Ryzen 7 1700 £299.92 @ amazon uk - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
312Expired

Ryzen 7 1700 £299.92 @ amazon uk

£299.92 @ Amazon
Great price for 8 core 16 thread CPU! Read More
procatninja Avatar
3m, 2w agoFound 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Great price for 8 core 16 thread CPU!
More From Amazon:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
procatninja Avatar
3m, 2w agoFound 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(42) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
It's £299 everywhere! In fact you can find one for £2 less elsewhere. ;)
#2
Where? Most of bigger retailers are above £300
3 Likes #4
Great price for an excellent CPU - the pick of the 8 core CPU line up.

Got mine running at 3.95ghz OC with 3300mhz RAM, runs everything very nicely indeed and has reduced my video editing times massively from my 4770k.

With the BIOS, AGESA microcode updates and Windows patches (Creators update can be downloaded now, google) there's a massive performance boost from the launch. They have also discovered they run better (in DX12) on AMD GPU than Nvidia because of Nvidia's POS DX12 implementation.
#5

£299.92 delivered (unless you use the Which Trial, which makes it a nice deal @ £280ish)
2 Likes #6
https://www.amazon.fr/AMD-Ryzen-1700X-Processeur-Socket/dp/B06X3W9NGG/
almost the same price delivered for the 1700X.
#7
The_Hoff
Great price for an excellent CPU - the pick of the 8 core CPU line up.
Got mine running at 3.95ghz OC with 3300mhz RAM, runs everything very nicely indeed and has reduced my video editing times massively from my 4770k.
With the BIOS, AGESA microcode updates and Windows patches (Creators update can be downloaded now, google) there's a massive performance boost from the launch. They have also discovered they run better (in DX12) on AMD GPU than Nvidia because of Nvidia's POS DX12 implementation.

Funny Nvidia works fine with Intel which is established hardware and been on the market way before Ryzen so isn't it a case of AMD gimping Nvidia to promote their upcoming Vega line?
#8
at stock 65w tdp - its actually completely nuts....

Intel has no answer for ryzen or ryzen threadripper :D (yes the 12c/24t and 16c/32t chips exist) ..
#9
The_Hoff
They have also discovered they run better (in DX12) on AMD GPU than Nvidia because of Nvidia's POS DX12 implementation.
Ignoring for a minute that horrendous, technically illiterate summary of why Nvidia GPUs don't get the same boost from DX12 as AMD GPUs (it's like the ghost of Ferrari100 has returned!), would you mind linking your source(s) for Ryzen doing better with AMD GPUs across all DX12 games? I've only seen it so far on Rise of the Tomb Raider in DX12 mode. Indeed, breaking down the numbers from the MindBlank Tech source I saw showed less than a 5% difference in every other title, including games like Deus Ex: MD, which fairly clearly demonstrated that it's a RotTR-specific issue, not a Nvidia/DX12/Ryzen issue, based on the fact (sorry to use those pesky things again!) that it only happens in one game. So I'm assuming that your source(s) must be different..?
1 Like #10
powerbrick
The_Hoff
Great price for an excellent CPU - the pick of the 8 core CPU line up.
Got mine running at 3.95ghz OC with 3300mhz RAM, runs everything very nicely indeed and has reduced my video editing times massively from my 4770k.
With the BIOS, AGESA microcode updates and Windows patches (Creators update can be downloaded now, google) there's a massive performance boost from the launch. They have also discovered they run better (in DX12) on AMD GPU than Nvidia because of Nvidia's POS DX12 implementation.
Funny Nvidia works fine with Intel which is established hardware and been on the market way before Ryzen so isn't it a case of AMD gimping Nvidia to promote their upcoming Vega line?

Short answer, virtually impossible and it would be a suicidal thing to do.
a) it would be extremely hard to do at a CPU level, and would most certainly carry disastrous side effects on plenty other software. b) it already screwed AMD, every tech outlet reviewed ryzen with nvidia cards, nvidia being the market leader and the only company with enthusiast level cards out there, hence corroborating the idea that ryzen isn't particularly great at gaming. c) the problem is also present to a demonstrable extent on intel cpus.

