Despite Ryzen meeting everything the industry asked for (competitive IPC, more mainstream cores, ECC support, and thermal/power efficiency), it is being deemed a failure because a Quadcore at 5GHz scores slightly higher at an unplayable resolution on video games.
This cultist bullshit is the reason we have been stuck with 4 core CPUs for a decade. Intel jackoffs are not only pitting two seperate class CPUs together, but they are doing that on top of using single threaded, horribly optimized applications.
Newsflash: using a terrible game such as FO4 as a metric for a CPUs performance should not be encouraged. It is 2017, if something cannot utilize multiple threads, it should be completely thrown out of any review. As long as we keep caring about Single Threaded performance, the longer we will have single threaded applications.
Comparing the R7 chips to X99 CPUs don't even make sense. X99 doesn't support ECC, and they run at the highest TDP Intel offers. Pit it against an 8C 16T Xeon, on workloads the CPU was made for.
If you want to test stupid shit like CS: GO, wait for the damn 4C8T R3 chips, not the goddamn adult CPUs. Then you can't fucking get your holy single thread performance by OC'ing a pathetic core config to ridiculous clockspeeds.
If you cannot understand why you are fucking retarded for thinking a 7700K is somehow better than a R7 1700, you are fundamentally missing the whole picture.
Pic semi related: Shows I'm not a diehard AMD fan, I just prefer to have technology advance over brand loyalty
You're blind, it says 1080p right on the gaming benchmarks.
Henry Green
Ryzen will be great for my dedicated ray tracing machine
Not so great if I want to do anything else though
Sebastian Collins
If you don't get why its 800x600 you shouldn't even be in this thread
Anthony Roberts
Are these results supposed to be "bad"? Because they actually look a lot better than I was expecting, given the volume of shitposting. Only 10% behind Intel in gaming tasks on average seems pretty fantastic when you consider it also matches Intel's overpriced housefires for productivity, cherrypicked Adobe benchmark aside.
Gabriel Sullivan
Is there any purpose for a consumer to buy anything with more than 8 cores, though?
I get that rendering might be a reason to get it, but browsers and games can't utilize it all, can it? What of linux usage?
James Sanchez
It's really bad when you consider the top processor costs $340, while the Ryzen costs $500
Connor Brown
Yes, that's because it is a 16 Thread Ryzen CPU.
When the 8 Thread Ryzen CPU is released, it will be able to clock much higher, and be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper.
What is so goddamn hard to understand?
Gavin Fisher
Speculation, it's not even out yet
Carter Evans
The same batch of leaks was 100% right about the 1700, 1700x, and 1800x and their pricing
Jace Miller
But what if I don't want to only play video games? It'll obliterate a 7700K in heavily-threaded work tasks, so I get perfectly adequate gaming performance (I only have a 60Hz monitor, so I don't know why I should care just how far above 100fps it can manage), as well as HEDT-tier productivity performance for half the price.
Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Nicholas Price
Look here shill rival, I understand why it's 480x360 But if you can find someone who still plays Gaymemes at 360x240, I will eat my shoe.
176x144 just isn't a PRACTICAL resolution and it's only now that AMD is on Intel's ass that it becomes a common standard to bench at any thing less than 160x120. It's almost like Intel told a bunch of reviewers to contact them and told them to return to an old as fuck standard that hasn't been relevant for years
Take your 128×96 benchmarks and fuck off.
Brayden Johnson
Problem is even in productivity apps it's bad
See and It's literally only good if you spend 90% of your time rendering/encoding/similar heavily multithreaded task
John Wood
>6900k btfo by a 7700k HAHAHAHAHAHA INTELFAGS WILL DEFEND THIS!
Gabriel Davis
INTEL BTFO INTEL
HOW WILL INTEL EVER RECOVER
I GUESS INTEL WINS
Elijah Murphy
This is why the market so sorely needs VIA
Noah Brown
Yeah, terribly optimized code.
The problem is, you still have to run that code if you want to do "anything else". Nobody is going to rewrite code for Ryzen, and if they did it would take years, by which point Ryzen is obsolete anyway.
AMD have consistently failed to cater to the needs of the vast majority of users, and instead have focused on elements of their product that can potentially market well to groups of users who don't understand how the specification of their CPU will effect their usage experience - the sort of people who will see "8 cores" and go, "Well, 8 is better than 4, for almost the same price - I'll go with this one!". The only other groups of people who buy their products are limited by their budget, or are confined entirely to wishful thinking that devs will suddenly start writing code that is harder to write and caters to a lower market share.
AMD will continue to lose so long as they refuse or are unable to beat Intel at their own game, and instead continue to rely on gimmicks and shit the majority of people don't need or want. This helps nobody, Intel will continue to hold back and Jew everyone in the meantime.
Christian Perez
Such hypocrisy.
People have been begging for more than 4 cores for years. Bitching at Intel to bring i7s past Quadcores.
Then AMD does it, with similar IPC and you are saying they aren't catering to what the industry.
Do you think Quadcores are going to get significantly better? They are not. They have hit a wall.
