So how many times has this happened now? >Bulldozer >GCN

>>59234606
Three years I've owned my 290X and there are still only a handful of high end cards that beat it.

THANK YOU BASED GCN
THANK YOU BASED AMD

>>59234606
every release since core 2
Boy do I remember the early core 2 benchmarks. AMDrones were calling them fake and were completely btfo.

>>59234606
>So how many times has this happened now?
Every single release since K6

Why AMD cant compete

just buy intel and nvidia

>>59234606
tfw got a fury x and in 80% of games I play I get better performance than the 1080.

File: 1482785554687.jpg (146KB, 654x539px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 654x539px

>>59234606
>have switched teams FX-8350
>still no reason to deprecate my 8350

>>59234606
>implying Ryzen didn't BTFO intel's thousand-dollar chip

File: AMD.png (423KB, 977x638px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 977x638px

>>59234754

>>59234758
>implying Ryzen didn't BTFO Inte's thousand-dollar chip

>>59234812
>implying it's $1000 due to cost balancing and not due to 0 competitions in the area

>not Intel and AMD
Why can't we all be friends you bunch of worthless nigger loving cuckfarts?

Also how has your day been

>>59234758

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MY SIDES

>>59234606
Just wait for ZEN+ and Navi. They will wreck Intel/Nvidia. AMD was too far behind, but after Ryzen I expect that they will get some money will be able to compete better.

Honestly for what it is, I don't think Ryzen was that bad. I don't play very many games so it doesn't particularity affect me, but Ryzen for things like Auto CAD seems really promising. I'll probably be going for it when later on in the year.

>>59234606
I hate to admit, but this was me for my last two graphics cards. I will not fall for it next time I upgrade.

>intel
single-purpose gaming rigs

>amd
>general computing/workstation/server

Why even use intel if you plan on using literally any other application along side your gaym? Intel is good only if you use one application at a time, which no one does except on dedicated gaming rigs.

Intel shills are pathetic.

>>59237371
Because it's not bad. It's a server arch scaled up for general purpose computing. Hence why it's on low power process ffs.

3 times cheaper 5960x performance, on par at both ST and MT, much lower power consumption in most workloads. Even in gaymes it's close (~-15%) to an overclocked 7700k and at 1440p+ it's equal or even better. It's not just good, it's outright amazing. All this hate on ryzen just doesn't make sense.

>>59237439
>amd
>general computing/workstation/server

>still hasn't launched workstation and server cpus

>>59234606
>Bulldozer
shit and everyone knew it long before launch

>GCN
Better than nvidia's offerings at the time

>Fury
did as advertised

>Polaris
did as advertised

>Now Ryzen
did as advertised

your point?

>>59237734
Yeah, yeah, Ryzen it's perfect.
For poorfags, I mean.

>>59239167
10 rupees have been depositied to your designated shitting street

File: amdrone-timeline.jpg (2MB, 700x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x5000px

>>59234606
Here let me give you a rundown

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59239167
For poorfags?

Are you joking?

Ryzen has some of the most awful price-performance you could possibly get

A $500 Ryzen processor gets beat by a $240 Intel processor

>>59234758
kek

>>59239184
Oh, you want me to stay quiet, AMDrone? They say every man has a price, 10 rupees aren't enough, if you want me to not say the bad about your raayzen give me more rupees.

File: ryzen-power.png (235KB, 602x685px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 602x685px

>>59237476
>low power process

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A fucking 7700K that is 20% faster than it uses less power

>>59239159
>Polaris
>did as advertised

Failing to deliver and rebranding the promises as Vega isn't doing as advertised Anon

>>59239219
But don't AMDrones say ayymd is always cheaper than Intel?

>>59239272
Not for Ryzen, you are literally paying more than twice as much for a Ryzen CPU than the equivalent Intel CPU

>>59239270
>Polaris advertised as a midrange gpu
>it comes out
>its a midrange gpu

commit suicide newfag

>>59239302
>equivalent intel cpu
show me this $300 6950X you speak of

>>59239264
Are you retarded?

>>59239219
>gaymen

>>>/v/

File: 17225882-1468185177748944_origin.jpg (120KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1920x1080px

>>59239303
>my mommy didn't allow me use 4chan during Pascal v Polaris

>>59239303
>>59239270
>AMD promised $200 VR-ready 970 competitor

>Got a $200 VR-ready 970-980 card

Polaris exceeded all of AMD's performance claims. It does better than the 1060, a more expensive card that Nvidia explicitly touted as a 980 replacement.

>>59239346
AHAHAHAHAHAHA

This picture never fails to make me laugh

>>59239346
This chart is accurate.

File: New-AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Pricing-Officially-Announced.jpg (47KB, 806x253px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 806x253px

I really want to see how a 1200X or whatever performs against a 7600K, consider they have 4c/4t design but 1200X is like $100 less.

>>59239373
I see you've already moved on to the "wait for the next generation" part of the cycle

Whats wrong with poolaris?

>>59239390
I have no reason to upgrade, and even if I did I'd probably get Intel/Nvidia again like my current setup considering AMD's wild performance discrepancies plus claiming that these are due to BIOS revisions.

I'm in no hurry to upgrade. It's just that I think releasing only the R7's was a big mistake on AMD's part.

>>59239347
Polaris got rebranded as mid range when it couldn't compete, Vega vaguely announced to keep stockholders happy.

I was there anon, it's the day I abandoned AMD

>>59239346
>2x 480
RMA yourself cuck

File: 1452644740212.png (1MB, 854x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 854x960px

>>59239585
he thinks Crossfired 480 can compete with a 1080

>>59239644

>he thinks it can't

>>59239695
>barely beats 1080 in ashes of amd
>corssfire meme
hahahahahahaha

>>59235120
And just a few weeks ago the line was
>Just wait for Zen and Vega. They will wreck Intel/Nvidia.
You're fucking proving the point.

>>59239448
Show me one mention from AMD that claims it as a high-performance/enthusiast card.

>>59239765
amdfags neither work, nor game
they just wait while shitting the internet

File: 1488536749109.png (609KB, 854x640px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 854x640px

>>59234606

>>59239198
>People actually use your OC

Feels noice.

>>59239767
http://marketrealist.com/2016/06/advanced-micro-devices-versus-nvidia-a-face-off-between-polaris-and-pascal-gpus/

>Not being here before Pascal v Polaris
>Not being here before Vega was even announced

>>59234606
>truly defeating the competition
>being cheaper than competition
pick one.

>>59238927
>what is r7 1800x

>>59239159
>Bulldozer
shit and everyone knew it long before launch

>GCN
shit and everyone knew it long before launch

>Fury
shit and everyone knew it long before launch

>Polaris
shit and everyone knew it long before launch

>Now Ryzen
shit and everyone knew it long before launch

>>59239882
>>59239882
>cheaper


AHAHAHAHAH

RYZEN IS BOTH MORE EXPENSIVE AND SLOWER, A COMPLETE DISASTER

>>59239941
it's as if all the models we're competing with the 7700k

The difference with Ryzen is it actually does crush Intel... in some use cases.

>>59239198
Thank you anon

>>59239264
>7700K that is 20% faster
In what? Poorly written gaymez that cannot utilize 4+ cores? I really don't get people who are comparing these 8 core chips with the 7700k when they are intended to be competitors of the 6900k.

File: 1446962201962.jpg (5KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x188px

>mfw not even amd owner but want amd to win so that intesrael has less of a monopoly

>>59239831
>http://marketrealist.com/2016/06/advanced-micro-devices-versus-nvidia-a-face-off-between-polaris-and-pascal-gpus/

>At a Computex 2016 press conference in Taiwan (EWT), Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) claimed that its first Polaris GPU (graphics processing unit), Radeon RX 480, will be able to deliver a similar performance as a $500 GPU, but at the low price of $199.

This is exactly what they delivered. A 980 was $500 at the time.

File: 480-980.png (29KB, 477x438px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 477x438px

>>59240224
Lol no the 480 could not beat a 980 or even match it

It couldn't even beat a 390x

The
>I'll wait for next gen and buy intel/nvidia
step doesn't apply this time. I'm buying a Ryzen to finally get an enthusiast grade system for half the price of an Intel.

>>59240300
>an enthusiast grade system for half the price of an Intel

Are you insane? Look at the prices, you are literally paying twice as much for Ryzen for less performance.

>>59240322
(You)

>>59240286
>similar performance
can you read fag?

File: 480 1060.png (503KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1920x1080px

>>59240286
So Nvidia lied too? They claimed the 1060 matched the 980.

(http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060)

The 480 matches the 1060.

Ergo, 480 matches 980.

>>59240344
>11% slower is similar

I see AMDtards live in an alternate universe

>>59240322
he'll probably compile gento and encode k4 hevc at the same time
too bad ryzen iommu is fucked

File: 1060-980.png (21KB, 478x364px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 478x364px

>>59240359
>So Nvidia lied too? They claimed the 1060 matched the 980.

Of course they didn't, they are not a scummy company like AMD.

The 1060 not only matched the 980, it was even slightly faster

>>59237734
[insert x] wars is the lowest form of board culture

this is what ruined other boards and is part of why /g/ is shit now too

>>59240322
*looks at the prices*
>6900k
1267 eur
>1800x
599 eur

So... yeah...

>>59240415
7700k - $340

1800X - $500

File: GTX-1060-UPDATE-100.jpg (66KB, 649x221px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 649x221px

>>59240401
>The 1060 not only matched the 980, it was even slightly faster


So the 480 is just as fast too right? Glad to see we agree that the 480 performs just as well as a 980.

PS: Don't use outdated charts.

>http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html

>>59240365
>11% slower
In gaymes. And guess what the clock speed is? 11% slower. Really makes the ticker tock.

>>59239198
1 shekel is deposited into your bank account

File: watchdogs-1440p.png (34KB, 806x291px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 806x291px

>>59237734
>on par at both ST and MT

Wrong


>much lower power consumption in most workload

Wrong

>at 1440p+ it's equal or even better

Wrong

>>59240365
>11% difference is not similar
kill yourself nigger

File: d5c.jpg (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

>>59240456

>>59240433
>7700k
$340
>OCed 1700
$320

>>59239373
this is outdated
1600x - 3.6/4.0 6C/12T 95w
1500x - 3.5/3.7 4c/8t 65w

>>59240467
What an argument

>>59240433
Dude, I was talking about an enthusiast grade system. That's a four core.

>>59240483
>Spits idiocy
>Expects an argument
wew

>>59240483
>complains about lack of argument
Just says "UR RONG HURHURHUR"
bur, inteldrone

File: perfrel_1920_1080.png (39KB, 500x1130px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x1130px

>>59240443
The 480 is clearly not as fast as a 980

>>59240487
I'm gonna give this one little bronze medal to Intel for having slightly higher IPC per core. For <4 cores its still a better processor than the 1700, its competitor. Once theres use for anything more than 4 physical cores, then Ryzen shines.

>>59240498
>>59240499
Sigh are you really children? Let me walk it through for you

Performance: >>59239219


Power: >>59239264

1440p: >>59240456

Ryzen fails at ALL of them, and not only that, it costs $160 more.

