AMD BTFO Everyone

Wouldn't be the first time they used a world record as a selling argument
valid.x86.fr/vytt61

They should instead release new video cards, those were a joke.
But yeah, this is everything everybody was expecting for so many years, I kinda feel vindicated.

I get your point, but Intel is the one that makes you get a new Mobo every two CPUs they release, where as AMD has been sitting on AM3+ for nearly a decade and it was compatible with older chips too.

Last I heard AM4 is going to be hardcore forwards compatible. Time will tell.

Well I am mad regardless.

AMDs have always been cheaper than their intel counterparts.

So feel good thread?

True, but in the last 6-8 years it came a the cost of much lower performance by comparison. What AMD is touting right now is having better performance for a fraction of the price.

Watch for Intel to drop their prices soon.

...

I want to see it in action before we start declaring BTFO

It doesn't matter because game devs are incompetent. You could give them a quantum supercomputer and they'd still fuck it up, because the industry is a revolving door that hampers the preservation and passing on of knowledge, and relies on outsourced, incompetent pajeet wage-slaves to pick up the slack.

If I ever get to a point where I've got $500 to blow on a CPU I'd love to get this. Seems like the first real jump in CPUs in ages(Although I doubt we're gonna have any huge breakthroughs for another decade at least).
Seriously, the CPU power you can get for $300 hasn't changed at all in 6 years.

But user, quantum computers won't make games run faster, unless the game you're playing requires millions of complex math problems solved quickly, which they won't for now.

Not even AI in vidya would benefit from it.

Intel already has plans to move up to 10nm. Intel once again, is a step ahead of AMD. You'd be naive to think Intel hasn't been using their monopolistic position coupled with their massive R&D budget to stockpile and time-release CPU technologies to stay ahead of the game
Its great to have actual competition again though and I hope AMD does very well, part of what makes PC the master race is choice, choice is always good

Whoops, you've gotten lost on the way to /r/masterrace
Remember, if you find an Xbox Dev Kit, take it there first.

Anyways, 10nm means little to me if I can't see numbers on performance.

From the consumer side yes. This is after all what AMD is going after. AMD will also be releasing new Server and Supercomputer chips to compete with Intels Xeon Phi and Nvidias Titan for the "massively-parallel multicore processor" market. But I do NOT expect AMD to perform quite as competitively there. If they do, however, it means AMD will have made an actual leap foreward.

You have genuine autism don't you?

You will. Process change almost always means a higher IPC budget to work with. Maybe AMD would have 10nm on their way too if they hadn't sold their fab unit

That's funny, because next year AMD's Zen+ will be 7nm and will BTFO Intel again.

Yes.
Master Race meme is just another console war. Anyone that uses the term is inviting console users to start flaming.

We're talking about Intel here.
They'll make it 10nm but no better in performance and people would buy it.

I don't think so. The only reason their performance has gone stagnant is because they've been stuck on 14nm for the past several generations

Thats a very bold assertion you're making. Unless you're just a salty fanboy trying to play devils advocate.

Saying it hasn't changed at all might be an exaggeration but yeah it probably isn't much better, the biggest jumps probably were Nehalem to Sandy bridge and Ivy bridge to Haswell which both were a 15-20% improvement in performance at the same clockspeed, AMD has been in an almost total standstill since the Phenom 2 though..

TSMC also is working on a 10nm process and it's coming out ahead of intel, and with intel having had that many issues with it's 14nm I don't see how it's gonna go much better with 10 nm.
Also a process change has absolutely no bearing on performance only power consumption (although you could argue that since it draws less power and heats up less you could just crank the clockspeed up and make it faster but that not what's happening nowadays), it's hardware revisions / cache quantity / instructions sets that make shit faster.

7nm for x86 CPUs isn't happening before Q4 2018 or 2019 especially with Apple siphoning all the production capabilities as usual.

I doubt Intel is going to go past 10nm for a long time. I fully expect Global Foundaries 7nm to come to marlet first. But I seriously doubt it'll reach consumer desktop processors until maybe 2020 at earliest Maybe Intel will skip 10nm and jump straight to 5nm as a result of sweet competition but we wont be seeing that until maybe the late 2020s with how much process changes are slowing

MASTER RACE
Stay triggered laddeh

Wow user, you sure sold me on why all PC users should called themselves #MasterRace.

That looks like it was taken straight from their reddit.

Wait a second…
Back you go, little man.

Hello user, i made this flag here on Holla Forums, it was reposted around the internet later. Its my flag. I still haven't removed those shitty lines around the PC logo. Someone needs to fix this.

Why would they go from 10 nm to 7 nm? Bigger numbers=better.

Sure thing user, whatever you say.

So it's either a reddit meme or a cuckchan meme.
HMMMMMM.

I expect Intel to skip 10nm and jump to 7nm to keep up with competition. After that I can maybe see Intel inch slightly to 5nm to stay ahead of the game but 5nm is believed to be the absolute limit for silicon
By 2020 we'll see GFs 7nm process hit consumers, TSMC will deliver 10nm, and Intel will probably adopt GFs process. By 2025 we might see Intel inch their way to 5nm while GF is still 7nm and TSMC is down to 7nm as well

Fuck you I hit my post button too early

You know, it feels like shit when your meme gets called a reddit meme.

They can't just jump to 7nm. They'd have to work on it for a while, which will let AMD jump ahead.
They will release 10nm, cut prices on everything to ~$700 and hope that the brand name will make people spend the extra money.

That's what you get for using a term that incites consolewars, and for using TPB in anything.

Everyone here came from 4chan at one point or another. I don't know why you'd be upset about console wars but still want to play retarded purity games.

They'll just adopt GFs 7nm process. They haven't even began construction on their new fab yet so I can easily see them doing just that to deliver 7nm by Q4 2020 to Q2 2021

What?

Maybe he was spurging out about gameplay purists or something?

This is great, last time AMD BTFO Intel, Intel came back and smashed them right into the fucking ground, competition is always good for business and it's good to see AMD finally able to compete again for the first time in over a decade.

Only if you really need one.

Look at KSP as one example: with current tech the devs were basically forced to put the planets on rails and scale it down, but with effectively limitless computing power we could have a full scale solar system modeled with realistic orbital mechanics for all bodies, planets included. Virtually any simulation game could benefit in similar ways.

I was in the thread
Some fucking Redditor posted the one you reverse searched on Google and changed it out of disgust and I saved it.
Stay triggered lad, you've done a great job at it so far.

Nice to see you alive and well user, welcome to the Trump's timeline.

Y-you too, glad to see not everyone I used to shitpost with is gone.
Feels good to win sometimes

okay whats the trick? in-built backdoors? obligatory telemetry? a nanochip within the microchip that sends your dickpicks to the FBI?

