Ryzen Power

>>59230233

hahahahaha

>muah 65 Watt

AMD BTFO ONCE AGAIN. When will this board ever learn that this company is fucking shit?

> intel chill
> power consumption thread
> more = better
you can't make this up

>>59230266
pcper.com

File: 1410593702630.jpg (359KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1000x1500px

>>59230281
That's not a source anon, sources for web articles have URLs

>>59230270
Here let me explain it to you

The Ryzen 1800X is rated at 95W and its hitting 155W

The Intel 7700K is rated at 91W and its hitting 122W

Pretty fucking hilarious desu senpai

>>59230233
But that chart shows it using even less power at idle than a quad core Intel, and less than Intel's HEDT range under load, despite being clocked higher.

>>59230298
>20% extra power consumption for 100% more cores

Damn, AMD fucking nailed it. Intel's octa cores are housefires.

File: 1411471105263.jpg (106KB, 850x478px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 850x478px

>>59230298
What's the 7700k and 6900k rated for again?

>>59230315
Lol the Intel 7700K is 20% faster than the Ryzen 1800X and uses even less power.

It's a bloodbath.

File: 1488011626860.png (84KB, 837x903px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 837x903px

>>59230322
>ignoring temps
Enjoy your melted CPU though

>>59230298
Now your post kinda makes sense, but don't you think you should have included this information to begin with? (you are excused if you are not OP, my 可愛い後輩〜)

>>59230318
Are you too stupid to go on ark and check for yourself or?

>>59230233
>Benchmark where AMD beats Intel
>1800x uses less power than 6900k for better performance
>It's not even showing the far more efficient R7 1700

Ryzen is objectively a crap gayman CPU but at least it will perform good in the server space, which actually matters.

>better than 6900k

kekekekekke lmao btfo how will they ever recover epic fail rekt roflcoptor desu senpai baka for you

>>59230233
>>59230247
>>59230298
>>59230322
>lower idle power than any other chip on the chart
>draws less power than the other 8C/16T while being clocked higher
>higher Cinebench performance than any other chip on the chart, including the 10C/20T
uhhhhhhhhhhh
are you retarded, anon?

>>59230233

>load(cinebench)
>cinebench
>a benchmark where cpu gets to 100% usage represents average consuption

>>59230298
TDP is a measurement of heat in wattage expelled, not wattage drawn, retard.

>>59230371
hahaha because so many consumers will be setting up servers

sorry sweetie, we're using are old boxes, or old dell poweredges off craigslist or even raspis...

its like amd setup a bunch of ideas and had a monkey throw shit at the wall and every postit with an idea that got the biggest smattering of shit is what they ran with

>>59230447
>>higher Cinebench performance than any other chip on the chart, including the 10C/20T


*handshake*

Fellow Cinebench worker! Glad to meet ya. I know I am very excited about Raisin. In my big job doing big deals I am using Cinebench all day every day. Every point I can score on Cinebench is more money in my pocket and thank heavens this years bonus will buy me even moar cornz!

Thank you based AMD! You make my back account fat and throbbing!

>>59230233

Jesus christ you're an idiot.

If it takes Ryzen 30 seconds to render a scene, and the 7700k 3 minutes for the same scene, who's using more power?

>>59230540
>talking about power consumption based upon OPs pic, which is a cinebench benchmark
>sperg out

Intel shills are truly the worst shills.

File: lol3.gif (561KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 500x281px

>>59230540

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59230586
>rendering

LOL

File: IMG_2115.png (408KB, 882x1418px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 882x1418px

>>59230233

>>59230233
Looks pretty good to me if you compare it with the other 8c/16t the 6900k.

>>59230503
Please explain how the wattage expelled can possibly be different than the wattage drawn. Is the heat just magically disappearing? Lmao

More importantly explain how Ryzen's TDP is 60 fucking watts higher than they said it was

File: VyjoeuaCH6rUcc4egyCZhn-650-80.png (74KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 601x830px

>>59230731
>just the one total image
OY VEY, WHO IS BEHIND THIS POST!?

