AMD IS IFNASIDFSAHRAST

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

38KB, 426x481px

Benched against a 7700k, CPU-z isn't all that great a benchmark but it's the first real benchmark of a overclocked chip.

My erection is going to last all day isn't it?

File: XOlnEGg.jpg (203KB, 1568x737px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1568x737px

>>59182009
1700 at stock, note the low voltage due to being a 65W part.

Looking at this, the 1700x and 1800x should need some 15-20% lower voltage to reach the same clocks, the 1700's voltage target is low.

>>59182003
IS
THIS
RUNNING
ON
THE
STOCK
COOLER?!

>>59182043
>Stock at 1.05v
>Presumably safe at 1.35v
That's...a lot of voltage headroom

>>59182071
Kabylake isn't a slouch either, people run it stable near 1.45-1.5v, its stock is 1.2v

>>59182086
1.5v? Kaby Lake is literally Skylake, and Skylake isn't 24/7 1.5v safe...is it?

>>59182071
Not surprised, AMD has experience with pushing house fire levels of current and 14nm drinks a lot of juice when OC'd.

>>59182111
It's skylake but with changes to the metal layer making it safer to soak up higher voltage.
Not something really seen in marketing or benchmark slides, it's a foundry/wafer issue.

File: nfihqt.png (116KB, 985x687px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 985x687px

>>59182066
This

AMD gave me a pretty based stock cooler with my A10 that I could crank all the way to 4.2GHz and temps stayed around 60C under furmark's cpu burner.

>>59182003
If this is running on a fucking stock cooler I don't know what to say.

>>59182111
The highest voltage I'd ever call "24/7 under load" safe is 1.25v, or 1.3v if not under load. 1.35v is pushing the limits of what anyone who is not an overclocker should use, maybe if you have a full water loop.

>>59182043

Not bad. The FPU test uses the AVX2 instructions. As we already know any test that uses AVX2 demands more processor power.

An example: my processor is a Xeon E3-1241 v3. If it runs with the voltage at 1.05v and I run some test that makes use of the AVX2, the voltage goes up to 1.10v.

>>59182066
The chink who ran the benchmarks also uploaded a few pictures of the stock cooler. It's likely he's using it.

>>59182134

Beat your meat like the rest of us.

Imagine just a wraith cooler slapped on instead.

I didn't hear anything about r3 and r5
are they going to be as good?

>>59182009
AMDfag here, CPU-z slightly favors AMD's cache design, a lot of stuff doesn't so it has higher IPC in this particular test.

There's probably other stuff that favors 512Kb L2 caches as well, we'll know soon enough.

>>59182009
So this would imply that Ryzen actually has an IPC lead versus Kaby Lake.

>>59182143
Those 5.1GHz kabylakes are tested in 6 hour stress tests, certainly not 24/7 over several days.

But that's fine, it's not a server part that should be running all the time, most people either supend or shut down after the day is over, I know I do.

>>59182143
1.25 max?, my 6700k stock is at 1.31

>>59182003
HOLY SHIT THIS IS SIMPLY TOO GOOD. INTEL IS REALLY DONE FOR. CAN'T WAIT FOR TOMMOROW.

>>59182196
see
>>59182191

In this particular test? Yes.
In cinnebench? No.

IPC is workload dependent.

>>59182196

No. Go back to the CanardPC tweet about Ryzens 512kb cache helping it look better on the CPU-Z bench because it's optimized for 256kb cache.

Real world results will be a little worse, but not much.

>>59182170
You mean Wraith Max. 1700 comes with a Wraith Spire.

>>59182196
We knew this months ago already. It has the same IPC, twice the cores, but much lower clocks. That's partially because 7700k was a clock bump of 6700k, which was a clock bump of whatever that came before it (Haswell? Broadwell? I forgot), etc etc etc way back to Sandy. Plus some extra AVX instructions here and there to give it that 5% IPC boost in certain applications.

>>59182214
>Those 5.1GHz kabylakes are tested in 6 hour stress tests
Wrong! Silicon lottery only test their bogus overclocks for 1 hour. That's right, only one hour and they sell chips as "stable". What a joke. They also use the most expensive motherboards and cooling available.

Who /planningafullAMDbuild/ here

>>59182276
Planning a 1700x with 480 because Vega looks like another Radeon meme.

>>59182276

Wega better fucking deliver.

But yes.

>>59182276
Gonna go with 1600X + Vega or 1070. If Vega doesn't come out before April, then 1070 it is.

>>59182276
Getting a 480 and a hexa core, I rarely play vidya games anymore and my 7850 can still handle most stuff I play so the 480 will serve me well for years.

File: 1470013157077.jpg (32KB, 470x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 470x400px

>>59182276
Just waiting for the intel price cut. No one really wants AMD. It's about the price cut.

>>59182390
Me too but not sure if 1600x is the sweet spot or 1700?
And not sure if I want Nvidia or and you yet it depends on Vega
Also Aren't nvidias graphics drivers going downhill?

>>59182276
Already using one with a 1090T and a 290X. I'll wait a few weeks before buying Ryzen so that the dust can settle on things like memory compatibility.

>>59182276
I just want a midrange HBM video card for my HTPC.

Tualatin is a meme. If AMD was a bit slower with its Athlon, it would be dead because Pentium 4 wouldn't be so shitty.

