>250 usd ITS OVER INTEL IS BANKRUPT

>>59424916
Thinking about buying this CPU
Any good mobos released yet that don't look like gaymer shit?

>>59424916
If it's at all like the 8 core the non X will prob be at or near the same performance for less.

>>59424916
i want to see benchmarks. it is nice that the rx580 will go out at the same time.

>>59424932
maybe if you want to be a beta tester
otherwise nobody has even any decent overclocks yet
which are liekly the mobos fault

File: deletdis.png (248KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 882x758px

>>59424916
SIR DELET

>>59424916
>4ghz boost

But my i5 2500k is doing 4.7ghz ...

>>59425082
Not sure if bait

>>59424916
Oh are we doing this again

The price is good but the specs reflect it.. It has lower both frequency and TDP than i7 7700k. Two extra cores though. Hmm..

>>59426155
frequency and tdp have nothing to do with performance you twat.

>>59426179
Yes, frequency does, and TDP is important nonetheless.

>>59426195
A 3.9 ghz ryzen chip and an intel chip at 3.9 ghz will not perform the same. Ryzen has badass IPC, it can do much more with much less.

>>59426223
Except play games

>>59424916
Whether it's good or not depends on how the ccx's are configured. 4-2 would be ideal, 3-3 would suck.

>>59426223
From what I've seen their IPC is very similar on average, meaning that the i5 will outperform the ryzen on a single thread with that frequency.

>>59426230
except when you want to stream and not drop frames

go amd

>>59424916
Finally, a chip I'm happy to purchase.

Ryzen could have been so fucking great, but AMD fucked up in a few crucial places.

Like the 4 core 8 thread CPU. It's still two CCX clusters and not a single cluster as predicted.

Fuck! This could have been the ultimate budget CPU blowing anything intel has to offer right out of the sky.

You almost had it AMD!

>>59426340
>Crucial
It hardly makes a difference, the problem is blown out of proportion

The only thing AMD has achieved is to finally have me overclock my 3770k, 5 years later.
Now I know I can have a cheap ass replacement if it blows up.

>>59426223
>>59426230
But dude, kabylake absolutely DECIMATES ryzen xD
5% better single core performance is more important than having 8 cores and 16 threads for the same price as an Intel 4 core CPU xD dude, fuck amd hahahah

Is it better in gaymes?, if not, it's a flop ahaha

Even if the i7 6900k was $300 and not $1100, everyone would be getting a 4 core i7 for the same price instead because of the ebin artificial single core performance increase achieved by factory bumping the multiplier which is something you can do yourself in less than 2 minutes ahaha, but I don't want to do that nerd shit xD Fuck that

AMD RYZEN DOA
LOOK AT THESE BENCHMARKS OF DIFFERENT CLOCK SPEEDS
AHAHA AMD BTFO hahehe xD

>>59426355
>It hardly makes a difference
20% impact in certain programs is a pretty big difference.

File: lego_lies.jpg (91KB, 738x550px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 738x550px

>>59426355
It really is crucial from the value proposition.

Shot themselves in the foot, lost even more credibility.

The zen arch is going to be amazing but zen1 is a huge disservice to what could be and I hope they can ride those console contracts long enough to get a proper working chip out to us PC people

>>59426500
>5% better single core performance
lol more like 50%
ryzen is beta test trash

>>59426522
Nice lie, intel shill

File: 1487726014565.png (90KB, 265x258px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 265x258px

I've been wanting to build a computer since about a month before the r7's dropped.

At this point i hate AMD, and wish to spite them, simply due to making me fucking wait for their staggered release of the r5 chips.

Had the r5 chips released with the r7's, i would have brought one. I really don't understand why they've staggered it. They're lost many customers who would otherwise brought those r5's.

>>59426259
Then streat at a reasonable FPS/MB/S. Streaming FO4 at 120FPS, 2.5MB/s is not a real world example. If you're too stupid to comprehend that then you're beyond saving.

File: samhyde.jpg (9KB, 300x262px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x262px

>>59426500
You're missing the point, I think intentionally unfortunately...

Kaby Lake exceeds Ryzen capability in many areas, matches them in more and where it loses out it loses by less of a % in performance then the increased % of cost of buying a Ryzen.


The Intel 4c/8t era is coming to a close but it will not be today.

>>59426530
>Just Wait

>>59426551
>less of a % performance
No one is buying your bullshit

>>59426340
Conguroglation to rysen designer and amd workers, i ask near 20 ryzen buyer ,are you happy withryzen , 100% say YES


People must be clever and dont belive intel seller gossip to harm ryzen


I hope all understand ryzen technology new 99% of games(software) cant relize and see ryzen cores truley

Like CPU-Z erorr in 1st week , after add ryzen works exclent , so games need time to update to see ryzen truely (if you check youtube games test ryzen games can use avrage 20% of cpu , 2core 4 threat only!!!!!!!???)


I promise ryzen 7 real and total power is 200% more from i7-7700

However compair 7700 with 4 core(produce for game) not fair with 8core cpu(optimize for workstation)


Thanks to all in amd, i belive after software update and VEGA graphic,we will see 100% moreryzen power(speed)

>>59426340
Link to where this has been said?

People were speculating that they would be just quad cores, since it's kind of stupid when you think about it. How would they have enough four core CPUs to supply if they are depending just on broken 1800Xs with disabled cores.

It makes sense that they would be specifically fabricated. There's also the fact that they aren't being fabricated by gloflo like the 1800Xs, they are being fabricated elsewhere, which kind of hints at a different fabrication process taking place.

>>59426549
Who is going to buy R5 after the clusterfuck that was R7?
Intel is the only solution unless you wanna pay to be a beta test tard

>>59426565
>I like pulling shit out of my ass

File: 1488766195950.gif (1MB, 659x660px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 659x660px

>>59426574
Every benchmark i've seen would indicate that to spend 400 dollars more for like, 10% better performance in a very select group of tasks, like playing video games, like a child, at 1080p, like a newb, would make you a little bit turbo-retarded.

>>59426576
>Just like AMD p-pls wait

>>59426574
I'm going to take a guess and assume that you were too young for Nehalem

>>59426592
Who pays 400 more? 7700k is same price as ryzen trash.

>>59426593
Yes, because 50% penalty is LITERALLY THE TRUTH!!!!!!

>>59426607
So you agree we should wait until zen2?
Cheers

>>59426340
>Giving motherboard vendors 3 weeks to write production bios

AMD fucked themselves.

>>59426608
Which Ryzen are you talking about you disingenuous retard?

