Ryzen is Truly Horrible

File: games.png (22KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x290px

Games performance is even worse fo rRyzen of course

File: 1440p.png (22KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x290px

1440p

>buy $500 Ryzen chip

>get worse performance than a $340 Intel chip

Really makes you think

What's with the clock speeds?

>>59448285
Overclocked

File: Capture.png (24KB, 426x477px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 426x477px

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/4.html

>Ryzen system has slower memory
how convenient

>>59448596
that's all it supports.

>>59448604
So then run the i7 with the same memory.

>>59448612
Umm the point is that you run Ryzen with the best memory and you run Intel with the best too

Not his problem that Ryzen has garbage memory support

>>59448612
>So then run the i7 with the same memory.

>some intel chips OC to 5 GHz
>j-just underclock the Intel

>>59448604
You wish, kike.

https://www.techpowerup.com/231204/g-skill-announces-flare-x-series-and-fortis-series-ddr4-memory-for-amd-ryzen

>>59448637
Introducing other variables into a test doesn't give you reliable results.

File: 1489329459496.png (1MB, 1228x1502px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1228x1502px

>>59448612
>Don't run the competition with faster memory kits that it supports because it makes my shitty hardware look bad!

It's not Intel's fault that AMD can't support anything above 2666Mhz.

Even with OCing ram dimms to sometimes stable 2900Mhz they could simply use 3200Mhz dimms for Intel.

If R7 can't compete with $300 Intel's CPU then the rest of Ryzen's line up is literally DOA.

>>59448659
You are testing the intel platform vs. amd's

AMD's just happens to have shitty memory support

>>59448656
>have to buy special edition ricer RAM at 2x markup
top kek thsi just gets better and better
Intel master race

File: ryzen3200.jpg (79KB, 618x613px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 618x613px

>>59448666
>>59448673
The fact that you subhuman kikes have to lie in every post just proves how lowly you are

>>59448706
Try again, heeb.

>>59448706
>muh special memory is okay when intel does it >>59448637
>>59448651

>>59448209
>tfw R7 1700 is as cheap as a 7700K
>tfw can be overclocked to 1800X levels easily
>tfw only lose 2% overall performance for much better streaming performance
Gonna be good when I pick one up at microcenter.

>>59448720
>can buy whatever off-the-shelf RAM you want for Intel
>have to buy 1337xXxgamerBlackWidowEditionxXxXxSephiroth RAM for Ryzen

jesus christ kek
>$500 CPU
>$400 RAM
>still shittier than an OC'd 7700K
LOL

File: 1458586535279.jpg (11KB, 200x277px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x277px

Damn, Poozen really is trash. I didn't expect much from Indians, though.

File: 1458340011882.gif (3MB, 250x185px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x185px

>>59448596
>can't run faster memory
>i-i-it has slower RAM, n-not fair

>>59448734
You could probably use the 3000MHz memory that's in the Intel system but some mobos may need a BIOS update because these boards have only been out for fucking like 2 weeks

>>59448734
>1337xXxgamerBlackWidowEditionxXxXxSephiroth RAM

Hahaha.

File: 1476927428500.jpg (12KB, 217x280px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 217x280px

>mfw my 3600MHz RAM works perfectly with my 5GHz 7700k
When will you poo niggers learn?

>>59448604
It supports 3200. I'm running it on my B350 board with no issues. Also 4.0Ghz on a 1700 that I got for $310.

File: 1476833512736.gif (2MB, 237x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 237x240px

>>59448770
>for fucking like 2 weeks
ikr? ugh

File: 1477172547163.jpg (120KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1280x800px

>>59448209
>>59448242
>>59448254
>mfw AMD fanboys will defend this

>>59448815
>It supports 3200. I'm running it on my B350 board with no issues. Also 4.0Ghz on a 1700 that I got for $310.
post soem benches then brah instead of shitposting

File: 1484142925454.jpg (540KB, 1100x1002px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1100x1002px

>>59448815
>I'm running it on my B350 board
Yeah, at 2133MHz. Enable XMP and watch your little poorfag poo hardware blow up.

File: 1489666918580.jpg (23KB, 381x510px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 381x510px

>>59448770
>meanwhile Intel supported it from the start

>>59448829
>>59448770
>mobo manufacturers had about a year to design/produce/prepare
>somehow they still need an extra 2 weeks to support common RAM speeds
AMD: Just Wait™

>>59448855
Intel's chipsets have been around for a while.

>>59448815
What timings do you have? As soon as I go above 2133mhz I get a boot loop.

File: cinebench.png (33KB, 304x644px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 304x644px

>>59448841
All I have is a Cinebench score right now but here. I'm testing another build on this board with 3000Mhz mem because of the mobo shortage.

>>59448872
doesn't since they supported faster memory from the start

just shows how awful amd is at support

>>59448829
>>59448855
>>59448868
>mobo manufs shit the bed because they expect AMD to fuck up these chips and sell basically nothing
>somehow AMD's fault when mobo manufs don't do their fucking work and have shit support

File: ramz.png (103KB, 900x417px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 900x417px

>>59448849
It runs XMP fine. You think I'm stupid? Here's the build I'm on right now with EVGA ram. The other build is with TridentZ.

>>59448706
>have to buy special edition ricer RAM at 2x markup
where the FUCK were you when ddr4 was introduced

>>59448931
>use bad memory controller which is integrated into the CPU
>blame mobos when CPU launches
heh

>>59448734
>can buy whatever off-the-shelf RAM you want for Intel
PAAAAHHHHHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>59448944
That's 2900MHz, not 3200, you poor subhuman.

>>59448883
The Trident build is 14 / 34. I posted the timings for the EVGA running at 3000Mhz

>>59448966
7700K's IMC only supports 2400Mhz memory while Ryzen supports 2666Mhz.

But of course, we'd never talk about Intel's poor memory support because the mobo manufs have already fixed it on their end.

Kek. :^)

>>59448966
Motherboards have a large impact on what kind of RAM speeds you can run, even on the Intel side. My Skymeme setup wouldn't run my 3200MHz sticks via XMP at launch paired with a Maximus VIII Hero thanks to Asus' shitty firmware. A few months later they released a newer one that fixed the issue. The same thing happened with X99 boards, and will almost certainly happen with Ryzen.

>Just 15 posters

>>59448999
>7700K's IMC only supports 2400Mhz memory
that's very interesting, how do you explain the Techpowerup bench using 3000 then?

File: 1489181298700.png (141KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1070x601px

>>59448999
TRIPS OF FUCKIN TRUTH

File: 12342346176.jpg (37KB, 481x499px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 481x499px

>>59448944
That's not 3200MHz.
>raisinfag spent half of his budget on 3200MHz memory
>can only run it at 2900MHz

>>59449019
Can you even read?

>>59449009
>15 people having a conversation
>thread has 48 posts
>for some reason this is a problem

>>59449040
Because every post on this thread has a reply...

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 1.57.02 PM.png (28KB, 434x191px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 434x191px

>>59449034
Yeah but I guess you can't
>inb4 more excuses

>>59449070
see
>>59448999
>because the mobo manufs have already fixed it on their end.

See also:
https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/
>Memory Types DDR4-2133/2400, DDR3L-1333/1600 @ 1.35V

If you're having trouble reading, I could purchase for you a Speak and Spell.

