Literally another shoah

>>59163255

oy vey delet

>w-who cares about MT muh 3% ST performance delided on a custom water loop...

>>59163398
pajeet is dumb but persistent

>Intelkikes have spent the entire yesterday trying to convince people this run doesn't exist on CPU-z website

Loving every laugh

>mt
who cares

File: ebin.png (89KB, 599x530px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 599x530px

>>59163398

PAJEET STOP

>>59163398
AMD BTFO

File: lisa_su.jpg (6KB, 312x208px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 312x208px

>>59163398

>>59163531
lmao

Oy vey!

https://youtu.be/9AVZ_x64hg4

>>59163585
i want to fuck she

>>59163576
>ryzen overperforms
Loving
Every
Laugh

>>59163576
>caps
You're getting desperate shit shin.
The amount of time you've posted this and you get outed as a dumbass for it.

>>59163576
There's nothing wrong with a larger L2 cache, design decision, smaller ones have their own benefit.

>>59163787
Some nice info, Intel has lowered associativity from 8 to 4 way with Skylake, effectively lowering the speed of their cache, for what reason besides power consumption though I don't know.

>>59163398
>Showing multithreading scores up against mainstream Intel CPUs and old-ass FX CPUs.
No shit Ryzen's gonna kick the shit out of the competition.

File: Screenshot from 28-02-2017 16:35:12.png (120KB, 1545x901px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1545x901px

>>59163925
Intel's 10 core doesn't fare much better.

>>59163398
is this a 1700x?

wew fucking lad. I'd love to see a 1700 at 4.0ghz. that would be the real nut kicker for intel

>>59163968
>is this a 1700x?
Yes.

>>59163954
I don't care if that thing's overclocked, it's a $400 CPU obliterating a $1700 one in a workload more suited the latter.

how can it be that much faster than 7700k

>>59163994
It is, around 4.4-4.5

File: 1445767873811.png (33KB, 218x210px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 218x210px

>>59163398

File: solder.jpg (37KB, 400x640px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x640px

>>59163502

who /solderedCPUMasterrace/ here

>>59164170
>industrial solder

Based AMD

File: integer.png (70KB, 601x801px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 601x801px

>>59163398
You're far better off sticking with things more concrete.

>>59163787
You don't understand the point being raised at all, so you shouldn't have bothered posting. Contributing to the background noise of stupidity isn't a prudent choice.

What the writer for CanardPC is highlighting is that CPU-Z's benchmark is a cache loop. It inordinately benefits from larger caches more so than it actually benefits from the throughput of execution units in a core.

>>59163920
Look at Sandra cache bandwidth performance for Skylake compared to Haswell.

>>59163576
Wait, so they're saying that the ryzen sample is faster, because it's better?

I don't understand why they would tweet this. It's like saying "well yeah, that ferrari is faster than that mclaren, and yeah, it is cheaper as well, but it's got a v12 instead of a v8 and comes with a turbo, so it's a totally unfair comparison".

>>59164295
Hes pointing out simple facts.
I don't see what you'd be confused about.

RX 480: the CPU version
Prepare for it to OC like shit, use more power than it was advertised and fry your motherboard.
At least it will keep you warm and nice in winter.

>>59164207
>3.4GHz

Why? Some architectures scale better at higher frequencies.

>>59164207
>don't understand the point
>post another thing showing it's faster

Isn't the point that it's faster? I get that the test skews towards ryzen, but the ultimate point is that it's faster, no?

MOAR CORES

File: amd-is-dead.png (2MB, 2560x1312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1312px

>>59163398
>synthetic benchmark

Oh wait, let's see how it does in the real world?

OY VEY

>>59164367
>he thinks 100% more cores equals 100% more performance

Lmao, not even in your wildest dreams.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (27KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1440x1080px

>>59164340
>debunked every single thread

well... here's your (((you)))

>>59164383
Why is a 3.00GHz base chip averaging 5% lower than a chip clocked over 50%+ higher in a game that doesn't use more than 4 cores?

>>59164383

>I don't understand how to interpret data so I'll keep looking like a dumb ass.

>>59164383
>be intelfag
>mommy buys you 7700k
>OC it
>get lower fps

wut?

>>59164430
BUT MAA HIGHER FPS WHEN KISSING A WALL YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND

>>59164349
Are you seriously asking why a bench would show performance at equal clocks?
The Ryzen chip in question has a 3.4ghz base clock, so the author of that graph set his Haswell-E system to equal clocks to show its perf/clock. Stock base clock for the i7 5960X is only 3ghz.
The other half of your statement is just silly. Perf/clock is always going to be exactly the same so long as cache/uncore is clocking at the same ratio. IPC is a fixed architectural trait that does not change with clock speed.

