Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Mar 2017 22:48 UTC
AMD

Realistically, nobody should have expected Ryzen to be king of the hill when it comes to gaming. We know that Broadwell isn't, after all; Intel's Skylake and Kaby Lake parts both beat Broadwell in a wide range of games. This is the case even though Skylake and Kaby Lake are limited to four cores and eight threads; for many or most games, high IPC and high clock speeds are the key to top performance, and that's precisely what Kaby Lake delivers.

In spite of this, reading the various reviews around the Web - and comment threads, tweets, and reddit posts - one gets the feeling that many were hoping or expecting Ryzen to somehow beat Intel across the board, and there's a prevailing narrative that Ryzen is in some sense a bad gaming chip. But this argument is often paired with the claim that some kind of non-specific "optimization" is going to salvage the processor's performance, that AMD fans just need to keep the faith for a few months, and that soon Ryzen's full power will be revealed.

Both parts of this reaction are more than a little flawed.

I'm just glad there's finally competition in the desktop processor space again. Intel started to charge some outrageous prices these past few years, but if you wanted the best performance, you really didn't have much of a choice.

With Ryzen, AMD is showing the world it's back on track. It might not be there yet in every aspect, but it's an amazingly promising start.

Thread beginning with comment 642130
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A rant!
by Odisej on Mon 20th Mar 2017 10:48 UTC
Odisej
Member since:
2006-05-11

I've been following similar discussions in recent months. Was quite into hardware, processor (AMD vs. Intel vs. Cyrix) stuff and graphics (ATI, Voodoo etc.) in the old days but then other things took over - job and family are priority. So after more then a decade I decided to buy a new computer - this time, like in the old days, part by part.

First of all, when I started reading I couldn't believe how ridiculous it all became. "Oh, my computer does 5 FPS more than yours." "You should get i7 WHATEVER because you can overclock it and you can play WHATEVER GAME in buttshiny resolution." "Only 16GB of ram is enough for multitasking." What crap! And people are paying 1000 euros for a single graphics card?! It all seemed like I entered some crazy universe.

Every genius that cannot live without a 3000 euro computer should play games on 320x200 for half a year and then be the smartest a*** around and give lectures on how 4K is the only way to go. And saying that AMD sucks just because he doesn't get 150fps on whatever game at max resolution is total bull****.

Reading such things makes me think the average IQ of a person using the computer and having an opinion about it fell considerably in recent decades, well bellow the typical number of lines in a terminal window.

Angelina Jolie does not look any nicer at 1080p than at 1024x768. Trust me: she looks good at ANY resolution and whith whatever processor. OK.

Edited 2017-03-20 10:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: A rant!
by ahferroin7 on Mon 20th Mar 2017 12:51 in reply to "A rant!"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

Agreed. On this note, I hate to admit that I just recently bought a 1500 USD (about 1400 EUR) laptop (i7-7700HQ, 16G of DDR4-2400 RAM and a GTX 1060 with 3G of GDDR5) partly so I could get better performance in games (the other reason was to get a decent system with DDR4 and 8 threads, I run Gentoo when I'm not gaming, and it's nice to be able to finish updates in a reasonable amount of time), but it's an excellent example of this. I can get 120 FPS easily in most games I play on the highest quality settings at 1920x1080 (and some I can even get upside of 400 if nothing is happening), but unless I turn on vertical sync, the image is almost constantly tearing because the framerate is so much higher than the 60 Hz refresh rate on my display. On top of that though, the framerate is literally bandwidth limited by how fast the CPu can push data to the GPU, not how fast the GPU is. The moment I start something in the background that uses more than 1-2% of the CPU, the framerate drops proportionate to the load on the CPU. Buying the GTX 1070 or GTX 1080 version of this system would have resulted in near zero actual improvement except for single-tasking despite costing an extra 1500 or 500 USD respectively, unless I opted for upgrades elsewhere in the system (which in turn would have cost even more), since both issues would still be the case. The same goes for the 4K display version of the system, which was close to 1000 USD more than what I payed (partly because it required getting the GTX 1080).

Reply Parent Score: 2