High end CPU's 6 years apart from each other

>high end CPU's 6 years apart from each other
>the newer one is only 37% faster

what went wrong with CPU market?

Technology is upgrading way too slow

I'm okay with this.

AMD stopped being a viable competitor, so Intel didn't have to innovate.

Not enough competition.

I'm still on a 2600k.

>nvidia releases new gpu (1080ti)
>its 60% faster than its predecessor (980ti)
Honestly its because AMD cpu's sucks cock, radeon gpu's were always competitive with nvidia, so nvidia mades its own tick-tock cycle and it works great for them.

This.

It's entirely this.

>20 years ago
>6 years difference in top cpus means just turning up the clock rate a zillionfold
now they gotta put effort in with architectures and shit

Well I hope now that ryzen is out, Intel will step up their game with the 8700k next year

>5 years later
>Nvidia releases new high end GPU
>1000$ CPU bottlenecks it

they could spend a ton of money on r&d for an entirely new non-silicon based architecture that would probably at first struggle to compete with the results of decades of research on silicon based chips and which would eventually greatly outclass traditional cpus, or they could milk silicon as much as they can after practically reaching the physical limits of that technology, because gaymers will always buy the next i7 even if the practical gains are 1%. intel has no competition to speak of, so there's no reason for them not to dripfeed marginal improvements and spend money on marketing instead.

The newer one is also clocked 20% higher and has pretty similar overclock ability.

its not even about silicone, intel could have easily double the core amounts ages ago. since they kept shrinking the cpu sizes, yet kept same amount of cores. Honestly gaming cpu's like i5 should have been 6-8cores ages ago, instead they fill up half of there cpu's with unnessary crap like igpu and other bullshit.

Good

It's more than 60% faster
At 4k it's 85% faster

Is AMD becoming more competitive with Ryzen or is it completely a meme?

>Is AMD becoming more competitive with Ryzen
AMD is becoming superior in everything apart from gaming, so, from Sup Forums's viewpoint, it's a meme.

Neat, another step in making 4K actually viable.

i didnt even check, i just math in my head like 980ti around 1070 level, while 1080 30% faster add another 30% for 1080ti.
Its amazing desu. Next-generation gains will probably be even higher.

If AMD is becoming better, shouldn't that mean an increase in performance for games?

I'm torn between waiting for Vega or just getting a 1080ti.

Is there any chance Vega will be more powerful?

>thread about cpus
>posts gpu comparison

>shouldn't that mean an increase in performance for games?
The performance is better, just not large enough to become superior to intel CPUs when it comes to gaming.

no competition leads to stagnation. intel can shit out marginal upgrades for the next few ye- forever. same thing happened to nvidia, they can shit out marginal upgrades and shit like 3.5gb because nobody cares and fanboy zealoty is at stratospheric levels.

the last great leap was 8800gtx (which they rebagded about 58 times) and that was the result of a wonderful arms race and price wars, what a time that was. last cpu arms race was ages ago we got a great leap in the form of q6600, since then its been pretty shit aside from ivy bridge.

In terms of making Intel actually improve their CPUs to keep up/ahead? Maybe, but it may take a while before any new developments hit the consumer market.

Vega will not be more powerful, but it will be more cost efficient.

>Is there any chance Vega will be more powerful?
Doubt it. I think its going to be stronger than the regular 1080, but far weaker than the 1080ti

there was a leak already, vega nano supposedly slighty faster than 1080, still 20% slower than 1080ti. i suppose vega fury will be around 1080ti performance, it will have advantage of being hbm2, but dissadvantage less ram (8vs11), price will be same. Also like always aftermarket nvidia 80ti, will get better performance do to insane OC potential.

>tfw fucked up and got this weeks away from Skylake

Diminishing returns

Alright, just thinking of building a new PC since I have an i7 3770 and wanna play ARMA3 and other CPU intensive games. Would you say that it's worth it...?

