Support NeoGAF

[Crayon]

If it could do something if it reignites serious competition.

In and of its self, I don't think it gives any shot nor is a shot needed.

 

[FairXchange]

I'll probably look to upgrade my 4790k towards the end of next year, hopefully AMD get the competition going and by then we will have some really good advances in processor tech.

I can't picture why you'd need to upgrade the the 4790k unless for non gaming purposes?

 

[DBT85]

I suppose the question is, have Intel been holding back and drip feeding because they could?

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

I am waiting to build my first gaming PC because of Ryzen

 

[ndawgdrake]

*Face palm* at some of the posts in this thread.

Ryzen is a game changer because 8-16 logical cores with performance comparable to Intel's equivalent offerings will be significantly more affordable, and therefore more accessible, to a larger portion of the PC Gaming market.

On the extreme end, Intel's newest 8 core processor is $1000, compared to the $500 Ryzen equivalent. This is a big deal.

In response, Intel will have to do the following to stay competitive and minimize their margin loss:
-lower their prices
-make their future products even better

In terms of PC Gaming, titles released in the future would be developed in response to this net increase in CPU potential.

This would not happen if Ryzen was another dud like Bulldozer.

To put things even more into perspective, Intel's first mainstream i7 from 2008 was 4 cores and 8 threads. The 7700k released last month is...4 cores and 8 threads. Almost a decade of CPU stagnation because AMD didn't have a competitive response. It's really the reason an OCed 2500k is still relevant today.

 

[DjRalford]

I can't picture why you'd need to upgrade the the 4790k unless for non gaming purposes?

I usually do a platform upgrade every 4 years and GPU every 2, I'll play it by ear and see what's about at the time.

 

[dr_rus]

(wrong thread, lol)

 

[DSN2K]

If this proves anything it says Intel has clearly been holding back...

 

[LelouchZero]

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 8 Core CPU Benchmarks Leaked – Giving Intel's $1000+ 8-Cores A Run For It

Holyshit.gif time?

If this is legit... I don't even have to upgrade my CPU but dayum I might as well if this kind of performance is to be had in the sub $400 segment lol.

I would probably just sit on it for 5+ years or something.

 

[brain_stew]

Oh come on. I'm excited for for Ryzen too, but it's not going to do anything gaming-wise that an equivalently-priced Intel chip can't do just as well.

Gaming, to the extent that it is CPU bound at all, is generally limited by single-threaded performance. And that is an area where Ryzen doesn't beat Intel. Go look at any gaming-focused review of Broadwell-E for proof that 4 fast cores beats 8-10 slightly slower cores in nearly every gaming benchmark, and in any case the difference is usually under 1%

Ryzen will be a shot in the arm for AMD and will be a popular choice for gamers. But, for gaming, it isn't a leap ahead of what we have already.

I've seen this mentioned multiple times with regards to Ryzen but the benchmarks in modern game engines just don't bear this out.

Lets look at some of the most popular and modern game engines and see how a lower clocked, lower IPC (the 3ghz 5960x Haswell-E) 8C/16T Intel CPU fairs. Bear in mind that leaked benchmarks are putting Ryzen above Broadwell-E in IPC with base clocks between 3.3-3.6ghz.

That's Anvil, Id Tech 6, Unreal Engine 4, Cryengine 3, Frostbite 3 and Dirupt all preferring more cores/threads over pure clock speed and IPC.

Given this, if Ryzen game benchmarks actually target modern games and focus on minimum performance and not just averages, Zen could end up fairing a lot better in gaming than many are expecting.

If a reviewer uses a bunch of DX9 games from years ago, then the picture may be different but surely that's missing the point?

 

[icecold1983]

It is considerable because you're using an average while it is comprised of results like this:

Or if you prefer DX12:

Fury/X isn't doing too hot lately, in many games of the last several months it is either on par or only slightly ahead of RX480 - whether this is because of it lacking VRAM or AMD not paying attention to GCN3 optimizations anymore I don't know - so I'm not sure what "sign of things to come" here means really.

And 10% was always considerable to me when anyone was ahead of anyone. 980Ti was ~10% ahead of Fury X which seems to be considerable to you since you've chosen one above the other.

i mean that goes both ways, theres games were nvidia craters in performance too. and these are games that are finished and released. not betas or in the case of conan, early access titles far away from release

 

[dr_rus]

i mean that goes both ways, theres games were nvidia craters in performance too. and these are games that are finished and released. not betas or in the case of conan, early access titles far away from release

Sure, but as of recently this is more about 390X (due to 8GBs of VRAM most likely) and 480 than Fury X as it seems to be not doing too well even in games which are clearly favor AMD's h/w. And early access titles are games people are playing right now so looking at their current performance is completely worthwhile.