>>59182420
AMD* lel

>>59182419
cuck

File: sniper-elite-iii-.png (71KB, 650x365px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 650x365px

>1600x900

Oh you crazy Iranians.
On the other hand those crazy 7700k stock clocks seem to do absolute shit.

File: 1-o7CuH1Ub7TIa-xy3Kvw6Cw.png (35KB, 212x255px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 212x255px

Should I wait for a cheaper R5 1600x or buy the 1700?

Currently using an i5 4690

>>59182460
>same gaymen performance as a 7700k with 30% lower clocks
>twice the cores

And that game seems to not care for more than 4-5 cores, hence the scores being the same.

Neat.

>>59182474
Just get the 1700. I don't see the point in upgrading shit unless you get ~2X the performance increase.

How long will Intel keep the current Intel Core nomenclature? They're going to hit something like the i7 9900K or some shit soon and then what? Sticking with it and getting into the 1xxxx series seems dumb

>>59182498
Yeah thats why I'm worried. They say the 1700 doesn't overclock well (4 Ghz seems nice tho)

I may just buy the 1700x to avoid TDP limitation

>>59182498
I'm currently on an i3 6100 and a poorfag student, I'm waiting for R5

>>59182460
>>59182494
Also keep in mind that they were using 2133MHz RAM and the stock cooler.

>>59182532
>I may just buy the 1700x to avoid TDP limitation
What TDP limitation? The only benefit of the 1700X is more chance of a higher overclock but that's about it.

>>59182532
I wish they never announced the 1700. I'm a poorfag and I only have 650 euros to spend. I want 8 cores and 16 threads, but I can only afford the 1700 with a decent x370 motherboard. I'll end up fucking myself over if I buy it, I just know I will. The 1600x is probably going overclock to 4.5 or 4.6GHz which would be close to 8 cores 16 threads at 4GHz in performance.

>>59182276
Yes, but not in the near future, maybe a year from now.
I'm not going to play the early adopter game and beta test hardware before all the drivers have been ironed out and Linux support is mature.

>>59182604
What's stopping you from disabling 2 cpu cores and getting better OC'ing performance?

>>59182644
tdp is only 65w for 1700

>>59182654
This is uninformed, TDP itself has nothing to do with overclocking, voltage curve does.

>>59182644
This >>59182654 is not me. I know that tdp doesn't necessarily mean power consumption. The reason the 1700 has a 65w tdp is because it runs at 3GHz. As soon as you overclock it to 4GHz, it effectively becomes a 95w tdp CPU.
>What's stopping you from disabling 2 cpu cores and getting better OC'ing performance?
It's probably lower binned since it's non-x. We'll know everything tomorrow, though.

>>59182604
Just buy the MSI b350 Mortar board.

>>59182654
>"
Thethermal design power(TDP), sometimes calledthermal design point, is the maximum amount ofheatgenerated by a computer chip or component (often theCPUorGPU) that thecooling systemin a computer is designed todissipatein typical operation. Rather than specifying CPU's realpower dissipation, TDP serves as thenominal valuefor designing CPU cooling systems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

TDP has nothing to do with OC potential.

>>59182700
>It's probably lower binned since it's non-x. We'll know everything tomorrow, though.
Probably but running 6 cores at 4.4GHz is more likely than running 8 cores at 4.4GHz on the 1700 for example.

>>59182704
It probably limits overclocking significantly. If I buy a 1700x and a shitty b350 motherboard instead of x370, I'll again end up with a 4 - 4.2GHz overclock.

>>59182112
see
>>59182348
ehhhh, ya missed pal

>>59182700
>soon as you overclock it to 4GHz, it effectively becomes a 95w tdp CPU
It would be significantly higher than 95w. 1800x base freq is 3.6 and it's 95w, further more 1700 is a worse bin. Most b350 boards can't run 1700 at 4.0Ghz because of their more shitty power delivery.

File: klkll.png (185KB, 347x341px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 347x341px

>>59182450
You know it's sad but true.

>>59182237
>AMD has better cache
>Claim benchmarks are biased towards AMD because they have better cache
Next you'll say benchmarks are biased against Pentium IIIs because they use new instructions

>>59182750
That's why I don't want to do >>59182700
I'll just save up and get a 150-200 euro motherboard and a 1700x.

>>59182766
Meant to link >>59182704
Pairing a b350 board with a 1700x/1800x is stupid.

>>59182276
Maybe. Not saying "Yes", but maybe. It's a good time to sell a 290X.

>>59182750
>Shitty power delivery
I know it won't be a magic bullet, but couldn't you improve your B350 overclock by cooling the MOSFETs, assuming they don't come with cooling on cheap boards

>>59182807
B350 boards have fewer and lower quality phases.

File: tmp_5105-C52BpObWYAICp-Y1860466928.jpg (95KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x768px

???

File: certified shit wrecker.jpg (13KB, 381x286px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 381x286px

What a time to be alive.

>>59182827
What would be a good gigabyte or said board to go with a 1700?

File: 1451595033472.gif (1MB, 217x217px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 217x217px

>>59182191
>slightly favors AMD's cache design
>architectural improvements = bias

get a load of this shill

File: 100euro.png (264KB, 1459x767px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1459x767px

>>59182782
No its not. Name one feature the 270x (or 370x) boards doesn't do

>>59182827
That's why I said it's not a magic bullet – but in theory those same cheap stages should work better and last longer if they aren't a million degrees

>>59182827
Asus*

>>59182842
>he doubted! burn the heretic! burn the non-believer!!!
situationally better doesn't mean better across the board

>>59182833
A B350 board? I assume they're all similar in terms of overclocking, but you usually want more phases and VRM cooling (the heatsinks you often see on higher end motherboards).

