Kaby lake i5 gets destroyed by bulldozer

Doesn't the 2700X easily get 2k?

Inteltards at their best.
The 4core 1500x has 16mb cache for 4c8t, the 8core 1700x has 16mb cache for 8c16t
>>mfw my 8700k scores 220 single core and 1600 multicore
>Stay mad amdjeets.
Yeah yeah, your 6core has more single core performance than 7700k.
It's been 5 mins, you have to refill your ln2.

Yeah but you see 8700k definitely beats 2700x.....under LN2 LMOA

My 9700k scores 1650, 1700X btfo

>implying implications

Attached: image_id_1972962[1].png (1920x1200, 1.45M)

Attached: image_id_2008304[1].png (2560x1440, 1.67M)

I don't need these security updates because I don't play games online, still faster than shitdozer

Can someone explain why the 8300 series of Piledriver CPUs perform better now than they did at release? What happened?

Forza Motorsport lagged on i5-2400S OCed to the turbo 2.6 GHz multiplier. Switching to i7 2600K solved my struggles and yes, it works fine on 8320. Even 2 years old games need more than 4 cores.

They don't, it's just that Intel's CPUs perform significantly worse after security patches.

F I N E W I N E
I
N
E
W
I
N
E

Nobody cares what kind of security compromises you are forced to do in your Intel system to avoid the mental breakdown from your useless purchase.
S/w became better at using many-core systems

8 cores vs. 4 cores, nice try faggot

>it's 8 cores when AMD does good but it's "half cores" when AMD does bad
Never trust kikes.

kek this

It really is amazing how far MAD has come. Zen+ actually has 5% higher IPC than coffeelake if you use fast CL14 RAM to remove most of the infinity fabric bottleneck.

Attached: untitled-12.png (682x908, 52K)

>remove most of the infinity fabric bottleneck.
That's not what's happening.

Then what is? Why does a 2700X destroy the i7-8700K if it uses good RAM (or at least match it)?

Attached: ram_speeds.jpg (641x2895, 423K)

So kaby lake x gets so high because of AVX?

Because the memory controller is allowed to run at low latencies with tuned subtimings that are fucking awful by default on motherboards even with 3200CL14 RAM, after 2900 the IF bottleneck is gone.

Well I still think it has something to do with infinity fabric because you're getting 20-25% FPS gains in average going from 2133MHz CL16 RAM to 3200MHz CL14 RAM.

You don't get these kinds of gains on an intel system at all. Maybe 5-10% better FPS. Something is definitely going on here.

community.amd.com/thread/214043

Attached: Screenshot_2018-12-28-09-08-19(1).jpg (720x1042, 239K)

It's eight cores but the FPUs and caches are shared, it's like 1.66x a quad core.

Attached: Bulldozer CPU Design.png (925x410, 59K)

Bullshit.
For 128-bit operations, the alu can be used by one core.
For regular operations the alus are used by each core separately.
That's what clustered multithreading is.
As for the caches, every gedt cpu from intel after the skylake, has the same cache arch as amd had with bulldozer.

youtube.com/watch?v=6CjEo3NfuZA

delid dis

based

*sip*

Attached: Fine Wine.png (1600x1036, 726K)

>intel poojets BTFO

Attached: 1503848584264.jpg (1000x1000, 253K)

My half-core performs great, no need for ¼ of core

delis this it's antisemitic

FaildoZer is shit no matter how you try to rationalize it.
Even Ryzen 1400s beat it.
Bulldozer is and will always be shit.
8x 1/2 cores did not age like fine whine.
Even the 2500k still beats it.
Your purchase was bad and the sooner you accept that the better.

Attached: Plz no bully.png (902x1294, 649K)

FX-8350 is way better than a 2500K on the multithread, especially at 4.5GHz, which all of them will do. Also one core per module being used by the windows shcedulor or One core CU mode in the bios, performs as good as an i7 920 at 4.5GHz, which did well at single threaded gaming in 2012 when the 8350 came out.

It's truly a strange processor, but if you know how it works, it's really cool.

Attached: NgBdlEE.jpg (930x797, 138K)

>performs as good as an i7 920 at 4.5GHz
It performs as good as a stock i7 920 when running at 4.5GHz in One Core per Module mode, I should say.

Stop trying to save AMD's face. They got everything wrong with Bulldozer

>kaby lake i5 gets destroyed by bulldozer
it was oblivios in 2011

Attached: UPGRADE2010.png (836x768, 17K)

Like intel got everything wrong with Netburst?

I do agree the chip is fucking terrible at single core processing and gaming, but for budget workstation use that you'd use a Xeon E3 on a consumer socket for, it's way better than those chips for the money, the price to performance is ridiculous when it comes to raw processing power

Based smart ppl poster

Only a select few tasks use all 8 cores right.
But modern workloads are still faster on old i7s.
A lot of workloads still prefer IPC and frequency, 2 things faildozer can't do.
Stop trying to rationalize your shit CPU.
Seriously, it's unhealthy.
Trust me I was like you.
I thought the lower price justified the lower performance. And how it would age better than Intel.
Fine wine doesn't exist
You are stuck is a nasty mental trap.

Attached: Smug goddess.jpg (1280x720, 101K)

Well, maybe not THAT wrong, but still far behind what Intel was offering at the time.

>Implying lower performance
Mine renders stuff as fast as an i7 4770 when it's clocked to 4.5GHz and was cheap, I like it.

>Setting a 4770k as a goalpost.
Even a cheap ass ryzen 1600 kicks bulldozers ass in heavy workloads.
Ryzen 1400 beat faildozer in Gaymen tasks.
Stop rationalizing your shit purchase.

I hope a ryzen 1600 from 2017 would beat this 2011 architecture's ass, and yes an FX-8350 at 4.5 is on pair with the i7 4770 locked sku that cost way more. How is comparing an fx8350 with a CPU that is somewhat period correct moving goalpoasts?

Attached: 1546052482958487899853045849771.jpg (2576x1932, 2.04M)

>my next gen chip barely beats AMD's last gen chip
Cool story bro.

Again, stop doing mental gymnastics around the fact.
Ryzen exists, you don't have to defend Faildozer.
You can finally stop.

Go buy Ryzen and enjoy not having a shit CPU.

Attached: 1541983608860.jpg (1680x1050, 104K)

I'm not defending it, nor would I recommend people pick it up today because ryzen is the bomb, but I'm just saying that buying one back in it's hayday wasn't the worst decision you could make.

Attached: 19-113-284-04.jpg (1280x960, 99K)

I love my 8350. It suits my workload. It does everything I need it to and it does it without built in botnet or major security flaws. No amount of pro-intel kvetching is going to make me regret my choice. I can easily see myself using my current build for the next 5 years.

A 2600X would crush it and consume less power. The 3600X will be quite a bit further ahead.

>tfw 2400G crushes an 8350
It is a 2018 chip though, but it's damn impressive to see a 4c/8t cpu being cheap and destroying a higher end 2012 cpu.

Considering Intel's "progress" the 2400G crushing the 8350 is nuts.

It is insane, even 6 years after the 2600K came out, you didn't see i3s with integrated graphics, which is what a 2400g is, crushing the 2600K, that's the kind of leap we're talking.

I'm looking forward to 8-core APUs. Then I can pass through GPUs without an extra card.

low power 8 core APU on the desktop would be cool to see eventually, the PS4 is an 8 core APU that's bulldozer style with dual 4 core modues, it's clocked slow as shit, but it does exist.

We might see it by Zen2+. 8 Zen cores + APU would wipe out the low and mid levels.