THIS ISNT HAPPENING REEEEEEEEEEEEEE I FUCKING HATE AMD SO MUCH

THIS ISNT HAPPENING REEEEEEEEEEEEEE I FUCKING HATE AMD SO MUCH

Other urls found in this thread:

servethehome.com/amd-epyc-7401p-linux-benchmarks-and-review-something-special/
pcpartpicker.com/list/TxJgvV
youtu.be/oCSkyNHXIAE?t=21m22s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

REPORTED FOR ANTI-SEMITISM

GEVALT!

DELET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CPU's are irrelevant for games.
Just buy whatever you want as long as it's not too weak.

>servethehome.com/amd-epyc-7401p-linux-benchmarks-and-review-something-special/
Oy to the vey, the real shoah comes here.

Who will buy used epycs in the future?
I'm already saving.

What the hell is even happening

How does a 6 core from Intel draw more wattage than an 8 core from AMD? And can someone tell me why Intel arent on 10nm yet?

Nothing changed, it's still the same skylake architecture from 2015, just with 2 more cores.

how much do the differences really matter?

i mean cmon, $219 with 30 less watts vs $499 for 4 fps?

does this matter now? will it matter 3 years from now? the answer to both is no. 3 years from now it's time for an upgrade no matter which card you got, and in that 3 years, both cards are going to play the same games at nearly the same frame rate.

is beating ryzen threads to death just a meme, or is there legit justification?

>not a troll post, completely serious, just got a decent job, looking to drop around $2k after the new year and doing research in the meantime

heh heh

Maybe?
In a three years at least.
Because it's a warmed up Skylake.
>10nm
Let's not talk about that.

It matters on small form PCs and 24/7/365 machines
Less important it also means you can opt for a cheaper PSU, cooling and motherboard.

>Civ 6 as a CPU benchmark
KEK

This timeline is fucked. I want the old Intel back

Ideally I'd like to spend around $2k or even 2.5 if I can get something to build that will last at least another 3 years playing AAA games. Does the .5-1.2 GHz really matter in that time frame with those goals?

Old Intel died with niggerfucking Otellini, let him rot in hell.
Current Intel is nothing more than a bunch of monkeys pretending they know how to do business.

>Civ 6 not getting 144fps at 1080p with a GTX 1080

What the fuck?

I'd also like to add that I've got a close to new 700W PSU, and damn near still in the package (only had it out for two weeks) Corsair H100i. Is it worth it to sperg for brand new top of the line parts, or do you think these parts will get me good FPS on AAA games until I can get new parts?

Pajeetxis.
XCOM2 was probably the worst performing game I've ever seen.

If you're playing on higher than 1080p, CPU doesn't matter. Buy whatever you want.

Go have a reasonable opinion somewhere else homo

It depends, if I can get a decent PC that'll last me the few years, I'll go 4K (Assetto Corsa sure does look purdy in 4K).

I find it hard to believe that CPU doesn't matter. You're going to tell me that the difference between AMD/Intel and some shit like Qualcomm are marginal?

Ryzen is on a low power process made for mobile chips

Which means 1800x is well above it's efficiency curve.
Yet it consumes less!

The CPU at those resolutions (in gaming) doesn't matter because the GPU is bottlenecking, everything remotely modern from the last 3 years will perform the same, in some cases even 2 core Pentiums, but the base requirement in 99% cases is 4 cores.

>(in gaming)

I should have been more specific, and thank you for answering my questions as you have. It's a pain in the ass to find decent answers when everyone just wants either money or to plug their brand (like the PS v Xbox v Console shit)

Let's say I wanted to do 3D animation or calculate Mersenne primes, or perhaps run a 500 person Minecraft server that's on 24/7.

Does the few points of GHz matter then?

I guess I'm trying to figure out why the difference in GHz creates such a price difference.

Again, thanks for answering my BS QTDDTOT questions.

In those cases you're better off with something with more oomph, like 8+ core systems.

As I was talking strictly gaming at high resolutions, that doesn't require anything overkill on the CPU.

But for number crunching and rendering, a powerful high core CPU is always the best bet, EPYC, Threadripper or if you got money to waste those $1000+ Skylake-X ones.

Okay, so a Skylake and a Titan X kill my budget right there. By your information it seems sensible to forgo the Titan X and go with a GTX 1080 and get decent enough cooling and PSU to not worry about overheating the CPU/GPU.

Any suggestions on motherboards? I'm extremely serious about only having to build this PC once, and being able to upgrade it for at least 3-5 years. It seems the more research I do the more money I'll end up spending, but it would be fantastic to be able to play 1440p AAA games in 3 years.

