IT ALL RETURNS TO NOTHING IT ALL COMES TUMBLING DOWN TUMBLING

File: 61d4797b-2fd0-4454-964e-fc8af4597cdf.png (26KB, 756x529px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 756x529px

COMMENCING BENCHMARK DUMP SINCE THAT ONE SUICIDAL AMD SHILL KEEPS MAKING THREADS WITH THIS ONE FAKE BENCHMARK MADE BY SOME FATSO WITH 80K SUBS.

Wait what the fuck I thought AMD were suppoed to BTFO intel! WHAT THE FUCK AMD

File: Battlefield.png (70KB, 1302x2013px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1302x2013px

I know, I know I've let you down

File: GoW.png (70KB, 1302x2013px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1302x2013px

I've been a fool to myself

File: Overwatch.png (76KB, 1302x2013px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1302x2013px

I thought that I could live for no one else

File: r_600x450 (1).png (137KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 600x450px

But now through all the hurt and pain

File: r_600x450 (2).png (156KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 600x450px

Its time for me to respect

the ones you love mean more than anything

File: r_600x450.png (140KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 600x450px

>>59205876
WHOOPS

File: untitled-1 (1).png (33KB, 682x701px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 682x701px

So with sadness in my heart I feel the best thing I could do

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

27KB, 687x694px

is end it all and leave forever

File: untitled-15.png (26KB, 686x677px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 686x677px

whats done is done, it feels so bad what once was happy now is sad

File: WD.png (72KB, 1302x2013px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1302x2013px

I'll never love again my world is ending

File: untitled-5.png (84KB, 690x1175px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 690x1175px

>>59205758
Wonder why when you isolate the cpu in synthetics, things start looking radically different.

It's almost like all these benchmarks are horridly flawed and ryzen is a brand new architecture that will wildly improve with bios, software and os updates...but nah i'll go with the totally nonsensical bench's instead cause memes.

This thread kills AMD shills

File: 1488463564529.png (47KB, 680x628px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 680x628px

>>59205999
M-MUH SYNTHETICS. EVERYONE IS A SHILL!

THEY WILL FIX IT

IT JUST HAS BEEN RELEASED

I DON'T WANT TO BE ALONE

>>59206040
>synthetics equal the architectural power of the cpu and add up to what you'd expect in real world
>real world in some instances shows ryzen barely beating an fx even though it's way more powerful
>i'm a gigantic faggot pls rape my face

File: 1488408500412.png (91KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 653x726px

>>59206066
I WISH THAT I COULD TURN BACK TIME

aren't these processors like way lower clocked than the intel ones?

This is what I honestly expected. Does no one learn anything? This happens every year. AMD is hyped up and then it's fucking nothing but money in my pocket. Keep it up amdtards, you guys are filling my wallet up.

>>59206083
1800x can't reach more than 3.9Ghz in majority of reviews. They're absolutely dogshit when it comes to OCing. That 0.1Ghz bump crash during presentation wasn't a meme.

File: 232.gif (974KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 500x281px

>>59206066
That's why AMD tried to approach Gamers Nexus and hide the shitty performance by running benchmarks in 4K resolution while looking at skybox right shill?

>>59206147
what gamer nexus is claiming wouldn't stand to benefit amd in any way and would be blatantly obvious. sorry not interested in your hardware reviewer soap opera drama.

File: 1481892990967.png (313KB, 596x558px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 596x558px

>Ryzen beats or is on par with any Intel CPU that costs less than $1000 in everything but vidya games
>And the video game performance is going to be improved over time after all the kinks with releasing a brand new architecture has been ironed out
>"B-b-b-but look at these benchmarks! Ryzen has 5 fewer FPS in video games, and we all know that playing video games is the only thing you can do on a computer! B-BTFO! DOA!"

Ah, I remember being 14

Where was that thread with the quote from some reputable site saying how great the 1700X is and how the 7700k is dead for gaming even,

File: 1487789493624.jpg (156KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 633x758px

>>59205758

DELET DIS THREAD NOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: ayyymd.jpg (439KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1920x1080px

Intel+nvidia will always be the best for work and gaming

File: lolfuckingl.png (74KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 601x830px

>>59205758
Truly a massacre

Ryzen is horrible

File: 1467322047208.jpg (540KB, 1100x1002px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1100x1002px

>>59206463

>>59206580
This picture makes me laugh no matter how many times I've seen it.