File: 1310429820535.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>59230745
>almost identical
>GTA V
>no minimum framerates
>much more expensive than the 7700k

>>59230771
>picking a single benchmark over a broad average

>>59230233
fun fact, for gaming if you drop SMT it keeps load at ~100w

>>59230784
>much more expensive than the 7700k
$60 cheaper if you count boards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUNAvkY6Ops

gta5 sucks, it's optimized directly for cpus that were out exactly when game came out on pc and for nothing more

>>59230298
>The Ryzen 1800X is rated at 95W and its hitting 155W
that's system power consumption you brain dead retard
are you seriously so retarded you can't even red the big giant text in black at the top of the chart?
get the fuck back to >>>/v/ or >>>/lgbt/ or wherever the fuck you came from

File: TxRpuzVYcdQHhdt7k7czBX-650-80.png (74KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 601x830px

>>59230799
>picking a single image instead of showing the entire set
Get out
>>>/v/

>>59230771
wow, look at that competent developer gets it's shit right

File: bobby.jpg (31KB, 615x456px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 615x456px

>>59230784
>R7 1700 price: $329
>7700k price: $349
>much more expensive

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-04 at 3.45.14 AM.png (60KB, 1224x420px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1224x420px

>>59230745
>believing marxist jew lies

>>59230851
The 1700 is horrible compared to the 7700k see >>59230731

>>59230827
Ryzen X370 boards are actually even more expensive than Intel boards

File: 1316839860781.jpg (22KB, 195x195px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 195x195px

>>59230784
>Ryzen 7 1700
>Much more expensive than the 7700K
>Ryzen 7 1700- $329
>i7 7700K- $339-$350
>Much more expensive
>It's not as good in GTA V, so the processor is bad

>>59230896
>The 1700 is horrible compared to the 7700k

Not according to >>59230745 it's not. Nice goalpost shift by the way.

>>59230764
OP posted total system power draw, you tech illiterate child.
The 1800X pulls only 110w when its absolutely loaded 100%, which Cinebench does not do.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-11.html

>>59230896
Meanwhile in reality 7700K at 5GHz is on par with Ryzen's fucking 8-core tank despite baby lake supposed to run much better since it has less cores -> less TDP

Fuck off with your Intel's aborted chips

>>59230918
Oh you mean the Joker benchmark?

You might want to look at his redo of that test:

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/5xcnye/720p_r7_1700_vs_7700k/

>One important thing to note is that ON AVERAGE WE SEE A 20% GAP IN FPS

Toppest of keks, the 1700 is horrible

>>59230913
at worst they cost the same as far as I see
msi carbon is exactly same price
if you compare feature by feature not models names prices vary, cheaper for x370 because it got more shit integrated into CPU than 7700k, imagine that all that place where IGPU sits is useful

>>59230970
100% wrong, see >>59230976

>>59230986
Wrong, see >>59230519

>>59230945
Holy fuck you are delusional

The 7700k has less TPD, look at the fucking OP for fucks sake

It has way better performance than literally every single Ryzen CPU available and not only that it costs $160 less than Ryzen's top of the line.

File: 1458897702658.png (241KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 500x375px

>>59230976
who the fuck plays at 720p at lowest settings, thats what I want to know

it doesn't bottleneck an overclocked GTX 1080 at 1920x1080, not sure what more you want out of her. everything past that is just wank

>>59231016
>I apologize for denying a bottleneck in earlier tests. I was wrong

He literally said there was a bottleneck, that's why he redid the test

File: 1269966652200.jpg (39KB, 400x456px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x456px

>>59230832
Do you understand what an average means?

>>59231028
Yes, the GPU was the bottleneck. I understand the flaw of the previous tests. My point is that it was a realistic scenario.

And you're being completely disingenuous here >>59231014 , there are models at $320, $400, and $500

>>59231014
Except Ryzen is an 8core CPU, the 4-core will shit all over that 7700K housefire trash.

File: 1480409726994.jpg (2MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1333px

>>59231016
GN makes argument that in FUTURE when GPU ADVANCE the difference will be huge at 1440p with 7700Kvs 1700
but, at the same time old xeons(2.1Ghz) exist, that some people use for gaming today, you can't bottleneck titan x with those at 4k on modern games

I ahve no idea what to believe in anymore.

>>59231048
You mean the CPU that isn't even out?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Can't wait until the next AMD fail launch, it's going to be great.

File: 1448705572008.jpg (73KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x333px

>>59230731
>1700 on average below an I3
Top fucking kek, what a crap product

>>59231059
also in the FUTURE you'll have to buy Z470 board with socket 117650 and throw away your whole ecosystem with it that stays unspoken.

File: file.png (76KB, 710x1076px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 710x1076px

>>59231014
REALLY ACTIVATES MY ALMONDS

>>59231068
Doesnt't change the fact that Intel's 8-core is complete garbage trash compared to Ryzen's 8-core in performance, TDP AND price.

>>59231073
Pre-bios patch, there was a core parking bug that'd downclock it to 2ghz randomly. There was a German site that'd get an average 17% performance boost after the patch was applied.

>>59231093
Literally everything you said was false, that's actually amazing.

Intel has better performance

Intel has better TDP

Intel has better price

>>59230764
emf

>>59231093
the 1700x is actually BTFOing dual xenons in a lot of benchmarks too

>>59231101
Except PC gamer already updated their BIOS, those results are post-patch

>>59231103
You're just baiting at this point.

