Does the Ryzen 1800X have a point?

[SketchPadGamer]

Watching and reading reviews on the subject the price for performance currently the Ryzen 7 1700 when over clocked can match a 1800X or oc'ed, can anyone explain to me what the point is of the 1800X, does it have it's place?

[The Sloth]

some people don't want to overclock 

[Glenwing]

3 minutes ago, SketchPadGamer said:

Watching and reading reviews on the subject the price for performance currently the Ryzen 7 1700 when over clocked can match a 1800X or oc'ed, can anyone explain to me what the point is of the 1800X, does it have it's place?

If you are looking for the exact amount of performance that a stock 1800X has, then yes get a 1700 and overclock it. If you are considering CPU value in general, the 1700 can overclock to 1800X levels, and the 1800X can overclock to >1800X levels, so... yeah. It's a higher performance CPU.

 

IMO the 1700X is basically the same thing for 80% the price, so I don't really know why people are only talking about the 1800X. I thought it would be more like the i7-2700K where everyone forgets it even exists because the i7-2600K was the same thing for a bit cheaper so everyone bought that. But, the community always surprises me...

[2FA]

The 1800X and 1700X have XFR while the 1700 does not. Otherwise, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[SketchPadGamer]

8 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

some people don't want to overclock 

I can relate to that.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

If you are looking for the exact amount of performance that a stock 1800X has, then yes get a 1700 and overclock it. If you are considering CPU value in general, the 1700 can overclock to 1800X levels, and the 1800X can overclock to >1800X levels, so... yeah. It's a higher performance CPU.

 

IMO the 1700X is basically the same thing for 80% the price, so I don't really know why people are only talking about the 1800X. I thought it would be more like the i7-2700K where everyone forgets it even exists because the i7-2600K was the same thing for a bit cheaper so everyone bought that. But, the community always surprises me...

So, it's place is to not need to overclock for it's performance? Is there reviews on a stable 1800X overclock?

[SketchPadGamer]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

The 1800X and 1700X have XFR while the 1700 does not. Otherwise, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Right I understand that, but even with XFR, the non-XFR chips are being able to OC and catch up at a lower price and are stable.

[2FA]

Just now, SketchPadGamer said:

Right I understand that, but even with XFR, the non-XFR chips are being able to OC and catch up at a lower price and are stable.

XFR has better control over voltage and clockspeed than regular a OC which allows the CPU to use less average power which also means less heat output, or at least that is what is claimed. Overclocking also disables XFR so again, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Glenwing]

3 minutes ago, SketchPadGamer said:

So, it's place is to not need to overclock for it's performance? Is there reviews on a stable 1800X overclock?

It's just a higher performance CPU than the 1700. If you overclock, then it's the same thing but with higher numbers. 1700 can overclock up to 1800X levels, 1800X can overclock to beyond 1800X levels.

[79wjd]

15 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

If you are looking for the exact amount of performance that a stock 1800X has, then yes get a 1700 and overclock it. If you are considering CPU value in general, the 1700 can overclock to 1800X levels, and the 1800X can overclock to >1800X levels, so... yeah. It's a higher performance CPU.

From the (albeit limited) reviews so far, a 1700 seems just as capable an overclocker as an 1800x. 

[SketchPadGamer]

1 minute ago, Glenwing said:

It's just a higher performance CPU than the 1700. If you overclock, then it's the same thing but with higher numbers. 1700 can overclock up to 1800X levels, 1800X can overclock to beyond 1800X levels.

Gotcha thanks for the information, in my mind just trying to figure if I want the 1800X overall

[Glenwing]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

From the (albeit limited) reviews so far, a 1700 seems just as capable an overclocker as an 1800x. 

It's a lottery as always, so that may be a result of a small sample size so far. We'll see though, if the 1700 goes just as high then I'm all for that.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

26 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

If you are looking for the exact amount of performance that a stock 1800X has, then yes get a 1700 and overclock it. If you are considering CPU value in general, the 1700 can overclock to 1800X levels, and the 1800X can overclock to >1800X levels, so... yeah. It's a higher performance CPU.

Can it, though? So far  everyone seems to be hitting the same limit on all of them... which makes sense, since they are essentially the same chip. Notice that the 1700 aren't overclocking to 1800x levels: so far, they are overclocking to OC'ed 1800x levels in comparable circumstances (around 8x4.0GHz in both cases).

16 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

The 1800X and 1700X have XFR while the 1700 does not. Otherwise, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

12 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

XFR has better control over voltage and clockspeed than regular a OC which allows the CPU to use less average power which also means less heat output, or at least that is what is claimed. Overclocking also disables XFR so again, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

All of them have XFR. The non-X caps at 50 extra MHz, while the X versions go a blasting 100 MHz above turbo  I think the difference is partially artificial to justify pricing, and partially to meet TDP targets.

 

11 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

It's just a higher performance CPU than the 1700. If you overclock, then it's the same thing but with higher numbers. 1700 can overclock up to 1800X levels, 1800X can overclock to beyond 1800X levels.

But why exactly? Binning? If you look at the FX lineup, for example, all CPUs of the same family are equally likely to OC to the same level. It's not like n 8320 or even 8320E overclocks systematically less than an 8370 (only the 9590 is probably pre-binned or something, as it's the only one getting into difficult territory). We don't currently have a similar comparison for Intel, since they only have 1 unlocked CPU per family. But that also tells me that all CPUs in the family would be the same lottery, and they know it, so keep it at 1 to prevent "overclocker arbitrage" (?)

Edited March 7, 2017 by SpaceGhostC2C
Forgot to clarify

[Glenwing]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Can it, though? So far  everyone seems to be hitting the same limit on all of them... which makes sense, since they are essentially the same chip.

All of them have XFR. The non-X caps at 50 extra MHz, while the X versions go a blasting 100 MHz above turbo  I think the difference is partially artificial to justify pricing, and partially to meet TDP targets.

 

But why exactly? Binning? If you look at the FX lineup, for example, all CPUs of the same family are equally likely to OC to the same level. It's not like n 8320 or even 8320E overclocks systematically less than an 8370 (only the 9590 is probably pre-binned or something, as it's the only one getting into difficult territory). We don't currently have a similar comparison for Intel, since they only have 1 unlocked CPU per family. But that also tells me that all CPUs in the family would be the same lottery, and they know it, so keep it at 1 to prevent "overclocker arbitrage" (?)

I believe I have committed the cardinal sin of assuming something...