>>59448988
>>59449032
Having trouble reading? Also I don't think 3000Mhz is ever the true speed. They just round it up. It runs the same on my Z97 that I pulled it from.

There's plenty at 3200Mhz if you just look though. I'm not going to bother sticking in the other sticks when I'm still running my stress tests. Maybe when this RealBench session is done.

http://valid.x86.fr/0z6r5s

File: 1485013474002.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

Just fucking wait you guys! It'll get better with time!! It's a new chip!
>just wait
>muh cores x time
>muh value

File: power_gaming.png (12KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x250px

It's a bloody good CPU, considering it's within spitting distance of the 7700K in single threaded applications. It demolishes the 7700K in multi-threaded applications.

Look at that efficiency.

>>59448637
you're an incompetent and so are they

also the aggregate graph in OP makes no fucking sense

>>59449094
>If you're having trouble reading, I could purchase for you a Speak and Spell.

>i-if i quote some text on a page that somehow changes the reality that Intel clearly supports this speed and Ryzen does not
>b-b-b-but they fixed it
k
so why's Ryzen DOA at launch?
kek
why didn't AMD motherboard manufacturers fix it?
ALL of them?
top kek

>>59449119
It will only improve in time as well. Memory clock speeds have almost as much of a role in its raw performance as the CPU clock speeds and memory speeds are only going to improve.

>>59449119
Except it doesn't "demolition" there is only a handful of software where it gets a 10%+ gain, most of the time its neck and neck or even a win for 7700.

Wait for Raisin 2, do not encourage this mess.

>>59449166
>so why's Ryzen DOA at launch?
>kek
Yeah, only 1 million CPUs shipped and out of stock until relatively recently.

>why didn't AMD motherboard manufacturers fix it?
>ALL of them?
>top kek
Because, as previously stated, they didn't expect this launch to be pretty fucking phenomenal for AMD. Boards have been out of stock for weeks due to undersupply and they've been buggy because they didn't give enough of a shit to actually test them since they expected to not sell that many.

>62 posts, 21 IPs
I hope you're being paid, anon

>>59449250
>says poojeet

>>59448209
>if you turn it into a 4.8Ghz housefire

>stock it's faster

File: my comment.jpg (33KB, 1116x107px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1116x107px

>>59449119
>It's a bloody good CPU
No

>considering it's within spitting distance of the 7700K in single threaded applications
No, and it costs 200$ more than 7700k

>It demolishes the 7700K in multi-threaded applications.
Yeah in certain applications that happens, but there isn't many of those.

>>59448209
>No 6900 in test
Ok / yes

How much does intel pay to you
I want to do this too

>>59448637
>>59448604
https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz

DDR4-2133/2400, DDR3L-1333/1600 @ 1.35V


you cannot run memory on the 7700K higher than 2400. That is ALL IT SUPPORTS. read the fucking jewtel ark faggot

yes it's true motherboards are garbage right now for AM4 until all bios shit is fixed, but you can still run up to around 2933

File: ram.png (21KB, 431x419px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 431x419px

>>59449032
>>59448988
Didn't even need to stick the Trident in. These EVGAs will clock to 3200Mhz. Not bad for $95. Half what I paid for the Trident C14s. Wasn't even worth it.

>>59449396
That means you can run 4800Mhz, remember double data rate and all.

>>59449414
"DDR4 at 2400"

it doesn't say DR4 at 2400

you autist

File: 1469456867343.jpg (44KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x480px

TLDRT

intel is for /v/ scum
amd is for liars and cucks

>>59449426
GO VIA GO!

>>59448209
1. I wouldn't assume any given oc. I still have my 3570k at 4.2ghz when everything I read said I'd easily get a full ghz oc out of it, it always crashes at 4.3+ with 212evo cooler
2. ryzen 8c parts seem to hit a little more consistently around 4ghz but almost none are seeing crazy oc's without extreme cooling, this is due to the voltage based binning
3. ryzen scales a little better than intel with faster memory due to the way infinity fabric works and so we've yet to see the ideal config
4. benchmarks never reflect the fact ryzen's additional cores are more useful in real workload scenarios where you might have a user having multiple programs open. this is hard to compare but always favors multiple cores. a 4c part will always hit a wall before an 8c part. if you're buying a cpu for workstation use you'd always be hindered by 4c here

and then there's the fact almost every review site shows ryzen winning here so you can take these one benchmarks as gospel or follow what basic logic dictates.

>>59449450
I had mine at 4.4ghz for a long time I set it to 4.1ghz a few months ago cuz my old mobo died and I want to be nice now

>>59448734
Why the hell ryzen need special memory? It's like an autismo platform that requires a different kind of memory? I thought memory was based on an independent jedec standard why can't amd work with normal memory?

>>59449514
It doesn't need special memory it works with standard DDR4, Ryzen likes high speed RAM, overclocking the RAM improves its performance almost as much as overclocking the CPU itself.

>>59448815
The fact we already know is that Zen memory controller is a piece of shit. Overclock the CPU can improve memory compatibility but that is all, no high frequency, no quad channel, just a cheap crap imc

>>59449545
By high frequency you mean over 3200Mhz? I had no issues with either memory running at stock either. I think it's more that people are using shitty Asus and MSI boards and they aren't getting their shit together. This cheap ass Gigabyte has been giving me no issues and haven't seen any reports of any either.

They're supposed to enable 3200+ with a microcode update in May but the 16gig sticks that I want don't come over 3200Mhz anyway so I don't really care honestly.

>>59448209
>2500k Stock.. idiots

>>59449582
even if you have a golden sample 5ghz 2500k you'd still be losing to a stock ryzen here as you'd need closer to 6ghz to match

File: bankrupt_within_the_decade.jpg (163KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1920x1080px

>make shit CPU
>blame OS
>get called out on it
>backpedal hard

Spoiler alert: AMD won't last for long.

File: 1449999756930.jpg (49KB, 423x389px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 423x389px

Remember to hide and sage shill threads!

>>59449662
Who will you shill for when intel is forced to split up?

>>59448596
Because the mobos don't support better now.
It may improve, with time.
Maybe.

>>59449710
Int

>>59449737
They could just use one of the slower modules for both systems. Using fast modules in one and somewhat slower modules in another gives one system an unfair advantage and skews the results.

I bought 5 shares of amd stock. Ryzen has ruined me.

>>59449737
There are am4 mobos that support 3200. Even that one does.

>>59449651
a 6 yr old chip losing to the newest of the new fan bois wetting themselves over.. expect anything else?

>>59449772
>short term buyer bought before product launch
get of the ride while you have a penny noob

>>59449747

El > Int

Int shills pls go.

>>59449710
Intel won't be forced to split up because AMD won't go away completely, either Qualcomm or Samsung or some other will buy out their remains and keep competing with Intel.

>>59448209
>Literally no reason to buy Ryzen anymore
no reason to buy Intel's many-core CPUs as well, right?

>r5s will be 6/12 and 4/8 going up against 4/4
AMD still has a chance to be competitive.

>>59448604
Only on anus boards memory is broken you giant ass

File: image.jpg (55KB, 768x509px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 768x509px

>>59448604
then why is the shilltel running unsupported memory?
https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz

CONVENIENT

>>59449698
I doubt Intel will be forced to split up, there are OS's made for ARM processors, that is its competition at the moment.

