Official death of AMD thread

File: 1487882512830.jpg (126KB, 492x492px)

126KB, 492x492px

@No.591214XX (Me)

AMD literally pulls the same shit with the last meme. They release slow as shit cores that only work well for purely offline rendering and other simplistic shit. At the same time they cherry pick $1,000 Intel chips to go against that literally nobody here uses.

File: amd3.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>59121409
DELET

Hey Intel, I posted it again!

10 rupees have been deposited in your toilet.

>>59121409
>Implying there's a 40% difference between 85 and 89.

Learn some math and then kill yourself brainless piece of shit.

>>59121409
>3ghz chip vs 4.2 ghz chip
lol, there's also an obvious gpu bottleneck going on there.

>>59121409
The human eye can't see past 14 fps anyway

Nice, only the 10th time in the last 2 hours this got posted. Weird how the 7700 OC performs worse than the Stock on this completely legit bench.

>>59121532
You call people derogatories like that again and you Will be reported. Simple as that sweetie.

homie don't play that here

File: award.png (89KB, 524x499px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 524x499px

>>59121409
>real benchmarks released
1 game...

wew lad you got those amd fags good
>40% faster than Ryshit
someone is bad at math
>$100 cheaper
in store pickup ( literally only store doing the sale)

why are intel fags so desperate to defend their cpu?

we all know intel will release another cpu that will assblast amd but as it stands intel is getting their shit pushed in.

>inb4 "no real tests!"

>Ryzen Only 3 fps lower on average compared to 1.8 GHz higher clocked similarly priced Intlel CPU

The worst part is the people replying not noticing the AVG (the one that matters) it's the fucking same.

>>59121658
This
Since the overclock of the i7 does literally nothing to the average fps the bottleneck is probably the GPU.
Ryzen btfo's Intel on actual CPU heavy Workload (see Cinebench) and not Gayming.

>>59121409
>avg basically the same
>max has 40% difference
>single thread game
Oh boy, that one frame is going to make a difference.

File: 1471560784267.jpg (75KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x350px

>>59121409
>tests CPU performance
>uses max settings

>>59121560
Noggers tongue muy anus

File: 1463498943817.png (425KB, 1010x768px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1010x768px

>>59121409

4.2 / 4.5 vs 3.2 / 3.7
95w vs 65w tdp
unlocked 4 core vs locked 8 core
8mb cache vs 16mb

>>59121409
Doesn't that mean the Ryzen has less fluctuation in framerates?

>>59121794

this board is full of intel shills on damage control because of no valid arguments

File: youtried.jpg (10KB, 600x254px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 600x254px

>4 year old game
>28 fps on max settings
Way to go AMD...

>>59121863
Why would you lie on the Internet?

>>59121765
Exactly it was clearly GPU bound that's why there is next to know difference betwe-
>170
>132
oh fuck

>>59121790
Hey where can I buy that Cinebench game?

>>59121409
>oh hey let's compare 7700k and 1700
>shh don't include 6900k because its irrelevant

Egas

File: c121eeff8864798125a22a41924a011ddfcd1a41b1c3ee5742885b96d387113b.png (176KB, 1726x405px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1726x405px

>>59121409
So it's all over.

>>59121532
>max 170 vs 132
>min 38 vs 28
>b-but the average is within 4 fps!

>1080p
now test a resolution people actually still use

>>59122502
>he doesnt counts the range that will be mostly be played
Kys

What OS was this benchmark run on? Obviously its going to be Windows, but what version?
Has Microsoft even released the patches to enable proper Ryzen support yet?

It would be more interesting to see Ryzen benchmarks of games run with the latest Linux kernel since we know the patches are already there.

>>59121550
Dumbass its 30

File: 9f72c35f9bba5363c70a75bee3b84b4cdbf94a35f7cd61c16fbd2299a0d80264.png (1MB, 1199x751px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1199x751px

>>59121409

>>59121863
Are you blind? It says minimum. You make us other shills look bad

>>59121409
> overclocked 7700k has less average fps than the stock while somehow having higher minimum and maximum fps
>ryzen 1700 has almost the same average fps even though the maximum and minimum framerates are significantly lower

something is fucked with this benchmark. I'm calling bullshit. Also news sources on this image strongly suggest it's fake.

File: 1374986233437.jpg (26KB, 259x259px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 259x259px

>>59121409
>1700 stock is 3.7 at max boost
>7700k is 4.5
>1700 will be better with a simple oc
wtf i love amd now

>>59124750
>1800x overclocked to 5.2 GHz on liquid fucking NITROGEN
>i7-7700K overclocks to 8 GHz on liquid nitrogen
http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-7-ghz-7350k-5-ghz/
:) good luck Rybeaned

>>59124799
sure let me just get out my liquid nitrogen when I'm rendering something retard

>>59124814
Exactly. 7700k gets to 5 GHz easily with watercooling

>>59124165
>humans cannot see lightning

can AMD actually beat sandy bridge this time?

>>59124894

They're greater than 95% of kaby lake IPC.

And start beating out the 6900K in multithreading.

>>59124869
>Comparing overclocking of a 4 core cpu with one with 8.
Compare intel overclocking of one of their 8 cores cpu an see how shitty is it.

>>59124869
I can get to 4.8 on air, Deepcool GAMMAX 400.

I don't keep there yet as I don't have a lot of breathing room on this 500W PSU (the one thing i kept from my old build).

