4.1 and 77C are both very respectable for an 8 core.
Intel's 6900K 8 core only runs at 3.2/3.7 stock, is only hitting about 4.3G on average (at just shy of 90C using a AIO), so not all that far off the mark.
If your trying to compare an 8-core clock speed and overclocking to a 4-core 7700K, your kinda mixing it up.
Tomb Raider same 7700k vs. 1800x 132fps to 114 (never mind 6850 scoring 140fps)
The fact they are talking Zen2 instead of fixing Zen1 kind of makes me think most of the gaming is NOT going to be fixable.“But Senior Engineer Mike Clark says he knows where the easy gains are for Zen 2, and they're already working through the list” Just seems like excuses like - Run a higher Res - or Code properly.....
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen "For buyers today that are gaming at 1080p, the situation is likely to remain as we have presented it going forward." So they don't think a fix is coming based on AMD info and as noted as gpus get much faster (along with their memory speeds) expect 1440p to look like today's 1080p benchmarks at least to some extent.
So AMD didn't even get their stuff game optimized in time for their most important CPU launch in history? Fail.
Do you actually care about the difference between 149 frames per second and 108? How about between 163 and 138? Between 127 and 103? If I'm getting over 100 frames per second in a game I'm playing at the settings I like, I'm happy with the performance. Perhaps the games didn't bother to make their games more heavily threaded because, isn't 100 frames per second enough?
Now, that's not a reason to buy a Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming. But it's not a reason to buy Broadwell-E, either, which is the true competitor to these chips. If you never have a use for more than four cores, then don't buy an 8-core CPU. But it could make the rumored Ryzen quad cores very interesting. If at some point in the future, you're deciding between a Ryzen quad core and a Core i5-7400 that can't go over 3.5 GHz because the 7700K is out of your budget, AMD might win that comparison outright.
Tomb Raider same 7700k vs. 1800x 132fps to 114 (never mind 6850 scoring 140fps)
The fact they are talking Zen2 instead of fixing Zen1 kind of makes me think most of the gaming is NOT going to be fixable.“But Senior Engineer Mike Clark says he knows where the easy gains are for Zen 2, and they're already working through the list” Just seems like excuses like - Run a higher Res - or Code properly.....
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen "For buyers today that are gaming at 1080p, the situation is likely to remain as we have presented it going forward." So they don't think a fix is coming based on AMD info and as noted as gpus get much faster (along with their memory speeds) expect 1440p to look like today's 1080p benchmarks at least to some extent.
So AMD didn't even get their stuff game optimized in time for their most important CPU launch in history? Fail.
Do you actually care about the difference between 149 frames per second and 108? How about between 163 and 138? Between 127 and 103? If I'm getting over 100 frames per second in a game I'm playing at the settings I like, I'm happy with the performance. Perhaps the games didn't bother to make their games more heavily threaded because, isn't 100 frames per second enough?
Now, that's not a reason to buy a Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming. But it's not a reason to buy Broadwell-E, either, which is the true competitor to these chips. If you never have a use for more than four cores, then don't buy an 8-core CPU. But it could make the rumored Ryzen quad cores very interesting. If at some point in the future, you're deciding between a Ryzen quad core and a Core i5-7400 that can't go over 3.5 GHz because the 7700K is out of your budget, AMD might win that comparison outright.
If the goal is a playable game then you can get a 150$ processor and it will be good enough. We are talking about the 500$ range so we expect a lot more from them then oh my game is running good.
If you are lucky the next 2 quarters of AMD stock might go up. But after that this company is going under.
I'd also go in so far as to say: I'd rather have a chip that isn't a huge overclocker.
Overclocking is fun, but honestly, I'd rather have the company eek out as much performance as they can and offer it as stock. It means the process they are using is stable enough, the clock speeds they have chosen are aggressive enough, and the technology they are using to drive clock speeds is mature enough, for them to be able to do that.
And then that clock speed is warrantied and guaranteed by the company. No need to play the silicon lottery.
GPUs have been heading that way, with very little overclocking headroom, and honestly I like it.
On a slightly different bent on this topic: In Gaming, clock speed is still king. There is some hope that a 4-core will be able to clock higher, and hence get better gaming results (although rumors right now are showing that we shouldn't expect much more than 4.0). Ryzen's 8-cores hit exactly what they needed to hit, and people are calling them dead because they don't game as well as higher-clocked 4 cores. Let AMD get their 4-cores out and let's see how it goes then - we don't have speeds or prices to make any comparison against the consumer lineup yet..
AMD doesn't need to beat a 7700K in gaming to have a winner, they just have to present a better value proposition, and when the 7700K is about a $350 processor (and even the 7600K i5 around $250), they have a good deal of room to do so.
Ppl are flaming AMD now because the ones that said it might be better to wait because AMD might be using inflated benchmarks and running tests against a crippled Intel cpu were being called out.
And it turned out they were right.
I have been called a AMD hater by some on this very site when I used the term cherry picking and to be cautious by jumoing on a company created hype train that easily. (I would say the same about Intel cpus btw, if they present benchmarks I won't take it for granted unless I see unbiased reviews come in)
Those same ppl that were hyping are now nowhere to be seen though with their "AMD trashes Intel" benchmarks lol. Maybe they were hired, who knows.
The Ryzen is a good workstation cpu and general cpu, but underperforms in gaming compared to a Intel. It sure has a lot of issues because it is new tech. And mrs Su was bloating about kicking Intel's ass also in gaming.
And as many ppl use the computer for gaming, and it turns out that in most countries a Intel 7700K is cheaper then a Ryzen 1700X.
So AMD hands out the ammo to the ppl shooting at them themselves.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Ppl are flaming AMD now because the ones that said it might be better to wait because AMD might be using inflated benchmarks and running tests against a crippled Intel cpu were being called out.
And it turned out they were right.
I have been called a AMD hater by some on this very site when I used the term cherry picking and to be cautious by jumoing on a company created hype train that easily. (I would say the same about Intel cpus btw, if they present benchmarks I won't take it for granted unless I see unbiased reviews come in)
Those same ppl that were hyping are now nowhere to be seen though with their "AMD trashes Intel" benchmarks lol. Maybe they were hired, who knows.
The Ryzen is a good workstation cpu and general cpu, but underperforms in gaming compared to a Intel. It sure has a lot of issues because it is new tech. And mrs Su was bloating about kicking Intel's ass also in gaming.
And as many ppl use the computer for gaming, and it turns out that in most countries a Intel 7700K is cheaper then a Ryzen 1700X.
So AMD hands out the ammo to the ppl shooting at them themselves.
So basically, you're saying that a 4-core CPU is better than an 8-core CPU if you can't use more than four cores. I could have told you that a decade ago.
So long as AMD can sell 8-core Ryzen CPUs as fast as they can make them, there's no reason to release cut down versions at compelling prices unless there are serious yield problems. But once the Ryzen CPUs with fewer cores are out, we'll have a more interesting comparison for gaming.
Tomb Raider same 7700k vs. 1800x 132fps to 114 (never mind 6850 scoring 140fps)
The fact they are talking Zen2 instead of fixing Zen1 kind of makes me think most of the gaming is NOT going to be fixable.“But Senior Engineer Mike Clark says he knows where the easy gains are for Zen 2, and they're already working through the list” Just seems like excuses like - Run a higher Res - or Code properly.....
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen "For buyers today that are gaming at 1080p, the situation is likely to remain as we have presented it going forward." So they don't think a fix is coming based on AMD info and as noted as gpus get much faster (along with their memory speeds) expect 1440p to look like today's 1080p benchmarks at least to some extent.
So AMD didn't even get their stuff game optimized in time for their most important CPU launch in history? Fail.
Do you actually care about the difference between 149 frames per second and 108? How about between 163 and 138? Between 127 and 103? If I'm getting over 100 frames per second in a game I'm playing at the settings I like, I'm happy with the performance. Perhaps the games didn't bother to make their games more heavily threaded because, isn't 100 frames per second enough?
Now, that's not a reason to buy a Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming. But it's not a reason to buy Broadwell-E, either, which is the true competitor to these chips. If you never have a use for more than four cores, then don't buy an 8-core CPU. But it could make the rumored Ryzen quad cores very interesting. If at some point in the future, you're deciding between a Ryzen quad core and a Core i5-7400 that can't go over 3.5 GHz because the 7700K is out of your budget, AMD might win that comparison outright.
If the goal is a playable game then you can get a 150$ processor and it will be good enough. We are talking about the 500$ range so we expect a lot more from them then oh my game is running good.
If you are lucky the next 2 quarters of AMD stock might go up. But after that this company is going under.
Let's suppose that either AMD or Intel had the choice of:
1) at max clock speeds with runaway power consumption, you can get 20% more performance per core than the competition, or 2) at all clock speeds below 4 GHz, you can get equivalent performance to the competition while using 20% less power.
They'd both pick the latter, and if they hesitated at all, it would only be because they thought the question was so bafflingly stupid that they must have misunderstood it. The latter lets you pack more cores into a server for 25% more performance in the same power envelope. It also lets you offer either more performance or better battery life or both in a laptop. If you dominate the server and laptop markets, you win.
That's the big unknown: how much power do Zen cores use if you clock them at 2.5 GHz or 3 GHz or 3.5 GHz, with suitably reduced voltages? Ryzen doesn't try to do that, and reviews focused mostly on performance and not power consumption. The TDP may mean Zen cores do quite well, or it might just mean that AMD is less aggressive than Intel about turbo usage. But if Zen has Intel beat there, they're practically going to be printing money soon.
Now, that's a big if, and we don't know. Even if AMD is slightly behind, there's still plenty of room for them to make a profit. Raven Ridge will almost certainly have a better GPU than Kaby Lake or its successors, which can buy you a lot in laptops if your CPU is at least competitive. But AMD is not going to go bankrupt in the foreseeable future.
1) at max clock speeds with runaway power consumption, you can get 20% more performance per core than the competition, or
Well, AMD did try that with the FX 9590. It's still the only CPU I know of that hits a 5.0Ghz stock, but at 220W TDP, it's a monster.
AMD's Vishera architecture just couldn't really compete with Intel's Core though, and even though it has a faster clock speed and played games well enough in it's own right, it often was beaten by Core CPUs that had much lower core counts and clock speeds.
Tomb Raider same 7700k vs. 1800x 132fps to 114 (never mind 6850 scoring 140fps)
The fact they are talking Zen2 instead of fixing Zen1 kind of makes me think most of the gaming is NOT going to be fixable.“But Senior Engineer Mike Clark says he knows where the easy gains are for Zen 2, and they're already working through the list” Just seems like excuses like - Run a higher Res - or Code properly.....
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen "For buyers today that are gaming at 1080p, the situation is likely to remain as we have presented it going forward." So they don't think a fix is coming based on AMD info and as noted as gpus get much faster (along with their memory speeds) expect 1440p to look like today's 1080p benchmarks at least to some extent.
So AMD didn't even get their stuff game optimized in time for their most important CPU launch in history? Fail.
Do you actually care about the difference between 149 frames per second and 108? How about between 163 and 138? Between 127 and 103? If I'm getting over 100 frames per second in a game I'm playing at the settings I like, I'm happy with the performance. Perhaps the games didn't bother to make their games more heavily threaded because, isn't 100 frames per second enough?
Now, that's not a reason to buy a Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming. But it's not a reason to buy Broadwell-E, either, which is the true competitor to these chips. If you never have a use for more than four cores, then don't buy an 8-core CPU. But it could make the rumored Ryzen quad cores very interesting. If at some point in the future, you're deciding between a Ryzen quad core and a Core i5-7400 that can't go over 3.5 GHz because the 7700K is out of your budget, AMD might win that comparison outright.
If the goal is a playable game then you can get a 150$ processor and it will be good enough. We are talking about the 500$ range so we expect a lot more from them then oh my game is running good.
If you are lucky the next 2 quarters of AMD stock might go up. But after that this company is going under.
But AMD is not going to go bankrupt in the foreseeable future.
They will not meet any projected sales with what they just put out. Its just not gonna happen. And the sad part is they couldn't touch Intel when Intel wasn't trying to fight back.
OTOH
Nvidia is fighting back and if AMD is lucky the best video card they produce will compare to a gtx 1080. By the time that happens the GTX 1080 will be selling for 500$ and there's no way AMD will sell for less then that.
You might get 2 more quarters of stock from AMD but after that its gonna tank and will probably never recover.
Are you onto something or just on something?
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Do you actually care about the difference between 149 frames per second and 108? How about between 163 and 138? Between 127 and 103? If I'm getting over 100 frames per second in a game I'm playing at the settings I like, I'm happy with the performance. Perhaps the games didn't bother to make their games more heavily threaded because, isn't 100 frames per second enough?
