AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 GHz

[etayorius]

The GTX480 was on a different performance level to the 5870 in DX11. In DX11 the GTX480 had a good 30% lead over the 5870. So, no, it is not idiotic to say the GTX480 had superior DX11 performance. It is the fact to say it had superior DX11 performance. It had massively superior DX11 performance. In the first GTX480 review, in Metro 2033, one of the few DX11 games tested, the HD5870 scored 0.6FPS in the highest resolution test while the GTX480 scored 18.1FPS! In the next lowest resolution the 5870 scored 18.9FPS while the GTX480 was getting a solid 31.3FPS.

You listed a bunch of other reasons that the GTX480 ended up getting a bad score, but none of them are reasons why the better DX11 performance shouldn't be a positive bullet point for the GTX480. Remember, the HD5870 scored a 9.5, the GTX480 only got 8.2.



Actually, no I didn't, I addressed it. AMD has no alternative to PhysX. However, nVidia had an alternative to Mantle, DX11 and DX10, and DX9, and their cards performed just fine using those alternative APIs.



NVidia didn't need it. Their cards were already beating AMD cards with the APIs already on the market. Mantle was a performance improving API that really only improved performance for AMD cards. Supporting Mantle would have only made it go main stream, and that would have only resulted in AMD closing the performance gap. Why would nVidia bother doing this?

I want some of that stuff you're smoking! because even on TPU GTX480 review it is only a whooping 11% faster overall than HD5870 comparing all resolutions.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/32.html

 

[VSG]

I'll mention a few things here since w1z probably won't. I have had the benefit of seeing this review from scratch to the publication stage, and this took him weeks to go through. He received the press kit late since he was not present at AMD press day (AMD could not sponsor travel for many press based out of USA), and it arrived moments before he had to leave to cover the Nvidia press event on the GTX 1080 Ti (Nvidia did sponsor travel for everyone) where he got the GPU for review. So of course he was able to cover the GPU first, and the CPU later which he took a lot of time to understand the platform as best as possible before setting forth to figure out the bugs and how to deal with them.

The AMD press kit had a mix of motherboards, and most received their kits before the final microcode even went out to the motherboard companies. In this instance, the GA-AX370-Gaming 5 arrived with the BIOS F3 which was released Feb 13, and was extremely unstable. Gigabyte then released newer BIOS over 2 weeks later, albeit beta BIOS did get out which may have helped but can't be used for reviews in my opinion anyway.

As far as why no Intel HEDT CPUs? I asked him the same thing, and it was pretty simple- he had none to compare with. He bought some mainstream enthusiast level CPUs himself for comparison since he never was a CPU reviewer and had no samples lying around. I thought it was fair myself.

Granted I do not agree with a few things myself such as the title and language on some news/social media posts, but I continue to post reviews and more here because I still think TPU is among the very best when it comes to detailed reviews and this is no exception. If not, I would have just posted everything on my own website.

 

[thebluebumblebee]

Thumbs Down to AMD GPU's for not supporting PhysX back in the day

Okay, so how do you communicate this fact to the uninformed user? Seriously, how do you let people know that this vendor's card may not support a specific aspect of a game you want to play?

 

[cadaveca]

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?

You didn't look closely at the review, since those numbers ARE there already, so you're asking for something that was already done.

But since you missed it, here is a handy link for you :

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/15.html

 

[kruk]

You didn't look closely at the review, since those numbers ARE there already, so you're asking for something that was already done.

But since you missed it, here is a handy link for you :

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/15.html

Am I missing something?

Quote from the article:

We also measured wall-socket power draw of the whole system, which is displayed in the bar graphs below the curve chart

I would like to see CPU only power draw.

 

[cadaveca]

Am I missing something?

Quote from the article:


I would like to see CPU only power draw.

Why? It'll change with each CPU... and by that I mean buy two 1800X, the power draw will be different.

My board reviews will show those figures for a 1700X, because it's not only CPU power consumption, but also board VRM efficiency.

 

[newtekie1]

I want some of that stuff you're smoking! because even on TPU GTX480 review it is only a whooping 11% faster overall than HD5870 comparing all resolutions.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/32.html

See, this is how you spot the person losing the argument. The original point was about listing "Significantly better DX11 performance" and the claim that wasn't correct. So I responded with "The GTX480 was on a different performance level to the 5870 in DX11." I based this statement on the two DX11 benchmarks included in the very review you linked to seen here and here. Which on average show, ignoring the bogus Metro 2560 results, give an average of 55% and 50% better GTX480 DX11 performance respectively. You then decided to ignore the fact that we were talking about DX11 performance and tried to argue about overall performance instead.

