Ryzen 7>i7 7700k now?

noooo rmeove this

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

245KB, 800x612px

>>59497557

>>59497557
KILL YOURSELF DISINFO SHILL POSTER!!!

Adored TV was right

>>59497557
REMOVE THIS SIR PLEASE. FAKE NEWS.

>>59497557
MY FRIEND, MY FRIEND PLEASE REMOVE MY FRIEND..

>10 year old game gets a performance boost
>everything else is the same
Congratulations I guess?

>>59497557
Delet dis

>>59497557
No one gives a shit anymore. Ryzen is a failure.

>>59498240

Just remember, windows patches won't solve anything. PCPer told me so.

Hopefully its a reliable site.

Just a normal consumer passing here interested in Ryzen and gaming, although I will not use it just for that.
That would be very idiotic.

>>59498138
>>59498161
>>59498181
>>59498226
>>59498266
>>59498284
> 2017
> trying this hard

>>59498350
If you want to blog start your own thread and get banned.

File: vex-one-im-the-best-infiltrator-this-rathole-of-a-5626895.png (418KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 500x414px

>directx10
gonna go out on a limb and call out this bullshit

It's faster memory speeds which in Ryzen makes a huge difference .
http://www.overclock.net/t/1625187/the-ryzen-gaming-performance-gap-is-mostly-gone

So most reviewers used 2133 or 2400 mem and had Ryzen 10 - 25% behind . However reviewers that actually got memory to 2933 were showing Ryzen 5-10% behind now with 3200 support it's almost always within 5% and Gskill has a 3488 kit on the way . This could get good. It's because Ryzen has other Clocks that effect pcie performance and cache performance tied to a direct percentage of the ddr4 speed . So fast memory essentially overclocks other stuff.

WTF I love AMD now!

This should not come as that big of a shock . Every new architecture since I can remember (Pentium 3 and forward) got a 10-30% boost over it's first 3-4 months simply from people learning to optimize and vendors building better/more compatible products .

>>59498453
>>59498757
Pretty cool, last time I overclocked my memory it helped like .01% figured that's why most don't do it. Glad they are using it better.

File: ARMA.png (70KB, 1398x438px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1398x438px

>>59498453

Holy shit batman, RAM speed has a visible effect in performance? Who could have thought.
Well here's ARMA graph for Jewtel.
It's the same damn thing.
So a big part of this Ryzen thing comes down to retards benchmarking it with some shit tier 2000Mhz RAM and getting bad results.
Just slap some 4000Mhz into that fucker and let it rip.

Funny thing here is that people who bought Ryzen, now need to buy good RAM in order to get most out of it.
Only problem is that RAM prices are skyrocketing this year.
My G.Skill 3200Mhz RAM kit which I bought 4 months ago, is now about 90% more expensive than it was back then.
It's insane how the prices have climbed and it's been hinted that this climb is going to continue till the end of this year.

>>59497557
Please delete this.

t. corelet

File: Patriotism like that turns me on.jpg (385KB, 733x1157px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 733x1157px

I want to believe, even if I'm already ditching Fiery Bridge this summer.

>>59499061
It's an even bigger deal with Ryzen than intel because communication between the dual core complexes is completely dependent on whatever the memory speed is.

>>59497557
>Takes picture of screen

File: doushio - amagi schoolgirl.png (230KB, 548x642px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 548x642px

So, is Ryzen a little preview on what Navi will bring? A few tiny chips on one GPU would be very cute and neat.

>>59499197
Not the consumer Ryzen. The 16 and 32 core models are MCM like Navi.

Going from 2400 to 3200 on Intel does almost nothing and actually somewhere between 2666 and 3200 Intel starts actually performing worse instead of better due to it preferring tight timings . This is not something where Intel can just do the same thing and get these results.

In defence of the reviewers not only did they not know that fast mem would have such a profound effect but also launch bios on most mobo's was shit and was taking hours to tune memory . Think most just gave up.

File: AMD-TOLD.png (16KB, 441x495px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 441x495px

I wonder what artificial benchmark goalpost the intards will move this time.

>>59499402
Yeah this. The BIOS support for higher quality DDR4 was very spotty. Quite a few couldn't get anything above 2400 working.

>>59499052
4000 memory when

>>59499648

It's already out there.
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/8gb-(2x4gb)-corsair-ddr4-vengeance-lpx-black-pc4-33600-(4200)-non-ecc-unbuffered-cas-19-26-26-46-xmp

I think that at the end of this year, we might even see RAM kits tickle the 5000Mhz milestone.

>>59498284
this

File: 1426467217270.jpg (40KB, 435x512px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 435x512px

>>59499724
>when your memory is clocked higher than your processor

>>59499769
It's technically not, remember DDR memory does two things per clock cycle. The 4000MHz is a marketing thing, it's actually 2000MHz.

File: 1394843933260.jpg (183KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x800px

>>59499724

>all that money for 8GB

>>59499724
It's 5000mhz the upper limit? If not I'll wait only on 1666mhz I want the jump to feel massive.

T.ddr3 i5

>when ur such a fanboy that you actually want to pay three times the price for less performance

>>59499880
Ram prices always do this since I've been buying ram back in 2004 when ddr1 was hot shit u little fag

>>59498240
It's not a 10 year old game. What the fuck are you talking ab out?

This guy does a good review on Ryzen and RAM
https://youtu.be/6xIU2h8YMKc

who DDR3 1866mhz here?

>>59500058
UT3 released in 2007

>>59500162
DDR2 800mhz reporting in

>>59500162
DDR1 400mhz reporting

File: Mysterious Merchant.gif (4KB, 452x523px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 452x523px

PLEASE DELET

>>59500162
I was, but now am poor 1600MHz.
I really should upgrade this year.

>>59497557
Wtf? So should I be getting 1700X or 1600X now? For gaming that is.

>>59500162
DDR3 1866 reporting in.
>mfw prices for my exact same ram hasn't fallen
>mfw it was the same price for all mhz up to 2133 when I got it
cpu limited to 1866mhz in case y'all wondering why I didn't get the fastest possible.
>now kits increase in price exponentially for faster clocks
Same goes for most other things, my 3tb drive costs £2 less after 2 years, my cpu and psu both cost £5 more and my gpu has remained the same price. What is going on here?

>>59497557
This person posted the same clickbait on /v/.

He claimed they "fixed the scheduler' in 14393.953 but there is no such thing https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4013429/windows-10-update-kb4013429

I am seriously keking at Intel shills all concerned about RAM prices. lolwut. Intel was one step away from offering RAM unlock codes from only 99 USD per 100Hz

>>59500746
1700 or wait for r5 which should be coming out soon