Ryzen is better than I thought it would be; while AMD remained relatively strong in heavily multi-threaded workloads, it has improved considerably on single-threaded loads, though in plenty of them even 2012/2013 Intel CPUs are still pulling ahead of AMD's 2017 flagship.
I guess it will cause Intel to slash their prices at the absurdly high end, but I've never spent more than about £400 UKP on a CPU for a customer, let alone for myself (gaming is my only CPU-intensive interest).
One thing to bear in mind is that AMD has had a long history of their first gen of a new arch being 'rough at the edges', with noteworthy improvements with subsequent revisions. For example, I entirely skipped the Phenom I and went straight from Athlon 64 X2 to Phenom II. Bulldozer was another example, and Vishera was a fair improvement. The first Athlon XPs were competitive but ran very hot. The picture changed drastically by the time the Barton core came out.
However, I am still worried about AMD's future. It wouldn't surprise me if Intel haven't been bothering to pursue desktop CPU R&D with the vigour that they had been when AMD was leading the pack, and while it's nice that AMD has done something respectable, there will always be a response to whatever they produce. I think there's a certain amount of respect that carries a monetary value that goes to whoever is the leader of the mainstream set, e.g. geeks at home buying product X are more likely to choose product X's manufacturer in the workplace (e.g. server environments). IMO what AMD has done is to get their nose near Intel's range, and they will get noticed for it (the main benefit will probably be to secure new console contracts), but Intel will respond, and unless Intel are reaching the end of the Core line's evolution and also need to revolutionise their design (ie. they might need multiple years to complete it), Intel have the budget to easily pull ahead if and when they choose.
Another game-changing tactic might occur when the lower-end AMD CPUs come out: perhaps they will position their (presumably competitive) CPUs in a way that makes Intel play second fiddle, like for example putting a CPU between the i3 and i5 which soundly beats the i5. I haven't voted because I don't know what's going to happen in this respect.
The other thing that is notably absent from AT's and TR's reviews are temps and power consumption stats. While some people don't care how much power a CPU uses, I certainly do.