>the real reason most reviewers tested with 2133 and

>>59563943
I'd love to know how they got 3600 CL16 memory to work. I can't get my system to run 3200 CL16, stuck at 2667 :(
I did get a 15 fps frame boost in fallout 4 going from 2400 MHz to 2667 MHz though

>>59564000
what is your favourite anime

Please delete your post.

Thank you.

>use 3600MHz RAM on Poozen that only works on 0.001% of chips/motherboards and it probably can't even pass memtest
>use slower RAM on Intel
>Poozen is faster
Woah...

>>59564006
Mobile Suit Gundam. I'm old.

>>59564026
Stay mad, corelet

>>59564026
They used 3200 CL14 on both and Ryzen overall won there.

Diminishing returns after 2666, though, except in two games

File: seem legit.jpg (86KB, 546x300px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 546x300px

lol corelet BTFO

I keep seeing such wildly varying benchmarks and I don't know what to believe anymore.

File: Delidded Ryzen 7 1700 Die.jpg (124KB, 602x401px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 602x401px

>>59564138
Any legit reason for Intel not to solder the IHS? Ryzen's die is about the same size.

>>59564164
Hmm, why would you solder the CPU if jew shit TIM is cheaper and the goyim are buying it anyway?

>>59564162
who do you believe, first world country or India ?

>>59564162
It's irrelevant, the margin of difference is minimal enough that you'd never notice unless somebody forced you to run benchmark comparisons

File: laugh.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>59563943
>yet another fake benchmark
5/10 for the effort though.

>>59564026
bad bait

File: 1481408701690.jpg (29KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 399x385px

Kek, yes, go ahead and buy those super expensive ram with 32Gb more expensive than your fucking CPU.

File: 1490041495857.png (944KB, 1228x1502px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1228x1502px

>>59564276
>>59564026

If we are going by performance/price ratio, we have to count the expense for the motherboard and the ram after all.

>b-but AMD is so cheap

Let's see the 7700K at lower RAM speeds as well.

>>59564412
This. The 7700k still fucking obliterates literally everything Ryzen has to offer in terms of bang for buck.

>RAM prices going apeshit this year and still climbing all the way till Christmas.
>Ryzen users need to get super ram for their CPU to get the most out of it.
This shit is going to add quite a bit of expenses to getting a Ryzen system.

>>59564412
>>59564503
>poorfags
KEK

File: 1484111197324.jpg (263KB, 800x601px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 800x601px

>>59564412
>>59564503
l m a o intelavivs are the poorfags now

>>59564518

you mean all users

File: wrong.jpg (29KB, 396x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 396x400px

>>59564601
>implying Intel's current offering don't still perform amazingly well at lower memory frequencies

>>59564164
So you could avoid warranty, intel hate free performance from overclock, same reason why K processor exist. jew at intel want you to pay for that free stuff

File: 36.jpg (479KB, 2000x1459px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 2000x1459px

REEEEEE

What's the different between 1700 and 1700X? 5% more fps?

>>59564503
>in gaming

>>59564000
right now, luck of the draw and motherboard. The taichi board went from 3200+oc to 3733+oc

once bioses get their shit together the speed will go up but fuck me the wait is hard.

>>59563943
Where the fuck does this retarded image with white text on a background of bright screenshots come from?

>>59564162
You got 3 issues.

1) memory related, an issue that will get fixed in time

2) ccx and the interconnect being tied to memory speed, possibly fixable and able to run independent, but assume it can't.

3) something in windows.

So you got people who run the memory at 2300~ speed because they cant get it to work faster

You then have games able to run on 2ccx that currently kills preformance

and you have some shit going on in windows. The above is likely ideal scenario. 3 games that take advantage of more then 6 cores, along with along with a system that can get faster memory to work, and likely post some windows fixes.

>>59564660
>i-it's okay. Intel is better for poorfags that can't afford good memory.
>We don't care about the absolute best performance anymore
>7700k is good enough!
>just wait for Coffeelake!

k e k

>>59563943
>the real reason
Shitty BIOS was the real reason.

>>59564848
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA

>>59563943
It's easy for anyone to manipulate FPS benchmarks if they are not using the in game benchmark. AMD did this in their Ryzen demo with Sniper and BF4 by displaying the skybox more often. It simply not a true benchmark if the variables are all over the place

>>59564971
>MindBlank Tech
>literally who tier reviewer
Yeah, no. Meanwhile nearly every single big and well established reviewer out there came to the same conclusion that Ryzen is shit at games

>>59564973
ItsOnlyOKWhenIntelDoesIt™

>>59564973
intelfags now becoming conspiracy theorists just like the muh russians liberals

>>59565000
http://www.intelpentium4litigation.com/

Forgot link

>>59564999
yea... no they don't.

You have at best a mixed opinion that its good enough and the extra cores are worth the trade off for most reviewers

gaming reviewers look at the 1700 and oc, and wonder if future games will work better as they move to 4 core + and newer apis

and work related reviewers who pretty much tell you intel is dead for workstations.

all of them have the caveat of bioses are shit, and windows may need patching.

well we are several bios patches in an 1 possibly major windows patch for ryzen, new reviews keep coming, and many of the big reviewers refused to re test when a new bios hit before launch.

Not to mention most reviewers got asus motherboards who literally shit the bed so hard /g/ went from they are great to never trusting them again.

While I do agree, shit is suspect at best, we do know ryzen is going to jump in performance each time higher speed memory is used, what's good to know is cas latency doesn't matter much.

File: 1489935357709.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4K7eIEAJx0

>>59564973
while that's true, the in game benchmarks are so fucking inconsistent across the board, who would ever trust that?

File: penn_jillette[1].jpg (31KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x400px

>>59563943

>it's another "no name youtube channel somehow gets better benchmark results than everyone else" episode

>>59565073
Well shit and i was really thinking about waiting to get the ryzen 5. well fuck it ill just get what i was planning on
Intel i5 7600k or 6700k overclock it with a EVGA GTX 1080.
NZXT accessories all the way.

>>59565073
and he is baseing this off a simulated cpu with 2400mhz memory... what a great opinion he has.

>>59565180
lol?

That guy in the video has been proven to be a moron repeatedly. And you're just as stupid for buying his bullshit.

The 1600 is way better than any i5.

>>59563943
no, the reviewers used shit ram cause the mobos to begin with were shit and need bios updates
fucking retard AMD and Intel fanboys crying corruption in youtube "media"

>>59565164
No, the "everyone else" was using 2133 and 2400 DDR4 on Ryzen while using 3200 on Intel.

