Thread replies: 30
Thread images: 13
Thread images: 13
File: speccy.jpg (58KB, 660x525px) Image search:
[Google]
58KB, 660x525px
Despite Ryzen meeting everything the industry asked for (competitive IPC, more mainstream cores, ECC support, and thermal/power efficiency), it is being deemed a failure because a Quadcore at 5GHz scores slightly higher at an unplayable resolution on video games.
This cultist bullshit is the reason we have been stuck with 4 core CPUs for a decade. Intel jackoffs are not only pitting two seperate class CPUs together, but they are doing that on top of using single threaded, horribly optimized applications.
Newsflash: using a terrible game such as FO4 as a metric for a CPUs performance should not be encouraged. It is 2017, if something cannot utilize multiple threads, it should be completely thrown out of any review. As long as we keep caring about Single Threaded performance, the longer we will have single threaded applications.
Comparing the R7 chips to X99 CPUs don't even make sense. X99 doesn't support ECC, and they run at the highest TDP Intel offers. Pit it against an 8C 16T Xeon, on workloads the CPU was made for.
If you want to test stupid shit like CS: GO, wait for the damn 4C8T R3 chips, not the goddamn adult CPUs. Then you can't fucking get your holy single thread performance by OC'ing a pathetic core config to ridiculous clockspeeds.
If you cannot understand why you are fucking retarded for thinking a 7700K is somehow better than a R7 1700, you are fundamentally missing the whole picture.
Pic semi related: Shows I'm not a diehard AMD fan, I just prefer to have technology advance over brand loyalty
>>
File: average-gaming.png (72KB, 601x830px) Image search:
[Google]
72KB, 601x830px
>>59214184
First of all, here is an average of 14 different game scores combined.
Notice how a $340 Intel CPU is beating a $500 Ryzen CPU.
>>
File: 7stagesofbeinganAMDfan2.png (1MB, 3504x1580px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 3504x1580px
>>59214184
Stage 2 and 3.
>>
File: 1486060505175.jpg (85KB, 849x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
85KB, 849x1200px
>>59214184
>6600
>not paying more for an artificially locked out function
It's like you don't want to give the Jews your money
Meanwhile, over at AMD >https://pcpartpicker.com/list/xCgrLD
Rate it.
>>59214211
Notice how you didn't provide the source.
>>
File: ryzen-photoshop.png (112KB, 722x554px) Image search:
[Google]
112KB, 722x554px
>>59214184
>>59214211
Second of all, here is Photoshop, which is just one of many regular work applications where Ryzen fails yet again.
It's not just games.
>>
>>59214216
>Notice how you didn't provide the source.
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/
>>
File: 1486063039597.jpg (973KB, 1600x1652px) Image search:
[Google]
973KB, 1600x1652px
>>59214218
>>59214213
>>59214211
>he bought a pass to shitpost even quicker
It's like Intel fags can't help but give Jews their money
>>
ecc support sounds like great news to me, but still waiting for definitive confirmation on it. My plex/zfs box sure could use the upgrade.
Thanks AMD!
>>
>>59214184
>>59214211
>>59214218
In conclusion: Is Ryzen good at very specific multithreaded tasks?
Yes.
Is Ryzen good at anything else?
No.
Ryzen is a very specialized CPU which should only be used in dedicated rendering machines or similar.
>>
>>59214218
>He links a benchmark showing a 6900k losing to a 7700K.
She this is the basic understanding that you are failing to understand. Shit software is being passed as a performance metric.
You have only proven my point even more.
>>
>>59214244
It's been confirmed in AMD's AMA.
>>59214248
By "good at anything else" you mean terribly optimized code that uses a fraction of modern CPUs.
>>
File: ajX9cnGXAXVwf4YjCvpbnA-650-80.png (70KB, 601x814px) Image search:
[Google]
70KB, 601x814px
>>59214211
>http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/
>doesn't specify settings in the games
Thanks for the 800x600 benchmarks Intel!
>>
>>59214218
Nice try Intel
>>
>>59214295
You're blind, it says 1080p right on the gaming benchmarks.
