Ryzen is Good at 1440p They Said

Lol AMD is dead

I guess the shills are back on the clock..

>>59267695
>muh COARS!
>barely beats a fucking i3
With AMD you always lose.

>Game Average
Just how stupid do you think I am?

And has the same performance as the 5960X! What's your point ?

>>59267722
+10 points have been added to your AMD Red Team Account

>>59267751
3 years later.

>>59267695
>6600K is 1 (one) fps faster than 1800X
>WHOPPING ONE FRAME PER SECOND

you could halfway fart across the room and it would make a bigger difference
meanwhile even a 1700 non-X is way faster in multi-threaded applications

also, it's pretty funny how anything even remotely related to gaming was immediately pointed to /v/, and now gaming is all you shills talk about

>>59267726
>With AMD you always lose.

Truth

>>59267695
>Ryzen is Good at 1440p They Said
No, they said the GPU is the bottleneck at 1440p and above, which is why almost all the CPUs get the exact same score, because the CPU is no longer the bottleneck at those resolutions.

>>59267768
Look at the prices.

You could buy 2 6600Ks for the price of 1 Ryzen, it's sad

>>59267782
>meanwhile even a 1700 non-X is way faster in multi-threaded applications

what part of this you can't parse
if all you do is gaming, by all means go with 6600K

>>59267747
Very stupid

>>59267695
Shut Up!
AdoredTV has a video out explaining how AMD won and Intel is finished! And that guy is independent and not biased, unlike everyone else.
He reckons Ryzen will be better in 5 years, just like the FX, suck on that Intelcucks.

>>59267820
He's right you know

>>59267763
>3 years later, still the same price.

>>59267836
AHAHAHAHA

AdoredTV is the biggest AMD shill in the universe

>>59267843
But he is right

>>59267768
6600K is half the cost you donkey.

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

22KB, 650x200px

>>59267808
Ryzen doesn't just suck at gaming, it sucks at nearly everything

>>59267854
I don't think AdoredTV has ever been right his entire life

>>59267695
So between 6900K and 1700X, the difference is 6%.

A $1000 vs $400, 150% difference in price

Why are people so upset about ~6% difference?

>literally a difference of 13fps
gaymen is a cancer

>>59267839
Of course, afterall AMD released nothing between the last Phenom and Ryzen.
Obviously then there was no point in dropping prices, until now.

>>59267876
Why would you even think about getting the 6900K

Get the 7700K, it's way better

>>59267880
Then look at the price difference

You pay twice as much for Ryzen, for worse performance

>>59267908
So Intel took advantage of you for 3 years and you're okay with that because it's Intel.

>>59267928
Let me rephrase it - Intel took advantage of the market conditions because their only competitor did jack shit.

>>59267820
I don't get that video. According to him it's a good idea to get Ryzen because in 5 years it might be marginally better than the worst Intel processor at that time.

>>59267860
>SYSMark

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010/08/100804inteldo_0.pdf

You know they're using Intel only optimizations right? AMD took Intel to court over it and FCC even forced Intel to label products with such vendor only "optimizations" to be labeled as such.

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

41KB, 613x766px

>muh gaymen benchmarks
you have to go back
>>>/v/

ryzen is the best value for compiling gentoo software, which is all we really care about here

>>59267910
Why would people even buy 8c16t CPU?

I can't imagine such a situation where having such a CPU would be advantageous over 4c8t CPU.

>>59267922
You pay somewhere around 4x as much for the equivalent Intel 8 core

>but that's different because its Intel™

>>59267971
It's called damage control.
And it's working, /r/AMD is already sucking him off something fierce.

>>59267843
he is not shilling

he is supporting amd because amd is the more gamer friendly company with better buisness practices

AMD vs Intel shills are out of control!

VIA master race!

>>59267971
Low res benchmarks aren't an indication of future CPU bottlenecks when your programs aren't taking advantage of all threads available.

Any Reviewer that use other than window 10

>>59267987

Have you seen how much better the minimums are in gaming bench marks? That's one reason.

I also like virtual machines on one monitor while the host is on another. Lots of cores helps spread the load around. Compiling on one machine, rendering on another.

And most software coming out benefit from more cores and threads.

>>59267974
OK then where is the label on sysmark's website?

I see nothing, they even state it works fine with AMD processors

Sounds like bullshit

File: giphy[1].gif (3MB, 630x385px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 630x385px

>>59268045
>he is not shilling
>more gamer friendly company with better buisness practices
Like lying through their teeth every time they launch something?

>>59267971
AdoredTV is a complete retard, do not watch that shit, it will only make you dumber

>>59268073
where did they lie?

>>59267756

Do you have to clock in on a machine somewhere that monitors your shit posting to get paid?

Or do you just send screen caps and call it a day?

>>59268045
>amd is the more gamer friendly company

You can't be serious

AMD just released a CPU that costs twice as much as the equivalent Intel and has worse gaming performance

>>59268101

It's actually ten dollars cheaper.

File: 1484577998946.png (66KB, 533x414px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 533x414px

>>59267695
>3 FPS off the CPU it directly competes with, the 6900X
>All well over 60 FPS anyway

Wow AMD is finished it's over poo in loo lol

Don't you shills get tired of posting this garbage?

>>59268058
>Have you seen how much better the minimums are in gaming bench marks?

Are you blind? The minimums are right there in the OP picture, Intel wins that too with a fucking 4 core.

>>59268083
Hmm, the pre-release BF1 benchmarks? The pre-release Sniper Elite benchmarks?
Guys we're so much faster! Let me just stare at the sky here, so pretty!
Also the whole fiasco with them telling review sites to bench in GPU bottlenecked situations is hillarious, is typical AMD dishonest marketing.
And then:
>XFR
>overclocker's dream!
Remeber Fury X?

