting a single thread algorithm into an algorithm that can benefit from parallel processing, so specialized APIs are necessary to create multiple treaded algorithms. And AMD satisfied that requirement exactly (AMD Mantle), however this wasn't good enough. As it turns out, there are a lot of algorithms that suffer from harsh diminishing returns with respect to the number of cpu cores available. This is just a result of computational fact, and can't really be fixed. The only thing AMD can do is try to find algorithms that easily scale to multiple cores. However, AMD will fail at this as well because Nvidia has already started hard on artificial intelligence research with their video cards. Because Nvidia will have A.I. software that can run on a GPU, PhysX, and a better A.P.I. for parallelize algorithms, AMD's 8 core chips will be left in the dust, and they may go bankrupt.

>>59111567
Sorry but you are literally mentally challenged on this subject, you are full of shit, and you know nothing about it. Your own shilling material you keep spamming us day in and day out now shows that extremely cheaper Intel products are like max 10% worse than a 6900k.
Seriously, fuck off with the memes, you don't even help AMD.
If you actually wanted to help not flop, you'd expose their hypocrisy.

>>59111661
>>59111677
look at the mad autist
look at him and laugh

>>59111191
1700 is cheaper than 7700k

>>59111690
The 1700 is very low clocked and low power like server chips, unless you're overclocking it it's no competition for the 7700k in gaming.

> the 6900k, the $1000 chip I cherry picked, is like 10% better than $300 Intel products on the games I cherry picked
> therefore Ryzen is amazing because it's cheaper than $1000
you are sad stupid children

>>59111623
>>59111641

All these are promises. Making a promise is pretty easy. They also promised zen to be available in 2016.

Let's just wait* and see what will actually happen.


*just wait is a registered trademark of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

>>59111683
I don't see anything wrong with what he said. You keep spamming us against a chip from intel that nobody has ever bought in the history of /g/. The ~$300 chips of Intel are only minor downgrades from it for gaming.

>>59111489
>6900k gaming performance is 15% higher than 7700k in 8 games out of 10
Are you from the future?
I don't think I have a single game that uses more than 4 cores

>>59111719
Its cute how you little faggots how to lie to build up a narrative.
AMD said they'd have limited availability in Q4 2016, and they met that. They were sending OEM samples out before the new year started.

>>59111738
Well f you only play 3+ year old games, you don't need to upgrade anyways.

>>59111771
The only games I know that use 8 cores are Watchdogs 2, B1 and the latest Call of Duty maybe?
Even Doom which uses Vulkan and it's not 3y old only really uses 4 cores.

>>59111808
Ashes of the Singularity
Battlefield 1
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Dishonored 2
Gears of War 4
Project Cars
Total War Warhammer
Watch Dogs 2

All these games benefit significantly from having 6 cores or more.

Don't believe me? Have a look at some benchmarks: https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
Those are the benches this >>59111191
chart is from.

File: 14877650515250.jpg (291KB, 703x1003px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 703x1003px

Pязaнь зa 18000p eбёт 6800к зa 23000p!
Игopaм хвaтит r5 1500 6 ядep 12 пoтoкoв 4.5ггц.

>>59111808
Crysis, Far Cry 3, Hitman, Tomb Raider, Ryze, Dead Rising 3, Forza 3, Project Cars, Hitman, Gears of War 4, all the recent Battlefield games, The Witcher 3, there are literally dozens of games that make proper use of 6 or more threads.

>>59111148
Spec-wise, the r7 chips look more like they're competing with the x99 chips that intel is putting out, Offering the same performance at half the price.

>>59111910
>>59111905
Shit games

>>59111910
>The Witcher 3
Except this is bullshit, fuck the majority of your list is bullshit now that I think about it
atleast the other guy was honest
>>59111905
Why does that site only provide the overall bench instead of one for each game.
nobody fucking run Ashes of the Singularity for anything else other than benchmarks

>>59111905
>1080p
>720p
>2017
hahahahaha wtf is this shit?

>>59111455
underrated post

>>59111960
cpu bounded benchmarks?

>>59111905
The problem with those benchmarks is that they are running x700k cpus at stock speed.
Something that literally nobody does

File: cb cpu.png (145KB, 1375x1293px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1375x1293px

>>59111942
How about you scroll down?

>>59111976
see >>59111977
Just plain dishonest benchmarks

>>59111942
>I got called out for talking out of my ass
>I don't know how to respond
>I'll just shitpost

Nice butthurt, underage kid.
The Witcher 3 scales with cores so well that low clocked Haswell-E will be neck and neck with Skylake for average frame rates, but min frame rates will be even higher.
Pathetic little butthurt kid.

