AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 GHz

[medi01]

Where is 6900X? Or do you think Ryzen 1800X main competitor is 7700K?

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.

It's a real shame AMD could only launch with the higher end products.

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.

Socket 2011-3

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

 

[Athlonite]

• Lacks integrated graphics

how is that a thumbs down when the CPU was never advertised as an APU you want intergrated GPU wait for the APU's to come out

Could you please also test stock CPU cooler performance (temp) and noise? (if provided)
Also, would it be possible to measure power consumption of the CPU like you do with the GPUs?

Both the 1800X and 1700X do not come with stock HSF's only the 1700 comes with the new wraith cooler for the other two you'll need to supply your own HSF

Thanks for a thorough review Wiz I know these things are a lot of work to get out shame you didn't have an 6900K to go against the Ryzen but you can't always have everything.... The only thing holding me back from going out and buying a ryzen setup is the lack of mobo's from the likes of MSI and Asrock here in NZ and some BIOS issues which I expect to be ironed out over the next few months

 

[GreiverBlade]

i7-6800K is the main competitor, until Skylake-X replaces it.

okay ... 6C/12T vs 8C/16T totally make sense .... the 6C/12T from AMD will be the R5 1600, the R7 1700/1700X/1800X are meant to target the 6900X while being priced "mainstream" for the 1700 and half the price or the top dog HEDT for the 1800X, 1700X being a "in-between".

Skylake-X will be Skylake HEDT indeed (wait aren't we on Kabylake on "mainstream"?)

 

[efikkan]

okay ... 6C/12T vs 8C/16T totally make sense .... the 6C/12T from AMD will be the R5 1600, the R7 1700/1700X/1800X are meant to target the 6900X while being priced "mainstream" for the 1700 and half the price or the top dog HEDT for the 1800X, 1700X being a "in-between".

Skylake-X will be Skylake HEDT indeed (wait aren't we on Kabylake on "mainstream"?)

What matters is real world performance, not "specs" and theoretical figures. The same argument was constantly used for Bulldozer back in the day; it had 8 cores so it couldn't be "compared" to 4-cores from Intel, even though they beat it.

With it's gaming performance, and great performance in a number of applications, surely i7-6800K is a better buy for most users than a 1800X.

 

[dj-electric]

Can we talk about the huge potential Ryzen has for mobile devices with that phenomenal power consumption?
4C/8T chips running past 3Ghz would be awesome in gaming and workload intended laptops.
I also wanna see what mobile ryzen can do with 2C/4T setups.

About the desktop ryzens, if OC comes to mind, the R7 1700 is the only relevant choice i can think of. for 329$ you have the potential to get 95% of what a 499$ can provide, granted you can hit 3.9Ghz stable all-core

 

[GreiverBlade]

What matters is real world performance, not "specs" and theoretical figures. The same argument was constantly used for Bulldozer back in the day; it had 8 cores so it couldn't be "compared" to 4-cores from Intel, even though they beat it.

With it's gaming performance, and great performance in a number of applications, surely i7-6800K is a better buy for most users than a 1800X.

and i was talking about real world performance .... in the same domain a 1700 to 1800X compete with the 6900K (you know ... reviews and such things ... on paper or web... there is quite a lot on it)

and for gaming technically a R5 1600, when out, will be a better option than a 6800K if not ... well you can still add 2 core, 4 threads more and get a slightly cheaper than a 6800K, but a tad more expensive than a R5 1600, R7 1700 ....

i take you didn't read any of my previous post and just took what you wanted to counter no worries, it's fine.

 

[happy medium]

You sound like you are trolling and I shouldn't even respond to you. Who gets a frickin titan x to game at 1080p? Shit gtx 1080 is damn good enough for anything 1440p.

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.

 

[OneCool]

Good review as always. Not sure how you knew I was looking at that Mobo for a Ryzen build.

Anyway...I will wait to pull the trigger on a new build.

