AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is should be plain simple and obvious to AMD. If the R7 1800x is not going to out right beat the i7-7700K across the board, then they should suck it up and price it a 10% discount of the i7-7700K. So $300 give or take a few. At that point, the price value proposition would be a no brainer, and clear win to AMD. If they refuse to do that then I'm forced to go with Intel. I don't know which marketing monkey with monkey butts for brain is working for AMD, but the distraction and deflection attempt with rendering and more cores etc. don't fool NOBODY! Eliminate the risk for all your potential buyers and they will go with along with you. Failing that, AMD is proving themselves to be just as bad as used car dealers, silicon snake oil salespeople!
 
Avro - Your odd comparison of Tom's AotS benchmark vs HardOCP's benchmark only serves to make Tom's methodology appear far superior than HardOCP's. Did you even look at the clocks that HardOCP was running? An OCed Ryzen@4ghz vs an OCed 7770k@5ghz vs an OCed 6900k@4.3ghz? Did you not realize that they are using a different configuration and graphics card? Either way, the overall results mirror Tom's results - the 6900k wins, the 7700k comes in 2nd, the 1800x takes third and the poor 8350 really shows its weak architecture. At least Tom's included each CPU running at stock AND at the same frequency so that we get a better understanding of stock configuration, architectural efficiency and scalability of core count. Why would you complain about that? Honestly, I don't see why you would include that comparison since it only hurts your thesis that Tom's is somehow Intel-biased. That's hogwash fanboyism. If anything, HardOCP skewed the results by only including aggressively OCed Intel CPUs.

Furthermore, for someone who has posted a lot in Tom's forums you seem to lack the understanding as to why a "low resolution" 1080p benchmark performed with a high-end GPU is extremely relevant. It eliminates the GPU-limiting factor so that CPU performance becomes the limiting factor and is therefore measurable. That is exactly what you want to do when comparing CPUs using a game benchmark. Many of us buy a platform with the intention of using it for 5+ years. A GTX 1080 might be the limiting factor in a 1440p+ gaming setup today, but future GPUs won't necessarily be. This is why we want to see how well a particular CPU handles games and the proper way of doing it is to run a low res benchmark with the most powerful GPU we have currently. Also, the "extreme" preset may contain CPU-bound effects that further help to measure CPU performance.

The rest of your long post is all just nitpicking and whining about Paul's writing-style - nothing factual, just opinion. Speaking for myself, and meaning absolutely no offense to Paul, I couldn't care less about Paul's writing-style - the benchmarks are what matter to me and they are very clear - Ryzen is definitely not another Bulldozer! This is a great new architecture for AMD! The price-to-performance ratio is awesome for content creation and professional/compute applications! But presently it is clearly inferior to Intel's Skylake/Kaby Lake when it comes to gaming. The benchmarks are very clear on that. They are close-enough though that I do expect the clock-speeds and pricing of the six and four core Ryzen chips to win them the gaming price-to-performance crown. Software patches should further improve them a bit, but I wouldn't count on any miracles...

Let's all just take a deep breath and be happy - this is a wonderful, exciting time for PC enthusiasts! Cheers and many thanks to Paul and Igor and the others who helped with this review - excellent work as usual guys!
 


Why? The 1800X competes with the i7-6900k, not the i7-7700k. All of AMDs marketing materials pointed to the 6900k, and its an 8c/16t CPU just like the 6900k. The 6900k that it is neck and neck with in most tests and faster than in some tests.

The CPU that is meant to directly compete with the 7700k is not yet out. It will be in the next couple of months. If that CPU was priced higher than your argument would hold water. Until then, it doesn't make sense at all.
 

The Ryzen chip intended to compete against the i5 and mainstream i7 is the ~$175 R5-1400X and that won't be coming out for another 4+ months.

