AMD Ryzen Review: Ryzen 7 1800X & 1700X Put to the Test

I'm running an FX-9590 right now. I play Warcraft, stream my terrible gameplay to all zero of my twitch followers, edit videos using Camtasia, and also do quite a bit of heavy spreadsheet and programming work. I look at the new Ryzen CPU and I don't say "it's a terrible gamer". I look at it and say "it's exactly what I need". I'm willing to give up a little on the top end to gain performance where I really need it. Let's be honest here, Warcraft isn't exactly stressing either a CPU or GPU. If I'm not streaming, I can run it in preset 10 with the 9590 and an RX-480, so it's not really a demanding workload.

The other stuff I do had me considering the 6900k or 5960x, neither of which has an appealing price point. An overclocked 1700 is reasonably close to the 6900k, and presents a compelling argument at $330. Put in perspective, I can buy the 1700, an X370 motherboard, 16GB RAM, AND a GTX 1080 for about $150 more than the 6900k by itself. So when I look at the whole picture and ask myself if losing a few FPS on the top end, where I probably wouldn't notice them anyway, is worth saving a ton of money, the answer is obviously yes.

I understand that other people will have different needs, and there are different options for those people. All over the various forums, I read nothing by "ryzen is crap" and the reality appears much different. Every reviewer looking at Ryzen has said something to the effect of "fantastic option for content creators" and I think most people just gloss over that statement. It's important to buy a CPU that meets your needs. My needs are a mixed bag, so this is a good solution. If I did nothing but play video games, then Kaby Lake would be a better option. Jay (jayztwocents) described Ryzen in what I feel is the best analogy. He said Ryzen is like Mario in Mario Cart. Mario isn't the fastest and he can't jump the highest, but he does everything well.
 
I'm running an FX-9590 right now. I play Warcraft, stream my terrible gameplay to all zero of my twitch followers, edit videos using Camtasia, and also do quite a bit of heavy spreadsheet and programming work. I look at the new Ryzen CPU and I don't say "it's a terrible gamer". I look at it and say "it's exactly what I need". I'm willing to give up a little on the top end to gain performance where I really need it. Let's be honest here, Warcraft isn't exactly stressing either a CPU or GPU. If I'm not streaming, I can run it in preset 10 with the 9590 and an RX-480, so it's not really a demanding workload.

My needs are a mixed bag, so this is a good solution. If I did nothing but play video games, then Kaby Lake would be a better option. Jay (jayztwocents) described Ryzen in what I feel is the best analogy. He said Ryzen is like Mario in Mario Cart. Mario isn't the fastest and he can't jump the highest, but he does everything well.

I think the Ryzen is a nice cpu and it will do very well if its priced low enough. You need to add it all up to decide. MB + Ram + CPU vs Intel. If its less then 50.00 Id go intel.

With more and more people playing games at 1440 the gaming difference will not be noticeable as the graphics card will start to chug a bit. AMD has closed the gap enough where I think they can steal some from intel now. Most people do not see these online benchmarks. In a store they see hmm 16 threads vs 8 threads of intel. More must be better I'm buying that Ryzen plus its cheaper. They won't know its slower in single thread apps and they will never say wow this thing is slow when using it. So I think it will sell very well.
 
Gaming Performance!!
Where are results for GTA V, Far Cry, Tomb Raider, Witcher 3, Need For Speed, Star Wars Battlefield, Sleeping Dogs, Ryse son of Rome, and so many more?
Is it because these are multi-threaded games you don't test? Why just test games that are poorly threaded and shines only when the few-core/thread CPU is cranked up past 4GHz?
Multi-threaded games are also games. Test them with the new CPU please.

Why just test at 1080p? so that GPU doesn't bottleneck and show how powerful CPU, then might as well go for SVGA :) If you test at 4K even if GPU bottlenecks, there might still be some small benefits that remains to be seen from the faster internal transport bus, neural-net instruction preload, enhanced multi-threading, 4ALUs per core and so on. Test and I'd like to see more testing :D

For $500, either a shiny new AMD Ryzen 1800X or a used Intel 5960X in Ebay?

Performance about the same despite 5960X @ 3.0GHz.
But the latter sports 40 PCIE3 lanes good for CrossFire/SLI, Quad channel memory which really doesn't do much in real world applications.

Hmm....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For $500, either a shiny new AMD Ryzen 1800X or a used Intel 5960X in Ebay?
As a principle I wouldn't buy used CPU especially if it's an unlocked one. You never know how long it run with how much overclock, thus how much more "life" it still has
 
As a principle I wouldn't buy used CPU especially if it's an unlocked one. You never know how long it run with how much overclock, thus how much more "life" it still has

Same with buying a car. Would you rather buy it from some HOT rodder that rides the brakes, over revs the engine, strains the transmission for 100,000 miles etc. Overclocking is getting sort of stupid in 2017. People do it just to be different to feel special. Some kind of strange ego self love thing. Its not really needed.
 
your old 3770K has 4 cores, this has 8 cores, wait for Quad Core RyZen´s to compare, I think that even the Hexa Core could draw less power

Why wait for a quad core Ryzan when the 8 core can't even beat a 3770k in games and eats power.
I think for people that are into video editing, 3dfxMax might want one. But lets face it intel quads with HT do pretty much everything most people want plus they are better at gaming.
because in games you'll most likely get the same performance from the 4c/8t and 6c/12t as you do from the 8c/16t CPU (with some exceptions). people have tested this by disabling 2 and 4 cores from the 1800x. this gives the R5 CPUs incredible value when you look at the prices. the B350 motherboards also start at around 80$ if you want to buy something cheap and still be able to OC.
unless you already have a motherboard that supports the i7 3770K, there is no reason to buy that CPU anymore. most people will go with a newer Intel or AMD CPU.
 
because in games you'll most likely get the same performance from the 4c/8t and 6c/12t as you do from the 8c/16t CPU (with some exceptions). people have tested this by disabling 2 and 4 cores from the 1800x. this gives the R5 CPUs incredible value when you look at the prices. the B350 motherboards also start at around 80$ if you want to buy something cheap and still be able to OC.
unless you already have a motherboard that supports the i7 3770K, there is no reason to buy that CPU anymore. most people will go with a newer Intel or AMD CPU.
Why buy a 3770k if you have one? I am saying if you have a 3770k don't bother upgrading for games as its a waste of money.

I would buy a used 3770k not a new one. If I had no computer then the AMD might be of use.
 
My goodness, you AMD fans certainly are a patient and optimistic bunch. After a few years of hype Ryzen is finally here, and your talking about going back to the waiting game for 2018? I guess today's Ryzen disappointed you, huh?

I am okay with today's Ryzen performance. As this is the very first zen based processor, I prefer to wait for second generation aka more polished one.
 
Why buy a 3770k if you have one? I am saying if you have a 3770k don't bother upgrading for games as its a waste of money.

I would buy a used 3770k not a new one. If I had no computer then the AMD might be of use.
If you have one already then yes, it's not necessary to buy a new CPU.
If and only if you do a lot of work on your workstation aside from gaming, you might benefit from upgrading.
 
I'm confused at anyone saying gaming performance is disappointing. If games are smooth as butter, what do the numbers matter at all? This is a different type of CPU.
 
Back