i recently got one of these and i'm going to use the computer

you fucked up, you won't get more than 5 fps in cs on that

You fucked up OP. I'm not talking about the processor but people are about to argue over ryzen and intel like no tomorrow

>>60815723
If you got a K series I'd say you did alright, but you got the locked garbage that doesn't even have any single core advantage over Ryzen. And you'll be hitting 100% CPU in almost every game you play. So yeah, you fucked up.

>>60815723
you fell for it

to make matters worse, i've just checked and the r5 1600 was cheaper than the 7600

please tell me if there's any game that performs better on the i5

>>60815723
you fucked up

>>60816111
lol. Not really. The 1600 flat out wins in most games, even when it doesn't, you hit 100% CPU usage and your higher average FPS is worthless. It gets even worse if you OC the 1600, which the locked i5 can't really do.

>>60815723
Fucked up. Should have bought a Ryzen.

>>60816111
Return it if you still can desu.

>>60816257
no can do, it's already installed

oh well, at least it's a definite improvement over my old fx 6100

>>60816342
Come up with some sob story, tell them you want to buy Ryzen instead, lol

>>60815723
>4c4t CPU
>literally in the current year

AHAHAHAHA

Enjoy your stuttering, fagmo.

>>60815723
You fucked up. 4 cores and 4 threads is just not enough. 4 cores and 8 threads is the minimum to play a lot of games to their fullest these days.

THAT'S why Ryzen is so great. Even the cheapest R5 1400 gets 4 cores and 8 threads for i5 money, can achieve the same FPS in games, but has nowhere near the same CPU usage, which means less frame drops, and less stuttering.
Unless you buy an i7 7700k or anything below an i5, Intel chips just aren't worth it anymore

>>60816342
Sell it on ebay then

you fucked up OP
you've just proven how much of a threadlet you are by purchasing products from threadless kikes

>>60815723
You fucked up.

At that price range Ryze 1400 makes lot more sense. Its essentially i7 at i5 price.

File: 1496949356719.png (44KB, 710x577px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 710x577px

>>60815723
>he bought a quad core

>>60815723
Enjoy your backdoor anon

>>60815723
>locked i5
>in 2017 now that the 1600 exists
Even if that was an unlocked i5 you would have fucked up, let alone a locked one.

It's fine I have one and most games max out 2 cores and use like 80% of the third leaving the 4th core just dicking around doing almost nothing

Most of /g/ can't even tell you what computer science is let alone what hyperthreading does

1600 Single Thread Rating: 1860
i5 7600k Single Thread Rating: 2401

>>60817008
>k

>>60815723
It's a meh CPU. If you're lucky it will last a few years.

>>60816111
Uhh no.
Worst is those benchmarks are done in a sterile environment with nothing running in the background, often even with the ethernet i/o service disabled, to make weak CPUs perform as favorable as possible.
In the real world, when you have your browser running and discord and shit running in the background, that i5 is going to perform even worse (even stutter a lot) while the 1600 has way more power to spare than almost any game uses.

No one should have bought i5s at all since like after Haswell. 4690k was the last 4c/4t that was somewhat worth getting.

File: chrome_2017-06-04_04-44-24.png (133KB, 250x283px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 250x283px

>>60817008
>1600 12 threads
1860*12=22320
>7600k 4 threads
2401*4=9604
>uncited synthetic benchmark
makes u think

>>60817129
You're counting SMT threads as a core, which they aren't. SMT scaling is less than 2x performance of a single core. I think it's somewhere around 120-150% depending on load.

>>60817152
>1860*6*1.3=14508
fag

>>60817129
Most games don't use that many threads though. I think in the future having a bazillion cores might be better than single thread performance but we're not there yet.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-7600K

You should learn to use this site^^ maybe it will save you some money someday.
Like I said earlier most of /g/ doesn't even know what computer science is these days. Please fuckoff back to /v/

>>60817193
If you're trying to save money, Intel isn't even an option. Because you're buying obsolete 4 core CPUs for premium prices because they perform better in games... something you won't even take advantage of, because you're not rich enough to afford dual Titans for that 144Hz Ultra goodness.

