Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
The better sweet spot for Ryzen chips for the common Desktop 2017-03-02 03:15:06 Post No. 59199326
[Report] Image search: [Google]
The better sweet spot for Ryzen chips for the common Desktop 2017-03-02 03:15:06 Post No. 59199326
[Report] Image search: [Google]
The better sweet spot for Ryzen chips for the common Desktop
Anonymous
2017-03-02 03:15:06
Post No. 59199326
[Report]
> 4/8, just like all Intel chips that are easily sweet spots, they easily beat the 4/4 chips for gaming and other regular Desktop applications, but also they are either better than 6/12+ chips for those uses or marginally lower which means better performance/cost ratios
> today's benchmarks prove the 8/16 Ryzens are clearly not a sweet spot for gaming. Those apps are not a niche. Any interactive application is mathematically hard to be parallelized, not just games and it will remain like that for 10+ years at least.
> AMD fucks up yet again, releasing 8/16 chips first for promotion, Intel waits for 1 year at least before they release their "-E" lines
>>
>>59199326
then R5 1400X should have a base clock of 4.2Ghz and turbo frequency of 4.5 Ghz to complete with 7700k
>>
>>59199422
And it might! And it should be cared by AMD to have that. Do you think Intel's 8/16 chips are good overclockers? They are shit.
AMD just fucks up. They should first promote the 4/8s. And bin them to have 4.5+ like Intel does.
Intel knows what the fuck they are doing. 8/16 is a shitty start when everyone looks at gaming.
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1