Why does the 7700K destroy Ryzen so badly in real world performance?

it doesn't.

>>61156329
>in real world performance?
you are confusing who is destroying who in this particular scenario

Purely core clock. Their IPC's are basically the same.

>>61156329
>destroying who in this particular scenario
It performs better in gyamen due to much higher clock speeds and optimization, but that's it.

And itt troll thread, real comparison is the similarly priced 1700

Hi Brian, I'm sorry but I didn't buy your processor.

>>61156329
9/10 programs don't use more than 4 cores, so clock speed and IPC is more important.

>>61156377
I use the 1/10 software so extra cores makes a difference to me. now stfu shill and try to get a real job

>>61156329
>Why does the 7700K destroy Ryzen so badly in real world performance?
I doesnt. Only in some gayming and other single threaded benchmarks.
>I thought the 1800X would be better because it has literally twice as many cores
It is better because of that (in any application that uses more than 8 threads).
>and costs $150 more
That's straight up false. They cost the same if you buy the 1700x and actually less if the 1700. For Intlel you also have to factor in extra for a Z270 motherboard, liquid cooling and and delid if you want to overclock.
>but all the benchmarks put it way behind. Why is this?
Again, only in games, purely because the i7 have higher clock speeds, therefore higher single core performance. Nerly all tech "reviewers" have muktithreaded benchmarks showing the Ryzen 7 and even the ryzen 5 obliterating the i7.

If I were an gaymen I'd still get the 7700k atm desu.

Fortunately I'm not a manchild and only game seldomly and mostly non fps related shit

>Ryzen 7's competition is Intel's 8 core HEDT CPUs
>Ryzen 5's competition is Intel's i5's and i7's
>Ryzen 3's competition is Intel's i3's
>Ryzen APUs are competing with the lowest end Pentium G4560

The latter two aren't actually out yet, though.

i7-7700K is still superior in cases when you aren't GPU bottlenecked, but those are pretty rare. Unless you're doing 1080p 144hz w/ 1080 ti, or running really old/crappy game engines (Source, Shitbryo) you will be GPU bottlenecked most of the time.

>>61156377
I use more than 1 piece of software at a time.

>>61156532
This right here. 4 cores are pathetic in le current year.

Gayming it's not real world proformance

>>61156529
Actually, R7 is the i7 competition. Threadripper is the competition for Intel's HEDT.

>>61156613
Actually, R5 1400&1500x are i7 competition.
R3 is i5 competition.
R7 is i9 competition.

>>61156430
>I use the 1/10 software
Then obviously you're part of the small group where ryzen is a great choice.
The fact that you're so emotionally attached to CPUs that you swear at people and call them shills means you're probably not a good source of information though

>>61156532
>>61156551
You can use 10 programs at a time on a single core with no issues. You have to do something that's very computationally intensive in several different programs at the same time. Almost nobody does that. The biggest demographic is probably people who play video games and record/steam simultaneously

File: 1498788008473.jpg (203KB, 1212x404px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1212x404px

>>61156329
"""""no""""""

>>61156683
>You can use 10 programs at a time on a single core with no issues.
Unpacking a hefty file on yo 4c/4t already grinds yo Personal COmputor to a halt liar
Or installing a game

>>61156580
Don't you think it kind of matters when 4-8 core ryzen CPUs are advertised as gaming chips?

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

123KB, 679x214px

>>61156683
>You can use 10 programs at a time on a single core with no issues

Have I got the CPU for you.

>>61156683
You are so full of shit, you will never get your MAXXX FPS advantage you i7 fags brag about unless you only have the game open. I

>>61156329
Little OT, but is comboing a GTX 1080 with i5-7600K bad?

>>61156631
Stop making up bullshit. Threadripper is the HEDT competition. It's consumer grade hardware targeted at enthusiast spenders. Epyc is the enterprise level server CPU that's going to have 32 cores and 64 threads.

Threadripper = HEDT competition, high core count 16/32. No enterprise level support. It's an enthusiast tier, therefore, HEDT competition.

>>61156750
They can game fine, just not as well as i7-7700K in CPU bottlenecked scenarios. In that case they lose 15-20 FPS at most. But they will still be well over 100 FPS.

>>61156752
Is this real?

>>61156329
>real world performance are cherry-picked day-one 320p benchmarks

1/10 got me to reply

>>61156774
It's a joke. Much like the ghost of Tejas and Jayhawk.

File: 1498417956762.jpg (66KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 768x1024px

>>61156767
Then why was the 1700,x,1800x compared to the i7 6900 in Amd's own promotional materiel???

The fair comparison is core per core not price range.

File: hardocp_640x480_benchmark.png (14KB, 622x336px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 622x336px

>>61156785
Intel: When you want only the best for your 2006 games running at 640x480.

It comes down entirely to clockspeed. Clock for clock Ryzen is about on par with Broadwell, and barely behind Skylake and Kaby Lake. Ryzen's main disadvantage is it maxes out at 4.0-4.1 GHz, while the 7700k's base is 4.2 and boosts up to 4.5.

>>61156631
Ryzen 7 isn't directly comparable to Intel's HEDT line since it only has dual channel memory and 16 PCI-e lanes. You have to buy Threadripper and a TR4 board if you want features comparable to x99/x299.

>>61156727
Unpacking huge files and installing games is not something most people do enough to want to pay 100$ more for a CPU. Also unless you're unpacking to and from an SSD you're going to be storage limited anyways.
>liar
Why are people so emotional about this? That's not good for making rational desicions

>>61156761
>unless you only have the game open
You don't seem to know a lot about computers. My computer currently has 60 processors running, yet it isn't even using 1% of my cpu. You have to actually be doing something with all those programs WHILE playing your game for it to matter

>>61156862
*60 processes

Since Ryzen supports ECC it pretty much BTFOs all Xeon E5s
I wonder why we don't see Ryzen dedis

File: C9eltrIXkAAhiR5.jpg (96KB, 924x692px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 924x692px

>>61156862
>pay 100$ more for a CPU

Except the 1700 is same price, and 1600 is 100$ less and same price as i5 7600k you huge troll?

>>61156862
No shit sherlock, what do you think happens when those processes decide to munch on your CPU while you're gaming?

>>61156862
6700k here, 4 cores is not enough. Process count means little.

>>61156377
10/10 users don't run only one process at a time

>>61156929
Nice try AMDshill, see:

>You don't seem to know a lot about computers. My computer currently has 60 processors running, yet it isn't even using 1% of my cpu.

>>61156929
>he never programmed an OS

>>61156956
>Conflating running with idling in the background
Is this peak autism?

>>61156902
OP here,
We're talking about the i7 7700k vs r7 1800x,
try to keep up friend ok?
I know that AMD users have a lower avg IQ, but still basic literacy is expected

>>61156903
>Except the 1700 is same price, and 1600
But have worse single threaded performance. Which affects more programs than the extra cores
>>61156911
>when those processes decide to munch on your CPU while you're gaming?
What exactly commonly does this for you and why haven't you turned it off?
>>61156913
>4 cores is not enough.
For the vast majority it is, maybe not for you. Get an AMD in that case
>>61156929
see bottom >>61156862

>>61156981
But 10/10 users don't actively run several programs at once. So you just BTFO your own point

>>61156750
Oh boy, here we go again.

>look at this handbrake demo
>look, it also beats this HEDT processor in blender
>look how well it handles multitasking
>oh, and it can also handle games without issues
>HURR DURR THEY SHOWED A GAME, THAT MEANS ITS A CPU FOR GAYMERS FUCK AMD XDDDDDDDD

>>61156981
>Is this peak autism?
OP here, I am on the spectrum yes.
Please there's no need to use "autistic" as a derogatory slang.
We are able to mostly live a normal life and even get fulfilling career opportunities in most cases.

tl;dr poorjets; OP here:
>just close all your programs before gaming and the i7 7700k if not even the i5s are a better choice than overpriced ryzen CPPoos

>>61156983
E5s are i7s with ECC and no iGPU. Go suck more cocks OP

@61157052 (You)

>>61156329
What an idiotic child

>>61156709
Go away.

>>61156773
>just not as well as i7-7700K in CPU bottlenecked scenarios. In that case they lose 15-20 FPS at most. But they will still be well over 100 FPS.
Sauce?

>>61157264
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2902-intel-pentium-g4560-review-vs-i3/page-3

>>61157297
>"with performance levels comparable to a 2500K"
2500Kfags BTFO

>>61157297
I was really hoping for steam top 100 game benchmarks desu, but thanks friend.

>>61156799
what the fuck did Intel do to the i5? it should be the same architecutre

File: laughing pepe.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>61156799
HOLY FUCK SOMEBODY DID SUCH COMPARISON

>>61156329
Multihreaded processing gives the illusion that 'moar cores better hurt durr' and it is true to some extent. But there are many computations that simply can't be divided across multiple threads and have to be handled solely by one or two. In these situations, higher TDP of the 7700k does exponentially better.

The situation is improving, and more programs are being optimized to efficiently use more cores, but we're not there yet, and a 8 core chip, is simply too much for it's time. Buying for the future, puts you in a value trap, in which you end up losing out on the present, espescially when there are new 'better' CPU's scheduled to release every year or two. Any current gen processor can be sold in 3 years, without too much of a loss.


The theoretical performance gain from 100% more cores, should be 100% more performance in multi threaded processing, yet the actual gain the Ryzen 7 has over the Intel is 50% on stock and 60% when OC'ed.

File: 1497883217071.jpg (18KB, 267x297px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 267x297px

>>61157238

>>61157486
>8 cores is too much
Jesus fucking Christ
I'm 2c/2t corelet and even I know that the only reason this is the case is because Intel jewed us out of our money because it could.

>>61157550
I won't deny that, they can and should sell the 7700k for cheaper, or at least solder the goddamn chip instead of using toothpaste. But that still doesn't change the fact that 8 cores are relatively useless, and that they only perform 50% better than the quad core Intel, the equivalent of 6 cores, not 8.

As much as people claim the 1700 is better at multitasking (I'm not denying that ,its true by fact), in the real world, you're never running multiple CPU intensive applications to the point where 4 cores isn't enough.

I'm not shilling the Intel, or trying to rationalize the purchase of it. I'm using a 1700X I scammed off an ex-roomate who was moving out of the country and couldn't take his tower with him.

Just bothering to play devils advocate in a situation where everything seems to be one sided. (It sort of deserves to be, but at the same time, I'm against the mob mentality of 'us versus them', its unnecessary and hinders progression.)

>>61157486
>The theoretical performance gain from 100% more cores, should be 100% more performance in multi threaded processing, yet the actual gain the Ryzen 7 has over the Intel is 50% on stock and 60% when OC'ed.

Right but it's the same damn price

File: 1489190364747.jpg (85KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 680x680px

>>61157877
>As much as people claim the 1700 is better at multitasking (I'm not denying that ,its true by fact), in the real world, you're never running multiple CPU intensive applications to the point where 4 cores isn't enough.

This is absolutely false.
If we're talking gaming then the i7 7700k makes sense.
But again, even if you were right, which you are not, your reasoning is DUMB AF it's like saying you should get 8gb of minimally faster ram for the same price as 16gb.

Let's say 3000mhz d4 16gb vs 4000mhz 8gb.

No one in their right mind would.

>>61156329
Here just take your fucking (You) you cunt

>>61157019
LOL

>>61157927
you are correct

because anyone with a fictional brain would be taking 2666/3200 ram, the peak of the performance curve in almost every scenario

>>61156377
you... don't have other programs open and services in the background anon? I would love to see what OS you use.

>>61156790
I do wonder where the next Intel team will be, Austin died. Hafia is about to die, we're seeing those same death throes all over again.

>>61158086
see bottom >>61156862

>>61157538
v 1.78.3 kys

>>61157486
>>61157877
So get the damn 6 core if you don't need 8 cores.

>>61158121
>>61156862
>1% CPU usage
You think it stays like that?

Why do you think the 7700K shows much more stutters and worse min FPS in games? Shit happens in the background. The extra cores are not there in the 7700K to sustain the framerate.
And most people like to play and have a browser, or Discord and other shit open in the background. You can do that with absolutely no impact on Ryzen.

>>61158410
I'd like to see some actual benchmarking with Ryzen vs. Intel with a bunch of shit running in the background eating CPU time and see the results. As far as I can tell, no-one has done a comparison like this.

>>61158410
OP here.
Maybe your a micro$hit user then.
I am on GNU/Linux and my gaming is 100% flawless.

>>61156799
The existence of this benchmark greatly amuses me.

>>61157004
>But 10/10 users don't actively run several programs at once. So you just BTFO your own point
u wot m8

>>61156683
>You can use 10 programs at a time on a single core with no issues.
Sure, you'll just have to divide that nice single threaded performance you brag about between all running processes. That's why you see such shit stutterring on the 7700k. Every now and then Windows has to bump your game to run some other shit because you don't have enough cores.

>>61158104
Explain yourself, wise one this history is valuable.

>>61156329
Congrats on the (You)s

>>61160172
OP here,
thank you

I think the issue here is you can choose between
>4 cores, 8 threads, 10 more FPS in games
>8 cores, 16 threads, 10 less FPS in games
So the question is, how much are those 10fps worth to you? Unless you're a competitive FPS player, the 7700K seems like a shitty value. Who cares if you need 8 cores or not, why would you choose to cut your cores in half for no reason?

>>61156709
Nice real world performance, retard

>>61156329
XD

Shalom, friend!

>>61158571
This. It would be pretty interesting to see Intel being ravished with even more frame-stutter all over the place.

>>61158571
no one does it because its fucking hard to simulate programs being cunts.

The best I can think of is benchmarking a game, then running prime95 on a few cores at a time to simulate worst case scenarios where a cpu is hammered

Spotify is pretty bloated, but I don't think it's prime95 levels of bloated.

>>61162073
they could just open a high res youtube vid on Firefox

File: 40f1775a185d52ce672bd297f4184a58d897ad11c4e12f1366b7e9288e6f12c2.jpg (37KB, 688x456px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 688x456px

>>61156329