>>59268101
the ryzen 8 core cpu is for content creators and streamers.

anyone who's seriously considers a 16 thread monster processor for optimised gaming conditions is a retard


also optimisation documents has just spread after the GDC so optimisation will only get better from now for the new microarchitecture of zen across the board.

>>59268083
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBHjtCXhU&feature=youtu.be&t=1264

>>59268064
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/01/18/1848252/amd-rips-biased-and-unreliable-intel-optimized-sysmark-benchmark

AMD may make a case against them, there's already the suspicion but they can simply denounce them and make the information widely accepted just as well. They also probably can't a long drawn lawsuit like last time.

AMD already quit the BAPco (SYSMark) organization over this in 2011. And they took Intel to court for this anti-trust case.

>>59267695
6900K is more expensive and it's slower than 7700K :DD
lel >muh cores
Intelfags btfo'd!! XDDD

.
.
.

no, wait, something's wrong here

AMD made such a huge mistake releasing the 8-core parts first. Of course they have lower single-core performance than 4-cores. Of course this was going to happen.

>gayming
Back to your manchild shithole >>>/v/

>>59268127
>the ryzen 8 core cpu is for content creators and streamers.

I don't understand this argument. Why not just use cheap i5 K with quicksync + obs to stream?

>>59268108
No it's not, for every single Ryzen CPU that got released, there is a cheaper and faster Intel CPU

Take the cheapest Ryzen 1700 ($330) and it gets beat by an Intel i5-6600K ($240).

Ryzen has truly horrible price-performance, they are scamming the shit out of you

>>59268117

I'm sorry? In what games? Is this even done with the updated BIOS?

Then you look.at the delta that favors Ryzen, and it offers a more consistent, more stable system.

I'm sorry you need to validate your epeen.

>>59268150
No, you go out with your top dog first and Ryzen 7 pretty much quaked Broadwell-E market. Upcoming 4 and 6 core parts won't have higher freqs than 8 core parts due to silicon hitting the wall.

>>59267726
>gaymen
you know some people have to render, and do professional work on their computers? you know the kind of stuff that actually uses more than 1 core

>>59268161

Oh boy, thanks Gamers Nexus, your bitter commentary is noted.

>>59268125
remember 3,5gb? gpu breaking drivers? remember proprietary shit just to worsen competitional performance? gsync for licensed scaler standard which can also be done for free as in freesync? remember intel compiler hoax? remember buying international markets to only sell their processor?

i can understand that amd wants reviewers also to showcase a more realistic scenario where cpu doesn't matter that much, but recording and streaming does as well. hence why they showed this in their showroom

about your statements? where did amd ever say the fury x is a overclockers dream?

what about XFR? XFR is an extraboost which is enabled through the extra sensory on zen without sacrifice in power. if you wanna do extreme clocks, you can manually do it yourself if you're not retarded.

>>59268172
Games are listed in their review, it's 16 different games averaged together: http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/

Yes they have the latest BIOS update too

How can Ryzen possibly be more stable when Intel gets better minimum FPS

>>59268161
>8 ACTUAL (as in not shit bulldozer-style modules) cores
>16 threads
>$330

truly shit price-performance

>>59268173
>you go out with your top dog first

If this is AMD's top dog they are finished

File: retarded shitposter.png (118KB, 1342x195px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1342x195px

>>59268184
Their comment about GPU parallelization has brought out one of the most retarded and ill-informed shitposters of this board.

File: cores.jpg (97KB, 558x695px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 558x695px

>>59268214
Yes because we all know the more cores your CPU has the faster it is

>>59268161
1. most games are optimised to only 8 threads, hence smt off yields higher benches on ryzen

2. ryzen is not yet 100% optimised for any single game yet

>>59268150
There's a lot of advantages to this approach. The market for $300-$500 CPUs is a lot smaller than <$300. This is kinda like a limited launch, it's a smaller market that is technologically inclined on average and is more forgiving with small problems like this. It allows AMD to workout the bugs in the processors and chipsets and other stuff before the wider general availability launch happens where people are less technologically inclined.

>>59268203

>The average data above is not meant to be conclusive

End of thread.

File: 1472225914187.png (707KB, 867x1054px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 867x1054px

points in graph mean nothing until you draw a line through all the points
16 average tables are useless or avg vs min 1% also pointless for CPU benchmarking
because it has no time relations, it's jsut point in time
7700K can go from 100fps to 140 every 20ms which makes averages very high
ryzen can stay 100-110fps which makes averages low but gameplay smooth

same goes for GPUs, modern journalism sucks

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

67KB, 596x865px

>>59268220
Tell that 6950x. CPU market is bigger than butthurt children.

>>59268232
when they're utilized properly, yes.

>>59268232
if all you do is gaming then indeed anything above 4 cores is a meme

>>59268242
You forgot to add the rest of it

"it does represent where Ryzen stands in raw gaming performance."

>>59268150
They did this for gaymer beta test the cpu before releasing real deal. [spoiler] Naples [spoiler]

File: 1479891163835.jpg (321KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1600x1000px

>>59268236
>most games are optimised to only 8 threads, hence smt off yields higher benches on ryzen
there is deeper much more technical reason for that

>>59268110
2c per (You), as long as it works we keep doing it.

File: photoshop-ryzen-2.jpg (79KB, 701x479px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 701x479px

>>59268258
It's not just gaming

>>59268221

Horee sheet.

<Drakedisgust.jpg>

I have no words for how wrong they are.

>>59268161
Does that mean Intel is scamming itself with their 6600K beating 7700K or the 6900K or 6950K?