>Intel fags keep comparing Ryzen to 7700K
>Not the overpriced 6900K it was intended to beat and does
Fuck off back to /v/ you gaming shits

>>59449978
I could see the 6/12 as a value proposition against intel's 6c part but the rest? uh...

1400 has shit clock speed and half the l3 cache. what does it compete against and who buys it? i'd honestly take a kaby lake pentium at $65 over it

why do I buy a 1500x over a 7400 ever? or for that matter a 7500 can be had for $10 more. the 4c ryzen's aren't going to score those big multicore wins anymore. at best case they'll have some small wins and some comical losses.

my prediction is there will be a solid performing dirt cheap r3 that gives pentium some competition, the 6c ryzen part doesn't appear to have any price competition and the 1700 is the cream of the crop.

the 4c r5's don't make any sense to me. intel's offerings are same price and better or cheaper and better.

>>59448666
Not the guy you replied to but 2900 and 3200 MHz are considered overclock on intel too.
i7-7700k officially [1] support only: DDR4-2133/2400, DDR3L-1333/1600 @ 1.35V

[1] https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz?q=7700k

>>59448815
What board you using my man?

>>59450088
>AMD fags keep comparing 1800x to 6900K
>Not the overpriced 1800x vs 7700k as is is relevant to the consumer

>>59450088
>shit boss what do we do, our marketing backfired
>we advertised it as a great cost to performance CPU
>but the goys found an intel CPU that is even better at price performance

>>59450459
>enthusiast and workstation cpus
>relevant to the average consumer
Might want to wait for the r5s before making AMDs tombstone. There actually is a fair amount of software made to use 8 threads instead of the 16 of the 7s

>>59450546
I am in no hurry to buy any option until I see cold hard facts and benchmarks form multiple sites that gives a good idea on what I am getting for my money.

>>59448769
who is this semen demon

>>59448209
>trusting pajeetpowerup
reviews need to be fair, nigga

>>59450567
I wouldn't recommend anyone buy something without looking at benchmarks. Just saying the r5s 12 and 8 threads might put it over the i5s 4 threads.

>>59450088
>the overpriced 6900K it was intended to beat

So what AMD wanted all along was to beat Intel's stupidest, most blatantly overpriced, worst selling consumer CPU?
That's brilliant.

>>59450629
it actually is. way better if they release a $500 chip that wrecks the $1000+ Intel counterpart. AMD is playing on X99's weaknesses because they can't go after Intel's mainstream stuff with what they currently have.

and with the way Intel segments the market, they just can't price cut the X99 chips without bringing all the other segments down as well. meme all you want, AMD's management knows what they're doing it.

the only answer for Intel right now is to either sell their HEDT chips around the ~$500 mark or stop selling them. nobody's going to buy Broadwell-E over Ryzen unless they have some specific niche requirements.

>>59450398
Gigabyte Gaming 3

Man, the Intel FUD is flying fast and loose.

Almost like they really have something to be afraid of.

>>59448209
so how many of the productivity shit is multi threaded, multi threaded to 8 cores, and then when it is, put in a single ccx?

so the 7700k at 4.8 is only 5% better then a stock 1800x, which every single 1700 can overclock to...

hate to say it here, but the 1700 is the best cpu you can get right now, performance when you can use it and even during the teething period when something only uses one thread it still preforms good enough to not cause issue.

>>59451060
Intel didn't even lower their prices a cent

They are laughing their asses off at AMD right now

>>59450024
damn, op got btfo

>>59451162
Their desktop department maybe, but their server department is shitting their pants because they wont have anything to answer Naples with for the better part of a year, and they're having even more issues getting 7nm working.

>>59451162
Yes, laughing their asses and cancelling server platform die shrink due to low yields while ordering brand new arch. Kekked.

>>59451215
>7nm
Anon, 10nm. Intel's 7nm is years away.

>>59448209
Go away shill

>>59449228
>stock is actually down 10% since release
>they didn't expect this launch to be pretty fucking phenomenal for AMD
come the fuck on

>>59451336
>stock tanks right after release
Fire fucking burns i guess.

File: F8PAY.gif (997KB, 261x391px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 261x391px

>>59448896
>>59448944

Hey anon, can you post your Ram model and you have the 1700X? I'm going to being this build soon. Also did you OC? or just going stock, I usually go stock.

>>59448734
Wow you're really fucking stupid.

>>59451240
Fine, my point is that Intel's next node is not ready, and without the next node they have nothing new to offer data centers that competes with Naples for the next year or so.

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

150KB, 954x1256px

>>59448209
>no 6900k on that list
dropped

>>59449269
>b-but multi thread isn't important waaah
You wouldn't buy a 6900k competitor for single threaded loads.

It's really fucking weird how the arguments change in two years. Kinda like in politics.

Dear pajeets, I currently have an Intel processor but you guys make me sick. Please report this to your supervisor.

>>59450475
>found
It was marketed as a 6900k competitor from the beginning and it beats that in price/performance.

>>59451634
>Your product is bad
your response is
>well there is a worse product then ours so buy ryzen


>>59451667
Sure, But notice I didnt say you should buy 6900k or 1800x. I said 7700k is the best price performance right now(unless you only use specific programs like H.265, h264, Wprime, blender, cinebench, veracrypt,7zip, where the 1800 actually beats the 7700k)

>>59451634
>You wouldn't buy a 6900k competitor for single threaded loads.

But this is precisely what all the preorder /g/aymen babies did, after they whipped each other up into a frenzy in the Ryzen circlejerk threads.
The most efficient use the threads of their R7 will ever see will be the extraction of [SKIDROW]CoD_MW7_repack.rar and maybe re-encoding chink cartoons for their TV.

>>59448209
You do realize it's within a 5% margin of error you stupid fucking retard. This is an amazing result you dumb shit. 4ghz vs 4.8ghz, 4 core v 8 fucking cores. Either you're trolling extremely poorly or being ironic. It's not helping either way literally kill yourself

>>59451717
>well there is a worse product then ours so buy ryzen
It is beating/matching it's $1089 competitor that costs twice as much. I like how everyone """suddenly""" started to think that >4 core CPUs are unnecessary and multi threaded loads do not exist. What you are doing is like saying that a powerful truck is bad because it's slower than a sports car.

> I said 7700k is the best price performance right now(unless you only use specific programs like H.265, h264, Wprime, blender, cinebench, veracrypt,7zip, where the 1800 actually beats the 7700k)

We've had >4 core consumer CPUs since 2013 and I think 4 years is enough to understand that you're better off buying a quad core if you don't need the extra cores and it's not like anyone was expecting these octa cores to beat quads in single core tests. It's not like they demoed the 1800x against the 6700k/7700k.

>>59451828
>it's
Its

>>59449007
Me too. Shit asus firmware lead to sudden reboots very frequently. Tried everything hardware-wise and it didn't work. Just recently updated to the most recent firmware and not a hint of instability. Shocking incompetence. At least they still have the durability meme going for them because stability sure didn't stick.

>>59451828
>>4 core consumer CPUs since 2013
been a lot longer than that nyou fucking newfag

>>59451954
Forgot the existence of the 980x and the others for some reason kek

>>59452042
Been alot longer than that you fucking idiot. Core 2 quad and first gen Phenom ring any bells?

Shit we've had quad-thread processors since the inferno that was the Pentium D Extreme Edition.

>>59451250
t. AMD shill

>>59452098
>Core 2 quad and first gen Phenom
>980x AND others
>pointing out quad and dual cores while the topic is more than 4 cores hence the >4
Can you read?

