Can anyone explain why you would buy Ryzen when the i7-7700K exists?

Can anyone explain why would someone shitpost when no one cares?

>>59164442
How is this a shitpost?

Look at the benchmark and give any good reason to buy Ryzen over what Intel already has.

>>59164425
hey, do you know any good garlic bread recipes?

>>59164487
Now that's a shitpost

>>59164425
I'll bite: multi-threaded workloads.
Compiling, video production, computation, etc. will run almost twice as fast as on 7700k.
Contrary to popular belief, badly-programmed gaymen aren't the only use of high-end processors.

>>59164515
you didn't answer my question, do you know any or not?

Does anyone know good pork shoulder recipes?

The Ryzen Opteron has me excited. I need a new dual CPU machine for my work.

>rockstar pc ports as a benchmark

>>59164609
Agreed

So Ryzen is a workstation CPU, not good for gaming or regular desktop use

>>59164643
>64c128t monster w/ 3ghz cores guzzling over 500W under load

makes me wonder what the fuck kind of shit you do at work.

>>59164425
>8 cores
>16 threads
>gaymen
please off yourself
>>59164691
>not having a 1024 core pc

>>59164425
>LOOK
>MOM
>I
>POSTED
>IT
>AGAIN

>>59163255

>>59164672
That's wrong.
R7 will be good in regular use and gaymen, but 7700k will always be a bit better in games that don't scale well with threads thanks to its slightly higher IPC and possibly higher OC (since it's just a quad core).
You'll still have to delid it first else it melts down.

>>59164771
Ryzen already confirmed better ipc. We just need it to get the clocks

>>59164442
It fills the void love left :^(

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

177KB, 1089x677px

>>59164771
I guess that depends on your definition of good

So far everything looks like the i7-7700K is way better in gaming and regular desktop usage

>>59164691
FEA

>>59164739
>im
>a
>poorcunt
>I
>only
>can
>afford
>shit

>>59164672
Are you implying that just because it happens to be a good workstation CPU its suddenly bad for anything else?

>>59164855
How SIMD driven is FEA?
i.e., do Zen's narrower AVX units make sense in that space?

>>59164839
>regular desktop usage
shitty vague term
if you are referring to watching youtube, facebooks and spreadsheets, they're both overkill

>>59164739
This so much

>>59164862
Yes because that's the trade off they had to make

Moar cores and shitty single core performance

The benchmarks speak for themselves

It's classic AMD, doing the same shit they did with bulldozer

>>59164672
>So Ryzen is a workstation CPU, not good for gaming or regular desktop use
Current Ryzen

We still have not seen r5 and r3

>>59164878
Just think of any application that isn't ruthlessly optimized for multiple threads - aka 99% of all apps

In 99% of apps, Ryzen is going to be a stinker compared to the same offering from Intel at the same price.

>59164887 (You)

>>59164425
>overclocked 7700k average is worse than stock 7700k
I'm not going to explain shit.

>>59164839
Don't be ridiculous.
There's no need for a $300 CPU for "regular desktop usage". i3-tier is the highest I'd go with that. Both R7 and 7700k are absolute overkill in this area.

As for gaming: it's not the 2010 anymore, grandpa. Games will only get better at threading. In fact, even Intel saw this trend and will bump their mainline to 6 cores. Unless you change CPUs ever year (like a good goy), Ryzen is futureproof.

And that's completely ignoring streaming, which makes games run like shit on quad cores. Those hexa core Ryzens will sell like hot cackes in that demographic.

>>59164911
>In 99% of apps, Ryzen is going to be a stinker compared to the same offering from Intel at the same price.
You have shit understanding of the CPU usage of the average normalfag application, it seems. They're both overkill for facebook

>>59164474
>Only 3 FPS diff in average
>The 7700k was OCed to 5GHz
How can you be this autistic anon?

>>59164965
I keep hearing this bullshit about future proofing from the AMD camp, and it never comes true.

Look at the benchmarks for what is available right now, and it's not looking good.

>>59164876
Depends on the package, most of what I do relies on the GPUs. Now that the Titans are certified hardware, almost everything is moving that way.

>>59165017
like what? That shitty image in the OP that's been posted over and over again?