>>59240487
>enthusiast grade system

You are really confused about what an enthusiast grade system is

The 7700k wipes the floor with the 1800x in 99% of scenarios

If you have a dedicated rendering/encoding machine, then go ahead and put a 1800x in it and let it process all day

>>59240515
>>59240286
Same picture, onee just zoomed out.
You cant present the same piece of evidence again after it has been refuted, thats called circular logic.

>>59240554
I want all dem cores and threads. And now I can finally have them without the Intel tax. I always secretly wanted an X99 but it was just too damn expensive.

>>59240564
You didn't refute anything, go ahead and prove the RX 480 is faster than a 980

>>59240536
>performance
Stock clocks
>Power
If that is accurate, you got us there.
>1440p
One bench, one game, stock clocks.

File: perfrel_1920_1080.png (34KB, 500x810px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x810px

>>59240515
>launch benchmarks

Here's the latest set. A throttling reference 480 with its shitty cooler is now only 4% slower than a 980 on average, including the GoyWorks titles that TPU uses.

>>59240592
OK if you want a slower CPU that has more cores, be my guest

>>59240515
But it is as fast as a 1060.

You claim that a 1060 is as fast as a 980.

A = B
B = C

Therefore, A = C

Did they not teach simple logic where you went to study?

Again, don't use outdated charts.

>>59240600
Frankly, Im a different poster than before and do not own either chip, just pointing out that the picture had been posted in a zoomed-in variant previously.

>>59240536
Okay cunt.

>Performance

That's a gaming benchmark with a buggy BIOS. Look at the chart you're shitposting with dumbass. Disabling SMT improved performance. The article the chart comes from even says
>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. That's a huge gain from a firmware upgrade, especially for a platform that's about ready to ship, but I have to wonder if there's room for further improvements.

>1440p
Same as above.

>Power.
Again, you're not even looking at the chart. Of course a 4c/8t chip uses less power than an 8c/16t chip. Look at the idle times and max load, the 1800X is beating Intel's 8c/16t in both cases.

Kill yourself.

>>59240625
You are using very bad logic. See >>59240613


Still slower. That's also a reference 980.

>>59240658
4% is nothing, it depends on the games being tested.

See >>59240359

File: ryzen-r7-1800x-bench-bf1-1440p.png (31KB, 806x291px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 806x291px

>>59240608
Here have another 1440p bench, what a surprise, Ryzen loses again badly

GCN and polaris are/were both good (except the repeated rebrands). Both were decent in their price point at launch, and got better over time.

>>59240648
My cards arent even on that chart, why do I care?
t. 8GB 290X and 4GB 260X user

>>59240658
>You are using very bad logic.

I don't think you understand logic at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

>>59240643
>That's a gaming benchmark with a buggy BIOS.

Read the PC Gamer review, they literally already updated the BIOS and got 10% more performance.

That's how sad it is, they already boosted the Ryzen scores by 10% and they are STILL losing to an Intel processor that costs half as much.

>RYZEN SUCKS AMD BANKRUPT
>Check Amazon for motherboards.
>Temporarily out of stock.
>Temporarily out of stock.
>Temporarily out of stock.
>Temporarily out of stock.

Sure, Ryzen is a failure.

>>59234606
>Nvidia
>~~~~

File: rip.png (49KB, 812x341px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 812x341px

>>59240697
Yeah Ryzen is doing great. AMD's stock is tanking, but everything is fine.

>>59240674
Still neck and neck averages at STOCK, and given that 1440p monitors that are >60hz are a rarity, keeping it just under 60 for .1% of instances is pretty good.

>>59240710
>He doesn't understand "Buy rumor, sell facts."

Shiggy Diggy.

File: hqdefault.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

>>59240697
"Everything's fine, I swear!"

>>59240694
>wait for 10 bios updates
>100% more performance
>intel btfo

So I have a 4690k @ 4.5 Ghz OC with a 1080. I do 1440p 144fps games and some HTC Vive VR. Should I get a Ryzen/Intel cpu now or wait it out a little longer?

I feel like my CPU gets its biggest bottleneck in VR but does my fps suffer from my CPU in modern games?

>>59240674
>Chip with a non functioning SMT performs worse than chips with working SMT.

Wow, it's nothing.

>>59240718
It wouldn't be so bad if AMD's slower performing processor didn't cost 160 fucking more dollars. You are literally paying more for less.

>>59240734
I'd wait for the R5s if you want a Ryzen for gaming.

>>59240729
Get a 1700 and OC it to hell and back, if you go the AMD route.

Else, get a 6850k or 6900k

>>59240674
Again, buggy BIOS reducing performance. AMD64 and Nehalem had the same teething problems at launch.

>>59234624
3 years since I refunded my 290x because it kept black screening.
Thanks AMD.

>>59240734
7700k is by far the best gaming CPU right now, I'd go for that.

>>59240761
>7700k
$340
>1700 OCed to 1800X specs
$330
Your point?

>>59240726
>One of the biggest online distributed running out of stock means nothing.

Shiggy Diggy.

>>59234758
wew

>>59240764
That would be a huge downgrade

>>59240792
For the price, you probably don't need an i7, though they help with minimum frames.
You can get by even with Skylake i5 and be pretty much set for the most part.

>>59240764
r5 will probably clock even lower and have less performance than r7
r5 are defective r7 and amd won't disable cores and sell high binned r7 as r5
it's a joke

>>59240815
The guy's rich enough to buy VR. He aint gonna skimp out on an i5 of yesterlake.

File: my sides.jpg (21KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 340x340px

>post yfw AMD goes bankrupt

File: f4519b6a07a22c05d99b9228fd86c396.jpg (293KB, 800x1350px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 800x1350px

>>59240729
This
Amd hardware ages like fine wine.

