AyyMD

>no label
nice graph faglet

>>59233831
higher is better
what's hard to understand

>>59233897
The fact that I don't know what "higher" corresponds to.

File: MUHIPC_RYZEN_SINGLETHREAD.png (10KB, 425x96px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 425x96px

>>59233831
*breathes*
AHAHAHAHAHHAHA

even AMD A10-7890K is fucking better

>>59233808
Personally I'm tired of winning. AMD's only way to recuperate is to release their 4 cores and be able to oc them to 5Ghz.

The issue with that is the fact that their cherry picked wafers were reserved for r7 and those can't oc for shit even on single core. If their XFR is literally 100Mhz above Boost while leaving no room for OCing then those r3s and r5s will be even worse in single threaded performance than r7.

>>59233897

Because without axis labels it could just as easily mean "seconds to completion" you stupid fuck.

>>59233897
For all we know it could be some proprietary ICC compiled crap, that's the problem. Besides, any reasonable person who is after single threaded performance rather than parallel performance will wait for 4 core CPU, not a fucking 8 core/16 thread CPU clocked at what? 3GHz?

this is a containment thread turnback all ye who value worthwhile discussion.

File: 1476453690897.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>59233968
look at the filename fags, higher single thread performance = better

>>59234001
Ryzen 5 will be out in about 3 months, hope it's multi-core performance can keep up with i5 regardless of their single thread score else ryzen is pointless

>>59233936
This. AMD are fucking idiots. Intel knows how to shill for the common Desktop and for the gamers.
With 4core/8thread CPUs.
THAT'S how you create memes, not with fucking server chips nobody is going to talk about.

ryzen's ipc is stronk as fuck, 50% better than faildozer, just behind kaby lake. this thread is retarded.

File: 1488647301964.jpg (133KB, 577x719px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 577x719px

>if we OC it on water to housefire levels maybe we'd beat that ultra low voltage mobile chip

>>59233808
>hurr durr implying i know anything about cpu architecture
>hurr durr i have never seen linux benchmarks and compared them to any workload related on windows
>hurr durr i have never heard of numa nor do i understand what CCX is and what it implies performance wise
>hurr durr im shitposting on /g/ look how cool i am because i imply i know shit about technology

stay classy intel shill fag

>>59236861
Was this tested with high performance power profile, smt disabled, hpet disabled in bios and latest bios update? if not it's trash. And if it's on win10 there will be an update within a month that increases performance 20%

>>59237097
even if you add magical 50% improvement which will not happen it's still trash ayymdrone

>>59237097
>>59237275
just checked and nope they're using the old bios in this test from 2/23 not new one from 3/1 which fixed major performance bug

they also make no mention of if the power profile was set correctly which will disable cores in default state. also smt off is a big boost which they didn't test.

basically you should expect to fall a little above or below a 7700k depending on game with a proper setup at this time

>>59233897
>i3 > i5
Oh they've been jewing us out this whole time!!!