http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1

DELET THIS

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

>lower values are better values
Nice one AMD person you can't fool my indian eyes

DELET THIS NOW

>synthetic benchmarks

>>59145581
AMD wins again

FUCK YOU, GOY
STOP POSTING FAKE BENCHMARKS, FILTHY GOYIM

>>59145660
Synthetic benchmarks worked just fine when intel was winning

File: 51135.png (32KB, 550x450px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 550x450px

>>59145660
Intel loves synthetics.

There's no escape now, kike.

IT'S HAPPENING

File: 1487808235004.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

DELET THIS GOY!

SHUT IT DOWN!

BUT MUH GAMES MUH GAMES MUH GAMES

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

495KB, 1070x601px

JUST FUCK MY 7700K UP SENPAI

anyone want to buy my 7700k?

>1 IP address/10 posts
slow down kiddo
we get it

>>59145660
>synthetic benchmarks are okay when Intel does better

File: 1487542733647.jpg (73KB, 507x369px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 507x369px

>mfw ryzen CPU nvidia GPU
SOMEBODY STOP ME

>>59145721
There's that guy who bought the i7 7700k with Ryzen around the corner

>>59145718
I'll give you $100 for it.

>drinking tea
>see this
>spit it out


Neat, but this seems overclocked, there's no way a stock 1800X at 4.0GHz can beat a 7700k at 4.5 in ST benchmark with their IPC being near identical, that's a 12% clock deficit.

Either way what's neat is that we know the 1800X can at least OC over 4.5-4.6GHz

>>59145743
oh hey congrats suicide squad for oscars

>>59145756
That's not a 1800x, fucking retard

>>59145718
Undervolt it and use it for pfsense.

Lmao

>>59145765
It's a 1700X?

That's even better, so a 1700X can overclocked to 4.5? What's left of Intel then?

File: 7700k vs 1700x.jpg (73KB, 974x879px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 974x879px

>>59145581
Fucking retarded AMDrone.

Sounds like a fake. But, it might help Intel to pay more attention on better CPUs. They seem to go to irrelevant shit lately like "The Internet of Things" that I don't give a shit about and it's botnet.

>>59145784
We talked about that Goldman, it's a dead meme

>>59145581
>BUT INTEL IS STILL SUPERIOR IN SINGLE THREAD
TOP FUCKIN KEK

>>59145791
>Sounds like a fake.
It's not, cpu-z reads the CPU opcode, not the CPU_ID which can be spoofed, there's no way to fake this.

>>59145771
Cheaper cpus since AMD went full retarded and didn't launch the R5 together with the R7.
Intel will undercut their i7s and i5s even further, do a fuckton of marketing and by the time people realize it they fucked up they already spend $500 on a motherboard cpu combo

>>59145784
you both go on "look at my single benchmark". it's all bullshit and shilling until people actually test them from reliable sites. when we have at least 40 to 80 testers.

>>59145784
Why compare it to a 1700x with even the boost disabled?

>>59145581
(YOU) AMD Ryzen

>>59145796
>overclocked $400 ryzen
>still barely manages to beat a stock $300 i7-7700K
Literally fucking nothing.

>>59145800
>Cheaper cpus since AMD went full retarded and didn't launch the R5 together with the R7.
They can't launch them because they don't have enough stock, they're all made from 8 core dies and building up stock is harder than building up 8 core stock.
If their yields were bad there'd be plenty of R5 and R3's already though.

File: 1453195944945.jpg (43KB, 797x799px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 797x799px

>>59145784
>single-thread
>140 / 4.5 (stock turbo clock) = 31,1
>111 / 3.4 (Ryzen with no turbo) = 32,6

dumb intel poster

>>59145820
I wonder when that 7700k got a $40 price cut.

>>59145803
As opposed to AMD's sponsored (read:rigged) benchmarks?

>>59145791
There's no way it's fake, but it's definitely overclocked to 4.7 - 4.8GHz.

>>59145824
So why launch the Enthusiast lineup first?
The vast majority of people just want to spend $200-250 on a cpu max.
I was trying to give my roomate a quickrun on the Ryzen and after 10 minutes of me saying just how much better at everything it was he just said, "yeah but the i5 7600k is cheaper"

File: 56440_01_intel-rocked-core-over-ryzen.png (99KB, 783x521px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 783x521px

>>59145835
Pretty much no reason to buy a ryzen now unless you're a blind AMD loyalist.

> http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1
Why isn't this on the actual website?

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/1

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

245KB, 800x612px

>>59145862

>>59145862
or don't live near of their store since they're not shipping those

File: Fetch.gif (3MB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 426x426px

>>59145581
i7 7700k at 5ghz get a little over 2400 ST. That has to be on LN2.

>>59145867
>i-it's fake, goy

File: 1700x vs 6800k.png (249KB, 528x837px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 528x837px

>>59145581
I got another to add

>>59145862
How do you figure? Are you just stupid?

$300 for a 7700k is still $100 too much.
The 1700 ix only $30 more for twice the cores and threads.

The $180 6600k is only $50 less than the lowest Ryzen 6 core, too.

Even if those aren't in-store only and there was 0 tax, those prices are still too high for anyone but idiots.

What is "rjmzdu/1" on the link? I can't find this on the actual website.

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/1

>>59145867
Well there you have it. OP's benchmark is fake.