Yeah rumors are that it's faster.
AMD rumors though, and we don't know what TDP it's at. Something's got nvidia spooked enough to offer it at a semi reasonable price and drop the 1080 down a price bracket. Though the did the same with the 980Ti and the Fury turned out to be nothing.
Either way you should wait for the 3rd party 1080tis to come out and stabilize in price before buying, by then vega might be out.

i5 still outperformance price/performance what amd have to offer. Hope than ryzen 4-6 cores will be able to competitive with i5 gaming prices.

We dont need them to be superior, we just need them to be competitive and offer better bang for the buck.

Unlike the minority of fanboys, most people will get the best they can for their budget.

Heres hoping we see prices come down, then everyone wins.

R7 CPUs are not worth it for gaming, the i7 are straight superior. There are no R5 CPU benchmarks yet, but I doubt they will be better. Just get a good i7 like the 7700K for gaming.

>+60-80% performance from 980ti to 1080ti
>not major leap
>4k/60fps actually playable
>not major leap

>an i5 4690k is now considered bad
What happened?
>HD 7700 series card
you got a bigger problem than the CPU.

Is upgrading to a 7700k worth it if I own a 4770k?

I want a 1080Ti too

remember 1080 is mid sized gpu, back in the day, nvidia would offer this as 70series gpu instead of 80.
Also they still havent realeased there full die gpu as GTX card. They might do another Titan rebrand.

You can't just add percentages like that.
Something that's 30% bigger than something 30% bigger than another thing is 69% bigger than that smallest thing.
Percentages are tricky, that's how the jews will get you.

intel keeps next generation technology locked up in a box.
when amd announces their next big product that will "destroy intel", intel will simply unlock the box and release a product just slightly more powerful than what amd has just released.

I'm sure intel has something extremely powerful but refuses to release it because that's just bad business

Unfortunately, in the shithole I live a 1080ti is almost the same price as that whole build. So I postponed upgrading it since I had no need.

That HD7770 is a fucking warrior, though. Went through so much shit with her.

who else here is still using his i5 2500k?

their current CPU is designed more for workstations and servers ATM (which is like 90% of the CPU market). they outperform intel CPUs in alot of tasks other than gaming by a large amount. for gaming tho, intel is still the top dog, by absolute power, but loses in power/dollar

The only sensible thing is to wait for benchmarks. But remember:
>w10 worse performance than w7 atm
>ryzen mobos are sold out
>ram kits have troubles with compatibility
>bios upgrades are not existing yet
>rumors about ryzen killing certain pieces of incompatibke hardware

So in a few months ryzen will mostlikely be the best on market. Now? It is a fucking mess and nobody objectively can tell you what is better.
>intel cpu now is overprized safe bet
>amd cpu is now cheap wild card
Tldr: if you have "functional" pc you are better off waiting to see how the situation will go.

me
>stock clock
one of the best investments

...

nice, what cooler do you have?

>x59
that's impressive

Except 37% is a massive fucking improvement.

Everything I've heard says vega will be 16GB RAM, not 8GB.

Oh shush they've improved dramatically since the days of the 2500K

scythe kotetsu

i used to have a 6950 and while you could probably boil water on the fucker it ran great.

We are hitting the limits of silicone, odds are it will be dead by the end of next decade.

How so?

We've reached the maximum output of silicon.

The Fury is roughly 980ti performance though after 2 years worth of drivers

I'd hands down go for the R7 or R5; depends on whether you want to wait 2-3 months or buy now.

1700:
Can be upgraded down the line because it's using the AM4 motherboard and AMD is sticking with that for 4 years. If you buy intel, you have to swap motherboards every time you upgrade, and intel motherboards are more expensive on top of it.

Gaming performance is 10-15% worse than the 7700k at low resolutions (e.g. 1080p and below) but the gap diminishes/disappears at higher resolutions (1440p+) and the stronger your GPU, the more you benefit with the 1700. Recent benchmarks with the 1080ti actually have the ryzen systems outperforming the 7700k in gaming. It's an intel marketing meme that the ryzen chips can't do anything in games.

