A reasonable response about Ryzen, please do not check your sanity at the door

Subject: Processors | March 17, 2017 - 03:48 PM |
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.

View Full Size

"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:

Processors

 

 

 

 

Source: Ars Technica

March 17, 2017 | 04:03 PM - Posted by ipkh (not verified)

I never expected Ryzen to beat intel single threaded performance. The large improvements seem large only because of how far behind AMD was.

As for gaming, the results were pretty good for AMD with better consistency than the Intel platform for fps. If I had the money, I'd go in for a 1700 as that's a great chip for compute tasks and solid gaming.

March 17, 2017 | 04:12 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Thank you for that pleasant response, we appreciate it greatly.  I'm still trying to decide if I like the 1700 or 1700X better.

March 17, 2017 | 05:42 PM - Posted by Kronus (not verified)

Just a heads up don't waste time looking at the rest of the comments is nothing but extreme one sided arguments.

I was considering the 1700 for a build looking at the seemingly easy overclocking to 4.0ghz. Not sure of the downside or how long it can stay stable but it seems like the right option in the right versions.

I figure it's one of those​ gotta wait and see how it performs 5 months down the line. Mainly I'm interested in where the sweet spot is for ram, getting something higher than 3200mhz stable and costs coming down because that lovely CAD we share.

At the same time I wonder if I should just wait for the the next version of Ryzen (Ryzen+? I don't know what the current roadmap is) it should be am4 and boards released at that time could be more stable/have newer features/better Iommi support hopefully.

I swear building computers is all about the patience game, reassuring for deals/details.

Still really curious to see what the r5 products bring to the table in gaming.

March 17, 2017 | 07:28 PM - Posted by Sebastian Peak

I favor the R7 1700 from the current offering, but am conflicted since R5 1600/1600X CPUs are around the corner, and much less expensive (at $219/$249) for a CPU still offering 6 cores/12 threads.

March 18, 2017 | 05:18 AM - Posted by Dustin (not verified)

I have the Ryzen 1700 and I'm happy with it.
If you are looking at the Ryzen 7 series, it's the winner IMO

http://valid.x86.fr/ush4wa

March 18, 2017 | 07:26 AM - Posted by John H (not verified)

1600X is a steal for a multipurpose gaming and other use rig. It guarantees the higher clocks for Ryzen, a little less heat to deal with for OC, but still plenty of threads for games and productivity.

That said HardOCPs VR benchmarks have me holding off on Zen for now as I want something faster than my 2600k for VR gaming. I might pick up one for my home server though.

I'm also curious what is holding Zen back from OCs beyond 4.1-4.2 GHz on water cooling.

March 17, 2017 | 04:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

from what I've seen, those who claimed bad are, those not so intelligent, Intel fanboys and paid PR.

March 21, 2017 | 09:47 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Evidence that those claimed bad are paid PR or false flag Intel fanboys? From what I have seen its a lot of rabid AMD fans who can't come to grips with objective criticism. (wow, products have both strengths AND weaknesses? who would've though?!)

March 17, 2017 | 04:15 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I dont play at 1080p anymore so from where I sit AMD matches Intel. 1440p 144hz IPS.

March 17, 2017 | 05:14 PM - Posted by PeterG (not verified)

The 1080p performance "issue" will be the same at 1440p, when chasing high fps in combinatin with a high refresh rate monitor.

When you tweak/lower graphical settings to optain 100+ fps, pretty much all games will start being bottlenecked by CPU instead of GPU.

March 18, 2017 | 06:32 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Not consistent with benching on either the AMD or Intel side... Maybe check the facts? 1440p puts more strain on the GPU so the bottleneck shifts there instead. Issue goes away on both sides

March 21, 2017 | 09:50 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If there is no bottleneck at the GPU the issue will resurface. You're correct that in most usage cases it will be irrelevant, but its still a fundamental issue with the chip that won't go away. Considering people often like to sit on a CPU platform for a while, I still view this as a problem. As GPU's improve, the issue will start to have more relevance.

