Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor

I think that guy that I linked earlier had 6800 vs 1800x review.

 

Think you can see some numbers in older reviews like:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_7700k_processor_review_desktop_kaby_lake,14.html

You could wait a month and see if BIOS and OS updates are released and change anything?

 

Well Intel kids will like this, cause...

The 6800K bring you the best of both worlds then... more cores, decent gaming and actually cheaper. Example from pcpartspicker just minutes ago

6800K = 409$ usd
Asus X99 Strix = 320$ usd
Cooler Master LiquidPro 280 cooler = 100$ usd
32GB(2x16GB) DDR4-3200MHz Corsair Vengeance = 330$ usd

a total of 1159$ usd


Ryzen 1800X = 500$ usd
Asus Crosshair IV = 255$ usd
Cooler Master LiquidPro 280 cooler = 100$ usd
32GB(2x16GB) DDR4-3200MHz Corsair Vengeance = 330$ usd

a total of 1185$ usd

BUT STILL

as Hilbert says go for the 1700X and save 100$...


----
Altho' the Intel platform will behave better with the RAM, offer better IO and even Quad Channel of you want that... And so on...

 

I might just wait. But thanks for the link, the 6800k sits really nicely high up in gaming benches. And it's a decent performer in everything MT.

 

Ryzen power consumption vs Intel CPUs

Spoiler

(computerbase.de)

 

Not with the Ryzen 1700 at it's current price, the average joe uses i3/i5

 

yeah, over here, the 1700 is £329, as much as the 7700k. The 1700k is £398, as much as a 6800k. Not exactly cheap.

 

Well stuff like ARMA3 belongs in the very few games group I mentioned (I didn't state those games don't exist, just there's not a lot of them...)

And I didn't state everything will be optimized tomorrow, I'm not a fortune teller neither do a have a crystal ball under my desk. All I said was development could look like it'll be optimizing for it, and that time will tell



EDIT: btw sorry to hear about the Phenom 2 X6 case, unfortunately that's the case that will serve as a fun fact when discussing AMD history and if it'll repeat itself with Ryzen.... I hope not, but time will tell

 

Chances are the R3 and R5 respectively will take care of that. With fewer cores and more matured platforms come release they may even be scaling better than the R7s do. We'll see though.

Realistically we could expect them to perform as slightly scaled down versions of what we've already seen with some potential for positive surprise. Ultimately, unlike AMD pre-ryzen offers, AMD doesn't need to hide anymore.

Only Intels $70 gaming wonder will likely remain 'unbeaten' - as in 'no way around it'. That said, it's still only a dual core with HT - thus EOL sooner than one might like.

 

Kyle @ [H] still doing gaming benches @ 640x480 .

 

Any CPU newer than Sandy/Ivy bridge with high core clocks and 4+ logical cores will be quite and upgrade.
And as other mentioned, the Ryzen 1700 might end up to be the gaming enthusiast value for the money CPU of the year, but unfortunately AMD did not have everything ready at launch, reminds me a bit about new GPU releases from either camp.

 

Nice, but looking at it, he kinda ****ed up the comparisson by oc'ing the s#¤" of of everything...

 

That depends on:

-how the game is actually coded/optimized
-how future gpus will perform

being a fortune teller is NOT easy, the only fact we have is how it performs today...

Basically nothing will tell us how the Ryzen will perform in the future.
The low-res benching should be used to show todays performance and doing a better/more complete comparisson to other CPUs

 

Very good review,Mr Hilbert.Thanks and hope you will be well soon.

Some words from Lisa Su,CEO AMD:

"In some workloads SMT seems to be causing lower framerates.

Have AMD seen this behaviour in testing? If so, have you identified the cause and would you be willing to share it? I'm interested in whether it's an issue with the processor, the specific software, or maybe an issue with the windows scheduler and high thread counts.

Thanks for your time


[–]AMD_LisaSuCEO of AMD 200 points 37 minutes ago

Thanks for the question. In general, we've seen great performance from SMT in applications and benchmarks but there are some games that are using code optimized for our competitor... we are confident that we can work through these issues with the game developers who are actively engaging with our engineering teams."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/

 

Uh... no? There are plenty of gaming benchmarks where it performed head to head with a 7700K, at least when clocked similarly. There are more tests showing that it scales up with more demanding workloads very nicely. There are plenty of tests showing Ryzen performs just fine in CPU intensive tasks.

Regardless, it still has more than enough performance for just about any gamers except those with 1080p screens at 144Hz. But as Tom's Hardware put it, even the Broadwell-Es makes for poor gaming CPUs. You just don't need 16 threads.

What reviews were you looking at? Even sites known for being biased showed Ryzen was sometimes very competitive, so "every scenario for gaming" is not just a hyperbole, but wrong.

As for Coffee Lake, I think even the most diehard Intel fans would think your statement is utterly ridiculous. In order for Coffee Lake to make Ryzen look as bad as Vishera did for Haswell, Intel would need a fresh new architecture.

 

nah, the 7700k costs the same as the 1700 and smashes the 1700 in games.

 

Hilbert as always, great review and much anticipated. I'm looking forward to a R7 1700 review and also eyeballing the R5 1600x down the road, thanks.

 

Excuse me, but the 7700k stock boost is 4.2ghz, the 1800x struggles to reach that, not to mention the 7700k will easily oc to 4.8ghz, many to 5ghz.

 

Just finished reading the review, excellent review thanks! I am disappointed by the 1080p gaming performance - it looks like Ryzen is a risky choice if you want 120Hz/144Hz gaming because Ryzen seems to be struggling at high frame rates. This does make me feel better about the wisdom of my 6700K build I built in November because it probably fits better with my 144Hz monitor. I do like the multicore performance of Ryzen though, when it comes to content creation, and perhaps some professional applications, and these CPUs are certainly fantastic value, but as a gamer I'm not convinced by Ryzen yet and I'm hoping AMD and motherboard partners can do something to remove this bottleneck.

 

Makes total sense to me. Back in the day it was better to disable hyper-threading due to loss of performance on Intel. Clearly this had to be fixed. I guess GTA-V and Watch Dogs 2 are heavily optimized for Intel's arch.

Since AMD has that massive L2 cache, I guess I'll wait for the new Ashes benchmark and Total War Warhammer benchmark.

Intel's prices suck. AMD will get there I guess.

Pretty happy with my choice to stick it to Intel with an ES Xeon.