AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 GHz

[FordGT90Concept]

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.

Seriously? I thought BethSoft fixed their shit. Apparently not. I hope they're working on a modern D3D12/multithreaded/64-bit engine now. It's long overdue.

Great review as always but why no 4K benchmarks?

Strains GPU more than CPU.

 

[Footman]

Great review. Hit the nail on the head. I believe that there is better value to be had in the 1700 version, which is the cpu I purchased last week as a replacement for Devils Canyon. Multi-threaded performance is through the roof, but gaming at 2560x1440 is similar. Optimizing will take time. Motherboard support is horrible. My 3200 ram wont boot at 3200, best I have got with it to date is 3000 and that has been a struggle. response from motherboard maker has been sporadic. Perhaps this cpu needs some time. Good news is overclocking the 1700 is pretty easy. I have mine at 4.0ghz and 1.3785v and as cool as 54C with OCCP (under water). Not really a gamers chip though, until games take advantage of more cores or game makers optimize current crop of games.
Pretty good value for 8 core 16 thread chip....

 

[MrMilli]

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.

Look at these:
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...test/4/#diagramm-total-war-warhammer-dx11-fps
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...test/4/#diagramm-total-war-warhammer-dx12-fps

7700K
DX11: 43 fps
DX12: 42 fps

1800X
DX11: 40 fps
DX12: 30fps

While the 7700K only loses 2% of performance in DX12, the 1800X loses 33% of performance. The DX11 results of both chips is actually very comparable.
As I've pointed out in my previous posts (pretty much ignored on all forums), DX12 games are lacking optimization for Ryzen and should be tested in DX11 till they're updated.
The whole issue at the moment with Ryzen's game performance is that almost all reviews solely focus on DX12 performance which is a mistake in my opinion, with DX12 being a low lever API.

In that CB review, Ryzen beats/matches the 7700K in Dishonored 2, F1 2016, Shadow Warrior 2 and Watch Dogs 2. Its game performance is not as bad as some reviews make it out to be.
It seems to really lack performance in Project Cars. Some 20% behind the 7700K but around 13% faster 4770K. But in the same vein, the 7700K is 20% slower in F1 2016.

 

[EarthDog]

funny.. they 'should' be tested in DX11... we should test (anything) in a more favorable light than how people would run it. Why would I run a DX12 game in DX11 unless there were some serious issues? It is what it is right now... sorry AMD couldn't seem to get samples/information out to some of the most important people to ensure better success on the chip...

 

[BiggieShady]

Seriously? I thought BethSoft fixed their shit. Apparently not. I hope they're working on a modern D3D12/multithreaded/64-bit engine now. It's long overdue.

My reaction exactly .... it'll be hilarious when we see gamebryo one more time

 

[dirtyferret]

a few quick points

1. a much better effort then the disappointing FX series especially in IPC
2. a bit over priced for the casual user and gamer, there is obviously a certain market that can use that multi-core performance now but it's strange AMD did not launch something in the $200-250 price range out the gate.
3. That said I am very interested in seeing Ryzen 5 family performance when they launch in mid-April (hopefully not a paper launch)
4. If anyone replies to this stating they are making a Ryzen purchase to "future proof" their PC, allow me to post my auto reply

5. AMD really needs to move off the more cores for your money band wagon. I know the mark up is much greater on CPUs beyond mid range but they really need to attain more market share and that will occur in the mid range market.
6. interesting article over at hardocp

For those of you looking to save a few bucks and build a budget system with as many cores as could previously be had for $1000, the Ryzen 1700 processor is looking to be the best value in Ryzen CPUs for the overclocker. For all intents and purposes, the Ryzen 1700 is the same CPU as the 1700X and the 1800X at quite a cost savings. The one caveat may be, and this is a guess based on very little testing so far, that the 1700 may not show the same overclocking prowess as the X models. Even then it was less than 100MHz, which is something that you would never be able to identify in everyday usage and gaming.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/08/amd_ryzen_1700_cpu_vs_1700x_review/3

 

[londiste]

The whole issue at the moment with Ryzen's game performance is that almost all reviews solely focus on DX12 performance which is a mistake in my opinion, with DX12 being a low lever API.

dx12 is only lower level api when it comes to gpu. basically as far as cpu is concerned, it is not that different.

 

[GWComputers]

WE DON'T CARE AT ALL NEITHER FOR INTEL OR AMD BUT...
This post should have had a dislike button instead.
Are you being paid by Intel??
The R7 1800X since the beginning was being compared to i7 6900K which is an 2011v3 CPU and the ( i7 name makes no sense here) SO MY QUESTION IS, WHERE ARE THE i7 6800K, 6900K and i7 6950K in the benchmarks??
We are no fans of neither Intel or AMD but this post is biased or made by a mediocre member of your stuff.
You could make the RIGHT post and say that the softwares used today are not being optimized for multicores and that's the reason why High End CPUs like R7 1700x / 1800X and i7 6800k/ 6900k / 6950k sometimes get lower results than a "mediocre" i7 7700
This is not the first time that i see terrible reviews made by you and other sites like yours. Tests in our lab are different and can assure you we know what we are doing

You continue getting biased and make these "reviews" and in return we still have this 4-cores bad overpriced CPUs around and software companies forced or paid to develop garbage softwares including games

 

[MrMilli]

dx12 is only lower level api when it comes to gpu. basically as far as cpu is concerned, it is not that different.

Firstly, that's not true and secondly, how do you explain the massive regres in performance for Ryzen in DX12 if it would be true?

 

[Shatun_Bear]

a few quick points

1. a much better effort then the disappointing FX series especially in IPC
2. a bit over priced for the casual user and gamer, there is obviously a certain market that can use that multi-core performance now but it's strange AMD did not launch something in the $200-250 price range out the gate.
3. That said I am very interested in seeing Ryzen 5 family performance when they launch in mid-April (hopefully not a paper launch)
4. If anyone replies to this stating they are making a Ryzen purchase to "future proof" their PC, allow me to post my auto reply

5. AMD really needs to move off the more cores for your money band wagon. I know the mark up is much greater on CPUs beyond mid range but they really need to attain more market share and that will occur in the mid range market.
6. interesting article over at hardocp


https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/08/amd_ryzen_1700_cpu_vs_1700x_review/3

This is the silliest post I have read all day. That's like saying 'the Porsche is over-priced for the working-class buyer'.

The second-bolded is equally crazy. You covered it in your own post - Ryzen 5 is coming April 11. But regardless, AMD is giving us too many cores for an over-inflated priced according to you with those pesky R7s

I don't know whether you are being serious with the whole list or not in all honesty.

 

[notb]

This is the silliest post I have read all day. That's like saying 'the Porsche is over-priced for the working-class buyer'.

Maybe he meant "too expensive"? That would be correct.

Ryzen R7 is great value, but clearly priced way above what most people desire to spend on a CPU.

R3/R5 is the mainstream CPU we're waiting for, but again - what about the price?
It seems the R5 1500 (6C) will have performance similar to Intel i7 (4C).
So it's $230 vs $300 - clearly AMD is cheaper IF you're going to buy a dGPU in both cases - not necessarily otherwise.
The gaps are even smaller down the line and in the low-end R3 / i3 it's neck-and-neck.

The cheapest Ryzen 3 is rumored to cost $130 - again, quite a lot. What about cheaper stuff?
Will the Ryzen-based APU compete with Intel's Pentium lineup?
Until now AMD has only told us something about the high-end models (4C/8T), but they will be more expensive than non-IGP variants (makes sense, doesn't it?).
G4560 is 2C/4T + IGP for $80 and it is REALLY fast.

The second-bolded is equally crazy. You covered it in your own post - Ryzen 5 is coming April 11. But regardless, AMD is giving us too many cores for an over-inflated priced according to you with those pesky R7s

Again, what's wrong?
The last time AMD had a market share close to Intel in consumer CPU segment, they weren't trying to be different, interesting, futuristic or something like that. They were making a very similar product, yet with some interesting features and at a lower price point.

Intel is trying to be innovative in other segments - spending a lot on AI, embedded solutions, IoT and so on. But in the consumer CPU they're simply answering current needs - not trying to be clever.
Wouldn't this be also better for AMD? Their battle for high-core gaming is already going on for over 5 years (10 if you consider the R&D time for Bulldozer). It's been a huge failure since the beginning.

 

[londiste]

Firstly, that's not true and secondly, how do you explain the massive regres in performance for Ryzen in DX12 if it would be true?

would you care to elaborate on why it's not true?

 

[medi01]

Strains GPU more than CPU.

So god forbid dude with Titan would see what performance he would get with this CPU.
He should deduct it from very reasonable SLI Titan benchmarks at 720p.

