PCGuy_5960

I have never heard of this company. I would recommend the Nokia 6:
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6-6885.php
It costs $230, so it should cost around 240 Euros? 

Is the Pixel launcher available in the Playstore by now :/?
Well i meant as in the OLED display should be quite bright, color accurate or vibrant when it has to be like the basic mode and adaptive mode on Samsung devices and in the very least adopt an HDR standard it so much deserves.
 
RIP HTC:

if you turn off 4c8t or more than cpuz sees the ryzen chip as 2 single or 2 dual core cpus  

No, I was referring to the Pixel Launcher....
 

i am just going to say its broken for most devices, for the s7 it kept crashing the 6p was slow. if it works its a good option. 

AMD had the EXACT same argument with Bulldozer., that in the future, it will be faster and the 2500K still kicks the 8350's ass in games....

Maybe a GP104 equipped 1060 Ti?

(The 2 empty vRAM slots at the top)

Linus might be biased, doesn't matter because his methodology SUCKS...
 
It's easy to know who's biased, methodology. Channels that change their methodology to get the outcome they want, are biased. It's not the results, but how you get the results.
 
 

So far, only 3 channels have done extensive Ryzen testing:
Gamers Nexus Hardware Unboxed DigitalFoundry

Add one to that. Very fair analysis, and a peak at the 1600x. 
 

Forgot DigitalFoundry. Edited now

Wait for Ryzen 5

This is what it says.

Yes, but you wrote this
This is why I asked for clarification... You are fine, your CPU is not throttling, task manager is usually inaccurate.

Sorry for the typo. Thank you!

Oh. Thought you meant it was a 2 core cpu. I was the one that needed to check my facts lol

yeah but it cant hurt to wait. at this point it is so close to release that it would be a shame if it was released and ended up being really good but op missed out on a good cpu because they couldn't wait a short amount of time. also i wonder what op meant by cheap because without a clear defined price range for a cheap cpu the you cant really know what would be a good cpu for cheap.  

When you have an RGB keyboard but you turn off all the lights.

There is nothing to fix it wrecks the whole X99 platform cpus as it was 7needed to do.

Huh, so the "Turbo Boost 3.0" is a retarded feature that needs a dedicated driver to work at all, gg wp IPC is not the issue of Ryzen, imo the biggest one right now is setting up the platform in a proper way... Even with the IPC between Haswell and Broadwell, it's still good-enough for any task  
To be fair I kind of look at all of those videos with a grain of salt, I need a reputable and good reviewer that I know will set the platform up properly (Such as the DigitalFoundry video I linked above), the earlier the benchmark released after launch = the less accurate it is, sadly... He even put a 1700X on the thumbnail instead of the 1800X
Well, the difference is that I've seen 5820Ks not go beyond 4GHz... The sillicon lottery plays a significant role with Intel's chips, with Ryzen R7 it's basically all around 4GHz, of course you can find a 5820K sample that'll do close to 5GHz
 
You need to remember that with those high-performance setups that have 8-cores such as the 6900K, not everyone overclocks. Those PC's are often used for computational purposes and they work 24/7, power consumption and heat are a huge issue there, one PC with a 6900K can heat up the entire room in a day if running at 100% by a lot...  It's not as simple as in the regular desktop market where overclocking is a common thing...
 
And yeah, maybe X99 wins for gaming, but loses hard in almost any other task when you consider value of the CPU and gaming isn't a primary point of buying X99...
 
$/performance is just incredible, and all of that with a LOT lower power consumption (1800X has lower power consumption overall than a 4C/8T 7700K that's on a newer architecture, let alone Haswell/Broadwell 6/8 cores with 140W TDP...)
 
P.S.: I also have an i7-5820K myself in a workstation-oriented build at home, 6700K is in my main gaming rig

This guy works with Hardware Unbowed, so his results were very accurate
The 1700X on the thumbnail is there because he probably couldn't find an 1800X image...
It is on par... Take a look at benchmarks...

Why is it not a good idea at the moment? What information has been presented that directs us towards a potential fix in these tests? We simply cannot take AMD for their word that the IMC is going to be fixed (if you knew the exact nature of the IMC's deficiency, you would be skeptical too), and a lot of the non-memory bound tests still put it at or around Haswell. 
 
Understand this. We cannot look at every single product to ever be released, with the doubt in the back of our minds that the information won't be concrete, or that it won't matter until X amount of time passes. We do not do this when comparing new Intel releases against their older ones, and we cannot make an exception for AMD. We speak in the present at all times, because the present is what matters for consumers. Anyone buying a product under the pretenses that it "might" get better in the future, are setting themselves up for disappointment. 
 
Until AMD (or any third party benchmark/application) releases patches for Ryzen that improves it's performance, we shall use what we currently have as the basis for our information. With that in mind, claiming "Ryzen is on par with Haswell in terms of IPC average" is simply the most accurate way to describe it's relative performance in general. As I said before, this is not a bad thing. Haswell is still a very competent architecture, and is plenty fast for consumers.

Sorry, man. 

No it doesn't
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/7000/7800