AMD AGESA 1.0.0.4 improves performance by 2.45% on average

>>59908602
original article: https://thetechaltar.com/amd-ryzen-agesa-1-0-0-4-testing/

File: Screenshot from 15-04-2017 22:07:07.png (165KB, 1089x682px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1089x682px

>>59908602
Shaving whatever little gaming advantage the delidlake had.

Did they test anything multithreaded like Handbrake? It should benefit from this.

In case if anyone wondering. Ryzen 5 works flawlessly with outdated bios, but you need to update to version which officially supports it if you want to overclock/set ram speed +2133Mhz.

On side note, shuttering and odd frame drops while looking at certain parts of the map disappeared while playing War Thunder. Previously had 2500 non-k.

>>59908759
>Did they test anything multi-threaded like Handbrake? It should benefit from this.

Not that I'm aware. From what I've gleaned from forum posts is that the update seems to make memory overcloks less stable (like going from stable 2933 to 2400) but that Cinebench scores still went up from previous BIOS version.

Better benches will come next week I hope.

>>59908759
>AMD gets better as you move up resolutions
>somehow all the intel shills want to test unrealistic settings like 720p low
>butttt muh GPU bottoleneck

>>59908602
Dear sir/madam,

I politely ask you to delete this thread as it hurts the image of our company Intel™ and our Core™ processors.
Sincerely,
Moshee Bergstein, Professional Social Media Relations Manager at Intel

>>59909010
What makes these things even funnier is they're trying to predict some future where the GPU isn't a bottleneck.

Hilarious, 4k to 8k requires a GPU 4 times stronger than one capable at 4k60Hz, at best that's 8 years of progress, at worst 11 years.

Do these retards seriously think we'll still be at 1080 by then?

>>59908759
What's the point of a 7700k?

>>59909906
It's the only CPU that can do 700 FPS in CSGO at 600x480

So a BIOS update yields better IPC gain than skylake -> babby lake
lmao

>>59910152
Did Broadwell even have higher IPC than Haswell? Didn't seem so to me

File: am4_shill_slide_4-RENAME BEFORE POSTING.jpg (131KB, 650x436px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 650x436px

>>59908602
FineWine™ in action.

>>59908602
Were Ryzen 5 reviews done with this update?

>>59910244
No.
The AGESA updates rolled out 2 days later.

>>59909906
you buy it if you play games at 500fps at 720p obviously

>>59910173
it did

I like it how Intelfags are literally begging for any amount of IPC increase at this point, even 4% will do, just so they can move on from Skylake.

Too bad soonest for that is 2019 with Icelake :)

>>59908602
Just shows that there's plenty of juice left in the arch, a general increase in clocks, IPC from bigger FPU/integer units and better branch predictor, and decrease in memory latency will make Zen+ a monster.

>>59908759
I wish this included a 1800X and a 6900k for reference.

It's a damn shame so little reviews do these relative performance charts, they're way more useful than cherrypicking one game

These threads are always the same. At launch the board gets flooded with threads shitting on AMD's new products with so so benchmarks where Nvidia/Intel win. Some months later when AMD have greatly improved performance to the point of being on par or beating the competition the Nvidia/Intel shill posters dry up. I guess they don't want to admit they were wrong or their $2000 'gaymen' system they got cucked into was a waste of money.

>>59910192

>>59908942
If you don't want to spend much on memory just get some 2600MHz dual rank memory, should offer the same performance as single rank 3200MHz

>>59909010
>AMD gets better as you move up resolutions
It's because high max FPS stops padding the Intel averages, while the minimums for all the Intel CPUs, even the 7700k, sucks in a lot of games.

>>59909010
Didn't you know? 800x600 GAMING is a realistic CPU benchmark, not the few dozen specificity benchmarks made to explicitly test the CPU, oh no, those are pointless.
4k and 1440p gaming? Why would you want 1080p gaming? Everyone plays at 768p anyway but a good amount still are at 480p

>>59909906
Stuttering emulator

>>59908602
so how much does AMD gain from all these different updates in total?
>mobo updates
>memory updates
>windows updates
>game updates
>video card updates

seems like at least 15%?

>>59912598
Depends on the application, some mobos already had the performance on launch day, they didn't need performance updates.
Memory improves Intel too.
Windows is pretty application specific.

>>59912616
but its true that the day 1 reviews are not relevent at all anymore right?

>>59912634
Mostly.