File: cores.jpg (97KB, 558x695px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 558x695px

>>59452161

>>59448596
Nice dual channel

>>59452523
And how is that related to my previous post? Ignoring that,
>multi core uses don't exist

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

316KB, 882x758px

>>59448209
Life long AMD fan here.

Put me on SUICIDE WATCH because I just got BTFO!

>Ryzen: Same inferior products. New high price!

Who is AMD's garbage even aimed at anymore?

>>59452602
>Who is AMD's garbage even aimed at anymore?
People who get hyped and shilled easily into buying before checking for actual performance.
You sell the the dream of hope and tomorrow and they will give you all the dosh.

Should be entertaining when the r5s come out and shit on the i5 threadlets.

>>59452602
>Who is AMD's garbage even aimed at anymore?
cucks who would foolishly spend $1000 on a cpu

>>59448666
>>59448604
>>59448769
Intel supports 2400 as the highest. Ryzen supports 2666.

Unofficially, both go higher.

This is an obvious hitjob of a shill "review".

>>59448596
>>59448656
>>59448815
>>59450024
>>59452866
>''Horrible motherboards / BIOS, feels not ready for market''
>''Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited''
>''Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile)''

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/16.html

>>59452866
>What I'd also like to mention is how unfinished the whole motherboard ecosystem feels. AMD sent me a Gigabyte Aorus motherboard with Corsair memory, so I assumed they properly tested that combination for optimum user experience. Not really. Once you setup the system, your memory will run at 2133 MHz, which is extremely low and will severely restrict performance in both applications and games. You want to be running 2666 MHz at least. So, off I went into the BIOS, set 2666 MHz, but nothing happened. The damn motherboard BIOS just didn't apply the memory frequency. At this point, many novices would RMA the memory, motherboard, or CPU, or everything altogether, claiming "it doesn't work." The magic bullet (on my Gigabyte board at least) is that every single memory timing and memory voltage has to be configured to a manual value - not "auto" (this works fine on Intel of course, where you can leave most settings on auto or just select "XMP3000," and boom, you are ready to go). After this change, the Gigabyte Ryzen board would boot at 2666 MHz memory and run fine all day. We got 3000 MHz memory, though, so 2933 MHz was tried, which ended up being unstable no matter what I did. I ended up buying a bunch of memory kits with same-day delivery, and oh wonder, the newly bought Corsair 3000 MHz memory kit works fine (AMD sent me the exact same model, but apparently never tested its 2933 MHz stability). Several 3200 MHz memory kits that work fine on Intel at even higher clocks barely worked at 2666 MHz, and 2933 MHz remained a no-go. Once you've mastered the memory hurdles, you'll find various posts online by users, reviewers, and AMD themselves recommending you turn off HPET and SMT, use the Windows High Performance power profile and more tweaks. I'm not sure if this is a solid buying argument to professional workstation users who just want a system setup quickly and ready to go because every hour they spend tweaking costs them money

>>59452666
Retard

With 3+3 core configuration you will get a faceplant, that's it.

It will be barely faster than the i5-7600K.

Keep on dreaming that it could ever come close to a i7-7700k.

Some people are really dumb.

why is it so hard for these fanboys to accept that the gaming performance is sub par and that is something that matters to a lot of people?

i don't see anyone saying ryzen is bad value or that it doesn't beat the 6900k in many benchmarks on the opposing side.

File: 8oiunsadf4.jpg (21KB, 265x491px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 265x491px

>>59455452
People are acting surprised for whatever reason. Ryzen was supposed to match 1st gen Haswell performance (ie 4770K) and it pretty much does that.

It is simply a catch-to Intel, not surpassing them.

>>59448637
Okay. But now add the price difference between the two memory's and reconsider.

File: 1489745713175.jpg (26KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 800x600px

tfw you've completely stopped caring about AMD or Intel.

I really don't.

This is just painful autism. Both of you. You in the middle as well.

File: 1463434655833.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

>>59448209

DELET DIS

>>59455422
>It will be barely faster than the i5-7600K.
Cool. That's exactly what they are intended to compete with.

>>59455503
mate its not even about that. that all nice and fine but most of the people here aren't even thinking logically like that. they have this thing stuck in their head where, just because ryzen does very well in production scenarios that it must do well in games and i see people everywhere telling other people that they're stupid for buying a 7700k over a 1700 for gaming because "good production performance will mean good gaymen performance j-just w-wait". is it so hard for people to just admit that its not as good for gaming compared to similarly priced competition?

i still remember the "just wait" days of the fx 8350 vs the i7's and i5's back then.

>>59455789
It also doesn't help that the clock speeds are pretty much tapped out at the factory.
AMD has touted "Every SKU is multiplier unlocked!!!!!" yet people are only getting ~100-200mhz boosts with a fuckton more voltage and heat.

>>59455422
Are you so mad you lost your ability to read? Since when is an i7-7700k an i5?

>>59455789
So you're trying to justify your purchase of a delid Lake by shilling for Intel. Got it.

>>59455789
Back in the FX days people assumed developers would acknowledge multi-threading was the future and quickly embrace it. All these years later single threaded game are still not uncommon.

>>59455917
spotted the amd shill

File: pgnt.jpg (8KB, 299x169px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 299x169px

>>59448209
>Yeah the results came back, it's slower.
>You should get out of the cpu business.
>no you're pathetic
>>I think they bought it.

>>59455920
Except games are getting much more multi-threaded right now. A side effect of having multi-core consoles, practically every AAA game released in H2 2016 has multi-threaded support. It's going to get more prevalent as games get more complex and stretch beyond what single cores can do.

>>59455968
its not doing anything for cpu's with higher core counts. multi threaded support means fuck all right now. the latest pentium runs every modern game perfectly fine.

>mfw fell for the FX series meme and i dont know if the upgrade to ryzen will be worth it yet
is there anything comparable to Ryzen 1700 for the same prize ?

>>59455452
why is it so hard for people to accept that "what, 7 less fps? REEEEEEEE!!!!" is not a compelling argument to everyone?

>when /asp/ starts posting on /g/

>>59458037
>is there anything comparable to Ryzen 1700 for the same prize ?
7700 not K, but that would be silly

>>59449250

Question, how did you find that IP count out?

>>59456235

I agree with your premise, however there are some games which have artificially fucked over dual cores by manually expecting 3-4 threads to exist. I believe Dragon Age (Inquisition? I think?) and to a lesser extent GTA V I believe. Neit

>>59458423

You think the janitors/mods don't lurk?

>>59448209
>in applications that don't take advantage of 16 threads, 1800x is in margin of error of 7700k
>Look how terrible it is!!
I don't get it.

>>59458207
It's not just 7 fps less, it's $160 more dollars too. You pay more for less with Ryzen.

>>59458037
4930K is as close as you can get.

>>59458504
>pay for less
>30% of CPU used vs 99% of CPU used
I don't think you understand what less means.
Or Ryzen you can run two instances of the same game and have no CPU bottleneck.

>>59458465

I thought perhaps they did lurk of course, but if they did post, then they would at least post as anon as the rest of us - Rather than give us info they presumably shouldn't.

>>59458530
How fucking new are you that you don't even know how to check unique posts?

>>59458525

99% of people would rather run a single instance of a game 5% faster than two instances of the game 5% slower.

>>59458541

I actually am pretty old here, I just haven't lurked for probably 7 odd years. Do us a favour and explain what you mean?

>>59458552
>99% of people
99% of the people are not going to buy CPU for 300bux let alone 500bux.
>Do us a favour and explain what you mean?
I'm not spoon feeding a retard.

>>59458562

>99% of the people are not going to buy CPU for 300bux let alone 500bux.

So? The point still stands - Of the people who do buy the CPU, being able to run the game twice is of no use. Therefore it's a moot point.

>I'm not spoon feeding a retard.

Ahh yes, I'm a retard because I don't magically know how to do something the default UI doesn't even fucking hint at. Alright mate, hope your mom's basement has enough ventilation to supply all the oxygen your colossal overdeveloped brain must require.

>>59458410
looks great in single thread
is it reliable to buy it 2nd hand on ebay or something
and why would it "be silly"
>>59458517
looks decent, but in my national hardware store that shows up for 526€
i saw a guy selilng for 220€ in ebay from UK, how much would a motherboard for that cost? not looking for anything too fancy

>>59458525
It's pretty sad that AMD shills have resorted to saying Ryzen is now for running two instances of a game at the same time.

File: 1480612438991.jpg (180KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1200x1600px

>>59458632
It can without taking nearly as much as a performance degradation as the i7.

You say that no one would even fucking do that? But you fail to say why that is the case.
BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T BEFORE RYZEN

>>59458620
>and why would it "be silly"
because it doesn't have K clocks, and without clocks it's worse than 1700 that got 8 cores and room for OC on the cheap

>>59458632
>two instances of a game at the same time.
two? hahaha

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

>>59458648
Umm plenty of people ran multiple game instances way before Ryzen

The point is the vast majority of people are not going to pay to get 20% worse performance in a single game, to get better performance when you run 4 instances of the game.

Just more niche uses that will fail to captivate AMD's core demographic.

>>59448209>>59448242
>>59448254

nice links

>>59458620

Because for a modest extra cost most you can get a version of the same chip that's overclockable, and get better performance per dollar out of it. It even has higher base clock.

But yes, you could buy the non-overclockable one and save yourself some money and effort in exchange for performance.

You wouldn't be able to buy one second hand most likely (and I wouldn't trust the ones that are on sale 2nd hand) because they're so new that no one would have any reason to sell them.

As for motherboard costs, it uses socket 2011 (not 2011-v3). That's the X79 series boards. Something tells me you'd be much better off buying new - What you should get depends on your work types, but I would imagine unless it's rendering or heavy compute work, a 7700(k) would be fine.

>>59458648

You're an idiot.

There's been plenty of situations where CPUs have been powerful enough to run two games at once without issue, Intel's extreme CPUs being a continual example. Even with the possibility, no one played multiple games at once outside of gimmicks for youtube videos.

>>59458620
problem with any Intel enthusiast level CPU, is that motherboards aren't cheap, new they were 300bux and second hand they probably only dropped 100bux.

Imo Enthusiast level Intel is not worth it, so I would say, go i5/i7 they are better perf/buck options no matter how you look at it.

>>59458632
Only 2 instances ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njm0MBOwFTM

>>59458675
This is the video where it's six different games, isn't it?

INTEL FAGS BTFO
MULTITASK CPU FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN MULTITASK

AND SINGLETASK CPU FOR INTEL FAGS WHO CAN'T

>>59458632
You fucking moron, it's an example, showing how much there is in 1800x while how little there is in 7700k.

File: 1479956213576.jpg (909KB, 778x1100px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 778x1100px

>>59458677
>20% worse performance in a single game
What if they don't intend to play that one game?

>>59458696
nah >>59458690
it's this one with 6

that one is more impressive because it runs graphics intensive games at good fps all three at the same time

>>59458697
An example that nobody even cares about?

Ryzen is great at things that nobody even does, and bad at mainstream things that everyone uses. It also costs twice as much as Intel! What a deal!

>>59458504
>muh gaymes!!!!!!!

>>59458696
Intelfag to dumb to multitask

File: ryzen-16-games-average.png (61KB, 1306x1646px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1306x1646px

>>59458707
>one game

Here's a 16 game average

>>59458716
>bad at mainstream things that everyone uses
specify "bad at" and "things that everyone uses".

>>59458729
>here I post day1 benchmarks that do not matter for 10 days already for hundredth time

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

44KB, 650x350px

>>59458731
Games, Photoshop, Chrome, literally any mainstream application.

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

122KB, 632x758px

>>59458729
and here's a different average.

File: 1481512345230.jpg (294KB, 587x992px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 587x992px

>>59458684
>There's been plenty of situations where CPUs have been powerful enough to run two games at once without issue, Intel's extreme CPUs being a continual example. Even with the possibility, no one played multiple games at once outside of gimmicks for youtube videos.
>intels extreme cpus
Could you go ahead and tell me what the launch price of those CPUs were again anon? I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of just how wallet-raping they were for the average CPU consumer.

>There's been plenty of situations where CPUs have been powerful enough to run two games
NO FUCKING DUH
But how costly was it until Ryzen came along with 16 threads for 330 fucking USD with cheap Mobos? My point is that it's within range of average consumers. Even more so when the 12 thread R5s are released

>>59448209
>higher clock speed does better
I know who's getting this years Nobel Peace Prize and a Top spot in Time magazine.

>>59458731
>inb4 photoshop benchmark with percentages instead of data

>>59458740
where can I find the benchmarks for Open Source Software like GIMP and LibreOffice

>>59458716
You can do work, like render3D/movies or compile big code, or even do massive calculations, while playing a game

This is something amateurs or hobbies wanted for years now and couldn't get it because Intel offering was too expensive.
>But nobody wants it
If you don't need it, doesn't mean nobody else doesn't.

>>59458761
Great, AMD now has a ridiculously small niche market in their hands.

It's too bad almost nobody cares about it and they marketed the CPU as mainstream. They have destroyed consumer confidence in their brand.

File: 1483180101161.jpg (102KB, 700x990px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 700x990px

>>59458729
>he took my bait
Thanks for confirming that you still judge Ryzen based on outdated, flawed benches!
>>>59458740
>he judges his cpu based on performance in a botnet browser

>>59458740
>games
some games.
>photoshop
certain functions of photoshop
>chrome
that's a javascript benchmark, not "chrome"

you're merely cherry-picking poorly threaded programs or certain functions in programs (e.g. photoshop has both multithreaded and single-threaded functions)

>>59458788
>t-t-t-the benches are flawed!

>n-n-n-nobody uses Chrome botnet!

God AMD shills are so awful

>>59458776
Did you actually, try to form some kind of argument, or are you too fucking stupid to do it?

File: 1478707869947.jpg (578KB, 1362x917px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1362x917px

>>59458795
>disregarding the FACT that those benches are obsolete
ignoring something isn't an argument

>unironically cares about browser performance like he's going to see 10-20ms difference
You're right desu, the 6900k truly is garbage to lose to a CPU which is over 700 USD cheaper.

>>59458795
you should be grateful intel might lower prices on their high core count processors
this is a good thing for everyone

>>59458832
Like most people I couldn't care less about Intel's high core count processors.

They are slower in the vast majority of applications and they cost even more, just like Ryzen, a very bad deal.

