>look at the state of /g/ >think Zen might have flopped

>>59255364
You mean those reviewers who get products for free and don't say anything too bad about them or else they might not get samples to review anymore?

>>59255364
intel shills are everywhere

It's a 6900k at half or third the price and that's it.

>>59255452
There'd be like 5 sites doing reviews if nobody sent them anything.

>>59255499
Five honest reviews is enough.

>>59255576
I agree, but you think companies wouldn't try to convince them in other ways?
And it turns out you don't know who to trust, since their connection to the company is more hidden.

>>59255611
and that´s why you don´t trust any of them :P

>>59255576
>it's okay when intel and nvidia does it!

You were being trolled by your massive ignorance if you were taking reviews given to you at face value as if confirmation bias isn't a term that exists.

>>59255364
Yes, you're being trolled. A bunch of fa/g/gots got on the hype train that AMD's new architecture was going to blow away Intel in literally every category imaginable and do it for a quarter of the cost.

Turns out the Zen architecture is merely incredibly competitive. Meeting or even exceeding Intel in some benchmarks, and losing to them on several others - especially gaming ones that rely heavily on clock speed and IPC.

This is their first competitive architecture in over a decade. That alone is quite an accomplishment. There is actually a legit choice now in the CPU market based on your needs and not just finances alone.

File: 1488728804432.png (45KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 960x540px

>>59255364
The regular 1700 is the most interesting CPU of the launch and it was the most neglected.

Look at that efficiency, 8 cores at 3.3GHz running a AVX(full register rape) workload under 58 watts, so in regular non-SIMD workloads much lower.

The 1700 has cTDP BIOS config for 35W as well, pegs all cores under 1.9GHz and by some rough estimation it should pull under 29 watts.

These APUs using these cores will be monsters.

>>59255713
40 core 165W TDP chips when?

>>59255364

That power of the media tho

Anything that says overclocking: yes can be safely thrown into the trash.

>>59256047
The 1700 can indeed OC some 35%, that makes it the best CPU of the lineup.

File: 7stagesofbeinganAMDfan2.png (1MB, 3504x1580px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3504x1580px

>>59255364
>>59256047

This chart merely shows that they mentioned OCing and Gaming in their review. Not that it's good for gaming and ocing. As for recommendations - Ryzen is a solid 8/10, it's just /g/ being shat on by Intel fans cause of the ravage shitposting we were going through for the last month.

>>59256173
>The 1700 can indeed OC some 35%, that makes it the best CPU of the lineup.
wrong, most run at 4-4.1 which is essentially boost clock or 100 mhz higher, it's literally a nothignburger

>>59256286
1700's base clock is 3.0, dude.

>>59255364
There's a bunch of trolls, retards and shills running around posting EBIN GAYME BENCHMARKS that show higher IPC Intel CPUs beating Ryzen in old-ass, poorly optimized DX 11 games at 1080p, and even then it's like 120 FPS vs 140 FPS or so.

>>59256335
There's also issues with some motherboards and Windows 10 scheduler causing some performance loss.

>>59255364
I find it funny how all the bigger shill sites don't want to say it's good and all the smaller more technical true enthusiast sites do recommend it

>>59255985
It would be 32 cores ~190W Naples.

>>59256391
At what clocks though?

>>59256404
No one knows. Certainly higher than Intel's future 32cores Skylake-EX Xeons.

>>59255364
Lol
Ryzen is did red pill us whos shilling who

>>59256404
Rough calculations put it around 2.7-2.9, taking cherrypicked bins and more tuned process in mind.

>>59256420
What the fuck is that English.

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

478KB, 1997x1232px

>>59256335
More like 200 frames difference

>>59256444
200 frames that you'll never be able to pick up on

File: [GJM] Urara Meirochou - 08 [65E5361D].mkv_snapshot_14.12_[2017.02.24_11.10.34].jpg (181KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x720px

>>59256444
How can 200 frames per second be real if our eyes aren't real?

>>59256383

I find it funny how any youtube/twitch streamer gives them the authority to create an official benchmark and have a say on performance.

>>59256335
IPC literally doesn't matter when you're GPU bound

>>59256535
thatsthepoint.wmv

>>59256535

4K monitor prices need to seriously drop because that's the bottleneck for many users at this point.

