• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 GHz

Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18 (0.00/day)
Yes early reviews using engineering samples really arent ideal also considering early adaptor issues especially with ryzen ram which corsair i believe had the first official compatible ram chips above 2666mhz released shortly after ryzen debut. Now the story has changed a bit and we can see a difference in performance due to maturity.

Im quite certain this review was being conducted quite some time earlier than the publishing date so it would be impractical to retest everything soon after thr initial testing. Then again to maintain a loyal fanbase, you have to provide updates and be loyal to your audience.

Still i am skeptic about the 3 games mentioned since their numbers are quite off from other sites.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
2,007 (0.47/day)
Location
Right where I want to be
System Name Miami
Processor Ryzen 3800X
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VII Formula
Cooling Ek Velocity/ 2x 280mm Radiators/ Alphacool fullcover
Memory F4-3600C16Q-32GTZNC
Video Card(s) XFX 6900 XT Speedster 0
Storage 1TB WD M.2 SSD/ 2TB WD SN750/ 4TB WD Black HDD
Display(s) DELL AW3420DW / HP ZR24w
Case Lian Li O11 Dynamic XL
Audio Device(s) EVGA Nu Audio
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Gold 1000W+750W
Mouse Corsair Scimitar/Glorious Model O-
Keyboard Corsair K95 Platinum
Software Windows 10 Pro
1) Pitty on the game design studios that NEED money from hardware manufacturers. Are games too cheap or what?
You're telling me I have to pay more for my CPU, because the manufacturer has to support unprofitable game creators?!

Studios would have to charge more because they'd have to take on more engineers to handle the stuff, that was being spoon fed to them by hardware manufacturers, or from not getting free monies or hardware.

2) Why would a single architecture manufacturer not offer support for studios? (but not with money for Zeus' sake!)

Ask yourself in a scenario with only one player, what would the benefits/consequences be for supporting, vs. consequences benefits for not supporting. Their hardware is the only platform why would they care if the software runs faster at the benefit consumer? When will be buying the hardware anyway?

I find this hard to understand. This company would still want it's CPUs to work well with software. IMO you place too much stress on economical principles (importance of competition) and too little on empirical observations.
For 5 years Intel was ruling the gaming scene and yet it cooperated with studios and was hugely active as a gaming events' sponsor.

Being the top dog on the block is completely different from being the ONLY dog on the block, having to exert some effort to maintain the lead vs. having a lead due to no contest. Intel contrary to what you are saying Intel has shown time and time again that they are not above dragging their feet when they have a comfortable lead. I'm not faulting them for this they are a business after all. If there is no competition, other than the bare minimum, helping with debugging, providing devs with support such as hardware, more efficient code to help the software faster on their hardware is all goodwill. Goodwill without reason is bad for business, since it hits against the bottom line. The example you give Intel only has a lead, it's "not the only guy in town" so there is no such empirical evidence.

3) I'm pretty sure all gaming studios that make money on their products would survive. Why should we care about the rest if we clearly don't care about their products? :)

Pretty sure everything then would just be made by EA, Activision, and/or Bethesda. I get the feeling you would already say that you're cool with that.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.61/day)
Studios would have to charge more because they'd have to take on more engineers to handle the stuff, that was being spoon fed to them by hardware manufacturers, or from not getting free monies or hardware.
Possibly yes.

Ask yourself in a scenario with only one player, what would the benefits/consequences be for supporting, vs. consequences benefits for not supporting. Their hardware is the only platform why would they care if the software runs faster at the benefit consumer? When will be buying the hardware anyway?
Because with more novelties and better performance, people would have a reason to update more often.
This kind of strategy works - think about Apple. They don't have any serious competition, i.e. most Apple users would not consider jumping to another company - even with better specs or lower price.
Yet, Apple manages to update it's products in such a way that even sensible people (so not those sleeping in front of stores) are usually updating e.g. their iPhones every 2 years at most.
And while the prices would most likely go up (again: Apple...), a monopoly does not imply lack of progress.

Going back to Intel/AMD - just look what happened in mobile CPUs. AMD is totally absent in this segment and yet the speed of Intel mobile CPUs have doubled since Sandy Bridge (progress in desktops was way smaller). Monopoly worked.
Someone could say that Intel invests in mobile CPUs to defend against ARM smartphones and tablets - I might even agree with that theory. But if that's correct, what stops smartphones and consoles from forcing development of desktop PCs? Again: we don't need another CPU manufacturer. :)

Being the top dog on the block is completely different from being the ONLY dog on the block, having to exert some effort to maintain the lead vs. having a lead due to no contest. Intel contrary to what you are saying Intel has shown time and time again that they are not above dragging their feet when they have a comfortable lead.
There is another side of this story. Intel has a huge hunger for R&D (that's what happens when you employ so many R&D people).
You're right that every time Intel feels safe in consumer PC territory, desktop CPU improvement slows down. But their not going on vacation.
Intel has been doing some really important stuff lately: AI (including autonomous cars), IoT, faster memory tech and so on.

