Ryzen BTFO

I hurt my self today...

Is it too much to ask for benchmarks all at the same speed?

Pajeets are sliding this...

>Intel's newest arch 3% faster in games with 20% higher clocks

How can Intel ever recover? A company that literally had a 1.7 billion market cap a year ago demolished them.

But Pajeet-kun these are the stock speeds. I know that it upsets you watching a $500+ Ryzen chip getting BTFO by a 2 year old $300 Intel chip, honestly what did you expect from AMD?

Cool, can we test these two next? They're just a slightly higher _stock_ speed.

That's pretty much where I expected Zen to lie.

Infact, that's pretty damn good. per core performance similar to intels' top end?

That's more than I predicted.

Let's just compare prices.

1700x = $389

i5-6600k = $220

BTFO

But Pajeet, can't you read? Those are the 8c higher end Ryzen chips.

So is the one in the OP :P

About 5 months ago IIRC.

I bet it kicks ass analyizing/playing chess!

Lololol BTFO ? Reality must be difficult for you.

>a Ryzen engineering sample running at 3.15 GHz isn't faster than an overclocked Intel running at 4 GHz
>implying this is representative of anything except your butthurt
Intlel shills confirmed for desperate

>6700k
>4.0
>overclocked
Yea this tells me you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

This leak must be real, since it shows AMD slightly behind Intel. All the other dozens that btfo Intel are obviously fake

>engineering sample
>3.15GHz with no boost
Silly little kike.

Oh right, I forgot the 'k' ones are clocked that high by default. Sorry, user.
Still doesn't change the fact that it's a very early sample and there's almost 1 GHz difference in clocks.

If anything this is the most detailed and reputable leak of Zen even to this day.
CannardPC is way more legit than random niggers who jacked a sample from somewhere and ran cinnebench with god knows what setup, even if it's a few month older leak.

Not like you could even afford a new build, Pajeet.

the sad thing is that while OP is trolling, there are people on this board who will look at this, not understand that most of these games barely use three cores and only care about how fast those three cores are, making the other five cores irrelevant.

It's also interesting that they're so willing to ignore how close the Ryzen sample is to the 6900k while being clocked lower.

Why do you niggers care so much about CPUs and video cards anyway?

An ES chip from months ago clocked significantly slower is not reputable in any way, user.

You're ignoring the suite and source because they got a A1 stepping? That's more than enough to calculate its IPC, further steppings would not increase that.
And since we already know stock clocks and IPC we already know its performance, it's elementary math.

You have nothing, shill.

what, yes it is.

The benchmarks Canard PC released are in line with everything else we've seen, including that from AMD. The difference is that Canard PC released the most comprehensive benchmarks we've seen to date, although they only had an engineering sample, which only means that the performance will actually be slightly higher than what they showed, and the performance they're showing is GOOD.

>AMD Chip at 3.4Ghz
>6700K at 4.2Ghz
>3.4/4.2 = .81
>97.3/118.2 = .82
Oh cool, so AMD has the same performance per clock as Intel now.

>Oh cool, so AMD has the same performance per clock as Intel now.
Factually wrong

>Engineering sample with 3.15 GHz base and 3.40 boost clocks when the final retail hardware will have a base clock of either 3.4 or 3.6 GHz and boost clock of 3.8 or 4.0 GHz
>Still doing well against the Intel hardware it'll be going up against
Well color me impressed. Looks like Intel is going to need to start slashing those prices or start spending billions again on bribing OEMs not to sell machines with AMD chips.

So they're good at everything that 90% of consumer base isn't interested in and suck at everything that your average normie needs.

I knew it didn't make sense for them to be so fucking cheap. It's not like AMD sells their GPUs 200% cheaper when being competitive.

>lol K10 is gonna destroy intel
>K10 BTFO
>K-K-K-K10 was just a mistake, F-F-F-Fusion will BTFO intel for sure!
>Fusion BTFO
>Dozer will bring AMD back to greatness really this time!
>Dozer BTFO
>Zen will destroy Intel once and for all we really mean it this time!
>Zen eternally BTFO

Is there any benchmarks on the lower end chips?

>Intelfags

I literally proved it through math. You literally can't argue with those calculations.
81% of the clock speed translates to 82% of the performance.

We all knew it would be shit for games when we saw the physics benchmarks, but people kept ignoring it. If it proves good for workstation use upon release I'll probably still get one.

AMD doesn't scale that much since they have much worse IPC 1GHz Intel = 1.5GHz amd

see

fuck you nerds get baited easily

Not this guy but it still doesn't matter unless you're implying that AMD will magically gain 1-1.5GHZ through oc to compete with Kabylike.

Better.

jewboy

Why do people on Sup Forums care so much about movies and shows?

they don't

and yet, amdfags continue to believe the hype instead of adopting a more reasonable wait and see approach. personally I'm a performance hound and couldn't give two shits about brand name.

Wow, it's almost like they don't have significantly higher clocked SKUs than a 5 month old engineering sample.
Overclock? Won't even need to, but will do lovely for H265

Yes they do...

They've already pushed base clocks up to the boost of the ES chip.
top of the line 8c boosts to 4Ghz (and above with XFR)
How many people do you know will actually overclock? How many won't overclock but will still end up with performance gains through XFR anyways?

You can cry all you want but the reckoning is coming.

DELET THIS

Source?

have you been there? they care about memes only

>Dumb, uninformed normalfaggot.

Nothing to see here.

Really now tho, what did you expect? AMD magically being able to hold a candle against Intel? It's time to just accept the monopoly.

