Do I pull the trigger or wait for intel's next move?

>>59273618
R7-1700 unless you're an idiot.

>>59273625
but I want to play games

File: 1487524017762.png (234KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 800x612px

Obvious anti ryzen intell shill thread.

>>59273654
Prove to me that this particular CPU finds it impossible to play games.

Please show me this processor being unable to launch a game.

>>59273654
Unless you want to run at hundreds of FPS at 1080p in ancient DX 11 games, you'll be fine.

File: 007984c8f6[1].png (244KB, 1046x832px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1046x832px

>>59273677

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

61KB, 1306x1646px

>>59273618
Don't wait for anything, it's dumb

Definitely get it

Also do not get Ryzen if you play games, it's horrible at games

File: ryzen-cpsu-value.png (26KB, 773x371px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 773x371px

>>59273746
Ryzen is literally twice as much for worse performance in games, a horrible deal

>>59273800
I don't see the 6900X on there, which is the R7's main competitor. I also see that an i3-7350K is a better value than all of Intel's other CPUs. This chart is a load of horseshit.

>>59273826
Uhh those numbers are straight from the PC gamer review, it's 100% correct

The Intel shills are in full force here lol
If we're talking about gaming value, why shouldn't OP just get an i3 and forget about the i7?

File: 1u4gimro1.gif (1MB, 446x344px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 446x344px

>>59273800
>$170 i3 is the best value

>>59273857
This is the dumbest appeal to authority I have ever read in my entire life. Also, the chart is missing what resolution, settings and what games were run at.

File: 7700.jpg (392KB, 1836x1776px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1836x1776px

Thanks for the price drops Ryzen

>>59273917
>boxposting
>>>/reddit/ is that way

>>59273625
/thread.
Stock cooler is pretty damn good.
Why i7 7700k for $339 and a $150 mobo + $30 CPU cooler if I could get an 8 core r7 1700 for $299 + stock/aftermarket cooler level and a $100 mobo.
More cores for $100 bucks less is a pretty good deal

>>59273930
BUT MUH GAYMEN PERFORMANCE


ONLY INTEL CAN GET OVER 800FPS IN CS:GO

>>59273930
I got my 7700k for $300
and a $100 mobo. Already had the cooler obviously but it would only cost me about $27 more.
That's why i got it because it was cheaper.

>>59273800

buh buh but when Microsoft fix the Windows scheduler then it will be the round powerhouse.

AyyMD fanboys really think that Microsoft will help AMD top Intel.

Intel and Microsoft are blood brothers.

>>59273945
>only 800 FPS
>He doesn't run at 320x240

Scrubtown here we come.

>>59273677
Fuck off you turbo autist

File: 1488188617402.jpg (353KB, 616x693px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 616x693px

>>59273917

>>59273977
>Intel and Microsoft are blood brothers
What kind of crack are you smoking?

>>59273992
>reading things exactly as they are written is now autism

How about you use the English language correctly, you blithering idiot?

>>59273618
Wait for the R5 series if nothing else.
The line up seems to have changed since the initial leaks but even ignoring that the 1600X is a six core with the same clocks as the 1800X with a better cache to core ratio.
It could be killer.

>>59273959
$100 mobo for i7 7700k?
Source?
I'm waiting for my old PC to crap out anytime now and I'm looking at the R7 1700/R5 due to its performance value overall as a CPU for my new build.
And signs (PS4/XB1) point that games will use more cores in the near future.

>>59274008
/thread

>>59273618
I literally just bought this on ebay from newegg for 310. Fucking thank god I didnt fall for the Ryzen meme was so close too

>>59273930
Don't forget about delidding because of the shitty TIM under IHS (~$30)

>>59273654

Why the fuck would you get a 7700k for gaming? Overkill as fuck.

>>59273917
>quad core

its like we're stuck in 2008 forever

>>59274034
1 shekel has been deposited to your account

>>59274055
depends if you have a high-end graphics card and want to run high refresh rate and FPS or not

>>59274055
Cause I wanted a i7. Plus I want my computer besides my GPU to last me 9-10 years.