>>59234606
>Polaris
RX480 is both faster and cheaper than GTX1060

File: 1488485994763.png (366KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1144x888px

>>59240853

>>59240799
Not to mention the 1700 comes with what is basically a hyper 212 evo, while with the7700k you get Jack Shit(tm)

>>59240817
This. The R5s will probably do even worse at game benchmarks. There's literally no reason to buy a Ryzen CPU at this point. For either gaming or work, Intel is a given.

>>59240621
As far as I can see, the 7700k is pretty much only faster in games. And even then only by a little.

I don't game anyway so yeah, the cores do win for me.

>>59240799
And then you OC the 7700k and it still beats the 1700 by 20%

There is literally no way you can win with Ryzen

File: 1459101741121.jpg (53KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 540x960px

>>59240853

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

22KB, 650x200px

>>59240888
>the 7700k is pretty much only faster in games

Wrong, it's faster in almost everything.

>>59240902
Until the 1700 reaches 8350 levels of OCability and hits 5GHz stable on standard liquid

>>59240853
I hope you realise that even if you're a die hard Intel fanboy it's in your best interest than Intel has a competition, unless you want to pay a fortune for an i3.

File: ryzen gaming.png (403KB, 1670x894px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1670x894px

ryzen is good though

>>59240945
I'd actually rather see AMD die than having to keep dealing with their retarded fanboys.

>GAMERS
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

-> /v/

>>59240951
I own a 6300, plan to upgrade to a 1700, and still think this is a bit bullshit. Gaymes are not as CPU focused as before, instead preferring to offload physics onto GPU.

File: 1360368220235.jpg (80KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x720px

>>59240853

>>59234812
thanks to AMD, Intel will drop the stupid price, still make a shit ton of money, outselling AMD and everybody is happy.
Brand loyalty is beyond retarded. intel fags and AMD fags will never understand this. I do hope AMD stops fucking up so we can get better cheaper shit in the future.

>>59234624
this.
Fuck, even the HD7970 is still capable of playing most of recent games on high settings with decent framerates at 1080p. That's a 6 year old card.
If you bought one back in 2011 you've made a heck of a deal.

>>59240999
Your intel fanship is showing a bit on that last statement.

File: cca65dd0d4e05e3e7b3d4912674701266075972c_full.jpg (11KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 184x184px

>>59240853
>Another Massive Disappointment

>>59241008
>tfw in 2011 I was gaming in 1080p on an HP Pavilion dv6

>>59240975
>I'd actually rather pay an arm and a dick for a CPU than having to keep dealing with AMD's retarded fanboys.
wew

>>59241017
Get your degeneracy off this board.

>>59240092
>moar corez iz bettur in muh single core gayms
Are you retarted

>>59239159
don't care dear anon, made almost 5 grand in three months with some AMD stocks thank to all of you being fucking blind and kyping the ever livin crap out of this launch. Sold my stuff on wednesday when the price was at it highgest and just in case kept some stock that will probably sell this week before it goes below 12.
Keep up with the insane stupidity supporting companies that fail to deliver, I don't mind the spare change.

>>59241043
>single core gaymez
What is Vulkan.

>>59241031
>pay an arm and a dick for a CPU
Yeah, no. Just got the 7700k and as I expected it's literally the best CPU in the market right now. Worth every penny.

File: 1390172490493.jpg (217KB, 717x960px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 717x960px

>>59240792
>>59240764
I'm under the impression that i5's are slowly become more obsolete/less competitive with DX12 on the way and with VR being heavily CPU intensive as well. Checking my CPU load in VR has both my GPU and CPU pretty maxed out. I'm really interested in VR and the future iterations of it and believe that higher performance CPUs will be better suited to making sure that the GPU will be the bottleneck and not the CPU.

Since I have a Z87 board I'm also interested in getting a new board with NVMe support because you always gotta go fast amirite? Should I wait it out another generation while my i5 is still somewhat relevant or are the gains of going to an i7 or Ryzen 7/5 and futureproofing for things like DX12 using more cores worth it? I feel like I'm on the cusp of not getting enough out of my current 4690 with the with the Ryzen 7's not offering enough for me at the moment and the 7700k seems like the best current option but I'm worried about future demands for programs that will make more use of architectures like Ryzen. The hype train is fun but I'm super conflicted here.

>>59241062
I meant after AMD dies you dipshit

As an intel shill, the only Ryzen CPUs i can see as worth their price for gaymen is R5 1400x all the way to R7 1700. R7 1700X is debatable because of its price

>>59241031
I'll pay more just to avoid dealing with the amdfanboi lot. They're that annoying and retarded.

>>59241073
It won't any different than how it is with Apple. I can live with that. AMD still needs to die though.

>>59241011
nah man, honestly I find it disturbing that Intel keeps playing this game alone releasing new stuff that barely has any improvements over last generation. I was hoping to AMD actually going all out and exposing how we've been fucked with this tiny performance increments. Maybe next time. I've had an old Phenom back in the day that I replaced with a 2600 and gave that away and got myself a 4790 almost two years ago, I will keep this one for at least two more years if this continues.

>>59241062
My palm immediately hit my face at mach 1 when I read that.
>best CPU
For what? Games and only games? >>>/v/
Workstation? Should have gotten old dual Xeons
Browser box? An rPi can handle that.

7700k is a solid CPU, don't get me wrong. It's just that there are better options for tasks that can utilize the higher core count of Xeons and Ryzen

File: 1487789493624.jpg (156KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 633x758px

>>59239198

DELET DIS

>>59234606
>Bulldozer
It was clear for like a year before its release that Bulldozer will be severely lacking in single threaded workloads. Only literal shills and blatant fanboys hyped Bulldozer shortly before/after its release.

>GCN
Nothing wrong with GCN.
The 79x0 series cards were beasts when released and were easily toe to toe with same gen Nvidia GPUs. They also only got better with time.
Though, the 200 and 300 series lacked major changes to the architecture and therefore fell behind.

