AHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHHHHAH HAAHHHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHHAAHAHHH

File: 1476011670652.jpg (115KB, 796x805px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 796x805px

>>60466053
sir please do the needful and delet

>>60466053
Are we going to do this now? Link some benchmark about some obscure software or game and post to prove amd or intel superiority?

>>60466053
What am I looking at?

File: ryzen oven.png (54KB, 470x316px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 470x316px

>>60466053
Oh wow kikes in full damage control mode due to EPYC.

>>60466128
the desperation of intel fags

>>60466053
Oh wow testing memory and set one command rate 1 and other to 2. How the fuck is that supposed to be in any way comparable?

>>60466132
>needing damage control for something literally, unironically named "EPYC"
LOL

>>60466216
>set one command rate 1 and other to 2
wrong retard. The only difference is the CPU

>>60466231
It will unironically bury Xeons just like Opterons buried EPIC. :^)

>>60466253
Check again 7700K is running command rate 2 and 1800X is running command rate 1. Are you fucking blind? I bet you don't even know that command rate is.

>>60466253
Are you
retarded?

>>60466053
>2T vs 1T
really gets the ol' noggin joggin'

>>60466216
they might be testing both chips with optimal settings.

>>60466278
>>60466292
>>60466315
That's what the CPU defaults to retards. If there was some magic performance improvement AMD wouldn't default to 1

>>60466361
Are you
really that retarded?

>>60466216
>>60466253
>>60466278
>>60466315
If anything CM1 is faster than CM2. AMD BTFO AGAIN

>>60466053
>today on "a bunch of meaningless numbers"

File: 1494187598774.jpg (14KB, 306x305px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 306x305px

>>60466369
>the state of AMD argumentation

Here's the article this is from. https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ryzen-Memory-Latencys-Impact-Weak-1080p-Gaming

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYYMDPOORFAGS CONFIRMED ON SUICIDE WATCH

File: 1494542289810.gif (2MB, 384x372px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x372px

Wow, just wow, are AMDfags really so desperate they want to post this shit?

>>60466427
>pcper
Kikes are not even fucking trying anymore.

FEAR THE FUCKING 128 PCI-E LANES KIKES. THE SHOAH IS COMING FOR YOU.

>>60466442
see >>60466402

>>60466487
See >>60466471

>>60466507
That's not an argument, that's just the same "j-j-just w-wait" we've heard from AMDrones for literally a decade now

>>60466573
>n-no not the datacenters
Into the oven you go.

>>60466597
It's still not out m8. It's still just another "just wait". Nothing you say changes that.

Also how pathetic are you that you care about some product you will never use just because it's made by some company you feel personally attached to?

>>60466315
>>60466053
Sisoft Sandra LATENCY test?
Shouldn't lower mean superior for this particular benchmark?

File: fkugoyim.jpg (49KB, 440x515px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 440x515px

>>60466664
>a-another shoah
Oy-vey.

>>60466434
Nah m8, I'm doing good and I will buy high end vega without even looking at benchmarks exaclty like I did with ryzen.

>>60466668
Yes. Intel wins

>>60466427
>The Ryzen 7 1800X is slower in all three methods from Sandra, but is proportionally slower with the in-page result, coming in 3.6x slower than the Core i7-7700K. By comparison, under the full random scenario, the Ryzen 7 1800X is 56% slower. Even on the sequential test, the Ryzen part is 45% slower.By comparison, the Intel Memory Latency Checker puts the latency comparison somewhere in between SiSoft Sandra’s fully random and in-page result. The Ryzen 7 1800X reports roughly twice the latency (92% slower) of the 7700K.
>>60466668
Looks like lower is better

>>60466708
>being this much of a brandname consumerist drone
>>>/facebook/

sly

i'll keep the knowledge for myself tho, u ungrateful fucks

>>60466253
CM1 is fast enough that people will drop 200mhz+ on their memory OC for it

>>60466738
Will got one for half the price, don't be mad good goy.
I can get everything for half the price so Idgaf.
Once the new 16c/32t are out I might switch to that.
>mfw working at retailer.

