Some of this article is misleading, leading to a bunch of people in the comments to make uninformed statements. The part that says "which indicates that it hasn't improved on the IPC front from the last generation." is completely incorrect. It has improved drastically and, contrary to all the comments saying "I'd prefer them to increase their IPC to be closer to intel-" ryzen is in fact right there with intel now, if not marginally better, given the demonstration of the 8 core ryzen 2 cpu at CES keeping up and actually beating the i9 9900k cpu at stock speeds in the benchmark. 8 cores vs 8 cores, and the ryzen part won by around 1%. This means the IPC is right there. And that was just an engineering sample! (though I have heard it was running close to final speeds for the demo). By contrast, this engineering sample is totally down-clocked by a full 1GHz, as most testing samples are. So saying "it hasn't improved much" by going off an intentionally down-clocked cpu in a test that favors clock speed is ridiculous. Make no mistake- if the mid-tier ryzen part matched the i9-9900k core for core, the 12 and 16 core parts will blow it out of the water completely. They will be both the worlds fastest gaming cpus AND the fastest multi tasking/productivity mainstream desktop cpus, *period.*