>>59145867
because it's fake

File: 1475675081596.jpg (221KB, 1024x999px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1024x999px

>>59145743
Not building PC with AMD CPU,GPU,SSD,RAM and painting it RED.

>>59145880
Do you have an answer child or just blindly copying memes?

>>59145883
nice jpeg artifact

>>59145882
>The 1700 ix only $30 more for twice the cores and threads.
and half the single thread performance
I'm all for Ryzen but do not mention the 1700 non x ever again. Only actual retards will buy that.

>>59145856
>>So why launch the Enthusiast lineup first?
Because holy shit why wait 1-2 months when you already got sufficient stock to launch 8 cores?
These are all made for server-first dies, that's why they started with 8 cores.

If people want them they'll buy them, the cheaper 4 and 6 cores will come in some 5-6 weeks later.

File: 1452989073275.png (141KB, 448x539px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 448x539px

>>59145890
>>59145888
>>59145885
>>59145867

File: 1488059530739.jpg (217KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x1000px

>>59145882
>b-but muh cores
Why is this still a meme? Have AMD learned nothing from the bulldozer fiasco?

>>59145799
>there's no way to fake this
now, don't be naive ok
just intercept the syscall and return some other value
not hard to do at all

>>59145905
>half
lmao kill yourself

> rjmzdu/1

It's not on the actual CPU-Z list

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/1

>>59145894
I'm so sorry anon, my 280x died and I bought a 1060 the same day under the impression it outclassed the 480.
I feel like such a cunt.

>>59145906
>1-2 months
Try June.

>>59145919
It's the id of the contributor fuckin' faggot

>>59145908
>improve cache, IPC, single-thread performance, power consumption and thermal output for a lower price
>also add more cores
>HEHE XD COREZ COREZ HEHE 4 THREADS IS ALL YOU NEED BABEH

>>59145867
Not OP, but I guess it's because it probably needs a minimum sample size before appearing in the official site.

>>59145919
>>59145890
>>59145888
>>59145885
>>59145867
Because the CPU is not out yet. Check the multi thread tab, no ryzen there either even though we know it outclasses intel

>>59145867
>faked benchmarks
AMD really are desperate aren't they?

>>59145919
Stop samefagging, shill. It's not on the list because it's not officially out yet and it's not in CPU-z's database.

>>59145906
>These are all made for server-first dies
According to the marketing we're seeing they are for gaming.

File: Screenshot from 07-02-2017 21:49:04.png (1MB, 1342x945px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1342x945px

Oh God this delicious kike meltdown.

>>59145941
If it's not out how did he benchmark it? Checkmate AMDrones.

>>59145935
There's literally no point for anything more than 4C/8T when it comes to gaming builds.

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

245KB, 800x612px

>>59145944
>>59145914
>>59145908
>>59145903
>>59145890
>>59145888

>>59145862
>in store pick up.
Don't you know how to use MS paint to blank that you. Bad shill Bad!

File: firefox_2017-02-27_09-52-58.png (7KB, 1463x123px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 1463x123px

I almost feel bad for intel
Almost

>>59145941
>i-it's real guys it's just not official yet
Just stop.

>>59145956
>marketing

Come on, firstly, according to marketing they're content creation first.

Secondly, ignoring dumb marketing, these are all 8 core dies and 4 of these dies will be used for the top end 32core Naples server part, AMD could have made a 4 core die but that would limit them to 16 core server parts which is only the mid-range market.

>>59145951
So you believe what you see from 1 engineering sample posted by AMD itself. Nice. Go back to your mommy now.

>>59145975
I know you're just a troll but it hasn't officially launched yet.
This is a fact

File: 1458704184460.png (814KB, 604x717px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 604x717px

>i-i-i-i'ts fake
>s-stop posting synthetic b-benchmarks
>s-see, it's not in the list
>it's totally n-n-not because it's just one s-sample
Holy shit. Intel shills on suicide watch. It's only going to get better as we approach NDA lift.

File: ap_israel_jewish_intel_sabbath_210_14Nov09.jpg (35KB, 201x210px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 201x210px

THAT DAMAGE CONTROL HAHAAHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA

>>59145969
There are other retailers offering exactly the same discount you know.

>>59145980
>F4 stepping
>ES

Your kike tears sustain me.

Another holocaust, right?

Who hear seriously believes those aren't posted by AMD itself from cherry picked engineering samples? Nobody has those chips. Not even Microcenter has 1 chip.

>>59145980
I smell a kike.

File: Screenshot from 07-02-2017 20:25:19.png (447KB, 1885x956px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1885x956px

Nothing to worry my go- friends, Intel is your best best!

>>59145973
*unzips unconfirmed gtav benchmark*

>>59145991
SHUT IT DOWN

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-CPU-Mark-Prime-Numbers-840x420.jpg (35KB, 840x420px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 840x420px

>Ryzen can't do Prime numbers
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: 1487759158427.png (387KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1000x1000px

[Shit wrecker seal of approval]

>>59145987
other retailers offer $10 discount you know

DONT BUY RIZEN GOY

YOU ONLY NEED 2 CORES FOR GAYMING

> Nobody has those chips, not even Amazon has a single chip yet
> Let's believe what AMD uploaded from its labs
you AMD shills are so gullible.

>>59146003
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fy87gUVisQ

But this one isn't valid since it makes Intel look bad

File: 1487125261902.jpg (323KB, 675x825px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 675x825px

>>59145996
>>59145980
You sound nervous.

