Hello AMD RYZEN! 8 cores 16 threads is here.

[Ark Law]

So what you guys think? Is Ryzen worth the wait?

Bargain of the century for video editing & encoding me thinks.

 

[Encrypted11]

Well it delivered pretty much as expected IMO, would probably force Intel to drop prices on their X99 platform

For me that is a win, cause I am looking for a workstation

I think Ryzen 5 and 3 will be interesting to look at

So you confirm buying?

 

[kaixax555]

So you confirm buying?

need see wallet

Cause I intended for my current rig to last 4 years, but Ryzen is bringing 8 cores for cheaper than Intel prices

 

[Entry Level PC]

intel need to drop i5 to match Ryzen R3 price.

 

[Encrypted11]

need see wallet

Cause I intended for my current rig to last 4 years, but Ryzen is bringing 8 cores for cheaper than Intel prices

Tell yourself partial overhaul can liao cause change less than half the parts - ram, mobo, cpu
But the longer you wait the more your resale tanks

Edit: And skip LG G6 cfm ky.

 

[kaixax555]

Tell yourself partial overhaul can liao cause change less than half the parts - ram, mobo, cpu
But the longer you wait the more your resale tanks

Edit: And skip LG G6 cfm ky.

I might have to think about it...

cause new tripod in the agenda also

Also cannot guarantee I will be doing simulation 100% of the time

EDIT: as for phone looking at market, upgrade not coming so soon

 

[Encrypted11]

So what you guys think? Is Ryzen worth the wait?

If you need it, get it - has all the modern IO including NVMe.
If your system holds up, why upgrade?

 

[Buaya_Hunter]

I think most people here use their computers to play games and surf the internet...

Ryzen seems good for folks who need high processing power for multi-threaded applications..

for regular folk that just play games and watch videos, either is fine really, but intel provides higher fps if matched dollar for dollar.

Most gamers will do fine with a i3 6100 or a i3 7350k if i3 was priced right, especially 7350k...

 

[Buaya_Hunter]

Bargain of the century for video editing & encoding me thinks.

And virtualization lab.....

Unless x99 platform all suddenly drop prices...

 

[86technie]

To me yes, however as much as some may think
that Ryzen in certain application perform very badly.
After all it is a completely new architecture not based on
Bulldozer or K9/8.

Most of the application are more focused on Intel than AMD.
AMD wise most of the compiler used are for Bulldozer or K9/8.
If you fear of poor performance and indeed to run current/older
application/games get Intel.

Ryzen may take some time to shine main thing is application/games optimization.
Not to mention how many games actually use more than 4 cores?

Professional/Benchmark software wise definitely can tap on more than 4 cores.
Just my two cents.

Been a long time AMD user here, for me I be looking Ryzen based APU
instead of just CPU.

 

[kaixax555]

And virtualization lab.....

Unless x99 platform all suddenly drop prices...

Ya I think Intel might do a price drop which is good for the consumer

 

[WiZaRd!]

So what you guys think? Is Ryzen worth the wait?

By gaming perspective, the answer is a straight NO. I7 7700k offers more in term of value price/performance ratio.

Other than that, Ryzen is more value than the $1000+ i7 6900 series which Ryzen is still expensive in my book.

I'm not really disappointed as I knew it through the leaked benchmarks. If AMD wants to beat Intel, she has to go at least slightly higher in GHz to beat it. But looking at most articles and youtubes, Ryzen is very difficult to OC than Intel at this moment thus not worth the wait for me.. I'm sorry AMD...You disappointed me again...

 

[Maximus_XXVIII]

IMO, Ryzen 1800x is good for people who use their PC for both gaming and rendering.

Rendering results pretty much on par with 6900k whereas gaming performance is lagging behind but not forgetting the 1800x is 50% cheaper than 6900k.

That 50% savings can then be used for a better graphics card or even a 2nd graphics card for xfire or SLI.

Well done AMD

 

[jnashville]

By gaming perspective, the answer is a straight NO. I7 7700k offers more in term of value price/performance ratio.

Other than that, Ryzen is more value than the $1000+ i7 6900 series which Ryzen is still expensive in my book.

I'm not really disappointed as I knew it through the leaked benchmarks. If AMD wants to beat Intel, she has to go at least slightly higher in GHz to beat it. But looking at most articles and youtubes, Ryzen is very difficult to OC than Intel at this moment thus not worth the wait for me.. I'm sorry AMD...You disappointed me again...

yea saw some say max can overclock to a mere 4.2? that sucks. disappointed.

