ZEN

>>59337716
>Yet it is less popular than the 6950X

>>59337716
Because shills gonna shill and trolls gonna troll. It's the circle of life.

>>59337716
or just instal win7 and get >10% performance boost

Lol 1700 costs more than a 7700k


AyyMD what are you doing

File: 1daa6mang.png (72KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 601x830px

>>59337716
>3dmark physics scores

And then in real life...

>>59339856
are you a bot?
yoohooo, bot maker, you made a booboo.
there's typo in your bot, you typed 1700 when I think you meant 1800x and that perfectly fine, because the 1800x is indeed more expensive than the 7700k, but the fucking 1700 is not, it's actually cheaper, by around 20 bux.

please fix your bot asap, because it has already my autism several times today.

thank you, hope you see this soon.

File: autism.png (1MB, 800x474px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x474px

>>59339921
>>59339856

>>59339856
>6900k costs more than a 7700k
Incel wtf are you doing

If I do not plan on overclocking, should I get a 7700 instead of a 7700K?

I just read both reports from tom's hardware for both CPUs and the K version is between 20 to 50°C hotter than the non-K version.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-9.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-8.html

I just want something that lasts me 5+ years without dying and constant 80-90°C just scares the shit out of me. Thoughts?

>>59338141
implaying I'm not running win7 anyway

>>59339921
still pretty decent bang for your buck, no?
obviously not as awesome as all those shills and hype kids claim but that's hardly surprising.

File: r2ea-caau-d4vlued.png (26KB, 773x371px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 773x371px

>>59340334
>still pretty decent bang for your buck, no?

Sadly no. Ryzen has some of the worst price-performance of all CPUs.

>>59340320
Yeah if you don't want to overclock I'd go for the 7700. It's cheaper, uses less power, produces less heat and only slightly slower.

>>59337716
>i7-7700K totally BTFO by i5-4690K
>people will defend this shit

>>59340886
FOR GAMING

and still better than anything above i7 from intel.

>>59340886
Wow. Didn't know. Thanks.

>>59340886
wow anon, now let's quickly bury the fact that motherboards costs are never needed to factor in when purchasing our new desktops. And that intel's z270 are usually above 300 dollars, and can get quite excessive for gaymers unwisely going for the best and sorting the prices on high to low and pestering their moms for those godlike (literally) boards or asus' latest brain fart in marketing gimmicks, while am4 tops out at 200 currently - fuck msi titatnium, it's shit anyways.

you so smart and savvy with your money that I really can't say much else.

>>59341184
You can get a B250 Intel motherboard for $70

There is no scenario in which Ryzen is a good deal for gaming

>>59337716
Why rename to ryzen? Zen sounds so much better.

File: 16s-asme-aderage.png (61KB, 1306x1646px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1306x1646px

>>59341045
Mean while in reality

>>59337716

Paid shills, their posting is really easy to spot.

See this thread

>>59338610

as an example. Intel shilling and mental gymnastics because they are BTFO about ryzen

>>59341184
An MSI z270 SLI Plus is 150, it overclocks well and has all features that the 300 dollar boards do.

Leave the FUD to me kiddo ;)

File: 1489192161249.png (21KB, 300x178px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x178px

AMD will be joining the S&P 500 Monday before market open following a change of how S&P handles market caps. AMD has risen in stock value over 1.28 per share today alone.

>>59337783
/thread

now delet

>>59341226
t. AMD shill

File: meia-reation-daryzen.png (22KB, 650x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 650x200px

>>59341288
Sadly Ryzen sucks at a lot more than gaming

>>59341292

t. false-flagging jew

>>59341337
1337 get.

>>59341208
oh, do you really want go for entry level?
well, you could get a x370 for 150 bucks.
I never really looked, but retailers are probably giving you money to take b350 or a320 boards from the store which are compatible with Ryzen 7, but only idiots trying to win over an internet argument would dare to bring them up.

and implying with a straight face that people going for an i7 7700k would even skim over after the 4th page on newegg high to low sorting list.

you are either retarded or plain deceitful, most likely both.

Any good AM4 motherboards yet?

File: amsd-is-the-jews.png (72KB, 1008x642px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1008x642px

>>59341337
t. communist AMD jew

>>59341357
Sorry the truth hurts.

