611°
EXPIRED
AMD Ryzen R7 1700 - Retail Box CPU from Amazon.fr - £297.55
AMD Ryzen R7 1700 - Retail Box CPU from Amazon.fr - £297.55

AMD Ryzen R7 1700 - Retail Box CPU from Amazon.fr - £297.55

Buy forBuy forBuy for£297.95
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Best price I have seen yet for this CPU, includes the not too shabby Wraith Spire cooler.

This CPU seems to offer the best price/performance break especially when including the apparent easy overclock available on all cores to 3.7GHz+, if my ASRock Taichi X370 ever arrives I'll give an actual first hand experience.

Currently showing as due in 1-2 months, by which time some motherboards might be in stock If it appears elsewhere, sooner for less easy to cancel, and no funds taken upfront.

Dispatched & Sold by Amazon!

Paid for in € with a fee free card, including shipping it comes in at €339.84, which translates to £297-301 depending on the card used, and exchange rate when you check out, and the product is shipped.

100 Comments

http://i.imgur.com/WrdN2TA.jpg

If you want it now and don't mind a UK based seller, it's available from Laptops Direct for £304.

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers

Original Poster

tempt

If you want it now and don't mind a UK based seller, it's available from … If you want it now and don't mind a UK based seller, it's available from Laptops Direct for £304.



£314 after i just checked.

UltimatePhoenix

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD … always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers



The new AMD Ryzen chips are surprisingly good but you should check out the reviews and make your own mind up. Still, you can't really go wrong with buying Intel.

UltimatePhoenix

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD … always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers


AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more time on marketing and hype and less on product development / quality control. None of the big companies use AMD for critical applications. If you are looking long term, stick with Intel/NVIDIA. AMD will eventually go down like Nokia and you'll be left with no support.

Uncommon.Sense

£314 after i just checked.


Sign up for a free trial of Which for £1 and they give you a £15 voucher which can be used against anything over £250 including this CPU.

I've used AMD for years, usually playing catch up to Intel but a lot cheaper and great value. using my FX 8350 (which I had over clocked to a stable 4.7ghz)with 2 x Radeon 7970's in crossfire in an Asus Sabertooth 990FX board, does not miss a beat!
The new Ryzen CPU'S look good but very expensive right now, I think I'll hold off until something won't play smoothly with my system

UltimatePhoenix

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD … always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers


Being built to a price matters more than outright performance where consoles are concerned.

AMD could offer both CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4, whereas an Intel CPU would have meant Microsoft and Sony would have, firstly, likely paid more for the CPU and secondly, still have to source a GPU from either AMD (who would likely have charged proportionately more than they currently do) or NVIDIA. Furthermore, AMD could offer the CPU and GPU on one chip, an APU (something neither Intel or NVIDIA could offer), which is likely cheaper and requires a less complex (read: cheaper) cooling solution than a separate CPU and dedicated GPU.

Basically, it was probably cheaper to have AMD provide both the CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4. Cutting edge performance didn't matter as much as price; the whole unit was going to retail for ~£300-400 incl. VAT.


EDIT: I forgot to say, the CPUs in the consoles are not Ryzen chips and, aside from being 8 core CPUs made by AMD, have little to do with Ryzen.
Edited by: "matt101101" 11th Mar

tempt

AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more … AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more time on marketing and hype and less on product development / quality control. None of the big companies use AMD for critical applications. If you are looking long term, stick with Intel/NVIDIA. AMD will eventually go down like Nokia and you'll be left with no support.



the only joke here is your reply. yes, AMD has been below Intel for years now, but this time price/performance report puts them on par or even higher than intel. if you have 1000£ to spend then go for intel, but at 300-400£ this time AMD wins. Intel needed some good competition and except AMD there is nobody on PC CPUs so you can see it in there prices.now it is time that Intel prices to go down.
my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.

