It's official. Eight-core Ryzen 7 chips will start at just $329.

[Gaidax]

what is true them being inferior to intel's offering in both price and performance - that does not make them shit

I am sorry but paying more and getting less is definition of shit for me, maybe your mileage varies, but that's kinda your thing.

After all, I am not using PC to archive files and run Cinebench, I use it for games and for work I don't even bloody need what I need for gaming.

[moremana]

I am sorry but paying more and getting less is definition of shit for me, maybe your mileage varies, but that's kinda your thing.

After all, I am not using PC to archive files and run Cinebench, I use it for games and for work I don't even bloody need what I need for gaming.

I agree with you. I think AMD did make some leaps and bounds with Ryzen, but it is still lagging behind Intel.

Those that can afford Intel will still buy them, those that dont care if the PC is 10-20% slower will buy Ryzen.

What AMD has proved to me at least, and I know you all think they are going to pull a magic rabbit out of a hat later, but they will never compete with Intel. And no I am no fanboy, I have a AMD machine, its a HTPC A-Series and it does what it needs to. I also buy AMD video cards to support AMD, but cpus that I use for games, I wont sacrifice $100 for it, its not worth it to me.

[Thunderball]

No they do not, you will probably not see much of a slump in performance when looking at the lesser ryzen CPUs with fewer cores, which are going to be a bit of a steal for the $$$. The ryzen 3 130$ part should still be hanging out with the i5s for what, barely more than half the price? Not where they alluded they would be? Maybe, but far from sucking.

We are not talking about stuff that is out and tested. Talking is about Ryzen 5 and 3 is pure speculation at this point.

[Gaidax]

The good thing is that AMD helped to keep tabs on Intel milking at least for now and this will inevitably cause them to finally move away from 4 cores mainstream to 6 cores mainstream scheme.

I am sure the real fruits on this will be coming by the end of the year with upcoming linup refreshes for both - AMD fixing their shit and Intel getting off their high horse and introducing more power for mainstream budget.

- - - Updated - - -

No they do not, you will probably not see much of a slump in performance when looking at the lesser ryzen CPUs with fewer cores, which are going to be a bit of a steal for the $$$. The ryzen 3 130$ part should still be hanging out with the i5s for what, barely more than half the price? Not where they alluded they would be? Maybe, but far from sucking.

After this whole thing I'd be more careful tossing rosy predictions around. I am positive about those ones, but let's not get ahead of ourselves before we see the damn thing properly reviewed.

[Lathais]

For all you people that keep saying a 7700k is cheaper, wtf are you talking about?

Here is what you need for a Ryzen system, with the cheapest ATX mobo available, if you went with a mATX you could shave another $10 off:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD RYZEN 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($329.99 @ B&H)
Motherboard: Asus PRIME B350-PLUS ATX AM4 Motherboard ($99.99 @ B&H)
Total: $429.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-03 12:07 EST-0500

Here is what you need for intel, since it does not come with a cooler, I picked a cheap decent cooler, though most will go for better than a 212 EVO on such a high end CPU, and the cheapest mobo available.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($338.89 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI Z270-A PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($91.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $455.75
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-03 12:06 EST-0500


So no, a 7700k IS NOT cheaper than a 1700. With all things considered, it's going to be at least $25 or so more expensive, likely more because who buys an i7 and puts on a 212 EVO and the cheapest MoBo available? Even so, if we consider the difference to be $25, in favor of Ryzen, that's really not that much, so you can consider them pretty equal in cost really. However you look at it though, 7700k IS NOT cheaper. Not even in the price of the CPU, much less considering the fact it does not come with any sort of CPU Cooler.

Also to keep in mind, the 1700s competition is not the 7700k. The competition for the 7700k is not out yet and it WILL be FAR less expensive AND perform better than the 1700 in games, because less cores=less heat=higher clock speed. The same way an i5 performs better in games than intels 6+ core offerings. They just don't OC as well so must be run at lower clocks and that hurts gaming.

[moremana]

But, it will still be faster than Ryzen and we dont even know what the 350 boards are like, your using the cheapest Ryzen board available...so.

Just sayin ...

[Lathais]

But, it will still be faster than Ryzen and we dont even know what the 350 boards are like, your using the cheapest Ryzen board available...so.

Just sayin ...

I also used the cheapest Z270 available though, which may be fine for an i5-k system, but people with an i7 typically are not going to buy a sub-$100 motherboard either. All in all, the motherboard prices look similar, the 7700k is a slightly more expensive AND needs a cooler that costs more money. In the end, that makes them very similar in price. I guess if you already have a great CPU Cooler, then the intel comes out pretty much the same price. However, if you already have a great cooler, you likely already have better than a 2500k and are likely to not need an upgrade anyway.