>>59124922
yeah says wccftech and vidyagaymez.com

ill wait until we can get some real evaluations from real people

>>59121409
AMD always does this shit

Every fucking time

AMD = Another Major Disappointment

File: 1487814827640.png (495KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1070x601px

>>59124971

>>59123518
Not that guy but min frames are often the most important indicator of performance difference, the average fps is mostly coming from gpu bound scenarios where the cpu doesn't matter. Test on an MMO where the cpu is always bottlenecked at any given time and you'd see a lot more than 4 fps difference most likely.

>>59125017
Except it wasn't. RX480 got better binned chips later on and surpassed what had previously been high power usage and poor overclocks. Granted they should have been that good at launch but it still stands they match and beat a GTX1060 a few iterations (and drivers) later.

>>59121409
>comparing an 8 core to a 4 core
If you're gonna bench the 1700, compare it with the x99 processors.

>>59125196
That min frame could literally be just be an outlier, one frame that wasn't repeated throughout an entire test run. Come back once you have the 1% and 0.1% frametimes

wow I hate amd now!

hey guys, instead of being brand loyalist idiots, how about we enjoy a competitive product for once and the benefits that it brings (lower prices, better hardware) for once?

Is this software rendering or something? I don't get it.

>>59125277
How exactly is this competitive? Same price as Intel, worse performance.

>>59125354
It's meant to compete with the higher-end broadwell for half the price

>>59121409
>graph is for the i7 7700
>link is i7 6700k

lol wut?

>>59121409
Intel shills are getting desperate. Can't wait for 28th.

>>59121409
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: 1430422840280.jpg (694KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 3840x2160px

>>59121409
LOOK. THE AVERAGE OF A 3.8GHZ CPU IS 3 FPS LESS THAN A 4.5GHZ CPU

Its incredible seeing all the INTEL shills being this desperate

File: N7xTXdi[1].png (99KB, 628x879px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 628x879px

Shaddup kikes

File: letöltés.png (10KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 259x194px

>>59126098
>taking off the side panel to overclock

I like the idea of presets/stages but taking on and of the panel just to overclock is ridicolous.

I would be ok if it was a case feature

File: a.jpg (23KB, 300x300px)

23KB, 300x300px

>>59126098
pff, does intel even have any cpu's that go up to 11?

>>59126117

Or disabling it in the bios and doing it by hand any ways.

>>59126098
>Turns up to 11
the mad man

>>59126098
So basically to overlock the Ryzen all you need to do is just turn the knob and dont care about voltage and shit?

Seems awesome, what could go wrong

>>59125252

It's a shitty RAM issue.

>>59126143

SenseMI regulates the voltage in milivolt steps, single digit temperature reporting, and 25hz clock adjustment.

On the fly.

>>59126143
I mean... I never once witnessed anybody who couldn't overclock their Intel i7 cpu to at least 4.5Ghz.

Considering that AMD was always better with overclocking (despite OC AMD CPU performance was still shit) 4.4Ghz seems like a reasonable frequencies (Its only 0.5Ghz Overclock anyway

>>59126169
i5 even

>>59121736
Then why are AMD fags so competitive about this? People with jobs that need a strong cpu for work related activities wouldnt be so pathetic to gloat about how faster it renders your shitty daughters birthday video

>>59126203
My wife's daughter isn't shitty take it back

>>59121658
>AMD poorfags are okay with drops, dips, skips and stutters all over the place

>>59125196
this

>>59125252
we'll see in the coming days/weeks if it's a problem but so far it's not looking good

>>59126219
after 20 years youd be used to it too

I can't believe faggots actually still defend intel

If you have even an ounce of sense, you should be welcoming the competition.

>>59126243
it's welcome and i'd love to buy an amd cpu if it suited my needs but it's not living up to the extreme hype from the AMD fanboy/shills. it's poolaris all over again

>>59121409
I'm pretty fucking sure that even broadwell won't be able to compete with kaby lake's single core performance. The 1700 and 1800 chips are literally aimed for the market broadwell is in

I like how Intelfags have no hesitation to throw their own HEDT line under the bus just to take a shot at AMD

>>59126203
I think it's more of a matter that most of the people here seem to be /v/ autists that only care about there gaymen performance.

>>59126256
HEDT is only relevant for certain people (mainly professionals who do video encoding and things like that) who need the extra cores. and it should be noted that 1800x is still $500 and you need a $250 motherboard to get the full overclock potential (~4.1 GHz or so).

>>59126272
It's not like the x99 boards are cheaper. There's also the fact that Broadwell-e can only overclock just as well

File: 3746341+_a439c12b80d19c167d5ca424b133a6f7.jpg (19KB, 268x265px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 268x265px

So.. what are the chances of Intel now dropping prices? Surely if those poo-in-loo chips are at least anywhere near Intel's high-end offering, they have to drop the prices right?

>>59126272
Sorry mate, but I wouldn't trade twice the threads and double the cache for some potentially 500-600mhz higher overclock.

>>59124951
>Comparing overclocking of a 4 core cpu with one with 8
Implying you can compare AMD coars to Intel cores.
I guess ya'll will never learn.