>>59256593
Not really. Not even the titan xp is good enough for 4k, we're still on 1080p level of gaming where intel destroyed pajeets

>>59256444
How does that benchmark even matter ? Most PC monitors can't go above 144fps

Doing the same benchmark at higher resolutions wouldve given better results.

File: 1488623971797.png (1MB, 1053x1780px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1053x1780px

>>59255364
REDTEAM+ IN FULL DAMAGE CONTROL MODE TODAY!!

>>59256634
Some games are playable at 4k with solid frame rates with a enthusiast system. Most everything will hit over 60fps at 2560x1440 and 2560x1600.

1920x1080 is commodity tier. Its the lowest common denominator, not enthusiast.

The LG 32UD99 for 1,000 burger bucks

Dats bretty gub

But not for /g/.

>>59256655
There is no higher resolution poojet. Put a titan xp in 4k decent settings and you never go beyond 40 fps. 1080 is still the norm, where ayymd gets destroyed

>>59255655
Not sure if I ever said that.

>>59256665
paid shilltell marketer making fake memes confirmed, just fuck off

File: poor6950x.png (67KB, 596x865px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 596x865px

>>59255364
Ryzen buried Broadwell-E. RIP

>>59256655

My input lag is that fast, my reflexes and reaction time are faster than a fighter pilots.

So this applies to me.

File: 1488631189296.jpg (1MB, 1845x1923px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1845x1923px

>>59256665
You need to go back to /v/.

File: IMG_2565.png (112KB, 722x554px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 722x554px

>>59256731
You need to poo in loo

>>59256767

Oh my god, thirty seconds!

Just enough time to fuck your mom and wet nap her mess off me.

>>59256767
ah yes, adobe photoshop, the only "multithreaded" workload where singlethreaded performance is king for basically no reason.

>>59256789
>>Oh my god, thirty seconds!
More like a third of a second.

>>59255364
i bet intel's /g/ shilling monthly budget is bigger that what i made last 5 years

                                                                                              i've been unemployed for 5 years

>>59256818

This changes nothing.

>>59256767
How is it a heavy workload if it finished in literally in a second and half?
I mean why would anyone botter to multithread this when it's over as soon as you click?

>>59256665
>Everyone in this thread discussing this exact kind of retard shill meme benchmark
>He posts it anyway

Seriously, what were you even hoping to accomplish here?

>>59255364
R7 is an excellent chip for its intended purpose. /g/ believes anything that doesn't play muh games at the highest framerates is a failure.

>>59255364
Ok /g/, I need a definitive answer now. I want to start ordering my parts today.

Am I safe with Ryzen? If so, which do I get, 1700, 1700X or 1800X

>>59256887
1700 is a safe bet. Some motherboards have issues, and Windows 10 needs to be patched.

>>59256887
>Am I safe with Ryzen?
For doing what.

Anyway, I'd really wait a bit for the BIOS(mostly ASUS and MSI) and software(Windows) to be done before you buy anything, there's Gigabyte motherboards out that are higher performing than other motherboards for who knows what fucking reason.

>>59256887
>Am I safe with Ryzen?
If you intend on doing mostly or only gaming, no, it's a terrible buy.

>>59256930
Jesus Christ it ends up that Biostar, ASrock and Gigabyte fucked up less than everyone else during this launch.

>>59256938
At resolutions higher than 1080p, it's fine. Nobody is buying a high end CPU and a 1080 then running games at 1080p anyway.

>>59256925
Ok, I'm pretty much set on getting Ryzen, but there's no way I'm installing 10. If it doesn't support 7, I'll still be content with 8.1, but I don't want to touch 10 with a 10 foot pole.

>>59256930
I'm basically just building a dedicated gaming machine, but I will probably use it as a workstation at some points in time as well. And how long is the wait on those patches?

>>59256938
Well I don't really play AAA list games or whatever, the highest demanding games I'll be playing are likely DX:MD and Skryim. For these two, is Ryzen fine?

File: 1487799161453-a.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

Did anyone honestly think Ryzen was going to completely destroy Intel? I didn't and I wanted AMD to succeed. Ryzen is leaps and bounds better than their old 32nm based bulldozer/piledriver chips in every regard. Their single core IPC has almost tripled and is now on par with Intel processors. AMDs strong point was always multicore, and it shows with their 16 thread Ryzen chips.

