Intel should be very worried about AMD's Ryzen 7 processors

kipper said:

I am thinking that a good number of consumers that are considering upgrading to include gamers will take into consideration that the frame-loss while gaming might be acceptable considering that you can buy the top-shelve Ryzen and the top of the line GPU for the same money you will spend on the top Intel processor.......

I am not an AMD fanboy but I am a cost conscious consumer and for the money AMD is still a good option....

I've actually been thinking about this. Let start with some basic truths... how many actually run Intel's 6 or 8-core processors vs the standard 4-core i7? If we look just within tenforums I'd guess maybe 20 percent run 6-8 core processors. So, that now leaves 80 percent running i7, i5 & i3 processors. So, let’s say only 5 percent run i3’s. That leaves 65 percent of us (me included – i7) running i7’s and 15s. BTW these numbers are a wild guess, but empirical evidence says they’re about right.

With that we’re looking at about 75 percent of the community running i7/i5 processors. This is the bulk of Intel’s sales to the consumer market. Now, when we look at the i7/i5 chip prices they all under $400 bucks and currently perform just as well if not better than AMD’s $500 ($499) dollar R7 1800X chip. Here’s a current look at the Skylake i7/i5 prices (Newegg). BTW we can see Intel has already dropped prices…

• I7-6700K - $309.99
• I7-6700 - $314.99 (why this is priced higher, I’ve no idea)
• I5-6600K - $239.99
• I5-6600 - $219.99
• And here’s the i7-7700K Kaby lake processor at $349.99

Well, if I’m a gamer, and reading the Ryzen reviews, those Intel prices look damn good compared to any of the Ryzen chips – $499.99 (R7 1800X); $399.99 (R7 1700X); $349.99 (R7 1800). And they perform better in gaming!

Where’s the real price advantage? Yeah, you get an 8-core chip for a really good price, but for gamers (were the chips really count), there’s nothing there to make me say AMD. And for the everyday i3, 5, and 7 user where 8-cores mean nothing there, now you’re paying higher prices for an AMD chip! Given Intel's brand name It seems all they had to do was drop prices below AMD, and wholla, all is good in Intel land. What advantage!?!?!

With that, If AMD wants to win this battle, they’d better fix their gaming performance quick or it’s lights out!

My two cents.

Even if you aren't a gamer, given the lower prices coupled with Intel's brand name puts AMD in a corner. Especially for those of us in the know. AMD better get it together quick.

For most casual gamers would be FPS/$$ ratio.

Ond one more point:
Microsoft works closely with Intel
For example, the 4K Netflix streaming and the newer Kaby Lake chips.

In an effort to placate the studios, Microsoft introduced "PlayReady 3.0" with the Windows 10 Anniversary update. PlayReady 3.0 is a hardware-based DRM (digital rights management) system that requires dedicated decoding hardware, either on the CPU or on the graphics card, preventing the video stream from being captured in software or via an external capture device.
There's also the matter of hardware decoding support for 10-bit HEVC, the 4K codec used by Netflix and other streaming services. Currently, only Intel's seventh generation Kaby Lake processors support 10-bit HEVC decoding. Older sixth generation Skylake CPUs only support 8-bit HEVC decoding. Technically, Nvidia's 10-series graphics cards—including the GTX 1080, GTX 1070, and GTX 1060—feature 10-bit HEVC decoding and PlayReady 3.0 support, but aren't listed as compatible.

Netflix 4K streaming comes to the PC—but it needs Kaby Lake CPU | Ars Technica

And AMD???

I am not an AMD fanboy, but here is some AMD RYZEN 1800X build porn from JayzTwoCents(around 6:17):