The Definitive AMD Ryzen 7 Real-World Gaming Guide @ [H]

[msroadkill612]

So a consumer at above 1080p (and gamers are mostly at least headed that way) gets 5-10% less gaming up til gpu throttle & 50% more actual work done.

Philosophically, we all want to wait forever for tech just around the corner, but we have to jump sometime and endure ~static performance for some years.

Ryzen kinda allows both. New gen tech is too mild a tag for it. Already we have seen modest tweaks to games & mobo bioses, yield astonishing improvements. Ryzen/fabric has a future, intels ~only a past imo? - last gasp of some ageing architecture, or one that ryzen has certainly trumped.

You dont just get ryzen as is, u get what it will be, free & w/ little hassle ~= an ~upgrade every 3 months for a year+.

Thats worth a little patience w/ the inevitable supply glitches that result from such a surprising and massive success.

IMO, u r mad not to get the x370 chipset am4 mobo, for the 4 precious extra usable pcie3 lanes.

The r5 1600 is widely regarded as the sweet spot - lots cheaper & u wont really miss 2 extra cores often, if ever, as we see in these tests.

 

[msroadkill612]

Intel have lost the initiative in the war with amd.

Intel has always had great strengths, but those have ceilings.

Just as intel are coming against the limits of; node size/clocks/memory speed, other fabs are now their ~equal, AMD has totally shifted the focus of the battle, sidestepping their advantages AND their monolith chip problems/ceilings, by brilliantly teaming cheaper, cooler, standard processors in a wide variety of ways, on fabric mcm interposers.

Go up to epyc level, and its sad. Intel simply have no answer, nor will have for years, if ever.

They wont die. They will decline. Many users will still be beholden to intels ecosystem, which is fine. Amd have many (perhaps too many) options to pursue - gpu/mobile/server apu.

The corporate pattern in such situations, is for the bosses to retrench, get fat packages and run the company down as long as they can dress up the books.

 

[msroadkill612]

Took time away from my holiday in Australia to read this article.

Fuck the Sydney Opera House. This was an awesome read.

Sorry its a chilly day for u mate. Yeah, too touristy. Get the ferry to manly, get a bus a few k up the coast to get away from those crowds, & just mooch along the coast. The jewel is pittwater, but thats about 15k nth.

Thats my tip, & am a born & bred~ local -

~straight across from the opera house in mosman (the zoo, but not actually in it ) mostly.

 

[n=1]

Any thoughts on this video?



Start at 5:05 if you're feeling lazy.

 

[Hostile]

Late to the party but I still see no compelling reason to upgrade from my 2600k for my 1440p gaming.

 

[n=1]

If you have a 2600K @ 5GHz you probably wouldn't even perceive the improvement until Coffee Lake.

 

[lolfail9001]

If you have a 2600K @ 5GHz you probably wouldn't even perceive the improvement until Coffee Lake.

More like until GPU upgrade.

 

[ManofGod]

Late to the party but I still see no compelling reason to upgrade from my 2600k for my 1440p gaming.

Upgrade your ram with at least 8GB more, you will see a definite difference. Personally, I think if you are a watches the fps meter all the time, you would not be happy. Otherwise, I think you would definitely be pleased with the upgrade.

 

[chenw]

Here is a question for all of you.

Considering that this review was done on 1700x OC'ed to 4GHz, which is the same as a stock 1600X's turbo boost frequency, would 1600X be better choice than 1700X if the person in question is not going to do ANY OC'ing whatsoever, strictly from a gaming point of view. The review at least suggests that most games do not scale beyond 4C/8T CPUs, so maybe the 2 extra cores from 1700X over 1600X is of limited benefit?

I understand that if OC is involved, 1700X would be a MUCH better choice, and that 1600X is a hair away in terms of cost from even 1700.

 

[bobzdar]

Here is a question for all of you.

Considering that this review was done on 1700x OC'ed to 4GHz, which is the same as a stock 1600X's turbo boost frequency, would 1600X be better choice than 1700X if the person in question is not going to do ANY OC'ing whatsoever, strictly from a gaming point of view. The review at least suggests that most games do not scale beyond 4C/8T CPUs, so maybe the 2 extra cores from 1700X over 1600X is of limited benefit?

I understand that if OC is involved, 1700X would be a MUCH better choice, and that 1600X is a hair away in terms of cost from even 1700.

If the main concern is gaming performance, right now the r5 1600x would be a better buy. But 2 years from now (and given many are on a 5 year or longer upgrade cycle), maybe not.

 

[Hostile]

Upgrade your ram with at least 8GB more, you will see a definite difference. Personally, I think if you are a watches the fps meter all the time, you would not be happy. Otherwise, I think you would definitely be pleased with the upgrade.

I actually just did that . /thumbup

 

[Anti-Shills]

From conclusion it was written:
"
Overall, the Intel Kaby Lake 7700K CPU at 5GHz Z270 system provided the highest performance while gaming. Didn’t matter if it was single-GPU, multi-GPU, 1080p, or 1440p, or 4K, the most wins (at least in terms of raw data) are with the 7700K at an overclocked 5GHz.

Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels.

In terms of gameplay experience we felt the 2600K and Ryzen CPUs "felt" the same while gaming in single-GPU at any resolution.

"

The fact remain, after all these years, Ryzen is barely on par with Sandybridge, and it is already bottlenecking the GTX1080ti. This is very bad news for newer faster video cards, especially stuff coming out in a year or two. I've been on my i7-2600K since 2011, but I really got the itch to rebuild my system. I just can NOT fathom the gaming sidegrade going ryzen so I went with i7-7700k. It has allowed me to get roughly another 10% out of the GTX1070, and do 1440p (2560x1440) with g-sync. The difference is not night and day, but you can feel improvement. On the other hand my FX-8320 already bottlenecked the GTX970 as of last year. So if you want to replace your CPU in two years, then you can go with Ryzen but not at the ridiculous prices they are charging. The top level ryzen needs to be no more than $250 to mitigate this risk. Otherwise you are better off with a 7700k at $280 than a 1700x at $320.

 

[Anti-Shills]

Here is a question for all of you.