 

[sweet]

I'm quite active on reddit, have been there for many years. Always trying to be open, not defending.


https://www.reddit.com/user/wizzardtpu

Would be more appreciated if you can do a follow-up with a proper BIOS and faster RAM. You can get some tips from this video

 

[Totally]

This is what annoys the crap out of me(Intel is guilty too). Why change the mounting hole layout so we have to buy(or the heatsink manufacturers have to give away at a loss) new retention brackets? Did Intel really need to make the holes on the 115X platform ever so slightly larger than the 775? Did AMD really need to do the same between AM3+/FM2+ and AM4? And it makes even less sense that AMD wouldn't take the opportunity to make their mounting holes square, and they should have actually just matched the already in use Intel spacing. Make it easier for all of us!



It is the classic fanboy problem. If you speak ill of a product by the fanboy's chosen brand, you are instantly bias. The reality is the reviewer just feels the product isn't as good as the competition that scores higher. Right now AMD is still behind both Intel and nVidia in terms of overall product quality, so their scores in reviews reflect that. They are a lot closer than they were last year, that is for sure, but not quite to the point of being equal or better. Of course, I'm sure I'll get "well Ryzen is better than Intel in XYZ area, or Ryzen is cheaper than one single Intel processor so Ryzen should have better scores" or "AMD GPUs are better than nVidia if you look at a few specific games". Well, yes, if you look at a few specific areas, AMD is better, but if you look overall they are not.

People saying W1zzard is Bias need to review their history. This site started largely as an ATI resource. W1zzard has gone so far as to hide an easter egg in an nVidia review that said "epic fail" because the card was so bad. And I believe an nVidia card still holds the crown for the lowest score ever received in a review here.

Now you mention is AMD hasn't changed the cooling mounting mechanism since socket 939, yet intel had changes them at rate they can't be mentioned in the same breath, looking squarely at squarely at sockets 2011/2011-3

 

[OneCool]

Intels cash = 0.002% is gaming


I don't think some understand just how big and detached Intel is from a gamers stand point.

 

[tungt88]

Just finished the review -- and the wait was well worth it! Thanks to Wizzard and the crew.

My plan to build a new rig this summer gets all the more interesting now, especially since I live near a Micro Center. Next up on the table -- GTX 1080 Ti, or Vega?

 

[RejZoR]

Now you mention is AMD hasn't changed the cooling mounting mechanism since socket 939, yet intel had changes them at rate they can't be mentioned in the same breath, looking squarely at squarely at sockets 2011/2011-3

Well, it also depends on motherboard makers to be honest. On my Rampage II Gene, I've had option between LGA775 and LGA1366 mounting holes. So, despite all new socket, I was able to use my LGA775 cooler without ANY changes to it. And I've used a LGA1366 AiO cooler on my LGA2011 for a while. The mounting holes for the backplate were spaced the same and fit through LGA2011 holes, I just had to punch through some insulation layer that was blocking the holes. I just used springs instead of plastic spacers that originally came with it and were too wide and getting stuck to the 2011 socket frame. But it worked with ZERO cost, just tiny bit of ingenuity on my end. So, while Intel does change sockets often, it doesn't necessarily mean it affects users.

Also, can't remember out of my head for sure, but isn't Intel using same 75mm mounting hole spacing since like Sandy Bridge (2500k/2600k) for the mainstream models? Same coolers should fit latest Kaby Lake afaik... I've been on the HEDT branch (1366 and now 2011) since 775 so I'm just saying what I roughly remember from that time...

 

[Jism]

As for the mounting holes, it might be due to change of layout in pins. The Ryzen has a lot more CPU pins and thus a different layout then the AM3/AM3+ cpu's in the past. I woud'nt worry about it, many cooling companies send you a replaceable bracket so you can continue to use your current cooler.

As for the review, very good! The CPU is still $499 and basicly whipes the floor with Intel that charges up to $1000. As for the motherboard, chipset and memory issues, if i'm not mistaken the chipset belongs in the CPU now, so it's not really up to motherboard vendors but AMD theirself who should be testing and verifying various memory kits.

The switch from auto to manual is something not everyone would understand, but it's the first thing i do when i enter a fresh bios. Exclude that certain values can disrupt the system's stability. Auto is never a good option, at Vishera your CPU/NB gets a huge voltage kick up to 1.4V for just CPU/NB which is terrible.

Anyway; putting my 8320 soon to rest! Ryzen will be my next chip.

 

[refillable]

Not sure if it's just me, but this one is a pretty disappointing review. Let me point out why.

First, leaving out Broadwell-E CPUs is one hell of a big blunder. Why? You clearly noted that this CPUs is designed to tackle Intel's HEDT platform, and not even showing a single one of the competition makes me shake my head.

Second, CPUs are NOT GPUs. Separate, PLEASE, separate single threaded and multi threaded apps. DIFFERENTIATE them well, seriously. The way that you mix them up all over the place is not wise, at all.

Third, the logic of "1080p bottlenecks on faster cards, if you have a GTX 1070 or faster, play at 1440p or buy Intel" is err, sorry, stupid. Proposing that 1080p is the standard for GTX 1070 or faster isn't wise, and to go ahead and make an implication and then conclusion based on that faulty proposition ("or buy Intel" conclusion) is super absurd.

I'm not bashing on you as an "anti-AMD fanboy" or anything of that rhetoric. The thing is, you're shifting away the focus of an "HEDT 8 Core CPU" and have your sights (and even worse, as a reviewer, changing the sights of the readers) set on a 4 core mainstream CPU. You need to correct that. Feel free to disagree with me (anyone). So W1zzard, if you're reading this, do an overhaul of your CPU reviews, or stick to GPU reviews if you can't figure out where this CPU are marketed to (which is a really simple thing).

The wait was not worth it. Anandtech, Techspot, Guru3D did much better than you. And they did it earlier. And before invoking a straw man fallacy to me, I have no concerns on Fallout 4 (and some others) where Ryzen indeed does fall behind. My objection is this review is fundamentally flawed, completely ignoring that this CPU is an 8 Core HEDT CPU. And that's bad.

 

[notb]

I don't think anyone serious in the real world does Monte Carlo in Excel. You sound like you work in a workstation/science environment, tell me about your tasks (pm is fine ofc). I'd be happy to design and add more benchmarks

You'd be very surprised by the things people do in Excel (e.g. www.modeloff.com).

I know TechSpot uses a MC Excel benchmark in their reviews, but I haven't seen the file (maybe you could obtain it some way):
http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page3.html

Leaving extreme examples aside (like the MC above or some extensive VBA) a typical financial/data analyst is surrounded by Excel files way above 100MB (and i'm talking about xlsx format - already zip compressed). I have an i5-6500 at work and many of files need around 30 seconds to recalculate - without any randomization or VBA (just a lot of data and formulas).

I guess I could make you something from scratch or send an existing file, but I'll have to clean them beforehand (their full of data/methods I'm not supposed to share). I'll look into it after work.

 

[notb]

Actually I think a 3rd list needs to be added in addition to pros and cons - e.g. notes, where something isn't really a pro or con but important in the buying decision, such as an IGP, the price and difference in performance of stock speed versus optimal/faster RAM and such.

Those things will allow the buyer to make an informed choice based on their needs and budget but they are not necessarily a pro or con.

I think you're right. From what we've seen until now: Ryzen's performance is great, but it requires a bit of tweeking, choosing the right components and so on.
This should be pointed out in reviews that getting the most from the platform (so what we see in most benchmarks) needs some preparation and is not that easy. The exact things should be listed and easy to spot. Instead we get very general remarks like "this is a new platform and it needs some time to mature".
Sure, many of the issues might be fixed in software updates, but until that happens this platform is not as easy-to-use as Intel's.
I feel like many novice PC users might be disappointed by their Ryzen system at first.

Agreed on the Excel/Office, a mix of tests for these would be good to see "home user" use versus "professional (accountant, scientist etc.).