What people are forgetting is that Ryzen performance as it stands now means consumers now have a choice. You won't HAVE to go Intel for high performance anymore. There is actual competition in the market, and for the way time in a long time, Intel may have to learn to price cut heavily on their E series chips to keep up sales or lose out to AMD. Never once did I think AMD was going to make 16 thread monsters their mainstream chip. Now you can get 16 threads on pare with Haswell for under $400 when before, Intel was the only option and you'd be paying mi imum $500 for the Xeon. $1100+ if you want overclocking. Ryzen will only get better as time goes on. Better BIOS revisions, Windows optimization for proper scheduling. And that's just based on their 16 thread models. I feel the soon to be released 12/8/4 thread models are going to be game changers. I5/i7 performance on the cheap. I'm looking forward to what AMD will release, and all this is coming from an i7-6700k owner.

TL,DR

Ryzen is good enough to inject competition back into the Intel run stagnant CPU market. When company's are fighting each other for dominance and market share, the consumer benefits.

>>59256987
>At resolutions higher than 1080p
At resolutions where the CPU isn't stressed.
It might be fine today. But when the GPU bottleneck is removed, Ryzen struggles sooner than Intel chips half its price.

There's no scenario where you are gaming and aren't paying more for less. It might be "okay", but you can have "better" for less or equivalent prices. If he's not doing production workloads, all r7 chips are bad value at MSRP. For gaming.

>>59256988
>For these two, is Ryzen fine?
No. Because it's bad value.
There are cheaper chips which provide better performance. It's that simple.

>>59256887

You're safe for now, but the motherboards are terrible. I would grab a B350 as a place holder for a much better board to come out.

Gaming performance is also going to improve as well. It's a brand new architecture.

>>59257063
>when the GPU bottleneck is removed
So, never? The 1080 ti isn't a miracle pill.

>>59257063
Well what are these cheaper chips then? Cause I'm not comfortable with Jewbylake. If I'm going to use Intel, I'm only willing to go up to broadwell.

File: Screenshot from 05-03-2017 20:22:39.png (55KB, 681x579px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 681x579px

>>59257063
Eh.. I think he can live with it for gaming, he said it's not exclusively for gaming.
You're acting like it's like 30% behind or something.

>>59256879
which is what ? doing encodes ? there have been 0 benchmarks of how it performs while you are actively doing work.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 16.26.15-fullpage.png (1005KB, 734x5000px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 734x5000px

>>59257114
Computation:
https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-linux-benchmarks-zen-buy/


"Work"
<-

>1800X model
This is the only model worth talking about, only because it offers so many cores for so cheap and is great at its intended purpose which is multi threaded shit.


Every other ryzen model has a comparable in price intel competitor (eg 1700/1700x compete against the 7700/7700k) , and then the intel one tends to be the better buy.

>>59257074
Well, I don't really have money to throw around, and I'm wanting the budget I set to be the final purchase. I don't want to buy something temporarily and then rebuy something else. What do you think an estimate for these better boards to come out is?

>>59257135
The 1700X is 6% slower and costs $100 less.
The 1700 is 15% slower, costs $200 less and uses half the power.

The 1800X is the least value.

>>59257135
1700 overclocks to stock 1800x levels. 1800x doesn't overclock shit.

>>59257155
less than what ? the 7700k ?

Are there some agreement between supermicro and intel? I.e. I don't see they announcing any am4 motherboards (as was the case with socket 1150 and 1151).

>>59257170
I don't follow.

>>59257128
Ryzen is a beast at encryption and hashing as well. The thing places well above $1000+ chips. Plus all those cores at low power usage, it's a good VM/VPS host

>>59256665
>would a workstation cpu not have dual socket support
Uh, yea. Xeon E3s and E5-1600s don't.

>>59257094
>So, never?
Higher resolution gameplay is increasingly the norm, and with it, GPUs which can drive it.

It doesn't really matter how soon 4K-capable GPUs become the norm though. It's more money for less performance no matter the resolution you perform at. The CPU is weaker for gaming, and costs more. There's no reason to buy r7 if you only intend to game.

>>59257095
Buy whatever you want bro. It's your money. 7700K trashes the 1700 for the same money, and the 1800X for more.

>>59257101
If you're paying more money for a product that performs worse in the scenarios that you want than a product that performs better and is cheaper, it's a bad buy.