>>59426617
Prove its not

>>59426608
Trying to anger autistic people is honestly not a good use of your time.

>>59426632
You were the one that claimed 50% penalty. It's on you, not me

>>59424971

rx580 is just an upgraded 480 right? Vega is RX vega? which should be released in may right?

thats what im waiting for, mini itx 8core + vega. gonna build a sweet as mini rig

>>59426629
>>59426645
>>59426651
t.pajeet
How many rupees you get per post?

>>59426687
>no argument

Single core it's going to lose to the i5-7600k, basically a $229 CPU, thus making it worst for games. I guarantee it you can screen cap this for prosperity.

>>59426687
This board, and computers, are a cancer. I'm miserable everytime i come here.

Thankyou.

May you one day lose your virginity for helping me realise this.

>>59426627
>Giving motherboard vendors 3 weeks to write production bios
>t. salty that he didn't get a review-kit no name blogger quoting """"anonymous"""" source

>>59426690
>p-please buy our beta trash

Nah.

>>59426701
May you one day get that H1B visa apu

https://www.techpowerup.com/231536/amd-ryzen-machine-crashes-to-a-sequence-of-fma3-instructions

>>59426568
Why do I have the heavy feeling that you're a Jap?
There is something about you guys trying to write sentences in English that makes it hilariously identical.

>>59426751
>An important point to note here is that this little known benchmark has been tailored by its developer to be highly specific to the CPU micro-architecture, with separate binaries for each major x64 architecture (eg: Bulldozer, Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Skylake, etc.), and as such the GitHub repository does not have a "Zen" specific binary.
>using the haswell specific binary
I am certainly not an AMD supporter. I am still happy with my Haswell i7, but reading anything important from this benchmark that has architecture specific binaries causing a crash when the wrong binary is used is just a little silly.

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

129KB, 1440x1080px

>>59426259

Ryzen is even bad at streaming sadly

File: ryzen-cpu-value.png (26KB, 773x371px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 773x371px

>>59426629
7700k is the same price or even $160 cheaper than the entire R7 lineup

It also kills it in performance

Ryzen has horrible price-performance ratio

>>59426774
He's probably someone pretending to be a poojeet or a genuine one.

>>59426846
You do realize that min/max FPS means jackshit at streaming right?
You can have 60fps and still have stuttering gameplay on your end because of the CPU usage.

That's where Ryzen actually shines, it's buttersmooth.

>>59426859
> PC Gamer
Only games were tested? Where is 6800K price per performance ratio? BTW, we were discussing an upcoming R5 lineup:
> Who is going to buy R5 after the clusterfuck that was R7?
So yeah, no, let's see R5 graphs instead of shitposting.

>>59426931
The R5 is based on the R7, it's all the same crap. Of course we have no real benchmarks, but it's not hard to predict it's going to fail in the same way.

File: CCX-Latency.png (268KB, 905x715px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 905x715px

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

>The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2.

fucking AMD double down on 2 CCX
They can have good time to kill 7700 if they just stay on 1 CCX

REEEEEEEEEEE

>>59426948
> let's see R5 graphs instead of shitposting
You didn't listen.

>>59426916
>min/max FPS means jackshit at streaming right?

Stupidest post of the year award

>>59426969
Let's "just wait"

I'm not waiting for anymore AMD shit, fool me once

>>59426963
> while the four-core parts will use 2+2
Kek.
I thought it all depends on the binning (it may be possible to have 1+3 combination), but if they are going explicitly for 2+2, it means lowest R5 may be unlocked to R7 and all chips are actually equal.

>>59426996
You can discuss the real performance without having real samples at hand.

>>59426971
Not an argument.
You can have 60fps and still experience major stuttering.

But whatever fits your agenda, right?

>>59427013
Bullshit, everyone said R7 was going to BTFO Intel and it was meh

Everyone said RX 480 was going to BTFO Nvidia and it was meh

Not trusting anything except the real reviews and my expectations are very low

>>59425076
AMD has facilities here in Israel too, my brother works at one of em

File: image?c=03AI-r6f7Rs8oPppEAvnnsGElNVsTUF5y8dg8oBRhyacknIzGyFOe-rlSAVM8px9abGyfv03okPZrm8nObFHcJk2y3rapzgMeFglxndQt9-PSgRuq6xUf6p4A6TQR8wFcuSY9ydNNqz8nIzyRb4goTedMFWjKWkclt6IScWvhD69sUmRTslTKaZbKGMvmQXlAYgtJiPlv5OoVX&th=,1yZXJgewD7Ypiemhn7C2GLLsyBXKzqTw.jpg (4KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x57px

>>59424916
>flagship R5 249$

take a wild guess how much the flagship R3 will cost


>33x33 begins captcha for the win

File: 1468167973511.png (246KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 550x535px

>>59424916
So people are supposed to pay 250$ for a 6C12T CPU that can't even keep up with a 2C4T CPU for less than 200$?

Why do you guys even do this stupid hype?

File: amd-eat-shit.jpg (52KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x480px

>>59427123
AMD is like a religion to some people. They just eat up whatever shit they spew out and love it.

File: 1487838437461.jpg (18KB, 267x297px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 267x297px

>>59427123
>>59427141

why did they design such as CCX? is make it a ring like intel. KEK

>>59427220
To easier scale up to 32 cores like in Naples

>>59427220
to sell 6 cores of broadwell e IPC for 250 instead of 400 like intel does it

>>59427220
They wanted to be "innovative" it feels like they're pulling another FX bullshit move, hurfurd 8 cores, but it was actually 4 cores split to modules.

File: not-crying.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>59427200

>>59424932
Asus Prime B350 is cheep

>>59424932
Don't buy anything until they release it and you can see reviews of it. I was so close to throw money for the R7 1800X but it was totally disappointing.

>>59427311
>it was disappointing

Wut? ~10% (and shrinking) of Intel's highest IPC champ with the same multithreaded power of Intel's 1000 dollar chip.

I don't see what's not to like...

>>59426549

>doesnt understand

really? the chips are binned r7s, not that thats a bad thing, pretty natural. but with that reason, one would think...

realease r7s, bin
release r5s, bin
release r3s, over and out

>>59426340
No evidence of that. Actually I think the 4 core chips only have 1 CCX active, since they only have 8mb cache, and each 8mb of cache is allocated to one CCX.

>>59427344
bin doesn't mean anything by itself, retard
chip can be either high or low binned
also you're confusing disabled cores with binning

>>59427326
In real world performance it sucks

>>59426223
>>59426253
Ryzen's IPC is about 8% lower on average.
But SMT is better than HT. Much better than its IPC deficit. So anything that's highly multithreaded is better on Ryzen clock-for-clock core-for-core.

