AYYYYYYYMD IS BANKRUPT AND FINISHED

AYYYYYYYMD IS BANKRUPT AND FINISHED

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gGq--ATXd7Y
hardocp.com/article/2017/04/11/amd_ryzen_5_1600_1400_cpu_review/4
youtube.com/watch?v=83NnGQ7tC0
youtube.com/watch?v=83NnGQ7tC0g
youtube.com/watch?v=7NCHhn0xEmo
youtu.be/hjWSRTYV8e0?t=1m45s
youtu.be/ybF7r4rogHc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

if anyone posts here, you're literally retarded
that includes me for bothering to post here.

...

320p? what do you need 200p for?

>tfw you fall for the bait
Damnit...

Anyway, very nice benchmark, Schlomo. I can't wait to fire up my $20 000 system to play some indie game at 640x480. Thank you Intel, this is only possible because you have the best of the best engineers on the entire planet. God I cannot imagine what it would be like if I had only 300 fps! Whew...

>what is a CPU benchmark
Ever heard of GPU bottlenecks? Crazy thought, I know.

...

It's as relevant in the real world as CineBench scores are.
Are you going to play at 640x480, lowest possible settings to get 6 brazillion FPS or at 1920x1080 or even higher where you're not getting even 200 FPS, and are thus not limited by the CPU in any way? This is where moar cores win again as you can be recording / streaming at the same time and without performance impacts. Checkmate, kikes.

THATS A BOTTLENECK RIGHT THERE!

>Ryzen 7 CPU Usage 40%

FUCK AMD. They've tricked me the last time! I'm telling all my friends and family to buy Tegra CPUs only from now on.

>these benchmarks don't count because they look AyyMD look bad

>r5 1600 4GHz - 324 fps
>i5 7600k 5GHz - 307 fps

lol

So these count and we should all be buying 1800X instead, then?
Epic.

I'm going with IBM

>4Ghz vs 5Ghz
are you even trying?

youtube.com/watch?v=gGq--ATXd7Y

I thought Ryzen 5 was supposed to beat the i5 line-up?

Not intel's fault ryzen can't overclock for shit.

but you can only overclock intel cpus.
That is why people only adjust settings for intel setups right?

not amd's fault that intel has to overclock to show that those extra 500 bucks are worth it

450fps still stutter, why even bother with intel

WAIT.

I'm out of the loop and didn't care much about CPUs for a couple years.

>5 fucking GHz

ARE WE FUCKING BACK IN THE GIGAHERZ WAR?!
Is it 1999 again?

don't worry the 5ghz chips run hot as fuck

No. Unless you think outputting twice the heat and consuming twice the electricity for 10% more performance is a good thing.

this is fake news, i am still waiting for the 144p .3gp decoding benchmarks.

...

Salazar confirmed for being an Intel shill

Yeah I couldn't believe my eyes. I thought we progressed over the need of higher frequencies and it doesn't surprise me that apparently these new ones run hot again. Fucking meme frequencies.

I still remember the disastrous Pentium4. It was actually more of a stove.

I wonder if it's Salazar who is posting these shill threads.

i5 7500 and R5 1600 are the same price on my country, so I will go with intel.

enjoy your stutter and your future bottleneck due to being a corelet

Cheapest 7600k on PC Parts Picker is $235 without a cooler. Cooler required to get a 5Ghz overclock at non-house fire temps is another $50. Now your at $285. Z270 motherboards are also $10-$20 more expensive than comparable B350 motherboards.

Ryzen 1600 on the other hand is $219 with a good factory cooler and cheaper motherboards AND based on what you just posted benches higher.

Am I missing something?

How is he wrong, the i5 7600k is better at gaming than the 1600x, a lot better.

you're missing m-muh 640x480 benchmarks in 10 year old single-threaded games dumb goy- I mean, consumer!

Here's your (You). 6c and 12t will be the better option for the future.

>No matter how many times I write this paragraph, a lot of folks do not seem to "get it." These are very much "benchmarks." These are good in helping us understand how well CPUs are at performing calculations in 3D gaming engines. These benchmarks in no way represent real-world gameplay. These are all run at very low resolutions to try our best to remove the video card as a bottleneck. I will not hesitate to say that anyone spouting these types of framerate measurements as a true gameplay measuring tool in today’s climate is not servicing your needs or telling you the real truth.

hardocp.com/article/2017/04/11/amd_ryzen_5_1600_1400_cpu_review/4

I'm fucking dyin' over here schlomo.

