AMD Ryzen R7 1800X performance review - TechPowerUp

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

True, he's not always correct as he's only a person and even LTT videos have meritorical mistakes.

Yet. Within a month this should be fixed, at least according to AMD themselves.

I believe it could increase the performance by quite a bit as it directly improves Infinity Fabric's bandwidth by a lot, especially that TPU proved that setting the RAM at 2667MHz with the CPU at 3,6GHz made the 1800X faster than if it was OC'd to 4,0GHz but with RAM at 2133MHz...

This is a very, very dumb argument. I can send you a multitude of benchmarks that show the 1800X completely OBLITERATING the 7700K. That doesn't mean that Intel is garbage, it's just that Intel is better in gaming but MUCH worse in productivity and heavy tasks for the money.

 

What would you like to know? I'm quite familiar with the architecture myself.

The CCX problem that CostcoSamples said. What is it, I don't quite understand.

[PCGuy_5960]

If you want to see how Ryzen performs in even more games check out this review :

 

[Morgan MLGman]

7 minutes ago, Zackbare said:

The CCX problem that CostcoSamples said. What is it, I don't quite understand.

AMD Ryzen R7 lineup is made out of two CCXs (Core Complexes) which contain four physical cores each. They're connected through Infinity Fabric high-bandwidth interconnect which seems to be AMD's own implementation and an improvement over Intel's QPI Link. Infinity Fabric is not only faster with 2133MHz RAM than QPI, but its bandwidth increases hugely with higher memory speeds.

 

Six-core R5 Ryzen chips will have one core in each CCX disabled, making it a 3+3 CPU. Quad-core parts will be 2+2. That is most likely related to the fact that each CCX supports one memory channel and for RAM to work in a dual-channel mode, you need two CCXs.

 

As for the memory support, AMD said that they need to roll out a microcode update that fixes issues with having multiple RAM sticks at high frequencies so for the time being they're recommending using 2667MHz max, though a bit under 3000MHz still works fine. The update should come within a month or so.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

35 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

An important note: The R7-series isn't meant for gaming, if you're looking for that in the Ryzen lineup, look at the 4C/8T and 6C/12T parts that will come in April.

 

And I think this is what's most interesting to people on this forum so let's get to it, a few gaming benchmarks:

 

It's so sad to read those two lines one after the other. But you are correct  

 

13 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

AMDs core complex (CCX) design is possibly their downfall.  While it would benefit from high memory speed (in theory), nothing beyond 2667 mhz is supported!  =(

 

It also means that the 4c/8t and 6c/12t CPUs are going to suffer the same fate as the 8c/16t models, in terms of speed.  Don't expect high clock speeds!  AMD has already confirmed these cheaper parts will have the same CCX layout...  

You can see almost any reviewer usin 2933, and some of them using higher RAM. Official support for RAM is always pessimistic, Intel itself reports 2133 or 2400 for DDR4, which almost nobody is bound by. There are problems getting the most out of RAM, though, but it's more subtle than that. I'd recommend to you the topic about CCX and RAM speeds in this same subforum

 

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Unless we're talking frametimes, cause then i5's and i3's look just plain sad And it directly affects gameplay smoothness.

 

There's no information on the testing setup there. And if I have to judge but the usual methodology, it's probably using some high end GPU to "make CPU the limiting factor".

It's all interesting for the sake of science, but at the end of the day it doesn't change my view on i7s and i5s. If you are gamer, look at yourself in the mirror and repeat: "I am a gamer. I am a 3D gamer. I judge computers based on their 3D performance. My system is built around the GPU, my obsession with CPUs is delusional". Then go and see what is the best GPU you can realistically get, and then look for the cheapest CPU that is able to feed it. Most of the times, the answer will be "Intel i5", because it pushes as many frames as the average Joe Gamer's GPU can draw.

Of course, gamers with too much money for their own good or people going for overkill systems may get a 1080 ti, 4k or 1440p144hz monitors, get the latest i7 and complain that it stills "bottlenecks", I'm not saying the sales of i7s should be zero. But the usual recommendation of going for i5s was a perfectly sound advice based on a "bang for your back" reasoning, given the price premium intel charges for i7s.

We can only hope that R5s to induce changes in the pricing scheme so that i7s can fall rationally into the radar of average gamers.

[ApolloFury]

32 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

-snip-

Again, for some reason most people are only looking at it from a gaming perspective when it is designed to be more than that.

