Ryzen Performance

>>59219157
they released it too early. should have been another two weeks at least.

I was so excited...

more fool me

>muh 7 fps!
seriously? it's a great chip all things considered.

>>59219183
You are paying $160 more for worse performance. I don't see any way that could be good.

>>59219157
The 1500$ intel cpu loses to its 350$ alternative aswell, that's not the point of these cpus you mongrel.

it Smt/Hypertrading dont work on some motherboard

>>59219218
I'm getting the 1700, do more than just gaymin and it will serve me fine in gaymin for several years to come.

>>59219227
Why did AMD market these as gaming chips? Look at their presentations, they literally said they were for gaming.

>>59219157
Only people buying ryzen are those hiding their illegal activities.

>>59219157
It's not gaming chips, it's workstation chips

NEW GAMERS NEXUS VIDEO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBf0lwikXyU

AMD SINKING DEEPER INTO THE PILE OF SHIT THEY MADE.

Microcenter dropped prices on the 6 core i7's. They're selling the 6800k for $380 and the 5820k for $320. They're close in benchmarks, so do I save the $60 and opt out of the slightly faster ddr4 speeds? What else is different?

>>59219300
The motherboard is still expensive though

>>59219300
Why not get a 7700k?

>>59219312
They'll give you an extra $30 off if you buy from them. Plus ryzen motherboards are shitty and expensive

>>59219245
They are for gaming. Who buys a gaming PC and doesn't max out the GPU? I would gladly give up 1080p performance, which I haven't used in 5 years, to have 20% faster general software performance.

>WAAH WHY ISNT IT GOOD AT GAYMING??
>GAMING AND FACEBOOK ARE THE ONLY THINGS COMPUTERS ARE USED FOR

Please return to /v/ where you belong. Or at least wait for the gaming CPUs, 1600x and 1400x.

Besides, the performance is poor right now due to bugs in windows and microcode. Wait a month and it''ll be

>>59219157
>>In before poorfag
I own an x99 board with an Intel i7 5930.

Man is this typical for /g/ posters? The Ryzen chip is a fine chip for gaming, not the best but look at its other performance benchmarks it equals or best intel's and cost a whole bunch less. And with revision in mobo drivers or optimization with games patches it'll most likely close the gap further.

>>59219316
They're back up to 320, and I'd rather have better multicore performance than single. It's not for gaming

>>59219299
>AMD shills are damaging control so hard that youtubes have to explain themselves.

Is there a more rabid fanbase than AyyMDfags? Not even Intel or Nvidia shills are on this level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4BUb6wSSXk

>>59219332
>Wait a month and it'll be
on par with 7600k/7700k.

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

112KB, 722x554px

>>59219331
>20% faster general software performance

That's also not true either.

>>59219344
AMD is helping terrorists and pedos evade the law, what did you expect?

>>59219332
AMD said they were for gaming and they are seriously one of the worst price-performance CPUs you could possibly buy for gaming.

>>59219321
>ryzen motherboards are shitty and expensive
If you talking about X370 then yes. But if you talking about B350 or lower then no

I can't find good mATX X99 Motherboard at Microcenter

File: 1234213121212.jpg (383KB, 1404x1086px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1404x1086px

>>59219157
The 8 cores are meh for gaming.

Still the jump in IPC is impressive, and I'm hoping the 4c/8t 6c/12t variants will clock higher (although I'm not expecting alot since these got to 4.1ghz on watercooling).

The most important thing is that we have some competition back, maybe Intel will get of their arse and start producing some meaningful generational leaps again

>>59219386
>we have some competition back

I guess? This doesn't look like competition to me.

Intel didn't even lower their prices a bit.

>>59219384
I was just looking at the exact same thing. You're right. You can build a 6700k right now for dirt cheap

>>59219351
>picks single thread benchmark
You're joking right?

>>59219445
Photoshop is single thread?

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

900KB, 4000x2000px

>>59219157
how bad is it? its few fps behind intel

while it shits on them in everything else including min fps

but you know /g/ is a "Technical" board

>>59219468
It's really bad when you consider you are paying $160 more for worse performance.

>>59219157
>Their best Ryzen CPU is $500 and loses to a $340 Intel CPU.
That's because Intel 340 dollar CPU equals almost everything else of Intel's cause most games handle only 4 core optimization.

You're a retard for buying 8 core CPUs and then shitting on them cause they perform on par with 4 core CPUs on shit using only 4 cores. Those benchmarks don't do overall system responsiveness during CPU heavy games, system bloat, or any other benefits of having some idle cores.

There are some few games where the performance difference between Ryzen and Intel would actually matter, but those aren't the games getting 250FPS on Ryzen and 280FPS on the newest i5 or i7.

>>59219417
The 1800x is plenty competition for the 6900k at half the price.

The 1700x and the 1700 not so much.

The most important thing is that they got power consumption and IPC under control, next generation they might be able to also get the clock speeds up higher.

Considering the shit they were coming from this product is much more competitive

>>59219543
So this was just a test run?

Are we AMD's beta testers now?

>>59219567
No, do you think a benchmark is credible where an Intel 7700K destroys a 6950X?

>>59219567
When was the last time you saw Intel make a 50% leap in IPC and power consumption?

If you expected them to beat Kaby lake you were delusional anyway.

They have closed the gap considerably and thats what matters

>>59219649
The Ryzen is clearly a server CPU.

>>59219468
>but you know /g/ is a "Technical" board
Unfortunately most of the posters on /g/ are spillover from /v/ so you should expect to see people who can't really do anything except stare themselves blind at average FPS in games and then act like that's the only thing that matters in a CPU.

>>59219485
Worse average frame rate in games yes, but better minimum frame rate (which actually matters just as much as the average) and better multi-thread performance in pretty much all applications except games.

It may not be the #1 CPU to buy for /v/ right now, but it is the thing to buy for everyone else who does CPU heavy and well multithreaded work on their PC.