March 18, 2017 | 07:28 AM - Posted by John H (not verified)

There's already a gap there of 10-15% at 1440p and high refresh using 1080ti favoring 7700k.

March 17, 2017 | 04:23 PM - Posted by Edkiefer (not verified)

The problem though is the same for Intel new chips, anyone with a 2xxx/3xxx and above there no real reason to upgrade unless you need production type workloads.

But I guess?, there are many AMD fans that still had old systems, so 1700 would be way to go if you didn't like Intel.
Still this platform seems beta at best.

March 17, 2017 | 04:35 PM - Posted by nanoflower (not verified)

Really, for people with old systems that aren't into content creation the R5 line looks to be the best option. It gives you all the gaming performance you need with at least 8 threads (I7 level) and at a better price than the I7 and R7 lines.

I think as AMD fleshes out the Ryzen product line it will fill less like a 'beta platform' other than the normal sort of issues that you might run into with a brand new processor/MB line.

March 17, 2017 | 04:44 PM - Posted by Edkiefer (not verified)

but in the R5 line the CCX will be 2+2 for 4 cores so the BW between cores will be worse than R7 which at least has 4 cores in each.
lets see how R7 performs, then we can say better.

For me, it's just not worth the jump IMO.

March 17, 2017 | 08:17 PM - Posted by Mike S. (not verified)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I generally don't run the latest and most graphics-intensive games. My current AMD processor is six years old. So while I could do just fine with an R5 1400, I may just get an R7 1700 or better. It's an extra $200 or more, but it may make the difference between purchasing my next processor after that in 2024 or 2025 instead of 2022.

On the other hand, the most resource-intensive game I play currently is Grey Goo. Since my current six year old AMD CPU plus an RX-480 can handle it fine, I might just wait until 2018 or 2019 to upgrade.

March 18, 2017 | 07:16 PM - Posted by Coupe

That may have been true a few years ago, but a 10% increase every year adds up.

March 17, 2017 | 04:28 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If a person takes illegal drugs or smokes, then the person is addicted to it.

Gaming people are similar to gambling people. They are addicted to it.

Most sane people do not play games with their computers. Is AMD Ryzen is a power users dream CPU. Yes, it is.

Gamers are a minority among computer users. But they spent a lot of money on their addiction. All addicts are going to self-destruct themselves in the long run.

From Google search:

"What is the percentage of violent video games?
Actually, violent video games are a problem, especially for younger children, and unfortunately, violence in games is more prevalent than parents may think. A 2011 study found 71 percent of video games contained at least some mild violence, while 25 percent included intense violence, blood and gore.Apr 30, 2013"

Anyway computer gamers are very vocal people who have strong opinions.

March 17, 2017 | 06:55 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If you wanna go down this rabbit hole - Violent games mean nothing. Growing up, I had the same psyche profile as the Columbine shooters, but you don't see me capping people. Violent games are my escape so I DONT rage at people.
Remember Looney toons? They taught an entire generation that dropping 5T anvils on people's heads was cool but you don't see anyone doing it.
My kids watch cartoons way worse than the games I grew up on & they're fine.

As for the actual article & hardware, I think it's great. Gaming performance is like saying 120fps isn't 144fps so it must be bad.
Either is a great platform. I just hope AMD can keep Pace with Intel going forward. Even if they stay 5-10% behind each gen, there will be a market for that and it will force Intel to keep pushing ahead.

March 17, 2017 | 07:01 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

So what you're saying is that 125 million active steam users are not sane?

Troll much or is this the first time?

First, you claim that gamers are a minority of computer users, but then claim that Ryzen is a power users dream. Do you actually think power users outnumber gamers? If you do, you're delusional. Both are in a minority of computer users. Most people use their PCs for storing pictures, surfing the web, checking emails, and watching Netflix. Again, there are 125 MILLION active steam users. There are not 125 million "power users" who require the kind of power that any modern multicore CPU offers.