Now, that's not a reason to buy a Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming. But it's not a reason to buy Broadwell-E, either, which is the true competitor to these chips. If you never have a use for more than four cores, then don't buy an 8-core CPU. But it could make the rumored Ryzen quad cores very interesting. If at some point in the future, you're deciding between a Ryzen quad core and a Core i5-7400 that can't go over 3.5 GHz because the 7700K is out of your budget, AMD might win that comparison outright.
Thank you for your points. My points you quoted above and new ones below are literally from a gaming perspective. It's what I spend most of my time on PC doing (when not working) as what I think most of the people who come here do. So you're going to find my points about Ryzen from a gaming perspective.
Yes I care about my frames. I don't just play mmo's. My frames matter because my refresh rate matters. The differences on the frames quoted matter because the price matters. (Notice I said about the excuses of code properly).
At CES this year there were tons of new monitors with 100hz+ frame rates. Prices are dropping, higher resolution is becoming affordable with higher refresh rates. If your monitor can do 75hz then a Ryzen r7 is definitely not the best choice. Most i5's will do that for less money and can be overclocked really, really easy these days if someone wanted more.
The simple fact is this: If you play games either on a 4 6 or 8 core buy Intel - There is no way a Ryzen 4 core will beat an intel 4 core if it can't do it at 8 in games. The biggest market for chips is gaming. As I mentioned AMD missed the boat on that.
For PC gamers, the message is decidedly mixed. Yes, there are a few games where Ryzen performs quite well, but without the SMT tweaks there isn't a single title where Ryzen 1800X can beat the i7-7700K.
For gaming as a whole you're still better off with a Core i7-7700K, or even a Core i5-7600K. Right now, the least expensive Ryzen part, the 1700, is effectively the same price as the i7-7700K, and that's not even the CPU we recommend as the best gaming solution, particularly in terms of bang for the buck. Core i5-7600K is within a hair of the 7700K and costs $240, nearly $100 less than the 1700. It will also overclock to 4.9/5.0GHz, and until we see a lot more games benefit beyond 4-core, it's the best option.
The Ryzen 4 cores will be craptacular overclockers. You'll be able to buy a cheaper Intel and overclock it better. How do we know? Because of how big brother Ryzen has been tested.
If you're doing work that runs into CPU bottlenecks, Ryzen 7 is a clear win, sweeping all categories.
Perfect and this is really great to see. The thing is I've never had a bottleneck on an Intel CPU.
Bottom line - if you play games buy an Intel 4 core - it is cheaper and better experience.
If you wait for Ryzen 5 & 3 series and you play games you will still be able to buy a cheaper Intel and overclock it and have better experience - jury is out on this until they come but I bet that's how it will be.
Ryzen is NOT a gamer CPU. Ryzen mobo's aren't built for gamers who may want to take advantage of multi GPU set ups. I certainly wouldn't buy Ryzen for gaming. Why in all seriousness would you want to handicap yourself with this CPU - especially just to remain loyal to a brand that never delivers? (my opinion).
No, it’s not a dud—unless you’re looking to replace a 5-year-old, quad-core Intel Core i5 chip for mainstream gaming at the most popular display resolution. There, the Ryzen 7 1700 can stumble, and stumble hard.
People who preordered Ryzen 7 CPUs to replace an aging gaming PC—like the venerable Core i5-2600K and 3570K parts so many gamers still cling to, myself included—may have very well purchased a $300-plus processor that actually delivers equal or significantly worse performance in some common gaming scenarios.
IMO DX12 and Vulkan should really help AMD on gaming side of things, with it's superb multithreaded utilization. The problem is it takes years for new APIs to get baked into game engines and then percolate down to games.
Ryzen is currently performing worse clock for clock. If you have an Intel 7600k and a Ryzen chip, both clocked to 4.0GHz, the Ryzen chip will have poorer single threaded performance.
Ryzen is currently not overclocking well at all. Multiple sites are running into 4.0 GHz as the limit these cards can be OCed to. For comparison, you could clock an ancient i7 920 to 4.0 GHz. All i3, i5, and i7 chips will overclock far better than Ryzen. (The average OC for the Broadwell 6900k is 4.3 Ghz)
Gaming is still ruled by single-thread performance. With Ryzen performing worse clock-for-clock and overclocking much more poorly, single-threaded performance is still being dominated by Intel.
Intel sells CPUs that will cost over $100 less than Ryzen but outperform it in gaming - at stock clocks. It will thrash Ryzen with overclocks added. From a gaming perspective, Ryzen is losing not only performance, but price-per-performance.
The two silver linings of Ryzen are lower power consumption and a good price for multithreaded performance. These make the card look very enticing for workstations. (But I don't know many people that have workstations at home)
Right now, if you game on your PC, you should be avoiding Ryzen. You would be paying more for lower performance. The only people that should be looking at Ryzen are people who are building a workstation. This is obviously disappointing as we are all gamers here, and we all would have liked to see more out of Ryzen.
I'm really happy AMD was able to pull this out the way it is. It still won't sway me over from Intel for the time being as I'm running a 6700k at 4.6ghz and with DX12/Vulkan on the way (and reducing CPU overhead) I don't foresee that i'll need a new CPU for probably 5+ years (considering my 2600k @ 4.3 ghz was doing just fine with a 980ti for that same period of time).
That being said, as quiz said, for people in the market for a new CPU. The 4/6 core parts should be at a very attractive price point. And with DX12/Vulkan pulling some emphasis in gaming away from CPU then they should be even more relevant. Honestly I really believe the days are gone where you need a top end Intel part to properly power a top end GPU, ESPECIALLY if DX12/Vulkan latch on properly like they should.
I'm just glad Intel is finally getting some actual competition in the CPU arena as frankly AMD has been severely lacking on that front for a while now.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Do you actually care about the difference between 149 frames per second and 108? How about between 163 and 138? Between 127 and 103? If I'm getting over 100 frames per second in a game I'm playing at the settings I like, I'm happy with the performance. Perhaps the games didn't bother to make their games more heavily threaded because, isn't 100 frames per second enough?
Now, that's not a reason to buy a Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming. But it's not a reason to buy Broadwell-E, either, which is the true competitor to these chips. If you never have a use for more than four cores, then don't buy an 8-core CPU. But it could make the rumored Ryzen quad cores very interesting. If at some point in the future, you're deciding between a Ryzen quad core and a Core i5-7400 that can't go over 3.5 GHz because the 7700K is out of your budget, AMD might win that comparison outright.
