RYZEN DOA

File: 1391557219207.jpg (56KB, 597x519px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 597x519px

>>59188696
>ryzen can't even compete in synthetic benchmarks
REEEEE
wtf , why guys, this was supposed to be our change to laugh at intel kiddies, not get rekt again.

File: 1419040409703321019.png (248KB, 594x411px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 594x411px

>tfw comfy Intel cpu

>>59188696
>R7 1700
>Beats the 6800K the 1700X was supposed to compete with.

GG AMD wins. They actually did it.
INTEL BTFO
etc, etc....

Post the fucking full review m8, don't be a retard. Oops, too late.

>>59188806
b-b-but it's not at the top!

>>59188696
Guru3D's review isn't even up. Who actually takes the time to make this shit? Why would anybody be using Cinebench 11.5 instead of 15?

>>59188857
of course not, dummy
it's leaked

WTF I hate AMD now?!

File: screenshot-www.guru3d.com-2017-03-01-18-04-20.png (664KB, 1360x879px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1360x879px

>>59188696

fake..

>>59188869
Sure, buddy. Where did Guru3D get a 1700 anyway? Because the AMD review kit contains an 1800X.

>>59188887
off by one

>WCCF still labelling fake graphs under Guru3D's name.

Oh I can't wait for Guru3d to get sick of this shit and subpoena those niggers

>>59188916
Hilbert has better things to do than try and sue some curry niggers in one of their kangaroo courts.

>>59188916
>>59188928

nothing to do with wccftech tho, OP MAKE IT

>>59188958
prove

File: 1463185519554264607.png (42KB, 223x250px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 223x250px

>amd fucks up one more time
wew

File: 1.png (165KB, 648x484px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 648x484px

>>59188987
their graphs dont have the same typo and OP have no source, he makes it

File: untitled-2.png (45KB, 690x1007px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 690x1007px

>>59189053
ok, I fabricated the image using a bit of excel and gimp just for the kikes, but what typo do you mean? I took the source image from Guru3D (pic rel)

File: 1488410377121.png (46KB, 690x1007px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 690x1007px

>>59189089
the wccftech one was like pic related. I forgot the link, agian OP make it

>>59188806
the 1700 was meant to compete with the 7700k i believe.

File: 1259320105496.jpg (44KB, 446x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 446x400px

>can't even beat current Intel chips

you're supposed to make something better than the competition AMD not equal. Wasn't sure if you realized that

>>59188696
>No 1700x
>No 1800x

This is bad bait, bad trolling, just a bad post in general, it doesn't achieve fuck all.

>>59189049
>interrogation marks
>living in a country where a question mark is improperly labelled
how unfortunate for you, lass

>>59188696
>R7 1700
>main competitors
>6800K: beaten
>7700K: beaten

What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>59190011
/thread

>>59188696
>>59188733
>>59188757
>cheapest R7
>costs less than 6800K
>BTFOs the 6800K
More like Intel BTFO you retarded faggot.

Jesus this board is full of retards.

25 posts in and no one has noticed this is 11.5 which intentionally throttles performance if the system doesn't return "GenuineIntel".

Go fucking read up on it. That's why the newer R15 is used and not the SEVEN FUCKING YEARS OLD 11.5

>>59191772
i realized but didnt say anything because the point of these threads is to post intentionally biased and incomplete information in order to shitpost and troll.

>>59190011
>8c 16t processor beats 4c 8t processor in cinebench
wow who cares

>>59191772
>unfounded claim from 2008 brought back alive in 2013 still unfounded and then revived again in 2017 still being unfounded
lol
muh backhand tactics again huh

What is a reliable benchmark? I'm looking to replace my i3 6100. I care only about single thread performance.

Currently I look for CPU-Z and Cinebench 15. Are there any other reliable benchmark scores to look for?

>>59193537
Nope, nothing is reliable besides whatever you use your processor for
If you like to use your processor for staring at cinebench scores all day then that's a perfect benchmark for you
if you use it for gaming then that's your benchmark
If you use it for rendering videos then that's your benchmark

>>59188696
This confirms 1700 is better than 7700k lol

>>59193573
>>59193465

I feel like today before NDA lifts it's going to be even worse than whole previous week.

File: 515zjYMpuOL.jpg (42KB, 377x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 377x500px

>>59193573
>The processor with double the cores and can do double the amount of things at one time is better in a raytracing benchmark

>>59193595
And it's also cheaper and cooler.

>>59189734
>current intel chips

It's worse than that, every benchmark shows them falling behind some of the 2 generation old chips. It's a step up from literally being worse than nehalem in 2016, but there's no way this company will be around by 2020.

>>59189709
Price wise it is yea.

>>59193611
>cheaper
no it isn't
>cooler
source

>>59193618
1700 is infinitely cheaper and cooler than 7700k you dumbass

>>59193618
It's cheaper in canada not burgerland

>>59193581
>being a corelet

>>59193632
>leafland
nobody gives a fuck

File: i dont want to live on this planet anymore.jpg (115KB, 284x640px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 284x640px

B T F O
T F O B
F O B T
O T F O

>>59193691
>O T F O

>>59193661
Stop living in a shithole of a country then.

File: cpu war shitshow.png (680KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 1280x738px

>>59188696
DO A CPU WAR SHITSHOW, HEY THIS IS FUN!

>>59193537
>What is a reliable benchmark? I'm looking to replace my i3 6100. I care only about single thread performance.
Hows windows 95 working for you?

>>59188696
Nice. Sticking with my Q6600 for another 10 years I guess.

>shitposting on /g/ is all amd haters have left

sad

>>59188883
this

>>59193974

t. corelet

>>59188696
is this even trying to be bait?

>>59193537
> I'm looking to replace my i3 6100.

bclk oc is free

source?
can't find the review on guru3d

if you can't give me a source - I call fake on this, shill