Serious question, what the fuck was AMD thinking?
Did they release this knowing full well how bad it was?
Their best Ryzen CPU is $500 and loses to a $340 Intel CPU.
I assume with all the talk of how they rigged their pre-release benchmarks, and how they were pushing preorders, they actually knew how bad it was, but they wanted to shovel this shit down our throats and run away as fast as they could.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
they released it too early. should have been another two weeks at least.
I was so excited...
more fool me
>muh 7 fps!
seriously? it's a great chip all things considered.
You are paying $160 more for worse performance. I don't see any way that could be good.
The 1500$ intel cpu loses to its 350$ alternative aswell, that's not the point of these cpus you mongrel.
it Smt/Hypertrading dont work on some motherboard
I'm getting the 1700, do more than just gaymin and it will serve me fine in gaymin for several years to come.
Why did AMD market these as gaming chips? Look at their presentations, they literally said they were for gaming.
Only people buying ryzen are those hiding their illegal activities.
It's not gaming chips, it's workstation chips
NEW GAMERS NEXUS VIDEO:
youtube.com
AMD SINKING DEEPER INTO THE PILE OF SHIT THEY MADE.
Microcenter dropped prices on the 6 core i7's. They're selling the 6800k for $380 and the 5820k for $320. They're close in benchmarks, so do I save the $60 and opt out of the slightly faster ddr4 speeds? What else is different?
The motherboard is still expensive though
Why not get a 7700k?
They'll give you an extra $30 off if you buy from them. Plus ryzen motherboards are shitty and expensive
They are for gaming. Who buys a gaming PC and doesn't max out the GPU? I would gladly give up 1080p performance, which I haven't used in 5 years, to have 20% faster general software performance.
>WAAH WHY ISNT IT GOOD AT GAYMING??
>GAMING AND FACEBOOK ARE THE ONLY THINGS COMPUTERS ARE USED FOR
Please return to Sup Forums where you belong. Or at least wait for the gaming CPUs, 1600x and 1400x.
Besides, the performance is poor right now due to bugs in windows and microcode. Wait a month and it''ll be
>>In before poorfag
I own an x99 board with an Intel i7 5930.
Man is this typical for Sup Forums posters? The Ryzen chip is a fine chip for gaming, not the best but look at its other performance benchmarks it equals or best intel's and cost a whole bunch less. And with revision in mobo drivers or optimization with games patches it'll most likely close the gap further.
They're back up to 320, and I'd rather have better multicore performance than single. It's not for gaming
>AMD shills are damaging control so hard that youtubes have to explain themselves.
Is there a more rabid fanbase than AyyMDfags? Not even Intel or Nvidia shills are on this level.
youtube.com
>Wait a month and it'll be
on par with 7600k/7700k.
>20% faster general software performance
That's also not true either.
AMD is helping terrorists and pedos evade the law, what did you expect?
AMD said they were for gaming and they are seriously one of the worst price-performance CPUs you could possibly buy for gaming.
>ryzen motherboards are shitty and expensive
If you talking about X370 then yes. But if you talking about B350 or lower then no
I can't find good mATX X99 Motherboard at Microcenter
The 8 cores are meh for gaming.
Still the jump in IPC is impressive, and I'm hoping the 4c/8t 6c/12t variants will clock higher (although I'm not expecting alot since these got to 4.1ghz on watercooling).
The most important thing is that we have some competition back, maybe Intel will get of their arse and start producing some meaningful generational leaps again
>we have some competition back
I guess? This doesn't look like competition to me.
Intel didn't even lower their prices a bit.
I was just looking at the exact same thing. You're right. You can build a 6700k right now for dirt cheap
>picks single thread benchmark
You're joking right?
Photoshop is single thread?
how bad is it? its few fps behind intel
while it shits on them in everything else including min fps
but you know Sup Forums is a "Technical" board
It's really bad when you consider you are paying $160 more for worse performance.
>Their best Ryzen CPU is $500 and loses to a $340 Intel CPU.
That's because Intel 340 dollar CPU equals almost everything else of Intel's cause most games handle only 4 core optimization.
You're a retard for buying 8 core CPUs and then shitting on them cause they perform on par with 4 core CPUs on shit using only 4 cores. Those benchmarks don't do overall system responsiveness during CPU heavy games, system bloat, or any other benefits of having some idle cores.
There are some few games where the performance difference between Ryzen and Intel would actually matter, but those aren't the games getting 250FPS on Ryzen and 280FPS on the newest i5 or i7.
The 1800x is plenty competition for the 6900k at half the price.
The 1700x and the 1700 not so much.
The most important thing is that they got power consumption and IPC under control, next generation they might be able to also get the clock speeds up higher.
Considering the shit they were coming from this product is much more competitive
So this was just a test run?
Are we AMD's beta testers now?
No, do you think a benchmark is credible where an Intel 7700K destroys a 6950X?
When was the last time you saw Intel make a 50% leap in IPC and power consumption?
If you expected them to beat Kaby lake you were delusional anyway.
They have closed the gap considerably and thats what matters
The Ryzen is clearly a server CPU.
>but you know Sup Forums is a "Technical" board
Unfortunately most of the posters on Sup Forums are spillover from Sup Forums so you should expect to see people who can't really do anything except stare themselves blind at average FPS in games and then act like that's the only thing that matters in a CPU.
Worse average frame rate in games yes, but better minimum frame rate (which actually matters just as much as the average) and better multi-thread performance in pretty much all applications except games.
It may not be the #1 CPU to buy for Sup Forums right now, but it is the thing to buy for everyone else who does CPU heavy and well multithreaded work on their PC.
Actualy it's clearly a cpu for people that do alot of multithreaded loads.
>Their best Ryzen CPU is $500 and loses to a $340 Intel CPU.
Even worse, it loses to the 7600K which is LITERALLY half the price. Ryzen is DOA, AMD is finished.
I do video editing for a living, I will be buying the Ryzen Opteron when it comes out this summer. These Zen chips absolutely shit on intel.
Apple will likely switch all of its offerings to Ryzen.
So pretty much from looking at all of the reviews ive read so far ryzen isn't worth it if you're playing at 1080p but 1440p and higher resolutions the performance is at or above the t 7700k/6900k, I don't see the problem with this? Why would you buy a $300+ cpu then pair it with a gpu only capable of playing at 1080p? lol
>better minimum frame rate
Wrong too.
It's hilarious how fucking biased and ideological people are over this.
Even the reviewers who are being honest about AMD's deception are saying shit like "r-ryzen could still be good for someone who streams their games" in an attempt to placate fanboys who can't accept the reality that AMD lied. AMD dropped the ball, and neither AMD or Intel give a fuck about them.
>When was the last time you saw Intel make a 50% leap in IPC and power consumption?
You're talking about the car in the 20th spot clutching to maybe 5th place here
I mean great for him but who cares, I'm still going with the guy who won the race
What the fuck am I reading.
AMD didn't drop the ball though, gaming is such a small market compared to the business world.
Nope at 1440p it fails too
If you don't understand that you should leave
>AMD didn't drop the ball though, gaming is such a small market compared to the business world.
Yes, the business world... who are interested in the Opteron lineup or SoCs... not boxed Ryzen CPUs...
And a 7700K is just as fast if not faster in business applications, as well as $160 cheaper.
Ryzen is utterly useless unless all you do is render videos all day or run a billion VMs.
I understand what you're saying but it's fucking retarded for reasons stated here:
Except you're wrong, in workloads where people who buy 8 cores usualy use them it performs great, alot of the time beating the 6900k at half the price.
For gaming, it's a shit cpu though, but so is the 6900k
AMD allows re-branding, expect Apple to dump Intel for the Ryzen, that's huge.
...then why did AMD advertise it as a gaming CPU? Why do AMD fanboys lie (by omission here) so much?
But virtualization support isn't great is it? You can't gpu passthrough
...
for most of those types of workloads people use hardware acceleration though
Yeah I mean if you compare it to even cheaper Intel CPUs it looks even worse.
Cheapest Ryzen is $330 and the 7600K is only $240 and still beats it.
>But virtualization support isn't great is it? You can't gpu passthrough
Sincere question: Why not just buy a real workstation if you genuinely need to do proper virtualization and GPU passthrough stuff?
But FWIW, the 7700k supports VT-d.
>You can't gpu passthrough
Kek, forgot about that. Ryzen confirmed DOA.
...
Did you even read what you just typed?
Yes, I did.
People are not running all those application that would benefit for 8c on their CPU, they are running on their GPUs.
Ryzen only makes sense if you do encoding
I think he means GPU acceleration for stuff like encoding, which makes multithreaded CPUs way less relevant
There's plenty of production related workloads that will benefit from a higher core setup.
Because the people who pre-order are gamers. Easy money.
>expect Apple to dump Intel for the Ryzen, that's huge
source: my ass
And for those you use Xeons, not Ryzen.
