Total games benchmark

>>>/v/

>>59198471
>>>/adv/
for your "I'm serious cat" autism

>>59198448
Everytime a consumer crap CPU or GPU gets released, /g/ gets spammed by retards like you. Eat shit and die.

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

316KB, 882x758px

>>59198448
GUYS WHY IS THIS HAPPENING

>>59198506
The 6/12 Ryzens are a sweeter spot IMO.
Maybe even the 4/8s.
The overclock easier.

>>59198522
>The 6/12 Ryzens are a sweeter spot IMO.
> sweeter spot

you retarded?

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

60KB, 1052x846px

>>59198448
Literally Faildozer 2.0 with XFR

>>59198674
They are a sweeter spot you moron. Those 8/16 cause housefires, they are shitty overclockers as a result and they are generally shitty for the regular /g/ user. Intel knows what the fuck they are doing with promoting the 4/8s first.
AMD are generally idiots at promotion.
Intel waits for at least 1 year before they go to "-E" chips of 6/12 or more.

>>59198696
LMAO 3% faster than FX8370

>>59198696
>1280x720

Anyone seen Fallout 4 test?

>>59198704
>sweeter spot
SWEETER SPOT FOR WHAT YOU RETARDED SHIT
bahahahah

>amd

>>59198717
thats how you actuelly benchmark cpus, to negeate any gpu bottleneck, el retardo

>>59198734
>SWEETER SPOT FOR WHAT YOU RETARDED SHIT

Gaming, moron. Shouldn't that be obvious from his post in the context of this thread? There's a good chance that the Ryzen chips with fewer cores will overclock better, just as Intel's do.

>>59198770
You can deactivate cores on Ryzen and overclock better, if you wouldnt be such a retarded amdfag you would see that reviewer did this and were still inferior to intels i7.

>>59198696
LOOK MOMMY I POSTED IT AGAIN

>>59198770
100mhz more at most compared to 8 core

maybe 200 if you are very lucky

gratz, you have ~5% more performance compared to stock, and 40% more power consumption

>>59198448
>15% lower performance
>50% lower price
I don't see the problem here. Anyone that thought Ryzen cpus would actually be better than Intel's was just delusional. AMD have always excelled at price/performance, and the fact that their new cpus are close to intel's but at half the cost is still good enough to warrant a purchase for the majority of people.

>>59199317
That's a shitty argument because when the price drops too low, it starts becoming pointless to not just buy at a higher price because it's just too easy. A good example is the very cheap GPUs. Sure, they are only $150 or lower, and sure their performance/price ration is amazingly good, but they are so bad that nobody wants them and goes for at least double the price.
The real deal here is that 4/8 chips are just a sweet spot and AMD fucks up with not promoting those first like Intel does.
see >>59199326

>>59198448
DELET DIS

>>59198448
So -10% of Intel performance wise on gaming. Seems like it easily bested its own FX chips.

Isn't this what was expected from AMD?

>>59199672
AMD are idiots. They start with promoting 8/16 chips. Start with 4c/8t chips you morons. They are a sweet spot at gaming and make good benchmarking shilling.
Intel knows what the fuck they are doing. They first release 4/8 chip and they bin them well to be 4.5Ghz at least. THEN they go "-E" chips a year later.

File: 1488464010227.gif (2MB, 360x201px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x201px

>>59198448
Relevant