haha, oh wow

File: Zwischenablage02.jpg (118KB, 1032x588px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1032x588px

Heavy worksloads are good though.

Still, AMDs strategy seems to be
>PUT IN MOAR COARS

>>59113686
Source?

>>59113705
original was deleted, but someone uploaded it again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWEHs_R5t9s

>>59113686
>video game
You must be over the age of 18 to post here.

>>59113717
>I personally don't play video games so /g/ should ignore the significance of video game benchmarks

>>59113686
so the ryzen has a steadier framerate than the i7 7700k? Also whats the point of comparing an overclocked card to a stock one? That just seems retarded

>>59113686

Looks like that ryzen cpu hits twice the fps I ever need.

>>59113749
>so the ryzen has a steadier framerate than the i7 7700k
look again.

>>59113686
So a slower AMD CPU is almost as good as an intel one with MUH GHz?

>>59113700
AMD @ 3.4 GHz beating
Intel @ 5 Ghz is rather impressive.

File: dolan.jpg (53KB, 448x594px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 448x594px

>>59113758
>28fps
>hits twice the fps I ever need

>>59113774
You don't get it. Less difference between min and max = steady

>>59113789
Dude, the 7700K has significant higher min, avg and much higher max fps.

You can put a cap on max. fps, but you can't do the same for min fps. Pretty simple actually.

>>59113700
Is going with AMD profitable if I'm planning on mining A LOT of cryptocurrency?

>>59113823
>mining
>on any CPU

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FALL INTO THE POO AGAIN

AHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAH

>>59113787
I personally like to enjoy each frame so I have no need for it to be that fast.

>yet another source showing Zen competing with Skylake/Kaby Lake in per clock single core performance

Its no wonder why so many intel shills are shitposting constantly. Kikes have to try and spread disinfo to protect their market share.
Can't wait til Trump makes it illegal.

>>59113715
DinoPC are a small but decent UK System Builder, they're going to get in a lot of shit for that leak..

>>59113700
Now put in the 6900K for example.
But wait, that wouldn't fit yourea're narrative, right? :^)

>>59113686
Minimum frames mean fuckall, especially when both, Ryzen and the 7700K are below 40 fucking frames.
It could be a single frame where something was going on in the background, while all others were around the average.

Post the 0.1% and 1% frametimes, then we can start shitting on the inferior product.

>>59114233
>small but decent
>stupid enough to click wrong switch in youtube control panel

>>59113717
The average gamer is around 30 kid

>>59114233
Pretty sure this bs, the cunts have a warehouse full of Intel CPUs and we're honestly supposed to just take their word that these numbers are real? Whatever.

>>59114390
Pretty sure that guy meant physically and mentally.

>>59113686
WTF I HATE AMD NOW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsh_R-cD0j4&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_TsL660jME&t

something is rotten in britbong kingdom

>>59114233
well when you put a 1700 nonx against a highly cloced 7700k says a lot about them...

i wonder what will happen when the 1700x goes against 7700k on games lol

File: ryzen_cinebench_multi_threaded-100709909-orig (1).jpg (87KB, 1160x697px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1160x697px

>>59113686
give me source

img src: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3172555/computers/amd-ryzen-benchmark-preview-ryzen-7-outperforms-intels-best.html

>>59113686
And GTA is actually one of the few titles that scale pretty well as multithreaded support goes.

>>59114552
No, its not. GTAV is a really shitty game that has really poor performance.

>>59114552
Look at the ghz. AMD is about even on single-core performance when you adjust for that (keep in mind 1700X and 1800X are clocked higher than the 1700).

>>59114552
WAT? AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

gtav stutters even if you use low settings on a quad titan xp setup

>>59113686
You do know average is what matters right? And also that Ryzen is the 3rd on their top tier scale. Is not even a fair comparison, but still slays.

>>59114586
its the 4th actually its a 3.0ghz without xfr cpu

the 1700x is a 3.4 ghz with xfr.. says a lot

File: stop read.png (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

OP tried this before few times
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S59084088

the source for the graph is a youtube video
guy does not show die, cpuz, not even the games
just graphs

likely the guy in the video is OP, or OP is intel fanboy

all in all, so use sage

>i7
Post i5 or get the fuck out.
i5 is for gayming since multi-threading from i7 is worthless for it while the performance is the same.
Xeon is for pro users since i7 is shit in energy efficiency and function compared to Xeon.

People who buy i7 are certified illiterate retarded idiots.

>currently have Celeron G1840, 50w 2 cores 2 threads at 2.7 GHz
>pre-ordered the 1700, 65w 8 cores 16 threads at 3.7 GHz boost
Considering at 30% load, my CPU usually sits at 36 ~ 38°C with the shitty intel cooler, and reach 48°C at full load at worst, i can't wait to overclock the fuck out of the 1700. I've been modifying heavily the airflow in my case to get the best temperatures. My body can't wait

>>59114636
also one game to judge everything about CPU
RYZEN words are not visible, boards are around on several channels but no CPU

File: 1460958755517.jpg (123KB, 960x463px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 960x463px

>>59113686
>>59114605

Intel shills GTFO, daily threads without any substance, nobody pointed out the obvious.

4core i7 Kaby Lake benched when the 6900K is the equivalent 8 core contender at 3.2 / 3.7 with 20MB cache.

