I'm curious to see the temps on ryzen. I don't seem to recall any heat spreader issues with Amd. My new nas is incredibly cool for being a factory cooler and a 4+ghz "quad core"

Sajin

Vlada011

Someone needs to do a clock to clock comparison.

Agreed, OC vs stock is not a good comparison. Although, an 8 beating a 10 core, although that likely will not hold up at the clock for clock level.

Sajin

pat39576

Sajin

Vlada011

Someone needs to do a clock to clock comparison.

Agreed, OC vs stock is not a good comparison. Although, an 8 beating a 10 core, although that likely will not hold up at the clock for clock level.

I was mainly talking about the 6900k @ 3.2 vs 1700x @ 3.4.

Isnt the 1800x supposed to be slightly better than the 1700x? If so, why isnt it on the list, or did I miss another chart with it?

I'm excited to see AMD get in the game, but I really want to see end user review, not the (possibly) cherry picked chips. I just want to see that these numbers hold up across the board for the majority of users.

Sajin
The only difference between the 1700x & 1800x is clock speed.

Ah, ok, got it. Sorry, havent been able to follow these two cou's as closely as i would like.

Viper453
looks like we have an intel killer here.

Nope. Running the 6900k @ 3.4GHz will match/beat the 1700x/1800x at the same clocks.

Viper453
looks like we have an intel killer here.

Don't know about killer - but maybe painmaker.  I care much less about the clock for clock comparison as I do the performance/$ comparison and THAT is where the killing is happening.  Doesn't make sense to pay a $500 premium for a small bump in performance...  Oh wait that's what Intel's been trying to make people do for years with a new CPU, chipset, and socket every year or two.

5960x @ 4.0 with ram at 2133 MHz vs 1700x @ 4.0...
 
Only 900 points difference in the 3dmark fire strike physics test.   

09973
I see Ryzen matching or maybe just slightly better than Intel's current offering. AMD will not wow me performance wise there. What will wow people is the price points. Still the big question that I have not seen at info on is load temps. TDP - 95watts.... cool! Much better than AMDs previous offerings but I say what about its running temps! 

How you mean slightly better than Intel?
Are you aware that 4th or 5th model from list with 65W power consumption is faster than i7-6850K.
Now is 4th, but I saw AMD will offer some Pro models and than will be more. 
That's insane. Ryzen is exactly proper name, but I would change his name in IP5HPC or short of i7-6950X performance for 500$ with half power consumption.
That's AMD. He couldn't jump 600% performance, it's more than 300% stronger than FX8350. Intel give us 3%.
 
Reviews constantly in Intel favor try to present that Ryzen 5 not Ryzen 7 is fastet than i7-6800K, because that's less painfull.
But he is faster than i7-6850K, because he is same, 200MHz higher clock and 12 PCI-E more cost 250$. For 250$ with AMD you get whole processor stronger than i7-6850K with Intel you can buy i5 Kaby Lake and to shot self in head.
 
I would like to know only one thing for end, is it Ryzen 5 cable overclock to reach i7-6900K, that would be proper humiliation for Intel and when customers install faster DDR4 kits on AMD than Intel. Only that is not confirmed yet.
I'm more sorry for companies who tried hard to offer us excellent Z270 motherboards with hope to people upgrade even with zero improvements as always.
Now all of them Maximus... Code, Apex, Extreme, Formula, Strix will be in shadow of AMD and they will not be looked as high end RIGs any more.
Customers will be faced with questions... Why you didn't both AMD for same money? What, you both before AMD? Ohhh... I'm sorry... next time remember never NVIDIA, never Intel before AMD show own line.

Viper453

Sajin
5960x @ 4.0 with ram at 2133 MHz vs 1700x @ 4.0...
 
Only 900 points difference in the 3dmark fire strike physics test.   

That is pretty close, maybe 6900k can beat it at 4.0.

Pretty sure it can. What do you score? 

WackyWRZ
Don't know about killer - but maybe painmaker.  I care much less about the clock for clock comparison as I do the performance/$ comparison and THAT is where the killing is happening.  Doesn't make sense to pay a $500 premium for a small bump in performance...  Oh wait that's what Intel's been trying to make people do for years with a new CPU, chipset, and socket every year or two.

I think many people are missing this very point. AMD is comparing the R7 to the 6900K which, when OC'd, may beat the R7. But look at the price. LOOK AT IT.
 
Ryzen doesn't need to beat the 6900K given the price difference. It just needs to be close enough in performance to be a viable alternative to the average consumer.
 
But if AMD can offer a product that has similar/marginally better/marginally worse performance than Intel's top end offering which costs in excess of $1000 at a price similar/marginally higher/marginally lower to a 6700K/7700K I would certainly consider that option.
 
And lets also not forget that Ryzen can accomplish this at a much lower TDP which, to me, is another great selling point.