Ed_1we will see, few months in users and reviewers hand should show whats up.

Yeah we will, also I'm confident that last few months motherboard manufacturers have been testing the platform internally and that sheer number of motherboard models show certain promise.

chaosmassiveyou saying that AMD 8C/16T win against Intel 4C/8T?
well, duh !

now try that again in single-threaded performance

ps. im not trying to defend Intel here.

The two cpus competes in prices, but on the whole, Ryzen is best ... games that use the processor a lot, as is the case of BF1, among others.

Ed_1Its unproven till its out in reviewers for a while.
One thing Intel does good is with stability and compatibility , we will see, few months in users and reviewers hand should show whats up.

Not familiar with X99 then are you? the intel USB 3 controller there is not the best, leading to startup problems.

could also be that i am exceptionally ham fisted, but i have to this day killed two X99 board and one CPU, have an old X58 system that still works perfectly, and several other computers as well.

BrusfantometNot familiar with X99 then are you? the intel USB 3 controller there is not the best, leading to startup problems.

could also be that i am exceptionally ham fisted, but i have to this day killed two X99 board and one CPU, have an old X58 system that still works perfectly, and several other computers as well.

Nope, never used X99 platform, but still IMO Intel does better on a whole with there controllers (USB, Network, Storage ), I have seem more issues with 3rd party ones than there's.

Again, Even if Intel brought out new platform I still say same thing, and I never buy pre order, I always wait a while at least for them to sort out things, if there are any (bios wise).

Ed_1Nope, never used X99 platform, but still IMO Intel does better on a whole with there controllers (USB, Network, Storage ), I have seem more issues with 3rd party ones than there's.

Again, Even if Intel brought out new platform I still say same thing, and I never buy pre order, I always wait a while at least for them to sort out things, if there are any (bios wise).

It used to be true, but in recent years I've had no different experience than realtek, which is the vendor usually for the motherboards and not the cpu vendor.

So pumped for my first 8core, skipping 6 core; Can't be happier from sitting on this i7 950 for 8 years now hoping this one will last me another 8 as I want to Stream while pwning BF1 (Only a matter of time until 8 cores become used, 6 core is already going to shine under DX12 and quite frankly it's about time, quad core is so 2010 haha).
To the people who are wondering which is better for gaming, it is probably a few fps difference to a 7700k (if that, on resolutions most people don't even use 2500+) so seriously enough with the nonsense, CPU's have caught up for a while now and it's mostly about the Graphics power, hell even a Devil's Canyon 4790k is still going to be on par with Ryzen.. and the overclock potential jibber-jabber, AMD products in general don't overclock well so if an 8 core can hit 4.5 ghz on good cooling I would be pleased, but let's not forget that overclocking only gives you maybe a 5 percent performance increase on ridiculous resolutions (on select games, see W1zzard's reviews) so there really is no point, you might as well tighten your ram timings as well :p (This is from a gamer's point of view)

- Future proof with a 6-8 core is definitely more logical, or you can keep the great and fancy quad-core we call the 7700k etc. etc.

In no relevant game 1700 will beat the 7700k.

Crap DaddyIn no relevant game 1700 will beat the 7700k.

Based on your real world experience with both? Or blind ignorance?

Why are well talking about CPU's like it is the primary bottleneck in you gaming experience? I don't need Ryzen to be the greatest gaming CPU ever. I don't need it to run at 4.7 GHz on all cores. What we all need is just to be secure in the knowledge whatever we are currently playing the limit is how much your GPU can handle. As long as the CPU is keeping up with the best my GPU can do, I'm good.

If you have a case where your GPU is dropping to the 80% or 70% usage and the CPU is maxed out of 3, 4, whatever number of cores, then the pairing is all wrong or you are not pushing the graphics as high as you can.

If you have a 7700K or 6700K running above 4.3 GHz, then this is not the upgrade for you. If you are sporting an AMD chip of any kind or an Intel chip older than say the 4770K, you might want to start saving up. Either Ryzen will be great for you or Intel will be dropping prices on something you have been eyeballing for while now.

Its all BS until I see a tpu review.

The only thing that has me a bit squeemish is that I have a hard time accepting these #s. I don't think AMD lying, but I have to assume that they've set up the testing environment to favor their product, and cherry picked the best results, so maybe instead of a 10% difference it's closer to 3-5.

As for AMD vs. Intel even if the AMD performance is slightly worse I'm still rocking with AMD. One reason is to support the smaller company. Additionally because I feel that 4 cores is quickly becoming the minimum and I plan to keep my system for 5+ years I think by then my system will have more staying power than a 4 core.

HotobuI don't think AMD lying, but I have to assume that they've set up the testing environment to favor their product

Always using their greater core count in multithreaded applications. Would have been more interesting to compare the R5 1400X to the 7700k with all max OC.

EDIT: GTAV for instance: wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

In what? Cinebench? It sure won't beat it in games. Look, the majority of people who buy desktop/consumer high performance CPUs are gaimers. Those gaimers are better off buying higher clocked quad core CPUs because most games run faster on those. AMD should've released their quad core CPUs first and focused on clocking them as high as possible.

chaosmassiveyou saying that AMD 8C/16T win against Intel 4C/8T?
well, duh !

now try that again in single-threaded performance

ps. im not trying to defend Intel here.

Then be objective. They compared the prices vs total performance. It's not a comparition between a Rysen core at 3ghz with i7 one at 4,2ghz, normally the highest frequency with same IPC wins (i7)

SteevoBased on your real world experience with both? Or blind ignorance?

Since the title of this thread says: 1700 beats 7700k based on a few slides provided by AMD WITHOUT any game comparisons I think I am allowed to speculate the contrary based on blind ignorance.

rruffAlways using their greater core count in multithreaded applications. Would have been more interesting to compare the R5 1400X to the 7700k with all max OC.

EDIT: GTAV for instance: wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

min and average go up when overclocked, yet it averages 1 frame less? wat? AMD min and max nowhere near the intel, yet it averages 4 frames less? wat?

either this game is insanely optimized and thus the mins and maxes are aberrations or I'm missing something.

TheLaughingManWhy are well talking about CPU's like it is the primary bottleneck in you gaming experience?

Let's check again all those 1 million+ reviews and comparison tests between existing and older Intel and AMD CPUs, shell we? ;)

Prima.VeraLet's check again all those 1 million+ reviews and comparison tests between existing and older Intel and AMD CPUs, shell we? ;)

Those reviews show that dual cores are dead, clock speed is often the deciding factor, and you only need a high-end CPU once you get into the top-tier GPU's like the GTX 1080 or Titan. I did my homework and I know when my GTX 1070 gets going and the auto OC has it up around 1900 MHz, my FX-8350 is shortchanging me 10 to 15 FPS in AAA titles like Battlefield 1. Can I live with the 90 FPS I get now? I sure can. But are we are not hear to get good enough. We are hear to have stupidly overpowered computers because that is what enthusiast do. If Ryzen gives me similar gaming performance as an Intel counterpart and more multi-thread horse power to boot, of course I want that. If there is a drastic difference in performance compared to a 7600K or 7700K in gaming, then I will go Intel instead.

yogurt_21min and average go up when overclocked, yet it averages 1 frame less? wat? AMD min and max nowhere near the intel, yet it averages 4 frames less? wat?

either this game is insanely optimized and thus the mins and maxes are aberrations or I'm missing something.

LOL. The user comments on that article are hilarious. Apparently, this bench means that Ryzen is a completely dud, despite it thrashing the 7700k in many other tests. Wccftech provides the comedy as usual.

heflys20LOL. The user comments on that article are hilarious. Apparently, this bench means that Ryzen is a completely dud, despite it thrashing the 7700k in many other tests. Wccftech provides the comedy as usual.

Not saying these are representative either but this article was posted over there before that one.

AMD Ryzen 1700X Benchmarked, Beats Kaby Lake In IPC / Single-threaded Performance

WCCFTech being WCCFTech

it's Cinebench if only the OP bothered including it in the title in the first place but I guess that won't generate as much clicks as this one

TheLaughingManWhy are well talking about CPU's like it is the primary bottleneck in you gaming experience?

"Why are we all talking about CPUs like it is the primary bottleneck in your gaming experience?"

I'm a little lost by your statements. When did the GPUs become the bottleneck? This is what you are implying. Furthermore, if the GPU could compute and render everything without the CPU, would we need to care about the CPU performance?

TheLaughingManAs long as the CPU is keeping up with the best my GPU can do, I'm good.

I'm pretty sure the CPU is still holding the GPU back. When the CPU increases in performance, the GPU gets held back even less. This tiny detail is the reason why the CPU is still a big deal.

TheLaughingManIf you have a case where your GPU is dropping to the 80% or 70% usage and the CPU is maxed out of 3, 4, whatever number of cores, then the pairing is all wrong or you are not pushing the graphics as high as you can.

The only time I've seen all CPU threads at 100% while the GPU has some load is when I've rendered particles and voxels. The reason for this is because the CPU still needs to compute and render xyz, alpha, and other datasets of information for millions of individual points/particles. GPU still can't do this on the fly while creating the frames in the buffer, and most GPUs don't have the buffer size to compute this. This situation doesn't normally happen for a PC Game.

If you find this happening in a PC Game, you should increase the clock speed or purchase a better CPU. In this situation, it sounds like the CPU is struggling, and the GPU is doing less work because it's waiting. If you're GPU is at 99% loads and it has poor FPS, then the GPU is most likely struggling.

I 100% sure you just repeated what I was saying in a different manner. Thank you.

Youtube & probably the entire web flooded with "Ryzen this" & "R7 1800X that" & "Sh1t, i7 7700K/6900K gets stomped" - glad it's finally time the AMD shines again: who of you TPU guys/staff pre-ordered or got samples of the 1800X & either ASRock Fatal1ty X370 Prof. Gaming (my fav) and/or CVIH (less but still fav, til something better looking comes out courtesy of ASUS)? Linus talks about "Look 1000$ performance for half the price" & "Oooh, shiny RGB", Burke (Gamers Nexus) talks about PCIe lanes inside the Ryzen's SoC/NB(?), JayzTwoCents talks about should pre-order or not. Pre-ordering started 2 days ago, this silence means you got something & keeping it secret? Ffs, i'm starving. :laugh: R7 1800X & ROG Crosshair VI Hero TPU review, pretty please? :)

TheLaughingManI 100% sure you just repeated what I was saying in a different manner. Thank you.

You thank. manner different a in saying was I what repeated just you sure 100% I.