Who can blame Intel

I can.

I will always pick Intel for the higher quality, overclock ability and core clocks (at least for my favorite Pentium 4 rated games) but then again I wouldn't mind an octacore with HT if the price was right - make it happen!

I will always pick Intel for the higher quality, overclock ability and core clocks

Intel by far doesn't have "higher quality". At best, and worst, they'd be equal. Overclockability, i'll give you, though you must realize it'd be pretty sad if intel didn't have decent overclockers when they haven't changed much in their architecture in so many years, which really isn't a bonus, because they could have been trying to change architectures for better IPC and giving a better overall performance CPU rather then "high overclockability" Core clocks? I'm not sure what you mean by that, unless you mean IPC? core clocks doesn't even make sense as a term. But, again, their IPC could be higher if they hadn't been sandbagging the market for so long, so i wouldn't put IPC in their favor, as they screwed themselves on that on. That's not to say that intel doesn't have some "good" processors out there, obviously they do. They just don't for the money. And when it comes to high core count (AKA, the future) they seem to have a 'not so efficient' design, that hopefully they'll realize and fix in the future.

@RzrTrek quality intel: TP amd: soldered cores (300$): intel: 4/8 amd: 8/16 and for clocks: intels 8/16 would have to go to 7.8ghz, to make up for the higher price (600$ vs 300$ for ryzen 1700) so, i dont see it. running 3770k right now, but cant wait to get 4T more with ryzen, while cost is same/less than intel based rig. and the FX83xx were pretty good besides maybe single thread perf, which "soon" will not be that relevant anymore, as lot of ppl will now run more than 6-8c (with ryzen) and consoles will go up as well (core count), so devs will follow.

intel been shaken up a little by AMD. they were taking baby steps to release more cores cpu for years. and now just showering them with in few months lol

quality intel: TP amd: soldered

Forgot about that one. Yeah i really don't understand it when people say "quality" as why they chose Intel. Again, i'm not trying to be against intel here, but what does that even mean? "Quality"? Like, what is "quality" defined as, when it comes to Intel vs AMD? I can totally see quality being defined as: TP vs Soldered or Percent of chips DOA But, the DOA does not seem to be a problem on either side, yet Intel has TP, and AMD has soldered, so wouldn't "quality" be in AMDs favor? If someone could explain what they mean by "quality" when it comes to favoring Intel over AMD, that'd be great, because realistically, i can't figure out how that makes any sense. You may have other valid reasons, which is completely fine and your choice, but quality just doesn't make any sense.

I will always pick Intel for the higher quality, overclock ability and core clocks (at least for my favorite Pentium 4 rated games) but then again I wouldn't mind an octacore with HT if the price was right - make it happen!

No higher quality there to be had really. Worse maybe currently with their non soldered cpus you need to delid to achieve those really high clocks, and even then it might not help with their 10+ core chips. Higher clocks now sure they have higher clocks at least on their under 10 core parts, up from there they have lower clocks (stock) except maybe on 1-2 core boost where AMD goes to 4.2ghz and Intel iirc 4.3. They overclock at least on lower end better then AMD. But I doubt we will see 4ghz all cores on 7980XE as easy as we might see it on 1950X.

Some people simply want the fastest chip regardless of cost....i9-7900X are are gonna sell because they are fast and I'm sure this chip will to.

Fast is until the devs catch up , isn't it? When apps realize ryzen ccx structure, that fast might become meh, and since the design is scalable, wouldnt the structural advantage seep into future versions?

AMD hasn't had skin in the game in years. Now they're finally worth buying and people are blaming Intel for not "topping" them instantly. With what? ...a secret line-up of processors that were waiting for the day AMD returned? Intel didn't innovate enough for you while having their massive performance crown lead for so many years? Why not be happy we have choices again? Isn't this what we wanted? As a lot, PC enthusiasts are entitled, whiners. Some posting here are overly biased to the point of lunacy but why point the finger directly at them? You already know.

Intel didn't innovate enough for you while having their massive performance crown lead for so many years?

