AMD Ryzen 3 1200 CPU with Wraith Stealth Cooler reduced to £93.95 @ Amazon UK
492°Expired

AMD Ryzen 3 1200 CPU with Wraith Stealth Cooler reduced to £93.95 @ Amazon UK

70
Edited by:"Noclouds"Found 18th Aug 2017
Cheaper even than the steady sub £100 ebuyer price, the Ryzen 3 CPU, in a suitable budget B350 motherboard, overclocks to in many but not all cases match and sometimes beat the significantly more expensive i5 7400 in games (though in many reviews it's barely noticeable unless you are using a GTX 1080 or at least at GTX 1070; if on a more representative budget using a GTX 1060 and not running other programs at the same time as gaming, the G4560 or G4600 are still great value for money, frames per second wise, though in some games not quite as fluid-smooth running as the multi core CPU). The i5 part comes with integrated graphics, though, which unfortunately the Ryzen doesn't have but the main selling point of the Ryzen 1200 is that it can be overclocked using the supplied Wraith cooler, without having to shell out for a third party cooler.

If you're not going to overclock and particularly if you are using something like a GTX 1060/RX 580 or cheaper budget graphics card, the cost per frame ratio is around the same as the cheaper G4560 and G4600 - see the benchmarks review below - though that's assuming you don't have other processes running while you game, like browsers, music players, or some productivity app rendering in the background, which many of us do but that reviewers often don't seem to have taken account of that in their reviews. If running productivity applications that take advantage of extra cores, the Ryzen 3 1200, overclocked, is decent performer at the cost, though not a significant improvement on Intel i5 CPUs of old; I'm hoping the Ryzen 3 1200 drives down the secondhand price of Intel i5s, to give the beleaguered budget system builders a break, to offset the increased cost of midrange graphics cards thanks to mining, higher memory costs, HD costs, soon-to-be higher SSD costs, apparently, etc.

I'm sharing yesterday's Hardware Unboxed review of the CPU overclocked because it benchmarks not just multiple CPUs but with three different price-point graphics cards, which to me seems much more realistic than reviews testing using only top end graphics cards, which reviewers argue is to remove any bottleknecking from the graphics card and to show the CPUs at their best.


Community Updates
70 Comments
Nice price, im still torn between this or another g4560, the g4560 is enough but that cooler is much sexier on the ryzen and once I factor in an after market cooler for the intel they come out the same price
michaeljb2 m ago

Nice price, im still torn between this or another g4560, the g4560 is …Nice price, im still torn between this or another g4560, the g4560 is enough but that cooler is much sexier on the ryzen and once I factor in an after market cooler for the intel they come out the same price




What about mobo costs? And upgrading to DDR4.
Edited by: "catbeans" 18th Aug 2017
Also the asrock b350 motherboard is on offer to for anyone looking for a cheap board to go with it for under 65 squid
Linky
catbeans8 m ago

What about mobo costs? And upgrading to DDR4.

Just linked a mobo above that supports over clocking and is as cheap as any kabylake boards around, it's true ryzen benefits from faster memory, so you would have to factors that in. I happen to already have a 2400 stick so I would just try to oc that instead of buying faster
catbeans10 m ago

What about mobo costs? And upgrading to DDR4.

Don't forget this doesn't have onboard video like the Intel so you would need a gfx card to
Original Poster
michaeljb21 m ago

Nice price, im still torn between this or another g4560, the g4560 is …Nice price, im still torn between this or another g4560, the g4560 is enough but that cooler is much sexier on the ryzen and once I factor in an after market cooler for the intel they come out the same price


I built a few systems for friends and my nephews using the G4560 and G4600 to fit tight budgets and am fond of both, though if building for myself the Ryzen model fits my usage better, when overclocked, as I often have multi programs running while gaming and sometimes render video. The Ryzen Wraith cooler is a bit of a star, as Linus showed in a recent video criticising Intel's steady lowering of the quality of their own cheap and quite noisy (under load) stock cooler. I guess one advantage of going the Ryzen route is AMD have committed to the AM4+ platform for several years to come, making for a cheaper upgrade path if you want to upgrade the CPU at a later date without having to buy a new motherboard, where Intel are talking about yet another platform upgrade, though platform upgrades bring new features, so I am torn on that one.
Noclouds10 m ago