I can't quite understand this rationalization. You are literally paying more for less. There's no reason to do it.

File: 1472177386843.png (4KB, 310x253px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 310x253px

Ok so I have stayed clear of this debate shit for a while
I looked up the 6900k as I thought it was just anouther i7 4c 8t chip... Its an $1,100 CPU
Inst the AMD like $400? Why are they even being compared to each other?
>tfw I have actually bought 3 i7 extreme chips

File: micro center 7700k.jpg (191KB, 1524x1159px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1524x1159px

>>59257155
Does the 1700 and 1700X cost less than $300 ?
Ok, so there goes your point about costing less.

>>59257226
>Why are they even being compared to each other?
Because the $400 one equals it in performance, and they're both 8 core chips with similar clockspeeds.

>>59257240
Suddenly everyone is within spitting distance of Microcenter after Zen launched.

>>59257226
AMD deliberately made them half the price because they're extremely similar performance-wise. Placing them at the same price bracket wouldn't inspire as many people to buy them.

As someone who does game extensively but also does a lot of video encoding and video editing, is the 1700 (non X) a good buy? I'm still waiting for new motherboards to come out before I buy. Currently have a 6700k and while great for games, I can totally see the weak part of having only 8 threads. I get well above 60fps at 1440p in 90% of titles, so I don't mind taking a small fps hit if it means gaining double the cores.

>>59257172
>Cray, HP and SGI don't end up selling AMD systems because muh intel

I can already see it happening.

>>59257271
Only if you overclock it.
Otherwise get the 1700X

>>59257063
To be fair the R5 line-up should have much better value in terms of gaming. I expect them to be at least 7600k-tier, considering most games are better optimized for fewer cores. People who expected the R7s to beat Intel's strongest processors in this regard are silly.

File: 1385420494989.jpg (325KB, 852x939px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 852x939px

>>59257264
>>59257247
Why is everyone freaking out about the gaming performance than? Its like comparing a GTX 1080 to a GTX 1060 in terms of price.

6900k looks like it overboosts to 4.0ghz vs only 3.7ghz on the 1800x
What chip has better IPC and which chip has more work output per watt?
Both OCed to 4.5ghz does one become fermi?

>>59257192
I wonder how much throughput you could get with something like openvpn with a good amount of ECC RAM

>>59257337
Because people are retarded.

One boosts to 4.0, the other to 3.9, negligible difference.
Similar IPC, the Zen one has superior perf/watt
Neither can OC to 4.5GHz, the Broadwell can OC some 200MHz more by average.

File: Blackwhite.jpg (416KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1600x1200px

>>59257337
in addition is the X chips the only ones that can be OCed?
Is the 1700 the same chip as the 1800x just lower binned and clocked lower as a result?

Any dual CPU slot AM4 boards that are extended format?

>>59257337
>Why is everyone freaking out about the gaming performance than?
That's kind what I've been wondering the last week or so. The R7 were intended for enthusiasts and professionals. I mean you could buy them for your gaming rig but they don't really give you the best bang for your buck. The money would be better put toward a graphics card.

File: Screenshot from 05-03-2017 23:38:48.png (62KB, 957x532px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 957x532px

>>59257371
>in addition is the X chips the only ones that can be OCed?
All can OC, the 1700 can OC as much as the X chips and achieve the same clocks.
They're all the same chip, just differently clocked but that 1700 has DOUBLE the perf/watt than the 1800X due to GloFo/Samsung process it uses.

No dual socket boards, that will be Opetron only I'm afraid.
Though the Ryzen CPUs do have GMI links for multi-socket support so who knows what might happen.

>>59257371
Any Ryzen can be overclocked the X ones are the only ones with XFR and where guessing higher binned.
Don't expect dual slot AM4 only expect dual slot on workstation and server chipsets when Naples launches

>>59257297
I of course will OC. The 1700 can do 3.8ghz easily from what I've been seeing. On the stock warmth spire cooler to boot. Only the only difference like 200 MHz between the 1700X and the 1700? Is 200mhz worth $70?

>>59257337
>Why is everyone freaking out about the gaming performance than?
Because shills and retards.

