Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor

Yep, get well HH. The main review (1800x) is out of the way and basically gives everyone an idea what to expect with 1700x. You're far ahead of other sites in what you've given us on ryzen so far.

p.s. Techpowerup couldnt get any ryzen review out as of yet. Their review sample lost in shipping .

 

I will just grab one of those 8 core beasts cause I want my computer to be a computer not a console. While gaming I run torrent client, plus TeamSpeak plus Chrome plus youtube music list and half of the gaming time I also stream. My computer is not XBOX where I can only play a game. As of the fanboys that blame HH for not running 640x480 resolution to "see cpu performance" while they treat CPU tests like they don't exist...LMAO. If you want non-real case scenarios look at CPU-Z, if you want real every day actual gaming scenarios look at 1080p-1440p. And don't pretend you don't know that we are comparing a very mature platform(intel) where everything had years to get optimized with a day one platform where OEMs still trying to figure out. Like with many other problems in the past, there will be solutions. What you can't solve though is being stuck with a 4 core.

 

Thank you.

 

Good Competition

It doesn't feel right to compare the R7 (8 core) series to the likes of i7 6700k/7700k ($310) which even Intel itself can't beat with its own 6950k ($1000) chip in gaming,
it is probably for something else with a ability to run almost every game just fine and of course irritate some people who invested way more than $800 for their cpu+mobo systems for gaming;

*sad can't post an image yet

Intel---------------| AMD
i7 6700k $310 ---|
________________________________
--------------------| R7 1700 $330
--------------------| R7 1700X $400
i7 6800k $420 ---|
--------------------| R7 1800X $500
i7 6850k $580 ---|
i7 6900k $1,000 -|

Defending Intel i7 6900k ($1000) using i7 6700k/7700k ($310) as a shield is a bit wrong.

It would be like anything more than i7 6700k/7700k ($310) price is a bad chip,

Taking i7 6700k/7700k ($310) out of the picture we could now have > 4 core chips battle which I think R7 is aimed at.

With R7 1800X ($500) almost at the the same level of performance with i7 6900k ($1000), and a cheaper chip R7 1700 OCed ($330) that won't be far away with R7 1800X performance.
This brings a great options for those who needs those extra cores.

And all this coming from an low-end Intel user, c",)

Lastly nice review mr. HH.

 

Just taking the time to say a massive thanks for the review, it is quality as always.

The 1800x looks like a epic 16 thread CPU if you where in the market for one, very cool.

 

Hilbert, we are looking at 4+4 core ryzen, and a 8+8 mb L3 cache. Please run some game benchmarks with manually core affinity to avoid L3 cache disaster. Run the main process of the game on cores from 8 to 15, I think will be some interesting results

 

How about Insider build 15046? It's getting close to the release of the Creators Update, build 15046 should be mostly representative of the release as it is effectively in escrow now.

Due to under-the-hood changes in Creators update, there may be optimisations for the Ryzen platform in terms of scheduling etc that isn't realised in the current version. Apart from the early adopters, most people with Ryzen builds in the next couple of months will be using the forthcoming Windows 10 Creators update.

It would be interesting to get in first as a review if there are indeed performance changes with 15046 running otherwise the same system and benchmarks. Might be fun to be the first reliable reviewer to report on any potential differences

The second change will be if/when the rumoured microcode updates are available for the CPU, which should allow for faster RAM speeds. This may not come out for a couple of months in actual bios revisions, but will be an interesting comparison also.

 

Dude ... don't just assume something like that ... I imagine many people looking to buy the 1800x for gaming are also looking at intel's 7700k and intels 2011-3 6&8 core cpu's ... that is what I am doing. Planning to pair one of those CPU's up with the upcoming 1080Ti so what I need to know is which one of those CPU's is gonna deliver better framerates in over 90% of games(mostly the new graphically intense games).
And I don't mean to compare stock clocks either, that's not what people who buy 980-1080Ti's are gonna do ... we like to overclock even if only a little.

I need a review of CPU performances while they are OC-ed ... 7700k @5Ghz, 6850k-6900k @4-4.2Ghz and the 1800X at lets say 4Ghz as well ...

THAT is a beter review of performance ... and I also don't mean tests at 1080p ... sorry but 99% of people buying hardware like this don't play 1080p games ... they play 1440p(60-165Hz) or 4k so those are what tests we need ...
And also pick 2-3 games of the past 1-2 years that are very CPU demanding and like many cores (strategy & city building games) ... that is what we need.

 

Summit Ridge is good but as a gamer, I wanted it to be better.

 

Ryzen is not a 4 core mcm!

 

Memory latency can be fixed somehow with a new BIOS update, but not the L3 cache. Memory controller I guess will be fixed in next stepping versions .
Ryzen is not truly 8 core processor, is 2x 4 quad processor, I'm really disappointed about that.

 

Ryzen is 4+4 processor is not a pure 8 core unlike Intel
Feel the differences :

Ryzen 7 die shot :

http://picpaste.com/AMD_Ryzen_Die_Shot-bX7Yu8Sw.jpg

Intel Haswell-E 5960X 8 core:

http://picpaste.com/HSW-E-Die-1-3zpQbC0E.jpg

 

It's a core complex not an mcm.
Naples will be mcm.

 

Is a Core2Quad in AMD vision, with integrated memory controller .

 

It's close enough to "real" 8 core processor.

"Unlike on "Bulldozer," a "Zen" core does not share any of its number-crunching machinery with neighboring cores. Each "Zen" core has a dedicated L2 cache of 512 KB, and four Zen cores share an 8 MB L3 cache. "

So in reality it does not differ that much from intels 8 cores.

Not like there is that huge difference

 

Meh...

Guess not buying CPU in next half a year then, need to see where the winds blow. This one seems a bit "raw" and it has this unpleasant Bulldozer feel about it, where you have tons of cores that are great a synthetics, but not what I actually want - gaming.

I think this claim about how they will fix **** with software, drivers and **** is just a PR stunt, honestly, and I don't really see game studios massively rushing to optimize for Zen, considering that bloody most of the world is sitting on Dual or Quad core Intels.

Maybe Zen+ will fix this ****, unless it gets decimated with Coffee Lake, all Intel has to do is to into 6/12 CPUs to mainstream really and there are rumors that this is exactly what they want to do.

 

Is a very big difference: intel share all L3 cache among all cores, ryzen has separate 8+8 mb L3, each 8mb is accesed directly only by 4 cores, that will hurt a lot gaming.

 

I said that because some people when R7 1800X beats an i7 6900k bench score points you at an i7 7700k gaming performance,
and when it beats an i7 7700k bench score points you at i7 6900k raw performance.

In that case... yeah Intel chip(s) is better than R7 1800X, but using two different units, an i7 7700k and an i7 6900k.

It was like Intel units runs as i7 7700k while gaming then suddenly runs as an i7 6900k with cpu heavy loads.

Anyway, hope you find the best cpu for your use.

 

An mcm is two seperate processor dies.

This isn't.

Yes it's a radically different design with relation to intels but it's no mcm.

 

Ryzen is a 2 CPU on the same die. Core2Quad core coherency was done by FSB and yes has 2 dies, in Ryzen is made internally with some kind of high speed link, but is the same shi-t