Final Word on Ryzen 7

fuck amd bunch of lying naggers

>>59215379
There are major errors regarding smt, among other things. If ironed out it will give ryzen a boost putting it even with Intel's offerings. It's only 10-20% behind.

File: e391be1670fbbe42ed20a375dfca88a5.jpg (108KB, 572x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 572x800px

>>59215379
>Ryzen 7 is a poor choice for gaming
What did he mean by this?
>>59203906

>>59215430
See bottom of the OP.

File: linux.png (195KB, 636x615px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 636x615px

>>59215379
real /g/entoomen will make the switch.

>>59215447
>the Ryzen 7 1700 specifically being a compelling choice for gamers if heavily overclocked
You forgot that the 7700k is also heavily overclocked in that benchmark.

>>59215471
No, I didn't. 5GHz is not a heavy overclock for the 7700K.

File: 1461290393974.png (598KB, 537x486px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 537x486px

>>59215379
>Final Word on Ryzen 7

>One day after hard launch

Stopped reading there mate.

Why is overclocking even an argument?
Most people never bother with it.

File: 1474645021436.png (4KB, 236x176px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 236x176px

>>59215486
>5GHz is not a heavy overclock for the 7700K.
Delusional fags will perpetuate this meme till death, won't they?

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..

>>59215499
Brainlets don't overclock

>>59215430
he means that it has worse performance when benchmarked (1800X vs i7 7700k vs 6900K)

File: 1487964631937.png (260KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 680x680px

>>59215521
>ignoring parts of the posts you don't like

>>59215518
the performance gain is mostly minimal and is shit compared to the increased heat and power drain which comes with it.

>>59215379
Right now i feel a sensible option might be to get a Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 and if they really want a 7, wait for the platform to mature.

Hopefully AMD will stick with the same chipsets and firmwares will get updated for a t least 2-3 years.

>>59215512
Even if 5GHz was a substantial overclock at 5GHz, it wouldn't matter much. The 7700K shits all over the 1700 at stock clocks. And it is a minority of users who will be willing to overclock and not all 1700 chips may overclock as well as Joker's.

>>59215579
Derp, I said 5GHz twice.

I'd honestly like to see the ryzen benched with 460 or a 1050, after all it's what a typical AMD buyer can afford. Much fairer benchmarks

>>59215379
>gaming benchmarks done at higher than 1080p are not indicative of actual CPU performance.
So what you mean to say is that people willing to drop $500 on a new cpu don't have 1440p/4k monitors, thus making ryzen no good for gayming?
seems a little convoluted desu famalam.

File: lqb.jpg (2KB, 97x97px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 97x97px

>>59215589

>>59215602
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that benchmarking at those resolutions is bad, not that the CPU shouldn't be used to play games at those resolutions.

>>59215447
Nah, if anything I'll wait for Zen Server CPUs.

>>59215379
Legit

Finally a voice of reason

>>59215379
Joker's video was legitimate though. You can watch his results in real time and it puts the 1700 right on par with the 7700k.

Then you remember the 1700 is cheaper and comes with a stock cooler that isn't shit

>>59215579
The 7700k beats the 1700 by %20~, with all the issues. If it can close the gap to about ~5%, it will be a real contender.

>>59215626
Hi OP.

>>59215379
>WILL COMPLETELY BTFO INTEL AT CORE 2 LEVEL ACROSS THE BOARD
>B-BUT IT'S GOOD AT CINEBENCH
Amdfags are the most obnoxius pieces of shit and wonder why they're universally despised for the hype they build. People should have learned already from their past bullshit.

File: aa.png (17KB, 200x151px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x151px

>>59215647
>20%

You fucking delusional? They're neck and neck trading blows

https://youtu.be/BXVIPo_qbc4

>>59215614
they could replace the i5/i7 sandy/ivy in the $10-$40 sector. Pretty cheap, ECC & M2 SSD slots make them an attractive package for low end servers.

>>59215661
Yes, with jokers build that does not seem to have those aforementioned issues.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Intel with the assumption that he got a golden chip.

Remember, reasonable thread is reasonable.

>>59215379
actually someone did a pretty good sum about some of the benchmarks
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4rtc/ryzen_gaming_benchmarks_summary/

seems like asus mobos and asrock and msi has quite a lot of problems on bios not to mention that they get wonky results

gigabyte mobos are by far the best ones amd send the worst possible mobos out there

>>59215677
>Ryzen is good
>Motherboards are shit

So this is why Joker's got such good results? I think he had the gigabyte motherboard

>>59215637
No benchmark is legitimate and should be taken with a grain of salt unless you stand in the fucking room when it was undergone. This fat brown shill has to be only one showing such performance and his results are stacked against 20-30 different reviewers that all show something else.

He could do 50 different things to skew the benchmark and looking how desperate he is with all those videos about Ryzen I wouldn't be surprised.

Keep in mind that the GPU core speed on his Intel rig is slightly lower which could be caused by so many things (thermal throttling, motherboard using some sort of auto OC, him enabling or disabling high performance profile in Windows or just straight out using different GPU or limiting it in some way). I don't say that 13 Mhz different matters but it's just odd.

>>59215696
Re read his post, friend.

>>59215708
13mhz is well within margin of error.

Keep it friendly, buddy.

>mfw when there are at least 2 Pentiums faster than the 1700

>>59215696
this is why everyone get different results..they were purely random from being -8% from 7700k to -30%

i explained it yesterday on some thread here that its quite a lot of combination doing wonky stuff..

the L3 is "broken" and shared along with ccx's and that wouldnt be a problem if the smt wasnt tapping on the caches

BUT the good stuff starts with windows because they treat every thread as a cpu and they load balance them incide the cpu and that is very BAD for ryzen because amd treats every ccx as a cpu and thus when windows throws the threads around it lets the data of them on the L3 randomly without knowning where it was they therefore start a new cycle->parking the core thus leading to the high perfomance bug (which is already solved with an update from yesterday on windows) BUT the smt will take months to fix (it took months to ms to fix the HT back when intel introduced it)

>>59215708
>Stacked against 20-30 reviews

So, gamers nexus? The one review out of 30 that was a blatant hit job?

Joker's is more reliable at this point. He even went out of his way to do a follow-up showing it REAL TIME.
https://youtu.be/BXVIPo_qbc4

Steve from GM hasn't shown shit.

>>59215602
Basically by introducing a GPU bottleneck you end up compromising the relevance of the actual benchmark. This is because the CPU isn't doing most of the processing, rather the GPU, meaning that even meager performers in the CPU market can be made to look good with a GPU bottleneck. That means that by relying on the bottleneck to meter performance you end up buying a CPU that will rapidly fall. That said the benchmarks do indicate that it doesn't, itself, bottleneck anything.

