AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X and 1700 Processor Review

Jump To:

Final Thoughts and Conclusions

ryzen takeaway

AMD sees Ryzen 7 processors as being the perfect fit for multi-threaded (nT) work with slightly lower single threaded (1T) performance. Our testing shows that is true for the most part. In applications where all cores are being used the 8-Core, 16-Thread Ryzen parts usually do exceptionally well. There are some instances where lightly threaded applications like dolphin offered lower than expected performance and even heavily threaded applications like Photoscan that left us a little disappointed after seeing the impressive Cinebench, Blender and Handbrake results that AMD has been showing off for months.

If there is one area of the AMD Ryzen processor that would be a disappointment and needs to be improved upon it would most certainly have to be 1080P gaming performance. We only tested a few game titles in this CPU review, but the Ryzen 7 1800X was 17-38% slower than the stock Intel Core i7-7700K ‘Kaby Lake’ quad-core processor. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X just can’t compete at 1080P where the GPU bottleneck is minimal, but when you increase the screen resolution to 1440P or 4K and shift the bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU you see AMD Ryzen performing at basically the same performance level. AMD never once said that they’d beat Intel in gaming benchmarks, but they did say that they would have comparable 4K gaming performance that that appeared true in our tests using a single NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 graphics card. What remains to be seen is if that will hold true with multiple graphics cards in SLI or Crossfire as well as upcoming next-generation video cards like AMD’s Vega GPU. The state of gaming on AMD Ryzen right now is that at 1080P with a high-end graphics card the performance is significantly behind Intel, but at 1440P and 4K we would call it comparable. AMD has since informed us that they think driver optimizations from the game developers will help the 1080P situation and started giving us statements to back that up:

“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

“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

AMD firmly believes that they can improve gaming performance with Ryzen optimizations as all the games we tested with were optimized on Intel, so they feel the testing is one sided right now. They also have a Windows Driver coming in approximately one month that will help performance as the Windows High Precision Event Timer (HPET) isn’t playing nice with the SenseMI sensors that poll the CPU status every millisecond.

“AMD expects to create a simplified solution in the next month to set a Windows profile that pairs the optimum performance experienced in the High Performance power plan, with the energy efficiency experienced in the Balanced power plan.” – AMD 

AMD sent us a list of recommendations to get the best performance out of Ryzen and those tips can be seen below:

  1. Use fresh OS image of windows.  We’ve seen performance improvements with a clean install of Windows vs. a re-used install of Windows that was originally configured for another processor.
  2. Make sure there are no background CPU temp or freq. tools in the background. Real-time measurement can impact performance by up to 5%.
  3. Make sure the system has Windows High Precision Event Timer (HPET) disabled. HPET can often be disabled in the BIOS. Alternatively: from Windows, open an administrative command shell and type:  bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock  – this can improve performance by 5-8%.
  4. AMD Ryzen Master’s accurate measurements present require HPET. Therefore it is important to disable HPET if you  already installed and used Ryzen Master prior to game benchmarking.

When it comes to overclocking performance we were happy that we were able to get up to 4.1GHz on all cores on the Ryzen 7 1800X as the single-threaded performance was the same as it was stock and then multi-threaded performance saw big performance gains.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU

Overall we are pretty impressed by what AMD has been able to deliver with Ryzen. Performance per watt, Ryzen is a monster, no doubt about it. The single thread and gaming performance is really the only thing that will give people reservations about it and AMD thinks that it will get better. Ryzen is a whole world better than the outgoing AMD FX CPU’s, but at times is only as fast as a ~6 year old Intel Core i7-2700K. The unfortunate part of that is the Intel Core i7-2500K and 2600K are often showing up as the “Minimum Specs” for some Triple A PC game titles. Hopefully AMD can figure out a way to improve 1080P gaming performance as they’d have an amazing part here. Is Ryzen an Intel killer? No, but it is putting Intel on notice. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X at $499 gives you a full 8-core, 16-thread processor that is going to run all games at acceptable levels and eat up most all multi-threaded applications. When overclocked we found that it was nearly as fast as the Intel Core i7-6950X and that is amazing. Ryzen may not be the fastest processor in our performance charts, but it will get the job done, and at just 95W TDP as well as a lower price tag to boot.

We’ve only had Ryzen 7 series parts for a week and we’ve seen the platform mature so much over that week we do feel that AMD can continue to make improvements. You have new Windows optimizations coming out in a month, motherboard makers making UEFI updates and game developers that are promising to make improvements for Ryzen. This platform is impressive already when you look at the overall numbers and it is only going to get better. AMD has officially made it back to the high-end processor market!

