the only joke here is your reply. yes, AMD has been below Intel for years now, but this time price/performance report puts them on par or even higher than intel. if you have 1000£ to spend then go for intel, but at 300-400£ this time AMD wins. Intel needed some good competition and except AMD there is nobody on PC CPUs so you can see it in there prices.now it is time that Intel prices to go down.
my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.

​I guess you must enjoy paying over the odds to a company who has monopolized the market and then hiked prices year on year with little improvement.

Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD GPUs have always been better bang for buck and now it seems they are catching up once again in the CPU race. This is only good news for consumers.

I've used AMD for years, usually playing catch up to Intel but a lot cheaper and great value. using my FX 8350 (which I had over clocked to a stable 4.7ghz)with 2 x Radeon 7970's in crossfire in an Asus Sabertooth 990FX board, does not miss a beat!
The new Ryzen CPU'S look good but very expensive right now, I think I'll hold off until something won't play smoothly with my system

Being built to a price matters more than outright performance where consoles are concerned.

AMD could offer both CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4, whereas an Intel CPU would have meant Microsoft and Sony would have, firstly, likely paid more for the CPU and secondly, still have to source a GPU from either AMD (who would likely have charged proportionately more than they currently do) or NVIDIA. Furthermore, AMD could offer the CPU and GPU on one chip, an APU (something neither Intel or NVIDIA could offer), which is likely cheaper and requires a less complex (read: cheaper) cooling solution than a separate CPU and dedicated GPU.

Basically, it was probably cheaper to have AMD provide both the CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4. Cutting edge performance didn't matter as much as price; the whole unit was going to retail for ~£300-400 incl. VAT.


EDIT: I forgot to say, the CPUs in the consoles are not Ryzen chips and, aside from being 8 core CPUs made by AMD, have little to do with Ryzen.

So this Ryzen processor @ £297.95 or the i5-7600K at approx £225-£230 at AWD/eBuyer (probably Scan/Novatech/Amazon too)?
To be used for gaming, primarily, I don't need fast spreadsheets...:smirk:

You forgot Nexgen :wink: There was also that awful '128 bit' cpu that used emulation but can't remember what that was called...

I do find it funny how people are upset the ryzen chips can't compete with Intel at 1080p, most people who game at 1080p won't care if it's 120 or 130fps. Don't forget these are unoptimised architectures and the 8/16 chips are aimed at the x99 video encoders and streamers.

Put simply I have said my bit, people have the right and option to buy what they want. A lot of people will have this CPU for 3-5 years so if they want to bet on 4 cores then that is their right. I have this chip and I am happy with my choice, I don't need to convince anyone.
However at the same time people shouldn't really listen to the few people who just spew out what some youtube "expert" has said.
You pay your money you take your chance.
This is not the same as bulldozer, the IPC wasn't there for Bulldozer, no patch is going to make a cpu 40% faster is it.

Intel can't make APU's (Accelerated Processing Unit). Just like AMD can't use Hyper-Threading.
They could term their own name for it. :smiley:

A great cpu even if you game. If you plan on building a pc now and wont upgrade for a few years this is the cpu to buy now. Games will use more cores in the near future and the 7700k will be worse for gamers than this cpu. Yes, at the moment the 7700k will give you more frames(around 5% more on average) But thats with all the cores running at 95%+ usage in some games, while the 1700 the cores are hovering around 50% usage.

Its the same old argument from years ago. People said don't buy dual core cpus, a single core cpu is all you need for gaming. Technology is constantly moving forward, 4 core cpus are the old single core in this regard.

I don't think funds are necessarily the problem. After all, Larrabee was meant to be aimed graphics but despite an estimate $1billion budget never really got anywhere for the graphics market (although Xeon Phi was eventually based on that).

Don't think Iris Pro is aimed at the workstation market unless you mean workstation laptops (but for instance the Thinkpad P70 uses Quadro); rather it seems a product made for Apple and similar ultra-portable machines which want a decent iGPU.