This is my sign it is time to exit. Have a nice day.

 

[Grings]

Good review, glad you hung on until the smt bug was known about

hope you take another look when new revisions come out and when/if 3466+ ram is more commonly supported

 

[Shatun_Bear]

Granted I do not agree with a few things myself such as the title and language on some news/social media posts, but I continue to post reviews and more here because I still think TPU is among the very best when it comes to detailed reviews and this is no exception. If not, I would have just posted everything on my own website.

I keep seeing this. What language/title are people talking about?

 

[ssdpro]

I keep seeing this. What language/title are people talking about?

There was an early title posted on launch day that referenced the reviews that came in a little negative. It was changed quickly.

I still see no reason for excessive drama. The product is a good value and a nice balance. The product came in a little under the best hopes. The R7 isn't disrupting but the R5 might. Setting aside opinions, at launch AMD stock was at 14.90. Analysts were bullish that good reviews would pump that to 16-17.5. Reviews got hung up on below expected gaming performance and the stock dropped to 13 (or 15%). When something was at 15 hoping for 17, drops to 13 on reality, that is punishing reality. The stock still hasn't recovered to pre-launch levels which means sales suck.

 

[xkm1948]

I keep seeing this. What language/title are people talking about?

TPU posted something only an amature level fanboy would post during RyZen launch on facebook, they got burned, hard, on facebook. It was so humiliating for TPU that they went back to change the post title and content of the facebook post.

 

[3lfk1ng]

Hello W1zzard,

Knowing that AMD's infinity fabric runs off the speed of the memory controller, I would love to see TPU perform a small followup to this review using faster memory.

At present, the use of the memory that was used in this review, severely cripples the performance that one could expect from Ryzen CPU.
According to your test setup:
@ 2133 MHz 15-16-16-35 = would have a fabric link of just 1066MHz.
@ 2666 MHz 16-16-16-36 = would have a fabric link of just 1333MHz.

However, if you had tested it using the same ram that was used on the competing Intel rigs (7700K/6700k @ 3000MHz) or even AMD's recommended 3200MHz, you would see 1500MHz and 1600MHz CCX speeds effectively.
This may help to present a more accurate review of the processor because at present it looks like the the Ryzen was intentionally kneecapped.

Also, AMD's 1800X was designed to compete with Intel's 8-core offering, the $1000 i7-6900K.
To omit it from this review for a fair 1:1 comparison doesn't do any of the processors used in this review any justice.
As most of us are aware, AMD's R7 processors (1700/1700x/1800x) aren't designed for gaming and to that end, Intel's 7700k/6700k aren't designed for heavily threaded applications.
On average, this makes the 1800x look slightly inferior in games and makes the 7700k/6700k look slightly inferior in applications.
It would be very welcoming to see 8-core vs 8-core to really drive home the priceerformance ratio that AMD's $499 processors offers.

Last but not least, the Gigabyte Aorus GA-AX370-Gaming 5 that was used in the review has received a few BIOS updates since launch that improved memory performance.
Which BIOS version was used in this review?

 

[Steevo]

"Hep" thing perhaps should be "hip"?

Now to read the review.

 

[HammerON]

Nice review W1zzard Well worth the wait in my opinion.
As far as this thread... can we please stay on topic. The topic is not that TPU is biased in one way or the other. This gets old really quick.
Take it or leave it.

 

[GoldenX]

Man I remember the original "EPIC FAIL" in the cons of the kamikaze GTX595, that was funny.
Nvidia originally didn't have any problem with ATI cards running CUDA, some dude even made them work (on an HD4850 I think) and AMD made that driver disappear with the promise of a hardware accelerated Havoks driver, never happened. Now they (Nvidia) don't let you use an AMD card for rendering and an Nvidia for Physx, so yeah.
AMD promotes the open standard OpenCL, why should they implement a heavy-optimized for another architecture alternative? Same thing with Free-Sync.
We also have DirectCompute and "OpenGL GLSL Compute Language" and nobody uses them, Vulkan also has a Compute Shader.

On topic, this really missed the 6900K on the list, a 16 threads without IGP CPU should be compared to another 16 threads CPU.
What a terrible start for a new platform, it's a mess, no stable BIOS, memory compatibility problems, bad Windows support, only expensive motherboard offerings... and despite all that, I love the performance and efficiency of Ryzen, socket 2011 performance at a third of the price, and with lower power consumption, oh, and overclocking for everybody (let's see how the quads clock).

