AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

[Kaapstad]

Bit of a shock to see the 1800X use more power than a 6950X @stock and OC.

Having said that this CPU will give intel some very serious competition.

Anyone using one needs to get away from the quadcore MHz willy waving approach. Having a 7700k that does 5.0ghz is more often than not a bit pointless as games can use extra cores too. Even where the extra clockspeed does have an effect it is more often than not pointless as getting 230fps instead of 210fps does not really help at all.

It is good to see AMD giving intel something to worry about.

 

[Excalabur50]

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but some sites have reported underwhelming game performance but some gaming vendors have stated that this is normal for a new architecture and we can expect gaming improvements as games are optimized for Ryzen Cpu's in future updates and possibly I think as Bioses mature

 

[Kaapstad]

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but some sites have reported underwhelming game performance but some gaming vendors have stated that this is normal for a new architecture and we can expect gaming improvements as games are optimized for Ryzen Cpu's in future updates and possibly I think as Bioses mature

From what I have seen of the reviews I have read it is much the same as any low clocking 6, 8 or 10 core CPU, set the OC to 4.0ghz and you get much the same performance in games as the quads give or take a few fps.

For gaming I only run my 6950Xs @4.0 even with 4 cards running as turning up the game settings is far more useful than getting 500fps or 600fps.

 

[tinytomlogan]

Gaming is simple.

Its clock for clock pretty similar to Intel.

AMD is well behind with clock speed hence its not infront with 'most' games.

If you buy a £500 8C16T CPU just for games though you have more money than sense anyways.

To keep up the fight the 6C/12T and 4C/8T CPU's need a much higher clockspeed
.
I live in hope they do because, lets face it. All Intels high end CPU's high core count CPU's have a lower basic clock speed. As you work down the range the peak at the 7700K (4.5) and then come back down again as prices decrease.

If AMD have planned for this and the lower Core units have higher clocks then we have some interesting times ahead. If they dont..... Well. Lets just hope they are.

 

[painejake]

As always, this is one of the most honest reviews I've read and love the amount of detail it goes into from the mobo to the chip really infomative! So thanks Tom!

Makes me realise just how ancient my FX-8320 really is now

I'll hold out for the Ryzen 5 to come out before I make the jump, thats might be a better fit for my budget. I sit in the midrange and have already moved over the nvidia with a GTX 1070 so will see how things pan out once Ryzen has been out a bit and 5 is out then buy the best CPU at that price point!

I am really hoping its AMD though!

 

[AlienALX]

Gaming is simple.

Its clock for clock pretty similar to Intel.

AMD is well behind with clock speed hence its not infront with 'most' games.

If you buy a £500 8C16T CPU just for games though you have more money than sense anyways.

To keep up the fight the 6C/12T and 4C/8T CPU's need a much higher clockspeed
.
I live in hope they do because, lets face it. All Intels high end CPU's high core count CPU's have a lower basic clock speed. As you work down the range the peak at the 7700K (4.5) and then come back down again as prices decrease.

If AMD have planned for this and the lower Core units have higher clocks then we have some interesting times ahead. If they dont..... Well. Lets just hope they are.

Yeah totally. No one buys a 8 core CPU to game on. We all know that in some games an I3 is faster than a 6950x for example.

If you are buying Ryzen for gaming? good on you. It shows that you are forward thinking

Even if the lower end chips clock like crap I would not be overly worried. At the end of the day they will still present fantastic value for money like the FX series have for the past few years.

I know loads of people who went AMD for their budget gaming rigs. That's why manus were still knocking out AM3+ boards right up until about a month ago

 

[Excalabur50]

The good thing is all these high core and thread CPU's are great for Star Citizen as it loves them I think it's one of the few games that does

 

[Daiyus]

Yeah totally. No one buys a 8 core CPU to game on. We all know that in some games an I3 is faster than a 6950x for example.

If you are buying Ryzen for gaming? good on you. It shows that you are forward thinking

Even if the lower end chips clock like crap I would not be overly worried. At the end of the day they will still present fantastic value for money like the FX series have for the past few years.

