Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Game Forum' started by PEB, Nov 24, 2016.
I don't know if I would call it deceptive, but it was definitely BS.
Oh sure, there's all sorts of tricks, but I'd say this is an open book, now.
The Ryzen trips trail Kaby Lake by ~25% in IPC. Can't fudge that.
Almost no games are truly squeezing optimization beyond four cores, now, but they do dump added tasks, and it appears that this will mean the 1700X/1800X will trail most of the i7 chips by ~15% in framerate, and the i5's ~10-15% in framerate. Burke asserts that the AMD chips probably won't overclock as well due to the additional cores (hence why world records are set on multicore chips with only a single core activated) but so far that is NOT what we are seeing the wild.
I'm delighted because I think most underestimate how much processing power factors into these purchases. If that wasn't true, then the i7-7700K wouldn't be outselling the i5-7600K as drastically as it has since they debuted. Obviously most gamers are happy to pay the additional $100-$140 for extra processing power that will rarely offer much additional performance in terms of fps. The 7700K hasn't budged from #1 status.
Don't be undersold on those "Peak Overclock Scores". I wouldn't be surprised if that was an AMD-subsidized pro out there on liquid nitrogen/hydrogen/whatever, but it's not like the top Intel guys have been using anything less. The 6900K had thousands of overclockers attempting to achieve the highest score that they could, and the 1700X already saw someone clown the best anyone had ever done with that CPU in the Overall Score before it even had three dozen attempts!
Damn, the market was NOT impressed:
AMD investors get spooked by Ryzen’s mixed reviews
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. Intel Core i7-7700K: Next-gen flagship CPU matchup!
This was interesting and gives me some hope for improvement.
I think the market is wearing its ass on its head.
That 1700X and 1700 are going to fucking sell. They've been pessimistic and wrong about AMD for the past three years. I remember someone asking me if a PC thread title praising AMD was a joke. They killed it in the market that year: outperformed all expectations. No, it wasn't a joke.
Meanwhile, Nintendo shares have been surging on news of the Switch. LOL, are you fucking kidding me? A console that doubles down the worst-selling strategy of the 8th generation, and doesn't even offer a special exclusive launch to the console? Get ready to lose some money, chumps.
I think right now will be the best time to buy AMD stock for probably several years. You won't see it undervalued again like this for a while.
Adored is a smart guy, but often jumps through metal hoops for AMD products. This video is one of those cases. He come up with the term "software bottleneck". This is AMD again betting on more cores winning out over less, but faster individual cores. In one market segment they have finally got it right. There is no doubt that Ryzen are awesome CPUs for a fantastic price. It is just not best for gaming when less expensive CPUs can do the job as well or better. In the future that may change, or not. We could see game makers continue to offload more onto the GPU as has been the trend.
Of course they are going to sell, that does not mean there is a problem with the reviews. If people listen to reviews and looked at what they needed no one would be spending the extra to put an i7 in a gaming rig.
And yet they do. One could deduce one of two truths from this:
Gamers don't give a shit and find the ePeen worth the extra $100 (which arguably translates to Ryzen, but might not based on significant per-thread differences with these mainstream air overclocks)
These buyers have a more diverse range of demands and/or ambitions for their rigs than mere gaming, and you're wrongly presuming you perfectly understand their consumer demands/desires rather than them wrongly wasting money on an irrational purchase.
Either bodes well for AMD's sales and stock prices, so again, I really like right now to buy.
Fun fact some people believe that Intel contacted reviewers before they released their reviews. Apparently Intel wanted to know from them when they where releasing their reviews. Here is the thing they where not tampering with the results they just wanted to be informed.
They may had a hand on the idea that the i7-7700K was the focus on many performance results. The idea they understood that games are really not well optimized for more then 4 cores. The idea it was going to be all about clock rates and single core performance. If you looked at many benchmarks the 7700K came out on top on many tests including the more expensive i7-6900K.
Intel knew that AMD was targeting the consumer with an 8 core CPU that was not going to cost over 1,000 dollars. Top it off it may have improved i5's position as a good mainstream CPU. The bottom line is AMD is selling an amazing CPU that can play games as well as render video far better then anything Intel offers in the sub 400 dollar market.
Well it is defiantly one, as if someone was was looking for more diverse range of demand they would not be building a gaming rig as I'm referring to it as.
Dem Edison tactics?:
Did you watch the video? He says Intel did not pay anyone. That whole rumor started with the release that Intel's marketing had contacted corporate customers and said that before they thought about switching over to Ryzen talk to them about getting some discounts to stay with Intel. That got combined with the emails Intel sent out to reviews asking for the review information, which always happens.
LOL, of course I watched it, that's what #holyfuckingtriggered was about. What else do you think that hashtag referred to?
I almost wrote, "I think the lady doth protest too much." But seriously. Just a bit too much. I felt like his indignation made sense for the first 30 sec. Meanwhile, Jay casually notes in his review vid for Ryzen that "nobody invites me to anything", and that's that.
I wouldn't put it past Intel, btw.
I took it as you were triggered, believing Intel paid reviews. Sorry, I took it the wrong way.
Ah, haha, I gotcha now. I think of "triggered" as a bad thing, but I see now you thought I was using it ironically.
Here was the Jay video I was talking about:
I love the four key points that Jay raises:
Everything is going to depend on how quickly AMD can get optimization out there, but the market desperately needed this superior jack-of-all trades CPU price point. Driving down Intel prices might be something we celebrate them for, too.
Redditors who say "Ryzen sucks for gaming!" are stupid. It will trail the 7700K by ~10% in most gaming benchmarks, but it destroys it by ~60% in overall processing power.
The real question is whether or not your CPU is a bottlenecking the TV/monitor, not that it offers 10% more theoretical fps when virtually no gamers need or would use that, and it wasn't holding him up at all in the games he tested like GTA V (where averages were like 185+ on Ultra across the board).
So the 6900K is only 5% inferior to the 7700K in gaming/1-thread and about identical to these Ryzen chips in the overall, yet it costs $1000, and nobody shits on Intel. Maybe people have just become complacent and will lap up whatever shit Intel puts on our plate these days. Maybe that's become a herd mentality.
Also, here is UserBenchmarks article making a precise theoretical (i.e. not real world fps measurement discrepancies) comparison of IPC between Ryzen and Kaby Lake:
What is really going to be interesting is the Ryzen R5 CPUs. If we can get a 6 core CPU that matches the single core performance of an i5 for the same price or less (even if single thread is a bit behind) that will change the game.
When we are talking about R5 we're just talking about price/performance right, it's not like those are going to be better for gaming than if I were to buy a 1700/1800, or is there a chance they would? (I've been curious about that)
I'll probably jump on the Ryzen as soon as they put out some fixes for all the issues out there right now. I think it is going to do what I require of it, as far as gaming goes. And the power it has for anything outside of gaming is just going to be a big bonus.
The Ryzen R5 and R3 might be better for gaming, or more specifically have better single core performance. Often CPUs of same architecture with less core will have better performance per the individual core. For the Intel Skylake some of the i3's have and now can be overclocked to higher frequencies then the i5's. The Ryzen 1800X hit a world record clock speed on a single core, by disabling all the other cores.
So we could very well see higher frequencies in the Ryzen R5 and R3 CPUs and thus better single core performance.
Even now if you have the $330 to spend on the Ryzen 1700 your not going to notice any issue with gaming performance, the point that has been getting lost is that you are not going to see any benefits unless you are running a very high end GPU and running 1080p resolution, which very few people do. So an i5 is a better option right now in terms of cost for a pure gaming rig. However paired with something more likely, such as a RX 480 or even a GTX 1070 you are not going have any problems gaming with a Ryzen CPU and you get plenty of power to do more then gaming. If you have the budget, no reason not to go Ryzen.
Why do people keep saying ryzen 5 and 3 will be better for gaming when they will have half the cache?