AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 GHz

[MrMilli]

Wizzard, I don't know if you've read the original post I made but it concerns this forum topic: https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=119280

Any chance you could test one of these games to see if Ryzen's performance really tanks so much in DX12?

 

[GreiverBlade]

Because it gives better all-round performance. Minimal differences? There are a number of games losing 15-20% performance on a GTX 1080, which will be even more for a GTX 1080 Ti.
When you can choose a product which performs better in typical real world applications, and one which performs better in rarely used applications

though... why would i pay 200$ more ... (100$ in case of a 1700) ... 15-20% ... oh well as long as it's not a "overall" (well loosing 10-15 fps in 1080p is horrible indeed ... i almost cried when i saw the R7 1700 @3.7 being beaten by a 7700K @5.0ghz ... tho on quadcore games ... on "more than 4 core" games it was on par or slightly above sometime ... oh wait ... it wasn't beaten literally ... damn, i got sarcastic ... sorry)

yeah thanks

why would you be stupid enough to buy the last option?

probably to give the market a change ... or to promote the concurrent which has a excellent product for once (almost a Slot A Athlon feel ... nearly Athlon/Athlon XP Skt A almost A64 ... we need it again ... )

at a 7700K price i choose R7 1700
at a 6800K price i choose R7 1700X
at a 6900X price i choose any of the R7 over that one ...

why would i pay more to have ... well ... not really more for what i need ? that would be stupid. (well quad channel RAM is a little more expensive to setup than dual ... nonetheless )
also if i go 6800K, intel will force me to change socket mobo cpu for the next gen (well ... they need money, right? they're short on it, i've heard recently)... amd,on the other hand, is used to do differently

remember Ryzen is new and need some "patching" ... for now the best price/perf ratio is on AMD

you can keep cheering on Intel no worries (after all my sys spec are blue green actually ) but nope ... my opinion has just as much value as your has.
as i wrote: X99 platform has less and less appeal with the days passing ... and Z170/270 has a minimal edge for now

yep my vote goes to AMD ... otherwise if people keep "blindly" following Intel, even when a worthy enough alternative is here, Intel will keep doing what they did recently ... aka: +5-15% improvement and overpricing

also ... powerdraw ... gotta laugh ... if the 7700K is that high i wonder how is my 4.4 6600K (and a 6800K 6900X )

 

[nemesis.ie]

Progress! I found the missing PSU and got the machine (Asrock Gaming Pro X370, R7 X1800) up and running with a small AM3 cooler.

Good news on the RAM compatibility front, using the shipped 1.2 AsRock UEFI, I selected XMP and was shown the XMP profile (only 1) for 3733MHz, I selected it and rebooted and the machine booted fine. On inspection it's running at 3200MHz.

So a good start. Windows 10 installed in around 5 mins to the Samsung 960 in the "Ultra" M.2 slot. Sadly they only supplied 1 x M.2 screw with the board and the accessories were a little light which is the only minus so far.

Seeing 64c in UEFI with this tiny cooler, which seems about right based on the "finger on the heatsink" test - it's just starting to burn like touching a household radiator.

I've just flashed in UEFI 1.55. On to base setup with that and the driver insall.

I hope the Kraken mount arrives soon.

Let me know if you'd like me to update this thread or if there is interest I can create a new one?

 

[efikkan]

though... why would i pay 200$ more ... (100$ in case of a 1700) ... 15-20% ... oh well as long as it's not a "overall" (well loosing 10-15 fps in 1080p is horrible indeed ... i almost cried when i saw the R7 1700 @3.7 being beaten by a 7700K @5.0ghz ... tho on quadcore games ... on "more than 4 core" games it was on par or slightly above sometime ... oh wait ... it wasn't beaten literally ... damn, i got sarcastic ... sorry)

$200 more? R7 1800X is more expensive than i7-6800K.

On Intel CPUs gains in games flatten out around ~4 GHz, so an i5-7600K or any of the models above will perform roughly the same in gaming, while Ryzen is clearly behind.