>>59145996
everyone got chips already, what are you on about? heck they even got them here in russia for prebuilts available day one

>Intel has no competition for several years
>Focuses on energy savings over IPC
>Competition on IPC arrives
>Drop prices by $50 across the board
>6 months later
>new batch of CPUs launched
>completely stomps amd
>Wow nothing happened
gg amd. Yeah I'll be sticking with intel. Thanks for the price drops though.

The chips do not exist yet on the market. Not even in long term storage. Literally nobody has them.
You are posting AMD in-house benchmarks.
Grats, you are literally playing their game.

File: GTAV benchmark.png (1MB, 1281x678px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1281x678px

>AMDrones will defend this

File: 1487031590020.png (290KB, 579x713px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 579x713px

>>59145908

>>59146032
>mom I posted it three times!

>>59146024

[hand wringing intensifies]

File: Screenshot from 27-02-2017 13:59:54.png (68KB, 688x861px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 688x861px

>that power consumption

>>59146036
Wow 100 replies before it was posted, must be a new record.

>>59146036
>Posting fake benchmarks

GOOD GOY

>>59146015

File: delete this.png (537B, 122x22px) Image search: [Google]

537B, 122x22px

>>59146049

>>59146049
>standby
>office
INTEL LITERALLY OBLITERATED IN LAPTOPS AND PREBUILDS

>>59146036
>jews always post the non x version of the 1700 on stock clocks which is the chip no one gives a shit about

talk about cherry picking

It was just deleted as fake

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/

>>59146049
Jewtel btfo, AGAIN. I'm getting tired of winning.

>>59146013
>Nobody has those chips, not even Amazon has a single chip yet
That's not true.

>>59146073
Read the thread kid

>>59146073
Nah. I fucked up, thinking that id of OP's link will take you to the CPU-Z valid page.
>>59146055

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-is-trying-to-manipulate-amd-ryzen-launch.html

>So yes, as it seems Intel has been reaching out to certain media in shameless attempt to influence upcoming benchmark scores in their favor. Intel's PR department is contacting media and calling in favors with the press by issuing them "guidelines" on how to review AMD Ryzen. Intel's PR emails include this line: "call us before you write."

>>59146073
Disgusting lying kike. They removed it because of the NDA.

>>59146049
>those power figures


14nm Intel is unbeatable amirite

>>59146083
Are you stupid? They are out in months. They have nothing.

Those are literally AMD cherry picked chips from their labs.

You are literally playing their illegal propaganda game.

>>59146058
both benchmarks that you link to are fake

>>59146095
It's still there.

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1

>>59146036
The fuck. And here I was considering buying a ryzen. As I suspected it will have mediocre vidya performance.

>>59146099
>They are out in months.
the release date is this week
everybody already has the chips moron

>>59146049
holy shit 8cores less power than 6 cores

>>59146099
>close your ears with hands and sing "lalalala it's not happening"

are we at this stage already? NDA is not even lifted.

>>59146104
Nope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=425XavsUdXQ

>>59146114
I can imagine the slaughter Naples will be when it's running at its perf/watt sweet spot.

File: Untitled.png (33KB, 1256x656px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1256x656px

LOL

>>59146049
>this post was sponsored by AMD, please buy our products!

File: kike.jpg (59KB, 940x617px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 940x617px

It's time to give up, intel shills and fanfags. I know many of you have buyer's remorse and who wouldn't? I don't blame you, though. It sucks buying a 4 core CPU in 2017 for $350. It's sad, but you still have time to sell it.

File: 1487885132012.jpg (34KB, 500x716px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x716px

>>59145581
OH NOOOOOOO

File: Screenshot from 27-02-2017 14:07:47.png (252KB, 533x846px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 533x846px

>>59146049

>>59146125
This has to be running at 4.6GHz+. I hope it's not LN2.

>>59146049
>Tomb Raider
>intel is almost 20fps ahead in frames
>says 1700x won
what?

>>59146121
oh shit

>>59146125
>threads
>16

6950X is 20 threads though, its clockspeed is way lower so normally it loses when it can't use all its cores.

>>59146049
>ryzen vs an 1 year old i7 in the same price range
>barely beats the 6800k in gaming benchmarks
Cool, now post one for the cheaper i7-7700k.

>>59146138
the person who translated from chinese can't read numbers for some reason, look at civ 6

>>59146121
Reported that video & channel to youtube.

>>59146138

>civ 6
>41 FPS ahead
>1700X isn't winning

>>59146138
Wrongly transcribed, see:
>>59146135

That's the source.
They're both at 35 and 40fps

>>59146073
It's too late. AMDrones already bought into the lies.

>>59146145
>16+
Nice try, kike.

>>59146154
>>59146162
>>59146163
>chinks can't read numbers
But they were supposed to be good at math

>>59146073
>http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/
you forgot the "1" at the end kiddo.


http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1

Not gonna lie, it's hilarious watching Intel crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let Intel continue shilling on this website.

>>59146172

making good copies doesn't put them at an engineer level

>>59146172
Some mudslime translated the stuff wrongly, the chink stuff is correct and is the source.

File: a jew never changes.png (174KB, 1726x405px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1726x405px

https://www.techpowerup.com/231038/intel-plays-dirty-over-ryzen-attempts-to-manipulate-ryzen-reviews

Every tech site on the web has been talking about or posting articles about this screencap.

