Official death of AMD thread

>real benchmarks released
>40% faster than Ryshit
>$100 cheaper
microcenter.com/product/451883/Core_i7-6700K_SkyLake_40_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

AMD is finished.

Other urls found in this thread:

wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-7-ghz-7350k-5-ghz/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

@No.591214XX (Me)

AMD literally pulls the same shit with the last meme. They release slow as shit cores that only work well for purely offline rendering and other simplistic shit. At the same time they cherry pick $1,000 Intel chips to go against that literally nobody here uses.

DELET

Hey Intel, I posted it again!

10 rupees have been deposited in your toilet.

>Implying there's a 40% difference between 85 and 89.

Learn some math and then kill yourself brainless piece of shit.

>3ghz chip vs 4.2 ghz chip
lol, there's also an obvious gpu bottleneck going on there.

The human eye can't see past 14 fps anyway

Nice, only the 10th time in the last 2 hours this got posted. Weird how the 7700 OC performs worse than the Stock on this completely legit bench.

You call people derogatories like that again and you Will be reported. Simple as that sweetie.

homie don't play that here

>real benchmarks released
1 game...

wew lad you got those amd fags good
>40% faster than Ryshit
someone is bad at math
>$100 cheaper
in store pickup ( literally only store doing the sale)

why are intel fags so desperate to defend their cpu?

we all know intel will release another cpu that will assblast amd but as it stands intel is getting their shit pushed in.

>inb4 "no real tests!"

>Ryzen Only 3 fps lower on average compared to 1.8 GHz higher clocked similarly priced Intlel CPU

The worst part is the people replying not noticing the AVG (the one that matters) it's the fucking same.

This
Since the overclock of the i7 does literally nothing to the average fps the bottleneck is probably the GPU.
Ryzen btfo's Intel on actual CPU heavy Workload (see Cinebench) and not Gayming.

>avg basically the same
>max has 40% difference
>single thread game
Oh boy, that one frame is going to make a difference.

>tests CPU performance
>uses max settings

Noggers tongue muy anus

4.2 / 4.5 vs 3.2 / 3.7
95w vs 65w tdp
unlocked 4 core vs locked 8 core
8mb cache vs 16mb

Doesn't that mean the Ryzen has less fluctuation in framerates?

this board is full of intel shills on damage control because of no valid arguments

>4 year old game
>28 fps on max settings
Way to go AMD...

Why would you lie on the Internet?

Exactly it was clearly GPU bound that's why there is next to know difference betwe-
>170
>132
oh fuck

Hey where can I buy that Cinebench game?

>oh hey let's compare 7700k and 1700
>shh don't include 6900k because its irrelevant

Egas

So it's all over.

>max 170 vs 132
>min 38 vs 28
>b-but the average is within 4 fps!

>1080p
now test a resolution people actually still use

>he doesnt counts the range that will be mostly be played
Kys

What OS was this benchmark run on? Obviously its going to be Windows, but what version?
Has Microsoft even released the patches to enable proper Ryzen support yet?

It would be more interesting to see Ryzen benchmarks of games run with the latest Linux kernel since we know the patches are already there.

Dumbass its 30

...

Are you blind? It says minimum. You make us other shills look bad

> overclocked 7700k has less average fps than the stock while somehow having higher minimum and maximum fps
>ryzen 1700 has almost the same average fps even though the maximum and minimum framerates are significantly lower

something is fucked with this benchmark. I'm calling bullshit. Also news sources on this image strongly suggest it's fake.

>1700 stock is 3.7 at max boost
>7700k is 4.5
>1700 will be better with a simple oc
wtf i love amd now

>1800x overclocked to 5.2 GHz on liquid fucking NITROGEN
>i7-7700K overclocks to 8 GHz on liquid nitrogen
wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-7-ghz-7350k-5-ghz/
:) good luck Rybeaned

sure let me just get out my liquid nitrogen when I'm rendering something retard

Exactly. 7700k gets to 5 GHz easily with watercooling

>humans cannot see lightning

can AMD actually beat sandy bridge this time?

They're greater than 95% of kaby lake IPC.

And start beating out the 6900K in multithreading.

>Comparing overclocking of a 4 core cpu with one with 8.
Compare intel overclocking of one of their 8 cores cpu an see how shitty is it.

I can get to 4.8 on air, Deepcool GAMMAX 400.

I don't keep there yet as I don't have a lot of breathing room on this 500W PSU (the one thing i kept from my old build).

yeah says wccftech and vidyagaymez.com

ill wait until we can get some real evaluations from real people

AMD always does this shit

Every fucking time

AMD = Another Major Disappointment

...

Not that guy but min frames are often the most important indicator of performance difference, the average fps is mostly coming from gpu bound scenarios where the cpu doesn't matter. Test on an MMO where the cpu is always bottlenecked at any given time and you'd see a lot more than 4 fps difference most likely.

Except it wasn't. RX480 got better binned chips later on and surpassed what had previously been high power usage and poor overclocks. Granted they should have been that good at launch but it still stands they match and beat a GTX1060 a few iterations (and drivers) later.

>comparing an 8 core to a 4 core
If you're gonna bench the 1700, compare it with the x99 processors.

That min frame could literally be just be an outlier, one frame that wasn't repeated throughout an entire test run. Come back once you have the 1% and 0.1% frametimes

wow I hate amd now!

hey guys, instead of being brand loyalist idiots, how about we enjoy a competitive product for once and the benefits that it brings (lower prices, better hardware) for once?

