>real benchmarks released >40% faster than Ryshit >

>>59128299
Soon you're going to tell me that broadwell-e doesn't overclock well. Fuck off shill

File: rip-amd.png (1MB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x765px

>>59128299
Press S to spit on grave

Why is the Intel clocked 50% higher only 7% faster on average?

>>59128299
To sum it up:

No reason to buy Ryzen unless you are a video editor.

It fails to compete with Intel in both average desktop and gaming usage.

>>59128299
>look mum i posted it again!! xD

>>59128349
>no reason to buy any octacore unless you are a video editor
ftfy

>>59128346
Because AMD is literally shit

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

694KB, 3840x2160px

>>59128299
>MUH MAX FRAMERATE

Consider the following

>Starting up GTA V
>Most textures loading in, therefor the load is on the CPU not the GPU
>4.5 Ghz beats 3.8 Ghz in max framerate
>Average is 3-4FPS apart.


Next time try to processing the information you see before you post the same shit over and over

>>59128349
I don't think video editors can get away with bad single thread either during the actual editing of the user, unless you mean video rendering/encoding only. You see, all interactive applications need at least one fast thread because they must coordinate interactivity in a safe manner. It's a stupid meme of technically illiterate people that CPUs will ever get away from serial requirements, unless the only thing they do is to not use the computer at all and have it do offline operations like simple rendering.

>>59128299

stop it.

its a week old bench where the 1700 $ 3ghz vs a 4.2ghz 7700k.

its no where near a real scenario.

if you take the 1700, disable 4 cores on it, and clock it to 4.5ghz + then we are talking competition.

>>59128390
imo the best way to judge fps would be the difference between dips and how fast it recovers

>>59128390
are you blind child? the average is better there, not only the max.

>>59128419
Yeah the minimum is worrying a bit, but it may be Driver problem for the CPU (or motherboard)

>>59128402
Yeah I don't know, I'm not a video editor. Maybe it's only video encoding?

Basically Ryzen is only good for very specific scenarios where multi-threaded performance is a priority.

>>59128426
Yeah not shit, a 4.5Ghz clocked CPU is better than a 3.7Ghz. Oh... only with 3-4 fps? Okay....

Fuck me sideways right?

File: amd1.jpg (71KB, 552x661px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 552x661px

>>59128299

at prices like this I would be stupid not to buy Intel. Imagine how mad AMD must be right now. They just released their brand new chips and intel slashes the fuck out of their prices.

>>59128439
Yeah, basically most of the shilling memes are purely offline recording or encoding or rendering. The memesters don't understand the actual reality of how computers work. When you do something interactive, meaning the human input must be taken into account in a very live manner, serial performance is always required because a central global loop must be run safely which is a quite inefficient process and slow cores do show their major weakness at that point.

File: 1485673009908.jpg (319KB, 1200x861px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1200x861px

>>59128390
this
>>59128354
Desperate shills are desperate.
Even pins are getting brought up as if it's a real reason to buy Intel.

With all the ass blasting that's going on I'm going to get a 1800x just to salt mine every time I post about it.
I'd be fine with a 4 core, but this is just to good. And it's in the budget. Everyone (that's white) Can afford it! Intel is done and dusted.
There's so many people that'll get this boosting AMD's R&D that the damage will keep on rolling.
OHOHOH. Intel still has to pay debnts to the EU to subsidize AMD laptops. HAHAHA Better pay up soon fuckers, or you'll have to compete with Ryzen laptops hahaha.

Kike's built their own chambers this time.

>>59128430
my guess is texture loading is only one thread and the single core performance is hurting it there. just a wild guess I don't really know much about game engines or directx

>>59128453
all preorders are sold out, they sure are mad, you have no idea

>>59128440
>bigger Ghz means better CPU

I honestly can't tell what is and isn't trolling anymore.

File: Névtelen-2.png (128KB, 477x502px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 477x502px

>>59128453
>Finally AMD is competive again so we won't get buttfucked as much for buying a $100-150 for $300

The production cost of the intel CPU's are fucking low, yet they keep increasing the price because dumbfucks like you would keep buying them

Why test overclocked against stock? Heck why even test at all with such a huge clockspeed difference?

>>59128453
At prices like these, you would be stupid not to buy AMD if you were considering the x99 platform. You're comparing the wrong chips

>>59128477
>And it's in the budget. Everyone (that's white) Can afford it! Intel is done and dusted.

>it's okay to buy 450 GPU
>its end of the world to buy 400 CPU

nvidia+intel for the win, right?

>>59128467
>implying ryzen doesn't have the single-core capability

>>59128430
the minimum fps could just be anything, it could even be a 1s fps drop

>>59128477
It's going to be pretty sad if you buy a $500 1800X and it won't even beat a $350 Intel chip in real world scenarios.

>>59128485
Performance = [IPC]*[clockspeed]

If one of those is significantly lacking then the performance will suffer.

File: yfw ryzen.png (245KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x612px

>>59128299
>>59128334
>>59128349
>>59128384
>>59128426
>>59128448
>>59128453

another shitposting thread
great

what a time to be alive

>>59128485

Not trolling but relative performance, do you think if I overclock JUST a little bit (not 4.5Ghz but like 4.1Ghz safely) the performance would be... kinda the same? I mean we talking about 3-4 FPS difference.

Also you get +4 extra cores for the same money. Which for gaming is useless yes, but for normies who stream or render something in the background thats usefull

>>59128487
You realize these new Ryzen chips cost more than almost all of Intel's chips?

>>59128506
by 1s you mean 1ns? because that's how they count min fps
frame times is proper metric.

