Why does everyone fan boy of ryzen?

[AimShootFire]

A real question: Why is everyone fan boying all over ryzen. I understand that they are currently good. But in the future they will be crap.

[HKZeroFive]

"In the future they will be crap"

 

Explain.

[Lethal Seraph]

It's not fanboy-ism if the product performs better if not twice as much as the competitor for half the price. 

[Benjji]

1 minute ago, AimShootFire said:

A real question: Why is everyone fan boying all over ryzen. I understand that they are currently good. But in the future they will be crap.

No they won't. They are actually more future proof than most i5's out there. 

[Blebekblebek]

Quote

I understand that they are currently good. But in the future they will be crap.

just 1 sentence you already contradicting yourself.

 

 

[The Sloth]

a cheap ryzen 1600 ( 5820k/6800k) or 1700( 5960x/6900k) for much less, it can even compete with i7 7700k in terms of gaming performance with 3200mhz ram, i5s have become overpriced, not really worth the money.  

 

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, Benjji said:

No they won't. They are actually more future proof than most i5's out there. 

what do you mean? i5s are getting bottlenecked by anything better than a rx480/1060, it's already a bottleneck. 

[suits]

I don't think AMD will be out of the race until we no longer use silicon for CPU's. Ryzen is actually really good. Is it as good as intel in Core to core no... Is it half the price or more for 90% of the power. Yeah.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, AimShootFire said:

But in the future they will be crap.

Who told you that? Doc Brown from LTT?

[suits]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

a cheap ryzen 1600 ( 5820k/6800k) or 1700( 5960x/6900k) for much less, it can even compete with i7 7700k in terms of gaming performance with 3200mhz ram, i5s have become overpriced, not really worth the money.  

 

See you're looking at maximum FPS. Most show that ryzen is actually better in minimum FPS averages. Not in all games but I'd say atleast 2/3 of the game benchmarks I've seen. 

 

To me I'd rather have a more consistent framerate than one that jumps around a lot.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

"In the future they will be crap"

 

Explain.

you know 10 years from now where ryzen becomes obsolete type of crap

[suits]

I'd venture to say Ryzen is extremely future proof. Nvidia even said they were going to be focusing their drivers for more cores.

[tp95112]

Well everything becomes crap in the future cause better things come out. Its just that AMD is giving Intel competition for high performance and core count and a push in advancing technology instead of the crap intel been doing for the last 4 years.

[RadiatingLight]

Fanboy =/= Reccomending a product a lot because it's better than the competition.

 

If someone asked for the best GPU for under $1000, everyone would recommend the 1080Ti, because it's the best available for that price point right now. same with Ryzen. people want a CPU in the i5 price range, and Ryzen 5 is in that range, and outperforms an i5 today, and will crush an i5 in the future.

 

all things do get obsolete though, so in 10 years, Ryzen 5 will not be a good CPU, but the i5s of today will be even worse.

[DrMacintosh]

Why? 

 

AMD AMD AMD AMD

 

But seriously its because Ryzen offers more performance for less money. 

[AimShootFire]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Why? 

 

AMD AMD AMD AMD

 

More performance for less money. 

They need a new way of naming there products too thta makes sence.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, AimShootFire said:

They need a new way of naming there products too thta makes sence.

Ryzen 3, 5, 7

 

Core i3 ,i5, i7

 

makes perfect sense. 

[Imheretobuildapc]

Cheap and it petforms well  

[dizmo]

So will the current Intel stuff. What's your point?

Sounds like you're an upset Intel fanboi.

[Mooshi]

And in 10 years the 7700k would be crap too. Oh my God, what a shock.

[Anghammarad]

From the way I have seen it:

 

starting in the 486 day, AMD and Intel were quite on par from the performance point of view, while AMD usually was cheaper than intel.

Intel gained on AMD in point of performance with their Pentiums. 

This lasted until the Pentium 4, which many will agree was an overpriced radiator for heating small offices.

That time AMD came on with their Athlon XP which again were faster and cheaper than Intels Pentium 4.

This stayed until Intel got Their Core series, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. Those were more expensive than AMD CPUs but, well quite better performing on everything.

With that Intel was in the lead for quite some time until AMD put the Ryzen series CPUs on the market. 

 

Right now there is again the option to chose AMD if you want performance.

 

Now we wait and see how long the scales are "evened out" between those two giants.

 

My guess. both get hammered soon by some ARM CPUs =P

[Linksys120n]

I like ryzen because it's like an old retired boxer like mike tyson or someone secretly training their ass off for 5 long years and then stepping back into the ring and just knocking motherflubbers out cold THEN when they get paid for winning the match they say "oh I won 10 million? I'll only take 5... give the rest to someone else"

 

That is what ryzen is.

 

oh and guess what... AMD is doing this AGAIN with Vega!

[Big Head Tech]

I believe they are backed so hard for several reasons. One being spite towards Intel. Intel has literally done nothing since 2nd gen core series. Same 2/4 core processors that are over priced. Sure power consumption has gotten better on the mobile side, clock speeds are up and per core performance is up by 10%. But that's laughable for 5 generations of new products.

 

Also AMD has made a fantastic product. For it's first generation of a new line of processors they didn't have major issues. Sure ram compatibility isn't ideal and clock speeds top out in the very low 4s. But look at Intel lga 1151/2011 with DDR4. Took what a year to fix that? Intel didn't hit 4ghz base clocks til generation 4.5 (devil's canyon). But the processors offer GREAT all around performance for every user except 1 specific kind of person. That is your person who plays nothing but World of Warcraft at 1080p. Otherwise the 5-10% performance hit in single threaded is worth the multicore performance and arguably smoother gameplay as well.

[Salacious B Crum]

12 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Ryzen 3, 5, 7

 

Core i3 ,i5, i7

 

makes perfect sense. 

Right, shame intel beat them to the punch on such an intriguing product name?

[DrMacintosh]

7 minutes ago, mrbilky said:

Right, shame intel beat them to the punch on such an intriguing product name?

No