Thank you for your points. My points you quoted above and new ones below are literally from a gaming perspective. It's what I spend most of my time on PC doing (when not working) as what I think most of the people who come here do. So you're going to find my points about Ryzen from a gaming perspective.
Yes I care about my frames. I don't just play mmo's. My frames matter because my refresh rate matters. The differences on the frames quoted matter because the price matters. (Notice I said about the excuses of code properly).
At CES this year there were tons of new monitors with 100hz+ frame rates. Prices are dropping, higher resolution is becoming affordable with higher refresh rates. If your monitor can do 75hz then a Ryzen r7 is definitely not the best choice. Most i5's will do that for less money and can be overclocked really, really easy these days if someone wanted more.
The simple fact is this: If you play games either on a 4 6 or 8 core buy Intel - There is no way a Ryzen 4 core will beat an intel 4 core if it can't do it at 8 in games. The biggest market for chips is gaming. As I mentioned AMD missed the boat on that.
For PC gamers, the message is decidedly mixed. Yes, there are a few games where Ryzen performs quite well, but without the SMT tweaks there isn't a single title where Ryzen 1800X can beat the i7-7700K.
For gaming as a whole you're still better off with a Core i7-7700K, or even a Core i5-7600K. Right now, the least expensive Ryzen part, the 1700, is effectively the same price as the i7-7700K, and that's not even the CPU we recommend as the best gaming solution, particularly in terms of bang for the buck. Core i5-7600K is within a hair of the 7700K and costs $240, nearly $100 less than the 1700. It will also overclock to 4.9/5.0GHz, and until we see a lot more games benefit beyond 4-core, it's the best option.
The Ryzen 4 cores will be craptacular overclockers. You'll be able to buy a cheaper Intel and overclock it better. How do we know? Because of how big brother Ryzen has been tested.
If you're doing work that runs into CPU bottlenecks, Ryzen 7 is a clear win, sweeping all categories.
Perfect and this is really great to see. The thing is I've never had a bottleneck on an Intel CPU.
Bottom line - if you play games buy an Intel 4 core - it is cheaper and better experience.
If you wait for Ryzen 5 & 3 series and you play games you will still be able to buy a cheaper Intel and overclock it and have better experience - jury is out on this until they come but I bet that's how it will be.
Ryzen is NOT a gamer CPU. Ryzen mobo's aren't built for gamers who may want to take advantage of multi GPU set ups. I certainly wouldn't buy Ryzen for gaming. Why in all seriousness would you want to handicap yourself with this CPU - especially just to remain loyal to a brand that never delivers? (my opinion).
No, it’s not a dud—unless you’re looking to replace a 5-year-old, quad-core Intel Core i5 chip for mainstream gaming at the most popular display resolution. There, the Ryzen 7 1700 can stumble, and stumble hard.
People who preordered Ryzen 7 CPUs to replace an aging gaming PC—like the venerable Core i5-2600K and 3570K parts so many gamers still cling to, myself included—may have very well purchased a $300-plus processor that actually delivers equal or significantly worse performance in some common gaming scenarios.
IMO DX12 and Vulkan should really help AMD on gaming side of things, with it's superb multithreaded utilization. The problem is it takes years for new APIs to get baked into game engines and then percolate down to games.
Ryzen is currently performing worse clock for clock. If you have an Intel 7600k and a Ryzen chip, both clocked to 4.0GHz, the Ryzen chip will have poorer single threaded performance.
Ryzen is currently not overclocking well at all. Multiple sites are running into 4.0 GHz as the limit these cards can be OCed to. For comparison, you could clock an ancient i7 920 to 4.0 GHz. All i3, i5, and i7 chips will overclock far better than Ryzen. (The average OC for the Broadwell 6900k is 4.3 Ghz)
Gaming is still ruled by single-thread performance. With Ryzen performing worse clock-for-clock and overclocking much more poorly, single-threaded performance is still being dominated by Intel.
Intel sells CPUs that will cost over $100 less than Ryzen but outperform it in gaming - at stock clocks. It will thrash Ryzen with overclocks added. From a gaming perspective, Ryzen is losing not only performance, but price-per-performance.
The two silver linings of Ryzen are lower power consumption and a good price for multithreaded performance. These make the card look very enticing for workstations. (But I don't know many people that have workstations at home)
Right now, if you game on your PC, you should be avoiding Ryzen. You would be paying more for lower performance. The only people that should be looking at Ryzen are people who are building a workstation. This is obviously disappointing as we are all gamers here, and we all would have liked to see more out of Ryzen.
Short sighted as usual. When it comes to gaming, the GPU matters, the CPU not so much. Any of these CPUs both Intel and AMD will work find in any gaming system.
I do agree the I5 is an excellent gaming CPU, the I7 on the other hand is overpriced not a great need for the gamer. This weekend I put a couple of Ryzen systems together and am very impressed. They ran all the current games at high resolution using a 1080 with no problems. If you want to hide your head in the sand and reject anything non Intel, have at it, but I personally think the Ryzen chip is far more versatile than current Intel offerings for the price and I for one won't ignore that.
Thank you for your points. My points you quoted above and new ones below are literally from a gaming perspective. It's what I spend most of my time on PC doing (when not working) as what I think most of the people who come here do. So you're going to find my points about Ryzen from a gaming perspective.
Yes I care about my frames. I don't just play mmo's. My frames matter because my refresh rate matters. The differences on the frames quoted matter because the price matters. (Notice I said about the excuses of code properly).
At CES this year there were tons of new monitors with 100hz+ frame rates. Prices are dropping, higher resolution is becoming affordable with higher refresh rates. If your monitor can do 75hz then a Ryzen r7 is definitely not the best choice. Most i5's will do that for less money and can be overclocked really, really easy these days if someone wanted more.
The simple fact is this: If you play games either on a 4 6 or 8 core buy Intel - There is no way a Ryzen 4 core will beat an intel 4 core if it can't do it at 8 in games. The biggest market for chips is gaming. As I mentioned AMD missed the boat on that.
The problem is that you're looking at the wrong product. To be fair, the right product isn't available yet. If AMD never has a Ryzen part under $300, then yeah, it will be a stupid product for gaming. But it's hard to imagine AMD forever ceding the sub-$300 CPU market to Intel.
But what if, as rumored, you'll be able to get a Ryzen quad core for $130? You can't get an Intel quad core for $130. You talk about overclocking an Intel CPU, but the Intel quad cores below about $230 aren't overclockable.