>>59458841
oh well, in that case you can go back to whatever you were doing, sorry

How does the AMD Ryzen compare to Intel's offerings clock for clock? Is there a review out that makes this comparison? It goes without saying that the new platform is still going through teething so to speak since MS and even the mobo manufacturers don't have the drivers and software nailed down yet. It's still pretty amazing how well and spot on AMD was with this new arch (broadwell/haswell levels). Intel hasn't really made any big changes in forever so they've been optimized in just about everything. Interesting to see how this changes once things are a little more equal.

>>59458746

Their price is beside the point mate. I'm saying there was every chance in the world for this retarded idea of running two games at once to take off - And yet it never did, despite being able to. To quote (you):

"You say that no one would even fucking do that? But you fail to say why that is the case.
BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T BEFORE RYZEN"

You are wrong, and you have even implicitly admitted that. Let's repeat that: You said you couldn't run two games before, when in fact you could. Therefore 'no one would fucking do that' would indeed appear to be true! Whether these CPUs were in rich people's hands or poor people's hands is irrelevant: No one could think of a reason to play two games at once for anything other than a laugh.

TL;DR: I have logically proven you are a fucking moron.

>NO FUCKING DUH [CPUs have already been powerful enough to run two games before Ryzen]

Then why did you literally say, and I quote, "BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T BEFORE RYZEN" ?

You are a self-contradicting moron, and everything you have to say is pure junk.

>>59459091
intel drops frames in OBS yet ryzen doesnt

File: 1484068516463.jpg (799KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1920x1080px

>>59459091
>Then why did you literally say, and I quote, "BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T BEFORE RYZEN" ?

No the price isn't besides the point
You're missing information because you're too fucking stupid to see the big picture. You must have autism to interpret "BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T BEFORE RYZEN" literally

by you, I sure as hell didn't mean specifically you. I meant the majority. And the majority sure as hell aren't going to spend 1000 dollars on a CPU.

Try to keep up anon.

besides, like other anons have stated, it's more than just 2 games.

>>59459181
>>59459091
And good luck trying to run more than just one game on a 7700k, the current pinnacle of Intel's consumer line, when you're already reaching over 80-90% CPU usage

>1800x at base clocks
>faster than 7700k at 4.2
Lel
stay mad IntelPOORfags
Can't afford true quality that is Ryzen

>>59459165

I'm not saying you're wrong, but IDK how popular OBS is. Is that even a big deal? Does that carry through to other big streaming software? If not then it's likely a software issue on their end.

>>59459181

Let me get this straight, you're calling me autistic, because I interpreted you to be speaking literally, when you said "BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T BEFORE RYZEN", a premise which is not unreasonable for an uneducated person to hold?

... You're a fucking moron.

You've also not explained how price impacts this discussion at all? If rich people, and all of the poor people watching their build videos and talking to them on forums, and all of that shit, *couldn't yet figure out a good reason to run 2+ games at once as anything other than a joke/experiment* ... Then what would it have mattered if poor people could also physically do it? What would them having it, rather than seeing it and discussing it for a decade, have possibly brought up?

For that matter, even poor people with modern chips have the chance to run two+ older games at once with little difficulty. But no one does!

So we're back to where we started: You are a moron.

>>59459212

Oh noes. Whatever will I do? I won't be able to do something incredibly stupid that I've literally never wanted to do :(

If I wanted to do that, I would already own an 8 core Intel chip, long before Ryzen came out.

>>59448209
>Advertised as Broadwell-E competitor
>compare it to Kaby lake
do you have brain damage?
all reviewers seems to do the same shit, even the 6900k loses to Kaby lake

>>59455672
I care about Intel but not AMD at all, mostly because the 7700k destroys my 4690K in single threaded by fat marging, even a locked i5 6400 gets pretty close to my [email protected]

My next upgrade is going to be Intel and Nvidia with a 4K monitor.

>>59459291
>buying house fires in 2011+6
t.preteen

>>59459291
Nice blog. We don't care.

File: 1481695320902.png (1MB, 1200x1300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1300px

>>59459257
>because I interpreted you to be speaking literally, when you said "BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T BEFORE RYZEN", a premise which is not unreasonable for an uneducated person to hold?
So you actually thought that when I said "you" I meant specifically you? And i was being literal: you (an average consumer) couldn't because you wouldn't spend over 1000 dollars on a cpu alone. If people don't have the option to do something, they can't possibly do it. But guess what gives them that option at a consumer price point? a 330 R7 1700. And this isn't even just about games, it's other background applications as well.
>What would them having it, rather than seeing it and discussing it for a decade, have possibly brought up?
the common sense conclusion that you are more likely to do something if you already have the ability to do it rather than not.
>For that matter, even poor people with modern chips have the chance to run two+ older games at once with little difficulty. But no one does!
I never specified older. Sure, I bet an i5 could run Doom(original) and Doom 2 at the same time...maybe. :)

>Whatever will I do? I won't be able to do something incredibly stupid that I've literally never wanted to do :(
And you never wanted to do it because?
>you couldn't (without dropping over 1000 fucking dollars on cpu alone and at least 170 on the mobo for the bare minimum)

THATS BEEN MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT THAT YOU'VE BEEN TOO AUTISTIC TO CATCH ONTO

You literally pay more for no wiggle room with Intel.

yet another techpowerup review that just shows how much of a shill they really are lol

ryzen with 2133 ram

intel with 3000 ram

its funny how we already know that the speed of ram affects the infinity fabric and yet they choose to use the absolute lowest ram available

>>59459348
>>59459332
shut it raja

File: [HorribleSubs] Ange Vierge - 07 [720p].mkv_snapshot_19.10_[2016.10.06_22.16.42].jpg (111KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1280x720px

>>59455847
>yet people are only getting ~100-200mhz boosts with a fuckton more voltage and heat.

>>59459383

why are you so retarded, rajesh?

barely anybody can get their ram above 2666 on am4 boards

>>59459406
>FAKE tech NEWS

>>59459383
CL 15/16 at 2133 !!! how can you shill this hard

>>59459406
in case you just woke up since march 2 ryzen has 5 kits already running on 3200mhz....

>ITT Believing in a website who's main """news""" guys, and main moderator, is a poo-in-loo and the site's owner is a fucking nazi
I think you guys really deserve overpriced Jewtel toys.

he had on the con list that ryzen doesnt have an IGP

i mean you cant even take them remotely serious anymore

>>59459380

>So you actually thought that when I said "you" I meant specifically you?

Obviously not. You were referring to people in general. But you were still wrong either way, people literally *could* do that before Ryzen.

And, if you were being specific (average consumer, as opposed to high-end consumer), then you should've specified that rather than be general and say 'you'. Fuck, I feel like I'm educating a child here, I can't believe I have to spell this out to, presumably, another grown man.

> couldn't because you wouldn't spend over 1000 dollars on a cpu alone.

You don't need a $1,000 CPU. Since in those days games were obviously less CPU intensive, a simple hex core Nehalem or SB-E would be enough to try it out. Intel brought out the $400 5820K, and that (esp. with OCs) would be easily enough to run at least 2 games at once. But no one did that on the regular. Reviewers practically NEVER bring up playing two games at once, and if they do, it's as a triviality.

Face it, it's not an issue of interest for virtually anyone, poor and rich alike.

Why do you have this obsession with running 2+ games at once? Why is this useless capability so important that you have to pretend that we just haven't figured out why it's so grand and amazing?