Furthermore this is the first iteration of the Ryzen series of CPUs and they are early into the release process so one might speculate that:
A)Future iterations, esp. 4c 8t, and 6c 12t will perform more adequately for a gaming load
B)Software optimizations may either marginally or substantially improve performance
C)A housefire

And additionally as far as I know, the more advance features of the series (de-coring) haven't been tested extensively and as such posture an interesting mystery until they're pushed adequately.

Personally I'm waiting to see what the 4c8t CPUs perform like before I pass a judgement onto the architecture itself, and I'm interesting in seeing what kind of results the collusion between AMD and Bethesda generate, if any, and whether or not devs will be opting to optimize for SMT and higher thread counts.

>LOOK AT THIS ONE COMPLETELY UNBIASED POSITIVE REVIEW BY A LITERAL WHO ON YOUTUBE WHO SELLS AMD MERCHANDISE
>THE REST ARE ALL FAKE AND WRONG

File: rfMbWvkEqo-6CWQ7vPs7W498YIVlYQphAXATwigCLro.png (363KB, 1024x633px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1024x633px

>>59215750
ah yeah the GN that suddenly got praised here because it exposed amd

so is it worth going from an E5-2670 to Ryzen?

>>59215836
>E5-2670
yes especially if you're going to do more single threaded tasks

>>59215787
GN was praised 24/7 thanks to this one retard who kept making threads and posts about potential reviewers /g/ can to trust before NDA got lifted. Many anons named gn among trusted reviewers.

I love how it's been less than 24 hours and you guys do a full 180 in damage control saying that gn cannot be trusted while posting retarded pictures like yours when clearly all major players in reviewing showcased how shitty Ryzen is for gaming. Ryzen is over, sorry bud but your mental gymnastics won't change it.

>>59215836
Not if you already have one.

>>59215756
Oh I get that, but from everything i've seen, it's still not even a CPU bottleneck. I know it's going to take time for the programs that are used for testing to mature. But I'd like to see at least steady 65-75% utilization before I feel judgement can be passed.
Moar cores is the future, game vendors are going to have to cater to it.

>>59215864
Objectivly false. If GN leaked reviews they would logically be negative.

Fat spic productions intentionally made the gpu the bottleneck in order to hide cpu performance.

>>59215543
>whatthefuckamireading
i have the most basic overclock of all time on my 2600k, literally only changed the turbo multiplier to 46 in the bios and every other setting is on auto and it is basically on par with a stock 7700k

>>59215864
i find it really hard that not a single typical intel shill site brought this up (because ALL OF THEM did those tests) and only gn did and in such a way like amd actually tried to force them to do it..

>>59215661
the gpu is pegged at 100% almost constantly so that is a gpu bound benchmark and not really indicative of the raw performance of a cpu.

that aside 1700 will obviously perform better everywhere else so if the res and quality he's running at fit your use case you'd be stupid to not get the 1700

>>59215379
you forgot that soon the Ryzen 5 and 3 should come out and it might be just the same case with intel that their 4core have better single core performance therefore better for gaming. we need to wait and see

>>59215902
Did you even read their review? They never claimed that AMD forced them to do it, in fact they actually stated that they contacted AMD first trying to ask for tech support to find out if there is something they can do to make AMD look better. AMD's response wasn't anything along the line of "do x to fix it", no. Their response was "do benchmarks where GPU hits limits way before CPU gets to show any performance gains". GN disagreed with this advice since it does absolutely nothing for benchmarking the CPU and hides the ugly fact that those frames will also be lower in 1440p and 4K when we get our hands on better GPUs. That's it. Now AMD and Intel shills try to spin it into some sort of unholy crusade against AMD/GN.

>>59215863
the single thread performance is lackluster, but I did some research and could just upgrade to an E5-1650V2 and 1866MHz memory for significantly cheaper than buying a Ryzen + motherboard + DDR4 memory

>>59215379
>At high resolutions like 4k, the GPU is the bottleneck in the system, rather than the CPU, so gaming benchmarks done at higher than 1080p are not indicative of actual CPU performance.
This is retarded. When you saturate the GPU, CPU variation is more pronounced instead of compensatory.

>>59215979
Yes. That's why every CPU including i3 are within 1 fps margin error in 4k right shill?

>>59215517
Not true.
Massive parallelism on the GPU is only suitable if the task at hand involves doing the same operations on a lot of data.
If you want to do different computations in parallel then CPU cores are better, as they are way more flexible and actually independent.
GPU "cores" cannot execute different instructions independently. If you have branching in your GPU code you sort of serialize the execution of those different code sections.

More CPU cores is great, because we can use them for things we can't use the GPU for.

>>59215984
b...b...but our customers DESERVE to know that our Ryzen(tm) will perform that one fps BETTER than Intel(tm)

>>59215661
>thumbnail says raw performance
>both cpu's at 50%
>gpu at 100%

fat spic productions at it again

>>59215979
I don't even know where to begin with your broken braincells.

Let's try this:
You have two people. One person makes a left-foot shoe, and the other makes the right-foot shoe.
We'll call left-shoe person the CPU and the right-shoe person the GPU.

Now the left-shoe person can make 10 shoes a day. That's great, but GPU man can only make 5 shoes a day, but they need a complete pair, ready at the same time for the same customer, to sell the shoes at all.
Now, if left-shoe man only makes 6 shoes a day, or 15 shoes a day, how will this effect how many shoes per day they sell (IE how many frames per second you see)?

>>59216083
You sure know about broken braincells. You should take your condition more seriously.

Obviously if one piece of hardware has constant output (i.e. saturated GPU), the variations of the other (CPU-bound processing) become clearer.

File: 1485871560485.jpg (55KB, 719x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 719x720px

how long until we see motherboards with AM4 sockets with DDR4-3600 speed?

File: encryption.jpg (123KB, 614x387px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 614x387px

Seems like Ryzen was made to be a server in mind,

>>59216216
Sooner than you'd think if this bios fuck up turns off consumers.

File: hash.jpg (102KB, 614x385px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 614x385px

>>59216249
Hashing performance is extremely good as well. Ryzen should be a good hit with people looking to upgrade for servers.

>>59216251
I hope in the next 3 months, famalam

>>59216124
You're wrong. >>59216083 is a good analogy. At high resolutions, the GPU has far more impact on FPS. Therefore, high res benchmarks aren't a good indicator of CPU power relative to other CPUs.