>>59111990
I was talking about the image
also this >>59111977
show me a comparison with a 7700k @ 4.8Ghz which is easily attainable on air

>>59111977
Contrary to fanshill belief not even 2% of the market overclocks, and if you're overclocking your 7700k by 400MHz then you'd have to overclock the 6900k by 1GHz (3.2 base clock, BDW-E average hits around 4.3)

That would make the 7700k look even worse.

> the 6900k, the $1000 chip I cherry picked, is 10% better than $300 Intel products on the games I cherry picked
> therefore Ryzen is amazing because it's cheaper than $1000
Can you stop pretending that even you believe that?

>>59112003
see >>59111977

>>59111994
the other processors are also running stock speed

looks like you're grasping for straws my man

>m-muh gayms dun use more than 4 corz...
>gets proven wrong
>WELL GAMES TESTED ARE ALL SHIT ANYWAY AND 6900k IS $1000 PRICE/PERF 7700k BEST I SWEAR I'M NOT POOR

>>59111977
The performance difference would only go to the 6900k favor since it has far more room to overclock than the 7700k.

>>59112031
>>59112024
The other processors literally cannot overclock past 4GHz except with ln2. 7700k is made for overclocking and nobody runs it on stock.

>>59112045
7700k runs better than 6900k if you overclock it.

>>59111977
The problem with that is that nobody wants to run 10000 benchmark runs to satisfy autists on /g/ who whine about
>but muh overclock

>>59112025
ebin new copy pasta

>>59112067
>The other processors literally cannot overclock past 4GHz except with ln2. 7700k is made for overclocking and nobody runs it on stock.
Lol, now you're denying reality, Broadwell-E averages around 4.3GHz and Haswell-E can hit some 150-200MHz higher.

>>59112067
>The other processors literally cannot overclock past 4GHz except with ln2.

literally prove it

>>59112030
>b-b-b-b-b--bbut muh 4.2ghz process with 4.5ghz boost wasn't overclocked
>it'll gain 1000% more performance by clocking it to 5ghz on a water loop after delidding it because it runs hotter than the sun thanks to the shit tier joke TIM under the heat spreader
>stock vs stock comparisons don't count!

KIKE DAMAGE CONTROL SHIFTING INTO MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE!

>>59112063
>the 6900k favor since it has far more room to overclock than the 7700k
You do realize that 8c processors just can't OC to anywhere close to x700k clocks right?

>>59112084
>>59112092
I meant 5GHz it was a typo.

>>59112025
>> the 6900k, the $1000 chip I cherry picked, is 10% better than $300 Intel products on the games I cherry picked
>>Ryzen is around 6.7% better and have a lower TDP on the same cherry picked topics
>>for half the price
>> therefore Ryzen is amazing because it's cheaper than $1000
I fixed it.
You can thank me later.

>>59112093
Actually 7700k can easily reach 5.3GHz on water.

File: jer01nov14BAZ.jpg (145KB, 1500x1054px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1500x1054px

>>59112067
>7700k is made for overclocking
>Jew cum TIM
>has to be delidded even at stock
>made for overclocking

>>59112114
Silicon Lottery posted stats for Kaby Lake a long time ago, little kike faggot. Literally less than 5% of i7 7700k chips will even hit 5.1ghz stable on water.

Planetside 2

>>59111907
>Pязaнь зa 18000p eбёт 6800к зa 23000p!
cдypeл? 6800к = ~30 000p в cpeднeм. 6850к=~45 000p. 6900r = 75 000p.

1800х cкopee вceгo бyдeт в paйoнe 40 000
и 1700=~26 000
1700x =~30 000

>>59112102
>You do realize that 8c processors just can't OC to anywhere close to x700k clocks right?
It doesn't have to, it can comfortably clock some 400-500MHz lower, and still retain similar IPC because of the gigantic L3 cache.

Stop arguing with people who know better than you, how can a 7700k that's already at 4.3 stock overclocked by 15% beat a 6900k that's overclocked over 30%? When it was ALREADY losing at stock? Is your brain even functional?
The only way the 7700k is a better bet is if you're gaming in SuperPi all day!

>>59112133
You can go ahead and check every OC forum out there and be proven wrong if you want

>>59112158
Because you can OC the 7700k to 5.3GHz and stop running benchmarks at 720p

>>59112188
>>59112129

>>59112188
>Because you can OC the 7700k to 5.3GHz and stop running benchmarks at 720p
At what? 1.5v?

Are you fucking retarded.

