| HoloDust said: As for Ryzen - not sure who expected what, but Ryzen do smash Intel, especially if price is taken into account, in quite a few tasks - just not in gaming. |
Do they really though? AMD has no high-end motherboard/chipset. (Yet.)
AMD has no Chips that exceed 8-cores. (Yet.)
AMD has no chips with integrated graphics. (Yet.)
AMD Ryzen in a fair few benchmarks performs like a Core i5, especially in the majority of games.
AMD's chips are shit at overclocking. Most top out at around 4ghz.
But you are right, once you factor in price then it's a completely different ball game.
But as it stands, I would still opt for Intel over AMD if price isn't an issue.
| JRPGfan said: Ryzen is much better than bulldozer was, its kinda unfair to compair its launch to that of bulldozer's. Ryzen is alot more competitive than bulldozer ever was. |
No one in the history of this thread said that Ryzen isn't much better than bulldozer.
It's entirely fair to compare it's launch against Bulldozers. They are both AMD's big CPU releases. Just like how Bulldozer was compared to Stars.
| HoloDust said: Indeed it does, it's just that it doesn't smash Intel in gaming as opposed to tasks such as rendering and encoding...for the price, of course. |
Encoding can leverage a ton of Threads, it's only natural AMD's chips shine in those scenario's when AMD is willing to sell you more cores for the price than Intel.
AMD's Quad and Hex core chips are amazing value for money. It's made Intels entire Core i5 and i3 lineup redundant.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
