Ryzen 5 Release Thread

>>59840604
Isn't it a strange coincidence that all the reviews came out at the same time?

>>59840624
>what is an embargo

File: untitled-3.png (32KB, 687x694px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 687x694px

It's another AMD disaster. AMD can't compete with the it in games.

File: R5HitmanOCC.png (69KB, 662x884px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 662x884px

Hitman benchmarks.

File: feel amd.png (91KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 653x726px

>>59840604
Failzen keep failing this is hard to watch. It was suppose to be messaiah of procesors that will free us from jewish intel but in reality its just repeat of piledriver meh tier cpu technologically 3 years behind competition. Intel can sleep soundly and keep puting glue under ihs and keep making 4 core cpu's for the next 10 years.

File: 1491014732282.png (42KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 653x726px

>>59840604
ANOTHER
MASSIVE
DISSAPOINTMENT

File: amd-r5-tww-benchmark.png (165KB, 825x719px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 825x719px

>>59840604
It's in about the right place for price/performance, but is still dissapointing that AMD wasn't able to bring anything really new to the performance game.

>>59840634
DELETE THIS

Looking forward to another two days of nonstop "Ryzen sucks at games" ruining /g/ just like when r7 launched? Intel shills going to be out in full force again.

File: 8139_37_amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-cpu-review.png (40KB, 612x1589px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 612x1589px

>>59840604
GTAV

>>59840705
>pverclocked r5 has the same performance as a locked i5

without needing an overclocking board and faster ram is the i5 7500/6500 the best bang for the buck processor?

>>59840705
>right place for price/performance
it isn't
faster entails cost less
zen is only competitive if you do serious multitasking as sad as it is
4 core intel will still be better for 90% of users

File: 1455357803605.jpg (115KB, 796x805px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 796x805px

>>59840722
>Reality is shilling

>>59840634
why is the 6700k performing better than the 7700k?

>>59840749
msut be margin of error

>>59840743
Spamming 20 new threads an hour to generate as much negative hype/deflection is shilling.

>>59840722
Who the fuck is playing games with a CPU bottleneck in the first place?

Most normal people are contending with a gpu bottleneck

I got my r7 1700 the other day, upgrading from a 2500k. And the first handbrake encode I did made it entirely worth buying desu

>>59840749
Skylake and Kaby Lake are literally the same (1% margin) clock for clock.

>>59840743
>Look at this games that work worse on Ryzen
>Ignore this that work better on Ryzen

Oh no, it's not shilling at all.

File: index[1].png (13KB, 683x336px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 683x336px

Just gonna dump all of Guru3D's benchmarks.

R5 1600x power consumption to begin.

So the consensus for the Ryzen 5 seems to be pretty good for gaming and doing solid workload. There is really no point of getting no i3 or i5 as of now.

File: index[1].png (12KB, 683x336px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 683x336px

1500x power consumption

>>59840739
Depends.

Technically the G4560 is the best price/perf, it's just that to most people it would be worth paying 4x as much for a cpu that gives 2-3x the performance.

For current-gen gaming, a locked i5 is probably a better choice over the r5.

Going forward for the next few years, it's quite possible the r5 4/8 or 6/12 configuration will take a lead over the i5, but this is admittedly speculation.

File: 1484073701175 (1).jpg (138KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 653x726px

WHY CANT WE WIN FOR ONCE BROS?

File: index[1].png (507KB, 725x837px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 725x837px

1600x load temps
It is worth mentioning that all "X" branded Ryzen parts have a +20*C Offset for temperature monitoring which should allow for finer system control and XFR boosts.

File: 1491873070993.jpg (66KB, 568x612px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x612px

>>59840826
Just Wait™ for Vega

File: index[1].png (419KB, 725x706px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 725x706px

1500x load temps

WHERE IS 1600 REVIEW?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: index[1].png (35KB, 687x788px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 687x788px

Skipping individual CPUz results, as they're included in this anyway.

>>59840604
>tfw I fell for the Bulldozer meme and the APU meme

Not gonna trick me again AMD

File: 86480.png (36KB, 650x337px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 650x337px

>>59840741
please explain where you buy black market entails that can beat this performance for the price

File: r5roundup.png (352KB, 939x2194px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 939x2194px

>>59840604
Most reviews are up now.

>>59840882
>That 1500x
God damn!
Now I'm confuse to choose between 1600 and 1500x.

Any suggestion, /g/?

https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600-linux-benchmarks-and-review-we-like-this-one/
servethehome review

File: 86268.png (30KB, 650x337px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 650x337px

>>59840604
b-b-but ryzen sucks for gaming!

>>59840909
>>59840604

What site is this?

>>59840931

Why is Intel so fucking shit?

>>59840937
https://videocardz.com/68282/amd-ryzen-5-review-roundup

File: index[1].png (22KB, 682x610px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 682x610px

At this point it should be noted that Guru3D do not currently have access to a 7700k sample. But you should be able to fill in the gaps by looking at other results.

>>59840948

Where is muh 1600?
I don't need OC CPU.

>>59840968
Retarded benchmarks.