>>59219693
Actualy it's clearly a cpu for people that do alot of multithreaded loads.

>>59219157
>Their best Ryzen CPU is $500 and loses to a $340 Intel CPU.
Even worse, it loses to the 7600K which is LITERALLY half the price. Ryzen is DOA, AMD is finished.

I do video editing for a living, I will be buying the Ryzen Opteron when it comes out this summer. These Zen chips absolutely shit on intel.

Apple will likely switch all of its offerings to Ryzen.

>>59219157
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

File: gtav.png (2MB, 2560x1312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1312px

>>59219701
>better minimum frame rate

Wrong too.

It's hilarious how fucking biased and ideological people are over this.

Even the reviewers who are being honest about AMD's deception are saying shit like "r-ryzen could still be good for someone who streams their games" in an attempt to placate fanboys who can't accept the reality that AMD lied. AMD dropped the ball, and neither AMD or Intel give a fuck about them.

>>59219649
>When was the last time you saw Intel make a 50% leap in IPC and power consumption?
You're talking about the car in the 20th spot clutching to maybe 5th place here
I mean great for him but who cares, I'm still going with the guy who won the race

>>59219649
What the fuck am I reading.

>>59219745
AMD didn't drop the ball though, gaming is such a small market compared to the business world.

File: watchdogs-1440p.png (34KB, 806x291px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 806x291px

>>59219738
Nope at 1440p it fails too

>>59219778
If you don't understand that you should leave

>>59219786
>AMD didn't drop the ball though, gaming is such a small market compared to the business world.
Yes, the business world... who are interested in the Opteron lineup or SoCs... not boxed Ryzen CPUs...

>>59219786
And a 7700K is just as fast if not faster in business applications, as well as $160 cheaper.
Ryzen is utterly useless unless all you do is render videos all day or run a billion VMs.

>>59219801
I understand what you're saying but it's fucking retarded for reasons stated here:
>>59219764

>>59219764
Except you're wrong, in workloads where people who buy 8 cores usualy use them it performs great, alot of the time beating the 6900k at half the price.

For gaming, it's a shit cpu though, but so is the 6900k

>>59219802
AMD allows re-branding, expect Apple to dump Intel for the Ryzen, that's huge.

>>59219786
...then why did AMD advertise it as a gaming CPU? Why do AMD fanboys lie (by omission here) so much?

>>59219812
But virtualization support isn't great is it? You can't gpu passthrough

>>59219815
>>59219824

>>59219824
for most of those types of workloads people use hardware acceleration though

>>59219721
Yeah I mean if you compare it to even cheaper Intel CPUs it looks even worse.

Cheapest Ryzen is $330 and the 7600K is only $240 and still beats it.

>>59219829
>But virtualization support isn't great is it? You can't gpu passthrough
Sincere question: Why not just buy a real workstation if you genuinely need to do proper virtualization and GPU passthrough stuff?

But FWIW, the 7700k supports VT-d.

>>59219829
>You can't gpu passthrough
Kek, forgot about that. Ryzen confirmed DOA.

>>59219824
>>59219245

>>59219836
Did you even read what you just typed?

>>59219857
Yes, I did.
People are not running all those application that would benefit for 8c on their CPU, they are running on their GPUs.
Ryzen only makes sense if you do encoding

>>59219857
I think he means GPU acceleration for stuff like encoding, which makes multithreaded CPUs way less relevant

>>59219878
There's plenty of production related workloads that will benefit from a higher core setup.

>>59219245
Because the people who pre-order are gamers. Easy money.

>>59219826
>expect Apple to dump Intel for the Ryzen, that's huge
source: my ass

>>59219888
And for those you use Xeons, not Ryzen.

The Ryzen is beating the 6950X in database performance by a comfortable margin, that's a bigger deal then you think.

File: 1357764580203.jpg (78KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1280x720px

Still waiting on someone to tell me they plan to buy the 6900k for gaymen.

>>59219351
>Is there a more rabid fanbase than AyyMDfags? Not even Intel or Nvidia shills are on this level.
How can you say that when this fag lord here >>59219351 has been posting the same benchmark cherry picked benchmark in every single ryzen thread? The anti-amd fanboys are definitely going all out in the shill wars.

>>59219878
Exactly which is why double CPU Mobos with Ryzen are going to be amazing, oh wait

>it was all hype for preorders
>all of these salty preorder idiots desperately trying to argue on 4chan until their CPU somehow gets faster
? just return it

>>59219926
At 500 dollars I think many people will disagree with you

>>59219911
They delayed the Mac Pro release to coincide with the Opteron release.

>>59219936
>just return it
that's exactly what I did

>>59219459
A 6900K is losing to a 7700K.

What the fuck do you think?

Holy shit, I didn't realize how stupid people were until this launch.

>>59219956
So one of the most common used work related applications won't benefit from Ryzen extra 4 cores is what you're saying?

>>59219956
A quick google search tells me Photoshop is multithreaded

>>59219953
>They delayed the Mac Pro release to coincide with the Opteron release.
Ah yes, the thing which accounts for a grand total of 0.35% (1/3 of 1%) of their sales

File: ryzen-illustrator.png (179KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 600x450px

>>59219933
It's not cherry picked, there are tons of applications that don't benefit from Ryzen.

In fact the vast majority of them don't, that's the problem.

Isn't it also a thing to consider games have been optimized with intel in mind for a while now and amd has just come out with a cpu giving no devs enough time to optimize for amd additionally?

>>59219157
And a $1100 Intel CPU loses to the same $340 CPU, it's almost like they are meant for different kind of uses.

Poorfa/g/ here, i'm doing just fine an AMD 4670k and a 1050ti, you guys don't really buy top of the line processors just for gaming right? You realize that's a waste of money considering midrange processors will handle any AAA game at 60fps with a good gpu? And that Ryzen dominates in the midrange price/performance category?

