+1 But they did say their 7 series were all gonna be capable of 5GHz OC'ing out of the box *yawn* Oh look, they're gaming chips *yawn* Oh another chipset type to *grows bored and goes back to sleep* Ps. Call yourself a PC GAMER at 1080P, consoles are cheaper at that res...
For gaming, the cheaper Intel chips are considerably faster. That's all I'm saying. Now put your toys back in your pram, there's a good chap.
"You're not a real PC gamer unless you play at <insert resolution>". That's your argument, seriously?
Just as a side note you both sound like children to me From the little I've paid attention to it so far, it seems to me that: Ryzen is good, overkill for gaming (much like the 7700k), the r5 or whatever they're going to be called later (quad/hex core) will be interesting depending on their price.
I don't have an argument, it's just an observation you can game at 1080P quite happily on a console and save even more money. And in intel's instance, you can't justify premium price tags for something that offers no real performance boost over countless previous generations of i3, i5 and i7's. I mean do you cover faeces in chocolate sprinkles and declare it to be a edible???
someone has been watching the joker video about 7700k being the ultimate 720p at lowest settings gaming cpu..... watch the adoredtv video and then are surprised that even the 8350 is still relevant and faster than the i7 2600k
I've seen the "at 1080" refrain a lot, with the implication that "at above 1080" the results would be different. Trawling through review, I can only find Guru3D to have tested at higher resolutions (WQHD), and HardOCP to have tested with VR games (based on render-time, so probably the best measure of functional performance limit as it's FPS invariant), with the results still being... cheaper LGA115x i5s & i7s at worst match and usually outperform the R7 1800X, as expected from workloads that do not split well to more than 2/3 threads. AMD have a stonkingly good rival for the X99/X299 platform on their hands and soundly beats it in price/perf in most workloads (excluding things that make heavy use of AVX functions). But if your use-case is gaming or SP-focus productivity (e.g. Photoshop) rather than a workload that is already highly threaded (e.g. video encoding, CPU-based 3D rendering) then it's not a good price/performance choice.
I'm sorry if it sounds childish but all I'm doing is pointing out an undisputable fact. One which, for some reason, some people seem totally unwilling to accept.. and they call Intel a cult? I'll say it again: there's no doubt that these look like really good (proper) workstation CPUs but for general users and especially gamers they are not good value at all. Tests I have seen (where the GPU was not a bottleneck) have shown the X1800 to score about the same as an I5, which is ~£270 cheaper. I hope they manage to come up with a gem in the 4 core range, perhaps with higher clock speeds, that brings good bang-for-buck for the gamer.
Agreed, my point is purely the Intel policy of pricing abuse (as do most company's with dominance in any sector) and lack of innovation (they throttled back after Sandybridge) over the years. I'm neither Red, Green or Blue, I'm just pleased to see the underdog bounce back with a product that I feel can only be good for the business and consumer markets as a whole - choice and competitive pricing is never a bad thing.
People still have to buy it for it to matter to Intel, and £500 is more than I would pay for a cpu. All my budget goes on gpu these days, kinda why I avoided x99 did not want SLI no more either. 1080 matters for those that have 144hz monitors and play fps games. The 1440p results changed very little, watchdogs 2 / BF1 the cheaper chip still performed better. Personally much more interested in VEGA but that's me.
Most people will pick up the 1700 which retails for £320, secondly in most instances the equivalent Intel motherboards are more expensive also. PC's are about choice and upgrade ability, what's right for one user certainly won't meet the criteria and needs of another - another HUGE factor overall is bang per buck.
That is exactly what we were told would happen with the FX series. IE by the Devs themselves. That you wouldn't need any more than a 8350 for years to come and that they (the Devs) would actually prefer the AMD going into the future over the 3770k. Things will only get better for AMD too because they are in there, sleeves rolled up, with both consoles containing their technology.
Only for the games where the consoles can even reach 1080p which is nowhere near the universal resolution for console games, not to mention the frequent 30fps caps and the lack of features like anti aliasing, anisotropic filtering, plus the annoyance of a monthly tax for online use... The only reason to have a console is having given up on waiting for "insert game of choice" to get ported.
And even then, because they are console ports they hardly utilise the full potential of a modern PC (even a lesser spec one) and prove for the better part to be a disappointment.
Picture of a x370 itx from Biostar surfaced at kitguru: http://www.kitguru.net/components/m...hows-off-first-mini-itx-x370-am4-motherboard/
A huge amount of impressions I'm reading of Ryzen's gaming performance is that, while the highs may not be as good as the 7700k; The games feel smoother, the averages and min FPS are about the same, but the 1% and .1% framerates are way way better, so games just feel smoother on Ryzen, even if they don't hit the same highs. I don't know about the lot of you, but kissing stutter goodbye? I'd take slightly lower max FPS for that, and as soon as I stop seeing reports of boards committing suicide and ram modules being exploded by them; I'll be hopping right on that train. Maybe I'll finally get an AMD chip that outperforms a 2500K.
Outside of 'impressions', who has tested frame times and frame variances yet? Techreport's results don't show any noticeable lead for Ryzen in frame variance, and PCPerspective's single (so far) test has variance between average and 95th percentile FPS has the same also. HardOCP's VR testing has frametime graphs but lacks a figure breakout, but also appear to show equivalent frame variance (with Ryzen having just a handful more latency spikes in some cases).
Testing for smoothness in gaming is a myth. Monitor and gpus also heavily affect results based on game types, some games are a lot more smoother on AMD vs Nvidia even.
