BIOS and microcode updates will improve performance but only marginally. They will have a greater effect on stability. As for my case, gaming is the only reason why i need a better cpu and in this case Intel is better. Also adding more cores shows no effect on games making them almost useless, this also applies to Intel´s 6/8/10 core cpus. So buying a 6 or 8 core for me is useless... Not to mention i want to build my system during this month, if possible. So this leaves with the 7600K because the 7700K is too expensive for a quad core in my opinion. I have nothing against AMD, Ryzen is a great cpu but it´s simply not made for a guy like me. About the reviews, they were so rushed that Hilbert was the only one to test IPC at the same clock speed!... And it´s was only one test because he didn´t have time for more...
AMD has keeper and for once launched something that lived up to it own hype, it will be intresting to see what happen in coming months
For raw CPU performance there are plenty of other tests, there are others that did test the CPU at below 1080p already too. It doesn't matter if it bottlenecks, could even run multi GPU if the board supports it for that sake, at least some of us want to see the numbers stating what it can do @ such a resolution compared to other offerings.
Hope you get well soon Hilbert, thanks for the review and will be looking forward for the 1700. If you waited this long, wait a couple months for Ryzen 5 to come out. Even if you buy Intel, it'll save you some cash. People saying the processor is very good in everything but gaming are getting under my skin...at 1440p it's on pair with Intel, what did you guys expect: double FPS?
Ryzen is fantastic for the people who can capitalize on its strengths. Hell, I would go for one over a 7700k.. gaming is not the be-all, end all of everything. And even then, with the trend towards higher resolutions (1440p+) its virtually a non-issue.
Nothing wrong with wanting the numbers... But something is very wrong if you base your choice of CPU on that/those high res gaming tests alone. So it's not about testing at high-res, it's about showing the low-res as well to get a better overall picture
For guys that are only interested in gaming, Ryzen performs worse than Intel. That´s a fact. Of course that doens´t matter at higher resolutions but for gamers it makes more sense to go with Intel. For others who can make good use of the amazing MT performance, the gaming results are good enough for them to game with Ryzen. As for my case, i can wait a few more months, of course but i´m tired of waiting... Not to mention the waiting game is a dangerous one, because we can always wait some more time, because there´s always better and faster coming in the future... So it comes a time when we simply must stop waiting and buy what´s available today.
Benchmarks have already shown that just disabling SMT has a significant performance improvement (obviously not in every test). That means making it an 8c/8t CPU. That alone suggests the updates will be more than just a marginal improvement (assuming this problem is fixable). The overclocked RAM benchmarks HH did also showed dramatic performance improvements. As I said before, I don't think the 1700 is a good option for gamers, but the graphs show that once these bugs are kinked and OS updates are applied, this CPU is usually better than Kaby Lake overall. I don't really care that you're going for Intel, and as I said before, I don't think you should get a 1700 either. I just don't think your reasoning for going to Intel is well-justified in the long run. But do as you will - it is your opinion and I have no right to tell you it's wrong, and I completely understand that you don't want to wait anymore (neither do I). But remember, are you planning on gaming beyond 60FPS at 1080p? By the time you would, the patches would be applied and Ryzen wouldn't fall behind in gaming. The loss in performance at 1080p is largely irrelevant, not just because of usable frame rates, but because it isn't a long-term issue.
Exactly, and including minimum fps too, since from what I noticed that is probably where Ryzens might end up showing it's strongest point when it comes to gaming, but that can't be said for every game supporting more than 4 cores either.
If anyone is interested in how this launch is really going, AMD stock is down 4% right now. And that is after it dropped 6% by 11AM EST. I would say that is investors showing some mild disappointment.
I'll continue to fight this misconception that is: More cores and more speed is ALWAYS welcome, but in gaming you'll be limited by the GPU, not the CPU... Fact is most CPU are more than able to feed even the fastest GPU's today. What you need the cores and speed for is this: -games that are optimized for more than 4 cores (very few) -games that are optimized for the CPU instructions, utilizing the IPC better -feed a GPU that is MUCH faster than even the 1080ti... Basically in time, more cores and speed will be good for gaming, today not so much, but who knows what'll happen the next 6 months. This is why some Intel kids are screaming overkill at Ryzen, in some ways it is... It's a delicate balance right now. But if you're an AMD fan, by all means go get your Ryzen, it seems you won't be disappointed, and you'll have some overhead until GPU or software catch up
i7 6800k just dropped from £428 to £399 on OcUK. What do you guys think of this 6/12 cpu compared to the 8/16 1800x? Ryzen will have the upper hand in MT workloads, 6800k in gaming. I'm somewhat disappointed than hardly any review have the 6800k in their charts to compare it to the 1800x.
The reviews i saw show that disabling SMT improves gaming performance but only marginally, 5% max. It still lags behing Intel by a decent amount, around 10% some cases more than that. So i don´t think that some minor tweaks can bridge the gaming difference between AMD and Intel but i could be wrong of course. And RAM speeds have an 1% effect on gaming according to several articles about using higher clocked RAM. As for me, i´m planning in jumping to the 4K scene because i´m eyeing an affordable screen from Samsung. In this case Ryzen will perform as good as Intel despite having more cores. And the problem is that i don´t have an use for the extra cores if they don´t add up in gaming performance. So in the end the 7600K seems a logical choice for me now. And o know there´s great chance they i might regret buying this cpu in the future but i will deal with when the time comes...
Some of the investors, others might make a fortune out of it if some of the issues pointed out get addressed fast enough.
Stocks are always shortened on either release day or prior. Apple for instance, for all I know, behaves the same. That said, Ryzen excels at where the actual money is being had. Enthusiast gamers make the minority of probably all groups there are. AMD is back in business with OEMs. AMD is back in business for your average joe. AMD will hopefully be back in business in datacenters with Naples come Q2. I still see AMD undervalued long - and short it was a fantastic buy, especially if you got on early enough
For gamers Ryzen is not a good value. It is expensive and performs like an i5. For producers and people who use multi-threaded programs this is an epic winner and a great great value. Intel's snail slow IPC advancements from generation to generation are still a bit too fast for AMD to catch on. We will need more time to draw more conclusions as there might be more issues hidden in Ryzen's shadow. Ryzen is good and it's not so good depending on what you want that CPU for.