>>/pcbg/
higher resolution = higher load on GPU
Ideally you'd want to spend less on CPU and get more money into graphics and since at higher resolutions differences between Intel and AMD become smaller, you might just as well get a 1700 (unless you want to play something where high FPS is really important). Especially if you want to have shit running in the background, all those threads come in handy then

>1440p AAA in 3 years

Impossible with a gtx1080 unless you want to play at sub 60FPS or want to dial the graphic settings down.

>CPU Synthetics don't count for CPU performance
>Real game that scales well doesn't count

>we need a single core limited game that uses AVX512 instruction set to show that Intel is stronger than AMD Ryzen in a fair game
kek

Please note that no store sells Coffee Lake for $300.
Microcenter has them for $500 and newegg for $400

Thanks guys. So my understanding of this then is that the bottleneck won't be in the CPU, especially with multi-threading and 8 (physical) cores.

Any good recommendations of mobos to start the build on? Obviously something with PCIe 3 (maybe one 2 slot if that's feasible) as well as both USB 2/3.

Again, I can't thank you guys enough, this is really helping me out. The explanations on Google are shit usually.

Mobo doesn't really matter, that is unless you're overclocking.
If you're overclocking you need to do some deeper research.
Just pick one with good reviews and a selection of ports you want.

>pcpartpicker.com/list/TxJgvV

Criticisms? Overclocking may be something I consider, still waiting to see how far VR is going to go.

What the fuck are you doing.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING

Please go to the /pcbg/ thread, you don't seem to have a clue about this.

Offensively bad. Here's the /pcbg/, nigger

If you've never built before, it will give you the itch. You won't be able to just sit and enjoy your pc. You will want to tinker. Every couple of weeks you will see a cool tweak you can make. Just get a sensible $1100ish computer for now.

>Pajeetxis

for your sake I hope this is bait

Amd has the world leaders in efficiency on their side, look at more recent bulldozer variations, they come in at more powerful while lower power than intel's i7 dual cores on laptops.
amd also works with arm cores so they learned tricks form over there too with efficiency.
meanwhile on the intel side, they failed to make a gpu because they refused to look at anything but x86

the long and short, amd had half a decade where they had to learn efficiently, and they got good at it, while intel had to learn nothing and we see no efficiency gains year over year outside of process shifts.

and as for why they are not on 10nm...

intel 10nm is worse than their first gen 14nm,
their second gen 10nm is hoping to surpass some of their 14nm gains,
and the gen after that they are hoping to be better than their 14nm parts by a very marginal amount,
according to intel's internal slides.

this is old intel, intel has literally never made anything worth a damn outside of the original x86, and all their competitors when trying to fight on an equal playing field ended up running circles around intel.

marketing, mindshare, bribery to the point they paid dell 105% their total revenue to not use amd parts is the only reason intel has not died. look at their portfolio, they have had more failures then anyone else, and each time since 64bit was a thing for consumers, they have failed to make anything that stuck.

Intel is still riding the backbone of the pentium pro, a nearly if not over 20 year old architecture with some ibm blueprints niggerigged onto it.

I have no idea what this mystical competent intel you speak of is, as they have never been competent. at least outside of their legal teams and even then, their teams were only stalling tactics as they knew no lawsuits would stick.

they also aren't using amd's new msrps.

the more realistic option here is the 1700 for 300$

that IS a worthwhile upgrade
Never look down on headroom

My point is that Coffee lake should be compared to the equal in the price bracket like 1800 ryzen not a fucking 1600.
Yes the Coffee lakes are better than 1600 but they cost $100 more for fuck sake but people tend to skip this fact since the chart says its the competitor to the 1600 despite the bigger price,power requirement,temps and clocks.
Did i mention that mot outlets test these cores with All Turbo ON giving all cores?
Thats not fair to the poor 1600 ryen now is it.

The 8400 is the same price as a Ryzen 1600 and destroys it. Poo in the loo, Ranjit.

>Ideally I'd like to spend around $2k or even 2.5 if I can get something to build that will last at least another 3 years playing AAA games. Does the .5-1.2 GHz really matter in that time frame with those goals?

if you want 144hz+ fuck yes it matters, however having an inlet (4790k at 4.5) and an amd system (1700 at stock with pre fix bios and 2400 ram), the amd one, while it gets lower peak frames, is FAR better feel wise then the intel.
The main thing to look out for is zen 2, which seems to be 6 core ccxes on a process that targets optimal clock speeds of 5ghz, as in you aren't burning the candle on both ends to get it, that is very conservative stock speeds.

for what its worth, a 2000$ amd machine will likely last you till ddr5 comes out, and then will last you another 2-3 years at least as amd should support the platform till then, which means a current amd motherboard has no reason it couldn't take a 8-12 core 5ghz zen 2 outside of companies refusing to update bioses.

needs in-depth testing

Too bad you'd have to buy a motherboard that costs almost as much if not more than the CPU itself. Not exactly a good deal anymore, is it?
>destroys it
>25% difference before OCing
>implying anyone will pair a low end CPU with a 1080ti and 144hz monitor anyway
>Poo in the loo

average fresh boot steril benchmark environment

this does not include stutters that even quad cores exhibit, or the more realistic scenario of background applications running or long uptime. grain of fucking salt necessary here.

PCGamer is pretty garbage for benchmarks.
Also >1080 ti

realistically, you could skimp on cpu parts now as everyone is just that good and focus more on a max games out on ultra bottleneck over more fps at 1080p

Its a bit of a short term solution, but its one people can take.

I'd consider Poozen but I need an insane single core performance for emulation.

Guess I need to wait for Coffin Lake

AMD had a massive performance/watt advantage for a given node size since... decades. And it's only gotten better and better.

The only way Intel was able to beat AMD mobile APUs was because they had a node advantage. ~34nm AMD CPUs were competing reasonably with ~22nm Intel CPUs despite half less than half the transistor density. It was only when Intel dropped down to ~13nm that AMD couldn't compete in efficiency anymore until AMD were using their own 14nm process.

The cost of cooling and motherboards for Coffeelake make them not worth it unless you've already built many computers and are an ultra-enthusiast. No, it's not "worth it" for the vast majority of people. But worth is subjective.

Though I got a 1600X since it was on sale and the AM4 platform is very attractive. Hell, rumor is that X370 is going to be replaced in 9 fucking months, even worse than Z170 was.

>same price
$50 motherboard vs $120 motherboard, tard.
And most of these benchmarkers do shit like completely disable the network interface and all sorts of other services that don't represent a real PC. No one uses and configures their PC as a glorified console like that. In the real world, having the extra cores for other tasks besides the game makes a huge difference in keeping things smooth.
On my 2500k, the fucking i/o CPU usage from my HDD would make games chug because of Steam downloading, or sessions for other programs being written to disk, etc.

Yeah, we need a second set of results corroborating this.

>Ryzen
>OCing

Hehe, what a wicked sense of humour!

The 8400 is a hexa core, Sanjay.

Yeah, if only there was another set of benchmarks providing near-identical results or something.

>1080 ti
>Damn those fucks for eliminating the GPU bottleneck! We were relying on that! REEEEEEEEEE

Overclock a Ryzen 5 1500X

>$50 motherboard vs $120 motherboard, tard.
The cheapest B350 board on PCPP is $60 and its VRMs will explode if you try and overclock a hexa core chip on it. Not that it's worth overclocking Ryzen anyway, since it barely can.

Don't forget the expensive RAM you need for Ryzen to not cripple its performance, whereas you can use just about anything with an Intel system. You'll be making up most of that $60 buying your special snowflake CL14 3200MHz kit so that the CCX glue doesn't gum up your framerate.

>b-b-but the methodology!!!
Nobody cares about your 2500K, fag. The fact that 4c4t CPUs are stuttering piles of shit isn't news. Good thing the 8400 isn't one.

What the hell are you emulating that needs that much single threaded power?

I'd understand if you were playing dwarf fortress, but ps2/wii/gc emulation?

huh... I don't remember the 400 series at all, I only know the 500 and 700 fo I assumed the 400 was the i3.

so the 8400... a base of 2.8 and a max turbo of 4.0...

personally I would take amd over that, the termal jiz they use makes me very iffy how long or even if my chip will hit 4.0 most of the time.

you know what I mean by in-depth
different resolutions, memory settings, SMT settings, and different GPUs

Cemu requires tons of single thread performance. Ryzen doesn't do so well in stuff like Breath of the Wild.

The 8400 only uses ~100W under full load. It maintains its all core 3.8GHz turbo even on the stock cooler.

Sauce on that rumour?

so..it reaches OC'd R5 1600 speeds, on a twice as expensive motherboard, with 6 threads less?
What's the appeal?

>its VRMs will explode if you try and overclock a hexa core chip on it.
>Not that it's worth overclocking Ryzen anyway, since it barely can.
you wouldn't even reach the limit for what overclocking Ryzen "barely can" before the "VRMs explode". you're contradicting yourself
hexa cores overclock without an issue

and I'd like to see a 8400 vs 1600 test with different memory qualities

funny how they OC the locked Intel CPU but don't OC the unlocked AMD one.

I have been burnt by 'every chip does x' enough to not want to trust anything besides base clocks... I want to trust it but I just don't.

>prime95
>avx
Found your problem. The chip was never intended to run that way

yeah, just like K series weren't meant to be overclocked, those damn goys using our CPUs in ways they aren't meant to be used

>1600 is half the tdp
>10% faster
>$100 cheaper
KAAK

...

Brand loyalty
though tbqh I don't get why there's so mismatch between 1600 and 8400. Do games don't know what to do with so many threads on Ryzens too?