B250 motherboards are great if you aren't overclocking, which is exactly what you would get for an i5-6400 which absolutely destroys Ryzen in price-performance.

>>59341249
hm, try to deal with this fud then, mr intel shill http://valid.x86.fr/bench/aqtazc/1.

Remember that that's the cheaper Ryzen proc., ona budget am4 motherboard, so you should refer to the i5 is better than a 500 dollars AMD cpu section and readapt it to the 1700.

>>59341399
in gaming

File: indesign-ryzen.png (175KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 600x450px

>>59341428
Not just gaming

Ryzen is bad at 99% of workloads, it only excels in rendering/encoding/similar

>>59341436
>Ryzen sucks
>only less than a second slower than the i7-7700k
>still faster than Intel's overpriced i7-6900k
It's like you're not even trying anymore

File: tom-cruise-triple-laugh.jpg (42KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x400px

>>59341436
>99% of workloads

>>59337716
Waitin on r5 to upgrade my 8320.

Reusing case, gpu, hdd, ssd

Would like a new PSU but it would only be for asthetic reasons, planning on 3000mhz ddr4, 4c/8t r5, decent am4 board and undecided on aio water or air

>>59341459
The 7700k is actually 20% faster and even worse it costs $160 less than Ryzen

>>59341399
>an i5-6400 which absolutely destroys Ryzen in price-performance.

yeah, it's almost like AMD won't be releasing anything in the near future at lower price points, right. Yet again, you're forcing the bar so lower in order to win over that the discussion becomes nonsensical for comparisons. Intel's 180 dollars processor is definentely on the sights for people looking after Ryzen 7, right?

>>59341516
in single threaded performance

>>59341521
AMD was supposed to be a budget gaming brand, they have completely failed in price-performance.

You can speculate all you want about future CPUs, but then you are just making shit up.

File: 1456782207113.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>59341436
why does anyone buy 6900k? why don't we all just have 7700k? wtf.

File: intel_israel.jpg (47KB, 575x282px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 575x282px

>>59341376
>t. Goldstein, Intel employee of the month

>>59341536
>Comparing Ryzen 7, a set of processored designed to bring AMD to the higher end spectrum to a low end processor

You can't make up this damage control.

>>59341536
>the r5 and the r3 will never exist because I say so
even then, they still won in the budget category, beating intel's $1000 lineup for half the price

>>59341542
6900k was always overpriced garbage for specialized workloads only

It's hilarious that AMD thought this was a good segment to tackle

File: amd-communist.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>59341558
t. communist liberal amd cocksucker

>>59341571
So 99% of the world should be using 7700k as the best? Why would they buy anything else?

>>59341571
it's hilarious how you just plug your ears and keep screeching
>LALALALALALALA THE R3 ANDNTHE R5 WILL NEVER EXIST

>>59341596
Yes

>>59341567
R5 is going to drop the hammer on price to performance. They'll make up for ~10% less IPC with half the price and much lower TDP. It's gon be gud.

>>59339921

>average gaming

what does that even mean

>>59337716
poojet pls

>>59341567
>>59341598

R5 and R3 will fail just like the R7 did. Please don't start this AMD hype bullshit already. You did it with the R7 and we don't believe your crap anymore.

>>59341612
It's an average of 14 different game benchmarks

>>59341516
it costs more than one Ryzen 7 proc, it's slightly below the price point for the middle one and it's 150 less than the flagship. But that's an cost that can very, very, easily get lost depending on your motherboard selection. Of course that anon has a point >>59341249 and you can pair up an 7700k with a cheapo, but still recognized as decent, mobo, but my point is that there's a lot more to it, and in the end the final costs for your desktop end up very similar or on amd's favor.

>>59341601
Hm. I think these CPU manufacturers are quite dumb then, why do they even make 6 or 8 core CPU's? If it's only 1% of the target market, that seems like a lot of wasted resources. Don't these companies like money?

File: amd-commies.jpg (980KB, 2000x1477px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 2000x1477px

>>59341627
Prepare to be dropped into the ocean commie faggot

>>59341617
>R7 failing
>ignoring the 6900k
>changes goalposts from price/performamce to absolute performance
intel shill damage comtrol

>>59340886

When the R5 comes out you're going to see a line go right up against that 7600k.