>>59220003
I guess that's possible, but what are we supposed to do? Wait around for them to optimize every game?

Even if they somehow make it equal to the 7700k, they still have to make up for a $160 price difference, it's literally impossible.

>>59219971
That is the side effect of having Quadcore i7s for a decade. Software has to catch up.

>>59219972
So let me try to understand your logic.

A 4C8T CPU is single handedly shitting on a 8C16T CPU of a similar architecture in a supposedly fully multithreaded workload?

At this point Intel is Apple. AMD delivered everything people wanted, and they are cherry picking single threaded bullshit to compete with a fucking 16 thread CPU.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-03 at 12.54.17 PM.png (50KB, 614x251px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 614x251px

>tfw this is $100 via eBay
brütal

>>59220020
>Poorfa/g/ here, i'm doing just fine an AMD 4670k and a 1050ti, you guys don't really buy top of the line processors just for gaming right? You realize that's a waste of money considering midrange processors will handle any AAA game at 60fps with a good gpu? And that Ryzen dominates in the midrange price/performance category?
wow you are really stupid and ignorant
firstly the intel pentiums wipe the floor with your mediocre processor
secondly there's no way you're running muh AAA games at 1080/60 with a 750 Ti, maybe on medium settings with lots of dips
pls go

>>59220020
>buy midrange processor
>3 years later you have to upgrade otherwise your GPU will get bottlednecked
>buy highrange processor
>lasts at least 5 years maybe more with OC

>midrange: $250
>highrange: $320
Yes, you're a genius anon, keep it up

>>59220020
>Ryzen dominates in the midrange price/performance category?

It doesn't, in fact it's one of the worst price-performance CPUs you can buy for gaming.

>>59219485
yes imagine this..

7700k is basicly a 4th generation rebrand literally its matured enough on both OS and and game engines..

on the other hand you have ryzen its basicly what the bulldozer should have been times 10
it has quite a lot of new tech that none of them are actually supported yet and its literally 13% to 15% behind intel on gaming..(power and daily usage they are already quite good)

so yeah they will only get better in time the chip itself is quite good the problem lies elsewere

>>59220024
The $150 R3 is the 7700K's competitor, not the 16 thread CPU.

This is like saying a transfer truck is a useless vehicle because a sports car has better acceleration.

>>59219351
I love how they always post only this one, like if people used only Photoshop and nothing else.

>>59219971
yeah

>>59220032
>That is the side effect of having Quadcore i7s for a decade. Software has to catch up.
So you're saying that Adobe, instead of optimizing their software to any of the also exists 6+ intel cpus and get more performance out of a "better" cpu have been sitting on their asses?
sure

File: 130221984383.jpg (17KB, 299x288px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 299x288px

>>59219993
But you just posted the exact same benchmark as >>59219351

>>59220068
>The $150 R3 is the 7700K's competitor

OK....you seriously think the R3 is going to beat the 7700K? That sounds insane to me when the 1800X couldn't even do it.

>>59220100
Price/Perf.

>>59220097
Check your glasses

>>59220078
You JUST showed a benchmark that supports that.

The $1000 Intel CPU is losing for a $300 Intel CPU.

>>59220100
Do you have any idea what single threaded fucking means? Please do BASIC FUNDEMENTAL research before posting here.

>>59220078
What are the Adobe Premiere benchmarks?

File: Premiere.png (62KB, 1305x1434px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1305x1434px

>>59220127

>>59220125
Explain how the R3 can possibly beat a 7700K, makes no sense.

That's like saying an i3 will beat an i7.

File: pepe eyes 2.jpg (40KB, 640x628px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x628px

>>59220068
>false car analogies

>>59220148
I think the R3 will probably be really good price-performance, that's probably what he meant.

>>59220125
>You JUST showed a benchmark that supports that.
No I saw a benchmark that supports the idea that IPC actually is more important for the software than just multicore. You want this to be Adobe being lazy instead of being simply the way the software works and will continue to work.

>>59220127
see >>59220158
IPC matters

>>59220100
the 1800x wasnt meant to even compete with it amd literally said they are targetting 6900k area

it has pretty good gaming peft but thats it the job of 1800x is to be used on a heavy multitasking area...thats why amd was specifically saying about streamers...if you try to stream 1080p and above on a chip like 7700k you will fail and you will probably built a second system to handle the stream alone..on a 1800x and a 6900k you dont have that problem

>>59219299
>AMD themselves explain they are behind Kaby Lake in IPC with adjusted clock speeds
>AMD shills on /g/ still won't admit it
https://youtu.be/TBf0lwikXyU?t=8m20s

>>59220174
No it doesn't, if you are buying Adobe CC like I have, Premiere is the performance benchmark.

Why would I give a fuck if Photoshop is a few microseconds slower on the Ryzen, when the Ryzen is several minutes faster in Premiere?

File: 751685.jpg (8KB, 251x221px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 251x221px

for weeks i've been trying to understand why /g/ is so upset all of a sudden. does all of /g/ seriously play games at 1080p and 120+ fps? or am i just witnessing an influx of whiny kids?

>>59220239
but can you play with adobe premiere? NO so intel is good

#logic on /g/

>>59220239
>few microseconds
lol just like the framerate jitter fiasco.

I... it doesn't matter guize!

>>59220269
It's Intel/Nvidia fanboys.

>>59220148
Less cores in a single threaded workload = Less thermal output, more voltage margins, higher clocks press, lower prices.

Would you say that a Xeon is bad because it can't game?

