> the 6900k, the $1000 chip I cherry picked, is 10% better

>>59111780
>games
>>>/v/

>>59113022
if you'd throw away all gaymers back to >>>/v/ this place would be empty

>>59111780
This argument makes no sense.

There are no mobos for Ryzen that support 4000 Mhz DDR4

>>59113371
Of course he makes sense. It's practically the same meme they pulled last time. In this case it's "here is the 6900K that literally nobody in /g/ does buy, it costs $1000, and this AMD chip on $500 is competitive". Alright, the problem is that nobody in fucking /g/ ever would even consider a $1000 chip, most have $200 to $350 Intel chips which are competitive even compared to the $1000 Intel chip itself at the applications they are using, so even if you cherry pick a game that makes the $1000 Intel chip good at, it will usually only be like max ~%10-15% better than a common intel chip at $300 so saying "my AMD chip at $500 destroyed a $1000 chip from Intel" is fucking noise, a propaganda, and fucking empty shilling since nobody even fucking considered getting a $1000 intel chip in /g/ in the first place!

Doesn't the 6900k do worse in games than the 6700k because the 6700k has better cores or something?

>>59114371
In most games yes. My argument is that EVEN in games that it might do better, it's a stupid meme to claim "AMD destroyed Intel on $1000 VS $500 by doing similar performance" because the 6900K usually just did like 10% better than a $300 Intel chip and literally nobody in /g/ even considered to get a $1000 chip, and personally, I wouldn't even go near $500 that AMD wants for that chip.

Skylake-E will btfo ryzen. Its sad but if you want to feel happy with our ryzen purchase you better buy it now because you won't be happy down the road.

>>59114656
-E products are luxury products and AMD has a chance there to go against since people give like 70% for them for like 10% more performance. Where the AMD meme falls apart is that Intel products in the mid range are exceptional for anything that isn't pure non-interactive encoding. What's even worse for them is that very few people would not only not consider $1000 Intel chips, they don't even go near $500 that AMD wants now.

>>59111780
>AMD suck c-cuz it doesn't run games optimized for Intel chips, as well as Intel does.
There's lot's of tards out there OP. Ignorance is dangerous.

>>59113371
Why not? a 5820k could be bought new for $280 and has ~90-95% of the performance of a stock 6900k when overclocked.


OMGWTFBBQ a $280 CPU from 2014 can beat a $1000 CPU from 2016? Intel BTFO.


It's retarded since they're meant for different market segments.

>>59114336
>only considers gayming as the use
>only considers /g/ users
We were only talking about the performance of the chip

>>59114371
6900k has more physical cores so the clockspeeds have to be considerably lower than a 6700k/7700k. a lot of (older) games utilize only one core so having a very high clockspeed is preferable to having many cores.

the 6900k is not a cpu meant for gaming, it's primary use is for rendering/compiling/computation work/3d modeling where having more physical cores is much more important than having a high clock speed.

even if the ryzen CPU's are not as good as intels on single threaded shit, they are still vastly superior in multi-core applications, so there's a wide appeal regardless. as a content creator myself the ryzen CPU's are a fucking gift from god because i don't have 1k for a fucking 6900k.

more and more games are starting to make use of as many cores as possible now as well though, so game performance will increase over time (good example is strategy games which see huge gains).

>>59111780

It's amazing for the non-gaymers. A video editing rig for $700 less sounds good to me.

>>59111780
back to >>>/v/ you massive faggot

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

113KB, 500x375px

>>59114830
It's important to understand though that single-thread performance will ALWAYS be required by CPUs because they are by definition serial machines, they are not GPUs (which are the opposite at that). Even if you do manage to parallelise a game as much as possible it will STILL require a strong single thread because all interractive applications need at least one global loop that coordinates all the rest, and that is usually filled with slow as shit/inefficient mutex locks. The only real use for more cores in a relatively linear fashion can be done on purely non-interactive software like offline encoding.
Also pic related which makes it more explicit and scientific:
Only if your application is ~100% parallel diminishing returns are crushing down.

>>59111780
>gaymen

>>59113022
>>59113034
>>59114830
>>59114854
>>59114942
>>59115007
It's better to not speak than to speak and show your childish ignorance. Name one desktop application that requires 0 serial performance. Literally only pure offline encoding and other simplistic shit like that can go to 100% parallelism, since even when you setup your encoding inside your Photoshop. you are going to need serial performance from a strong thread.

File: 1486785935779.jpg (16KB, 302x266px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 302x266px

>>59113034
>he really thinks that