Riddle me this Sup Forums. Why does AMD's new line just barely compete with Intel's but cost almost double the price?

Riddle me this Sup Forums. Why does AMD's new line just barely compete with Intel's but cost almost double the price?

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3885vs3916

Other urls found in this thread:

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55
userbenchmark.com/UserRun/3511961
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3885vs1812
trustedreviews.com/best-cpu-for-gaming_round-up
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>comparing a top of line octo core with a mid range i5 quad core

Looks like that i5 is just perfect for you.

I'm pretty sure the website also factors the "sentiment" value into the score which is? Weird at the very least.

You're just another corporate shitposter but for the other anons out there, buy whatever you want rather than relying on the shillings of neets of Sup Forums.

If I had to pitch my two cents though, the scores in benchmarks were better for the 1800x which shows a bunch.

good job cropping out the important bits (cherry picking)

>inb4 300 replies

Yeah this site's "Overall speed" calculation is so absurdly biased in favor of single core it's kind of pathetic.

That only makes the problem worse for AMD. A mid range i5 quad core shouldn't be beating out AMD's best attempt.

Here you go.

I'm really not. I want this explained to me. Also, the "sentiment value" is just a combination of market share, pricing and user rating.

ikr, Sup Forums's fucking consumerism bait threads are actually pissing me off

Forgot picture.

>amd_cucks2.png
You retards really need to start getting banned.

If you really wanted this explained, you'd know that market share and user ratings have no correlation to performance.

Taking a look at the above scores, it does well in everything that isn't gaming. The single core and quad core scores are also low, but the other benhcmarks reflect positively of the CPUs performance.

Do a little interpretation. Plus it mentions that the CPU is "103%" for work stations. I wouldn't trust a user based sight but still, it has something to say about non-gaming applications.

>all these shills suddenly acting as if >4 core parts have had good core performance
>ignoring the 6900k or the whole X99 lineup's existence
Wew lad

Forgot to add that you're still being a consumerist fuck and need to let people make their own decisions rather than being a jew for a company.

>suddenly

did you miss last 2 months?

Because you are a fucking retard that uses an obvious biased site to "justify" your poor purchase.

Yeah, cropping out the important parts.
Nevermind that intel's core speed is better and only thing AMD can do better is have more cores. Why would I give a link to the page if I plan on hiding info? Here's this one.

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

How were they better? The only thing I see AMD winning at is "multi-core speed" and having more cores. Of course they're going to win there. Intel only has 4 cores.

This user is right.

Too many people come onto Sup Forums spouting shit because they are self conscious about their purchase and need to be validated.

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

>A gaming orientated measure of CPU speed that favours single over multi core performance. Intel i7-7700K ~= 100%.

What a load of faggotry.

ITT one retarded troll sits in place pretending single core is the only metric that measures at all ever and 100 zillion anons fall for it. Again.

>AMD keeps pushing the moar cores meme
>still subpar single core performance not even better than sandybridge

AMD is still shit, no idea why people are so hyped about it.

I understand that heavy multi-tasking processes are going to run better on a cpu with more cores. Have a business generating rainbow tables? Sure, by a ryzen, why not. That's not what I want explained. If you're not incredibly into that sort of thing, then the $200 cheaper Intel chip does it well enough, and everything else better.

And obviously I don't give a shit about market share and user ratings. I never cared about it's sentiment value and I don't see it factoring in to it's overall effective speed on the site.

Even Intel is abandoning you clockfags. Their next consumer CPU lineup is going to be 6 cores for i5/i7. Even if they didn't, Zen 2 will close the gap. Say goodbye to your single core jerkoff fest. It'll be fun while it lasts, I guess (No it won't, it's exhaustingly stupid)

wait, isn't it "x2 the price thread" again?
I have strong deja vu feeling here

Who knows, who cares? Pretending to be a retard on the internet for attention is it's own punishment.

the i5 will age like dogshit

the 1700-1800 will age much better

your call, intel is cancerous as fuck and cosntant fucking socket changes do my head in

on a serious note, if AMD suddenly removes all servers parts from CPU and leave only consumer features on IBM tech process, it's going to clock 4.5Ghz next year on 6 cores.

> Amd gets hyperthreading
> Why the price premium?

