Ryzen Has Horrible Price-Performance

I thought AMD was supposed to make budget CPUs?

Other urls found in this thread:

pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/
youtube.com/watch?v=1v44wWAOHn8&t=13m40s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

le tricky hook maymay.png

AMD has completely lost the plot now. They've turned into a scam company.

y-yeah

l-look at t-that price

b-buy i-intel

...

...

your thread is bad and you should feel bad

Gotta love how AMD fags have zero arguments against this, just memes

The arguments against it are:

>current games are unoptimized for the architecture
>gaming isn't the primary function of the CPUs

So I guess the vast majority of software isn't optimized either

Really makes you think

What is there to argue against on a chart that for some strange reason omits Intels 8 core 16 thread CPUs?

Correct

pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/

Those are also horrible price performance

AMD was supposed to make GOOD VALUE CPUs and Ryzen has HORRIBLE VALUE

>So I guess the vast majority of software isn't optimized either
Yes.

>Really makes you think
No, because this is the case with any major departure from traditional architecture. Subsequent updates allow software to properly exploit the new capabilities.

>make CPU that sucks at everything
>expect everyone to buy it so it gets future support

What an amazing master plan AMD has going here

...you do know that they haven't released their entire lineup, right? The Ryzen 7 smashes the CPUs they're supposed to compete against, Intels 8 core 16 thread CPUs, for half the price, in everything but video games.

I'm truly shocked that an 8 core 16 thread CPU isn't a good value for playing video games on, that's completely unheard of.

...

>>expect everyone to buy it so it gets future support
You got that ass-backwards. Software of all kinds, if it's well-designed, is tailored for the hardware available at the time.

Hardware actually supports software, it is the determining factor.

But they are good value for their intended purpose. Expect that value to only increase as full support arrives within a year. Next gen Zen will have the benefit of starting from finished foundation, and THEN you can expect day 1 consistency and full support.

If their intended purpose is to sit around all day rendering & encoding, then yes

If their intended purpose is to do LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE, then no, they are horrible

>~10% less framerate, still higher than 60fps, that most screens have
>twice the core count, with performance that applies where it matters
yeah, "horrible"

>Literally 3 (three) fewer FPS on average compared to the 6900k

Holy shit, it's confirmed, Ryzen is DOA!!!!!!

>Literally beaten by $200 CPU

Just end it...

AND with that low stock clock speed
intelfags are on suicide watch

>Gameshitter.
Just leave.

Actually if anything reviewer was doing Ryzen a favor.

4.1 is as good as it gets and that's being unstable for R7. This is literally 100-200mhz gain from stock. Meanwhile every Intel cpu above that can easily gain up to 1Ghz.

5960x can reach 4.5Ghz stable compared to 3.5Ghz boost on stock. Kaby and Skylake easily hit 800Mhz+ each.

Ryzen is truly trash tier.

here now go Sup Forums.org/v/

>Doesn't need high clocks to match a similar processor that is clocked to its limit
You say that as if that's a bad thing

Haha. This Ryzen thing is such a joke. We can't let him get the nuclear codes.

overall game performance is 3fps behind the 7700k.

with Ryzen you get.
>more cores
>lower wattage
>futureproof
>a cpu that doesnt ramp up to 100c in 2 minutes.

so OP is confirmed a faggot.

all i can conclude from this picture is that 1700 is only a little bit worse than 7700k for gaming and its proven that its better on anything else that use multi thread properly

>games.
is this really the argument for cpu in Sup Forums in 2017

how well it runs hackwork programmed games?

No it's not

Ryzen is way behind Intel and worst of all it costs TWICE as much

Ryzen - paying twice as much to get worse performance

>Gaming.

>i-i-i-its not a gaming CPU

OK how about AMD issue a public apology to all the gamers who bought it and give them all refunds.

Hmmm really makes me think.

They merely advertised that it can game, and it does. It's more than adequate for it but if you want value for your money, you better have use for those 8 cores.

>7700k beats a 6900k
What a good and relevant chart to demonstrate what a CPU is capable of

>they merely advertised that it can game

Jesus fuck, that is the worst excuse I have ever heard.

Ryzen: Yes, it can play games. It costs twice as much and you get worse performance, but sure, it can game!

speaking of my 8GB of (2x4GB) DDR4.