If a Core i7-7700K for $330 fits your budget and you only care about gaming, then yeah, there's no reason to be interested in Ryzen. If your budget is $150, you can't get an Intel quad core on that price at all. Once you start talking dual cores instead, it's not at all clear that two cores will be enough if you want high frame rates. Even if your budget is $200, it's not at all clear that the lower clocked Intel quad cores will beat a Ryzen quad core.
They will not meet any projected sales with what they just put out. Its just not gonna happen. And the sad part is they couldn't touch Intel when Intel wasn't trying to fight back.
OTOH
Nvidia is fighting back and if AMD is lucky the best video card they produce will compare to a gtx 1080. By the time that happens the GTX 1080 will be selling for 500$ and there's no way AMD will sell for less then that.
You might get 2 more quarters of stock from AMD but after that its gonna tank and will probably never recover.
If Vega is nothing more than a scaled up Polaris with no architectural improvements at all, then from the specs AMD has claimed, that will probably tend to beat a GTX 1080 outright. And if it has major architectural improvements, even crushing a GTX 1080 Ti is possible.
But even if Vega is really just a warmed-over GCN with HBM2, AMD isn't going out of business anytime soon. Barring some unexpected catastrophe, they'll get enough sales from Naples and Raven Ridge to ensure that.
Ryzen is currently not overclocking well at all. Multiple sites are running into 4.0 GHz as the limit these cards can be OCed to. For comparison, you could clock an ancient i7 920 to 4.0 GHz. All i3, i5, and i7 chips will overclock far better than Ryzen. (The average OC for the Broadwell 6900k is 4.3 Ghz)
0.3 Mhz costs $500 extra apparently.
Gaming is still ruled by single-thread performance. With Ryzen performing worse clock-for-clock and overclocking much more poorly, single-threaded performance is still being dominated by Intel.
I actually haven't seen a clock-for-clock rundown on Ryzen vs whatever, do you have one you can link to? Most of the benches I'm seeing are comparing a 4.0 1700X to a 4.3 6900K, and that's where they are going blow for blow in most workstation-type applications. That would indicate that clock for clock, Ryzen is carrying at least past Broadwell in at least some applications.
Intel sells CPUs that will cost over $100 less than Ryzen but outperform it in gaming - at stock clocks.
True. If you want to buy a consumer 4-core CPU. Ryzen doesn't have a consumer 4-core out to even compete with that yet. Now ~maybe~ the 4-core will suck, but I doubt it will both suck and cost as much as the competition.
There are 2 things we know for certain about Vega. It will be over 11 tflops. It will run at least 8 gigs of HBM2. There is no magic here. It will definitely perform better than a 1080. Half a year post 1080 anyone would hope for the same. In half a year a lot happens with computer hardware. It's never been a question of if AMDs top end chip will outperform the 1080, it's always been about how much. That and you have to factor in how the cards will age. AMDs for the last 9 years have aged better than nVidia.
I am also of the camp, what were you guys expecting Ryzen 7s to do? Why are you comparing a 4ghz 8/16 chip to a 4.7 ghz 4/8 chip like its an apples to apples comparison? The benchmarks showed quite clearly it trades blows with it's intended competition the Core i7 6800k another 8/16 chip. Everything else is superfluous. Is it the best for gaming? Of course not. It plays games sufficiently enough, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It meets the minimums needed to play every game under the sun at sufficient frame rates. If your goal is to play games, then you are wasting money to get the Core i7 instead of the CPU that will meet the minimum threshold for the next several years. What matters is that the Core i7 7700k gets DESTROYED in rendering, running filters, and compressing packages. It matters because that is the intended consumer of this CPU, as it is with the Core i7 6800k. It's like you expected AMD to perform a miracle and do something Intel cannot do. Get a high clocked 8/16 core chip at 95w with 14nm process. That's just impossible and I am not sure you guys get that.
There are 2 things we know for certain about Vega. It will be over 11 tflops. It will run at least 8 gigs of HBM2. There is no magic here. It will definitely perform better than a 1080. Half a year post 1080 anyone would hope for the same. In half a year a lot happens with computer hardware. It's never been a question of if AMDs top end chip will outperform the 1080, it's always been about how much. That and you have to factor in how the cards will age. AMDs for the last 9 years have aged better than nVidia.
AMD has claimed 12.5 TFLOPS for a Radeon Instinct card based on Vega. As the professional cards tend to be clocked more conservatively than consumer cards for reasons of reliability and energy efficiency, I'd regard that as a floor but not a ceiling for the consumer Radeon RX Vega (which is a stupid name, by the way), assuming that's the top end Vega card.
Thank you for your points. My points you quoted above and new ones below are literally from a gaming perspective. It's what I spend most of my time on PC doing (when not working) as what I think most of the people who come here do. So you're going to find my points about Ryzen from a gaming perspective.
Yes I care about my frames. I don't just play mmo's. My frames matter because my refresh rate matters. The differences on the frames quoted matter because the price matters. (Notice I said about the excuses of code properly).
At CES this year there were tons of new monitors with 100hz+ frame rates. Prices are dropping, higher resolution is becoming affordable with higher refresh rates. If your monitor can do 75hz then a Ryzen r7 is definitely not the best choice. Most i5's will do that for less money and can be overclocked really, really easy these days if someone wanted more.
The simple fact is this: If you play games either on a 4 6 or 8 core buy Intel - There is no way a Ryzen 4 core will beat an intel 4 core if it can't do it at 8 in games. The biggest market for chips is gaming. As I mentioned AMD missed the boat on that.
The problem is that you're looking at the wrong product. To be fair, the right product isn't available yet. If AMD never has a Ryzen part under $300, then yeah, it will be a stupid product for gaming. But it's hard to imagine AMD forever ceding the sub-$300 CPU market to Intel.
But what if, as rumored, you'll be able to get a Ryzen quad core for $130? You can't get an Intel quad core for $130. You talk about overclocking an Intel CPU, but the Intel quad cores below about $230 aren't overclockable.
If a Core i7-7700K for $330 fits your budget and you only care about gaming, then yeah, there's no reason to be interested in Ryzen. If your budget is $150, you can't get an Intel quad core on that price at all. Once you start talking dual cores instead, it's not at all clear that two cores will be enough if you want high frame rates. Even if your budget is $200, it's not at all clear that the lower clocked Intel quad cores will beat a Ryzen quad core.
True but you falling into the trap - maybe - of also "looking at the wrong product".
If your budget is $150 as you say you can't get an Intel quad core - but you can't get a Ryzen either.
