Ryzen Reviews

https://tweakers.net/reviews/5239/ryzen-7-processors-amd-is-terug-in-de-race.html

Dutch

>>59198201
ITS LITERALLY WORSE THAN 6600k WTF? Bulldozer 2.0...

LTT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJQEHNYE7M

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700

HardwareUnboxed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1pzcdZxKc

GamersNexus video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBHjtCXhU

>>59198237
>The 1800X is an impressive competitor to the 6900K in production, and it’s significantly cheaper. We’d recommend the 1800X over the 6900K for folks who genuinely use software acceleration. It’s just not good for gaming, and GPUs kill both AMD and Intel CPUs in accelerated rendering.

/v/ BTFO.

File: untitled-9.png (78KB, 690x1143px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 690x1143px

INTEL BTFO

>2600k performance in gaming in fucking 2017

>>59198262
>/v/ BTFO.


THIS!!!!

File: 85887[1].png (45KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 650x350px

1800x only slightly worse than i7-7700k at Handbrake.

Hmm..

>>59198337
@handbreak
jesus christ Ryzen is shit

>>59198346
retard

>>59198337
>an 8 core cpu is slower in x264 than a 4 core 7700k
how could they fuck this up so hard?

>>59198361
handbreak is multi threaded you moron
intel 4c beating it is embarassing

File: zen-got-btfovv.gif (2MB, 360x201px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x201px

>>59198258
Literally AYYYMD on suicide watch

>>59198337
>costs 100$ more
>performs worse

AYYYYMD does it yet again

>>59198377
It's pretty obvious that it scales extremely poorly by how close 6900K is to 7700K.

File: image11.png (30KB, 687x788px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 687x788px

>>59198237
You're not, not wrong.

>>59198418
>An 8 core is comparable to a 4 core in single core performance

Is this supposed to make AMD look bad?

>>59198447
Considering that 1800X is $150 more than 7700K, yes?

>SMT showing some overhead
that's disappointing

>>59198201
Ho boy, intel shills were right once again.
I was waiting for ryzen/vega to change my cpu but I'm buying a 7700k and a gtx1070 as we speak.
Fuck these guys and their overhyped BS.
Vega can fuck itself for all I care now.
Long life intel + nvidia wombo combo

File: image10.png (18KB, 401x375px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 401x375px

>>59198476

>>59198476
the 6900k is also much more expensive than a 7700k

>4.2GHz at 1.45v wasn't stable (hardware unboxed)
>had to settle for 4.1GHz
God damn it. I'm buying the 7700k, fuck it.

>>59198476
The 6900k costs twice as much as the Ryzen and performs like shit in that test, you retard

polish https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana

results start at 4th subpage

>on average a $50 pentium is only about 10% slower in games than a $500 ryzen 1800x

>tfw bought i7700k 2 months ago while faggots are still waiting for the verdict

sucks to suck PHAM, you almost had me worried hypeboiz

>>59198497
And that should make me buy Ryzen that is worse than 7700K because...?

File: ryzen-r7-1800x-bench-wd2[1].png (135KB, 806x696px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 806x696px

1800x on par with i7-7700k with HT disabled in Watch_Dogs 2.

With HT enabled, the i7-7700k gets ~30 more average FPS...

What the fuck, AMD?

>>59198520
muh cores

>>59198520
I don't know, do you only use programs that requires a single core? Then knock yourself out

Guess I'm getting the 7700K after all
You got me again, AMD

>>59198528
While its shitty, it seems like Watch_Dogs only utilizes Intel Hyperthread..

I cannot blame them that much tho, pretty sure they didn't had a Ryzen Reference to support it

>>59198528

HT are not real cores, have less performance.

With HT I guess watch dogs picks the Thread instead of the actual core.

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9JL0kvNjU2NDQyL29yaWdpbmFsLzAyLVdhdHRhZ2UtQ3VydmVzLnBuZw==.jpg (75KB, 711x533px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 711x533px

Ryzen 7 1800X pulls 110w under full load in Prime95.

>>59198201
LGA 2011 fagots on suicide watch.
>2011 is the power user socket
>2011 is the enthusiast socket
>2011 will be the 10/20 cores threads socket
>2011 pay extra for the quad channel

>>59198201
All AMD had to do is ditch the 1700 and release a single R5 1600x which has a higher rated clockspeed

>>59198541
did you see the handbrake results? >>59198337

>>59198373
>Intel's octa-core is within margin of error from their quad-core

Hmmm....

pcper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b-CnNPk0CI

I wonder how its going to scale up in the future when software uses more cores.

We've seen the FX 8350+ series of CPUs scale-up recently with newer releases.

I wonder if the benhcmarks will look different a few years down the line.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux
Linux tests

I like what I've been seeing. Seems like AMD has a winner.

>>59198557
That's not too shabby.

I mean for me the only reason I ever cared about CPU tdp is PSU requirement.

You could probably build a full AMD build (R7 1700+ RX 480) and have a 450w (hell even a 400w) PSU to power it

>>59198569
>The 6900k performs nearly identical to the 7700k

Yes I did, what's your point?

>>59198541
Most programs barely use 4 cores, in which Intel will be slightly better for 70% of the price. Thanks, I will.

This looks fine to be honest. Slightly disappointing but it's not an extreme situation. Neither "AMD IS DOA" or "Intel is finished" I guess. Good for AMD, it's still an all new product that has good potential in the future.

>>59198517
>sucks to suck PHAM, you almost had me worried hypeboiz
I was one of these hypeboiz and I'm buying a 7700k right now.
I should have known that expecting something from pajeets was a bad idea.
Never ever again, glory to Israël and Intel.

File: untitled-13.png (27KB, 687x694px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 687x694px

Really makes the ticker tock

File: untitled-2.png (27KB, 682x665px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 682x665px

>>59198611
Hmmm.

>>59198596
Ohm, its a winner yes, against Intel 6-8 Core CPU's.

Its not really a winner against their mainstream i5 and i7. Its really weird but I think AMD will truly win with their R5 series.