>>59128489
I contemplated buying AMD but I thought about it and doesn't feel right like I would get dirty buying poorfag poo shit off the ground. Then there is the whole thing of mixing and matching amd with nvidia which as we all know is absolutely haram

>>59128505
AMD's own doctored cherry-picked meme benchmarks show it 25% worse. It's literally the same shit again. Don't even poke it with stick if what you do is not purely offline and non-interactive like video rendering or encoding.

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

7KB, 250x250px

>>59128299
The guy who made the graph does not own Ryzen

screenshot its taken from a youtube video where a homeless looking person is showing these graphs, without single shot on the CPU itself, or cpuz or even gameplay

Wait for real benchmarks Beltalowda

>>59128520
So do the Broadwell-E ones, for a good reason.

>>59128520
We are comparing it to the 7700k which for my knowledge is the same price as the 1700...

>>59128299
>look ma i posted it again xD

>>59128520
The r7s are half the price of broadwell-e, the processors that they are meant to compete with

>>59128520
AMD should have tocked when Intel ticked now they're timing is all fucked up

>>59128528
>show it 25% worse.
example of this every being said?

>>59128299
>5ghz oced intel ship
>still lose on average to a 3,0 ghz stock ryzen on average

Goytel is finally finished.

Damn, intel shilling team has arrived.

>>59128528
This is so sad, AMD just keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. Just add MOAR CORES

>>59128531
He's a well know reviewer. And a moron for pressing the wrong button on youtube and violating the NDA.
He might actually be homeless soon if AMD decides to sue him

>>59128546
I think that just GPU bottleneck.

Why isn't the 1700 OCd?

>>59128528
>25% worse
wow, you sure showed me with all of that evidence

>>59128299
PLEASE DELETE!

>>59128553
>He's a well know reviewer.
did you see their previous videos? I wouldn't call that reviewing.

>>59128541
OK so Ryzen is meant to compete with a workstation CPU?

What is the market for this? Video encoders only?

>>59128559
Because it would be an unfair advantage against Intel

>>59128546
>3.0GHz
It's 3.7Ghz
>lose on avg
Are we looking at the same image?

>>59128559
because it can't SAD

memory problems up the ass shitty pins it's another bulldozer

ALL.OVER.AGAIN

>>59128559
>>59128559
Stock is all that matters.


Also Ian hourly reminder that every 7700k can easily OC to 5.3Ghz

>>59128544
Look for that AMD-promoted image posted frequently in /g/ which shows it at ~1.51 and Intels are on ~2.00.

>>59128299
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-i7-6900k-gaming-benchmarks/

>The Ryzen 7 1800X delivered consistently higher framerates, averaging a 12% lead across the board. The 1800X is said to even outperform the Kaby Lake speed demon i7 7700K in single threaded performance and the 10-core i7 6950X $1700 desktop flagship Intel HEDT processor across the board with a one-click auto-overclock on air cooling.

>>59128582
here you go again drooling everywhere, need a handkerchief?

>>59128573
https://www.youtube.com/user/dinopcdotcom
is his channel
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWEHs_R5t9s
is just a reupload

>>59128595
the 1.51 and 2.00 are meaningless numbers if you don't give proper context

>>59128575
The R7 is meant to compete with i7 in price, while reaching 6900k-6950x performance in some scenarios.

The r5 is meant to compete against the i5 series, with a performance of 6 core broadwell CPU's.

The R3 is the budget centric one, obviously against i3 with a performance of i7 6700-7700

File: 1483142729739.jpg (99KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 720x479px

>>59128553
>He's a well know reviewer
he is not
>And a moron for pressing the wrong button on youtube and violating the NDA.
he did not violetad NDA as he did not have hardware or any guarded information

you can make video about ryzen today, and would not violate NDA

he is just trying to jewup some views

>>59128599
1800X is a $500 chip. Pointless for /g/. Comparisons should only be done around the 200-350 range in here for both Intel and AMD products.

>>59128575
Are you saying that the IPC for Ryzen is going to be bulldozer-tier again? because this isn't the case

>>59128581
3.7 on 8 cores in 65w?

Lol, Amd doesn't even need the gamer market then, with that perf/watt it would brutalize Intel in servers, like holy shit the 6900k uses 180 watts at 4.0.

>>59128605
yes. that's the one i'm talking about
it's not good.

>>59128602
His post was trollish but according to other people who broke the NDA the 1700 can only OC to 4.0 IF you have the X motherboards, and 3.8 on the B ones

>>59128299
>gta 5
Nah I will wait for a proper reviewer

>>59128609
It was a a weighted normalized average of single thread.

File: Névtelen-1.jpg (46KB, 164x164px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 164x164px

>>59128618
Just buy the R7 1700 and overclock it a bit to 4.0-4.2ghz

>>59128575
you can stream to twich dotard2 without the need of iGPU ;^)

>>59128612
I'm interested to see how the R5 and R3 compete

But it's looking really bad for the R7

There are even userbenchmarks that show the i7-7700k beating a 1700x, which is $60 more expensive.

>>59128633
of what test and which processors?

>>59128618
>amd is for poorfags but if they sell a chip that's faster for more money it doesn't count

>>59128613
>you can make video about ryzen today, and would not violate NDA
You can't post benchmarks that you did yourself. The NDA ends on the day of the launch.

>>59128622
AMD nailed the TDP because they left out that horrible iGPU.

There will be Zen APU's tho

>>59128581
3.7 single core, all core turbo is 3.3 or lower.
It's 65w for a reason.

>>59128635
Second rate companies like AMD tend to pre-overclock because they don't have their own Foundries. Don't expect Ryzen to get 500Mhz that easily. Most people would be getting like 200Mhz.