I know loads of people who went AMD for their budget gaming rigs. That's why manus were still knocking out AM3+ boards right up until about a month ago

Honestly I've been having a major debate in my head about what CPU to go for next. I'm primarily gaming so ultimately an i7-7700k is the "best" option I have, but the fact is that I'm not interested in ridiculous frame-rates, as long as I have a locked 60FPS I'm happy. I don't play competitive shooters; I spend most of my time in RPG's and racers with the odd single-player FPS campaign so 60 really is fine (Skrim and Fallout 4 break above that anyway ).

Overall I'd rather push into 4K territory which is limited to 60Hz right now anyway and CPU isn't really affected by resolution; I need GPU horsepower for that. So while my "I really want the best" mentality is disappointed in Ryzen my "enthusiast" brain is telling me that I want to support AMD and any of the Ryzen line-up will play my games to the standard that I can actually use so it's absolutely fine.

Now the question really is can I afford £300+ to worry about R7-1700 vs i7-7700k with the nagging knowledge that this will be a long-term purchase; I likely won't change platform for 5+years. AMD have partnered with some big players to get more multi-core optimised games into the market and therefore the eight-core should come into it's own over the years. However right now the i5-7600k/Ryzen 5 level stuff would likely do me just as well for a cheaper price but I could lose out in performance earlier; it's a gamble, I could save the money now and upgrade earlier.

It's such an exciting time in PC tech right now, but it's also getting bloody stressful trying to decide exactly what to get/wait for. I hate buyers remorse.

 

[AlienALX]

Honestly I've been having a major debate in my head about what CPU to go for next. I'm primarily gaming so ultimately an i7-7700k is the "best" option I have, but the fact is that I'm not interested in ridiculous frame-rates, as long as I have a locked 60FPS I'm happy. I don't play competitive shooters; I spend most of my time in RPG's and racers with the odd single-player FPS campaign so 60 really is fine (Skrim and Fallout 4 break above that anyway ).

Overall I'd rather push into 4K territory which is limited to 60Hz right now anyway and CPU isn't really affected by resolution; I need GPU horsepower for that. So while my "I really want the best" mentality is disappointed in Ryzen my "enthusiast" brain is telling me that I want to support AMD and any of the Ryzen line-up will play my games to the standard that I can actually use so it's absolutely fine.

Now the question really is can I afford £300+ to worry about R7-1700 vs i7-7700k with the nagging knowledge that this will be a long-term purchase; I likely won't change platform for 5+years. AMD have partnered with some big players to get more multi-core optimised games into the market and therefore the eight-core should come into it's own over the years. However right now the i5-7600k/Ryzen 5 level stuff would likely do me just as well for a cheaper price but I could lose out in performance earlier; it's a gamble.

It's such an exciting time in PC tech right now, but it's also getting bloody stressful trying to decide exactly what to get/wait for. I hate buyers remorse.

I know that it's mostly considered a swear word in the world of PCs but seriously if you are forward thinking in any shape or form get the Ryzen. Just think, it's mostly only 25-50% supported in pretty much everything. Future proofing.

Some guy I know said yesterday that Intel had basically been back peddling ever since Sandy. Just sitting there pedalling the bike backward just sitting still. In 2007 they launched the Q6600. Here we are a decade later, quelle surprise ! still on four cores max.

That is highly likely to change now.

4k gaming? you could wedge some potato in your socket tbh. That's about how important the CPU is at 4k. You will always be capped by what your GPU can do long before you get to the CPU itself. That isn't likely to change for a while either, and I wouldn't be surprised if 8k wasn't a thing by then.

 

[Warchild]

I really like this initial result from Ryzen. I wonder how improved it can get with some BIOS revisions, iterations and maybe new SKUs later on.

Single performance falls short. Big deal, considering the cost of the 1800X to Intels flagship, i would happily take AMD over Intel, purely because the application performance is right up there if i want to run any rendering etc.

Gaming wise, well I don't mind lose a few fps. What I don't like is the pricing of the Crosshair, but yes we get what we pay for. I still think ASUS are being a little too far fetched when it comes to pricing across the whole market for both CPU brands.