Exactly. We lack a well defined, standardized set of tests for different real-world scenarios - something a user could download and run on his machine (like with Cinebench). At this point it's all about gaming and synthetic benchmarks.
I assume people tend to think that rendering a webpage is a silly task for our powerful 4K gaming rigs - that's why it is rarely included in tests. But it's so not true and you would expect reviewers to know better.

It's much the same with Excel. I totally understand that someone mostly into gaming might not know how Excel is used by finance / data analysts - I don't think I've ever used a sheet larger than 10 MB until I got a job in finance. But that means someone should prepare such test and give it to the reviewers - just like rendering software companies do. And by "someone" I obviously mean Microsoft. Maybe if the biggest PC review sites ask MS, they would respond with a tool.

 

[notb]

Can we talk about the huge potential Ryzen has for mobile devices with that phenomenal power consumption?

Notice that TPU results are very different from what we've seen at other sites, so they should be taken with a grain of salt.
The general observation from multiple reviews is that Ryzen (especially in Boost/XFR) heavily exceeds the TDP - an obvious thing once you learn their TDP methodology.

Anyway, the 4C/8T Ryzen 5 will be rated at 65W - exactly like the 7700 (and rumored to have similar performance), so it's unlikely to make a big commotion in the notebook market.

You also have to remember that Ryzen doesn't have an IGP, so it's already not a chip for vast majority of notebooks sold. Unless AMD will sell it with their very decent Radeon Pro, but I tend to think it's reserved for Apple at this point.

So we must wait for the APU. How will it perform? No idea.
And we know that AMD tends to put fairly powerful graphic chips in APUs, which again makes them not the best choice for a mobile device. Unless their make something specifically for notebooks.

About the desktop ryzens, if OC comes to mind, the R7 1700 is the only relevant choice i can think of. for 329$ you have the potential to get 95% of what a 499$ can provide, granted you can hit 3.9Ghz stable all-core

Well... that's what OC is about. But not everyone does it, so 1700X and 1800X are still important - especially with their ability to automatically reach their limits (so you don't have to do any overclocking yourself). We must remember that if these CPUs are meant to win some enterprise audience as well, they have to be robust and competent.
If AMD wants to sell Ryzen in business solutions, it will have to do without OC, Ryzen Master Utility and all this gaming-oriented image they've based the marketing on.

 

[Basard]

For home users, Pentium III (sarcasm) will do fine in Excel. Techspot is full of ads and clutter. Guru is nice, in that they put up more pictures with taskman/cpu-z/hwinfo captures. I'd have to take a small vacation to get through Anand's review. Here I click through a buncha charts, read some smart ass (more sarcasm) remarks at the end, and I come away with a new understanding of Ryzen--all in like five mins. Then I spend an eternity in the forums criticizing it (even more sarcasm).

 

[W1zzard]

It's much the same with Excel. I totally understand that someone mostly into gaming might not know how Excel is used by finance / data analysts - I don't think I've ever used a sheet larger than 10 MB until I got a job in finance. But that means someone should prepare such test and give it to the reviewers - just like rendering software companies do. And by "someone" I obviously mean Microsoft. Maybe if the biggest PC review sites ask MS, they would respond with a tool.

http://exceltrader.net/excel-benchmark/
That's what they use. Nothing close to real-life imo.

PLEASE yes, get me some of our sheets. I won't share them, you should still randomize values and change formulas slightly.

I just made a separate thread for CPU review methodology ideas (non-Ryzen related posts only).

 

[rippie]

Great review, the numbers from the game benchmarks show already that memory frequencies massively impact performance.
due to the infinity fabric clocking on ddr clocks.

Can you add do tests with DDR @ 4200? i bet ya it will start to fly beyond the 7700k.

 

[efikkan]

and i was talking about real world performance .... in the same domain a 1700 to 1800X compete with the 6900K (you know ... reviews and such things ... on paper or web... there is quite a lot on it)

and for gaming technically a R5 1600, when out, will be a better option than a 6800K if not ... well you can still add 2 core, 4 threads more and get a slightly cheaper than a 6800K, but a tad more expensive than a R5 1600, R7 1700 ....

i take you didn't read any of my previous post and just took what you wanted to counter no worries, it's fine.

