Overall good CPU but compared to Intel it sucks. You are better with Kaby Lake. AMD CPU needs this, that or that...same story as with their video cards. Wait for performance increase which happens but by that time competitor has newer generation product. Look at difference between Nvidia and AMD high end offering.
Almost forgot...to me a real upgrade is going to be Intel 2066 socket.
Most of these performance differences are not that relevant. I mean if you have a 60Hz monitor, practically all these tests max that out.
So Ryzen is definitely better value for money than Broadwell-E even for gaming. Neither of those can currently match Kaby Lake, but they're not supposed to anyway. Ryzen 3/5 will compete with Kaby Lake by being cheaper and presumably only a little slower, and thus better value for money.
Well, what I gather from this round up is that Ryzen 7 series is a workstation CPU which can game decently well. So - if you use your computer for productivity (video processing, VMs, compiling etc) in addition to gaming, it's the processor to buy. It's vastly less expensive that Broadwell-E, and performs as well (if not better) in some regards.
If your computer is used for gaming first with some secondary workstation uses, you're better off with Kaby Lake. The almost 5ghz clock speeds rule for gaming where it's not highly optimized for higher thread counts.
My Ryzen 7 1700 arrives today BTW.
I am definitely curious to see how the APU's which are coming fare. An actual decent x86 architecture with a really good IGP? If they could stick a 2GB hunk of HBM on it.... lordy that would be fast.
To be expected - most current games are developed to make use of 4 threads on Intel CPUs, no more no less, once compiled on PC.
As for "it should have been finalized before release", yeah right - even consoles need firmware updates once out to fix non-optimal settings. And if the situation under Linux is any indication, even Intel isn't exempt - they had to rewrite a whole new power management scheme to make use of Sandy Bridge, and even then you may end up with a frozen system now and again if you don't disable power management. We're talking SERVERS here, people! the kind of machine that runs 24/7 and thus working power management means real MONEY!
So to me, a grounds up brand new CPU architecture (something Intel hasn't done in more than 5 years) that works reliably out of the box and can beat the established champion in several benchmarks and real-world tasks for half the price is a GREAT accomplishment. And if Deus Ex and Shadow of Mordor are any indication, Ryzen can indeed kick Kaby Lake in the butt when properly used.
What can be understood from this article is that, CURRENTLY, AMD's Ryzen isn't the best gamer CPU out there as games aren't geared towards it yet. You can game properly with it though, and it more than likely will get faster with time. If you need to build a gaming rig today, go Kaby Lake; if you're building a workstation, go Ryzen - knowing you can game on it too. If you can wait a few months though, all bets are off.
As for AMD's performance in the GPU market, look at how many GameWorks games are out there, and how fast AMD's performance climbs up after game release (from a couple of weeks to a few months) - while it took almost a full year for Nvidia to catch up on DX12 performance!
Really looking forward to the R5 series, especially the mid range 6-core chips. Once those hit my wife and I will be making the move away from out current Ivy Bridge Z77 set-ups. It'll be my first "current gen" CPU in about ten years
How large is the workstation market compared to "gaming enthusiasts"? AMD offers a compelling alternative to those that can use multi-core threading to their advantage and to me that's where the first and best profits are. I just don't see AMD's first Ryzen launch focusing on their Ryzen 5, 4 core systems, for gamers. My point is I have a feeling Ryzen 5 or even 6, could be a very competitive CPU for gamers up against Kaby Lake. Give it time
Looks like most of the games where Ryzen flops also have i7 6900K performing worse/similar to i5. It's clear that the fault lies in bad multi-threading code, not Ryzen performance, at least in those games. Hopefully more games will perform like Deus Ex in future.
Personally I would love to know how binaries from Intel's C/C++ compiler run on Ryzen. Does anyone have any comparable performance figures for any non-trivial code that's been compiled on Clang, GCC, MSVC and Intel's C++ Compiler? (OK, fine, ANY code, non-trivial or otherwise, single or multithreaded.)
I am not sure why would 4 and 6 core Ryzen do better in gaming when they run same clock speed as 8 core counterparts. You people have messed up logic. It is not going to be like Ryzen 4/8 will run 4.8Ghz stock.
It's been a long time since I cared if Intel's compilers played nicely with anyone else's CPUs. Have they still been "go[ing] out of their way to deoptimize code on non-Intel CPUs?" Eight years is a long time to slowly start sneaking code back into their codebase - not that they've needed to, of course, given how, er, "delightfully performant" AMD CPUs have been performing relative to Intel CPUs. (OK, I'll take my corporate conspiracy-theory hat off now.)
[quotemsg=19424058,0,2164959]Kaby Lake as workstation CPU is fine too.[/quotemsg]I'm running a 4C8T Xeon E5620 from 2010 in the box on my desk. It's practically ANCIENT but it still works fine for what I need it to do. (I just need more RAM and a big SSD!)
It's been a long time since I cared if Intel's compilers played nicely with anyone else's CPUs. Have they still been "go[ing] out of their way to deoptimize code on non-Intel CPUs?" Eight years is a long time to slowly start sneaking code back into their codebase - not that they've needed to, of course, given how, er, "delightfully performant" AMD CPUs have been performing relative to Intel CPUs. (OK, I'll take my corporate conspiracy-theory hat off now.)[/quotemsg]
A nearly 7 year old semiaccurate post seems hardly relevant today. Now, if a tin-foil hat is needed, I am sure we can find one around here somewhere.
These Ryzens are very good all rounders. I looked at a YT review by Bitwit that showed that on 7 games tested the 1700 had an average of 118fps vs 127 from the 7700k (1080 testing). Other review sites showed the margin also within 10%, and the gap considerably closed at 1440/4k. Really not bad for an 8core chip, considering the current teething issues that keeps it a little back.
Here's hoping that upcoming DX12/Vulkan titles with better threading and core usage will run even better.