Does Ryzen 7 REALLY suck for gamers?

[@Bitwit]

I don't know how and I don't know why, but I know Nvidia paid you to make this video.

[@krazie835]

LOL

[@CursedLemon]

Tech "Alex Jones" of Tomorrow

[@WayToManyAssassins]

#sponsoredbynvidia

[@Elteki80]

please dont fuel the fanboys lol

[@masterchief3989]

Oooo, Jay BitWit called you out.... In all seriousness, it may look that way but I was convinced by the Steam articles that 1080p is the "true" cpu benchmarking that is to be used. I completely agree that this is a golden oppurtunity for AMD to finetune the problems as this has been a cpu that delivers more on all around performance than Intel does on gaming. I was an Intel fan but now, seeing the benchmarks, I can swear by AMD UNLESS they optimise the issues...Strike the iron while it's still hot as they say...

[@paulshardware]

I always played as Toad in Mario Kart

[@benjroundi]

Paul's Hardware yoshi masterace

[@Oblique18888]

Paul's Hardware donkey kong for me

[@nenno6748]

yoshi all the way

[@benjroundi]

#yoshimasterace

[@Gansekommando]

Yoshi all the way

[@jameysummers1577]

Two years later and we now know that Ryzen changed the whole market.

[@briw3385]

Intel needs to fade away

[@venividivici4253]

Bri W Not really.

[@f0t3z6]

3*

[@outdat3d-04zx10r-ha]

@@briw3385 why lol so amd can stop cranking out the best of the best that they have and hold onto it just like intel? Guess you dont understand how competition works

[@JOSE263]

Ikr 3950x so good

[@drewpatterson8009]

Some really, really salty people on here. It's a damn CPU and people flip out and feel they need to bash and or defend AMD/Intel. Lots of different CPU's, lot's of different people/needs. I could have easily bought a 7700k cause as others say "ITZ THE BEST FOR GAMINGZ LOL". Ok sure, it's "faster" in games. However I bought into Ryzen because they offer me much better multitasking performance (which I do) for a LOT less money. Guess what, I still can game at 4k with great "framerates" and still enjoy my experience. Holy hell.... like do people really get nipples twisted THIS bad over damn microprocessors?

[@Riceisgood777]

Completely right and then you have the peeps saying I got Ryzen for only gaming but I go back to Intel...

[@GholaTleilaxu]

It's all about "moar" numbers and bragging rights. Unfortunately, this is how the "Under 21" gaming community works. Those same people who now are getting higher numbers from an Intel CPU would switch in no time to a faster AMD CPU and start bashing the "weaker" Intel users. Because they are a-holes and trolls, have learned all their "skills" from their fathers.

[@epicthrowingknifer12]

Ghola Tleilaxu you're right, it's all about the e-peen contest

[@mediaman9719]

Drew Patterson Well said. I did a Ryzen build because it’s fantastic for multitasking. I also run all the modern games on max settings, so no issues there. I almost did an Intel build but went with the 2700x. Mainly due to the multi-tasking and video encoding that I do. A good build is a good build whether it’s Intel or AMD.

[@mediaman9719]

I think its the same reason people get so upset about your preferred console. Its what they have, they don 't want to think they made the wrong choice. I personally think both chip makers make some great processors. I choose the 2700x, because it is supposed to be better for video and encoding. The 8-cores and 16 threads help a lot when making videos. I have heard Intel is better for gaming. Either way the 2700x has been fantastic for gaming. Really doesn't matter in the end because most games are GPU bound. A good CPU helps, but spending more on a GPU would be the better choice if you are just going to game.

[@FatalFlaw]

I still don't understand how people are mad... even gamers. Ryzen is filling a spot in the market that wasn't there before, causing intel to drop its prices, its a MUCH less expensive multi-core multi-thread processor than intel offered. if you are a 4k gamer with dual 1080Ti on a rog swift 34 inch 100hz monitor then does your Ryzen or new i7 processor really even matter all that much? if at all? like guys... 1080p is dying. im sorry, but it is. all you super competitive 240hz 1080P gamers, get a i7 7700k and call it a day. if you're the rest of the world... Ryzen wins. period.

[@HayateAzekura]

There is no PRICE drop. Why does everyone keep saying this. Intel doesnt care about AMD. The only price drop was from micro center and they do this all the time. Its their thing. Intel doesnt care about AMD especially after this fiasco. In fact Intel hasn't even said anything since ryzen launched. Which shows you how much they feel about AMD at the moment. Then there is the PC enthusiast they can care less about AMD. The Ryzen cpu is the RX 480 of the cpu's at the moment. Its good but not this holy crap revolutionize the cpu market.

[@wangqiyu256]

Dan Connor 95% gamer on steam use 1080P monitor, and as GPU upgrade more frequently, even 1440P isn't that GPU depending, so CPU gaming performance actually matters.

[@techguyMD]

Qiyu Wang then watch his CPU usage in this video... I didn't see it go above 60% so it's got plenty of room... not CPU bottleneck.

[@FatalFlaw]

well put

[@benjitey]

not everyone has 300$ for a 2/4k monitor and another 300$ to us in a graphics card, 1080 isn't dying yet

[@neickoneeks6729]

The fact that it sits between the 2 best intel chips for so cheap the 10% lower fps ain't no reason not to get ryzen when it beats out in productivity

[@Xenon1825]

Neicko Neeks Agreed, only an idiot would choose an 8c 16t for strictly gaming.

[@Red.exe7]

Bill Clinton or a pro gamer.

[@EclipseCast]

Neicko Neeks Holy triple negative.

[@emilsjogren4920]

Except theres no reason to even take "productivity" into account if you're only going to be gaming.

[@ironfe3488]

Neicko Neeks yep but u need to get a new motherboard for it which sucks

[@GrimYak]

i bet majority of these people fighting and spreading the hate cant even afford these.

[@jeanmahmoudventilateur3480]

JayVan Geli I can afford theses but 500$ for a CPU It's too much... Only for ~30 fps more

[@bloxyman22]

+Jean Mahmoud Ventilateur I really do not get why everyone is talking about the 1800x at $500, when you have the 1700 at $320 that overclocks to the same exact clockrate, runs much cooler, draws less power and yet performs identical in both games and productivity benchmarks. Even if they had identical price the 1700 would be the superior CPU due to these qualities. I would only get the 1800x over the 1700 if you want to use your CPU for heating your apartment...

[@madbull4666]

Jean Mahmoud Ventilateur these cards are for enthusiasts with a lot of money to spend on their systems.

[@ashleyjohansson230]

i can get the 1700 but my CPU is good enough, i will get a new GPU instead

[@Flyinspaghetti]

I've just spent £390 on an EVGA GTX 1070 SC, I've been waiting for ryzen because I felt pretty reluctant buying another quad core off intel yet my 2600k which is like 6 years old now (and yes I bought brand new right from the start) holds up against this 2017 AMD processor. Is there a reason why I should waste the money when I'd fail to see much if any gains?

[@fonziebulldog5786]

3 years later all gamers know how good AMD Ryzen is.😀

[@personaboveisgay8666]

Ye xD

[@cedricmathy6856]

It is I just bought my pc and it is amazing !!!

[@bperez003]

RYZEN 7 2700x still going strong 💪

[@YeppKing]

Fr? What motherboard would u recommend aswell as I was going to purchase one

[@dandanthefishmanclothier3690]

Mines coming on Tuesday screw the next gen consoles back to pc for me

[@seankim6515]

1700 is already 330. Who can beat this 16 threads monster? I don't see why people got so mad as now they can grab their lovely intel even cheaper due to Ryzen anyway. Go Ryzen! By the way, it will be very likely to get better as now the games are utilize more cores and optimized on both Intel and AMD. Also, don't forget the motherboards are one of the factor that holding the performance which AMD announced they are fixing it right now. If you dont like, Just keep your money and see, amazing thing will happen one more time

[@sanmattew7221]

Sean Kim nothing beats it in editing in gaming which natters most to most of us sucks compared to intel.

[@lilililiililliil7277]

These chips barely compete with an I5 in gaming and don't compete at all price/performance in gaming. The majority of consumers aren't buying workstation pc's I was really hoping this would give me a reason to upgrade my 4 year old intel chip...guess I'm going to be waiting another 4 at this rate.

[@sanmattew7221]

kl wies So? Whats your point?

[@MrTrailerus]

Wait to see what R5 and R3 will offer. My expectation is that R5 will be better gaming processor than R7. At least that is the logical thing in order for AMD to fight Intel completely.

[@Krytern]

San, Randal stop pretending you can tell the difference between 120 and 144 fps. If it sucked for gaming it would be getting 30 fps.

[@Jayztwocents]

Thank you to the folks are capable of understanding these tests and why they matter.

[@tazbo28]

Ive been thinking these things all along. If it can do so much for so cheap!? Why NOT buy it?! lol

[@Yoshi-ty7mh]

Jay...YOU are the only thing that matters, not all these tests, just YOU Jay

[@MarkAnthony-gx3yv]

JayzTwoCents hi Mr.Jay i bought the 1700 becuase itll help me edit render vídeos and its a huge upgrade from my fx 6300, that keeps crashing at a dam 4.4ghz, but i like 1700 cause its cheap, and i get 8 cores

[@handb806]

Thanks your even being sponsored by a Intel specific brand and still are giving a honest review. Other reviewers out there trying to claim it is worse than i5 , hint begins with s.

[@teemuve]

Tests aside, I still liked the whiskey color more, for real :)

[@glennco8263]

I think the main point of ryzen is that it is a better buy over the 6900k

[@battyflaps5410]

Depends on your task. Intel has more lanes than ryzen, some people need those extra lanes

[@matteusmaximofelisberto4385]

JaayOnPC for that is xeon cpus

[@reddev5420]

I think that what's causing some of the die hard Intel crew to lose their minds is that some folks are putting the emphasis on Ryzen being better value than the 6900K, without acknowledging that some of Intel's own chips i.e. the 7600K/7700K are also much better value than the 6900K, at roughly the same price point as the R7 1700. It all depends on your workload. If you need super high single thread IPC performance, then Intel still has the advantage, so put your money on the blue team. If you mix your gaming in with some production where the extra cores/threads are very useful, then Ryzen is a very valid choice Ryzen doing well is good for AMD. Ryzen doing well is good for us, the consumer, and Ryzen doing well is in some ways even good for Intel, to kick start the innovation that I think they've been severely lacking over the last few generations. Either way, I'm interested to see what Ryzen does to the CPU market in future.

[@madrix5667]

ReD DeV, all the 7600K/7700K have over the 6900k is slightly better single core performance, so i wouldnt in a 1000 years call it "better value" as it cannot compare in any other way and it still is quite expensive for what it is.

