CPU general

> intel and amd cpus touching

Possibly the gayest thing I've seen on this board. Disgusting.

>>59415529
where does the r5 1500x belong?

>>59415529

rename it AMD General you blatant shill

e-peen? dual rig

http://hwbot.org/newsflash/4332_splave_%28us%29_hits_2631.4_mhz_%28ddr4_5262.8%29_a_new_memory_world_record_highest_frequency

http://hwbot.org/submission/3422990_audigy_memory_frequency_ddr4_sdram_2630.4_mhz

>>59415891
you have autism, now fuck off

>>59415529

Gayman CPU should be 7600k

>>59415853
>in the "i spent $20 more for the same cpu because I don't know how to overclock" tier

but what CPU do I buy for a emulation/midtier gaming PC? Needs to have good single core performance, but not suck overall.

>>59415891
>amd releasing better processors than intel for the money but if you mention this objective fact you are a shill

>>59416493
1700 and OC to 4.0

>>59416518

I mean errybody telling me that ryzen is a clear no go for emulation - are you the meme, or is it them?

>>59416531
if anyone tells you ryzen is a "no-go" for anything then they're uninformed. Ryzen is amazing at most things, good at some and mediocre at others. But it's not bad at anything and for the money it's basically unbeatable in the current market.

>>59416531
emulators are all unoptimised trash. an i3 can beat a 10 core 6950x in most emulators. your best bet is to get a good gpu and buy the cpu for it's merits based on cpu related tasks,

>>59416561

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3885vs3917

that's kind of what I'm leaning on - the price difference sucks when the only real improvement lies in multi threaded stuff, which I won't be exhausting really.

genuinely trying to figure out what upgrade to buy for my i5 2500k

File: 1489576166549.png (169KB, 725x364px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 725x364px

>>59416674
in that case wait 3 weeks and get the r5 1400

>>59417031

pretty sure the 1400 will have worse single core performance than my 2500k, and the 2500k can handle multi thread stuff like streaming well enough.
Like, I WANT to make the switch to AMD, but it's not really working out I think.

>>59417153
The 1400 will likely have single core performance at or exceeding 1700 levels.

The entire range is the exact same chip but due to how fabrication works, not 100% of every chip works perfectly, so they disable bits that are broken and sell them as lower models.

>>59416643
Cemu runs like shit on an i3 and that's the only emulator anybody cares about. It requires three strong cores.

>>59415529
Pretty sure the 7600k overclocked is the standard, not sure why anyone would get anything else.

Logical increments seems to kinda agree.

All fun and games, but I already have a 1700 at home, but I'm still waiting for my motherboard. Starting to think it won't arrive for another 2 weeks.
> http://www.legitreviews.com/one-motherboard-maker-explains-why-amd-am4-boards-are-missing_192470

>>59417153
>1400 will have worse single core performance than my 2500k
Ryzen has about skylake IPC, so at 4gz It should be at least 25% better than a 4.2ghz 2500k

>>59417153
ryzen ipc for 8 core chips is about 1% higher than broadwell-e. for smaller chips ipc is likely to be higher per core due to higher potential overclocks.

>>59417268
if you know how to oc with the bclk then the 7400 and 7600k are literally the same chip.

>>59418165
IPC=instructions per clock. Overall performance increases while overclocking, IPC doesn't.

as far as i understood ryzen doesn't shit the bed when OCing because of temperature or power limitations. The chip simply doesn't scale well beyond ~3.8GHz or so, getting it above 4.0 is quite hard. So i'd assume that the 4/6 Core chips won't OC higher than the 8 core ones. Possibly worse due to binning.

Besides that, IPC for the 4/6 core chips might really be a bit better, due to lower CCX traffic and higher available memory bandwith per core.

>>59418176
What? You can't overclock non-K Kaby Lake chips. Intel fixed the ME at a hardware level so that the exploit motherboard manufacturers used no longer works. Even with a Z170 ASCock board that still has non-K overclocking for Skylake enabled on the latest BIOS it doesn't work.

>>59418176
Aren't there issues with windows ignoring it or not all systems supporting it?

>>59416493
i7 7700k and OC to 4.7-5+GHz. Can't get any better single core performance than that.

>>59418033
>Ryzen has about skylake IPC
Lying street shitter. It's Haswell IPC at best.
>>59417153
Ryzen at 4GHz will barely be an upgrade in single core performance if at all compared to an overclocked 2500k.

