Can they recover?

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

439KB, 1920x1080px

>>59211547
They'll be kept afloat by their retarded fans who sacrifice their cash for "competition"

>>59211624
You mean consoles?

>>59211547
what are you talking about, They just won.

>>59211547
the gaming performance is exactly what we should expect with an increase in IPC and a decrease in clock speed.

File: chihuahua1.jpg (24KB, 500x479px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x479px

>>59211547

>5 frames less than Intel in games
>OH FUCK RYZEN CANT GAME WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT AMD DONE FOR

File: ryzen fps.png (76KB, 601x814px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 601x814px

>>59211719
pretty much this

and they are all above 100 frames as well

"bad for gaymen" mirite

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

74KB, 601x830px

>>59211677
>the gaming performance is exactly what we should expect

You can't be serious

>>59211637
Taking 6 years to barely catch up with your competitor is not exactly winning, anon.

>>59211731
fallout 4 is literally the worst one in the pcgamer review

todd howard cant code for shit

Who fucking cares. They deserve to be gassed along with all their cryzen shitposters.

>>59211731
thats fallout 4 only

the average of every game they reviewed is right above you >>59211729

ryzen is beating almost every intel chip

Despite problems ryzen is a good competition an probably will yield good mobile and server chips.

They aren't top gaming but good all around and trade blows with Intel extreme.

If I was getting CPUs for office certainly I would get ryzen for better performance and lower prices like bottom.

The base is it's not a top gamer CPU but it's reasonable well.

>>59211752
Amdfags are literally more obnoxious than nintendrones and that's not an easy feat.

File: ashes.png (76KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 601x830px

>>59211749
OK let's try Ashes, literally an AMD sponsored game

Wow

>>59211547

Being that I'm not going to be in the cpu market for several years at least I can keep myself away from the pitfalls that brings. I've been reading and watching all these reviews I can find and it's not very convincing atm. I'm watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow right now trying to understand and get more information about the gamersnexus review. Trying to look at all the differences all these reviewers are getting.

Not to mention these developing issues that might get corrected soon. Gotta follow these reviews for weeks to get the full picture.

I don't know why people just can't keep their mind open. I'm pretty tired of people treating AMD/Intel/Nvidia like sports teams or something.

File: average-gaming.png (72KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 601x830px

>>59211766
Wrong, that is not the average gaming, those are CPU tests

Here is the average gaming.

Ryzen is truly horrible for gaming.

>>59211731
That's literally a 25% increase you dumb cunt.

52% IPC increase with a 10-20% decrease in clock speed, that lines up

>>59211808
>only 7 frames away from the 7700k
>bad for gaming

wow its fucking nothing isn't it

>>59211808
>112 vs 105
>horrible

Kike.

File: RIP_broadwelle.png (68KB, 579x868px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 579x868px

>>59211547
Lol /v/tards burned their brain. Ryzen just destroyed Broadwell-E market.

>>59211813
So you expected really bad gaming performance?

File: 1485431773668.jpg (72KB, 1126x629px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1126x629px

>>59211808
>105 frames per second vs 112 frames per second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"""""""horrible for gaming"""""""""""""

this is the kind of exaggerating intel shills will make

nevermind the fact that the AMD chips are cheaper and more future proof

>>59211819
>>59211820
>>59211835


A $340 Intel chip is beating a $500 Ryzen chip

I would say that is truly horrible.

>>59211547
>AMD DOESNT APPEAL TO THE GAYMUUURRS.
>SEE THOSE BENCHMARKS, IT IS NOT GETTING 500+ FPS ON 720P
> WE ALL KNOW THAT REAL HARDCORE GAYMUURRS PLAY AT 720P ON THE 2011 PLATFORM

File: poor6950x.png (67KB, 596x865px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 596x865px

>>59211823
Who is going to buy 6950x now? tsk tsk

>>59211842
you mean a $370 intel chip is a 5 frame difference from a $300 ryzen chip

>>59211872
What are you smoking.

Post proof of those prices.

>>59211872
Clearly you are blind

7700k is $340

The closest Ryzen competitor to it is the 1800X and it costs $500

>>59211889
>>59211891
Samefag you don't have to reply to me twice on your phone and desktop, once is enough

>>59211547
>muh gaymes
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>59211864

>>59211825
fallout 4, a game that benefits greatly from faster ram, still preforms above what the engine chan handle when the bios has hamstrung the ram...

you call 110+fps shit, I call it great

>>59211902
Post proof.

>>59211911
>110 FPS

I call you mentally retarded.

>>59211911
I call paying $160 more for a CPU that performs worse, very very shit.

File: josephGoebbelsJewQuoteMeme.jpg (419KB, 737x554px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 737x554px

>>59211916
The proof was that tinge you felt in your butthole when I called you out for being a samefagging jewboy.

File: red_on_suicide_watch.png (17KB, 738x566px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 738x566px

>>59211547
It still looks like a very compelling offer for workstations, pretty much matching the 6900k at half the price.

But for gaming it's pretty disappointing considering the 7700k exists.

I really hope this isn't their last shot. I prefer intel but I'd rather not be jewed indefinitely by lack of competition.

>>59211941
post proof.

File: lol.png (8KB, 600x91px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 600x91px

>>59211902

>>59211842
a $1800 intel chip has 14 more fps than a $300 ryzen chip

jesus christ why would anyone buy intel?