Cont. in next post.

File: deus-ex-gaming.jpg (55KB, 848x672px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 848x672px

>>59459406
gee why on hell they didnt wanted to bench ryzen with better ram i just wonder..

>>59459435
yeap its funny they actually went out to find SR memory racks to bench ryzen because amd has locked those on 2133

i mean you cant even begin to think where the fuck they found SR racks and not DR

>>59459380

>you are more likely to do something if you already have the ability to do it rather than not.
>I never specified older. Sure, I bet an i5 could run Doom(original) and Doom 2 at the same time...maybe. :)

More likely to do =/= more likely to find it useful.

I mean, this isn't an insanely complex concept. It's playing two games at once. Something even the worst of today's CPUs are already capable of. So again: What is the likelihood that over the last 10 years, between rich people being able to play the latest game 2+ times, and poor people being able to play older games 2+ times, that we've somehow missed some magical fountain of happiness that comes from running two games at once? We've already had plenty of experimentation with it, many years of commentary and discussion on it. So no, you're latching onto a technical feat, that may be impressive in a way, but nevertheless, is practically useless to anyone - poor, or rich.

>And you never wanted to do it because?

Because if I'm playing a game, then I want to play that game. If the game is boring enough that I suddenly want to play a different game, then why wouldn't I just shut down the boring one, and start up the one I want to play? Furthermore, if it's a slow game like Civ where you might be waiting on someone else to do something, then I would in fact prefer to browse the web or something which is more conducive to short bursts of down time. I don't want to hop back and forth between DOOM (the latest) and say, counterstrike. I'd just end up sucking at both.

>THATS BEEN MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT THAT YOU'VE BEEN TOO AUTISTIC TO CATCH ONTO

No, you're too autistic to understand my point. I'm saying that I *could* have done that, no worries. But I *didn't*. Why? Because *it's a fucking retarded concept that no one would want to use, regardless of the question of money*. Again: You are a moron.

>You literally pay more for no wiggle room with Intel.

7700K is cheaper than 1800X.

File: ddr4-memory-support[1].jpg (133KB, 1000x565px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1000x565px

>>59459478

Ryzen supports SR better than DR.

By specifically searching for SR RAM rather than DR, they're doing AMD a favour.

>>59459526
the top 3200 ones are DR

just saying so no

>>59459535

Huh?

If you're saying that the top DR RAM in existence is 3,200 - Well that doesn't matter since the extreme majority of setups don't seem to actually support that without crashing like a mofo. The same DIMMs in an Intel system seems to work fine.

Isn't just being within 5-10% of intel's high end incredibly competitive especially coming off excavator?

They exceeded all their project goals for their first generation zen product.

>>59459600
OH, plus Core being an extremely mature platform.

>amd shills hype up the newest amd product as intel/nvidia killer
>bunch of autistic fags fall for it
>product comes out and its more expensive and worse than the competition
>fanboys use the usual "in the future" damage controll


This shit happens every fucking time when amd shits.out something

>>59458776
I know that you have a learning disability and all but you do know that AMD haven't released their entire CPU lineup yet, right?

>>59459662
RX480 8GB is about $150 now and is a good purchase.

>>59459662
>product comes out and its more expensive and worse than the competition
You mean like how the 480 outperforms the 1060 while being cheaper?

>>59459673
>>59459692
Shills are still here? Damn

>>59459738
https://youtu.be/3Jml0uItdnE?t=1069

You can stop posting now

>>59448209
5% worse overall at 3.6 with the cheapest ram
5% worse in 1440p

seems like a 1700 @ 3.6 8/8 on a stock cooler is a decent contender.

Slightly cheaper, can use shit ram, comes with a cooler.

File: !JEB.gif (2MB, 280x211px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 280x211px

>>59448596
2666 ddr4 gives the best performance though

above 3200 actually lowers performance in the bulk of applications.

2666-3000-3200 literally hit the high points in every test.

Is 1600X the best AMD CPU for gaming? I don't think games will need 8 cores.

I already ordered one since I think it's the best option, but I haven't paid it yet.

>>59459768
Nope shill, you wont get that 25 cents by your pooinloo overlords now

>>59459779
For gaming AMD gpu intel CPU

no exceptions, obligatory fuck off /v/

>>59459779
Best CPU for gaming is a 6 year old i7 2600k overclocked to 5.2ghz and shoving the rest of the money up your ass

>>59459777
And Ryzen is running @ 2133.

You just proved that posters point.

>>59459812

What voltage can SB tolerate (i5 2500K for example)?

>>59459807
>>59459812
I mean I'm still getting AMD but I don't know which one is the best if the workload is going to be gaming. It's pointless to pay for 8 cores if they never get used and the 6 core CPU clocks as high and is cheaper.

But if the 6 core somehow feels slower than 8 core in gaming, I'll get the 8 core.

>>59459833
1.5v is a good limit

>>59459842

Really? That seems a bit high?

>>59459834
Just wait and see how the R5 benchmarks and if all the kinks have been ironed out since then. It should theoretically be better than the R7 in gaming, especially when it comes to price/performance.

>>59459849
It's fine if you can cool it. Fried an i5 2500k doing 1.55v for a few months but many people went up to 1.5v just fine

>>59459868
R5 is going to be slow too, it'll still have 2 ccx

>>59459893
It just needs to perform similarly to the R7 since it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper

>>59459834
>>59459868
Can't you lock down cores, etc with the 7's software management?

Could you effectively emulate the conditions that the 1600X for example operate at to theoretical gauge performance?

>>59459849
Sandy is 32nm process, higher the nodes less they care about voltage.

1.5 would kill kaby for example.

>>59448209
>>59448242
>>59448254
Yes but it's ~smooth~
intel is all herky jerky'n'shit

>using the 1800x as an argument
AMD literally bins them based on voltage, not frequency, so your argument is invalid and you should use the 1700 anyway.

>not comparing perf/watt
>not comparing x99
>comparing ryzen stock vs intel oc

Jewtel shills working hard, I see
You could try harder though

>>59459954
Raisin
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QcvPcc
Cabbage Lake
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/B3y79W
>>59459769
5-10% slower I'd say
$533/$487=1.094
9.4% cheaper if we were choosing the cheapest o/c parts as of 3/18

I don't see what the hubub is about. We're all too poor anyways

test

File: GAME COMPARE.jpg (2MB, 1004x5792px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1004x5792px

>>59458828
>>disregarding the FACT that those benches are obsolete
>ignoring something isn't an argument
Oh did somebody wanted RECENT RYZEN benches?
Let me help you out there boy.

File: WORK LOADS COMPARE.jpg (1MB, 1004x4936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1004x4936px

>>59458828
>>59461830

File: OVER ALL COMPARE.jpg (303KB, 1114x1062px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1114x1062px

>>59458828
>>59461830
>>59461843
Yeah, these recent benches sure changed a lot, huh?

Isn't the 1800x and 1700x the exact same chip? Why bother with the 1800x?

>>59448209
>Techpowerup review came out, it's not good

8.6
highly recommended
bad review
okay

>>59459692
Are you high, they're both neck and neck and pricing is region dependant so don't make rash claims like that. As far as I've seen the 480 is only cheaper in America and the odd european country.

File: it was the intel shills1.jpg (8KB, 374x59px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 374x59px

>>59459662
>amd shills hype up the newest amd product as intel/nvidia killer
OY VEY get with the latest narrative don;t you know it was intel who did that?

>>59458776
M8 they destroyed consumer confidence a long time ago with the fx series. Amd is irrelevant to most people who aren't enthusiasts.

>>59448209
If you look through the review, most of the tests don't scale over 2 cores, big part of them is probably even single-threaded.

That's all there is to it, Ryzen is made for multicore usage.

ST and MT performance just can't be mixed together, else you get to stupid conclusions like "muh Pentium is better then i7-6950X"

>>59461857
Except that 7700k is not $300?

>>59461857
Does the Ryzen chip have a free 32bit processor on the die that reports back to Israel?
NO?
AMD BTFO

File: get some help.webm (922KB, 940x720px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 940x720px

>>59448209

>>59461857
If the ryzen is using 2666 why isn't i7 using 2400?

>>59463710
Actually it does, both intel(since 2009) and AMD(since 2011) chips have backdoors

>>59463271
>being reasonable
>on /g/
>on a shill thread

Welcome to 4chan.

>>59461967
lower voltages when overclocking

>>59465108
I know, it's just hard to get used to this shit when you are older and usually more serious.

File: 1483106473948.jpg (784KB, 945x1366px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 945x1366px

>>59459486
>more likely to find it useful.
I never argued whether or not it was useful.

>>And you never wanted to do it because?
>Because if I'm playing a game, then I want to play that game.
So you're saying you're unable to focus on more than one thing at a time? Gotcha.

>I'm saying that I *could* have done that,
No you literally couldn't have without taking huge performance hits.
Whether you have a Pentium or a consumer i7, you will get fucked if you try to play any AAA game from the past 3 years with any other demanding task in the background.

>Why? Because *it's a fucking retarded concept that no one would want to use,
Good for YOU. But you don't speak for others. Most people do more than one thing at a time because they have functioning brains.

>7700K is cheaper than 1800X.
NICE STRAWMAN!
I specified the 1700 in one of my previous posts.
You know, that one cpu which is not only 10-20 dollars cheaper with twice the # of cores and threads, comes with a pretty great heat-sink, and performs like an 1800x when over-clocked, but is on a platform which isn't going to be terminated by the end of the year because of the goy tax?

File: tmp_21124-graphs-in-physics-10-7281332320211.jpg (66KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 728x546px

Why are all these benchmarks measuring in frames per second. Measuring seconds per frame in superior. Seconds per frame is a linear measurement.
20 ms / frame compared to 19 ms / frame is the same.
20 f/s to 25 f/s is way different than 100 f/s to 105 f/s.
Measuring on a linear scale is less confusing than measuring on an inverse scale.

File: 1476317330704.jpg (121KB, 446x700px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 446x700px

>>59461857
>>59461830
>>59461843
>differing ram speeds
>incorrect pricing of Intels CPUs to make them seem cheaper
MAXIMUM SHILLING

>>59466233
I simply looked over sources that AMD shills claimed proves Ryzen is better than 7700k.
But by all means if you have sources and benchmarks that show ryzen isn't shit compared to the 7700k, post them and I will look over them.
I will be waiting.

>>59466154
>So you're saying you're unable to focus on more than one thing at a time? Gotcha.
So you are just shitposting and baiting? Gotcha.

>7700K is cheaper than 1800X.
>NICE STRAWMAN!
Literally denying reality.
Yup, we got us a retard.

>I specified the 1700 in one of my previous posts.
>You know, that one cpu which is not only 10-20 dollars cheaper with twice the # of cores and threads, comes with a pretty great heat-sink, and performs like an 1800x when over-clocked,
So AMD released an overpriced CPU called 1800x? Gotcha.

File: 1478496042460.jpg (785KB, 964x1365px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 964x1365px

>>59466452
>But by all means if you have sources and benchmarks that show ryzen isn't shit compared to the 7700k
Ever heard of Workload benches? But I know that isn't what you want. Go on, say it. Say what type of benches you want.
>MUH MUTHERFUKING GAY MEMES

>>59466483
>So you are just shitposting and baiting? Gotcha.
Deflection is not an argument. If you can't focus on more than one thing at a time, that's your hangup, no one else's.

>>7700K is cheaper than 1800X.
>NICE STRAWMAN!
>"Literally denying reality."
>"Yup, we got us a retard."
Do you not understand what a fucking strawman is? I never brought up the 1800x. but that's all you can seem to focus on.

>I specified the 1700 in one of my previous posts.
>You know, that one cpu which is not only 10-20 dollars cheaper with twice the # of cores and threads, comes with a pretty great heat-sink, and performs like an 1800x when over-clocked,
>So AMD released an overpriced CPU called 1800x? Gotcha.
>7700k beats the 6900k

So Intel released an overpriced CPU called the 6900k? Gotcha.

Oh, whats that? they also release CPUs that are artificially locked to over-clocking so they can get you to spend 30-50 more dollars on the same CPU? GOTCHA.

Wait there's more? Intel has basically been releasing the same CPU for the past 5 years, except with higher clocks? So it's not okay to do that within the same generation(which Intel already does), but it's okay to do it over multiple? TAMAGOTCHA

Just because AMD doesn't gimp their CPUs to force you to spend more doesn't mean the 1800x is a bad CPU. It just means they give you an option.

>>59466678
>Ever heard of Workload benches?
Yes I posted them here, >>59461843
Then you proceeded to cry about "shill"
then I said, provide your own and your response is
>Ever heard of Workload benches?

>Deflection is not an argument.
Neither is literally anything you posted.

>So Intel released an overpriced CPU called the 6900k? Gotcha.
That is correct.
You know what else they released? The 7700k which is actually good at performance.
Where is AMDs equivalent? Oh, whats that, you got nothing? Though so.


>Wait there's more? Intel has basically been releasing the same CPU for the past 5 years
And yet, Ryzen can't beat these 5 year old CPUS KEK!

File: gapestation.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>>59448254
>Not buying the 1700 or Ryzen 5

>>59449115
>Because X99 was perfect at launch

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

246KB, 882x758px

>>59461843
DELET SIR

File: 1479584965299.jpg (113KB, 675x1000px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 675x1000px

>>59466884
>Yes I posted them here, >>59461843 Then you proceeded to cry about "shill"
Knowingly using flawed benchmarks is shilling

>Deflection is not an argument.
>"Neither is literally anything you posted."
By your logic, neither is anything you posted.

>The 7700k which is actually good at performance.
We both know you're fucking lying.

>Where is AMDs equivalent? Oh, whats that, you got nothing? Though so.
Though so? Though so.
THOUGH SO.
Depends on what you mean by equivalent. Equivalent in games? Actually multi threaded programs? What?

Ryzen v1 was never meant to be singlehandedly better than Intel's peak of performance in games.
Just because AMD isn't catering to a niche section of the gamer market doesn't mean Ryzen is bad, it means it's bad for you, "Gaming Pro XD".

>>59452563
That's true for literally both of those

File: 1383589122622.jpg (72KB, 437x451px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 437x451px

>>59467127
>shitposter gets triggered by anon with facts
wew lad

The R7 lineup is not marketed 'specifically' at gamers. It is marketed as an all round CPU with a heavy emphasis on productivity and content creators. It's aimed squarely at the multi-core Broadwell segment which is typically over $1000. Which it does.

>Intel shilling this hard
tell the CEO he's fucked you blue kike