[@sslim29205]

If you cant see the difference in fps it doesn't matter in gaming. The only difference between a 1700 stock and a 7700k stock in gaming is a benchmark result. You cant see the actual difference in fps with your eyes.

[@neilbertram1922]

Lot of people also seem to forget that stories abound of having to de-lid your i7700K before you can reasonably cool it. I'm pretty happy with my Ryzen 7 1700 so far, and it hasn't tried to cook itself.

[@KALIONKA099]

"maybe people just gotten used to being bent Over backwards by intel's pricing ..WHO KNOWS"

[@5at5una]

quote of the year

[@rage5110]

When you get bitch slap on a daily basis, you'll start enjoying it. Same concept.

[@hurfdurfy8167]

I'm just wondering who doesn't enjoy bitch slapping in the first place?! Hahaha

[@rage5110]

would that be the receiving end or the giving (XuX)?

[@jamesrussell2936]

There was an article in a magazine where a gypsy guy was changing his personality, and he stopped beating/hitting his gypsy wife(I can't remember if he straight up beat her or simply hit her), and she thought he didn't love her anymore because of that.

[@File001]

I'm not into gaming really; I have i7 4790 with GTX 750 Ti (which is more than enough for occasional Live For Speed, which is a CPU intensive racing sim anyway), and I mainly work in AutoCAD for 2D and SketchUp with V-Ray for 3D modeling, with occasional video editing for my channel. So I'm really interested in RYZEN CPUs, which, I feel, are intended for customers like myself, whose workflow would benefit greatly from having more CPU cores, for final renderings both in CAD and video editing software. And all that for an affordable price. I think this is exactly what we needed. And if gamers are so upset, then they can stay with Intel, who cares. But prefessionals on a budget now have great options with RYZEN lineup. And really, this new competition can only benefit everyone, which is what we were all waiting for.

[@elysiumcore]

People will never be happy.. you give them a $300 65w Cpu that's slapping a $1000 140 wt Cpu..yet they bitch about not getting a few frames in GTA

[@5at5una]

hey the higher the price the better it would be right? apple fan way of thinking maybe hit some of them intel fan

[@parselmeister2871]

elysiumcore you have to say it like this " what a 1000$ cpu have 140 fps but the 300$ only 120 i get the 1000$ cpu with an board more expensive"

[@parselmeister2871]

zidan40o0 yep

[@mortyb0nkers]

I know right, those fucking frames does not matter....what matters is the smoothness of the games you play, you dont need it jacked up to the max.

[@parselmeister2871]

MortyFy i have 380 fps in csgo one of the only games you need it very smooth and 380 or 450 does not Matter

[@shasterdhari]

The 1800X is AMAZING for AutoCAD, MATLAB, Keyshot, and Solidworks (stress testing and flow dynamics included)!

[@cncnmore4505]

Im building a ryzen right now for Mastercam 2017 and NX

[@jaronzheng6589]

Holy shit... Didn't expect Matlab yo be mentioned here

[@buckeyefan635]

Puget Systems show's a 4770K is better at Solidworks than a 1800X. - Fellow mechanical engineer. :(

[@TheBobinn]

buckeyefan635 Depends on clockspeeds I assume, if you have your @1800x overclocked there shouldnd't be a difference :)

[@10ishq]

I need a new system, will be studying Architecture next year and my current PC (i5 4570, 12GB Ram, 250GB SSD and 1TB HDD) struggles with SketchUp. I am thinking Ryzen but am concerned about getting issues. Not sure which Ryzen processor, maybe the 2700 or 2600. Won't be overclocking. GPU, no idea. Is there any website which tests the performance of hardware for Revit, Archicad and etc?

[@bpmiller87]

I feel there is a backstory with Jay and that cat that needs to be explored.

[@Smokie2gogo]

I agree

[@KrytopsyX]

Jay was an AMD mainly user before

[@Kyle-wr3sr]

Krytopsy everyone was

[@mamoor619]

bpmiller87 Or maybe you're an Intel fan girl who can't accept the truth

[@s3kat04]

well said Jay no more no less. People are forgetting that i7 6900k is slower in games then i7 6700k and no one make a story about it.

[@StormWorm5364]

Sure, but the 6900K wasn't really marketed at gamers, while RYZEN was heavily marketed at gamers.

[@s3kat04]

yes of course but u can buy r7 1700 for price of i7 6700/7700 k have ability of playing games like on i5 ( u lost 100£/100$ ) and ability of i7 6900k ( when u save 500£/500$ ) For u when u are pure gamer of course go buy i7 6700/7700 k and be happy live long... but if u are casual gamer/ streamer/ youtuber/ photo or video editor and gaming is just second role go for r7 1700 i have no knowledge will they give any patch for games to use more cores but future games will be more optimised for more cores and we will see. I thing AMD will help some studios with games optimisation like u can see on Hitman and maybe people will start see potential in those CPU. If risk for Intel will be big enough to lost some % of market we might see in next 2 generations more cores under hood in main stream what will make me happy because Socket 2011-V3 and x99 is well over priced Intel probably got 50% or more profit price No hate for all. Got at home i7 4790k and im happy with it works gr8 i wish AMD best even if i will not buy r7 1700/1800x it will make Intel to work harder and better to earn my money.

[@dabombinablemi6188]

+stealthballer You do realise that the performance at 1080p is an indicator of how well Ryzen 7 will perform when we have GPU that can *easily* handle 1440p and 4K. Just look at the performance of even an FX 8350 at 1440p and 4K compared to an i7 or Ryzen 7 and you'll see what I mean.

[@misham6547]

It was more marketed to streaming/multitasking while gamming

[@zackr4667]

I get you want to prove others right, but don't make accusations you cannot back up with evidence, you have no proof about this users background with CPU architecture, so just don't assume others don't have a clue based on one comment, it's people like you that make the internet a shitty place.

[@IronOreGaming]

Jay, not to call anyone out, but I think you're the only mainstream tech reviewer that I've seen that has given these CPUs a fair, organized, positive overview. They are price-to-performance powerhouses and as you said, they destroy the 7700K in workload applications while still delivering (as we saw) excellent gaming performance. Maybe not the raw, absolute highest FPS, but completely unnoticeable to 99% of the gamers out there. AMD delivered on every front they claimed they would, but the Intel fanboys are shaken. They'll latch onto anything they can to try and say these CPUs flopped.

[@TheUniversalEyes]

PC World gave it an outstanding review, a lot of the outside mainstream computer users rely on them for information.

[@davidb3546]

Noobish Ignorant or deaf? :)

[@Njoekiezoekie]

You start ok. But near the end you are exposed as a Intel hater. Try to be more neutral next time.

[@Mbd3Bal7dod]

IronOreGaming Chick gamers nexus 1700 review

[@giggs_4208]

Njoekiezoekie totally disagree

[@MrSnapy1]

He is still a Intel /Nvidia fanboy but gives a fair review. My nephews 1700 beats my i5 6500 in all games we tested and destroys it in video editing.

[@jacob-zz6my]

MrSnapy1 of course a 1700 beats a i5 6500 the i5 is way older than the 1700

[@jacob-zz6my]

Icebane fairly sure the 1700 costs more money

[@MixedGrid]

Right... my 7700k was $320 when I bought it. I actually upgraded to 270px and its crushes it everywhere and has equal gaming performance as my GPU still sits at 100% and near exact same fps.

[@jacob-zz6my]

MixedGrid you can’t compare the 7700k to the 2700x. The 7700k is older tech so of course it’ll be inferior.

[@MixedGrid]

@@jacob-zz6my You can compare anything. The 7700k is still a bad bitch for gaming. Core speed is higher. If you knew about gaming performance you'd understand. Plus both are the same price and released near the same timeframe. The 8700k was a minor response to Ryzen. The 9700k is a real response but still cost performance lean Ryzen app day.

[@pyjamas9872]

"NVidia can't buy me" *offers to pay daughter's college fees for life* Jay we honestly wouldn't blame you if you took that deal. Everyone else would. Thanks so much for your honesty and commitment to good content, I know you cop a lot for being a shill, but your integrity doesn't go unnoticed.

[@StoneAgedGaming]

Ya.. I doubt you get 60FPS + in EVERY game at 1080p. My 6700k can't even max out GTA V without drops and ehm.. Arma 3 exist. Anyways... The 9590 is a fucking heater. 220w?? And it doesn't support MANY new features that AM4/Z170/270 support.

[@barnosho1611]

O What's your GPU?

[@RGInquisitor]

Ha! Try playing Oblivion, or Morrowind on that architecture. Single-core performance will cripple your opinion on the FX line, as it did for me. I believed everyone online when they recommended I go with FX because it was cheaper and had comparable performance. Everybody was saying it could run old games fine. I don't think stuttering and sub-30fps performance is "fine", at least not for me. Then I managed to be able to work with other chips besides my 8320, like the 4200 and the 6300. Older games run like shit on that architecture due to horrible single-core performance, and newer games stutter like crazy because of constant 100% CPU usage. SW:Battlefront stuttered in the menus! BF1 was almost unplayable on multi-player.

[@XXXIMSEXYNIKNOWITXXX]

He was joking you idiot. How can you NOT see that?

[@cjpp78ytube]

RGInquisitor my FX6300 clocked to 4.6ghz has served me well in most AAA games. mostly console ports. online multiplayer and some heavy CPU taxing games have caused performance issues sometimes though. upgrading to Ryzen soon, 1700 or 1600x. waiting to see how the latter performs in games compared to 7 series

[@mrcbeee]

Dude, you ROCK! I did have my doubts (with your previous videos), but I'm more than happy with what you've done and I have now gone out and ordered myself a 1700 (non-X).

[@maverick2377]

SEXUAL HARASSMENT!!!!

[@cwehden]

Oh my god! Finally some sanity from the tech community. This video is amazing!

[@Mokimanify]

I have Intel and AMD high end processors. Ryzen 7 1700x, I7 7700 ... With both using the GTX 1070, the AMD and Intel have pretty equal performance at stock. OC the Ryzen and I get better numbers overall

[@mohamedtarek5329]

i want to upgrade to ryzen 7 1700 and am afraid about gaming

[@Bootedful]

Mohamed Tarek don't be, it'll be just fine, if you have already a good gpu then you shouldn't worry about fps. r7 1700 is really good cpu. heck, even I might buy it or just wait for ryzen + being released

[@manbirdcat5246]

Victor I just got the ryzen 7 1700x for 160$👌😩

[@tonylee7545]

Lol you full of shit

[@Greed636G]

@@tonylee7545 I just swapped out my r7 2700x for an i5 10600k, the i5 preforms better, runs alot cooler, it's $100 - $150 cheaper. The r7 used to make my room so hot... it was bad. No I wasn't overclocking either.