>>59341639
Intel has like 50+ different CPUs, they make tons of the mainstream ones and then only a few for the niche markets.

AMD for some reason decided to make a niche market their flagship CPU, really makes you think.

>>59341655
7700k wins in performance and price, it's pretty hilarious desu senpai.

Why so much hate about ryZEN? 1800 has decent performance, and Intel already started dropping prices. Everyone wins (except intel).

>>59341664
Then what do you think of the R5 Ryzen's? Do you think they will offer a good alternative if they are cheaper than 7700k?

>>59341664
>raven ridge will never exist
>naples will never exist
>zeppelin will never exist

>>59341662
That would be nice, but I have zero faith in AMD now. My prediction is the R5 and R3 are just going to be more of the same shit.

>>59341681
you forgot:
in lightly threaded benchmarks

>>59341703
Wait for the real reviews when it comes out (don't trust any benchmarks AMD puts out, they always lie).

>>59341710
slightly less performance for a disproportionally lower amount of cash seems pretty good to me senpai

File: AMD-Radeon-Marketing-4-pcgh_b2article_artwork.png (130KB, 760x380px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 760x380px

>>59341704
Commies get the rope first

>>59341710
>AMD Ryzen R7
>Amazing success as good as we could of predicted
>I lost all hope in AMD

>>59341749
AMDelusion off the charts

>>59341761
>let's turn a blind eye to Intel's HEDT lineup ajd pretend that everything at Intel is okay

>>59341664
>niche market

it's 500 dollars.
I welcome that. You made me feel a lot richer than I am. It's almost as if I just recently spent over 1700 dollars for the processor alone. Thank you anon. You're such a good guy trying to boost my confidence during this personally shitty month.

>>59341721
You think they will perform much differently than the R7? Won't they just have fewer cores and some higher clocks? The architecture should be the same. I'm hoping the 4c/8t is about half the price of the 7700k and performs similar to the R7's because i'm poor...

>>59341681
it's hilarious that you keep telling yourself that without any context.

You must eat up youtube shill farts as if hey were cheetos.

>>59341791
I'd say there is no chance in hell they perform near the 7700k.

If you want a budget CPU that performs great look into the Intel i5s or i3 if you want to go super budget

>>59341806
See >>59340886 and >>59339921

>>59341801
context is everything. At this point, if you're buying the 6900k for any reason at all, it is a wastenof money. If you're going to buy the r7 for the same reason you would've bought a 6900k, it's a pretty good deal desu

>>59341801
I'm proud of wasting my money and glad that anon made it feel as if it were thrice more.

File: 1436346833410.jpg (192KB, 640x383px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 640x383px

>>59341587
>a kike calling others commies
Typical jewish shill tactics.

>>59341833
t. Retard

>>59341835
I agree absolutely if you're doing rendering/encoding all day long.

However most of us aren't, so it's not only a waste of money, it's also a loss of performance.

File: AMD-Uprising-5.jpg (82KB, 960x625px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 960x625px

>>59341847
You retard AMD's whole thing is the fucking marxist communist rebellion crap

A helicopter ride into the ocean is waiting for you liberal parasite

>>59341854
Then why are even fucking complaining? You're like a retarded luxury car enthusiast complaining about trailer tractors that cost more.

>>59341876
AMD marketed Ryzen as a mainstream CPU, it's anything but

>>59341821
That seems pretty dumb. 2-4 cores is a dead end... I want at least 4c/8t. You think 7700k will perform 50% better than 4c/8t R5? If it does, I would consider it... but that seems really unlikely. Intel needs to really cut down the cost of 7700k.

>>59340903
>and only slightly slower.
Is it really only slightly though?

File: AMD-Uprising.jpg (62KB, 960x430px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 960x430px

>>59341921
AMD wants to smash capitalism and destroy America you commie faggot

Literally using occupy wall street bullshit in their marketing

>>59341899
>Let's ignoremall those handbrake, blender and cinebench benchmarks
you're a fucking rwtarded shill if you keep on insisting that it was ONLY marketed for one purpose that it doesn't even excel as

File: 8uLV2U9.png (22KB, 632x385px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 632x385px

>>59337716
Maybe you can tell that to everyone who holds stock for me.

File: 1435808868635.jpg (69KB, 477x319px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 477x319px

>>59341873
>marxism
>communism
>liberalism
>not jewish tricks
Nice autism, retard shill.

