Ryzen is one of the worst gaming CPUs that I have ever seen launched.
It gets beat by Intel processors that cost half as much.
A $240 Intel i5 7600K is faster than a $500 Ryzen 1800X
A $170 Intel i3 7350K is faster than a $330 Ryzen 1700
Why the fuck did AMD tell people this is a gaming CPU?
y-yeah, ryzen is h-horrible
b-buy intel
quick question, OP. Did you check the catalogue to see if anyone else was talking about Gaming Benchmarks for the ryzen processor? You might have been able to find a thread, rather than creating a duplicate :~)
Cuz AMD is retarded
They are run by chinks and poos
>boo hoo, an 8 core 16 thread CPU that is meant for workstations gets me 10 less fps in cowadoody.
God you're pathetic.
Intel didn't even lower their prices a bit and AMD's stock is now tanking.
Sadly Intel has absolutely nothing to worry about, AMD failed yet again.
>paying twice as much for a CPU that performs worse
Why would you ever do that?
>Still using fake benches
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
That benchmark is literally fake, the guy had to redo it:
reddit.com
After he fixed his test, the 7700k was 20% faster than the 1700
some people aren't merely vidya-kids.
>Brand new architecture with zero developer optimizations for it runs a handful of FPS slower than the architecture that hasn't changed for 8 years.
I think youre actually missing the bigger picture.
AMDs 1700 on average gets 11 frames more than their last generation FX 8370 CPU.
8370 costs $100, the 1700 costs $300, $200 FOR 11 more frames on average.
Ryzen 1700 BTFO by.......AMDs FX 8370
Kek
Is AMD going backwards?
Round the clock threads for shitting on a particular product. I wonder who's behind this...
>some dude dumps 9 million stocks on the market
>LMAO AMDEAD
yeah sure. Meanwhile all the smart money is on Ryzen being a smash hit for builds (already proven, sold out practically everywhere, over 1M chips sold), and on Naples being the best thing to come to servers since the first gen opterons.
>sold out everywhere
What? I can buy them at Amazon and New Egg right now
Watch that server market. This is what ryzen is designed for
you seem to have dropped a word there.
...
>LOOK MOM
>I
>POSTED IT
>AGAINNNNNNNN xDDDDDDDD
> none of these are running at 3000fps
> unacceptable
The website I shoo at for parts had 30-60% off some intel cpus
This is getting old, user. I need new shit to inject in my blood
Where?
protip: R7 and i7-6800+ are not intended as gaymen CPUs
Then why did AMD market them as such?
ryzen isn't just the r7 retard
But the R7 was marketed as a gaming CPU and it sucks at gaming
it's almost like I called this exact thing a few weeks ago
>most games can't take advantage of 8 cores
look at Intel 6700k vs their 6-8 core CPUs, there is negligible benefit even with them, maybe 10 fps between them all.
unfortunately the only people AMD wants to sell to are cheap gamers and people who need a LOT of processors, and they only beat Intel in one of those areas.
yeah they are 7zip cinebenching behemoths.
which is important since the real world lives and breaths on 7zip performance.
only faggot photoshit users and people who do video work but want to spend less use that faggot i7 shit
not to mention 1800x is the working mans workstation. compiling code and streaming it all while compressing disk backup partitions.
shit is king. INTEL BTFO
>10-20% FPS of a very mature core arch on a brand new arch with all the associated fuckery.
>costs twice as much
>performs worse
>which is important since the real world lives and breaths on 7zip performance
>literally all mobos sold out
>ryzens selling like hot cakes
It's over jew shill, AMD won
>think you are actually missing the bigger picture.
no you
>>performs worse*****
*single threaded only
fixed that for you, unless you are saying the 6900 is shit because it costs 4x as much and performs """"worse""""
lol @ those people in /pcbg/
>i want a 6700k for gaming
>wait for ryzen
>why
>bc it's gonna be better
fuck em, i got a 6700k and it's awesome and i got to enjoy it for months before any of you even got to pre-order your CPUs
this is like the hardware equivalent of No Man's Sky
Yeah I feel bad for anybody who fell for the AMD shills
Looking to get a great all rounder PC that will be able to last the family at least 10 years. At the moment I'm currently using a 2009 Intel Core 2 duo powered iMac.
Is it worth getting Ryzen 1700 for futureproofing or is the shekel saving/better general/gayming performance of the 7600k the better investment?
Ryzen CPUs are just gonna get way less support, so for future-proofing I would go for Intel all the way
UNACCEPTABLE
WHOLE 15MS OF LESS THAN 70 FPS! HOW DARE THEY! 15MS!
no, parking cores and USB power saving bug is not an issue here, no-no you are imagining things, drivers not drawing more calls is not a problem
ITS SHIT ARCHITECTURE!
You obviously want the 8 core if you plan on keeping it as long as possible.
It was a meme with FX but in 2017 games are actually using 8 cores. Look at shit like BF1.
You'll definitely not going to cut it with 4 cores 5 years from now.
10 years? buy a 7700K, it's the best processor per dollar out right now and any program can take advantage of its 4c/8th architecture
shills are getting out of control
Depends.
If you think devs will code for moar cores, then the 1700 is decent, with the AM4 board carrying you though the entire ryzen, zen+ line.
If not, go Intel.
I think it's inevitable with consoles going 8c.
nobody used xeons for gaming ever, they have support for at least 4 years
>BF1 using 8 cores
i can't find a single benchmark that backs up your claim.
i'm going with the other guy and buying a 7700k
Both the PS4 and Xbone use low clocked 8 core AMD chips.
Devs are now forced to code their games for this architecture whether they like it or not. It's not a meme anymore they simply have to do it.
hi
>Look at shit like BF1.
Uhhh
Those have been out for 3 years and games are still like this.
The fact is that games are always going to be heavily dependent upon strong single-core performance due to the way they have to be programmed serially.
Well we should have expected it i guess.. It was overhyped
>old as familiar architecture vs something that wasn't even out when the game was developed
really made me think
let's wait a few months and see how the graphs look then
Kek, shut down by a redditor
>amd told us this was a gaming cpu
They probabbly fucked up on that.
At 720P
FUCKING KEK
Who the fuck plays games at 720P?
>newfags don't remember what a shitshow the first 4 core Intels were
You can't expect a new fucking architecture to be as smooth out of the box as an old as fuck one that is super optimized and all the devs familiar with.
The "games like this" have all been this gen last gen multiplats.
Only very recently have we seen games start to use full 8c, like bf1/for honor. The trend won't go backwards.
~4% with SMT enabled, damn good.
>Gearbest
i agree with you but if you think x86 stuff is going to have great nuance i think youll be disappointment
Look at the OP, those are all 1080p maxed
>~4% with SMT enabled, damn good.
That's good? It can't even beat an Intel processor that costs $160 less
>according to Sup Forums the ultimate measure of how good a CPU is how many FPS it gets at low details 720p in outdated DX11 5 year old games
People can't seriously be this retarded, can they?
People generally get 10% perf gain with smt disabled.
These are all recent games, many in DX12, at 1080p maxed
>gaming CPUs
Why don't you stop right there.
Look I'm trying to show how retarded GN metric is for last 3 days, not a single reply. Truth hurts.
1800x being 2.3% below 6900k
1700x being 5% below 6800k
1700 being 7% below 6800k
and shills dont even know how close this is..
you mean we are paying half as a 6900k for exactly the same or even better perfomance
I really hope you were not buying a 6900k for gaming
the 6900K is a workstation CPU aimed at content creators. content creation requires more cores for improved performance rather than higher clockspeeds. the ryzen 7 chips are in direct competition in this area. comparing it to quadcore CPU's is misleading, as their reduced core count naturally allows for higher clock speeds due to the lower thermal output.
games are still largely single-threaded, hence the obvious advantage a lesser-core CPU running at higher frequencies has. in workstation scenarios however, the 8 core 16 thread ryzen 7 will easily beat any quadcore, regardless of how high they're clocked.
>content creation requires more cores for improved performance
Except when it doesn't.
These high core count CPUs are literally only good at super optimized multithreaded operations that take a long time to complete like rendering and encoding
If that were the case, wouldn't the 1% and 0.1% lows be a lot closer to the average fps?
>i7-7700k beating an i7-6900k
>single threaded benchmark
cherry-picked bullshit
>Photoshop is cherry picked
OK
Choosing only single-threaded benchmarks to show how bad a low-frequency multi-core CPU performs is cherry picking.
The benchmark is cherry picked.
Fuck, this launch brought out the most basic fucking retards who lack all logic.
Get out.
>inb4 more single threaded bullshit.
>"""""sucks at gaming""""
nice b8
>Gamer Nexus
Into thrash it goes
Would you like another Photoshop benchmark if that one didn't live up to your standards?
Here you go, Ryzen is awful.
What is the best value 24" 1440p monitor lads? Looking at the Asus VX24AH or the BenQ BL2420PT.
Fellow Ausfags would know pricing better but ant advice would be appreciated.
Please explain how a CPU that is beat by processors that cost half as much doesn't suck at gaming.
>OH NO! My images take 2 seconds longer to apply filters!
thank god I don't have a 300hz 720p monitor, otherwise my r7 1700 purchase would have been pointless!
...in gaming
...aka in something that doesn't yield any productivity or get you any money
since when did Sup Forums turn into Sup Forums
since "muh gayming" became the only thing intel shills had left to shill
It takes 30% longer
Imagine if you are a graphic designer, you use Photoshop all day and you buy a Ryzen CPU because it's supposedly so good for content creation.
It costs $160 more to get 30% SLOWER performance.
Ryzen is a scam.
check the gaps between 1% low and avg, it's smaller
sure 7700K gets more fps but it jumps all over the place in the process, as demonstrated by the graph
key word here is time. rendering progresses over time, right? so when you have jumps from 120 fps to 140 every 10 ms how does it feel?
but when you have 125 to 130 fps?
yes ryzen can drop even lower once in a while, but overall 7700K jumps in graph consistently all the time
it's all about time.
Its ironic that GN bashed fury x for bad frametimes, explaining how it works, but when it comes to CPU they suddenly found the light and avg is more important now.
>Get a 7700k over a 1700
>Applying filters take 30% faster
>Rendering 4k videos where those images are going to be used take 200% longer
legit wtf
I bought my r7 1700 for productivity reasons, but I still play games once in a while, and my i5 4670, even at 4k, is not cutting it, there are cases where it reaches 100% usage and is just bottlenecking like crazy
so my choice was either continue to buy intel, and continue to buy a new motherboard with each new cpu, or buy amd, and use 1 motherboard for at least 5 years, and have the ability to buy a next-gen zen cpu if needed
obviously the logical choice was to go after an 8 core with 16 threads, instead of a 4 core with 8 threads
Which AMD Zen CPU is planned to be in the $200-250 range?
I don't really like the though of springing for a $400 CPU, even if I don't upgrade often.
1600x probably
6c/12t
4.0Ghz turbo
basically it's 1800x but with six cores
>imagine you are a dumbass who buys a 8c16t processor for single threaded applications.
Must be easy for you to imagine such things.
You absolute fucking retard.
You are cherry picking Photoshop benchmarks. Photoshop is single threaded.
Kill.
Your.
Self.
>m-m-muh games
back to
How is that cherry picking?
Are you trying to tell me that Photoshop is not a highly used software for content creation?
You get it, truth.
>a thread with exclusively gaming and single threaded application benches
>ever basing cpu quality off of gaming benches
>ever basing cpu quality off of single thread apps instead of artificial single thread benches (newsflash: any modern application written in a single thread is not optimized for performance and is written like shit when it comes to Perf)
Dear christ faggots you managed to give me cancer, get out of Sup Forums with these shitty benches, if only Hiroshimoot would ban all these dumb fucks
See
So is blender and any other video-editing suite. I'll gladly take a few seconds more of image-rendering if it means shaving hours off of video or 3d rendering.
>any modern application written in a single thread is not optimized for performance and is written like shit when it comes to Perf
You have no idea what you're talking about. You can't just flip a switch and make your application work with multiple threads, many things HAVE to be written for single threads.
This is why consoles have had 8 cores for years and games are still programmed like this
>This is why consoles have had 8 cores for years and games are still programmed like this.
That's because launch, post launch titles were 360/ps3 ports. Graphical and rendering improvements but core engine still needed to work on old hardware.
BF1, for honor, etc, true next gen games fully utilizeing hardware shows a very, very tight race between ryzen and Intel's offerings.
Gameing nexus own review shows the 1800x at 4% under with SMT enabled. That's great when you factor in SMT degrading performance.