>>59427311
AMD set targets for Ryzen, and it hit them.
They achieved <40% IPC Increase.
The 1800x trades blows with the 6900k in all things multithreaded.
They did both those things with 25% lower clock speeds, and much lower TDP.
Fuck, the 1800x puts out 95w, while the 7700k lets out 91w. That says a lot.

You had 2 options on what to believe.
What the falseflagging shills and fanboys said.
And what AMD told us Zen would achieve.

Limit your expectations to within the realms of reality to avoid future disappointment.

>>59426340
>>59426571
The 1500X has 16MB of L3 cache which confirms it's 2+2.

It seems the 1400 will be 4+0 with 8MB of L3 cache.

But it's more expensive than the i5 7600k and offers less performance.

The 1600X should have been $195 tops

>>59427382
>In real world performance it sucks
>I mean gayming and nothing else, but I'm too much of a fag to admit I just mean gayming

>>59426568
I think my IQ has bene lowereed by 50 ponts

Think firmware/software/support might be more mature when it's out?

>>59427509
Only slightly, honestly.

Still going to have Windows scheduler issues.
Still going to see tons of games not seeing the SMT threads and treating it like it's Bulldozer.

>>59424916
tfw cheapest Ryzen in my country cost x2 Intel i5-7600K

>>59424916
>MUH GAMES AT 1080p
>MUH 7700k
Keep gaming on your mums 1080p screen plebs
Who buys 500 USD CPU and games at 1080p?

>>59427575
In my country the 1700 is 100€ cheaper than the 7700k. easy decision

>>59427575
If retailers overprice over MSRP that badly, why don't you just steal shit?

Seems like the moral response to that immoral shit.

>>59426963
why are they so dumb, why don't they make 1 chip with 1 ccx and if they want to meme themselves so hard just double the cache? jesus christ

>>59427758
IC designers are smarter than you. Compared to them you're so woefully dumb you don't even count as the same species.

>>59427775
Sure, that should be true

but it isn't

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59427583
Even shitty Ryzen $500 CPU can't max out 1080p at 144hz

File: ryzen-photoshop.jpg (79KB, 701x479px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 701x479px

>>59427472
It's not just gaming, Ryzen sucks at anything that isn't heavily multi-threaded, which means 99% of programs

>>59427802
>one program

>>59427798
>still using this old image

>>59427802
oh, you came back
how did you you spend your days off? was it fun?

>>59427802
>adobe
>not making incel optimised software
pick one

File: bratty Nanyuha.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

I like how the damagecontrol faggots keep saying that "beta test" bullshit. Slogans, man, those will turn the dhip around!

Based on that line, you can nicely identify vigilante shills that cry inside that Zen being great turned out to be true.

>>59424916
Yeah that's pretty good
Assuming that scheduler gets sorted so the Infinity Fabric doesn't shit all over the performance

Personally I'm more interested in finding out wether the 1500X is going to be just a single CCX

>>59426249
This

File: h4h4.png (63KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x361px

>>59428837
>>59428823
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

>We have confirmation from AMD that there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5. The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2. This will be true across all CPUs, ensuring a consistent performance throughout.

>>59428823
It's not, but being 4c8t it's probably still gonna trash those locked i5s.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

>>59427463
Jesus Christ, its like talking to a brick wall. Fuck off shill

File: HC28.AMD.Mike%20Clark.final-page-014[1].jpg (405KB, 3999x2250px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 3999x2250px

>>59427445
Because a single core complex has 8MB of L3 right?
Unless AMD is just saying 16 because it's technically in there but the single CCX will only use 8
I so fucking badly want those quad cores to be a single CCX

>>59428859
>no silly games
>ayymd outright states it would be shit

File: 1466071263035.png (15KB, 703x74px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 703x74px

>>59428823
>Personally I'm more interested in finding out wether the 1500X is going to be just a single CCX
Sorry.

>>59428859
>>59428871
Dangit. Thanks gents

File: 1460821206163.png (29KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 633x758px

>>59428859
Jesus Christ. Fuck you, AMD.

File: 1260387765144.jpg (164KB, 400x480px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 400x480px

I'm getting 7700k because I want to hit 5ghz. I know it's not that important but it matters to me for reasons

So if they have a chip where the process mangled one CCX but the other is dandy, AMD is gonna throw it out?
Or save them?
Welp they were right about AMD and waiting. Now we wait for the R5 1550X

File: patchy4.png (275KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 600x600px

>>59428912
Enjoy your lower clocks and higher chance of threads jumping around 2 ccx ;^)
but hey you get MOAR COARS

>>59428915
It won't make you lose weight, yaknow.

(Just kidding, it's legit choice if you favor games over app/computing power etc.)

>>59428942
I'll probably spend a few extra bucks for a 7600k.

>>59428947
What's the joke here?

>>59428964
The picture kind of amused me.

>>59426340
you dont even know what the problem is and you shill like crazy

windows is actually seeing ryzen as a 1x8 cpu with a massive 136mb l3 cache

the SMT is working BUT the windows doesnt see the ccx as an independent cpus but as a core and thus is throwing the threads around the ccx using the infinity fabric... which the infinity fabric wasnt built to cope for that whatso ever so every time windows load balance the intercommunication latench goes up to 140ms because the cpu pauses the new data being fed on to flush the current one on l3..

>>59426551
>kabylake exceeds ryzen in many areas

No it doesn't, this has been proven many times. You're shilling to a high degree

>>59428999
t. redteam+ shill

>>59428994
So better spend some time telling your OS which cores to use until that scheduler update comes out

>>59426971
>stupidest

>>59428999
Ryzen can't even beat the 7700k lol

>>59427302
NO.
NO.
NO.
Anon, don't do it! I own this board, it's a pile of shit. Hot VRMs make the CPU voltage jump all over the place and your woofer will make a loud pop every time you boot. It's bios is clunky and I've had it magically forget all the settings I put into it twice already. All this on the latest bios which is a massive improvement over the one it ships with. The first bios took 6 tries just to boot.
In short, get the MSI instead. It's $10 cheaper last I looked.

File: Untitled 1.png (95KB, 1922x497px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1922x497px

>>59429043

you are running out of excuses actually the new bios is actually fucking up your excuse of GAYMING

love how they post toms benchmark..

a site that used autocad 2D rengering(on 2016 edition as they say) while autocad has stopped rendering anything on 2d since 2012....

really makes you think..

or guru3d when they benched 1060 on aos claiming everything on high while the aos bench site showed that their settings was on mid/high

>>59424932
DO NOT BUY ASUS!!!

