Published on 2nd March 2017 by
Originally Posted by CeiSo AMD promised a gaming CPU. Yet it gets spanked by the i7 7700K, which is £140 cheaper, in the Ashes bench. Then the other gaming benchmarks don't bother with the 7700K and just use the 6850 and 6900? Why didn't you include it Bit-Tech?
Seems that AMD have come up with a very good workstation CPU, but one that isn't that good at gaming relative to its price (as an example, see https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_cpu_review/19)
Originally Posted by CeiRIghto, I hear you. Any chance of adding in 7700K benches for the other games? After all, AMD are going hard after the gaming enthusiast crowd with their marketing and it'd be a real shame to not offer a comparison to the cheaper i7.
It's a wake up call for Intel's pricing on the 6850/6900 for sure, but I think Ryzen is going to struggle to impact further down the stack and I worry about the performance of the R3/R5 units.
Originally Posted by CeiSo AMD promised a gaming CPU. Yet it gets spanked by the i7 7700K, which is £140 cheaper, in the Ashes bench
Originally Posted by CombatusDefinitely. We're working on a board review at the moment and have some other bits to contend with, but as soon as we can we'll add some 7700K numbers to the rest of the graphs.
Originally Posted by littlepuppiLooks like AMD are back but with caveats!
They are on the right road now for sure, but certainly not an intel smackdown..
TBH they were that fair behind this is really a great achievement, they now need to incrementally build on it and cash in on the good will there still is towards the company.
Originally Posted by AnfieldWhen AMD first showed Ryzen they used software like Blender and Handbrake and it was pretty much equal to the Intel HEDT CPUs, so not sure why some people expected Ryzen to be some gaming monster when even the £1600 10 Core from Intel gets beaten to a pulp by much higher clocked and cheaper Intel CPUs in some games.
From what I've seen across various reviews there are major issues with immature bios versions, so no need to rush:D
Originally Posted by WakkaAt the end of the day, how many people use their PC's PURELY as gaming machines nowadays??
Ryzen 7 is offering gaming performance well in-line with Intel's top-end CPU's, which also lose out to the likes of the 6700/7700K because of clock speed differences, while still offering considerably higher performance outside of gaming. I don't know why anyone would want to compare a 7700K, as has been said that's a CPU that costs £140 less! Which by simple logic isn't what AMD are looking to offer an alternative to. Figure it out, lads.
My concerns are now to do with heat and power consumption at full load...
Originally Posted by 23RO_UKDare I also mention the mass P67 board recall and immature Sandybridge BIOS's on release also - come to think of it my last hyperthreaded CPU was a 2600k (which fair play was awesome), simply because there was no viable competition at the time...
Now there is!!!
AMD are back in the game, that's good for all as far as I'm concerned ;)
Originally Posted by Ceihttp://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AMD-RYZEN-ZEN-CPU_Enthusiast-Gaming-Performance-840x473.jpg
AMD have also been making a massive song and a dance about Ryzen for gaming, shooting hard for the enthusiast market. Their press events have been full of Battlefront/Battlefield or whatever, so whilst they have indeed been showing the Blender etc stuff you can't just wave a hand and deny the claims that Ryzen would be Top Stuff for games.
It's that mis-match that I've got issue with. AMD should have said from the outset that this is a workstation CPU, as opposed to being a £450 CPU that is equivalent to a £250 i5 6500K for games.
I use my PC for games and, err, Word? Not sure I need an 8C/16T for that one.
Ryzen is offering gaming performance equivalent to an i5 6500K, at its top end. You can compare it to the 7700K quite easily, if you're after a gaming CPU.
As above, AMD should have been more honest with their marketing. They've done a great job at designing something that puts Bulldozer to shame, but it's a workstation CPU at the end of the day.
Originally Posted by WakkaEh?
I'm really struggling to figure out the argument you're trying to make. You say R7 offers gaming performance equal to an i5 6500K, AMD say they offer gaming performance equal to a 6850K/6900K - you know, the "enthusiast" CPU Intel sells for more than a lot of folks monthly mortgage/rent payment...
AMD IS shooting for the top-end, enthusiast market with R7 (and undercutting while doing it), so naturally that's where the comparisons should be made.
Don't blame AMD that a 6500K gives us the same gaming experience as an R7 or a 6900K, blame game developers... or thank 'em, depending on how much you have to spend.
Originally Posted by CeiAMD say they offer gaming performance similar to a 6900K, which is true, except that isn't a CPU you'd buy to play games on. So it's a pointless comparison to draw.
Originally Posted by CeiI'm saying an R7 for £450 offers the same performance for gaming as a £250 6500K. Which means it's horrifically expensive for people who want a gaming CPU.
Originally Posted by CeiAMD shouldn't be selling/marketing this as a gaming CPU (which they have been doing, hard), because it isn't. It's an excellent workstation CPU. Their marketing department have once again done them a disservice.
Originally Posted by CeiEDIT: I hope the higher clocked 4-6 core Ryzens can claw something back.
Originally Posted by CeiAMD have also been making a massive song and a dance about Ryzen for gaming, shooting hard for the enthusiast market. Their press events have been full of Battlefront/Battlefield or whatever, so whilst they have indeed been showing the Blender etc stuff you can't just wave a hand and deny the claims that Ryzen would be Top Stuff for games.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
25th April 2017
24th April 2017
21st April 2017
© Copyright bit-tech