Why does Ryzen gaming performance matter?

[79wjd]

3 hours ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

It still doesn't change the fact that Intel thinks that the customer should pay $350. Which is still more expensive than the R7 1700 at $329. Like I said before, the low prices you are mentioning are happening in the retail space. You can look up what the suggested customer price is on Intel ARK.

 

Yes, and rarely do products follow MSRP. You're saying it like retailers dropped prices massively because of Ryzen, which isn't the case. 

 

As you can see, it has a $400 MSRP, yet a couple days after the launch, it was listing around $350, where it's more or less remained since then (it's currently at $340~).

[He_162]

22 hours ago, killcomic said:

Dude, my i5 3570k performs better than Ryzen in gaming. Why would I 'upgrade' to something that performs worse.

And yes, it will affect the quality of gameplay. My i5 3570k is already chugging at some games. Ryzen would not alleviate the situation.

As games become more demanding, guess what CPU will need replacement first?

Also, the more cores argument a future proofing did no favours to the Excavator architecture.

Really, does your mum own AMD or something? You reek of desperate fanboy.

First off, you are lying. The i5-3570k at stock frequencies comes no where near the performance of Ryzen, and when overclocked has gotten very minimal gains.

It has lower IPC, multicore performance, onboard cache, and less cores. It's worse in every way but clock speed, which won't matter when Ryzen is overclocked.

 

Also, the Excavator architecture shared cache among all cores, or among multiple cores at the very most, causing those cores to lose single core performance, and also making it not a "real" 8 core processor, it acted like a 4 core with terrible hyperthreading in performance.

 

Zen is on par with intel's 8 core, except for gaming performance, but it is far superior to your i5, as shown above.

 

If intel had the better option, I would be rooting for them, go find some of my older posts, and see how I was rooting for Kaby Lake over the "future zen processors" as I figured they would turn out like the FX series before they actually came out.

[He_162]

14 hours ago, Nena360 said:

Have you tried?

Did you read? I said GTX 1080 Ti, and it isn't even out yet.

 

As for the answer to your silly question, yes, I have. My brother owns a Kaby Lake system that he had to upgrade to due to water block damage on his Skylake system.

 

At first, he got a Core i3-6100, and with a GTX 1080, it ran games roughly 50% worse than the R7 1700 does now.

 

Then he upgraded to a i7-6700K, and got a water block, it ran games really well, and better than Ryzen in few cases.

*waterblock leak destroys MoBo and CPU*

He buys a Z270 board, and puts a Pentium G4560 on it, It runs roughly 50% worse than the R7 1700.

 

So, he got the i7-7700K, and a new water cooler. It now runs better than Ryzen when overclocked to 5ghz in SOME games.

 

So yes, I have tried, first hand, albeit not with my system, which is in dire need of an upgrade, since I havn't changed it since January 2015, and I'll be getting Ryzen.

[He_162]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, and rarely do products follow MSRP. You're saying it like retailers dropped prices massively because of Ryzen, which isn't the case. 

 

As you can see, it has a $400 MSRP, yet a couple days after the launch, it was listing around $350, where it's more or less remained since then (it's currently at $340~).

 

You should buy AMD until intel stops forcing people to pay REALLY high prices for chips that cost them 10$ to make, 150$ seems like a good price for a 4 core processor, but Intel seems to think they deserve more, even when very little money was put towards designing anything new in 7th gen.

[Nena Trinity]

6 hours ago, He_162 said:

Did you read? I said GTX 1080 Ti, and it isn't even out yet.

 

As for the answer to your silly question, yes, I have. My brother owns a Kaby Lake system that he had to upgrade to due to water block damage on his Skylake system.

 

At first, he got a Core i3-6100, and with a GTX 1080, it ran games roughly 50% worse than the R7 1700 does now.

 

Then he upgraded to a i7-6700K, and got a water block, it ran games really well, and better than Ryzen in few cases.

*waterblock leak destroys MoBo and CPU*

He buys a Z270 board, and puts a Pentium G4560 on it, It runs roughly 50% worse than the R7 1700.

 

So, he got the i7-7700K, and a new water cooler. It now runs better than Ryzen when overclocked to 5ghz in SOME games.

 

So yes, I have tried, first hand, albeit not with my system, which is in dire need of an upgrade, since I havn't changed it since January 2015, and I'll be getting Ryzen.