Just trying to look at this realistically, people keep saying why would you pay more for worse performance, but the fact is, the price and the performance are very similar. Which really is amazing, seeing as the 7700k is not even the competition for the 1700. It's real competition is the 6900k/5960x, which are a LOT more expensive. Over three times as expensive. For what it is, the 1700 is really really amazing. It doesn't suck and it's not shit when compared to it's real competition, the 6900k/5960x, which you could also argue are shit for gaming.

[Masterec]

The real competition to intels i7 is the smallest of the AMD lineup, the RYZEN 3. Both are 4c/8t. Those are the ones to compare and AMD offers their at a substantially lower price so lesser performance is expected.
Also i dont understand why we are not bashing intel for their "shitty" gaming performance of their 1000+ dollars lower clocked workstation CPUs because some people seems to be doing that to AMD.

[Deleted]

For all you people that keep saying a 7700k is cheaper, wtf are you talking about?

We are comparing it to the 1800X which is usually benchmarked.

The 1700 lags further behind unless you can overclock it to the 1800x level, which may or may not be possible. However if we consider overclocking part of the equation then we'll also have to look at overclocked i5s beating the 1700 in most games while being cheaper and the i7 being even further ahead.

So when you compare the i7 to the benchmarked 1800x you save 150$ by going Intel (and gain better gaming performance) or you compare a potentially overclocked 1700 (you may lose the silicon lottery though) to an overclockerd i5 which is still cheaper and ahead.

The competition for the 7700k is not out yet and it WILL be FAR less expensive AND perform better than the 1700 in games, because less cores=less heat=higher clock speed.

Well as far as I know they are listed with *lower* base speeds and they may not overclock so well either. Also it remains to be seen how well AMDs SMT handles games, so they may actually perform worse in games that like cores.

In any case it's purely speculative at this point I don't see much merit in rating current CPUs based on what might happen to the line in the future.


Also I don't think anyone bashes Ryzen in general. They (I) are just saying when it comes to pure gaming AMD is (still) a bad choice - this might change with R5 but I'm not overly optimistic.

Some might also be a bit miffed how AMD dealt with the whole gaming performance thing.

[Life-Binder]

well the 6800K/6900K gaming performance isnt shitty at all to my surprise

its actually ~on par with 7700K, if not sometimes a bit higher in some modern games


see computerbase.de for in-depth results

[Gaidax]

For all you people that keep saying a 7700k is cheaper, wtf are you talking about?

If you think you can overclock 1700 much with B class motherboard and stock Ryzen cooler - you are delusional. B class mobos allow overclocking, but they come with power delivery not really up for the task and 1700 even does not get the best stock Ryzen cooler, but the average one.

To even come close to stock 7700K in gaming you would need to frikkin overclock 1700 to the limit and you ain't getting it with what you picked there, not to even say that a modest bump to 7700K will dust whatever you milk out of 1700.

I'm not even talking if overclocking is your game then you have a whole bunch of intel I5s and I7s that are cheaper than 7700K and you can overclock just as easy to beat the living shit of 1700.

[Lathais]

We are comparing it to the 1800X which is usually benchmarked.

The 1700 lags further behind unless you can overclock it to the 1800x level, which may or may not be possible. However if we consider overclocking part of the equation then we'll also have to look at overclocked i5s beating the 1700 in most games while being cheaper and the i7 being even further ahead.

So when you compare the i7 to the benchmarked 1800x you save 150$ by going Intel (and gain better gaming performance) or you compare a potentially overclocked 1700 (you may lose the silicon lottery though) to an overclockerd i5 which is still cheaper and ahead.




Well as far as I know they are listed with *lower* base speeds and they may not overclock so well either. Also it remains to be seen how well AMDs SMT handles games, so they may actually perform worse in games that like cores.

In any case it's purely speculative at this point I don't see much merit in rating current CPUs based on what might happen to the line in the future.


Also I don't think anyone bashes Ryzen in general. They (I) are just saying when it comes to pure gaming AMD is (still) a bad choice - this might change with R5 but I'm not overly optimistic.

Some might also be a bit miffed how AMD dealt with the whole gaming performance thing.

Well, the base clocks may be lower, but less cores=less heat=more room for OC. They should perform better, but only time will tell. I still think it's fairly stupid to compare the 1700 to the 7700k as that's not it's competition. It's actually pretty damn amazing that something that is supposed to compete with the 6900k is holding it's own(in some benchmarks that will hopefully be what the chips actually perform like once the bugs are ironed out) against the 7700k at a similar price.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think you can overclock 1700 much with B class motherboard and stock Ryzen cooler - you are delusional. B class mobos allow overclocking, but they come with power delivery not really up for the task and 1700 even does not get the best stock Ryzen cooler, but the average one.

