10 days 2 hours
4 days 17 hours
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn
35 days 9 hours
14 days 19 hours
Tales of Zestiria
13 days 6 hours
I'm late to the party, but the information on Ryzen during the new horizon event sparked me to check out articles.
Cinebench is being used right now as a staple to predict the sort of single threaded performance that will occur on the desktop (as far as I'm concerned).
People always, at least for me as a techie have never seen it as an adequate judge of gaming performance.
There are so many different ways to gauage performance, and even if you buy the same CPU/GPU combo, you may see different results than the benchmarked ones. When I look at benchmarks it really depends, and I like to look at physical numbers over benchmarks in games. Why? Because, I'm not just a gamer. I'm also a programmer and video editor. I also run servers. So, the highest gaming performance is nice, but it's irrelevant when I'm looking for a product that fits my budget and is capable of doing all these things without fail.
My friend and I do lan party type setups all the time and he's using an i5, I'm using an 8350. We both play the same games at the same FPS in most cases, unless one of use gets a GPU upgrade first.
Battlefield 1 Ultra:
-AMD FX 8350, 16GB 1866Mhz DDR3 ram, 7200rpm HDD, RX 470 [60-120fps, with some minor 45-50fps dips because the game isn't optimized fully yet.]
-i5 4790k, 16GB 1600Mhz ram, R9 380 [60-85 FPS, with 30-45FPS dips]
-Same AMD with R9 270x: 45-60FPS
[The CPU was redlined in this setup, most people would assume the CPU is bottlenecking the GPU]
-Same Intel with R9 380: 60-80FPS
[Green across the board]
-AMD with RX 470: 150-200FPS
[Green across the board, with random 3ms yellow dips, that don't effect the FPS]
Right now, it isn't about the CPU as much as it is the GPU, and that's the major problem with these benchmarks, because the single precision is to predict your desktop experience.
What it actually predicts:
-How long a decompression of any archive file will take.
-How long a CPU-based video encoding will take
-CPU-based floating-point in games.
The Catzilla 4K benchmark shows that in gaming terms, this i5 and FX 8350 are similar, dipping to 7fps in CPU physics. It's possible that an i7 gets 10fps on a physics based rendering test, but it's really not worth the +$1000 price tag for my uses of a PC, and I don't think that 3fps is going to stand out in a benchmark unless you're even with the competitor.
Yes, that sounds about right. Bulldozer was pretty weak, but the improvements that came with Piledriver brought the AMD FX CPUs up to comparable performance of the i5s. So if there is a 40+ percentage increase with Ryzen over Piledriver FX CPUs, that would put AMD in i7 performance circles, which would effectively make any i5 obsolete.