Emille:

That video review was one of the best and most comprehensive reviews I have ever watched and it paints ryzen in a much better light. It's a shame that on it's own it's hard to take it 100% seriously though as no other review showed ryzen to perform that well really. Looks like other reviewers focused too much on gpu limited games and average frame rates only. I just subscribed to that channel too.

I really liked Digitalfoundry's Ryzen 5 vs i5 article. They noticed that Ryzen 5 holds up better in the more demanding scenes. i5 ultimately has higher averages, due to getting better framerates in the "empty" scenes, but DF prefers the Ryzen 5 due to its better performance where performance is most important. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

Not good, but not even that bad

BReal85:

Can you tell me why are you comparing the 1800X to the 7700K? Compare it to 1500X or maybe 1600/X. LMAO. +100 7600K is 6-7% faster (in the initial reviews, since than, Ryzen got faster in some games at least, like RotTR) in FHD gaming than the 1600, 2% faster in 1440P and equal in 4K. 8600K will be maybe 1-2% more compared to the 7600K. Speaking of the +50-60 EUR extra cost compared to the 1600 and the higher mobo prices (Z for the 7600K and B for the Ryzen) -combined, you may get a +100$ price tag -, I don't know how on earth can you say is best bang for buck. No, not really. The prices raised for the K versions for about 30 EUR...

If the price comparison is correct at the current prices in my country a 1600X will cost less 120€ compared to the I7-8700K. To OC a 1600X you only need a b350 that supports OC memories too, and that for less the 100€. On intel you will need a Z370 that is way over 100€++. And since the difference in performance between the 8700k and the 1600X is most probably under 2 digits slower then the new 8700K. Remember that since Intel is moving the mainstream to 6C count all new software and games will have need to have support for at least 6C, so in MHO i think this is a win for AMD and specially for consumers wallets. But i still think Shintel is risking too much with those high prices they are asking, they are betting too much on a market that they think is 90% blue. Hopefully with the next release of the ryzen refresh on the same mobos, maybe intel keep supporting the Z370 when they release the Coffee lake refresh, but i dont have much faith on Intel doing this, they will probably force people to buy the coffee lake refresh with a new chip.....

Why people keep bringing the 1800x price to comparison to make the i7 look like better deals? With the 1700 out there is not even point doing that since the 1700 clocks about the same and costs 200 usd less. Also the maximun diference on fhd is with 1080ti , with 1070 ,1060 480 580 etc the diference is way smaller to non existant , i guess everyone on an i5 and i7 planning to get a 1080/ti then to play on 1080p!

And no actual link to the shop? www.lambda-tek.de I'm a bit confused with the prices actually, is Intel trying to convince us of its not being concerned with Ryzen at all? I mean, 8700K should completely demolish Ryzen 1600X to cost so much, which I highly doubt it will tbh.

Venix:

Why people keep bringing the 1800x price to comparison to make the i7 look like better deals? With the 1700 out there is not even point doing that since the 1700 clocks about the same and costs 200 usd less. Also the maximun diference on fhd is with 1080ti , with 1070 ,1060 480 580 etc the diference is way smaller to non existant , i guess everyone on an i5 and i7 planning to get a 1080/ti then to play on 1080p!

Some people like myself buy 1080/1080Ti to game at 1080p 144Hz, so there is a market for that (albeit small). But I hear ya, I don't get why the 1800X is being dragged into this discussion. The 1800X doesn't sell so well because price/performance is not that good, the 1700/1700X are what's killing its sales. People will always find a reason to bullshit their way around their past and (apparently) future purchases when they're fanboys, don't you worry about that. They already know who they're buying, they're just trying to justify. As for the news article itself, Intel apparently thinks they can shit on their consumers again; not exactly something new. I have a feeling it won't work this time though.

xIcarus:

I have a feeling it won't work this time though.

It will, people are stupid and there's allot of fanboys out there.

Silva:

It will, people are stupid and there's allot of fanboys out there.

Thinking about it I think you're right actually. As much as we'll support the better option, there are always at least twice as many fanboys buying with their arse.

BReal85:

If you check benchmarks, yes.

Nobody should care about benchmarks as old or bugged as that.

BReal85:

The 8600K will be slower in games compared to the 7700K. That's 99% probability.

Yeah, playing old and current games. It ought to change in a number of years, and I don't like to change my PC every other year. In the mean time pretty much everything else heavier is faster with 6 cores than 4. Some of us use our PCs for things other than gaming as well, after all.

I wanted to build a new PC and was just waiting for the new generation to be released but now I really have to question that decision. For gaming the I7-8700k isnt really better than a i7-7700k. In some benchmarks it is slightly better, in other benchmarks it is slightly worse and since multicore performance isnt important for gaming at all it makes no sense paying 100€ more for a CPU that performs exactly the same as generation 7 CPU. Additionally to that you have to calculate the costs of a new mainboard and here I highly doubt that the z370 boards (which will be outdated just a few months later) will cost the same price as their z270 counterparts. It is more likely to assume that the z370 boards will be most expensive because they are new (while they actually do not perform any better than the z270 boards). So for gaming you have to pay extra for the CPU without any real benefit and you most likely have to pay extra for the mainboards without any additional benefit (and the knowledge that in 2018 these boards will be outdated again). "But they have better multicore performance" Yeah... so does Ryzen. If you want the PC for working then its better to go with a Ryzen CPU because you get more performance for lower price. If you want gaming performance you stick with i7-7700k because the i7-8700k isnt any better. "But future games will have multicore support and i7-8700k will rock eventually" Yeah, I heard the same song 6-7 years ago when the first quad and eight core CPUs were released. In the meantime we got 2-3? games which effectively make use of multiple cores. Do you really still believe in that fairytale? If Intel would release the new CPU for a reasonable price (which they wont) I would be able to overlook the disadvantages like being stuck on a warmed up series of z270 boards. But lets face it, if you want the K CPU you have to take these z370 boards which are not better than a z270 and when finally the true 300 series Z boards get released in late 2018, intel is probably not far away from releasing their 9th Generation of CPUs which yet again will need a new socket. The more I think about the new intel CPUs and how they are released (timing and pricing) the more I start to believe that waiting for Generation 8 Intel CPUs was a huge mistake. For gaming older Intel CPUs are cheaper and offer the same performance for 99.9% of the games. For working Ryzen is also cheaper and will most likely outperform the new Intel CPUs. Intel probably should start to re-think how they treat their customers or they will lose a big bunch of them with such a release policy.

