hmm What did AMD mean by this?

anudda shoah

That's actually good if they didn't doctor it. By the way, notice those are AVERAGE results below the chip they tested, not records. See >>59146682 for proof.

>>59147021
Pretty stupid to be anything but average since they don't show anything but SKU number, no frequency, no enabled cores, no OS, no ram/mobo

>>59147021
>>59146682
It's not average, just this month's record. But nice try shill

File: [FFF] Hibike! Euphonium S2 - 07 [D0104A15].mkv_snapshot_01.40_[2017.02.03_00.48.14].png (969KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1280x720px

>it takes 1700X on LN2 to barely beat the average of 7700k, even though the majority of users don't OC
brb shorting AMD stock

>>59146938
hmmm whay start this thread when theres >>59145581

Spammy shitposting.Its getting really fucking tiresome now. Especially when OP is clueless about it all anyway

File: Screenshot from 2015-06-28 13-54-32.png (76KB, 405x329px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 405x329px

>>59147361
But wasn't everyone LITERALLY running 7700k's at 5.3 ?

>>59147332
> this month's record is literally worse than the record a sperg on 4chan got on air
please nigga

>>59147332
It's stock averages dumb ayymdrone.

>>59147400
People can if they want to delid. Otherwise they can easily run at 4.8 to 5.0 with a shitty AIO cooler.
Most users don't overclock though

>>59147407
>>59147413
Feed me your butthurt intel drones.
I'll be posting benchmarks of my new 1700X daily on /g/

>>59147420
my 4790k can get some crazy levels using my x42 cooler.
Fuck this raisin bollocks, Im waiting for the better stuff before changing

>>59147451
>proven to be retarded
>moving the goal posts
nice try ayyymdrone

>>59147488
You guys are like the delusional hillbots on nov 8.
Thursday will so glorious.

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

245KB, 800x612px

IT BEGINS

>>59147496
t. retard

>>59147451
Please do I cant wait to smell those salty tears as realisation kicks in on how you fucked up buying something before knowing exactly how good/bad it is.

>>59147502
>>59147506
I can see it right now. AMD is going to utterly crush intel and you shills will start posting about how actually intel still has a bigger market share and that's all the matters

>>59147497
>>59147523

https://youtu.be/O6xpMsWV_H8

>>59147539
What exactly am I supposed to get out of this video, shill?

>>59147556
>doesnt like what hes seen

Shill shill shill kike kike cuck cuck cuck jew jew jew jew.

>>59147587
All he says is don't pre order ryzen before the reviews.
So I ask again, shill.
What I am suppose to get from this video?

>>59147608
>shill
Autistic faggot.

>>59146938
>intel stagnates and releases cpus at 1% perf increase over their prev models
>amd doesn't bother trying to BTFO and simply releases something that's on par with intel shit
looks like we've hit the peak of silicon, or this duopoly is milking is hard, probably both.

>>59147625
So you have no argument.
Just a video from some youtube nobody saying common sense shit like "don't pre-order before reviews"

AMD's gonna hit $15 today. After the benchmarks come out tomorrow, it's gonna be crazy. Last chance for anons to invest to realize any of the Ryzen gains. I think we're going to head to around $22 or so before leveling off (2-3 month timeframe).

File: 1466587539464.gif (2MB, 375x274px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 375x274px

OY GEVALT DELET THIS GOY

>>59147744
You mean last chance to short before it goes back to $2.
1700X ($400) on LN2 managed to barely beat intel $320 on the one thing that matters to the average user.
Without OC 1700x should on par with 7600K a $240 CPU.
They have nothing, they hyped it up and opened pre orders without lifting the NDA. By the time people realize their mistake it will be too late

i hate intel as much as the next guy, but we need comparisons with 7700K @ 5GHz at least

>>59147786
>They have nothing, they hyped it up and opened pre orders without lifting the NDA. By the time people realize their mistake it will be too late
It will be hilarious. Shut up. Let them buy.
I can't wait for the "fell for the meme"s.