Considering that this review was done on 1700x OC'ed to 4GHz, which is the same as a stock 1600X's turbo boost frequency, would 1600X be better choice than 1700X if the person in question is not going to do ANY OC'ing whatsoever, strictly from a gaming point of view. The review at least suggests that most games do not scale beyond 4C/8T CPUs, so maybe the 2 extra cores from 1700X over 1600X is of limited benefit?

I understand that if OC is involved, 1700X would be a MUCH better choice, and that 1600X is a hair away in terms of cost from even 1700.

If you want to save money, by looking at the 1600x at $230, why not save even more by going i5-7600K at $190 see:
http://www.microcenter.com/search/s...6995&NTX=&NTT=&NTK=all&page=1&sortby=pricelow

Your gaming experience would actually be better for less money on the 7600k.

 

[JustReason]

If you want to save money, by looking at the 1600x at $230, why not save even more by going i5-7600K at $190 see:
http://www.microcenter.com/search/s...6995&NTX=&NTT=&NTK=all&page=1&sortby=pricelow

Your gaming experience would actually be better for less money on the 7600k.

Wrong. And being the sign of the times i5 (as they were 4C/4T) is a terribad set of advice as was the i3 before. There are a plethora of users referencing the LEAP in performance moving from i5s to R5/7 Ryzens, usually referencing better Multiplayer gaming and far more stable framerates.

And I bought my Wife the R5 1600 (non X) and it is a beast even at 3.2 in WoW, the only game she plays.

 

[Anti-Shills]

Wrong. And being the sign of the times i5 (as they were 4C/4T) is a terribad set of advice as was the i3 before. There are a plethora of users referencing the LEAP in performance moving from i5s to R5/7 Ryzens, usually referencing better Multiplayer gaming and far more stable framerates.

And I bought my Wife the R5 1600 (non X) and it is a beast even at 3.2 in WoW, the only game she plays.

WoW does NOT even stress the CPU. And the data does NOT lie. See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/13
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4

The plethora of users you reference are all claiming the placebo effect. You see what you wish to see. The old i5 non-k are slower than ryzen, the old sandybridge 2500K and the likes at stock clock are slower than ryzen. But anyone still running those today would have OC-ed already and then R5s really are just a sidegrade for those. See:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/619vs3920
The i3 is a 2 core red herring by the way. If AMD after all these years improve over old stock clocked i5s, AMD would have a even bigger problem on their hands. Nonetheless, the frame rates are higher and more stable under kaby-lake. There is no Ryzen that can compete bang for the buck against a $190 i5-7600k for gaming.

AMD needs to lower their prices significantly, just like back during the Barton/Thoroughbred/T-bird era, when the Athlon2800xp went for $100 and equivalent Intels P4s were $200. AMD owes it to their fans and customers alike to provide unrivaled value because they fail to win across the board on performance.

 

[JustReason]

WoW does NOT even stress the CPU. And the data does NOT lie. See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/13
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4

The plethora of users you reference are all claiming the placebo effect. You see what you wish to see. The old i5 non-k are slower than ryzen, the old sandybridge 2500K and the likes at stock clock are slower than ryzen. But anyone still running those today would have OC-ed already and then R5s really are just a sidegrade for those. See:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/619vs3920
The i3 is a 2 core red herring by the way. If AMD after all these years improve over old stock clocked i5s, AMD would have a even bigger problem on their hands. Nonetheless, the frame rates are higher and more stable under kaby-lake. There is no Ryzen that can compete bang for the buck against a $190 i5-7600k for gaming.

AMD needs to lower their prices significantly, just like back during the Barton/Thoroughbred/T-bird era, when the Athlon2800xp went for $100 and equivalent Intels P4s were $200. AMD owes it to their fans and customers alike to provide unrivaled value because they fail to win across the board on performance.

Everything you state is ignorant of the facts. 4C/4T has limitations and only shortsighted individuals would ever recommend one today. And Placebo? Do you even know what that means? In the case of users and gaming, having stutter in one case then not in the other has not a damn thing to do with placebo.

Did you even look at your user bench link.? That Ryzen is wiping the floor with the i5, and I mean stomping its ass.

And to your point on price: that 7600k @ $190 against the Ryzen 1600 I bought my wife @ $199. The 7600k has only 4 threads against the 1600s 12 threads. There are so many reasons for more than 4 core/threads like multiple software programs running. This is why you see so many people screaming for such tests because just a single game running does not accurately represent the typical gamer/user. Intel charges north of $400 for their 6 core against the $230 for the 1600X you mentioned earlier and I can guarantee it doesn't produce 40% higher performance to make the prices match their respective performance to appease your pricing desires.

 

[chenw]

My question of the choice between 1600x and 1700x is just that, strictly comparing 1600x and 1700x, because 1600x turbos to 4GHz, which is around what most 1700X's are OC'ing to.

I was curious if that turbo 4GHz is enough to bring out most, if not all, of the gaming performance Ryzen has to offer, or if there is a difference between 6C/12T @ 4GHz and 8C/16T @ 4GHz.

If I were to actually build a main rig today, even with gaming being my primary use, the only Intel chips I'd consider are 7700k or G4600, otherwise, i5 or i3 are definitely NOT going on my radar instead of Ryzens.

 

[ManofGod]

My question of the choice between 1600x and 1700x is just that, strictly comparing 1600x and 1700x, because 1600x turbos to 4GHz, which is around what most 1700X's are OC'ing to.

I was curious if that turbo 4GHz is enough to bring out most, if not all, of the gaming performance Ryzen has to offer, or if there is a difference between 6C/12T @ 4GHz and 8C/16T @ 4GHz.

If I were to actually build a main rig today, even with gaming being my primary use, the only Intel chips I'd consider are 7700k or G4600, otherwise, i5 or i3 are definitely NOT going on my radar instead of Ryzens.

Exactly! If you want to spend less money, the 1600X would be a great option. I know that the 1600 at 3.2 Ghz is quite fast as well since I just built a machine with one recently.

 

[JustReason]

Exactly! If you want to spend less money, the 1600X would be a great option. I know that the 1600 at 3.2 Ghz is quite fast as well since I just built a machine with one recently.

I was quite surpised how effortless that 1600 (non X) ran at stock. It is in my wifes, I have to wait for my Ryzen, and I have yet to OC. The memory is at 2666 because I didn't have the time to put in for OCing, she really wanted to get on it fast.

 

[Anti-Shills]

Everything you state is ignorant of the facts. 4C/4T has limitations and only shortsighted individuals would ever recommend one today. And Placebo? Do you even know what that means? In the case of users and gaming, having stutter in one case then not in the other has not a damn thing to do with placebo.

Did you even look at your user bench link.? That Ryzen is wiping the floor with the i5, and I mean stomping its ass.

And to your point on price: that 7600k @ $190 against the Ryzen 1600 I bought my wife @ $199. The 7600k has only 4 threads against the 1600s 12 threads. There are so many reasons for more than 4 core/threads like multiple software programs running. This is why you see so many people screaming for such tests because just a single game running does not accurately represent the typical gamer/user. Intel charges north of $400 for their 6 core against the $230 for the 1600X you mentioned earlier and I can guarantee it doesn't produce 40% higher performance to make the prices match their respective performance to appease your pricing desires.

Fact of the matter is the 7600K has no stutter. And don't take my word for it but HardOCP has already shown from their extensive tests that the Ryzen's gaming performance is only equal to that of the Sandybridges.

"Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels."

So people that think they are getting more out of Ryzen for gaming is suffering from the placebo effect. It is a self delusion. And if you look at the userbench link, you can see that Ryzen is failing to stomp the 2500K from back in 2011 when the 2500K is overclocked. The OC-ed 2500K is actually faster than stock clocked Ryzen of any flavor on single core performance and 4 core performance. Now look at the 7600K.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920

And to top it all off, it is already established that Ryzen is bottlenecking the GTX1080ti. It is shortsighted to pretend this is not a serious consideration. This problem will only get worse with the next generation of GPUs. We want an affordable or more affordable 4K 144hz refresh solution and ryzen will fail to support that with the current generation of CPUs they released due to the GPU bottleneck solution inherent in their current solution.

And I don't know who are you to speak for the vast majority of people. But I know full well that people that game, just simply game, the majority of them are not streaming or twitching or whatever else. Beside you got your old machines to use for video transcoding compression etc, I know I do. I want max game performance when I game and the single game scenario is still very much the reality. Why do think Microsoft has bothered to hype their "game mode" for windows 10, it is certainly not about giving resources to a bunch of background process/threads to slow your gaming down.

The more thread more core count does NOT compare apples to apples, btw. It is no different from a car engine. If your cylinders are smaller and can only handle lower compression or lower rpms, you will end up developing less power even if you have more of them, so more cores does not equal more power or faster car. Similarily, more threads, is just like have more valves in the valve train. Those help to limited degree, but they can not make up for the larger cylinder that allows for more volume and flow that can do higher rpms. Focusing on any single number and forgetting that it is net effect of the whole package that counts, is falling for the marketing spiel that these corporations put out. Recall when intel stressed nothing but clock frequency, prescott netburst P4 anyone, yep lots of people were fooled by that. I don't buy AMD because of their core/thread counts, I will buy them when they deliver unrivaled value. NO CPU have to be best at everything, but to get my dollars they have to win value (bang for the buck) proposition for the application that matters. And Ryzen is clearly failing that for gaming and general purpose end user use case at their current price points.

 

[ManofGod]

Fact of the matter is the 7600K has no stutter. And don't take my word for it but HardOCP has already shown from their extensive tests that the Ryzen's gaming performance is only equal to that of the Sandybridges.

"Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels."

So people that think they are getting more out of Ryzen for gaming is suffering from the placebo effect. It is a self delusion. And if you look at the userbench link, you can see that Ryzen is failing to stomp the 2500K from back in 2011 when the 2500K is overclocked. The OC-ed 2500K is actually faster than stock clocked Ryzen of any flavor on single core performance and 4 core performance. Now look at the 7600K.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920

And to top it all off, it is already established that Ryzen is bottlenecking the GTX1080ti. It is shortsighted to pretend this is not a serious consideration. This problem will only get worse with the next generation of GPUs. We want an affordable or more affordable 4K 144hz refresh solution and ryzen will fail to support that with the current generation of CPUs they released due to the GPU bottleneck solution inherent in their current solution.

And I don't know who are you to speak for the vast majority of people. But I know full well that people that game, just simply game, the majority of them are not streaming or twitching or whatever else. Beside you got your old machines to use for video transcoding compression etc, I know I do. I want max game performance when I game and the single game scenario is still very much the reality. Why do think Microsoft has bothered to hype their "game mode" for windows 10, it is certainly not about giving resources to a bunch of background process/threads to slow your gaming down.

The more thread more core count does NOT compare apples to apples, btw. It is no different from a car engine. If your cylinders are smaller and can only handle lower compression or lower rpms, you will end up developing less power even if you have more of them, so more cores does not equal more power or faster car. Similarily, more threads, is just like have more valves in the valve train. Those help to limited degree, but they can not make up for the larger cylinder that allows for more volume and flow that can do higher rpms. Focusing on any single number and forgetting that it is net effect of the whole package that counts, is falling for the marketing spiel that these corporations put out. Recall when intel stressed nothing but clock frequency, prescott netburst P4 anyone, yep lots of people were fooled by that. I don't buy AMD because of their core/thread counts, I will buy them when they deliver unrivaled value. NO CPU have to be best at everything, but to get my dollars they have to win value (bang for the buck) proposition for the application that matters. And Ryzen is clearly failing that for gaming and general purpose end user use case at their current price points.

Ah, the obligatory car to computer comparison. Oh well, enjoy your stay here, I know we will.

 

[Dermac]

Fact of the matter is the 7600K has no stutter. And don't take my word for it but HardOCP has already shown from their extensive tests that the Ryzen's gaming performance is only equal to that of the Sandybridges.

"Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels."

So people that think they are getting more out of Ryzen for gaming is suffering from the placebo effect. It is a self delusion. And if you look at the userbench link, you can see that Ryzen is failing to stomp the 2500K from back in 2011 when the 2500K is overclocked. The OC-ed 2500K is actually faster than stock clocked Ryzen of any flavor on single core performance and 4 core performance. Now look at the 7600K.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920

And to top it all off, it is already established that Ryzen is bottlenecking the GTX1080ti. It is shortsighted to pretend this is not a serious consideration. This problem will only get worse with the next generation of GPUs. We want an affordable or more affordable 4K 144hz refresh solution and ryzen will fail to support that with the current generation of CPUs they released due to the GPU bottleneck solution inherent in their current solution.