I built a few systems for friends and my nephews using the G4560 and G4600 …I built a few systems for friends and my nephews using the G4560 and G4600 to fit tight budgets and am fond of both, though if building for myself the Ryzen model fits my usage better, when overclocked, as I often have multi programs running while gaming and sometimes render video. The Ryzen Wraith cooler is a bit of a star, as Linus showed in a recent video criticising Intel's steady lowering of the quality of their own cheap and quite noisy (under load) stock cooler. I guess one advantage of going the Ryzen route is AMD have committed to the AM4+ platform for several years to come, making for a cheaper upgrade path if you want to upgrade the CPU at a later date without having to buy a new motherboard, where Intel are talking about yet another platform upgrade, though platform upgrades bring new features, so I am torn on that one.

I recently built a g4560 rig for the inlaws and was quite impressed with it's price/performance, and this was when you could actually get them for 55 there more like 70 ATM which just makes the ryzen that much more tempting
damn, I just watched a Ryzen-Tosh video and it's got me thinking about purchasing this CPU. Shame my experience with osx on anything but apple hardware = driver hell.
Edited by: "BrumGB" 18th Aug 2017
I would not go near a CPU until the Coffee Lake reveal hits on the 21st to see how Intel finally reacts to Ryzen on Price/Performance ratios.

Intel wont get away with rehashing the same CPU year in, year out now and that can only be a good thing for the consumer.
Ev0lution3 h, 20 m ago

I would not go near a CPU until the Coffee Lake reveal hits on the 21st to …I would not go near a CPU until the Coffee Lake reveal hits on the 21st to see how Intel finally reacts to Ryzen on Price/Performance ratios. Intel wont get away with rehashing the same CPU year in, year out now and that can only be a good thing for the consumer.


Greatly depends on pricing. If Intel directly swap out the new Coffee Lake models at roughly the same prices of existing Kaby Lake then they will regain the initiative.

For example according to Intel's own slide the i3 7100 (around £100) is replaced by the i3 8100, which should be at least as fast as the current i5 7600- if not even faster.

Thus generally beating a Ryzen 1400 let alone the 1200 here.
I recall there were people here insisting on the 2 core pentium paired with a rather expensive and dead motherboard platform over the Ryzen. Where are they now?

I guess 'wait for -insert new upcoming intel cpu-' will be the new norm.
Reviews have all stated a lot of overclocking head room, even with stock cooler
youtube.com/wat…WEg
Edited by: "Gordon.Bell" 19th Aug 2017
MRP2 h, 32 m ago

I recall there were people here insisting on the 2 core pentium paired …I recall there were people here insisting on the 2 core pentium paired with a rather expensive and dead motherboard platform over the Ryzen. Where are they now? I guess 'wait for -insert new upcoming intel cpu-' will be the new norm.

This years Pentium lineup is quite strong, still wins alot of price to performance tests, hence the inflated prices now but yeah it does look like Intel is ditching the current platform yet again whereas amd have made a 5 year commitment I believe. I certainly wouldn't 'insist' on the Intel, in fact I was planning on picking up a another pentium but the r1200 has now got me thinking.
catbeans12 h, 42 m ago

What about mobo costs? And upgrading to DDR4.

The lack of DDR3 memory controller is certainly disappointing, I hope it doesn't put too many people off by forcing the move to DDR4
michaeljb1 h, 48 m ago

This years Pentium lineup is quite strong, still wins alot of price to …This years Pentium lineup is quite strong, still wins alot of price to performance tests, hence the inflated prices now but yeah it does look like Intel is ditching the current platform yet again whereas amd have made a 5 year commitment I believe.


I think the commitment is more like 2 years which means 2 upgrades including the sub 10nm generation which still seems reasonable.
In the past it was irrelevant that they kept the same socket as they had rubbish processors and as soon as they release a good one it requires a new socket.
Overclockers had at this price all along so no biggy, but intel will be overpricing again nothing will change with pricing here as far as they're concerned they've upped the quality of the cpu's no need to drop prices as such there geed will continue to back them into a corner, after the z270 short life span and the yet again ANOTHER new platform you'd think people would get it already they won't change, not until it's to late.