Why would I run a DX12 game in DX11

Because it is... faster that way? (for all nvidia gpus and most games)

 

[Shatun_Bear]

Again, what's wrong?
The last time AMD had a market share close to Intel in consumer CPU segment, they weren't trying to be different, interesting, futuristic or something like that. They were making a very similar product, yet with some interesting features and at a lower price point.

Intel is trying to be innovative in other segments - spending a lot on AI, embedded solutions, IoT and so on. But in the consumer CPU they're simply answering current needs - not trying to be clever.
Wouldn't this be also better for AMD? Their battle for high-core gaming is already going on for over 5 years (10 if you consider the R&D time for Bulldozer). It's been a huge failure since the beginning.

You've contradicted yourself there. First you want AMD to offer something 'different', then you say they would be better 'answering current needs' like Intel. So which is it?

The problem with TechPowerUp is they review products without considering the price, especially when it comes to Intel and Nvidia products. So I don't blame you if the incredible value proposition of the 1700 is lost on you - offering an 8-core CPU for $330 that gets very close to Intel's 3X as expensive 8-core HEDT is very interesting and 'futuristic'. I don't know how anyone can believe that more cores is not the future, anyone will tell you that - it's the way the industry is going. It would be incredibly backward if AMD offered only high-frequency low-core CPUs with Ryzen, which is what you and the other guy seem to be proposing they should have done. What's silly is they are offering 4 and 6-core CPUs, but the R7's have released first. Just be bloody patient.

 

[Warrgarbl]

If I hadn't had a need to buy a new motherboard and CPU a year back I would totally buy a Ryzen. Performance is great across the board, and the gaming performance isn't enough to deter me. Granted, my focus shifted. Then again, I can't wait to see what software-side optimizations might bring (games, especially).

 

[msroadkill612]

Is this correct. It seems too simple?

The impression I get is the Ryzen auto overclocking works well, but only within strictly monitored cpu temperature ranges.

So, instead of the limited benefit hassle of manual overclocking, why not spend on better cooling (liquid e.g.), and let auto overclock do the hard yards?

 

[msroadkill612]

"Hep" thing perhaps should be "hip"?

Now to read the review.

FTR, "a real hep cat" was actual "beatnik" usage of yore, & meant "hip" of course.

 

[msroadkill612]

This is the best and most informative Ryzen review on the web. Thank you for the intense amount of thought and effort that you put into this article W1zzard.

Maybe its just my searching, but i was keen for any ryzen stuff out there, & didnt find much that wasnt dated Mar 2.

News is new by definition. but its also a crap way to learn - history for example. Imagine a view of the vietnam war formed by reading the papers at the time, and nothing since?

Lets not forget what utter BS some of the early reviewers sprouted. A lot of AMD stock holders were stung from believing them.

check this - 1 month amd stock chart, look what happens on mar 2 based on "expert" opinions in the press, then folks wised up:

So yeah, me, i prefer information, and to wait a while & see what others discovered the hard way seems intelligent husbanding of resources.

Kudos. I shall pay more attention to TPUs site in future.

 

[dirtyferret]

This is the silliest post I have read all day. That's like saying 'the Porsche is over-priced for the working-class buyer'.

The second-bolded is equally crazy. You covered it in your own post - Ryzen 5 is coming April 11. But regardless, AMD is giving us too many cores for an over-inflated priced according to you with those pesky R7s

I don't know whether you are being serious with the whole list or not in all honesty.

I'm sorry my post was too complicated for you, I will attempt to educate you on the basics of CPUs if need be. Please let me know if any term goes over your head but here is a good start for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit

Your anecdote is not apt as The Ryzen CPU is not a porshe nor does a single person in the tech world consider it one. The Ryzen 7 is more like a Subura Baja, over priced against sedans and lacking the full utility of a true pick up. Obviously there was a market for such a vehicle yet it only lasted for four years due to low sales.

 

[GhostRyder]

Well I've bought into the Ryzen ecosystem for one reason.

If I buy a KL chip now, it'll be superseded soon enough by another Intel chip so in 3 years time there will have been like 5 Intel high end chips out. Anyway, at 1440p with max settings on everything and new 1080ti, the 1700X I've gone for should be better then my Sandy-E. And if Bethesda go full AMD optimised, maybe it's not so much a gamble for me.

I am shocked your retiring that system, such an awesome chip.

Well, the best thing about these chips is the power consumption considering the amount of cores mixed in with the performance. Still disappointing overclocking though but thats a caveat of a low power design. Personally I would choose better overclocking over low power but thats me.

 

[Frick]

Right on the money, this is my first CPU review. Which means selecting and figuring out benchmarks, then building test systems with the hardware that's available, then bench (not exactly few results), then think, fix bench suite, rebench everything (two times for this review), then come up with structure, layout, texts, conclusion.

There will be more CPU reviews from me though Just bought i5 7400, i3 7100, Pentium G4560.

Didn't you review the E6600, or was it the Q6600?

Anyway, hoping someone will sell me their Haswell i3s/i5s for cheap!

 

[notb]

You've contradicted yourself there. First you want AMD to offer something 'different', then you say they would be better 'answering current needs' like Intel. So which is it?

Misunderstanding.
I've never said that I want AMD to be "different". Sorry if you got it that way.
I precisely think AMD should stop building their strategy on a bet. For 10 years they've been betting that just around the corner is a highly multi-thread future.

Intel is giving us CPUs optimized for the actual tasks that are performed at the moment.
AMD gave us very expensive CPUs that are superior in fairly niche situations...

The problem with TechPowerUp is they review products without considering the price, especially when it comes to Intel and Nvidia products. So I don't blame you if the incredible value proposition of the 1700 is lost on you - offering an 8-core CPU for $330 that gets very close to Intel's 3X as expensive 8-core HEDT is very interesting and 'futuristic'.

It doesn't matter. $300 is too much for a mainstream CPU. It doesn't matter how good is the performance. People want a CPU that will let them use a browser, an Office suit, Skype, some games and so on.
An i3 is already good for that. i5 is for those gaming in high resolution. i7 is already an overkill for most.
You're praising Ryzen as if everyone on the planet was doing WCG as a hobby.

Ryzen has multi-thread potential that - outside of specific tasks like movie encoding or simulations - is very difficult to use. This won't change fast enough for AMD to get a big audience. Intel will catch up - even just on their small but regular improvements with each generation.

I don't know how anyone can believe that more cores is not the future

It's not about if it is or not (and are you so sure?). It's about how far we are from this happening (assuming it will).

 

[dirtyferret]

Misunderstanding.
I've never said that I want AMD to be "different". Sorry if you got it that way.
I precisely think AMD should stop building their strategy on a bet. For 10 years they've been betting that just around the corner is a highly multi-thread future.

Intel is giving us CPUs optimized for the actual tasks that are performed at the moment.
AMD gave us very expensive CPUs that are superior in fairly niche situations...



It doesn't matter. $300 is too much for a mainstream CPU. It doesn't matter how good is the performance. People want a CPU that will let them use a browser, an Office suit, Skype, some games and so on.
An i3 is already good for that. i5 is for those gaming in high resolution. i7 is already an overkill for most.
You're praising Ryzen as if everyone on the planet was doing WCG as a hobby.

Ryzen has multi-thread potential that - outside of specific tasks like movie encoding or simulations - is very difficult to use. This won't change fast enough for AMD to get a big audience. Intel will catch up - even just on their small but regular improvements with each generation.



It's not about if it is or not (and are you so sure?). It's about how far we are from this happening (assuming it will).

I don't think you could have laid it out any better.

 

[CounterSpell]

buggy hardware ecosystem. Waiting for fixes... cpu not mature enough.

But a big jump for amd cpu´s

 

[friocasa]

WE DON'T CARE AT ALL NEITHER FOR INTEL OR AMD BUT...
This post should have had a dislike button instead.
Are you being paid by Intel??
The R7 1800X since the beginning was being compared to i7 6900K which is an 2011v3 CPU and the ( i7 name makes no sense here) SO MY QUESTION IS, WHERE ARE THE i7 6800K, 6900K and i7 6950K in the benchmarks??
We are no fans of neither Intel or AMD but this post is biased or made by a mediocre member of your stuff.
You could make the RIGHT post and say that the softwares used today are not being optimized for multicores and that's the reason why High End CPUs like R7 1700x / 1800X and i7 6800k/ 6900k / 6950k sometimes get lower results than a "mediocre" i7 7700
This is not the first time that i see terrible reviews made by you and other sites like yours. Tests in our lab are different and can assure you we know what we are doing

You continue getting biased and make these "reviews" and in return we still have this 4-cores bad overpriced CPUs around and software companies forced or paid to develop garbage softwares including games

This is one of the worst review i've ever seen in this website: Bad tests, bad choice and very limited amount of CPU models, worse RAM speed and latency on one side(Ryzen, the most dependent)...

I truly expect an update of this review in the near future