AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

[kenjitamura]

So the two things hobbyist content creators care about most, video encoding and 3d rendering, matches or beats out a $1000 i7 6900k and some people are citing Ryzen a failure because of 5-20% reduction in FPS in games?

On Anandtech the Blender test showed the 1800x matching the i7 6900k and blowing the i7 7700k out of the water by completing the rendering 50% faster. And Toms own encoding tests with Handbrake shows the 1800x beating the 6900k. Those are probably the two tests that matter most to multimedia hobbyists and they are astounding.

I can't wait to have some spare pocket cash to be able to build a monster media rig with Ryzen.

 

[redgarl]

Once again... if you are playing at 1440p or 2160p, a 7700k or a x1800 will not make a damn difference. I am still wondering why there is still gaming bench at 1080p especially today. You never going to use a chip alone for gaming and the GPU is the bottleneck... like solid...

 

[redgarl]

how about a comparison of the power comparison between the new ryzen chips and intel's chips? this was standard practice in bulldozer/piledriver reviews. did intel ask you not to include that comparison?

Hey dude - I got the Ryzen only at TUESDAY afternoon (this week), made all workstation benchmarks (over 60) and measured the power and temps. For all this I had only 26 (in words t-w-e-n-t-y-s-i-x) hours (without sleep). What you are awaiting? AMD wasn't able to send me the CPU and mainboard last week. The power consumption of the pure CPU is very similar, depending at the clocks. If OC'ed, ist is higher than Intel, if not it depends at the job. I think to make a follow up, but for now it was simply to short.

And I had some issues with the two coolers I used, an Asus mainboard died and.... It was all other than perfect. 🙁

Was the board an Asus x370 Prime Pro?

 

[Nossy]

Typical AMD BS. All the hype, but nothing special...move on. I was really looking forward to buying an 1800x/x370, but uhh...that's $700 for cpu/mobo combo.

The good news? Well the i7 7700k came down $30 at microcenter, yay.

 

[InvalidError]

Enough of the DX11 benchmarks. Everybody and their dog knows that Microsoft no longer supports DX11 since 2015 and you continue to run DX11 as if it is relevant only so you can show Intel getting a leg up as DX11 API just does not run well on AMD hardware.

No, review sites continue to run DX11 benchmarks because ~99% of games past, present and near-future are still DX11. That's the only way to make their games compatible with Windows 7/8 which represent ~75% of PCs and don't do DX12.

 

[redgarl]

So if Intel cant beat AMD 1800X with the $1000 6900K, no problem, it could use "Call us before you write $$$" , oh dear Tom use sth like 3.8 Ghz gimmick and pant Ryzen bad. Well in gaming put Ryzen againt the 7700K, when testing for Multi-threaded tasks , put Ryzen against 6900k , ....
do you know what is the 3.8 Ghz?
If we compare only Ryzen 1800 with 6900K, Ryzen will be a winner, albait without the ingridients that Tom added for $$$$.( 3.8 Ghz & 7700K)

Are you not looking at the same review as I am? Because every single benchmark has the same CPUs in it, mainly the best PD, a 7700K, a 6900K and the 1800X. Gaming , productivity and workstation are all testing the same CPUs. That is a fair comparison.

And the 3.8GHz is an advantage for Ryzen against the 7700K because the 7700K is stock clocked at 4.2GHz base and 4.5GHz turbo and the main competition for Ryzen will be the 7700K, not the 6900K as the 6900K is a niche market. Hell even the 6800K is a niche market CPU as the majority of people buy either a 7600K or 7700K. Either way it puts all CPUs on a level field clock speed and allows us to see what the performance of each are from a clock speed point of view. This has been done in plenty of reviews to give a baseline.

And seriously, you really think Intel pays Toms? I can tell you they do not. Intel doesn't need to as for the past few years AMD has been almost non-existent in the competitive market.

If I need to check a review, I usually go to hardwarecanucks and anandtech. They are doing a way better job than toms for explaining everything... and still apply right now.