>>59182807
I checked out some b350 mobos, they tend to have 6 phases which is barely enough for 8c/16t. You can still clock 1700 to ~3.6-3.8 around 1800x speeds, which is a still a nice boost from baseline.

>>59182829
Is this real?

>>59182849
If you're spending money for a top end chip you might as well spend a bit extra to let you get more overclock headroom

>>59182865
More connected and larger cache is an objective advantage. Sure it will give different benefits for different workloads, but that's true of literally any other measure

There's no reason to say using the cache "biases" a benchmark any more than being efficiently multithreaded

>>59182874
Okay so If I were to get a 1600x which I'm most likely I would go with the ASUS B350-plus but what would I want to go with for a 1700?

>>59182849
I don't understand. Are you implying b350 boards are better than x370 boards?

>>59182865
>burn the heretic
nice pointless hyperbole there, bud

>situationally better doesn't mean better across the board
no shit, hence why I'm making fun of your logic that an architectural improvement that lets it perform better in some aspect than the competition is for some reason "bias" lmfao

It's 5-8% slower in IPC than Skylake but it's far, far more efficient, Intel will need that 7nm soon and I mean really soon and hope Zen+ isn't next year.

File: 12342346176.jpg (37KB, 481x499px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 481x499px

>>59182849
>4 phases
>gaming LEDs
>gaming LAN
>gaming certified

>>59182849

>studio grade sound quality

That thing uses a Realtek sound card which is awful.

>>59182921
There's no way in hell Zen+ is next year. That's 2019 shit. Phones are gonna have to get on Samsung/GloFo's 7nm before Zen does.

>>59182764

It's a specific advantage in a synthetic benchmark. Something you won't see in most real world use cases, which means the results are flawed in what they are representing.

It's like comparing mileage on cars and one car has twice the gas tank capacity, as another car, and you're being asked how many times did you fill up?

It's going to give you results that are Atypical of anything else.

>>59182956
AMD said Zen is getting upgrades every year, just like Bulldozer did, it will still be 14nm next year and considering the massive lead AMD has in perf/watt that's more than enough, I can already see big issues that will be fixed next year like the IMC and FPU.

>>59182973
So, AMD wants to do Tick-Tock?

>>59182988
Mark Papermaster explicitly said it wasn't tick-tock, but tock-tock-tock.

>>59182988
AMD doesn't name their yearly upgrades they did yearly for 30 years with a stupid marketing name, it's just a fucking new generation.

When they go down to 7nm they'll go down to 7nm, that's it.

>>59182988
Tick-tock strategy is dead for everyone. AMD will switch to new node when they can depending on foundry but still improve architecture at the same time.

File: nani the fuck.jpg (261KB, 620x756px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 620x756px

>>59183015
>Papermaster
Why don't people talk about this guy's silly-ass name more often?

>>59183050
well why don't you stop posting stupid fucking anime pictures, bitch?

File: WHAT THE FUCK.png (135KB, 540x428px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 540x428px

>>59183071
>complaining about anime on 4chan
Stay triggered senpai

>>59183080
suck my cock, faggot

>>59183085
It's "dude".
Suck my cock, dude.

Not "Suck my cock, faggot"

Get your /jp/ memes right

>>59183118
what are you talking about you dumb weeaboo

File: 1467414221104.jpg (99KB, 768x1000px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 768x1000px

>>59182972
Stay mad, shilltel kike.
>jewtel loses in benchmark
>i-i-it's because AMD has better cache

File: nacl.jpg (62KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x480px

>>59183178
>being this butthurt about vietnamese woodcarvings

>>59182276

Already ordered 1800x and MSI T.

Gonna put my 280 in it until I can finally get the best Vega GPU.

>Got a 6 figure job offer two days after a news year party in which I banged a hot girl
>AMD BTFO Intel with Ryzen
>AMD atleast will give r9 2xx series performance card on to the market

THIS YEAR STARTED AMAZING FOR THIS AMD FAG!

>>59182575
stock cooler is pretty good chink could oc 1700 to 4.0ghz with even worse cooler

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5003192198?see_lz=1&pn=2

>>59182750
>Most b350 boards can't run 1700 at 4.0Ghz because of their more shitty power delivery.

>wrong

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5003192198?see_lz=1

>by 2021 desperation hits Intlel and they pay out the ass for a crack arch design team
>they develop an actual P7 or some shit to compete with AMD
>Keller gets done with Tesla by that point, and his innovation boner leads him back to AMD
A man can dream.

1700 is an entry tier 8c, 1600X is what you want to be comparing to 7700K

>>59182460
1fps less

nice

>>59182460
Just a reminder this is on a ES with 2133MHz memory

File: 1487010670251.jpg (21KB, 427x427px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 427x427px

Wait,wait,wait so ¿this means AMD is relevant now in SC and MC performance?

>>59184109
It is a non retail chip, which technically makes it an engineering sample, but its F4 OPN. Its the latest lot of silicon, same lot as retail chips.

The only thing hold back performance at all would be their test board lacking an up to date BIOS.

>>59184134
Wasn't it stated that it's locked at stock clocks as well?

>>59182003
That's pretty neat, never expected them to get this close in IPC to kabylake.