>>59146180
it's getting way too obvious, they don't even try anymore

> LIQUID NITROGEN ON 1 SAMPLE IS ENDING THE DEBADE GUYS
> BELIEVE ME
go back to your mommy kiddo.

>>59146159
For what ?
>Harmful dangerous acts
>Content that includes acts that may result in physical harm... of intel shills

>>59146206
>“Overclocking hasn’t been a problem at all. Although we can’t announce specifics regarding frequencies due to NDA I can say that the results are impressive and overclockers will be pleased”

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

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

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

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

From donanimhaber, the same site that leaked Bulldozer being junk.

What's next? This doesn't count because the moon is full tomorrow?

Do those children seriously believe 1 liquid nitrogen sample from 1 engineering sample is ending the debate? Jesus fucking christ.
At least it would be hilarious when they'll come crying drones "I fell for the Ryzen meme".

File: 1456413461364.jpg (6KB, 241x209px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 241x209px

>>59146206
>>59145980

> 1 LN2 sample
> 1 chip sample
I'm already storing the popcorn for the >I fell for the Ryzen meme threads.

INTEL
KIKES
ON
SUICIDE
WATCH


This thread is literally on meltdown from salty tears.

File: bern.jpg (41KB, 394x386px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 394x386px

>>59145581
>not even a 1800X

>>59146239
>>59146224
>>59146206
>>59145980
This is sad.

>>59146249
Sad? This is a fucking festival, I literally jumped into my couch after the first 20 posts ITT and was laughing my ass off for a good 3 minutes.

http://valid.x86.fr/server_error.php?err=%3Cimg%20src=https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5LrvadKpBZE/maxresdefault.jpg%3E

Are the other scores not records on LN2 as well?

Is that not how it works?

It says "records".

>>59146001
>Ryzen*
what's with the asterisk?

>>59146256
I know right? Its pretty hilarious.

>>59146223
>if you overclock you get better performance
No fucking shit Sherlock. The exact same thing also applies to the 7700k. OC it a little and it beats anything ryzen has to offer in terms of single clock performance.

>>59146266
Something something marketing and legal action and eligibility for lawsuit.

There's a reason people pay lawyers good money, it's not say something wrong.

>>59146257

>baby's first attempt at modifiying an URL

how cute

File: 1298255981066.jpg (17KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 125x125px

>>59146272
>BUT RYZEN CAN'T OVERCLOCK LITERALLY STUCK AT 4.0!

>>59146282
they need to fix their shit code.

I hope this brings some motion to the stagnating CPU market. But I'm afraid I'm not convinced yet. We'll know for sure when at least 20-40 reliable websites start benchmarking in-house.

File: Screenshot from 27-02-2017 14:25:31.png (68KB, 1238x940px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1238x940px

>>59146272
Well I guess you can get another 200-300MHz higher on a 7700k if you delid it, sand it, put it on a custom water loop, void the warranty and if you don't disable the Zen cores I guess?

Still, I don't see how some 3% ST can justify getting obliterated like this.

>>59146282
The point is that anyone can mess with the website's code and post fake benchmarks. But then again AMDrones will eat up anything as long it goes along with their narrative.

File: 1469541957-risitas198.png (20KB, 136x102px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 136x102px

>>59146290
>>59146322

how can one be so retarded ?

>>59145581
As I suspected, Zen scales nicely at higher frequencies, I guess some core clock independent parts of the chip respond faster over a certain clockspeed.

>>59146272
Those are world records
That 7700k result is also overclocked

File: 1473895139558.jpg (46KB, 305x377px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 305x377px

>>59146315
How can Intel even compete?

>>59146334
Did you even click it?

>>59146322
It doesn't matter, if they are lying, they're gonna be crying the next day.

I want to see the benchmarks from reliable websites, and those to be at least 10-20 reviewers.

>>59146315
>The 7700k has the potential to be stable at 5Ghz @ ~1.4v, with exceptional samples reaching 5.1 / 5.2 perhaps.
You're just embarrassing yourself now.

File: .png (703KB, 1615x1099px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 1615x1099px

>>59146322
No.

It's 1 LN2 sample against the average. Hold your horses. We'll know for sure when reliable reviewers enter the benchmarking race.

What time is in india right now ? It's 7:30 AM CST in Alabama.
Do shills get paid more if they shill in the night ?

>>59146355
>Silicon Lottery stats show 5% or less of chips can be stable at 5.1ghz
>bb-b-b-b--b-but Babby Lake is such a great overclocker!

File: keep tryin'.png (38KB, 195x193px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 195x193px

>>59146315
>still posting this benchmark despite being debunked

>>59146367
>It's 1 LN2 sample against the average.
No, it's 1 LN2 sample against 7700k record, which also very likely was being cooled with LN2

>>59146338
>Those are world records
[citation needed]

>>59146376
>debunked
And when did that happen?

>>59146376
>I-it's all f-fake

>>59145581
>>59145882
>>59146049
>>59145883


ALL OF IT

>>59146367
If you're so smart and wise, try finding the validation page like the rest of us instead of shitposting the same comment 20 fucking times.
Jesus Christ.

>>59146387
Why is it not on the actual front page?