Gaming is simple.

Its clock for clock pretty similar to Intel.

AMD is well behind with clock speed hence its not infront with 'most' games.

If you buy a £500 8C16T CPU just for games though you have more money than sense anyways.

To keep up the fight the 6C/12T and 4C/8T CPU's need a much higher clockspeed
.
I live in hope they do because, lets face it. All Intels high end CPU's high core count CPU's have a lower basic clock speed. As you work down the range the peak at the 7700K (4.5) and then come back down again as prices decrease.

If AMD have planned for this and the lower Core units have higher clocks then we have some interesting times ahead. If they dont..... Well. Lets just hope they are.

Do you think this can pave the way for developers to finally start pushing towards gaming design that utilises more than one core now?

obviously there was no real demand before but if 6/8 cores becomes the norm in the future, perhaps we can see an evolution in gaming utilisation?

 

[Dark NighT]

Honestly I've been having a major debate in my head about what CPU to go for next. I'm primarily gaming so ultimately an i7-7700k is the "best" option I have, but the fact is that I'm not interested in ridiculous frame-rates, as long as I have a locked 60FPS I'm happy. I don't play competitive shooters; I spend most of my time in RPG's and racers with the odd single-player FPS campaign so 60 really is fine (Skrim and Fallout 4 break above that anyway ).

Overall I'd rather push into 4K territory which is limited to 60Hz right now anyway and CPU isn't really affected by resolution; I need GPU horsepower for that. So while my "I really want the best" mentality is disappointed in Ryzen my "enthusiast" brain is telling me that I want to support AMD and any of the Ryzen line-up will play my games to the standard that I can actually use so it's absolutely fine.

Now the question really is can I afford £300+ to worry about R7-1700 vs i7-7700k with the nagging knowledge that this will be a long-term purchase; I likely won't change platform for 5+years. AMD have partnered with some big players to get more multi-core optimised games into the market and therefore the eight-core should come into it's own over the years. However right now the i5-7600k/Ryzen 5 level stuff would likely do me just as well for a cheaper price but I could lose out in performance earlier; it's a gamble, I could save the money now and upgrade earlier.

It's such an exciting time in PC tech right now, but it's also getting bloody stressful trying to decide exactly what to get/wait for. I hate buyers remorse.

Totally sensible and i think, this needs to be the step forwards, high clock speeds is nice and currently the darling of the epeen shouting match, but cores, we need more cores. Heck my good old 3570k is starting to become a chip on the minimum requirements list for some games now, i could oc it more and get a few more fps in, but really where i need to go is get more cores because the days are coming where 4 actual cores, even if they run on 5ghz or more, isn't going to be enough.

Amd already tossed out the dual cores for the entire lineup of desktop processors and that is a great move to be doing, Ryzen right now is a bit slower on the gaming front, but its no slouch either and as soon as more games start using more and more cores and amd gets the little niggles fixed, it is properly exciting to get my hands on ryzen.

 

[SPS]

Do you think this can pave the way for developers to finally start pushing towards gaming design that utilises more than one core now?

obviously there was no real demand before but if 6/8 cores becomes the norm in the future, perhaps we can see an evolution in gaming utilisation?

In my professional opinion Ryzen isn't going to affect this at all. Consoles already have a decent number of cores and they are the lowest denominator.

 

[RizeAllard]

My next project will built on Ryzen! I'm still waiting for the upcoming versions to decide which sku i will use for it. (And I have to wait until a good x370 itx board came out). I will be a totally custom built from the ground.

Spoiler error: it will be wooden project.

 

[BigDaddyKong]

I can remember this same discussion almost word for word over the E8400 and Q6600 due to speed and what cores games used at the time. After two years, developers started programming for quad cores, and the Q6600 was still good long long after the dual core was put in the rubbish bin.

Until now anything over 4 cores has been too expensive for mainstream gamer. So developers will always try to go for the lowest common denominator when programming for what most of the market uses.

