AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

[nader21007]

So when it comes to single thread you compare Ryzen with 7700K, when it comes to multithread you compare Ryzen with 6900K?
you either buy Ryzen, 7700K , or 6900K.
intel won't give you a 7700K+ 6900K to put them againt Ryzen for $500.
Ryzen by far is the best CPU we can buy for every use.

 

[FormatC]

In the meantime, you might want to ask FormatC about the discrepancy.

I explained it above. The Intel was in "sleep mode". Like only a few readers, using their brain only for bashing. 😀

 

[Crashman]

In the meantime, you might want to ask FormatC about the discrepancy.

I explained it above. The Intel was in "sleep mode". Like only a few readers, using their brain only for bashing. 😀

A hollowed-out wrecking ball would lose its purpose.

 

[nader21007]

http://static5.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1574/15747411/3202199-geekbench+3.0+single+core+chart+%282%29.png
So Ryzen has better single thread than Intel's >$1000 CPU's.
Tom, why do you hide this benches?
In the past this site has used this benchmarks, why not now?
oh I understand it, Intel Money talk. ( Call us before you write)
how much Intel paid you to put this plot?

 

[Crashman]

http://static5.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1574/15747411/3202199-geekbench+3.0+single+core+chart+%282%29.png
So Ryzen has better single thread than Intel's >$1000 CPU's.
Tom, why do you hide this benches?
In the past this site has used this benchmarks, why not now?
oh I understand it, Intel Money talk. ( Call us before you write)
how much Intel paid you to put this plot?

Since I haven't gotten any of that extra money you claim is out there, I'm still waiting for you to pay my mortgage this month.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX7bUXQsHLY

 

[cryoburner]

All of our testing on the previous CPU generation showed that AMD's graphics cards work best on Intel CPUs We did full Nvidia to Intel/AMD and Radeon to Intel/AMD to see which card lost the most performance on the slower AMD CPU, and it was consistently the Radeon.

Historic trends do not necessarily apply to new architecture, so we should be asking for another one of those articles 😀

Yeah, I remembered seeing something like that a while back. This generation of AMD's processor architecture seems a bit more similar to Intel's though, so it would be interesting to see whether there were any changes. The lower performance seen in the Ryzen gaming benchmarks seems like it would have been a good reason to investigate whether there could be some relation to Nvidia's driver optimizations though.

Then again, even AMD's graphics drivers might not necessarily be as optimized as they could be for the new architecture yet. It might make sense to wait for the new platform to settle a bit. Maybe sometime around the Vega launch wouldn't be bad time to revisit that though.

 

[shurli]

Great Review, and great reviews around the web. No one thought about one thing that Intel has been selling the same architecture for past 10 years with incremental speed bumps on clock speed + (PLUS) + Improved Chipsets / Motherboards WHICH EVOLVED over the last decade to get that Extra Amount of Juice.

I wonder if you give AMD Ryzen platform just a couple of years, it may as well Catch up or even Beat Intel's Multimedia / Game performance clock to clock! Maybe BIOS updates or a newer / more refined chipset, Second or third Gen!

Memory channels + Speed and IPC improvements. The best thing is that we have 8 Cores now! Come on Intel, Show us what your RND has been cooking for last 10 years and be competitive in pricing now!

 

[randomizer]

how much Intel paid you to put this plot?

 

[keitarofujiwara]

I have a pet peeve with the AMD chip naming convention. It's childish.

 

[rantoc]

Personally i think Ryzen is at an clear disadvantage currently, it's an entirely new architecture and few compilers and other software have optimized code for the brand new processor family where intel have very mature code in most of the test suit.

If that's true its like testing cars where one got an racetrack made for it and the other who have slightly different properties will still have to go through the less than optimal track to measure the best...

I'm quite confident that Ryzen will perform stronger when software starts to become properly optimized for it - Especially games who lacks proper multi threading. AMD have their work cut out for them, work with developers especially in the areas of compilers and game engines to get proper optimization/threading.

 

[ttt_2017]

Personally i think Ryzen is at an clear disadvantage currently, it's an entirely new architecture and few compilers and other software have optimized code for the brand new processor family where intel have very mature code in most of the test suit.

If that's true its like testing cars where one got an racetrack made for it and the other who have slightly different properties will still have to go through the less than optimal track to measure the best...