>>59126316
1Ghz, every kabylake can OC to 5.3ghz without issue

>>59126312
imo they don't need to lower them at all because both 6900k and 1800x are fairly niche. 6900k could keep a high price tag just for the status of it like nvidia titan or apple products. but they could lower the prices of cpus like 7700k a bit if they wanted to be really competitive and deny sales from AMD because 7700k beats out 1700 in a lot of applications such as games. 1700 is only strong in highly multi-threaded applications like video encoding or cpu rendering.

>>59126338
literally a lie

>>59126341
>1700 is only strong in highly multi-threaded applications like video encoding or cpu rendering
you mean like broadwell-e?

>>59126338
>1 out of 30
>delided
>lapped
>with custom loop
>also 1.5vcore


Lmao

>>59126341
That's what I'm talking about. I doubt the 500 bucks chips will have a big impact on the market. AMD must primarily compete with the X700 / X600 chips and I really hope that they do.

>>59126341
Other than the fact that modern games actually do use more than 4 cores.

>>59126342
>>59126375
with a good enough motherboard pretty much all of them can do 5.0 GHz tho

>>59126341
The 6-core and lower chips haven't released yet. Those ones seem like a much closer competition to intel's mainstream lineup.

>>59126392
WRONG!!!

File: 7700K @ 5 GHz vs 6800K @ 4.6 GHz.png (548KB, 851x475px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 851x475px

>>59126392
o rly

it's literally impossible to fully utilize moar cores for a given task beyond a certain point. the best you can hope for is to add more stuff in parallel like more character and more explosions etc.

>>59126408
Yea, because motherboard can overcome the downsides of Intel's construction of their high end CPUs.

>>59126408
>good motherboard
more like pricey motherboard.
>Silicon lottery's stats only report 28% reachng 5.1 ghz at 1.408 vcore
>most forum posters can only do it delidded and attached to water cooling

>>59126408
lol wut

>>59126424
Why don't you post the computerbase one, it has more games tested :)

>>59126426
>>59126441
the motherboard isn't a huge deal but if you can't get a 7700k to 5 GHz it's probably because you got a budget motherboard. with ryzen the motherboard is even more important
>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.

>>59126442
Germans aren't reliable reviewers, they're known AMD shills

>>59126442
it's at stock clocks and it's still only a small difference. overclocked is more interesting for these cpus.

>>59126452
I can't believe that this has to be repeated. the 1700 is an 8-core 65w tdp unbinned chip. Of course it's not gonna have a high enough overclock. That fact that it was able to hit 4.0 despite being such a low-powered chip is already impressive.

>>59126473
AMD shills were saying that 1700 is better than 7700k in all regards. it's simply not true. 1700 is only better if you can make use of all the cores.

>>59126465
Yeah, because a 6900k can't overclock 35% over its base clock and the 7700% certainly has a lot more room with its already high base.

Durr
You do realize that would just make the 7700k perf disadvantage look bigger?

i'm a pleb who only cares about games

should i get a kaby or is ryzen going to be superior there as well?

>>59126489
it's like a 5-7% improvement in the computerbase benchmark even with 2-2.5x the cores

>>59125252
>Come back once you have the 1% and 0.1% frametimes
Based gamers nexus will save us

>>59126504
and it's comparing intel cpus, it's not comparing against ryzen

>>59126503
kaby. see OP or wait for more gaming benchmarks. especially frame times (stuttering) might be a concern.

>>59126452
Tell me again how only 28% of the kaby lakes from Silicon Lottery was able to hit 5.1ghz. There's also the fact that if you read around tech forums, most users have to delid and use watercooling in order to reach those clocks.

>>59126489
That fact that this chip was being compared to the 7700k in the first place is a big mistake, these 8 cores are much more comparable to broadwell-e and AMD themselves have stated that. Wait for the lower core count chips before we start looking at single thread performance.

>>59126515
i'm talking about 5 GHz not 5.1 GHz and i'm talking about 7700k not all kaby lakes

>>59126503
Either get the Kaby now and potentially regret your purchase or wait for the lower core count chips which will probably have better single-threaded performance compared to the octa-core before making a decisions.

File: shadow warrior 2.png (44KB, 641x570px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 641x570px

>>59126424
>using youtubers as source
>5% differences
Intel literally pays these people to run the tests they want. They can't make a living without these kind of sponsorships. Never trust youtubers on anything.

>>59126504
Don't try to weasel out, they're at stock clocks, if the 7700k is being beaten at stock, how would it go against a overclocked 6900k that can overclock much higher over its stock?

>>59126515
>As of 2/22/17, the top 59% of tested 7700Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater.
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all/products/7700k50g

>>59126098

>goes to 11
kek

>>59121409
Count the max, yep Op is faggot for sure.

>>59126098
You shutup pajeet Ryzen cant overclock more than 4.0 this was proven in tests and not market slides

>>59126545
That's still a far cry from "all Kaby lake"
And the testbench is an Asus Maximus VIII. You're still paying a fuckton more for that extra five hundred megahurtz

>>59126573
it's still $50 cheaper than the one you need to get ryzen to 4 GHz

>>59126583
>than the one you need to get ryzen to 4 GHz
>>59126473
Let's wait for the 1800x or the 1700x OCs. Or better yet, wait for the lower core count chips.

>>59126572
>proven in """""""tests"""""

>boards and chips just now proliferating.

Kek

>>59126515
AMD doesn't have enough PCIe lanes to compare with broadwell-e.

>>59126593
most people are getting 1700 if anything. it's in the same price class as 7700k.1800x isn't very relevant here

>>59126482
Which is what makes this much more closer to broadwell-e and this is what AMD has literally been aiming for with their octa-cores.