The R7-1700(X)/1800X are intended to compete with Intel's i7-6800/6850/6900 and in most benchmarks where Intel's LGA2011 CPUs are in the top, the R7-1700/1800 are either stealing first places or aren't far behind in most others, which justifies AMD's current prices. If you aren't into multi-threaded productivity, then neither the Ryzen R7 nor Intel's LGA2011 are for you and your opinion on pricing is irrelevant, you aren't part of the target audience for those products.

Another thing: Ryzen is sold-out as-is, which means that AMD's current prices might actually be too low.
 
As well it should be, because it does a few things far better than the 6900. And still, the shrill cries come from fans who think that all of us are to blame if it doesn't to everything better.
 
I wonder why AMD decided to release 8/16 cores CPU that cant compete in gaming with dual channel memory while their server version has 8 channels memory ??

AMD , If you want to compete against the "-E" CPUs then add those 8 channels memory ... because they have 4 channels ...

Very Bad strategy IMO ....

IMO , AMD 4 and 6 cores should be the crippled ones to compete in gaming , and the 8 cores to be entry level server chips released for desktops.

Also , The Cheap chipset sucks ... AMD cheap chipset always sucks unlike intel cheaper chipsets . come on PCIe 2.0 slots in 2017 ??? True X99 still has PCIe 2.0 lanes from Chipset but thats a 2014 chipset THREE YEARS OLD . I am more worried about AMD motherboards than AMD CPU ... Their weak point is the Motherboard Quality and options.
 
I need to ask this Question to Tomshardware ,

Did you look for updated drivers or versions and contact companies like benchmark software , AutoCAD and others whom you benchmarked using their products before running those tests ? even a Beta version optimized for AMD would made a huge difference . Did you go into the effort of contacting all those companies ? or you just used off the shelve software ?

Please Answer .
 
I would like to see how the Ryzen performs in games with cores disabled. Those benchmarks look to be highend i5 so how well does only 4 or 6 Ryzen cores perform? Knowing most of these game only use 4 cores it could open a few eyes to just how powerful Ryzen truly is altho be it unoptimized for games. Also I would like to see how good the stock heatsink on the Ryzen 1700 is because I hear it overclocks to 3.8Ghz with wraith cooler.

I would find out for myself but all the B350 motherboards I wanted are sold out.
 

Because these aren't being marketed to gamers, they are aimed at content production and other compute-intensive tasks where people are willing to pay a fair amount more money for multi-threaded performance and AMD can get much larger gross profit margins per chip.
 


I completed and said , if they wanted to compete against the "-E" intel CPU they should have kept the 8 channel memory (their server CPU) instead of dual channel memory . my post was about the "Dual Channel" memory .

we all know that the "-E" intel CPU is a Xeon with disabled ECC nothing more ... keeps the Quad channel memory. AMD should have done the same thing .. by crippling the memory channels they did not give us any of the two tiers .. not perfect for gaming and not perfect for "all" Multi threaded software. they shot themselves in the foot.
 
So many AMD fanboys. If you can NOT win the gamer's over, you ain't GOT NO game! Price at a price competitive to i7-7700K, or quit wasting our time with crappy hype. As much as I like an alternative, second source, be it CPU or software platforms, the fact remains Windows still win the gaming market, that is why Apple, Linux, Steam boxes, consoles etc. still has NOT broken thru and become the dominant player. AMD has been on hiatus for too long, what the pile of bulldozer pile drive crap, and they are going to blow their opportunity by pricing too high. That is just plain stupid. You win by zerging it and zerging it hard. They fact that they can't get sufficient quantity means they got other production problems, otherwise it is just another cynical play by creating false shortages with it being so called sold out. The excuse of not marketing to gamers, is sour grape BS and trying to FUD stuff. Utter nonsense.

And what is so wrong for demanding a real price war, so that both AMD and Intel lower their prices? This has been long overdue!
 

AMD doesn't have 8-channel memory on Opteron CPUs, only quad for the top-end models. The lower-end Opterons are dual channel.

For most productivity-oriented, gaming and desktop uses though, there is next to no performance difference between dual and quad channel, so there is no point in burdening a platform meant to span everything from low-end desktops with IGP to high-end mainstream with with a significantly more expensive socket, CPU substrate and motherboard for a mainstream ($80-500) CPU family.
 