Coolies but my secondary machine has a Athlon X4 880K it manages 60+ in every game except Heroes of the Storm and BF1! o3o

6 hours ago, He_162 said:

First off, you are lying. The i5-3570k at stock frequencies comes no where near the performance of Ryzen, and when overclocked has gotten very minimal gains.

It has lower IPC, multicore performance, onboard cache, and less cores. It's worse in every way but clock speed, which won't matter when Ryzen is overclocked.

 

Also, the Excavator architecture shared cache among all cores, or among multiple cores at the very most, causing those cores to lose single core performance, and also making it not a "real" 8 core processor, it acted like a 4 core with terrible hyperthreading in performance.

 

Zen is on par with intel's 8 core, except for gaming performance, but it is far superior to your i5, as shown above.

 

If intel had the better option, I would be rooting for them, go find some of my older posts, and see how I was rooting for Kaby Lake over the "future zen processors" as I figured they would turn out like the FX series before they actually came out.

Terrible HT? CMT is superior! The FX-8350 beat a i7-3770 in Cinebench R15 easily, but yes single-threaded does suffer...

[killcomic]

8 hours ago, He_162 said:

First off, you are lying. The i5-3570k at stock frequencies comes no where near the performance of Ryzen, and when overclocked has gotten very minimal gains.

It has lower IPC, multicore performance, onboard cache, and less cores. It's worse in every way but clock speed, which won't matter when Ryzen is overclocked.

 

Also, the Excavator architecture shared cache among all cores, or among multiple cores at the very most, causing those cores to lose single core performance, and also making it not a "real" 8 core processor, it acted like a 4 core with terrible hyperthreading in performance.

 

Zen is on par with intel's 8 core, except for gaming performance, but it is far superior to your i5, as shown above.

 

If intel had the better option, I would be rooting for them, go find some of my older posts, and see how I was rooting for Kaby Lake over the "future zen processors" as I figured they would turn out like the FX series before they actually came out.

 

 

 

 

First of all, I have no reason to lie. I'm not a fanboy and I couldn't give a shit about Intel or AMD as they are both corporations who only care about my money.

How about you do some Googling before accusing me of lying?

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176100/computers/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-a-5-year-old-gaming-pc-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html

 

 

 

[Majestic]

On 7-3-2017 at 5:38 AM, He_162 said:

Prove me wrong.

Nobody in their right mind would start a discussion with someone as utterly biased.

[79wjd]

9 hours ago, He_162 said:

You should buy AMD until intel stops forcing people to pay REALLY high prices for chips that cost them 10$ to make, 150$ seems like a good price for a 4 core processor, but Intel seems to think they deserve more, even when very little money was put towards designing anything new in 7th gen.

Buying an inferior product (that costs the same amount) from another company in order to spite the first company is pretty stupid. Intel won't give a shit, all you're doing is hurting yourself. 

 

And as I said in another thread, AMD is just as guilty as Intel is for Intel's pricing. As a company, Intel's goal is to make as much money as possible -- it's competition that's supposed to keep prices down and help the consumer. AMD has offered none until now. 

49 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Nobody in their right mind would start a discussion with someone as utterly biased.

LTT Pro Tip #3, know when to back out and not waste your time. 

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

6 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, and rarely do products follow MSRP. You're saying it like retailers dropped prices massively because of Ryzen, which isn't the case. 

 

As you can see, it has a $400 MSRP, yet a couple days after the launch, it was listing around $350, where it's more or less remained since then (it's currently at $340~).

Showing  a graph of what retailers are asking for a CPU still doesn't change what Intel wants the MSRP to be.  I understand that products rarely follow their MSRP. Thats because of retailers trying to compete with each other. The issue is that Intel still thinks that MSRP should still be at around $350. Like I said, look it up on ARK. By showing a graph of what retailers want, further proves my point. Which is that Intel still thinks that the 7700k is worth $350. Here is the link:  https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Showing  a graph of what retailers are asking for a CPU still doesn't change what Intel wants the MSRP to be.  I understand that products rarely follow their MSRP. Thats because of retailers trying to compete with each other. The issue is that Intel still thinks that MSRP should still be at around $350. Like I said, look it up on ARK. By showing a graph of what retailers want, further proves my point. Which is that Intel still thinks that the 7700k is worth $350. Here is the link:  https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz

Yes, I fully understand the MSRP that Intel places on its products. But MSRP rarely ever aligns with the actual sale price. Therefore using it to validate anything is pretty meaningless.