>>59126572
Amazing, Glofo must be 10 years ahead of everyone else if they can push out stock chips at 4.0 at 95w and with a 4.0 oc limit

>>59126608
Yes, because price class is the only way to compare.

>>59126607
we're talking strictly performance-wise here

>>59126607
But its got more performance and lower power usage.
Unless you use 2+ gpus this isnt a issue

>>59126612
most people (gaymers and casuals) don't give a flying fuck about broadwell-e or high end ryzen

>>59121790
Ryzen has unlocked cores for all of their chips.

>>59126643
Which is why we should wait for the lower core-count processors first before comparing the 7700k with anything.

File: 1483550874875.jpg (52KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 900x900px

Intel shills out in full force it seems

>>59126643
>>59126643
Casuals don't give a shit about the 7700k either so you're only left with gaymers, that's about one market out of 5 Ryzen is targeting.

>>59126635
>more perf
Wrong
>lower power
Wrong

>>59121790
7700k @ 5 Ghz matches high end ryzen 6 core in the most synthetic multi-threaded benchmark lmfao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy_dOxqi-RY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfXzU7x9Cg0

>>59126683
It matches the performance at half the price for only 65w

>>59126098
This means that 8 core chips are capable of reaching 4.4ghz without much trouble.
INTELFAGS BTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0S4Sp18cLU

>>59126688

hmmm spend 550-650 for ricein or spend 150 on water cooling

choice is clear for 170 270 owners, 7700k and water cooling


amd is great for the people that need 50 dollar motherboards and every corn they can get to keep gaymen

>>59126701
even the x99 chips have trouble clocking that high

What's with this youtube spam? Some /b/ raid?

>>59126735
Some retard that thinks he's making a point by posting synthetic benchmarks

File: Capture.png (37KB, 309x263px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 309x263px

>>59126735
No, it's paid Intel shills

>>59126735
it's just you getting BTFO
>hurr wait for fewer core versions
in the most extreme multi-threaded scenario of video encoding an overclocked 7700k still matches the best 6 core ryzen

Bought a i5 7600k a week ago, did I fuck up...?

>>59126747
nah you're good. looks like ryzen has stuttering issues in games and sub-par single-threaded performance overall.

>>59126747
Depends on what you plan to do

>>59126747
no, not at atll


this a digital penis waving thread

>>59126747
No, you have top of the line ST performance, your email client and facebook app will run 9% faster under certain conditions, congratulations.

>>59126745
Wow, I didn't know that the benchmarks for those are out yet. Even if they do, the 6 cores are literally cheaper.

>>59126760
The Ryzen has at least Haswell IPC, stop exaggerating.

I really hope this is just GTAV running poorly because of early drivers or something.
I really want AMD to win this time.

As an Intelfanboy I really want that because that would make Intel having to either step up their game or lower prices.
So both Intelfanboys and AMDfanboys wins.

>>59126098
> 11 (extreme)
scary

>>59121409
kys shill

File: wierdcaptchas.png (277KB, 1699x370px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1699x370px

>>59126742
>>59126742
>>59126742
fake captcha, SAD

>>59126098
CRANK IT UP TO 11 AW YUS

>>59126802
Use 4chanX and you can pick which catchpa you want to use.

File: sad.png (27KB, 397x594px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 397x594px

>>59126802
>Not using legacy captcha

I've seen many such cases. Sad.

>>59126782
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gok60e1G0ks

>>59126688
what's the high end ryzen six core's cinebench score friend? you didn't say or provide source for that

thanks for the oc'd 7700k score though. it's very funny watching it struggle to hit just over 1k when the ryzen 1700 can get a score of 1410 at stock frequency. just lmao.

>>59124799
770K at 8GHz was only just stable enough to take a screenshot. 1800x at 5.2GHz was stable to run fucking cinebench you retard. They broke the world record.

File: Image1.jpg (280KB, 811x712px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 811x712px

>>59126653
>Intel shills out in full force it seems

They got shook.

>>59126836
it's in the post i quoted you illiterate shitkid. >>59121790

1600x: ~1100
7700k @ 5 GHz: ~1100

and lmfao at you thinking cinebench is relevant for anything but video encoding. unless you're a youtuber or something you probably won't be better off with a 1700

File: leintelshillfase.jpg (139KB, 795x556px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 795x556px

>>59121790
>>59121409
>No AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

>>59126852
amd BTFO. literally no reason to buy raisin when you can get better performance for less money from intel.

>>59126854
This is a nice photoshop

>>59126852
Price drops are only at Microcenter apparently

>>59126802
>being this new

File: 1478910346091.jpg (84KB, 907x661px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 907x661px

>>59126854
>posts 'upscaled' speculated scores instead of an actual benchmark
>a-a-a-a-a-actually cinebench doesn't matter after all

just kek

>>59126878
the point is that even in your most contrived benchmark that amd likes to shill (because it's one of the few cases where it has something going for it), a 7700k overclocked is still on par with the best 6 core ryzen and not dramatically slower than an 8 core ryzen. unless you genuinely have a use for all 8 cores you're better off with a 7700k.

Tbqh famalams I'm waiting for shillus tech to get their hands on it, in regards to OC numbers.

They shill harder than nearly everyone, but their set ups are pretty top tier for OCing.