Is any word on the X300 ITX motherboards? Can't wait for the APUs.

 

[fusionblu]

Nice to see a review for these at last and one with a Gigabyte motherboard instead (ones I have seen so far used Asus ones and did not think their reviews were thorough enough).
Motherboard availability is the obvious issue so far.

Now I would like to see a review to determine the differences between the Gigabyte AORUS AX370-GAMING K7 and Gigabyte AORUS AX370-GAMING 5 (used for this review) besides the cosmetic and price differences (also seems the same).

 

[HD64G]

I am glad that @W1zzard waited a bit for new BIOS to allow easier OC and higher RAM speeds. Great review as usual but I think 1800X could get 9 points in score.

 

[nem..]

where are mins?

from de linus 1080ti review

 

[0x4452]

where are mins?

99 percentile is a better metric IMO. There can be one irrelevant frame on say at the very start that will impact the min score.

W1z, any hopes of getting a FCAT setup?

 

[sweet]

Thanks for the review. However at this late I expected a much better one.

1. Too many game benchmarks for a HEDT CPU review. People who just play games normally don't buy these CPUs. Need more production tasks.

2. At this moment many suggested tweaks are available to improve gaming performance. These tweak aren't needed for "workstation guys" as wrongly insisted in this review.

3. Unable to describe the pros and cons of CCX and Fabric design.

4. Fail to point out that Ryzen scale better with RAM speed. Also with the newest BIOS the Aorus board should hit 3000 Mhz RAM easily. Doubt that it was updated in this review.

5. Lack of comparison with Intel 8 core 6900k and the same priced HEDT 6 core 6800k/6850k.

6. No IPC and SMT analysis. FYI the IPC is lower than Broadwell, but SMT is better than HT and as a result 1800x can match the 6900k in multithread.

To sum up, this review is late and straight bad.

Off topic but to all the people here who said PhysX is open, Hell No. NVidia even prevents their cards from doing PhysX if AMD is the main VGA for example. They are just that d1ck of a company.

 

[nem..]

Ryzen 7 1700 4.0GHz 3 AAA games on ULTRA at the same time!

 

[notb]

Not sure why lack of integrated graphics is a negative here. If you want that, you buy an APU chip.

Because APU will be slower?
Because AMD is likely to use a relatively powerful and mostly pointles IGP, that'll raise the price and the power consumption?
Honestly, most people want IGP to see their Excel, movie or webpages. They don't need a powerful IGP - they need anything. And the minority looking for performance will buy a dGPU anyway...

I've already mentioned this issue in one of the Ryzen threads, but it seems worth repeating.
Many buyers will choose Ryzen over Intel for a rendering/simulation/productivity rig and there's nothing wrong with that - it's a very competent CPU.
But if this is meant as a standalone PC (also used for day-to-day tasks), you'll have to buy a dGPU just to see the results.
Sadly, because we don't have cheap options like we used to (Intel killed them with their IGP), you'll have to go for proper cards: GTX1050 or RX460 at least.
The simple fact is: both these GPUs will offer similar or better performance in most scenarios (of course if GPGPU is available, but it got fairly common lately).

No place for a simple IGP? Why is this almost a SoC? Why put USB controller in a CPU?
I understand there most likely was some know-how trade with Samsung on the way, but this has clearly gone too far.

 

[notb]

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.

Unless you don't want to spend a lot, you want good productivity performance (8 threads help) and you prefer (or even you are limited to) Intel for whatever reason - like most people on the planet. Then 7700K is still the best choice our there.

 

[W1zzard]

do you think AMD can actually overturn Intel with IPC performance in Zen 2.0 which was already announced?

AMD doesn't need to overturn Intel, if the can just take 5-10% market share they'll make billions

I hope i don't get banned for this.

You almost did, lucky I had a great dinner and re-read your post

Would you please add the i3-7350K to that list?.

Not for this review, but for future ones

 

[yogurt_21]

I want some of that stuff you're smoking! because even on TPU GTX480 review it is only a whooping 11% faster overall than HD5870 comparing all resolutions.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/32.html

my goodness it was like a different world back then... W1z ran 5 different resolutions? that must have sucked... 1024x768 was still relevant enough to be included in a flagship card review? how bad was the average joes monitor 7 years ago?

3 different 3dmarks, heaven, AND a proprietary nvidia physx bench? how much time did he use to have?

there were only 4 call of duty's?

It seems like a damn time portal or something. Like can that really be only 7 years ago? why does it feel like 20?