Tfw you realize the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and the i7-6900K are almost identical performance wise

>tfw you realize the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and the i7-6900K are almost identical performance wise
>i7-6900K goes for $900-1000
>Ryzen 7 1800X goes for $300


Is 2018 the year AMD has finally reached, and if not passed Intel?

Other urls found in this thread:

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113430&cm_re=1800-_-19-113-430-_-Product
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113428&cm_re=1700-_-19-113-428-_-Product
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113429&cm_re=1700-_-19-113-429-_-Product
microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=5206&Ntk=Adv&sortby=match&N=4294966995&myStore=true
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Only if Pinnacle Ridge turns out better than expected.
But I think they'll have what they set out to do in 2019 with Zen2, which is murder Intel if the leaks are true.

No, 2019 when Zen 2 on 7LP curb stomps Intel who's going to be stumbling over their 10nm

If Zen2 turns out to be as good as i hear, I'll be ditching the 8700k and switching over to AMD.

I want a 16 core CPU with OC to 4.7GHz under $500

You say that like it's any different from visheta vs Sandy bridge.

Fx6300 wrecked the shit out of i3 2120 or 3220 but people will keep buying Intel just like back then.

how is amd smashing intel all of a sudden? how is intel a billion dollay company, that keeps pocketing billions not able to smash them in every test?

how has intel not thrown out cheap consumer chips with 10 cores at 6ghz?

Because you're retarded.

>6900k
If you want a chip from two generations ago.

What are you actually doing with 8 cores anyway? I do plenty of video encoding myself, but I schedule it as a batch and run it overnight. Whether it takes 1 hour or 2 hours really doesn't matter to me.

i5 8400 is obviously the best value option today.

Yep

So what if it's from two generations ago? That old chip still blows ou5 the new intel chips out the fucking water and has 8 cores

>blows ou5 the new intel chips out of the water
mobile poster?

You're fucking stupid. OP is talking about price/performance. 6900K is easily one of the worst price/performance consumer-focused chips Intel offers today. So 'no', the 6900K does not 'blow ou5 the new intel chips out of the water' in this context.

Perfoamce wise 6900 blows out the new intel chips out of the water.

Are you deluded?

>performance wise [...] blows the new intel chips out of the water
Except it doesn't. 6900k wins against 8700K in the FEW applications optimized to handle 8 cores. Look up Amdahl's law and you can say you learned something today.

> 2019
> AMD releases new processors
> 16c/32t
> Intel shills takes up interpretive dance as a means of pushing MOAR CORES memes
> Youtube embeds and webms everywhere
> All the kids with i9 space heaters laughs
> AAA company exec hears about steam statistics from his wife's son and notices that core count per average user is skyrocketing
> Finally sends the country of India to a seminar about multi threaded design, mutexes and thread safety
> Q2 2019 arrives
> Intel wakes up one day and decides they want to make another slideshow about how amazing they are
> Plus the rainbow galaxy space whales, otherkins and trans-transexual omni-females are getting restless
> Boots up their gamer rig with an overclocked i11 hooked up to an engine block cooling system
> Boots up Ryzen 2 laptop they bought from Dell
> Launches Call of Duty: Infinite Black Ops Ghosts 2
> Noticeable stuttering on the gamer rig
> Hm...
> Launches Microsoft Office 2019
> Takes 3x as long to load on the i11
> Hrmm...
> Launches Adobe After Effects CC2
> Gamer rig launches 2.8 seconds faster. Finally.
> Transcodes moar_cores_laugh_track.mp4
> Ryzen laptop finishes in 30 seconds, Gaming rig still going 5 minutes later.. AC turns on.
> 15 minutes later i11 bluescreens, AC is now on max. The building maintenance guy walks in wondering if some idiot plugged in a space heater.
> ......
> Intel releases new slideshow
> Consists of literally nothing but a Xeon logo with a big green checkmark and a Ryzen logo with a big red X
> Then a list of every company in the world using a Xeon processor in some way
> The massive list is interrupted every other page by pictures of laughing people holding tubes of super glue

I can't wait.

>kids with i9
I stopped reading here. Literally no one is buying the 6900K today. 7900X if anything.

I thought 1700 is enough to match 6900K

>6 GHz
>6 billion cycles per second
>167 picoseconds per cycle
>electrical signals can only travel two inches in 167 picoseconds

At more than a few GHz, fundamental physical limits start to impinge on meaningful increases in clock frequency.

I'm going to buy a new processor (and entire computer) this black friday

Budget for the guts is ~2k. This does not include monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc

What processor should I get? I will mostly be using it for gaming and occasional photoshop, not video editing/rendering

>the year AMD has finally reached, and if not passed Intel?

2003-2006

>gddr5 has a general clock speed of 7ghz

What did they mean by this?

>confusing "effective" clock speed with literal clock speed

r5 1600

it has 3,5GHz,
but it can do two actions every cycle.
making it effectively 7GHz, but not in reality

AMD
>first mainstream consumer to produce _64 extension arch
>first APU
>first onboard N/Sbridge
>IOMMU
>mantle (vulkan now)
>mobo sockets forward compat with older cpu
>foss gpu drivers(amdgpu)
>"gpuopen" project
>freesync
>mgpu
>wayland

550 dollars from local sellers in Eastern Europe
Frig off, burger

>i5 8400 is obviously the best value option today.

cheapest dual core intel if they are still cheaper than amd

is r3 1200 any good

he is right you know.
> 6 cores
> turbo to hell and back
> best performance in any single thread application
> still very good performance in multithread because of said 6 cores
> cheap as fuck

I am in the process of putting together a new build, and I did the math. Ryzen is only a better choice if you aim very high end (Threadripper).

