Ryzen bottleneck gtx 1080 even in 720p

and drops to 49 fps while intel has 90 fps.

And that's in heavy multithreaded game, which should show power of ryzen.

HAHAHHAHAHA AMD BTFO BY AMD


youtu.be/nsDjx-tW_WQ?t=2m25s

>Ryzen bottleneck gtx 1080 even in 720p
You don't seem to get the point, do you?

apparently you don't

>Ryzen bottleneck gtx 1080 even in 720p
>even in 720p
>even
>"hurr durr ur dum"
Autist confirmed

I really don't give a shit anymore, I'm still set on getting a Ryzen 5 whenever the fuck it comes out.

kys anime faggot shortly after you buy ryzen and explode when you try to run non pedo games your daddy will know that ryzen is trash

>AMD fanboys always buy inferior products only because it has AMD sticker on it

i hope you will be enjoying your 20-30fps less and cpu bottleneck in 2-3 years

Man that kid's story always makes me pissed off

1/10
Your memes lack subtlety

Hell, the only reason you got higher than a 0 was because you complained about hand-drawn moving pictures on a Mongolian Empire communication system.

I don't understand, the CPU usage seems to be higher in total for the Ryzen CPU, and it seems to also have higher GPU usage, yet this somehow translates to almost twice as long frametimes. I *guess* this could just be a slight imperfection in the benchmark (since the two screenshots show lightly different contents meaning they're not an exact 1:1 comparison), but I still struggle to understand how this works. How would the 1700 perform with SMT turned off? Would it match the 7700K in per-core usage?

>feeling sorry for that fat piece of shit

>meaning they're not an exact 1:1 comparison

it's impossible to benchmark game 1:1 without in-game benchmark

>How would the 1700 perform with SMT turned off? Would it match the 7700K in per-core usage?

2-3 fps more

aka it won't match 7700k, it can barely match i5

It still doesn't explain the GPU usage difference. The Ryzen is giving the GPU more work to do (resulting in higher usage) but this is causing lower framerates.

That is weird as hell, something's wrong. Even Intel shills should be able to see that.

Why in the fucking hell the memory usage on the 7700k side is a third of the other? Also why's the order of most of the text of the overlay different in the two images?

how much time it took you ti find exaclty that frame? intel drops to 50 right after that and ryzen jumps to 90 just 20 frames after this one
magic, I know

didn't you get the memo? it's 17-20% better now with new bios, search for updated benchamrks, some already did

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

...

>'even'
Congrats on being a moron who doesn't know how cpu's work OP.

lowering resolution shifts the bottleneck from the gpu to the cpu and vice versa.

Now if the 1700 would 'even' bottleneck the 1080 at 4k, that would be something

intel shills sure are going at it

in that youtube's description it says this is a R7 1700 @ 3.9ghz vs an i7 7700k at 5ghz. these results are so skewed and irrelevant with the 1700 at such a low frequency

Ryzen is literally the worst CPU launch I have ever seen

3.9 ghz is most likely the most you can get out of a 1700, as the 1800x does 4.1 ghz on watercooling.

Why would you not test both cpu's on their max frequency?

I would be pretty surprised if 3.9ghz is the maximum overclocked frequency and not just some gay beta bios bullshit, it seems like the "bottom end" of the retarded reviewer quickly just upping the multiplier for 3.9ghz without playing with voltages while 5ghz isn't a number you can easily achieve with all i7 7700ks.

I don't trust youtube reviewers to actually do things properly anymore, lots of them are just like Linus and don't know what the fuck they're doing.

If that's true then the CPUs are shit, but ~4.5ghz should be attainable on air cooling

>3.9 ghz is most likely the most you can get out of a 1700
nobody expected even that from it on all cores, need bigger sample number to know for sure

he says that himself, he didn't touch voltage yet beyond 1.3
maximum voltage of the chip is 1.365

It isn't.
They crashed the OC demo at 4GHz.

4.1, not 4, kike.

Sup Forums please leave

LMAO!

intel lost

Let's fucking reiterate why low resolution tests are important.

Upping the resolution and details mainly affects the graphics card - and as such you have to reach the point where graphics card performance doesn't matter, as it'll be drawn in time anyway. This also means that you can compare CPUs accurately.

But obviously CPU choice doesn't matter much today when both can handle 60fps at high resolutions. But that is besides the point - you want your CPU/Mobo combination to last longer than the GPU which is relatively cheap to swap.

In a couple of years you'll be upgrading the GPU and that will probably be pushing those high, CPU-bound framerates even at high resolutions. Now that is where the actual difference comes in, a CPU which performs well in low resolution games now, will be the future-proof choice.

>inb4 AMD fanbois claim that games will be optimized for 8c/16t

All I can say is that it's possible but far from certain, every game certainly won't be. Lower core count CPUs are more consistent performers.

1440p.

thats a 3.9ghz necking the fucking 5 ghz... jeeezus

>but ~4.5ghz should be attainable on air cooling
Stop being delusional, you literraly base that on nothing but hopeful thinking.

All the data released so far suggests that is a beyond retarded expectation

>, but ~4.5ghz should be attainable on air cooling
HAHAHAHHA

nice fake benchmarks you are using there, how can you explain in 95% of reviewers ryzen is way worse than i7 7700k? fucking shills

someone edit this to say
"Hi !
I'm a big cunt"

I didn't say that they weren't important, I was just criticizing OP for his use of the word "even"

>waitfag
Join the dark side and buy 7600k
>inb4 b-but muh cores

hahahaha thats such a funny jokes yes someone PLEASE do that

>shill calling other people shills

I have that monitor. Tis a good monitor.

where is this from

...

your burial

this is very relevant to me, because I bought a titan X pascal to game on a 720p 60hz monitor

whats the story there?

Invalid test results. Look at the ram usage. There is no way this test is valid, either the settings or scene must be vastly different to give such a high difference in memory used.

Then why is 7700k consistently lagging behind of 8c cpus and with micro stuttering at 4k? The workload that cpu does at low res != workload at high res

kek
>ITS RAM GUYS NOT SHITTY SINGLE CORE PERF OF RYZEN

No, but this test isn't a fair comparison. If you want to show that ryzen has shitty single core perf, show it using real, valid benchmarks. Not this shit.

I mean look at the ram usage difference you fucking retard. GTAV on the 1700 is using 5755MiB of ram, while the version running on the 7700K is only using 1723MiB. The processor won't affect how much ram is used, so there must be some other factor. Different graphics settings, different locations ingame, something like that. Which means that it's an invalid test.

Unless you can explain how ryzen could cause games to use more than twice the amount of ram.

>Raw benchmark footage for the AMD Ryzen 1700 (3.9GHz) versus the Intel i7 7700K (5GHz) at 720p
>3.9GHz beats 5.0Ghz

Never saw that coming.