[done12many2]

6 hours ago, Majestic said:

Nobody in their right mind would start a discussion with someone as utterly biased.

 

I could not agree with you more.

 

On 3/6/2017 at 11:31 PM, He_162 said:

AMD Ryzen processors are polarizing the community, or is it the community that is polar about AMD products?

AMD Ryzen processors are somewhat worse than intel in gaming at 1080p, but despite this, they do their job, and they do it so well, that you really can't tell how much worse they are without the marker on the screen telling you it's worse.

 

That being said, they are over twice as cheap or up to 5x as cheap as the intel i7-6900K, and offer far better price / performance, and that is why they are here, budget. Did you guys expect a budget 8 core to perform almost as well as an i7-6900K?!??!

 

Obviously an attempt to hype AMD a bit, but lets look past that because later in the original post, you demand that we not do anything similar by telling us that we aren't allowed to talk about gaming.  You know, the area of weakness for Ryzen.  Way to control the outcome!!

 

Quote

So with that in mind, why even bother talking about Ryzen if you aren't going to get it? Let people with a smaller wallet get an 8 core processor, and let them be great content creators, but keep your negativity out of the way of anyone wanting a better performance processor, or the best, instead, tell them to wait for Skylake / Kabylake - X.

 

I think that you'll find for the most part that folks don't care about people buying Ryzen chips.  Why would they?  Ryzen is a great chip.

 

What they care about is the complete and utter bullshit that people are making up about Ryzen.  Most people are just trying to clarify all the bullshit circulating the community generated by folks who are speculating what could be instead of what is.

 

By the way, yet another supposedly unbiased plug you slipped in there.  

 

Quote

Please, no fighting, we all know Ryzen at the current time performs worse in the average games, but better in others, that was  to be expected, and Intel fans jumped on the idea of Ryzen being worse.

 

Yet you are.  Nicely done.  You start your run on sentence about no fighting, but end it with a comment about Intel fans.  One could assume by this statement that you are biased.  Then after looking through all of your posts on LTT, they would no longer need to assume that you are indeed biased.

 

Quote

We do not need to discuss benchmarks, that was not the point of that processors release, the following topics should be discussed in this thread:

 

Once again, you instigate folks with your opening post and then try to control the rest of the conversation.  Utterly hilarious.

 

Quote

Intel loses in the top one, and we can further discuss what these processors are mainly going to be used for here.

 

Yet another Ryzen plug and an instigating remark in the original post and you still attempt to focus us on the area you felt best for the outcome that you wanted.  Unfortunately, you fucked up by titling the thread the way that you did and now people are responding outside of your biased instructions simply to address your poor titling.

 

Quote

Gaming at 1080p on a 500$ or 1100$ processor does not make sense anyway, so I should stress that I will not tolerate game performance discussions here, there are several hundreds of threads across the internet and on this forum for that.

 

Probably my favorite part of this thread because you started talking about gaming in your very next post after posting this.   

 

On 3/6/2017 at 11:36 PM, He_162 said:

It gives you such a good experience at any resolution that you will not see lag in any game ever made, unless of course your playing Arma, which lags on all systems.

 

You're too funny.  Go back and reread you're own instructions.  Almost every single one of your posts in this thread is about gaming performance.  You sir are the very EXAMPLE of what's "polarizing the community".

 

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

 

And as I said in another thread, AMD is just as guilty as Intel is for Intel's pricing. As a company, Intel's goal is to make as much money as possible

Yes and no. Nobody will argue that Bulldozer sucked, but at the same time, Intel took advantage of that situation and engaged in some questionable practices. Keep in mind that most of Intel's revenue doesn't come from the consumer market (low and high end). Most of their revenue comes from the data center. Engaging in anti-consumer practices like they did was entirely on them. They didn't have to raise the prices of their CPUs to be profitable. However, AMD's failure to compete at the time certainly helped them get away with it.

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, I fully understand the MSRP that Intel places on its products. But MSRP rarely ever aligns with the actual sale price. Therefore using it to validate anything is pretty meaningless.

You still don't seem to understand that Intel still thinks that their CPU is worth $350. That is the issue. If the MSRP was lowered to $300 then there wouldn't be a problem. The 7700k is definitely not worth the $350 that Intel has evaluated it to be.

