Shitposting aside, when can we expect AMD or Intel to release

Why do you need a multicore cpu for applications that can't into multithreading?

>>61158069
Glofo 7nm process (what zen 2 will be built on) works at highest efficiency on 5GHz, so there's that

>>61158221
Maybe sometimes I want to do multicore stuff, but also don't want my games to run like it's 2013 and I own a Piledriver CPU.

>>61158259
If you're trying to compare Zen with Bulldozer, just stop now.

Also, 5 GHz is silicon lottery territory even for i7-7700K.

>>61158259
Normie applications at best support 4 cores. You'd be wasting money.

>>61158252
So Zen2 in theory should perform like a 7700K in games, b-but I can also do light work in the background without my framerate dropping to zero?

File: future.png (727KB, 1764x782px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 1764x782px

>>61158378
basically, yes

>>61158378
I don't want to get my hopes up about Zen 2 only to be disappointed so all I'm hoping for is IPC parity with Intel and maybe a bit more clockspeed. 5 GHz probably isn't going to happen.

File: 14lpp.png (73KB, 745x300px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 745x300px

>>61158404
pic related is what zen 1 was built on

Is zen2 gonna be on socket AM4?

Next year, thanks to IBM Nazi technology.

>>61158553
Yes.

>>61158553
Yes.
AMD has confirmed many times that at least their first generation of 7nm CPUs will be usable on the equivalent current 14nm CPUs sockets.
AM4 is supported until at least 2020.

if i knew zen 2 would be that good i'd have gotten r5 1600 and waited for zen2 instead of r7 1700

who here /dumb/

>>61158618
No-one knew the details of Zen's 7nm process until just recently.

>>61158587
>>61158598
>>61158599
That is great I always hated that about intel everytime you want to upgrade you have to buy a new motherboard, assuming you bought the best cpu it supported at release. This will propably make me switch this time.

>>61158634
I meant Zen 2, fuck.

>>61158618
Yeah I got a 1600X (on sale for $220) since I just wanted to have an AM4 socket cooler that's quiet to continue to use later, and to have something cheap to get on the platform with before I get the 8 core that has higher single core performance.

Was on an i5-2500k, so about time I got on a new platform and got something more efficient.

>>61158634
Umm Anandtech wrote a piece on it about a year ago. Not as detailed as we know now, but enough.
We knew that the 14nm LPP was aimed for 3ghz+ while the 7nm process was aimed at 4ghz+, at least.

>>61158645
Yep. Fuck Intel.

>>61158680
Do you know if the stock cooler is better then a 212? I have a 212 EVO but I read it won't fit

>>61158765
No, it's closer to a hyper tx3 evo in performance

>>61158765
It similar performance to the 212 at a given fan speed.
212 will cool more past that point by being louder.
It's a 95w TDP cooler pretty much.

>>61158404
Zen 2 will be made on a 7nm process. It's aim is going to be higher clock speeds as well as more ipc. Maybe the top of the line Zen 2 will reach 5GHz but we can't be sure about that. For all we know it could be stuck at 4.7GHz. However Zen 2 will have a 10% ipc increase according to the roadmap which would make a 4.5GHz Zen 2 cpu slightly faster than a 7770K at 5GHz (which people tend to forget is also a hard get in the silicone lottery).

If AMD is able to keep up with their own roadmap (which they even surpassed with Zen) they will own Intel in all possible ways (except AVX512 which no one uses).

The future is looking bright.

>>61158069
She looks anorexic. Those legs need some training.

>>61158069
>>'it already exists xddd'
But it does. Messing around with settings you could probably set some of the chips to have much more aggressive turbo behaviour. This is of, of course, not standard behaviour but then neither is a 5GHz 7700k.

IIRC POWER7 had this ability out of the box by disabling half the cores of any given chip and using the additional headroom to push the remaining cores to ~5GHz. It's not unreasonable to expect this from a consumer chip sometime in the near future.

>>61158069
>run google images
>read it up on know your may may

i thought she had a dick.

>>61158069
>5GHz
But anon, only a few guys are lucky enough to get the 7700K to 5Ghz, and that's after delidding and voiding the warranty.

>>61161474
Is this really true? I thought 5Ghz on a 7700K was like 4.5Ghz on Ivy Bridge, i.e. almost guaranteed.

>>61161507
>almost guaranteed
No, not guaranteed at all. Nigga, the 7700K has overheating problems on STOCK.

>>61161507
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all/products/7700k50g
62% chance with delid. You will lose the silicon lottery.

>>61161695
Yeah but all Intel processors since Ivy have had overheating issues, that's just a given that you have to delid, shit as it is.

>>61161748
Not really sure I trust the figures coming out of a site specifically set up to sell you on better binned chips.

>>61163133
You will end up like this guy that can't even hit 4.8 stable, on Skylake. >>61101147

>>61163216
I know the feel of getting shitty overclockers, I'm currently using a 3570K that needs 1.48V for 4.8Ghz.

>>61163305
You should probably upgrade before it dies, lol.

>>61163369
It just bluescreened on me literally five minutes ago. Looks like it will only do 4.7 at this voltage. I bought a second 3570K to replace my old one which must be the worst overclocker of all time, it needed 1.36v for 4.5.

I don't really care if it dies to be honest as I can't see the Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/Broadwell/Skylake/Kaby-tier processors lasting much longer. Really hoping that by the end of the year four core $300 CPU's will be a thing of the past.

>>61163477
You can get Ryzen 5 1600X and try for 4 GHz, or wait for Coffee Lake and delid/OC it with watercooling and hope for the best.

>>61163539
Just going to wait for Zen2/Intel's response to Zen2 by the sound of it. The only thing stopping me picking up Ryzen is it's inability to match Sandy clock for clock in single threaded applications, I just don't want to get any worse framerates than I'm already getting in 10+ year old games that are piss poorly optomised.

>>61163804
Ryzen and Sandy are dead even in terms of single core even when taking into account overclocking.

>>61163804
Might want to take a look at this http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3

>>61160693
>She

File: 1496079671333.jpg (56KB, 592x850px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 592x850px

>>61163925
I've seen it. Obviously 3570K to 7700K would be a performance bump, but fuck dumping 500+ quid into buying a new CPU, motherboard and RAM for what is at best a 50% performance bump (the examples are 1080p), and only in super modern titles.

Like I said, in a years time, sure it'll probably be worth it when games use HT, care about RAM and multiple cores more, but right now it makes absolutely zero sense to buy a new CPU considering what is likely to be released by the end of the year.

Isn't the performance differential between Sandy and Kaby in modern titles mostly due to the advancements in RAM speed since 2011, instead of the actual CPU speed itself anyway?

>>61158069
no

/thread

>>61158069
>Shitposting aside
>Posting the ugliest whore in the world
Yeah sure faggot