I'm quite confident that Ryzen will perform stronger when software starts to become properly optimized for it - Especially games who lacks proper multi threading. AMD have their work cut out for them, work with developers especially in the areas of compilers and game engines to get proper optimization/threading.

Ryzen needs to be in a new console fast ... I think the next Xbox will change everything for AMD ...

 

[lsatenstein]

On a sample of one, can you surmise that the measurements obtained are necessarily what we will find with the population of AMD systems at large? I would like to see some results with another motherboard and perhaps even a set of Linux software tests. After AMD has been out for one or two months.

GCC or CLANG, Test with the two compilers.

 

[lsatenstein]

With a representative sample of one mother board and one cpu, can we expect the measured results to reflect what we will find in the market place in a few months time? I don't doubt the measurements, but I wonder how statistically significant they are with only doing tests on one and only one AMD system,

 

[akamateau]

@Paul Alcorn.....

You did not run Chessbase Benchmark. Why? Because the benchmark shows Ryzen clearly the favorite in Multi-core and Multithreaded gaming.

Here is Chessbase site with there benchmarks:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/amd-releases-new-ryzen-processor

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-14/ia-echecs-stockfish-komodo.html

You still haven't tested Ryzen while running RX 480 vs Intel running RX 480. Why not?

 

[InvalidError]

But to be honest: nobody is pairing a 1000 Euro CPU with a 300 Euro VGA card.

Unless you got the CPU for non-graphics/GPGPU work, such as programming and running servers. If I had a job that let me work from home conditionally to me building a PC dedicated to work, I would end up pairing a $500+ CPU with a $100 GPU or using the IGP since HDL development tools are mostly text-driven with some 2D graphics. In the datacenter, there are tons of $10 000+ head-less multi-socket servers running on the motherboard's integrated remote management graphics. Matrox (yes, it still exists) probably still sells graphics IP-cores to motherboard manufacturers who want to add integrated graphics to their custom platform management chips.

 

[FormatC]

With a representative sample of one mother board and one cpu, can we expect the measured results to reflect what we will find in the market place in a few months time? I don't doubt the measurements, but I wonder how statistically significant they are with only doing tests on one and only one AMD system,

The review was made with two CPUs and two different mainboards. Gaming on an Asus, Workstation on a MSI mainboard. And don't worry, we also made crossover tests to check the plausibilty. 😉

But to be honest: nobody is pairing a 1000 Euro CPU with a 300 Euro VGA card.

Unless you got the CPU for non-graphics/GPGPU work, such as programming and running servers. If I had a job that let me work from home conditionally to me building a PC dedicated to work, I would end up pairing a $500+ CPU with a $100 GPU or using the IGP since HDL development tools are mostly text-driven with some 2D graphics. In the datacenter, there are tons of $10 000+ head-less multi-socket servers running on the motherboard's integrated remote management graphics. Matrox (yes, it still exists) probably still sells graphics IP-cores to motherboard manufacturers who want to add integrated graphics to their custom platform management chips.

This is a completely other world. We spoke about the graphics performance and the reason why we used the fastest VGA cards to prevent the systems before too big GPU bottlenecks 😉

The question is:
How will perform the low-end and midclass boards with 1700 or 1700X after a few BIOS updates and more stable microcode from AMD? This needs time and for my personal taste this launch was four weeks too early. Not one of my three mainbaords was free of issues or smaller disadvantages.

 

[DED_2_]

I want to see SMT and/or reduced active core overclocking to see if it can be clocked higher for gaming, as its seems its only real shortcoming is the lower clock speeds make it perform worse in games which favour higher clock speeds and fewer cores. If I could get say a 1700 or 1700X to 4.5-4.7ghz with SMT off or with only 4 cores active, I think I would snap one of these up tomorrow. Mind you its early days so I will wait and see how overclocking goes, besides not seen any X300 boards out yet (and still hoping for X370 matx boards as well, I like the performance but I don't want huge cases anymore)

 

[InvalidError]

How will perform the low-end and midclass boards with 1700 or 1700X after a few BIOS updates and more stable microcode from AMD? This needs time and for my personal taste this launch was four weeks too early. Not one of my three mainbaords was free of issues or smaller disadvantages.

With the number of reviewers who ran into odd issues going all the way to motherboard sudden death, Ryzen got off to a rougher start than I was expecting it to as well. Hopefully AMD and the board manufacturers can sort it out with BIOS, micro-code, drivers and OS updates. It would be unfortunate if it turned out that we won't be seeing more predictable and uniform performance out of Ryzen until Ryzen+ after the fixable launch bugs are squashed.