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Yes and no. Nobody will argue that Bulldozer sucked, but at the same time, Intel took advantage of that situation and engaged in some questionable practices. Keep in mind that most of Intel's revenue doesn't come from the consumer market (low and high end). Most of their revenue comes from the data center. Engaging in anti-consumer practices like they did was entirely on them. They didn't have to raise the prices of their CPUs to be profitable. However, AMD's failure to compete at the time certainly helped them get away with it.

You're right, they didn't have to raise prices to be profitable....But why would you sell something for $10 if you could sell just as many for $20? Any company will try to sell their products at the price point that is most profitable. AMD not being competitive meant that there was no other option but to pay what Intel asked or to get an inferior product. Technically, the only way for Intel to have not been anti-competitive would have been to not release any new CPUs for the last six years.

Just now, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

You still don't seem to understand that Intel still thinks that their CPU is worth $350. That is the issue. If the MSRP was lowered to $300 then there wouldn't be a problem. The 7700k is definitely not worth the $350 that Intel has evaluated it to be.

Is there a better alternative for less money? No? Does the 7700k sell well? Then the 7700k is worth that amount. 

 

And that's also besides the point. You were trying to make it out that Intel is still overcharging for their CPUs by asking for $400 and implying the terrible value relative to ryzen. But they point is, they were never (excluding launch day hype/shortages) actually selling at that price point. 

[ArcThanatos]

On 3/7/2017 at 3:38 PM, He_162 said:

Prove me wrong: THE R7 1800X IS THE BEST 500$ PROCESSOR YOU CAN BUY

1700 can be just as good (+\- 5%) ... $170 US cheaper ($230 AUD cheaper)

ok BUT people need to remember, AS a all round chip, the Ryzen 7 does it all!, and it goes it all well, it fills a gap that was left open. no one complains about a 6900k performance  in gaming (or price for that matter). WHICH! is what the R7's run against. the 7700k designed to game. yes better at gaming, and it should be. but the 7700k is far WORSE at workloads then the R7's are at gaming.

 

im still waiting on my mobo to turn up. but seriously, who cares, the r7 is by no means inferior. and take into account, its brand new tech, not optimised, has no gaming\software support really to speak off, buggy bios's (so basically mobo and software issues) and yet, despite all of this, its not performing badly, its just not quiet as good as the Gaming designed CPUs from intel. but put those intel chips in the workload world with the Ryzen.... the performance gap here is BIGGER than that of the ryzen in gaming.

i think people are just looking for holes to punch. rather then being realistic about it. i can guarantee you, ever single bloody one of you, if you put a ryzen cpu and a 7700k next to each other, on a 60-75 hz monitor, 1080p, hide the rigs outta site with no FPS counter. over 90-95% of the community wouldn't know the bloody difference. if you were not given specs and a FPS HUD you wouldn't even know. 

also unless you are a competitive or in gaming championships... you really dont need that 140+ fps... anything above 30fps is completely playable. apparently something we have all forgotten in our arrogance

[smokefest]

On 3/6/2017 at 11:48 PM, He_162 said:

No, it isn't.

 

You will never notice the performance gap between the two processors, and the R7 1700 is still cheaper, in motherboard cost, the cost of a fan, due to it coming with one, but also in the price of the motherboard it requires.

The i7 is simply losing the price war, and offering minimal increases in gaming performance, also, the 4 core will become obsolete sooner.

this guy is very funny. Still arguing a 7700k isnt better than a 1800x in gaming lolllll..

 

Dude get over it. Ryzen is a pretty good cpu, but for gaming, theres no point in getting a 1700 or 1700x or 1800x as the 7700k is tthe BEST cpu for gaming you can have and is cheaper than all those but the 1700 ( 20$ more )

 

 

[smokefest]

On 3/6/2017 at 11:58 PM, He_162 said:

i7 system:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/2MZmBP

 

Ryzen system:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QfHF3F

Ryzen is around 35 - 40$ cheaper if you get a decent air cooler on that i7, and then you can't overclock it to it's max potential.

 

Ryzen can overclock on it's stock cooler to it's general max of around 3.9 ghz on the R7 1700.

 

That being said, the people who are actually going to get either one of these instead of an i5, or wait for the R5 series, are people who want a powerful processor, in which case the Ryzen is a better all around, than the i7, and performs un-noticeably worse in games.

You realize the Ryzen processor is also more power efficient too, right?
Ryzen is winning, and you can't handle it, don't lie to people by claiming they are going to see the difference in performance on the i7, and if they really need the framerates, like a pro CS:GO player would, then all they need is an unlocked i5, or locked i7.

