>Trying to explain to normies that Ryzen has a higher IPC

You're expecting "normies" to give a fuck about specs rather than branding. How many normie youtubers shill for amd?

>he cares about normie opinion

>>61577407
I don't necessarily "care" I just would prefer to help people understand actual processor performance metrics so they don't base multi-hundred dollar purchases on "muh niggerhertz"

Your fault for arguing with normalfags

>>61577421
Don't bother, it's not their hobby.

>>61577421
Heh niggerhertz

Single core performance of 1700 is equal to single core performance of a 2500K. So they are right about that. Multicore however...

but Ryzens IPC, i's per c, is worse than most of Intels high end low-core gaymen shit
The argument this entire time has been better overall performance for a better price, you can't just pick a metric practically arbitrary to normies and base your argument off of that one metric, whether you're wrong or not

>>61577384
>Ryzen has a higher IPC than skylake
It doesn't and they're right to doubt their stinky pajeet "friend".

>>61577384
>Ryzen has a higher IPC than skylake
It doesn't, even AMD admits that. Skylake is 10-15% faster than Zen at the same clocks.

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

20KB, 493x280px

>>61577492
>>61577532
Nah

You're all retarded in general for not knowing IPC is different for different workloads.

>>61577547
It's 7% even while using Intel's compiler.

File: pi1m-1-740x371.png (34KB, 740x371px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 740x371px

>>61577547
>>61577540
>>61577532
Here is a simple 1M digits of pi calculation
clock for clock, core for core

>>61577652
Forgot to preface this was a "test" done to show the IPC despite it really not having anything to do with IPC. This is what people primarily use as their "accurate" metric but it's not accurate at all

Intel dominated for so long the fan boys just so happened to be in the right side and remained hidden among rational consumers.

Now the gilding on the mask is cracked revealing the rot underneath.

>>61577652
In real world workloads they all look like that, 10-15% behind Intel. Wait for Zen 2 if you want evened up IPC.

>>61577550
That is some crap WCCFtech made based on outdated, extrapoliated data before Ryzen even launched.

File: 1500500489330.png (2MB, 1299x1812px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1299x1812px

who gives a fuck about the IPC being nearly identical when you can run the intel chip at 20-25% higher clock.

>>61579882
Oh, do go run a 8 core Skylake-X at 5.0GHz, report insurance cost afterwards.

Intel fanboy can even tell difference between niggerhertz and IPC

File: mark.jpg (1MB, 1505x4363px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1505x4363px

>>61578035
real world, delid Kabylake @5.2 vs 4 ryzen in gaming. seem legit

Even if it's an improvement on your cherry-picked benchmarks at the same clock speeds, you seem to forget that a Ryzen processor running at 4 GHz is pretty close to the absolute highest clock speed it's capable of. On the other hand, the 7700K that outpaces that Ryzen system in literally every other single threaded benchmark (with all other variables being equal, of course) is capable of being overclocked by roughly another 1 GHz or so.