By the way, the APA (American Psychological Association) showed that the only link to Video Game violence and actual violence stems from an accumulation of high risk factors in the life of the study subjects. If you're a crappy, violent parent and your kid plays violent video games, then they're at a higher risk factor for violence than a child who plays violent video games but has more involved, active, parents.

March 17, 2017 | 07:20 PM - Posted by BranC (not verified)

You sir live in a different reality then the rest of us. Either that or you are trolling us. I'm not entirely sure which one it is. Anyway my response is the same either way:

Partaking of a particular pastime or substance does not make you an addict. I know plenty of people who partake of the devils lettuce on the weekends or at parties, and they definitely are not addicts. The same goes for the majority of gamers I know.

Secondly, there has been study after study regarding the impact of violent media (movies, comics, games, music, and everything in between) and most of the credible ones come to the same or similar conclusion. Which is that the child's environmental factors play a far bigger role in how violent media impacts them.

Lastly parents not being aware of what their children are playing/doing is on them. Don't buy your eight year old M rated games and then blame the game when your kid acts up or you notice it has content in it that isn't appropriate for them. It's called being a responsible and involved parent.

Rant comment over.

March 17, 2017 | 07:35 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That's a load of BS. Quick google search will yield a contradictory result from what you're saying. Violent games have no impact on a person.

Now, if you're talking about people that have some sort of mental instability, that's a whole 'nother beast. In that case violent video games aren't the factor. It's their mental instability.

I will agree about how some people do have an addiction to gaming. Addictions of any kind is unhealthy when satisfying their addiction is all that matter.s

March 17, 2017 | 08:15 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"Violence" permeates ALL aspects of human culture, especially entertainment, in ALL its mediums. It's ubiquity (violence) leads to only one conclusion.

Welcome to the Human Race.

March 17, 2017 | 04:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

For gaming the issue is that in January 2011 the i5 2500K came out and it could overclock to 4.2Ghz.

Since that date, there hasn't really been any true reason to upgrade the cpu in a gaming computer except for some motherboard bells and whistles.

That's over six years ago. AMD fanboys built up the hype train and then reality hit that we are still only living in a max 4 thread world and our Ghz aren't going anywhere.

NOW AMD IS OFFICIALLY SAYING JUST WAIT

That's what we've been doing for 6 years. Intel is just sitting there waiting for some competition while holding prices steady

March 17, 2017 | 04:44 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

THIS GUY GETS IT.

#FUCKPOORPEOPLE #PEASANTSSUCK #AMDSUCKSCOCKS

March 17, 2017 | 05:38 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ryzen is here and you are (#゚Д゚)

you are always spoiling for a ლ(`ー´ლ)

and you now are just ε=ε=ε=┌(;*´Д`)ノ around

Looking for a ლ(`ー´ლ)

because you where Σ(゜д゜;) and (((( ;゚Д゚))) that

Ryzen's performance has made folks (^○^) (*^▽^*) (✿◠‿◠)

and now you are (≧ロ≦) loudly and expressing exterme (╬ ಠ益ಠ)

because you where so Σ(゜д゜;) and (((( ;゚Д゚))) that

Ryzen's performance was so \(◎o◎)/

and now you are really ヽ(o`皿′o)ノ and (≧ロ≦) loudly

and spoiling for a ლ(`ー´ლ)

March 17, 2017 | 04:43 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

FUCK AMD ANYTHING. TOTAL GARBAGE. Nothing but headaches, hassles, 1/6 AM4 mobo's we have been selling/using have come back, tons and tons of calls/emails about issue after issue. Nothing new here, nothing at all new from AMD. They cut corners, they can't afford decent engineers (Where it really counts ofc), their partners do not get the support they need, they continue to make cheap shit that works sometimes, maybe, if you're lucky. FUCK I HATE POOR PEOPLE.

March 17, 2017 | 05:00 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Guys, I found the prepubescent teen who's always screaming in your ear on Xbox live.