>>59206608
Sounds like you have downs.

lookup joker productions on yt a 1700 neck and neck with 7700k @ 5ghz.

the difference? a different motherboard.

you're honestly retarded if you believe these early reviews given how powerful ryzen is on paper.

>>59206642
You're the retarded suicidal shill that keeps posting his benchmarks aren't you?

You're the retard here if you believe a squealing pig that even attacked AdoredTV when he made a video doubting the performance of Vega.

>>59205681

You blew your shill-ammo too early, intelfags

>>59205971
DELET

>>59206580

You change the way I look /g/
thanks.

File: polishreviewarma3.png (21KB, 582x768px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 582x768px

For this one anon who was asking for ARMA 3 benchmarks.

>>59206664
he posted a follow up video of in game footage backing up his benches

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4

have fun being meme'd, retard

>m-muh gayming
Fuck off back to /v/ manchild

>>59207040
BTFO

File: amd stock.jpg (66KB, 1032x803px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1032x803px

>>59205758
AMD IS RUINED

>>59205758
>It does worse in games so only games matter now.

It beats or is on par with most nom gaming task with the 6900k

You are retarded

File: AMD ZEN.webm (1MB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x1280px

>>59205758
never forget

>>59207147
F

File: ryzen-photoshop.png (112KB, 722x554px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 722x554px

>>59207168
It can't even beat a $160 cheaper Intel processor at Photoshop.

>>59206734
Truly horrible

>17 IPs

i really hope youre getting compensated OP

>>59207315
>>59207168
see >>59207040
>>59206700

>>59206263
How does showing benchmarks with a GPU bottleneck not make weak CPUs look better than they really are?

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

316KB, 882x758px

>>59207147

>MADSHILLS' face when

I wonder if people have ever tried to code something in low level OpenGL or Direct3D. Those subsystems do most of the parallelism on the GPU level, don't work well with multithreading on the CPU level/they often work even faster if a single thread is feeding them instructions, and in many cases you can make it much worse by multithreading them. In many game genres it's simply bad design to not go largely single threaded when all you do is feed extremely simple stuff to an extremely paralleled GPU pipeline.
People should shake their heads when others suggest that games can become a lot more multithreaded on the CPU level since in most cases the most you can subthread is something like a sound engine that won't be more than 2% of your load.
PS. Some benchmark reviewers are so clueless that they bottleneck their GPUs and then pretend that they do a CPU test. The entire point is to test the CPU bottlenecks when you test CPUs. If you don't, you practically do motherboard testing.

>>59207433
>gpu bottleneck
>7700k hitting 100% cpu a few times
>1080p on a gtx 1080 bottleneck'd
lmao @ you're life, kid

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

115KB, 284x640px

AMD KUKS ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>59205758
DELETE THIS POST

Sooooo.... go for a 5 series?

Their stock closed at 7% down.

File: f4519b6a07a22c05d99b9228fd86c396.jpg (293KB, 800x1350px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 800x1350px

>>59205758
WAIT™ FOR ZEN®+

Anyone have the "enabling waitfags, inspiring poorfags" picture?

I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY JUDGEMENTS UNTIL LINUS TECH TIPS RELEASES A VIDEO.

anyone who thought that these cpus would perform better than they currently are was a fool

WTF AMD I WANT TO GAME ON 720P WITH A TITAN X PASCAL

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-02 at 8.50.51 PM.png (87KB, 1824x255px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1824x255px

MOMMMAAAAAAA
JUST KILLED A MAAAAAAN
PUT A GUN AGAINST HIS HEAD
PULLED MUH TRIGGER, NOW HE'S DEEEAAAAD
MOMMMAAAAAAAAA
LIFE HAD JUUUST BEGUUUN
BUT NOW I'VE GONE AND THROWN IT ALL AWAAAAAY

>>59205758
Well let's see if the r5 is an i5 in gaming too.

Since I don't really know of many games that buy an i7.

The games and benchmarks aren't optimized for Zen's advanced architecture. Developers still need time to take advantage of Zen's SenseMI, which has artificial intelligence neural networks built right into the CPU, smart prefetching algorithms, and precision boosted performance.

https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/sense-mi

>>59209794
WAIT™ FOR UPDATES

>>59209677
Legit

Anybody who understands the way AMD operates could easily predict this disaster

>>59205915
What the hell happened with this one? It even got beat by AMD's old processor by 8 fps.

>>59209952
>What the hell happened with this one? It even got beat by AMD's old processor by 8 fps.
this gives me so much nostalgia
bulldozer vs. phenom all over again

>>59209952
likely it just clocked higher and the game doesn't use stronger cores all that well. or this is from a fucked bios motherboard, either one really.

>>59210070
A lot of AM4 BIOS's are fucked atm.

Jokers review on youtube has the 1700 performing extremely well, an outlier but he does have a Gigabyte board which doesn't seem to be having issues.

So my understanding is this.

1) you got intel giving out guidelines on how to test ryzen, making many reviews untrustworthy

2) you got a last minute uefi update that changed the bench results entirely,

3) you got many revieweres who made a 20+ page review who just said fuck you to amd and the update and never redid the tests for launch...

this is a shitshow no matter how you look at it due to intel tainting trust in reviewers, reviewers refusing to do their fucking job, and amd being so secretive that motherboard makers couldn't get launch ready bioses out.

Thank god my gpu is in rma right now, gives me a good 2 weeks to a month to see further reviews.

Given how well 4 cores treated me at a time when 4 cores was retarded to get, I'm getting one of the ryzens, just don't know which one, I'm leaning toward 1800x just for the guarantee clock speeds.

File: 1486923510868.jpg (234KB, 1920x864px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1920x864px

If the non-gaming benchmarks put Ryzen on par or beating just about everything its put up against, that must mean that the games aren't taking advantage of Ryzen's available performance. If it really was shit it would be shit in everything.

I'm not wrong am I?

>>59210158
Intel's jewing on this one is off the charts. They're shadier than I even thought, and I'm one of those management-engine averse anons.

>>59212457
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective

Didn't have the time to read it, but this may be interesting.

Amdfags retardation is only cured by death. Based russianbro showed us the light.

>>59207772
Actually, as far as gaming goes, CPU bottlenecks are almost irrelevant unless you're specifically into 144Hz gaming.
At 60Hz you'll never run into CPU bottlenecks unless you're using a 2GHz server chip or something or the game has a multi-core bottleneck and overwhelms your crappy quadcore. (very rare)

File: AMD™ Motto.png (24KB, 353x414px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 353x414px

>>59209391

>>59212538
>CPU bottlenecks are almost irrelevant unless you're specifically into 144Hz gaming
or Wine. DX games on Wine are almost always bottlenecked on a single thread.

File: 1479627552941.png (16KB, 625x479px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 625x479px

>>59205758

jokes on you it's not meant for 1080p

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/245204-amds-ryzen-7-1800x-reviewed-zen-amazing-workstation-chip-1080p-gaming-achilles-heel

>>59209596

He just did

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

you pajeet shills are so obnoxious have some respect and behave yourselves

I'm not even a shill implying ryzen needs any of that but your BS is appalling

File: 965CFC9D-80F5-4D10-BEA6-ACCCED7BE7C3-2245-000003406D1EBE33_tmp.jpg (87KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1462x1462px

>>59207206
Kek'd so hard

>>59212883
Then don't use wine?

>>59213044
I prefer to use Linux exclusively when I can, and Wine works acceptably for that, with good single thread performance.

>>59213018
Lol I was just making a jk man, but seeing how seething with rage you jewtel shills get always makes me laugh.

>>59210146
Jesus Christ get your shit together AMD

>>59211495
Sorry but it's actually shit at everything

See >>59207315

>>59213190
GNU/Linux*

Linux is just a kernel.

>>59213384
>>59213190

I'd like to interject...

>But muh motherboard issues and new architecture
You would think when you spend billions on developing a new architecture that you make sure everything is working properly before release including working with motherboard manufacturers to ensure things are working correctly.

File: 1430901143915.jpg (58KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 853x543px

>>59213445

>>59213384
>>59213445
oh right, GNU/SystemD/X.Org/Pacman/KDE/Linux
I may be missing some other major components in my distribution.

>>59213567
Thousands of projects have developed programs commonly included in today's GNU/Linux systems. They all deserve credit for their contributions, but they aren't the principal developers of the system as a whole, so they don't ask to be credited as such.

GNU is different because it is more than just a contributed program, more than just a collection of contributed programs. GNU is the framework on which the system was made.

>>59213582
>GNU is the framework on which the system was made
shouldn't you credit the original unix then as well?

File: 1474010524457.jpg (90KB, 728x952px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 728x952px

>>59213600
Actually, none of GNU comes from Unix. Unix was proprietary software (and still is), so using any of its code in GNU would have been illegal. This is not a coincidence; this is why we developed GNU: since you could not have freedom in using Unix, or any of the other operating systems of the day, we needed a free system to replace it. We could not copy programs, or even parts of them, from Unix; everything had to be written afresh.

No code in GNU comes from Unix, but GNU is a Unix-compatible system; therefore, many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from Unix. The name “GNU”, which stands for “GNU's Not Unix”, is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this, following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the 70s.

The first such recursive acronym was TINT, “TINT Is Not TECO”. The author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO (there were already many of them, for various systems), but instead of calling it by a dull name like “somethingorother TECO”, he thought of a clever amusing name. (That's what hacking means: playful cleverness.)

Other hackers enjoyed that name so much that we imitated the approach. It became a tradition that, when you were writing from scratch a program that was similar to some existing program (let's imagine its name was “Klever”), you could give it a recursive acronym name, such as “MINK” for “MINK Is Not Klever.” In this same spirit we called our replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix”.

Historically, AT&T which developed Unix did not want anyone to give it credit by using “Unix” in the name of a similar system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix. AT&T actually threatened to sue anyone giving AT&T credit in that way. This is why each of the various modified versions of Unix (all proprietary, like Unix) had a completely different name that didn't include “Unix”.

>>59213644
>many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from Unix
this indicates to me that Unix deserves credit just as much as GNU, apart from the whole AT&T lawsuit thing.

File: 1482913037642.png (862KB, 1201x1771px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 1201x1771px

>>59209391
>the same fag from last night

with poos you always lose

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

>>59206263
At least some of us still fight the good fight for AMD

All of them are beyond 75hz which is the maximum refresh rate of 95% of panels. What's the problem exactly? Same price, less wattage, 50% more cores and threads, relatively future-proof, cooler included, cheaper motherboards.

the only thing i regret about amd is that i didn't by their stock at less than $2 per share in early 2016. would've made $10k.

>>59209794
>Buzzwords:the post

>>59206630
y..you too anon

File: SvM.gif (1MB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x200px

>mfw 6700k for $200
call me in 15 years when its time to upgrade

>>59216810
using RGB like this is bad and should really be listed as a hate crime.

>>59206370
Hey, do you by any chance have the image where Indian villagers are carrying a giant AMD GPU on their shoulders ?
I pissed myself the last time I saw it.

>>59207040
Yea lets trust one random fatso, and not every other honnest review/benchmark site, youtuber out there. From that video it was obvious he had no idea what he was talking about.

>>59207433
word from AMD and reviewers themselves is that they merely asked for 1440p and 4k to be tested ALONG with 1080p and lower.

it's valuable to know that a chip won't bottleneck your current setup even though it's weaker at gaming overall.

I wouldn't recommend Ryzen to anyone building a gaming machine but the fact of the matter is that it's viable there, whereas Vishera wasn't at all.

gamer kids need to go back to /v/

>>59207040
the 1080 is sitting at 99% load all the time while both CPUs are at 40 to 70% on every core. that's a GPU bottleneck. the guy is legit fucking retarded.

>hurr no I turned off vsync

the only positive thing in that video is the individual thread load. all of those games (even GTA V) seem to spread across all logical CPUs pretty fucking well. it's likely AMD will manage to squeeze out some additional perf by improving CPU scheduling, but I sincerely doubt they will catch up to Intel in gaming.

File: disgust.jpg (7KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x224px

>>59205758

For fucks sake, guess Jewtel is going to keep pumping out shit

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56457/intel-scrambles-emails-tech-media-over-ryzen-reviews/index.html

Intel ON MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL

>>59210158
>1) you got intel giving out guidelines on how to test ryzen, making many reviews untrustworthy
there is nothing wrong with this. both Intel and AMD were giving out guidelines. they want their product to be represented fairly.

for Intel it was "make sure to show our superior single thread results" and for AMD it was "make sure to test games at 4K"

>2) you got a last minute uefi update that changed the bench results entirely,
that would explain some of the worst benchmarks but overall the results should be considered definitive. GamersNexus had the correct revision for their review.

>3) you got many revieweres who made a 20+ page review who just said fuck you to amd and the update and never redid the tests for launch...
potentially. this is a problem that plagued the 480. only hardwarecanucks revisited it after driver updates made it overtake the 1060 and that propably hurt sales a bunch.

but the tech press is not to blame for AMD's disastrous launch.

I wouldn't recommend the 1800X at all. the 1700X is a niche buy if you have non-gaming workloads for it.

>>59213380
you are being retarded on purpose, it's too obvious

tone it down a little

>>59212538
still, any CPU you buy will inevitably bottleneck future GPUs. with Ryzen, this eventuality comes sooner. it's disingenuous to ignore the validity of both 1080p and 4K reviews.

>>59217884
>that would explain some of the worst benchmarks but overall the results should be considered definitive.

Whao. If you are applying an overall average, significant outliers can fuck a small sample size

>>59217016
the problem is Ryzen is out and its potential is still in the air

>wait for announcements!
>wait for benchmarks!
>wait for more benchmarks!
>wait for firmware fixes!
>wait for better CPU schedulers!
>wait for DX12/Vulkan!

alternatively you could just buy a fucking i7 that was be good or great at everything a year ago

>>59206272

>all the kinks being ironed out
>it's just a beta guys they'll fix it

>>59217929
I don't really care about the average. most of the tech press will always be incompetent. you should be able to interpret results from multiple sources and get a decent idea of what the CPU can do.

Can someone explain to me how it's possible that in 2017 they're still lagging behind Sandy Bridge on single-core performance? They're literally 6 years behind the curve, how the fuck did this happen?

File: C1ML6BlWEAES8Hz.jpg large.jpg (206KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1200x800px

Why does gaming performance being 8%~ lower on a workstation chip make a launch disastrous?

Legitimately asking.

>>59218036
Now it's a workstation chip huh?

>>59218036
Workstation chip right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAMijA3uvsw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ87GLfX4lM
"This is the dream gaming PC for 2017"

LOL

>>59218054

It's an 8 core chip.

Intel's 8 core chips also aren't gaming chips and don't work as well as Intel's 4 cores in gaming either. They're for content producers/prosumers.

>>59218022
they're not even close to Sandy Bridge. their shit performs above Broadwell level in many benchmarks.

>>59218036
most workstations come with i7s now and that's still better at gaming. what's up with that?

>>59218022
They simply do not have the same funding as intel does. You cannot expect a curry company to compete toe to toe with jews. They overcompensate but just throwing more cores in there. For me it's still a miracle that they at least managed that level of performance. I was expecting way less.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (62KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1024x1024px

>>59218069

I didn't realise R7 was the entire Ryzen line up friend

>>59218089
and worse at, ya know, work station things. Things typically done on a work station.

File: amddotcom.png (1MB, 1896x899px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1896x899px

>>59218088
>it's not a gaming chip at all

Disappointed, but im still glad there's competition in the workstation market because intel has been ripping people off for years

>>59218089
>their shit performs above Broadwell level in many benchmarks.

Yeah but that's stock, you have to include the OC. These tests have e.g. 2600K at 3.4, when it runs comfortably on air at 4.6.

File: CpiNGbTXEAEc9jx.jpg large.jpg (16KB, 347x424px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 347x424px

>>59218111

I didn't realise the R7 was the entire Ryzen line up friend.

>>59218122
Dutch review includes the 2600k, it's so far behind it isn't even funny.
OC won't make up for it:
https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/7223/38/amd-ryzen-7-1800x1700x-review-eindelijk-weer-concurrentie-voor-intel-conclusie

File: 1365810670306.jpg (43KB, 257x262px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 257x262px

>>59218141
>I didn't realise the R7 was the entire Ryzen line up friend.
>they clearly advertises for their r5's, even tho they're not even out I swear!
AMDrones are pathetic.

>>59218108
>and worse at, ya know, work station things. Things typically done on a work station.
it's a chip better suited for workstations, that's for sure.

but it's not a "workstation" chip. you cannot make the point that AMD didn't intend this for high end gaming when they were benchmarking the fucking thing on Battlefield One and Doom2016 for months.

>>59218141
>Dutch review includes the 2600k, it's so far behind it isn't even funny.

Are you retarded? I picked a game at random, GTA V.

1700X 103.2 FPS
2500k 87.3 FPS

The difference is small at stock speeds, even! With OC the i5 will beat Ryzen.

And let me remind you that the 2500K launched for $216 SIX YEARS AGO. 1700X costs literally twice as much.

>>59217987
It's literally been confirmed that the motherboard manufacturers are dropping the ball which will be fixed with BIOS updates, but whatever helps you sleep at night

File: nrvzgr[1].png (1MB, 1629x655px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1629x655px

>>59218161

to be fair Intel also advertises their i7 6900k for gaming when it loses to the non extreme i5's and i7's there too.

