I got i5 3570k and I was thinking about upgrading to Ryzen but after seeing this:

I got i5 3570k and I was thinking about upgrading to Ryzen but after seeing this: youtube.com/watch?v=ukZqSoDyjcU

Looks like it's not that good idea. There isn't any performance boost over games.

Other urls found in this thread:

eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review
youtu.be/t8K2yc11eC4
youtube.com/watch?v=4RMbYe4X2LI
youtube.com/watch?v=Qj5MtsSZJIk
youtube.com/watch?v=t8K2yc11eC4
youtube.com/watch?v=Q0P8CxpI98w
youtube.com/watch?v=tbGT-u4i3EY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Ryzen is about Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge in terms of IPC, no surprise here.

I'm kinda dissapointed. Wanted finally upgrade my cpu but can't find any good reason for it even after 4 years.

nice, I was thinking about upgrading my i5 3570k but insteadI'll just go buy a 1080ti today to replace my r9 290

I went from 3570k to 1700x and it's been a nice improvement especially in frostbite games

No, it's haswell/broadwell

>listening to linus shill tips
>ever

Faggots gonna be faggots, I suppose.

Nice, I bought gtx 1070 year ago. Replaced my 280x.

My computer parts:
cpu's:
>ati 600x, ati 5770, amd r9 280x, gtx 1070
gpu's:
>amd athlon 2600, amd phenom II 1055t, i5 3570k

>hurr durr I only care about games for mature gamers such as myself
Leave Sup Forums. Go away. Fuck off to Sup Forums.
>retarded shilltel doesn't know the difference between clockspeed and IPC
What are they even paying you fuckheads anymore? Shekels getting pretty tight over there.

Ryzen is for people who is fine with ~SB/IB single core performance while needing more cores at an affordable price.
Haswell is pretty close to IB/SB, the difference is minute.
>he thinks clock speed is everything

What do I need to do to benefit from extra cores? I have 4 now.

>Your use case upsets me!

Video editing and stuff like that. No reason to upgrade from even Sandy Bridge if you only play games. A 1070 runs perfectly fine on a 2600K.

Why are Intel shills so ignorant about what IPC actually means?

Linus is riding the cuck truck all the way to Intel HQ. Even the latest i5 isn't worth it over Ryzen. eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

went from 3570K to a 1700. Can do way more at the same time, gaming is faster too. :)

From Wikipedia:"...the average instructions executed for each clock cycle". Based on that, I am correct. You have nothing to stand by your claims, and is probably the samefag from .

>16GB DDR3-2400
Practically no PC from that era actually runs that kind of RAM. Typical systems run much slower RAM speeds, which gives a much worse experience in current games.

Also notice how he deliberately choses the lowest clocked Ryzen chips and doesn't even overclock anything.

Ryzen matches Devil's Canyon in single threaded performance clock for clock though.

>cpu-z 1.8
>actually using the version where they "fixed" ryzen scores

Everything benefits from extra cores, even games that don't use them, as background applications won't fuck with your game nearly as much, most benchmarks are taken on fresh systems and fresh reboots, not day 73 with a program in the background eating 6% of the cpu for 48 hours.

some people have no issue with rebooting and starting a game to get the most, I do.

lets also make clear the difference is small. there was a linus video about cores and gaming back with farcry 3 or 4 as an example where if you had quadcore, you were stuttering, 6 core took it away almost entirely, and 8 cores killed it. This was more showing off .1% lows, as the average fps went down from quad to 8 core, but 8 cores was FAR more playable. having played recently killing floor 2 on my ryzen and my brothers 4790k at 4.8 yea, the difference is fucking astounding how much better my 8 core at stock feels to his oc quad core because there is no stuttering there are no small hiccups.

Just keep in mind, benchmarks don't tell the whole story because they can't, they can only synthetically load a cpu to try to simulate a several day uptime or normal use load

simple.

intel could put out a cpu that does 100 things per cycle but its only 300mhz and no oc
or they could put out a cpu that does 1 thing per cycle but it hits 4.0 and can go further

which one is faster?

you ARE NOT ABLE TO DISCOUNT CLOCK SPEED FROM IPC because the resulting performance is reliant on both.

I wouldn't bother
amd put out vega and its hampered by drivers at the moment, along with nvidia seriously considering a price drop of the 1070 and putting out a 1070ti.

that said, gpus are not viable till after october when miners have to either switch to a 1080ti or titans as the ram is to small on anything lower.

where is anything on the charts wrong?

and then he overclocked everything.

drink bleach and die

>Muh linus sex tips
youtu.be/t8K2yc11eC4
r5 1600 is only 5% slow on average behind the 7700k at 1080p in muh gaymes and only 2% slower in 1440p. While being $120 cheaper.
Intel btfo.

