AMDeus Vult!

>1fps more than haslel
BRAVO
R
A
V
O

is that min fps ? 0.o

>>59232070
Yes, thats a min fps.

>>59232053
what happened here?
Fuck this graphs are all over the place.

File: AMD.jpg (6KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 320x320px

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES

>>59232053
>haswell above skylake
wtf lol

>>59232070
yes, and since gamers are retarded they do not know how to properly read graphs

>>59232113
Nothing. Just another retarded AMD post where OP fails to realize a GPU limitation will hit way sooner than CPU bottleneck. Ryzen is 8% slower than Kaby while running on 20% slower clocks. That's exactly what correctly ran benchmarks show.

>>59232068
for twice the price

>>59232053
$500 Ryzen CPU beat by $240 Intel CPU

Just lmao, Ryzen is so fucking bad

>>59232155
But this is 1080p, some graphs show Ryzen being 30% behind the pack some show it being 10% behind the pack, this one shows it being 10% ahead of the pack.

>>59232178
simple for honor just came out, everything else is two-4 years old

also even in bf1 min/avg difference is smaller than for 7700k

>>59232155
IPC is equal and the clocks are only 15% lower. You were probably looking at pre-BIOS patch benchmarks. The MSI patch for example boosted performance in games by 17% on average.

>>59232113
Blame motherboard manufacturers

>>59232155
But the big thing here isn't average framerate, it's the fact that it has a massive advantage over any Intel chip in terms of minimum framerate, which is a far more important metric in most cases.

>>59232053
THIS IS INCORRECT IMAGE AND BENCHAMRK.
FIRST ITS NOT 640X480.
SECOND IS WHO THE FUCK CARES ITS A BROKEN SHIT GAME.
THIRD. WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT MINIMUM FPS WE ONLY CARE ABOUT MAX = GOOD MIN = BAD.


AMD SHILLS OUT<>>

>>59232053
Sir, you should of follow our instructions... I kindly ask you to remove that image.

>>59232068
25% higher minimum frames.

G O D C H I P

>>59232155
t. shill hoping you don't notice the min framerate difference

>>59232053
It is already decided. Ryzen is bad in Far Cry 3 800x600 so ITS TRASH IN GAMING DO NOT BUY OK?

>>59232053
Source? I can't find it.

>>59232924

http://pclab.pl/art73043-4.html

>>59232924
http://pclab.pl/art73043.html

>>59232053
>no source
Whatever you say AMDrone.

>>59232948
Two posts above yours.

File: 1361619154146.png (356KB, 1100x1002px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1100x1002px

DELET

>>59232178
20% higher minimum framerates, not 10%.

File: 1488613836246[1].jpg (148KB, 680x486px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 680x486px

>>59232053

>>59232221
When was the MSI patch?

Is there a source for this benchmark?

File: 1371072711284.png (280KB, 752x548px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 752x548px

DELET THIS

>>59232053
Literally who cares about minimum FPS, lol.

File: 1375463882184.jpg (1MB, 1845x1923px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1845x1923px

DELETE

>>59232939
ty

>>59232221
Last MSI update I see is from March 1st. Shouldn't reviewers have had that update?

>>59233019
Everyone ? Max fps is shit if it's not stable

>>59233049
They didn't start work on their reviews a day before launch.

>>59233051
That anon is obviously being faceticious.

Everyone knows that minimum, 0.1% percentile, and 1% percentile are the most important benchmarks next to frametime graphs.

>AMD is quite literally always behind intel
why even bother?
intel will roflstomp them in a few months anyway

File: 1370101857104.png (17KB, 650x295px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 650x295px

DELET

>>59233019
This. AVG fps is far more important than min FPS.

>>59232053
>1080p
Who the fuck plays in 1080p lul.

File: 1477842843406.png (316KB, 600x860px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 600x860px

Are we finally free? is it the day when AMD finally won?

>>59232053
Tech City also ran For Honor. They got much better results for the 7700k that's basically a 6700k.

https://youtu.be/caDxAJMAu0w?t=2m43s

However it seems the only real difference in their tests is that pclab.pl picked a more complex scene in the single player to benchmark that has tons of trees.

>>59233019
minimum is what matters the most, if anything

>>59232979
dank meme.

>>59233160
isn't it the whole point of such tests to find the most taxing scene and confirm which part performs the worst? And apparently cheap 8c is not a meme.

File: no bro.jpg (68KB, 1280x872px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1280x872px

>>59233172
>minimum is what matters the most

>>59233172
no, the gap between avg and minimum is what matters
smaller the better

>>59233172
No. What matters the most is average and variance.

>>59233196
I would think so, definitely.

It could also be that in the Tech Spot tests, that older board BIOS made Ryzen underperform in the less complex test.

In Tech Spots test they got a similar 133 minimum FPS but over 150 max in a less complicated scene.

Hopefully more reviewers revisit soon.

>>59233209
ok. Here's your 0fps cpu

>>59232053
This cannot be right!

Min fps is the holy grail of cpu test atm, max fps is just muh ghz. we dont live on Pentium era anymore

>>59232155
>he didn't notice min fps
I'm sure you like min 60fps up to max 140fps in your games

I'm torn. Minimum take rate is definitely more imporant than average frame rate if you already reach an acceptable average FPS threshold, but only some of the benches demonstrate this performance. What is going on? And don't say motherboard BIOS isssues and a memory bug.

>>59233069

Intel, the new waitfags.

>>59234799
>people should be ok with stutters and random FPS dips just like me

>>59234826
Window dont recognize zen hypertrading core, window treat it like real core. this can be fix by window update or bios

>>59234925
Jesus Rajeet at least speak passable English

>>59234763
>testing muh minimum in a Ubisoft game
Zero consistency

>>59232053
Maybe they should test Ryzen with integrated graph-

OH WAIT

Yet another value added feature that Intel gives us over AMD

>>59234826
windows thinks ryzen L3 cache is 128MB, it's actually 20 for one thing

still look at frametime graphs, kaby is all over the place, zen got smooth line

>>59232113
Its sorted by max fps and the inner bar is min fps

>>59236484
Other way around bud

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

>>59232053
1700 has similar performance. this is insane value. almost every reviewer noted ryzen was smoother than kabylake in spite of lower fps. if i were building a game pc today it would be with 1700

>>59233209
And generally speaking, higher mins = smaller gap. Yes you're right tho, you want steady framerate and many reviewers noted ryzen is steadier.

>>59234846

/g/ is if that is what Intel delivers.

File: 1477226725823.gif (3MB, 250x153px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x153px

>>59236660
>he says confidently without posting a frametime graph

>>59236273
Yeah, no.
Fuck intel for force my throat to their "integrated trash". Why I need to spend money for thing I don't give a fuck?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/

Apparently SMT is freaking great if it's not limited.

File: loads of shekels.gif (509KB, 450x241px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 450x241px

>>59237154

>X99

>>59237232

Its impressive given this is AMD's first production implementation of SMT and it is way better than Initel's initial attempt. Then again learning from Intel's mistakes is probably how AMD got here.

Still, the grandmaster of SMT remains IBM.

>>59236914
>he says confidently without posting a frametime graph

File: 328278-db372f4c-e475-11e3-ba62-a129b4e220c3[1].jpg (31KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 650x488px

INTELLIOTS BTFO

>>59237232

can someone ELI5 me on what this means? What negative performance impacts happens with that error?

>crusades failed
>amd failed

Hmmm

>>59232053
>no i7 7700k
>no i5 7600k
>no i5 7500
>no i5 7400

AMD is strawmanning Intel by not using high value high gaming performance CPU's but instead random to try to make themselves look good.

>>59238304

*takes a look at Jerusalem on Google Maps*
>Israel territory

Judeo/Christian values won over islam

File: Intel and AMD price.png (170KB, 876x811px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 876x811px

>paying more for less performance than Intel

>>59238640

>being swedish

File: deport.jpg (74KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x635px

>>59238755
Actually it is a Icelandic currency and we deport immigrants, unlike Swedes.

>>59238755
>being poojeet

Why do they always show fps? It's not a good way to measure performance. Shows how retarded gamers are.

>>59233082
kek

>>59238818

Frametimes are hard to understand.

>>59238936
And fps are easy to misunderstand.

File: 8b1.png (666KB, 1126x845px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1126x845px

>>59232053
GPU bottle neck

>>59232053
>tfw i5 4690k @ 4.4 ghz
>within 1 fps of a $500 ryzen 16 thread cpu

feels good man

>>59232053
"framerate"

>>59236258
Except that For Honor test is absurdly consistent. Most of the pentiums have similar minimums that scale with OC.

>>59236725
Looks like an obvious SMT issue. Look how shitty the i5-7500 with only 4 threads is.

File: Untitled-1-640x353.jpg (29KB, 640x353px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x353px

>>59238291
It means that AMD's SMT gives a 50-90% greater improvement over HT when it's utilized properly.

You can see this in Cinebench where nT performance is about an extra 10% higher per core over Intel.
The 1800X is being the 10 core 6950X with 13% higher clocks on the intel part in multithreading because SMT is so good.

But in games? The games apparently are specifically optimized for HT and there's problems with the Windows scheduler, at least in win10, that are giving SMT a 8-12% performance drop.

But you can see in many games since Crysis 3 and newer get a 20-45% performance increase with HT.
If SMT were working, you'd expect a 30-85% performance increase. Which means the 4c/8t Ryzen part that's coming, even with less IPC and lower clocks, may end up outperforming the 7700k in newer games even it's optimized the same.

>>59238640
It says right there that the Ryzen part is like 25% less than the 6800k?
That's cheap.

Are you too stupid that you can't see that 53.900 < 69.900?

>>59238973
That does not explain the minimum frames being shit for intel, you moron.

>>59232053
is this a smt/bios fixed benchmark? are there other benchmarks for this game?

>>59243094

>FPU massacre

True enough, but the second you truly slam memory bandwidth (possibly latency as well x99 will pull ahead.

File: 1487785893823.jpg (9KB, 246x227px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 246x227px

NOOO! THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ANOTHER BULLDOZER!!!!!!

>>59243200
>True enough, but the second you truly slam memory bandwidth (possibly latency as well x99 will pull ahead.

True, but very very very few applications can use more than 60-90Gbp/s of memory bandwidth.

>>59243125
Nope seems this is still with SMT enabled. It's just the benchmarker used a more complex scene in the single player than Tech Spot did which Intels seem to stutter with.

>>59232155
>The most correct way of benchmarking a device is showing the worst result.

Oh ok.

>>59232053
Do you have any other benchmarks that show results like these or just this MOBA Ubisoft game

File: 1488664232472.png (84KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 653x726px

>>59243203
P-PLZ DELET

>>59243541
10/10 best post I've seen all week on ryzen

File: anandbench1.png (44KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 650x350px

>Intelshills will ignore this

>>59245718
I don't think anyone has ignored R7's results in large static parallel jobs. The fact that no has done benchmarks on live work situations is a pretty worrisome. It might be slow in actual live work in video editors, image editors,IDEs, DAWs, etc.

>>59232053
Why are the minimum frametimes so much better on Zen? 140 vs 117.

>>59233082
So simple and yet so perfect and full of meaning.

>>59232689
you seem upset :^)

>>59236273
>b-but... muh integrated graphex!!1

File: steam.png (23KB, 921x461px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 921x461px

>>59233129

>>59246880
but anon this cant be true

for the past 3 days i thought playing on 480p and 720p is the norm around here

>>59246880
who the fuck plays in 2017 lul.

File: ryzen linux compilation.png (47KB, 748x984px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 748x984px

>>59245767
>It might be slow in actual live work in video editors, image editors,IDEs, DAWs, etc.
I'd call rendering in Blender an actual live work. Also the benchmarks from Phoronix are really promising, especially how Ryzen dominates in compiling stuff. This is still using a Linux kernel without the Ryzen specific patches to the scheduler. Will be interesting to see what happens when those hit the major distributions.

>>59246947
Which patches? Actually interested

>>59247049
Most apparently hitting in 4.10, but it's a bit unclear which patches in particular are really related to Ryzen performance. Source:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-Zen-Ryzen17h-Patches