This picture is literally the state of this board right now.

>>59231045
and you're contributing like a fucking idiot

The only secure choice is to not play.

I lied just get a 7700k you pretentious faggots. Or at least wait for the 4c/8t AMD. AMD fuck up without doing the same, Intel knows what's up, the sweet spot is still 4c/8t because they know mass parallelism is done on the GPU level nowadays when it gets to the common desktop and gaming.

>>59231227
As far as I know, no game or common application uses GPGPU. Beyond stuff like PhysX that's all cosmetic and thus graphics anyways.

File: 143360132123.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>59231045
>tfw still have a AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE and see no reason to upgrade

>>59231401
generally 90%+ of the parallelism on the common desktop and on gaming is done on the GPU level anyway. mass parallism on the CPU is a stupid meme for regular people of the desktop and /g/ they simply don't need it most of the time.
It's especially ironic once you realize Vulkan and other modern APIs make the CPU even MORE irrelevant because they bundle GPU commands into batches (once should wonder why they fuck didn't they think of that method since the 90s but oh well).

>>59231421
GPUs can't handle parallel workloads with branching or complex operations very well mate. CPUs exist for a reason.

>>59231415
>tfw still have a AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE w/ 4th core unlock at 3.8ghz

>>59231401
>>59231458
they don't need any special API to do parallelism on the GPU level, the regular APIs of 3D graphics are the main method, and now with Vulkan/nuOpenGL/nuDirect3D they make CPUs even more irrelevant for the common desktop and for gaming.

mass parallelism is simply a stupid meme for more /g/ people and most people of the desktop

Intel knows very well what they are doing when they shill first for the 4c/8t chips, AMD fuck up by not doing the same, they are clearly a sweet spot, they will remain a sweet spot for a very long time and the new APIs may make CPUs even MORE irrelevant for desktop/interactive software.

File: IMG_2564.jpg (102KB, 601x806px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 601x806px

Just gonna leave this here

What do you expect OP? This board is full of consumerist autismo.

>>59231476
Dude what the fuck, you're mixing up two entirely different types of workloads here. Graphical workloads aren't done on CPUs at all unless you're using ancient games doing software rendering. When /g/ talks about parallel workloads its meaning shit that isn't ideal for GPGPU. Like branching or complex operations. GPUs do Not react well when you ask them to start doing 128 bit operations or transcendentals. Both of those are still useful in parallel workloads so are always run on the CPU.

>>59231486
pre-BIOS patch

File: IMG_2558.jpg (478KB, 1997x1232px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1997x1232px

>>59231553
Sure

>>59231539
Stop listening to your brain only boi and read what I said. For the DESKTOP and for MOST /g/ uses including GAMING 90%+ of the parallelism is done on the GPU level (and therefore the common Graphics APIs) which does not requite OpenCL or CUDA or anything like that. That is why the sweet spot is still the 4c/8t CPUs.

That is why AMD fuck up by not doing what Intel does. Intel are smart at propaganda. They first release the 4c/8t, they bin them well, they shill for them well and then they go for the luxury items.

What's even more ironic against the mass multithreading meme, is that the newest APIs like Vulkan make the CPUs even more irrelevant because they bundle graphical commands into batches.

>>59231553
hol up
so you be sayin
I can't enjoy 480 fps on my 60hz monitor?
sheiiiiit

>>59231553
Sadly that is post-BIOS patch, read their review.

File: core vs threads.png (102KB, 1019x569px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1019x569px

>>59231589
The problem with csgo is that it tends to run worse with more threads utilized.

File: 538.gif (2MB, 290x260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 290x260px

>>59231486
>1700 worse than an I3
You can't make this shit up

>>59231619
More like the problem is ayymd poojet made cpoo

>>59231619
Except for one outlier, that graph shows the opposite

Most pretentious shits of /g/ are computer illiterates that don't get GPUs are parallel machines and CPUs are serial machines. The overwhelming majority of parallelism on a modern game or even modern desktop application (that is interactive and in some cases even when it's not) is done almost entirely on the GPU level anyway. They will never speed it up with mass multithreading on the CPU level because it's simply not doing most of its parallelism there, it will never do most of its parallelism there, and it SHOULD NOT DO MOST OF ITS PARALLELISM there.