>>59147786
>“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.

Doesn't count, right?

>>59147809
>under NDA
>no stats
>comparing an even more expensive CPU to intel $320 one at stock
Thanks for further proving my point that they have nothing. But feel free to pay $180 extra to get 7700k stock performance dude. Whatever makes you happy you know

>>59147805
>7700K @ 5GHz at least
Add like +10% on that list or something like that. My 4790K is about 5% faster than the 4790K on it without even trying. It got the +5% on CPU-Z while sperging on /g/ on an air cooler.

File: Screenshot from 27-02-2017 14:25:31.jpg (88KB, 1238x940px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1238x940px

>>59147840
>stock Intel performance

>>59147856
> For only $500
> and believe me, that 1 chip nobody knows where it came from is totally not overclocked

>>59147556
Hey man I'm definitely getting a Zen CPU this year but the dude's got a point. You really shouldn't commit to a specific chip until you see all three in action. For all we know the 1700 can barely go over boost clock. Alternatively maybe there's no good reason to get a 1700x or 1800x and the 1700 can clock just as well.

It's less than 24 hours before the NDA lifts anyway.

>>59147856
>multi thread
>OC with LN2
All of the sudden everybody because a video encoder.
Meanwhile even people who do video editing need a strong single core performance that AMD just can't deliver without massive, likely not even stable OC

>>59147888
>massive OC
>10%
Right.

Here you go >>59147809

>>59147885
>It's less than 24 hours before the NDA lifts anyway.
No, it's not. It lifts on thursday.

>>59147894
>10%
You're pulling this out of your ass, it doesn't show frequencies there

And I already answered your other post. The fact that you're comparing a $500 chip to a $320 one just further proves the depths of your desperation
You can still cancel your pre-order you know

>>59147698
>On oar
Yeah except what you forgot to mention is that Zen outperforms Intel's best chips at a lower cost

>>59147625
Shill kike.

>>59147786
>8 core 16 thread cpu from amd is able to OC further than intel's 8 core 16 thread cpu
>i-i-it's not competitive because muh shitty 4core cpu can be overclocked past 4.5 Ghz

no shit, less cores means less heat output. Less heat output means better overclocking. AMD is fucked only AND only if their 4c and 6c cpus suck at overclocking.

At this point AMD offers the best 8c desktop cpu currently on the market. If the R5 cannot into OC then intel shills have officially won.

>>59147915
Pretty sure it's somewhere around 10% to reach 4.5 from 4.0, slightly higher, some 12%?

Also the one in the OP is the 1700X, which is $400 if you're that poor.
But hey, keep on fighting for Intel, slower than a 8 core in both Single thread and decimated in multi threaded by a company with one tenth the R&D money.

File: 1458597381222.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>59147856
ITS ANUDDA SHOAH

>>59147943
>Pretty sure it's somewhere around 10% to reach 4.5 from 4.0, slightly higher, some 12%?
You're pulling this shit out of your ass

>>59147943
>Also the one in the OP is the 1700X, which is $400 if you're that poor.
Yes, but you linked to your other post talking about the 1800x not the 1700x

And you're forgetting the most important thing.
That is one single sample OC'd compared to the AVERAGE 7700k, meaning even the slight OC on a 7700k and it beats the OC'd 1700x, for $80 less

but hey just keep adding more coars amiright

File: 1488190288070.jpg (115KB, 895x852px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 895x852px

>>59147984
1800X and 1700X clocks are available everywhere, I'm not pulling them from shit you twat.

There's overclocks for both 1800x and 1700x.

>slight OC on a 7700k
After, deliding, sanding, a custom loop at 1.45V, right?
Kek, this retarded faggot would rather buy a 4 core that's 5% faster in serial crap but gets murdered in multithreaded by over 90%

What hilarity, is playing in SuperPi that fun?
Here are your games, btw, run better on 8 lower clocked cores than 4 higher clocked cores.

4 cores are obsolete, even for gaming now, you've got nothing else but to defend your failed purchase.

Where are you now, shill? Let me drink directly from your tear ducts.

>>59148067
>Here are your games, btw, run better on 8 lower clocked cores than 4 higher clocked cores.
Not him, but that's a $1,000 chip being only slightly higher than the 7700K you idiot, if anything that list proves gamers should be going max to the 7700K if they want to be cost effective.
Besides who the fuck believes anyone uses $1,000 chips here?

>>59148087
>Not him, but that's a $1,000 chip being only slightly higher than the 7700K you idiot, if anything that list proves gamers should be going max to the 7700K if they want to be cost effective.
Yeah, it's almost like AMD isn't pushing out a $400 chip with the same performance in 3 days or something.

Also the 6900k can overclock far higher than a 7700k, the 7700k can do a 15% max after deliding and a water loop, the 6900k can do a 30%+ OC over its 3.2 base clock at least.

>>59148067
I see no disadvantages on 10core, looks like only positives, more threads on other cores to work on other stuff.

>>59147984
>but hey just keep adding more coars amiright
What is your point? Can the 6900k, 6960x or any intel 8+ core CPU overclock to 5GHz? If you want 5% higher single core performance, get your little corelet CPU for $350.
For $80 more you can get double the cores and threads, 20mb cache and ecc with one drawback which is 5% weaker single core performance.
Any game that uses more than 4 cores, 7700k gets BTFO.

I rarely play games and I certainly couldn't give a fuck about a 2-5fps difference in games coded by Pajeet and his friends.

Gaymen-oriented zen CPUs are just around the corner. We'll see how those overclock and if they can do over 4.5GHz, there will be no reason to buy Intel's 4 core CPUs.

>>59148103
I'd personally get a 10 core if AMD released it, but in this case the 10 core simply loses because games plateau on 8 cores, some might hit higher but the number is small, but the 8 core has 10% lower base clocks which makes it loose.

>>59148100
The 7700K is $350 now + you've no fucking idea if the OP chip is overclocked.

>>59148114
but you can stream, you can run 2nd DE you can do so much more with 10 cores than 4 cores, if games don't need 10cores it doesn't mean your use for them is cut out when you are playing games.

It just sounds that you are limiting yourself.

>>59148119
>It's on sale
>it's now 350$
no, it's still 400$

>>59148119
Your point? Same ST performance but twice the cores and cache? How is this a disadvantage for $50?
Heck even if I OC the 7700k to a significant degree over its stock I need to void its warranty, and get a custom water loop, which would cost me more than a fucking 1800X.

If I wanted single core performance only I'd get a dual core penitum and OC it, best bang/buck

>>59148157
I repeat, you have no fucking idea if the OP chip is overclock, let's wait for the reliable sites to test.

I DO HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT.

>>59148168
>I repeat, you have no fucking idea if the OP chip is overclock,

IT
IS
Else it wouldn't fucking rival a 7700k, which is clocked 500MHz higher, IN FUCKING SINGLE THREAD TESTS.
As much as I want AMD to have 10% better IPC, that's not happening, even in AMD's own tests.

>>59148191
But intel shills have also been saying that Zen can't OC for shit.

>>59148236
Intel shills have been on stress pills ever since the Intel Retail Edge leak, they've been literally trying to prove in the last thread that the bench on the CPU-z website doesn't exist.
No joke.

File: 1353540936310.gif (344KB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 267x199px

>>59148236
We know that the R7 1700 clocks to around 4 GHz, so it's possible that the 1800X can get to 4.5 GHz or near enough. This would imply the chips are binned of course.

Either the 1800X is clocked to around 4.5 GHz, which means they are better clockers than we might've thought, or their IPC is better than we thought. Either way, it's good news for Ryzen.