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/1

>>59146393
>Best CPU performance - 64-bit - February 2017
February world records using that tool.
What are you going to say now? Nobody OC'd and benched a 7700k all February?
>>59146410
Because "ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y" is not a valid CPU until it actually launches for the public later this week

>>59146376
>still in denial

>>59146398
It's not even up on the website anymore.

>>59146428
It is
http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1

>>59146423
>Because "ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y" is not a valid CPU
It's an engineering sample. It will never be a real CPU.

>>59146428
http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1

*

>>59145718
>getting 7700K instead of waiting for Ryzen like everyone told you to
I don't even know where to begin

>>59146432
>It's an engineering sample. It will never be a real CPU.
It's not an engineering sample, that's just its OPN code.
The F4 denoted stepping, so you're seeing this in stores, and the clockspeed indicates a 1700X

>>59146322
>if a website has images that show intel products losing to amd in benchmarks, it was obviously hacked.
i smell desperation

>>59146432
No, that's the actual Ryzen 1700X, notice the base core and boost core in the name 38/34
After it launches it won't be shown as "ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y" but as Ryzen 1700X

>>59146443
Isn't the 1700 exactly the same with a 1800 when overclocked?

>>59146432
The OPN starts with a Z, its a consumer CPU.

>>59146450
I was wondering the same thing.

>>59146450
There's 1700X, 1800X, and 1700

The 1700 isn't likely to overclock as well as the X versions.
But yeah, they're the same chip but the way they respond to higher voltage will be quite different.

File: wqbch5jme8iy.png (2MB, 3413x1301px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3413x1301px

Jewish tricks are real

>type Ryzen into search bar
>get full stack of Intel processors

>>59146466
Wait. Do they have exactly the same cache and cores? On the 1700X and 1800X I mean.
What would be the point of 1800X? Binning isn't a sure thing anyway.

>>59146338
>Those are world records
Except they're averages

>>59146475
>Ultrameme monitor
You sure know a thing or two about jewish tricks

>>59146481
They have the exact same cores, cache, features. The 1800X is the top binned consumer part. Higher base clocks, higher turbo, higher XFR targets, all in the same power envelope.

>>59145867
>>59145888
>>59145890
>>59145944

>someone hacked the valid database and site but only included it on some obscure part of the site

This is what intel shills actually believe

>>59146495
Someone watched too much CSI

>>59146475
>can't find result
>return similar result of the same type

Seems like typical search programming.

>>59146492
That's seriously weird. I mean, everyone knows binning is kinda sketchy and unreliable once you test a chip. If the cache and core count is identical it seems like the 1800X is gonna tank in sales compared to 1700X or even lower I guess.

>>59146486
No, they are records.
As in the best score a 7700k got in february was that.
If they were averages the 7700k would be much lower because believe or not the absolute vast majority of people don't OC

>>59146511
Average 7700k gets 2100, how is a 10% over that a world record?

>>59146511
Do they have a fucking FAQ in that site? I just a list. I can't tell if what I see is averages or some dork with 1 sample shilling for AMD.

>>59146518
Proof of that? If it's only 10% above averages that's definitely not a record. Records tend to be like 40% higher at least than the average.

LOL INTELKEKS

oh w8, there's a 2500k in my PC. should I upgrade?

>>59146537
No

File: 1484676376970.jpg (112KB, 634x815px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 634x815px

>he bought a 7700k

>>59146532
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i7-7700k-processor-review-desktop-kaby-lake,10.html

File: untitled-3.png (18KB, 682x290px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 682x290px

>>59146511
But that's wrong AMDrone. Guru3d benchmarked nearly the same score as the one in that website at stock core speed.

>tfw dodged the 7700k bullet

>>59146550
Seems like stock in the OP then, memory or system conditions might net some 50-80 more on the score but this looks real nice.

Would be pretty weird if it's world records on a site with no shown frequencies and cores used.

The silence of the kikes.

File: file.png (28KB, 416x411px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 416x411px

Utter bullshit that this was not averages. My 4790K easily beat the OP on common air.

>>59146588
>easily beat
>15% slower

Right

>>59145686
>>59145739
>/g/ is one person
Nah. I know you kids and newfags are too young to remember this, but Bulldozer was exactly like this. I want to see the 7700k OC'd to its safe limit compared to the 1700 OC'd to its safe limit. Simple as that. Anything else is bullshit and shilling.

File: 1457669749020.jpg (8KB, 145x186px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 145x186px

>>59145581
DELETE THIS NOW GOYM

>>59146598
Look at the 4790K moron.

>>59146609
Bulldozer shat the bed in synthetics.
Especially cinnebench which is FP

>>59145581
(You) WIN

>>59146624
Yeah, but we didn't find that out until some time after launch. People cherry pick and fail to cross-reference available sources in meaningful ways and the result is tons of bullshit hype for nothing. I'm hopeful for Ryzen but I don't believe all of this obvious nonsense.

Just a friendly reminder that literally every Kabylake 7700k can OC to 5.5GHz without problem

>>59145820
>>59145835
>>59145862
see >>59145882
Comparing Ryzen 1700x/1800x to i5/i7 is silly. Better to compare AMD's similarly lower end parts instead as Intel doesn't have a comparable enthusiast CPU like AMD's. Intel i5/i7 chips are for folks who want a low end or mid range CPU starting this year.

>>59146637
>obvious nonsense.
>benchmark unable to be faked due to reading directly from CPU opcode.

