So Ryzen is fucking awesome after all?

>that's not even overclocked
A 4.5 GHz R5 is going to destroy intel

>>59221305
I'm going to buy one of those but come on, it ain't gonna OC to 4.5. It's gonna go to 4.2 like the 1800X did

It's inconsistent as fuck, like most AMD launches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ
>new results from same reviewer
>retard was GPU bottlenecked in old results
>ryzen btfo

>>59221293
They're very similar but Ryzen's load is way lower than Intel's, that's mean Intel chips are already working at maximum capacity.

>>59221378
that's pretty shit

seems like a very bad launch, but looking at the figures, ryzen is clearly way ahead

>>59221330
I don't understand this argument. On the one hand people are saying Ryzen is shit because it sucks at 720 and 1080. On the other hand it performs well and actually competes with Intel, when relying on the GPU. Wouldn't this be considered an advantage?

>>59221330
The fact that they're not CPU bottlenecked is good either way you look at it, faglet.

>>59221439
In computing one component that's utilized 100% means everything else in the system ends up waiting on that component, so they dont get stressed and it doesn't measure how they perform under stress. That's my best eli5

>>59221293
so you really created a thread to say that an 8 core processor beats a 4 core processor in multi threaded usage. christ you're a fucking genius aren't you.

>>59221330
okay, I see more drops on 7700 side
but average is almost the same
why are you so hype anon, nothing changed

>>59221485
They in the same price bracket, that is why they are being compared.

>>59221485
it's on par with it in single threaded gaming applications too....genius.....

>>59221439
Different upgrade cycles, basically. If there are many software issues as some people have speculated then there is a chance that down the line more capability will be unlocked down the line. But as it stands you'll end up with a CPU bottleneck with Ryzen before you'd end up with one from Kaby Lake, but exclusively in games. It's still competitive with processing workloads against the 6900k for half the price.

>>59221439
In an ideal setup you have 1:1 scaling. 1440p/4k games are currently GPU bottlenecked, which means your scaling is gonna look like 1:4 CPU/GPU.

So when GPUs finally catch up to 4K scaling, and that ratio gets closer to 1:1, you will see the 7700k race ahead of the 1700/1800x in high resolutions.

>>59221547
it's not though is it, when it's overclocked to it max still behind the 4.9 - 5.1 7700k max. most benchmarks have it behind.

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59221293
No it's really quite horrible

>>59221546
same price bracket different use case. you're comparing a golf ball to a baseball because they both cost the same.

>>59221554
>but exclusively in games.
But, I thought there have been numerous reviews in which Ryzen did well in many games, even shitty un-optimized ones. This is all very confusing.

>>59221581
>still getting 100fps
and you can't go over 105 fps in Fallout 4 before the shitty engine starts shitting itself.

>>>59221293 (OP)
>No it's really quite horrible
Depends how much cores game uses.
they just wrote gayming didn't even wrote which game.
fake news.
also it's cheaper

>>59221574
Oh, I see. Thanks, this seems to make sense.

>>59221439
>it performs really well when you're not using it

if it's not under load and you're relying on gpu then you're not testing the processor a better test would be removing the gpu all together.

>but my ryzen doesn't have igpu.

>>59221632
quoted wrong person
>>59221581

File: maxresdefault.jpg (42KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1280x720px

>>59221653
np mate.

>>59221439
Advantage or not, GPU bottleneck invalidates benchmarks.

>>59221632
>also it's cheaper

No it's way more expensive

A $340 Intel processor is beating the top of the line $500 Ryzen

>>59221736
buy 1700
overclock to 1800x
save money not having to buy intels jewish overpriced motherboards

>>59221330
>turns out the 1700 still performs pretty closely to the 7700k at 720p
You have an interesting definition of 'btfo'.

>>59221802
Even if you do that it still loses, 1700 is $330

>>59221841
intels motherboards cost more

>>59221826
It's pretty bad considering the 7700k still leads in GTA V, which does take advantage of 8c/16t.

So ryzen's 8c/16t in FULLY optimized games are still slower than i7 4c/8t. See performance in Tomb Raider and Sniper Elite which aren't 8c/16t optimized and the 7700k has a 40% to 100% boost in fps.

File: Screenshot_2017-03-03-11-59-59.png (278KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 2560x1440px

>>59221439
720p isn't a reliable benchmark so I have no idea why it's used so much. Scaling back rez is far from a 1:1 ipc cpu test as different architectures behave differently at different rez. 1080p is most common resolution and a good benchmark. higher rez's are good if gpu isn't limiting factor. majority of game benchmarks don't do justice to ryzen so this is all trivial right now. there will quickly be a round of patches pushed through windows and bios that rectify many issues, some already have begun. common sense dictates ryzen will be in the ballpark of 90% ipc compared to kaby lake. i believe computerbase benchmarks indicate this. you can see computerbase with update bench and 1800x within a few percent of 7700k on average at 1080p.

File: WHENWILLTHEYLEARN2.jpg (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>59221293
>AMDlet is still triggered by reviewers shitting on Ryzen's gaming performance so he keeps posting the same single benchmark posted by some Mexican /v/ermin that has no idea wtf he is doing.

Cute.

File: frametimes-cf-2560[1].png (280KB, 2860x1322px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 2860x1322px

Does anyone do frametimes comparing the CPUs?

>>59221937
You know the 7700K is overclocked to 5ghz there right.

>>59221574
But that makes the assumption that games five years from now when GPUs are commonly able to push >100 fps comfy on max settings will still be single threaded perfomrance limited.

>>59221984
A few did, and they clearly showed the core parking issue that's fixed with the BIOS update. To my knowledge none have been done on an updated board.

>>59221873
OK let's say Intel motherboards cost $50 more

i5-7600K is $240

Ryzen 1700 is $330

You still lose $40 buying Ryzen and you get even worse performance.

File: srslyguys.jpg (38KB, 640x456px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x456px

>>59221439
>When you eventually have a 1280 ti from nvidia in 3 years these cherry picked 480p benchmarks will matter
>When games use better API's in the future that can use more threads, the extra cores won't matter

ITT:

>people shit on AMD because it isn't top of the line
>comparing mid tier to top of the line

Well of course it's going to be shit in such a comparison you fucking retards. When compared to Intels mid range it does compete - albeit a mixed bag. This is what anyone with realistic expectations should expect. I for one am content with this, and will happily build my next rig using a Ryzen (because fuck Intel and fuck their scalping).

>>59222114
>When compared to Intels mid range it does compete

No it doesn't, see >>59222094

>>59222057
And the 1700 is overclocked too (3.9 GHZ). So what's your point? The big takeaway is that in games FULLY OPTIMIZED for 8c/16t, 1700/1800x is still losing to the 7700k.

File: Screenshot_2017-03-03-12-15-56.png (317KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 2560x1440px

>>59221940
and furthermore a 1700 is right up there with 1800x at 1080p so it becomes clear 1700 at $300 is a clear winner. pic related is against a much more expensive part. as seen in previous post an 1800x is within a few percent of 7700k at 1080p.