File: smug-dog.jpg (65KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 768x960px

>10core with 64GB memory
>tfw alt-tabbing between 5 games and a browser with 5000 tabs

>>59148304
>We know that the R7 1700 clocks to around 4 GHz,

That's just one guy, and both the 1800x and 1700x OC info are also from a single sample, far too low to make a conclusion.
It could OC lower or higher, but the 1700 is pretty fishy to me.

Why?
Because the guy said that the 1700 cooked the VRM at 3.9GHz, which is beyond strange as both the 8350 OCd to 5.0 and 6900k overclocked to 4.4, use over 220 watts don't cook the VRMs, which would imply either bullshit or something very wrong.

File: single socket holocaust.jpg (28KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x550px

>>59147361
>MOAR GHZ
Looks like Presshot times are back boys.

>>59148304
The R7 1700 has a 3.0 ghz base, 3.7 ghz boost, some system builders are known to sell prebuilts at 3.8 ghz OC and the absolute top of the line motherboard can push it to 4.0ghz. The clocks might seem low but for low-powered octa-core, this is impressive.

>>59146938

Just sold my stock today. Made a nice 30% profit on 5k invested

>>59148331
1700 is a lower bin and a real 8 core 4.0 is a realistic freq for it. 1700x and 1800x are higher bins with more potential.

>Because the guy said that the 1700 cooked the VRM at 3.9GHz
He was probably talking about 6. phased b350s there. Even clocking 1700 to 1800x stock levels would give a very nice performance boost

>>59148397
It would, it's almost a 30% OC, and I personally don't expect the 1700 to OC as good as the X versions since its voltage target is much lower and thus it would need more voltage to attain the same frequency, but I don't think it'll be a 600MHz difference unless the 1700 tested was really shitty silicon like those rare 4.1GHz 2500k samples.

>people suddenly going apeshit for 350$+ CPU

Small market

>>59148325
Implying shit won't just hog core 0

>>59148421
> 1700 tested was really shitty silicon
Not necessarily. Given its 65W TDP it might be a non-leaky but more efficient type. We should see how well 17/800x underclocks

3 days until realworld benchmarks

I have no need for 8 cores.
6 cores is good, but the 1600X won't be released any time soon.

Thus I am hoping for the price cut of the i7s of Intel.

On the plus side Intel has no compatibility issues and is running absolutely smoothly.

The first adopters of Ryzen will be Beta testers.

>>59148476
>Not necessarily.
You can't really know that until more samples come in, as said there are 2500k's that can barely hit 4.1, they're ultra rare but it happens, silicon lottery is vast.

>>59148087
I use a $1000 chip. I won't replace it with a superior AMD chip for cheap because I like quad channel memory, hyper-V, and 40 pci-e lanes - however, even a 1700X can be overclocked to beat my 5960X @4.3GHz in performance.

>>59148331
It's not just the one guy, we already have pre-built systems with overclocked CPUs on sale and the R7 1700 doesn't go beyond 4 GHz IIRC.

>>59148372
Indeed, the i7-6900K only gets to 4.2-4.3 GHz so as long as the R7 1800X gets that high it makes Intel's HEDT platform irrelevant.

If it competes with the stock i7-7700K at those speeds then it has higher IPC. If it clocks even higher then that's also nice.

>>59147896

28th stupid nigger. 2nd of March is the shelf date.

>>59147939
Isnt it time to start your takeaway delivery night job rajessh?
I dont want my jalfrezi cold next time.

>>59148641
>and the R7 1700 doesn't go beyond 4 GHz IIRC.
Again, one sample. Stop spamming this, kike.

>>59146938
that's nice and all, but my main reason i'll buy ryzen is that it isn't intel.

my hatred for jews overweights my hatred for poos

>>59148684
>that vcore
Posting this from a AMD so don't attack me

>>59148736
Surprisingly they managed to hit a world record on a 8 core in Cinnebench there.

Good to know Zen doesn't have any pipeline or FO4 depth issues and heat seems to be limit OC factor, I can work around that.

