AMD Ryzen 7 1800X AM4 8-Core Processor Review
Discrete GPU Benchmarks
3DMark
This one has got me stumped, from friends in the industry we know it should be benching higher, at least another 1000 points or so, but we just couldn’t get it there. The score isn’t bad for a GTX 980 Ti, but we’ll revisit this test in the near future should we find the gremlin in the results.
Rise of the Tomb Raider
AMD has marketed Ryzen as bringing the benefits of a powerful multi-core CPU to the gaming masses, and boy have they delivered. Straight away the 1800X is near the top of our charts, and with a bit of an overclock, it beats out everything by an impressive margin.
Shadow of Mordor
Stock performance was respectable here, within a few FPS of pretty much everything else, but push those clocks up and it once again it beat out all the top-end Intel offerings. You wanted a gaming chip? Here it is!
Good job Intel at beating garbage AMD at damn near every test. And good job to the reviewers to act like there’s still a reason to buy AMD
These numbers didn’t look like this when Linus just did his review…
Yes it did. Ryzen hasnt beaten Intel in gaming for a single review yet.
I’ve actually seen multiple reviews and numbers were all over the place. In some it crushed Intel, in some it has been crushed, in some others they were trading blows.
Not a single relevant review has AMD ahead of Intel for gaming. Not a single one.
Are you actually reading the same reviews I’m reading?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1bdb6c71901c16c18bfc1764404861eb2516d11727f2e99409c6042d34655f8.png FYI, stinky fanboy. You’re defending a criminal organization
Ken Kirby talking smack for nothing, like Intel or Ngreeedia have not had many similar problems. give time for optimizations and code to let Ryzen shine, then open your stupid mouth. if all we had was either Intel or Nv garbage, guess where performance and pricing be, in the toilet PERIOD.
Many sites are biased towards Intel and Nvidia, so will always show their numbers best bu subvertly adjusting things and not saying what they have done for many reasons, and in the same manner do on purpose to show AMD/Radeon in worst light, cause they are paid to do exactly that. live in a world where there is just 2 main companies, and the world is held back, remember that. At very least, this cause Intel and partners as well as Nvidia and partners to rush to address pricing and performance issues, dont be a tool!
if the AMD is gonna issue another better processor like hypothetically a 1900(X) with 12 cores, at less than $750 or 800 (pretty sure at a 75% expected price in case of lower clock), even for the people prone to Intel or Nvidia, won’t leave a relatively low marks on verdict.
wish AMD can issue a 12 core Ryzen like Intel. lawl.
My 6800K clocked at 4.1 MHz for a mere 1.199 V with absolute stability, and every reviewer complained that it was hot when it first came out. Now, the 1800x, clocked 4.1 MHz for 1.488 V, and none will be complaining, I suppose. Of course for haft the price of the 6900K, it’s a no brainer.
AMD and Intel totally different design so cannot and should not expect similar voltage, heat, power used, temperatures given etc.pretty sure you mean Ghz, not Mhz, cause if you really mean only 4.1Mhz that high of a voltage will blow them up :D..and no not all sites are reporting need that crazy amount of voltage, read elsewhere they could get 4.1 at 1.34-.137v rock solid, many sites seeing as they got the review samples often only days before could place said review up i.e very limited time to do so, which ends up being they rush through overclocking and benchmarks, in overclocking tests, if you do NOT take time to tune, and just brute force approach, sure you can get the higher speed, but that much extra voltage really limits performance and clocks you can achieve, cause it means more heat, more heat, less speed, and quicker things will break.
Funny how you said that yours only needed 1.199v for 4.1″Ghz” when every review I have just looked at showed that exact processor needing in the range of 3.65-1.477 volts AND the actually power consumed in watts and heat given off when clocked past the 4Ghz range starts to skyrocket, so, its a wash as far as “old” vs “new” Intel vs AMD, all the modern intel chips unless clocked high from the factory really really start to suck back power and get so much hotter when clock speeds are pushed up, this is not me saying such, this is 100s if not thousands of reviews to back it up, they are efficient if left at “stock” but, power(watts and volts) go up as the speed goes up, dramatically once a certain amount is reached.
Could be you got a 99% better then any other 6800k ever released, could be it was like this for awhile with not a true 100% stability, it could be you are lying through your teeth for nothing but trolling.
No, It’s a true 100% stability. The initial voltage is a mere 1.194 V, and it survived a 16 minutes CPU-Z stress test. I also used the 1.194 V setting to browse the web and watched YouTube all day without any issue. But, when I tried to export a photo of 611 MB from Adobe Lightroom, Windows crashed, Adobe Lightroom is a very power-hungry application, more so than gaming. With the 1.199 V setting, I ‘played with Lightroom for several days’ without any issue. So, 1.199 V is definitely 100% stable. But, 4 GHz @ 1.168 V is my prefer setting, as it consumes on average 10 w less, and my second favourite profile is of course the 1.199 V setting.
you didn’t just win the silicon lottery, you won the silicon jackpot.
Eteknix, why is my comment being deleted? Please can somebody ( a mod ) respond?
100mhz OC = 12fps gain.. legiiiiiit
http://www.eteknix.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Ryzen-1800X-11.png
So your telling me my $490 7700k is close to a $685 1800x ? I feel good mate