>>59840931
>>59840939
>no i7 comparison
The Civ series has always been CPU-bound at late-game. Apparently VI likes threads.

Ryzen 5 is shit. Anyone doing serious mutli threaded work is getting a Ryzen 7, and Intel outperforms it in non heavily multi thread things.

File: C5qPYNbUoAAVYlc.jpg (111KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1000x1000px

>>59840931
OY VEY DELID THIS GOYIM, INTEL IS #1

>>59840987

I don't need fake intel $1200 workstation CPU
I just need fake consumer i7 CPU for home producing.

File: index[1].png (24KB, 689x674px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 689x674px

>>59840968
Assume between the 1500x and 1600x.

>>59840987
(you)

>>59840968
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-04/amd-ryzen-5-test/

it's all in nazi tho.

>>59840647
where are the i5s eggman

you said there would be i5s

>>59841020

Yeah, but 1600 got lower single clock speed than 1600X and 1500X, but more cores than 1500X

>>59840884
if you only youse your pc for synthetic benchmarks than nowhere for average user cheaper i5 7400/7500 will be much better

>>59840987
Not everyone can afford expensive CPUs, anon.

>>59841023
It's true though. Anyone doing actual work can afford Ryzen 7. The 1700 is the only Ryzen CPU worth buying.

>>59841049
Cinebench R15 is an amdrone favorite game

File: index[1].png (78KB, 690x1081px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 690x1081px

>>59841040
Feel free to check other benchmarks.
Just dumping these here because why not?

It seems that Guru3D didn't get sent a 1600. Or 1500/1400 for that matter.

>>59841049
>cheaper i5 7400
Not him, but there was a video that showing 1400 is on par with 7400.
But if you an intelfan then just get 7400.

>>59841064
>intlel shill

File: Ryzen.png (24KB, 520x609px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 520x609px

The Ryzen 5 1500 is slower than a 6 year old i7-2600K in games.
How can AMD shills defend that shit?

>>59841065
>games
>>>/v/

>>59841074
>Telling people to buy 1700 rather than this garbage for actual work is Intel shilling
Deluded as fuck.

Really, atm Ryzens downfall is the RAM compatability, and the need to have high clocked RAM.
As long as Ryzen doesn't support hynix ram, it won't be THAT great.

>>59840604
Looking a bit, but I'm pretty sceptic about many of the channels.
I know that Linus compared quicksync hardware encoding to x264 software encoding, and figured that 7700K and 1800x could stream just about as well.

Then you had GamersNexus who was so much about seeing how many fps could possibly be cramped out, by running potato graphics benchmarks.

Ryzen has problems with hitting really high fps, due to the ping between the CCXs. If the work package is very small, it won't cram out as much "performance". But if the workload package is large, the ping won't really affect the "performance" that much.

>>59840665
How is it failing?
It's good performance for a good price.

Average frames don't even tell all that much about the performance, as having many sky rocketing of the FPS doesn't make it any more smooth or play better. What matters is to have high 0.1% and 1% lows.

So if looking at >>59840705
1600X OC perform about as well as 7600K overclocked.

Since fucking when did "computer enthusiast" become whiny little kids who only want high fps spikes in games?
Do you all buy pre-built computers now?

>>59841086
easy, it's not.

>>59841025
DANKE!
Looks like 1600 is in great spot, now to choose the mobo.

>>59841086
By posting real language benchmarks you shit eating kraut

>>59841086
that's 1400

>>59841107
Pro tip. 1600 can overclock, getting good enough mobo to OC even by .2Ghz will give it great boost.

File: ppc.jpg (216KB, 519x1515px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 519x1515px

Fail zen worse than fx 8350

File: index[1].png (89KB, 690x1175px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 690x1175px

>>59841064
Not entirely;
Already in 2 content creation benchmarks, as provided by Guru3D, the 1600x seems a little ahead of the 7700k.
No one is going to argue that the R5/7 games are superior in games, no one with half a mind was doing that in the first place. The odd blind fanboy here and there, sure.

From the earlier CPUz numbers, the 1600x looks near as no different to a 7700k, and has 2 extra cores, 4 extra threads. So it puts up a good fight.

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

45KB, 630x424px

>>59841107
NNNNOOOO BUY THE INTEL INSTEAD, LOOK GOYIM MORE FPS

File: civ.png (86KB, 602x453px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 602x453px

>>59840931

>>59841064
Or fucking not?
If it's actual work hardware, you want to keep your warranty, which means you don't want to over-clock and void your warranty.

>>59841094
You're deluded.
1700 is the chip you should buy if you want to stream, or do hobby "work".

If you actually intend it for work, you should get 1800x.
It's more stable, performs better than longevity overclocked 1700 (vcore below 1.375), and you won't void your warranty.

>>59841126
>kurwaspeek
now in english pajeet

File: amdinanutshell3.jpg (2MB, 700x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x5000px

At least this launch isn't as annoying and delusional as the 8 core one. Fucking hell you subhumans need to know your place.

>>59840647
>1700 is above 1700X

>>59841126
nVidia dx12 wrapper is really something, isn't it?

