So I AMD actually relevant again or is it still cheap knockoff

>>60490474
R7 rekt Intel's HEDT CPUs
R5 rekt Intel's i5's
R3's and APUs aren't out yet but look pretty good
580 bested the 1060
460/560 is a good value too
Vega is pretty much the only sore point seeing as it should have been out months ago really

AMD has always been relevant for technological /g/urus, you retard. Take Jewtel shilling back to /v/.

>>60490474

AMD is the superior choice at this point in time for nearly every computational task. There are specific niche cases where an Intel will be faster, but not necessarily better depending on parameters requires.

Intel isn't even a premium product to buy with high heat, high power consumption, and blocked off access of features to artificially create product tiers. AKA milk even more money from consumers and industry alike.

>>60490569
what would R9 be ?

>>60490679

The halo that lights the product stack.

>>60490474
It is still not good for gaming. But it is more cost efficient for real work.

>>60490679
Threadripper? We can't know for sure just yet, but it doesn't look like Intel's i9's really stand much of a chance.

>>60490707

It's superior for gaming.

Faster input response times.
Smoother experience with higher minimum frames.

>>60490711
>threadripper

makemorecores.jpg

>>60490633
>>>60490474 (OP)
>There are specific niche cases where an Intel will be faster

This is true, but the scenarios are few and they don't command the same sort of ass chapping ridiculous lead that AMD does when the CPU is fully utilized. Ryzen is a better CPU at the same price point of any Intel cpu for overall system utilization.

>>60490633
>There are specific niche cases where an Intel will be faster
Seems like you got that backwards son.

>>60490783

Just wake up from your coma you fell under back in in 2007?

>>60490748
That is generally the point of HEDT.

I bought the 1600x and its so far been a pretty smooth and improving transition from my 4670k
If you are considering ryzen get the best ram you can since it really helps cpu performance.

Have not had hands on anything higher from intel or ryzen and ryzen wasnt a massive disappointment like bulldozer was. I would recommend at least considering it depending on your use case, for me i use my system for alot of video rendering as well as gaming and the 1600x obliterates the 7700k in rendering and productivity, at the cost of small gaming performance drops. Even if it is a little bit slower in games its considerably cheaper, factoring in the fact that ryzen boards are ~30% cheaper, and it forces intel to get off ass.
Regardless of what you support the CPU industry is alive again and its great.

>>60490569
>580 bested the 1060
The 480 was the same generation as the 1060 so I'm not sure why it would be impressive that they got a year to respond and beat the competition

>>60490474
I'm personally pretty happy with my 1700X + RX480. There's just one problem and that's memory frequency support. I have been waiting for my RAM to go 3200 MHz but it's still 2133 MHz. It's still fast for my purposes so I am able to wait for patches.

>>60493242
with bios updates my flarex kit makes it to 3200 with xmp on

>>60492726
Here's hoping the next CPU is the apex in both gaming and work then. I'm really interested in where Threadripper and Vega are gonna go

>>60493304
Dont underestimate ryzen for gaming, the margin is roughly 5-10% in average.
Its still far more than enough performance for gaming.
And multiple devs claim they will be actively supporting ryzen in the figure as well as amd themselves. If that happens remains to be seen but heres being hopeful.

>>60490569
580 is just a housefire 480 which exchanges blows with the 1060.

>>60493381
>Exchange blows

Nigga 1060 dominates que 480

>>60490748
Huh. Maybe more cores is useful when you need more cores, like in a workstation. Wonder why Xeons have more cores, if 4 is enough.

File: 1060 vs 580.jpg (254KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1920x1200px

>>60493381
580 just barely gets a win here.

>>60493428
Dx11 yes

File: oyvey.jpg (118KB, 1286x724px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1286x724px

There is currently no reason to buy intel, apart from the 4 thread pentium

>>60493469
>cuckware unboxed

>>60490474
Intel is literally finished.

File: 23626.jpg (753KB, 862x827px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 862x827px

So /g/ after 6 long years i'm starting to consider retiring my good trusty i7 2600k.

I won't be doing anything other than playing games.

Should i just go for the 7700k or should i wait for something new to come out?