Wew

>>59267695
Is this on W10? If so, fuck off. Rebench on W7.

File: shinskay.png (728KB, 674x788px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 674x788px

>>59267695

Think of it this way: why would you get a 6950X for gaming? Same thing with Ryzen 7. Wait for Ryzen 5 when the price/performance ratio is far better.

>>59268289
You should not buy a 6900K for gaming for the same reason you should not buy a Ryzen for gaming

>>59268280
You could make better money and keep your dignity sucking homeless a dudes dick behind a McDonalds.

>>59267695
>best r7
>10FPS bellow the 7700k
Absolutely fucking pathetic.

>>59268298
>why would you get a 6950X for gaming?
assuming infinite money, for smoothness effect
drops are almost non existent or very small on 10core or xeons

>>59268110
>he thinks Intel are the shills

AMD literally pays people to post: >>59241941

>>59268286
>photoshop

>>59268286
Don't show percentages, show some fucking numbers. Percentages are useless in this case. Also, again it's very close to the 6900K except in one test, and again we don't have actual numbers, just percentages.

>>59268264

>No, this doesn't reflect real-life gaming scenarios for a high-end GPU today when you'll likely be gaming at higher resolutions and with a certain level of GPU bottleneck, but it does represent where Ryzen stands in raw gaming performance.

So.the author talks in circles?

It's not a real life gaming scenario, it's not meant to be conclusive, but it's the final word in gaming performance?

You'll have to come up with someone who has graduated high school for me to take their review seriously.

>>59268317
>AMD literally pays people to post
Intel literally lost 5 cases in court about this

>>59268273
this gets me really hyped about the upcomign 1600X!

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

34KB, 806x291px

>>59268333
Gotta love AMDtard excuses, they try to pull every one in the book

Last resort is:

muhmuhmuh benchmark is fake!

Let's see, do all the other reviews show the same thing?

Yes they do!

I guess all the reviews are fake and paid off by Intel!

LMAO

>>59268289
>Intel is scamming itself
>trust_no_one_not_even_yourself.jpg

File: 1488731684753[1].jpg (219KB, 1876x924px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1876x924px

>>59268158
>>59268158
g-gaymers are manchildren!!

>>59268286
photoshop is optimised for intel compiler for how long now?

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

44KB, 650x350px

>>59268366
Is Chrome optimized for Intel also?

>>59268286
again, not a multithreaded workload
when will you shills realize that Ryzen 7 is meant to compete with Intels 8 cores?
On average it's about as fast as 6900K while being half the price.

>>59268382
basically everything for now. when was the last time a competitor released a new processor after 6 years of monopoly from the leader

>>59268382
yes, because AMD didn't release a good CPU in years and so nobody bothered to optimize for anything that isn't intel

>>59268397
You don't choose what you get to compete with

AMD said Ryzen is for gaming, clearly it sucks at gaming

>>59268353
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/12/intel-loses-eu-antitrust-appeal/?ncid=rss_truncated

it happened in the past goy

>>59268425
Yes it's all just a vast conspiracy. All of the reviews are fake, every single one.

>>59268424
>You don't choose what you get to compete with
yes you do

Ryzen is for gaming as much as 6900K is for gaming. Both of those CPUs are slower than 7700K in gaming and almost 2x faster in multi threaded applications.

>>59268449
i'm just saying that intel was never innocent

File: ryzen-games-lol.png (1MB, 1896x899px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1896x899px

>>59268459
Then why did AMD say Ryzen is for gaming?

>>59268353
~5 FPS off the 6900K which it's competing directly against, and still well over 60 FPS. It costs half as much. Seems like a poor decision to buy the 8 core Intel CPU in this case. P.S. Kill yourself shilly shill shill shill.

>>59268470
because it will only get better from now.

amd owns the console market, they force publisher to insert ryzen compaitble microcode into their engine AND BOOOM

>>59268449
not fake, it's real numbers that they read wrong or do not want to talk about benefits of 8c which well known, and more in depth reviews confirm

>>59268482
Uhh the Intel CPU is $340 and beats the $500 Ryzen CPU

File: photoshit.jpg (103KB, 630x767px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 630x767px

>>59268286
some operations of photoshop aren't multithreaded at all.

>>59268490
time to reread the whole thread kid

>>59268485
Yes AMD released their gaming processor, but forgot to tell everyone they will have to wait about 5 years for them to develop games that actually work with it

Makes a lot of sense

>>59268490
Did I mention the 7700K in there anywhere? No I did not, retard shill that should kill itself. Trying to compare a 4 core 8 thread to a 8 core 16 thread is retarded, shill. You should know that. You should also note the $1000 Intel CPU also loses. You should also kill yourself. Right now.

>>59268470
because it's also perfectly fine for gaming. they didn't market it as the ultimate gaming CPU.

>>59268512
>you can only compare the CPUs I tell you to compare

AMDtardation truly knows no bounds

>>59268510
yeah.. amd is always like that.. it's what their finewine technology is about.

they are not the best at the begining, but will surpass every single one in 1 year

Vega will probably turn out the same with their new architectural additions like HBC

>>59268525
I, too, like rendering 3D models using a Pentium

File: this-is-fine.png (310KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 580x282px

>>59268518
>gets beat by Intel CPUs that cost half as much
>perfectly fine

>>59267695
74fps vs 75fps is not "half performance".

>>59268449
You're confused. The numbers aren't fake. The methods are shoddy. That's the problem.

I mean who actually buys 7700K or Zen 8c16 CPU to play on their 480p resolution desktops?

Most relevant piece of information should be 1080p/1440p/4K resolution with graphics setting between medium/high/ultra benchmarks. The reports should show the lows and the average + the power usage (at wall).