Bought Kaby Lake three days ago.
Balls of steel or brains of mush? We will see.

Mostly went for maturity of platform/chipset etc, (Kaby Lake is certainly derivative but there is another side to that).

Main point of build wasn't really performance, its quiet (PC is now utterly silent) and chipset features.

Old gamers exist, time > money.

I think Ryzen could still be cool, but I'll leave the beta testing to others.

>>59215979
Yeah that' why for the last 15 years cpus were tested at low res. It was the same even when amd was on top. Sorry I forgot you were still in your diapers 5-6 years ago.

>>59216257
A shame it only has 4 DIMM slots though.

This limitation might be mitigated if it does support registered/multi-rank DIMMs which I'm not certain it does.

Assloads of RAM is what servers need.

File: AMD Ryzen 7 Press Deck-18.jpg (247KB, 2666x1500px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 2666x1500px

>>59216216
Ryzen doesn't like fast RAM.

>>59215379
>1700 compelling choice for gaymurs if heavily overclocked.
Fuck, I was gonna use it as a heavy-duty code machine and clock it stupidly high. Are you saying it's the compelling choice due to the Wraith Cooler reportedly being able to overclock at the same level as a Hyper 212?

File: reaction dog window sad.jpg (51KB, 526x701px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 526x701px

Wow, this looks like a great workstation chi-
>no dual CPU motherboards
>IOMMU groupings place PCIe slots in with SATA and everything else, preventing you from passing through a GPU
o-oh..

>>59215379
> 2017
> Upgrading for gayming purposes

Enjoy choking on that marketing dick. Does the mind tendrils feel good? Yes master I will buy new gayman gears, MOM I NEED TOP SCORE IN BUTTFIELD h.256

File: 1488060463373-2.jpg (734KB, 900x1317px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 900x1317px

>>59215379
>for half the price or less.
maybe in usa
in EU were gonna get fucked no matter what we wanna buy.

File: 1488144989754.jpg (142KB, 1134x1158px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1134x1158px

Also seems like the SMT bug is found. Fixing it mostly on Microsoft's end.

>>59215589
>Taking the bait
I've got an R9 290X (for computing everything and driving primary monitor) and R7 260X (for driving left and right monitors)

And then you imply I can't afford anything better than a 460/1050, and I am frankly and personally offended by this poor attempt at an ad hominem attack.

>>59216488
What?

>>59216488
>>59216518
He is a meme spouting retard that forgots that at one point Intel also suffered from HT overhead and solving this issue didn't give them magical performance.

AKA: he is suicidal because Ryzen is mocked for shit performance in gaming.

>>59216533
But Ryzen wasn't intended for gaming with high IPC but shitty clocks and a massive amount of cores.

>>59216533
>Ryzen is mocked for shit performance in gaming
What. It performs well enough for gaming.
Where it shines is on workstation loads.

Let's say I have a 9 years old PC, I use it mostly for gaming, and I have 1250€ to spend on a new one.
My preferred choice would be the 7600k, since it's the best CPU for gaming for the buck, but everyone said WAIT FOR RYZEN. So I waited, and it seems it's not as good.
What should I do? Should I make the order?
I'm tired of waiting and not being able to play shit.

https://it.pcpartpicker.com/user/ConcreteShelter/saved/M8hK8d

>>59215879
>Bottlenecking a gtx1080 at 1080p
You are pretty fucking retarded

>>59216761
Unless Ryzen 5 makes more performance per core, I'd say just go Intel.

If you do other stuff on the side that can profit from more cores, get the current Ryzen 7 1700 probably.

>>59216761
Wait for ryzen to hit the market so the price drops retard.

>>59216858
and how long will this take?

>>59216819
That's the thing. How much until Ryzen 5? More months? It probably will come out during my exams session (June/July), and I'd like to make the order before the end the month. this way I'll be able to play at least for a month before I have to get back to studying. Even if Ryzen 5 proves to be much much better than 7 in terms of gaming, that doesn't mean that my 7600k will be obsolete in less than 3 years, since I also plan to overclock later. Right?

>>59216858
It already hit the market, I don't see any price dropping. At least here in Italy.

>>59216761
Ryzen is still pulling really good numbers. It's up to you if you want to support the blue Jew or not.
There's not much in it between them(at this point in time), but with how many threads and cores ryzen's got, and how long you keep your PC's for, it should be the obvious choice.

>>59216886
Q2 is Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5.

Just get a 7600K and throw 5GHz on that bitch, AMD will likely not reach any similar gaming performance until ZEN2 or something when they reach higher clock speeds or get even better IPC.

>>59216761
PCPP hasn't updated with Ryzen yet, but for gaymin go with a 1700 and a B350M motherboard. Ditch the aftermarket cooler, replace with Noctua when you have the dosh, and replace the 1070 with an R9 Fury if possible.

>>59216761
Get Zen. Unless you have a 144hz screen. In which case you should buy Zen and OC it. If you plan to keep the PC relevant for at least 5 years, you wouldn't buy a 4 core processor.

>>59216902
Oh -
This is given if you do nothing else than gaming and the sole purpose your PC exists is games.

>>59216441
>look ma I posted my favourite photoshop again

>>59215602
>poor choice for gaming
>intel has a ~10% advantage at manlet resolutions only

>>59216913
>B350M
Isn't that a MoBo that doesn't overclock?

>>59216966
Guess what, when we have GPUs capable of high refresh rate 1440/2160p, Ryzen is still shit but current intel CPUs are fine.

>>59215653
Our expectations were decently hedged it was false flagging by fags

>>59215740
Bleh, there's still no AM4 brackets for my AIO so I can wait said months. A year even.

>>59216971
Wasn't that the A320?

>>59216971
B350 boards can overclock. Maybe not quite as well due to being inherently cheaper and so having shittier power delivery, but it's not the case where Jewtel locks it out for anything except the top chipset.

File: Yc38eXr.jpg.png (1MB, 997x861px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 997x861px

at 1440p or above the GPU is going to be the bottleneck anyway. you only get CPU bottlenecks when the fps is already in the hundreds. in other words if you're gayming at 1440/2160@60 Ryzen is perfectly fine. though if you're a competitive vidya kiddie, one would assume you'll want at least 300fps, in which case go for a high clocked quad core Intel.

>>59216975
Incorrect.

>>59215869
I don't know about you, but I buy my hardware based on software I'm going to use it with, not the other way around. By using higher resolutions in game benchmarks, you are normalizing your results to GPU and making shitty processors look much better than they actually are.