>>59841151
>subhumans need to know your place.
likewise now back to the containment board
>>>/v/

>>59841086
>one game
>"in games"
what does it take to be an intel fanboy? down syndrome?

File: 1203622889390.jpg (51KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x500px

>>59841122

I know, I'm just not an OC person, that's why the X variant with no fan is kinda a deal breaker for me.
Got i3 sandy when it first came out from you guys because back then more cores meant nothing, it finally the time to bury this piece of shit.
This current years I really need more cores, but i7 is just too much for me.

>>59841151
whatever, goyim

>>59840987
>Ryzen 5 is shit
Intel is worse than shit in literally everything except a few gayms

>>59841127
You'd be a compete retard to buy 7700K for work.
You really shouldn't buy entry or medium level hardware if you actually work with video rendering, or own a company that does it.

1800x is the ONLY option a company should consider though, when it comes to work.
Not worth the extra amount of money on a i7-6950x for the tiny tiny performance gain.

>>59841154
>games
>good benchmarks
wew what were you expecting

Any reviewer that tested the 1600 and didn't use the Asus MB?

>>59841151
If all you care about gaming performance, you should be at >>>/v/ not at >>>/g/

Any reviews for linux ? I never use windows and I don't think I should consider windows benchmark since this OS seems to have issues that linux do not have with ryzen

File: index[1].png (56KB, 690x861px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 690x861px

>>59841184
Depends entirely on the work.
The 7700k is very strong, the single threaded performance advantage carries it nicely, as does the presence of HT, so it's ok for livestreamers or youtubers and the like. Not the best you could get, but it's hardly lacking too much.

>>59841126
>poo in loo language

>>59841173
It's 6 games averaged:
>Assassin's Creed Unity
>Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
>F1 2015
>GTA V
>The Witcher 3
>Total War: Attila

>>59841128
7700k is a stuttering housefire piece of shit.

Everyone knows this.

>>59841221
Why krauts can't test modern games? Fucking hell Attila has the worst Warscape performance up to date.

File: index[1].png (27KB, 688x653px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 688x653px

It should be noted here that Hitman recieved a sizeable DX12 patch last month, and they've yet to retest some Intel products.

All games are ran with 2933Mhz DDR4, 3200Mhz where compatible, trouble being, Guru3D haven't said where that is.

File: [HorribleSubs] Samurai Flamenco - 15 [720p].mkv_snapshot_17.08_[2014.01.31_23.31.57].jpg (62KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1280x720px

>yfw can not justify replacing your 2600k with a based AMD product this decade

>>59841131

I thought Intel was supposed to get 500% more FPS is gayming, what happened?

>>59841086
>r7 1700 that low
I'm sure this is legit

>>59841249
>no 7500/7600k/7700k comparison

whats the fucking point

>>59841236
Its the cinematic experience, you cant see stuttering

>>59841214
>So it's ok for livestreamers or youtubers and the like
Streamer here, i7 is shit if you try to stream fast pace game like shooter.
People always depend on second PC to stream even when they already got an i7.
This happen because if you used software encoding, your main PC will got hit hard.

The only single PC stream solution is to run your stream in 720p3fps with very fast preset.
But this will make your image blurry.

1700X owner here. to be 100% honest, I think these suck. not massively so, but still. unless they're significantly cheaper than equivalently performing Intel products there's no reason to buy a R3 or R5.

hopefully AMD will fab single CCX Zen+ chips that can clock higher than 4GHz. right now they're just selling R7 scraps and it shows.

File: index[1].png (32KB, 683x709px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 683x709px

>>59841270
Still provides R5 numbers, which can be compared against sites that do have the others there.


1440p looks to open up a GPU bottleneck. But everything performing excellently well.

>>59841211

Computerbase has some linux testing. Not much in depth though

>>59841282
>nvidia
>dx12
spotted the problem

>>59841297
>hopefully AMD will fab single CCX
That's APUs. And double CCX design is irrelevant for gaymen. There's like no difference.

>>59841282
I still don't understand why reviewers are still using Nvidia GPUs to test Ryzen benchmarks. Seeing as though there is a possibility that the Ryzen is getting gimped by Nvidia drivers, It would be better if they used both Nvidia and AMD GPUs so we can see a comparison.

File: ppc2.jpg (211KB, 476x1494px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 476x1494px

Looks like magic but it is sad reality.
>>59841069
and i see benchmarks that say it isn't. I was waiting for ryzen... but got bored of it 1,5 year a go. I got i7 6700 and i dont regret it especially considering ryzens preformance.

>>59841314
I'm curious to see how Zen/Vega APUs will turn out and whether they'll make single SoC gaming PCs viable but for high end gaming they don't mean shit.

There might actually be a difference but we wouldn't know because all Ryzen chips, R3 to R7, are double CCX.

>>59841324
>CYKABLADLABS
>CYKABLAD Game
>relevant
"no"

>>59841320
Fury X only has 4gb hbm and not all games support CF for 480s
If only AMD had capable GPUs that replace the 1080ti

>>59841320
if they tested on Polaris you'd see nothing but flat graphs, even at 1080p

>>59841335
>There might actually be a difference
There's no fucking difference. People already tested 4+0 and 2+2 configurations.

>>59841320
amd gpus are shit. crossfiring would cause more problems than it would solve

>>59841324
Isn't this benchmark only for 1400? Where's the rest of the R5 line?

>>59841151
>sharing old benches
>intel in a nutshell

File: index[1].png (31KB, 683x694px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 683x694px

>>59841320
>>59841314
Even with dubious suspicion, nVidia provides the highest performing GPU on the market, and as such provides the best basis to test CPU performance under "Real" circumstances.

>>59840883
>falling for the main reason AMD is so fucked up
I am so, so sorry. They really fucked up with Bulldozer.

>>59841320
It was proved that nvidia doesn't gimp ryzen at all
only rise of tomb raider exhibit some shady behaviour plus they cant test it on amd since there are no high end amd cards yet.

ryzen + nv vs ryzen + amd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmOglA32uRU

>>59841305
>I got i7 6700
Then why even bother with R5?
Also I wonder what is the CPU usage for that said 7400 image

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

>>59841214
I can't really think of anything that requires a strong single core performance, but maybe there's something.
Most work is just multi-threaded work.

>so it's ok for livestreamers or youtubers and the like.
So is G4560, or probably the future R-3 CPUs.

7700K can't keep up with software encoding, so it'll be dropping frames, and your game performance should take a hit if you up the priority on the encoder.
a G4560 will probably perform pretty much as well when it comes to streaming. As you'd be using QuickSync to hardware encode the video... However, if you have an Nvidia GPU, you're better off using NVENC for the hardware encoding. You'll be limited to very low resolution, too (like 540p).

When it comes to video editing, a weaker CPU might just be able to do it too. This is the only time it may be an acceptable use of your 7700K... But then again, if your company actually works with video editing, or you yourself work with actual video editing (not vlogging)... You won't buy a shitty 7700K, you'll buy a multi-threading beast.

If you want an actual functioning stream, you should be buying R-7 1700 or better. R-5 1600x/1600 may also be able to do the job, and much better job than 7700K while at it.

>>59841306
Muh GPU bottleneck

>>59841363
>nVidia provides the highest performing GPU on the market
Paired with shitty drivers and even worse async implementation. Bravo niggervidia.

>>59841254
price you pay for getting one of the best cpu ever created

File: index[1].png (38KB, 683x691px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 683x691px

No idea what the shit is going on with Division, 8370 right up the top there?

>>59841306
>>59841363
Posting gpu bottlenecked results is pretty useless anon.

>>59841388
>ubishit
thats what

>>59841388

I've seen a lot of FX sometime got weird high result in previews bench sometime beating i7 and r7 too.
What is this sorcery?

>>59841414
Massive dindu nuffin, fuck ubishit, give me Ground Control 3.

>>59841400
>posting a real world senerio is useless

Think I'll still get the 1700 and OC to push them frames. Not as good price to performance as 1600X but still able to edge out quad core meme for cheaper

>>59841400
for bench marking and comparisons bottle necked results are bad.

however I would argue that the majority of users will be experiencing a GPU bottleneck anyway so all this vitriol is kind of silly.

>>59841354
They didn't test other r5 yet ,amd didn't send them the sample. They said they will buy them and then test all other r5.

File: index[1].png (22KB, 682x493px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 682x493px

>>59841400
It was my intent to post The Division tested at 1440p, so had to post others to prove a point that the bottleneck exists, and the performance disparity does not exist across all titles.

These following tests will be lacking Kabylake processors because, and quoting Guru3D directly here
>On that note, I still need to add Kaby Lake processors. Intel halted processor sampling and media communications for the Benelux (Netherlands), hence I need to borrow some Core i5 - i7 7500/7600/7700 SKUs from board partners these days.

>>59841254
It's 2017, not 2019, and it's april, not december.

Ryzen 2, and maybe Ryzen 3 will be out by the end of this decade.

>>59841420
Games are finally making use of multi threaded cpus.

>>59841047
There has to be something going on here between GPU/CPU to cause this kind of a problem. There are certain gaming benchmarks that just don't make sense even given Ryzen's weaker single threaded IPC.

File: index[1].png (21KB, 682x493px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 682x493px

>>59841477
If that were the case there, then Ryzen would be outperforming Bulldozer by a significant margin.
What we have there is some case-specific optimisation for Bulldozer products. Or a faulty result, hard to tell with ubisoft.

File: ppc3.jpg (244KB, 491x1495px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 491x1495px

>>59841489

File: Capture.png (495KB, 1253x709px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1253x709px

Can someone explain to me what happen to intel CPU in this?
The only decent one is the i5 7500.

File: smart.png (699KB, 959x802px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 959x802px

Where do people get all these benchmarks?
Also isn't it true that like the R7, the R5's launch is unoptimized and with no BIOS updates?
And from the fact that the R7 has gotten better in a time lapse of 1 month, then shouldn't the R5 too?

