I would also like to point out that if minimum
frames per second are considered (which imo is just as important as averages, because thats the only time you see slow downs in performance), the chip more than holds its ground compared to 6900k.
GamerNexus tested a ton of games and the results are awesome;
Battlefield 1 ~ ryzen wins
by 7-8 frames.
GTA V - loses by 10 fps
metro last light loses by 10 fps
smt messed up with warhammer numbers as it shows 6900k abnormally low so ignoring that, ryzen loses by 10 fps to the 7700K.
watch dogs is a bad game for ryzen its 20 frames slower, which is almost 50%. aka this one game perf/$ is equal. worst case basically.
AOT ryzen loses by 100%, seems more of an anomaly.
average frames dont tell the whole story for sure as in BF1 you would think that b.c intel has slightly higher avg fps it will be the better performer, but apparently it throws a lot more low FPS numbers too, which is more likely to contribute to a worse gaming experience.
And the chip is a total slayer for the other benchmarks.
so yeah barely under performance for 6900k for half the price, i should order another one...
source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/28 ... rks/page-7
And apparently SMT on/off affects FPS which is pretty bizarre. Im sure the software guys will figure it out in the long term though.