Almost no support from cooler manufacturers at launch, bugs, RAM incompatibilities etc.
1.5 months have passed since the launch and we're getting second batch of mobos.
Honestly, it's really obvious that AMD didn't share specs early enough for other companies to prepare.
"Almost no support", isn't none and it isn't true anyway. There were more than enough coolers available for Ryzen as well as kits for older coolers to fit it on.
"Bugs, Ram compatibilities etc". and then again you're overly praising Intel. So I'm gonna say this:
a) you're comparing apple to bananas, Ryzen is new, Intel's stuff is very old and is still based on Core Gen 1 arch. So if you're unable to cut them some slack, it's just bad character. Intel's stuff wasn't perfect when first release, not the 1st gen Core stuff, not the X79 stuff and especially not the X99 stuff. Multiple problems with heat on Haswell / Ivy Bridge aside. You talk like Intel's perfect, but they never were.
b) you sound like a Intel fanboy, the way you praise them, that in effect lowers your creditability discussing AMD
c) you're again easily exaggerating those "bugs" etc. - Ryzen runs fine, as long as the user in front of the PC is no idiot. And I don't care about idiots.
d) it's clear you're here to make Ryzen bad, and are discussing this with every user that is not concurring with you or makes some positive statements about Ryzen. What exactly is your problem with AMD? Or why are you such a Intel fanboy?
Now this is new to me, but I'm no expert on the AMD lineup. How do you count cores in FX-8350?
On one hand you try to discredit me as too young to understand FX and CPUs, and on the other hand you're asking me stupid questions about old tech? Strange behaviour I call that. Go to your beloved anandtech to get a explanation on FX - even if it's still not part of this discussion, look at the thread title if you care.
How can you say it's "the present", when you have to pay over $300 for a desktop CPU and we're almost sure that APU and mobile processors will have 4 cores at most?
It was already "present" when FX and Gen 1 Core Intel CPUs hit the market, both with as much as 6 to 8 cores. Now it's nothing special and absolutely common, many people own a 6 core+ CPU and / or a CPU that has 8 or more threads which is essentially the same. Fact is i7 had untapped power because HT wasn't used, but it's well used now. Every desktop i7 has 8 threads or more. Consoles have 3/6 (Xbox360 3 cores + SMT = 6 threads) CPUs, now have 8 CPUs. Just because "most users" are still behind and only use 4 cores or less, doesn't mean it's still not part of the present. It is present technology.
Maybe an educated guess? In a year from now, what percentage of all PCs (so excluding servers) will have more than 4 cores?
I'm not here to do fruitless speculations to feed moot points.
But why are you so sure history won't repeat itself? Once again AMD is doubling Intel's core count. Once again we are assured that AMD is correct, Intel is wrong and game creators are lazy/bribed by Intel.
Honestly, I don't know how old you are and whether you've been tracking the Bulldozer launch as well.
I was. I've seen all this already. I've taken part in almost identical discussions. I've read reviews with similar conclusions.
Here's one of them:
Honestly it's a sign of weakness and weak argument if someone starts his point by talking about the age of the other user. But I can tell you I'm easily old and experienced enough for you.
And a few quotes from the text:
"Given the right workload, Bulldozer is actually able to hang with Intel's fastest Sandy Bridge parts. We finally have a high-end AMD CPU with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform."
"AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer"
"In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications."
"The good news is
AMD has a very aggressive roadmap ahead of itself"[/quote]
So what? If you missed it, FX has not exactly much in common with Ryzen. Ryzen has similarities with Intel's Core lineup, not FX, and everyone knows that too - or should know it at least. Nobody said that 8 Core CPUs are mainly made for gaming, they are suited for gaming
and much more, this is what every good reviewer says. So comparing those 8 cores and even 6 cores with old fashioned 4 cores of Intel is the wrong way. Also people exaggerate the performance of 7700K compared to Ryzen all the time. I have seen countless different reviews on that matter, and Ryzen holds itself pretty well and will be faster, once 4 cores are overburdened. That said, I would never buy a 4 core for 350 bucks, I'd instead go with the Ryzen 7 1700 or a Core i7 5820K/6800K, nothing else. The 7700K is just bad value, like the 6700K and 4770/4790K before it. The first Core i7 were priced at 200 bucks or less (i7 920 for example), those were HEDT parts, socket 1366 with Triple Channel, the predecessor of LGA 2011, and still way less expensive than the consumer parts are now. The prices Intel wants for their top of the line, overclockable i7 4 Core is just laughable. Since many years.
The key difference is that FX-8150 was competing with a then-modern i7-2600K and lost badly in single-thread at launch already.
Intel overslept Ryzen launch - new LGA1151 processors (maybe final) will arrive in early 2018. We'll see what happens...
The key here is, nobody is really talking about FX besides you. Peope don't give a damn about FX since Ryzen is released. Have a look at the topic name.
tho it might have something to do with Autocad not being core friendly ... gosh a 7700K as top dog ... urk...
Seriously, what does Intel think we have? A money bin like Scrooge McDuck?
