I really think AMD needs to be competitive on ipc and clock speed, because if they are not, the somebody that has a program that really benefits from 6 or more cores might choose Ryzen for performance, but everybody else will choose intel if they need performance and AMD if they want something cheap. Then all intel has to do is cut prices for a while, they could still cost more than Ryzen and it would cap any growth AMD would see on the CPU market. However, if Ryzen has more cores, along with similar ipc and clock speeds and is cheaper as well, intel may be in trouble.

Sadly, too many PC users think of the 'every millisecond of 'extra' power, and because Intel has ben able to provide that in recent years, AMD has stuggle sale-wise when ibn actual fact it has developed more than adequate CPUs that more than adequately power any average home machine and better.

Sure, Intel CPUs have been faster with clock speeds and etc, but seriously, unless you're an absolute enthusiatist with a need for the absolute fastest speed possible, what difference is there, really?

I mean, seriously, how many home/regular users , even some gamers, really need a 4.00ghz CPU?  The truth is, not many, but while we have these so-called CPU discrepancies between manufacturers, and Intel seemingly coming out on top all the time, we are always going to have these so-called CPU wars that divide users.

The truth is, for the majority of users, it don't matter a rat's anus, cos really, most never ever need the power of a high-end CPU that runs off the charts. 

Frankly, it does'nt matter to most day to day users just how powerful a CPU is, so long as they can access their emails and surf the net, that's all that matters, and certainly no reason to run a 4.00 ghz CPU.  In the past I have wanted the most powerful and fastest hardware there was within my budget, but these days I accept that I cannot keep up with the Jonses any more and that I have to budget more within my means.

I have pretty much accepted that my next new build/upgrade will be my last, cos at 63 going on 64 I'm not getting any younger, and I'm going to get the best I can afford for my last ever new build [except the case] with an AMD Ryzen CPU and compatible components.  My final build may not be as powerful as the latest Intel offering, but I really don't give a rat's arse anymore... it'll do all I need it to.

So there!!!!!

Guess what I are trying to say: I are too tired of getting into dick measuring contests and losing.

I disagree. If you have a task that is CPU limited you want to buy the cheapest item that meets your minimum requirements. Amd may be cheaper, but if intel out performs it, and I need a certain level of performance AMD doesn't provide, then I have to skip it for intel. Because if all you need to do is check email and browse the web, then there are perfectly acceptable 80 dollars tablets or 60 dollar phones running cheap ARM SOCs on the market. Either AMD is fairly competitive, unlike now, or I think the cpu market will continue to stagnate.

I may end up building my desktop with AMD, because of pricing. I think AMD probably dominates low end cPUs cause of pricing. But if I have the money I usually go Intel. If speed doesn't count. Besides pricing what else is AMD currently doing better on the CPU end. When I buy a computer I want my best bang for my buck. Otherwise why waste your money. I usually have better computers than John, and Jane do who don't care about having the latest gadget that comes out, but usually behind anything you read about.

Yes I think so too. AMD said Ryzen had been tested with both Windows 7 and Windows 10 so it's probably just a political thing.

haha, you are probably right. Windows 98 was a long time ago. The phone is more powerful than Pentium II for sure. But software was much lighter then so you could have a good experience on a Pentium II. Mine was P2 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM (kid you not) and a 10 GB HDD so almost identical to yours. It's long gone.

If you wrote all that on a touch screen, then you are a touchscreen wizard.

Regarding OSes and kernels, it's possible to build both good stuff and bad stuff on any kernel. Some things are kernel specific but many things are just layers on top. Windows has had the advantage because of more mature technologies and a bigger ecosystem. Windows disadvantage was huge amount of malware.

Someone could argue that a UWP-only version of Windows is more secure and to some extent that may be true. However, it's the perfect example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not understanding what (and who) made Windows successful.

That's my feeling too. Ultimately, it's consumers who decide. I do want touch-screens on laptops. It's useful if you are writing something and have the touchpad turned off. But I don't want a touch UI.

I hope so too.

It's all that matters.

You may have a greater need for CPU power than most, and yes, you would disagree, but for the majority of users, an AMD CPU would more than suffice.  However, people have their preferences and will opt for the hardware that pleases them most, whether it be Intel or AMD.  My main requirement is enough GPU power to edit, create and dub video, and I'm sure an AMD Ryzen will be more than man enough.

Any new chip needs a reason to exist...if it's not speed then there's a cheaper option than a cheaper brand....

....simply sticking with the old chip...;)

I think maybe in a nutshell ^^^^ simple and to the point. My laptop runs an AMD dual processor. It runs pretty good. All I need to do is add another 4 gigs of ram and it'll be even gooder. 

Looks very promising. I guess we'll know more in two weeks or so.

The AnandTech headline is "AMD Launches Ryzen: 52% More IPC, Eight Cores for Under $330, Pre-order Today, On Sale March 2nd."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143/amd-launch-ryzen-52-more-ipc-eight-cores-for-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd

Arstech said that according to AMD, which I admit may be overpromising once again, that

The top-end part is the R7 1800X. This $499 chip will have a 3.6GHz base speed and a 4.0GHz boost speed, with a 95W TDP. AMD is positioning it against Intel's i7-6900K, a $1,050 processor using the Broadwell-E core running at 3.2 GHz, and turboing up to 3.7GHz.

In the Cinebench R15 multithreaded rendering test, AMD says that its new processor scores about 9 percent higher than Intel's. In the single threaded version of the same test, it's a dead heat.

Anyway, I hope that AMD really is back to an extent.