>>59840705
>It's in about the right place for price/performance
No, because Intel isn't. For the last six years Intel has given us incremental performance gains for the same price. They've sat there and wasted more and more die space on integrated graphics and still made a killing. Now AMD comes along and prices Ryzen -- with no integrated graphics -- right along Intel lines? If I hadn't upgraded in the last 18 months to a new Intel (which I haven't), I obviously don't need to upgrade. Pricing Ryzen right with Intel gives me no reason to change my mind on that issue, and all the reason to wait to see what Intel does since they're perfectly capable of putting out a 12 core chip for the same die size as AMD's 8.

If AMD had priced the 1800X at $200 it would have been an insta-buy, since that would still be a compelling argument against the i7 2600 systems you can pick up for $175 or the 16 core dual E5-2670's you can get for $600. Pricing it at $500 and placing even the crippled 1600 at $20 above that mark is an easy "No."

File: index[1].png (21KB, 682x493px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 682x493px

>>59841553
Ryzen BIOS was affected as a whole.
Some cores being disabled, others not being loaded. these issues have now been resolved, so there should be no software issues in R5's launch.

File: 1485352233956.png (130KB, 442x353px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 442x353px

Wtf I expected more Intel and AMD shills going at it.
What happened /g/?

File: index[1].png (572KB, 725x730px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 725x730px

4Ghz on all cores, with the stock cooler.
Remember to deduct 20*C from the temp readings to account for the offset.

>>59840634
>1700x being 30% shittier than it's counterpart 7700k

HOW AREN'T THEY BANKRUPT ?!
WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING GUYS

File: 1600x gta 5 1440p.png (506KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1920x1080px

>>59841400
Muh (CPU) bottleneck
Even at 1440p quad core meme struggles, with all of its cores and threads getting close to 100%
Not hard to see why ryzen performs better if you aren't a shill

So now that we know the r5 are DOA, what can I do about my i5 4690k. Is upgrading to a 4790k worth it or shall i go full out for a 7500k/7700k?

File: index[1].png (541KB, 725x746px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 725x746px

>>59841692
Shills are busy digging through benchmarks looking for stuff to cherrypick.
Expect more FarCry Primal posting.

>>59841698
What? 32.5*C?

File: 1600x gta 5.png (741KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 1920x1080px

>>59841705
1080p for reference

File: wat.png (395KB, 482x446px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 482x446px

i feel like this is some government secret im not supposed to see, like amd isn't supposed to be btfoing intel...

File: metro 1600x.png (772KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1920x1080px

>Moar cuck shaming
>wish i could lick the salty kike tears from their faces

>>59841692
>>59841711
Maximum shitposting will probably start later today.

File: 1488923970547.png (486KB, 675x482px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 675x482px

Where are the 640x480 benchmarks?

File: index[1].png (31KB, 682x664px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 682x664px

>>59841718
That'll be as the test ends, and cores go idle.
Power management will turn those cores off.

>>59841705
Weak test spot and 1080p tests are standard procedure to reduce gpu bottleneck. Sorry but shilling is what amd fans do trying to put spells on reality. Intel doesnt even need to shill they just sit and laugh at amd and them selfs for being scared with out reason.
I used to shill for amd but i have enough of it. I still hope vega will deliver but no longer i will look for excuses and justifications for amd.

>>59841692

Already past work hours in India?

File: uh oh.png (2MB, 1917x1026px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1917x1026px

Is Intel finally kill?

>>59841400
>Posting gpu bottlenecked results is pretty useless anon.
Is it?

If that 1440p result holds true across a majority of games, then you know that the R5 1600(X) is enough to saturate a GTX 1080, which is best used @>1080p. There's ~$100 of price differential between the i7-7700k and the R5 1600X, which added to your GPU budget gets you closer to being able to afford that GTX 1080 instead of a 1080p-only RX 480/580.

That's useful knowledge, IMO.

>>59841254
My 2500k stuttered in games, my 1700x doesnt and runs all games smoothly

File: gta 5 ultra 1800 king.jpg (687KB, 1914x1077px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1914x1077px

>>59841772
Ryzen runs higher resolutions better for a reason no one has explained yet
Probably quad core meme struggles thus the statistically significantly lower 1% frames in games that utilise multithreading well

>>59841306
they really should add cpu workload percentage at gpu bottleneck benchmarks

>>59841809
No, the shills will be out in full force. The goalposts went flying from Haswell performance to Kaby Lake months ago.

1600x looks mighty fine if you don't like to OC, it's 1800x for 250 as predicted.
Would be stupid to get i5 now.

>>59841817

>Close all your background apps while gaming.
>Intel old CPU still beat ryzen

>>59840931
>>59841131
>>59841350
>>59841471
>>59841489
>>59841517
>>59841537
>>59841551
>>59841593
>>59841722
>>59841747
>>59841809

What happened with the "Intel is always better in gayming" meme?

>>59841865
It died, until Intel releases new housefires P4 damage control edition-style.

