vMax :
...and as to competition, Intel's prices still have not changed, in fact they have gone up!!! and people are still paying the prices.
Actually, this isn't true. Intel's prices have come down substantially. What you are missing here is that a Coffee lake i3 equals a Kaby Lake i5, a Coffee Lake i5 equals a Kaby Lake i7, and so on up the line. You can currently get a quad-core i3-8100 for around $125, whereas last year you would have needed to pay close to $200 for an i5-7500 to get a similar level of performance. Likewise, an i5-8600K at around $250 offers similar performance to what the i7-7700K did for around $350, and the i7s and i9 have brought what would have previously been HEDT parts down to the consumer space at similarly lower prices. If that isn't a price reduction, what is?
TerryLaze :
drivinfast247 :
The above post shows an i5 8600k vs a 1600x. This isn't a fair comparison given the 8600k is almost double after you factor in a cooling solution. The better comparison would be against a 2600x, which is still cheaper.
It's a response to this comment showing that multicore coding is not the issue ryzen is having(or FX 6 years ago) ,even when the game is using all the cores of the 1600 it's still slower...so yes of course it also has to be much cheaper,why on earth would anybody pay more to get less FPS?
It's a flawed comparison, since that video is from right around the Coffee Lake Launch, and is not representative of current or prior performance at a given price level. Up until Coffee Lake, AMD's 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen processors were competing against Intel's 4-core, 4-thread i5s in terms of price, and they can be found priced closer to Intel's quad-core i3s now as well. And compared to Intel's quad-cores, AMD's hexa-cores are almost definitely the better option for long-term performance in the most demanding games. These recent Assassin's Creed titles might not see much notable gains from having access to more than 6 threads, but they do show better performance from having at least 6 threads compared to 4, and even in that very video they showed the Ryzen 1600X outperforming the i5-7600K.
At the high-end, sure, you can get a little bit better gaming performance out of Intel's higher-end offerings, and you start seeing diminishing returns from adding more threads past a certain point. However, for most builds, the gaming performance benefits for any of these processors around the $300+ range can be questionable. The vast majority of people will have their performance limited much more by their graphics card, not their CPU, and on average, the performance difference in today's games will only amount to around a few percent or less in a typical setup. Going by current US pricing, the Ryzen 2600 is available for as little as $160 from popular online stores, while the lowest-cost i7 with the same number of cores and threads, the 8700 (non-K) starts at around $330, double the price. Or, if you want to overclock to get a little bit more performance still, you'll be looking at spending $370 for an 8700K, which will be around $450 once you figure in an overclocking-capable cooler, and you'll similarly be looking at spending upward of $300 even for overclocking an unlocked i5 to any notable degree. What we have here is a situation where spending two to three times as much on a processor and cooler will only get you relatively minor performance gains. So again, we're seeing diminishing returns with these higher end processors. Most people will be buying a system based around a budget, so unless they are already putting a $500+ graphics card into the system and focusing on high refresh rate gaming on a 144Hz screen, that money would probably be better put toward graphics hardware instead.
As for comparisons to the prior FX processors, Ryzen is a completely different scenario. The FX CPUs were far behind Intel's offerings even back when they first launched. The per-core performance tended to be quite a bit lower, to the point where even at heavily multithreaded tasks the 8-core FX-8150 often couldn't keep up with Intel's existing 4-core, 8-thread i7-2600K. AMD wasn't offering more threads in the consumer space than what Intel's i7s had either, and the FX lineup was generally less efficient and ran hotter overall, despite them having lower performance. The Bulldozer architecture and its derivatives simply wasn't very competitive in a number of ways. That doesn't hold true for Ryzen though. Per-core performance is much closer to what Intel offers, efficiency is right on par for a given level of performance, and heavily multithreaded performance at any given price level is superior. We'll have to see how the jump to 7nm and 10nm plays out for AMD and Intel, but unless Intel were to release something that made all their own existing CPUs obsolete, which seems rather unlikely, AMD should not have much difficulty remaining competitive.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram