What Ryzen is best for gaming?

the Ryzen 8600 blue edition

Not even close.
Even made a thread yesterday. Friend's yoga 900 got stolen and see was looking for replacement. I suggested x360 with new AMD CPUs, but they sucked in benchmarks, so she bought yoga 920 with Intel.

So a Ryzen 7 2700X?

>gaming
>Ryzen
Pick one.

8700k

6-core non-X.
8-cores does literally nothing for games, and the X chips are just a bad value over the non-X.

Google it, you dumb fuck.

Why does this thread even have 14replies? Just let it sage.

Who the fuck names their kid AMD?

Go away Intel shill

with everything on auto, package power for p95 small ffts is 126W. Overclocked the same test will drain 160-190W depending on your silicon and how hard you push.

that 104.x figure looks conveniently close to spec, shill test was probably run with a hard lock on power consumption, like some of the shitty intel notebooks that will also throttle/downclock themselves automatically to stay in the hard XX Watt spec

Asked the same thing few weeks ago and everyone said 2700x. I wish I didn't listen to the Jow Forums shills and got the 8700k. Fortunately got it replaced with 8700k and it works way better if solely gaming.

He said and replied

Attached: 1496089512952.jpg (960x540, 220K)

yes

my delidded 7700k's 4 giga nigga cores will outperform ryzen in every game by a wide margin get fukt back to >v amdtards

2600X or 2700X

sorry dude I hadnt realised you AMD guys advertised here

On CPU-intensive things, it's on par with Intel. Where Raven Ridge shines is the integrated graphics. Even the basic Ryzen 3 2200U with its Vega 3 iGPU is 3 times more powerful than Intel's iGPU.

t. pajeet

Attached: 1519138516224.png (628x621, 408K)

Poojection

Attached: CPOO.jpg (709x520, 76K)

I know about graphics, but she needs it mostly for Matlab, that's CPU intensive. And at least from what I've seen CPU in yoga is better for that.

Also, for some reason (at least on German web page) Lenovo still uses mostly last-gen AMD CPUs.

>and the X chips are just a bad value over the non-X.
not for 2000 series.

2700x stock boost
T. 2700x with a D15

does intel buy ryzen for their servers now?

unreleased 2800U was her cup of tea then. 2700U would have been weak.

Maybe. In any case, she needed it right now, so that wasn't a possibility.
At least now she will finally appreciate and start making back-ups.

Literal fucking retarded larp shit

One core for os/driver overhead, one core for the game engine's main thread, and maybe 1-2 more waiting in the background for the main thread before they can do shit. Having more cores wait around to do shit while serial code is being executed isn't going to help fps much or at all.

more cpu's is nice for truly parallelizable workloads but games aren't one of them, due to their very nature of so many gameplay elements requiring the results of the previous calculation before the next one can even be started meaning you can't parallelize them without just losing a lot of performance, they will always be reliant on single core performance. Quad cores will reign for at least another decade as intlel and ayymd trade clocks for cores unless IPC increases a lot but that's not likely

>t. BTFO'd MADrone

I can prove with receipt from Amazon for the yoga 920

Look into the Dell Inspiron 5575.

On another note, Lenovo is releasing AMD Ryzen powered Thinkpads next month that may be up her alley. The A-series Thinkpads are just T-series Thinkpads with AMD hardware.

I'm in a similar boat convincing a female friend to go Ryzen for a laptop. In my case, it was easy since the biggest thing she needs is Microsoft Word, so a basic Inspiron 5575 suited her.

Don't the non-x versions clock just as high, cost less, AND come with a decent air cooler? Buying the X doesn't really make sense unless you are planning to water cool and or don't know how to overclock.

precision boost override.

If you are gaming there is absolutely no reason to get the on board graphics. Those are designed for people that wouldn't benefit from a dedicated GPU, like youtube watchers, facebook users, and shitposters.