>>59222094
why not get the 7700k :^)

>>59222131
Because most 7700Ks won't hit 5ghz, most cap out at 4.8ghz. the 1700 he has is low, others are getting it to 4.1ghz

>>59222057
>g-gimp your cpu because amd can't catch up
Really makes you think

>>59222136
Well you could and absolutely destroy the 1700

But you might spend more money if Intel motherboards cost more

>>59222102
what smoother frametime line tells us?
that CPU can't handle a GPU driver?
or that CPU can't handle part of game code?

my bet that GPU driver calls are multi threaded already it can handle driver better but gets stuck on game code a bit which will be fixed/adapted in newer games anyway
meaning it has higher longevity than 7700K which has much bigger frame time jumps and would bottleneck new GPU faster

explain to me why i'm wrong

>>59221630
Here we go. What's next? We don't need more than 60fps? The human eye can't see more than 15fps? AMD apologists should be dragged out and shot with their shit-eating consolecasual brethren.

>>59221330
And we're not looking at a CPU bottleneck in this video either. The CPU usage on a per core basis isn't 100% in most cases, yet the GPU isn't being pegged at all. So what we're seeing is how well these games are actually coded. Because even in most cases the 7700k isn't seeing max usage. It paints a kinda fucked up picture of game benchmarks when it comes to CPUs, if both systems were pegged at 100% on the proper cores (4 cores if the game is coded for it) it'd make sense. But neither CPU is really being stressed even at the single core level in most of these benchmarks.

It just kinda backs the idea that most PC games are just unoptimized piles of shit.

File: Screenshot_2017-03-03-12-18-16.png (288KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 2560x1440px

>>59222135
and before anyone spouts "gpu is limiting it!!111!!!1!" here is 720p, again, within a few percent of 7700k, keeping in mind lower rez =/= 1:1 ipc performance as there are other architectural considerations.

>>59221330
Who the fuck plays games at 720p????????????
If you're rich enough to afford a 7700K or Ryzen 1700 I think you can also afford a fucking monitor that is higher res than 1080p.

File: 1470044249134.webm (3MB, 224x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 224x400px

>>59222149
>others are getting it to 4.1ghz
"No!"

>>59222176
Are you retarded? Frame times look literally the same for both Ryzen and last 3 intel's gens. There is literally no difference.

>>59222191
That's actually a CPU bottleneck. Games don't tax 100% of the CPU resources.

>>59222216
most reviewers commented that in spite of a lower fps, ryzen plays smoother

>>59222222
Then why did some games see 99-100% usage and others didn't?

File: 1452540646421.jpg (34KB, 620x483px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x483px

>>59222195
>6900k has lower clocks and only 2-3% higher IPC than Ryzen
>outperforms Ryzen by 20%

>>59221937
>FULLY optimized

fully optimized to deal with the various fine grain locks and critical sessions that are probably a-plenty in the code base?

i highly doubt the game is 100% linear scalable, corewise.

>>59222250
If your CPU is REALLY SHIT and the game is properly threaded it can sometimes utilize all resources. This only happens with weak CPUs though.

>>59222195
German friend, can you summarize the *updated* part of the article?

Ryzen proves what society is a bunch of spoiled white kids that think its all about them and getting what they want NOW..ryzen will get better over time. So return it if your so angry about not getting 300 fps+ in stupid ass games. I will be happy with mine and enjoy it.

>>59222094
>>59222127
No... just no

http://cpubenchmark.net/compare-test.php?cmp[]=2970&cmp[]=1190
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/23

Every benchmark so far has been mixed. Yeah Intel has stuff that blows Ryzen out, but it competes fairly well for the price point AMD offers, which is what they are aiming for.

People who want top of the line performance with no expense spared will ALWAYS go with Intel, but for those of us who like to keep a smaller budget AMD is worth looking at. For now.

>>59222265
I should add that *weak CPU with high single core performance.
Because normally a game is bottlenecked by either the render thread or GPU. If your render thread isn't bottlenecked the CPU might bottleneck on all cores. Which isn't a good thing, because it can result in stutter.

golem.de is the first that has redone the benches with the new bios on a msi
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.golem.de/news/ryzen-7-1800x-im-test-amd-ist-endlich-zurueck-1703-125996-4.html&prev=search

he saw increase from +17 to +22%...

>>59222265
So you're telling me the 7700k is shit and weak because it was seeing 90%+ on all core/thread usage in the Division and Tomb Raider while the 1700 was seeing about 50-60% per core? Sure, I can totally see the 7700k being weak and underpowered man.

>>59221581
>No it's really quite horrible
>7fps difference

Shut the fuck up.

can someone link to benchmark with updated bios?

>>59222295
Sorry, wrong CPU Benchmark link. Here is the correct one.

http://cpubenchmark.net/compare-test.php?cmp[]=2970&cmp[]=2919

>>59222373
no that is showing that its a ubisoft game it was stuttering on both sides while having 50%+ utilisation and that shouldnt have happened

>>59222382
I keep having to repeat this, but look at the prices.

A fucking $240 Intel 7600K is beating a $500 Ryzen 1800X

>>59222203
Both are on water mate.

>>59222263
Yea yea all the ryzen bugs haven't been worked out yet, but GTA V does take advantage of more than 4c/8t, and you see it stressing all the 1700's cores.

It's doubtful any game will reach 100% linear scalability with 8c/16t, which should just give you more doubt about the future "performance" gains of the 1700/1800x.

GTA V, CIV VI, Ashes of singularity are about as optimized as you're gonna get for 8c/16t atm. And if future games scale similarly, that means 7700k>1700/1800x and 6900k/6950x >>>1700/1800x for games.

>>59221330
why not go 360p retard?

>>59222295
No it doesn't. Look at the real world performance benchmarks, Ryzen is a very bad value.

>>59221293
So what exactly is stopping Intel from just bribing AAA developers to not "optimize" for Ryzen and then just paying a few billion dollars down the road in fines business as usual?

>People comparing the price of Ryzen to various Intel chips
>For some reason barely anyone even the cost of motherboards
Hmm...

>>59222254
SSE, welcome to ICC

>>59222407
>A fucking $240 Intel 7600K is beating a $500 Ryzen 1800X

Now put that 7600k up against Ryzen in a heavily multithreaded test and not a fucking childs game. Oh look, Ryzen fucking destroys it.

>>59222414
the fuck did you saw gtav stressing it?

the division stressed them rotr did gtav was having even 0% utilization at some points..

>>59222414
you have no clue what you're talking about.

this is not ryzen bugs. this is facts about core scaling.

that "utilization" may be due to their use of spinlocks instead of relying on signal vectoring to handle thread sleep/waking.

File: Screenshot_2017-03-03-13-34-07.png (584KB, 1200x1920px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1200x1920px

>>59221293
>"Destroys"

Considering during a worst case task a 7700k falls behind a 6950x by 21% in premiere

Then youd have to be a fool for sacrifing overall performance for shaving a few minutes off export.

>>59222427
Nothing

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

112KB, 722x554px

>>59222437
Yes if you do video encoding & ray tracing all day, Ryzen is the better choice.

If you do literally anything else, do not get Ryzen.

>>59222406
>Tomb Raider
>Ubisoft

Try again. And a lack of CPU utilisation just shows poorly how poorly coded some of the games were.

>>59222373
Yea the 7700K only has 4 cores. It's pretty shit.
It has high single core perf, so it won't bottleneck the render thread at high frame rates but it's too weak to render rest of the game because it only has 4 cores.

It's not really an issue, though. Most of the time you're bottlenecked by graphics card long before you are bottlenecked by either render thread or full cores.
Unless you're literally playing games at 720p in which case you can kill yourself because your existence is legitimately disgusting to me.
I don't think the Ryzen performance is interesting at all. It is about what I expected based on performance comparison and clock rates. I'd never buy it, because I have X99 platform and I have better CPU but the price on it is pretty good.

You'd have to pay me to get me to use trash like the 7700K.

>>5922245
>I meant watchdogs 2, Imma retard.
>THEY LOOK THE FUCKING SAME AT GLANCE

>>59222094
its shown that for the ryzen line, performance remains the same, its just clock speed and core count that changes. So you can also just buy an r5 1600x for $259 to get the same gaming performance as an 1800x, two more cores than a 7700k, while saving close to $100. You'll just have to "wait"

>>59222425
I just linked you about 20 real world performance benchmarks retard.

>>59222465
the division moron is a ubisoft title

and no having such high of cpu util and still manage to have stutter is even worse than having less scaling but decent fps

>>59222407
>A fucking $240 Intel 7600K is beating a $500 Ryzen 1800X

In vidya games. The 7700k also beats the 6900k which costs $1000. Are you going to buy a 6900k for gaming? No? Perhaps because it's a workstation CPU?

Really makes you think.

File: Screenshot_2017-01-30-23-12-16.png (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>59222254
yes a $1,000 dollar usd part outpaces one costing half as much only on poorly performing games. the correct comparison is 1700 to 7700k which shows about 5% at 1080p in games but then the 7700k gets utterly destroyed in any multithread productivity task. 1700 wins ez over 7700k.

>>59222276
sorry don't translate

>>59222366
amazing...

Ryzen is a terrible gaming cpu because it can't play AAA games at 720p at 1000fps. I'm so glad I spent a stupid amount of money on my 4c/8t Intel processor that is only good for gaming.

>>59222429
it's 50-60 cheaper to go r7 1700 no x than 7700k even if these two were exact same price, but 1700 is cheaper in most places

>>59222492
Clearly you didn't even look at them

>>59222495
>Perhaps because it's a workstation CPU?
Then where are the PCIe lanes?
Then why does it only run dual-channel memory?
Then where is the PCIe passthrough?
Then why are they marketing it for gaming?

>>59222460
nobody uses premier with CPU as far as I know

>>59222528
I did, and it showed mixed results. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's invalid.

Even with all this I'm not going to make a final call on it (unlike retards such as you) as tests are still ongoing, so it might get better or worse. In particular the passmark tests have only had 2 runs with the ryzen I linked.

>>59222557
Adding to this, the only real "negative" I have seen so far is the crashing on certain benchmarks.

>>59222539
I pointed that out yesterday and two anons said I didn't know what I was talking about and that GPU can only do quick preview renders and can't do proper high quality renders. Considering I dont own the software I cant confirm.

>>59222497
100% false

The 7700k is 17% faster than the 1700 and almost exactly the same price

When you buy Ryzen you just pay more for less

Will Coffee Lake work on current z270 motherboards? It will probably use the same socket, but will it work on the z270 chipset with a bios update? If not, Intel can go fuck itself.
>tfw buy expensive board
>have to buy a new one next year
I heard Intel will be releasing a 6 core i7 for regular motherboards. I was thinking of buying the 7700k now and upgrading to a 6 core i7 later this year.

>>59222493
I know the Division is an Ubisoft title, but look at the CPU usage on the 7700k in Rise of the Tomb Raider, it's above 85 percent in quite a few places. Or are you gonna try and tell me that's also an Ubisoft product?

Never mind the fact that in the GTAV City bench the 1700 was seeing 60% usage on almost all cores and the 7700k was at 85-99% on all of them.

>>59222538
you are seriously asking why it has pcie lanes? /g/ got a meltdown worse than chernobyl

i dont know why no one cares about quad memory ?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html
perhaps because it doesnt provide anything other than bandwidth which 99% of the users wont use at all?

ryzen supports IOMMU last time i checked

they never marketed as a gaming cpu moron amd clearly stated that they are targeting the 6900k family of cpus

>>59222407
>running just games with nothing else running is all you'll ever use a CPU for
Really made me think about my life, thanks anon.

File: ryzen-games-lol.png (1MB, 1896x899px)

1MB, 1896x899px

>>59222604
>they never marketed as a gaming cpu

Wow that's a laugh

>>59222600
>Will Coffee Lake work on current z270 motherboards?
are you kidding? it's 6 cores, no way

>>59222437
R5 1500 going to cost less than 240$, jew

>>59222582
>17%
If you cherrypick, but if you cherrypick Ryzen benches you can get way more than that.

>>59222602
yes and on gtav there were dips on 0% your point is? gtav has a horrible engine we knew that way before ryzen even comes a highly oced 7700k gets lower mins than a normal one and that is just the evidence people need to see how shitty it is

>>59222604
Su absolutely did paint it as a gaming CPU. They showed off gaming performance several times, and showed off gaming+streaming performance.

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

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59222625
OK I suppose Ryzen must be great for multi-tasking, like streaming right?

Oh wait...

File: linus2_wideweb__470x300,0.jpg (28KB, 470x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 470x300px

>>59222582
see
>>59221940
then
>>59222135
1700 is only a percent or two behind 1800x which is only a few percent behind 7700k, for games. it's much, much, MUCH better in productivity making the 1700 an insane bargain and clear win.

>>59222497
I understand the 6900k costs more, but AMD claimed ryzen 7 performs the same or even outperforms the 6900k for less. That was basically what their entire presentation the other day was all about.

It turns out the 6900k (3.2GHz Broadwell) outperforms the 1700/1800x by 20%+ in certain programs and games. How is that possible? The only explanation is that the Ryzen architecture is shit and not everything is about muh IPC and SMT.

>>59222644
That's not cherrypicked, that's an average of 14 different games together

>>59222463
>posting another single threaded benchmark to compare multi threaded performance
Retard.

Also code compilation is fastest on Ryzen, so is every other workload besides Photoshop. And it offers comparable performance in games.

I'm sure you'll get your US $0.05 though for this post.