>>59165034
That's all we have now that has been leaked

Wait until tomorrow and you'll see more of the same

>>59165050
>one shitty benchmark with dubious validity
>somehow, ryzen is "not doing good" because of this

>>59165050
Actually there's been leaks every day, but those don't count right?

File: AMDshillsonsuicidewatch.jpg (401KB, 1091x719px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1091x719px

Real world benchmark scores are starting to show the truth. Why pay more for the 1700x when the 7700k is better and cheaper?

>>59165050
>implying
>>59163398 d-don't look goyim. it's not that fast I swear!

>>59165095

Intel shills grasping at straws.

>>59165113
That's a synthetic benchmark, that's exactly what I'm talking about

AMD pulling the same shit they pulled with bulldozer

Moar cores and shitty real world performance

>>59164425
You don't. AMD products exist to force competition on Intel. You shill for them and make others buy AMD, while reaping the fruits of reaction from the superior cpu maker

>>59165113
That result is skewed because it relies heavily on the cache. The much less skewed results that another anon in that thread posted still managed to show the Ryzen outperforming the x99 processors.

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

32KB, 550x450px

>>59165135
>bulldozer does good at synthetic
>besides the times when it doesn't

>>59165135
So far, the only thing going against numerous synthetic benchmarks is this shitty GTAV benchmark of dubious validity.

>>59165174
And this >>59164839

Wait until all the real world benches come out tomorrow and it's going to be a bloodbath

>>59164672
Dual socket AM4 mobos when?

>>59165095
>7700k is as good as 6900k and better than 6850k
Good to know the truth.

>>59165182
For you :^)

File: 1-1080.4239258625.png (265KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1200x675px

The Ryzen is cucked by the shit chipset.

>>59165182
>only 3% faster but needs 800mhz more clock

>>59165095
It's pretty kek that you are taking userbench runs as fact now.
First its synthetic benchmarks are bad but when it favors intel it is a-okay! Like fuck man if you want to shill at least keep it consistent.

>>59164425
Why would you buy 7700k when Ryzen 3 exists?

>>59165216
WTF why does it have so few PCIe lanes?

Intel Z270 has 24

Why would you buy 7700k when Ryzen 5 exists?

>>59165216
Also is that seriously PCIe 2.0 and not 3.0? This can't be real.

>>59165253
No SLI support for Ryzen if you want to use M.2.

>>59165258
r5 isn't out yet and wont be for (((months)))

>>59165260
I believe that's chipset features solely... not pci-e controller on the die...

>>59165258
lol, not only does it have more cores but it's much cheaper and same clock speed

>>59165258
>Ryzen 5 exists

It doesn't

>>59165322
>>59165265
q2 isn't far away

Because in a month it will be 150 dollars cheaper.

>>59165399
lmao no it wont

again faggot op
1700 has 65 tdp and a lower clock speed, it is not a gaming cpu
1600x has 95 tdp and a comparable clock speed, it is a gaming cpu
kys

File: 1482513284673.jpg (20KB, 328x396px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 328x396px

>>59164425

Because install gentoo and compile kernel on a 8/16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4/8.

Now piss off!

>>59165435
That's hilarious because AMD always lies about their TDP

There were some leaked benches that show it goes up to 126W

>>59165253
>>59165260
Both Ryzen and Kaby Lake CPUs have 16x PCIe 3.0 for the primary GPU.

The Intel Z270 chipset has 24x PCIe 3.0. The AMD X370 has 8x PCIe 3.0, which is split into 8x PCIe 2.0 plus 4x PCIe 3.0 (in the form of SATAe - see the "1" footnote in the image).

Basically Ryzen should be able to do 16x/8x if you don't use the lanes for things like M.2/U.2 but this might depend on the motherboard. Otherwise you're stuck with 8x/8x for SLI/CrossFire, but does anyone really use multi-GPU setups any more? Seems a dying art really, plus if you have the cash for 2-4 GPUs you can probably afford X99.

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

68KB, 688x861px

>>59165479
You mean the leaked one where it obliterates Intel in power and performance?

>>59165573
this
1700 is shit
either go for r7 1700x or r5 1600x

>>59165573
>Intel 6 core guzzling more power than a AMD 8 core at a lower frequency with the same IPC

Oh God I can see why Intel is in panic mode now, this practically throws them out of the server and mobile market for a few generations.

>>59165672
>Oh God I can see why Intel is in panic mode now, this practically throws them out of the server and mobile market for a few generations.
Unless they already secured deals or are strongarming Dell and HP

lets see how the r5 1600 stacks up

>>59165801
>not 1600x

>>59164425
>Stock clocks
>3.4 vs 4.2 and 4.5 GHz
>Marginal improvements
Okay, so this proves Ryzen is superior as an overclocking chip, as people are gonna happily push it to 5GHz

>>59165573
So the biggest gap of 32 watts works out to 64kW/h a year (2000 working hours in a year) at a cost of 10 cents per kW/h.

Or a savings of $6.40 a year.

>>59165982
>savings of $6.40 a year
Literally nothing then. gg amd

>>59164878
He means computing, video editing, photo etc. You're just being disingenuous pajeet.

>>59166439
video editing isnt regular use for regular people

they're youtube watching normies that occasionally play gaems

>>59166439
>computing
>still using vague terms
>video editing, photo etc.
those aren't "normal workloads" you disingenuous shill. in fact, if you're specifically referring to video editing, intel gets destroyed

>>59164425
You can tell ryzen is amazing by the number of nvidia paid shills slamming it.

>>59166506
>Ryzen beating 3 year old i7 cpus
Wow it's fucking nothing.

>>59166426
>>59166506
More synthetic benchmarks that mean nothing in the real world

Why does Ryzen keep getting killed in real world benchmarks?

Really makes you think.

>>59165573
Thanks for proving the point.

AMD is going way over their power limit, while Intel actually goes under theirs.

Hilarious.

>>59166847
>7700k
>3 years old
How's that back peddling gonna look now nigga?

>>59165569
That's really bad though if you have to compromise on using a M.2 or a good GPU.

Why would AMD do that on an enthusiast board?

Intel has 3x the number of PCIe lanes and they're all 3.0

Anyone know what is actually different between the Intel architectures and the AMD ones?

Or at least are their goals and philosophies different?

how can anyone buy amd trash? the shear amount of times i, and millions of others have been burned by their shit i'm baffled anyone still wants to use their garbage.

>>59167010
>amd
how can we burn down the house even faster?
>intel
how can we milk our users even more? perhaps a third new chipset for the same socket?

>>59167090
Blind fanboyism

Also on the very low end they are good for poorfags, but the quality is still shit

>>59167948
try looking at a mirror sometime

>>59164425
>Spending 380 € for a quadcore CPU.

File: 1438576618675.jpg (486KB, 1060x1600px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1060x1600px

>>59167124
>found the apple shill

>>59164425
>Max FPS

Gee I wonder if 5.Ghz benefits the framerate when the world is loading in, and the load is on the CPU, not the GPU

>>59164425
>>59164771

if i am to take the graph as the holy grail, can you explain why an OC'd 7700 averages less FPS than one running that stock speeds?

>>59164474
Why the fuck you need our approval you fucking autist?

>>59166847
CPUs get 1-2% faster per annual so the cores matter.

>>59164474
>gta v is the only thing people do with computers.
Also there is evidence contrary to you post

>>59169069
literally nothing

>>59167996
Just did, damn I'm handsome

>>59169128
Please show me any gaming benchmark where the 1700 beats a 7700k. I'll be waiting.

>>59164425
because ryzen have better fps in normal gameplay?

>>59165095
2 shekels deposited into your bank account

>>59167007
Can you not read? You get enough PCIe lanes for both a GPU and an M.2/U.2 SSD. You just don't get enough PCIe lanes for TWO GPUs and an M.2/U.2 SSD.

Intel indeed have more PCIe lanes, their motherboards are also more expensive.

>>59164672
I can accept this stance.

Because MUH COARS

>>59164425
dude that test is not fuckin real guy who made that test on youtube doesn't even showed cpu box.

>>59166506
Holy shit Intel is complete garbage.

HUR DUR I'M A GAYMR

WHY WOULD YOU BUY POTATO WHEN YOU CAN EAT HALF A POTATO