Coulomb_Barrier said:

Surely CS:GO at 720p would expose the miniscule fps differences between CPUs better than trying to using GTA5.

I don't know what some of you are expecting. Playing games at 1080p or above using a card on the level of 1060, 470, 970, 390X, 1070 etc, the differences between Ryzen and a 7700K or even a 4790K are going to be utterly irrelevent and fps will be indistinguishable.

Minimum frames will be the same. In terms of average fps, you'd need a Titan X and play at 720p to expose differences, and even then these 3-8 fps differences are not detectable by tge human eye.

Click to expand...

PdotMichael said:

I don't even know why peoplet care about anything 8 core if they just want to play games. Just buy a i7 and call it a day.

Click to expand...

PdotMichael said:

I don't even know why peoplet care about anything 8 core if they just want to play games. Just buy a i7 and call it a day.

Click to expand...

DerZuhälter;231319534 said:

What time does the embargo drop today? Or is it tomorrow?

Click to expand...

Coulomb_Barrier said:

Minimum frames will be the same.

Click to expand...

Rentahamster said:

https://twitter.com/LinusTech/status/837088055769059328

lol

Click to expand...

Durante said:

Even AMD's own benchmarks show that this is not necessarily the case in all games.

Click to expand...

DerZuhälter;231319534 said:

What time does the embargo drop today? Or is it tomorrow?

Click to expand...

PdotMichael said:

I don't even know why peoplet care about anything 8 core if they just want to play games. Just buy a i7 and call it a day.

Click to expand...

Durante said:

Even AMD's own benchmarks show that this is not necessarily the case in all games.

Click to expand...

Coulomb_Barrier said:

Well we've got a few hours until we find out, if someone has these metrics in their review that is.

Click to expand...

Vipu said:

Few? Isnt it in 1h 15min?

Click to expand...

As this is being posted, we're still frantically writing up the review, so stay tuned as the official embargo time lifts at 9am ET, and not a minute sooner...

Click to expand...

PdotMichael said:

I don't even know why peoplet care about anything 8 core if they just want to play games. Just buy a i7 and call it a day.

Click to expand...

It's been a long time coming, but AMD Ryzen is here and it looks impressive. Though we only have the Ryzen 7 1800X in our results today I am eager to get back home and get to testing the 1700X and 1700 models and see if they offer as compelling of an alternative to Intel's dominance as the 1800X does. For $499 I foresee quite a few enthusiasts plopping down the dough to get an 8-core/16-thread beast of a processor in their rig.

Even better, with the new chipsets and motherboards from ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte and others, going with an AMD platform doesn't automatically put you behind the 8-ball when it comes to storage and connectivity! Platforms with NVMe slots, USB 3.1, Type-C and more are widely available and starting at $100 going to $300 depending on the number of goodies you desire.

We still have questions and not everything is perfect. The single threaded performance between the Ryzen 7 1800X and the Core i7-7700K leans in Intel's favor across the board, with that advantage moving from mid-single digits to 25%+ depending on the application. Gaming results are particularly concerning as AMD has been pushing Ryzen as a gamers and enthusiasts dream solution, combining ”good enough" gaming ability with amazing multi-threaded capability.

It's hard to argue with what we see today though and I'll be awarding the Ryzen 7 1800X with our Gold Award, offering the performance of a Core i7-6900K for half the price!

Click to expand...

Any of the Ryzen 7 series processors will be fine for whatever you want to do with it. Even the cheapest of them all (the Ryzen 7 1700) which we have not reviewed but hopefully will test in the coming weeks, will offer you a nice gaming experience and the raw power to perform serious content creation as well. Today we have seen the first results on the flagship 8-core model, the Ryzen 7 1800X, and we like it just as much as we like the similar product from Intel. The thing is, this CPU is half the price of what Intel is charging, and AMD doesn't have expensive chipsets either so the motherboards will be very affordable as well. What if you are already own a 6 or 8 core Intel processor setup? Honestly, there's little to no reason for you to upgrade considering the performance overall remains at the same level, and that is the brutal honest truth. This also applies for users with a fast quad-core processor like the recent 6700K or 7700K.

The step upwards to Ryzen 7 for the folks that actually need and waited for a well deserved upgrade, the guys that have been waiting for a price/perf competitive 8-core processor series and the intent to give AMD some well-deserved support after a couple of gruesome years. In the weeks and months to come AMD will release 6-core and, later on, 4-core Ryzen processors as well. These are incredibly fascinating and exciting times for AMD. Now I did make some remarks, we find the number of PCIe 3.0 lanes rather skinny, and the chipset lanes to be sober at Gen 2. Next to that, the Ryzen processors do not offer quad-channel memory support which we feel is a miss. Also I need to make one more remark on memory, if you like to go with high frequency memory, say, 3200 MHz, you need to stick with two DIMMs for now. There is still a lot of tweaking to be done at BIOS level with a platform this young. We have no doubt that a four DIMM high frequency configuration will be supported at a later stage though. But for now four DIMMs at 2400 MHz would be the maximum (depending on motherboard manufacturer). Please base your memory purchase choices on what the motherboard manufacturer advises (check their QVL list). Your sweet spot memory might be 2667 MHz with two DIMMs. Configure the memory manually in the BIOS (freq/timings/voltage) and you should be on your way. Right, that said and done I think this conclusion page has had enough information for you to chew over. For me it is simple: If you never could afford the E series Intel platforms, here's your chance my man as Ryzen 7 and an X370 or B350 motherboard will ooze in pure value with similar to sometimes even better performance and similar features to what the competition offers.

As stated, game performance is not yet where it needs to be in 1080P. This is something that might be fixed with firmware and software updates as the per core performance that Ryzen offers simply can do it. This is the only real nag that we stumbled into, we'll keep you updated once AMD has solved this. Who knows, it might also be something isolated on our end but we are missing at least 10% perf here in some of the games, but not all of them.

Energy consumption, 95 Watts for the flagship processor, which is just terrific stuff. Under full load however it might consume a little more then expected, but here again it's good enough. AMD is paving the way to 8-core processors at more mainstream to high-end prices. This in the end will enable many more many core builds and we project that now, more than ever, we'll see a much faster adoption rate for more threaded applications like games. This processor could be a win-win for everyone except Intel. If you like a little extra bite out of the processor, simply set your multiplier at 40, the memory at 2667 or 3000 MHz and leave the rest at default and you'll be pretty amazed as to what this setup offers with 8 cores clocking in at 4000 MHz. Value for money wise, not only are the processors are much cheaper, the motherboards and chipsets are as well. So bang for buck wise this a no brainer really. We hope to have our 1700 and 1700X review up soon as well. And if we are able to run that 329 USD Ryzen 7 1700 close to 4 GHz, then that's probably where you'll hit a very sweet-spot investment wise. Fact is that AMD might have struck gold with Ryzen, yet they're charging you a silver price. These processors are pure value.

Click to expand...

For gaming, it's a hard pass. We absolutely do not recommend the 1800X for gaming-focused users or builds, given i5-level performance at two times the price. An R7 1700 might make more sense, and we'll soon be testing that.

AMD defends its position by indicating the ISVs need to begin supporting their product, and has provided us statements from StarDock and Bethesda relating to this. To these statements, we'd remind folks that games take a long time to develop. Buying a CPU now in the hopes that games will better leverage 16T CPUs in a few years is a risky move – particularly with Bethesda's track record for game optimization.

Regardless, we'll provide the quotes that AMD passed along:

”Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its 8-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases." - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

Note that the above was in response to poor performance of the 1800X in Ashes of the Singularity.

And:

"Creative Assembly is committed to reviewing and optimizing its games on the all-new Ryzen CPU. While current third-party testing doesn't reflect this yet, our joint optimization program with AMD means that we are looking at options to deliver performance optimization updates in the future to provide better performance on Ryzen CPUs moving forward. " – Creative Assembly, Developers of the Multi-award Winning Total War Series

This, we believe, was a response to the Total War: Warhammer performance that we observed, given Creative Assembly's previous partnerships with AMD to promote the FX-6350 CPUs.

AMD's best wasn't enough for gaming workloads. If production is your thing, check the relevant benchmark page for more information. The priceerformance in that category is the one saving grace for the R7 1800X.

The R7 1700 may prove a better value for gaming; we'll have those benchmarks shortly. For now, though, the 1800X is a disappointment, and is not a processor we recommend for gamers when considering the price-point. If you were to buy it, disable SMT for gaming. It's mostly detrimental, likely due to resource contention among threads in gaming environments. Even mixed workload users should consider when and where software acceleration is better than GPU acceleration, if ever for their needs, before purchasing the 1800X. Do the research on your applications. For what we do with media production, it makes no sense to render software-accelerated; that doesn't mean it never makes sense.