OldEngine


Took me longer than it should have.

tempt

AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more … AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more time on marketing and hype and less on product development / quality control. None of the big companies use AMD for critical applications. If you are looking long term, stick with Intel/NVIDIA. AMD will eventually go down like Nokia and you'll be left with no support.



​I guess you must enjoy paying over the odds to a company who has monopolized the market and then hiked prices year on year with little improvement.

Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD GPUs have always been better bang for buck and now it seems they are catching up once again in the CPU race. This is only good news for consumers.

If Ryzen is a joke, why would Intel be slashing money off their processors.

Original Poster

I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget that a lot of the younger generation who may use this website were not adults/or are still teenagers/kids now, that AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.

I can understand after a decade of dominance why some of this demographic may indeed have such a negative viewpoint, but I guess that rather than research who and what AMD are they just jump on to the no research, and no clue bandwagon of slagging off what they generally have no idea about. Goes along with the crew that think people only buy expensive CPU's to play games, rather than using them in their other hobbies, or businesses.

Anyhow, back to the point of this website, this is the cheapest available R7 1700 that I am able to find.

UltimatePhoenix

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD … always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers



they are both fine.

When buying PC parts you need to first decide, what is your price range and what do you need it for. Then you will know what is best for you, AMD and Intel both have their places.

Firefighter999

If Ryzen is a joke, why would Intel be slashing money off their … If Ryzen is a joke, why would Intel be slashing money off their processors.



they havent.

vardx

Took me longer than it should have.



​same I googled AMD prune, then the penny dropped.

Nice one OP for posting a deal.
Everyone going on about price/performance ratio. But what about reliability?
I don't know about current AMD chips, but I've noticed a trend at work - all AMD-based PCs over the years have died. Where else Intel ones have outlived them and still are fine. Thought I would Google it and seems I'm not alone. So now I always stick to Intel. Just thought I'd mention it :-)

tempt

AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more … AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more time on marketing and hype and less on product development / quality control. None of the big companies use AMD for critical applications. If you are looking long term, stick with Intel/NVIDIA. AMD will eventually go down like Nokia and you'll be left with no support.



They spend almost no time and money on marketing vs Intel or Nvidia. The downside of this is it often looks rushed and is poor/amateurish. They actually need to spend more time and money on marketing.

As for quality control and big companies. AMD have produced (with their partners) more x86 cores and more x86 compatible GPU compute units than either Intel or Nvidia for the last 3 years in a row! Not bad for a third rate tin pot company you would have to say!

As for the server market Intel are not worried by AMD. The threat comes from ARM vendors that have started to produce competitive products. These are the guys that will take away Intel's market in the long term.

GAVINLEWISHUKD

They spend almost no time and money on marketing vs Intel or Nvidia. The … They spend almost no time and money on marketing vs Intel or Nvidia. The downside of this is it often looks rushed and is poor/amateurish. They actually need to spend more time and money on marketing. As for quality control and big companies. AMD have produced (with their partners) more x86 cores and more x86 compatible GPU compute units than either Intel or Nvidia for the last 3 years in a row! Not bad for a third rate tin pot company you would have to say! :)As for the server market Intel are not worried by AMD. The threat comes from ARM vendors that have started to produce competitive products. These are the guys that will take away Intel's market in the long term.



It's really this simple:

Intel CAP $170 billion
Nvidia CAP $58 billion
AMD CAP $13 billion

ycharts.com/com…cap
ycharts.com/com…cap
ycharts.com/com…cap

Intel make CPUs, Nvidia make GPUs, AMD make CPUs and GPUs and have a 1/5th of the capital of Nvidia, so they're trying to do this with a lot less money than even Nvidia and are nowhere near Intel, this is why AMD fall short but considering the figures above they're punching above their weight.

Edited by: "fishmaster" 11th Mar

fishmaster

It's really this simple: Intel CAP $170 billionNvidia CAP $58 billionAMD … It's really this simple: Intel CAP $170 billionNvidia CAP $58 billionAMD CAP $13 billionhttps://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/market_caphttps://ycharts.com/companies/NVDA/market_caphttps://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/market_capIntel make CPUs, Nvidia make GPUs, AMD make CPUs and GPUs and have a 1/5th of the capital of Nvidia, so they're trying to do this with a lot less money than even Nvidia and are nowhere near Intel, this is why AMD fall short but considering the figures above they're punching above their weight.


In July 2010, NVIDIA and AMD were level with the market cap at 5bn.

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

Firefighter999

If Ryzen is a joke, why would Intel be slashing money off their … If Ryzen is a joke, why would Intel be slashing money off their processors.


Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but if Intel were "slashing" the price of CPU's I'd expect HUKD to be plastered with examples ... not seen any yet!

UltimatePhoenix

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD … always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers


If you're into higher end gaming stick to Intel, AMD fell short again rushing something to market. If you use software which benefits from lots of cores (haven't checked if it's ecc compatible, would make a cracking xen host), then ryzen might be a cheaper solution.

tempt

In July 2010, NVIDIA and AMD were level with the market cap at 5bn.



Relevance?

fishmaster

Relevance?


In response to this AMD make CPUs and GPUs and have a 1/5th of the capital of Nvidia, so they're trying to do this with a lot less money than even Nvidia

My point is, in the not too distant past AMD and NVIDIA were on level playing field when it comes to market cap.

jaydeeuk1

If you're into higher end gaming stick to Intel, AMD fell short again … If you're into higher end gaming stick to Intel, AMD fell short again rushing something to market. If you use software which benefits from lots of cores (haven't checked if it's ecc compatible, would make a cracking xen host), then ryzen might be a cheaper solution.


The memory controller supports it - only heard of one board so far announced with it.
overclock3d.net/new…y/1

Uncommon.Sense

I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget … I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget that a lot of the younger generation who may use this website were not adults/or are still teenagers/kids now, that AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.I can understand after a decade of dominance why some of this demographic may indeed have such a negative viewpoint, but I guess that rather than research who and what AMD are they just jump on to the no research, and no clue bandwagon of slagging off what they generally have no idea about. Goes along with the crew that think people only buy expensive CPU's to play games, rather than using them in their other hobbies, or businesses.


As someone who has been putting together PCs for over twenty years, and loved my XP-M 2500+ and Opteron 165 CPUs (XP-M in a desktop system, of course!), I can tell you that Ryzen is disappointing for gamers, even with my preference for AMD. I think you should take off your rose-tinted glasses - or at least read a review or two. A £15 saving on a CPU to have significant losses on minimum and average frame rates compared to the i7-7700K is simply not worth it. Conjectured future performance gains, blaming Microsoft for not coding Windows specifically for Ryzen (!) and developers for not writing multi-threaded games? We heard all that before at the Bulldozer launch - maybe you're too young to remember?

http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MunKn62CRwenz9EWvEcm9X-650-80.png

As for using the CPU for my business and other hobbies... I'm not sure how a faster CPU will noticeably improve Excel and Word performance? I'd definitely rather have better frame rates in games than faster calculations in Office, as gaming hitches would be far more noticeable and annoying. I do use Photoshop from time to time, true - but the Intel i7-7700K is faster there, too, just as it's faster for using PDFs. And as for hiking, horse riding, kayaking, reading books and cooking, I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing Ryzen with the 7700K, so you'll have to help me out with a source there.

If I were a non-gaming video editor, however, Ryzen would be my #1 choice. (Coincidentally, lots of people at HUKD have come forward as non-gaming video editors this month!)

Uncommon.Sense

AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in … AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.