File: 1481682303614.jpg (29KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 399x385px

>>59126902
>the point is that even in your most contrived benchmark that amd likes to shill

what the fuck are you talking about? you're the one who's shilling it you fucking idiot

holy shit i'm dying

>>59126098
>4.20GHz
knamsayin?

> using delidded water cooled setup for benchmark comparison

The desperation is real

>>59126760
>looks like ryzen has stuttering issues in games
source?

>>59126902
Are you literally trying to defeat your own argument? The 6-core ryzen is cheaper than an i7-7700k, and you're claiming that they're on par. This makes the i7 the objectively inferior choice.

>>59126952
see min FPS in OP

wait for further reviews and tests before you order a ryzen

>>59126959
only if you're doing video encoding or something like that. for gaming and general-purpose computing a 7700k is better.

>>59126852
tfw these prices didn't hit my country yet

>>59126973
>see op

the lowest end ryzen chip vs top dog Intel?

What does that prove?

File: 1477833872603.jpg (23KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 439x290px

>>59122172

>caring about gay men

back to /v/

>>59126973
The R7 1700 is not the fucking hexacore your were referring to. Fucking retard. The hexacore isn't even fucking out yet and you're already comparing single-thread performance

>suddently 90% of /g/ has become masters in OC

Why not just take an old i7 980X and overclock it to the limits ?
You can reach more than 7GHz of frequency with all cores enabled.

It seems Intel is still the optimal choice for high framerates

>>59127036
this

>>59127019
it is a well known fact that kaby lake can overclock to 58 trillion petahertz on air. btw look at this not at all fake benchmark that shows an overclocked 7700k performing worse than at stock frequency in this one gaym that is the be all end all metric of performance because im a manchild and that's all that matters to me.

File: 1459192986840.gif (2MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x300px

I'm dancing over here. Wow I can not even believe the disappointment on the AMD fags face when there eyes came upon this nugget of truth and shame. Lol this is not something that you could recover from. THIS is the end mark my words. We can finally live in a world with no AMD no more shills and no more shitty products! HAHHAHA. Another Massive Disappointment.

>>59127019
~5 GHz 7700k is actually realistic >>59126545

>>59126688
There is a post in overclock.net with phase change cooling running 7700k 5,4GHz getting 238 singlecore CB (with 4000mhz ram)

My 6600k 4,7GHz gets 203 points single core

AMD ryzen gets stock 154, speculating with 20% overclock would be 180-190 singlecore CB which is practically in intel range.

With 40% lead in multicore and -15% in singlecore because lower clocks, on worse 14nm manufacturing its pretty impressive.

_IF_ AMD had access to intels 14nm process, Ryzen as architecture would probably be superior for same clock frequencies.


I'll probably get Ryzen virtualization/ESXI machine for 2x price/perf/wat compared to Intels current offerings.

Too bad this is literally worst time to upgrade for last 2 years for € value is tanking and flash memory price has doubled in price compared to 2014-15.

>>59121409
>3.0 base clock

Am I suposed to be impressed? Might as well put a a 8 core Xeon-d there.

>>59127036
sure looks that way... that and adobe shit minus premiere.

Does this mean I don't need to swap my 4.6GHz 4690K in with a brand new Ryzen 1800X

File: q6miy3.png (117KB, 415x411px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 415x411px

>>59127066
>>59127061

https://valid.x86.fr/q6miy3

>>59127063
That's how ill be dancing on your mass graves juden

>>59127088
Of course not. I have the same cpu. It still has a good few years left in it yet.

File: 1457475652595.jpg (20KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x313px

>>59127071
>AMD ryzen
>20% overclock

>>59127088

You'll be mad when you're nearly beaten by R3 four cores in games.

>>59126463
Is it anti-semitism?

>>59127117
The R3 isn't releasing in March 2, though

>>59127088
yes

>>59127117
you're deluded

Why isn't the 1700 tested overclocked?

>>59127114
3.5-->4.2

>>59127105
people still hold on to well overclocked sandy bridge including myself

>>59127127
That is the overclock. If you're complaining that the OC is so low, you might as well complain that Broadwell-e's have trouble getting past 4.2ghz

>>59127127
because it's fake

>>59121409
>Same avg as a 5ghz chip

Uh, sweetie you need to calm down

>>59127127
it can barely even overclock at all. like +300 mhz with the best $250 motherboard

>>59127150
Its base clock is 3.0 so barely overclocking 35% is pushing it.

>>59127135
Why isn't that indicated like the 7700k? Also it clearly says Stock in the OP

>>59127174
its fake. it's from a video from some britfag that showed no proof he even had either of the processors let alone ryzen. he took it down immediately after people starting asking questions about it.

>>59127174
I misread. There were some remarks going around that the 1700 was having trouble going past 4ghz. Somehow, anons seem to disregard the fact that the R7 1700 is an octa-core chip with a rated 65w tdp at stock settings. It's obvious that it will have trouble clocking beyond that.

File: 1455245612900.gif (678KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 480x320px

All this damage control from AMD shills. LOOK AT ME FUCKIN' DANCE.

>>59127174
>Intel with a 40% clockspeed advantage only 5% faster in average fps

Really makes you think

>>59127207
More like salt in your wounds

>>59127195
>It's obvious that it will have trouble clocking beyond that.
of course. yet shills were very insistent that it would be better than 7700k at everything

>>59127227
I've never seen that. In fact, the only shilling that I've been seeing are from intel retards that keep rubbing in that the octa cores don't have as much single-core performance as quad cores. No Shit.

