>>59098158

>good single core performance
>but only has 2 cores
>overclocks like shit
>already at pretty much maximum clocks on stock settings
xd?

Other urls found in this thread:

wccftech.com/amd-confirms-ryzen-cpus-unlocked-overclocking/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Literally

>my 4690k all score higher than these
wow! thank you based intel!

Except it will be shit for even mundane stuff because only 2 cores.

Ryzen just got BTFO'd OMG

Soooo mundane for Chrome and Office. Be fanboy but don't be stupid.

Most games these days are optimized for 4 or 8 cores already, because they're console ports. Even if the first core is the one with the heaviest load, not having 4 or 8 will affect performance severely. It's not 2006 anymore, despite what you inteltards like to believe, 2 cores isn't enough for anything, and having 4 threads in those 2 cores is still not enough either. It's a shitty bait CPU for poor retards.

2 Fucking cores.

LOL and DOTA2 players are ecstatic.

4 threads dummo.

even consoles have 8 logical CPUs now

there is no excuse

not most games, like 12 titles.

memes aside. im actually buying this one.

Another Massive Disappointment and their Q2 bullshit can suck my dick.

>not most games, like 12 titles.

how is 2010 treating you

Nobody is saying this CPU is on the same level as a +4C. This CPU is amazing because ir offers a great value for its price. It also happens to perform nice at lower resolutions and fps (1080p@60fps). The enthusiast gaming market shouldn't be looking at this anyways. This CPU isn't for them. This is for entry level gaming (more than 40% users, you can look at that on Steam statistics) and general purpose computing.

These kids actually believe everything is designed for gaming. Jesus christ.

ahahahaha this is just getting ridiculous. Once r5 and r3 hits the market there will be nothing left from intel.

But you are lying.

You see dumb fuck, multithreading is achieve in 2 parts, one at software level, optimizing your software by design and at a compiling level, second on a hardware level, scheduling predicting and prefetching etc.

So even if you have ancient software like quake 2 (pic related), at a hardware level it runs on 2 threads even if it was made back in 1997.

Google the term cpu scaling "insert name of the game here"
Then get fucked.

R3 will be $129

Pentiums go for like $75

More like AMD will have to release some nice APU to win this market.

So intelfags are now poorfags?

interdesting...

>So intelfags are now poorfags?
On demand.
Intelfags aren't above belting themselves to make a shot at AMD

Dota 2 uses 8 threads

Still not worth buying over Ryzen R3 when it finally launches

not even R3, the Pentium is more like mid-lowend APU tier. did we get any word of the APU's cpu cores are unlocked?

>Except it will be shit for even mundane stuff because only 2 cores.
I guarantee that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between this processor and an 8-core for day-to-day usage. And in most games it'll perform fairly well, too.
>being a literal sperg
>trying this hard to rationalize your retarded bullshit
This is Sup Forums. We care about tech. Take your fanboy bullshit to lereddit.

so... with the Pentiums and Ryzen chips, the i3 is a dead brand now yes?

>Still not worth buying over Ryzen R3 when it finally launches
Wrong. 2/4 vs 4/8 is no contest.

>so... with the Pentiums and Ryzen chips, the i3 is a dead brand now yes?
Yes, it's completely worthless unless they lower the price to ~$60. There's no reason to buy such a chip now.

AMD's 7th gen APU stuff is just using their current gen cores, until we get Ryzen APUs, that can't really compete with the G4560 unless they come at like 4.5ghz base clock

That table is so pretty, yet so simple.

Totally. The only way I see this changing is with Core i3 being actual 4 cores. i5 with 6C and i7 with 8C. It's the only way they don't get brutally buttraped by Ryzen.

the 1700 is so fucking shit
>oh look we made a 8 core cpu that you can't oc because of the low tdp so it will run slower than intel 7600k
Worst part is people will fall for it and buy that instead of the 1700x

But the 1700 has an unlocked multiplier fellow associated kin...

wccftech.com/amd-confirms-ryzen-cpus-unlocked-overclocking/

Only real downside is there is less room for OC'ing but it should still be able to hit 4.2 GHz most of the time just fine.

it barely hit 4Ghz without blowing out the VRMs on a high end motherboard

Doesn't seem very highend when 150W load on the VRMs can blow them out, considering the Intel 8 cores and even the Piledriver 8 core can sip north of 200W

considering the 1800x does 4.0 boost stock with 4.1 XFR, makes me wonder if you can set how the CPU stepping works for loads of smaller core counts. if we can get 4.0 on 8 cores, then what about 6, 4, 2, or 1 core? can we vary the speed?

likely as it is a lower-binned chip it was drawing way more than 150W.

I would guess at 4Ghz all cores these chips draw northwards of 175W.

And before you say anything about how the 1800X has a 4Ghz boost, that's single core only.

if it is so common, post the screen caps or video of a well threaded game using 4 or 8 cores on PC...

Yeah the R3s are an i3 killer, not a Pentium killer

Kinda funny
>4c4t R3 1200, unlocked
>2c4t i3 7350K, unlocked
>R3 is cheaper by like $50

Even if it was 180W that's still low, overclocked Broadwell-E's use more than that, those 5.0GHz Bulldozers even higher, those VRMs weren't popping unless you did something stupid like put that particular bulldozer on a lowend board with 4 VRM phases.

Question is, why is the VRM shitting itself over such a small load?

1800X was OC'd to 5.2 stable on all 8 cores, but they had to use helium

That's about what a Haswell E gets on nitrogen so it's not bad at all, you could easily get 4.2-4.6 all core boost on an 1800X with a Noctua or AIO

...

and they are a shining example of gaming performance arent they

Yeah, it's better if games never use more than 2 cores, we don't need that.

kek

>Consoles have 8 cores
>Can't even run games at 1080P, must run at 720P or 900P sub 30FPS

AYYMDPOORFAGS BTFO
B
T
F
O

For the hardware, absolutely.

That's what salty intelcucks who bought 4 cores in 2017/2016 without any foresight are hoping for.
Can't make.

>8 atom cores and a 1050ti provide better graphics than 4770k and 980 while costing 5 times less

Really makes you think

they actually are. that AAA games run so well on such shitty hardware is quite a feat. equivalent APUs on PCs do not get the same performance.

I'm not saying they're worth buying but still.

>it barely hit 4Ghz without blowing out the VRMs on a high end motherboard
source?

The only games that have even managed to use up 6 cores simultaneously are some RTS games that you will never even play. And even then it was with some slow clock speeds ~3.3-3.5ghz

im sure theyre bottlenecked by their shitty gpus, the multicores are probably for all the networking shit that goes on in the background

most rendering engines run on a single thread anyway, as multithreading it can lead to choppy frames

>Rendering
>Physics
>More Physics
>AI and Pathing
There's four cores of work

yes good goy buy those extra cores

So 4 faster cores aren't actually faster in games? Got it.
At least this won't make any other workload shit the bed.

>Obviously visible GPU bottleneck

amdkeks will defend this

>the multicores are probably for all the networking shit that goes on in the background
this is the reality of modern gaming

buying a CPU with MOAR COARS isn't done on the presumption that engines will make full utilization of them all the time

leaving your OS to use them for other shit is a massive advantage that most people seem to ignore. consider the 1700 vs 7700K DotA 2 streaming showcase for example

most of which can be done on 2-4 threads since everything else is usually waiting on rendering

This test was performed on an i7, user

Pentiums are traps. Don't waste your fucking time.

They are shit at everything.

>They are shit at everything.
Not at facebook and email

a game engine should never wait on rendering. basic delta timing is one of the first concepts you learn.

Then your AI is too simple ans physics too lame. It's 2017, if you're programming a game to run on 2 cores you're either optimizing poorly or not taking advantage of modern hardware

Also, offloading things like your music player and browser and whatever else you have in the background onto their own cores should speed up all software

ARM is better at that shit then Pentium.

this. it's 2017. most enthusiasts have multiple monitors doing various things.

amd usually focuses on multithreading over single core performance though

They're nice desu

I have G4600

all the cool shit people like in modern gaming is hardware accelerated, meaning it runs on the GPU instead of the CPU. This includes physics simulation as well just about any graphical effect you can think of.

>Also, offloading things like your music player and browser and whatever else you have in the background onto their own cores should speed up all software
this is true but those things take up such a tiny bit of resources it doesn't really matter.

Without x86 compatibility though. Pentiums have a niche, entry level desktop. Poorfag enthusiast. If a student asked me to build them a gaming rig on a potato budget I'd look towards a G4560 and a RX460. That would run DOTA, Overwatch and CSGO like a champ.

Streaming can use up a lot of CPU time, and that obviously is alongside gaming. There's use cases for 16 threads. But honestly 8 is enough today, 12 is a luxury with a bit of futurproofing.

sm᠎h tb᠎h f᠎am

No, it would be better to hunt for a used older gen i5, Pentiums are shit, period.

>19x10
Of course with resolutions like that!