Ryzen did it Shills BTFO

>now lets find the 14 people who actually played mafia 3

File: 16-game-average.png (61KB, 1306x1646px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1306x1646px

>>59264046
And then in the 16 game average...

Oops

I am now very worried about what will Ryzen R5 even bring to the table?
Like what will they even serve for purpose?
Weren't the R5 lineup supposed to beat i5s?
And R7 beat i7s?

This is a joke.

>>59264155
What do you think is more likely in the future?

That games will continue to just use 4c/8t at most usual?

And you can see there the 6900k at least beats the 7600k in the averages. By 12% in minimum frame rate, at that.
There's lots of games that do utilize more cores and threads that aren't optimized for Ryzen properly. Watch Dogs 2 is a big outlier, there, which the 6900k is faster than the 7700k on but Ryzen is way slower than both on. That's not the chip's fault; the architecture is there as you can clearly see with Mafia 3.

>>59264172
The whole Ryzen line is going to be a big fail

So far the only legitimate use I have seen for them is in servers

>>59264172
But it clearly does beat the 7700k when a game is intensive and uses its physical and logical cores correctly.
Can you not see >>59264046 ?

The problem is most using the Window's scheduler that sucks ass for it.

File: 1488484124712.png (403KB, 1670x893px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1670x893px

>>59264155
That's with the gimped mobo bios though

These are benchmarks using an updated bios at 1080P

>>59264247
Those benchmarks where run by a fat Mexican /v/ermin that in his retardation even uploads them later on just to show everyone 99% GPU usage across the board. Please don't talk about Joker "I turned off Vsync" Productions in a serious argument.

>>59264247
That is literally a fake benchmark the guy had to redo:

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

After he redid it, turned out the 7700K is 20% faster than the 1700

>>59264187
>What do you think is more likely in the future?
>That games will continue to just use 4c/8t at most usual?
Well for quite a while, yes.
You won't benefit from the 8 cores in games for longer than these processors will be viable.
But isn't that the typical position if AMD?
>Just wait until dx12 becomes standard (or at least better than dx11)
>Just wait until 8c/16t are being used in games
>Just wait until the drivers improve performance
>Just wait...

I really hope AMD will become competitive to the point where I want to buy it, but currently? Not for me

>>59264187
7600k is literally 2% behind 7700k and that's because of the 300 mhz clock difference.

No, 95% of new releases still use 4 cores. DX12 and Vulkan will make optimization for 8 cores irrelevant either way.

File: WHENWILLTHEYLEARN2.jpg (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2lNWzC1tkk

AMD NIGGERS BTFO HAHAHAHAHAHAH

YOU LITERALLY HAVE NO AMNO

CALLED OUT BY EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER FOR BEING A BUNCH OF AGGRESSIVE NIGGERS THAT DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW TO CHECK CPU PERFORMANCE!

BTFO

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>59264247
No. He did new tests with the Gigabyte board.

>>59264282
>7600k is literally 2% behind 7700k and that's because of the 300 mhz clock difference.
The 7600k is literally 15% behind the 7700k in Mafia III on min frames.
It's like 25% behind in Watch Dogs 2.

Lots of games are utilizing HT these days.

>>59264317
Beautiful

AMDtards are the scum of the earth

>>59264282
>DX12 and Vulkan will make optimization for 8 cores irrelevant either way.
What does this mean, other than to show you're a moron that has no clue what you're talking about?

>>59264369

Anyone that tries to insist that something is better based on unfounded evidence is the scum of the earth.

I mean, anyone that looked at the Intel 4core vs 6core vs 8core benchmarks could tell that this thing was going to be a gaming flop for current games. If the companies aren't building it for the current generation of 8 core CPUs, why the fuck would they buy it for an unreleased 8 core CPU from a company that hasn't released new architecture in years?

I mean FUCK, you guys seem to be pretty intelligent until it comes to actually overcoming your own biases.

>>59264375

It means that current gaming is GPU based, not CPU. AI and physics use the bulk of CPU, and no company is really using that except for GTA and maybe Just Cause

>>59264155
Fucking SMT, why don't reviewer just use window 7

>Mafia III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZokdmzvDGA

>>59264599
>implying those bugs don't make the game better

It's also probably not the same people that programmed the gameplay who wrote the engine.

File: 1487463821177.png (2MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x900px

>>59264155
>>59264172
Anyone disappointed that Ryzen doesn't match/beat the 7700k on every title has mental issues.

What is disappointing is that it didn't roughly match/beat the 6900k in most games. Some games have obvious issues with it.

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

44KB, 650x350px

>>59264268
>r7 1700 usage not even at 70 %
Technically not an cpu bottleneck.

>>59264659
7700k is more than a hundred dollars cheaper than Ryzen and performs better, literally no reason to buy Ryzen

Happily awaiting r5 chips to come out and all the BIOS, driver, and scheduler fuckery to be sorted out in the meantime. It's like you people have never been around for a new architecture launch. Even Intel has had issues when introducing a new chipset.
Fuck I remember picking the Gigabyte UD3 entirely because it was one of the only 990FX boards that shipped with a BIOS that supported FX chips out of the box. Half the others required a Phenom chip to download and flash to the newer BIOS.

