Ryzen was quite tempting but I've decided to stick with my 8350 + 1070 combo for now. Despite being 3 years old my 8350 has yet to give me any significant issues in gaming or in general use (software development+ browsing). That said I can see myself getting the followup to Ryzen in a year or two.

And most gamers should be moving to 1440p/3440x1440/4K. 

1) GTX1070 is $349 and is a 1440p capable videocard.

2) Who buys a $329-499 CPU then pairs it with a $499-699 1080/1080Ti/Vega to play games at 1080p? What a waste of $ outside of professionals who game at 200-300Hz. 

3) OP is buying a 1080Ti. That means when reviewers test 0XMSAA with reduced IQ settings in games, that absolutely does NOT reflect how PC enthusiast should game. Gamers with $349-699 cards starting from 1070 use 2-4XMSAA or even SSAA for 1080p gaming. 

4) Who plays games without VSync on? Screen tear city for anyone without a FreeSync/GSync monitor without a 30-144Hz range. 

5) It's illogical to claim 4790K/6700K/7700K are faster in games implying Ryzen is crap, while ignoring the beastly performance Ryzen has everywhere else outside of games. Encoding/video conversion, rendering, raytracing, and any multi-threaded apps - R7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz levels a 5Ghz 7700K. If a person just plays games, they do not need a 6900K or 8C/16T Ryzen. I certainly don't recall Intel fanboys ripping into i7-990X/3930K/4930K/5820K/6800K/6900K over the last 10 years. 

6) Without a frame counter, 90%+ of all online complainers would never be able to tell a difference in games between 2600K @ 5Ghz, 3770K @ 4.8Ghz, 4770/4790K @ 4.5Ghz, 6700/7700K and 3.9-4Ghz Ryzen. 

7) Looking at Steam numbers, > 90% of all PC gamers own videocards slower than 1070/980Ti/Fury X. These gamers rocking 480/1060/980/R9 390X or slower will be GPU bottlenecked in almost all modern PC games with max IQ and AA. OTOH, professional reviewers exclusively tested Ryzen's gaming performance with Titan XP or 1080. Those results are 100% meaningless for the vast majority of PC gamers complaining about Ryzen's performance in games since they'll never see those FPS with their weak videocards. 

8) AM4 platform will likely support 7nm Ryzen. If not doing any workstation tasks, a gamer can buy a R3/5, and just upgrade again in 2019-2020 to an 8C Ryzen 2.0 should extra performance be required. z170/270/X99 are dead end platforms. 

9) Normal people don't play games in a perfect environment. We usually have browsers opened, document open, antivirus running in the background. Under real world gaming usage like that in non-controlled environment, i3/5 will not be better than Ryzen. Again, pro reviewers test in a perfect environment with a clean OS with 0 background tasks running. That's hardly a real world case. 

10) Pro reviewers were focused very heavily on productivity and workstation tasks during P3/4/P-D era when AMD was taking them to school with Athlon XP+/A64/Athlon X2. But now apparently ONLY low resolution gaming is what matters in reviews? I smell Intel influencing reviewers with "testing guidelines" and verbiage in reviews. 

*I exclusively own and have built > 30 Intel systems since C2D days, and yet I am appauled and disgusted by the media's reception to this processor. AMD literally delivers 87-88% of 7700K's performance in games at 1080p, and 30-60% more performance in multi-threaded tasks, despite having 1/50Th the R&D of Intel, and no people are complaining? All the $$$$ is in workstation/enterprise/cloud computing space. It's BY FAR the fastest growing market segment for CPUs, easily outpacing PC gamers. AMD wasn't stupid when they designed Ryzen.

No one cares about poor PC peasants using 24" and smaller $100-150 1080p TN panels and i3s. That's NOT where the profits are. All the armchair criticis on Ryzen launch missed the part where low-end/budget PCs now comprise just 22% of the gaming market. High-end PC market is now 43%. High-end PC gamers with GTX1070/1080/1080Ti/Titan XP are highly unlikely to buy a $330+ processor and game at 720p, 900p, 1080p 60Hz. 

https://www.techpowerup.com/229785/pc-gaming-hardware-market-mints-billions-exceeds-usd-30-billion-jpr

For budget gamers, AMD will have $129-229 Ryzen 4C/8T and 6C/12T. 

It's shocking that an amateur YouTuber Joker was one of the few gamers who actually realized how gamers actually play games on their high-end hardware. As far as 1080p 144Hz-165Hz and 3440x1440 100Hz gamers are concerned, it's very hard to achieve those FPS in graphicaly impressive modern AAA games outside of Doom, Overwatch and Rainbow 6 Siege -- but no one sits there and stares at graphics in those fast-paced FPS games. Each of those games runs on a potato to begin with.  

Games like the Witcher 3, Ghost Recon Wildlands, The Division, Hitman, Watch Dogs 2, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Fallout 4, GTA V, Dying Light, Deus Ex: Manking Divided, Rise of the Tomb Raider, etc. will never hit 100-165Hz FPS averages with max settings and AA -- professional reviewers 100% know this, but decided to bury their face in the sand and exclusively focus on 0XMSAA 1080P non-maxed out IQ settings. 

Ryzen is nothing short of a monumental achievement from AMD, given the shortage of financial and human capital resources. It's even more shocking given that Intel has had the lead in IPC since Nehalem/Lynnfield since i5 760, i7 860, i7 920 days and since then has gone through 7 generations. In 1 shot, AMD has caught up to be just 5-10% behind in IPC. What's really holding back Ryzen are its low clock speeds. If Ryzen could overclock to 4.7-5Ghz like 6700K/7700K could, the entire Intel stacks from $100-1050 would be irrelevant. Intel got lucky that Ryzen is using GloFo's inferior 14nm process compared to Intel's. Despite this, the power usage of an 8C 16T R7 1700 is very similar to the 4C 8T 6700K/7700K -- remarkable improvement from AMD since Faildozer. This means that AMD should have 45W 6C and 8C processors in laptops come Q3-4 2017. The best we get now is a 4C 8T Kaby Lake. 

Where AMD dropped the ball is making R7 1700X and 1800X largely irrelevant because the $329 R7 1700 overclocks to 3.9Ghz on the stock Wraith cooler, and the top dogs can do just 4Ghz on $80 air coolers. For new PC builders, they are better off grabbing the R7 1700 and investing the $170 savings by moving up from an RX 470/480/1060 to the GTX1070 or from 1070 to 1080 or from 1080 to 1080Ti. 

PC gamers complain about consoles holding back PC gaming, complain about lack of next generation PC graphics, and yet they continue to game at 1080p and defend gaming at this resolution. This is completely contradictory to the history of PC gaming. Back in the days we moved from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 to 1600x900, then to 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. It's been at least 5 years since 2560x1440 monitors have become affordable. There is a bigger difference in IQ going from 1080p to 1440p/4K than there is in most games moving from HQ settings to UQ and yet gamers continue to stick to peasant 1080p gaming resolution after spending $1000+ on PC parts. This is really pathetic for a community that calls itself the "PC Master Race".

In just 12 months from now, NV will release Volta and increase performance another 60-80% over Pascal. That means if $349 1070 already can easily game at 1440p today, in a year from now the GTX2060 Volta priced at $249 should achieve similar results. 

In all seriousness, visit AnandTech, HardOCP, and other PC enthusiast forums and you'll get laughed at if buy a $330-500 CPU and a $350-700 videocard and pair it with a budget 1080p monitor. The right way to build a PC is to spend as much as possible on the monitor first since we interact with that device and use it for things other than gaming (movies, reading, productivity work, etc.). The monitor is easily the component that along with the PSU and case outlasts all other PC components. I would much rather have a $700-1200 monitor and a $349 GTX1070 than a $350 monitor and a GTX1080Ti. In just 2 years the 1080Ti is old news  (see GTX580/780Ti/980Ti, etc.) but the top-of-the-line monitor is still excellent. 