Why are you surprised? All it takes is a 400MHz from 1700X to match the 7700k in single thread while throatfucking it in MT

>>59145912
Are you fucking retarded?
Kys faggot

>>59146661
Listen, I don't doubt the validity of this benchmark, I'm just not totally convinced yet that it's completely representative of the situation I described above
>I want to see the 7700k OC'd to its safe limit compared to the 1700 OC'd to its safe limit.
in real-world applications

I suspect that the 7700k could be faster overall in things like games and general-purpose usage whereas the R3 and R5 chips will be nearly as fast for much less. I also believe that the R7 chips may be somewhat overpriced if you're mainly interested in these "normal" tasks and not in transcoding and compiling.

>b-but muh benchmarks
Yes, I know, but we won't know for certain until the NDA expires. It's honestly that simple.

I'm not a fanboy and I don't give a shit, I just want whatever is best for the money.

>>59145581

new thread to expose your bullshit

>>59146682

>>59146695
>>I want to see the 7700k OC'd to its safe limit compared to the 1700 OC'd to its safe limit.

But why compare a low power 65W chip to a 95W one? The first one won't overclock as well as the 1700X or 1800X

The 1700X isn't much more expensive, like some $50 than the 7700k and it's a much better buy for overclocking than the 1700

>>59146715
>But why compare a low power 65W chip to a 95W one?
Because I'm interested in price and performance, not TDP rating that the marketing team came up with.
>b-b-but numbers on paper
price
performance
total cost
get it through your head

File: 1474233322313.gif (3MB, 320x227px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x227px

>>59146695
>I also believe that the R7 chips may be somewhat overpriced
Everything so far seems to point to Intel not having anything competitive. Looks eerily similar to the 480/1070/1080 issue with vidya. Intel for low or mid range builds "maybe". Higher end builds looks to be only AMD as things stand currently.

>>59146715
>The 1700X isn't much more expensive, like some $50 than the 7700k and it's a much better buy for overclocking than the 1700
>All of this speculation
Just leave this board.
>>59146724
>Everything so far seems to point to Intel not having anything competitive. Looks eerily similar to the 480/1070/1080 issue with vidya. Intel for low or mid range builds "maybe". Higher end builds looks to be only AMD as things stand currently.
We'll see once we have real benchmarks on OC'd 1700 vs OC'd 7700k.

>>59146503
Its a halo product, not meat to sell a lot of chips compared to lower priced parts.

>>59146732
What speculation? The 1700X is $400

You seriously expect the regular 1700 to OC as well as the X versions? No chance, 1700 will need higher voltages to reach the same clocks as the 1700X, simply because its voltage target is way lower.

File: file.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Suddenly I'm not spammed with answers.

>>59146682

>>59146772
fuck off finally

File: untitled-1.png (28KB, 687x706px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 687x706px

>>59146772
I already gave you an answer, it's the average score, a record score would be north of 3k on Ln2 with all cores disabled.

Not our fault you can't read.

Faaaaake!11 duck you 111 and shills get out! Everyone knows it stuck single thread and subclass in games and only OK for archetypes!

File: 1485057096729.jpg (38KB, 454x540px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 454x540px

>>59146036
Holy shit, so stock Ryzen performs practically the same as a highly overclocked i7 7700?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

First time i really gave a look to this image. Why do Intel shills keep posting it if it makes Intel look bad?

>>59146800
It is 1 ryzen chip against the averages, literally nothing:

>>59146682

>>59146537
Yes. Ryzen is better IPC than Sandy Bridge and you can get 2-4x more threads.

More efficient per watt, too. I'm upgrading from a i5-2500k as well, probably to the 1600X.

I WANT IT BROS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTvSI0K_vA

File: eea0abaf0a1d80c7752a0e2431730434.gif (498KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 400x400px

>>59146036
>7700K STOCK
>89 FPS
>7700K 5GHZ
>88 FPS
LMAO Intel can't OC

>>59146200
Why do people believe anything Charlie says?

>THIS IS FAKE ALL FAKE ONLY FAKES
>but that one GTA5 benchmark out of two is real though, even though the guy who did it didn't want to show he had a 1700 chip when asked it's real REAL

muh gayms

>>59146822
My 2500k must've been a poorly binned chip because I could never get a stable 4.0 GHz overclock. The thing bottlenecks like crazy in modern games. Crazy dips in twitch scenes etc. You experiencing something similar, or am I just unlucky?

Honestly, the only reason I'm considering doing this expensive ass upgrade is because I want stutter free vidya.

I wonder if these overclock a we're done via XFR or manually. Because the chip seems to be clocked at about 4.4-4.6GHz. So if this is what you can pull with a really good cooler and enabling XFR in the BIOS. Oh boy, things will get interesting fast.

>>59146772
what's it like being a whiny attention whore

>>59146857
That's probably the worst 2500k I've ever heard about.

Congratulations, your luck is literally nonexistent.

>>59146810
>Why do Intel shills keep posting it if it makes Intel look bad?
Because they're stupid.

OMG it's literally NOTHING

>>59146682

File: 1456824551295.png (3MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1440px

>>59146828

>>59146376
this, it's fake news. just retards are falling for this lmao

>>59146891
I don't know what I did wrong to deserve this.

If I set the OC to 4.0, it will reach temps of 70+ and start throttling down, with frame rate drops apparent, worse than just letting it run stock. I since installed a 212, applied an arctic silver paste, and dust it every several months -- all to no relief. It just always runs high and chokes under high load.