7700K
4.2 / 4.5 turbo
91W tdp
$350.00

1700 (non-X)
3.0 / 3.7 turbo
65W tdp (!!!)
$319.00

>>59114741
wtf are you on about? 7700k is suppose to go after the 1700x not the non x thats why the video is pretty stupid trying to clickbait

File: 1474273293361.png (425KB, 1010x768px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1010x768px

>>59114784

1700x hits two birds in one stone vs 7700K for gaming and single thread performance and 6900K for workloads

Comparing the single thread performance of a 4 core CPU with a locked 8 core is def clickbait

>>59114437
No, he was quoting a rule on 4chan.

>>59114840
yeah thats why amd compared them price wise not core or ghz wise..

1700x is literally 20 buck(well 80 now since intel made a pretty big cut) more

Icelake will have 8 cores 16 threads for mainstream LGA 15xx platform, Coffee Lake already is 6 cores 12 threads on LGA 1511 and AYYMD will not have MOAR CORES meme to help with Cinebench and other multithreaded benchmarks while still having worse single thread performance

>>59113820
>significant
3 FPS is a game changer

>>59113686
>i7 7700k - 89fps
>r7 1700 - 85 fps
wow
so much difference

File: 1470626409508.gif (3MB, 250x153px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x153px

why is 7700k 5Ghz has ONE FPS less than 7700k stock?
Outrageous!

File: 1366081346921.png (96KB, 375x444px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 375x444px

>>59113686
Isn't the 1700 at stock something like 3.2Ghz though? That's pretty impressive. Think it's finally time to upgrade from my 4690k and dump jewtel

>>59115060
base is 3.0
would be hilarious if it didn't use turbo

>>59113700
TWENTY FIVE PERCENT WORSE SINGLE-CORE.
Dead on arrival for 90% of games.
Even the rest 10% need SOME serial performance.

games!!!

>>59115197
>>59113717
Name one Desktop application that doesn't need serial performance. Even if your Photoshop needs to do some rendering at some point, for 98% of the time it will be on serial needs while you actually fucking use it. So that meme is also dead on arrival kiddo.

>>59115178
>serial perf

>2017

choose one

>>59114908
Yes, 20fps is a game changer when it comes to min fps. No one will buy ryzen if it's a stuttery mess like bulldozer or k10

>>59113686
>3fps difference in average
>800 Mhz difference in clock

>>59115224
are you fucking serious? ps is one of the best multithreaded tools out there LOL

there isnt any app out there that is game/video editing/encoding/photoshoping even office nowdays is multithreaded

>>59115262
Dood it's probably an early driver issue. Look at the average. Even though it has lower max fps the average differs only for three fps.

>>59114332
internal contradiction, the post

File: 1383619685403.png (213KB, 605x363px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 605x363px

>6800+K competitors
>6900K single core < 7700K
>Can't make the logical connection between 1800X/1700X being at it greater than 6900K performance and losing to 7700K in performance
>Muh Intel

>>59115260
>>59115305
You are literally fucking stupid. Every single operation you do on those interactive applications must adhere to the rules of a global loop which is filled with a conglomerate of slow and inefficient as fuck mutex locks in order to keep the whole thing apart and not fall under the load of segfaults every 10 milliseconds. There is practically 0 way to make an interactive application, be it Photoshop or Game, or Facebook machine to not require a big bulk of serial performance whatever meme you try to throw at us kiddo.
Learn to code.

€ 365 ryzen vs € 360 kaby lake

kaby lake kicks ass in everything + has integrated GPU + overclocks like crazy + reliable + won't melt + doesn't give errors

4chan still thinking AMD will beat Intel
please wake the fuck up AMD fanboys
Intel has the best CPUs in the world period.

>>59115356
How so?

>>59115432
300 ryzen vs 360 kaby lake

kaby lake already clocked to its maximum(almost) having only 300-400mhz of room to play with
having a tdp of 95w and fewer cores..

meanwhile a 1700 have 8 cores is running on 3.0ghz having a tdp of 65w and still loosing by less than 10%

>>59115347
>cpu
>drivers
Lmao

>>59115432
>Kicks ass in everything
>Nothing is actually everything

>>59113686
>overclocking the 7700k increases its min and max fps but decreases its average fps

What did they mean by this?

>>59115469
>has twice as many cores
>unprecedented amount of threads for a consumer processor
>still 10% worse than a quad core Intel
No wonder AMD shills are going all out...

>>59113686
It's an 8 core 16t cpu, that's not a gaming cpu.

And they benchmarked it at 3.4 ghz vs 4.5 gz 7700k? lol

>>59115508
>6900k has so many core
>costs over 1k
>still 15% worse than a quad core
Makes you think.

>>59115508
has twice the cores
has 30 less watts than a highly clocked crappy lake
its clocker 1.8ghz lower than a 7700k
has 10% worse perf on a video that we dont know shit about

meanwhile

a 1700x has twice the cores
is clocked 1.4ghz lower than a 7700k
it has a tdp of 95w

and manages to stay in front..

really makes you wonder

>>59115393
Yeah, that's one application with a main event loop and thread safety. This works quite ok now and if course has limits. There's this new meme called multi tasking and people seem to use it.
I for one would like to play old chinsy games while compiling latest versions of my software for all my machines with custom code for each.

If it's not for you, fine, we don't have to listen to each other's advice.

>>59113686
>Average frames almost identical
>Ryzen is clocked 800Mhz lower

Sounds like the IPC is pretty good desu fa.m

>>59113686
What doesnt really makes sense to me is how he got such low FPS in 1080p. What shitty condition he got to a 3.0Ghz clocked CPU get right behind a 4.2ghz CPU.

>>59115469
actually using ebay prices it's 300 dollars kaby lake vs $ 400 ryzen

for games, you want powerful singlecores
that's why a 7700K will always have better framerates than a xeon with 10 cores

now ryzen isn't either xeon or i7 it's garbage in the middle with useless purpose

-> Intel still best CPUs for gaming desktops
-> Intel still best CPUs for laptops
-> Intel still best CPUs for ARM portables
-> Intel still best at CPUs for servers

AMD is useless shit
I can't believe your brains can't process this

Higher cost for lower FPS?
Gamers don't care if TPU is 65W for AMD and 95W for intel, you just want the best FPS you can get for the buck...
now stop being a fanboy and wake up!

>>59115559
but why? its 2017 and locking each task on a thread instead of braking it down to be processed by all threads is apparently the best idea ever

>>59114552
Nope, he scales better in clock than core count. So, the higher the clock, the better. It is probably one of the few games that is CPU bound today.

>>59115594
>for games, you want powerful singlecores
wat?
wat?
WAT?
WATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?
WATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?

JESUS

>>59115580
see >>59114480

>>59115539
>AMD uses less power than Intel
>all of a sudden power consumption matters
Use what you can Shill, but you still reek of desperation.

File: 1465474338683.png (26KB, 687x694px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 687x694px

>>59115594
>for games, you want powerful singlecores

>>59115636
Do you even know what you're talking about?
i7-6950X 3.0 base has 10 cores 20 threads and costs $ 2000
i7-7700K 4.2 base has 4 cores 8 threads and costs $ 300

Guess which of these has the best FPS? THe 300 dollar 7700k That's because for gaming single processing power is more important than the number of CPUs
Not a single xenon in the world can beat a 7700K in gaming.

Please go inform yourself instead of being a die hard ignorant AMD fan

>>59115714
posting facts about 2 models suddenly became shillings

>>59115733
>and costs $ 300
come on, it doesn't anywhere where people still buy them.

>>59115733
you must be blind
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/

>>59115728
that's one big exception you went to get to prove your point but you're still wrong
most recent games are more single core targeted than the opposite
otherwise people would get xenon for gaming

>>59115733
>because for gaming single processing power is more important than the number of CPUs
It depends ENTIRELY on the game engine. Newer games are more likely to take advantage of multi-threading.

>>59115792
>otherwise people would get xenon for gaming
son, I don't think you have a grasp on reality.

you do not have to spend $1 200 to get those kind of benefits anymore, nobody considered 6900k as an option - ever.
Now it is an option.
And brave people actually have used xeons for gaming, works better than modern quad-core they say.

File: RYZEN_WILL_NEVER_MAKE_IT.png (247KB, 5392x976px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 5392x976px

>>59115728

>literally posting the ONLY cherry picked benchmark

I hope you die in some horrible way you piece of shit human garbage.

Ryzen is welcome at the 8-core top end market but it will in NO way be relevant to the average consumer or gamers.

>>59115733
>number of CPUs
that's 1 for both

>>59115792
oh yeah 90% of the ports we see they develop the games strictly on 8 cores and then they say

"what can we do to optimise the game more on pcs"

"i know lets make the game to hammer only the first thread"
"lets throw everything on the first thread like minecraft does"

>>59115733
>xenon
of course a noble gas would never ever beat a silicon based solid material.

>>59115852
newer and sophisticated game engines will always be ruled by whichever sponsor has more money to make those engines focus on their CPUs and that is Intel.
Believing AMD will ever win this war or that Intel is rapping people's money with old tech because they have no competitors is plain ignorance. It's like those who think every year will be linux year and windows will die. Heh, open your horizons, the world doesn't work that way. Big fish will always eat the small fish, only in your anime worlds the contrary happens, not in the real world.

>>59115896
would be amusing if in couple decades photonic CPUs would sue xenon for light source.

>>59115733
>gaming single processing power is more important than the number of CPUs
Stop talking bulshit

>>59115924
That is why only open source benchmarks are actually interesting, where you can verify everything from the compiler to the kernel.

>>59115877
>Ryzen is welcome at the 8-core top end market but it will in NO way be relevant to the average consumer or gamers.

Average consumers and gamers typically aren't building or buying i7 systems either. The higher clocking 6c/12t and 4c/8t Ryzen SKUs with XFR are going to absolutely rape i3/i5 offerings in price/performance. This is only going to get worse for intel.

>>59115924
>be ruled by whichever sponsor has more money
I already see how intel subsidies 300-500m for publisher.

>>59115877
Sorry mate, but the 8 core is just the tip of the dick AMD will shove in Intel's ass. Nice benchmarks showing lower core but higher core count having the same performance than a 4 core over 4.2Ghz does. You just proved how wrong you are.

>>59113855
kek

>>59115939

I don't know in what poorfag of a country you live in but here, i7 is king.

>>59115984

Intel deserves dick, just look at the 10-core prices, but Ryzen isn't it.

