• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FRONTPAGE AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I wouldn't say gaming is bad per say. I would say as a product, Ryzen is great for productivity. It's sufficient at gaming too, but not OMG AMAZING at gaming. Buying it expressly for gaming is not a great idea, but if you use computers for more intensive tasks that can benefit from the additional cores, it does have its advantages.

Case and point:. For an internship I had to write software that computed binary matrixes and stored them to disk. No big deal right? Except each one took a few ms to calculate each. Again, no big deal right? There was only 2^23 matrixes to compute... It took over 24 hrs on an i7 with some minor IO bottlenecking (after a while the disk got its cache saturated). Granted the code I wrote could probably be optimized more than when I wrote it, but it was fairly efficient. I had already done some pretty significant optimizations at that point. We are talking binary matrixes, that when 8 elements (bits) are stored, they are stored as a byte, with very minimal overhead, and consumed 28kilobytes of disk space. :)

Still would've been faster on 16 threads (and a solid state).

For me Ryzen won't run my BF1 at 144FPS with a 1080p 144Hz monitor. I know what your are saying and I agree Ryzen is not as bad as my old i5 2500k in gaming. AMD said to the review sites to run the gaming benchmarks at 4k, that does not work for folks that have 1080p 144Hz monitors.

So when are you going to purchase Ryzen to process the work that you do faster?
 
So when are you going to purchase Ryzen to process the work that you do faster?

Once I sell my laptop. It's not moving here, but I think it will move on craigslist. Here to hoping I don't get robbed :D

Already sold my mobo/CPU/GPU. Once the laptop sells, hopefully the X370 boards will finally be in stable stock at MicroCenter in Denver. I'm ready for it as my current (new) laptop can't game and I could use some escaping from school and work :D
 
For me Ryzen won't run my BF1 at 144FPS with a 1080p 144Hz monitor. I know what your are saying and I agree Ryzen is not as bad as my old i5 2500k in gaming. AMD said to the review sites to run the gaming benchmarks at 4k, that does not work for folks that have 1080p 144Hz monitors.

So when are you going to purchase Ryzen to process the work that you do faster?

A 2500k shouldn't have been bad. I could run bf1 at 144 on my 2600k Heck I think it can even do 144 on my 780ti in that system atm.

As of the comment earlier about the multitasking. the 1800x only has about 50% more power in multitasking than the 7700k from the most recent reviews I have seen. So to have twice the cores but only 50% more Multitasking is sorta disappointing.
 
As of the comment earlier about the multitasking. the 1800x only has about 50% more power in multitasking than the 7700k from the most recent reviews I have seen. So to have twice the cores but only 50% more Multitasking is sorta disappointing.

So then you are just as disappointed with the 6900K?
 
A 2500k shouldn't have been bad. I could run bf1 at 144 on my 2600k Heck I think it can even do 144 on my 780ti in that system atm.

As of the comment earlier about the multitasking. the 1800x only has about 50% more power in multitasking than the 7700k from the most recent reviews I have seen. So to have twice the cores but only 50% more Multitasking is sorta disappointing.

According to the BF1 Benchmark the OC 4.5GHz i5 2500k is 123.7 FPS. Link: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
 
Nicely done review, thanks! I have a Ryzen in my shopping cart, just gotta pick up a few odds and ends to round out a build.

My last build was my sig rig, 5 years between builds...the time has come. ;)
 
A little yes, but then again it can overclock to be much closer to that mark than the 1800x can atm.

Hopefully kabylake e/x will pull it off.

In the Tom's hardware review the max OC of the 6800K was 4.3Ghz. 1800X has a max OC of 4.1Ghz afaik.

1700 destroys the 6800K in price/performance. 1800X shouldn't even be considered imo.
 
In the Tom's hardware review the max OC of the 6800K was 4.3Ghz. 1800X has a max OC of 4.1Ghz afaik.

1700 destroys the 6800K in price/performance. 1800X shouldn't even be considered imo.

In those reviews you would be correct but if you look at the current OC community for the 6900 you would see it gets to 4.7-4.8 for a lot of them now.. even a few in the 5.1 -5.2 range on good water cooling setups.

So while even 5.1 won't beat the 7700k in single thread it does come pretty close to it at stock yet has 4 more cores.

