Even if Ryzen wasn't available I'd steer clear of this one; too few cores for the platform in 2017 and those temps are awful (overclocked). I'm not sure who the market really is for this one. I think that those buying this enthusiast level platform would want/need more cores and for someone looking for a more "normal" high end gaming machine, why not get a 7700k (or even 6700k)? I'm just going to drool over here in the corner while waiting for Threadripper benchmarks.
Never mind the power and the temps, if you factor in the mobo it has to run on costing €300+ a Ryzen is so far ahead it's silly. The whole Kaby Lake X concept is just stupid to begin with, expensive motherboard of which you can only use less than half the PCI-Ex lanes and half the memory capacity. Makes no sense.
I still wouldn't but Ryzen for gaming, maybe in the future when those cores are used but at that point the same CPUs will be cheaper and there will be newer chips.
I would buy Ryzen if I absolutely needed a CPU at this moment, however, I still feel like my delidded 3750K is doing fine and probably is on a very similar level in gaming and "good enough" for everything else I do on my PC. I would be tempted to buy a more mature Ryzen, however. Perhaps the next generation AMD proc is when I finally move on to more than four cores. Intel would have to completely change their habits for me to really be interested in their offerings in the future, as I've become extremely cynical about them ever since they stopped giving a damn about heat transfer. I really didn't want to delid my Ivy Bridge and void its warranty, but I felt it was necessary to keep temps under control using budget cooling. Let's also not forget year after year of marginal performance improvements with skyrocketing prices.
I still have hyperthreading disabled on my 6700k. Getting pretty sick of intel's bs lately tbh. AVX-2 and AVX-512 are nice but Ryzen has a better platform and not soldering the IHS on their "overclocking" chips is ridiculous. AVX-512 isnt even on all LGA2066 CPUs. It should have it on all of them.
This argument is a horribly veiled attempt to be purposefully dense, at least, I hope it was. I hope you don't really hold those opinions without having thought on them a moment. When most people build a computer, it's for a number of reasons. Most of us, primary purpose, it's going to be for gaming, but that's just the primary. Most of us have jobs, me personally, sometimes I like to be able to set up 2,3,4,5 VMs and test something. Maybe something I'm working on for work that I need a test environment for. Maybe it's someone else who does rendering, or video editing occasionally. Maybe it's just a gamer who likes to stream to twitch to 5 viewers every night. One person might like distributed computing platforms. There's hundreds of things you can do with a computer that need more CPU, this isn't some niche concept. My point is, some people can understand the tradeoffs here. And, for some people, losing 5-10% on performance, maybe, sometimes, but still having good performance overall is worth the tradeoff when you consider that they may be able to do something else an Intel literally couldn't do, or if it does, does it minutes or hours more slowly. It's not a hard concept. If I were to take the same "purposefully dense" tact I could ask why on Earth you'd ever buy a platform that is obsolete the day you got it; you'll never get another processor to put in it. Doesn't make much sense. But I wouldn't do that, because I understand the tradeoffs being considered.
Ryzen series are superior not only to new i5 series but even up to 7820x. Less wattage more performance clock per clock. If you downclock any intel cpu to match ryzen from four to eight core ones you can understand intel lost this round hands down. Only those who want to feed the giant and fullfill their ego will by intel this time. Like those who buy 1080ti/titanxp for res at 2k or lower when it is clearly a 3k up to 5k resolutions capable gpu.
