what is the AMD equivalent of i3-6100? oh wait I forgot AhMeD

ryzen 1200

>>61823614
>They need 95W to compete with superior 55W in 2016
What is Ryzen 3

AMD's APU's are more expensive since the graphics are decent and you get a better stock cooler. Also you can overclock the AMD one, the i3 doesn't even have turbo boost.

>>61823614
>below 55W processors since 2011
WRONG.
Kaveri, Godaveri and Bristol Ridge all have 65/45w (cTDP, something you don't get on Intel unless it's an expensive mobile platform...) parts.
Bristol Ridge even has 35w part that is cTDP to 25w.

This is all for Desktop parts, mobile Kaveri/Godaveri/Bristol Ridge scales from 12w TDP to 45W TDP.
Ultra mobile parts like Carrizo and Stoney-Ridge are 6w-15w.

>>61823614
this is the saddest attempt at shitposting i have seen on here in awhile.

>>61823731
>apus
literally no drivers
amd even got sued

File: THIS KILLS THE AMD SHILL.jpg (289KB, 1372x1264px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1372x1264px

>>61823745
Since AMD didn't release a dual core I can't compare exactly but let's do a Dual core vs quad core comparison

Intel 6100 released in 2015 vs 7860K released in 2016

File: Deny this.jpg (157KB, 1284x940px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1284x940px

>7870K: $190 price point
still loses the the 117 dollar i36100

If someone provide a rebuttal to this I'll leave this thread and apologize to everyone.

>>61823783
Bulldozer-based CPU's perform like half core count CPU's with hyperthreading in applications not optimized for them. So Windows will see a quad core excavator as a dual core with four threads.

>let's pretend Zen doesn't exist - The Thread
>let's pretend dual cores are still relevant in 2017 - The Thread
>let's pretend OP isn't a faggot - The Thread

>>61823783
>AMD was uncompetitive through 2011 to 2016 in CPUs
We know shill.
It's 2017 though and Ryzen is out.

>>61823898
>let's pretend dual cores are still relevant in 2017
>in order to sell AMD memes of 16 cores I'll have to say that 2 cores is old technology xD
Liar and scum, more expensive AMD 4 cores can't even beat i31600.

Tell me 1 reason why aren't dual cores relevant other than memes
Oh if you want to compare to i5 let's do it. You first.

>>61823871
7870K is $120 now.

>>61823941
same price as i36100 but worse performance regarding CPU and higher power consumption
I agree that the GPU embedded in those amds are superior though

File: fuck shills.png (264KB, 1099x566px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1099x566px

>$173
>>61823614
>$190
>>61823871


where the fuck do you guys get your prices?

>>61824049
price point: the launch price anon

>>61823985
You also can overclock and get a much better stock cooler, good for 95W. If you go for the highest end 7890K, which is admittedly overpriced at $168, they give you a 125W cooler that's comparable with a lot of 3rd party ones.

File: ZEN gon give it to ya.png (157KB, 963x1172px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 963x1172px

>>61823933

>>61824064
>95 W vs 51 W
for virtually the same performance... why would you buy a cooler and overclock it? in cases like this it's better to wait for a new AMD model to come out if you really want an AMD

>>61824078
I found 4 stores that sell Core-i5-7600K for a lower price than ryzen 7 1700 and it's better

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-7600K-Desktop-Processors-BX80677I57600K/dp/B01MRRPPQS
Same price on newegg

>>61824164
>current price is valid now that the Intel shill has been bested
What happened to >>61824062 shill?

This is one of the most retarded threads I've seen on here in a long time.
Good job.

File: 1959365039576.jpg (73KB, 531x683px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 531x683px

You guys are all fucking stupid, there is no AMD equivalent to the i3-6100. Dual-core ryzen processors haven't come out yet.

The R3 1200 competes with the i5 7400

R3: $100, 4 physical zen cores (4 logical) @ 3.4 GHz
i5: $180, 4 physical kabylake cores (4 logical @ 3.5 GHz)

Last I checked zen ~= kabylake IPC

>>61824181
because those units are 2 years old basically except for the AMD which released in March 2016.
To compare those fairly we have to use the launch prices
for items that are selling right now in stock it's fair to compare the current price.

But anyway, why is i57600k better and less expensive? (even though it has less cores)?

>>61824164
i5's have been rendered completely obsolete dude. There's only two, maybe three Intel CPU's worth buying. The Pentium G4560 and the i7 7700K. And Intel jacked up the price on the Pentium since it was cannibalizing their i3 sales. Also until Threadripper goes up for sale the 6950X is technically the king of multicore, also it's soldered so you're less likely to burn your house down like with Skylake-X.

>>61824225
>i5's have been rendered completely obsolete dude
why? are 4 cores obsolete? do you have game comparison between rizen 7 1700 vs i5?

>>61824182
Keepin' on keepin' on anon.

>>61824244
Why yes, I do...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RMbYe4X2LI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_fAzBB_oAQ

>>61824265
some interesting results
usually 15~25fps in first video but then
Ryzen 7 1700 vs i7 7700K the i7 takes the lead but it's 305 dollars

>>61823614
JEWSHILLBOT 1.3 HAS FAILED

POSTING SHIT FROM 2016 TODAY

AYY LMAO

>>61824214
>Dual-core ryzen processors haven't come out yet.
They won't ever come out because dual cores are a fucking joke now. If you're paying more than $50 for one, you're a sucker.

>>61824388
not everyone is a obsessive hardware digital foundry fetishist

>>61824244
>game

>>>/v/
>>>/v/
>>>/v/
>>>/v/

and NEVER come back.

>>61824214
Ryzen APU's will be "real" 4 cores, not dual modules like Bulldozer. Even the new Bristol Ridge Excavator APU's feel limited, although it's amazing to see how much Bulldozer has evolved over time despite being a failure. (Same with Pentium 4, it started out absolutely horrendous and worse than the Pentium III and Athlon Thunderbird but Intel managed to push it father than anyone predicted)

The only issue I see is how does AMD make anything comparable in price to a Pentium? Ryzen 3 is $110, will they attempt to offer anything cheaper?

>>61824388
>>61824414
>>61824493
It would be better and still cheaper for a really low binned quad-core ryzen. If AMD sold one at like 2.5 GHz, I can see it going for like $50.

They're gonna have to make $50 raven ridge APUs for laptops anyway.

>>61824458
that's because I assume for other benchmarks the intel is better...according to the results I've found

>>61824546
as of right now what is the ryzen equivalent to i37100U ?

>>61824546
Their yields are so good they'd have to intentionally cut off dies to sell it that low. They have a quad core A12-9800 Excavator APU coming out soon that's $100.

>>61824574
Nothing. Nothing on the ryzen menu has that low amount of overall performance.

File: the_chernobyl_of_CPUs.png (214KB, 681x429px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 681x429px

>>61824574
Are you intentionally trolling or too stupid to read a roadmap?

What you're looking for is called Raven Ridge, it will be released somewhere between Q3 2017 and Q1 2018, and it will compete with Coffee Lake parts. AMD only invested a token gesture in that segment this year (Bristol Ridge) because they knew, like everyone else, that Bulldozer based products are garbage.

>>61824620
i was not trolling I'm interested in low power amd apus anon

>>61824661
Then essentially there most likely won't be any dual-core ryzen processors. It's just not worth it.

Besides a 15W 4-core @ 2 GHz > 15W 2-core @ 3 GHz

>>61824661
Oh well, the tldr is this generation was basically a mulligan while Ryzen got sorted. Ryzen APUs look super promising because AMD's 14nm process runs crazy efficient at low clocks and voltages.

File: am3+vsfm2.png (20KB, 725x374px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 725x374px

Well huh, that's interesting. It appears AMD used almsot the exact same architecture for their Bulldozer APU's as their FX processors. AMD's highest end AM3+ Piledriver quad core, the FX 4350, performs only slightly better than their quad core FM2 "APU" with the iGPU cut off. And that looks like it mostly comes down to clockspeed. Why would AMD release basically the same CPU on two different chipsets? Reminds me of Kaby Lake-X.

>>61824761
ok then it will be low powered 4 and 8 cores or 4 cores only?

>>61824829
All Raven Ridge APU's are 4 Zen cores.

>>61824854
what's going to be used for PS5 in your opinion?

>>61824829
raven ridge is 4 cores but we already have laptops with R7 1700 chips. Not sure what real world performance is though. But there are unconfirmed reports of the R7 1700 only using ~45W at 2.7 GHz.

http://www.techradar.com/news/asus-rog-strix-gl702zc-gaming-laptop-is-a-ryzen-powered-beast

>>61824797
Are Intel laptops using LGA 1151?

>>61824884
A cheap low-power ARM SoC.
PlayStation 5 will be an online-only service.

>>61824884
PS4 and Xbone were Jaguar, which was a mobile arch not related to AMD"s Bulldozer-based APU's at the time. It's likely to be the same with PS5, they'll use something much lower power than desktop Ryzen APU's.

>>61824967
FM2 and FM2+ are desktop sockets. It was meant to be AM3+ for high end, but AMD gave up on it after Piledriver and made FM2, which was for "low end" desktop but ironically high end FM2 and FM2+ CPU/APU's ended up matching and surpassing the low end AM3+ CPU's.

File: 03.png (81KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x365px

>>61825004
>they'll use something much lower power than desktop Ryzen APU's.
>less than 45W for an 8-core 3GHz processor
fucking hell

>>61825055
>comparing ryzen to jaguar
might as well compare core m to skylake-x while you're at it.

>>61825142
He was comparing power consumption...
ie. When PS4/Xboner released, ~45w was the TDP figure of the CPU portion of their SoCs
If PS5 were to release today, in the same power footprint, it could have 3ghz 8core Zen.

1.6ghz Jaguar vs. 3ghz Zen - same amount of cores, same power footprint, fucking hell that's amazing.

>>61825205
>If PS5 were to release today
No console will release before 7nm because there's no point for power consumption or performance.

>>61825205
unfortunately consoles usually prefer low powered due to laws regulating electronic noise (specially in Europe)
HOWEVER they could invest in passive cooling with a very silent fan
Hopefully PS5 will be 3,4ghz 4 cores( 2 modules?)

>>61825294
Which will make it even greater impact, not sure what you're not getting here.
In any case, even now perf at the same power is massively up.

>>61825388
The CPU portion of the Xbone and PS4 SoC was 45watts, there isn't any change here.
>laws regulating electronic noise
>passive cooling with a very silent fan
Electronic Noise (RFI/EMI) is not something you mitigate with a silent fan anon...

File: nofan-500x425.jpg (60KB, 500x425px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x425px

>>61825413
>Electronic Noise (RFI/EMI)
i was talking about the fan noise anon
You can have a semi passive cooling with a 55W and run a very silent 12mm fan to blow the hot air out
something like pic