>>59565449
actually the most corrupt reviews I found were from Arstechnica and other tech journalism shit sites, youtubers are actually much better sources for a good idea of what the baseline is by comparing several reviewers compared to just reading tech shit propaganda

>>59565533
I know the youtubers are better
generally the actual media is way more corrupt, in youtubes case it's usually just enthusiasts or uninformed idiots

>>59565533
Anandtech and Phoronix were good as usual.

Youtube was still full of people who had no clue what they were talking about, even if they were probably less bias on average.

>>59564999
except it's not, but i guess you're too fucking retarded to see the flaw in comparing a 8c16t chip with a 4c8t one in tests that aren't multithreaded.

go look at the simulations they did for 4c8t ryzen vs 7700k, it's very close and they're pricing it at HALF the cost of intel.

File: 1475211353488.jpg (108KB, 782x782px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 782x782px

>>59563943
DELETE

>>59564999
>literally who tier reviewer
Do you have anything intelligent to say about the methodology here being off, or are you just a mindless shill?

Activating Intel Management Engine, anyone who speaks ill towards Intel will have their personal information given to the lowest bidder come Dec 9th.

>>59564999
surprising that you're not a tripfag cuz you sure are as smart as one

File: 20-232-472-Z02[1].jpg (115KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1280x960px

>>59563943
When are we gonna get a Ryzen benchmark with something like this?

Why don't we use timedemos for benchmarks anymore instead of this "teehee I'll play for 5 minutes on this system and then 5 minutes on this system" with unequal results?

>>59565966
because these new DRIBLE AYY games cant do that. also they usually have a specific part of the game that they run to make it as even as possible.

>>59564026
>0.001%
>anything than isnt anus
nice try merchant

>>59565956
>CL19

>>59566134
now tell us how that effects the performance by listing a benchmark

>>59566145
higher speed is useless with higher latency

>>59564200
It's irrelevant, the margin of difference is minimal enough that you'd never notice unless somebody forced you to run benchmark comparisons

>>59566152

Wrong. Lower latency does help improve slower speeds.

>>59566175
If you have to raise speed by raising latency it may be running faster, but if it's waiting much longer for commands it doesn't matter how fast it's going

>>59563943
got a asus prime x370 pro which with stock bios runs my 3200 ram at 2133mhz. the latest bios update allows for 2666mhz somewhat stable but fucks up the cpu temp sensor adding 20celsius and sometimes the system freezes.

for anyone interested dont touch the asus prime its a giant unstable fuck up. dont expect your ram to work anywhere near its labeled performance stable.

>>59566152
>>59566187
post a benchmark

>>59566187
thats not true
if you up the latency and increase the speed you get higher performance on ryzen because the L3 is quite big

>>59566175
theres an old linus video about ram timing

it really doesnt matter in real world applications due to the speeds you have to run the dimms at to get the lower latency

inversely, speed doesnt really matter either after a point because you have to set such a high latency

>>59566261
Hey, retard, how about you post the formula for true latency and examples if you want to prove your point instead of anecdotal bullshit?

>>59566152
Latency in clock cycles / frequency = latency in actual time

Latency of DDR4-4266 @ CL19 = Latency of DDR4-3200 @ CL14.25 = Latency of DDR4-2400 @ CL10.7

infinity fabric needs fast ram and a better bios

wait a few months and the 7700k wont look nearly as good

>>59564412
>AMD system with the same RAM and a cheaper board basically matches Intel
>AMD CPU costs marginally more than that particular Intel CPU
>AMD system has twice the cores for superior longevity
>C2Q Q6600's were generally capable medium settings 1080p machines until 2013
>C2D E6600s were practically useless by comparison at the time of Sandy Bridge.

You. You have the smell of an immature child with no life experience.
Would you happen to be a virgin?

>>59564876
When you do the simple-ass math you see that Zeppelin is running it's inter-CCX uncore at 1.066-1.2Ghz at the stock rated settings. 45nm (Intel) designs could run their cache-to-RAM-communications fabrics at up to 4Ghz, almost eight damn years ago.

Frankly I see no reason why, except for power characteristics, the uncore cannot be unlocked to run at IMC speed. Maybe a new Ryzen revision with higher TDP will be released later this year with that capability at stock. Maybe they are just saving it for Zenver2 along with slightly better clock potential at the same/similar power draw, which would be a phenomenal win.

In any case if/when boards that can handle 3600 cl16 are commonplace, this speed is ~50% increase in cross CCX bandwidth and ~50% reduction in cross CCX latency.

>>59566956
Yeah, Q6600s are a good example.

When they came out, they were worthless. Single core performance was significantly lower and no games really used more than 2 at the time.

2-4 years later they had great resale value.

>>59567031
>Frankly I see no reason why, except for power characteristics
Because cross-CCX cache hits aren't nessisary for most workstation applications so they get much higher perf/watt. Gaming is different.

>>59567060
Q6600 were fine if overclocked, the stock 2.4ghz clock could easily be clocked up to 3.4-3.7ghz with a non-garbage motherboard

>>59566152
Correct a long time ago. Incorrect in 2017.

File: Stock baby.png (366KB, 2560x1400px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 2560x1400px

>>59563960
If I had to decide, Clannad

Also, stock clocks for that image.

File: 1468009978432.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>59563943

Does this mean that I should delete my 8GB DDR4 2400MHz kit and buy 3000+ MHz 16GB kit on my Ryzen 7 1700 CPU?????

>>59567903
3000+ kit isn't guaranteed to work on Ryzen. Those are clocks verified for Intel XMP.

You need to wait until mid April to get a good idea of what RAM to get, probably.

>>59565073

How did he get the Ryzen 5? Oh simulat-

>>59567922
simulated shillmarks

File: Trump_wrong.gif (2MB, 378x391px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 378x391px

>>59566152
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-performance-speed-latency

File: 1484563272026.png (267KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 420x420px

>>59565073
>2400MHz

>>59568931
DELET

>>59563943
Ram speeds have little effect on I7 performance.

>>59567389
Performance began to be severely limited by SSAO, post processing, draw call requirements and more robust memory usage by about 2012.

A 3.4Ghz 6700 using a 770 or thereabouts could only manage ~45FPS even with shadow and non GPU post-processing turned down or off (GPU dependent settings did not matter much). Lowered resolution wasn't an answer either. I shudder to think about using one in modern games.

>>59564745
less power draw at same clock
slightly less heat
easier to get it to 1800x level

downside no included cooler= ~$40

>>59569190
that reminds me, didn't they promise wraith max or something for 1700x/1800x?
It's hell to get AM4 coolers now.