[@Ali-bd6kb]

I'm an unbiased fan who buys the CPU he thinks is better at the time so as a previous owner of both amd and intel I think people shouldn't worry that much about gaming performance because zen 7 is not for gaming and amd has clearly stated that their poor gaming performance is mainly caused by 1) developers supporting intels code for the longest time (which is reasonable) and not supporting amd and amd has stated that it is already working gaming devs like Bethesda and oxide 2) the current bios available are hindering amds performance by "parking cores" and all this information is supported by the fact that in cinebench and adobe premier amd shows impressive numbers As for the other problems that you shouldn't worry about 1) pcie lanes won't matter since according to amd themselves 98% of the market doesn't need more than what they provide logical considering how most people don't really use nvme ssds and pascal has been really making it more difficult to sli it's pretty much only possible with high end gpus and you can only go two-way which is provided by amd as for crossfire anyone going for three-way is out of his mind it would be better to just buy a single gpu considering that the third gpu gives less performance problems that you should actually worry about 1)the memory controller has issues and amd has admitted that 2) the single threaded performance is 15% behind kaby lake and less when it comes to broadwell however amd has stated it's working in improving the single threaded performance 3) amd cpus have low frequencies 4) while Ryzen cpus support ecc memory the motherboards don't unfortunately this can't be changed with a bios update Good news 1) amd has admitted all their problems (which are three) 2) it said that the main reason they're behind on single threaded performance is frequency and that intel has been on the 14nm architecture longer than amd and that amd will be able to have same high frequencies later on however don't be fooled at equal clock speeds amd is still 2.7% behind broadwell and 6.9% behind Kaby lake in single threaded performance 3) the zen 5 1600x will be 69% than the 7600k using the cinebench benchmark however price and benchmarks aren't revealed yet 4) amd said that they care about notebooks just as much as laptops and that raven ridge (notebook cpus) will ship 2H2017 5) amd will give us a ryzen master utility to control voltage clock speeds etc 6) from what I've been seeing amd is way better when it comes to responding to the community their AMA on reddit was extremely helpful and they've admitted their disadvantages 7) if you need more pcie lanes then wait for Naples Edit: I've made a couple of mistakes 1) windows is what "parks cores" the bios disables features that turn off cores 2) when I pointed out that most people don't use nvme ssds i mean that most people don't use more than 1 not that people don't use them at all 3)when I said poor gaming performance I mean poor gaming performance compared to intels 8 cores not in general obviously a behemoth like this performs really good in gaming it's just not on par with intels cpu that costs twice as much reasonable but still that shouldn't be the case the 1800x is much better than that 4) I found a lot of people comparing the 7700k (4cores and about 350$ depends where you buy it from) to the more expensive 1800x that's just disastrous because the 1800x is meant for productivity while 7700k is made purely for gaming 5) wanted to point out that people say that 1800x costs about 150% the price of the 7700k and performs worse in gaming but don't point that the 6900k still performs worse than the 7700k but costs 300% the price of the 7700k

[@BurnoutWien]

when you click on view more and think there will be arround 2 sentences more but it get like 5 times bigger

[@kodeypatterson8973]

Planet Kuruto No periods were used in this anti hater post. Good job tho

[@cjpp78ytube]

Planet Kuruto plus even now Ryzen's game performance isn't "poor"..just not as good as some Intel chips. I play at 60fps so these chips would be just fine for me in gaming

[@MrHendrikje]

Parking cores is done by windows, not the bios. Bios in general is not smart enough to do that. As it stands for Basic Input Output System.. Eufi MIGHT be able to do it but not coded for it, atleast to my knowledge. Unparking cores also is fairly easy by installing an unparking tool. But windows isn't bad at doing that on its own. Tho i have done it myself, i didn't found that much of an performance increase on my FX 8320

[@miloskukilo7093]

Planet Kuruto this is the longest comment I have ever seen (no hate)

[@jwhite1337]

Most people still run a 60hz monitor yet they complain that they are only getting 270 fps instead of 300. Plus look at the CPU usage, it's so low the game will never stutter.

[@cybererik1]

He was also using two 1080's wasn't he? He should use a 1070 or 1060 to see how much the CPU stresses. Most people will never own a 1080, let alone two of them.

[@HeiligerGrimmnir]

cybererik1 You literally have no idea what you are talking about do you?

[@alittlesnag]

cybererik1 I don't know too much about computers. I'm lesrning what I can though recently so take what I say with a grain of salt. The reason (as far as I know) for using two very high quality cards to run tests like this is to remove the gpu as the limiting factor of the benchmarks. If you would run a lower tier card you run the risk of the card becoming a bottleneck, which would make it harder to highlight any performance improvements provided purely by the cpu. So the use of a gpu that most of the public won't ever have access to he's doing us a favor to show the true performance of the cpu. Lower end gpu's would have even less to worry about in terms of the cpu power. That's what I think at least, if I'm wrong someone feel free to correct. Keep in mind everyone that someone's ignorance in a topic isn't reason to belittle them, rather its a learning experience for them. It's always good to help someone learn more about something you might know:)

[@cybererik1]

Hey, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I just figured a lower end GPU would show more how the CPU performs or maybe lower the resolution would show it more too. The bottleneck from the GPU hurting the performance of the CPU is now something I understand. Thanks again. No thanks to Stephen Dickface.

[@repawnd1]

The average CPU usage is not so useful, it's much better to look at the performance monitor to see how the usage is spread across the individual cores. For example even at only 12.5% usage it could be using 100% on one core, which would in reality be a 100% bottle neck. Just pointing that out ;)

[@joshua7426]

went from a 6700k to a 1800x and have no complaints what so ever .. benchmarks much better and gets alot better fps and no stuttering that my intel did not to mention I can stream and play in 60fps from same machine which the 6700k couldn't do

[@ToYDra6oN]

GREATEST EVER idk what CPU did you had before but with my 6700k I can stream and Play with 60 FPS no problem lol

[@Aboleo80]

Me thinks he be full of shit... I have a 4770k at 4.2 ghz and a gtx 1080 and I can do it no prob... 6700 had about 5-10% more performance in games than my 4770k

[@joshua7426]

Aboleo80 well sorry you'd be wrong.. provided video proof 6700k canyon stream and play ultra settings 60fps at the same time

[@ToYDra6oN]

GREATEST EVER link video then, i wanna laugh some

[@conan900]

Where is this video proof? I think you're full of it, too. All you have are ps4 uploads.

[@thepatriarchy1637]

AMD never made high end cpus before? The word Athlon doesn't ring any bells?

[@thepatriarchy1637]

*intel copied those bells.

[@MJ-uk6lu]

Also AMD Athlon FX series. Intel just couldn't beat AMD FX-55.

[@SnakedTube]

Yeap.. Athlons X2 were the innovation of the century.. FX-55 were stuck at top of the lists for quite a long time.. just like ATi 9800 back in those days.. technologies were copied.. tables turned.. and here we are.. :)

[@thetechoasis2179]

i had athlon x 2 and it sucked! upgraded to phenom x4 and it sucked upgraded to 4790K and it blew me away

[@DeosPraetorian]

TheTechOasis well of course the 4790k blew you away.. it's way newer than the chips that they are referring to

[@filipivan5125]

Finally someone with objective opinion telling it how it is. The chip is a great all arounder.

[@trapdoor954]

kaby lake is till the best guy for gamers cause we dont give a shit if it does other stuff we want the best possable cpu for gaming and right now kaby lake is that cpu not ryzen

[@johnnyxp64]

Filip Ivan... no this CPU is fucking awesome! and will only get better with better motherboards and memory support.

[@Dougyy]

what is Q2? i've tried to google if NO answers

[@frankmaster3]

it means quarter 2 of the fiscal year. its just the breakdown of a whole year into 4 quarters

[@ViktarPisarchyk]

Personally anything above 50fps is playable

[@NerroEXTV]

mmmmmmm not OW anything below 60 gives me ccancer

[@AlbertoMartinez765]

I agree I aim for 60 fps but if it dips to 50? I don't notice....

[@NerroEXTV]

oh idk i definitely do and I get so angry at it lolol idk why bot it bothers the life outta me

[@morganghetti]

nah brah I need 879 fps or i want to vomit

[@OneCosmic749]

Viktar Pisarchyk The problem is personally...

[@TheUniversalEyes]

Apple would be wise to use AMD in their systems, especially since Ryzen does so well with video rendering, editing and working with other types of media. Hell, most people buy Apple because they want that sort of solution, not for gaming.

[@TheMeepArmy]

Beast6228 Nah they have contracts with Intel probably. Intel will just make better processors anyways like they always do. I'm not a fanboy either.

[@honkhonkler7732]

It would make for one hell of a mac pro.

[@MicahAnderson41]

they've been using intel cpu and amd gpus .. time to go amd cpu and nvidia gpu imo..... the one thing that we are going to have to wait for is how much intel holds onto thunderbolt 3 or if they are willing to give it to amd for normal royalties.

[@dafirnz]

I'm pretty sure they only use mobile processors now, minus the Pro. But I heard that was coming to it's EOL soon.

[@SquintyGears]

Beast6228 XD have you even seen the macbook pro? You think apple will make a good decision for the pro scene? Looool I'd be amazed if they actually did. They'll stick with the same shit intel cpu amd gpu in a new glossy trash can.

[@gonnawatchitallgodwn]

3 years ago this video helped me to decide on the ryzen7 1700 that i still currently am using. many thanks to jay and his team.

[@AppleBag1000]

intel fan boys are mad because they have been taking in in the rear for years and are being forced to wake up lol

[@Superdashie]

Apple Bag they haven't been taking it in the rest for years. That only started recently.

[@guikhgyjv5688]

Apple Bag what are you talking about

[@simongillblad6740]

Apple Bag I'm a nvidia/intel fanboy, but I love AMD since they make nvidia/intel drop prices when AMD comes with something bigger and better.

[@twit_t9668]

Apple Bag If you were a rational consumer, you wouldn't be upgrading every single CPU revision... as you so flatteringly put it. I still don't understand why anyone would be mad for a better CPU, maybe if you just bought an Intel/AMD chip before the launch...