>>59198611
weird because it does better than any intel cpu
in 4K on dx11

File: Untitled.jpg (388KB, 1919x1077px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1919x1077px

Joker Production :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lay7YuqPscQ

File: ryzen-r7-1800x-blender-benchmark.png (101KB, 806x546px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 806x546px

ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

>>59198337
HAHAHAHA
>shit at winrar
>shit at games
>shit at encoding
DOA

File: 1487733482255.png (94KB, 634x697px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 634x697px

>>59198337
fuck you guys for making me fell for the ryzen meme

>>59198201

All reeks of intel damage control. Don't you dare post good things about AMD goy or we cut off your supply of shekels!

Even if its 10% 'behind' intel's over-inflated offerings, I'm getting one.

>>59198634
They obviously launched it this way to avoid having their R5s interfere with the more expensive R7s. It gently forces the people who have been waiting for high end processors to buy the more expensive models first.

>>59198604
never question the jew again goy.

>>59198538
muh cores on a SINGLE THREAD bench

shils dont even try to hide their technicall illiteracy

>>59198201
>Even after down-clocking the -7700K to 3.8 GHz, it still beats Ryzen 7 1800X in nearly every game in our suite.

Welp...

>>59198600
>Most programs barely use 4 cores

Except for those that actually matters if you're a productive adult, i.e not video games

File: Idontknowwhattobelieveanymore.png (3MB, 1880x944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1880x944px

>>59198611
But Anon.... Linus Shill tips

General consensus is the CPUs are good for a lot of stuff, beating broadwell in some tasks. But in gaming, they drop to haswell levels of performance.

>>59198629
>actual multithreaded test shows that ryzen is shit
>handbrake shows that ryzen is shit
>games show that ryzen is shit

I was ready to build my AMD system but it's less then mediocre scores in games think I'll wait for intels response or just hold off for a skylake-x build and Volta

Ryzen isn't bulldozer 2.0 by any means but it's not going to live up to the hype

>>59198682
That being said, would you recommend a Ryzen R7 1700 upgrade from my i5 4690?

>>59198701
>I only notice benchmarks what benefits my "facts"

>>59198689
Pfthahaha, guess Linus doesn't mind a bribe. He needs them to keep his shitty 'company' afloat.

>>59198701
See >>59198658

>>59198701
>The only CPUs that beat it cost twice as much and have way higher TDP

Please don't breed

>>59198689
>tfw wanted to upgrade from FX8350
>tfw its still pointless outside of one or two games to upgrade from it since DX12 and Vulkan has been a massive boon for it so far

Best £50 I ever spent.

>>59198661
Maybe you should read full reviews and not base your opinion on one cherrypicked benchmark.

>>59198701
It's better than every single Intel product below $1000 there.

It seems there a rather large discrepancy between WinRAR and 7zip also.

File: 2017-03-02 09_39_10-Microarchitecture Thoughts and Comparisons - The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review_ A D.png (93KB, 653x1189px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 653x1189px

This is why I still read anandtech

File: kernel_compile.png (58KB, 666x770px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 666x770px

Kernel compilation. I don't think it will scale over 8 cores much given the difference between 6800k and 5960x. Still I would skip 1800x and 1700x in favor of 1700.

>>59198729
i just look at the average, and the average shows that ryzen blows

File: Faildozer2.0_2.png (60KB, 1052x846px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1052x846px

HAHAHA BULLDOZER 2.0 ALL OVER AGAIN
Where's your "52% IPC increase" now?


pic related

>>59198711

Are you a gamur manchild only concerned with muh FPS'es? No

Do you actually need 8 cores for other reasons? Yes

>>59198201
>The fucking differences between the toms and the guru3d review

WEW LAD ITS JUST A (((COINCIDENCE))) GOYIM BUY INTEL PLS

>>59198749
I recommend buying a cheap R3 tho as an upgrade. It will be around $100

>>59198711
If the most demanding thing you do on your PC is play video games, no

File: 1487373590520.jpg (49KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x500px

>>59198757
But i use handbrake a lot

>>59198772
I sometimes render videos for family, and I only play Rocket League time to time.

So what is Ryzen good at?

>>59198769
>1280x720, no effects, no AA
reely makes me tink

>>59198201
>AMD told GN in a last-minute phone discussion that most board vendors have had 3 weeks (from March 2) to finalize EFI, and noted that some motherboards still “need more time in the oven.”
>This should explain some of the initial bugs in EFI from multiple vendors. Note carefully that EFI version can heavily impact performance in some cases.
>GN used the latest (correct) ASUS EFI version, detailed on the next page, but other board vendors shipped updates late into the review week.
>Disparity in review performance can be partially attributed to motherboard support and EFI revision.

so, this is what AMD was panicking about yesterday. now it's pretty obvious that some reviews are going to get abysmal results due to their test hardware and Intel fags will cherry pick the fuck out of those.

I'd urge you all to ignore the outliers.

gamersnexus look like getting Intel payroll

steve im disappointed

>>59198791
Look up what margain of error is

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/23

>However there are a few edge cases where AMD is lacking behind 10-20% still, even to Broadwell.

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYYMDPOORFAGS CONFIRMED ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>59198380
>less than 10fps difference when it costs half
are we looking at the same thing?

>>59198598

Point is that anyone with more than five brain cells would buy the 7700k over both the 6900k and the Ryzen

>>59198805
it was intended to disable GPU bottleneck

>>59198800
Pretty much everything. It only really makes sense when you get past the $300 range though and if you play games you're probably best off with 4 cores. Whenever AMD launches the R5s those will probably be the best products in their range.

>>59198800
I'm not trolling but honestly its not suprising that most "Youtube Reviewrs" like the Ryzen.

I mean for video rendering/editing a cheaper version of a 6900k-6950x.

>>59198775
All depends on the real world performance honestly.
Im in no hurry to upgrade. Only Arma 3 and GTAV cause me any trouble.
A FX8350 and 390X is overkill for 1080p as is anyway.

Wow, so glad I bought a 7700k without waiting like a little cuck. I knew AMD would fail for us gaymers.