Cause pretty much I can really

>>59274055
GTX 1080 TI + i7 7700k here I come!!!

File: 1487599863210.jpg (34KB, 385x370px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 385x370px

>>59274107
>wants computer to last 10 years
>buying a quad-core

>>59274128
4K OLED 60+ FPS Gayming here I come!

>>59274128
It just werks I guess
>>59274055
Plus yeah multi-core gayms are gonna rise soon on PC due to consoles such as the XB1/PS4.
Now that Ryzen has proved that their multi-cores and performance are actually viable against Intel.
Only time will tell (r5 lineup, bios updates, etc..).

File: 1476065302868.png (115KB, 248x251px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 248x251px

>>59274128

>"with my 1080p monitor"

>>59273618
Check the warehouse for 6700ks

picked one up for $200

>>59274188
144hz 144fps master race

OP here, I have a 4k monitor and I just got a 1070 recently but I'm still getting the heavy frame drops to 30fps that I did when I had my 680, so that's why I want to upgrade my cpu
I'll use it for workstation purposes in addition to gaming

>>59274188
Why would you get a 4k monitor if modern games are just gonna run like that for a year or maybe two?
1080p and your GPU will last a LOT longer.

>>59274209
I wonder when GPUs will get to 7nm so we can see huge improvements again

>>59273618
It's going to be nice seeing every idiot convinced by intel marketing to buy a 7700k lamenting their CPU in two years when the cheaper ryzen processors are getting better performance out of newer games with lower frametimes, smoother gameplay, more cores, miles better everything-else performance, and an actual upgrade path.

>>59274228
after AMD wrecks nvidia with Vega

>>59274263
Vega should see huge gain in perf/watt since they're going to use tiled rendering like maxwell

>>59273789
>mins above 60
I don't get it how is it bad

>>59274247
Processors aren't sold on hopes and dreams.

>>59274247
True, they won't listen though.
They just want an i7 for "gaems" or brand appeal now, no reason to not get an r7 1700 if it is for productivity.

>>59274247
I literally had a friend go for the 7700k instead of the 1700 because "gamersnexus said it sucks at gaming". Meanwhile he said the reason he needed a new cpu in the first place was to do video editing

There's no helping some people

RedTeam+ are at full force ITT

>>59274332
indeed they are, schlomo, my friend

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59273915
Appeal to authority? You're an idiot, all the reviews show the same thing.

It's at 1080p max settings

Here's another 14 games if you don't think that's good enough you fucking moron

>>59274247
>lower frametimes, smoother gameplay,

As a gamer, I give a much bigger shit about this than the 10fps difference compared to the 7700k. Another 10fps is nice, but I could literally just turn some graphics options down if it ever becomes a big deal (e.g. <60fps), but less stuttering? Sign me the fuck up.

>>59274332
Eh...?
I'm just saying that an r7 1700 is the best chip for productivity at the moment for $299 with an aftermarket level/stock-cooler.
I'm using intel right now if you're asking, I'm just a /g/ guy looking to replace this old PC for the best value.

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

609KB, 854x640px

>>59274008
>just wait, surely AMD will actually make a good product this time

>>59274055
It's not overkill if you want to max out

Nothing is faster than the 7700k at games

File: 1465263339311.gif (514KB, 307x313px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 307x313px

>>59274400
>implying it's not a good product

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

22KB, 650x200px

>>59274397
>an r7 1700 is the best chip for productivity

Complete bullshit though. Even a fucking $500 1800X can't beat a 7700k in productivity

>>59274426
wtf where'd you get this gif of my gf

>>59274282
But it also needs to be a tiny PCB with a good cooler to really sell that HBM2

AMD seem to like high stock voltage and it cooks their cards.