Edit: for reference, I don't believe there's any conspiracy out there either way. Ryzen is a new architecture that is radically different from what amd was doing until now, Nvidia, that has been focusing primarily on DX11 anyway, hasn't got enough time with it to make necessary tweaks to its software stack. I have no doubts that Nvidia and AMD will work the quirks out, probably sooner than later.

Edited By: dcpp4 on Apr 06, 2017 11:36
#11
powerbrick
Funny Nvidia works fine with Intel which is established hardware and been on the market way before Ryzen so isn't it a case of AMD gimping Nvidia to promote their upcoming Vega line?

Still waiting for a major tech site to properly cover this, but for now it appears (and this is so far mainly RotTR) there also are similar issues with Intel's HEDT platform like i7-6900K/i7-6950K. Therefore one speculation is that unlike in DX11, it is now NVidia who do worse scaling in terms of cores. Maybe this is something Nvidia can rectify by splitting the load across more threads, or it could be a hardware limitation due to not having anything similar like AMD's ACEs. On the other hand, software scheduling should be more versatile compared to ACEs so eventually Nvidia may be able to fix this with their drivers.

While it might be isolated to just RotTR, it does raise some questions about reviewers:
1) why were almost all reviews done with Nvidia cards (basically 1070, 1080, and 1080Ti). We sort of know the main reason being that AMD have only released Polaris and have nothing to compete with those cards but while Ryzen 7 are aimed at high-end CPUs, once Ryzen 5 hits it doesn't make sense to just bench with expensive GPUs.

2) why did nobody notice this effect earlier before Ryzen as the i7-6900K etc. have been around for ages. This is harder to answer. Yes, when Skylake came out reviewers were well impressed with its gaming prowess and even more so when most sites are able to get their Kabylake i7-7700 to 5GHz, but previously a lot of sites used to review with Intel HEDT especially when benching SLI or Crossfire. Which may be the answer: multi-GPU is now so poorly supported that nobody bothers to review it.

3) guess it has been a long time since reviewers had to do proper CPUs reviews. The recent AMD offerings they hardly had to bother with, and Intel's offerings have generally been ~5% faster than the last one so no major testing required either. Ryzen however, is a brand new CPU architecture and while it seems well-rounded there are bound to be scenarios where you can't say something simple like 'it's IPC is equal to Haswell/Broadwell' because all the various aspects which make up a CPU architecture (branch prediction, SIMD, FPU vs Int, cache, memory) are never going to be comparable in such a simple way.
#12
powerbrick
The_Hoff
Great price for an excellent CPU - the pick of the 8 core CPU line up.
Got mine running at 3.95ghz OC with 3300mhz RAM, runs everything very nicely indeed and has reduced my video editing times massively from my 4770k.
With the BIOS, AGESA microcode updates and Windows patches (Creators update can be downloaded now, google) there's a massive performance boost from the launch. They have also discovered they run better (in DX12) on AMD GPU than Nvidia because of Nvidia's POS DX12 implementation.
Funny Nvidia works fine with Intel which is established hardware and been on the market way before Ryzen so isn't it a case of AMD gimping Nvidia to promote their upcoming Vega line?

I think it is more to do with Nvidia using a software scheduler and AMD using a hardware one.

My understanding is that the software scheduler makes single threaded gaming performance better, but has a higher driver overhead overall. If it a game doesn't max out a single thread i.e. it is well multithreaded, having a hardware scheduler means you have more free CPU cycles, and therefore less CPU bottlenecking.

Changes in DX12 means that more games will be better multithreaded, meaning the high driver overhead is going to make the software scheduler a poor mans choice to a hardware one.
#13
answark
https://www.amazon.fr/AMD-Ryzen-1700X-Processeur-Socket/dp/B06X3W9NGG/
almost the same price delivered for the 1700X.
Guess it depends on value you put on the cooler included with the 1700 as that 1700X is YD170XBCAEWOF - without Fan.
But anyone who either doesn't want to use the fan/heatsink included with the 1700 or already has a compatible cooler, that's better deal.
1 Like #14
Techspot's article today proves the comments about borked Nvidia drivers wrong.

