AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

[Guest]

AMD brings its hotly-anticipated eight-core sixteen-thread Ryzen 7 1800X to market with an impressive IPC boost and SMT technology.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review : Read more

 

[vrumor]

Well, at the very least, it is competition. Competition drives innovation and lower costs. Well done AMD.

 

[kiniku]

Why did I feel AMD was hiding something? Understandably the "gamer market" is comparatively small. But couldn't AMD have designed a CPU that worked well in gaming/desktops and in data centers? Disappointing.
(But I have a 5820K. The best Ryzen in the world would not have had me switch anyway.)

 

[xryanx123]

Bias review as always. Most of your information is obviously screwed up. How do you get 4.0ghz at 1.45v. When that's not even an overclock for the chip (not really at least compared to stock) yet you're already pushing 1.45v? You're tailoring your articles for the uneducated. Duck off toms

 

[captaincharisma]

in the end the best anyone can hope from AMD is that it spooked intel enough to lower its prices

 

[ssdpro]

In a hurry to compare various site's gaming results, it appears differing sites are finding the same thing: gaming performance is acceptable but below 4c/8t Intel offerings. If you spend your day encoding or multi-thread benching this is a monster bargain.

With the good and bad, I think we can all agree the good here is competition. There is some now.

 

[Pompompaihn]

All along AMD was claiming to equal/beat Broadwell-E in comparative tasks at half the price, and from another review that included Broadwell-E, it's done that. I don't recall ANY AMD press saying it was going to beat the 7700K in straight up gaming. So, target set, and hit. That's a win in my book. But now, need to see what they can do with the smaller core count chips and if they can scale frequency to be competitive in the gaming sector.

 

[Dionisiatis]

Maybe i missed it but i would love to see a perf/dollar ratio comparison. Im sure Ryzen would occupy the top position, and it would also make it clear that AMD achieved extraordinary results in bringing such high performance to the average consumer that cant 700+ dollars for a CPU.

 

[jackspeed]

@Dionisiatis the 7700K is cheaper then the 1800X so for gamers it currently is the best CPU. now games have yet to optimize for the new AMD architecture, so maybe soon it will be a different story.

 

[Aspiring techie]

Your "Heating up AMD Ryzen" video on the Power and Temperatures tab is still private. I can't watch it.

 

[Guest]

Fails in gaming, and for multitasking stuff i got Xeon 14/28 who is doing all that encoding and other stuff for $300 on eBay.

In my opinion AMD failed and they really pulled BS by fooling people into pre ordering but it turns out that in gaming sucks..

 

[cabose369]

Well, well, well... What a surprise.... AMD makes tons of grandiose claims (such as it will beat the i7-6900K), and then can't back it up. Same old AMD. Just wait for when they hype up Vega and it ends up not being able to beat NVIDIA. Oh dear AMD.

 

[cabose369]

@Pompompaihn They claimed the 1700 (not X model) would easily defeat the Core I7-7700K in their slides from last week. It's kind of bad though when their top model (1800K) can't even beat the 7700K...

 

[thegentlewoman]

Lower "its" prices .. yes indeed INTEL MAKES ITS PRICES. I will never buy such technology (of Intel) it's dirty of blood not just of monopoly, but it's deeply unethic, just like Apple after the death of its Human Guide. Now I say thanks to AMD, and keep up... we want a Multiple players competition not just polarization (masses love it) and duopoles.
Thanks again!

 

[bnolsen]

So how are these compiled? Our HTPC application needs to run on lots of systems so we pretty much have support for i7 nehalem as our compile target as customers have sandy, ivy, haswell based xeon systems. Might be a 40core amd around there somewhere too. So mostly SSE2 and 64bit. AVX, etc aren't even on our radar.

 

[SteelCity1981]

im not surprised by the gaming results. the vast majority of modern games dont take advantage of more than 4 cores right now so a fast clocked quad core will beat out a slower clocked hexa or octo core every time.

 

[Brian_R170]

AMD did a good job at matching Broadwell-E, and that's obviously why all of the leaks and official marketing showed those comparisons, but what is disappointing is that AMD continually stated that their intentions to supporting the gaming community and I expected a no-excuses gaming chip out of the gate. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the quad-core offerings are like.

 

[wh3resmycar]

damn. at the end of the ryzen presentation, Lisa Su said that she was confident the 1800x IS THE FASTED 8c/16t chip out there and we have this? man oh man oh man.

 

[cloudonsky]

AMD didn't optimize HEVC encoding. THG review is incomplete once again

 

[chaosmassive]

Dear Tom's Hardware Mods/Admin/Programmer

please fix your images on your pages, I cant see anything beside of your wall of texts

Regards,

Lowly Reader

 

[Pompompaihn]

@cabose369

Their slides showed it beating it in Cinebench, in which it absolutely crushes the 6900k. Ask Intel why they don't have any gaming 8 core chips. This is a productivity chip that is GOOD at gaming and will be BETTER at gaming as more multi-threaded games are released and DirectX12 is implemented. There's no single chip on the market that's best at everything, Ryzen eats the quad core I7s for lunch in rendering, and the faster lower core count i7s beat Ryzen in most gaming. They also beat Broadwell-E in gaming. I think you're missing reality here.

 

[Marlin1975]

So what did intel ask and/or tell you to do when they contacted Purch/Toms about the AMD Zen/Ryzen reviews?
Did you do as they asked or told them no like other sites have reported?

 

[Yandex63]

Having been a lurker for a long time, I've always noticed that this site is firmly in the Intel camp, and anything related to AMD always seems to be down played, and many times, openly discredited. I've taken the time to read ALL the various reviews posted on these CPUs, and this site is the only one that lends a tone of open disdain for these products. I find that somewhat suspicious. Personally, as a consumer, I've never been a "fanboy" of either Intel or AMD....but have always looked for the best value in CPUs as they apply to me and my uses. That being said, I have always thought Intel gouges consumers for their products. From that standpoint alone, I am happy to see Ryzen CPUs on the market. Hopefully it will create competition, which can only be a good thing for the consumer. As has been mentioned by others, these are the first iterations, so once all the bugs are ironed out with the ecosystem for these parts, I would expect nothing but improvement.

 

[Wilkie]

In the past, Tom's benchmarked many CPUs with FineReader 11 in the "Productivity" category. Could you please benchmark Ryzen with FineReader 11, too? Thanks very much.

 

[jimmysmitty]

All along AMD was claiming to equal/beat Broadwell-E in comparative tasks at half the price, and from another review that included Broadwell-E, it's done that. I don't recall ANY AMD press saying it was going to beat the 7700K in straight up gaming. So, target set, and hit. That's a win in my book. But now, need to see what they can do with the smaller core count chips and if they can scale frequency to be competitive in the gaming sector.

AMDs marketing was better this time, their BD marketing was bad. Cherry picking every situation based on what it won.

Still what I wonder is if it is just matching Broadwell-E then what when Intel drops Skylake-E? Does AMD have plans to keep up with Intel in CPU refreshes and releases? If not then they might fall into the same spot they were with BD, although BDs issues were a lot to do with a bad uArch. Still if they can't keep up or Intel is able to launch say 10nm fast enough and get good clocks out of it, will Ryzen answer the call or just become the budget friendly option again?

Maybe i missed it but i would love to see a perf/dollar ratio comparison. Im sure Ryzen would occupy the top position, and it would also make it clear that AMD achieved extraordinary results in bringing such high performance to the average consumer that cant 700+ dollars for a CPU.

Intel could have but without the competition there was no need. And most games still do not benefit from more cores even with DX12 becoming more common.

@Dionisiatis the 7700K is cheaper then the 1800X so for gamers it currently is the best CPU. now games have yet to optimize for the new AMD architecture, so maybe soon it will be a different story.

There wont be much CPU optimization unless AMD has a new SIMD instruction set to work with. The only benefit would be optimizing for multiple cores which Intel will also benefit from.

I guess time will tell but it looks like an OK CPU. Their SMT implementation is more reminescent of Pentium 4 W/HT than Core i, Intels early SMT implementations also performed worse when compared to turning SMT off.

I am more worried about the server market for AMD though. Sure getting some consumer market will help but 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.