bit-tech.net

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and AM4 Platform Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 110

Reply
Cei 2nd March 2017, 14:36 Quote
So AMD promised a gaming CPU. Yet it gets spanked by the i7 7700K, which is £140 cheaper, in the Ashes bench. Then the other gaming benchmarks don't bother with the 7700K and just use the 6850 and 6900? Why didn't you include it Bit-Tech? In fact the pick of CPUs seems to vary with each test done. The cynic in me wonders if this is to make Ryzen look better?

Seems that AMD have come up with a very good workstation CPU, but one that isn't that good at gaming relative to its price (as an example, see https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_cpu_review/19)
Combatus 2nd March 2017, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
So AMD promised a gaming CPU. Yet it gets spanked by the i7 7700K, which is £140 cheaper, in the Ashes bench. Then the other gaming benchmarks don't bother with the 7700K and just use the 6850 and 6900? Why didn't you include it Bit-Tech?

Seems that AMD have come up with a very good workstation CPU, but one that isn't that good at gaming relative to its price (as an example, see https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_cpu_review/19)

Time has been extremely short on this one due to a delayed arrival of our press kit and we introduced several new games tests too. We already had numbers in Ashes for the 7700K as we run that in our usual Z270 benchmarks, but we didn't have time to test the 7700K in the new tests, nor get to the bottom of the issues with slow frame rates in Ashes.

The 6800K and 6900K were our priorities, as they are either the same price or have the same specification as the 1800X. With similar IPC, it doesn't take much to realise that a 7700K with similar IPC, that's running faster, either due to a faster turbo or higher overclock, is going to be quicker in games and other tasks that do rely on the CPU, but don't make use of more than four cores. That's what most people are seeing.
Cei 2nd March 2017, 14:46 Quote
RIghto, I hear you. Any chance of adding in 7700K benches for the other games? After all, AMD are going hard after the gaming enthusiast crowd with their marketing and it'd be a real shame to not offer a comparison to the cheaper i7.

It's a wake up call for Intel's pricing on the 6850/6900 for sure, but I think Ryzen is going to struggle to impact further down the stack and I worry about the performance of the R3/R5 units.
Combatus 2nd March 2017, 14:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
RIghto, I hear you. Any chance of adding in 7700K benches for the other games? After all, AMD are going hard after the gaming enthusiast crowd with their marketing and it'd be a real shame to not offer a comparison to the cheaper i7.

It's a wake up call for Intel's pricing on the 6850/6900 for sure, but I think Ryzen is going to struggle to impact further down the stack and I worry about the performance of the R3/R5 units.

Definitely. We're working on a board review at the moment and have some other bits to contend with, but as soon as we can we'll add some 7700K numbers to the rest of the graphs.
Vault-Tec 2nd March 2017, 14:55 Quote
Welcome back AMD :D
sandys 2nd March 2017, 14:55 Quote
Its easy to deduce if gaming is your thing Intels i7 is still king as whilst the IPC is broadly similar, Ryzen can't match the clock speeds.
Anfield 2nd March 2017, 14:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
So AMD promised a gaming CPU. Yet it gets spanked by the i7 7700K, which is £140 cheaper, in the Ashes bench

When AMD first showed Ryzen they used software like Blender and Handbrake and it was pretty much equal to the Intel HEDT CPUs, so not sure why some people expected Ryzen to be some gaming monster when even the £1600 10 Core from Intel gets beaten to a pulp by much higher clocked and cheaper Intel CPUs in some games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combatus
Definitely. We're working on a board review at the moment and have some other bits to contend with, but as soon as we can we'll add some 7700K numbers to the rest of the graphs.

From what I've seen across various reviews there are major issues with immature bios versions, so no need to rush:D
Vault-Tec 2nd March 2017, 14:58 Quote
Yeah like any new hardware : take caution.

I remember when my mate went Core 2 with DDR3. Complete nightmare.
Combatus 2nd March 2017, 15:00 Quote
BTW, AMD has just confirmed the existence of the 1600X and 1500X. The former is a 6-core part and while some rumours had the clock speed at 3.3GHz base, 3.7GHz turbo, these now stand at 3.6GHz base, 4GHz turbo.
Wakka 2nd March 2017, 15:00 Quote
At the end of the day, how many people use their PC's PURELY as gaming machines nowadays??