I've read some of your post.. I'd made a post earlier, and I forgot to hit the reply. But, yes, I'm using it to achieve 144 fps (gtx 1080ti) @ 1080p, ultra settings, and the Ryzen for video recording. My I7 4790k simply could not do it. Dipping into 45 frames. It was unbearable, just to have low quality recordings.

With ryzen, and my same GPU, the r9 390x, I can game at a constant, stable 60FPS, that's true 60 FPS, and record with everything at ultra I've never been able to play games with everything maxed out, let alone while recording too. The video feed (one of them) only dropped frames once, but, that's alright.

I'm more than impressed with ryzen. Some people don't need a better cpu. I do. I got one. It made a difference. My set-up isn't what most gamers are doing.

Thats quite impressive. Im glad that you're happy with your purchase :).

Which is basically just another Skylake refresh, with some little enhancements here and there. Very probably won't do very much to the IPC. The main improvement of Cannonlake is the 10nm process, which only comes for mobile (due to many problems with the process), and it's desktop/server counterpart Coffee Lake apparently won't even get all the improvements of Cannonlake.

What I'm waiting for is Raven Ridge, aka the Zen APUs. With 12 NCU and faster RAM (I hope for DDR4-3200 to reduce the bottleneck) or even 16NCU coupled with HBM1 as both LLC and VRAM (no more bottleneck) these could be superb for a (gaming) HTPC.

And since RyZen already have a higher performance per watt (even with the lower performance per clock) than Intel's chips I can see them coming back to the mobile market with a revenge. I really hope that the OEM finally will be able to produce some worthwile AMD laptops this time around, what they did until now with the mobile APUs was close on sabotage imo

16 games tested at 1440p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEcgfbhwTs

Same conclusion as 1080p. R7 1800x and 1700x, SMT On or Off...performs more like like an i5 6600k/7600k (--->and for $399-$500 that's the stickler) , and solidly beaten by  the 7700K. Really, the overclock ceiling being so low for these is the issue as you can't make up the IPC difference. AMD is already talking that they know where to refine and get more clocks for Ryzen 2.

This may feel like like the FX8150  launch in the short future....and feelng the burn when the FX8350 rolled out.

I'd take the 7700K for gaming. I play both on high refresh-rate 1080p 120hz monitor( MP) and 4K screen. 1440p performance is always important when a new game cant cut the mustard and get the IQ/framerate balance you want at 4K, so CPU scaling across ALL resolutions is important for a multitude of reasons.

My next screen will be a 144hz 21:9 3440x 1440p 

I can get behind the streamer and content creator needs for more cores, just not being a necessity of mine losing framerates using a high end GPU is a tradeoff i'm not willing to take when building a system.

From what I read in reviews and its excellent results in many professional SW benchmarks, including scientific and engineering ones, there must be a lot of power in these CPUs, as if bad optimization can hamper raw HW power, good optimizations can squeeze out all the HW power they can find, but they cannot fake HW power that isn't there in the first place.

Updating from the i7 4790k, I can say that everything runs better for me, at least. Honestly, I used a stock cooler on my i7 (thanks, intel) and I have an AIO water radiator on my R7. I've had to lower my clocks a bit, as I've had them too high, and about an hour of playing Rise of Tomb Raider on stream, the computer locked up.

But, when it's not under load, the AIO has temperatures drop fast. So, I'll just get a couple more fans, when I go in for my GTX 1080 TI this week.

Hum. If you want a computer for gaming (I'm assuming this because of the video card) why going for a Ryzen 7? Unless there is something new, I have read a bunch of benchmark/reviews and it is not so good for gaming.

Cannonlake will be mobile only, no desktop or server processors will be made with Cannonlake. That's why Coffee lake is coming out around the same time, it's basically just it's unshrinked desktop/server variant.