AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

That was a engineering sample with shit RAM (2133MHz) on a midrange (B350) motherboard.

File: 1488396296607.jpg (71KB, 552x661px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 552x661px

>>59185980
ITS NOT REAL

FAKE BENCHMARK

DOESNT COUNT

Why is everyone always comparing the 1700x and not the 1800x?

Is because the 1700x price is more similar to the 7700k, but worse performance?

File: amdloo.png (316KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 882x758px

>>59185958

>>59186041
Do you really want to make the comparison even worse?

The 1700x is losing to Intel's 6700K which is $100 less

The 1800x will lose again and it's $500 fucking dollars

>>59185958
something is wrong here all these CPU's are being held back by a shit card. in all the Benchmarks at 1080p they are all 1-2 frames difference. only exception is Bioshock.

>>59185616

More gaming benchmarks here.

>>59185958
Lol. Not only is it all on dx11, but the only real differences are in low res. At 1080 they are all the same. Top quality graph manipulation

File: 1413857155816.jpg (8KB, 320x323px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 320x323px

>games

Who gives a shit you fucking manchildren.

It does perfectly fine in games but it's obviously not targeted at that. It's a fucking 8 core CPU.

If all you care about are dumbass games just buy a fucking G4600

All this gaming circlejerk around high end CPUs is fucking retarded and has to stop

>>59186115
The low res is to eliminate GPU bottleneck, it's perfect for testing the CPU

>>59186115
It's almost like Intel is paying people who aren't under AMD NDA to pair it with shit ram to get the graphs they want out before the real reviews come out tomorrow.

Do any of the 4chan apps have 4chanX style regex filtering? If you aren't willing to put more thought into your OP than mashing two buttons I have no interest in seeing it.

>>59186079
Gayming.

Fucking queers, I swear.

>>59185958
>AMD doesn't deliver yet again
Remember when I told you AMD was not gonna deliver because they never do, they always disappoint? And even if they did deliver, it was just a matter of months until Intel came up with something better, leaving AMD in the digital dust for the next 5-10 years until they managed to catch up again (if they even last that long)? And remember how you didn't believe me when I warned you?

Well, it's happened. Bet you are rectally shattered. Too bad.

>THEY FELL FOR THE RYPOO MEME

>>59186192
>nobody but intel shills are upset
>literally reduced to Iranian benchmarks with laptop resolutions

File: 1478665686041.png (66KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 554x400px

>>59186132
>AMD gets BTFO in benchmarks
>MAD poors pretend they don't care about games

C L O C K W O R K

>>59186006
DELET THIS
AMD WILL BTFO INTEL AND NVIDIA JUST WAIT ANOTHER DECADE

>>59186323
>game "developers" are too incompetent to use extra power a CPU with 8 cores offers.
>even so that 8 core cpu is basically neck and neck with lower core higher clock CPUs
>this is supposed to make AMD look bad somehow

Besides, I don't give a fuck about games. I actually work and for work the Ryzen is so far ahead of anything Intel is offering it's not even funny.

If games were the gold standard of CPU development then we'd all be using single core CPUs clocked at 5ghz. Games are totally irrelevant for CPU discussion.

Also one thing to remember is that the Ryzen OC app let's you disable individual cores.

So if you REALLY care that much about a few extra FPS in games you can disable 4 cores and OC the remaining ones to 4.5ghz and have the same gaming performance as Intel chips.

File: 1488335165972.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>59186382
YEAH GAMES ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT FOR CPUS, WHO CARES

GAMES DONT EVEN USE CPUS LOL

INTEL BTFO R-R-R-RIGHT

>>59186132
When intel released core2 it btfo 1k amd cpu at everything. No fine text and excuses.

>768, 900, and 1080
What with the mostly shit resolutions?

>>59186506
It's to isolate the CPU performance

>>59186484
Those had the same number of cores.

Here the comparison is retarded because obviously if you have an 8core CPU you will have lower individual clocks in comparison to a 4core one.

So obviously retarded unoptimized games that only use 1 core will do better on the CPU with higher clocks.

>>59186506
The Arabic text in the picture makes me think the review was tailoring their review to the Arab market. I guess cheaper, lower res monitors are more common in third world countries?

>>59185958
Looks quite good with the exception of Bioshock.
Especially since these games don't seem to be hugely multithreaded.

>>59186536
>Arabic text.

You must be over 18 to post here.

>>59186132
It's time to take a hard look at reality and realize that these are not workstation or server CPUs, but consumer CPUs and games are pretty much the most resource-intensive software that a lot of consumers run. OP's benchmark however does use some old as fuck games though, not to mention completely irrelevant resolutions like fucking 1366x768 and 1600x900.

>>59186633
Abdul, plz

>>59186644
According to idiotic gaming benchmarks the best CPU in the world would be a 5.5GHz single core.

Which perfectly illustrates why games are useless as a CPU benchmark.

>>59186662
>people buy these CPUs to play games
>but games are totally irrelevant

AMDtard logic

File: pA1xsFth.jpg (56KB, 490x604px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 490x604px

>>59186633
Let me guess, it's Farsi?

>>59185958
>testing with the devil's resolution
>no motherboard listed for Ryzen while every intel chip has a named board

>>59186132
Brah what about MAH 4K GAY-AMING

But you act like AMD wasn't promting this with games at the booth you dumb fuck

>>59186679
>buying an 8 core to play games

Then those """"people""" are retarded.

>>59185958
Let me guess this mudshit site was one of those intel "call us first" """reviews"""

>>59186132
But the reveal presentation made it clear they were for used on games.

File: NRTU.png (194KB, 1439x947px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1439x947px

>>59185958
So what have me learned?

As a i5 3570K user...
>Ryzen isn't worth it
>Kaby Lake isn't worth it

Guess I'll just stick to my current rig for the foreseeable future. Oh Intel are finally making a 6c processor on the mainstream chipset? Good, it better cost $300. Oh it won't? Guess I'll stick with my rig for the foreseeable future.

If AMD didn't try to compete we'd all be getting even more fucked by Intel.

>>59185958
>intelcucks literally reduced to Iranian benchmarks at laptop resolutions
Many such cases, SAD!

>>59185958
>dx11

captcha: sevre downs

File: Capture.png (73KB, 624x706px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 624x706px

>>59186662
>According to idiotic gaming benchmarks
You should look at other gaming benchmarks then. Or are you the idiot for looking at the idiotic ones perhaps?

>>59185980
This. Intel shills clinging to any hope they have left.

File: Untitled.png (373KB, 1301x739px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1301x739px

>>59185958
1. These are the important numbers.
2. Future games will use more than 4 cores.
3. DX 11.0 is 2009 technology. Future games will use Vulkan or DX 12.
4. It's using a 1700x and not an 1800x.

>>59185958
So basically 12% worse than intel and on par with at higher resolution. It's bulldozer all over again. Except it's not. Bulldozer was more than 40% behind even at 1080p. AMD may not have the best processor for gaming but they are definitively competitive.

>>59187050
>future games will use more than 4 cores
No they won't.

>its using a 1700x and not an 1800x
That's because the 1700X is trying to compete with the i7-7700k while the 1800x is trying to compete with the i7-6950X.

File: Untitled.png (26KB, 609x323px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 609x323px

It's not fucking FAIR!

>>59187050

Rypoo can't into DX11 games. There are many DX 11 games out there.

>1800X

Lol $500 CPU.... These gaming benchmarks includes $300 CPU, and Rypoo is defeated badly. 4 yrs old CPU beats it easily. Embarrassing.

>>59187093
>No they won't.
yes they will
5 years ago every game used 1 maybe 2 cores
now almost every game is using 3 minimum, even random stupid games use 2 cores

>>59187161
Even if they do, Intel is still going to be the top producer of CPUs. Ryzen is just another AMD meme. It's time to let it go.

>>59185958
>disable 4 other cores
>4c/8t same as i7
>reach higher OC
There you go, now you can play your games you manchild and when you are done you can change back to 8c to do something else.

>>59187202
>ryzen
>higher OC than kaby lake

aHAHAHAhahahhaHAHAHAAHha


(no)

>>59187139
Fucking sad when a $300 Intel can beat a $500 AMD

File: 25-PCMARK-8.png (38KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x380px

Looks like Ryzen also gets BTFO in regular desktop usage

File: 1344971885518.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

>>59185958
>same fps in 3 out of 4 benchmarks at 1080p or higher
>laughs

Kek, now tomorrow it will all backfire.

Too many retards building a hype train and the rest of the retards on the internet take the bait and jump onto the train.

>>59185958
Ain't FPS the same with pretty much all the games? Looks like a GPU bottleneck

>>59187279
i have no doubt intel will use jewish tricks as always to tamper with benchmarks

the simple fact that amd isn't intel, is why am going to buy ryzen

>>59185958
What's funny? They all perform the fucking same, be it a $1700 or $300 chip

>>59187619
GPU is bottlenecked at 1080p, but look at the lower res ones

>>59187698
Why? Who the fuck games at lower than 1080p??

>>59187619
>>59187694
>they're all the same

I guess you do have to be blind to buy AMD.

>>59187698
Am I supposed to look at performance on 2006 laptop resolutions or something?

>>59187708
They only used a 980

They used the lower res to isolate the CPU performance

They could have used a 1080 and got similar results to lower the GPU bottleneck

>>59187538
Again shitty RAM with a no name board try harder faggot.

>>59187708
"""""Competitive gamers"""" (recently everyone with a Intel CPU on /g/, recently converted) play CSGO on 640x480 at 3000FPS

>>59185958
Did anyone really think AMD was good?

>>59187751
It's a B350 board which is AMD's second most powerful chipset

>768p

>>59187786
It's important you don't understand everyone with a $300 CPU plays at 768p

>>59187784
>No model number shown.

>>59187784
>It's a B350 board which is AMD's second most powerful chipset
How can you call anything that lacks support for SLI as powerful ?

>>59187810
Look at the specs for the B350 yourself

There is nothing that would make it perform worse than an X370 for this benchmark

>>59187755
>he doesn't game at 200p at 10000FPS so he can see the enemy pixel entering your viewport even 1 nanosecond sooner

>>59185958
So they all the same shit at 1080p? Either there's a bottleneck somewhere or 8 slower cores are just as fine as 4 faster cores, useful for other stuff too besides gaming.

>>59187717
I'm guessing he doesn't give a shit about the 7700K getting 2 FPS extra if it dips whenever it needs to do 2 things at once

>>59187717
I wasn't aware that AMD sells laptops with 8 cores and 1366x768 displays.

>>59187864
It's a bottleneck, they used a 980

Look at the lower res to see the CPU performance isolated

>>59187890
CPU performance isolated? In a 768p game?
How about isolating it in an actual CPU benchmark or actual workload?

>>59185958
So R1700X is almost as fast as the top of the line intel cpus in games.

This is pretty much what they promised, so I'm fine iwth that.

>>59187905
Dude, stop pretending to be dumber than you are.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

*chokes on jew dick*

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

>>59187905
You'd get the same results if they used a 1080.

Reviewers are Iranian poorfags who can only afford a 980, so they use lower res instead to show the CPU performance

>>59187915
It's substantially slower than an Intel CPU which costs $100 less.

>1366x768

Did I go back to 2006?
I haven't seen a lowres game benchmark in literally years.

>>59187915
Uhh the R1700X is getting beat by an Intel CPU that is $100 cheaper

>>>/v/

>>59187940
why are dubious leaks only valid when they confirm your bias?

I tell AMD fags the same shit when they jerk each other off over
favorable chink graphs and I get accused of shilling

you all fucking disgust me

>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA


Ayy caramba

>>59186085
This. I won't play at less than 1080p anyway.

>>59187945
Intel probably told reviewers to ensure they made the CPU the bottleneck in game benchmarks, even though they almost never are.

ITT:
- comment questioning validity of shown benchmark
- AMD GAY HOMO FAGGOT GTFO INTEL IS BETTER

File: 14-AIDA-64-CPU-QUEEN.png (45KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 650x380px

https://videocardz.com/66684/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review-leaks-out

Oh hey they actually did CPU benches.
What's the point of the low res game ones in that case?

>>59188035
>synthetic benchmark is better than actual real-world benchmarks

AMDtard logic

File: 17-SISoftware-Sandra-2016-Processor-Arithmetic.png (45KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 650x380px

>>59188035

>>59188044
>768p
>real world

I guess for people playing on 2006 laptops it is?

>>59188044
>gayming is a real world benchmark

/v/tard logic >>>/v/

File: 23-3DMARK-2013-Fire-Strike-P.png (43KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 650x380px

>>59188045

Nigga who plays pc games below 1920x1080? WHO? In the 1080 benches Ryzen either on par or slightly behind in anyting but bioshock.

>>59185958
>a processor which clocks a little bit lower and has a little bit less IPC manages equivalently less fps in games

Shit man, I'd say I'm surprised but the only tech threads about hardware on /g/ are just troll bait anyways.

I kean it's not like the source of that benchmark set lied about having a 1700x when they were actually running an engineering sample with an ES mobo as well, not to mention we have no idea how the memory for any of those setups was configured
But what do I know.

So it compares no differently to Intel's higher offerings at resolutions most people game at because most of the taxing happens on the GPU at higher resolutions anyways?

I'm an Intel user but this is a stupid argument, actual CPU benchmarks have shown the 1800X to be a solid CPU to be comparable to broadwell-E and this only means when Skylake-E comes out Intel wont charge you 1800 dollars for its extreme edition again.

I dont get it.

Wasn't the consensus not even 2 weeks ago that if Ryzen turned out the same/ better than haswell/broadwell-e it would have met the goal AMD originally outlined way back?

Someone tell me why this is news or a big deal?

File: the-madman.jpg (13KB, 381x286px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 381x286px

>mfw the Iranian reviewers used an ES sample for their benchmarks

Shill thread is shill thread

>>59188044
>defending 768p in any shape or form

I'm so glad it's basically gone for good, those garbage TN panels stuck to us like a bad tumor for over a decade and then some.
I blade the netbook and those shitty early atoms that made it so popular.

>>59188102
>>59188076
See >>59187890

>>59188084
Their whole setup is here, it's all legit

https://videocardz.com/66684/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review-leaks-out

>>59188097
>uses ES sample
>on an unknown b350 board
>with 2133MHz RAM
>still performs ok
Intel kikes are going to get BTFO tomorrow.

File: 1280.jpg (140KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1280x1280px

Can I get the quick run-down on the price and core/thread count of each CPU?

Where did they find a 768p monitor to test this?

>>59188076
nobody who cares about max FPS.

fact is Ryzen is simply not a bottleneck for modern GPUs. this low-res 5-year-old games shit is just as synthetic and irrelevant to average users as the Passmark crap.

>>59188151
you forgot the 102.6 ns latency on that already shitty 2133MHz memory

>>59188151
It's an MSI B350

>>59188176
ark.intel.com

The AMD one is a ES so there's no price on it nor will there ever be.

File: ss+(2017-03-01+at+07.41.00).png (23KB, 694x261px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 694x261px

>>59188198

>>59185980
Does the motherboard actually make a difference? I just choose the cheapest one that had all the slots I needed.

>>59188176
7700k - $339
6700k - $310

1700X - $400

Not looking good for Ryzen when it loses to cheaper CPUs

>>59188235
For overclock, there are cases of some motherboards actually perfoming worse, but that's rare.

>>59185958
pls post 800x600 benchmarks

>>59188176
>i7-6950X 1649.99$
>i7-6700K 309.99$
>i7-7700K 349.99$
>i7-4770K - discontinued
>R7 1700X 399.99$

>all prices from newegg

>>59188235
Performance wise it doesn't unless you're truly nigger tier retarded and do something like hooking up SSD or GPU to outdated slot that has lower bandwidth than your device.

It's just AMD Poojets being on suicide watch.

>>59188247
There still 6 more cheaper Ryzen chips yet to be released!

Where's 720p ? I feel leftn out.

>>59187945
This

>>59188277
Yeah hopefully those do better, but I seriously doubt it based on AMD's track record.

>1366 x 768
>1600 x 900

Literally why?

>>59188311
Intel asked pretty please.

>>59185958
>1366 x 768 - NO AA

IRAN IS OUR GREATEST ALLY

File: 1484759712067 (1).jpg (300KB, 550x526px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 550x526px

Well, my i5 6600k will be enough for gaming unless i want a shitload of threads and pure DX12 games are nowhere to be seen, for a second i was worried about AMD BTFO Intel.

>>59188311
To eliminate GPU bottleneck, they used a 980

>Intelfags being so poor they game at 1366x768

You can't make this shit up

>>59188311
to remove the gpu bottleneck so you can see the cpu one

>>59188186
stupid goy, that's the standard gaming resolution in 2017

>>59188361
Thank you Tel Aviv you are my greatest informant

>>59185958
I dont understand. So it performs as good as intel's more expensive processors except for bioshock where difference is less than 5% and has much moar cores. Whats the problem?