>>59127218
lol, as it is right now it only makes sense to buy ryzen if you need more cores for video rendering etc, and intel can just lower prices a bit to fully cockblock amd

>>59127254
>lower prices
They have too much hubris to do that. I can see nvidia doing that but not intel

>>59121637
DELET

File: lit.jpg (382KB, 2130x1788px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 2130x1788px

>>59121487

>>59121487
this

>>59121744
Dont forget the core clock difference

>>59121409
Did he even show the CPU he's testing?

>tfw red dead redemption 2 uses up to 8 cores

Its going to be a bloodbath

>>59127382
>console port
lol

>>59127389
and i7 has 8 threads how do you expect it to use 16 threads on a raisin

>>59127389
>console ports use hardware better than native games

Rly maks u thunk

My biggest issue here and with game benches in general is people who don't know that the minimum FPS is the most important number. Average doesn't mean much at all yet that's what everyone focuses on.

>>59127372
you expect dino pc (an intel shill btw) to actually provide any source?

they fucking benched 1700 vs 7700k and just left out the 1700x i wonder why..................LOL

>>59127410
consoles are weak as hell and they all have 8 cores so you may as well do random shit on all threads even when it otherwise wouldn't be needed + the pipelined game engine architecture to make the multi-threading possible adds 1+ frames of latency. a 4 core i7 will just plow through it.

>haha how can this lowest tier CPU compete with this 50% higher clocked Intel chip

Is it retard day?

>>59127416
Minimum frames is a terrible metric
frametimes is where it's at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXepIWi4SgM

>>59126984
they never will, it's microcenter dropping worthless stock

>>59127467
You're the retard,literally mobody overclocks

>>59127479
we need more tests but a low min fps is not a good sign

>>59127445
the most underrated stupid post ever

>>59127519
did you watch the video?
it's one dud talking about hype for 8 minutes show one graph for 15 seconds and talk about intel for another 6 minutes

>>59127382
It's not coming to pc.

>>59127513
But wasn't everyone LITERALLY running 7700k's at 5.3 yesterday?

>>59127418
Back to plebbit

oh well i guess the dea toll on intel is really going to ryzen

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_device.php?q=c9a598d994d0f0a2dba1c4aa8abd9dac94a494ccea8db09dac8af8c5f5d3ba87b690f8c5f0d6ae93a284e184b989afdce1d1&l=en

have fun blue plebs

>>59127128
get out cuck r7 are 3.8ghz at stock and r5 6core are 4.0ghz. Where they would need to oc to 4.5-4.6ghz to reach intel single core perf level which is impossible without $250-300 mobo and water cooling

>>59127742
Appropriate benchmarks aren't out yet

>>59127742
I like how mobo priced keep going up every post.

>>59127806
This.

they also ignore that the mobo you buy for release will carry you though the entire zen line

>>59127550
well yeah /g/ intel shills have moved to antartica and have rented a chinook to hover above their pc so that they can enjoy that 5.3ghz

there is nothing amd can do now since the ice is melting on the north pole

amd is dead :(

>>59127610
>14.88GB/s

>>59127841
>there is nothing amd can do now since the ice is melting on the north pole

220w 9590 will do that ;_;

Op autism has ryzen

>>59121790
wow ratz some cinebench totally applies for /g/ user damn intel btfo

use real world practical application ie. games or ffmpeg you fucking idiot

File: 1464768581763-0.gif (102KB, 758x696px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 758x696px

>When you built your PC a few months ago and don't care cause intel is gonna be on top again in like 2-3 years when you upgrade anyways

>>59127445
are you dumb? console use 6cores max for games 2 are allocated to system

>>59127883
now cinebench (the only bench intel had that was actually good at it) doesnt matter?

funny how things change in a matter of months

>>59127806
>he didn't heard about last r/AMD revelations that you need $300 mobo to oc

>>59121514
>ironically typing like a pajeet

>>59127917
I also like how everyone's making assumptions without a chip in their hands.

Also/r/amd? Fucking really?

>>59127917
is this referring the the r7 1700 again? This shit's been explained numerous times already

>>59127917
DELET THIS

>>59127906
[citation needed]

>>59127467
They are the same price though, it's a very valid comparison

you literally need a $250 motherboard tho >>59126452

>>59127418
Because the 1700 and the 7700k are the same price, that's why they are compared

>>59127963
"Price-class" is aribtrary. It's performance is much closer to the broadwell-e chips

>>59127950
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/games-discussion-1000000/naughty-dog-ps4-has-5gb-ram-6-cores-available-to-d-31139303/

>>59127917
most expensive board is 260 with asus premium
average price is 140 for x370

>>59127976
and because deluded AMD kids used to claim that 1700 would be better for general use

>>59127971
Fuck off, this shit has been explained already.

>>59127976
since when they are in the same price? last time i checked 1700x is 20 bucks more than a 7700k

>>59127995
no x, the 1700

>>59127977
almost no one cares about broadwell-e. people want a 7700k competitor or cheaper low/mid range cpus.

>>59127963
It's also in the price range of some 4 core xeons, guess we should include those

>>59127997
2 days ago 1700x was 20 bucks MORE than 7700k

1700 was almost 100 bucks less and obviously on another target group..

>>59127999
Then wait for the lower tier chips before making that assumption, retard. Using "price class" as a metric is literally useless here.