I also hope that AMD is back with a competitive CPU range that gives Intel cause to think... not about bettering it but about its own pricing.  For too long now, Intel has been top dog and has charged consumers in line with that market position, so yeah, let's hope that Ryzen really is AMD's best chip yet.  I have nothing against Intel or its chips, nor am I an AMD fanboi, but I would like to see CPUs in general become more affordable for the average user.

I have some priorities to consider first, but I would like to build a new PC sometime later in 2017, and it likely will be with a new Ryzen CPU at it's core.  I had hoped to build one around an Intel i7 6950X, but I could build a more than decent machine for considerably less using a new Ryzen at a fraction of the cost.

Here's another article on Ryzen....

More on Ryzen processors here at NT Compatible.

Several reviewers have written articles on Ryzen, so there's a fair bit of reading to do for those interested in AMD's new offering.  Most are saying that Ryzen compares quite favourably with Intel's range, and while one article I read suggests Ryzen still has a way to go, the reviews are generally positive and give AMD credit for the new architecture.

The reviews are crazy look at these two charts

In the first one it Ryzen holds it's own very well and even the $329 Ryzen 7 1700 bests the $1089 i7 6900K some of the times

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18

In this second chart Ryzen is at the bottom of the barrel and a $168 i3 7350K is besting the $499 1800

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/19

It makes me wish there was a dual socket motherboard that could efficiently handle having intel and AMD chips in it. If you could get the best of both the i7 7700K and the Ryzen 7 1800X, that would be awesome!

Yeah UVAH, me too.  My PC is running an AMD Athlon II X2 250 Processor, 3000 MHZ 2 core and its all I need on my W7 with 8 gig of ram.

Yeah, there is a couple of reviews that claim AMD's Ryzen range is still well behind Intel's, but for the most part, the reviews are positive and the Ryzen's are competitive against, if not better than what Intel has to offer.

Frankly, I don't care if Intel's i7 6900K or 6950X is faster, or AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X is faster, the difference isn't going to mean much to me either way.  For what I do [working with video and music] a Ryzen 7 1700X would be quite sufficient.  So long as I have a decent GPU and plenty of RAM, I'm not concerned with having the fastest CPU.  Having said that, and with Intel's equivelant being way too pricey, I'd likely go with the added processing power of a Ryzen 7 1800X to potentially enhance video processing for just a couple of hundred bucks more.

After reading the various reviews, 15 so far, my belief is that Ryzen is only behind Intel's I7-7700 which is a 4x4 CPU which can get higher Freq. I believe because of the following reasons:

1. The majority of Games are written for Intel, and any coding for AMD Products is not as optimized.

2. And the games themselves for the same reason cannot see more than 4 Cores and 8 threads.

3. Even the vaunted 6900 or 6950 are not faster than Intel's 4 core's in games for the same reason of the core count.

4. Most gamer 's stick to lower resolution display's and Video cards. 1440 being the high side, and DX 11 games.

5. When tested against 4K Games at higher resolutions the 1700x, 1800x and i-76900, 6950 leave the rest behind.

6. Since Stardock and Oxide are working on code optimization for the Ryzen Processors, Ashes for one, I would hope they would do so with GCIII.

For most general business apps, these reviews all show No practical difference between Ryzen and the upper  Intel chips. As the BIOS improve, and OS improve in Ryzen support this Processor family has but AMD back in the running.

At least now I can retire my old Asus Sabertooth and Old FX 8370 Proc. both of which are very long on age.

And once all of the Game Companies have decided to go 64BIT, Multi-Core, Multi-Threaded, then we shall see if these differences continue.

For those concerned with ECC Memory - Ryzen does support, but it up to the MB Maker to allow it in the Bios.

Very nice summary.

Should also be true for video editing, transcoding and all software that can take advantage of many cores.

If I were to buy something I would buy AMD just because I'm happy to see them back in business. But to be honest I don't do demanding things with my computers so I'm good with what I have.

Currently I have the flight sim [FSX] running....Chrome with 12 tabs...IE with 6 .... Winamp providing tunes.... notepad...skype...Task Manager...Spider Solitaire...Scanner....Dopus....13 instances of 'DxtBMP [a graphics format proggy] and 25 instances of Paintshop Pro 6 ....

No VMs or VBoxes at the moment....but sometimes them as well....;)

Trust you to go one up... several times over.  Occasionally I will have a video conversion and an editing job going on while listening to music and checking stuff out on the internet, but that's about it most of the time.  Having said that, however, my AMD FX 8350 is aging and a new Ryzen 1800X would save me time by improving those music and video tasks.

As much as I wanted to rebuild around an Intel i7 6950X, other things take priority and I simply cannot justify the expense.  As it is a Ryzen build will have to wait until later this year because we now need a bigger place and a move to Maryborough is very much on the cards.

you probably can't find a motherboard to go with the cpu atm anyway

or so i read.

Quoting alaknebs, reply 49

you probably can't find a motherboard to go with the cpu atm anyway

or so i read.

Not according to the reviews I've read, plus mentions here and here.

In fact, AMD has been working closely with 3rd-party developers in the areas of RAM, motherboards and CPU coolers, etc, so I imagine that compatible hardware will be freely available as of late Feb, early March in countries where Ryzen has been launched.   

Besides, after years of playing second fiddle to Intel, and so much hype about Zen/Ryzen, I doubt very much that AMD would have left such a possibilty to chance.  No, they needed this launch to go off without a hitch, and I expect it will.

On another note, I read an article on a Ryzen 7 1700 that had been overclocked to 4Ghz on all 8 cores and compared quite favourably against Intel's i7 6900K.  In fact, the overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 even bettered the 6900K in some tests, and overclocks more easily and better than higher rated editions, so it may be the go-to CPU for AMD fans and O/Cing enthusiasts.