(I won't upgrade until 4 or so months)

File: 14919902833690.png (254KB, 990x652px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 990x652px

>>60493304
Gaming is a meme

>>60496249
>corelet housefire that needs delidding + dead socket + expensive cooler and mobo
7700k is not worth it desu

>>60490474
since amd is better in all multitasking and professional applications I think u are the one teenager who build his first gaming pc because all those idiot reviewer focus on intels %3 better gaming performance and somehow decide intel is better.

>>60496249
ryzen 1600 my 2600k brother

>>60490748
wow, it's almost like those HEDT processores are based around having many cores

really makes u think

It's hyper relevant. It loses out to intel's most intense CPUs, but it demolishes everything lower, and everything higher.
The i7-7700k is the pinnacle of single core performance, and ryzen basically beats everything that isn't that.

>>60490748
>HEDT
Are you retarded?

File: 1493100952111.png (142KB, 915x487px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 915x487px

>>60496417
>The i7-7700k is the pinnacle of single core performance

>>60496360
>>60496417
>>60496462

I already predicted this fun sequence of events >>60330282

>>60496462
Yes?
The i7-7700k has worse IPC than the Ryzen chips but it has ~600 more MHz, since Ryzen chips seem to cap at about 4GHz.
So it ends up being about 5% better per core.
Which is pretty meaningless all things considered.

File: Ryzen.jpg (188KB, 1000x650px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1000x650px

Ryzen is an embarrassment for gaming.

>R5 1600 costs more than an i5-7600K
>R5 1600 is slower than an i5-7600K
and most importantly
>R5 1600 consumes more power than an i5-7600K

>>60490748
>get HEDT
>only use it for single thread programs

O-okay

>>60496589
i5s are dead so that benchmark is invalid.

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9VLzUvNjY3MjI5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAxLnBuZw==.png (73KB, 1112x833px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1112x833px

>>60496589
>R5 1600 costs more than an i5-7600K
Not only is it cheaper on PCpartpicker right now, but it comes with a stock cooler and doesn't require an expensive OC-capable motherboard.

>R5 1600 is slower than an i5-7600K
In 2-3 poorly optimized games and very specific emulator scenarios, maybe. In everything else, the i5 will be hitting 100% CPU usage in games very quickly, and this won't change as time goes on.

>R5 1600 consumes more power than an i5-7600K
These "from the wall" results are useless.

>>60496589
fuck off salazar, you are FAKE NEWS

>>60490748
how does it feel to be one of the biggest retards in /g/?

>>60490474
Yes. No.

File: ithinkiamdatingacorelet.jpg (237KB, 802x1061px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 802x1061px

>>60496589
>R5 1600 costs more than an i5-7600k
Nope.
>R5 1600 is slower than an i5-7600k
Nope.

>>60496249
I7 7700k you won't regret it.

KEK

>>60496249
Do you plan to exclusively use your computer for 1080p or lower resolution gaming at 120+ hz with games written exclusively in DX11? Do you not care if your computer is worse at literally everything else than this use case? Then the 7700k may be the right choice for you.

If you plan to play at 1440p or above, plan to play DX12 games, and plan to do literally anything else with your computer besides gaming? Then get a Ryzen R7.

>>60498722
>Dips below 50
Into the trash it goes

>>60498722
d-d-d-delet t-t-t-this

>>60490474
Ryzen 7 made Intel's >4 Core chips obsolete.
Ryzen 5 made locked i5s obsolete.
Ryzen 3's not out yet.
As of the moment, the only Intel chips worth buying are the G4560 and the unlocked quad-cores.

File: 158.png (93KB, 600x507px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x507px

>>60496314
When you stop fallin for the jewtel meme

>>60490474
Without even researching, 100% chance their flagship CPU competes with the similarly priced intel CPU, and I will buy neither because diminishing returns for that amount of money kick in and they will be near half price next year. Buying some cheaper i5 around $250 is still the best bet.

File: IT WAS YOU NIGGA.jpg (76KB, 523x929px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 523x929px

>>60503206
>Without even researching [...] Buying some cheaper i5 around $250 is still the best bet.
You retarded piece of shit.

File: ppdRyzen.jpg (396KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1920x1200px

>>60503206
Nope.