The whole platform is overpriced as was z270, z170 and so on £/$ 300+ motherboards etc, you would have to be silly to buy into intel now even if they do drop a few quid off the cpu's (lol doubtful) the board/chipset prices and limitations are just to much, geez you couldn't even overclock your ram on the b250's a new restriction imposed by intel forcing a z chipset for mem oc and not just those who buy the k cpu's.

just buy am4 and ryzen get all the features btr price and get m.2 & usb etc straight to the cpu.
Which CPU is better for gaming is a lot more complex than just which has the highest overall Peak, average and minimum FPS It would appear.


eurogamer.net/art…iew

However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.
Kyouken1 h, 43 m ago

Which CPU is better for gaming is a lot more complex than just which has …Which CPU is better for gaming is a lot more complex than just which has the highest overall Peak, average and minimum FPS It would appear. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.


I think the frame latency figures are useful as it shows the number of frames that were displayed beyond a particular number of milliseconds. In other words how many rogue frames there were which is more meaningful than the absolute minimum frame rate which could have just been a one off.
Any review that doesn't measure that I can't take seriously.
Cheaper than a new AMD FX8350 !
Kyouken5 h, 6 m ago

Which CPU is better for gaming is a lot more complex than just which has …Which CPU is better for gaming is a lot more complex than just which has the highest overall Peak, average and minimum FPS It would appear. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.



Ryzen does better overall in Crysis anyhow as it uses the extra cores but its a good example of number padding.

Reviewers did straight up make it very clear it was a bad idea to buy an intel CPU in practice. For many reasons!

The more we learnt over the months the better understanding of what was occurring and each subsequent Ryzen release was more positive. Though even the Ryzen 7 had a very positive reception.

From the looks of it Intel arent replying to the higher end Ryzen. They are more worried about the lower end high margin chips. The day of dual core cpu are now finished.
Edited by: "MRP" 19th Aug 2017
How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system?
Mostly for gaming and transcoding video.
basergorkobal23 m ago

How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system? …How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system? Mostly for gaming and transcoding video.



It wouldn't.
basergorkobal1 h, 2 m ago

How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system? …How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system? Mostly for gaming and transcoding video.


Is that an i5 2500k or an i7 2600k!?
Either way with the cost of upgrading the answer is no while mobos and DDR4 is expensive.
If it is an i5 2500k then trying to find a cheap secondhand 3770k (if cheap enough) will give you a small uplift.

With DDR prices and mining, being an upgrading PC gamer is not good at the moment.

If you have money burning a hole in your pocket and haven't upgraded anything in the last few years then look at a new monitor.
michaeljb20 h, 56 m ago

Just linked a mobo above that supports over clocking and is as cheap as …Just linked a mobo above that supports over clocking and is as cheap as any kabylake boards around, it's true ryzen benefits from faster memory, so you would have to factors that in. I happen to already have a 2400 stick so I would just try to oc that instead of buying faster


3000 mhz (the sweet spot) is £3-5 dearer than 2400,depending on 8 or 16 gb. its not an issue.
Edited by: "joe_shmoe" 19th Aug 2017
Rhythmeister12 h, 12 m ago

The lack of DDR3 memory controller is certainly disappointing, I hope it …The lack of DDR3 memory controller is certainly disappointing, I hope it doesn't put too many people off by forcing the move to DDR4


it should i have ryzen 7 and ram is an utter, well u know what. had nothing but issues with ram even after the latest updates to my x370 strix gaming, samsung b die is way to go, but prices are terrible. hynix its hit and miss, my dark pro 3000 will only run at 2666 without overvolting, though on upside 2666 is decent sweet spot imo
basergorkobal6 h, 24 m ago

How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system? …How much of an upgrade would this be from an overclocked i5 2600k system? Mostly for gaming and transcoding video.


Wait for Coffee Lake. It'll be a couple months tops, and you'll have a wider choice of parts.

For transcoding a 6 core wouldn't hurt and there will be several intel mainstream 6 cores by then as well as the Ryzen ones. The Intel 6 cores will also probably be gaming beasts and a viable platform for a very long time, much like the longevity of your Sandy Bridge there
MRP8 h, 40 m ago

Ryzen does better overall in Crysis anyhow as it uses the extra cores but …Ryzen does better overall in Crysis anyhow as it uses the extra cores but its a good example of number padding. Reviewers did straight up make it very clear it was a bad idea to buy an intel CPU in practice. For many reasons! The more we learnt over the months the better understanding of what was occurring and each subsequent Ryzen release was more positive. Though even the Ryzen 7 had a very positive reception. From the looks of it Intel arent replying to the higher end Ryzen. They are more worried about the lower end high margin chips. The day of dual core cpu are now finished.