>>59220239
>Why should I care if one applications is slower and the other is faster
You shouldn't if you use the 2nd one, you should if you use the first one, specially since you paid $180 more for the 1800x

You know that Ryzen doesn't have to be great at everything right? AMD already improved tremendously with Ryzen and it's not a bad product but it's also not a common purpose CPU for everybody at least the R7 isn't

>>59220183

See:
>>59220092

Another Massive Disappointment

>>59220269
of course there is an influx around the time of overhyped poo processor

>>59220287
AMD themselves admit their IPC is lower than Kaby Lake
>>59220226

>>59220239
It's not a few microseconds

Intel is about 25% faster in photoshop

Not only that but Intel costs $160 less

>>59220269
yes 1080 is the new 2k and 720p is the new 4k

but only when amd is good if amd is bad (but its good till 1080p) then 1080p doesnt matter anymore and only 2k and 4k is the norm

>>59220305
>it's Vulkan as well
Jesus Christ, I want to feel bad for AMD but they earned this since they marketed towards gamers so much

>>59220322
Not to a business, the Intel costs way more.

>>59220318
Zen clocks higher

File: streaming-obs.png (129KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59220305
Jesus christ.

Now we know why AMD didn't tell people to test streaming.

It's horrible at streaming too, literally what it was advertised for.

>>59220331
what the fuck are you smoking, nigger?

>>59219827
>guys look at these Cinebench and Blender tests
>advertise it as gaming
lol
This happens because shills here like to overhype things to retard levels, same thing happened with the RX 480.

>>59220269
>>59220331
Are you guys being stupid on purpose?
What is the point of causing GPU bottlenecks while testing a CPU?
Of course if you increase the strain on the GPU you normalize the scores but you're not longer testing a cpu you're benching the entire system

>>59220337
>Not to a business, the Intel costs way more.

?????

>>59220351
>Zen clocks higher
Zen clocks higher than the 7700K?
Are you trolling me?

>>59220381
What Zen Quadcore are you comparing bro? Where is this magical Quadcore!?

1800X vs 6900K is the only fair comparison.

>>59220352
>drops much less frames than the 7700K
Your point? Also, check how many frames the stream itself drops, you will notice that the Ryzen stream is MUCH smoother.

>>59220413
What? I don't see anything about frame drops there.

How could the stream possibly be smoother when the performance is worse.

>>59220360
you do realise that this is what intel also does EVERY SINGLE REVIEW they have they always do a 1080p/2k and 4k

when amd does it its a normalization of the benchmark

when intel does it its ok its intel

>>59220409
>What Zen Quadcore are you comparing bro? Where is this magical Quadcore!?
normal people care about price and performance
few people here are gonna drop 1k on a cpu
we're comparing $300 vs $300

>>59220360
my whole point is that the only people who would be affected by CPU bottlenecks in the first place are the ones playing at 1080p or lower, 144fps or more (competitive shooters). i am merely expressing the fact i am amazed by how many people fall into that camp.

I really do not understand why AMD fans constantly fall for their lies.

Does being poor impair your ability to tell when people are lying?

>>59219183
>being worse than an i5

niggaaaaa

>>59220445
So if the CPU was $800 you would compare it fairly, but since it is so cheap you compare it to something it is not meant for?

Wait for 4C Zen.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 630x384px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 630x384px

>>59219459
does this look multithreaded to you?

>>59220409
the avg OC of the 6900k on air is 4369MHz
I am not aware of zen being that high on air or water.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6900k/

>>59220378
IPC efficiency on the Ryzen is 52% greater. Thus cost of ownership of the CPU is much lower even if it is slightly slower.

The Ryzen is beating Intel in not only efficiency, but time in encoding. There is a several thousand dollar business improvement between the Ryzen, and the Intel, for HPC apps.

File: defend this.jpg (93KB, 1265x499px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1265x499px

can you intel shill defend this?

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAC3J5879107&cm_mmc=SNC-YouTube-_-NeweggInsider-_-HP-_-OmenX

>>59220437
OK that doesn't make any sense, why would intel bottleneck its superior CPU performance? And how is it relevant what intel or AMD do with their own clear biased reviews. We're talking about independent reviews

>>59220449
You are right, it won't matter for most people but we're talking about raw performance not what matters for most people. One could argue that 8c don't matter for most people as well.

>>59220488
>So if the CPU was $800 you would compare it fairly, but since it is so cheap you compare it to something it is not meant for?
It's $300 so I'm comparing it to a $300 CPU. AMD marketed it as a gaming CPU and it's shit for that. It's also kinda mediocre in everything else and doesn't really stand out much. It's Bulldozer 2.0. I expect the R3/R5 to be good if they're in the $150 range, but any more and they'll be shit.

>>59220503
No idea but Google says Photoshop is multithreaded

>>59220515
zen reaches on xfr alone 4.1ghz on air..

it has currently the WR for 8c cpus with 5.8ghz on all core(yesterday)

pretty sure we havent seen anything yet from the chip

>>59220496
>640x480 lowest settings
what the actual fuck?

>>59220488
If it's actually meant for work, shouldn't you be comparing it to a Xeon?

>>59220533
>HP product
go ask them

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-03 at 1.27.41 PM.png (89KB, 804x249px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 804x249px

>>59220533
epic

defend this!!

>>59220566
kek

>>59220554
The 4C Ryzen will be faster and much cheaper than the 7700K.

>>59220533
> prebuilt & HP
Not even a nice Intel can save this combination.

>>59220549
>zen reaches on xfr alone 4.1ghz on air..
@ 1.4v And we've yet to see anybody being able to do a proper benchmark to much higher than that except with LN2.
R7 has a TJmax of 70C and it runs at really high voltages just to achieve its boost clock I don't see how you could possibly OC the CPU in a practical way ie. not with LN2

>>59220540
AMD only compared it's gaming performance to the 6900K. They never said it would be a Quadcore in single threaded apps. You are changing the rules.

>>59220554
Yes, a similarly priced Xeon.

>>59220549
>5% shittier IPC
>can't even reach parity in clock speed with stock clocks of 7700K
literally who gives a fuck, Ryzen is DOA, just accept it.