The Ryzen is beating the 6950X in database performance by a comfortable margin, that's a bigger deal then you think.
Still waiting on someone to tell me they plan to buy the 6900k for gaymen.
>Is there a more rabid fanbase than AyyMDfags? Not even Intel or Nvidia shills are on this level.
How can you say that when this fag lord here has been posting the same benchmark cherry picked benchmark in every single ryzen thread? The anti-amd fanboys are definitely going all out in the shill wars.
Exactly which is why double CPU Mobos with Ryzen are going to be amazing, oh wait
>it was all hype for preorders
>all of these salty preorder idiots desperately trying to argue on Sup Forums until their CPU somehow gets faster
? just return it
At 500 dollars I think many people will disagree with you
They delayed the Mac Pro release to coincide with the Opteron release.
>just return it
that's exactly what I did
A 6900K is losing to a 7700K.
What the fuck do you think?
Holy shit, I didn't realize how stupid people were until this launch.
So one of the most common used work related applications won't benefit from Ryzen extra 4 cores is what you're saying?
A quick google search tells me Photoshop is multithreaded
>They delayed the Mac Pro release to coincide with the Opteron release.
Ah yes, the thing which accounts for a grand total of 0.35% (1/3 of 1%) of their sales
It's not cherry picked, there are tons of applications that don't benefit from Ryzen.
In fact the vast majority of them don't, that's the problem.
Isn't it also a thing to consider games have been optimized with intel in mind for a while now and amd has just come out with a cpu giving no devs enough time to optimize for amd additionally?
And a $1100 Intel CPU loses to the same $340 CPU, it's almost like they are meant for different kind of uses.
Poorfa/g/ here, i'm doing just fine an AMD 4670k and a 1050ti, you guys don't really buy top of the line processors just for gaming right? You realize that's a waste of money considering midrange processors will handle any AAA game at 60fps with a good gpu? And that Ryzen dominates in the midrange price/performance category?
I guess that's possible, but what are we supposed to do? Wait around for them to optimize every game?
Even if they somehow make it equal to the 7700k, they still have to make up for a $160 price difference, it's literally impossible.
That is the side effect of having Quadcore i7s for a decade. Software has to catch up.
So let me try to understand your logic.
A 4C8T CPU is single handedly shitting on a 8C16T CPU of a similar architecture in a supposedly fully multithreaded workload?
At this point Intel is Apple. AMD delivered everything people wanted, and they are cherry picking single threaded bullshit to compete with a fucking 16 thread CPU.
>tfw this is $100 via eBay
brütal
>Poorfa/g/ here, i'm doing just fine an AMD 4670k and a 1050ti, you guys don't really buy top of the line processors just for gaming right? You realize that's a waste of money considering midrange processors will handle any AAA game at 60fps with a good gpu? And that Ryzen dominates in the midrange price/performance category?
wow you are really stupid and ignorant
firstly the intel pentiums wipe the floor with your mediocre processor
secondly there's no way you're running muh AAA games at 1080/60 with a 750 Ti, maybe on medium settings with lots of dips
pls go
>buy midrange processor
>3 years later you have to upgrade otherwise your GPU will get bottlednecked
>buy highrange processor
>lasts at least 5 years maybe more with OC
>midrange: $250
>highrange: $320
Yes, you're a genius user, keep it up
>Ryzen dominates in the midrange price/performance category?
It doesn't, in fact it's one of the worst price-performance CPUs you can buy for gaming.
yes imagine this..
7700k is basicly a 4th generation rebrand literally its matured enough on both OS and and game engines..
on the other hand you have ryzen its basicly what the bulldozer should have been times 10
it has quite a lot of new tech that none of them are actually supported yet and its literally 13% to 15% behind intel on gaming..(power and daily usage they are already quite good)
so yeah they will only get better in time the chip itself is quite good the problem lies elsewere
The $150 R3 is the 7700K's competitor, not the 16 thread CPU.
This is like saying a transfer truck is a useless vehicle because a sports car has better acceleration.
I love how they always post only this one, like if people used only Photoshop and nothing else.
yeah
>That is the side effect of having Quadcore i7s for a decade. Software has to catch up.
So you're saying that Adobe, instead of optimizing their software to any of the also exists 6+ intel cpus and get more performance out of a "better" cpu have been sitting on their asses?
sure
But you just posted the exact same benchmark as
>The $150 R3 is the 7700K's competitor
OK....you seriously think the R3 is going to beat the 7700K? That sounds insane to me when the 1800X couldn't even do it.