I don't think people are bashing Ryzen for the sake of bashing it. I and others have said before it is competitive in performance/dollar in certain scenarios, that's not up for debate. What I and others are saying is that people shouldn't be defeding the weaknesses of Ryzen and mmaking excuses for AMD just because they want to see the company succeed. No one should be doing that for any company, period.
I'm curious though, all this time people have been drawing attention to Ryzen and the fact that it's stellar in rendering when not GPU accelerated; so how does it perform when it is GPU accelerated? Is it better, on page par or worse than Intel in that regard? Because if it's on par or worse, then what's the point of getting a Ryzen chip at all unless you're not upgrading/sidegrading but building your first workstation.
So far we know that if gaming is the goal, don't get Ryzen; if rending without GPU, then get Ryzen; but what if rendering with GPU acceleration like I'm sure most professionals already do, what then?
Only ignorant teenagers only use their computer for gaming. Their roid rage drives the need for combat games. Once they move beyond that theyrealize a computer can doa whole lot more. There are very few games if one IGNORED synthetic benches where actual performance on Ryzen would be a noticeable disappointment. This is childisn breast beating on the part of the fanboy lynch mob led by Shintai. As others with calmer heads have said Ryzen has met its stated goals in performance. It is a close competitor of Intels best chips and has credible gaming performance that will only get better with tweaks and optimizations. It will succeed and also propel AMD to capture significant server market share in the next few years. Only good things lie ahead in the next few years.