1700X or 7700K

7700k.
Mainly because Ryzen mobos are completely unavailable right now.

>>59305785
1700x

1700x

>>59305785
>blender
1700x

>>59305785
Nothing that you mentioned, aside from blender, can push either of those chips. Your decision should be based on that. Aka you should go with the 1700X

>>59305785
>MS office
1700x
>blender
1700x
>games
literally same thing as 7700K, people argue about 0.5ms rendering times
>photoshop+illustrator
this one is tricky, after effects gets a huge boost while normal work is on par with haswell

what about i7 7700k vs r7 1700
still the ryzen?

>>59305821
excel can, ryzen is accountant dream

File: file.png (234KB, 701x479px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 701x479px

> games
> photoshop
you need a 4c/8t

AMD are idiots with not shilling first thing the 4c/8t chips
Intel knows how to shill to the masses for free memes

>>59305832
1700 is cheaper and you can OC it to 3.9 making it 1700x, its even better value if you OC
more sane option

>>59305785
7700k faster overclocks, depends on your GPU too. If you have a good GPU like a 1070 or 1080 then the CPU doesn't really matter.

>>59305840
True, I misspoke. I was assuming that OP wouldn't be doing accounting/finance work since he wants to use blender and play games

>>59305827
1.) Noboday mentioned after effects

2.) Its not a huge boost. 99% of the ",huge boosts" are literally gains of 10% and often less

File: IMG_2564.jpg (102KB, 601x806px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 601x806px

Decide for yourself

>>59305855
>CPU doesn't really matter.
between the two? next 2 years it doesn't.
also ryzen upgrade cost is smaller
am4 until 2020.

the i7 7700k is an insane value if you also want a space heater

>>59305883
>next 2 years
that stupid meme has to go. CPUs will become even MORE irrelevant with the newest GPU APIs. They do not make CPUs more important, they make them LESS important.

Sure, they do claim to multithread better on the CPU stage but that's a minor optimization most developers did not need, the most important advantage of Vulkan et al is batch commands and that's purely offloading to GPUs/VRAM.

>>59305876
hey, just like in games!

1700x

>>59305907
I guess we can tell those server owners to throw away their xeons and use Quadros instead

>>59305923
Read the OP again. You are offtopic. Change the subject more.

>>59305923
>talking about game APIs
calm down

>>59305938
He also mentioned blender rendering
>inb4 ray-tracing on the GPU

File: IMG_2558.jpg (478KB, 1997x1232px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1997x1232px

Just gonna leave this here

File: Intel_inside.jpg (273KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1032x774px

>>59305790
>>59305832
>>59305881
>delidlake

File: 1484857165b9Q0qmS6fl_1_6.png (13KB, 620x336px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 620x336px

>>59305963
Just gonna leave this here.

>>59305785
7700k is a much better all around value today.

I've got a similar use case as you.

Photoshop/Lightroom, some random games, DaVinci Resolve and Google/Libre docs and shitposting.

The few gains are outweighed by medicore to poor all around performance.

But then again some think CPUs age like good cheese which I think is bullshit. Long story short go look at benches and ask yourself where most of your time will be spent. I'm more often in Lightroom and PS so I wanted that perf. And considering GPU acceleration my increasing focus on editing and rendering video will still be as fast and as able as anything else on the market.

>>59305785
no point in getting the 7700K unless you have autism

File: IMG_2565.png (112KB, 722x554px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 722x554px

>>59305965
>>59305973
Sorry Poojets, you tried at least

File: ryzen-r7-1800x-blender-benchmark.png (68KB, 806x546px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 806x546px

>>59306000

File: qtbench.png (5KB, 480x288px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 480x288px

>>59305975
>>59306000

File: IMG_2566.png (129KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59306025
>>59306033

>>59305977
>7700K
>autism

What are the benefits if I am on the spectrum?

>>59306043
>3.5mbits/s
>presumably fast preset
useless benchmark

>>59306063
It's a game aka real life scenario unlike cinebench

>>59306043
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39nk02EROPI

>>59305975
Blender pushes it into the 1700x's favor if he's working alot on it. Rendering times are going to be cut dramatically if he goes for the 8c/16t.

>>59305785
>Main use is games
7700K
>Main use is Blender
1700X

There

>>59306093
It's a streaming test, m8. The fact that the parameters aren't really defined to a reasonable degree makes this a useless test.

After reading all posts here, and some articles it seems the 7700k is better for gayming and the ryzen is better for everything else.
but shouldn't be both more or less a good choice for the next 3 or 5 years?

>>59305785
Either works. I guess if you can get Ryzen, support the underdog for competition's sake...

>>59306119
all gaming arguing boils down to half millisecond in average, it's that high fps we are talking about

you wouldn't know the difference either way

>>59306119

Supposedly gaming performance improves if you disable SMT and all but two cores on the 1700X. Which might point to bugs in Windows' scheduler when it comes to dealing with Ryzen's architecture.

File: 1700_vs_7700k.png (441KB, 1670x1250px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1670x1250px

>>59306043

>>59306116
Isn't 3.5Mbps the maximum Twitch allows, as such the test is absolutely and perfectly reasonable, as it evaluates the highest quality setting for the by far largest streaming site?

File: 85882.png (37KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 650x350px

>>59306043

Reminder that 90% of benchmarks are invalid due to discovered RTC bug.


http://hwbot.org/newsflash/4335_ryzen_platform_affected_by_rtc_bias_w88.110_not_allowed_on_select_benchmarks

>>59305848
Kill yourself.

>>59306202
lol, ryzen keeps looking better and better

good thing I bought my r7 1700

File: IMG_2568.png (43KB, 649x354px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 649x354px

>>59306193

>>59306183
Why are you posting this? It's already been proven that Joke downclocked his 7700k to 4.0GHz in order to get those numbers

>>59306191
bitrate isn't the only thing you can adjust when encoding to x264, you know

there are quality presets, which are independent from the bitrate

the higher-quality the preset is - the more CPU will get hammered, with the trade-off being higher quality video at the same bitrate

>>59306183
You know that test was debunked right?

Funny no one gave pause for thought when that is literally the only bench being posted around that shows such results

>>59306242
>It's already been proven
it wasn't, nobody else claimed what aussie fag in tanktop did
that aussie butthurt was confirmed though

File: _20170306_152742.jpg (150KB, 954x1256px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 954x1256px

>>59306234

>>59306249
So you hypothesize that Ryzen would allow you to use a slower and higher quality preset? Any results to back that up or is it pure theory?