I should stop asking for PC building advice on /g/. The amount of shitposting is so discouraging.

>>59217057
That'd be true if not for better 99th percentile frame rates on Ryzen where Intel drops its shit.

Aside I buy my hardware based on my monitor, I'm not going to downgrade to 1080p because an overclocked 7700K does better.

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

>>59216559
>Loses to 33% cheaper CPU
>Good enough

>>59217080
Your post doesn't make any sense. Ryzen is better deal than cheaper Intel because both of them are bottlenecked by GPU equally?

>>59217057
>based on software I'm going to use it with
>By using higher resolutions in game benchmarks, you are normalizing your results to GPU and making shitty processors look much better than they actually are.
Why are you looking at gaming benches for your software performance then.
As it stands, ryzen is still really good, there's no two ways about it. If you want instant gratification of having the best hardware every year, I believe that Intel has a subscription service to suit your needs, at the cost of a socket change a year.
But for most consumers that do a plethora of if different things in their daily life, or work-life needs, that's not an option. We can bitch an moan about what's the best for each indivigual task till the cows come home, and we'll end up with 5-6 builds.
Do you have more than two active PC's Anon? For each task you preform for maximum performance?
>but I'll have to get up to go to that PC wasting more time
Then you're no so tech savvy as you think.

>>59217174
It's better in a real environment when you have more running than Doom.exe. Base frame rates are much higher and if you throw in shit like Steam/Discord/OBS/ReLive/ShadowPlay it would crush the Intel.

>>59216889
I don't care about supporting jews, I'm not 15 anymore and I know that it's not a purchase choice that will change the world order. So fuck geek socialism.

File: 1484147756149.png (127KB, 362x363px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 362x363px

>>59217259
>I'm not 15 anymore
Shiggy
>I don't care about supporting jews
>it's not a purchase choice that will change the world order.
Because following the herd didn't get us into this (whole) mess to begin with.
>So fuck geek socialism.
Oh, it's a made up buzz word, barely relating to the subject at hand
Poor thing, it's retarded.

>>59217206
>Base frame rates are much higher and if you throw in shit like Steam/Discord/OBS/ReLive/ShadowPlay it would crush the Intel.
You realize that OS makes sure background applications have minimal impact on the application that you have focus on? Just don't play with borderless and it's going to have no impact. Other than RAM usage of course, which is also controlled by your OS.

>>59217319
You keep fighting the system, I have other priorities in life and it's not the price of a CPU that will change them. I need a PC for gayming because that's my hobby, and it doesn't go above that.

>>59215379
>Due to the fact that games are typically forced to wait for player input before deciding what tasks to perform next, they are difficult to parallelize and thus there is a limitation to how well they can be optimized for a higher thread count, lower thread performance CPU like Ryzen 7.

Bullshit. There's tons of things the game engine can do while waiting for player input like AI and network and physics, etc.
Most modern game engines will try to optimize for this because there's just so many things that can be done in a single thread.

>>59215379
>Final word on Ryzen 7
Give it bit more time. Anyone buying Ryzen right now may be dissapointed by "shortfalls" when compared ti 7700K and in gaming, but anyone buying an 8c16t should understand their real usage first. Highly threaded applications/tasks.

Gaming isn't so much worse than Intel current gen i7 as you can't play it, rather its not optimized for gaming. I want to add an additional "Yet" comment, as things might change in the future depending on windows update/microcode update/bios update/etc. Lots of variables to patch up for Ryzen and increase its performance over time.

>>59217201
You could literally have a 7600k build for "gaymen" and an R7 1700 for everything else and still be spending less than a 6900 build.

Are these new amd CPU good for drawing like with photoshop and other programs?

>>59217733
1800X is hardly better than cheaper Intel alternatives. Not too bad, but not really the best price/performance ratio.

Here's what hasn't happened yet: R5/R3. When those hit, what OP said about workstation CPUs will also be true for gaming CPUs, if to a much lesser extent.

1600X will be 80-90% of what the 7700K offers, for less money, yet it will still be better at gaming+streaming. In other words, it will be an utterly clear choice for all streamers. Intel needs to really put some effort into that new i5 and new i7.

>>59217880
How is 1600X going to be better for less, when even $500 1800X can't beat it now? Are you suggesting they are going to make their previously released line obsolete?

>>59218087
Not sure if serious.

>>59218087
Are you dum?

>>59215379
I really dont get why all this fuss about ryzen. Is a good chip, perfect for workstations and a good alternative to Intel under some circumtances, also Intel was forced to lower prices and probably will keep them low and even, who knows, try new paths in order to fight amd, if amd keeps on the tracks. Everybody wins, why are we arguing?

Anyone have VR benchmarks?

File: 1486508370408.gif (674KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 480x360px

>mfw you trigger an AMD autistic anon so hard by providing benchmarks where his precious /ourguy/ company does shit at gaming that he starts to spam 1 badly ran benchmark made by some soon to be deported Taco and he himself knows that he is shitposting so he starts to namefagging.

It's one of those feels that you can only experience on 4chan.

File: 1476275451151.jpg (19KB, 192x220px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 192x220px

>>59215893
>on par wit ha stock 7700k
>sandybridge

KEK

>>59215379
while I don't agree with everything, it's nice to see a post that's grounded in reality

thanks for not being a partisan shitposter OP

>>59217880
the single CCX Zen chips will be cheap as fuck. half the silicon and insanely high yields given how many R7 chips AMD is apparently able to churn out. I wouldn't be surprised to see 4c/8t chips at less than $150 USD.

but if they can't clock higher than R7 chips do, they're going to be FX-6300 tier. only good by virtue of being dirt cheap.

>>59215893
Even with an overclock like that Sandy Bridge comes nowhere near Sky/Kaby Lake in terms of performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7bcjFnLib8

This however heavily depends on the game you're playing. In this video, only The Division doesn't have much gains on newer CPUs, however the rest are all around 30% performance gains.

Also, in multiplayer games like MMOs or things like Overwatch, the gains are a lot higher.

I'm also still on a 2600k but I really need to upgrade because it gimps my 1080 like shit.

>>59215379
This is the single most sensible post I've seen on Ryzen since the NDA lifted.

What the fuck is an individual like you doing here?

>>59215379

Ryzen isn't really a poor choice for gaming though expect for budget-minded crowd where 7600K and 7350 are far better choice.

This isn't anything like the difference between Sandy Bridge versus Bulldozer over five years ago.

>>59218558
Ryzen isn't a poor choice for gaming. Vishera was a poor choice for gaming.

