Official? Ryzen leaked slides

[Citadelen]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

-snip-

The Fury X benchmarks they put out were bending the truth (not at a launch event BTW) & I'm pretty sure they didn't tell any lies at the Polaris launch.

 

On a side note, this is the CPU division of AMD, not really comparable to how RTG operates, and the Fury launch isn't comparable to the Polaris launch because ROG DIDN'T exist then.

[knightslugger]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/6

 

I would wait for actual benchmarks and not AMD's slides

i know you didn't just complain about 20 R15 points...

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Which lies where those?

so .. AMD I the only one remembering?

• Fury X - overclockers dream
• the 2*RX480 comparison to the GTX1080
• I personally asked AMD's rep for the actual Ashes runs - he never showed them

no?!?!

[TrigrH]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I would wait for actual benchmarks and not AMD's slides

Seems to match up to me

[Enderman]

12 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

They won't be close to fucked. Remember how chrome came out as this super light wright fast browser and people still think that enough they it eats so much ram and is so heavy?

I don't think you understand why people use chrome.

Hate to break it to ya, but it's not because "oh its super light and fast".

[Okjoek]

Only a few more days!!!

[Bananasplit_00]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

what did they lie about

 

 

infrated FPS numbers, its reached the ones promised at launch now after a lot of driver fixing but the drivers were so shit at launch that it didnt deliver, just like FX but at a smaller scale. same with Polaris. AMD suck at having decent drivers at launch...

 

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

all this hype always fucked AMD in the ass once people actually started benchmarking the HW

yah day 0 and 1 benchmarks clean  up the BS. i really hope its going to be good though, if its another FX AMD is dead. just straight up Intel will have a monopoly in x86 CPUs for the consumer market.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, TrigrH said:

Seems to match up to me

that's not why I linked the Anand runs

might wanna take a look at Anand's Intel results vs what's on AMD's chart

[Citadelen]

24 minutes ago, zMeul said:

-snip-

The overclockers dream was a passing comment by an engineer who was involved with the cooler for the Fury X, he probably didn't know the overlooking headroom of the GPU core itself though, the cooling solution is an overclockers dream for a stock solution though. I will give it to you that they should control things like that more though.

 

Also two RX 480s (I'm 99% sure) are faster than a single 1080 in AotS. Correct me if I'm wrong of course but do provide a source.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

so .. AMD I the only one remembering?

• Fury X - overclockers dream
• the 2*RX480 comparison to the GTX1080

no?!?!

 

2 480 can beat gtx 1080 under certain condition and in pure compute power that's not a lie. you really can't expect a miracle with gpus, amd is trying to get market share with ryzen that's why they are pricing it lower loosing a bit of profit margin. sli and crossfire are buggy but in games that work the 480 sli works quite well for the most part. 

[Bananasplit_00]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

I don't think you understand why people use chrome.

Hate to break it to ya, but it's not because "oh its super light and fast".

has litteraly anyone ever used it for that? i sure never have.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

so .. AMD I the only one remembering?

• Fury X - overclockers dream
• the 2*RX480 comparison to the GTX1080

no?!?!

 

Well marketing from any company is just white noise to me, "waffle waffle blah blah". So AMD didn't lie to me since I wasn't listening.

 

The dual RX480 thing isn't exactly a lie since it was present as equivalent to a 1080 in a specific game, however AMD knew people would then think that would mean the same would be true for every game. Not a lie just smoke, mirrors and heaped tablespoon of bullshit .

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

so .. AMD I the only one remembering?

• Fury X - overclockers dream
• the 2*RX480 comparison to the GTX1080
• I personally asked AMD's rep for the actual Ashes runs - he never showed them

no?!?!

1) AMD themselves never claimed that the Fury X would be a good overclocker. Publications reporting, and creatively interpreting AMD's claims did.

2) AMD stated that 2 RX 480's in crossfire could outpace a single GTX 1080 IN A SINGLE SCENARIO, Ashes of the Singularity. While AMD's numbers haven't been replicated exactly, third party testing verified AMD's claims.

3) That is an unverified statement. It doesn't hold weight.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

1) AMD themselves never claimed that the Fury X would be a good overclocker. Publications reporting, and creatively interpreting AMD's claims did.

2) AMD stated that 2 RX 480's in crossfire could outpace a single GTX 1080 IN A SINGLE SCENARIO, Ashes of the Singularity. While AMD's numbers haven't been replicated exactly, third party testing verified AMD's claims.

3) That is an unverified statement. It doesn't hold weight.

1. yeah they did .. right on the fucking stage! there's even the recorded event AMD themselves streamed
2. +3 me and other people on /r/amd asked AMD's rep for the links to the runs - AMD never provided

[MegaDave91]

21 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This picture cracks me up everytime; a true enthusiast displaying his intimate relationship & passion for pc hardware. 

[VagabondWraith]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

1) AMD themselves never claimed that the Fury X would be a good overclocker. Publications reporting, and creatively interpreting AMD's claims did.

2) AMD stated that 2 RX 480's in crossfire could outpace a single GTX 1080 IN A SINGLE SCENARIO, Ashes of the Singularity. While AMD's numbers haven't been replicated exactly, third party testing verified AMD's claims.

3) That is an unverified statement. It doesn't hold weight.

An AMD engineer said it on stage. It was in a video where he explicitly said so.

 

As an aside, I'm going to laugh so hard when these benchmarks don't hold true and the suckers that fell for it will be wondering why and blaming AMD.

[LAwLz]

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

Well marketing from any company is just white noise to me, "waffle waffle blah blah". So AMD didn't lie to me since I wasn't listening.

 

The dual RX480 thing isn't exactly a lie since it was present as equivalent to a 1080 in a specific game, however AMD knew people would then think that would mean the same would be true for every game. Not a lie just smoke, mirrors and heaped tablespoon of bullshit .

