Ladies and gentlemen, this is Ryzen aka Sandy Bridge 6 years later.

>1400 >1200 >literally cheaper than sandy bridge processors than when sandy bridge was released
Nice bait anon.

>>62047561
They'd better be after 6 years.

>>62047539
>faster than Sandy Bridge despite being clocked 400mhz slower

Really jumpstarts the juices, anon.

And how long did sandy bridge last?

>>62047539
Well they both are soldered and better than any of the current Intel offerings so.

>>62047579
>And how long did sandy bridge last?
We don't know yet.

File: 1502143993622.jpg (81KB, 444x444px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 444x444px

SOPA DELICIA

good luck finding ryzen 3 that can do 4 ghz

>>62047688
UMA DELICIA

>>62047539
>barely beating a 6yo 2500k
What an utter fucking failure Ryzen is.

>g-g4650 is as good as 2500k i promise
BTFO

>>62047539
Why are you comparing processors priced against the i3 to an i5?

I'm baffled. Especially since you're implying this is a bad thing. Have you compared the launch prices?

>>62048001
Have you compared the half a decade gap between them?

>>62047539
Can you put newer intel chips on this comparison?

>>62048001
4cores vs 4cores why wouldn't you compare them? OP is a faggot but 2500k to 1200 or 1400 isn't much of an upgrade is the point. 1600 or 1700 is way to go or better wait for Zen2

>>62048021
2500k vs 7600k wouldn't be much different at same clocks either. 6 core 8700/8600k would be way to go on an Intel upgrade path

File: tww_proz_12.png (71KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 523x440px

>being a retarded faggot

Why don't these bait charts ever include current Intel processors?

>>62048001
You can get sandy bridge era hardware for free these days. Upgrading from one quad core to another quad core is generally not the smartest idea, unless you rely on specific features.

>>62047539
>Using video game benchmarks to measure CPU performance
Congratulations, you are a literal retard. CPU performance means shit all unless you're GPU bottlenecked which you're never going to be unless the only game you play is CS 1.6 at 640x480

>>62048104
t. AMDfag

>>62047539
Lol and some anon was asking if it was time retire his 2500k few days ago.

>>62048120
Good argument, goy! Keep buying overpriced housefire CPUs so you can get a single extra FPS in your video games!

>>62048143
Well it did make you show your true colors, didn't it?

>>62048147
Yep, I'm an AMDfag because I don't have a double digit IQ and knows what a margin of error is

>>62047539
10% clock for clock.

So basically the same as Intel's current processors.

File: IMG_0846.jpg (142KB, 467x600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 467x600px

>>62047539

>>62048164
>double digit IQ
Pretty sure you're into single digits.

>>62047539
delid this

>>62048183
Okay, then please enlighten me on why I'm wrong and why CPU performance in games matters when the difference between a G4560 and 7700k is within the margin of error when you're not being GPU bottlenecked

>>62048036
You wouldn't upgrade from a $150 processor to a $100 precessor, except for odd scenarios

So how about non-k kaby lakes eh?

>>62047539
Most modern Intel CPUs will also lose to a 4.4ghz overclocked 2500K in gaming

>>62048210
GTA V is a game. Minimum frame rate is a thing.

dx12 is a meme

>>62048313
>this is what r/amd actually believes

>>62047539
So how do locked 7th gen i5 stack up, hmm?

>>62048436
t. sopa eater

File: total-warhammer-cpu-benchmark_2500k[1].png (31KB, 806x580px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 806x580px

>>62048451
If it makes you sleep at night.

>>62048313
is this true? I've been saving money to upgrade my i5 2500k to a 1600, is it not worth?

>>62048529
>dx11 benchmark vs dx12 benchmark
WOW AMD BTFO

>>62048547
I'm sure we were discussing your idiotic claim that and I quote "Most modern Intel CPUs will also lose to a 4.4ghz overclocked 2500K in gaming"
DX11 vs DX12 has nothing to do with that.

>>62048436
Name a $110 Incel CPU that has better single or multi-threaded performance than a 2500K at 4.4GHz.

>>62048164
>I don't have a double digit IQ and knows what a margin of error is
>I knows
Kill yourself you negative IQ-having retarded fuck.

>>62048592
How about Intel product line of locked cpus? Or i3s? I'm pretty sure most Intel cpus are locked and i3s sell the most.

>>62048592
But he's right. MOST modern Intel CPUs will lose to an overclocked 2500K. How does posting a chart comparing a handful of top end newer Intel chips disprove his claim in any way? MOST Intel CPUs includes everything from garbage tier Atoms up. There are far more that'd get wrecked by the 2500K than would beat it.

>>62048606
msrp, or actual buy price?

>>62048638
MSRP, faggot. Anybody can say they bought a 7700K for $10 on eBay.

>>62048631
>i5
>top end

this one GPU bottlenecked video game has sure convinced me OP I will now be trashing all my AMD hardware and building a high end X299 system

>>62048683
>all my AMD hardware
There's no helping you, you're too far gone.

>>62048683
Every amd benchmark have been gpu bottlenecked thus far, but now it bothers you?

My 2500K is sitting at 4.9GHz stable, do I need to upgrade or wait?

File: wtfihateintelnow.png (21KB, 656x473px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 656x473px

>>62048749
it bothers me if it's deliberately taken out of context.

pic related is also tested with a 1080. the 7700k gets three (3) FPS over the 2500k. is that all Intel has achieved in 6 years?

>>62048830
>1080p
Kill yourself.

>>62048782
Wait for 7nm.

>>62048908
literally the exact same benchmark as OP you dumb low IQ turd

if we go to 1440p or 4k we will get a flat fucking line because it'll be even MORE of a GPU bottleneck

can't wait for summer /g/ to end

>>62047539
>low end chip matches or outperforms high end chip of 6 years ago

I don't see the problem?

File: 1463487526635.jpg (682KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1920x1080px

>MUH GAYMS

>>>/vg/

why people even bother to answer to a shill thread?
the absolute lowest of amd beats the absolute low of intel
call me suprised

>>62049156
because there are genuine newfags who will eventually take shit like this seriously

I mean in a way it's funny but at the same time not really

>>62047539

Isn't TW just using two cores anyway?

Can't blame the CPU for some games still running on antique tech...

>>62047539

Yeah and if you put a 7600/7700 on that list it will perform similar to those cpus as well. This has been tested and proven over and over.

>>62048652
No one buys, or sells the i3-7350k for msrp though.

>>62048072
>FX 8150/8350 matching/surpassing 2500k respectively
The housefire 9590 shitting on the 5960x really got my giggles.

>>62047561
Old, outdated tech tends to be cheap, yes.

>>62051212
Find a site selling the 7350K for $110.

>>62048072
Bulldozer is better than intel these days

>>62047539
Why do you guys keep fucking replying to these retarded shill threads? Quit giving him (You's).

>>62052211
This.
OP is a faggot, post fat butts.
Also s4g3.

>>62052285
kill yourself

>>62047975
strange how close it comes though

Can anyone tell me what video decoding capabilities Ryzen has?

Like H264, H265, VP9 8 or 10 Bits?

>>62052735
Just H264.

Encoding was a huge failure on Ryzen.

>>62052809
>cpu doesn't have gpu features
Wow, what a failure...

>>62047539
There is no reason to upgrade from any i5 or i7 to ryzen unless you need more cores.