>>59127977
Price doesn't matter? You can't be serious, that's the whole point.

The fact that Intel's latest $350ish offering already beats Ryzen's $350ish offering is very bad news for Ryzen.

>>59127999
I guess Intel sells them just for kicks

>>59128011
AMD's octacores are literally made to compete with Broadwell-e's which are twice the price. No doubt that the chips that are aimed for mainstream are going to be much lower in price. "Price Class" is completely arbitrary.

>>59127990
>wrong

https://www.amazon.com/MSI-X370-XPOWER-GAMING-TITANIUM/dp/B06WLNZ1JH

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5w7267/some_msi_motherboards_have_switches_that_allow/

http://imgur.com/a/Xl4gN

>OC SWITCH XDDDDDDDD WE LE UKOVERCLOCKERS XDDDDD

>>59127999
no one cares because broadwell was priced same as a kidney there isnt a single person out there that would say no to extra perf

>>59128035
>extra perf
except 6900k is mainly for specific tasks like video rendering, not for gaming, regardless of the price

>>59128033
the itanium series have switch on both platform idiot
up to 4 is automatic from 5 to 11 you need to set it up on the bios

>>59128035
I'm seeing plenty of those willing to sacrifice 80%+ multithreaded perf for some 5% ST

File: MSI-GAME-BOOST-Knob-Ryzen-7.jpg (111KB, 628x879px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 628x879px

>tfw you still haven't used your GAME BOOST knob

>>59128029
I agree somewhat, but what you are saying is that Ryzen was only made for very specific multi-threaded situations.

If Intel beats them in desktop and especially gaming use, Ryzen has very limited use.

It's AMD doing the same crap they've been doing forever, adding more cores and failing to compete in average real world scenarios.

Someone tell me if they're actually better or if this is yet another poorfag "muh relative performance" faggotry.

>>59128058
Marketing, real live tests show it cant overclock over 4.0 on a golden sample

>>59128033
it's exact copy of z270 board
crosshair looks better and cheaper

>>59128045
specific tasks....

you mean like literally everything we do nowdays?

cause multitasking is literally present since 2002..
also https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/

>>59127992
>1700 would be better for general use
what do you mean used? it is going to be better
sandy chokes on 15 chrome tabs these days

>>59128069
source?

>>59121409
Show DX12/Vulkan games you pleb.
Who cares about 2010 API's.

>>59128050
>>59128069
it's literally most pointless gimmick which cost $45 extra for nothing
>>59128071

it doesn't change thing that redditards are masturbating over thinking about that board (asus crosshair too)

>>59127990
>tfw there are atleast 3 x370 boards in europe for above $300, one for $370
thank you eu for vat

>>59128058
it goes to 11 lol

>>59128089
You sure seem concerned by what others think or do.

>>59128088
Vulkan is DOA nobody is developing games on that API, DX12 95% of games have worse performance on dx12 vs dx11. So here you have it.

>>59128054
yeah and guess what when you ask them about what is single threaded nowdays they just change the subject..or they go and say cryptocurrency because we all know we hash with cpus..

>>59128065
i7-7700k is definitely better than the 1700 unless you heavily threaded applications like video encoding.

I don't see any reason to buy Ryzen unless you are a video editor.

>>59128063
>Ryzen was only made for very specific multi-threaded situations
You have disregarded the fact that AMD has yet to release their much more mainstream processors which will have a lower core count in exchange for much better single-threaded performance.

>It's AMD doing the same crap they've been doing forever, adding more cores and failing to compete in average real world scenarios.
You're a retard that fell for the stupid hyperbolic shilling. Even if the r7 1700 (which is a 65w octa-core, a detail that needs to be emphasized) has a slightly lower single thread performance, it's still a competent performer in games. Who knows how well the r7 1700x and r7 1800x will perform?

File: 1486028322785.png (4MB, 1543x1615px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1543x1615px

>>59128101
yes i want to make sure they make good choice with their purchase, right anon?

>>59128089
it has a use on intel cause their turbocore doesnt allow specific cores to shut down

on amd is indeed a gimmick since their new oc tool is literally the same thing but better

>>59128112
Also I want to remind everyone that 7700k ca OC easily to 5.3Ghz

>>59128112
>I don't see any reason to buy the Ryzen r7 1700 unless you are a video editor
ftfy

>>59128121
No, I don't fucking care I'm not an advisor.

>>59128124
yes, at 0.9v. no less.

>>59128138
Thank you based Intel

>>59128144
don't forget to tell your friends about how cool 7750K going to be!

>>59128112
this and it's fucking obvious if you aren't a clueless kid

>>59128112
not really there is no point of comparing the non x with a 7700k...only idiots will do such a thing especially when the non x doesnt have xfr..

>>59128115
r7 1700 have 25% worse single core perf vs i7 7700k at 4.5ghz, at 4.9ghz it will be even worse.

>Who knows how well the r7 1700x and r7 1800x will perform?

Well i don't care they are way too expensive for me and majority of people. All i care is how would they would perform and oc if you disable 2/4 cores and compare it to 7700k. If you would need to buy $250-300 mobo just to oc then zen is DOA and AMD is in dip shit. Since you can buy 7700k + $120 mobo and oc it to 4.8-4.9ghz easily.

>>59128115
If this benchmark is anything to go by, I would not call the 1700 competent in games. The minimum FPS is very bad at that price point.

The 65W TDP is nice though. Still waiting on 1700x and 1800x benchmarks, but those are super high end CPUs with an already limited market based on price.

So far very disappointed with Ryzen.

8 strong cores? Fuck that I want 4 strong cores clocked 500mhz higher! I mean literally who needs more than 4 cores.

>>59128167
>r7 1700 have 25% worse single core perf vs i7 7700k at 4.5ghz,
it has 1Ghz between them and only 25% less performance, you sure you did your homework for tomorrow?

>>59128162
They are the same price, the 1700x is more than $50 more, bad comparison.

>>59128167
Well, no shit. It has to deal with 8 cores instead of just 4. What were you fucking expecting?
>$250 motherboard
How many times does this shit need to be repeated? That overclocking was done with a 65w tdp octa-core. Why are you fucking comparing the OC to a 91w tdp quad core?

>>59128192
ignoring that one time sale going right now, 1700 is 15% cheaper specially in VAT lands

>>59128185
Its stock performance, only thing that matters

>>59128175
>1700x
>super high end

Wew.

I guess broadwell is ULTIMATE END TIER HIGH END.

>>59128185
It's not like you will oc it more than 4.0ghz anon

>>59128192
since when they are the same price? i didnt see intel annc any price cut on their site so what we are seeing now isnt really the norm...

1700x is actually 20 bucks more than it and much better cpu to be held upon

>>59128202
i7-7700k - $339
Ryzen 1700 - $329

Can't get much closer than that

>>59128219
See >>59128226

>>59128219
1700x is a full $60 more than the i7-7700k and from the benchmarks we have seen, it can't even beat Intel's offering

>>59128204

But wasn't everyone LITERALLY running 7700k's at 5.3 ?

>>59128226
>i7-7700k - $339
It's $416 here.

>>59128247
>It can't even beat Intel's offering
It can beat broadwell-e

>>59128256
I agree, but the problem is those are niche chips.

If you aren't doing video editing, I see no reason to buy Ryzen.

>>59128256
Literally nobody uses broadwell-e

>Did you get one of those emails from intel regarding Ryzen review guidelines?

some reviewers apparently got a letter.

>>59128267
>but the problem is those are niche chips.
they WERE niche chips, how hard is it to understand what just happened last week?

>>59128283
You can see it in the OP already, some don't even need Intel's assistance.

>>59128267
>>59128272
Then it's only appropriate to actually wait until AMD releases the mainstream processors to compare it with Intel's mainstream processors. You retards are acting as if the R7s are the only thing that AMD will ever release.

>>59128299
NEW BREAD.

>>59128299
NEW BREAD.

>>59128299
NEW BREAD.

>>59128292
i7 is already way out of the price range of the average buyer

These Ryzen chips are even more expensive, and for less performance in average scenarios?

Just a bad deal all around, it will stay niche

When did everyone suddenly become a professional LoL gamer? It feels like developers, people running their own webservers , hosts, streams and virtualized enviroments vanished into thin air.

>>59128317
How many times does this shit have to be repeated? Price class is an arbitrary metric.

>>59121409
>shitel @5ghz
>still lose at average to a 3.7 ghz chip
oh burn.

>>59121409
Nice shitpost. 1/10 you should try harder.

>>59128329
/v/ gaymen retards

>>59128317
>i7 is already way out of the price range of the average buyer
is it? nobody bought into fake 8cores scam intel is pulling, that's all
everyone is just waiting for something new to buy in, 2500k/2600 people are in, all current fx users are in, some ivy people might upgrade that is all the people that contributed to fall of PC market recent 5 years

>>59128226
>>59128236
as long as intel isnt publicly annc any price cut comparing them NOW because some retailers are fearing the stock is stupid

as it stands it will return back to its normal price

>>59128345
>3.7

Lol intel wishes, its base clock is 3.0 and probably around 3.2/3 for all cores.

>>59128366
Uh it's normal price is $350

It's literally only a $10 price cut

>>59128392
really? yesterday post on videocardz had a listing with 7700k being 80 bucks down on some retailers..
so no

>>59128417
Only microcenter

>>59128417
Look at the prices I listed

The i7-7700K retail price is $350

>>59128301
>moving the goalposts
b-but 1700 was supposed to be the intel killer
b-but it has 2x the cores for the same price

>>59128887
>but 1700 was supposed to be the intel killer
That was never claimed. You only think that way because of shills claiming that other people were saying this.

>>59126098
>goes up to 11
So it's 1 faster?

File: iosnoop_hist_2000.png (76KB, 1692x780px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1692x780px

>>59125252
>unironically suggesting percentiles
Senpai you either show the whole distribution or you go home.

>>59126760
>ryzen has stuttering issues in games and sub-par single-threaded performance overall

Wrong on both accounts.

>>59129418
Look at OP

>>59129418
>>59126760

Your arguments are worthless if you can't back them up.

Intel office right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toDA6rZdPfA

>>59126865
But you still can't. Intel is still so greedy they didn't drop their prices nearly enough to actually make them better value.

>>59129720
>still being this denial

>>59129770
The only one in denial are you Intel shills desperate to throw cold water on Ryzen.
You know it's not going to work though, right? Facts are facts. Ryzen is still better value.

>>59121409
The Intel Shill is Reel

>>59127298
Fuck off, eurofag. Go scape the dickcheese off of your penis.