[@mortyb0nkers]

I had a i7 6800 k skylake who fucked up recently, had to buy a new one...fuck you intel, im never coming back to you...had to order a brand new motherboard tho who supports AM4....rip wallet, but its gonna be worth it :D

[@nmn622]

I really don't get the hate on ryzen with the gaming performance. The R7 is meant to compete with x99 systems which is manly for professional workflows (video editing, intensive cpu programs etc.) WHILE being half or even more the price of an x99 cpu. The x99 platform is also not great at gaming and no one loses there shit when a $1000 cpu can't handle gaming (it isn't meant for gaming). The 7700k beats any cpu in gaming. While as Jay showed it. It can't compete at all with Ryzen in intense workflows! So basically if you're a Pro user and game sometimes you can get the best of the two world for the price of an 7700k

[@qatronano]

nmn622 10% difference in workflow between ryzen and 7700k... lmao

[@A_Man_Of_Culture_]

QuantuMlapZiz It was more than a 10% difference! The 7700k got fucking rekt by even the 1700 in any multithreaded workload by at least 20%. When you are working from your PC even a 5% difference can mean a huge time difference depending on the task.

[@ShaneTN]

I'm fairly sure you misinterpreted what he said in the video about that. He said there's a 10% difference in gaming between the CPUs and a much larger difference in workflow.

[@ShaoZapomnit]

10% is again just so subjective. We are talking about 5 to 10 frames depending on the games that gets over 120 fps which is an average too, not an actual minimum. Ryzen 0.1% is actually very good and we have yet to see it fully saturated.

[@matthewvanderwesthuizen8060]

I'm not sure your 'observation' is true. I have intel and nvidia and I've already started looking into selling my cpu and mobo and replacing them with the new amd cpu. It has amazing performance for the price. It sounds like the people complaining are the ones who truly don't understand as much as they think about cpus. Basically just ignorance. I still won't go for amd gpus though because their performance currently sucks compare to what nvidia offers. (getting the 1080ti). I'd just like to reiterate that I was super excited when I saw how fast the new amd cpus are and especially at the price.

[@Fyba]

Its funny how just 3 weeks ago an i5 was "plenty for every modern game" but now that ryzen is out suddenly that performance is "shit".

[@nikkfrostt]

It's too bad people didn't focus on the fact that AMD was actually able to close the gap in performance. The amount of generations they closed in order to get this far. They also match or beat Intels 6-8cores (in non gaming capacity). That alone is worth amazing amounts of praise. To do all this and make it affordable, just awesome. If anything maybe this will help force Intel to lower their prices so even the Intel fanboys can get something out of this.

[@BRBingeDrinker]

And on top of Nick Di Mario's point, I wouldn't count the RyZen R5 cpus out yet. Those 4 and 6 core processors could end up blowing our minds, and at a much cheaper price. $150 - $250 products? yes please!

[@woooweee]

Additional complication of the windows 10 scheduler not working right with this chip.

[@anonymous134y]

6600k can definitely hold itself against any Ryzen chip in terms of gaming for a much cheaper price though... I would wait for the R5 to come out if you are a gamer

[@christopherewing4592]

@Nick Yeah that is how I have been looking at it. I'm sticking to Intel since all I do is game, but I definitely appreciate AMD putting some pressure on Intel. Maybe next generation Intel will be forced to drop their higher stuff and I will be able to pick something nicer from Intel or AMD for a better price.

[@Refulgent_Rascal]

But won't this be better for gaming future-proofing? Surely those extra cores will be utilised in only a matter of time for gaming. In which the ryzen will become the better for gaming along with everything else. Well, until Intel release their next CPU range...

[@Zefram0911]

Jay, your water builds are so beautiful. You are a craftsman.

[@Artcore103]

the water cooling stuff actually requires some work on his part to modify.

[@Zefram0911]

+Yuck Foutube Thanks for the input. It changed the way I looked at the world and in turn.. the way I looked at myself. Your life must be great.

[@Artcore103]

lmao.

[@Yoshi-ty7mh]

is he an "assembler" or does he assimilate??? that is the question...

[@yellowpeaches6040]

you should see what Singularaty Computers does.. theese builds are meh compared to his.

[@Admixues]

7700K does better in average FPS, however Ryzen does better in 0.1% and 1% lows, in newer titles. edit: to clarify the Delta between the 1% and 0.1% lows are better on Ryzen.

[@cocopuff3608]

The Intel fanboys can grasp this. And in 1080p gaming it is the lows that give stutter and a crappy gaming experience but Ryzen has the highest FPS lows which is why it is the best gaming chip around.

[@stoneymahoney9106]

I agree with ONE CeVIO, I've seen Ryzen with lower 0.1% and 1% lows than Intel across the board, but that's not to say they indicated the game would be unplayable or would have noticeable stutter on a G-Sync monitor.

[@SteelmanArgument]

That's not true though. Just look at some of Gamers Nexus benchmarks. The i7 7700K often has better 0.1% and 1% LOW's.

[@syth-1]

It all depends on the game, u may see in some better fps if it requires more speed within the processors, else other games may require more cores, where this will do better. I think if u want to do the best stress test, just go onto minecraft and blow up 40k TNT... it requires both speed and. Cores I think... xD

[@Xol_de_Zori]

Admixues funny the lack of proof here. Who says Ryzen is better in new titles? If so what are they, can I have a link to a bench mark please.

[@Tabletop-Newtype]

not notification squad. just opened KZbin at the right time

[@AdityaKumar-mu9qz]

A friend of mine got an rtx 2080ti and was wondering why her graphics were still not amazing. Her monitor was 900p.

[@TheAwesomeMiner99]

Bruh

[@ZachMaso]

She thought the graphics would improve lmaoo

[@tarekmahmudbhuiyan7368]

Ryzen has the newest architecture since...forever (5 years?) from amd, and the game developers have been optimizing their games based on intel processors alone for last couple of years. So, if they start optimizing their games for amd processors as well, what will happen? Will there be these performance gaps we're experiencing now? I don't think we should get into conclusion regarding anything with this brand new architecture just right now calling it sucks at gaming.

[@sadman.saqib.zahin01]

Tarek Mahmud Bhuiyan but what the times when Intel brings out new architectures? Those cpus don't seem get any performance gaps with the older gen

[@tarekmahmudbhuiyan7368]

That's why because intel's been using the same architecture since their 2nd gen i series (not talking about the fabrication process, i.e. 32nm--->14nm). It is about the cache structure, integer operations structure, floating points etc. Since the 2nd gen all of these were laid out exactly the same way. But in AMD's case, their microprocessor architecture has just been lifted upside down. individual cores with dedicated segments etc. Just check out a FX9xxx/8xxx design with any ryzen design. You'll get your answer.

[@tarekmahmudbhuiyan7368]

In addition to that, modern games and softwares are optimized to utilize intel architecture since there were no new amd tech in last couple of years. Well, when the games and softwares will start getting optimized for amd cpu (how to use amd cores/caches/FLP/INT etc.), I think ryzen will start getting scary good if intel doesn't bring any new technological advancements.

[@TonyMcCrea]

How were they optimised for Intel, exactly? They were optimised for new-gen consoles, which have modified 8-core AMD Jaguar CPUs, and AMD graphics. If anything, the games were optimised for that hardware.

[@1trillions]

hadron89 I think what some comments and reviewers are getting at is that in the current state of games most devs don't optimize a game for more than 4 cores most times so you're not getting full use of your 6 or 8 core cpus no matter if you own enthusiast cpus from Intel or AMD. yes they have proven single threaded application performance is superior with Intel but I think AMD has a vision of the future and it's this idea that every application/game will eventually support full core integration past just content creation.

[@neelixleefurball]

For anyone who's unfamiliar, I've always looked at it this way. Cores = torque and clock speeds = horsepower. Games today are a relatively "light" load on CPU's and benefit from a moderate amount of torque, with higher horsepower. Tasks such as video rendering, encoding, ect, are very "heavy" on CPU's. The more torque, the better for that type of task.

[@maggi98mw]

Neel Ghost good comparison

[@rjfaber1991]

Yes, and where Bulldozer was an old, noisy injection pump diesel producing a lot of torque at specific rev ranges, Zen is a common rail diesel, still having all the torque advantages of a diesel, but being much more similar to a petrol engine in all sorts of other performance statistics.

[@MicroageHD]

Neel Ghost no just no

[@alikhoobiary6595]

If anything cores are HP and clock speed is torque

[@MicroageHD]

Pls guys, stop comparing SoC's to combustion engines. It's stupid.

[@weewoo87]

If only Ryzen could clock higher we wouldn't be having the gaming discussion...could you imagine if the $330 R7 1700 could OC to 4.4 or 5.1. Makes me very excited for next gen based on Zen.

[@savagemcqueenthemutagenics639]

"Zen+" on their roadmap, me too! also super excited to see the price-to-performance on the R5 6C/12T chips!!!

[@NFreund]

Remember the first Haswell-E? They could barely reach 4 GHz. The yield of the silicon got better over time, and now some get to 4.5 GHz. If the R7 1700 would OC to 4.5 GHz, it would beat the i7-7700K hands down. Just look at the 3.6 GHz vs 4.0 GHz tests - the difference is massive and way more, than you get for 400 Mhz on any Intel Chip.

[@chronyk743]

Do you understand that that is new arhitecture? needs time to refine. And some people want 5ghz+ on 8 cores and running on aircooling silent geezus.

[@ViolentMLG]

Its more about their architecture not being optimized for games, along with clock speeds, ryzen will suffer for years from this.

[@riffsnreviews]

+Violent, no it is not, it's current games and *WINDOWS* not being optimized for the architecture at this moment, not the other way round... Once windows releases the next update, with Ryzen optimizations (they have it, they have just not yet released it) to avoid core/thread parking and distribute the workload correctly (windows doesn't know which is a core and which is a thread et this moment in time), the performance will already go up, and we are talking weeks not years for that update. Saying Ryzen will suffer for years is just a plain lack of knowledge... The only way it will suffer for years is if it is done artificially.

[@NielsSHansen]

Maybe I'm just not hardcore gamer enough, but should you not use one gtx 1070 for a more real picture of the everyday gamer? I mean, how many gamers run 2x titan X in sli?

[@NielsSHansen]

I could be wrong about this, and I would love if #JayzTwoCents could show the truth in a video, but as I see it calling the CPU and the GPU bottlenecks in relation to eachother is misunderstood as I believe both are performing as multipliers of performance. I mean prove me wrong, if a CPU truly bottlenecks a GPU then a GTX 1060 and a GTX 1080ti will have the same performance with a sufficiently crappy CPU. What I originally suggested is that if you want to show if Ryzen is valid for gaming then make a realistic scenario, one Titan X and especially two Titan Xs will make most CPUs run most games buttery smooth. But it can't be a realistic expectation that most gamers are running GPUs in the price range of 1800 USD to 3600 USD. But as I said in the beginning, I could be wrong, but if you are gonna comment on this please back up any rant with objective proof.