If you look at the benchmarks, the only scenarios where 1800X gives you and advantage is AES, prime numbers, H.264/H.265, 7-Zip, Blender, CineBench. And how many of these are purely theoretical, and how many correspond to actual workload for a user? And if the cheaper i7-6800K was in the benchmark, it would have beaten 1800X is half of these, there are several of these where AMD's eight cores barely beat fore cores from Intel; so much for superior multitasking… While the Intel CPU with half the cores still wins all the gaming benchmarks, Photoshop, Office(doesn't matter that much), all web browser benchmarks. So unless you spend all your day doing AES, crunching prime numbers and rendering in Blender, the i7-6800K will give better overall performance. I bet most Ryzen buyers will never live to experience the benefits over an i7-6800K.

 

[notb]

If you look at the benchmarks, the only scenarios where 1800X gives you and advantage is AES, prime numbers, H.264/H.265, 7-Zip, Blender, CineBench. And how many of these are purely theoretical, and how many correspond to actual workload for a user? And if the cheaper i7-6800K was in the benchmark, it would have beaten 1800X is half of these, there are several of these where AMD's eight cores barely beat fore cores from Intel; so much for superior multitasking… While the Intel CPU with half the cores still wins all the gaming benchmarks, Photoshop, Office(doesn't matter that much), all web browser benchmarks. So unless you spend all your day doing AES, crunching prime numbers and rendering in Blender, the i7-6800K will give better overall performance. I bet most Ryzen buyers will never live to experience the benefits over an i7-6800K.

While I wouldn't be so sure about the advantage over 6800K, I am worried by the general trends in benchmarks which you've mentioned...
We're getting to this ridiculous situation, when a typical user is persuaded by both reviewers and community that he should get a Ryzen because of high core superiority in very specific tasks.

Aside from the science/work-related stuff (which is heavy simulations and data analysis), I find myself to be a very ordinary PC owner.
I spend most of my free computer-time on the web, watching movies or gaming (very rarely lately). And having really thought this through, I don't think getting 8 cores (be it AMD or Intel) over an i7 (or even i5) would change my life significantly.
And keep in mind the "pro-stuff" I do is actually fantastically parallelized, so it would benefit greatly from the extra threads.
It's just that I don't do it on a daily basis, so it's not like a week is too short for running 20 or 30h of computation (moving to Ryzen would save me maybe 10h a week of PC time).

As for video encoding, it's mid March and it seems I've used Handbrake exactly 5 movies this year. I only use it to transcode movies from 1080p (how I buy them) to something more smartphone-friendly (max 720p).
It's really hard to understand why it's so important to people not in the video industry (or at least streamers). 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".

 

[GreiverBlade]

If you look at the benchmarks, the only scenarios where 1800X gives you and advantage is AES, prime numbers, H.264/H.265, 7-Zip, Blender, CineBench. And how many of these are purely theoretical, and how many correspond to actual workload for a user? And if the cheaper i7-6800K was in the benchmark, it would have beaten 1800X is half of these, there are several of these where AMD's eight cores barely beat fore cores from Intel; so much for superior multitasking… While the Intel CPU with half the cores still wins all the gaming benchmarks, Photoshop, Office(doesn't matter that much), all web browser benchmarks. So unless you spend all your day doing AES, crunching prime numbers and rendering in Blender, the i7-6800K will give better overall performance. I bet most Ryzen buyers will never live to experience the benefits over an i7-6800K.

other than that the differences are minimal ... and a 1700 would suffice ... sooo why taking a 6800K would be a better option?

waiting on the R5 1600 benchies before anything else if it get in the same domain ... well we will have a 6800K opponent for a i5 6/7600K price, tho even the 1700 is adequately priced, 2011-3 X99 platform has less appeal than the AM4 X370 actually ... in term of future ... and Skylake-X will be very ... "Intel'ish" ... aka: overpriced

 

[efikkan]

other than that the differences are minimal ... and a 1700 would suffice ... sooo why taking a 6800K would be a better option?

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