The fuck is LN2?

INTERNET
HATE
MACHINE

Sorry lad, misread the conversation.

There's a thing similar to Intel's Management Engine, we don't know the details yet.

Liquid Nitrogen.

Well then I guess I don't see how this is relevant. Who cools their system with liquid nitrogen? Is the chip faster than Intel chips with stock/normally attainable aftermarket cooling?

That's its name not how it works, it just to sound cool.

It's only relevant because the R7 1800X broke all other records that were also set under LN2. We'll see how it translates to performance on air cooling sometime this week probably.

So is that Cyberpower PC actually good for gaming or is it shit just like all other prebuilts?

Pretty decent, the RX480 can pretty much max out most shir nowadays, especially with a beast of a CPU like that.

The main components they list are fine but overpriced, all the shit that they don't list is probably garbage.

For what exactly?

Playing vidya

...

What I want to know is if there's new high end hardware that makes new games not shit.

Like its pointless if it doesnt somehow magically fix that or games get better in the new future to justify upgrading.

BASED RYZEN

AMD MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN

INTEL GET #REKT

THIS RANKING IS TRUE?

CPU

1 - AMD R7 1800X 8/16 e 16Mb Cache - 4Ghz e TDP 95W - $ 500

2 - AMD R7 1700X 8/16 e 16Mb Cache - 3,8Ghz e TDP 95W - $ 380

3 - AMD R7 1700 8/16 e 16Mb Cache - 3,7Ghz e TDP 65W - $ 320

4 - Intel i7 6900K 8/16 e 20Mb Cache - 3,7Ghz e TDP 140W - $ 999

5 - AMD R5 1600 6/16 16mB Cache - 3,7Ghz e TDP 65W - $ 260

6 - AMD R5 1500 6/16 16Mb Cache - 3,5Ghz e TDP 65W - $ 230

7 - AMD R5 1400 4/8 8Mb Cache - 3,5Ghz e TDP 55W - $ 200

8 - Intel i7 7700K 4/8 8Mb - 4Ghz e TDP 95W - $ 350

9 - Intel i7 7700 4/8 8Mb - 3,6Ghz e TDP 65W - $ 320

10 - AMD R3 1200 4/4 8Mb - 3,8Ghz e TDP 65W $ 150

11 - AMD R3 1100 4/4 8mB - 3,2Ghz e TDP 65W - $ 130

12 - Intel i5 7600K 4/4 8Mb - 3,8Ghz e TDP 65W - $ 260

13 - Intel i5 7500 4/4 8Mb - 3,2Ghz e TDW 65W - $ 240

GPU

1 - AMD Vega RX 580 HBM 16Gb

2 - AMD Vega RX 570 GDDR5X 12Gb

3 - Geforce 1080 8Gb

4 - Geforce 1070 8Gb

5 - AMD RX 480 8Gb

6 Geforce 1060 6Gb

7 - AMD RX 480 4Gb

8 - AMD RX 470 8Gb

...

...

WHERE'S THE SINGLE THREAD PERFORMANCE, NIGGER?

There's a benchmark floating around for that I'll see if I can find it

As I said in your other thread and has been said by others in the Holla Forums thread, don't fall for marketing hype and wait for independent tests. Or even better wait 6 months and see if these have any major issues

You had one fucking job, AMD.

It's 3.7Ghz vs 4.4 Ghz though.

That isn't even their highest end CPU and it costs less then half of what the 6700k costs, besides that, how the FUCK is that bad? If the 6850k can emulate anything, according to the current scores, the 1600X should do better.
This is the most retarded post I have read all day, good job.

If only there was software that can use 8 cores.

You could make software that uses 8 cores.
I think one of pete's PS1 emulator Graphics plugins can make use of multiple cores if you're using integrated graphics off of your cpu.

You can look at STP as "effective" performance. It doesn't matter if it's faster on paper if it gets blown the fuck out in STP benchmarks, which is the one benchmark that is most applicable to real-world performance with gaming.

A 6700k is $316.99. The 1600X is going to be $259.99. That is a decrease of 17%.
It can't, see: Snowblind games.

Doesn't matter much, single thread performance is still damn impressive on it.
Half of the CPU die on Intels chips are for the IGPU, which are still worse then AMD APU chips, while AMD FX series are purely CPU, which reduces cost. Now I'm going to wait for their budget line, since my x4 840 is no good anymore and gives framedrops in more CPU intensive games.
I heard it's about 130€, so plus 60 or 80 for the mobo I should get good performance.

Multithreading is a lot harder than simply "make it run on more cores". If you aren't careful you create issues where a second core is waiting on the first to do something and it ends up slowing down the program instead of speeding it up.

Usually the extra cores just get used for completely independent processes, in order to sidestep the whole waiting problem. Not many tasks can be divided into 8 equal, separate operations at all times. Games rarely use more than 3 unless they are truly expertly optimized and even at 3 there's usually a "main" thread that does the bulk of the work, so the others don't improve things by much.

PCSX2 is a complete clusterfuck so you can't blame it on CPU. Some more impressive GC games run like a wonder on Dolphin, while PCSX struggles.
A decrease is still a decrease, I got it mixed up with another 1k range CPU so I apologize.

See, now I can play games while rendering a video even better! Too bad nobody does that.

PCSX2 doesn't seem that bad to me, maybe excluding load speeds on games.

It's very likely the bench used is favorable to skylake and not actually representative of what will happen in emulators for example the 5960X is haswell and will perform almost the same as any skylake at the same clockspeed in Dolphin/PCSX2

Nigger if there's a 700Mhz difference it is relevant, the 6700k has almost no OC margin whereas the 1600X can go higher

pic related and that's just a 4770k which would be slower clock to clock than a Broadwell E CPU.

THIS JUST IN, AMD FANBOY REACTS TO A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING

The new AMD Ryzen 7 doesn't have any extensive benchmarks, and someone runs a fucking sensationalist article on it, saying "OH MY GOD, IT'S SO AMAZING, WE OVERCLOCKED TO 5.2GHZ ON LIQUID NITROGEN, SO MUCH BETTER THAN AN i7!!!"

Let's wait and see what the fuck actual benchmarkers say before we start reacting to retarded articles. I don't want to hear about something that's being cooled with LN2.

I agree.
I bring that up as it's basically the worst-case scenario for "realistic" performance if you're into emulation.
Sure, but performance to dollar wise, (if that benchmark is accurate) we're looking at essentially a 10% slower CPU that's 17% cheaper. Normally the price/performance structure in that range would be something to the tune of 10% slower for ~30% cheaper, so I don't see it as a particularly good deal.

