Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor

well isn't that interesting seems to make alot of sense given how the discrepancies appear in the benches.

 

???

there are reviewers who used different boards with different bios revisions
and have performance in 1080p equal to 7700k
so i don't get what the point is you're trying to make?

the product has already proven in reviews like these, that it can match 7700k in 1080p gaming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4



and that all adds up with AMDs (and other users) explanation for it.

 

Everything is fine....? It's a CPU, not an EpiPen.

 

I'd like to see performance in games at 1080p and 60mhz, which is how I play and will for the foreseeable future. In any case, I think the review shows Ryzen to be everything it was cracked up to be and more than good enough for gaming. It will certainly improve with time like it's predecessors from AMD did. It is nothing like the massive disappointment that FX/Bulldozer was with the new chips performing at the same level as the older Phenoms. Ryzen is a HUGE improvement over FX (which is still viable in all usages) and AMD really deserves credit for upping their game so dramatically.

Like others, I want to see how the 1600X stacks up because I think that would be my landing point when I upgrade. I think 6/12c is more than sufficient and the proposed pricing looks really attractive.

 

Sorry but no. 7700k outperforms the 1800x in games consistently.

 

Just because it's a luxury doesn't make it okay. We're not starving villages in Africa, we're first world countries, and just because it won't kill us doesn't make Intel's comical level of greed any more okay.

Is everyone forgetting Intel themselves manufactured the no-competition scenario? It wasn't some stroke of great luck which they happened to abuse to it's absolute limits from 2006 to now.

 

Let's review this post in a few months time. There always seems to be an excuse when it comes to AMDs shortcomings and always a promise of a future fix that never comes. Color me skeptical.

Like I said, I'm blown away by how well Ryzen performed, but I don't see any reason to excuse its shortcomings.

 

Hilbert, please, disable 4 cores and see what results you can have with the overclock.

 

I think right now we need to accept that maybe Ryzen is weak when it comes to games instead of putting hopes on "magical" updates and BIOS revisions...

This doesn´t make Ryzen any less impressive, it just means it has a weak spot.

Also i see a lot of reviewers saying that people should wait a few weeks before buying Ryzen, waiting for AMD and board makers to solve all the issues. If they follow this advice, this launch can become very bad for AMD...

 

The prices have remained relatively flat since the the late 2000s taking info account inflation. In fact, you get much more for your money considering the onboard GPU these days.

 

Ryzen looks great but since I'm old, cheap, and on a low fixed income, as long as I can still play the games I want at 30 fps or better, even on low settings, I probably won't upgrade for a while. I may change my mind though like I did when going from my R9-270X card to my current RX470.

Admittedly,I'm a big AMD fan and will always buy their products if they are sufficient for my needs. Even while knowing that Intel/Nvidia offerings might perform better. I'm satisfied with "good enough".

 

Jesus Christ! Am I on Intel's forums on something?

Remained the same if you take into consideration inflation? I don't even need to look it up to know that's completely false. My 4770K new was what? $320? A 7700K is $460 on sale from $530 from the same source, that's not inflation. I'm not wasting my time on that false narrative.

Next, how does that make it acceptable considering the world has moved on progressively more multi threaded tasks? You're saying they've been charging the same thing as if they've been offering progressively better CPUs as the market would expect, they haven't. They've been making virtually no changes for the standard PC market and aiming everything towards efficiency to move onto mobile. Generation after generation there've been negligible advances for us with the only difference changing actual performance being that they've been binning their chips higher.

They've been progressively charging more and more for the same quad core CPU they've been crapping out as far back as the late 2000s.

And you get more money because of their onboard GPUs?... You're trolling me right? People would pay to have that part removed to get better OCs. Their onboard HD garbage architecture is so weak that the one on the 4770K lags in large Excel spreadsheets. Give me ****ing break, how stupid would I have to be to believe there's any value in something which can't pull off everyday tasks like looking at a sheet?

 

How is a 1700 performing equal to a 7700k in games a shortcoming?

 

What the hell are you on about? You could have bought an AMD easily... BUT here's the kicker, you didn't 'cause YOU are spoiled, thinking AMD was not good enough for you during this time... So as he stated, get a grip, and oh right DON*T even try to state Intel held you at 'gun point', and state you want others to try a real monopoly.

You obviously have NO clue about either one (FYI being held at gun point for real, is not fun... and not remotely related to you not choosing an AMD cpu)


EDIT: while some of the things you say are valid, you ARE coming of as an angsty teen who can't get exactly what you want...

Yeah Intel has had some lack of improvements and innovation, and yeah we pay **** prices... But again, no one forced you to get an Intel part, absolutely no one.

 

I'm not sure if you're saying that future Ryzens will be better or if the current Ryzens will somehow gain more performance.

I do agree, if it's the former, the next generation of Ryzens will be cracking cpus, in my opinion. The current line-up, not so sure.

 

Hey spoiled Dave account #2, stop being idiot, save your straw-man arguments for another Intel employee. It's not a matter of "thinking" something is not good enough, with AMD's Bulldozer Pseudo-Core architecture dropping clock for clock performance below their previous architecture, it literally could not do the tasks I needed it to.

Literally could not do. Do you understand those words? Meaning it wasn't matter just a matter of being "spoiled" and wanting better performance, AMD had fallen so low that their processors could not do what I needed them to. As in no option, the only choice was Intel.

I know it's your job to defend Intel and all, but they're not paying you enough to continue embarrassing yourself this much.

 

Angry tech people are always spoiled, it goes hand in hand.

I don't have an issue with Intel, they have done nothing to hurt me and my 2600k has been the best value tech purchase ive ever made.
I actually wish mine did have igpu, handy in the event of a dead GPU and for an HTPC.

 

Excuse me, but where are you seeing the 1700 being equal to 7700k in games? Because every review I've seen proves you wrong.

 

Intel still takes the crown in gaming but for the performance/price you're getting from Ryzen, it is just too tempting. I'm more curious to see how these Ryzen cpus paired with Vega perform.