Somehow I think at the price that HP and the other major OEMs get Intel chips (an the prices they charge for bad systems), not having Ryzen isn't going to matter much to them. That, and the vast majority of the people who buy those machines think 1080p is British currency.
Vega being delayed so long though, I'm sure it's because AMD wants to ensure sufficient stock to prevent yet another price runup, but the problem is that the GTX 1080 will have been out a year meaning plenty of stock and nVidia can easily cut the price, so AMD is going to have to drastically undercut it, then it's going to take a while for the actual custom cards to make it to market, unless non-reference cards will be available on day 1, which I doubt as AMD would have said something. This is also assuming AMD doesn't make another stupid engineering decision with the reference edition like they did with the RX 480 which causes a ton of negative publicity.
And of course it still goes without saying that Ryzen performance on Windows 7 and 8 will still show the vast improvement over the FX-8350 that Kaby Lake does, especially if AMD aims to target the Asian market where Windows XP and 7 are still big players. That's why Ryzen still has an asterisk with me, AMD has not compared Ryzen to Skylake or Kaby Lake which have no Windows 7 and 8 support (Skylake does but only on certain OEM machines), all testing has been done on Windows 10 machines.
I am still using an ancient Phenom II X4 processor as this AMD processor already was very much state of the art.
I am looking to modernize eventually but the HD 7870 still has lots of action left in it too.
AMD hardware is very durable, which is very favorable.
Looks like a day earlier, February 28th. That's $295 in USD, which is $55 less expensive than the i7-7700k. Assuming this is a quad core part (and pricing will remain the same between currencies), I doubt AMD would launch an 8 core 16 thread processor at this price point, it looks like a perfect matchup, that's the perfect price for a high end "within reason" system, costing less than a high end video card. It's also been within expectations, as the i7-6900k (which AMD kept comparing Ryzen to) and i7-7700k are equal in terms of performance, only differing when the program uses 5-8 threads, which hardly any non professional programs do. Also it would have the same core speed as the 7700k, providing an apples to apples comparison for the first time in...15 years?
AMD is still fine tuning their CPUs with the F4 stepping just being validated after fixing more bugs. AMD wants to be sure the CPUs are working right before formal release.
I call a big fat BS on that site. Looking at the Amazon.es site, the i7-6700k (the only 7700k is the Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz 8MB Smart Cache Caja: Amazon.es: Informática from 3rd party sellers, and is around €400), which is only 8% slower than the 7700k, is €339, while that site lists the R7 1700 at €390. 4 cores which won't be used in games is not worth a €51 price premium, especially if the Ryzen clock is 600mhz slower than the 6700k. AMD will be aiming for a large market share steal from Intel, and with prices like that it won't happen.