If you're paying for a decent graphics card then this is a total waste of money, since losing 15-20% in a number of games defeats the purpose of a decent graphics card in the first place. If you're playing on a RX 480 though, it makes less of a difference.

at a 7700K price i choose R7 1700
at a 6800K price i choose R7 1700X
at a 6900X price i choose any of the R7 over that one ...

Why? In most normal power-user tasks an i7-6800K outperforms an R7 1800X at a lower price. This is clearly bias.

why would i pay more to have ... well ... not really more for what i need ? that would be stupid. (well quad channel RAM is a little more expensive to setup than dual ... nonetheless )

No one is forcing you to use all of the memory channels. But more memory channels allows you to get more bandwidth at a lower price.

also if i go 6800K, intel will force me to change socket mobo cpu for the next gen (well ... they need money, right? they're short on it, i've heard recently)... amd,on the other hand, is used to do differently

Now you're not even trying to stay serious. No one is buying a $400-500 CPU and then upgrading it two years later.

remember Ryzen is new and need some "patching" ... for now the best price/perf ratio is on AMD

There is no need for "patching", and what is there really to "patch"? You fools said the same thing about Bulldozer back in the day; it has more cores and will perform better down the road. Of course it never happened.
Buy stuff based on real world performance rather than hypothetical dream scenarios!

Ryzen is the best performance/price if you're sitting all day rendering in Blender or crunching prime numbers. But for most productive tasks Intel offer the same or more value.

you can keep cheering on Intel no worries (after all my sys spec are blue green actually ) but nope ... my opinion has just as much value as your has.
as i wrote: X99 platform has less and less appeal with the days passing ... and Z170/270 has a minimal edge for now

yep my vote goes to AMD ... otherwise if people keep "blindly" following Intel, even when a worthy enough alternative is here, Intel will keep doing what they did recently ... aka: +5-15% improvement and overpricing

As spoken by a true fanboy…

 

[jaggerwild]

FINALLY....................................Nice work Wizard!!! TY!

 

[mrg666]

I always check w1zzard's reviews for graphics cards as my first reference. The Ryzen review is very informative as well. Just a small suggestion: if the single thread and multiple thread benchmarks are marked clearly, although I am able to figure out, it would be helpful.

My understanding is that although AMD is much more competitive with Intel in this release compared to Bulldozer disaster, AMD is still behind Intel in single-thread performance. The review clearly shows that, for the high-end entertainment/gaming desktop, i7-7700K is the better (and cheaper) processor than 1800X. Ryzen can only be better when all threads are needed and fully employed. I was excited with the hype of Ryzen before release and I am happy that I didn't make the mistake of pre-ordering one of them. I will go with i7-7700K. Thanks, w1zzard!

 

[GreiverBlade]

$200 more? R7 1800X is more expensive than i7-6800K.

ok proven you don't read my post ... no need to write more on the subject, have a nice evening/afternoon/day.

 

[TheHunter]

Comparing it to ONLY 7700k frankly didn't make sense for a number of reasons, price being one of them.

I am also curious, whether "doesn't have an integrated GPU" was listed as "cons" in reviews of Intel's 8 core chips.



R5 is launching early April.
I don't see how it is a big deal to be honest.

Extremely likely to be same chips as 1800x with faulty cores.
(so 2+2 and 3+3)
So they could not have started with lower end cores, for obvious reasons.

Single CCX chips are likely ones targeted at notebooks.



Cool that AMD is back and we mainboard swapping with CPU upgrades would stop being a thing

@guru3d everyone compared it to 7700K and only by gaming.. lol, there was 5960x and 6900K too, but no one cared.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,16.html

But here all want 6900K xD




Hitman, TotalWar, Fallout4 are all known to have bad cpu api code, most are probably fine tuned for intel, remember those intel logo flashes? MT engine or Codemasters EGO or older Hitman,.. Fallout3 had it also if Im not mistaken.

