So...

So, both Reddit and Sup Forums agree that this CPU sucks for gaming while actual people are buying it and enjoying the actual performance.

Why is that?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9XGvrfTwwNI
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113430
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because actual people aren't buying Ryzen for vidya, and in the end AMD works just fine for most other applications.

You don't need enthusiast-price hardware for most PC work.

Normie casuals?

youtube.com/watch?v=9XGvrfTwwNI

>intel i7
>play game
>200 fps 90% work load

>Ryzen 7
>play game
>180 fps 30% work load

Which one is better?

My understanding of the situation is this:

Ryzen has better multi-threaded performance for the price than a lot of Intel processors, but its single-threaded performance (which is what games and emulators generally rely on), while an improvement from AMD's previous line of CPUs, loses to Intel's at any given price point.

Ryzen is also good for that "stick it to the man" feeling because AMD only really still exists because of antitrust laws preventing Intel from swallowing the whole market. They're not bad CPUs, it's just that Intel CPUs have an edge in videogames.

but you're also paying like 3x the cost of what they should be, wait for r5

No you're not. The top 8 core r7 is equal to or better than the top 8 core i7 and that's double the price of the r7.

>200 fps 90% work load
>180 fps 30% work load
>In fucking plying

Because actual people are capable of forming their own opinions without Intel shills telling them what to think.

I never seen a game that uses 90% of an i7 CPU other than a shitty unoptimized one

Lots of benchmarks shows the opposite senpai, google them.

because people are poor or retarded. please go back to red dit.

200fps > 180fps so the i7. i mean if there's no cap and the i7 has more fps it's better isn't it?

Normies dont know that the sound their computer makes is the one of apollo 1 before takeoff and before it burst into flames. So they are happy with virtually anything you give to them.

Plebbit, 4fag and 9fag on the other hand are practically the same thing and will throw feces at each other about anything but i guess they decided to instead eat the shit when it came to ryzen

Source or gtfo.

because actual people aren't autists who buy $400 workload cpus for vidya

When are will the ryzen's at the i5 price range going to be released? I figure if I wait for them to be announced or released, even if they're not better than an i5-7500 they'll force the price to drop.

>mfw still on AM3+ motherboard

I've still got a Phenom 965. Is it worth even upgrading to an 8350? I've heard that performance is all over the place with them in gaming. That or should I just invest in a while new system with my tax return?

Ryzen is at worst like 10% behind Kaby Lake but uses less power. Ryzen is a good chip perfectly competitive but it has some probelms right now that need to be resolved. They should be resolved by the time the R5s and R3s come out which are more ideal for general gaming.

Intel shills doing damage control. Intel is about to lose a lot of revenue if they have to cut prices. All their share holders are going to be pissed.

I think AMD said Q2(April-June). They'll probably put it more toward the end of that quarter

Bulldozer arch kinda sucks to be honest. It's an upgrade compared to a Phenom II 965 but it only really upgrades certain aspects which are typically only used in workstation type tasks. It doesn't usually help a whole lot in games. If you can wait a few months for the rest of the Ryzen series to launch I would recommend it. If not you can go with one of Intel's current quad core chips or maybe go with Ryzen 7. 8 cores are not ideal for general gaming but they honestly don't affect performance that much.

There's a Win10 scheduler bug. Wait for that patch to drop, then compare how Zen performs against a 6900K/6950K and 7700K in gaming.

Its cheap, and their motherboards too.

Im waiting for their APUs though.

What if i'm using win8.1 or 7?

reddit and Sup Forums dont agree on anything. youre talking about paid shills. ryzen is the better cpu, despite older games not being optimized for it.

Not him but:
7 is fine, no idea about 8.1.

Because benchmarks depend a lot on the motherboard used.

In ideal conditions, it's a pretty damn good CPU that beats the fkin i7-6950X. In shitty conditions though it's as good as an i5.

>Its cheap
>worse gaming performance than cheaper intel chips
????

No shit.

>8.1

why would you do this to yourself? it's the worst OS they've ever released besides something like 3.1 or NT

Thanks for the reply. I figured as much. This build works great but it's past time to do a new one.

I'll just wait until the next of these Ryzen releases happen to see whether I should go with Intel or AMD for my next build.

>it's the worst OS they've ever released besides something like 3.1 or NT
>Doesn't remember ME

from the prices on newegg the ryzens are more expensive than the current intel flagship by a lot and also performs worse than it in almost every application.

it's such a shame because i would love to use amd for once but there is no way because not only is it slower it is also more expensive. what was amd thinking?

Optimized games would ideally use your cpu, retard

The one with proper utilization providing a better result, i7

ME was terrible and 98 wasn't really needed at all. Win 2000 was way better than XP too.

Microsoft has a long history of useless "upgrades."

Isn't this the same as the 480? Hyped to dethrone the competition, launches with loads of problems, doesn't meet expectations out the gate so the internet has a meltdown over it, then months and many patches later it becomes an incredibly sound choice for the price point?

