gdjacobs wrote:

How can you conclude that there's a discrepancy when there's no valid comparison? You can't compare TDP without an understanding of the caveats involved.

Your logic is backwards:
The discrepancy is in the hugely different TDP quoted for CPUs that have about the same measured power draw.
The discrepancy is an observed fact, from which we conclude that there is no valid comparison between TDP.

gdjacobs wrote:

I made no conclusions, just quoted the data.

Yes, and I pointed out that the data was meaningless, and I saw no relevance to the discussion at hand, because if anything, the measurements showed about the same difference in powerdraw between a C2D and a P4 as their TDP ratings indicated. Which is opposite to the discussion at hand.

gdjacobs wrote:

but my understanding of physics and electrical engineering is undoubtedly stronger than yours.

I doubt that, given the fact that I have studied software engineering at an acedemic level, which also involved a lot of maths, applied physics and electrical engineering.
I'm pretty sure my basic understanding of these topics is good enough for something as trivial as TDP.

As for game programming, you know nothing, yet you tried multiple times to bluff your way through a discussion (and failed). I wouldn't put it past you that you're trying the same here. As I said, end of discussion. I don't value your input, and I don't care about the topic. I merely warned people not to interpret TDP as powerdraw, and explained why. Nothing more to add to that (or to take from it). It is what it is.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Just as most computer users in the real world out there, my rig is not solely for gaming.

Ah yes, when facts prove you wrong, you just move the goalposts.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

So nope, I'm still not buying Intel.

Something tells me you were never considering anything other than AMD anyway, and nothing anyone will tell you is ever going to change your mind.
I don't care what you buy, I'm just saying your logic for gaming was flawed.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Of course, nobody said you cannot go to the Tech Report's website and contradict their conclusion.

It's not about their conclusions, it's about your conclusions.
A moment ago, you were arguing you wanted to spend less on a CPU and more on a GPU, because of gaming. So I pointed out that Intel gives you better value for money there.
Now you take gaming out of the equation completely, and come up with some chart that shows AMD may have a marginal advantage in non-gaming workloads (which is a far more arbitrary metric than gaming workloads of course, since games generally tend to be very similar game workloads, while other applications can differ vastly in how memory-hungry, IO-limited or parallelizable thay are, so it depends a lot more on what applications and workloads you put in that mix).
But even you would have to admit that if you were to use your computer for *both* gaming (hey, you talk about spending money on a GPU, so apparently gaming is a relatively large factor in your decision, because casual gaming could even be done on an integrated GPU these days), and non-gaming, then your metric would have to be a combination of value for money for both gaming and non-gaming tasks.
Yet, you focus only on the non-gaming chart.
I'm pretty sure that if you would put gaming back into the mix, that the 7700k is easily the winner overall. It has a far bigger value-for-money advantage in gaming than what I see in this non-gaming chart for Ryzen. And as I said, it seems you value gaming quite a lot (so probably more than 50% of the entire deal), given that you want to invest extra in a GPU, which will be useless for virtually all non-gaming stuff. At the very least it is useless for all non-gaming benchmarks in the Tech Report review (although these applications have nothing to do with the non-gaming activities I do on my system. How about you?).

Yes, you appear to have grasped P=I^2 * R. Congratulations!

Anyway, I'm going to disengage from this discussion as it has devolved into troll territory. Enjoy your "victory".

Scali wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Just as most computer users in the real world out there, my rig is not solely for gaming.

Ah yes, when facts prove you wrong, you just blah blah blah blah Intel rules blah blah blah blah AMD sucks blah blah blah blah fap fap fap fap oooh yeaaah I love intel ooh yeaaah *squirts*.

Talk to yourself. I have mentioned earlier, and earlier, that I use my rig for gaming and non-gaming, just like many computer users out there. Apparently I only "move the goalpost" in your wet dreams about Intel.

Now, please read again, slowly:

(1) my rig is used for both gaming and non-gaming activities.

(2) for my non-gaming activities, I am interested in AMD Ryzen's excellent non-gaming price/performance ratio, as concluded by Tech Report.

(3) as for my gaming activities, I'm glad AMD is cheaper than Intel's gaming CPU's, which Ryzen is compared to. And since AMD is cheaper, I could add the extra money to my GPU budget.

If it's so difficult to understand, then I kindly suggest you go back to reading comprehension. Or finger painting. When you have finished discussing with yourself on how great Intel is, you'd probably want to let us know, but I doubt we would care. Have a nice day!

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Straight from Tech Report. It seems Ryzen has the best price to performance ratio for non-gaming purpose, which is good enough f […]
Show full quote

Straight from Tech Report. It seems Ryzen has the best price to performance ratio for non-gaming purpose, which is good enough for me. To me, GPU is always more important than CPU for gaming, since I always aim for the highest Anti-Aliasing performance possible. And AA is where GPU matters more than CPU.