Is this software rendering or something? I don't get it.

How exactly is this competitive? Same price as Intel, worse performance.

It's meant to compete with the higher-end broadwell for half the price

>graph is for the i7 7700
>link is i7 6700k

lol wut?

Intel shills are getting desperate. Can't wait for 28th.

The max doesn't really tell us anything.

Maybe when the world is not loaded in yet (When you see blury texture everywhere) of course the max FPS will increase because the workload is off the GPU and on the CPU.

Average is the most important and 3-4fps difference (considering that the 1700 boost clock is 3.8Ghz (3.9Ghz with XFR) while the 7700K is 4.5Ghz.

That being said, I hope the minimum is just driver issue.

LOOK. THE AVERAGE OF A 3.8GHZ CPU IS 3 FPS LESS THAN A 4.5GHZ CPU

Its incredible seeing all the INTEL shills being this desperate

Shaddup kikes

>taking off the side panel to overclock

I like the idea of presets/stages but taking on and of the panel just to overclock is ridicolous.

I would be ok if it was a case feature

pff, does intel even have any cpu's that go up to 11?

Or disabling it in the bios and doing it by hand any ways.

>Turns up to 11
the mad man

So basically to overlock the Ryzen all you need to do is just turn the knob and dont care about voltage and shit?

Seems awesome, what could go wrong

It's a shitty RAM issue.

SenseMI regulates the voltage in milivolt steps, single digit temperature reporting, and 25hz clock adjustment.

On the fly.

I mean... I never once witnessed anybody who couldn't overclock their Intel i7 cpu to at least 4.5Ghz.

Considering that AMD was always better with overclocking (despite OC AMD CPU performance was still shit) 4.4Ghz seems like a reasonable frequencies (Its only 0.5Ghz Overclock anyway

i5 even

Then why are AMD fags so competitive about this? People with jobs that need a strong cpu for work related activities wouldnt be so pathetic to gloat about how faster it renders your shitty daughters birthday video

My wife's daughter isn't shitty take it back

>AMD poorfags are okay with drops, dips, skips and stutters all over the place

this

we'll see in the coming days/weeks if it's a problem but so far it's not looking good

after 20 years youd be used to it too

I can't believe faggots actually still defend intel

If you have even an ounce of sense, you should be welcoming the competition.

it's welcome and i'd love to buy an amd cpu if it suited my needs but it's not living up to the extreme hype from the AMD fanboy/shills. it's poolaris all over again

I'm pretty fucking sure that even broadwell won't be able to compete with kaby lake's single core performance. The 1700 and 1800 chips are literally aimed for the market broadwell is in

I like how Intelfags have no hesitation to throw their own HEDT line under the bus just to take a shot at AMD

I think it's more of a matter that most of the people here seem to be Sup Forums autists that only care about there gaymen performance.

HEDT is only relevant for certain people (mainly professionals who do video encoding and things like that) who need the extra cores. and it should be noted that 1800x is still $500 and you need a $250 motherboard to get the full overclock potential (~4.1 GHz or so).

It's not like the x99 boards are cheaper. There's also the fact that Broadwell-e can only overclock just as well

So.. what are the chances of Intel now dropping prices? Surely if those poo-in-loo chips are at least anywhere near Intel's high-end offering, they have to drop the prices right?

Sorry mate, but I wouldn't trade twice the threads and double the cache for some potentially 500-600mhz higher overclock.

>Comparing overclocking of a 4 core cpu with one with 8
Implying you can compare AMD coars to Intel cores.
I guess ya'll will never learn.

1Ghz, every kabylake can OC to 5.3ghz without issue

imo they don't need to lower them at all because both 6900k and 1800x are fairly niche. 6900k could keep a high price tag just for the status of it like nvidia titan or apple products. but they could lower the prices of cpus like 7700k a bit if they wanted to be really competitive and deny sales from AMD because 7700k beats out 1700 in a lot of applications such as games. 1700 is only strong in highly multi-threaded applications like video encoding or cpu rendering.

literally a lie

>1700 is only strong in highly multi-threaded applications like video encoding or cpu rendering
you mean like broadwell-e?

>1 out of 30
>delided
>lapped
>with custom loop
>also 1.5vcore


Lmao

That's what I'm talking about. I doubt the 500 bucks chips will have a big impact on the market. AMD must primarily compete with the X700 / X600 chips and I really hope that they do.

Other than the fact that modern games actually do use more than 4 cores.

with a good enough motherboard pretty much all of them can do 5.0 GHz tho

The 6-core and lower chips haven't released yet. Those ones seem like a much closer competition to intel's mainstream lineup.

WRONG!!!

o rly

it's literally impossible to fully utilize moar cores for a given task beyond a certain point. the best you can hope for is to add more stuff in parallel like more character and more explosions etc.

Yea, because motherboard can overcome the downsides of Intel's construction of their high end CPUs.

>good motherboard
more like pricey motherboard.
>Silicon lottery's stats only report 28% reachng 5.1 ghz at 1.408 vcore
>most forum posters can only do it delidded and attached to water cooling

lol wut

Why don't you post the computerbase one, it has more games tested :)

the motherboard isn't a huge deal but if you can't get a 7700k to 5 GHz it's probably because you got a budget motherboard. with ryzen the motherboard is even more important
>We just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard, the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM’s were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I’d say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two.

Germans aren't reliable reviewers, they're known AMD shills