You would have to give me a real-world performance test to back that up, otherwise it's just another example of the "AMD tax".
Show me some STP benchmarks with an OC'd 1600x.
Yes, and I could get DA to run at playable framerates on my 3570k with all of the inaccurate speedhacks enabled.

AMD fanboys are trying to sieze the first opportunity they've had in at least a decade to farm Intel fanboy salt. Just let them. Besides, actual competition is never a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I buy AMD and feel like a fucking idiot for doing it for the last decade, I'd like to know that I saved money and got the better performance for my dollar for a change, but I want to see it in actual solid hard numbers, rather than just "THEORETICAL THING SHOWS THIS, THEREFORE IT IS REAL." AMD could have paid for this kind of article, and you can't cool shit with Liquid Nitrogen because it's not a stable substance, the shit boils and evaporates in minutes.

If AMD actually has pulled their head out of their asses and are able to beat the i7, I'll keep buying AMD, else I'll be buying an Intel chip next go around and no longer feel like I fucked myself over for $50.

Are you seriously gonna argue that an increase in clockspeed isn't gonna result in an increase in performance.

Well I obviously can't show you what doesn't exist but if you look closely at that bench I posted you'll see that the Xeon E3-1230 v5 (which is pretty much just a 6700k running at 3.8Ghz) has the same bench results as the 1600x in STP and since there's no single reason on earth OC wouldn't increase performance there's no reason a 1600x running at 4.4 wouldn't be just as good as a 6700k
Also just gonna add that technically the direct competitor to the 6700k isn't the 1600x but the 1400x

So you had no argument to begin with.

Are you seriously this ignorant? Do you think that raw numbers are what it's all about? You probably believe that NVidia gimps AMD cards too. AMD cards work based on raw horsepower type performance, brute force rendering. NVidia cards work based on actual shader pipelines that work in parallel to rendering the primitives in brute force. Thus why NVidia cards get such good performance in so many games. When your video card has to translate shaders to simplified programs so it can brute force render them the same way as it processes primitives, you're going to get reduced performance.

Likewise, AMD vs Intel there's always been a stepping issue with AMD chips. Intel chips have the ability to access each core's resources on the dye, rather than having to go through the system BUS. AMD chips don't do this, they instead go through the system BUS which causes a significant loss in performance due to bottlenecking and overhead because the system BUS is fucking slow.

Raw numbers do not equate to actual performance. If that were the case, the fact that AMD video cards have actual higher clock speeds would mean that no matter what, they'd always beat NVIDIA cards. That doesn't fucking happen because there's more to computing than raw numbers.

Never said that. Increase the clock speed of a CPU and it's going to increase performance. The issue is that raw clock speed isn't the whole story between "equivalent" AMD and Intel CPUs. That would be the "AMD Tax" I'm talking about.
Using shitty, inaccurate speedhacks is not proper emulation.

If you're gonna go that route why don't you point out the fact that we're already arguing over a synthetic benchmark?
Anyways what I can tell from looking at that benchmark is that if the 1600X can match the skylake architecture at similar clockspeed there is no reason to not think it couldn't match higher clocked CPUs if OCed to the same clockspeed.
GPUs are GPUs they're not relevant to a conversation about CPUs because in CPU world you don't get to use your own shader replacement or use dirty hacks in API implementation in your drivers to inflate performance in your favor.

SPOILER: even when you don't check those boxes it's already shitty and full of hacks

What the fuck

Stop pushing this shit. Dolphin's HLE renderer is less optimized than PCSX2's software one. Not to mention Dolphin has practically no way to use multiple cores with stable compatibility meaning AMDs are even worse for it.

Ironically, Dolphin runs great with native resolution on my dual core AMD toaster, while PCSX2 just shits all over SC2 on the lowest res possible plus a ton of speedhacks which made the game run at """full speed""" but it still ran at 30 fps, God Hand kind of works with speedhacks except when the floor disappears sometimes, and KH was the only game that ran at 60 without tweaking anything.

Yes user that one game runs much worse in dolphin, and that's cool and all but it doesn't prove much.

If you have shit CPU but good GPU you will run PCSX2 better. If you have good CPU, but shit GPU - you will run Dolphin better.

Yawn

Literally everyone who does enthusiast fastest clock possible OCing uses liquid nitrogen, it's been that way since the start of time.
Go home, Intel. I know alcoholism hit hard after your entire company got JUST by AMD, but this is just sad.

Still 5.2Ghz is a bit sad when you're using fucking LN2, there are possible explanations for why it's so low but that likely means you're not gonna do 4.7 on air on all 8 cores at home.

He might have had a weak PSU or mobo, prebuilts commonly do that and both are crucial for good OC. The highest OC ever achieved was 8794Mhz on a FX-8350.
Clockspeed does not matter, it's like saying a truck is faster then a sedan because it has more horsepower. All that matters is real world performance, and we'll see that after March 2nd.

The sad thing is fanboys actually exist. I have always brought Intel not because I prefer them but because they offer the best performance at my price point every time I build.
If AMD has the best CPU next time I build then I will use AMD.
But I will never again buy a ATI / AMD GPU, after having nothing but problems with my 9800XT I gave them a chance to redeem themselves when I got a 270. This was yet another clusterfuck and they have lost me for life, I gave them a DECADE to unfuck their shit and they couldn't do it

Jewtel can offer their chips at half price, I'm still going to hop over to AMD. I'm tired of having to give my shekels to the kikes for top performance.

Possible, I'm more leaning towards it running stable enough to run a full benchmark suite and not just long enough to push the CPU-Z validation button.

On it's own it doesn't but coupled with the IPC it does and we already have a decent idea of that right now

holy shit, you're so fucking retarded it hurts
did you come from NeoGAF?

Don't care about the shitposting, I'm looking forward to building a new AMD system once Vega launches.

...

It would be funny if it weren't true, but it is. Nvidia is trying to force their GameWorks shit into every fucking game they can get their jewish claws on. Best example of how NVidia gimps AMD is The Witcher 3, which still runs worse on AMD cards than an equal or even worse NVidia card.
AMD on the other hand, had a case in Tomb Raider where it would run slower on NVidia cards because of HairWorks. What did AMD do? Release a patch that made it run just as well on NVidia cards.

NVidias business practice is fucking awful, trumping your competition with better hardware is one thing, but purposely gimping it by inserting your shitty technology into every game on the planet is just unacceptable.

My 3570k is good for now but i'll probably start saving and go to AMD so i can finally ditch intel.
Waiting for Vega to deliver now.

Holy shit AMD finally managed to recover from the total shitpiece that was fucking Bulldozer.

Looks like fucking shilling.
Can you even trust any of those tests?
Why makes something good cheap? What's the catch?
What are the chances it won't fucking explode?
I don't like this, AMD was always shit at hardware, there is some fuckery going on behind the scenes.

t. 14 year old

I've received reports of armed attacks on shipments. There's not enough Ryzen CPUs to go around, and Intel is starting to get desperate.