>>
File: ryzen-illustrator.png (179KB, 600x450px) Image search:
[Google]
179KB, 600x450px
>>59214306
Ryzen will be great for my dedicated ray tracing machine
Not so great if I want to do anything else though
>>
>>59214295
If you don't get why its 800x600 you shouldn't even be in this thread
>>
>>59214211
Are these results supposed to be "bad"? Because they actually look a lot better than I was expecting, given the volume of shitposting. Only 10% behind Intel in gaming tasks on average seems pretty fantastic when you consider it also matches Intel's overpriced housefires for productivity, cherrypicked Adobe benchmark aside.
>>
Is there any purpose for a consumer to buy anything with more than 8 cores, though?
I get that rendering might be a reason to get it, but browsers and games can't utilize it all, can it? What of linux usage?
>>
>>59214367
It's really bad when you consider the top processor costs $340, while the Ryzen costs $500
>>
>>59214390
Yes, that's because it is a 16 Thread Ryzen CPU.
When the 8 Thread Ryzen CPU is released, it will be able to clock much higher, and be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper.
What is so goddamn hard to understand?
>>
>>59214424
Speculation, it's not even out yet
>>
>>59214430
The same batch of leaks was 100% right about the 1700, 1700x, and 1800x and their pricing
>>
>>59214390
But what if I don't want to only play video games? It'll obliterate a 7700K in heavily-threaded work tasks, so I get perfectly adequate gaming performance (I only have a 60Hz monitor, so I don't know why I should care just how far above 100fps it can manage), as well as HEDT-tier productivity performance for half the price.
Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
>>
>>59214363
Look here shill rival, I understand why it's 480x360
But if you can find someone who still plays Gaymemes at 360x240, I will eat my shoe.
176x144 just isn't a PRACTICAL resolution
and it's only now that AMD is on Intel's ass that it becomes a common standard to bench at any thing less than 160x120. It's almost like Intel told a bunch of reviewers to contact them and told them to return to an old as fuck standard that hasn't been relevant for years
Take your 128×96 benchmarks and fuck off.
>>
>>59214451
Problem is even in productivity apps it's bad
See >>59214346 and >>59214218
It's literally only good if you spend 90% of your time rendering/encoding/similar heavily multithreaded task
>>
File: tVZ3f8N.jpg (46KB, 500x494px) Image search:
[Google]
46KB, 500x494px
>>59214346
>>59214218
>6900k btfo by a 7700k
HAHAHAHAHAHA
INTELFAGS WILL DEFEND THIS!
>>
>>59214508
INTEL BTFO INTEL
HOW WILL INTEL EVER RECOVER
I GUESS INTEL WINS
>>
File: 1477046533272.jpg (33KB, 722x349px) Image search:
[Google]
33KB, 722x349px
>>59214667
This is why the market so sorely needs VIA
>>
>>59214277
Yeah, terribly optimized code.
The problem is, you still have to run that code if you want to do "anything else". Nobody is going to rewrite code for Ryzen, and if they did it would take years, by which point Ryzen is obsolete anyway.
AMD have consistently failed to cater to the needs of the vast majority of users, and instead have focused on elements of their product that can potentially market well to groups of users who don't understand how the specification of their CPU will effect their usage experience - the sort of people who will see "8 cores" and go, "Well, 8 is better than 4, for almost the same price - I'll go with this one!". The only other groups of people who buy their products are limited by their budget, or are confined entirely to wishful thinking that devs will suddenly start writing code that is harder to write and caters to a lower market share.
AMD will continue to lose so long as they refuse or are unable to beat Intel at their own game, and instead continue to rely on gimmicks and shit the majority of people don't need or want. This helps nobody, Intel will continue to hold back and Jew everyone in the meantime.
>>
>>59214727
Such hypocrisy.
People have been begging for more than 4 cores for years. Bitching at Intel to bring i7s past Quadcores.
Then AMD does it, with similar IPC and you are saying they aren't catering to what the industry.
Do you think Quadcores are going to get significantly better? They are not. They have hit a wall.
Thread posts: 30
Thread images: 13
Thread images: 13