They can't get past 4.0ghz on water LOL, they'll never reach Kaby Lake, or even Skylake.

>>59115939
not it's not
1st - the average gamer doesn't even overclock (that is hardcore gaming)
2nd - risk buying the famous melting brand by the name AMD your friends tell you about?
3rd - if the ryzen 3 and ryzen 5 rape intel i7 then yes but don't forget you can also overclock intel and I highly doubt ryzen 5 and ryzen 3 will be below 200 mark and for the price you can buy a 6600k which i think that overclocked will easily rape both Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3

MARK MY WORDS

amd will fail and nobody will buy their garbage expensive CPUs that are worse performing than Intel's

>>59116061
>i7 is king
Only among enthusiasts. People that spend over $300 on a CPU are in the minority, even in the US.

>>59116079
You just contradicted yourself within the span of 2 sentences. Do people overclock or not? If the majority doesn't overclock AMD then they overclock intel either.

Doesn't really matter. Ryzen is going to fly off shelves.
>double the threads and half the price compared the competition
>single threaded performance in the ballpark of Haswell (way past the point of irrelevance for average users)

The only people that will still be buying intel will be emulator enthusiasts and gamers that specifically care about certain games where single threaded performance is a must and they're concerned about the CPU being a bottleneck. That's a pretty small niche.

File: w3_proz.png (86KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 523x440px

>>59114552
It really isn't. The 6700K and 7700K wipe the floor with the 5960X and 6950X in it. A far better example of a game that takes advantage of more threads is Watch Dogs 2.

>>59115393
Learn to functional programming asshat.

>>59116315
This. Watch Dogs 2 has replaced GTA V in respectable benchmarking circles. People that are still benchmarking GTA V are behind the times.

>Intel despair beguns
Intel Core i7-6950X ($1599 US) – $300 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-6900K ($999 US) – $200 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-6850K ($549 US) – $150 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-6800K ($359 US) – $140 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-5820K ($319 US) – $100 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-7700K ($299 US) – $80 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-6700K ($259 US) – $140 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-4790K ($279 US) – $90 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-7700 ($289 US) – $50 Price Cut
Intel Core i7-6700 (259 US) – $90 Price Cut
Intel Core i5-7600K ($199 US) – $70 Price Cut
Intel Core i5-6600K ($179 US) – $$90 Price Cut
Intel Core i5-4690K ($189 US) – $70 Price Cut
Intel Core i5-7500 ($189 US) – $30 Price Cut
Intel Core i5-6500 ($179 US) – $50 Price Cut
Intel Core i5-4590 ($159 US) – $60 Price Cut
Intel Core i3-7350K ($159 US) – $20 Price Cut
Intel Core i3-7100 ($114 US) – $15 Price Cut
Intel Core i3-6100 ($109 US) – $20 Price Cut
Intel G4400 ($49.99 US) – $20 Price Cut
Intel G3258 ($49.99 US) – $27 Price Cut

>>59116451
I'm not seeing any news releases from intel about this.

This could be a micro center only sale.

But who knows.

>>59116451
these are all only from microcenter, and the deals have been there since release.

Intel never lowers prices, but they are offering cash to people who tip the testing in their favor/don't sell AMD builds

>>59113686
>>59113700
doa

>>59116451
>Intel releases more reasonable price structure
>still makes a profit

Despair?

>>59116808
Business people, get massive butthurt to lower price.

Mostly work on Business is sell to highest price.

>>59116451
Those are microcenter prices. They have always been that cheap but you have to go there to get them.

File: 1475936378320.jpg (92KB, 800x999px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x999px

>>59113686
>a high clocked four core does better in gaming than a low clocked eight core
WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP MAKING THREADS ABOUT THIS

File: 1487786887903.jpg (30KB, 750x745px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 750x745px

>>59115393
This retard doesnt know about immutable data structures -> pure functions -> threaded jobs

1995 called, they want their OOP back

Srsly kys

>>59115924
Unlike GPU's, CPU's functions are not up to some magic API. The x86-64 instruction set is fully documented.

Get your FUD out of here.

>>59115924
>>59115965
they can't go back to 4cores because they would kill the consoles and lose money in the long run. amd went a looong way to secure ryzen

finally some real life benchmarks and not that winzip decrompression bullshit

>>59117106
>real life
>my life revolves around video games for children

File: 1435626890979.jpg (13KB, 208x160px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 208x160px

>>59113700
>3.4GHz
>Shredding a 5.0GHz CPU in multithread
HOly shit...

>>59117167
Just accept it, Games drive the industry

File: 1462302127905.jpg (41KB, 492x675px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 492x675px

What I find funny is how people go on about single thread performance comparing the 7700k to the Ryzen chips, when in single thread performance the 7600k is just as good (Though lower clocked.) And makes far more sense for workloads that require single threaded performance from a price-to-performance standpoint.

The Ryzen 7 chips are meant to compete against the HEDT chips from Intel, but it's interesting to see people omit the comparisons between the Ryzen chips and Broadwell-E chips in favor for just the i7 7700k.

>>59113820
Why am I supposed to give a flying fuck about those "minimum" frame rates that only occur during scene changes or loading situations?

If the average is ~90fps you can be damn sure that 99% of the time the FPS is above 60, plain and simple.