The main reason it's so cheap is that AMD has been aiming for the low to mid range market the last several years. Also few things grab the attention like a seemingly superior(albeit only just) product being priced at half the goddamn price.

I agree, my fellow user & Gamer, I only trust Intel's™ finest, most carefully crafted i7® series of CPUs. AMD has terrible quality and most likely explodes as well.

It's because CPUs don't actually cost +800$ to produce, Intel just charges retarded amounts because they can as they are the only high performance CPUs out there in terms of IPC. Besides that, about half the die size for each i7 is taken up by the iGPU, while AMD doesn't give a shit about that for their actual CPUs and only cares about that on their APUs.

Anywho, I'm patiently waiting for the binned defective higher end ones.

Neat. Finally actual chips again. I forgot this was a market and not a dead industry.

This. Which it means that if AMD delivers, we are going to see some cuts on the price of intel cpus too

Good AMD GPUs when?
Games actually supporting Vulcan when?

They never stopped making them.

Good joke, hope you like DirectX 12™, only on Windows 10.

All that matters to me is that my CPU works, and lets me play my games at a good level, while staying reasonably cool.

Don't give a fuck what the branding is on it.

...

That's an impressive counter argument you have there.

They never fucking made one.

Most importantly it's going to really stir up competition between AMD and Intel, this can only be a good thing, I haven't touched anything AMD in over a decade, and I probably won't now but this market has needed some competition for the longest fucking time.

A fair point, I'm hoping it means I can buy a better quality CPU, at a lower price. Though it'll be a few years before I need to upgrade anyway.

Of course not.

That wouldn't really work, since AMD is the "good guy" I think that's bullshit, they're just a corporation like Intel but at least they don't charge fucking 1100$ for their CPUs. as they're the only ones innovating.

Trash?

All of them were great GPUs and most of them beat out Nvidia, not to mention the R9 380 and previous higher end AMD GPUs are aging like fine wine, still able to play games well today.

0/10

Why go that far with the lying?

Well I mean if your standards that low, sure.

Price/Performance the R9 380 was the best GPU at the time, right now the RX models (specifically the 480, although the 480 is also pretty fast) are also beating out Nvidia in price/performance as AMD drivers are becoming more optimized.

What about the R9 390?

So from beating them now you add price to the calculation too? What is next? Straightforwardly admitting they are not beating anyone performance wise, but the damn prices man!

...

No where near as good in price/perf as the 380, but still solid.

Price/performance matters, Ryzen is proof of this, spend 400 on a CPU only 10% slower according to current benchmarks, or go for a 1100$ CPU because it's 10% faster, when you can use that money to improve your GPU, PSU and motherboard for OC and extra storage.

Wasn't Ryzen suppose to be the better one performance wise? So they failed again?

The highest end Intel CPU still beats out the highest end Ryzen one from what we know right now, but that doesn't matter if they're asking over $1000 for it.
The 6900k is the second best Intel CPU, the 6950k is slightly better then it but both are over 1000$, compare that to 400$ 1700x and 500$ for the 1800x (both of which beat out the 6900k in the current Cinebench benchmarks)

Somewhat new news.
They're releasing the mid range R5 in Q2, while the low end R3 is coming in the second half. I'm assuming the R5 will be 150-200, while R3 will be 100-200 APUs and CPUs, somewhat like the X4/A4/A6/A8/A10 series' right now.

Oh this really is an good indicator for ==Games==

It applies the rule for every new shit. Wait for "real" Benchmarks, don't preorder and calm your shit until it's confirmend.

Some high end nvidia cards are a scam user. A GTX 980 was $550 on release 2.5 years ago. Now it's on par with a 480 4GiB at less than $200, so it's basically a mid-low end card now, after only 2.5 years and one generation. At this rate it's going to be toaster tier 4 years after release. Compare it with the 290X which was released one year before the 980 for the same price, and has the same performance now.

Im happy amd has gotten a truly competitive cpu out. Its been a long time, and ryzen is really going to be a big deal. Its the next athlon64. Funny, its like were repeating the Pentium 4 vs athlonxp/64/fx again.

I may upgrade to ryzen, im due for it as I haven't changed anything in my pc aince 2012 due to there being no pc games thag matter any more. Just have to wait to see how things like emulators and stuff perform, always a weak point on amd.

Learn to redtext, newfag.
Everyone has said this already, synthetic benchmarks mean nothing and we'll see the real shit when we see some fuckin games.

These benchmarks do matter, but only if you can read them. Check out adoredtv on youtube, he covers this very well.

Right now it's easy as fuck to to make a Vulkan game in UE4 wiki.unrealengine.com/Vulkan
Sadly many devs still wont do this which leaves me asking, why do many devs not care about locking games to windows when it's easy and free to not do that?
I know windows is the largest market by far but why disregard even 0.5% of the market if it takes no effort or shekels to include them?

AdoredTV makes good stuff, a redditor who uses win10 but still some alright videos.

Dude 3 days of extra development, that's time you AREN'T making DLC.

Nice

Well if those results are legit, then I'm glad that AMD managed to get back in the fight.

...

No they didn't, they took their sweet fucking time just sitting on Netburst which was the absolute shittiest architecture ever made by any metric. Even when AMD beat them to dual core, they just responded by making a dual core Pentium 4 which was a joke.

The entire Pentium 4 line was a disaster. It's sad it took amd so long to turn things around while Intel essentially stagnated since the core i line debuted. I think zen is really going to pay off. Seems like intel won't be able to respond without doing major price cuts considering the current environment the company is in.

All he does is demonstrate reasonable results gathered through practical and easily replicated tests. That strikes confidence, he aggregates information well and covers some interesting subjects too. None of it isn't information you can't compile yourself, but the footwork he does leads to his conclusions and he demonstrates it all along the way. Very reliable source.

Isn't Intel fucked because the shareholders decided to focus on other markets than PC, treating it as an afterthought?

rightly so. also, mandatory windows 10 unless you are planning on a linux build. fuck that noise

Reminder
Anti-Intel is codeword for Anti-Semitic.

Wouldn't surprise me if publishers had an agreement with Microsoft.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Thinking about making a good PC in the future. Thinking about 500-600s euros of price for the PC (minus monitor and stuff). Its the AMD 8300 CPU, and the AMD 480 4G GPU good for long-term pc gaming and everything else??

...

oh, you've missed this little tidbit over the last year that fuckwits in the news have been reporting on ZEN?
pcw orld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-made-em-do-it-the-latest-kaby-lake-zen-chips-will-support-only-windows-10.html

All I'm seeing there is MS won't release chipset drivers for older windows, I'm not seeing anything saying AMD / Intel won't release their own chipset drivers as they have always done.