>>59211928
yea, was called that too when i bought the 4 core I have, turns out that was the right call as dual cores at the time no longer even boot some games.

>>59211934
again, performs worse how?

I have had all 4 cores max out and stutter because the cpu just can't take it anymore, I have had games lock up because a background app decided to kick in.

I don't play game on a sterile freshly booted system

>>59211951
You're only replying to me on one device right now :^)

>>59211944

Hence why I'm building a 1800x + GTX 1070 system for video editing and motion graphics / VFX work.

if the performance delta really is all down to the bad firmware then yes they can recover. if not then things look very grim.

>>59211958
Nice inspect element m8

>>59211985
Didn't modify it a bit.

>>59211985
Nice shit for brains.

>>59212009
>>59211991
There he goes again

File: file.png (231KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x720px

>>59211736
At least they made a comeback and forced jewtel to lower some of their prices.

The R7 1700 has a lot of potential. The 1700x and 1800x aren't for gaymen (pic proofs this) and are for workstation use, with the 1700x compareable to the i7 6850, and the 1800x to the i7 6900

File: lol.png (5KB, 342x86px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 342x86px

>>59212027

>>59212027
down syndrome much

>>59212030
The R7 1700 is quite bad for gaming too, the only difference is the price.

See >>59211808

It's actually the worst at gaming of all of them.

File: Screenshot_20170303-155156.png (499KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1440x2560px

>>59211808
>"Ryzen is truly horrible for gaming."
>Top 10 scores are within 10 fps of each other

Looks like AMDs leap was pretty spot on.

Dont even bother calling suicide watch for the Intel shills. They're already dead. Serial silicon innovation is dead.

Capcha: meado champ

File: ryzen SMT.png (22KB, 904x294px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 904x294px

AMD says that a lot of the games are using less than optimal code paths and they're working with the game devs to address the problems with the unusual results. If the results for the various other applications are to be believed then ryzen should be pretty close to the i7 8 cores at least if not better so there's something else going on here.

>>59212096
See >>59211842

File: file.png (151KB, 436x619px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 436x619px

>>59211959
For the i5 which shits all over all the ryzen cpus for $100 less.

>>59211808

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

27KB, 682x665px

Yes they can, if people stop sucking intel's dick

>>59212141
>$500 Ryzen chip beat by $340 Intel chip

>muh gaems
Anyone know how AMD Ryzen fares in single thread workloads?

>>59212163
>$1000 Intel chip beaten by $500 AMD chip.

This goes both ways cunt.

>>59212112
I don't even know what that means though. At a higher level for game programming you definitely aren't writing code to favor some certain CPU. Unless it is the case that engines like Unreal, Unity, Cry, Source, etc are somehow Intel biased under the hood its not going to bring the collective performance of games along with it.

>>59212141
This isn't a typical result though based on the benchmark's I've seen. Generally the 7700k out-performs the 1800x and 6900k by a sizeable amount in gaming. As a gaming sku the 1800x isn't very compelling.

>>59212168
~10% below 7700K, around the same as the 6900K,

File: ultimate_gentoo_cpu.png (52KB, 609x765px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 609x765px

>>59211547
It might suck for 15 year old faggots wanting to play CSGO at 170 FPS. Instead, they'll only be able to get 150 FPS. Boo hoo.

However, when it comes to compiling Gentoo, the smart computing enthusiast knows which CPU is king.

>>59212205
why would somebody be compiling the linux kernel multiple times a day every day.

>>59212141
>>59212163
$1743 Intel Chip beat by $340 Intel Chip

>>59212205
>81.65 seconds
Is this with or without support for all hardware?

As someone who's main machines consist of i3s/i5s, core2quads, and Prescott CPUs, that's pretty fucking impressive.

>>59212186
The $340 intel chip is literally the #1 fastest chip there, the choice is obvious

>>59212241
You don't need to shill at me, I already got my Ryzen senpai.

>>59212205
>However, when it comes to compiling Gentoo, the smart computing enthusiast knows which CPU is king.

I can't even tell if this is satirical

>>59212251
>I already got my Ryzen senpai

Sorry for your loss

>>59212222
You must not be a programmer. It's not about compiling the linux kernel. It's about compilation speed in general. Ryzen is one hell of a programmer's workstation CPU.

If AMD improves the AVX pipeline to be dual-issue like KabyLake processors and they increase the PCIe channels and add quad-channel memory for Zen+, they'll be fine.

As it stands, they're still quite competitive.

File: super smug trump.jpg (61KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x600px

>>59212251
Post proofs.

Eventhough I have been shilling hard against Ryzen, I still want AMD to do well. I hope for you anon that AMD's FineWine (tm) comes through for you.

File: IMG_1394.jpg (270KB, 1836x1377px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1836x1377px

>>59212222
>He doesn't store his files on a jump drive and recompile every morning.

Lmao what a pleb.