 

[xkm1948]

Somebody over ROG forum managed to bench at DDR4-3500.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?91820

 

[Nkd]

I'll prove my theory.

take a look at these benchmarks for Fallout 4.
This is a i7 7700k @ 4.8 with a gtx1080ti vs a gtx1080.
You will see little to NO gpu bottleneck.

Even at 1440p just a slight bottleneck with the gtx1080.

Now look what happens to the Ryzen cpu in this cpu intensive test, without! the gpu bottleneck.

Still think I'm trolling?
I respect the reviewer and never had a problem with this site.
Someone needs to run 2 1080ti's in sli with games that support sli well @ 1440p and compare Ryzen @ 4.0 to the i7 7770k
@ 4.8.
I have a feeling this is NOT a 1080p thing.
Next year when Big Volta is released and its 40% faster than a 1080ti, I bet you will see the Ryzen cpu's falling behind
@ 1440p.

You seemed to have cherry picked the game that clearly ryzen does worst in. I already saw that. So this is not news to me. There clearly is something with that game that needs to fixed, because it was an outlier in the review.

As far as volta goes, we will see what happens. But picking fallout 4 that clearly does bad on ryzen is not a great example to go by.

 

[ManofGod]

Good review consistent with other reviews. Probably a bit better since not rushed and things have settled some. Even setting aside whatever happened with the gaming performance, it is a great value. I like to think of it as more of a balance. The problem remains if you are a gamer, and already have a 6700/7700k, you won't enhance anything with these. You might push specific niche tasks better and maintain reasonable gaming performance. The problem is these niche areas are just not something mainstream or even most enthusiasts take part in. Time will tell if this does any actual disruption. The market says it isn't and the stock continues lower since launch.

Not sure where you are getting you information. However, I just looked at AMD stocks and from what I can see, they are stable.

As usual Great review W1z!!

For some of us here who still uses the 8350 (or similar), would have been bit more helpful to see what kind of performance jump the Ryzen gives.

The jump is Hugh! However, I recommend that if you are going to overclock, even eventually, buy the 1700 non X since it comes with a good cooler out of the box. I have both the 1700X and 1700 non X and I love them both, I came from an FX 8320 and FX 8350.

To be brutally honest there is zero reason for anyone with a brain to buy a 7700K now. If a Ryzen chip isn't better than a 7700K for what you're doing, then what you're doing doesn't warrant buying the 7700K over the 7600K either.

That may be the case. However, the cost of the previous releases are not really any cheaper than the 7700 or 7600, for the most part. Unless you can go to Microcenter and get a fantastic deal, of course. I am an AMD fan and with this release, I think they are worth it for even non AMD fans to buy. However, the R5 1600 and 1600X will probably be the better deal.

Speaking of overclocking, even Intel chips usually do not overclock very well, at least with my experience.

Edit: And no, I am not going to hunt down any thing I want to reply to and then do so later in a multi quote. I see something I want to reply to and do so right then a there. After all, I do not wait until I gather up a bunch of stuff people said to me and then reply all at once at the end of the day.

 

[happy medium]

You seemed to have cherry picked the game that clearly ryzen does worst in. I already saw that. So this is not news to me. There clearly is something with that game that needs to fixed, because it was an outlier in the review.

As far as volta goes, we will see what happens. But picking fallout 4 that clearly does bad on ryzen is not a great example to go by.

Actually I picked the only game where there was the LEAST gpu bottleneck at 1080p AND 1440p.
Look for yourself.
Look at the gtx1080ti review. Just about every game increased fps when going from a gtx1080 to a gtx1080ti.
That is a gpu bottleneck my friend.

Take look at Hitman in the gx1080ti review vs the gtx1080. Only a slight gpu bottleneck with the 1080ti vs the 1080.

Once again the lower the gpu bottleneck (see above) the more Ryzen gets its ass kicked. (see below)

I have a friend on another Tech site that will run the tests for me.
He has 2 1080ti's and a Ryzen and an Intel system.
The only reason the Ryzen cpu looks as good as is does, is because every site is showing it will a slight or moderate gpu bottleneck.

