AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA

*coughs*
AHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAH
HAHAH
HAHAHAHAH
HA

Other urls found in this thread:

videocardz.com/66684/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review-leaks-out
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

That was a engineering sample with shit RAM (2133MHz) on a midrange (B350) motherboard.

ITS NOT REAL

FAKE BENCHMARK

DOESNT COUNT

Why is everyone always comparing the 1700x and not the 1800x?

Is because the 1700x price is more similar to the 7700k, but worse performance?

...

Do you really want to make the comparison even worse?

The 1700x is losing to Intel's 6700K which is $100 less

The 1800x will lose again and it's $500 fucking dollars

something is wrong here all these CPU's are being held back by a shit card. in all the Benchmarks at 1080p they are all 1-2 frames difference. only exception is Bioshock.

More gaming benchmarks here.

Lol. Not only is it all on dx11, but the only real differences are in low res. At 1080 they are all the same. Top quality graph manipulation

>games

Who gives a shit you fucking manchildren.

It does perfectly fine in games but it's obviously not targeted at that. It's a fucking 8 core CPU.

If all you care about are dumbass games just buy a fucking G4600

All this gaming circlejerk around high end CPUs is fucking retarded and has to stop

The low res is to eliminate GPU bottleneck, it's perfect for testing the CPU

It's almost like Intel is paying people who aren't under AMD NDA to pair it with shit ram to get the graphs they want out before the real reviews come out tomorrow.

Do any of the Sup Forums apps have 4chanX style regex filtering? If you aren't willing to put more thought into your OP than mashing two buttons I have no interest in seeing it.

Gayming.

Fucking queers, I swear.

>AMD doesn't deliver yet again
Remember when I told you AMD was not gonna deliver because they never do, they always disappoint? And even if they did deliver, it was just a matter of months until Intel came up with something better, leaving AMD in the digital dust for the next 5-10 years until they managed to catch up again (if they even last that long)? And remember how you didn't believe me when I warned you?

Well, it's happened. Bet you are rectally shattered. Too bad.

>THEY FELL FOR THE RYPOO MEME

>nobody but intel shills are upset
>literally reduced to Iranian benchmarks with laptop resolutions

>AMD gets BTFO in benchmarks
>MAD poors pretend they don't care about games

C L O C K W O R K

DELET THIS
AMD WILL BTFO INTEL AND NVIDIA JUST WAIT ANOTHER DECADE

>game "developers" are too incompetent to use extra power a CPU with 8 cores offers.
>even so that 8 core cpu is basically neck and neck with lower core higher clock CPUs
>this is supposed to make AMD look bad somehow

Besides, I don't give a fuck about games. I actually work and for work the Ryzen is so far ahead of anything Intel is offering it's not even funny.

If games were the gold standard of CPU development then we'd all be using single core CPUs clocked at 5ghz. Games are totally irrelevant for CPU discussion.

Also one thing to remember is that the Ryzen OC app let's you disable individual cores.

So if you REALLY care that much about a few extra FPS in games you can disable 4 cores and OC the remaining ones to 4.5ghz and have the same gaming performance as Intel chips.

YEAH GAMES ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT FOR CPUS, WHO CARES

GAMES DONT EVEN USE CPUS LOL

INTEL BTFO R-R-R-RIGHT

When intel released core2 it btfo 1k amd cpu at everything. No fine text and excuses.

>768, 900, and 1080
What with the mostly shit resolutions?

It's to isolate the CPU performance

Those had the same number of cores.

Here the comparison is retarded because obviously if you have an 8core CPU you will have lower individual clocks in comparison to a 4core one.

So obviously retarded unoptimized games that only use 1 core will do better on the CPU with higher clocks.

The Arabic text in the picture makes me think the review was tailoring their review to the Arab market. I guess cheaper, lower res monitors are more common in third world countries?

Looks quite good with the exception of Bioshock.
Especially since these games don't seem to be hugely multithreaded.

>Arabic text.

You must be over 18 to post here.

It's time to take a hard look at reality and realize that these are not workstation or server CPUs, but consumer CPUs and games are pretty much the most resource-intensive software that a lot of consumers run. OP's benchmark however does use some old as fuck games though, not to mention completely irrelevant resolutions like fucking 1366x768 and 1600x900.

Abdul, plz

According to idiotic gaming benchmarks the best CPU in the world would be a 5.5GHz single core.

Which perfectly illustrates why games are useless as a CPU benchmark.

>people buy these CPUs to play games
>but games are totally irrelevant

AMDtard logic

Let me guess, it's Farsi?

>testing with the devil's resolution
>no motherboard listed for Ryzen while every intel chip has a named board

Brah what about MAH 4K GAY-AMING

But you act like AMD wasn't promting this with games at the booth you dumb fuck

>buying an 8 core to play games

Then those """"people""" are retarded.

Let me guess this mudshit site was one of those intel "call us first" """reviews"""

But the reveal presentation made it clear they were for used on games.

So what have me learned?

As a i5 3570K user...
>Ryzen isn't worth it
>Kaby Lake isn't worth it

Guess I'll just stick to my current rig for the foreseeable future. Oh Intel are finally making a 6c processor on the mainstream chipset? Good, it better cost $300. Oh it won't? Guess I'll stick with my rig for the foreseeable future.

If AMD didn't try to compete we'd all be getting even more fucked by Intel.

>intelcucks literally reduced to Iranian benchmarks at laptop resolutions
Many such cases, SAD!

>dx11

captcha: sevre downs

>According to idiotic gaming benchmarks
You should look at other gaming benchmarks then. Or are you the idiot for looking at the idiotic ones perhaps?

This. Intel shills clinging to any hope they have left.

1. These are the important numbers.
2. Future games will use more than 4 cores.
3. DX 11.0 is 2009 technology. Future games will use Vulkan or DX 12.
4. It's using a 1700x and not an 1800x.

So basically 12% worse than intel and on par with at higher resolution. It's bulldozer all over again. Except it's not. Bulldozer was more than 40% behind even at 1080p. AMD may not have the best processor for gaming but they are definitively competitive.

>future games will use more than 4 cores
No they won't.

>its using a 1700x and not an 1800x
That's because the 1700X is trying to compete with the i7-7700k while the 1800x is trying to compete with the i7-6950X.

It's not fucking FAIR!

Rypoo can't into DX11 games. There are many DX 11 games out there.

>1800X

Lol $500 CPU.... These gaming benchmarks includes $300 CPU, and Rypoo is defeated badly. 4 yrs old CPU beats it easily. Embarrassing.

>No they won't.
yes they will
5 years ago every game used 1 maybe 2 cores
now almost every game is using 3 minimum, even random stupid games use 2 cores

Even if they do, Intel is still going to be the top producer of CPUs. Ryzen is just another AMD meme. It's time to let it go.

>disable 4 other cores
>4c/8t same as i7
>reach higher OC
There you go, now you can play your games you manchild and when you are done you can change back to 8c to do something else.

>ryzen
>higher OC than kaby lake

aHAHAHAhahahhaHAHAHAAHha


(no)

Fucking sad when a $300 Intel can beat a $500 AMD

Looks like Ryzen also gets BTFO in regular desktop usage

>same fps in 3 out of 4 benchmarks at 1080p or higher
>laughs

Kek, now tomorrow it will all backfire.

Too many retards building a hype train and the rest of the retards on the internet take the bait and jump onto the train.

Ain't FPS the same with pretty much all the games? Looks like a GPU bottleneck

i have no doubt intel will use jewish tricks as always to tamper with benchmarks

the simple fact that amd isn't intel, is why am going to buy ryzen

What's funny? They all perform the fucking same, be it a $1700 or $300 chip

GPU is bottlenecked at 1080p, but look at the lower res ones

Why? Who the fuck games at lower than 1080p??

>they're all the same

I guess you do have to be blind to buy AMD.

Am I supposed to look at performance on 2006 laptop resolutions or something?

They only used a 980

They used the lower res to isolate the CPU performance

They could have used a 1080 and got similar results to lower the GPU bottleneck

Again shitty RAM with a no name board try harder faggot.

"""""Competitive gamers"""" (recently everyone with a Intel CPU on Sup Forums, recently converted) play CSGO on 640x480 at 3000FPS

Did anyone really think AMD was good?

It's a B350 board which is AMD's second most powerful chipset

>768p

It's important you don't understand everyone with a $300 CPU plays at 768p

>No model number shown.

>It's a B350 board which is AMD's second most powerful chipset
How can you call anything that lacks support for SLI as powerful ?

Look at the specs for the B350 yourself

There is nothing that would make it perform worse than an X370 for this benchmark

>he doesn't game at 200p at 10000FPS so he can see the enemy pixel entering your viewport even 1 nanosecond sooner

So they all the same shit at 1080p? Either there's a bottleneck somewhere or 8 slower cores are just as fine as 4 faster cores, useful for other stuff too besides gaming.

I'm guessing he doesn't give a shit about the 7700K getting 2 FPS extra if it dips whenever it needs to do 2 things at once

I wasn't aware that AMD sells laptops with 8 cores and 1366x768 displays.

It's a bottleneck, they used a 980

Look at the lower res to see the CPU performance isolated

CPU performance isolated? In a 768p game?
How about isolating it in an actual CPU benchmark or actual workload?

So R1700X is almost as fast as the top of the line intel cpus in games.

This is pretty much what they promised, so I'm fine iwth that.

Dude, stop pretending to be dumber than you are.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

*chokes on jew dick*

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

You'd get the same results if they used a 1080.

Reviewers are Iranian poorfags who can only afford a 980, so they use lower res instead to show the CPU performance

It's substantially slower than an Intel CPU which costs $100 less.

>1366x768

Did I go back to 2006?
I haven't seen a lowres game benchmark in literally years.

Uhh the R1700X is getting beat by an Intel CPU that is $100 cheaper

...

why are dubious leaks only valid when they confirm your bias?

I tell AMD fags the same shit when they jerk each other off over
favorable chink graphs and I get accused of shilling

you all fucking disgust me

>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA
>1366x768 - NO AA


Ayy caramba

This. I won't play at less than 1080p anyway.

Intel probably told reviewers to ensure they made the CPU the bottleneck in game benchmarks, even though they almost never are.

ITT:
- comment questioning validity of shown benchmark
- AMD GAY HOMO FAGGOT GTFO INTEL IS BETTER

videocardz.com/66684/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review-leaks-out

Oh hey they actually did CPU benches.
What's the point of the low res game ones in that case?

>synthetic benchmark is better than actual real-world benchmarks

AMDtard logic

...

>768p
>real world

I guess for people playing on 2006 laptops it is?

>gayming is a real world benchmark

Sup Forumstard logic

...

Nigga who plays pc games below 1920x1080? WHO? In the 1080 benches Ryzen either on par or slightly behind in anyting but bioshock.