AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

[InvalidError]

The increased height of the backplate threaded holes should make no difference to mounting force as long as the holes bottom out at the same depth as before. Unless the heatsink's screws have been designed to seat against the backplate's studs instead of bottoming out in the hole as the end-stop.

Most of the results were predictable: few games and mainstream applications scale beyond a few threads, so Ryzen gets beat in practically all of them. For most threaded compute-intensive stuff though, Ryzen does quite well in applications that haven't been extensively optimized for Intel.

 

[junkeymonkey]

wish they add something like this test

http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/

and see how well it crunches / calculate

like my 2 systems on the same test run of Decimal Digits: 1,000,000,000 [multi thread ]

i5-4670 non k [memory 1600 ]

> Computation Time: 174.334 seconds
> Total Time: 182.220 seconds
> CPU Utilization: 385.460 %
> Multi-core Efficiency: 96.365 %

AMD 9590 [overclocked and faster memory used [1866 ]

Computation Time: 265.643 seconds
Total Time: 280.166 seconds

CPU Utilization: 737.512 %
Multi-core Efficiency: 92.189 %


like to see how that ryzen does the math - i'll bet it still sucks and still takes twice as long as intels. duaa , 2+2 =4 , 4+4 =8

 

[InvalidError]

the real gold is the server market where these $500 dollar CPUs can be jacked up by a metric ton. Profit margins in the server market are just insane.

Single-socket server chips aren't much more expensive than their desktop counterparts: for a long time, Xeons were ~$50 cheaper than i7 and people built PCs using Xeons instead because of it. The big money is on multi-socket server chips, which is a whole other ball game from 1S desktop/server.

 

[Rogue Leader]

I look forward to revisiting the benchmarks in a month or so once the processor has had a bit of time to be on the market and Windows updates, BIOS changes, software, etc has had time to catch up. No guarantees they will be better, but at least we will know for sure.

Full disclosure my 1800X arrives today, unfortunately I won't have my Crosshair VI until sometime next week. After reading these results they are about what I realistically expected, maybe a little worse on gaming. I am happy with my purchase.

 

[Dan_141]

Just wanted to point out the the people that are claiming AMD has failed. You need to keep in mind that this is completely new. New CPU, new motherboards, new chipsets these will have growing pains. Thus why it isnt the best idea to be an early adopter. These are day 1 benchmarks, I say you keep your comments to yourself for about six months before dismissing this product.

 

[logainofhades]

Even with it being a bit behind in gaming, these chips should be great for those that record and stream their gameplay. No longer is there a need to buy an expensive x99 platform.

 

[junkeymonkey]

still cant see shelling out 300+$$$ for any AMD CPU . too easy to end up another let down right now for that kind of investment risk in them [opinion]

first release off just whats said in hype / promo reviews ?? look how well bulldozer was reviewed at first , same thing here , and only time will tell from real end users if the proof in in there pudding or the pie is in there faces . after Am3+ I'm pretty gun shy on this .

I do hope its all they claim if not just close to will be a plus for AMD , if 6 months or a year from now guys with these get that ''hay wait a minute ,WTF '' it will be bulldozer all over , Déjà vu .

 

[JackNaylorPE]

A noble effort but again falls far short of the pre-launch claims ... Deja Vu all over again.

 

[010TheMaster010]

Germany AMD 1 should be 1800X, and Germany AMD 2 I believe should be a CHV Formula(Z), not Hero

 

[refillable]

It is not a surprise that the gaming benches show a bit of disparity, I read many reviews as well and strangely it seems, Tom's harware has probably the one with a relatively negative conclusion (compared to others). Most reviews, (including Guru3d, Anandtech, even stated that the processors are a real threat to Intel's HEDT, not sure why Tom's is not able to achieve the same results.

 

[jimmysmitty]

the real gold is the server market where these $500 dollar CPUs can be jacked up by a metric ton. Profit margins in the server market are just insane.

Single-socket server chips aren't much more expensive than their desktop counterparts: for a long time, Xeons were ~$50 cheaper than i7 and people built PCs using Xeons instead because of it. The big money is on multi-socket server chips, which is a whole other ball game from 1S desktop/server.

That's what I meant. That's where AMDs focus should be because Intel has over 90% of that market and is loving every minute of it.

I doubt these will be able to compete there though. They look to be more competitive with Intels 2011 Xeons more than Intels multi-socket Xeons.

Just wanted to point out the the people that are claiming AMD has failed. You need to keep in mind that this is completely new. New CPU, new motherboards, new chipsets these will have growing pains. Thus why it isnt the best idea to be an early adopter. These are day 1 benchmarks, I say you keep your comments to yourself for about six months before dismissing this product.

People are free to discuss and trade their thoughts on this. This has been a long time coming and there has been a lot of hype behind it.

Yes it is all new but that does not mean it is free from criticisms, much like anything Intel puts out is also not free from it.

In my eyes it is an OK CPU. It is competitive but not what I would have wanted mainly because Intel will be pushing new CPUs at a rate that I think will be faster than AMD. AMD has to wait for GloFlo or TSMC etc to optimize their process tech while Intel does it themselves. That is a pretty big advantage since it allows Intel to release refreshes of CPUs with higher clocks or lower power.

Even with it being a bit behind in gaming, these chips should be great for those that record and stream their gameplay. No longer is there a need to buy an expensive x99 platform.

The platform itself is not insanely expensive. Slightly more thanks to quad channel memory but not as bad as when it first launched. More so it is the CPU price.

Maybe this will help drop it down a bit. I would like to move up to it, although the mainstream tends to get the latest and greatest but the extreme class does get the same when it is more stable and optimized.

 

[Vogner16]

glad to see amd back. toms usually has the harshest amd reviews to offer and they make zen look decent performance wise and good value wise...

 

[quilciri]

I, like the rest of us, am disappointed in the gaming results. The 7700k will probably remain the best CPU for gaming in the near future, but even with Intel's price cuts, the now-$290 7700k will be hard to justify over the $200 1400X once it hits the market, even assuming NO improvements from BIOS updates or game optimizations for Ryzen between now and then.

Every new architecture from both Intel and AMD have had a teething period (By new, I mean completely new; i.e. Bulldozer was AMD's last new architecture, and Sandy Bridge was Intel's. Everything else up until Ryzen has been a refinement of one of those two). I imagine we'll need a benchmark revisit in the coming months.

*edit* actually...I can't find any 7700k's at $290 yet, it's still $340. If that remains the case once the 1400X hits the market, it'll be a no-brainer for most people to go with the 1400X.

 

[elbert]

Looks good and knowing the 1700 can do just about the same on that stock heatsink is amazing.

 

[ibjeepr]

So IMHO it looks like AMD put itself back in the game and now we need the software people to acknowledge AMD as a legit player again. Once software is once again written with AMD processors in mind the game will certainly change. For now though it looks like we are a generation away software wise from really getting AMD neck and neck with Intel. Unless number crunching is your primary concern. My 2 cents

 

[Snorkl]

I don't see how you can say it's not recommended for gaming, in all those benchmarks the numbers are very close and I don't see how a user could tell the difference actually playing the game.

 

[sinaptic]

I'm excited about the rendering/content creation numbers. This may actually put a threaded eight-core workstation within reach for some of us... If these results bear out in real-world application, this is definitely going in my next workstation build.

 

[thegentlewoman]

Just wanted to point out the the people that are claiming AMD has failed. You need to keep in mind that this is completely new. New CPU, new motherboards, new chipsets these will have growing pains. Thus why it isnt the best idea to be an early adopter. These are day 1 benchmarks, I say you keep your comments to yourself for about six months before dismissing this product.

The Price difference will maybe weaken as Intell will be FORCED in june to reduce the gap more and more, but I mean people do not understand that time it's needed, we all need time to reflect and dev to produce, etc, we need to see also the full line up, new cards, new VR stuff or not, it's totally an other HABITAT now, we can't understand it without observing and Living it. It's a new eco system. ... #Biomimicry study now.

 

[jcc5169]

This appears to me to be a Intel-slanted review based on the reading of numerous other articles, and doesn't really go into detail about why the gaming benchmarks are so different. AMD deserves Kudos for taking the risk with Ryzen and achieving spectacular results. As AMD works with game mfgrs over the next few months to achieve the optimization Intel already has achieved in these games the differences will disappear.

 

[Arch_Angelos]

The gaming performance is underwhelming but at least it all seems to be software based, which means that if devs are willing they can make Ryzen work as well as Intel cpus with their games.

 

[SapiaNt0mata]

@POMPOMPAIHN

2017 and DX12 hasn't replaced DX11. games will not benefit from 6 or 8 cores any time soon. by the time this happens, intel will have cpu ready for that. for now and at least 1-2 years 7700k and 7600k are the best choice for gaming

 

[rolli59]

It will be interesting to see what their 6 and 4 core chips will do on the gaming front in the future, most likely great gaming value for the money.

 

[ttt_2017]

as expected , a killer CPU for non gamers that can still play games at acceptable frame rates ....

 

[thegentlewoman]

Knowing about Technology or Maths isn't enough today. You need an holistic point of view. Of course you can find out by many ways, anyway only when in June also with videocards the whole "Line up" will be out from AMD we will understand it's huge power. Intel will really have a little to laugh about (which already doesn't) and especially fun boys or "non believers" will see the true power of competitions. Now AMD is just a powerful lame duck with just one paw working in the pond and can't really surf the wave ... ok? This should be clear.

This situation has maybe never happened. Having a 9 years old computer in line with a new line out but by half way. This is pretty obvious thing, actually no need for economics or business nuances must be acquired to understand this. Why we need to know? Because it affects us and our more conscious choices etc. If we don't wanna listen .. then keep buying your brutalizing Intel chip, you are allowed to do that, sorry for you.
as written already in the other topic: June is a Key moment, not just now.

 

[dark_lord69]

Disappointing gaming benchmarks. Good for other usage. For now, if your on the market the 7700K is looking pretty good.