AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Official Benchmarks Appear In Passmark Database

>>59169178
>currytech
POO

File: file.png (181KB, 840x420px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 840x420px

>>59169205
I guess you don't like this then it had to post.

File: file.png (182KB, 840x420px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 840x420px

When compressing your 7zips

File: file.png (291KB, 1140x570px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1140x570px

What the hell is sorting

File: file.png (285KB, 1140x570px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1140x570px

> can't do numbers

File: file.png (281KB, 1140x570px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1140x570px

I guess they do physics on the gpu.

>>59169178
I'll buy ryzen + vega no matter what. Fuck these benchmarks.

File: file.png (293KB, 1140x570px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1140x570px

based on plain old math

>>59169312
>Fuck these benchmarks that show it better in some things but not in 100% of things.
do you like living with delusions?
that's how you get buyer's remorse

>>59169264
>What the hell is sorting
read a book, nigger

>>59169282

Does prime number generation performance have any impact on crypto currency mining?

File: file.png (296KB, 1140x570px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1140x570px

Er, there's no way they didn't hit a bug with this one

File: 1487145233081.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

At least they got intel to lower their prices?

>>59169386
Don't they always do that with GPUs nowadays? Or is it about certain coins like litecoin?

>>59169404
new instruction set senpai

>>59169346
I have a i5-3450 + gtx660. everything is an upgrade to me.

>>59169428
My honest opinion, AMD fucked up with not going 4core + 4hyper-threading like Intel. The 7700K is still a sweet spot for 95% of power users.

>>59169218
>double the cores
>20% more performance

kek

File: AABslX.png (45KB, 669x760px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 669x760px

>>59169178
http://www.pcgamer.com/new-amd-ryzen-details-and-pricing-leaks/

Pretty much exactly what we saw with an earlier 1700X sample.

Prime Numbers, Physics, and CPU Mark metrics are very sensitive to memory timings.

I'm buying ryzen 1700 because I want dem cores, dat cache, and dat low power consumption. I don't really care about playing games

also gonna upgrade a bunch of stuff in my system to the new standards when I upgrade mobo. DDR4, m.2 SSD, bunch of 3.1 USB's and shit

>>59169450
Your honest opinion is retarded. Raven Ridge is a 4c/8t APU.

Welp I'm going with 7700k

File: file.png (58KB, 539x599px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 539x599px

>>59169473
>apu
talking about desktop

File: 5fc128db-84fa-4026-a992-b46ae6895b81..jpg (165KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 960x960px

>>59169178

Does that CPU support 4K Netflix?

>>59169491
The i7 7700k is an APU.
Deal with it, kid.

>>59169450
>The 7700K is still a sweet spot for 95% of power users.
no, no its really not

>>59169450
I'm waiting for r5 series to see how it is for gaming. AMD knew people have been dying to upgrade, so they released the higher core more expensive cpus first since they're more profitable.

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

2MB, 2560x1312px

>>59169178
And then in the real world

File: 1478622708317.png (31KB, 720x644px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 720x644px

single core performance is only measuring a single core
nothing to see here, amd has twice as many

>>59169432
right. weird it even works then.

>>59169450
This.

No way in hell am I gonna pay more for a Ryzen CPU that has worse performance in games and the apps I use the most.

>>59169521
> I only read the first post of a thread.

>>59169458
The 4 channel memory on the Broadwell helps in this case.

>>59169517
>at stock speed and within 3fps of an 5ghz 7700k

>>59169516
>more expensive CPUs
>more profitable

Are you sure about that? How many people are gonna buy a $350+ CPU?

They should've released something that competes with Intel's i3 and i5, but I think the truth is starting to become clear...they don't have anything like that.

>>59169517
1700 is only 65 tdp, go away
compare 1600x instead

Let me end this stupid "discussion" once and for all:

If you'd rather have faster performance with CPU intensive processes, go Ryzen.
Else, go Intel.

>>59169543
Ye I mean, it's like they are stubborn about it, take /g/ for example where most AMD people are "underdogs". Of course they would be better off with the "7700K" route. They would pay like $200 max and they would get in practice something like a 7700K from AMD.

>>59169592
This

>>59169306
>buy AMD GPU
>physics must be done on the CPU
>buy AMD CPU
>it can't into physics

>>59169178
>single thread

what is this, 2010?

>>59169574
>How many people are gonna buy a $350+ CPU?
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/229189/

>>59169592
>CPU intensive processes
are you selling beauty products? what does that even mean? all processes that need a good cpu are "intensive".

>>59169592
It's not just CPU intensive processes, it's specifically apps optimized for multi-threading

There are plenty of CPU heavy apps/games that will not do well with Ryzen

File: 1487985590171.jpg (71KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 512x512px

>Ryzen CPU that has worse performance in games and the apps I use the most

Ok.

>Ryzen gets like 4 or 3 fps less in games using less than 4 cores than the 7700k
>ryzen gets 15+fps in games that use more cores than cpus better than the 7700k.

So now that you sum this facts what will come from them you fucking retard?

Exactly, you get almost non-existent worse performance in older games and much better peformance in new games.

>>59169517
MUH VIDYA

fuck off to /v/ please

They fucked up with not going 4core + 4hyperthreaded threads like intel. They would give a "7700K" from AMD to the people of /g/ for like $200. Everyone would be happy and Intel would be hurt/get to its senses too.

>>59169633
>much better peformance in new games

Source? I have yet to see a single game where Ryzen beats a 7700k

>>59169517
It's interesting, the only cpu the intel shills will show is the 7700k, and that's only because its leading in single thread performance. It's like they pretend the rest of intels lineup doesn't exist. the r7 lineup is supposed to go up against cpus like the 6800, 6850, 6900 etc.

>>59169386
should slow down dh key generation, bitcoin mining, etc

not going to affect hashing/etc AFAIK

not really going to reduce its value as an x86 chip

>>59169649
Battlefield 1

if you're getting a 7700k, you probably care more about multi-threaded performance rather than single threaded
why else would you get hyper threading?????????????
therefore 7700k is obsolete and useless

>>59169660
Post the benchmark

File: born-to-jew[1].jpg (11KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x200px

>>59169178
QUICK, somebody dig up SuperPI from the grave!

>>59169491
>>59169506
*shoves you out the way*

>>59169657
You don't get it, the 7700k is better than all of those, especially when you look at the price

If Ryzen can't beat a 7700k in apps used by an average user, then it is shit.

File: Screenshot_20170225_131912.png (114KB, 895x852px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 895x852px

>>59169649
Because there's no actual gaming tests out yet, wait for the 3rd.

As for 'muh gams only 4 cor...'
Observe a older architecture with more cores at a 30% clock deficit beat the highly clocked 4 core.

>>59169574
You might be retarded m8

Fuck AMD for not giving us ryzen with 8cores/8threads

>>59169205
Why do people call it Currytech when it's mostly staffed by Arabs?

File: 1488091177381.png (331KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 500x375px

>>59169693

>>59169679
If i post it you will say they are touched up by AMD, you know what i would post. Truth is its a fact the more cores the app uses the better Ryzen will be and worse 7700k. Remeber when people who bought a 970 said 3.5 will be enough? Now they get in Resident evil 7 10fps while a 960 4GB gets like 20-30 on 2k high details

File: amd-graph.jpg (45KB, 960x616px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 960x616px

>>59169517
just because its not number one in games doesn't mean much. It's good enough to be within a few fps and the money you save can be put towards a better gpu, if you care so much about MUH GAYMEZ.

>>59169607
Can't be done on a 7700k either, your point?

>muh gams use many physics

>>59169506
>>59169684
Aren't APUs only AMD's version for laptops? I didn't know they get on overlock motherboards as well. If that's the case why don't you use those?
If they are low cache or something though they can't apply.

File: 1416502245270.jpg (170KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x720px

>Phones have quadcores
>Game consoles have octacores
>Intel shills still arguing you only need 4 cores in a high end desktop PC

>>59169450
the 7700K's single thread advantage will be extremely limited, even in vidya

try to think of as many games as you can that meet the following criteria
>uses 4 cores or less
>isn't limited by GPUs available on the market now
>doesn't get hundreds of frames per second on mid end hardware

shit like DayZ and ultra-modded Skyrim come to mind but overall Ryzen wins, hard. and it can stream/multitask/etc better too.

>>59169693
the average user doesn't require shit
you argument?

>>59169543
This!!! I went and bought two 7700Ks today and they will go in the high powered gaming computer for me and my wife's son.

>>59169715
Go ahead and post it, I have never even seen that such a benchmark exists.

AMD is scared to benchmark Ryzen against a 7700k because they know it loses

>>59169727
>Aren't APUs only AMD's version for laptops?
Have you been living under a rock since 2011?

File: w3_proz.png (86KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 523x440px

>>59169649
Watch Dogs 2 scales well beyond eight threads. A lower-clocked Haswell-based 5960X beats a Skylake i7, so Ryzen will smoke the 7700K in that game as well.

>>59169450
Why bother spending 300+ bucks then if you could get ryzen r3 for cheap as dirt????

>>59169720
You realize the 7700k is almost exactly the same price as a 1700?

You aren't saving any money.

Also that benchmark is hilarious, they are comparing it to a 6800k

Funny how AMD never wants to benchmark it against a 7700k, really makes you think

>>59169517
>lowest ryzen
>only 65W
>only 3 FPS less than overclocked intel
lmao

>inb4, muh max/min
You better come back with standard deviation or more detailed distribution data or you can fuck off.

>>59169747
I had to buy a new CPU when the haswells were reigning so I didn't pay attention. But aren't they low-end in general?
I never see anyone talking about them for an overclockable PC.

>>59169744
Shit, my bad, it was against a 6900k. But isn't that stronger than a 7700 anyway?

File: 56y56756.jpg (67KB, 699x463px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 699x463px

>>59169737

>>59169733
>the 7700K's single thread advantage will be extremely limited, even in vidya

Really? Doesn't look very limited here >>59169517

>>59169733
Post a game benchmark ryzen wins

>the hardcore fanboying in this thread, for either side

Competition is healthy for the industry, fuccbois. It's the only reason AMD has been able to produce something like Ryzen, and Ryzen's existence will force Intel to try with their development.

The only thing I regret is having my motherboard fry out last September and not being able to find an 1155 board so I "upgraded" to an 1151.

File: gapestation.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>>59169766
Ryzen Series 7 is not geared towards those who only game, nor are Intel's 6-8 cores.

Why not get a i5 if 4 cores is all you need? You're basically arguing for 4 extra logical threads instead of 8 cores.
If your shit game is using those logical threads on a 7700k it's gonna use those 8 cores on ryzen as well, so pray tell me why aren't you getting a i5 without HT and you're shilling a 7700k?

>>59169789
>he doesn't know that ryzen 1700 has only 65w tdp
kys and compare 1600x instead

File: 1488284071317.jpg (106KB, 532x664px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 532x664px

>>59169789
>Avg of stock ryzen within margin of error of overclocked 7700k

>>59169799
>Competition is healthy for the industry
Agreed which I believe AMD fucks up by not giving the people something like 7700K. It's simply still a sweet spot for most regular power users. Games and other interactive application simply can't be parallelized that easily, whatever the whishful thinking.
It's not a matter of time, it's just inherently a mathematical puzzle.

>>59169799
>le I have haswell and are arguing for Ryzen face

>>59169585
Lol show me the real draw at the plug on similiar amd/intel systems and I gauruntee you won't see these magical power nums

File: ishygddt.jpg (23KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x600px

>>59169737
>Couldn't even wait for the price drops

>>59169720
>7700k is about 350
>1700X is about 400
>somehow 1700X saves you money

>>59169826
This.

I want AMD to make a processor that isn't just good at video encoding.

>>59169789
>>"Limited"

>>tries to disprove with a sample size of one.

>>59169826
I like how you skip people showing you proof of games using more cores.
>>59169762
>>59169697

Is this the best Tel Aviv can do?

File: moonman.jpg (7KB, 326x326px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 326x326px

>>59169846
>4-Core
>8-Core
It's not that hard of a concept.

>>59169826
>>59169850
IT LITERALLY GETS LIKE 5 FPS LESS THAN A 7700K

Its fucking nothing. And its better in everything else

>>59169720
>>59169846
compare 1600x and its cheaper than 7700k

>>59169850
My theory was that they can't, that their cores are extremely slow. But these 8cores don't look that bad. So they do seem competitive if they were 4core + 4ht with higher clocks.
Then again they still don't have their own foundries like Intel so there is a chance they are forced to pull tricks like this.

>>59169886
>double the cores
>can only win in (some) benchmarks
>gets btfo in gaymen

>>59169712
Because American basement autists don't have a clue about the world outside.

>any year
>using passmark
end yourself

>>59169898
>that their cores are extremely slow
>Faster than 90%+ of current popular cpus

>>59169693
(You)

>>59169887
The 7700K is slightly preoverclocked. There is a chance those AMD chips can be overclocked on games that only use 2-3 cores max and be still stable. Kinda sketchy but one might be able to overclock them to a point that they are unstable on full 8-core mode but stable on 2-3-core mode.

Reminder that someone would actually pay more for 7% more single threaded performance in SYNTHETIC TESTS (making it even lower in games) and lose some 80% performance in MT ones just to push some kike agenda.

>b-but games dun use more than 4 cores
>then proceeds to shill a 8 thread processor as if there's actual a difference to the OS scheduler between 4 cores/4 logical cores and 8 physical cores

Kikes please, your only argument is muh SuperPi runs 3% faster

>>59169826
He hasn't heard of R5

>>59169919
>>59169697
games like more cores
future games will like more cores even better
Have fun trying to upgrade that 7700k to an 8 core... oh wait. Intel already abandoned the socket.

>>59169733
Literally only GTA V, that's why it's the only thing they post.

>>59169898
but they're not, Ryzen IPC is on par with Broadwell-E

>>59169945
i think they already did that

>>59169950
like nearly next year though right?

>>59169892
7700k btfos 6800k in anything that does not uses 12 cores.
The 6800k is about equal to 1700X.
What do you think it will happen when you pit 7700k against a 1600X?

>>59169451
I'm more surprised where the 6900k is, did something break?

>>59169953
And Kabylake is 15% faster than Skylake, which is as much fater than Broadwell.

AMD is literally doing what they did again 2011, more weak cores againt weak Intel cores and everyone knows this

>>59169965
You know you buy a cpu for future shit too not only apps from the past you fucking single-core fetishist

>>59169977
>over 50% IPC improvement over last gen
>same as they did with faildozer
not really.

>>59169959
Q2 you fucking retard

I like how suddenly no babylakefags want to talk about overclocking because they can only argue against a 1700 that's running at a 3.0 base clock.

>>59169977
Kaby Lake *is* Skylake, only with minor hardware bugs fixed. It has the same IPC.
On the CPU side all they did was push clocks higher.
Skylake/Kaby Lake is on average only 2.7% faster than Broadwell.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9

Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge: Average ~5.8% Up
Ivy Bridge to Haswell: Average ~11.2% Up
Haswell to Broadwell: Average ~3.3% Up
Broadwell to Skylake (DDR3): Average ~2.4% Up
Broadwell to Skylake (DDR4): Average ~2.7% Up

>>59169919
>half the cores
>can only win in (some) benchmarks
>gets btfo in modern gaymen and professional work
Your point?

>>59169951
Few games uses more than 4 cores.
And don't start "muh futureproof" because most likely you will either upgrade in 3 to 4 years or you will stop caring about gaymen.
Getting anything with more than 8 cores because "games will soon use all of them" is retarded.

>>59169693
You stopped writing 99% but we still know it's you. Go away.

>>59169989
lol Why not just disable all but one core and use that on a daily basis
retards

File: 6 years.png (129KB, 1199x542px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1199x542px

>>59169977
>This is what Intel considers progress

File: fullretard.jpg (124KB, 450x373px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 450x373px

>>59169977
>kaby is faster than skylake
>just some low clock optimization and other new features
>zero IPC improvement

>>59170000
AMD makes it confusing though by shilling for 99-core chips first that can't overclock well. IMO they should give 4-core+4thead chips first to the power users. That's where it will hurt Intel too because people would easily overclock them and compete with 7700K.

>>59170032
proof is here >>59169697
. keep trying to ignore it

>>59169977
>Kaby Lake
>15% faster than Skylake
In Intel™ Approved™ Benchmarks™ only? lmao

>>59170049
Intel sells higher core parts you triple nigger and you fucking gaymer babies aren't fucking power users, you're bloody children.

>you now realize it's caled RYZEN because it's a play ona "RISEN" meaning that AMD has risen from their knees

HOLY FUCK SHIT, SMART

>>59170038
>30% over 6 years
they should have done that in two years

>>59170032
>or you will stop caring about gaymen
Then why should I buy the CPU that only works better for /some/ gaymen?

>>59169789
>1 video game
>4 frames per second
>literally a best case scenario for Intel

yeah, KBL is fucked.

>>59170049
>4 core
>power user
Don't flatter yourself you underage cancerbag, I had a q6600 when it came out and I still had use for it.

>>59170059
>handful of games uses more than 4 cores
>soon everything will use more than 4 cores
Just like everyone uses DX12 and Vulkan, right?

>>59170086
Your anger shows your inner defeat. It's not stupidity to know what kind of performance you need. Most people both in gaming and the Enterprise Desktop do not need to run x265 encoding 24/7, they actually need 2-3 strong cores only.

File: no_mans_mindblow.gif (2MB, 544x291px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 544x291px

>>59170032
stop perpetuating this bullshit meme, it's not 2007 any longer you fucking retard

literally every fucking AAA game in the last 4 years use more than 4 cores, only small publishers/devs and indiedevs use few cores

>>59170091
>Zen
>Ryzen
>Risen Zen
>Zen Phoenix

>>59170112
Just like GPU use more than 4GB right? Oh wait, they do

>>59170108
You anger and hate shows your inner defeat. Both gamers and Enterprise Desktop users need 2-3 strong cores 99% of the time. It's only a minority of power users that need a pc to encode HEVC 24/7.

>>59170091
>kaybe lake is actually called kaybe lake because when you see it you go " 'kay, dump this trash in the LAKE"

>>59170128
>memory usage and CPU cores usage is the same thing

k

>>59170112
>close singlethreaded performance and insanly better multithreaded perf at lower price is bad because i won't use it fully yet

Hey hey, why are you talking about a 7700k? It has 8 threads you know, 8 threads, don't games use only 4? You should be arguing for the much cheaper i5.

Isn't this hypocritical? Are you intelfags that bind?

File: mic_drop_out.gif (778KB, 357x281px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 357x281px

>>59170128

>>59170146
Last time I checked 7700k is still cheaper than 1700X.

File: Screenshot_20170225_131912.jpg (90KB, 895x852px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 895x852px

>>59170138
Lets pretend only games from 2013 and older exist.

>>59170155
4-core is not a sweet spot, the 4/8 paradigm is still the sweet spot. AMD fucks up by not giving that first to the people.
Those 8/16s don't overclock well and hurt their own cause.

>>59170032
Then why aren't you using an i5?

>>59170112
it's OK anon.

if you only ever play video games on your PC, and are shooting for the highest FPS possible, get the 7700K. it's a niche product for people who treat their PCs like console. you don't have to justify buying it to us.

>>59170155
if you're getting a 7700k, you probably care more about multi-threaded performance rather than single threaded
why else would you get hyper threading?????????????
therefore 7700k is obsolete and useless

>>59170145
>missing the point this hard
holy shit you're retarded

a couple years ago people said games only need X vram, now most games can and do use more.

people still claim you dont need more cores even tho they've been able to use more for years

>>59169733

literally any source game including the #3 most played game in the world right now

>>59170170
That's because it's much weaker in multithreaded workloads.

>>59170183
Oh, so 8 logical cores is a sweet spot? Neat, so you admit 8 cores is the sweet spot? Brilliant, 1700X it is.

>>59170183
>Literally 5+Ghz
>Dont OC well

This thread

>>59170183
>I don't know how yields work
Spotted the spoiled /v/ kid

>>59170174
That practically proves the 7700K is the best solution.
Also the ones above it have 20Megabytes of cache.
It has only 8.

>>59169974
Now do fallout 4

>>59170138
you're so fucking clueless.

literally every fucking game made in the last 4 years can use more than 4 cores with noticable impact

Welp AMD has gone moar corarz yet again.
Have people started saying it will age like fine wine yet?

>>59170210
It's a slower solution, cache is part of design.
What the 7700k has is much higher clockspeed and that proves useless against more cores in gaming.

Glad we cleared that.
Get a i5

>>59170204
On liquid nitrogen

>>59170204

>liquid nitrogen

>>59170195
the only source game that's not super trivial for modern hardware is DotA 2. a Vulkan game.

>>59170219
>says the shill, while using a CPU with 8 logical cores
The irony

>>59170210
uhu, and there's no ryzen in there. guess where it would land

>>59170219
>Implying its not true
My x6 1090t is still going strong after 6 years

File: file.png (299KB, 895x852px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 895x852px

>>59170218
See what this AMD user posted above (reposted here). The 7700K is still an extremely good sweet spot. It's very marginally below $1,000 chips.
It's not even on an equal grounds.
It has only 8M cache vs 20.

>>59170238
>>59170237
So heat is the issue? Good, it's not FO4 depth, meaning I can overclock it nicely with water unless I get a shitty batch (i'll just return it since my lovely laws allow me to return anything undamaged in under 2 weeks, even used)

>>59170243

>what is CS:GO?

>>59170219
bulldozer had moar coarz, but each individual core was utterly terrible.

zen has no glaring weakness. it's slightly behind in some aspects, ridiculously ahead in others. all in all a better CPU. deal with it.

>>59170092
Those types of performance uplifts only happened in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Back when engineers were still figuring things out, everything was new, and there was plenty of easy performance to be had. Big generational performance leaps aren't going to happen. For Von Neumann architectures we understand 99% of what it takes to extrapolate the most possible performance per cycle. Everyone is struggling to find ways for that last 1%, and its a lot of man hours invested.

By Anandtech's numbers, tt equal clocks Skylake is 25.3% faster than Sandy Bridge on average, this is including the Dolphin bench which gratuitously makes use of AVX advancements.

>>59170252
and there's still no ryzen in that comparison, and AMD's options are on par with Intel for cheaper.

>>59170252
>AMD gets 5 fps less
>>LMAO ITS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT XDXDXD

>Intel gets 5 fps less
>>IT'S MARGINALLY BELOW GOYS

Kill yourself.

>>59170252
Man it's a good thing AMD is releasing that $1000 performance for $320 huh?

Imagine what happens when those 8 cores are running at 4.0 :P

>>59170262
CS:GO gets over 200 fps on my 8350

the fuck should I care about 20 more or less (assuming Kaby Lake even wins there, which it probably won't) when every modern game runs better on Ryzen

>>59170261

Nope.

You're not getting over 5Ghz on water you delusional chump. Enjoy wasting money.

>>59169737
>me and my wife's son.
your wife's son? meaning that it isn't your son .
Exactly how much of a cuck are you anon

>>59170231
>cache is part of design.
Let me interject here and say that is not fair. They give 20Megabytes of cache to the -E products then only 8M on the desktop products. That's 4M fewer for per core count (it would have 16M if it was only double) + if a core is not used the rest can still use the cache it didn't use.

>>59170292
a fucking toaster can run that game please never use it for any comparison again

>>59170292

>200 fps is acceptable

wow its like you're not even global

>>59170289
>AMD gets 5 fps less
>LMAO ITS FINISHED

>Intel gets 5 fps less
>doesn't matter, at the top is still an Intel CPU

gg no re

>>59169765
I had to buy 7600k as there are NOT any R3s on the market.

>>59170293
>some arbitrary clock target for some reason is presented to me
Lel, even Intel's 8 cores barely go over 4.4-4.5, I'm not expecting a similar pipeline design to go higher, that's still a good 30% over the 1700X's stock which is more than enough.

>>59170299
hownu.ru

>>59170319
q2

>>59170311
>Intel is at the top in a ranking that doesn't include Ryzen
Wew, congratulations.

>/g/ lives in some magical world where games are multi-threaded

I don't know if you guys are shills or just delusional.

>>59170343
do you actually live in 2008?
honest question

>>59170305
It's fair because it's part of the CPU, everyone does cache differently, some are made for performance some for density, what's not fair is the newer architecture on Kabylake and it still losing, proving that slight IPC increases, higher clockspeed still isn't enough to beat a higher core count.
Now go ask Intel to make a 20MB Kabylake 4 core.

>>59170293
reasonable range for ryzen OC on air seems to be 4.2GHz all cores, 4.4+ is silicon lottery tier. it just happens to get disproportionally good results on LN2.

but this is all speculation based on leaks and tweets.

>>59170307
that was my point you dumb piece of shit

>>59170343
AMD fans live in 2020

Intel fans live in 2011

honestly the former is better

>>59170343
This guy lives in a world where devs will never have a chance to use more than 8 threads.
Maybe he lives in a world where one doesn't open one of every program he owns just to switch between them on the fly. Haha, maybe he has 2GB of ram and doesn't know what multitasking is.

>>59170343
Are you legit mentally challenged

>>59170324
>7700k can't overclock
Dumb shill

>>59170378
>multitasking
THIS. Intel shills act like they only run one process at a time. Must be bad to have to close everything in order to do gaymen.

>>59170343
then why does an i7 have far higher minimum FPS in both GTA5 and BF1?

>>59170377
why are you using a toaster game for any comparison when we're talking about multi-threaded games, you dumb fucking nigger

>>59170377
>AMD fans live in 2020
>Intel fans live in 2011
>honestly the former is better
The real delusion is that you think 9 years matter at this. It doesn't matter almost at all. You will NEVER manage to make games 100% multithreaded, it's how interactive application must work and they will always work.
Sure you can make advances, depended on game genre of course, but you will NEVER be able to make a game 100% parallelized.
NEVER.

>>59170390
Can it overclock 30% higher than its stock like the 1700 and 1700X? Maybe with disabled cores it might, lol.


Also why are you talking about a 8 thread CPU if your games only use 4 cores? What's up with that? Isn't a i5 better and cheaper? You're literally paying 40% extra for no performance.

>>59170311

If you're the competitor getting ready to ship a brand new highly-hyped product 6 months after the market leader released their most recent offering, it better blow the competitor out of the fucking water.

Ryzen isn't doing that, its competing with a 6 month old cpu in SOME areas, and failing in others. Not only that, but its the absolute best AMD can do right now, whereas we have absolutely no idea what Intel can achieve in a competitive market.

Ryzen is a disappointment. AMD will struggle on, but its still not giving us anything worth paying for.

File: 99123123.jpg (28KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 613x533px

>>59170390
>Intel's 8 cores barely go over 4.4-4.5
>"7700K can't overclock"
>"Dumb shill"
>8 Cores
>7700K
Tell me you're not joking.

>>59170429
It will still benefit from more cores you fuckinf pinhead

>>59170186
So I assume you are video encoding all day long?

File: 1446876157159.jpg (7KB, 247x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 247x250px

>>59169732
How the fuck can all these dweebs on /g/ like you spend 16 hours a day on computers and still manage to know absolutely fucking nothing about how computers work or software is designed?

stop acting like children from highschool that have a "favorite company" dipshits.

>>59170361
>>59170377
>>59170378
>>59170384
>>59170425

>/g/ cannot give me any examples of multi-threaded games and resorts to rhetoric to try to justify their delusional usage scenarios

You guys are funny. Nobody multitasks games. Devs are lazy and write single threaded applications. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourselves of something that doesn't exist?

File: Screenshot_20170228_225508.png (303KB, 892x847px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 892x847px

>>59170452
Maybe he likes playing games as well as do some workstation work? He literally has the best tool for both.

>>59170343
I think 7600k + RX 480 is the best possible combo value wise atm

>>59170459
It's not about brand.
It's about how Ryzen is kind of dissapoiting untill now.

>>59170493
No, it's a Pentium and a 1060

File: wat.webm (294KB, 406x300px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 406x300px

>>59170480
i just gave you examples...

@59170480
starcraft 2
battlefield
rts games
all direct x 12 games
all vulkan games

please off yourself now

>>59170420
I routinely do photo editing / video editing on my laptop. the processor is a quite snappy i7-4810MQ which means it gets the job done, but for those gaming guys out there that only got 8GB of ram good luck opening multiple high res images in photoshop, couple of sets in Indesign / Fireworks and possibly an instance of media encoder in the background while editing another project in Premire Pro. Not often, but 24GB of ram in a laptop will get shit done quick whether or not others like it. Did I mention I like to play borderlands / GTA V and leave it in the background while I get work done for clients?

>>59170480
And I don't see you posting anything else than GTA V.

>>59170480
>nobody multitasks games
thanks for confirming you're fucking retarded and dont know what multitasking means

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5ONXgQrdqc

>>59170425
minimum FPS is a bad figure. could be completely unnoticeable in real life. could be completely fucking random if the reviewer doesn't exercise proper scientific rigor.

top/bottom 1% is more accurate. that will really indicate whether or not the hardware dips/stutters/etc.

>>59170429
how is this an argument in favor of Intel? you're not going to get 100% load on all cores regardless of whether you have 4 or 8.

the argument for more logical CPUs is pretty simple. one individual thread is not going to block another if the kernel can schedule both of them in completely separate registers.

>>59170425
I have literally been making this exact fucking point for 10 comments in a row you subhuman illiterate piece of /v/ trash

read the fucking comment chain or shut the fuck up and kill yourself

>>59170514
That's like what? 20 games?
wew quite a library I see

>>59170459

Its not about favourite company, its about wanting more competitive hardware so we can achieve more with our systems.

People are desperate for AMD to produce something better than Intel's current offerings because Intel have been jewing us out of performance increases for half a decade due to the lack of competition.

Sucks that Ryzen doesn't seem to provide any performance increases where it matters to most consumers, its bad for everyone.

>>59170515
t. shill

>>59170543
>minimum FPS is a bad figure
no, it means you will be able to run on a higher graphics setting with smoother gameplay since there will be less FPS drops.

>this entire thread

>look at how retarded I am
fuck off
>I was only pretending to be retarded

>>59170548
yeah and your "90% of all games only use 1-2 cores" includes every fucking game ever made and is not even a fucking argument while more and more games use more than 4 cores and has for several years

stop living in the past you fucking retard

>>59170539

Shame we've not been streaming games live for half a decade on a single machine, huh?

Hope you enjoy playing Dota 2 AND League of Legends -AT THE SAME TIME- with Ryzen though.

>>59170548
only the games that aren't cpu intensive are single threaded
most games in fact use gpu more

>>59170480
we've got a fuckton of games from multiple AAA devs who literally run as well on Vishera as they do on Skylake i5's.

you are stuck in your 2011 Skyrim bubble.

TEL AVIV I FORGOT THE 7700K HAS 8 THREADS BUT I ONLY NEED 4 THIS IS A PROBLEM

>>59170589
Nice damage control, Brian. Now fuck off.

>>59170565
it's a bad figure. I have made this extremely easy to understand.

anything you think minimum indicates, 1% minimum spread does better. that is fact. stop being a moron.

File: 1488319446[1].png (18KB, 440x466px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 440x466px

>>59170480
You said it yourself. Devs don't write multi threaded applications. What happened to multi tasking in things other than games? Do you just care about your games? Does your personal usage of your possibly extravagant gaming computer or normie wally world pre built determine how others use their systems? If the answer to the previous question was YES then please please learn how to do something other than what you're doing now. Obviously you're not getting anywhere fast if you don't have a ton of shit open at once.

MMMMHMMM look at that thread count.

>>59170587
He's not living in the past, he knows that games use more than 4 but he's trying to defend his purchase so badly because he doesn't have enough money to buy another new platform for several years.

Remember the "performance at all costs" ? Now when the 8 core is doing better in games than a 4 core, it's too expensive.

>>59170612

So, when you play two games at the same time, are you able to do it all from a single keyboard or do you use one hand on two controllers or something?

I'm gonna be honest here. The biggest cucks are not the Intel fans of the common desktop line or the AMD fans that don't go for the $500 scams. It's the Intel fans that go for those disgusting $1,000 chips for minuscule advantages or whoever is gonna give AMD $500 to get 99 cores for no reason.

>>59170640
Yes-yes, Brian, we will buy Intel™ CPUs. Now fuck off.

File: Screenshot_20170228_230558.png (303KB, 893x848px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 893x848px

Friendly reminder that games do indeed use more than 4 cores and that number will just continue to grow.

File: 1486309956370.png (429KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 399x614px

>>59170589
>only kind of multitasking example i can imagine is two games at a time
https://youtu.be/3rUndzpdo1I?t=4m53s

>>59170633
i can be over 20 FPS increase in some games which is a significant improvement and lets you run at higher settings without any noticable fps drops and is far from 1% you dumb cunt

>>59170635
>muh multitasking
Literally the only thing Ryzen has going for it. Unfortunately most users don't give a shit about streaming/editing/whatnot and just want a CPU that won't bottleneck their GTX 1080.

>>59170654
please don't use my name I am a paranoid person

Instead of arguing how about we just wait 2 more days and we will see what is what?

>>59169178

10/10 trolling going on ITT. People taking the bait way too hard.

>here are intel shill arguing for fewer cores when you could easily get r3 for a fraction of the price for a good 4 core
as opposed to the overpriced intel

>>59170635

Games are all that matters for 99% of users.

I'm glad you can buy Ryzen and feel like you're doing something useful with your life whilst you encode movies with Handbrake for your private tracker epeen and play minecraft at the same time. Most people don't care because they have lives xD

>>59170679
Of course you are, investors will hang you when they learn how much did you fuck up.

>>59170674
>same performance as i7 7700k for less
>DURR MULTIDASGIN IS ONLU FING RISEN HAS xDDDDDDD

>>59170673
you are incapable of grasping simple concepts

just buy a fucking xbox

>>59170689
99% of people that play games has more of a life than some shitposter on this site (you)

File: 7700k vs 1700x.jpg (73KB, 974x879px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 974x879px

>>59170693
>>same performance as i7 7700k
But that's wrong you fucking imbecile.

>>59170654

I want you to tell me how you play two games at the same time first.

Is it like pair programming, where you have one guy tell you what's going on on the Dota2 screen and strategise that for you whilst your attention is directed on LoL?

>>59170686
lol

>>59170693
but ryzen costs more

>>59170689
pack it up guys it's just an epic trole after all

>>59170707
Yes, Brian, i will buy Intel CPU, now fuck off.

>>59170672
These games are all pure shit and not a good sample size

>>59170672
I love that reminder. It shows the 7700K being still the sweet spot since it only marginally worse than $1,000 chips. It doesn't even compete on an equal ground since the chips above it have 20MB cache and it only has 8.

File: when-someone-think-they-have-an-argument-but-its-not.png (118KB, 496x534px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 496x534px

>>59170706
>one leaked benchmark of non-release chip

>>59170689
>>59170703
he isn't wrong, I do have private trackers and I used to play a ton of minecraft but now I do things for friends and run multiple websites. Outside of a crappy day job I like the feeling of making stuff happen and the only one that can make that happen for me is myself. I still don't go outside except for work. It's a cruel world out there.

>>59170706
>turbo disabled

>>59170706
>>59170725
boost disabled on the 1700X, too

can you smell the desperation?

>>59170721
Yes, we should only play ARMA3.

>>59170693
>>59170709
the whole point is that you're getting an i7 for hyperthread and you would appreciate the added multi-core perforance

>>59170693
>le ebin single core performance

>>59170693

>he's going to pay more for a CPU that does less for him whilst pretending it cost him less just so he can pretend he's a useful person doing "multitasking"
>at least I supported AMD r-r-right /g/?

File: Screenshot_20170228_231113.png (73KB, 1213x944px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1213x944px

>>59170706
>3.4 turbo
Neat, any more funny jokes?
I got a funny one here myself, I wonder if you'll like it.

>>59170706
>Turbo disabled
>Not the 1800X

Please eat a bullet.

>>59170725
>only believe in benchmarks sponsored by AMD themselves
an't wait for actual benchmarks to come out and show how much of a flop Ryzen really is. Hopefully then AMD will finally go bankrupt so we don't have to deal with their fanboys anymore.

Oh hey, it's another lowIQ thread.

Fun fact, which you will read on 2nd March.

The 1700X won't be the 4C/8C Kaby Lakes at almost all games and lacks behind.
It is somewhat faster in multithread demanding software, what surprise.

However, the Ryzen with those 8 cores demand much more power, another big surprise.

And here another big surprise.
The OC is very bad with 8 cores.

And don't come with LN2 shit.
We are talking about average feasible OC for the average enthusiast.

Surprise motherfucker (2nd March)

File: how-can-intel-compete.png (110KB, 1264x1365px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1264x1365px

>>59170744

>>59169789
You're clueless or a shill

4% difference in singlethreaded applications, the min/max are meaningless - they're outliers. (This is why you do lowest 1% and 0.1% AVERAGE instead)

Lower tdp, at stock speed vs overclocked 7700k

All the intel shills keep posting this image and it actually puts AMD in a good light. You idiots need to update your shill spreadsheets or something.

>>59170724
>this chip is differently designed so it doesn’t count!

Absolutely delicious.

>>59170757
>However, the Ryzen with those 8 cores demand much more power, another big surprise.
>he doesn't know

>>59170719

Do you maybe have specially adapted chording keyboards that allow you to control both at the same time?

>>59170729
that means you have a life, like i said

>>59170736
good point

>>59170743
im still waiting for mid-end SKUs

>>59170754
i rather believe those demos that people had unsupervised access to at the release event than some fucking non-boost leaked screenshot

>>59170731
>>59170736
>>59170744
>b-but muh turbo
Yeah, I'm sure that 5% increase in single-thread performance would make such a difference.

>>59170774
Have you heard of ALT+TAB yet?

>>59170744
>ln2
>relevant

>>59170716

>I'm realising my delusions are delusions so I better call him a troll because its getting too real
>I'm going to be a bitcoin millionaire :D

seriously stop using my name I'm not a shill I'm posting impartial things itt.

>>59170774
No, Brian, no one is going to buy Intel-Aviv CPUs.

ITT:
>games don't even use more than 4 cores u fucken faggit
>six different posts link to a set of benchmarks showing Broadwell-E performing better than a 7700k in games
>those games are shit you fucken autist why would you ever play them 99% of people only play games that run well on a 7700k
>fuck ryzen 3 and 5 AMD is fucking retarded for not giving me them for free RIGHT NOW so they don't count anymore u fucken newfag idiot

I mean, I know some of you are trolling, but you must understand that when you act this retarded this consistently, you're convincing retards to believe it and do stuff like use cpuboss benchmarks to decide which processor is better

>>59170764

It's a troll m8

>>59170757
>spends 30 minutes researching this and bases all his knowledge of 4 year old memes
and this guy

get this

this guy legitimately thinks he's smart

>>59170798
Brian isn't even a jewish name fucktard

>everyone arguing about 7700k vs 1700X/1800X
>I can't wait for 1600/1600X to be launched

File: 1488297034642.png (33KB, 218x210px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 218x210px

>>59170799
this

pic related all the intel shills right now

File: 1488059530739.jpg (217KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x1000px

>>59170773
Whatever makes you sleep at night, AMDrone.

>>59170785
how many more numbers can your ass hold?

>>59170826
At least post relevant pic.

>>59170790
Nah, just somewhere around 4.4 to 4.6ghz, and it's not even a 1800x

We already know that the 1800X can OC on a Noctua aircooler over the 7700k's ST performance from donanimhaber.

>>59170799
>but you must understand that when you act this retarded this consistently, you're convincing retards to believe it and do stuff like use cpuboss benchmarks to decide which processor is better
they understand this

they do it on purpose

it's their job

>Intel has no competition for several years
>Focuses on energy savings over IPC
>Competition on IPC arrives
>Drop prices by $50 across the board
>6 months later
>new batch of CPUs launched
>completely stomps amd
>Wow nothing happened
gg amd

Thanks for the price drops though.

>>59170799
>cherrypicked games without a source

You're not fooling anyone AMDpoor

>>59170799
Why are they so annoying?
What is their intent?

>>59170390
>7700k is an 8 core
Dumb shill

>>59170032
Any games that aren't multithreaded are half a decade old at this point. All new games are getting multithreaded - especially all major releases, and the new API's benefit even more from multithreading. So you know what you get with that 3% higher singlethreaded performance? Maybe 1.5% faster in games where you're already getting 200fps because it released literally a decade ago.

Meanwhile the ryzen chips are getting 50% better multithreading performance and are going to be blowing the intel chips away in any game/program where the multithreading is well supported. So basically everything new where eking out another 10fps actually matters because it's 50 vs 60; I honestly don't give a fuck that I'm getting 195fps in CS:GO with ryzen instead of 200fps with shintel.

Goddamn shintel fags are retarded

>>59169282
>>59169306
I'm really curious why Intel's 6-10 core chips do so well on these. The 7700k gets wrecked even by the 1800x so its not just that its an APU chip speeding things up. Maybe some special instruction is getting sped up by intel and not ryzen?

https://youtu.be/9AVZ_x64hg4

>>59170854
>Focuses on energy savings over IPC
Zen is more efficient that bolted P6 core. My fucking sides.

File: 1488320192401.jpg (161KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 800x1000px

>>59170826

File: takingthebait.jpg (13KB, 299x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 299x300px

>>59170857

>>59169737
>only two

I actually just bought a 6950x for my workstation PC, im going to gift it to my wife's son since he starting to show interest in fields related to productivity. I also have 3 7700ks on order one for my gamin rig, one for my wife's son and my wifes best friend who hangs around here alot.

AMD fucks up, period, and I root for them. They should not promote those 16 thread CPUs first thing. They should first go to 4/8 or at most 6/12 promotions towards the desktop and entry-level power users with a generous amount of CPU cache (i.e. not shitty APUs). If they can manage to beat $400 Intel products with a $300-350 product early on *THAT'S* when they can fuck up Intel in the popular culture of the desktop which matters in /g/ and almost everywhere.

>>59170877
It's nice being rich ain't it.

>>59170826
this would have been true 5 years ago

>>59170892
>i think modern games only use 2 cores
(you)

>>59170854
>>new batch of CPUs launched
Skylake v3 on 10nm? Oh man I wonder how AMD can survive this.

>>59170799
>>six different posts link to a set of benchmarks showing Broadwell-E performing better than a 7700k in games
Yeah, a few games among dozens of AAA titles. Literally fucking nothing.

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

28KB, 550x550px

>>59170875
Nah, its time for our good old friend LONGER PIPELINE.

I spent years waiting for AMD to finally stop fucking around putting more and more useless cores into consumer desktop CPUs and focus on single core performance.

>ANNOUNCING AMD ZEN - MASSIVE SINGLE CORE PERFORMANCE INCREASES

My body was ready. Finally we were going to beat Intel and give the market something worth purchasing.

I eagerly awaited the announcement, knowing that we'd finally be on top. I saw the thread hit /g/ and opened in with baited breath.

>MOAAAAAR COOOOOREEES :A:A:A:A::A:A:
更多CORES AMD EXTRA HAPPY超级MULTITASK超级细节是超级快乐 CORES CORES CORES YES
CPU核心超级
CPU核心超级
CPU核心超级
我的CEO是一个女人

No... no.... not again.

>>59170922
Cannonlake will save us! MOAR MEGAHURTZ!

>>59170854
here's the problem with that idea:

higher IPC === energy savings

if you can do more in the same number of cycles, you need fewer overall cycles to do the same workload. If you need fewer cycles, you need less amperage. If you use less amperage, you use less power.

You can increase efficiency elsewhere on the processor through better transistor layout, a better process, better gate design, etc. but it's a myth that Intel stopped pushing IPC by choice. They didn't. They've been improving and iterating on the same base architecture since Pentium 3 and have likely reached or come close to the theoretical IPC limits of that architecture.

>>59170939
New arch will save them! MAKE LONGER PIPELINE.

>>59170907
Imagine a line-up where the i3 is a quad core i5 is quad + HP and i7 is hexa with HP. And just to be sure throw in a i7X with 8c/16t.
On top of that a 15% increase in single thread performance.

File: 1446730773647.png (181KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 600x600px

>>59170937
4 core version in Q2, nigger

File: 1e97c7af44[1].png (35KB, 607x571px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 607x571px

>>59169648
>AMD fucked up with not going 4core + 4hyperthreaded

w-what?

>>59170939
>MOAR MEGAHURTZ!

Lel

>introducing 8800k
>4.6 base, 4.7 boost, 120W TDP, already overclocked out of the box so you don't have to!

Tell me about "modern games" anon. I'm ABSOLUUTELY sure multi-threaded games exist and you're not delusional or making it up in order to shill for 16 cores.

>>59170922
At least the heating bill will go down.

>>59170949
Yeah, I'm imagining it. Let's just use our imaginations and pretend Intel has some secret sauce in the back room they've been waiting to bust out in case AMD gets their shit together. Pretending is fun!

>>59170949
>On top of that a 15% increase in single thread performance.
Oh God I'm literally choking here, 15% from a skylake dieshrink, this is one of the better jokes ITT

>>59170951
That $259 chip seems like *THE* sweet spot of AMD, unless it doesn't overclock at all, we'll see.

>>59170951
>a bunch of cheap low-end 4C processors with performance similar to that of a 3 year old broadwell i5

Good job ayymd.

>>59170994
keep sucking that jew cock, faggot

>>59170988
`I agree

>>59170988
yeeee boiiii
That's what I am on about
6c/12t that can OC better than the 8c/16t

File: ibombditall.gif (2MB, 800x697px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x697px

>>59169732
>2017
>not having a decacore phone with more then 4GB of ram

>>59170994
Because Jewtel's 2 core 4 thread CPUs in the same price range are so much better amirite?

>>59171016
Except they are?

>>59170911
It's indicative of which direction PC gaming is going and will be in a few years. Both the consoles use 8-core APUs with Project Scorpio set to use a Ryzen based APU. Both DirectX12 and Vulkan put a focus on multithreading, and Vulkan is positioned to see huge mainstream use, since it allows game devs to develop for both consoles AND PC directly without having to port anything once they're done.

At this point, trying to make the case that games aren't transitioning away from quadcores is pure denial of reality, especially since we're already seeing the trend.

>>59170994
intel hasn't improved much since broadwell
it's basically the same cpu

I-i don't need 8 cores 4 cores are enough for game my 7700k with 8 logical cores is enough..


This thread is something else
>games don't need more than 4 cores!
>proceeds to shill for a 8 thread CPU like a idiot

I mean holy fuck are you guys sane? You say one thing and completely contradict yourself next paragraph.

>>59171023
>Fake cores are better than real cores

Fucking hell you shills aren't worth the shekels they're paying you.

>>59171023
What? Even cheapeast garbo i5 is better than any dualcore turd.

>>59170480
But sometimes when i game i have a browser open with like 20 tabs, itunes and teamspeak. What am i doing if gaming and having multiple other programs open at once is not multitasking?

>>59170937
the single core performance problem can be solved... by more cores... if you optimize

>>59171023
>Fake cores are better than real cores
are you unironically arguing for bulldozer??????

>>59170501
>>59170493
Its actually a 1600X and a Fury Nitro

>>59171035
Intelfags are rabid at this point, the buyers remorse is too powerful now.

>>59171023
lolno they choke like a hardcore porn acress deepthroating a big black cock

>>59171035
If you consider 7700k an 8 cores CPU you should also consider 1800X a 16 cores CPU.
So intel shills are saying 8 cores are enough for gaymen wgile AMD shills are saying 8 is not enough, you need 16.
I am not sure who is wrose.

>>59171035
>missing the fucking point
Even with 8 threads it still stomps anything Ryzen has to offer in terms of single-thread speed.

>>59171062
my old haswell is probably on par with their garbage lol

File: 1289330658631.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

>>59171023
>arguing for ultrabook CPUs


How can this get any better?