>>59113686
>65 watts versus 95+

[lenny face]

>>59113700
All of those are heavily OCed, much more expensive Intel chips. Is a teeny amount of single core OC potential worth more than that much multicore performance? You'd have to be pretty stupid to give that up.

>>59117256
He's a dropout YouTube vlogger.
If he had just taken Statistics 101, he would have given the mean and standard deviation.
Both low and high are nearly meaningless.

>>59113744
KYS back to /v/

Performance seems cool.

Has the very low power consumption (<10W) at or near idle been confirmed yet?

>>59117241
They are grasping at straws, they this to be Bulldozer 2.0 so hard, that they are re-using the same arguments.

>>59113686
>95% performance
>1/2 price

I'm not seeing a problem.

>>59117345
Well, unconfirmed rumors seem to show that Zen chips can idle at 300-400Mhz using only about .65v

Using an old, well known formula we can guesstimate the power draw
(for the 1800X)

95(rated TDP used as maximum watts) * (400 / 3600) (target speed over stock base) * sqr( .625 / 1.15) (target voltage over stock voltage) = roughly a 3 watt draw a those settings u̲n̲d̲e̲r̲ l̲o̲a̲d̲

this formula works pretty well for other chips I have owned.

>>59115939
>This is only going to get worse for intel.

keep seeing comments like that as though Intel is just shutting down and never releasing another set of cpus.

nothing really stopping the company that is already dominating its segment of the cpu market from lowering prices or throwing moar coars at the problem.

It wont get worse for intel unless they are so set in their ways that they allow themselves to get rolled over. If they respond with better products at competitive prices its great for us.

File: Benchmarks.jpg (28KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 700x500px

>>59117362
It's almost like people don't care that certain chips excel in certain workloads and that price to performance plays directly into this. If I'm doing any sort of work that is heavily threaded I'm gonna opt for the Ryzen 7 chips over like the 6900k unless I really need the 40 PCI-E lanes (There are workloads that do require multiple high end GPUs.) But if I'm mostly just gonna game or do things that don't require all those cores/thread of course my gaze will wonder towards the 7600k over say the 7700k.

The issue with the 7700k right now is that it isn't really recommended for their type of workload for it's price since the 7600k is 2/3 the price and will performance pretty much the same in single threaded applications, and the 1700 costs the same but far out performs it in multi-threaded work loads. But then you can make the argument of you'll be doing mixed loads. At which point either the 7600k or the 1700 will be right there for the most part. It's more of what do you want to sacrifice with what you intend to gain. Do you want more multi threaded performance or more single threaded performance?

What I really want to see is how the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 chips compare performance wise and what their price will be. If say a Ryzen 3 1200X or 1400X compares to Intel's offerings in terms of price to performance.

>>59114741
7700k is $320 on literally every retailer

What sort of benchmark or performance comparisons does /g/ actually give a shit about?
I'll be picking up both a Ryzen 3 1200X and a Core i5-7600K for my own personal curiosity.

>>59117970
It's $290 at my local micro center.

>>59117626
Thanks for the estimate. I guess I'm going to wait for confirmed numbers, though.

>>59118103
Blender
Linux kernel compilation time
Full disk encryption throughput

>>59118447
>Blender
Everyone (competent) already does that
>Linux kernel compilation time
I think there is a Linux benchmark site that does this for all CPUs, although I don't know if the site is even updated anymore. Will look into it.
>Full disk encryption throughput
What sort of encryption and algorithm?

Also, I hope you don't mind futa-hentai soundtrack playing in the background

>>59118481
>What sort of encryption and algorithm?
AES-128
AES-256
and Twofish-256

>>59118503
>>59118481
all with Linux dm-crypt of course

FreeBSD benchmarks could be interesting because Ryzen supports ECC which is necessary for FreeNAS.

>>59118503
Shit, should I do all the encryption types and algorithms? Truecrypt, veracrypt, or Bitlocker?
Also, someone suggested this to play in the background in a different thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k0Jc135ErI

>>59118543
Ignore Bitlocker. Nobody who wants privacy uses Windows.

If time is scarce, focus on
Linux dm-crypt with AES-128 and AES-256

Most people will use that

>>59113700
The R7 1700 would be at 2.025 @ 4.5GHz

>>59117419
Uhh i7-7700K and Ryzen 1700 are the same price

Literally no reason to buy Ryzen now

>>59118679
How about double the number of cores, how abou principle?

>>59115728
>Ryzen didn't even make it on the chart
How embarrassing.

File: more-cores.jpg (183KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x1000px

>>59118690

>>59114296
You want to compare a 1050$ cpu to a 340$ one?

>>59116894
DAMAGE CONTROL!

File: 0aaozmc7ynfy.png (326KB, 1050x700px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1050x700px

>>59118706
DAMAGE CONTROL TO MAJOR TOM!

>>59118679
>Literally no reason to buy Ryzen now

>3 fps difference between 5ghz and 3ghz chip

>4 more cores, making it futureproof when 4core processors become history

>shreds 7700k in games using multi-threading

>includes it's own cooler in the price

>>59118999
>3 fps difference between 5ghz and 3ghz chip
Irrelevant

>4 more cores, making it futureproof when 4core processors become history
There is nothing close to being "future-proof".

>shreds 7700k in games using multi-threading
GTA V is a video game that not only uses multi-threading, but is one of the best to do so.

