4 ms·

It's also up to 30% faster. That's how variance works.

Asooka 10y ago
Well yeah but will you buy an alternate CPU that might be faster or might be slower in some games, or will you buy standard Intel, for which every game was definitely tested and will run with standard performance?
- phamilton 10y ago
  Frame of reference fallacy going on here. One could just as easily say the Intel is 30% faster or slower.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  It's been more than 10 years since I've read such an uninformed comment
- nottorp 10y ago
  Your standard Intel is running a 64 bit instruction set designed by umm... AMD. Perhaps you'd like to restrict yourself to 32 bit software just to be standards conformant?
floatboth 10y ago
It's also 0.1fps faster than the 6950X in the Civ VI AI test. And the 6950X is literally fucking $1700, that's over THREE TIMES more expensive than the top Ryzen.
- onli 10y ago
  But you ignore that the i7-7700K is faster in that benchmark. And that one is cheaper. So is the i5. If you do more than games, the Ryzen seems like a a good choice. It has serious power in applications, and is still fast in Games - which is a big step up compared to the FX. But no, it is not the goto choice for a gaming PC.
  - floatboth 10y ago
    Yeah, I'm not arguing with that, I actually made that same exact point in a different thread :) I'm just pointing out how it compares to more expensive 8/10-core CPUs.
    - nottorp 10y ago
      If the 6C/8T and 4C/8T parts will launch at the same frequency as the high end (and i've read that at least for the 6C they will) we'll end up with a CPU that is as fast as the 1800X in games (which is good enough no matter what the 120 fps enthusiasts say) but this time is cheaper than the 7700K. That will be the sweet spot for just gaming performance, not these ones.
ldev 10y ago
Those linked benchmarks are useless. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/ I'd take Intel CPU that runs 120 FPS average over AMD that runs 130 FPS average, when lowest FPS for Intel drops to 100 FPS and for AMD it drops to 80 FPS...
- ahoka 10y ago
  Both average and min/max are useless metrics.

Well yeah but will you buy an alternate CPU that might be faster or might be slower in some games, or will you buy standard Intel, for which every game was definitely tested and will run with standard performance?

phamilton 10y ago
Frame of reference fallacy going on here. One could just as easily say the Intel is 30% faster or slower.
raverbashing 10y ago
It's been more than 10 years since I've read such an uninformed comment
nottorp 10y ago
Your standard Intel is running a 64 bit instruction set designed by umm... AMD. Perhaps you'd like to restrict yourself to 32 bit software just to be standards conformant?

floatboth 10y ago

It's also 0.1fps faster than the 6950X in the Civ VI AI test. And the 6950X is literally fucking $1700, that's over THREE TIMES more expensive than the top Ryzen.

onli 10y ago
But you ignore that the i7-7700K is faster in that benchmark. And that one is cheaper. So is the i5. If you do more than games, the Ryzen seems like a a good choice. It has serious power in applications, and is still fast in Games - which is a big step up compared to the FX. But no, it is not the goto choice for a gaming PC.
- floatboth 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm not arguing with that, I actually made that same exact point in a different thread :) I'm just pointing out how it compares to more expensive 8/10-core CPUs.
  - nottorp 10y ago
    If the 6C/8T and 4C/8T parts will launch at the same frequency as the high end (and i've read that at least for the 6C they will) we'll end up with a CPU that is as fast as the 1800X in games (which is good enough no matter what the 120 fps enthusiasts say) but this time is cheaper than the 7700K. That will be the sweet spot for just gaming performance, not these ones.

ldev 10y ago

Those linked benchmarks are useless. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/ I'd take Intel CPU that runs 120 FPS average over AMD that runs 130 FPS average, when lowest FPS for Intel drops to 100 FPS and for AMD it drops to 80 FPS...

ahoka 10y ago
Both average and min/max are useless metrics.