 

[jimmysmitty]

So if Intel cant beat AMD 1800X with the $1000 6900K, no problem, it could use "Call us before you write $$$" , oh dear Tom use sth like 3.8 Ghz gimmick and pant Ryzen bad. Well in gaming put Ryzen againt the 7700K, when testing for Multi-threaded tasks , put Ryzen against 6900k , ....
do you know what is the 3.8 Ghz?
If we compare only Ryzen 1800 with 6900K, Ryzen will be a winner, albait without the ingridients that Tom added for $$$$.( 3.8 Ghz & 7700K)

Are you not looking at the same review as I am? Because every single benchmark has the same CPUs in it, mainly the best PD, a 7700K, a 6900K and the 1800X. Gaming , productivity and workstation are all testing the same CPUs. That is a fair comparison.

And the 3.8GHz is an advantage for Ryzen against the 7700K because the 7700K is stock clocked at 4.2GHz base and 4.5GHz turbo and the main competition for Ryzen will be the 7700K, not the 6900K as the 6900K is a niche market. Hell even the 6800K is a niche market CPU as the majority of people buy either a 7600K or 7700K. Either way it puts all CPUs on a level field clock speed and allows us to see what the performance of each are from a clock speed point of view. This has been done in plenty of reviews to give a baseline.

And seriously, you really think Intel pays Toms? I can tell you they do not. Intel doesn't need to as for the past few years AMD has been almost non-existent in the competitive market.

If I need to check a review, I usually go to hardwarecanucks and anandtech. They are doing a way better job than toms for explaining everything... and still apply right now.

You realize that Anandtech is owned by Purch and they share data and even sometimes reviews with Toms, right? I can't explain why one site gets what vs the others but I do frequent those two as well, I main Toms and use Anand and Hardwarecanucks as other sources. I use anything but certain rumor mill sites.

Still my point is valid. Why is it if Toms, or any site, doesn't praise AMD for a good launch, it is not a fantastic product but good, and talks to both sides, they are being paid by Intel or NVidia?

Hell people are even angry that Toms is talking about the mounting bracket issue as if they never did anything to talk about issues Intel has had in the past.

 

[firefoxx04]

It seems intel is winning with games, but its not a massive margin anymore. I am fine with that, especially considering the absolute stellar multithreaded performance. In addition, power consumption has been reduced drastically. They are doing all of that at half the price (comparing 8 core to 8 core).

I really think AMD should have released only two 8 cores and a high strung quad core. It is simply unfair to run a 7700k against an 8 core that does not clock up nearly as high. A proper quad core with a high single core boost would have been a better comparison. It may not beat the 7700k but it would be damn close. I know they will release later, but people will only remember today's reviews. 8 core chips are not mean to game on (while they are fine to game on). 8 core chips are workstation class compute power houses. Video editors are going to love this.

People have choices now, its not Intel or nothing. Both platforms perform well, but one costs significantly more money. The barrier to entry for a real 8 core chip is now less than the cost of a top of the line quad core i7. That is simply outstanding. Well done.

 

[MasterMace]

AMD claimed back at Bulldozer that they had such advanced designs and nobody had caught up yet as well. I guess my 6600k will hold together just fine against amd's offerings for the next 4-6 years as well

 

[popatim]

As a consumer and an AMD enthusiast I would expect to find first run benchmarks that were run using Radeon dGPU cards.

Mantle, DX12 and Vulkan have eliminated the proprietary nVidia libraries that deliberately degrade AMD performance while running DX11.

SO the instead Tom's expects the reader to believe that running AMD's latest hot CPU with an nVidia dGPU will give any valid results?

ARE YOU FOLKS NUTS?

Enough of the DX11 benchmarks. Everybody and their dog knows that Microsoft no longer supports DX11 since 2015 and you continue to run DX11 as if it is relevant only so you can show Intel getting a leg up as DX11 API just does not run well on AMD hardware.

The you pair Ryzen with Nvidai dGPU which does NOT SUPPORT Asynchronous Compute Engines or Asynchronous Shader Pipelines. Then you have the unmitigated gall to declare that AMD Ryzen is sub-par.

WHY DON;T YOU USE A RADEON RX 480!!! HELL USE 2 AND CROSSFIRE MODE FOR dx11 AND EXPLICIT MULIT-ADAPTOR WILL KICK IN FOR dX12!!!

So before you lie to the consumer why don't you run hardware that Ryzen was designed and optimized for Radeon.
.