>>59231596
What you're saying is fuckin retarded that's the problem.

>>59231045
it's not, nobody cares about your brand awareness campains except impressionables /v/ retards who should never have left their ghetto board to begin with

>>59231695
> I have no argument, let's call him retarded
ok kid
back to school now

>>59231613
No it isn't you delusional fuck, I already read their entire review. It says not a single fuckin thing about BIOS patches.

>>59231486
>muh 7 fps

>>59231651
That's on an Intel CPU though.
>>59231657
The graph shows that past a certain point it actually runs worse. See 5-6 cores doing better than 6-12 threads used.

>>59231686
Better tell those server-owners to throw away their processors and use GPUs instead.

>>59231735
> I'm incapable to read I'm responding to a post about common desktop applications the common /g/ user uses including games

>>59231745
>>incapable to read i'm responding to a post
literal poojeet grammar
>>games
>>>/v/

>>59231686
>it will never do most of its parallelism there
not with that attitude

>>59231758
there is literally nothing wrong with that grammar you illiterate piece of shit

>>59231686
>>59231699
Saying it's 90% is fucking retarded because you're just taking the entire program and declaring if to be parallel or serial. Of fucking course the graphics part is going to be running on the GPU, which are massive parallel processors with simple computational elements. You're not going to run graphics workloads on CPUs, but as a corollary you're not going to be running AI, which is something conducive to parallel operations, on a GPU. GPUs simple computation elements are not good at parallel workloads that require branching, or really anything outside of simple arithmetic operations.

In summary you're fucking retarded and are only correct on a basic surface level, and drawing a completely incorrect conclusion from it.

>>59231762
why the fuck would you use a serial machine to do parallelism when you have a parallel machine that is better?
this was a post about desktop, gaming and graphics and you don't even need OpenCL or CUDA.
Those games and even modern Desktop UIs just use regular graphical APIs for decades now.

>>59231768
>"i'm incapable to read i'm responding to a post"
>he thinks this is correct grammar

>>59231774
You are stupid shit because you pretend we are going to believe your stupid bullshit about AI, like that is needed by 100% of games or desktop applications, and that it's going to be a lot of load.
Not only GPUs could help there, but most importantly, a ton of games and almost 100% of desktop software does not need AI at all.
Or when it does need AI or similar CPU friendly technologies, they may not even need something that complex.

>>59231810
fack oph beetch

>>59231782
>this was a post about desktop, gaming and graphics
the entire point of having more cores is to enable servers to be more efficient, not to make people spend more money on toys

File: 1700_vs_7700k.png (441KB, 1670x1250px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1670x1250px

>>59231486
>>59231589

File: th[1].jpg (6KB, 300x176px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x176px

>>59231045
>AMD is literally red
>Intel is literally blue

Really nines my eleven.

File: intel_xeon_lga.jpg (258KB, 990x887px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 990x887px

>>59231045
There's another way.

>>59231837
>Still posting fake bench that was corrected since then

LMAO

>>59231812
Almost every single game out there relies on an AI of sorts. Even if the AI is simple, it's still not going to be friendly with the GPU.
>ignoring the bit about transcendentals and 128-bit operations

>>59231852
How is it a fake bench? These were the results running games at 1080P with a GTX 1080

>>59231636
If anything it shows that cpu almost doesn't matter in gaymen.

>>59231812
>GAMES DON'T NEED AI
well heard it here first folks

Once again how many times do I have to drill this into your head.
GPUS CANNOT HANDLE BRANCHING STATEMENTS.
For fucks sake AMD has a single branch predictor for every 64 shaders, and Nvidia has one for every 128 shaders. It slows them down, kills their performance. Same shit happens when you ask them to do lookup tables and transcendental operations. GPUs are made to do a very specific thing. Graphical Operations. It just so turns out they're also good at a few other things that are similar to graphics, like raytracing.

You're fucking mixing up graphics processing and general processing, and you're too fucking stoneheaded to listen to people who actually work in the god damn field.

>>59231829
Which is why AMD are fucking idiots compared to Intel at shilling and propaganda. Intel knows what the fuck they are doing with shilling first for the 4c/8t chips. They know they work best for what regular people like including most /g/ people and gamers and other desktop users, they bin them well, and they get amazing benchmarks from them

Those people are your best advertisement, since even if you can sell chips to the server market, a bunch of 60 year old no lifers will never promote you like the kids of /g/ or similar.

