Wait for the lower core count products. This isn't a top clocked item, the efficiency they provide in multithreading makes them a better choice as more titles move to vulkan/DX12 regardless of model purchased and they are offering such a huge jump over the FX series it isn't even funny. Saying these offer a lackluster gaming performance means quite simply that X99 offers NO gaming performance at all since at stock I do not believe there is a single 2011v3 or v4 CPU that offers better performance in most games. Certainly the 6900K and 6950X are trash in this situation as well with their lower clockspeed and worse performing multithreaded IPC.
are we reading the same reviews? 6900k/6950x ipc is better by around 8% in cinebench which is a very strong point for ryzen. ryzen is behind more in other tests. intel's chips lose that advantage and some more in multithreaded which suggests amd has done something very right in their smt implementation.
ryzen has incredible amount of raw power. it performs better than intel counterparts in cinebench, handbrake, pov-ray and blender.
unfortunately, not in much else. equal and competitive but not better.
gaming is clearly the weakest aspect.
1800x vs 6900k is the much-touted comparison but only in terms of perf/$. performance of both isn't that different.
1700 is the one with most clear niche here and undoubtedly will be most popular. same price as 7700k, more cores.
the most interesting fighting par should be 1700x vs 6800k, same price and judging by current reviews, gap in performance is not as large as expected.
latest bits of information we have on ryzen 3/5 says their clock speeds will not go higher than ryzen 7-s, topping out at 4.0 or just above that.
in most reviews where overclocking (simple and with air cooling) is attempted, 1700/1700x/1800x all end up between 4.0-4.1 ghz. especially with that in mind, 1700 sounds like the best of the bunch, especially with perf/$ in mind.