I had 3570k and upgrade to 1700x. I had no idea it was bottlenecking my 1060.

I was looking into Ryzen performance as well due to a current campaign by AMD where you get a R7 1800X for 400€ instead of the usual 560€ through selected vendors but turns out that the 1800X performance for high-fps gaming (120Hz+) is so far behind Intels processors, particularly the 7700K, to a point where the entire Ryzen lineup is not an option anymore.
The only people to benefit from Ryzen are ones who either cap fps at 60 or run a lot of CPU intense stuff next to the games, such as encoding tasks when streaming or recording. The latter can be done via GPUs though - the same goes for most computationally intense workstation tasks. Come to think of it, I struggle to come up with a gaming related scenario in which Ryzen has an advantage.

It's the same issue as AMDs last generation processors had - having more cores but them being so slow or inefficient compared to Intel that all the software on the market runs worse on AMD.

you fucking brain dead the single core performance of ryzen isnt as bad as your jewish lies make it sound

5ml of jewcum has been deposited between your heatspreader

Except that every non-synthetic gaming benchmark shows better performance on the various Intel CPUs before the first AMD one becomes relevant.
If your only argument is a red herring, why even post?

youtube.com/watch?v=4RMbYe4X2LI

kys

If you watch the video you will actually notice that the Intel CPU performs better. That's before considering the lower clocking RAM they use in that comparison.
By the way, a "theoretical advantage" is none at all if there's no software to make use of the additional cores - which current games simply do not do.
You can be contrarian all you want, AMD just has nothing to offer when it comes to current real-world applications.

>i5

Enjoy your stutter.

>4 fps difference with intensive shit in the background
>Tested on a g4560

>GTX 1080

deluded

yea, even synthetic benchmarks show how shit dual cores are

>4790k still stronk

Now look at all the previous games, which show the opposite.
Cysis 3 is the only game on the market which scales exceptionally well with additional cores - and it's not relevant to the gaming market as it's nearly 5 years old and isn't played by anyone.

if you're not retarded, then you realize that intel is still top dog for gaming. for production workloads, intel is slightly ahead of amd, however amd processors offer considerably greater performance per dollar
i watched his videos to show me how to assemble my computer. was pretty helpful

deluded

This is a flawed comparison in itself as the i5 7600K is a 4-core without HT/SMT while the Ryzen 5 1600 series has SMT. You'd have to compare the Intel 7700K with the Ryzen 1600 series but if you want to go by cost by all means compare the 7700K to the 1700X. In either case the 7700K pulls ahead. That's the real issue at hand you fail to grasp and your badly conceived comparisons of unrelated hardware are not helping to make any point here.

lmao

I didn't, you tried to - a few times and I even called you out for it.
By the way:
deluded [spoiler]:^)[/spoiler]

>the entire Ryzen lineup is not an option anymore.
>The only people to benefit from Ryzen are ones who either cap fps at 60 or run a lot of CPU intense stuff next to the games, such as encoding tasks when streaming or recording.
>Except that every non-synthetic gaming benchmark shows better performance on the various Intel CPUs before the first AMD one becomes relevant.
>If you watch the video you will actually notice that the Intel CPU performs better.
>By the way, a "theoretical advantage" is none at all if there's no software to make use of the additional cores - which current games simply do not do.
>Now look at all the previous games, which show the opposite.
>Cysis 3 is the only game on the market which scales exceptionally well with additional cores
>This is a flawed comparison in itself as the i5 7600K is a 4-core without HT/SMT while the Ryzen 5 1600 series has SMT.

lmao

wait for zen2.
amd went too conservative with the lpp.
but it does save power and intel is the new housefire.

AMD designed Zen from the ground up as a server chip, as far as I can tell. They wanted to maximise IPC and minimise power draw. I don't think we'd be seeing 32 core EPYC processors if they had designed the chip to clock high.

vega is obviously a blunder and from the first listings of vega56 I can get a 1080ti for an extra $100.

Just Wait (tm)

HOW EMBARRASSING

how will AMDfags ever recover from this?

>255 fps

UNPLAYABLE!!! AMDRONES BTFO!!!

I hate that TF2 doesnt get this kind of performance.

Lots of salt in thread.

Anyway if Linus can make 50% of his videos like this instead of the "HOW MANY RGB CAN I CRAM UP MY ASS IN OMG $$1!$ BIULD" kind, might subscribe.

