AMD's Ryzen CPUs use 10% less die area than their Intel equivalents

[AlienALX]

But they had it coming. I'm not usually the one to say that as I think it's harsh, but Kaby Lake was a minor improvement over Skylake and everyone knew that RyZen was not only coming but was highly competitive. It was either you had no choice, which would be highly unfortunate; impatience, which is likely; or you simply did not want to give AMD the time of day.

True, very true. Thing is though reviewers made Kaby sound much better than it actually was. One website even wrote an article defending the price of the I3 K. Much to the uproar of its members lmao.

I don't know why reviewers were so enthusiastic about Kaby tbh. They should have rightly put it in its place and said that it delivered nothing that wasn't all but promised with Devil's Canyon (IE 5ghz).

Ah well. I guess to those that don't understand how Intel are it's at least going to make CPUs more affordable for all.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

pretty much spot on although one could argue that kaby was less than a minor upgrade given the heat issues one would probably be able to OC skylake to similar levels

A 6700K with enough volts (1.45V) to get to the same heat levels as a 5.1Ghz 7700K (1.38V)could run at 4.8Ghz or 4.9ghz. That's not exactly a huge difference. From what I've seen games stop scaling after 4.6Ghz. It's only in CPU-driven tasks that the 200Mhz makes a difference. And if that were so important to you, waiting for Ryzen or buying a 6800K would have been far more sensible for everyday rendering and heavy workloads.

 

[RobM]

so glad I cannot afford to upgrade my rig yet haha