>cheap as fuck

If you want a future proof build, it's at the low end of mid-range, which is very good. It can also be OC'd.

If you are on a budget, you can buy an i3 and buy an i5 later used. If you looked into prices, there is really nothing cheaper out there. Maybe a Pentium. But come on, we are on Sup Forums.

>Is 2018 the year AMD has finally reached, and if not passed Intel?
No, lmao.

>future proof
ayy. R5 1600 is better for this purpose because it can be OC'd, and AMD doesn't drop sockets every year so i don't see the point really.
GM sux

>double the price for 9.6% increase in cinebench results and no ecc support, you cannot make this up

>68c max operating temp

Sounds rather low...

Contrary to reactor number 7980, 1950x is very efficient

thanks for the chuckles

>SOPA DE MACACO
>Aproveite já esta oferta!

it is. the 1700 and 1800x are essentially the same chip. clock them equally and you'll get the same performance.

>68 C max operating temp
Is that the max temperature the chip will reach, or is it the "warranty voided" temp? Considering the TDP you'd think it was closer to Intel anyway.

It already has. I'll probably upgrade to a Ryzen 2 10 or 12 core if it hits 4.5 GHz. Currently sitting on a 5820K.
>TFW my CPU was cheap as fuck in 2015 and offered the same performance as the 8700K when it was new
>TFW Intelfags buy shitty mainstream platform boards to have the same performance now

1800X are binned. They overclock a bit better, but its not worth the price.

Your argument has no room as money is not an issue at hand here.

If you're a professional initial cost might not be a factor, but power consumption is. Skylake-X has horrible power consumption, sure you can probably undervolt but then you lose the single thread performance which is SKL-X' only redeeming value.

1950X has a TDP 180W, it's hardly a power sipper. The critical part is the fact that it's soldered and as such it can be cooled properly, unlike Intel's jizz-powered CPU.

Intel was sleeping on 10nm for years due to horrid management. Too late to get up to speed now.

It doesn't consume much more power when I got 8 cores and retained sme clock speed

>2.6GHz

For $2000 it should be 4.5GHz base fuck who is stupid enough to buy these things when they’re this slow?

>Buying cuck lake
wew lad

> 6 cores
and only 6 cores, enjoy getting to 100% usage in games and stuttering

> turbo to hell and back
if you have the overpriced motherboard and cooling for it and only up to 3.8

> best performance in any single thread application
literally no every single coffee lake and kaby lake is better

> still very good performance in multithread because of said 6 cores
and only 6 cores gets raped by a 1700x whichs platform is cheaper

> cheap as fuck
see previous point

Nice shit you found on google images, also

>skylakex
>4.6
whoever that is they are really trying to start a fire

At least this brazilian isnt a faggot

It only has six cores. That’s literally less than the 7700K that has eight threads. It is a downgrade in every way.

It depends on the application, sometimes 4C/8T is better, other times 6C/6T. Intel's hyperthreading gains are very inconsistent, so a 7700K vs. an 8600K is mostly a wash.

>hyperthreading gains are very inconsistent
Many applications literally run slower with hyperthreading.

>threads == cores
gtfo retard

t. weeb or yuropoor

is Zen2 gonna have AM4 socket too?

I gamed on a 7100 dual core with HT, honestly worked a charm

r5 1600(x)

I'm looking forward to Zen 2 and whatever intel manages to bring out.
Until then, my 2600k will keep chugging along.

Windows sees hyperthreads the same as extra cores. It doesn’t matter

The state of AMD fans

6900k wasn't i9, that branding didn't start until Skylake-X

Wow you're absolutely dumb.

>Ryzen 7 1800X goes for $300
Where?

1800x

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113430&cm_re=1800-_-19-113-430-_-Product


1700

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113428&cm_re=1700-_-19-113-428-_-Product


1700x

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113429&cm_re=1700-_-19-113-429-_-Product

ive always said that with intel you pay for the name and that with amd you pay for the actual hardware

Always?

Were you saying that when Intel had the Core 2 Quad and all AMD could point to was the FX-62 (or the retarded AMD '4x4' with FX-74)?

Is this for the Black Friday sale? Or Is this permenant new pricing?

i heard that it's only up until the end of the month.

It'll be better at multi threaded work loads, but if you're a gaming cuck stay on Intel.

I don't know if I should find all this shock at AMD leapfrogging Intel again cute or sad.

its a 14nm quad core with reasonable clocks
i'm sure it will do modern tasks without distractions coming from performance

Intel has been dumping money into 10nm but has yet to actually get decent yields. AMD did something pretty clever with Ryzen - ditch monolithic chip design. Because they went with a modular approach, they can easily produce higher core count chips using cheap dies.

Microcenter has the 1800x and 1700 cheaper.

microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=5206&Ntk=Adv&sortby=match&N=4294966995&myStore=true