[@DrekavacScream]

I think it's more that you don't want the test to be bound by the GPU. so you pick a GPU setup that will have no problem in the testing so the only variation is caused by CPU ability.

[@electricant55]

If you have a weaker GPU there's even smaller difference between Ryzen and Intel. You should always test CPU on lower resolution like 1080p and best GPU you can get

[@kanyegrande4312]

Im pretty shure most gamers buy prebuilt pcs

[@NielsSHansen]

Kqog Gaming On Macs That just makes my point even more valid

[@CaptDnaDonut]

My R7 1700 is better than my FX 8320 in every way so I'm happy :D

[@trevorvi]

Capt Dna Donut really? I'm happy for you Congrats

[@MichaelStephenLordReserei1987]

That's literally all I need to know since I'm rocking an 8320 @ 4.4GHz. It's just a matter of pulling money together for me, now. lol

[@Alex-oz9eh]

Trevor V lol

[@CaptDnaDonut]

Nice over clock. Mine was at 4.0Ghz and served me well but I always had a feeling that it was holding my GTX Titan (original) back.

[@user-hh5pj5jv8p]

still, ryzen is not worth of an upgrade from i7 7700k or i7 4790k

[@mikeramos91]

Of course the 7700K is faster in gaming. It has half the threads & higher clock speeds. Nobody buys a 16 thread CPU for gaming. They buy quad cores which is exactly were the 7700K is aimed at. The 1800x is aimed at heavy work loads, editing & productively. Just like Jay said, it is well rounded!

[@ssjmysticgohan9466]

look at proper reviews not gamers nexus benchmarking watch dogs 2 by walking in an empty alley. computerbase de

[@fifthgear93]

Thing is, even Broadwell-E with the same 8c/16t configuration at roughly the same clocks performs miles better in gaming.

[@lilililiililliil7277]

I mean the fx 8350 was well rounded when it came out. Intel blew it out of the water with it's next generation.

[@mattiamamusa5599]

FifthGear couse of the absent optimization for Ryzen, even the single core ipc is very similar betwen ryzen and brodwell-e but surprice surprice intel does better becouse brodwell-e already recaved his well ton of fixes and patches to be at full potential.

[@pyjamas9872]

Michael Ramos get a 1700 then. $180 cheaper for basically the same cpu. I don't even know why people are looking at the 1800x. GamersNexus have already proved that they can reach basically the same OC and therefore have almost identical results

[@Jono.]

God, the panning action on some of those shots is just incredible. Absolutely love it

[@zakfigueroa3751]

Does Ryzen 7 REALLY suck for gamers? 2017: yes 2019: no 2021: are u f***ing kidding me

[@Pollux99135]

Wait so I want to run a 2060 graphics card but have been debating on a Ryzen 5 3600 or a Ryzen 7 2700 I want to stream and game but i don’t know which one to choose

[@zakfigueroa3751]

@@Pollux99135 with the RTX 2060 you can use the built in NVENC encoder to stream your gameplay, so your really don't need to worry about your CPU that much. I'd still recommend the R5 3600; the Zen 2 cores are much faster and is more efficient even slightly overclocked.

[@Savageluxz]

Ben Rivas Ryzen 7 100%

[@shadowkiller5520]

@@Pollux99135 Ryzen 5 3600 100%. Just use your gpu to stream.

[@Zorahime29]

@@shadowkiller5520 Is ryzen 5 3600 also good for vtuber stuff?

[@xdojox]

I know the Ryzen CPU has more logical/physical cores, but I am using an i5 3570k and I get frame dips in GTA V because of a CPU bottleneck and it hitting 100%. I have a GTX 980ti so that is probably not the problem. Seeing this thing at 30%-40% CPU usage when playing GTA V looked amazing.

[@jaminandsharamills320]

You can watch your GPU load with programs like GPU-Z, that'll clarify the question on where the bottleneck is. Is something else causing the CPU to hit 100%? In Windows 10 I've noticed Windows Backup and Windows Update will shamelessly use an entire core for several minutes when they are doing their tasks.

[@Xyler94]

Use something like MSI's Afterburner to monitor your CPU usage relative to your GPU usage. If your CPU usage is above 50% average and your GPU falls under 90% average, your CPU is bottlenecking your system

[@BikeHelmetMk2]

If you have a decent motherboard, you can overclock that CPU like you wouldn't believe. Kaby lake isn't much faster than it - it just has faster memory. If you crank up your clock speed and memory speed as far as you can stably go, the i5-3570k is a beast. Proof: www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-is-it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k You should definitely upgrade to a true 8-core system for your next build... but if you can overclock, you might not have to upgrade quite as soon as you believe.

[@jaminandsharamills320]

Just a note, the game is probably only at 30-40% cpu usage because the game can't use more of the CPU than that.

[@sniperunrepeat752]

xdojox Low CPU usage isn't relevant. If a game can only use, say. 6 threads then having an extra ten brings down the usage but doesn't make the game have any more potential to run faster

[@goofygob2178]

I still want an AMD Ryzen even in its current state. I have an i5 6500 and I want to make a cheapo storage server.

[@TheQuadraticAttenuator]

Good lucky with a "cheapo" ryzen storage server. It's going to cost you at least $300 right off the bat.

[@matthewhales875]

you could buy a NAS for the price of a ryzen

[@carelesswendigo2585]

could just get a raspberry pi and a few external hard drives and build a true cheapo one.

[@p0pp0pp0pp0pp0p]

No Only the fools that think a $1000+ gaming pc is the only way to enjoy games. 1080p(hell probably 720p) is still the norm. Just like most are fine with 30fps

[@trevorvi]

p0pp0pp0pp0pp0p I'm with you

[@greenespirit4973]

60 is still defiantly more favorable and pretty silky which is why if I went out a bought a new gpu The most I would get is a 1060 and probably settle with a 1050 ti paired with a i5 6500 or 4460

[@AnimeisGarbage]

p0pp0pp0pp0pp0p below 1080p on 60 fps makes me gag tbh

[@HaveFunLosingBro]

well 43% of PC gamers game at 1080p. 720p is at around 30%

[@HaveFunLosingBro]

Also 50fps+ is necessary to me. 30 fps just can't do it anymore.

[@wobulali1268]

Nice video. I use Ryzen cpu and I love it. I have people call me stupid all the time for not using intel. But I'm gonna enjoy Ryzen without them.

[@CrazyCrusader1]

Wobulali can i enjoy it with you

[@dylanevans6748]

I'm thinking about switching to Ryzen from Intel, but I am not sure if I should go with a Ryzen 5 or 7.

[@lucky-mn3gm]

Dylan Evans if you were gonna buy the ryzen 5, get the 1600 or 2600

[@GameMusingsWithRaziel]

I just switched from intel to Ryzen 1600 and I couldnt be happier. Streaming and playing on the same machine with no problems. Once black friday rolls around Im gonna pick up a 2700x

[@Frostie3672]

I just switched from the 6700k to the 2700x and couldn't be more happier, gaming is fine, no issues there but now I can do a shed load more on my system, at the same time, like video encoding, gaming and streaming which the 6700k just couldn't handle all at once.

[@vicepresi815]

I actually liked the old color. I don t know why and I would have never used it, but it had something unusual and classy

[@5at5una]

it has the ember glow color.. thats why its kinda classy

[@PaletoB]

+Vice Presi Me to, add some fake icecubes and it gets real classy

[@iz723]

Yeah, I loved the original colour. Like honey. Or a fine wine

[@pronstorestiffi]

Good Whiskey color.

[@ozzyo99]

you have a new sub. This is exactly what I've been saying... I couldn't care less if I get 180 160 140 or even 100 FPS provided it's a smooth experience. What I absolutely do care about is how much time this can save me in workflow whilst still giving me excellent gaming performance.

[@filipmajetic1174]

ozzyo99 exactly the problem... gamersnexus does benchmarks and rzyen gets 130 instead of 140 fps on intel and everyone is "omg ryzen is shit" 90% performance for half the price isnt shit, they are supposed to beat the price not gaming performance

[@TheAlmightyCon]

If Ryzen had a 5ghz model there would be no questions asked even by the most die hard Intel fan boy. It'll all blow over soon, I recently started playing around with 3D animations and I really want to get one of these Ryzen chips haha

[@RespawnaSaurus]

Filip Majetić on kl

[@BeheldSplash]

who else pees on the side of the toilet bowl to make it quieter?

[@tylerweigand8875]

BeheldSplash Oh my god! lol I always do this cuz for some reason it annoys the crap outta me when my piss makes that splashing noise

[@BeheldSplash]

sub to me

[@eagleattack15]

BeheldSplash Bro, just pee on the floor.

[@BeheldSplash]

lol

[@VanerDeeds]

Came here to say this... you beat me to it.

[@swearzy8183]

i have a 1700x and it’s really good for fortnite( only using it as a example because it’s heavily based on your cpu). i average around 250+ fps on competitive settings with my rtx 2060

[@o.o1858]

swearzy nice

[@les121476]

lol fortnite cpu heavy? I get 200 frames with my amd fx 6300.... You get 60 frames on ps4 and Xbox. Try a real game kid

[@ProfPressure]

Jay again crushing the negativity!!! One of my favorite PC youtubers, KEEP IT UP!!

[@PhoenixRebirthed]

The Nerd Delegation He's the one who started it lmao

[@robotspartan9100]

As someone who spends half his time gaming, the other half utilising VM's (i do a Comp Sci degree so normally 3 or 4 at once) i think AMD have it nailed. I can neither afford nor justify the £1000 for a 6900k to get the cores needed for my work. The 7700k has too few cores to be of much use to me beyond gaming. AMD have bought something well rounded and well priced to the market I think Jay nailed it, it's a jack of all trades master of none, and time bought optimisations mean it will only improve, if it gets the support. Come Summer when i rebuild, it's going to need serious thought for Skylake-E vs Ryzen

[@sktfan3843]

"it's a jack of all trades master of none" He used a wrong term. The correct term is Ryzen 7 8 cores are King in Productivity and Prince in gaming. Ryzen 7 is 1/2 or 1/3 of the price of intel 8 cores having the same performance and even beating 10-15% in some productivity suites. There are no games that this new Ryzen 7 little puppy that cannot perform as this is a monster when it is awake and working.

[@robotspartan9100]

SKT Fan the jack of all trades comment is my own, based on all the information i have thus far seen (i mentioned jay prior to the phrase in reference to him saying it is well rounded) I've seen no instances if it beating the 6900k by 10%? source so i can take a look?

