i am super impressed i was expecting amd to fail hard just like they have been for the last decade honestly. (not counting their gpus they are still great

Looks very promising, I'm curious about mid-range low-power consumption models and APUs and what will be the best solution for a new low-cost PC that should anyway run circles around my current one (Athlon64 X2 5050e, 4GB DDR2 and passive cooled R7 250 with 1GB GDDR5), and be more silent too if I'll be able to use a passive cooler for the CPU or APU (I could already use it for the 5050e, but I won't do other interim minor upgrades before the next major one, except HDDs if needed and 2 or 4GB DDR2 if I'll happen to find it dirt cheap).

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/

"A tale of two chips

Gaming isn't a strong point for AMD's fledgling architecture. For many, myself included, that is a massive disappointment. AMD clearly sees an eight-core future, just as it did with Bulldozer. But developers still aren't there yet. For all the fuss made about DX12 and the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One ushering in a new era of multicore-optimised games, a 4C/8T CPU continues to be the best way to shovel data over to a graphics card.

There's a chance that Ryzen's gaming performance will improve over time thanks to driver updates and AMD's promised closer relationship with game developers. Or that the upcoming quad-core Ryzen chips can make up the performance via clock speed. And, if you're running at 4K resolution where you're resource limited on the GPU, not the CPU, the differences are minimal anyway. But right here, right now, when over 90 percent of gamers run at 1080p or lower resolutions—as much as it pains me to say it—if I had to pick the best CPU purely for gaming, I would pick an Intel Kaby Lake i7-7700K.

For content creators, budget conscious streamers, and workstation users, the 1800X is more compelling. £500/$500 won't get you into the eight-core club at Intel unless you're willing to take a significant cut to clock speed. The $450/£430 Xeon E5-2620 v4, one of the cheapest eight-core chips Intel sells, has a core clock of just 2.1GHz and only boosts as high as 3GHz. Even with the Xeon's IPC advantage, the 4GHz 1800X would be significantly faster.

The Ryzen 7 1800X, then, is a tale of two chips. One is a disruptive, market changing, eight-core workstation powerhouse; the other is a competent, if wholly unsatisfying gaming CPU.

The good

Eight cores and 16 threads at half the price of Intel
Excellent performance in workstation applications
AM4 is a modern, full-featured platform
While only a small performance boost, XFR is zero-effort and works well
The bad

Gaming performance is weak compared to Intel, particularly in modern titles
Specialised AVX applications will perform better under Intel
The ugly

A higher-clocked quad-core chip like the Intel i7-7700K or 7600K is still the best choice of processor for no-compromise gamers"