I'd love it for this to be true, but I have no idea where you're getting that "probably" from. Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters is a mathematical model, it doesn't apply to reality - and neither does wishful thinking.

jonspurs

Nice one OP for posting a deal.Everyone going on about price/performance … Nice one OP for posting a deal.Everyone going on about price/performance ratio. But what about reliability? I don't know about current AMD chips, but I've noticed a trend at work - all AMD-based PCs over the years have died. Where else Intel ones have outlived them and still are fine. Thought I would Google it and seems I'm not alone. So now I always stick to Intel. Just thought I'd mention it :-)


One explanation could be that since AMD have been competing at the low end of market for years, manufacturers have been using them mostly on their budget builds.
So just sticking to business class, if the Intel system was for example a Dell Latitude or Precision while the AMD system was a Vostro I would expect the AMD system to not last as long. (The exception would have been those recent HP Elitebooks with AMD APUs - the cashback deals for those were very good but it as a very slow CPU.)

Unsure if there was any actual quality issue with AMD though, although the fact that most of their recent offerings were budget yet also used more power than Intel was not a good combination. Penny-pinching manufacturer making race-to-the-bottom machines with cheap capacitor and other components for parts which draw more current & generate more heat could have been asking for trouble.

Actually, it's sort of hard to see a connection between quality, price and reputation though. One of the biggest recent computer quality issue was when the transition from leaded to lead-free solder happened and Nvidia chose the wrong lead-free solder. Millions of chips which died of solder defects, almost zero support from the guilty party (Nvidia) but Nvidia's reputation barely suffered. The big GPU opinion makers (the vocal PC Master Race), swap their GPUs so often while these solder defects took a few years before they manifest themselves: this might partially explain why millions of machines dying prematurely got so little attention.

Original Poster

BetaRomeo

...cut



Hate the way the quote system works here, so sorry but needed to get rid of all that.

I'm not playing games, and I don't do traditional video editing, so for me this CPU is amazing as my workloads are heavily multi-threaded, and where I can't use the GTX 1080 to do the work, I need cores!

TBH I don't know why you'd buy this for games, unless you were trying to future proof a bit, it's going to be the R5's and R3's where the competition with the the i7 7600K etc are really going to shine, since I am pretty sure that the £150-160 R5 1300 with 4C/8T will be offering 85-90% of the performance of the Intel parts at a significant price saving.

Personally, I am looking forward to the newly announced Naples CPU's which will be competing with the Xeon E5's etc. up to 32c/64t, with a cost roughly half that of Intel, and much higher PPW for my rack mount systems, so less racks, it's a win, win for me.

UltimatePhoenix

always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD … always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers



​Intel have all the money in the world and release products that are barely better than their last release, but they do this because they have no competition.

AMD mean well but they have limited resources and as such are always performing below or almost same as Intel's offerings that have been out for a while.

So in essence Intel release a good product. AMD release their best effort 6 months later that competes until Intel decides to release their new better offering.

Intel could release a new processor today that would wipe the floor with AMDs best offering for years to come. But they chose not to do that since they only need to stay just ahead of AMD and people will still buy intel.

It's better for everyone if AMD release good products since it makes Intel release better products cheaper priced.

Uncommon.Sense

TBH I don't know why you'd buy this for games, unless you were trying to … TBH I don't know why you'd buy this for games, unless you were trying to future proof a bit


Well, you've definitely convinced me that you're not a gamer! Games benefit from extra threads nowadays, they're not all single-threaded anymore. Here's a nice little summary of what's been creeping up on us for years: reddit.com/r/p…is/

You can clearly see the i7-7700K outperform an equivalently-clocked i5-7600K (the 7600K is an i5 part) in most games. There's clearly a case to be made for a £300 CPU over a £200 CPU for gaming, nowadays - just not if that £300 CPU is a Ryzen chip.

Uncommon.Sense

it's going to be the R5's and R3's where the competition with the the i7 … it's going to be the R5's and R3's where the competition with the the i7 7600K etc are really going to shine, since I am pretty sure that the £150-160 R5 1300 with 4C/8T will be offering 85-90% of the performance of the Intel parts at a significant price saving.


That's exactly my guess, too - AMD could come in with an i5-beating Ryzen CPU for <£200 in a couple of months, as I can imagine either (or both!) a 4c/8t or a 6c/6t 65W Ryzen part roughly equaling the 1700 in gaming performance, and possibly surpassing it in overclocking.