However, OpenCL does appeal to Intel as compared to gamers it should require only minimal support. The 'build-it-and-they-will-come' approach of which AMD are often accused. But as AMD and Nvidia know, for gaming GPUs you have to spend a lot of resources on updating drivers. Intel are happy enough to an occasional update usually for stability and forget about gamers. This would have to massively change if they ever were to try to get into the gaming market.

While rather ironic, it would probably be way cheaper for Intel to simply licence some Radeon design from AMD as the one (rather improbable) rumour earlier this year said.

Actually, while they execute really well in their main CPU market (Pentium 4 excepted) and are were good at manufacturing, they are also notorious at squandering money in other areas:
- Larrabee = $1 billion
- their belated attempt to get Atom into mobile devices = $4billion
- various attempts to break into the communication and networking market = $billions (although networks was a partial success).
And probably others I've forgotten.

The important difference compared to AMD is they can afford to make these mistakes: AMD's Bulldozer mistake almost killed them and they can't afford to run two big competing architectures just in case like Intel could with the Pentium Mobile which eventually saved them from the P4.

i fitted an fx6300 for my son, hes in uni looking to be a film director, so he needs the multi threaded performance and should be idea for a decent price, hes not a gamer, where i have a 3750k as i do game now and again,but will hang on for whats coming down the road, so as you see im no fanboy. i look at the best product to do the job, not a blind sheep that grabs the first product for a certain companies. and we can read reviews, we dont need so call mis imformed boob sucking intel fanboys who have such an unfulfilled lives coming in and bashing because they dont like a new product. and frankly no one cares. we reach our own decisions and information gathered. im off to have a great day as i have something to do, well unlike fanboys who sit at their computer screen going througha box kleenex, :smile:

Cyrix, does anyone remember Cyrix? I had one. Not as fast as AMD/Intel back then, but still good and cheap. (edit: actually FASTER at the same clock speed, but they sold it as "MHz equivalent".)

Even Via was trying to compete... Ah, good old times with lots of competition.

message for the intel fanboys, mummy says its bedtime. they seem to have no concept of the history of cpus, they see a set of figures that cant quite match their chip and they all over it like a rash trying to defend why they bought their cpu.
hers a message for you.
no one gives a toss tbh. when your in the real world and not sucking on mummys b00b, then maybe we could have a grown up discussion. because you must have a really unrewarding life to jump on an AMD thread and bash it

Indeed. All excellent points. As you say, the Iris Pro is quite a limited approach so wouldn't be at all suited to consoles. As far as I know, they haven't put a whole of funds into it. I don't think they realistically have tried to win gamers over with the Iris Pro or HD graphics, but rather have used it to cement their place in the workstation environment. With 7nm, as their chips become smaller and draw even less power, I wonder whether they will start to produce APUs with IGP aimed at gamers?

Has anyone in this thread actually got one? I've had one for a week, and I'm very happy with it.

How am I being a pedant? I was just correcting what you wrote. You didn't say that Intel can't make a suitable APU for consoles, just that they don't make APUs. Which is obviously wrong, so I corrected it.

You're also wrong that Intel don't make an APU with powerful enough IGP for a console - the Iris Pro 580 is roughly equivalent to the Xbox One (non-S) in terms of pure number crunching performance. Again, I am not implying that Intel would be capable of supplying APUs to consoles, because the HD/Iris IGPs have completely the wrong architecture and characteristics for consoles as they're not designed for that purpose. And like you say, back in 2010 they were much slower anyway. But still, it's not correct to say that the current Intel APU IGPs don't have enough GPU grunt for consoles.

cracking price however i recommend you wait for the 6c or 4c 8t cpu if you only want to game.

we should expect better benchmarks with ryzen cpu's in the next few month with the new development kits being sent to the game developers, but still as it stands this is a great all-round cpu :smiley:

Is it cheaper to pre order?

I don't get why you wouldn't just wait for it to come out otherwise.

If you read the reviews most of the better ones do reference the poor support in windows and very early firmware with lots of bugs, half the reviews were done prior to a lot of major firmware updates pushed that gave significant performance bumps, It's very much worth waiting until MS gets it's act together and the motherboard manufacturers start pushing better firmware before making any final decision.