 

Either way, Ryzen is better for 99% of cases, not in performance, but in longevity, price, power consumption, and in the case of cooling, most likely lower noise.

Oh, and Ryzen 1700 comes stock with an RGB cooler.

Do you work for AMD ?

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

You're right, they didn't have to raise prices to be profitable....But why would you sell something for $10 if you could sell just as many for $20? Any company will try to sell their products at the price point that is most profitable. AMD not being competitive meant that there was no other option but to pay what Intel asked or to get an inferior product. Technically, the only way for Intel to have not been anti-competitive would have been to not release any new CPUs for the last six years.

Is there a better alternative for less money? No? Does the 7700k sell well? Then the 7700k is worth that amount. 

 

Your talking a $10 difference versus $100+ (in some cases). Plus, back to your point about retail, AMD was still able to compete in the low end of the market with their "inferior products". Would you choose any of the current i3 skus, or a FX 8350 for just as much or in some cases less money? Also, Intel could have backed off the consumer market and invested more in the data center market, which is where most of their revenue comes from. This could have benefited them. Especially with the recent computational trends regarding cloud computing, cloud storage, iot devices, artificial intelligence, and the list goes on. Going this route would have still been beneficial to consumers.

 

 

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

And that's also besides the point. You were trying to make it out that Intel is still overcharging for their CPUs by asking for $400 and implying the terrible value relative to ryzen. But they point is, they were never (excluding launch day hype/shortages) actually selling at that price point. 

I would just like to point out that you inflated the price to $400. Also, the graph of retailers you showed from PC Part picker showed most of the retailers at $350 with an exception of one. To be clear, when I am talking about MSRP, I am not referring the MSRP at launch. I am talking about the MSRP of the 7700k today. Which quite frankly, still isn't worth it.

[smokefest]

15 hours ago, He_162 said:

Did you read? I said GTX 1080 Ti, and it isn't even out yet.

 

As for the answer to your silly question, yes, I have. My brother owns a Kaby Lake system that he had to upgrade to due to water block damage on his Skylake system.

 

At first, he got a Core i3-6100, and with a GTX 1080, it ran games roughly 50% worse than the R7 1700 does now.

 

Then he upgraded to a i7-6700K, and got a water block, it ran games really well, and better than Ryzen in few cases.

*waterblock leak destroys MoBo and CPU*

He buys a Z270 board, and puts a Pentium G4560 on it, It runs roughly 50% worse than the R7 1700.

 

So, he got the i7-7700K, and a new water cooler. It now runs better than Ryzen when overclocked to 5ghz in SOME games.

 

So yes, I have tried, first hand, albeit not with my system, which is in dire need of an upgrade, since I havn't changed it since January 2015, and I'll be getting Ryzen.

my 6700k @ 4.6 ghz beats ryzen in any games anyway  

 

No point in getting a ryzen if you only game on your PC.

 

No point in getting an Intel extreme edition if you work on your PC.

 

Work : Go for ryzen

 

Game : Go for a 7700K

 

Future ? Get what works the best in the PRESENT TIME. Don't plan for future, or you will be that one guy with an FX chips that waited 5 years and still nothing helped them  

 

 

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, smokefest said:

Future ? Get what works the best in the PRESENT TIME. Don't plan for future, or you will be that one guy with an FX chips that waited 5 years and still nothing helped them

Okay, lets get something straight, bulldozer sucked from the start. Ryzen is actually competing at launch. If nobody took the risk at trying something new, then nothing would ever change. Ryzen is kinda like a GPU, It's performance at launch is not going to be as good as it's performance a few months from launch because software developers need to optimize their software for the new platform. Its not planning for the future when you buy a new GPU with a new architecture. So why cant be the same for CPUs? Especially considering that Ryzen has been out for just a week. Software developers aren't magicians. (Sorry to spoil that fact encase you were not aware)

[smokefest]

20 minutes ago, ArcThanatos said:

1700 can be just as good (+\- 5%) ... $170 US cheaper ($230 AUD cheaper)

ok BUT people need to remember, AS a all round chip, the Ryzen 7 does it all!, and it goes it all well, it fills a gap that was left open. no one complains about a 6900k performance  in gaming (or price for that matter). WHICH! is what the R7's run against. the 7700k designed to game. yes better at gaming, and it should be. but the 7700k is far WORSE at workloads then the R7's are at gaming.