There's a bios setting change required for max ryzen performance also

because 4 threads with same performance as 16 threads is better for 99% of software
now off yourself

No, I'm about to make a purchase. I'm looking into what I want to buy and I see this kind of retarded shit. I've always gone AMD but Intel is clearly better right now. I come to Sup Forums and see a bunch of faggots jizzing over ryzen and I can't ask why?

What do you mean exactly? Unless something is programmed to utilize multiple cores, it's not going to. The operating system is just going to stick whatever I'm running on a core and let me go. I don't need to run 16 AAA games at once. A majority of the processing goes on in the first 4 cores for me and the majority of everyone, so single core speed is paramount.

>first gen ryzen will age better
Nope. Who the fuck uses 6 or 8 cores nowadays? By the time we do move to 6 or 8 cores, there will be zen 2 with better performance and price.

As for now, Intel quadcores are still better for performance.

>Who the fuck uses 6 or 8 cores nowadays?
lets see

>Every smartphone on the market
>every power user
>every server cluster
Not our fault Intel has been dragging its feet for 7 years because AYYMD dropped the ball for so long

lmaoing@you're life
I already feel being a no HT threadlet. A 7700k is the absolute minimum if you really insist on being a 4 core shitter.
t. 6600k user

Because the AMD one has pretend cores.

>power user
>servers
Most fags here use their computer to play shitty games, and watch their weeb shit.

>i-i'm totally not a troll guise, comparing an i5 to 1800X is a totally reasonable comparison to make

Just fuck off already. You played your hand too early if you wanted to play dumb.

Do you buy your own phone processor?
Are you assuming that we're building a server here?
The fuck does power user mean to you?

See It only helps my argument. I was comparing chips of similar value. Basically saying that the Ryzen is equivalent to an i5. If we compare it to an i7 it still gets rekt.

>pretending the rest of the ryzen lineup doesn't exist

Really weak bait. Sad!

You didn't ask anything, your post (if you really are OP) was clearly meant to shill for Intel. If you really are interested in finding out why is the best purchase see benchmarks for your use cases and buy the best value, which in most cases right now is Ryzen. Or, you could just blindly buy Intel because that's what everyone used to do.

>Professionals
Intels 4 core 8 thread meme is a joke they've been dragging their feet since 2010 ffs, have fun buying a new motherboard every 2 years

The entire ryzen line gets destroyed on a price/speed ratio when compared to the current intel processors I posted. What specific ryzen are you looking at?

>You didn't ask anything
>Why does AMD's new line just barely compete with Intel's but cost almost double the price?
I am legitimately trying to find the best value because I plan on buying something in the near future. I'm not trying to shill Intel, they just look good to me right now and I can't wrap my head around why you and everyone else on Sup Forums seems to love ryzen.

Professional at what? Doing what? I'm a professional programmer in the purest sense of the word meaning I get paid to do it, but I don't need 16 cores to run Eclipse or Visual Studio.

>Its a Sup Forums is afraid of technology progressing epsiode
The fuck? Oh yeah we should all be using dual cores!

Fucking mong

Sup Forums might not be afraid, but my wallet is. Tell me, why should I shell out an extra $200 for 8 more cores if they don't do anything substantial?

>buying intel corez
Lel its like u dont want mega threading!

Why don't you just fuck off already? Are you that obsessed with pretending to be a retard on some random fucking thread that nobody will care about two seconds from now? Why are you such a mentally damaged toddler?

Because it's only a few months old and the data is biased towards day one benchmarks and there is several more times user data acquired over time for the Intel line.

No u. I feel like you're way to angry right now. I just want to know why I should get ryzen instead of an intel chip, and all you autists are spouting is
>hur dur intel shill

Did I insult your precious ryzen purchase user? Is that why you're angry?

here's my rig (and it's mostly overkill)
userbenchmark.com/UserRun/3511961

I think it depends on what you have / need

You should read this and think deeply about your life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

I don't see what you're getting at. Are you saying I come off as a troll? How about this then. We'll let this thread die, and I'll create another one in a little bit that's a bit more polite for you sensitive faggots. I can see you were all triggered by me naming my screenshots "amd_cuck." Jesus, where the fuck am I, reddit?

You buy the Ryzen 1600. The 1800X is only useful for those doing a lot of threaded workloads. For everything else get a 1600 and OC it. It works out cheaper overall than an i5 and performs just as well. Plus it is future proofed on the socket for a number of years. Use your brain moran.