File: csm_RyZen_AMD_1920x1080_b37af83ac6.jpg (145KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1920x1080px

>>59222636
indeed it really makes you think

>>59222643
So?

>>59222641
So? Are you saying that current high-end z270 motherboards don't have enough power or whatever? How do AM4 motherboards handle Ryzen 8 core 16 thread CPUs then if they cost about the same if not less?

>>59222657
Wrong, see the PC gamer average >>59221581

Do the math, 7700K is 17% faster than 1700

New review out for the 1700X: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,1.html

Better performance per $ spent compared to the 1800X still not worth purchasing for gaming.

>>59222094
240$ without a fucking cooler

>>59222651
no they showed 4k with titan x AND VEGA

and some streaming vs 7700k and 6700k

did you saw them going nuts with fps on any of their demos? nope absolutely not

>>59222676
Photoshop is not single threaded

>>59222538
>Then why are they marketing it for gaming?
They didn't. they marketed it for workstation home users who ALSO want something that can game.

It fits the bill.

>>59222538
Quad-channel memory is a meme. The boards cost half as much. They showed some games and it holds up pretty well. You're a fucking retard if you buy an octa-core CPU for pure gaymen. R5 is going to be the vidya bloodbath.

>>59222652
What the fuck? Why was Dota 2 stuttering like crazy on a 7700k at AMD's presentation/conference?

>>59222659
if you dont know how smt works and how windows 10 does a load balancing you should not really talk... its being know that it will need a fix from ms

>>59222698
OK add an Evo 212, you still save $10 going Intel and you get better performance

Literally no way to win with Ryzen

>>59222198
because bigger resolutions depend on the gpu more than the cpu

all i care about are

1) Virtual Machines and enough coars for core pinning for each machine
2) IOMMU and vm extensions
3) ECC memory

ryzen 7 allegedly offers all of these things for only roughly ~$400

this is much cheaper than Intel's "prosumer" <release-name>-e lines. I currently have one of these, a sandybridge one and it was $600 at release. apparently the newer ones are even more so.

so yes, I think this is amazing and anyone with similar use cases likely will too.

This is what I have learned from all the reviews:
Yes the i7 7700k is faster in most games. By a lot? No. By about 5-15% and that is at 1080p at around 100 fps+. If you play games at 1080p@60Hz you won't notice the difference with an 1700 or a i7 7700k for another what 4 years? If we go up in resolution the difference is even smaller because of the gpu bottleneck. And yes in a few years you'll notice a bigger gap as the gpu become more powerful but how long is that going to take to dip under 60 fps?
It would be a real shame to continue supporting intel jewery for those insignificant fps boosts (unless you play at 120fps+ with a compatible expensive monitor).
My money is going towards a 1700 build because I want to support AMD and because it will serve me well for many years without bottlenecking me at 60 fps.

>>59222688
pc gamer flat out stated there is huge room for improvement which points to new benchmarks showing as much like at golem.de

7700k is a joke next to 1700

>>59222722
AMD rigged their benchmarks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBHjtCXhU&feature=youtu.be&t=1264

They are trying to scam all of us

>>59222463

>Yes if you do video encoding all day

That along with video editing and compositing is literally what some people do part of the day. In all those applications Ryzen is a beast. If you're a modest gamer and video editor, then this kills the i7.

>>59222739
>>59222755
7700k is a full 17% faster than the 1700

1700 is truly horrible for gaming and almost every application you could use

>>59222685
more stuff on CPU
essentially just that, check ryzen i/o diagrams

>>59222647
And it's more poorly coded software, just like almost every other modern PC game! That was my point from the fucking beginning, it's hard to gauge CPU performance when most of the common game metrics are poorly code. We're seeing huge performance swings because some engines are making 99% usage of the 7700k when the 1700 is only making use of 50-60%, allowing for an almost 80% increase in average frame rate. Is this because they're not coded to take advantage of Ryzen like Lisa Su says? I'd put my money on pulling bullshit out her ass, but this just shows how poorly made most of these games really are.

>>59222782
You get slower performance in everything else, while getting faster performance in video editing

You'd seriously have to be doing video editing 90% of your day for it to be worth it

from AMD themselves
>Ryzen ~7% worse IPC than Kaby
>Kaby OCs better, ~15% higher core speeds
>overall, ~23% higher FPS on Kaby
Ryzen is great and in most ways it nails its target. I'm almost 100% buying a 1500/1600x, because I play at 1440p and want the pure horsepower than MOAR COARS gives

>>59222089
that issue's not just on the motherboard side, it's also a problem with windows thread switching, since windows likes to toss threads around between cores for absolutely no reason whatsoever, causing caching issues and lowering performance.

>try to delid my Ryzen
>it releases mustard gas and kills my dog
I'll stick with Intel from now on, thanks.

File: 1488408901700.jpg (97KB, 558x695px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 558x695px

>>59222819
>the pure horsepower than MOAR COARS gives

>gaming performance
Is actually surprisingly well behind even in realistic situations. The main reason I'm hesitant. That and there haven't been any fucking proper OC tests.
All on air, haven't found a single fucker who even touched vcore.

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Gaming-Performance

>>59222805
no it's more that games depend on shared state and it's hard to linearly scale processing on shared state objects. even with 4 more COARS the better IPC kabylake has an advantage over it.

this is an inherit problem in all threaded applications which can't be turned into "share nothing" message passing processes.

>>59222785
right so pc gamer who stated flat out ryzen ipc is better than their flawed bench indicates. not even they think gayming performance is that much better and multiple reviews confirm it's not.

stop spouting shit you know nothing about

>>59222771
People like that youtuber and you are trying to scam all of us.
Intel is trying to scam all of us.

>>59222867
Watch the video, AMD is literally rigging their benchmarks

>>59222222
noice get.

>>59222867
t. amd shill that's trying to scam all of us

>>59222805
oh nvm then i got it wrong

and well yes lisa had a point its a very complicated situation with the smt and the caches on the ccx's

basicly windows treats every logic as a cpu and tries to move it across the chip thats good on intel which has a big shared l2 and l3

but on amd the logic should only move inside the ccx because the l2 and l3 is inside of the each ccx that creates the problem of the logic being moved to loose the data and thus the cpu starts a new cycle without flushing the previous data..and when it finds the previous data inside the l3 along with the new IDENTICAL data it pauses the new op to flush the old one..

its a mess and i doubt ms will be able to fix it in a short period of time since we heard about this from november..

>>59222832
that pic was relevant in 2010, but most mainstream programs can utilize hexa and octa cores. some programs can even theoretically handle infinite threads

>>59222876
>15% in sysmark every year is okay

>>59222862
All of the sites get the same results. The games are not flawed, Ryzen is flawed.

>>59222785
>17%
In your asspull benches maybe, but even at 720p (>>59222195) the difference is less than 10% and it gets lower the higher you go in terms of resolution. Even with low res benches we're talking FPS figures well in excess of 100 and well over 90% of displays people use have a refresh rate of 60 Hz.