>>59231103
Maybe in another timeline.
Intel's 8-cores are abortions now.

But keep defending abortions.

>>59230764
don't start, these thing never lead to anything good

>>59231118
BTFO

>>59231118
no they didn't, their review came up the time when update happened

>>59231101
>There was a German site that'd get an average 17% performance boost after the patch was applied.
Show the proof, or stfu

>>59231118
>>59231131
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/
please go through the review and find where they said BIOS updated

>>59231162
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.golem.de/news/ryzen-7-1800x-im-test-amd-ist-endlich-zurueck-1703-125996-4.html
have it translated even

>>59231162
golem.de

File: file.png (91KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 248x189px

>>59230771
>even in the graph that the AMDrone cherry picked, poozen is being BTFO by an i5.

>>59231215
>very close to the mainstream in single thread performance
>BTFOs intels HEDT lineup for half the price
I don't see anything wrong with this

File: forcefeed.gif (2MB, 134x134px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 134x134px

>>59231215
>1.2 FPS is BTFO

>>59230233
Intel is still king of housefires I see.

>>59231215
b-b-but they will DOMINATE the server market and intel will be DECIMATED just u wait and see!!! a-amd will DESTROY everyone making fun!

>>59231226
7700k is HEDT

whats blowing that up for half the price?

>>59231226
>>59231242
Lol the i5 is $240, while the Ryzen is $500

You are literally paying twice as much for Ryzen for worse performance

File: har.gif (41KB, 350x173px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 350x173px

>>59230771
>>59231215
>6950k getting smashed by an i5
HAHAHAHAHAH, MY SIDES!
THEY HURT!

>>59230526
Intel gets most of their profits from servers

>>59231297
and? heaven forbid the coal is put under intels feet and we get some real gains

lord knows amd cant do it

>>59230233
comparing a 8c with 4c

doesnt realise it has lower idle than them
doesnt realise it has lower idle than the 8c and 10 c

tries to shill thinking that amd somehow will brake the laws of physics and consume less watts from a 4c while being a 8c

typical user of /g/

>>59230322
7700k 4c highly clocked rated at 91w drawing 122w

1800x 8c clocked 1.2ghz lower that a 7700k rated at 95w drawing 155

6900k 8c clocked 1.0ghz lower than a 7700k rated at a 140w drawing 160

oh yeah i can see how the 7700k wins when its a 4c and nearly reaching the power of the 8 cores ones..

intel fags has new theory of thermodynamics

>>59231059
Also don't forget how the pentium g3258 was neck and neck with high end chips in many benches when it came out because it could match ipc with the best at that time, but has become irrelevant while the higher core/thread chips from that time are going strong. A sandy or ivy bridge i5/i7 is still a perfectly fine chip, but that haswell pentium doesn't cut it despite having better performance on anything that doesn't need more than two cores.

A 7600k may be as good or better as ryzen right now (and much better/dollar), but it will be shit out of luck when a game is designed with the assumption of 6 threads/cores in a couple years.

>>59231118
nope only golem de has re done the benches

>>59231283
7700k is the highest-tier mainstream
6800k and above are HEDT

>>59231343
yes, /g/ is slowly being overtaken by retarded /pol/ posters and reddit shills (basically the same thing these days).

>>59231366
>7700k 4c highly clocked
stock they are not even that far apart

>>59231208
It's not in there

>>59231438
1.2ghz isnt far apart

we are going to forget everything we know about technology with those shills

>>59230298
That's it's TDP you fucking moron

>>59230526
Intel gets most of their profits from servers

>>59231438
That's even worse

>>59231461
stock they are 500Mhz apart on a good day when 7700K is cooled well

>>59231208
they arent going to comment on the results they are /v/ "its fake and gay"

>>59231495
500mhz
one being 3.0 the other being 4.2

>>59231505
does base clock even mean anything today?
I thought they all ran on turbo, i've never seen sandy go lower than 3.65 for me, ever

>>59231402
Read the PC gamer review you moron, they literally say they updated the BIOS

>>59231331
Look at their TDP

It should be a 4W difference, yet the Ryzen chip is using 32 fucking watts more than Intel

Ryzen power consumption is shit, but even worse, AMD just straight up lied about the TDP

>>59231653
>Ryzen power consumption is shit, but even worse, AMD just straight up lied about the TDP
Not that guy but how many times in this thread do people need to tell you that power consumption and TDP are two separate things before you get it into your thick skull?

