AMD Ryzen R7 1800X Review

To early for a definitive review but I guess 7700k users don't have anything to worry or regret about their purchased!

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks

 

What I took away from that article is that if you're using content stick with Intel, if you're creating content, go with Ryzen.

 

Unfortunately I don't think that's the market Ryzen needs. Getting mainstream and gaming users was probably the most important part of Ryzen for a true comeback. It was almost assured that it would win for non-gaming multithreaded workloads for the price. This is what I was afraid of.

 

It's a foothold at least, we sell to almost as many devs/artists as we do gamers, so I'm happy to offer more variety to at least some. I will still recommend Intel to gamers of course.

 

It's true, and I guess they should be fine for market share.

But gaming is the flashy market that gets talked about the most online I would say.

 

Absolutely, and falling flat there is a problem in the short term for sure. But this at least gets their foot back in the door and if I'm honest (hype aside) that's all I expected.

 

I wouldn't buy 8-core Ryzen anyway so if 6-core will be cheap enough and comparable in gaming performance to 8-Core then I will probably go for it.
And upgradeability is a good thing too.

 

Yeah, I just saw that. Quite disappointing, will wait for more benchmarks to see though. Never know if they artificially gimped the test somehow. Not saying they did, just that I want more benchmarks before forming a concrete opinion. Anyone know if there's something like user benchmarks for FPS tests? http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916

Obviously these benchmarks don't give a thorough gaming review of the chips.

For example, this seems to contradict the gamers nexus article. But once again, not sure if they can be trusted. Really wish there was something like user benchmarks (the website) for FPS somehow.

http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

Edit:
Found another with a supposed FPS bench. Not sure if it's accurate either, though. Granted, it's the 1700. But if the previous article can be trusted, the 1700 and 1800 are fairly similar in gaming.
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

tldr; I think it's too early to tell what's what.

 

deleted

 

It's deleted

I went to look at it on my mobile, decided to get my laptop... and poof she's gone.

What I did read was Nvidia refusing to sell mobile chips to Ryzen built laptops right?

Would you have a source for this that I could look at? Would love to get the word out as well

 

No. I found out after I posted that I shared too much too early and need to wait for more information. I think a war is coming with the Green Goblin on the wrong side, but I don't want to be less than factual or mislead anyone.

 

Ah gotcha, thanks.

 

Disappointing if true, I want an arms race, not an actual war.

 

We are already at war with BGA filth.

There can be only one!

[

It's time for BGA trash to die. Ryzen HEDT CPUs could be the secret weapon against Intel's brain cancer.

 

You know what happens when there's only one. That one gets lazy and doesn't innovate. Don't think for a minute AMD wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing Intel is doing right now if they were on top.

 

I doubt they will do this like iNtel whom has been leading has now been shown to fumbled now. Like another posting in another forum I made iNtel has now been shown to lack innovation. They claim to making a 10nm chipset but if you read farther they sudden go back to 14nm cpu and that makes you wonder why? This tells you that iNtel can't deliver a 10nm cpu and now has to go back to 14nm tells you that they where caught with their pants down thinking AMD can't do what they claim they can do-but the opposite is true they did make a cpu that iNtel in their closed mindset saying AMD can't do this. But now since they been sleeping AMD gave them a shock and they now are spouting vaporware and making stories about new chipset but this is all called "VAPORWARE".

 

That's exactly what I mean though. The entire reason intel got this rude awakening is because they were on top and didn't feel the need to innovate. Now that they are being challenged, after an initial scramble I'm sure they'll be back at it, and hopefully AMD grabs/keeps exactly enough market share to force Intel to stay on their toes for the foreseeable future, even better if they grab enough that it's a continual arms race.

 

Intel will go 6 cores next year with 3.5, 4.1 Turbo (1 core but no need to yell about it) and all casual buyers will buy ones.

 

As much as I'd like to see AMD gaining as much market share as nGREEDIA and GrIntel currently have, I'm shivering at such thought. Firstly I don't want to see whether or not they'll turn into these two, secondly - it benefits no one. Even if they corner the entire market and keep the current behaviour, it's still bad. They did quite a bit of the innovations over the years, but NOT ALL of them and that's the key and what I stand behind - fair fight, the costumer (note, NOT consumer) wins.

Not because it will be better and this is what I mean with consumers vs costumers.

 

I think we're saying the same thing there. I don't want either company to have the entire market. I want them both constantly fighting each other for more performance and reliability at lower prices, rather than one or the other sitting at the top not doing anything.

 

Well I said:

Which should translate as - low prices, nice performance gains, good attitude towards costumers (open standards, futureproofing, overclocking (although currently it's mostly bullet point in a (AMD's) slide, but there's still some to be extracted) and etc), unlike what GrIntel or nGREEDIA are currently doing, or tried to do. Anyway, at 50/50 market share things would get real, but I doubt that we'll ever see such balanced fight.

