Hardware AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and AM4 Platform Review

So AMD promised a gaming CPU. Yet it gets spanked by the i7 7700K, which is £140 cheaper, in the Ashes bench. Then the other gaming benchmarks don't bother with the 7700K and just use the 6850 and 6900? Why didn't you include it Bit-Tech? In fact the pick of CPUs seems to vary with each test done. The cynic in me wonders if this is to make Ryzen look better?

Seems that AMD have come up with a very good workstation CPU, but one that isn't that good at gaming relative to its price (as an example, see https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_cpu_review/19)

 

RIghto, I hear you. Any chance of adding in 7700K benches for the other games? After all, AMD are going hard after the gaming enthusiast crowd with their marketing and it'd be a real shame to not offer a comparison to the cheaper i7.

It's a wake up call for Intel's pricing on the 6850/6900 for sure, but I think Ryzen is going to struggle to impact further down the stack and I worry about the performance of the R3/R5 units.

 

Welcome back AMD

 

Its easy to deduce if gaming is your thing Intels i7 is still king as whilst the IPC is broadly similar, Ryzen can't match the clock speeds.

 

When AMD first showed Ryzen they used software like Blender and Handbrake and it was pretty much equal to the Intel HEDT CPUs, so not sure why some people expected Ryzen to be some gaming monster when even the £1600 10 Core from Intel gets beaten to a pulp by much higher clocked and cheaper Intel CPUs in some games.

From what I've seen across various reviews there are major issues with immature bios versions, so no need to rush

 

Yeah like any new hardware : take caution.

I remember when my mate went Core 2 with DDR3. Complete nightmare.

 

At the end of the day, how many people use their PC's PURELY as gaming machines nowadays??

Ryzen 7 is offering gaming performance well in-line with Intel's top-end CPU's, which also lose out to the likes of the 6700/7700K because of clock speed differences, while still offering considerably higher performance outside of gaming. I don't know why anyone would want to compare a 7700K, as has been said that's a CPU that costs £140 less! Which by simple logic isn't what AMD are looking to offer an alternative to. Figure it out, lads.

My concerns are now to do with heat and power consumption at full load...

 

Looks like AMD are back but with caveats!

They are on the right road now for sure, but certainly not an intel smackdown..

TBH they were that fair behind this is really a great achievement, they now need to incrementally build on it and cash in on the good will there still is towards the company.

 

It's all of the same caveats as any massively cored CPU though in fairness. They never make great gamers.

However, looking over some benchmarks today? the CPU doesn't seem anywhere near as important as it once was. I hardly saw any difference in capped 60hz gaming over the FX 6350 for example.

 

Dare I also mention the mass P67 board recall and immature Sandybridge BIOS's on release also - come to think of it my last hyperthreaded CPU was a 2600k (which fair play was awesome), simply because there was no viable competition at the time...

Now there is!!!

AMD are back in the game, that's good for all as far as I'm concerned

 

AMD have also been making a massive song and a dance about Ryzen for gaming, shooting hard for the enthusiast market. Their press events have been full of Battlefront/Battlefield or whatever, so whilst they have indeed been showing the Blender etc stuff you can't just wave a hand and deny the claims that Ryzen would be Top Stuff for games.

It's that mis-match that I've got issue with. AMD should have said from the outset that this is a workstation CPU, as opposed to being a £450 CPU that is equivalent to a £250 i5 6500K for games.

I use my PC for games and, err, Word? Not sure I need an 8C/16T for that one.

Ryzen is offering gaming performance equivalent to an i5 6500K, at its top end. You can compare it to the 7700K quite easily, if you're after a gaming CPU.

As above, AMD should have been more honest with their marketing. They've done a great job at designing something that puts Bulldozer to shame, but it's a workstation CPU at the end of the day.


I hope Intel take notice and seriously revise their pricing strategy for their 6850/6900s. That's where AMD are disrupting.

 

Any new launch is usually marred with problems. Usually RAM related, too. The amount of threads I have seen on other forums with people struggling to get their stupid fast RAM kits running on new boards.

And you're right, the Sandy/SATA thing was a nightmare for Intel.

 

Eh?

I'm really struggling to figure out the argument you're trying to make. You say R7 offers gaming performance equal to an i5 6500K, AMD say they offer gaming performance equal to a 6850K/6900K - you know, the "enthusiast" CPU Intel sells for more than a lot of folks monthly mortgage/rent payment...

AMD IS shooting for the top-end, enthusiast market with R7 (and undercutting while doing it), so naturally that's where the comparisons should be made.

Don't blame AMD that a 6500K gives us the same gaming experience as an R7 or a 6900K, blame game developers... or thank 'em, depending on how much you have to spend.

 

I'm saying an R7 for £450 offers the same performance for gaming as a £250 6500K. Which means it's horrifically expensive for people who want a gaming CPU.

AMD say they offer gaming performance similar to a 6900K, which is true, except that isn't a CPU you'd buy to play games on. So it's a pointless comparison to draw. By all means chat about Ryzen's excellent pricing and performance on workstation-type tasks, where they hand Intel much-needed competition.

AMD shouldn't be selling/marketing this as a gaming CPU (which they have been doing, hard), because it isn't. It's an excellent workstation CPU. Their marketing department have once again done them a disservice.

EDIT: I hope the higher clocked 4-6 core Ryzens can claw something back.

 

I'll eyeballing the 1600X (depending on performance) so silly silly question for a site like this but...with Windows 10 not having keys how the hell do we upgrade?
Do I have to do it on the current install then i can do a reset and all will be good? TheN I can swap out the SSD for a nice new M2 SSD Aand do a clean install if I please?

It used to be so easy :/

 

Nice review, glad to see it

So overall, it performs close to (and sometimes beats) an Intel CPU that is double the price, which is fairly stunning IMO considering where AMD have been financially.

The ashes of the singularity results are a bit lower than expected, especially as it's DX12, but will be interesting to see how much that's down to it simply being a new architecture with a beta BIOS.

Overall it's great to see AMD back and competitive.

<Troll mode>
Not sure why people are concerned about the 1800X overclocking performance. 5.36 Ghz is totally achievable.
</Troll mode>