>>59231864
Then why intel cpus get a lot more frames?

>>59231872
Where you are stupid boi is that you pretend that is a tremendous load, or that is load that can not be paralellized at least in part on the GPU side, or that is AI is always needed on the desktop or games to begin with.

Ger over it, you can't win, we have benchmarks.

There is a reason 7700K eliminates everything as a sweet spot on interactive applications for the common desktop.

>>59231886
The R7s seem to be a gimped version of the actual server chips that they're planning to make. Even if things like ECC are enabled, they're not validated. There's also the fact that the yields were too good for them to release the R5 and R3 lineups early.

>>59231903
It's still stupid for advertisement. It's a simple fact of life the gamer kids are your best ad. You will never make the server market shill for you.

>>59231889
I don't see a lot of a difference between their i3 and i7.

>>59231553
bios was supposed to fix the benchmark skewing errors.

File: 1488448239363.jpg (96KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x480px

>>59231852

>Proven correct*
>gamers nexus has been laughed off of youtube after making 2 10-page articles and 2 20-minute videos, where he literally TELLS us he set up his test system to lower the Ryzen CPU in gaming "by a few percentage points"
>Joker Productions released a 720p comparison video showing decent numbers from the R7 1700

Intel paid shills to get on this board and compare the 7700k to the 1800x in GAMING* benchmarks as if all of us are just giant manchildren. Level-headed /g/entooman say 7700k for pure gaming but if you also stream or do any kind of real work at all the Ryzen CPU is the better buy.

>B-But kabylake is better at single threaded!

Yes and we all knew that a year ago. These shills keep getting more and more desperate as Gamers Nexus' attempt to obsfucate the truth becomes more apparent....

>>59231898
I just used AI as an example you retarded fuck.

God damn /v/ kids.

File: 1402065566623.jpg (43KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 450x450px

>>59231864
Is that really what you took away from that graph?

>>59231898
>load that can not be paralellized at least in part on the GPU side
>>59231872
>GPUS CANNOT HANDLE BRANCHING STATEMENTS
>Same shit happens when you ask them to do lookup tables and transcendental operations.

I'm not him but I can tell that you're considerably much more stupid than him. He made a concrete case, you have gaming benchmarks. I also find it funny that you pretend that you know what you are talking about when, in truth, all you can say is a very vague statement that doesn't actually say anything
>Where you are stupid boi is that you pretend that is a tremendous load, or that is load that can not be paralellized at least in part on the GPU side

Also
>AI is always needed on the desktop or games to begin
You can't play your First Persion Action games w/ stealth elements without AI
Only games that don't have AI, nowadays, are single player Puzzle Games

>>59231938
You were right technically, the whole point is that in the real world most applications people need for the regular desktop aren't gonna be limited by the lack of mass parallelism on the CPU level, they simply don't use the CPU that much to begin with!1

And with the newest GPU APIs, that offload even more to the GPUs, that trend may become even stronger!

That's the biggest irony, because some people think the opposite.

File: amd_logo.png (9KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x400px

>>59231872
you dont need to branch when you can execute every possible branch simultaneously, GPUs have like a gazillion cores

>>59231922

>Shill: IPC and Clockspeed are all that matters!
>Okay I guess I'll get an 7350k
>Shill: NO! Get the i7, it has more cores and threads and makes intel more money!
>But it performs better in games and that's all I do
>Shill: B-but my i7


Fact is intel shills will immediately leave a thread if you mention how an OC'ed 7350k beats the OC'ed 7700k in most games because you end up losing them 150 Poolet points

>>59231960
Your post is disjointed and I'm having a hard time telling who you're calling stupid here.

>>59231932
>Intel paid shills to get on this board
i really can't think of any other reason why people try so hard to suck hardware manufacturer's dicks on this board
buy new hardware every few years, look for best perfs for your buck within budget range and be done with it, why even give a fuck about which jew tribe you fatten in the process

>>59231974
>IPC and Clockspeed are all that matters
You're posting a hyperbole of the argument.

IPC and clockspeed are the most important once you go past having 4 physical cores.

>>59231956
I see that i3 is less than 7℅ slower than i7.