This is the biggest cop-out argument I have ever seen...

 

I think it is pretty mind blowing that people actually think "official benchmarks" (that were also leaked) mean anything. Because no company has ever lied and/or inflated their own numbers right? On top of that, these are not even official from what we know. So there is a double layer of "you'd have to be an idiot to trust this" at play here.

This holds as much credit as someone over at Reddit going "yeah I got one, and it's super fast"... But knowing this forum and how delusional people are, it would probably be posted here as a news thread and people would go "I knew it! Ryzen confirmed for second coming of Jesus!".

 

 

19 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It doesn't hold weight.

Neither does any first party benchmarks, ever.

They should not be trusted, at all.

Especially not if it's "leaked, official benchmarks".

 

 

13 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

As an aside, I'm going to laugh so hard when these benchmarks don't hold true and the suckers that fell for it will be wondering why and blaming AMD.

Won't happen.

If Ryzen is a flop then the AMD fanboys will never admit it. They will do what people did with Bulldozer and find that 1 out of 10 benchmarks where it performs decently, and then repeat that ad nauseam while desperately trying to convince themselves that all the hype they bought into was true and not at all over-inflated.

 

Quote

Oh those 20 benchmarks from Anandtech, Tom's hardware, TechPowerUp, Guru3D, OPC3D etc? Nahh those don't matter. I found this Russian website which shows AMD being good in one out of their 10 benchmarks. I am going to post that in every thread I find until people believe it isn't a piece of shit!

Just look at how popular Logan from Tek Syndicate's video where he "proved" that Bulldozer was good for streaming... Despite the video being complete nonsense and any person with half a brain went "oh, this guy is a clown that has no idea what he is doing".

People just need that one exception and then they will leech onto it, while ignoring everything that contradicts their pre-defined conclusion.

 

 

Side note: I hope Ryzen is a smash hit. I've been waiting to build a new PC for 7 months now, and the only reason why I am still using my 2500K is because once I had to RMA my 6800K I thought "might as well wait for Zen".

If it turns out I have been waiting 7 months for nothing, then I will be mad as fuck. But since I don't want to re-experience Bulldozer and all the other massive disappointments that have come out the last couple of years, I have set my expectations extremely low and has a strict no-hype policy.

[Techstorm970]

8 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

has litteraly anyone ever used it for that? i sure never have.

I use it because it has built-in plugins (screw Firefox) and it runs faster than Internet Explorer for me.

 

However, I would take Safari over Chrome, Firefox, or IE any day. 

[The Sloth]

3 minutes ago, techstorm970 said:

I use it because it has built-in plugins (screw Firefox) and it runs faster than Internet Explorer for me.

 

However, I would take Safari over Chrome, Firefox, or IE any day. 

 

 

safari is one of the worst browser ever for me, my i phone 7 plus can't connect with my MacBook running windows or my 6p, unless you are really dedicated to apple safari sucks. 

[Shakaza]

Okay, I know we're all hyped for this launch, but, geez, cut down on the news until the release. We're not really gaining anything at best, or painting unrealistic expectations at worst. The accurate, unbiased(hopefully? :D) third-party benchmarks will get here when they get here. A little patience never hurt anybody. Let's just go off and play games for the next week or so and it'll be here before you know it!  These news posts just seem to drag it out and make it take longer.

[Sauron]

37 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

most people don't OC 

but then they shouldn't buy a K skew cpu anyway.

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

but then they shouldn't buy a K skew cpu anyway.

the extra clock speed helps 

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, zMeul said:

1. yeah they did .. right on the fucking stage! there's even the recorded event AMD themselves streamed
2. +3 me and other people on /r/amd asked AMD's rep for the links to the runs - AMD never provided

7 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

An AMD engineer said it on stage. It was in a video where he explicitly said so.

 

As an aside, I'm going to laugh so hard when these benchmarks don't hold true and the suckers that fell for it will be wondering why and blaming AMD.

 

In reference to the 500W cooling dissipation capable loop and power delivery system, they call these components (actually, specifically the cooler) 'an overclocker's dream.' They never called the Fury X itself a dream. Even then, the Fury X overclocking was artificially held back via the BIOS available at launch. After a series of updates, cards like the reference Fury X and the Sapphire Nitro could see damn near a 50% OC, which is significantly better than the +100MHz that an RX 480 might see over it's 1266MHz boost, than the +130 MHz over what a GTX 1080 will hit before running into issues with the power draw limit.

 

It's jackasses taking what these companies are saying out of context, and then later claiming it is as AMD said (when, in fat it's not), that have been accelerating AMD's acquisition of the image of being the cut rate, budget solution that is only viable at the bottom end.

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Neither does any first party benchmarks, ever.

They should not be trusted, at all.

Especially not if it's "leaked, official benchmarks".

First party benchmarks hold weight when the companies are under constant scrutiny (especially after the creative interpretation publications and potential consumers are jumping to with what little REAL information AMD gave us). Especially as AMD's results, not necessarily the numerics of each component (FPS being the big one), but the % differences are being replicated, when tested as AMD stated.

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

the extra clock speed helps 

Not to the point where you should spend 50 bucks more.

[VagabondWraith]

19 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

An AMD engineer said it on stage. It was in a video where he explicitly said so.

 

As an aside, I'm going to laugh so hard when these benchmarks don't hold true and the suckers that fell for it will be wondering why and blaming AMD.

And btw, I seriously hope that Ryzen is extremely successful. The industry needs it and needs a strong AMD, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

 

The problem is, the people over-hyping these products are surely the same ones to bash AMD when it falls short of their expectations. Excitement is okay but excessive hype can also be bad. 

 

Just calm your tits...