Well, what are your thoughts? Is this the end for Intel or AMD?

Well, what are your thoughts? Is this the end for Intel or AMD?

Other urls found in this thread:

pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-hits-52-ghz-breaks-benchmarking-record/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Neither, they both have their niche. People will buy one or the other depending on their own preference.

You have to remember, they've been at this whole little turf battle for years now and they're both still in it.

fpbp

>1700
>not the 1700x
>base clock only 3ghz
>competing with the 4.2ghz base clock Kaby Lake i7
>65w AMD chip with 8c/16
>91w intel chp with 4c/8t

AMD is a clear winner here. Reviewers are going to have to struggle to paint Ryzen in a bad light.

gta v is the only gaym where the difference is really appreciable and most people in the market for either chip won't be getting a titan x which is pretty much what you'd need not to get a gpu bottleneck anyway. 1700 has more versatility and is probably more efficient to boot but any high end gaymer should be happy with either, at least until vulkan/dx12 really starts to take off.

F A K E N E W S

A

K

E

N

E

W

S

And here is Ryzen against an i7-6800K.

>still loses

Why would anyone buy it? Its worse, end of story.

95w vs 140w.

why does amd need twice as many cores to compete with intel?

why do you need to shitpost

i'm just asking

> 1700 offering roughly 7700k gaming perf, minus iGPU for pass-through virtualization and troubleshooting, plus double cores for normal workstation use.

this is a pretty easy win for AMD IMO.

Comparing the R7 1700X to the i7-7700K from the first benchmark, is the R7 1700X better?

lower clock speed and poor thread utilization, mostly. single thread they share almost identical IPC.

>half the price
>same performance
why would anyone buy it?

those speed differences are well within the error range from framerate readers.

Didn't you faggots say that cores didn't matter for games?

1700 is 65w also underclocked AF, it is a 3.7Ghz against a 95w 4.5Ghz and they are almost even showing how massive is the IPC of ryzen.

If the games tested were making use of all 16 thread properly, the R7 1700 would utterly destroy the 7700k.
They aren't. Also, as the 1700 has more core, even if they are unused they drag down the clocks quite significantly, making it double worse.
It's enormously impressive the R7 1700 manages to be competitive with the 7700k under those conditions.

Yep,
>compating a 65w cpu to a 91w cpu.

That comparison is bogus on power usage.
On Price tho, 1700x is more expensive than 7700k. and 1700 slightly cheaper.

The price comparison is even better if you compare with 6700k at 300$ vs 1700 at 330$ at pic related same performance.

In those specific games shown, at whatever settings they used, it looks like the 1700X would edge out the i7 7700k.

R7 1700x is clocked higher 400MHz higher base, 100MHz higher boost (because binning). It's better indeed.

well i would hope so it has 4 moar cores

It's the end of one of the worst eras in computing history.

Intel has to improve, because Zen is just getting started.

Let's hope the server benchmarks are even more impressive.

XFR chart

He actually did it.
I'm enjoying this comfy before the storm.

Would that mean the R7 1800X beat the i7-7700K? And if so, would that mean the R5-1600X will too at a cheaper price point, since they are both clocked the same?

I believe so, yes.
Not every game will show performance like that, but an awful lot of modern ones do now. This is looking incredibly good for AMD.

Source ?

From Ryzen event, still under NDA.

It's not over for anyone, Intel is still in a super comfortable position and AMD are looking better than they have in seven years or more. Prices will come down, the market will look at little less one sided and we'll still be saying " IS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT" five years from now.

Idle power will be really low, I wonder if it'll boost though non intensive workloads like cellphone SoCs do. Could make for insanely low power usage for spreadsheets and things like that.

I doubt it wasn't don't on purpose, the conference was 3 hours long and we saw less than an hour of it publicly. They likely went over R5 and R3 specs too

>the only considerable difference is in GTA V
>with ryzen you get 4 extra cores and 8 threads
>outside gaymen, the Ryzen wrecks the 7700K
>only 65W TDP
The choice is obvious.

Thanks.

Oh wow, the budget 8 core with really shit performance is as good as a 7700k!

>$329
>budget
It's entry level for 8 cores
People really seem to forget that.

slightly higher ipc for intel but 2 more cores for ryzen for about the same price. pretty even. ryzen will be a bit better highly multi threaded tasks and is also a bit cheaper.

>winning in proper dx12/vulkan implementations
>works only on win 10 anyway
I don't see the problem. AMD has a clear goal, which is next gen api dx12 and vulkan.

Win10 support only is a Microsoft restriction.

IT IS OVER!!! AMD IS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT!!!