[@timothygibney159]

I would hold off. According to www.neowin.net Microsoft stopped support for AMD virtualization. VMWare Workstation is also tuned for Intel Haswell cpu instructions. Intel has superb SLAT support that I wonder if AMD can match? I have just a 4 core i7 4770K and with Hyper-V on Windows 10 it works well surprisingly. Until I get a confirmation I am sticking with my architecture for a little bit longer. Unless AMD becomes big in the enterprise with their upcoming server grade Zen chips it is dead in the water with virtualization support. Xeon took over the server room in the past 10 years.

[@robotspartan9100]

Timothy Gibney this is very true, hence why it would be down to a "maybe". I think with naples however Microsoft would be hard pressed not to support it. I mean, opterons are still in use with low performance servers with that being said, I do not use vmware at home, I use open source which should see hopefully optimisations to allow for the use of virtualisation on Ryzen

[@Randomguy86204]

You are a college student not running Facebook, relax kid you don't need 16 threads. The creator of Linux (Linus Torvalds) was using some bum-down MacBook Air 11" for years.. Don't hear him crying about how he needs to justify shit

[@FeTiProductions]

I would like to ask the community a question. Those who invested in the 2600k, did your interest only sticked to gaming and nothing more for the last 5 years? Or did a point came when you tried something new and felt like you needed more. Very interested to know your answers

[@PflanzenChirurg]

i know why i subbed you, because you are serious in what you talking about, you mentioned several things i never heard on a review about ryzen and that speaks for your understanding in the "idea of things"

[@jimcole5359]

One small comment on the Intel Vs AMD thing. If AMD CPU's were crap why is Intel dropping their CPU prices?

[@TheFoodnipple]

Jim Cole BOOM!

[@bobfwd]

Jim Cole intel is not dropping their MSRP. Certain stores are offering discounts at their discretion.

[@Demon09-_-]

i haven't seen any drops on most retailers kaby lake. I mean micro center had a price drop but they are always doing sells.and the sales i have seen on the x99 are not anything crazy when the next 7th gen for them is around the corner

[@ivandobrev2240]

same prices here ....

[@begforsalvation]

@Jim Cole Trash talk. I got my 6700k half a year ago and its still 350€. I checked other Intel prozessors, even they didnt drop their price. U got a link?

[@kurosumomo]

AMD did a phenomenal job with Zen in my opinion. You might not get Kaby Lake performance in gaming, but it's more than enough for everything and every game. At least now, we have two players in the game fighting for my money. Great job AMD and thanks for the video Jay.

[@MrTrailerus]

Zoe Guerra si

[@iPlayOnSpica]

Few would willingly pay over $500 for a CPU, so I definitely give props to AMD for really raising the bar on consumer oriented CPUs.

[@alanmeals]

I'm just happy it's pushed Intel to push for better pricing and to further push development to the next stage. Intel probably needed the shove. I'm not buying Ryzen, I'm happy with my i5 currently. But I'm glad to see this happening.

[@magnefficientgaming4327]

especially in a gaming system $300 is the max you need that budget for the graphics card.

[@jakegarrett8109]

+magnefficient gaming Did you mean CPU? $300 may not be the best for gaming at 4k, but I'm not going to say it can't be done. My R9 Fury can even run Crysis 3 at med/high and get 60+ fps at 4k. A lot of people are getting the GTX 1070 (I guess they don't know the Fury is very very similar, and sometimes faster, but more importantly $100 cheaper and doesn't require Nvidia Gsync monitors which are about $200 more, each...). I'm still running an FX-8350, and at this resolution, I think it would pair decent with a Titan XP, but if you can afford a Titan XP, why are you using a $100 ish CPU? For 1080p though, I would just get an RX 470 or 480 (the RX 480 was $150 recently). Those would be plenty for most games with high settings.

[@cdurkinz]

I don't understand what the problem is... AMD released their equivalent to the 6900k at like half the price and nailed it. They haven't released their equivalent of the 7700k yet, when they do I'm sure it'll be close. Why are people even arguing about this? Nobody decides they need to buy an 8c/16t CPU for a gaming only PC... ever. Until AMD released Ryzen, nobody would have suggested to someone to go buy a 6900k for the ultimate gaming experience when the 4c/8t 7700k (and whatever Ryzen equivalent releases soon) do a better job for cheaper, right lol? I don't understand why people cannot see reason and just be normal human beings. AMD isn't going to destroy Intel or Nvidia, but they WILL do what they always do and offer similar performance at a decent price. That's their place in the market, it's always been their place. Nothing has changed besides us consumers getting a wider variety to choose from and AMD is forcing lower prices.

[@hellowalkman4506]

gamer taboo dumb intel nvidia fanboys want amd to fail so bad.

[@tiiBBzi]

Yeah it's pretty fucking ridiculous the amount of hate they have for the underdog... they spread it to new PC gamers too, they are fucking cancer for PC hardware progression and competition.

[@hellowalkman4506]

Old Mate totally agreed !!

[@cdurkinz]

Ya but you guys going straight for personal attacks makes you part of the problem. We are talking about computer hardware, calm down.

[@hellowalkman4506]

gamer taboo thats just facts.

[@shooterrick1]

No, but Ryzen 5 is more worth it if gaming is all you do.

[@EmilianoDanteWojtala]

This video really hits the spot. It should be like a goto reference video when anybody talks crap about Ryzen. Cheers Jay. Really concise.

[@gudenau]

I am interested in this for multitasking, virtualization and compiling stuff. Basically what I want this for.

[@maxu9025]

gudenau editing videos, rendering images and stuff like that

[@HappyMarshmallowGamingComedy]

It's basically what this CPU is made for.

[@arupian666]

then I think it's going to be an excellent choice... there's no denying that the 1800x is a no brainer for productivity.

[@haris525]

Guys this Ryzen thing is getting out of hand - please stop it. If you like Amd buy Amd, and if you like intel buy intel. The community is getting so toxic these days - first the elections and now CPU/gpu releases.....seeeesh man go out and do some volunteer work.

[@babybuffalo123321]

So what you're saying is "be a fanboy and don't pay attention to performance just go for whichever brand you like better"

[@AvatarSampai]

they are savage animals, just want some meat to fight over. For real i dont understand why people are pissed about ryzen? is this a jerking competition??? gaming that, gaming this, i bet you people spend more time bitching about things then actually doing games lol

[@aerialfordays]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@haris525]

Ferndo is a ________ no I am not saying that. What I meant is what fits your needs and budget buy that. If you budget and needs are for an Amd processor buy it, if intel fits your needs and budget buy that, don't be a blind fanboy.

[@krisiscove]

RIGHT, that is the point. Down with the dirty peasants. Lets not fight against ourselves.

[@alyssadraculesti]

We have Intel and Ryzen both in my house - the Ryzen chips smoke the intel stuff And the next gen Ryzen 9 at 7nm / 64 cores and 128 threads is going to seal the coffin on intel.

[@dieselgeezer18]

Adding too much cores is trash because the core speed will be sloww and the cpu's quality wont be good

[@Kevin-xw1eo]

I think the problem is that AMD marketed these chips as gaming chips. You go to AMD's website and the first thing you see is "RYZEN Games with power". That to me is the problem because for gaming these aren't that good (when you consider the price of similarly performing Intel chips). These chips are AMAZING at productivity and all that stuff and that is where they should have been marketed. More like a Xeon marketing and less like an i5 or i7 marketing.

[@hellowalkman4506]

Kevin windows 10 scheduler has issues with ryzen for now

[@boss1234234]

they marketed for people who want to play games and stream and make videos

[@SquintyGears]

Kevin that's a misunderstanding... The ryzen chips are amazing for gaming or anything else.... They're just not as good as the 7700k in games that doesn't mean their bad but you should consider the price of the two if you're only going to game the conclusion is obvious. 7700k is better for same price as 1700

[@ShinDMitsuki]

Overclocked 1700 cost less than an i7 but performs similarly and also gives you 8 more threads. Can you somehow explain how this is bad for video games?

[@deeznuttes9340]

I mean its only 10-20 fps in most the the benches ive seen, correct me if i'm wrong on that because i've only seen a few benchmarks. That being said, if it is only the 20 or so fps in most games at 1080p, and if the cheaper sku's that have yet to come out perform the same in games then it'd be INSANE (you'd literally have to be a hardcore intel fanboy) to buy an intel chip unless the prices came down to match the r5 equivalents and the r3 equivalents

[@fifacsgo1053]

Personally with my shitty PC, anything above 45 fps is very playable for me(I got used to it)

[@JulianDaniel2003]

FIFA and CSGO arent very hard to run.

[@mateuscampello]

After I started playing Path of Exile in my microwave notebook, anything above 10fps is very playable for me.

[@afk4019]

FIFA CSGO I play Witcher 3 on my toaster 1080p 60fps light brown and warped

[@fifacsgo1053]

AFK wow, I will be dancing if my PC could even load a game like the Witcher. U should be thankful

[@adityagulati1618]

FIFA CSGO I play games at 20-30 fps. And they are easily playable

[@rztrzt]

The old liquid looked much nicer in that build.

[@kimastor9753]

Haha I agree, reminds me of beer:)

[@jfreeze8567]

Agree. I thought it looked like Mobile 1

[@ApocTheLegend]

its really hard to argue intel's side when I can build a whole ryzen system for nearly the cost of an intel

[@elcalenton00]

I just saved for an intel cpu,but ended up buying a whole system with ryzen for less money

[@pablo_p_art]

So clearly Ryzen is worth the money... Good work AMD!

[@hturtle1339]

I might build a Ryzen 1700 with the GTX 1080Ti build and just barebones to save money

[@AsitorCorporation]

I'm planning on getting the exact same build. First time going with AMD for anything. What motherboard and memory were you planning on getting to go with it? This is the list I've got so far: pcpartpicker.com/list/qsf4VY

[@JACK-pm9wr]

Captain Capellini that’s so dope have you made it yet and did it work well

[@IrLosin]

I am actually considering going AMD for my next build. Since I started building my own rig Intel was the only option, so I am excited to see where this AMD rise leads.

[@lancelotxavier9084]

He has shown NOTHING to show "Ryzen is worth the money". In fact the opposite. Didn't you watch the video? He has shown that upgrading the CPU will NOT make any difference.

[@heyarno]

I'm interested in performance with VM's, visual studio, clipstudio paint and live streaming while drawing. So it will be interesting how OBS will behave on it.

[@snrd]

Wow, that water loop looked way better (in my opinion ofc) with the orange clear fluid :( Personally I don't like pastel so much because tubes look very dull with it and loose this awesome refraction of light due to the clear water.

