AMD BTFO ; Ryzen DOA
None of the faggots raving about this pile of shit will actually need the only advantage it has over the 7700k. None of you renders fucking 4k video on a daily basis, none of you needs 8 core processing power.
Have fun spending more money on faster WinRar extractions because of communistic brand loyalty. Also thanks for making the i7 cheaper for non-faggots by supporting ryzen garbage.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
videocardz.com
amazon.de
twitter.com
Isn't this literally 100% the same meme they pulled last time? "more koars are better always". Have fun with your flop amdcucks.
>@3.4GHz
K
the thing I find more baffling is that for MAYBE
a 5% increase in performance you'd be willing to pay twice as much
Exactly. AMD fags will never learn.
>Higher Price
>no iGPU/APU
>Twice as many cores
>still almost the same performance
>Only excels at rendering High-Quality Video
>implying 15 y.o. AMD-Commies will be constantly rendering 4k Videos
>implying AMD-shills won't be buying ryzen for the sole purpose of playing gaymez
This is bate
>no iGPU/APU
DELET THIS
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
but league of legends and minecraft need all 16 threads
Except you're getting double the koars for the same price here, and each of said koars is just as powerful as Intel's.
>3.8GHZ
>Not the 4.2 GHz BASE clok speed like in the OP
analphabetic AMD nigger spotted
>we overclocked one chip to get it to run at the stock speed of the other chip, look how superior we are
kek
>Uses different software
>Accurate
have fun living in the past, gramps.
>Not sporting a superior PCI-passthrough set-up for flawless VM implementation
>both chips overclock equally easily but somehow stock speed should be the decisive metric
...
DELET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
overclocking one to the max and not the other is a deceptive jew tactic.
there are no non propaganda "turbo enabled" ryzen benchmarks, faggot.
What is a non-propaganda ryzen benchmark? One that doesn't have turbo enabled?
>it's new so it's gud
>it's AMD so it's gud
>I render 4k video all the time, I mean who doesn't need such a feature ?
>people who disagree are just old and not as hip as me
Did you just compare a 5.1GHz chip to a 3.4GHz and used that as a metric for IPC? I'm gonna assume you're a paid shill because I don't want to live in a world where people retarded enough to do that exist.
lets break it down for the dumb people in the thread.
>clock for clock it beats intel
>cheaper
>moar coars
>way better at multitasking like playing games and streaming.
>lower TDP
>the 4core version WILL clock waaaaaaaay fucking higher and will crush intels IPC
>better thermals because of non retarded heatspreader
>cheaper motherboards compared to X99
>100% better performance/$ over X99 cpus
>the 1700 costs 289$ and performs similarly to a 7700k but with double the cores.
>intel is afraid at the moment.
The positive outcome will be that intel drops their prices to compete. because no fucking way is a 6950x worth 1500$ now.
the 7600k will drop in price, and will be the golden standard of measurement for noobs which is a fucking win for everyone.
you intel idiots need to realize that AMD doing a good job means we as customers win. get of your fake horses and start sucking your mommas dicks please.
A benchmark that has been performed by a neutral party, not by AMD themselves.
Sauce?
>7700k STOCK > 7 1700 STOCK
>7700k price < 7 1700 price
a clock for clock test can't actually be done without overclocking ryzen chips, which already puts it behind the curve.
>clock for clock it beats intel
wrong
>cheaper
wrong
>moar coars
doesn't matter, it's a meme
>way better at multitasking like playing games and streaming.
""""streaming""""22 kys yourself m8
>lower TDP
>the 4core version WILL clock waaaaaaaay fucking higher and will crush intels IPC
delusional
>better thermals because of non retarded heatspreader
wrong
>cheaper motherboards compared to X99
ASRock exists
>100% better performance/$ over X99 cpus
wrong
>the 1700 costs 289$ and performs similarly to a 7700k but with double the cores.
wrong
>intel is afraid at the moment.
Wrong, they make 20 times as much as AMD, if you honestly think that intel as a company is in any way scared because some faggots on a taiwanese sewing forum will buy Ryzen you are delusional and should check intel's market value
>avg is only down by a few fps to a 5gz oc intel cpu
Bretty gud
>it's better at streaming
>more to do less is better
welp m8 you guys sure are shiling hard
>28 FPS
>>cheaper
>wrong
>>cheaper motherboards
>wrong
Spotted the intel shill.
>that everything
gr8 b8 m8
Its like devilsfoodcake is shilling for Intel.
>intel is afraid at the moment.
intel is way bigger than AMD, economically speaking. They are under no threat, even if they lose the compared to their other branches unbelievably small "enthusiast market" [spoiler](read: faggot market)[/spoiler] [spoiler]which they won't[/spoiler]
>
>>>cheaper
>>wrong
>>>cheaper motherboards
>>wrong
>Spotted the intel shill.
prove it faggot
I could just write 6900k into your post and it wouldn't make a difference.
Think of it this way: Not only did it took AMd years to catch up to intel, intel was also completely stagnating all this time.
youtube.com
>No sight of the Ryzen chip itself, all the shots are angled in a way that the glare would prevent your from seing the markings
>No sight of the new Ryzen stock coolers, which were marketed to have RGB included, which was another selling point.
>He took the time to OC 7700k and not the Ryzen chip?
>Tests only on GTA V, when he has Witcher 3 gameplay on his channel
Fuck off
...
>Muh single core
Not even true for games anymore.
inb4 Intelfags call an average of 14 games "cherrypicked"
It's almost as if they were stagnating because there was no competition to make a better chip :thinking:
>AMD is centering their whole marketing campaing about catching up to intel's shit-fest that is kaby lake
pathetic
>>(You)
>
>>>>cheaper
>>>wrong
>
>>>>cheaper motherboards
>>>wrong
>
>>Spotted the intel shill.
>
>prove it faggot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/16 AMD $300-$500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/16 Jews $1000+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AM3+ $45-$340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $45-$600
AM4 boards haven't been released yet.
inb4 intel releases a new chip and AMD takes another 5 years to play catch up.
I'm glad Ryzen arrived, it'll drop the prices on the i7 line for a bit. So I'll get a superior chip on the cheap.
How come beastly overclock is falling behind in average figures? Seems this """"test""" was run like shit. Can't trust.
turbo is turned off on the amd benchmark
>8/16 AMD vs 8/16 intel
>Koar numbah is all that matters
>every 8 core CPU is directly comparable.
You can fuck right of you tech illiterate faggot.
>a clock for clock test can't actually be done without overclocking ryzen chips, which already puts it behind the curve.
intel chips are already at their limit.
5.ghz 100c lololol
>ASRock exists
Lmao, Asrock x99 has one of the most expensive motherboards out there.
And intel is afraid. the layoffs and the lower income the past year kind of speaks for itself.
>>it's better at streaming
i said multitasking like gaming + streaming at the same time derpy.
Its a popular thing that is just growing in popularity. but im glad you found something to get your dick hard for kid.
you idiots dont have a leg to stand on with your dumbass arguments
LMAO
M
A
O
Kabylake is pretty much an overclocked version of skylake, what's your point?
what happened to be a smart buyer?
why is everyone suddenly a brand loyalist with 0 brains?
I will always do the logical choice and buy the better performing product that also costs less, and right now that seems to be the case for AMD, see: why did this board turn into a shitshow of brainless fanboys and brand loyalists?
>intel chips are already at their limit. 5.ghz 100c lololol
i get 5.1ghz and never go above 72.
fuck right off pajeet
>you idiots dont have a leg to stand on with your dumbass arguments
>multitasking like gaming + streaming at the same time derpy
>gaming + streaming
>derpy
sure, kid. If you want to spend daddies shekels on a inferior ryzen, I'm not going to stop you.
>I will always do the logical choice and buy the better performing product that also costs less
It's not cheaper and video rendering is the only area it is better in. The average consumer in 2017 does not need 8 cores, especially if they're going to be used for gaymen.
not cheaper? what are you talking about? the 1700x's intel counterpart is the 6900k, which costs more than twice as much
I'm not sure whether you're being a generic brand loyalist or a shill
>The average consumer in 2017 does not need 8 cores
Average consumer needs a smartphone and an underperforming macbook. You're grasping for arguments, lad.
>avg
>The average consumer in 2017 does not need 8 cores, especially if they're going to be used for gaymen.
benchmarks prove you wrong
I'm talking about the average Sup Forums, reddit, LTT tier PC "enthusiast". 8 cores are currently only useful for high brow video rendering.
No. The 1800x is the 6900k's counterpart.
really makes you think
videocardz.com
Icelake will have 8 cores 16 threads and AYYMD can't compete with Broadwell-E level IPC & moar cores meme just doesn't work anymore after 8
They only prove that AMD FX is shit and the i7 is more than good enough.
So let me get this.
What you're saying is that
one should be buy a more expensive CPU with less cores than a better performing cheaper CPU with more cores because "8 cores is too much"?
>None of the faggots raving about this pile of shit will actually need the only advantage it has over the 7700k.
Yeah, but in case we ever do need 8 cores, it'll be pretty useful to have. It's like having 32GB RAM in your computer, or a gun, or a condom in your pocket. It's better to have it when you don't need it, than to need it but not have it.
It also has other advantages, namely better price/value, and not being made in Israel.
>Also thanks for making the i7 cheaper for non-faggots by supporting ryzen garbage.
That's also a big reason why Ryzen is good, and no one ever disputed that. Intel had monopoly for the past 5 years and look what we got: 5% average increase per generation, and overclocking limited down to 2 cpus.
More than 4 cores is not needed anywhere. Intel can shove it.
t. opportunist intel fanboy
and the 1800x is STILL 2x cheaper than the 6900k, while having the same performance, yet you said it doesn't cost less
you are not making any sense, what is your point, exactly?
#59083785 (OP) (You)
t. Intlel
No ? For regular use one should buy the i7 which is cheaper and performs better in areas 99,9% of people will need, instead of the 1700 which is more expensive and is on par with the i7 in all areas 99,9% of people will need, and only beats the i7 in areas only professionals will need.
The i7 is 30$ more expensive.
4 cores within 6 fps of 8 cores within 5 fps of 10
you just proved yourself wrong idiot.
The 1800x has a huge edge over it's intel counterpart (6900k). the 1700x does not. Learn how to read.
...
Are you seriously using Yuropean prices on an AMERICAN imageboard to suggest that the Intel offering is cheaper? American is the biggest market for processors, it alone will decide who comes out victorious in the end.
Even in yurop the i7 costs more.
This is just the Ryzen 7 release. Ryzen 5 is 6c/12t in a lower price bracket, and Ryzen 3 is 4c/8t in an even lower price bracket.
you're avoiding the question - what is your point, exactly? that if I could buy an 8 core 16 thread CPU for $329, I should instead get a 4 core 8 thread CPU for the same price and get less performance, because I "don't need that many cores"?
what kind of logic is that?
you're either a shill or a brainless brand loyalist
This applies to Ryzen as well. Therefore the i7 is the better choice.
the benchmark proved that for hundreds in extra money you can gain a whole non-scaled 6 fps. you'd gain more by dropping that extra money in gpus.
why would you buy the 4 core if the 6 and 8 core are faster in both games and general applications and cost the same or less?
Unless Intel cuts the price of the 7700k to $200 there is no point in buying a quadcore anymore
>the €360 R7 1700 doesn't exist because I say so
This is my point. And no, intel are jews. If for no other reason, the intel ME is enough reason to hate them.
AMD is pitting the R7 1700 (359 euros) against the i7 7700, not the R 1700x...
christ, you shills are out in full force today
>implying it is on par with the 4,2 GHz 7700k
it's not less performance though once you figure in the average over clock of a 7700k is 4.8 - 4.9 you get literally the same core for core performance of the 1700x at 4.5 you just get 4 less cores and 8 less threads and a lot less heat to dissipate. unless you're video editing or streaming you don't need the extra threads, it doesn't scale in games beyond a few fps.
This. Either all AMD fags are all professional video editors or brand loyalist morons.
Stats 101 only way low,high change radical but avg minimum, is low and high begin almost round error.
>what are turbo clock speeds
>a lot less heat to dissipate
95W TDP disagrees.
Please read the OP image before embarrassing yourself.
>Please buy the 4 core
>It's only a few fps slower anyway
well the thing is that I use my PC for things other than games, and I would gladly accept more cores, and if I can purchase an 8 core, 16 thread CPU for the price of a 4 core, 8 thread CPU, then I will gladly do so; it will perform better in multithreaded tasks and it will last me much longer than the 4 core, 8 thread CPU
I will also have the benefit of having 1 motherboard for at least 1 additional generation of CPUs from the AMD side, so if I decide to upgrade my CPU to Zen+, I won't have to get a new motherboard, unlike intel, who change their mobos with each new CPU release
not to mention the R7 1700 also uses less power, but such points are stupid to even bring up
all in all, I don't understand your point, seems like you're trying to get me to purchase an inferior product for the same price
>>what are turbo clock speeds
Lower than Intel's
>Stock 1700x is barely matching the stock 7700k excluding video rendering.
wew
reviews are already leaking, and the 7700k clocked at 5ghz doesn't even come close to outperforming the R7 1700 in highly multithreaded tasks...
>seems like you're trying to get me to purchase an inferior product for the same price
Except the i7 is literally a superior product in 99.9% of all scenarios
How hard is this to understand
really ? source ?
So wait,
The i7 has a 60+ FPS lead on max and a ~20 lead in min, yet only averages around 3 more?
>99.9%
shill confirmed, thank you for outing yourself as one
this was posted here: youtube.com