March 17, 2017 | 05:50 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yes all 650 pounds of prepubescent teen with zits as big as Kilauea, just oozing puss! There is even a dead possum and some unfortunate dead raccoons stuck in those undulating fat folds because bathing and any hygiene is not in little Jabba’s vocabulary!

And look at the caked on residue of thousands of bags of Cheetos residue, mixed with chicken fat, body fat, and puss ooze!

March 17, 2017 | 05:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I guess if you are still working and you act irrational, then you are poor and YOU F@CKING HATE YOURSELF..

Maybe you will get rich now that you don't have to pay much for your Intel chips.. since they are going down in price thanks to AMD..

March 17, 2017 | 05:16 PM - Posted by PeterG (not verified)

I'm considering the 1600X, but might end up waiting for Skylake-X or even skipping them both and go Ryzen refresh or Cannonlake in 2018/2019.

March 17, 2017 | 05:52 PM - Posted by nwgat.ninja (not verified)

i expected it to be like it is, but the gaming benchmarks surprised me

March 17, 2017 | 06:36 PM - Posted by Mr.Book (not verified)

Based on the response I've seen from the buying public on Ryzen, AMD was in a loose/loose situation with this release.

Ryzen does not beat Intel's CPU's in all categories, but costs half the price, people bitch.

IF, Ryzen were to beat Intel's processor at all/most categories, but cost x1.25 more, people would bitch about it's price and scold AMD for no longer being a cost-effective alternative.

I'm going to regret this, but the question needs to be asked. Those upset by Ryzen's performance, what type of CPU were you hoping to see and at what price point.

March 17, 2017 | 06:37 PM - Posted by Mr.Book (not verified)

Clarification:

By x1.25 more than a competing INTEL product.

March 17, 2017 | 08:31 PM - Posted by Mike S. (not verified)

I am not counting the 220 watt FX-9470 and FX-9590, because the power draw made them a bit bizarre outliers. Outside those, AMD flagship processors haven't been above $200 for a long time.

So while I'm completely happy with the performance, I did expect much lower prices. I really expected $200-$350 for the R7s.

But Newegg and Amazon had problems meeting demand for the first round of R7s, so clearly AMD priced it appropriately. And while that means I'll eventually spend more than I planned for an R7, it gives AMD more resources to invest in Ryzen and the Ryzen successor.

It's still a win for everyone except the people hoping to see single-threaded performance jump up to or past Kaby Lake levels. I would have loved that, but since Intel can spend more money on stationary than AMD puts into R&D I would not expect it.

March 18, 2017 | 05:09 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Considering how much Intel charges for an 8 core/16 thread processor, I think the prices on Ryzen processors are very reasonable. In fact, for people who can put those cores to good use, it is ridiculously cheap. I use machines with 24 cores at work which are actually 2 socket systems with 2 12 core Xeons with HT off. HT hurts performance of the software we use; too much cache thrashing, I guesss. It is simply amazing how fast it is with software that can take advantage of all of the cores though. With 24 cores, one core is only 4.17% of the available processing power. With an 8 core machine, one core is only 12.5% of the available power and with 16 it is 6.25%.

Trying to depend on single thread performance is just ridiculous. If you push single thread performance 20% higher (hard to do these days), you would be up to a massive 7.5% of the performance of the original 16 core (things don't scale linearly, but it is useful to think about the proportions). If you could even get 50% utilization by using multiple threads that would be huge compared to 6.25% or 7.5%. For games, multi-threading mostly doesn't need to be that good. It just has to be good enough to shift the bottleneck to the GPU.

I guess we aren't quite there yet for 1080p but anyone developing for the consoles pretty much needs to do it unless they are making a 2D side scroller or some other less demanding game. They have 8 low power cores. I have some suspicion that the first mobile AMD APUs may be similar to the consoles with 8 low power cores. I think they will still be derived from Zen, but without SMT and with smaller caches. They could then sell 4, 6, and 8 core variants. Developers really should be targeting 8 threads in the high performance gaming segment and probably 4 threads for exerything else. 4 cores should be the minimum except for very low power devices.

