Redpill me on Ryzen, is it good for gayming >shills

>>59497706
No

>>59497771
Yes

>>59497706
yes, very much so. however in some cases the i7 would be a better purchase, and they are pretty damn expensive for the gaming performance they put out, to the point where budget builds are better served by an i5.

File: 0d6.png (304KB, 472x470px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 472x470px

>>59497776

File: 2.jpg (303KB, 1278x673px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1278x673px

Fabulous

>>59497819
Tbh you wouldn't notice the game running 30 fps slower because human eye can't see more than 60fps anyway

>>59497873
ebic meme m8

>>59497898
Fuck off.

More importantly, is Ryzen good for non-gaming?

>>59497873
you can tell the difference well into the hundreds, but returns are diminishing

>>59497936
the only thing Ryzen is not good at is AVX2

File: bait.jpg (53KB, 780x535px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 780x535px

>>59497905

Yes, but they be even better as lab and office machines

>>59497936
>single-core performance on par w/ 7700K
>double the cores, double the threads
It's a killer.

>>59497706
They're good as in "good enough", however if you plan to only play video games there are better purchases.

>>59497706
>red pill
>\pol/

>>59497706
Outside of a few outliers (Fallout 4), it'll get around 4-8% worse performance than Kaby on current games. Its close enough that in virtually any game where Kaby gets 60+ FPS, Ryzen will get 60+ FPS. If you're going for 144 FPS Kaby might by worth it.

For future proofing it's gonna be king. Performance will only get better as more games take advantage of more threads, CIV VI is a good example. Zen 2 and 3 are confirmed to be on the same socket, so there'll be a future upgrade path. Zen 3 is supposedly 7nm.

Be very careful on motherboard selection, Asus looks like they made a batch of lemons this time. Make sure you also get two sticks of fast DDR4, it looks to be highly RAM speed sensitive like Bulldozer was. 3.6 ghz w/ 2666mhz beats 4 ghz with 2133mhz. Buy something like 3200mhz.

>>59498038
>single-core performance on par w/ 7700K
You wish pajeet

>>59497706
Dust hasn't really settled imo. Early adopters always get a raw deal
RAM speeds need to come up. Motherboards that promise speeds of 3200 or above need to see the light of day
And then there's some general bug fixing like the not-enough-power-at-stock issue

No alarming, apparently unfixable issues though. So the architecture seems promising

>>59498205
Well he's right in the sense that at similar clocks they are. The higher obtainable clock speed of the i7 gives it better performance though

>>59497936
It seems that at the relaticely low RAM speeds people are currently testing at, the Infinity Fabric isn't doing a very good job.

So very cache intense operations do not happen fast enough for these Ryzen chips.

>>59498150
>Performance will only get better as more games take advantage of more threads, CIV VI is a good example

Even in heavily multithreaded games like CIV VI the 7700k wins (and it is heavily multithreaded or else the 6850k wouldn't beat the 7700k).

ryzen a shit

File: 2.jpg (159KB, 1277x719px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1277x719px

>>59498494
and here is the proof

>>59498512
>1080p
Into the trash it goes

>>59498421
Except even at similar clocks it isn't, it's simmilar to broadwell-e but not to kabylake in IPC

File: civ6_1920_1080.png (23KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x290px

>>59498494
>>59498512

>>59498525
Don't pretend to be me

File: 1.jpg (150KB, 1277x713px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1277x713px

>>59498525
I imagined you would say that

>>59498536
Oh boy 3%

>>59497898
That's actually a fact retard. The only reason you notice a difference at higher frame rates is because the computer isn't synced to your eye so even though it outputs at the same rate as your eye, it may not out put at the same time causing you to believe it's not quite right. When it outputs at higher frame rates, it presents a clearer image for your eye to generate information from which gives the appearance of a smoother image.

If you could notice higher than 60 FPS, you'd constantly see your lamp blinking instead of giving a consistent light. Which btw, is what you notice when you see lights far off in the distance.

>>59498541
>7700k at 4.2 ghz
>7700k runs at 4.5 ghz out of the box
>not even showing ram speeds on the 7700k
Into le trash

File: civ6_2560_1440.png (22KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x290px

>>59498549
>replying to the guy pretending to be me

Gonna take a stab in the dark and say that the review you're posting used an Asus board. This one is on a Gigabyte board.

>>59498567
>That's actually a fact retard
It actualy isn't now fuck off

>>59498585
7700K has a base clock of 4.2ghz, clocks to 4.4ghz on all core turbo. 4.5ghz is single core turbo.
7700K used 3000mhz 15-16-16-35

>>59498150
>future proofing
Why won't this meme die?

>>59497706
why the ryzen is consired bad at 1080p but not in higher resolutions?

File: 3.jpg (235KB, 1306x772px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1306x772px

>>59498593
Nope, these were run on a Gigabyte board aswell

>>59498541
I-I wasn't trying to senpai
Pls forgive me

>>59498607
>Facts and reasoning to support my argument
>Counter argument: NUH UH. THAT'S NOT WHAT MY MOMMY SAID

Ok kid. Back to /b/.

>>59498660
>hurrdurr you're a retard my opinion is fact
Back to kindergarten boyo

>>59498642
intredasting
What were the RAM speeds, as you can tell from the pictures it's very RAM dependant. 2133 15-16-16-35 and 2666 16-16-16-35 were used on the TPU review. The GPU was a stock speed GTX 1080.

File: 4.jpg (247KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1280x720px

Lets post some more benchmarks that show the gaming power of Ryzen.

And then MAD amdrones can respond!

>'b-b-but that benchmark doesn't count, that game is s-shit!'

>>59498689
2933 mhz

>>59498638
Well first of all it's not bad at 1080p, it's just not as good as intel. Second, at higher resolutions you will be bottlenecked by your GPU before your CPU except in edge cases like Arma 3.

>>59498708
That game is literally unoptimized

File: rottr_1920_1080.png (24KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x290px

>>59498708
You know what's the point of showing the game video, I mean I could get it if it were four way split screen but it's just one render.

>>59498747
You'll notice that the variable factor in that picture is not 'the game', it is the cpu.

If the game was to blame for being badly optimized the Intel cpu's should suffer just as much

>>59498754
Because it shows the numbers at the exact moment in the game, so you can see which scenes hit the cpu the hardest

>>59498769
Not necessarily
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#121

>>59498730
TPU put out their benches out on the 17th while PH did it on the 2nd.

Might be patch differences.

>>59497706
Wait for Ryzen 5, 7 isn't worth it.
If you are talking about video games, intel is the superior botnet/bag for buck.

>>59497706
I love mine for working in video editing, I don't do much gayming but from what I've played it's pretty good

Good, yes, the best, no.

>>59498638
because at higher resolution your cpu is just idling waiting to be fed by the GPU for a lot of games.

File: ryzen gaymen bench.png (66KB, 641x770px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 641x770px

It's pretty good for gaming.

File: 1306698587034.jpg (36KB, 448x336px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 448x336px

>The AMD Ryzen™ processor does not offer memory dividers for DDR4-3000 or DDR4-3400. Users shooting for higher memory clocks should aim for 3200 or 3500 MT/s.
>We have internally observed good results from 2933, 3200, and 3500 MT/s rates with 16GB kits based on Samsung “B-die” memory chips.

>>59498386
>>59498461

I want to see waht that cache latency connected to the Infinity Fabric comes down to at DDR4-3500

>>59497706
The one thing that's for certain is the 6c/12t R5 is going to put a beatdown on similarly priced i5s. That has pretty much already been demonstrated by reviewers that disabled a core within each R7 CCX and barely saw a drop in performance going from 8c/16t to 6c/12t.

Ryzen 7 is a tougher sell for 1080p/144 Hz gayming when the 7700k exists and when 6c/12t variants and the even cheaper 4c/8t Ryzen variants that offer ~90% i5 performance for less money while being better at productivity tasks are right around the corner.

>>59498952
>Still 1080p
REEEE WHEN WILL REVIEW SITES MOVE ON TO AT LEAST 1440p FOR REAL BENCHMARKING

>>59499195
Because they are going to be bottlenecked by the GPU, not the CPU.

>>59498642
These fucking fuckers need to fucking finally deliver my fucking board. I've been waiting since preorders on it fucking hell.

>>59498512
Even the Titan XP is having trouble with quite a handful of games in 2160p, can't maintain 60fps at max settings.

SLI GTX 1080 and above can, but the fucking microstuttering and the bad optimization. Fuck SLI.

1080p is still a thing you moronic piece of shit, and 1440p isn't that much of a step-up.
2160p is NOT mainstream yet.

And also, >>59498549

>>59499195
they do. but considering most GPU's today can't handle 1440 on presets they usually dont bother.

>>59497706
it will get the job done, but it shouldn't be your top choice unless you livestream and don't want godawful quality from GPU encoding or low-config software.

Ryzen is a whole family of chips, the R7 is not primarily a gaming chip. R5 and R3 might be.

It fails behind an i5. And sometimes an i3. Nothing else to say. Check gamernexus, digital foundry. It is plagued with issues as well.
>just wait
Go Intel.
Or get a free premium RedTeam+ membership by buying one of our totally functional and superior Ryzen processors!

>>59499684
shill

>>59499746
How are gamernexus and digital foundry or me shilling Intel? Zen is inferior to Intel when it comes to gaming, period. If you seek something more from it or
>just wait
>futureproof
Then go Ryzen.

>>59499823
You'd have to be fully cucked to go intel right now. I'm not saying Ryzen is flawless, clearly it needs work, but if you can literally wait like a month or two then you'll be better off with a Ryzen CPU unless all you care about is emulation or playing ancient games at 144 Hz.

>>59499913
>no clear indication of fixes coming that will address current issues if at all
>no clear indication if most titles will be even optimized for more cores/threads AND CCX structure
>but AMD said so
>just wait
>muh obsolescence
For what? There's no magical fix that will come out of nowhere and make Ryzen worth out of the box for gaymen. And with more than 90% market share from Intel quad cores are here to stay unless uber jew decides otherwise.

>>59500056
It has Haswell tier performance in games, comes with better multi-tasking out of the box, and new BIOS and RAM compatibility updates are coming out almost daily. Also
>cheaper cost per thread
>less power draw at idle
If you're a competitive gaymer then I can see going intel but Ryzen is a true chip for the masses.

Plain and simply, if gaming is your only concern, Intel is better. This is inarguable.

If you want to do other things than gaming (or in addition to gaming), or (later on with R3) need low-budget gaming options, then Ryzen might be for you.

>>59500113
My point still stands, proven, for gaming Intel is and still will be better.

>>59497706
>gaymin
>any cpu with more than 4 cores
>any cpu that cost >250$
i5s are the sweat spot i7s are for autistic fuckbois pentium/i3 are for autistic poorfags

>>59500158
>still will be better
Better by a few percentage points for as long as quad cores aren't obsolete, sure. You're paying the shintel tax for a few extra FPS though and your CPU will be worse in non-gaming tasks.

>>59500209
But most people gaymen and do avarage stuff like browse the web etc. You can multi-task on an i5 without problems on those sort of things, quad cores won't be obsolete for another 3-4 years atleast, unless Intel decides otherwise.

File: BabbyLake.png (157KB, 1110x375px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1110x375px

I'm ending this whole fucking Intel/AMD shit right now.
https://puri.sm/learn/intel-me/
Enjoy your fucking embedded botnet fuckers.

>>59500281
>botnet
must I care?

>>59500333
Only if you live in a cave and have regular Intercourse with wild animals.

>>59497706
i have a 1800x with a gigabyte gaming 5. i love it. upgraded from a 4760k. couldn't be happier. its gaming performance is excellent and multi-threadness is beyond amazing.

all you have to make sure of is that whatever ram kit you pick up, make sure it uses samsung chips. ryzen likes samsung chips for anything over 2666mhz. gskill has a lot of kits that use samsung. pretty much any 3000 - 3200mhz cas 14-14-14-14-34 kits use samsung. also 16gb modules (2x16) and 4x8gb configurations ryzen only natively supports up to 2666mhz ratio for. in may amd plans on releasing a new microcode update that will increase frequencies and support hynix and micron more for speeds above 2666mhz.

>>59500360
I don't. I still don't care.

I still see no reason to care.

Educate me, rebel vigilante of antispyware justice.

>>59500281
>19% for internet use
>internet use
>that's right goi throw out your 6700k and buy the new $350 7700k for 19% more performance in internet!
man i sure love marketing.

>>59497706
If you only care about games, fuck no.
If you want games + work, then yes.
Also wait for 11.04. for R5 to arrive, might be a good option for only games.

>>59500266
Oh and don't forget, Ryzen is no true/normal 6/8 core configuration, it's a two part CCX so you also have to cling on your nutsack that your game/application is optimized for that. Which most of the time won't be.

File: 1700_vs_7700k.png (441KB, 1670x1250px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1670x1250px

>>59498736
It's about on par with a 7700K at 1080P gaming, it's just some reviewers had old motherboard bioses, and didn't put windows into high performance mode. There's a few bugs to work out.

Pic related is benchmarks with an updated bios.

>>59500478
Bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TId-OrXWuOE

>>59500502
>digital foundry
If I wanted to eat dogshit I'd go direct to the source, not get it in a fancy tin.

>>59497706
It's good, but for gaymen it's not going to shit on the 7700k and likely Skylake-X, sadly.

The Ryzen 7 lineup is clocked an entire 20% lower than the current Kaby Lake processors. In general, their gaming performances line up pretty well with last generation Intel i7s. There are other nuances in their design that makes it trade blows in specific applications against Intel, e.g. using on die interconnect to stitch together CCX (though each have their own L3), which results in reduced (5-10%) performances in applications which require concurrency outside of its own CCX. A few modifications to W10 (or if you use W7/8.1) like disabling coreparking, etc.

They are insane general purpose HEDT processors, however. It may be worth investing in if you do game design or want a workstation + gaymen computer. The caveat is that Ryzen's interconnect (Infinity Fabric) also is clocked 1:2 with the memory clock instead of core clock so you are actually strongly rewarded for higher clocked memory, which is a good thing because Ryzen's overclocking headroom is incredibly small, you can push it about 10% before you need to start moving voltages.

I'd say if you wouldn't buy a X99 at 50% the price for gaming, I wouldn't bother with Ryzen at the moment. The platform is still immature, some boards are still rolling out UEFI updates to support higher clocked RAM, and some compiler updates have yet to come out for GCC and MSVC as well. I am about to pull the trigger on the 1700 though, as I am sorely in the need for a HEDT upgrade

>tfw still on nehalem

>>59500589
Atleast it has basis unlike your photoshoped ''benchmakred'' graphs. Respected RedTeam+ memeber.

File: perfrel_2560_1440.png (22KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x290px

>>59500622
I didn't post that review.

I'm the guy who posts this review

>>59500589
what's wrong with DF?

File: 1490061921.jpg (23KB, 188x143px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 188x143px

>>59497706
Buy Ryzen

>>59500742
Eurogamer is a trash website

>>59497706
If you only care for games a cheaper R5 would be better. The current Ryzen processors has around the same performance as the best i7 processors in games anyway but unless you have a good reason maybe a 1700 would be a better choice than a 1800. I read that the first motherboards and OS support for ryzen was buggy and that updates are actually increasing th performance significantly but research that for yourself instead of trusting anyone blindly.

>>59500803
I didn't ask about Eurogamer though.

>>59500833
Who do you think runs Digital Foundry?

>>59500843
I still don't see why I should discard DF altogether.

If it wasn't for that cheap CCX+Infinity Fabric design I would've gotten a 1600 :/

>>59497706
Better than kaby lake for future multi threaded games, worse than kaby lake for current games and single threaded games.

>all you have to make sure of is that whatever ram kit you pick up, make sure it uses samsung chips. ryzen likes samsung chips for anything over 2666mhz. gskill has a lot of kits that use samsung. pretty much any 3000 - 3200mhz cas 14-14-14-14-34 kits use samsung. also 16gb modules (2x16) and 4x8gb configurations ryzen only natively supports up to 2666mhz ratio for. in may amd plans on releasing a new microcode update that will increase frequencies and support hynix and micron more for speeds above 2666mhz.

>>59500906
>Just wait™

>>59500684
>shill power up
fuck that site since like 4 years ago.
>intel/nvidia
9.8 rating! No cons!
>anything else
fuck you

File: joke-amd.jpg (10KB, 292x173px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 292x173px

>>59500478
Hi Joker

>>59498629
Some people are just upset they missed out on classic eMachines and think they can build themselves a computer that's NEVER OBSOLETE

>>59497706
wait for the 1600X and 1400X they should be the budget choice

>>59497706

yes

>>59500906
> worse than kaby lake for current games and single threaded games.
because most games are single threaded. even the ones that use more than one, are still technically single threaded since they don't operate with true parallelism. instead off load certain tasks to individual available threads to not supersaturate a single thread. that own logic though applies to intels very own x99 platform since broadwell-e loses to kaby lake in the same damn games. as it should, since its two generations behind. well, really one since kaby lake is fucking nothing. its skylake 1.2. not even 1.5. just higher clocks. the end.

question now is does that extra single threaded performance matter? fucking no, it doesn't. ryzen, just like broadwell-e, single threaded performance is way more than enough. but what they offer is superb multi-threaded performance. people like to shit all over MOAR TTHHRREEAADDSSS but when the single threaded performance is more than enough, it really helps out for longevity. see the 2600k. offered back then excellent single threaded performance but also had hyper threading to handle eight threads. 2500k is still fine today, but the 2600k fares far better thanks to its hyperthreading.

even the pile of rotting shit called the 8370k lasted as long because games in recent years started to come out that took advantage of its shittastic cores. and its single threaded performance was pure, absolute garbage. a single piledriver core clocked at 4ghz matched the performance of a single first generation i7 nehalem 2.6ghz core. fucking awful level of performance. but like the 920, its MOOAR THREADS helped it last.

only a fool would buy an i5, or worse, an i3. a useful idiot would buy a mainstream i7. either go broadwell-e or ryzen or go back to a console & >>>>>>/reddit

>>59498992

Cache latency won't matter to the infinity fabric, only clock speeds.

>>59497706

Let me put it this way, If you owned an Octopus would you rather it had 8 arms or only 4?

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-Core-i7-7700K-DinoPC_Cinebench.png (2MB, 2560x1324px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1324px

>>59497706
Throw your money to AMD if you play games like CINEBENCH

>>59498585
megahurts matters again? did we go full circle back to the 90s?

AMD CPU architecture is slow and wide: Less IPC but faster more efficient multithreading and multi tasking.

Intel CPU Architecture is fast and narrow. Great single core performance, slower multithreading and much worse multitasking.

Ryzen is a brand new architecture that is improving day by day. The gap in gaming from launch til now is drastically smaller. But the i7 still gives higher frames per second at 1080p. Gaming at higher resolutions shifts the balance to GPU bottlenecks.

>>59501468
I meant to say multi core and threads, but yeah cores are more important than threads if you even use them.

>>59501468
If games don't actually properly take advantage of multithreading, what's the actual benefit of a multicore CPU?

>>59497706

Yes.

File: 1485572678156.jpg (332KB, 1200x1117px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1200x1117px

>>59497936

For the non-gaymer, the Ryzen is a no brainer. It absolutely buttdevestates the i7's and much better price point.

>>59497706
Better than most, but not the best.