>>59188186
the human eye can't distinguish more than that anyway

>>59188406
Look at lower resolutions for problem unless ur blind

>>59188406
It gets killed by Intel's processors that are $100 cheaper

>>59188406
>So it performs as good as intel's
no, it's worse than all of them

>>59188406
the price tag isnt impressive to me
I expected better since amd is charing so much for the 1700x
but I suppose its great for workstations, just not as price efficient for games

>>59188418
But who the fuck games at those resolutions? The results for 1080p, the only viable resolution in that test, are pretty much identical.

>>59188418
>>59188425
>>59188427
>>59188428
Your copy paste your response to every reply in every thread? Lmaoing at you, Intel shills. Also sub 1080p resolutions are not relevant.

>>59188395
good
now remember the 6 gorillion and don't forget to take a mortgage to buy skylake 3 a.k.a. coffee lake when it comes out later this year

>spend $600+ on a monitor
>these fucks test $500 GPUs and $400-1500 CPUs on 768p

What in the name of stupid fucks

>>59188406
The problem is that if you already have an i5/i7 from the 4th gen hell even the 3rd gen mildly overclocked gen you are pretty much the same on the gaming side and does not justify the money spent on changing MOBO and CPU for the same performance, unless you are a Multimedia Power User and renders a lot then this is it, more cores more less time spent on rendering.Also a lot of waitfags i knew IRL got sick of waiting and went Intel.

>implying anybody uses 1366x768 to play a game other than shitty laptops

>>59188480
AMD, it's time to stop.

File: MFW.png (603KB, 817x548px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 817x548px

>>59187050
>1. These are the important numbers.
No, those are obviously the gpu limited numbers you fucking retard
>2. Future games will use more than 4 cores.
A. Quadcore was introduced 10 years ago and games are barely starting to use 4 cores now
B. Ryzen is released NOW, not in the future retard
>3. DX 11.0 is 2009 technology. Future games will use Vulkan or DX 12.
see 2.
>4. It's using a 1700x and not an 1800x.
Yeah great, the 500$ amd might match a 350$ Intel. I'll wait eagerly

Pic related, it's me reading your post

>>59188459
That's because it's GPU bottlenecked by a 980

Put a 1080 in there and you'll see the same results as the low resolutions

>>59188459
Heh dont you know that competitive gamers play at 640x480 and these tests are relevant, every FPS is important and Intel absolutely dominates

>>59188488
>88
oy gevalt, annuda shoah
stop posting AMD antisemite

>>59188345
>>59188354
Surely something is still wrong since the 1080p results are all basically the same?

>>59188481
I dont think anyone expected faster single thread performance than Intel. Its already really good if its on par. Also not many games utilize moar coars right now, will change with time.

>>59188512
That's just exactly what GPU bottleneck looks like, different systems all bottlenecking at the same FPS point

>>59188512
surely you're retarded >>59188311

"poorfags poor so poor"

t. Intelfag playing on a 768p monitor

>>59188057
>>59188102
Game logic (which is what runs on the CPU) isn't affected by resolution you fucking retards. You lower resolution so you don't get bottlenecked by the GPU. CPU performance is the same.

AMTards confirmed for literal 13 year old fanboys

>>59188501
>>59188522
Then this test is basically fucking pointless for anything at 1080p or above. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>59188512
yeah, I guarantee you get same framerates with R3 vs 6700k at 8K resolutions too with a shitty card! that R3 sure is a monster, right?

>>59188260
Are we so quick to forget all the posts about intel being in panic mode and dropping prices ?

>it was just 1 retailer, literally nothing.

>>59188459
>>59188546
>>59188488
>>59188480
>>59188462
see>>59188550

You ever see these threads and feel good knowing you don't spend hours arguing on behalf of a multi-billion dollar corporation?

>>59188567
But i know that already. Whats your point?

>>59188552
You seem to be under the impression that I'm shilling amd. I'm not, I'm just genuinely confused as to why intel shills are getting such a hard on for benchmarks that are absolutely pointless at 1080p or anything above.

>>59188517
So yeah, no need to upgrade right now at least not for gaming, and it's not like all games are getting bottlenecked hard from a CPU , they are mostly GPU bound, the 4 core era it's not over yet.

>>59186132
We all knew it wasn't a gaming cpu when we saw those physics benchmarks. Show me some render and compile benchmarks, that's how they'll win my dollars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AVZ_x64hg4

>>59188570
I sometimes wonder how many of them do it for free.

>>59188592
You still don't understand what a GPU bottleneck is

>>59188597
Yeah, i know, man. Still ryzen is good for everyone because CPU prices will go down.

>>59186085

These reviewers answered the phone when Intel PR team called them. super low resolution gaming probably advantage faster clock rates. Like you pointed out, 1080p is 1-2 points behind.

I would imagine that 1440 and 4k is a different story. It's easy to find some niche scenario where Ryxen does not dominate but it does not matter if it's unrealistic.

They also used a shit gpu in DX11.

People don't buy 400$ cpu to game at 768p.

>>59188602
The 7700k scores even lower in physics benchmarks so what are you even talking about?

>>59188581
>know that
>still thinks low resolution is irrelevant
Literal retard or just technologically illiterate?

>>59188618
People also don't buy a 980 to pair with their high-end CPU

The only reason they used low res is to compensate for the GPU bottleneck, put a 1080 in there and you get the same results as the low res

>>59188618
no, you go to a low resolution because you want to see what the cpu can do eliminating the gpu as a bottleneck, the fact they didn't do this at a lower resolution with minimum settings is kind of fucked from the get go.

>>59188653
Whats your point, retardo? Its not relevant to anything. People dont play at such low resolutions. Might as well just run synthetic tests.

If you're a paid competitive gamer like me you'd know why 768p is relevant.

>>59186085
Those are GPU bound scenarios, they are only included for retards, you should be looking at the lower resolutions where GPU bottlenecking isn't happening and the CPU sends instructions as fast as it can.