 

[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

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.

Yeah I agree with you on that, I forgot to check on guru3d review as well. It would be fair to AMD if an explanation is available for its surprisingly poor gaming performance. I'm very optimistic about zen and would really hope devs would do optimizations on zen architecture. This will benefit consumer in the long run. I'm looking forward for a build based on ryzen. Hope it would be anytime soon 😀 cheers!

 

[HawgieTonight]

It looks like testers with Gigabyte boards have had much better results. I think these tests should be retaken once bios issues have been fixed.

 

[ubercake]

Seems like if you're focused on playing games that are highly tuned for multiple cores (which of the newest great games aren't?) and higher than 1080p resolutions, you now have more choices, but they aren't really cheaper than an i7-7700K.

Why would I pay more for an R7 1700x or R7 1700 than I would for an i7-7700K? The 770K is $300 at my local micro center.

On the other hand, if I wanted to run Handbrake and Cinebench all day, I might choose a Ryzen processor? What is the real value proposition here for the Ryzen processor?

I'm sure the Ryzen processors are decent, but they still don't seem to compete from a value standpoint for gaming or a lot of other areas. Additionally, if the Ryzen processors are better at certain tasks, why even bother targeting the i7-7700 ($300) as a point of competition for your high-end $500 processor?

The other problem I have with a lot of reviews is why do they have to downclock an i7-7700k ($300) to compare it to a $500 R7 processor? It's great that clock for clock it can get near the same performance as a 7700K on some benchmarks, but what does that get me in the end?

If I think about this a little further, another question arises:
Why does a 4-core / 8-thread $300 processor perform better with most tasks than a $500 8-core / 16-thread processor?

The best thing I can glean from this whole situation is I've seen the price of a 7700K drop $40 in the past couple of weeks.

 

[InvalidError]

I'm sure the Ryzen processors are decent, but they still don't seem to compete from a value standpoint for gaming. So if the Ryzen processors are better at certain tasks, why even bother targeting the i7-7700 ($299) as a point of competition for your high-end $500 processor?

Ryzen 8C16T isn't aiming for the i7-7700, it is aimed at LGA2011, bringing i7-6850+ class performance down to $300-500 and 95W.

Ryzen 4C/4C8T is the chip that will compete against the mainstream i5/i7 and those will retail for $120-200.

 

[Rogue Leader]

It looks like testers with Gigabyte boards have had much better results. I think these tests should be retaken once bios issues have been fixed.

I'm looking forward to a couple of months from now, when drivers, BIOSes, and all that other stuff is sorted out to re-do these benchmarks. While I don't believe there will be a miraculous huge jump. I do expect it to be more competitive. Look at how much the RX 480 changed over time. Maybe 6 months for some software to catch up.

 

[frobozz0]

While some pre-release hype probably got to many of us, I think the 1800x and the x370 is probably the platform I will build my next gaming rig around. I get the 1080p tests everyone is doing, but that is not my use case. I am going to be gaming at 4K with a Freesync monitor and a new Vega RX GPU. We're it not for Freesync I would seriously consider a 1080ti. My secondary use for my gaming PC is 3D modeling. This is kind of a no brainer. But it always depends on your use case. For some people a higher clock rate will be better, or more cores, or faster memory, or different GPU's, or better hard drives, etc. etc.

AMD has a nice product here. I have no doubt the rough edges will be dealt with by the time Vega approaches. It will be evident at that point which the best platform will be, and I'm keeping an open mind. If Intel is still the better overall package, I'll stick with them, but I'm hopeful I have a real choice again and I always like routing for the underdog.

 

[ubercake]

I'm sure the Ryzen processors are decent, but they still don't seem to compete from a value standpoint for gaming. So if the Ryzen processors are better at certain tasks, why even bother targeting the i7-7700 ($299) as a point of competition for your high-end $500 processor?

Ryzen 8C16T isn't aiming for the i7-7700, it is aimed at LGA2011, bringing i7-6850+ class performance down to $300-500 and 95W.

Ryzen 4C/4C8T is the chip that will compete against the mainstream i5/i7 and those will retail for $120-200.

That makes sense. These processors would be better suited for high-end workstations.

Do you think the Ryzen 4C/4C8T are going to compete with the mainstream also from a gaming standpoint? It seems the performance of any Ryzen processor with less cores is only going south of what we see with the R7 1700?