AMD shows DOOM on RYZEN and Vega - CPU clock speed at 3.6 GHz

CES is going on and with an overhaul of all kinds of tech news there are only a handful of companies we gamers have interest in. Among them, Nvidia and AMD seem to occupy the top most spot due to obvious reasons.

[Derceto]

Rode the AMD wave for a good while through the 2000s with Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64 CPUs. AMD just hasn't hit the mark in a long time now, so I've gone through an i7 950, and currently i7 4770. Used to love the ATI cards as well, but since acquiring ATI, AMD just hasn't delivered in the GPU dept. in a good while either.

Keep hoping AMD hits a good stride again, so as to give Intel some good competition again in the CPU market, and Nvidia in the GPU market.

[ARESWARLORD]

I can't save for the AMD CPUs as I have an I7 4770 in one PC and an i7 6700 K in anther but as far as their gpus go in the one I have RX 480 it's a fantastic GPU and in the other I have an RX 470 with another on order so I can Crossfire. Their video cards these days are top notch

[Razzer]

Same here. My Rx 480 is a great GPU. Doom on high settings gets 120 FPS. And the price is pretty awesome. No issues with my FX 63XX CPU either. For solid 1080p gaming, AMD is pretty awesome.

[NatureOfLogic_]

Crossfire RX 470 is a waste of money. Save your money and buy a better GPU like a single 1070 or 1080.

[Princess_Pilfer]

Performance wise, AMD are competing with Nvidia. The RX480 is fairly consistenly very near (both better and worse) the 1060s performance. The only specific problems they have compared to Nvidia cards (that I'm aware of) is that they can't do hairworks well because Nvidia built it specifically to ***k up AMD performance (they did the same thing with extreme tessalation in things like sub-surface water and hair that nobody was ever going to see before AMD crimson drivers started just overriding the games settings to prevent it.) Turn hairworks off though, and you get similar performance at a similar price. With more Vram, which usually won't matter (if you're actually filling the vram playing unmodded games then your card is probably in over its head) but it is nice to have the headroom for modding.

[bluefox755]

Hopefully Ryzen brings something to the table, at least with budget-mid range, I don't expect them to top Intel at the high end.

[KingAlistair]

Really low clock speed.At least it will be better than the terrible single core performance they offer now. Maybe the target the low end market,up to 200$ for a cpu.

[Princess_Pilfer]

The clock speed is 1 factor. Keep in mind that the FX 9570 runs at 5ghz, but gets it's ass handed to it by an i7 4700k at 3.9 ghz. The i7 6000 series stock clock tops out at like 4ghz with the 6700k, and they're regularly down in the mid to low 3s.

[KingAlistair]

I know...i have a 5820k 4.6 ghz,and a E5-2697 V2 on my workstation.Still,nothing impressive.

[Princess_Pilfer]

Yeah, lets call it low end because it's not an industrial grade 3000 USD server chip. That's legit. Porche's 2016 911 turbo is low end too, I mean if you're comparing it to formula 1 racing machines that do 0 to 60 in 1.6 seconds.

[TankCrossing]

Low compared to what? It is an 8 core CPU.
https://www.overclockers.co...

[KingAlistair]

My 4 year old E5-2697 V2 run at 12 cores,3.3 ghz,and my brothers dual 2699 v4s,which means 44 cores,at 3.1 ghz.So,nothing impressive.Waiting for a new 22 core amd cpu.So yeah,low power.

[TankCrossing]

3.6Ghz is stock speed on these processors. The stock speed on the CPUs you listed is 2.7Ghz and 2.2Ghz respectively. Even the i7-5820k you mentioned in your comment above is 3.6Ghz stock, and that's 6 cores (it is a great CPU though, I have one under water myself).

Ryzen is a desktop class 8 core processor. Personally I highly doubt it will match the i7-6900 in much besides a few carefully selected benchmarks, but if you want to draw conclusions based purely on cores and clock speeds then the 6900 is the obvious choice for a comparison.

Why do you hate AMD? It'd be great if Ryzen and Vega turn out well.

[KingAlistair]

Nobody i know who works or plays on pc,so hundreds of people,uses stock clocks.I expect at least 20-25 cpu variants from amd,from 70$ to 10.000$.Also,the new amd cpu is slower i would reckon 5-7 fps in battlefield 1,seeing it from up close from 2 pcs compared to a 6900k,.I dont hate amd,i just don't support any company who is satisfied with"just good" value/performance.I only buy and support the very best.Lastly,i don't think you know how a 44 oc cpu actually performs.If you knew,you would consider the amd cpu low pperformance.

[TankCrossing]

Eh I can only assume you are being deliberately ignorant at this point. You must know AMD allow overclocking on their CPUs.

As for your 44core server class CPU, I'm sure it's fantastic if you are trying to multibox a full world of Warcraft raid. For the majority games available a well clocked i5 would probably out-perform it.

[pleasuretokill]

No thanks. 1080TI for that power for me, thanks. AMD unimpressive yet again and late to the party as always. I guess if you want to save a buck, sure. Power over cost worries for me. If I wanted a card with the power of a 1080, I would have bought a 1080..... 7 months ago.

[riibhu]

I'll believe when amd shows benchmark of games other than doom which clearly favour amd because of vulkan.

[Maxor]

"On par with the 1080" are you serious? What excitement I had just left the room.