AMD struggles from a lot of issues, but ARM has shown us that deep pockets aren't always the solution when faced with good innovation. Big question is if AMD have sorted out their decision making and management to actually let them succeed. A lot of bad decisions put AMD where it is more than anything else, and they do have some advantages over Intel and even Nvidia. They are small enough that they can make more signficant leaps(Intels market share works against this in many ways) and unlike Nvidia which for years and years has unsuccessfully tried to acquire a license to create and use x86 processors AMD have ironclad access and that has been a big deal as everyone but Nintendo moved the consoles to x86. There is potential especially with the strong push from AMD behind Vulkan, DX12 etc for it to really push Intel in the near future, which is a very good thing for the market and consumers.

Don't be a pedant. :wink:

You know as well as I do that even in 2017 Intel don't make an "APU" with anywhere near enough GPU grunt to satisfy MS and Sony's design briefs for the Xbox One and PS4, never mind back when the Xbox One and PS4 were being designed; which was likely sometime back in the early 2010s.

I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget that a lot of the younger generation who may use this website were not adults/or are still teenagers/kids now, that AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.

I can understand after a decade of dominance why some of this demographic may indeed have such a negative viewpoint, but I guess that rather than research who and what AMD are they just jump on to the no research, and no clue bandwagon of slagging off what they generally have no idea about. Goes along with the crew that think people only buy expensive CPU's to play games, rather than using them in their other hobbies, or businesses.

Anyhow, back to the point of this website, this is the cheapest available R7 1700 that I am able to find.

Far too many fanboys picking sides. What's the point? You don't get anything back for loyalty.AMD and Intel are massive international companies. They're not your local football team.

As it stands, Intel have been gouging the market with high prices because AMD couldn't compete.

Now AMD have brought out a processor that is fantastic price cost that undercuts the equivalent intel offering at a significant difference.

It's not the top end or best processor, but it's not meant to be.

The processor quite simply puts AMD back in the lead in power until at least intel come back with something to rival it or exceed it. On price AMD has never been beaten.

There are many intel fanboys out there that think AMD is inferior and won't run games, I've been using an FX8350 and many other AMD processors for years and haven't found any game I couldn't play, why is that? Because really it's the graphics that make the difference and not so much the processor beyond a certain point.

As this is new and hot off the shelf I can guarantee the new mobos will have a raft of firmware updates to ensure these processors work to their max but I know those geeks at intel will be working out how they are going to catch up.

It took 49 comments to have someone state that simple fact.

Wait for the R5 if you want a cost efficient gaming CPU; 1600X in particular (or 1600 with O/C if it turns out the binning has been generous)

Yes, but even the biggest Iris Pro Intel make would be too slow for a console. Plus, there is a reason Intel (aside from the desktop Broadwell parts) never released Iris Pro for the desktop: at the margins Intel are used to, those chips are just too expensive. The most powerful the make are the Skylake i7-6870HQ and i7-6970HQ both with Iris Pro Graphics 580 (72 EUs and 128MB eDRAM. They were released in Jan 2016, uses a 14nm node, delivers a theoretical 1,152 GFLOPS, have a 45W TPU and lists at $434 and $623. Whereas the Xbone has 1,310 GFLOPS, was released in 2013, uses rather more electricity and is (was) made on 28nm. The PS4 has been more GFLOPS.

So, yes in theory Intel might have been able to supply the parts - even at 22nm I guess - but not at the prices Microsoft or Sony were willing to pay. Plus (while less important for consoles), Intel graphics' and their theoretical vs actual gaming performance is generally very poor.

Finally Iris Pro is very much a brute force approach; I would be interesting to see a transistor/perf and perf/mm2 comparison between Intel graphics, AMD graphics and Nvidia graphics. Nvidia would be the most efficient* followed by AMD with Intel way behind.
*at least if chips like GP100 are excluded; their gaming chips tend to have poor FP64 (since Kepler GK104) and other Compute features (which AMD keep leaving in hoping to eventually crack the Pro market).

This is not true; Intel also make APUs with their own IGP on the chip. In fact, all of their consumer chips with 4 or fewer cores are APUs.