 

im still waiting on my mobo to turn up. but seriously, who cares, the r7 is by no means inferior. and take into account, its brand new tech, not optimised, has no gaming\software support really to speak off, buggy bios's (so basically mobo and software issues) and yet, despite all of this, its not performing badly, its just not quiet as good as the Gaming designed CPUs from intel. but put those intel chips in the workload world with the Ryzen.... the performance gap here is BIGGER than that of the ryzen in gaming.

i think people are just looking for holes to punch. rather then being realistic about it. i can guarantee you, ever single bloody one of you, if you put a ryzen cpu and a 7700k next to each other, on a 60-75 hz monitor, 1080p, hide the rigs outta site with no FPS counter. over 90-95% of the community wouldn't know the bloody difference. if you were not given specs and a FPS HUD you wouldn't even know. 

also unless you are a competitive or in gaming championships... you really dont need that 140+ fps... anything above 30fps is completely playable. apparently something we have all forgotten in our arrogance

anything above 30 is playable ? go get a goddamn ryzen and leave us alone, or buy an xbox1 or ps4 if you like to play @ 30 fps.

 

Point is the pc gaming community likes to have the BEST performance in GAMES when they buy a CPU. So why the hell would I buy a Ryzen If I game only... No point at all. I don't care about WORKstation tasks, rendering, etc... 

 

Lets say I play in 1440p 144hz. Yes I want to buy a 7700 for the few FPS it gives more than a ryzen, because these FPS will help maintain a smooth gameplay with high quality settings.

 

Theres no point for gamers to buy a ryzen. Saying " it is not optimized yet, in the futur it will be better " makes no sense. Why the hell would I buy something in hope it performs better in the future ?????  

 

AMD fan boys... ayayayayaye....

 

Guys.. It's pretty simple...

 

Workstation : Ryzen

Gaming : 7700K

 

Workstation and gaming and don't care about maximum performance in games : Ryzen

 

Want to have less good gaming CPU for now but you are a believer and really trust in the AMD GODS that in the futur ryzen will be better than a 7700K or any other new gaming CPU that intel will deliver : Get a Ryzen and cross your fingers because you will need lot of luck and stars to be aligned during a solar eclipse to have that happens

[smokefest]

5 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Okay, lets get something straight, bulldozer sucked from the start. Ryzen is actually competing at launch. If nobody took the risk at trying something new, then nothing would ever change. Ryzen is kinda like a GPU, It's performance at launch is not going to be as good as it's performance a few months from launch because software developers need to optimize their software for the new platform. Its not planning for the future when you buy a new GPU with a new architecture. So why cant be the same for CPUs? Especially considering that Ryzen has been out for just a week. Software developers aren't magicians. (Sorry to spoil that fact encase you were not aware)

Never buy something in hope it performs better with updates,optimisation etc....

 

8 threads CPU exist for a long time already and developpers never worked on optimisation, games like BF1 starting to use 8 thread, yeah, but man, they could have done that 5 years ago and even more, they didnt optimise and you think they will work on updates on ryzen and optimize games for 16 threads  just for ryzen.... loll.... thats like buyin a lottery ticket and hoping to win 

 

Even if that happens, i'll be glad to buy a ryzen in 3 years, if this becomes the best cpu for gaming. Just buy the best for the moment as nobody can predict the future. 

[Majestic]

58 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

I could not agree with you more.

And then you proceed to make a wall of text, arguing with the guy.

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, smokefest said:

Never buy something in hope it performs better with updates,optimisation etc....

 

8 threads CPU exist for a long time already and developpers never worked on optimisation, games like BF1 starting to use 8 thread, yeah, but man, they could have done that 5 years ago and even more, they didnt optimise and you think they will work on updates on ryzen and optimize games for 16 threads  just for ryzen.... loll.... thats like buyin a lottery ticket and hoping to win 

Yea they would optimize their software for more threads, because now there is a larger user base of people with 8+ threads. Now that more and more people have access to better performance, developers are going to utilize it and implement ways to use it in their products. Its a basic progression in technology... If this wasn't the case then we would be playing crysis on a Atari 2600. (AKA the Xbox One). Also I like how you ignored my point about the optimization process that GPUs with new archetectures go through.

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, Majestic said:

And then you proceed to make a wall of text, arguing with the guy.

Way ahead of you...

 

I bet the guy who started this thread is laughing this whole thing off...