>buying a cpu that is always at 100% utilisation

I think you need to take off your rose tinted glasses. I read numerous reviews (guru3d, hardwarecanucks, gamernexus, and kotaku), and all of those reviews pointed to the 7600k beating the 1600x by 5-20fps in most games, which is a big failure on AMD's part.
>100% utilisation
How is being at 100% usage bad? It is an i5, a quad core, you buy it to play games, not multitasking and productivity; if anything it is good that 100% of the CPU is being used to run a game.

doubling the core count lets the cpu split the calculation into 8 parts, so why isn't it faster?

PROVE IT KIKE

>5-20fps in most games
At well over 100 FPS, so unless you can tell 10 FPS difference at 100 FPS it won't matter. Plus, the 7600K will stutter and have worse frametimes due to it's lack of multithreaded resources. In addition the 7600K is way more expensive and is on a dead socket with no upgradeability. AM4 will let you upgrade to Zen+ when it releases.

>No graphs
>No charts
>No links
>Just making stuff up instead
Kill yourself, shekelchaser.

What an utter fucking failure Ryzen is.

8 core Skylake-X is scoring 2100 at 7700K clocks

He just arrogant shit head, GN is shill though

At least post some images like

some calculations aren't splittable (i.e. sequential), or aren't programmed to be splittable (thanks pajeets)

Because most games aren't made to utilize 16 threads, and up until recently, 8

youtube.com/watch?v=83NnGQ7tC0

Fucking retarded AMDrone.

When the 5nm gpus come out with 500fps at 1080p resolution that's what will happen too

So the 6700k beating the R1600 in some gaming benchmarks with slight FPS is considered a failure? Did you forget about application software and rendering, Shekelstein?

>At well over 100 FPS, so unless you can tell 10 FPS difference at 100 FPS it won't matter.
More like 60 fps vs 80 fps which is massively the case for mediocre Ryzen when compared to intel.

>[Error]
kek

youtube.com/watch?v=83NnGQ7tC0g

Forgive him, his Cpu stutter

>How is being at 100% usage bad?

>This video does not exist.
cpu stuttering so hard that you can't even copy paste correctly

why would you play at 640x480p at low settings??

Intel let me use 100% of my CPU's power. AYYMD's never gets above 50% usage in games, so the price should be half of what it is. Why am I paying for 50% of a CPU that's not even being used? Fucking kikes.

Another unlisted uncore benchmark while the AMD platform is automatically set to 1/2 ram.

Take a hike, kike.

Games are optimised for intel, so they use all the power the CPU has, is that bad? Would you prefer the CPU to use 90% and get lower frame rates? Total war hammer got a patch to increase ryzen performance, guess what, the CPU usage on the ryzen chip increased. Is that a bad thing? No. Why wouldn't you want more performance from your CPU. Obviously ryzen will never have a situation where it will be maxed out in a game because of the amount of threads it has.
What is the point of buying a ryzen chip for gaming, hoping that the games you play are patched to boost performance, never using those 8-12 threads, when you can get the i5 which performs better now, not to mention overclocking the i5.

Here's some benchmarks that aren't pants on head retarded youtube.com/watch?v=7NCHhn0xEmo

>underclocked 7600k

wait for the refresh of skylake you will be amazed

As a result, you'll also get stutter when reaching high CPU usage.

>100% usage is a good thing on a CPU
>What is the point of buying Ryzen for gaming?
>implying that when you startup a game the PC magically stops all of the background processes and focuses 100% on the game
>multi-tasking is bad

Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself. I really hope you're getting paid for this shilling.

>that Intel shilling
>Ryzen 100 fps vs 7700k 120 fps
>muh failure at frequencies you can't even see

Kill yourself avatarfagging piece of shit.

I know it's a bait thread, but still let me have a say.

Unless you have a 144 hz monitor (most of which are TN and you're a retard if you have one), you don't really need FPS above 60 as it tears the screen unless you have a freesync monitor+amd gpu or g-sync monitor+nvidia gpu which is unlikely. So, what you really should be striving for is stable 60 FPS at maximum resolution with maximum graphical settings. This kind of approach makes you GPU bound 99.9999% of the time. Ergo, CPU benchmarking for gaming is not really relevant and applicable in real life unless you're a CS:GO player.
What is relevant however is CPU performance in mundane tasks such as rendering, unpacking archives and so on. You are not GPU bound or core bound in most of these cases, and coincidentally, Ryzen demolishes competition in these kind of tasks.