File: when-someone-think-they-have-an-argument-but-its-not.png (118KB, 496x534px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 496x534px

>>59274431
>7700 beats 6900
nice cherrypicked benchmark where the application cant utilize all 16 threads properly

File: ryzen7.png (2MB, 769x8779px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 769x8779px

>>59274431

>>59273618
Stockpile Skylake since it is the last CPU worth using (Supports Win 7)

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

135KB, 711x533px

>>59274464
Cherry picked? I can post these all day.

File: linus_dramatic.png (911KB, 984x914px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 984x914px

>>59274488
yes, you're cherry-picking benchmarks that cant use all 16 threads. blatantly fucking obvious when 7700 beats 6900, you retarded wankstain.

>>59274488
>pajeet cad
post solidworks, catia or gtfo

>>59273760
CPUboss. kys.

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

44KB, 650x350px

>>59274506
It's not cherry picking, this is mainstream software, just like the games

Let's see surely web browsing would be faster on those amazing workstation Ryzen CPUs right...

Oh wait

File: youdensemotherfucker.jpg (6KB, 166x121px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 166x121px

>>59274511
this. anyone trying to use CPUboss or passmark (cpumark/gpumark) should be fucking shot

>>59274521
>mainstream software
still not using all threads, you retard

File: dgl-8.png (5KB, 518x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x230px

>>59274383
Except it stutters significantly more than the 7700K.
Above 60fps, it's roughly equal to an Ivy Bridge chip in terms or consistency.

>>59274541
This.

The 7700k is clearly both faster and smoother

>>59274541
>opengl

>>59273760
cpuboss is a piece of shit.

>>59274541
sorry intel shill, I've actually done my research and looked up the benchmarks, I've already seen your cherry picks

File: cry3-8.png (5KB, 518x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x230px

>>59274548
(You)

>>59274521
>$170 CPU beats $1089 CPU
Intel BTFO!

>>59273800
>Choosing the Intel Jew cause AMD is 42 vents more.

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

179KB, 600x450px

>>59274537
So you're saying most mainstream software doesn't use all the threads?

I would agree!

Ryzen is GARBAGE for mainstream software

File: 1477976632948.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59273654
Ryzen is the better choice then. It's far smoother in games. Intel suffers from microstutters

File: wd2-8.png (6KB, 515x230px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 515x230px

>>59274569
Are we going down the list now?
We can do that. I have no problem.

Ryzen stutters as much as chips from several years ago. The 7700K doesn't. Thanks for playing.

>>59274571
kek, amdfags getting btfo over and over again

>>59274541
>>59274571
That faildozer though.

AMD really got screwed over for that core configuration didnt they?

>>59274584
Does not support the fact that Ryzen is worse in technical terms against the i7 7700k.
What do you expect of a chip that is not as optimized as Intel and STILL offers better productivity value most of the time?

>>59274598
Lmfao

Ryzen can't even compete with Intel's last gen chips

>>59274584
>garbage
no, but you're also forgetting that it's more of a workstation chip, not a mainstream chip.

the real fun stuff will happen after R5 gets released, which is the mainstream chips that will compete with i7 and i5

File: dxmd-8.png (6KB, 515x230px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 515x230px

It's just downright ugly.

>>59274617
>better productivity

>>59274431

>>59274637
see >>59274477

File: gtav-8.png (5KB, 515x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 515x230px

Sad.

>>59274598
>>59274571
Where do these graphs come from?
Their designs looks really shitty honestly (Microsoft paint tier).
Just asking (from an i6 6500 user).

>>59274654
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

AMD IS DEAD

>>59274654
>>59274632
>>59274598
>>59274571
>>59274541
Fake news. This is inconsistent with every other benchmark. Most people admit that games look smoother on Ryzen.