>>60490748
you done it anon, the bait won

>>60496585
Too bad the difference in 99% of games and most single threaded programs is way larger than 5%, fucking retard.

>>60498722
>stock 7700k has double 0.1% of any OCed ryzen.
>20 more avg fps
So, ryzen having best mins is just a meme?

>>60490633
>tfw literally everything you do are the niche tasks
I play Arma and star citizen way too much to get Ryzen

>>60504307
You can't actually infer anything reliable about 7700k vs R7 performance from that graph because the 1700/1700x/1800x results are from day 0 of the RULE launch, as can be seen by the 1600x beating a bunch of 1700x and 1800x configs.

>>60490569
>R7 rekt Intel's HEDT CPUs
That's wrong

>>60490474
It's still trash, muh multicore doesn't mean shit when gaymes are designed for the 4 thread majority. You need a delid 7700k, z270 and a 1080ti or you might as well get a console bruh.
Any current cpu will be outdated by the time you need more than 8 threads. AMD shills just want you to share their pain

>>60504526
>Any current cpu will be outdated by the time you need more than 8 threads
I know you are trolling but this is actually a good point that amd shills always disregard when suggesting their shit for gaming pcs.
When games will start utilizing more than 8 threads, we will be like 3 or 4 cpu generations away from now. And faggots that claim that you will NEED 16 threads for games in a year or two are the same retards that screamed about 8 core being a must in games on FX release.

>>60490474
ryzen seems good, although i've seen that a lot of people are talking about teething problems with the new architecture.
radeon is still overpriced and shit.

File: 1494519493351.png (2MB, 769x8779px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 769x8779px

>>60504448

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

349KB, 716x2588px

>>60504448
>>60504567

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

36KB, 633x613px

>>60504448
>>60504574

>>60490569
>R7 rekt Intel's HEDT CPUs
>R5 rekt Intel's i5's
benchmarks show that ryzen bottlenecks fast gpus. they probably would have caught that in development, but they couldn't make a gpu fast enough...

>580 bested the 1060
their best current card is beating the lowest of the low.
wow.

>>60490569
>580 bested the 1060
And consumes twice the power. I thought you amd guys were pretty crazy about the importance of power efficiency since ryzen release
>R7 rekt Intel's HEDT CPUs
>R5 rekt Intel's i5's
Still amd wasn't able to offer a good alternative to the current bestseller among cpus - i7.

>>60504567
>>60504574
>>60504588
Not the 6850X

>>60504526
>You need a delid 7700k, z270 and a 1080ti or you might as well get a console bruh.
Can't tell if trolling or just retarded.

>>60504688
You probably meant 6950X.

File: Ryzen vs Intel.jpg (79KB, 972x840px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 972x840px

>>60490474
>So is AMD actually relevant again?

It beats Intel's offerings at about anything.
Gee I don't know anon.

ITT:no sources or doctored/horeshit photos

>>60504557
>When games will start utilizing more than 8 threads, we will be like 3 or 4 cpu generations away from now
How about next generation when Intel releases their 6 core 12 thread coffee lake S CPUs? Which is like a few months at most. That soon enough?

>>60504708
yes

>>60504718
i5 will still be just 6 threads. i3 lower than that. i7 will have 12 threads. It is just the beginning. In about 3 generations like this games might start using more than 8 threads. Not before. It is just that now the norm is shifting from 4 threads to 6.
To prove the point - intel i7 were 8 threads for almost a decade now. Yet only a year ago we started seeing games that really need 8 threads - Battlefield, new AC, Doom. Same will be with 12 threads - a long time to go.

File: totally_legit.png (14KB, 601x283px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 601x283px

>>60504710
THIS

Seriously, is anyone in this fucking thread going to back up any of their claims with actual links rather than photos that can either be out of date or shopped or from shit sources?

>>60503872
>performance per dollar
literally who gives a FUCK about that unless you're a retarded BR who can't afford stuff...

Go get a rock. Put it in your computer.
It was free. The price to performance ratio will knock your socks off!!! Meanwhile I'll pay 29% extra to be 20% faster than your shitty i5 and 129% faster than your shitty r5.