 

LR Recommended Award

Legit Bottom Line: AMD Ryzen 7 series processors are the real deal and the overall performance and price make them appealing to the DIY market.


Print
Jump To:
  • Charles Mather

    I got 156 single core on cinebench R15 for my 7700k at 4.7GHZ

  • cryptoflower

    Intel: Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k

  • Michael Carroll

    Is the only difference between a 1700 and a 1800x the clock speed?

  • ja_1410

    Close but no cigar this time. Great effort, but I would still pick 7700 based on the average of the presented benchmarks and price. Hopefully, unlike Intel mature architecture, Ryzen is new and might have some low hanging fruit to be improved soon with upcoming next generations by larger amount than Intel can muster from its line. Also it would be interesting to see performance, when the software will get some optimization toward Ryzen. Currently most software has been compiled having only Intel optimization in mind. With this new CPU being very good at some multi threading tasks and good for number crunching we might have some market share for AMD. That in turn will cause new software to be optimized better for both chips and it might improve the Ryzen position.

  • Brian

    try with windows 8.. scheduler works much better compared to 10

  • msnengco

    SMT & memory lattice issue?

    Thank you for the balanced and professional review of the AMD Rysen CPU’s. The real and synthetic benchmarks of Ryzen CPU are essentially “twins” compared to Intel’s i7 6900K. I am puzzled thou. The gaming frames per second lags against the Intel CPU’s. One would expect there would be not much difference between the CPU’s during game testing which leaves one to think that this maybe is an game engine optimization issue (drivers etc.,). Did your testing evaluate the SMT on and off during game testing for AMD’s Rysen CPU, and to be fair likely wise for Intel’s HT for Intel’s CPU’s? I am wondering if the Rysen CPU’s are hampered because of combination of bios (UEFI), lack of game engine optimization, windows driver updates, and memory lattice issues. If there is a significant improvement with SMT turned off this would indeed unfortunately invalidate the gaming testing of your report. Could you please repeat some of the game testing for comparison. Thank you.

    Terry

  • koenshaku

    I was more interested in seeing how these performed against intel’s 4+ core processors in gaming. We all know games are optimized for quad-core processors and performance falls off for processors with more than 4 cores…

  • Coach

    Ryzen is a beast in multi-core workloads and it will only get better. Here are my Geekbench 4 numbers comparing my i7-4790k @4.9 oc and Ryzen 7 1800X @3.99 oc with SMT disabled (8c/8t only)

    4790K=5631 single core, 18227 multi-core (I was in the high 80s C)
    1800X=4349 single core, 18600 multi-core (I maxed out @72 C)

    This is 8 cores vs 8 threads which puts the 4790k at a bit of a disadvantage, I know, but it is also almost a whole gig faster clock-wise. Other Ryzen scores on Geekbench 4 show it scoring around 27450 @4ghz, with SMT enabled I assume.

  • Eric Marshall

    Are those vengeance DIMM’s used for the test setup single or dual rank? Reason I ask is; previous generations of AMD chips have benefited from rank interleave a lot more than Intel counterparts. In other-words, if the test was performed without rank interleave on any of the systems, then Ryzen may have been at a greater disadvantage than if all the systems were tested with dual rank DIMM’s. Also, seems a bit odd to be comparing the X99 system with only a dual channel kit. Not like anyone building that sort of system would skimp on the quad channel arrangement anyway.

    • Coach

      My bios gives me the option (Gigabyte-AMI) to enable channel interleave and rank interleave. I believe I have them enabled. I’m guessing other board partners have those options.

  • i am grad you guys didn’t join the 720p and 480p low settings benchmarks hype i have seen this famous tech review website they only posted 640 x 480 gaming benchmarks showing 7700k beating ryzen 1700 by like 50 60 fps

  • Coach

    Some of my initial Ryzen 7 1800X (w/RX 480gpu, 16gb ddr4 3000, Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 5 mobo)
    **Note: I’m not sure if the ram is running @ correct speeds–bios says 2933, but cpu-z shows 2133 (which is the default) I have it set on XMP. This BIOS is new to me, but it seems quite limited in ability to tweak memory. On my Asrock mobo, I can change each and every memory clock & setting. This is very limited in comparison. **
    Cinebench R15 @3.6 stock=1540, @3.8ghz=1613.

    TimeSpy=4543 (compared to my i7-4790k @4.4ghz=4339)
    (TimeSpy gpu=4241, cpu=7623–CPU not recognized by Futuremark) I got the Steam achievement for “mystery machine” because of that. 😉

    CPU-z @3.6ghz, single core bench=2137 (i7-4790k@4.4=2003)
    CPU-z multi @3.6=14504 (i7-4790k=8387)

    SuperPi Mod 1.5XS 1M=11.903s @3.6ghz (stock)
    SuperPi Mod 1.5XS 32M=10m 21.343s @ stock

    I cannot wait for optimizations, etc. As an experienced builder and mediocre overclocker with AM3 and Intel, this is new and I need to learn more about my system to get a good and stable setup. I believe there is a new bios out for my mobo, even though the bios is very new. I have not yet flashed the newer version, but will do so and re-test as I go. The CPU generally runs pretty warm. I’m not sure why, etc. I’m using a Corsair H110i to cool the system. Regardless of thermal paste setup/burn-in, I would expect cooler temps. I’m @ 52C most of the time at idle but when I ran Cinebench R15 @3.8ghz, I hit 73C max, which isn’t necessarily crazy hot, stock was 60-something(?). Again, time will tell us all more.

    • Coach

      SMT was left at stock setting (enabled) for tests above.

  • Disable SMT and run the gaming benchmarks again. Until Microsoft issues the Windows 10 gamers update, this is the only way around the issues right now. AMD is also working on releasing patches over the next few months to fix other issues such as system memory support and buggy turbo boost. It seems you were one of few reviewers who had the Precision Boost and XFR features working properly, scoring 163 cb in Cinebench R15 ST; the highest I’ve seen thus far at stock.

  • After reading the whole review I do see how price/performance is a bit better in most cases with ALL the cpus and really shines with the 1800X due to the price point being half of Intel’s counterpart. I do not understand why the driver was not ready at launch. I mean, people see the first numbers and go, ok it’s not bad, when with the drivers it could be a HUGE game changer…maybe…..who knows if it is just a lot of hot air until they (the drivers) are actually released. It is unfinished yet pushed out to meet a deadline, that’s a shame. Also the 1080P gaming debacle is just sad. Sweet spot for gaming is still 1080P – http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ – so shouldn’t they have focused on that?

    I would still be happy buying one of them as I don’t game much on the computer anymore (ps3 and ps4 for most of my gaming) and it is a nice price point for performance that should get better when the drivers (which should have already been ready) are released that fix the problems (maybe, hopefully).

    I quoted myself from the forums – http://forums.legitreviews.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=46494&p=225005#p225005 – hop on in and discuss it further.

  • Riptor

    I want to know how this is a disappointment? The Ryzen 1700 is a $330 CPU that is 40% faster than the i7-7700k, all while using less 30% power. You can overclock it and have a CPU within spitting distance of a $1,000 intel CPU. An excellent processor which in my opinion even exceeded the hype.

  • David Hall

    Seems pretty darn good for me on price and performance. I’d happily sacrifice some fps today for gains later as the use of multigpu rises, drivers and BIOS mature. Can’t wait open play with the RAM timings. Who would have thought you could get a fast 8C16T cpu and mobo combo for such reasonable prices. It’ll make a nice addition to my Intel, Nvidia and AMD family.

  • jojigzaw

    Thanks for putting in KeyShot. It will be great if SolidWorks and Inventor was on the test to.

  • Ed

    It’s launch day…can’t expect everything to be perfect on an entirely new CPU. I am a bit disappointed in the gaming numbers but feel better seeing the feedback from Oxide and CA both saying the CPU optimizations are coming. I think I will hold off 60-90 days an see how things shake out with Ryzen before building a new gaming rig…

  • Vanesa Fernandez

    Intel is altering those test-ers.

  • cris levin

    at 1080p, as long as it is >60fps, does it really matter if its 200 or 300fps?

    • Pui Ho Lam

      144 or even 240Hz monitors exist

      • Coach

        fps and hz are two different things.

        • Pui Ho Lam

          fps means frames per second. Hertz means per second without specifying the unit of what you’re counting. On monitors, it’s apparently the refresh rate of pictures, ie. frames.

      • Coach

        http://www.avadirect.com/blog/frame-rate-fps-vs-hz-refresh-rate/

        I don’t have time to educate you, so here…read this link. They ARE different.

        • Pui Ho Lam

          LMAO, you think I don’t know when the output is not perfectly in sync with the refresh rate?
          But that’s not the point in this case.

  • All right, everybody can relax.
    AMD fanboys: Ryzen is miles better than FX.
    Intel fanboys: Intel is still better overall.

    Btw, the i3 7350k, currently selling at $178, doesn’t count as a low-cost processor (bottom of page 11 of the review). That would be the Pentium G4560 ($62).

  • Dusan

    This is good, this is competition. It will make Intel work harder next time to give us more than just 1% performance increase. Go AMD!

    • Nathan Kirsch

      exactly!

      • gamersglory

        I look at this and think most of the gaming setbacks can be fix with mature chipset drivers and BIOS. I am curious though if ryzen work better with the latest windows insider build as the most up to date codebase would be in it

        • Nana Hermawan

          look at power consumption, ryzen not realy work hard in gaming test, maybe 20% lost potential

    • Toss

      -1% tbh.

    • John

      Or you could just buy the AMD solution and not worry about Intel’s next offering.

  • tacominnie

    It is even slower then an i5 7600k on games, ofc if you bench at 4k you will be gpu bound and you wont notice a difference even when compared to a G4560.

  • Mahesh Walatara

    Fairly Disappointment- but the 1800x is great for Photoshop Premier Pro use.

    • Mark

      Puka nodi palayan ponnaya … english grammer danneth na tho, wesi …

  • Andrew S

    A little disappointed considering the hype.

    Seems that at 1080p these CPUs can’t keep up with even the likes of the 7700k.
    But at 1440p/4k it’s much better. Maybe the extra cores/threads make the difference there.

    • Yes Indeed

      nothing keeps up with the 7700k. clock speed rules in most games and that cpu gets 5ghz.

      • Clock speed combined combined with great IPC, you mean. If just clock speed were the primary determinant, the FX-9590 would be king.

    • al

      No, extra cores/threads are not making the difference there. The reason is that the system goes from cpu-bottleneck to gpu-bottleneck.
      The sad part for me is that the Windows CPU drivers, UEFI bios were not ready, and in a month most people will not see that review.
      That the games were not optimized was expected, most of them are probably using at max 2-4 cores, and maybe some Intel compiler cheat magic on some libraries is still there.

      • Nathan Kirsch

        You hit the nail on the head on all your comments. I really wish the Windows drivers were ready before we were given the parts to review. Instead we got a statement 24 hours before launch from AMD saying that they’ll be coming in 30 days if all goes well. Game optimizations will be hit or miss when they come, but they appear to be coming. That takes time though and we’ll see what happens.

        • Tyrann

          where did they state that? i wanna read it 🙂

        • Nathan Kirsch

          I put it in the conclusion on the last page. The quote came direct from AMD’s John Taylor. There was talk of it coming with Ryzen 5 and then they said ‘in the next month’ in an official statement that was e-mailed out last night.

        • Tyrann

          thank you

      • epigramx

        > intel compiler cheat
        That’s a stupid meme. Most benchmarks are compiled on either gcc or vstudio. Let alone even if that meme was even true – which it isn’t – those CPUs are 99% identical on instructions anyway so even if it’s optimized well for an Intel it’s de facto optimized 99% well for an AMD.

      • tacominnie

        Amd fanboys are famous for excuse finding…That’s a good sign right?

        • disqus_GB8lUuziuG

          intel fanbots game at 1080p with TitanXP then bitch on the internets that their 7700k is uber fastest cpu of all time..

    • disqus_GB8lUuziuG

      only if you play 1080p with a gtx 1080 or titan.. these are misleading reviews. look at 1440p or 4k if you game with a 1080 or titan. If you game at 1080p look at reviews with 1070 or less for more accurate results.

      • Andrew S

        Yep completely agree with that statement.
        I’m personally waiting to see the 1300, 1400 and 1400x perform with something like a gtx 1060/RX480.
        That’s where the market is the most interesting in my opinion.

      • haralampi nedelin

        yeah, it does better comparatively at 1440p/4k, due to GPU bottlenecking. an i3 gets similar framerates on most titles here, so no point in spending $350 or more on ryzen. The 1080ti will widen the bottleneck and reveal, once again, that higher IPC and clock is what makes the difference, not core count

        • disqus_GB8lUuziuG

          Exactly buy the R5 or R3 Ryzen if you need a gaming chip, good point. Nah 1080ti won’t do that at all, it will be just as things are now.

    • haralampi nedelin

      both intel and AMD run into GPU bottlenecks at those resolutions. The 1080ti will widen that bottleneck, and maybe we’ll see true performance differences.

  • well that was quick, ,6.09 Am Pacific Time Vancouver Canada, and i am reading your report, exciting, thanks,