Can anyone tell me why AMD still exists.

>performs better in all three of their benchmark segments
>given a worse score
((()))

Because autists like you who care about that difference are 0.01% of the market.

Both run netflix, youtube, fb and Word just fine.

>>61013853
Can anyone tell me why retards continue to post "effective speed" benchmarks from a site that admits they're biased as fuck?

>>61013853
Hi xXGaymurXx, how's your youtube channel going?

>>61013941

Yeah, and one of them is $200 less.

>>61013853
With 1800X, you can game and compile shit and even render videos all at the same time. It has got double the cores and double the threads.

That comparison doesn't do any good for RIPtel

File: this is what intelfags actually believe.png (310KB, 1618x519px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1618x519px

>>61013853
>>61013978
>>61013994

>>61014021
Pajeet we're not even talking about the 1600x vs 7700k.
It's 1800k vs 7600k try to keep up

>>61014009
>double the threads
*quadruple

Is it just one guy shilling this site? I'd never heard of it or ever seen it posted before until recently.

File: Untitled-1.png (101KB, 1531x650px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1531x650px

It's retarded comparison in the first place because nobody really reccomends the 1800X, the 1700 and 1700X are way better values to begin with.

But this is how biased they are, the multicore score does not factor in at all because all they care about is single core score.

>>61014103
Trolls love it because their effective speed is basically calculated by "MUH CLOCKS MUH EPEEN MUH GAYMES MUH FPS".

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

>One fox beats one hundred chickens.

Yeah, they're that fucking stupid.

>>61014021
I guess with thinking we should run millions of shitty cores

Actually that's where we're heading, MOAR CORES! ain't nothing getting faster single threaded.

File: celery x.png (123KB, 679x214px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 679x214px

>>61014159
>muh hyperbole
>muh zen is bulldozer

>>61014159
As a programmer, we are only starting to harness the power of parallel cores and GPUs. We are not interested in faster single core actually.

File: I know you can read my thoughts.jpg (54KB, 599x450px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 599x450px

>>61014148
Christ.

>>61013853
Corelet

>>61014049
What's wrong with white people?

>>61014148

>One fox beats one hundred chickens

That's... true though.

>>61014229
It's also a comically stupid analogy when you're comparing CPUs that are within 20-25% of eachother in single core performance. And completely ignoring all multicore.

File: epyc xeon.jpg (40KB, 770x463px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 770x463px

>>61013853
Can anyone tell my how does Intel still exists?

File: 1492895015369.jpg (73KB, 726x498px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 726x498px

>>61014223
wrong?

>>61014229
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc_JWE_ypEk

Well, glad that's settled.

>>61014148
>http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55
>that whole benchmark explanation
>The fox vs chicken analogy

What the fuck is wrong with these people? why do everything is gaming focused?

>>61014334
Just more of the cancer killing x86.

>muh eepeen benchmarks
stop posting anytime

>>61014302
.... is this moded skyrim?

and what system is running this without crashing?

>>61014334
bc cpus are primarily used for gaymen
not that hard to comprehend

>>61014272
Gee, 16 threads working 57% or 8 threads at 90%

I just don't know anon, I guess we'll install ANALTEARS and hit 28%! Allll Riiight!

>>61014291
Muh latencies!

>>61014334
If it were not for the GFX industry we wouldn't even be discussing computers dingus.

>>61014375
What the fuck kind of crack do you have to smoke for this post to make any kind of sense?

>>61014439
I'm pretty sure that was about more and threads becoming exceedingly useless, but IDK crack

File: 1497987709174.jpg (44KB, 293x463px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 293x463px

>>61014299
>>61014049
>1800k

>>61013853
>>61013853
User bechmark/CPU Boss are 2 sites funded by ex intel employees sure is a non biased one ofc...

>>61014370
>>61014438
If they weren't such cunts, they could just remove the overall score, or just give a single/multicore score. They already have a gaming/desktop/workstation thing, the effective speed just seems like bullshit.

>>61014469
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL2TAJvfiQU

A 7600K would explode in flames if you even tried this.

>>61014272
It's more like within 4% of each other in singlethread performance once you've got your program optimized for the newer architecture.

>>61014302
userbenchmarks btfo

>>61014527
It would chug and get warm, maybe even shutdown if you don't know how to maintain your PC

So if we add 16 more threads to Ryzen does that make it better? For your task at hand, a flat no.

Better comparison would be how a skylake-x handles a simple task such as that. Does it get too hot? Etc and go from there.

I can tell you right now CPU will not improve much at all because fabrication has already met its limits. More cores is the only way to progress the monetization, but performance? Nawww

>>61013933
Holy shit this

>>61013933
Are you blind? It only perform better on multicore related shit.

>>61014991
>It only perform better on multicore related shit.
Unless the only software you use is stuff from 2005, multicore score means MUCH more.

File: lisa_su_smug.png (123KB, 240x286px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 240x286px

>>61013853

>>61015099
Muh cores

>>61015099
ARMA 3
/thread

>>61015099
yeah, sure.

>>61013853
Intel is like a Porsche or Ferrari

AMD is like Honda or Nissan who pretends they are as good and fast as the big boys

File: wGzegMV.png (252KB, 723x890px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 723x890px

>>61015143

File: 1495358050273_0.png (495KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1070x601px

>>61015205

File: jontron-puking-o.gif (522KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 320x180px

>>61015205
>Car analogies
>Shitty car analogies

File: moar cores.jpg (183KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x1000px

>>61015211
still relevant

>>61015258
At least it isn't a food analogy.

File: C0x-PtJUAAAl4ci.jpg (34KB, 601x538px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 601x538px

>>61015278
intel=Wendy's
AYMD=mcDs

>>61014223
You mean what's wrong with degenerate Atheists

File: average arma 3 player.jpg (69KB, 277x344px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 277x344px

>>61015143
>muh tacticool simulator

>>61015205
You realize that a supped Honda can decimate both of those cars right

File: the chernobyl of CPUs.png (214KB, 681x429px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 681x429px

>>61015275
Intel tried to MORE CORES. It didn't go so well.

>>61013853
2x the number of cores
4x the number of threads
not even 2x the price

>>61015205
The GTR and NSX are fast as fuck. Let me guess, you want to do Toyota... they got the LFA

>>61015364
the damn core count didn't change, neither did the fabrication.

This is what happens when you try to make a Skylake out of a Broadwell when your die is about to go below 300mm^2

PS the memory bandwidth shits all over Ryzen

>>61015513
>Quad channel memory has more bandwidth than dual channel

You don't say?

>>61015513
Isn't TR going to be quad channel?

File: 1496645419629_copy.jpg (929KB, 5098x1500px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 5098x1500px

>>61015275
LMAO

>>61014188
Pajeets don't give a fuck about harnessing the power of multiple cores since it's more complicated and they are the majority of the programming work force. That's why single core power is still as relevant as ever.

File: wew.png (709KB, 1064x769px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1064x769px

Can someone tell me why all you cucks are rushing to upgrade?
>Babbage shills get BTFO

>>61014049
Even his shoes look like they're tired of his shit.