AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the 7700K's dominance, it's safe to say that none of the games in the test make significant use of more than 4 threads, else we would have seen 8/16 Ryzen *and* the 8/16 I7's perform better vs. the 7700K. Therefore, the 4/8 Ryzen chips wouldn't see much, if any, performance deviation in games from where the 8/16 Ryzen's landed here.
 
But to be fair:
The Core i7-7700K is only a totally oc'ed 6700K, not a new silicon. Let's wait, how the Ryzen 1700 is going on updated mainboards (or not) :)
 
some of the gaming benchmarks are definitely lower than expected. im optimistic some tuning should help things along. but reading comments on other threads about optimistic builders excited to pair some brand spankin new 1080tis with the 1800x could be in for a troublesome experience.
 
@CAPS LOCK dude:
Take a look at our HPC benchmark results. This is more real and - tadaa - not bad for AMD.
Who the hell is using SuperPi for anything? 😀
 
I keep going back and forth on these Ryzen chips. I like more cores for video and audio production and I like the gaming performance as well. I've seen some other reviews out there that show the 1800x/1700x and 1700 pretty close to each other with and very competitive with gaming performance on higher than 1080p resolutions.

What's funny to me is the fact that 1080p is becoming a resolution for a CPU bottleneck.

Seems like if you're running higher than 1080p (as I am), the R7s chips make a whole lot more sense.

I thought I'd be buying one right away, but think I'm going to see how things pan out over the next few months. I change my architecture a lot less frequently than my graphics cards (every 5th or 6th GPU) so it's a bigger decision.
 


The two most obvious takeaways from the above chart, presuming comparable performances, are that the Intel not only costs more than double, but also consumes a lot more power (140W vs 95W)
Click to expand...

Not sure I can take a site seriously that can't tell the difference between TDP and power consumption.



One thing that makes me wonder is the platform. The best chipset, the X370, only allows for dual x8 PCIe. It looks much more like an Intel mainstream platform rather than a platform that competes equally to LGA 2011.
 
well...i was expecting a little bit more performance...i am sure that with time it will get better....AMD has awesome hardware, they really lack the software and driver support....in part this could be like this because of patent infringement, you can only do so much before you will infringe other companies patents at some point....if they want to get better they might have to pay royalties to intel and use some of their tech, this is the only way AMD will ever get on top again...maybe
 
I talked today with two companies about workstation mainboards for Ryzen (also with unbuffered ECC, more memory).
It only depends at AMD what we can await (if), because Naples don't need a cannibal.

But I think, it is possible, because Naples ist totally different positioned. But we have to wait after Naples launch.
 
Why does Tom's Hardware REFUSE TO BENCHMARK RYZEN AGAINST INTEL using Radeon RX 480?

Even better would be 2 RX 480!!!

Is Tom's Hardware going to repeat this with VEGA?

Or did Intel direct you not to?
 


I don't think Naples will be workstation price friendly though. It looks like it is focusing mainly on HPC and multi-socket servers more than workstations.

Maybe they will have a better CPU out with the Ryzen refresh for workstations.
 


It has been explained before why they did not use a mid range GPU like the RX 480.

As well, Intel did not tell Toms to do anything and when Vega comes out it will be benched on the best available CPU to help eliminate any possible CPU bottlenecks like any GPU review.

Take it down a notch.
 



Next month when AMD releases RADEON VEGA is Tom's Hardware going to rewrite this piece after running the AMD vs INTEL benchmarks running VEGA instead of GTX 1080?


The results will be different.
 
Let's have an honest conversation. Can you see the difference between 60 FPS, 90 FPS, and 1000 FPS without a FPS counter? If you buy a $4-500 CPU will you be using that for playing games at 1080p? Will people with good to high end Nvidia say 1080 Ti users be able to play any game 1440p to 4k resolutions, and above that at the same give or take 1 or 2 FPS of intel products? Is the 1800x and 1700x better than or near equal to their respective intel equivalents in most benchmarks! Conclusion, games playing 1080p at a solid 60 FPS are just as fluid as games playing at 1000 FPS to the naked eye. All gaming over 1080p matched with a highend GPU like Nvidia 1080Ti will have near equal performance in FPS. Plus, Ryzen is way cheaper and more productive. Are people upset at the 1080p performance sure. But in reality a solid 60 FPS is good enough more than that is just stroking your imaginary numbers!
 