You have zero evidence there is a possible fix, you're just wading in with the hopefuls and stating this as fact, which it most certainly isn't yet. The real Ryzen gaming CPUs will be the next ones to be released as they will compete on price for the intended task (gaming) which the current Ryzen's don't. I don't think Ryzen is bad, it's clearly a very good CPU, I just want to see evidence rather than stupid talk of memory bugs, windows scheduler fixes, bios fixes as if all this is simple and there will be magic happening. No one has conclusive evidence there is a fix to Ryzen performance yet. I hope I'm wrong and I certainly have been in the past.

Also I quote you "The R7 is for people who have patience, and can think for themselves. The 7700k is for people who want immediacy and are to nervous to try something else". That's just complete nonsense, it means absolutely nothing at all. Evidence matters not emotive crap. You speak as if some one who buys an i7-7700K on the available evidence is a moron, evidence is what science is based on, your emotive lines are nothing but worthless pseudo science. Evidence people, evidence! This is what matters.

The current evidence suggests that if future Ryzen releases this year are priced correctly then they will compete on price. There's no evidence of fixes or quick fixes to Ryzen, also if it's true that software has to be written to be optimised for Ryzen then you're going to be waiting years for the improvements. I'll take what works now thanks all the same.

Assumptions are not evidence.

Got to love these AMD - Intel wars lol ! I'm happy with my 7700k @ 5Ghz.

I don't know if it's a Europe thing, but I always feel that we get screwed on AMD prices. Every time I hear of a good deal or product coming up, the savings don't seem to really arrive here.

While I haven't seen the prices AMD charge for the chipsets (nor Intel's recent chipset prices), I though the general info was that AMD were charging less for their chipsets than Intel. For one thing Ryzen is a SOC and already has lots of things which used to be in the chipset built into the CPU like USB, SATA. The current Naples (server chip with 32C/64T) rumour is that those boards might not even have a chipset. Anyway, currently Ryzen doesn't overclock much and running a 1700 at near 1800X speeds (without messing with voltages) should be possible on just about all boards able to handle a native 1800X.

So the price of the boards seems to be that mainboard manufacturers trying it on. But then the 'gamers edition' boards tend to have a lot of bling, seem poor value, but sell quite well. Parting (PC-Master-Race) fools and their money springs to mind.

However, having said all that certainly in the mainstream Intel market the OEMs make very slim margins. For the PC industry, Intel are like Apple in mobiles: they make almost all the profit. Which is presumably the little acknowledged non-techincal reason why despite pumping $billions into mobile via 'contra-revenue' (which sounds a lot like illegal dumping to me), Intel got nowhere in mobile: a lot of the big mobile players know perfectly well how Intel operates and feel they have a far better chance of making more than 2-5% margins if they keep Intel out of the market.

Who pays that much for a cpu and plays in 1080p, are we console gamers? Go back back to you AMD consoles and play in 1080p oh wait... :smiley:

On a serious note most people with types of cpus will be playing in at 1440p or higher so the problem is much less pronounced. Also can't really compare to bulldozer, Ryzen has proven it has the speed in non gaming take single as well as multi core.

Windows is not optimised at all, little things like when an i7 is used Windows uses a high performance profile, with Ryzen is used a balanced profile is used. So if that's the little things there are probably a heap of other improvements to be had.

I have read many of these comments but not all. The benchmarks that give and even playing field to all processors shows that these amd processors are indeed very good. The real life benchmarks from games and software I.e. Everything on steam, made by ea, and Adobe etc show that the software is optimised for Intel and the 1800x looses to the 7700k.

In this thread, a load of people who have read a few reviews and now think they are experts.
The processor is great, it will only get better as the early bugs are sorted. Those who want the fastest possible IPC today get the i7, you may get a couple more frames but games are now starting to use more cores. See how that works out for you in a year or two.
Also the minimum frames are better on ryzen with people impressed with the smoothness.

Nice one OP for posting a deal.
Everyone going on about price/performance ratio. But what about reliability?
I don't know about current AMD chips, but I've noticed a trend at work - all AMD-based PCs over the years have died. Where else Intel ones have outlived them and still are fine. Thought I would Google it and seems I'm not alone. So now I always stick to Intel. Just thought I'd mention it :-)

Ryzen is more powerful at the same price point than intel, they're powerful CPUs for programs that are CPU heavy. The problem is games aren't CPU heavy, they're not properly multithreaded and pushing that many cores to the max. Ryzen has a worse single thread performance than the I7s... it's as simple as that.