Would have thought somewhere in between Ivy Bridge and broadwell

>>59182607

>linux support
>AMD

um, just get an nvidia card

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By7_TCzoyL9oejlBV1R0WVdKMkU/view

Review slide deck leaked

>>59184168
at least amdgpu is not proprietary garbage

>>59184119
seems very likely, just wait few more hours to know for sure

>>59184168
In the last few years AMD's linux support is top tier

They don't even try to stop you from doing PCI-e passthrough so you can run windows in a VM for games

>>59184231
Proprietary garbage that works is better than free garbage that doesn't.
amdgpu still hasn't reached feature parity with the old radeon driver FFS

>>59182884
Most b350 have 4+1+1, where the 1 is for the non existent igpu and the other 1 for misc whatsitsname cpu voltage and only 4 phases for the vcore. You can separate the vcore phases from the non as only the 4 link to the largest cap cluster

>>59184196
So, AMD didn't deliver the IPC rate?

>>59182264

Your proof?

>>59184301
What?
It says that Ryzen is only 2.7% behind Broadwell-E in Cinebench single thread at totally equal clocks.
Exactly what CanardPC said: Zen is near Broadwell IPC.

File: 1487885738966.png (91KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 653x726px

>>59184256
Damn, i am impressed they somehow managed to catch up to Intel's current line of performance on the same 14nm node, we won as consumers at last, good tech at good prices...

>>59184324
Yes, but they said they're going to achieve the Broadwell IPC and later - that thet exceeded it, 52% more than Vishera. And now it's lagging behind.
> Exactly what CanardPC said
Didn't they test engeneering samples? Retail CPUs should've been better.

File: CB ST.jpg (58KB, 799x451px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 799x451px

>>59184324
Broadwell 2.7% ahead of Zen.
Kaby Lake just 6.5% ahead.

Single threaded performance at equal static clocks. No turbos used.

>>59184358
You're just making bullshit up at this point.
AMD claimed to achieve a 52% uplift in IPC over Excavator, not Piledriver, not Broadwell.
Zen meets exactly what AMD said it would.

>>59184359
Damn son. Zen+ is gonna be good, but fuck this waiting shit I want to upgrade my FX-6300 already.

File: 1481784777457.jpg (15KB, 348x350px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 348x350px

>>59184401
Just buy a cheap r5 then

>>59184412
Nah, I'll get a 1700X for e-penis points.

>>59184401
If they have a 10% uplift with Zen+ then desktop Cannonlake is finished.

>>59184401
Any Zen is a huge upgrade if you have that POS, with the added bonus that you will be able to upgrade later down the road using the same motherboard and socket, something that intel don't want you to do under any circumstance. The fact that the AM4 socket will be relevant for long is that, after you upgrade, you can easily sell your old Zen at a nice price.

File: 1487813243649.png (777KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1280x720px

>>59184359
Is jim keller the greatest cpu architect alive?

>>59182066
running on liquid nitrogen

hope you are not poor prabheesh. cooling this POS is expensive

>>59184412
I'll just buy cheap core i7

>>59184457
t. uses intel cum on his ihs

>>59184383
> over Excavator, not Piledriver
So over a newer architecture than Vishera. And they said they're targeting the Broadwell IPC with that 40% uplift. Later they said they exceeded their expectations with 52% uplift, which means retail Zen should perform better than Broadwell because of that 12% over their goal.

File: 1485463825623.jpg (3KB, 125x123px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x123px

>>59184478
>cheap core i7

>>59184448
Yeah, I'm gonna upgrade as soon as I can get the parts together, but I'm not waiting on Vega and wouldn't even need that much power. I still rock a 1080p monitor and that isn't changing anytime soon. RX480 should be a really significant upgrade over my 650ti Boost anyway.

>>59182276
I already have an 8 GB RX 470 and I'm planning on buying the Ryzen 7 1700 when it arrives to my shithole of a country at a decent price. That's more than enough for me.

>>59184316
>proof?
Their own site.
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/lga-1151/products/7700k51g
>Passed the ROG RealBench stress test for one hour with these settings
>Motherboard: Asus Maximus VIII Hero

File: Zen team.jpg (75KB, 715x573px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 715x573px

>>59184455
Probably.
Seeing what the Zen team was able to accomplish under his guidance is incredible.
First iteration of a brand new arch, within spitting distance of intel's latest and greatest arch that they've been refining for a decade.

>>59184495
You're literally making things up.

>>59183252

God damn you retarded fuck.

You sound like a fucking republican listening to someone talk about global warming.

>>59184478
>buying garbage with mayonaise between the chip and the heatspreader
>ever

File: keller is doom.png (653KB, 920x533px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 920x533px

you don't fuck with keller

>>59184542
>intelkike jew is also a libcuck
Color me surprised. Go shill somewhere else, Moishe.

>>59182689
The 1700 is the lowest binned, though.

>>59184537
>that they've been refining for a decade
Well that also means the underlying basic architecture is a decade old.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm super pumped to see genuine competition return to the CPU market.

>>59184592
You don't know what binned means, kid.

>>59184168
um, no, sweetie

>>59184537
> You're literally making things up.
https://www.techpowerup.com/225129/amd-demos-breakthrough-performance-of-the-zen-cpu-core
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143/amd-launch-ryzen-52-more-ipc-eight-cores-for-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd
So... How, exactly?

