Riddle me this /g/. Why does AMD's new line just barely

>>60076969
>comparing a top of line octo core with a mid range i5 quad core

File: 1471246310120.png (39KB, 156x129px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 156x129px

Looks like that i5 is just perfect for you.

File: 1493011722129.jpg (314KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 960x960px

I'm pretty sure the website also factors the "sentiment" value into the score which is? Weird at the very least.

You're just another corporate shitposter but for the other anons out there, buy whatever you want rather than relying on the shillings of neets of /g/.

If I had to pitch my two cents though, the scores in benchmarks were better for the 1800x which shows a bunch.

File: tumblr_3425gdjh4hj32knb.png (122KB, 1449x814px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1449x814px

>>60076969
good job cropping out the important bits (cherry picking)

>>60076969
>inb4 300 replies

>>60077056
Yeah this site's "Overall speed" calculation is so absurdly biased in favor of single core it's kind of pathetic.

>>60077001
That only makes the problem worse for AMD. A mid range i5 quad core shouldn't be beating out AMD's best attempt.

Here you go.

>>60077052
I'm really not. I want this explained to me. Also, the "sentiment value" is just a combination of market share, pricing and user rating.

>>60077066
ikr, /g/'s fucking consumerism bait threads are actually pissing me off

File: amd_cucks2.png (163KB, 1126x689px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1126x689px

>>60077001
>>60077087
Forgot picture.

>>60077098
>amd_cucks2.png
You retards really need to start getting banned.

>>60077087
If you really wanted this explained, you'd know that market share and user ratings have no correlation to performance.

Taking a look at the above scores, it does well in everything that isn't gaming. The single core and quad core scores are also low, but the other benhcmarks reflect positively of the CPUs performance.

Do a little interpretation. Plus it mentions that the CPU is "103%" for work stations. I wouldn't trust a user based sight but still, it has something to say about non-gaming applications.

>>60076969
>all these shills suddenly acting as if >4 core parts have had good core performance
>ignoring the 6900k or the whole X99 lineup's existence
Wew lad

>>60077148
Forgot to add that you're still being a consumerist fuck and need to let people make their own decisions rather than being a jew for a company.

>>60077159
>suddenly

did you miss last 2 months?

>>60076969
Because you are a fucking retard that uses an obvious biased site to "justify" your poor purchase.

File: amd_cucks3.png (69KB, 1453x693px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1453x693px

>>60077056
Yeah, cropping out the important parts.
Nevermind that intel's core speed is better and only thing AMD can do better is have more cores. Why would I give a link to the page if I plan on hiding info? Here's this one.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916

>>60077052
How were they better? The only thing I see AMD winning at is "multi-core speed" and having more cores. Of course they're going to win there. Intel only has 4 cores.

>>60077180
This anon is right.

Too many people come onto /g/ spouting shit because they are self conscious about their purchase and need to be validated.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

>A gaming orientated measure of CPU speed that favours single over multi core performance. Intel i7-7700K ~= 100%.

What a load of faggotry.

ITT one retarded troll sits in place pretending single core is the only metric that measures at all ever and 100 zillion anons fall for it. Again.

>AMD keeps pushing the moar cores meme
>still subpar single core performance not even better than sandybridge

AMD is still shit, no idea why people are so hyped about it.

>>60077148
I understand that heavy multi-tasking processes are going to run better on a cpu with more cores. Have a business generating rainbow tables? Sure, by a ryzen, why not. That's not what I want explained. If you're not incredibly into that sort of thing, then the $200 cheaper Intel chip does it well enough, and everything else better.

And obviously I don't give a shit about market share and user ratings. I never cared about it's sentiment value and I don't see it factoring in to it's overall effective speed on the site.

>>60077238
Even Intel is abandoning you clockfags. Their next consumer CPU lineup is going to be 6 cores for i5/i7. Even if they didn't, Zen 2 will close the gap. Say goodbye to your single core jerkoff fest. It'll be fun while it lasts, I guess (No it won't, it's exhaustingly stupid)

>>60077227
wait, isn't it "x2 the price thread" again?
I have strong deja vu feeling here

>>60077274
Who knows, who cares? Pretending to be a retard on the internet for attention is it's own punishment.

>>60076969
the i5 will age like dogshit

the 1700-1800 will age much better

your call, intel is cancerous as fuck and cosntant fucking socket changes do my head in

>>60077265
on a serious note, if AMD suddenly removes all servers parts from CPU and leave only consumer features on IBM tech process, it's going to clock 4.5Ghz next year on 6 cores.

>>60076969
> Amd gets hyperthreading
> Why the price premium?

There's a bios setting change required for max ryzen performance also

>>60076969
because 4 threads with same performance as 16 threads is better for 99% of software
now off yourself

>>60077180
No, I'm about to make a purchase. I'm looking into what I want to buy and I see this kind of retarded shit. I've always gone AMD but Intel is clearly better right now. I come to /g/ and see a bunch of faggots jizzing over ryzen and I can't ask why?

>>60077227
What do you mean exactly? Unless something is programmed to utilize multiple cores, it's not going to. The operating system is just going to stick whatever I'm running on a core and let me go. I don't need to run 16 AAA games at once. A majority of the processing goes on in the first 4 cores for me and the majority of everyone, so single core speed is paramount.

>>60077290
>first gen ryzen will age better
Nope. Who the fuck uses 6 or 8 cores nowadays? By the time we do move to 6 or 8 cores, there will be zen 2 with better performance and price.

As for now, Intel quadcores are still better for performance.

>>60077324
>Who the fuck uses 6 or 8 cores nowadays?
lets see

>Every smartphone on the market
>every power user
>every server cluster
Not our fault Intel has been dragging its feet for 7 years because AYYMD dropped the ball for so long

>>60077324
lmaoing@you're life
I already feel being a no HT threadlet. A 7700k is the absolute minimum if you really insist on being a 4 core shitter.
t. 6600k user

Because the AMD one has pretend cores.

>>60077333
>power user
>servers
Most fags here use their computer to play shitty games, and watch their weeb shit.

>>60077321
>i-i'm totally not a troll guise, comparing an i5 to 1800X is a totally reasonable comparison to make

Just fuck off already. You played your hand too early if you wanted to play dumb.

File: image00.jpg (188KB, 560x726px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 560x726px

>>60077333
Do you buy your own phone processor?
Are you assuming that we're building a server here?
The fuck does power user mean to you?

File: 1487900850903.jpg (203KB, 381x424px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 381x424px

>>60077375
See >>60077098
It only helps my argument. I was comparing chips of similar value. Basically saying that the Ryzen is equivalent to an i5. If we compare it to an i7 it still gets rekt.

>>60077390
>pretending the rest of the ryzen lineup doesn't exist

Really weak bait. Sad!

>>60077321
You didn't ask anything, your post (if you really are OP) was clearly meant to shill for Intel. If you really are interested in finding out why is the best purchase see benchmarks for your use cases and buy the best value, which in most cases right now is Ryzen. Or, you could just blindly buy Intel because that's what everyone used to do.

>>60077377
>Professionals
Intels 4 core 8 thread meme is a joke they've been dragging their feet since 2010 ffs, have fun buying a new motherboard every 2 years

>>60077404
The entire ryzen line gets destroyed on a price/speed ratio when compared to the current intel processors I posted. What specific ryzen are you looking at?

>>60077416
>You didn't ask anything
>Why does AMD's new line just barely compete with Intel's but cost almost double the price?
I am legitimately trying to find the best value because I plan on buying something in the near future. I'm not trying to shill Intel, they just look good to me right now and I can't wrap my head around why you and everyone else on /g/ seems to love ryzen.

>>60077431
Professional at what? Doing what? I'm a professional programmer in the purest sense of the word meaning I get paid to do it, but I don't need 16 cores to run Eclipse or Visual Studio.

>>60077472
>Its a /g/ is afraid of technology progressing epsiode
The fuck? Oh yeah we should all be using dual cores!

Fucking mong

>>60077490
/g/ might not be afraid, but my wallet is. Tell me, why should I shell out an extra $200 for 8 more cores if they don't do anything substantial?

>>60077509
>buying intel corez
Lel its like u dont want mega threading!

>>60077434
Why don't you just fuck off already? Are you that obsessed with pretending to be a retard on some random fucking thread that nobody will care about two seconds from now? Why are you such a mentally damaged toddler?

Because it's only a few months old and the data is biased towards day one benchmarks and there is several more times user data acquired over time for the Intel line.

>>60077537
No u. I feel like you're way to angry right now. I just want to know why I should get ryzen instead of an intel chip, and all you autists are spouting is
>hur dur intel shill

Did I insult your precious ryzen purchase anon? Is that why you're angry?

>>60077472
here's my rig (and it's mostly overkill)
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/3511961

I think it depends on what you have / need

>>60077579
You should read this and think deeply about your life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

>>60077622
I don't see what you're getting at. Are you saying I come off as a troll? How about this then. We'll let this thread die, and I'll create another one in a little bit that's a bit more polite for you sensitive faggots. I can see you were all triggered by me naming my screenshots "amd_cuck." Jesus, where the fuck am I, reddit?

You buy the Ryzen 1600. The 1800X is only useful for those doing a lot of threaded workloads. For everything else get a 1600 and OC it. It works out cheaper overall than an i5 and performs just as well. Plus it is future proofed on the socket for a number of years. Use your brain moran.

>>60077619
>http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/3511961
Besides the graphics card, that's pretty much my rig right now. I'm getting annoyed with the graphics driver situation on linux with amd. Is it any better on with nvidia?

>>60077666
babbys first trole thread
kys you'reself

>>60077188
Moar hertz!

>>60077681
I see. I guess I forgot to factor in the cost of everything else. Thank you anon.

>>60077702
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920

it's pretty even really

>>60077056
DELETE THIS, GOY

>+147% multi-core speed
"Effective Speed" only takes 4 threads into account

Oy vey, be careful my friend, you can get prosecuted for posting false flag statements on the internet in the chosen land now. Shut down the shill threads. Truly netenyahu is another holocaust for Intel.

>>60077863
The "multi-core" score is a theoretical score for perfectly multithreaded applications.
The "effective speed" is real world performance and it does take all threads into account.

>>60077197
You're right.

>>60077835
Yeah, that's a lot better. Is the 1700 and 1800 so much more expensive solely because of the extra 2 cores?

>>60077891
30% 1 threads
60% 4 threads
10% all threads

benchmarking modern CPUs that way is literally retarded. Even makes i7s look bad compared to i5s

>>60077930
What do you suggest? If you take
>100% all threads
then a FX-9590 would be rated faster than a i5-7600K
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3885vs1812
despite being slower than a G4560 in almost everything.

> it's a "gaming is the only thing a CPU is good for thread" again

I want /v/ leafs to leave.

>>60077985
you are just proving the point that any kind of weighted average of artificial benchmarks doesn't tell you anything about real world performance.

>>60077906
its series 5 vs 7, 4 threads is a typical gaming cpu in itself

http://www.trustedreviews.com/best-cpu-for-gaming_round-up

>>60078000
lol

>>60077702
> that's pretty much my rig right now
no its definitely mine

>>60076969
4 core vs 8 core...
This begs the question what benchmarks were done?
I mean if it were run only 4 core benchmark then I would take AMD 8 core than intels 4.

Can you even compare 4 core vs 8 core CPU?

Benchmarks are different for both, because in one case it suppose to use 4 core benchmark and on second one 8 core, how's that comparable?
Or is it that intels 4 cores are twice as powerful as amd 8???

Was benchmark done for only single core????
If so then still, amd is better for the price.

>>60078536
I'm actually asking, because I don't know.
I don't benchmark, nor do I have interest in it.

When buying CPU usually just read user reviews, till I find what suits me.

So if someone can explain how this benchmark in OP picture is done, please, do.

>>60077169
Two months is nothing compared to all those years they made vastly different claims.

File: intelaviv_inside.png (666KB, 1236x916px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1236x916px

>>60076969
>Why does Intel's new line just barely compete with Intel's but cost almost double the price?

>>60078836
Wew!
Fak intel we should buy intijlel!

>>60076969
man why does the 7700k destroy the 6950x in single threaded perf? intel barely compete with themselves for nearly quintuple the price?

File: IMG_2564.jpg (102KB, 601x806px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 601x806px

>>60078536
>Can you even compare 4 core vs 8 core CPU?

Yes. 4 Intel cores trash the shit out of amd's 8 cores

>>60079014
>nvidia gpu

File: IMG_2742.png (1MB, 1228x1502px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1228x1502px

>>60079029
>IT'S A CONSPIRACY

File: 7fd267d5849c2dff8c9bd1f6b84c83171f7ec1ca[1].png (41KB, 650x674px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 650x674px

>>60079051
back to /v/ tech illiterate babby

>>60079068
>amd cpu is shit
>that's nvidias fault
Poo in loo

>>60079077
here's your (You)

File: delidthis.jpg (146KB, 794x409px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 794x409px

>>60079014
Intel shill keep using day 1 benchmark

File: IMG_2740.jpg (443KB, 2133x1242px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 2133x1242px

>>60079091
DigitalFoundry benchmark from April. No amount of time will cover up for your indian cpoo

>>60079091
>T O O T H P A S T E
top kek

>>60079091
literal housefires

>>60079104
>cpoo
Stutterlake strike again

>>60079129
Poo poo

>>60079104
>novideo again

>>60079141
>thinks anyone will comate cpu performance with a shit poolaris which can't render for shit

>>60079151
>enjoying his cucked fermi gpus

>>60079014
How benchmark is done?
Is it done on all cores or single core for each CPU?

I can't comprehend how 4 cores can be twice as good as 8 cores, wtf?

If it's done on single core, or 4 cores on both CPUs, then AMD is still better, considering price of 8 core CPU.

File: IMG_2567.png (179KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 600x450px

>>60079176
Amd is made for poor indians who want fo still be able to play games. But those who want performance and don't care about $20 will always get intel

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

2MB, 3840x1032px

Stutterlake ewww

File: IMG_2802.png (538KB, 1279x720px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1279x720px

>>60079204
>rx 480
Ewww

>>60079199
>need to OC 6900k to beat 1800X
kek

>>60076969
>Look at me guys, I'm using software from the 90s that can barely spread to two cores. WOW, how can it be that HIGHER clocked cores are FASTER than the multiple lower clocked ones?!?!?!!?!?
Man, you sound retarded as fuck. Learn to program multi threaded you shitty pajeeet.

>>60079244
>1800X can't overclock to beat 6900k
Ftfy

>>60079271
doesn't need to overclock to beat a 6900k it already does

>>60079277
Proof? Your indian words don't matter much

>>60079199
You do realise that posting benchmark images doesn't answer my question?

>>60079290
>damage control
they aren't paying you enough sheckels for this, goy

>>60079294
>can't prove a lie
As I thought

>>60079216
Do you even open the graph, Nvidia also there

Intel stutter on both Amd and Nvidia
it shit, total trash

>>60079299
how can i prove your lie? that's doesn't make sense you wannabe sandnigger

>>60077098
Compare Octo to Octo and cry yourself to sleep

File: IMG_2649.jpg (124KB, 784x580px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 784x580px

>>60079306
Don't need to. Even a 2 core i3 beats amd's try at performance

>>60079014
>no min framerate info
>no frametime info
>no RAM info
Useless.

>>60079321
>day one benchmark
how many time we need to do this

>>60079332
Image is from 7 March. You already overused this excuse poojet

https://steamcommunity.com/app/364360/discussions/0/133258593408185715/

File: wd2_proz[1].png (82KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 523x440px

>>60079321
>warhammer
what a coincidence

>>60079360
Shill please it GN review, that is day one Benchmark

>>60079365
>doesn't even include kaby lake in benchmark
>4 year old broadwell still crushes poozen

Color me surprised

>>60079376
Intel shill just straight up lie, hope he getting fired for doing such shit job

>>60079384
Better lows and better frame times
>crushes
Enjoy your stuttery mess shill

What can we do against this shill website??

OP, you are fucking retarded, please rope yourself

File: IMG_2558.jpg (504KB, 2094x1242px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 2094x1242px

>>60079419
Enjoy your low fps and poo colored skin

I don't know why people complaining about this thread.
its great to stop retards and shill from invading pcbg thread and I can easily filter it.

>>60079435
oh no, only 308fps

>>60079435
>benchmarking 2017 cpu in csgo

>>60079435
Too bad the stutters make Intel even more shit for gayming.

>>60079321
>Day one benchmark
>Gay Mans Next Ass
Discarded

>>60079014
Gee, I wonder why the R5s are missing from that comparison? I wonder if that benchmark was run on day -1 before all the post-launch fixes?

Why would someone use such an outdated and misleading benchmark?

Really activates those almonds.

>>60079104
>DX12
Gee, I wonder what brand of video card is being used in this benchmark was an Nvidia card? The same Nvidia cards known to have huge issues with Ryzen CPUs under DX12?

Now why would someone run a benchmark where there is already known to be a confounding factor that will create totally misleading results?

Really lights up those neurons.

>>60079199
Gee, I wonder why the R5s are missing from that comparison? I wonder if that benchmark was run on day -1 before all the post-launch fixes?

Why would someone use such an outdated and misleading benchmark?

Really activates those almonds.

>>60079216
Gee, I wonder whether this was made using DX12 on an Nvidia card to gimp the Ryzen results?

>>60079321
>>60080219
>>60080257

>>60079435
>>60080219

shills shilling shills

>>60079199
>7700k trashing a CPU 3x its price
intel BTFO

File: Panorama.jpg (605KB, 2550x1446px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 2550x1446px

I'll just leave this here

>>60080387

>>60080443
"Legit Bottom Line: If gaming is the main reason you are looking at building a new system, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X stands up to the Intel i7-7700K in nearly every game we tested. This shows that either processor will work great in a gaming system. The AMD Ryzen 7 1700X though, has the added bonus of the extra cores/threads allowing you to do more multitasking while gaming, especially when it comes to doing things that can take advantage of the extra cores and threads."

So there you have it.

File: riddle.png (243KB, 1447x855px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1447x855px

>Riddle me this /g/. Why does Intel's enthusiast line just barely compete with Intel's consumer line but cost almost quadruple the price?

File: Clip2net_170426160307.png (172KB, 1106x498px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1106x498px

>>60076969
Riddle me this /g/. Why does Intel's line just barely compete with AMD's but cost almost double the price?

>>60080605
>>60080523

you should make a new thread

>>60076969
>gaming: 96% vs 93%
>desktop: 93% vs 91%
>workstation: 58% vs 102%
>not competing
fuck you OP

File: Best_Processors_April_-_2017_-_2017-04-26_14.13.40.png (478KB, 1184x3530px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1184x3530px

Intel #rekt

>>60080523

It must be a single-thread benchmark. That would also explain OP's result.

See:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

File: AMD_Ryzen_5_1600_Review_-_Performance_-_2017-04-26_14.23.37.jpg (146KB, 1130x953px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1130x953px

Just get a Ryzen

>>60079204
POOTEL STUTTERING HOUSEFIRES

>>60077074
Majority of the people who use sites like this are le gamers so they have to cater to their audience.

>>60076969
these aggregate benchmark scores are bullshit for multiple reasons
>they're sourced from regular joes with shit methodology and suboptimal configurations
>they don't account for the changes in perf that can occur within a product's lifespan
>they rarely specify what was tested at all
I would suggest instead looking at professional reviews by multiple sources and to make sure those reviews are as recent as possible

>>60080736
>Intel rekt
>Best CPU is still intel
>3d mark being reliable anyway

>>60081485
>Best CPU is still intel
Now compare the prices.

>>60080265
Farcry primal is DX12

Yeah but keep believing uyor conspiracies
Bush did 9/11
The yeti is real
The earth is flat
Gravity is a lie
Rosie o'donnell is a woman

>>60081485
>3dmark isn't reliable because some literal who on /g/ said so
lmaooooooooooo

>>60081520
> Farcry primal is DX12
And NVIDIA's DX12/Vulkan support is abysmal due to architecture issues.

>>60081532
*isn't DX12

>>60081520
Farcry Primal isn't DX12 you dumb nigger. Stop spreading false info you mongoloid.

>>60081531
There is a reason nobody uses it for CPU benches

>>60076969
>moar cores
>barely keeps up with a 7600k

Goddamn

>>60081564
Can you provide a link to the review that picture comes from? I'd like to take a look at it.

>>60081781
Looks like ryzen 5 review by hardwareunboxed but i'm not 100% sure.

>>60082206
It is and it's old. Day 1 benches are worthless.

File: Hardware_Unboxed_1600x.jpg (4MB, 2560x5760px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x5760px

>>60082206
Hold up. You mean >>60079216 is just blatantly cherrypicked out of a crop of results like these?

Why would someone post such a misrepresentative single benchmark that is totally non-representative of results in other games?

Riddle me this. Riddle me that. Who's afraid of the big FCAT?

[spoiler]Novidya[/spoiler]

File: Screenshot_2017-04-26-11-07-13_org.gnu.icecat~01.png (98KB, 789x771px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 789x771px

>>60076969
Yikes.

>>60076969
What does this measure? It looks like votes.

>>60083571
Nobody should be buying the 1800X for gaming. Only if you need more cores. The 1600 is where it's at.

File: PassMark_-_CPU_Performance_Comparison_-_2017-04-26_20.09.52.png (37KB, 710x671px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 710x671px

>>60083571
You suck at this

>>60076969
>muh GAYms

>>60085221
4560 and 1600 are the only cpus to buy right now. AMD done backed off Intel and Amd y'all.

>>60085264
7700k is faster in everything that actually matters.
Real life test also on top of that games as well.

Always Massive Disappointment doesn't surprise this time around either.

>>60085471
>everything that actually matters.
>>>/v/

>>60085471
You mean compiling? Nope
Video encoding? Nope
Anything multithreaded? Nope
Video games? Yes.
That's 1/4 things that matter. You lose.

File: LRM_EXPORT_20170426_154238.jpg (2MB, 2539x1446px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2539x1446px

>>60085471
No.

File: ryzen7.png (2MB, 769x8779px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 769x8779px

>>60085471
>>60085679
Definitely not.

>>60077262
And for most people who aren't into gaming and just use their computer for Facebook and emails, a $60 Bentium works just fine as well. Hell, they could get by with a fucking Atom netbook.

Acting as if the Intel processor is superior solely because of its performance in a single use case is retarded.

>>60076969
Because game devs can't into multithreading.

File: jewtel.png (233KB, 1096x692px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1096x692px

>>60076969
>broadwell-e is barley faster than babylake
>cost 4.5 times more