>>59222880
Fuck off scammer.

>>59222704
>7700K beats 6900K by the same margin it beats Ryzen (Ryzen also beats 6900K)
>actual multithreaded workload
You can't actually be this retarded. If PS was a good multithreaded benchmark than the 7700K would not be beating the 6900K.

I'm sure it does use multiple threads, but it's clearly bottlenecked by single threaded performance.

>>59222902
>All of the sites get the same results
No they don't.

>>59222896
What does it matter when most people only upgrade 4-5 years at a time

>>59222785
It's literally just gaming....

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

76KB, 601x830px

>>59222906
That's 17% in an average of 14 different games, it's literally the most fair number you could come up with.

It's actually a lot worse in plenty of games like this one where the 7700K is a whopping 40% faster than the 1700

>>59222928
And anything else that's not highly multithreaded.

>>59222876
I watched the video. He is a mostly inept game addict fanboy who seems to think there's foul play afoot due to some uncomfirmed BIOS options with unconfirmed effects.

Nevermind that the blender and handbrake demos were released by AMD to the public so we could all test the build they ised....
Nevermind that the results from people matched AMD's...

Yeah, some nobody who doesnt know anything about pc hardware somehow has clout when talking to me about it. When he sounds like a below average IQ mongoloid hrojob.

>>59222906
For most people single core performance is most important. Why pay more to get less?

>>59222943
So just gaming.

>>59222895
Game logic and game programming in general is not thread safe.

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

179KB, 600x450px

>>59222928
And 99% of other applications

>>59222927
>what does it matter
> let's burn our pcs and live happy

>>59222956
Most people don't buy $300+ cpus
That's a stupid arguement.

>>59222955
Gamers Nexus is incredibly legit, he's the one that debunked the EVGA scandal

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

>>59222956
I guess I should bust out the old P4 then.

>>59222965
I never said gaming, though

>>59222989
True, that's why you should get a $240 i5 that still beats a $500 Ryzen

>>59222276
They talk about new evidince popping up that would support the assumption that Ryzen currently has problems with the cache hierarchy. Moreover they once again mention load scheduling problems on an OS level and cite Su's answer in the redshit ama

File: 12-ashes-of-the-singularity,-cpu-focused-integrated-benchmark-(768p,-d3d12,-high-details,-no-msaataa)-chart.png (79KB, 620x199px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 620x199px

>>59222941
new benches show differently like at golem.de and pc gamer stated as much in their review.

in particular a game like ashes where ryzen got ahit on vs 7700k, no longer the case.

pls stop spouting bullshit. not even pc gamer is agreeing with their own benches.

>>59222994
he is also the one that wanted to burn motherboards with 480 but when couldn't decided not to tell anyone about it

>>59222967
Pretty much anything that benefits from a beefy cpu is multithreaded out the ying yang. For everything else it's good enough.
Gaming is the only real outlier. Even with piledriver it's shit tier single threaded performance didn't matter since gpu was a bottleneck in almost all cases.

>>59222994
how does that even make him legit?

you mean amd bought ALL the reviewers that did a 1080p/2k and 4k?

ive got bad news for you then cause the 7700k reviews were done on the exact same thing..

>>59222960
If you are on windows you can use the program Process Explorer to show workloads of individual threads. It should take a second to show all the programs you run that evenly distribute workloads across many threads. I will wait.

>>59222967
>99% of applications
>says the guy that only posts the same screencap over and over

>>59223013
>ryzen got ahit on vs 7700k
*got shit on by 7700k

>>59223010
I am not most people.

File: indesign-ryzen.png (175KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 600x450px

>>59223023
That's not true in the least bit. 99% of applications do not take advantage of those cores. I'll just keep posting benchmarks.

>>59223041
Then just get a 7700K which beats Ryzen 99% of the time. Or a 6850K if you need those PCI-E lanes.

>>59223013
gonna love those shills in a couple of weeks when they gonna re do the benches with the new bios..

gonna drink all of those intel tears

>>59223025
Did you even watch the video?

AMD didn't buy anyone, they rigged their pre-release benchmarks and gave review instructions on how to rig the real reviews.

>>59223050
is it a bot?

>>59223057
This

7700K is by far the best high performance CPU

>>59222728
you slowly start to see the retardation of benchmarking cpus with games

>>59223071
Either that or autism.

>>59223050
>deliberately posting single-threaded workloads and ignoring any multi-threaded use cases which show AMD's $500 CPU BTFO Intel's $1000 CPU
lol

>>59223028
See
>>59223023
From rendering to encoding etc shit is optomized for 8+ threads.
You can argue that day to day applications like chrome or foobar2k aren't but that's hardly relevant.
>>59223050
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen
Hers you go shill. Maybe you can learn something this time instead of cherry picking random shit that doesn't matter.
>>59223057
Ia a 770k gonna help me encode or render faster? Or are you just a retarded /v/irgin who found his way to the wrong board and thinks gaming is 99% of enthuist workloads

>>59222366
They saw an increase from between +4% and +26%. On average +17%.

>>59223050
>$1000 6900k btfo by the $500 1800X

fucking kek

>>59223067
What's more obvious here, using Occam's Razor?

>this new platform is slightly rushed to market and has fixable issues which make initial reviews a nightmare due to last minute changes, updates, etc
or
>hey lets cheat and get caught!

Clearly the SMT bug lowering game performance is the same fucking issue Intel had when they brought HT back to the Nehalem series, but I've yet to see ANYBODY make that comparison.

You fools just like problems, so much so that you'll manufacture them yourselves just to argue that much more.

>>59223067
you do know that the hardware review guidelines is the normal thing to do right? its indication of perfomance from in house testing idiot every hardware out there gets shipped with one

instead of bashing try to research a bit before you comment

>>59223123
looks great for workstations
I dont understand all this talk that Ryzen flopped

>>59223135
They literally sent emails out to reviewers telling them to switch off features on the Intel platforms to make Ryzen look better.

>EVERYTHING EVER IS SINGLE THREADED
>BUT ALSO BUY OUR $1000 8 CORE PART THAT HAS WORSE IPC THAN OUR $300 ONE
gotta love this intel shilling.
It's almost like there is more than one way to use a computer.
>>59223154
GAYMERS and shills anon.

>>59223169
Its cute how your story keeps changing, kike.

>>59223154
if by workstations where you mean people play pretend in their bedroom sure. If you run a real workstation for a real business you would be using Xeon not a fucking 1800X. lmao.

Games that use single or or at max two threads (and games that I actually play).