It's just not an optimal choice if all you want to do is gaming.

>>59218592
Slight correction, R7 isn't ideal for gaming. R5 and R3 should be quite interesting for gamers.

>>59215517
How about the complexity of the task? GPU cores are pretty simple. CPU still king for some "multithreaded" tasks.

Will it run bsnes faster though

>>59215379
> However, if accurate, they may point to the Ryzen 7 1700 specifically being a compelling choice for gamers if heavily overclocked.

I'm due for an upgrade, and it's tempting to to try to achieve his results.

IF ryzens 10% (or so) average shortfall can me eliminated or heavily mitigated by bios/OS update, it will be a clear contender. The 4c8t ryzens might be fucking crazy if this is the case as well.

Ryzen looks compelling for a workstation but I'm pretty disappointed at the memory and PCIe limitations. Anyone who needs lots of PCIe lanes or RAM still has to go X99.

>>59217733
photoshop is really poorly multithreaded so an 8-core processor is just wasted on it. other programs might be better.

>>59218641
in what scenario would one need more than 24 PCIe lanes?

>>59218621
You think AMD is going to do some tweaks to the R6/R5 architecture to make them better?

>>59218665
It will have a higher core clock.

>>59218685
Why did they stagger release then? Seems like R7 buyers are test subjects and AMD going to release a new revision once the R6/R5 drops.

>>59218660
Quite a few. You could be using GPU compute (Tesla, Xeon Phi) or need multiple Quadros/FirePros. You could also use multiple RAID cards.
I imagine people who need these kinds of systems will step up to a Xeon-based system and aren't your average consumer though. Do we know if AMD is launching Ryzen processors for server applications?

>>59218743
>Do we know if AMD is launching Ryzen processors for server applications?
There was that 32-core beast of a thing a while back which supposedly uses the same microarchitecture.

>>59218621
after this launch I'm not going to assume anything anymore.

>>59218637
right now it's more like 20%, but 10% would be perfectly acceptable IMO. hopefully they can get to that point.

>>59218641
Ryzen is in a weird place right now. it's as good as I expected, but not as good as I hoped. I'll wait a few weeks before making a final judgement.

>>59218665
doubt it. most likely they will just be single CCX chips. some will have SMT disabled but overall the SKUs will be separated by binning and nothing more. it's entirely possible that they will clock higher than the R7 chips by virtue of having less power to dissipate (and shit) but it is NOT a certainty.

as I said in an earlier post, the only thing we can reasonably assume about these chips is that they will be cheap as fuck. they should start at less than half the cost of the 1700.

>>59218723
Yields were too good

>>59218743
They are.

>>59218723
Who knows. Maybe they did want a larger and more stable ecosystem of mobos for its gaming release. Maybe they thought it was such a stark price difference between the 6900 at a similar price that it would hype it.

It does seem to be a minor success for them.

>>59218743
AMD is making fuckhuge MCM processors for high performance computing. I don't know if they've given them a name yet though

>>59218791
1700 is about 20, 1800x is about 10.

any comparisons to stock 2600(exactly stock, no bullshit 4.6ghz OC)?
the heaviest thing I do for work is word processing so gayming is what my focus is, but at the same time i'm not willing to pay for 7700K which
1 draws more power 2. hotter 3. I come to hate intel over last 6 years and really do not want to buy another

>>59218723
They probably knew about about the mobo/BIOS problems so they only released the top tier enthusiast processors because those are the people who would be smart enough to tinker around and try to solve the issues. The R5 and R3 are aimed towards gaymers and OEMs and obviously those people are less likely to put up with launch issues.

>>59218857
Wait for the r5 and r3 lineup, see how they compare to a 7600k. By that logic, if r5 is better than 7600k, r5 is better than 2600k

>>59215379
Why did you only mention Joker?

There is computerbase.de as well. They went in detail.

Across many games, at 1080p ultra with SMT disabled, the average performance only seems to be 5-7% less. If you disabled HT as well that gap would be even closer.
And it's not really AMD's fault that games aren't yet optimized to use SMT like they use HT as developers are just recently getting chips.

And even then, lots of reviewers noted that the 7700k oftensuffers from frame stutters that did not affect Ryzen. Lots had frame graphs showing that. Even though the average FPS is lower, it's smoother.

They could have delayed the launch to wait for games to patch, but then there would be more negative leaks on unoptimized games hurting their marketing, so it's a catch-22 there.

>>59218903
I think the reason they could not delay the launch was that the hype was already hitting a critical point. If they wait a bit longer, the hype would have probably gotten worse.

>>59218857
>any comparisons to stock 2600(exactly stock, no bullshit 4.6ghz OC)?
>the heaviest thing I do for work is word processing so gayming is what my focus is, but at the same time i'm not willing to pay for 7700K which
>1 draws more power 2. hotter 3. I come to hate intel over last 6 years and really do not want to buy another
You are implying a lot of stupid bullshit here
1) use suspend and stop leaving your computer on 24-7 if you're just some gamer manchild and then you don't have to worry about the ALREADY NEGLIGIBLE difference in power draw
2) who gives a fuck, this literally doesn't matter whatsoever, completely irrelevant
3) so you're a retard basically

also implying you don't have your 2600 overclocked... what is wrong with you?
jesus just stop posting

>>59218931
I have non K, things went that way in 2011 for reasons

>>59218903
>There is computerbase.de as well.

probably because not many people here can read german to know their methodology

>>59218931
fuck off shill

File: tard.jpg (71KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x512px

>>59218931
>AMD releases a single optimized benchmark.
>Idiots rave about how great it is.
>NDA is lifted product is released and its not that great.

I mean you would think after 10 years of this shit you would be able to spot the pattern but the AMD fanatics fall for it every other year.

>>59218903
>And even then, lots of reviewers noted that the 7700k oftensuffers from frame stutters that did not affect Ryzen. Lots had frame graphs showing that. Even though the average FPS is lower, it's smoother.
here is why I want CPU tested like GPU nowdays
just show all the weak stutter points in comparison for real metric, fps means shit beyond 100fps threshold

>>59215379
>Well, it's time to face facts, /g/entlemen.
No it's not.
NO benchmarks, NO games, NO OSes are capable of mesuring ryzen.
Ryzen cache architecture is something new and NO benchmarks can mesure it right now.
Why do you think the bench results are better on linux thant on windows? Because of the fucking drivers once again.
Wait until windows has a correct behavior with ryzen L3 cache and see ryzen true potential.
We may be deceived even after that, I have a 770k so I couldn't care less but spreading misinformation is driving me insane.