Have you taken into account the fact that 99th percentile FPS on Ryzen is below 60 even with the fast profile? That's already bad since you can no longer provide a perfectly smooth 60FPS stream, do you actually want to reduce it further by increasing rendering load even more?

>>59306319
>rendering
Brain fart, I mean encoding

>>59306319
see>>59306100

I don't know, it's like everyone was asked not to test streaming with it any decent game.

>>59305963
>number of 500hz monitors: 0
>number of 400hz monitors: 0
>number of idiots who think this matter then: atleast 1

>>59306119
>>59306150

I've heard Ryzen systems maintain a higher minimum FPS compared to intel because background processes don't interrupt as much. However, I've heard this on Reddit posts and not anywhere reputable.

That said, if it's true that would be a definite consideration. I don't care about 100fps vs 120fps as much as I'd care about dipping to 50 fps vs 60 fps

>>59306345
Everyone is testing DotA 2 because AMD put on a ridiculous demo at one of their events where the Intel system was dropping frames to the point where it was a stuttery mess while the Ryzen system was smooth. No idea what settings they were running, but the actual DotA 2 streaming benchmarks don't quite seem to match.

Post a timestamp or some shit for that video, I'm not going to watch 26 minutes of some random dude playing BF1 to hear what he has to say. I skipped through and couldn't see any sort of benchmark result charts or a comparison to a 7700K in the same scenario.

>>59305785
>Games
Babby Lake
>MS Office
Your toaster
>Photoshop/Illustrator
Ryzen, but either will be fine.
>Blender
Ryzen for renderring shit.
>Browse 4chan
Your toaster

Also a 1700X/1800X is just a factory overclocked 1700. Dont bother with the X's.

Ultimately it depends on how much time you spend doing the things you mentioned.

>>59306434
>Everyone
you post only one graph everyday though- nobody tested streaming
you know why? because everyone knows it doesn't affect 8 core at all

>>59305785
An R7 1700 OC'd ya fool

>>59306421
no stutter
7700K has very rare every 2-5 minutes stutter

>>59306382
Absolute pwer and performance absolutely matters. Your blinded by your faggot games and can't see those FPS results are demonstrating the absolute power of the CPU.

But sure good enough right? That's been AMD's mantra for years.

>>59306119
Theyre the same in games.

Its a max of 10 fps slower on the 1700 while still being above 100 fps. So if you have a 60hz monitor it doesnt matter get the cheaper one. If you have 144hz, thats a GPU bottleneck, and neither CPU is a bottleneck anymore for the GPU so again it doesnt matter.

>>59306456
I have never posted this graph before and in fact it's not even me who posted it ITT.

I said "Everyone" because in the post I replied to you said
>it's like everyone was asked not to test streaming with it any decent game
>everyone

>>59306421
>I've heard Ryzen systems maintain a higher minimum FPS compared to intel because background processes don't interrupt as much.

Well MS has Game Mode coming down the pipe. So it might actually be an interesting feature.

>>59306475
I guess its time to start including FPS on loading screens. I guess we reall do need to see that 4200 FPS.

File: 4273568.png (360KB, 596x412px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 596x412px

mfw I'm getting a 6900K for $545 from an Intel insider.

Otherwise I would go with the 1800x

>>59306495
nobody tested streaming, people just tested x264 encode, and it fantastic for that
for x265 not so good

>>59306477
>So if you have a 60hz monitor it doesnt matter get the cheaper one
That is my problem.
The r7 1700 is the same price as the i7 7700k here.
And almost everyone who tries to be objective says they are almost the same.[spoiler] I cannot decide fuck my life[/spoiler]

>>59306531
95w vs140w
300USD board vs 200 USD board
500 vs 545

whatever floats your boat though

>>59306541
find motherboard you like for both
and go with cheaper board+cpu that fit it

>>59306382
literally retarded

>>59306557
I'm afraid of being an early adopter. The mobos may be faulty as fuck. No?

Also i can OC the 6900k with NH-D15 to perhaps 4.1GHz. So it will perform better than the 1800x.

BTW this build will be for Adobe After Effects and Premiere Pro work. Not gay-m.

>>59306658
mobos seem to be fine for normal use
6900 doesn't benefit as much from OC over 1800x unless you go way overboard to 4.4
count in power cost over the years, ryzen idle is x3 lower than 6900k and load ~20% lower
after OC it skyrockets as far as I know for 6900k

think about operating costs , you do it for yourself my guess, not for company where bill can be written off

>>59306540
>nobody tested streaming
What? But there's a benchmark posted right above. In any case, offline video encoding or even live transcoding of an existing file and with a sizable buffer are quite different from game livestreaming, especially when you have to capture the game at the same time. Latency and how well the capture process itself performs are much more important in that scenario, you can't simply look at some offline x264 benchmark and conclude that Ryzen should have excellent game livestreaming performance because it has excellent offline x264 encode performance.

For instance if the image capture part of the chain performs poorly for whatever reason all the x264 prowess in the world may not help.

>>59306000

PS CC obviously has shitty parallelism.

>>59306756
To be honest, it's really painful to say no to such an amazing deal: $545 for 6900K. Well, there is an additional $50 shipping cost too.

What do? :(

>>59306786
your deal anon, but dollars are saved by the cents

>>59306541
Sounds like you need a 1700 then, if you arent planning to upgrade so soon, then the longevity of the AM4 platform will reduce upgrade cost unless you really hold until AM5. Also moar corez will only get better as time goes on, just not sure how much better and how soon.

File: X05Tozj.gif (931KB, 250x197px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 250x197px

>>59306829

Only if there were some 1800x benchmarks for After Effects...

It's all about gaming these days. I only found 1 single website reviewing 1800x with AE.

Maybe I should wait a bit for people to test this new AMD tech and make sure I don't fuck up?

I make a living with my PC. After Effects / Premiere Pro are my sources of income. So... you understand how I don't want to fuck this up. 6900K / x99 is a tested tech...

>>59306880
should go full autism and just get entry level Naples t b h fa am.

>>59305785
>1700X
Why the X? Why not the 1700?

>>59305853
This

>>59306770
I really hope LinusTechTips does a review of streaming with the 7700k vs. Ryzen. That stupid AMD demo got me tripped up and now I don't know what to believe.

I guess I could just do 720p60 and for sure get good streams regardless of processor. 1080p60 with good quality would be awesome but I don't know if the 7700 can do it.

>>59306572
nice advice but even then we speak about a 10 euro difference.

>>59306834
i'm coming from an i7 860 from 2009, and i'm trying to get a cpu that lasts me about 4 years without major fps drops while gayming.
The other shit i'm doing is CAD but that works even on my old system.
>Also moar corez will only get better as time goes on, just not sure how much better and how soon.