>>59198597
I have a 4670k with a 480 on a 450w sfx. Mind you it's an itx build with 1 hdd,1ssd, 1 msata.

>>59198825

>TIM, not soldered so runs hot as fuck unless you de-lid it
>No IPC increase over 6700K, just crank the clock up lad
>but you only need 4 cores goyim

why?

>>59198749
what dude dx12 and vulkan does wonder with my 6350 i have like 110 fps in doom in ultra
and a good 15 fps increase in the division
a little less for bf1 but still

File: BQ8vULWgctT.jpg (197KB, 1080x1081px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1080x1081px

I wonder how much these Intel shills get paid? They are out in full force today.

File: amdrone.jpg (136KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1280x720px

>>59198769
>1800x on par with fx9590 220w single socket holocaust edition
AHAHAHAHA

>>59198825
To be fair to the 6900k though, it's laughably underclocked. It's stock of 3.2Ghz, but it can hit ~4.00-4.20GHz+ with decent cooling

4GHz on all 8 cores would blow the 7700k away, and even more so AMD's offerings.

>>59198807

If the positive reviews are the outlines will you ignore them or cherry pick, faggot?

File: witcher3.png (42KB, 513x893px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 513x893px

>>59198769
Cool story.

>>59198825
Please learn how to read before shitposting

>>59198761
>>59198658
>>59198629
>>59198286
Ryzen beats or is on par with Intel in everything aside from video games aside from their CPUs that cost twice as much, and if you buy an 8 core just to play video games on then you're a tech illiterate retard. Now, back to /v/ with you

>>59198840
I bought a 7700k because my 2600k was failing to get me 240fps for my 240hz screen in Overwatch, it looks like I made the right choice not waiting for Ryzen. Feels good.

>>59198872
Boon means beneficial anon.

>>59198887
the positive reviews are most likely showing Ryzen at peak performance. if you see another article getting bad scores across the board, they probably didn't receive vital firmware updates. they would thus not be indicative at all.

it's not hard to grasp, fanboy cunt.

>>59198880

GN had to test a binned chip OC'ed at 4.4GHz to make sure it was always at the top of every chart. Like fuck is anyone going to get one that is 4.4GHz stable

>>59198893
I wouldn't go as far as to say 8 cores is bad for gaming, it's just not ideal. If you do video editing or compiling or other stuff on the side then R7s will work fine for those tasks and gaming. If you only play games then Intel's lower end products are more ideal.

>>59198892
So it's just Intel shill infestation

Ryzen is pretty good in gaming

>>59198892
Ever heard of the term "GPU bottleneck"?

>Suddenly all animals I mean AMD fans are dead quiet and claim it performs as it was advertised

SAY IT WITH ME

MAKE /G/ GREAT AGAIN

B& ALL AMD HARDWARE OWNERS

>>59198905
my bad then

>>59198920

What you're saying is

> All positive reviews are going to be true
> Any negative reviews are probably fucking lies, it's the reviewers' fault and not Ryzen being shit

Is that it, AMD-kun(t) ?

>>59198921
My 5820k can hit 4.7GHz stable with a fairly basic AIO cooler. I wouldn't be shocked by 4.4Ghz assuming a custom loop.

>>59198893
>Ryzen beats or is on par with Intel in everything aside from video games aside from their CPUs that cost twice as much
you forgot about handbrake, winrar, photoshop, music encoding, console emulation and more

>>59198930
>pretty good at gaymen
Good luck selling that to the average gaymen kek

>>59198892

something's not right here. A10-7890k and a dedicated GPU get the same FPS as the 1800x and 1700x?

>>59198923
I know, but we're dealing with 14 year olds here who only chooses their CPU based on what gives them an extra FPS or 2 in video games, when they could just buy a quad core and put the extra money towards a better GPU instead.

So is it a flop?

File: muhraisinsarefaulty.jpg (9KB, 214x235px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 214x235px

>>59198258
My 4790k is better, fuck my sides

File: Screenshot_2017-03-02-06-52-08-1.png (179KB, 1440x1058px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1440x1058px

/r/AMD on SUICIDE WATCH


GAYYMD BTFO BTFO BTFO

>>59198930
Even slightly better than $100 cheaper CPU from 2011!

File: btfo1.png (332KB, 1282x722px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1282x722px

>>59198201
AMD IS ABSOLUTE GARBAGE CONFIRMED

>>59198969
>Music encoding
What

And please look up what on par means, because tests that are within the margin of error means that they're on par with each other.

>>59198958
some problems concerning very early UEFI on some of these boards

It's a new arch, support not 100% there yet. Probably honest teething problems as well.

Bottom line: wait a few months for the teething/support issues get resolved. Looks like Ryzen will get +10% perf improvement just like every other amd product they lack money to finish properly before release.

>>59198992
>skipping this review
kek

>>59198201
Well that was a complete waste of time, which secondhand intel cpu is best for gaming then? Will gladly take an older DDR3 based platform if the performance is negligible, have lots of spare DDR3 memory here.

>>59198992
Fucking gaymens

Someone please tell me that they screencapped all those "so whos preordered their cpus's" & "what amd build are you going for" threads.

>>59198971
>average gaymen
Well rip

>>59198992
>i7 in production
I literally never heard GN saying that

>>59198921
and their 1800X only got to 3.9GHz when people have been getting 1700X to 4.2. could just be silicon lottery, anyway. no need to throw accusations around.

>>59198958
did you read the fucking post? all the reviews are going to be indicative of what the reviewers got out of them.

if they didn't get EFI updates from their mobo vendors in time, performance could be compromised. GN explains this in great detail. their results are solid and it lands the 1800X precisely in the right place.

it's most likely the worst reviews are going to be revised within the week with slightly better numbers. what GN got is most likely the real deal and you can treat that like gospel. just don't go cherry picking contaminated results like some shithead /v/ twat.

>>59198896
You buy cpu for once every 4-5 years..

You never know future gaming maybe optimised for more than 8 core processor..

