Subject: Processors | March 17, 2017 - 03:48 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: amd, Intel, ryzen, sanity check
Ars Technica asks the question that many reasonable people are also pondering, "Intel still beats Ryzen at games, but how much does it matter?". We here at PCPer have seen the same sorts of responses which Ars has, there is a group of people who had the expectation that Ryzen would miraculously beat any and all Intel chips at every possible task. More experienced heads were hoping for about what we received, a chip which can challenge Broadwell, offering performance which improved greatly on their previous architecture. The launch has revealed some growing pains with AMD's new baby but not anything which makes Ryzen bad.
Indeed, with more DX12 or Vulkan games arriving we should see AMD's performance improve, especially if programmers start to take more effective advantage of high core counts. Head over to read the article, unless you feel that is not a requirement to comment on this topic.
"In spite of this, reading the various reviews around the Web—and comment threads, tweets, and reddit posts—one gets the feeling that many were hoping or expecting Ryzen to somehow beat Intel across the board, and there's a prevailing narrative that Ryzen is in some sense a bad gaming chip. But this argument is often paired with the claim that some kind of non-specific "optimization" is going to salvage the processor's performance, that AMD fans just need to keep the faith for a few months, and that soon Ryzen's full power will be revealed."
Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, and 1700 Processor Review @ Neoseeker
- AMD's Ryzen 5 Processors; A Preview @ Hardware Canucks
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 GHz @ techPowerUp
- AMD Ryzen 7 1700 @ Kitguru