>IFNASIDFSAHRAST
what did he mean by this

>>59184635
AMD never explicitly said they were targeting Broadwell IPC, they said they were aiming to be competitive. The only claims about IPC were a 40% uplift over Excavator, and just a couple weeks ago they announced that they exceeded their previous goal of a 40% uplift.

You are literally making things up, you little troll child.

>>59182942
Well implemented version of the newer realtek chips get over 95db, so it's not awful, not studio though since those are in 110+ range, but again not awful.

I wonder if Zen+ will be Ryzen II or if they're going to invent a new name.

>>59184669
Fokin' ell, from the first link:
> During the event, AMD demonstrated an 8-core, 16-thread "Summit Ridge" desktop processor (featuring AMD's "Zen" core) outperforming a similarly configured 8-core, 16-thread Intel "Broadwell-E" processor when running the multi-threaded Blender rendering software with both CPUs set to the same clock speed.
So, both are 8c16t. Both are set to the same clocks. Zen is "outperforming" a Broadwell-E. And now it's suddenly behind, with all that improvements made since August? How do you have an audacity to call me a troll? Explain yourself.

>>59184707
Ryzen 7 2800x
Ryzen 7 2700x
Ryzen 7 2700

etc

>>59184724
>when running the multi-threaded Blender
>multithreaded
Current ryzen 8 core CPUs do outperform the 6900k in multithreaded tasks. AMD's SMT technology seems to be more efficient than HT.

So, uh
I'm currently running a Phenom II X6 1100T
I think it's time for an upgrade

>>59184724
Also, pic related, it's from AMD's press conference.
You're confusing IPC with multithreaded performance.

>>59184724
You must have actual downsyndrome, or be a slime intentionally dishonest kike.
You can't make a single argument, you're outright lying, and now you're grossly twisting facts to fit your narrative.

At totally equal clocks, in single thread CB15, Broadwell is only 2.7% ahead of Ryzen.
In multithreaded CB15 Ryzen is faster.

Get murdered, you little faggot kid.

File: 2017-02-23_005403.jpg (561KB, 2168x715px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 2168x715px

>>59184776
And of course, forgot pic. They didn't lie.

>>59184753
Seems like it, CPU-Z benchmarks show the similar output. Fuuck, I was hoping AMD will kick Intel's ass without a chance, but there is a space for Intel to make an excuse.
>>59184780
Fuck you, it's you who are ready to shill for AMD all day long.

>>59184794
OK, 6900K have a 3,7 boost clockspeed, AMD's is a little higher. That's why AMD ST performance is the same, but IPC is lower. Makes sense. Well, it's all about the mainstream price now.

>>59182276
Maybe, it depends if Vega is any good. If not it's 1700X + 1080ti all the way

>>59184780
that retard is just splitting hairs. Everyone knows that when a company comes up with performance numbers, the way they measured those numbers are usually not representative of general use case scenarios. AMD may have measured IPC numbers using settings that favoured their new architecture, we don't really know. Car manufacturers do this all the time with fuel efficiency measurements where the measured efficiency may be based on highway driving with few to no instances of deceleration and a level road without any hills. The numbers usually are not useful for comparison outside the company's ecosystem, but we CAN use them to extrapolate performance.

All that really isn't important, though, since we've SEEN that Ryzen is VERY competitive from various other benchmarks. The IPC measurements aren't important and the only reason they got any focus at all was because AMD was saying "OK, we've heard your feedback and we've fixed the problem."

Clinging to the IPC numbers is like complaining that a milkshake from restaurant A is going to taste worse than a milkshake from restaurant B because restaurant A uses a slightly older blender, even though both restaurants use the exact same ingredients.

>>59182276
1800x/vega or 1080ti if lack patience

>>59184897
>OK, 6900K have a 3,7 boost clockspeed
Actually, the 6900k uses boost 3.0 (4.0GHz).

> if you click through to either one of the links to the actual specification pages for these chips, they're both listed as having a "Max Turbo Frequency" of 4GHz.
>An Intel rep told us the more conservative numbers are the top stock frequencies for Turbo Boost 2.0, so the 4GHz speed is likely the maximum possible with Turbo Boost Max 3.0.
It's very likely that the 6900k in >>59184794 ran at 3.9GHz.

>>59184827
I'm stating clear facts, you're intentionally conflating entirely different things to create a false narrative. You're either a kike shill, or your IQ is legitimately in the range of 80.

>>59184955
http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

>>59184955
I'm of course only talking about the single threaded test/benchmark. There's no way the 6900k achieved 162pts at only 3.7GHz, so it definitely ran at closer to 4GHz which falls in line perfectly with the scores. AMD definitely didn't lie about IPC improvement.

File: dssdf.jpg (17KB, 633x105px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 633x105px

>>59184993
Your point?

>>59184998

>AMD definitely didn't lie about IPC improvement.

Of course they did - /g/ and Juangra both KNOW that ryzen will be sub 3ghz clock speed with IPC closer to sandy bridge. These are indisputable facts.

>>59184998
> There's no way the 6900k achieved 162pts at only 3.7GHz
AMD didn't specify it, so it must be the stock speed.
>>59185021
4,0GHz is a turbo for one core, it is higher than turbo for all cores.

File: 1440071703451.gif (339KB, 423x386px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 423x386px

Can somebody redpill a guy with dyscaculia who don't know how to read charts on ryzen? Is AMD good now? Should I have AMD in my next rig?