If I had to make it simple, I'd say Ryzen is 9/10 for number crunching (as far as consumer CPUs go). 8/10 for productivity, and 7/10 for gaming. The 7700K is 6/10 for number crunching. 7/10 for productivity, and 10/10 for gaming.

>>59497706
>everyone posting some shitt aaa games
What about some games that actually can't be run on my 2400 like eu4 or stellaris?

So, the R3 1200X is going to be the default gaming / all-purpose CPU now, right?

>>59497706
>tfw going from FX 6300 to 1700 for $285

>>59502103

Yes.

The market will be flooded with them.

>>59502168
Regardless of whether you're being serious or not, I'm waiting to build my first desktop for when it comes out, assuming the reviews are reasonable.

>>59497706
The only thing that matters for gaming is single core performance. At best a case for dual core could be brought up.

Which means you need to focus on muh hurts over muh coors.

>>59500470
>no true CPU meme

1/10 made me reply

>>59502191

It's a four core, four thread for around 100 bucks.

4 core 8 threads for a little more, they are going to be everywhere.

>>59497706
Ryzen is trash for games, but considerably better value than an Intel equivalent for pretty much everything else. This seems to be AMD's marketing pitch, at the very least. Is that a retarded way to sell a CPU? Yes.

File: 1235.jpg (61KB, 604x499px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 604x499px

Intel shill replay similar to JIDF, interdasting

>>59498769
>implying Intel has the exact route of optimizations
Not since CCX has this been true.

>>59500470
>every CPU has to be the same, just look at intel!
0/10

>>59500874
You wouldn't Support Blank if it were owned by blank, would you?

File: C7YCtn6XUAAv67A.jpg (25KB, 528x306px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 528x306px

>>59501577
Or Unreal Tournament 3

>>59497706

At this point in time, buying a PC with a 4-5 year expectation of solid performance the 7700k is still the best bang for the buck.

This might be the last 4c8t CPU that you can say that about, we'll see what happens through years end but the Ryzen is not there yet. Ryzen+ or Ryzen2 will likely be the bees knees. If you can wait, wait.

>>59497936
If you have a mighty need for multi core speed get it.

Think I'll keep my Phenom II x4 955 a while longer yet. Really only cpu that can play older games with no issues as well as do demanding workloads equally well. Sure an 8 core chip will decrease video encoding times (only real demanding task I do on occasion) but then again using my time wisely will accomplish the same result without me spending money. Bulldozer sucked at older games, Ryzen will to due to how these new chips are made now days.

File: Capture2.png (44KB, 852x492px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 852x492px

>>59504630
I have an 1800x sitting here with me, waiting for a motherboard...

>>59501966
Depends on what you're doing. Adobe products, like photoshop and illustrator, still perform better on intel.

I don't know how in the everloving fuck did the i7 consumer version become so popular. Why the fuck would I spent $100 more for HT? You can OC the i5 close to the i7 too.

File: 1490031373290.png (170KB, 1448x1302px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1448x1302px

>>59497936
Definitely.

It's a faster fucking CPU. There's no redpilling to do. You buy it if you can afford it and want the top of the line, or you don't.

God fucking dammit, we've been doing this for several decades now and you still don't know how it works?

8350 user here.
Would now be a good time to upgrade?

>>59497706
>>59497706
it's worse than similar priced intel offerings if that's what you wanted to know. it's more about your personal preference of whether you want gaming>production or production>gaming performance. the 7700k loses in production but wins in gaming and the opposite for the 1700 ryzen. i would personally buy the 7700k if i were to pick one of the two because i don't so any production whatsoever and never have. 7700k + 144hz monitor would be my choice.

>>59500478
these benchmarks are confirmed to be fake

see HUB and tech city. they called him out with evidence.

>>59497706
I'd wait for r5 if it was pure gaming. That said
1700 with a clock
1440p or ultrawide 1080 @60-75hz

>>59498567
>Which btw, is what you notice when you see lights far off in the distance.
That's not true you fucking retard.
Everyone knows that modern physicists have experimental evidence proving that the properties of light in a certain medium remain constant regardless of distance.

>>59504069
source?

>>59505978
https://mobile.twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/843864982320267265

>>59497706
good things to come if games add proper multicore support
still pretty good right now tho
i have a 1700x and im happy
things have only been getting better performance-wise

>>59497706
It's close enough to the 7700K although won't beat it in pretty much all current games. However, in titles well optimised for it, such as Crysuis 3, Ryzen can directly compete.

With gaymen further utilisiing moar cores with each passing month, chances are in a couple of years Ryzen will outperform the 7700K in quite a few games.

All in all, you've got a chip that is already quite competitive at gaymen, and will only get better. Plus, you have the added bonus of being able to use your computer as a proper workstation instead of a glorified console.

Reminder that the 1800X is a meme and the 1700 is the only one you should consider.

>>59506012
ty

File: tmp_8782-Screenshot_20170321-020519-515058431.png (85KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1440x2560px

>>59500684
Wow, this Intel-Biased review shows Ryzen on par with Kaby Lake when compared clock-for-clock
>tl;dr its fucking nothing

>>59497706
Windows update released two days ago increased performance by fucking 35%.

So I'm going with yes.

>>59497706

Do you have a 60Hz monitor? Go Ryzen R7 1700

Do you have a faggot 144Hz gayming monitor and absolutely need to hit the 144fps mark in CS:GO on 720P low settings? Go Intel 7700K

File: 2017-03-21 07_16_02.png (96KB, 2281x940px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 2281x940px

>>59497936

I have the Ryzen R7 1700 at stock ($330, 8C/16T, 65W TDP)

I'm just gonna leave this benchmark here compared to Intel's 6900K ($1000, 8C/16T, 140W TDP) and 6950X ($1600, 10C/20C, 140W TDP)

Oh, and the Ryzen CPU comes with a really decent cooler, it's quiet at full load even, whereas shitty Intel doesn't even provide their infamous aluminium bottle cap heatsinks anymore KEK

>>59506252
how are 144hz monitors bad? you can pick one up for super cheap like £199 and they'll be a massive upgrade to the current shitty tn 1080p 60 hz panel you've probably been using for the last 5 years.

also even lower midrange cards like the 1060 or 480 can hit 144hz at high settings in games like bf4 at 1080p.

File: 1370403296525.gif (499KB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 420x315px

>>59506315
>TN Panel
>Ever

File: 1476498969665.jpg (15KB, 456x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 456x320px

>>59506200
>it's entirely composed of MMO's and outliers
YES GOYIM, DEFEND US FOR FREE!!!

