I've read a lot and owned most of the processors discussed. It seems pretty simple. Ryzen will be considerably slower in single core performance, so unless it is going to overclock to 4.7 GHz, it will be slower in almost every game, very few games use more than 4 cores. And OF COURSE Ryzen 8C/16T is going to be faster at mulitcore benchmarks than a 4C/8T i7-7700 even at 1GH higher clockspeed. So what we really have here is the 7 year old debate of which is faster for games, the fastest dual core cpu or the new slower quad core cpus? Well for 95% of the games right now, Intel's faster 4C will be faster than Ryzen. For the other 5% of games that are actually coded for 6 or 8 cores EFFICIENTLY, then Ryzen should be faster than Intel in those games. But the bottom line for me is this, I have a Nvidia 1080 and a 1080p monitor, so both Ryzen and Intel will be fine, I don't really care if I am playing games with Ryzen at 112 fps and Intel at 132 fps on a 60 hz monitor. What I AM looking forward to (If Ryzen isn't buggy or a fail), is playing that same game at 112 fps using 4 Ryzen cores and having the other 4 cores ripping video, running windows, running my two open browsers, 3 chat programs, backup software, etc. all at the same time. If Ryzen can get over 4Ghz and do all those things, it will be a win. And then when future games do start to use 6 or 8 cores, you will be kinda future proof against a speed demon i7-7700k at 5ghz. Just remember the video card is almost always the bottleneck. Any game bringing my Nvidia 1080 to 60 fps or below, well in that scenario an i3 is going to be just as fast as a i7-7700.