Holy shit it really is Bulldozer 2.0

File: lmao1.png (317KB, 1283x722px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1283x722px

>>59199004
Even CSGO is unplayable on it. i3-2100 results

File: RYZEN7-1800X-48.jpg (93KB, 614x400px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 614x400px

>>59198337
Err... What? Apparently x265 doesn't utilize all cores?

>>59199013
i7-4790k mate, all the way with ddr3 ram. do it and you wont regret it

>>59198985
It's pretty much exactly what AMD told us it would be. I think a lot of us anticipated far worse, I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people that were willing to settle for Sandy Bridge level performance and Ryzen surpassed that by a pretty considerable margin.

It's at or on par with Intel's highest end products but priced at Intel's middle tier products.

>>59198943

Remember how they started moving the goalposts after the RX 450 was released?

>w-we never claimed it would perform THAT well!
>it was Intel shills all along, hyping up the 480 so that it would look like a failure when we see actual benchmarks
>i-it actually performs just as well as we hoped, great job AMD!

>>59198337
>>59199041
okay somebody explain this shit to me

Most people buy rigs for gayming. CPU suck at it. AMD!

>>59198892
lol dumbass

>>59199035
GN Reviews are all I plan on looking at, friend

Also see this (specifically the edit about GN)
>>59198992

>>59199052
looks like the 480 all over again. leaks got everybody riled up and when reality hit, this shit started getting posted wholesale >>59199062

>inb4 all the amd fanbois backtrack and claim its once again they never said itd kill intel....... dammit too late

>7700K completely destroys 1800X in real-world benchmarks
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AMD BTFO
RYZEN IS DOA

File: xfr-01-79bdc015f2992c9a913b028c006251fe4.jpg (100KB, 1139x634px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1139x634px

Who uses splines to plot data that has steps?
This data representation triggers me.

who /waiting for Zen+/ here?

>>59199036
an i7 7700k will last 4-5 years easy, which is probably when more than 4 cores will be the standard anyway.

File: 1488379890337.jpg (149KB, 1075x1430px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1075x1430px

where are all the AMD faggots who actually thought these things would be better than intel quads at gaming?

>but muh rendering

literally bulldozer-tier arguments all over again

>>59199052

It's actually priced higher than Intel's highest end products though.

And it's on par in most things, while falling behind in some.

Don't lie

>>59199041
>>59199080
There is no such thing as perfect scaling per amdahl's law

>B-BUT MUH COARS!!
LITERALLY BULLDOZER 2.0

Joker Productions puts the 1700 @ 3.9ghz at the same average fps, 1080p vs the i7 7700K, using an overclocked 1080

https://youtu.be/V5RP1CPpFVE?t=182

>>59198557
This is useless information! This is not a game benchmark!

>Without a shadow of doubt the Zen microarchitecture is the big winner here. In nearly every situation it proved itself to be the equal to the best Intel has to offer. It is fast, efficient and almost infinitely scalable to provide a platform upon which AMD can build a wide range of enthusiast, professional and mainstream solutions. Zen is everything that people hoped Bulldozer would be and then some. Considering where they were just two short years ago this is an achievement of monumental proportions for AMD.

>The foundational strengths of Zen have led to the Ryzen 7 1800X becoming what it is today: one of the best processors that money can buy. Right now it is impossible to find a CPU that can power through heavily threaded workflows so well while costing so little. Professionals and prosumers alike will appreciate everything that the 1800X can bring to the table, especially when you consider how much cash can be saved versus the i7-6900K.


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/74814-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-performance-review-20.html

>>59199089
even if you treat this data with detachment, you just know a hundred shitposters will drown you out with cherry picked crap

/v/edditors please leave.

Ryzen is the perfect workstation CPU.

>>59199123
The highest end products comparable spec-wise to the R7 series are 8c/16t i7s and they all cost like $1000. No.

>>59199144
We /sci/ now?

>>59199134
reviewers seem content with it. I'm guessing they didn't expect a miracle like most of /g/

>>59199090
The 480 might not be a nvidia killer but you cant deny its recently been sneaking its way up the performance tables just like the 290/390/290x/390x did.
Just think at launch that GPU family was at 970 levels and now they are creeping up to 980ti levels in some cases.

File: Untitled.png (41KB, 1053x830px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1053x830px

>>59198201

Don't fall for AMD if you care about DX12.

The /v/igger brain doesn't comprehend ECC memory.

>>59199159
no, we're /g/

>>59199144
https://youtu.be/j7UBHjtCXhU

Yep and we are shown here its not all about the games.

File: 1488465331564.png (2MB, 1880x944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1880x944px

>>59198689
AMD IS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT

>>59198833
except you will get better rendering times just by using cuda

>>59199175

Dude, what on earth is the scale of that graph?

>>59199123
Where do you live where a 6900k costs $500?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (191KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1920x1080px

>>59199004
>>59199040

>>59198985

Depends.

Do you game at framerates faster than 60-120FPS? If not, it's wildly successful.

Do you game at 4K or higher? Then it's exactly what you need.

Do you need more cores for workloads you use? Or are you ok with 4 cores? Then the next Intel competitor is 1000 dollars more.

>>59199175
kek

NVIDIA WINS AGAIN

I planned to build a Ryzen PC but after seeing those reviews I will get a G4560 instead.

>>59199162
the 480 had a ton of problems on release (just like Ryzen seems to have) and it was overhyped to hell and back. leaks showing it beating the 980, etc. AMD cherry picking benchmarks didn't help.

sure, it turned out to be pretty damn good down the line (especially after driver updates), but /g/ was a complete no man's land for a fucking month after that.

AMD can make decent hardware but they can't fucking launch shit to save themselves.

>>59199163
Those results seem to imply more cores is better. The two quad cores on the top have a significant clock advantage over the rest of those save for the FX9000

File: Screenshot_2017-03-02-07-06-14-1.png (201KB, 1440x1155px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1440x1155px

REDDIT BTFO

BUY INTEL.
GAYYMD BTFO

Proprietary benchmarks are nearly worthless.

Just save yourself $150 and stick with the 7700K. You can always overclock it later, unlike those R7 failures which are running at their absolute limit already.