File: 23184909171l.jpg (205KB, 752x752px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 752x752px

>>59912598
Game updates can be over 30%
Ram going from 2133 to 3200 is 20% improvement in games like FO4. (Intel CPUs also get like 15%+ improvement there, though)
The others combined account for maybe 10-15%.

>>59912723
damn,
so we are looking at like... 40% improvement over the day1 reviews....

>>59912723
There are some 15% differences in performance on different motherboards at stock. what the fucking shit.
Especially teh ASUS, that's a fucking $300 board, what the fuck are these retards doing?

>>59909906
Playing CS:GO on a 555Hz monitor, of course.

>>59910605
Will we see those in BIOS updates? Or will that be a revision of the current Zen architecture we have now?

>>59912844
Those are all silicon changes, so it's all Zen+
Some more latency improvements could be gained from BIOS updates, but how much I can't really say.

>>59912784
Well ignore the GoW4 CPU render one. That result is pretty meaningless, as terrible as it is on the Prime x370.

But yeah. Remember how most of the day1 gaming reviews looked awful if not on the Aorus? It's better on the actual GPU using results.

That's a bench from like mid March. Things are different now, and were different day1. Hopefully someone does some new tests soon.

>>59912844
On BIOS the past week, people have been able to get stable overclocks they had on 0.05v lower or so. Like 1.35v when for 4ghz when they were needing 1.4v before. So yeah, that's improving too.

Don't forget, it took A YEAR for DDR4 issues to be sorted out when it first launched with Intel.
I'd say things are progressing quickly, and it looks like the vast majority of minor performance issues will be solved by June.

>>59910862
No, it's actual literal paid shilling. You don't pay for the shills for months and months; bad cost-effectiveness. Instead you pay for them at major releases - Ryzen release, RX480 release, etc. so that you get the low-hanging fruit retards excited about building a new computer with more money than sense or patience and who get easily confused by charts and easily manipulated by rhetoric. You'll see another influx of shills around Vega's release.

Also AMD has an absolutely shit marketing team; as far as I can tell they don't do any kind of guerilla marketing bullshit like Intel and Nvidia do. It's entirely AMD fanboys doing it for free.

>>59908602
WOW 2.45 IT'S FUCKING
NOTHING


PLEASE MAKE IT STOP

i'm regretting getting a 6700k

>>59912900
And another microcode update next month to improve RAM speed and compatability, so things will look even better.

>>59912900
>microcode update gives more performance than 2 generations of Intel processors

I'm sorry but that's really funny.
Also your CPU is obsolete junk.

>>59912956
>microcode update gives more performance than 2 generations of Intel processors

This is by far my favorite meme of the month.

File: Sweating Cocona in FlipFlapping.jpg (35KB, 500x646px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x646px

>>59908759
Man, the 1600 is an amazing option, the value it gives is insane. I'm really tempted of going with that instead of the 1700 so I can go full retard with 7nm Zen+.

>>59913250
>I'm really tempted of going with that instead of the 1700 so I can go full retard with 7nm Zen+.
That's exactly what I decided to do.

Except I'm getting a 1600X since I wanted a cooler that I'd be using with 7nm Zen3 or Zen4 anyway.
Just waiting/hoping the 1600X drops $30 or something soon. I need to wait for my AM4 bracket anyway.

I figured if I got the 8 core, I'd be more reluctant to upgrade later, even if it's like a 10% IPC increase and 10% clock speed increase. But going from the cheaper 6 core, which is more than good enough most of the time, to the even better per-core 8 core will make it easy.

>>59912773
>so we are looking at like... 40% improvement over the day1 reviews....
Well that was kinda required because day one reviews were sandy-bridge tier performance.

>>59909153
For pc monitors, possibly.

1080 is the last resolution a 24 inch monitor has where the scaling is perfect and you don't need to squint to see the smallest text you normally encounter.

1440 = 28-30
4k = 40-50
8k would need 80-100 inches to be in that perfect scaling range.

we will hit a point where gpus find 4k trivial, and by then 4k with scaling may be the norm that no one even thinks about, but I really find it difficult to go from lcd to lcd that is at best a side grade, I want lcd to oled or actual quantum dots.

>>59910713
because Intel looks bad in those.

>>59912872
remind me, wasn't intel locked at 1866 memory for a year?

>>59908602
with this AGESA-update, can ryzen-boards finally officially support 2400mhz with all four RAM-slots populated?

>>59913316
Why pay more for maybe 100-200 MHz better overclock than the 1600? You might even be able to sell the Wraith cooler for additional savings for the next upgrade.

>>59915513
I might want to just run it stock. It hits 4.1 stock on 2 cores or 3.8ghz all core, I believe.
I'm really not hurting for money, either.

I feel I'll have no need to overclock it when I vsync to 60fps. I'll be getting a 1440p or 4k HDR10 monitor soonish too, in which case I'll probably have it locked to like 85 or 90 fps. The 1600X stock should handle just about any game I'll play like that.

1600 overclocked is definitely the best performance/$. Some are only getting 50-150mhz more on the 1600X it looks like. But I just don't care and I want the 1600X.

>>59915577
I'd just splurge another $40 for a 1700 then if I'm in the 1600X's price range

>>59916782
But you'll likely get 4.1Ghz on the 1600X, while the 1700 will likely be at 3.8-3.9. That matters if you're not really using all those cores.

I already explained why I'm going with the 6 core for now. >>59913316

Though I... might actually change my mind. The 1700 might be best to keep to use as a home server later, while the 1600X I would resell. I haven't gotten into home servers yet, though...

>>59916821
I've seen plenty of 1700's at 4.0, and even if not I won't really mind a 200MHz 2 core loss, if the 1600X could do 4.1 on all cores then we'd be talking

>>59916871
Considering this is a brand new arch, I think it's more than likely that just waiting is the best answer for higher OC results..Once the fabs get their shit sorted we should be seeing better numbers.
I mean, fuck, look at Haswell when it came out. Wouldn't OC for shit, near the end of it's Intel Prescribed shelf life, it was consistently hitting 4.6/7.

>>59916871
>plenty of 1700s at 4.0
yeah, that's called fucking luck. I'm not going to leave it to luck that I get a chip that only hits 3.8 at 1.35v when I could be hitting 4.0-4.1 at that by buying the one that's better binned.

I'll buy the 3800X, 3900X(tentative), 4800X, or 4900X later.

>>59916951
>paying 60% more for 100-200MHz higher

Well, your money I guess

>>59916951
It's luck anyway, friendo. If you think you're going to be guaranteed 4GHz with a 1600X, you better prepare for potential disappointment. There's not enough data about yet to make judgements on that, but there are certainly 1800Xs which won't do 4GHz on all cores at a reasonable voltage. It sure won't be 1.35V either. Anybody claiming they're stable on all cores at 4GHz at that voltage simply hasn't done enough testing. 1.4V is the bare minimum for the best chips.

>>59916967
Yes, well the 1600X is not that much more when I wanted another cooler anyway.
And when it comes time for a more "final" upgrade, I may as well spend more for the best 8 or 12 core.
If I'm spending $1500 on a monitor, it's not much more on total system cost and blah blah.

>>59917000
It seems like 4GHz is pretty guaranteed on the 1600X from others' results.

File: 1491255190447.jpg (585KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 2560x1440px

>>59917000
>If you think you're going to be guaranteed 4GHz with a 1600X, you better prepare for potential disappointment.

pretty sure 1600 hits 4.0 at 1.45v 70C all cores

>>59917073
>at 1.45v
Jesus fuck.
I wouldn't call anything that isn't maintainable "guaranteed"

>>59917084
that's the point, if 1800x anything to go by, 1600x will hit 4.0 at much lower voltage

someone post the "DELID THIS" picture

>>59917084
>wah my slightly higher voltage CPU running 24/7 will last only 11 years instead of 14 WAAAH

1.35v isn't some magical fucking cutoff point

>>59917073
> at 1.45v
Not knowlegeable about the recommended voltages, but that seems a bit too high.

>>59917073
>>59917163
K. I can put the 1600X at 1.45v and see how much higher it goes then. Might hit 4.2 instead.

>>59917185
It is. AMD says it shortens the projected lifespan. But who knows how much. They say 1.4 is safe and it seems like a reasonable recommendation given the Fmax/Vcore wall that Ryzen hits after 1.35-1.4

>>59909153

You're a fucking moron.

The idea is to make sure the CPU you buy TODAY is still going to avoid a CPU bottleneck one or even two GPU upgrades down the line.

No one fucking cares whether a high end CPU of today will run with a GPU of today in 3-5 years time.

Jesus fucking christ
I've been looking into upgrading my setup but now I have no idea when it should be worth it
Anyone have any idea when is Zen+ gonna hit the markets in Europe?

>>59917250
You're the fucking moron because you think games will remain the same as they are now and you think game/engine requirements stay the same on low resolution and at high resolution.