I noticed that desu ex mankind divided uses all of it. Does Ryzen support 4 DIMMS? CAn i buy another 8GB kit of the exact same model? They're 2400MHz

It's your motherboard that supports the RAM, not the CPU

Wait
Hold on
You're telling us
That an 8 core 16 thread CPU is a bad value for playing video games on? Holy shit, this is completely brand new, never heard of before information! I take it you were using a 6900k in your gaymen PC before Ryzen was released?

>ignoring the cinebench and handbrake benchmarks which made up majority of the official benchmarks
You're really missing the point of this CPU

Nobody uses 6900k to play games just like no one should use Ryzen to play games

OH, so Ryzen is for encoding only! Great, somebody tell all the fucking idiots who got scammed into buying Ryzen for consumer use.

>> Sup Forums

You're really missing the point of this CPU

What's the point of it when they heavily advertised gaming and streaming in all of their events and reveals with Battlefront and Battlefield?

So why does every Intel shill keep using Ryzens 8 core 16 thread CPUs in video game benchmarks if you're not supposed to use 8 core 16 thread CPUs for playing video games on? You're aware that AMD are going to release more CPUs than just the Ryzen 7 line, right?

...

Those CPUs are going to be even worse than the 1800X. And 1800X is AMDs flagship yet it gets owned by a 7700K.

>Know that it's heavily advertised in gaming, streaming and video encoding
>still be retarded enough to miss the point
I'm so sorry, user. I didn't know your parents dropped you into a toilet bowl head-first when you were a baby.

So you can't refute my point or come up with an argument.

Nicely going. Don't know what I expected from an AMD shill.

>Know that it's heavily advertised in gaming, streaming and video encoding all at the same time
>still be retarded enough to miss the point
I'm so sorry, user. I didn't know your parents dropped you into a toilet bowl head-first when you were a baby.

Still can't refute my point or come up with an argument and also parrotting your own weak remark in an attempt to rile me up.

Pajeets are out in full force today. If you reply to me again with the same shit that only further proves my own point so go ahead and do it.

The R5 and R3 lines are likely to have higher clockspeeds since they don't have to worry about 8 entire threads.
IE; AMD's R3 line could be a CPU that beats the 7700k for $150.

>refute
Knowing what it is, you can your own statement by yourself if you had a properly functioning brain and weren't dropped into a toilet bowl when you were a baby.

Please learn how to read, the 6900k gets "owned" in benchmarks by the 7700k too. Is the 6900k a shit CPU or is it meant for different workloads than playing video games on?

The OC wall seems to hit hard at 4.0-4.1ghz, though.

Not going to happen mate don't get your hopes up. R3 and R5 cpus will be price/perf and price/watt champions and will beat i5s in many tasks but not i7s.

Lisa Su herself said that they are for gaming.

youtube.com/watch?v=1v44wWAOHn8&t=13m40s

Is this for individual cores?
If it is then the 14nm process they're using is not as good as intel's. Whoops!

I keep forgetting the 7700k is an i7, I can't keep track of these intel model names.

I'm gonna buy 1800X.
fuck ya''l

Yea whit 8 cores and 16 threads. Same thing fucking thing applies to 6900k. You cant overclock 8core to 5niggahertz whit regural cooling. Idiot

>collect a disused prescott rig from under my dads house for free
>price/performance of infinity
>hehe nothing personnel amdfags
>house burns down before i publish the benchmarks
is this the power...of intel

>whether you're a gamer or a content creator

>An 8 core CPU on a brand new architecture that's currently riddled with OS and BIOS bugs is still within 10 FPS of Intels best gaming CPU offering

...is this supposed to be a bad thing?

6900K regularly gets to 4.5GHz.

Yes, AMD is finished.

so let me get this straight

since march 2

the tradinitional intel benchmarks cinebench and sysmark arent valid anymore

and now intell shills are resulting into creating another form charting that not even nvidia does that to justify FPS/PRICE like we are some kind of idiots

ryzen has INSANE VALUE because AMD actually and OFFICIALLY COMPARED ryzen to 6900K which is the ONLY OTHER 8C cpu on the market

but INTEL SHILLS forget CONVENIENTLY their TOP cpu because SUDDENLY ryzen BEING ONLY 500 BUCKS kills on sight the 6900k which COSTS 1000 BUCKS

we GET it and we THANK you for that BECAUSE you are literally CREATING the OPPOSITE result of what you WANTED

and the FUN stuff is that YOU dont even GET IT

Intell shills are working overtime because they cant let people find out down clocked Zen is pretty much twice as powerful than Intel chips in the 30w range. Zen will make Intel its bitch in HPC and mobile.

