Wait so it's on par with a 7700K at 1080P gaming, plus it

AAAA

GO AWAY

GO BACK TO THE VIDEO GAMES BOOOAAAARD TO TALK ABOUT YOUR CONSOLES

You're going to need to wait anyway since the mobos are sold out to all fuck, but you might as well wait, since it's not some extreme unexpected performance gain

File: amdinanutshell3.jpg (2MB, 700x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x5000px

>>59264287
When will you ever learn?

>>59264301
OH MY GOD

>>59264301
Is it better to wait until the R5 series comes out, so see their gaming performance?

They will have fewer cores and higher clock speeds won't they? So they should be better for single threaded applications?

Really cheap too apparently.

VIDEO GAAAAAMES

>>59264303
Didn't a lot of reviewers end up with shitty motherboard bios issues because they got the Asus mobos. Whereas the Gigabyte ones had a bios updated. Hence one some reviewers got much better performance than others.

Also how is the benchmark 'fake', he retested at 720P, that doesn't discredit the 1080P benchmarks running on a $700 GPU at all.....

>>59264353
No they didn't.

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

You're just a salty shill that doesn't understand that a CPU with 8% lower IPC and 15-20% lower clocks is bound to be slower than a 7700k in a world where 99% of games utilize only 4 physical cores and even a 7600k is only 2% behind 7700k because of the 300 mhz difference while HT of 7700k makes no difference.

File: g_current_2017_2.png (375KB, 1228x1094px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1228x1094px

>>59264370
Like clockwork

>>59264287
You dumbfuck that benchmark is literally fake, the guy had to redo it:

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

After he fixed it, it showed the Intel processor was 20% faster.

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59264353
No, here are benchmarks where they already updated the BIOS and got 10% more performance

Ryzen is still horrible

>>59264590
I support Intel but come on it's 10 less FPS for much cheaper the price, and also better performance in computations / outside of games.
I still support Intel, I am positive they'll come up with something that'll wreck havoc now that it's the first time in a decade that they got competition.

>games
>>>/v/

>>59265154
It's not cheaper at all, look at the prices, Ryzen is way more expensive

A $240 Intel i5 7600K is faster than a $500 Ryzen 1800X

A $170 Intel i3 7350K is faster than a $330 Ryzen 1700

>>59265912
Anon you are on /g/.
>i5
>i3
Those are not going to cut it.
It's true they might equal/rival it in gaming (mostly the i5), but they'll get decimated for anything else.
And the i7s on par are more expensive or at most kind of equal(?). I didn't check all of the prices.

>>59265971
The i7-7700k is faster than the 1800X and costs $160 less.

If you want a high end CPU that's the way to go.

>>59266120
Oh shit you're right.
What the fuck.

File: yot.jpg (557KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 2048x1152px

You mad AMDead fags