March 17, 2017 | 07:09 PM - Posted by JohnGR

I wouldn't say that many had the expectation for Ryzen to beat every Intel model at every task. Let me remind that most people where considering Haswell performance wishful thinking.

What we do see these days is Intel fans using 4-5 models of Intel processors in their efforts to make Ryzen chips look bad.
Ryzen is worst in games compared to 7700K
Has less cores compared to 6950X
Less PCIe lanes compared to 6900K
Is more expensive compared to a 7600K
Has lower frequency compared to 7350K
Higher price compared to G4650
and oh, there is a benchmark where it loses to even 3770K.

In the end AMD is giving to the market what Intel fans where waiting for years. 8 threads for the price of 4 and 16 threads for the price of 8.

We have competition again guys. Enjoy it. Don't hate it.

March 17, 2017 | 07:33 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If you get the Ryzen 7 1700, 8 core 16 threads, for $10 less in price as the Intel ->Reduced Priced<- 4 core 8 thread 7700K. And the Ryzen 1700 is the real overclocker's dream that can be clocked higher to perform like the 1800X!

Intel's entire "K" series line of SKUs are just a marking scheme to get more money for that "K" branding. The real goal of overclocking is getting a lower cost SKU and getting it to perform like a more costly SKU via overclocking!

Who wants any "K" type branding where CPU are unlocked at more cost than others that are artifically locked when all of AMDs Ryzen SKUs are unlocked with no special branding or markup required!

Get the 1700 for less and overclock it to get that extra value against the 1800X for a 1700 SKU that is $10 dollars less than a 4 core 8 thread 7700K, and enjoy the all around value that is the Ryzen 7 1700!

March 17, 2017 | 08:32 PM - Posted by JohnGR

Ryzen is as much an overclocker's dream as Fury X was. I mean, it's far from an overclocker's dream. Yes, a 20% overclock on the 1700 is pretty nice, but nothing we haven't seen in the past or from Intel.
Samsung's 14nm was not meant for desktop processors running over 4.0GHz, so probably that's where every model will have a ceiling. I mean for casual overclocking, not overclocking with LN2 and stuff, or even custom watercooling. But even that 4.0GHz is more than enough considering the number of cores/threads and Ryzen's IPC.

And I do agree about Intel's unlocked processors. The last good product for overclocking from Intel was the unlocked Pentium. At the time it came out it was cheap, highly overclockable and also good enough. Today Intel is giving 7350K as the cheaper unlocked model. A real joke. Already at 4.2GHz and also at a price close to a i5.

March 17, 2017 | 09:16 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"Samsung's 14nm was not meant for desktop processors running over 4.0GHz"

Really did Samsung or GF hear YOU, apparently not! And Samsung, GF are maybe tweaking things for AMD as that 14nm process matures. But no process makes it higher than 4.0 GHz at that early on in the game for a realtively new process. Intel has the most mature/tweaked 14nm process and GF's Samsung Process will mature also. AMD's first Zen design had more to do with not getting above that 4.0 by much also, but AMD will improve things with new steppings and also the Ryzen 2 micro-arch is on the way.

"Ryzen is as much an overclocker's dream"

I did not say Ryzen, I said the Ryzen 1700 is the overclocker's dream the 1800x is at its limit for clock speeds as it should be! So no overclocking needed there.

The entire line of Intel "K" series SKUs are just an elaborate ruse to give an intentionally engineered "Overclock' in that name of the "K" brand to charge a price premium to the bumpkins that fall for that “K” branding! So more of an marketing engineered ego boost for the Bumpkin Braggarts to look good to themselves at a cost to the foolish Braggarts’ wallets!

The 1800x is a ripoff if it has any extra relative overclocking headroom and the 1800x does not appear to be a ripoff because it’s at about as good as it gets for clock speeds on that $500 dollar Ryzen SKU! The 1700 at that savings is the golden SKU to achieve that maximum of savings with its real overclocking headroom to make that 1800X like performance metrics on the 1700 at a great savings to the real overclockers' wallets!

