Anyone else skeptical about AMD Ryzen?

Just watched Linus getting close and personal with benchmarks. I am impressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUndzpdo1I

I may be one of the rare cases but I always sticked by AMD computers.
Why? Let's just say I played The WItcher 3 on an AMD A4 on 1280x720 at medium graphics and run well. Every time I updated the drivers I had a 5-10% performance improvement on gaming which earns my trust.

this will def. not the end for intel but hopefully we will see more movement in the cpu market now.

I, for myself, think about upgrading this year from my i5 4460 and ryzen sounds like an option. But: wait for tests, wait for mainboards, wait for the right moment

IT HAS RGB ON IT'S COOLER, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EVER NEED?

I, for one, believe everything I read on the internet.

I think Ryzen will be good and outperform Intel for 1 to 2 years and then Intel will catch up or possibly pull ahead again. I have a feeling the Ryzen chips will not have much room for overclocking though.

I really don't care, the only thing I care about is AMD putting out something good to bring back competition. I'm sick of the slow progress and high prices form lack of competition, we are long overdue for some innovation.

Have AMD and it's a pain in the arse.

Competition is always good for consumers, hope that I'll finally have a chance grabbing some cheap i7-2600 or E3-1230V2 for upgrade.

I had my last Intel CPU in 1998-1999. It was Pentium MMX 233. Since then I went with AMD. My last AMD was a Phenom X6 1090T. Fast, but power hungry. It got really, really hot.

Two weeks ago I switched to Intel i5-4460 and I'm sooo happy. The CPU doesn't go over 50°C. Thanks to that I can have passive video card cooling. I like that. And that's why after 19 years of friendship with AMD I went with Intel. Unfortunately, the lineup of AMD's fast CPUs gets really, really hot under load.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised by Polaris GPUs (got a very cheap RX480), so I believe they will do well with CPUs too. I don't expect Intel to simply fold though, they will probably announce something new soon, they are just waiting for the right timing.

I have fond memories of the glory days of old when the first AMD Athlon K7 chips launched back in 1999. They were the first CPUs to reach 1 GHz and were faster than anything Intel could muster, outpacing the Pentium III's of the time by a good 10-20%. The Athlon delivered a hefty blow to Intel, and had them scrambling to play catch up. It took Intel a couple of years until they could close the gap to AMD with the second gen Pentium 4s, and they made some notable missteps along the way (the Netburst architecture as originally conceived for Pentium 4 was supposed to scale to 10 GHz, and was dependent on controversial RAMBUS DIMMs). But this was before Intel ditched Netburst in favour of the Core architecture, and as you mention, AMD has never managed to retake the performance crown from Intel since.

With Intel's unforeseen delays in shifting to ever smaller fabrication processes as of late, and the revelation that the 8th gen will still not be running on the 10nm process but is stuck at 14nm, it is tempting to entertain the notion that Intel is not as prepared as they would like to deal with Ryzen. Actually, the fact that they announced the upcoming gen of processors this soon after the current batch is noteworthy in and of itself, not to mention the promise of a (pretty miserable) 15% gain in performance as stated in actual figures being hitherto unprecedented (as described in this article). They're also accelerating the launch of their high end X299 platform and top tier 10-core Skylake chips, slated to launch sometime in August, while also pushing for some kind of Hyperthreading on the next batch of i5s (possibly cannibalising the i7s in the process, if true) but whether that will be enough to counter Ryzen remains to be seen.

I am cautiously optimistic that AMD does have something special in their hands with Ryzen, and if nothing else, will set a fire under Intel's complacent fat arse. If the performance per dollar really is as good as AMD make it out to be, I will happily switch to Ryzen for my next build if Intel doesn't have a competitive answer by then (I say this as someone who is currently quite happy with their i7 4790K, but full 8/16 core performance for that price is very tempting indeed for multimedia work).

That said, even if we run with the theory that Intel won't be able to react to Ryzen in time, it's far too early to claim that this is the end for Intel; that market share and those deep pockets won't just evaporate into thin air. And let's not forget that Intel has a less than admirable record when it comes to business practices and strong-arming competitors and vendors, and may not be shy to resort to such tactics again when driven to a corner. The best we can hope for is an even fight, and thus better products at better prices for the consumer from all sides.

They've been leapfrogging each other for decades—just like AMD/ATI and Nvidia—and will continue doing so. But it's always a good practice to be skeptical; about everything.

More competence = Better for consumer. I'm a consumer. I wish there were more than only 2 companies on top.