If amd's flapship loses to an i3 in games what is going to happen to r5 and 3 especially with their 2 CCX

If amd's flapship loses to an i3 in games what is going to happen to r5 and 3 especially with their 2 CCX

Other urls found in this thread:

siliconlottery.com/
hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/halloffame
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>over 5ghz 7700k
I don't even like AMD but I have to say that is one biased benchmark.

Sure thing poojet

I'm not a filthy Indian, kid. Compare silicon lottery with silicon lottery.

The only reasonable OCed CPU on that benchmark is the 4.4ghz 6900k.

Around 86% of 7700k go to 5ghz. Not every cpu is made of poo

>Around 86% of 7700k go to 5ghz
100% of them will go to 5ghz. Even 5.2 like that benchmark. Only like 20% will be stable. Why they commend the price they do.

How can poojets ever compete? Their high end shit already got shit on by intel and they plan on releasing even weaker shit. What the fuck is this shit?

Considering you'll need a non "aio" water cooled set up to maintain 5.2ghz 24/7 you're talking about very high end PCs there.

AMD will sit nicely in the mid range again. It will be interesting to see the battle for budget with the i3s though.

...

Look at this pic the i3 is over their 1700 and only slightly under their top 1800x. And this is the most real world test. Normies play games, they don't render 10 hour 8k 200mbits videos

Ya the i3 at fucking 5ghz dumbass.

If you oc the amdrone to 5ghz your whole neighborhood will catch fire

>post retarded GAYMURR benchmark with 1080p and FPS well above 60
>call anyone who points it out poojeet

Great thread OP, you win the "Please kill yourself now" award of the day.

Its pretty hilarious OP was stupid enough to think he was making a point.
Its a shitty GamerNexus bench, an early release one. Likely having performance lost from now addressed BIOS issues, core parking, and etc.
The stock Ryzen 1700 has a 3ghz base clock, peak turbo is 3.7ghz. All core turbo is 3.2ghz.
Its neck and neck with that 5ghz Kaby Lake i3.
Redoing the test now would probably show that i3 loosing its already pathetically small advantage.

I have no idea how well AMD OCes. Haven't owned an AMD cpu since phenom.

That i3 isn't a normal OC though.

So what you mean is that anybody with i7-6900k is a damn fool.

A 2 core cpu ravages an 8 core 16 thread cpu, not even poojets can defend that

the AMD chips with less cores can be clocked higher

why do you think that the 6900k doesn't get OCd to 4.5ghz and blow the 7700k out of the water when it comes to gaming?

Amdrone is using 2 ccx in their r5 which are already clocked lower than the r7. Their cores literally cannot clock higher, it's fury x all over again

>what is random (or paid, knowing jewtel inside) optimization anomaly

As of 2/22/17, the top 78% of tested 7700Ks were able to hit 4.9GHz or greater.

As of 2/22/17, the top 59% of tested 7700Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater.

As of 2/22/17, the top 28% of tested 7700Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater.

As of 2/22/17, the top 7% of tested 7700Ks were able to hit 5.2GHz or greater.

Source siliconlottery.com/

>1% low

So 80% of 7700ks do 5ghz. I'd day it's pretty good
Yea I'm sure it's someone's fault again and it's not amd's chip being shit

compared to ryzen cpus where pretty much none of the cpus can get get over 3.9-4.1GHz
kek

my 1700 is way faster than my 7700k at 1440p when i game and render movies at the same time.

the 7700k was absolute garbage when doing multiple things.

Nobody renders hours of movies and playing games at the same time.

I mean, ya, it really shouldnt be worse than an i3 in any respect, that's inexcusable, but for gaming does the processor even matter at all? I'm never ever bottlenecked by my cpu when gaming, only if I have like 3 or 4 games open at once in the background, and I'm doing shit on photoshop, while a movie is playing on my 2nd screen, and chrome is open with like 100 tabs (which is basically never).

I just dont get why people link these benchmarks like they actually mean something. you are never going to notice a difference between even 140fps and 187, never mind 139.3 and 139.7, it almost seems like getting the cheapest option would make the most sense since our current hardware is miles ahead of software (for 99% of people).

Everyone point and laugh at that pathetic 2500k performance

Human eye can see up to 245fps and 240fps monitor already exists so yes it's extremely important, every single fps matters

Yes they do, it's called "streaming"

Because the 6900k is broadwell, not kabylake. 6+ core kabylakes will oc to 4.7+ GHz.

They test on the most expensive motherboards with the largest coolers for only an hour. It's misleading and should not be trusted.

I'm interested to see the benchmarks for that newer tomb raider game that AMD processors do really well with.

Only youtubers do that and they have millions so they can afford a 6900k that destroys 1800x in streaming or they can just get the 6950x

Looses? Look at those minimums. Total stutter fest with those i3s

didn't you hear? stutter is a myth invented by AMD, it doesn't exist, nope

>stutter at 90fps

>5.0ghz @ 1.5v
No

Find your cpu from the list
hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/halloffame

When you loose 40+% of your fps in demanding situations, yes, you will notice.

The stock 7700k is just below the OC

180fps - 40% = 108fps

>games
This is Sup Forums, not Sup Forums so why should I give a fuck about video game performance?

>Ah yes amd might have lower fps in min, max and average but AMD has "Smoooothnessss"
>What do you mean proof? Fuck off goy, just buy ryzen!
>No, those benchmarks that show how long it took to render each frame prove nothing!
Typical AMD shills.

>These graphs prove NOTHING INTEL SHILL

He even remove the 0.1%, seem legit no bias

>muh gayms

>AMD IS more smooth, even if all benchmarks point otherwise
>you see goy, AMD smoothness is something can't be measured.
>so even if you have spikes in frametimes with ryzen, it doesn't count

Gaymans are what caused video cards and cpu's to evolve and drop in price

>These ryzen frametime spikes mean NOTHING
>its still more smooth because we get payed to say so

Keep defending that stuttering i3, poorfag. Not even one i3 on that graph to compare to. Nice try, tho

Poojets BLOWN THE FUCK OFF

Well, let's see an i3 in Photoshop then

That $100 i3 beats a $700 poozen cpu

What the fuck is this thread? Where are the mods?

You can't hide from the truth poojet even if it hurts your jims

Would you not be surprised that they try to pull this shit almost daily?
There is ton of evidence out there, I have posted this shit at least in 15 threads now.
Yet every time when AMD loses in FPS they claim "but it's more smooth"

I saw, they always come at you with >MUH LOW 1%

By the margin of error, with much, much lower minimums. You won't be using the exact same setup anyway, so the results are not going to be the same. And I suppose the majority of i3 owners are using a 1080 to play with?

yes, all youtubers have millions. totally bro

What the fuck is this shitposting? Holy shit go to Sup Forums if you want to shitpost, let people discuss tech.

If you can notice a 20fps difference in max fps, you will notice a drop of 60fps, retard

It's still better than 2500k. AMD wins again.

>oh no benchmarks that prevent us to spread shill lies have been posted
>m-m-mods DELETE THIS
Literally going "delete this" kek!

Yeah, which is why I actually had to made a folder of these pictures because they just blatantly lie day in and day out. Just so fucking tired of it already.

Look at that shitty, shitty 4790

Did Intel hire the worst pajeets known to man to prevent any meaningful Zen-related discussion? There's been like two decent Zen-related threads, and they involved it's server uses. Fuck this board, I'm off to fucking anandtech forums.

Pls make an imgur I need them

>I think Ryzen is disappointing
>F-F-FUCKING SHIPOSTING S-SHILL, BACK T-TO Sup Forums !!1!