>>59841772
>pretends to be AMD fan
>literally the biggest, closest to dictionary meaning, shill I have ever seen

>>59841865
>ignoring all other benchmarks where i5s are shitting on r5s

File: file.png (1MB, 1917x1026px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1917x1026px

>>59841865

Because no one sane enough to defend the i5.
PCBG thread is literally "buy Bentium G or i7 7700k"

>>59841882
>shitting
>~2-3 fps difference at best
I wish. i5s are dead.

>>59841882
>Intel is always better in gayming
Reading comprehension, retard.

>>59841893

The fuck? why my own image got reposted?

any computerbase benches?

>>59841862
It doesn't though

>OMG MY OLD CPU HAS BETTER SCORE THAN THIS NEW ONE
>I mean, the average is higher
>nvm those 2 second freezes that happens every now and again... I mean, the frequent peaks when it spikes up to 400fps makes it a better cpu

The fps score is only as good as the lowest of your fps.

So am I correct in guessing that AMD didn't sample the non-X parts to reviewers?

If so, that's smart because the R7 turned out to be "buy the 1700 and OC". I could well imagine the R5 parts would result in the same conclusion.

>>59841917
Nah, avg delta is more important.

>>59841928
There are couple of non-X CPUs being reviewed

>>59841933
it's not if your every 3rd frame is 30% lower than your every second frame

File: 1489122339460.png (495KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1070x601px

WAIT FOR KABY LAKE-X

>>59841928
r5 1400 is a flop dont buy it

>>59841928
What I'm interested in... Can you buy an X-version, and buy a shitty mobo that can't OC, and still run at normal boost frequencies?

If that's possible, that may be a reason to buy the X-version.

Otherwise, the X-version is for people who are too scared to OC, or want to keep the warranty.

File: single socket holocaust.jpg (28KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x550px

>>59841949
>housefires on HEDT platform
BRAVO INTEL. Literally second coming of damage control edition.

>>59841959
shill spam reaching over 9000

>>59841959
come on, guru3d praises the CPU
he at least knows how to read his own graphs unlike rest of "journalists"

>>59841959
>Said I was going to dump Guru3D tests
>No one complains during
>Posts an image unrelated to R5, the current topic of dicussion while sperging about tests being dumped.
Nice.

>>59841960
Any B350 boards allows OCing and they are cheap.

For all the speak about OC voiding warranty, do they acctually have a way of detecting that you have overclocked?

File: jewtell.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

>>59841949
Kaby lake x is literally proof that ryzen failed

>we can do this we can slap you and piss on your face and you will still buy our cpus because you have no choice

>>59841960
>Can you buy an X-version, and buy a shitty mobo that can't OC, and still run at normal boost frequencies?
112W
it will burn vrms on cheap boards, am4 cheap boards have better power delivery than intel boards

>>59841992
no they don't unless you are iq89 and send whole system for warranty with out changing the bios oc setup.
But if your system fail and you got prebuilt you will have seals on the case so you wont be able to take out battery to reset the settings.

>>59841987
Lurk more faggot no one agreed to your shilltel spam

Has anyone tested compiling performance on Ryzens?

File: tmp_12517-ss+(2015-07-31+at+01.25.18)-897653592.png (385KB, 539x581px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 539x581px

>mfw these reviews

>>59842034
yes, it's very good

>>59841991
I was thinking the A320, or whatever their name was.
But, if what >>59842014 says is accurate, then that wouldn't be viable.

On the other hand... If MSI boards can manage, then I don't know why a ASRock A320 board wouldn't run it. I'd assume a B350 and A320 would have about the same chokes and capacitors.
I don't know that much when it comes to mobos though.

>>59842034
https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600-linux-benchmarks-and-review-we-like-this-one/

>>59842034
I hope some reviewers do streaming while gaming tests...
Considering how few of them actually did any of that on 1700/1700x/1800x, I guess that might be too much to hope for.

>Bread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK4FTvaW_6Q

File: 1485409554435.jpg (123KB, 1374x774px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1374x774px

woah.

>>59840931
(You)

>>59841993
More like Intel is swimming in money so they simply don't care.

>>59841987
Spamming the same rig literally 40 times is just a shit way to skew the magnitude testss away from other test rigs posted which add to the sample of what frames people will actually get
>also spamming is against the rules of this forum
>40 posts is definitely ADHD level shit. should probably underage b& too

File: 1484293521255.png (262KB, 446x456px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 446x456px

>theses autistic screeches are the death knell of Intel's market dominance
Feels good lads :^)

>>59842086
>i5-7400 better than i5-7600
lmao you can't make this shit up

>>59842113
And 7600 is better than 7600k.

File: donald.jpg (34KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 413x395px

>>59842107

>>59842107
It lasted too long. Time to suffer, Intel. :^)

>>59842124
That's the reaction face I wanted to use but didn't have on my phone

File: average intelfag.jpg (71KB, 407x405px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 407x405px

>>59842113
>yfw when paying more for clock bumps

how reliable 1600x 4.0 boost?

>>59842138
I got your back with subconscious ESP anon

>>59842086
wtf? what did they test it on?
Low settings and rx480?
see >>59841324

>>59842086
>1080p
>fps difference extremely small
What

>>59842113
>>59842120
And the 7700k is worse than all of those.