>>59563943
INSHILLS BTFO

>>59568948
half or less improvement compared to Ryzen

>>59563943
dat Crysis and GTA5 shutterfest on 7700K

>>59569411
Four cores is enough.
It's ENOUGH!!!
Single thread performance is all that matters!

File: index.jpg (14KB, 242x208px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 242x208px

>>59569411
>>59569486

>1700 with -3200 MHz RAM versus 7700K with 3200 MHz RAM
>INTEL IS FASTER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

ok

>>59563943
7700K is a stuttering piece of shit, news at 11

File: 1489160516428.png (245KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x612px

>>59565164

>>59563943
No no please delet this my friend

>>59564000
he changed base clock from 100 to 130(?) can't remember the number.

>>59569589
But it's not.
Especially if you average the 0.1% minimums, with both having 3200Mhz RAM the 7700k loses really badly.

If you're going by averages, well you're fucking retarded, as expected as a gayman baby.

>>59563943
?2666 outperforming 3200
lel.

>>59564026
funny how you "forget" to include the 5GHz of intell vs the 3.97GHz of AMD

funny indeed

File: bench.png (514KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 500x498px

>>59569809
>0.1% minimums that literally barely ever happen and are complete ignorable vs 60 FPS lower FPS on average
Yeah, no thanks. I'll be sticking with Intel.

File: warhammer_2560_1440.png (23KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x290px

>>59569917
Really activates those almonds.

File: no bro.jpg (68KB, 1280x872px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1280x872px

>>59569947
>1440p plus GPU bottleneck

>>59563943
The real reason was that it was the highest clocks they could get at the time of the reviews. Even AMD themselves have said they have platform instabilities - with memory clocks being the main contributor.

That's why we're finally seeing these updated numbers right now - because with the UEFI and firmware updates, the AM4 platform can finally hit those speeds.

Which is good. Looks like there's an appreciable difference. Which really shouldn't surprise too many people. Skylake and Kaby Lake showed fairly impressive FPS gains with faster clocked DDR4 as well. Especially in open world games like Fallout 4 and The Witcher 3.

>>59569958
Who the fuck buys. $320 processor to play on 1080

>>59569988
/v/ kiddies and pootel shills

>>59569901
Would be funny if Ryzen could clock any higher than 4.1GHz

>mfw the 7700k is 150€ cheaper than the 1700x here in Germoney
>mfw amdicks are bragging about their 8fps advantage

>>59569988
CPU shouldn't botlleneck resolution.

>>59569988
Nobody. The point of playing at 1080p is to put the bottleneck on the CPU. At 1440 and above, the bottleneck is on the GPU. You could run a fucking Pentium or i3 at those resolutions in comparison to the R7 and i7 chips at those resolutions and higher and get nearly identical frame rate between all of them because the bottleneck is on the GPU now.

That's the only reason 1080p benchmarks are still done. You'd think /g/ would be smart enough to understand testing bottlenecks. Ya fucking retards.

>>59569988
People who don't want to drop below 60fps in AAA games.

>>59570027
It's cheaper everywhere as far as I know. This isn't a new revelation or anything.

>>59570027
well then, just buy cheaper one?

>>59569917
>cherry picking one shillmark
I recommend poison.

>>59569974
Then they should have used the same frequency RAM with Intel.

Ryzen scales better with memory, making it especially unfair and poor methodology to test it at a deficit.

>>59570065
>shlillmark
Dude, you need help.

>>59570027
1700 can OC too and all SKU seem to be pretty consistent OC wise

http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/3kPzK8/amd-ryzen-7-1700-30ghz-8-core-processor-yd1700bbaebox
http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/VKx9TW/intel-core-i7-7700k-42ghz-quad-core-processor-bx80677i77700k
http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/9Q98TW/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-34ghz-8-core-processor-yd170xbcaewof

Oh man 40 euros between the 7700K and 1700X, how close to 150 euros is that you think?

File: 1487730850625.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>59563943
Was going to post this, intel shills got fucking slayed

File: ahegao.jpg (53KB, 960x564px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x564px

>>59570027
>Intel cucks are the poorfags now

>>59570027
30 for minimum fps in crysis 3
Nazi got slain

>>59570027
nice cuck tax

>>59565956
When AMD upgrades their memory controllers. No motherboard out there can even come close to 4GHz RAM speeds.

>>59570047
this

File: 0.jpg (4KB, 126x126px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 126x126px

>>59570087
>pcpartpicker

>>59570099
The best part is that these are all games that were examples of Ryzen seemingly doing the worse with. You can see how bad the 2133 and 2400 performance is for most of them.

Decent memory speeds is all it took.

>>59570125
>de.pcpartpicker
Any other complaints or is that the only one

File: 1361129913352.png (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>59570027
No worries, R5 1600 will be cheaper and have more cores and be better in most games lad.

>>59564164
It's not actually. The non-HEDT Intel chips are smaller in size. The Ryzen R7 die is a good deal larger, but the individual cores are smaller.

http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/

Don't be surprised if the R5 or R3 Ryzen chips use TIM instead of solder.

>>59570132
Yep, and shill absolutist assumptions about tech have gone in intels favour for 8 years

>>59564338
Poor fags

>>59570157
See >>59565073
Anyone who thinks the r5s will outperform the i5s, let alone the 7700k, is an utter fucking moron.

File: CloOZrkWMAIC-P4.jpg (74KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1024x576px

>>59570173
>2400 memory
At least they should try properly.

File: 1490445878.png (241KB, 1270x935px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1270x935px

>>59570027
r7 1700 is priced almost identical to i7 7700k

>>59570173
they will and if you think otherwise you are a massive intel shill

>>59570179
Except Salazar is also using a low memory clock for the 7700k putting all processors on equal footing. Try again.

>>59570180
its a shill just ignore the kike

>>59570001
>clock speeds determine berformance
>what is bentium 4?

>>59570180
its actually cheaper

>>59570193

But low memory effects Ryzen unlike Kabylake, hence the reason 3200hz Ryzen 7 is faster than Kabylake i7 with 3200hz

>>59570201
>stop disproving shills
|
|>
|3
|
Gee. I wonder.

>>59570208

Fucks sakes, forgot deleting the thread name from /o/

>>59570206
New KL-X line is literally longer bibelines, part deux.