They won't officially support it but it probably will work, nothing is preventing you from installing Win7 on a PC with a Ryzen CPU.
One of the demos with Ryzen was on Win7 as well.

FX-8300 is okay, but I'd rather wait until Ryzen 3 and 5 come out. Those are the budget lines.
The RX 480 is pretty solid and will run you for a long time no problem, you can probably play anything for about 3 years with it.
Don't cheap out on the power supply, the power supply is core. Spend at least 40 euro on your PSU and have it be 80+ Bronze certified, make sure it isn't under wattage though, with a 65w CPU, 1tb 7200RPM HDD and RX 480 about 500 watts should do.

Nothing wrong with the 480, by long term I assume he means for about 3 years. Remember that people are still playing very well on the HD 7970, and AMD drivers are only improving right now.

Huh. I assumed Microsoft were spying on everything anyway, but I suppose there were some parts of the computer that had eluded their all seeing eyes.

do people really buy new parts every 3 years while I'm here with my toaster running a HD 5450 and a Phenom II X2 555? my mobo is so old I can't unlock the other two cores send help

speak of the doubles, new video just came out an hour ago.

Well that's seems better. I don't really want to change to Windows 10 until they can block any kind of spying or data leaking

nigger get a job and build a $600 pc or something, work at walmart for a month and you have the money for that

...

Not if you live in a third world shithole like I do.

No need to replace your whole computer every three years nigger.

Minecraft and modded skyrim.

Just take a boat over to the EU or America depending on where you're at. You'll get 1.5k in benefits per month.

only in EU. In America he'll get deported

>>>/neofag/

Reminder that Microsoft would be broken up if it wasn't for 9/11

Is the new fad all about deep and complex games like factorio and TyRANNY?

this is what has slowed my desire to upgrade
no fucking games on pc

Any info on the motherboard offerings? I might actually relegate my X6 to a secondary PC if this actually good.

lili puting.com/2017/02/update-amd-ryzen-chips-wont-support-windows-7.html
I mean, maybe they will release drivers without MS and they are just lying. But I would have waited a little longer had they been more forthcoming about actualy details than secrecy. as it stands, my next upgrade will be to Linux in probably 5-8 years and I won't have to worry about what MS does/not dictate from chip manufacturers.

If they aren't releasing chipset drivers for 7 I'll finally make the switch and run 10 in a VM.

I tried to switch to Linux mint and i actually liked it however i noted that my sound card doesn't work on it and there is no driver which is a deal breaker.I just hope Zen can work on Win7 without updates and just put Win10 on another HD and use it only for games or other simple shit.

Did you really expect for them to conform these new CPUs and their architecture to an older chipset? More specifically, did you seriously think these new CPUs wouldn't be constrained by an older chipset? You should have expected this.

>>>/neofag/

I'm not surprised they are dropping support for win7. It's gonna be 8 years old this year. XP was exceptional with its long term support, everything else died faster than 7 and xp.

rtshit isn't a reason to upgrade, call me when VR isn't stealing all the resources from devs

:O

The longest lived Windows have been 3, XP and 7. Now what do these have in common? They were actually good unlike all the others.

I started on DOS and have seen every windows come and go, the ones that people stick with are the ones that work.
I would rather switch to GNU+, run 10 in a VM and loss a few frames than support this level of kikery.

XP was a fucking disaster for years. 98se, 2000, and 7 are the best versions of windows.

98se was ok and solved all the issues with 98 except the removal of DOS, cunts.
2000 was cancer, I tries them all but my primary installs I stuck with were DOS 6 > 3.11 > 95 (just for DX) > 98se > XP > 7.
While XP had some issues on launch SP1 sorted most of it and SP2 fixed it properly.

>>>/neofag/

Nah, I won't get any benefits. My country is garbage but it's an """""emerging power""""". I'm planning on getting a germanic citizenship (my great grandma came from Germany) so I can fuck off to EU and work there and hopefully live a less worse life. Now if only I could get rid of the sandniggers somehow…

there is literally 0 games that use 8 cores and 95% of gaming is GPU

But yeah, muh benchmurks

...

I hope AMD can break this stagnation.

Exact opposite nigger.

...

yes good goyim buy intel hehe

Wow truly this is the reddit condiment race.

I already own a cpu kike.

Want to see more benchmarks before I'm convinced.
Would be great if AMD finally becomes a larger threat & drives down Intel prices.

good goy intel ftw make sure to allow intel to scan your harddrives for safety hehe

I needed to read this three times before my brain completely comprehended you didn't say "drivers."

should I go with the R5 1600 or the R5 1400?

It's cheap because it lacks a few features.
1 An Igpu, for normalfags who don't play games and don't want to buy a gpu. see OEMs and the machines they build, barebones and as cheap as possible.
2 quad channel memory. it has dual channel, like intels consumer lineup. if you need lots and lots of memory bandwith you still have to go to intel.
3 less pcie lanes. if you stick all sorts of things in your machine, capture cards sound cards, multiple gpu's, m.2 and more, ryzen will not have enough pcie lanes.
4 intels own technology, like thunderbolt 3 and optane. 1 of those is not even in use anywhere, and the other is rarely used outside of apple products.

so if you do not need those thing, and only want the raw computing power, amd has a thing now.

Yes, liquid nitrogen cooling is very practical and meaningful for everyone. I can't wait for my next AMD™ CPU!

You do know that no one actually includes PC in the wars right? That's because PC is objectively superior. The consoles are fighting for 2nd place.

Condiment replies to ancient post to defend drm and console port platform ft. Hearthstone in the great console wars of 2017.

Which is why PC ports of console games are constantly demanded and there's a lot of asshurt if they don't happen

You
o
u

Your (You) is appreciated

Actually, PC ports are usually asked for so that we have an easier way of modding and continuing support for the game beyond the life of the original console. Thankfully PS3 emulation is coming along, but even PS2 emulation can give people trouble. If we had PC ports that were parity or better, we wouldn't have this problem. It's not that there aren't good games on PC already, it's just that some good games are lost to time by being exclusively on one system.

Nice try user but we all know that the vast majority on all platforms eat shit and call it caviar. People aren't demanding PC ports because they care about preserving a game but because they want to play "hyped AAA trash 2017".

(You) are welcome.

wat

Only idiots buy the overpriced intel CPUs. Compare an i5 to your 1700 and post actual 1700 benchmarks.

Wll Ryzen perform better in gaming or elmulation?