>>59128641
>comparing an octa core to a quad core
Again with this retardation. This "Price class" bullshit is completely arbitrary

>>59128622
>server market
But those are all enterprise contracts

>>59128649
here you go again posting things nobody ever said anywhere

>>59128654
>literally making shit up with no evidence

>>59128649
Its 65w because of >>59128647

I mean Kaby Lake is basically skylake with a beefier iGPU and TDP went up by 30-40w

>>59128656
>pay more for less because reasons
>rubs hands

is lower TDP better or worse?

pls spoonfeed babby

>>59128649
>all core turbo is 3.3 or lower
Does your ass hurt when you pull shit like this out of it?

File: assad.png (6KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 800x600px

>>59128644
Sure I can.

see?

>>59128663
That's based on history. You can't overclock easily what is pre-overclocked. AMD tends to do that recently because they don't have their own Foundries so they tend to be behind technologically or just more expensive because they have fees.

>>59128656
How is price arbitrary?

Even regardless of price, just look at the performance. If a cheaper Intel chip is beating Ryzen R7 in average scenarios, it's really bad for the R7.

>>59128299
using gtav as a benchmark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUNAvkY6Ops

>>59128659
And those come from having power hungry processors like Intel, right?

>>59128647
In case you didn't notice, he was being sarcastic.

>>59128667
literally broadwell-e for gaming
It might be priced really low but looking at it's specs, it's much more appropriate to compare it against the broadwell-e

>Many decent reviewers say they can't release info due to NDA but they say Ryzen kicks ass
>Some retarded shitty youtuber release an obscure chart for the weakest Ryzen chip by using an older game
>/g/ is retarded enough as well as full of shills to base their claims on this shitty chart.
Yeah, no. I will wait for March 3 to make a decision.

>>59128666
nah, TDP went up bacause they did >>59128654
this

I love this oldest propaganda tactic in the world, turn truth about yourself into "truth" about your enemy, nauseating

>>59128662
>>59128674
max turbo speed has always been single core speeds.

>>59128672
Lower is better. It stands for how much power you need to run the cpu.
AMD is currently having a TDP of 60-90w (non-overclocked) while intel went up to 90-130w

>>59128683
Price class is arbitrary.
The AMD octacores are able to deliver similar performance for half the price of intel octacores. This is why price class is arbitrary.

>>59128426
the average is worthless in todays games because you can hit a max of 10.000 fps and a min of 2 fps and still get a fucking avg close to 60 while the game is stuttering like SHIT

>>59128694
Not on intel at least.
My 4core intel stays at max turbo speed on all cores all the time.

>>59128693
.... the two are not even related... how does the TDP represents the overclockability of a CPU?

Are you slightly retarded?

>>59128647
Low TDP and no iGPU is the only thing I like about Ryzen so far.

It's too bad that doesn't make up for bad performance.

>>59128682
>literally making shit up with no evidence

>>59128694
>has always been single core speeds.
>always
>CPU nobody has on hands yet
>always

>>59128698
I see you live in a world where price doesn't matter.

Come back to earth some time.

>>59128700
Then that's probably something your motherboard is set to. The entire point of turbo is that it doesn't stay at max speed on all cores all the time.

>>59128721
Mom buys most of his stuff so no worries

File: zen-got-btfovv.gif (2MB, 360x201px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x201px

>>59128334
>>59128299

>>59128721
Price does matter. Price-class doesn't. Did you literally ignore the part about fucking broadwell-E?

>>59128682
you mean the history that an fx hold a record of 8.1ghz?

right..

truth is amd never had cold bugs to be bothered with and if what we saw with the cinebench result is close to real (2449)we will see quite a lot of oc (on all cores) around 4.2-4.5ghz

>>59128727
delet dis

>>59128675
DELET

>>59128722
>The entire point of turbo is that it doesn't stay at max speed on all cores all the time
It should only go lower than max turbo on all cores if you're thermal throttling

>>59128700
Come the fuck on, at least talk about a subject you know about!
I don't fucking talk about neurosurgery because I don't know neurosurgery!

https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/boards/g/img/0590/63/1487790835698.png

>>59128740
Please explain the difference between price class and price and why one matters and one doesn't.

>>59128722
Not him, but the CPU core doesn't run on the max speed all the time (not the turbo, but the rated one)

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with thermals, if the CPU overheats it goes back from turbo.

I checked my CPU clock while playing GTA V, its usually between the turbo and the rated one

>>59128747
Except i5 4670 stays at max turbo speed on all cores ALL THE TIME

>Before Ryzen
>HAHA INTEL BTFO RYZEN BEATS IT EVERY WAY FUCK YEAH AMD IS THE BEST

>After Ryzen
>I-It's cheaper and wasn't meant to compete with Intel a-anyway!

>>59128745
no, it goes as low as it possibly needs to if it's thermal throttling.

what is the point of listing a base clock and a turbo clock, if it runs at turbo speed all the time? it's not a turbo speed then, it's just "the clock speed".

>>59128767
Okay? Lets assume I believe you and that's one SKU, what about the 20+ skus in the link?

>>59128783
Shit happens every time, I can't believe people are still dumb enough to fall for AMD hype.

>>59128787
>what is the point of listing a base clock and a turbo clock, if it runs at turbo speed all the time?
I just answered that question
>thermal throttling

>ryzen 1700 against the 7700k

Kill yourself

>>59128793
Those run at max turbo speed unless they are thermal throttling.
next question

>>59128346
>>59128346
>>59128346
>>59128346
Anyone?

>>59128797
Then what the fuck does the "base clockspeed" even mean? If it's thermal throttling, it will thermal throttle BELOW the base clockspeed if it needs to.