Worst case scenario for cpu: 1024x768, stock clocks on both:
SHOC:
-2500k: 95fps avg, 63 min, over 800 max (looking at ceiling with low amount of shaders, non-vsync'd main menu)
-1700x: 93fps avg, 55 min, same max
--Avg and min frames are obviously cpu bottleneck

Call of Pripyat:
-2500k: 89fps avg, 55 min, same max as shoc
-1700x: 80fps avg, 52 min, same max

Lost alpha:
-2500K: 68fps avg, 38 min, same max (but not in main menu, which is vsynced in dx10 mode)
-1700x: 67fps avg, 35 min, same max

Armed Assault:
-2500k: 105fps avg, 34 min, over 300 max (no option for vsync, so if not forcibly disabling it, max being refresh rate)
-1700x: 92fps avg, 36 min (inte_rasting), same max

ARMA2
-2500k: 90fps avg, 39 min, over 300 max (vsync disabled, game version 1.62)
-1700x: 88fps avg, 39 min (hmm), same max

These are on winny 7, sp1, same hotfixes on both systems (up to October 2016 or so: don't worry, no WAN connection on these boxes).
Asus P8P67 Deluxe, 2500k@stock (3.3GHz, 'turbo' disabled), 4x4GB Crucial Ballistix Sport CL9 1600 and
Asus Prime X370-PRO, 1700x@stock (3.4GHz, turbo disabled), 2x8GB G.Skill RipJaws V CL16 3200.
Both use WD10EZEX HDD's of same vintage (produced same month, exact same partitioning).

Like I wrote, Server 2008 gives couple more frames, but nothing significant.

>>59223169
Post the email.

>>59223154
>b-but muh vidyagaems

random anon typica /g/ poster tries to shill
blames amd for rigging the in house benching

clames a scandal of amd shipping hardware review guidelines

gets btfo from anons with higher iq than him (probably they know how to use google and their brains)

suddenly changes his tactic and blames amd of plagiarism

next thing on the list amd is the cause of climate change

>>59222739
>4 years
not only that, we don't even know whether the 5-15% will be in 7700K advantage or the 8/16 cores on Ryzen down the line.

my bet is more cores.

>>59223175
multi-threaded != well threaded.

Currently have firefox open. It has 28 threads, 5-6 which are actually requesting CPU at any given time and of those a single thread is using 6-10 more times CPU than the others...

>>59223135
Watch the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBHjtCXhU&feature=youtu.be&t=1264

AMD's cheating is very obvious and they don't care because they scammed everyone with their preorders

>>59223229
you can cross reference intel launch benchmarks to dispell this retarded rumor

>>59223150
>hardware review guidelines
>telling people to benchmark at 4k, so the CPU performance isn't even tested

AMD literally is trying to scam us all

File: 1sb2m9[1].jpg (278KB, 1599x664px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1599x664px

can anybody change this to make it ryzen related

this "we'll patch the bios to make ryzen faster" shit is hilarious

>>59223281
they already did new reviews show it and that's only beginning

>>59223252
This

People do not understand how these 8+ core CPUs work

It doesn't help in 99% of cases

>>59223273
you should RMA your self

benchmarks with non-problematic bios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAuZUJF68I&feature=youtu.be

>>59223252
Actually workloads are exceptionally well threaded though. Compare handbrake or adobe premiere rendering.
If you buy a $500 cpu to use Firefox i feel seriously sorry for you.
Like i said if there is no use for this part why does the 6900k exist? It has worse ipc than the 7700k. It can't oc as well, it has worse gaming performance. Yet intel charges $1000 for it, and some people actually buy it.
>>59223295
Im getting tired of these intel shills.
99% of cases a celeron is more tham adequate. This is a tech board not advice for mom. You don't buy a $500 cpu to run itunes super fast.

>>59223194
small company use consumer grade processor

Vulkan or gtfo

>>59223313
>actually
*actual
>well threaded
*Well multithreaded

>>59223313
You don't get it, even apps like Photoshop are slower on Ryzen.

Almost everything you do will be slower on Ryzen.

>>59223310
>literally who

>>59223321
And you bet your ass they'd upgrade to Xeons if they had the cash.

>Ryzen wins in synthetics
>Ryzen ties in real world tests
>But when we make up some bullshit situation nobody will ever encounter (like a $500 CPU at 800x600) Ryzen is way behind

You can't claim 800x600 is a real world test. It's an unscientific synthetic at best.

Dumb question how does multitasking work with multithreading?
Like say a game uses only 4 threads
And i run a render using 8 threads in the background. Can ryzen run it fine with the spare resources and say have a 7700k choke?

>>59223253
a shekel is deposited into your bank account

>>59223368
Ryzen loses by 17% in 14 different games at 1080p >>59221581

>>59223379
yes, if windows let's it
linux sure

>>59223349
>apps
>buying a $500 cpu for photoshop
Can you please leave and never come back.

>>59223379
well its a 4c vs 8c obviously on multitasking the 8c will obliterate everything

>>59223412
You are really out of touch, graphic designers would spend that in a heartbeat

But that's not even the bigger picture, it's not just photoshop, it's nearly every app, Ryzen fails on everything that's not specifically optimized for multithreading

>>59223175
All I can say is thanks gamers for dropping the price of AMD stock, I sold that, got my 3 day waiting period, patiently waiting for it to get panic sold to 10's then when the next quarter earnings shows almost everyone bought it for their workstations, it will double my money again. GGEZ :)

>>59223368
>b-but muh GPU bottleneck and future proofing!

from here on and onwards the 5-15% advantage 7700K has will be moot when games use more cores. Intel is also gonna release hexacores to the masses and then quads will be obsolete.

>>59223353
why would you buy $1500 ++ processor when you can get faster and better processor for $500??

>>59223438
>claims ryzen fails at everything that isnt multi threaded
>tell to another anon that he is out of touch..

cant get more autism even if you try

>>59223438
graphic designer using mac you retard..

which is already using intel processor

>>59223507
Sorry you can't handle the truth

>>59223379
it is a lot more complicated than that.But in short if your system is bottle-necking or if multiple threads are fighting over the same resources the gains from being able to process more threads at the same time, the gains from using a processor that can handle more threads won't be realized.

The ryzen 1800x will theoretically be able to process more than the 7700k. Out in the wild, with real programs that you actually run its much more rare situation.

>>59223390
Sure, now stop quoting stupid shit like 1366x768 benchmarks

>>59223473
Can you get me the lottery numbers too while you're consulting your crystal ball?

>>59223497
>faster
In cherrypicked synthetic benchmarks

>better
If terrible overclocking potential, uncompetitive single-threaded performance, no PCI passthrough, no quad-channel memory, no multi-socket support and only 20 PCI-E lanes means better, sure.

>>59223538
sorry nobody cant handle stupidity because you know there are no proofs

>>59223546
Lol

I don't know what's worse, Ryzen's performance or their god awful motherboards

Truly a disaster

>>59223563
The irony of this post is incredible.