>>60816111
you fucking up, the 1600 would've been more future proof especially vs a locked 4c/4t

>>60815768
this is what the OP planned on all along

he never even bought an i5, it's all about the trolling and shitposting

>>60817112
Ok I run overwolf's web browser and keep chrome open in the background and don't see these problems you're talking about. Two web browsers plus steam which appears to have a browser integrated, while playing a game.

Please tell me how you know this if you don't have an i5?

Truth is all enthusiast processors are fine for gaming at the moment

>>60815723
You fucked up, but it's not that serious.

>>60817193
>>>/v/

>>60817193
Even if a game literally only uses 4 threads, what the fuck do you think the rest of the programs on your PC runs on including the OS? Fucking magic?

Most games were programmed to use 3 cores max, like WoW, due to this. But 3 cores isn't enough for games now days and they've been scaling much better. Even GTAV, a 2013 game, uses 8 threads quite well. Games from the past few years largely scale beyond 8 well.

>>60817268
I had an i5-2500k. It was a stutterfest in many newer games. I got a 50% average FPS increase with my 1600X even in single threaded babby games like heroes of the storm, and the 1% minimums are like 10,000% higher.
Not everyone uses their PC as a glorified game console. Only babbies do.

File: IMG_20170608_232835_113.jpg (1MB, 3033x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3033x2160px

>>60817217
not really, i don't have the receipt here right now but i did take this photo of the stuff i got

>>60817337
The RAM might be fine (can't read it. Usually you want at least DDR4 2666 on Ryzen), and you would just have to return the CPU and motherboard to exchange for Ryzen ones. Simple.

>>60817356
those are 2x8gb avexir core red sticks, both at 2133 mhz, but like i said before, the parts are already installed, it's too late to return them

>>60817406
so you further gimped a weak CPU by giving it weak RAM.
You mega fucked up.
>the parts are already installed, it's too late to return them
why? You can usually return open box.

>>60817209
I can afford whatever computer I want.. the i5 7600k was the best for my windows computing needs when I bought it.
I already have a 12 thread xeon that exceeds the theoretical total throughput of my winbox and they both exceed my current needs and I'll buy a new one whenever I need to.

I can't figure out if I'm being trolled or if you just like to root for tech companies like baseball teams

>>60817337
Your parents bought this
You had a budget if 850~ it seems

MOM I NEED MORE BAGEL BITES NOW

>>60817487
You just said it yourself, you can waste your money on whatever you want.

>>60817332
I'm running chrome and some other shit and my processor is almost idle those background tasks are inconsequential when I am using like 2.8 cores

I can't speak for the 2500k because I have a 7600k

>>60815723
its literally fine for gaming as long as you're not going to do h264 stream encoding and playing games at the same time on the same computer
you can just use intel qsv and get the same performance in that case anyways
inb4
>muh corlet

File: AMD-Ryzen-Vs-Kabylake-Single-THreaded-Test-IPC.png (20KB, 493x280px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 493x280px

>>60817487
Its not a k
The only stock clocked chip ahead of AMD in gaming is the 7700k because its factory OCed and runs hot as venus

AMD has higher IPC than intel but generally wont clock as high
Locked intel chips are BTFO and i5 4c4t chips are not worth an upgrade even if you have a old ass 2500k
6c or more is the only option to upgrade at this point

>>60817337

i don't get it, you could have saved money and get a better performing and more futureproof'ed rig by going ryzen but you still got kiked by the jewtel.

so this..is the power of jewtel..

>>60817507
Well it's not like he fucked up in any case he could probably run all but a few modern games at higher than 1080 max settings on a much shittier cpu if he had a good card anyhow. At least most benchmarks show my i57600k as having better per thread performance and that happens to be what matters most at the moment and won't even matter for like another year anyhow

>>60817337
>B150 mobo
>Kaby Lake CPU
unless you have a Skylake CPU to flash update the mobo with, I highly doubt that's all going to work. The B-series chipset for Kaby Lake is B250. B150 can be used, but you need a previous gen processor installed first so you can flash the bios/uefi to accept the kaby lake chip.