For one: The city you say you live in, i just moved away from there, lol. For two: That sentence is exactly the reason people are upset with Intel. People don't care that they had the performance crown lead for so many years, they care that they pretty much decided "Well, we have the performance lead, doesn't look like our competition will get to us at any time, so lets slow down the development and just coast and rake in the money". Is it surprising they did this? No, but that doesn't mean that a consumer will be happy that a company halted the advancement in technology "because they could".

intel was holding out on cores for too long on the pc desk top. now its biting them in the culo. its not all about cores anyways even ten cores is more then the avg users could ask for. plus always changing motherboard sockets is sucky,a rysen socket will stay around for like ten years lol

People keep thinking Intel is in panic mode. Intel really didn't have to do anything. They just did cuz they could, and in the short time they did something...results came. Just think if this was a more prepared situation. They just did this because they could, not because of panic. Ryzen is a nice chip, but pure gaming still sides with Intel. Hey it's a situation where people will cry no matter what. People just should be happy that Intel has something to drive them to do more. Then you have those who can't afford it complain. If you cant afford Threadripper, then I do not understand why those same people complain about not affording i9. Chances are if those people who like Intel could afford Threadripper...they would just buy i9. I'm the type who just likes hardware, I'm going to keep an eye on both. Just to see what they can do. Will I buy either? No way but its neat to see how both perform. This is a hobby for me...not a war. I'm the consumer and enthusiast. Too many people have this attitude to start fights over the most petty ideas. People hurting others over brand loyalty...literally. I can't grasp that idea..and won't. If someone asks me a question I will tell them the truth. I will say why I bought what I did and why I like it. I may recommend something but I'm not going to flip out if someone doesn't buy what I recommend at the same time. Intel will be making sales in October...that is a given. Maybe not me. Example: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916 i7 7840X vs Ryzen 1800X.. i7 7840X still wins. Way better quad performance...way better single core. Ryzen while fantastic in it's own right...needs to work on those things. Games will still perform better on Intel for now. That Ryzen is fantastic for the whole Media side of things. I can't see myself getting it as mainly a gamer.

Its nice to see intel start to bring more to the table. I am not biased i just liked how the ryzen brought so much more then gaming at $300-400 segment which left intel out of it. They didn't have any 8 core cpu's in that price range and its coming back to bite them. They now know ryzen is getting steam on the market and intel don't like that. Who knows what the ryzen revisions will bring to the plate but if these first launches are signs it going to be great for amd and finally push intel into a market they haven't played in many many years.

i7 7840X vs Ryzen 1800X.. i7 7840X still wins. Way better quad performance...way better single core.

Hey, good job! You're one of those people who seem to say "well, this processor is better, because i gimped it!" No one is refuting the fact that Intel processors (though it looks like possibly not their higher core core processors) can clock higher then AMD, and have a slight advantage in IPC. Which you compared a 7700k (which, you state 7840x, which isn't a processor, so what are you on about when regards to a 7840x?) @ 4.2Ghz (no turbo) vs an 1800x @ 3.6Ghz. So, difference in clock speed, and you're NOT EVEN COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. But, you're one of those "Oh, But i don't care!" people who seem to have no regard to facts. The 1800x blows away the 7700k for the price, and for the TOTAL speed, which is the only thing that matters, UNLESS you want to have 140fps, vs 120fps, at 1080p Want to compare apples to apples? 7700k vs 1500X 7700k, obviously, wins over the 1500x However, does it win by over $150 more? No. Does that mean you shouldn't get the 7700k? No, do whatever you want, if you want to spend almost twice as much for not nearly twice as much in performance, great! All the more to you. But, lets get back to the fact that you're all like "OHHHH lets compare processors and only care about their gimped scores!" Yeah, how about lets not? Lets care about the whole package, yeah? ... Oops, looks like that 7700k loses to the 1800x by (according to the same website you linked) 66%. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... Get out of here with your nonsense.