To even come close to stock 7700K in gaming you would need to frikkin overclock 1700 to the limit and you ain't getting it with what you picked there, not to even say that a modest bump to 7700K will dust whatever you milk out of 1700.

I'm not even talking if overclocking is your game then you have a whole bunch of intel I5s and I7s that are cheaper than 7700K and you can overclock just as easy to beat the living shit of 1700.

While that is still true, the 1700 is still not more expensive than the 7700k like people keep saying. That was really my point. It's true though, even if they fix the issues and the 1700 actually does end up matching the 7700k in gaming, it's still the same price for around the same performance. If the issues don't get fixed, then yes, it's still around the same price for less performance. But let's be realistic and not flat out lie and say that it is more expensive for less performance. The costs are very similar, with a slight edge to the 1700 actually. Yeah, it's still better to buy a 7700k, but that's not the market AMD was after with these chips anyway. They are after the 6900k market, where they are A LOT cheaper for just a bit less performance.

[Deleted]

While that is still true, the 1700 is still not more expensive than the 7700k like people keep saying.

Again nobody is saying that. The 1800x however is.

You can't just take a 1700 and claim it's basically a cheaper 1800x - either you compare stock speeds or overclocked speeds and I think we are cutting AMD quite some slack here by using stock speed comparison.

[moremana]

The real competition to intels i7 is the smallest of the AMD lineup, the RYZEN 3. Both are 4c/8t. Those are the ones to compare and AMD offers their at a substantially lower price so lesser performance is expected.
Also i dont understand why we are not bashing intel for their "shitty" gaming performance of their 1000+ dollars lower clocked workstation CPUs because some people seems to be doing that to AMD.

The difference is Intel doesnt market those chips as "Gaming" chips. AMD is.

Listen, the consensus is that Ryzen isnt bad, but when AMD hyped it to heaven and called it better and didnt deliver then ....

I would not buy a R7 if it was $250, its in its infancy and has problems, and AMD is known for taking forever to solve problems.

If you wish to purchase one, go ahead, thats your opinion and I wouldnt bash you for doing so.
Again AMD has made some good strides in Ryzen, I mean shit, they didnt have much to beat, 52% over FX series, yeah, they are gods. Better than Intel....no, its not no matter how much lipstick AMD puts on it.

[Life-Binder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ

new video from Joker that compeletely removes any GPU bottleneck .. 7700K smashes the 1700 in all games, goes in line with other reviewers results


yes, the settings are of course unrealistic, but it clearly shows that 7700K is a good deal faster as far as raw gaming processing goes, on Jokers setup as well .. current GPU bottleneck at ~1440p will dissapear as GPU power increases

you buy a ~1080Ti and your 7700K will immediately pull further away from Ryzen

[moremana]

Only if you're talking about gaming. Start talking about heavily threaded tasks, the sorta stuff you'd do on a workstation, and it's a different discussion entirely. Gaming performance isn't better. Period. It's not unfortunate as such, it's just how it is. Workstation tasks, it is better. Period.

I think thats .... what I said except better, its marginally better in some scenarios, dont look at AMDs benchmarks..

- - - Updated - - -

I also used the cheapest Z270 available though, which may be fine for an i5-k system, but people with an i7 typically are not going to buy a sub-$100 motherboard either.

That was my point, you said no one in their right mind would buy a sub par Z270 to OC but thats what you would be doing with a B350 isnt it?

[Deleted]

Makes my £150 i5-4690k I got several years ago look like a complete bargain.

[Fascinate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ

new video from Joker that compeletely removes any GPU bottleneck .. 7700K smashes the 1700 in all games, goes in line with other reviewers results


yes, the settings are of course unrealistic, but it clearly shows that 7700K is a good deal faster as far as raw gaming processing goes, on Jokers setup as well .. current GPU bottleneck at ~1440p will dissapear as GPU power increases

you buy a ~1080Ti and your 7700K will immediately pull further away from Ryzen

So if you want to play 720p on low and get 600 fps instead of 500 you should definitely go intel.

Just lol.

[Gray_Matter]

See, here is the thing... when I am about to pay 350 bucks for a kickass CPU for gaming and I have a choice between getting 100% or anywhere between 75 to 95%, you know for sure what I will buy.

That doesn't make is shit/suck for gaming. That just means that it's price/performance, if you want it only for games, sucks. There is a difference. If someone is considering getting Ryzen then they aren't just getting it for gaming now. The may be looking to the future or have other things that they need to do on the PC.

[Deleted]

So if you want to play 720p on low and get 600 fps instead of 500 you should definitely go intel.

Just lol.

Nope, but if you don't want to play silicon lottery and still not drop below 60 @1080 while saving money you should.


http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews...chmarks/page-7

Although I'll admit that this appears to be the worst case for AMD which may or may not be improved with drivers/patches.