>>59212188
Apparently there's something special about the way AMD implemented SMT

from Tom's Hardware
>We come away from today's coverage with a number of questions that couldn't be answered in time for the launch. For instance, we discovered Ryzen's tendency to perform better in games with SMT disabled. Could this be a scheduling issue that might be fixed later? AMD did respond to our concerns, reminding us that Ryzen's implementation is unique, meaning most game engines don't use if efficiently yet. Importantly, the company told us that it doesn’t believe the SMT hiccup occurs at the operating system level, so a software fix could fix performance issues in many titles. At least one game developer (Oxide) stepped forward to back those claims. However, you run the risk that other devs don't spend time updating existing titles.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-12.html

>>59212240
It looks like it's compiling the Kernel with the default configuration. It's not compiling everything, but it is compiling the default modules.

https://openbenchmarking.org/innhold/c8ff4e5356ccc38f408cec5ec223192199b29db8

>>59212267
I am a programmer. None of the stuff I do takes long enough to compile that I would worry about getting a special CPU for it.

>>59211842
It's also beating a 1600 dollar ship

File: 1488518753337.png (900KB, 4000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 4000x2000px

>>59211731
he is quite a lot serious..

notice the average now notice the mins..

1800x is 13% behind 6900k
1700x is 5% behind 6850/6800
1700 is 6% behind 6800

as for the rest well the results speaks for themselfs..

overall its doing FINE regardless of the shills overhyping it to infinity and beyond because even if it had double the perf of a 7700k in their eyes it would have been "ok"

>>59211891
oh now the closest became the 1800x? and not the 1700x that is 60 more or the 1700 that is 20 less?

no its the 1800x that costs more than 140

Why is everyone so fucking stupid. In most benchmarks they are comparing the processors at stock speeds. Of course a 4+ GHz Intel CPU is better than 3.4GHz AMD. Show me overclocked benchmarks and then we can talk about if amd is a failure

>>59211825
That's not bad gaming performance, besides I play at 1440p, no noticeable difference between the companies there.

On the other hand, AMD provides a lot of other value to me, as a systems engineer, this thing will be a monster VM host while also being able to game

well at least it already broke the 6900k all core record
http://valid.x86.fr/sdvjpz

5.8ghz

also jewztwopesos did a quite good video about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1dhYDm7SLw

sadly doesnt seem we will see a fix from microsoft any time soon

The "omg amd killed" shills are also skipping over the fact that these intel CPUs are also barely faster than their 3-4 year old cpus.

whoops spaghet

>>59212745
AMD confirmed Ryzen supports IOMMU in case you're curious about that.

>>59212327

The compilation argument is dumb. It takes minutes to compile even the largest projects I've worked on (~1mil lines of code, AAA game).

>Intel shills going to psyops trying to act like this is negative

the new AMD cpus are 100% competitive with Intel chips now and the 1800x has an untapped market completely to itself, the discrepancy in the speeds being benched can also be completely different in the upcoming weeks as things are patched and are not really that big to begin with

>>59212788
any video featuring both jayztwoshekels and nerdgasm is by definition not good

>>59212889
normally i agree but he goes a lot deep on the problems ryzen currently has

>>59212854
You'd have to be stupid to think it's competitive

File: this-is-fine.png (310KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 580x282px

>>59212601
>overall its doing FINE

>>59212647
The 1800x is the only one that even comes close in performance to the 7700k, and it costs $160 more. That's the problem.

>>59213050
>software development
>CAD
>video rendering

It's easily competitive in the HEDT segment with Intel's $1k CPUs. Not everything is about vidya gamen.

Also that performance/watt is gonna spell trouble for Intel once the server chips drop.

>>59212816
Yeah my body is ready

>>59211547
Qualcomm is 10x the size of AMD.

Samsung is 100x the size of AMD.

AMD truly is irrelevant.

File: 7stagesofbeinganAMDfan2.png (1MB, 3504x1580px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3504x1580px

Play the bingo looking at this thread.

>>59213589
Top kek

>>59211547
What bugs me the most is they haven't released the 6C and 4C CPUs, which is the mainstream things.

Also I don't understand. Do AMD imply that their 4C 8T CPUs aren't even near Intels counterpart if they have to make a 8C and 16T compete against it?

>>59213708
AMD is just desperately throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

>>59213589
>processor is super competitive i nthe msot profitable sectors
>AHAHAHHA ITS DEAD IT CANT EVEN GAME ALALALALALALALALALAL

>>59213746
I am happy that AMD has improved from what they released before. However coming out right now with something that isn't useful for the average user and at a price which is meh, specially knowing that Intel is a VERY BIG company with a lot of money and can easily lower prices to cut of any profit for AMD. I don't understand their marketing scheme.
If they wanted to win, they should have focused on making CPUs that are better than i5 and at a cost of a Pentium.

>>59213708
>Do AMD imply that their 4C 8T CPUs aren't even near Intels counterpart if they have to make a 8C and 16T compete against it?

Yes apparently R5 and R3 are based on the same die. Outlook not good.

>>59213708
The 1600x has my dick hard, I hate getting caught up in hype but when your workload is light CAD and light VM work with a lot of gaming. It is an i5 with hyperthreading and thats what i need.

Hmm I could probably do more ghetto servers and botfarming with the 1800x, but will it be worth the double in price.

>>59213822
I hope it is like an i5, else it would be a very bad thing.

>>59213822
Of course it excites you, it's something you will have to wait for.
Nothing more exciting than waiting!

