Attention Retards And Shills

>>59216478
>The AMD Ryzen R7 series CPU is meant to go up against Intel's 8/10 core CPUs. In that regard, it completely destroys them on both price and performance.
Funny, that's not what 99% of /g/ was saying last week. :^)

File: muh $1700.png (54KB, 448x836px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 448x836px

my gaming

Lets just ignore that it gets close to a $1700 10 core CPU.

File: 1487870073357.png (263KB, 799x549px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 799x549px

Please don't post Amada while arguing.

Amada is for cuteposting.

>>59216504
>listening to /g/
>ever
:^)

>>59216515
So does a 7700k

Then why did AMD's own benchmarks test against Intel's 8 core CPUs?

File: amadaexcite.png (38KB, 422x537px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 422x537px

>>59216523
I'm just trying to clear some shit up, bro.

File: AMD-Ryzen-1800X-Intel-6700X-2.png (29KB, 617x837px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 617x837px

>>59216555
Lol. No.
It get obliterated by both.

>>59216564
I want to cover Amada's face with my thermal paste.

And then marry her.

>>59216619
>If I see one more GAYMAN benchmark that shows 100 FPS vs 120 FPS at 1080p (which nobody with a high end CPU/GPU would even bother to run at) as some huge loss, I'm going to be sick.

>>59216619
>reslet
Post 4k anon.

>>59216679
4k is irrelevant nobody uses 4k 99% of the world runs 1080p and beloq

File: 1477504636442.jpg (149KB, 1014x676px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1014x676px

>>59216504
>he listens to /g/
>ever
:^)
I bet you own a Thinkpad.

>>59216701
So, to summarize.


>Intel is slower in highres gaming
>intel users are poorfags with a 640x480 monitors
>8 core uses 50% more power than AMD's 8 core
>costs $500 more on top of it
>their 4 core can't handle gaming over 768p, and even then needs deliding, sanding and a custom water loop

How can AMD ever recover?

>>59216619
>10% lower FPS at 12% lower clock
Babbylake BTFO

I love seeing you intel shills present this as somehow a loss. It wasn't even competing with this product range and it's still damn close.

You get 16 threads versus all the 4 thread i5 shit, 8 thread i7 crap. The 6/8 cores from intel aren't even on the list.

Best thing is its never below 60fps. KYS

File: 9223372036822995037.png (229KB, 790x300px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 790x300px

YOU GOT A OCED 8C/16T LOSING TO A STOCK i5 IN A GAME THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF HIGH CORE AND THREAD COUNT

WHEN THE GPU BOTTLENECK LIFTS RYZEN GONNA GET BTFO @ 4K

>>59216619
Ryzen with a 2.5% over clock gets BTFOd by these Intel processors with extreme overclock. Amazing.
The current ram issue hurts ryzen. If that's ever fixed, it will be fine

File: Conan-rofl.gif (2MB, 400x226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x226px

>>59217150
> stock i5 @ 3.9 ghz
> "extreme overclock"

>>59217208
Probably with overclocked harddrive to boost performance

desu announced clock speeds for 4c and 6c skus are actually lower than the 8cs, and IPC should be exactly the same, so I don't know why people are saying this. As far as overclocking goes we have no idea and will have to wait until the reviews are out. I think ryzen's value proposition is simply more threads for less money and lower core count parts aren't going to change that.

>>59216701
The point is nobody is going to buy a high end CPU and a 1080, then run at 1080p. Even if they're e-sports niggers. Becuase those games don't require massive system requirements to hit high FPS anyway.

>>59217257
IPC and OC should be better. At the very least, it'll be way cheaper.