>>60466053
HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>60466053
>axis unit not specified
trash.

>>60466810
Exactly, even more embarrasing for AYYMD

>>60466053
Does this matter at all? Serious answers only.

>>60466962
It's one of the reasons AMD suck in games since they are more latency sensitive than desktop programs

Why the hell is the results so different than the leaked benches? Like the 1700x should have been able to blow away the 7700k but now it's struggling as fuck?

>>60466471
>muh moar coars muh bigger numbers
Half of /g/ is literally at macbook girl-level

>>60467042
Guess who "leaked" the benches
Guess who will continue to "leak" benches as long as their drone fanbase pre-orders shit based on it

>>60467045
That's what server market wants. Muh more cores and bigger numbers, yes.

>>60467066
No, they want performance/W/$

>>60467082
Unless it's ML who want to strap as many GPUs per rack as possible. Also Zen delivers on perf/watt like nothing else.

File: Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-GTA-V-v3.jpg (56KB, 635x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 635x360px

Ryzen and Intel is actually neck and neck when it paired mid-range or low-range GPUs. Ryzen only lose sometimes when the GPU isn't the bottleneck. I don't see what the problem is here.

>>60466962
PcPer article suggests that with higher memory latency, software with high memory sensitivity would impact negatively on Ryzen.

>>60467131
>it's another cherry pick by AMD episode

>>60467157
How is this, cherry pick?

File: Jim Keller.png (400KB, 816x1020px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 816x1020px

>>60466053
This is no surprise. AMD's memory controllers traditionally suck.

Yet AMD manages higher minimums.

What kind of crazy, wild magic did this dude do?

>>60467185
>1 single game
>doesn't even list hardware
>only avg FPS

File: Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-FarCry-4-v3.jpg (50KB, 635x360px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 635x360px

>>60467274
The GPU is a GTX970, its an older benchmark and people already called them out for using a bottleneck. In the result where the GPU isn't a bottleneck the 7700k is roughly 30% faster.

File: Comb17052017044915.jpg (491KB, 1315x2227px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1315x2227px

It's another episode of /v/ tries to desperately hide inferno delidgate.

>>60467335
>posts another cherry pick
LOOOOL

>>60467418
Intelfags are in full desperation.

>>60467456
see >>60466402

>>60467042
Leaked benches were dumb. Ryzenz with fast ram vs Intel's with slower ram. Main reason why I waited until after release to choose.

>>60467456
>>60467541
the benchmark he posted is in intel's favors though

>>60467583
How do you see thsi?

>>60467626
1080p result speak for themselves

>>60467659
Yea but look at the higher resolution. We also don't know the GPU.

>>60467583
Doesn't change that it's a cherry pic retard

>>60467687
the dude said it was a 970 so higher res isn't relevant honestly
>>60467695
so he was hidden intel shill false flagging all along
wew
but anyways any news on vega ?

>>60467583
Most are. It's because most games can't use more than 4 cores.

>>60467754
How is that not relevant? Most people don't even play in 1080p anymore. Upgrade your GPU then redo the benchmark this time the Intel will either only win by a little or lose.

>>60467775
>Most people don't even play in 1080p
ryzen is great but that's just false
i mean you up the res when you maxed out all the other option and that's not what was done here
i think we will have to see the next gen card to prove that ryzen was really future proof
>>60467770
well that's not really cherry picked then

>>60467775
So you're suggesting to push the bottleneck to the GPU instead of the CPU?

This is odd especially since new gpus are coming out soon. Also steam hardware survey shows most users play at 1080p.

>>60467951
Yes how is it fair to have a shitty GPU do the benchmark for CPU?

I think I am more shocked at how even handed this article dealt with the topic.

It's uncharacteristic of PCPer.

>>60467264

They did some testing with the latencies over at the Anandtech forums, the conclusion was that the latencies had to do with how the data went through the system. Something something data went back and forth between RAM and the CPU in an odd way causing the latency. The memory controller itself is actually pretty good. But I dont know too much honestly, check out the Ryzen Strictly Techninal thread.