>>59842061
A320 looks to be OEM only so far. Anyways, $100 isnt too much for a mobo, you probably want those features anyways.

>>59842144
>how reliable is stock boost
Absolutely i guess.

I WANT TO SEE CRYSIS 3 REEEEEEEEEEEE

I want to see some benchmarks with badly optimized singlecore heavy mmos.

File: 1491417983950.jpg (253KB, 876x1000px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 876x1000px

1600/1600x looks like a great buy. I might go for it and then splurge on whatever refined Ryzen AMD puts out next year. That or maybe just go with the 1700 and OC.

The JIDF in full force today

>>59842170
why? if your this stupid to play MMOs in 2017 you may as well buy dual core intel for $60

File: ppc4.jpg (223KB, 493x1497px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 493x1497px

>>59842160
here you go

no 1600 and 1600x tho

>>59842198
>no 1600 and 1600x tho
Dropped

>>59842198
>kurwa benches
Those are shit.

>>59842206
1800x=1600x sometimes 3% difference

Should I buy Ryzen 1800x now or wait for Zen2 or whatever? I have 2600k.

>1600 is already sold out in amazon

Holy shit Intel shills on suicide watch

>>59842198

So after seeing a lot of benchs from other reviews
I can estimate that 1600 will be 5-10fps behind 1700/7700k?

>>59842220
I have stock 2600, going for 1600x and if zen+ is real +15% going for that next year into same mobo.

>>59842220
Depends on how badly you want to upgrade. I upgraded my 2500k to 1700x, Money wasnt really an issue.

If you wait until 2018 for coffee lake and zen2 they will definitely be better, but this is the best value that's been available in a looong time.

>>59842216
Better than 90% of anglo sources.
PPC put a lot of effort in to finding cpu intensive test spots. So you can take their resoults as worst case scenario. While most just do random runs or ingame benchmarks and then get flat diagrams showing no difference tested cpus.

1600x has a cooler or not? information is contradictory

>>59842198
>7700K gets 2 more fps over 1700
>have to close everything else so that 7700k doesn't stutter
>1700 destroys 7700k as workstation

Only clininically retarded people would go for the 7700k. The 4 core meme is dying.

>>59842272

Nope

>>59842272
1600 does, but 1600x doesn't

>>59842272

No, only the 1600, 1500x and 1400 got the 1337 ARGEBE cooler.

>>59842282
what CPU comes with wraith max then?

File: Wraith Spire.jpg (101KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x720px

>>59842272
>As Intel has done with its recent unlocked Core i5s, AMD won't be including a boxed cooler with the Ryzen 5 1600X as part of the bargain.
https://techreport.com/review/31724/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-and-ryzen-5-1500x-cpus-reviewed-part-one

Oddly, the 1500X comes with the Wraith Spire.

>>59842272
The 1500X does despite having an X but I don't think it's as worth it as a 1600.

>>59842297
For now, none of them. AMD will release bundles with the Wraith Max for all X CPUs without fan, but still no ETA.

>>59842276
>workstation
Most people use their pc for gaming and watching movies plus crysis is best scenario game for ryzen as it is known for using as many threads as you throw at it.
And on top of it all r7 1700 is more expensive.

Im sure of one thing i wouldnt buy 4 threaded cpu but 8 intel threads seem to be still better option than amd 16 for gaming.

>>59842322
>And on top of it all r7 1700 is more expensive
No.

>>59842220
>>59842252
Too have 2500K, and really want to upgrade, into something I can stream with.

With these ram issues, I'm honestly considering waiting yet another year, where hopefully zen2 has better ram compatability.
If they do solve the ram issues in a couple of months or so, I'll probably pull the trigger on r5 1600.

So now that Intel is kill
1500X or 1600X?

>>59842343

1600

>>59842343
1600? Probably?

>>59842335
i7 7700k msrp $339.00 - $350.00
r7 1700x AMD Ryzen R7 1700: $330
but if you actually go to shop online intel is cheaper
and it destroys r7 1700 in most games

>>59842343
1600x is the only option, I understand $50 difference but we are talking less than $30 for 400 more mhz

>>59842371
>games
Well there's your problem. I want to play games and do SOMETHING besides playing games.

>>59842371
>t if you actually go to shop online intel is cheaper
Not in my country. The 1700 is roughly $25 cheaper.

yay! the shill is here. *grab popcorns*

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

>>59842375
>all Ryzen chips are unlocked

>>59842389

Apple is the best company in the world.

>>59842393
1600 gets to 4.0 at 1.45v and 70C
no, specially when 100mhz at normal voltage costs $5.

>>59842371
AT THE CHEAPEST online 7700K is $15 more expensive in my country, and quad core meme throttles like shit

>>59842371
Yes, goy, 4 cores is all you need

File: the final proof.jpg (395KB, 2400x2000px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 2400x2000px

>>59842371
>destroys
>mfw

>>59842437
>Not "and now back in reality"

one job

https://youtu.be/VGhg0zijEOM?t=28m16s

dum dum dum.

