Chinese site shows extensive benchmarks results of AMD Ryzen

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, goodtofufriday said:

So the 1700 -not the X- can perform 10% less than a 6900k for about 700$ less?

Hey thats friggen awesome! and I say 6900k because its an 8c/16t cpu like the 1700.

That benchmark also shows it being 21.5% slower than the 6700K, which is slower than the 7700K which costs about the same as the Ryzen 1700.

So for gaming, AMD will be about 25% slower than Intel at the same price? Not sure how anyone can take that as good news...

 

 

All these comparisons against the 6900K is starting to piss me off because they are comparing apples and oranges for two reasons.

1) Barely anyone bought the 6900K, because it was pretty shitty value. Nobody ever went "yeah you should buy the 6900K because it is such great value!" so AMD beating it in that regard is like beating a paralyzed kid at boxing.

2) No regular consumer is going to look for cores first, and price second or third. They decide a budget first and then buy whatever fits their budget. That's why you should compare CPUs from the same price brackets, not CPUs with the same core count. Did you ever see someone say "don't buy AMD because the 6900K beats the 3850 in terms of performance. Comparing those two because they have the same core count so it's a fair comparison"? No? Wanna know why? Because that would have been stupid.

 

Ryzen should be compared against the 7700K and 6800K. The CPUs people are actually buying and that will cost about the same. Saying that it's beating the 6900K in value is like saying it has won the Paralympics. It's good that you won something, but you're still mentally disabled.

[goodtofufriday]

35 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

-snip-

Thing is ryzen it meant to be an in between. So doing well against a 1000$ and doing -good enough- against similarly prices cpus. 

Anyone buying the 1700 or 1700x should know they are for mutli-thread processes and can also game well. 

 

If someone is trying to buy them for top end gaming then they didnt do their research. 

 

So i dont get your argument, as ryzen is meeting a need that intel hasnt filled at an affordable level. If the 1700 doesnt meet their needs then they dont buy it. Simple. 

 

Edit: And want people have Wanted is an affordable 8 core. Which is why they are comparing it to the 8 core that is the 6900k. 

 

Ill take your side and say anyone that thinks the 1700x is supposed to dominate the 7700k is dumb. but then thats not what we have been looking for.

 

[MageTank]

10 hours ago, JamieOlive said:

Ok look, I believe that Intel all those years has taken the fun out of overclocking. Why is it bad for one chip to overclock better than the other, I mean no manufacturing proccess is perfect, Intel just pushes every CPU to the max on their one, and you get 200-400 Mhz on Avg.

 

Why wouldn't I want lets say a 4C / 8T Ryzen at 3,7Ghz at 200$ and O.C to 4.2Ghz to 4.8Ghz depending on the chip insted of a 350$ Core i7 at 4.5Ghz that O.C to 4.8 to 4.9Ghz.

 

That is just me thought, I want the fun, the experience the luck in the proccess, and Intel is just making fun od it thelast few years and profits greatly in the proccess, It is time that changes.

 

And last but certainly not least, dont think Intel or Nvidia or AMD doesn't send the best validated chips to reviewers, they alll do it, it is simple business.

I am confused. Why are you telling me this? Where did I say it was bad for one chip to overclock better than others? When did I tell you not to get a Ryzen chip and overclock it? Also, why are you telling me not only something I already knew, but something I've already said in another thread literally hours before you wrote this? You even posted in that thread after me. 

 

11 hours ago, MageTank said:

Not really. While it's unlikely they will be wasting time binning for the best of the best to send reviewers, they certainly won't be sending any of you guys a lemon of an overclocker either. There is a reason they are sending known/tested CPU's out to reviewers. Sure, you can say it's to save them money, but AMD surely has enough stock to send out brand new chips.

 

It's not far-fetched to assume they sent out chips used in their events, because these chips were at least validated to clock decently beforehand. Last thing you want when marketing a hype-chip like Ryzen, is a reviewer saying "My chip only hit X clocks" due to the chip being a complete lottery loser. Nobody is doubting that your chips are not retail, but nobody is going to believe they are not at least decently-binned retail chips. That's what people are referring to.

I can't tell if you accidentally quoted the wrong person, or somehow felt the need to tell me things I already knew. Either way, I am still confused as to why. 

[SansVarnic]

<--- Dark Theme User

 

My Eyes!!! That format.  

[themctipers]

as long as it beats skylake, or comes close to skylake ill call it a win.