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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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....

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.