So, we know there are issues crippling performance of Ryzen CPU's

Why are AMD problems everyone else's? Fucking lazy street shitters you're in no position to demand other people fix your cruddy design

>>59279815
>So, what if they delayed the launch of the 6 core and 4 core Ryzen chips on purpose because they knew that the issues would get fixed only *after* releasing the 8 core chips, so that reviewers would have to make new reviews for them when they release?
Pretty much most people assume this is the case.

It's early adopters and nerd tinkerers mostly buying these Ryzen 7 chips. People who are used to bad launches and shit.
These are people who can actually send reports to help AMD fix problems.

Most people looking for gaymen and other babby shit were waiting for Ryzen 5.

>>59279834
What makes you think AMD haven't already told Microsoft what modifications they need to the scheduler?
They've already submitted modifications to Linux, but they can't write Microsoft's OS for them.

>>59279815
>AMD probably knew there would be issues, and that reviewers don't usually re-review hardware after software fixes get released, and that people would be likely to use the old, outdated reviews when choosing their hardware.
they will be releasing other chips soon, I doubt there will be many outdated articles
in general opinion of public Joe lags few years behind actual hardware no matter what

>>59280049
Incompetence

half the problems made it to release before being figured out

>>59280082
If AMD released all their Ryzen models at once, most reviewers would just write the one review and not update it. And then in a year, people would still be using those reviews to gauge performance.

>>59279815
>we know

lol no one knows shit. dont get your hopes up

>>59280084
Same thing happened with Intel's HyperThreading.
Even Sandy Bridge had chipset problems on release.

>>59279964
>it was their plan to tank their stock price and lose even more credibility

YOU JUST GOT TO BELEIBE

>>59280121
Maybe you don't know, but that just means you haven't been paying attention.

>>59280049
It was confirmed that AMD submitted an issue to MS before Ryzen's release, no?

MS just doesn't care.

>>59280122
I remember there being issues with the SATA controller on Sandy Bridge chipsets tanking performance.

>>59280134
your grasping at straws.

>>59280199
You're shitposting, and not even effectively shitposting.
The facts clearly show how Windows 10's scheduler is crippling performance. See how Windows 7's performance is significantly higher, or how performance is higher when you manually set CPU affinity.

You can't actually argue against that' so you're shitposting.

>>59280122
>Same thing happened with Intel's HyperThreading.

what were these issues? fucking sources please

the fucking issues on the original HT of the P4 era was lack of developer support. shit wasn't made for using multiple threads period and point blank and HT itself doesnt fully emulate a second processor so even the shit that could be ran on dual cpu boxes couldnt really utilize HT

>>59280287
https://www.geek.com/blurb/306ghz-pentium-4-arrives-with-price-cuts-549990/
> it's worth noting that in 14 of the 23 tests ht improved scores by less than 1%, only three tests showed an improvement of more than 5%, and 10 tests actually showed a negative effect (decreasing the score by as much as 6% on content creation 2002).