But yes: The 1800X is an impressive competitor to the 6900K in production, and it's significantly cheaper. We'd recommend the 1800X over the 6900K for folks who genuinely use software acceleration. It's just not good for gaming, and GPUs kill both AMD and Intel CPUs in accelerated rendering.

Click to expand...

AMD Ryzen R7 1800X: Conclusion
"Filed but not overtaken" one could summarize the first impressions of AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X purely from performance view - but the invoice is made without the price. It is true that the Ryzen 7 1800X especially in games does not match the latest Intel CPUs, but it costs only about half of a Core i7-6900K. This is due to the fact that the more multithreading and the less inter-core communication and the less memory performance an application requires, some of them are close to the pellet, sometimes even in the front. It is hardly surprising that the performance in Cinebench is one of the strongest parts of the Ryzen CPU. Also video transcoding with x264 for example, the Ryzen 7 1800X mastered with flying colors and works comparatively efficiently: The maximum consumption of the overall system in the highly optimized y-Cruncher is below that of the Intel Eight-Core. We are eager to see how the current versions such as the Ryzen 7 1700 will beat.

In games it looks less good - especially with activated SMT. This, like the inter-CCX communication, often proves to be a brake. Here AMD has to convince the developers, with good documentation and good support, to enter into their architecture, then the game performance could make a medium to long-term a bigger leap. Exciting is the still good performance in Crysis 3: Here Bulldozer already scored points, although the two AMD architectures on the paper have little to do with each other.

Due to the time constraints, we are shifting the overclocking into a later article - but the 4 GHz limit should be quite crackable.

Click to expand...

The results are in, and while I'll be spending more time in the coming days and weeks testing some more (extensive gaming benchmarks are coming), I think the tests included here paint an interesting picture worth analyzing.
When it comes to productivity and content creation, the new Ryzen 7 CPUs are very impressive. Premiere Pro and Excel performance output is incredible. The gaming performance was less exciting. We always knew this was one area where Ryzen might struggle against the empire, so while the results are a little disappointing, they aren't entirely surprising either.
AMD liked to show off Ryzen's gaming capabilities running at 4K using a Pascal Titan X and we all know this isn't how you test CPU gaming performance because it imposes a GPU bottleneck that virtually eliminates the impact the CPU may have, within reason anyway.

One thing I did notice is that all the games I have looked at so far -- which is considerably more than the four shown here -- were smooth on the Ryzen processors. GTA 5 for example plays really well on the Core i7-7700K, but every now and then a small stutter can be noticed, while the 1800X runs as smooth as silk, sans stuttering from what I observed.
I found a similar situation when testing Battlefield 1. Performance was smooth with the Ryzen processors while every now and then the quad-core 7700K had a small hiccup. These were rare but it was something I didn't notice when using the 1800X and 1700X. But as smooth as the experience was, it doesn't change the fact that gamers running a high refresh rate monitor may be better served by a higher clocked Core i7-6700K or 7700K.
While the gaming results might not be as strong as we had hoped for, they are highly competitive and that should hold particularly true for the Ryzen 5 and 3 series. It's also worth noting that we are testing extreme gaming performance here with the Titan XP at 1080p. Ryzen looks more competitive at 1440p, and certainly so when paired with a GTX 1070 or Fury X.

Click to expand...

The good

• Eight cores and 16 threads at half the price of Intel
• Excellent performance in workstation applications
• AM4 is a modern, full-featured platform
• While only a small performance boost, XFR is zero-effort and works well

The bad

• Gaming performance is weak compared to Intel, particularly in modern titles
• Specialised AVX applications will perform better under Intel

The ugly

• A higher-clocked quad-core chip like the Intel i7-7700K or 7600K is still the best choice of processor for most

Click to expand...

Ryzen 7 is a king in applications

16 Threads That Make Steam! This is how the three newcomers are able to top up in many tests. If everything goes very well, the Ryzen 7 1800X even starts Intel's ten-core processor Core i7-6950X. The bottom line is the paradigm of the Ryzen 7 processors, which is shown in Linux, even though there are rare cases where the very high performance breaks down and the mainstream level of Intel's Core i7 And Core i5 (Kaby Lake). For the price called by AMD is Ryzen in applications, but clearly the expected battle and the server offshoot Naples with 32 cores, Intel will soon be competing in quite different areas neat competition.

In games but only a prince

In the game benchmarks with Full HD, Ryzen is comparable to the Core i7-6900K, on ​​average, at first sight comparable, but the detail view, but a full-blown image. Ryzen can significantly less favor an advantage over the Core i7-7700K compared to Broadwell-E and while Intel's 8-core CPU is never worse, is always the case with Ryzen again and again. The result is the Core i7-7700K in games before AMD's new top model.

The change to the even less graphic card demanding HD resolution increases the backlog: the Intel Core i7-6900K is an average of 20 percent more than twice as strong as in leadership applications. And in the top it is up to 40 percentage points difference. A clear line is not visible. Times also benefits Ryzen, when Broadwell-E faces Kaby Lake, sometimes the exact opposite is the case. At the quad-channel interface, ComputerBase checked this time separately, is not. And by switching off the virtual cores Broadwell-E profits at least as well. The assumption suggests that the L3 cache plays a role, but this is not confirmed.

In games, Kaby Lake stays ahead

The result for players is quite different from that for users who are looking for a lot of CPU performance in applications. Because the cheaper Core i7-7700K is currently on average not only slightly faster, in some benchmarks, Ryzen also drops significantly. In a game computer is usually the graphics card rather than the processor's bottleneck, in terms of pure CPU performance, AMD's 8-core processors are missing in games but at present, a powerful argument, the extra charge against Kaby Lake justifies: If you're looking for a CPU for up-to-date games and do not want the last bit of performance in applications, Kaby Lake. And this is the surprise for the editorial team after a week of testing.

The fact that new BIOS versions will be able to release significantly more performance in the "affected" games should not leave players as much as in the future even more advantages of multi-core (or multi-cache) CPUs in games . According to current knowledge, this is more likely to benefit Broadwell-E, but not Ryzen. What is the exact cause is, however, to be clarified over the next days and weeks. The international press did not have a plausible answer in the run-up to the publication.

Click to expand...

PdotMichael said:

I don't even know why peoplet care about anything 8 core if they just want to play games. Just buy a i7 and call it a day.

Click to expand...

Kayant said:

It begins -

Pcper - https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen
Guru3d - https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,1.html
Gamers Nexus - http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks


Videos -
LinusTechTips - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJQEHNYE7M&user=LinusTechTips
PCper - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b-CnNPk0CI&user=pcper
Austin Evans - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enr7xqAUvUg&user=duncan33303
Gamers Nexus - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBHjtCXhU&user=GamersNexus

Click to expand...

Tacklemacain said:

Are there reviews of the 1700?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lactose_Intolerant said:

Gaming results not looking good but seems like a good chip for work.

Click to expand...

Coulomb_Barrier said:

Well we've got a few hours until we find out, if someone has these metrics in their review that is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lactose_Intolerant said:

From http://www.sweclockers.com/test/23426-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-och-7-1700x

edit: my eyes

Click to expand...

Tacklemacain said:

Looks like the 1700 and 1800x perform the same, when overclocked, or am i overlocking something?

Click to expand...

Lactose_Intolerant said:

From http://www.sweclockers.com/test/23426-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-och-7-1700x
edit: my eyes

Click to expand...

nubbe said:

Good value chip
But gaming performance isn't where I need it to be to upgrade from the i7 3930k

AMD got something going now, I got hopes for a tuned chip in a year or two.
SAD!

Click to expand...

DouglasteR said:

Well, something is clearly wrong with Ryzen at 1080p.

Click to expand...

Overclocking The adventure took eventual end abruptly at 4.05 GHz, which was the highest stable level we could reach at 1.45 V. Higher voltages than that resulted in extreme heat supplement, which was simply unmanageable for conventional cooling solutions. It is worth mentioning that the temperatures were a bit over 80 ° C at full load with the closed water cooling solution of 4.05 GHz.
Concluding thoughts about overclocking the AMD Ryzen

It's hard to know what to expect to happen with overclocking the new processor architectures, and it does not get easier when AMD itself claims that "from 4.2 to 4.3 GHz should be attainable for most people at 1,45 V '. After discussions with other media and motherboard manufacturers, it is clear that the reality is different, where most strikes in a hard wall between 4.0 and 4.1 GHz without exotic cooling methods like dry ice or liquid nitrogen.

Click to expand...

g859 said:

1080p results are disappointing, but at 1440p, the 1800X is much closer to Intel (at least looking at Guru3D's review). Luckily 1440p is my use case, but I wonder if BIOS revisions will improve performance at 1080p or if it's just an inherent deficiency with Ryzen at that resolution?

Click to expand...