>>59425963
>>59425963
It's bait, and bait posted by someone who does not know that AMD clock speed and Intel clock speed are not equivalent.

>>59429136
oh shit, why?

File: HC chart.png (575KB, 2450x1202px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 2450x1202px

>>59429076
>people knew day 1 that BIOS updates to fix issues were coming
>knew that there was some issues with some niche Windows setting
>performance is good to great everywhere else
>issues get addressed and performance even in gaming shoots right up

Ryzen is an absolute fucking beast of a processor. Massive multithreaded performance, rock solid serial performance, low power draw. Its basically a home run with a rocky start.
Keller and team really pulled it off.

>>59424916

IM STILL BUYING THE 1800X AND VEGAX2, & EK WATER COOLING SYSTEM. THEN IM GOING TO DO AN IMAGE BOARD BUILD!(or live stream)

>>59429210
Good for you. Stop yelling

File: 1489271258593.gif (2MB, 417x234px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 417x234px

>>59426500
>DECIMATES
>5% better

File: it's better because moar cores.jpg (81KB, 608x369px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 608x369px

>>59428942
>but hey you get MOAR COARS
You know that is all that matters to AMD tards right? It could be a 10 ccx, 10 core cpu with 20 threads and they would eat it up because HOLY SHIT 10 CORES! Why would I get intel, it only had 4 cores rolflamo!

File: e-embarassing.png (23KB, 286x475px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 286x475px

>>59429205
The scary part is how it might actually be more power efficient, while on worse manufacturing process.

Intel probably really fell asleep and/or fucked itself with mismanagement.

>>59429231
replying to your own falselfag post

>>59429289
>implying I'm an intel fanboy

No need to be mean mate.

File: image.jpg (122KB, 632x758px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 632x758px

>>59426859
>still posting buggy day 1 results

>>59429334
>the implication was you are an amd fanboy

>>59429162
Asus boards for Ryzen have been bricking. Asus fixed the problem, but it's up to you if you want to go that route. I been using MSI with not issue so far on my AMD builds. ASRock use to be bad, but I seen some reviews saying there quality has improved, also good power delivery. Might go ASRock, if not then MSI. All up to you tho, don't let /g/ tell you what to do. Just do some research before you buy.

File: a5.png (346KB, 439x500px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 439x500px

>>59424932
>Any good mobos released yet that don't look like gaymer shit?
Are there ever, for any CPU?

>>59429369
MSI probably isn't that great either, historically at least Asus used to have better firmware - at least in the past, I think they have issue with frying Broadwell-E CPUS now. Even on stock.

I keep hearing bad things about MSI and there is for example the issue that you can brick them by flashing BIOS from Windows with their own official app. Fuck that shit.

(NEVER flash MSI board from Windows).

>>59429363
>still posting buggy day 1 results
Okay, provide your sources and an explanation as to what was changed. I am going to assume it's more than just "we used F1 to skew the results"

>>59429435
That is Computerbase and I think they released the article this week.

>>59429448
You are going to have to point me to the exact article you got the screenshot from.

>>59429277
I posted a bit about that in this thread:
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S59226509

The combination of AMD's power saving IP they've built over the past 6~ years, the nuances of the 14nm LPP process, AMD has something very compelling.
Though its not as if one process is "worse" than the other, these things are too nuanced. There are different Vts, different transistor libraries for different clock ranges/power targets, but a given process still has one general range where every Vt will fall. 14nm LPP and intel's 14nm Trigate have different ideal clock ranges. It just so happens that AMD is excelling at lower power, while intel's arch on their Trigate process is capable of scaling over a wider range of frequencies.

Its really the only real knock you could put against them; that Ryzen won't hit 4.5ghz or higher under conventional cooling.

>>59429435
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryzen-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/
they deactivated two Windows 10 "features" and saw fps gains of up to >20%

>>59424916
if its better than an i3 in gaming ill buy it.

>>59427445
>>>59427445
>>59428880
its two ccx with 2 cores.

>>59426500
I made this pasta 2 weeks ago. It's weird seeing your oc posted. Absolutely ebin.
I actually ended up getting a 7700k and overclocking it to 5GHz. Ryzen is ok, though, I just need all the single threaded performance I can get. I might upgrade to zen+ if they make overclocking better.

>>59428880
its 2+2, makes sense for production I guess, if they made 100% working 1 CCX it would cost too much

it's going to be 8MB for L3 on 4 cores, CCX cut differently my guess
Bigger L3 for 6 cores full 16MB available for 6 cores instead of 8.

>>59429496
what did they disable exactly?
me no schprehen and google translate is not reliable

File: 2346345634.jpg (216KB, 2552x564px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 2552x564px

>>59429496
Okay I looked through the benchmarks and what stands out instantly is that the 7700k fps is much lower in the benchmarks than for many other sites reviews of the 7700k.

Im worried about the CCX issue with win 10 thread scheduler. We know its causing issues with the 8 core (2 CCX) and if the 6 core is 1 + half disabled CCX, its like getting all the drawbacks of the issue with less benefits from extra threads. My guess is the sweet spot will be lottery 4c/8t chips that can OC high.

>>59429709
that's because gamersnexus ran through singleplayer and computerbase tested multiplayer
guess what is heavier for CPU

>2 CCX 4c/8t
I just want to vomit.

File: 1469315713726.jpg (37KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x386px

https://www.nextinpact.com/news/103706-ryzen-meme-puce-avec-deux-ccx-actifs-pour-modeles-a-4-6-ou-8-coeurs.htm

4c/8t confirmed 2 CCX. It's over.

>>59429761
>ryzen-meme
top kek

how much for the R5 1400—you know, the only one non-retards care about?

>>59429731
for one windows might get fixed next month
seriously it's losing only about 70 ns to intel

inside ccx it gets 40ns between it's somewhat like 140
intel has it at 80ns everywhere, if they can lower latency with software down to 100ns between ccx it might work very well

>>59429761
The 1400 doesn't appear to be 2 CCX.

>>59429785
169 for 4c/8t clocked low though 3.7 turbo

File: 2010s.png (1MB, 1379x591px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1379x591px

>>59426916
>You can have 60fps and still have stuttering gameplay on your end because of the CPU usage.
Wrong
>That's where Ryzen actually shines, it's buttersmooth.