>>60817514
7350k "corelet" reporting in and i dont have any problems running bf1 ultra at over 60fps with both firefox and discord open lol

>>60817546
What do you mean that the stock chip is factory OC'd?

>>60817572
and yet anouther major intel fuck up of recent

>>60817557
People don't know what to buy, so they buy whatever brand they're most familiar with (e.g. heard someone talk about before)

That's why commercials jam brand names down your ears. When you buy mouthwash are you going to buy corsadyl, or listerine?

>>60817589
Fuck up? This is the case with literally any older generation motherboard chipset with a newer CPU get over it

>>60817573
>60fps
wew.
I can get double FPS that while streaming at 1080p30fps on "slow" preset with my 1600X.

>>60817595
fun fact. Listerine was originally marketed as floor cleaner, and "halitosis" was a disease made up by listerine's marketing division when they rebranded it as mouthwash

>>60817588
7700k was never meant to be clocked @ 4.2ghz/4.5 turbo

See the 7700 non k. Its 3.6ghz and is near the ideal silicon thresh for that design at that clock
Once you go past a certain clock the sillicon starts drawing ass loads more power for small gains of clocks
The reason the 7700k runs so hot is because its already overclocked from what ideal silicon is. Hence why intel tells people to not OC it because it already is.
If you go back and look at older K series chips they run the same clocks as their same skew or 100mhz higher base.
Intel saw Ryzen coming so they hit the gas on the mhz at the expense of efficiency

>>60817595
Maybe if AMD continues to viral market enough on 4chan people will actually start to believe that its worth having h264 encoding performance over single thread quad thread and floating point performance on a desktop LOL

>>60817634
I could too if I had a new gpu. My point is that my CPU isn't bottle necking anything just because an OS and some random lightweight stuff is running.
>hur open task manager look at all those processes you must need 500 cores to run all of that!
That's not how it works kid. I can stream if I want to too faggot I can just set my Intel QSV to quality

File: 970ed.png (478KB, 1271x720px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1271x720px

>>60817628
Intel marketed them as being compatible with all socket 1151 boards. Mobo manufactures would have had wind of the CPU design but intel is in panic mode with nothing set in stone atm.
Hence why mobo manufactures are on blast for the X299 platform.

Basically intel does not know what to do now that they have a competitor banging down their door


Inb4 vega crams the shit out of nvidia as well

No I am not a fanboy I have always ran Intel/Nvidia setups
Competition is good for the consumer so you have to cheer for the underdog

>>60817637
Just set it to a hard 4.6/7 and forget it then, clocklet.

>>60817573
>7350k "corelet" reporting in and i dont have any problems running bf1 ultra at over 60fps with both firefox and discord open lol
I'm not surprised. The number of processor cores aren't that important for gaming. These guys are imagination experts because I posted a benchmark that shows that the 7600 is around 30% faster and he rebuffs me with a bench that shows 1600 is like not eve 10% faster per thread.
Then he argues that my machine is going to get bogged down doing shit any 10 year old machine can handle just fine. If someone who wasn't obviously grasping at straws wanted to say I was wrong I might hear him out

File: GAAFET.png (630KB, 999x532px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 999x532px

>>60817643
It is worth having more cores than a single fast core...
Modern APIs are just now starting to make use of all available cores. This trend will continue as mobile adds more cores combined with the fact that consoles have 8 very low IPC and clocked cores.
This is the last year in which single thread applications will mater
Dual cores are already a huge peformance hit and sooner enough quads cores will be right where dual cores are today... obsolete

>>60817697
Yeah Vega with HBM2 will probably be an elder god tier GPU but with the most likely vaporware tier hardware availability I won't be able to get one and I'll probably end up having to get an Nvidia 10 series after the inevitable price drop, which will be a lost sale for AMD sadly.

>>60817710
>defending 100% CPU usage and frame drops in games
I know what a 10 year old computer can do. No it can't handle that BS all at once. Fuck off.

File: Daily.png (226KB, 410x393px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 410x393px

>>60817705
I have had 4.9ghz 6 core chips longer than some people on here have been using computers.. everyone is a corelet and clocklet to me.
Its not as simple as hur durr just set to X clock. If you look at the 7700k vs non k you see one is a 65w chip and the other is 91w for an ~8% clock gain you load nearly 140% of the power. At 4.7ghz is around 230% power load for not much performance gains
AMDs ryzen is the most power efficient x86 chip we have ever seen

>>60817786
I usually have like 70% cpu usage I don't even know what you're on about.
You talked about discord and web browsers and shit and any 10 year old machine can do that so it's not going to faze a modern computer in any appreciable way when it's running some beastly game.
Maybe your machine was set up like shit or you had other hardware bottlenecks and assumed it was your processor making the stutter. My machine runs just fine

>>60817747
Consoles have 8 very low ipc and clock cores, and they're also dog shit 729p 24 fps machines in modern games because AMD Jaguar is a pile of trash. They are barely any faster than a previous generation Xeon Tri-Core Six Thread, they just have boat loads more memory and vram. Snapdragons are just a fart in the windstorm of gaming, candy crush doesn't require more than a potato, and why would you want an application pinning all 8 cores, draining tf out of your battery, and making your phone ball meltingly hot? 2c/4t isn't going anywhere anytime soon as long as it's still the kind of IPC and GHZ, just look at GTA V. DX12 won't save you, 95 percent of DX12 implementations are total dog shit because you have these retarded sjws working with a low level api. Not even Microsoft itself can make it work properly, just look at Forza Horizon 3. Enjoy being a clocklet LOL
>>60817786
>muh dips meme despite having lower averages
Grasping at straws
>>60817798
>1.554V
JFC
PS too bad ryzen cant go past 4.1 without retarded 1.554 tier voltage and thats with a cherry picked chip
TDP shouldn't matter to enthusiasts and lower TDP doesn't automatically convert to higher potential overclock without liquid nitrogen
>>60817820
yeah sounds like somebody just clicked next next next on the windows 10 install

File: watch-dogs-cpu-benchmark_2500k.png (42KB, 806x583px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 806x583px

>>60817786
Reminder 2500k is still a reasonable CPU for gaming
Not 10 years old but still very old considering CPU tech.
Compare a 2500k to something that came out 7~ years prior and check the results. Intel has been a asleep at the wheel for a long time and killed moores law as a result

Check out the stock clocked 2600k in this

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2773-intel-i5-2500k-revisit-benchmark-for-2017/page-3

>>60817862
>2c/4t isn't going anywhere anytime soon as long as it's still the kind of IPC and GHZ, just look at GTA V.
Interesting, cuz 2c/4t runs GTAV like dogshit. 2c/2t doesn't even run it properly.

File: intel-g4560-wd2_1.png (100KB, 814x696px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 814x696px

>>60817862
>2c/4t isn't going anywhere anytime soon
yea because its already gone

Your CPU should not be your bottleneck if it is its only going to get worse and worse framerates in more modern games

G4560 which is a 2c4t chip is not good enough same with any i3. Sure they work but its a hard CPU bottleneck one just about any midrange or higher GPU. It limits cards like the rx 570 or 1050 ti

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2902-intel-pentium-g4560-review-vs-i3/page-3

>>60817862
>yeah sounds like somebody just clicked next next next on the windows 10 install
>windows 10
>10 years ago
Fucker, that thing ran Vista.

File: CPU_01.png (74KB, 1299x1631px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1299x1631px

>>60817893
nobody mentioned 2c/2t and gta v is not a very multi threaded game
A 3rd gen base i5 can outperform a 9590 in it lol muh coarz btfo

>>60817946
>muh coarz btfo
Bulldozer had a shit architecture though

File: gta-v-cpu-benchmark_2500k.png (37KB, 806x544px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 806x544px

>>60817946
>muh 7600k
sure is 8 fps in here

Also games dont use hyperthreading very well actual core count is what matters not simulated cores

>>60817930
>i3 limits 1050ti
No the fuck it doesn't I'm not even past fifty percent usage in bf1 with vsync off
Snake oil apis and incompetent developers arent going to make me buy a clocklet

>>60817946
I don't give a shit if something can out perform 9590 which was a shit processor when it was launched. I'm saying that GTAV runs like shit on less than 4 cores. You get stutters.

If that's your vision of a good gaming experience, good for you my friend.

>>60817893
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9799087/where-is-the-point-at-which-adding-additional-cores-or-cpus-doesn-t-improve-the

With some exceptions most algorithms don't scale well past 4 processors. This was agreed on before you probably even had a dual core machine.

>>60818007
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920
This is why the i5s and such are actually good value CPUs. They have superior performance for every core that they have, including floating point vs moar coarz

>>60817977
Once again grasping at straws **

File: Screenshot (336).png (634KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 1366x768px

Okay, can someone explain which specs are batter, and why?

File: Screenshot (337).png (619KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1366x768px

>>60818064
Also:

>>60818007
A game isn't an algorithm, fucktard. A game is multiple algorithms running at the same time.
These are not necessarily run in parallel (in fact in older games they are all run on 1 thread) but there is nothing explicitly stopping you from taking advantage of additional hardware beside the difficulty of implementing it.

>>60818064
*better

>>60818064
The AMD CPU is better. You have similar single core performance but significantly more multi core performance.
It's a no brain choice.

Unless there is some very very specific reason why you need only single core performance, eg your computer is used for a very specific application that only runs on 1 thread and is not in normal everyday use.

File: rx-570-doom-1440p.png (71KB, 972x487px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 972x487px

>>60817989
BF1 uses very little CPU at all its always going to be GPU limited

Why would you buy an i3 7350k when for 18$ more you can buy a Ryzen R5 1400?
The cost of a CPU cooler is enough to justify the price gap between the two CPUs


If you factor in an OC intel mother board and you are spending 80$~ more for a dual core four thread chip vs a 4 core 8 thread chip

>>60818043
Yeah I read the single core performance was around 5% higher than the i7. My machine can OC 33% if I want so that all adds up to pretty good performance out of 5 real cores... of course as I've said it doesn't even matter right now anyhow.

Maybe they eat shit on their full spyware windows 10 machine with 8 cores running at 3/4ths the speed per core of an 7600 and they thank the stars they got memed by /g/ or else they'd have real issues.

My machine runs everything just fine

>>60815723
Being objective, you DID fucked up.
Because you could have gotten a better product for the same price that would prove much better on the long run and isn't compromised by a dead end plataform.

That said, it is not bad for current games and you should not feel a bottleneck for a Gtx1060 if the ONLY thing you do is gaming.


Now looking at the panorama with all this MOAR COARZ wars going around, you can bet that the upcoming games will be optimized to take advantage of a higher core/thread count. Which will probably make your i5 obsolete sooner.

>>60818049
Toms hardware got blasted for recommending the i5 chip over the AMD 6 core
The i5 used to be the king of price to performance. These days its not worth the price at all.
Watch the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a87Iy7avG7o

>>60818073
>what is a gpu audio processing unit
lol most of this random stuff like network code is insignificant, you can play halo wars online on a 56k modem now you cant tell me that thats bottlenecking a 7th gen processor lol
>>60818089
The Intel I7 7700k is better. You have significantly more single and quad core performance as well as floating point performance for things like emulators.
It's a no brain choice. Unless there is some very very specific reason why you only need more cores, eg you want to be pewdiepie and encode an h264 ultra high quality stream while gaming at the same time (intel qsv is just fine set to quality btw) which is not normal for everyday use.

>>60818136
Mate, do you even have eyes? That image compares i5 7600K vs an r5 1600X. A world where the i5 is a better choice DOES NOT EXIST, in practice.

You should take a break from the Internet, it's clearly rotting your malformed brain to a point where simple numbers confuse you.

>>60818073
It's more difficult to implement and you start having to tackle hard problems past 4 cores. There are also hardware issues beyond 4 cores. It's a sweet spot and I think it'll be awhile before we see substantial increases like we saw from going from 1 to 2 or 2 to 4

>>60818133
First reasonable post for AMD

>>60818159
>>60818130
Are you on a 7600 or 7600k?
Image here shows a 7600 which is clocked a good bit lower than the K chip and is locked
3.5ghz kaby lake is equal to a 3.4ghz Ryzen chip in single thread since all the driver updates


>>60817337

>>60818093
BF1 uses so much GPU that my 880k at 4.4 was bottlenecking a 960 4gb
Before that I burned a 860k running it at 1.5v
I was done with AMD's bullshit and ponied up
Why would I buy a Ryzen R5 when for much better single thread and ghz I can get an i3? Also an MSI Z270 is only like 100 bucks. Try reaching 4.7ghz on an r5 1400 and a b350 lol never gonna happen. I browse the web too and Javascript is single thread. Javascript is everywhere and even OS elements are starting to use HTML5. Why would I want a slower desktop experience?
>>60818130
same
>>60818150
>i dont want to accept realilty
AMD fanboys lol

File: hpun0pl2a82z.jpg (361KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1920x1080px

>>60817337
sorry to hear op, im getting rid of my i5 for a 1600x I mean if you ordered it and you have to ship it back and pay a restocking fee i guess its better to keep it.

>>60818198
What reality, that you're comparing a 7700K to a r5 1600X and saying it is better? Yea well it should be, because it costs about 100 bucks more.
Or is it the reality that you're retarded? I have accepted that already.

>>60818198
sorry meant bf1 uses so much cpu***

>>60817683
No you couldn't. You can't do 1080p30fps on "slow" preset with an i3-7350k while gaming on it at the same time, you retard.

>>60817798
Nice.
I got my Ryzen but I'm already suddenly impatient about wanting IBM 7nm.

>>60817875
>cherry picked
kill urself.
Showing a few examples of
>LOL LOOK IT PERFORMS FINE HERE
Doesn't discount the cases where it fucks up in the way a 4c/8t or better never does.

>>60818213
It's worth the restocking fee for how much better a 1600 is and in not having gimped 2133 RAM.

File: intel_HQ.png (180KB, 277x268px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 277x268px

>>60818198

Is Ryzen good for running VMs, or should I go with Intel or another AMD series?

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9aL1kvNjU3MDcwL29yaWdpbmFsL0ltYWdlMS5wbmc=.jpg (32KB, 709x531px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 709x531px

>>60818221
You can't when you're using h264 which is not what I'm talking about
QSV is basically a zero performance hit because its literally just using your idle IGPU for encoding
As long as you can take the extra heat you're fine
>>60818230
enjoy having gimped infinity fabric, poor ram support, and slow maximum supported speeds

>>60815723
lol retard
Enjoy your stutterfest.

File: intel-g4560-bf1.png (117KB, 830x842px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 830x842px

>>60818198
880k is crap but it wont bottleneck a 960 in BF1
Even an ancient 1055 at 3.85 runs it just fine
>>60818221
I linked the entire review to the 2500k revisit
Its still a decent CPU if oced to 4.5ghz Its at least as good as a 7350k

I just bought a E3 1270 for 65$ which is basically the exact same as the 2600 i7
There is no room for a 140$ dual core with no cpu cooler in 2017.

>>60818265
QSV doesn't run on the "slow" preset at 1080p, you fucking moron. Holy shit how are you so stupid?

>>60818265
>hardware encoding
>ever
I used it back when I had an i5 750 because it was all I could do, and the only way to get passable quality was to shit out 10mbps+
CPU encoding can easily do good quality at 3-4.

File: PCMark_8_800.jpg (31KB, 800x540px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 800x540px

>>60818264
Ryzen is p good for VM especially if you're going to be running multiple VMs
>>60818268
lol retard enjoy your low fps clocklet

>>60818265
>gimped infinity fabric
wut... its the reason AMD will be able to offer 16c chips for 800~ compared to intel charging 2,250 for theirs.
You can produce smaller core count dies much MUCH easier than massive core dies. Costs come way down and if you have a patented way to link the CPUs with no performance hit(already shown) you will win the server side wars.
Again watch video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3l9vZD7h_8

File: hamlet.jpg (16KB, 460x241px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 460x241px

>>60815723
>locked i5
You fucking intentionally bought this in June of 2017, knowing the alternatives?

>>60818280
That is horse shit because that's exactly what happened to mine with every single service possible being disabled, priority in bf1 set to high, nothing else running, setting the power to performance mode, setting an exception in windows defender, every possible optimization and still I was getting sub 30fps until I made the switch
I also know 3 different people who had the exact same problem with the same game with their apus and they all switched to haswell refresh i5ks of their own volition and suddenly everything runs better

File: 26050109904l.jpg (192KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 800x600px

>>60818265
>poor ram support, and slow maximum supported speeds

I dont expect you intel fan boys to keep up with AMD updates

>>60818323
Clearly you had thermal throttle or ran out of ram or Vram

Seems to run fine even on a 380
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYw-Gocd5E

>>60818189
I have the k but if this guy is going to have any problems playing games on that processor I'll be surprised.
I'm not even saying amd is dogshit or whatever but it's about the same as the 1600 and you're probably ok with either one.
by the benchmarks I use the i5 has the best single core performance maybe more slow cores will be better for some games but when games are often released full of bugs that get patched later I don't know how much I trust devs to bother trying to take advantage of all the cores

it's a bit much to say that someone fucked up with either one

>>60818287
thats back in i5 750 days and who cares if your twich stream isnt the highest possible archival quality nobodys going to dig up your lets play in 100 years
>>60818311
the key word here is server, op asked about gaming
>>60818285
there is no slow preset for qsv because for the 3rd time its not h264, you set your obs to qsv the quality to "quality" which is the highest quality and the resolution to 1080 with no scaling at whatever fps you wnat its not rocket science
>>60818352
lmao thats just a shits and giggles list, try actually booting at 4000mhz without DDR4 standard breaking voltages and terrible timings

>>60818264
ryzen is better for VMs

File: 2017-06-09 00_15_28-Battlefield 1 BETA _ ULTRA _ X4 860K (4.3 GHZ) _ R9 380 _ 1080P _ 1920x1080 - Yo.png (2KB, 37x29px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 37x29px

>>60818360
>seems to run fine
LOL thats a bottleneck if ive ever seen one

>>60818392
No, the quality of hardware encoding has not changed. And that wasn't back in the i5 750 days, that was in 2016. I was still using the i5 750 in 2016.

>>60817193
>using pissmark, the most trash benchmark in existence
>linking THE WRONG FUCKING CPU

Just fucking kill yourself already, you blithering retard.

File: android-4.2.jpg (9KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 500x400px

>>60818424
You must have at least THIS many clocks with modern IPC to talk about PC gaming

File: 1488536740735.gif (1MB, 384x256px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 384x256px

>>60818392
>shits and giggles list

Good argument, thanks.

>>60817193
Pretty sure spamming fake "benchmark" marketing sites is against some rule.
You know exactly what you're doing and it's not cute.

File: AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-Core-i7-7700K-DinoPC_GTA-V.png (2MB, 2560x1312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1312px

>>60818461
No problem, comparing the highest number that a vendor put on a motherboard is like comparing the highest top speed on a speedometer between two sedans, it's fucking nothing lol
>>60818477
nice doa "gaming" cpu

>>60818477
Oh god it's not a fake site it's just the one I use and it's been around for at least a few years. If it's fake please explain to me why because no I don't know.
>>60818424
The difference between the 7600 and the 7600k is like 200 pissmarks anyhow. I was linking to the one I have.

so much hostility over a small performance difference

>>60818495
Thats actually AMDs new update not just the vendor.

May 26th
"One of the most noteworthy additions for AMD's new AGESA 1.0.0.6 update is support for higher clocked memory, moving beyond 3200MHz and allowing motherboards to support memory that is up to 4000MHz in speed without the need to use BCLK overclocking."

>>60818534
Pissmark is trash. The guy in the OP didn't even get a 7600K anyway, so I don't know why you spent so much time shitting up this thread with a red herring anyway.

>>60815723
If it was used, good. If it was brand new, you fucked up. An i5 would have been a good choice a few years ago, but now with Intel and AMD going at each other's throats you either should have:

a) bought whatever new, reasonably priced CPU they're offering
b) buy used CPUs which should be cheaper now thanks to all the imminent upgrades about to happen

File: CPUz.png (44KB, 805x398px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 805x398px

I got the same, but it was an upgrade from an FX6300. I love mine personally, and I somewhat wish I'd have waited for Ryzen, but my 6300 was starting crash more and more for no reason.

I could probably have gone for a 1700 but I mean, I'd only have gotten 8GB of ram and it would have cost nearly 100 bucks more. I don't do productivity or content creation so it'd have really done nothing for me.

tl;dr OP its fine, if you game and do other shit like that youll be happy as fuck.

>>60818534
>The difference between the 7600 and the 7600k is like 200 pissmarks anyhow. I was linking to the one I have.
LMAO you stupid cuck the i5-7600K is like 10% faster stock and 20% faster after you overclock it. You are just proving how garbage pissmark is.

>>60815723
it's fine. i'm still rocking a 3 year old haswell i5 and my games are smooth sailing. no stutters or anything.

File: 3000mhzrampicnotrelated.png (19KB, 287x605px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 287x605px

>>60818559
That's technically supporting it with OC. You'll still need to up some voltages and dial back some timings at 4000hz. If Ryzen truly supported 3000+ Ram then vendors would want to market that but it turns out it doesn't
>>60818597
this

Intel is for poor fags who cant afford proper ram.

>>60818620
Ryzen is for poorfags who can't afford fast ram with tight timings so the lack of support by motherboard vendors doesnt matter to them
See >>60818615

>>60818615
This is going to be my last response to you because I like to interact with people who can read.

The last part of what I quoted is "without the need to use BCLK overclocking."

You're just far up intel's ass even when you read you omit things.

>>60818597
>i'm still rocking a 3 year old haswell i5

rocking old technology, so is everyone whos still buying intel. intel the new masters of the re-brand.

>>60818659
No BCLK overclocking is fine but try putting a 4000mhz stick in a Ryzen system and using the XMP settings with stock voltage and you're going to have a bad day
If it actually PROPERLY supported those speeds then motherboard vendors would indicate it but it doesn't

>>60818680
who cares about them. my cpu was good back then and it's still good now. that's all i care about. i'm just telling OP about my experience.

>>60818709
>If it actually PROPERLY supported those speeds then motherboard vendors would indicate it but it doesn't

WOW bro you're dense as fuckkkkkkkkkkkk

"May 26th"
NEW UPDATE
IT JUST CAME OUT
NEW UPDATE

The motherboard companies can only NOW officially support it. like I said you don't keep up to date with these things.

>>60818592
3.8 / 3.4 = 1.11
2400 / 2200 = 1.09
so like by the clocks it's 11% faster, your claim was 10% and passmark showed around 9%

I don't know the specifics on how passmark works so maybe it's shit but you're just silly

File: samsungram.png (41KB, 1538x376px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1538x376px

>>60818753
Heh.

>>60815723
>mainly for games
consider suicide

>>60815723
>i5
Massive fail.

guys i still run q6600 quad core, what should i do?

>>60819857
depending on what motherboard you have. update bios and do a sticker mod for one of the xeon chips

My 7600 is doing more than enough for what I need and I play all the time, granted I got it before ryzen so

File: 1447520557485.jpg (17KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x200px

>>60817572
Holy shit you just reminded me of bios flashing on my dying stuttering phenom so it can accept bulldozer
my butt was never so clenched

>>60815723
If you play Arma 3, you will be fucked up either way. If no, then you OK. CPU have no effect on games these days.