If a game is using 90% of a cpu, isn't that definition of optimized ??

>Ryzen is at worst like 10% behind Kaby Lake
False

It's like 1/3 the price of the current Intel flagship.

>what was amd thinking?
They can sell preorders on hype if they deliver chips with acceptable performance, then lie through their fucking teeth in their presentations and intentionally sell only the high end expensive stuff with high markup. There's a reason you can't buy an R5 or R3 right now.

>tfw I bought ryzen and there was nothing Intel could do about it

Can someone post a correct list of price comparison? Because I felt the same way when I read a benchmark. Basically what I understood is that the only CPU worth it was the top of the line a ton of cores (and not even for gaming).

Ryzen 5 when?

Not if it's ineficient, like doing needless drawcalls and whatnot

wth are you talking about. by flagship we mean the highest standard chip that most consumers will buy, not the snowflake chips that cost 1000+.

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113430

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726

Reverse hyperthreading when?

20%?

Makes no sense.

Probably means taking physical cores and virtually combining them in tasks that don't do multicore or something like that

7700k is the top mainstream performance processor. The flagship is the 6950X.

Shouldn't they have had a 79xx or something?

...

That will be Skylake X or whatever the fuck they're calling that shit now.

This image is obnoxiously accurate. Every release by AMD in recent memory has been like this.

No when its mostly useless stuff that is being processed that could be done more efficiently.

Rx 480

Ryzen

Fury X

I used to use AMD cpus and gpus. My first machine had a 1ghz thunderbird in it. Over the years amd fell behind and went to shit. I'm always buying enthusiast grade so i use nvidia and Intel. I'd rather spend more money and get better performance. I feel like people that use amd in the current year are either poorfags or just don't know any better.

If anything the 30% use is optimised, because it ran out of things to do and has room to spare.

The only reason to buy this shit is for bitcoin mining.

Bitcoin miners just shill ''''vidya cpu n gpu'''' to the pajeet ceo to make him keep making cheap cpu and gpu , making him think hes the savior of pc gayman and linus best friend

That's only logically possible if you GPU limited or bottleneckex in some other way or of course fps limited

But without bottleneck a well optimized game should use way more than 30% of your CPU

I can explain what's happening.

Intel's fanboys and astroturfers are deploying hardcore damage control by comparing AMD's R7 CPUs, which are analogous to Intel's i7 and Extreme Edition products, to the price of Intel's i3 and i5 CPUs. AMD's R5 and R3 CPUs, which will compare far more favorably on price, are not released yet. So even though the R7 is absolutely the most CPU you can buy for the money, the Intel fans are using the staggered launch of the lower end products to argue that cheaper Intel parts outperform the R7 in single-thread performance. Which is true. Anyone who knows anything didn't expect AMD to overtake Intel in IPC.

The more honest comparison will come when the rest of the Ryzen line is released and directly-comparable products lose a frame or two versus Intel while costing substantially less money.

PS, most games aren't CPU-bound, and those that are tend to use as many threads as they can get, which favors Ryzen.

If my game runs at 180 fps and CPU is at 30% and my GPU is waiting for commands, then the CPU is not out of things to do

Re-programmable chips like utilizing an FPGA is probably the only way to pull something like that off but I don't think we have FPGAs that are capable of reproducing cores of this level. Probably wont for a long time.

I guess most people also think that the R5 CPUs will be weaker but they are the same just with less cores.

That makes about zero sense.
What you have there is a game that is limited to 180 FPS or it simply doesn't believe 8+ threads even exist.
Which is the case with BF1, a multiplat game that also goes for PS4 and XB1, which have 8 cores iirc.

Quake Champs is getting into the public's hands soon enough so that'll be an interesting comparison, a AAA PC exclusive going for performance over looks.

...

>makes no sense

It does for an unoptimized game...
Used these figures for the hypotethical

I thought the cache was different too.

Worst place for asking but:
Since R5 will have less cores would this means they will overclock better than R7 CPUs?
Or atleast use the die space in a GPU this time?

Just saying if a CPU is utilized at 30% and GPU is starved then it's an unoptimized piece of shit

CPU underutilization is a common issue...

If AMD makes the quad core chips out of two core complexes the chips could be quite powerful. The six core chips should be unusually powerful.

Because "actual" people don't do any kind of research.

Probably wouldn't be worth it over hyperthreading which basically achieves something similar, you get less cores when needed and more when needed

video games aren't the only use for a processor user

You're right, they should overclock better. The R3 4 core 4 thread chips will have the most overclocking headroom without a doubt, though. Not sure about the APUs w/ iGPU, those might be marketed as another line. But fewer cores certainly leaves TDP for that, too.

this isn't Sup Forums faggot, if you're too dumb to find sources yourself either ask politely or go back to your cesspool

>this isn't Sup Forums
you're right this place is worse

Thiss

>any board
>worse that Sup Forums
sure little buddy, how about you head back there then?