Also, do people forget the SMT bugs with the first i7? How MS had yo patch those? What about the x99 platform problems on release? Shit even 7700k was broken for some people while waiting for mobo updates. For Zen mobos are still screwy, MS fucked it up in W10 (W7 works) and for the last 7+ years people have been optimizing for Intel chips. Zen is a brand new radically different arch, developers need to take advantage of it. On benchmarks the 7700k is at 95% utilization on all cores, while Zen is at 30-70% with one or two cores at 80%. 7700k is as good as it will get. Ryzen has lots of room for future performance, once devs get a clue. Zen might be in Scorpio which will force devs to get with the program.

smt might be similiar to ht but it doesnt do it in the same way
intel issues ht staticly amd does it dynamic using all of the caches for physical and logic ones

im just hoping that ms will map it quickly enough and the reviewers will re do the benches.. just so that i can take a bath on intel tears

>gamer

You need +18 to post here

daily reminder with the only real charts

What are these new capabilities? Surely someone has made some elementary test program that exploits it.

tfw life should be benchmarked in cost per fps

integer and floating point scheduler separation, infinity fabric among other things

Tfw Intel fags are so insecure that they make threads with pitiful benchmarks and never actually care if someone supports Ryzen with actual claims that their performance is better in productivity.
All you AMDfags that say Ryzen wasn't for gaming, it was and the reason it isn't the best right now it's due to optimization.
What do you fucking expect from a company that's never had a solid CPU in quite a while?
Now that multi-core use is rising in "gaems"
due to normal-fags buying PS4/XB1 type consoles that use that architecture, now it's highly likely most PC games will take use of the cores now due to developer's moving that way with consoles.
Ryzen is the better value not just for the CPU but for it's overall build price.
Why buy atm an i7 7700k $329 + $30 +$150 OC Mobo against a $299 r1700 with (stock, aftermarket level cooler) +$100 mobo?
$100 bucks less and more cores?
Intel shills are on full force.
Oh and if you bought an i7 'just for gaems' you should get the fuck off this board and into:

>It's another Sup Forums episode

Ryzen is shit, it fails in both performance and price, can't get any worse than that

Are you brain damaged?

It costs literally twice as much as Intel for worse performance

It's fucking horrible

Hey guys, what's the maximum memory speed ryzen supports?

0

>Baseless one liner

Kill yourself

>Inb4 muh games

Where do you live where the 6900k costs $250?

Officially? 2933MHz. If the motherboard has an external clock generator then it can support 3466MHz. The only motherboard with that functionality is the Asus Crosshair.

The IMC in Ryzen generally sucks.

>baseless

Top kek, look above you, the evidence is overwhelming

A fucking $240 Intel beats a $500 Ryzen

HOLY FUCK!!!!!

YOU MEAN I GET 3 FUCKIN FPS LESS!!!!!!
HOW AM I ABLE TO PLAY GAMES NOW!!.
I SPEND ALL MY MONEY ON THE FUKING CPU.

I SHOUDLD HAVE SPENT ON INTEL AND GET 3FPS MORE.

WHO FUCKEN NEED GPU??

AMITRE

And it beats a $1000 Intel too you fucking retard

Cost per FPS? da fuck is that.
Use FPS per Dollar nigger

Maybe if you typed like a normal human I would take you seriously.

AMD fags really are retarded.

So I don't know a lot about cpus but wouldn't the price per fps(what ever the fuck that means in the context of the chart) increase as the the overall quality of the cpu increases? I'm not an amd fag btw, I have an Intel cpu in my desktop, I'm just thinking about it

Gee, how convenient that Intels 8 core 16 thread CPU isn't on the chart because it costs $1000, almost like an 8 core 16 thread CPU isn't designed for video games...

here, you have it corrected:
It costs literally twice as much as AMD for worse performance,
when you compare apples to apples and number cores to number cores...

>yes yes, very impressive multi-threaded performance but how does it perform in GTA V at 1080p

>i7 5960X literally beaten by a i5 7600K
Stop comparing apples to oranges.

know hilarious part?

as of 6 days ago 5960x was considered best gaming chip money can buy right after 6950K