Is it even a safe thing to say that it gets better with better optimization or is it a maybe scenario?

I think i'm doing a coin toss.

>>59306975
>1080p60 with good quality would be awesome but I don't know if the 7700 can do it.
it can't, it was tested
it has no headroom at all

>>59307001
Not to be a dick but do you have a link to a source that isn't AMD?

>>59306992
>but even then we speak about a 10 euro difference.
flip a coin then

7700K

I backed out of a 1800X pre-order. AMD has done a great job with these chips, but it's the next generation that will be the one I buy.

>>59306934
It seems like people believe that only 'X' are overclockable.

>>59307040
Non X ryzen processors can OC. Lots of them getting ~4.0 gHz

>>59307018
people tried it, I have no benchmarks

>>59307061
I know.

>>59306975
The AMD demo is bullshit, I've done Steam IHS with software encoding on a 4790K and plenty of games ran at 1080p60 30Mbps. It's not quite the same since the latency requirements are very strict and more CPU-heavy games definitely drop under 60 sometimes, but even with the low latency required for an interactive stream it was nothing like AMD's stutterfest of a demo. If FPS dropped it was simply less smooth, I never had shitloads of dropped frames like their "demo" did.

That being said I have switched IHS over to GPU encoding anyway, it does benefit from the hardware acceleration.

>>59307033
The next generation is going to be quite interesting, by then we'll have more 6C+ Intel CPUs to choose from, hopefully with some sort of price model adoption too and Ryzen will have even better IPC, hopefully with less disastrous firmware/mobo issues. I decided to wait too, at least until Skylake-X to see what happens in the market and how Intel plans to deal with the Ryzen price point.

File: after-effects.png (132KB, 728x562px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 728x562px

>>59306880
>Only if there were some 1800x benchmarks for After Effects...

i gotchu senpai

>>59305785
>blender
Go with Ryzen

this is not even a difficult question OP

obviously the 1700, skip the 1700x

>>59307262
Oh fuck.
So fucking painful to not accept the half-the-price deal on the 6900K. I can't even buy and sell it. The intel insider is my relative and if she realizes I did that, it would be terrible.

Ok so you guys are saying 1800x is better than 6900K EVEN WHEN 6900K is half the price?

>gaming
Go with Intel (for now)
>production, editing, rendering, 3D modeling
Ryzen 1700

>>59307341

Can you redpill me on 1700 vs 1800x?

>>59307340
6900K is better but 1800X catches up considerably. Consider mobo combos, if the difference between Intel and AMD is less than $150 get 6900K, else get 1800X.

>>59307376
It's a literal underclock.

File: BG AFRICAN LANDSCAPE2.jpg (2MB, 4096x3112px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x3112px

>>59307400
The price of the CPUs will be almost identical.

The price of the mobo... I want to get ASUS DELUX II. Ok, it's more expensive than the most expensive Ryzen mobo available, but has more features. Also room for expansion to 128GB RAM if I get into more intense 3D rendering.

Paying a bit more to have a 2-3 year future proof PC for my job is a good idea, no?

>>59305785
How much money are mommy and daddy letting you blow on this machine?

You're not doing competitive gaming, you're not working for a company where they'll lose money if it takes 90 seconds instead of 12 seconds for that photoshop filter to run.

Bang for the buck processor is probably at a 6300 or 7400 right now. In a year or two, see if they'll buy you a new GPU for that same box for getting straight Cs. I know junior high can be hard. It's ok. No judgement here.

>>59307518

>suggesting piledriver

ahahahahahahahaha plz stop

>>59307518
nice shitpost

>>59307568
>>suggesting piledriver
???

https://ark.intel.com/products/90731/Intel-Core-i3-6300-Processor-4M-Cache-3_80-GHz

i3-6300

https://ark.intel.com/products/97147/Intel-Core-i5-7400-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz

i5-7400


Who said piledriver?

>>59307010
Still better than being a filthy fucking kike.

>>59307601

fx-6300. fucking be specific next time.

>>59305785
1700 for sure

Pic related, when things get patched performance should be even better

>>59306000
>omfg AMD btfo once agains by muh Intel
Are we just ignoring the 6900k's results?

>>59305963
>Performance exactly like 6900k
it's almost like Source engine uses 4cores max

>>59307340
I'd say they're roughly equal. benefit of the 1700 is the socket will be suppported for several years so there's an easy upgrade path.

>>59307518
>6300
>when g4560 exists
Nigga please. There's literally no reason to spend more than $70 on a CPU unless you're getting an actual quadcore.

>>59307680
>fucking be specific next time
Ahh. I didn't think anyone still did builds of those, except to troll people.

File: tmp_12714-1488015114371-139817095.jpg (47KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x600px

>mfw I'm getting either a 1700x or nothing and Intel can't stop me

>>59307903
>1700x
>not the cheaper and better 1700
ok

>>59307921
I want the x

>>59305785
>Blender
1700x alone for that. In case of Photoshop and Illustrator CPU isn't the issue for the fact that both software only actively rape RAM.

>>59305785
Why not 1700? It seems to be the best value currently. Id get myself 1700. Much more cores, IPS and single thread is very close to 7700K. It is just better and future proof hardware. Just need to wait few weeks till all bugs with bioses and windows gets fixed.

>>59307340
Get 6900K.
>more RAM b/w, not that it matters in general, but why not?
>more importantly, more RAM slots if you need to expand
>more PCIe lanes
>potentially higher OC headroom with some luck and sufficient cooling
>platform is actually pretty mature and stable at this point
>6900K kinda slightly ahead anyway
For roughly the same money I don't see why you'd get Ryzen, even if performance is similar X99 wins in terms of expandability.

>>59305848
A higher clocked core does better, who'd have fucking guessed?

>>59308268
>for roughly the same money
Might as well get a 22-core xeon at that point.

>>59307340
why not get the 1700 and OC rather than the 1800x?

>>59308268
>platform is actually pretty mature and stable at this point

The most important reason for me to choose it. Thanks for confirming that I'm making the right choice.

>>59308332
...because it's already outdated?

>>59308342
x99 is outdated?

>>59308332
>replying to yourself
Wew.

>>59308342
X370 doesn't really have any features that newer X99 boards are missing though, you can hardly call it "outdated".

>>59308318
>22-core xeon
What are you even talking about? The anon said he's getting the 6900K from an Intel insider, he's not buying it retail for $1000+

>>59308402
??

This is me:
>>59308332


This is not me:
>>59308268

>>59308401
It's going to get replaced later this year when Skylake-X comes out with its own chipset and boards, but you can't really call it outdated since it's not actually missing any modern features.