Ironically poojets made ryzen so

>MOM MY FRAMES ARE .7 MS LONGER, BUY ME A NEW $1000 INTEL© 6900k

Autism

It all started with poos claiming raisin has better frametimes and that the 7700k "stutters" which is a lie.

>Mike Clark is Indian
Oh, i can always learn something new on Sup Forums. Thank you, Ramesh.

My 7700k needs 1.33v at 5GHz. Poozen needs 1.45v for 3.9GHz. Sad!

>Typical shill in action
>Ignores all the other benchmarks I posted
>goes after one image
>suggests 6900k instead of the clear winner across the board that is 7700k
>GOY why would you buy the 1000 dollar 6900k for gaming instead of our CHEAP CHEAP ryzen at 500$
It sickens me that I have to see this shit systematically get posted

>poojets calling others poojets so that they don't get called on

Poo in cpoo

>I think Ryzen is disappointing
So was Nehalem. Now stop shitposting or rope yourself.

Пoдтeкaй, Пaджит.

When you loose 50fps in demanding situations, it's shit.
Quit lying

Wait for the incoming AMD shills to tell you that MHz don't matter.
>AMD can you CPU overclock to 5GHz
>5GHz? What do you need 4.5GHz for
>here have 4GHZ at 1.4V

>just wait

Still pissy a 7700 is ONLY .7 ms ahead of zen?

...

Still pissy enough that you won't address the other benchmarks?
Of course you are.

Happy with my 6600k. Still wish I had moar corez tho

At most forth of 7700Ks can reach 5 ghz user. I don't know why people bench Ryzen against 5.1 Ghz 7700k. Hell, I even saw a 5.2 Ghz on one site.

Still waiting on that Photoshop benchmark that shows an i3 BTFOing a ryzen

I-it will get better! You'll see, ya'll see.. Microsoft will deliver so too motherboard manufacturers! Benchmarks right now mean NOTHING. Everyone that disagrees in the slightest is a Jewish shill and not a RedTeam+ member like I am.

Slightly off topic but does anyone have charts of the g4560 including 1% lows and frametimes?

Maybe in like 3-6 years you will have to upgrade. But by that time new cpus and hardware will be out that probably is better what there is on the market out right now.

>Photoshop benchmark that shows an i3 BTFOing a ryzen
Don't have those, but you can have this though.

That would be interesting indeed to see how the 70$ CPU holds up in terms of smoothness..

At what voltage and cooling system?
So an i3 is a poor choice for having a balanced system? Gotcha.

7700k @ 4.9ghz (95c) min 60 max 147. (massive dips and stuttering.
1700 @ 4.1ghz (52c) min 121, max 139. no dips, no stuttering.

enjoy your shitty intel quad core

L M A O
MM
A A
O O

They'll be great at productivity compared to Intel, but they fucked up by not making a single CCX design chip. Making it a 2+2 is going to fuck up their performance in games even more. If Windows updates to treat the CPUs as a NUMA architecture it could fuck up their performance productivity wise

>When you loose 50fps in demanding situations, it's shit.
When does that happen on the 7700k? It consistently performs 20-30%+ better than raisin. You sound confused, Rajesh.
>quit lying
He's right. Poozen hits a wall at 4GHz, some chips can't even do 3.9GHz. Pathetic.

Maybe you missed OPs title to the thread, maybe?

>no proof whatsoever
Yet again.

>So an i3 is a poor choice for having a balanced system? Gotcha.
>shill has mentally convinced himself of "something"
>proclaims victory with no explanation

They included stock, too. They also "overclocked" rypoo to 4GHz. How is it biased? They're just showing the chips' limits. Raisin shits itself at 4GHz and Kabylake hits a thermal wall at 5-5.2GHz.

>photoshop that thakes miliseconds to create
>such an insignificant act that even on single thread, it is done on an fx without noticing if you clicked or not
>people actually benched it.

I mean, everyone knew that Intel had clock for clock had 5% IPC headroom against Ryzen. Why do people keep using these graphs, I will never understand.

What?