File: 1488333850270.jpg (97KB, 558x695px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 558x695px

>>59188615
Exactly anon, consumers win.

>>59188660
So why the fuck didn't they just do the test with a gtx 1080 at 1080p, 1440p and 4k to begin with? At least then you could deal with real world results

>>59188697
see >>59188550

So what benchmarks can AMD win in? It doesn't look like much. Also Vega seems slow as shit. AMD is literally finished this year.

Call me when they test this shit with a proper GPU and a proper monitor preferably with no hidden system voodoo like different memory speeds.

>>59186606
whats up with bioshock though?

>>59188728
They're Iranian poorfags

File: 1394581169804.jpg (81KB, 274x268px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 274x268px

>>59188615

True! Thank AMD for making Intel CPU cheaper!

>>59188728
Resolution doesn't matter for CPU tests retard

>>59185958
>gaymen
>>>/v/

frickin' /v/ autists GET OFF MY BOARD

>>59188743
I hear Ryzen is amazing at WinRar extraction

>>59188743
Rendering, VMs, encoding, any and all multi-core tasks.

>>59188731
How is it affects ANYTHING? Reviewers dont use this shit in their reviews since 2006 for a reason.

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

1MB, 2000x1367px

>>59188743

Just cinebench cuz neckbeard madshills are crazy about the pretty number.

>>59188727
>11 core CPU

OPINION DISCARDED UNREALICM

>>59188743
If AMD were to be finished, I seriously doubt intel and nvidia would've shat themselves and dropped prices all over the place. Competition is a good thing shills will never understand

File: 1464804859737.jpg (52KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 568x612px

>>59188799

>what is core 0

>>59188727
>that picture

Top kek

>>59188758

Having the res as low as it will go measures how well the CPU runs the game code dunknuts

>>59188811
that's including core 0 you autist. it goes from core 0 to core 10. That's 11 cores.

Geez intel shills don't even know how to count these days, they just don't make em like they used to

File: 1467405373285.jpg (106KB, 633x568px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 633x568px

>>59188809

Yeah, i agree. Please buy AMD's shitty products for the sake of Israel, so I can afford the best ones. (Intel + Nvidia)

File: 1487013535230.jpg (75KB, 1080x787px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1080x787px

>>59188774
kek

>>59188809
Intel didn't drop any prices, it was a one time sale at microcenter

>>59188500
because, and listen to this closely asshole, the market for cpus still has over 50% stuck on dual cores, no one is going to write off that significant a portion of the market just to get an 4 thread requirement unless they have to.

What we will see is this, and we already see something like this in the i7

because amd brought 6 and 8 cores to reasonable prices, people will start making games for it as its going to be far higher than the current 1% or less of gamers that currently have that core count.

>>59188758
It'll keep the GPU from being a bottleneck you twatwad

>>59188789
In CPU reviews low res in games is standard retard
>Game logic (which is what runs on the CPU) isn't affected by resolution you fucking retard

>haha, AMDfags might be faster in compilation, encryption, compression/decompression, encoding/transcoding/decoding, VMs, or networking but at least we're faster in 768p games..oh and 4k Netflix

Intelfags
This is getting kinda sad now

>>59188500
oh, also, ask yourself why they only showed an oc number for one game.

>>59188825
>measures how well the CPU runs the game code
>in a CPU test
That's obviously the entire point. How old are you?

>>59187084
exactly what I expected, and once proper reviews come out and go into ryzen master and xfr, im willing to bet money that gap will become negligible at best if there even is a gap.

I like the fact Intelkikes are so poor that they game at 768p

File: 1488333850270FIXED.jpg (135KB, 558x695px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 558x695px

>>59188799
FTFY

>>59188845
So basically you're saying that AMTards are the gullible early adopters who pay premium price for shit they won't be able to use until it's mainstream 5 years later

>>59188096
Ryzen has met my expectations, pretty excited for tomorrow.

Rypoo doesn't support 4k netflix so its useless to the real world

>>59188894
>10 core CPU

faggot please

ryzen cores come in multiples of 4.

get with it or

GET
OUT

File: 30-Dolphin-Benchmark[1].png (38KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x380px

AMD CAN"T INTO EMULATION!!!

>>59188918
neither does intel are you retarded

>>59188918
>wants 4k Netflix
>but games on a 768p monitor

I'm getting kinda mixed signals here?

>>59188860
They didn't show ANY OC numbers for Intel,retard so if anything the review is biased towards AMD for pitting an OC AMD against stock intel

>>59188854
You are retarded for real. No one literally uses low res in CPU reviews. Its outdated method. It doesnt affect real world in any way.

>>59188919
>implying i am mocking only Ryzen CPU's not Multicore CPU's

Really nigga?

>>59188929
time in seconds for what?
what is this

>>59185958
Are we back to 2010? 720p games from last generation.

>>59188894
Clearly an 11 core CPU would be something nvidia would make if they were in the x86 game.

>>59188933
4k content downscaled to 768p looks just as good as native 4k thanks to software, I can use a 768p monitor which is much cheaper and get teh same quality as a 4k monitor

>>59188951
x86-48bit 11 core cpu.

>>59188291
t. autist

>>59188945
>mocking multocre

RENDERING ECODING VMs GET OUT

>>59188951
With 5 ram channels

>>59188931
Uh yes it does

>>59188918
>4k netflix
>on a 1366x768 display

>>59188929
>that $1700 Intel
Jesus
Is this emulator 100% high on clockspeed?

>>59188963
What about HDR, does your 768p monitor does that too?

>>59188951
1080ti reference...nice one

>>59188979
>implying it does

mfw it doesn't

>>59188897
well lets see here, not sure about you but i have shit open in the background when I play games, I don't like closing applications just to start others if I don't have to.

Amd lets me keep something like a web browser+video player+misc background tasks going without effecting the game.