>>60466053
>>60466128
higher is better, right?
Because it doesn't strain the components too much
AMD wins again

File: dddddddddddddssddsds.png (8KB, 302x431px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 302x431px

>>60467775
>Most people don't even play in 1080p anymore
Literally retarded

>>60468550
What are you willing to bet that's 1080p 60hz and not 1080p 144hz?

>>60466668
lower latency is better, too bad most of /g/ is one of two things: ironic trolls just shitposting as usual, or they're honestly too dumb to understand what latency is

anyway, intel wins again it seems

>>60468709

Not him but don't move the goalposts you cunt.

Gguyguguyguygyu

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

2MB, 1485x4363px

>>60466053
And yet the 1800x still beats the 6900k in the vast majority of use cases and beats the 7700k in virtually every use case other than 1080p gaming at ultra-high refresh rates.

>>60470158
Nope, all of those are multi threaded benchmarks. Ryzen is a 10/10 processor for a dedicated render PC or something like that. For everything else it's 6/10.

In real life the majority of programs you use (even the majority of tasks in multi threaded programs) are single thread and these reviews do a really poor job of showing you "real world performance". Mainly because they're too lazy to design their own test suite. Even really core applications like MS office are 90% single threaded

File: Screenshot_from_03052017_190513.png (81KB, 801x846px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 801x846px

>>60470607
Well, except even most of the office, Photoshop, and other software benchmarks show the 1800x performing as I said above.

File: Excel.png (60KB, 1305x1434px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1305x1434px

>>60470607
>>60470656

File: chart.png (244KB, 1200x2218px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x2218px

>>60470607
>>60470673

>>60470158
1080p is obsolete

>>60470656
>office
Like I said office is like 90% single threaded, you posted an extremely specific feature that 99.9% don't use. Even something as basic as sorting a list by value is single threaded in excel.
>Photoshop
Yes, Ryzen is good for PS
>software benchmarks
Did you not understand what I wrote? Most software benchmarks are not indicative of "real world performance" unless you render video all day.

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

349KB, 716x2588px

>>60470828
>Did you not understand what I wrote? Most software benchmarks are not indicative of "real world performance" unless you render video all day.

Yes, I understand you are asserting an unfalsifiable claim sourced from your ass.

>>60470912
>unfalsifiable claim sourced from your ass.
We know Intel has better single core performance and AMD has better multi core
We know most tasks are single threaded, even in partially multi threaded programs

If this common knowledge is above you, you can both verify and potentially falsify this yourself with freely available CPU profiling tools.

>>60471049
>We know most tasks are single threaded, even in partially multi threaded programs
[Citation Needed]

>>60471069
>If this common knowledge is above you, you can both verify and potentially falsify this yourself with freely available CPU profiling tools.

This is such basic knowledge that I don't even know what to google.

>>60471049

Most single threaded programs that aren't games also run just fine on a 10 year old C2D or some shitty laptop i5, so testing single threaded performance in general isn't that interesting or relevant anymore these days.

>>60471221
>Most single threaded programs that aren't games also run just fine on a 10 year old C2D
Not really. There's a reason office computers often come with i7's or Xenons

File: 1494621450825.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>60471336

Clearly you've seen the inside of an office.

File: sth_ryzen_benches.png (2MB, 973x6115px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 973x6115px

>>60471336
Xeon you say? Whoops, looks like the 1800x BTFOs those too.

>>60471149
It's such common knowledge that you cannot find or produce a single shred of evidence to support the idea that there are a significant number of computationally intensive workloads that are predominantly single threaded.

>>60471399
>keeps posting multi threaded benchmarks
>ignores the single threaded results at the bottom which confirm what I'm saying

>>60471439
1. You can still easily verify it for yourself, if you care more about reality than your favorite brand
2. Try it yourself. Try finding a source of the distribution between single/multi threaded tasks for an average user

>>60466053
>synthetic benchmark
>different config

desperate

>>60471507
>different config
see >>60466383

File: AMDRyzen1800XIntel6950X1_0.png (29KB, 617x837px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 617x837px

>>60471482
Feel free to post some actual evidence of computationally intensive workloads poorly threaded enough for single-core performance to dominate results.