>>59164352
How are you not understanding this?
CanardPC is merely pointing out several facts that wccftech are omitting. Being decent people who have already published a review of an engineering sample they're being good stewards of information. The point is that CPU-Z's bench is a cache loop. High numbers in that metric don't correlate to strong performance in anything else, but that is the story that clickbait sites are running with.

>>59163563
>>>/vg

>>59164429
>lower fps is better

AMDtards everyone

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

16KB, 417x414px

Lmao slow

>>59164550
Much lower price for 3 less fps is better, autismo.

>>59164383
Uh... Why are the averages so weird?

Stock chip doing better than OCd chip, a low power underclocked chip within spitting distance.

What's going on with this game?

>>59164458
AMDfags only quoted cannardpc when they commented on 1c 5GHz OC. The moment they try to expose blatant shilling and clickbait shit, amdfags start calling them jews. It's quite hilarious.

>>59164663
""""""Console port""""""

The Batman-tier kind.

>>59164685
They are desperate.
Deep down they know this will be shit, just like the RX 480 and the bulldozer.

>>59164602
They are literally the same price

>>59164709
Serious question, why are AMDtards such lying little shits?

They always try to hide and obfuscate the real numbers.

>>59164701
gta v is one of the best PC ports of all time

>>59164786
That's why it still runs like shit on top end hardware?

>>59164806
it doesn't

>>59164729

With out buying from Microcenter?

>>59164814

What it looks like when an Intel shill runs out of talking points

>>59164806
By top end hardware I don't mean fucking poorfag 1080p

>>59164832
Yup, look at b&h, no sale price whatsoever

File: untitled-16.png (62KB, 683x968px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 683x968px

>>59164841
the game actually has great performance on all spectrums of hardware

that benchmark comparing the 1700 to a 5ghz 7700k is really retarded and completely unlike the performance we've seen out of GTA V elsewhere

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-titan-x-pascal-review,19.html

>>59164853

Hahaha.... That's still a shitty deal.

>>59164874
>1080p, 2xMSAA
The score would be fucking 50FPS or lower with a 4k screen, who the fuck tests a bloody TitanXP on 1080p!?

What a shit game.

File: untitled-18.png (48KB, 682x807px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 682x807px

>>59164902
you're a retard who enjoys ignoring information so you can pretend to be smarter than other people

>>59163576
>Not so fast AMD fan
>The benchmark is better because the Processor is better

>>59164888
>better processor at the same price
>shitty deal

AMDtard logic everyone

>>59164340
>RX 480
literally 10% weaker than a 980 at half the price of a 980

>>59164207
>You don't get it
>The AMD chip is faster and the CanardPC shill is complaining about it.

>>59164915
So below 60FPS for $600 hardware, over that you need a $1000 GPU

Got it, are you trying to make me switch to consoles or something? Because I got 60FPS there much cheaper.

>GTA V is a shit port

wew the damage control is real

>>59164340
Sad but true

It's just a symptom of the way AMD is run as a company

They keep doing this shit over and over again

>>59164962
in three successive posts you've made bad arguments on three separate topics that have all had nothing to do with that the person you're replying to is talking about

you might be the dumbest person I've ever talked to on this site

>>59164931
>>59164971
>overclocked 7700k average lower than stock 7700k
Sure thing, Brian.

>>59164979
>really retarded benchmark that doesn't line up with good benchmarks
hmmm i wonder why you believe it to be true

>>59164962
>implying xbone can do more than 30 fps
>implying it can do 1080p

>>59164995
>muritard console
I'd rather have a fucking Wii U

>>59164709
>>59164753
>intel shills resorting to samefagging out of desperation

>>59165004
>GTA V
>WiiU

k

>>59165004
>4th post arguing about a 4th topic that has nothing to do with what the person you replied to was talking about
how long can you keep this up?

File: hmm.png (7KB, 428x109px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 428x109px

>>59165021
Really makes you think

>>59165031
So you're admitting that it's an army of intel shills instead? I applaid your honesty

>>59165045
>I applaid your honesty

AMDtard spelling

>>59165045
>if you don't follow the AMD hype-train you are a shill

Must I remind you of the RX480? How did that turn out?
How about Bulldozer?
Stop hyping this shit so much and wait for proper reviews.

>>59165076
The RX 480 turned out very well.

>>59165076
Must I remind you of Presshot, iAPX 432, Larabee, IA64, first few atoms, How did that turn out?

>hurr company fucks up once they can't do anything again
>unless they're Intel they can fuck up 6 times

>>59165076
>RX 480
But it literally did outmatch the 980, though. Even the power draw was fix and they didn't even have to gimp the card for that fix to work.

>>59165131
AMDtard revisionist history

The power issue wasn't even fixed, it still goes over the power limit to this day

They DID gimp it to try to fix it and reduced the power usage, yet it still goes over the limit

AMD just constantly cuts corners like this and it's why they make subpar products.

