| Bofferbrauer2 said: However, Ryzen made having more than 4 Threads affordable to everyone, so on the long run, the 4c/4t Core i5 will be fighting a losing battle against AMDs Ryzen 5, while Ryzen 7 made 8 cores (16 threads) affordable to more than just a few at prices comparable to an Intel Core i7 7700K |
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.
| Bofferbrauer2 said: Long story short: Ryzen has less clock and slightly less performance than Intel's chips, but offer more cores, more threads and much cheaper prices than their Intel counterparts; with the additional cores also making them more future-proof |
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.
| Azzanation said: Intel hasnt has proper competition for years. There prices are a reflection of that. Watch Intel start adjusting there base prices soon |
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.
| Zach808 said: 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. |
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.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