Until then feel free to fuck right off, shekelchaser.

>>60471555
I already gave sorting in excel as an example.
And even your own images.

>>60471645
There's no use trying to argue against amd shills. Pajeet gets paid to spread this disinfo.

File: 6b6.png (21KB, 625x790px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 625x790px

>>60471645
>>60472038
>No charts
>No diagrams
>No embedded videos
>No links
>No evidence at all
Feel free to post some actual evidence to support your claims and to then support that your claims have any real impact in any real computationally intensive workloads whenever you're ready.

>>60472459
see >>60471049
>>60471482

>>60472459
Actual evidence?

Ryzen1800x has 24 pci lanes 4 dimm slots, has haswell-esque ipc in 2017, but can't oc for shit. Issues with hardware passthrough, and other bugs.

What exactly can you use this cpu for? Gaming? VMS? Production?

I tried to justify mine with vm use, but the hardware pass through, and lack of ram made me give up on it.

>>60472722
It also needs fast ram to shine, and ecc udimms are not.

File: 1488678336902.png (408KB, 882x1418px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 882x1418px

>>60472582
>>60472722
>>60472836
Oh look, three more evidence free shitposts.

>>60472883
The evidence are the r7 1800x.

>>60472916
>The evidence are the source: my ass.

>>60472883
No Arma benchmarks. Kek. No talk shit about Arma engine, because it was mentioned.

>>60472943
Charts are more gpu benches with no mention of hardware config. Let me guess 7700k with 2400mhz ram, and 1800x with 3600mhz, and 7700k still outperforms it in most titles even under gpu bottleneck.

File: 1492587863785.jpg (395KB, 2400x2000px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 2400x2000px

>>60473020
>Let me guess
>guess
Gas chambers weren't enough, shekelchaser.

>>60473063
So 7700k with similar speed ram outperforms the 1700x until gpu can't keep up? Do you have any Arma 3, or DCS benches?

File: t9icjhfrzdjy.png (93KB, 520x1020px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 520x1020px

Defend this, /v/intel users.

File: Panorama.jpg (600KB, 2550x1446px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 2550x1446px

>>60473128

>>60473867
Kek. No Arma 3, or DCS. Just the average list of disposable games under a gpu bottleneck, and vague hardware setups.

Maybe the lack of benches are enough to draw a conclusion.

File: 1495067360747.png (1MB, 769x4257px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 769x4257px

>>60473985

File: 1494985026208.jpg (202KB, 614x570px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 614x570px

>>60473985
Kek

File: 1494984820129.png (36KB, 633x613px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 633x613px

>>60473985
(Audible Kek)

>>60474032
Which one is for Arma 3, or DCS?

File: 1494984688631.png (68KB, 645x875px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 645x875px

>>60473985
AHAHAHAH

File: 1494898681756.png (44KB, 668x540px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 668x540px

>>60473985
>Arma
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>60473891
Can't wait for 10nm+++++++++++++++++++ FaggotLake in 2045

File: sniperelite4_1920_1080_min.png (19KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x330px

>>60473985

File: 1494898382613.png (385KB, 699x2527px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 699x2527px

>>60473985
A LITERAL HOUSEFIRE

AYYYYYYY

>>60474032
>>60474051
>>60474060
Responds to Arma 3, and DCS benchmark request with every benchmark, but Arma 3, and DCS.

The AMD shill self destructed. This is brilliant. Will probably post more gpu bottleneck benches though.

File: 1494133998797_0.png (139KB, 778x588px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 778x588px

>>60474063

File: 1494898081227.jpg (929KB, 3829x1031px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 3829x1031px

>>60473985
A LITERAL STUTTERING HOUSEFIRE

File: 1494897967602.png (128KB, 723x576px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 723x576px

>>60473985
>Arma, or DCS
Oh boy, here's your (You)

File: IMG_5991.jpg (19KB, 261x273px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 261x273px

>>60474133
>Cherry picking two specific games makes a 7700k better than an 1800x even though the 7700k loses in every productivity benchmark and essentially ties the 7700k in most games.