>>59274672
Lol it's exactly the same as all the other benchmarks

>all these shills now recommending i7's for gaming

>>59274693
see >>59274593

File: dvk-8.png (5KB, 518x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x230px

>>59274657
http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed

>The formulas behind these graphs add up the amount of time the GTX 1080 spends beyond certain frame-time thresholds, each with an important implication for gaming smoothness. The 50-ms threshold is the most notable one, since it corresponds to a 20-FPS average. We figure if you're not rendering any faster than 20 FPS, even for a moment, then the user is likely to perceive a slowdown. 33 ms correlates to 30 FPS or a 30Hz refresh rate. Go beyond that with vsync on, and you're into the bad voodoo of quantization slowdowns. 16.7 ms correlates to 60 FPS, that golden mark that we'd like to achieve (or surpass) for each and every frame. And 8.3 ms corresponds to 120 FPS, an even more demanding standard that Doom can easily meet or surpass on hardware that's up to the task.

>None of the CPUs we tested have more than a trace of frames that would drop frame rates below 60 FPS, so it's worth clicking over to the more demanding 8.3-ms plot to see what's happening. There, we can see that the Ryzen CPUs spend about as much time churning on tough frames that would drop animation below 120 FPS as Intel's Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs do.

It does well in Vulkan, at least.

>>59274203
this guy gets it

>>59274511
>>59274537
>>59274566
it's userbenchmarks

>>59274107
Quad cores are going out of fashion mate

File: 14884s85994763.png (366KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1144x888px

>>59274702
>There, we can see that the Ryzen CPUs spend about as much time churning on tough frames that would drop animation below 120 FPS as Intel's Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs do.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>59274712
exactly.

>>59273618
>8350
Why waiting? It's already a massive upgrade, and don't expect cannonlake to be anything else than a third release of Skylake.

>>59273618
Isn't there a 10% off ebay coupon running right now? If so do it

>>59274724
>7700K: 127 ms
>R7 1700: 130 ms
Really makes you think...

>>59274721
I dont see a 67/7700 going out of service for at least 7 years.
Unless something magical happens and suddenly everyone can correctly address 8 cores 16 threads

>>59274263
Nvidia already owned AMD with the 1080ti and the 1080 price drop.

AMD is now forced to release their flagship which uses the more expensive HBM at sub $600 cutting their profits by a huge margin.

>>59274756
Look at the rest of the benches, the 7700k absolutely demolishes and it's $160 cheaper

Jesus christ I didn't think AMD could make a CPU this bad

File: 1472034317505.png (101KB, 693x513px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 693x513px

>>59274758
like AMD working with tons of companies to do just that?

>>59274756
Well it does if you are BIA. Get back to /V/ f8t.

>>59274702
>1700 beating the 1700x by a wide margin
This just tells me that I can't trust these benchmarks, especially since they don't even address this issue.

>>59274775
>LOOK AT THESE BENCHMARKS THAT CANT USE ALL THE THREADS OF THE COMPETITION, EVEN INTEL'S OWN WORKSTATION CHIP
you know you're shitting over both AMD and Intel when you use this retarded "argument"

>>59274790
Oh now we've moved on to "THE BENCHMARKS ARE FAKE"

The typical AMDtard denial cycle

File: Thats why im the captain.jpg (14KB, 231x227px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 231x227px

>>59274776
Just like Bulldozer™

>>59274738
Just checked, it doesn't apply to cpu's.

>>59274802
I'm not a fanboy of either company you fucking retard

The 6900K is shit and so is Ryzen, I wouldn't buy either

7700k is great though

>>59274805
Can you give me a reasonable answer as to why the 1700s frametiming would be twice as good as the 1700x?
Why didn't they comment on that? Seems like something you would mention, especially if it were repeatable.

It sounds like the rushed though the benchmarks, with little regard for the numbers.

>>59274807
Time is a flat circle

At least for AMD it is

>>59274835
It's Doom Vulkan, it's buggy as fuck, who knows

Look at the rest of the benches, they look legit

File: dvk-16.png (5KB, 518x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x230px

>>59274790
Given that even at 16.7ms, the 1700X is faster, reasonable to put it down to a fluke. All others are consistent, including the other in Vulkan.

>>59274824
>The 6900K

Honestly, I believe that the only reason for the 2011v3 i7 segment existing is to capture high end sales that would have otherwise been lost to people making less expensive 1151 systems.

it is shit value for the dollar but some people simply want "the best" / expensive shit.

