Some people are still not getting the point - I am referring to both AMD and Intel camps.

7700K is an obvious winner for gaming-only cpu. Before down putting Ryzen, Intel camp also need to realize that 7700K also game better than their more expensive 6900K and 6800K. In multi-threaded applications and synthetic benchmarks, R7 matches well with Intel HEDT system, but still loose at gaming. Why? It's all about the clockspeed.

This is the day of GPU being the main performance defacto of your system and gone are the days when MMX and 3D Now were the in-thing. You need a fast enough cpu to feed data to the gpu back and forth.

In gaming, raw clockspeed still has the most advantage in today's games. Ryzen did not lose to Skylake or Kabylake because of IPC, it's because of clockspeed. The gap in clockspeed is significant that extra cores do not give much advantage to overall performance. We can see the 1080p gaming comparison video by Joker Production (Youtube) where the 1700 while utilizing all-cores, the load is very low which means the games are not taking full advantage of the extra cores (a.k.a lazy cores).

What if Ryzen has the exact same clock speed as Skylake/Kabylake? But of course it's not the current situation here because it is hard for an 8-core Ryzen to match the clock of Kaby even with watercooling. But at 3.9GHz overclock, the performance is near to Intel 5ghz. The problem now is that with its base clock, some reviewers are reporting that Ryzen has issues with boost clock. Hardware Unboxed claimed that their 1800X is somewhat stucked at 3.7GHz on his Asrock Taichi board. And I have yet seeing any reviewer that actually analyzes how the boost behavior is on Ryzen. How many active cores are at specific boost clock?

It was different with the old Bulldozer architecture when its high clockspeed was not an advantage due to the FPU resource sharing. In layman's term you can say the performance of clockspeed advantage is cut into half (not literally).

There was another argument regarding gaming resolution. In real world, those with 4K monitors and capable GPU will game at resolutions higher than just 1080p. At 4K the cpu advantage is diminished. 1080p testing is only relevant ONLY IF you want to measure the cpu performance. 7700K wins, hands down, but is it an ideal real world situation? No. If we're being practical... if you have a 4K capable system you will game at 4k, not 1080p. 1080p testing is only if you're stucked with 1080p monitor and it's capable of outputting very high refresh rate. Otherwise, it just serves another bench and bragging right. At 4K gaming and very high end GPU, even the old FX can perform as well as the newer generation CPUs.

This is just some of my thoughts at the moment, will write again later once I have more ideas.

This is correct. As what I mentioned in my article and video review.

Intel still does better in the gaming arena so if one is going in purely for gaming, Intel is the choice.

Nothing much?

An RM 2,599 processor outperforms some RM 6,000 processor by ~50%.

How is that not much?

You must understand that Ryzen is a whole new architecture and as of now, it works fine for games (a little behind Intel stuff) but it benefits content creators a lot more because now the initial cost is less but you get a lot more performance.

btw, Ryzen is into the server market.

We're just not allow to talk about the Server part yet.

the Zen architecture is highly modular.
They can slap on as many CCX as they want as long as it fits the PCB

This post has been edited by soulfly: Mar 3 2017, 05:22 PM

The hype is real actually, the performance is good as it is.

Unfortunately some parties decide to add their own hype that performance in productivity / synthetic / multi-threaded application translates to gaming performance.

LOL case.

Seriously. What we see are FPS aka frames per second.

Even if AMD did product something that is exact or better than Intel, what you see is that the FPS numbers will be same because when the processor is same they just hit GPU limitation.

That post was sarcasm really.

These people got into they hype that you mentioned above probably due to the number of inexperienced youtubers doing CPU reviews.
Mentality CPU only used for gaming really

Tu la, average fps difference by 3 also condemn like silly.

LOL. They don't understand how average fps works.

If difference is 3 means the gaming experience difference is negligible.

Furthermore it's not on all games, so many games their benchmarks similar.

Many people very narrow minded, they thing brands like Intel and AMD release processor means for gamers.

Die lo if companies only think of gamers. And another thing is people only see "Current", they don't bother to understand what the Ryzen means for "Future".

The potential is huge, and the way it's positioned it will make Intel improve too.

And people also seem to forget x99 also had platform issues when it first launched.

PS: some of those matsalleh "youtube reviewers" should just stick to GPU benchmarking and system builds, if you get what I mean...only 2 were able to communicate and answer why there were performance anomalies.

Agreed bro.

Ive seen lisa su's presentation and no where it was emphasized Ryzen was a monster for gaming ONLY. Heck even the slide deck AMD published showed it lagged behind Kaby Lake.

I don't mind reviewers being bias, I just can't stand those who pretend they know everything.
System building is really subjective so there's a lot of leeway between good and bad, and what to do and not to do.
But when it comes to hardware and you lack of knowledge about it, it really shows.
There are already documentations provided by AMD, and using internet there are many source of references from previous articles. They should have used that.
The lack of awareness is just irritating.

Very good explanation there bro. Great !

AMD Ryzen has ECC memory support - http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-ecc-memory-support/

der8auer set new 1800X world record at 5.8ghz - http://www.eteknix.com/overclocker-der8aue...7-1800x-record/

This post has been edited by soulfly: Mar 3 2017, 08:51 PM

a reddit discussion here --- > https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x7oaq/ryzens_memory_latency_problem_a_discussion_of/

nice discussion on the L3 and victim cache latencies that might cause gaming penalties, but i still can't understand some of it.

Yes, thing is consumer like me dominate the market, not content creator. I'm paying to game. So despite the benchmark shows a very large performance for content creator. That isn't what I want. What I'm expecting for is just a cheap quad core which has better single thread performance. Heck I don't even want to buy a CPU for over MYR 2k price.

Feel free to correct if I'm wrong.

Now we just have to wait for that awesome fps game that can take advantage of 16 threads. Battlefield with 128 players... XD

Quite true.

The hype about R7 was equivalent (or better) performance than intel chips at lower price.

The 1700 vs 7700k benchmark was what most gamers were looking out for. Pricing wise not much difference, but Intel still wins here.

And i suspect those holding back few more months wanting to wait for R5 gaming results are probably going to be dissappointed too.

IMHO, since the fps is not very big. 8c/16t is more future, without any optimisation Ryzen still run as good Intel. It's just matter u want risk 3-5 fps for better future gaming.

Hello all.
I just want to share the latest video from Youtube about Ryzen by Tech Deals channel. He is very informative and explain clear picture on the best deal we have with Ryzen. He said, the Intel I7 7700 no doubt the fastest currently, but in 2-3 years Ryzens you bought now will paid off. I like his honest and clear explanation unlike others reviewer who just like very narrow and easy job. link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sciuiEcrnzg&t=1396s

any news on the availability of the processor and motherboard in malaysia?