File: 1476498194832.jpg (50KB, 676x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 676x720px

>>59506339
>IPS GLOW
Enjoy your blacks... I mean grays

so if single threaded performance is what is really matters in games most of the time, which CPU has the highest single threaded performance?

>>59506383
The VIA C7

File: TN panel.jpg (83KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1280x853px

>>59506315

>TN

>>59506383
G4560
but guess what, IT SUCKS FOR GAMING
it drops fps to single digits every other second

>>59506356
You've never seen an IPS panel in your life have you?

>>59506412
not from the reviews i've seen (HUB, digital foundry etc)

>>59506391
VIA gaming when?

>>59506412
so should I just keep using my 2500k forever?

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

72KB, 601x830px

>>59497771
fpbp

It's fucking horrible at gaming, it gets beat by Intel processors that cost half as much

>>59506623
>stock clocks

File: 1458529546398 (1).jpg (9KB, 248x251px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 248x251px

>>59506657
>overclocked

https://youtu.be/HZPr-gNWdvI

>>59500502
>>59501328
>>59505646
How are they fake? He did another set of tests at 720P, but that doesn't discredit the 1080P results.

File: joker-amd-shirt.png (524KB, 759x449px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 759x449px

>>59506754
Retard Joker is a literal AMD shill who sells AMD shirts

He even admitted his first test was GPU bottlenecked which means the benchmark was totally useless

Not only that but there is good evidence he underclocked the Intel processor

File: 0E3E564E-4D76-4128-AD61-744A2E161ED3-1340-00000159A133B358_tmp.jpg (95KB, 717x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 717x720px

>>59498952
It's only 40% better than an i5-2500K when the CRyzen is over locked and has SMT off. Toppest fucking kekerinos.

>>59506754
because there is evidence that proves he produced fake benchmarks to make the ryzen look better and also there are other independent benchmarkers like DF who's results also prove him wrong.

>>59506623
113/100=1.13
13%

if we assume a clocked 1700 can achieve 1700x speeeds, it's $20 under the least expensive i7-7700k cpu mobo combo on pcpp. Off pace but not trbl

I would go intel if your case has a window.

>>59498629
Cause CPU have been stagnant for almost a decade?

>>59506819
If you want to compare overclocked processors, the 7700k absolutely destroys the 1700.

There is no scenario where Ryzen is good at gaming.

>>59498952
The only reviewers who really seem to know what they're doing.

Okay /g/ with the 1700 on sale what do you guys think?

1700 + RX 480 or should I wait for 1600x + RX 580?

>>59506812
6950X only 37% better than 2600k !?! INTEL BTFO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

fucking retard.

>>59497706
Is not the best. But its the second best. Which is pretty good.

Also, if you're a poorfag, forget buying Ryzen 7. Either go for the i5 7600K, or wait for Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3.

>>59506831
>There is no scenario where Ryzen is good at gaming.

well there is one, if you're retarded enough to spend $500 to play at 60 fps on a 60 hz monitor.

even in the case of the 7700k its stupid if you're playing at 60 fps. any lower end i5 like a 7400 would be more than enough for that. hell, my haswell 4690k is still good enough for 60 fps with my 980 and i normally run into gpu bottlenecks not cpu bottlenecks.

for high fps gaming the intel is still king though obviously

>>59506812
>40%

Learn to math, or just use the link before you start shilling.

File: 1420458A-5AAB-4DE2-B410-628A30C7D2AC-4466-00000415F7C0E987.gif (580KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 480x360px

>>59506873
i5-2500K at 60%
CRyzen at 100%

The difference is 40%. Now off yourself.

>>59506807

t. buttblasted straya cunt Brian from TechCity

>>59506855
Get 580

>>59497706
You will have to pay high prices for DIMMs cause there are only a few that can go 3200Mhz wich is the clock that Ryzen likes to run its games.

>>59506717
Optimizations and R5/R3 series are still coming, which should be able to OC even higher.

Look at the far cry primal benchmark. the 6900k is ridiculously far behind the 7700k. This indicates a fairly severe problem with high core/thread counts in that game. I'd be interested in seeing what happens if you simply turn off half the cores in both a 6900k and R7.

I don't know what the fuck's up with Tomb Raider. Really wish that was in the SMT/WIN7 comparison video.

But The Division shows Ryzen actually pulling ahead, proving the potential IS THERE. At the end of the day, Ryzen has a higher IPC than Kaby Lake, which will start to show as optimizations come down the line both for software and actual chip production.

>>59506900
that's a 66% change m8

>>59506623
>Hurr durr I can write thousands of words of superfluous garbage, but by benchmark run is 30seconds long.
>Hurr durr, I need to record private telephone conversations.

Post benchmarks from someone who's professional and competent.

File: 24C38BA5-96B3-4866-8DCB-87F97F3BCE0E-1340-0000015B33E8C308_tmp.png (17KB, 328x215px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 328x215px

>>59506931
100*0,6=60 you moron.

File: 1436932577791.png (744KB, 964x768px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 964x768px

>>59506942
it's a 66% change between 60 and 100

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

61KB, 1306x1646px

>>59506938
16 game average

Ryzen is fucking horrible at gaming

>>59507021
Given that I don't gayme that much anymore, Ryzen looks like an incredible upgrade from a 2500k for compiling and encoding.
I think I'll grab the 1700 and then splurge all of my shekels for a refined version in a few years or wait for 7nm.

>>59506863
It's not even close to the second best >>59506623

File: 2980509.jpg (24KB, 800x375px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 800x375px

Ryzen scalling with RAM clocks is amazing. Some Intels can get slower results above 3000Mhz

>>59507054
>166.7

File: Math_for_Shills_1.png (28KB, 639x358px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 639x358px

>>59506900
(88.2/54.3)*100 = 166.7

Stay in school.

>>59507054
why are you writing it in this stupid way? how will this help anyone? do it properly

%change = (difference between value 1 and value 2) / value 1 * 100

value 1 = 60
value 2 = 100

therefore:
(100-60) / 60 *100
=
(40 / 60) * 100
=
0.666 * 100
=
66.6%

>>59507046
Ryzen is literally a $400 6900k.

>>59507040
> From your graph, i5 > i7-5960X.
>Let's ignore the minimums.
>Let's not discuss methodology.

Missing the context, tiger.

>>59506900
40% of 60% = 24%. Ryzen is not 40% faster, 2500k that is 40% slower. Ryzen is 66% faster than 2500k.

>>59507040
>average

shill we just saw that Tomb Raider has like a 50 fps discrepancy that isn't present anywhere else. Averages are some bullshit.

>>59507100
Thanks, well put. Latex fail.