And I don't know who are you to speak for the vast majority of people. But I know full well that people that game, just simply game, the majority of them are not streaming or twitching or whatever else. Beside you got your old machines to use for video transcoding compression etc, I know I do. I want max game performance when I game and the single game scenario is still very much the reality. Why do think Microsoft has bothered to hype their "game mode" for windows 10, it is certainly not about giving resources to a bunch of background process/threads to slow your gaming down.

The more thread more core count does NOT compare apples to apples, btw. It is no different from a car engine. If your cylinders are smaller and can only handle lower compression or lower rpms, you will end up developing less power even if you have more of them, so more cores does not equal more power or faster car. Similarily, more threads, is just like have more valves in the valve train. Those help to limited degree, but they can not make up for the larger cylinder that allows for more volume and flow that can do higher rpms. Focusing on any single number and forgetting that it is net effect of the whole package that counts, is falling for the marketing spiel that these corporations put out. Recall when intel stressed nothing but clock frequency, prescott netburst P4 anyone, yep lots of people were fooled by that. I don't buy AMD because of their core/thread counts, I will buy them when they deliver unrivaled value. NO CPU have to be best at everything, but to get my dollars they have to win value (bang for the buck) proposition for the application that matters. And Ryzen is clearly failing that for gaming and general purpose end user use case at their current price points.

Last November I built an intel 6600K machine for a friend that wanted to get into PC gaming. I stuck a GTX980 with that chip and put 16gb of ram and an SSD in it as well. Comparatively, from benchmarks ran on the 6600K and the 7600K chips, the only real difference between the 2 is that the 7600K draws less power than it's older twin brother. Being that is the case, it seems I can compare the 6600K to a Ryzen chip in a rough format. My recently built system is a Ryzen 1700 (non X) with a hand-me-down GTX 970 and 16gb of ram on a SSD. The game we have been playing recently, Player Unknown's Battlegrounds, and we will join DUO games at the same time. My game settings are all on High except for view distance which is on Ultra at 1080p, his settings are all on Medium except for draw distance which is at Ultra on 1440p. I tend to get on average about 5 more FPS while not streaming and the same FPS while streaming. My game generally loads 10 seconds faster on average and my CPU usage (while streaming) is about 50% while his CPU usage is generally around 80% and he is not streaming. Under real world conditions, my Ryzen system seems faster than his 6600K in almost every circumstance and this should be the case since it's a higher class chip (R7 isn't equal to an i5) even though my CPU doesn't have 'the most' IPC speed in a single core benchmark, it definitely has it where it counts outside of the benchmark universe.

I realize this isn't scientific and there are flaws in the comparison but it at least shows me, under real world conditions, that Ryzen can hang with intel any day of the week, now and for some time to come.

 

[Anti-Shills]

I realize this isn't scientific and there are flaws in the comparison but it at least shows me, under real world conditions, that Ryzen can hang with intel any day of the week, now and for some time to come.

I've never said Ryzen was a bad cpu. And "hang with intel" is not good enough for AMD to charge their price premium. When you 7600K is $30 less the 1600x, and a lot less than the 1700, you sure hope AMD has to provide something for all that money. The problem is AMD is NOT winning across the board and not providing enough to make the value equation work, especially looking forward at the potential video card bottleneck. The GTX970 make all issues GPU capped, when you got to GTX1080ti, you can see where the CPU bottleneck starts and where GPU is still capped at.

The bottomline for me here is that if I am buying a CPU with the potential of GPU bottleneck requiring me to move up the next gen CPU two years from now for the new GPU, then the CPU must be priced lower upfront to justify that, especially since that CPU does NOT win performance crown across the board to start with. It is too short sighted for me to say, without the right amount of discounts, to go with a Ryzen because it games reasonable OK right now with current or older GPU.

It would be especially bad if I were advising my bother-in-law or cousins or anyone else with their build and leave behind a time bomb like that, especially since lower priced intel 7600k or 7700k will not have this waiting to bite them later. I always tell them to prioritize the purpose of their build and budget accordingly. And to date, none of them have ever asked to build handbrake video transcoding compression, blender modeling workstation where ryzen can justify its costs. They all much rather go for the lowest cost build for the with the best gaming experience that they can fit in their budget.

And streaming is NOT even on their radar, not everyone wants to be watched by everyone else all the time. Actually the reality of it is that for every streamer there has to be a N fold number of non-streamers, where N is much larger than 0, otherwise it would be pointless to stream just for nobody to watch. So if AMD can get to a competitive pricing model like when the socketA (t-bird/thoroghbred/bartons) were at $100 vs intel's P4 were at $200, then I can without a doubt convince them they 2-5 fps is not a major loss, and you can make up that with the money saved on the CPU and put it into a GPU. So imagine the R7 1800x is now $250, that is $200 they'd free up, (or similarly the R5 1600x at $110). So either they bank the saving so in 2-years they can get the updated Ryzen to get around the GPU bottlneck, or they can go 1 step up on the GPU today (e.g. so from GTX1060 to a GTX1070, or from GTX1070 to GTX1080ti).

But sadly AMD is NOT providing this option. AMD has priced themselves too high to win the value argument. And while intel has dropped their prices on 7600K and 7700K by 10%, it makes it very hard to justify spending more on a AMD chip that provides a less compelling gaming experience. What we need a real CPU price war that AMD has been AWOL from for far too long.

 

[Rvenger]

I've never said Ryzen was a bad cpu. And "hang with intel" is not good enough for AMD to charge their price premium. When you 7600K is $30 less the 1600x, and a lot less than the 1700, you sure hope AMD has to provide something for all that money. The problem is AMD is NOT winning across the board and not providing enough to make the value equation work, especially looking forward at the potential video card bottleneck. The GTX970 make all issues GPU capped, when you got to GTX1080ti, you can see where the CPU bottleneck starts and where GPU is still capped at.