>>59570173
6/12 vs 4/4 .... hmmmm

in any game that uses more cores like battlefront yes it will day 1

>>59570220
>a single game among dozens

>>59569988
buying an i5 and overclocking the shit out of it or an i7 and doing the same is the only way to get a consistent 60 fps at nice settings in most games these days. optimization has been laughable in the last 2 years.

hell, i have a gtx 1070 oc and 4690k at 4.5ghz and i still get drops to the mid 40 in forza horizon because of tragic optimization from MS. the fucking xbox can run it at 1080p 30 fps high preset with 4xmsaa and gets a locked 30 fps 100% of the time yet my setup which is like 20x more powerful than a fucking xbox struggles to barely beat the xbox one. what a fucking joke. devs don't give a shit about pc players anymore.

>>59570208
>unlike Kabylake
That's already been proven to be categorically false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjFu-onLA68

>>59570239

Any modern AAA game will perform better with R5 wih high speed memory compared to an i5, I might argue that some games with good optimization will also run better on R5s compared to i7s but it will probably be on the minority side.

>>59570041
>Muh 720p benchmarks
yah sure

>>59570173
Almost every game released in the past 2 years does not run acceptably on a 100hz or 144hz+ monitor

The 4c/4t including the 7600k are all horribly inconsistent stutter-fests in most games. The 1600X has no such problem except in a very small handful of games like Doom that need a patch for it, while the 4c/4t run like shit in comparison in everything else.

>>59570180
Guy is just a dumb shill. He's German and just feels bad about the holocaust so now feels he has to suck Intelaviv's dick and lie on 4chan.

>>59570027
> 396 Euros for 1700x https://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-8x-3-40GHz-So-AM4-WOF_1144033.html
>352 Euros for 7700k
https://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-4x-4-20GHz-So-1151-WOF_1132469.html

Get ovened kike

>>59570260
>proven false in a few cherry picked games
k

>>59570027
>mfw amdicks are bragging about their 8fps advantage

nigga what? thats basicly what you intelcucks have been doing all this time.

also you neglecte to mention that the 1700 is priced the same as the 7700k or cheaper

you also forgot to mention that overall mins are higher than the 7700k

you also forgot to mention that the 8core is way more futureproof.

and that the performance is increasing by the week thanks to almoast daily bios updates.

its a fresh architecture, give it some time and it will asspound the intel cpus.

File: 1363471069505.jpg (25KB, 327x297px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 327x297px

>>59570173
>doesn't understand minimum frame rates
>doesn't understand game smoothness
>doesn't understand Ryzen's fast memory requirements
>doesn't understand that gaming isn't everything brah

>>59570288
You want to test out whether it's the CPU or GPU causing bottleneck, that's what you do you fucking retard.

>>59565180
>NZXT accesories
>Intel
>EVGA

Do you shills get paid based on the number of times you mention a company ?

>>59570434
No, that's what you do to find where the bottleneck is at 720p, which no-one uses. Can't believe this meme is still around.

To know what gaming performance is like at 1080p or 1440p, you need to test at those resolutions with reasonable graphics cards for each (e.g. RX 480 for 1080p, GTX 1070 for 1440p)

>>59570407
>doesn't understand that minimum framerates are exactly why 4c/4t are dogshit for games from the past few years, let alone 2017.

>>59570465
Supposedly so. No sane man will buy EVGA after the gigantic fuckup that was their Pascal lineup.

>>59570473
Exactly, so R5 1600 is going to have a big advantage over Core i5 in modern games, for a similar price.

>>59570118
My z270i strix 4266 gaming says high

>>59570493
What fuck up?

>>59570539
Cards literally FUCKING EXPLODED to due zero VRM cooling.

>>59570493
there's nothing wrong with going evga now. their problems have been fixed and they have the best customer service out of the lot. i bought a super cheap 980 off ebay 2 years ago and it served me well till i started getting some black screens and apparently it was something to do with that specific bios for that specific model of card and i sent it back last week for rma and unlike the kike companies gigabyte, msi and asus who would just flash on a new bios and send it back to me, they offered me an upgrade free of charge to a 1070 because of the problems i'd been having.

Intel and Nvidia shills will continue to use day 1 benchmarks forever more. They did the same with the RX480 even though it now matches and sometimes beats the GTX1060.

Intel and Nvidia shills are scum and tech review sites are cunts for not revisiting benchmarks.and misleading the public.

There are people in this thread at this very minute who claim they play games and they use sub 3.8 Ghz ram.

These are the people you are conversing with.

File: 1251150649558.jpg (43KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 256x256px

>3.97ghz ryzen beating 5ghz i7

>>59570041
Moral of the story is...

If you want to play at 1080P just buy a good GPU and not worry about the CPU too much (as long as it's not too old and slow).

For everything else get Ryzen.

>>59570080
Most tech review sites are dumb or shills. They probably still believe in the memory speed not affecting game performance meme.

>>59570571
>what AMDrones actually believe
Ryzen is fucking shit at 1080p 144Hz

>>59569917
I want to say something about using that chart is biased but I love Intel.

>>59570599
OP's post proves otherwise. But keep throwing around insults based on thin air. It makes you look like an idiot.

>>59564412
>>59564503
How does it feel to be poor?

File: 12343151.jpg (532KB, 1765x992px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1765x992px

>>59570118
>>59570532
4000 CL16

>>59570775
this is how you run games

fucking retards>>59570532
>>59570132
>>59569901
>>59569865

>>59570545
proof please

>>59570565
>bentium flashbacks

>>59570953
proof they they fixed the problems or that i got the 1070 as a free upgrade?

All I see is a lot of whining shills and no actual rebuttal to the hard facts, that happen to be post-recent windows update
GG intelfags, you now have the solid proof you need that even a 7700K was a rip off
If you couldn't already figure out that intel is dropping quad cores next year and you got duped into buying 2010 tier core count

>>59563943
dat CPU bottleneck

>>59570775
>>59570532
Awesome. That's so cool.

So what does Intel's memory controller that we all already know is capable of those speeds have to do with AMD's memory controller?

Or are you fucking retards just illiterate?

>>59571176
you said no motherboard can even come close to those speeds. There you have it.

>>59570541
>>59570493
Only cards I'd buy from them anymore are the Hybrid cards. Those were unaffected.

The rest of their lineup though you can't trust anymore.

>>59571211
Jesus fucking christ are you really this stupid? Do you not understand context? If the original poster I was replying too was referring to when AMD chips will be able to reach those memory speeds, and I said they can't until AMD updates their memory controllers because no motherboards right now can reach those speeds...

Do you think maybe - just maybe - I was talking about AMD motherboards and the AM4/Ryzen platform as a whole? Or is the whole concept of "context" a foreign idea for you?

>>59571237
But they can?

>>59571271
No, they fucking can't.

The best they can do is the high 3GHz as shown in the OP's image.

I'm done with you retard.

>>59567544
What the fuck? The 1700 beats the 6950X?

This can't be real. I was actually going to get the 6950X too.

Is the 1700X really that much better than the 6950X?

>>59571288
In some workloads, yes, mostly do to superior SMT implementation.

>>59570208
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/
It does affect performance.

>>59571319
I have an ultrawide 1440p monitor and was looking to upgrade to the 6950X for streaming purposes (League of Legends).

I also play other games and streaming would only really be a thing I do to get some money from coaching people and shit, but if the 1700X and 1800X are way better than the 6950X, I need to know so that I can save my money.

>>59571344
You're fucking retarded m8

>>59571374
????

>>59571344
>streaming mobatrash
Even hyperpentium could probably do that.

>>59571403
On 1440p ultrawide without crashing?

My 6700K can barely handle it.

>>59571344
Very few people would notice if you done 720. Because they're shitposting in chat, not using the full video. Thus not using full 1080. Keep what ya got and spend what's left over on a fresh buttplug you fucking faggot.

>>59571413
use the igpu or your gpu encoder like a normal person.

>>59571413
>he fell for 1440p ultrawide meme
My sides.

>>59570118
From what I see, the question isn't even if it can run memory at 4ghz, the question is if the chip can run 64gb of ram at decent speeds.
Currently if you try to use 64gb you will see memory speeds dropping to 2ghz and lower. Seeing from a workstation point, you want high bandwidth, and and doesn't offer quad channel or high memory frequency, hurting performance in high usage cenarios like VM or modeling/cad

>>59571344
Get the 1700X and OC it. 75% the price of 1800X and runs 2-3% slower when both are OCed

>>59571434
>memory speeds dropping to 2ghz
Is that supposed to be bad?

>>59571452
>Is that supposed to be bad?
For Ryzen? Yeah.

>>59563943
>AMD releases Ryzen with motherboard bios not being ready so people can't get their RAM clocks
>It's intel's fault

>>59571088
the free upgrade

>>59569917
>0.1% minimums that literally barely ever happen and are complete ignorable vs 60 FPS lower FPS on average
Well that's like more than once per 10 seconds. Wouldn't call that barely ever.

File: evga.png (196KB, 1244x781px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1244x781px

>>59571546
i'm not the only person this has happened to either. there was another anon about 2 weeks ago who made a thread about his 780 ti breaking and that he got a free 980 ti as a replacement from evga.

>>59571623
wow that is nice, thanks for the proof anon.

File: IMG_004.jpg (1MB, 1531x2233px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1531x2233px

JIJ!

>>59572275
>>59572290
This is an English speaking board. We don't speak baguette fromage in here.

>>59572301
>being an illiterate

File: giphy[1].gif (494KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 200x200px

>>59572275
The word for "cores" in french is "cœurs" meaning "hearts" :O

>>59572275
>>59572290
So basically these pages are saying that Ryzen's computational/encoding/rendering performance is in between the 6800K and 6900K, worse than the 7600K in gaming, in between the 6900K and 6950X for wattage?

I'm not sure what the last one is saying, though.

>>59572753
last one is a price/quality ratio (according to them) .

>>59572782
That's a really bad price/performance ratio...

They should have numbered it or something so we can see exactly how relative it is.

>>59572275
>>59572290
This was probably not 3200+mhz (the point of OP), and came out before the recent windows update and other game optimisations

Wow Intel niggers using the same excuses that they accused amd users of doing. Lmfaoo the suicide watch and damage control is real.

File: 840393f240134c74ac590ce388724f35[1].jpg (230KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 800x600px

Reaching 3200MHz is a hassle on X370

Meanwhile Z270 motherboard manufacturers promise factory overclocked RAM suppoort out of the box. 4133 or above.

>>59573153
>mature platform werks better with overclocked IMC
Water is wet.

>>59573172
I just really wanna see these motherboard makers get going on this new platform

If the Infinity Fabric works that much faster with higher clocked RAM I want to know what happens at 3500 and above

But how does intel perform on 2133 and 2400 ram?

>>59573339
Worse but the difference is less pronounced than it is with Ryzen. The issue is the Infinity Fabric connecting the two CCXs in a Ryzen die runs at 50% of the RAM speed, so faster RAM improves communication between the CCXs.

Ryzen at 4266 when?

>>59563943
>video game benchmarks

Why not something useful as a benchmark? Like how many tabs of porn you can have open at the same time in a browser.

>>59573397
Ok ty

>>59573199
>what happens at 3500 and above
those tests are at 3600, not 3200
AXMP profiles seem to be coming out, so who knows what's the limit really
nobody expected it even go above 3000 week ago

>>59573153
Ram at that frequency will be more dependent on the CPU than anything. 4266 will be the peak it seems.

Getting stable OCed ram with a stable OCed CPU is difficult. Z170 can do 3600 already and it's difficult with just that let along 4200.

AMD's line of CPUs may better handle the higher frequencies.

>>59573988
I got the impression from reviewers that 3600+ works well with Z270

>>59570034
Doesn't make sense to expect any CPU to push crazy FPS numbers because you decided to pair an overkill GPU with a low resolution.

The whole "predictor of future performance" shit isn't even true anyway. More cores is a way better indicator of longevity than how many FPS it pushes.

There are many examples of this. Q6600 vs dual core, FX8350 versus 2500K etc.

>>59574795
You have to remember that most people don't realize they have to OC DDR4 ram to get that speed. Modern PC "enthusiasts" you're dealing with here. Even if you do get that speed there's no telling what kind of stability tests they did if any past the boot test.

Why you see the really high OCed CPUs have stock or slower ram speed. Under 2400 or w/e the stock for DDR4 is.

wehen the fuck is R5s going to get released I wanna see those benchmarks. I wanna build a AMD PC again.

>>59570166
>Don't be surprised if the R5 or R3 Ryzen chips use TIM instead of solder.
Can you name a single AMD CPU using TIM instead of solder?

>>59566134
>doesn't know how timings work

>>59575063
April 11th

Should I get 1600X or 1700X for gaming?

>>59564503
> Buying a new motherboard every year to upgrade

>>59575217
are they going to release any new motherboards for the r5 or just slowly release what we have out now?

>>59575228
Literally 7740K

>>59575048
>they have to OC DDR4 ram to get that speed
Yeah alrigth so a kit that says 3600MHz 1.35V isn't necessarily stable no matter the size of their meme heatsinks is what you're saying. So more volts.

