yeah, those have the same performance for gaming and same price. I guess that amd is catching up :P

Although that 1700 is better for a workstation

Meanwhile at Intel...

Intel hasnt has proper competition for years. There prices are a reflection of that. Watch Intel start adjusting there base prices soon

Unless Threadripper is Bulldozer levels of inferior performance, I can't imagine anyone going for an i9 at this point. That's a HUGE difference in bang for buck right there.

You need to go back farther. AMD made having more than 4 threads/cores affordable for everyone a good 7+ years ago when they dropped the Phenom 2 x6 1035/1045/1055/1060/1090/1100 chips. - I had several of those chips. Once you pushed the NB and Core clocks up, they really started to come into their own and could give Nahelem a run for it's money.
We can't forget the venerable FX 6300 either.

The i5 has one massive advantage over Ryzen. Clock Rate, overclock one of those puppies to 4.5ghz and anything that uses up-to 4 cores (99% of games) will be superior on Intel's platform.

I said it before we knew any details about Ryzen, heck before we knew it was going to be called Ryzen...
But I'll rehash it here again, Ryzen won't really come into it's own untill it's revision with Zen+ when AMD can take what it has learned with Zen and improve upon it, hopefully they can break down that 4ghz wall that limits overclocking.
I am hoping at that point performance will be close enough to Intel, even in gaming... That it is ultimately inconsequential.

In general though, AMD has offered more cores/threads and cheaper prices than Intel going on a decade, it didn't make their chips more "future proof".
Take the Athlon 2 x4 for example, it was the first Quad-Core CPU under $100, which was placed against Intels dual cores. - Those Athlon quad core chips have  not aged well. (I have a few in a box somewhere.)

The difference with Ryzen and AMD's past CPU's is that Ryzens per-core+clock performance is closer to Intel than it has ever been since the Athlon 64 era, which is ultimately what is going to empower Ryzens long-term life span.

I am counting on it to be honest. If they can bring down their 10 core chip prices to $700 AUD I am making the move to LGA2066 and moving away from LGA2011. $1500 is way to high.

More to a platform than just the CPU though. Which is something you need to keep in mind.

AMD does have an edge there in some aspects over Intels entry level LGA2066 CPU's though... For example higher PCI-E lane counts.

yeah intel's i5's still have a substantial advantage via overclocking. however, AMD's chips have cheaper prices and futureproofing, so the low end i3 market is going to be SEVERELY cut down. basically intell will only be ahend in the high performace market of i5s and i7s. it doesn't matter if you have 16 cores is games only use like, 8 for high performance games and 4 for more normal games.

Well, trying to spread FUD is basically all they can do right now. Even on the GPU side, Nvidia already showed some tests with "glued up" GPUs.

By the time an overclocked Core i5 Skylake becomes obsolete, you would have upgraded the AMD rig anyway, so don't buy for future proofing... That is silly.
Simply buy the best you can afford today for your needs and be done with. - Brand loyalty is silly unless there is an actual need.
I.E. I tend to opt for AMD GPU's due to Eyefinity being superior to Surround Vision and Compute.
And I shifted from AMD 6-core processor to an Intel 6-core processor as AMD was essentially a few CPU generations behind in terms of performance even with the same core counts.

Intel still commands the majority of the PC CPU market, so games will continue to be built with Intel chips in mind, thus it won't be untill 6 core processors are fully mainstream that we will see a shift in the way games are developed, Coffee lake takes a few steps in that direction with the first 6 core processor on an Intel Mainstream board.
But we are still years away from where an Intel Quad is regarded as strictly low-end with hex core chips being fully mainstream/mid-range... And by the time that transition is all said and done, Ryzen will be slow and outdated where users will be thinking of upgrading. - That is... If your system is stable for all those years on top of it.

True, Phenom II X6 and Bulldozer 6xxx and 8xxx came before, but they don't come close to Intel's performance anymore. The X6 gets trashed by and Core i5 even in applications that can fully utilize all 6 cores, and the Bulldozer also barely can keep up with the i5 in most cases, heck in most games, Bulldozer get's beaten by an i3

Clock speeds will be a problem throughout Ryzen's existence if they keep with LPP (Low Power Plus) Process. Pinnacle Ridge should alleviate this somewhat but not enough to keep up with Cofeve Late ehm... Coffee lake

I'm on an Athlon II X4 right now btw, it's till doing it's job though it yells for a replacment, even have to undervolt and underclock it to make sure it doesn't overheat and reboot the system. But since I'm more of an Indiegamer and retrogamer myself, that rarely poses a problem.

Intel won't lower the prices of their existing chips - that would be conceding that Ryzen is actual competition. Which won't happen going by their latest slides mocking Epyc in any possible and impossible way. Instead, the newer chips will be released at lower prices to better match AMD's pricepoints. We can already see that with the new Skylake-X Chips, which are considerably lower in price compared to their predecessors at the same core count, yet still pricey compared to Ryzen and Threadripper. Same thing wil happen with Coffee Lake, where the hexacore will probably take the pricepoint of the old i7 7700K, and go down from there.

Ryzen is great, but it will be much better when they roll out the second generation Zen2 cores, late 2018.

Maybe then it will be a true match for Intel in the gaming scene.

For pretty much everything else Ryzen is beating Intel's chips price to performance (single threaded tasks, and memory latency sensitive things excluded).