Tech April fool >pic related, amd said it would outperform Intel

>>59687691
Do you even "celebrate" April Fools in India, Amit?

I remember them saying at the beginning that they would come close. And they did.
Its the dumb fan boys and intel shills that rode the hype train to meme town

>>59687691
they never said it would, they said they got more than their target 40% IPC increase over their previous generation

that being said, BTFOing intel is just a perk, since intel hasn't done anything for years

File: 1488630961809.png (280KB, 752x548px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 752x548px

>>59687691

>buying a 4 core in 2017

best april fools

>>59687740
They are miles ahead of amdead, why would they do anything when they already have the best and most efficient cpus?

>>59687771
Ok sure. But I bet you it isnt either company that makes the jump from silicon. Intel is loseing staff to more dynamic companies

>>59687750
I love all the old Intel/AMD images coming out again.

>>59687771
whatever you say, crybaby

>>59687771
>are
were

Ryzen 7 trades blows with Intel's extreme series, which are 140W parts to AMD's 95W and cost much more money. As for gaming performance, I expect the 6- and 4-core parts will be much better in single core performance.

>>59687871
>will be much better in single core performance.
Don't
It doesnt work like that

>>59687691

They said this before april fools day, and it's true.

>>59688117
Previous reviews say otherwise. Less cores usually means a higher stable/stock clock speed, which means higher single core performance.

File: Screenshot_20170401-184111.png (131KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 540x960px

shitty way to start an april fools thread, i can't believe i fell for this

>>59687771
>most efficient cpus

Kaby Lake and Broadwell-E are both housefires of Faildozer proportions.

Intel® Optane™ Technology

>>59687691
It's not a April fools... idiot you don't know shit.
The Ryzen is going to outperform the Pentium 4 by at least 4x.

>>59688152
Ryzen chips are purely voltage limited.

It doesn't matter how many cores are enabled/how much cooling you put on it. They can't get above 4.1Ghz at 1.4v at best.

>>59688256
And how do you know that applies to chips with a lower core count? Or that chips with less cores enabled can't reach a higher clock speed with that voltage?

A torrent site I use flipped the website's layout vertically, and every text both vertically and horizontally.

File: chrome_2017-04-01_19-12-29.png (27KB, 701x419px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 701x419px

Heart missed a beat

>>59687691
Show me an Intel system that can compile kernel in less than 70s and doesn't cost me my kidneys

>>59688288
because the voltage to reach clock speeds basically doesn't change at all across the same revision of silicon, regardless of core count or less cores enabled. If Ryzen was peaking on temperatures then core count would matter, but it doesn't. And it's not hitting clock speed limits, we can see that from the massively overclocked 5.1Ghz chips, but those run at 1.8v which is "hey let's burn it out as fast as possible" territory.

It's possible a revision might possibly maybe with the slightest chance improve the voltages needed for high clock speeds but it's unlikely. Ryzen chips are going into servers, and those want low voltage/middling clock speeds (like the 1700).

>>59688550
>compiling kernels

Is this the only activity of autists here?

>>59688488
>chrome
>pornhub
>having a social media account
get >>/out/

>>59687691
60% greater multicore speed for the same price, or you have to pay twice the price for Intel's version. Sounds like they succeeded to me, cocksucking retard shill that should kill itself.

>>59688580
go waste time elsewhere, kid
>>>/v/

>>59688580
No, I also shitpost on /g/ and watch anime but neither of those tasks are demanding enough that I would need to get an 8c/16t beast

Friendly reminder the 1700 is not the CPU to get if you care for electricity usage and also don't want to dig into liquid cooling.

To reach 4Ghz all cores, you have to up the voltage above 1.45V which results into 200W+ power consumption under load.

>>59688823
>implying i won't get a golden chip
kek.

File: 1490295551901.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>59688842
Yes, yes, you are the golden boy who always gets lucky and will get a golden 1700 chip, which can clock with 4Ghz@1,25V.

File: 1449328921951.gif (444KB, 152x98px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 152x98px

>>59688823
???
overclocking always ramps up power usage
that's a tradeoff for better speeds.

oh wait, I get it.

you're being retarded.

google maps mrs pacman

>>59688823
isn't the zen arch very difficult to overclock past some very low (10% or so) limit?

>>59689970
The out of box all core boost clocks for 1700 is 3.2Ghz, 90% of those cpus overclock to 4.0 with safe voltages.

>>59688550
Xeon E3-1275 v5. Costs less than a Ryzen, compiles the kernel in 15 seconds on average. Stop being a fucking retard.