• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Your Take on Ryzen? Worth buying or stick to Intel

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Would you buy Ryzen?

  • Yes, it is good enough or better

    Votes: 125 75.3%

  • No, not worth it

    Votes: 41 24.7%
  • Total voters
    166
  • Poll closed .
ArchAngel777 said:
I'll be brutally honest. I want everyone to buy Ryzen so that Intel will freak out, drop the prices on their 6900K and I can gobble one up for half price. That is my end-game, seriously.
Click to expand...
While I will likely build a RyZen system or two, my main hope was that RyZen would motivate Intel.
 
imported_jjj said:
LOL that's just a SSD ,Intel is trying a walled garden kind of thing but by the time anyone can afford it there will be better offerings in both perf and cost.
Click to expand...

And we know how the Intel 600 series SSD turned out. I am not worried about 3DXPOINT, Samsung will have their own competitive product.
 
I'd consider it. It's within the range where a price difference can compensate for any deficiencies. It falls about where I expected it to fall. Close, but not quite at Intel level per thread.
I think people had unreasonable expectations thinking AMD would leapfrog Intel. Intel was not complacently sitting on its hands just because there was no serious competition from AMD. It had to keep running hard just to give its own user base a reason to upgrade and to keep datacenter clients from shifting even more of their budgets to accelerators. Also, the Valley is red hot for hardware talent nowadays, many of the big hyperscalers, phone makers, networking, AI, etc, are doing their own Silicon. AMD has to compete for talent against some very deep pocketed players. Their recent stock price increase has certainly helped them be a little more competitive, but it probably came when most of Zen was baked in and in final execution mode. Given all that, AMD has done what they needed to do, which is put out a part that fits in the middle of Intel range performance wise. They may make less profit by having to sell a bigger part for less to compensate, but from a user's perspective, it's not an issue.
 
JimKiler said:
I was not referencing a WCCF review, they had aggregated reviews from a bunch of websites. They did cherry pick quotes and you could argue those are one sided. Did WCCF even do their own
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were. I was just giving my overall opinion on the Ryzen hype leading up to it's launch, its actual performance, and what to expect going forward.

I don't think I attacked your opinion in any way. I just read your post and offered my take on Ryzen. I didn't think my response sounded accusatory at all.
 
UsandThem said:
I didn't say you were. I was just giving my overall opinion on the Ryzen hype leading up to it's launch, its actual performance, and what to expect going forward.

I don't think I attacked your opinion in any way. I just read your post and offered my take on Ryzen. I didn't think my response sounded accusatory at all.
Click to expand...

You did not attack my post. I simply believe you mistook my link for a WCCF review.
 
JimKiler said:
You did not attack my post. I simply believe you mistook my link for a WCCF review.
Click to expand...

I didn't. I was just referring to all the WCCF links people argue/debate about on Slickdeals and other forums. I thought I was clear in what I talked about, but just to be absolutely clear now, when I quoted your post to expand on your your take on Ryzen, there was no link even it. I am not accusing you of anything to do with WCCF.

In fact, the only reason I even quoted your post was because you stated they probably should have waited a little longer to launch Ryzen because there was a lot of last minute changes/BIOS update. Which I agreed with on one level, but I also thought they had no choice in doing it because of the negative press they would have received.

You gave your take, I gave mine. After rereading what I wrote, I still don't think it accuses you of anything. People will have different takes on the launch/performance. If it will end any hard feelings/misunderstandings, I will simply unquote your post.
 
LTC8K6 said:
While I will likely build a RyZen system or two, my main hope was that RyZen would motivate Intel.
Click to expand...
They offer same or better performance as the 6900k at $600 less. Who cares if it 5 or 10fps slower in some games at 1080p?

Really? That is the big deal? 5-10fps slower on some games at only 1080p? There are some specific edge cases where the intel chips are still 15% to 20% faster, but that is just specific code optimization, nothing AMD can do if those specific programs are fully optimized for Intel.

Overall all of the big and known programs have the 1800X equal of faster than the 6900k and it cost s$600 less. Its an 8 core chip for $500 or you can go the 1700 core for $330, that is EIGHT CORES for $330, and overclock it to 4.1GHz which seems to be about the max stable OC you can get on all cores.

Its absurd value! Nothing Intel offers comes even close. The 7700k is better for games at 1080p, who would spend $300+ on a CPU and game at 1080p or lower?

When gaming at 1440p or higher there is no difference! And at 1080p it can be slower about 5 to 10fps, big deal! In many cases disabling AMD's hyperthreading improved performance anywhere from 4-6fps in various games. So at that point you have it equal to the 6900k in gaming as well.

Sure these things need to be sorted out and you don't need to disable smt to get higher frames, but they will be solved. Through bios updates, through chipset updates and through iterations of the processor, newer steppings it will only get better.

If I'm already on a 4770k I might not see that big of a reason to upgrade if I don't do any content creation or office work. If I use my PC primarily for gaming and some light work and otherwise web browsing, I don't need to upgrade my 4770k with any newer processor. Not Ryzen, not any Intel offering. But if I want to game for example and stream at the same time, if I want to do content creation, video editing and stuff, I want to do office work, etc...then getting an 8 core Ryzen for $330 to $500 is absurd value!
 
UsandThem said:
I didn't. I was just referring to all the WCCF links people argue/debate about on Slickdeals and other forums. I thought I was clear in what I talked about, but just to be absolutely clear now, when I quoted your post to expand on your your take on Ryzen, there was no link even it. I am not accusing you of anything to do with WCCF.

In fact, the only reason I even quoted your post was because you stated they probably should have waited a little longer to launch Ryzen because there was a lot of last minute changes/BIOS update. Which I agreed with on one level, but I also thought they had no choice in doing it because of the negative press they would have received.

You gave your take, I gave mine. After rereading what I wrote, I still don't think it accuses you of anything. People will have different takes on the launch/performance. If it will end any hard feelings/misunderstandings, I will simply unquote your post.
Click to expand...

you never attacked me and i didn't have any hard feelings over your post, and even if I did i can handle it. It is the P&N sub forum that I (generally) avoid because of all the attacks.
 
JimKiler said:
you never attacked me and i didn't have any hard feelings over your post, and even if I did i can handle it. It is the P&N sub forum that I (generally) avoid because of all the attacks.
Click to expand...

You can look at my post history, and see I largely stay out of the CPU forum because I am not one for back and forth debates and arguing. I never even go into any off topic sub-forums. I thought your post was well written, and I didn't have any issue with what you said. No harm, no foul. 😉
 
I think Zen is pretty great for AMD. The problem in some areas appear to be due to L3, a little higher smt penalty compared to Intel in games, bugs, and software optimizations. I guess it would come close to Intel in games with some time and Zen+ should be equal, and hopefully frequency would be better too. Intel next uarch is few years from now so at least AMD will be competitive. .

Given Zen's power/performance graph Raven Ridge would be interesting but the most important thing in that segment is their UVD. I'd like 4k60 10bit in h265,vp9 and it could be a great alternative to core, esp in laptops. Kaveri wasn't a good choice because of that. Carizzo would be a little better but no vp9 and I guess no 10bit support.

I guess it would be good for HPC and servers, at least compared to BD.

Also, 8 cores might be more important down the line than IPC.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
If you think about it, this might be the bigger victory.

How many of us use Intel CPUs in the office? I have had nothing but Intel CPUs in every work laptop or desktop I have ever owned. Now think about it, AMD has delivered a CPU that offers great productivity performance at a reasonable price without consuming massive amounts of power. If I was buying a PC for work today, I would think that an AMD Ryzen would be fantastic value for money.

Later, when the APUs become available, perhaps they could be a good choice for a productivity laptop? I currently use a low power Core i7 - I forgot the model number, but a dual core hyperthreaded model. AMD could easily make a dual core multithreaded APU, or a quad core multithreaded APU, that would be perfect for laptops.

And here is the kicker - while Ryzen cannot clock high, it doesn't use an absurd amount of power either. That means that while it was difficult to get Bulldozer to fit into a 15w or 35w envelope, it won't be nearly as difficult to fit Ryzen into that.

If I was Intel, I couldn't care less about the high end desktop gaming market. They have that pretty well covered with their Core i7. But, I'd be pretty worried about other segments, such as office productivity. Assuming AMD can get OEMs on their side, it could be a big, big deal.
Click to expand...

Ryzen looks interesting for workstation use. Engineers, graphics artists ect. This version of Ryzen is overkill for your avg office employee. Want to know which CPU I have used for the past 5-6 years? The i3. I put SSDs and enough memory and your avg user thinks their computer is amazing.

My newest position one of the first things I did was cut out buying i7s + 1TB 5400 RPM drives for people using word. i3s + 500GB SSD is our standard build now. We are also replacing old laptops hard drives with SSDs to get more life out of them.

The R3 is something that could interest me down the road. But I didnt check. Does Ryzen come with an iGPU? That was another plug of the i3, the built in GPU. One less driver\hardware piece to fail.
 
Genx87 said:
Ryzen looks interesting for workstation use. Engineers, graphics artists ect. This version of Ryzen is overkill for your avg office employee. Want to know which CPU I have used for the past 5-6 years? The i3. I put SSDs and enough memory and your avg user thinks their computer is amazing.

My newest position one of the first things I did was cut out buying i7s + 1TB 5400 RPM drives for people using word. i3s + 500GB SSD is our standard build now. We are also replacing old laptops hard drives with SSDs to get more life out of them.

The R3 is something that could interest me down the road. But I didnt check. Does Ryzen come with an iGPU? That was another plug of the i3, the built in GPU. One less driver\hardware piece to fail.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Preach it brother!
 
ArchAngel777 said:
I'll be brutally honest. I want everyone to buy Ryzen so that Intel will freak out, drop the prices on their 6900K and I can gobble one up for half price. That is my end-game, seriously.
Click to expand...
There's obviously no hope for such a big price drop. Ryzen will probably push intel process down a bit but it's not powerful enough to force a radical price drop.
 
Yeah, I don't think there's going to be much of a price drop. Intel will probably mostly just say "HEDT has got a lot of lanes, the 7700K is still gaming king and you know are stuff is more reliable than AMD" then they'll release a mainstream 6 core with coffeelake. They'll lose some sales, but Intel is Intel...they protect their margins first at the end of the day.
 
This shouldn't have been released with half arsed BIOS/firmware. Did nobody at AMD test the same benches reviewers do before release? AMD had one shot and everything should have been ready Day 1, not odd performance drops or deficits in some areas. Meh. I'll keep on sticking with Intel. If you pre-ordered Day 1 its a mystery why. Ryzen won't be near ready for another six months.
 
Herr Kutz said:
If you read several reviews the consensus seems to say go with Intel.
Click to expand...

That's the weird thing. Most reviewers are giving the Ryzen chips Editor's Choice/Gold Awards, but then say that you're better off getting something like an Intel Core i7-7700K if you're a 1080p gamer or if you need the fastest single core performance.

I'll bet that the server versions of these chips are going to be awesome because of their multithreaded performance. They're going to be stealing market share from the Xeon line unless Intel cuts pricing.
 
My take on Ryzen and if it's worth it over an Intel solution should be the same as anyone's take. At least those who are neutral. Buy what is best for your own usage. If you strictly game, Intel is your best bet. If you require the most cores you could get your hands on because the software you use can take advantage of them, then why not go Ryzen? That said, there are people here, including myself, who just get a kick out of building new systems with different tech (not intel) and have fun doing it.
And then we have the cults. (not going there, but you know...)
 
i've bought both intel and amd in the past, i was looking at haswell 4790k, then broadwell 5775, then 6700k/7700k but they always seemed skimpy on ipc increase and core count even with ht. going to the hedt was always a compromise on gaming. ryzen hits a very nice middle point. 8c/16t just seems a much better bet with ps4/xbone at 8cores and game devs getting used to the extra procs. direct to metal was defacto on consoles and eventually we got mantle/vulkan/dx12. more cores is a higher percentage option assuming you keep your cpu for more than a few years.
 
gorobei said:
i've bought both intel and amd in the past, i was looking at haswell 4790k, then broadwell 5775, then 6700k/7700k but they always seemed skimpy on ipc increase and core count even with ht. going to the hedt was always a compromise on gaming. ryzen hits a very nice middle point. 8c/16t just seems a much better bet with ps4/xbone at 8cores and game devs getting used to the extra procs. direct to metal was defacto on consoles and eventually we got mantle/vulkan/dx12. more cores is a higher percentage option assuming you keep your cpu for more than a few years.
Click to expand...

That could happen, but the console cores are the older AMD design at only 1.6 GHz so the 7700K can do more work at stock. Coding is done using processes and threads, not cores, and a 4.2 GHz core can handle 2 worker threads better than 2 x slow 1.6 GHz cores will. Which just means that anything written to saturate the console cores will be fine on the 7700K as well as some slower intel CPUs.

Where Ryzen might do better than the 7700K in gaming is for games written to scale up CPU use past what they do on consoles, such as an RTS game that offers better AI, or an RPG that turns on more NPC AI when it detects a high-end PC CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top