>>59185054
>Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 identifies the best performing core(s)
>core(s)

>>59185054
>4,0GHz is a turbo for one core
Exactly, and Cinebench ST (single threaded) benchmark only uses 1 core. Are you done now?

>>59185079
Ryzen is god tier

>dyscaculia
this is real?

>>59185095
dyscalculia, yes

>>59185054
I don't think you understand how turbo mode works. When all or most cores are utlized, turbo mode only adds 100MHz.
It works in steps, so if 4 cores are being hammered turbo mode adds 200MHz. If just one core is being used, that core and no other reaches the maximum turbo boost speed which is 4GHz for 1800x and 6900k.

>>59185094
It is? I thought it calculates a single core score from a multi-core score.
> Are you done now?
Yes, ma-am!

>>59184998
>There's no way the 6900k achieved 162pts at only 3.7GHz
No, that score is dead on for the system tested.
Ryzen has higher single core turbo, and higher all core turbo. SMT can have slightly higher uplift as well, and thats how it pulls ahead in multithreaded workloads.
The Zen core is virtually on par with Broadwell clock per clock.

>>59185089
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/2

Try again.

4ghz is the peak frequency that Turbo Boost 3 can be set to, manually. On the i7 6900k it only hits 3.7ghz automatically.

>>59185160
Yup. You can run it yourself and monitor the CPU usage. You'll also notice that the single threaded test takes forever to render the image compared to the regular multithreaded test.

>>59185079
The current chips are 8 core 16 threads and are meant to compete against chips that are like double the price. They end up being about equal if not slightly better in most tasks. When compared to chips in the same price range which are often half the amount of cores they're similar but may be slightly worse because the 8 cores limit the capabilities of turbo compared to 4 cores.

>>59182191
>AMDfag
Bullshit Intel Shill

so what are you guys going to do now that you've overclocked your CPUs? jack off to anime porn and put off getting a job? go to high school and continue to be that quiet guy with weird facial hair?

>>59185230
Have a $500 CPU for 60% the price.

>>59185230
I'd contribute to /wsg/ threads.

>>59185167
>try again
I don't need to, either you or another anon claimed that the technology only affects one core. It can affect every core on the chip, although they will not all boost to the same speed.

That is the only thing I was pointing out and you are currently strawmanning for no apparent reason since I didn't actually take any position other than stating a fact of reality.

>>59185230
>go to high school and continue to be that quiet guy with weird facial hair?
I'm like that at my uni, lol.

>>59185167
>No, that score is dead on for the system tested.
Yes, for a 4GHz Broadwell, it's dead on. It's not running at 3.7GHz because if it was it would mean that at 4.5GHz it would outperform the 7700k by 5 points which is not possible.

>>59185167
From your own link.
>TBM3 (turbo boost 3.0), in a nutshell, will boost the frequency of a single CPU core when a single-threaded program is being used. The 6900k has a 3.0 boost speed of 4GHz. It's safe to assume it ran at 4GHz while Cinebench r15 ST test was running.

>>59182125
>thermal margin
>temperature

>>59185310
Didn't mean to greentext the last part, but you get the point.
>TBM3 (turbo boost 3.0), in a nutshell, will boost the frequency of a single CPU core when a single-threaded program is being used.
There, fixed.

File: bench.jpg (386KB, 1301x739px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1301x739px

>tfw didn't fall for the Ryzen meme
Feels good man.

>>59185268
>proving you can't read
>desperately grasping at straw

Turbo Boost 3 only increases frequency on one core in a purely serial workload. That is how it works, and if you knew anything about it you wouldn't be trying to argue this point. You're an ignorant little shill.

>TBM3, in a nutshell, will boost the frequency of a single CPU core when a single-threaded program is being used.
>When pinned, the software will boost the frequency of that core only.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/2

>>59185287
The Turbo Boost 3.0 frequency for the i7 6900K is only 3.7ghz. Not 4ghz.
It will not run at 4ghz unless you manually set it, or your BIOS automatically sets it to a higher than default frequency.

>>59185310
Try again.
Ian had to manually set the frequency to 4ghz in BIOS. You literally aren't even reading the article.

seriously, why do you guys overclock your CPU? what are you doing that needs it?

>>59185366
Literally everything you can do with a cpu benefits from it, faster rendering times, better fps if there's a cpu bottleneck, fastering unpacking times etc. etc.

Why the fuck would you not overclock

>>59185317
No shit, but the max temp Godavari A10s can operate before THERMTRIP# is triggered is 100°C

Still, a real world temp of 52°C is pretty nice especially since this is reached with the stock cooler.

>>59185350
that link shows a list of cores in the software. if you check the intel page here >>59184993
and click the ? next to turbo boost, you will see the line I quoted here >>59185089

It can turbo multiple cores. I don't know why you'd try to argue against information provided by the manufacturer or try to make the case that the software lists every core for no apparent reason.

w/e bro, you're wrong

>>59185348
>only one game where ryzen is doing badly
>ignoring the gta 5 benchmark where the older leaks implied that it would be way slower than it is
>ignoring that 7700k was on 3200mhz dd4 and the ryzen only on 2133mhz

>>59185366
Basically it's a pissing contest for nerds. Power consumption goes up significantly for like 10% performance improvement (ie 4.4 GHz from 4.0 GHz).

>>59185348

DELET DIS


PS, no my 4 years old, $199 4770K still rocks.

>>59185453
>even after all this time you still haven't read the review
>literally just pulling things out of your ass.
Retarded little kike.

