Ryzen CPU Value

AMD makes cheap CPUs they said...

Other urls found in this thread:

pcworld.com/article/3158919/servers/amd-talks-tough-as-it-drums-up-support-for-32-core-zen-server-chip.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Inb4 Ryzen 3

Dollar per Core:
1800X : $500/8 = $62.5

i3 7350K: $168/2 = $84.0

...

>clearly against 6900K
>somehow need look to be bad against low cores cpu
>2 core and 4 core vs 8 core that always more expensive
yeah, sure m8
I think you don't mind buying 6950x too

...

>b-but muh cores
Will this meme ever die?

hivemind

>Using gaming as a price to performance metric for an 8 core CPU
Kill yourself

Ryzen was supposed to be a gaming CPU

I wanted to believe. I actually did believe. Fuck you, AMD.

>doesn't list games used
useless benchmark.

And there are other CPUs in Ryzen category than 8 core, they just put the most expensive one out first for early adopters and people who want 8 cores.
So is it for poorfags or richfags? You can't have it both ways. Pick a statement and stick with it.

>beats 6900k in productivity benchmarks
>$300 1700 scores over 1400cb stock in Cinebench
>once optimizations happen, it'll be equal more or less

"One of the reasons I pre-ordered the 1800X was because of what I was led to believe about the XFR feature. Based on the AMD presentation I watched I was under the impression that through XFR my 1800X would automatically overclock itself as high as my cooling solution allowed. They made the XFR enabled Ryzen 7 CPUs sounds like an overclocker's dream.

However, now that its been released it's come to light that is not the case. The XFR can only overclock 100MHz to 4.1GHz. And that's also only two cores. I feel really misled about this feature and am disappointed. I hope in the future this feature is improved."

Holy shit! AMD are absolute savages, willing to BTFO their own fanboys for a few dollars.

Any gayming benchmarks on Windows 7?

Here's how you know the fix is in on Ryzen.

Despite having some great minimum frames, it's averages were slightly lower.

So, having a better, smoother experience accounts for nothing if all you want is a dick measuring contest.

14 games were tested:

Ashes of the Singularity, Battlefield 1, Civilization VI, Deus Ex Mankind Divided, The Division, Doom, Fallout 4, Far Cry Primal, Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow Warrior 2, Total War Warhammer, The Witcher 3

>FPS is all that matters

>So, having a better, smoother experience accounts for nothing if all you want is a dick measuring contest.

this isn't a new thing for Ryzen. FPS doesn't matter, what you should actually measuring is frame deltas but pretty much no reviewer does this.

>So is it for poorfags or richfags?

It's for people who like to waste money

...

>m-m-maybe if i post memes ryzen won't be so bad

>an AMD drone actually spent time on this because he couldn't find any benchmarks to justify his purchase

lmao

>PC Gamer
Dismissed.

>AMD makes cheap CPUs they said...
No they didn't.

Intels are poorfags now.

Because the FCAT equipment is expensive.

>Cost per FPS
>not Cost per Flop

LOLOLOL you guys prove it. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Irony.

>t. Pajeet
This other one is much better and that's because it's true.

Having way more cores than competition is hardly wasting money unless you change your CPU every year anyway. I would say it's futureproofing for times when software developers become competent and use multiple cores. It's not like you could add cores to your CPU once you start needing more of them.

That's a lie though, consoles have had 8 cores for years and it's still like this.

no one gives a flying fuck about 6900k. 6900k is niche as hell. ryzen was made for servers and you're a cuck for falling for the extreme hype that they pulled to try to get some revenue off of gullible gaymers.

>ryzen was made for servers

>I would say it's futureproofing for times when software developers become competent and use multiple cores.

Software devs aren't incompetent, hardware manufacturers are just a bunch of liars.

why the fuck is leaking?

sage'd

Zeppelin is a server part, consumer line is just a byproduct and a testbed.

pcworld.com/article/3158919/servers/amd-talks-tough-as-it-drums-up-support-for-32-core-zen-server-chip.html

the news/rumors 1-2 years back was that the server market was their primary target and that server cpus would actually be released before desktop cpus. i guess that's why they're doing the MOAR COREZ schtick and only pushing them for desktop and notebooks as an afterthought.