You're literally just making up unfalsifiable shit. This is unprovable
>inb4 frametime graph with spikes "proves" your point

you are all so unbelievably incompetent

>>59429800
It says all ryzen 5 are that way and cache will just be cut.

>>59429801
>169 for 4c/8t clocked low though 3.7 turbo
Nice, and I bet with just a bit more voltage it'll go right up to 4 stable.

>>59429742
If that is the case then the benchmarks are worthless. By that I mean the computer base one.
Because it's extreemly hard to get a reliable benchmark on the multiplayer considering it depends on the other players a lot and your own position which affect the CPU LOAD.
Simply put, you can't reproduce the same load in the same manner and it's extremely easy to manipulate the outcome.

So yes while multiplayer portion takes more cpu power on high player servers, it's also unreliable and easy to manipulate.

>>59429662
power saving plan and high precision event timer.
former parks cores and latter times interrupts. obviously not working properly.

>>59429825
>implying the Germans' autsim would permit wild variances
I'm sure they did a good job, Pajeet

>>59429787
>intel has it at 80ns everywhere,
>seriously it's losing only about 70 ns to intel
First cite your souces.
Second
>intel is 80ns everywhere
>but amd is only 70ns behind
>almost twice behind
>this is somehow okay

>>59427072
They don't sell snake oil, that's the diference.

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

23KB, 355x354px

>>59429761
LMAO @ THE COCKHEADS THAT LAUGHED AT MY THEORY OF ALL CHIPS JUST BEING FAILED 1800X's

>>59429800
"4 cœurs : 2C + 2C" ; 2C from CCX1, 2C from CCX2

Isn't glueing 2 dual cores together the same shit that AMD made fun of Intel for with their early quad and dual core designs?

>>59429848
oh cool, MS doesn't have to rewrite half kernel for those fix might be out next month if we are lucky

>>59429858
>>implying the Germans' autsim would permit wild variances
>I'm sure they did a good job, Pajeet
Nice, proof?
>They took an unstable environment and tested all the cpus in the exact same load, even though reproducing it would be near impossible in a multiplayer scenario.
>I will take this as evidence and question nothing further for I have "Faith"

>>59429866
it's okay because amd has 40ns inside ccx also twice faster than intel which offsets the difference a little

>6/8 cores of the 1800x
>same clock speeds
>half the price
wew lad. You're going to get over 75% performance for half the price. What a steal.

>>59429901

But between CCXs it's ~400ns iirc

>>59429901
Please cite your sources on intels latency between the cores.

>>59429922
not according to pcper, it's just 140

>>59429774
I was going to post the exact fucking thing

>>59429918
>wew lad. You're going to get over 75% performance for half the price. What a steal.
Where's the 1600 non-x price? Anyone have prices?

>>59429205
It is funny how /g/ ignores the fact that Ryzen just made xeons fucking obsoletes.
https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-linux-benchmarks/

File: 1466565985502.png (169KB, 725x364px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 725x364px

>>59429944

File: medium-164947.png (60KB, 796x130px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 796x130px

>>59429944

>>59429918
You know it's a common marketing tactic, to have an overpriced product near a overpriced product(but not as much) to make it more reasonable looking.

To put it simply your cup of coffe might cost 10 bucks and you think thats too much. But if you put other coffe choices next to it that cost 20 and 15 bucks, suddenly the 10 bucks coffe seems like a better deal.

Please look into marketing 101 mate before you make a goy of yourself.

>>59424916
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HERHZLFnqE

POOTEL IRREPARABLY BTFO

>>59427072
my dad works at Nintendo too, hes going to get you banned from 4chan

>>59429955
>>59429964
Thanks. This bodes well m8s

>>59429965
how can you possibly suggest that either of those AMD CPUs are overpriced

the $499 AMD competes with a $1500 Intel and the $249 AMD competes with the $350+ Intels
the $189 AMD actually even competes with the $350 and below Intels

>>59429825
>If that is the case then the benchmarks are worthless.
no, unlike GN that ran for 30 seconds and called it a day they did a long multiplayer run and calculated averages from that which makes it hundred times more useful than showcase of one single segment

>>59424916
As much as I'd like to get away from the silicon jew...

The current state of Ryzen BIOS/UEFI/Firmware/Driver/OS support is shit.
How long until Ryzen CPUs actually work?

>>59428915
>choosing to get cucked

>>59429947
Naples is a huge shake up. New Opterons are going to be a game changer. Interesting to note is what AMD compared themselves against in their Naples demo.
It looks like the top end SKU might only be $5000~
Compare to intel around $9000 for their roundly inferior 24c/48t 2.4ghz Broadwell Xeon.

>>59429809
>He don't know about the i5s...

>>59429259
Meanwhile intel is the only company with a actual 10 core consumer cpu

so fuck off shill

>>59429986
>how can you possibly suggest that either of those AMD CPUs are overpriced
It seems that years of intel fucking your goy brain have left you susceptible to the jew tricks. Again read my previous post. Jewtel retardely overpriced, amd as well but because of intel it just looks like a good deal.

>>59424932
looks don't matter though it's not like you're going to see them all the time

>>59430015
nobody cares about price in huge datacenters though, but perf/watt is very important
they will save millions just on better efficiency

>>59430047
overpriced compared to what though? For it to be overpriced there has to be a standard at which they are charging too high over.

AMD is releasing chips with more bang for your buck than we've seen in a decade. How are they overpriced? What should they cost? How do you decide how expensive they should be apart from comparing them to the current market of CPUs?

>>59430001
>no, unlike GN that ran for 30 seconds and called it a day they did a long multiplayer run and calculated averages from that which makes it hundred times more useful than showcase of one single segment
Yeah, and it sounds nice on paper. The problem is that you can't get consistency from that, again look up how battlefield handles cpu load in multiplayer, your position on the map relative to other players can change things a lot.

>>59429429
To each his own I guess. So far I been with MSI for years now. I have only had to do a bios update 2 times with no issues.

File: INTEL BTFO.png (245KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x612px

>>59427289

>>59429550
Anything is better than a i3. i3s are slow as fuck

>>59430080
same exact thing Senpai. I don't know why people hate MSI Motherboards. Nothing but smooth sailing for me on my end and the desktop Bios utilities work great

>>59430070
>overpriced compared to what though? For what they cost to make.
Again just because jewtel has been fucking you for years and somebody else comes up with a better price, doesn't mean that price is perfect either. If you would have 3-4 cpu makers competing between each other for years, only then would you see actual good prices.

>>59429825
>>59429858
they chose the same places with the same number of players and payed attention to destruction and smoke.

never underestimate the germans

>>59430118
he's just going to ask for proofs again and continue sperging

>>59430118
>they chose the same places with the same number of players and payed attention to destruction and smoke.
Oh so I assume there is video proof of this or something? Surely it's not just "we did stuff good, trust our word"

>>59430126
>proof is bad
spot the shill

>>59430116
>for what they cost to make
but what about r&d costs?

can you point me to information that historically shows CPU production prices versus retail prices over the last 20 or so years? Because say if Intel and AMD used to make a 100% profit on every CPU sold and now make 500% then you'd have a point.

But even then, with Moores Law reaching its limit more money is being spent on R&D than ever before, so you have to take that price into account

I bet you don't have any of this information though and will just continue to exclaim that CPUs are overpriced and no matter how low AMD sinks prices they will still be overpriced just because you want to complain

>>59429922
NOPE.

Should I invest in a high end motherboard, cheapest 4/8 CPU and wait for Zen+? Will the process mature and get higher clocks with Zen+?

>>59430073
the longer the benchmark better the result

doing under 5 minute runs through empty streets, scripted events is a showcase of that particular part of gameplay

doing long run more than 30-60 minutes is actual performance measurement for actual averages

it's like predicting weather only from temperature forgetting about wind, pressure humidity etc.

>>59430126
kek

>>59424916
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/using_intels_sg.html

ayyyntel

>>59430169
>Should I invest in a high end motherboard, cheapest 4/8 CPU and wait for Zen+?
you could if you have little to no use for 8c/16t or can't afford the 1700.

>Will the process mature and get higher clocks with Zen+?
probably.

>>59430169
clocks might not be, but chief engineer made some reckless claims about 15% increase in IPC

New builder here looking for a cheap middle of the pack cpu

What would be the Ryzen competitor to the i5-7700?

>>59430188
>backdoor backdoored itself

what's worse it's in the silicon, you can't patch it, right?

File: atthisratethegoywillbeterminal.jpg (44KB, 446x422px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 446x422px

>>59430152
>I bet you don't have any of this information though and will just continue to exclaim that CPUs are overpriced and no matter how low AMD sinks prices they will still be overpriced just because you want to complain
>a customer arguing for higher prices
I am afraid the goy is terminal.

>>59430221
There is no i5 7700.

>>59430221
>i5-7700

ehm, make up your mind which one

>>59424916
Intel will always be in business with special interest groups/specific manufactured sales.
They do a lot more then just design and produce chips.

>>59430173
>the longer the benchmark better the result
Correct, but if you can't recreate the exact same scenario, then you can't really use it to compare things unless this is over a VERY long period and averages where any kind of spikes and differences get washed out by the sheer averages.

>>59430233
>>59430244
ah fuck i5-7600

>>59430227
they can patch the microcode, but then they would find a way around again and again and again. The only way is they release the source code and let the user make their own security so each sgx would have its own signature and it would only be possible to attack one at time. Not a whole fucking farm.

>>59430221
if you mean the 7600 then probably the equivalently priced i5. you'd be looking at a tradeoff, slightly worse single-thread perf for much better multi-thread. games would probably run better on the i5 but by then who knows.

the 7700's competitor would be the 1700 or 1700X and the situation is more or less the same here.

>>59430264
These Ryzen 5 1600X and 1500X looks to be aimed at the i5s, at April 11 they will show up for.

>>59430229
I actually provided the very foundation for which to show how and why we should have lower prices

I want lower prices

but I'm not going to smugly and ignorantly call Ryzen overpriced even though it cuts Intel down by a factor of 300% in some cases, all because you have an imaginary number in your head that CPUs should cost and any thing higher than that is overpriced to you

>>59430277
and will be far better

>>59430264
1600x and 1700 better
compare prices i5 7600K+z270 would cost you the same as 1700+B350 of decent quality
depends on your region of course but it's generally same price

>>59430267
But that would defeat the whole purpose of it in the first place. It's there as a backdoor.

>>59430274
Do you think there will be a drop in price or does Intel simply not care?

I'm all for gaming, no rendering, video stuff or anything. Pure gaming and you know some light multitasking, but nothing heavy rendering stuff, will Intel be better for that?

>>59430277
Is there any NDA stuff that will be lifted or will there be some sort of comparison?

>>59430296
If I could save some shekles buying AMD I don't think I would mind

>>59424916
Both AMD and Intel are controlled by the Rothschild masonic Jews and if you buy their products propped up by false rivalry you're part of the problem

>>59430287
Again goy, I told you how the marketing thing works but I guess it's to deeply rooted in you.
After all the 10 dollar coffe is soooo reasonable compared to the 20 dollar coffe, you would be insane to suggest coffe shouldn't cost 10 bucks in the first place.

>>59430315
every single one of your arguments is based on imaginary foundations and comparisons

>>59430274
i5 may have better ST, but they've been stuttering a lot in many recent games and you have to tweak it good to make it work properly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMwIvD4iHhc

>>59430303
>Do you think there will be a drop in price or does Intel simply not care?
nope, oh they do care, they can't lose even 5% of market share it's painful for giants like intel head will roll

they will not lower their prices, it's PR nightmare "been jewing you for decade" kind of thing

>>59428859
>>59428871
>>59429761
Stupid person here, what does that mean? How differently do these CPUs work compared to Intel's CPUs?

>>59424932
Why do you even care, you're not gonna look at it. Unless you have a windowed case in which case you're legally not allowed to call BS on gaymer shit

>>59430325
I am sure the intelfags say the same thing when they buy their products.

>>59426568
>Conguroglation

>>59430358
at 250 price point it doesn't mean anything, it means something at 300+ if you want 144 fps or more
those 6c/4c will be able to run games 120fps + without stutter

>>59430358
It means perf will be impacted by the weak CCX link, while if it had been a 1 CCX design for the quads perf would have increased because no bottleneck like on the ryzen 7 CPUs.

>>59430058
LOL when you fucking invest huge amounts of money ofc you will care every single bit even 1 watt lower means thousands of dollars in savings

>>59430341
The desktop and laptop market is already shrinking. There's been claims the shrinkadge will stop soon, but there's no evidence that will actually happen.

What's more, ChromeOS devices come in ARM and x86 flavors. They can't afford to lose any more marketshare.

Hence the desperation moves like unlocked i3, HT i5, XTREME i7, etc. which only shows how artificial their entire lineup was in terms of price/performance.

>>59430380
I'd just like to understand why people are sad and why this news is labeled as a bad one (read the French article but still don't really get it).