File: 654156156165.png (122KB, 254x247px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 254x247px

>>59128783
>>59128794
I cant believe people are dumb enough to still fall for fake graphs

>>59128805
They have similar price
what is wrong with comparing them

>>59128510
Yet my Xeon performs better than any consumer CPU at much lower clock rate.

>>59128817
The 1700 is the low end Ryzen 7 CPU

>>59128807
Delirious, even Intel's own charts don't matter.
Also no core thermally throttles until it reaches TJmax, they drop out of turbo when TDP is reached.

>>59128810
No, it won't.
Windows goes below base clock speeds to save power, not because of thermal throttling.

>>59128809
more cores?

>>59128825
and my naples will shit on any cpu at 500 mhz

your point is?

File: angry-spoiler-a1.png (6KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 100x100px

we are reaching shilling levels that should not have been possible

>>59128825

In games

>>59128828
According to userbenchmark even the 1700X gets beat by the i7-7700k

>>59128752
So you're comparing the r7(8c/16t) and the mainstream i7 (4c/8t) because they're in the same price range but they don't really compare well because the r7's won't have the same single-threaded capabilities. Meanwhile, broadwell-e is literally twice the price and isn't particularly good at single-threaded tasks when compared to the mainstream i7. Despite the r7 and the broadwell-e being much closer when it comes to performance, the broadwell-e is in an entirely different "price-class" because it's twice the price. Price-class is an arbitrary metric that can group two items that aren't meant to be grouped together. You retards are trying so hard at comparing this to a mainstream i7 saying that it's poor value when, in fact, it makes much more sense to compare this to the enthusiast i7. This is where price matters, you're getting broadwell-e performance for literally half its price.

>>59128828
and it costs $329
intel 7700k is currently being sold for $330-319

>>59128691
THIS

Wait for the release day

>>59128831
You're just fucking wrong.

If your cpu is overheating, it will reduce the clock below the advertised base to avoid damaging itself. That's what thermal throttling is.

You're just fucking wrong.

>>59128848
Is this AMD shills admitting that 7700k is better for games or are they going to post that german site with the 7700k at stock clock speeds on the only 4+ core games in the market?

>>59128848
OK it compares favorably to niche workstation CPUs.

So Ryzen is marketed to video encoders? What is the market?

If you're a gamer or desktop user, the R7s just seem like a waste of money.

>>59128852
the normal price is 350-360 its 40 below the x and 39 above the non x and still shills uses the non x because they dont wanna shit themselfs

>>59128848
it seems to me that AMD is going after the wrong demographic for their cpus. or if they aren't wrong they need to release info to dispel FUD

>>59128858
>If your cpu is overheating, it will reduce the clock below the advertised base to avoid damaging itself.
No, it won't. In that case your computer will just shutdown

>>59128299
"real benchmark" with no actual footage showing the benchmark running. it's literally a jpg.

>>59128869
>>59128870
>>59128880
The r5s and r3s aren't even out yet you fucking retard and yet you're trying to say this one tier of processors is literally representative of the entire lineup.

>>59128874
But 7700k also beats the x according to benchmarks available so far.
>normal price
Normal price is what being sold at not whatever price it WAS being sold at months ago

According to the Genius ITT, Amd has a 8 core at 3.7ghz at 65w, that's 8 watts per core,, drop the clocks to a more server-like high core part to 2.8 and you're already under 3 watts per core.

I guess Intel is in for some murder.

File: happy doggo.png (94KB, 203x291px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 203x291px

>150 posts
>30 IPs
>tfw you will never have a life this pathetic

>>59128883
You're just fucking wrong. Stop posting.

File: that's not how it works.png (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x500px

>>59128883
depends on setting
>>59128858
>cpu is throttled below 2ghz when idle
>must be overheating
f.am

>>59128893
So is this you guys admitting the 7700k is better for games or not?

>>59128870
>If you're a gamer
If you want to stream your games so other people can watch you play video games, an R7 will do a better job than a quadcore i7.

>but muh GPU encoding
Both Quick Sync and NVENC puke all over the picture quality. x264 is a much better encoder.

>>59128874
Wrong

R7 1700 is $329

i7-7700k is $339

These are retail prices available everywhere, not limited sales

File: 1341842837883.jpg (46KB, 761x576px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 761x576px

>>59128906
>50 seconds ago.
>not a new IP to this thread

>>59128915
>a cpu will throttle when it's overheating
does not mean
>a cpu that's throttling is overheating
retard

So why wasn't the 1700 overclocked when we're testing OCs, does this guy even have the chip?

>>59128924
There are two people that stream games.
Casual players which use Nvidia tool that offers acceptable quality regardless of your autism. And professional players that have a machine just for streaming.

>>59128924
Maybe but that's still a niche scenario

Ryzen R7 is only good for video encoding? Seems like a really weird market to target.

>>59128952
because the 1700 can't oc past 3.8 without extreme high voltages

>>59128902
Holy shit, that's already phone performance/watt, why hasn't AMD obliteratted the phone market with Broadwell-tier cores?

>>59128966
There are more applications that require strong multithreaded performance. Why do you think the x99 platform exists in the first place?

>>59128966
>Ryzen R7 is only good for video encoding? Seems like a really weird market to target.
Yeah you've said that 20 fucking times in this thread.

The problem with your brilliant sick burn on AMD is that it's predicated on a single unconfirmed benchmark.

>>59128977
Right, is that the reason why the 1800X turbos over 4.0 on stock at 95w?

>>59128985
I'm sure there's a lot of applications where multi-threading is a priority, but is that really the market AMD is targeting?