If you're doing anything other than gaming, you probably want one of these CPUs.

Give it a year or 2 and ryzen will out strip them all.

Great CPU, the CPU is as fast as Intel in all gaming scenario's because it can keep up with all intel offerings in all other kind of benchmarks and even outdo them in many. So why is this happening in 1080p gaming? it's because it's a new architcture, so coders need to start coding for it, plus is stresses the sub-system like memory, which has had some issues, and other bugs like windows scheduling. So once get they ironed out, it will be as fast as a typical I7 in 1080p and also 480p :laughing:.
The R7 is for people who have patience, and can think for themselves. The 7700k is for people who want immediacy and are to nervous to try something else.

I'm not sure how much of a joke they were when they released the first 64 bit x86 CPU's, or the first dual core CPU's a decade ago. Back then the joke was how frantically Intel had to try and cobble together something to compete. Granted they haven't been making good value processors for a while now but Ryzen appears to be a return to form. To deride them as "Always making duds" is nonsense.

if u can afford buy intel and Nvidia if u can't buy AMD there is only 10% performance increase if u buy intel compare to AMD so make ur mind, second it depend ur daily use video editing or game etc.

​fan boy lolzz

1080P is still an overwhelmingly popular resolution, and if you're doing big-screen gaming a full HD projector (using DSR) will save you about £10,000 over a 4K projector, so not only does 1080P make more sense for 100" screens, but a 1080's performance will also be useful, obviously.

VR helmets use roughly 1200P resolution, and really do work best with high minimum FPS, so, again, Ryzen is no good.

And, of course, you've conveniently forgotten about gaming on high-refresh 1080P monitors.

Although I'll also point out, from the third-party benchmarks, I'm not sure your guess about Ryzen beating the 7700K at 1440P is correct...





The £310 i7-7700K seems to handily outperform the £400 and £500 Ryzen chips at 1440P. Is the 1700 faster? :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes, that seems to be the AMD refrain since Bulldozer's release. Their CPUs will be better once Microsoft "fix" Windows; their CPUs will be better once developers start programming for more cores. It's been the same tune for more than five years now.

Maybe this time it will be true. Maybe in three or four years, the 1700 will start to outperform the 7700K in games. So we can upgrade again then. :wink:

​Exactly... 3 words.... AMD Athlon 64. Those chips dominated the market and were utterly brilliant. Intel didn't have an answer to them for years! I suspect some people in this thread are so young that they were still sucking thier thumb when AMD ruled the world.

​Maybe you are 13 years old and never heard of AMD Athlon 64 that f*** Intel Pentium 4 in the a*** circa 2001-2003

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

Somebody that's done real research and put things into a more even perspective, might be worth a look just to see with both eyes and hear both sides, more knowledge is beneficial for everyone.

My opinion is I'm let down by ryzen thus far but I still think these will be the cpu's to go for when we start seeing better development we are inevitably all going onto use more cores over more speed since were already on the edge in that area, as for intel they are having major issues now stating that the next cpu will be 14nm, as for these ryzen R7 cpu's they were never meant to compete with the 7700k and anyone putting these up against it are clueless, the R5 is the competing cpu yes we all hope when a few cores are dropped we get more front end but at the very least those will be the competitors for the 7700k/7600k with a few more threads and there pricing will be better to compensate for any front end perf offset.

A 12 thread chip at 65w and 4.1 ghz OC and around £200 will sell by the truck load, but board prices are the same as the intel Z series so the whole cheaper board thing is BS and 82 boards available on launch? lol ye right that's why you can't buy any anywhere, Ok yes there are cheaper boards but it's the same on intel side with the B's & H's, all the boards look like crap and most are not well made and not worth the money there asking, only a few higher end boards are well made will proper components and they are way overpriced for what they are, anyone with electrical circuit and component knowledge (electrical engineer) will point out how bad these components are and how overpriced they really are.

This is why yet again I will not be investing in a new platform (5 or 6 yrs now) the corners being cut and the prices being charged I just can't condone it regardless of how good the cpu is you pay as much for a board now.

The replies about gaming performance are not accurate (the other ones slabbering about market share are just the typical fanboys in every argument who somehow believe if enough people make the same decision it is the right decision), as the benchmarks that have complained about the gaming performance are when running low res benchmarks in a misconceived perception that this meant only the cpu was being taxed. This is an understandable but yet simplistic view point as things are far from that simple. At the resolutions people actually use there is usually a 1-3 frame difference between this and a 1k intel chip, in triple A titles. Considering this is brand new tech with no game engines optimized for it, that is pretty impressive. However when it comes to raw processing power intel doesnt have anything to compete at close to this price point. Infact it takes a 10 core intel cpu to beat it in some benchmarks.

If I was buying right now this is exactly the chip I would buy, with a decent cooler for some OCing. I could link threads justifying what ive said but if your actually thinking of spending this amount of money for a core part of your system im sure that you would be doing your own research..

I'd have a quick look at the reviews you are quoting. From what I've read the resolution seems to make quite a difference. If you are doing 1080p or lower then the i7s are winning but anything above 1440 or 4k then the Ryzens beating almost everything out there. If you are using a GTX 1080 for lower resolution gaming then you are doing something wrong. Also for some reason Windows 7 is currently running better on Ryzen than Win 10 so it looks like Microsoft has some optimizations to do.

Currently the performance of Ryzen is a moving target and may well improve in the near future. I'm just excited that Intel has got some real competition for a change. If you think of the last few i7 generations all we've got is a <5% speed improvement and ~10% power usage reduction (wild oversimplification). Hopefully now they will now have to make more of an effort.

i5 7600K is the fastest and most expensive CPU the vast majority of people require, for gaming or much else.

If you don't know if you need more you probably don't need more.

An 1800X with half it's cores and cache disabled (to emulate a 4 core high end Ryzen 5) is somewhat slower than a 7700K at the same clocks. About as fast as a 7600K.

Those Ryzen processors are supposed to be about the same price as a 7600K when they come in a couple months. So if you buy a 7600K you probably aren't going to be missing out or hurt for price performance very soon.

Well, you've definitely convinced me that you're not a gamer! Games benefit from extra threads nowadays, they're not all single-threaded anymore. Here's a nice little summary of what's been creeping up on us for years: http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5ui1bd/why_getting_more_than_4_cores_in_a_gaming_cpu_is/

You can clearly see the i7-7700K outperform an equivalently-clocked i5-7600K (the 7600K is an i5 part) in most games. There's clearly a case to be made for a £300 CPU over a £200 CPU for gaming, nowadays - just not if that £300 CPU is a Ryzen chip.

That's exactly my guess, too - AMD could come in with an i5-beating Ryzen CPU for <£200 in a couple of months, as I can imagine either (or both!) a 4c/8t or a 6c/6t 65W Ryzen part roughly equaling the 1700 in gaming performance, and possibly surpassing it in overclocking.

The thing is, I don't let my preference for AMD turn their promises or my guesses into "probably" or "it's going to be". That could be my experience talking - I've been through enough product launches to wait for the facts. :wink:

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers

Hate the way the quote system works here, so sorry but needed to get rid of all that.

I'm not playing games, and I don't do traditional video editing, so for me this CPU is amazing as my workloads are heavily multi-threaded, and where I can't use the GTX 1080 to do the work, I need cores!

TBH I don't know why you'd buy this for games, unless you were trying to future proof a bit, it's going to be the R5's and R3's where the competition with the the i7 7600K etc are really going to shine, since I am pretty sure that the £150-160 R5 1300 with 4C/8T will be offering 85-90% of the performance of the Intel parts at a significant price saving.

Personally, I am looking forward to the newly announced Naples CPU's which will be competing with the Xeon E5's etc. up to 32c/64t, with a cost roughly half that of Intel, and much higher PPW for my rack mount systems, so less racks, it's a win, win for me. :smiley:

As someone who has been putting together PCs for over twenty years, and loved my XP-M 2500+ and Opteron 165 CPUs (XP-M in a desktop system, of course!), I can tell you that Ryzen is disappointing for gamers, even with my preference for AMD. I think you should take off your rose-tinted glasses - or at least read a review or two. A £15 saving on a CPU to have significant losses on minimum and average frame rates compared to the i7-7700K is simply not worth it. Conjectured future performance gains, blaming Microsoft for not coding Windows specifically for Ryzen (!) and developers for not writing multi-threaded games? We heard all that before at the Bulldozer launch - maybe you're too young to remember?



As for using the CPU for my business and other hobbies... I'm not sure how a faster CPU will noticeably improve Excel and Word performance? I'd definitely rather have better frame rates in games than faster calculations in Office, as gaming hitches would be far more noticeable and annoying. I do use Photoshop from time to time, true - but the Intel i7-7700K is faster there, too, just as it's faster for using PDFs. And as for hiking, horse riding, kayaking, reading books and cooking, I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing Ryzen with the 7700K, so you'll have to help me out with a source there. :man:

If I were a non-gaming video editor, however, Ryzen would be my #1 choice. (Coincidentally, lots of people at HUKD have come forward as non-gaming video editors this month!)

I'd love it for this to be true, but I have no idea where you're getting that "probably" from. Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters is a mathematical model, it doesn't apply to reality - and neither does wishful thinking. :stuck_out_tongue:

The memory controller supports it - only heard of one board so far announced with it.
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_confirms_that_ryzen_supports_ecc_memory/1

In response to this AMD make CPUs and GPUs and have a 1/5th of the capital of Nvidia, so they're trying to do this with a lot less money than even Nvidia

My point is, in the not too distant past AMD and NVIDIA were on level playing field when it comes to market cap.

Relevance?

If Ryzen is a joke, why would Intel be slashing money off their processors.

In July 2010, NVIDIA and AMD were level with the market cap at 5bn.

It's really this simple:

Intel CAP $170 billion
Nvidia CAP $58 billion
AMD CAP $13 billion

https://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/market_cap
https://ycharts.com/companies/NVDA/market_cap
https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/market_cap

Intel make CPUs, Nvidia make GPUs, AMD make CPUs and GPUs and have a 1/5th of the capital of Nvidia, so they're trying to do this with a lot less money than even Nvidia and are nowhere near Intel, this is why AMD fall short but considering the figures above they're punching above their weight.

They spend almost no time and money on marketing vs Intel or Nvidia. The downside of this is it often looks rushed and is poor/amateurish. They actually need to spend more time and money on marketing.

As for quality control and big companies. AMD have produced (with their partners) more x86 cores and more x86 compatible GPU compute units than either Intel or Nvidia for the last 3 years in a row! Not bad for a third rate tin pot company you would have to say! :smiley:

As for the server market Intel are not worried by AMD. The threat comes from ARM vendors that have started to produce competitive products. These are the guys that will take away Intel's market in the long term.

​same I googled AMD prune, then the penny dropped.

​I guess you must enjoy paying over the odds to a company who has monopolized the market and then hiked prices year on year with little improvement.

Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD GPUs have always been better bang for buck and now it seems they are catching up once again in the CPU race. This is only good news for consumers.

the only joke here is your reply. yes, AMD has been below Intel for years now, but this time price/performance report puts them on par or even higher than intel. if you have 1000£ to spend then go for intel, but at 300-400£ this time AMD wins. Intel needed some good competition and except AMD there is nobody on PC CPUs so you can see it in there prices.now it is time that Intel prices to go down.
my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.

I've used AMD for years, usually playing catch up to Intel but a lot cheaper and great value. using my FX 8350 (which I had over clocked to a stable 4.7ghz)with 2 x Radeon 7970's in crossfire in an Asus Sabertooth 990FX board, does not miss a beat!
The new Ryzen CPU'S look good but very expensive right now, I think I'll hold off until something won't play smoothly with my system

Sign up for a free trial of Which for £1 and they give you a £15 voucher which can be used against anything over £250 including this CPU.

£314 after i just checked.

If you want it now and don't mind a UK based seller, it's available from Laptops Direct for £304.