Just wait a week and you'll know

Yeah, reviews with more benchmarks are apparently embargoed until March 2nd. I expect the single-core IPC to be slightly behind Intel's latest generation, but when AMD's offering costs significantly less, that's still a great position to be in. That $329 8 core/16 thread model is calling my name. And for people who want to stay with Intel, prices should be dropping rapidly as AMD's competing models get to market. Everybody wins.

...

You tell me Intel isn't twice as bad.

They are releasing their top-end CPUs first with mid and low coming later in the year, the 1700 is their i7 not their i3.

...

Stay cucked, back to the Saturn you go

>>>/neofag/
>>>/cuckchan/
Stay salty non backwards compat, non pirate, no options, sub 60fps scum.

I demand more games because I want all the games on a single platform which isn't locked down garbage with no choices, multitasking or community support and that has the best performance/visual ratio.

Everything from console ports to PC exclusives to emulation, multiplats and indieshit, and older titles, I want it all, and the PC has most of it aside from the ones held hostage by bribing or non emulatable.

It has both variety and quality, something brand loyal Magpie normalfags who want the shiniest new thing to will never understand.

You are intentionally acting like a retard, right?
Congrats, you made me slightly angry.

You are the dumbest nigger in this thread.

WOW

It's not meant to be practical dipshit, it's only for enthusiasts.

That is a smaller price increase than you would get from inflation alone.
nice try but you are too stupid for this

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the masses.

Not really.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors

Core i5-7600K: Release price $242
Core i5-7600: Release price $214

This is a great CPU for heavily multi-threaded stuff because it has 8 cores, but in single/dual/quad core performance it looks to be pretty even with similarly priced Intel CPUs.

How about you compare what's comparable user, the 7600k is a 4C/4T CPU, the direct equivalent is the 1200X or 1100.

True

...

...

wat

I get your point, but isn't the 8-core market terribly expensive due to Intel's jewry?
I swear to christ

You want to argue that this is somehow a bad thing?

I don't get the brand loyalty, if theres something Intel needs its fucking competition.

Majority of use cases want 3-4 cores max for gaming. Therefore that's where performance matters, and hyperthreading has little benefit, sometimes even a penalty.

Intel's 6-8 core processors are insanely overpriced, but that's because they aren't aimed at the mainstream market, they are aimed at the high end segment of richfags and people doing important time-sensitive work, so they can milk them a bit and charge ridiculous margins.

Prior to this there was no reason for gamers to buy Intel 8-core processors because the cores just went unused, and there was no reason to buy AMD processors with 8 cores because even though they were pretty cheap their single core performance was shit. If AMD is trying to mainstream 8 core processors that's a good thing, but Intel just has to drop their margins a bit to compete, and you're still not seeing much of a change for gaming.

I said that the AMD CPUs are 8 cores.

Still you're basically saying that similarly performing products with a 75% markdown is somehow not really better.

Arguing performance based on a couple a graphs straight from AMD marketing is pointless, we will need to wait for independent reviews.
I really hope they are competitive because monopolies are bad for us all

people want 4 cores because those are the ones where intel gave it the best single thread performance. modern gaymes use more than 4 threads.

Just saying that if you are playing games or most other tasks you don't give much of a crap about theoretical performance of 8 cores running at 100%. If AMD wanted to blow Intel out of the water, a 10-20% single core performance advantage over Intel on a 4-6 core CPU would be way better than equal single core performance and an 8 core CPU.

Multithreaded performance is only going up in situations where stuff is already CPU bound on 4 cores, which is pretty rare.

Also price isn't exactly similar, it's a $100-150 markup.

It's really better if you need more than 4 cores. Do you? If not then the cores are mostly useless.

Number of threads is kind of irrelevant. What matters is core saturation.

Are you being dense on purpose?
The 1200X has the same number of cores and thread as the 7600k and it's launch price is only $149 compared to the 7600k $242.

Pro tip friends, I would recommend you wait for the R5 line to be released, the R7 line is more for video editing and DAWs than for gaming. a 6 core 12 thread processor will be more than adequate for any games you play.

don't get any R3 processors, they are trash. They're basically toaster processors for the poorest of poorfags.

The consoles don't have high single core performance so they need to use all the cores to get the best out of it, both consoles also have 8 cores, so 8 core usage in vidya is a reality already. And it's not like games cannot be made to use an arbitrary number of cores, BF1 for example can use all your cores with obvious diminishing returns, but you still get gains. And since the only 4c/8t processors are i7s, your point goes nowhere user.

2 of those are reserved for tasks that aren't the game on either consoles

Sincerely, educate me user

If AMDs move is successful and 8 core CPUs become mainstream wouldn't we see bigger competitive efforts between companies to improve single core performance which would consequently give consumers better performance and make devs optimize their games correspondingly?

So? Your operating system may also eat one core in your PC. Even then, you still have 6 left, and all i5 are 4t, there is no excuse.

the intel chip overclocks a lot better. so the prices make sense. just compare the ryzen chip to a locked counterpart for similar perf.

no that guy, but there are diminishing returns when scaling to mulitple cores, even in the best case scenario.

I was replying to the post listing prices for 1700-1800x. I didn't see prices for 1200x. In any case it just means Intel will cut their margins to compete. Intel has notoriously high margins.

And both consoles still can't achieve 1080p 30 fps. lol.

Heavily diminishing returns. Console makers were banking on devs being able to do better, but they can't even with multimillion dollar budgets and both PS4 and XBONE are a joke.

If you mean multi (4+) core performance, then yes. But then that's already happening with consoles and failing.

That said, you'll probably be nicely future-proofed for the next half decade or so.

Kaby lake overclocks like shit and we have no idea of what OC potential the non 1800X CPU have, so you're just pulling things out of your ass.

Intels haven't overclocked really, dramatically well since Sandy Bridge. Shrinking process made them sensitive to overvoltage and heat. Ryzen will probably see the same effect. In any case, if you're paying a 50% premium to get better overclocks you're fucking retarded. You could get a CPU with higher stock clocks instead and then overclock that for better effect instead of literally pissing money down the drain.

kaby lake under best circumstances with good cooling can hit 5ghz.
the op said ryzen hit 5.2 with fucking ln2. there is no chance ryzen is coming close to those clocks on air/liquid.

Wait wait a sec.
How about… I dunno, your OS?
Do you know what your OS does with threads (in this case, 8 physical cores, 16 logical cores -> 16 threads)?
Software can request threads from the OS, which is then used via the software.
Multithreading isn't hard to accomplish at all, obviously depends if the problem at hand is suited to multithreading, and is generally dynamically utilized by plenty of programs (i.e. requesting threads from the OS' pool of threads, as to do jobs in parallel, ranging from a few dozen threads to hundreds).

