D
DelJo63
Actually, that level of optimization can be specified, even compiling on one architecture and creating binaries for another - - it's a cross compiler,
AMD Ryzen Review: Ryzen 7 1800X & 1700X Put to the Test
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
no I don't think you scrolled through the next pages. here:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,20.html
To sum it up. it beats out 5960 in most cases, and sometimes evens out with 6900 and other times loses out, which is to be expected based on initial expectation. in most cases it loses in 1080P rresolution, but in most cases it evens out 6900 in 1440P and beats 5960 in 1440P. so if you're looking to ONLY game in 1080P and doing nothing else, yes, you're better off with an intel, but hell, if your budget can't even afford more than 1080P, you likely won't be able to afford a good graphics card anyway, in which case, an i5/i3 would do.
but I am defintely going to pull the trigger on a 1800X. I do A LOT of rendering, Encoding in HEVC 4K, and game a lot in 4K resolution. the 1800X is definitely more future ready and future proof for me.
but I am defintely going to pull the trigger on a 1800X. I do A LOT of rendering, Encoding in HEVC 4K, and game a lot in 4K resolution. the 1800X is definitely more future ready and future proof for me.
amstech
Posts: 2,688 +1,860
Do you have links?
I am looking at overclock.nets running thread of links and reviews, about 15-20 of them I have looked at so far ranging from various review sites and I am not seeing this.
Intels 7700k is beating the 1800X at just about every 2K benchmark I am viewing, sometimes its closer, others not so much.
You must also take into account only a few games will utilize the full power of some of these CPU's.
That being said, Ryzen is doing damn well and will lower Intels prices but I don't see it becoming a better 4K option, just a better bargain, like AMD has always been.
A lot of reviews don't get to mention exactly how turbo on Ryzen works as far as I've seen.
The 1800X has a base clock of 3.6 GHz and turbo of 4 GHz. But is it on all cores? Well ... no.
All cores can turbo at the same time just to 3.7 GHz, with only the first 2 cores going to 4 GHz. As for XFR and thermal headroom, that also applies only to the first 2 cores for 4.1 GHz.
So actually, having the whole CPU at 4.1 GHz is quite an achievement in overclocking given in the best case scenario, the stock CPU runs at 4.1/4.1/3.7/3.7/3.7/3.7/3.7/3.7.
The 1800X has a base clock of 3.6 GHz and turbo of 4 GHz. But is it on all cores? Well ... no.
All cores can turbo at the same time just to 3.7 GHz, with only the first 2 cores going to 4 GHz. As for XFR and thermal headroom, that also applies only to the first 2 cores for 4.1 GHz.
So actually, having the whole CPU at 4.1 GHz is quite an achievement in overclocking given in the best case scenario, the stock CPU runs at 4.1/4.1/3.7/3.7/3.7/3.7/3.7/3.7.
Ryzen is are aimed against 6900K, not 7700K. So forget comparing Ryzen against low thread high clock Intel CPU and make comparison between Ryzen and high thread, low clock Intel CPU.
$1000 6900K is very bad against $350 7700K in low thread software.
robb213
Posts: 352 +123
Seems some games are running better with SMT off.
http://wccftech.com/ryzen-gaming-benchmarks-roundup/
http://wccftech.com/ryzen-gaming-benchmarks-roundup/
no. now you're making the wrong comparison. not even intel's own 6900/5960 can compete with 7700K when it comes to low thread high clock speed gaming scenario. you have to compare 1800X with 6900/5960. and the 1800X slots right between the two, which IS very competitive.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
When using SMT, some programs will run slower. That's one problem with every CPU architecture using SMT, Including Intel's.
PC Gamer should realize that with Intel CPU's going to BIOS and disabling HT only way to go if user wants to avoid slowdowns.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
Since it was not addressed it's implicit that the Intel CPUs tested didn't have this issue. I don't believe this has been SOP for HT'd Intel processors.
All Intel CPU's slow down on some cases when HT is on vs HT off. That is because when using SMT, CPU core must make choice which of two (or more, SMT core is not limited to 2 threads) threads get highest priority. Wrong guess mean less important thread gets executed first and that means lower performance.
So yes, that (disabling HT on BIOS) is SOP on when using Intel CPU's if wanting to get best performance on every software.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
The software being discussed is games.
What I wrote appiles to games much better than average software. On most games disabling SMT mean higher performance.
Really? So I shouldn't own a computer at all if I mainly use it for is gaming and surfing? Will that Xbox fit the 1080 Ti I'm planning to buy? Will it drive a 4k monitor? Help us out here, oh wise and angry one.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"
You said it perfectly- this is more Corolla than Lexus.
There were plenty of Intel chips shown in these tests that were well under $1000. The i7-6700k is $310 and handily beat the $500 1800X in gaming.
Nobina
Posts: 4,651 +5,756
It's people that made all the hype. It's just in their nature I guess.
I think this is a very good CPU for work but most of the people here buy CPU just for games and it kinda lacks in that category. It comes down to prices now.