>>59415529
Is intel kill?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HERHZLFnqE

>>59418370
>i7 7700k and OC to 4.7-5+GHz
>OC to 4.7-5+GHz
>4.7-5+GHz

fuck off shill

>>59418398
>Ryzen at 4GHz will barely be an upgrade in single core performance if at all compared to an overclocked 2500k.

dumbest post of the year, great job!

>>59418278
You got me there, but i still think my general point stands. the point i made when i said that it will probably overclock better isn't because of the lower power requirments but simply the fact that with less cores you are less likely to have a core that holds all the others back and makes the chip more unstable. lower core chips have always had slightly better overclocking potential.

>>59418785
Didn't think about that factor, that may be true. But i still doubt we'll see them go over 4 GHz by significant margins. It just needs to much voltage after that. I mean the 4+GHz ones we see now are all running at 1.4+V, you can't really go much higher.

>>59418398

Hi, I have a Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8Ghz and it shits on my previous i5 3570k @ 4.4 Ghz in any even remotely threaded game, beats it by 10%~ in non threaded games.

2500k would be a joke even in single thread unless you push to 5Ghz

>>59418951

don't think any of the Ryzen5 have been available for testing, but with what we know now, will that line have similar potential?

>>59419203
Some editors and owners simulated the 4/6 core chips.

Overclocking potential and IPC should be almost identical, and for games performance shouldn't suffer much/at all. There are very few games that make effective use of more than 4 threads after all, so most of the time large parts of the fancy 8 core CPU aren't doing anything.

>>59419293

well, I'm the emulation cunt, so 1-2(3) core performance is pretty important for me me.
looking for the CPU with perfect balance between single core and ALLTHECORES performance.
looked like it's gonna be the i5 7600k for about $250 (EU price) but going to wait out some more benchmarks to see if the R5's can compare with it. They are dirt cheap, after all.

File: lK7gSAo.png (47KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x540px

>>59418398
>It's Haswell IPC at best.
Correct. It's between Ivy Bridge and Haswell

>>59419480
>52% ipc improvement over piledriver
>+65% ipc improvement over bulldozer
you and your chart are both kikes

>>59418370
baby-lake can't reach 4.8+ GHz without de-Lid unless a thermal reactor is the goal you shill

>>59419480
>divide ipc by core count and call it ipc
kek
"journalism"

>>59416674
>>59417153
It won't be a huge upgrade for single threaded performance, about 20%, but it's multithreaded performance is going to be way higher since AMD's SMT is better than Intel's and the 2500k doesn't even have SMT(HT).

Where does the i7 5820k go?

>>59418785
You can individually change the clock for each core in Ryzen to make it easier to get a stable overclock.
So no.

The 4cores aren't going over 4.1ghz either.

>>59419203
It will be a 1700 or 1800x with a CCX disabled for the 4 cores.
Based on others tests, it looks like it'll be 90-105% as good as the 7700k. But the gap widens when you overclock the 7700k to 5ghz since you can only overclock Ryzen to 4.1

But... you pretty much have to live in Alaska or Scandinavia, spend a lot on AC, or be an edgelord to keep a 7700k at 5ghz all year long anyway.

>>59421447
>It will be a 1700 or 1800x with a CCX disabled for the 4 cores.
Some will use a 2+2 configuration from what i've read.

>>59421437
about the same IPC, two cores less, OCs a bit higher, more expensive (but also more capable) platform

>>59421437
Into the trash.

>>59421502
There's no way.
That would make too large of a performance variance.

And credible leaks say it only has 8mb cache.

>>59422190
they'd obviously disable half of the L3 with half of the cores of a CCX. Performance variations wouldn't be a problem since you have at least 3 different 4 core SKUs.

>>59415529
>>i5 7400 with BCLK OC ($180)

Didn't Intel shutdown BCLK OC by forcing motherboard manufacturers to up date the EFI and disable it?

I don't give a shit what the Intelets fucking say.

I took the plunge.
I rolled the die.
I threw caution to the wind.

I bought an AMD 1800x and I can't believe how much it changed my life. I used to set up my databases to pipe into my 7zip compressor for encoded backups on a daily regime and on an Intel System it took so long I literally would go in from a bowel movement and just sit and read and read why my PC chugged along. Hell I could get two sometimes three movements completed. I call them rhythms and sure it's nice to fully unload your bowels with some monster snakes that take 5 flushes but really that's wasted time. Now my morning routine has dramatically changed, my Ryzen system is so fast I only get one rhythms done before I can finally get the days work done. It's so fast I don't bother wiping, I just hop in the shower and finger out the shit onto the shower floor and rinse off and get to work.

It's fucking crazy how many more jobs I can tackle now.

Thank you based AMD. You have me and my bank accounts gratitude.

File: what the fuck am I looking at.gif (2MB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x250px

>>59422322

>>59422283
Yes. And then they patched it at a hardware level in Kaby Lake. There's absolutely no way to overclock non-K Kaby Lake chips.

if clock for clock a ryzen is 12% behind kaby lake what previous arch is around 12% behind? Haswell?

>>59422425
Yes. Haswell-Broadwell.

Integer math wise, its IPC is actually far higher than any consumer Intel CPU.

>>59422505

Better then they let on, I guess

not having a mitx 370 board yet is killing me though

>>59422404

>Intel gets pissy and changes hardware level design to force you to buy a higher binned chip

Fucking ass holes. Maybe 5% of buyers would even consider BCLK OC.

File: 1463888404557.jpg (211KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1024x768px

>>59415529
i7 7700k is pretty damn high on the charts and you can get it for only $300. Why would anyone consider the Ryzens? Their benchmarks are junk for the price.
I am about to upgrade from my fx 8150. Not sure if it's to lose my 16 gigs of ddr3 ram and get ddr4.

>>59422650
>i7 7700k is pretty damn high on the charts and you can get it for only $300. Why would anyone consider the Ryzens?
>Ryzen BTFO's 7700K in every benchmark and costs the same

You'd be stupid to buy the 7700K.

>>59422662
>Ryzen BTFO's 7700K in every benchmark and costs the same

Except it doesn't.
It wins in stupid shit like hardware accelerated crypto or h264 encoding without the i7 using hardware encoding.

File: who could be behind this.png (6KB, 356x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 356x480px

>>59422650
That's right goy! It would be a very poor financial investment to buy anything but the latest and greatest Ryzen. It literally is good at everything and with years it will age like fine wine considering the amount of fixes it has ahead of it added to the fact it has much more cores than intel.

File: 1486718295906.jpg (15KB, 255x191px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 255x191px

>>59422686
>trys to claim AMD is the goys choice
>(((Intel))) literally has a team in israel and is pulling jewish tricks since 20+ years

>>59422676
it wins in pretty much anything that scales reasonably well to more than 4c/8t, so a lot of professional software, and like 2 games.

Claiming that it's a better choice for gaming than the 7700K is retarded. The 4C/6C CPUs will most likely offer a good price/performance ratio and compete with intels sub 7700K offerings for gaming systems. The 8 core chips are intended for the same market as intels 6/8/10 core CPUs, (semi) professional workstations that can actually do something with the cores it offers.

File: tard.jpg (71KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x512px

>>59422686
Thats like buying a 2.0 liter engine with deliberately retarded timing from the ICU and then waiting for an update from the manufacturer and a letter that lets you go into the dealership to get it fixed because some salesman assured you that it goes faster than it does.

>>59422760
>a lot of professional software
A lot of professional software relies on single thread performance so you are just flat out wrong.

>>59422788
and a lot scales well to 16T. That's why both Intel and AMD produce CPUs for that market. But go ahead and try to sell workstations with pentium G3258s

File: 1464910360836.png (611KB, 750x554px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 750x554px

>>59422849
>>59422788
>>59422760
>>59422686
>>59422676
>>59422662
I ask for help and not a single benchmark is posted to prove anything. I just want to play games.

>>59423084
But goy, why would you want cherry picked benchmarks from intel?

>>59423084
don't ask /g/ for benchmarks, read reviews yourself. It's not that hard anon.

overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_1700x_1700/
guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,1.html[/url]
www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700
hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/102964-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-14nm-zen/
kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/[/url]
legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753[/url]
pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Gaming-Performance[/url]
tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951.html[/url]
hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review[/url]
nl.hardware.info/reviews/7223/amd-ryzen-7-1800x1700x-review-eindelijk-weer-concurrentie-voor-intel[/url]
tweaktown.com/reviews/8072/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review-intel-battle-ready/index.html[/url]
toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/
techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=1
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryzen-gaming&num=1
servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-linux-benchmarks/
hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/

If you want the TL;DR, it's generally a bit worse than the 7700K in gaming performance.

>>59423386
>If you want the TL;DR, it's generally a bit worse than the 7700K in gaming performance.
>bit worse than 7700k in gaming
>bit worse

>>59423411
>let's ignore the 15 reviews he just posted and argue about semantics. Who needs numbers after all
never change /g/

>>59423386
Add this one

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryzen-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/

>>59423468
>lets ignore all the benchmarks that show otherwise

>>59422569
But 100% of people considering overclocking would buy a cheaper non-K chip, killing their business model of charging extra to allow it. The only way that's ever going to change is if AMD make up some serious market share and force Intel to not be such greedy kikes.