Provided the 6 core or 4c/8t parts can hit a reliable 4ghz they should make for fine mITX chips with a real upgrade path unlike "a socket a year" Intel stuff.

And if it turns out they're still a dud at least the 7700k is getting price cuts from most retailers so I can get that instead.

>>59264673
It is, that is normal behavior for multicore CPUs, that's why Ryzen fails so badly, the game can't even use all those cores

>>59264690
Unless you need those 8 cores. Your only other choice for 8 cores are Intel's thousand-dollar chips.

>>59264220
I don't want it to fail since having competition and a flowing market is better for us consumers.
>>59264227
It does "beat" the 7700K but the problem is that it has double the numbers of available resources, cores and thread along with L3 Cache. I was seriously hoping it would be magical. And that AMDs own 4C 8T CPUs would beat the 7700K with a lower price tag.
>>59264659
So basically you're okay with AMD hyping up everything and bringing out their top of the line CPUs with no huge advantage for their buyers and fans?
Plus we're waiting on the next line up, R5 and R3. Who are they gonna fight against?
i5 and i3? Will they even deliver a proper performance as the i5 is pretty much cheaper than the R7 and sometimes faster than it...

>>59264694
> It's like you people have never been around for a new architecture launch.
no way there's no way anyone on this site is under 18!!!!! omgggggggg

>>59264727
>It does "beat" the 7700K but the problem is that it has double the numbers of available resources, cores and thread along with L3 Cache. I was seriously hoping it would be magical. And that AMDs own 4C 8T CPUs would beat the 7700K with a lower price tag.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 6c/12c part which should be around the 7600k price also beats the 7700k in Mafia

The 4c/8t should also beat the 7600k and other 4c/4t parts in many games as well. But yes, in other games, especially older games, the higher clocked 4c/4t parts that have been around since forever and were optimized for at launch of those games will win.

>>59264763
I would expect the r3 and r5 to have at least up to par or slightly less performance than the i3 and i5 but at a disproportionally lower price than their counterparts.

>>59264763
After what R7 provided, I will stay less hyped and optimistic about it. Don't like to be disappointed.

>>59264776
But the R7 was supposed to compete with the i7 in the same way.

Turns out the R7 is both more expensive and slower.

>>59264806
That depends on which i7 you're comparing it to.
If you're comparing it to the mainstream i7, you're probably a gayymurr faggot that won't see improvement with an r7
If you're a content creator that, getting the r7 over the HEDT i7 is a no-brainer

>>59264155
Not all that bad as it's close to the 6900k.
7700k has muh Ghz + sweet skylake IPC
I have no idea how reviewers managed to make ryzen look so bad on launch day.
Ryzen's weakness sure is the ~4ghz speed cap that probably will also exist even on the 4cores.

>>59264702
Then it's the games fault for not utilizing them, piece of shit devs dont't know even know to program for threads.

File: 1484325898957.jpg (128KB, 500x591px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x591px

check the gaps between 1% low and avg, it's smaller
sure 7700K gets more fps but it jumps all over the place in the process, as demonstrated by the graph

key word here is time. rendering progresses over time, right? so when you have jumps from 120 fps to 140 every 10 ms how does it feel?
but when you have 125 to 130 fps?

yes ryzen can drop even lower once in a while, but overall 7700K jumps in graph consistently all the time

Its ironic that GN bashed fury x for bad frametimes, explaining how it works, but when it comes to CPU they suddenly found the light and avg is more important now.

>>59264834
You realize the i7 7700k is better at nearly everything, not just gaming

>>59264848
That's just how games have to be programmed due to their serial nature. Consoles have had 8 threads for years and they are still like this.

>>59264856
Fucking kek
>>59264673

>>59264860
funny that before ps4/xbone E platform was shit for gaming
now it's suddenly at the top of the pack

>>59264872
Their CPUs are much weaker, though. This is pretty much the reason why devs are required to use all eight threads.

>>59264904
yes, and will only get into that direction even more since sony and MS simply gave up on changing generations
just wait for plethora of UE4 games that will come out in next 2-3 years, it's going to be massacre for i5, it's already is in more than one game
intel making 6 core out of necessity not because they want to

>>59264872
>now it's suddenly at the top of the pack

Uhh no it's not, look at >>59264155

A 4 core intel is the fastest gaming processor

File: 1468564397655.jpg (19KB, 198x251px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 198x251px

>>59264942
son, I don't know how to explain it to you but you are shit at statistics
when you get to college, take up a course on it

https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/amds-ryzen-cache-analyzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises

Seems like AMD wins again!

>>59264987
>AMD wins again!

When has AMD ever won?

>>59265045
>underage

>>59265056
Over a decade ago?

>>59264987
>Hardware.fr has done a pretty good job in exploring Ryzen's cache and memory subsystem deficiencies through the use of AIDA 64
Into the trash it goes. AIDA64 devs themselves stated that the program, at the time of that french test at least, is bugged on Ryzen and not giving accurate numbers

>>59265084
>things that happened 10 years ago are irrelevant then because I was only five years old then.

>>59265184
BTFO