>>59430391
I see so basically since cores are spread among two CPU-complexes they aren't as effective if all cored had been in the same CCX?
If so, why did AMD do so?

break it to me, are any of the r5's going to be upgrades over my non k 3570?

>>59424916
Are the "(insert company name in caps) IS BANKRUPT" threads ever going to stop?
This meme has gone on way too long.
Come up with something original you fucks.

>>59430417
>I'd just like to understand why people are sad
because 0.1 ms rendering time for a frame is VERY important to those people, not that they can tell a difference between 120fps and 130fps but sure as hell they can see longer line in graphs

>>59430445
It's actually amazing how you keep avoiding very simple questions simply for the sake of pushing your anti-Intel narrative. I hope you're at least getting paid.

>>59426259
Just use the gpu encoder like a real man instead of being a cuck faggot

>>59429825
computerbase is around from 98 and not a single person can actually say that they shilled even once..
unlike gn with their ridiculous 2 videos claiming amd told them to bench only on above 1080p and then on the second video claiming that amd told them TO ALSO bench on above 1080p...

they got caught lying hands down and since then they are trying to save their sorry faces on the net..

>>59430254
it doesnt really matter since the single player benches are canned you cant get a true perfomance measurement from them..

same goes with every gpu bench from 2012 and after.. ever since nvidia introduce the gpu boost the benchmarks never pass the 2m mark because the card will throttle down due to temp and will show worst results..

File: 1483012360211.png (216KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1190x906px

>>59426916

When's the i3 equivalent?

>>59430465
I do not consider 10% to be outside margin of error due to different settings, RAM,motherboard or GPU setup/bining, that's all.

>>59430417
It's a scalable architecture that also works for their many cores server cpus. A one-size-fits-all architecture because unlike Intel they don't have money to develop two or three different architectures.

>>59430504
unless proven oetherwise
people testimonies(even wendel commented on it of all people)> frametime graphs shorter than 30secs

you can scientifically prove it, very simple, make 1 hours long frametiem graph three times for each CPU and analyze it

>>59426500
>>59429639


Holy chit, this is a new low. Saving intel fan fiction for shilling purposes. No wonder they hate AMD. Shilling is not a multi tasking job.

>>59430523
Yeah so it's to keep production costs lower because their CCX made of 4 cores all go into making R7, right?

Thanks.

You guys think benchmarkers will actually compare the 1600x to the i5 7600k this time around ? Or will they make up another excuse about how I just don't understand this CPU ?

>>59426846
>>59426859
post updated benchmarks, kike

>>59430523
who said that intel has 2 dif uarch?
even now 70% of the "new" cpus intel has is just a refined p3 all of what made p3 great is still on them nothing has changed

they did try to amd once with p4 and with even my grandiose statements.. netburst is desinged for cpu that will reach 10ghz bla bla..

then they introduced the x99 platform that even today 3 years after its released they still havent fixed all of the problems it has

>>59430499
>computerbase is around from 98 and not a single person can actually say that they shilled even once..
That's a very nice claim, really makes them seem like the good guys.
Now I assume I don't just have to take your word for it and believe you?

>>59430445
>this damage control

Performance is worse than the competition so why should I buy the worse product when all I do is game, literally.

The argument is simple.

Running lots of older software? Especially games? Get a Intel.

Running only newer software? Prefer to play the latest games? Want to do more with your CPU?

Get a Ryzen.

>>59430592
who cares really their benchmarks are there and they speak for themselfs..

File: _20170316_074814.jpg (67KB, 1410x438px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1410x438px

>>59424916
Right where they will stay.

File: 1431945716820.jpg (170KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x960px

>tfw 6600k
feels bad mang

>>59430600
Newer games still run worse on ryzen e.g. bf1 which is very well codes for multiple threads but it still runs worse on ryzen

>>59430600
what if im building an 800 dollar shitposting machine

File: fbfbfhbfhfbhwhhhhhhhhhwat.gif (3MB, 390x293px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 390x293px

>>59430616
>the benchmarks are legit
>why
>because they are honest good guys with no flaws that anybody has ever mentioned
>where is the proof to that
>their benchmarks are proof
WEW

>>59430600
Wouldn't ryzen be more than enough for those older software and games anyway? I mean it's a 2017 hardware.

>>59430647
Coded *

>>59430582
You're just a refined fish. So is your dog.

>>59430656
>B-but muh 400 fps CS:GO!

And I was hoping. Wow, I feel bad for being such a fool. It's bulldozer all over again.

>>59430676
away with your shillness pathetic cave intel orc

File: Lamo.png (4MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x1440px

Lamo

>>59429743
me too. shit.

>>59430769
>still pictures

File: 614acf17877b72f2c4795136812e81e2.jpg (74KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x450px

AMDtards are really braindead. They assume the much cheaper 1600X will somehow do better in gaming benchmarks than the 1800X.

The 1600X will be another typical overclocker's dreams by AMD, meaning it won't go over 4Ghz on all cores without exploding in powerconsumption.

Also the core configuration is 3+3, very weak compared to 4+2.

And the Ryzen 3 CPUs are total bullocks with 2+2 configuration.

You are big time retards to think anything good will come out from it.

>>59424916
>$250 for a processor

nigger i pay $350 for my fucking computer, why would anyone be retarded enough to buy a ryzen for that much? The only reason AMD was worth buying is because it's cheaper, but they've even ruined that. Fucking dumbasses.

In Germany it will be sold for 300€.

Never am I going for the 1600X instead of the i7-7700.

>>59430862
Non-K? why?

>>59430769
>core 1 23%
>core 2 81%
oh, look: buggy scheduler.

>>59430847
>nigger i pay $350 for my fucking computer
core 2 / gtx 8800? lol

>>59430904
What will your excuse be after the patches which allegedly fix this?
>not understanding how things are coded

>>59430884
Because I am not gonna overclock, actually I am going to undervolt to achieve more effiency.

The base and turboclocks are enough for me, no need to fiddle around.
Also I don't feel like buying a 40€ cooler extra.

I also have already bought ram before, which will not run at full speed with the AM4 system and most probably will cause problems, which I want to avoid.

Not gonna spend too much money on this socket and CPU, because I know it's gonna die very soon.

Neither am I willing to aquire 1st Zen generation CPUs though with all its starting problems.

>>59430769
what program is that?

>>59430906
no, core i5 with 8gb ram

File: backintheoven.png (36KB, 630x451px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 630x451px

>>59430904
oh, look: easily fixed by deactivating two windows 10 "features".

>>59430946
gpu?

