I don't think there's many surprises. Still pretty much capped at <=4Ghz. Consensus that I've seen so far is: if your intent is mostly gaming, Ryzen isn't bad but go Intel; if it's pretty much anything else that's moderately intensive, Ryzen is damn good.
I still don't see a huge point in the 5 myself, but that's speaking as a gamer. If I were to be building a rig for something CPU heavy, I still don't think I'd use the 5, I'd just jump straight to the 7, but having the 5 around does give you some budget flexibility. Usually, when you are talking CPU heavy applications though, the difference in $100 is nothing compared to the increase in operational throughput you get (that's why Intel has been able to successfully charge many times more for their higher core count chips).
Indeed.
I think what we are seeing is a "price hierarchy" problem". AMD want to compete with Intel and other cpu manufacturers but they also want to cover costs, recoup their investment and make a profit - with lower sales volumes.
As it stands the reviews indicate that the Ryzen 5 1600X provides an even better budget option than the Ryzen 7 1700 (and other Ryzen 7s) for "budget minded" Broadwell-E" users - although as you say budget has a different context. For gamers though the list price is more expensive than an i5-7600K.
So I have to agree with your "I still don't see a huge point in the 5 myself, but that's speaking as a gamer" comment.
Have to assume that Cannon Lake will put further pressure on prices as well. (Good news for us gamers of course.)
at 3000Mhz and higher memory speeds, minimal fps for ryzen 8-core @ 4.0Ghz overtakes i5 and i7 kaby lakes by ~8 fps, and maximum fps comes under ~4fps difference in 1080p.
While in 4k they are tied, or ryzen comes ahead.
at 4.2Ghz and 3850Mhz memory speed ryzen crushes 7700k @ 4.8Ghz and 3600Mhz ram by 1/3 of a frame, and sometimes even ~1 fps (average fps out of +20 games even with outlier games).
Torval said: In practice there is almost no reason to go with Intel and every reason to go with AMD, except in some extremely fringe high demand single threaded cases.
In practice, it is precisely the other way round since there are only some fringe high demand tasks that can actually benefit from high core count.
If 'no one notices that the 2MB PDF opened .01 seconds faster ', we would be all using FX-4xxx instead of i5, not to speak about higher core count FX CPUs...but we know how well that went.
Ryzen is suffering same concept issue like FX was...single core performance does matter.
Aori said: I run a lot of things that use up 100% of all my CPU cores, so are you telling me more core wouldn't help?
Encoding, rendering, streaming, file compression, gaming, compiling, etc.. they all do put heavy load on your CPU but you will do only 1 or 2 of those at the same time thus having more cores only means more idle cores.
The Ryzen CPUs do have good single core performance, it's just ... buggy right now. The memory speed should not be as big an issue in games as it seems to be right now. Probably a code exeution issue. Ideally the system should be trying to use cores within the same CPU block in order to avoid using the Infinity Fabric that slows down the process. The fact it doesn't is an issue with the hardware's control.
Comments
I think what we are seeing is a "price hierarchy" problem". AMD want to compete with Intel and other cpu manufacturers but they also want to cover costs, recoup their investment and make a profit - with lower sales volumes.
As it stands the reviews indicate that the Ryzen 5 1600X provides an even better budget option than the Ryzen 7 1700 (and other Ryzen 7s) for "budget minded" Broadwell-E" users - although as you say budget has a different context. For gamers though the list price is more expensive than an i5-7600K.
So I have to agree with your "I still don't see a huge point in the 5 myself, but that's speaking as a gamer" comment.
Have to assume that Cannon Lake will put further pressure on prices as well. (Good news for us gamers of course.)
While in 4k they are tied, or ryzen comes ahead.
at 4.2Ghz and 3850Mhz memory speed ryzen crushes 7700k @ 4.8Ghz and 3600Mhz ram by 1/3 of a frame, and sometimes even ~1 fps (average fps out of +20 games even with outlier games).
If 'no one notices that the 2MB PDF opened .01 seconds faster ', we would be all using FX-4xxx instead of i5, not to speak about higher core count FX CPUs...but we know how well that went.
Ryzen is suffering same concept issue like FX was...single core performance does matter.