Downstream there might be. At that point however you would have to compare it to whatever Intel have at that price point. Probably won't be what there is today. It might not even be a Kaby Lake cpu.
We can speculate on what might be going forward - but that needs to involve speculating on not only AMD but Intel as well. (And strictly speaking the other cpu makers as well).
All we can do - today - is compare AMD's current offering to Intel's current offerings.
All we can do - today - is compare AMD's current offering to Intel's current offerings.
That's true. For gaming, I think the recommendation of not spending more than about $250 on a CPU, unless you just have money to burn, is still valid.
Ryzen hasn't really changed anything on the PC gaming scene, or at least not yet.
Yes, it games well enough. But so does a 6900K. The issue with both isn't that they aren't good CPUs - they are, and both will play games perfectly fine, it's that there are better choices if you are just looking for gaming that cost less.
I'm still glad to see Ryzen come along. I'm still eager to see the entire lineup flesh out. But yeah, right now, I wouldn't build a Ryzen rig for my gaming rig.
People are claiming Ryzen is a failure and AMD is dead just because it doesn't play games. I stay this on a gaming forum, yet it's still a very ridiculous claim. It's like saying a Kensworth sucks because it's 0-60 time is about 45 minutes - let's ignore the fact it's built to tow a 60,000lb trailer, not drag race a hopped up Civic.
Now my SQL server, I'm totally thinking about one....
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
There are 2 things we know for certain about Vega. It will be over 11 tflops. It will run at least 8 gigs of HBM2. There is no magic here. It will definitely perform better than a 1080. Half a year post 1080 anyone would hope for the same. In half a year a lot happens with computer hardware. It's never been a question of if AMDs top end chip will outperform the 1080, it's always been about how much. That and you have to factor in how the cards will age. AMDs for the last 9 years have aged better than nVidia.
I am also of the camp, what were you guys expecting Ryzen 7s to do? Why are you comparing a 4ghz 8/16 chip to a 4.7 ghz 4/8 chip like its an apples to apples comparison? The benchmarks showed quite clearly it trades blows with it's intended competition the Core i7 6800k another 8/16 chip. Everything else is superfluous. Is it the best for gaming? Of course not. It plays games sufficiently enough, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It meets the minimums needed to play every game under the sun at sufficient frame rates. If your goal is to play games, then you are wasting money to get the Core i7 instead of the CPU that will meet the minimum threshold for the next several years. What matters is that the Core i7 7700k gets DESTROYED in rendering, running filters, and compressing packages. It matters because that is the intended consumer of this CPU, as it is with the Core i7 6800k. It's like you expected AMD to perform a miracle and do something Intel cannot do. Get a high clocked 8/16 core chip at 95w with 14nm process. That's just impossible and I am not sure you guys get that.
So VEGA 10 (single GPU) needs to come before June, then later in 2017 VEGA 10x2 and then VEGA 20 more than 18 months from now and that has to be a paper launch with GloFo 7nm FinFET will not ready until 2019. I'm concerned with the Doom demo shown around the as the screen tears were horrendous.
AMD is like 8+ months late with a GTX 1080/1070 competitor which we now know is VEGA 10 hopefully before June. It needs to be at least 10% faster and cheaper if not its going to be another fail for them.
Got a feeling the 1080TI is going to mop up VEGA 10 with no issues at all.
We already know the VOLTA flagship card will be capable of 10 TFLOPS (FB64), 20 TFLOPS (FB32) 40 TFLOPS (FB16) equipped with 32GB HBM2 and PCI-Express 4.0 (thanks IBM) and landing in Q2 2018. This is what the VEGA refresh cards will aim to compete with.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Ryzen is currently not overclocking well at all. Multiple sites are running into 4.0 GHz as the limit these cards can be OCed to. For comparison, you could clock an ancient i7 920 to 4.0 GHz. All i3, i5, and i7 chips will overclock far better than Ryzen. (The average OC for the Broadwell 6900k is 4.3 Ghz)
0.3 Mhz costs $500 extra apparently.
Gaming is still ruled by single-thread performance. With Ryzen performing worse clock-for-clock and overclocking much more poorly, single-threaded performance is still being dominated by Intel.
I actually haven't seen a clock-for-clock rundown on Ryzen vs whatever, do you have one you can link to? Most of the benches I'm seeing are comparing a 4.0 1700X to a 4.3 6900K, and that's where they are going blow for blow in most workstation-type applications. That would indicate that clock for clock, Ryzen is carrying at least past Broadwell in at least some applications.
Intel sells CPUs that will cost over $100 less than Ryzen but outperform it in gaming - at stock clocks.
True. If you want to buy a consumer 4-core CPU. Ryzen doesn't have a consumer 4-core out to even compete with that yet. Now ~maybe~ the 4-core will suck, but I doubt it will both suck and cost as much as the competition.
* 0.3 Mhz is the average overclock - Ryzen can't even really get above 4! * As said previously I use my PC for mostly gaming so all the links previously I listed has the benches there for games. Not interested in workstations. Interested in comparing cost/perf Vs games (Intel wins btw). * Ryzen 4 core will suck (because it's big brother does) (for gaming) and you're right it'll be priced cheaper because of that
How come AMD has to be both faster ~and~ cheaper or it fails?
Why is the standard higher for them?
Brand loyalty is a weird thing I keep telling my friends to ditch their apple phones. They just won't. They keep asking what my phone can do better lol I paid 200 Euro for it granted it was bought in China when my son went there to study but seriously considering the stupid amounts they are paying for those apple phones you would think a price difference should convince them to take on androids.
Ryzen is currently not overclocking well at all. Multiple sites are running into 4.0 GHz as the limit these cards can be OCed to. For comparison, you could clock an ancient i7 920 to 4.0 GHz. All i3, i5, and i7 chips will overclock far better than Ryzen. (The average OC for the Broadwell 6900k is 4.3 Ghz)
0.3 Mhz costs $500 extra apparently.
* 0.3 Mhz is the average overclock - Ryzen can't even really get above 4!
And a 6900K costs over $1000. A 1800X is $500. Ryzen may not go much past 4.0 (which is stock boost clock for a 1800X), but the $1000 6900 is only hitting 4.3 ~on average~, and is only 3.7 stock turbo, that means that 0.3 ~that you may not even get, because it's an average~ is costing you $500, and not netting you really anything in HEDT/Workstation applications as, even when overclocked, Ryzen and a 6900K are back and forth on application benchmarks.