As usual people making fanboy claims while lacking evidence.

http://www.techspot.com/amp/article/1374-amd-ryzen-with-amd-gpu/page5.html
#15
powerbrick
The_Hoff
Great price for an excellent CPU - the pick of the 8 core CPU line up.
Got mine running at 3.95ghz OC with 3300mhz RAM, runs everything very nicely indeed and has reduced my video editing times massively from my 4770k.
With the BIOS, AGESA microcode updates and Windows patches (Creators update can be downloaded now, google) there's a massive performance boost from the launch. They have also discovered they run better (in DX12) on AMD GPU than Nvidia because of Nvidia's POS DX12 implementation.
Funny Nvidia works fine with Intel which is established hardware and been on the market way before Ryzen so isn't it a case of AMD gimping Nvidia to promote their upcoming Vega line?

You're missing the point. Although you answered your own question emphatically, it's older, it carries legacy, it's been around.

I'm not suggesting AMD have favoured their own GPU line over another. I'm simply saying AMD's architecture exposes limitations of the Nvidia DX12 implementation based on the fact it has removed constraints in Intel's handling of x64 instructions. It's not conspiracy, it's just AMD handle DX12 and Vulkan better as that's their ambition.

Nvidia probably hasn't (and perhaps won't) update their drivers to properly cope with the capabilities of Ryzen, Intel may or may not pay for that to remain as such, AMD have little to do with that other than collaborate with them. Of course, Vega will cooperate with Ryzen from day 1 and will undoubtedly operate with greater overall efficiency when paired, but given two horses from the same stable, would you expect anything other? That's also not to say they're gimping performance on Intel rigs (that makes no business sense), just they will be developed in tandem to greater efficiency.

As for evidence, there's a bunch of posts on Reddit you can go read about and in the case of Vulkan, there's also some video's surfacing that demonstrates that Nvidia is bottlenecking Ryzen performance, take this Doom video, the 470 destroys the 1060:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSzoHQri3Kc&index=4&list=PL_sfYUCEg8Og5-UVaYKYykZYnrw0Wb4CR
#16
That Techspot's article isn't really that great. Okay they ran at equal frequency which sort of makes sense since they are trying to test GPUs and drivers not CPUs as such. But against that, the logical thing would have been to take an Intel I7-6900K and see what happens when it's set to 4 cores vs 8 cores. As it is, it's hard to say whether Kabylake/Skylake's IPC, Nvidia's driver stack, the performance of Ryzen etc. which is responsible for the difference in speed. Whereas if they had run a far easier test (i7-6900K with 4 and 8 cores using GTX1060 with both DX11 and DX12) they would have been able to answer the question of whether Nvidia's drivers don't take full advantage of more than 4 cores.

Anyway, they didn't run Rise of the Tombraider, but Total War: Warhammer and Tom's Clancy's The Division did show big differences DX12 performance of AMD vs Nvidia but nothing which really speaks about whether more cores actually hinders Nvidia's DX12 performance like those earlier youtube RotTB results seem to imply. The Division result does show something though: Nvidia barely changes from DX11 to DX12, but AMD gains a lot and gains a lot more from the 8C/16T Ryzen than it does from the 4C/8T Kabylake.

Guess we will have to wait for some other site to investigate with an Intel HEDT 8 core chip.
#17
there is a new seller with it for £235 on amazon would this be dodgy?
#18
samsonite3000
there is a new seller with it for £235 on amazon would this be dodgy?

Yes, don't touch it.
#19
Gkains
That Techspot's article isn't really that great. Okay they ran at equal frequency which sort of makes sense since they are trying to test GPUs and drivers not CPUs as such. But against that, the logical thing would have been to take an Intel I7-6900K and see what happens when it's set to 4 cores vs 8 cores. As it is, it's hard to say whether Kabylake/Skylake's IPC, Nvidia's driver stack, the performance of Ryzen etc. which is responsible for the difference in speed. Whereas if they had run a far easier test (i7-6900K with 4 and 8 cores using GTX1060 with both DX11 and DX12) they would have been able to answer the question of whether Nvidia's drivers don't take full advantage of more than 4 cores.

Anyway, they didn't run Rise of the Tombraider, but Total War: Warhammer and Tom's Clancy's The Division did show big differences DX12 performance of AMD vs Nvidia but nothing which really speaks about whether more cores actually hinders Nvidia's DX12 performance like those earlier youtube RotTB results seem to imply. The Division result does show something though: Nvidia barely changes from DX11 to DX12, but AMD gains a lot and gains a lot more from the 8C/16T Ryzen than it does from the 4C/8T Kabylake.