>>59198689
>4K
That fucking nigger

>the shilling in the Tom's Hardware comments
IM A REEL GAYMURR

>>59198564
Nobody but AMPoors cares about using the same socket for 5 generations.
>b-but I can get expansion cards for usb 3.1 and thunderbolt!
Good for you.

>>59199233

>Opinions that differ from my own are worthless

FTFY

Oh my fucking god the autism in this thread is unfathomable. How the fuck is AMD on suicide watch when the gap between 6900k and 7700k is literally just 1-2 fps,seconds (rendering,encoding), etc.?

>>59199193
it's a video, with fancy animations, just stopped midway when ryzens bar was filling.

>>59198201
tl;dr?
Should I upgrade my fx8320?
I live in Europe and every cpu is 25% more xpensive.

>>59199193
How does babby into Photoshop?

>>59199080
Simple. Ryzen is DOA

>>59199128
the fat fuck must have fucked something up because his review is the only one where the ryzen is anywhere near the 7700k in games..

>/v/ kiddies are unironically arguing over which 6/8 core CPU is the best for gaming instead of buying a quad core CPU and putting the rest of the money towards a better GPU

I thought 4chan was an 18+ website?

>>59198594
>muh fine wine

>>59199221
Those retards actually bought ryzen for gayming.

File: 2974491[1].jpg (137KB, 746x962px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 746x962px

>SMT BLEEDS 10% FPS

CAN'T MAKE THIS UP

>>59199270
>I thought 4chan was an 18+ website?
Most of /g/ is 12-15.

So a TL:Dr for everyone

If you are doing all round work, rendering, adobe and slight inferior gaming compared to Intel, it's good for the price

But Intel is still king for gaming, and gets the best benches.

Intel wins AGAIN LOL

>>59198380
>>59198528
>>59198611
>>59198681
>>59198701
>>59198769
>>59198825
>>59198840
>>59198989
>>59199004
>>59199040
Meanwhile kids wanting an octa-core cpu for gaming, go back to /v/ you underaged faggots.

>>59199262
wait for the r5's and r3's to see if they're good enough for the price.
Going full on MOAR COARS (regardless if it's intel or amd cores) is not good value.

>>59199221
>shit performance in TW3

Well, it was good to dream.

>>59199269
>Intel shill getting mad

>>59198689
4K-ban benchmarkolni egy procit... lefizette az amd.

who even benchmarks a cpu in 4k?

>4 core beats 8 core in gaming
WOW THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED

>>59199261
Good ol linus

>>59199277
This is a known issue with HT why did you think that SMT is going to be different?

>>59199259
How is your first day on /g/?

So in the end Ryzen does well on about everything but gaymes. Still need some more info on it (did anyone test it on Solidworks besides Toms?), but so far it seems like a tough sell to replace my 4790. Looks like it's more of a datacenter oriented cpu.

>People pay good money for Rypoo which loses majority of the benchmarks

HAHA OH WOW

>>59199302
look at the graph retard

>>59198701
Anyone remember that handrake benchmark showed by AMD where killed all Intels?????

>>59199302
>This is a known issue with HT
Except Intel's HT loses next to no performance in that exact graph.

>>59199298
well some people play in 4k

>>59199313
Graph shows that HT is bleeding performance, amazing how 7th iteration of a technology is more refined that first one, innit?

do the same with 2700k and weep.

File: 1486385125594.jpg (17KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x336px

ITS BULLDOZER ALL OVER AGAIN

>>59199258
he's right though. Ryzen handily beat or matched the 6900K in all of those. and in games it's getting rolled over. we let ourselves get lulled into a false sense of security.

I'm not going to recommend the R7 chips for gamers. streamers, devs, content producers easily, but not gamers.

>>59199128
how the fuck did he get it to 3.9? GN barely got their 1800X there.

>>59199216

Money solves all ills.

If these are as great as they sound like for a server, even just a data center, then AMD can capture just 5% of that market back.

>>59199277
So maybe Windows has not been patched to support it yet? SMT isn't supposed to be that much of a performance hit in any workload. Considering Intel's chips have no performance difference it should be the same for Ryzen

File: ryzen-r7-1800x-bench-total-war.png (110KB, 806x580px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 806x580px

Ryzen have HT bug in games -10-15% performance drop.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-7/impact-smt-ht.html

>>59199323
irrelevant whether someone plays in 4k or not during a cpu benchmark. At 4K your gpu becomes the bottleneck and the story is all about gpu rather than cpu.

There's a good reason why gayming benchmarks are done on low resolutions when testing the cpu.

>>59199333
>how the fuck did he get it to 3.9? GN barely got their 1800X there.
He got lucky as fuck, although it's very possible that most 1700s will hit that speed across all cores

File: ahahahahahahahahaha.jpg (50KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 680x680px

>>59199286

>Muh raisin isnt what they said itd be!. Watch some more reviews you spregy twat. Theyre shit in all departments.
also dont they normally cherry pick the best cpu's out to send the reviewers....holy shit yours is going to be even worse.

>>59199175
OH WELL. THIS SHOWED US! GOOD THING I WAITED BENCHES SO I CAN MAKE A GREAT LOGICAL DECISION ON BUYING 10 6900K

>>59199325
>HT is losing 1% on average, basically negligible
>SMT losing 10%
>thinks it's the same because they're both negative

are you legitimately retarded?

>>59199306

Which is the market they need to go after to get money.

File: muh_chartz.png (7KB, 837x549px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 837x549px

INTEL IS THE CLEAR WINNER HERE

>>59199343
Steve's tweet was probably about this.

What I don't get is how can Ryzen be much slower than 6900k in GamerNexus game benchmarks if they have roughly the same single threaded performance? I mean, the 6900k even beat out 7700k in some benchmarks while the 1800x was severely behind.

Is this because of the ram issue? Can these tests be trusted / will 3200mhz ram improve the results?

>>59199337

>so maybe Windows has not been patched to support it yet?

This is not a problem in Windows. This is processor problem.

