Why is Ryzen gaming performance so bad?

>>59156352
Cuz AMD is incompetent

>>59156352
because as usual AMD cpus are inferior to Intel per core, but are able to win in some benchmarks because they have more cores. games don't use 8 cores.

File: 1487642174234.jpg (43KB, 570x587px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 570x587px

>1 fucking game
>3 fps lower
wrap it up everyone amd is finished long live the monopoly

>>59156410
>games don't use 8 cores.
when will this meme end?

File: comfy_kirby.png (38KB, 245x237px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 245x237px

>>59156352
>average is the same
>more consistent performance

wow amd on suicide watch am I right guys

>>59156352
>Why is Ryzen gaming performance so bad?

cause games were made with intel compilers.

There's a patcher somewhere that intercepts the CPUID lookups so the app sees GenuineIntel instead of AuthenticAMD, and they measured huge perf boosts on most things using that.

The fact that AMD gets so close despite the compiler cheating just shows off how damn good their new cpu is. Imagine how good it would be if Intel weren't cheating.

Anyway, it won't matter, Intel is already sending out deals to OEMs. Ryzen will only sell for desktops, you won't see it in prebuilts (where the real money is).

>>59156468
Average isn't the same

Min FPS is very bad as well which means stuttering

>>59156352
I didn't know inconsistency was such a hot feature.

>>59156452
Are you perhaps implying minimum frame rate does not matter?

I do realise the 28 value might be an outlier

ryzen 1700 base clock 3 ghz
7700k base clock 4.2 ghz

and if your main concern is games go ahead and buy the 7700k a few months ago

>GTA 5
>2013
>CPU-heavy game
>Ryzen 1700
>28fps
>132 fps max

FUCKING KEK

>>59156561
They are the same price though

Yeah seems like 7700k is a better gaming CPU

>>59156352
Why are any of you fucking idiots still comparing performance about anything until March 2nd hits? This is all bullshit one way or the other until we get confirmed independent reviews and benchmarks.

>caring about video games

>>59156504
Or, you know, it was low immediately after load. Maybe it was that one considering the max and average were significantly closer than Intel's showings. Fifteen poos in your loo Rajesh

>>59156352
fake news

nice try intel shill

File: lawsofthisland.jpg (42KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x587px

>Not doing parallel computation in R for your PhD

>>59156460
when intel makes i5 6 cores.

>>59156352
>7700K @ 5GHz
>much higher max FPS
>1 fps less average
This is why these shitty benchmarks should include information like the standard deviation. Judging data based on the lower and upper bounds and the average is absolutely retarded.

>>59156352
>gta5
>1080p
>comparing "max" frame rate
>2017

>>59156485
How that worked was the Intel compiler would have SSE extension code only run on Intel CPUs even if an AMD CPU supported it. If it was an AMD CPU it would run legacy x87 code path instead, which was an order of magnitude slower.

>minimum fps meaning anything

>>59156485
>>59156905
AMD could have also carried Intel to court about it but never bothered because Intel's legal team is bigger than AMD's overall net worth.

only the Euro Commission gave a shit.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel.html