...

Add stuff as you wish, this image is under GPL.

Whether or not it's "playable" isn't the point AMDumbass, its to show relative CPU performance.

Just upgrade
Its worth it

4 cores? what do you need 2 cores for?

good single core goyim, good

...

>those frametimes
lel

Except it's a fine representation of what quite a few other games released in 2016 and 2017 have been moving toward, and what gaming will move toward in the future.

Is there a point to anything over 240 though?

>Cysis 3 is the only game on the market which scales exceptionally well with additional cores
Arma3, DayZ, PUBG, GTA5, any 4x and any RTS would disagree.

these are some terrible examples

>One of the most played multiplayer games on the market is a terrible example.

not what I said
I don't actually mind that one as an example, even if it's a shit memegame

>actually replying

kek
youtube.com/watch?v=Qj5MtsSZJIk
youtube.com/watch?v=t8K2yc11eC4

but then again brasilians dont have any form of physics to work with so its natural

relative cpu perfomance on a engine of 2004
might as well use unreal engine 2 games also

if you don't think a driver update enabling the gpu to go from 4 to 17 primitives will do anything or happen, go for it, but come october the gpus are going back to around msrp, i would honestly wait till then regardless

this.

occasional stutters barely impact average fps.

you can take 80fps that has a small stutter every now and then, ill gladly take 70fps that never stutters.

So much this

You and me. It's sad that people are pissed off over the lack of content instead of a lack of performance updates.

In a dead engine from 2003? wow seems quite relevant to me

>cpu-z
Might as well use pissmark at this point.

You only buy intel if you think stutters don't matter.

Arma3 uses only one core. i3 even beats i5

>not using wolfenstein 3D as benchmark

youtube.com/watch?v=Q0P8CxpI98w

There are many videos out there.

This is 3570K vs 6700K vs R7 1700

Ivy lags behind Ryzen, lags even harder behind skylake. The difference between 1600/1700 is minuscle in most games, so should be same.

>Everything benefits from extra cores, even games that don't use them, as background applications won't fuck with your game nearly as much, most benchmarks are taken on fresh systems and fresh reboots, not day 73 with a program in the background eating 6% of the cpu for 48 hours.
Yeah I didn't think about this, thanks.

gtx 1070ti sounds retarded when there is already gtx 1080

Maybe I will just buy 3770k for cheap then I don't need to change motherboard and ram.

unless you did actual design work or something, why would anyone on the planet change their 6700k right now?

Easily gonna get 10 years life out of that. By which point you get a whole new lineup to pick from

I think I should just go for i7 3770k upgrade would be only like 40€.

youtube.com/watch?v=tbGT-u4i3EY

Possibly.

Yeah I think I'm just going for 3570k->3770k swap.

> wait for zen2

Pretty much this.

I have a 4670K and I don't see much point right now to upgrade.

What I wonder about: What are the chances at the time around Zen2 comes out that the new AMD motherboards are going to have new features the current boards with the same socket don't have?

the problem with i5 like 3570k isnt gaming performance, its when you have 100tabs open, torrenting something, listening/watching movie/stream/music and gaming at the same time on other monitor.

Im using 3570k myself, and i need to close all the shit down, if i want to play without random lagspikes/etc.

So yes, upgrading to ryzen isnt really true performance boost, its more of comfortability boost. Having 6-8cores is amazing these days for home user. Sadly dont have extra money to upgrade right now.

>its when you have 100tabs open, torrenting something, listening/watching movie/stream/music and gaming at the same time on other monitor.
None of that really uses that much CPU

bullshit, chrome with twitch and other shit open can spike to up 50% of my 3570k @4.5ghz, fireshit is better in that it will crash before spiking to 50%

Hehe, Phenom II FTW! Why the fuck would I upgrade when the only games I play are older titles from 1997- 2004? Video encoding/photo editing? Handles those tasks fine. 1080P video streaming from youtube/media server? Playback is smooth as a baby's ass. I think that covers it all.

Does the I5 3570k just suck at multitasking ?
Reason why it does ?

Probably better support for faster RAM would be included by zen2, might be able to take advantage of 4.5Ghz of ram speed, this would indeed be a boon for AMD Zen platform

on my i5 3570k at 4.1ghz I got twitch and a few tabs open and cpu usage is at 3%

that's why I said it can spike up to 50%, it ofc doesn't always run at that, try to use twitch at 1080p 60fps for a while and you will see it at some point

imho tasks are getting heavier and it doesn't always is able to keep up