Remember the bulldozer? They said that Windows needed a patch because the processor performance was being limited by Windows, but the problem was the processor architecture.

>>59199337
Or maybe AMD is just fucking incompetent.

>>59199306

Nobody who bought 2500k and OC'd it has had any real reason to upgrade and won't for a few years more.

That is unless you like doing stuff while playing.

>>59199370
>Is this because of the ram issue?

Probably not.

>>59199345
hum they should all have the same result then and it's not the case
lower res just make the result easier to see
and the point is still here a 1800X won't bottle next you gpu unlike the previous amd proc liek the 8350

>>59199218

..or I'll just buy the 7700K for less and as a bonus have no problems running RAM at higher frequencies.

>>59199370
It's probably the SMT.

>>59199206
B..butt the marksbenchs' dont lie!

Ryzen is literally unplayablez!

>>59199269
There's somehow a "problem" on the R7 1800k that made it shitty on games. Like R7 1700 is better than 1800 when it comes to gaming
>>59199305
Fucking shit. I'll never crossboard again. This board is just fucking /v/ but without the video games. Oh wait. I forgot about the shitfest that made them crossboard to /g/. My bad.

Tomshardware, Anandtech, and a few other sites will be redoing their reviews, or publishing a "part 2" to their reviews.
Launch was rushed and a lot of things aren't ironed out yet. A recent BIOS updated fixed some minor issue, but increased power consumption. A setting necessary for Ryzen Master to work is recommended to be temporarily turned off for better game performance. Having SMT enabled harms performance in double digit percentages which indicates the OS is not favoring physical threads first as it should be. A lot of reviewers didn't even touch on memory settings and bandwidth, but its vital to overall performance since system RAM is an L4 with Zen. High bandwidth kits with tight timings improve CPU performance.

Does well in Cinebench, POV-Ray, Handbrake, Blender, Luxrender, 3ds Max.
Performance in Photoshop CC suite is decent too.
Performance in gaming is spotty, but does well in titles known to be well threaded already. At higher resolutions like 1440p and 4k the GPU is such a bottleneck that differences in CPU perf are muted.

Tomshardware showed isolated CPU power with their dual oscilloscope setup, and the numbers are good.
Hammering the CPU in Prime95 only pulls 110w. A 4K gaming run with Metro Last Light has the CPU drawing under 60w on average.
Web browsing power consumption is under 25w, even working in AutoCAD sees power draw at 30w~.


If you're thinking of buying a Ryzen system, hold off for at least a couple weeks. Mobo manufacturers are still tweaking things, BIOS updates will be frequent, and Microsoft obviously still has some things to fix in regards to their software scheduler.

>Intel goes on full damage control and starts contacting review sites as soon as information about Ryzen is released
>review sites start showing Ryzen's performance is garbage when it's released
I'm sure all those reviews are real and not fake.

So Ryzen beats everything at everything that's not gaming, which isn't a surprise since 8c/16t are not meant for gaming and, even then, it's only around 10% behind against quad cores clocked higher. Seems like my next CPU will be an R5.

>>59199233
TRUTH!

All them motherfuckers are payed! Its soo obvious!

File: jump.gif (2MB, 225x208px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 225x208px

Benches:
>synthetic bullshit
check
>meaningless multithreaded tests
check
>muh 7zip
check
>manually OC'd vs. manually OC'd chips at the same price point with the same memory
not a single one

w e w l a d

>>59199418
What I'm curious about is: will the mid-range options like the 1600x outperform the 7600k?

>>59199281
I miss 2010 /g/

>>59199413
>at least a couple of weeks
Try years

Sadly, Intel is the way to go right now

>>59199437
Going by IPC and overclocking results so far, no way in hell.

>>59199370

We'll see in a few weeks. My guess this is just the usual AMD routine, initial disappointment followed by updates taking the performance at or above the expected levels.

>>59199374
This is obviously an OS problem. SMT is supposed to be similar to HT. The problem here is the OS not favoring the physical core over the virtual thread. Bulldozer was an entirely different issue.

>>59199410

If we are splitting hairs between 120 and 110fps on a monitor only capable of 60FPS, then we aren't seeing the forest for the trees here.

>>59199416
they're all real. not that these results are bad.

>>59199433
GN manually OC'd the 6900K and 1800X but they got really bad results out of the latter.

I'm guessing they either got a dud or they don't know what they're doing. all the competitive OCers who got to play with Ryzen before NDA claimed it could do much better than that.

>>59199432
The question is not whether they're paid at all, but how verifiably fair the benchmarks are.
Only libre, free and open source benchmarks can be analyzed easily.
What compiler was used?
What compiler options were used?
Does the benchmark contain assembly code that's biased for certain CPUs?

>>59199302

>This is a known issue with HT why did you think that SMT is going to be different?

Well it is different in the way that SMT suffers a lot while HT almost looks to be unaffected.

>>59199450
If you are a gamer, yes. If you want to do more then that, get a 1800x.

>>59199450
good goy

>>59199413
>hold off for at least a couple weeks
So AMD can't into product launches, more at 11.

>>59199175
Can Intel shills be more pathetic?

>>59199451
Oh well, I'll just get a 7600k then.

I wonder why the LTT review was so shallow. Usually they at least overclock. Also where were the thermals? Were they just in too much of a hurry to get the review done for day 1?

>>59199437
depends on how high it clocks. realistically though, probably not. most likely it will be cheaper to offset that.

>>59199474
It's a brand new architecture, did you expect it to work perfectly on release?

>>59198528
Why do they have 6900k and 7700k OCs but no Ryzen OC?

Seems bias as fuck

>>59199484
And power draw?

>>59199473
hahahah you got done over yet again. Fucking idiot actually falling for the bullshit all over.

>Shill shill kike kike jew jew jew.
Keep up them tears you poor cunt

>>59199464
Bulldozer was similar but the difference was that Bulldozer had hardware threads to back it up. Zen microarch doesn't have hardware threads so there's going to be some performance lost when the scheduler isn't scheduling properly.