Burty117
Posts: 5,606 +4,487
@HardReset Good to see you back 
You're much calmer and less "Force everything AMD down your throat". I like the new @HardReset
Anyway, I am genuinely impressed with these new Ryzen CPU's. The fact the 1800x gets even close to a CPU DOUBLE the price has to be admired. Would I get one personally? No, I game mainly, would I buy one or recommend one to friends and family? Absolutely, The productivity tests I've been seeing around the web (3D rendering, Excel blah blah...) paints the 1800x and 1700x in a very good light and something I know certain friends would be interested in.
Well done AMD, For the first time in what feels like an eternity, I can recommend your CPU's again, this is a good day
EDIT: In case anyone thinks about going past here to see what HardReset replies with, basically I was wrong, he hasn't changed, just took him a few posts to warm up to his usual antics.
You're much calmer and less "Force everything AMD down your throat". I like the new @HardReset
Anyway, I am genuinely impressed with these new Ryzen CPU's. The fact the 1800x gets even close to a CPU DOUBLE the price has to be admired. Would I get one personally? No, I game mainly, would I buy one or recommend one to friends and family? Absolutely, The productivity tests I've been seeing around the web (3D rendering, Excel blah blah...) paints the 1800x and 1700x in a very good light and something I know certain friends would be interested in.
Well done AMD, For the first time in what feels like an eternity, I can recommend your CPU's again, this is a good day
EDIT: In case anyone thinks about going past here to see what HardReset replies with, basically I was wrong, he hasn't changed, just took him a few posts to warm up to his usual antics.
Last edited:
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
Again I'd argue that's not the case as PCGamer.com indicates this is an issue with Ryzen, not Core i7's and i3's. I would conceed that perhaps a driver does this in Windows automatically (a solution the author I linked suggests) but AMD's fixes sent to the reviewers of disabling in the BIOS is not a fix - that's a bug.
EEatGDL
Posts: 771 +501
@HardReset Good to see you back
You're much calmer and less "Force everything AMD down your throat". I like the new @HardReset
Anyway, I am genuinely impressed with these new Ryzen CPU's. The fact the 1800x gets even close to a CPU DOUBLE the price has to be admired. Would I get one personally? No, I game mainly, would I buy one or recommend one to friends and family? Absolutely, The productivity tests I've been seeing around the web (3D rendering, Excel blah blah...) paints the 1800x and 1700x in a very good light and something I know certain friends would be interested in.
Well done AMD, For the first time in what feels like an eternity, I can recommend your CPU's again, this is a good day
Agree, I remember having an AMD/Intel argument a long time ago with him. As time passed by and Intel kept giving us more of the same with an ever higher price it slowly fell from my grace. This is a so much needed market-shaker.
As for your (Burty) I'm in the same wagon of the second paragraph. I would not go from a X99 platform to Ryzen but there are many friends with Core i3s waiting for an upgrade and i7's are simply too prohibitive here (full 1-2 months of the average salary for a 7600K).
Raiderman
Posts: 68 +59
I'm sure if you use a little super glue and duct tape, you can squeeze that 1080 in. And yes, by all means, do us all a favor and buy an Xbox, because obviously you have no use for a Personal Computer. Typical n00b kiddo, that thinks a pc is used for gaming and surfing.
I will put this here for people wondering about the gaming results:
We had a lot of trouble benchmarking games with Ryzen. It seems we weren't the only ones, and many other reviewers have reported strangely low performance here. Our initial Asus board was plagued with bugs, and we saw some gains simply by switching to a Gigabyte or Asrock board. This really isn't the sort of behavior you'd expect, and AMD even acknowledged there were some issues with some Asus boards.
While we are pretty confident in our application test results, there could be some unresolved early issues with Ryzen and AM4 boards that is leading to strangely low gaming performance. We're not 100% sure what is going on there; Steve and I spent a while discussing what could be up, and we ended up confused more than anything else.
So if you're a gamer that's looking at our gaming results and thinking "that's disappointing", there could be an unresolved story here.
Of course one possible conclusion is simply that Ryzen isn't that amazing in games, but we're just not fully sure that is truly the case if all hardware was working correctly
EDIT: Don't get your hopes up about a potential fix. The results we achieved could be it, and you should make any buying decisions accordingly at this stage. The best thing may be to wait a few weeks just to make sure
not sure why your gaming results were weird. here is Guru 3d's extensive comprehensive test across both content creation, rendering, and gaming. their gaming result seem to be more on par with the initial expectation ie. either matches intel's 6900 or surpass it.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,9.html
I'm not impressed with the testing Guru3D did, they are normally more on it. Perhaps they had issues like I did which limited their time. For gaming benchmarks very few outlets did it correctly (without a GPU bottleneck). I would recommend checking Tom's Hardware or Gamers Nexus, they both did a very good job.
In the case of Ryzen no board I have would work with four modules at reasonable frequencies. Since I don't have 16GB sticks, I was limited to a 16GB capacity for testing, I believe most reviews were. The good news is it doesn't impact performance as no single application tested needs more memory with the exception of Premiere Pro but the performance was stellar there anyway.
A: Time was a huge issue.
B: Increasing the resolution will do one thing and one thing only, reduce the impact the CPU has and therefore reduce the margin between all CPUs.
veLa
Posts: 1,290 +1,089
This is exactly what I was expecting. I'm satisfied with this launch, and will consider upgrading come Black Friday.
Similar threads