Real overcloking is more about the wallet and a little less about the top clock speeds! So mix that price of the 1700 and the higher relative OC clock speeds to be had, and Not the top end clock speeds, but just enough extra clock speed to make that value justify the overclock on the 1700 SKU!

March 21, 2017 | 09:59 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

So blinded by your idiotic fanboyism that you have completely missed that the poster you're responding to is looking favorably at AMD chips. AMD's chips do represent a good value, but I'd hardly call them an overclocker's dream. If every single chip can just about hit 4.0-4.1ghz and no more, that is like the antithesis of an overclocker's dream because there is no challenge to squeeze more out. Thats it, game over.

And really, "Bumpkin Braggarts"? Ah, I see now. You're one of those people who needs to turn everything into an idiotic catch phrase so you can chant it at a rally. Why don't you keep it to the e-mail chains where you send your grandkids breitbart articles and reminisce about the good old days?

March 17, 2017 | 07:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I said the i5 2500K came out in January 2011. It's still $200. I was dumb like all of you people and waited and then ended up spending $230 on a i7 3770K which isnt' any faster. I wasted money because i was dumb thinking i would need 8 threads in the future because of the next gen consoles.
I was dumb. I wasted my money.

Ryzen comes out the i5 is still $200 and the Ryzen is more expensive.

Where is this magical price drop you guys think happened since 2011? Ryzen hasn't done anything to lower prices yet or improving gaming.

AMD response... just Wait... give us money now and Wait.

How dumb is that...

March 17, 2017 | 08:42 PM - Posted by Mike S. (not verified)

@Anonymous,
The i7 7700k was $400 at Christmas, and is now hitting $330. The i5 7600k was $250 and was just last week on sale at some places for $215. Isn't that what you want?

Ryzen just launched. You didn't expect AMD to drop the prices in the first month, did you? If they did that, it would only anger the first wave of buyers. I bet the R7 prices will come down, but not until July or later. The last thing AMD wants to do is convince potential buyers that they should avoid new models because prices will drop quickly.

March 17, 2017 | 09:02 PM - Posted by JohnGR

Is there any logic in your post? You compare a 4 core processor with a 16 threads processor and cry foul because the 16 threads processor is more expensive? Really?

Maybe Intel should cancel the HEDT platform and all the Xeon line because YOU think that they are not offering YOU anything more in games compared to 2500K or the 3770K. Right? They are also more expensive, right?

I really don't understand why you cry foul. What. Where you expecting AMD to start selling a 16 threads monster at $150 to force Intel to drop 7700K at $200 so you can buy a 7700K at that price? In that case, yes and I am sorry, but you are absolutely DUMB.

You know something? There is a difference between what you really need and what you think you need. You already have gained some experience about that. Instead of crying foul try to not be dumb in the future. And not to blame others for your bad choices.

I still have a 6 core Thuban 1055T that plays nicely at 3.5GHz with UNDERvoltage. I never felt the ***need*** to see 4.0GHz on my CPU-z or 8 threads on the task manager. Never felt the ***need*** to throw away 150 euros for an FX 8320. I already had the board and the memory. I could do the change. But I knew what I REALLY needed. Know what YOU NEED. If you keep finding excuses to buy something that you don't really need, it's not somebody else foul.

And come on. There are 8 Jaguar cores in consoles at 1.6GHz. Not 8 Kaby Lake cores at 4GHz. The CPU performance in consoles is low/mid range at best. Of course a 2500K will be more than enough to match that.

March 18, 2017 | 09:57 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The logic is you forget that we actually used to see performance increases with our cpus. We should still expect the price to reflect the performance gained. What if Gpus folllowed this same curve?
What if apple didn't come out with the iPhone, would you still be buying your windows phone every 2 years? I though u were he #1 fanboy that told us to wait for ryzen.

You think intel hasn't been bashed with every CPU release for the last few releases? They even did a tick tick tock .