How would any of that test the CPU better then an Nvidia card please?

Also you imply that AMD intentionally has crippled Nvidia cards on its new systems so they favor AMD. While I doubt AMD would be that foolhardy I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for your sources.

 

[Crashman]

So if Intel cant beat AMD 1800X with the $1000 6900K, no problem, it could use "Call us before you write $$$" , oh dear Tom use sth like 3.8 Ghz gimmick and pant Ryzen bad. Well in gaming put Ryzen againt the 7700K, when testing for Multi-threaded tasks , put Ryzen against 6900k , ....
do you know what is the 3.8 Ghz?
If we compare only Ryzen 1800 with 6900K, Ryzen will be a winner, albait without the ingridients that Tom added for $$$$.( 3.8 Ghz & 7700K)

lol, no. It's not like anyone hauled out a 6950X. People ask for clock-for-clock comparisons too. AMD people. Except maybe you.

 

[redgarl]

So if Intel cant beat AMD 1800X with the $1000 6900K, no problem, it could use "Call us before you write $$$" , oh dear Tom use sth like 3.8 Ghz gimmick and pant Ryzen bad. Well in gaming put Ryzen againt the 7700K, when testing for Multi-threaded tasks , put Ryzen against 6900k , ....
do you know what is the 3.8 Ghz?
If we compare only Ryzen 1800 with 6900K, Ryzen will be a winner, albait without the ingridients that Tom added for $$$$.( 3.8 Ghz & 7700K)

Are you not looking at the same review as I am? Because every single benchmark has the same CPUs in it, mainly the best PD, a 7700K, a 6900K and the 1800X. Gaming , productivity and workstation are all testing the same CPUs. That is a fair comparison.

And the 3.8GHz is an advantage for Ryzen against the 7700K because the 7700K is stock clocked at 4.2GHz base and 4.5GHz turbo and the main competition for Ryzen will be the 7700K, not the 6900K as the 6900K is a niche market. Hell even the 6800K is a niche market CPU as the majority of people buy either a 7600K or 7700K. Either way it puts all CPUs on a level field clock speed and allows us to see what the performance of each are from a clock speed point of view. This has been done in plenty of reviews to give a baseline.

And seriously, you really think Intel pays Toms? I can tell you they do not. Intel doesn't need to as for the past few years AMD has been almost non-existent in the competitive market.

If I need to check a review, I usually go to hardwarecanucks and anandtech. They are doing a way better job than toms for explaining everything... and still apply right now.

You realize that Anandtech is owned by Purch and they share data and even sometimes reviews with Toms, right? I can't explain why one site gets what vs the others but I do frequent those two as well, I main Toms and use Anand and Hardwarecanucks as other sources. I use anything but certain rumor mill sites.

Still my point is valid. Why is it if Toms, or any site, doesn't praise AMD for a good launch, it is not a fantastic product but good, and talks to both sides, they are being paid by Intel or NVidia?

Hell people are even angry that Toms is talking about the mounting bracket issue as if they never did anything to talk about issues Intel has had in the past.

I don't care, their reviews are complete and interesting (for anandtech). Hardwarecanucks is easily the best review site I have seen. Complete, unbiased, fair rating and positive.

Right now the big fuzz about Ryzen are benches at 1080p BENCH AT 1080p! Nobody in their right mind, buying a 500$ CPU, would play at 1080p. There is no real world review here!

Also, 1080p with an 1080 GTX minimum. It's non pratical bench with no real world application. If you want to remove GPU bottlenecks at higher resolutions, you will need something 4 time stronger than a 1080 GTX OC. The reason why this review is useless. It doesn';t take into account real world application with today standard for resolution.

Ryzen is a great chip at 4k. On par with 6900k for processing and 7700k performance for gaming.

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/11/

 

[redgarl]

AMD claimed back at Bulldozer that they had such advanced designs and nobody had caught up yet as well. I guess my 6600k will hold together just fine against amd's offerings for the next 4-6 years as well

Playing games at 1080p... surely not for encoding a 4k video... while gaming at 4k.... gahhhh....

 

[littlelostlinden]

This Ryzen reminds me of all things gimped. Gimp Gimp Gimp. It reminds me of an El Camino automobile. Good for some things......maybe.