All their marketing is geared toward gaming, yet these Ryzen's fail at gaming.

File: you.jpg (62KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x426px

>>59128950
then learn english and phrase your shit right
the way you are spilling shit on this gay ass threat you sound like a fucking idiot

>>59128919
The real problem here is you faggots focusing on games in the first place. Wait for the r5's and r3's before you start spewing bullshit again.

>>59128299
I can't wait for the massive butthurt on Thursday when several more benchmarks like this start dropping and /g/ goes full damage control
It's going to be Trump election all over again in terms of butthurt

>>59128628
>other people
It was one guy.

>>59129004
If you watch the the Ryzen event at youtube, you would hear that Lisa Su mentions more than "gamers". Why are you even talking about games in the first place? This is /g/, not /v/ for fuck's sake

>>59129008
Just give me a straight answer
Are the x700K better for gaming than Ryzen R7.

>>59128994
There are 2 other userbenchmarks that show the same thing, in fact it's even worse, it's a i7-7700k beating an R7 1700X

>>59128906
lol wtf and i wasn't even in this one

>>>59121409
>ctrl+f (You)
>55 of 55

>>59128906
I'm enjoying myself larping as a shill playing both sides. reminds me of the good ol fermi days

>>59129015
So leaks only matter to you if they confirm what you want to be true?

>>59129006
I said everything exactly fucking right, shit for brains. Thermal throttling is when the cpu is overheating. "Throttling" does not necessarily mean the cpu is overheating. It's not my fault your dumbass never learned what the word "thermal" means.

>>59129020
Yes

File: tfw44.png (29KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 633x758px

FUCK YOU FOR MAKING ME HOPE AMD

>>59129020
yes

in a few days you will have more proof of this

>>59129023
where are these benchmarks and is there any confirmation of them other than a jpg?

>>59129041
Thank you.
At least you admitted before the bloodbath that is going to happen here thursday

>>59129020
>implying that was ever claimed in the first place
everyone was already acknowledging the fact that ryzen was going to have Haswell IPC at best. It might not match Kaby-lake in single-threaded performance but it's going to be a competent gaming cpu that has the ability to destroy the mainstream i7s in multithreaded performance.

>>59129054
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Turbo-Disabled-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700K/m243187vs3647

>>59129057
what happens thursday?

File: 88a.png (245KB, 480x750px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 480x750px

>>59129067
>implying that was ever claimed in the first place
hahahaha
it's the rx480 all over again

>>59129077
>1700x vs i7 7700k

well fuck off

>>59129081
NDA drops and every reviewer can start posting their benchmarks and comparisons

>>59128848
most people don't want broadwell-e performance even if it wouldn't cost more, because 4 core cpus have a better single-thread vs multi-thread performance balance for the typical user

>>59129081
Another Massive Disappointment

>>59129037
Okay, does this count since we're already taking what one dude said and not proved as gospel.

>“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.”

Guess not, huh?

>>59129082
The gtx 980 is only 10% better in performance at only twice the price of an rx 480. It might not be exactly on par but it's half the price

AMD Be all like

>reeee stop comparing your midrange CPU to our high end

>>59129082
Seriously this shit is ridiculous.

"RYZEN WILL BTFO INTEL IS DEAD LOL"

Real benchmarks come out...

"Actually Ryzen was only meant to compete with Intel's niche workstation CPUs. It's not for gaming or any average use you silly gooses."

>>59129118
lol this

>>59129082
It's literally you being bamboozled by shills claiming that this is what the other side has always been claiming.

File: 57Fao.jpg (75KB, 680x471px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 680x471px

>>59128299
> chart uses 7700K
> OP links to 6700K

>>59129108
DELTE THIS

>it's a /g/ slowly realiazes they've been taken for ride by AMD once again and are stuck with Intel Jewish tricks for the foreseeable future episode
This is why I love this board

>>59128966
It's particularly good at video encoding, doesn't mean it isn't good at other things. There are plenty of other heavily multithreaded workloads.
It'll also have more power left over to do other stupid things while playing your very CPU intensive video games than a quad core i7.

>>59129020
Depends on the individual game, and refer to streaming performance too.
Though, if you're asking whether a quad core i7 is better at playing your games than an 8c16t cpu, you should also ask if that i7 will do a better job than an i5.
Keep in mind that Hyperthreading, being the i7's only advantage over an i5, is at best a ~20% performance improvement, and that's in applications that utilize multithreading properly. These same applications would be better served with an R7 with 8 physical cores.

>>59129119
Nobody has claimed that. You're only seeing it like that because shills convinced you that that's what everyone has been claiming.

>>59129108
>With our overclocked 1800X
>1800X
Well I mean, I sure hope the $500 chip beats the $330 one. Otherwise they are literally intel at this point

>>59129131
>shill everything
I hate this board

>>59129147
Not only beats, but destroys it.

>>59129140
>Nobody has claimed that.
Oh come the fuck on dude.

>>59129131
I WANTED TO BELIEVE DAMNIT!

>>59129140
see >>59129155

maybe they're not claiming 1700 > 7700k in games any more but they're still saying similar things

>>59129124
>1% performance gains

>>59129157
I have never seen any posts here that directly claim that. It's mostly trolls that say "oh this fanboy claim this, this fanboy claim that".

https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2017/02/donanimhaber.png

>>59129174
that's because you're a newfag. they shilled it really hard just a few days ago

>>59129155
>Not only beats, but destroys it.
Did the marketing team train you to say that or do did you come up with it yourself?

>>59129165
this seemed like a sarcastic reply to a sarcastic post that says the obvious. The obvious being "a $500 chip being better than a $300 chip"

answer is intel is clocked higher.
period.
just overclock.