Tetrium wrote:

KAN's requirements are very similar to mine it seems 😀

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Tetrium, gdjacobs, I'd rather not concern myself with Scali's fastidious, meticulous posts on multithreading, because whatever h […]
Show full quote

Tetrium, gdjacobs, I'd rather not concern myself with Scali's fastidious, meticulous posts on multithreading, because whatever he said --even if it's correct-- is irrelevant to my buying consideration. Yes, opening a lot of browser tabs and desktop applications while copy-pasting between them , with foobar playing in the background, might not enjoy much benefit from Ryzen's excellent multithreaded performance. But fact remains that Ryzen has better price/performance ratio than Intel's offering in non-gaming applications, as Tech Report has shown.

Source: Tech Report.

Intel is still better for gaming, no doubt about it. But I'd rather spend my money on what matters more: GPU. Instead of buying expensive Intel CPU, I'd rather buy cheap AMD CPU, enjoy nice price/performance ratio in non-gaming applications, and add the extra money to my GPU budget. After all, the Tech Report's gaming benchmarks were all performed at 1080p, and as Tech Report has put it, "gaming at higher resolutions will lessen the differences in performance between Ryzen chips and Intel's seventh-generation Core CPUs if a gamer chooses to play that way."

To me, Intel CPU has become something like exotic amplifiers or ultra-expensive audio cables. Yes, they may make two or three percent better sonic performance, but I'd rather use "good enough" amplifier and cables, and put the extra money where the difference is the most audible: loudspeakers, that is.

Also, I heartily agree with you, Tetrium. I too, would love to see the AMD chips get up and running. I love to see good competition, since it benefits me as consumer.

Well, you clearly showed your true AMD fanboy self there. Thank you for showing everyone how biased and coloured your interpretation of the world is, taking away every last doubt (and wow, still in denial about all those Intel CPUs that are cheaper than Ryzen 1700, yet deliver better gaming performance. Still repeating the same lies in the face of all these facts).
And for the record, once again, I don't even like Intel one bit, or x86 in general.

Let me tell you a little story about my history. I grew up with non-x86 CPUs, and I used to really like the Motorola 68000 and later the PowerPC, because of them being very nice to program for, even in assembly. They had a more advanced and more powerful instructionset than x86. Where you found x86 CPUs exclusively in PC-clones/DOS systems, you could find 68k and PPC in a variety of machines, from home computers to game consoles, to arcade machines, Unix servers and workstations and more.
But alas, Intel was such a huge and influential company, with its grasp on the PC-world, that it eventually crushed virtually all alternative CPU manufacturers, including my beloved Motorola.
Keep that in mind, the next time you think about how Intel is evil and how you want AMD to survive. I know how you feel, but unlike AMD, my CPU brand of choice did not survive the battle with Intel.

Kids these days.

Scali wrote:

Well, you clearly showed your true AMD fanboy self there. Thank you for showing everyone how biased and coloured your interpretation of the world is, taking away every last doubt.

Coming from someone unable to accept the fact that many people uses their rig for both gaming and non-gaming, I wonder if we should take your accusation seriously, or see it as it is: JACK SHIT.

Scali wrote:

Let me tell you a little story about my history. I grew up with non-x86 CPUs, and I used to really like the Motorola 68000 and later the PowerPC, because of them being very nice to program for, even in assembly. They had a more advanced and more powerful instructionset than x86. Where you blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah fap fap fap fap oooh yeah

So how long until we get to the part where you throw the One Ring to the fires of Mount Doom? Oh wait, Gollum did it. Now, if you excuse me, I feel a little bit sleepy. Zzzz....

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Coming from someone unable to accept the fact that many people uses their rig for both gaming and non-gaming, I wonder if we should take your accusation seriously, or see it as it is: JACK SHIT.

Except that isn't true at all. You're just in denial. Cognitive dissonance at work here.
You simply ignore huge parts of my posts that go into detail on this subject.
Not to mention your logic is still flawed.

Scali wrote:

Let me tell you a little story about my history. I grew up with non-x86 CPUs, and I used to really like the Motorola 68000 and l […]
Show full quote

Let me tell you a little story about my history. I grew up with non-x86 CPUs, and I used to really like the Motorola 68000 and later the PowerPC, because of them being very nice to program for, even in assembly. They had a more advanced and more powerful instructionset than x86. Where you found x86 CPUs exclusively in PC-clones/DOS systems, you could find 68k and PPC in a variety of machines, from home computers to game consoles, to arcade machines, Unix servers and workstations and more.
But alas, Intel was such a huge and influential company, with its grasp on the PC-world, that it eventually crushed virtually all alternative CPU manufacturers, including my beloved Motorola.
Keep that in mind, the next time you think about how Intel is evil and how you want AMD to survive. I know how you feel, but unlike AMD, my CPU brand of choice did not survive the battle with Intel.