>>59917261
2018, power by "Just Wait"®-Technology.

>>59917279
But he didn't mention Icelake or the mythical desktop cannonlake :)
Or Volta

>>59917265

Of course they're not going to remain exactly as they are now - Nevertheless we're going to be using DX11 and DX12 for the lifespan of any CPU bought today, and dramatically increasing framerates (by reducing resolution, unless you have a magical infinitely powerful GPU you'd like to share) is basically the only viable way of simulating the demands of future games.

Reviewers have been doing it for DECADES, and they've been doing it for a reason: It works. Look at Bulldozer, for instance. Everyone decried low reso benchmarks because only with complete GPU bottlenecks did it even approach competing. Now we're seeing the same shit again, except obviously Ryzen isn't a complete pile of trash like Bulldozer was.

>>59908942
Would it be significantly worth upgrading to a 1600/1700x from my 2600 non-k?

Doing a fair bit of gaming, but also lots of multitasking and media conversion / encoding / editing...

Still considering waiting for Intel's 6+ core desktop CPUs over the next 8 months, but I'm also feeling impatient.

>>59912723
>no asrock

pff

>>59917314
>i'll simulate the demand of future games by putting everything on clockspeed and drawcalls

Are you this fucking retarded?
Actually, don't answer that, you are.

>>59917211
>not going for the first critical point in the graph to get max efficiency

>>59917347
>Would it be significantly worth upgrading to a 1600/1700x from my 2600 non-k?
Yes

>Still considering waiting for Intel's 6+ core desktop CPUs over the next 8 months, but I'm also feeling impatient.
>supporting jews that kept you waiting so long for a worthwhile upgrade while trying to make you rebuy the same old shit instead

>>59917314
But Bulldozer really did get better. For Honor is a new game and it's much better on a FX8350 than an i5-2500k.
But Ryzen is nothing like Bulldozer.

>>59911010

really? do you have a guide on how that shit works, i still cant wrap my brain around single, dual rank, and what ram to get, etc.

>>59911010
Effectively the best choice will be 2600mhz dual rank memory once memory multipliers hit in May, so you get both benefit of higher frequency and DR

>>59917544
Na, because a large part of why high frequency is good on Ryzen is because it makes the infinity fabric operate faster.
It does not seem to care about the latency as much. 3200 CL18 is better than 2133 CL10, in most cases

I'm JustWaiting(TM) For zen+, I'll avoid most of the AM4 troubles, much more mature motherboards, and end up with higher IPC and clocks

>>59917615
Cannonlake will be much better, It'll demolish AMD without a trace left

>>59913248
I don't even see how it's a meme, it's just logical. Totally new architecture needs optimization before you can take full advantage of it, versus a known architecture that's been pushed to its' limits and with a redesign long overdue. Guess which one has more potential performance to gain from microcode updates?

>>59917639
>a skylake dieshrink
>coming in December in 2 core variants(mobile) with a hopeful outlook
>yields such a shitshow Intel canceled the server cannonlake lineup
>if desktop canonlake even comes it'll be another desktop broadwell out it's still fucking skylake at 10nm
>still 4 cores
>meanwhile zen+ is in Q1 2018

Lol no.

>>59917639
>JUST WAIT!!!

Cannonlake is mobile only, not desktop, btw.

>>59917250
2.4Ghz 6 year old xeons exist you know

>>59917675
Don't forget the fact that Intel themselves stated that 10nm will be slower than 14nm for a while until yields go up.
People expecting a 6 core clocked at 5.0 need to get their head examined.

>>59917710
I like the fact more that IPC has become literally worthless to Intelfags now and all that exists is clockspeed, almost as if silicon shits itself over 5.0, where do you even go when your shit is already maxed?

Reminds me of netburst. Hilarious.

when will ryzen support 3200mhz dual channel?

>>59917739
?

>>59917739
You mean dual rank? Whenever someone makes them, dual rank memory doesn't go over 2900MHz IIRC
All those 3200-4000MHz kits are single rank

>>59917776
>>59917767
oh I'm retarded

I assumed that dual rank meant the same thing as dual channel and that ryzen didn't support dual channel above certain speeds

I feel dumb

anyway, what's the advantage of dual rank versus single rank?

>>59914619
1440p 32" has the Same Pixel density like 1080p 24"

File: Screenshot_20170416_122439.png (15KB, 1046x115px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 1046x115px

>>59917776
>not getting octo rank memory and overclocking them

Ultra poor and fag.

Does Ryzen even support LRDIMMs?

>>59917782
oh ok I guess it has to do with address space and memory addresses

>having more ranks gives better performance. The reason is because of the addressing scheme, which can extend the pages across ranks thereby making the pages effectively larger and therefore more page-hit cycles.

never knew this, guess I learned something new

>>59917782
>anyway, what's the advantage of dual rank versus single rank?
Dual rank is faster with Ryzen.
www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-5-1600X-CPU-265842/Tests/R5-1500X-Review-Mainstream-1225280/3/

>>59917803
are there any 32gb kits atm that can hit 3000 without fucking with voltages too much or causing thermal problems?

File: Screenshot_20170416_122621.png (44KB, 648x507px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 648x507px

>>59917782
Dual ranks are much cheaper than high clocked single ranked.
They're also faster than single rank of the same speed, pretty near the 1 tier higher MHz memory of single rank

And it's only a matter of time before regular hynix 3200 shit runs on Ryzen and memory multiplier show up, I'd personally get the highest clocked dual rank kit I can find and go with that.

>>59917803
Hm. Neat.
My 2x16GB I got is dual rank. Hopefully I can overclock it to at least 2666 or 2933.

>>59917565
we've seen nice gains with dula rank RAM, I will withold judgement until memory controller FineWine is fully develop

File: CMU16GX4M2C3200C16-Dual.png (57KB, 1038x476px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1038x476px

There's actually 3200MHz dual rank memory out already.

>>59917909
I'd love to see a benchmark with this and the newest BIOS.

>>59917909
That would be a real nice compromise if they can get it to run at that frequency

>>59910504
How pleb, 3000 fps at 240p is the only way forwards

>>59917909
this is it?

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820236078

the reviews are saying it won't go past 2667. is this fixed with the newest bios?

>>59918133
The newest BIOS isn't out yet, that's in May.
The AGESA update (which is released via BIOS, AGESA and BIOS aren't the same thing!) released in the OP only lowers latency, not improve memory compatibility.
The compatibility one from AMD is in May, meanwhile motherboard vendors will do their own updates and improve memory compatibility.

>>59908759
the 7600k is still cheaper than the 1600 let alone the 1600x

File: RYZEN-1600X-1500X-44.jpg (134KB, 614x529px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 614x529px

>>59918174
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-7600K-Desktop-Processors-BX80677I57600K/dp/B01MRRPPQS/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1492341080&sr=1-1&keywords=7600k
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-1600X-Processor-YD160XBCAEWOF/dp/B06XKWT7GD/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1492341088&sr=1-1&keywords=ryzen+1600x
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1600BBAEBOX/dp/B06XNRQHG4/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1492341110&sr=1-1&keywords=ryzen+1600


Lol?

For the same price(or cheaper), you get the same gaymer performance while far more powerful productivity.
Also your CPU won't be running at 100% and stuttering all the time whenever Windows decides to fart

>>59918204
I don't buy from amazon, but locally the 7600k is cheaper than the 1600.

I really want to switch to Ryzen but I'm going to wait to see how Intel retaliates before making my decision.
This wasn't the decisive victory for AMD I had hoped it would be.

>>59918225
In what fucking bongland is a $250 MSRP part cheaper than a $210 MSRP part unless the former is on permanent sale?

File: 1489058860806.png (211KB, 566x511px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 566x511px

>>59918238
in shitpostland.
there is no sale on either item.

File: 1492339193963.jpg (2MB, 3840x1032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x1032px

>>59918225

Even in your shithole, you're basically arguing for a stuttering mess in gaming that's constantly at 100% CPU utilization that's also twice fucking slower in any MT workload.
Unless the 1600 is almost 50% more expensive than the 7600k, which I really fucking doubt as its MSRP is lower, you have nothing to think about.

>>59908602
>3.73%

wowwwwwww

File: 1492341386833.jpg (2MB, 3840x1032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x1032px

>>59918265


Note that the delidlake at 5.0 needs deliding, a $200 motherboard and a $60 cooler.

File: 5-630.70518740.jpg (39KB, 551x473px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 551x473px

>>59918294
>almost 4x the generation upgrade of Intel from a microcode update

Wow?

File: mpv-shot0027.jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

>>59918309
Why is this allowed?

>>59918344
>>59918309

no competition made them lazy af, why even try to make sth new when you can milk consumer with same shit over and over?

>>59918225
>I really want to switch to Ryzen but I'd rather buy from Jews that tried to force me to rebuy the same product 6 years in a row because maybe they'll change!!!!

>>59918344
>Why is this allowed?
Everything is allowed for Intel.

>>59918261
Oh my GOD it's $5 more for a vastly superior product with 3 times the threads that isn't a stuttering mess.

>>59917819
if only there was a simple way to tell which modules kits use and if it's dual or single rank except for QVL lists which are not even remotely full

File: 1289330658631.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

>>59918300
>(spikes from loading new scene)

>>59908602
>ryzen is shit for gaming at launch
>they improve a few % months later
Yeah guys INTEL BTFO right?

>>59918369
> Intelaviv shill in denial

>>59918358
I didn't say I had decided to buy Intel I said I would wait to make a decision.

Only a jew would suggest competition is bad.

>>59918366
Dual rank kits have higher timings and aren't as expensive, also it's easy to see on the DIMMs themselves, dual rank is 2Rx* and single rank is 1Rx*

>>59918366
If it's cheap, and high frequency(3200) it's dual rank.

Otherwise the simplest way is to return the product if you get a single rank one, don't tell me your country doesn't allow that?

File: 1488420066835.jpg (42KB, 898x886px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 898x886px

>>59918344
reparations

>>59918309

>>59918309
DELID DIS

>>59918378
>rypoojeet with his dank memes

>>59918344
This is how free market works.

>>59918395
In most US states that aren't california you'd get told to fuck off if you returned a product.

Meanwhile I can swap out dozen of CPUs (legally) here in East Europe to find a golden sample.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (27KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1440x1080px

>>59918405
no need to be affraid, intel will deliver soon, just wait™

>>59918426
Just wait for what? They are already the best lol

>>59918384
>>59918395
CMK16GX4M2B3466C16 ver 4.24

is this dual rank or single rank?

It's only available kit here right now or 3466 version, but I think it would be pointless to get one since I don't have BCLK on board
no, can't get g.skill even if I wanted to except importing.

File: 1488553324495.jpg (53KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 657x527px

>>59918461
>They are already the best lol

>>59918425
>(legally)
Yeah, but you'd be an asshat.

>>59918481
Best in stuttering.

>>59918471
That's single rank.

>>59918471
wrong ID, 3466 there is 3200

>>59918482
Who cares? I'm not here to make friends with Intel's retail edge faggots trying to sell me a i3 over a R5
I'm here to buy a product.

>>59918471
Anything with tight timings that look very uniform as in "14-14-14" are single rank.
They're also more expensive.

>>59918505
>poojeet in denial

>>59918552
Gas yourself, schlomo.

>>59918557
Stay mad faggot, Ryzen sucks for gaming and you know it

>>59918552
hmmmmmmmmmm >>59918300

>>59918574
Ramesh please.

>>59918543
it's 16-18-18

thing is, dual rank wouldn't run 3200 no matter the bios yet

there is chance this corsair will run at least 2933 if it's not dual rank, hate returning things

>>59916821
33% more cores has more potential than 5% higher frequency.

>>59918681
Not when I don't use them much outside of occasional compiling.
6cores is the sweet spot currently. As 6 is more heavily used, I'll be upgrading as I already said. Sheesh.

>>59918720
a boatload of current games a programmed for 8 cores (all current consoles) and I care more about the performance in three to four years than now, when the difference is merely a number on the fps counter. I've gone through single-/dual-/multicore minumum requirements and every time I was forced to upgrade because of the cores, not because of the clockspeed.

>>59918825
... yeah 8 weak cores. so 4 with hyperthreading is usually good. 6 with 12 threads is more than enough. Hence how the performance of the 1600X and 1800X are identical or within 5% on most games.

>>59908759
I thought the 7700k was better than the 1700x. I was wrong

>>59918928
It is if you're a dedicated 800x600 at low details gamer

>>59918928
It was some 15-20% better at launch, but BIOSes at that time were literally shitting themselves and there were motherboards with 20% lower performance(mostly ASUS ones), also everything was ran at 2133MHz memory.

That test was also ran without the AGESA update in the OP that's some 3% faster overall, so it gets better.

Fact of the matter is that you'll only get a 7700k if you want to run CSGO at 700 FPS
After a month, the BIOSes got their performance and most could get 2900/3200MHz memory running on top of that Windows fixed some of its own issues with Ryzen

>>59918174
kek, 7600 non-k with cooler costs 10€ more than 1600

>>59910015
underrated

>>59910192
and only 2 months has passed

>>59908942
and the most funny thing that during gameplay cpu usage doesn't go over 10%