>>59129174
Oh I see, this your first day here then.

>>59129196
don't you understand mom it can't OC

>>59129190
Of course 8 cores at the same IPC will destroy a 4 core, this is basic stuff, it has double the throughput

>>59129188
>>59129200
gee, you sure convinced me with those arguments

File: Another Major Disappointment.jpg (12KB, 495x91px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 495x91px

>>59129155
sure it destroys AMD poorfags wallets HAHHAHA

>>59129147
When they are trying to compare a $500 chip to a $330 chip, you know they are grasping at straws.

>>59129196
According to leaks the 1700 can't OC to save its sad little life, but we will know if that is true or not soon

>>59129205
not with the 1700 and its 65w tdp

>>59129218
>>59129205
Why not compare to amd's top tier six core which has a higher clock speed?

>>59129210
What do you want us to say. You can go 50 posts in a avg ryzen thread without people claiming that.
You can't just ignore everybody you don't agree with and say they are just trolls

>>59129216
What? Did you suddenly turn poor? Can't experience best performance?

>>59129240
Because we don't even have a launch date for it. Or leaked benchmarks

>>59129205
Not according to gigabyte mobo specs

>>59129241
So far, I literally haven't seen anything

>>59128390
>Most textures loading in
it would be a shame if there was actual proof that nvidia engages in shady ass shit like this.
hmm..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVb25eomcrI

File: 1372437805683.jpg (134KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 600x600px

AAHHAHA OH WOW

>>59129240
they are all the same chips. the r5 will be ones with defective cores. explains the reason for high yields. you heard it here first folks.

>>59129241
can't*

>>59129261
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S59068028#p59070642

just one example. many such cases. sad!

>>59129275
You didn't discover sliced bread, most people know that.

>>59129286
fuck off to /pol/ drumpfkin.

>>59129275
yea but of all the six cores, it should be binned the highest

>>59129261
feel free to keep ignoring reality then
whatever works better for you

File: 1488072847628.png (425KB, 1010x768px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1010x768px

>>59129240
7700k overclocked matches it even in the most unrealistic multi-threaded benchmark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfXzU7x9Cg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy_dOxqi-RY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0S4Sp18cLU

>>59129286
>AMD is offering $1100 performance for $400
yeah, I think he was referring to ryzen. Only wrong I see here is him thinking that the 1700 has similar single thread to the i7-7700k. Other anons were quick to point otherwise. Hey, at least you actually linked to an archived thread.

>>59129297
whoppe de doo but it will still have similar single thread performance to 1700x OC'd

>>59129331
But where's the tested 6 core?

>>59129346
See
>>59129108
Higher ST than 7700k

>>59129340
Yeah that's what I'm talking about.

How is it $1100 performance when it's beaten by a $340 Intel chip in gaming and desktop usage?

>>59129367
that's the 1800x though

>>59129349
He's waiting for it but in the meantime enjoy his (((((((((estimates)))))))))

>>59129331
What a terrible Photoshop

it's not even the same font.

>>59129387
1800x is 100mhz higher 1700x, unless this one can overclock 600mhz more than the other and ai seriously doubt that it's irrelevant, same exact chip.

>>59129346
the 1700, 1700x, 1800x are all the same cpu binned right?

>>59129425
Same chips but different binning targets, one's low power and is akin more to a server part, like intel's T chips

>Shows benchmarks for 7700K vs Ryzen 1700
>Shows product page for 6700K
Something isn't right here

>>59128605
>some literal who with 41k subs

Quality source of info

>>59129462
The dude doesn't even have the chip, you people are arguing over photoshoped benchmarks

>>59128656
> price doesn't matter as long as you buy AMD goys!

Gee, I wonder who could be behind that post...

File: 1488068623229.jpg (424KB, 514x836px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 514x836px

>here we go again

wait for the fucking game benchmarks you mongs

File: IMG-20170223-WA0001.jpg (76KB, 932x528px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 932x528px

>>59128453
Except the top Zen chip at 500$ is beating the 1000$ Intel trash


???

1700 wasn't meant for gaming, but as
low power part and 3 fps doesn't mean much
1700x or 1600x would be more fair comparison

>>59129513
Why isn't the $1800 Intel faster than a 7700k?

File: 04b02ee2ef6b313d9dd849d644ee5ad2.png (174KB, 696x678px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 696x678px

>>59128299
>muh max FPS

Irrelevant
If Kaby lake can only manage a 4 FPS lead on average in a poorly threaded game with a 2Ghz clock advantage and consuming over 145 watts more then the 1700 won.

There will be higher clocked 6 and 4 cores for your MUH GAMES if that's what you care about. This is literally a worse case scenario for Ryzen. The 1700 is the lowest clocked part in the Ryzen lineup @ only 3Ghz.

>>59129518
We have it. AMD lied to us again

File: 1375503841881.jpg (38KB, 310x310px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 310x310px

>>59128299
This is the same shill that shitposts this thread every other hour.

>That Intel damage control

>>59129544
>>59129536

>>59129543
Once you bless it with virgin blood it does become faster.

>>59129545
>we have photoshops

fixed for you.

>>59128299
>>59128349
>>59128384
>>59128501
>>59128525
>>59128528
Let me blow your mind.

With Ryzen Master you can disable 4 cores and clock the remaining ones all the way up, so you gaymen can have that 3 fps bump. If your benchmark is not multi-threaded and you put such a difference in clock it sure will show a difference. If you put Ryzen on par with clock its higher IPC will put it above.

>muh it just werks
Get jewed and only play games. If you do something else with your computer you will benefit from some tweaking of your CPU for your task.

Shills are getting desperate.

File: IMG-20170204-WA0000.jpg (179KB, 589x564px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 589x564px

https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-i7-6900k-gaming-benchmarks/amp/

Intel on bankrupt watch!

>>59129450
Comparable to the T line? I hope this is the case and would perhaps explain the disappointing performance from the 1700...

>>59128299
Kind of a stupid question, but if I were to buy a new mobo to make use of 1151 processors but keep literally every other part in my PC the same (until I installed said new processor), how smooth would the transition be? How smooth is a new processor transition?
Current: B85 Anniversary 1150 mobo w/ Pentium G3220 cpu and Win10.

>>59128299
Great bench, overclocked 7700k slower than a stock one on average.
3.0ghz stock part 5% slower on average than a 50% higher clocked chip with the same IPC in a game that uses 4 cores on a good day.


What kind of idiot made this, or is this game such a piece of techoturd that the inverse happens with better hardware?

Did no one ask this?

>>59129616
It's fake news created by Intel to stop the coming blow out by Zen.

>>59129607
It's 8 cores clocked at 3.0 base and 65w, what can i compare it to besides the T line in the consumer market?

>>59129607
>65w tdp
>octacore
that explains more than enough, actually

>>59129607
>>59129633
>>59129636
>65w
Actually, yes... I forget this. I'm really crossing my fingers for the 1800x, I'd love to use it in a system for running KVMs.

>>59129593
why can't i OC all the cores?

>>59129633
Xeons.

>consumer market
I think there were consumer xeons parts a long long time ago

>>59129695
Xeons created for lower power consumption, yes. You're probably not far from the truth there.

>>59129685
Who said you couldn't? You can overclock some cores higher than others though, there's profiles too so you can save a all core OC, one core OC or 4 core OC and switch them without restart.

Pretty neat, hopefully it isn't too difficult to use.

>>59129733
Can I expect software to work normally with different clocked cores?

>>59129733
sounds like a gimmick to me

The thing that's really fucking me off about AM4 at the moment is that all of the motherboards are so game-y'/ I just want something simple like the B250M-C or the X-99 server boards.

>>59129756
this, the extra cores are their only saving grace, you'd be better off just buying a 7700k if you're going to use 4 cores anyway

File: o0700100012696567516.png (127KB, 700x1000px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 700x1000px

>>59128575
>OK so Ryzen is meant to compete with a workstation CPU?
The 8 core one is yes.
There are 6 and 4 core parts on the way for MUH GAMES if that is what you care about. The 1700 shines as a lower power and workstation part but if your goal is to play games then you would be better off buying a R5 1600X (6 core 3.6Ghz base and 4Ghz turbo) which will be selling for $260.

>>59129767
Yeah, the only remotely appealing one at the moment is the Asus X370 Pro.

>>59129767
do you realize how gay you sound

>>59129755
Yeah? Some benchmark or monitoring software might not read it since they expect a static all core clock, but there should be no problem p.
It's like big.Little in phones but without the switching clusters part.

>>59129756
It sounds really nice to me, optimally use your OC for gaming or work, some games don't need 8 cores so shut them off and OC the other 4 higher

>>59129784
260$ 1600x vs better performing 7700k at 290$

the choice is obvious

File: 1468974476103.jpg (40KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x600px

>>59129767
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132964

This one looks great DESU.

>>59129796
i know u r but wot am i? xDDD

>>59129809
I wouldn't even bother turning off cores so I can clock 200mhz higher for 2fps.

But I would use it for undervolting when I let i run without intervention for a day when I'm at work or heavy torrenting.

>>59129826
At the moment this is the only one that is appealing.

>tfw no green pcb boards

The X-99 WS (M) board as X370 would be pretty good though.

>>59129767
>X-99 server boards

lol faget

x99 is pure gayming shit

c612 is for workstations and servers

>>59129593
>Shills are getting desperate.

Ironic

>>59129386
I already explained why. r7 competes with broadwell-e and broadwell-e, despite being chips costing over a thousand dollars, gets destroyed in single threaded performance by the mainstream i7s

>>59129685
You can but will you do it ?

>>59129866
It's a great tool for tinkering but not for normalfags unless it's super simple with presets, and since every chip is different those presets sound near impossible.
Don't let a normalfag near a CPU Vcore slider/incrementer.

>>59128299
Yikes. Glad I didn't fall for the AMD meme

>>59129955
I'm gonna crank them sumobitches all the way up

>>59129821
we still have no idea how r5s and r3s will perform. it's too early to make conclusions like that

>>59129916
>c612
I forgot the chipset name, not looked into all of this for the last year or so.

>>59129956
Who cares about normalshits.
I recommend them Pentiums since it's all they need.

wow, intel cpu have better peak fps when game switches between gameplay and cutscene?

>faster in one game

>faster than a cpu not optimized for gaming

>>59130075
>moving the goalposts

>>59130083
>one CPU is all you need for every workload.

Better call Cray, Oracle and Google and tell them the 7700k can do everything they need.

>>59128299
>GTA V ULU LUL
Nah that shit and the cpu are like 8 year old tech

>>59130083
compare it to the 1600x instead

>>59128869

one day, your gaming will be slowed by your av running, your torrent client checking pieces, your browser window left open etc...

amount of threads/cores is important. scale out or up. If you only care about up because x game in single threaded, then that's your niche. But that's what it is, your niche use case. Which begs the fucking question, why don't you just get a better graphics card and motherboard?!!

File: 1294581987753.jpg (18KB, 347x206px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 347x206px

welp the AMD shills have run out of ammo. King Intel continues his reign of performance

>>59130164
>one day, your gaming will be slowed by your av running, your torrent client checking pieces, your browser window left open etc...