 

Do keep in mind that the 7700K is 200 MHz higher with 3000 MHz RAM compared to 2666.

Even in its weakness called "gaming" it is only 5-11% slower, so Intel is not exactly "killing it" when it beats the 7700K in productivity handily (more than 40%)

 

 

And also look at the power consumption.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Intel is just killing it.

Please explain again without cherry picking graphs where you only show the 7700K having a big leap in "gaming".

[Morgan MLGman]

5 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's so sad to read those two lines one after the other. But you are correct  

 

There's no information on the testing setup there. And if I have to judge but the usual methodology, it's probably using some high end GPU to "make CPU the limiting factor".

It's all interesting for the sake of science, but at the end of the day it doesn't change my view on i7s and i5s. If you are gamer, look at yourself in the mirror and repeat: "I am a gamer. I am a 3D gamer. I judge computers based on their 3D performance. My system is built around the GPU, my obsession with CPUs is delusional". Then go and see what is the best GPU you can realistically get, and then look for the cheapest CPU that is able to feed it. Most of the times, the answer will be "Intel i5", because it pushes as many frames as the average Joe Gamer's GPU can draw.

Of course, gamers with too much money for their own good or people going for overkill systems may get a 1080 ti, 4k or 1440p144hz monitors, get the latest i7 and complain that it stills "bottlenecks", I'm not saying the sales of i7s should be zero. But the usual recommendation of going for i5s was a perfectly sound advice based on a "bang for your back" reasoning, given the price premium intel charges for i7s.

We can only hope that R5s to induce changes in the pricing scheme so that i7s can fall rationally into the radar of average gamers.

Yeah, I know that, though I personally wouldn't buy a 4C/4T CPU for my main rig in 2016/2017 era, it's just not good enough for highest-end GPUs and the GPU market evolves a lot faster than the CPU market...

 

It's like, you essentially will be able to get the cheapest R5 6C/12T CPU for the price of an i5-7600 (non-K) here in Poland, and considering that Ryzen's IPC is at around Broadwell's level then I'd very much like three times the threads + overclocking capabilities for the same price...

[Okjoek]

I think The R7 1800X doesn't seem like a really good deal to a mainstream user like me. The R7 1700 though, THAT is a tempting offer, I still think I'd be better off saving money with a cheaper 4 or 6 core CPU of the R5 or R3 SKU.

 

While the R3 is supposed to make entry-level quad cores a fair bit cheaper, I'm not sure they should have completely threw out the concept of dual cores because IMO the intel's newer Pentiums are an amazing deal.

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

Again, for some reason most people are only looking at it from a gaming perspective when it is designed to be more than that.

Ryzen 7 is not a gaming CPU. If you only care about gaming, get the 7700K or the 6800K and call it a day. If you are editing videos, get Ryzen, it is a no brainer!

[PCGuy_5960]

7 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

And also look at the power consumption.

 

Idk... Their results seem a bit weird, everyone else has gotten higher power consumption results...

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

While the R3 is supposed to make entry-level quad cores a fair bit cheaper, I'm not sure they should have completely threw out the concept of dual cores because IMO the intel's newer Pentiums are an amazing deal.

AMD's own competition to the Pentium lineup should be released later this year, I'm not sure how it's gonna be called but it's going to be a successor to the Athlon (lower-end) lineup. It should release along APUs as latest Athlons were usually APUs with the iGPU disabled (ex. 750K/880K).

 

Though I'm not certain whether there will be dual-core options available.

[Guest]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Idk... Their results seem a bit weird, everyone else has gotten higher power consumption results...

Probably should look for better reputed source

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Idk... Their results seem a bit weird, everyone else has gotten higher power consumption results...

 

Just now, Zackbare said:

Probably should look for better reputed source

Nah, it just depends on the workload:

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

AMDs core complex (CCX) design is possibly their downfall.  While it would benefit from high memory speed (in theory), nothing beyond 2667 mhz is supported!  =(

 

It also means that the 4c/8t and 6c/12t CPUs are going to suffer the same fate as the 8c/16t models, in terms of speed.  Don't expect high clock speeds!  AMD has already confirmed these cheaper parts will have the same CCX layout...  

Was just reading about this today and was SO upset that the 4/8 core/thread CPU is still basically two modules instead of a single entire module from the 1700+ line. 

 

But, even that would have likely resulted in single channel memory. 