 

[royfrosty]

From the way i see it, yes it is a great CPU and yes its value for money. The funny thing is that the raw power of 1800X is indeed impressive. Which is great for multi loaded applications.

Users or content creators will definitely see the needs of cheaper alternatives/better performance per dollar rather than going for intel with all the PCIE lanes and 8 dimm slots.

The fact still lies in which segment the content creators or rather prosumers needs. If they dont need that many dimm slots, and that many PCIE lanes, then of cause it is way cheaper to adopt AMD Ryzen platform.

But when it comes to gaming, is it bad? Nah i don't think so. It can game, it is still way better than what they have done in FX line up. Delivering twice the performance in order to keep it relevance in market. Its not like the 6900k is any better in terms of single threaded workload in gaming either. Some of the benchmark in games are not that far from competitive 1800X.

But with that said, yes the 7700k is still top in terms of gaming, due to the faster frequency and yet better when overclocked.

But the whole point is, whether one needs a CPU to game only or needs a CPU for content creations? If there is a need for content creations, 1800X is by far great and yet cheaper. Not forgetting that allowing users to still game, not showing a terrible slow fps either.

 

[MoneyFace =p]

By gaming perspective, the answer is a straight NO. I7 7700k offers more in term of value price/performance ratio.

Other than that, Ryzen is more value than the $1000+ i7 6900 series which Ryzen is still expensive in my book.

I'm not really disappointed as I knew it through the leaked benchmarks. If AMD wants to beat Intel, she has to go at least slightly higher in GHz to beat it. But looking at most articles and youtubes, Ryzen is very difficult to OC than Intel at this moment thus not worth the wait for me.. I'm sorry AMD...You disappointed me again...

Sorry Ryzen 3 1400X will answer for i7-7700K's 'supremacy'....

 

[MoneyFace =p]

I am waiting for Ryzen 3 1400X and 1200X review to compete against Core i7-7700K and i5-7600K...

 

[Buaya_Hunter]

IMO, Ryzen 1800x is good for people who use their PC for both gaming and rendering.

Rendering results pretty much on par with 6900k whereas gaming performance is lagging behind but not forgetting the 1800x is 50% cheaper than 6900k.

That 50% savings can then be used for a better graphics card or even a 2nd graphics card for xfire or SLI.

Well done AMD

Was quite surprise the gap not really that bad even though Intel is clock higher....

But yup, those who have haswell e, skylake and kabylake Liao can afford to wait cos it is at the best a side grade...

 

[Ark Law]

How good Ryzen 7 is is dependent on the POV.

If one is comparing it for multi threaded workload, Ryzen 7 smashes Broadwell-E in priceerf

If one is comparing it for single threaded workload versus Broadwell-E , it's more or less either way give & take

If one is comparing it for single threaded workload versus Kaby Lake (which isn't the direct rival), Kaby pulls ahead. I mean do you even need to guess? We've already seen the trend on LGA115x vs 2011/-3

What I hope AMD does for Ryzen 3/5 is clock the 4 and 6 cores higher and sits between Skylake & Kabylake while offering a compelling value. Though I doubt AMD would do so

 

[Crooni]

articles are all 1800x

as expected 1800x gaming performance is poorer than 7700k and more expensive, but it's competition is 6800k and above for cpu tasks. it's not supposed to be used for gaming.

the 7700k is a optimized 4c/8t design through dunno how many generations by now, and most games are optimized for it due to market share and staying power.

1700 is the one pitted against 7700k, which should deliver similar (poorer) gaming results, but stronger cpu, while also being cheaper hence justifying its' price.

1600x is pitted against 7600k, same clockspeed as 1800x, 6c/12t. that should be interesting. theoretically it should reach higher clockspeed while still having a core advantage and be priced at $400.

haven't seen any benchmarks for cities skyline, stellaris, etc simulation/strategy titles, whereby they measure by complexity (pop size/fleet size/duration of ai per turn/speed of simulation). those are the stuff i play. they only benchmark those mainstream titles like hitman/tomb raider/cs/bf1/watch dogs which are optimized for 4 cores and high clock speed. aots doesn't count, it uses cpu mostly for rendering and only scales to 6 core.

handbrake is really good though, since i have a ton of holiday videos waiting to encode.