Why the fuck do shithead reviewers and idiots on /g/ use gaming

>more amd and intel shilling

Fuck off already.

For attention.

People who actually need a gajillion cores don't look at those kinds of reviews anyway.

It's funny seeing Skylake-X getting blasted for shitty gaming performance, but gaming isn't really it's main market.

Welcome to /g/, where people argue over 5 FPS.

>>61415969
Doesn't matter because it's being touted as the new Intel flagship.

File: AMDramspeed.png (1MB, 1266x669px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1266x669px

>>61414118
>7600k will destroy a 1800x

Sure when you use 2133mhz ram for testing

AMD R3 is going to wreck anus on the budget market
1600 is what everyone building a PC today should buy unless you need a computer for workload shit

>>61415999
What kind of monstrous IPC this 1700x has to defeat a 5Ghz intel part with 4Ghz?

>>61414118
> Gaming isn't opitimised fore more than 4 physical cores
It is, up to 8 because consoles have them.

>>61416027
not really. best case scenario is 6 cores on the few games that are well threaded, which is a small list of games. If they are even relevant you can count the games on one hand that are *optimized* for 8 cores.

>>61416012
Just a little bit higher. GTAV uses more threads more effectively.

>>61416012
IPC of a processor changes per application.

>>61416059
If the ryzen was also running at 5Ghz, it would be quite a wider difference.

>>61414118
>gaming is not productive
Tell that to that hundreds of steamers who make a living off of it.

>>61416067
Of course. Ryzen IPC is great.
But on non GTAV benchmarks the extra 1GHZ really puts the 7700k up ahead. Not by a huge amount though.

And non-7700ks are pretty much all worthless now.

>>61416069
That's like saying begging on the street is productive because hundreds make a living off of it

>>61414118
Let's be realistic.
1) Most people are consumers not producers.
2) Most people on /g/ who need CPU power use it for games.
Anecdotal evidence about how you compile gentoo or encode videos doesn't matter to the rest of the population.

>>61416093
and of the people who do actually do productive work I would take better single thread performance or faster storage speeds any day over the more cores meme. I can schedule around slow build times, I can't over the wait time actively doing work waiting for programs to respond or access stuff.

>>61414118
Who cares, just buy a cpu you like

>>61414118
>7600k will destroy a Ryzen 1800x in gaming benchmarks

If you don't bother measuring 1% and 0.1% lows, sure.

File: 1500185439116.jpg (129KB, 640x720px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 640x720px

>>61414118
Whereas there i imagine there are people that do other things beside gaming that would benefit from Threadrippers Multi-core performance most people that will buy it will hardly ever make use of it past installing linux and shitposting their screenfetches on 4chan. The same as getting a 800 dollar phone just to browse facebook, check your email, and snap a few pictures.

Anything past an i5/1600 is probably going to be redundant for most people buying into either Skylake-X or Threadripper.

>>61414118
>CPUs that aren't built for gaming
There are CPUs being build for gaming?

>>61416090
If it would makes them thousands of dollars a month, begging would be considered a productive job.

>>61417245
No, but optimal would be something with a low latency interconnect, with a low core count, plenty of SHARED L3 cache targeting nuclear clockspeeds without SMT.

The 7700k is the closest thing to this, but it's lacking in the L3 department and only has 4 cores and not 6 cores without SMT

>>61417349
sounds like problem is in the software not the hardware and you just found best CPU to brute force it.

>>61417406
>>61417406
That's true, but nobody is expecting software to improve so brute forcing it is the only way.

>>61415999
Bought a 1700 for two reasons
I have slow as shit internet, so I often use 7zip to compress stuff I don't need right now instead of deleting it
And having a really efficient (undervolted) 8C/16T CPU just feels nice

Ryzen is built for gaming though.

If you want synthetics then save up your mother's allowance for an Epyc CPU.

>>61416012
The kind with 3600mhz ram, a better gpu, and doing a game run through while looking at the ground, or some thing similar. AMD benchmarks are always pulling something silly.

>>61418305
It's from this video, go ahead and tell him how FAKE NEWS it is, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA

>>61418222
You're retarded.

>>61418338
Who is the youtuber?

Even Tomshardware added Ryzen to their "what CPU to buy" list. You'd have to be retarded to buy a 200$ 4c/4t CPU in 2017

>>61415999
3600mhz ram works with all ryzen cpus now after the last update, or is it still a crapshoot?

File: Ryzen7_7700k_1080ti.png (2MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1440px

>>61414118
>Yes a 7600k will destroy a Ryzen 1800x in gaming benchmarks
No longer true. With 3600mhz ram, R7s pull pretty close to dead even with the 7700k

>>61414118
>7600k will destroy a Ryzen 1800x in gaming benchmarks

Not anymore with all the patches and bug fixes the platform got. It is just a little bit better

>>61416116
Bullshit. I render video regularly and saving literal hours in rendering is hugely valuable compared to saving a few seconds in the very occasional highly single threaded productivity task (like some Photoshop tools).

>>61418839
Neat how does it run arma 3 now? I read that there was an update for ryzen comoatibility recently.

>>61418781
If you were good overclocker and got good ram yes, 3600 is possible. 3000 - 3400 should easy with decent ram

>>61418892
can i use 3000 ram and overclock it to 3600

>>61418892
>If you were good overclocker
Was just planning to buy pre oc ram, so no overclocking skills needed at this piont.

>>61418922
Hard to say, getting 3200 and 3400 is doable

File: Capture.png (300KB, 917x1205px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 917x1205px

Hmm, I'm stuck between the i7-7700k and Ryzen 1700 mainly because I can get the i7 for $200. But I could also get the i7-6850k for $149 and flip on eBay but risk getting banned by Intel.

>>61418922
technically yes, but you have to be very lucky
3200 kind of easy, give it more voltage
all produced modules are JEDEC 2666 and less, branding companies then bin better ones and test them at higher rates

>>61419007
Where is this on sale?

>>61419007
do not take 6850k
1. it's borderline housefire
2. motherboard still way too expensive for it

7700k is a consideration, for games though? get 1600 or 1600x

>>61414118
>>61414169
Because lots of people game, most...
The few people who render or video transcode would know what to look for.

Gaming benchmarks are a good proxy for workstation performance. You shouldn't just take fps numbers for what they are, but you can pretty accurately relate them to Cinebench or whatever you want.

I really hoped AMD was going to release something good this time, but clearly it's not going to.

Monopoly it is, for the time being.

File: 1475727881140.jpg (273KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1920x1080px

>>61419095
>Gaming benchmarks are a good proxy for workstation performance

>>61418922
>>61418892
>>61418984
Please read more about different RAM kits. You can pretty much google any kit + review and you'll find how much you can expect to oc.

Samsung B-dies are now pretty much the best modules for Ryzen. Google Samsung b-die and do not be afraid to click the first link:^)

>>61419095
t. intel engineer

>>61419128
nah, skylake x is apparently bad for gaming

>>61414118
>Why the fuck do shithead reviewers and idiots on /g/ use gaming benchmarks for CPUs
FTFY

>>61419007
The i7-6850k fucking now. You can get x99 mobos from amazon for 100-150€urobucks so I'd guess it's the same in USA.

>>61419066
Are you slow? 6850k is better than 1600 and at that price unbeatable. I'm a ryzen fanboy through and through but that is a great offer.

>>61419128
I actually have an FX 8350 and a 7790 (yes, I know, I'm doing weird shit with OpenCL), but whatever you say, boss.

>>61419107
Have you ever even bothered trying to do a 5 lines of code linear regression on this? Let's see it.

>>61414118
I bought a 1700 for my pc. I game on it, but I want to make music again someday, so the extra cores are needed at that moment.

Got my R5 1600 with 2933MHz dual channel

How fucked am I

File: 1499953102756.jpg (75KB, 682x776px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 682x776px

>>61419095
>Cinebench
THREE THOUSAND FORTY SIX :^)

File: 1500224053874.png (190KB, 680x991px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 680x991px

>>61414148

>t.armshill

>>61414118
because this is what most consumers will use it for or /g/tards will attempt to trick their mom into purchasing it for them for 'school porpoises' but actually only want for gayming and epenis measuring contests.

>>61419286
It's OK, but you could have got better performance with a 7600K right now (unfortunately).

>>61419320
Considering I upgraded from a Phenom 9750, I'll take it.

7600k is just shit (barely better and stutters up the ass) and the 7700k is only viable in a specific scenario:
>Only cares about games
>Has 1440p or lower screen at 144hz
>Har 1080 for 1080 and 1080ti for 1440p

>>61416093
>Most people on /g/ who need CPU power use it for games.
If they don't even multitask they are on the wrong board. Their board is >>>/v/

>>61416116
>and of the people who do actually do productive work I would take better single thread performance
Quadcores stutter more.

>>61419286
Timing ?

File: 1488422963302.gif (368KB, 500x356px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 500x356px

>>61419095
>Gaming benchmarks are a good proxy for workstation performance
Never go full retard.