File: ashes.png (76KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 601x830px

>>59507124
>isn't present anywhere else

Yes good goy

>>59507040
>no max framerate
>no frametime graph

We all know that Intel stutters like hell on 1080p and above. You can't trust on i5 for gaming anymore due to that.

File: wd2-16.png (5KB, 515x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 515x230px

>>59507132
Ryzen has horrible frame times too, I can post this shit all day

File: 1474506465801.jpg (19KB, 229x343px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 229x343px

>>59507065
>Buy $300 gaymen ram
>Still lose to 7700k

>>59504894
Because adobe is shit

>>59505606
yes

File: excel.png (27KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x450px

>>59507167
It's not just Adobe

File: intel jew.png (45KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 200x200px

>>59507181
>literal fucking milliseconds
>macroshit
nice try

>>59507189
The Intel CPU is 25% faster and costs $150 less

>>59507151
Do you even know what you are posting? Do you even read it? Shit is pure misinformation. Depending on how long the testrun those numbers could mean literally nothing, unless they were run in 10 seconds or less, then we have a major problem on the CPUs below 4790K

>>59507131
An 11 fps drop is not a 50 fps drop.

File: lol.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

>>59507210
>literal fucking milliseconds
>macropoojeetsoft
N I C E T R Y S H L O M O

File: fallout.png (74KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 601x830px

>>59507216
Really makes you think

File: HWBATTLE-Ryzen-comparison.jpg (122KB, 1263x725px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1263x725px

>>59507221
how gay you are?

>>59507210
>your penis is 1 inch
>mine is 25% bigger and costs less

>>59507221
It does, CCX issues

>>59507181
>excel

Oh shit, no wonder productivity is down, it's taking us nearly 300 milliseconds longer to...um...what is it measuring again?

>>59507221
>fallout 4

>>59506910
What about the CPU 1700 v 1600x for gaming.

>>59507221
>Bethesda
>consistency

Did you pray to the right voodoo god before running that benchmark? Were the computers facing magnetic north or true north? Was the Ryzen build on a ley line?

I've gotten wilder swings than that playing it on the SAME SYSTEM just on different days.

>>59507226
You have a 1.25 inch penis and you paid for it?

>>59506252
>>59506315
can confirm. got a 27 inch 144 monitor the othe day. i dont game a lot but when i do its glorious. even in the desktop its so much nicer to use

>>59507253
what ever will clock higher

you people are so easily fooled

its like admiting pepsi is better than coca

>b-but look at that 1 number i-its higher

no matter how hard you suck each others dicks it will always stay at second place and only fucking scrubs like the people of /g/ buy it because
>im a special person for buying something thats worse and ill do everything in my power to defend it on the numero uno virgin image board

>same performance
>half the power usage and price

I'm on ryzen on loonix right now

lurks 4chan britty gud

>>59498567
no it isn't. The human eye can see flashes of light 1/10000th of a second in pitch black. We catch faster frames with less light but have worse perception of it. When you're in full light and full quality you'll see higher quality and less "frames per second" but it's going to completely depend on the specific person whether or not it's 2 fps (most of you /v/ fags) or 100fps

>>59506613
pretty much if you are happy with it
it starts to stutter as well in modern games like MD or BF1

>>59498421
>at similar clocks they are

which is IPC...

>>59506819
>it's $20 under the least expensive i7-7700k cpu mobo combo on pcpp.
don't forget $40 cooler you need for 7700K

all in all 1700 is $80-100 cheaper than 7700K

>>59507896

You can perceive all you want but your monitor has a finite ability to switch pixels.

>>59507948
i just made 2 pcpartpicker builds and the ryzen one only came out to about £10 cheaper (£397 vs £408). both with cheapest cpu, mobo and cooler. they're basically the same price. the 7700k will be within a few pounds of the ryzen one if you already have a cooler and don't need to spend those extra £6 on one. they're both competitive options in terms of overall pricing with mobo and cooling if you want to get one which is better for gaming or better for production

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/sFzDTH

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/DVJrnn

>>59506819
>would go intel if your case has a window
I'm sorry anon, but your IQ is quite low
WHAT DF DOES HAVING A WINDOW GOT TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE?

>>59508168
>knowing computer parts has something to do with IQ

you have to make sure you buy the newest phantom nzxt case for improved performance so that will allow you to experience the 4k joy

if you put 2 windows on the case thats twice the performance so thats like 8k

make sure to attach a mechanical keyboard to it, HHKB preferably and a very decent razor naga gaming mouse

but the most important part is the XXL razer mousepad which enables a smoother PC usage

:
^
)

>>59497706
If all you do is gaming? No, get the i7 7700K, it's cheaper and does the job better.

If you do other productivity stuff that can exploit high core counts as well as game? Get Ryzen, it's perfectly fine for games and much better in productivity.

Bonus: If you don't intend on upgrading for a while, get Ryzen. Ryzen performs worse than the i7 7700K currently but current data would suggest that the 7700K is more or less fully utilized to do that and Ryzen is not. Previous trends would suggest that higher core count processors will eventually pull ahead of lower ones, but it can take a long time to do so. (The FX-8350 pulled ahead of Intel's offerings late last year I believe, four/five years after launch).

>>59502329
>trash for games

I like this blown out of proportion statement intel shills give. 2 weeks after launch and you're still saying stuff that has no amount of truth to it. It's fair to say intelfags went full autismo rage this time around.

>>59506121
I still got the 1800x, because i had money to spend, so why not?

>>59508256
no it doesn't fuck off intel poojeet shill

>>59508504
>suggest Ryzen in 2/3 categories, suggesting that the only reason you should buy the Intel chip is if you're both a heavy gamer and short sighted
>intel poojeet shill
wew

>>59508535
even for heavy gaming ryzen is better because better frame times and minimums

>>59508556
Source for the frame times? I'm aware of the minimums, but I wanna see this.

File: 1489151509477.jpg (75KB, 779x708px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 779x708px

>>59506817
Digital Foundry isn't independent, it's Eurogamers youtube channel.

>>59508691
eurogamer has their own youtube channel

Where are the ultra low watt Ryzen SoCs REEEEEEE

>>59508725
Should I have specified one of Eurogamers youtube channels?

I mean you can even check DFs about page.

>>59508761
either way they are independent and not affiliated to amd or intel unlike joker who is sponsored by amd and sells amd t shirts or someone like linus who is sponsored by intel

>>59507253
I too am wondering this.

If I want the best possible AMD CPU (yes AMD) for gaming, what is it?
>8-core
>6-core
>4-core
Currently I'm assuming the R5 1600X would be a healthy middle, but is it the best one?

>>59508780
Joker isn't sponsored by AMD, and his AMD shirts say "Make AMD Great Again"

They're fuckin joke shirts, out of the dozens of designs he sells.

>>59508833
let's not act stupid here. someone selling amd t shirts like "make amd great again" is just like someone wearing a tshirt with some shit like "the one and only nvidia!" written across it. everyone would believe the nvidia guy to be sponsored by nvidia so there no reason not to believe joker isn't sponsored by amd.

hell, in his own comment sections he shills for amd hard.

>>59497706
it's good at everything BUT gaming

>>59497706
It's the shittest
they should price it at bulldozer's price so it could be competitive

>>59509114
mean

>>59508816
It's going to be whatever hits the highest clocks. We won't know for sure until the reviews for R5 series are out but so far it looks like the 1600X will have the same stock clocks as the 1800X, so it may be the best price performer for games but probably won't clock much differently than the 1800X.

>>59509064
Eh they're fine in games for most people.

>>59500281
But AMD has the same shit built into their CPUS since 2011, only with a different name.

>>59497706
It's probably better choice if you wan't to keep the computer it for 2-3 years or more. Currently i7 Kaby is somewat better than R7 if you only want to play. Quadcores will get obsoleted next year with Intel Coffee Lake with 6 cores though, s I would not buy a new one today.

>>59500424
lel what the fuck is internet use
you can scroll down on facebook 19% faster

wonder who does that benchmark

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

1MB, 1004x4936px

>>59497936
>More importantly, is Ryzen good for non-gaming?
Depends, do you use H.265, h264, Wprime, blender, cinebench, veracrypt,7zip a lot? Then Ryzen will be good. If you use other stuff it even the 7700k is better.

>>59509238
>less cores
>better
lol

>>59508658
You aren't going to get it because both the minimums, the average and the max are higher on 7700k, same with frame times.
You just got attacked by a rabbit amd shill who though you were dissing the ryzen.

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

81KB, 608x369px

>>59509316
>more cores
>better
lol
>Because more cores is always better, no matter what real world results show.
AMD shill in a nutshell

>>59509403
Yes, moarcorez is better.

>>59509403
Baited this exact image response. I'll take more logical cores and threads any day of the week if I'm going to own a CPU for a long time. Ryzen isn't Bulldozer-tier in terms of it's single threaded performance either. It's good enough. As an added bonus it typically will draw less power than any X99 or heavily overclocked Baby Lake setup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7s-9RmCA8E
>AMD damage control
>using joke productions fps tests which everybody knows are skewed
>THICK Indian accent
Guys, guys seriously is this satire?

1080p? I5 or wait r5
2k or 4k? 7700k more maximum fps, Ryzen more minimum fps (and more future proof)
Also you need to wait for optimization, march 16 update has done something but no one has tested it

>>59499195

so if you game on 1440p the 1700/7700k perform exactly the same. meaning this whole discussion is useless for people who game on 1440p/144hz. like myself. which is why i bought the 1700 :)

>>59509403
Fun fact: modern scientific computing is literally "moar corez!!1" in a nutshell.

>>59509537
i bet he feels like a right dickhead now after those benchmarks are unanimously accepted as unreliable

>>59509573
>so if you game on 1440p
>and have a shit videocard that bottlenecks you
>then there is little difference in which CPU you use
Wow what a discovery.
It's not like if you get a better videocard the GPU bottleneck disaplears and you see which cpu is better.
It's not like there is videos that test the new 1080 Ti and show exactly this.

>>59509587
Okay, is this thread about scientific computing? Go find the OP post, I will wait.
Pro tip, its not: Ryzen for "server usage", it's not for "scientific computing".

>>59509607
Why would he, he is a literal payed shill, just listen to the whole video and you will literally get the narrative the shills have been trying to push in /g/ and /v/ for weeks.

>>59509623
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y73qlRPkbhA

holy shit skip to 4:55 and listen to this guy get so mad at the intel cpu lmao

>>59509657
>wwwwwuuuuaaaaAAAAaaAAHHHHAHA
>now this motherfuckers is getting hot
>now the case is hot
>now the graphics card is hot because the case is hot because the cpu is a motherfucker and hot
HOLY SHIT THIS SHILL higest of kek

>>59507875
what mobo?

I'm actually debating whether to upgrade to 7700k or ryzen right now. I do a lot more workspace stuff like video rendering rather than "gaming", so the ryzen seems somewhat more attractive. On the other hand based on everything I've read the ryzen seems to be worse at gaming shit than the 7700 is at work stuff. Am I wrong? I have yet to see a benchmark where the ryzen truly BTFOs the 7700k in order to make it viable.

File: ryzbondemon.png (631KB, 639x692px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 639x692px

your stadistics are wrong, the Ryzben demon is here to destroy you!!

>>59509623
Explain why in 4k you have minor min FPS with a 7700k then.

>>59509573
this a lot

>>59510035
crosshair ROG asus

>>59506855
wait for r5 benchmarks next month

>>59497776
>>59497778
Median quads

>>59497706
Yes unless you have a 200+ fps monitor.

>>59498038
More like on par with 7500-7600 (not K)
But i'm okay with this. Intel's 6-8 core analogues have ~the same singlecore perf.

>>59497706
No, unless you like to pay more for less performance.

>>59508473
Fair enough. If you're a pleb like me then the 1700 is undoubtedly the best option though.

>>59506657
>intel overclocks thrice as good as ryzen
STOCK CLOCKS IT'S NOT FAIR

File: 4a6.jpg (24KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x375px

>>59508128
>UK
You're halfway to Cuck

>>59508168
>the joke______
>
>
>
>your head_O_

>>59508211
SLI windows, xtreme, not dual booting win 10 for 2x the ram though?
>the way it's meant to be played

>>59511523
Intel can hit 12 GHz?

>>59510058
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18

It's good for everything except gaming.

>>59510058
Ryzen needs a lot of work. They're even releasing new microcode soon. At the end of the day, Ryzen is a more physically powerful CPU but it was released SO EARLY nobody was able to properly prepare for it, and with widespread Intel bias in programs and games, it's going to be an uphill battle.

In actual real world terms I would stick with 1151 if you have it. If you don't, start following JayzTwoCents, because he just completed his Ryzen build and will be using it to render all videos for his channel for the next month. In his initial findings with Ryzen he noted that scrolling through timelines was extremely smooth, even though render time for 2k youtube took 3 minutes longer than on the Intel system.

>>59509238
>Ryzen is good if you use 7zip
Where's my Compressor Edition Motherboard?