But dude, kabylake absolutely DECIMATES ryzen xD
5% better single core performance is more important than having 8 cores and 16 threads for the same price as an Intel 4 core CPU xD dude, fuck amd hahahah

Is it better in gaymes?, if not, it's a flop ahaha

Even if the i7 6900k was $300 and not $1100, everyone would be getting a 4 core i7 for the same price instead because of the ebin artificial single core performance increase achieved by factory bumping the multiplier which is something you can do yourself in less than 2 minutes ahaha, but I don't want to do that nerd shit xD Fuck that

AMD RYZEN DOA
LOOK AT THESE BENCHMARKS OF DIFFERENT CLOCK SPEEDS
AHAHA AMD BTFO hahehe xD

I used to go there all the time.

It actually looks very decent, especially if you consider that all of those games are 2+ years old and use previous gen graphics API without great multi threading.

That's not the $500 chip's stock speed.

>used to

i dont recommend a return visit

It's clocked significantly lower and they're releasing chips that turbo(xfr?) over 4.0, should also have no problem overclocking another 400MHz, couple that with the massive amount of threads and L3 cache that should scoop up some clockspeed disadvantage from KabyLake overclocks, you got yourself both a gaming and workstation machine.
The only ones who'll have a trouble with this are people who REALLY,REALLY need 40+ PCIe lanes unless motherboards come with a PLX chip.

Pajeets in full dmg ctrl.

hahaha dude ikr
Fuck those AMD pajeets xD

only retards buy 8 core 16 thread CPUs ahahaha
if the 6900k was $300, I would still get a wimpy 4 core CPU instead because of a 2x higher multiplier out of the box hahaha xD
Also, XFR is fake dude. It totally won't oc itself to 4+GHz and btfo based Intel xD fuck them xD

AMDPOOS ON SUICIDE WATCH SUICIDE WATCH CALL THE AMBULANCE !!!!!

>no argument
Go post the 5 month old engineering sample benchmarks on Sup Forums, shill. Can't wait for official benchmarks, kike shill.

I cant wait to see the day Jewtel got BTFO

>B-but it's not released yet!
>B-but they will fix it!

LMAOing at your life.

Ryzen had no boost enabled so it was 3.1 Ghz so pretty good.

...

Nice fake
THere's no way AMDshit can OC to 4.0 with how shitty GloFo, Intel is literally 10 years ahead of them

This is nothing new, those are the very first benchmarks released, you forgot the other one here.

Intel shills are very desperate

>But muh fake benchmarks...

Oh (you).

They are using Samsung's fab process.

They don't have to OC to 4.0, they already have a stock SKU that runs at 4.0.

Wow, imagine that, a 4.0 8 core uses less power than a 3.4 Intel 8 core, I love how shitty GloFo is!
Imagine what happens when they stop being shitty.

shills on overdrive, study psych moar

by playing gay memes and believing obviously fake benchmarks which have no other benches which corroborate the said bench,

@ 3.15ghz
Final silicon is 3.6ghz base and 4ghz boost + XFR

You forgot your trained responses, Abdulah.

>obviously fake benchmarks
or outdated compared to newer more available information.

This is some bretty subtle pro-AMD shilling for Sup Forums.

>Imagine what happens when they stop being shitty.
Dude they got IBM's foundry business, including engineers.

that's also the 1700x

Good lord Intel is FUCKED.

BOOST clock the same as the base clock, in a bunch of single threaded games, and it's only 3% slower.

Intel is FUCKED!

Bring on the next gen API games!

nah actually the shills don't have anything to shill for so they're aiming for anything at this point fishing for weakness

also bad reverse psychology, since it's not

Not outdated at all, these test a variety of tests from single thread mixed workloads to multi-core instead of pure synthetics like cinnebench and 3Dmark that usually poke at certain parts of the CPU without all too much branching without stopping instead of real workloads that jump all over the CPUs hardware.

Its ogre AMD finished.

samefag much, it's the same writing

FINEWINE TECHNOLOGY® STARTS AT THE VERY BEGINNING!

Don't be retarded.

Don't use outdated benches

And say my name

Does that sound like the name of someone who doesn't say retarded things?

Everyone is anonymouse to me, besides filtered
tripshits.
You can use those outdated benches because they show more than any new benches, you got your IPC, you know the clockspeed of the chips launching in less than 2 weeks.
Since you know IPC and clockspeed you also know performance, since performance is clockspeed*IPC

Actually these are extremely outdated. These early ES's had a bug that broke branch prediction when SMT was enabled. The boost clocks are lower than the base clocks on the 1700x let alone the 1800x.

the intel one costs $230 actually

>Actually these are extremely outdated. These early ES's had a bug that broke branch prediction when SMT was enabled.
I'm gonna need source on this because this just makes AMD's fantastic performance look even better.

It says 3.4 on the image

There's a sale going on bringing its price down to $200.

fuck I might get one for my HTPC since Ryzen doesn't have a iGPU

>You can use those outdated benches because they show more than any new benches, you got your IPC, you know the clockspeed
>3.15/3.4
See what I mean?

Extrapolating information from this graph is a bad idea seeing as how it already doesn't have the proper clocks and is the only source of its nature and doesn't specify any thing besides processor, a collective of games, and performance percentage with a 6600 as the base.

There's a lot missing from this graph.

yeah these tests are the very first leaked by canardpc

The reason I believe this benchmark is because the other non-gaming benchmark on the site matches the current leaked ryzen benchmarks

Raven Ridge will have a Vega based IGP.

So I can either get a $200 cpu now or something that costs more later.
I'll go with the 6600

>you know the clockspeed of chips launching in less than 2 weeks
Don't be stupid, the graph could have been run at 2.0GHz for Ryzen and it would still have more information than any newer released one, why? Because all you need to calculate performance is clockspeed(here )and IPC ( )

This isn't up for discussion, pure clock numbers aren't important here.