>>59148677
Maybe you should read the entire sentence rather than just the bit you quoted.

R7 1700 @ 3.8 GHz:
>https://www.scan.co.uk/products/3xs-ryzen-7-overclocked-bundle-amd-1700-asus-b350-plus-8gb-corsair-ddr4-bequiet-dark-rock
>https://www.scan.co.uk/products/3xs-ryzen-7-overclocked-bundle-amd-1700-asus-b350-plus-16gb-corsair-ddr4-corsair-h100i

R7 1800X @ 4.2 GHz:
>https://www.scan.co.uk/products/3xs-ryzen-7-overclocked-bundle-amd-1800x-asus-x370-crosshair-16gb-corsair-ddr4-corsair-h100i
>https://www.scan.co.uk/products/3xs-ryzen-7-overclocked-bundle-amd-1800x-asus-x370-pro-16gb-corsair-ddr4-corsair-h100i

Find me a bundle with the R7 1700 at over 4 GHz? Most of those chips won't go beyond that, clearly. The 1800X is better binned and clocks as high as you'd expect from an i7-6900K.

>>59146938

(you)

>>59148784
Rumor has it that isnt even as far as Ryzen could go as they were simply told "Break the 8c record but dont go further".

Not sure if its true or not though. Guess we'll find out in a couple of days starting with tomorrow.

>>59148868
Who really cares how high it can go with LN2?

>>59148894
People who like seeing suicide runs.
Like me.

>>59148894
People who just wanna watch processors burn.

>>59147420
>using shitty AIO and not glorious Noctue 15 or Thermaltake Macho x2 or other glorious air cooler which literally outperform most of AIO's except the most expensive onces and cost 2-3times less

>>59147476
A 4.8 Ghz 4790k has the same performance as a stock 4.2 Ghz kaby. No need to upgrade for a while unless they pull some new badass arch out of their ass.

File: intel executives.jpg (73KB, 488x348px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 488x348px

>>59146938
oy gevalt, this wasn't supposed to happen
g-d save us

File: Jim-Keller-AMD.jpg (25KB, 650x425px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 650x425px

>>59146938
What did Jim "the kike repeller" Keller mean by this?

>>59146938
>(YOU)
kek

>No one needs 8 cores
>Single thread is all that matters, Intel for life

.....

>Yeah but single core doesn't matter
>It's all about price

....

>Price doesn't matter
>AMD is run by foreigners
>Supporting US Technology is all that matters

.....

WHAT'S THE NEXT EXCUSE?

>>59148815
im just fine if the cpu can get to 4ghz

>>59146938
Nothing... its fake you know

Yay

>>59148343
>Intel designed final solution

>>59147698
>looks like we've hit the peak of silicon
Not even close. Apple's A10 Fusion has the performance of a fully turbo'ed Intel i5-7200U in just 2W, the 7200U on full turbo consumes 32W.

Geekbench 4 got rid of the shitty Encryption tests so this is actually measuring real CPU performance, not SIMD modules. So arguments about Geekbench being a shit benchmark goes out the window.

File: wew.jpg (43KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x480px

>newest cpu on the market
>barely surpassed intel

File: ;_;.png (24KB, 390x442px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 390x442px

>>59148343
DELET

>>59148661
wrong

>>59155233
A10 is a gigantic housefire that throttles in mere seconds. Also ARM sucks.

>>59147451
Ok, no one gives a shit...half of us are poorfags anyway who can't afford it

>>59155934
So throttled, it still has the same performance as Intel's mid range laptop CPU? No matter how negatively you spin it, you're just making Intel look even worse.

>>59156135
Yes, while being ARM shit with no proper software.

>>59156208
Definite disadvantage of ARM, but saying we've peaked of silicon is just stupid.

>>59151476
AMD is literally run by Americans and owned by Americans and employs mostly Americans
There's a reason they aren't crying over muh H1B's, unlike Intel