>>59216077
Okay genius. Show a benchmark that shows the 1700 running at 100% on at least one core.

Oh wait, there is none, because that's one of the few reviewers that actually recorded decent data.

>>59216249
It was. It only uses 30 watts at 3.3ghz all core. Uses 125 watts at 3.9 or 4.0 iirc.

>>59216396
Naples will surely be quad or octachannel.

Has AMD said whether there will be a new Opteron launch?

>>59219099
right after vega, so summer

/g/ memed me into buying 390
never regretted it once

CPUs are apparently much harder to choose

>>59217174
How is Intel cheaper?

A 1700 system costs about $65 less than a 7700k one.

File: Screenshot_20170303-105534.png (3MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1440px

>>59215379
Just look at this and call it day amd fucked up and did some shady things
>but Nvidia and Intel do the same
Yeah amd can't afford for a slip up Nvidia and Intel can because they have the money


RIP amd.... Always hyping people

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-8


https://youtu.be/TBf0lwikXyU
Final sources

>>59216349
>point of build was quiet.
>he didnt buy the cooler chip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0

won't believe until I see this kind of benchmark

2600 is sutterfest
ivy is housefire and stutter fest
thing look good at haswell and up

fps is seemingly similar though

>>59218791
>right now it's more like 20%, but 10% would be perfectly acceptable IMO
Nope.
It's currently less than a 8% deficit with SMT disabled compared to the 7700k on average across games.
SMT enabled is what adds another 12% deficit.

That'll be fixed, like it was fixed for HT and fixed when Bulldozer launched. So once that's fixed, that's only a 8% deficit.
Once games are better optimized to use Ryzen on top of that, it should perform better than the 6800k does in gaming.

>>59219494
>wait for drivers

I just want AMD to succeed tbqh.

>>59218926
Yes but part of that hype was their own leaked benchmarks that, while accurate, was just a dozen rather cherry picked games that didn't show any worse discrepancy than that of between Civ and GTA.

If they gave out Ryzen CPUs to hundreds of developers, there would have been leaks of every game that showed much more favorable ones.
Like ashes of the singularity, which HAS had it for a while pre-release, but their patch for Ryzen isn't ready yet. Others would have benchmarked that showing a highly threaded game getting -25% on Ryzen which is weird.

You would have had a lot of like 1024x768 Overwatch and CSGO leaks and shit.
So yeah, releasing prematurely when software isn't there was their best bet. But I'm still waiting for patches before I buy.

>>59219512
>Just wait
AMD should just make this their official slogan already.

File: literallywho.png (166KB, 785x425px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 785x425px

>>59219618
>Like ashes of the singularity, which HAS had it for a while pre-release

File: Ryzen mins.png (42KB, 634x430px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 634x430px

>>59219003
Only a small handful of reviewers did anything but averages, yeah.

Computebase.de and Tom's hardware I think were the only two.
Though others like youtubers such as Hardware Unboxed do use FCAT and did mention that Ryzen was smoother despite its lower averages. They just didn't show them.
Like what's the big deal about getting 160 max fps when minimums are 100? Consistent and high minimums is the most important for gaming.

So yeah. Ryzen gets virtually the same minimum FPS, if not higher, on average. Its maximum FPS is lower so its average is.

If it can keep this same consistency, but get even higher minimums and averages, it will be good.

>>59219681
This is one of those "lower is better" tests. I realize after I post that a lot wont get that.

It's ms to draw a frame.

>>59217058

You shouldn't need advice on how to build a PC for your needs. Get some help on specs you don't understand. But blatantly asking for build help is just lazy and ignorant.

>>59217363

Consoles exist for this reason.

>>59215379
So pretty much from looking at all of the reviews ive read so far ryzen isn't worth it if you're playing at 1080p but 1440p and higher resolutions the performance is at or above the t 7700k/6900k, I don't see the problem with this? Why would you buy a $300+ cpu then pair it with a gpu only capable of playing at 1080p? lol

>>59219681
multiple reviewer said that the rysen felt smoother that surely what they meant by this

>>59219044
its not only the cache problem...

the l3 is shared between the ccx's and that would have been an easy task for ms to fix BUT the SMT taps into every single cache that thats were the problem starts..

windows handles the threads as a cpu and it throws it around the cpu while holding the cache data of it on the l2 or the l3 and that is very bad for amd..

amd handles the threads as a cpu INSIDE the ccx's and when windows throw them around the cpu assumes that the op has stopped and park the core(here comes the load balancing bug amd was told to the reviewers to use only the high power one)and when the next identical op comes in the core throws it into the cache BUT the cache has already the same op stored on the l3 and therefore it pauses the new op flushes the old op and start the new one..

the same shit happened with the nehalem on windows it took ms almost 8 months to fix it

same goes with the game developers also they will need to rewrite a lot of engines (and i assume some of them that are in line with nvidia wont do it at all)

File: 6UpneNX.png (454KB, 954x781px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 954x781px

Guy on Anandtech forums ran some tests with his 1700.
Total package power is 70w, all cores running at 3.2ghz in POV-Ray.

Why is every gaming benchmark 7700k vs 1800x? That's ridiculous, it should be 1700x. Why is 1800x even in the gaming argument? At that price you would be insane to buy it for gaming based on the other options out there.

>>59220042
because idiots saw a slide of amd comparing ipc of 1800x and 7700k along with 6900k and thought to hype it to infinity

just like the same idiots hyped 480 to 1080...

if i didnt knew better i would say that some of them are indeed paid especially on plebbit

File: fmax-vmin.png (55KB, 1509x905px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1509x905px

>>59219981
Those are stock settings too. Zen undervolts ridiculously well.

>>59219383
I require functionality also or I'd buy an Apple Mac and have done with it.

TIM paranoia aside (a meme since 3DFx was an industry leader, when was the golden age exactly?) unless you are doing a mad overclock they just don't get that hot. People obsess about relative bench-marking but brandname coolers are as over-specced as people's PSUs typically are at this point.

Much like central banks worrying about an inflation problem that hasn't been seen in 40 years during stagflation, I consider CPU temps to be a non-issue in this decade. It was a bit different during the clockwars of course but everyone involved knew it was stupid.

File: AMD-RYZEN-ZEN.jpg (51KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1200x675px

if you oced a 1700x would the gaming performance be similar to a 7700k?

>>59220394
No. I've seen 7700k ocd to 5 GHz but no one is getting an 1800x past 4.1

>>59220416
Just like to point out since its been a source of confusion. Some of the OC results people have been posting for Ryzen are SINGLE CORE yet they fail to make this clear. Ryzen, in these early days, has been really bad at overclocking all cores, which might improve as windows/mobo/bios get fully updated.