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

SunRed Agreed 100%

[@NotHimJim]

I have my 1700, Asrock X370 Taichi and GTX 1080ti arriving today! Can't wait.

[@ravenbarsrepairs5594]

Ad for an Intel EVGA board in a AMD centered video? Seems out of place

[@Ph0neutria]

Money doesn't smell.

[@UnashamedlyHentai]

Pretty sure Google determines your ads by algorithm. It's not on a per vid basis.

[@NightSlasher53]

True but this was a in video ad, so it was the owner who put that ad

[@UnashamedlyHentai]

Ah, yes. I kind of just tuned part out. Forgot it was even there. Had to watch the video again to know what you were talking about. Linus does the same. I've gotten used to just ignoring the spots and doing something else.

[@davidholder2100]

I appreciate your review. Most folks have taken sides and it is nice to see you have not. Keep it up. We need competition in the CPU arena as gamers. I built my sysem in 2010 and spent the $1000 on the 990X CPU, the Gigabyte Sniper MB and it still runs very today. I have updated the HDs to SSD and run 780s in SLI. I have will most likely need to build a new system for upcoming titles and your review is the best I have seen so far. It is obvious you are not being paid to endorse either chip maker. Thanks David

[@martindaskalov3140]

I am an Intel guy, i would like to congratulate AMD on the new CPU series. VERY IMPRESSIVE work! Seeing as that i already have a decent CPU, but kind of an old GPU, i will be waiting in anticipation for the VEGA series. I hope that they will be equally as impressive like the price to performance ratio as the Ryzen! :)

[@BattlesuitBoBos]

Martin Daskalov We need more people like you. pls breed for the sake of human kind.

[@Chakotay2222]

Martin Daskalov very nice comment, except who the fuck are you to think your congratulaton has weight?

[@martindaskalov3140]

Thank you, i am astonished by your lack intellegence in stating that a word has weight.

[@VYKNIGHT]

Chakotay2222 chill the fuck out, stop bring so aggressive

[@aden5706]

I must say, for the longest time, I've been an Intel person myself, and the new AMD processors take me by storm. I'd definitely switch to the AMD Ryzen processors in the matter of seconds if I had the money and time:) great review, nicely done.

[@homie198ify]

Jayz is the glue to the youtube tech world.

[@SomeoneJr]

O what?

[@david18555]

O please go back to 970 vs 390 what dose jay recommend

[@papaquonis]

He basically just spent the entire video praising Ryzen for how smooth everything plays and how versatile it is, and yet people are still calling him an Intel shill...

[@david18555]

PapaQ I know some people just don't get it I hear you but these people live in there eco chambers and just refuse facts

[@TH-xo4zx]

does it suck? no, thats intel fanboy talk. its okay for gamimg but its not made Only for gaming, if you only want a gaming and know you wont be doing more than that then stick to intel, if you want a bidget kimg workstation that's also a decent gamimg rig go with amd

[@TheGreatWesternTrendkill]

T Hh dat

[@TheDexsword]

i was not even expectin it to be decent at gaming but props to amd its rly great for productivity and good enough for gaming :)

[@chrisslund1417]

I like how all the intel fanboys are okay with giving it the "good for gaming" sticker, but they fail to realize that its actually only around 10% slower... I mean, i know that its something, but if you realize thats its also ALOT cheaper than its competition, it realllyyyyyy starts to make sense to buy them... And no, im not an AMD fanboy, i have an Intel 6700k that i have been super pleased with, but im just saying, people are reallyyyyy underestimating this cpu...

[@filipmajetic1174]

well, a 1700 would still be good for gaming and you could also wait for Ryzen 5 which will probably be a gaming beast with fewer cores and better gaming performance

[@israellewis5484]

Listen guy... U need to pull yuhself together and stop being cheap.

[@gamerprof85]

Thanks for calming some of my fears Jay. While I didn't grab an 1800x (1700 for me) for my build, I am currently waiting on an ASUS Crosshair to ship (man, I don't know what their problem is but I hope they get it sorted). I'm looking forward to doing some benchmarking and gaming on my channel with what I would consider a more modest rig (no dual titans for me lolz). I appreciate what you do for this community.

[@Jayztwocents]

+GamerProf they are updating all the BIOS on boards in house and testing every board. It will be worth the wait

[@gamerprof85]

JayzTwoCents That's awesome. Glad to hear it. Man, talk about a botched launch. Hope lessons were learned here on amd's part. gotta give Mobo devs more time to work out the bugs! Keep doing what you're doing man. Love all the water cooling stuff.

[@Jito463]

FYI, you said in the video that Heaven is DX12, but it's actually only DX11. Not a major issue, just wanted to point it out. The thing I can't figure out, is why it's only a 32-bit benchmark. I'm waiting for Unigine to release a 64-bit benchmark.

[@Jbay2608]

What is the BIOS update supposed to fix?

[@olavinto]

DX12 is available only on Windows 10 and games with DX12 support are (still) very rare so a DX11 test is still more relevant to a larger user base than a DX12 test would be (or else, they should both be tested, side by side). Windows 7 is still the most used gaming platform although personally I've been using Windows 10 Insider builds since before RTM, and for me it is the best Windows to date. Although your point of misinformation is, of course valid, it is not really "an issue".

[@t.s.uthesovietunion2585]

I built myself a gaming pc that contains a AMD Ryzen 7 CPU, and it’s everything I wanted. Before I had a Intel that was not bad, but it didn’t have 2560-1440 graphics. Ryzen 7 had that, so I built my dream pc. It rocks.

[@GrahamDoesStuff]

A jack of all trades CPU! Im really enjoying the 1700 reviews as of late and really respecting the reviewers unbiased, honest opinion of Ryzen for what its actually worth. Thank you!

[@Daniel_Clem]

Same was said for the FX serie when it came out ... and look at what we say at about it now.

[@Fals3Agent]

No, FX just had downright bad single threaded performance. Poor IPC, and poor power consumption. Ryzen actually has pretty good single threaded performance, just not as good as Intel. And they actually beat Intel in power consumption. For Intel, it's the other way around - worse multi-threaded performance, better single threaded performance.

[@zpa5649]

Fx never compared with Intel's top of the line or Xeons for production. Well, it did. But not for the FX 8200+

[@GrahamDoesStuff]

I'm upgrading from a FX6300 and I have been nothing but happy with its "age to performance" haha

[@TheSuperNESman]

I hoping Ryzen 5 is as good of a bang for the buck as 7. I'm still running a FX 6300 so upgrading involves buying a new motherboard and ram since i'm still on DDR3 so not a cheap upgrade by any means.

[@BRBingeDrinker]

I'm with you on this my dude. FX 6100. In my case I'm just waiting for AMD's VEGA to release before I start my next build.

[@blobfish7075]

Agreed. I am hoping for a good 6 core ryzen cpu.

[@chrisdroste3296]

My HTPC is an FX4100 w/ 7790; love that machine but runs hot (very limited ventilation/fans on purpose) and i have a 4690k / 390X combo for gaming and i personally think a 1700 or 1700X on a B350 board with some fast DDR4 will be THE sweet spot for the Ryzen lineup. people keep comparing these chips to the 6700 and the 7700 but ignoring the fact that not only are they within 10% (compared to the FX8350/70 that's a monstrous improvement) but their TDPs dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Throw a Giant Noctura or Cryorig on these chips and watch'em sing at everything for a relatively svelte price!

[@JustAnotherOne1]

TheSuperNESman I'm still on the fx6300 oc at 4.3ghz too lmao but I don't have time to game as much as I used to...

[@erchandixekhewniz1803]

Same :( I am not sure should i upgrade my FX 6300 which sits at 4.4ghz and KINDA does fine, not sure is it such an improvement and as you said that mobo/ram fux, might wait for another series to come out.

[@IzludeTingel]

In a nutshell: If you bought the i7 920 back in the day, you would have enjoyed what the 5960x had to offer, except now you don't need to. Get an 1800x because it is 5% better than the 5960x and wayyyy cheaper... and if you were the type to get an i5-2600k, then wait for the 1600x because it will have less cores that are more optimized and higher clocks. 1800x=tick 1600x=tock. The tick is for mass multitasking, video encoding, rendering in blender etc... and the tock is for gaming and media playback. BTW the tick always has better OS experience, very snappy response.

[@EbenezerScroogeMcDuck]

well someone FINALLY gets it. this is the tick-tock market that intel has been doing for many years now. they come out with one chip that introduces heavy workload, and then a more optimized chip with less threads, but more instruction sets/clock. The tock chip is usually better for folks like us because most of us just wanna sit back, game, eat pizza, and not worry about having to OC to get a game to run smoother. OC on a tock chip is almost never necessary, while the tick chip always has to OC to match the tock chip's base performance for gaming.

[@ArtisChronicles]

honestly if I had a 920 and still had the 920 I'd enjoy an upgrade to the x5650 today. That's just my take on that though.

[@OxygenGammling]

exept that a 1800x is basically a 1700 for 160 more

[@kgtc]

Gyrave Except it supports faster RAM. AMD binned it on IMC and infinity fabric. Maybe your Ryzen 1700 could hit 4.1?

[@nexxusty]

KGT UserCast Memory support is 100% motherboard dependant. What are you on about dude? That goes for every CPU in the entire world. All CPU's of the same generation can do the same frequencies on memory. There isn't a single CPU in the same generation that has faster memory support than another. This is proven by putting crap CPU's on good mobos and being able to run RAM as fast as high end procs. Im doing it right now with a G4600 with RAM @ 3200mhz.

[@tek2313]

AMD is better, I'm going with the Ryzen 2700x

[@Alen725]

Its certainly not better just high price/quality ratio. Intel fuckboys can try to bullshit about i5 beating it because of early benches but we still need to wait for Zen 2 gaming option to compare AMD to Intel.

[@topbanana8438]

you want proof of the i5 8600k pissing on ryzen 2700x at games stock speeds, plenty out there but if you say no, then show me the proof as i cant find any on you tube lol. coffee lake is over its now 9th gen

[@Alen725]

@@topbanana8438 "pissing on" yeah if you buying 1080ti or RTX for fucking 1080p then you will get like 135 instead 125fps in some games (ofc if you have 144Hz monitor in first place), wow amazing pissing on.

[@topbanana8438]

lost with that comment lol maybe research before losing your rag. remember the i5 was only £218

[@Alen725]

@@topbanana8438 "was only £218" And then people who though its pissing on Ryzen while making rigs for 60fps ruined price, good job on research.