>>59341947
>Don't silence us
>Silence the GPU

that is pretty dope tho

>>59342039
Yeah if you're a liberal commie fag

>>59341974
communism is time travel math
only applied when its in your self interest

>>59341974
That's the whole liberal movement these days, to overthrow capitalism and install socialism and then communism.

Fuck AMD and their communist propaganda, they all get helicopter rides.

>>59342069
communism is failed socialism, nothing else.

>>59341907
7700k already destroys R7, why do you think it wouldn't destroy their R5?

>>59341973
>already up 11% from post-Zen dip
>still up like $12 from last year

I'm sure they're doing just fine, unless they panic-sold during Ryzen's release because they bought in at $15. In which case they should consider suicide.

>>59337757
It's been out for like a week, and motherboards aren't available

any burgers here?
of course there are.

could anyone of you please barge into Wendell'ss office, gently lift his hands from his keyboard and tell him, while dotingly looking in his eyes, -- you have patched enough my dearest. There's no more patching needed for your kernell, you've done the Lord's good deeds aplenty for now. And then shout: FUCKING RELEASE YOUR MOTHERFUCKING RYZEN REVIEW FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU FUCKING FAT FUCKER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep_2dDaqBU4

>>59342204
How long is that going to take?

>>59337716
/g/ loves to shit on AMD especially when releases come with hiccups

>>59337757
are you retarded

>>59342229
I read on one random website that it's 3/17/2017 for X370 taichi motherboards to be back in stock ,think I saw that on newegg once as well

>>59342217
It would be better if we have some reviews after like 2 months to compare with initial release

even better if they're from the same persons

>>59342173
Ryzen 7 destroyed your cunt. But it was already fubar'ed from Intel's continuous raping you over and over and you felt as if nothing ever happened.

>>59337716
>AMD outsold much of the entire intel HEDT lineup in a week

WEW LAD INTEL BTFO

>>59342305
That's not actually that impressive if you think about it

Intel's HEDT is meant to be low volume and high profits

>>59337716
>i5-4690 raping i7s this hard
Feels good, hombres

>>59342317
ryzen 7 is in the same market segment as that overpriced shit, if amd is beating intel at that then that's huge, amd hasn't been able to compete with the extreme series in performance or sales since the old FX cpus (the single core ones)

>>59342277
I wanted to have him coming out with his review along the first publishers and i would trust him to redoing it after a couple of bios revisions over any other youtuber.

Fuck if I care to watch Steve Burke eating his words on camera during a later revision from his moronic initial findings. But Wendell probably figured that since he was already too late for the show, it wouldn't hurt to wait a bit more until the motherboard vendors and microsoft sort out the most prevalent rough edges thus far, and take the limelight for the second round of Ryzen reviews.

>>59341222
how does the 7700k have 134Fps average on 16games? it's just 4cores. why would anyone do this?

Sagely advice:
This entire thread is two camps.
Intel camp: INTEL IS BETTER FOR GAYMURS!
Amd camp: RYZEN IS CHEAPER AND ONLY A LITTLE WORSE.

Please everyone go back to /v/

>>59342317
damage control.

from a guy who probably hasn't ever saw a 6950x in flesh and couldn't afford it even if his mommy increased his allowance twentyfold.

>>59342406
>announcing sage

>>59342406
I'm on AMD camp and I'll never admit that it's a little worse. Fuck off you intel shill trying to slip up another unrequired criticism under the guise of a bland and neutral comment.

It's better by all metrics and reasons and fuck you. you shill in disguise.

>>59337716
Because gaming faggots and shills keep lieying or spouting half-truths like these ones. The bottom line is that these the first Ryzen processors destroyed $1000 Intel processors for half the price. Now, we should wait to see the quad cores to see if which brand is better for gaming

>>59339921
>>59341761
>>59339921

>>59342455
I am quite surprised I got any replies. I was hoping this damn thread would die.

No, Ryzen is worse for games. You get less fps. That said, I would never buy an intel cpu now. Starting with haswell they were too expensive but intel was the only option.

Ryzen is way better for anyone who knows what extra cores really offer. The reason Ryzen is so good is because you can have 8c/16t for half the price of intel's 6900k 6c/12t. You likey won't get FPS as good, but whoever spends 1000$ for maybe a few more frames than they would have gotten with intel's 300$ 6700k doesn't understand how computers work anyway.