Ryzen 7 is offering gaming performance well in-line with Intel's top-end CPU's, which also lose out to the likes of the 6700/7700K because of clock speed differences, while still offering considerably higher performance outside of gaming. I don't know why anyone would want to compare a 7700K, as has been said that's a CPU that costs £140 less! Which by simple logic isn't what AMD are looking to offer an alternative to. Figure it out, lads.

My concerns are now to do with heat and power consumption at full load...
littlepuppi 2nd March 2017, 15:00 Quote
Looks like AMD are back but with caveats!

They are on the right road now for sure, but certainly not an intel smackdown..

TBH they were that fair behind this is really a great achievement, they now need to incrementally build on it and cash in on the good will there still is towards the company.
Vault-Tec 2nd March 2017, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlepuppi
Looks like AMD are back but with caveats!

They are on the right road now for sure, but certainly not an intel smackdown..

TBH they were that fair behind this is really a great achievement, they now need to incrementally build on it and cash in on the good will there still is towards the company.

It's all of the same caveats as any massively cored CPU though in fairness. They never make great gamers.

However, looking over some benchmarks today? the CPU doesn't seem anywhere near as important as it once was. I hardly saw any difference in capped 60hz gaming over the FX 6350 for example.
23RO_UK 2nd March 2017, 15:07 Quote
Dare I also mention the mass P67 board recall and immature Sandybridge BIOS's on release also - come to think of it my last hyperthreaded CPU was a 2600k (which fair play was awesome), simply because there was no viable competition at the time...

Now there is!!!

AMD are back in the game, that's good for all as far as I'm concerned ;)
Cei 2nd March 2017, 15:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
When AMD first showed Ryzen they used software like Blender and Handbrake and it was pretty much equal to the Intel HEDT CPUs, so not sure why some people expected Ryzen to be some gaming monster when even the £1600 10 Core from Intel gets beaten to a pulp by much higher clocked and cheaper Intel CPUs in some games.

From what I've seen across various reviews there are major issues with immature bios versions, so no need to rush:D

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AMD-RYZEN-ZEN-CPU_Enthusiast-Gaming-Performance-840x473.jpg
AMD have also been making a massive song and a dance about Ryzen for gaming, shooting hard for the enthusiast market. Their press events have been full of Battlefront/Battlefield or whatever, so whilst they have indeed been showing the Blender etc stuff you can't just wave a hand and deny the claims that Ryzen would be Top Stuff for games.

It's that mis-match that I've got issue with. AMD should have said from the outset that this is a workstation CPU, as opposed to being a £450 CPU that is equivalent to a £250 i5 6500K for games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakka
At the end of the day, how many people use their PC's PURELY as gaming machines nowadays??

Ryzen 7 is offering gaming performance well in-line with Intel's top-end CPU's, which also lose out to the likes of the 6700/7700K because of clock speed differences, while still offering considerably higher performance outside of gaming. I don't know why anyone would want to compare a 7700K, as has been said that's a CPU that costs £140 less! Which by simple logic isn't what AMD are looking to offer an alternative to. Figure it out, lads.

My concerns are now to do with heat and power consumption at full load...

I use my PC for games and, err, Word? Not sure I need an 8C/16T for that one.

Ryzen is offering gaming performance equivalent to an i5 6500K, at its top end. You can compare it to the 7700K quite easily, if you're after a gaming CPU.

As above, AMD should have been more honest with their marketing. They've done a great job at designing something that puts Bulldozer to shame, but it's a workstation CPU at the end of the day.


I hope Intel take notice and seriously revise their pricing strategy for their 6850/6900s. That's where AMD are disrupting.
Vault-Tec 2nd March 2017, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
Dare I also mention the mass P67 board recall and immature Sandybridge BIOS's on release also - come to think of it my last hyperthreaded CPU was a 2600k (which fair play was awesome), simply because there was no viable competition at the time...

Now there is!!!

AMD are back in the game, that's good for all as far as I'm concerned ;)

Any new launch is usually marred with problems. Usually RAM related, too. The amount of threads I have seen on other forums with people struggling to get their stupid fast RAM kits running on new boards.