>>59220583
>The 4C Ryzen will be faster and much cheaper than the 7700K.
see >>59220226
simply not possible

>>59220588
>AMD only compared it's gaming performance to the 6900K. They never said it would be a Quadcore in single threaded apps. You are changing the rules.

>hm yes let me just make up some bullshit that will require you to either put in some time collecting examples to rebut
>oh you won't do that? I guess I win
k whatever enjoy your shitty processor I don't care lol

retard

>>59220536
its about the irony that they totally forgets when intel does it but they move the earth around when amd wants the reviewers to do this also..

also no the only one that came out in such a way accusing amd about that was gamernexus sites that are traditional intel puppies didnt said anything not even guru3d not even jewztwopesos (which he actually did a pretty decent tech talk..you know being jewz and all)

>>59220587
>>59220549
do a proper OC I meant

>>59220587
we already know its not reading the voltage correctly they will release a newer version to show the proper load of the dldo's

also no whoever thinks that they need ln2 from 4.1 to 5.8 we saw is delusional as hell LOL

>>59220615
I don't even doubt that intel has asked reviewers to do similar stuff but you have to source your claim.

>also no the only one that came out in such a way accusing amd about that was gamernexus sites
not true unless JayZTwoCents is part of GamerNexus

>>59220589
being 8c cpu
random genius on /g/ compares it with a 4c
tries to shill totally forgetting that we live on a world dictated by the laws of physics

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-03 at 1.33.59 PM.png (47KB, 569x224px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 569x224px

>>59220588
>Yes, a similarly priced Xeon.
what about one which is 1/6th the price, allowing you to buy two?
>that doesn't count because-
it's similar with newer chips too btw
>t-t-t-t-t-that doesn't count b-b-b-because...

>>59220589
Can a 6900K, the processor with which Ryzen is supposed to compete and costs $1000, reach parity in clock speeds with a 7700K? It's almost as if processors with fewer cores clock higher.

>>59220653
>performs worse
>not much better in multithreaded
>same price
>same price
>same price
>same price


>muh laws of physics are the issue
k

>>59220639
>the evidence is not on my side but anybody who doubts me is delusional
Ok then

>>59220650
do i need to source my claims? find a 7700k review that didnt do a 2k and 4k test

pro tip you wont

>>59220654
>t-t-t-t-b-b-b-b-b

>>59220654
>an engineering sample from Ebay
Fuck off

>>59220664

>>59219468

yeap its -13% on average behind while clocked 1.2ghz below

its +5 to +7% above on mins while clocked 1.2ghz below

its a 8c and has 0.9% more power consumption of a 4c
it shits on regular basis programs

The Zen is targeted at Apple, not games, it is beating Intel in every benchmark Apple cares about.

Linux Benchmarks

https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-linux-benchmarks/

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=4

>be me
>i5 6600k
>water cooled
>haven't even oc'ed it yet

kek, i'm good for another 8 years

>>59220715
Intel is fucked. The Zen may be shit in games, but in business it is fucking Intel hard. It takes Intel almost 3 watts of power for every 1 watt of AMD's.

>>59220566
okay
>ebay

/thread

>>59219331
>they are for gaming
>they are worse for gaming, but who cares about that

Gold medal for you in Mental Gymnastics my dude

File: 1419250585800.png (582KB, 650x676px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 650x676px

>still using OC 2600k
>two 1080ti on the way

You will never know this glorious feeling.

>>59220837
There is no gymnastics, I game in 4k, where the Ryzen is equal.

>>59219157
Supposedly the EFI/BIOS are shitting up accross the field with motherboard manufacturers. So I'll give it a month or two and the 1800X will be raping the 6950X like the RX480 does to the GTX1060 now.

File: 9oVGc83.png (64KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 960x540px

>>59220796
oh no its much more than that..look how efficient it operates..this is what it can do imagine the cut down naples chips..

>>59220908
the gigabytes ones have no issues what so ever (at least those that took a gigabyte has a +10+20% increase compared to asus and msi )joker was one of them

File: ryzendemo.webm (275KB, 864x622px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 864x622px

>>59220926
>Cinebench

File: ryzen-games-lol.png (1MB, 1896x899px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1896x899px

>>59220709
>The Zen is targeted at Apple, not games

>>59221014
Why don't you go and do drugs as your dad?

>>59221064
Apple hasn't made its announcement yet, AMD can't market it yet as the Apple CPU.

>>59219174

Month.

This is what matters:
Games : GPU
Apps : Storage + CPU
encoding : CPU
Business : Performance per watt

>>59221170
>Games : GPU
as you can probably tell from the general mood of this thread and countless others, this is not the case. you see, today's gamer runs their games at 1024x768 and lowest graphical settings in order to utilise the CPU's full power in spitting out 600 frames per second for that competitive edge. these are the people who thought Zen would be better at running their manchild hobby than Intel.

File: cpu-games.png (46KB, 616x533px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 616x533px

>>59221170
>>59221438
Games are obviously affected by the CPU, to say they aren't is lunacy

>>59221535
they do not effect them on higher res so much as on 480p 720p you know the best resolutions of /g/ for 2 days now

because they have a 5000 euros pc only to stress their cpu on awesome resolutions like this

honestly 70% of the peeps that talk here they need to get RMA'd

>>59221535
>1080p
>100+ frames
thanks for proving my point

>>59221576
Look at the charts posted in this thread, they are all 1080p and above

Hell look at this 1440p one >>59219800

>>59221594
Look at the chart again, notice how most are not 100 frames

That is just the average too, it's even worse, they dip down below 60 all the time

Not only that they can't even power 144hz

>>59221535
If you spent $1200 on a titan X to run at 1080p, JUST...