U hyped it up this dud now live with the results.

Console master race will set u free

March 19, 2017 | 06:37 AM - Posted by JohnGR

Oh, my. Here is one more guy who looks at my avatar and ignores what I write. I hyped Ryzen? Again coming to easy conclusions based on my avatar? I never hyped Ryzen. I was just hoping, as most people, Ryzen to be good enough to bring back competition. And it is better compared to what I hoped, in most tasks with the exception of games.

Things have changed this decade, compared to the last decade. 10 years ago we where desperate for extra performance and companies could offer that extra performance. Now we have so strong systems, that we don't even bother doing any serious overclocking. The market is slowing down, technology is hitting walls, so things move slower. From Tick-Tock, to Tick-Tock-Tock-Tock...

And please, Ryzen delivered. Intel fanboys, AMD fanboys, no one's fanboy, this is good news. And stop blaming others for your choices. What are you? 10 years old? Grow up.

March 18, 2017 | 07:31 AM - Posted by John H (not verified)

Check out digitalfoundries videos. 3770k is noticeably faster than 2500k on modern games as it is much better at stabilizing minimum frame rates.

March 17, 2017 | 09:45 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I'm happy where Amd landed to be honest. People were really stretching it if they thought Amd would beat Intel clock for clock. What people seem to be forgetting is that Intel now has competition. Competition is good for consumers in the end. Faster innovation and lower prices are usually a net positive for consumers in the end.

Heck, I already predict everyone being in an uproar if Amd Rx Vega would not beat a 1080ti. They don't have to. They just need to win the bang for the buck fight. Nvidia does not have to sell the 1080ti for $699. They can charge higher for it and it would still sell since it is technically a niche product.

People just boggle me with the fanboyism. At the end, its a company. A company main goal is making money. Money off consumers. I vote with my wallet. Whoever can give me the best bang for the buck for what I need at the time gets my dollars.

March 17, 2017 | 11:18 PM - Posted by btdog

There may be a small faction that felt Ryzen would (or had to) beat Intel across the board. But I believe most people were like me - I wanted (I prayed) that Ryzen would be competitive: not BEAT Intel but be within striking distance and maybe claim a victory or two.

So when the production results were provided, I was very excited - it was competitive, trading blows with 69XX series and looked like a winner. For professionals and people that do tasks requiring high core counts, YES, Ryzen is your choice.

But I believe everyone could agree that when it came to gaming performance, I could literally hear the record screech. You could see it in the articles, you could hear it in the voices: Ryzen really took a hit in gaming and the reason wasn't very clear. Worse, the answer/response AMD provided wasn't convincing.

And of all the benchmarks to come up short (way short), gaming was the worst. For gamers and people like me, Ryzen didn't appear to be the easy answer, especially when you read on PCWorld that the 1800X lost to an i5 3570K in gaming benchmarks (granted, the i5 was OC'd but Ryzen still came up short). The gaming benchmarks really took a lot of wind out of the Ryzen sails.

Part of the problem is the testing itself. To demonstrate the CPUs performance, the settings were skewed to eliminate the GPU as much as possible. This exacerbated the differences and made Ryzen look really bad - much worse than people will experience in real world scenarios. MOST gamers will not see the same results. In fact, for most gamers, the variance in FPS will be much, much smaller, and in the most demanding situations (4K, high resolution), the variance will disappear.

So for me, when asked if I'm going to upgrade to Ryzen, I have to make an honest assessment and respond with, "Why?" A new build, be it Intel or AMD, will give me the same bells & whistles. The area where I would benefit most is gaming and Intel wins that, hands down. If I'm going to plunk down $500 (even $350) for a CPU, why would I go Ryzen over Kaby Lake? This doesn't make me an Intel fanboy (I'm far from it), but it is a reasonable response regarding Ryzen.

Personally, I'm in no hurry and the 6/12 CPU interests me more than the 8/16, especially if the price is where rumors have it. Also, I have another computer that could use an upgrade so Ryzen is still an option. Just don't paint me as being unreasonable because I was disappointed in the gaming results.