Did you even read that review. It stated on crysis that the only processor capable of maintaining the framerate above 60 fps was the 4 core i7 and that the Amd chips produced random stutters.

When a cpu maintains a framerate above 73fps the entire time yet the 8 core ryzen 5 drops to 50fps, how can the review say the Intel chips struggle in complex areas? It contradicts itself.

Quote while talking about crysis 3 "surprisingly, this combination of heavy workloads causes momentary stutter that favours Intel. The eight-core overclocked Ryzen dips to 56fps, the 7700K bottoms out at 73fps."

I wouldn't class an overclocked 8 core chip dropping 17fps lower than a 4 core Intel chip a chip that performs better. No one wants sub 60fps and to be bottlenecked by a cpu. I can only imagine the ryzen 3 has bigger dips in performance.
Edited by: "MysticalUndies" 19th Aug 2017
I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick of the Intel monopoly. AMD may not have every corner covered in their come back but Intel must have a bloody nose at least.
The thing annoying me the most about Intel is all the socket changes. You get 2 generations of processor per socket if your lucky.

I'm looking to replace my 2500k and will probably get an R7 1700. Until then I'll bide my time, might even play with something like this. Till other AM4 processors come out. At least I can buy a better board and memory now.
Oneday775 h, 23 m ago

I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick of the Intel monopoly. AMD may …I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick of the Intel monopoly. AMD may not have every corner covered in their come back but Intel must have a bloody nose at least. The thing annoying me the most about Intel is all the socket changes. You get 2 generations of processor per socket if your lucky. I'm looking to replace my 2500k and will probably get an R7 1700. Until then I'll bide my time, might even play with something like this. Till other AM4 processors come out. At least I can buy a better board and memory now.


There isn't an 'intel monopoly' as much as an AMD failure here.

Intel hasn't pushed AMD out of the market, in fact, Intel enabled AMD to exist in the first place.

en.wikipedia.org/wik…ces

Also, AMD change sockets just as frequently as Intel, if not worse.

Take a peak.

en.wikipedia.org/wik…ket
MysticalUndies6 h, 40 m ago

Did you even read that review. It stated on crysis that the only processor …Did you even read that review. It stated on crysis that the only processor capable of maintaining the framerate above 60 fps was the 4 core i7 and that the Amd chips produced random stutters.When a cpu maintains a framerate above 73fps the entire time yet the 8 core ryzen 5 drops to 50fps, how can the review say the Intel chips struggle in complex areas? It contradicts itself.Quote while talking about crysis 3 "surprisingly, this combination of heavy workloads causes momentary stutter that favours Intel. The eight-core overclocked Ryzen dips to 56fps, the 7700K bottoms out at 73fps."I wouldn't class an overclocked 8 core chip dropping 17fps lower than a 4 core Intel chip a chip that performs better. No one wants sub 60fps and to be bottlenecked by a cpu. I can only imagine the ryzen 3 has bigger dips in performance.



It's there in the article. Neatly presented too.

Crysis 3, Very High

Ryzen 5 1600 124.9
Ryzen 5 1600X 130.9
Ryzen 7 1700 126.7

Core i5 7600K 99.4
Core i7 7700K 138.2

Note the i5 performance here despite the game not being optimised for Ryzen(old game), and that the i7 7700k (4 core, 8 threads) costed more than twice as much as the Ryzen 1600(6 core, 12 threads) in July at time of article.

is it any surprise reviewers are happy with Ryzen?

Also spoiler alert but the Ryzen 3's absolutely wiped the floor with the i3's and pentium and hang with the i5's performance wise.
Edited by: "MRP" 20th Aug 2017
MRP2 h, 13 m ago

It's there in the article. Neatly presented too.Crysis 3, Very HighRyzen 5 …It's there in the article. Neatly presented too.Crysis 3, Very HighRyzen 5 1600 124.9Ryzen 5 1600X 130.9Ryzen 7 1700 126.7Core i5 7600K 99.4Core i7 7700K 138.2Note the i5 performance here despite the game not being optimised for Ryzen(old game), and that the i7 7700k (4 core, 8 threads) costed more than twice as much as the Ryzen 1600(6 core, 12 threads) in July at time of article.is it any surprise reviewers are happy with Ryzen? Also spoiler alert but the Ryzen 3's absolutely wiped the floor with the i3's and pentium and hang with the i5's performance wise.