>>59213900
Kek

AMDtard's favorite thing to do: wait

File: 1488444678136.jpg (24KB, 364x299px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 364x299px

>>59211547

>>59211858

>When the Intel Relief Squad comes in with flawed benchmarks for games that only utilize 2 threads and/or don't take advantage of the massive L2 cache of ryzen
>Ignore the fact that it is a way better buy than the entire Intel HEDT lineup including intel's own 10-core 6950x
>Ignore the productivity
>Ignore the future-proofing

Buy for the now! the 7700K has a 400FPS minimum in CS:GO, but the CRAPPY 1700X only offers 340FPS minimum! Don't fall for the AMD meme, you never wanted to use your computer for anything but gaming anyway, you dysfunctional NEET! Buy Intel!

>>59212186

Why are you comparing Gayzen to a higher priced product, when a CHEAPER Intel chip is OUTPERFORMING it?

Obviously no one will buy a 1000$ CPU when he can get a 340$ one, still get excellent performance, and get it at a cheaper price than AMD's similarly performing chips

You don't ACTUALLY expect AMD to release something that performs better than the 7700k and is cheaper than its current price, do you?

>Intel shills on overtime
wew lad
>>59212061
It's the one clocked the lowest, of course it's going to perform worse on single threaded tasks

>>59214900
Why are you comparing Kaby Lake to a higher priced product yourself? When a CHEAPER intel chip is OUTPERFORMING it?

Obviously no one will buy a 340$ CPU when he can get a 150$ one, still get excellent performance, and get it at a cheaper price than AMD's similarly performing chips

You Don't ACTUALLY expect AMD to release something that performs better than the 7350k and is cheaper than its current price, do you?

>Notes: In a very select few gaming titles that only use 2 threads and do not properly scale.
>Ignore all multi-threaded workloads
>Ignore many of the benchmarks which have the 7700K beating the 7350K for other reasons
>No one actually video edits or streams, or programs, or uses 7zip, or uses office, or uses linux, or uses more than 4 threads for any reason, it's just a meme despite the clear evidence that more cores and threads are being coded into upcoming games, etc. We know you just sit on steam playing cookie clicker while watching the latest Japanese anime on 2 720p screens.


I can hear it now

"1 core is all you need"
"2 cores is all you need"
"4 cores is all you need"
"You don't need L2 cache"
"You don't need competition"
"You don't need electricity, use your abacus"

>>59212096
>Serial silicon innovation is dead.
AMD promised a 15% IPC improvement for Zen+

>>59211790
Fucking i3 catching up with $500 chip

Can't make this shit up.

>>59212306
Microsoft never fixes their scheduler to support new SMT's until a few months later
This happened with Bulldozer, Nehalem, the first Atom's and the P4

>>59214800
>7700K has a 400FPS minimum in CS:GO, but the CRAPPY 1700X only offers 340FPS minimum!
IT also has 10-30 more fps in other games where the fps is between 60-144fps, which is within the margin where it makes a difference if you have a monitor that has more than 60Hz.
>Don't fall for the AMD meme
Don't forget that the 7700k is cheaper and offers better performance for gaming.

>you never wanted to use your computer for anything but gaming anyway, you dysfunctional NEET!
Nice tactic but honestly you are retarded if you want to blame the consumer.
There is people who want a workstation and there is people who want a gaming station.
And the clear fact is, that at the current time ryzen is not a good choice if you value playing games.

>>59212163
You know that's within error, right?
Statistically they're the same

Thank you for shitting up this board /v/abby, now please go back to /v/ and your autistic fights over which gaymes are muh better. Try to die on the way.

>>59215105
> Why are you comparing Kaby Lake to a higher priced product yourself? When a CHEAPER intel chip is OUTPERFORMING it?

> Obviously no one will buy a 340$ CPU when he can get a 150$ one, still get excellent performance, and get it at a cheaper price than AMD's similarly performing chips

> You Don't ACTUALLY expect AMD to release something that performs better than the 7350k and is cheaper than its current price, do you?

> >Notes: In a very select few gaming titles that only use 2 threads and do not properly scale.
> >Ignore all multi-threaded workloads
This tbqh, wait for R3 benches if you're into gaymes. 8c16t just aren't for manchilds.

>>59212267
Zen's lead engineer said that they would make the AVX pipeline dual issue for Zen+, but I really doubt we will see quad channel on a single Zen die
After all their new fabric is one of the leading Zen features, and it probably reduces area for the IMC a lot

>>59211547
>I don't see how they can possibly recover.
Even if they don't make processors anymore, they'll rake in tons of cash for their x64 patents. Intel kind of wants to use that.

>>59211729
>>59211731
>>59211790
I don't care that it loses to the 7700k, but it gets BTFO by the 6900k which Ryzen was supposed to be neck and neck with, what happened to that?

How does the 6900k get 10-20%+ better performance? It has 2-3% faster IPC, but it's also lower clocked, yet in almost all benchmarks, gaming and non-gaming, it leads by a significant margin.

Also, ryzen overclocks terribly if at all. I'm disappointed.

>>59215229
>>How does the 6900k get 10-20%+ better performance?
The benchmarks are fucked. Something wrong with hyperthreading and how the Os schedules the threads.

>>59215229
> ryzen overclocks terribly
+ 1GHz on all 8 cores
> terribly
That's +1/4 of a good performance, man.

>>59215229
Fake or rigged benchmarks to cash in the preorder crowd. AMD underdelivers every single time yet the fanboys think this time it'll be different.