>>59218022
>Why can't a company with a fraction of the R&D budget as the competition release a product that matches it in performance

Gee whiz, you tell me. Do you think creating a CPU is just a matter of willpower?

>>59218122
running at higher freqs doesn't automatically incur a linear increase in performance. it also comes with higher PSU/VRM requirements, higher risks to the hardware and a number of additional hurdles. the argument that you can OC a chip to make it match another at stock level is always stupid.

in addition, sandy bridge is inevitably going to be stuck far behind in many, many cases due to its ancient platform and slower RAM.

this is just not a good angle to attack AMD from. try harder.

>>59218223
The K series is specifically designed and sold for its overclocking ability, it's not stupid at all. There are hordes of people who have been running 2500K at 4.5+ for half a decade now with no problem. Higher PSU requirements? lmao

Slow RAM is the only reasonable argument.

MUH GAYMES

Who cares? This will be a perfect chip for professionals

File: Cpn2nJrUMAE04OW.jpg large.jpg (20KB, 515x493px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 515x493px

>>59218202

With a 4.5 Ghz overclock you'd match stock Ryzen in GTA V.
While overclocking Ryzen isn't much luck, getting it to turbo at XFR frequency on all cores is a non issue for most.

It is exceeding Sandy Bridge IPC and performance even in games. Outside of games it's completely unfunny how behind Sandy Bridge is. Stop being retarded.

File: CpOCWneUkAELuWa.jpg large.jpg (16KB, 390x261px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 390x261px

>>59218305

To back it up, with perfect performance scaling a 4.5Ghz overclock would be a 20% increase in performance, the Ryzen there is running 19% faster at stock, so no all core turbo enabled yet.

I currently own a 2500k and it only does 4.4 stable on a good board and with a good custom water loop. Now I know that's a tad low but most don't go above 4.5.

My friend's 2600k only does 4.5 stable under a closed loop cooler (corsair h100) and my other friend's 2500k only does 4.5 with a CM Nepton 140.

Not even shilling, your math is just wrong.
If you enjoy gaming but also do literally anything else not gaming related that's moderately heavy, Ryzen is worth the price.

>>59218395
...do you seriously think you need water cooling to reach 4.5 on a 2500K? You're doing it wrong.

>>59218442

no, you can do it on air fine. But the silicon lottery isn't a guarantee for 4.7Ghz on air at 0.7vcore as you niggers like to pretend.
4.5 is what most people hit and run at regardless of cooling. Few go higher.

>>59218477

That's just /g/ beying /g/ friend.
Almost every thread I see people "7700k 5.1 on air" when <10% of chips even reach 5.1 period.

/g/ thinks just because 1 guy somewhere managed, everyone automatically is able to.

File: ryzen fallout 4 1080p ultra benchmark.png (247KB, 665x1520px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 665x1520px

>>59218305
k

File: gaming cpu performance pentium wins.png (54KB, 450x887px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 450x887px

>>59218305
>>59218535
>k

File: kaogqm[1].png (29KB, 600x751px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x751px

>>59218535

>cherrypicking benchmarks
k

>>59218544
oh hey that uses the 2500k too

File: wow it's fucking nothing.jpg (70KB, 248x252px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 248x252px

>>59218632
>timed Linux kernel compilation
>7700k: 100
>Ryzen: 80
>timed Linux kernel compilation
>timed Linux kernel compilation
>timed Linux kernel compilation
>timed Linux kernel compilation
>timed Linux kernel compilation
>timed Linux kernel compilation

>>59206040
It's interesting that the 7700k is 6% faster than the 6700k. Does Ryzen have any overclocking potential without liquid nitrogen?

File: 9nohQh4[1].jpg (12KB, 478x361px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 478x361px

>>59218653

also
>Implying compilation times aren't important
???????

>>59218674

stock it doesn't turbo to 4.1 on more than 1 core.

It doesn't have much OC potential but getting it to turbo on all cores is trivial.

>>59218108
Because they were totally not showcasing the 1800x as the "Dream gaming CPU of 2017" on those videos, right?

>>59218739

Pretty sure the conference slides show the Ryzen 5 1600x being marked as the "flagship gaming" CPU.

Also see this anon's post:
>>59218217

IT JUST KEEPS

>>59205758
DELETE

THES

>>59217834
>muh GPU bottleneck
Notice there is a clear difference in FPS between the two benchmarked CPUs and that's because the GPU bottleneck is not that significant. Every other review out there is experiencing the same thing at 1080p.

>>59218653
it's actually really fucking impressive. irrelevant to 99.9% of people but impressive nonetheless.

Ryzen is a compute monster. let's hope it can catch up in gaming with software tweaks. not holding my breath though.

>>59205758
>240€ 7600k beats 560€ ryzen 1800x
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>59218973
it has more threads stupid. ryzen ftw

>>59218856
So there's no bottleneck >>59216356 and fx8350 is just 5fps behind r1800x? Does this make fx8350 literally the best cpu for gaming?
AMDrones are console tier retards at this point.

File: herp derp.jpg (14KB, 243x312px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 243x312px

>>59219238
>4K is the same as 1080p

>>59218141
>I didn't realise the R7 was the entire Ryzen line up friend.
Ah, it must be the CPUs with lower or equal clocks and fewer cores which are the "gaming" models.

>>59218036
It's not just 8% slower, it's also 150% more expensive.

You pay more for less, it's truly awful.

>>59207147

>up 533% from 1 year ago
>"ruined"

>>59219558

For... Gaming. Which isn't the purpose.

File: CPU wars.jpg (123KB, 1123x595px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1123x595px

>falling for the desktop processors meme

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

362KB, 1106x1012px

Games are optimized for intel branch prediction and cache miss avoidance

>>59221810
>Games are optimized
Funny post, frogposter.

>>59221810
What really bugs me about this post is someone took a low rez pepe, blew it up to that size, and drew those glasses at the higher resolution.

File: xniypw[1].png (22KB, 817x141px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 817x141px

Why does Ryzen have smoother gameplay than the i7 7700k, as observed by many reviewers, when the numbers are lower?

Just a warning. Shills are getting paid to talk shit about ryzen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUk5T3AkJYE

>>59221783
Those goalposts can really move.

Todays usage of cpu power just is not optimized for more than 4 real cores and 8 threads if you stretch it in most scenarios! Simple as that. Will it change as AMD insists? Who knows?

For right now and say about atleast 18 months ahead going with 4C/8T Intel and Cuda for any real work seems like the way to go!

>>59221855
WE NEED RYZEN FRAMETIMES STAT

>>59221783
Not just gaming, even common software like Photoshop, basically everything

File: 1478000254300.jpg (26KB, 524x492px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 524x492px

Its the price for performance that people seem to not bring up on both sides of the shit flinging shitshow. why even bother trying to prove Intel can do literally single digits higher than zen where Intel chips + mobos cost 3x more than amd + mobo.

>>59221870
Fake, if anyone is getting paid to shill it's AMD

Look at the crap they are pulling, they are scamming people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBHjtCXhU&feature=youtu.be&t=1264

>>59221932
Yeah except that is 100% false.

The fucking $500 AMD chip gets beat by a $340 Intel chip

Hell even in most games a $240 Intel chip beats the $500 Ryzen

>>59221932
If all you're doing is gaming, the r7s are on par with an i5, which costs $200-$250. If Intel motherboards cost $50 more for feature parity with AMD ones (I'm too lazy to check), then the price/performance is basically even between an r7 1700 and an unlocked i5.

>>59221991
It's actually worse because an r7 1700 is $330

Even if Intel MB had a $50 price premium, you are paying an extra $40 if you go with AMD

>>59205758

god i hope ryzen 5's higher out of the box clock speeds actually increase their IPC by a significant amount

otherwise its like why even get anything out of this lineup? if the most expensive is purely for rendering videos and jacking off to benchmarks due to low clocks/ipc, wtf are the other ryzen going to be for?

>>59222070

But IPC is fine anon.

We know from all of history though that the lower core count will generally end up overclocking better due to the nature of silicon fabrication.

So we'll probably get 4.3~ OC'd 6c/12t at i5 prices and 4c/8t at low i5/high i3 prices

File: 1466302096051.jpg (42KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 512x512px

>>59223140

I think 4.3 is reasonable for the 6 cores. Probably 4.4~4.5 for the 4 cores. Some Ryzen 7 1800x can push 4.2 so.....

>>59222070
>why even get anything out of this lineup?

You shouldn't, Ryzen is shit.

>March 3. Daylight. The shills have overtaken /g/. Somehow... I'm still alive.