Haha, oh wow

haha, oh wow

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YWEHs_R5t9s
youtube.com/watch?v=wsh_R-cD0j4&t
youtube.com/watch?v=X_TsL660jME&t
pcworld.com/article/3172555/computers/amd-ryzen-benchmark-preview-ryzen-7-outperforms-intels-best.html
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S59084088
computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Heavy worksloads are good though.

Still, AMDs strategy seems to be
>PUT IN MOAR COARS

Source?

original was deleted, but someone uploaded it again:

youtube.com/watch?v=YWEHs_R5t9s

>video game
You must be over the age of 18 to post here.

>I personally don't play video games so Sup Forums should ignore the significance of video game benchmarks

so the ryzen has a steadier framerate than the i7 7700k? Also whats the point of comparing an overclocked card to a stock one? That just seems retarded

Looks like that ryzen cpu hits twice the fps I ever need.

>so the ryzen has a steadier framerate than the i7 7700k
look again.

So a slower AMD CPU is almost as good as an intel one with MUH GHz?

AMD @ 3.4 GHz beating
Intel @ 5 Ghz is rather impressive.

>28fps
>hits twice the fps I ever need

You don't get it. Less difference between min and max = steady

Dude, the 7700K has significant higher min, avg and much higher max fps.

You can put a cap on max. fps, but you can't do the same for min fps. Pretty simple actually.

Is going with AMD profitable if I'm planning on mining A LOT of cryptocurrency?

>mining
>on any CPU

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FALL INTO THE POO AGAIN

AHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAH

I personally like to enjoy each frame so I have no need for it to be that fast.

>yet another source showing Zen competing with Skylake/Kaby Lake in per clock single core performance

Its no wonder why so many intel shills are shitposting constantly. Kikes have to try and spread disinfo to protect their market share.
Can't wait til Trump makes it illegal.

DinoPC are a small but decent UK System Builder, they're going to get in a lot of shit for that leak..

Now put in the 6900K for example.
But wait, that wouldn't fit yourea're narrative, right? :^)

Minimum frames mean fuckall, especially when both, Ryzen and the 7700K are below 40 fucking frames.
It could be a single frame where something was going on in the background, while all others were around the average.

Post the 0.1% and 1% frametimes, then we can start shitting on the inferior product.

>small but decent
>stupid enough to click wrong switch in youtube control panel

The average gamer is around 30 kid

Pretty sure this bs, the cunts have a warehouse full of Intel CPUs and we're honestly supposed to just take their word that these numbers are real? Whatever.

Pretty sure that guy meant physically and mentally.

WTF I HATE AMD NOW

youtube.com/watch?v=wsh_R-cD0j4&t
youtube.com/watch?v=X_TsL660jME&t

something is rotten in britbong kingdom

well when you put a 1700 nonx against a highly cloced 7700k says a lot about them...

i wonder what will happen when the 1700x goes against 7700k on games lol

give me source

img src: pcworld.com/article/3172555/computers/amd-ryzen-benchmark-preview-ryzen-7-outperforms-intels-best.html

And GTA is actually one of the few titles that scale pretty well as multithreaded support goes.

No, its not. GTAV is a really shitty game that has really poor performance.

Look at the ghz. AMD is about even on single-core performance when you adjust for that (keep in mind 1700X and 1800X are clocked higher than the 1700).

WAT? AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

gtav stutters even if you use low settings on a quad titan xp setup

You do know average is what matters right? And also that Ryzen is the 3rd on their top tier scale. Is not even a fair comparison, but still slays.

its the 4th actually its a 3.0ghz without xfr cpu

the 1700x is a 3.4 ghz with xfr.. says a lot

OP tried this before few times
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S59084088

the source for the graph is a youtube video
guy does not show die, cpuz, not even the games
just graphs

likely the guy in the video is OP, or OP is intel fanboy

all in all, so use sage

>i7
Post i5 or get the fuck out.
i5 is for gayming since multi-threading from i7 is worthless for it while the performance is the same.
Xeon is for pro users since i7 is shit in energy efficiency and function compared to Xeon.

People who buy i7 are certified illiterate retarded idiots.

>currently have Celeron G1840, 50w 2 cores 2 threads at 2.7 GHz
>pre-ordered the 1700, 65w 8 cores 16 threads at 3.7 GHz boost
Considering at 30% load, my CPU usually sits at 36 ~ 38°C with the shitty intel cooler, and reach 48°C at full load at worst, i can't wait to overclock the fuck out of the 1700. I've been modifying heavily the airflow in my case to get the best temperatures. My body can't wait

also one game to judge everything about CPU
RYZEN words are not visible, boards are around on several channels but no CPU

Intel shills GTFO, daily threads without any substance, nobody pointed out the obvious.

