What went wrong?

>>59164819
R Y Z E N
Y
Z
E
N

[This comment is sponsored by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.]

>>59164858
>[This comment is sponsored by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.]
Kek.

This was from a recycled dell Optiplex and a $60 ebay p67. It was supposed to be a stop gap to a new build. Not equivalent to a new build. worth it to get 2x8 fast ddr3? or just ride the old 4x4 1600 kit?

>>59164858
It's a plc retard

>>59165128
4x4 (16GB) 1600 Mhz
vs
2x8 (16GB) "fast" 2000+ mhz?

>>59165836
yes. 2133 or so.

>>59165869
Expect ~5% difference

File: screenshot-ark.intel.com-2017-02-28-20-39-31.png (63KB, 1023x330px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1023x330px

>>59167832
>4 generations and 5 years later
>same performance

>>59168131
>a 3.6Ghz is only 16% faster than a 3.9GHz

While is true that intel isn't really big on R&D anymore AMD is to blame for that.
After 5 years of barelly improving performances pajeet is still behind.
Maybe Ryzen will fix that.

>>59168269
It's AMD's fault that Intel hasn't had to do any real work?

How do you make sense of that? Or are you admitting that capitalism needs to have stiff competition to work.

>>59168269
>It's AMD's fault Intel hasn't made anything better!
>let's ignore the fact that over half of the reason AMD was in the state it was is due to Intel's jewish tricks nicely called "incentives"

>>59168395
Why would Intel throw billions in R&D if AMD can't compete?
With no competition there will be small improvements from generation to generation.

>>59168430
Yeah, bulldozer happened because of intel.

Physics? Don't you remember like 5 years ago Intel announced it was no longer able to keep up with a release schedule modeled after Moore's law? What did you THINK that would look like?

>>59168463
>he thinks this started with bulldozer, something announced in 2005
Underage please.

>>59168503
>intel did little to no improvements in performance since Sandy Bridge (2011)
>faildozer was launched in 2011

Really makes you think.

>>59168557
No it doesn't, because AMD had no money after getting strongarmed out of the market during the K8 era, Intel only had to wait for AMD to spend their remaining cash to stay afloat until 2010 and then r&d spending dropped like a bomb, Intel didn't have to bother at that point.

>>59168637
Not sure what you are on about.
I remeber the early 2000s and AMD was doing just fine back then.
Their CPUs were always competitive for their price, up untill bulldozer.

>>59167832
those are averages. People that are using the turbo + by putting ivy on an oc board should be near my performance. I haven't even fine tuned it or tried bclk or ram oc
Here was the last run before that one. I forgot to bookmark the most recent and it hasn't shown up on the list. Never mind the gpu score I downclocked because this test was still on a 500w test psu

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/2777465

Going to test + tune this weekend and pass up that peak 7500.