March 18, 2017 | 01:52 AM - Posted by Kung-Fu (not verified)

Gen 1 of anything ALWAYS has issues. It's awesome AMD came out swinging some mean left hooks, but Gen 2 and beyond is what people should really be looking forward to.

March 18, 2017 | 04:39 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I'm just worried that AMD being short on ipc and clockspeed will make it easy for intel to get on top again. On the other hand, tdp looks good so maybe AMD can do even better in mobile.

Overall I did hope they could come even closer to intel's top of the line but time will tell...

March 18, 2017 | 05:30 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Single threaded code mostly can't really compete with multi-threaded code. There are algorithms where there is just no way to multi thread it, or it is very difficult, but that is unlikely to be the case for games. On an 8 core processor, a single core is only 12.5% of the available processing power. Pushing that 12.5% a little higher is not going to compete with multi-threading.

When AMD came out with bulldozer, we where still stuck on DX11 or earlier. AMD had to develop mantle themselves to push the industry forward. Intel had no reason to push for multi-threading since they could sit back and make huge amounts of money by having the highest single thread performance. Nvidia didn't have reason to push the industry forward either since they had the resources to make DX11 pigs fly with massive software development efforts. I always thought that driver optimizations for specific games is just ridiculous. The only reason that Microsoft had for pushing multithreaded developement was that they needed it for the Xbox One. Multithreaded software developement is a lot harder than single thread, but the performance increase can be huge. It is past the time that the mainstream should have moved to 4 cores standard. So, seriously, thank you AMD.

March 18, 2017 | 07:31 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Scorpio is to be revealed in June. If it powered by 8-core ZEN you better buy RyZEN 1700 or better.

March 18, 2017 | 03:08 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It isn't clear yet whether it is Zen based or not. I suspect that they would want to make a lower power core variant and I find it hard to believe that they shrunk their jaguar cores to 14 nm without using any of the tech from Zen. A lot of the stuff in Zen saves power, like the micro-op cache that allows the decoders to idle. I am thinking that they have a low power non-SMT core with less cache. The larger caches on Zen are needed, in part, to support SMT. SRAM cache actually uses a lot of power. Going with 8 low power cores allows for more idle cores to be shutdown. Jaguar already had the two 4-core complex architecture of Zen though, which is interesting.

March 19, 2017 | 12:25 PM - Posted by ChangWang

I'm totally fine with Ryzen's performance. True enough, I'm "heavily invested" so to speak, but dispite what the internet says, performance is solid. Does it beat intels stuff at every task? Nope, but I didn't expect it to either.

What it HAS done is set a new bar for affordable core/thread counts. Intel is probably going to have to respond with something more than a 4-core/8-thread for the high end of their mainstream line now. They are also going to have to justify their pricing on their 6/12 and 8/16 parts now as well.

March 20, 2017 | 07:04 AM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

Ryzen is all about:
You can beat us yes. But it will cost you a lot of money
Amd dis a great job on this
Bang for your dollar? Insanely high
I got a i5 2500k and yes I will be upgrading it ryzen.espacially now that ms finally fixed win 10 via patch(as long as you patch in the admin account and no other .if you patch from other all kind of annoyance occur . Oh ms broke their ads system in edge but I ain't sure if it's a issue with langage (likely ) anyway now that the is is fixed? And amd has a good bang for your dollar product I got no more complaint against amd

March 20, 2017 | 09:35 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I think if the $219 6C/12T R5 1600 can OC to ~3.9-4.0 (as most R7 chips seem to quite easily) it's probably going to be the best 'all round' Ryzen you can buy at any price.

And with about 95% of new games by the end of this year slated to use DX12 and/or Vulkan, probably not a bad bet for a bit of gaming either.

I'd certainly consider it a far better long term bet than any ~$220 i5. Which at that price is its only real competition.

March 20, 2017 | 11:54 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Where are the motherboard reviews?