4core i7 Kaby Lake benched when the 6900K is the equivalent 8 core contender at 3.2 / 3.7 with 20MB cache.

7700K
4.2 / 4.5 turbo
91W tdp
$350.00

1700 (non-X)
3.0 / 3.7 turbo
65W tdp (!!!)
$319.00

wtf are you on about? 7700k is suppose to go after the 1700x not the non x thats why the video is pretty stupid trying to clickbait

1700x hits two birds in one stone vs 7700K for gaming and single thread performance and 6900K for workloads

Comparing the single thread performance of a 4 core CPU with a locked 8 core is def clickbait

No, he was quoting a rule on Sup Forums.

yeah thats why amd compared them price wise not core or ghz wise..

1700x is literally 20 buck(well 80 now since intel made a pretty big cut) more

Icelake will have 8 cores 16 threads for mainstream LGA 15xx platform, Coffee Lake already is 6 cores 12 threads on LGA 1511 and AYYMD will not have MOAR CORES meme to help with Cinebench and other multithreaded benchmarks while still having worse single thread performance

>significant
3 FPS is a game changer

>i7 7700k - 89fps
>r7 1700 - 85 fps
wow
so much difference

why is 7700k 5Ghz has ONE FPS less than 7700k stock?
Outrageous!

Isn't the 1700 at stock something like 3.2Ghz though? That's pretty impressive. Think it's finally time to upgrade from my 4690k and dump jewtel

base is 3.0
would be hilarious if it didn't use turbo

TWENTY FIVE PERCENT WORSE SINGLE-CORE.
Dead on arrival for 90% of games.
Even the rest 10% need SOME serial performance.

games!!!

Name one Desktop application that doesn't need serial performance. Even if your Photoshop needs to do some rendering at some point, for 98% of the time it will be on serial needs while you actually fucking use it. So that meme is also dead on arrival kiddo.

>serial perf

>2017

choose one

Yes, 20fps is a game changer when it comes to min fps. No one will buy ryzen if it's a stuttery mess like bulldozer or k10

>3fps difference in average
>800 Mhz difference in clock

are you fucking serious? ps is one of the best multithreaded tools out there LOL

there isnt any app out there that is game/video editing/encoding/photoshoping even office nowdays is multithreaded

Dood it's probably an early driver issue. Look at the average. Even though it has lower max fps the average differs only for three fps.

internal contradiction, the post

>6800+K competitors
>6900K single core < 7700K
>Can't make the logical connection between 1800X/1700X being at it greater than 6900K performance and losing to 7700K in performance
>Muh Intel

You are literally fucking stupid. Every single operation you do on those interactive applications must adhere to the rules of a global loop which is filled with a conglomerate of slow and inefficient as fuck mutex locks in order to keep the whole thing apart and not fall under the load of segfaults every 10 milliseconds. There is practically 0 way to make an interactive application, be it Photoshop or Game, or Facebook machine to not require a big bulk of serial performance whatever meme you try to throw at us kiddo.
Learn to code.

€ 365 ryzen vs € 360 kaby lake

kaby lake kicks ass in everything + has integrated GPU + overclocks like crazy + reliable + won't melt + doesn't give errors

Sup Forums still thinking AMD will beat Intel
please wake the fuck up AMD fanboys
Intel has the best CPUs in the world period.

How so?

300 ryzen vs 360 kaby lake

kaby lake already clocked to its maximum(almost) having only 300-400mhz of room to play with
having a tdp of 95w and fewer cores..

meanwhile a 1700 have 8 cores is running on 3.0ghz having a tdp of 65w and still loosing by less than 10%

>cpu
>drivers
Lmao

>Kicks ass in everything
>Nothing is actually everything

>overclocking the 7700k increases its min and max fps but decreases its average fps

What did they mean by this?

>has twice as many cores
>unprecedented amount of threads for a consumer processor
>still 10% worse than a quad core Intel
No wonder AMD shills are going all out...

It's an 8 core 16t cpu, that's not a gaming cpu.

And they benchmarked it at 3.4 ghz vs 4.5 gz 7700k? lol

>6900k has so many core
>costs over 1k
>still 15% worse than a quad core
Makes you think.

has twice the cores
has 30 less watts than a highly clocked crappy lake
its clocker 1.8ghz lower than a 7700k
has 10% worse perf on a video that we dont know shit about

meanwhile

a 1700x has twice the cores
is clocked 1.4ghz lower than a 7700k
it has a tdp of 95w

and manages to stay in front..

really makes you wonder

Yeah, that's one application with a main event loop and thread safety. This works quite ok now and if course has limits. There's this new meme called multi tasking and people seem to use it.
I for one would like to play old chinsy games while compiling latest versions of my software for all my machines with custom code for each.

If it's not for you, fine, we don't have to listen to each other's advice.

>Average frames almost identical
>Ryzen is clocked 800Mhz lower

Sounds like the IPC is pretty good desu fa.m

What doesnt really makes sense to me is how he got such low FPS in 1080p. What shitty condition he got to a 3.0Ghz clocked CPU get right behind a 4.2ghz CPU.

actually using ebay prices it's 300 dollars kaby lake vs $ 400 ryzen

for games, you want powerful singlecores
that's why a 7700K will always have better framerates than a xeon with 10 cores

now ryzen isn't either xeon or i7 it's garbage in the middle with useless purpose

-> Intel still best CPUs for gaming desktops
-> Intel still best CPUs for laptops
-> Intel still best CPUs for ARM portables
-> Intel still best at CPUs for servers

AMD is useless shit
I can't believe your brains can't process this

Higher cost for lower FPS?
Gamers don't care if TPU is 65W for AMD and 95W for intel, you just want the best FPS you can get for the buck...
now stop being a fanboy and wake up!

but why? its 2017 and locking each task on a thread instead of braking it down to be processed by all threads is apparently the best idea ever

Nope, he scales better in clock than core count. So, the higher the clock, the better. It is probably one of the few games that is CPU bound today.

>for games, you want powerful singlecores
wat?
wat?
WAT?
WATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?
WATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?

JESUS

see

>AMD uses less power than Intel
>all of a sudden power consumption matters
Use what you can Shill, but you still reek of desperation.

>for games, you want powerful singlecores

Do you even know what you're talking about?
i7-6950X 3.0 base has 10 cores 20 threads and costs $ 2000
i7-7700K 4.2 base has 4 cores 8 threads and costs $ 300

Guess which of these has the best FPS? THe 300 dollar 7700k That's because for gaming single processing power is more important than the number of CPUs
Not a single xenon in the world can beat a 7700K in gaming.

Please go inform yourself instead of being a die hard ignorant AMD fan

posting facts about 2 models suddenly became shillings

>and costs $ 300
come on, it doesn't anywhere where people still buy them.

you must be blind
computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/

that's one big exception you went to get to prove your point but you're still wrong
most recent games are more single core targeted than the opposite
otherwise people would get xenon for gaming

>because for gaming single processing power is more important than the number of CPUs
It depends ENTIRELY on the game engine. Newer games are more likely to take advantage of multi-threading.

>otherwise people would get xenon for gaming
son, I don't think you have a grasp on reality.

you do not have to spend $1 200 to get those kind of benefits anymore, nobody considered 6900k as an option - ever.
Now it is an option.
And brave people actually have used xeons for gaming, works better than modern quad-core they say.

>literally posting the ONLY cherry picked benchmark

I hope you die in some horrible way you piece of shit human garbage.

Ryzen is welcome at the 8-core top end market but it will in NO way be relevant to the average consumer or gamers.

>number of CPUs
that's 1 for both

oh yeah 90% of the ports we see they develop the games strictly on 8 cores and then they say

"what can we do to optimise the game more on pcs"

"i know lets make the game to hammer only the first thread"
"lets throw everything on the first thread like minecraft does"

>xenon
of course a noble gas would never ever beat a silicon based solid material.

newer and sophisticated game engines will always be ruled by whichever sponsor has more money to make those engines focus on their CPUs and that is Intel.
Believing AMD will ever win this war or that Intel is rapping people's money with old tech because they have no competitors is plain ignorance. It's like those who think every year will be linux year and windows will die. Heh, open your horizons, the world doesn't work that way. Big fish will always eat the small fish, only in your anime worlds the contrary happens, not in the real world.

would be amusing if in couple decades photonic CPUs would sue xenon for light source.

>gaming single processing power is more important than the number of CPUs
Stop talking bulshit

That is why only open source benchmarks are actually interesting, where you can verify everything from the compiler to the kernel.

>Ryzen is welcome at the 8-core top end market but it will in NO way be relevant to the average consumer or gamers.

Average consumers and gamers typically aren't building or buying i7 systems either. The higher clocking 6c/12t and 4c/8t Ryzen SKUs with XFR are going to absolutely rape i3/i5 offerings in price/performance. This is only going to get worse for intel.

>be ruled by whichever sponsor has more money
I already see how intel subsidies 300-500m for publisher.

Sorry mate, but the 8 core is just the tip of the dick AMD will shove in Intel's ass. Nice benchmarks showing lower core but higher core count having the same performance than a 4 core over 4.2Ghz does. You just proved how wrong you are.