AMD Ryzen R7 1800X performance review - TechPowerUp

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, Pohernori said:

Anyone willing to volunteer their 4c/8t i7 for a multibox test? 

 

 

I can do it, but I'd need some guidance

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I was also thinking about how amusing it would be if due to Ryzen there is a complete overhaul in memory cooling and overclocking, maybe people might join me in the memory water cooling club .

 

People have been far to critical of an extremely new and totally different architecture that is not similar to anything done before, you can't really write something off in it's first iteration and in the first week of it no less. The move from single core to dual core wasn't exactly smooth sailing for anyone and same goes for the move to quad cores. The CCX design my ultimately prove to not be as good as Intel's design, single unified compute units/cores, but it's good enough even now. All that without even bringing price in to it.

I agree. We also have to take into consideration that this is AMD's first attempt at 14nm. Intel's first attempt was Broadwell, which also didn't clock so well. If AMD can make another revision to this that overclocks even higher, then it's going to be fantastic, even with CCX. Granted, I don't expect 5ghz 8c CPU's, but 4.3/4.4ghz will be very respectable in my eyes. 

 

1 minute ago, Pohernori said:

Anyone willing to volunteer their 4c/8t i7 for a multibox test? 

 

 

I have to be at work in 20 minutes, so it will depend on the test, and how long it will take.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I can do it, but I'd need some guidance

 

 

You can use this for reference. It be best if you have overwatch. I'd just like to see if the the fps dips are really bad if I'm hammering the CPU. 

 

Say 50 Youtube chrome tabs + visual studio + android studio with an emulator running  +  "your typical mmo". I wanna see how 4c/8t will fare. 

 

 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Pohernori said:

Anyone willing to volunteer their 4c/8t i7 for a multibox test? 

Let us know what you are wanting to test, I've got quite a number of unused systems of various generations that can be used, even dual socket systems along with higher end single socket gaming focused ones. If the tests require GPUs then that could be problematic for me though, don't have any decent spare ones and my good ones are hard line in my gaming rig so basically impossible to take out and use for testing.

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

 

You can use this for reference. It be best if you have overwatch. I'd just like to see if the the fps dips are really bad if I'm hammering the CPU. 

 

Say 50 Youtube chrome tabs + visual studio + android studio with an emulator running  +  "your typical mmo". I wanna see how 4c/8t will fare. 

 

 

I have Overwatch, and Elder Scrolls Online, and enough ram to run a thousand chrome tabs without feeling it. I'll give that a go once I get home from work.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Granted, I don't expect 5ghz 8c CPU's, but 4.3/4.4ghz will be very respectable in my eyes. 

I'm assuming you mean base clocks for those figures? That'll almost certainly be totally up to fab improvements so basically out of AMDs hands unfortunately, they could do some tweaks on their end but that big of an increase is really up to GloFo.

[MageTank]

Just now, leadeater said:

I'm assuming you mean base clocks for those figures? That'll almost certainly be totally up to fab improvements so basically out of AMDs hands unfortunately, they could do some tweaks on their end but that big of an increase is really up to GloFo.

Oh, no. I meant overclocked, lol. Expecting 4.3/4.4 base out of an 8 core SKU is madness in my mind. Would be nice to see 3.8-4.0 base though, but even then, that's probably asking for a lot. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

Oh, no. I meant overclocked, lol. Expecting 4.3/4.4 base out of an 8 core SKU is madness in my mind. Would be nice to see 3.8-4.0 base though, but even then, that's probably asking for a lot. 

Hey, I like to dream high lol.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

17 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Let us know what you are wanting to test, I've got quite a number of unused systems of various generations that can be used, even dual socket systems along with higher end single socket gaming focused ones. If the tests require GPUs then that could be problematic for me though, don't have any decent spare ones and my good ones are hard line in my gaming rig so basically impossible to take out and use for testing.

 

Well that's unfortunate. I mainly want to see the varying fps in games on the 4c/8t i7s in games if Its processing other things as well. 

 

11 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I have Overwatch, and Elder Scrolls Online, and enough ram to run a thousand chrome tabs without feeling it. I'll give that a go once I get home from work.