File: 1494897937621.jpg (157KB, 849x931px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 849x931px

>>60473985
ABSOLUTE DAMAGE CONTROL

File: 1494897891967.png (52KB, 464x310px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 464x310px

>>60473985
Take it easy, lil buddy.

File: 1434165979850.png (59KB, 256x200px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 256x200px

>>60474150
>those Crysis 3 frametimes

File: 1494897847225.png (37KB, 661x447px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 661x447px

>>60473985
>This much desperation
Sad!

>>60473128
ITT:Anon breaks AMD bot.

Pajeet loses control. Shitposts everywhere.

File: 1494897732170.png (49KB, 464x318px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 464x318px

>>60473985
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>60466701
Almost quints ;(

File: 1494897686363.jpg (930KB, 2357x1941px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 2357x1941px

>>60473985
HOLY FUCK, WHEN WILL IT STOP!?!

File: 1494878980931.jpg (923KB, 2543x1431px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 2543x1431px

>>60473985
GOOD GOD!

File: 1494877380921.png (2MB, 715x8082px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 715x8082px

>>60473985
Oy vey!

File: pictograph 1.png (30KB, 664x272px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 664x272px

>>60466053
i don't get the joke

File: 1494875353915.png (51KB, 437x318px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 437x318px

>>60473985
Kek. No Arma for you, good goy!

File: 1494845614088.png (27KB, 517x304px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 517x304px

>>60473985
:(

>>60473128
>>60473985
>>60474063

Well done. Poo n loo destroyed.

File: 1494843253769.jpg (271KB, 1819x1011px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1819x1011px

>>60473985
Desperation...

>>60474218
/thread

File: 1494796051127.png (2MB, 941x6081px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 941x6081px

>>60473985
>Arma 3
(You)

File: 1432724106451.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>60474308
>Performance in Arma 3 and DCS are now the absolute arbiters of CPU performance, to the exclusion of literally every other application in existence.

>>60474308
Shitposting aside, why are you pushing Arma 3 and a literal who? game so hard?

File: Intel's source of manpower.jpg (95KB, 709x520px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 709x520px

Intel marketers barely earning their rupees here.

>>60474340
Performance in Arma 3, and DCS are important when guaging performance in Arma 3, or DCS.

I'm surprised that the question killed the AMD shillposter though. Very nice imo.

>>60466053
What unit is this? Nanoseconds? Clock cycles?

File: intel-diversity-fullbleed.jpg (196KB, 1600x917px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1600x917px

>>60474370
Just one anon, feeling the need to dump shit. This thread's been dead for awhile.

File: inteljune20117nm2017.png (255KB, 800x660px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 800x660px

>>60474387
Kek.

>>60474370
So, to summarize: If you want to play Arma 3 and DCS and don't care about any other computer tasks whatsoever, then a 7700k is the better choice.

If you do literally anything else with your computer the 1800x is objectively superior to the 7700k and the 6900k.

Sounds reasonable to me.

>>60474358
Other Anon.

A3/DCS ryzen benches are slim. They are games that rely heavily on ipc, and frequency. They use the main thread heavily, and spread the usage across extra threads evenly leaving extra CPU cores almost, but not entirely pointless.

If anon is just like me then these 2 games pretty much decide what hardware to choose when building a CPU.

Anyway there's almost no solid benches available, so people who enjoy these titles ask everywhere "ryzen" pops up.

Most players can't answer, because they just buy Intel leaving anybody interested in buying ryzen in the dark when it come to how it performs in these 2 titles.

>>60474493
yes the vast hordes of people encoding 4k for their youtube channels and rendering 3d video will love this. 99% of tasks on a computer will be finished before you even think to launch a game. face it 1800 is overpriced and overhyped.

>>60474546
Who buys an 1800X when you can buy a 1700 or 1700X and simply overclock? 3.8 - 3.9 GHz is basically guaranteed.

>>60474546
>More evidence free shitposting
Literally dozens and dozens of benchmarks have been posted in this thread showing that the 1800x outperforms the 7700k and 6900k in the overwhelming majority of use cases with the sole exception of a couple of very poorly threaded games.

