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

[Raiderman]

 

[HardReset]

You've said two logical, correct things that I've presented facts for (I highlighted them red). It's your conclusion that's incorrect. The Steam Survey is not misleading - it's the closest thing we have for the actual use case of people using their GPUs for gaming. Of course that's apparent that AMD APUs make up such a small number of gaming machines when you see Intel with 80% and AMD with 20% in the survey.

To further bolster my argument integrated Intel graphics and AMD APUs are used typically for E-Sports games; Valve/Steam hosts plenty of them:

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

1.5 million players are playing DOTA 2 and CS:GO right now.

Just looking at following figures:

Discrete market share: Nvidia 71 vs AMD 29
Total market share: Nvidia 16 vs AMD 13.0
Steam market share: Nvidia 59 AMD 23

It clearly seems some AMD is missing from Steam stats. Because of this, I don't really trust Steam statistics in this case. Steam market share should be much closer because total market share is nearly even.

So you've posted an article 6 days after DA:I was launched. I posted a graph from this article posted on this site in June of 2015:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/page5.html

In PC gaming, time changes things. Games are updated after launch. That's why Techspot said this about DA:I perfromance on the G3258:
You can deny the article exists but I've linked it above and you've seen the chart from it.

From what I know, DA:I still does not officially support dual core. At least officially it requires CPU with four threads. There are lots of complaints about how poorly it runs on dual core and getting it run with dual core requires some additional tweaking. So officially DA:I does not work with dual core.

 

[Anboob]

Hello,

First I would like to thank you for your work (specially for adding overwatch to the benchmark list <3), but would you kindly add 1440p and 4k benchmarks for ryzen and intel aswell (I know about the bottleneck, but interested in the results anyway as it will be the resolution people with these cpus currently using, maybe.. most likely!)

 

[OcelotRex]

Just looking at following figures:

Discrete market share: Nvidia 71 vs AMD 29
Total market share: Nvidia 16 vs AMD 13.0
Steam market share: Nvidia 59 AMD 23

It clearly seems some AMD is missing from Steam stats. Because of this, I don't really trust Steam statistics in this case. Steam market share should be much closer because total market share is nearly even.

It's not clear; they're different measurements. Total marketshare captures more non-gaming machines than gaming machines and Steam captures mostly gaming machines. They are two separate measurements (total is just irrelevant to gaming conversation).

From what I know, DA:I still does not officially support dual core. At least officially it requires CPU with four threads. There are lots of complaints about how poorly it runs on dual core and getting it run with dual core requires some additional tweaking. So officially DA:I does not work with dual core.

How does that logic work - you see the proof if you clicked through the link. You post to this site. The same person who did this review did that review. Yet you choose to ignore reality?

 

[FreeBetaTester]

This is should be plain simple and obvious to AMD. If the R7 1800x is not going to out right beat the i7-7700K across the board, then they should suck it up and price it a 10% discount of the i7-7700K. So $300 give or take a few. At that point, the price value proposition would be a no brainer, and clear win to AMD. If they refuse to do that then I'm forced to go with Intel. I don't know which marketing monkey with monkey butts for brain is working for AMD, but the distraction and deflection attempt with rendering and more cores etc. don't fool NOBODY! Eliminate the risk for all your potential buyers and they will go with along with you. Failing that, AMD is proving themselves to be just as bad as used car dealers, silicon snake oil salespeople!

 

[Raff Greysabre]

Underwhelmed.
Anyone with a I7 3770k has to be smiling. That is one good ole dog that still hangs with newest in games and is much better on power draw than the new AMDs.

AMD has improved but I'm sticking with intel.

I have a 3820 overclocked to 4.5GHz and I can't complain in the CPU department .

 

[Burty117]

Yet you choose to ignore reality?

Honestly It's @HardReset 's thing, He prefer's to live in denial and ignorance.

Even all these years/months later when he's proven himself completely wrong about the RX480 / FX-8370 he'll just lie to himself and say they're the greatest thing because they're made by AMD. Gotta love the raw dedication and devotion though!

 

[Raiderman]

This is should be plain simple and obvious to AMD. If the R7 1800x is not going to out right beat the i7-7700K across the board, then they should suck it up and price it a 10% discount of the i7-7700K. So $300 give or take a few. At that point, the price value proposition would be a no brainer, and clear win to AMD. If they refuse to do that then I'm forced to go with Intel. I don't know which marketing monkey with monkey butts for brain is working for AMD, but the distraction and deflection attempt with rendering and more cores etc. don't fool NOBODY! Eliminate the risk for all your potential buyers and they will go with along with you. Failing that, AMD is proving themselves to be just as bad as used car dealers, silicon snake oil salespeople!

Going by your logic, we can say the same of the 6800K not competing with the 7700K. So saying the 1800x doesnt compete against the 7700K across the board is incorrect.
Pricing an 8 core processor, that absolutely smokes the 7700K in multi-threaded use, would be ridiculous. However pricing it at half the cost of Intels 8 core is practical, and smart. Ryzen 5, which will be released Q2, will be the direct competition for the 7700K.
Of course you are talking about gaming and single threaded processes. In which case the 6800 does not compete with the 7700. Compare Intels 8 core offerings to Ryzen 7, and you have some competition.

 

[Sarcasm]

This is should be plain simple and obvious to AMD. If the R7 1800x is not going to out right beat the i7-7700K across the board, then they should suck it up and price it a 10% discount of the i7-7700K. So $300 give or take a few. At that point, the price value proposition would be a no brainer, and clear win to AMD. If they refuse to do that then I'm forced to go with Intel. I don't know which marketing monkey with monkey butts for brain is working for AMD, but the distraction and deflection attempt with rendering and more cores etc. don't fool NOBODY! Eliminate the risk for all your potential buyers and they will go with along with you. Failing that, AMD is proving themselves to be just as bad as used car dealers, silicon snake oil salespeople!

Actually the R7 1700 is the chip that is priced the same or less than the 7700K. Overclocked to at least 3.9 ghz, it's basically almost the same as an 1800X. Not only does it close the gap in a lot of gaming tests, it "smokes" the 7700K in pure multi-threaded workloads, and is more than sufficient for gaming. Paul from Paul's hardware has an interesting video about the 1700 overclocking vs the 7700K. Conclusion is that if you want the MAXIMUM number of frames, still stick with the 7700K, but if you still want the multi-threaded performance and still have a good gaming experience, the 1700 is the way to go.

This actually sorta highlights a big flaw in AMD's line-up. Why bother spending $500 on the 1800X, when you can get the 1700 for $330 in addition to a cpu cooler, AND a good motherboard for the same price.

 

[Raiderman]

Actually the R7 1700 is the chip that is priced the same or less than the 7700K. Overclocked to at least 3.9 ghz, it's basically almost the same as an 1800X. Not only does it close the gap in a lot of gaming tests, it "smokes" the 7700K in pure multi-threaded workloads, and is more than sufficient for gaming. Paul from Paul's hardware has an interesting video about the 1700 overclocking vs the 7700K. Conclusion is that if you want the MAXIMUM number of frames, still stick with the 7700K, but if you still want the multi-threaded performance and still have a good gaming experience, the 1700 is the way to go.

This actually sorta highlights a big flaw in AMD's line-up. Why bother spending $500 on the 1800X, when you can get the 1700 for $330 in addition to a cpu cooler, AND a good motherboard for the same price.

Agreed. If the 1800x had some headroom for OCing, it would not be a bad choice over the 1700. Hopefully we will see some improvements in headroom with bios, and MB revisions. Come to find out that it is a Windows issue as well, where Windows thinks the logical cores are physical cores.

Copied and pasted from ajc9988 @notebookreview

Well It turns out, its windows fault for the low performance!!!

Logical Processor to Cache Map:
*--------------- Data Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
*--------------- Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
*--------------- Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
*--------------- Unified Cache 1, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
-*-------------- Data Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-*-------------- Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
-*-------------- Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-*-------------- Unified Cache 3, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
--*------------- Data Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--*------------- Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
--*------------- Unified Cache 4, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--*------------- Unified Cache 5, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
---*------------ Data Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
---*------------ Instruction Cache 3, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
---*------------ Unified Cache 6, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
---*------------ Unified Cache 7, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
----*----------- Data Cache 4, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----*----------- Instruction Cache 4, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
----*----------- Unified Cache 8, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----*----------- Unified Cache 9, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
-----*---------- Data Cache 5, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-----*---------- Instruction Cache 5, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
-----*---------- Unified Cache 10, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-----*---------- Unified Cache 11, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
------*--------- Data Cache 6, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------*--------- Instruction Cache 6, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
------*--------- Unified Cache 12, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------*--------- Unified Cache 13, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
-------*-------- Data Cache 7, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-------*-------- Instruction Cache 7, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
-------*-------- Unified Cache 14, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-------*-------- Unified Cache 15, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
--------*------- Data Cache 8, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--------*------- Instruction Cache 8, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
--------*------- Unified Cache 16, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--------*------- Unified Cache 17, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
---------*------ Data Cache 9, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
---------*------ Instruction Cache 9, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
---------*------ Unified Cache 18, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
---------*------ Unified Cache 19, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
----------*----- Data Cache 10, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----------*----- Instruction Cache 10, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
----------*----- Unified Cache 20, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----------*----- Unified Cache 21, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
-----------*---- Data Cache 11, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-----------*---- Instruction Cache 11, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
-----------*---- Unified Cache 22, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-----------*---- Unified Cache 23, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
------------*--- Data Cache 12, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------------*--- Instruction Cache 12, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
------------*--- Unified Cache 24, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------------*--- Unified Cache 25, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
-------------*-- Data Cache 13, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-------------*-- Instruction Cache 13, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
-------------*-- Unified Cache 26, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
-------------*-- Unified Cache 27, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
--------------*- Data Cache 14, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--------------*- Instruction Cache 14, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
--------------*- Unified Cache 28, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--------------*- Unified Cache 29, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64
---------------* Data Cache 15, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
---------------* Instruction Cache 15, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
---------------* Unified Cache 30, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
---------------* Unified Cache 31, Level 3, 16 MB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64

each zen thread is being registered as an individual core with its own L2 and L3 cache. I.e. totaling 136 MB cache!!. this is using Windows Sysinternals. This explains the SMT troubles in the event that a thread bounced to a HT thinking its the real deal.

Compare VS Intel

Logical Processor to Cache Map:
**------ Data Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
**------ Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
**------ Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
******** Unified Cache 1, Level 3, 6 MB, Assoc 12, LineSize 64
--**---- Data Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--**---- Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--**---- Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
----**-- Data Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----**-- Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----**-- Unified Cache 3, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
------** Data Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------** Instruction Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------** Unified Cache 4, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64

 

[FreeBetaTester]

It is well known that the 6800K is way overpriced. And AMD should not be condoned for using that as their pricing reference. What is so wrong about demanding more for your money?! You *****s **** money from your butthole or something!? Why are people so proud about wasting money?!

It doesn't mater 8 core, 4 core. Deliver the the proper single core gains and then multiply it by the number of cores, and have the proper IPC bandwidth in place. Don't distract, obsfucate, FUD with nothing else. Price it competitive to the i7-7700K, and then take over the world by storm. AMD can do that can't they? Or are they just trying to con the gullible?

 

[meric]

It is well known that the 6800K is way overpriced. And AMD should not be condoned for using that as their pricing reference. What is so wrong about demanding more for your money?! You *****s **** money from your butthole or something!? Why are people so proud about wasting money?!

It doesn't mater 8 core, 4 core. Deliver the the proper single core gains and then multiply it by the number of cores, and have the proper IPC bandwidth in place. Don't distract, obsfucate, FUD with nothing else. Price it competitive to the i7-7700K, and then take over the world by storm. AMD can do that can't they? Or are they just trying to con the gullible?

That's why we are all waiting for ryzen 5

 

[HardReset]

It's not clear; they're different measurements. Total marketshare captures more non-gaming machines than gaming machines and Steam captures mostly gaming machines. They are two separate measurements (total is just irrelevant to gaming conversation).

Total market share captures also Nvidia's non-gaming cards. Comparing Nvidia's low end offerings and AMD APU's, difference is not large enough to justify difference between Steam stats and total market share.

How does that logic work - you see the proof if you clicked through the link. You post to this site. The same person who did this review did that review. Yet you choose to ignore reality?

What does that proof? It proves that some kind of benchmarking (not necessarily gaming) on DA:I was possible, nothing else. There are no mentions about how it was tweaked to work, not game version either. On article I linked, DA:I did not work with dual core and any DA:I (official) patch note does not mention anything about issue, so very probably that dual core issue still not fixed. If not, I highly doubt it ever will be.

Without those (information about game version, possible fixes/tweaks) those performance bars alone do not prove anything. Also there was no single mention about problems with DA:I (not able to launch) that were encountered on previous article.

Honestly It's @HardReset 's thing, He prefer's to live in denial and ignorance.

Even all these years/months later when he's proven himself completely wrong about the RX480 / FX-8370 he'll just lie to himself and say they're the greatest thing because they're made by AMD. Gotta love the raw dedication and devotion though!

What's this FX-8370 thing about?

 

[mosu]

Some strange facts: a lot of newcomers to Techspot site , registred a few days ago or even today are all AMD haters. strange indeed! just check: DarthVulva !!!, STBob, Vulcanproject, JSizzle83 and Raff Greysabre to name a few. Welcome to Techspot!

 

[OcelotRex]

Total market share captures also Nvidia's non-gaming cards. Comparing Nvidia's low end offerings and AMD APU's, difference is not large enough to justify difference between Steam stats and total market share.

Sorry but it does. Steam=Gaming stats. I'm having a discussion about gaming, not FirePro and Quadro. If you'd like to post actual facts/data showing the workstation cards make up the majority of the discrete market I'd be glad to read them.

What does that proof? It proves that some kind of benchmarking (not necessarily gaming) on DA:I was possible, nothing else. There are no mentions about how it was tweaked to work, not game version either. On article I linked, DA:I did not work with dual core and any DA:I (official) patch note does not mention anything about issue, so very probably that dual core issue still not fixed. If not, I highly doubt it ever will be.

Without those (information about game version, possible fixes/tweaks) those performance bars alone do not prove anything. Also there was no single mention about problems with DA:I (not able to launch) that were encountered on previous article.

Since Steve wrote both articles 6 months apart and didn't include Far Cry 4 it's more than likely DA:I was patched and runs on Dual Core Processors. It's less likely there's an unofficial fix (otherwise it wouldn't be included in the benchmarking). It's even possible Steve is a magical testing being that can break the laws of reality.

What is certain is that the game runs on dual cores and the list of games that don't were small. It doesn't matter anymore as the G4560 is on the market now.

 

[Scorpus]

But they will overclock much better due to having less cores. Just look at 4.8 GHz FX-4350's.

I have heard this isn't necessarily the case with Ryzen, but we'll have to wait for launch to see for sure

 

[Raoul Duke]

Wow, this thread has more posts than even a Trump article!

 

[ddferrari]

Wow, this thread has more posts than even a Trump article!

Weak. Some people apparently just can't resist this obsession.

 

[ET3D]

...

I can't comment on the Ryzen gaming performance article (nice article, thanks for doing it), and have no idea how to send a PM, so figured I'd post here to maybe get your attention.

Any chance you could do a comparison with 4 cores (4+0) and no SMT, and compare it to some Core i5 generations? I understand that Downcore Control provides such a configuration.

The thing is, it's been said that part of the performance problem is threads being moved between the 4-core complexes, which results in a speed penalty. Having just 4 cores in one complex and no SMT should be a good test of actual IPC.

 

[NightAntilli]

Memory speed greatly affects Ryzen's performance... Considering motherboards were shipped with outdated EFI limiting memory speed, Ryzen is shown in a worse light than it really is;

http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/

 

[HardReset]

Sorry but it does. Steam=Gaming stats. I'm having a discussion about gaming, not FirePro and Quadro. If you'd like to post actual facts/data showing the workstation cards make up the majority of the discrete market I'd be glad to read them.

I don't have it. But considering total market share between Nvidia and AMD is quite even, AMD is dominating on other than gaming cards. I have no idea where. Another possibility is that Steam data is not accurate.

Since Steve wrote both articles 6 months apart and didn't include Far Cry 4 it's more than likely DA:I was patched and runs on Dual Core Processors. It's less likely there's an unofficial fix (otherwise it wouldn't be included in the benchmarking). It's even possible Steve is a magical testing being that can break the laws of reality.[/

What is certain is that the game runs on dual cores and the list of games that don't were small. It doesn't matter anymore as the G4560 is on the market now.

DA:I did not support dual cores on launch. DA:I still does not support dual cores officially. There is no official dual core patch for DA:I, you can read patch notes http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Patches_(Inquisition or http://blog.bioware.com/dragon-age-inquisition-patch-notes/

Also I cannot find any proper fix for DA:I for dual cores, some fixes but they are not always working.

It does matter as you cannot put G4660 into same socket as G3258.

 

[OcelotRex]

I don't have it. But considering total market share between Nvidia and AMD is quite even, AMD is dominating on other than gaming cards. I have no idea where. Another possibility is that Steam data is not accurate.

It comes down to more likely - you've offered no substantiated proof to your assertions while insinuating the possibility of Steam data being inaccurate. It's more likely that the opposite is true in absence of support for your assertions.

DA:I did not support dual cores on launch. DA:I still does not support dual cores officially. There is no official dual core patch for DA:I, you can read patch notes http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Patches_(Inquisition or http://blog.bioware.com/dragon-age-inquisition-patch-notes/

Also I cannot find any proper fix for DA:I for dual cores, some fixes but they are not always working.

I defer to Steve on this one: not addressing the issue in the article means that it's not the issue you present it to be. Even so it's a small handful of games.

It does matter as you cannot put G4660 into same socket as G3258.

The same can be said about AM4 and FM2. I am not sure why you bring this up.

 

[HardReset]

It comes down to more likely - you've offered no substantiated proof to your assertions while insinuating the possibility of Steam data being inaccurate. It's more likely that the opposite is true in absence of support for your assertions.

This is simple mathematics. If AMD and Nvidia supply almost equal number of graphic chips but Nvidia's market share for gaming chips is much higher, then AMD is supplying other than gaming cards much more. What are those? Not discrete cards, leaving out workstation cards. That leaves only APU's. And AMD APU's are much more capable for gaming than, say, Intel's HD graphics. So APU's should have quite good market share on Steam. As they have not, we can easily conclude that Steam stats are not accurate about AMD's gaming GPU's.

I defer to Steve on this one: not addressing the issue in the article means that it's not the issue you present it to be. Even so it's a small handful of games.

You believe one benchmarking article more than official info from company that actually released the game? Well, good luck with that "(y)"

The same can be said about AM4 and FM2. I am not sure why you bring this up.

Fact that new Pentium has 4 threads do not change the fact that G3258 has 2 threads and Athlon X4 840 has 4. so basically right now Pentium G3258 is somewhat useless (or at least troublesome) for many new games while X4 840 is not.

 

[MrBlkfx1]

AMD is back. Good for them. As always, excellent review, Steve.

 

[STbob]

I have a 3820 overclocked to 4.5GHz and I can't complain in the CPU department .

Oh yea man! That 3820 is still hitting hard!