The fact is that most people buying these CPUs are doing it simply to play video games.

>90% of other people could use a core 2 duo from almost 10 years ago and be totally fine.

File: 1467795685454.jpg (150KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 900x900px

>>59423411
>>59423386
thanks

if you do any multitasking at all while gaming then it really is worthwhile to get a 1700 over the 7700k...

I'm sure most of you play don't games with nothing running in the background

have a 6300fx and a 1060 gtx with 16gb ram

i still get lag when i tab in and out of overwatch while running 2 nox emu

what cpu do i upgrade to? im so fucking sick of the mini stutters in it

side note, why cant i disable adaptive brightness? i disabled it in the power section but its still fucking adapting

>>59425666
1400 is the cheapest and safest bet since it's 4+0 instead of 2+2 or 3+3 cores.

File: ryzen-14-game-average.png (72KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 601x830px

>>59415529
t. AMD shill

I wouldn't touch Ryzen with a 10 foot pole

>>59427246
t. Intel shill

File: ryzen-photoshop.jpg (79KB, 701x479px)

79KB, 701x479px

>>59427338
t. AMD shill

Australia is fucking stupidly priced and so I've been doing pricing comparisons between Ryzen and Kabylake to find a pricing I'm comfortable spending at. Something I don't get is the reviewer language comparing the R7 1700 and 7700K. They're different price points when you consider Z270 motherboard costs and need to buy an aftermarket cooler.

> R7 1700 + Asus Prime B350-A AM4 mATX = $590AU
> i5 7600K + Asus Prime Z270M mATX + Cryorig H7 = $563
> i7 7700K + Asus Prime Z270M mATX + Cryorig H7 = $707

Which of these is the best value considering these pricings?

>>59427408
Ebay AU has 20% off tech.
r7 1700 is $400 from futu online.

>>59427408
The reviewers are just mostly morons that can't do basic math yet people trust them to put graphs together.

I noticed the same thing. In America the 1700+mobo is closer in price to the 7600k+mobo+cooler than the 7700k+mobo+cooler as well.
The 1700 should be compared to the 7600k and the 1700x to the 7700k. Here it's a $70 dif between the 1700 and 7700k, but a $30-$40 dif between the 1700X and 7700k.

Less than 1/10 reviewers actually noted this. Much less. And a lot of those that did were just the usual AMDrones. And it's not that most of the other 9/10 are biased, I think they're just braindead morons with no critical thinking skills.

>>59427246
>7700K is 11,73% faster than a 1800X in gaymen
>A WHOPPING 11,73%
meanwhile 1800X reks 7700K in anything mutithreaded
bear in mind that you can also disable SMT to improve gaming performance

>b-but muh $300!
get a 1700 and overclock it to 1800X level.

>>59427366
Intell shill. You know its a shit comparison when the 4 core is beating all the 6/8 cores, whether AMD or Intel.

Clearly HDR creation is an optimised process for Intel. This will be fixed for you shills.

>>59418543
4.7 is realistic on a Kaby lake core cpu even on a $20 air cooler
5GHz reaches custom levels of cooling but nothing insane like liquid nitrogen
Above 5GHz isn't gonna happen consistently but he's just excited

File: image.jpg (163KB, 1068x1039px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1068x1039px

>>59427614
>bear in mind you can disable SMT and get better gaming performance
You can see how that's going kek

>>59427614
The 7700k is only $340 and kills the $500 1800X

And not only in gaming, literally 99% of programs are using primarily single threads, which is why Ryzen sucks

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

44KB, 650x350px

>>59427662
t. AMD shill

>>59427783
>oh no it's slower in single threaded Javascript performance
Thanks. Now please kill yourself.

I really cannot see why anyone would bother with a fucking ryzen chip when the 7700k is such a good price.
Maybe zen2 will be better? but by then intel will have BTFO so hard.

>>59427805
>w-well it's better at this one particular software item, pls buy ryzen.

t.pajeet stockholder

>>59415891

Grow up

/r/ing that deutsche review site with the ryzen gaming benches that just came out

lost the link

>>59427773
Ryzen 4-cores have not been tested yet and it's dumb to compare CPUs with different amount of cores since they produce heat differently and so on. AMD is doing fine when compared to Intel's 8-core, meaning Intel isn't producing their 8-cores much better either.