>userbenchmark.com/UserRun/3511961
Besides the graphics card, that's pretty much my rig right now. I'm getting annoyed with the graphics driver situation on linux with amd. Is it any better on with nvidia?

babbys first trole thread
kys you'reself

Moar hertz!

I see. I guess I forgot to factor in the cost of everything else. Thank you user.

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920

it's pretty even really

DELETE THIS, GOY

>+147% multi-core speed
"Effective Speed" only takes 4 threads into account

Oy vey, be careful my friend, you can get prosecuted for posting false flag statements on the internet in the chosen land now. Shut down the shill threads. Truly netenyahu is another holocaust for Intel.

The "multi-core" score is a theoretical score for perfectly multithreaded applications.
The "effective speed" is real world performance and it does take all threads into account.

You're right.

Yeah, that's a lot better. Is the 1700 and 1800 so much more expensive solely because of the extra 2 cores?

30% 1 threads
60% 4 threads
10% all threads

benchmarking modern CPUs that way is literally retarded. Even makes i7s look bad compared to i5s

What do you suggest? If you take
>100% all threads
then a FX-9590 would be rated faster than a i5-7600K
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3885vs1812
despite being slower than a G4560 in almost everything.

> it's a "gaming is the only thing a CPU is good for thread" again

I want Sup Forums leafs to leave.

you are just proving the point that any kind of weighted average of artificial benchmarks doesn't tell you anything about real world performance.

its series 5 vs 7, 4 threads is a typical gaming cpu in itself

trustedreviews.com/best-cpu-for-gaming_round-up

lol

> that's pretty much my rig right now
no its definitely mine

4 core vs 8 core...
This begs the question what benchmarks were done?
I mean if it were run only 4 core benchmark then I would take AMD 8 core than intels 4.

Can you even compare 4 core vs 8 core CPU?

Benchmarks are different for both, because in one case it suppose to use 4 core benchmark and on second one 8 core, how's that comparable?
Or is it that intels 4 cores are twice as powerful as amd 8???

Was benchmark done for only single core????
If so then still, amd is better for the price.

I'm actually asking, because I don't know.
I don't benchmark, nor do I have interest in it.

When buying CPU usually just read user reviews, till I find what suits me.

So if someone can explain how this benchmark in OP picture is done, please, do.

Two months is nothing compared to all those years they made vastly different claims.

>Why does Intel's new line just barely compete with Intel's but cost almost double the price?

Wew!
Fak intel we should buy intijlel!

man why does the 7700k destroy the 6950x in single threaded perf? intel barely compete with themselves for nearly quintuple the price?

>Can you even compare 4 core vs 8 core CPU?

Yes. 4 Intel cores trash the shit out of amd's 8 cores

>nvidia gpu

>IT'S A CONSPIRACY

back to Sup Forums tech illiterate babby

>amd cpu is shit
>that's nvidias fault
Poo in loo

here's your (You)

Intel shill keep using day 1 benchmark

DigitalFoundry benchmark from April. No amount of time will cover up for your indian cpoo

>T O O T H P A S T E
top kek

literal housefires

>cpoo
Stutterlake strike again

Poo poo

>novideo again

>thinks anyone will comate cpu performance with a shit poolaris which can't render for shit

>enjoying his cucked fermi gpus

How benchmark is done?
Is it done on all cores or single core for each CPU?

I can't comprehend how 4 cores can be twice as good as 8 cores, wtf?

If it's done on single core, or 4 cores on both CPUs, then AMD is still better, considering price of 8 core CPU.

Amd is made for poor indians who want fo still be able to play games. But those who want performance and don't care about $20 will always get intel

Stutterlake ewww

>rx 480
Ewww

>need to OC 6900k to beat 1800X
kek

>Look at me guys, I'm using software from the 90s that can barely spread to two cores. WOW, how can it be that HIGHER clocked cores are FASTER than the multiple lower clocked ones?!?!?!!?!?
Man, you sound retarded as fuck. Learn to program multi threaded you shitty pajeeet.

>1800X can't overclock to beat 6900k
Ftfy

doesn't need to overclock to beat a 6900k it already does

Proof? Your indian words don't matter much

You do realise that posting benchmark images doesn't answer my question?