ChrisMa:

Yeah, I heard the same song 6-7 years ago when the first quad and eight core CPUs were released. In the meantime we got 2-3? games which effectively make use of multiple cores. Do you really still believe in that fairytale?

More or less all AAA games these days require 4 cores. If people don't have more than 4, what kind of madman would make a game requiring more, huh? Still, it's not rare anymore to see i7 as the recommendation, with its 8 threads. It doesn't matter what AMD's lousy CPUs provided before Ryzen because they were too weak to matter. Optimising games is hard, especially since people have so different systems. That's why making inefficient games is much easier and saves a lot of money for the studios. This applies to multithreading very well, so while 4 might be enough for a long time if perfectly optimised, that's not going to happen.

AAA games are more GPU demanding then CPU demanding. Only very few of them truely require 4 cores, and by that 4 threads are actually enough in most cases. Most of the games that tell you that a quad core is required actually run very well on dual core with ht (of course not with the same performance but they run). More cores are mainly needed for streaming or additional tools running on the PC. Most of the games, including modern AAA titles focus on 1-2 cores. In many cases this is even the more logical design for games which require linear calculations. However, thats not even the point. Until a few weeks ago for every Intel gamer 4 cores were enough... all of a sudden it isnt? If so then Ryzen is as much an option as Coffee Lake.

@ChrisMa gaming at higher than 1080p and ryzen is as fast as intel. any newer game will run on more than 4C. there is a difference between min/rec, and what the game can use, if resources are there.... besides that, future will be optimized for more cores, especially since cheap 6/8C from amd will allow more gamers/user to get them, as well as the next consoles will have more cores, so why chose intel for single thread perf? it might do good for another year or two, doubt its more. and since most are not replacing their hardware every 1-2y, ryzen is always the better choice, unless gaming at 108p or lower, but then again a faster gpu will have larger impact.

ChrisMa:

AAA games are more GPU demanding then CPU demanding.

Irrelevant.

ChrisMa:

Only very few of them truely require 4 cores, and by that 4 threads are actually enough in most cases. Most of the games that tell you that a quad core is required actually run very well on dual core with ht (of course not with the same performance but they run).

I doubt the studios will limit their customer base just for the heck of it after spending millions in developing a new game. They put a 4-core requirement if after testing they see more problems than profit coming from allowing dual cores.

ChrisMa:

However, thats not even the point. Until a few weeks ago for every Intel gamer 4 cores were enough... all of a sudden it isnt? If so then Ryzen is as much an option as Coffee Lake.

It's not like we would be seeing a 6-core minimum requirement any time soon. But already six can help especially if it's not only the game and absolutely nothing else running on the PC. Optimisation is something no studio actually wants to do because it eats time and money and can be frustrating due to the dozens of different CPUs PC gamers might have. That's one reason why having more than necessary is good, although it's also a major reason why single core performance still matters so much and why AMD's pre-Ryzen CPUs were worhtless.

xIcarus:

Some people like myself buy 1080/1080Ti to game at 1080p 144Hz, so there is a market for that (albeit small). But I hear ya, I don't get why the 1800X is being dragged into this discussion. The 1800X doesn't sell so well because price/performance is not that good, the 1700/1700X are what's killing its sales. People will always find a reason to bullshit their way around their past and (apparently) future purchases when they're fanboys, don't you worry about that. They already know who they're buying, they're just trying to justify. As for the news article itself, Intel apparently thinks they can crap on their consumers again; not exactly something new. I have a feeling it won't work this time though.

Still how much of a diference makes from 100 fps to 110 -120? Especially if you use g-sync . That said i am a pleb that is happy with 60 i guess when the time comes and get a new monitor i might change my view... first gpu though, when the mining craze is finaly over my 770 retirement plan was postproned till farther notice cause of it!

What's all this talk about games requiring 6 or 8 cores etc.... Look at games core usage now. There is 1 or 2 heavy threads and a bunch of extremely low core usage threads. Game developers aren't going to make some deliberately heavy thread loads just to take advantage of new cores. The games will have a bunch of 5% core usage type threads spread across more cores, new cores will be utilized, but those tiny tasks won't be pushing all cores to their limit or something. You will still always have that 1 thread that is extremely heavy, having 8 cores won't take that away. So having more cores will be slightly beneficial, and having higher ipc and core speed will be slightly beneficial. It's not an either/or scenario. It's not like if amd made a 32 core gaming chip at 2.5ghz it would be sick for gaming, or if intel made an i5 at 6ghz that it would be the best chip for gaming. The only way I can see new cores being actually saturated is if developers start doing coding for extreme amount of background ai and pathing etc to save on loading or stutter, or if some heavy cpu physics was implemented now that cpus could handle that sort of thing. Your stock standard AAA game is going to have borderline flatline usage on all those extra threads, and heavy on the thread for the most intensive task, same as always.