And since you are only interesting in gaming, why are you even bothering? These 8 cores are HEDT/Workstation products. Even a 6900K doesn't fair very well compared to a 5.0Ghz 7700K or 7600K, but you aren't over here saying Intel sucks because their 8 core can't even beat their 4 core.
Comments
Intel's 6900K 8 core only runs at 3.2/3.7 stock, is only hitting about 4.3G on average (at just shy of 90C using a AIO), so not all that far off the mark.
If your trying to compare an 8-core clock speed and overclocking to a 4-core 7700K, your kinda mixing it up.
Now, that's not a reason to buy a Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming. But it's not a reason to buy Broadwell-E, either, which is the true competitor to these chips. If you never have a use for more than four cores, then don't buy an 8-core CPU. But it could make the rumored Ryzen quad cores very interesting. If at some point in the future, you're deciding between a Ryzen quad core and a Core i5-7400 that can't go over 3.5 GHz because the 7700K is out of your budget, AMD might win that comparison outright.
If you are lucky the next 2 quarters of AMD stock might go up. But after that this company is going under.
Overclocking is fun, but honestly, I'd rather have the company eek out as much performance as they can and offer it as stock. It means the process they are using is stable enough, the clock speeds they have chosen are aggressive enough, and the technology they are using to drive clock speeds is mature enough, for them to be able to do that.
And then that clock speed is warrantied and guaranteed by the company. No need to play the silicon lottery.
GPUs have been heading that way, with very little overclocking headroom, and honestly I like it.
On a slightly different bent on this topic: In Gaming, clock speed is still king. There is some hope that a 4-core will be able to clock higher, and hence get better gaming results (although rumors right now are showing that we shouldn't expect much more than 4.0). Ryzen's 8-cores hit exactly what they needed to hit, and people are calling them dead because they don't game as well as higher-clocked 4 cores. Let AMD get their 4-cores out and let's see how it goes then - we don't have speeds or prices to make any comparison against the consumer lineup yet..
AMD doesn't need to beat a 7700K in gaming to have a winner, they just have to present a better value proposition, and when the 7700K is about a $350 processor (and even the 7600K i5 around $250), they have a good deal of room to do so.
And it turned out they were right.
I have been called a AMD hater by some on this very site when I used the term cherry picking and to be cautious by jumoing on a company created hype train that easily.
(I would say the same about Intel cpus btw, if they present benchmarks I won't take it for granted unless I see unbiased reviews come in)
Those same ppl that were hyping are now nowhere to be seen though with their "AMD trashes Intel" benchmarks lol.
Maybe they were hired, who knows.
The Ryzen is a good workstation cpu and general cpu, but underperforms in gaming compared to a Intel. It sure has a lot of issues because it is new tech.
And mrs Su was bloating about kicking Intel's ass also in gaming.
And as many ppl use the computer for gaming, and it turns out that in most countries a Intel 7700K is cheaper then a Ryzen 1700X.
So AMD hands out the ammo to the ppl shooting at them themselves.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
So long as AMD can sell 8-core Ryzen CPUs as fast as they can make them, there's no reason to release cut down versions at compelling prices unless there are serious yield problems. But once the Ryzen CPUs with fewer cores are out, we'll have a more interesting comparison for gaming.
1) at max clock speeds with runaway power consumption, you can get 20% more performance per core than the competition, or
2) at all clock speeds below 4 GHz, you can get equivalent performance to the competition while using 20% less power.
They'd both pick the latter, and if they hesitated at all, it would only be because they thought the question was so bafflingly stupid that they must have misunderstood it. The latter lets you pack more cores into a server for 25% more performance in the same power envelope. It also lets you offer either more performance or better battery life or both in a laptop. If you dominate the server and laptop markets, you win.
That's the big unknown: how much power do Zen cores use if you clock them at 2.5 GHz or 3 GHz or 3.5 GHz, with suitably reduced voltages? Ryzen doesn't try to do that, and reviews focused mostly on performance and not power consumption. The TDP may mean Zen cores do quite well, or it might just mean that AMD is less aggressive than Intel about turbo usage. But if Zen has Intel beat there, they're practically going to be printing money soon.
Now, that's a big if, and we don't know. Even if AMD is slightly behind, there's still plenty of room for them to make a profit. Raven Ridge will almost certainly have a better GPU than Kaby Lake or its successors, which can buy you a lot in laptops if your CPU is at least competitive. But AMD is not going to go bankrupt in the foreseeable future.
AMD's Vishera architecture just couldn't really compete with Intel's Core though, and even though it has a faster clock speed and played games well enough in it's own right, it often was beaten by Core CPUs that had much lower core counts and clock speeds.
OTOH
Nvidia is fighting back and if AMD is lucky the best video card they produce will compare to a gtx 1080. By the time that happens the GTX 1080 will be selling for 500$ and there's no way AMD will sell for less then that.
You might get 2 more quarters of stock from AMD but after that its gonna tank and will probably never recover.
Yes I care about my frames. I don't just play mmo's. My frames matter because my refresh rate matters.
The differences on the frames quoted matter because the price matters. (Notice I said about the excuses of code properly).
At CES this year there were tons of new monitors with 100hz+ frame rates. Prices are dropping, higher resolution is becoming affordable with higher refresh rates. If your monitor can do 75hz then a Ryzen r7 is definitely not the best choice. Most i5's will do that for less money and can be overclocked really, really easy these days if someone wanted more.
The simple fact is this:
If you play games either on a 4 6 or 8 core buy Intel - There is no way a Ryzen 4 core will beat an intel 4 core if it can't do it at 8 in games. The biggest market for chips is gaming. As I mentioned AMD missed the boat on that.
The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming performance
The Ryzen 4 cores will be craptacular overclockers. You'll be able to buy a cheaper Intel and overclock it better. How do we know? Because of how big brother Ryzen has been tested.
Perfect and this is really great to see. The thing is I've never had a bottleneck on an Intel CPU.
Bottom line - if you play games buy an Intel 4 core - it is cheaper and better experience.
If you wait for Ryzen 5 & 3 series and you play games you will still be able to buy a cheaper Intel and overclock it and have better experience - jury is out on this until they come but I bet that's how it will be.
Ryzen is NOT a gamer CPU. Ryzen mobo's aren't built for gamers who may want to take advantage of multi GPU set ups. I certainly wouldn't buy Ryzen for gaming. Why in all seriousness would you want to handicap yourself with this CPU - especially just to remain loyal to a brand that never delivers? (my opinion).
For Gamers:
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs. a 5-year-old gaming PC, or why you should never preorder
IMO DX12 and Vulkan should really help AMD on gaming side of things, with it's superb multithreaded utilization. The problem is it takes years for new APIs to get baked into game engines and then percolate down to games.
Ryzen is currently performing worse clock for clock. If you have an Intel 7600k and a Ryzen chip, both clocked to 4.0GHz, the Ryzen chip will have poorer single threaded performance.
Ryzen is currently not overclocking well at all. Multiple sites are running into 4.0 GHz as the limit these cards can be OCed to. For comparison, you could clock an ancient i7 920 to 4.0 GHz. All i3, i5, and i7 chips will overclock far better than Ryzen. (The average OC for the Broadwell 6900k is 4.3 Ghz)
Gaming is still ruled by single-thread performance. With Ryzen performing worse clock-for-clock and overclocking much more poorly, single-threaded performance is still being dominated by Intel.
Intel sells CPUs that will cost over $100 less than Ryzen but outperform it in gaming - at stock clocks. It will thrash Ryzen with overclocks added. From a gaming perspective, Ryzen is losing not only performance, but price-per-performance.
The two silver linings of Ryzen are lower power consumption and a good price for multithreaded performance. These make the card look very enticing for workstations. (But I don't know many people that have workstations at home)
Right now, if you game on your PC, you should be avoiding Ryzen. You would be paying more for lower performance. The only people that should be looking at Ryzen are people who are building a workstation. This is obviously disappointing as we are all gamers here, and we all would have liked to see more out of Ryzen.
I'm really happy AMD was able to pull this out the way it is. It still won't sway me over from Intel for the time being as I'm running a 6700k at 4.6ghz and with DX12/Vulkan on the way (and reducing CPU overhead) I don't foresee that i'll need a new CPU for probably 5+ years (considering my 2600k @ 4.3 ghz was doing just fine with a 980ti for that same period of time).
That being said, as quiz said, for people in the market for a new CPU. The 4/6 core parts should be at a very attractive price point. And with DX12/Vulkan pulling some emphasis in gaming away from CPU then they should be even more relevant. Honestly I really believe the days are gone where you need a top end Intel part to properly power a top end GPU, ESPECIALLY if DX12/Vulkan latch on properly like they should.
I'm just glad Intel is finally getting some actual competition in the CPU arena as frankly AMD has been severely lacking on that front for a while now.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I do agree the I5 is an excellent gaming CPU, the I7 on the other hand is overpriced not a great need for the gamer. This weekend I put a couple of Ryzen systems together and am very impressed. They ran all the current games at high resolution using a 1080 with no problems. If you want to hide your head in the sand and reject anything non Intel, have at it, but I personally think the Ryzen chip is far more versatile than current Intel offerings for the price and I for one won't ignore that.
But what if, as rumored, you'll be able to get a Ryzen quad core for $130? You can't get an Intel quad core for $130. You talk about overclocking an Intel CPU, but the Intel quad cores below about $230 aren't overclockable.
If a Core i7-7700K for $330 fits your budget and you only care about gaming, then yeah, there's no reason to be interested in Ryzen. If your budget is $150, you can't get an Intel quad core on that price at all. Once you start talking dual cores instead, it's not at all clear that two cores will be enough if you want high frame rates. Even if your budget is $200, it's not at all clear that the lower clocked Intel quad cores will beat a Ryzen quad core.
But even if Vega is really just a warmed-over GCN with HBM2, AMD isn't going out of business anytime soon. Barring some unexpected catastrophe, they'll get enough sales from Naples and Raven Ridge to ensure that.
I am also of the camp, what were you guys expecting Ryzen 7s to do? Why are you comparing a 4ghz 8/16 chip to a 4.7 ghz 4/8 chip like its an apples to apples comparison? The benchmarks showed quite clearly it trades blows with it's intended competition the Core i7 6800k another 8/16 chip. Everything else is superfluous. Is it the best for gaming? Of course not. It plays games sufficiently enough, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It meets the minimums needed to play every game under the sun at sufficient frame rates. If your goal is to play games, then you are wasting money to get the Core i7 instead of the CPU that will meet the minimum threshold for the next several years. What matters is that the Core i7 7700k gets DESTROYED in rendering, running filters, and compressing packages. It matters because that is the intended consumer of this CPU, as it is with the Core i7 6800k.
It's like you expected AMD to perform a miracle and do something Intel cannot do. Get a high clocked 8/16 core chip at 95w with 14nm process. That's just impossible and I am not sure you guys get that.
If your budget is $150 as you say you can't get an Intel quad core - but you can't get a Ryzen either.
Downstream there might be. At that point however you would have to compare it to whatever Intel have at that price point. Probably won't be what there is today. It might not even be a Kaby Lake cpu.
We can speculate on what might be going forward - but that needs to involve speculating on not only AMD but Intel as well. (And strictly speaking the other cpu makers as well).
All we can do - today - is compare AMD's current offering to Intel's current offerings.
That's true. For gaming, I think the recommendation of not spending more than about $250 on a CPU, unless you just have money to burn, is still valid.
Ryzen hasn't really changed anything on the PC gaming scene, or at least not yet.
Yes, it games well enough. But so does a 6900K. The issue with both isn't that they aren't good CPUs - they are, and both will play games perfectly fine, it's that there are better choices if you are just looking for gaming that cost less.
I'm still glad to see Ryzen come along. I'm still eager to see the entire lineup flesh out. But yeah, right now, I wouldn't build a Ryzen rig for my gaming rig.
People are claiming Ryzen is a failure and AMD is dead just because it doesn't play games. I stay this on a gaming forum, yet it's still a very ridiculous claim. It's like saying a Kensworth sucks because it's 0-60 time is about 45 minutes - let's ignore the fact it's built to tow a 60,000lb trailer, not drag race a hopped up Civic.
Now my SQL server, I'm totally thinking about one....
* As said previously I use my PC for mostly gaming so all the links previously I listed has the benches there for games. Not interested in workstations. Interested in comparing cost/perf Vs games (Intel wins btw).
* Ryzen 4 core will suck (because it's big brother does) (for gaming) and you're right it'll be priced cheaper because of that
Why is the standard higher for them?
And since you are only interesting in gaming, why are you even bothering? These 8 cores are HEDT/Workstation products. Even a 6900K doesn't fair very well compared to a 5.0Ghz 7700K or 7600K, but you aren't over here saying Intel sucks because their 8 core can't even beat their 4 core.