I'm still on Ivy Bridge, so I'm still reading up on the world of DDR4 since Ryzen came out.

>>59575237
Plenty of new mobos incoming, including A-XMP enabled

>>59563943
CONVENIENT

|
|>
|x
|

>>59575041
>More cores is a way better indicator of longevity than how many FPS it pushes.
this. I remember the transition from "there are only single cores" to "needs dual core to run" and again from "there are no quad cores" to "better have a quad core if you don't want a slide show.
frequency scales in a linear fashion. having fewer MHz than optimal is no deal breaker. when a program wants to run more threads simultaneously than your CPU can handle performance takes a very steep dive.

>>59571288
>>59571319
Is the SMT implementation on Zen really that much better, or could it just be that 512kB L2 caches are just a better fit for SMT in general than 256kB?

>>59575644
Dunno. it's not like we can conveniently remove half of it to test that.

File: 1245708698912.jpg (321KB, 853x1280px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 853x1280px

>>59573439
Beyond 4266

>>59575318
No the ram should be stable if the kit says it is. The CPU may be unstable with that ram that high though.

File: 1izrd222h5ny.jpg (459KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 3264x1836px

>>59570473
Exactly, so R5 1400 is going to have a big advantage over Core i5 in modern games, for a lower price.
>remember? 4c/8t bruh.

The i5 is currently 240$. The cheapest R5 will be the 1400 (plus that sweet cooler) at 170$
The i5 series is going to get it's lineup shredded.

Hell, the 1600 is 20 dollars less and should come with a cooler.

>>59575813
Ah I see. That seems risky. Any way to make certain the CPU will run well with a high frequency like that?

I remember with Core2 you had to line up your RAM and FSB frequencies

>>59575911
*with a high RAM clock

File: 1489265126301.jpg (24KB, 418x438px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 418x438px

>>59563960
Hunter x Hunter

>>59570166
Mate they come off the same line, they're just R7s with disabled cores. They're gonna be soldered.

>>59575782
Holy shit I just realized the timings
Looks tight at such a high clock

>>59575782
>4503mhz
>consistent c16 timings
Sub 7ns latency at 72GB/s. Too bad more than a year later we still don't have anything close to this. Thats incredible.

>>59575662
you could make a passably approximation in software by laying out physical memory allocations that all aliased to only half the L2 cache, e.g., by using only every other 4kB physical page, etc.

>>59573648
I'm still waiting til the end of the year both for platform maturity and to see if the rumor of a new stepping is true.

Not gonna drop $1500 on an entirely new setup until I know exactly what to expect.

>>59576218
Only one motherboard can do 4500mhz official specs.

>>59563943
Wow. I guess I'm buying Ryzen 3 next.

>>59575911
>Ah I see. That seems risky. Any way to make certain the CPU will run well with a high frequency like that?

Generally a stock CPU or lesser OC will run higher ram frequencies fine.

File: 1489626734650.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>59566134
nigga not understanding why we go to cl19 because we can't break the laws of physics

File: 14721094426550.jpg (31KB, 419x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 419x480px

>>59563943
post your face when joker benches were correct one all along and you knew it but retards could not comprehend the 3000 RAM importance.

File: 1489067834412.jpg (62KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x960px

>>59564012
that subtle troll

File: 53-amd-ryzen-7-1800x.png (12KB, 719x547px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 719x547px

>>59563943
I'm not into graphworks. I need rundown. Ryzen btfoing kaby I guess? Not big news.

>>59563943
>you need a $250 mobo and $200 ram to get anywhere near these results
Might as well get a 6900k then, most people are getting a B350 Tomahawk board at best which can't even reach these ram speeds as opposed to throwing away money. AMD failed, again, because they continually fail to surpass Intel or Nvidia in any meaning/significant way. So with Ryzen they've basically caught up with Intel to where game performance is a little worse than Intel (for a higher price) and productivity performance is about equal (for a lower price) to Intel. (I should also point out that all Intel would have to do is lower the price of their high end cpu and it would take away ANY reason to buy an AMD Ryzen cpu) But that's a failure because AMD needed to soundly beat Intel on both fronts, and it couldn't even do that despite going up against older Intel chips. Intel will be releasing new chips and I have no doubt they will destroy Ryzen.

>>59572575
Where do you think we anglos got the word "core" from, bro?

File: 1488819308021.png (243KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 800x612px

>>59577060

File: but ryzen is supposed to be smooth cried the amd shills.jpg (380KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1920x1080px

>>59569411

>>59577060
B-b-but AMD comes with a free cooler, Intel doesn't!
AMD is clearly cheaper, so what if you need a high end motherboard, so what if you need high end ram, so what if the cpus cost either the same or more.
The free cooler makes amd cheaper!

File: h_01933237-512x318.jpg (52KB, 512x318px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 512x318px

>>59577669
>>59577607
>Crysis and GTA5
>post Watch Dogs 2

Yes, goy, show them!

>>59577684
>ryzen is perfect you hear me sugar, PERFECT!
>did you forget about other benchmarks, you cherry-picking shill?
>OH VEY you aren't supposed to point out we are cherry picking!

>>59575257
x299

File: 1488653145415.png (408KB, 882x1418px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 882x1418px

>>59569555
because you got tripps you get another chance not to save the thumbnail

>>59577711
2 games is more than 1 game
you lose

>>59577807
I hate you. What the benchmarks should show is at least 50 games so you can actually get a good idea.
But no, give 1-2 benchmarks and the shills will parade it.

>>59577933
what? you're the one using a smaller sample size!

>>59577961
My point is that you are fucking cherry picking and leaving out shit.
>B-but if you are trying to shill then you are using even a smaller pool
GUESS what tard, I am not trying to shill, I don't get payed for it.
Jesus fuck, how hard is it for you to understand that I want good benchmarks with a big sample from multiple sites.
Not this 3-7 games tested and ??? testing methodology.

>>59570180
the r7 comes with a good cooler. the 7700 doesnt

>>59578877
DELID DIS

>>59578877
>good cooler
Yeah right. I'd rather pay $20 more to make sure I get an actual reliable cooler of my own choosing.

>>59578877
if you are poor and cannot afford a liquid cooling system why even bother with a core like 7700k just get ryzen and be done with it.

File: 1477048315059.jpg (535KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 707x1000px

>>59579055
thats what im going to do, once the r5 comes out ima get that cuz its gonna be way cheaper than any intel stuff. i need to replace basically everything in my computer so the cheaper processor, free cooler, cheaper mobo, all really add up to a good value.

hopefully the bios issue will be solved by then

>>59579033
And then watch your temps get to 90+ anyway because i7-7700K uses shit TIM instead of solder.

>>59579125
DELID THIS

>>59579107
I hope so too man, I want to either see some real long term benchmarks or a new core from intel. I am building a new pc as well and although budget is not an issue I would really hate getting the 7700K only to get roflstomped by some chip days after some "windows update"

>>59571237
Please post proof of Sandy Bridge or X99 or some other new chipset hitting 4ghz memory on the first 2 weeks of launch.

Thanks, shill faggot.

>>59571344
Honestly just sell all of your worldly possessions and give it all to charity.

Random strangers would do better with that money than you obviously can based on your posts.
>xd I was going to spend 450% the money on a 3 year old platform that's going away in a few months for a maybe 5% performance increase on something completely retarded

>>59571434
No shit. The 8cores are for main stream desktop and just light workstation loads.

The 12 and 16 cores with octochannel memory are for what you describe. Dur.

Go fucking figure a $300 CPU isn't optimal to use $400 of memory with.

>>59575218
I'm getting the 1600X and I'll wait until 3rd or 4th generation to upgrade to an 8 core or better 6 core.

Or hell, I might switch to their next HEDT that comes out with a 12 core.

>>59575228
>>59575257
l m a o
7700k wasn't even out for 6 months and it's already getting a new motherboard fro the 7740k.

>>59575644
For that benchmark, it's more to do with the 512kb L2 cache.
But in general, yes AMD's SMT is much much better than Intel's. More than 20-30% better. Which means it's like having 20-30% more cores than Intel CPUs have in something that's multithreaded well like Cinebench.

>>59579389
hate to break this to you, but only Naples (= 4 Zeppelin dies = 32 and maybe 24 cores) will be octochannel.

the 12c/16c double die MCMs are quad channel only with 2S/2P not even rumored.

File: X390.jpg (295KB, 1260x712px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1260x712px

>>59579680
Naples is 16 channel.

There's 4 dual channel MCs on Snowy Owl, and 8 on Naples.

File: 1489581543609.jpg (150KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1000x1000px

>>59575257
>cheapest most barebones x99 platform mobo is 160 dollars
>i5 and i7 XX40k variants are going to be HEDT platform as well

ENJOY YOUR SOCKET CHANGE A YEAR

ffs, it's literally the same CPU.

>>59579755
A socket change a year keeps the goyim in fear

>>59579753
2DPC (= DIMMs per channel) aren't each two channels you retard.
A channel is literally a set of common metal traces from a processor/memory controller to at least one, and in PCs usually more, memory modules sharing the data bus through time multiplexing.

the word you're looking for is "slot".

>>59575644
>>59579502
Based on the kernel compiling tests I've run 1700x is seeing around 73% better performance with SMT versus ~25% that Intels seem to get from HT. The much better cache design of Ryzen is certainly contributing to that but that can't explain everything

>>59582537
that's really impressive actually

my shitty a8-6600k gets 50%, but it's not real smt, just some shitty shared modules or something like that

>>59582537
Compiling is quite an edge case. Lots of waits there. More so depending on HDD speed, I'd figure.

Cinebench is more of a real world average, and AMD's SMT seems about 30%+ better there.

But yeah. There are many cases where the 1700X does outperform the 6950X because its superior SMT makes it seem like a 10 core Intel due to its superior multithreaded performance.
Which is going to have the Ryzen 1950X or whatever they end up calling the 16 core looking almost like 2 7950Xs, it'd appear.

>>59579125
DELID THIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf8V_UulpB#t=1m30s

>>59577060
>B350 Tomahawk
>Supports DDR4-3200+(OC) Memory

come on, not to mention MSI first one to add AXMP profiles, probably next week

>>59578024
>My point is that you are fucking cherry picking and leaving out shit.
that's what you are doing, all other games in that benchmarks have better frametiems without giant spikes, you decided to show wd2 of all things which is known to have problems with new arch due to how dx12 optimization works and hate to be precise

>>59583416
this would absolutely destroy intel, amd would probably sell that for 900~1100 max

I just want to see Naples, if they can get this kind of performance scaling they will chew a nice part of the server market from intel

>>59583416
compiling _is_ real world use case pleb and I'm using tmpfs ramdisks because fuck slow i/o

>>59583527
I would imagine they'll sell the 12 core for roughly the same price as the 7900k and the 16 core for slightly cheaper than the 7950X.

Why would they be cheaper when the 12 core is probably going to be similar overall performance to the top end 10 core, and the 16 core really has no competition in the HEDT market?

People seem to think they'll be so much cheaper and are rapid drones about it on /r/AMD. But think about it. It's like 2 1700 dies with even more features on top of that (more than double the PCIe lanes, for example). Volume will also be much lower. It makes absolutely no sense that it'd only be $700.

I was closer than most in assuming the 8 core Zen CPU would be around $400. Most people assumed $650+. I think the 12 and 16 cores will be be similar priced to the 8 and 10 core Skylake-X.

>>59583564
It's not a common task that you need shortened.
I'm wording this poorly... Like it's a common task, obviously. But usually it's less than 5 seconds, and shaving 1 second off isn't a huge deal. You usually aren't doing huge compile tasks like compiling Linux unless it's in the cloud.

Whereas rendering like with Cinema 4D can be something you do many times a day that takes many minutes or more.

And beyond that, compiling is pretty straight forward in what it does. Rendering is a huge variety of instructions. I wasn't sure how to put that in simple words, though.

>>59583762
I don't think it will be more than $1300-$1500 then, they already released a quite similar 8 core for less than half the price of intel's (since you could overclock all r7's to similar frequencies and get the same performance), so they could launch a 16c/32t for 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the price of intel's correspondent ones (6950X in this case)

Why do they test games at 1080p when you have 400 dollar CPUs and 700 dollar GPUs

fucking slam that shit on 4k and don't be a fucking kike trying to shine shit.

Haven't used 1080p since 2008, dear lord.

>>59583876
because the difference will be bigger, so people will think X is absolute trash while Y is god tier

>>59583830
Perhaps. But that's probably because it's likely that the 7900k and 7950X will be cheaper than the 6900k and 6950X.

>>59583876
Still useful to see somewhat of a CPU bottleneck at least in newer games.

>>59584080
doubtful, intel just announced a 7700k with 100MHz higher base clock, and it will possibly be more expensive

>>59584129
The chip itself should be cheaper... No iGPU.
I'd guess about $290 for the 7740k.

However the motherboards will probably be $40 more than the cheaper Z270 ones.

>>59584169
they will charge more, ""new"" architecture, ""faster"" processor, muh professional workloads with le fuckton of RAM, targeted at people who need the best performance on the market

even if they don't charge more, it's still wasteful compared to a 7700K, it doesn't even support quad channel RAM, and you have to pay a lot for the "professional" motherboards that it requires, because surprise surprise, new socket again

skylake-X will probably just give higher clocks on current chips and introduce a new one with 12 cores or similar

>>59584221
and with higher prices too

look, can we just accept ryzen is absolute dogshit for high fps gaming? yes? ok at least we got that settled.

anyway, the ryzen 5 1600 looks p.good for the price and should be good for 60 hz gaming with my 1070 at 1440p. might even go for 4k since monitors are super cheap now. what does /g/ think?

>>59584221
Well do you remember the 5775C? That was a 4 core with 128MB of EDRAM.
It was 3.3Ghz base, 3.7Ghz turbo, yet is still faster in many games today than the 7700k is.

Potentially, the 7740K could have more cache or something and could actually be good.

As it stands, the 7700k is not good enough for 144fps minimum in many games from the past 2 years. Many max out all 8 threads 100% on it before that. So if all it is is a 100mhz higher base clock, yeah it'll be pretty shit.

>>59584221
>7700K
A 7700k is wasteful too. anyone considering it may as well get a 4770k or 4790k instead.

Intel shouldn't have kept making the same 4 cores over and over.

>>59575782
>not liquid cooling the RAM

>>59583452
>you decided to show wd2 of all things which is known to have problems with new arch due to how dx12 optimization works and hate to be precise
Exactly, you know why?
Because you left it out!
You want to just shill away and pretend ryzen is perfect. So obviously I will bring up the shit you conveniently happen to forget about.

>>59584169
>The chip itself should be cheaper... No iGPU.
>I'd guess about $290 for the 7740k.
are you serious? it's intel it will be at very least $390 not to mention new socket for premium

>>59584307
yes, and 7700K sucks at bf1 multiplayer, what point are you trying to make exactly?

>>59584406
>what point are you trying to make exactly?
Don't cherry-pick benchmarks that only support your narrative.

>>59584406
no it doesn't. this is the 6700k (7700k) at 4 ghz and compared to the 1700 at 4 ghz and it steal beats it by way over 10 fps on average. sometimes up to 30 fps. this same guy made another video with all of them oc as far as they could go with the 6700k at 4.6 ghz and 3570k at 4.5 ghz and they both trounced the 1700. there's no bias here, just facts. check his channel he does loads of benchmarks and actually records his benchmark methods unlike these websites who just show us graphs with no methodology.

https://youtu.be/R1nct1v9BNk

>>59584391
I'm 99% sure the only reason Intel is suddenly working on a 4 core with no iGPU on the new socket is because of the competition Ryzen has brought.

They need to offer 4 core with no iGPU and 6 core for cheaper than the 7700k and 6800k were.

Why else are they suddenly offering a 4core with no iGPU on the HEDT platform?

>>59584307
No one is saying Ryzen is perfect. It's just better than Intel's shit they dumped down people's throats and actual good value.
The compromises with Ryzen are small compared to the compromises with Intel.

>>59584455
This is exactly the point people are making, that you're simply too stupid to read and understand.

Look at that 95-100% utilization across all threads on the Intel CPUs while it's only 10-85% on Ryzen.

You can clearly see it's only beaten Ryzen because Ryzen is uderutilized. And by the same token, even without having a game optimized properly for it to utilize it like it utilizes Intel CPUs, Ryzen is left with tons of performance to spare for other applications while still running the game that well.

The 1700 there could run TWO FUCKING INSTANCES OF THAT GAME at "hur dur 10% less FPS". That's how much more powerful it is.
>muh trounced
fucktard

>>59584487
>shifting the goal posts this hard

who is talking about utilization? tell me where in this post >>59584406 does it mention anything about utilization? it simply says the 7700k "sucks at bf1" mp and there has been evidence provided to show that is a false statement which fanboys can't refute even if they want to.

off yourself.

File: 1488915545091.jpg (273KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1032x774px

>>59579125
Why is 7700K such a fucking stuttering housefire piece of shit?

>>59584621
because intel isa failure of a company

Reddit needs to leave.

File: 1488933859408.png (604KB, 800x523px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 800x523px

>>59584719
Shut up goy

>>59584456
>The compromises with Ryzen are small compared to the compromises with Intel.
compromises with ryzen are in performance.
With intel it's about supporting a shit company.

File: 1462182198698.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59584515
that's day1 stuff with low fq memory

>>59585044
Except it's literally only gaymen where the "CCX" thing seems to be a problem. And even then it seems to just be due to poor optimizations, games doing their own scheduling but being shittily coded to where they don't detect SMT, etc.

It's a compromise as almost all older games won't be updated, sure, but the overall system performance/$ is great.

>>59564006
Tom & Jerry

File: 1488881122917.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59585206

File: BUT MUH RAM SPEEDZ.png (3MB, 1919x1077px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1919x1077px

>>59585206
>b-but muh ram frequency
>b-but muh dx12 cores utilization

B T F O
T
F
O

>>59585493
Watch AMD shills say this benchmark doesn't count. Damage control in 3, 2, 1....

File: LITERALLY OFF THE CHARTS.png (3MB, 1917x1079px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1917x1079px

>>59585515
>LITERALLY OFF THE CHARTS

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>59585539
>>59585493
>cherry picking
I recommend poison

>>59585767
everything is cherry picking to you people, huh? what's not "cherrypicking"? the 2 games ryzen does well in as opposed to the hundreds it does shit in?

you should take your own recommendations.

>>59585493
>>59585539
Fake.

>>59585820
It's not cherry picking when you don't only post 1 of like 7 games that have terrible optimization issues out of the hundreds of recent games that are fine, retarded shill.

>>59585927
what? there isn't a single game where ryzen gets consistent averages higher than a 7700k @ 5ghz at 1080p other than mafia 3 and even then i think the 7700k still beats it when overclocked.

man up and accept ryzen is an utter failure for it's price for gaming, faggot.

File: 1489085225096.png (1MB, 2484x3052px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2484x3052px

>>59585820
Dumb shill.

File: 1463089344906.jpg (31KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 250x251px

>>59585959
>one website gets massively irregular results compared to all the rest and ones with video evidence
>paid shills eat it up and actually make a compilation

wew

>>59585958
You sound upset over the fact that Intel is complete garbage in literally everything.

Enjoy your 7740K LONGER BIPELINE 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO