HOLY FUCK. INTEL BTFO

HOLY FUCK. INTEL BTFO

techstunt.com/amd-ryzen-new-processors-line-up-prices-and-release-date/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Rutk9ErhKG4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'll just stick with my 7600k since I got it for free

I'm waiting to see how this shit fares with dolphin.

Cool. Hopefully don't don't heat like tiny nuclear reactors. Not sure I can survive another summer with a computer like that.

I hope this lowers the prices of Intel CPUs

who the fuck cares about hardware nigga, i want GAMES

>tfw still have an FM2+ socket

hope for AMD this shit has high IPC or it'll shit itself in benchs where the majority of games use up to 4 cores and rely on single core performance

It won't.... not for at least a year or two. and that's only if it actually affects intel's market share in any meaningful way.

8 core shit will probably perform as good as 4 cores since devs are lazy fucks and barely just moved on to quadcore just now.

Some exceptions probably like battlefield 1 which uses more cores better. Then again getting a 8 core isnt bad at all if u want to future proof it considering cpu tech barely advances at all and you'll be able to make use of more cores later.

MSRP of 500$ doesn't mean it will actually cost 500$, it will be more.

All I want is a Ryzen 5 1400X for $250. 4 cores, 8 threads should be enough for 1080p vidya. Don't fuck this up, ayymd.

>CPU power having anything to do with resolution

Intel's entire argument will be that their 4.5Ghz quadcore will slightly beat AMD's equivalent priced 3.7Ghz octacore in gaming benchmarks.
That the octacore offers 60-70% more raw power for the same price will slip their mind.

As much as I hate AMD for their lame ass marketing and viral shills, this looks pretty good.

there are like THREE games that make use of 4 cores +8 threads.
8 cores + 16 threads for gaming? Wont make a difference.
Thats said I am interested how the 4 cores 8 thread will perform.

same here my dude 760k at 4.6 ghz

A game that utilizies 8 threads also utilizies 8 cores.

Buying a 4 core over and 8 core today is like buying an i3 6 years ago "because most games only use 2 cores". The people who bought an i5 still have a good CPU today. The people who bought a dual core had to upgrade by now or they can't play modern games.

I have found that while the game it self might not use all the threads, I often have other programs running in the background and it's nice to have actually 4 cores free for purely gaming at all time...That and when you want to multi task a lot.

>Ryzen 3
>Ryzen 5
>Ryzen 7

amd is into something

No Intel buy until they start providing proper Vulkan drivers for their integrated chips.

its literally their GPU tier scheme they just recently abandoned.

Witcher 3 is one of the few exceptions that makes use of more than 4 cores/threads. Most games certainly don't.

source of those benchmarks?

>starting at $320 MSRP
fucking kek
so the actual price will be $400+
I'll just buy an intel then.

don't be a fool user

I've been waiting to buy a CPU since 2009. I'm tired of AMD's constant fuck ups.
I'm still using a Phenom II 955 OCd to 4GHz.

my i5 4570 is still strong, won't upgrade anytime soon

Is there gurantee that ryzen is any good? Because for a very long fucking time, intel has always been better. We're talking ever since E6700 and Q6600. Sure some AMD models might've been cheaper, but they've never really been able to offer performance for enthusiasts. I'm skeptical until I see some actual benchmarks.

I wish AMD the best. I want these CPUs to be successful because I'm sick of the jewish monopoly intel has. requiring a new CPU socket in a mother board per every 2nd generation is absurd.

Yeah how about a fucking practical benchmark? I have an i7 for a number of reasons but this is the most cherrypicked benchmark I've ever seen on this board.
youtu.be/Rutk9ErhKG4

Who plays Witcher 3 in 1280x720 and lowered settings when you have a 980 Ti and i7? People who do synthetic benchmarks for CPUs. Typically people want to actually play games. Eight threads still do fuck all for 99,9% of the games. Single thread performance is (sadly) still king. If you're only playing games, get more cores/threads ONLY once DX12/Vulkan actually has enough games you want to play.

I had that CPU and upgraded to a 4690k

I'm using an Intel i7 920 Bloomfield processor.
When do I upgrade? Now that i've moved out of the basement I dont have the comfort levels to drop $100s on new PC parts.

I'm using that CPU and an hd7970 gfx card. Playing games today on medium for the most part @60fps

wait until next month to upgrade, AMD's new CPUs might have a good price, if you just can't wait and want it right fucking now, buy an i5 6600, as it's pretty damn good, don't bother with the Kaby Lake line (the 7xxx CPUs), as they are just minor upgrades and most of the mobos on the marker aren't fit for them yet, plus the high price.

upgrade that GPU to a RX 480 4GB as it's enough for 1080p 60fps (not much difference between this and the 8gb one) or a 1060gb 6gb.

>or a 1060gb 6gb.
No.

The RX480 4gb has better value overrall of course, but he might like Nvidia products more, who knows.

It's cherrypicked to show that games are already being optimized for 8 cores. 4 cores is even the minimum requirement for some games.
8 core is the future just like quadcore was the future 6 years ago. People who bought the quadcore were proven right.

I was about to buy a 7700k, will the ryzen actually be good? multi threading like intel? or all games limited to 1 core like bulldozer

No, you can literally do this for any game you retard. Do you even know what a bottleneck is? If you're trying to bottleneck the CPU you can do this in two ways:
1. Use Intel integrated graphics
2. Set the settings to something retardedly low like on your benchmarks

You put money towards whatever is currently bottlenecking your system. Unless you have a Titan X like on the DigitalFoundry video, you do not need an i7. In fact, even the DF video shows the i5 performs the same or close in almost all situations, and I consider TW3 to be one of the 0,01% games.

Oh wtf no Windows 7 support!? I don't want W10 it's controlled by the NSA

>Detail settings: 1280x720 Low
Come on user, this is not console gaming we're talking about. No PC users (unless toaster, which is not what we're discussing on this topic) runs anything lower than 1080p on modern games. Let's be real here ok?

The new Intel chips that just came out only support Windows 10 too.

We are talking about high end CPUs here. i.e. $350 and up that are usually paired with high end GPUs and are supposed to last 5years+ before being replaced.
If you buy a quadcore for that money you are being retarded.

Lmao who gives a fuck about cpus, still using 3570k at stock values.

When are Vega and Volta coming?

>If you're trying to bottleneck the CPU you can set the settings to something retardedly low like on your benchmarks
???
Can you explain the thought process on that one?

>implying Win 7 isn't also controlled by the NSA
At this point it's just as bad.

>TBA
>TBA
>TBA
>estimate
>estimate

Yes, yes. I'll wait for an actual release, an offical price statement and independent reviews that show actual IPC comparisons.

>March release

If true, can somebody explain to me the logic of not telling anybody your release date until a day before it fucking happens?

>At this point it's just as bad.
No it doesn't have ads and no it doesn't get constantly new malware updates to counter "anti-malware fixes" users are doing for their OS. Win 7 is still a "free from shit" OS, whilst Win 10 will only get shittier over time.

Your bottleneck if you're doing any recent game at all is going to be your GPU. By lowering the settings it moves on to whatever will bottleneck next, which is usually your CPU.

No official support, which means it will lack certain features (like M2 SSD), the CPU still works in there. They did test it on W7 and they did say it worked, just that it's not fully supported.

All games coming up will start using more cores because multithreaded rendering is becoming the norm.

But then why would Intel Graphics also bottleneck the CPU? Intel Graphics are weak and are going to reach their limit much sooner than any CPU

I thought about doing that but I fell for the "just wait for ryze" meme

I meant Intel graphics tier games. Any other kind of 3D application that has nearly zero graphics and exists only to churn out frames can also be used.

W10 is also controlled by the NSA. It's funny how you retards suddenly "care" about your privacy but don't actually understand the dangers to it whatsoever.

If you are not on Linux you are compromised. Telemetry is nothing new in OSX or Windows.

Friendly reminder, than even ryzen has some features that require Win 10 to work. AMD explained this in their presentation when they did the "intel vs amd" comparison

oh boy, i can't wait for all the people who shit on skylake and kabylake for requiring win10 making excuses saying it's ok when amd does it

>$499
>4.0 ghz

Laffed.

Are you clinicaly retarded?

I very much doubt that pricing is real. You can't charge $180 for unlocking and slightly higher factory clock.

I can understand why people hate Windows 10 buy its honestly not too bad now. Other than the telemetry crap the OS is clean as far as I know. It used to have issues with compatibility and crashing but it's all since been fixed.

>AMD
expectations as low as their performance, holy shit guys, i can't believe that someone who's not a shill like this company. fuck you all.

Core support is binary, either your program is multicore or it's single core. There's no quadcore specific code. When you want to make use of cores, you make a new thread. The program however does not choose where to process that thread. So you can make 50 threads, and they will be processed on various cores. This means that as soon as your program supports multiple threads, it will be faster the more cores are available, even if it was written in the dual core era.

No point in anything until the benchmarks drop. Until then it's all just hype and shilling

It's nice that AMD will finally be decent for Emulation again

I hear Ryzen is comparable to Broadwell

Except you can't split everything into multiple threads.