>>59274807
cept bulldozer wasnt even close to Intel IPC and they weren't considered a viable option, they are now.

File: alol3.gif (561KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 500x281px

>>59274963
>ryzen
>viable option

>>59274974
>no argument

>>59274982
Just look above you at all the fucking benchmarks

>>59274985
>single-threaded benchmark
>still no argument

>>59274947
>>59274824
>implying there are no uses for workstation-grade chips
>implying comparing a workstation chip designed for highly threaded applications with a mainstream chip in poorly threaded tests isnt retarded

>>59274985
see >>59274477

>>59275002
AMD says Ryzen is a gamer & enthusiast chip

To not compare it to the 7700k would be ridiculous

>>59273618

>buy this
>get H7 cooler for it
>still hits 70-80 degrees playing gta v at only 38% load

Don't do it OP.

>>59275018
it can be used for that just as 6900 can game. it's not far behind in IPC and since AMD is working with companies to improve mainstream use of threading it's likely it will have a long lifespan.

but the main competitor for 7700 and 7600 isnt even out yet

>>59275018
Have you missed all those productivity benchmarks?
>inb4 lightly threaded sysmark benchmark

>>59275018
>AMD says Ryzen is a gamer & enthusiast chip
they never called it a fucking gayming chip.

>>59274477
Intel is fucking ruined!
Top keke

>>59275023
>buying lower-mid-end cooler for high-end chip
that's what you get for being retarded

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

1MB, 1896x899px

>>59275059
LOL you are so delusional

>>59275070

>replace with Noctua NH-D14
>same thing

>>59275083
>i'm going to continue ignoring all those media creation benchmarks and insist that it is marketed as a gaming-only cpu

>>59275083
>takes title of presentation segment and tries to claim it means it's a mainstream gaming CPU
top fucking kek kike

>>59275093
then you're doing it wrong.

>>59275083
You do realize that the R7s aren't the only Ryzen CPU right? Of course you don't, you do it for free.

>>59274593
From what I've seen nVidia also has more time ate lower FPS's compared to AMD, but only get the FPS crown because of the higher scores. Am I reading shit wrong, or is AMD just more stable overall? because they allow a hit on max frames?

>>59275135
this. R7 is "prosumer" or workstation tier.
R5 is the mainstream gaming chips

>>59275126
Holy shit more delusion

AMD has plastered GAMING all over their Ryzen marketing

>>59275093

May, I have one on my i7 and it barely even hits 70°, and I didn't even delid. If you truly did this, then you've mounted the cooler incorrectly.

>>59275083
here are the release slides:
http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/5485#1
tell me if "gaymin chip" is your take home message (if it is: autism confirmed)

>>59275153
>calls other delusional when he fails to understand Ryzen is the family name of all chips, not the R7 specifically
please KYS to improve the human gene pool

>>59275153
>all over
I still like how you're ignoring all those production benchmarks that make up the majority of those official AMD benchmarks

>>59275153
no, they didn't. if that's all you noticed it's because you're a vidya kid.

>>59275002
>>implying there are no uses for workstation-grade chips
being "workstation-grade" is not the same thing as being in workstations.


Just look up makers who sell actual workstations and see what cpus they include.


People might shit on dell or lenovo endlessly here, but this is where business go to fill their pc needs.

>>59273618
if you buy an intel over a ryzen you are a 100% retarded goy

>>59275198
AMD had over 80 system builders lined up that sells their Ryzen chips at launch and another 100+ to go as more Ryzen chips are released.

>>59275168

>May

Meant to say Mate.

>>59275023
>get H7 cooler for it

Well there's your problem. Those were made more for i5s.

>>59273826

why did you take over this thread?

OP said he wanted a 7700k. for OP its a question of Ryzen or 7700k.

also OP is a fag for posted MicroCenter prices when like, thats 1 store. 7700ks are $350 bucks, but anyways

>>59273930

because you cant OC on that $100 mobo...?