I'm not saying Ryzen is trash, its actually a good advancement for AMD. I'm saying reviewers are hiding the truth about its gaming performance or are not putting effort into finding the truth.


Edit : Look at Total War's gpu bottleneck
Look at the 7700k scores. they go way down due to the 1080 bottlenecking at 1440p
But look at the Ryzen scores at 1080p when there less gpu bottleneck.

edit 2:

Here is another game where they use a gtx1080 and with less gpu bottlenecking.
Look at the 1080p vs 1440p scores for the 7700k. 99 @ 1080p vs 97 @ 1440p
Look at the Ryzen scores! @ 1440p ,Pathetic.
AGAIN the less gpu bound the game is the worse Ryzen scores.

 

[Tran Hong Duc]

another hype train fail/blooper for AMD?

 

[sweet]

another hype train fail/blooper for AMD?

If you think a $329 1700 which can match $1000 6900K is a fail then yes...

 

[happy medium]

another hype train fail/blooper for AMD?

For gaming its not so good unless your gpu bound.
When the 6 core Ryzen comes out and there is no more excuses, bios fixes, SMT , scheduler problems ec ect ect.
and people see it has a little lower IPC of a Haswell chip while gaming, people will wake up and smell the silicon.

For now its a good reason to upgrade for those with last gen AMD crap cpu's.
If you have an Intel chip made in the past 5 years, and everyone should, there is no real reason to upgrade .

I think most of the excitement is just because after 6 years there is finally a chip that can give you a reason to even look at something other than a Intel chip.

 

[sweet]

For gaming its not so good unless your gpu bound.
When the 6 core Ryzen comes out and there is no more excuses, bios fixes, SMT , scheduler problems ec ect ect.
and people see it has a little lower IPC of a Haswell chip while gaming, people will wake up and smell the silicon.

For now its a good reason to upgrade for those with last gen AMD crap cpu's.
If you have an Intel chip made in the past 5 years, and everyone should, there is no real reason to upgrade .

I think most of the excitement is just because after 6 years there is finally a chip that can give you a reason to even look at something other than a Intel chip.

Ryzen has higher IPC than Haswell, it is a bit lower than Broadwell. And SMT is much better than HT in production tasks.

FYI 1800X is holding the record Cinebench MT run for 8 cores CPU. The OC scene is very excited about it, not only because it is new, but because it is more powerful than Intel's 8 cores. People are targeting the $1500 6950X with a $500 CPU, it's really crazy.

Of coz for people who just want higher fps in current games, 7700k is still the best choice. For the mass who is on budget, they can wait for 4 core parts, which will be much cheaper and offer the mostly the same gaming performance of 8 core Ryzen.

Note that I emphasized current games.

 

[GoldenX]

Broadwell-X IPC in all tasks except games, where the IPC seems to be between Sandy and Nehalem, at half or 1/3 of the price and lower power consumption, no overclocking restrictions and a cheaper platform overall (that is going to be even cheaper once the low/mid-end CPUs and motherboards appear).

And it's a bad product? Either Intel users are really hurt, or suddenly the only important task for a PC is running games, like a console.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Superb chips for productivity tasks, good enough for gaming.

The only thing putting me off right now is the buggy ecosystem that is supporting them and the fact they're such poor overclockers.

I was really hoping they would at least get to 4.3Ghz but alas that looks like we'll have to wait for the first refresh of Ryzen in 2018 before overclocking headroom improves.

You could look at this another way. Get a 1700. The testing from other sites has shown that the 1700 overclocks decently enough to out-shine the 1700x and 1800x in over-clocking and at the same performance. The bios, memory and setup difficulties are being worked out and seem to be having good progress.

The Ryzen 5 series is going to be equally as interesting as this launch has been.

As for the bias noted by other commenters, the reviewer is clearly excited by the results, but the results are inline with results posted by other reviewers on other sights. The range of tests done were interesting which kinda proves W1zzard put some thought into the process. So even with the bias, it's still a valid review that provides value to the readers.

 

[notb]

If you think a $329 1700 which can match $1000 6900K is a fail then yes...

Well... in some tasks in can match a $1000 6900K, in others it loses to a $300 i5.
Each of us has to decide whether this is a CPU for him.

Of course I have nothing against people buying Ryzen, when their actual workflow would benefit more from something from Intel. It's their choice.

Plus, it will help AMD financially.
Let's be honest. If Ryzen turns out to be a major flop, this would be a disaster for AMD. Maybe not the first one, but very likely the last.

You seemed to have cherry picked the game that clearly ryzen does worst in.

It's actually not true, but whatever.
Fallout 4 is a bestseller and built on one of the most popular engines. Saying that it favors Intel, so it's not the best game to use for comparing, is just silly.
It's like if we compared a hatchback and a tractor for best shopping vehicle and you'd protest, because most roads are clearly favoring cars.

Maybe AMD should start making stuff that works well in major titles? (AFAIK they've just started working with Bethesda, so it's not against their corporate strategy...)

How does this compare to people constantly moaning that reviews don't include Ashes of Singularity - a mediocre game that basically no one plays?

Number of Steam users' reviews:
Fallout: 54 402
AoS: 354

 

[laszlo]

have read the review and thanks @W1zzard !

also ran over the ~ 9 pages of comments....

with some comments i agree with some no...this is how tech site works..

my personal feelings about the review are mixed...didn't saw a 8 core intel .... now the 7700 is faster even than his bigger 8 core brother in many areas....seems that 4 cores communicate better&faster than 8 depending on workload type also..

i think it will be fair to compare different cpu's (2,4,6,8... cores) using 1 core to find out the base performance; more cores on die don't mean faster always due architecture of each producer.

productivity & gaming i would compare side-by-side cpu's with similar # of cores ....

 

[medi01]

everyone compared it to 7700K

lol, there was 5960x and 6900K too

Mind blown.

I'll prove my theory.

You need more than one game to prove your theory. Here are benches at 1080p across a bunch of games, interesting to note that going down to 720p gap is reduced, not increased:

Games were:

• Assassin's Creed Unity
• Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
• F1 2015
• GTA V
• The Witcher 3
• Total War: Attila

https://www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#diagramm-gesamtrating-spiele-720p

 

[rtwjunkie]

I actually asked one of Ryzen worshipers here how often he does movie encoding, if he's spending so much time praising Ryzen's performance. The answer I got was: "whenever necessary"

You're being a little disingenuous. The member whose answer you dislike is @FordGT90Concept. I would hardly call him a Ryzen worshipper, but whatever.

Someone who has a large movie collection will in all likelihood watch those movies pretty frequently. So the answer to how many times may not be exact, and his "whenever necessary" is no different from mine.

 

[BiggieShady]

Multi threading in Fallout 4 is buggy but can be enabled: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3t5jn7/fallout_4_multithreading_console_commands/

The gap in Fallout 4 graph is huge because it's not very multi threaded engine so the difference in boost clock shows the most.

 

[Capitan Harlock]

Great review as always but why no 4K benchmarks?

 

[notb]

Someone who has a large movie collection will in all likelihood watch those movies pretty frequently. So the answer to how many times may not be exact, and his "whenever necessary" is no different from mine.

I think it's no different with everyone - not just you.

How often do you transcode a movie before watching it?
I've also seen many movies / series episodes / documentaries this year - I guess around 4/week. And yet only 5 of the files needed editing.

Should we really base our evaluation of Ryzen's usefulness on the fact that it is superior at some tasks that we do "whenever necessary"?

I understand that you mean "we do it sometimes and Ryzen will make things faster", but again: this is not a qualitative situation. Going from 4 cores to 8 does not make new things possible. It just makes them less time-consuming and - as such - we must take in consideration how often these tasks are performed.