>>59342513
This guy knows what's up.

>>59342277
>>59342359
by this point I doubt he could really bring up anything new that I haven't read or heard before. It's more likely that my unrealized completionist urges are making me feel this much eager to be able to finally watch his own Ryzen review.

>>59342513
>>59342547
These guys have it.

The 7700k beats Intel's own 6950X at gaming because that's where clock speed matters more than core count. The 1800x is a fantastic chip because you can still get the raw computation power of the 6950X but still be a very strong candidate for games at $500. Even their lower-tier Ryzen7 CPUs are good for gaming. They're not the best, but everyone needs to stop acting like it's absolute shit at it because it's not.

If you do any streaming or other CPU-heavy activities as well as game, then Ryzen should be a no-brainer for you.

>>59341436
But it's still beating the 6900K there at half the price

>>59341516
Literally .5 seconds faster, and it loses whenever all 16 threads are engaged on the R7 1700

>>59341516
autism

File: 1489085225096.png (1MB, 2484x3052px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2484x3052px

>>59341681
KEK Ryzen is better than Inturd in every way conceivable.

>>59342547
>intel's 6900k 6c/12t
Woops, 8c/16t. But the point remains valid.

>>59341208
Buying a 350$ unlocked cpu. Pairing it with the lowest mobo on market that does not allow overclocking. You could say buy a hyperthreading Pentium for all I care. Go big or go home.

>>59337716
because despite all the problems it has its THAT high

and that is a big no no to shills

>>59339921
same old pic still not understanding that 5% is literally nothing lol

>>59340886
pc gamer...
PC GAMER...

the site that invented the price per fps on a CPU

LOL wew lad

>>59342242
It's just one or two shills posting the same shit right now.

File: home-alone-2-11.jpg (20KB, 544x288px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 544x288px

>>59344663
Seems like my 5820K is still going good. :D yay!

I was just about to switch it out with a 1700X.

>>59346929
It's really easy to spot them, just read the filenames.

File: 1489100922662.png (246KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 882x758px

>>59337716
>they're already scoring that high
N-NO THAT'S NOT TRUE

>>59337716
DELETE THIS
3dmark is multithreaded so it literally doesn't count
only things that use 1 core count
amd is shit
delete this right now!!!!!!

>>59340886
But where's 6900K? You know the CPU that it actually competes with.
Jesus fuck, tech reviewers need to be lynched.

>>59349059
That's why you watch Wendell or someone else who's actually competent for reviews.

what's best B350 board? looking at asus prime b350 plus for now
x370 is waste of money, external clock regulator is useless
10 sata ports is useless 6 is enough
arguably intel ethernet is okay, but realtek works fine
b350s have two m2 slots aleardy, same number of usb ports as x370

what is the point of x370 besides sli? well power delivery is top notch, but you need ln2 to reach those levels of OC even with b350 vrms

File: 1488399933.jpg (16KB, 104x132px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 104x132px

>>59339921
you get shitted on every time you post this. why even.

Teehee!

http://marketrealist.com/2017/03/intels-stock-perform-2017/

>>59349311
I'd avoid any Asus board for now. Get the ASRock AB350 Pro4 or the Gigabyte AB350 G3

> they will only get better in the coming months...
Why do people keep talking about processors like they just need a driver update?

>>59349386
because they know and remember more than you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AVZ_x64hg4

>>59339921

>when they look at the graph and not the actual numbers

112 fps
105 fps

OH THE HUMANITY,

>>59349403
did you know that shit eats up to 30w in complex?

>>59349429
>7 fps is the difference between buying a CPU that does more shit faster and 'muh gaymes'.

File: thnkeuphor.png (143KB, 411x411px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 411x411px

>>59349395

>>59349461

that graph is specifically for games retard and 5-7 fps is insignificant, stop trying to pick at straws, with a few tweaks and fixes it will get that -57 fps you're whining about

>>59342247
Why do you ask ¿

>>59349479
you know that everyone called sandybridge shit first couple months?