 

They are businesses, not non-profit graphics card providers. I bet the R&D costs to develop Pascal/Vega could probably have sent people to Mars already. The only reasonable way to expect low prices, nice performance gains, etc. is through competition. Calling them names just makes them take your arguments less seriously.

 

I don't think AMD can reasonably corner the market anyhow, that's an unrealistic expectation and I sincerely hope no one is actually rooting for it. Businesses are businesses, if they can profit without putting major R&D into the process.. they will.

 

I doubt so just look at the PC parts market and AMD Ryzen are being on order already because why...they are less expensive and pc makers now have a option and can say to iNtel tough luck bud. I read in MaximumPC that MicroCenter are already slashing iNtel cpu prices so that already tells you the market is shifting and iNtel missed the boat. iNtel will not be back at it since they couldn't deliver the 10nm they claim and with Zen coming iNtel is now scared.

 

I doubt that is AMD plan but to put and show how lacking in innovation iNtel cpu are to show they can do for less and save pc makers more. That is the plan and something iNtel has up to now been lacking. They don't need to corner the market the Zen with the test bed has already done that and pc makers are lining up order for Ryzen.

 

Of course they won't be at it right away, but this is hardly going to put them out of business. The pendulum isn't in full swing yet even with a strong initial sales bump (which I would attribute to many other factors besides performance/it's the new thing). I don't want you to think I'm cheerleading Intel here, because I'm not. I just think it's premature to forecast doom on them because AMD pulled its head out and started making decent products again.

 

Precisely this. The only major "kick in the groin" that has occurred towards intel is an 8 core chip being sold for half the price of their own 8 core chips. The majority of sales consist of businesses and gamers. So they did take out a chunk of the "business" profits as some do require multi-core processors. However, AMD hasn't really kicked into the gaming industry yet. Perhaps that will change with their 4 core processors, if they can compete with the i7 7700k... they'd be sitting pretty ^^

The i7 7700k is still king for gaming imho, but if you need multiple cores for VMs or whatever... Ryzen's the way to go ^^ It can handle gaming, but it's also more useful for needs requiring more cores. Now if only someone would throw it in a laptop

 

Probably won't see one this gen, but if it does well in desktops I hope to see one in a bigger Clevo.

 

The key thing with Ryzen is optimization, which is not present in the current Windows environment, nor in the Linux, highly doubt it will work with a Mac atm and the gaming performance is lacking behind (again games need to be optimized for AMD CPU's).

I can see the future, it is not far, and Ryzen just needs that extra push to get where it needs to be.

 

Looks like it's pretty good for streaming already.

 

Waiting to see the Ryzen 5 seires as that would be more fitting of my needs unless 7 series are in the price combo range. I found the boards already but the one that looks interesting was out of stock for now. But I know it will be back-it was a AsRock with 10 sata connections which I like to have and the price was a good one as well. I do think this time iNtel will have to justify their price gouging of customers and pc makers though. And if the 5 and 3 series promise like the 7 series iNtel will feel it sooner then later. The news of 7 series 1800x being ordered gives a indication the pc makers are tired of being Bullied by iNtel saying they are the player in town but now a old player is back and iNtel is left scrambling. And their so called 10nm chips are just that Vaporware since in the same breath they talk about going 14nm of which should tell anyone reading they reached a climax and couldn't meet it and now must go back to 14nm to make chips again.

 

The 5 series in particular is the one that has me interested.

 

Interesting read on the 5 series. Sorry if its already been posted

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

 

I hadn't seen that yet, thanks for posting!

 

Purchased my 6800k about 1 month prior to the launch of Ryzen. I was a little worried I just wasted money at first, but it looks it the 6800k was $400 well-spent.

 

I am a bit confused.

If you are talking about gaming then yes, otherwise Ryzen 7 beats the 6800k in almost all scenarios.

edit: with that said, the performance would however be neglible so I will say I agree with your comment, the price difference is close to none anyways.

 

Exactly
The hassle of selling a (now used) 6800k as well as my Motherboard honestly doesn't justify switching to the 1800X. I mostly game anyways, but hoping to start some live-streaming in the future. I won't lose sleep over the minuscule performance improvements the 1800X has over my 6800k.

 

Yeah, the maximum boost of performance for almost the exact same price (give or take 3%) is not worth the 7% boost at all (source, I just averaged 4 review videos on youtube)

I completely get your point and thus is why I edited my post (I tend to post faster than I think) haha

 

It seems that the 1800x is a bit overkill against the 6800K, price-wise at least, as the 1700 will OC out of the box to be 99% of a 1800x for a lot less $.

And, even that is more cores in comparison, so really a 1600 or 1600x would compare favorably enough, and a whole lot cheaper than a 6800k as well.

If you aren't really killing it will the 6800K, mostly gaming, then even a 1400 OC'd might do the trick for most games, with the 1500x only $20 more for 2x the cache - 8MB to 16MB which helps in some games.

As you said you already have the 6800K and the matching hardware, it's not really enough of a change in performance to upgrade now, but for someone just starting their build, they could save a good amount of $ and get Ryzen 5/7 hardware for comparable performance