The thing is, I don't let my preference for AMD turn their promises or my guesses into "probably" or "it's going to be". That could be my experience talking - I've been through enough product launches to wait for the facts.

i5 7600K is the fastest and most expensive CPU the vast majority of people require, for gaming or much else.

If you don't know if you need more you probably don't need more.

An 1800X with half it's cores and cache disabled (to emulate a 4 core high end Ryzen 5) is somewhat slower than a 7700K at the same clocks. About as fast as a 7600K.

Those Ryzen processors are supposed to be about the same price as a 7600K when they come in a couple months. So if you buy a 7600K you probably aren't going to be missing out or hurt for price performance very soon.

Uncommon.Sense

I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget … I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget that a lot of the younger generation who may use this website were not adults/or are still teenagers/kids now, that AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.I can understand after a decade of dominance why some of this demographic may indeed have such a negative viewpoint, but I guess that rather than research who and what AMD are they just jump on to the no research, and no clue bandwagon of slagging off what they generally have no idea about. Goes along with the crew that think people only buy expensive CPU's to play games, rather than using them in their other hobbies, or businesses.

Uncommon.Sense

AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time … AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.



I'd have a quick look at the reviews you are quoting. From what I've read the resolution seems to make quite a difference. If you are doing 1080p or lower then the i7s are winning but anything above 1440 or 4k then the Ryzens beating almost everything out there. If you are using a GTX 1080 for lower resolution gaming then you are doing something wrong. Also for some reason Windows 7 is currently running better on Ryzen than Win 10 so it looks like Microsoft has some optimizations to do.

Currently the performance of Ryzen is a moving target and may well improve in the near future. I'm just excited that Intel has got some real competition for a change. If you think of the last few i7 generations all we've got is a <5% speed improvement and ~10% power usage reduction (wild oversimplification). Hopefully now they will now have to make more of an effort.

The replies about gaming performance are not accurate (the other ones slabbering about market share are just the typical fanboys in every argument who somehow believe if enough people make the same decision it is the right decision), as the benchmarks that have complained about the gaming performance are when running low res benchmarks in a misconceived perception that this meant only the cpu was being taxed. This is an understandable but yet simplistic view point as things are far from that simple. At the resolutions people actually use there is usually a 1-3 frame difference between this and a 1k intel chip, in triple A titles. Considering this is brand new tech with no game engines optimized for it, that is pretty impressive. However when it comes to raw processing power intel doesnt have anything to compete at close to this price point. Infact it takes a 10 core intel cpu to beat it in some benchmarks.

If I was buying right now this is exactly the chip I would buy, with a decent cooler for some OCing. I could link threads justifying what ive said but if your actually thinking of spending this amount of money for a core part of your system im sure that you would be doing your own research..

youtube.com/wat…L50

Somebody that's done real research and put things into a more even perspective, might be worth a look just to see with both eyes and hear both sides, more knowledge is beneficial for everyone.

My opinion is I'm let down by ryzen thus far but I still think these will be the cpu's to go for when we start seeing better development we are inevitably all going onto use more cores over more speed since were already on the edge in that area, as for intel they are having major issues now stating that the next cpu will be 14nm, as for these ryzen R7 cpu's they were never meant to compete with the 7700k and anyone putting these up against it are clueless, the R5 is the competing cpu yes we all hope when a few cores are dropped we get more front end but at the very least those will be the competitors for the 7700k/7600k with a few more threads and there pricing will be better to compensate for any front end perf offset.

A 12 thread chip at 65w and 4.1 ghz OC and around £200 will sell by the truck load, but board prices are the same as the intel Z series so the whole cheaper board thing is BS and 82 boards available on launch? lol ye right that's why you can't buy any anywhere, Ok yes there are cheaper boards but it's the same on intel side with the B's & H's, all the boards look like crap and most are not well made and not worth the money there asking, only a few higher end boards are well made will proper components and they are way overpriced for what they are, anyone with electrical circuit and component knowledge (electrical engineer) will point out how bad these components are and how overpriced they really are.