>>60504688
>>60504708
I'm sure the tiny number of people that actually bought one are overjoyed that their $1700 10 core just barely beats a $480 8 core.

>>60504764
It was in a response to a performance per dollar post you fucking retard, try reading the thread before you shitpost.

>>60504764
I totally agree. Performance for dollar is the most retarded graphic ever. If people actually based their decision on that we all would have Pentiums now

>>60504750
>i5 will still be just 6 threads
They're already obsolete with just 4 threads. They'll still be obsolete, just slightly less so.
>i3 lower than that
I'll be sure to get the memo out to game developers that they should start optimizing their games for i3's.

File: 1371417236854.jpg (11KB, 261x192px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 261x192px

>>60504764
>tfw I'm a retarded BR who can't afford stuff
pls stop hurtin my fellings

>>60504798
>They're already obsolete with just 4 threads. They'll still be obsolete, just slightly less so.
There is literally no game that can load i7 to 100% now. So, 6 threads would be just enough for gaming. Maybe slightly bottlenecking but then again, only poor people buy i5s now, so i5s would most likely be bottlenecked by gpu

>>60504798
how is 4 threads obsolete? i've had this 4690k for like 2.5 years now and it's fine. only super shitty unoptimized games like battleground make usage go about 80% but other than that it's fine and even at the high usage it doesn't stutter.

ITT:
>Source: My ass

>>60504798
>I'll be sure to get the memo out to game developers that they should start optimizing their games for i3's.
Hurry up, because they just received your memo about 8 threads that intel offered on i7 since 2009. Maybe if you send it right now, we might see 12 threaded games by 2025.

Fucking retards

>>60490474
For CPUs yeah. Ryzen is way better and more efficient than anything Intel's shat out in half a decade.

>>60492726
speaking of RAM, new microcode update is coming out (already out for a couple motherboards) and the multiplier allows all the way up to 4000mhz without a bclk overclock

next big update after this one will be improvements to "1080p gaming"

>>60504647
>>60504681
Unfortunately it doesn't seem AMD has anything to match the i7-7700K. But that kind of CPU really can't progress any farther anyway. It's fine if you buy it now, but don't expect a sequel, at least not until 10nm and a new architecture.

>>60504871
>Maybe if you send it right now, we might see 12 threaded games by 2025.
Better start hoaring those 4 core 8 thread CPUs then. Since they'll be the best for GAYMAN for all eternity.

>>60504964
Are you one of those retards that screamed how you won't be able to play with 4 cores on FX release? You do fucking realize that it literally took developers 8 years to start optimizing for 8 threads? Even though we had full generation of PS3 and PS4 on 8 cores. Even though all i7 had 8 threads for 8 years.
And even now only few large AAA games require 8 threads. You can literally count them with your both arms. All new popular multiplayer games don't use above 4 threads - all mmos, PUBG, H1Z1, any survival games. Fucking nothing uses 8 threads apart from couple of exceptions now. No game can load 7700k to 100% or 90%. 8 threads would be more than enough for gaming for at least 4 years.

AMD is at Broadwell 8C level and Intel is about to drop Skylake level up to 12C...

$$$ wise as a gaymur I would wait for 6C Skylake and 299X ITX boards.

>>60496589
>R5 1600 costs more than an i5-7600K
it's cheaper

>>60504949
What does it matter if single core can progress or not? If 7700k is a pinnacle of single thread performance in an era of single thread performance, it is a great fucking reason to take it.
When we actually see a large shift towards multithreaded performance, it would be a time to upgrade anyway

>>60496249
Bud I've been comparing this shit for like 6 months now, the go-to is unquestionably the 1600x over the 7700k

Yes, the 7700k has better max performance (if you ACTUALLY overclock it instead of jamming it in and doing nothing like 95% of the people who buy unlocked cpu's do...) but the difference is usually below 10% on average.

However it's like 50%+ behind the 1600x in multithreaded performance, which is virtually everything you're doing that isn't playing poorly threaded and unoptimized games.
Then on top of this, the 1600x has better minimum frametimes and lower input lag.

And the AM4 socket is going to be used for the next 4 years, so you can potentially buy a motherboard today and upgrade to a new AM4 CPU in 2020.

>>60505020
And do you know how much that will cost? Around 700 freedombux.

File: 1261108798068.png (301KB, 800x750px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 800x750px

can't believe I almost fell for the AMD hype. I was so close to buying a 1700 cpu then I remembered all the past history of AMD lying to me and everyone else.

>>60505020
You aren't going to get better gayman performance out of Intel's overpriced HEDT than you will just buying an i7-7700K. Their 6 cores won't clock anywhere near as high.

>>60505101
That's one thing - whenever you buy intel you just know that you will be fucking fine.
With amd it is always - shittone of research to find out whether it is another bulldozer, checking forums every day for a new bios, buying that one specific ram cause nothing else works, constant issues and waiting for fixex, a lot of rationalization, and a lot of damage control on forums later.

>>60505012
Why do you keep bringing up FX like it's not ancient history by now? And no, I never considered Bulldozer to be anything more than a failed attempt.

>>60505165
Because we have heard all your fucking arguments then. You are just repeating them now. And you know what they say about those who fail to learn from history.

>>60505012
>All new popular multiplayer games don't use above 4 threads - all mmos, PUBG, H1Z1, any survival games.
Except for ARMA 3, those will all run on a potato, so it doesn't really matter.

>>60505182
Yet ryzen fails to give you stable 60 fps on ultra in 1080p in most modern mmos, pubg, and other modern popular stuff.
For god's sake, it goes as low as 30fps in wow raids

>>60505147
>whenever you buy intel you just know that you will be fucking fine

http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-tells-core-i7-7700k-owners-to-stop-overclocking-to-avoid-high-temps/

http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-x99-motherboard-goes-up-in-smoke-for-reasons-unknown_150008

>shittone of research to find out

You should always research shit before you buy, unless you're a complete idiot. i3's are trash even though tomscuckware reccomends them. i5's are barely relevant beyond the current year.

>checking forums every day for a new bios, buying that one specific ram cause nothing else works, constant issues and waiting for fixex

Welcome to my experience with the i7-920, faggot. This happens with every new architecture launch.

>>60504340
It's a ±6% difference.. if you're that worried about it, wait for the Zen+ (or Zen gen 2, whatever AMD plans to call it) which will close the gap.

We all know that Intel is tapped out for at least 3 years in the performance realm as their 10nm stuff is coming back as shit from the foundries.

>>60505251
On the virtual battlefield 6 percent difference can be life and death

>>60505230
You don't have to overclock 7700k - it is 4.5Ghz in stock, which is way higher ryzen. And you have to OC ryzen, otherwise it will be 3.2Ghz. But even OCed to max 4Ghz, ryzen loses to stock 7700k in ST.
If it overheats - that's what your 3 year warranty is for.
>Welcome to my experience with the i7-920, faggot
I thought we were skipping ancient shit. Wanna talk about how much people appreciated bulldozers?

>>60505251
>It's a ±6% difference..
Why would you lie on the internet? Even AMD itself claims that it is 10%

>>60505215
>Yet ryzen fails to give you stable 60 fps on ultra in 1080p in most modern mmos, pubg, and other modern popular stuff.

Even in high end AAA games it gets over 60 FPS minimum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NCHhn0xEmo

>>60505304
>Even in high end AAA games it gets over 60 FPS minimum
We are not talking about aaa shit here. We are talking about games most popular modern online games that people spend much more time playing - mmos, survival games (pubg, dayz, h1z1), simulators (arma, DCS, anything else), etc.
In those games ryzen fails miserably compared to intel. But hey, if you only play doom, ryzen a great chip

>>60504782
I don't need to read it. And it's not shitposting. You're shitposting up this thread with PPD fucking charts in response to PPD shitposts.

>>60505033
Because the only thing it really helps in is the latest games. If you do literally anything else with your PC besides modern AAA gaming with a high end GPU, it's not really worth it.

>>60505419
What the fuck are you talking about? Few modern games are only instances where ryzen can get close to i7. In 99% of modern and old games i7 destroys ryzen.

>>60505065
Does AM4 even have ITX?

>>60505145
I'd bet on 4.7Ghz

That'd spank a Ryzen by well over 20% in gaymz

>>60505271
DHOP QUECK

>>60505147
>OOGA BOOGA FUD FUD FUD!
Gas yourself, shekelchaser.

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

395KB, 2400x2000px

>>60505215
Nice lies, kike.

File: Panorama_0.jpg (600KB, 2550x1446px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 2550x1446px

>>60505277
Oh look, another lying Shekelchaser.

>>60505734
Nice benchmark. Too bad only this "legit" youtube benchmark showed ryzen being so close to i7. No way it is biased.

>>60505734
>doesnt know that lows are the most important
>ryzen has the lowest fps drops
ok

File: 1495320797.png (32KB, 534x275px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 534x275px

feels pretty good to have those 16 threads
though I kinda miss iGPU
it made things cleaner and easier

>>60505341
Prove it.

>>60490474
Yeah, it's pretty good. People who shit talk about amd are usually autists that are obsessed with the processor wars. Personally I find that amd usually has better value, while intel will make a bit more power on a similar platform for more money.

>>60493037
The 480 already performs the same as the 1060.

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

44KB, 668x540px

>>60505439
Nope.

>>60505750
>>60505756
See:
>>60505745

>>60505251
There is a 30 FPS different with arma 3
Putting it under 60

>>60505824
Indeed, Arma 3 is a bit of a unique case as it depends almost completely on single-core performance. It might be the single least multi-threaded game on the market that is actually capable of CPU bottlenecking.

>>60505788
Clearly Ryzen likes 3200 MHz

>>60505872
Arma 3 actually uses multiple cores now the only issue is it fucks up at anything past 4

>>60505872
>>60506344
Yep. APEX expansion + the 64bit upgrade that just came out with the Jets DLC release has made ArmA 3 fairly multi-core friendly.
Old benchmarks with ArmA are now invalid.

>>60506344
>>60506629
All the benchmarks I'd seen on YouTube still show very heavy dependence on a single thread. Can you point me to some recent benchmarks that you would consider representative?

>>60506788
>>60506629
It still only uses 4 cores
Can't use anything past that affectively which is why Ryzen gets hammered as it tries to spread the load around those cores but can't do it ends up dropping the framerate massively and causes stuttering when new pieces of land are loaded in.

>>60506995
I'm referring to Armas engine not being able to properly spread the load
Not Saying it's Ryzens fault

Don't grab your pitchforks pls

>>60506995
So instead of not doing multicore, it now does it really poorly. Bravo, ARMA devs. This is the reason nobody uses this shit in anything remotely resembling a serious benchmark.

>>60490474
I'm building a 16c ThreadRaper box sometime in late summer.

It will be nice to move my remaining Windows usage to a VM that I can just arbitrarily spawn with 6c or 8c for gaymen while leaving everything else just running in the background with zero worries.

>>60490748
>>>/v/

>>60507164
That's not really what Bohemia has ever been about
It's a military sim, not a triple A shoot em up with twitch streamers and loot boxes

Despite being so horrible optimized, people still play it four years later because it's fun

Poor 2600k anon from earlier. The only option intlets get is going from 4 cores to another 4 core dead end platform after 6 years, all for a little bit of IPC uplift in exchange for housefire temps - don't forget to delid!

>>60507680
Because Skylake-e doesn't exist

>>60505147
Yea with my 8320 I kept trying to squeeze some more performance out of it, never satisfied.
6700k just werks.

File: 1445291359018.jpg (22KB, 175x164px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 175x164px

>>60507838
This
7700k has the whole stutter shit and temp issue.
How did they even do that?
6700k-"worse" processor, no stuttering
7700k-"better" processor, stuttering, will burn down your house

>>60507959
Show video proof of this infamous stutter. Has to be capture card

>>60508077
It appears that the GTA 5 stutter issue is because framerates go above 160, which GTA 5 doesn't like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qswrFCb5sMQ
The R5 and i5 have the same weird issue too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSlQL_iqGFg

File: DumpsterFire2.jpg (89KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x800px

>>60490474
>AMD

>always has been fast enough for whatever application you may have at a better price point

Enjoy paying more shekels to jews for your (faked) benchmarks.

>>60507825
DoA.