On the other hand, you've posted no evidence at all, besides ass pulled claims.

>>60474529
I have access to arma 3 and a 1700 at stock with 2400mhz ram, shit timeings but I have it with a 1060 6gb hold over for a new gpu.

Think this would give a good idea how arma 3 plays or not?

>>60474599
IMO. No unless you can oc the ram.

A3, and ryzen needs fast ram. Also people will throw away any Arma 3 benches that doesn't prove ingame settings especially viewing, and object distances. Right now yaab is the go to Arma 3 benches, and I'm not sure how to "prove" what settings are used unless a person benches it in person.

This is why people who like these games are left in the dark, amd fans don't help when they spread misleading information about in game performance. ie; vague benchmarks with low viewing/object distances or no mp.

>>60474599
I don't think Arma 3 even uses any more than two cores. You're on your own, pal.

>>60474722
Quit shilling.

>>60474767
Am I shilling for Intel, AMD, or Arma 3?

Arma 3 uses 31 threads... Well it pounds one thread, and spreads random shit across the rest. It also reacts very well to faster ram, so ryzen might be a viable choice.

File: Arma3_1440p.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>60474722
I'm not sure I understand what you need the benches for?

Since Arma 3 relies extremely heavily on single-threaded performance and virtually not at all on multi-threaded performance, a 7700k will inherently be better suited to the task than any Ryzen CPU.

There probably aren't many benchmarks because it's not worth bothering to benchmark a game in which nothing really has a chance against a 7700k.

I found one review where it was tested, and unsurprisingly given the poor threading, a 7700k beats a 6900k and an 1800x by about the same margin.

>>60474820

Wanted to add that I'm very interested in the R5 series, and hoping that it can oc for Arma 3/DCS.

>>60474722
sadly the ram won't be going higher till at least the next bios update, it wasn't worth my time dicking around with an oc and memory oc till the memory issue is sorted as good as it can be, as the memory is a what, 3-5 hour long test to see if its stable and cpu is 20+ hours long to see if that oc is stable, I just want to do it once everything is sorted out and bullshit free for the most part.

>>60474848
I've found a fairly large flaw in your argument: ARMA 3 is a big piece of shit nobody should waste their time with.

>>60466962
No. It's questionable that it's even a valid benchmark in any way/shape/form.

This is basically a hit piece paid for by intel marketing. Irrelevant in reality but the graph can be used to sway normies who don't know what they're reading.

>>60468550
>all those fucking laptops

jesus christ

>>60474899
Where in my post did I suggest that Arma 3 wasn't a big piece of shit? I literally was at pains to point out that it is spectacularly poorly optimized, and relies almost entirely on single-threaded performance. I did not mean that as a compliment.

However, precisely because it's such a pile of shit, it is one very specific cherry picked use case where a 7700k beats any other CPU, including Intel's own $1,000 6900k.

>>60474848
I'm interested, because I'm not really interested in if it runs Arma 3, or DCS the best that's probably a 7700k under h20. I'm more interested in if ryzen is good enough to run these games in mp under my personal settings (I play with Max draw distance for object and view).

It's a shame that people who ask this question get attacked on every forum. It makes choosing an AMD CPU harder.

>>60474979
Ryzen should run it fine; a larger factor would be your GPU, which is more than capable of running Arma 3 at 1080p.

>>60474979
Well, I'll personally apologize as I mistook your questions about Arma 3 and DCS as shitposts from >>60474546, and responded accordingly.

In any case, I don't think I can offer you much besides suggesting trying YouTube and searching for "Ryzen" "Arma" because that's just about all the data I think you are going to be able to find on the subject.

File: Arma.png (4MB, 1915x1023px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1915x1023px

>>60474979
This >>60475011
Is false anon

Ryzen is a great CPU for everything BUT Arma, Arma is purely CPU single core limited. A 1700x gets approximately 30 less FPS than a 6700k
>inb4 someone spergs out and calls me a shill
this is just the truth, every single benchmark will show you similar results, this is just how Arma is

why is no one benching with a real-world environment, i.e. with 10 browser tabs and mumble running in the background? maybe also some cloud-sync shit that normies use?

>>60475455
You are correct. In general I believe the benchmarks show the 1800x being better in the vast majority of use cases, but Arma 3 is an exception because of how heavily single-threaded it is.

>>60475455
>A 1700x gets approximately 30 less FPS than a 6700k

That's not a single-thread issue. Ryzen isn't that behind in single-thread performance.
This tells me there is some serious issue with the game programming at a fundamental level. Like they compiled everything with intel's compiler and it's shutting off features on AMD cpu's intentionally.

Or to put this another way it's an outlier that should be discarded. There is something incredibly fucky and wrong with the game.

So of course the intel shills are parroting it every change they get.

>>60475845
Jesus christ you turn a simple benchmark into a massive tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of every being out to get AMD turning off their super secret features and bohemia is at fault for this
Maybe take a breather for a bit
Arma doesn't do well with ANY CPU above 4 cores PERIOD
AMD or intel, that's how every Arma has been since the beginning of time

>>60475845
Yes but the Ryzens get similar performance to a 6900k and a 5960X, which suggests that it is not an AMD specific issue in Arma 3

>>60475918
But, the Intel compiler actually *DOES* do that. it's well documented.

>>60476007
>>60475918
In fact it's included in court documents from the AMD vs Intel lawsuit that Intel lost.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/ftc_settles_with_intel/
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/08/ftc-settles-charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel
https://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remove_quot_Cripple_AMD_quot_Function_from_Compiler_

And while they say it's been removed, more recent testing is showing that it actually hasn't and Intel's compiler still intentionally cripples AMD cpu's.

I also would like to know about ryzen performance on DCS.

It seems to me shit coded software still runs better on intel and sometimes shit coded software cannot be avoided.

>i'll make my own flight sim with autism and cheez its

>>60476055
>7 years ago
completely irrelevant
Intel's compiler doesn't gimp Ryzen, take off your tinfoil hat, nobody is turning the frogs gay

>>60476120
That's not true at all, here's a thread where people talk about fixing some of the compiler issues and it's only a year old: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3sb007/amd_cpu_users_this_tool_lets_you_patch_exe_files/?st=j2vawur3&sh=2c9276a5

It's very relevant today and people running VM setups with GPU passthrough have been saying there's performance differences in games when they set the CPU to intel instead of AMD.

Intel never actually fixed their compiler.

>>60476154
Gee, I guess that explains why AMD is working on their own compiler.

>>60476154
>March 2014
>ZERO evidence from anyone else besides this one "tronix" developer with no other history of making anything else besides this
>this is essentially just the "genuine intel" meme from bulldozer making a comeback
very trustworthy
Nobody is gimping AMD performance

>>60476007
Bohemia is pretty cool and will let you compile your own memory allocator for the game. Maybe they'll let people, or will have AMD compiled builds.

>>60476202
That is probably exactly why AMD is working on their own compiler.

>>60476228
It's literally in the court documents you idiot.

>>60476071
>i'll make my own flight sim with autism and cheez its

Make it study sim autistic, and I'll buy a copy.

Fucking DCS, and Falcon 4.0 are the best fucking Sims, but are shit coded for the year 2000.

>>60476343
>make a sim that is fast but compromises accuracy for speed of calculatiosn and cuts corners
>make a sim that is complete trash can't run on anything but computer 12 years into the future, barely, and only at 30fps maybe but it 100% accurate on sim calculations
>both flight models are virtually indistinguishable barring edge cases
>autists pick the latter one every time

>>60476442

>autists pick the latter one every time

It's usually the correct choice though.

>both flight models are virtually indistinguishable barring edge cases

Any real alternatives to DCS, or falcon bms are welcome. Even Arma 3 alternatives will do.

File: 1477666665196.jpg (76KB, 709x520px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 709x520px

IT'S NOT FAIR BROS THE PROMISED US GREATNESS WHY IS THIS HAPPENING
PLEASE STOPS SIRS

>ITT people so ignorant shitposting left and right not knowing if the OP image is slandering Intel or AMD
>shills from both sides go instantly in full damage control and start insulting each other without even knowing what the fuck the image is about
Never change /v/...uh.../g/

>>60466053
>I have autism, the post.