Do people actually do this?

intel shills on their last leg thinking a low power cpu is good for gaming

>>59130238
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFg8LXs5_M

>>59130224
lots of people tend to forget that they have background process. hell, even if you're just gaming, there are still several game clients to install

>>59130238
They milk those all 4 cores like I do with my dick every morning

>>59130261
Nah, low TDP chips suffer from low clockspeed both AMD and Intel, you can game on them but there are better options, also companies seem to charge extra for the low TDP regardless of the suffering performance for some reason.

8 cores isn't that great for gaming which are typically lightly threaded but even here Ryzen 7 seems to be doing admirably against a chip with half the cores and a higher clock speed.

>>59130266
Ah shit, you're right. I need to buy AMD so I can run my print spooler in the background without dropping 30 frames.

1600x is better for gaming and cheaper than 1700

>>59130295
>there are better options

Like a better intel CPU.

>>59130295
They're notably higher perf/watt and thats important in many markets, especially 24/7 ones.

>>59129826
That's the one I plan on getting too. It's the only decent one that is not ridiculously overpriced with useless bs ( 2 dozen usb ports, two wifi antennas, an extra lan card, 7.1 onboard audio, etc) nor has a bunch of retarded gaymer shit.
The 8 sata ports isn't the most, but it's more than enough for me. Also, according to overclockers.co.uk, the m.2 slot doesn't disable or share bandwidth with a sata port(s) or pcie lane unlike some of the cheaper and even more expensive (flagship) boards.
The only thing it could really use is more power phases.

>LOL the 7700k beats Ryzen 7 you faggots, Ryzen 7 is a shit CPU

... ok so is the 6900k or 6950x also shit? What if the 6900k was the same price as the 7700k?

Can you sperglords wait until we see what we can expect from R5 and R3 before you throw your tantrums? You know, since those are the parts that will be cheaper than the 7700k and will clock higher than the R7 1700?

>>59130622
I don't know why you're throwing a tantrum, you have to wait just like everyone else.

>>59130697
Because in the past 24 hours there have been at least two 200+ reply threads brimming with trolls going on and on about this shit and I want to read these threads to see if there's new information but it's just idiots.

>>59130749
Welcome to 4chan, my friend.

>>59128550
The moar cores life isnt for everyone. All i see is people comparing perf relative to single applications.

> For the streamer or render, the extra cores go a long way
> For games, due to certain constraints, higher single core is still prefered to more cores

You all ignore a very important user, the power user. More cores is great for people who run many demanding applications side by side. Eg, zbrush, photoshop, chrome+30 tabs, IDEs, emulators and other virtual machines. In a professional environment youd usually have your ERP or CRM software running ocnstantly as well.

Its what Ive loved about my FX 8 core for so long. Sure, its a significant step down in games, but its gar from obsolete in that regard.

Tl dr i only need 'good enough' IPC, more cores is actually important for my use case

>>59130787
>literally lying to shill AMDs poo product

>>59130787
>AMD marketing towards gamers
>turns out they pooed again
>AMD hipsters flock to their defense and try to sell you on their product

Every time

>>59130834
Im just telling you how I use my PC. I still play ogrewatch annd RE7 at 60 fps, the last thing ill wave my epeen over is video game performance. For me at least, when it comes to vidya its either good enough to enjoy or its not.

>>59130874
>60fps
>calls himself a power user

l m a o

>>59130911
Theyre just video games man calm down.

>>59130911
>/v/irgins
>power users

What a riot.

File: 1481915065259.jpg (52KB, 932x576px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 932x576px

>>59129904
>>59130535
Personally i'm waiting for Asus's workstation mobos.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1N84891643

They look sexy AF senpai~

http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9483

This screen cap is now circulating everywhere. OCN, Hardforum, Anandtech, SemiAccurate,Toms, its all over.

This is too funny for words. Bravo, /g/.

>>59131268
What screencap?

>>59131463
The first post in that thread.
Its from a thread here a couple days ago.

>>59131268
A screencap of a screencap of a screencap. What the hell

>>59131495
Or just a screencap of a screencap rather but now there's discussion on SA about it

File: 1471215465521.png (526KB, 830x500px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 830x500px

>>59131268
>a jew never changes
lol make anti-semitism great again. keep on naming the jew

>>59131558
Damn right.
I like how nobody in that thread even mentioned it, its like they're all completely aware of the issue, and its such a mundane fact that it isn't worth drawing attention to.

>>59131489
Amd damage ctrl

Word is that intel will slash price on the i7 6900K to just $699.
Full on panic mode engaged.

>>59131714
>panic
they still had a long run of raking in the dough from HEDTfags and they're probably still making a nice profit at $699

>>59131746
The fact that they have to cut prices proves that they have to compete with AMD. It shows they're scared about losing market share, even in the low volume HEDT segment.
This change in pricing structure will change the entire product line up for them, and if revenue from PC sales is down at the end of the year they'll have to explain to investors that a company 1/10th their size is forcing their hand, and thats bad for investor confidence.

Zen being this close to Broadwell - Kaby Lake is a clear threat to them. If it were a single flash in the pan it would illicit such a heavy handed response. Zen+ is going to have parity with Cannonlake.
Intel's per clock performance lead is virtually gone, their process lead is pretty close to worthless. The only segment intel is hanging on in is the mainstream with their highly clocked quad core parts, and they have nowhere left to go there. Power per core in Kaby Lake at 4.2ghz is already 21.5w. They're always extremely far outside of the ideal clocking range for efficiency, and they're not going to be squeezing any more out of their 14nm node.