Because I know these benchmarks are all done in a sterile tests setup, as in cold boot and nothing else going on, these are just guidelines that will favor intel no matter what.

now load up a long form video to play in the background while I play an arpg and show me the numbers.

but that's all just gaming, again, not sure what you use a computer for but fuck knows I do more then game on mine, and that's where amd is going to shine.

320$ minimum 500$ max buy in for an 8 core?
an 8 core that as we can clearly see in the benchmark is not going to hold me back even when I have leisure time activities?

hard to argue against it.

>>59188929
Ryzen is just turning out to be a really shitty gaming CPU overall

>>59188967
Haha
>it hurts to live

File: confused.gif (1MB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x274px

>>59188963

>>59188951
>not a 9.5 core
Blew it

>>59188967
with 3.5 ram channels

>>59188929
Dolphin is dual cored, pretty much every emulator out there are single cored or dual cores at best.

Single Threaded matters the most.

>>59188944
>https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-review/2/
>720p

>It doesnt affect real world in any way.
1. You don't know what "affect" means. The word you meant was "represent".
2. Yes it does represent real world because Game logic (which is what runs on the CPU) isn't affected by resolution you fucking retard

>>59188720
>cpu bottleneck
>DX11

Son...

>>59188963
Best post of the thread award.

>>59189010
Are you retarded?

GPU BOTTLENECK

File: 1487032430177.jpg (45KB, 567x567px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 567x567px

>>59189005

File: 70791[1].png (45KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x450px

>>59188929

Old news. It is common to know that AMD runs very poor in emulators.

>>59188998
>gaymen

>>>>>////V//////

GET OU GET OUT GETUO T

>>59189022
>Old news. It is common to know that AMD runs very poor in emulators.
That was because shit IPC. This isn't the case with Ryzen anymore.

>>59189008
>Game logic (which is what runs on the CPU)
I understand that you heard this meme somewhere and it got stuck in your head but there is no point to bring it really. It makes no sense in real world where no one play on abnormally low resolutions. Btw took you long enough to find just 1 review xD.

>>59189046
Uhh then explain this >>59188929

>>59189054
It does though because it can isolate the CPU gaming performance, it's literally the only way to do it without GPU bottlenecking

>>59189055
those tests are unfair
they aren't cinebench

>>59189055
Explain why the 6950X that's at the same clockspeed as a 1700X is doing just as bad if Intel is 'natively'' better at dolphin?

It's because dolphin is a purely clockspeed benchmark, tl;dr overclock.

File: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadasd.png (9KB, 1033x73px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 1033x73px

>>59188944
Thanks for proving the last remark in >>59188550

>>59189076
god you are so fucking retarded, the 6950X single threaded speed is slower than the 7770k.

File: moar-cores.jpg (96KB, 608x369px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 608x369px

>>59189076
Because adding MOAR CORES to a CPU doesn't make it faster

>>59186132
>Who gives a shit you fucking manchildren.
So what's a better way to spend free time, besides shit posting on niggertits?

>>59188792
>asian woman ceo = terrible drivers

Fuck you. I had to explain why I was laughing so hard at my workstation.

>pretending i was on imgur

>gaymers think ryzen is shit because a lower clocked CPU doesn't perform as well in muh vidya gayms
people like OP need to fuck off back to >>>/v/

>>59189091
Yeah, because it's clocked like 1.2GHz lower?
Didn't I just say that?

>>59188993
Idle programs barely draws CPU retard. Go ahead, show your CPU utilization right now, and show all the programs lagging because you only got 4 cores

>>59186526
woah that's not your average dumbpost.

>>59189115
more core = harder to achieve core clock

go be retard somewhere else

Intel doesn't even need to pay any shills - dumb gaymers do the job for them.
If you're a gayman fucktard buy a 7700k and never come back to /g/.
>>59189046
Thank god I didn't have to reply to the retard you replied to. This emulation relies heavily on single threaded performance which bd obviously didn't have but their 5 niggahurtz babbylake is pretty good at it.
>>59189055
>ESample
>probably 3.4ghz
From top to bottom the clockspeed is decreasing so this looks just fine to me.
>>59189091
The 6950 also does perform worse than the 7700k so what's your point?

all retards
>>>/v/
with your gay shit

File: 1463434655833.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

>>59189073

I KNOW RIGHT!!!


>let's ignore real world stuff cuz it makes my precious shit looking really bad

ARRRGHGHHH

>>59189113
To be fair, I'd like to see gaymers that buy a $350 CPU just to use 1366x768 resolution.

>>59189131
So disable the cores, you can disable the 7700k's cores as well and get over 5GHz if dolphin is all you run, I'd recommend a pentium in that case, much cheaper.

>>59189054
calling it a meme doesn't make it less true.
Saying i only proved you wrong once doesn't mean you weren't proved wrong

>>59189134
>The 6950 also does perform worse than the 7700k so what's your point?


No, WHAT'S your point?

>>59188998
The 7700K destroys Intel's 6/8/10-core CPU's in most games as well retard. If you want a dedicated gayming CPU wait for R5, I don't think anyone expected the 8-core R7 to outperform the 7700k in games.

File: this-is-fine.png (310KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 580x282px

>>59189134
>From top to bottom the clockspeed is decreasing so this looks just fine to me.

Yeah it's totally fine that an Intel chip that costs $100 less is beating the Ryzen chip.

>>59189155
> you can disable the 7700k's cores as well and get over 5GHz


No need to, a 7700k can do 5GHz in all cores just fine.

>>59189155
a reminder that Ryzen's overclocking utility allow per-core overclocking and core disabling profiles per application

>>59189168
It can do much higher with 1 core.

>>59188550
I'm sorry, but in what fucking planet a GPU would bottleneck a CPU in a DX11 game that barely uses 4 cores? What in the fuck would the CPU send to the GPU that is too much to it to render? You are a complete retard, those games are old as fuck and will only take advantage of high clockspeeds, increasing resolution will only make the CPU work more to send it to the GPU, unless you are using a Geforce 710.