>>59231974
It never does tho

>>59231997
>IPC and clockspeed are the most important once you go past having 4 physical cores.
You are not seeing correctly. It's just that 4c/8t is simply the sweet spot for interactive applications/games/desktop applications and the like. You could use even 999999999999 cores if all you were doing is rendering or encoding or something else disjointed.

The technical reasons are very specific. Serial programming (CPU level) gets seriously slow with the mutexes it needs if you try to paralelise it and GPUs are amazing at doing parallel jobs anyway.

It's generally extremely hard to do parallel stuff on the CPU level, when you do it gets seriously slower than hoped for, and when it's simple enough to be able to use a GPU you use that.

>>59231984

So, just so anyone knows.

>march 4th /g/ buying guide for smart people

>Poor & Gaming
Pentium G4560+ cheapest mobo you can find and 8gb of ram
>Rich and ONLY gaming
7700k and most expensive mobo you can find and 32gb of ram
>Productivity
Ryzen 1800x and most expensive mobo+32gb of ram
>Normie (no games or productivity
tablet or laptop, literally anything you find that has ddr3 or newer in it should be sufficient, maybe an iPad if rich and stupid
>Gaming and Streaming/Youtubing
Ryzen 1800x if you have enough, the 7700k will be okay if you want to skimp, with quicksync, but it leaves visible artifacting, videos will render around twice as fast in Ryzen as well depending on your choice of software.
>3D modeling
Look up benchmarks depending on what type of software you prefer
>Linux
Core 2 Duo

>>59232020
You're comparing the fastest I3 to the slowest i7.

112,70/97,12.

The 7700k is 16% faster than the i3, averaged over all those games.

So your claim that cpu's don't matter much in gaming is false, at 1080p at least, on higher resolutions the bottleneck shifts away from the cpu to the gpu and differences minimise

>>59231965
Most people who just use Facebook and the like don't need a four core let alone four core eight thread. Games on the other hand are already moving to eight core loads, you're like the guys back in 2009 talking about how you should get a dual core because games won't use four threads.

Vulkan and DX12 aren't used for GPGPU, I hope you realize that. No game uses GPGPU. I think I should actually start defining terms because you're that dumb. General Purpose (computing) on GPU. ie using them for non-graphical workloads like what you're talking about.

>>59231969
Uses too much power, Itanium tried doing that and look where it got them.

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

112KB, 722x554px

>>59232045
>>Productivity
>Ryzen 1800x

No, just no

>>59232033
Literally nothing I said was wrong

File: badge-xeon-vert[1].png (424KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1080x1080px

>>59231045
>i7

Please.

>>59232057
You know that's the only application it does that in right

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

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59232045
>>Gaming and Streaming/Youtubing
>Ryzen 1800x

Are you joking? Definitely not.

>>59232057
>potatoshop
Nope.png

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

179KB, 600x450px

>>59232064
Dude it does it in 99% of applications. I can post these all day. Ryzen is horrible for most work apps.

>>59232058
You generalized and went through China to say something simpler. It's not that "above 4 cores you need le speedz". It's that 4 cores are what most of games/or other desktop software can mostly use efficiently.

And I corrected you that the sweet spot (for those applications) is not 4c, but 4c/8t but that's minor.

>>59232077
Show non-adobe applications.

>>59232080
>It's not that "above 4 cores you need le speedz". It's that 4 cores are what most of games/or other desktop software can mostly use efficiently.

The end result of both statements is exactly the same. Stop arguing semantics you mouthbreather

>>59231997

You haven't lived very long on this earth have you? That's what they said about a single core when the pentium D and 64 x2 came out. That dual cores weren't worth it. Then came quad cores. then came 8 cores or 8 threads. And now it's time that we march forward onto more parallelism and it's going to happen eventually whether you appreciate it or not.

But if you're only gaming, why would spend money on an i7 when the 7350K is neck and neck for less than half the $$?

And if you do more than gaming (maybe you multitask or have TWO monitors, I know, tough for intel to understand), then perhaps you should look at whether more cores and threads might actually help you?

And when you start doing that you might find that certain games completely max out even a 7700k leaving no room for streaming or multitasking, and if you have the money, maybe the R7 1800x isn't a completely worthless buy like intel has you believing?