RYZEN fully supports ALL DX12 features. Including a few that Intel and NVidia. DX12's Explicit Multi-adaptor allows scalable performance increases far better than Crossfire allows.

RYZEN would perform far better with 2x RX 480 than using 1 GTX 1080. Especially the Ashes benchmark. Of course that would also show Intel in a bad light too.

Tom's Hardware used to run the Chessbase FritzMark test. I find the absence of that test troublesome.

So allow me to provide it for you. ChessBase reported on the results and RYZEN THOROUGHLY CRUSHES ALL INTEL 8 CORE 16 THREAD CPU.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/amd-releases-new-ryzen-processor#discuss
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-14/ia-echecs-stockfish-komodo.html

Where is the Super Pi results? They too would should Intel in a good light unless of course RYZEN crushed i7 again.

 
Curious to know if the frequency settings were set through Ryzen Master or through BIOS? I really like the ASUS BIOS tweaker. and wanted to see how it compared to Ryzen Master?
 


Yes, you can easily tell the difference between 60fps, 90fps and sometimes 144fps. Higher than that, probably not. For most people, I think the limit (in gaming) is around 120fps in order to be able to tell the difference, but some trained eyes might be able to go higher.
But that actually requires a monitor capable of doing more than 60fps, which more people don't have. But if you're buying a $300+ cpu only for gaming, it is not so strange to have a fast monitor.






Tried to vote up, misclicked, and now you have a downvote. Sorry.
<<Mod comment: neutralized for you!>>

Thank you, Mod!
 

Ryzen 4C8T will have only one CCX, which means almost half the die size, a simpler un-core, less die area to distribute power across of, less power to send through the IHS and likely a few more factors that should improve its chances but I wouldn't expect miracles for air/liquid overclocking, maybe an extra step or two.

Since AMD is launching 4C8T quite a few months later, it may also be on a newer core, memory controller, un-core, etc. stepping to fix what performance issues were identified in early 8C16T production units and deemed fixable in short order.
 
I used BIOS - low level is always better than all this lightweighted software gimmicks for the generation Clearasil. 😉

Finally:
I also tried a RX480 Crossfire with a Fresync monitor - this is good for synthetics but nothing for real life. The stuttering is awesome. Dual-GPU solutions are simply dead. Or you must be totally senseless for some stutters 😉

 


Why would they?? CPU performance is CPU performance , a different ( & weaker) gpu isnt going to make a blind bit of difference to the performance of the ipc of the chip - If anything youd just introduce a gpu bottleneck & significantly taint the results (more than likely it would be detrimental to the ryzen results not beneficial)
This is NOT a general consumer gaming cpu,those results really dont matter imo to the majority of people who actually have a legitimate use for a 8c/16t cpu.

 


I am really really excited about something-something Ridge APUs. I do have good expectations for them.



Can someone please ban this troll? I've been banned for less ~______~u

Cheers!
 


I dont think they ever envisaged getting to the top again - its not going to happen.
A $500 cpu with 90% of the performance of a competitors $1000 cpu with motherboards that also cost 50% less isnt a bad starting point though.
 


I think honestly think thats been dictated by AMD's financial position & budget constraints.
A universal socket/platform model has cost them far far less in development & production.
It means a base system motherboard is available at a far lower budget & give a much wider consumr market & a viable upgrade path for people on low budgets.
Consider someone starting with one of the 4c/4t ryzen 3 (or the apu's when they drop ) chips on a tight budget has the ability to upgrade in the future to the highest end 8c/16t chip ,such as skylake/kaby lake does now.

I do not expect ryzen as it stands to take a large proportion of the professional market from intel at all.
Someone in an earlier post branded the ryzen a 'prosumer' chip - its not an often used term but it is absolutely spot-on in its description.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom