VagabondWraith

Looks like they ran out of FineGlue™.
 
 

Way to skirt around my offer.  I figured you'd find a way to dance around it without demonstrating anything.  It allows you to keep talking without proving anything.  
 
This is in no way meant to discredit AMD or Ryzen in any way as they are fantastic in their own right, but you don't seems to care about discrediting Intel and any of their CPUs. With that said, I don't care what benchmark or real life task you pick, I'm willing to demonstrate that my 5960x will do it better than your R7.  It's really that simple.

Looks like they ran out of FineGlue™.
 
 

Looks like they ran out of FineGlue™.
 
 

If Intel prices aggressively with 10-20 bucks of Ryzen, the Ryzen lineup R5 and below would be instantly obsolete. The R7 would only make sense if you absolutely need 16 threads. Even then, the 8700K OC would get dangerously close to the R7's anyway.
 
Intel has a real chance to completely halt the Ryzen train right in its tracks IF they price competitively.

If Intel prices aggressively with 10-20 bucks of Ryzen, the Ryzen lineup R5 and below would be instantly obsolete. The R7 would only make sense if you absolutely need 16 threads. Even then, the 8700K OC would get dangerously close to the R7's anyway.
 
Intel has a real chance to completely halt the Ryzen train right in its tracks IF they price competitively.

Idk, if they managed to improve IPC by 10% and Coffeelake can clock like Kabylake, the 8700K may be able to match/beat the R7 in multi threaded applications.
(The R7 score is the best score I could find, an average R7 doesn't score that high)

Meanwhile I'll go to Microcenter and get it for $299 and $30 off a compatible motherboard.

So you think that Intel just created the 12c through 18c parts that fast, right?  Trust me, they were already in the works.  They were most definitely being developed for a later release, but to say that AMD forced them to "create them" is really reaching.  Even Intel can't work miracles.   
 
There's always a second half to Intel Extreme platforms.  x99 was Haswell-E first half and Broadwell-E second half.  

By my understanding, the clock limitation is a limitation of the silicon's speed and design.  It's a little bit more than the "manufacturing process" as you are implying or we'd be seeing subsequent batches increasing in speed.  This does indeed happen with Intel chips and batches.  This isn't happening with AMD chips.
 
 
Even with the right RAM, the IMC and memory performance on Ryzen is still pretty bad.  The best most optimized RAM on Ryzen still results in very bad memory latency times.  This is a much bigger deal than bandwidth which both companies provide plenty of. 
 
 
You're right, clock for clock and core for core it's better, but the problem is you are limiting one manufacturer in the equation to make the other sound better.  An Intel chip is not only slightly faster clock for clock and core for core, but it continues to clock up higher from there.  That's the part that makes it bad.   It's also how my 5960x, a chip from 2014 is able to outpace a current day Ryzen CPU.
 
I'm not sure what you base expectations on, but we have no track record to go off of to indicate that AMD can or can't just make things faster and fix the other stuff.  Sure it could happen, but so can the opposite.  
 
Sales aren't what the LTT community is trying to convince people they are.   AMD's profitability hasn't miraculously changed.  All of these things will impact their aggressiveness in future development.  
 
Do not take this wrong.  I'm rooting for them as it only helps everyone.  I'm just not willing to make shit up or hype something that is completely unknown.  I might hype something if there was a trend.  
 
 
By removing a clear leader from both, you've attempted to imply that neither leads in performance, but that is absolutely wrong.
 
In value, AMD is the clear winner.
 
In performance alone, Intel is the clear winner.
 
Most will try to merge those into price groups, but we're back to talking about value, not performance.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

This seems to line up pretty well with my expectations.
Now let's wait for more benchmarks to come out (by more trustworthy sources).
Anyone wanna bet on what the mental gymnastics will be this time assuming other reviews shows similar results? My guesses:
1) There will be one or two websites which shows the Vega being more competitive than other sites, and that will be posted all the time (just like Joker's video was posted all the time).
2) There will be some area where Vega has the slight edge, like maybe slightly better minimum FPS. That will all of a sudden be the most important thing ever.
3) "Just wait for future drivers! They will make the card so much better"
4) "Just wait for true DX12 and Vulkan games. Please don't look at the current games because they are not truly DX12 and Vulkan".
5) Some way to spin FreeSync to be worth it. Like the monitors being cheaper, or FreeSync being better.
 
Any other bets?

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

Then wait for Volta™  

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

Then wait for Volta™  

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

Then wait for Volta™  

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.

1080 = 184w
1080 SLI = 364w
Vega 64 = 334w
 
Poor Vega.