I m not whining. Dont think i m a hater or something. I d realy like to build a ryzen sistem cause i m aware of it' s potential.
But you can agree that with ryzen there is a noticeable difference from 3200 and 2660, this not happen with intel cause of the very architecture of the cpu.
Ram compatibility should be a priority for amd, more then it is for intel.
The difference is 2%. And the half is probably due to faster ram. The issue is blown out of proportions. Its not anything remotely in comparison to the fo4 or bf1 differences between the 2 arch. Go look at eg computerbase frametimes for 1800x vs 7700k. It looks like what it is; 4c vs 8c with the 8c having the 20% st perf deficit in a game engine that uses all the cores. Its a huge difference for playability. The 7700k looks nasty. Its not potential its real world bad performance right there in what have historically been far yhe most important engine. And thats even for dx11.
Excactly what fo4 bm also shows but from an older engine. Aprox 20% (18%) average uplift for 7700 for both avg and min.
In this context 2% is utterly uninportant. The meaningfull differences is to what degree the game engine uses more cores effectively. Lets not get lost in the woods.
My take on it is then. In bf1 (or crysis3 to alesser degree) the frametimes for 7700 gets some dips into like 40fps times while the 1800 stays a 80fps. On fo4 there is less variability i asume but the min never gets lower than 90.
When a 7700k doesnt deliver on the 0.1 min or frametimes its very low. When the 1800x gets low - and that happens for all the old games - its doesnt have the same deep impact because fps is 100 fps anyway.