>>59428549
PCGH just published some BF1 multiplayer benchmarks if that's what you mean

>>59427783
post updated benchmarks, kike

>>59415529
You cant oc kabylakes with bclk, so 7600k/7700k are the top gaymen cpus now.
Also 4ghz ryzens are not that bad for games desu, but require some trickery with RAM, windows power profiles, SMT and process affinity.

>>59431317
dual rank ram issue is fixed or not?

>>59431317
You can BLCK OC KL, but only on some asscock boards.

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

1MB, 2484x3052px

>>59415529

That list needs 5820k

I've seen some of the 5820k here reach 4.8Ghz and all of them hit at least 4.5Ghz
Even at the puny stock 3.3Ghz it manages to beat the competition in some of these tests.
It's one of the best and most future proof CPUs out there and you can find them for under 300$.

>>59431827
It'll have faildozer-tier power consumption at 4.8. That's a bad idea actually.

>>59416493
i5 7400 or the Pentium, it's right there senpai
Otherwise R5 1400

>>59431847

Obviously you don't have to crank it to the max.
Looking at those benchmarks, it would dominate every single one of them if pushed slightly above 4.

>>59431895
Too bad x99 mobos cost a fortune. Honestly you'd better off with quadcore if you want brand new Intel build.

>>59431449
Ram speed depends on the board and ram combination more than anything right now. 2x8GB Gskill 3200 sets have been reporting good success with Asus and Asrock boards.

File: Untitled.jpg (239KB, 806x804px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 806x804px

Just OC'ed my 2500K from 4.1GHz to 4.6GHz.

Now I don't give a shit if it breaks anymore. Did I do good regardless?

>>59417721
That's clickb8 anon, don't post it

>>59431916

I don't see quadcores as future proof at all nowadays.
Without a doubt they're going to become a thing of the past in the coming years and considering the +5 year lifespan of any modern CPU, it's a bad idea.
The moment we're going to see companies start focusing on utilizing more cores, there's going to be a massive performance difference between 4 and +6 core models.

I am going for the 7770k and a nice µATX Z270 board.

>>59431988
Most companies are already leveraging multicore perf, heck, even competent gamedevs are going for moarcoarz, see BF1.

I got an i5 3570 for $75.

>>59432205
Non-k? That's an okay deal, but it's relatively slow on stock clocks.

>>59415529
>>Pentium G4560 ($70)
>It's actually really good for the price. Most people don't actually need anything more than this.

Agreed. Pentium is a great value. I would highly recommend it for a facebook machine. Now that Pentium comes in 2C/4T, it takes away any reason to get an i3.

For example, from the official Intel price list (2017/01/03):

> i3-7100 (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3.90 GHz, 14nm) $117

> Pentium G4620 (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3.70 GHz, 14nm) $86

Really? Paying 36% more for an extra 0.2 GHz? If you're buying the 7100 (which is the lowest Kaby i3), then it's pretty obvious you don't care that much about speed anyway.

i3 is now officially the "I want to pay more for no reason" chip.

And i3 will be even more ridiculous once AMD releases a Zen to compete head-to-head against i3, which will be coming up soon.

File: ss (2017-02-17 at 09.04.03).png (37KB, 407x403px)

37KB, 407x403px

>>59432245
I'm on stock 3.4 speed. I could overclock it to the set turbo speed @ 3.8 but I don't know if it's really worth it, or if I'll notice a difference.

>>59415853
Trash

>>59432304
>>>Pentium G4560 ($70)
>>It's actually really good for the price. Most people don't actually need anything more than this.
Why not just get a laptop?

> Now that Pentium comes in 2C/4T, it takes away any reason to get an i3.

If inlel made something like the i3-7350k at a better price point etc 120 usd~

>>59415529
Can I split ryzen ccx to make it a quad core on Linux and quad core for Windows? Since is really two quad cores on a die?


Also what if I want to run a extremely low power server ? Which ryzen should I get? Or will and release an atom server rival?

>>59415529
>Xeon doesn't belong in this list

>not buying chinked S771 xeons for the price of a hamburger in 2017

We have no information yet about the clock ceiling at non retarded voltage for the non 8-core Ryzens, so a bit early to put them in any list.

7700K might be for the niche that need 240hz gaming, not worthless.

File: 2161.Hypervisor Design_4.jpg (85KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 960x720px

>>59433783
>Can I split ryzen ccx to make it a quad core on Linux and quad core for Windows?
You'd need a hypervisor

threadus resurrectus