I guess my point is price is on factor when looking at the two, but you should also look at average OC and how much effect that has on performance between the two. Something AMD will never encourage atm.

Price/performance the AMD wins
Total performance the INTEL wins

At least now the delta between the two is much closer.
 
In the Tom's hardware review the max OC of the 6800K was 4.3Ghz. 1800X has a max OC of 4.1Ghz afaik.

1700 destroys the 6800K in price/performance. 1800X shouldn't even be considered imo.
It's still closer.. it still games better (for now...until they get their stuff straight). The worst part, NOW, is it's cost. As I've said, if you use more than 8 threads, Ryzen is for you. If not, then it simply comes down to budget.

I mean these literally do not overclock! 4.1 is max xfr...and you can only make all cores there if you are lucky with proper cooling. Being an overclocker, that's terrible!

@tgar - you are not finding 6900k much past 4.3, bud. 5ghz on ambient isn't happening...
 
Links or it never happened tg... 5.1 ghz 6900k on ambient... I have to see this..........

Hwbot has them around 4.3 or so on air/water... and that stability is for benchmarks there...not 24./7.
 
Broadwell has never been a good clocker has it? From memory I struggled to get my i5 to 4 GHz on 280mm AIO as it seemed to be hitting a voltage wall. I'd think it is quite probable an OC Haswell would beat equivalent OC Broadwell. Ryzen I've yet to try OC while I get used to the platform, but existing reports are tempering my expectations. I suspect the power requirements will mean it will only be a plaything, and I'll likely run stock 24/7. Side note: I actually remembered to put a power meter on my system (in sig). Running a mathematical sieve (low stress, integer, benefits from SMT) the system was taking 127W. I still need to compare this to a similar configuration Intel at some point but I think it holds up in performance per watt.

A photography blogger I half-follow introduced me to the term "internet amplification effect", and I think there's a ton of that flying around at the moment. Minor differences are made to sound like the end of the world differences. Recent Youtube changes (intentionally or otherwise) had an effect of encourage clickbait titles, so there is more mud flying than there used to be.
 
Was trying to avoid posting about other forums but there are a good number of them there in this subject and just a quick glance gave me. http://www.overclock.net/t/1601679/broadwell-e-thread/2550#post_25465790

You will find people at 5.1ghz on custom water too. There is a 5ghz 6950x ffs

That link doesn't prove anything for me. 100% stability and forum shpiels are two different things.

Plus your link shows one at 4.5ghz that is being called basically a golden chip, and another dying.
 
Was trying to avoid posting about other forums but there are a good number of them there in this subject and just a quick glance gave me. http://www.overclock.net/t/1601679/broadwell-e-thread/2550#post_25465790

You will find people at 5.1ghz on custom water too. There is a 5ghz 6950x ffs
I see a 6800k that died and someone at 4.5ghz.. you notice the silicon lottery poster? He runs this website: https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all

You notice they bin cpus and resell...if he is calling that a fantastic chip, it's a real gem.

If you look at hwbot.org, the fastest anyone has run a 6900k using all cores is 4.5ghz on water for a 2.3s benchmark. One core 5 second runs are 5ghz... but the VAST majority are low 4ghz range, even on water. Clearly they are not reaching 4.8ghz+ 24/7 stable using ambient cooling.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6900k/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6950x/
 
My 6800K is considered great and it can make 4.5GHz ~1.385V what is benchable on above average water cooling ( I didn't test full stability ) and it's only 6 core CPU. At the same time it's max at which it seems stable and it's max possible on this cooling.
OC profiles for Broadwell-E end on 4.2 or 4.3GHz in high end motherboards. Profiles for Haswell-E end on 4.7GHz. That's the comparison of what you can expect on ambient cooling.
Broadwell-E results on LN2 are not much above 5GHz so except you can get 10 cores, everything else is worse than Haswell-E for competitive benchmarking ... and no one really cares about any Broadwell-E lower than 6950X. No one is wasting money on Broadwell-E lower than 6950X because Broadwell-E is worse for overclocking than Haswell-E.
 
The 1800x was DOWNCLOCKED for gaming.

It comes with two cores at 4.1ghz out of the box. DUAL CORE / 4 thread is all that most games use and QUAD CORE / 8 THREAD is ALL the reviewed games will EVER use. For ALL of the games several stages in the game's pipeline only use 1 or 2 cores.

Hence this was a DOWN-CLOCK not an overclock.

Modern Quad/Octo core CPUs come with variable turbo settings for a reason. Back in the days of the Quad core you saw this same crap, people would max out all 4 cores then benchmark Quake (single threaded game) vs Dual Cores and then call the dual core the winner.

Meanwhile it was possible to turbo a SINGLE core inthe quad core 300-400mhz over the rest, and kill the dual core from the competition.

You don't downclock the max turbo max out all 8 cores for single threaded workloads, like many of these games. Quake1 and Quake2 benchmarks all over again. Come on now do I really need to explain this?

- - - Updated - - -

Woodmack, Broadwell-E and Hawell-E do not hit 4.7 ghz on all 8 cores. That is like one in a million.

Not even the 4790k could hit 4.7ghz on all 8 cores very often. You could hit 4.7ghz on 4 cores pretty easy though, it is a 140w TDP chip after all not a 90w TDP chip like Haswell was. So that is common.

If you're going to DOWNCLOCK the 1800x and then do the turbo the right way on the 5960x with 4 cores at 4.7ghz and the other 4 at 4.2 or something FOR GAMING yeah, the overclocked x99 will beat the downclocked x1800, OF COURSE an overclocked chip beats a downclocked one.
 
The 1800x was DOWNCLOCKED for gaming.

It comes with two cores at 4.1ghz out of the box. DUAL CORE / 4 thread is all that most games use and QUAD CORE / 8 THREAD is ALL the reviewed games will EVER use. For ALL of the games several stages in the game's pipeline only use 1 or 2 cores.

Hence this was a DOWN-CLOCK not an overclock.

Modern Quad/Octo core CPUs come with variable turbo settings for a reason. Back in the days of the Quad core you saw this same crap, people would max out all 4 cores then benchmark Quake (single threaded game) vs Dual Cores and then call the dual core the winner.

Meanwhile it was possible to turbo a SINGLE core inthe quad core 300-400mhz over the rest, and kill the dual core from the competition.

You don't downclock the max turbo max out all 8 cores for single threaded workloads, like many of these games. Quake1 and Quake2 benchmarks all over again. Come on now do I really need to explain this?

- - - Updated - - -

Woodmack, Broadwell-E and Hawell-E do not hit 4.7 ghz on all 8 cores. That is like one in a million.

Not even the 4790k could hit 4.7ghz on all 8 cores very often. You could hit 4.7ghz on 4 cores pretty easy though, it is a 140w TDP chip after all not a 90w TDP chip like Haswell was. So that is common.

If you're going to DOWNCLOCK the 1800x and then do the turbo the right way on the 5960x with 4 cores at 4.7ghz and the other 4 at 4.2 or something FOR GAMING yeah, the overclocked x99 will beat the downclocked x1800, OF COURSE an overclocked chip beats a downclocked one.

Whops, I meant not even the 4790k could hit 4.7ghz on 4 cores very often, and it was half the coers and WAY more than half the TDP, even if you pumped 140w through it with some monster cooler, it couldn't hit 4.7ghz on all 4 cores.

A 140w chip of the same arch and process isn't going to be any cooler at those same clocks than the 4790k with it's x99 style proper TIM interface and heat spreader. But Sure it should be able to hit the same 4.7ghz on the same number of cores and power 4 more with the greater TDP, not rare at all.

Besides, if you're using water chillers and custom loops and high pressure pumps and tubing and gaskets and special bocks and advanced fluid additives, etc etc etc and you've pumped another 1000$ into the system and you're comparing it to a downclocked (for 2-4 thread work) CPU that is boosting 4-6 cores into turbo wasting power on those just so you can say "muh cores are all equal" like it's a human rights issue.... JUSTICE FOR MUH CORES! PARKED CORES MATTER!

I don't even know what to say...

- - - Updated - - -

I mean it COULD, but it wasn't guranteed. There were MANY 4790k chips that maxed out at less than the 4.4ghz max-turbo (2 cores) stock speed.
 
Back