>>59223581
the irony of claiming something while providing nothing is even more laughable

>>59223368
800x600 is done to remove gpu from the equation. It illustrates CPU performance solely. However in real world situations the gap lessens as gpu becomes a bigger factor. But it's still the proper way to test a cpu.
Also see
>>59223390
It exists in real worlf scenarios strikingly. AMD even admitted it. They said optimization will fix it but i doubt much can be done there
>>59223438
>apps
There is that word again, Don't worry all your macbooks come with intel inside!
Graphic designers can spend whatever they like doesn't mean they will get anything for it.
You say they will spend $500 but on what? The more cores the less you can oc, and Intel's high end is an architecture behind and thus has worse IPC. By your logic the whole E line shouldn't exist there is no market for it
It beats the 7700k at media creation and data/financial in sysmark. Murders intel in most compression tests, x264 encoder, blender handbrake and i imagine premiere.
Anything it loses in there is a negligible difference because they optomize for multithreading if it matters. Nobody is making hardcore workloads and just throwing it at one core these days. Shit like audio encoding software excels on a 7700k because who gives a shit about 10 seconds v.s. 12.
(ofc you can encode 16 songs at a time on ryzen)

>>59223473
>when games use more cores

AMD and Intel have literally being saying this shit since the mid 2000's! Its NOT gonna happen and there is no reason to believe it will. The only real gains we have seen since then have come from hardware acceleration via a GPU and not from the CPU.

Ex, a first person shooter you create today, will not magically be able to be rewritten into 32 equally working threads a decade from now. Its not how any of this works.

>>59223546
For fuck sake

who in the right mind OVERCLOCK their workstation which is own by your employer??

>>59223596
You dont need to OVERCLOCK 1800x, it works as 6900x on stock fucking clocks.

>>59223611
Me?
I didn't pay for it so why not?

>>59223611
Just listing some of Ryzen's biggest failings, doesn't make my other points any less valid.

>>59223602
it never happened because intel was charging a kidney for a 8c cpu no one was optimising for them

but now that ryzen will most surely gain traction they will have to

>>59223602
so you're saying we're stuck on quads forever?

>>59223601
You're just making excuses. All the highly multi-threaded apps are niche use-cases and you'd literally have to be running those apps 90% of your day for it to be worth it.

AMD has made a CPU that is only good in very small niche cases.

It's very bad for the majority of consumers.

>>59223631
seriously lists of failures
see>>59222604
didnt see you posting anything about this

oh wait you cant

>>59223647
Games don't really gain much from hyper threading. I don't even know where this stupid thinking came from.

>>59223660
they dont even get much from have more than 2 cores

who the hell thought of that

>>59223626
And there a reason employer should buy 1800X because it suck at overclocking.

File: bigredbutton.jpg (17KB, 375x365px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 375x365px

>Gaming
>Gaming
>Gaming
>nothing but Gaming
>Gaming
Press this button to kill all /v/toddlers.

>>59223647
No. But using more quality threads will come in concert with GPU. For example, people have been coming up with cool ways to feed the gpu with multiple threads so it can render frames or do physics calculations. That being said, the main game loop, the actual game logic and game rules has seen no such well threaded break up into multiple threads.

>>59223651
if that a reason you give, majority consumer only need celeron or pentium.

>>59223601
>To remove the GPU from the equation
So you admit it's a synthetic benchmark. Because in the real world, you can't do that.

which is better, asrock with 9 phases or asus/gigabyte with 6 or 7 phases ?

>>59222289
What does white kids have to do with it lmao

>>59223766
Asus Z270 + 7700K

>>59223651
Yes. Majority of consumers should not spend more than like $150-200 on a cpu.
Hell most don't even need a desktop. No argument for me there.
But you are entirely fucking naive if you think multithreaded is niche in terms of high end cpus you are out of your fucking mind. Even intel would call you an idiot. Again Intel's E line has worse IPC, worse clocks, worse overclocking. And yet it costs drastically more compared to their mainstream line. Why do you think that is numbnuts? It's almost as if the workloads that use more threads are the ones people in the high end space are targeting.
Ryzen hits "good enough" single threaded territory. It won't be a bottleneck in any real application that is poorly multithreaded you can post benchmarks all day but nobody would notice a difference look it's 0.4 seconds slower in this adobe cc benchmark that only takes 3 seconds but nobody fucking cares or notices that.
That's why they don't target 16 well optomized threads itd be a waste of resources. Shit like Firefox is the same. These "niche" tasks are why people spend big bucks on cpus. It might be a "niche" audience sure, but this is a tech board. And intel and amd take that segment very seriously we aren't here getting excited about the latest i3. The only real achilles heel of Ryzen is gaymers.
You must understand as well they have cheap as fuck 4 core parts that will have the same performance in single threaded that you mention anyway. This product isn't for those people.

>>59223781
jew

>>59223682
Thing is, when you move beyond gaming, then there is a lot less to talk about meaningfully because there is no price sensitivity (within reason, and if you're working at scale the pricing structure is to with all kinds of shit that have nothing to do with the hardware) and vendor reliability and support issues heavier than performance.

You either buy the cheapest or the most expensive, getting people who can bill their time at a decent rate to even think about it more than that is a waste of money.

If you buy an i7 to game with, you're an idiot

>>59223884
If you are buying 100 workstations the money starts to make a difference.
Also there is an audience here on a tech enthuist board that does shit as a hobby, for fun, or is self employed. I know this might surprise you.

>>59223912
Only like $100 more amd slightly more future proof.
I mean why not

>>59223201
>stock 2500k beating ryzen
uh-oh

>>59223933
This. What are you, poor?

Oh wait, you're considering AMD, of course you are.

>>59223980
>He can't afford an 1800x
Stay poor intelfag.

>>59224018
>settling for the 1800X when the 6900K and 6950X exist
>settling for 20 PCI-E lanes and dual-channel RAM
Stay poor, AMDrone.

>>59221293
Price aside, pretty much. If you use your computer 100% for gaming you're better with Intel, for everybody else Ryzen is perfect.

>>59223980
>calling other poor
>but can't afford to buy 1800X for $500 processor only can afford 7700K for $350

>>59224029
>shitposting this hard
The SoC provides 24 usable PCI-E lanes, the chipsets provide even more.

The fact that you have to be dishonest to make a point proves how immature you are.

>>59224045
>>shitposting this hard
Wait, that isn't what this thread was for?

>>59223015

He also would slap a 9590 on the msi 970 board (which doesn't support) and wonders why his 9590 was posting worse minimums in da vidya than the lower clocked 8370 (its because the vrms were frying as a board rated for 140w had 200w pumped through it and was throttling).

>>59224045
We were both shitposting calm down.
Sometimes i make it obvious and people still get mad.

>>59222190
PCMR redditor pls go>>59222190

>>59222427
Fine should be larger next time since they have already been caught doing it in the past

File: walking clock.png (320KB, 704x480px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 704x480px

I think it is fair to say it has haswell-like ipc. I think most people would say haswell is good enough for gaming. So gamers simply have to wait for the higher clocked 4 core ryzen to come out.