>>59218988
Except they are pretty great chips. For gaming pretty much any quad core is more than enough. Being a little less overkill there is ok when you consider zen's strengths.

>>59219152
Bought 290X and 260X during my /k/ days
Haven't looked back since.

File: 2ec.png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

Wait for zen+

>>59217821
It wasn't meant to compete with cheaper Intel alternatives. It was meant to compete with Intel's workstation processors. And it does that fairly well at the pricepoint. Only problem I have with it is that the Wraith isn't included with the two X's that are out right now.

>>59215379
>Well, it's time to face facts
Then what are you doing here?

>>59220760
>wait for Zen+
>wait for Naples
>wait for Coffee Lake
>wait for Cannonlake
>meanwhile I'm sitting comfy on my Arrandale processor

>>59220394
>if you oced a 1700x
They don't go above 4GHz. Thing is, almost no one keeps their 7700k at stock clocks. 90% of them can do at least 4.7GHz, most can do 5GHz.

>>59220771
Xeon are Intel's workstation processors though...

>>59220416
The CPU is optimized for 2ghz-3.3ghz. It's a server chip, pretty much.

While it's a very durable chip that can handle the power, it needs a lot more power to go over 4ghz. The best I've seen is 1.4v for 4.1ghz. Some are needing 1.5-1.7 to go to 4.2 stable all core.

It CAN go high if you have the cooling, but its performance/watt tanks.

But almost fucking no one is running 5Ghz on their 7700k either. And turbo at 3.7ghz on the 8 core 1700 uses less power than the turbo 4.5ghz on the 4core 7700k. For most people it's way more perf/watt whether they OC the 7700k or not. And as games catch up, they will do better on the 1700 like how Watch Dogs 2 does way better on the 6900k than the 7700k and over 50% better than the 7600k.

>>59220394
1700 goes to 3.9 and has exact same min fps as 7700k at 5ghz

unless something unexpected happens i'm quite sold on it for now

>>59220836
Xeon is Intel's server processor lineup.
Naples is competing with Xeon.
1800X is competing specifically with the i7-6y00k, where y>7

>>59220836
He meant X99 obviously. Thing is, Intel prices X99 so they won't cannibalize Xeon sales. Intel can only really lower the prices of Broadwell-E/future Skylake-E so low. The funny thing is R7 is pretty good at workstation shot but it won't cannibalize Naples/Opteron since it doesn't have enough PCI-e lanes.

>>59220886
lol. The server Ryzens are probably going to have double the pci lanes and the board chipset can add even more.

It's the same thing that Intel is doing. Ryzen consumer is gimped a bit to not cannibalize their 12core and 16 core sales for servers.

Naples will probably have 40 PCI-e lanes on the die and support for at least quad channel memory. But they'll also probably cost $1200+ for the entry level.

>>59220935
naples rumored at 64 lanes octa memory channel 32core

>>59220935
the top naples(32c) will have 128 lanes actually

>>59220868
>1800X is competing specifically with the i7-6y00k, where y>7

which are not workstation. you can go look through Intel's literature, only time workstation appears is on Xeon products.

>>59220860
I'm gonna aim my 1700 for 4.5, kind of like what my 8350 gets right now. Also using a 360mm radiator, but that's just to manage the murderous housefire that is Bulldozer overclocking.

>>59220967
People use 6800k, 6900k and 6950k for workstation loads because of the increased IPC of broadwell-e

>>59220980
>I'm gonna aim my 1700 for 4.5
nah, best you'll get 4.0
disable SMT though people say it helps, and kind overkill for now since it doesn't work for day-to-day

>>59220980
You can also game at an affordable price on used Xeon rigs, doesn't change what the company sells it as.

AMD shilled the 1800X as the ultimate gaming experience and have attempted to stack the deck in so many embarrassing ways and now the narrative is switching for damage control.

>>59221016
we dont know how they oc we literally dont know..

the xfr will go up to 4.0 after that is manual and god help us no one did a manual oc afaik so why bother?

>>59221027
And yes, some Xeons are marketed as workstation CPUs. 6800k's are marketed in "Workstation" systems from multiple places including System 76. And yes, AMD marketed Ryzen as "MUH GAYMIN 8 CORE 16 THREAD". But, I see it as a nice workstation chip, able to do multithreaded processes at a (relatively) affordable price.

>>59221039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow

we do, air limit with best at a time board(gigabyte) is 3.9 on all cores for now, single core can go 4.1 for a bit
bios will get better, also 1700 doesn't have xfr

>>59221079
>also 1700 doesn't have xfr
All of them have XFR, don't talk out of your ass.
It just has a 50mhz uplift instead of a 100mhz frequency uplift.

File: 1393569846212.jpg (169KB, 522x399px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 522x399px

Just finished reading benchmarks.
It is clear why /v/ will say it's shit, but for literally everyone but gaymers Ryzen is a god-send.
Good job AMD. Now show us your APUs.

>>59221092
Okay, still probably gonna disable it and shoot for the moon.
If I burn down my house, I'll shitpost about it on /g/.

>>59221092
didn't know that, cool
everyone kept saying it doesn't

>>59221106
Its right in their launch day slide deck.

>>59221096
check on frametimes graphs it runs smoother

>>59221102
apparently threshold is 75C
no software can read it right yet, cpu throttles at 75C that's it

>>59220966
32c one is still rumored at this point. It will surely come at some point, but I'm not sure it'll be there for the launch in a few months.

>>59221136
So it throttles higher than my 8350. Sweet.

>>59221136
>check on frametimes graphs it runs smoother
Can you link me to some test?

>>59221144
everything is rumored thats why they say "up to"

>>59220980
If you have a hard on for gigahurtz, rather than actual performance overall, Ryzen isn't for you. It's not a high clocking chip.

Ryzen is essentially a Phenom IV. It's not Netburst. It's not Bulldozer. It's not Kabylake.

>>59221096
>>59221136
Yeah like that anon said, if you look at frame graphs Ryzen actually performs more smoothly than any Intel CPU, even if the averages aren't as good as the best ones.
Smooth gameplay and high minimum FPS > stutters and high averages.

>>59221187
As I said, I'm gonna AIM for 4.5. I'll take whatever I can get stable. If it's 4.5, cool. If it's less, whatever. If it's something stupid like 3.7 stable, there's something wrong.