File: screenshot_3031.png (34KB, 689x849px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 689x849px

>>59189127
that's my idle, usually my idle is around 30-40% but something isn't hitting the other 4 cores right now,

>Intel has no competition for several years
>Focuses on energy savings over IPC
>Competition on IPC arrives
>Drop prices by $50 across the board
>Ryzen flops performance-wise anyway
>6 months later
>new batch of CPUs launched
>completely stomps amd and make it irrelevant again
>Wow nothing happened
gg amd

Thanks for the price drops though.

>>59189164
The 6950K is literally $1700 and it loses to the 7700K. It's almost as if core count matters more for applications other than games.

>>59189188
So back to square one...

>>59189178
>and show all the programs lagging because you only got 4 cores
still waiting m8

>>59189188
>skylake 3
>stomping anything
HA!

>>59189164
$100 less with half the cores and threads
muh gayming isn't everything, perf is great considering the 6900k, the Intel equivalent of the 1700X, costs $1100
>inb4 muh microcenter price cut

>>59189188
Coffee Lake is literally Skylake 3. It's not even 10 nm, it's literally just moar clockspeed and a consumer 6-core.

>>59189208
Ryzen is barely keeping up with intel's last gen and is even behind in many benchmarks. Try again AMDrone.

>>59189177
>increasing resolution will only make the CPU work more

You are literally living in opposite world.

Try googling "GPU bottleneck" and come back once you have learned something

>>59189157
Tell me how game logic being faster on very low impractical resolution affects anything. If you ever get bottlenecked at normal resolution in the future it will be because of muh cores which some games already show.

>>59189216
>6 core
>moar clockspeed
With a overclocked 7700k drawing over 200W I kinda seriously doubt they'll be adding any more clockspeed with 50% more the cores unless they want another netburst.

>>59189216
>moar clockspeed
>6-core
it will be fire, just like my mixtape

>>59189177
>What in the fuck would the CPU send to the GPU that is too much to it to render?

You're thinking backwards.

Higher resolution = more work for the GPU to do.

Slow CPU = not enough instructions for the GPU to work on

It does not make sense to test in scenarios where the GPU is already at 100% utilization because you're not going to get anymore performance using a faster CPU.


While at lower resolutions you get very low GPU usage , let's say 20% usage, that means the GPU isn't being bottlenecked, in this case a faster CPU will be able to send more insutrctions to the GPU, and the GPU will be able to do more work thus increasing GPU usage and framerate along with it.

>>59189177
You're the same as this guy, right? >>59189078

File: 1488390717172.jpg (59KB, 799x451px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 799x451px

>>59189208

>>59189223
>buying the exact same CPU for three years is all right
OK

File: ROG_Maximus_IX_new_comers_600[1].jpg (51KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x338px

>>59189188

yeah, those z270 chipsets look so amazing. More features, powerful, and refined than AyyyMD chipsets

Thank AMD for making Intel products cheaper.

>>59189223
Broadwell-E was barely an improvement over Haswell-E. You're delusional if you think Skylake-E/X will bring anything other than marginal improvements to the X99 platform.

>>59185958
>Monster Hunter
What.

>>59189276
Chink MMO

>>59189227
>game logic being faster on very low impractical resolution affects anything

>Game logic (which is what runs on the CPU) isn't affected by resolution you fucking retard
>game logic isn't affected
>game logic isn't faster
Really don't know how to dumb it down any more for you

>>59189262
It's going to be a new socket, 2066 I think.
Skylake X will be a housefire unless Intel does something big against their powerdraw.

File: 1473904892658.jpg (362KB, 1106x1012px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1106x1012px

>>59189188
But IPC would lead to better energy and performance gains

>>59189206
I can start up deus ex right now and show you the glorious 12 fps at best held back by both cpu and ram, I can render a video and give you the stat my cpu isn't able to render 720p in real time, i can also render out a 3d model and tell you the time, but without something to pit it against fuck knows what things would compare like, I can play a video and jumping around takes up to 3 seconds a jump because of the cpu (dodec dependant) I can also show you chrome locking up for 5+ seconds at a time because it decides to hammer my cpu to 100%

But these don't exist do they?

zen was my deadline for a new cpu, looking at gaming benches where even in the worst case scenarios it keeps up, looking at multi core benches where its ahead, and my own personal experience of making the choice between dual core and quad core at a time when quad core was called retarded and overkill really shapes my opinion.

If you game only and have an ivy bridge quad or newer, the switch is not going to be big right now, but if you have a sandy or earlier, its hard to justify a i7 or an i5 when a 8 core is only slightly more, or in some cases less expensive, and delivers overall more performance then an i7.

an 8 core allows me to do time and process intensive things, partition it out to half the cores, and game on the other half unimpeded.

File: 1487463731225.png (59KB, 209x241px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 209x241px

>>59189188
>implying a $50 price drop on any of Intel's HEDT parts that Ryzen is competing with would actually make them worth buying over Ryzen
>Ryzen flops performance-wise anyway
>new batch of CPUs launched
>completely stomps amd and make it irrelevant again
>babbylake re-release 3
>stomping anything

Have we really gone for 300 posts with you fags arguing if 768p in 2017 is relevant?

>>59189251
>less than 5% IPC gain
Didn't you shills have a nice Intel marketing slide with lofty claims about 15% IPC increase?

File: 1485769353548.png (973KB, 801x1500px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 801x1500px

>>59189216
>higher clock speed
>6 cores
hyberbipeline 2.0 :-DDDDDDDDDDD

>>59189233
>>59189225
Those games will only take advantage of high clock speeds because they are bad multithreaded, DX11 is known to push CPU 0 to 100% and only then send stuff to other few cores while some will get iddle. A 7700K will always be on advantage due to its turbo being 4.5Ghz and it will always be there because at least one core will be in idle. It is nothing to do with amd being shit, it is due to Intel clocks being way higher than AMD cpus.

>>59189316
>Have we really gone for 300 posts with you fags arguing if 768p in 2017 is relevant?

Actually if you use your brain this argument is actually about "its ryzen good for 144hz users"

People who want 144FPS only hope is OCing a 7700K and even that one isn't enough.


You are literally retarded.

>>59186053
Is he wearing a cap or is he tearing off his face?

>>59189316
It's not relevant, people were just explaining it's how you benchmark CPU's. In most games at higher resolutions CPU benchmarks are pointless, either it stutters or it doesn't.

>>59189340
Clock speed =/= Single threaded performance.

>>59189340
>It is nothing to do with amd being shit, it is due to Intel clocks being way higher than AMD cpus.

Redundant, they are the same thing. AMD is shit because their clocks are so fucking low.

>>59185958
it was a fun ride
Time to sell those AMD stock and get back my money.

>>59189340
>He doesn't knows abotu Intel pipes

Are you 15?

File: ZEN.jpg (143KB, 512x960px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 512x960px

>>59189336

:-DDDDDDDDDDD

>>59189377
What would that make Intel's 6900k, 6950X and 6800?
Not shit because their clocks are so low?

>>59189311
>render a video
>render out a 3d model
>blablablalbalbbl
your original argument was that you need more cores for multi tasking, now you're talking straight up raw performance. Make up your mind retard.
Of course Ryzen will be faster in the 1/10 programs that actually uses 8 cores, but it will be slower for 9/10 programs. THAT's the point

File: 1386284432036.gif (2MB, 217x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 217x217px

HAHAHA I FUCKING KNEW IT!

Kept telling you fags it's going to be Polaris all over and now it is. You kept telling me it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT and it wasn't.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>59189311
The time for octocores is now.

>>59189400
so, you think I want to render something and not use my computer for several hours, or do you not know what multi tasking is?

>>59189395
They are good workstation CPUS, bad for everything else

>>59189392
>AMD
>hyperthread

>>59189392
except 8-core Ryzen has lower TDP than 4-core Intel, but you tried, I give you that

>>59189340
The issue with this thread is people are trying to compare 8-core CPU's, which naturally have a lower clockspeed than 4-core, to Intel's fastest 4-core processor. The comparison doesn't make sense. The news should be that AMD is offering a 6900K for half the price, instead you have retards whining about gayming benchmarks, not mentioning the fact that Intel's X99 CPU's aren't the best for gayming either.

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

114KB, 895x852px

Is it time for the 'do gayms use more than 4 cores' with Intelfags arguing that they don't need more than 4 cores while using a processor with 8 logical cores?

>>59189392
>hyperthread lel
>AMD now draws significantly less power than Intlel chips
I remember my P4 660 housefire
outta here with your trash image nigger

>>59189392
That should be Intel talking about Zen and releasing Gaby Lage :DDDDD

>>59189433
Even worse, they are praising 720p gaming.

>>59189487
No one is praising 720p gaming, retard.

>>59189419
>rendering
1. That's still not what you talked about before.
2. Rendering will 100% all cores regardless of if you have 4 or 8 retard. Makes no difference for multi-tasking
3. You're still getting worse performance in 9/10 programs

>>59189290
You dont get it, stupid. X Intel CPU is faster in game logic on very low resolution. Does it affect any modern resolution - NO. Will this tiny difference affect future games - NO. Games will only scale more with cores where AMD CPU with moar cores will be more futureproof. Maybe now youll understand. Youre done, kiddo.

>>59189533
really because I can open vegas up and point to the setting where I chose how many cores it uses, I can also show you the way to tell iprograms what cores to use in windows.

>>59189542
You amd shills have been saying this since 2011 with the FX. guess what people who bought a 2500K back then are still going ons trong, meanwhile the Fx8350 couldn't even keep up with the 2500k on release day.

>>59189501
Ok, what OP image gives us is that Intel is pretty good at 720p but at FullHD is the same shit with 1.1Ghz above ryzen.

>>59189568
Well, why don't you shows us a GPu that won't bottleneck at 1080p and above?

go ahead.

>>59189564
2500K is in its last grasps, may have 1 year left for 1080p60

>>59189542
>Does it affect any modern resolution
Yes it does, because Game logic (which is what runs on the CPU) isn't affected by resolution you fucking retard

>>59189433
>The comparison doesn't make sense.

It only doesn't make sense because you don't want to see the reality.

Reality is that a $300 Intel CPU is beating a $400 Ryzen CPU.

>>59189568
Try Googling "GPU Bottleneck"

There's a reason why they test at low resolution and it's not because they want to play games at low resolution

>>59189549
>where I chose how many cores it uses
What's the problem then retard? limiting it to 3/4 or 6/8 is basically the same thing. You can still multitask on 4

>>59189599
>$300 Intel CPU beats $1000 Intel CPU in games
Intel BTFO.

>>59188137
Sure, but it's still an ES chip on an ES mobo.

Read the first sentence.

>>59189582
Everything goes through the CPU you fucktard. GPU does what CPU requests it to do. Higher resolution is more requests to paint more pixels on screen.

>>59189617
well lets see here, I want 4 cores to be used for ny normal tasks so it goes unimpeded, I want extra cores so doing said tasks is like fresh processing power.

how is this hard to understand for you?

>>59189631
Goddamn you are dumb.

>>59189631
>Higher resolution is more requests to paint more pixels on screen.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I have been browsing 4chan for over a decade and this is the first time I've met someone this retarded.

>being so poor you game at sub-1080p with a $400 CPUs

Man this reminds me of those homeless niggers that take out a loan to buy a iPhone