The bottomline for me here is that if I am buying a CPU with the potential of GPU bottleneck requiring me to move up the next gen CPU two years from now for the new GPU, then the CPU must be priced lower upfront to justify that, especially since that CPU does NOT win performance crown across the board to start with. It is too short sighted for me to say, without the right amount of discounts, to go with a Ryzen because it games reasonable OK right now with current or older GPU.

It would be especially bad if I were advising my bother-in-law or cousins or anyone else with their build and leave behind a time bomb like that, especially since lower priced intel 7600k or 7700k will not have this waiting to bite them later. I always tell them to prioritize the purpose of their build and budget accordingly. And to date, none of them have ever asked to build handbrake video transcoding compression, blender modeling workstation where ryzen can justify its costs. They all much rather go for the lowest cost build for the with the best gaming experience that they can fit in their budget.

And streaming is NOT even on their radar, not everyone wants to be watched by everyone else all the time. Actually the reality of it is that for every streamer there has to be a N fold number of non-streamers, where N is much larger than 0, otherwise it would be pointless to stream just for nobody to watch. So if AMD can get to a competitive pricing model like when the socketA (t-bird/thoroghbred/bartons) were at $100 vs intel's P4 were at $200, then I can without a doubt convince them they 2-5 fps is not a major loss, and you can make up that with the money saved on the CPU and put it into a GPU. So imagine the R7 1800x is now $250, that is $200 they'd free up, (or similarly the R5 1600x at $110). So either they bank the saving so in 2-years they can get the updated Ryzen to get around the GPU bottlneck, or they can go 1 step up on the GPU today (e.g. so from GTX1060 to a GTX1070, or from GTX1070 to GTX1080ti).

But sadly AMD is NOT providing this option. AMD has priced themselves too high to win the value argument. And while intel has dropped their prices on 7600K and 7700K by 10%, it makes it very hard to justify spending more on a AMD chip that provides a less compelling gaming experience. What we need a real CPU price war that AMD has been AWOL from for far too long.

Paid $285 for my 1700 which is overclocked to 1800x speeds. I use a 4k monitor. No bottlenecks here. LOL a quad I5 up against an 8 core is a joke really.

 

[Anti-Shills]

Paid $285 for my 1700 which is overclocked to 1800x speeds. I use a 4k monitor. No bottlenecks here. LOL a quad I5 up against an 8 core is a joke really.

So in other words AMD is charging way too much at $450 for R7-1800x. But we all knew that. But even at $285 the 1700 is still $5 more expensive than the i7-7700k. And from this article we already know that even overclocked it is how HardOCP puts it:

"Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels."

And the i5-7600K is still way less at $190. And see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3885vs3917

It is more than competitive against the R7 1700. The joke that AMD is laughing at is how hard people likes to give them more money for providing less.

BTW at 4K, your GPU is the bottleneck even if you don't realize it. The CPU bottleneck is obscured by the fact that the GPU bottleneck is way more severe.

And who was it that said they didn't believe in the placebo effect? The placebo effect is the self-confirmation bias very much in play in a lot this tech stuff.

 

[Rvenger]

I use it to develop too so I am not just a gamer. Trust me Fruityloops is INCREDIBLY faster than a 4 core i7.

 

[Anti-Shills]

I use it to develop too so I am not just a gamer. Trust me Fruityloops is INCREDIBLY faster than a 4 core i7.

I do NOT doubt you on that. But this article is about gaming, or the definitive gaming guide. My friends and relatives are not asking to build gaming machines to do development work, and they certainly do NOT want to pay more for that. Workstation stuff is as some would put it >>>>> that way, other there.

Recall when AMD Athlon64 came out, they didn't try to charge us more for 64-bit, it outperformed intel across the board and they still priced it only on par with intel back then. And in the process if ushered in the 64-bit era. Where bulldozer failed spectacturely, Ryzen actually has the real potential to bring about the much more multi-threaded era, but AMD is squandering their opportunity. Why does AMD feel justified in charging us for more cores now when they are NOT beating Intel across the board.

 

[Dermac]

Here is actual pricing, with links even. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726 and https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...13428&cm_re=ryzen_1700-_-19-113-428-_-Product. This shows that the regular price of the i7 7700K is $349.99 and the regular price of a R7 1700 being $329.99. Both are on sale for the same price this weekend, at $309.99. Both CPUs show about the same performance, The intel being faster per core, but the Ryzen chip packing slighly slower cores but double the count. Making your argument for there being a large price difference doesn't actually hold up to people actually buying these chips. There are places to get them cheaper, or used, or refurbished or whatever but there isn't a large price difference, they are priced and perform about the same.

 

[JustReason]

I do NOT doubt you on that. But this article is about gaming, or the definitive gaming guide. My friends and relatives are not asking to build gaming machines to do development work, and they certainly do NOT want to pay more for that. Workstation stuff is as some would put it >>>>> that way, other there.

Recall when AMD Athlon64 came out, they didn't try to charge us more for 64-bit, it outperformed intel across the board and they still priced it only on par with intel back then. And in the process if ushered in the 64-bit era. Where bulldozer failed spectacturely, Ryzen actually has the real potential to bring about the much more multi-threaded era, but AMD is squandering their opportunity. Why does AMD feel justified in charging us for more cores now when they are NOT beating Intel across the board.

That and ALL the posts before this OF YOURS are completely inane and I am beginning to get a feeling that your desire for AMD to lower prices is disingenuous. Basically irony is at hand.

First you seemed to skip in that review here KYLE's opinion on this particular subject of performance, where the lions share of gamers play @60hz ,there is virtually no difference visually whilst playing the game. Add to this the posters above that have given multiple stories of how their Ryzen CPUs were in fact better than the lower core counts from Intel they had or in comparison to others whilst playing the same game.

My guess at this point is you have NO experience at all with higher core count CPUs, but still attempt to sway opinions against your ill conceived notions on the subject.