>>59221645
Even a Titan X with a 6700K is going to dip below 60 fps on some games at 1080p

>>59221619
you do realise that we cant take any gaming bench atm seriously eh everyone reported numbers all over the place

asus mobo=till 30% down
msi =you could see the hell
gigabyte +20% above asus

there is literally so much going on that posting A SINGLE bench isnt really helping

>>59221697
There are tons of benches, they all show the same thing

>>59221713
nope they dont someone on reddit made a list with 57 reviews.. very few actually came CLOSE to have the same numbers..
some of them had done benches weeks ago without bioses and stuff
some did with new bios updates bla bla

WE NEED R5 STAT

>>59221744
Every one I have seen shows the same thing

>>59221642
it shows an i5 running GTA 5 at Ultra settings running at an average of 70 frames. any dips below 60 would be minor. i don't see the issue here.

>>59221755
yeap sure whatever you say

>>59219157
>giving a shit about CPU/APU driven gaming performance

I also enjoy using arbitrarily silly metrics to help me make decisions. Why, just the other day I was on the fence about purchasing a new vehicle until the salesman informed me of the vehicles massive 3:1 cupholder per door handle ratio. Even more impressive was its industry leading 1428:1 nuts-per-driver side performance.

But seriously, you guys should go say words like "volumetric efficiency" on /o/. You'll get a kick out of it.

>>59221744
post the reddit thread :)

>>59221766
/o/ is boring, clearly Tesla makes the best car on the market. Gearheads are dinosaurs.

>>59221795
t. lithium-ion cuck

>>59221768
you know i cant even fucking find it anymore there

its a fucking clusterfuck give me some mins lol

>>59221766
Yeah because CPUs don't affect games at all...

>>59219740
>posting pre release "leak" as real benchmark

>>59221795
/o/ isn't any better or worse than any other board, but you do occasionally get some fucking gold like blinker fluid threads.

Also, Tesla's are neat. I'd like to see a world where there's mostly if not entirely electric cars. I think regulation on the remaining gas-powered vehicles would be reduced, and it would still exist as a hobbyist thing.

>>59221882
I never said they didn't, I questioned why a person would care. Arguing that you have to have the most optimal CPU possible is like arguing that anything less than the best GPU available at the time is a dumb decision. It's just the vapid banter of manchildren measuring digital dicks.

You get what works for your purpose and budget. The Ryzen CPU's are a good thing, even if they aren't the most bestest l33t 4@Xr5 products available.

>>59221995
>/o/ isn't any better or worse than any other board
You weren't there when Alphonse flooded the entire board with gay furry porn every night, were you?

>>59221995
>You get what works for your purpose and budget.

I agree, the problem is Ryzen is horrible price-performance, bad for any budget.

File: ryzen1.png (26KB, 700x710px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 700x710px

>>59219800
seems to do better in other titles

File: ryzen2.png (26KB, 745x712px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 745x712px

>>59219800

>>59222123
>Literally the same performance
>Still wonders why people don't want to use 1440p/4K to benchmark CPUs

You're what one could describe as clinically retarded. Also check those benchmarks back in 2 years when you get something like 1280 GTX or whatever we gonna have.

>>59222144
? What's so bad about having the same performance? The point of ryzen is to show that amd is back in the CPU game which these bench marks prove. The only reason i'm even posting these 1440p benchmarks is because, once again, why the hell would anyone spend 300+ on a cpu only to pair it with a gpu that can only play at 1080p? That's stupid. In that case you're better off just buying an i5 or i3 which will give you more than enough performance for 1080p

>>59222123
That's called a GPU bottleneck, that's why you need to test at lower res. This isn't even testing the CPU.

>>59222134
Another GPU bottleneck, basically useless as a benchmark

Ryzen's IPC seems around Haswell/Broadwell.

I've noticed that during gaming, an 8 core Intel processor would have high usage in 4 cores, whereas the Ryzen 8 core seems to spread its usage among all cores.

>>59222260
>In that case you're better off just buying an i5 or i3 which will give you more than enough performance for 1080p

That's just wrong though. Plenty of games will dip below 60 at 1080p and it's not even close to adequate for 144hz.

>>59222318
>Ryzen's IPC seems around Haswell/Broadwell.

That's really bad

>>59219157
>what the fuck was AMD thinking?
they developed a CPU optimized for workloads that most of their customers use.

gaymers are a tiny part of the market nobody gives a shit about them.

>>59223190
>they developed a CPU optimized for workloads that most of their customers use.

That's weird, I didn't know AMD's only customers are professional video editors

>>59223190
And yet they specifically marketed Ryzen for gaymers.

>>59223119
skylake is barely faster

>>59223242
Kaby Lake is 7% faster and hits 12% higher clocks.
Skylake isn't much lower and still hits much higher clocks than Ryzen.

>>59223266
im talking strictly haswell/broadwell vs skylake. we all know ryzen overclocks like absolute shit.

>>59223211
>professional video editors
nobody gives a shit about those either.

the largest customers are OEMs that manufacture laptops and/or servers.

>>59223293
And AMD has no Zen-based products for either of those applications.
They're done for.

>>59223329
>And AMD has no Zen-based products for either of those applications.
>They're done for.

This. AMD basically created a product that isn't good at anything.

>>59223266
Kaby Lake is literally a rebrand of Skylake sold at slightly higher clock speeds.

>>59223190
>gaymers are a tiny part of the market

u wot? gaming is the biggest part of the desktop market in terms of annual revenue. companies like nvidia and intel make a fucking killing off these e-sports sponsorships and also other companies like razer.

the two biggest markets in desktops are MS office machines for the low end like schools and shit, and then the gaming market. other than that the workstation market is also big buy amd have no chance in hell of overtaking intel there.

>>59223435
And thanks to its higher clock speeds it beats Ryzen by 20% on average.

AMD meanwhile tried to go for raw clock speed with Faildozer but got burned, so it looks like they gave up on clocks altogether since Ryzen's overclocking potential is embarassingly shit, especially compared to Skylake/Kaby Lake.