>>59308332

it's all fun and games until your mobo craps out and you won't be able to find a replacement motherboard unless you pay more for a shitty used motherboard than what you paid for your broken motherboard new, at least amd has a little backwards compatibility

t. somebody who ended up on x99 because his sandy bridge motherboard died

>>59308434
>but you can't really call it outdated since it's not actually missing any modern features.

you're pretty gimped on chipset lanes though (8 gen2 lanes) and a lot of the cheaper x99 motherboards fucking suck for lane distribution, it's not a reason not to buy x99 but you can get fucked on some setups if you're not careful

>>59305785
Honestly the 1700 or even the forthcoming 1600X would be smarter bets.

If you aren't money constrained, get a 1800X. (If you -really- aren't constrained, get a dual Xeon rig or wait for Naples.)
If you are more constrained, get a slightly lesser processor and throw more money at RAM.

"multitasking" CPUs don't mean shit if your bazillion cores are idling on swapping or disk IO all the time.

>>59308536
>>59308434
Do you guys think the Skylake-X will be significantly better?

>>59305785
1700X

>>59308764
Doubtful. The IPC isn't significantly higher than broadwell, so it depends on the clocks and pricing.

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

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>59305785

7700K easily

>>59308670
Xeon is clocked at a shit rate

microcenter sells 7700k for $300

for that price id be a fucking idiot to get AMD

>>59308921
did you found that on /v/?

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

2MB, 700x5000px

>>59308939

No, I found it on /g/

>>59308921

But anon wants to do productive stuff without the resulting housefire

File: ayyMD.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>59308967

>But anon wants to do productive stuff without the resulting housefire

I know that... It is surprised to confirm that 1700X is a housefire, well.. If it worries to you, then buy 7700K.

>>59308967
my 7700k does like 62-63C max with a average cooler master fan and in a mid size tower under heavy load

thats not that hot really and im sure if I delidded it I could knock like 15-20C off that

>>59305785
1700x

>>59305881
rma yourself

>>59305785
I'll put it this way: Ryzen doesn't perform in games (ATM) as bad as the 7700k does in production/creative software compared to it.

File: 1484759712067 (1).jpg (300KB, 550x526px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 550x526px

The ride never ends

>>59309042
>dont by their house fire buy our house fire

amd runs high volts
intel runs substandard TIM

>>59309112
performance in production/creative software is overrated compared to video games if you spend a significant amount of time in video games

>>59308921
>posting benchmarks from systems with old bios, unpatched windows and unpatched games

>>59309112
But can we hope that the 1700 is going to beat the 7700k in the future, with updates and optimisations?
Or is it just apologies?

>>59309420
>guys its just a beta wait for release

>>59309476
lmao fuck no thats never happening
intel will not be beaten single core performance any time soon, especially when the 7700k can oc to 5.0 GHz at the drop of a dime

>>59305785
>1700X or 7700K?
i7 6700K

>>59307518

This post... Awful, just awful.

>>59309854
theres literally a $20 price difference between them in the store near me youd have to be a fucking idiot to buy a 6700k over a 7700k

>>59309854
same price here. so why going for a bending 6700k when i can get a 7700k for the same money?

>>59307568
I hope he meant the i3 6300.

>>59306000
"HAHAHAH POO IN LOO POO IN LOO xDDDDD"

IM SO SICK YOU YOU FAGGOTS

>>>/POL/

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

GET OFF OF MY BOARD POLTARDS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 1446049142649.jpg (46KB, 630x405px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 630x405px

>>59310182
triggered af

>>59310303

le triggered xddeddddd

mom i posted it again

pojet btfo xddddddd

i5 2500k

Go with just the 1700 and not 1700x. The price difference alone easily make up for ~1% of performance differences between these two.

>>59310345
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/08/amd_ryzen_1700_cpu_vs_1700x_review

File: 1488003956527.jpg (170KB, 1048x1187px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1048x1187px

>>59305785

7700K is superior to 1700X on photoshop, look for blender benchmarks

Gaymes obviously go with 7700K, it really depends on your overall system what's your build cfg and budget

>>59308295
Intel does better than AMD, who'd have fucking guessed?

>>59305785
so I can get a 7700k for 350 that beats ryzen in every game by a few frames or I can get a 1700 for 329 that beats the 7700k in EVERYTHING and still plays games like a beast Is this even an argument? LOL

>>59310594
>Few frames
Amd shills are really disgusting.

>muh qt compile time

Do Pajeets seriously sit around compiling qt over and over again all day?

>>59310739
name an intel chip that will run battlefield 1 at 144 fps 1080p ultra

File: 1488881122917.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59310764
That would certainly not be the ryzen cpus since they lose to 7700k in a vast majority of games.

File: 1488879697277.png (126KB, 536x986px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 536x986px

>>59310594
>>59310764
But since you had the audacity to straight up lie might as well post the rest of the benchmarks.

File: 1488879949259.png (124KB, 535x993px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 535x993px

>>59310594
>>59310764

File: 1488880281678.png (141KB, 540x1016px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 540x1016px

>>59310594
>>59310764
remember, you brought this on yourself shill

Which would have better chances of running Breath of the Wild on Cemu? 4770k or 1800x?

>>59310417
>>59310453
>>59310739
>>59310795
Why would you even bother looking at benchmarks when there's known issues with the bios, SMT not working correctly, Windows scheduling things wrong, games not being patched yet etc. I'd at least wait a month until these issues have been sorted out and updated benchmarks have been released before buying anything.

Or even better, wait until the R5 series come out to see how they do in single threaded applications, like video games.

File: 1488881569669.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59310868
>it's just a few frames
>no it isn't you lying shill
>well got proof fuckboy?
>here is lots of proof
>w-well it doesn't even matter, don't you know ryzen is bugged :^)
Like fucking clockwork shill, you literally shit this crap out on a daily basis like following a script.

> I'd at least wait a month until these issues have been sorted out and updated benchmarks have been released before buying anything.
At least you aren't telling people to buy ryzen NAO.
If the people can/want to wait, that's their choice.

>>59305973
>>59305965
You would think they would learn from Inferno Bridge but they just had to play god and release Inferno Lake

File: uEW7PCL.png (27KB, 533x442px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 533x442px

>>59305785
If it's games+applications 1700X is objectively superior.

>>59311334
Not my fault Intel is garbage.

>>59311286
> 1700x is more expensive than 7700k and is "better" by 1% if you throw in a bunch of "applications"
>loses straight up in all games
>superior
oh god, the shills are back at it again!