Guess we will have to wait for some other site to investigate with an Intel HEDT 8 core chip.

Indeed, poor article. No word on 0.1% frames just minimum, lack of BF1 DX12 run and even then still shows obvious gains in DX12 performance for games patched for Ryzen support.

DX12 performance on Nvidia has always been lacking.
#20
The_Hoff
Gkains
That Techspot's article isn't really that great. Okay they ran at equal frequency which sort of makes sense since they are trying to test GPUs and drivers not CPUs as such. But against that, the logical thing would have been to take an Intel I7-6900K and see what happens when it's set to 4 cores vs 8 cores. As it is, it's hard to say whether Kabylake/Skylake's IPC, Nvidia's driver stack, the performance of Ryzen etc. which is responsible for the difference in speed. Whereas if they had run a far easier test (i7-6900K with 4 and 8 cores using GTX1060 with both DX11 and DX12) they would have been able to answer the question of whether Nvidia's drivers don't take full advantage of more than 4 cores.
Anyway, they didn't run Rise of the Tombraider, but Total War: Warhammer and Tom's Clancy's The Division did show big differences DX12 performance of AMD vs Nvidia but nothing which really speaks about whether more cores actually hinders Nvidia's DX12 performance like those earlier youtube RotTB results seem to imply. The Division result does show something though: Nvidia barely changes from DX11 to DX12, but AMD gains a lot and gains a lot more from the 8C/16T Ryzen than it does from the 4C/8T Kabylake.
Guess we will have to wait for some other site to investigate with an Intel HEDT 8 core chip.
Indeed, poor article. No word on 0.1% frames just minimum, lack of BF1 DX12 run and even then still shows obvious gains in DX12 performance for games patched for Ryzen support.
DX12 performance on Nvidia has always been lacking.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/59rp60/nvidia_async_compute/
1 Like #21
Techspot ran a bunch of DX12 games as the claims were DX12. They merely proved that isn't the case Nvidia's drivers are to blame for a consistent variance and therefore it just varies naturally game to game. That's how it works and always worked.

Saying anything else is more ridiculous AMD fanboy moaning and excuses. It is really tiring listening to it all the time with zero evidence and there again some proven to be just the opposite no less.

Fanboys won't listen to both sides and see all the evidence just the parts that reinforce their (false) claims.

There is no conspiracy against AMD. It's their fault if their platform is launched and it isn't refined properly yet. It isn't Nvidia and Intel conspiring to bone AMD's gaming performance. They just have inferior performance. It's up to them to fix it if they actually can.

It is simply how the market stands right now. Accept it and wait for change instead of inventing a load of **** theories with no real consistent evidence to back it up.
1 Like #22
Always the same with the PC 'master race'.

v385.23.223.232 driver = 60fps rock solid
v385.23.223.235 driver = spectrum 48k emulation mode.

I have no idea why people still put up with this.
#23
Highly recommended - mine is overclocked to 3.7 (on stock cooler included) and has worked flawlessly on the ASUS Crosshair VI (which is meant to be the most problematic motherboard). The BIOS updates continue to unleash the potential and by May the memory issues (mine is running 3200mhz DDR4 at 2933mhz) will have been rectified. At this price it's a bloody bargain!
#24
vulcanproject
Techspot ran a bunch of DX12 games as the claims were DX12. They merely proved that isn't the case Nvidia's drivers are to blame for a consistent variance and therefore it just varies naturally game to game. That's how it works and always worked.
Saying anything else is more ridiculous AMD fanboy moaning and excuses. It is really tiring listening to it all the time with zero evidence and there again some proven to be just the opposite no less.
Fanboys won't listen to both sides and see all the evidence just the parts that reinforce their (false) claims.
There is no conspiracy against AMD. It's their fault if their platform is launched and it isn't refined properly yet. It isn't Nvidia and Intel conspiring to bone AMD's gaming performance. They just have inferior performance. It's up to them to fix it if they actually can.
It is simply how the market stands right now. Accept it and wait for change instead of inventing a load of **** theories with no real consistent evidence to back it up.

I'll just agree with your obviously well balanced point of view. There is no Nvidia DX12 performance issues people, move along.