File: 1488408198311.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

BUT IT WAS AMDS TURN

Right now it seems motherboards are causing a lot of discrepancies in performance.

Perhaps these issues will get ironed out by the time R5 come out and R7 will need to be rebenched?

>7700K is 10-15% faster in games
>1700 is 50-60% faster in professional applications.

HERP DERP AMD SUCKS

I'd rather play my games at 100fps than 115 and have 50% more performance everywhere else.

>>59223973
This. I do video work, and can't wait for a dual opteron setup.

>>59223217
not true.

>>59219157
wait for the driver updates amd has finewine technology.

>>59223973
>1700 is 50-60% faster in professional applications.

Except that's not even true see >>59219351

File: ryzen-dota.png (289KB, 583x453px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 583x453px

>>59224175
They are literally sponsoring Dota players. Which is hilarious considering how bad Ryzen performs in Dota.

>>59223449
Check the Steam user stats. Desktop PC gaming and PC gaming in general are huge markets yes, but by and large they aren't buying 8 core $600 workstation CPUs.

>advertised against 6900k
>Somehow someone got triggered and decide to benchmark with 7700k
>Lost on games benchmark
>1700 is bad bad bad

>>59219157
So an eight core CPU is beaten out by a four core one (that it kicks the shit out of in basically every other workload) by a measly 10% when there is clearly something wrong with the software (see the SMT thing) and AMD's FINISHED AND BANKRUPT? I don't buy it.

Hell, the 7700K also beats vastly more expensive Intel chips like the 6950X, is Intel also FINISHED AND BANKRUPT?

>>59219295
Workstation chips without ECC support.
Uh, no. Try harder.

File: iktfb.jpg (19KB, 620x576px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 620x576px

>>59220841
>3930k here dodged ryzen bullet
>getting second 1080ti instead

>>59225525
Intel has both a workstation CPU and a mainstream CPU

AMD only has a workstation CPU, but they marketed it as a mainstream CPU

That's the problem, Ryzen fails in 99% of scenarios

>>59225680
I went from a 3930k to a 6700k as i no longer needed it as i wasn't loading it with multi threaded workloads anymore. I ran both at 4.5ghz with a GTX 1080 and i gained significant FPS in games with the 6700k. I think you'll see quite a bit of a bottleneck with 2 1080tis and a 3930k.

>>59219829
>can't gpu passthrough
Wait... Not only ECC support was dropped, but this too?

File: jp5M8nw.jpg (50KB, 722x349px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 722x349px

>>59220841
>>59220841
I wanted to support AYYYMD, but after telling people to turn off intel features so ryzen would be on par. Im going to put my 8350 back in storage and retrieve my 2500k.

>>59225810
3440x1440 is the resolution i game on btw

>>59225656
>w/o ECC support
objectively false

>>59225865
Point me to one Ryzen motherboard where ECC works.

>>59225927
Point me to one Ryzen chip that doesn't have ECC support
Its not AMD's fault that motherboard makers are cheapasses

Muh muh gaming!!! Ryzen SHIT because GAMING BAD!!!!!!

>>59225927
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def58sv/?st=izujfuvh&sh=9731db2d

File: Uw3drkC.jpg (102KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x1024px

>>59225810
I'm waiting on skylake-x or a great deal on kabylake before I move from this 3930k. How much of an FPS gain did you get in 3440x1440?

I'm on a 1440p 144hz which I know will be CPU bottlenecked by the 1080tis, but my other thing is hooking it up to a 4K 60hz TV and my hope is that the 3930k will be adequate for that until I upgrade.

>>59219157
It's okay, it caused intel price drops and maybe Skylake-E will be godly

>>59226094
>Intel
>Price drop
laughingloli.png

>>59219218
>Lower clock speed (more head room)
>Far lower TDP
>Far better performance in workstation applications
B-but muh 5fps. Fucking man children.

>>59219351
>300ms difference
Does it even matter at that point? Why even use that test to benchmark?

>>59226284
I know I pointed that out above, the Ryzen is ms slower in apps, yet minutes faster in encoding. Yet it is being slammed, I don't fucken get it.

What's the best Ryzen motherboard so far?

>>59226284
That's 20% faster, it's huge if you use Photoshop for work

>>59219157
>Serious question, what the fuck was Intel thinking?
>Did they release this knowing full well how bad it was?
>Their best CPU is $1700 and loses to a $340 Intel CPU.

>>59227388
lol

File: IntelReleaseStratagy.jpg (26KB, 500x386px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x386px

Man, glad I didn't wait, and got a 7700k when monoprice had them for $300, but I was really hoping amd would force intel to actually make improvements.

>>59226054
from memory in gta v i got around 7-10FPS
which is significant as the game only was running at about 70-80fps with the settings i was using on the 6700k

i remember buying an AMD setup from a coworker like 2-3 years ago.
He didnt want to sell his 780ti to me by itself, so i said fuck it and bought the whole pc and figured that i would sell my whole older pc faster complete.
Setup was a 9590 @ 5.0ghz with a h105 cooling it and some board i dont remember, all in a H440 case that was red and black.
I still had both computers, deicided to use the 780ti in both to see differences in scores on various benchmarks.
So i tested my old setup with the card and the AMD one with the card.
Old setup was a i5 2500k with a 212 evo cooling it, no overclock when tested.
The i5 setup ended up beating the 9590 by a small margin in mosts tests, i was pissed.
Then i tested the i5 with a small OC @ 4.4ghz
It ran circles around the 9590 beating it by around 800 points in Firestrike.
So i put the 780ti in my i5 setup, put my 2 760s in the AMD pc and sold it.
It will take a fuckton of proof before i buy from them. At the time the 9590 was the best amd around and it got fuckin beat by a stock i5.
Also it coulnt overclock for shit, not even to 5.1ghz.