The neat thing about OS' is that they generally have a few thousand threads in their pool at once, and having more "logical cores", i.e. logical cores/threads to get through all of these pooled thread's jobs in parallel, makes just about everything quite a bit more efficient.
There's various game engines that do this dynamically too, but limit the amount of threads to the count of logical cores (as that's the "happy medium" of thread efficiency, i.e. if you have 8 logical cores/threads that can work in parallel, only dispatch up to 8 threads at once); thus having more cores here is quite beneficial.

We can't help it, current consoles are just shit.

Every review that isn't a big site that generally gets binned high quality sample can't hit much more than 4.8 and 600hz isn't a good OC

Do you know the first thing about OC user?

After a certain point it becomes a logistical nightmare with very little benefit. There are only so many tasks a game does that work well in parallel before you're creating unnecessary complexity and overhead. God help you if you don't want be thrashing your cache too.

Where the fuck am I?

The CPUs in current console are fucking laptop trash, you can't get good performance out of even 100 cores if they are crap to begin with.

Having 8 cores reminds me of those shitty phones that have 10 cores as a cost saving measure while the fastest phones still only have 4

Expected, but won't that be improved in the future?

Post E3 2016/PSX Holla Forums
Theres a couple of neocunt niggers shitting threads with their rethoric besides all the others that mostly keep it to themselves.
They're even defending the Pro.

It's not an iterative thing like Trump deciding to make the wall 10 feet higher. Huge part of engines need to be rebuilt from the ground up and its more of an intellectual challenge of figuring out how to decouple parts of the engine from each other rather than a job you can just throw manpower at.

All of the major engine developers have hit basically the same wall and aren't seeing improvements they hoped to see. If one does make a breakthrough then you can probably expect that the first generation or two of games using it are going to be using it to make PS4/XBONE playable rather than pushing PC limits.

Nothing from R3 is confirmed yet and R5 will probably be over 150 bucks.

Also, it should be mentioned… for games the main concern is the main thread (single core performance); as extra cores can only do so much.
Extra cores can help a lot, but if you lack that fast single core speed extra core's aren't exactly worthwhile (as the fewer cycles each thread can work through, the less efficient it becomes, in part due to the overhead of threading starts piling up, and in part due to the implicit overhead of threading + transferring back to the main thread).
As anons mentioned, diminishing returns.
Although, if threading is efficiently implemented in-engine (generic threading/avoiding pitfalls of threading), and you have that single core speed; more cores can be quite beneficial to games/engines.

Now you're just intentionally being retarded and missing the point. You can probably reach similar overclocks with an i5 to the i7 and use a less robust cooling system because it generates less heat. Similarly, you can use stock cooling on the Anniversary Pentium because it's 2 Cores only, so 4.5Ghz on stock cooling was fine.

...

how to spot an es-jay-double-u in one easy step

Gaslighting isn't strictly a term used by them, but I see your point.

They all get that high, it's the reason to even bother with them or they wouldn't even be better than 6700k

and with the state of the modern software industry you're basically a dumbcunt if you buy a low end processor with 8 cores. Even very high end multicore processors rely on still having strong single core performance.

And yet people buy Xeon processors which are clocked far lower than an overclocked i7 because they offer more cores. It's almost like people might be able to make use of them or something. On top of that, Kaby Lake doesn't overclock higher than where it sits, really. 200MHz higher than stock on the 7700k isn't terribly impressive compared to mucking with Sandy Bridge and getting nearly that 1Ghz+ clock speed increase. You'd be better off buying cheaper Skylake chips and overclocking those to similar performance levels since you can't really go past them anyhow.

On top of that, AMD CPUs usually overclock well when cooled appropriately, so I'd be interested to see the 4c CPUs overclocking.

Who the fuck cares? The only thing of any relevance is how well it oc's on water and how much performance it has available in real world use.

Arma will always have terrible performance no matter the cpu, no matter the oc and no matter the gpu or how many of the fucking things you cram into your box because the engine is a piece of shit from the late 90's and the devs are a bunch of horribly incompetent fucking morons who couldn't even improve its performance if they wanted to.

Fuck water, most users OC on air cooling so that's what matters the most.

It's no secret.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen%2B

Those people don't buy low end processors. I already told you 7700k clocks to 5ghz which is fast as fuck for the number of transistors it has. Maybe you don't know that much about processors or whatever but getting a high clock speed on a modern architecture is not comparable to the frequency of an old one.

Water and air both have the same physical limitations since either will always have a copper base in contact with the CPU's heat spreader.

...

You say that as though there's enough of a difference to justify price. Kaby Lake is still about the same TDP and only marginally faster than Sandy Bridge, despite all the new ticks and tocks and performance increases. And Sandy Bridge can overclock to achieve similar results, unless you have one that shows handbrake encoding or some shit as improving drastically. Lord knows gaming improvements aren't that high.

My point for prices is that people who have smaller budgets can get more cores and threads to get more amatuer editors or /agdg/ to have better compiling machines. And AMD supports Sockets for a long ass time, so you can keep upgrading AM4 cpus if you really wanted to.

I've been sitting on a AMD Phenom X4 and newer games are running kinda ass on it. Intel are CIA Atheist Niggers.

in this case they always get really high

No it can't. And everything gets faster when you improve single core speed, you don't have to rely on software design competence

It's just a really bad idea to split a cheap CPU amongst 8 cores and the price isn't even that low. I'm going to watch it play out obviously but I just don't see how it's going to come together to do much against the 7700k market

From all the review I've looked at the worst is a couple 4.8Ghz with 1.35v and the best is a lone 5.1Ghz at 1.375v and in the middle of that a handful of 4.9-5.0 at voltage between 1.35v and 1.4v (all the best results being intel provided samples all the worst being self acquired samples)
1.35-14v means you're going to need a watercooling to not go over 90°C (unless you delid but that's another story) so in practice you're gonna reach around 4.6-4.8 on air with 1.25-1.3v, turbo is 4.5Ghz

I'm just glad there will finally be competition again. AMD better not fuck this up like they did the last time they got ahead of inshill with athlon.

Just use God's chosen OS and you'll be fine.

Wtf, you always need a new mobo with new chipsets.

Phones with 2 cpus are really good for emulating which is why you'd want such a powerful phone to begin with.

This happens every single time.

Are you imbecile or an Intel shill? They started making rounds on tech sites recently.

this post reads like you're tattling to your mommy about mean console gamers

I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it happens every time.

...

Who's the dipshit now?

But MUH BASED SLAVS!

I just want to play Promods at a smooth 30 fps

Perhaps at power efficiency

Or people will just buy a $400 intel without jumping into the 8 core meme.

Even then, the 1700X only costs $399 and it's better than anything Intel has to offer.

Vega will crush everything if it comes with HBM. But I'll still not buy it because it'll have Polaris legacy hardware within.