Sup Forums is Sup Forums's tech support bitch.

which isn't a bad thing. If it wasn't for gaming, regular consumers (who drive the lion's share of revenue for companies like Intel) would be upgrading their systems like once a decade.

>only pushing them for desktop and notebooks as an afterthought

Did you see the Ryzen presentation? They were supposed to be a gaming/enthusiast CPU.

Because it's consumer line made out of server dies. Just fucking read Stilt's review.

>Source
>Gamer
/thread

Poor bait

As someone put off by 6900K platform costs I'm considering a 1700X, but I might end up with a 7700K. Upgrading from a 2500K means I'll be replacing basically everything regardless.

now do the same, but compare with actual competition. you know 6900

ryzen is shit in a lot of other applications such as photoshop as well. unless you have a specific use for the cores like if you're a youtuber and you do a lot of video rendering then you're probably better off with a 7700k which you can overclock to ~5 GHz if you need the performance.

Obviously didn't watch it that well. They said 100 MHz in the tech briefing

Ryzen is a product line not a CPU, different product in that product line are aimed at different consumers, I know it's fucking shocking.

>ryzen is shit in a lot of other applications such as photoshop as well.

But they literally marketed these specific CPUs for gaming

The only thing (thats not some obscure ass science programming library) its been confirmed better than Intel is Handbrake. Literally every other common program Ryzen is shit.

>Shit in Photoshop

By .3 seconds.

This. It's a cost saving measure so they can flip cores off to make consumer chips. Plus this release is designed to iron out the bugs in code before R5 and Naples.

We're all Lab rats for testing at AMD and frankly will be for Intel as well.

>ryzen is shit in a lot of other applications such as photoshop
Oh wow another poorly optimise intel targeted example.

"Lots"

Ryzen SMASHES intel's offering in every category that matters in the industry. You cunts aren't even on the radar. The 4 core version is probably more appropriate for your gaymen but even then, it depends on how the game is compiled.

Overclocking a 7700K to 5GHz will mean it will only work for 2 years or so, you're significantly shortening the life of the processor. But gaymen don't care about that.

>So is it for poorfags or richfags?
it's for poorfag gamer kids who mistakenly think they're getting a better deal because more cores

And they provide a better experience then the 6900 and 7700.

It's 20% actually

>proprietary software
Dismissed :)

>Same price as a 7700

Intel for poorfags confirmed.

>AMD makes cheap CPUs they said...

Perhaps they will with Ryzen 5 and 3. Who knows.

Here's just my take on things: I don't play games much. I don't do that much which is demanding on my computer, but sometimes I encode video and compile things which does take quite a while on my system.

I'm on a AMD A8-7600 which has a passmark cpu benchmark rating of 5200. I paid about $120 for it back in the day and about the same for the motherboard.

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X is locally selling at $500 USD. 1800X is going at $630. The most expensive "consumer" 1151 Intel chip they offer is the Intel Core i7-7700K at $420.

If I were to upgrade motherboard/RAM/CPU to the new DDR4 generation then perhaps $300 for something like Intel's i5-7600K is as high as I'm willing to go.

The Ryzen 7's are clearly NOT cheap. $5-600 is clearly more than $100-200. I don't care if they supposedly beat some Intel CPU selling at $1000 (AMD marketing), I'd never buy into the 2011-3 Intel platform anyway - which is why i7-7700K is a far more fair comparison and that one does have a lower price-tag. And there's plenty of other good CPUs that are way cheaper than that.

Now, for the actual raw performance..
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X has a passmarket single thread rating of 2030 and a total rating of 15502. The i7-7700K gets 2597 and 12304. There is no way in hell anyone can convince me that the 1800X is worth that extra $200.

A CPU marketed as a gaming CPU should be able to .. you know, play games.

>for Intel as well
Not anymore since they went with servers first roadmap. Prepare for mass shitfests, user.

They don't though, the 7700 is better than all of them

10 frames per second.

With 20% higher minimums.

>I would say it's futureproofing for times when software developers become competent and use multiple cores.
lmao, this ... still a thing in the Windows world? As a GNU/Linux user I find this statement beyond ridiculous.
Most of the time all the CPU cores are idle and the little workload there is is distributed evenly between the cores. When there IS work to be done like compiling or video encoding all the cores fire up and keep going at full load. This has been the case for years and years and years now.

What, if any.. CPU intensive workload does not use all available cores?

>you're significantly shortening the life of the processor
>implying an OC'd 7700k won't last at least 4 years thanks to its fantastic TDP + good cooling

Yes they did, they said that it's similar to 6900x and that unlike 7700k you are able to stream and game at the same time!
Streaming one was complete bullshit, because most popular streaming service (Twitch) is pretty poor quality even i3 would be enough to play and stream.
6900x obviously comparison obviously showed not to be exactly true.
They never really actually said that it's going to compete with 7700k, if anything AMD has admitted on Reddit AMA that R7 can't compete with it's IPC

Higher minimums, slightly lower average.

That's worse? According to who?

>
>Ryzen was supposed to be a gaming CPU
Lol ok, gaming CPUs need AES acceleration and a shitload of theads right? Its not like the CPU was designed around enterprise use but first release is paired with scaled down motherboards for consumers.

Delid lake requires delidding.

7700k is generally the best cpu for desktop applications regardless of the price. even if you can afford an 1800x or 6900k it doesn't mean it's the better buy depending on what software you're using it for

Truth

>Overclocking a 7700K to 5GHz will mean it will only work for 2 years or so, you're significantly shortening the life of the processor. But gaymen don't care about that.

Ugh, i remember when my compsci prof and i were talking about hardware and he was adamant OC would DIE my CPU yet i'm still running my i5 750 at 4.2GHz since day one, bought it back in 2009ish, MSI P55 GD65.

Sysmark is not a valid benchmark, got another one?

Which can easily be done without harming the CPU if you know what you're doing.

Imagine not needing to?

You could also just buy a chip that doesn't require that.

Holy shit somebody defends jew cum TIM. A living shabbos goy.

Overclocking is degenerate

most 7700Ks can do 5 GHz with just +100mV and 4.8-4.9 GHz at stock voltage or even below stock voltage.

Oh yes it is, we all need to buy newer Intel chips.

>muh marketed to gaymers

Please show me a single AMD official benchmark/presentation where they showed it in a game vs something less then a 6800/6900.

Just by a cheaper non-K CPU that will be stable forever

>Cost per FPS

Kill yourself back to Sup Forums, shitter.

...

Rekt

...

>you're probably better off with a 7700k which you can overclock to ~5 GHz if you need the performance.
>Overclocking is degenerate
intel shills just can't decide

Note that's 1440p, not 1080p which is what all the retard benches you see are running at.

>everyone on Sup Forums is the same person

I think there's a strong correlation between paranoid schizophrenia and being an AMD fan boy

AMD literally rigged their pre-release benchmarks which is why this launch has been such a disaster

see

>Ryzen SMASHES intel's offering in every category that matters in the industry.

No, it doesn't.

The Intel Core i7-7700K gets a passmark single core rating of 2597 and a multi-core rating of 12304. This costs $420.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X has a single core rating of 2028 and a multi-core rating of 15502. This one costs $630.

You may or may not be aware of this but single core performance matters to many in the "industry". I personally just care about multi-core and performance but there is no compelling case there either.

maybe he split a longer post because of post length limit. he's not samefagging (pretending to be more than one person), he's replying to himself with "also"

>photoshop
singlethreaded.

Video rendering with even the 1700 is vastly faster than the 7700K.

not everyone is a youtuber or whatever the shit """"prosumer"""" crap you need to do hours and hours of video rendering

Well you found one, is that it? Surely they tested against the 7700k at least more then once and showed us?

>games

Good thing I'm not a manchild and I don't give a shit about gayming

Not everyone should buy HEDT offering then.

That graph shows the R7 1700 losing to the 7700K 7/12 times. They're clearly not implying it's the best in general just that it's close enough that it shouldn't matter to anyone.