>>59349548
>Sandy Vag

kek

>>59349386
I know mine will run much faster in few weeks. Because that's when the mobo finaly arrives

File: 1310483412100.jpg (36KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 413x395px

Every AMD fan about any AMD product on this forum: "Just wait, it will be good next year"

File: a9Jm9Vs1YjHW-fVmcDC0mvN4LaMCcaTGgeNzGppywdo.jpg (112KB, 1024x503px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x503px

>>59349851
Remember when the 1060 was better than the 480, not any moreeeeeee

>>59337716
>my delids canyon still in top 5
KEK

>>59340925
>>59342326
What's up with that?

>>59349851

The only reason we do that is because it is true. It is not our fault that Nvidiots have no attention span. It has been empirically proven time and time again that AMD products get better and better wit time while Nvidia products get artificially humped after about a year or so.

>>59349851
a card released on 2011 and through rebrands is being named as 390 is still competing on the high end

meanwhile a card from nvidia in 2011 well it got stuck there

File: 764c364c5862532a868f6c8b391c3e3b.gif (101KB, 500x312px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x312px

>>59341399

>B250 motherboards are great if you aren't overclocking,

I'm not overclocking and have that motherboard chipset

>which is exactly what you would get for an i5-6500

I have a 6500

>mfw /g/ unintentionally validates your build

>>59351116
your build is shit without any kind of longevity that will be irrelevant next year

happy?

>>59340181
Rekt

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-Sysbench-Single-CPU-Benchmark.jpg (77KB, 858x490px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 858x490px

>>59347158

You'd be mad to switch from a HEDT chip to ryzen unless you do lots of time intensive workloads where the time savings are superior to the cost of a new platform.

>>59349503
see
>>59342204

Ryzen might not be good for games. I'm not interested on it for that.

I kust want to upgrade a 1100T, with 4x4GB of ECC RAM installed.

Were the problems with passthrough on Ryzen boards solved? Is ECC RAM supported in ECC mode by any Ryzen motherboard?

>>59354073

> Is ECC RAM supported in ECC mode by any Ryzen motherboard?

None of the released boards support ECC mode. Though I do question why you need ECC on a phenom.

As an official Intel fan community it's our mission that ryzen doesn't get those months

>>59354126
>None of the released boards support ECC mode

Asrock Taichi does;
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/#Specification

>>59354126
ECC works on the Asrock X370 TaiChi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjGWqTFultI

>>59354195
>>59354223
Then that could be the one I would get. However I'm still worried about the passthrough.
>>59354126
It was the cheapest option in my filthy country, which is also used as a ZFS home server for 8TB of files. To expand storage more ECC RAM would be desirable. I like to keep everything inside a single box.

>>59354735
If it helps any here is a leddit post about some motherboards that seem to support ECC
https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/5xl167/amd_ryzen_cpus_supports_ecc_ram_for_the_homelab/dej3hqm/

>>59354073
>>59354126
The X370 taichi advertises ECC support

passthrough is still a pain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep_2dDaqBU4&t=349s

>>59344663
IIRC these were made after a patch or something, right?

>>59356872
NVIDIA drivers optimized for Ryzen

>>59340948
what the fuck else would you want one for if not for gaming? Web browsing? Compressing animes? It fails at the one thing it would be useful for.

File: 1489215456489.png (27KB, 533x442px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 533x442px

>>59356914
>/v/ermins

>>59356885
>NVIDIA drivers
>optimized for Ryzen
What?

>>59356914
>I can't think of any other use for it, therefore it's useless

kill
your
self

>>59356953
Well, why would they cripple it? It's better for them if people pair a Ryzen with an NVIDIA GPU.

>>59356975
why does GPU care about CPU?

>>59356914
Would work nicely with with some virtual machines (if you don't use IMOMMU) use it as a workstation, file server with ECC RAM, stupidly powerful openvpn router with maybe like 10gbps of throughput.
There is a shit ton of uses outside of gaming but I guess you wouldn't know that since the only thing you use a computer for is games

>>59356983
The GPU doesn't, but the GPU drivers rely on the CPU for certain tasks, and it's important to optimize it. Ever wondered why low-end CPUs bottleneck high-end GPUs?

