Can anyone tell me why AMD still exists

Can anyone tell me why AMD still exists.

Other urls found in this thread:

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55
youtube.com/watch?v=Tc_JWE_ypEk
youtube.com/watch?v=VL2TAJvfiQU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>performs better in all three of their benchmark segments
>given a worse score
((()))

Because autists like you who care about that difference are 0.01% of the market.

Both run netflix, youtube, fb and Word just fine.

Can anyone tell me why retards continue to post "effective speed" benchmarks from a site that admits they're biased as fuck?

Hi xXGaymurXx, how's your youtube channel going?

Yeah, and one of them is $200 less.

AMD is like the retard cousin nobody likes you have to keep around

With 1800X, you can game and compile shit and even render videos all at the same time. It has got double the cores and double the threads.

That comparison doesn't do any good for RIPtel

...

Pajeet we're not even talking about the 1600x vs 7700k.
It's 1800k vs 7600k try to keep up

>double the threads
*quadruple

Is it just one guy shilling this site? I'd never heard of it or ever seen it posted before until recently.

It's retarded comparison in the first place because nobody really reccomends the 1800X, the 1700 and 1700X are way better values to begin with.

But this is how biased they are, the multicore score does not factor in at all because all they care about is single core score.

Trolls love it because their effective speed is basically calculated by "MUH CLOCKS MUH EPEEN MUH GAYMES MUH FPS".

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

>One fox beats one hundred chickens.

Yeah, they're that fucking stupid.

I guess with thinking we should run millions of shitty cores

Actually that's where we're heading, MOAR CORES! ain't nothing getting faster single threaded.

>muh hyperbole
>muh zen is bulldozer

As a programmer, we are only starting to harness the power of parallel cores and GPUs. We are not interested in faster single core actually.

Christ.

Corelet

What's wrong with white people?

>One fox beats one hundred chickens

That's... true though.

It's also a comically stupid analogy when you're comparing CPUs that are within 20-25% of eachother in single core performance. And completely ignoring all multicore.

Can anyone tell my how does Intel still exists?

wrong?

youtube.com/watch?v=Tc_JWE_ypEk

Well, glad that's settled.

>cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55
>that whole benchmark explanation
>The fox vs chicken analogy

What the fuck is wrong with these people? why do everything is gaming focused?

Just more of the cancer killing x86.

>muh eepeen benchmarks
stop posting anytime

.... is this moded skyrim?

and what system is running this without crashing?

bc cpus are primarily used for gaymen
not that hard to comprehend

Gee, 16 threads working 57% or 8 threads at 90%

I just don't know user, I guess we'll install ANALTEARS and hit 28%! Allll Riiight!

Muh latencies!

If it were not for the GFX industry we wouldn't even be discussing computers dingus.

What the fuck kind of crack do you have to smoke for this post to make any kind of sense?

I'm pretty sure that was about more and threads becoming exceedingly useless, but IDK crack

>1800k

User bechmark/CPU Boss are 2 sites funded by ex intel employees sure is a non biased one ofc...

If they weren't such cunts, they could just remove the overall score, or just give a single/multicore score. They already have a gaming/desktop/workstation thing, the effective speed just seems like bullshit.

youtube.com/watch?v=VL2TAJvfiQU

A 7600K would explode in flames if you even tried this.

It's more like within 4% of each other in singlethread performance once you've got your program optimized for the newer architecture.

userbenchmarks btfo

It would chug and get warm, maybe even shutdown if you don't know how to maintain your PC

So if we add 16 more threads to Ryzen does that make it better? For your task at hand, a flat no.

Better comparison would be how a skylake-x handles a simple task such as that. Does it get too hot? Etc and go from there.

I can tell you right now CPU will not improve much at all because fabrication has already met its limits. More cores is the only way to progress the monetization, but performance? Nawww

Holy shit this

Are you blind? It only perform better on multicore related shit.

>It only perform better on multicore related shit.
Unless the only software you use is stuff from 2005, multicore score means MUCH more.

...

Muh cores

ARMA 3
/thread

yeah, sure.

Intel is like a Porsche or Ferrari

AMD is like Honda or Nissan who pretends they are as good and fast as the big boys

...

...

>Car analogies
>Shitty car analogies

still relevant

At least it isn't a food analogy.

intel=Wendy's
AYMD=mcDs

You mean what's wrong with degenerate Atheists

>muh tacticool simulator

You realize that a supped Honda can decimate both of those cars right

Intel tried to MORE CORES. It didn't go so well.

2x the number of cores
4x the number of threads
not even 2x the price

The GTR and NSX are fast as fuck. Let me guess, you want to do Toyota... they got the LFA

the damn core count didn't change, neither did the fabrication.

This is what happens when you try to make a Skylake out of a Broadwell when your die is about to go below 300mm^2

PS the memory bandwidth shits all over Ryzen

>Quad channel memory has more bandwidth than dual channel

You don't say?

Isn't TR going to be quad channel?

LMAO

Pajeets don't give a fuck about harnessing the power of multiple cores since it's more complicated and they are the majority of the programming work force. That's why single core power is still as relevant as ever.

Can someone tell me why all you cucks are rushing to upgrade?
>Babbage shills get BTFO

Even his shoes look like they're tired of his shit.