>corelets

Kys you're selves.

>>59842462
>more than one hour
Nigga I don't have time for this shit.
1600/1600x is the best R5, no questions asked.
Just like 1700 is the best R7.
Really, any of the two are really good buys.

>>59842484
>it's marked

>>59841858
>if you don't like to OC
wut

isn't it just as good for OCing as any of the other X ryzens?

>>59842382
The only demanding thing 90% of people use their pcs for are games and movies.
You can write shit in ms word on p4 or athlon 64.

>>59842515
if you get really lucky you can get it to 4.1
that's it

>>59842515
all the ryzens oc the same x or not x
its the same die x models just get higher clocks out of the factory.

File: 1457294956960.jpg (177KB, 801x1500px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 801x1500px

>>59841873

>>59842530
>/g/ - word processing

What is the max OC for the 1600 on the stock cooler? Can I reach 4?

>>59842552
They're binned by voltage though. The 1800X is a guaranteed 4GHz at 1.4V or less, whilst 1700s generally need closer to 1.5V. It still isn't worth the extra money for 100-200MHz though.

>>59842578
3.9 is stable/cool enough so 4 is likely. 1600X is a prob a binned 1800X, so I'm assuming 4.1-4.2ghz is acheivable for a fair minority

Guess im cancelling my Ryzen order and getting a 7700k

This is really disappointing. The only explanation for this is that they lied about the IPC.

>>59842437

>testing at 1080p with a 1070

Gpu bottleneck for sure

File: lolwut.png (56KB, 707x337px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 707x337px

>>59842622
>inside the mind of a Intel fanboy

File: ryzen stock fan temp.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>59842605
Realised you said stock cooler. 4GHz still acheivable if you want to go 75-82'C, the wraith max being preferable

File: 10-45-02-1482468273437.jpg (26KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 308x308px

>>59842622

Ok, rather disappointing but expected results.

If your main focus is gaming, only brain retards would argue against Intel.

I am dissappointed by the 1600X which consumes more power than the 1700X at full load.

>https://www.computerbase.de/2017-04/amd-ryzen-5-test/4/

>>59842658
>I am dissappointed by the 1600X which consumes more power than the 1700X at full load.
VOLTAGE WALL
O
L
T
A
G
E

W
A
L
L

File: RED.jpg (423KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1920x1080px

>>59840634
>bulldozer beating Ryzen
OY VEY GOYIM, BUY INTEL

>>59842647

Nigger i hate jewtel as much as you do, but you cant deny that the 7700k crushes Ryzen in any single core heavy task. Sure Ryzen keeps up in some specifically well threaded and optimized gaymes, but the majority of gaymes will still be using 4 cores at max and bound by single core performance. Hard to keep up with a chip clocked 1 ghz higher and at a higher IPC. We're looking at something like 30% more single core performance

File: perf.png (213KB, 990x652px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 990x652px

>>59842658
Only a retard would touch an Intel quad core ever again.

>>59842688
>the majority of gaymes

Good thing TPU do a performance summary across every game they tested then. Enjoy paying nearly twice as much for, at best, 10% more performance, goy.

>>59842640
Graphics are turned down

>>59842688
Not him but see
>>59842276
And the R1700 beats the 7700k in productivity hands down (and actually comes with a good cooler).
Brand loyalty is a hell of a drug, its all about value.

File: fug this.gif (2MB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x286px

So, did I fuck up if I bought a 1700x for gaming instead of waiting a month for ryzen 5?

Because I think I fucked up.

>>59842658
Is that testing the whole system?

My OCed 2500K goes down to 8-12W package when in extreme idle (nothing running), in HWmonitor.

>>59842709

Its supposed to be the other way around though. Settings should be maxed out so the CPU has more work to do, but resolution should kept at 720p max and tested with a 1080 at least to make sure that there is no gpu bottleneck at all.

The workload of the cpu doesnt increase with higher resolution so its pointless to benchmark CPUs at anything higher than 720p

File: 1489132204653.png (794KB, 1280x740px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 1280x740px

4 core Intel housefires are dead.

File: 1491627771888.png (453KB, 648x616px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 648x616px

>>59842640
>1070 Bottlenecking 2 different games from 2013
Sure shill

>>59842733
Yes.

Better pop estrogen pills and start cam whoring on twitch.

>>59842733
yes you have to unzip files all day long to make it worth now

File: 1473542597351.jpg (585KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 2560x1440px

Hm, so it's not exactly 4.0 all cores.
How does it work for 8c?

>>59842733
Yeah probably. Could have gotten a 1600/x for >$100 cheaper and basically ended up with the same performance for gayman.

>>59842671
Always nice to see your own caps being reshared for the pursuit of enlightenment
>>59842658
See
>>59842671
>>59842650
>>59842437
>>59841959
>>59841893
etc.

>>59842762
Intel's boost is no different. You have to overclock manually to get the listed boost frequency for all cores no matter what you buy.

>>59842764
for 150 cheaper

>>59842733
sensible thing would've been to get 1600x and upgrade it to 2700x or whatever going out next year