|Intel still beats Ryzen at games, but how much does it matter?|
|By Thom Holwerda on 2017-03-17 22:48:39|
Realistically, nobody should have expected Ryzen to be king of the hill when it comes to gaming. We know that Broadwell isn't, after all; Intel's Skylake and Kaby Lake parts both beat Broadwell in a wide range of games. This is the case even though Skylake and Kaby Lake are limited to four cores and eight threads; for many or most games, high IPC and high clock speeds are the key to top performance, and that's precisely what Kaby Lake delivers.
In spite of this, reading the various reviews around the Web - and comment threads, tweets, and reddit posts - one gets the feeling that many were hoping or expecting Ryzen to somehow beat Intel across the board, and there's a prevailing narrative that Ryzen is in some sense a bad gaming chip. But this argument is often paired with the claim that some kind of non-specific "optimization" is going to salvage the processor's performance, that AMD fans just need to keep the faith for a few months, and that soon Ryzen's full power will be revealed.
I'm just glad there's finally competition in the desktop processor space again. Intel started to charge some outrageous prices these past few years, but if you wanted the best performance, you really didn't have much of a choice.
With Ryzen, AMD is showing the world it's back on track. It might not be there yet in every aspect, but it's an amazingly promising start.
- The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, RX Vega 56 review - 2017-08-14
- AMD Threadripper reviews and benchmarks - 2017-08-11
- AMD Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200 CPU review: Zen on a budget - 2017-07-28
- AMD details Threadripper 1920X and 1950X CPUs - 2017-07-13
- More related articles