>Fury
A little underwhelming, I agree. For AMD themselves it was a good testbed for HBM though, I'd say.
Were there any official benchmarks for Fury before its release that weren't some shady website making stuff up?

>Polaris
Polaris did exactly what was promised. Again, the retarded die-hard fanboys hyped it up and created expectations that couldn't be met.
No way in hell did Polaris actually fail or under deliver.

>Ryzen
I don't see anything flat out wrong with Ryzen. It's a new platform, so obviously it will have some kinks that need to be worked out in the beginning.
We should be glad that there aren't any (as of yet) hardware flaws like the Phenom TLB or Sandy Bridge SATA controller that need to be fixed at the cost of performance or even recalled.
The flaw that impacted Zen's gaming benchmarks in some reviews has actually already been fixed, and a fix for Microsoft's scheduler to fix detection of logical cores and correct amount of cache is also in the works right now.
What exactly do you think is wrong with Ryzen?

>>59239919
>everyone
You mean Intel smartfags and neutralfags

>>59241099
I mean I sit comfy with an Arrandale i5 on my daily driver (I do workstation/enthusiast stuff on a tower I SSH into) and have found no reason to switch to something new.

>>59240919
It won't be as good in giving cores to my VMs

So yeah, the cores are still going to win

>>59240853
>>59240877
>>59240906
>>59240975
These people are idiots who'd rather have their wallets raped than ignore a few threads on a mongolian knitting enthusiast site

File: Ryzen1.jpg (186KB, 1200x902px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1200x902px

>>59240853

It will destroy the reputation of Indians.

Get Samsung to buy AMD and rid of these fifthly poos

>>59241068
If your CPU is getting maxed out, definitely get the 7700k (or 7700 for no overclocking). Kaby Lake motherboards also have top of the line shit like NVMe, you will be getting a lot of upgrades.

File: herp derp.jpg (32KB, 243x312px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 243x312px

>>59241112
>I don't see anything flat out wrong with Ryzen

File: eea0abaf0a1d80c7752a0e2431730434.gif (498KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 400x400px

>>59241184
Tell me what's wrong with it the, shittuposuta-kun :)

>>59241184
what else is there other than shit 1080p gaming performance?

>>59241068
If you are okay with taking a performance hit right now to not have to upgrade as much later, 1700(x). If you want better performance now and are okay with upgrading later, 7700(k)

>>59241149
yeah I get you. That's my point, brand loyalty is fucking retarded at the time you need to build something you just see what's out there and make due. I find the prices on Intel stuff ludicrous, but there's no way to change that with decent competition and it's getting old that AMD can't get their shit together.
I believe you will be fine for at least another year with that Arrandale, I'd be totally fine with the 2600 but gave it away to my nephew when he showed me he was trying to build his first computer and was collecting parts.

>>59241222
Only loyalty I have is in the T410 and X220

>>59241209
See >>59234758
>>59239219
>>59239264
>>59240456

>>59241168
Yeah I'm excited since there's a lot of new features simply a new board for either will offer.

>>59241218
Do you really think 1700/x will scale/perform better with vulkan/dx12 later? I have no idea how much a cpu like that would compete against a 7700k in future program environments.

>>59239264
>a 4-core CPU uses less power than an 8-core CPU
who would have thought?

>>59241271
I think that with DX12/Vulkan all cores will be used, that and AM4 will probably still be here in6years while Intel has a new socket with every architecture.

>>59234606
Ryzen is worth buying just to make Intel feel the heat. AMD is competitive with Intel for the first time in like 5 years. Give it a chance, it's good for the industry.

>>59241302
this guy gets it

>>59241017
>Furry
>Another Massive Disappointment
Please leave your private life out of it. We're discussing technology here, not how your family views your life choices.

>>59241302
>>59241314
Samefag.
I own a 6300 and it does not compete with intel processors in the same era as it.

>>59241302
How is a slower processor that costs twice as much competitive?

Ryzen is a disaster and if you buy it you are only supporting a company that makes garbage products.

>>59241337
>Slower
By a small margin at the same clock speed
>More expensive
1700 is $10 cheaper and comes with a cooler.

File: reasons-to-live-ryzen.jpg (135KB, 284x640px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 284x640px

>>59240853

>>59241314
>/g/ shitting on ryzen due to its slower performance in games against highly overclocked 7700k
>Ryzen destroys X99 platform in server benchmarks
>the only Intel server module that beat the 1800X (a dual xeon with 64 threads) costs 10 times more for just a few points ahead

>>59241255
No CPU arch shines in all areas, be it AMD or Intel.
I could waste my time right now and post several benchmarks, some even single threaded, where Ryzen utterly destroys anything Intel has to offer, but I know you'll just continue to shitpost away so I won't bother.
I'm sure you already know of these.

>>59241347
By a small margin?

7700k is 20% faster than the 1700 and they are nearly the same price.

>>59241068
Kaby Lake will be your best bet now. Anything after this will get even better since Intel will want to shove AMD back in the corner where they belong but not dead. Skylake/Kabylake X and Coffeelake will be absolutely amazing

>>59241332
no, we're two separate fags. I just agreed with what he's saying
6300 is Vishera and therefore a piece of shit

File: 1000198800.jpg (50KB, 599x804px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x804px

how the FUCK can AMD fuck up so badly?
>millions of dollars worth of console contracts
>lots of prebuilts come with AMD processors
>tons of money coming in
>still cant compete with a bunch of jews who sell a chip with a 1% performance increase and a new socket for 400 bucks

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

441KB, 1670x1250px

>>59234606
what?

If you want a gaming CPU like a 7700K, wait for R5 series. Fewer cores, higher clock for single threaded performance, also much cheaper.

>>59241371
20% faster at stock clocks.
And whaddya know, the 7700k is clocked 1.2GHz higher than the 1700.

>>59241385
I wouldn't call being inferior in 1080p gaming and being AT LEAST on par in everything else fucking up badly

>>59241337
>How is a slower processor that costs twice as much competitive?
I wouldn't call AMD competitive if this statement was even close to the truth. It's categorically false.

>>59241407
>destroys in multithreaded applications
>destroying=maximum extra 8fps
Okay so according to your logic a car with 8 tires will beat a car with 4 tires
>*spoiler* most likely it wont

>>59241301
Cool and nice. That seems to make Ryzen's architechture a lot more competitive.

I have two months before I return from work in Europe so I can see how BIOS updates and stuff plays out and see some more non cancerous 1440p benchmarks.

>>59241377
Your timing is an impeccable 61 seconds afterwards, and the 4chan post cooldown is 60seconds.
Also, I know my 6300 is shit, that's why I'm going to a 1700.
Honestly the last time AMD was competitive with intel was the athlon 64

>>59241068
>>59241374
Everything is still unpatched for the Ryzen architecture, so I would take the initial gaming benchmarks with a huge grain of salt.

That said, R5 will be much better for gaming, for cheaper, with an extra 2 cores over a 7700K for a bit of future proofing. Definitely seems the way to go if you don't want to upgrade again in 6-12 months.

>>59241420
>brand new architecture and brand new chip is only on par
sounds like a fairly big fuck up

>>59241451
See my post here >>59241082

File: 1488428278854.jpg (396KB, 512x949px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 512x949px

>>59241385
They're run by incompetent poo in loos

>>59241440
No, a car with 8 cylinders, a turbo and 500cc/cylinder will fuck over a car with 4 cylinders, a slightly worse turbo and 900cc/cylinder

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

44KB, 650x350px

>>59241420
>AT LEAST on par in everything else

That's not even true, Ryzen fails in 99% of applications too

File: you dipshit.jpg (14KB, 512x184px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 512x184px

>>59241446
they are competitive now

AMD niggers BTFO

>>59241424
It's literally true see >>59239219

>>59241479
>talking about tires
>brings cylinders out of nowhere
>>>/n/

>>59241489
Yes, that's why Im getting a 1700 instead ofsomething like a 7700k.

>>59241487
>sunspider, the pinnacle of CPU benchmarks

>>59241489
does this mean 8th gen intel cores will be sandy bridge part 2?

>>59241507
tires is just a massively retarded comparision in this case

>>59241507
>cylinders are a more accurate representation of CPU cores than tires

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

22KB, 650x200px

>>59241511
I can post these all day. How about media creation, surely Ryzen should be good at that? Oh wait...

>>59241518
They'll be Haswell part 5: The Ride Never Ends

>>59241518
dunno, but I sure hope so. It will benefit both AMD and Intel and in fact CPU industry as a whole

>>59240919
>>59241487
>>59241528
S T O C K C L O C K S

>ryzen perform underwhelming
>that's understandable
>people trying to explain why
>" Hahahahahahah here your poo benchmark "
In the end, its jewtel shills who suck nigger cock non-stop

>>59241528
not a particurarly good benchmark if a quad core is faster than an octacore.
Unless you keep shitposting about single thread performance, then yes, I agree that 4.0GHz Ryzen is indeed slower than 4.6 or whatever GHz 7700K

So basically Skylake/Kabylake X will be the avenger of Broadwell E and the bane of Ryzen. Looking foward to this. Hopefully advances in the chipset/motherboard like Optane Memory will make Risen obsolete.

>>59241578
1800X stock: 3.8
1800X boost: 4.0
1800X max overclock: ???
7700k stock: 4.2
7700k max overclock: 5.0

>>59241574
And it is the bad apples of both sides slinging shit non-stop.

>>59241604
>>max overclock 5.0
You're very wrong my friend

>>59241643
Poorly worded
Max is 6.7 on LN2
Max most reviewers and people take 7700k's on liquid is 5.0

>inb4 ryzen takes the highest clockspeed record from the 8350, going over 8.4GHz on LHe

File: IMG_1555.png (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>59241683
Still wrong. http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-7-ghz-7350k-5-ghz/

>>59241748
Didn't notice that on my cursory internet search. 7 is the soft maximum at this point in time. Most people still keep it no higher than 5 or so, because that's what's stable on 99% of use cases.

>>59240554
>The 7700k wipes the floor with the 1800x in 99% of scenarios
>99% of scenarios
>muh gaymeys

>>59241487
MUH GAYMEN MUH SINGLE CORE

>>59237439
>>general computing/workstation/server
ryzen chips don't even have dual-socket support, did you think the trashcan pro was killer too buddy?

>>59239910
sure as fuck not more than an entry-level workstation chip at best

>>59240882
You get not only jack shit for cooler. You get rng lottery with thermal goop that forces you to void your warranty to get 5.0ghz on Delid Lake chips with passable temps.
At least my 4790k had SOMETHING resembling stock cooler when I got it. Thermal goop did not age well had to delid to remove 25 degree differences between cores.
I am planning on Ryzen sidegrade/upgrade before winter when they will fix issues with Wangblows scheduling and uefi.

>>59240857
L-LEWD

File: 1488594197699.jpg (59KB, 858x546px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 858x546px

>>59243265
>Muh dual socket
doesn't need it

>>59243165
>MUH GAYMEN MUH SINGLE CORE
yeah luckily serious adults like us watch cinebench all day long

>>59234758
>points start at 33000, not 0

nice bait, also:
>goygle

>>59243605
>>>/v/

File: 1482783597496.png (346KB, 500x464px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 500x464px

>>59243581
>cheapie rebadged i7s and six fucking year old Sandy Bridge multi-socket space heaters
Did you really think you were going to fool anyone with more than two neurons to rub together with this garbage? Get the corporate cock out of your mouth.

>>59243581
>servers don't need more than one socket
said absolutely nobody who actually knows what they're talking about ever, go back to your children's console ports

File: 1464372120242.png (855KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 960x720px

How in the fuck is Ryzen bad?

I really don't get what people are even complaining about. I mean honestly, is the difference between 230 and 220 fps really that important that you'd spend a shit load more for it?

Besides, it's a brand new chip. Bios updates and shit should help somewhat and eliminate the RAM issue.

All these autistic gaymers should honestly just shut the fuck up and wait for the 5 series. The 7 series isn't optimized for gaming. Besides, who in the fuck even buys a 500 dollar processor just to play games? I mean come the fuck on. Besides, 90% of the people shitting on AMD right now are stupid fucks who don't even use their pcs for anything other than playing games.

Still, I'm not gonna say that autismos weren't overhyping it, because they definitely were.

>>59235120
>Just wait for ZEN+ and Navi.
>just wait
NO
amd, never again, otherwise you will be waiting forever

>>59241008
7970 here. havent had a reason to upgrade since 2012 lmao. i will only if it starts to artifact or break.

File: macgyver.jpg (104KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x559px

>>59234606
I don't get why everything is bulldozer (which was unequivocally bad).

Phenom II was boss. I like my RX460 quite a bit as well.

AMD has always been able to give me mid range performance for low $ and I appreciate that.

Any punk bitch can plug in an alienware box and go but not everybody can short stroke a RAID on used disks or firmware mod /solder their GPU to bypass NVIDIA driver bullshit on ESXi.

>65W? Ryzen 1700 is my next CPU.

>>59234707
No you dont

>>59240945
>AMD friend's constantly complain the Intel cpus never have any improved performance

So why would I ever upgrade my cpu if the performance is never going to change?

>>59244296
to be fair you really don't

cluster management is a fuckload better nowadays.

>>59244310
Geezmate stop bringing logic into this thread. We're here for shit posting andl to outtroll each other

>>59235120
Zen is already beating dual 8 core Xeon builds, the arch is a fucking monster

>>59238927
The HEDT lineup is perfect for hobo workstation/servers and prosumers

>>59239390
Those are from the same generation stupid shill

>>59240710
Intel and Nvidia stock are crashing too, with Nvidia losing around 3% more than AMD despite not being in any important part of their business cycle

>>59241167
You know Intel has many more Indians than AMD, right?

>>59234624

cant wait to replace my 7970 with vega + freesync

>>59241082
After the 1700 diminishing returns kick in ridiculously heavily, there's almost no reason to get anything past that

>>59241357
Zen SMT is just insane, nothing out there performs remotely close to it

>>59245418
>cant wait
>amd
Get used to it ;^)

>>59241595
Unless Into introduces major changes to Skylake/Kaby X they literally cannot compete with Zen
The cores are smaller, more efficient and faster
The only way they can save their sever market is by going back to bribes or selling chips at a loss

>>59243265
Naples has at last 2P support, they already showed Naples at the Radeon Instinct event

File: drown in hotglue and diecarabinieri bari.png (128KB, 319x362px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 319x362px

>>59234758
>starts at 33000

GCN was gud tho, more than a match for nVidia chips of the era. And could have been even better had software been able to take advantage of it better.

Bulldozer.. yeah not much to defend here. Very niche use, at least the budget FX descendants are ok for their price brackets.

Fury, good but not enough. Kind of unbalanced and trying to squeeze too much out of the aging GCN arch at this point

Polaris, not what it was hyped up to be but still improved efficiency respectably and worthy competitor.

Ryzen, good on paper and for real work but a messy launch has magnified temporary shortcomings in specific types of applications.

I get the sense op isn't really shilling for any side but I just thought I'd lay out my evaluation. I think Ryzen will be a success for AMD, arguably is already. But it's not the kind of success they need more desperately that sells large volumes to consumers; they'll do fine in servers and workstations but even if gaming does improve, first impressions matter and they've lost a chance here. To be fair, some of it is out of their hands. But there's more they could have done they will do now.

File: 1488653145415.png (408KB, 882x1418px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 882x1418px

>>59234758
>google

>>59245680
But really I'm thinking the best thing AMD could really do is be smart with what they are preparing for Zen2, make sure that it's going to work with today's apps and not engineered to be tomorrows star.

To be honest, I'm more worried about Vega. The best hope we have for performance is early specs pegging FLOPS of the Instinct accelerators using Vega at the same levels as Titan X Pascal. The timing is pretty late though. Pascal could get a refresh very soon and Volta is probably only a year away at most and could be big. Even if the TFLOPS figure is right, we've always seen nVidia chips competing well with less raw power than AMD chips. Something that only ends up helping them in currency mining.

>>59241043
>moar corez iz bettur in muh single core gayms
Nice job missing the point

File: Chess_Single_Image_Stereogram_by_3Dimka.jpg (198KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 800x600px

http://www.strawpoll.me/12412168/r

>>59239270
>Failing to deliver
Deliver what, imageboard dwellers' overhyped demands?

File: stock.png (24KB, 616x384px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 616x384px

>>59245680
>I think Ryzen will be a success for AMD

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>59245055
AMD is now giving you LESS PERFORMANCE for HIGHER PRICES

That's literally how bad Ryzen is.

They are no longer the budget brand, they are one of the worst price-performance CPUs you can buy.

File: 1461243727776.png (17KB, 738x566px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 738x566px

>>59234758
>sigle threaded workload
>33000
>38000

>>59246998
lol sure, Intel shill. How much do they pay you for this shit?