>>59339921
when the $349 7700k is higher than the $1049, you know this graph is fucking stupid

I AM SO FUCKING TRIGGERED YOU PEOPLE ARE FOR THE MOST PART RETARDED KILL ME FUCK

Okay FIRST THE 1800X IS LITERALLY POINTLESS.
THE 1700 IS THE SAME CHIP. IT RUNS AT 4GHZ TOO RYZEN COSTS $330

THROW OUT ALL YOUR OTHER FIGURES
overclocking - r7 1700 = r7 1800x
Windows 7 - +10% performance
Disable SMT for now - + performance
Disable cores for more OC - +performance

NOW IN THE FUTURE:
Maybe the CPU competing with the 7700k while only at 30% utilization will be able to reach 45% utilization through patches and beat the 7700k.
Windows actually has NO FUCKING CLUE what to do with ryzen
It's sending priority threads to logical cores

Ryzen has everything going against it. It is SO easy to skew benchmarks against it that it's happening through ignorance.

>>59357655
It's the dual-core-is-enough-for-games shit all over again.

>>59340886
>>59341041

This is very misleading and really you shouldn't think that for the price you're getting ripped off that much by buying a Zen chip.

In terms of pure fps, Zen does have somewhat of a deficit and performs slightly to significantly worse to a 4 core Intel chip. However it should be said that this deficit doesn't make it a bad CPU for gaming; it still delivers good frametimes.

As many people have noted already, this deficit can largely be accounted for via the 4core/8core argument. 4 cores will clock higher and thus yield some improvements.

But ask yourself: how often do you solely game on your computer? How much does pure fps matter to you when you account for a computer build? I don't get how this point gets glossed over and over again; 8 cores lets you run as many programs as you want open at once, have as many tabs open, record your gameplay with minimal fps loss, and you also get a nice boost in games that actually utilize a high number of threads.

Unless you do pro gaming at 144hz it seems to me that there is very little practical need to get a 7700k aside from bs justifications to perpetuate brand prejudice against AMD.

>>59350860
Jewtel kikes fucked up their performance throttling

>>59341664
>Niche

Only if spergos like you keep perpetuating this myth. Most people spending ~330 on a CPU will see some benefit from the increased thread count. Roughly speaking, you can do more simultaneously (read: not just playing games.)

Our norm of using 4 cores max is largely due to Intel milking the market and implanting artificial stagnation by hiking up prices on highly threaded CPUs and defining progress as a new socket every year.

>>59358118
>8 cores lets you run as many programs as you want open at once, have as many tabs open,
Both of those are RAM.

>record your gameplay with minimal fps loss
The number of people using software encoding is minuscule.

>>59358255
>Most people spending ~330 on a CPU will see some benefit from the increased thread count. Roughly speaking, you can do more simultaneously (read: not just playing games.)

Most people spending $330 on a CPU are doing nothing but web browsing with it. You didn't Dell Inspirons and XPS' with i7's were being sold as compute clusters, did you?
99% of the rest? Games.

This is coming from someone who runs two dedicated encoding machines. I'm just under no illusion that my use is normal.

>>59337716
>4690k beats 7700k
nice, gonna suck some dick for cash for a 4690k system

>>59357655
>muh cpu ages like fine cheeses imported from france

Head on over to the sub you crawled out from

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

441KB, 1670x1250px

>>59339921

>>59359493
There is no way you legitimately believe that there isn't a ton of room to optimize for the chip. Lets through all the arc differences out of the window and pretend AMD is simply selling i7 6900k's for $330, that induces a ton of motivation for, lets use games, game devs to use more threads. Not to mention Intel will FINALLY be bringing 12 thread chips to the mainstream early next year.

Ryzen doesn't suck!

>if you install windows 7

>if you disable cores

>if you disable smt

>if you run X this specific way

>if you wait for mobo updates

>if they patch windows based on some shit someone on a random forum postulated

>if they start making games with this architecture in mind


Good lord.

>>59359535
I don't believe this chip will be salvaged. Zen 2 however will be killer.

>>59359582
Is that a joke? In purely it's current form with NO optimizations on the behalf of MS or anyone else for that matter it's still a great buy and apparently Napples is insane. I saw a frequency to voltage scaling graph and they're very clearly server chips. I have never owned an AMD CPU in my 14 years of computing but I am excited to see where the company goes over the next decade

>>59359563

>implying Intel's HT didn't suck nigger balls when it first came out

WEW

>>59337716
AMD BANKRUPT AND FINISHED LOL