Bulldozer scheduler was more an efficiency problem than a performance problem as it turned out.

wtf I hate jim keller now

>>59199495
>Seems bias as fuck
biased*

>>59199467
>all the competitive OCers who got to play with Ryzen before NDA claimed it could do much better than that.
all we got was some mexican guy making googly eyes

File: 1483667901732.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

Guys we are still Ryzen! Intel needs competition! They suck without us.

>>59199492
Intel's stuff hasn't had major flaws like this on launch in ages.

>>59199513
So about 6 years?

>>59199302

It's clearly an issue with SMT and NOT HT.

Why no OC tests?

I'm still running a [email protected], wonder it's time to go Ryzen...

>>59199492
I actually do. honestly, there was no reason for AMD to cut it this damn close. they were still frantically phoning reviewers yesterday to address motherboard firmware issues.

>>59198594
>I wonder if the benhcmarks will look different a few years down the line.

I've said this plenty of times but it's always "wait and see with AMD" people want to get the performance out of the products they've bought day one. What's the point in buying now if you're not going to get the full potential out of the chip, might as well just wait for a price drop or go with the competition.

>>59199413
BULLSHIT!

everybody knows whats important are only, and just only the initial review benches!

Oh, anon.You're not gona buy a computer just for the sake of long time use! Its like buying apple, you buy luxury item like that cuz other cant. :)

>>59199513

Well, that's easy if you don't launch a new architecture.

>>59199535
It's not. Ryzen overclocks like shit.

>>59199451

That's the only thing I'm severely disappointed in with Ryzen. It can't overclock at all past it's boost.

>>59199269
See >>59198807

>>59199526
To be fair, every processor since sandy bridge has been nothing but a rehash

why does /g/ like to shit on amd so hard? i really want to see competitive products from amd

>>59199513

Leave them, they will literally keep coming out with excuses as to why AMDs $500 CPU can't beat a Intel's $1000

There's a reason why they priced it at $500 it's just not as good, they have to deal with it.

It's good but it's second best, as usual with AMD.

If all you do is rendering or something shit get a 1800, but if you render and game, get a Intel that is best of both worlds

Simple

>>59199554
/v/igger invasion

>>59199322
Watch Gamers Nexus' review, he talks about how hyperthreading had/has the same issues

>>59199457

AMD way.

>>59199538
It's really weird, honestly. With the apparent delay you would think that they would have avoided these issues.

>>59199004
thats way better than my i5+gtx760 machine *shrugs*
would probably cost the same as my pc as when i built it fucking SIX years ago

>>59199555
So again, it's exactly like Bulldozer. Good at multi-threaded loads and fuckall else.

>>59199535
if you're looking to upgrade you should look at the 7700K and 1700X and see which is best for you. probably best to wait a week, by then we'll have access to a large amount of definitive info.

right now it's looking like the 7700K is the vidya king and the R7s are a decent alternative if you happen to have other requirements.

File: 1700.png (56KB, 784x495px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 784x495px

I'll have to eat ramen noodles for 3 months, but at least I won't be on the AM3+ platform anymore

>>59199527
Hyperthreading is just what Intel calls their implementation of SMT. There's nothing special about HT compared to SMT, it's more likely that Microsoft hasn't updated the scheduler so its aware that AMD has SMT so it's assuming the cores are real and scheduling them as such.

>>59199550
Since Nehalen. SB was a huge improvement, but not a radically new arch.

>>59199527
Its OS level.
HyperThreaded took tons of close work with Microsoft to get working right. If you look at old benches from when intel first launched it you can see performance regressions from having it enabled.

The second logical thread can provide a 30%~ throughput uplift in a well threaded workload. Obviously the main thread on the physical core has much higher throughput. The OS has to know this, and only utilize the logical thread when applicable. Two physical cores give you more performance than one physical core running two threads. Two logical threads have less performance than one physical core.
If the OS doesn't dish out work in the right order then you lose performance.

>>59199593

You'll be happier on it as well.

>>59199554

Most of us actually want a competitor to Intel, but AMD have bullshitted so many times that so many people fall for it.

It's just not good enough compared to Intel, they lied in their side to side game demos for any tech YouTuber or reviewer to see and play, that's scummy and a lie.not marketing

>>59199555

But in almost everything it performs about as well as Intel's 400$ CPU

So what's the point of PAYING MORE for THE SAME PERFORMANCE

>>59199593
You still need a motherboard, and you'd probably be better served with a 7700K anyway unless all you do is rendering.

>>59199242
WHY WOULD YOU CHOSE TO PLAY GAMES IN 720p AND LOW GRAPHICS SETTINGS INSTEAD OF MAXING THAT SHIT OUT WHEN YOU HAVE BRAND NEW HARDWARE?

>>59199117
AMD Schills have left and are crying. Always bet on Intel and NVIDIA combo to dominate never bet against perfection.

>>59199381

I do actually, and also some Solidworks projects like I said, but I'll have to decide if it's worth it over a non-k 4790

>>59199492
>It's shit but it will be less shit later
Wew lad it's LITERALLY Bulldozer 2.0. I still remember retarded amdtards telling me bios updates were going to boost IPC by 50% and wreck Sandy Bridge, it's happening all over again.

File: muh_gaymen.png (802KB, 1920x2160px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 1920x2160px

>>59199433
r7 1700 (OC to 3.9) vs it 7700k (OC to 5.0)

>>59199607
All the motherboards on both amazon and newegg are out of stock or pre-order, still haven't fixed their shit

I'm hopefully going to order on amazon since I have prime shipping

>>59199604

Same performance is rendering or Adobe. Agree

But gaming is not the same performance,. Intel's $400 in some slides even cheaper than $400 is still better in gaming than 1800x

>>59199495
They had weeks o review those two
They had to get these out within a day

>>59199625

>It happened in the past so the future is written.

Give me some lottery numbers senpai.

>>59199628
So just go Z270, it'll be the same price and you'll actually have it in a few days.

Oh, and it'll be faster in most everyday scenarios.

>>59199134
Time to find a better site. Tom's hardware sold out to the Schills.