>>59227643
Lol nothing changes

>>59219299
>shilling YouTube videos

File: 1475614014173.gif (983KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 500x364px

>>59225820
>Trusting JayZ
even if that were true, which all we have is some shills word on the matter whose probably just doing it to drum up views
>2/21/17
>Intel is contacting tech media, sending a 'call us before you write' email to Ryzen reviewers


WOW, ITS ALMOST LIKE YOU LOOK THE OTHER WAY WHEN INTEL DOES IT?

>>59228222
That's fake news though, literally never happened, just like the so-called "Intel pricedrop" never happened

AMD is the one scamming the shit out of people now sadly

Where the fuck can I buy an ASRock x370 taichi?

>>59225350
You can cherry pick benchmarks all you want intel shill.

>>59227388
Yep, a whole 5 minutes saved every year.

File: 1475296342833.jpg (152KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 800x800px

>>59228234
>That's fake news
>doesn't cite the news listing that other news as fake news

Bought a 7600k upgrade from the FX6300 and thought I fucked up-till I realized that I saved 150 + bucks getting a combo deal and better/more ram. feels good. I'm super hype for Ryzen5 though, and I would have waited but I'm impatient, and after 5 years of waiting I'm ready to just get stable frames in everything.

>>59228460
hey me too

>>59219157
>buying a CPU with a shitton of cores
>being upset that it doesn't top the chart in applications that don't properly use all the cores

I have a question

AMD launch CPU( r7 1800X) to compete with Intels Broadwell CPUs 8cores/16threads ( i7 6900K ,i7 6950X)
>Intel price
$1000+ freedom dollars
>AMD price
$500ish freedom dollars

>AMD performance on par with intel
+/- 5-10% on most bench marks

Isn't that a win?


If we are comparing it to the 7700k then the 6900k is also shit

I remember the demo they showed being Game+ streaming

>>59220071
doesn't even matter because how often do you run a single program anymore?

>>59228693
Problem is it's really bad at streaming too and basically anything that isn't encoding/rendering

Streaming benchmark >>59220352

>>59219183
if you wont game you can just buy celeron

File: 1423097016927.jpg (51KB, 480x410px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x410px

>>59228745
>mfw the 7700K does better than every other chip

File: cucked.png (42KB, 994x399px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 994x399px

>>59220545
Yeah, and? Google says a lot of things.

>>59226368
it's 4chan being it's usual contrarian self

the Ryzen was hyped too much so now everyone has to hate AMD out of principle

>>59228822
Kek, how can they keep calling national socialists fascists then?

>>59228878

Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't very democratic.

Nor is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

So I don't think they're too worried about literal Nazis appearing too right wing.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/6

did he apologize?

>>59228922
>Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't very democratic.
Dictatorships tend to not follow a democratic process.

>Nor is the Democratic Republic of Congo.
From what I can tell it's not bad, at least compared to NK

>Nazis
>suddenly right wing.
This is an everchanging meme

>>59229002
Nazis were always considered right wing. Hence why they opposed communism in Germany and Hitler loathed Stalin.
They are epitome of the far right.

all these amdrones damage controlling but stock plummeting says it all

>>59219218
These are gaming benchmarks.
In proper multithreaded workloads these chips perform extremely well.
Stop trying to convince people their screwdriver sucks because it makes a shitty hammer when all you give a shit about is hammers.

File: 1475811570997.jpg (51KB, 552x805px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 552x805px

>>59229056
>Nazis were always considered right wing.
Except Hitler was a socialist.

>>59219468
The fact it does really well in Linux but not Windows is rather telling. They must not have the appropriate kernel patches in NT yet to take advantage of the specific Zen features.

>>59219227
>The 1500$ intel cpu loses to its 350$ alternative aswell
Why is Intel so shit?

>>59229143
yes. does not stop making it right.

Right in politics is defined as pro-strong government rule, nationalistic views so oppositions to other groups in the country (even if they are citizens)
the socialism in his view is "for the people" and does not define the majority of ideas implemented by Nazi party nor their statements.

but the whole concept is more nuance than simple left/right.

>>59228693
It's fucking fantastic. People are just latching on to the gaming benchmarks.

File: 1476169373772.jpg (131KB, 760x959px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 760x959px

>>59229242
>but the whole concept is more nuance than simple left/right.
Agreed,
but to say that Fascism is specifically Right-Wing is ridiculous.

>>59229164
As I said above it couldn't be more obvious AMD is targeting Apple with these chips.

When do the opterons come out? The arch seems more suited to high core counts. If they can get a 12 or 16 core to run at 3.4ghz for $1000 it's not something intel can compete with at the moment.

>>59229334
I guess you never heard about the E5-2699Av4 or the E5-2679v4...

>>59219693
The consumer chips get shit on by used /es/qs xeons. Opertons will be interesting.

>>59219157
at least they're better than overclocked sandy bridge now

>>59229475
7700k is barely better than sandy bridge now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0&t=10s

same fps, but sandy and ivy drop frames
and kaby compared to ryzen drops frames

my argument about ryzen longevity comes from historical 8 year old xeons evidence that are good for gaming now, and can't bottleneck GPU even if you really really try because for all driver problems they are programmed good

not to mention less power draw, am4 until 2020, virtually same performance as 7700K in realistic(not 20 years in there future) scenario of 1440p, already 17-22% performance increase just by BIOS update
If you do not try to dig deeper, basic reviews do not tell you shit(looking at you GN even two videos didn't answer my questions)

>>59229467
Yeah, but Apple already re-branded the FirePro to their own shit, I see them doing that with the Opterons too, with their entire line. For Apple it's great, they get to sell this chip at twice the price, and it's only good on their software.

>>59219157
>Did they release this knowing full well how bad it was?

Yes they are admitting that even in a perfect setup it's 7% per clock cycle slower than Sandy Lake and they also have a clock speed disadvantage, ignoring the fact the 7600 and 7700 both overckock better than AMD think the Ryzen will. It's why they have been trying to get benchmarks GPU limited.