>>59112178
>Sandy Bridge can only run at 4.9
>Broadwell can only run at 4.3
nice meme

>>59111703
Depends on the game. Overwatch scales great with many cores

>>59112188
Silicon lottery has stats. You're pointing at posts made by individual people

>>59112208
uhm, a-actually kaby lake can overclock to 8.9 passively cooled at .04 volts

>>59112188
>Because you can OC the 7700k to 5.3GHz
Nice, I can suicide run my chips too.

>>59112204
FUD
>>59112208
Wait are you actually saying you can't OC the 7700k to 5.3GHz
Oh wow talk about cognitive dissonance
>>59112221
self reported stats
>>59112229
5.3 GHz is actually stable on water

>>59112214
My 3570k can't even reach 4.3GHz without unreal voltage bumps. Up to 4.2GHz it runs fine on stock voltage, beyond that it needs 1.4V minimum to even boot.

I run it on stock clock at 0.9V instead.

>>59112237
>Wait are you actually saying you can't OC the 7700k to 5.3GHz
no, he is saying it's stupid to run CPU at 1.5v.
can't you read?

>>59111709
then show us your cherry picking and prove the worth of your argument
no one is stopping you

I got a 7700k that runs 5.5GHz at 1.30v

It's true believe me

>>59112248
but you don't need 1.5v to do it
http://www.overclock.net/t/1621347/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics

>>59112237
It's still stats vs. individual samples from individual people. Besides, why would silicon lottery post chips that have a low overclock? It just hurts their bottomline of selling high, stable overclocks at non-retarded voltages.

all the shilling kills every discussion
reddit 0.9a
only thing missing is voting and registration

better vote up that funny counter shilling fast!

>>59112267
From that list
5.2, not even delid and not at 1.5v
And it's fucking stable
But yeah, I guess you can't OC a 7700k past 5ghz right guys

File: Screenshot_20170225_150223.png (60KB, 750x614px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 750x614px

>>59112267
Who are you kidding you dumb nigger? There are only 6 people that got to 5.2 and they're all delided.

>>59111960
>I have no idea what I'm talking about

File: 7700K OC.png (84KB, 837x903px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 837x903px

>>59112287
Anandtech couldn't do 5 GHz.

>>59112304
>1 hour stress tests
>8 hour stress tests
>delided and and custom loops
>1.45vcore

These are a joke, only 8 hour stress test? Do these niggers only run games for 2 hours and turn off their PC?

little intel shill getting rekt ITT
BTFO on all fronts

So getting the 7700k is the best option ?

>>59112359
If you want to continue paying for overpriced hardware with little gain, sure.

>>59112359
yes it'll over clock to 11 million gigahertz on -34.65 volts, everytime. it's absolutely true

>>59111148
ITT stupid intel kids that think single core OC = All core OC
are you fanboy kids really that dumb to not know?

>>59111455
really makes me think

>>59112359
No it isnt.

>>59111148

With all the review kits being out, I would expect more leaks. NDA is't a criminal law, it's just an agreement.

File: AYY.jpg (52KB, 565x313px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 565x313px

>140 watts
>140 watts
>140 watts
>140 watts
>140 watts
>140 watts
>140 watts

File: certified shit wrecker.jpg (13KB, 381x286px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 381x286px

>>59113010
>8 cores
>16 threads
>3.6ghz base clock
>4ghz turbo
>Broadwell level IPC
>95w TDP
>$499


>8 cores
>16 threads
>3.2ghz base clock
>3.7ghz turbo
>Broadwell level IPC
>140w TDP
>$1000

One of these is the clear winner, and it isn't from intel.

>>59112315
Its like people don't know what the silicon lottery is and don't know people on forums boosting got gold samples otherwise there would be hundreds of people claiming it, other then this is the first time I even heard 5.3 was possible.

>>59113104
Intel might have the upper edge if you need more than 4 slots of RAM.

>>59113104
>95w
and one of these is a direct lie.

>>59113567
Sorry, little shill.
Top binned retail silicon is 3.6ghz/4ghz inside of the same 95w TDP.

>>59112278
why post low overclocks? well lets say that we had a cpu that was 3ghz, and every chip could hit 5ghz, but only 5% hit 5.5

that 5ghz oc would be effectively worthless and the 5.5ghz the big ticket, but without telling us how many hit each of the clocks, it devalues the high oc too.

>>59112955
nda is a sueable offense, embargo is agreement.

>>59114402
Breaching an NDA is breach of contract, a civil offense.

>>59114698
like i said sueable

>>59114720
Sueable isn't even a word.

>>59114787
and yet you know what it means