>>59199603
ah, i hadn't payed much attention to all the launch hype. i'm a 6700k user myself but i remember the Athlon glory days. i want amd to have another hayday because intel has been complacent and it's clear Intel isn't pushing hard to advance the desktop CPU space.

>>59199604
You have roughly the same gaming performance (ignoring outliers, 5% difference give or take), along with 8c power for intensive tasks.

Oh, AM4 board will take you though zen+, so no need to upgrade.

Overall, I'm happy with the IPC levels.

File: AMD Ryzen 7 Press Deck-18.jpg (247KB, 2666x1500px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 2666x1500px

Defend this please

>>59199555
if you render and game the 1800X is perfect, unless you want to pay double the price for perf that's ~10% better in best case scenarios

>>59199579
they had so much fucking time too. Kaby Lake was a disappointment. this could have waited until late Q2.

but once they showed it at New Horizon it was too late. people were going to grow antsy from that point on.

>>59199625
Bulldozer's main problem was with its terrible efficiency. It actually performed fairly well against Sandy Bridge but it used a lot of power to do it and it gave off a lot of heat. Ryzen is not at all like Bulldozer though it's efficient and on par with if not comparable products from Intel.

>>59199628
I preordered a 1700x and Asus's B350 mATX m/b from Amazon a week ago, no shipment notification/tracking information so far. :(

>>59199658
recovery literally impossible

>>59199658
wait for firmware update?

>>59199437
>>59199450
IPC is almost the same as Intel. The 1800X overclocks to 4.0 Ghz on all cores so I guess the R5 will overclock better but I can't say for how much. Still, even if the R5 overclock exactly the same as the 1800X does, it's gonna be 90% of the 7700K performance at half the price, so I'm getting that.

>>59199666
>on par with if not comparable products from Intel
It's literally slower than a 7600K which costs half as much

>>59198201
> Getting new CPU's when the perf diff is miniscule and embarrassing in either case

Please just commit bukkake

>>59199626
I'd love for this to be true but sadly it's inconsistent with every other release

>>59199540

You can't wait a few weeks?

File: 1487970472644.jpg (237KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 960x960px

>>59199464

SMT and HT is a same thing, my nigga. Intel just use a different name for SMT.

>>59199554
So you would be rather lied to ?

Ars:
>I saw quite a lot of variation in benchmarking, too, between runs.

>I also saw some games perform better (5-10%) with SMT turned off - and some games even showed better performance when the CPU was locked to 3.5GHz.

>Clearly there's a bit of work still to do with the platform/drivers/games/etc.

>At any rate, we definitely need a bit more time with it - do some more tests, try out some overclocking (I couldn't get our sample past 4.1GHz), get some driver updates...

So it's shit for OC'ing
There was a reason AMD topped out at 4GHz after all
It will probably get less shitty with drivers though, and still an okay buy

>>59199626
So did Gamer's Nexus horribly fuck up their test methodology or what?

I'm seeing wildly different results all over the place.

Some show it shitstomped in Witcher 3. Others show it even.
Some show it losing by 15% to the 7700k in Rise of the Tomb Raider. Others show it as the fastest of all CPUs.

>>59199688
Not comparable to R7. Half the number of cores and fewer instruction set extensions, plus no ECC

>>59199688
BASED ON WHICH OF THE 30 BENCHMARKS POSTED IN THIS THREAD?

>1700 overclocks better than 1800x
what the fuck

>>59199705
AMD just can't into product launches.

>>59199626
>>59199690
>I'd love for this to be true but sadly it's inconsistent with every other release

this.

>>59199689
Well I'm upgrading from an FX. If they fucked the ipc I would have went to Intel.

They didn't.

File: Untitled.png (319KB, 983x420px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 983x420px

I'm waiting for the 1600x regardless.

>>59199626
what is the point in testing 4ghz vs 5ghz

File: SMT impact.png (53KB, 600x769px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x769px

>>59199601
Hardware.fr looking at SMT performance impact.
Even intel still sees some performance regressions from having it enabled for gaming.

Running 1 thread per core and utilizing more cores is better all around.

>>59199554
>why does /g/ like to shit on amd so hard?
To piss off r/ayyymd

>>59199717
Literally any game benchmark

>>59199727
>They didn't.
You're right, they fucked the clock speeds instead.

>>59199466
Ohh noooess! I cant play with this! I CANT! I need them extra fps getting Chanelljour! Its always scientifically proven with legit university study links' that your fps of every fucking game is equal or perpendicular to your Rank and penis!

How can I play this? HOW?
How can I avoid a bullet trajectory to my face when Im missing those critical 4~10 fpsses?
You correct me and teach me better? How do you sleep at night soundly with those missing 4~10 fpsssesss? HOW CAN YOU LIVE LIKE THIS?

I cant. I CANT. IM LITERALLY CRYING RIGHT NOW... and i dont even have money to get either 1 of the CPU's nor pay my rent. :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRiWY1xiqFM

>>59199739
Clock speeds are fine for an 8c.

>>59199667
>Asus's B350 mATX
Why? just spend the 50 bucks and get a probably better X370 board, or drop to the 1700 and get the better motherboard for overclocking

>>59199661

The i7 6700k is better and cheaper

>>59199705
GN doesn't even have the 1700 review out yet. There's also the issue with the mb manufacturers having to rush out an EFI update.

>>59199739
WOW GOOD THING YOU DIDNT HYPER LINK TO THE BENCHMARK .JPEG, TOTALLY DOENST MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A COMPLETE DIPSHIT

>>59199705
No he did tweet they were having issues for some reason or other (and I think he mentions it in a video too).
Hence the all over the shop results

>>59199554
Nobody here does anything but collect bennies and play WoW.

>>59199647
Why would I pay the same amount of money for 90% similar gaming benchmark numbers, but have half the core count? I also do some video editing and streaming

>>59199736
SMT does not improve performance in general it's mainly an efficiency hack but its not supposed to degrade performance that badly. Something is obviously wrong, I'm betting it's the OS scheduler.

>>59199751
Because I don't want a full ATX size case. mATX is a happy compromise for me between ITX and full ATX.