Now PRICE. So that 4c/4t 7600k @$190 against even the 6c/12t 1600x @$230 apparently warrants your ire. How about how Intel charges 349.99 for the 7700k (304.99 sale across the web), a whopping $160 for the extra 4t which in no way ever = 4c. So with AMD you are getting 2c/8t for $40 more. So assuming for a second equal performance then the AMD should be $285 when just looking at 4c to 6c (not counting threads yet). Now obviously it would be disingenuous to count the 12t as equal to Intels 4t so we have to do some math here. so seems most site attribute AMDs threads to 30%avg to core (sometimes as much as 40%+) so now we have 6t multiplied by 30% and we get 1.8c so round up to 2cores. So that adds $95 to our previous $285 to get to $380.

OK so now we have the 7600k @$190 and the 1600x @$380 assuming equal performance. But we don't have equal per core performance. Lets error on side of your favor and say AMD is 80% of Intel. That would bring AMDs 1600X to $304. So looks to me like AMD is giving a great deal to everyone except the spoiled or those looking for handouts.

See that's a great argument if I say so myself.

 

[Anti-Shills]

Here is actual pricing, with links even. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726 and https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...13428&cm_re=ryzen_1700-_-19-113-428-_-Product. This shows that the regular price of the i7 7700K is $349.99 and the regular price of a R7 1700 being $329.99. Both are on sale for the same price this weekend, at $309.99. Both CPUs show about the same performance, The intel being faster per core, but the Ryzen chip packing slighly slower cores but double the count. Making your argument for there being a large price difference doesn't actually hold up to people actually buying these chips. There are places to get them cheaper, or used, or refurbished or whatever but there isn't a large price difference, they are priced and perform about the same.

Microcenter has the i7-7700K at $280. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby_Lake_42_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

 

[Anti-Shills]

....
OK so now we have the 7600k @$190 and the 1600x @$380 assuming equal performance. But we don't have equal per core performance. Lets error on side of your favor and say AMD is 80% of Intel. That would bring AMDs 1600X to $304. So looks to me like AMD is giving a great deal to everyone except the spoiled or those looking for handouts.
...

You are doing some serious voodoo to arrive at $380 for 1600x. That kind of bogus math smells like our politicians inflating numbers for single-payer healthcare. You are way overvaluing your threads. Bottom line it is effective performance that matters, and performance in games that really matters, and that is this article is about.


You can see that 1600x is worse at single core and quad core performance, by significant amounts, stock clock or overclocked:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3885vs3920
BTW insulting people about looking for handouts, is utter nonsense. We work hard for our money and we have every right to demand that AMD price more competitively, so we can have a real price war, so intel will be forced to reduce their prices again, and not just stop at the 10% they did so far. This will be for the benefit of all end users, consumers, gamers alike. I do NOT know why you are so eager to support AMD's overpricing.

When a solution is only second best, and comes later to the market, it is pure arrogance to price higher than the incumbent. AMD needs to go back to roots provide competitive pricing like they did with socket A AthlonXP. Then they will have a real chance of taking market share and earning back that goodwill they once had. BTW when people bought those AthlonXPs back in the early 2000s, they were not taking handouts either. AMD has done this before, and they can do it again. AMD owes this to their fans, customers, gaming and computing community at large.

....
My guess at this point is you have NO experience at all with higher core count CPUs,
...

You sure like to make assumptions. FWIW, I still have my 3 year old FX-8320 system, that is doing a really fine job of bottlenecking my GTX970. Whereas by 6 year old i7-2600k and i5-2500K has not slowed down the GTX970. The sand bridges only started show inkling of limitations when I got my GTX1070s.

The 1440P data with the GTX1080ti already shows Ryzens crimping the the GPU performance, and when video cards get fast enough for 4K, you will see that crimp on 4K too. It is blantantly obvious at 1080P, people just try to discount as gamers with high-end rigs no longer game at 1080P. But the data does NOT lie, and it points to serious bottleneck and future time bomb.

In two years, I want the flexibility to upgrade by GPU without fear that the CPU will limit it. Ryzen has shown no data to alleviate that fear, but rather quite the contrary. So I must hedge the bet, and Ryzen must be priced significantly lower than Intel.

 

[ResistTheLies]

..... It looks like you want something for nothing. And as has been stated here multiple times, "AMD aint no charity".

Do you work for AMD's marketing department? I never thought normal people work so hard to come up with really funny accounting numbers like that. No one expects AMD to be charity, but their Ryzen chips have given me no motivation to upgrade from my Haswell i7 at all especially seeing how Kyle pointed out that even over clocked they will feel like the 2600K over clocked.I am itching to upgrade but even the 7700k is not enough performance gain for gaming.

BTW you start with a false premise, "For now we are assuming equal performance" and assume 47.5. Well what is stopping you from picking he i3-7300 goes for $157 at newegg
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117733

So you can make up even bigger numbers starting with 78.5. The numbers you seed your calculation is not justified in any way or form. The rather arbitrary 30% scaling factor you throw in is really just an arbitrary number. For games that that don't use more than two cores like Overwatch, the that multiplier should be 0%. And for vast majority of applications that don't exceed 4 cores, that is still 0%. The simple fact that you come up with a number higher than AMD'd release price of $250 for the 1600x shows that your logic is flawed and your numbers do not match reality.

One of the biggest mistake people make pricing, is they price stuff based on some internal metric, cost, labor, perceived worth from themselves. The fallacy here is that you assumed that they can even be equal to seed your calculation. True pricing is determined by the market. And AMD'd price has already been forced to drop compared to their release price (e.g. 1600x at $250 at release) see:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/8h...core-processor-yd160xbcaewof?history_days=120
For the 120 chart of prices. It has only got a downward trend.

The question is what that price going to converge at. The market will determine the price.

 

[JustReason]

Do you work for AMD's marketing department? I never thought normal people work so hard to come up with really funny accounting numbers like that. No one expects AMD to be charity, but their Ryzen chips have given me no motivation to upgrade from my Haswell i7 at all especially seeing how Kyle pointed out that even over clocked they will feel like the 2600K over clocked.I am itching to upgrade but even the 7700k is not enough performance gain for gaming.

BTW you start with a false premise, "For now we are assuming equal performance" and assume 47.5. Well what is stopping you from picking he i3-7300 goes for $157 at newegg
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117733

So you can make up even bigger numbers starting with 78.5. The numbers you seed your calculation is not justified in any way or form. The rather arbitrary 30% scaling factor you throw in is really just an arbitrary number. For games that that don't use more than two cores like Overwatch, the that multiplier should be 0%. And for vast majority of applications that don't exceed 4 cores, that is still 0%. The simple fact that you come up with a number higher than AMD'd release price of $250 for the 1600x shows that your logic is flawed and your numbers do not match reality.

One of the biggest mistake people make pricing, is they price stuff based on some internal metric, cost, labor, perceived worth from themselves. The fallacy here is that you assumed that they can even be equal to seed your calculation. True pricing is determined by the market. And AMD'd price has already been forced to drop compared to their release price (e.g. 1600x at $250 at release) see:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/8h...core-processor-yd160xbcaewof?history_days=120
For the 120 chart of prices. It has only got a downward trend.

The question is what that price going to converge at. The market will determine the price.

First you have to be a second account for Antishills, down to the verbage and inability to understand math, which is factual and in no way made up. Based upon the logic of the previous argument, which in itself was a lie, the logical price based upon number of cores and the IPC deficit the price of $304 was accurate and well founded. Keep throwing out low core count CPUs at any particular price and it wont change the argument. That i3 is going to make an even worse argument.

You seem for whatever reason to be put off by AMDs price. Hey don't buy it. Buy that 7600k or better yet buy that i3. But I even will help you understand why your premise is so far off the rational plane.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

The Core i5-7500 offers a solid dose of gaming performance that the overclocked Ryzen 5 1500X can't overcome. Like the 1500X, it comes with a bundled cooler, and a locked multiplier means you won't need a more expensive heat sink for overclocking.

However, the Ryzen 5 1600 is faster still, even in its stock form, for $20 more. Ryzen 5 1600 fills the pricing gap between Core i5-7500 and -7600K. Factoring in the unlocked ratio multiplier and beefy stock cooler, it's the best mid-range value choice. If you have the cash, we recommend stepping up to the Ryzen 5 1600 over Intel's Core i5-7500. At stock settings, it's also very close to the Core i5-7600K in newer games.

The capable Ryzen 5 1600X offers solid performance within a few FPS of Core i5-7600K in older titles, but you likely won't notice much of a difference if you're already bottlenecked by a mainstream graphics card. The Ryzen 5 1600X really shines in our suite's more modern titles. If newer games are your focus, you get a capable chip that leads the Core i5-7600K for only $11 more. Then again, the -7600K offers better performance once you overclock it, so long as you're willing to splurge on a beefier heat sink and Z270-based motherboard. We factored in those costs to reflect a price premium, but when it comes to the fastest possible chip for less than $250, the Core i5-7600K delivers after a bit of tuning.

 

[ResistTheLies]

First you have to be a second account for Antishills, ...

I don't know who Anti-Shills is, but you sure sound like a mad shill. Your math is just made up numbers by you. Just because different people refute your lies, does NOT mean they are all the same. All I know is that the market pricing as seen from the sites shows a steady decline in AMD CPU pricing. Those are the facts, go scream into the wind all you want, gamers will buy the CPU they like. I happen to like keep money in wallet and get another year or two out of i7-4790k.

BTW Tom's is a well known AMD advertising site. They are so pro-AMD it is silly. Try thinking for yourself for once.

 

[ResistTheLies]

...Edit: OMFG seriously you have been stating $190 for the 7600k when it is listed as $249.99 and being on sale generally for ~$205. Way to pull out the lowest price you could find, if it existed, just to make your point seem more valid. FACT is these 2 CPUs being virtually the same price ONLY a moron or uninformed consumer would purchase 4c/4t over a 6C/12T.

Facts are facts. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472532/Core_i5-7600K_Kaby_Lake_380_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

I don't whose point is valid or whatever but I see $189.99. Lots of Microcenter's around in the U.S. I see this in the adverts they mail me monthly.

Your pricing numbers is a excel spreadsheet game. Why not base is on AMD's own. Say take for example the FX-8350 at $110. see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/...t-Core_AM3_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Cooler

So $110/8 is roughly $13.75. So compared to your starting number of $47.50, that is scaling factor of 3.4. So divide 304/3.4 and you get $89.41. If AMD was silly enough to go by your price they'd be overcharging by $214.58 cents. What!? You don't understand my math? Wah Wah? You don't like my math?

Please stop with the number games. The market is the true arbiter and the true price will show from the market.

 

[JustReason]

Facts are facts. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472532/Core_i5-7600K_Kaby_Lake_380_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

I don't whose point is valid or whatever but I see $189.99. Lots of Microcenter's around in the U.S. I see this in the adverts they mail me monthly.

Your pricing numbers is a excel spreadsheet game. Why not base is on AMD's own. Say take for example the FX-8350 at $110. see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/...t-Core_AM3_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Cooler

So $110/8 is roughly $13.75. So compared to your starting number of $47.50, that is scaling factor of 3.4. So divide 304/3.4 and you get $89.41. If AMD was silly enough to go by your price they'd be overcharging by $214.58 cents. What!? You don't understand my math? Wah Wah? You don't like my math?

Please stop with the number games. The market is the true arbiter and the true price will show from the market.

First doesn't work like that.

Microcenters do NOT exist everywhere. When I lived in NC there were none. Now that I am in Detroit there is one, and true they are absolutely wonderful for PC shoppers. However you cant use bare minimum prices as factual basis for arguments. You must list retail then you can mention the general sale price. I got my wifes 1600 (non X) for $199 and the MoBo for $39 but realistically the average US consumer would need to know Retail as $219/89 simply because my purchasing outlet may not be available to others reading my post nor may they be able to purchase within my sales period to achieve the same deal. They could get better but again no guarantee.

Second lets look at your second CPU example. The 8350 is EOL and over 5 years old and you want to use its price against the price of the 7600k which is just a year old? This doesn't make any scientific sense. But lets say we play this game, we can not use the 7600k numbers here as you did. We have to use only the 8350s. I am not going to list out the math entirely, seems you don't reference it directly anyway so what the end result would be is 1600X @ $169.40, but wait the original 8350 number isn't entirely accurate either as far as performance. See that 8 core operates like a 4 core with 4extra threads that perform @~80% of the core IPC. So instead of $110/8 it is $110/7 giving us $ 15.71 per core. So now that number for the 1600X is now $193.55. We are getting so much closer to its retail. One must also consider platform upgrades as well. But...