How like how after nobody could come up with demanding single threaded workloads in 2017 we just went back to posting gaming benchmarks.

>>60474546
>99% of tasks on a computer will be finished before you even think to launch a game
Based Ryzen, Intlel is finished.

>>60474848
>i3-7350k beats i7-6900k
Most retarded game engine in existence.

>>60477990
Lol

>>60479465
I'm gonna say this tho. If you OC both to 3200 who benefits more?

Durrrr

So the topic was never relevant. Retards...

I don't think on SISANDRA you ever gonna see Intel take a bow lol

>200 posts
>56 ip's
hmm...

>>60474848
Uhhh the 7600 is obviously lower than 7700k dipshit

>>60474848
No one plays that shit game! It's old. Why do people even post this garbage. It isn't even a proper benchmark for CPUs. I mean really who the fucking cares how this game performs on any system?

I bet that whoever posted that benchmark didn't do it on any recent bios, or with good memory. Did they even care to post results while streaming? Fuck no!!!

>>60474848
I'm confident the i9 would spit well over 100 here

>>60474848
That game is trash! There is no userbase, and it's backroom optimized for intel hardware! Only Intel fuccbois post this to make AMD look worse than it actually is. They don't even provide firmware info.

I played this online while streaming at 4k. It was buttery smooth. Just need a good gpu brokefags.

>>60476617
Nobody makes an Arma 3 alternative because Arma isn't fun. It has its place, being a military some that's uncompromising, but the budget you need to make that game good is far beyond the audience that would ever pay for.

>>60479491
At best there's a conversation going on at were someone same fagging, what's your point?

Okay I have a question for this thread, is this song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4ipOHyMd8 fairly accurate for Intel's current position?

>>60479609
>i9
>3.25Ghz
>spit 100
it will be between fx and g4560

>>60479491
looks good, 3.5posts per IP means that this thread is engaging.

>>60466053
Lmao. Wasn't the Ryzen supposed to BTFO jewtel?

>>60479786
Once overclocked, no.

Broadwell just doesn't have the arch, it's comparable with Ryzen tho.

Sky lake-E is gonna hit 4.5 on loop fine (maybe not 12c)

>>60479844
Jewtel dusnt want to cannibalize sales so they keep clocks right around the 12 core, even if that 8 core could do 4.2 on air.

>>60479692
Arma is unrealistic. It's an old game that nobody cares about. And RYZEN does run it well. Look at benchmarks where people show core usage. RYZEN 20% cpu usage. It just needs optimization, and a good gpu, because it needs more threads+a good gpu to run right.

Arma 3 is gpu bound, and it favors intel/nvidia now.

I got over 20fps improvement on current Windows update with 3200mhz ram and recent bios. That's just from software updates. Imagine where it will be in a couple of months when VEGA DROPS!!!

>>60473891
>2015+
>10nm 7nm 5nm
What a fucking incompetent piece of shit of a company, now they're releasing even more inferior products.

>>60479873
Extreme was delayed because Kaby made no sense at all from strictly a CPU view. That gave time to sell some Kaby lake but addition of ACX 512 further delay. I think Jewtel also spruced up the extreme part and with a fat die size the entry i9 6 core at 4.7Ghz or more is a huge shot against Ryzen. Don't forget quad channel too.

>>60479844
More cores, more watts, more watts, less clocks.

>>60479878
I dunno about Arma 3 but Arma 2 killed my piledriver [email protected]. 8GB RAM was a culprit, but I needed more VRAM too. 10,000 distance lolwut, try 3000 realistic

>>60480000
Quads?????

I have no choice, but obey.

>>60479935
6 cores
12 threads
3,8 GHz
4.2 GHz turbo
140W TDP
$450

File: 1491835275725.png (234KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 882x758px

>>60479976

>>60479844
I doubt it. The increase in L2 cache plus the additional cores do not bode well for overclocking ability.