Turbo Boost 3 is single core only. Ever. It is one core.
All core turbo is not Turbo Boost 3. The i7 6900k has an all core turbo of 3.5ghz, and this is entirely different from Trubo Boost 3.
Get find your way into an oven, little kike kid.

File: 1473816156378.png (279KB, 898x790px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 898x790px

Has anyone tested the 1980 AMD timing bug?

>>59182419
You really are the meat in a cuck sandwich boy

>>59185493
https://youtu.be/43g3OTK2AbE?t=5m23s here is why ddr frequency is important in these gaming benchmarks

Also Ryzen heatsink is soldered on. Unlike Intels POS.

File: KeyTGmv.jpg (285KB, 1382x960px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1382x960px

Ryzen IHS confirmed soldered

File: 1484857165b9Q0qmS6fl_1_6.png (13KB, 620x336px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 620x336px

>>59185732
It's called an IHS my precious bag of marshmallows.

But yeah intelcucks either have to buy expensive water coolers or risk destroying their processors by deliding them.

>>59184542
>global warming
Of course the Intel marketing drone shills liberal lies too

So, /g/'s verdict? Hit or miss?

>>59185785

Nothing wrong with delidding mate

>>59185821
There is everything wrong with delidding. Potentially damaging your CPU die to unfuck the horrid cooling isn't improving something, its making it less bad.

>>59185820
Looks like a winner.

>>59185631

It helps that at least one rumour has insane bandwidth effeciency for ryzen (above 90% of theoretical max throughput) which is way, waaaay above what Intel manages.

>Ryzen IHS soldered
Oh noes, just like all Intel CPU's from last P3 arch (name escapes me at this time) to Sandy Bridge.
Oh noes, all 28nm AMD CPU's - except for 7870K - on FM2 have TIM'd IHS, just like post-SB, non-e Intel chips.

My K6 has TIM'd IHS too, and it shows after 15 years of use (I only applied liquid metal between the IHS and die couple years back and at that point the was nice deformation on the die).

If it doesn't lose to SB-e (or 1155 Sandy Bridge for that matter), 1700x it is.

>>59184537
>within spitting distance of intel's latest and greatest arch that they've been refining for a decade.
P6 is 22. They need to hop off that dick already because that shit is limp. All that fucking money and they won't hire the most powerful Pajeets in the world to make a new non-iterative design.

>>59185956
>If it doesn't lose to SB-e (or 1155 Sandy Bridge for that matter), 1700x it is.
I bet it does on some workloads, because quad DDR3 smashed dual DDR4.

>>59182972
Isn't that the point of a larger fuel tank? To fill up less?

>>59182587
>What TDP limitation? The only benefit of the 1700X is more chance of a higher overclock but that's about it.
You sure? I'm sure the TDP limitation & lower price bracket may count for chip quality or something?

File: calc.png (154KB, 946x386px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 946x386px

>>59185887
>>59185631
>>59185348
this is around what i calculated from the video from digital foundry if the i7s had 2133mhz ram
ofc i could be terribly wrong but we will see tomorrow

>>59184341
No, it's unironically worse 14nm node.

File: Sketch.png (770KB, 1238x1516px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 1238x1516px

;^)

>>59186133
This is good, maybe review sites will finally stop using kike worthless benchmarks like Cinnebench.

>>59186093
see
>>59182689
>>59182711

>>59186133
aren't they the same people who leaked the engineering sample?

>>59186133

>AMD actually having performance profiles for benchmarks

In b4 "AMD IS CHEATING!!!!!!"

>>59186161

Yes.

>>59186133
>trusting a white flag waving snail eater

>>59186158
Soo, if I have the money, should I rather get 1700x, or will 1700 suffice?

>>59186170
>detecting if you're using a benchmarking software and boosting results is only bad if intel does it
:^)

>>59186174

Go for 1700X

>>59186174
In short: 1700X will give you a higher chance of being able to overclock more

>>59186185
I probably will. Do you have reasons though?

>>59186196
But is that $100 difference worth some 200-300MHz?

File: 8ball.gif (160KB, 1020x1039px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1020x1039px

>>59186211

>>59186211
Now THAT is up to you.

>>59186200

Better binning for higher performance for when you want it.

You can just undervolt and downclock it when you don't.

>>59184542
Global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese to make the US less competitive

>>59186211
Probably not, but if you want to remove your OC you'll get a notably faster stock chip that is worth $100 more.
Also resale value will be higher for the 1700x

>>59186211
300MHz on 8 cores (when all are used) is pretty big performance boost.
For single thread it's just another 5-7% increase which is near indistinguishable.

>>59186172

CanardPC, despite being French, is one of those rare specialized press magazine that still holds some credibility in an industry ran by publicity and corporate shills. This is Buldozer 2.0 ...

>>59186359
>This is Buldozer 2.0 ...
Fuck off you white flag waving snail eater, go watch your wife get fucked by a group of pakis while you eat raw frogs and wave a white flag in front of them.

>>59186359
well we do have gaming performance shown already, it's of course worse than most of us thought but it's still good
i'm waiting for someone to test them at 4c/8t with higher clocks

>>59186359
CanardPC themselves explicitly stated that Zen had near Broadwell IPC, and praised its performance.
And they were only looking at a 3.15ghz engineering sample.

You shitposting trolls need to be permabanned.