>>still loses
are you blind?

When does the NDA for the reviewers lift? I thought that was today?

March 2nd

March 2nd as in 18 hours from now or march 3rd for us euros?

Usually review NDAs are some time during the morning EST time

just imagine what amd could do with 140W in this new architecture

>AM4 Motherboard you were going to buy suddenly out of stock
>decide to wait instead of pre-ordering just a cpu
Holy shit, looks like a dodged a bullet

>just imagine what amd could do with 140W in this new architecture
burn your house down?

Lmao

Ryzen is fucking horrible for gaming as predicted

Dude are you out of your mind?

the 1700 and the 7700k are the same fucking price

The results speak for themselves, you'd have to be stupid to buy a 1700 for gaming

Sure thing, shill.

No idiot should be buying the 1700 for gaming since it's clocked so low.

If you do buy it for gaming, you better OC it.

Truth

This was already debunked. You should know by now GTA5 engine has a lot of problems, even with a 7700k, especially with more cores like 6900k. The engine just is crap for anything else than consoles. It's a weird thing too as it's x86

I wonder how my i5 4670 would fare against both of those cpus

>The results speak for themselves, you'd have to be stupid to buy a 1700 for gaming
>you'd have to be stupid to buy the thing that costs the same but gives you twice the multithreaded performance and still matches in gaming performance
>you'd have to be stupid to buy the thing that gives you literally better performance per dollar
>you'd have to be stupid to buy the thing that draws less wattage
how the fuck.

i jus bought 7700k on ebay for 299 free shipping and feels bredy good

I feel sorry for the 6900k owners then

Wow. So the bottom end Ryzen 8 core is about 99% as good when it comes to those 4 year old games that aren't well threaded, AND I can use it for multi-tasking, rendering, and so on? So there's literally no downside. Does it use less power, too?

That's a massive win for AMD, but I have a feeling OP was being faceticious to get people to say what I just said.
jk OP here, got u guys

On another note, why is Civ VI so shittily optimized? That's a game that begs to be highly threaded. There should be no excuse for that with how it and all its DLC sells.

>This was already debunked.

Really? Then why does it match up with all the other benchmarks.

>On another note, why is Civ VI so shittily optimized?
because firaxis cannot into code.

The worst thing about Civ VI is that turn change is exclusively single threaded. It would be very hard to parallelize that, but it still sucks.

It gets beat in gaming
It has worse performance per dollar
AMD always lies about their TDP, wait until the real power usage comes out, the 1700X has already been shown to be 28W above the TDP.

Basically the 7700K is just a better CPU for most people. I would only get a 1700 if you are really into doing very specifically optimized multi-threaded tasks.

...

Proof? Their TDP is much lower, so they have much more room to overclock. You can even disable cores to allow more headroom to OC if you want to on the new Ryzen chips.

Games will be moving to more parallel computing too, so they will benefit much more from the extra cores in the near future.

Intel has been legitimately BTFO, they will probably try to drop prices, which will show everyone how much they were being ripped off in the first place.

Not really?
There are many different things calculated each turn, right?
Have thread for each thing.
Or put each AI on their own thread. So each turn, the AI does their thing on that thread and reports back to the main thread.

There are so many ways you should be able to thread stuff in that game.

But even accounting for turn change, that shouldn't affect FPS much except when turn is charging... So it still makes no sense how bad perf is for either there.

It's budget by octacore standards. Remember that Intel's octacore costs 1100$.

Overclocking isn't about TDP at all, dude. You retards need to stop repeating that nonsense.
It's about stability, voltage leak tightness, and how much voltage it can take.

And yes, AMD does underrate their TDP on CPUs. They go by something called "ADP", or have in the past. It will surely use over 65 watts in some conditions.
TDP is just how much cooling is needed. Hence the "T" standing for "thermal" and not "watts".
That said, I think it will still use less power than Kabylake in many cases.

I need to build a 4K editing (Premiere/AE) machine, from what I understand Ryzen will be better at this than Intel right?

Again, Firaxis can't into code. XCOM2 also runs horribly.

how come nobody surprised it trades blows in IPC with current top of the line consumer the only one for gaming 4.5Ghz intel CPU being 9-13% cheaper(it is cheaper here, you mileage may vary)?

reviews tomorrow, it's speculations now

This

Jesus, AMD has completely destroyed Intel with Zen.

I hear that but I don't understand how a company makes hundreds of millions of dollars but can't afford a good programmer.

Okay, I mean I know the answer.
They don't need good programmers for games. It's all about marketing. Doesn't matter if it's poorly optimized and runs like shit. People will buy it because marketing told them to.