>>59165103
>>59165131
Except it did not

>>59165122
>i-intel also did b-bad a long time ago
The last good things that came from AMD was the HD7XXX series

>>59165076
>RX480
>Sells out.
>Bad

Nice alternative facts Brian.

>>59163576
>overperforms
toppest of keks

>>59165198
The last good thing that came from Intel was Pentium 3.

File: Screenshot from 28-02-2017 18:01:33.png (34KB, 634x215px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 634x215px

>>59165198

>>59165198
>Atom chips bricking tablets in 2017.
>"Intel was only bad in the past guys! Please buy Kaby Lake."

Stop.

>>59164597
ryzen got 2327 in single thread

your picture got 1505

lmao

>>59165226
And AMD still plays second to Intel since the Core2Duo.
kek

>>59165206
Yeah, it did. All 100 of them.

>>59163398
So Jesus Third coming is in a form of silicon? Amazing. When can we start the gasing?

>>59164170
Phenom II 965 here.

>>59165254
Soon. u can already start to fire up the oven with those sweet sweet i7 7700k @ 5.2Ghz

The Fire is Rising

>>59164995
All Halo games run with 60 fps on the xbone
and the graphics of Halo 5 is probably 1000 years ahead of GTA V

File: bdzpZzq.png (18KB, 403x402px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 403x402px

looks like it's time to upgrade

I welcome the return of our AMD overlords. It's going to be phenomenal

>>59163398
Oy vey! AMD is anti-semitic and needs to stop releasing CPUs that are competitive to ours at a better price.

If you buy AMD you are supporting anuddah holocaust.

>>59165321
To a 7700k, R7 isn't a upgrade, more like a sidegrade

>>59165340
thanks for the suggestion shlomo

>>59165291
But do you know how they managed to get constant 60 fps?
By adjusting the ressolution from 1080p to 810p depending on how many resources the game needs.
Also don't compare an open world game with a shooting gallery.

>>59164420
>>59164429
>>59164430
>>59164663
Ignore him, this is a fake as fuck test by a britbong that only had the AM4 motherboard and put a dummy on the socket to say he had a ryzen.

>>59164786
What the fuck are you talking about, Antonio?

>>59165198
>>59165168
Wow, you sure showed me with that hard evidence.
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Power-Consumption-Concerns-Fixed-1671-Driver
The fix brought it closer to the spec. This thing was only ever a problem on the reference model and that the power issue would only be a real big problem on older, cheaper motherboards. Motherboards that you really shouldn't be using in the first place if you could afford an RX 480.

>>59165340
Truth

R7 is just garbage for most people, all those cores with nowhere to go

>>59165390
>The fix brought it closer to the spec.

Thank you for proving my point. The fix brought it closer to spec, yet it STILL goes over the power limit. And it most certainly did lower performance.

File: Screenshot from 27-02-2017 13:14:47.png (111KB, 1343x907px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1343x907px

>>59165394
>b-but muh warranty invalidated delided custom loop and sanded 400MHz at 1.5V overclock

Get a Pentium if you want to play in Cinnebench all day.

>>59165168
You know that 75W isnt the limit but only the STANDARD and other cards goes up to 90W without any problem, right? And AMD FIXED it wich was a "problem" with the reference card only.

>>59165406
I've missed the last day
why is this not on the website?
can't find your results anywhere
halp

>>59165403
Only compatibility mode lowered the performance. Regardless, going slightly above the spec wouldn't be a problem at all if you have a halfway decent motherboard or, better yet, didn't go for reference in the first place. Retards like you seem to like making this out to be the worst card ever despite being objectively better than the GTX 980.

>>59165420
http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1

File: ryzen-doa.png (177KB, 1089x677px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1089x677px

>>59165406
Lol that's the 1700X which costs $60 more than an i7-7700K and is barely beating it in a synthetic benchmark

Here's another one you might want to look at, pic related.

Funny how Intel is beating AMD in both price and performance.

File: IMG_0239.jpg (212KB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 2000x1200px

>>59163585

>>59165444
>turbo 3.5

Uhh?

>>59165418
>other cards goes up to 90W without any problem

100% false, there is literally no other card that fails to meet the power limit like the RX 480 did. That's why it was such a fuck up.

>>59165444
ONLY 800MHZ MORE FOR 3% MORE IMPROVEMENT!11

>>59165427
>exact same score in every multithreaded tab

literally how

>>59165453
I was there the day it was tested, it's without turbo and it was tested against a similarly clocked 7700k.
Which proved nothing really new that their IPC are the same.

