Is Ryzen geared for PC Gamers?

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Gene Starwind said:

 

Here,

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143/amd-launch-ryzen-52-more-ipc-eight-cores-for-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd?_ga=1.57474282.1932145986.1448157588

if you don't mind...i'll wait for actual reviews and real benchmarks of the real actual product to come out BEFORE i order mine

[Gene Starwind]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if you don't mind...i'll wait for actual reviews of the actual product to come out BEFORE i order mine

Your loss.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

True, I'd rather get an i5-7400 + BX50/HX70 instead

couldn't watch the video to the end...to much bias and BS in there...pick a 40$ 3 phase candy VRM biostar motherboard to pair with an FX-8300 to match intel pricing for the worst FPS/$ CPU ever thus far anyways...you know what i mean i'm sure

[WkdPaul]

Thread cleaned.

 

Please keep it civil.

[vanished]

6 hours ago, MageTank said:

I would say it is, mostly because they are offering real quad-cores (not i3's) for a fraction of the price of an i5, completely unlocked. Meanwhile, Intel still sells locked i5's for upwards of $180. We have little to no information as to how well these smaller chips will overclock, but it's likely safe to assume they will overclock higher than their 8c/16t counterparts. If the rumors are true, and you can get 4c/8t for $150ish, then I'd say they are indeed marketing Ryzen (as a whole) towards gamers. They just chose to do it on a unified platform to allow them the means to upgrade to production-level CPU's without having to swap the entire platform.

It is undeniably an enticing option.  No one can argue that getting near the same performance for a fraction of the cost is going to seriously stir up the marketplace.  That said, there's been such an established history of people being recommended *600k and *700k CPUs for gaming when really, something cheaper would do the job rather well at this point makes me wonder if we might see people continuing to recommend Intel quads for that ~15% better single threaded (or whatever it turns out to be), despite the massively higher cost  

[Aereto_Compuru]

Personally, I would get the best Ryzen CPU and both AMD gaming and workstation GPUs for developer/hybrid server performance given by overclocking and watercooling, which I find far more appealing than a rocking sports car to flaunt and tune. I'm expecting the best ones AMD can offer to do more than gaming.

 

Granted I'll have to wait several years until I can make this dream come true, because I built my Intel PC out of need last year, but it's not slouch when it has a non-K Skylake i7 and MSI RX 480, with plans for WX 5100 and filling all 6 SATA and 2 M.2 ports.

[atavax]

19 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Really?  It seems like the entire i5 and mainstream i7 line from Intel were designed with precisely that in mind.  Anyone who needs more power would get a 6 or 8 core, and anyone who doesn't need the performance of an i5 would be fine on a Pentium or i3.

in my experience, when non gamers buy PCs, they still want to buy a decent performing CPU to make sure it runs quickly for a long period of time.

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, atavax said:

in my experience, when non gamers buy PCs, they still want to buy a decent performing CPU to make sure it runs quickly for a long period of time.

True... but now, they'll be able to get by with the cheapest RyZen instead of shelling out $200+ for an i5, which is great.  And also, we have to consider what OEMs will be looking at to put in their prebuilts.  I bet RyZen will do well there.  

[FakezZ]

21 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

I answered OP's question, and those were the words, my neurons had selected.

 

Backpropagation can be a bitch sometimes... I'm out.