File: 20170318_160009.jpg (3MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x1836px

mainboards when? still waiting on a cooler as well but it should have shipped today

>>59497706
the answer is

good enough, fantastic choice and the best at the same time

games that are worst case scenarios for ryzen are good enough.

games where ryzen is utilized good enough, its a fantastic alternative, its an 8 core that is using 4-6 cores, if it was a quad core it would be shit for the numbers we get, but 8 cores offers other features like better load balancing so when something big happens in the background, gameplay is not hit, see the dota/obs as an example, where ryzen doesn't even touch framerates with it on or off, this is what you sould expect for most games

and its the best in games like mafia 3 that are built to handle 8 threads+

Even in cases where ryzen is completely fucked by something, see ashes benchmark, its still a great cpu.

a bit of growing pains, so it may be 6 months or so before it fully gets sorted out, but even then, you got ryzen, zen+ and zen++ that will be on the same socket, so you got upgrades without new platforms.

then in a few years time when both amd and intel have their 4 core + cpus out, games finally utilize them well, you will see ryzen still hold its own against intel.

right now, day 0 with very few games optimized for more then 4 cores let alone more than 6 cores ryzen is less than 10fps on average behind intel, on benchmarks that are day 0 with the worst showings possible.

Why can't R5 and R3 get here fast enough?

>>59512697
>"Just wait" the post
You're correct though.

>>59497819
Wow the Ryzen has some huge framerate drops as well...

>>59512360
Assuming that's a 1700 those are the same parts I'm going to order. I'm kind of disappointed with the available matx motherboards though.

>>59509373
t. intel shill

>>59509403
meanwhile intel has a 10 core amd doesnt, fuck off child

File: brand new ryzen pricing.jpg (584KB, 4418x2325px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 4418x2325px

if you're on a budget the $169 hyperthreaded quad-core ryzen 5 would probably a better choice for long-term use than a $200+ non-ht i5

>>59515148
Or wait for AMD to get off their asses and release the 1200X already.

what's unfair about this is comparing old 2+ year old intel processors against new released processors which haven't been optimized yet

File: 1489805174055 + elsa jean.jpg (791KB, 1080x1359px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1080x1359px

>>59507221
2 years old fully optimized intel cpus vs brand new unoptimized amd cpus

>>59514632
Didn't even say wait for it, I personally look at it as though nothing is going to get fixed at all, I would still buy one over an i7 just because currently I have an idle cpu use of around 30% and I don't turn shut off to play games, the overhead 8 cores allows, even if 2 ccxes are used offers me an overall better experience than pushing an i7 to its limit.

>>59515438
You are right, let's look at AMDS FX CPUS that have had plenty of time to mature and get optimized.
Oh wait, its at the fucking bottom.

>>59512352
It's called mini-itx

>>59497771
/Thread

>>59497771
Fpbp

>>59497771
/thread

go home folks

>>59516634
>>59516651
>>59516690
Having fun newfag? You realize we can see it's your IP posting?

>>59497771
Fpbp.

>>59497771
FPBP and amd shills BTFO

Бyйcтвo oднoгo ceмeнa, лyл.

>>59514903
1800x.. I went full retard due to a fat bonus. I am waiting on the Taichi to become available.

>>59517488
Well at least you're guaranteed to hit 4GHz. I'm opting to go full retard in a different area with an ultrawide monitor and an secondary SSD for games.

>>59517687
I have a 60hz 1440p monitor

What are you going to pick for graphics? I am cosidering something cheap until Vega

>>59516173
>6 years cpu compared to 2 year CPU
I wonder which will perform better!
Theres an area where proper optimization does nothing, it's literally at about 2 years for Intel's CPUs

It might be bollocks, but I think AMD is actually playing 4D chess

While the launch was indeed plagued with issues (like the RAM frequency ones), I think that AMD cleary knew from the beginning that the R7 was going to be just slighty better than the 7700k at best.

But for that moment.

AMD is acutally expecting that multithreading is going to be mainstream on the future games just like it's for programs (tests prove that Ryzen is almost good as the 8-16 6850-6950k for multi threading programs) Serious Sam Fusion was just announced today that joins the entire franchise in one package with Vulkan and Multithreading support.

If Ryzen proofs to be much more powerful than 7700k in multithread games, then it would be what they are expecting, to be the leader in mainstream multi threading processors for gaming in the mid and high end sector, and something better in the Intel deparment would be the 6850-6950k as I've stated above.

And why AMD wouldn't care shitloads for the today released games? Because devs likely wouldn't do a solution for them and instead it would be only for the future ones, and as long it runs at 60FPS, they doesn't give a fuck that there a few games that run internally at 80 fps vs 100 FPS in 7700k.

But again, I could be talking shit

>>59517726
Vega is probably going to be out by the time I actually purchase everything so I'll have that to choose from, but honestly the games I play aren't the kind that would require top end graphics outside of the occasional thing like nier or doom. So I'd probably be fine with even a 480 really. I am locked into AMD though because of freesync,

I'd recommend picking up a used mid tier card from a gen or two ago since they'll deprecate less for resale than the higher end cards when new stuff comes out but still be able to play things with the settings toned down.

>>59517844
>Don't compare our new ryzen to optimized intel
>don't compare our old optimzed cpus vs other old cpus
>compare ryzen only, I SAID ONLY to 6900k
>and only in terms of price performance
You shitting me or do you think mental games like these are okay?

>>59517488
I want to go full retard too. I would hate not getting 4.0GHz with a fat cooler.

On another note, what do you anons do with your spare parts? I'm thinking of buying parts for a whole new computer, but I don't know what I'll do with the current one aside from samba shares. Not having ECC is a shame, since I could just make it a NAS with ZFS and some homeserver properties.

>>59507221
>Bethesda games for benchmarking.

That is like putting your hand in a bucket of shit before testing perfume.

File: gordon.jpg (24KB, 407x407px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 407x407px

>>59517975
>don't compare our old optimzed cpus vs other old cpus
A.) Bulldozer isn't optimized
B.) Intel is the Finewine of CPUs compared to Bulldozer

Bulldozer/piledriver were shit consumer CPUs because consumer CPUs really only need high IPC and at most 2 cores/4 threads. Anything else is overkill for normal use

Good luck getting AMD CPUs properly coded for when Intel is well over 80% of the market and good luck getting higher core count utilization with at least half the entire market being composed of 2 cores CPUs.

Not saying AMD is great, but I am saying Intel has gone out of there way to slow parallel progression with low as fuck core counts because they want them maximum shekels per processor.

>>59518163
>what do you anons do with your spare parts?
save them until you have enough to cobble something together, I'll be using my old stuff for a HTPC or seedbox