Now that the dust has settled should a 2500k master race use 1700?

>>59377086
wait to get the 1600x instead

>>59377086
depends what for

2500K stutters in modern games with new GPUs, even though it got same fps as 6700K more or less
1700 is same as 7700K -10%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76-8-4qcpPo&t

watch this, it's still better than FX but worse than everything new

>>59377097

Is "wait for x"some kind of amd catchphrase ?

>>59377127
amdfags always wait to btfo intel and nvidia

>>59377141
I seen the wait for the 1080ti meme also fag, it is not restricted to brand it restricted to the close approximation of a new tech item

>>59377086
Wait for it
The dust hasn't settled
Give it 45 more days

>>59377151
i'm sure quite a few people who dropped dosh on 1080s and titan XPs (especially titan XPs) wish they would've waited

>>59377086

Wait until April for Ryzen to mature and make a choice then. It will also have big things happening with Vega.

Don't expect a 4 core to have the same legs going forward with next gen i5s rumored to have multithreading and i7s increasing in core count. Ryzen has a 6-7% single core IPC deficit, but is also 6-7% faster in multithreaded applications and tasks, but basically CPU architecture goes like this.

AMD: slow and wide, slightly slower in singlethreaded tasks, slightly faster in multithreaded.

Intel: fast and narrow, speedy at single threaded tasks, shits the bed in multithreaded tasks.

>>59377269
>next gen i5s rumored to have multithreading and i7s increasing in core count
wouldn't hold my breath, if it was on 10nm then maybe
14nm they pushed kaby as far as it can go already, why do you think they went more core/HT on low end chips? they are nearing the wall, at least at current fab process and 10nm nowhere ready for big chips

>>59377184
1080 ti fags will wish they waited for volta

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

164KB, 1261x709px

>>59377086
Depends whether or not you want to make the same mistake twice.

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

basically nothing is settled yet

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

it loses 20% drawcalls if CCX not managed right

>>59377485
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3503745989&feature=iv&src_vid=BORHnYLLgyY&v=JbryPYcnscA

meant this one as second

windows fucks things up major way for games

>>59377347

They added hyperthreading on pentiums because they can't even run modern cpu heavy programs on two cores any more.

With that kind of power creep it's going extend to their entire lineup. With i3/i5 being where i5/i7 are now. And i7s being offered with 6 cores.

>>59377086
no get a 7700k and oc to 5 GHz or wait for mainstream 6 core intel

>>59377127
AMD is all hype and they fail to deliver every single time, but they'll relentlessly shill the next big thing that's just around the corner

>>59377431
This makes it interesting to test a single CCX with both cores and all four threads against a recent multithreaded i3 with multithreading.
Both of them two cores, four threads and then if they're even clocked the same. I'd love to see that.

>>59377567

Ryzen only goes down to 4 cores/threads

File: 1288367953014.jpg (26KB, 303x288px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 303x288px

>>59377567
derp

reply was clearly for
>>59377510

>>59377594
I'm almost certain a single CCX means two cores
I know that will not be on store shelves, but that's the way the guy in >>59377485 is testing them

File: 1312419016625.jpg (274KB, 616x800px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 616x800px

>>59377605

Fucking >>59377485

I'm not even drunk!

File: 1485712476114.jpg (405KB, 3999x2250px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 3999x2250px

>>59377630
>I'm almost certain a single CCX means two cores
no, it's 4 cores

what exciting about it is if they give 4c 8Mb of cache. That would, maybe, offset clock difference with kaby specially at projected price of the thing.

Also it can potentially kill whole low end 4c xeon line with 8Mb of L3.

>>59377485
>Windows scheduler has nothing to do with it
-PCPER

>>59377699
the PCPER guy actually admitted he is wrong, but in the comments and didn't change the article

>>59377699
>pcper
>literal nvidia/intel shill says nothing to see here

>>59377688
Right so that youtube guy should be testing four threads in the same CCX instead.
My point is still good though. I'd love to see a single CCX against an underclocked i7
Just so we know there's no Windows scheduler or whateverthefuck to blame

>>59377722
Or one CCX, eigth threads even

>>59377431
>you thought you beat the goy

>the goy actually go you

what do I do guys my world is crashing

>>59377431
>implying op did a mistake by getting higher fps for 5 years before "making the same mistake twice"

>>59377784
I thought that too
I'm by no means an Intel fanboy, but the 2500K has been a fucking marvel

>>59377784
>>59377431
There was no 8350 when I got my 2500k,only 8150 so that means amd was a year behind.

8350 was released like a year later

>>59377141
and wait and wait and wait. never really happens though.

>>59378364
well in games yeah it doesn't happen but in everything else it does.

But alas I agree
AMD needs to be more IPC focused and take a step back from multithread for a while.

Ryzen is a step to that IPC focus goal and lets be real here we all thought ryzen would be way worse than it currently is so that is a start and it got intel fan boys scratching their heads

>>59378112
Nah bull dozer 8150 was meant to fight i7 950 not 2500k at any-rate there is no way FX would beat 2500k at anything but mafia 3

To be honest I'm curious on how mafia 3 is coded because it behaves different to most other games behave with cpu's is alot different on the api side of things.

>>59378451
What? The IPC is brilliant but the clockspeeds low even in comparison to 8core intels.

>>59377699

PCPer my go to site to redeem my self worth in buying Intel and Nvidia.

wait for the R5

>>59378528

Broadwell is now the new slow IPC. Haven't you heard? If you own less than skylake you own a piece of shit CPU according to Intel slurpers.

>>59377086
Go cheap or wait for Zen 2

>>59377127
If you benefit from 2 more cores enough to pay ~$100 more, then don't wait.