And you're right, the Sandy/SATA thing was a nightmare for Intel.
Wakka 2nd March 2017, 15:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AMD-RYZEN-ZEN-CPU_Enthusiast-Gaming-Performance-840x473.jpg
AMD have also been making a massive song and a dance about Ryzen for gaming, shooting hard for the enthusiast market. Their press events have been full of Battlefront/Battlefield or whatever, so whilst they have indeed been showing the Blender etc stuff you can't just wave a hand and deny the claims that Ryzen would be Top Stuff for games.

It's that mis-match that I've got issue with. AMD should have said from the outset that this is a workstation CPU, as opposed to being a £450 CPU that is equivalent to a £250 i5 6500K for games.



I use my PC for games and, err, Word? Not sure I need an 8C/16T for that one.

Ryzen is offering gaming performance equivalent to an i5 6500K, at its top end. You can compare it to the 7700K quite easily, if you're after a gaming CPU.

As above, AMD should have been more honest with their marketing. They've done a great job at designing something that puts Bulldozer to shame, but it's a workstation CPU at the end of the day.


Eh?

I'm really struggling to figure out the argument you're trying to make. You say R7 offers gaming performance equal to an i5 6500K, AMD say they offer gaming performance equal to a 6850K/6900K - you know, the "enthusiast" CPU Intel sells for more than a lot of folks monthly mortgage/rent payment...

AMD IS shooting for the top-end, enthusiast market with R7 (and undercutting while doing it), so naturally that's where the comparisons should be made.

Don't blame AMD that a 6500K gives us the same gaming experience as an R7 or a 6900K, blame game developers... or thank 'em, depending on how much you have to spend.
Cei 2nd March 2017, 15:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakka
Eh?

I'm really struggling to figure out the argument you're trying to make. You say R7 offers gaming performance equal to an i5 6500K, AMD say they offer gaming performance equal to a 6850K/6900K - you know, the "enthusiast" CPU Intel sells for more than a lot of folks monthly mortgage/rent payment...

AMD IS shooting for the top-end, enthusiast market with R7 (and undercutting while doing it), so naturally that's where the comparisons should be made.

Don't blame AMD that a 6500K gives us the same gaming experience as an R7 or a 6900K, blame game developers... or thank 'em, depending on how much you have to spend.

I'm saying an R7 for £450 offers the same performance for gaming as a £250 6500K. Which means it's horrifically expensive for people who want a gaming CPU.

AMD say they offer gaming performance similar to a 6900K, which is true, except that isn't a CPU you'd buy to play games on. So it's a pointless comparison to draw. By all means chat about Ryzen's excellent pricing and performance on workstation-type tasks, where they hand Intel much-needed competition.

AMD shouldn't be selling/marketing this as a gaming CPU (which they have been doing, hard), because it isn't. It's an excellent workstation CPU. Their marketing department have once again done them a disservice.

EDIT: I hope the higher clocked 4-6 core Ryzens can claw something back.
runadumb 2nd March 2017, 15:38 Quote
I'll eyeballing the 1600X (depending on performance) so silly silly question for a site like this but...with Windows 10 not having keys how the hell do we upgrade?
Do I have to do it on the current install then i can do a reset and all will be good? TheN I can swap out the SSD for a nice new M2 SSD Aand do a clean install if I please?

It used to be so easy :/
tristanperry 2nd March 2017, 15:44 Quote
Nice review, glad to see it :)

So overall, it performs close to (and sometimes beats) an Intel CPU that is double the price, which is fairly stunning IMO considering where AMD have been financially.

The ashes of the singularity results are a bit lower than expected, especially as it's DX12, but will be interesting to see how much that's down to it simply being a new architecture with a beta BIOS.

Overall it's great to see AMD back and competitive.

<Troll mode>
Not sure why people are concerned about the 1800X overclocking performance. 5.36 Ghz is totally achievable.
</Troll mode>
Xlog 2nd March 2017, 15:55 Quote
* Does Rysen support ECC memory? Asrock List Ecc as supported in MB specs, Asus list only non-Ecc. Does this mean that Asrock run even ECC memory in non-ecc mode or just that Asus does not bother to support it officially?
* Looking at Asrock manual (asus did not bothered to publish theirs), there is an option for IOMMU (does asus have one?), does it actually work or is it as broken as it was in am2/3 era?
Wakka 2nd March 2017, 16:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
AMD say they offer gaming performance similar to a 6900K, which is true, except that isn't a CPU you'd buy to play games on. So it's a pointless comparison to draw.