Intel is selling 3.7Ghz for $1100, but nice try.

All Ryzen processors are unlocked.

Hype and Intel shitting bricks and new SKUs in morbid fear of Ryzen/Snowy Owl/Naples.

What said.

Even the games that have 'okay' multicore support still need a SHITLOAD of things done sequentially on the main thread. It's impossible to parallelise some complex tasks. Too bad the easiest to do this with (RTS games) are kinda dead.

Incidentally, I thought that retarded CSI/NCIS/whatever it was video where two people try to type on one keyboard was a pretty good analogy for this.

That just makes it worse. You definitly can't charge $180 for 300MHz factory clock. Chart seems dumb af that way.

It's not just better clock you dumb Sup Forumsermin, it's binning that matters.

>mfw i5 4570k

I'll wait until next year to upgrade, no point in jumping on the LGA 1151 bandwagon.

>I'll wait until next year to upgrade
Even then it's only moar cores.

Jesus Christ it really is like I'm back in 2010

Didn't you AMD fags do this whole pony show with the Bulldozer?

>Jesus Christ it really is like I'm back in 2010
No, we're actually back to K8/Presshot times.

I've never said that. But you'd be hard pressed to find games with only 2 threads at best. Sure, a lot of the time only one thread is doing all the work, but when you want to make use of cores you don't just make two.

I guess my only point is that, strictly speaking, a program that works well on dual cores works even better on quad, even if it's only at those rare times multi core code is in action.

If the factory clock is 300Mhz higher, the peak overclock will also be higher or at least reachable with lover voltage. Only question is if you are prepared to pay the extra money for ~10% more performance.

It's just how chip binning works. The best chips are rare and expensive. The slightly worse chips are plentiful and cheaper.

I'm not worried about cores, but mobo sockets, AMD will keep AM4 support till 2020, which is great.

I'm just trying to make sense of the prices using established prices as reference. Within one architecture, prices normally differ that much only when you have either more cores or more threads.

It's possible that AMD is trying to desparately make some cash by ramping up the margin a lot on the premium cores, but I can't possibly see it work. Not with that much of a price difference.

$50? Sure. $100 is a stretch. $180 is insane.

Single thread benchmark or gtfo.

Then buy AMD. Intel will still try to do it's usual jewish antics only to fail like they did in P4 times.

As much as I like my intel 5820k, I think there's unusually high amount of AMD bashing going on. Are you guys seriously this insecure of your 4 core processors?

Intel will implement 3 different sockets in the next 4 years, shit is crazy, 1151 will be discontinued this year.

Well that's a nice way to kill yourself in consumer market.

i7-7700k is $350
i5-7400 is $182
Both are the same chip but there is a 90% price difference. It's just how chip manufacturíng works. You get a lot of shit chips for every good chip you make.

It's good CPU I bought mine because need it for Fallout 4 HR pack.

So it's CPU thread I guess you people know about computer and I have a question.
I tried installing Windows 10 on my secondary SSD, but each time I want to start Windows 7 (main SSD) it wants to chkdsk (verify the disk), how do I fix it?

Where, exactly, did you hear that?

Coffee Lake will be low power only, i.e. likely embedded. Cannonlake will still be based on Skylake in terms of architecture - it's a new manufacturing process. Hence a socket change is dubious. While there will probably be a new socket in 2018 or 2019, NO ONE knows anything beyond that, and any claims are just shit you pulled out of your ass.
The difference here is hyperthreading. Intel always charges $100 for that.

Oh, and 1.2GHz in clock speed. And the "unlocked" part.

>W7

It's time to let go, user.

AMD isn't jewish enough to disable hyperthreading or lock their chips.
Intel only does it to differentiate the products so more people buy the expensive chips.

>AMD isn't jewish enough
We'll see about that.

>8 cores
>4.0 overclocked
>$500
Laughing out fucking loud.

I'll stick with my 4.4 overclocked i7k ty.

>how do I fix it?
Just answer this user please. My only fix now is to uninstall W10 but I just want to give it a chance, else it can fuck off.

My point is that Intel doesn't charge this kind of price difference for binning. You get an actual, massive performance difference for that.

Also, AMD will have 4c/4t CPUs this gen as well.

Phenom x4 4 lyf

AMD will probably have 4c/4t models for literal peanuts because it's wasted silicon otherwise.

And how did that happen

Are you getting scared user? The thought of 8cores with 16 threads .. could it be out of your league if you were to go down the intel road to achieve that?

His name is Brian Krzanich.