 

[octaivermatt]

When i read this review, i remember this: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56457/intel-scrambles-emails-tech-media-over-ryzen-reviews/index.html

 

[Crashman]

When i read this review, i remember this: I'm]http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56457/intel-scrambles-emails-tech-media-over-ryzen-reviews/index.html

I'm still waiting for my email. And a piece of that payola would be nice as well. I have bills to pay damn it!

 

[sleepyantz]

Kinda odd that the review is more on in favor of intel imho. Try checking other reviews. I'm sure software optimization would do great help to boost zen performance.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176191/computers/ryzen-review-amd-is-back.html?page=3

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/4

 

[bentremblay]

Interesting quick/dirty way to get a sense of who's who in this community. #Demographics
How likely that you pay US$300 or more for CPU?
Betcha it's a double hump bell curve.

#SideBar - Don't provide text input form for comment then trash it with the Login. If buddy is not logged in (or has been logged out cuz cookie went stale) just don't offer the input box. Simple/easy ... cognitive
80/20 is killing us

 

[g-unit1111]

WHY DON;T YOU USE A RADEON RX 480!!! HELL USE 2 AND CROSSFIRE MODE FOR dx11 AND EXPLICIT MULIT-ADAPTOR WILL KICK IN FOR dX12!!!

So before you lie to the consumer why don't you run hardware that Ryzen was designed and optimized for Radeon.

Or would that disagree with the ORDERS Intel gave you before you published this "review".

Benchmark testing is done this way:

- On CPUs, they use the highest end GPUs to prevent the CPU from being a bottleneck. This produces the highest numbers possible.

- On GPU testing, they use the highest end CPUs to prevent the GPU from being a bottleneck. This produces the highest numbers possible.

With that logic, pairing a 1800X with a Titan X is ideal because this means that the GPU cannot be a bottlneck. Pairing a high end CPU with a mid range GPU like an RX-480 or GTX 1060 would throw the numbers way, way, way off. You can quote driver stats and BIOS updates all you want, but it doesn't work that way in real life product testing.

 

[Alakeram]

My only issue with this review is the fact that there's no hardcore evidence backing up any claims, where's the benchmarks? If it can't run a game faster then a 6700k I don't see the point... the only benefit to all this is the reduced prices of Intel processors, ill gladly use amds "selling points" to get me a cheaper better intel xD

 

[InvalidError]

How likely that you pay US$300 or more for CPU?
Betcha it's a double hump bell curve.

I'd bet on triple hump:
1- people who don't care about gaming and just want a PC that works will spend less than $100 on a CPU
2- mainstream gamers and people who use their PC for moderately serious productivity, content creation, etc. will be shopping around $200
3- enthusiast, serious productivity/content, etc. at $300+

I'm in the middle group, what I do on a daily basis may bring a low-end CPU to its knees but I don't do enough intensive stuff on a regular basis to pay $100 more than I need to. I much prefer setting that $100 aside for my next PC 4-5 years down the line.

 

[IceMyth]

Kinda odd that the review is more on in favor of intel imho. Try checking other reviews. I'm sure software optimization would do great help to boost zen performance.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176191/computers/ryzen-review-amd-is-back.html?page=3

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/4

I went through tons of review and benchmarks and seems everyone is using different configurations and then jump to con conclusions. The above links + the link from guru3d are the most fair and explain things and why Ryzen has low performance for gaming!

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,1.html

I personally will go with 1800x, as I care about every single thread and love the speed you can get.
So I can game and do all other stuff that having more threads make my life much easier and faster.

 

[anbello262]

My only issue with this review is the fact that there's no hardcore evidence backing up any claims, where's the benchmarks? If it can't run a game faster then a 6700k I don't see the point... the only benefit to all this is the reduced prices of Intel processors, ill gladly use amds "selling points" to get me a cheaper better intel xD

Well, the review is quite full of benchmarks... Several pages filled with benchmarks, even...


And, tell me: how can you run a game faster than a 6700k, when it is almost certainly limited by graphics power and not CPU?

 

[dranicus]

This CPU line is relevant it is a tremendous step up from Bulldozer the performance is where it should be for a new arch iteration, next phase should have a decent improvement.

 

[Aleksandar_21]

toms hardware, erased from bookmarks go figure why