The 1700's cheaper than the 7700k

If you want to wait for the 1600, it's probably going to be similar gaming performance as the 1700, worse multithreaded performance, and almost half the price of the 7700k. Factor in the motherboards, etc. and things look even better.

Also ryzen chips benefit more from higher RAM clocks. There's issues right now getting high RAM speeds to work because motherboard manufacturers are incompetent, but once they are, I'd strongly argue that 3200mhz be the slowest RAM you consider. For ryzen, higher clocks are better than lower timings, so just go for the absolute fastest RAM your motherboard can support. (read reviews to find out how much that is - highest I've heard so far is 3600mhz)

Ryzen is slightly behind in IPC and suffers from a nigh-impassable wall around 4 GHz, so it's not ideal for gaming as it stands. It's most comfortable around lower clockspeeds and capable of laying down some completely silly performance/watt numbers when you back down on the frequency, so it should make some waves on the mobile and server spaces.

Waiting for next Intel or however good R5 Ryzen will be. Also got 290X, so good time for a full upgrade I guess.

Can pretty much guarantee you that the R5 will be 1700/1800 tier gaming performance, but not as good at multicore stuff.

If you're expecting something special out of it, stop. It's exactly the same chip as the R7, just with two cores disabled. The big reason to wait for the R5 is if you're after the price.

>Just bought a LGA 1151 board, DDR4 memory and a Core I5 7600k
>Waited for AMD to release Ryzen for that sweet sweet kaby Lake price drop
Thanks AMD.

Hard to tell. The game dev pretty much laughed Ryzen off, because it's such a fucked up and complex architecture that most likely you'll never have developers utilize it fully as there's really no good reason to put as much additional work hours into a slight improvement of performance for a minority of PC-owners.

It's good that AMD tries something new, but I honestly can't see Ryzen becoming a thing.

Yeah AMD driver magic is weird and effective but it doesn't help their sales if they card start performing competitively after the cards aren't even available anymore.
The 7970 is probably faster than the 680 now but that didn't stop it from being massacred at the time.

Yeah, OC'd to 4.4. It just seems so pointless to upgrade from it since the difference in FPS compared to upgrading the GPU is tiny.

You don't really need to opt for a 1080ti. A GTX1050ti would be great for your current resolution. If you upgrade to 1080p a RX470 would be perfect. Or perhaps stick to your trusted HD7770 if it still gets the job done. In my opinion anything north of the 1060/480 is overkill for 1080p/60fps.

If anything I would wait for a second wave of AM4 motherboards, not just CPUs. Lowest R5 is supposed to be at 200 US Euros, and the R3 are all supposed to be quadcores without hyperthreading for i3 money.

Unless some magic occurs and everyone suddenly starts utilizing all the cores evenly, 1600 would be the best compromise for when we actually get there and the point where single-threaded performance will be just too shit to handle drawcalls via the still garbage AMD GPU driver parallerization even in modern APIs.

>but the gap diminishes/disappears at higher resolutions (1440p+)
are you retarded

The cell processor still hasn't reached full potential.

Scorpio seems to utilize Ryzen. Perhaps it will force devs to optimize for it.

I owned the 7950 until 5 months ago when I passed it off to a freind who has a 768p monitor.

He can run anything on close to highest settings on a 5 years old card.

Unfortunately that is actually something worth noting on as AMD's previous CPU tech showed lower performance even when the GPU should have been the limiting factor.
Ryzen's main selling point for gaming is "Now wont inexplicably bottleneck performance at all resolutions."

This. AMD is only trying to compete in the value market not performance.

depends on point of view, one could say nvidia is the one doing driver magic while amd takes years to optimize their drivers

>tfw no Ryzen R3 to put into my dying shoebox rig until Q3

I mean considering I'll be investing into two whole generation newer RAM and a 100€ motherboard, a little more won't kill me.

AMD not providing real competition. I think most people hoped Ryzen to be good just to force Intel to actually start real improvement instead of 5% increase in performance between generations.

The reason anyone use saying it's "bad for gaming" is because it doesn't come overclocked with to 4.5GHz out of the box like Intel's 7700k. You have to do it yourself, and so far no one has tried to overlook it then share benchmark results for some reason

>AMD not providing real competition.
AMD is still alive, yo you're objectively wrong on that. AMD would be dead, if it was incapable of providing actually competitive products, it's just that these competitive products are not suited for vidya, at least not yet.

>Scorpio seems to utilize Ryzen

Ryzen can't overclock for shit either.
highest i've seen it at is 4.1GHz

>base clock

Saving for a new system and pulling the trigger in Q4, no matter whats the best at that time.

Pretty sure I've been seing some tests with already 4 cores disabled vs. 7700k and it's not far behind. Letting them take their time to iron out some issues with OS, BIOS, Memory etc. And then I'll compare them again. No point on judging the stuff straight on release imo since its brand new tech and lots of other parts affecting the performance.

>fucked up and complex architecture
Do people actually believe this? It's THE POWER OF THE CELL all over again.

No, that's literally speed of its "turbo boost". If that's the highest you've seen it can only be because no of has tried to OC it yet then publish results. Maybe Ryzen OC using the front side bus and motherboards aren't ready yet.

A single game dev laughed it off? Wow, AMD sure got BTFO.

>what went wrong with CPU market?
Physics.

There is a physical limit of how fast we can process serial data. From a logical/processing as well as physical and engineering point of view, each instruction circuit implementation in a modern CPU is pretty close to be as "optimized" as it gets.

The only things that could increase the amount of data a CPU can process nowadays are more cache, more cores, bigger bus, etc, but unless the software is written to take advantage of those things, not gonna get any faster. There are some algorithms that can't even really be rewritten to take advantage of those things.

Pray for a major breakthrough in physics because we're hitting the limit.

GPUs are still growing because they process parallel data. As long as they keep a good balance of clock speed, transistor size, there's still a lot of progress to be done. Parallel processing units in general still can grow a lot. Just need the software to take the advantage.

4k is a meme.

That's not really how it works.

To utilize some stuff which is obvious and now widely-used on Intel you need to implement proprietary solutions.

>put in moar coars
>programmers don't write COMPUTER CODE to use said coars
>no computing progress

there's a physical limit to how good a single core can be. Intel hit it.

>cd's are a meme
>flash drives are a meme
...
>8k is a meme

To use any of the new pipelines from Ryzen the game developers will need to write whole additional proprietary systems into their engines. In terms of raw power, Ryzen isn't anything special honestly so it won't be able to break through without developers' support.

I sort of work in IT (not really game dev, but close) and it seems to be consensus on Ryzen. AMD has built an air plane and wants it to drive on highways. Theoretically, it can be faster than Intel's car, but in very different circumstances than most of established and standardized tools and drivers were made for.

>because no one has tried to OC it yet then publish results.
You really think no one in the world has tried overclocking it?
Everyone has and it instantly becomes a game of diminishing returns. getting it to 4.1GHz requires a voltage of over 1.5 volts.
Ryzen is running close to its max out of the box

Cool story, but 4k will remain a meme for the next decade, maybe more.

there's only 1 company making them.

Yeah but it's the only way to remove CPU bottlenecks as a possibility with cards this fast.
Some of the games in techpowerup's lineup that they use to make that average might be CPU limited even at 1440p with a 1080ti.

(you)
well meme'd my friend.
you can verify if you will it.
either buy a 4k TV and put it side to side with your older TV, overall you'll notice a slower refresh rate on the 4k one. it's heart shatering.
an harder and cheaper alternative is to go outside and check all the TV aligned in the local mall, curved tv n shits, unimpressive.
even a blind person would notice something fishy.

4k is like god, no one saw it, some believe in it.
(/you)

Yeah, the current revision just doesn't play nice with higher frequencies, someone plotted the voltages required for stability on each multiplier setting. I heard talk about the issue stemming from the manufacturing process.

they were until intel did a pricecut on skylake/kabylake