>>59186394
I'm fittin ta ride up on ya eit tha clickity-CLACK-CLACK-CLACK u fuckin bust ass hie u better recognize fo winnin I fine yo ass uze gone be turned our like tha trick u is

Won't be runnin that mouth much longer ya hurd?

>>59186394
>>59186396
>>59186408

Right... It's going to be shit just deal with it shills.

>muh brand loyalty

You shits are pathetic.

>>59186464
but i'm not the one who is a fanboy you dipshit
i'm waiting for 4c/8t tests and gaming tests with 3200mhz ddr4s

>>59186440
What the fuck did you just fucking say about my cooking, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Culinary Institute of America, and I've been involved in numerous iron chef challenges, and I have over 300 confirmed recipes for Creme fraiche. I am trained in Habachi and I'm the top cook at my local Japanese Steak House. You are nothing to me but just a poorly trained cashier. I will feed you with culinary skills the likes of which have never been seen before on this Earth,? mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with serving cold fries to me over at McDonalds? Think again, chef. As we cook, I am contacting my secret network of bakers across the US and your ingredient sources are being traced right now. So you better prepare for the repossesing, maggot. The repossesing that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your kitchen. You're fucking smoked, kid. I can cook anything, anytime and dice you in over 700 ways, and that's just with my spatula. Not only am I extensively trained in ragu alla bolognese, but I have access to the entire spices of the United States Starbucks Corps. And I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable dish of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your extra "spicy" dal makhini was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would've held your fucking spoon. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're wasting the chickpea, you goddamn idiot. I will frost cupcakes all over you, and you will drown in it. You're fucking smoked, kiddo.

>>59182886
It probably fucks with with cores and speeds and such to optimise for specific loads. Its a little underhanded, but at the same time, if it had options like
>Optimise for older single threaded games
>Optimise for newer multithreaded games
Etc, that would be swell. It should be accesible via windows tuning software as well. More to the point, it would probably not make an appreciable difference in using it, especially in GPU limited games.

>>59186464
The irony

File: AMD-Ryzen_34-1140x641[1].png (844KB, 1140x641px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 1140x641px

finally some handbrake for me
>no comparison with 6900k
fuck

>>59186533
1800x is supposed to compete with 6900k. 1700x is much cheaper.

File: AMD-Ryzen_41-1140x641[1].png (852KB, 1140x641px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1140x641px

and here is the 7700k gaming comparison

>>59186489

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IASfzAP5Xbc

>>59186609
Other than GTA this looks quite fine.
I want to see it overclocked, AMD should have really made something between a 1700x and 1700, there's a too large base clock deficit between them.

>>59186609
>65w vs 91W
>3ghz base clock vs 4.2ghz base clock
>3.7ghz turbo vs 4.5ghz turbo
>intel quad core barely has a lead over all

>>59186657

Wait for the quality reviews to hit tomorrow when they show overclocking results and reveal how easy AMD has made it.

>>59186657
The 1800x only turbos all cores to 3.7 and it's a 3.6 base part. (proved in the same slides)
So the 1700 should turbo all cores to 3.2 at best, considering its 65W and 3,0 base.
One core turbo is 3.7, probably 3.5 for 2 cores but this needs to be tested.

>>59186655
> middle ground between 1700 and 1700x

Holy shit this, you pay less for the highest end jump than the lowend to midend one.

3.0 base > 3.4 base = +$100
3.4 base > 3.6 base = +$100

>>59186609
>>59186657
>>59186682
Is this the end of the line for Intel?

>>59186744

How will they ever recover?

>>59186744
No, but it'll light their ass on fire and get them to produce another Conroe, hopefully.

>>59186752
All their arch for the next 3-4 years is set in stone. Nothing truly new until 2021 or 2022, and thats being worked on right now.
If Zen+ brings a 10% increase in perf/clock then intel will be in second place.

>>59186790
Intel didn't respond to K8 in a year either, I just expect them to respond sooner or later.

>>59186790

If AMD takes the performance crown off Intel, would they die?

>>59186830
Too much cash and brand for that.
You don't want an AMD monopoly like as you don't want a Intel one.

>>59186655
>between a 1700x and 1700
Sounds like you want a 1600X

>>59186960
I can already get a 6 core for cheap, I don't want a 6 core.
Either a 8 or 10.

>>59186830
It would be extremely painful.

>>59186970
So, get a 1700 and overclock it..
The 1700 starts off at a really low voltage, so a minor voltage+freq bump would put it squarely between 1700 stock, and 1700X.

I'm wondering will AMD have a bigger chip next gen? 12 or 10 cores? 6+6 CXC sounds saner than a 5+5 CXC setup

>>59187032
CCX*

>>59187032
It will still be a 4 core module, but more densely packed to potentially allow more modules into about 140% of the size of Summit Ridge

>>59182003
Considering it needs some 30% more voltage for a 35% overclock I consider it quite a good showing.

>>59187032

Naples is going to be massive.

>>59187221
200mm^2 * 4

Yup

>>59182419

>Price cut
Don't count on it. The normies that are the vast majority of buyers will continue to buy Intel, and they know it.

>>59187245
We're 2 billion short of 20 billion transistor chips, even the GP100 is around 15 billion if I'm not wrong

File: 1476654025394.jpg (338KB, 1369x1183px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1369x1183px

>AMD actually delivering so intel has to innovate
>intel shills are going crazy
fucking kek

>>59187319
Its beautiful, tomorrow is going to be a GREAT day.