Except here's some more inconsistent information to chip in with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1XHdWVKRkA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBf2lvfKkxA

DX12 problem confirmed.


Edited By: The_Hoff on Apr 06, 2017 15:53: Some more inconsistent evidence for you
#25
hotsa
Highly recommended - mine is overclocked to 3.7 (on stock cooler included) and has worked flawlessly on the ASUS Crosshair VI (which is meant to be the most problematic motherboard). The BIOS updates continue to unleash the potential and by May the memory issues (mine is running 3200mhz DDR4 at 2933mhz) will have been rectified. At this price it's a bloody bargain!

Same CPU/mobo here. Update BIOS to 1002, should run at 3200 no problem. Mine is 3200 rated Corsair and runs fine at stock timings on 3300.

3.95 @ 1.375v with a Kraken X62 is stable for me.
#26
yogSH
It's £299 everywhere! In fact you can find one for £2 less elsewhere. ;)
Still £329.99 @ ocuk
#27
The_Hoff
hotsa
Highly recommended - mine is overclocked to 3.7 (on stock cooler included) and has worked flawlessly on the ASUS Crosshair VI (which is meant to be the most problematic motherboard). The BIOS updates continue to unleash the potential and by May the memory issues (mine is running 3200mhz DDR4 at 2933mhz) will have been rectified. At this price it's a bloody bargain!
Same CPU/mobo here. Update BIOS to 1002, should run at 3200 no problem. Mine is 3200 rated Corsair and runs fine at stock timings on 3300.
3.95 @ 1.375v with a Kraken X62 is stable for me.

Cheers - will give that a shot tonight! Have a Corsair H110i GTX to fit for some further overclocking too!! ;)
1 Like #28
hotsa
The_Hoff
hotsa
Highly recommended - mine is overclocked to 3.7 (on stock cooler included) and has worked flawlessly on the ASUS Crosshair VI (which is meant to be the most problematic motherboard). The BIOS updates continue to unleash the potential and by May the memory issues (mine is running 3200mhz DDR4 at 2933mhz) will have been rectified. At this price it's a bloody bargain!
Same CPU/mobo here. Update BIOS to 1002, should run at 3200 no problem. Mine is 3200 rated Corsair and runs fine at stock timings on 3300.
3.95 @ 1.375v with a Kraken X62 is stable for me.
Cheers - will give that a shot tonight! Have a Corsair H110i GTX to fit for some further overclocking too!! ;)

Rename the file to C6H.CAP and stick it on a FAT32 formatted USB (with an activity light ideally) and use the BIOS Flashback USB socket, don't turn the PC on and just press and hold the BIOS button for a few seconds, leave it for a few minutes or until the light stops flashing.

Bookmark this too: http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread
#29
We all know (mostly deep down) that the tech press is a steaming pile of 16 year old slippers.

The 1700 is a phenominal CPU, which won't need upgrading for many a year. The issues come from bios updates. game updates and memory compatibility. All of these things are solved by being, you know ..... patient.....

Most peeps need instant gratification.

......Now wheres that Kool-Aid......
#30
tahir_owen
We all know (mostly deep down) that the tech press is a steaming pile of 16 year old slippers.
The 1700 is a phenominal CPU, which won't need upgrading for many a year. The issues come from bios updates. game updates and memory compatibility. All of these things are solved by being, you know ..... patient.....
Most peeps need instant gratification.
......Now wheres that Kool-Aid......

Ryzen 5 will damage Intel massively.

Big year for AMD.
#31
The_Hoff
Big year for AMD.

All things being equal, it should be. But things aren't equal. Many want them to fail and they're being attacked on many fronts (just look at what one clearly vested entity did to their share price today...).

I hope consumers, for the sack of themselves and the industry, continue to understand what Ryzen (and Vega) represents and buy accordingly. As someone who has had an Intel since upgrading from AMD Athlon, I can't explain how refreshing Ryzen feels. The price to performance is astonishing.
#32
This or a 6600k for £100 less (for gaming)? Upgrading my set up soon, does this cpu work in a am3 motherboard, currently have an amd fx 6300, can i straight swap or will I have to buy a new motherboard as well? What are the positives of the ryzen, I like both intel and amd but I keep hearing amazing things about ryzen? Planning to pair it up with a 1080..

