.

Status
Not open for further replies.
For me personally, Ryzen is a great CPU... for the price if you need the extra cores... but... for gaming, I still cannot help but a little feel disappointed.

Not in AMD, rather where it leaves me. I was really looking forward to NDA lifting, thinking that once the results where out I would finally have a compelling reason to scratch that upgrade itch, that I could finally make an informed choice between Ryzen and Kabylake and end the waiting game. Unfortunately instead I feel as though there is just more questions, unknowns. As someone that has been holding out on a i5 760 (and believing that outside of gaming throwing a SSD at my system has done more for prolonging its life, productivity and usability day-to-day for me than any improvements Intel or AMD have really offered), I regretting not having held off just a little bit longer for the 2600K instead, and I'm reluctant to make the same mistake a second time.

I appreciate where the concerns with the 1080p benchmarks are coming from, clearly being someone that upgrades my graphics card far more frequently than the underlying platform I'm using. There's the thought there, if its doing this at 1080p now, what's to say with Vega or Volta or whatever else is to come in that next couple of years, the difference won't be more pronounced or the bottleneck won't fall back towards the CPU at higher resolutions? On the inverse that does imply that games will continue to be developed the same way, and if Ryzen brings more cores to the masses and the uptake is good (assuming K3's won't eat into that?) will developers start optimizing for better multi-threading rather than lowest common denominator, and perhaps it will be Kabylake that won't age as well in comparison?

I understand that trying to future proof is a fool's errand, its just that this launch seems to make things even less clear going forward than usual. For gaming the option seems to be go Intel for best current performance that isn't that much better than generations I've passed on previously and stuck at quad core, or go AMD for the potential and hope that the platform improvements and third party support/optimizations will come through. Neither is very compelling. While it does feel like we're going through a change, neither Kabylake or Ryzen are feeling at all like being the "next" Sandy Bridge, and by extension for me it just doesn't feel like the right time to buy in to either platform (as someone not [H] enough to be able to change platform frequently).

So while I hate saying it, for me its back to the waiting game... at least until the dust settles (as much as I appreciate AMD for at least stirring it up, was overdue).
 
We already knew that CPUZ heavily favors Ryzen for some unknown reason, that doesn't prove a thing since almost every other test shows single thread performance favoring Intel chips.

So what exactly is your point? We should benchmark only with CPUZ?

really? 1800x keeps up with 10 core intel chip pretty damn good. Common man, I surrender to your argument it is slower in game for now. Please say whats true, its competitive every where else. IPC wise it keeps up with intel clock for clock. If you are comparing 7700k single thread performance, well I got news for you. 7700k even beats intel chips so whats the point exactly? Its a high clocked chip ofcourse its going to be faster in singel thread.
 
For me personally, Ryzen is a great CPU... for the price if you need the extra cores... but... for gaming, I still cannot help but a little feel disappointed.

Not in AMD, rather where it leaves me. I was really looking forward to NDA lifting, thinking that once the results where out I would finally have a compelling reason to scratch that upgrade itch, that I could finally make an informed choice between Ryzen and Kabylake and end the waiting game. Unfortunately instead I feel as though there is just more questions, unknowns. As someone that has been holding out on a i5 760 (and believing that outside of gaming throwing a SSD at my system has done more for prolonging its life, productivity and usability day-to-day for me than any improvements Intel or AMD have really offered), I regretting not having held off just a little bit longer for the 2600K instead, and I'm reluctant to make the same mistake a second time.

I appreciate where the concerns with the 1080p benchmarks are coming from, clearly being someone that upgrades my graphics card far more frequently than the underlying platform I'm using. There's the thought there, if its doing this at 1080p now, what's to say with Vega or Volta or whatever else is to come in that next couple of years, the difference won't be more pronounced or the bottleneck won't fall back towards the CPU at higher resolutions? On the inverse that does imply that games will continue to be developed the same way, and if Ryzen brings more cores to the masses and the uptake is good (assuming K3's won't eat into that?) will developers start optimizing for better multi-threading rather than lowest common denominator, and perhaps it will be Kabylake that won't age as well in comparison?

I understand that trying to future proof is a fool's errand, its just that this launch seems to make things even less clear going forward than usual. For gaming the option seems to be go Intel for best current performance that isn't that much better than generations I've passed on previously and stuck at quad core, or go AMD for the potential and hope that the platform improvements and third party support/optimizations will come through. Neither is very compelling. While it does feel like we're going through a change, neither Kabylake or Ryzen are feeling at all like being the "next" Sandy Bridge, and by extension for me it just doesn't feel like the right time to buy in to either platform (as someone not [H] enough to be able to change platform frequently).

So while I hate saying it, for me its back to the waiting game... at least until the dust settles (as much as I appreciate AMD for at least stirring it up, was overdue).

One absolute advantage of AMD platform has been and will be for some time to come that socket will stay the same. AMD has already said future zen chips will work in x370. That is a big positive for AMD chips. You will be able to sell your old processor and upgrade to one you want. I have intel and I absolutely hate intels force mother board upgrades. Its a bitch and pain in the ass, I would rather just upgrade the cpu and be happy, atleast for a few gens.
 
One absolute advantage of AMD platform has been and will be for some time to come that socket will stay the same. AMD has already said future zen chips will work in x370. That is a big positive for AMD chips. You will be able to sell your old processor and upgrade to one you want. I have intel and I absolutely hate intels force mother board upgrades. Its a bitch and pain in the ass, I would rather just upgrade the cpu and be happy, atleast for a few gens.

But would you really want to pair it with old tech? Who would want to pair a 7700k with a P67?
 
But would you really want to pair it with old tech? Who would want to pair a 7700k with a P67?

I understand what you mean. Ofcourse if there is option for new chipset yea go for it. But If there is not much difference you should have that choice. You know what I mean? I was surprised z170 supported kaby lake with bios update. That was nice of them, but intel has a habit of forcing you to change the motherboard just cuz. Well I guess that is what no competition will do to the market.

p67 was six years ago bro. You know I didn't mean that lol. common you made me shake my head.
 
But after a revision or two time will pass, even a year or two with the existing Ryzen chipset X370 wouldn't be paired well with a newer cpu. Just mho.
 
No buts about it. Ryzen IS a great CPU.

It's AMD. If it isn't 50% faster for 50% less then it's a fail. /s

Seriously though, if you're that concerned about value, grab the 1700 and be done with it. Or just buy Intel.
 
It's an 8 core CPU, do you really expect phenomenal overclocking headroom? Even my 6 core 5820K tops out at 4.4 GHz so an 8 core hitting 4.0-4.1 isn't too bad. The issue to focus on is whether or not the R5 chips also hit the 4 GHz wall because if they do, then Ryzen will be a failure at the middle/low end of the spectrum. Their R7 CPUs are ok, not the best and I don't think anyone really expected that. But for what they offer, they're pretty decent.

Since they opted for R7 branding on the Ryzen 8 cores, does that mean that we could still see a future R9 enthusiast chip? I'm not expecting miracles, but maybe they left their marketing options open for a faster part once their process matures a bit more?

I am also curious about the 4 core parts and their performance per core relative to their bigger brothers in the 8 and 6 core lines. Is their any word from an engineering perspective if they will comprise two partially disabled quad core / eight thread modules or if they will be one half of an R7? I assume the 6 cores will be a partially disabled 8 core, so maybe we'll see core unlocking later on as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top