>>59275202
But it performs better at gaming and its cheaper, wtf

>>59275302
you can OC on all X370 and B350 motherboards

>>59275320
Don't listen to the AMD shills

They are literally paid to post here

File: ryzen-gaming.png (496KB, 945x469px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 945x469px

>>59275196
Jesus christ you are dumb

It's on every fucking Ryzen page

>>59275289
He's an AMD shill

He's paid to try to push garbage Ryzen chips on everyone

>>59274400
The RX 4xx series is pretty damn good for the market they are targeting. RX 470 is a monster of performance-per-dollar.

R5 and specially R3 is where the true gold of Ryzen will be. R3 if the rumors are true will bring Quad-Cores down to 100 bucks.

File: happyspen.png (768KB, 999x999px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 999x999px

>Ryzenfags backpedaling because it turned out to be shit for vidya

File: JUST.jpg (32KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x600px

>>59274874
You're at the bottom of the barrel now, aren't you?

>>59275455
Same can be said for the Intel shills.
You can buy an i7 7700k for small advantage due to better optimization in "gaems" and all but if you just want to get better productivity for the value get the r7 1700 with stock-after-market-lever CPU cooler.
Like an anon said here a few posts up:
"why get an i7 7700k for $339 and a $150 mobo + $30 CPU cooler if I could get an 8 core r7 1700 for $299 + stock/aftermarket cooler level and a $100 mobo.
More cores for $100 bucks less is a pretty good deal".
Games will most-likely become multi-core due to consoles such as the Xbox One and PS4 influencing developers.
At least intel-shills don't photoshop their benchmarks like shit.

>>59275683
You're just making shit up now.

There are $100 Intel mobos that work just fine.

The 7700k is 20% faster than the 1700

No matter how you try to spin it, Ryzen is a horrible deal.

>>59274107
>want's his CPU to last 10 years
>plans on buying a 4 core running on almost a decade old architecture

Just how fucking dumb are you? The 1700 is obviously the pick no matter what plans you have. If you want any sort of longevity and are still considering anything from Intel you must be braindead.

I really hope all you faggots actually go out and buy Intel right now, can't wait to see your tears in a couple of years when your shitty old CPU is deprecated and falls behind the Ryzen in every single benchmark.

>>59273654
Then why did you get an 8350?

>>59275617
There cannot be more backpedaling than the one from intelfags:
First they tell you that you need absolutely the best and more expensive (otherwise they used to call you poorfag) and that you should buy intel because it has much better energetic efficiency. Now they say the only metric that matters is gaming and that you can do that perfectly with a pentium (if you spend more you're being stupid) and that no one will ever need more than 4 cores (pic related) and now they don't ever dare to mention energetic efficiency.

So they're basically accepting that the FX was more than enough for most task including gaming at much lower prices than intel and that the difference on energetic efficiency at the end "doesn't matters" so AMD always provided a better price/performance ratio?

>>59274488
>I can post these all day
Do it faggot.

File: 640k-ram.jpg (15KB, 444x314px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 444x314px

>>59275869
Forgot pic.

>>59275734
That is not making shit up dumbass, show me a $100 intel i7 7700k mobo right now then?
That AMD r7 1700 stock cooler speaks otherwise and see
>>59274477
For some Ryzen productivity benchmarks.
And to top it off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sciuiEcrnzg&t=1678s
Go brand appeal something that is not the best for the consumer somewhere else.
I'm using an intel i5 4500u and plan to upgrade soon so yeah I know how intel always seemed the best most of the time.

>>59273618
if it's only for gayming then the answer is always an unlocked i5 7/6600k specifically, anything else then you're fucking stupid
for production and/or VM then the 1700
i7s are now shit value for those scenario

File: 1480226226815.jpg (56KB, 514x432px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 514x432px

I'm just here to point out that people who use the word "productivity" are massive fucking faggots. As if "productivity" is an all-encompassing category of some sort. And most of them don't do any kind of "productivity".