Yes

Yes we are

Gigahurtz win this round

>captcha was "round something"

Wow nice proof he underclocked the Intel chips. Or were you hoping the 7700K would be running at 7 GHz on ln2?

This is pants on head retarded. The 7700k is still the best gaming cpu but if you're in the market for a mid tier CPU there is absolutely no reason not go with a six core ryzen 5. Its basically a 6800k with like 4% less IPC

True. The only CPU bound game that needs to reach 100-144 fps is CSGO. Most pro players play at 1024x768

Except while a monitor refreshes it's frame intervals stably, the frames produced aren't stable.
youtu.be/hjWSRTYV8e0?t=1m45s
You are wrong.

Seems like im getting a 7700k after all

AyyMD failed once again.

>Most pro players play at 1024x768
Being eSports is suffering.

This isn't even a proper CPU benchmark. There's a difference in how the CPU is loaded depending on what assets it has to fetch if you're running on low/med/high settings etc. Many games also have performance settings that directly influence the CPU load, such as physics. I don't know what settings are exposed in the Lost Planet settings menu, but this "benchmark" looks pathetic and not at all representative of relative CPU performance.

This. I bought two 7700Ks and SLI'd them as soon as it was revealed that Poozen was a flop.

>being this butthurt

Stop m8. I hate jewtel as well, its just undeniable that poozen failed as a gaymen cpu

The only benefit you get from going above 60FPS on a 60hz monitor is reduced frame times, which means less input delay while playing. On 60 fps it's ~16,7 ms, 120 fps ~8,4ms and so on. I can't see this being much useful in anything but competitive first person shooters, as the video your posted further reinforces. I don't play competitive fps, do you?

>Reducing the entire Intel consumer line up to TWO skus
>Failure
Enjoy your shoah, kike.

>Implying the poorfag pentium is worth considering after the R3 comes out

>you don't really need FPS above 60 as it tears the screen unless you have a freesync monitor+amd gpu or g-sync monitor+nvidia gpu
do you still get tearing with VSYNC?

>low settings
>low resolution
who actually plays on this? this doesn't say anything about the CPU at all

You don't, this is the point of v-sync.

Quake and CS from time to time, but i also prefer higher framerate in non competitive games aswell since it affects the response in the control of the character aswell.
It's fine that you're fine with some input delay, heck people play consoles with low FPS and high input delays.

I just don't like it myself.

I agree. It's undeniable. You literally can't deny it. Don't even try. My 7700Ks will smoke your cracka ass.

So it boils down to Ryzen or a stuttering 4-core housefire

It's not that Ryzen doesn't manage to go above 60. Even disregarding vastly diminishing returns in terms of GPU performance, can you distinguish between 130 and 160 fps on a 60hz monitor? We're talking fractions of a millisecond here. Because apparently that is the selling point of intel as a "gaming CPU"

>vsync on
>get 59fps
>vsync goes batshit and sets monitor to 30hz
>you're playing on 30fps now

vsync is crap

Vsync only does that if you're dipping below 50fps, in which case you shouldn't be really using this technology.

Between 130 and 160 on 60Hz monitor? Probably not, but between 100 and 200 while playing instead of spectating on a 60hz monitor? Definitely.

And i'm not anti-ryzen, i actually bought RX 480, planning on VEGA if it ends up being a 1:1 or better bang for buck than Nvidias lineup. (Hell even if it's 0.97:1 since i don't like nvidias business practices and the AMD finewine meme is actually true.)

Ryzen on the otherhand i'm not planning on buying, atleast this first revision since i bought 6700k for 215€ on december.
Maybe the second of third revisions depending on how much CPU i will need in the future.

As-side f-rom in-ntels s-stutteting pro-oblem.

youtu.be/ybF7r4rogHc

>So, what you really should be striving for is stable 60 FPS at maximum resolution with maximum graphical settings.

>muh eyes can't see above 24fps
>muh high FPS is irrelevant if you have shit refresh rate monitor

not everybody is a casual gaymer like your anime-ass faggot;

And costs $1000

>look! my $600 unlocked overclocked CPU on a $120 water loop does better than a $200 CPU on air!!! git rekt amd

whoa watch out, we got a GAMER here

>guyze what is a cpu benchmark guyze hurrr

This is golden.