Rockstarrrr
Posts: 97 +72
You couldnt be more wrong. This is NOT gaming CPU, its mostly for productivity and rendering. Gaming is a plus, all for 50% price of 6900K.
AMD Ryzen Review: Ryzen 7 1800X & 1700X Put to the Test
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
You couldnt be more wrong. This is NOT gaming CPU, its mostly for productivity and rendering. Gaming is a plus, all for 50% price of 6900K.
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,825
Some of those synthetic benchmarks seem to be using every logical core they can get their hands on, only the Intel 6 core/12 thread CPU's seem to hang in there. So impressive coding for those applications to say the least and good work by AMD here.
But we need to mention the two elephants in the room.
Overclock ability and gaming performance.
So I'll do it like this.
Glass half full opinion:
For gaming Ryzen is matching the 3770k give or take and this is quite impressive as Ivy Bridge is stellar architecture. 4.0GHz to 4.2GHz is still pretty respectable clock speed and with liquid cooling I could see a little more.
Glass half empty opinion:
Ryzen is just on par with a chip Intel made 3-4 years ago, and needs more threads/cores to do it.... just like old times, spelling out inferior architecture. For overclocking I was hoping to see 4.4GHz to 4.8GHz on air without issues.
_
I'll admit I believed some of the hype, and like Bulldozer which I thought was actually pretty impressive for what it was, the hype train gained too much momentum and people thought AMD would top Intels best chips. I would love to see an 8 core/16 thread Intel chip vs Ryzen on these same benchmarks.
All in all good work Steve, your sexy as hell did you know that?
And Scorpus The Nailbiter, all is not lost, you still got me just remember that.
But we need to mention the two elephants in the room.
Overclock ability and gaming performance.
So I'll do it like this.
Glass half full opinion:
For gaming Ryzen is matching the 3770k give or take and this is quite impressive as Ivy Bridge is stellar architecture. 4.0GHz to 4.2GHz is still pretty respectable clock speed and with liquid cooling I could see a little more.
Glass half empty opinion:
Ryzen is just on par with a chip Intel made 3-4 years ago, and needs more threads/cores to do it.... just like old times, spelling out inferior architecture. For overclocking I was hoping to see 4.4GHz to 4.8GHz on air without issues.
_
I'll admit I believed some of the hype, and like Bulldozer which I thought was actually pretty impressive for what it was, the hype train gained too much momentum and people thought AMD would top Intels best chips. I would love to see an 8 core/16 thread Intel chip vs Ryzen on these same benchmarks.
All in all good work Steve, your sexy as hell did you know that?
And Scorpus The Nailbiter, all is not lost, you still got me just remember that.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,226 +3,076
Embarrassing.
I said all along, when AMD is quiet, you should worry.
They constantly compared Ryzen to 6800 and 5960. Over and over and over again.
They used odd AAA titles such as SWBF @ 4K to show the "power" of Ryzen when that resolution puts more load on the GPU, not the CPU.
XFR demo was horribly done. I mean, why would 100MHz "overclock" (across all cores) be enticing to anyone?
I said all along, when AMD is quiet, you should worry.
They constantly compared Ryzen to 6800 and 5960. Over and over and over again.
They used odd AAA titles such as SWBF @ 4K to show the "power" of Ryzen when that resolution puts more load on the GPU, not the CPU.
XFR demo was horribly done. I mean, why would 100MHz "overclock" (across all cores) be enticing to anyone?
Last edited:
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.
darisalfafa
Posts: 8 +11
Hey, great review there! The layout is tidy and the "reading atmosphere" is better than many of the big names out there. The conclusion is spot on. But regarding gaming/single thread issues that you faced, by reading countless reviews on the net, it might have been:
Motherboard BIOS issues: Some reviewers out there closed the gap between 6900K with a supposedly beta BIOS update from the likes of ASUS
SMT issues: Most reviewers also posted gaming benchmarks with disabled SMT, which strangely results to up to 5% better single threaded and gaming performance
Resolution/GPU-CPU Workload Optimization: Almost all reviewers I read that tested with the 1440p gets rid of the gaming performance disparity after cranking up the resolution (except in some other games).
While Ryzen is definitely a great CPU, it's buggy and somehow still carries the "Orthodox AMD branding" which is really, really sad.
Motherboard BIOS issues: Some reviewers out there closed the gap between 6900K with a supposedly beta BIOS update from the likes of ASUS
SMT issues: Most reviewers also posted gaming benchmarks with disabled SMT, which strangely results to up to 5% better single threaded and gaming performance
Resolution/GPU-CPU Workload Optimization: Almost all reviewers I read that tested with the 1440p gets rid of the gaming performance disparity after cranking up the resolution (except in some other games).
While Ryzen is definitely a great CPU, it's buggy and somehow still carries the "Orthodox AMD branding" which is really, really sad.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Excellent review!
So it seems to be what we were expecting from leaks and such, albeit the overclocking is a bit disappointing. I hope the 6 and quads do much better on overclocking and this is not a limitation of the architecture as that will make them only great value solutions and hold the architecture back. Hopefully some bios updates and such resolve the low memory speeds, stability issues (Mostly for overclocking), and gaming performance as that will really help make these chips even more valuable.
So it seems to be what we were expecting from leaks and such, albeit the overclocking is a bit disappointing. I hope the 6 and quads do much better on overclocking and this is not a limitation of the architecture as that will make them only great value solutions and hold the architecture back. Hopefully some bios updates and such resolve the low memory speeds, stability issues (Mostly for overclocking), and gaming performance as that will really help make these chips even more valuable.
Kibaruk
Posts: 3,836 +1,189
What happened with your -silk- panties people?? You were there and ready for AMD... it's kind of funny.
In all fairness, after all the hype (it's an AMD product after all) and even when AMD didn't go for the "30% faster" than intel for a third of the price -I mean come on, how could they-, it's still a pretty darn good offering for the price and it's starting to bring some actual competition to Intel, which is good for everyone. So kudos to AMD!
In all fairness, after all the hype (it's an AMD product after all) and even when AMD didn't go for the "30% faster" than intel for a third of the price -I mean come on, how could they-, it's still a pretty darn good offering for the price and it's starting to bring some actual competition to Intel, which is good for everyone. So kudos to AMD!
After reading all the various reviews across the web, I have to say that I am surprised by all the negative comments. In the majority of cases, these $500 and LESS AMD CPUs are being compared to Intel CPUs that cost DOUBLE ($1,000+) and people are complaining?! I guess if a person wants to spend TWICE as much on a CPU that only yields slightly better performance that's their choice, but being able to build an entire "high end" AMD system for what an Intel CPU costs is a "home run" in my book.
I also believe that when it comes to the gamers, what must be realized is that most games have been tailored to Intel CPUs, simply because AMD has been out of the loop for so long. That being said, I would expect that as the ecosystem for these CPUs matures, and the "bugs" get ironed out, we will see the gap narrow even more between Ryzen and Intel CPUs.
Unless it's all about bragging rights, I simply can't see how anyone can diss a CPU of this price/performance ratio.
I also believe that when it comes to the gamers, what must be realized is that most games have been tailored to Intel CPUs, simply because AMD has been out of the loop for so long. That being said, I would expect that as the ecosystem for these CPUs matures, and the "bugs" get ironed out, we will see the gap narrow even more between Ryzen and Intel CPUs.
Unless it's all about bragging rights, I simply can't see how anyone can diss a CPU of this price/performance ratio.
Yeah, but none really uses 2500K on stock clocks, as they were significantly underclocked out of box. It would be interesting to see comparison of 4,4-4,6 GHz, which is average for 2500K with 1700X. Not just performance, but also energy consumption. I have feeling that 2500K even at 4,6 GHz will consume less energy, despite being built on 32 nm tech process.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
While it may take 45 minutes to unpack, you'll be playing the game for 10's or even hundreds of hours. That makes FPS a lot more important than the time it takes for it to "extract."If all you use your PC for is gaming, then you should sell it and get a fricken Xbox. Some tards think with such tunnel vision
"ya, but I get 400fps in "X" game, and only takes me 45 minutes to extract it, and it loads in like 5 minutes"
This is about use case: most consumers interested in higher end CPUs will tend to be gaming longer than using Blender or Handbrake. That's why the i7-7700k ($299 after price redux) is a more attractive overall CPU than the $500 1800X.
I will be providing a detailed gaming benchmark next week with over a dozen games and I will be testing with and without SMT. Disabling it does lead to large performance gains in some games.
Thanks for the review. Its amazing AMD have done to be competitive. My i7 4770 will still serve my purpose especially in games. .
I don't want to be a beta tester so I'll just wait what the 2nd generation zen cpu next year and compare it to next gen intel that is coming out.
I don't want to be a beta tester so I'll just wait what the 2nd generation zen cpu next year and compare it to next gen intel that is coming out.
While it may take 45 minutes to unpack, you'll be playing the game for 10's or even hundreds of hours. That makes FPS a lot more important than the time it takes for it to "extract."If all you use your PC for is gaming, then you should sell it and get a fricken Xbox. Some tards think with such tunnel vision
"ya, but I get 400fps in "X" game, and only takes me 45 minutes to extract it, and it loads in like 5 minutes"
This is about use case: most consumers interested in higher end CPUs will tend to be gaming longer than using Blender or Handbrake. That's why the i7-7700k ($299 after price redux) is a more attractive overall CPU than the $500 1800X.
@OcelotRex
Yup. Couldn't agree more.
@EEatGDL
If we compare the chips core-for-core, I'd agree a bit that it isn't bad, especially from a financial standpoint.
But to compare 8-core AMD variants to Intels 4-core 7700K's? Horrible.
If we take the 1700X as an example because of the similar price point, I'm sure it will fare worse against the 7700K and some generations behind it if we disable 4 of the 8 cores from the 1700X and make it a balanced playing field.
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,700 +3,211
To say the gaming benchmarks are massively disappointing is an understatement. Battlefield 1 in particular is known to be one of the very best threaded games I have seen, Watch dogs 2 not being far behind on CPU utilization. But even the 1800x can't beat or even really equal the faster 4C/8T intels on either which means it probably can't beat them on anything else, these games are some of their best chances to show off all those threads.
The problem with this too is that Ryzen are touted as enthusiast gamer processors as they have no integrated graphics. They are heavily aimed at the growing gamer market, at least the 4 and 6 core Ryzens certainly will be.
It remains to be seen how faster the 6 core like the 1600X is in games or any of the 4 cores, but on this evidence it can surely only be slower than the 1700X seen here anyway.
Don't get me wrong, the productivity benches for Ryzen are off the charts and they could have a major winner in enterprise later in the year, but for gamers then it's a little bit of a 'meh.'
The problem with this too is that Ryzen are touted as enthusiast gamer processors as they have no integrated graphics. They are heavily aimed at the growing gamer market, at least the 4 and 6 core Ryzens certainly will be.
It remains to be seen how faster the 6 core like the 1600X is in games or any of the 4 cores, but on this evidence it can surely only be slower than the 1700X seen here anyway.
Don't get me wrong, the productivity benches for Ryzen are off the charts and they could have a major winner in enterprise later in the year, but for gamers then it's a little bit of a 'meh.'
pan1c
Posts: 33 +20
I've seen several reviews where 6 core chips absolutely crush 4 core chips in battlefield 1 MULTIPLAYER. I am quite surprised that the 7700 comes out on top with only 4 cores.
Especially when playing 64 player multiplayer game sessions, Battlefield is Extremely taxing, resulting into not-so-good minimum framerates on 4 core chips.
"http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2562937"
Given the fact that I only play multiplayer games, and I value a strong minimum framerate, is there any chance we can get some more information on multiplayer performance?
Especially when playing 64 player multiplayer game sessions, Battlefield is Extremely taxing, resulting into not-so-good minimum framerates on 4 core chips.
"http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2562937"
Given the fact that I only play multiplayer games, and I value a strong minimum framerate, is there any chance we can get some more information on multiplayer performance?
Well the good news is it will be easier to frag the Ryzen Players. While there are dealing with screen tearing you snipe them in the head. Too easy
Someone explain this bias/discrepancy between numerous reviews concerning the power consumption specifically:
http://I.imgur.com/ToYGzSf.png
Idle/Load
1700: 49-132
1700x: 49-169
1800x: 49-174
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review?page=10
http://I.imgur.com/ToYGzSf.png
Idle/Load
1700: 49-132
1700x: 49-169
1800x: 49-174
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review?page=10
Clock speeds may be lower. Right now AMD uses same cores for server chips, 8-core Ryzens and 4/6 core Ryzens. Additionally 4/6 core Ryzens are 8-core Ryzens that have some cores disabled. So first 4/6-core Ryzens are probably worst functional chips, better ones go to servers or Ryzen 7 series.
This will change on around Q3 when Ryzen APU should come out and then we probably see native quad core Ryzens.
Why just 1080 p the game? I play always 2560x1080 or 3440x1440 or 2560x1440 . 1080p not good .
Wow tough crowd here today, all we see in the comments is:
1."zomfg what a piece of trash, you cant even OC it to 99GHz to show of bigger numbers that mean nothing really and shortens the lifespan of the product" Do you also take your minivan to some 1337 tuner shop and get an aftermarket ECU computer to get that extra 4 Kw out of the engine and put racing stickers all over it?
2. Ewww it only delivers totally smooth playable frame rates in games on release day and thats completely unacceptable, it has to at least do 14X faster frame rates than my monitor can support.. *siiiigh*
Maybe the chips don't boost for games like they do for other tasks because of some bios/chipset issue, give it a month at least. We're on launch day for crying out loud!
I think this is a REALLY good step for AMD and look forward to see where the budget chips lands, hoping those will be released soon!
Most normal folks want a cpu and motherboard thats <$100 each to make an affordable system. The highly vocal 5% of people with >$1000 monster rigs will not make AMD any money, they are just the advertising.
Just like with cars, corolla makes the money not the lexus.
1."zomfg what a piece of trash, you cant even OC it to 99GHz to show of bigger numbers that mean nothing really and shortens the lifespan of the product" Do you also take your minivan to some 1337 tuner shop and get an aftermarket ECU computer to get that extra 4 Kw out of the engine and put racing stickers all over it?
2. Ewww it only delivers totally smooth playable frame rates in games on release day and thats completely unacceptable, it has to at least do 14X faster frame rates than my monitor can support.. *siiiigh*
Maybe the chips don't boost for games like they do for other tasks because of some bios/chipset issue, give it a month at least. We're on launch day for crying out loud!
I think this is a REALLY good step for AMD and look forward to see where the budget chips lands, hoping those will be released soon!
Most normal folks want a cpu and motherboard thats <$100 each to make an affordable system. The highly vocal 5% of people with >$1000 monster rigs will not make AMD any money, they are just the advertising.
Just like with cars, corolla makes the money not the lexus.
Similar threads
- Locked
