Too expensive

Do you have anything specific to say about what I said that was inaccurate?

You link an article that is basically a bunch of benchmarks.

In the article they say this.

"Fixing SMT support should be a relatively easy first step and it will help improve many of the results."

I said this was a fixable problem and even went into detail explaining what the problem was and how it could be fixed.

They also said this.

"When gaming at 1440p things even out considerably as the GPU becomes a bigger factor in the equation. Here the Ryzen 1800X was just 4% slower than the 6900K and disabling SMT actually put the 1800X on par with the 6600K and 5960X."

And this.

"Based on the data above, Ryzen 7 1800X is on average 12% slower than the Core i7-6900K on gaming titles, which seems in line with what we found originally at 1080p."

So I said there was about a ten percent difference (this average says 12% 12% rounds down 10) between Intel with some games performing better. (based on how they are threaded)

So what I said was exactly what this benchmark average shows.

They also said this.

"No, this doesn't reflect real-life gaming scenarios for a high-end GPU today when you'll likely be gaming at higher resolutions and with a certain level of GPU bottleneck, but it does represent where Ryzen stands in raw gaming performance."

I posted a link that shows in game footage with side by side FPS and Core usage between a Ryzen and 1700k that shows nearly identical performance in real world gaming.

So I again ask what exactly are you basing your assumption that I don't know what I am talking about? Because I am going to tell you flat out I do understand quite well and have been reading many articles related to Ryzen.

So I encourage you to give a more intelligent explanation for my lack of understanding than just one sentence and a link.

There are games where the performance is nearly identical and others were it is less than optimal. It all depends on how the game is threaded.

Many experts have all agreed the only time there is a problem is when graphical threads are separated across the core clusters. This is in no way a problem that isn't solvable as many experts have agreed.

It can easily be solved in two ways. Microsoft can create a scheduler profile for Ryzen that keeps similar workload threads on the same core. Example would be to keep graphical workloads on cluster one while moving other things like cpu physics audio and other non-graphical threads on cluster two. Even if Microsoft doesn't create a default profile the game developers can simply program threads to run on specific clusters.

And as for your statement that things need to be taken slowly, there isn't anything that's all that different about Ryzen. This is the same as when multi-cores originally came to market. Single cores had higher frequency and performed better on the games that had been released prior to the early multi-core CPU's but over time software caught up. Software became threaded to support multi-core and then all the faster single core cpu's no longer were able to perform nearly as well as the multi-core processors that they previously out performed.

Several game companies are already working to patch their games to improve Ryzen performance. And AMD has stated they are working with over 300 developers working on future games to help them improve performance on Ryzen.

This processor has been out for a week. give it 3-6 months and we'll know better where things are.

Here are some of the games in which the performance is nearly identical. Which shows that when threaded properly games can have nearly identical performance.

The Division 1080p 7700k 126/78 Ryzen 125/78

Civilization VI 1080p 7700k 79/62 Ryzen 79/53

Mafia III 1080p 7700k 109/98 Ryzen 104/93

For Honor 1080p 7700k 176/136 Ryzen 172/129

You chose the gamernexus review which is probably the most debated review. If you read up on this review you'll find out that his 1800x was unable to reach full memory clock speeds. If you read his update in the 1700 review which he did after his 1800x he didn't have the memory problem and he got higher scores using that CPU than in the 1800x review.

As for people who use single monitor setups, I'm not going to argue the value of testing at 1080p. I will say that if you take a deeper look at Steam Survey you'll see that the average computer is not the type applicable to the type of person who is buying $400-700 GPU's and $300-500 CPU's.

The average CPU is 2.3-2.9 Ghz with 46% of people using dual core still. The highest average Vram is 1 GB. This shows most people are not using high end hardware. Enthusiasts are much more likely to be using 1440p or 4k.

And on top of that the review shows that in productivity related programs Ryzen at stock performs as much as 40% better than a 7700k overclocked to 5.1 Ghz and that was using a a chip with lower than max memory speeds.

No your wrong, the only problem is... if even you would even call it a problem is the latency between the two clusters.

The thread jumping is an issue with the design but that doesn't make it a flaw. Again it just requires it's own scheduling profile or more specific threading at the program level.

You keep trying to state that this isn't fixable. but I promise you it is. Many people including AMD themselves have stated it can be including in the video you posted.

This video that you link is one I had previously seen (and watched in it's entirety) . If you listened at the given timestamp they are talking about the fact that this can be patched. There disappointment is that it wasn't patched prior to launch not that it can't be fixed.

You talk about the performance gains as negligible but the difference between Intel and AMD at this point is only 10%

And as for 1440p gaming at that resolution the difference even with the current threading issues according the the very first set of 16 game benchmarks you linked is 4%.

Your trying to prove a point while over looking the fact that in many games depending on how they are threaded perform with out problems. If every single game had problems then I might agree. But that is simply not the case.

And even if it isn't fixed (which it will be) the performance of the chip is still fantastic.