But it is - Intel never marketed X99 as a "workstation only" platform, did they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
I'm saying an R7 for £450 offers the same performance for gaming as a £250 6500K. Which means it's horrifically expensive for people who want a gaming CPU.

No one (sensible;)) would argue with the fact that any mid-range i5 CPU offers more than enough CPU grunt to power a modern gaming rig - but if you're going to use that as a negative against the R7, you also have to apply it anything X99 too, in which case it becomes a moot point because THAT'S WHERE AMD wanted to grab the headlines, as an alternative to Intel's BEST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
AMD shouldn't be selling/marketing this as a gaming CPU (which they have been doing, hard), because it isn't. It's an excellent workstation CPU. Their marketing department have once again done them a disservice.

Again, this just strikes me as utter lunacy (apologies if that offends, I don't mean you in particular, but as an argument in general). Why on gods earth would AMD not make the biggest song and dance (heck, call it the CPU Superbowl) about the fact their £450 CPU can out-perform Intel's £800+ chips in gaming as well as multi-threaded workloads?!? It's not like they don't know a cheaper 7700K would offer better pure gaming results, just like Intel do with the 6850/6900, but they are trying to SELL A PRODUCT, so naturally you are going to paint it in the best possible light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
EDIT: I hope the higher clocked 4-6 core Ryzens can claw something back.

You and me, both! I'm hoping the 6c/12t can handle 4.2ghz with power consumption under current 4c/8t i7's and temps that don't need an AIO cooler.
Vault-Tec 2nd March 2017, 16:08 Quote
Whilst I agree Intel never marketed X99 as a workstation platform most of those who bought into it did so to escape the ridiculous prices of the Xeons.

I bought mine back when I was still doing a lot of design work. That never happened but I held onto it any way.

But yeah, compared to a Xeon an X99 CPU was positively cheap, and also unlocked. Meaning you could pretty much get the same performance out of a 5820k compared to one of their honkingly expensive 12 core CPUs when you overclocked.

Same as the Titan really. Loads of people bought them for DP. It's only recently Nvidia have stopped that (probably because they undercut their own Quadros and Tesla cards)

Only now are they marketed purely as a gaming card.
DbD 2nd March 2017, 16:13 Quote
Oh look another over-hyped AMD product falls off the cliff the moment it is released and has to meet reality (landing where those with more realistic expectations always expected). Now we get to suffer a month of downer AMD threads where everyone wonders why it didn't live up to the hype. Nothing if not predictable.
Wakka 2nd March 2017, 16:15 Quote
But from a purely marketing point of view, it'll be like someone releasing an electric car that offers the performance of a Tesla Model S for half the price, and arguing that "in normal road use" a Nissan Leaf will get you to work and back just as good.

AMD needed to shoot at the top and work down from there. That's what they did. We've known (well, had a pretty solid idea) for weeks now that R7 was going to be a cheap alternative to Intel's 6 and 8 core CPU's as a high-end platform upgrade, the question marks are now whether they can successfully scale that down with R5 and R3.
Anfield 2nd March 2017, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei
AMD have also been making a massive song and a dance about Ryzen for gaming, shooting hard for the enthusiast market. Their press events have been full of Battlefront/Battlefield or whatever, so whilst they have indeed been showing the Blender etc stuff you can't just wave a hand and deny the claims that Ryzen would be Top Stuff for games.

To be fair they are probably talking about the Ryzen product range as a whole and the R3 / R5 will be much more attractive to gamers than the R7 as prices will be significantly lower especially on the R3 that will start in locked down i3 territory.

I'm not saying the R7 series is the best way to spend your money if you approach it from purely a gaming centric point of view, because that is currently still the 7600k.

But once you throw in workloads besides gaming and also consider the whole Intel charges twice as much for the CPU alone factor... well the picture swings back in the favour of AMD.

Also with reviews you have to account for the low resolutions typically used, turn it up to 3440x1440 / 4K / beyond 4K and the GPU limitations will kill off the advantages other CPUs have.

Long story short, if you are mostly a gamer, wait for the cheap Ryzen chips to hit shelves.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums