i thought Ryzen revolutionized the industry

bait

but ryzen basically forced intel to do this you understand? coming out as the 8th best CPU from maybe 100th is very good.

ryzen rev 2 will be even better and I'm sure intel chips are going to suddenly get a lot better

Just because something isn't always at #1 doesn't mean it's worthless. AMD came pretty far from where they were.

$460 CPU vs unreleased $2000 CPU.
$2000 CPU is only 40% faster multicore.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Skylake-X-12-Core-HEDT-12C-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/m278103vs3916

AMD is coming out with a 16 core CPU that will shit all over it for about half the price. lol

>>60436046

>judging technology success on its own track record
>not what's happening elsewhere in the same area of technology

>>60436094
Yes, HEDT CPUs are not the same area as consumer CPUs. Thanks for pointing that out.

File: 5656457.png (33KB, 499x361px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 499x361px

>>60436091

>>60436112

The X99 chipset was released in late August 2014

>>60436046
From where they were? They used to have the best CPUs back in the day.

File: Untitled.png (77KB, 886x964px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 886x964px

>>60436091

>is only faster multicore

>>60436270
>implying anyone buys into HEDT for single core
>implying anyone but gaymurz, web 4.0 benchmarkers and cemufags care about single core at all
>implying 10-15% is anything even worth giving a shit about

>>60436141
and?

>>60436189

>12 modern cores can do a heavily multi-threaded task faster than 8 different modern cores

Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

>incucks being this desperate

I'm sure your dual i7 in one package will execute NSA backdoor rootkits the fastest. It'll have to before your house burns down.

What the FUCK do processors with more than 2 cores have to do with gaymen?

>>60436737

The consoles are all multi-core arch, and game engines are increasingly being optimized for multi-core processing to wrest more performance from the limited platforms. In doing so, the PC will also utilize more cores for game performance.

>>60435925
>ECC memory controller on consumer chip
>AES modules that can encrypt at FUCKING 60GB/s and are tied to memory
>For under 6 million dollarinos
It checks out.

File: RTNiFn9.png (26KB, 673x353px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 673x353px

>>60436821
But as it stands now most pc games can only efficiently use 2 cores. It makes no sense to put a "gaymen" metric to processors who aren't even designed for it.

Are we going to be comparing 24 core xeons vs 32 core naples processors in ARMA 3 now?

File: 1494703240837.jpg (290KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1024x683px

>>60435925

>>60436876

fuck off faggot, the site doesnt give you a hugbox to live in

every fucking CPU is run thru the same benchmarks, and are supplied a percentage amongst those 3 main categories

gamying, regular desktop shit and workbench

your fucking i3 still rates high in gayming

its just not the best

deal with it

also the fucking logical incriments trying to say the 6950x is 33% worse at gaming vs the 7700k is also bullshit as these benchmarks show

also none of the fucking ryzen PCs are faster than the 7700k so the fact it lists the R7s higher is also bullshit

>>60436431
Everyone should care about single core performance because it has a multiplicative effect with multicore. The main point was single core right now is everyone has good enough single core, Intel has a bit faster in the high-end, but AMD offers you far more cores for the low-end and when you actually run your computer you can have all of the background applications run off of cores that your game wouldn't even touch me that even when those CPU approaches that 90 to 95% use per core it's still not as horrible an effect as an Intel CPU would have.

>>60436196
>What are FX series CPUs.

>>60437014
There is a stark difference here, when AMD puts out an acorn doesn't do good and single core applications everyone calls it shit, when Intel doesn't everyone makes an excuse on why it's not bad.

>>60435925
>12 cores
>vs 8 cores
>50% more cores but only 23% more powerful
:thinking:

File: 1494973911888.png (617KB, 1543x824px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1543x824px

Meanwhile ..

>>60435925
>50% more cores
>20% better score
Really makes you think

>>60437398
>THE THREADANNING!

>>60436196
Before the dark times

Before Bulldozer

>>60436141
>AMD BTFO, INTEL STOCKS ARE WORTH MORE PER SHARE
Meanwhile, their stock growth is recovering quite nicely after all the short-term investors pulled out recently. Looks pretty good to me man.

>>60437435
>>60437378

is /g/ of all places literally acting like thermodynamics dont have a ceiling

I don't care if they are the best. They just need to be "good enough" for Intel to actually cut some margins and make CPUs worth buying.
With DX12, I'm getting the feeling I'll never upgrade from Sandy Bridge.

>>60436876
Intel shills when Ryzen launched
>BUT MORE CORES ISNT IMPORTANT GETTING 10% BETTER SINGLE CORE MEANS ITS BETTER
Intel shills now
>PER-CORE PERFORMANCE DOESNT MATTER ITS ALL ABOUT MULTICORE PERFORMANCE

>>60435925
Ryzen Threadripper will have 16c/32t at higher base clocks, more L3 cache, and a lower price than the Skylake-X 12-core.

Skylake-X is DOA, shekelchaser.

File: 1493853024700.jpg (95KB, 640x650px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x650px

>>60436454
Thanks, my dude.

>>60437459
They where shit before Bulldozer too, Core2 was monstrous and they couldn't beat it. They were only good in K times and when Intel decided to meme us with Netburst hell spawns.

>>60435925
>amd just announced 32 core 16 core and 12 core ryzen 1 hour ago
RIP in peace this post

>>60437513
Intel can beat AMD in both scenarios.

>>60437632

>just announced

so it'll be out in like 2-3 years?

>>60435925
maybe the intel is faster because it has more cores

>>60437435
and surely >50% higher price.

If you need to ask yourself how many threads your application uses this isn't for you kiddos

keep to your gaymin cpus

>>60437677
see
>>60437398

Summer 2017. It's coming to rip and tear.

>>60437632
>Amd so butt blasted they released info early just to say "u-us t.. too!"
>Amd getting beaten in the only area they used to do well: multicore processing
And their reaction?
>Well, we simply need more cores than Intel again!

File: LRM_EXPORT_20170507_091219.jpg (2MB, 1485x4363px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1485x4363px

>>60438634
I mean, it's not like AMD's $490 1800x is already better than the 8-core 6900k or anything. Oh wait.

Skylake-X is DOA. The first time a 16-core Threadripper gets benched against the 7920X it's going to be a fucking massacre. The 7920X loses out on cores, threads, L3 cache and will lose out on base clocks. Single core turbo won't be enough to even put a dent in the performance gap.

>>60438026

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/intel-skylake-kaby-lake-thread-6c-12t-coffee-lake-launching-august-2017.2428363/page-417#post-38889905

File: 456457457.png (194KB, 1616x1080px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1616x1080px

>>60438816

>trusting jews hardware.

>>60438892
You realize the fact that the 1800X comes anywhere near Intel's 12 core ringbus shitheap means they're fucked from the get-go, right? The 16 core Threadripper will be over double the score of the 1800X. Probably somewhere around 2600.

>>60438910
The "Rank" on that site is a complete joke. They base everything on single core and quad core performance. Like multicore gets 10% in their tests. Why are you posting anything from that trashheap of a website?

File: apprentice and second firing door in foreground.jpg (331KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1067x1600px

>>60438910
>MFW a kiketel shekelchaser resorts to defending entirely synthetic benchmarks when real world benchmarks BTFO the fuck out of them.

Get in kike. The second shoah has begun.

>>60438967
>>60438932


it literally has real-world benchmarks in the list

get fucked faggets

>>60438976
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-multi-core-mixed-speed/80

>It measures the ability of a processor to perform 32 integer and floating point operations at the same time. This test is more appropriate for measuring server rather than desktop performance because typical desktop workloads rarely exceed two cores.

What a fucking joke.

>>60438976
http://www.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-UBM-Effective-Speed/95

>The effective CPU speed index is weighted as 30% single-core, 60% quad-core and 10% multi-core.

lol.

File: 8a9.jpg (87KB, 500x409px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x409px

>>60435925
>1 user benchmark

>>60439024

because its the intel build dummy

if you check the build it has a fucking AMD HD 6000 or something GPU, the same gpu and other parts that the 10 core also was benchmarked with

it was a test bench build for the CPU

File: 1481744513695.png (349KB, 716x2588px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 716x2588px

>>60438976
I said get in the oven, kike.

File: 1493235569051.png (72KB, 939x891px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 939x891px

>>60438910
>>60438976
Oh look. The 6900k loses to the 1800x again.

>>60439202
>>60439232

>handpicking 2 CPUs

isnt that cute

File: Untitledd.png (36KB, 633x613px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 633x613px

>>60438976
>>60439232
And again.

File: RYZEN1600X1500X35.jpg (202KB, 614x570px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 614x570px

>>60439254
Threadripper will be along shortly to BTFO the 6950x and every Skylake-X variant. For now you'll have to settle for the $490 1800x BTFO'img the $1,000 6900k.

>>60439202
>>60439232
>>60439268
>>60439313

>all these canned tests
>none of which are real people with real builds

so funny

>>60439330
Virtually every real application productivity benchmark has the 1800x beating the 6900k. Please feel free to show the productivity workload where the 6900k is faster.

>HURR DURR GAYMEN!
We're arguing about HEDT CPU's, shekelchaser. No one is buying a $1,000 6900k for gaymen.

>>60436897
Check'd and kek'd