>includes it's own cooler in the price
Factory CPU coolers exhibit sub-par performance.

>>59113686
A 4.2GHz clocked chip is beating one clocked at 3.0GHz
>haha, oh wow
indeed. you're really that retarded

>>59119082
>3 fps difference between 5ghz and 3ghz chip in same-priced processors is irrelevant

kinda my point. offers the same performance with the addition of 4 cores. there's literally no reason to buy 7700k

>There is nothing close to being "future-proof"

By future proof i mean it won't be obsolete tech in the near future. The same thing that happened to 2core processors is gonna happen to 4core ones

>GTA V is a video game that not only uses multi-threading, but is one of the best to do so

Not true, gta v performes horribly. A good example is watch dogs 2, and you can clearly see how 4core benches vs 8core >>59116315. 8 cores are going to become more and more relevant, since consoles also run on 8core gpus

>Factory CPU coolers exhibit sub-par performance

wraith cooler performed close to hyper 212 evo

>>59119410
it's not even beating it

average fps is all that matters, i don't care how much my fps spikes when i statically look at a wall

>>59119082
> There is nothing close to being "future-proof".
But there is such a things as future prepared. Playing The Witcher 3 with an i5 3330 was not a pleasant experience at all. 100% of all cores all the time. Stutter galore. If I had just 2 more cores the situation would have been much better. Even overclocked Haswell CPUs weren't doing well. And that was at 60 FPS!

> GTA V is a video game that not only uses multi-threading, but is one of the best to do so.
It's also one of the only games that is influenced by BOTH high clocks and higher frequency memory (RAM), something that is abnormal.

> Factory CPU coolers exhibit sub-par performance.
AMD created a new cooler called "Wraith" that is pretty good. From what I've seen it's much better than Intel's stock cooler.

>>59119454
>average fps is all that matters

Are you retarded?

Minimum FPS is way more important

Ryzen fails miserably at that too

>>59118844
Except nothing has changed.

AMD is doing the same old shit.

More cores, poor performance in everything except heavily threaded applications.

>>59119586
The 7700k OCed to 5.0 Ghz couldn't get 60 minimum fps (only 47) so by your statement it also "fails misarably".

see >>59117256

>>59118727
same number of cores, threads, similar power draw under non-avx loads, same target audience

>>59119082
>GTA V is a video game that not only uses multi-threading, but is one of the best to do so.
it has basically 0 extra scaling beyond four threads though, just better load balancing of those threads.

>>59117195
>3.4GHz 8-core
>Shredding a 5.0GHz 4-core CPU in multithread
ftfy

>>59119586
>Minimum FPS is way more important

no it's not. that minimum fps number could have been a fraction of a second on some loading screen, while the average fps is the mean performance and what you'll actually be seeing

>>59119800
>same number of cores, threads, similar power draw under non-avx loads, same target audience

Aren't you trying to argue for intel? You just said the AMD and Intel chip are basically similar all around in performance and same target audience - yet the intel costs $710 more. So thanks for proving >>59118727 's point

>>59119982
His point is that they're completely different price points and that they shouldn't be compared, which is true, but they're basically identical in every other way, except the AMD chip performs better for way less.

Literally just mad that AMD beat Intel's high end into the midrange.

>>59120078
But AMD beating or atleast competing with way more expensive intel CPUs is great for everybody.

I'm extremely happy it happened - maybe now intel will start putting some work into getting more performance each generation or maybe drop their prices - both of which will be great for consumers.

>>59119609
>poor performance
stop exaggerating

>>59119609
>same ipc
>same average fps on a single-core demanding game
>all this on the 3rd best model, compared to the best i7 for gaming
>all this not taking in mind the potential performance of the overclocked 1800x with a good water cooler

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-overclocking-performance/

“Overclocking hasn’t been a problem at all. Although we can’t announce specifics regarding frequencies due to NDA I can say that the results are impressive and overclockers will be pleased”

“With our overclocked 1800X sample cooled by the Noctua unit AMD provided in the reviewer’s kit we managed to surpass the 7700K in single threaded performance and the temperatures were great. We had no concerns about the temperatures.”

“You can achieve a good overclocking result with one click and you don’t even have to bother with manually overclocking/tuning.”

“It seems ironic yes, but with an auto-overclock the 1800X has no competition. Not even Intel’s 10 core 6950X can keep up with it.”

“According to the performance we’re seeing we can say that the 7700K will be history, even for gaming.”

>Inb4 wcctech

>>59121192
if it performs that well with air cooling, is there even a point in water cooling?

>>59119586
Consistency is what matters and you can't really tell with just max, mean, min.

But we do know that the average is the same with a small range compared to the stock 7700k which means a smaller range of variance.

>>59121831
It looks cool

And less strain on your PC if you plan on moving anytime soon.

Going to be interesting to see some 1800x @ 5ghz OC benchmarks vs 7700k in games if they are even close 0 reason to buy Intel even for a pure gaming rig

>>59121884
>hehe maybe if I have to overclock this CPU my nearly 1.5GHZ there is no reason to buy intel where I where barely have to overclock
>jews on suicide watch

File: Screenshot_1.png (58KB, 474x157px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 474x157px

>>59120321
>Ryzen
>Same IPC as skylake

>>59121192
is it fair to compare the 7700K to the 1800X?
They seem like they are completely different price brackets.

The 7700K is only priced ~$10 above the 1700 non-x
So I feel that the 1700/1700x would be a better benchmark against the 7700k

>>59121192
>>59121907
>The 7700k is dead for gaming
>just buy this 500 dollar processor instead of this 350 dollar one
But I thought AMDumbfucks were all about MUH PRICE

File: 456767345625465.jpg (58KB, 960x653px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 960x653px

>>59121884
>>59121192
>The $500 dollar processor is probably better than the $300 one

>>59121934
>It looks cool
not an argument unless you're a 12 yr old

>And less strain on your PC if you plan on moving anytime soon

meaning?

>>59121929
>muh kraby patty cake

>>59121934
love intel shill logic

>yes it is overpriced but you're paying for quality!
>omg 1800x is so overpriced though, let's compare our gaming flagship to the worse one of the set

1800x blows everything intel has to offer out of the water, both 4core and 8core

File: 346534734.jpg (18KB, 300x443px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x443px

>>59122039
>love intel shill logic XD dumb jews
>hey let's compare the more expensive processor to the cheaper one

>>59121950
>>59122000

>lets conveniently ignore the extra 4 cores offered
>lets ignore how it beats 1k$+ intel processors

gone full overshill

>>59122039
>so mad that you reply to the same post twice

>>59122053

>0.50$ have been added to your bank account

>>59122073

>>59122039 first was meant for >>59121860

>>59121884
You won't get 5Ghz without liquid nitrogen cooling. Maybe 4.5Ghz at a push with a water block.

>>59113686
There are now 3 seperate threads with this exact same retarded fuckoff-to-/v/ graph. I am really going to start reporting this shit if it keeps up.

>>59115224
Yeah because you're always using single threaded stuff without anything else running in the background. Why don't you get an old singlecore then?
Retard.

>>59115432
Kabylake is the hottest fucking chip ever what are you talking about? You need to deli it if you want real temp.

I hope ryzen really beat kaby lake so intel would come out with something significantly better than sandy bridge

File: Mikandr3.png (381KB, 876x720px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 876x720px

>>59117970
Exept it's not
Its 340 on amazon and 350 on newegg
the 6700k is 310 at both, but that's deprecated hardware.
And MC doesn't count because they can see the writing on the wall, the reduced demand for the 6700k/7700k tells all, and they need to get rid of them to make room for Ryzen. Better to take a small loss and ensure they don't have to discount things even more in the future when the R5 hits and fucks Intels shit up REAL hard

>>59118679
EXCEPT IT'S NOT

>>59120321
>>all this not taking in mind the potential performance of the overclocked 1800x with a good water cool

it cost $500 for cpu + $250-300 for good oc mobo + $200-300 watercooling but correct me if i'm wrong about last one since i never owned watercooled gpu/cpu

while i7 7700k cost $330 + $120-150 mobo + $100-150 cooler

They are in different market segment and if you compare them you are an idiot.

You should compare i7 7700k to 1700 and maybe 1600x with overclockable mobo. It's simple as that.

File: 1478005294094.jpg (135KB, 1000x867px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x867px

>>59124795
>6900K
>You should compare i7 7700k to 1700 and maybe 1600x with overclockable mobo. It's simple as that.
Except you shouldn't. What you should compare to the 7700k is the R5 line which hasnt been released yet. The R7 should be compared to the 6900k, 6850k, 5930k, etc.

AMD didn't advertise it as beating i7's in single threaded performance. It advertised the R7s as providing similar, if not better MT performance then Intel's "enthusiast" CPUs with autistic pricing.

And the obligatory "BTW, these fucking slay Intel's mainstream processors in MT for the price of one of them." slide

>>59124855
No you compare them to the same priced CPU

Which is exactly what the OP has already done

AMD is losing the price-performance war BADLY

>>59125077
And you compare them with what they're being marketed as. Which is something to compete with the 6800k, 6850k, and 6900k. It just happens to be 7700k money so that gets throw into the mix. If you really wanted to hit home the price to performance in single threaded applications also throw the 7600k into the mix.

>>59113686
Will you fucking shills compare them clock for clock already instead of overclocking Intel's chips to niggerhertz while (((mysteriously))) keeping Ryzen at stock speeds?

Also all that graph shows is that Ryzen is more stable while the 7700k stutters like hell. Congrats.

>>59113700
>single core per GHZ
7700k = 0.48
1700 = 0.45
>multicore per GHZ
7700k = 2.28
1700 = 4.97

>>59125077
Then all x99 cpus and xeons are completely worthless

>>59113823

>mining in 2017

its like you don't even want to get any crypto$

>>59113686
The max doesn't really tell us anything.

Maybe when the world is not loaded in yet (When you see blury texture everywhere) of course the max FPS will increase because the workload is off the GPU and on the CPU.

Average is the most important and 3-4fps difference (considering that the 1700 boost clock is 3.8Ghz (3.9Ghz with XFR) while the 7700K is 4.5Ghz.

That being said, I hope the minimum is just driver issue.

File: 1-o7CuH1Ub7TIa-xy3Kvw6Cw.png (35KB, 212x255px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 212x255px

>>59125868
>Driver issue.

Alright maybe because I only used Intel for the last couple years but does CPU drivers (AMD or Intel) can affect gameplay? I never heard "Game Optimized CPU driver" release before from either Intel or AMD

Spamming Witcher 3 :)

>>59125844

i7 920 master race reporting in

>>59125754
>-6% single core for 220% multicore
>cheaper
intelfags will defend this

>>59113686
>>59114741
>5% cheaper Ryzen is 5% slower on average at 1.2GHz lower clock speeds in gaming and much faster in heavily-threaded workloads on a 26w lower TDP
>this is somehow an issue

>>59115877
>Ryzen 3 brings unlocked i5 configuration to i3 price range, R5 brings unlocked i7 to i5 price, R7 brings enthusiast i7 to standard i7 price
>Intel may be forced to follow suit quite soon
>will in no way be relevant to gamers

Can we please just stop for a moment

>using a console port from a company that hates PC gamers to show performance

>>59113686
>>59113700
>Once again AMD is banking on MOAR CORES
>All their claims about IPC increase were lies
>Literally Bulldozer all over again

I told you but you wouldn't listen. Going to enjoy my Intel processors with high IPC that can actually run games.

>>59125098
If you really want to compare them to these multi-core CPUs, great. AMD seems to do well against them when you compare the price and performance in specific applications like video encoding.

Everything else it's shit though. If you want a CPU for gaming and desktop use, Ryzen is looking like a stinker.

>>59125474
>Also all that graph shows is that Ryzen is more stable while the 7700k stutters like hell.

No it doesn't. The 7700K has a better minimum FPS and better average FPS too.

>>59126858
The Broadwell is as much as a stinker as the Ryzen R7s

>>59126871
>comparing singlethread of a housefire quadcore to a 65w tdp octa-core

>>59126858
>everything else is shit though
Not everyone is a baby who plays video games all day long. Ryzen literally mops the floor with Intel when it comes to doing actual work on your computer.
Not only that but more and more game engines are being optimized for more cores so in a few years Intel is also going to lose that high ground.

>>59126913
7700K is only 91W

Also GTA V is not a singlethreaded application

File: ryzen-intel.png (190KB, 1085x774px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1085x774px

>>59126931
>Ryzen literally mops the floor with Intel when it comes to doing actual work on your computer.

It doesn't though. In regular desktop usage the Intel is better.

Ryzen is only better for very specific heavily threaded applications like video encoding.

>>59126935
91w stock
it would exceed that if you're overclocking

>>59126970
>regular desktop usage
neither is better for normal desktop usage
>inb4 muh gaymen

>>59126970
>video encoding and 3d rendering is very specific
What do you consider as regular desktop work then?

>>59126970
>2 benchmarks

Kek

>>59126970
Calling BS.

1700x turbos as 3.8 bone stock.

>>59126970
Also what the fuck are those arbitrary percentages? What the fuck does 93% desktop mean? How can performance be 106%? Why the fuck do people use that retarded site, i want to see real hard data not some bullshit.

>>59127049
The overall weaker part is used as a baseline. The stronger part will be shown as being x% better than the weaker part. This site is owned by the same guys that made 3dmark.

>>59127049
>AMD Pajeets from India don't know how math works

I'm not surprised.

File: 1477232632617.png (75KB, 771x555px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 771x555px

>>59127069
Wrong.

>>59127075
See
>>59127035

Intel shills can't even do the most basic of research.

>>59120151
This. Intel hasn't done shit in terms of innovating because AMD hasn't done shit. That's why people are running OCed 2500ks and they're fine. My 3770k is a beast. That shouldn't happen. AMD is just pushing for what should actually be normal. I'm happy. I get better performance and lower prices. Anyone against that is either retarded or a paid shill.

>>59127186
I was looking at the overall performance. The big green bar that says +2%

>>59127225
I think you are having a hard time with the concept that the metric is 100% bullshit.

>>59127225
Well nowhere in my original post was a talking about that green bar. I'm not fucking retarded.
If you actually read the post you would understand that i was talking about that arbitrary bullshit at the bottom of the screenshot.

>>59127247
It compares relative performance of two similar components made from thousands of user-submitted samples. It makes much more sense if you're only looking for a comparison, not for an absolute performance metric.

>>59120151
It's nice, but the only thing AMD is competing with is $1000 CPUs that only a very specific market bought in the first place.

Ryzen cannot compete in the gaming and desktop markets, so this CPU seems pretty useless for most of us.

>>59116977
That's the same thing but abstracted for retards like you stupid child.

>>59127265
>Most people are gamers
Fake news.

>>59127265
They still haven't released the lower end chips with lower core count (but with undboubtedly higher single core performance) and you're already making a stupid conclusion like that

>>59127258
I'm talking about the ryzen metrics, for which there is a sample size of two and is clearly fraudulent.

>>59127349
>fraudulent
If they do inted to fraud you, they probably won't even tell you upright that there's only two samples for the 1700x

>>59127383
I'm saying somebody defrauded them.

1700x boosts to 3.8, not 3.6, stock. This is basic knowledge.

It's bullshit. Pure 100% shill bullshit.

>>59127485
Isn't the Ryzen boost adaptive?

>>59127318
When are the lower end chips even coming out?

I'm saying what they have released so far looks bad.

>>59127514
>looks bad
Broadwell-e chips can't compare to kaby lake in single core performance

>>59127492
Beyond stock metrics, yes.

>>59127492
There's normal boost and then there's xfr