>>59310909
I'd still get a 1700 over a 7700K for a bit of future proofing. The fact that an 8 core with a much lower clock can keep up with a 4 core at base 4.2GHz is ridiculous.

6 core Ryzen will be even better, plus when things are patched, even better again.

Buying a 7700K would be buying outdated tech.

>>59311365
>loses straight up in all games

Except 7700K is a stuttering piece of shit in video games so 1700X is still better beyond infinity.

What if I'm a competitive fps player that needs fps, but I also streamer and render videos with the best settings? Ryzen right? Those 10 extra fps won't matter right?

>>59311443
>needs fps, but I also streamer and render videos with the best settings
This kills the 7700K

>>59311443
Intel if gaems come first, AMD if streaming is more important, it's what seems to be the best bet.

>>59305965
Is Intel's mission to burn the whole planet in flames or what?

>>59311496
AMD it is then, I should wait for the Vega I assume?

File: 1488933859408.png (604KB, 800x523px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 800x523px

>>59307010
Don't forget to scratch off gently.

File: amd fags and streaming.jpg (283KB, 2493x1005px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 2493x1005px

>>59311414
>I'd still get a 1700 over a 7700K for a bit of future proofing.
First that may or may not be relevant in the next 1-5 years.
Second, there is a LOT of games out right now that all benefit from the 7700k and ryzen will never optimize for those.
> The fact that an 8 core with a much lower clock can keep up with a 4 core at base 4.2GHz is ridiculous.
It's not really keeping up any more than intels shit.

>6 core Ryzen will be even better, plus when things are patched, even better again.
Unconfirmed, it could turn out great it could literally be meh. You can't make financial decisions based on good feelings and hope.

>Buying a 7700K would be buying outdated tech.
Outdated tech that beats your new shit both in terms of performance and price right now, with real proof and will likely hold out for a while longer.

>>59311435
>Except 7700K is a stuttering piece of shit in video games so 1700X is still better beyond infinity.
SPOT THE AMD SHILL THAT READS THE SCRIPT, you faggots are so obvious because you ignore all the evidence like here >>59310795
>>59310811
>>59310819
>>59310842
>>59310909
, this has been posted multiple times through out this week in multiple threads to each of your shill posts and you come back the next day and type this garbage because you are payed to.

>>59311443
What if I'm a competitive fps player that needs fps, but I also streamer and render videos with the best settings? Ryzen right? Those 10 extra fps won't matter right?
Pic related. It depends.

If you take streaming seriously then get a dedicated streamer box

Asus H170I PRO/CSM with 7700K and 16gs 2400 crucial with an Elgato HD60 pro HDMI PCIe capture card

And use the 1700x for video editing

Ryzen isn't really meant for 1080p that's well documented, 4K is what matters and performance is quite similar on that resolution and since the sweet spot is 1440p ppl need to switch to 4K more progressively

>>59306786
Buy the 6900k and then resell it for profit.

>>59311580
>What is GPU bottleneck, framerate capping and making the CPU irrelevant.
By your logic you could use a pentium duo on 8k because all cpus will have the same framerate because the GPU literally can't deliver more than 15 frames.

>>59311538
That's purely on you, the 480 8gb is pretty good if you go with xfx gtr, asus strix, msi gaming x ones (or take a chance with the other ones but make sure to check reviews on them). You could use that while waiting for vega.

>>59311552
I don't like Intel because I don't want my house to explode.

File: 1463498931330.jpg (586KB, 3096x1874px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 3096x1874px

>>59311619

GPU bottleneck is just an excuse to waitfag and accept mediocrity, it isn't that relevant anymore by todays standards with 1080 Ti will performing higher than pic related and next gen.

Monitors are more bottlenecks than GPUs until 4K 120hz become more widespread

On the other hand streaming, network bandwidth, file storage is more of a bottleneck at higher resolutions

>>59305853
Isn't 3.9 kinda low? I have a it 2500k that will happily do 4.5ghz. Or is it because of the greater amount of cores that it can only reach 3.9 but with fewer cores i.e smt turned off it'll be able to do above 4ghz? Also I'm assuming that because of architecture differences it'll still be pretty damn fast if not faster compared to my i5 running at high 4ghz (4.8 or so).

just get both

what are you, poor?

>corelets
>reslets
Get the fuck out.

>>59311552
Just bought a 1700, seriously it looks amazing.

File: amd3.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>59309420

File: amdloo.png (316KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 882x758px

>>59310795
>>59310909

DELET DIS

File: 1465862514512.jpg (123KB, 960x463px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 960x463px

>>59311748

also this, ryzen is so affordable that you can't justify not getting it unless you don't have a usage

>>59311778

Yeah it is, good choice. It might be even better than the unlocked versions for some applications like gaymen

I've heard the 5 series will be clocked higher with lower cache but the multithreaded perf 7 alone is worth it, the rest is just nitpicking. Waiting for such affordable chips, intel shills still at it

>>59310795
>>59310909

These benchmarks are certainly due to the Windows 10 scheduler that needs to be patched (throwing processes on several cores) and the incoming game mode, it's not the chip in itself, it's Win10 to DX12

Just buy what your heart wants, 20% difference will not change the love of Jesus.

>>59306115
Basically this:
Single and Low multithread (mostly games) intel wins because it has enough cores for the task and higher single core speed.
Heavy multithread (blender, cinebench,etc) ryzen wins because, surprise, it has double the cores.

>>59305881
Smt us clearly having issues. Disabled the 1700x would be at 104 only trailing the 7700k by 8 fps. But in return you 4 more cores to do vms and stuff

File: mr.brock.png (606KB, 1128x922px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 1128x922px

>>59305963
>benchmarking cpu
>with cs:go
>then draw conclusions
Lol wew lad m8s

File: ryzen test2.png (726KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 1920x1080px

OC wallpaper for yo ass. RYZEN

>>59311919
>ignore ALL other benhmarks
>>59310795
>>59310811
>>59310819
>>59310842
>>59310909
>even ignore the fact that the benchmark you are ridiculing still shows ryzen getting blown the fuck out
somehow poojects think this qualifies as a rebutal

>>59311954

It's the W10 scheduler ffs can't you understand that, benchmarks aren't a science

>>59311972
>our cpus is great, GREAT
>it's just windows fault
>oh no, there is fixes coming
That's real cute amd shill.
The thing is, you don't know WHEN the fixes are coming, or how much those fixes will help.
So you can't use that as an argument right now with real benchmarks on hand.
People should not buy a promise and hope for the future, they should buy only proven things.

>>59312000

I'm not shilling anything, you're quick to jump on partisanship and confrontation, you're missing the other factors of price, clock speed and intended usage. I'll argue that benchmarks are in fact not real because performance is one thing and actual usage, implying games are played for performance not on a machine level but on a gamer level, then it's still debatable. If you want proven things then you can only rely on the best you can build with a relative margin of error, but it goes far more than brand and perception of what's best. Facts can be flawed when you pull together different combinations for an intended result and using your analogy of proven performance, you seem less interested in performance itself from cost to output. Don't be blinded by the current

>>59305881
If the 3 and 5 can keep similar performance they would be a pretty good deal for gamers.

>>59305785
7

>>59305853
This. Ryzen is process limited by GloFlo's 14nm process @ ~4Ghz so just buy the vanilla 1700.

>>59310795
so then. since not a single intel chip can play bf1 at 144fps, we go the next tier of monitors, 120hz
can ryzen run bf1 at 120 fps?

How much longer should I be having to wait for good quality and reliable Ryzen/AM4 motherboards to come out? I've already delayed my PC build for 4 weeks now, first waiting for Zen release, now waiting for better motherboards. I want to get this shit started, but I don't want to make to make a mistake either. I want my money's worth.

>>59312789
I'm just going to wait till the end of the year to see how it all pans out. Unless you are in desperate need of an upgrade I'd recommend you do the same.

>>59310842
>6th gen intel beating 7th gen intel
and you support that company. absolutely cucked

>>59312806
Well let's just say that I've been putting off a gayming build for about 4 years now, and now that I have sufficient funds, I want to build it.

>>59311552
name a single streaming website that allows over 60fps

>>59312824
>ryzen streaming at 54 fps is fine because 60 fps cap on streaming
Fuck the games performance
Fuck the fact that the 7700k retains stable 60fps for the stream itself
No lets focus on the fact that you keep backpedaling to a lower and lower fps threshold and say that a better performing cpu doesn't matter.

>>59312878
>99th percentiles matter
ok

File: 1488919452885.jpg (514KB, 960x686px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 960x686px

>>59312824

File: 1488653145415.png (408KB, 882x1418px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 882x1418px

>>59312900
and yet they didnt change their socket just to screw the consumer. huh

File: 1488785515035.png (809KB, 1438x798px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 1438x798px

>>59305785
>blender
>office
Obviously the 1700X.

The 10% worse performance in games is something you're not going to notice compared to how much slower the 7700k is in Blender, Excel, multitasking, and so on.

>>59305832
I'd just go 1700 to begin with, then. It's $330 with the cooler. The stock cooler is worth like $30. So that's $40 cheaper than the 7700k and it'll probably do as good or better than it still in some future games.

>>59312915
I am not arguing about intel being a good company. I am talking about ryzen and it's performance in comparison to intels cpus.\
But I guess you don't care, huh. I mean all that matters to you that you sell your ryzen cpus.

>>59312916
Yeah, lets just ignore all the other games and benchmarks like
>>59310795
>>59310811
>>59310819
>>59310842
>>59310909

>j-j-ust but ryzen obviously
>no I am not shilling, I just think you should buy it, buy it now, they will fix it, or something. the fps difference doesn't even matter 30 fps is all the human eye can see after all goyim

Wait 50 days than decide.
Ryzen is fucking acerb right now

>>59312824
Fuck you. Intel is still better, anyone who goes AMD is making a big fucking mistake. Eat shit and die.

File: muhspaceheater.png (10KB, 510x246px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 510x246px

>>59305883
>muh space heater

dead meme friendo

>>59305973
theres no info to that graph tho

its literally just numbers with nothing to relate them too

>>59306025
>>59306033


hahah those are NOT making a compelling argumentin favor of AMD

>All these Intel shills doing it for free.

Shiggy
Diggy

>>59313005
Considering the 1800x is $500-$1000 cheaper I'd say it is.

>>59313028

Intel shills are mostly roodypoos that have a superiority complex over their countrymen through castes so they usually made fun of those buying AMD as it was viewed as inferior and only they could afford the idolized imported tech which is out of reach from the average wagecuck

>>59306055
It seems to help autists that are obsessed with that round "5Ghz" number, since the 7700k can usually overclock to that even though it's just a 10% performance increase in doing so and they still only have 4 cores.

>>59306043
>shit quality stream test using the iGPU
Whoever did that benchmark should never be allowed to work in the tech industry again.

>>59313101
>have that much of a hardon for arbitrary core counts

fine wine indeed

>>59305785
honestly just get the 7700

the 1700 is useless and the 1800x cant overclock for shit (yet) and has a bunch of SMT/Scheduler issues in Windows 10 only AND Motherboard Bios issues

AMD hardware DOES age better so its up to you, that said my old i5 is still plodding along very well considering its already 4+ years old.

Many games and applications are starting to actually use 4-8+ threads/cores so the AMD 1800x is the way to go if your going to be hanging onto this PC for a long time.

7700k

>>59313038
Lol comparing it to some niche shit no one actually uses. Shame the mainstream consumer part curbstomps all those corez...

>>59313128
Never seen so much wrong in one post, there is no reason to buy the 1800X when most 1700s will hit near 4ghz on all corse

and the only reason to buy the i7 7700K over the R7 1700 is for trying to do 144hz gaming

>>59313156
but nothing can reliably go over 4ghz though

AMDfags can scream muh bios issues till they are blue in the face but its clearly a design limitation.

Hell i have a fucking i5 and a 390x and ill admit amd dropped the ball with the rx480 and ryzen.

Ill wait for some revisions and 2nd gen stuff before jumping in.

>>59313181
>reddit

>>59313181
The 480 is the best mid range card to buy right now, and if you're purely doing 60hz a G4560 or i5 will be fine for you

however I need an 8c/16t chip for my workloads, and now I can get one for $329 vs Intel's $1000 offering

>>59313181
>Ill wait for some revisions and 2nd gen stuff before jumping in.

wiser words have never been spoken

>>59313217
Its why i use hardware i know will work
>>59313197
nice comeback youtube hardware blogger

>>59313132
>people only buy pcs for gaming
The "mainstream consumer" could happily get by with an FX cpu.

>>59313181
>muh gigahurz

Get an FX, then if you're that autotist ov

tfw upgraded today from a FX-6300 + gtx 770 to a r7 1700 + gtx 1070.

Only bad thing is I entered the bot net with W10

>>59313181
>nothing can reliably go over 4GHz

>http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/ryzen-7-1800x-overclocked-to-5-8ghz-breaks-cinebench-r15-world-record-at-5-36ghz.html

>>59313511
tell me what cooling system they used anon

come on please be honest

>>59313181
The true AMDrones are as braindead as starcitizen fanatics. As a person who just wants good performance to value, I'll say AMD knocked it out of the park when it comes to workstation shit, but totally under delivered with gaming performance considering how much they hyped up the Ryzen to be a gaming chip competitive with an i7.

That said, an i5 (which Ryzen is equivalent to) is totally decent in games, but AMDrones will not let go of the fact that a $330~$500 processor literally can't be the jack of all trades.

>>59313541
Turn off the fps counter and you wont be able to tell them apart in most game. That wont stop the autistic screeching from fanboys though.

>>59308764
if they can clock it 4.4, yes
but come on it will be either housefire that draws 300w or it will throttle down every second
I don't think they can remake their fabs overnight
if it was 10nm, it would be interesting next 2 years is a dud in that area for intel
but samsung/glofo going full on 7nm in a year, it's finally fun watching cpus!

>>59309476
it will be 1700x=6900K in games
with other two it will vary up and down clockwise recpectably

6900K is amazing for modern games fyi.

>>59313541
/v/ needs its hero back

>>59311728
your 4.5 is worthless now days, your 4.5 makes it on same level as haswell i5 at 3.4
nowhere near haswell i7

do not look at clocks look at performance

>>59305963
>only 308 frames per second

wtf i hate amd now

>>59305785

1700x

>>59313414
why did you downgrade to W10?

>>59305785
Someone give me the quick rundown on Intel's horrible number-naming for their CPUs.

>>59313759
isntalling w7 on modern cpu is a pain
it's easier just to give in

>>59313759
W7 installer wouldn't recognize my USB mouse /keyboard. It's pretty scary that the 'express' w10 installer opts you in to keylogging, and targeted ads based on your user data.

>>59305785
1700x was btfo for gaming, its only gooder for compiling linux, which no one ever does.

Plus the am4 mobos are dodgy as fuck right now.

>>59313792
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-11

here is how to install it

Can people stop with these day0 plebgraphs. Completely NEW architecture, pretty much daily bios updates and hotfixes. How about a RECENT review with a non-shit board and all latest software revisions.

Also overclocking/temperature/power results with CCX2 disabled pls kkthanks.

>>59313863
>How about a RECENT review
one week after NDA was lift off

>>59313887

Implying that there haven't been a lot of revisions since then. Have any reviewers even done a legit board comparison? Git gud pham

>>59313863
Still need to wait for the Windows update that prevents it from moving threads between CCXs unless it's an emergency.

>>59313863
RTC bug, scheduler bug, bios bugs, general benchmark inconsistency, w7 has 20% more eprformance.

For example when in WD2 you run not through empty alley but actual street with cars and people 7700K shits itself and 6900K with ryzen comes on top.

I'd take ALL benchmarks with grain of salt since RTC bug was discovered.

>>59313956
Let me rant about how gaming benchmarks are done, 1% 0.1% issue aside, you can't claim average fps in 30 second 3 minute run of the game!
Play for hour or two and then do a calculation from full set of data.
Because a lot of people complain that i7 gets stuck time to time in random places, I bet that 0.1% would look absolutely differently if you ran it for longer.

>>59313956
And now the Intel shills get quiet until the thread dies, then start all over again ignoring today's facts with their tired recycled images

>>59313887
One week is a long time for a massive release of a fresh architecture like this. The desktop market has been living and breathing Ryzen non stop, like it or not. The mass scale troubleshooting and nitpicking is pretty unprecedented. You can't compare it to your typical NDA lift.

>>59314014

This. Reviewers simply can't be bothered and/or think that people would flame them for running such a "variable"(realistic) test.

>>59314041
I don't remember anyone talking about broadwell-e last year, it was like, "meh another xeon renwal i don't care about"

>>59314014
Most gaming hardware reviewers are hacks. Plain and simple.

Another thing is that multiplayer is usually much more intensive. Now days MP is usually on another thread that bubbles up into the other threads.
The 7700k does 144hz fine in BF1 single player, but in MP it can really tank, for example.

But typically MP isn't tested, despite it being the biggest concern for people who have a 144hz monitor for that "muh competitive edge", because MP is inconsistent.
But inconsistent or not, it's important to note for those that are considering that.
At this point, I prefer just watching youtube comparison videos in MP with the CPU utilization and framerate up. It paints a better picture of where something dips. But it's still shitty.

File: 1470513328573.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59314089
here is what our intel employee doesn't want us to see, he likes to spam dx12 graph a lot, but not this one.

File: ________________.jpg (23KB, 355x354px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 355x354px

>>59314154

So sad!

File: 346l346p24i7u.png (44KB, 624x651px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 624x651px

>>59314154

Still an old vague graph, though. How long is this time window? If those are frames then @ ~120fps that's only 25s.

>>59314213
look at ms to the left, 3000 frames
let's round it to 6.5ms per frame
about 20 seconds - utterly worthless

but at least it shows that everything is not as clear cut as we are lead to believe

>>59305785
buying ryzen 7 is as pointless as buying a 6800k or above UNLESS you're doing production work for 90% of your week.

just get an i5 or a ryzen 5 when it comes out. it will be more than good enough for basic shit like photoshop or pp and will be good for games because of the naturally higher achievable clocks and also because it's like half the price.

>>59314041
>And now the Intel shills get quiet until the thread dies

>>59305785
>browse 4chan

if you enter /g/ you need 7700k cause the board needs 700 fps on the cpu alone while being rendered on 360p

in any other case 1700x

File: hqy_Tw_Xha7_Wb2py1h_Qt_Lm_SOK1u_Xpgz_Tt_UQQRFd_FW0_THg.jpg (172KB, 1024x687px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x687px

>>59305881
kek here is a better and more serious bench for you

posting pcgamer as a reliable source on anything

>>59305785
don't even bother to get a 4 core cpu, the 7700k only has that much of an advantage (mostly) in gaming because of its high stock clock.

you can OC a lets say 5820k easily up to 4.4 ghz, but that thing is now almost 3 years old.

problem currently with Ryzen are its unfinished boards(stupid bios') and architecture which gives it a disadvantage in unoptimized games/programs.(example: supports equal or less than 8 threads)

...which is the reason I currently cant bring myself to buy an AM4 system, but the "problem" is that there is not really an alternative in terms of price/performance.


If you are intersted here is a nice explanation why ryzen is soo good in some programs and "very bad" in others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40h4skxDkh4

>>59314673
So basically, get R7 1700 and OC it as far as you can.

they are very easy to OC btw., limit is 4ghz if you are lucky

>>59312995
Are you that stupid?

>>59305785

Get the 1700. It OCs to 3.9GHz and maybe to 4GHz.

Going for gaymes and CAD applications, while trying to oc as late as possible, and i only care for having at least 60 fps.
Does the r7 vs i7 really matter?
Am i going to be fine with both of them for the rest of the decade?

>>59305785
AMD, because both are OK but buying AMD will keep Intel sharp

>>59314905
>Am i going to be fine with both of them for the rest of the decade?
yes, potentially i7 is worse but realistically they will equalize in coming years completely
also if something will go wrong, as unrealistic priditciona s possible, in 3 years you can always buy am4 compatible chip of next generations without changing half of your pc

>>59314296
>buying ryzen 7 is as pointless as buying a 6800k or above UNLESS you're doing production work for 90% of your week.

This was only true when a 6800k was $450+$300 motherboard = $750.
Ryzen 1700 + $90 motherboard = $420.

At that cost, there's really not a reason to get a Ryzen 7 just as a general desktop user. It's the jack-of-all-trades processor.

File: r2yzean-caau-d4valuead.png (26KB, 773x371px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 773x371px

>>59305785
7700k is ridiculously better

Not only is it faster, it's also $160 cheaper

>>59315380
>pc gaymer

And no the 7700k is not $160 cheaper than the 1700X, you fucktard.

>>59315421
That's compared to the 1800X

The 7700K 20% faster than the 1700 and the same price

>>59315429
The 1700 is $40 cheaper than the 7700k and is not "20% slower".

>>59315429

In ((((some)))) ((((((games))))) ((((sometimes))))))) ((((((((on day0 bios +RTC/windows bug)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>59315380
>"moooomm I posted it again!"

File: CPU classifica 775 i7 i5 i3 032010_2.png (33KB, 549x2603px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 549x2603px

>>59305785
Guys, can i hitchhike this discussion?
My current rig is 10 years old. I NEED to upgrade.
Like i can't stand anymore playing on 1050p, or leaving my PC running through the night to 2-pass encode shit to x.264.

My questions are. Will coffe lake be compatible with current chipset and sockets?

Will the current ryzen platform be compatible with ryzen+?

>>59308905
>>59311414
>>59314296
>>59312051
>>59311838
No higher clocks over 4.0 though
59315664

>>59316077

It doesn't need to.

What it does need is to get close to the i7s, for a 250 dollar price tag while beating i5s for the same price.

File: jewing intensifies.gif (378KB, 208x200px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 208x200px

>>59313785
>make things slightly inconvenient
>goys give in and will install anything
>all they had to do was inject usb support into the installed and it's done
>but they rater just install a botnet that violates your privacy and runs worse than the alternative
Truly we have conditioned you well.

>>59316044
>Will the current ryzen platform be compatible with ryzen+?
yes.
>Will coffe lake be compatible with current chipset and sockets?
no.

>>59316110
>>but they rater just install a botnet that violates your privacy
ISP already does that, I don't care at what level it happens either way it happens

>>59310303
GTFO GODDAMM REEEEEEE

>>>/pol

THAT WAY NOW

>>59314089
>But typically MP isn't tested, despite it being the biggest concern for people who have a 144hz monitor for that "muh competitive edge", because MP is inconsistent.
You have no idea about people who us 120/144 monitors. While it may give you a competitive edge, almost everybody uses them because they feel much much nicer.
Anybody who has played on 60 fps vs 120/144 will tell you the games feel smoother and nicer to play and this is even more important when a game has lots of movement.

>>59316044
AMD announced that AM4 will be supported for several years (5 afair) and several generations of CPUs/APUs.

>>59316044
>2-pass encode
why?

>>59316145
Or it's both people that use them? Fucking retard

>>59316154
motherboards will become irrelevant in next 5-7 years for AMD
pretty sure at 7nm they going to integrate whole southbridge into CPU not just part of it

so many people missed that, it's pretty huge deal, just like north bridge was moved years ago

>>59316199
MAJORITY gets it because it feels nice. NOT because muh competitive edge.
Fucking manchild!

>>59316145

Bit of a lateral point there lad

File: -----------.png (199KB, 439x392px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 439x392px

>>59316145

>for that "muh competitive edge" and "feels smoother"*

There; fixed it for you. You literal baby. That was the only part of the sentence that was irrelevant to the point and you singled it out to throw a fit.

>Somebody is defensive about his justification for spending $300 on a 1080p monitor in 2017

>>59316596
>>59316519
>Don't have a high refresh monitor
>talk about it like you know shit
>well from my retarded point of view, people get it for muh competitive edge
>but you are wrong retard
>HAHAH mad you spent money on a monitor?
Jesus shitter I honestly hope you kill yourself. You add nothing to the conversation and think talking about things in ignorance is worth of value to anybody.

File: mJ5aTxx.jpg (131KB, 1080x1093px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1080x1093px

>>59316684
>I hope these people kill themselves because they have a different reasons why someone might want a "high refresh" monitor.

File: _________.jpg (17KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x375px

>>59316684

Wow, talk about selective reading. You continue to miss/misinterpret points and rearrange statements in your mind.

>Don't have a high refresh monitor
Have had, but got rid of it since it just felt largely like a meme to me and I'm more interested in PQ, personally.

>talk about it like you know shit
You aren't the only person in the world that has ever used anything ever. I'm sorry if that breaks your poor egocentric little mind.

>well from my retarded point of view, people get it for muh competitive edge
The point was that MP performance is a big concern because of inconsistency/real world load; why people would have a 144hz monitor is an irrelevant point. A competitive edge is just one example of why people use high refresh rates and it was not written in a way that would imply that it was an exclusive reason.

>but you are wrong retard
Who said that you were wrong? The voice in your head? It's all making sense now.

>HAHAH mad you spent money on a monitor?
Point proven. Pretty clear sore spot.

You had the chance to add something to the conversation, but because of your insecurities/complexes you've added nothing but sewage. GG senpai.

>>59316855
>>59316916
>shitposting with meme pictures
Nice comeback faggot.
Sadly you didn't deliver a single argument.

>>59316992

Against what besides your delusional tangents? What kind of discussion do you think that you are in?

>>59317050
>Against what besides your delusional tangents?
Literally the same can be said about you, but that doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest.
>What kind of discussion do you think that you are in?
None, since you have yet to produce an actual argument and have just shitposted up to this point.

>>59317213

You mentally repress and/or get confused by every point that is made. Keep living it your own world mate, I'm done wasting time.
See ya :^)

>>59317282
You mentally repress and/or shitpost every time a point is made. Keep shitposting in your own world mate and stop wasting my time.