 

Oh great, if you could run ESO(crowded area) + OW + 100 Chrome tabs and record a video to youtube to see the fps variance. That be nice 

[Citadelen]

On 2017-3-17 at 4:06 PM, Darth Revan said:

-snip-

Those are most -->definitely<-- due to the game mis-managing the CPU, updates fixing those issues in future in those games is entirely possible.

Edited March 18, 2017 by Citadelen

[MageTank]

14 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

Those are most defiantly due to the game mod managing the CPU, updates fixing those issues in future in those games is entirely possible.

 

I still love you.

[Citadelen]

Just now, MageTank said:

-snip-

Holy shit I never noticed that.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou

[Drak3]

12 hours ago, MageTank said:

Oh, no. I meant overclocked, lol. Expecting 4.3/4.4 base out of an 8 core SKU is madness in my mind. Would be nice to see 3.8-4.0 base though, but even then, that's probably asking for a lot. 

@leadeater Keep in mind, we've been seeing an extreme amount of consistency early on with overclocks, mostly 3.9-4GHz. Significantly more than what the silicon lottery allows for most, if not all, other chips. Me thinks that Ryzen is hitting a firmware issue that prevents it from achieving what it could be able to, and so far, only extreme cooling has been able to overcome it.

[MageTank]

Just now, Drak3 said:

@leadeater Keep in mind, we've been seeing an extreme amount of consistency early on with overclocks, mostly 3.9-4GHz. Significantly more than what the silicon lottery allows for most, if not all, other chips. Me thinks that Ryzen is hitting a firmware issue that prevents it from achieving what it could be able to, and so far, only extreme cooling has been able to overcome it.

Are you sure of this? It takes obscene voltages to go beyond this. If it were firmware related, I doubt any amount of voltage could overcome it. I simply chalk it up as early revision syndrome. They will likely know what to remove for next gen Zen (ha, that rhymes), and we might see clock speeds push up a little higher.

 

I simply think the reason we are seeing so many people hit these clocks, is because AMD already pushed them as hard as they could out of the gate. They didn't have too much room left for them. Another reason that they are all hitting the same clock speeds, might be (as GamersNexus pointed out) because the 1700's are actually 1800X's being sold as 1700's (typical AMD strat) for now to meet the initial high demands of Zen. After all, the 1700 was destined to be the biggest seller, not the 1800X since it actually matched the consumer i7 prices. 

 

I could be wrong though. I am wrong about a lot of things fairly often, lol. 

[Drak3]

Just now, MageTank said:

Are you sure of this? It takes obscene voltages to go beyond this. If it were firmware related, I doubt any amount of voltage could overcome it. I simply chalk it up as early revision syndrome. They will likely know what to remove for next gen Zen (ha, that rhymes), and we might see clock speeds push up a little higher.

 

I simply think the reason we are seeing so many people hit these clocks, is because AMD already pushed them as hard as they could out of the gate. They didn't have too much room left for them. Another reason that they are all hitting the same clock speeds, might be (as GamersNexus pointed out) because the 1700's are actually 1800X's being sold as 1700's (typical AMD strat) for now to meet the initial high demands of Zen. After all, the 1700 was destined to be the biggest seller, not the 1800X since it actually matched the consumer i7 prices. 

 

I could be wrong though. I am wrong about a lot of things fairly often, lol. 

I'm not entirely sure that those obscene voltages are actually being pushed to the CPU, a false reading, or if it's incorrectly reporting thermals and causing issues with safety systems.

 

Like I said, these overclocks seem way too consistent. Wouldn't you raise an eyebrow if the 6950X would only go up to 4GHz, and there were known issues in other areas of the CPU? But not just that, but that it would seem that the silicon lottery is largely not a thing here, we're not seeing winners or losers anywhere as near as we should. It's as if every chip is average, nothing sub par, nothing exceptional.

[Citadelen]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

-snip-

The 1800X actually has better silicon than the 1700X, and that is slightly better than the 1700. Silicon Lottery's findings show that the better the SKU, the higher chance you'll reach a certain clockspeed.

[MageTank]

Just now, Drak3 said:

I'm not entirely sure that those obscene voltages are actually being pushed to the CPU, a false reading, or if it's incorrectly reporting thermals and causing issues with safety systems.