[@snoopadillo]

"buh buh you're bottlenecking the GPUs!!!111 i know some CS:GO pros that play on 1024x768, and i can clearly see difference between 300 and 600 FPS!!!!111" [satire]

[@qatronano]

chiken144p i tell the difference between 300-600 FPS in cs...

[@snoopadillo]

on my BenQ XL2420T? sure thing e: I went around and played between the FPS values 200~500 and the difference was so non existent, also by having higher fps_max values like 700, 800, 999 the load times significantly rise too, and having net_graph 1 on all the time decreases the FPS by 5~15%.

[@unknowngamer7325]

chiken144p Like they have a 600 hz monitor

[@KomaTechno]

Unknown Gamer Like they have 600 Hz eyes

[@Fr4Ged]

For most games yes but certainly not for CSGO. It is not like you see more etc but you have some kind of input delay for your mouse movements when you are below 100 fps in CSGO. It is really weird.

[@UberHaxorJuke]

can you test high core count cpus like 1800X and 1700X and 6900K in vr if high core count is good for vr

[@UberHaxorJuke]

or high core cpus in general

[@itshoddtowardd]

KraineK xDDD karambitch nerdcubed the youtuber has a Intel 6 core extreme edition cpu and he does fine in vr, he does use two titans though

[@UberHaxorJuke]

yes but what i want to know is that do high core count cpus perform better than like 7700K that have less core but more clock speed

[@OldCircuitGaming]

in theory VR are just games like any other and should see similar performance differences from platform to platform.

[@StRoRo]

Its a very good point made. Yes it seems you will be getting a little better performance with Intel with gaming, but with the new AMD you will be getting so much more everywhere else.I'd like to stream at 1440p, which my internet can do but my old i5 cant, but this a Ryzen 7 should do it.

[@ObjectiveComplete]

I got a RYZEN 7 1700 paired with a GTX 1070! I'm happy. Full 1080p 144hz monitor!

[@randomdudewalkingdownthest8158]

to hell with 1800x go for 1700.

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

GamingGuru Why? Wouldn't it be more "future proof" to get the 1800X???

[@Kiseki_Fan2k24]

All processors in the R7 lineup are the same exact thing. The 1800x and 1700x just have XFR which makes auto OC easy. Anyone who knows how to manually overclock can OC a R7 1700 to 3.9Ghz or 4.0Ghz which is about what the 1800x and 1700x are OCing to right now. Maybe in the future the manufacturing process for Ryzen will improve and the 1800x and 1700x will OC higher but right now the R7 1700 is the best choice since its cheaper than the other 2 and clocks just as high

[@SquintyGears]

PSYCHO they tend to overclock at the same speed so the 1700 is going to be as good as a 1800x if you take 5min to fiddle with it for 170$ less. Now that should be a simple choice

[@ozzyo99]

Sagman Twelve the 1700 has Xfr too, but XFR is irrelevant. Manual Oc is what you need on all Ryzen, otherwise XFR only OC one core

[@ivandobrev2240]

because they are the same. 1700 is cheaper and can clock to the same frequencies making it the exact same copy of 1800x.

[@GeorgAyres]

I honestly don't know what all the fuss about Ryzen is all about. It's a freaking amazing CPU, competitive introduction, shift in tech market, etc. This is huge for us, people. They clearly perform well, and you average PC user probably don't notice those FPS differences above 60fps anyway. So stop comparing fps-per-fps performance between them and Intel, and just enjoy the fact that a second company has released compelling, considerably cheaper material that will affect the whole scenario. True 8-core badass chips, high-performance, perfect for productivity, excellent for games, aggressive pricing, still early, room for improvement... To me, honestly, AMD have set the standards high, and I don't know why people are still crying over it and creating all this drama. Ryzen is true, and I hope that it shakes up the way both AMD and Intel make chips in the future. That's what matters.

[@username-vq6mm]

once games are programmed for 8 cores it will be good for gaming

[@RiposteThis]

It's really not an amazing CPU. It's just a well priced CPU. However, it is able to outperform a year old CPU for half the price of it, that's great. It's also not excellent for games, it's decent, but it provides less performance than the 7700k that is $200CDN less. So really, it's decent, and it's definitely the jolt that AMD needed to come back from the dead, and hopefully will lower some of Intel's prices.

[@OdinAlgeron]

people said this back when the FX line of cpu's was released, how has that worked out so far? In gaming IPC is what matters, this is why even i5's are better at it than ryzen

[@chrishansen1282]

The fuss is Intel fantards getting butthurt

[@OdinAlgeron]

Nah, Only ones really butthurt are the ones that bought amd FX cpu's and hoped for finally getting a good cheap upgrade. Not only are ryzen expensive, amd fan's wasted all this time suffering with shit performance for nothing. When they should have bought themselves a great performing i5 for CHEAPER a loooong time ago...

[@jerkzao]

I think a good idea would be to test it streaming with OBS. We already know that it's good for gaming, that's nice and all but... how about the one thing that it really can shine among gamers? My idea for this test would be: An online game with good graphics (Battlefield 1 for example), 3500 bitrate, x264, 720p, 60fps (as it is the most used settings). Test an average framerate without streaming, then start streaming with different presets (veryfast, faster, fast and medium [slow might be too much]), play with each setting for 5 minutes (I think its enough tbh as obs will tell you if the cpu isn't handling the process right away). Then check how much the fps have dropped or what preset did the cpu started to struggle and show us. This in a multiplayer environment, any map and preferably with a good amount of players. This will probably cause some inconsistency in the test, but its a true test, I don't think a streamer would stop just because the map has changed or because more people have joined the server. Not trying to tell you what to do, obviously, but I think it would be a really interesting and useful test and there isn't one like that on the internet yet.

[@LoftySkinner]

Who still uses OBS? ReLive is just simply put better in every respect. And Shadowplay is OK too and while its output is a bit soft it's less hardware intensive than anything OBS can do. The only good use I got out of OBS was using the Shadowplay codec WITHIN OBS which actually turned out better quality wise than just straight up Shadowplay did for some reason.

[@jerkzao]

oh really? have you tried recording or streaming 720p 60fps? or 1080p 30fps? Lets not talk about 1080p 60fps... If you havent go ahead and do it. Then check the average fps your video file has. And even if you can ignore the fps, have you seen the pixelation on stream using nvenc or amf? ughh discusting. I switched from a gtx 960 to a rx 470 3 months ago and I'm so disapointed... I mean performance is amazing for the price but it has been nothing but problems. Most of them have been fixed with driver updates, but I still have quite a few. To be honest if I knew what I know today I wouldnt have switched. At least my 960 could record 4k without a hiccup. I know this last part seems a bit out of topic but it just shows that performance isnt everything... why do I need 1800cb score if it cant (assuming) handle streaming at 1080p 60fps wich is something that most people are interested in? "b-b-b-but 1080p 60fps is too much for 3500 bitrate!" Have you used low bitrate with medium preset or slower on x264?

[@markschwacofer1802]

i have a 470 and i get 60 to 100 plus fps in games i play. in town i usually get about 62 while out questing its 100 plus . gtx 960 runs 399 on neweggwww.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA73M53D6132&cm_re=gtx_960-_-9SIA73M53D6132-_-Product to 500.00 depending on which brand. compared to the rx 480 at 204 www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202275&cm_re=rx_480-_-14-202-275-_-Product heres benchmarks comparatively gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-RX-480-vs-GeForce-GTX-960. so go cry a river to somebody whos ignorant of the actual facts. The rx 470 cost 164.99 bout 1/3 of the cost of the gtx 960 the rx 480 could be had for 20 to 50 dollars depending on the 4 to 8 gig version. the sapphire with 8 gig is 184.99 after rebate so cost um bout 200 less and outperforms the 960 easy.......

[@jerkzao]

What the hell are you talking about? Im not talking about in-game performance... Im talking about the performace of the encoder and the problems that I had with the card and thats not even the point Im trying to make. But what do I know? You have read some benchmarks, you clearly have the power of knowledge.

[@markschwacofer1802]

im not sure which brand of card you have. i have this one...smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JM2DF2G/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and have had no problems with it , XFX. if there was a defect in the card you should of returned it .

[@mephustowest1876]

Your info on ryzen and comparisons has helped me a lot in my quest to decide what I want to go to when my 3570k dies. Thanks for the video.

[@lonholmberg8776]

Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You For a common sense look at this CPU. Breath of fresh air and makes sense. If I am getting at least 60+ frames per second, AND render shit as fast as this cpu allows, I am happy. For LESS than $600? Even BETTER!!!

[@SenorSwagBuns]

Techteam did a video on ryzen running on 4k it is within 1% of intels 7700k, so if your playing 4k it is actually worth buying a 1700 over a 7700, If you want future options for stuff other than gaming.

[@IRNatman]

R7 1700 though, it hits the same clock speeds for almost 200$ less. GET THAT CPU, NOT THIS ONE!

[@theotherchannel2279]

What does the X do???

[@ppsarrakis]

the X is supposed to be derived from XFR extended frequency range,its the same mechanic as nvidias boost,it overclocks the cpu if it see's room in temps/volts,BUT the tech is still at its infant,.... you wont see this being major till AM4+ probably if you are to buy a R7 buy the 1700 and a good cooler/aio with the money difference !!!!!!!!!

[@zpa5649]

Well, for now. We don't know what bios and software updates will do. But, for now it's the best in it's line of SKUs. XFR (for now) only OC's one core itself by 100 MHZ and does pretty much nothing.

[@CossackHD]

X rips off your money. It also has automatic overclock for toddlers, rich toddlers. Real men save 200 bucks and use manual overclock - takes 5 minutes.

[@tjhessmon4327]

Thanks for the review of Ryzen 7. After being involved with the building of Clone machines for over 3 decades, I find it interesting that the old paradigms remain as folks tend to focus on a single component of a machine, thereby ignoring its contribution to the system as whole. I find this same paradigm related to vehicles, where most folks focus on the advertised horsepower numbers and completely ignore the function of the engine as a functioning component of the complete vehicle package. For Clone Systems, I have discovered this single component focus to cause massive issues with throughput when improperly applied. Most folks forget that their clone system is an assembly of bits which must play well together in order for the result to be that which is desired. Is the Ryzen a better processor than an intel or even a qualcom for that notion? The whole of any one system is not equal to the benchmark result of any single component Its the assembly of various data processing components which eventually provides the customer experience either positive or negative. That said, I'm excited that AMD has decided to invest in the gaming market, with offerings which have been observed by many to provide a proper customer gaming experience for far less expense. What I find somewhat elusive is the fact that the marketing and sales folks who manufacture gaming software, do not appear to fully grasp this concept in relation to the future of their industry.