Intel up to its tricks to destroy AMD Ryzen

[robmar]

Running high-end games on the new Ryzen 1700 and the performance is fantastic, noticeably better than my old i7!

We all read that Intel had been emailing Ryzen reviewers to "call us before writing!", and also giving guidelines to reviewers of AMD's product!!

Well, whatever Intel promised, reviewers like PCWorld have played pat with Intel, doing the nasty not only on AMD but also the entire community of PC users!

So IMHO PCWorld should be ashamed to publish the spoof report they published, comparing an overclocked intel i5 to an unclocked Ryzen 1700!  Did Intel pay-off PCWorld and their writers? I think yes!  The report is rubbish, comparing a PC game that runs single core on an overclocked i5 to an unclocked Ryzen! I hate how deceitful PCWorld has been with regards to this, and at Intel's benefit, which will keep PC costs higher for users.

Lets back AMD, cos a world dominated by Intel results in 3D CPU-grade chips, like the i7, at $1,000 each!

[SLC]

If you people cared less about what a certain reviewer said or did. Then I'm pretty sure companies wouldn't pay so much attention to them. But the world just loves to put X against Y and if there's no reason to put them against each-other then we're gonna make some. Just because it feels so good when we disagree with someone else (sounds ridiculous, but is true). When buying something I usually try to make my own decision based on my needs and take any review with a huge grain of salt.

Ryzen will loose any benchmarks when it comes to games because most games are not that good at multi-threading. And Ryzen shines most where core count makes the most difference. That's why it keeps killing Intel when it comes to rendering or converting stuff that scales well on multiple cores.

But Intel is still king of game performance because their CPUs have a higher IPC per core. And if all you do on your PC is nothing but play games. Then Intel is for you and you should not be criticized for picking an Intel CPU.

But the moment you start doing more than play games. For example, recording and encoding a video while playing. Or even doing things in the background that are unrelated to games. Ryzen will sure take the lead because of the large amount of cores.

So yeah. Consider your needs when you buy something and stop giving so much attention to reviewers.

[chronologicaldot]

Both companies tick me off for one reason or another, so I could care less which of the two of them makes a better product. I wish the competition were better.

[Cube_]

[Running high-end games on the new Ryzen 1700 and the performance is fantastic, noticeably better than my old i7!]
Ignoring the intel vs. amd debate entirely, that's not a fair comparison - you're comparing a 14nm to probably a 22nm or so processor, likely years apart; that's somewhat like saying "oh wow this FX-9590 absolutely crushes my old pentium 4"
NOTE: this comparison is intentionally exaggerated to highlight the problem with comparing a new cpu to an old cpu, it's not intended to be a fair comparison or saying that you're being that illogical; simply to highlight that new vs old is never fair - if it's a 5 year old i7 or even a 3 year old i7 then that's a cpu from effectively the stone age

Compare same to same, how does intel's equivalent release perform in comparison?

[REDDemon]

Well, AMD just kept its promise of improving multicore, now they really have the hardware for a eterogenous system (it is not that easy making multithreaded games by the way. IF you have a solid single threaded code, you are just doing better than average) Regarding unfair reviews, seems this is common stuff. Almost any movie I see have fake reviews, (in example you can find FF XV reviews with 5 stars, honestly I not sure it even deserve 2 stars, I expected something like the first movie, instead they did a cinematic version of something that from story point of view is neither equiparable to XIII (which was not that good but better than the movie).

Game reviews are the same, I can remember people in long queues for buying watchdogs and then immediatly complaining it 2/3 days after having bought it. It is just marketing, which includes buying reviews.

[Cube_]

I'm not saying Ryzen is bad by any means, it compares reasonably favorably to the i7-6800K

Issues I do have with it:
Only two memory channels, I want my quad channel memory T_T
24 PCIe 3.0 lanes? What? Only 24 (16+4+4 configuration)?

Conclusion: this is suitable for a mid to lower enthusiast single-gpu machine, or in other words it's one of the smartest moves AMD could possibly have made - they're appealing to the exact market that needs more budget friendly high performance options and the 1800X has an MSRP of $499, spec-wise it rivals the i7-6800K with an MSRP of almost $1200
the 1700X has an MSRP of $399 and is almost as good as the 1800X, then we have the 1700 - weakest of the bunch but still an ok option, no unlocked multipliers though (last I checked, I'm working on old info for this one because it's not interesting to me)

[robmar]

So we´ve all seen the benchmarks and indeed Ryzen is now the king of multitasking, but also its IPC efficiency is almost identical to the best Intel has, but at a much lower cost.

Threadripper has had rave reviews against Intel's highest-end CPUs, and a lower-cost gaming version is on the way.

The Vega 56 blows away the NVidia 1070, and is cheaper too with just 20W extra power used. Vega 64 matches and exceeds (liquid version) the NVidia 1080, but is power hungry and needs some improved driver patches or the planned upgrade to 7nm to beat NVidia's best, and with just 150W TDP!

The good news is that there is competition again, and we´re going to see better technology at lower costs