Yes, for that kind of workload the more coarz the better.

It's less about marketing and more about the lack of Civlike games besides Civ and Endless Legend. They can do whatever they want, people will still buy Civ.

because believe it or not, developing games is hard and comes with a ton of deadlines

>endless series

>TDP
>The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate in typical operation

A huge part of overclocking is cooling the chip, so yes, as you increase the voltage you increase the heat output. AMD chips use WAY less power than Intel's current line, so there is a HUGE potential to overclock, much more so than Intel's chips.

The 1800X just beat the world record for overclocking in Cinebench. Ryzen can get to higher clock speeds than Intel chips with comparable IPC.

do you find it amusing that Intel spent billions upon billions on foundries and TDP meme over last 7 years to be beaten by samsung tech process and AMD in one year?

I bought my 8350 because it was a tremendous value and AMD is no-bullshit. Intel, on the other hand, has a million different product variations due to binning and intentional hamstringing of their products in order to "create markets".

I'm still bitter that I bought a Core 2 Duo that didn't support VT-x.

You can only fuck dead body of Pentium 3 for so long.

This

So far Ryzen looks like a garbage overclocker

All octacores are shit overclockers you fuckwit.

>AMD is no-bullshit

Holy fuck that is the funniest thing I have heard

AMD's marketing is the most deceptive bullshit I've ever seen

>Intel, on the other hand, has a million different product variations due to binning and intentional hamstringing of their products in order to "create markets".

This exactly. The 7600k, 7500, 7400, and so on just exist to make the 7700k look like a decent value when it's a terrible one and the 7700k should have been a muh igpu my netflix 4k drm
What a fucking ass rape. Really shows you how horribly overpriced Intel was for so long.

>There's literally no draw back

Ryzen is worse in gaming
Ryzen is worse in 99% of applications
Ryzen has shitty motherboards with only 8 PCIe lanes
No mini-ITX boards whatsoever

There are a lot of drawbacks

Nice damage control you got there.

>pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-hits-52-ghz-breaks-benchmarking-record/

Intel shills BTFO.

Ryzen uses significantly less power than Intel's chips, hence they can blow them the fuck out in clock speed too. You can even disable cores with a tool they are supplying to reduce heat output, so you can clock them even higher.

You could take a 1700x, disable 2 cores and clock it to 4.8GHz with 6 cores etc,

there is no such thing as overpriced just the price people were willing to pay

this isnt fucking bread and water we're talking about this is just a fucking expensive toy and/or tool most people dont even know exists

the fucking entitlement of some Sup Forums units is nothing short of marxist

how dare fucking home depot sell me reciprocating saws for X dollars!!! thank god harbor freight came out with a 6amp 1500RPM unit for 65 bucks! just shows the JEW TAX fucking home depot does. fucking kike motherfucks

No, AMD's marketing is the third most deceptive in the major semiconductor processor industry.
Leading the pack is intel.
If you need an explanation for that you are beyond saving.
Second is Nvidia. 4GB ring any bells?
Third is AMD. That 2x480 vs 1080 was technically true but horribly misleading. 2x290s would also beat a 1080 in DX12 Ashes

It was just a horribly misrepresentative sample, the epitome of cherry picking.

AMD rarely flat out lie though. Intel does a lot of that to best buy employees, OEMs, and anyone else that takes bribes.
Nvidia lies a lot too, wood screws?

I'll bite.

>Ryzen is worse in gaming
3% amrgin of error
>Ryzen is worse in 99% of applications
any proof of that? how can it be 3% in games and suddenly WAY worse in other applications?
>Ryzen has shitty motherboards with only 8 PCIe lanes
there are boards with 8 SATA and 2 m.2 slots what are you on about?
>No mini-ITX boards whatsoever
I'm sure that 0.5% is very sad about it

>Third is AMD. That 2x480 vs 1080 was technically true but horribly misleading
The thing is that even when they said that, they said "if the software makes use of it".

They never said "2 RX480 is the same as 1080 always"

So it's nothing like the lies of Intel and Nvidia.

Well, I guess nothing beats 3.5 and woodscrews.

Three Intel Inside (TM) Pennies have been deposited into your account.

It was clearly intended to be misleading.

it clearly was intended for niche CF market
I don't think many people left that still believe in SLI/CF or ready for drawbacks of it.

Waiting for the cheapest 6 core ryzen getting gaymen benchmarks at 4-4.5ghz oc

It's a very niche market indeed, consisting of people who only play Ashes of the Singularity.
AMD's decision to make DX12 cards is a good one for the industry, but that benchmark, being displayed as representative of that card was shameful.