Just compare the main websites:
I go to www.intel.com and is all about business, AI, drones. Not a word about gaming. Actually not much about CPUs. Here CPU is just a part of a bigger solution.
Then I open www.amd.com and it's "RYZEN POWERS. YOU FIGHT."
Of course I'm not bashing AMD for not concentrating more on practical real-world issues, but it is important to remember that Intel and AMD are two very different companies - even if their most important products do the same thing.
But to be honest: I find Intel's image very appealing, professional, mature... IMO what AMD does lately is a bit too teenager-oriented...
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
36 (0.01/day)
What I'm surprised to see missing... in virtually all reviews across the web... is any discussion (by a publication or its readers) on the AM4 platform's longevity and upgradability (in addition to its cost, which is readily discussed).

Any Intel Platform - is almost guaranteed to not accommodate a new or significantly revised micro-architecture... beyond the mere "tick". In order to enjoy a "tock", one MUST purchase a new motherboard (if historical precedent is maintained).

AMD AM4 Platform - is almost guaranteed to, AT LEAST, accommodate Ryzen "II" and quite possibly Ryzen "III" processors. And, in such cases, only a new processor and BIOS update will be necessary to do so.

This is not an insignificant point of differentiation.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.61/day)
What I'm surprised to see missing... in virtually all reviews across the web... is any discussion (by a publication or its readers) on the AM4 platform's longevity and upgradability (in addition to its cost, which is readily discussed).
Possibly because it's just an optimistic guess, with no actual guarantee from AMD?

We should not expect AM4 to last as long as AM3/AM3+ (over 6 years) if AMD is supposed to become a competitive player (like it used to be).
Before AM3, AMD was also replacing their mainstream socket every 2-3 years.

In 3 years from now AM4 will become fairly outdated anyway (DDR5 etc).

AMD AM4 Platform - is almost guaranteed to, AT LEAST, accommodate Ryzen "II"
"Ryzen II" or "Ryzen+" will merely be a "tock" generation. What's special in supporting 2 CPU generations? You've just bashed Intel for that. :D
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
36 (0.01/day)
In 3 years from now AM4 will become fairly outdated anyway (DDR5 etc).

This, too, may be an optimistic guess. :) For example, DDR3 has been with us since 2007... and it wasn't until 2014 that the first motherboards supported DDR4... 7 years. There's little doubt that technology and motherboard features will continue to progress. However, one who purchases an AM4 motherboard today... is likely to have the choice to upgrade their CPU only (to the next generation)... or CPU + Motherboard (if they want the latest feature set). :)

"Ryzen II" or "Ryzen+" will merely be a "tock" generation. What's special in supporting 2 CPU generations? You've just bashed Intel for that

Did you mean tick? If you meant tock, you're helping to make the same point made in my prior post... as Intel requires a new motherboard with each tock. I understand your overall point, however... and to that, more specifically, Intel technically doesn't support 2 generations per socket... as much as it supports 1 (major) micro-arch revision and it's equivalent die-shrink (and tweaks). Although, this is likely to have changed, a bit, more recently... with the pause of Intel's tick-tock cadence (the pathway to future node miniaturization appears to be increasingly difficult).

Also, there was no bashing of Intel. Rather, only mention of a differentiator. It's interesting how highlighting a potential difference in one brand can be perceived as bashing another brand... certainly not the intent. (I'm typing this on an Intel Haswell-based system, by the way). :)

You're probably right... AMD may shift its strategy and not support AM4 for 6+ years, as it did with AM3/AM3+... we'll just have to wait and see. There is, however, at least some historical AMD precedent to discuss on this front... while this has not been the case with Intel (and it would make sense, too... as, purely from a business/profitability standpoint, Intel has likely not had any incentive to do so). AMD, on the other hand, may not have this luxury... and is probably all too happy to snip at any bit of market share that it can, in any way that it can... and one tactic (of many) might be to provide a more broad/flexible upgrade framework... as it has in the past.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.61/day)
Did you mean tick? If you meant tock, you're helping to make the same point made in my prior post...
Well, it's not that easy to compare. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word at all.
I basically meant that Ryzen+ will be the second generation of AM4 CPUs, which is nothing special. We get 2 (at least) gens for each Intel socket as well.
And from what we've heard Ryzen+ will not be a new arch, but merely a refresh: minor fixes, maybe an improved process (allowing higher clocks) - so possibly even a smaller change compared to what Intel offers in"ticks".