>>59247257
You retard, look at the fucking numbers yourself. >>59239219

A $240 i5-7600K gets better performance than a $500 1800X Ryzen.

You are getting the shit scammed out of you if you buy Ryzen.

>>59247277
Oh no I get 8% AVERAGE fps drop in games meanwhile I get no shitty stuttering and I have a superior CPU who beats 1000$ Intel processor in any real world application that isn't gayming :(

You sure you are not in the wrong board? /v/ is too blocks down.

>>59239219
but the R7 1800X is better in single and multithreaded workload than the 6900K
how come the 6900K beats the 1800X?

>>59246999
>/v/ babby pretending to know stock
stay poor poorfag

>>59247322
sheenie magic

>>59247322
Guess what, AMD lied yet again

>>59247309
You are dumb as a brick.

You are paying twice as much for a Ryzen processor that performs worse, truly a horrible deal.

Here's my circle:

>Buy AMD because poor
>Skip 3-4 gens of upgrades
>Buy AMD because poor

File: adolf-hitler-in-colour.jpg (215KB, 1150x647px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1150x647px

>>59247454
Not sure if just trying really hard or an actual Intel shill paid 5$ a post.

>>59234758
The snacks industry uses that same kind of x-axis manipulation to make you believe high sodium intake is harmless.

>>59247444
>>59247454

jidf shills fuck off

>>59240784
>get a faulty card
>instead of RMAing it cry on an anime forum
>"i-it's AMDs fault guys!"

File: 1482255321325.jpg (22KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x240px

All I learned from this launch is that youtube "journalists" are manchildren that go into shit flinging contest whenever someone disagrees with them and can't be trusted under any circumstances.

Also that almost nobody knows how to measure CPU.

>>59247322
windows is fucked up. there is a ton of thread jugglin going on for no reason, cache doesn't work properly, SMT basically is a negative for games right now because windows doesn't know what to do with it etc.
disable HT on 6900 and it will fall right near 1800x.

>>59234606
GCN (Polaris included) does fine in benchmarks
just like Ryzen

>>59247444
>Guess what, AMD lied yet again
I never heard AMD claiming they will beat Intel single threaded performance

>>59247955
It's almost as if I've been saying that youtube 'reviewers' are garbage for years.

Ryzen forced intel to drop their fucking prices. That hasn't happened in my lifetime.

>>59248041
They didn't though.
Literally one retailer had a sale on. Stop reading clickbait headlines anon it's bad for your health.

>>59246978
Stocks dropped across the tech sector.

http://www.investopedia.com/news/nvidia-still-searching-bottom-nvda/

>>59248080
wew, nvidia dropped under 100 right after 1080ti announcement

>finished and bankrupt

>>59247909
not even a faulty card, it's an issue with gpu BIOS, I updated mine and my black screen issues went away & I could overclock it a lot more

>>59248092
As much as I want to shitpost about it, it's just the market.

So am I the only one with a 9370?

>>59234606
>intel poorfags are mad because they have to wait for r5

>>59247488
Yes just ignore the evidence and call people a shill

Look at the numbers yourself, it's 100% true

>>59247454
Tell that to people with a 7700k

>>59241055
API which only ID software knows how to code property aka DOA

>>59249123
great cpu that will only improve in time since more games will start using more than 4 threads while still having amazing single core perf, while amd again has 2x more cores/threads and awful single core perf

File: frus.jpg (115KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x480px

At the end of the day amdrones just know deep inside that intel+nvidia is the better choice. Their zeal in defending their pet company is the only way they can escape the truth that haunts them.

>>59239264
>literally the lowest idle power use of all of them
Wins for me.
>lower under use power consumption than direct competitors
If you want to cherrypick at least do it right.

>>59234758
AMD got murdered. Every AMD drone should be put in no name mass grave.

>>59247971
so where are the linux gaming benchmarks?

>>59250489
See >>59249506

>>59234624
Buying the 7870 was one of the worst purchases ever done. It was slow, loud, and died in a few years. Also there was no 3D vision, physx, gameworks, nothing.

It sucked.

>>59239198
>>59239811
well it's literally the perfect description of what's happening and it's ruining /g/.
last time it was the shitty housefire 480, now this piece of crap.

there are so many new hw and sw shit coming out, fuck amd, no one cares.

>>59253031
TressFX?

>>59240286
Don't know about these benchmarks, but 480 performs on-par with 980 now at least on Linux. Didn't follow stuff on Windows, but AMD open-source drivers are dope.

>>59234624
I bought a 6950 at launch.

Unlocked it to 6970 a month later.

Put a Scythe heatsink on it, to make it run completely noise free at 60c max.

Still going strong today, suitable replacements cost either 3x as much as this one did, or they are larger than a niggers cock.

I'll probably switch it once we get a $250 HBM card that is max 15cm long.

>>59248752
Why the fuck did you buy into the 9xxx series?

I can understand someone picking up an 8300 on the cheap, if you just want the cores (even if they're not really "full" cores) and you didn't care about the single-threaded performance, with the intent to keep your computer relevant as long as possible before upgrading, or maybe for things like compiling or encoding. I wouldn't do it, but I could understand it.

The 9xxx series were garbage. At that price and wattage, it didn't make sense.

File: ryzen-gentoo.png (41KB, 613x766px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 613x766px

Intelfags ITT:
>"MUH GAYMEN"

Ryzen is faster at what really counts: installing Gentoo

pic related

personally I'm selling my 4790k, because I do a lot more with my PC than just play games

>>59245119
if you really think clustering a pair of single-socket systems and bottlenecking them on a slow network is faster and more convenient than having two CPUs on the same board with painless, direct access to memory, storage and other system resources you really need to get your head examined or get a better job than shilling for a shitty company on a japanese anime website, you're fucking dumb