Again this could very well be fake, considering the source for this is just a post on some Chinese forum. That's what I take from this leak of benchmarks assuming this is the true performance we should expect. Gamers will also be better off with a solid single-threaded performing quad core CPU instead. With performance shown here, Ryzen will clearly not be one of those legendary chips, and while it will have its place in the marketplace (barring AMD doing something stupid with pricing), enthusiasts looking for a truly premium processor will continue to have Intel as the only current provider for their needs (excluding certain highly multi-threaded use cases). I love AMD's past products when they made something truly competitive even in the highest end of the market, like with Athlon XP and A64 (I bought multiple of both back then). If you feel like doing charity, donate to the Red Cross or something. And yes I want AMD to do well, who doesn't, but we need to hold these companies to the highest standard and only give credit when they release a superior product overall. That's just unacceptable for 2016 in my opinion. However as I've said before, I will not be buying this processor if it's slower than Ivy Bridge in single-threaded workloads. So I am not surprised it could be significantly slower than the i7-6900k.
Things are never as rosy as they look, especially with a for-profit corporation who is always looking to showcase their product in the best light possible. A lot of people here naively bought into AMD's marketing about it being comparable to a $1000 CPU. This is exactly why I said after that AMD demo that we need to wait for retail availability / independent non cherry picked benchmarks.
0 kommentar(er)
