4 ms·

I can only speak for myself, but I never expected these chips to compete with intels top offering in any setting or use case. Certainly not for gaming. I own a

• dogma1138 10y ago
  The problem is that it's the 2nd time that AMD is supposed to offer something "competitive" the early Bulldozer benchmarks were promising but then the actual results were garbage. This is going to be a 500-600$+ part, it loses to an Intel's 230$ parts in gaming and doesn't really beat their current top offering that while does cost around 1000$ when you factor the final price of such system and the fact that you'll lose PCIE lanes, storage performance native USB 3.1 and better networking and Thunderbolt when it comes to systems that cost 5000-6000$ or more it wouldn't really matter. There is very little reason to buy AMD cpu's atm they don't really offer good and affordable platforms if you bought one recently you made a mistake because you bought a platform without native USB 3.1 with previous gen PCIE and with very poor storage performance, sure it might not matter to you but if you only browse the internet then a Core i7 system or a NUC would work just as well. AMD needs a competitive part and more than one and not only in price; price is irrelevant NVIDIA and Intel smoke AMD sales on both fronts when the performance lead is large enough regardless of the price time and time again. AMD needs to win benchmarks and to offer better prices to gain a substantial market share.