>>61419027
It's the Intel shill special.

File: amdfags.jpg (257KB, 910x1015px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 910x1015px

>>61414118
Pajeets are desperate for Ryzen to do well.

>>61417253
but what is it producing? if there's no usable product, the work is not productive. it's just sharing some worthless paper notes around

File: 1499799036743.jpg (281KB, 1599x899px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1599x899px

>>61415969

>>61416093
Threadripper will be great for scientific computing; almost everything there is embarrassingly parallelizable. I use the 4x 1700 slurm cluster for NAMD and it blows the pants off of our 10x Xeon cluster at university. IMO a full fat 1CCX Ryzen will probably eat the G4560's lunch in cost efficiency and performance for the everyday consumer.

>>61416116
If you are multitasking latency is much worse on a low core count CPU. Latency in L2/L1 is faster for Zen than Kaby Lake and SMT benefits slightly more under Zen due to uop front end. L3/memory latency also doesn't affect everyday processing unless you're trying to run something realtime, in which case do not use a processor, use a controller.

>>61419095
>>61419184
Depends on what you consider workstation performance. It is possible that if you're simultaneously, for example doing primitives/culling and lighting, manipulating the viewport causes a core to block to wait for a normal to be calculated and sent to the other core to be used. However, once all the primitives and textures are in place, there is literally nothing that penalizes the design of Zen - it's not a problem of feeding the processor.

>built for gaming
This is easily the worst meme in tech. There's very little difference between a consumer part and a workstation part nowadays besides features, quality control and software certification. Usually clockspeed is the main difference. The people saying Vega FE wasn't for gaming came off as pure shills.

>>61419685

I mean, they don't really have to do anything. At the first sight of competition Intel have literally shit themselves. THeir damage control is doing more harm than Ryzen doing well tbqh.

>>61419066
6850k is soldered retard, stop parroting everything you read on /g/ unquestionally.

>>61418875
>a poorly coded piece of shit software runs poorly on all systems but slightly better on intel.
Ryzen runs DCS like shit too but that's hardly AMD's fault

>>61420962
>140w 6 core
I don't care if it's soldered or not, that's a fucking housefire.

>>61419286
Not at all.

>>61415969
Actually it's being blasted for the shit temperatures and stupid cooling requirements.
Performance wise it's not that bad. Gaming or otherwise.

>>61423005
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKX9Bcxnd7U

>>61422812
No it is not you stupid idiot. Better tower coolers handle about 300W tdp of heat. And yes you are retarded if you don't buy a good cooler for what is a 700$ cpu even if you bought it for 150$.

And no not an Intel shill. It just doesn't serve anybody to be a retard.

>>61423104
I've seen that video, make your point in human language instead of trying to make me guess what mysterious point you're trying to make by linking a video I've watched.

File: dry-ice-experiement.jpg (139KB, 612x595px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 612x595px

>>61414118
>Gaming isn't opitimised fore more than 4 physical cores.

>>61415999
3200MHz CL14 has best lows
I will motherfucking take it

>>61415999
1500 and 1600 are good if you want to play snowflake pc games and record stuff.

>>61415999
Why those 0.1% lows on th Intel chip btw? That seems like a fairly stark cotnrast to the really good avg. frames

>>61419007
I'm only going to go with the 7700k because of this deal with the motherboard. If a year or two down the line it becomes obvious that Ryzen is better, I can easily sell the chip and motherboard at just a minor loss.

>>61419286
Just wait™ for better performance

AMD needs to make a gaming focused chip then.

>>61423532
Why?

>>61423532
Not really.

>>61423532
I'm guessing it would have some RGB lights on it then?

>>61423552
>>61423569
Then stop trying to market it for gaming

>>61423594
Any CPU, as long as it has 2500K tier single thread and 1000 pts in Cinebench tier multithreaded, is fine for gaming. The only things you need to market to gaming is some RGB lights and steel plated PCI-E slots.

>>61423639
People don't want fine they want the best.

>>61423657
No they don't. Specially not gamers since they are poor as fuck.

>>61423664
So poor that 700 dollar gpu sell like hot cakes

>>61423706
They don't. 200~300 dollar GPUs are the highest volume and people usually buy a CPU that is either cheaper or same price as their GPU. It's almost never a situation where the CPU is more expensive than GPU.

Unless you're me and your CPU costs 1500 dollars and GPU only costs 500.

>>61423706
>hot cakes
>nvidia's entire revenue is basically peanuts compared to big bous
?