> his CPU is beaten by an i3 that costs 179 bucks

Explain yourself faggot.

Other urls found in this thread:

archiveofsins.com/data/soc/image/1489/18/1489180180116.webm
eteknix.com/ryzen-vs-intel-gtx-1080-ti-showdown-revisited-more-resolutions-overclocks-games-tested/all/1/
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3647vs3915
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3647vs3917
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

fake news

>i3
>$179

what are you implying you fucking retard

Where does the AMD FX 8350 stack up? It just screams in my beast of a rig.

I mean gosh, it's got like 8 cores!!

>Paying $200 for a dual core

>he doesn't use a server as a desktop
LITERALLY less than $200 for a complete build

what are you implying you fucking retard

What's with the huge gap between the 4790k and 4770k?

Why is the 6700k below the 4790k?

IT'S OVER AMD IS BTFO BANKRUPT AND FINISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY

>Where does the AMD FX 8350 stack up?

I believe 4790K got better overclocks there.

Single thread performance.

>3.7 MB
Oh for fucks sake

...

>not using an intel core 2 duo

right; jpeg

>single thread
what is this, 2005?

It will be relevant in 2205. CPUs are not GPUs. They will always require serial performance.

...

>Says increasingly nervous man

...

that's quite interesting

I'd love to try this at least once.

what are you implying you fucking retard

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What if that little fella dissappeared into there too quickly for you to stop him?

post em

i5 4690k @ 4.5ghz

>being a corelet

I'd masturbate furiously in a hope that the force of my jizz would shoot him out.
In all seriousness however, I don't think he'd stay there as urethra is very salty environment which they don't like.

Xeon is useless to OP?

He'd stay if he was dead or too sick to get out

What did he mean by this?

I don't think so
archiveofsins.com/data/soc/image/1489/18/1489180180116.webm

>No clock speed or memory speed given for Ryzen
OK

Great. Now I have an itch I will not attempt to scratch.

>Literally caring about single thread performance

> op didn't show this
I wonder why, it was taken from the same website he was

wow, why IS the single core so low, though?

I thought they learned their lesson from the fx line

Even better

clockspeed dumbass

I wish they had an overclocked and memory speed comparison.

> Literally pretending his desktop is a render farm

that's still really low regardless of clockspeed

>pretending his desktop is a render farm

> he is so retarded that he believes his desktop is a rendering servers farm

> why is it so low
it isn't that lower.
Yes, Kaby has an small advantage on ipc, but the main difference comes from the higher clock speeds, it's basically 4ghz vs 4.5ghz, Ryzen can't catch up on single thread. Ryzen shines on multi, and it's not like what happened with FX, this time we have real cores.

pic related is the real 7700K competidor

but even a haswell chip has seemingly higher IPC

the i5 4690k beats it at 3.5ghz vs its 3.6ghz

Single threads are the past

Overclock the 1700 and it will be close enough anyhow and murder Intel in multi threaded applications.

that's an opinion, and you're free to have it and all, but it's a fact that the IPC is lower than a haswell chip and the single thread perf suffers because of it

there are still plenty of programs a regular consumer would want to use that are heavily single threaded. can amd just not get the same single thread perf. that intel can, or is it a conscious decision to focus more on multithread?

overclock the i5 and it will also murder the 1700 even more lol, "just overclock it" isn't a good enough answer when both chips can be overclocked

haslel beats ryzen's single threaded performance on this benchmark, but on most other benchmarks Ryzen gets broadwell-e tier performance, so it really depends.

Also remember we didn't see big improvements from haswell go kaby anyways.

ITT -
>corelets
>muh megahurtz
>muh singlethreaded
>muh unoptimized dx11 gaymes
>oy vey buy intel goys

>broadwell-e

broadwell-e isn't known for it's single core perf though

haswell probably beats broadwell in single core too

So, Core i3 is good enough and anything above it is unnecessary according to OP.

eteknix.com/ryzen-vs-intel-gtx-1080-ti-showdown-revisited-more-resolutions-overclocks-games-tested/all/1/

Ideally they would test a similarly priced 1700 instead of the 1800X. Price wise for gaming at least the 1800X just is not worth it. An overclocked 1700 however comes pretty close to the 7700K in gaming and blows it out of the water in anything multi threaded.

Intel firehouse confirmed
> i7 7700K
> 95W
> 4 cores at 4.5GHz

> Ryzen 1700X:
> 65W
> 8 cores at 3.7GHz

Here's some benchmarks that aren't retarded as fuck .. for whatever reason PassMark is garbage when it comes to multithreaded tests.

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3647vs3915

You'll know if you need to pay extra for the 1800X.

so what if it catches on fire? dude just put it out lmao

Keep in mind that the benchmark averages for Ryzen will only increase as faster RAM is made available, OSes are patched, and motherboards aren't broken piles of crap that barely work (Hi ASUS!)

Nobody outside servers need the 1800X or 1700X. Just get the 1700 and overclock it.

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3647vs3917

>>caring about single threads

1700 is all over the place

That's because there are so many shitty mobos out there. I'd bet those buying 1800X also buy the more expansive boards.

>single thread performance

But no one runs one thread at a time. Even if you only run single threaded applications, you run many of them.

This benchmark is useless for people who actually want to use their computer for something more than a toaster.

The mobo price doesn't matter. Some expensive ones still suck. Some cheaper ones around $90-$110 are still good.

>CPUMark
>single core
Two reasons to kill yourself OP. That's plenty, get to it.

>tfw the i7-7700k that I just paid $350 for outperforms by a mere 2 points an i3 that costs half as much.

Retard fucking you implying you are what?

Should've bought the i3, single core is all that matters. Old DX11 games at 720p are all that matters. 2 cores 4 threads should be enough for anyone.

Look at the bright side. Amd's $600 flagship is getting embarrased by $70 intel cpus. I think indians should learn to shit in the street before creating hardware

>AMD and Intel fahgs in a daily dick-measuring contest
>they don't know that Alphabet Inc. is going to be the first to deliver an affordable quantum processor for home computers.

Pentium would be even better for OP because no need for AVX whatsoever.

>This is what shilltel shekelchasers actually believe

>But no one runs one thread at a time. Even if you only run single threaded applications, you run many of them.


holy shit how dumb are you user

>This benchmark is useless for people who actually want to use their computer for something more than a toaster.

jesus fucking christ

>mfw parallel concurrency is a meme now

>autistic forever neet weeb virgin
>amd fan

Checks out

Kill yourself.

intel's desktop flagship, an impressive $1650 10c20t i7-6950x, gets absolutely BTFO by a $75 pentium G3258

tfw you listened to listened to Sup Forums and now have a comfy G3258 rig

You fucking retard

1700X is 95W TDP and it fucking means nothing.

The 8 cores at full stress consumes way more power than the i7-7700k.

Wow, surprise, double the core, way higher power consumption.

Too many retards on this board.

How do I take screenshots like this?

It is useful to some people regardless. I for example live by this benchmark because of my desire to stream old school games. There are certain games where you need to kill all but one core to play a game without it freezing. For compatibility during these times, it is nice to have a system that can handle everything rather nicely, my priority being on these older games.

You would be able to play them on a VM.

Hardware acceleration doesn't work in a VM. Plus, not sure how that would change the number of cores the application itself is running, it just sounds like more draw to create a virtual machine in the first place.

hold gun to temple, pull trigger, hit enter and it'll upload

you can assign how many cpu cores you want a virtual machine to use, and who cares about hardware acceleration on old games?

If you assign the number of cpu cores... that means you are only using 1 cpu core. Aren't we back to square one where this benchmark is beneficial in telling what runs better when relying on a single core? As for hardware acceleration, software mode generally tends to be clunky for late 90s titles. You get bad lighting that makes it hard to see what you are doing, more visual artifacts tend to exist in the world, and particles tend to be heavily glitched.

>he makes shilltastic benchmark threads

Explain yourself, faggot. Actually, don't. Just fucking jump off a bridge instead.

Only Pissmark would claim that a 4790K outperforms a 6700K

...

Congratulations, you found a miniscule niche use case that would be better served by just playing your games on older hardware rather than gimping your new PC's multithreaded performance.

Prepare a working single core AM3 Sempron PC and you will be fine, then.

>implying anything uses only 1 core aside from benchmarks and old programs that don't need much power anyway

yoke is on you; my cpu cost only ~65€

Not really. I said I stream those old school games. That means, without taking anything else I may do on my computer, I need modern technology for that. I don't deny being a minuscule niche case, I just am saying that this one particular benchmark is beneficial to me and any other niche individual like me. To 99% of people it isn't, but I am thankful it is around.

Get a fucking capture device.

Low clock speed. Taking any CPU ever made into account, the 7700k performs best for my use case even if it is modern and has multiple cores simply because it works the best at single core performance.

I still use my q6600

What did he mean by this?

>5400K
>because it uses 5.4kW
AMD BTFO

Actually, long term, that is the plan. A high end Xeon build in one and a 7700k in the other. Regardless, my knowledge is quite limited on it, and I assume drivers for the capture card would only work on a newer OS like Windows 7.

I wonder what 90 game really needs 7700k. Who the fuck could play that when they sold it.