I want a powerhouse GPU from AMD so I can finally upgrade and justify the existence of my freesync monitor. Pretty much the only reason why I haven't gotten a 1070.

XP was kinda shit for year, but the best OS tend to just get more reliable with time as has always been the case. 7 is the last decent one, so we'll just have to wait past 10 to see something better coming along

More cores ain't gonna do shit for ARMA 3 man, not saying Ryzen won't offer better performance or not, but having 8 cores is useless for gaming because by the time games get to using them all there'll be 100 better CPU's that have come and gone

Wouldn't you also need games for that?

I'd be more excited about this if they were doing more at i5 price levels, but this is still really good stuff at the top end. At least, assuming real-world benchmarks end up as good as these. Remember what happened with the RX 480?

That's for watching anime, actually.

...

No. What happened with the RX 480?

RX 480 should have never been marketed as "extremely affordable". The 200 bucks target was absurd. Even a 470 costs more than that in the real world, and why wouldn't it?

I do suspect the same will happen with Ryzen. Why sell cheap when customers are willing to pay more? And they / we clearly are, based on Intel pricing. The 1800X will cost over 600 bucks once prices "settle".

Isn't Intel like Nvidia; less likely to crash and more compatible with things?
I dunno I'll always buy intel and nvidia, because fuck me I guess, but my first build is still going strong after 6 years so fuck me even more because I'm not going to buy new shit until total system failure.

still relevant to Holla Forums a non-gaming board :'^)

Is used to have a AMD CPU, nvidia GPU rig in the 2000s, then switched to the polar opposite which I'm still on now: Overclocked i7 920 and AMD GPU (upgraded to newer model later). Point being, I've used two GPUs by each manufacturer each and both types of CPU, and I can honestly say there's no reason to play favorites.
People always talk about AMD's supposedly bad drivers but I had just as many problems with the nvidia drivers on my 7800GT and 8600GT. My old nvidia computer certainly crashed more often in games than the current AMD one does.

What type of compatibility are you worried about?

IIRC they claimed you would be able to crossfire two RX 480s for less than the total price of a GTX 1080 and get roughly equal performance, when msot benchmarks (and the inevitable price spike) showed that to be unlikely in most cases.

Top kek, I should have proofread that. Reads like drunken ramblings of a hobo pretending to be a PC gamer.

I was talking about the CPUs, you know like that issue AMD had where it could not support emulators and virtual windows xp mode.
On the GPUs, I always look at game benchmarks and the games that say Nvidia run better. Sometimes the games that start with the AMD logo still run worse on AMD than Nvidia. I dunno. It doesn't matter too much right now, because my system still works ok, but I guess later it's an issue I'll have to deal with and adding to that the issue of having to choose Operating systems.
Fuck linux, I haven't got the time, patience and autism to learn that absolute garbage, but at the same time I can't stay on windows 7 forever and windows 10 is too simple.

Shit PC?

worse than germany eh…
swedish?

First things first, I don't know anything about emulators.

AMD almost always has better performance/price so I'm really not sure what games you're thinking of. Beating nvidia in performance/price is sort of the whole point of AMD GPUs.

With nvidia you also have the issue that they are quite blatantly downgrading your GPU with age. There are endless documented cases where the same exact game with the same settings on the same hardware will run WORSE with NEWER nvidia drivers. nvidia does this to make its performance improvements from one gen to the next look more significant than they are. Imagine one of your regularly played games gets downgraded by the new drivers. You're now stuck on an old driver for the sake of that game. So what do if another game comes out that necessitates new drivers? Switch back and forth between two driver versions on a daily basis? It's absurd.

By contrast your performance on AMD may be troubled on day 1 or 2 of a game's release, but after a week all problems WILL be sorted out. I have no reason to even consider nvidia GPUs. They are always more expensive and the driver downgrade thing is a big red flag for long-term users like me. nvidia is the company for people who upgrade for a performance increase of 20%.

On the CPU side I will go AMD next if it's established that you can run Win 7 on a Ryzen CPU. Otherwise, well…

Maybe you can't. Just watch me. Most games are still running at 100+ fps on this old ass CPU, any game worth playing will support Win 7 / DX11 for another 5+ years and I mostly play MP games any way, optimized games, well programmed games, not triple A shit ported over from consoles. By the time performance becomes a problem Micropenis will have pulled Win12 out of their ass and they'll be marketing DX14 with a Todd Howard stage demo.

Yeah guise, totally not a marketing stunt. Companies never lie.
I'll wait until it comes out and see for myself. Ryzen in itself looks like a ruse because AMD hasn't been able to compete in a long time, but suddenly they claim they are.

What the fuck is this shit, 1994?

Well yeah that's because nvidia still has the lead on performance, even on dx12 because of pascal's async compute. Even with GPUs because with AMD you'll be looking at almost double the TDP, a PSU upgrade and more fans and if you get the wrong motherboard it'll pull too much power from the pci slot and kill your mobo. If you're upgrading an existing build and you already have a good psu, fans and whatnot then AMD is the way to go but if you're getting a new PC nvidia is better in both performance and price because the gpus do cost more, but they don't drag a shitpile of things you have to do to be able to use them which cost money. I personally will go AMD when my gtx 780 isn't enough or shits the bed.

Considering the guy who designed the architecture is the same guy who designed the last chip that got AMD ahead it's not too farfetched this time.

Which cards are you comparing? The real TDP of a GTX 1060 is 120 W as advertised, the real TDP of the RX 480 is 165 W so while that is false advertising (they say 150 W) it's still only a 45 W difference. It's slightly over a THIRD more. Double the TDP would mean 240 W! I would be surprised if you could find an AMD card that pulls 50% more than its closest nvidia competitor. Double is an absurd exaggeration.

well, lets hope they're not blowing hot air.
There needs to be some competition in the CPU market to stimulate innovation, from both sides, and not having it one sided as it's been for many years now.

Honestly, AMD video cards are starting to come into their own with the new upcoming graphics APIs (many mainstream engines are JUST releasing support for vulkan, so we'll be seeing a lot more of the following soon); where you can see a budget rx480 nearing the performance of a 1070 for vulkan, and surpassing the equivalently priced 1060 in a variety of games tested.
This is mainly due to AMD cards being specifically built for async compute (what nvidia cards suck at, as they can only do async compute or general shading stuff like frag/vert shaders); due to fundamental differences in architecture/low-level pipelines.
Note that async compute is heavily utilized by the latest graphics APIs, those being dx12/vulkan, and that's why this matters.

The only current practical application of quantum computers is approximating solutions to NP-complete problems, and then feeding the results to GPCPU. AFAIK there is only one company producing commercially available quantum computing "hardware accelerators", and that would be D-Wave.

Quantum mechanics doesn't do what you think it does.