>>59165459
It just tests against other chip averages, it doesn't test the chip using half its hardware, notice that the 7700k isn't included in the 16+ thread tab nor are the 8 or 10 intel cores included in the 8+ tab

>>59165468
>3.4ghz = 4.5ghz
Ok them.
>>59165454
75W is not the LIMIT is the standard. You can go above it just fine, I have a RX480, I go all the way to 220W and for a year literally no problem here. How retarded are you?

File: ye.png (24KB, 907x407px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 907x407px

>>59165424

>>59165503
>Hiding the price
>Hiding one of the fundamental reasons why the RX 480 is an objectively better card
Probably the only reason why that 11% exists in the first place is because of a lot of benchmarks made with the older drivers are still there.

>>59165502
>Ok them.
You're comparing an average, there are numerous 7700k's in userbench where they're clocked lower, like the one in the test a few days ago, explicitly made to test out IPC.

>>59165503
What games does userbench test? Please tell me.

Lads, stop your gay ass shilling war, there are way more interesting things on this site

http://valid.x86.fr/lpza4n

I want to see it with my own eyes [spoiler]and die of radiation poisoning[/spoiler]
where are the benchmarks for this?

>>59164663
They don't show the framerate distribution to see how common the dips are. Min and max are meaningless. Just compare the averages.

>>59165242
That's a 6 year old server CPU.

>>59165545
None, download userbenchmark and you will see it makes 3 or 4 synth tests in DX9 and 10.

File: Screenshot from 24-04-2016 14:04:40.png (291KB, 701x600px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 701x600px

>>59165580
Who would have thought.

>>59165424
>slower than a 980
>slower than a 1060
>AMD doesn't even havee competition for anything above 1060

wew lad a lot rides on this CPU
no wonder you guys shill it this hard

>>59165242
If this thread was about single thread, then why was the focus of the picture on its multithread?

>>59164709
How was the RX 480 a fail exactly?
It delivered exactly what was promised by AMD, not some delusional fanboy.
The only thing that was somewhat of a letdown was the stock power consumption. This was partly due to their binning and selling bottom of the barrel chips for desktops.

>>59165607
>Slower that a 980
LOOK GUYS, I'M PAYING OVER A HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS FOR 11% MORE PERFORMANCE FROM A TECHNOLOGICALLY DEAD END CARD. ISN'T THIS GREAT?
>Slower than a 1060
With the current drivers, they actually trade blows. It's no longer a cut and dry "which is faster"?

>>59165580
>6 tests that use DX9, DX10, DX11

Fixed that for you shill

>>59164170
so its liquid solder? I'm currently planning on deliding my 6700k.

File: su.png (3MB, 1172x1416px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1172x1416px

>>59163585
>>59163622

File: why the fuck is this a .gif (301KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1024x576px

>>59163585
She looks smug in like 85% of pictures of her.

>>59164170
>>59165666
That picture is the Bristol Ridge APU, its not Ryzen.

>>59165646
AMD could probably release some sort of on-paper hardware revision for the reference card, replacing the 6 pin to an 8 pin, and these guys would probably shut up. However, it's too late for that since the card's been out for a while and everyone knows only idiots buy reference models.

>>59165607
It is not slower than a 1060 sorry, a 980 is a "high end" card that will probably be gimped during the course of this year and the 1060 will be shown faster than it someday. Rx480 vs 1060 is a hard to tell, but RX480 is way better prepared to the near future and you're able to make crossfire with it. No SLI on 1060 and worse performance in future API will make 1060 die really fast.

Today the official benchmarks of Ryzen will come out. AMD is holding an event to talk more about vega and probably by the end of the week we will see the 1080ti showing what is it up to.

Polaris was never meant to be a high end card, that sad, because I believe that a 64CU full chip Polaris would be a nice card and would be right next to a 1070 performance, but with vega AMD will show what they can do in the High end market, and again, showing the world some real new tech with HBM 2.0

>>59165663
>we test gaming in userbench
>but not by running games, but something we think is close to games using some shitty algo

You can't make this shit up.

>>59165689
Can you make this with Krzanich?

>>59165650
>2014
>GTX 980 launches
>be 2016
>AMD promises GTX 980 performance at half the price
>AMD fails
>Best AMD card gets BTFO by 2 year old nVidia card

N-not a fail

>>59165663
>This suite of tests stress a GPU with various functions from the Windows DirectX 11 API. These benchmarks are disabled because they don't materially improve our ability (over the DirectX 10 tests) to measure GPU processing power. These tests will be replaced by DirectX 12 tests in due course.

Fixed what?

>>59165695

That's the MIT "Oh, you went to Harvard? Tell me how you accomplished nothing." face.

>>59165697
Doest anyone know what the IHS interface is for ryzen? Please confirm.

>>59165714
AMD never claimed the RX 480 was competing with the GTX 980. They claimed entry level VR performance starting at $200. Oculus states that entry level VR performance requires a GTX 970 or an R9 290, and the RX 480 is faster on average than both of those.

>>59165666
Not sure the material but it is pretty clear, AMD does that since they started to use lids in their cpus. Most of them are soldered but not every single one.

bonus, check this dude that didnt knew his FX was soldered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk0KN8n8hoM

>>59165714
The RX 480 is almost half the price and the gtx 980 is only 11% faster by brute force, not to mention that there are technologies available to the RX 480 that aren't available to the GTX 980. Even then, the 11% metric probably isn't a full representation since these benchmark stats are still lugging around results from older drivers.

File: aspect su.jpg (10KB, 125x264px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 125x264px

>>59165724
>graduated with a PhD from fucking MIT in electrical engineering with a focus on computer technology
Well I guess she can stay smug.

>>59165741
Unless AMD wants to kill itself to save $10k over a million units then it's solder, they haven't fucked up with this launch yet.

File: rx 480 cf vs gtx 1080.jpg (104KB, 1600x905px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1600x905px

>>59165742
kek they did said 2x rx 480 will be better than gtx 1080 so 1x rx 480 will be better than gtx 980 using same logic "premium value" my fucking ass

>>59165741
Its rumored to be soldered, but no one has confirmed, or even mentioned it.
AMD finally switched back to solder with Godavari and Bristol Ridge, but all prior APUs used TIM.

>>59165741
Definitly soldered,. It is proven back and fort that Intel shitty thermal compound forces you to delid it to get decent temps under overclocking.

>>59165771
Anyone with a half a brain would probably know that, even if cf will outperform a 1080, two cards are still a bad choice.

>>59165771
That graph was actually pretty accurate. It was just misleading as all fuck.
You see, two 290s would have beaten a 1080 in DX12 Ashes.

>>59165750
>>59165761
>>59165775
Even tho I'm happily a 6700k owner I just want to see it confirmed. I'm really looking for a baller Ryzen 6 core or 8 core laptop.

>>59165771
>benches of the singularity

>>59165803
I believe that we are close to see dual card setup finally paying off. New APIs and Virtual Reality solutions will take advantage of it pretty well.

>>59165340
I mostly agree with this

But I always secretly wanted an enthusiast grade system, and now I can have one without buying a $1000 processor

>>59164786
This. It can even run on a Celeron + its igpu and maintain 25-30fps

>>59165291
>comparing a futuristic shooter with tiny maps to a realistic game with a giant open world map
You are comparing apples to oranges, faggot.

>>59165340
but a 7700k is a 4 core house fire cpu.

>>59165291
>the graphics of Halo 5 is probably 1000 years ahead of GTA V
this.... is the power....

>>59165291
>all halo games
>what is Reach and halo 4 that makes one shit its pants to run steady.

File: 1442796770778.gif (1MB, 300x199px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x199px

>>59165666
>liquid solder

>>59166190
>reach
>4
>halo
those are call of duty games anon

>>59164295
No, this is more like saying "the result of that lap time is wrong because the ferrari actually didn't to the full lap, also it was turbocharged while you'll buy it naturally aspirated".

File: 1487452561666.jpg (26KB, 192x171px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 192x171px

>>59164340
>he thinks TDP stands for how much power it draws

fun fact: even intel shit uses more than advertised

>>59166198
it's that liquid metal shit I call it solder whatever you get the point.

>>59165031
>Desktop poster

>>59166238
no, solder is solder and you cant call other shit solder and think people will "get the point" when you're talking about something else you fucking retard.

File: 1487897293029-pol.jpg (33KB, 360x433px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 360x433px

>>59166297
Neato

File: file.png (54KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 299x168px

>>59163576
*OVERPERFORMS*

>>59166210
the point of analogies is to make concepts easier to understand for laymen. no common has any clue what aspirating a ferrari means you insane person.

>>59164926
it's just cherry picked

if someone posted AVX2 benchmarks you'd be going >b-b-but...

>>59165771
>they said that 2 480s give you 1080 tier performance in a specific game so the 480 should be better than a 980 in all gaymez
Stop

Oy gevalt.

>>59163622
>she

>>59165261
phenom II 945 here

>>59164383
it shows that amd have better performance in normal gameplay.

>>59165444
>Microcenter
Nuff said

>>59163576
I'm so fucking tired of overperforming hardware, processors in particular. I'm not paying for overperformance, I'm paying for mediocrity and I damned well expect to get it.

Guys, I just bought a new Intel cpu and these benchmarks are really starting to stress me out. I have been shit posting hard to relieve the stress but it is not really working... what do I do? I feel like I have wasted money, I feel like I have been robbed.

>>59171142

|
|>
|
|&
|

>>59171082
He is just pointing out that the sample is running an OC and not at stock speeds.
He also points out that the benchmark used favors CPUs with high cache, this inflating the numbers more than it would in real life applications.
What is wrong with being honest?

Let me guess, I am a shill.

>>59163398

>Sticks it up in a multicore test against only quad cores

Hello disingenuous benchmarks. Didn't think AMD would stoop that low.

>>59171175
>inflating the numbers more than it would in real life applications
And what is the point of synthetic benchmarks again. Why do joke reviewers use them?

>>59171186
Why not? Intel does it.

>>59164383
>Oh wait, let's see how it does in the real world?
Now try that with streaming and recording at the same time. Oh, and try it with the 1700X and not the 1700

Yeah. Intel is getting fucked.

File: 1484190501942.png (141KB, 502x502px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 502x502px

>>59163576
O V E R P E R F O R M

le smug MIT chinese woman.jpeg

File: AMD in Israel.png (57KB, 931x958px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 931x958px

>>59165337

Nah! :^)

>>59172237
wow this is a really COOl post my man really good post I'm reading it I read it 5 times by now oops I read it 7 now hahaha I can't stop reading your post I want to marry this post now that I think about it really GOOD post I'm just kind of not even sure how to proceed from here ahaha I'm a little nervous sorry

File: 546875988.png (1MB, 2000x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1367px

>>59165448

updated edition

File: 1487914005099.jpg (71KB, 552x661px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 552x661px

>>59172242

>dat damage control of madfag

>>59163576
O V E R P E R F O R M S

ahahhahahaahaahahahhahaah

>>59172242
full retard much

File: epcCV0z.jpg (35KB, 453x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 453x500px

>>59172247
>asian woman as ceo = terrible drivers

>Intel
>Got blueprints from IBM
>didn't want to deviate at all from them
>AMD found more optimal way of doing things right away
>Cyrix backwards engineered a better x86 CPU than what Intel ever could
>Only way Intel could survive was shady business tactics

Intel was always 10 years behind competition.

This is a large reason people are excited for Amd's new CPU even if they aren't buying one, it's a new architecture, something Intel lately hasn't done for... since the Pentium 3... so Intel has been floating along on the back of Pentium 3 nearly 20 years, and will be over 20 by the time they make something new, while AMD has had 3 different cores in that time frame with 2 of them being good, one of them being good for specific applications for a short time, would likely still be good enough today if they released full desktop variants but fuck it, when gamers are concerned its hard to argue in favor of construction and cat cores.

Throughout the entirety of the bulldozer base, look at what AMD did gen over gen... and now look at Ryzen, and imagine it to be Bulldozer levels of optimization left to happen. now realize Ryzen currently on engineering samples that throw errors like a mother fucker, is within/over 5% IPC of Intel's current CPU.

1/2

>>59173660
I cant wait to see if either there is a performance stand still, you can't get much faster than Intel is, or if we have been rammed up the ass by Intel for so long we forgot they were even there and its only now that we finally see real vagina we remember a cock is still lodged up our asses.

Intel has way more fuckups than Bulldozer, Bulldozer is AMD's only spectacular fuckup in the CPU market in 40 years, the only other minor fuckup was Phenom which was not even a architecture fuckup since it was fixed in B3 stepping, the other fuckup was K5.
But these are fucking nothing compared to Presshot, Itanium, Larabee, iAPX 432, and their own fuckup with P5 FDIV that wasn't nicely fixed with a stepping, but a fucking recall.
What about their complete failure with the Atom? What an abortion, mobile market? 14nm and lower lithography woes where they allowed their competitors that were lagging 4 years to close the gap to less than a year?

These magnificent failures would destroy 5 companies over, it's a good thing Intel has more money than sense to live through it all.

2/2

>>59165444
>1700X
>2 leaked user benchmarks
>7700K
>6994 user benchmarks

I'll only call Ryzen a failure once it's out there in the real word and can see results from more systems not just reviewers and leakers

>>59164902
>who the fuck tests a bloody TitanXP on 1080p!?
People trying to benchmark the CPU instead of the GPU.

File: 1466282473100.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>59173739
Shut up goy.

>>59165444
>4.2GHz is 3% better than 3.4GHz
lol

>>59165198
Too bad the driver and software support for their 7000 series is complete shit.

I had to go through hoops just to get my 7870 drivers installed because the installations would stop and say the drivers couldn't be installed. No log file, nothing descriptive at all. Went through safe mode to delete all traces of previous drivers and attempted installing again.

The only thing that allowed me to get the drivers at the end was enabling and downloading it through Windows Update.

why the heck they dont release the ryzen 3 now..
why they force me to buy g4560 and be only able to upgrade to 7700k

>>59176025

You what.

File: hb05xz97plhy.jpg (191KB, 653x477px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 653x477px

>>59163576
Jeez I hope Ryzen doesn't overperform when running ALL my software, that'd be terrible

>>59164383
>real world
>6 year old game made for consoles and ported
>this is how intel will win, why not a benchmark of KOTOR next?
top cuck

>>59177803
Who will be fine with any of them.

>>59165122
This, I don't get it. Shills on all topics use it too, not just here:
>this one thing happened
>therefore it will happen every time

Another thing that the Intel shills here do that bothers me is insinuate that buying Zen would be bad because we'd be "supporting" AMD, and that's bad because insert muh stock argument here. If I buy a computer it's not like I'm switching sports teams. It's not even as big of a deal as changing OS's. It'll just sit there and do what my current computer does, but about 20x faster. Why must the Intel shills make constant digs at anybody who might buy this CPU and call them fanboys, while attempting to generate sympathy for their team and urge us to support Intel no matter what?

Intel shills, tell your bosses, this shilling is really ineffective and even the scum-sucking tech press is sick of your shit.

>>59165261
phenom II 955 BE here

>>59164383

whats the cost ratio between those processors goyim?

>>59164874

that chart doesn't seem right, i have a partner 980 and a 6600k running gta 5 max including some of the advanced settings with 2xmsaa maintaining 60 fps sometimes doesn't pan out

>>59173678
>I cant wait to see if either there is a performance stand stil
They already said Zen+ will be 30% better performance than Zen, coming 2019.

And remember when they said they were shooting for 40% and got 52%+?

>>59179791
They're literally the same price

>>59173692
I agree, but it's not looking good so far.

AMD is making expensive multi-core processors that are losing real world tests to less expensive ones.

>>59172237
SHUT IT DOWN

THE GOYIM KNOW

>>59179932
in gayming.

>>59179932
>expensive multi-core
I love that intel shills are all
>multicore is bad goyim, pajeet will never make code for multicore
lol

>>59179880
Jim Keller is not with them anymore. 30% is +two cores, clocked slightly higher.

>>59179807
there are no advanced graphics settings in those benchmarks used

just very high + 2xmsaa

>>59173660
Pentium 2 and 3 are pretty much based on a old russian design of some soviet Elbrus engineers

File: n7fhFAf.jpg (38KB, 426x481px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 426x481px

Now BTFO, 7700K shills.

https://imgur.com/a/JWYaI

>>59182017
>@ 4.2GHz

don't all 7700ks easily overclock to 4.8ghz? even their stock boost clock is 4.5

>>59182053
IMO overclock potential shouldn't be considered here. you shouldn't base purchase decisions on silicon lottery, and you should always assume that only a minority of people will overclock their processors regardless of whether they're unlocked or not.

it's true that some chips will OC better than others but in both cases here the headroom should be significant and, dare I say, more or less equivalent as far as what average Joes can achieve.

as far as we can reasonably predict, the 7700K has better single thread perf out of the box than the 1700X does, and that's a good argument in its favor. I honestly would prefer the latter since its overall performance and value is in another dimension altogether but still, facts are facts.

>>59182132
>IMO overclock potential shouldn't be considered here

is this what they call cognitive dissonance? 'you're right, this interferes with my argument, so it doesn't count.'

Iranians apparently tested all the things from 2010, 1700x still holds up too 7700K within 5%, huh.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/first-ryzen-7-1700x-review-finds-its-way-onto-the-web.html

>>59182132
>as far as we can reasonably predict, the 7700K has better single thread perf out of the box than the 1700X does
you mean the 1700, right? cause the X sure as fuck wont be behind the 7700k even in single thread

>>59172247
> tfw AMD fanboys kept posting that Intel facility in Israel

kek

>>59182203
read the fucking post before you say this kind of knee jerk bullshit

>>59164430
7700K costs less than the Ryzen 1700 here.

>>59179791
Ryzen is ~5-10$ in the shops here.

>>59182227
I think even the 1800X will be behind the 7700K there

I have not found any evidence to the latter that can be considered trustworthy

it's pretty depressing to know I'll get this kind of bullshit from both sides if I try to be even slightly reasonable

>>59165406
The 1800X costs twice the price of the 7700K.
All for +20... points?
I mean, surely no one can make such bad financial decisions... ?

>>59182259
check board prices too, z270 is more expensive than x370

>>59163576
>overperforms
KEK

>>59165837
Things that never happened, son.
See how Mantle and Vulkan took over the world?

Uhm... see? Any time now... uhm...
Right, that never happened.

>>59182005
The benchmark needs to be fixed, it's been said already in the first few posts.
If it would be really just twice as fast magically - it would be all over the news.

>>59182283
$350 times two is $700. the 1800X is $500 USD. I understand your local retailers might be fucking you in the ass but that's not relevant here.

>All for +20... points?
and double the parallel perf, among other things

this is basically motorcycle vs supercar

>b-but my bike accelerates faster, that means it's the better vehicle

>>59182309
why are intelfags stuck in 2011

>>59182284
Oh. Yeah.