The Ryzen Zen based Server chips are 8 channels memory will be released soon . the "Naples". They even can reach 128 PCIe 3.0 lanes...

yet they never released the 1800X with 8 channels nor 40 lanes to compete against the "-E" Intel CPU. as I said they shot themselves in the foot. they have the potential and they did not use it ..

At least cripple the lanes to 40 , and give us 8 or 4 channels memory on the 1800X ...

My guess is that the people who want more cores will wait for the ZEN Naples and ignore the Zen Ryzen.
 


Sigh.
 


lol the true sigh is for wasting half the forum page by quoting a HUGE post just to write 4 letters that mean nothing . Edit your post please.
 

And the motherboards for those will cost $1000+.

The AM4 socket is intended to cover everything from $80 APUs to $500 performance-oriented mainstream CPUs. You don't want AM4 motherboards to cost $200+ due to being 8+ layer boards with a large expensive socket on it.
 


Again, the R7 is not a competitor to the 7700k, it is to the 6900k which its generally as fast as or faster. The R7's are less than half the price while doing nearly the same thing.

Try reading the articles before commenting.
 
Can any of the reviewers go into the Ryzen mega-thread and shed a bit of light to the "AMD/Intel tried to fumble benchmarks" comments, pretty please?

A bit of "internal" insight would be much appreciated and hopefully terminate that discussion once and for all.

Cheers!
 


not really , I am not saying bring the Naples with their server mobos.

I am saying bring a cut down Naples to 8 or 4 channels and 40 lanes... and use them with X370 chipset.

you can find X99 Motherboards today for $189 not $1000 ...

$1000 motherboards are multiu sockets expensive SAS enabled motherboards not what we are talking about here.

we are talking about the AMD choice to make the Ryzen dual channel only and why they did not make it 4 or 8 channels while they already have the same ZEN CPU with such options.

The same way intel Picks up a ready Xeon CPU and just disables the ECC , lowers its max Memory (from 500GB to 64GB ) and sell it as a Desktop CPU with X99 Motherboard that starts from $189 ...

Actually the AMD new X370 chipset could work with a 4 or 8 channels CPU if AMD wanted so ... The memory is connected directly to the CPU.

X99 for 189$ : https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157542

 
The Blender benchmarking test has an error in it. There is no way the 6900k gained @ 35% performance with a @ 15% increase in clockspeed.
 

And I'm saying that a $200 entry-level motherboard doesn't make sense for the AM4 platform which is intended to support CPUs that will will cost all the way down to somewhere in the neighborhood of $100. AM4 motherboards are available for under $100, that would not be possible with quad-channel memory and all that extra fluff most people won't use in a home desktop PC.

AMD may have introduced its high-end mainstream Ryzen first but at the end of the day, AM4 is a low-cost socket chosen for overall bang-per-buck.
 
Regardless of what you think of Ryzen I am sure its appearance on the scene will make Intel more focused on generating more performance in future products. At nearly six years old my old 2500k system should be in dire need of replacing and yet it still runs things well enough to not need to junk it, such has been Intel's lackluster progression since its release. I look forward to seeing the R5 reviews and learning what if any improvements have been made to BIOS and optimization of software in the meantime.
 
In part 2 could we see some windows 7 tests? With the disabling the Ryzen cores also disable the same for 6900 to compare. Another request is put in an i5 to give use some ideal how the low end Ryzen quads may compare.
 

Since disabling cores won't bypass the CCX interconnect, the performance may not be representative of what a real 4C8T Ryzen with only one CCX, none of the cluster interconnect logic and no remote cache hits might deliver. The simpler die will likely overclock a little better too.
 

That brings me to another request. Can tomshardware confirm an single core overlclock of 5Ghz on air? I understand all this is outside the norm and should be taken with a grain of salt that it would represents AMD's finished product. Some of these tests tho were done on kaby lake so why not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.