This is why yet again I will not be investing in a new platform (5 or 6 yrs now) the corners being cut and the prices being charged I just can't condone it regardless of how good the cpu is you pay as much for a board now.
Edited by: "revolver31" 12th Mar

tempt

AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more … AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more time on marketing and hype and less on product development / quality control. None of the big companies use AMD for critical applications. If you are looking long term, stick with Intel/NVIDIA. AMD will eventually go down like Nokia and you'll be left with no support.



​Maybe you are 13 years old and never heard of AMD Athlon 64 that f*** Intel Pentium 4 in the a*** circa 2001-2003

chemeng

​Maybe you are 13 years old and never heard of AMD Athlon 64 that f*** I … ​Maybe you are 13 years old and never heard of AMD Athlon 64 that f*** Intel Pentium 4 in the a*** circa 2001-2003



​Exactly... 3 words.... AMD Athlon 64. Those chips dominated the market and were utterly brilliant. Intel didn't have an answer to them for years! I suspect some people in this thread are so young that they were still sucking thier thumb when AMD ruled the world.

Uncommon.Sense

I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget … I think a lot of people who have severely negative comments, may forget that a lot of the younger generation who may use this website were not adults/or are still teenagers/kids now, that AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.I can understand after a decade of dominance why some of this demographic may indeed have such a negative viewpoint, but I guess that rather than research who and what AMD are they just jump on to the no research, and no clue bandwagon of slagging off what they generally have no idea about. Goes along with the crew that think people only buy expensive CPU's to play games, rather than using them in their other hobbies, or businesses.

Uncommon.Sense

AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time … AMD were once the king of CPU's and they will probably have their time in the limelight once again.

bentrewern

Also for some reason Windows 7 is currently running better on Ryzen than … Also for some reason Windows 7 is currently running better on Ryzen than Win 10 so it looks like Microsoft has some optimizations to do.


1080P is still an overwhelmingly popular resolution, and if you're doing big-screen gaming a full HD projector (using DSR) will save you about £10,000 over a 4K projector, so not only does 1080P make more sense for 100" screens, but a 1080's performance will also be useful, obviously.

VR helmets use roughly 1200P resolution, and really do work best with high minimum FPS, so, again, Ryzen is no good.

And, of course, you've conveniently forgotten about gaming on high-refresh 1080P monitors.

Although I'll also point out, from the third-party benchmarks, I'm not sure your guess about Ryzen beating the 7700K at 1440P is correct...

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Hitman.png
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Civ.png
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Overwatch.png

The £310 i7-7700K seems to handily outperform the £400 and £500 Ryzen chips at 1440P. Is the 1700 faster?


Yes, that seems to be the AMD refrain since Bulldozer's release. Their CPUs will be better once Microsoft "fix" Windows; their CPUs will be better once developers start programming for more cores. It's been the same tune for more than five years now.

Maybe this time it will be true. Maybe in three or four years, the 1700 will start to outperform the 7700K in games. So we can upgrade again then.

In this thread, a load of people who have read a few reviews and now think they are experts.
The processor is great, it will only get better as the early bugs are sorted. Those who want the fastest possible IPC today get the i7, you may get a couple more frames but games are now starting to use more cores. See how that works out for you in a year or two.
Also the minimum frames are better on ryzen with people impressed with the smoothness.

canishu

the only joke here is your reply. yes, AMD has been below Intel for years … the only joke here is your reply. yes, AMD has been below Intel for years now, but this time price/performance report puts them on par or even higher than intel. if you have 1000£ to spend then go for intel, but at 300-400£ this time AMD wins. Intel needed some good competition and except AMD there is nobody on PC CPUs so you can see it in there prices.now it is time that Intel prices to go down. my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.



​fan boy lolzz
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text