Linus Tech Tips on it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUndzpdo1I

And the most important part......there stock cooler has RGB!!!!!

These are what the industry has been crying out for. Intels CPUs have hardly changed since the second generation i7 . I see some big price drops coming from Intel and possibly the first mainstream 8 core pretty soon .

They talk about a 6 core mainstream part. If that is the case i will jump to ryzen next. Unless the extreme 8cores get cheap ofcourse.

I have a 6 core intel 5820k and it beats my 4790k in everything apart from gaming were its basically the same give or take one or two frames . Im looking at a new system around october tis year and if benchmarks are true i will be going to AMD and one of the 8 core cpu' .

It'll be competition at the very highest end but only if you need more than 4 cores, which most people don't presently. 4 fast cores still win easily against more slower ones in games.

The most important aspect for gamers will be the mid range parts. How high can the 6 core be clocked for example that is a big question, because Ryzen does not appear as fast as Broadwell IPC. Broadwell @ 3ghz was as fast single threaded as Ryzen @ 3.3ghz.

Ryzen having no integrated graphics means it's going to be cheaper for gaming but the vast majority of PC sales (notebooks, OEM desktops) use integrated and that rules it out of like over 70 percent of the market for the moment.

What gamers really want is Intel to stop blocking overclocking and ditch the iGPU on select mainstream parts to make them cheaper.

Intel with its agressive pricing will throw ppl at ryzen. More cores for less money will get alot of attention. They kept on taking there prices up. When i got my 3rd gen i7 it cost 290eur and now a i7 still witc 4 cores costs 420eur thats just creedy. If they take prices down and give us a 6 core for like 300 it will be good again.

The k series i3 was a joke also requiring a decent motherboard and cost almost as far as the non k i5s. They made the pentium chips hyper threaded and will make the newer i5 hyper threaded but will also bring the price up. The pentium chip now costs the same what an i3 was.

Ryzen's strategy is becoming quite clear, more but slower cores.

For example if the 3.3ghz 1600x 6C/12T comes in at 260 pounds in the U.K, you can get a 3.8ghz 7600k for as low as 210 pounds. 7600k is probably gonna beat up that processor on anything that uses 4 cores or less. 1600X is gonna win on anything that uses 5+ cores.

You spend the extra if you really are going to use 6 cores a lot. You don't if you won't.

Overclocking is one factor less known. If the 6 cores or 8 cores for example do overclock well to improve their single core performance then it would swing it towards Ryzen.

Its there first attempt with this architecture. Next one will propably get refinements and higher clocks. Still impressive the tdp on them. It will have a disadvantage in having dual channel vs intels quad on the E series i7s.

Same thing was said here when I bought a q6600 , pointless getting a quad as games don't work on 4 cores blah blah blah . More than 4 cores will be used once the become mainstream, Gota be thick to choose a quad over an 8 core now

The cpus with more cores seem to run games much smoother when streaming also. Would love to upgrade from my i7 to double the cores soon as its 5 years old almost already. Held up nice this far tho not bottlenecking my gtx 1070 etc.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

Is why you have to need more cores for rendering rather than faster ones for gaming.

The faster 4 core destroys 8 slower cores in gaming like it does to intel's own 6 cores, in GTA5 the difference between minimum framerates is massive stock v stock, over 30 percent. That's the difference between the game dropping below 30FPS and staying close to 40FPS!

If you use it for rendering the extra multi threading is a boon, but if it's for anything less like gaming then the quad single threaded performance makes more sense.

Problem is the vast vast majority of consumers just don't need more than 4 cores at the moment. In the distant future when they are more mainstream it'll change. Some way off yet though, lots of cores is a niche market.

Im afraid the 4 cores will bite dust like the core 2 duos did really soon when games take advantage of 8 cores. The scorpio might also influence it. Hyper threaded not too much as seen with i3 running games like gta 5 compared to non HT pentiums but still drop alot of performance compared to the i5s.

Will be interesting if the ryzen clocks as close. The 7700 does not do 1ghz oc very easily without proper cooling. If the rysen does lets say 4.8ghz from its lower start then it will make intel sweat.

Your problem is nobody will design games for more than 4 cores til everyone has more than 4 cores. Even today a dual core 4 threaded i3 beats up AMD's 3 and 4 core processors in a lot of games and this is years after most everyone has 4 cores.

It'll be years before the majority of games are heavily threaded to use 6 or 7 cores. At least another couple complete processor generations. What's more DX12 reduces CPU overhead hugely.

This is a factor you have to consider, throwing more slow cores at the problem hasn't been the answer for most applications and Intel have proved it for the past 10 years. It's a fact.

I find it amazing that Horizon 3 or Mankind divided, both cutting edge games I have been playing recently don't even use more than 2 cores. It's nuts but true.

One of the best threaded games I have seen up to this point is Watchdogs 2. It can chew up 4 cores and 8 threads- but not much more. A 6700/7700 annihilate other 4 core 4 threads, but a 6 core 12 thread gains next to nothing still.

Bearing in mind this is THE best multi-threaded game I have ever seen, that and Battlefield 1. I honestly can't name many games that can usefully utilise more than 8 threads.

Even Battlefield 1 gains just a few percentage points when you have two entire extra cores, and it runs a million frames a second regardless of what you have. It's expensive and difficult to create game engines with task scheduling for so many threads.

Well see. Have to wait for the overclocking results also. Loads of ppl enjoy streaming also and recording gameplay that will benefit also. It will give intel a fair rivalry in the content creation vs there more expensive x99 cpus. Lets hope we will get more cores from intel soon for less money.

The best free streaming software is really GPU compute based though, shadowplay etc. Least impact on performance while actually gaming. It's better because the most parallel performance inside any gaming PC is in the GPU. It's another niche market anyway.

I have no doubt eventually games will get threaded better but even after all this time so many games don't use more than 2 cores 4 threads! Only a tiny number of games of which I can hardly think of any can use more than 8 threads.

DX12 only means that CPU performance begins to matter less too. It's in early adoption but the best built DX12/vulkan games you can run on a dual core as fast as an 8 core lol.

In Doom a dual core i3 is basically nearly identically as fast as a Broadwell-E 8 core. In Tomb Raider DX12 a dual core old Haswell beats an 8 core 5960X on average framerate

Asus have just released ryzen motherboards