Literally $50 a year if I was running my i7 full blast 24x7. ~~~~~big difference ~~~~~

But I have a 1700X and can tell you its not the "best"
but gaming is an after thought for me, I needed a reasonablly priced high core core cpu
for VM work and compiling stuff. Ryzen doesn't lock """advanced""" virt features behind
pay walls and is cheaper than the alternative

this was true in the mobo onboard days but igpu performance has become quite impressive, and as the library of actually-worth-playing video games hasn't expanded much in the last 5 or so years, you can get a lot of mileage out of them.

Skyrim on a surface pro's hd 630 is super doable, for example.

Pedantic answer:
If you are worried about getting max FPS when running just a game, get an Intel chip due to their modest clock and IPC advantages. 8c+ Ryzen chips are not perfect for running a game in isolation, but they allow you to just keep all your shit running in the background constantly while playing a game and not worry about random stutter from transient processor load.

Actual advice:
Get a 2600x now then upgrade to a 3900x (or whatever they call the 2*6c Zen 2 chip) next year.
> 4+ GHz base clocks, PCIe 4.0 support, 4 MB L3/core, actual IPC improvements

it's not even in max fps that Intel shines with those advantages, it's min frames.
And min frames are everything when it comes to the experience, unless you're sitting there with msi afterburner open at all times massaging your nuts to the fps counter.

>> 4+ GHz base clocks
I've had that on my Devil's Canyon for almost 3 years now.

A large reason for that is the cache latency. For the second gen, AMD halved the cache Latency on Ryzen, so second gen chips are MUCH better. That can actually put up a fight against the i7 in gaming.

fair enough, but the 4790K was a 4c chip, not a 12c one likely retailing for not more than $100 greater price. remember that Intel was selling the 10c 6950X for $1700 two years ago.

the L2 latency fix (17 clocks -> 12) was taken care of in a 14nm respin for TR and Epyc, so even a 1900x series TR puts up a decent fight if the OS scheduler can avoid shitting itself.

3900X is TR4, not AM4

MATLAB actively uses Intel MKL so it should be no surprise that it runs slower than Intel's offerings.

Really BLAS and LAPACK libraries still haven't been optimizing for Ryzen out of the box, even on Linux, most cache optimizations are still for Intel processors.

>ryz3n for gaming
Ishygddt

Attached: Average.png (1336x1998, 91K)

I don't know any canonical naming schema that AMD has committed to, but I am expecting at least some numerical inflation when they move to 12c dies. I know Ryzen 3820X would match existing patterns better, but it looks too shitty.

>y-you don't need those 20fps
>fuck off k-kike!

Attached: 1530243484566.jpg (568x450, 49K)

Attached: perfrel_1920_1080_0.png (500x970, 47K)

Lol muh peak fps
Fuck off gaymur

Attached: 1526335397495.gif (800x371, 183K)

This is a gaming thread

Attached: perfdollar.png (500x970, 53K)

Based 1600x and 2700x fag here
Lel Intels seething

Just posting gaming benchmarks

Attached: pcgamer.png (600x774, 164K)

>rekt by a pentuim
B A S E D

The X skus come with better coolers, and can hit the clocks without manual overclocking which sacrifices all the power saving features. 2600 only comes with the wraith stealth rather than the wraith spire. So you could spend $30 less, then put that money into an aftermarket cooler to oc to 4-4.1ghz all cores. Or just buy the X Sku which already does that out of the box using the provided cooler while drawing less power.

It's only 5-100fps and still gpu bound anyway
Who the fuck plays at ancient 1080p res any more besides console laptop gpulet gamer fag fps twitch streamer faggots? I'm pushing 2k-4k+ on avg 100fps+

I need 400 fps+ in cs go

>2700x has less power draw than the fucking i3
seems like a bright future for AMD

Do screens even go to 244hz reliably?

No and i cant see fps that high but input commands are coupled to fps in that game. If two people shoot at the exact same time the one with the higher fps will shoot first

Oof
I went back to css recently anyway can't stand go never have liked it even when it first launched
T. Cs hl1 modbabby

that's an AVX punishment test, where neither performance nor power draw between Intel/AMD are easily comparable.