File: Purples.jpg (767KB, 1272x952px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1272x952px

>>59257402
Also gaming does not need MORE COREZ
I am going to assume the 1600x or 1500x are going to be higher clocked and will perform better in games than the big brother chips

With how low the power usage is I am thinking the APUs might be beasts for a HTPC rig that can game on light duty.
Might see a next gen console built on a Ryzen APU
SEGA I am calling you out

File: 1271298934487.jpg (12KB, 380x304px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 380x304px

I have no plans on playing on anything other 1440p. Will a 1700x be more comparable to a 7700k at that resolution? I haven't seen benchmarks except 1080p.

>>59257422
I've seen the 1700 nearing 4.1 in some cases, but not on the stock cooler.

tl;dr up to lottery.

>>59257475
if you are gaming than 7700k is a better option.

>>59257475
see
>>59256930

File: 07206146.gif (2MB, 250x141px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x141px

>wait for zen

ok

>wait for motherboard manufacturers and Microsoft to get their shit sorted

ok

>also DDR4 prices are inflated because you waited so long

fuck this

>>59257669
>DDR4 prices are inflated because you waited so long
They've been inflated for the last few months.

>>59257337
>What chip has better IPC and which chip has more work output per watt?
It's very close the two are very similar and trade blows, R7 is much cheaper though so it has the advantage in that case. Perf/Watt Ryzen is apparently superior when comparing chips of similar specs.

File: 1474456415334.jpg (106KB, 625x794px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 625x794px

>>59257192
>>59257354

This, the encryption performance of Ryzen is revolutionary and this hasn't been emphasized enough.

LOOK at these benchmarks

>>59257742
cert server, dns server, vpn server.

And the performance is due to fixed function accelerators from what I heard.

>>59257742
AMD is using enthusiasts to clear the way for other market segments. R7 is basically a test run for Naples.

File: killme.png (37KB, 764x525px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 764x525px

>>59257716

I've been waiting a long ass time

>>59257786

Right, two AES accelerators

>>59257742
Thank god I can finally enjoy my 4k CP safely and fastly

>>59257842

Content aside, the scale and breadth of performance is on another level. Other factors can be in contention, this is one opening to virgin territory

>>59257742
We need more fixed function GAMING blocks in CPUs

>>59257795
That E at the end means endless pain.

>>59257942

Two gaming accelerators for table 3 chef

Any news about integrated ARM PSP they advertised a long time ago on their apu line they sold to wageslave owners? Will it be main feature of Ryzen PRO?

>>59258365
The ARM co-processor is in all chips. The Pro series is apparently business oriented but I don't know if they explained how yet.

>>59257011
>Ryzen is good enough to inject competition back into the Intel run stagnant CPU market.

it's barely competitive against a 4 year old intel uarch that was hamstrung in both IPC and clock speed by it's tock. AMD did good but they delivered too late and probably won't be able to maintain competitiveness against skylake-x and icelake-x.

>>59258468
Just wait for Zen+

>>59256482
>>59256444
>>59256655

Literally the best (buyable) monitors in the world only go at 240hz, by any realistic metric, amd and intel can not saturate it, and even then gpus are barely able to go passed 1440 at 144hz

>>59258365
http://digiworthy.com/2016/10/12/amd-zen-sme-sev-encryption-features-detailed/

The memory encryption is more for servers than desktops, but the rest of the TrustZone features apply to business machines. As far as I know its like KNOX. You need firmware to address it and turn it on, and it isn't present in normal consumer devices.

>>59257200
because and please try to understand the words being said, unless you close every application every time you want to play a game or do a task, better yet, fresh boot, benchmarks are misleading for average use, they show peak potential rather than normal use. peak potential the 7700k is up there, but normal use its nearly as massive a lead, as many games use quad cores currently, so when something lets say a web browser is also opened, that eats the performance of the game, however on an 8 core, that browser may never even be next to a core playing a game.

look, people did the benches from the 4790k the 5820k and 5960k, it showed this, the 4 core gets the higher fps but far larger frame pacing issues, along with because its quad core it gets gummed up by background processes, the 5820 alleviates most of these, but the 5960 pretty much removes them all.

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59255364
Ryzen is objectively bad at nearly everything, it's a very specialized CPU architecture

Sadly reviewers are going soft on it, when the reality is quite harsh

If you want an objective look, read Gamers Nexus review: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks

>>59259174
please ignore this post

>>59259172

Lol. Agenda driven.