Again unable to read. That is only average fps and that shows the i7 beating the equally priced ryzen 7, which it did in every game in that review. Minimum is also just as important as it is what causes stutter. I don't want a game dropping below 60 fps which all the ryzen chips did. Amd just can't handle games as well. If your buying for gaming, there isn't one review site that doesn't recommend the i7 over ryzen. And don't go down the old game route, the dx 12 games favour Intel chips too.
See here at tom's hardware.
Ryzen 7
Ryzen 5
Ryzen 3
Even the i5 here beats all the ryzen 7 flavours in dx12 with the exception of deus x. This review also breaks down the frame variance and timing so you can see how fluid the game would run.
I'd have expected ryzen to favour dx12 titles with its vast amount of cores but the figures tell a different story. For example in CIV 6, even though it spawns 45 threads the ryzen chips are almost 10 seconds a turn behind!
Many devs are still releasing games with dx11 too.
Edited by: "MysticalUndies" 20th Aug 2017
Nate14922 h, 38 m ago

There isn't an 'intel monopoly' as much as an AMD failure here.Intel …There isn't an 'intel monopoly' as much as an AMD failure here.Intel hasn't pushed AMD out of the market, in fact, Intel enabled AMD to exist in the first place.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices#Technology_exchange_agreement_with_IntelAlso, AMD change sockets just as frequently as Intel, if not worse.Take a peak.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_socket#List_of_80x86_sockets_and_slots

Intels behaviour has been one of a Monopoly though. Yes AMD have been well off the pace for 10 years. However Intel did not need to do 1156, 1155, 1150 and 1151 sockets in quick succession. The only obvious genuine change would be DDR4 support. I'm sure the Intel boffins could have made compatabilities between the rest.
Look how well the 775 platform was supported.

AMD didn't change quite so radically between generations. AM2 was supported in AM2+. Also factoring in the FM2 that supported non-APU processors. You were still left with clear upgrade options for more than 2 years per Motherboard.

In any event the next couple of years should be interesting. Let's hope the consumer wins something from it.
michaeljb18th Aug

Also the asrock b350 motherboard is on offer to for anyone looking for a …Also the asrock b350 motherboard is on offer to for anyone looking for a cheap board to go with it for under 65 squidLinky


Pay extra £10 get the gigabyte.. has 6 sata and 4 ram slots
MysticalUndies1 h, 8 m ago

Again unable to read. That is only average fps and that shows the i7 …Again unable to read. That is only average fps and that shows the i7 beating the equally priced ryzen 7, which it did in every game in that review. Minimum is also just as important as it is what causes stutter. I don't want a game dropping below 60 fps which all the ryzen chips did. Amd just can't handle games as well. If your buying for gaming, there isn't one review site that doesn't recommend the i7 over ryzen. And don't go down the old game route, the dx 12 games favour Intel chips too.See here at tom's hardware. Ryzen 7Ryzen 5Ryzen 3Even the i5 here beats all the ryzen 7 flavours in dx12 with the exception of deus x. This review also breaks down the frame variance and timing so you can see how fluid the game would run. I'd have expected ryzen to favour dx12 titles with its vast amount of cores but the figures tell a different story. For example in CIV 6, even though it spawns 45 threads the ryzen chips are almost 10 seconds a turn behind! Many devs are still releasing games with dx11 too.


Sorry your wrong...

I'll just leave this here for you

MysticalUndies15 h, 49 m ago

Again unable to read. That is only average fps and that shows the i7 …Again unable to read. That is only average fps and that shows the i7 beating the equally priced ryzen 7, which it did in every game in that review. Minimum is also just as important as it is what causes stutter. I don't want a game dropping below 60 fps which all the ryzen chips did. Amd just can't handle games as well. If your buying for gaming, there isn't one review site that doesn't recommend the i7 over ryzen. And don't go down the old game route, the dx 12 games favour Intel chips too.See here at tom's hardware. Ryzen 7Ryzen 5Ryzen 3Even the i5 here beats all the ryzen 7 flavours in dx12 with the exception of deus x. This review also breaks down the frame variance and timing so you can see how fluid the game would run. I'd have expected ryzen to favour dx12 titles with its vast amount of cores but the figures tell a different story. For example in CIV 6, even though it spawns 45 threads the ryzen chips are almost 10 seconds a turn behind! Many devs are still releasing games with dx11 too.


You obvious can't read,and Digital Foundry are part of Eurogamer one of the leading gaming websites.

eurogamer.net/art…iew


31733489-C2P2Y.jpg/EG11/resize/600x-1/quality/80/format/jpg
However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.

There are now two great gaming CPU lines available for the core gamer. The overwhelming weight of the data points to Ryzen 5 as the best buy in this market segment, specifically the non-X 1600 model. It's especially compelling against the only two locked i5 chips we'd consider for gaming: the locked Core i5 7500 and 7600. Although it's a touch more expensive, you can overclock any Ryzen chip and you can run them with faster memory, 'luxuries' that are only permitted with the more expensive 7600K and top-tier Intel motherboards. And for its part, the once unassailable unlocked i5 K chip - beloved of gamers for so long - is overwhelmed in more complex gaming workloads by the wider Ryzen 5 six-core processors, while non-gaming tasks see the full weight of those extra cores and threads put to good use.
Edited by: "KITTYBOTS" 20th Aug 2017
KITTYBOTS1 h, 1 m ago

You obvious can't read,and Digital Foundry are part of Eurogamer one of …You obvious can't read,and Digital Foundry are part of Eurogamer one of the leading gaming websites.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review[Image] /EG11/resize/600x-1/quality/80/format/jpg[QUOTE] However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]There are now two great gaming CPU lines available for the core gamer. The overwhelming weight of the data points to Ryzen 5 as the best buy in this market segment, specifically the non-X 1600 model. It's especially compelling against the only two locked i5 chips we'd consider for gaming: the locked Core i5 7500 and 7600. Although it's a touch more expensive, you can overclock any Ryzen chip and you can run them with faster memory, 'luxuries' that are only permitted with the more expensive 7600K and top-tier Intel motherboards. And for its part, the once unassailable unlocked i5 K chip - beloved of gamers for so long - is overwhelmed in more complex gaming workloads by the wider Ryzen 5 six-core processors, while non-gaming tasks see the full weight of those extra cores and threads put to good use.[/QUOTE]

You didn't read it all either. I said it contradicts itself. They put what you have quoted and then later say the ryzen struggles in more complex scenes bringing its min framerate below 60fps. You just quoted the exact part that had already been quoted earlier and I was contesting. The two contradicting statements don't make sense as how can the Intel scores be skewed if it doesn't drop as low in the complex scenes?
cigbunt2 h, 56 m ago

Sorry your wrong...I'll just leave this here for you [Video]

OK, so you're point is a very simple video is completely right but the more complex analysis of a wider selection of games on Toms hardware is wrong? Maybe it was too difficult to read that much info at once.
Edited by: "MysticalUndies" 20th Aug 2017
You can omit digital foundry. Either way this is the conclusion nearly all websites have reached.

They are not trying to upset Intel or anything. There is minimal talk about their monopoly in the media or about the lack of progression and increasingly higher pricing without competition. They are treading carefully. Intel have undermined their current lineup by themselves anyhow with crazy high pricing, heat issues and pre announcements for Coffee Lake.

Even the 7700k (their absolute best single core performer) is being compared in reviews against the cheapo Ryzen 3's.

These are effectively like buying the current i5(4 cores).

At below £100 that was considered crazy a few months ago and some were recommending the Pentium(dual core, mediocre single core) with a more expensive motherboard.
Edited by: "MRP" 20th Aug 2017
Another review comparing the Ryzen 5 1600 and the Core i7 7800X this time:

techspot.com/rev…re/

31738447-ofQZ5.jpg
The Ryzen 5 1600 looks pretty solid there. I predict the people telling everyone to buy a Core i5 7600K,will quietly ignore 4C/4T Intel CPUs once Coffee Lake is out. Even Intel considers them to be only worth of Core i3 naming now according to all the leaks.

[QUOTE]Once overclocked, the $215 R5 1600 was just 9% slower than the 7700K, while it matched the $4157800X. I'm sure you're itching to see what the overall picture looks like so we won't wait any longer.

Just looking at the 7800X and R5 1600, here are the overclocked results when comparing the minimum frame rates. As we just saw, both averaged a minimum of 103fps across the 30 games tested. We can clearly see where the R5 1600 enjoyed some wins and suffered through a few loses.
[QUOTE]

That is with a GTX1080TI.
Edited by: "KITTYBOTS" 21st Aug 2017
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text