Kids these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHG2oizTlpY

Scali wrote:

Except that isn't true at all. You're just in denial. Cognitive dissonance at work here. You simply ignore huge parts of my post […]
Show full quote

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Coming from someone unable to accept the fact that many people uses their rig for both gaming and non-gaming, I wonder if we should take your accusation seriously, or see it as it is: JACK SHIT.

Except that isn't true at all. You're just in denial. Cognitive dissonance at work here.
You simply ignore huge parts of my posts that go into detail on this subject.
Not to mention your logic is still flawed.

You are the one who always resorts to ad-hominem, insulting and demeaning anyone disagrees with you, and then you call me being in denial?

By the way, does the diagram below hurt you? Whoopsie.

F2bnp wrote:

Scali wrote:

Let me tell you a little story about my history. I grew up with non-x86 CPUs, and I used to really like the Motorola 68000 and l […]
Show full quote

Let me tell you a little story about my history. I grew up with non-x86 CPUs, and I used to really like the Motorola 68000 and later the PowerPC, because of them being very nice to program for, even in assembly. They had a more advanced and more powerful instructionset than x86. Where you found x86 CPUs exclusively in PC-clones/DOS systems, you could find 68k and PPC in a variety of machines, from home computers to game consoles, to arcade machines, Unix servers and workstations and more.
But alas, Intel was such a huge and influential company, with its grasp on the PC-world, that it eventually crushed virtually all alternative CPU manufacturers, including my beloved Motorola.
Keep that in mind, the next time you think about how Intel is evil and how you want AMD to survive. I know how you feel, but unlike AMD, my CPU brand of choice did not survive the battle with Intel.

Kids these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHG2oizTlpY

🤣

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

You are the one who always resorts to ad-hominem, insulting and demeaning anyone disagrees with you, and then you call me being in denial?

Don't turn this around now.
I was having a technical discussion, but you and some other AMD cheerleaders had to pull it down to the level of ad-hominems etc.
I first stated my case with an elaborate post linking to prices, examples etc. You chose to ignore it and just attack me personally again, while reiterating the same points that had already been proven false.
Now don't come crying when I point that out. That's not an ad-hominem. That's a simple fact for everyone to see, when they read the thread.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

By the way, does the diagram below hurt you? Whoopsie.

No, I just wonder if your level of stupidity hurts, given that this diagram is exactly what is wrong in your logic:
You cling to this diagram only, which is non-gaming. Then you argue that you care about both gaming and non-gaming. Yet you never post the gaming diagram, nor make any attempt to combine them in any way.
Perhaps it's the gaming diagram that's hurting you? It completely debunks your whole story.

But hey, this is getting nowhere. As I already said, you're going to buy AMD no matter what. So buy that CPU and shut up. I've said all I have to say about it. Stop replying with insults, and we won't have to continue this any further.

Scali wrote:

You cling to this diagram only, which is non-gaming. Then you argue that you care about both gaming and non-gaming.

Hello? I have said earlier that I care about both gaming and non-gaming; a similar stance to Phil's and Tetrium's. My dedicated gaming rig is based on Windows 98, in case you've forgotten on which forum we are.

Scali wrote:

Yet you never post the gaming diagram, nor make any attempt to combine them in any way.

Why should I? I have said earlier that Intel is better for gaming, no doubt about it. Problem is, for my gaming purpose, I'm more interested in GPU than CPU. Or are you, ahem, being in denial about what I said earlier?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

http://techreport.com/r.x/2017_03_01_AMD_s_Ryzen_7_1800X_Ryzen_7_1700X_and_Ryzen_7_1700_CPUs_reviewed/value-productivity.png Sou […]
Show full quote

Source: Tech Report.

Intel is still better for gaming, no doubt about it.

Scali wrote:

Stop replying with insults, and we won't have to continue this any further.

Ah, but we don't have many insultable people on this forum, so I'm sorry if I just couldn't pass up the opportunity.

I just pulled the trigger. Ordered an R7-1700, Asus Prime X370 board, GTX-1070, and 16GB (for now) of DDR4-3200. I plan to overclock the snot out of the CPU. 😀

I haven't used AMD as a main computer since the Opteron 185 for s939, so this will be interesting. I do a ton of video work, and I believe the 16 threads, Broadwell-E level IPC, and AVX2 will give x264/265 a huge boost over my 12-thread, AVX1 Ivy Bridge.

gdjacobs wrote:

Yes, you appear to have grasped P=I^2 * R. Congratulations! […]
Show full quote

Yes, you appear to have grasped P=I^2 * R. Congratulations!

Anyway, I'm going to disengage from this discussion as it has devolved into troll territory. Enjoy your "victory".

Looks like scali needs to recalculate his TDP as his is clearly inadequate...

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

You are the one who always resorts to ad-hominem, insulting and demeaning anyone disagrees with you, and then you call me being in denial?

Tetrium wrote:

But fanboys do tend to be condescending about fanboys of the opposite side (like people who are Intel fanboys are condescending towards people they perceive as AMD fanboys) and this is what all fanboys tend to do and that is why I mentioned warring between different religions. They want to believe the other side is wrong and ignorant. And that in itself is what makes these fanboys stupid and ignorant.

Seems scali truely is a fanboy. I wonder how much Intel pays him...

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Hello? I have said earlier that I care about both gaming and non-gaming;

You say that, but you always post only one diagram. The non-gaming one. The one favourable to AMD.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

a similar stance to Phil's and Tetrium's.

And mine, which you do not acknowledge.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Why should I? I have said earlier that Intel is better for gaming, no doubt about it. Problem is, for my gaming purpose, I'm more interested in GPU than CPU. Or are you, ahem, being in denial about what I said earlier?

You said Intel is better, followed by "Intel is more expensive".
After which I pointed out a few Intel CPUs that are cheaper than any Ryzen, yet are still faster in gaming.
You are in denial about that, because after I made that post, you still said:
"(3) as for my gaming activities, I'm glad AMD is cheaper than Intel's gaming CPU's, which Ryzen is compared to. And since AMD is cheaper, I could add the extra money to my GPU budget."

Scali, don't you have anything better to do? The pic gdjacobs posted seems to be quite accurate.

Scali wrote:

You said Intel is better, followed by "Intel is more expensive". After which I pointed out a few Intel CPUs that are cheaper tha […]
Show full quote

You said Intel is better, followed by "Intel is more expensive".
After which I pointed out a few Intel CPUs that are cheaper than any Ryzen, yet are still faster in gaming.
You are in denial about that, because after I made that post, you still said:
"(3) as for my gaming activities, I'm glad AMD is cheaper than Intel's gaming CPU's, which Ryzen is compared to. And since AMD is cheaper, I could add the extra money to my GPU budget."

(1) because Ryzen still has better price/performance ratio for non-gaming apps, and just like many other people, I use my rig for non-gaming apps too.
(2) because you are so full of yourself; belittling and demeaning everyone who disagrees with you, while boasting about your life history, higher education, and superior intellect, that I spilled my chocolate on my keyboard out of laughter when F2bnp replied to your life story with Titanic soundtrack.

Like I said, Scali, we don't have many insultable people around, so excuse me if I just couldn't help it. I just wonder how long until this thread is locked, just like many other threads where YOU, ahem, "participated". But until then, allow me to thank you for the entertainment you have provided us. Good night!

Why is there such a huge flamewar about this? If you're mostly productivity-focused, then Ryzen offers pretty much the best value on the market, but if you're interested mostly in light applications and gaming, then get the much higher clocked Intel parts.

Honestly, it's easier to think of the choice between Ryzen and the cheaper i7 and i5 parts like the choice between a K6-III and a Celeron. If you were using your CPU for business or productivity, the K6-III was hard to pass up. Conversely, its gaming performance, while adequate, was nothing to write home about.

I'm not sure I feel like locking the thread yet. It could possibly return to a pleasant, relaxed, educational discussion...

One suggestion - let's try not to immediately assume criticism is a personal attack. And the snide retorts with funny pics and stuff aren't very helpful either.

swaaye wrote:

..educational..

This guy has done some investigative journalism to find what everyone else has been missing, the "fine wine" phenomenon of AMD graphics has been happening with their CPUs as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50#t=11m0s

awgamer wrote:

swaaye wrote:

..educational..

This guy has done some investigative journalism to find what everyone else has been missing, the "fine wine" phenomenon of AMD graphics has been happening with their CPUs as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50#t=11m0s

As someone who is running an fx in his main PC I wouldnt call it "fine". I was getting CPU bottlecks 5 years ago and I'm still getting them now.
While its nice that I can still run all games today, I am not running them as well as I would like. Not now and not when I first bough it.

And thats my main problem. This whole time I was stuck with just acceptable performance and nothing more.

Example - Im getting aroud 45fps with an old game like Crysis and also around 45fps with a new game like Battlefield 1.