Imo, there is no reason to get a 7700k or 7600k anymore, unless you really want the integrated graphics.

got my 7700k today. just waiting on amazon to deliver rest of parts tonight so i can throw my build together

anyone who cares THAT much about results either way is a huge faggot. just get a top end chip for your application and don't stress too much about it.

in a blind test you'd never guess which one is which anyways

>>59221293
riding my 4670k into the ground is all i know

>>59224296
ya i used my 2500k oc'd to 4.2ghz for 5 years exactly. it's still working just fine.

was starting to hit slight bottlenecks in shithole optimized games like h1z1. that and mobo issues i've had for years were starting to annoy me.

using my old setup as a media server since it has 9 hdds in it.

new setup will be 7700k, 1080ti once it drops. prob will keep 980ti or sell? not sure yet... prob smarter to sell it than keep it as a backup?

>>59222366

>Compared to the original bios, the new UEFI increases the image rate in our game course between plus 4 and plus 26 percent, on the average even plus 17 percent

Hoooo... Sheeeyiiiit...

What's Jim Kellers name again?

Get that BIOS sorted, RAM fixed, and start seeing some optimizations for SMT, and Ryzen is looking sickAF!

Even if it never beats the 7700k, the gap is close enough at that point to not really give a shit.

>tfw still on lynnfield

1600x better be amazing

>>59224433
ComputerBase.de too
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/2/

" For the AMD Asus Crosshair VI Hero and MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium, the manufacturer recommends at least the use of the BIOS versions 5704 and 117, respectively, and in fact there was a significant gain in performance on the two boards with a double-digit figure To 25 percent."
>gnificant gain in performance on the two boards with a double-digit figure To 25 percent.
>25 percent.
>from a BIOS update

Give it another week and performance will be even higher.

>>59224508

The 1700 is sounding to be a killer chip if this holds true.

>>59224508

Not from the BIOS, but definitely other optimizations in the OS, and the retarded memory latency issue so they can get some good memory clocks with tight timings, and Ryzen is legit.

Finewine™

>>59224564

In b4 MS refuses to support Zen for a year like they did with bulldozer.

>>59224550
It certainly seems to be the case.
Hopefully big outlets all revisit their reviews and highlight the uplift from different revisions. Performance being all over the place with different reviewers having different boards is a huge redflag, definitely showing that different vendors are in different stages of BIOS development.
It was really disappointed to see so few people even talk about memory scaling. Most reviews were super shitty. TheStilt on the Anandtech forums had a far better technical analysis than Anandtech themselves published.

File: adobe cc.jpg (36KB, 630x384px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 630x384px

>>59222704
Photoshop CC is pretty ass when it comes to thread management, even tho it's multi-threaded.

I'm really excited for Ryzen now. I'll finally be retiring my Core2Duo desktop that I've been using since the end of 2007.

I think I'll wait about 2 to 3 months for the BIOS/UEFI bugs to get fixed, then I'll buy

>>59223154
take a look at intel's marketing budget for the answer

>>59224695
r5 and r3 should be out by then?

File: 1455687281173.png (141KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 439x290px

>>59224641

>Hopefully big outlets all revisit their reviews and highlight the uplift from different revisions

I wouldn't bet on it.

>>59222190
all fairness, fallout 4 cant be played over 60 because of game logic being tied to framerate

that said, sub 10% behind the 7700k with no oc, in applications where lower single core will fuck you, that looks really good.

>>59222580
I can never get video software to work on the gpu, I do know that you should only use the cpu as image quality is better per bitrate.

>>59221937
>GTA V, which does take advantage of 8c/16t.
you severely overestimate gta

>>59224352
sell the 980ti, buy a cheap as fuck get you by gpu as its only use case is your main gpu dies, so its value is only as an emergency backup get shit working.

>>59224900
>meant watchdogs 2
>they rook da same
>imma retard

File: 1488512912444.jpg (92KB, 596x543px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 596x543px

>>59221979
>so he keeps posting the same single benchmark
you dont say

>>59221574
Unless of course the future games are programmed with more cores in mind. Then the higher count slightly slower per core processor could sill be ahead. Kind of like how an athlon x4 can run gtav at playable framerates while the often much faster pentium G3258 falls flat.

>>59221687
>maxresdefault
>posting YT thumbnails on 4chan
stop trying

>>59222149
4.0 seems to be the average of what people get with ryzen.

File: 1600x.jpg (116KB, 1095x821px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1095x821px

>>59221325
Boost out of box will be 4.0

>>59221581
>7 fps difference
>Horrible
>Outdated benchmarks with glitchy day 1 BIOS versions
It's almost like you're running out of ammunition there

>>59222407
What do you do when an i3 matches an i7 in a single threaded benchmark? Do you flip the fuck out and shove dildos up your ass while screaming i7 BTFO by i3?

File: compiling.png (8KB, 524x293px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 524x293px

>>59221293
>This is /g/
>Not /v/
>All people care about are fucking games

>>59222422
Agree this pentium cpu testng need to go

>>59224822
yeah, I'm thinking of getting one of the 4 core models

>>59223602
A few years ago a dual core was enough. Now a bunch of games won't even run on two cores.

>>59225180
example?

>>59225206
Far Cry 4, GTAV (if we're talking physical cores and stock game)

>>59225340
gtav will rn on a 2 core pentium

>>59225048
holy shit this

honestly normal computer use is multithreaded, i guess because the only thing that normies do to use their processing power is vidya

File: intelsuicidewatch.png (246KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 882x758px

>>59221293

>>59225469
Benchmarking was never meant to be a realistic scenario. Back in the day of single cores it was standard practice to shut down absolutely everything but the game when it was tested, because any additional background processes would eat up a measurable amount of performance.
This methodology because a standard practice, but we now have more cores/threads than ever before, and we also have more software running in the background.

Its a realistic scenario to be playing a game with Steam running, an AV client running, maybe a separate firewall, maybe you're in a Skype or Discord chat, you're messaging someone on Steam through the UI overlay.
That may not have a drastic effect on gaming performance today, but with a title like Battlefield 1 where a quad core CPU will have all its cores/threads loaded to 90%+ I think its worth examining. Maybe a 6 or 8 core chip would be flat out better in a real world scenario instead of a sterile benchmark run.

A company like intel has to have studied this in depth. If they themselves really thought a high clocked quad core was enough for the masses they wouldn't be making 6 core Coffee Lake.

>>59223192
>he doesn't know who the kikes are

kek

>>59222135
>1070
why do they keep adding gpu bottlenecks to every fucking test

>my local retailer started selling 7700Ks for less than $300 in a panic before ryzen
>they're all back to $340 today
>tfw I managed to get one
I promise I'll switch to AMD 3 years from now if they're not in the back of the bus by then

>>59221293
>Cheaper
Bu that's wrong. The 7700K is 365€ and the 1700X 439€ here.

>>59226510
its a 1700 not x

>>59226564
Still 405€ for the Non X Chip.