$157 i3 beats $499 Ryzen 1800X

>$157 i3 beats $499 Ryzen 1800X

AMD: Another Massive Disappointment

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SHIT IS FUCKING HILARIOUS DESU

IT LOSES IN ALMOST EVERYTHING

>uses a game as a benchmark for an 8-core enthusiast grade cpu
>LMAO GOYS AMD LOSES AGAIN\

>20 frame difference
HURR DURR BTFO OUT GOY DERP HERP

IT LOSES TO INTEL PROCESSORS THAT COST HUNDREDS LESS

ITS FUCKING HORRIBLE LMAO

I don't understand why people do this, considering AMD also has factories in Israel.

Jesus fuck I can't even use these for work.

Here we go I found a nearly 3% win for raisin!

Well ya know at least they are competitive.

Well worth the extra $100!

Lmfao

This shit is just pathetic

Getting beat by Intel's 7700k that costs $160 less

yeah i know even intels own $1,000 6900k is getting its ass handed to it by the 7700k.

both intel and amd BTFO

But it wins and equals to a process costing a thousand and two hundred United States American Dollars more? How can Intel even compete?


Get out here, your ass is leaking.

INTEL BTFO BY INTEL

I GUESS INTEL WINS

>tomshardware
literally the original intel shills

I GUESS THE WHOLE INTERNET IS AN INTEL SHILL NOW

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Barely faster than a 9590, kek.

...

no, but tomshardware are the biggest jew shills around.
Their word holds no value.

You can have fun btfo out of amd but don't forget all the jewish tricks tomshardware always plays

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

AMD ARE THE JEWS YOU DUMBFUCK

THEY JEWED EVERYONE, AND NOW TODAY IS A BLOODBATH

AMD PULLED THEIR JEWISH TRICKS YET AGAIN AND YOU DUMBFUCKS LAPPED IT UP

>1080p gaymen test for CPU

yawn.

It's bad value at 1440p as well.

You can test as high as possible to obfuscate the weakness, but that weakness is still there, and can manifest itself in poor performance as games make greater use of the CPU down the line.

>Middle East and North Africa
>no locations in North Africa

That's not a bad indication of relative IPC, which has been the biggest point of AMDrones for the last 4 months
It fucking bombed in IPC, like everyone expected
It's the next generation of cheap multicore from AMD, business as usual

We got new intel, turns out most benchmarks out there can't be trusted.

yeah cause its like no one out there runs 120 refresh rate on their 1080 monitors or anything.

that's the 1700 chip, everyone is looking at the 1800x and 1700x which are more expensive and more production workload aimed, but for gayming I think the 1700 is the way to go. I've only found two youtube channels reviewing it doe.

Afaik Far Cry Primal is not multicore-optimized.

I'll wait for Digital Foundry benchmarks

there is no difference between the chips other than clock speeds

basically amd is selling higherbind chips at meme prices

It's testing it in a way that makes every Intel fanboy drool, with a 5GHz 7700k.
Too bad the fact that the 3.9 1700 is matching it is bad for their health.

I'm actually really disappointed with Ryzen

who makes these kinds of graphics and how much time do they waste on them?

It's interesting you use guru3d since they concluded something is amiss with game performance with sythetic performance this stronk

It's more logical to conclude that something is amiss with the synthetics

AMD is optimizing for benchmarks, while the real world shows the CPU is quite weak

i don't think so, not given ryzen's architecture. it's at the very least absurdly faster than any of its previous cpu's yet it's clear something else is amiss in these game benchmarks.

if I may guess:
probably related to memory problems and power saving features.
On the reddit AMA some AMD guy said there were BIOS problems that would disable CPU cores.
This feels like AMD not spending enough time on ironing out all the bugs. Might be interesting to see how the 6 cores and 4 cores perform once some BIOS fixes roll out.

It's not just game benchmarks

See In Photoshop Ryzen gets beat by a CPU that costs $160 less

It just proves to show how badly made game engines and their library glue is.

Here's a industry standard raytracer that shows Ryzen being very close to the Intel 10 cores that cost $1700, these programs are made for work though.

>Beats i7 6700K
>Has 8 cores
>Somehow bad

It loses to a 7700k that costs $160 less

Truly horrible desu senpai

Yeah, but can it run crysis?

Great showing from Intel's professional line, slower than chips 3 times less costly.

>Truly horrible

The only truly horrible processors on that chart are the $1,049 6900k and the $1,649 6950k.

I hope you realize they're being shit on a lot more by the 7700k than the 500 dollar 1800x.

I would agree those are both bad, they all have the same problem as Ryzen

Very specialized CPUs for multithreading

Problem is that Ryzen was marketed to the mainstream crowd...when it was anything but a mainstream CPU

>8-core intel shows

That's pretty amazing actually

6/4 core ryzen are meant to compete with i5/7700k. Probably be higher clocked. R7 isn't for gaming

Except it doesn't matter because neither will be CPU limited in that scenario. It's Intel's compiler to blame in these games anyway.

How can that $1700 overpriced turd ever recover? I bet it uses more power at it too lol

>neither will be CPU limited in that scenario

Uh they literally are CPU limited, that's why there is an FPS difference.

Ryzen, for what it is and what it costs, can keep up perfectly fine with the 7700k in a current day setting all while maintaining a pretty future proof position on a more multi-core optimized gaming scene.

Also, don't buy the $500 1800x... get the plain 1700 for $330 dollar and overclock it to 3.9Ghz. Get the same performance for 170 bucks less.

I CAN'T FUCKING TAKE IT ANYMORE

>captcha: sengon 1800
STOP FUCKING REMINDING ME

>0.30 seconds
Wow!

>totally new cpu
>doesen't go fast as intel cpu that has been optimized for years

>costs literally less than a quarter of what you'd need to spend on Intel's equivalent

If you buy from either AMD or INTEL you are buying from the jew.

What's hard to understand?

yeah
at this point, its enough to be good purchase.
lets just wait until we get some minor updates

>starting at any number other than 0
JEWISH TRICKS: 1
COMMON SENSE: 0

not only that but also stated SMT scheduling issues. since their SMT is different than intels, optimizations done for SMT up to now have been for intel implentations.

then there also appears to be windows power saving problems as well as setting windows power saving to high performance has increased performance in a few games.

all in all there does seem to be growing pains.

Should stock clocks for ryzens be assumed since theyre omitted?

>Scorpus

I will put this here for people wondering about the gaming results:
We had a lot of trouble benchmarking games with Ryzen. It seems we weren't the only ones, and many other reviewers have reported strangely low performance here. Our initial Asus board was plagued with bugs, and we saw some gains simply by switching to a Gigabyte or Asrock board. This really isn't the sort of behavior you'd expect, and AMD even acknowledged there were some issues with some Asus boards.
While we are pretty confident in our application test results, there could be some unresolved early issues with Ryzen and AM4 boards that is leading to strangely low gaming performance. We're not 100% sure what is going on there; Steve and I spent a while discussing what could be up, and we ended up confused more than anything else.
So if you're a gamer that's looking at our gaming results and thinking "that's disappointing", there could be an unresolved story here.
Of course one possible conclusion is simply that Ryzen isn't that amazing in games, but we're just not fully sure that is truly the case if all hardware was working correctly
EDIT: Don't get your hopes up about a potential fix. The results we achieved could be it, and you should make any buying decisions accordingly at this stage. The best thing may be to wait a few weeks just to make sure
could also be asus fault.

value will be quite good once the price drops to around 200 dollars.

$200 is the MSRP for Ryzen 5 1400x in Q2

...