 

[LeStringMan]

18 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

AMD Ryzen R7 lineup is made out of two CCXs (Core Complexes) which contain four physical cores each. They're connected through Infinity Fabric high-bandwidth interconnect which seems to be AMD's own implementation and an improvement over Intel's QPI Link. Infinity Fabric is not only faster with 2133MHz RAM than QPI, but its bandwidth increases hugely with higher memory speeds.

 

Six-core R5 Ryzen chips will have one core in each CCX disabled, making it a 3+3 CPU. Quad-core parts will be 2+2. That is most likely related to the fact that each CCX supports one memory channel and for RAM to work in a dual-channel mode, you need two CCXs.

 

As for the memory support, AMD said that they need to roll out a microcode update that fixes issues with having multiple RAM sticks at high frequencies so for the time being they're recommending using 2667MHz max, though a bit under 3000MHz still works fine. The update should come within a month or so.

Infinity Fabric is based upon, and is an improvement on AMD's Hypertransport Link, HT Link was first introduced in 2003 in AMD cpus, and replaced the traditional Front Side Bus, Intel's QuickPath Interconnect does the same thing and was introduced in 2008. 

[TOMPPIX]

11 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

 

Nah, it just depends on the workload:

 

 

huehue and here we have even further proof that no games even utilize the ryzen 7 cpu properly, no games really take advantage of all 8 cores. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

AMD Ryzen R7 lineup is made out of two CCXs (Core Complexes) which contain four physical cores each. They're connected through Infinity Fabric high-bandwidth interconnect which seems to be AMD's own implementation and an improvement over Intel's QPI Link. Infinity Fabric is not only faster with 2133MHz RAM than QPI, but its bandwidth increases hugely with higher memory speeds.

 

Six-core R5 Ryzen chips will have one core in each CCX disabled, making it a 3+3 CPU. Quad-core parts will be 2+2. That is most likely related to the fact that each CCX supports one memory channel and for RAM to work in a dual-channel mode, you need two CCXs.

 

As for the memory support, AMD said that they need to roll out a microcode update that fixes issues with having multiple RAM sticks at high frequencies so for the time being they're recommending using 2667MHz max, though a bit under 3000MHz still works fine. The update should come within a month or so.

A very good point. Single channel memory on the lesser sku's would have killed them. 

 

AMD still made strange concessions with this architecture that you would of thought they learned from with bulldozer. 

 

I know it probably cuts down on costs and allows them to be more competitive with pricing but I would have rather see them go all in and come out with a product that is directly competitive or even dethrones Intel. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

huehue and here we have even further proof that no games even utilize the ryzen 7 cpu properly, no games really take advantage of all 8 cores. 

It's a look to future by AMD, like macbook's thunderebolt, which are highly criticized, but people still agree it's the thing of future

[PCGuy_5960]

4 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

huehue and here we have even further proof that no games even utilize the ryzen 7 cpu properly, no games really take advantage of all 8 cores. 

Even if they could take advantage of 8 cores, Ryzen 7 would still be slower than the 6900K or the 6800K, because of the CCX issue...

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Zackbare said:

It's a look to future by AMD, like macbook's thunderebolt, which are highly criticized, but people still agree it's the thing of future

Ryzen CPUs don't support Thunderbolt

[TOMPPIX]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Even if they could take advantage of 8 cores, Ryzen 7 would still be slower than the 6900K or the 6800K, because of the CCX issue...

are 10-15 frames really worth over 500€?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Even if they could take advantage of 8 cores, Ryzen 7 would still be slower than the 6900K or the 6800K, because of the CCX issue...

But the CCX issue is with 5 series not 7, isn't that it?

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, TOMPPIX said:

are 10-15 frames really worth over 500€?

No, but they are worth $120 less The 6800K costs $380....

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Zackbare said:

But the CCX issue is with 5 series not 7, isn't that it?

With all Ryzen CPUs unfortunately

[MoonSpot]

1 minute ago, TOMPPIX said:

are 10-15 frames really worth over 500€?

Not even fucking close.

[TOMPPIX]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No, but they are worth $120 less The 6800K costs $380....

not where i live.

https://www.jimms.fi/fi/Product/Show/121135/bx80671i76800k/intel-broadwell-e-i7-6800k-lga2011-v3-3_4-ghz-15mb-boxed

and you need to add the price of the really expensive x99 motherboards too