2x the performance for 2x the power draw, seems pretty comparable.

It's cooled with a chiller... 12nm process is highly sensitive to temperatures, but so is the 14nm process although to a slightly lesser extent. There is no "wattage" lock, you can read their review. Of course AVX uses more power since AVX2 would exploit the maximum depth of Intel's pipeline and use AVX registers normally not in use, AMD's AVX2 consists of 128-bit AVX FMAs, and on top of that, Intel aggressively boosts clocks on AVX without the offset. 2700X will get up to 125W on air stress testing w/o PBO, more if you really wanted it to do PBO and jack up the IF speeds with 3200+MHz memory. 2700X can run 4GHz at 1.2V rock hard stable; it's more power efficient than its predecessors.

NOOOOO! IT ISN'T TRUE!!!!!!1

Attached: 1499960238314.jpg (960x878, 125K)

The i7 one. Gaming still is more affected by core frequency.

CS just feels infinitely better to play with high framerates, reduces input latency even if it doesn't refresh the whole screen as you move. 200fps in CS feels like mud compared to 400fps on my 144Hz monitor.

Attached: hmm.jpg (1823x1105, 146K)

This. The 2700X is probably the strongest singlethread out of the box. Matches OC Haswell.

>matches OC haswell
Good bait

Just wondering, how are these so low? I have a 1700 and used a 960 previously, no problems running stable 120 FPS in 4K. Even with my lower clocked 3.6 GHz IvyBridge i5.

Actual truth. Unless you run it at 5 GHz (which Haswell didn't do unless you got a golden chip with watercooling and 1.5 V).

I had a 5820K, which barely did 4.4 GHz at 1.4 V. It matches the singlethread performance of my 4.2 GHz Ryzen, but the Ryzen is 40-50 faster in MT (1250 vs 1950 in CInebench)

Delid this?

>10 FPS difference
>$100 difference

Attached: laugh at you.png (375x375, 128K)

>10 FPS more
>More expensive
>Less cores
>More power.

Sounds like Ryzen is the easy choice

There are 240hz monitors and honestly it feels good. It's not a huge difference just walking around in game but flicking and turning is fucking smooth as hell and the more fps you have the better. 400 fps is better than 240 fps even on a 240hz monitor.

do you think game devs compile their game with intel compiler?

Its just ringbus being great

Stop paying for single threaded outdated shit software then.
Cs is shit especially csgo
Yeh I saw a bunch of games on a 165hz gsync makes me wunna get a high Hz freesync but I can't afford it

>makes me wunna get a high Hz freesync but I can't afford it
>can't afford a $200 monitor
I mean I get it, but still.

lol

Yes because more than 60 FPS isn't possible currently. I can archieve ~80 FPS in BF1 maxed with a Ryzen 2700X and 1080 Ti OC.

Friendly reminder. You pay $500 extra for a Nvidia HDR Goysync monitor.

There has to be something off with these numbers. I get 120ish on 1080p with a fucking i7-6700HQ + R9 M375 gaymen laptop

200usd one's are shit

This.
My 56 oc holds its own ill sell my 1080 for a better monitor
Heh never played around with a Hawaii mobile gpu what they like.?

ok but what about 1440p

Attached: 1530153780804.jpg (595x444, 41K)

4k is where multithreaded and more cores shines especially with next gen gpus

X comes with better coolers this time (as opposed to last gen where X came with no coolers at all)
nonX has the same Wraith Spire as last gen
X now has Wraith Prism (new RGB fan version of Wraith Max)

>Actual truth. Unless you run it at 5 GHz (which Haswell didn't do unless you got a golden chip with watercooling and 1.5 V).
>I had a 5820K, which barely did 4.4 GHz at 1.4 V. It matches the singlethread performance of my 4.2 GHz Ryzen, but the Ryzen is 40-50 faster in MT (1250 vs 1950 in CInebench)
Lol I reached 4.4 GHz with 1.28v. ez