>>59430921
see
>>59430947
and prepare your anus.

>>59430972
>one single example
>dubious methodology
>the difference is still only 5 fps

>>59430934
I'm asking you because I'm exactly in the same situation as you and have also debated quite a bit on whether 7700K or 7700 would be worth it for me and what I plan on doing.

After looking at many benchmarks I realized the 7700 was just very similar to an i7 from 2013 for the most part, while the 7700K's base clock was the best around. Prices aren't so different.

Other and probably the most important point : the 7700 apparently heats as much as the K version in real situation despite some early reviews I read, which means Intel's stock cooler might not be sufficient if you plan on keeping your CPU cool enough. I'd feel terrible having to buy a custom cooler for a 7700 as I'd just feel like I could've went down the 7700K route. Also, Z270 mobos aren't that more expensive compared to B250. RAM prices are all around the same here (France) too (whether it's 2400 or 3200). I know all around costs add up but it's still a computer I (and we) might keep for the next 3-5 years after all.

Thoughts?

>>59430965
integrated since all i play is counterstrike source in terms of games kek

>>59431031
so you're just yet another person who is okay with a cheap low-midrange office computer and nothing more, why would you comment on these cpus? you're clearly not in their target demographic

>>59430934
you realize 7700 not K is worse than even 1700?
and sure as hell weaker than 1600x at 4 Ghz
also it comes with said 40 cooler for not extra

all 7700K got for it is high stock clocks, remove that and it's worthless

>>59431062
>cheap
>lowgrade

it's an i5 and 8 gigs ram, that's not low grade kek. integrated graphics are fine nowadays.

>>59431087
>i5
>8Gb
>not low grade

wew

>>59430651

Depends.Do you want to shitpost at 60fps or 100fps?

>>59431087
which i5, that could be literally anything
there are like 50 different i5's at this point, from 2010 until today

>>59431087
>>59431122
also 8gb is bare minimum nowadays, did you wander in here from /b/ or somethin m8

>>59430838
>calls others brain-dead
>doesn't realize that Intel's 7700k is their best offering for gaming, whereas their $1000 CPUs don't perform that well for gaming

>>59428940
They are all supposedly 8c/16t variants and those who fail all test for 8 cores, get tested for lower core counts (aka 6c/12t etc) and each time they disable part of the CCX

>>59429470
Zen and particularly Naples might have actually saved x86 in the long term, this year.

>>59431018
Neither, just get ryzen 5

>>59431243
Fuck off.

>>59431258
>FUCK YOU PAJEET I WANT TO KEK MYSELF
>I NEED TO DONATE MY SHECKLES TO INTEL EVEN THOUGH AMD IS THE SAME THING

>>59431361
>AMD IS THE SAME THING
Wew you nearly got me there.

>>59431370
Unless you are trolling it is

>>59431168
Nobody cares about the Intel 1000$.

The i7 7700k is where the topic at.

>>59431069
Bullshit you fucking retard.

I wonder how retarded AMD shills are to even defy all the reviews out there.

>>59431243
no

3+3 config = no

>>59431396
Your entire post is nothing but shilling for intel

RMA yourself shill

>>59431396
>3+3 config = no
Why? Feelings should not matter, just judge it based on its performance.

>>59431396
>Bullshit you fucking retard.
>I wonder how retarded AMD shills are to even defy all the reviews out there.
Show me a review with the 7700 non-K beating Ryzen 7 then.

>>59431396
(((reviews)))
good goyim

>>59431428
It should win in le Single Thread, although not by that much. And it can't be OCed, so I would say the case for it is much weaker when put against Ryzen 7 1700.

>>59431396
Don't change the goalposts m8. You said more expensive has to translate to better single core performance when it never has. Hell, an i3 7100 is about 8% worse in single core performance while being 65% cheaper.

>>59431415
Go kys

>>59431427
>>59431428
>just judge it based on its performance

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/3/#abschnitt_spiele_full_hdhd

The 1700 is 13% slower than the 7700

>ITT people that are so glad Intel is still cucking them with quadcores in mainstream in fucking 2017 that they are vigorously defending it

IMHO, either get Ryzen hexa/octo today, or wait for hexa Coffee Lake. 4C8T is passée, it's dumb to buy a new chip like that now.

File: 1733285391741.png (51KB, 1026x740px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1026x740px

4200 if you're lucky

>>59431488
>The 1700 is 13% slower than the 7700
Well, if you only care about games, then yeah, Kabies for you. Well at least now when it's all about singlethread. I would still not go there because future tho >>59431510

File: Untitled.png (42KB, 660x779px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 660x779px

>>59431488
>review from just after the launch

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryzen-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/
Review made like a week later where the reviewers turned off the core parking shit which gimps the R7's performance

>>59431510
>>59431523
In all honesty I also have a feeling Coffee Lake will be where it's at and I'm tempted just buying a Pentium for now and upgrading for Coffee at the end of the year. I NEED to upgrade right now because my Athlon X2 is cumbling down and I can't do shit at the moment.

It's not that I do not wish to support AMD, but I have a feeling like we'll have to wait Ryzen 2 to get really something solid, I do not really want to play beta tester as much as I'd like to because I'm poor.

Do we have an idea if Coffee Lake is gonna be compatible on current Z270 boards?

>>59431551
>1800X

Fuck off, I don't see the 1700 here.

>ib4 just overclock herpderp

>>59431005
>i pretend this is no bait

>>59431488
>The 1700 is 13% slower than the 7700
*in highly specific tasks while ryzen having a bugged bios, scheduler issues, and ram issues

>>59431567
its all the same shit in gaymen

>>59429277
AMD really got brutal power saving IP, their 28nm APU's competed against Intel's 14 nm parts

>>59430325
Chips cost sub $50 to make, but that would never justify the R&D costs, just let him live in his fantasy world with $55 6900k's

File: pureholocaust.png (96KB, 630x758px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 630x758px

>>59431005
what's your new shitty non-argument, shlomo?

>>59431650
>*in highly specific tasks while ryzen having a bugged bios, scheduler issues, and ram issues


And how the fuck are those even arguments for the Ryzen 1st gen CPU?

It's like I am going to a car dealer and the dealer tells me that the car is great, but it just has dozens of problems, and demands the full price for it.

>scheduler issue

AMD FUCKING SAID THERE ARE NO ISSUES

HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU BRAINDEAD PEOPLE STILL CLAIM THERE IS ONE?

MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO AND APPLY FOR AN ENGINEERING POSITION AT AMD
THEY WILL LICK YOUR FEET