If AMD works with a few of the largest vendors like Bethesda, games will start using a higher core count. That will also have a trickle down effect as time goes on. Developing houses close, or have staff turnover. That staff that originally broke ground programming for higher core count processors will move on to other companies and other projects. They will take what they have learned and pass it on. That will also expand the use of high core count CPU's.

We may see a few game patches that might improve gaming, but I would not expect any major shifts in programming for one or two years.

 

[Warchild]

I can remember this same discussion almost word for word over the E8400 and Q6600 due to speed and what cores games used at the time. After two years, developers started programming for quad cores, and the Q6600 was still good long long after the dual core was put in the rubbish bin.

Until now anything over 4 cores has been too expensive for mainstream gamer. So developers will always try to go for the lowest common denominator when programming for what most of the market uses.

If AMD works with a few of the largest vendors like Bethesda, games will start using a higher core count. That will also have a trickle down effect as time goes on. Developing houses close, or have staff turnover. That staff that originally broke ground programming for higher core count processors will move on to other companies and other projects. They will take what they have learned and pass it on. That will also expand the use of high core count CPU's.

We may see a few game patches that might improve gaming, but I would not expect any major shifts in programming for one or two years.

I'm trying to be optimistic. Gaming industry needs to evolve. There are some trying like developers behind Unreal Engine 4 but we have a long road ahead.

I think my next buil will be AMD Ryzen. But I'll be sticking with Nvidia GPU ala 1080Ti. The reason being is the Gsync PG348 monitor I have. No sense going AMD way on that.

 

[Excalabur50]

I'm trying to be optimistic. Gaming industry needs to evolve. There are some trying like developers behind Unreal Engine 4 but we have a long road ahead.

I think my next buil will be AMD Ryzen. But I'll be sticking with Nvidia GPU ala 1080Ti. The reason being is the Gsync PG348 monitor I have. No sense going AMD way on that.

I too have to buy an Nvidia GPU but I think I'm going to wait to see what happens once AMD shake things up with their Vega GPU's as it may force more improvements from Nvidia and or price drops and who knows the 1080Ti might? be cheaper in June/July depending on AMD's launch time

 

[Dawelio]

Aye they have by no means wiped the floor with Intel but they have put themselves back in contension, I mean £500 for the 1800X is grand and all but do you "need" those cores? From a production point of view hell yes and it's a bargain compared to the 5960X, from an everyday user and gamers POV nah not even remotely.. £500 for the 1800X or £250 - £300 for an i7 which will still do the job as good if not better and cooler.. plus that's £200 in the everyday consumers pocket at the end of the day.

What I'm now waiting for are the Ryzen 1600X & 1600, these could be the ones to make Intel sweat as they claim to be competition for the i5 series but I've a feeling they are going to give the mainstream middle of the road i7s a run for their money and if they are i5 price points AMD have nailed the market. Here's to an exciting Q2.

This is basically why I won't go anything higher than my i7 7700K, since I don't really need anything with more cores, it will just be useless to me.

Hell, even my last 5820K weren't even being used 50% of it's full potential 90% of the time lol. So was a waste of horsepower in my opinion, and even less so now with my 7700K. So in my eyes, I'm just fine with what I have now

 

[Bartacus]

TTL: you mentioned in the review that you were going to talk about memory and various kits, but you never did. Did I miss something there? I remember you saying "well talk about that in a minute", but I don't recall you talking about the mem kits. Was I so drunk that I missed it?

 

[tinytomlogan]

TTL: you mentioned in the review that you were going to talk about memory and various kits, but you never did. Did I miss something there? I remember you saying "well talk about that in a minute", but I don't recall you talking about the mem kits. Was I so drunk that I missed it?

Its very hit and miss atm. QVL lists are very important with AM4 boards.

Ill do a video when Ive learned a bit more myself

 

[Bartacus]

Its very hit and miss atm. QVL lists are very important with AM4 boards.

Ill do a video when Ive learned a bit more myself

Awesome, I look forward to learning from you once you're done learning yourself. All kinds of new stuff to learn here, especially with the overclocking. It seems that no one has a good grip on that yet, it's just too new.

Great work on the review BTW.