>>59231629
No it doesn't, show the new numbers or stfu, and show the graphs, not just a link to an article that doesn't contain shit

Why are you still pretending Ryzen beats i7? Just give up

For the last time, TDP is NOT a measurement of either power consumption or a chip's absolute potential waste heat output (well, post-'05 or '06 at least). And THAT is why many chips become unstable performing extreme tasks while installed in low-end motherboards with uncooled VRMs and stock Intel cooling solutions that haven't changed meaningfully in a decade or more. Actual Intel silicon can survive 100C and live to tell the tale, but I've seen more than a few burned up Dell boards and even the occasional fried Intel CPU. It's a little easier to kill AMD chips. It's also why video cards with stock blowers like to go boom when running furmark for too long. And for God's sake, Google is an actual thing, why can't you /v/ cross-posters correct your own ignorance before vomiting your idiocy all over /g/?

Also, consider the fact that aggressively cooled modern silicon runs hotter than hell, needs incredible cooling solutions, but often falls roughly into the same power envelope as much older parts. Do you see that there's something more complicated going on here yet? You remember Moore's law? What doubles? What does the doubled thing do? What does clock speed indicate? Why has it basically stalled with air cooling solutions? That's an enormous part of what you're missing. IT'S LITERALLY FUCKING PHYSICS!

Please just die in a fire, and I mean all of you. The gamers, the fanboys, the ignorant know-it-alls, and the spammers. Fuck all you faggots for ruining /g/ over the years, and just fuck tripfags for good measure.

>>59230315
>155w is within 20% of 95w

wut?

>>59231101
the bios skewing programming was not activating properly when you selected your benchmark, we had to update the bios and tell everyone to play games that only relied on gpu.

>>59231712
Here I will quote the article:

"The Asus motherboard I used for testing originally shipped with a BIOS that didn't perform all that well (scores were slower than what AMD had demonstrated at the Ryzen event), and an updated BIOS improved things by around 10 percent."

They literally already updated the BIOS, those are final results and Ryzen is truly awful.

>>59231675
I guess you're breaking the laws of thermodynamics, amazing. Somehow you have made heat disappear.

>8c processor draws 30w more than a quad core
GG, who'd have thunk

>>59231044
it means if one game failed, average goes down, if you haven't seen whole set and only saw average performance, you do not know the whole story.

>>59231955
They were supposed to have the same TDP, AMD lied.

>>59231048
Nice meme

>>59230233
>Shows picture of Ryzen with higher score than 6900k, with lower power consumption and lower power consumption than 4c cpu on idle.
>Complains about power consumption

>>59230731
>I rundering mine games.
>KUK

>>59231999
TDP =/= Power draw
2/10 bait though.

>>59230233
hey look its under the power consumption of intel's 8 core (Core i7-6900K).

>>59231014
Power draw, not TDP you fucking /v/edditor

I only care about fps/usd and so should you.

i5 7600 is king for gaymen
i7 7700k is wasted money for good goyim
ryzen is king in productivity and actually best of both worlds

File: ryzen-productivity.png (22KB, 650x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 650x200px

>>59232289
>ryzen is king in productivity

No it's not, it's one of the worst you could buy

>>59232307

So are you saying Intel is scamming people with their $1000 CPU?

>>59232307
>sysmark as a legitimate benchmark.

>>59232332
Both Ryzen and Broadwell-e are not for general productivity, they are for dedicated rendering & encoding machines only

>>59232358

So are you stating a fact that 7700k is what most used CPU in workstation office environment?

>>59232307
How do you quantify Office Productivity?

>>59232479
>SYSmark® 2014 ver 1.5 is an application-based benchmark that reflects usage patterns of business users in the areas of office productivity, media creation, and data/financial analysis. SYSmark 2014 ver 1.5 features the latest and most popular applications from each of their respective fields.

File: kekbars.jpg (9KB, 411x294px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 411x294px

>>59232488
ITT: no one understands error bars

>>59230586
if this is true... and no one ITT cared about this comment, then clearly /g/ doesn't know how to calculate energy consumption

>>59230233
all i see is an 8 core part taking a gigantic dump on intel's 8 core part

>intel shills are literally this retarded
you can't make this shit up

File: OP.webm (840KB, 608x1080px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 608x1080px

>>59230233

>6900k
>8c/16t
>70 idle 160 load

>1800x
>8c/16t
>37 idle 155 load

almond status: activated

>>59230233
you can't be that stupid

File: 81f18e186a8881eecd1ccf4548dc0bd47d10d392_s2_n1.jpg (432KB, 1722x2048px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1722x2048px

wait
everything about this literally points to having lower power consumption in every scenario

lower idle across the board, and lower load compared to the 6900k, 6950x

only thing it loses to is the chips with less cores

what's the problem here? my issue is that the 7700k is only using 33 less watts than the chip with twice the cores and threads as it while only getting 7-10 more fps on avg lol

i remain unimpressed with /g/'s post quality

>>59230298
4 cores vs 8

Just end yourself