EDIT: Just found out it uses am4 mobos


Edited By: f2k8 on Apr 06, 2017 19:02: new info
#33
Any Intel fan boys coming on here now?
1 Like #34
f2k8
This or a 6600k for £100 less (for gaming)? Upgrading my set up soon, does this cpu work in a am3 motherboard, currently have an amd fx 6300, can i straight swap or will I have to buy a new motherboard as well? What are the positives of the ryzen, I like both intel and amd but I keep hearing amazing things about ryzen? Planning to pair it up with a 1080..
EDIT: Just found out it uses am4 mobos

Neither, wait for the £220-ish Ryzen R5 1600 to be released next week first before deciding.

MSI B350M MORTAR Socket AM4
1 Like #35
This or a 2.5 MHz Z80
#36
f2k8
This or a 6600k for £100 less (for gaming)? Upgrading my set up soon, does this cpu work in a am3 motherboard, currently have an amd fx 6300, can i straight swap or will I have to buy a new motherboard as well? What are the positives of the ryzen, I like both intel and amd but I keep hearing amazing things about ryzen? Planning to pair it up with a 1080..

EDIT: Just found out it uses am4 mobos



If that's your budget, wait until next week. The R5s are launching and for most games, they will probably offer very similar performance to the R7. Current games don't use 8 cores properly.
#37
hotsa
The_Hoff
Big year for AMD.
All things being equal, it should be. But things aren't equal. Many want them to fail and they're being attacked on many fronts (just look at what one clearly vested entity did to their share price today...).
I hope consumers, for the sack of themselves and the industry, continue to understand what Ryzen (and Vega) represents and buy accordingly. As someone who has had an Intel since upgrading from AMD Athlon, I can't explain how refreshing Ryzen feels. The price to performance is astonishing.

When i say big year, i talk not of the success but more so the fact they're taking on the global leaders of CPU and GPU in multiple disciplines. It's huge, must be an exciting time to work there, if somewhat stressful!
#38
Would love to but my 3570k OCed is still going strong.
#39
powerbrick
yogSH
It's £299 everywhere! In fact you can find one for £2 less elsewhere. ;)
Still £329.99 @ ocuk

+£10.50 P&P then. :|
1 Like #40
The_Hoff
vulcanproject
Techspot ran a bunch of DX12 games as the claims were DX12. They merely proved that isn't the case Nvidia's drivers are to blame for a consistent variance and therefore it just varies naturally game to game. That's how it works and always worked.
Saying anything else is more ridiculous AMD fanboy moaning and excuses. It is really tiring listening to it all the time with zero evidence and there again some proven to be just the opposite no less.
Fanboys won't listen to both sides and see all the evidence just the parts that reinforce their (false) claims.
There is no conspiracy against AMD. It's their fault if their platform is launched and it isn't refined properly yet. It isn't Nvidia and Intel conspiring to bone AMD's gaming performance. They just have inferior performance. It's up to them to fix it if they actually can.
It is simply how the market stands right now. Accept it and wait for change instead of inventing a load of **** theories with no real consistent evidence to back it up.
I'll just agree with your obviously well balanced point of view. There is no Nvidia DX12 performance issues people, move along.
Except here's some more inconsistent information to chip in with:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1XHdWVKRkAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBf2lvfKkxA
DX12 problem confirmed.
Wait... how is that a consistent problem across DX12 if your own sources show that five DX12 games do not have the problem - five out of seven (perfect score!), if we include your second source as trustworthy. Heh, funnily enough, three of them are better with Ryzen/Nvidia according to your first source, which also agrees with that TechPowerUp article that you dismissed because... well. ;)

I already included a link to the numbers for that first source of yours above, but I understand that they're not easy to parse without experience. Here they are again, and I've pointed out the bit you seem to have missed - that only Rise of the Tomb Raider throws out a significant difference:

http://i.imgur.com/ea05dgf.jpg

That second source of yours... a new Youtuber with zero subscribers and fewer hits than my home movies about my dog playing with my horses (although oddly, you've already linked to this unknown at least twice on two separate topics), OK, but let's pretend it's a real source. One game: The Division, which already had inconsistent DX12 performance before Ryzen, and is another non-native DX12 game.

But as someone once said, "People will bitch and moan until the end of eternity and defend their choices.":{

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!