AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

jardows said:
So it appears, if you are primarily going to game at 1080p - why would you be spending this money on the processor anyways? Not like the Intel processors at this price point offer any real advantage. Yes, they score higher, but I think if my main concern was 1080p gaming, I could save money and get a much cheaper CPU.

If you are gaming at higher resolutions, the CPU doesn't make much of a difference, and you have a beast of a processor for other tasks.

To use a baseball analogy, not a grand slam home run that everyone seemed to be hoping for, but certainly a solid line drive double. I think the silver award is well given.

I really look forward to seeing the typical [H] gaming benches to see what performance that will show.
Click to expand...

These are a huge grand slam for people building pc's to do actual work.
 
Furious_Styles said:
Wow that 2600K @ 4.5ghz is still holding its own.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. I have a 2600k @ 4.2, used to be good for 4.4.

I'm going to wait for more thorough benchmarks--anecdotally Ryzen's ingame "stutter" is less but I want to see numbers. It would certainly help out Plex, which devours cores. I also game at 2560x1600, so whether 1080p is a stinker doesn't matter to me.
 
So basically AMD is where it should have been now had it not abandoned it's stars (K10) architecture in favor of FX...
 
I don't understand benchmarks on games at such low res. If performance at low res was indicative of high res gaming, amd's performance would have been a lot lower... if it worked like that... but it doesn't. Low res benchmarks in no way reflects normal real world gameplay benchmarks, and should not even be used.
 
We have said this for years, gaming at high resolutions is simply GPU-limited for the most part. But assuredly, desktop gaming is still about clocks, and
Nirad9er said:
So there is literally no overclocking headroom? 4/4.1ghz is the max on all cores? So out of the box, the chip frequency is at its' limit?

I recall Intel chips going like 4.4/4.5 GHz right?
Click to expand...
Yes, it looks as if AMD has just about pushed the 1800X up the edge of where it can go. Not much left on the table. I was talking to ASUS about this last week and they told me they were seeing 4.0GHz with 3000MHz pretty much being the target overclock without pushing past 1.4v vCore.

I did play around with the 1700X in trying to push it past 4.1GHz for gaming and never could get a solid 4.2GHz with any kind of load, with an actual vCore of 1.5v. The water block I am using however is not mating perfectly, or at least what I call perfect, so I have another on the way to me now, but I still do not feel like it is going to help much.
 
BravO))) said:
I don't understand benchmarks on games at such low res. If performance at low res was indicative of high res gaming, amd's performance would have been a lot lower... if it worked like that... but it doesn't. Low res benchmarks in no way reflects normal real world gameplay benchmarks, and should not even be used.
Click to expand...
These are exactly what we call them, "benchmarks." And yes, these do need to be seen. Just because you do not like the results, it does not negate them as a measuring tool. There is something odd going on with Ryzen and these low resolution gaming benchmarks. I do not know what it is, but AMD is aware of this and quite frankly does not have much to say on it. Go read PCPer's review as well as Ryan spent a lot more time on this topic.
 
Thank you for putting in the time and effort for this RyDozer review, Kyle.
 
BravO))) said:
I don't understand benchmarks on games at such low res. If performance at low res was indicative of high res gaming, amd's performance would have been a lot lower... if it worked like that... but it doesn't. Low res benchmarks in no way reflects normal real world gameplay benchmarks, and should not even be used.
Click to expand...
Performance at low res is indicative of performance at high res, we are seeing similar but less pronounced results all around the web. Just look at Kyle's VR testing on the next page.

Anyways, fair review and fair award for such a weird CPU IMHO.

chithanh said:
For that, I'd need to know about ECC support. Did you receive any information from AMD whether ECC memory will work (and by that I mean, actually use ECC, not run it in non-ECC mode)?
Click to expand...
Not available on any of Ryzen 7 CPUs last time i checked.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
For a chip that is slated 3.4ghz and single core 3.8ghz turbo, first 14n AMD cpu , Did first generation 14nm Intel overclock that well?
Click to expand...

yes it did first gen 14nm Broadwell i7 5775c overclocked at anything between 4.2 and 4.5ghz and that was a 3.3ghz CPU equiped with a Huge 128mb L4 eDRAM.. and broadwell i7 6950X isn't far from that as they are typically between 4.3 and 4.5ghz and those are 10 cores chips.