I live in the Southwest, and we don't run AC that often (poorfags), could the environment be the culprit, or am I just truly unlucky?

>haha new AMD architecture barely beat old Intel architecture how can AMD even compete when Intel releases 12 core Cannonlake next week

Is probably gonna be the next Intelfag denial stage

>>59146614
>Intelshit thinks there is actual difference in 7700 and 4790
haha

>>59146857
I get the same problems watching Twitch on my i5-2500k. It'll lag the shit out of my PC just doing encoding. Have to turn quality down a lot and can't watch those 60FPS streams.

Twitch player is horribly inefficient and I don't get the same problem with 60FPS 1080p on Youtube or Hitbox.tv, but still.

I could play For Honor at 60FPS+ fine, though. Pretty much no stutters. PoE and some other games do stutter for me, though, but I think a lot of that has to do with their shitty programming plus my lack of SSD.

>>59146946
Just pure luck, sorry mate.

But if you want a upgrade and need more cores I really recommend the 1700X
If you don't then get some cheap 4 cores.

>>59146947
>new AMD architecture barely beat old Intel architecture
This is completely true, though.

>>59145581
so it's within the margin of error at stock. let's see 7700k overclocked to 5 GHz

>>59146857
>>59146946
My i5-2500k was overheating and throttling like 3 years ago, 3 years after I got it. Before that it was fine.

I got a better cooler and it's fine now, though it puts out lots of heat still.

>>59146952
Both processors are 3 years apart you retard.

>>59146968
I forgot to mention Intel's next architecture will be in 2019, can't wait for 4% more IPC

>>59146959
You are probably running Linux and some shitty offspring of FireFox.

2500k shouldn't be any problem decoding x264 at twitch bandwidths.

>>59146968
It's true but AMD's costs half as much. That's the difference. Performance/$.

>>59146982
you say it like it means anything for eprformance

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-27 at 9.33.03 AM.png (186KB, 801x437px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 801x437px

>>59146768
I'm sick of arguing with you people, I'm just gonna lurk until real benches hit. Too bad the board is flooded with you idiots posting speculative bullshit
>muh fanboyism
>muh emotional investment
jesus christ

>>59146982
and yet, it's exactly the same.
all that Tock Tock Tock Tock Tock ach upgrade sure did pay off for consumer.

>1800x
>100 bucks more than the 1700x for slightly more performance
How can AMD defend this?

It's another shoah

>>59146959
Yeah, same experience, the thing can't even handle Chrome with a Twitch stream and more than 10 tabs. I take a look at temps, and it's like 67C and 90+ utilization.

>>59146981
My shit has been overheating since day 1, so I never had a 2500k honeymoon period, like all the fanboys. My experience has been negative, so I'm honestly looking forward to trying out an AMD. I'm gonna reseat the heat sink one last time and apply new paste, before I do the upgrade. I just want finality, knowing that there was nothing I could do.

Fuck Jewtel.

>>59146959
Huh? I had no problem with twitch 1080p and I was using a i5 750 at the time. Twich isn't exactly the most processor rape thing in the world.

>>59147012
>6900k
>700 bucks more than the 1700x for less performance
How can Intel defend this?

>>59147007
Thank god I sold mine last week already.

>>59146993
Nope. Running it on chrome.
I just loaded a tab to check and this SC2 stream that's just the stage which is 90% nothing changing on the stream uses 3-8% of the CPU.

On a high quality stream with a lot going on it's like 25-45% used.

Even watching a shitty low quality VOD on twitch, I'm getting 15% used from that tab. That's what the Chrome task manager is reporting.

Yes it can "handle it" as that's not 100% utilization of a core, but I can't game while watching twitch on my other monitor. It sucks up a thread enough to greatly slow down a game or other application.

File: cpuz-5680-bench.png (16KB, 417x414px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 417x414px

>>59146125
Shit, sorry I'm late guys.

I got this

>>59147061
Feels bad man. I'm getting hyped for a 1700X, hoping it can deliver what the Sandy Bridge hype failed to do in 2011.

What heatsink should I go with on the AMD? Should I re-use my 212 or get a fancy Noctua? I'm okay with putting down coin for a good HSF, I don't want my CPUs overheating anymore ;_;

File: IKbjoS5.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>59145581
THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING. I'M IN CHARGE HERE.

>>59147061
This shouldn't be a case on 2500k, what you are describing is more of a A8 APU problem or Pentium problem.

>>59147047
first of all i'm not sure 6900k has less performance especially when overclocked. but 6900k is an older niche cpu. intel doesn't even need to compete in this segment because it's so niche. and coffee lake is just around the corner.

>>59146833
Its already been confirmed by other outlets.

>>59147034
Oh if it's THAT bad you might have some malware mining coins on your CPU or something. Have you used Process Hacker or Resource Monitor to look into what's using it up?

I can handle a twitch stream. Just not a high quality twitch stream + gaming simultaneously.

>My shit has been overheating since day 1, so I never had a 2500k honeymoon period, like all the fanboys. My experience has been negative

Oh, well as a general piece of advice: The first thing you should do with a new piece of hardware is benchmark it to compare to the averages for that part. If the result is really bad, RMA it.

But I'm looking forward to a new AMD CPU because it's always what I had an I always had positive experiences. Had a Thunderbird, Athlon 64, Sempron, etc. Granted, I didn't have the bugged Phenoms.
Sadly had to get the i5-2500k because at that time AMD was just not competitive.