Well, I would still buy the 7700K I mean it's cheaper, it's got an iGPU, and it's not a little money we are talking about. People still use the 2500K.

I am just an average power user though.
Will AMD release 4 core (maybe with iGPU too) CPUs?

I have an aging i7 920, and now I just want something 4 core in that machine. The 7700K, or any Ryzen (atm) for that would be an overkill.

>>59182371
Raven Ridge APUs based on Ryzen come out in the second half of this year.

>>59182363
Btw why not buy an i7-6800K?
Costs the same (here) as the 7700K and has 6 cores (12 threads)...

What's the catch?

>>59182210
did they really test this cpu with 2133mhz ddr4s?

File: aida64 compar.jpg (98KB, 1100x538px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1100x538px

Zen has significantly more L2, L3, and DRAM bandwidth than Skylake.
L1 performance is practically identical.

Only hitch with Zen appears to be DRAM latency.

>>59182512
More like what they fuck are they doing testing $300-$1500 CPUs on 1366x768

File: 1484990524453.png (126KB, 539x538px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 539x538px

>>59182512
yes

>>59182541
don't they have steam there or can pirate games from at least 2015? why did they use all the 2012 games?
Still showed that gaming IPC of 1700x is is on par with 7700k.

File: 1457325958012.png (63KB, 650x369px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 650x369px

what?

File: Screenshot from 01-03-2017 16:54:24.png (88KB, 1369x470px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1369x470px

>>59182526
>>59182585
L2 and L3 latencies are competitive, AMD has larger L2 and L3 so naturally latency increases, plus their bandwidth is also higher.

The problem is DRAM, but...
Lets assume that the DRAM latencies stay the same, that does tell a lot about AMD considering they're competitive at twice higher DRAM latency.

>>59182629
>when software becomes so retarded powerful hardware works inverse

File: AIDA64---Memory-Bandwidth[1].png (99KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 650x380px

>>59182585
they used ryzen with 2133mhz ddr4 against intel with 2400-3400mhz ddr4s? now that looks like a biased benchmark to me
7700k got 3400mhz ddr4s
at least tomorrow we will see normal tests with ddr4 3000+mhz memory

>>59182629
and they use a converting tool that is obviously not multithreaded, they could have used normal x264

File: 1477420972687.jpg (33KB, 542x554px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 542x554px

>>59182629
>Media Espresso Media Converter

>>59182638
Getting bandwidth that high with 65ns~ max latency on the system memory would be an incredible feat for AMD. Tweaking settings a bit would yield absolutely ridiculous performance.

I can't imagine how the 8 channel Naples Opterons will look.

File: 1458049218351.png (75KB, 650x365px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 650x365px

I didn't even know that games exist until now.

File: 15a8a7e846e437529[1].png (74KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 650x366px

>>59182655
>7700k got 3200mhz ddr4s
fixed
also look at the gta 5 tests, even with slower memory ryzen is on par with any intel cpu not like in that fake video on youtube

>>59182691
No matter which title they test, people will always bitch "but what about game Y, Z?!"

>>59182694
I'm really surprised by IPC, didn't expect that on single thread.

>>59182694
Guess Tomorrow will be another holocaust celebration day.

File: Dr Lisa Su.jpg (80KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 650x450px

>>59182717
The Jew fears the Samurai

>>59182541
they're testing the cpu, obviously dumbass

resolution increases test the gpu

>>59182744
>testing the cpu at 1999 resolutions

I can name you 65 fucking things to test a CPU in.

What even uses those resolutions anymore? ATMs and Casino slots?

>>59182744
you usually do that at 1280x720

Tons of official slides
https://videocardz.com/66640/amd-ryzen-7-launches-tomorrow

>>59182758
because you're retarded and don't even know how testing works
>>59182765
it's essentially the exact same thing

>>59182444
the catch is the 6800K gets beaten by Ryzen at almost everything

when the 1600X comes out it'll be completely obsolete

Intel has one thing going for it now and it's single thread perf, and only on it's 4c or less CPUs

File: 1445728133356.png (115KB, 662x623px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 662x623px

>>59182629
>Media Espresso Media Converter

>>59182541
To eliminate GPU bottleneck you dumb fag

>>59182796
>it's single thread perf
you mean clock speed

we haven't seen Ryzen clocked at intels clock speeds yet, and not on R5 or R3 processors

>>59164988
It's one fucking game lol, there is more than one game in existence

>>59184058
another post
another bad argument on a topic that as nothing to do with what the person you're replying to is talking about

File: Intel-890x400.jpg (69KB, 890x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 890x400px

>>59172237

>>59163576
more than 60 fps is bad for your health!

>this thread.
jesus christ they were right. it really is a post-fact world.