Hey, good job! You're one of those people who seem to say "well, this processor is better, because i gimped it!" No one is refuting the fact that Intel processors (though it looks like possibly not their higher core core processors) can clock higher then AMD, and have a slight advantage in IPC. Which you compared a 7700k (which, you state 7840x, which isn't a processor, so what are you on about when regards to a 7840x?) @ 4.2Ghz (no turbo) vs an 1800x @ 3.6Ghz. So, difference in clock speed, and you're NOT EVEN COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. But, you're one of those "Oh, But i don't care!" people who seem to have no regard to facts. The 1800x blows away the 7700k for the price, and for the TOTAL speed, which is the only thing that matters, UNLESS you want to have 140fps, vs 120fps, at 1080p Want to compare apples to apples? 7700k vs 1500X 7700k, obviously, wins over the 1500x However, does it win by over $150 more? No. Does that mean you shouldn't get the 7700k? No, do whatever you want, if you want to spend almost twice as much for not nearly twice as much in performance, great! All the more to you. But, lets get back to the fact that you're all like "OHHHH lets compare processors and only care about their gimped scores!" Yeah, how about lets not? Lets care about the whole package, yeah? ... Oops, looks like that 7700k loses to the 1800x by (according to the same website you linked) 66%. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... Get out of here with your nonsense.

Dude!...GhostXL was just saying he don't care and that its good to see competition and you make/twist his words to fit your excuse for buying a slower processor.... Your the fanboy!.....

Tbh, zooming out of this whole situation... Until Ryzen came, there was nothing worth talking about regarding AMD cpus. Infact, we could even take Intel out of the equation altogether and just focus on AMD and see why they had to do what they've done. All I see is business matters.

Dude!...GhostXL was just saying he don't care and that its good to see competition and you make/twist his words to fit your excuse for buying a slower processor.... Your the fanboy!.....

I think GhostXL's opinion is similar to that of most gamers. I mean, if I was only interested in gaming then I would probably go with Intel as well. However, I find it amusing when gamers feel the need to comment on non-gaming chips like the Core i9 and Ryzen Threadripper. Basically, nothing about what GhostXL said applies to high-end desktop (HEDT) chips, which are all about multicore performance (single-core? gaming? who cares!) That being said, I think Aura's response was a bit over-the-top. You need to tone it down a bit, dude.

Tbh, zooming out of this whole situation... Until Ryzen came, there was nothing worth talking about regarding AMD cpus. Infact, we could even take Intel out of the equation altogether and just focus on AMD and see why they had to do what they've done. All I see is business matters.

Yeah, I never paid any attention to AMD when they had the bulldozer chips. It's only when Ryzen came about that I developed any interest, and only with Ryzen 7 (don't care much for 5 or 3). At about the same time, I got heavily into grid computing (again), and was dismayed by Intel's pay wall for their 8+ core chips. Dr. Su's pitch really caught my attention, and it still captivates me - last year, the idea of having an 8-core CPU would have been laughable, but now I am looking forward to the reality of having 24 cores. As an enthusiast, I haven't been this excited since the days of the Athlon and R300 (both AMD products, BTW). What's interesting is that I no longer feel any desire for Intel chips. The Core i7 and i9 seem like old news to me, even with their recent price drops (a case of too little, too late). Now that I've gotten a taste of what a octa-core CPU can do, I don't much care for a quad-core any more, and no way am I shelling out $2K for a 18-core i9 when I can get a 16-core TR for half the price (I placed my preorder already, and I'm looking forward to the release date). It's funny. I've been devoted to Intel for the past decade or so, but I no longer see them as the premium brand. Interesting how things can change so fast.

blah blah Get out of here with your nonsense.

He gave an educated statement with his own reasoning. Intel is factually better than AMD in games, period. AMD is lacking especially lacking in games where 120-240hz screens can be used optimally. Intel is significantly faster in games where 300fps is achievable. He did not say AMD is bad but he said why he purchased intel over AMD. Point is, it was his decision. You're acting like the biggest fanboy on these forums, raging like someone insulted your mom.

He gave an educated statement with his own reasoning. Intel is factually better than AMD in games, period. AMD is lacking especially lacking in games where 120-240hz screens can be used optimally. Intel is significantly faster in games where 300fps is achievable. He did not say AMD is bad but he said why he purchased intel over AMD. Point is, it was his decision. You're acting like the biggest fanboy on these forums, raging like someone insulted your mom.

Now AMD is not exactly lacking in 120hz+ range. . I would argue that where AMD more or less lags behind is 240+ range if anything and even there not that much. And of course that totally depends on the game most games the difference is 10-20% some less and some where Ryzen is actually faster (very rare). That would make but when we are talking about fps in range of 300 difference is 240-270 vs 300 for example so it can matter.