>>59268538
perfectly fine for the purpose to kill that "half as much" intel cpu in multithreaded as well

>>59267986
underrated post

File: 3d particle movement.png (42KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 650x350px

>>59268538
>gets beat by Ryzen CPUs that cost half as much
>perfectly fine

>>59268569
Holy shit did you even read the fucking OP picture

Nobody is posting 480p results, this is fucking 1440p!

>>59268538
>7 fps less average than the fastest gaming CPU
>OYYY VEYYYYYYY

>>59268251
>93% performance, for a third of the price

doesn't look that bad to me.

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

112KB, 722x554px

>>59268581
Oh gosh not 3d particle movement

I wish my CPU was good at 3d particle movement

Mean while in the real world...

>>59268614
see
>>59268493

>>59268614
>single threaded benchmark
Video Encoding is still real world, m8.

>>59268585
>paying twice as much for a processor that performs worse

Have fun getting jewed by AMD

>>59268614
how much do you get paid? since it's /g/ probably not much, redditor shill probably makes more
You've been at it for 4 days now, made a bank?

>>59268614
>beats the 1000 dollar intel it directly competes against

File: streaming-obs.png (129KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59268629
Is streaming multithreaded?

Someone told me Ryzen is great at streaming.

Hmm...

>>59268569
1080p/1440p/4K would all be GPU bound.

Frankly, I'm surprised they even bother testing 1080p on Ultra, since then the GPU can still act as a bottleneck.

>>59267695
>& intel compiler makes ryzen 20% slower but if you change the cpu ID of the OS you'd see huge gains

>>59268650
>6900k and 7700k performance are roughly the same
>article didn't even show what presets are being used
complete ass of a benchmark

>>59268632
if the application utilizes more than 4 threads, it performs better. if it doesn't, it performs worse. intel managed to sell their 6900k somehow, now ryzen is less than half the cost and performs better.

>>59268650

Link?

>>59268650
it is, 7700K drops frames while streaming ryzen keeps 99% of it's eprformance
it's bad at dota2, heck everything bad at dota2 right now they fucked up something with recent patch

File: 1488408198311.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

>>59268662
>i-i-i-its all fake! all the benchmarks are fake!

>>59268676
There's one simple way to prove that benchmark: show me the fucking presets

>>59268669
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/

File: r_600x450.png (174KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 600x450px

>>59268614
>threaded adobe benchmarks doesn't matter when my feelings are concerned
lol

File: 1481892990967.png (313KB, 596x558px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 596x558px

>>59267695
>Posting benchmarks where a 7700k and 6700k beats a 6900k as if it means fuck all when it comes to the technological merits of a CPU
Do you just have Downs syndrome or does Intel pay you?

>>59268662
It's using some seriously shitty fucking recording OBS settings if it's not lagging to death because you can't record good quality for shit unless you have at least 12 threads.

>>59267875
>I don't think

Yep you got that much right.

File: amd-eat-shit.jpg (41KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x480px

>>59268672
Wrong, look at the actual numbers. The 7700K has more frames period.

Ryzen is shit at streaming just like it's shit at gaming.

AMD lied about everything and you AMDtards just love to eat shit.

>>59267820
>just like the FX

kek

>>59268711
>>59268662

>>59268699
I hope this is a joke

>>59267922
And you pay $1000 for a 6900k that performs worse than the 7700k and 6700k, but for some strange reason nobody mentions it. Almost like it's only acceptable when Intel does it...

>>59268729
It's not a joke you fucking retard
what do you do, play 800x600 gaymes?

>>59267695
Looks to be good, what you on about?

>>59268087
lol

amdshills btfo!

>>59268632
Yup, we're all getting jewed when the $500 Ryzen beats the $1000 6900k in everything but video games

File: ryzen-autocad.png (135KB, 711x533px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 711x533px

>>59268860
You retard, the $340 7700k is better than both of those

And it's not even video games, it's almost everything

>>59268353
Cpu is brand new and out for 4 days

>Why isn't this CPU optimized for all games yet? This is bullshit, DOA

Like seriously, lets see where this CPU can go in a few months.

>>59268890
>Keeps posting benchmarks where the 7700k beats the 6900k
Weird, it's almost like you're cherrypicking benchmarks that can't properly make use of 8 core and 16 threads...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20

File: Untitled.png (16KB, 624x336px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 624x336px

>>59268583
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/4

Only handful tested the resolutions.

Many negative reviews come from the 480p reviews.

>>59268652

If GPU is the bottleneck, then why not full synthetic benchmarks? You know things like 7z benchmarks or CPU-Z benches/etc?

>>59268890
>>59268915

>>59268901
AMD's job is to make a CPU that works well in current games, not one that has some dream of one day becoming good in games I hope maybe

File: ryzentom.png (2MB, 769x8779px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 769x8779px

>>59268890
Sorry to break your hugbox.

>>59268134
Post-truth regressive is taught by a pro-competition intellectual. Warms the heart

>>59268890
Yes, in some applications it is, in others it isn't.
How is showing application where 7700k is better a refutation of anything?

>>59268936
Gamers Nexus didn't test anything below 1080p and he even tested 1440p and his review was thought to be "negative" even though it was just realistic

>>59268650
>One of the benches has streaming increase performance
>Take benchmark seriously.

Shill much?

>>59268938
How fucking new are you?
Back when there was more than 2 x86 manufacturers, nobody could make a magical "do it all CPU"
This is not something new or out of the line, Ryzen is just worse in some applications better in others, this is exactly the same shit as when AMD made their first x86, Cryrix did their x86

>>59268936
>If GPU is the bottleneck, then why not full synthetic benchmarks? You know things like 7z benchmarks or CPU-Z benches/etc?

Because it wins on those. One of the foobar2k encoding tests (that scales the best with cores, since you run +1 job for every thread) had the 1800x at 150% of the 6950x.

File: ryzen-illustrator.png (179KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 600x450px

>>59268956
There is this dumb idea that somehow Ryzen is better at all applications, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

The vast majority of applications are not going to work well with lots of threads, so Ryzen will fail badly at them.

>>59268984
>>59268947

>>59268980
AMD literally said Ryzen is a gaming CPU. It clearly is not.

>>59268998
>Look at all these Handbrake and Cinebench benchmarks

>>59268998

Because it's ten frames per second slower at 1080p.

Got it...

>>59267695
Intel wins again!

>>59269015
It's a lot worse than that

It's slower and costs twice as much

>>59268353
ive officially lowered myself to the level of lurking retards for entertainment

>>59267695
Are you 12?

File: 1475120749727.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59268961
refer to >>59268244

nobody ever has anything to reply to this reasoning, I'm starting to think it's actually correct

>>59269020
>costs twice as much
Because it's supposed to compete with intel's $1000 octacores. The R5s should prove to be much competitive in terms of price/performance where gaming is concerned.

>>59269020
You can stop posting now
>>59268032

>>59269064
>supposed to compete

That's the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

AMD is competing against every CPU on the market right now and it's failing badly.

>>59268127
>monster
what a high compliment for such a mediocre offering.

>>59268984
>Vast majority
>all the Adobe CC
Yea, look at 6900k, it's fucking awful

>>59269157
>That's the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
So is every single Ryzen review out there by your moronic logic. Even your idol gamernexus admitted that it's a fantastic workstation CPU for its price.

File: bulldozer_cores_not_important.png (164KB, 1261x709px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1261x709px

hm.......

>>59268533
>not on a mobile Celeron

I'm sensing some hardcore desperation and it's not coming from the AMDfags.

>>59269258
>AMD: Our CPU gets better 5 years later
serious question, who keeps the same cpu for 4+ years?

>>59269342
I still have my 955 BE

>>59269335
>$.02 have been deposited on your AMD Advocate Program Account

>>59269352
yes but do you use it for anything relevant?

>>59267695
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

>>59269342
my sandy is with me since June 2011
it's stock, so it doesn't cut it anymore

>>59269258
We do not expect intel fanbois to build future proof computers, do we?

>>59269166
maybe you're just spoiled :)

>>59269342
i kept my i5 2500k for 6 years but now i will switch to i7 7700k i won't wait till end of life circle of cpu just to have 10% more perf while you can buy new cpu and get much more

>>59269354
That seems kinda dumb, wouldn't it get eaten up by the transaction fees?
>>59269364
Just vidya. It does a decent job still.

>>59267695
im never gonna have to move off my 4670k, am i?

File: 1392274224703s.jpg (11KB, 183x232px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 183x232px

>>59269383
>wouldn't it get eaten up by the transaction fees?

>>59269389
depends what you want from your CPU
>>59268396

>>59269389
I am from the non k version of that, since I'm starting to notice bottlenecks in games
I went with a 7700k however since it was cheaper

File: 1487714206709.jpg (202KB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 2000x1200px

>>59269365
>>59269258
total shilling using gpu bottlenecked benchmarks and fake joker benchmarks where he downclocked i7 7700k and oced 1700 to the max. Also b-but wait TMfor bios updates/drivers/game fixes/b-but it's microsofts fault that we didn't managed to cooperate with them to make SMT working at launch. WYou just wait in few months we will beat all intel cpus!!! How dare you piece of shit speak about benchmarks at launch you intel fanboy! - that's what actual fanboy said to me.

Yeah fuck off with this garbage

>>59269371
there is nothing future proof about ryzen, my i5 2500k was working perfectly for 5 years.
You must be really naive if you think games will start using 16threads out of nowhere.

>>59269258
>2017
>Performance between GTX 980 Ti and GTX Titan is HUGE
What the fuck did I just read?

>>59269435
>fake joker benchmarks where he downclocked i7 7700k and oced 1700 to the max
I'm still amazed at that
Did he really think nobody would notice it?

>>59269342
I kept my Athlon64 X2 for 5 or so years. added another RAM module and a new graphics card halfway down the road and it ran fine until the very end.
why feed the jew every other year with his needless new socket?

>>59269342
>who keeps the same cpu for 4+ years?
2500k users?
>a 6 year old 2500k is about 25% worse than the just released 7600k
Absolutely pathetic. What makes you think people are so upset with Intel's eternal re-branding.

>>59269444
ok but
did you buy it thinking "when it's 5y old it's going to beat this other cpu that I can buy now"?

>>59269441
well not many people own i7 7700k to check joker's benchmark with exact settings, and most reviewers are really lazy to check other benchmarks so yeah

>>59269459
no, I bought it thinking "this will serve my needs for years to come"

File: 1488153080215.png (263KB, 723x890px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 723x890px

>>59269335
Amd vs Nvidia pretty much every year. the amount of shiling never reach this level.

Why do people keep falling for these bait thread? Ryzen 7 was targeted to compete with 6900 in multithreaded workloads.
If you're a manchild who plays games all day then yes, ryzen 7 isn't a very good option for that. But if you actually do work on your computer then there ryzen7 is the way to go.

File: 1487689336302.png (1MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1680x1050px

>>59267695
>same fps

>>59269447
7600K is 4.2 Ghz turbo.
2500K is 3.7 Ghz turbo

That's 13.5% clock speed difference alone. The other 11% is the real performance gain.

>>59269522
i5 2500k had 3.6ghz turbo

>>59269522
that's why i'm buying i7 7700k, also you can't ignore that kaby lake can oc much higher than older intel gen cpus

>>59267695
>$300 i7 beats a $800 and a $1000 i7.
Really makes you think.

>>59269522
>7600K is just an overclocked 2500k with a slightly improved architecture and TDP
Thanks Intel.

>>59269435

He makes the case that single thread performance has had worse predictive power for the future performance of a cpu than number of threads. And that low res benchmarking has no utility now and is misleading.

Whether he's right or wrong depends on developers supporting and utilizing those threads. Will they? With Apple, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft all buying their main hardware from AMD, it's a lock I think.

>>59269585
also much better yields

>>59269570
2500K can OC to 5Ghz aswell.

>>59269607
cool story fag, mine couldn't oc more than 4.4ghz at 1.45v

i don't know who to believe

/g filled with intel shills or find out on my own

>>59269660
Wait a few weeks for better benchmarks

File: dd.png (397KB, 1365x765px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1365x765px

>>59269631
That's the low end overclock. You had a bad binned chip.

>>59269700
and you had amazing binned chip, so? You can't say every i5 2500k will oc that high, 4.5ghz is prob average oc limit

>>59269660
/g/ is filled with video game kids who don't know what a cpu can be used for other than video games.

Most of the games are within 10% of performance. People want to fight over that small of a difference.

One company has been nailing their ass by overcharging and keeping CPU market stagnant due to monopoly.

Other has been cripplied by bad business decisions, competitor anti-competitive business, lighting a new era of CPU growth.

>>59267695
Should I wait for the r5s or just get a 7600k instead? Kinda pointless to wait another 4 months if the rest of the line-up turns out to be another massive disappointment.

>nobody gayms in 1080p
>gets asshurt over 1080p results

This board is so autistic it hurts

>>59269790
ˇIf you're a video game baby then yeah, just go for the i5.

>>59267695
>another "let's compare 4c8t CPUs with 8c16t ones in single threaded programs" thread

File: 1459363077803.jpg (51KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x500px

>>59267695
6600k - $280 CDN
1800x - $660 CDN

>>59268182
They can just do massively parallel tasks on their GPU then.

File: free shrugs 01.jpg (47KB, 449x642px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 449x642px

>>59270044
6600k - 269€
5960x - 1189€

>>59269572
Intel wins again
It's over Intel is finished

So when do we find out about the Ryzen 5 and 3?

>>59269790
nah it will be worse than 7600k

More cores = Future Proof
I understand if some people are skeptical about this. This is the same mantra AMD fans were saying during early Bulldozer days.

It's quite different this time around. Before, people were expecting computing/gaming to improve on high cores/threads utilization based on... nothing. Just speculation. Hopes and dreams.

Right now we're actually seeing the industry shift towards more cores/threads. Some recent big titles have improvements going from an i5 to an i7. Video-editing has become more mainstream. Livestreaming has also gotten more popular the last 2-3 years.

And as others have pointed out- the current and next gen consoles have high core/thread counts. Apologies to any PCMR subscriber here, but it's a fact that a lot of devs optimise their games for consoles.

So when people these days say that more cores = futureproofing, they're not completely talking out of their ass.

Also Bulldozer was far behind intel in terms of single core performance so early adopters were screwed when their core/thread investment didn't pay off.

Ryzen has close to intel levels of IPC that even if the industry doesn't switch to relying on more cores/threads in the near future, it still wouldn't fall flat on its face.

I'm not telling anyone to rush out and buy a Ryzen CPU. No.

If after considering all points you decide you want an i7-7700K for your gaming PC then cool, more power to you.

All I'm asking is for people to look at the chips with a bigger perspective, and from there make a more informed decision.

>>59270474
4950k wasn't future proof, if anything it's shit this days.

Moar Coars =/= Future proof

>>59268258
I'm so sick of seeing this.

Anybody who is building a non-budget PC (read 600$+) is NOT only playing games. Very few in that bracket JUST have a video game open with nothing else in the background. There is always multitasking going on, shrinking and reopening, second monitors, etc. This is where you will see the benefits of having more than 4c/8t. It's quality of life. The 1700 plus a decent Mobo will get you 3.7ghz stable (with wraith) and at most you're sacrificing a few frames for a greater quality of life increase (because most of us just shitpost, play vidya, and do light work.)

>>59270492
>4950k wasn't future proof, if anything it's shit this days.
really? at 1440p+ its more than okay
even sandy-e is good now

while i5s regressed

>GUYS LOOK AT THIS 2 CORE CPU BEATING A 8 CORE CPU IN SINGLE THREADED PERFORMANCE
completely retarded

File: alrightBuddy.jpg (80KB, 1003x181px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1003x181px

>>59270474

>>59267986
My nigg right here

>>59269790
>another massive disappointment

R7 was not a disappointment for its intended audience (i.e. not gaymers)

>>59270605
it's ok at multitasking, it's ok at single core, and it's ok in gaming,

When 2600k is all of the things as well

>>59268947
oh for fuck sake delete that shit

>muh productivity
literally who?? Everyone who cares about these already own the best in the business, they arent just going to buy another CPU because its cheaper then one they arleady bought.

>>59267695
>Gaming gaming gaming!!!1!
Go back to /v/.

>>59268470
Because Ryzen is not only the R7s you retard.

File: intelfags.jpg (282KB, 752x548px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 752x548px

>>59267695

>>59269342
>whoo keeps for 4+ years

Well certainly not intel owners, they were just chomping at the bit for that 3% upgrade each gen. I know that as soon as the 3770k launched i sold my 2600k. And when the 4770k launched i got it after selling my 3770k etc.

File: 1276799217435.jpg (12KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x300px

>>59267695
>application optimized for lower core count, higher core speeds runs better on lower core count, higher core speeds than higher core count, lower core speeds.

File: 1487587239908.gif (2MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x240px

>>59270763
>Higher core speeds runs better on lower core count, higher core speeds than higher core count, lower core speeds, application optimized for lower core count, higher core speeds runs better on lower core count, higher core speeds than higher core count, lower core speeds, application optimized for lower core count, higher core speeds runs better on lower core count, higher core speeds than higher core count, lower core speeds.

File: afroman1.jpg (148KB, 650x361px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 650x361px

>>59270790

>>59267747
a lot

>>59270882
youre mom

>>59267820
Not subtle at all but subtle enough to trick retards on AMD board I guess.

>>59267695
1800x being 3% behind the actual competitor the 6900k

costing 500 bucks less

gee i wonder why intel paid shills doesnt bring this up LIKE NEVER

>>59270474
fuck off adoredtv nobody likes you there go shill on /r/amd

File: 9oVGc83.png (64KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 960x540px

>>59270716
no they arent and this is pretty much all the evidence you need to know about how monstrous the efficiency on ryzen is

File: Trimp.jpg (18KB, 480x382px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x382px

>>59271026
>mfw too efficient to use RAM over 2600MHz

>>59267954
and you're ok with that for 3fps advantage and no multithreaded advantage. ok

File: intel-investor-meeting-feb-2017-slide-deck-14.jpg (353KB, 2061x1159px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 2061x1159px

>>59268134
Intel doesn't even deny it.
Read the footnotes on intel's own marketing slide.

>>59268203
stutter

File: farcry-primal-1.png (11KB, 800x401px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 800x401px

>>59268273
Stop posting this edited chart

>>59270924
>1800x being 3% behind the actual competitor the 6900k
That's just a convenient way of looking at it. The people who might've bought a 7600K or 7700K for games are going to have a look to see how Ryzen compares to those CPUs because they are somewhat similarly priced, they will not give a fuck about how it performs compared to a 6900K because they weren't interested in buying a 6900K in the first place.

>>59271845
no that is the way amd actually sold the chips..

only shills will compare a 4c to an 8c

amd clearly stated that they are going after 6900k area for half the price that is what the r7 range is

stop trying to move the goalpost with useless factless stupidity when the r5 comes then we can talk about 7700k vs them

>>59268254
>falling for the utilisation meme
I bet you think super computers are real.
In reality they just have one 7700k with 3 cores disabled clocked to 27Thz or more by drilling microchannels directly into the sillicon and pump liquid nitrogen through it.

File: Capture.png (669KB, 1196x941px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 1196x941px

>>59271881
Here is a screenshot of amd.com, I have made the part where AMD advertises Ryzen for games abundantly clear for you. This shit is the very first thing you see on their website. Right there on top, everything else comes after this.

File: 1442552025595.jpg (35KB, 278x278px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 278x278px

>>59271885

File: 1469967891518.png (193KB, 399x401px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 399x401px

>>59267695
OP is a faggot, he doesn't understand the concept of AMD CPUs.
>muh gaming
hahahah go kys

>>59271985
oh shit

and we clearly know that ONLY the 7700k can do games on intel side right? RIGHT? no other chip can even game there so lets all compare it to a 7700k because of reasons

and as always the reasons arent even presented let alone having any sort of reasoning on them

but go ahead take your best shot on explaing how an 8c that is meant to be an overall good cpu is somehow the main competitor of a cpu that is highly clocked and tailored for games

please do give an insight

File: 1411266344955.jpg (87KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 900x900px

>>59268087
the do it for free, just like the janitors

>>59272035

LEAVE RAISIN ALONE!

HAS MORE CORNZ MOAR I SAY!!

>>59272128
and point proven

when shit gets technical paid shills go into retard mode

>>59272035
The reason is the price you retard, that's how it works. If the task at hand is gaming there is no reason to compare to a 6900K which is both more expensive and slower. Nobody is going to buy a 6900K to play games when a much cheaper 7700K is faster. How much does that cost? Let's say ~$350. What does AMD compete with in that price segment? The R7 1700. Is it faster for games? No. Is the top of the line and significantly more expensive R7 1800X faster for games? No. Does it matter how fast it is compared to a 6900K? No, because a 6900K is an inferior product for this application anyway.

There's no logical reason to compare Ryzen to a 6900K for gaming, because the 6900K is not a gaming-oriented CPU and it does not sit in the price range of the best gaming-oriented CPU on the market (the 7700K). The thing here is that while Intel DOES have a gaming processor on the market, AMD just has 8 core Ryzen. They compete with what they've got.

>>59267986
Unironically this.

>>59272148
No, the endless shilling of more cores being a benefit unto themselves gets a little tiresome.

>CPU performance
>Video resolution
Why even be on /g/ at this point
Go to /v/

As a guy looking to upgrade from an OC'd 2500K I'm considering a 1700X, but may just end up with a 7700K. Or just wait even longer because I don't think I need a new processor to saturate my 390.

>>59269790
>waitfag

>>59272631
4.4GHz 3570k here, I'm thinking of grabbing a 1700 with a beefy cooler to try and get at least 3.8GHz. Maybe even go full retard and buy a 1800x. It'll be a sidegrade at worst, but a huge upgrade for compilation, VMs, and the occasional transcode from BDs.

File: 911.png (182KB, 442x341px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 442x341px

>>59268160
Quicksync isn't free. It still eats CPU, memory bandwidth, and GPU bandwidth.

t. someone that tried and failed to make 120fps recordings without compromising grafics using quicksync

File: wow.png (106KB, 1280x722px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1280x722px

>>59272255
>Is it faster for games?
good enough. and thats how consumers work, they dont sperg out over 4 fps

File: 1461966614799.jpg (126KB, 1095x662px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1095x662px

>>59267695
AMD Ryzen 1800X is $500 and beats the $1000 i7 6900k.

Ryzen - Half the Price, Twice the Performance


can this meme please die now?

>>59272803
Nobody is going to buy a 1800X for $150 more than a 7700K for games. That's how consumers work.

>>59272847
no, but they will buy a 1700 because the trend is towards streaming while you gayme

>>59272847
>Nobody is going to buy a 2600k for $150 more than a 2500K for games. That's how consumers work.
actually said back in the days of "you dont need an i7 for games!" days

>>59272895
>the trend is towards streaming while you gayme
Provide a source or deal with your delusion.

>>59272933
Retarded argument, a 2600K may have been unnecessary back in the day but it wasn't actually inferior to a 2500K, like a R7 1700 (or even 1800X) is to a 7700K.

>>59273003
At launch it sort of was the HT actually mad it slower at some games than the 2500k. Thats not your argument but im just saying.

See, Bulldozer was just obsolete. Terrible single thread performance, didn't even really outperform Intel on multithread performance, and had much higher power draw.

These 8 core Ryzens are crushing Broadwell-E. And are good enough single threaded to not exclude them for gaming depending on your relative priorities.

>>59267695
>3fps slower than a 6900k
>$500 cheaper
Neat.

File: 76298345.jpg (16KB, 351x329px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 351x329px

>>59267722
>benchmarks everywhere prove Ryzen performs worse in vidya than 2 year old Intel CPU's that cost less and consume less power
>F-FUCKING INTEL SHILLS ARE AT IT AGAIN GUYS!!

>>59272895
And nobody is fucking watching these idiots streaming

>>59267695
>Intel C++ compiler
Nice meme

Tell us about performance that actually matter.

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/un65p1/12 5 years old and GayMD can't beat it by double the performance... AMD is for cucks.

>>59267695
>Ryzen - Twice the Price, Half the Performance

You're also assuming Intel will just stand by while AMD grabs market.

If you're in the industry, you'd know Intel is VERY aggressively pricing their processors right now to the point where AMD has very little pricing advantage left.

>>59267695
Hey OP what's your monitor's refresh rate? Also it's within 5% which is a margin of error.

Fucking kill yourself

>>59267695
>$240 i5
last year i got a 6700k for that and passed on a 5820k at the same price

>>59273452
>If you're in the industry, you'd know Intel is VERY aggressively pricing their processors right now to the point where AMD has very little pricing advantage left.

Intel is basically cutting their OEM and vendor prices by nearly 1/3. They're going to shut the door on Rizen before vendors even have a chance.

>>59270127
Ok mate. Call me when when you get to Ansys in your bachelors.

>>59270649
>amdcucks completely btfo

File: 1339278510.png (357KB, 490x591px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 490x591px

I just came here to say i'm really looking forward to R5. Going to be a massive upgrade from my dear companion Phenom II x4 955 BE and once again come in under budget. Godspeed AMD.

>>59267726
>1800X is on par with a 5960X which costs twice as much
Two can play at that game

>>59272255
>only price matters

Well i made an absolutefucking killing on Ryzen with AMD stocks.But i havent decided whether i want to buy a ferrari or a tractor trailer, they cost the same so ive been going back and forth weighing pros and cons.

>>59274884
>Phenom II x4 955 BE
>not 965
How can someone fuck up this bad?

>>59267695
>buying any other than 1700
>not overclocking 1700
that thing is cool as fuck too

>>59275907
the 965 didn't exist at the time

>>59276152
If I can get 4GHz with a Memetua cooler, then I'll definitely buy.

>>59276229
you can
there is no reason to get any ryzen 7 other than the 1700 due to price and thermals
granted it doesn't make up for gaymen yet
hopefully they get their shit together for ryzon 5

>>59276229
>>59276323
actually you can get that off the stock cooler that comes with it
haven't seen anything about water and noctua performance

>>59276229
People over the overclock net forums are barely getting 4.0Ghz while cooking at 1.4V.

The sweet spot is below 4.0Ghz at 1.3~ for 24/7

>>59276364
See, this is why I'm considering the 1800x. Itmight be clocked to hell and have almost no headroom left, but I still get some sort of insurance with higher clocks out of the box.

AdoredTV talks a lot of sense in the video linked below. Even if you don't agree with it at least watch this before shilling Intel. If you just poo poo it then you did not even watch and listen and are just a huge shitposting cock on legs who has no right posting on /g/.

>>59276639
Forgot link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

>>59276639
>>59276653

>Need to watch some shill to make up your mind about some piece of technology IN a technology enthusiast board.


Did you lot your way to the AMD subreddit?

>>59267695

I have a 6600k and was looking foward to ryzen, the fuck do I do now?

>>59268614
>>Mean while in the real world...

So are you shills going to drop the gaming tests at 480p?

File: 1488831602578[1].png (225KB, 1628x1559px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1628x1559px

Ryzen goes toe to toe with 7700K on 4 cores at the same clock speed.

>>59268032

Once the patches roll in Intel is gonna get some serious butthurt.

File: And-everybody-loses-their-minds.jpg (18KB, 620x348px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 620x348px

>>59267695
>>59267706
>>59267726
>>59267763
>>59267769
>>59267782
Faggots post gaming benchmarks and no one bats an eye.
Anons talk about GPUs for games and everyone loses their mind!
>Go back, /v/ermin!
Bunch of fucking hypocrites.