Look at me mom, I opened up after effects to do a luma key transition in my Call to Homosexuality frag video. I'm being fucking productive over here.

Fuck off and die in a fire anal enthusiasts

>>59275217
>80 system builders
i am not disputing the amount of system builders.

I am talking about workstations and companies that sell workstations.
Because OP's comments were about these ryzen cpus' being a replacement for workstations.


newegg selling made to order custom ryzen builds is not the same as dell offering a workstation with dual xeons and ecc ram

>ECC is not disabled. It works, but not validated for our consumer client platform.
>Validated means run it through server/workstation grade testing. For the first Ryzen processors, focused on the prosumer/gaming market, this feature is enabled and working but not validated by AMD.

I like it when Intel shills post benchmarks that have the 7700k barely beating the Ryzen CPUs. The best part is how they completely ignore that the 7700k also beats the over $1000 Intel CPUs that the Ryzen CPUs are meant to compete with.

Are Intel shills actually this retarded (that they're calling other Intel CPUs shit without realizing it) or do they think their retarded spamming on /g/ is going to affect the greater market in any way whatsoever?

Ryzen CPUs, and the motherboards for them, are completely sold out everywhere. There's a reason for that.

>>59276216
I think they're getting fed up shilling for them, from AMD machines.

>>59274375
Kill yourself.

https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/image/e2qYjg5xdcp7wIyKlQT_zw
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/image/ppaaCLyjy-Q6ZKLRPaLBDg
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/image/kqot_jNoRyXq16QLyKJkbg
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/image/I_9PHYU2KVZ1-qkDbVY7ow

What did he mean by this?

File: Speccy.png (99KB, 787x530px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 787x530px

Whats goin' on here.

>>59276216
Jesus christ AMDtards always lie

Ryzen is not sold out, I can buy all of them on Amazon and NewEgg right now

>>59275973
Ryzen is a server CPU, you should never buy it unless you are doing sustained multithreaded loads over long periods of time

>>59275847
for 3d at the time
it was good money

>>59276634
They were 12 hours ago. There's around 11 motherboards that are still out of stock.

>>59273618

The fact you have to delid it to drop 20°C at all times makes this card not worth the money. On top of the risk of delidding it, you need a high end cooler just to keep it stable.

>>59274128

Same plan here. Going for 1440x144 myself on the 1080Ti.

>>59274002
OP wants to get maximum performance in video games, that is less than 1000USD

what cpu should he get, faglord?

>>59276830

7700K.

wait 2 weeks for intel to drop prices on 7600k/7700k due to ryzen

File: m8.jpg (63KB, 611x715px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 611x715px

>>59276592
>fake CPU
>meme monitor
>counterfeit SSD

>>59273618
I'd say wait to see how the R5/R3 perform.

>>59273618
Heh, I'm still playing anything at 1440p, full settings with my 8350.

>>59273917
>>59273618
I bought one, they're back up to $350 now I think.
I was going to buy a ryzen, but this was cheaper than the cheapest ryzen, and has way better chipsets and choices in motherboards. I'll have another look at ryzen in a year or so

>>59273618
You're supposed to be buying an R7 1700, why would you want to lose cores for the same price?

>>59273800
Jesus fucking christ that chart is god awful

>>59276731

This. It's such a fucking pain when you've paid good money for it.

Go with Ryzen or an i5 for now, unless you're willing to risk delidding it.

>>59277363
>fake CPU
You mean forged CPU ID? Because if there's fake's, I would be impressed enough to buy one.

>>59273618
Wait, no reason to upgrade from an 8350 yet

>>59273618
i suggest waiting for ryzen 5.

>>59273800
>i3 7350k
>$170 i3
yes goy. best buy ever.

>>59274431
>synthetic benchmark
>office productivity

File: 85898.png (44KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 650x350px

intelfags on suicide watch.

If you really want intel wait for price drops
personally would rather buy engineering sample i7s for dirt cheap but the 1700X isnt too bad

>>59273618
2 words: Ryzen

File: 1487710620851.jpg (60KB, 960x892px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x892px

can someone explain something to me

i've been reading/watching many ryzen reviews and also checking out what people on forums/boards (e.g. /g/) are saying about ryzen, especially in gaming scenarios, and one of the main points i see thrown around is the streaming capabilities. now what i don't understand is why is this so highly advertised as an advantage when other less impactful methods of streaming exist e.g. via the hardware encoder on pretty much every amd/nvidia gpu since 2011 or quicksync with every intel cpu with an igpu.

now i'm not hating on ryzen here, i actually think the 1700 (non-x) is great value, but am i wrong in saying that the proposed "advantage" of streaming with ryzen is slightly misleading?

i mean, if i had $600 to spend on a cpu and gpu upgrade for a pretty beefy streaming pc to stream on twitch or whatever i'd get like a $190 i5 6500 and a $370 1070 rather than a $330 r7 1700 and a ~$230 gtx 1060/rx 480, and use the 1070's hardware encoder to stream or if there is ever a scenario where the gpu encoder doesn't work i would use quicksync.

tldr; what is so special about spending more on a beefier cpu for software encoding than spending that extra money on rather a beefier gpu for hardware encoding for twitch streaming?

>>59278968
Hardware encoders produce low-quality video output compared to software encoders at the same video bitrate.

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

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59278968
There isn't any streaming advantage whatsoever, even without hardware acceleration

Ryzen is a complete scam

File: tombraider.png (27KB, 733x707px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 733x707px

>>59277787
Jesus christ are people really this stupid?

More cores does not equal more performance.

For fucks sake, look at the benchmarks, the 8 core Ryzen's are getting killed by 4 core Intels that are half the price.

>>59279239
What kind of retarded ass benchmark is that? how is the Ryzen chip only 10fps higher? it's clock speed is lower sure, but it should be destroying the FX chip

in addition it's still well over 100fps, and the R7 1700 gives you more cores for the future and for productivity workloads

File: 1475677701476.png (264KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 500x700px

>>59279211
>dota 2
Yep, because that's really stress testing the cpu under game load and encoding.

>>59279359
that benchmark is BS anyways, I get over 100fps average with my FX 8 core

but dota 2 is very poorly CPU optimized, mostly uses core 0

File: speccy mrk2.png (38KB, 606x591px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 606x591px

>>59279375
Spot on. These shill are getting beyond desperate.
I give it a week before a pajeet strangles their manager at Intel shitpost HQ.
inb4 logan posts.

>>59279421
My motherboard gets in stock tomorrow, the R7 1700 gets in stock on amazon at the 8th, too stoked, but I still can't decide on my RAM, Ryzen is very picky with it's RAM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frw9HRwqODk&t=930s

>>59273800

protip

if your chart has the 7350k winning anything, its time to rethink your life

>>59273857
The numbers might be right, the correlations are fucking stupid.
Are you braindead?

>unironically buying kaby lake housefires
>watches tbbt
>pays for cable

>>59279359
this is the example amd used though and they made the intel 6900k look like it was struggling and stuttering

>>59279528
mine really doesnt run very hot at all

well except for prime 95

i hit 70s running stresses and benches (again except prime 95) but with just some youtube and browsers open i run around 30C

>>59274737
6 core i7 at 300~$

>>59274186
>due to consoles such as the XB1/PS4.
xbawx had a 3 core processor

File: 1442669645645.jpg (52KB, 256x352px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 256x352px

>>59273987
killed me.

>>59273789
Doesn't really matter. Soon enough with dx12 and vulkan the dependence of your CPU on performance will go down, especially at higher resolutions.

File: 1700 after oc worse than i3 and i5.png (112KB, 806x580px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 806x580px

>>59273625
you are an amd idiot if you buy r7 1700 it's literally 10-15fps worse for same money, are you retarded anon?

>>59274055
cuz i want my cpu to not bottleneck me for next 5-6 years like i5 2500k? and i5 is just not enough anymore and ryzen is a failure