>>59147088
Anon, me and him both have poorly binned 2500k chips. It can't just be a coincidence. I have to choose between running a Twitch stream/HD Youtube podcast and playing a game. it's getting absurd.

>>59147077

>12 cores 24 threads xeon barely above an overclocked 8 cores 16 threads in multithreading

>>59147107
Well isn't the 1800x also a niche CPU then?

>>59147077
>multi thread
>12 cores are slightly above 8
Intel is complete garbage trash.

>>59147114
>Oh, well as a general piece of advice: The first thing you should do with a new piece of hardware is benchmark it to compare to the averages for that part. If the result is really bad, RMA it.

Yeah, if I don't know why I didn't try to RMA. I was stupid in 2011, it was my first build. Thought it was normal. Didn't have a friend to help me. I have long distance friends, though, who got AMD Phenoms II and they told me that they had pretty positive experiences -- and they spent half as much as me on their CPU+Mobo. I'm salty about that.

Yeah, I'm honestly looking forward to giving AMD my money now. Regardless of my bad experience, Intel is a pretty bad company.

File: cpu-z_bench.png (20KB, 403x402px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 403x402px

>>59147123
Do you think that's surprising? Check this out. 12 cores and 24 threads. WAY below it.

It's because clock speed actually matters to performance.

>>59147139
yes it is but i can see content creators buying it for video rendering and things like that. i think most general consumers won't buy a $500 cpu.

>>59147123
>>59147148
> overclocked AMD
>BELOW 5 year old Xeons.
>with a higher clock speed.

Yeah Yeah, 8 vs 12, but those Xeons were around $240 and the mobo was $350, so MAD that s more expensive too.

File: 666bakana.jpg (121KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x720px

FUCK IM NOT UPGRADING MY 4 YEARS OLD i5 !!!!!!!!!!

>>59147329
wait for coffee lake or cannonlake

>>59145991

DELETE THIS YOU STUPID FUCKING GOY BUY OUR SHIT. GIVE US YOUR SHEKELS

>>59146049
>>59145581
how will they ever recover?
INTEL BTFO

>>59147193
That Xeon has 4 more cores and it's 1.5% better in multithread

This is pathetic really.

File: laughing man with monkeys on shoulder.jpg (125KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 960x639px

>intel jews completely destroyed in both single and multi-threaded performance
>literally no reason to buy an intel cpu in the upcoming 4 years
>intel fanboys literately shaking

File: Data - Seriously.png (598KB, 723x815px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 723x815px

>>59145862
So we finally get competition after 9 years and your plan is "well I'll still buy Intel because the prices are a bit lower now". You do realise that if Ryzen fails, we get another 10 years of Intel price gouging, right? How does that help us?

>>59147418
I don't think those are monkeys

>>59147418
i doubt any ryzen destroys 7700k @ 5 GHz in single threaded performance. it would be great but i don't think it's happening

>>59147465
Well he's a shill after all.

File: IMG_0176.jpg (626KB, 2040x3160px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 2040x3160px

THE GOYIM KNOW!
SHUT
IT
DOWN

File: 68383633.jpg (39KB, 464x337px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 464x337px

>>59145991
WHO LEAKING THIS?! SIR REMOVE THIS POSTINGS PLEASE!

Intel has shifted into maximum jew.

>>59147415
5 YEARS OLDER
1.5% BETTER

STAY BTFO

Given amd's track record, why would anyone buy without waiting for real, unbiased benchmarks and 3rd party reviews? Fucking retarded amd fanboys.

>>59147415
Ever heard of clock speed?

>>59147161
Phenom II were great compared to Nehalem and Conroe, but Sandy Bridge was better.

But I'm looking forward to buying AMD again. They're a better company that had a slump due to some shitty CEOs for a while.

>>59147644
No one is literally buying them now, retard.

When you preorder you have 4 days between the review embargo lifts and they ship to cancel.

>>59147725
it can take a bit longer for people to investigate the potential frame time issue in games

>>59147725
>canceling
Sure thing amd fanboy.

>>59147762
Considered the fact that workstation people and people running their own servers are buying it because the Intels are overpriced?

>>59147780
are they in such a hurry to buy it immediately at launch? if they're so price-sensitive, why not wait for prices of both amd and intel cpus to come down?

>>59147798
Preordering is the best way to get it before stock vanishes on launch day.

If I needed 8 cores and thought Intel was expensive I'd preorder it too, even if it was a few % slower.

>>59146772
Dumb fucking sperg cunt. Stop spamming this board with your autistic shit.
Type "average" in google and come back to us, retard.

RYZEN IS FINISHED

>>59147859

>>59147859

>>59147859

>>59147871
>debunked in 4 posts
New record.

>>59148084

>debunked

more like bsod'd in one click

I have a i5 650, should I upgrade? I can still run any game fine on High.

>>59148094
It's not from XFR. They were clearly manually overclocking.

Yes, computers can and will blue screen when you overclock them until you find a fully stable range. Assuming it really did blue screen and it wasn't their recording feed messing up, they may have just had the voltage too low.
Are you new? You have to be new to be making a big deal over a failed OC, if that's even what happened, something that happens all the time.

Oh yeah, that goes without saying; you're new.

>>59148430

>you are new meme
good goy