We can do this all day forever. Fact is the math just doesn't support your desires or hypothesis. And that market you mention seems to disagree as well:

http://digiworthy.com/2017/07/02/ryzen-5-1600-amazon-best-selling-cpu/

R5 1600 #1 best seller in the UK on Amazon and was the #2 in US Amazon top sellers.

http://digiworthy.com/2017/05/10/amd-ryzen-5-best-received-cpu-launch/

Considering this survey of its members this Ryzen launch is the most well received of any in recent history.

So in short the consensus seems to indicate the market seems to deem performance and price to be reasonable and worth it.

 

[ResistTheLies]

So in short the consensus seems to indicate the market seems to deem performance and price to be reasonable and worth it.

Then why is the price dropping? You can not refute the fact that the price is dropping, not even 3 months in to the release. The market obviously thinks it is too high.

And why scientific sense do you have to say a AMD core is worth 47.5? AMD sure does NOT look like they are using that for their pricing, unless you happen to work for AMD and privy to their private information. And what you consider bare minimum pricing is actually quite common place. And it is the same bare minimum I would use for evaluating AMD. If AMD is not giving microcenter a competitive price, that is AMD's fault.

The primary buyers of the Ryzen are AMD faithfuls that have been stuck with pile-of-crap-drive/bull-crap-dozer/excavators for too long, and they are desperate for an upgrade. That pent-up demand is what you see as the initial surge and that is dissipating. Ryzen has given not given the 2500k, 2600k, 3570k, 4790K, etc. or any of the unlocked i5/i7 gamers a compelling reason to upgrade. Even, Intel itself hasn't done it. And looking at the pricing trends, it definitely shows that.

 

[JustReason]

Then why is the price dropping? You can not refute the fact that the price is dropping, not even 3 months in to the release. The market obviously thinks it is too high.

And why scientific sense do you have to say a AMD core is worth 47.5? AMD sure does NOT look like they are using that for their pricing, unless you happen to work for AMD and privy to their private information. And what you consider bare minimum pricing is actually quite common place. And it is the same bare minimum I would use for evaluating AMD. If AMD is not giving microcenter a competitive price, that is AMD's fault.

The primary buyers of the Ryzen are AMD faithfuls that have been stuck with pile-of-crap-drive/bull-crap-dozer/excavators for too long, and they are desperate for an upgrade. That pent-up demand is what you see as the initial surge and that is dissipating. Ryzen has given not given the 2500k, 2600k, 3570k, 4790K, etc. or any of the unlocked i5/i7 users a compelling reason to upgrade. Even, Intel itself hasn't done it. And looking at the pricing trends, it definitely shows that.

It is based solely on the posters rule that the 7600k price is the medium for the rule @$190 (which again is no where near retail pricing but it didn't help his argument anyway). So not made up numbers, strictly accurate math using the numbers given a known quantity.

And your pricing list does not account for why the pricing decrease. Amd reduced the prices of the R7 a tad once I believe but likely to make room for the incoming TR and Epyc CPUs. And keep in mind Ryzen has indeed reduced Intel prices, the existing chips and Intels new HEDT lineup. Intels last 10 core was $1700 now its replacement is $1000. So why would AMD need to reduce their prices if Intel is reducing theirs? As far as reasons to upgrade, the 4XXX series Intel and up may not need to but under that there is definitely a performance boost to be had moving to Ryzen, proven distinctly by the many testimonials of real world users that have made that move. There are even many from the 4770K and some of Intel Hedt in that series that comment on improvements.

So it isn't so clear and you are over generalizing it. That 1600 I got for my wife is very worth every penny. I dare say it is worth $300, but being my OPINION means it doesn't make the price as such.

 

[Olle P]

My question of the choice between 1600x and 1700x is just that, strictly comparing 1600x and 1700x, because 1600x turbos to 4GHz, which is around what most 1700X's are OC'ing to.
I was curious if that turbo 4GHz is enough to bring out most, if not all, of the gaming performance...

The "Turbo" applies to a single core only while OC is applied to all cores, so 4GHz OC is better than 4GHz turbo.
That said, in the vast majority of games available today the extra two cores of R7 are as good as useless. I also see pretty much no reason to spend $30 extra to not get a decent cooler by buying an R5 1600X instead of an R5 1600.
What applies to future games is anybody's guess. I personally think Sniper Elite 4 is a good representative of what future games will bring: Make use of the available processing power no matter if it's in the CPU or in the GPU. The more threads the merrier...

... When you 7600K is $30 less the 1600x, and a lot less than the 1700, you sure hope AMD has to provide something for all that money. ...
And streaming is NOT even on their radar, ...

The R5 1600X is a mystery! No cooler provided and $30 extra over the R5 1600 that overclock just as well. The R5 offer a whole lot of superior performance compared to an Intel i5 as soon as multiple threads come into play. Since I replaced my i5-6600K (which was only ~10% faster than the i5-2500K it replaced two years ago) with an R5 1600 just a month ago i have some fresh benchmarks (with both CPUs slightly overclocked). In some applications the i5 is slightly faster and in other the R5 is a lot faster. I have no desire to go back!
While "streaming" is a somewhat extreme example I find a total lack of tests running some common voice chat while benchmarking.

... The price gap between ryzen and threadripper is so wide ... Most of the gamers are on a budget, ... I'll stick to my i7-4790K for the next year or two. ...

Nobody should ever consider buying a ThreadRipper or Core-X for pure gaming!
If you're happy with your i7 then by all means keep it! I'd most probably still be using my i5-2500K if I'd realised the motherboard was still fully functional (it was a broken SSD that caused problems) and if also there was no need for an additional gaming computer in the family.

 

[jnemesh]

Did anyone commenting here actually READ the damn article??? Seriously, you guys are arguing over a 3-4 fps difference between the "king" intel CPU and the Ryzen! For ME, personally, 3-4 fps isn't enough to sway my decision one way or another. I suppose a lot of HardOCP readers ARE concerned about every last drop of performance, but these benchmarks show AMD running neck and neck with intel EVEN ON GAMING and providing real competition! I can't wait to see the Threadripper benchmarks!