>>59215379
I really want to see R5, if the 4 core clock like the 7700k and proven as fast or nearly fast having SMT shit will be tough for intel. But we are 1 month away of that. Shame.

>>59221176
computerbase.de and tomshardware only ones that did it proper

>>59215379
Folks are forgetting that AMD doesn't change sockets constantly, and have actually unified their sockets, so if the current Ryzen cpu ends up bottlenecking at 4k in 2-3 years, you can always buy a drop in replacement.

>>59221239
Yep, AM4(+) will probably be relevant as long as AM3(+) was. Read: 8 years.

>>59221266
>AM4(+) will probably be relevant as long as AM3(+) was
So not at all?

>>59221209
Just understand it uses like 30 watts on average at 3.3ghz. Like 125watts at 4.0ghz. It'll probably use like 300watts at 4.5ghz.
So you need 300w TDP+ of cooling.

I think the record is 5.8ghz on LN2 all core. Not sure if that ran benchmarks. Cinebench record was at 5.3ghz stable on LN2. Getting 4.5ghz on a custom water loop MIGHT be possible but it's like... why? It performs so well at 4.0 and under.

>>59221266
>>59221304
AMD officially confirmed they will keep AM4 alive until 2020, unless new standard like DDR5 or new PCI-E will get released first.

>>59221322
cinebench was a lot higher than this probably close to the 5.8 wr..

the 2449 doesnt come unless amd has a super efficient core working above 100% which is impossible

>>59217384
This. I'm pretty sure everyone pre-ordering Ryzen are gamers who went full IT'S SO CHEAP IT MUST BE CONSUMER without realizing how specialised 8c/16t CPUs are. Not to mention it's literally a completely new architecture.

>>59216396
Naples will be at least quad channel.

AMD might completely fuck Intel in the datacenter space.

Have there been an reviews with I've of the ccx disabled? I'd love to see a preview of the quads.

I bet gaming performance will basically be identical.

>>59215661
>neck and neck
>i7-7700k on average 10-15 fps higher

>>59221575
Yeah I'd like to see 2 cores disabled and whether it gets 33% more cache per core. If it does, it could be way better on 6 cores for games.

I might just get a 1700X if XFR still works when you disable 2 cores and it gets more cache per core. Then I could potentially set a profile that disables 2 cores for games that don't use 8, and have the multithread perf when I need it. That'd be godly when it costs about the same as the 7700k given cheaper mobos.

Why have no reviewers tested this yet? :/

>>59221659
>tfw you can't set a per application core/thread profile.

Dual threaded game that loves L3 cache?

Gskill has their first Ryzen specific RAM kits available
http://fudzilla.com/news/memory/43022-g-skill-unveils-its-amd-ryzen-ready-ddr4-memory

3200mhz CL14 with 1T command rate
3467mhz CL16 with 1T command rate

Corsair and Patriot will also be releasing Ryzen specific kits up to 3600mhz with tight timings.

>>59221617
this cpu is designed for everything but gayming. Why people ain't getting it?
Fucking paid intel shills

>>59221718
Wouldn't it have 33% more l1 and l2 as well, or is only the l3 shared between all 4 cores?

>>59221780
For gaming, imo, get 2400 CL10. That's 8.33ns true latency. It also uses less power and needs a smaller heatsink or no heatsink at all.
3200 CL14 is 8.75.

But if you do some heavy memory bandwidth tasks, the 3200 CL14 can be better.

>>59221915
Its not even bad when it comes to gaming though. Min frame rates and frame times are good. With SMT disabled performance is only 10-15% behind a much higher clocked i7 7700k.
Fanboys have no objectivity.

>>59221942
DRAM is the last level cache in Zen, it needs more bandwidth.

>>59221959
No it needs lower latency, not more bandwidth, for every game in existence.
Unless you can show me proof that some of those shitily programmed games that hit memory a lot like Fallout 4 actually saturate over 60Gb/s of memory bandwidth. I don't remotely believe it and I'm certain you just don't know what you're talking about.

The reason you see higher clocked memory being faster in some games is because higher clocks usually means lower latency, NOT because of the increased bandwidth. But 3200 CL14 is higher latency than 2400 CL10.

>>59222172
DRAM is the last level cache for Zen. It is effectively an L4.
I am not talking about your faggy gaymer benchmarks.
The CPU needs high bandwidth memory with tight timings. Thats specifically why AMD's memory partners are releasing kits between 3200mhz and 3600mhz.

Don't try to correct people who know more than you, you just end up looking like a dumb kid.

>>59222212
>I am not talking about your faggy gaymer benchmarks.
And I said in non-gaming, then yes higher frequency can be better, you dumb piece of shit. Why do you bother replying if you aren't going to bother to read?
But in gaming, it's the effective latency that matters.

Don't try to correct people who know more than you, you just end up looking like a dumb kid.

>>59222319
You're still missing the point, just shitposting like an autistic baby.
Zen uses DRAM as its last level cache. Its memory arrangement is nothing like any of their prior arch, nor any of intel's arch. Your asspulled generalizations are not accurate.
The chip needs high memory bandwidth, because it is an L4 cache.

Shitposting little children like you need to stay in /v/.

How does a 4770k fare against the 1800x?

I'm tempted for an upgrade but completely on the fence

>>59222400
Pretty similar clock for clock, but overclocks beyond 4.1GHz.

>>59222360
You're missing the point, because you're too much of a moron to understand.

Lower latency is what improves performance in EVERY application up until the point that you saturate all the available bandwidth, which is incredibly hard to do when 2400 has 60GB/s of bandwidth.

You have to fill and empty 2x16GB of ram twice a second to saturate that fucking bandwidth.

Jesus you really have no idea how much of a moron you are, do you? No matter how much I clearly explain it to you.

>>59222517
>underage little autistic baby still just talking out of his ass
It is an L4 cache.

Until you can understand this you're just shitposting. Little kid.

>>59222554
>missing the point
You still haven't shown the proof that Ryzen saturates 60GB/s of memory bandwidth in common usage. (ie outside of rendering)

It's irrelevant that it uses it like L4 cache. That doesn't automatically mean it saturates its throughput.

>>59215490
AMD shill crying

>people wondering how much raw cpu power Ryzen has compared to Intel
>show lots of gaming benchmarks
>some cpu-oriented results like AIDA, R15, and Blender
>neglect to do LINPACK and other tests to see CPU horsepower
come on now

>>59217372
I said difficult to parallelize, not impossible. It is plenty possible and likely that in the future games will make better use of more cores and threads, but that day is probably substantially further off than a lot of these AMD shills are trying to make people think.