>>59231860
Look at what Joker said about his own test:

"The GPU bottleneck is now surely gone and I apologize for denying a bottleneck in earlier tests. I was wrong"

"One important thing to note is that on average we see a 20% gap in FPS"

The 1700 is truly horrible, it is the same price as the 7700k and is 20% slower.

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

>>59232066
>literally no information in graph pertaining to OBS settings, resolution, etc. or the fact that most streamers edit their stream later using *A VIDEO EDITING PROGRAM*

>>59232077
>another from the Adobe suite
Yes we all know Adobe can't program worth a damn, flash should have taught you that much.

File: photoscan-ryzen.png (43KB, 649x354px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 649x354px

>>59232086
Ryzen is very very bad for applications

>>59232092
That's a stupid meme because the latest 3D APis do the OPPOSITE. The main advantage they have is to bundle commands together that were previously sent from the CPU level. That is a DIRECT offloading of CPU load to the GPUs.

People have to realize GPUs are the parallel machines on your computer. The CPUs are for another job. They are for doing the serial complex stuff the GPUs can not do and they will never be the main paralellizer on them.

>>59232097
>The 1700 is truly horrible, it is the same price as the 7700k and is 20% slower.

Is that what joker said? I thought he STILL recommended the R7 over the kaby lake

>>59232086
>>59232104
Or your cpu is shit

File: sunspider.png (44KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 650x350px

>>59232104
Speaking of flash, how about a web test!

What a surprise, Ryzen fails again

>>59232108
You don't know how the whole "bundle" thing actually works, do you.

>>59232119

>beats the 6800k
>it fails

>>59232130
A $168 Intel CPU is beating a $500 top of the line Ryzen CPU

That is a catastrophic defeat

AMD really should have released the R5 series too.

>>59232119
>a few milliseconds
oh no, my productivity

>>59232097
i may have only visited reddit twice in my life, but

>If you want pure gaming performance and you are looking for 120+ fps then buy a 7700k
>If it turns out it does not perform well enough in games, then just buy a new 4k monitor, and then everything will not perform well enough in games.
>A 4k screen with g/freesync is the best thing you can do to make sure you don't regret buying ryzen :P I'm GPU bound at 4k ultra with 980ti SLI so bad that I could probably game on an i3 without noticing any difference in most games.

within a minute these people are showing that they have more common sense than /g/ of these past few weeks. holy shit.

>>59232141
same 168$ beats 1k$ Intel CPU

File: 62f481c11b[1].jpg (148KB, 995x556px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 995x556px

>>59232119
Who in their right mind would EVER pick intel!

File: 1487660319952.gif (2MB, 258x258px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 258x258px

>>59231468

>tfw I have a ti82 and see no reason to upgrade

>>59232047
I counted i7 fps as base. 97 fps is 7℅ of 112 fps. Am I wrong? Anyway the difference looks negligible to me.

>>59232097
Except the only people who actually play at 720p lowest settings are subhumans. The 1080p tests were more realistic mate.

Also that 7700K is at 5ghz

File: 2a28c8573f[1].jpg (164KB, 1014x559px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1014x559px

>>59232153

>okay what about Photorealism

What a surprise! Intel fails again!

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59232165
>The 1080p tests were more realistic mate.

I agree, check them out

Ryzen gets absolutely destroyed, beat by Intel CPUs that literally cost less than half as much

File: 30f8f99d47[1].jpg (146KB, 985x529px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 985x529px

>>59232176
>>59232153

>Well, surely blender will show the dominance of intel CPU's!

Haha! Think again, there is literally NO reason to get an intel CPU :P

>>59232033
locks are only a problem if you can't program, retard

>>59232184
Read the thread this image is already being discussed.

File: ea323e755f[1].jpg (140KB, 996x541px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 996x541px

>>59232184
>twice as fast at ray-tracing
B-but my 5FPS in gaming :((((

>>59232184
Nice pre-BIOS patch benchmarks.

You know, the BIOS patch that fixed the core parking problems. Hell golem.de said it increased performance by 17% on average.

File: e46d798b72[1].jpg (156KB, 981x531px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 981x531px

>>59232200
>well.... m-m-maybe intel will beat it in encoding

Intel fanboys committing SUDOKU in the STREETS

>>59232202
You dumbass, read the PC Gamer review, that is literally WITH THE BIOS UPDATE:

"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."

>>59232092
>>59232108
BTFO

>>59232212
Yeah that's the L3 victim cache fix. Not the core parking one. Asus hasn't put out their core parking fix BIOS yet.

File: a4e963e47f[1].jpg (66KB, 383x388px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 383x388px

>>59232224

So what you're saying is we should disable EVERY core on our CPUs because you can't properly split a single instruction over multiple threads? Because that sounds like a fucking idiot trying to make shit up.

>>59232164
I seriously don't know how you got to that number.

97,12/112,7 = 0,86, so the I3 is 14% slower compared to the I7.

And the I7 is 112,7/97,12= 1,16, 16 % faster compared to the I3.

Whichever number you take as the base I seriously don't understand how you got the 7% number

>>59232176
>Intel
>twice as expensive
>less than 5% performance improvement
Yup, sounds like intel. AMD wins.

Conclusion? Intel destroyed amd again

File: ryzen btfo by $70 cpu.jpg (12KB, 400x152px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x152px

>>59231045
>This picture is literally the state of AMD right now.

>>59232212
Just stop arguing with fanboys it's useless.

Whenever you beat them on an argument they will move onto the next goalpost.

As you are seeing here

>>59232236

>>59232282
I'd show you the patch notes but Asus entire site is down lol

>>59232278
Hahaha jesus that picture never fails to make me laugh

How could Ryzen seriously be this bad, it blows my mind

Rip amd

>>59232310
What you need to show me is results, graphs that show the 'greatly improved' gaming performance of Ryzen cpu's you are claiming

>>59232313
Because if it's single thread then none of those extra cores do anything for you.

>>59232331
Same story again, amd has many but weak cores

>>59232327
https://www.golem.de/news/ryzen-7-1800x-im-test-amd-ist-endlich-zurueck-1703-125996-4.html

>>59232278

Haha! A go-kart can turn faster than a Pick-up Truck, and the Go-kart costs less money, there is literally no reason to get a Pickup Truck! None! Car manufacturers should be embarrassed!

>>59232356
>https://www.golem.de/news/ryzen-7-1800x-im-test-amd-ist-endlich-zurueck-1703-125996-4.html

Now show me the graphs

>>59232356
No graphs and also arabic
KEK

>>59232348
They're at the same frequency virtually. IPC is the same. Core to core.

>>59232376
lower clock speeds though

>>59232376
And yet they always lose to intel, looks like I'm getting a 7700k after all

>>59232366
It's an update page saying they're redoing all the tests pretty much. The graphs later in the review are on Asus motherboards, not the patched MSI ones.

>>59232371
Seems like a personal problem.

>>59232394
Have you ever heard of an error bar?

>>59231486
literally 10 fps difference in gayming but better in almost everything else?

>>59231486
I make videos and stream. I would happily give up 7 fps if I can render my videos faster, and have great encoding when I stream.

ok

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

22KB, 650x200px

>>59232665
It's worse in almost everything else too, that's the sad part.

>>59232902
And that's not even taking into account price...The $500 Ryzen CPU gets beat by a $340 Intel CPU

>>59231468
>tfw I still have Phenom II X2 555 BE w/ 2 unlocked cores @ 4.2Ghz

>>59232991
That shit is slower than a 1.1ghz laptop i3

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Sysbench-Single-Threaded.jpg (73KB, 858x489px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 858x489px

>>59231851
>buying a xeon
why would I do such a silly thing?

>>59232918
Let's conveniently forget the price of 6900K, we don't need to talk about that, it's not like it matters.

File: Screenshot_20170224_034550.png (78KB, 754x477px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 754x477px

>>59233441
Who said anything about buying. I got a few of these chips for free.

>>59231853
Do you know how "AI" works in video games? It's single-threaded and can run on a potato (an AMD Jaguar core).

>>59232097
What a fucking liar. It says in the reddit post itself that HE ISN'T AUTHOR.

also
>720p low quality benchmark, yet again
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

File: 1488555789566.png (307KB, 489x603px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 489x603px

>>59231045
before and after ryzen

>>59231415
literally me

i'll upgrade only and only if the 6c/12t ryzen iz affordable and at least a 60% upgrade