Also, AMD said that AM4 will be supported for 5 years, but AFAIK they didn't say it will be their main socket until the end.
And even if it will be, it's 5 years... Some people react like "great, I'll be able to upgrade the CPU!", but my reaction is like "this will be really old tech by then - I would not invest in it".

However, I guess I would be fine, as I usually use desktops for a long time (I still don't have USB3.0! :D)
But when I see a hardware geek with all the latest stuff in his System Specs using this argument, I'm like "oh man... who are you trying to fool?" :D
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
81 (0.02/day)
Location
phliadelphia
Processor i5 6500 @ 4.5
Motherboard Asus z170
Memory 16gb ddr4 3000
Video Card(s) gtx 1070
Storage 1tb Seagate 7200 rpm
Case Antec 1200
Power Supply Corsair 750
Software windows 10 pro
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
14 (0.01/day)
You have to give AMD some credit for honesty in naming their previous-generation CPUs "Bulldozer". After all, who would name a *fast* cpu after a bulldozer? That's right, nobody at all would pick that name if the CPU were fast ...
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
19,895 (5.99/day)
Location
USA
Do you actually think you're winning the debate with all of your whining, stat posts and the above video? Let me help you with that; You're NOT!
All you're doing is showing that some anon came out of nowhere with a very clear agenda to bad mouth Ryzen with weak arguments, modified stat graphs and an iffy video that only proves you're either a fanboy or a marketing chump from Intel.

And before you call ME an AMD fanboy, I run Intel CPU's in all of my PC's. However, I'm an objective person who looks at the big picture. And right now AMD is giving Intel something to be very worried about. They are providing quality CPU's that perform VERY well and at price points that are making the whole industry take notice. Your fanboyism is a wasted effort here and is making you look like an overgrown child and making Intel look bad by attrition..
You have to give AMD some credit for honesty in naming their previous-generation CPUs "Bulldozer". After all, who would name a *fast* cpu after a bulldozer? That's right, nobody at all would pick that name if the CPU were fast ...
You think that was clever? It wasn't.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
81 (0.02/day)
Location
phliadelphia
Processor i5 6500 @ 4.5
Motherboard Asus z170
Memory 16gb ddr4 3000
Video Card(s) gtx 1070
Storage 1tb Seagate 7200 rpm
Case Antec 1200
Power Supply Corsair 750
Software windows 10 pro
Do you actually think you're winning the debate with all of your whining, stat posts and the above video? Let me help you with that; You're NOT!
All you're doing is showing that some anon came out of nowhere with a very clear agenda to bad mouth Ryzen with weak arguments, modified stat graphs and an iffy video that only proves you're either a fanboy or a marketing chump from Intel.

And before you call ME an AMD fanboy, I run Intel CPU's in all of my PC's. However, I'm an objective person who looks at the big picture. And right now AMD is giving Intel something to be very worried about. They are providing quality CPU's that perform VERY well and at price points that are making the whole industry take notice. Your fanboyism is a wasted effort here and is making you look like an overgrown child and making Intel look bad by attrition..

You think that was clever? It wasn't.

That's right , argue with personal attacks, but DON'T argue the facts.
You are the poster-boy AMD fanatic.
Yea, I have been a member here for 6 years (and many years on other sites) waiting for Ryzen's release, you got me. lol
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
19,895 (5.99/day)
Location
USA
That's right , argue with personal attacks, but DON'T argue the facts.
You are the poster-boy AMD fanatic.
Yea, I have been a member here for 6 years (and many years on other sites) waiting for Ryzen's release, you got me. lol
Thank You for proving my point so overwhelmingly. Outstanding!
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
4,813 (1.05/day)
Location
Gougeland (NZ)
System Name Cumquat 2021
Processor AMD RyZen R7 5800X @4750MHz 1.298V
Motherboard Asus Strix x570-F Gaming
Cooling Cryorig R1 Universal + CM MasterGel Pro TP
Memory 16GB GSkill Ripjaws V Black 4000 MTs (2x8GB)
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ OC RX6800 16GB DDR6 2270Cclk / 2010Mclk
Storage 1x Adata SX8200PRO NVMe gen3 x4 1X Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, 12TB of HDD Storage
Display(s) AOC 24G2 IPS 144Hz FreeSync Premium 1920x1080p
Case SilverStone Raven RV02B-W + 3x SS AP181 + USB3.0 front panel upgrade
Audio Device(s) RX6800 via HDMI + Pioneer VSX-531 amp Technics 100W 5.1 Speaker set
Power Supply Enermax RevolutionXT II 750W 80+ Gold
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard Logitech G815
Software Windows 11 X64 PRO (build 22H2)
Benchmark Scores it sucks even more less now ;)
Now now girls if you want to argue with one another then take it to pm's and stop clogging up the thread with trash talk
 
Top