It's not a real world usage scenario, and AVX instructions in synthetic torture tests cause uniquely high powder draw for intel CPUs. you'd get a better idea of the power efficiency of the CPU by looking at real scenarios and making the comparison there

look, i use Intel in my PC, so i have no reason to shill for AMD, but if Intel uses AVX workloads as a huge bragging point in their marketing then it should be considered a valid use case

>muh clock speed
The fact that it destroys the OC'd R5 1600 in terms of performance is the appeal, friend. There are charts showing that in this very thread, and you'll find the same results in any 8400 review. Enjoy your FX 9590 and all that delicious clock speed.

Yeah, you defintely would. There is no contradiction. Ryzen can barely overclock before the heat and power draw go out of control and start melting B350 boards. Simple concept, even in your second (third? fourth?) language.

It's almost like they were reviewing the 8400 and entirely focused on that or something.

>REEEEEEEEE why didn't they overclock the 7700K?!?!

Okay! You do you, buddy. We'll be over here enjoying the best value CPU on the market.

it is, it's just better to look at realistic AVX workloads if you want to know what the actual power efficiency will be. prime95 torture test is not realistic

SOPA DE MACAO

>the absolute state of amdrones
youtu.be/oCSkyNHXIAE?t=21m22s

that's some next level brain-dead brand loyalty
is
>MUH GAMES
the only focus of yours? In anything that isn't games, 1600 at 3.8GHz will obliterate the 8400
>b-but you're an AMD SHILL
i'm on a 5820K, which still shits on 8400

probably memory, and yeah, some games get better performance with SMT disabled

already have it, its called a 1700, never overlook headroom and how valuable it is, and when zen 2 comes out, likely going to either get the 8 core or 12 core depending on how they price it and relegate the 1700 to a secondary computer.

games are programed by retards, the less you allow them to potentially fuck up the better, and in this case, taking away threads so they cant try to run to heavy logic loads on one core

>STOP POSTING FACTS! REEEEEEEEEEE

>is
>>MUH GAMES
>the only focus of yours?
This thread was started by an AMD shill trying to talk up Ryzen's gaming performance. This thread is about video games. Why are you here if you don't want to talk about that subject?

>I opened a thread about something I hate and now I'm mad! NANI?! How did this happen?!

>i'm on a 5820K, which still shits on 8400
The 8400 is objectively superior to your 5820K for gaming (hell, even Ryzen is), which is what this thread is discussing. Enjoy jerking off to your Cinebench scores.

The 1700 doesn't have any "headroom" though. Even at its max overclock, it's still inferior to a locked, stock 8400.

And I'm glad you agree that buying the best value CPU now and then upgrading is the smart choice. Therefore, buy an 8400 now, enjoy the Ryzen-smashing performance, then just upgrade to an octa core when Ice Lake comes out and relegate the 8400 to a secondary computer.

>Hehehe, I'll save $120 by not upgrading my motherboard too!
Hope it was worth "making do" with an inferior CPU for all that time for the sake of $120. I guess AMD has always been known as the budget option for a reason.

headroom I meran 4 cores and 8 threads over the old i7, 2/4 over the new, and 2/10 over the i5

Its far less likely for something to fuck with the game/application im using if I have 16 threads opposed to only 6

You may not hit the same highs, but you also dont hit the same lows.

>The 8400 is objectively superior to your 5820K for gaming
in what way? Can it do 4.5Ghz?
Oh wait, it can't and the ipc is within 2% margin

Man when will we see some actual performance gains? I give no fucks about ryzen and it's just not worth upgrading to anything Intel this year. Ice lake fucking when?

Why are you so upfront on Ryzen?

Nov 2018 at the earliest.

He is an Intel stock holder and can see the writing on the wall. Coffee lake is a stop-gap architecture pushed beyond its limits becausde Intel never expected AMD to compete. If ryzen wasn't so good we'd be seeing lower clockspeeds across the board with the extra cores compensating.

What are you going to emulate?
PS3?
No processor can decently emulate it for now.

WiiU?

>buying shit lake
Toppest of keks

>Actually wanting to buy a gtx 1070

What the fuck. I bought it in summer 2016 and it was old already by then.

Was gonna ask the same and then I realized how lazy game optimization has become.

F I N I S H E D & B A N K R U P T

Yeah, post-Noyce Intel was riding on bribes and AMD fucking up.
And since both are no more, well, it's bad.

>amd is demolishing intel in the desktop/workstation space now
>demolishing them in server space
>dead in mobile scene
>all os makers are now testing arm deployments which triggered intel into releasing a vague ultimatum which qualcomm countered and backed microsoft

T H E
E N D
O F
I N T E L

I wonder what did Intel think while pricing Scalable Family Xeons.
So they really think anyone is gonna buy them?

Probably what they've been thinking for the past decade
*rubs hands*

Ha ha too bad they have no one left to bribe.