Coffee Lake vs. Ryzen

[MyName13]

24 minutes ago, Fred Flintstone said:

It's Ryzen's slow single-core performance what causes Intel to beat it in gaming. The only advantages Ryzen has right now is pricing, power consumption and multithreaded/multi-core performance, it needs stronger cores and a more mature platform (I hope those two things to be solved with Zen 2). That being said, if Coffee Lake turns out to be as power efficient as Kaby Lake (not Skylake-X or Kaby Lake-X, those are awful power hungry chips) and it comes at a reasonable price, then it could mean Ryzen 5's and 3's end, AMD would have to launch Zen 2 much earlier than Q3 2018 (as they were planning) if they want to preserve their current market share or even gain more. I hope Zen 2 to be compatible with at least X370 motherboards.

My main (actually only) concern about waiting it's related to my country's currency, tech things are already overpriced because of the high import tax, but now argentine peso is about to drop, so this decision about Coffee Lake vs. Ryzen is a tough one. Though I think I can wait until 8/21.

Nope, quad core ryzens offer almost nothing more when compared to Intel's counterparts (except coolers, fck Intel), one could say that they actually offer less, r3 performs like i3 even though it has more cores and no igpu, so you pay the same for less, r5 1400 and 1500x perform like Intel's counterparts (or even worse because all ryzens are benchmarked with 3.2 GHz ram so they might be weaker than i5 7400 and 7500 if you use slower ram), they simply don't offer anything more than the "upgrade path", this is the reason why quad core ryzens are the ghosts of ryzen lineup.I really wanted AMD to offer i7 for the price of i5 and i5 for the price of i3, but ryzen is, unfortunately, nothing more than a catch up, only hexa and octa cores are interesting because only they offer more, everything else is very weak (I have a feeling that AMD knew that Intel will demolish them with coffee lake so they didn't offer hexa cores for less than 220$ to milk us as much as they can).

[Fred Flintstone]

54 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Nope, quad core ryzens offer almost nothing more when compared to Intel's counterparts (except coolers, fck Intel), one could say that they actually offer less, r3 performs like i3 even though it has more cores and no igpu, so you pay the same for less, r5 1400 and 1500x perform like Intel's counterparts (or even worse because all ryzens are benchmarked with 3.2 GHz ram so they might be weaker than i5 7400 and 7500 if you use slower ram), they simply don't offer anything more than the "upgrade path", this is the reason why quad core ryzens are the ghosts of ryzen lineup.I really wanted AMD to offer i7 for the price of i5 and i5 for the price of i3, but ryzen is, unfortunately, nothing more than a catch up, only hexa and octa cores are interesting because only they offer more, everything else is very weak (I have a feeling that AMD knew that Intel will demolish them with coffee lake so they didn't offer hexa cores for less than 220$ to milk us as much as they can).

Most games require strong single-core performance more than many cores, that's why i5s perform better in that regard. But Ryzen 5 does perform better in multithreaded tasks, simply because it has more threads than its Intel counterparts (1400 & 1500X 8-thread vs. 7400 & 7500 4-thread):

 

[Fred Flintstone]

Also, AMD didn't release Zen to "milk us", they did it because they knew it was a good product that deserved to see the light and could increase their market share, remember: The 1800X delivers as much workstation performance as Intel's $1.000 Broadwell-E CPU for half the price, so does the 1600 for $100 less than the 7700K.

[Nena Trinity]

Buy Ryzen now!

[MyName13]

26 minutes ago, Fred Flintstone said:

Also, AMD didn't release Zen to "milk us", they did it because they knew it was a good product that deserved to see the light and could increase their market share, remember: The 1800X delivers as much workstation performance as Intel's $1.000 Broadwell-E CPU for half the price, so does the 1600 for $100 less than the 7700K.

I mentioned 1600 not the entire ryzen lineup.Their quad cores simply aren't that interesting (r3 is a pretty useless lineup).I said that they knew intel would respond with hexa cores which AMD can't compete with so they priced them as high as they could to get money while they can.

[Fred Flintstone]

4 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

I mentioned 1600 not the entire ryzen lineup.Their quad cores simply aren't that interesting (r3 is a pretty useless lineup).I said that they knew intel would respond with hexa cores which AMD can't compete with so they priced them as high as they could to get money while they can.

I also mentioned the 1600, and I don't think it was released at that pricepoint to "get money while they can", but because they knew it would destroy Intel's i5s, as it's cheaper than a 7600K and can outperform it in many different scenarios (specially multitasking).