Pieter3dnow said:
It was never supposed to compete with games that are bound to frequency strong 4 cores would always outperform 8 fast cores. This might be changing with newer DX12/Vulkan titles.
Click to expand...

As Always AMD apologist putting all his hopes on DX12/Vulkan, without realize the 1800X it's already being beated heavily under DX12 and Vulkan (doom).. you were saying the same about bulldozer in the past, it never happened.
 
Nirad9er said:
So [H] review of 1700x for 4.1ghz all cores and guru3d got like 4.2ghz out of an 1800x? That is a GD disappointment. Literally NO OVERCLOCKING HEADROOM. AMD just has a higher stock clock out of the box that Intel easily could have done with their chips.


http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,22.html
Click to expand...

AMD has been doing this with their GPUs as well. Almost silly to think that AMD was going to leave performance on the table with these CPUs.
 
Anyone know where some Ryzen / Phenom II / Piledriver comparisons were benched? Didn't see any at AT or Tom's either. Only a useless kaveri apu at AT. [Er, Tom's has 8350 in some.]
 
I think they nailed it personally. They brought IPC to a level I expected, fixed a lot of the power consumption issues and built a platform where 8 Cores are working really well together. I never for a moment thought they'd be taking any kind of performance crown off Intel's high end gaming oriented CPU's and anyone who did just hyped themselves into it.

The important takeaway for me was that this is the platform they will move forward with and it's got legs. 4 of these cores without or without SMT paired with the 1050 or 470 aren't going to hurt entry level gamers feelings. More importantly, the APU's will actually have something that won't choke the GPU component to death and should bring a way more balanced APU into AMD's portfolio. Six low clocked cores with SMT and a Low end Vega arch type GPU for a console. Yeah, they have something to build on.

I wonder how things will progress on the GHz front as they nail down the ins and outs of the process, will be interesting to watch. In terms of the launch issues and this and that not working, it's pretty much what I expected. They couldn't afford to wait and they're too small to get it done perfectly.

Overall a strong B+ effort for an entirely new platform. Not bad for the kid across the road who wears hand me downs and gets picked on by the jocks.

I mostly like Kyle's overall silver because most people here just game and that's a reasonable rating for the intended audience. Maybe should have been a silver minus or bronze in that light though (no idea if that's a thing, just making it up).
 
My recently purchased i7 6850K feel redeemed. But good on AMD to become much more competitive and stepping on Intel's toes at least; that should keep innovation moving from both companies as well as competitive pricing.
 
xorbe said:
Anyone know where some Ryzen / Phenom II / Piledriver comparisons were benched? Didn't see any at AT or Tom's either. Only a useless kaveri apu at AT. [Er, Tom's has 8350 in some.]
Click to expand...

Phenom II and Piledriver haven't been relevant for some time. If Ryzen competes well against anything from Intel from Sandy Bridge onward, that should be all you need to know. An academic asswhipping of those older AMD architectures might be entertaining but hardly useful.
 
Official AMD excuse list:
  • Games and apps aren't optimized yet
  • It's clearly a driver issue
  • Wait for BIOS updates
  • I like to play games with 300 browser tabs and Photoshop open
  • Just wait for DX12
  • Most games are GPU limited anyway
  • Things will clearly work better on the motherboard I ordered instead of the one in the review
  • People haven't figured out how to overclock these yet
  • What really matters is [pick any game that wasn't included in the review]
  • These are great for "office work"
  • Intel has been ripping people off for years, so I'm buying a slower CPU to support AMD
  • I encode Blu Rays 14 hours a day, delete those, then encode them again
  • The CPU will last longer in the future when programs support more threads
 
Last edited:
Araxie said:
But why don't test those chips under realworld gaming and I mean not only VR.. real Games at real settings.. let's say at 1920x1080 as other sites are doing, and they show Ryzen is bottlenecking even at 2560x1440... I loved your review as always but I think that 640x480 low settings part of the review should stay in the past and use high settings at 1920x1080 as a truly real-world reference as same Brent do with GPU reviews, real-world scenarios.
Click to expand...

Ryzen isn't bottlenecking at 1440p, the GPUs are...

I don't think you understand - benchmarking at 640x480 literally removes ANY GPU bottleneck and basically shows exactly what the CPU is capable of in the gaming environment. We care about CPU performance in the review, not any GPU performance.
 
"Without AMD to jab the giant in the ass to keep it moving, Intel has become lethargic."