 

Like I said, these overclocks seem way too consistent. Wouldn't you raise an eyebrow if the 6950X would only go up to 4GHz, and there were known issues in other areas of the CPU? But not just that, but that it would seem that the silicon lottery is largely not a thing here, we're not seeing winners or losers anywhere as near as we should. It's as if every chip is average, nothing sub par, nothing exceptional.

I would wait for a larger sample size before making a definitive conclusion on what is average or not. So far, lowest I've seen was 3.8, and highest i've seen was 4.2. 400mhz is not a large window at all, but again, it's hard to really conclude this to be the case when too many variables exist. Board quality seems to be a huge factor for how high you can get these Ryzen chips. I imagine people buying the 1700 and a budget board, won't be hitting 4.0 as easily as people buying 1800X's and C6H's. Again, I could be wrong, but I just don't know yet.

 

If it does turn out that 4ghz is the average for every CPU across every board, then I'd say you are right. It just seems that robust boards are required to hit these 4ghz clocks, so that is why I believe they are the "average ceiling" of Ryzen.

[marldorthegreat]

On 17/03/2017 at 4:03 PM, Zackbare said:

But the future is in multi threads, both of the companys are looking into it, when in future the games are optimized for it, AMD will kill it.

 

Is it though, are you sure. Because by the time that happens this cpu will be out of date by several years. for now single core performance is still king for gaming, and for now and the short term future (probably the next couple of years) it will probably stay that way, DX12 didnt take off and probably won't since a lot of gamers still are not using windows 10. 

[spartaman64]

they should have thrown in the 6900k also so people can stop freaking out

[RagnarokDel]

On 17/03/2017 at 0:20 PM, DocSwag said:

Yes, though what I'm saying is if you're looking for the ultimate gaming performance a 7700k is the way to go.

The ultimate gaming performance to me is never stuttering, the 7700k cant provide that.

[DocSwag]

10 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

The ultimate gaming performance to me is never stuttering, the 7700k cant provide that.

Source?

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, marldorthegreat said:

DX12 didnt take off and probably won't since a lot of gamers still are not using windows 10. 

Eh? DX12 is far to new to make a statement like that and most new games coming out have DX12 support, even some of my existing games have received DX12 patches.

[Grinners]

If the results vary in comparison to Intel cpu's on some titles, and without another manufacturer to compare both to, it would seem impossible to definitely say whether the inconsistent relative results are due to AMD or Intel cpu's.

 

Could it not just as easily be the case that the reason for variance could lie with the Intel cpu but we've had no way to know that for a while without real competition? 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, marldorthegreat said:

Is it though, are you sure. Because by the time that happens this cpu will be out of date by several years. for now single core performance is still king for gaming, and for now and the short term future (probably the next couple of years) it will probably stay that way, DX12 didnt take off and probably won't since a lot of gamers still are not using windows 10. 

Well, AMD has the technology before Intel (maybe) and they, as it seems to be trying to develop their tech. faster, maybe they would keep up this time? Who knows, but yeah their architecture is something they worked really hard for, I don't think they won't develop it further.

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, Zackbare said:

Well, AMD has the technology before Intel (maybe) and they, as it seems to be trying to develop their tech. faster, maybe they would keep up this time? Who knows, but yeah their architecture is something they worked really hard for, I don't think they won't develop it further.

Ryzen is a solid foundation to build on. Keller achieved exactly what AMD needed, and I do not mind the CCX aspect of the design. The flaw with Ryzen as of now, is the marketing. AMD should not have been comparing gaming performance, and plastering "Pro Gamers" all over their Ryzen webpage. If they marketed it as a workhorse CPU that costs only a fraction of what Intel costs, people would have simply seen it's very decent gaming performance as icing on the cake. You know, kinda like how those people that buy locked 4c/8t Xeons instead of i5's? A non-gaming CPU that gets praise for it's gaming performance since it was never marketed as one, but just so happened to keep up decently.

 

If AMD can keep improving upon it, maybe allow for much higher overclocks on the lower-end SKU's, then Zen should flesh out to be quite potent in several markets. I honestly cannot wait to see what Naples does to the HPC market. It's poised to do some damage.