>>59215248
>3.7GHz boost
>can only oc to 3.9-4GHz
That's terrible. The 6900k can oc to 4.3-4.4GHz.

fucking /g/ I swear to god
come here every day and see those cancerous threads

kys yourselves you guys

>>59215229
I don't know the technicalities, but it's pretty easy to sum it up: AMD is shit

File: AMD.png (609KB, 854x640px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 854x640px

>>59211547
JUST WAIT FOR ____ IT WILL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME

File: 1472311870030.png (55KB, 250x210px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 250x210px

>>59211547

"AMD suggested that we test the cpu's with a gpu bottleneck" - Gamers Nexus.

When there were gaming workloads, AMD inflated their numbers by doing a few things:
In the Sniper Elite demo, AMD frequently looked at the skybox when reloading, and often kept more of the skybox in the frustum than on the side-by-side Intel processor. A skybox has no geometry, which is what loads a CPU with draw calls, and so it’ll inflate the framerate by nature of testing with chaotically conducted methodology. As for the Battlefield 1 benchmarks, AMD also conducted using chaotic methods wherein the AMD CPU would zoom / look at different intervals than the Intel CPU, making it effectively impossible to compare the two head-to-head.
And, most importantly, all of these demos were run at 4K resolution. That creates a GPU bottleneck, meaning we are no longer observing true CPU performance. The analog would be to benchmark all GPUs at 720p, then declare they are equal (by way of tester-created CPU bottlenecks). There’s an argument to be made that low-end performance doesn’t matter if you’re stuck on the GPU, but that’s a bad argument: You don’t buy a worse-performing product for more money, especially when GPU upgrades will eventually out those limitations as bottlenecks external to the CPU vanish.

>WE ARE THE JEWS NOW

>>59215206
So a $500 Ryzen gets the same FPS as a $340 Intel?

Is this supposed to be a good thing for Ryzen?

>>59215272
What other explanation is there? I was expecting rzyen to be identical to the 6900k in performance, but it can't even come close to it in most benchmarks which simply doesn't make sense. I thought I would be getting a 6900k for $400, not a 4960x.

>>59215255
Yup see >>59215279

>>59215267
So, it's 400MHz difference? It really shows how Intel binned them, 6900K already overclocked all the way to the top.

>WAIT FOR BIOS UPDATES
>WAIT FOR CHIPSET DRIVER
>WAIT FOR WINDOWS UPDATE
>WAIT FOR ZEN+

2018 YEAR OF AMD DESKTOP

>>59215308
400MHz on 8 cores is a massive difference. I was expecting the 1800x to reach 4.2 - 4.3GHz easily on a good motherboard and cooling, but people are struggling to reach 4GHz and it seems like there's no difference between the 1700, 1700x and 1800x.

>>59215279
> The analog would be to benchmark all GPUs at 720p, then declare they are equal
It is a valid way of testing them IF we're not going to test a VRAM. That will actually show the power of a chip without making it choke on a 4K.
I may agree it's probably irrelevant to a consumer.

>>59215316
> but people are struggling to reach 4GHz
I'll look for OC reviews after some time: BIOS updates will improve a voltage stability, maybe some new stepping will arrive.

>>59213088
We have to wait for enterprise Zen to look at the real rape
I really wonder how well their fabric will perform
>>59213578
>be 1/100 the size of Samsung and Intel
>still compete with both
wew lad
>>59213708
>What bugs me the most is they haven't released the 6C and 4C CPUs, which is the mainstream things.
Rumor is that yields on the Zeppelin die are so good that there's not enough chips for the 6 and 4 cores
>Also I don't understand. Do AMD imply that their 4C 8T CPUs aren't even near Intels counterpart if they have to make a 8C and 16T compete against it?
The only reason the 1800X loses against the 7700K is clocks, and it clocks higher than Intel's own 8 core the 6900K
If the 6 and 4 cores can clock higher then they will be close or even beating the 7700K, but we have no idea if they will clock well, or even any better than the 1800X
>>59213763
>specially knowing that Intel is a VERY BIG company with a lot of money and can easily lower prices to cut of any profit
Doing this would seriously hurt into their profits, which would signal the investors that Intel can't compete in the future
It's also predatory pricing, which would earn them a nice anti trust in the US and put them on the bad side of the president
>>59213964
Yeah, I've been waiting for Intel to get their shit together so upgrading from my i7 2600K is worth it
>>59214900
>Why are you comparing 6950X to a higher priced product, when a CHEAPER 7700K is OUTPERFORMING it?
>>59215253
1 FPS difference is within margin of error stupid pajeet, now I get why you're shilling instead of being a code monkey
>>59215296
>So a $500 Ryzen gets the same FPS as a $1200 Intel?
>Is this supposed to be a good thing for Ryzen?
ftfy
>>59215229
>what happened to that?
Look at the Phoronix benchmarks
Turns out MS shit support strikes again with scheduling issues, along with mb issues and classic ICC jewery

>>59211547
Intel buys them out and laughs (be prepared to pay premium prizes for your cpu)

>>59215339
Autism 10/10

I can't afford a $300 CPU. I'll probably wait for R5 1600X and buy that.

>>59215255

Pretty much. I was looking on the Ryzen for my working/gaming machine, but now i think that a relatively cheap separate video editing machine with a 1700 is the better option. They failed to impress in the gaming market but at least they have a promising niche this time.

>>59215354
>I'm not getting paid! better cry some meme

>>59215355
Bad idea, it's gonna fail in the same way

Get an i5-7500

>>59215310
>>WAIT FOR BIOS UPDATES
>>WAIT FOR CHIPSET DRIVER
>>WAIT FOR WINDOWS UPDATE
>>WAIT FOR ZEN+
This much in denial

File: linux.jpg (78KB, 636x615px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 636x615px

AMD will shit all over Intel in the server market.

>>59215395
It's pretty fucking sad unfortunately. Now our only hope is ARM.
Apple has fucking stupidly fast yet efficient CPUs that will be candidates for the next Macbook, the Qualcomm although significantly slower than the A10 will provide a replacement for the Core M in ultra-cheap and low power Windows laptops/tablets.

It's not the CPU's job to be massively multithreaded, it's the GPU's: >>59214968
AMD kids are illiterate in technology.
They pretend a CPU is a GPU..

>every review site praises ryzen
>says its a worthy competitor to intel
>/g/ shitposts about it

Same as usual then.

>>59215434
How much are you getting paid to spam this stupid poojet

>>59211813
Furthermore, on Ryzen release, there weren't any GPU drivers optimized for Ryzen.

Next iteration of GPU drivers might change things considerably. Recent games (the ones actually stressing the new hardware) will likely also release updates that improve the Ryzen situation.

Classic FineWine™.

File: tumblr_inline_ni55klxwPk1qkdr2y.jpg (9KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 100x100px

>>59211547
Umi recommends Ryzen.

The School Idol processor of choice.

>>59215437
...what

Nearly all of them say it's bad for gaming

>>59215446
> I have no argument, let's call them pajeet.
fuck off racist child.

So, i wonder if it's sensible to go for a Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5, and get a 7 once the platform matures after a couple of years?

Assuming that motherboard firmware remains updated and they stick with AM4

>>59215489
>I will just run this program that needs about a gb per thread in this GPU that has about 32 GB and about 5000 threads
Sure lad, you can use a GPU for any parallel task

>>59211749
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he singlehandedly coded it, and it it is slow as a result of his sole low conding competence.

>>59215503
Ryzen 3 and 5 are going to fail just like this sadly.

Total War: Attila is one of my favourite games so it seems no Ryzen for me:
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/3/#diagramm-total-war-attila-1080p

>>59212702
Gimp Intel so AMD can beat it, that'll prove AMD is better.

>>59213822
My i5 has hyperthreading nigger what you talkin about?

>>59215245
Yeah, it's everybody else's fault, not AMD's

>>59211547
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amds-moment-of-zen-finally-an-architecture-that-can-compete/

Zen is awesome.

File: dust.png (74KB, 302x170px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 302x170px

>wanting an Nvidia monopoly

File: cores.png (87KB, 1154x714px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1154x714px

>you dont need more tha 4 cores lol

>>59215360
> >I'm not getting paid!
So wait, are you on a payroll for those posts, unlike him?

>>59216072
Nice try Pajeet

>>59215339
>still compete with both
Where? When?

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

53KB, 600x769px

>be AMD
>release new chip with disabled SMT
>we present our gaming CPU that's on par with intel
pic related

>>59216153
Raping Intel and Samsung on the Graphics department in SoC's, and now competing with Intel in HEDT and soon on the rest of the lineups, raping them in SoC's even more and on servers

File: A1100.jpg (75KB, 678x503px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 678x503px

>>59211547
Or maybe, just maybe, AMD realizes x86 is an obsolete, deprecated, dying ISA, buys out Imagination and goes on to compete with other RISC chipmakers while Intel dies out.

The avarage /g/ user:
Only computing needs is:
1) Porn & YouTube
2) Fucking text editing at work or school
3) Shitposting on a certain imageboard
4) Light gaming
>Still gets angry and fanboyish about bullshit like Intel vs AMD.
I honestly don't get it. These high-end CPUs are complete overkill and is only for rich enthusiast faggots. I have a very decent gaming rig that I got for pretty much free and a laptop for work and I don't feel any slowdowns in my computing needs.


What are you guys doing that really need this much computing power?

>>59216180
K12 was set to be launched alongside Zen, but the lack of demand for ARM servers and Zen performing so well in low power have put it in the backburner

Why didn't you release R3 and R5 at the same time fucking AMD.

>>59216212
Yields are so good there's not enough chips to launch R5 and R3

>>59216168
lol is there a full review with smt disabled?

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

247KB, 665x1520px

>>59212030
>post this pic over and over
>ignore the 98% of other benches which contradict it
>your absolute best showing is almost reaching parity with the competition
sad.

File: 46-1.jpg (137KB, 561x421px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 561x421px

>>59216212
>only one 14nm fab

>>59216238
Nvidia dropped 9% a week ago, Apple always drops when they launch a new iPhone, this is normal
>>59216252
>I'm a retarded shill
There's GloFo and Samsung lines, they're more than a dozen, and R7 is launching with a million chips on it's first batch
They have no problem with yields on the top chips, but they have on the lowest end, which means that they're having much better yields than anything Intel could dream of

File: 1480200462539.jpg (47KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x375px

>>59216238
While posting a 1 day view shows you don't know about stocks, you are correct in assuming AMD will be dropping like a rock over the next few days.

File: this is fine 2.png (373KB, 586x287px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 586x287px

>>59216267
>this is normal

File: loser gaming world autism.jpg (20KB, 550x296px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 550x296px

>>59216268
>While posting a 1 day view shows you don't know about stocks
>he posted an image of the relevant time period since launch
>the one that comes up first when you google it
>to troll some teenagers on /g/
>hur u dont know about stocks

>look how smart i am, but yeah you're right
teenagers pls go

>>59216285
We won't know if the stock will actually drop significantly, back in January it had up to 7% losses with equal gains
AMD won 8% a week ago, they're just back to what they were back then, so they haven't lost much if anything
And they pulled being able to compete with Intel despite having less than a tenth of their size, AMD stock has nowhere to go but up, wait for the rallies when the Q2 and Q3 financial reports drop
>>59216293
Read a bit about stocks before shitposting for no reason, even the most basic articles in Investopedia would tell you why a single day view is retarded for judging stocks
>Apple dropped 6% in the day of their latest iPhone launch! It's totally relevant! They're bankrupt and finished!

>>59215586
>Ancient Sandy Bridge CPU faster than the best Ryzen
This is really something.

>>59215229
>How does the 6900k get 10-20%+ better performance?
yeah, at only 200% of the price, what a value!

>>59215229
>How does the 6900k get 10-20%+ better performance?
as >>59215245 and >>59215339 said, probably mostly related to scheduling. IMO memory latency also has something to do with it.
In another thread someone posted a witcher 3 img of 1700 and 7700k showing thread usage
on ryzen one thread was using ~99%, one at ~60% and others at 20% and a few ~0%
while 7700k used ~50% on all 8 threads
really weird shit.

>>59212241
I'll sacrifice 1 fps for more potential

>>59211808
S T O C K C L O C K S

If the AMD kids weren't autistic computer illiterates they'd know massive multithreading isn't the job of the CPU but of the GPU: >>59214968

>>59211547
>Literally shitting on the competition from 10million levels above
>can they recover
is /g/ literally made out of intel shills?

>>59217079
so I assume you're running a dual core celeron, right? who needs more cores anyway, right?
>>59217085
yes

>>59217135
4/8 is the sweet spot for gamers and the desktop and it will be the sweet spot for at least 10 years. There is a chance GPUs will be even more important.
That means there is a chance CPU threads will be even LESS important.

In fact that is EXACTLY what Vulkan et al are doing. While they claim to allow more CPU cores, in reality they offload even more stuff from the CPUs and into the GPU logic. This is because the greatest contribution they offered was the batch scripting of GPUs, and NOT the CPU multithreading.

>>59212853
lol

>>59217220
Vulkan is irrelevant dying shit though. The only thing that matters now is Metal.

>>59217256
It doesn't matter how they call it. Mantle/Vulkan/nuOpenGL/nuDirect3D, they all offload a great deal by sending batch commands to the GPU instead of only detailed commands.

I'm actually FUCKING surprised it took them up to ~2014 to realize that. If you understand how it works, you realize first thing and it would be an amazing boost. Second thing you realize is "wait, why the fuck didn't they think of that in 1992?".

>>59217220
>(whatever intel is primarily marketing) is the sweet spot for gamers and the desktop and it will be the sweet spot for (as long as they maintain a stranglehold on the cpu market)

>>59217355
Intel are not stupid. They know how to shill. AMD are practically idiots at marketing.
AMD should also start with shilling 4c/8t chips that are well binned.
Intel knows what the fuck they are doing at shilling very well.

>>59211731
How come the 300$ 7700k performs better than the 1700$ 6950X ?

Was this a test run to clear the way for the R5s and R3s that will be far more popular? Also Naples. Enterprise customers wouldn't appreciate buggy chipsets or things like that.

>>59217220
>4/8 is the sweet spot for gamers and the desktop and it will be the sweet spot for at least 10 years
frankly, it's mostly due to shit developers, if ryzen gets popular enough or if intel adds moar coars for the mainstream or if consoles get 8c/16t cpus, then it will change.
remember, i5s used to be the gaming sweet spot. Nothing used more than 4 threads, until 8 thread consoles appeared. Now 8 threads is the sweet spot.
but other than that you're partially right on the GPU thing. But the way it is now it's really shit and not going to do more than it does now.
While GPUs may be good at number crunching they're shit at logic and branching.
Only hope is if GPUs switch to something like xeon phi where it has lots of small CPU cores or if APUs become popular and AMD somehow implements a solution where a CPU can offload work to the GPU in under 100ns.

>>59212252
This is /g/, faggot. In here we pretend that we use our CPUs for productivity tasks. You might be more comfortable in /v/ or /lgbt/.

>>59217420
>AMD are practically idiots at marketing.
The first thing Lisa Su did as a CEO was to nuke the entirety of the marketing department

>>59212252
see
>>59217491

>>59217458
AMD are idiots: >>59217420
If they knew how to shill like Intel, they would also start with a 4c/8t chip, they would bin it well, and do well at most benchmarks /g/ and most other people on the desktop want to see.
4c/8t just works amazingly for 90% of the stuff we need every day, and with GPUs offloading even more stuff from the CPU there is a chance that might become stronger!

>>59217500
That can be a good start, but most of the time it takes TIME to regroup from a nuking, AND in this case it might be DESIGN that fuck it up, because you have to FIRST design the 4c/8t to be out in the market like Intel is doing in order to shill the way Intel is shilling with benchmarks
(first on gaming of course with 7700K and the like and much later with the -E models).

There is absolutely no way 4c/8t Ryzen will perform any better in games than 8c/16t since Ryzen 7 1800X is already hitting the hard cap of clocks on the 14nm LPP process AMD is using.

>>59217507
Well I don't doubt that AMD fumbled a little here but I think they actually planned this somewhat, using the R7s as a test run for everything else since they target a smaller portion of the market. The people that would mainly buy an R7 are enthusiasts also, basically people that are more likely to forgive a few glitches in the beginning and even apply BIOS updates and patches, as long as they get the hardware right away. The average consumer who probably buys a cheaper hardware might be less forgiving if their computer didn't work properly out of the box.

>>59217666
Any benchmarks of R7s with only 4 cores enabled yet?

>>59217666
What are you on about? A 8c/16t is causing housefires. On Intel too the 4c/8t are considerably better overclockers and higher clocked at stock of course.

>>59211790
>better performance without SMT

wtf is happening

>>59215310
SUPERPOWER BY 2020

its official amd will never be good again
last good products were athlon XP and 64 CPUs

they keep comparing the new ryzens to a 7700k too, when a less expensive 6600k with a nice OC is still probably the most competitive of them all

a lot of noise for nothing but it was to be expected

nvidia just hit the last nail on the coffin with a $700 Ti

amd isnt even good for budget anymore given the very wide offer of products they have to face

>inb4 but it will be good when -

please

I'm waiting for Dolphin benchmarks. Anand's weren't ready in time apparently. That's the real test of single-thread performance.

Actually I lied- my next CPU purchase will be an Intel, Skylake or older, because I use hackintoshes exclusively. Still interested in Zen Dolphin perf though

you people are fucking weird. all these random numbers and bias charts.just get a video card and cpu and do what you do.

>>59219166
I wouldn't put it past Apple to release a new Mac Pro with Ryzen if it means better profit margins. We would actually get a kernel that supports AMD CPUs. It's wishful thinking I know.

File: just-pretending.jpg (26KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 349x642px

>>59217720
Yeah AMD was just trolling us.

R7 is just one big troll haha, you got us AMD, that was a good one.

You silly jokers AMD.

>>59212853
Compile chromium

>>59215839
AMD can at least compete with Intel in the workstation sphere now, I don't think they can do anything against Nvidia. Nvidia has the vast majority of the gaming marketshare, and they basically own the deep learning and AI market. I wouldn't even know where to start if I was going to try to claw my way back in the GPU market. AMD are doing a Polaris rebrand and Vega seems like its forever delayed.

File: ryzen-emulation.png (56KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 650x380px

>>59219166
Here you go buddy, it's not good

>>59211547
>I don't see how they can possibly recover.
By providing microsoft the knowledge on how handle the NEW cache architecture?
By waiting for more game to use dx12/vulkan which have impressive core scalling?
MB manufacturer releasing good motherboards free of bugs?

EVERY benchmark is wrong, even the ones which put ryzen first.
AMD fucked up once again on the driver part. Nothing more.

File: wat.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>59219572
>EVERY benchmark is wrong

>>59219326
>Looking into benches engineering sample CPUs done on motherboards with a pre-release BIOS
I know you people on /v/ like to make your judgements extremely fast, but let's wait until we get some post-release BIOS:es and those promised microcode improvements.

>>59219598
That is some next level damage control. AYYMDfags desperately grasping at straws at this point.

File: 1485855131387.png (183KB, 386x406px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 386x406px

Anyone feel like the goalposts have gone flying?

>"Inb4 Ivy Bridge haha stupid AMD..."
>"Lel, AMD, won't even reach Haswell another FX flop, FAIL!"
>"I mean, Broadwell is like, what 3 years ago? Pfft"
>"Kaby Lake is the golden standard for muh gaymen, specifically the 7700k. If the 8 core workstation can't beat that clock-for-clock, what's the point? No, I won't be buying a 6900k for gaymen, that's just stupid."

>>59219703
Goalposts are for those with mental fortitude.
For everyone else, getting caught up in the hype is only natural, untermensch sure love getting carried away by someone else's thoughts.

>>59219703
Dumb animuposter.

>>59219703
yup, but it's just paid intel shills, regular intel shills, intel investors, dumb /v/ fags and amd fanboys that are so disappointed with ryzen
it's a great CPU that I'd buy if I didn't have a 5960x already.

>>59219837
>it's a great CPU

I don't know how anyone can say that with a straight face

>>59217451
ridiculously high clock speeds and an extreme emphasis on single core performance

6950x isn't quite the processor suited for gaming

>>59215220
For desktops quad channel is irrelevant. All it allows you to do is to use cheapest memory available. I have 5820k and I get no difference between 2133, 2400 and 2666 ram.

With 3200+ memory becoming mainstream this is a non issue.

>>59217507
AMD gives 0 fucks about 4/8 gaymur shit. They are in the game for enterprise / datacenter shit. That is where the bigbux is and for that purpose Zen core is perfect because of low power and absurd density of the 32/64 parts.

>>59219898
It's a great CPU for someone who needs CPU performance but can't step up to a Xeon and their workload isn't GPU accelerated.

Which isn't a whole lot of people. It's a commercial failure in terms of the general consumer and gaming market.

>>59219630
>they'll fix it in software/firmware/microcode!
Grow up anon. They can never fix it in software. The hardware design just isn't as good. It's not terrible, and for some configurations the price is very attractive. For many it will be good enough and it will sell decently. But it just isn't as good as its competition.