Stop being a faggot.

>>59255364
It didn't live up to the hype, AMD engaged in misleading marketing by droning on about gaming when in reality it's useful if you STREAM games, how often do consumers do that exactly?

The Ryzen 7 is an absolutely fantastic productivity CPU, for the money but even then if falls short in a lot of pro apps that people would use a workstation for. People are blaming this on the apps being optimised for Intel but I'm not sold.

>>59259172
>bad at gaming
>bad at everything

what is wrong with you gaymer retards?

>nobody noticed wendell guest stream while shitposting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOW7TgRULrI
gee thanks!

>>59259172
fuck ur gamersnexus and fuck all those stupid kids who compare cpu's in games. u want real benchmarks check this kiddo. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=1 ur shitty intel chip is nothing.

>>59259434
Gaming is the only thing that matters when you buy the CPU. It's a fact.

File: intelfags.jpg (237KB, 752x548px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 752x548px

>>59259434

>>59259491
How high are the odds that these "gamer" australians are shitposters on /g/?

>>59259578
With amount of them poo-ping up we can be sure that intel gives 15% more per shitpost* to all their shills. (* - only for shitposting in specific intel aproved social media)

>>59259491
>gamers are crazy and stupid people
That guy in the top left is very smart.

File: myspace.png (364KB, 995x490px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 995x490px

>>59257261

>>59259491
40 mins in.

I love how the other 3 know nothing about computers but they're hardware reviewers and Wendell has to explain to them basic shit.

File: 1488346373391.jpg (189KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 720x720px

>>59255364
Screenshot sauce link?

>>59256286
You're thinking of the 1800 and 1800X
The 1700 is insane value, it can clock pretty much the same as the 1800X, while being cheaper than the 7700K
>>59256665
>when the shills already went over budget and can't get more than a single OC image
>>59256887
I would wait for mobo vendors to get their shit together, anyways, the 1700 is a no brainer
Anything better than the 1700 is only acceptable if you don't plan to OC at all
Also, the stock cooler included with the 1700 is good enough for 4 Ghz
>>59258468
>it's barely competitive against a 4 year old intel uarch that was hamstrung in both IPC and clock speed by it's tock
You know they haven't actually launched anything new since then, right? The only thing that has improved is their process
>AMD did good but they delivered too late and probably won't be able to maintain competitiveness against skylake-x and icelake-x
There's no reason to think that Skylake-X will provide any significant improvement over Broadwell-E, and Icelake-X will be around for Zen+
And only if Intel doesn't fuck validation completely with their new release scheme, which probably will happen since their old scheme didn't save them from exploding server/embedded Atom's
>>59257240
Microcenter sold in-store only 2500K at 99 shortly after the Bulldozer launch, they're a exception
>>59257275
They would get destroyed by the competition if they didn't, and all of them sold Opteron systems everytime it was competitive
>>59257418
>X ones are the only ones with XFR
All of the current Ryzen's have XFR, however on non-X it only provides 25-50 Mhz boost, on X models it does 50-100 Mhz
>>59257669
You could just use Linux :^)
>>59261976
It's from Videocardz

>>59262232
>I would wait for mobo vendors to get their shit together
How long do you suppose that will take? Historically, how long has it generally taken on average?

>>59256767
>ryzen have the same singlecore perf as its competitor, 6900: the image
Thank you, but we already know that.

>>59262531
1700 is only energy-efficient at base clocks.

>>59262232
>>59256286
>>59256173


http://valid.x86.fr/top-cpu/414d442052797a656e203720313730302045696768742d436f72652050726f636573736f72

People are getting 4ghz+ all core on the 1700 even with b350 motherboards.

Most everyone seems to be getting 3.8-3.9 all core with a 1700 on B350 just fine.

>>59261756
The state of youtube celebs.

>>59261756
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yk-izRf2Ro

the only decent youtube review

>>59263572
>>59263447
I've really been disappointed by the launch, both vendors and reviewers..
Bad motherboards, inadequate sample testing, marketing drivel, little to no technical talk, ignored aspects(power, perceptron), OA software support even with OS, no clear explanation why it does fantastic against a 6900k but falls flat on its face in some games..

I don't know who to blame for this, most issues seem to be on the BIOS and OS side, but AMD could have delayed by a week or two.