Always loved how you did reviews Kyle lol. You do em like I would ;)
 
Someone tell me how to feel. :~(

My main box at home is a 6700k/Z170/32GB/GTX1070 ... I don't use it for (as others have called it) "actual work", though I do a light level of video encoding occasionally. So yeah, the home box is mostly for gaming at 1440p. I wanted to buy a 1700X and part out my current box just to show support for AMD, but it's tough to justify that right now.

Maybe I'll wait for a while and see if any of this "weirdness" gets worked out.
 
So there is probably no difference gaming wise to my current 3770k @ 4.4Ghz but in all my muti-threaded applications will get a big boost. It might still be worth upgrading to but at the moment I think I'll be getting the 1080Ti for my current rig first. :)
 
exlink said:
Ryzen isn't bottlenecking at 1440p, the GPUs are...

I don't think you understand - benchmarking at 640x480 literally removes ANY GPU bottleneck and basically shows exactly what the CPU is capable of in the gaming environment. We care about CPU performance in the review, not any GPU performance.
Click to expand...

Do I need to post link to other sites that are showing inferior 2560x1440 Ryzen performance versus Intel CPUs?. when you have 4 or more CPUs being tested at same settings, same resolution with a powerful GPU and you find that certain CPUs doesn't perform as others, that's called CPU BOTTLENECK.
 
1600p and 4k are creating GPU bottlenecks so both Intel and AMD even out because the GPU is the problem. 1080p on a GTX1080 removes the GPU bottleneck so you are seeing what the CPU is doing.

I think AMD made a real mistake pushing gaming with the R7 chips, these are for production people. It's the same reason people buy 7700ks for gaming instead of 6900ks. 1 or 2 cores at very high speed, 4 at most is all that is needed. 5 years from now? Maybe.
 
Araxie said:
As Always AMD apologist putting all his hopes on DX12/Vulkan, without realize the 1800X it's already being beated heavily under DX12 and Vulkan (doom).. you were saying the same about bulldozer in the past, it never happened.
Click to expand...

You call me names but you can't make an argument beyond that. You refuse to read what I wrote , definitely said newer titles. When you mention Bulldozer you pretend that this is another Bulldozer cpu and it is not.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,20.html

While the results on this page look a lot better, the reality is that the Ryzen 7 1800X should do a notch better. We feel we need to give the Ryzen platform a little more time to develop and tweak on the motherboard manufacturers side as well as giving AMD the time to fine-tune their application software.
Click to expand...

You won't hear me saying anything else then what I already stated about Ryzen , if you only need 4 cores it is not going to workout.
 
Araxie said:
Do I need to post link to other sites that are showing inferior 2560x1440 Ryzen performance versus Intel CPUs?. when you have 4 or more CPUs being tested at same settings, same resolution with a powerful GPU and you find that certain CPUs doesn't perform as others, that's called CPU BOTTLENECK.
Click to expand...

There are FAR fewer games that will be CPU bottlenecked while still at 1440p than GPU bottlenecked.
 
Does the same hold true with the OS and CPU. That drivers do to video cards. Wasn't it like a 6-7% increase in performance with properly optimized drivers. Could the same happen with an OS and ryzen CPU?
 
ochadd said:
I'm pretty disappointed in the gaming benchmarks. I've read reviews from 5 different sites now. Looks like compared to my overclocked 2600k the 1700x isn't giving me much gaming performance. Maybe even lose some. Think I'll keep the preorder and see what happens. I wanted the platform upgrade as much as the CPU anyway for NVME SSD and better audio.
Click to expand...
you game at low rez?
 
I guess I don't understand the backlash....AMD wasn't really selling this as a competitor to the 7700k. At least, I never got that impression. I got that this was going to be a fantastic "work" chip that would also be a solid game performer. Isn't that exactly what we're seeing?
 
Edgar said:
Does the same hold true with the OS and CPU. That drivers do to video cards. Wasn't it like a 6-7% increase in performance with properly optimized drivers. Could the same happen with an OS and ryzen CPU?
Click to expand...

Not likely.
 
Is there a particular reason for not using Doom? Selected titles mean nothing to me.

While I am sure more good stuff is in the pipeline, I kind of expected a more thorough review.
 
Fair and Balanced review. Hat's off HardOCP for probably one of the most accurate reviews I've seen this morning.

I've already seen a lot of people giving super high-praise and ignoring the fact that the Intel is still king when it comes to gaming. Those type of reviews actually do the potential buyer out there a huge disservice.

I'm a gamer first and foremost so those 3 or 10 or 20 frames per second are more important to me than saving a little money or additional cores I will not use 95% of the time.

Also, the Intel 7700K @ $299 is imho not only a cheap buy but a smarter buy.
 
Thanks for review and the balanced look at things, I would like to have seen some higher res gaming benches 1440/4K with that titan. I understand that bring the GPU into play, but is also real world what we [H]'ers play at. Not a grand slam, but it is amazing what AMD has done. Bringing performance back in line with the competition and putting pricing pressure on Intel at the highend. This is going to make HUGE inroads into the professional world. And if any indication, Naples will be a monster. Great job AMD, here...have some marketshare
 
exlink said:
There are FAR fewer games that will be CPU bottlenecked while still at 1440p than GPU bottlenecked.
Click to expand...

but they exist and they are a lot, and that number are going to keep increasing as GPU become more and more stronger..

Edgar said:
Does the same hold true with the OS and CPU. That drivers do to video cards. Wasn't it like a 6-7% increase in performance with properly optimized drivers. Could the same happen with an OS and ryzen CPU?
Click to expand...

wasn't AMD working together with Microsoft to bring great Ryzen support and performance?.

“This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability and compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon.”
Click to expand...

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/02/09/amd_sorry_no_official_ryzen_drivers_for_windows_7/
 
Apart from gaming it's a really good showing. I wonder how it will stack up against skylake 8 core coming out this summer. It still irks me that intels 8 cores are so expensive and years behind their quad core brethren.
 
So, here's my take:

Overall, this is a success for AMD. They produced a competitive chip that is much cheaper than intels. They are not as good in 1080p gaming, but there is some oddness there which is something every review agreed on.

So here's the key to keep in mind - this is the start of a brand new technology line, and there are bound to be some bugs. As firmware and bios improve and chipsets are updated, we could see those PC gaming benchmarks start to clean up and deliver competitive performance to Intel. AMD hasn't had years to perfect and build this yet - welcome to platform growing pains, something we haven't seen since the 90s because AMD was persona non grata and Intel never really greatly differentiated their platform, but just kept optimizing it.

So, I think the freakout and need for instant gratification will need to be set aside for a bit. Because we likely will know more about Ryzen and gaming in 6 months than we do now, and in the meantime, AMD has released a chip competitive with Intel in just about every other area, at a far lesser cost than Intel, which in and of itself is a home run for content creation.

I will say that now before I jump to Ryzen, as I have a 1080p monitor, I will hold off a bit to wait for the platform to mature, but I do think it will, and by that point, that may be the plan.

Think about it - while gaming on an I7 is fun, most savvy tech people tell you that you are better off saving money by getting an I5 due to similar single thread performance, and the I7 is really for multi-threaded applications. Ryzen right now is awesome in multi-threaded applications at a much cheaper cost, and releasing them now can compete with Intel on that front, while also allowing the chips to get out into "the wild" which will allow AMD to further test and optimize the chipset - and when they feel it is ready, they can then release their I5 competitors on a much more mature gaming platform, thus allowing them to be competitive.

I think its a sound strategy, and think AMD planned this perfectly. The only question now is execution, and just how much bigger improvements does the bios and chipset allow for....
 
Gideon said:
Kyle how much thermal headroom did the chip still have?
Click to expand...
I did not get the software to monitor package temperature till a few hours before I had to leave for San Francisco, so I did not have a lot of time to work with it, but I was seeing Ryzen push into the mid-80C range at 4.1GHz at 1.44cv vCore.
 
I'm assuming AMD is working on being able to support higher frequency RAM? I would like to see benchmarks after that. Either way I think AMD is still going to be my next build. I want to give AMD my money so that they have more $$ for R&D and there next chip will be even better than it already is!
 
Dullard said:
I say "Good show, AMD!"

It's interesting how AMD and Intel trade blows depending on the task at hand. As someone who found 8 cores a revelation for Handbrake, it's sure nice to see Ryzen do so well in that application. For people who do stuff other than gaming on their PC, this should be a no brainer - and I bet gaming will come around. It's not like the thing won't game at all.

Hard to see how anybody could be disappointed with these new AMD offerings.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of DVD's to go through, and encoding maxes out all 8 threads of my Xeon E3 1230v2 processor. I don't do much high-end gaming, so this certainly is a consideration for me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top