I7 7700 vs 1800x: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x vs Intel Core i7-7700: What is the difference?

54points

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

52points

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

64 facts in comparison

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

Intel Core i7-7700

Why is AMD Ryzen 7 1800x better than Intel Core i7-7700?

  • 2x faster CPU speed?
    8 x 3.6GHzvs4 x 3.6GHz
  • 267MHz higher ram speed?
    2667MHzvs2400MHz
  • 8 more CPU threads?
    16vs8
  • 3MB bigger L2 cache?
    4MBvs1MB
  • 47.05% higher PassMark result?
    16234vs11040
  • 8MB bigger L3 cache?
    16MBvs8MB
  • 512KB bigger L1 cache?
    768KBvs256KB
  • Has an unlocked multiplier?

Why is Intel Core i7-7700 better than AMD Ryzen 7 1800x?

  • 30W lower TDP?
    65Wvs95W
  • Has integrated graphics?
  • 8. 75% higher PassMark result (single)?
    2362vs2172
  • Has NX bit?

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

Intel Core i7-7700K

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

Intel Core i5-10400

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

Intel Core i3-10100

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

Intel Core i7-7700K

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

Intel Core i7-6700

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

Intel Core i7-4790K

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

Intel Core i7-3770

AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Intel Core i7-7700

vs

Intel Core i5-9400

Price comparison

User reviews

Performance

1. CPU speed

8 x 3.6GHz

4 x 3.6GHz

The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.

2.CPU threads

More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.

3.turbo clock speed

4.2GHz

When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

4.Has an unlocked multiplier

✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✖Intel Core i7-7700

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.

5.L2 cache

A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

6.L3 cache

A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

7.L1 cache

A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

8.L2 core

0.5MB/core

0.25MB/core

More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

9.L3 core

2MB/core

2MB/core

More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

Memory

1.RAM speed

2667MHz

2400MHz

It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

42.7GB/s

38.4GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.DDR memory version

DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.

4.memory channels

More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.

5.maximum memory amount

The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.

6.bus transfer rate

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

7.Supports ECC memory

✖AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✖Intel Core i7-7700

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.

9.bus speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

Benchmarks

1.PassMark result

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.

2.PassMark result (single)

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

5.Cinebench R20 (single) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7.Blender (bmw27) result

233.4seconds

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

8.Blender (classroom) result

708.7seconds

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

9.performance per watt

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.

Features

1.uses multithreading

✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✔Intel Core i7-7700

Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.

2.Has AES

✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✔Intel Core i7-7700

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3.Has AVX

✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✔Intel Core i7-7700

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.

4.SSE version

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5.Has F16C

✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✔Intel Core i7-7700

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

6.bits executed at a time

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.

7.Has MMX

✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✔Intel Core i7-7700

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

8.Has TrustZone

✖AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

✖Intel Core i7-7700

A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).

9.front-end width

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-7700)

The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best CPUs?

Two Years Later: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. Intel Core i7-7700K

With 3rd-gen Ryzen set to hit stores very soon, we’re warming up to that launch by revisiting some heated CPU battles from the past couple of years that can bring further context to current owners of these processors.

Today’s shoot out is between the Ryzen 7 1800X and Core i7­-7700K. But before we get into it, some disclaimers. We’re testing the 1800X and not the cheaper 1700 partly because we wanted to make it a one-on-one test and time was of the essence, thus we could only pick one Ryzen 7 processor. The 95 watt TDP 1800X is a better Ryzen 7 representative, if we could only pick one.

Upon release the 1800X carried an MSRP of $500 making it considerably more expensive than the Core i7­-7700K at $340. This made the Ryzen 7 1700 a more direct competitor as it was priced at just $330. However it wasn’t long before AMD executed some price cuts and the 1800X dropped down to roughly match the Core i7 processor.

To be precise, the 1800X dropped to just $320 in the same year of its release, and has since dropped as low as $220. As part of our test we’re also overclocking both Core i7 and Ryzen 7 processors. The R7 1700 typically hit 4 GHz and thus should deliver the exact same overclocked performance that you’ll see today from the 1800X.

On the memory front we debated internally about using the expensive low­-latency Samsung B­-Die stuff, and ultimately decided to use G.Skill’s FlareX DDR4­-3200 CL14 memory for a few reasons: these aren’t budget processors, so spending a bit extra on the memory isn’t out of the question and second, we’re testing CPU gaming performance with an RTX 2080 Ti to remove the CPU bottleneck, so why would we do that and then limit performance by using slower system memory.

That was our reasoning and it shouldn’t bother you too much one way or the other as long as both CPUs were tested with the exact same memory. We’ve tested 9 games at two resolutions, stock and overclocked, along with a few application benchmarks. Let’s get into it.

Application Benchmarks

Starting off this session we have Cinebench R20 which has always been good at showing the two tales of Ryzen. Here we have the multi­threaded performance and despite a rather large clock speed deficit we see Ryzen has no trouble stepping all over the Core i7 processor. Out of the box the 8­-core processor is an impressive 55% faster, though it has the advantage of doubling up on core count, of course. Still when fully utilized it’s clear the 7700K is no match for the 1800X.

Here’s the other side of the story: single core performance. The Core i7-7700K is 22% faster out of the box and when overclocked. This gives the Intel CPU a significant advantage in lightly threaded workloads.

WinRAR is more about memory bandwidth and latency than it is cores and as a result the 7700K is ~8% faster in this particular workload. Not a massive difference but after seeing the Cinebench R20 multi­core test, this isn’t the result you might have expected.

Moving on we have a benchmark that’s of particular importance to creators and video editors. I use Premiere Pro almost on a daily basis so I directly relate. Note that lower is better here as we’re looking at the time it takes to encode one Hardware Unboxed video into the 4K H.264 format. The R7 1800X is 43% faster in this test, taking 508 seconds out of the box. So for content creators the 8­-core CPU is the obvious choice.

Likewise the 1800X was welcomed with open arms by 3D modeling professionals. Here we see when using the latest version of V­-Ray, the 1800X is 57% faster than the 7700K out of the box and 50% once both CPUs are overclocked.

We see a similar story with Corona: the 1800X was 57% faster out of the box, completing the task in just 131 seconds.

The last application benchmark we’re looking at is Blender and here the 1800X was 62% faster stock and 60% faster when overclocked, a massive advantage here for Ryzen.

When running our Blender workload we also measured total system consumption and here the Ryzen 7 1800X pushed power draw 26% higher, which is a positive result for around a 60% increase in performance. Overclocking does blow Ryzen’s efficiency out the window though and frankly the 32% increase in system power draw isn’t worth the minor increase in performance.

Gaming Benchmarks

Time for some games. First up we have Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey where the 7700K was 5% faster on average and 8% faster for the 1% low result. These margins remained fairly the same once overclocked.As you’d expect moving to 1440p reduces the margin as we become slightly more GPU limited and once overclocked both CPUs were able to max out the RTX 2080 Ti. It’s worth noting that we’re not using the highest quality settings in Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey either, so it’s possible to make the game much more GPU bound without a resolution increase.

The Battlefield V results are interesting, here the 7700K is maxed out and while it does much better than the 7600K, we can see that the 1% low performance is down on the 1800X which enjoys considerably more breathing room. So in this instance the average frame rate can be misleading as the 1800X provides the smoother experience.

Even at 1440p the 7700K is still getting maxed out and as such provides a notably worse experience when compared to the 1800X. The game is still very playable on the 7700K, but given the choice of these two processors for BFV, we’re confident most gamers would choose the 1800X.

Here we see that the 7700K makes out well in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and this is entirely down to Hyper­-Threading support. Previously when testing the 7600K it really struggled in this title and was noticeably slower than the R5 1600. In this instance both the 7700K and 1800X delivered smooth playable performance, but overall the Core i7 processor was faster and by a reasonable 11% margin.

Jumping to 1440p cuts that margin down, but the 7700K was still faster by a 6% margin when comparing the average frame rate.

The Division 2 is another title where the 7600K struggled, but with the aid of Hyper­-Threading the 7700K makes out just fine and is quite a bit faster than the 1800X when comparing 1% low performance.

The 1800X makes a comeback at the more GPU limited 1440p resolution, and yet the 7700K managed a comfortable 11% lead when comparing the 1% low results.

Once again we see that Far Cry is a title where Ryzen CPUs tend to struggle. Here the 7700K was a whopping 24% faster out of the box and 31% faster once overclocked. Ryzen 7 was able to keep frame rates above 60 fps, but the 7700K was just a lot better overall.

Even at 1440p we see that for high­-refresh rate gaming in Far Cry New Dawn the 7700K is just a much better processor for the job. This time overclocked it was 35% faster and that’s a massive difference for the CPU to make at 1440p, even with an RTX 2080 Ti.

The Ryzen 7 processor also loses out in World War Z but this time the loss is less significant as both CPUs allowed the RTX 2080 Ti to render over 130 fps at all times.

Naturally the margins are reduced at 1440p and here the 7700K was up to 8% faster. Needless to say both CPUs enabled an excellent gaming experience.

Rage 2 isn’t a CPU demanding title and in this title both CPUs provided the same average frame rate. The higher clocked 7700K did sustain a higher 1% low result, offering around 12% more performance.

That margin is reduced to a minimum at 1440p and it’s fair to say both CPUs provided the same gaming experience.

First-gen Ryzen doesn’t do that well in Hitman 2 and you will see a significant improvement in performance, especially for 1% lows, when moving to a 2nd-gen Ryzen part such as the 2700X. The 1800X does enable playable smooth performance, but the 7700K manages the same with around 18 ­to 20% more frames.

Even at 1440p we still appear to be CPU bound and as a result the 7700K provides a slightly better gaming experience.

The last game in our list is Total War: Three Kingdoms where both CPUs achieve a similar average frame rate, but the higher core count on the 1800X provides noticeably better 1% low performance.

This is also seen at 1440p when comparing out of the box performance, but we see that the 4.8 GHz all-core overclock gets the 7700K up to speed.

What Did We Miss?

For modern games the Core i7­-7700K and Ryzen 7 1800X are evenly matched overall. There are lightly threaded games where the 7700K enjoys a significant frame rate advantage, but in all of those titles the 1800X still provides silky smooth performance. Meanwhile, in the more demanding titles the 7700K is starting to find its limits. When the CPU was completely tapped out the 1% low performance suffered in particular.

Honestly this situation isn’t that dissimilar to what we found in our day-one review two years ago, it’s just a tad more pronounced now. Here is a direct quote from our now two-year-old Ryzen 7 review:

One thing we did notice is that all the games we have looked at so far were smooth on the Ryzen processors. GTA 5, for example, plays really well on the Core i7-7700K, but every now and then a small stutter can be noticed, while the 1800X runs as smooth as silk, sans stuttering from what we observed.


We found a similar situation when testing Battlefield 1. Performance was smooth with the Ryzen processors while every now and then the quad-core 7700K had a small hiccup. These were rare but it was something we didn’t notice when using the 1800X and 1700X. But as smooth as the experience was, it doesn’t change the fact that gamers running a high refresh rate monitor may be better served by a higher clocked Core i7-6700K or 7700K.


While the gaming results might not be as strong as we had hoped for, they are highly competitive and that should hold particularly true for the Ryzen 5 and 3 series. It’s also worth noting that we are testing extreme gaming performance here with the Titan XP at 1080p. Ryzen looks more competitive at 1440p, and certainly so when paired with a GTX 1070 or Fury X.

For the most part we’d say that conclusion remains accurate today, though we wouldn’t recommend the 7700K over any Ryzen 7 part in 2019, even if they were sold at the same price.

Also the 7700K left us with a bad taste in our mouth after launching at $340 in early 2017 for the LGA1151 socket, it was effectively dead within that same year. In order to remain competitive Intel tacked on two extra cores and released the 8700K in late 2017 for $360 using the same and yet completely incompatible LGA1151 socket.

We’ve brought up the platform compatibility card many times before, but for good reason. This broken upgrade path left those who invested in the 7700K prior to October 2017 with nowhere to go, while Ryzen owners can still upgrade to this very day.

But without trying to take anything away from Intel, the Core i7-7700K is still a very capable gaming processor, but as a quad-­core in 2019 it’s starting to falter. On the other hand we expect the first-gen Ryzen processors to gradually improve over the coming years as games continue to better utilize more cores.

Shopping Shortcuts:
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X on Amazon, Newegg
  • Intel Core i5-9400F on Amazon, Newegg
  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700X on Amazon, Newegg
  • Intel Core i7-8700K on Amazon, Newegg
  • GeForce GTX 1660 Ti on Amazon, Newegg
  • GeForce RTX 2060 on Amazon, Newegg
  • Radeon VII on Amazon, Newegg
  • GeForce RTX 2080 on Amazon, Newegg
  • GeForce RTX 2080 Ti on Amazon, Newegg

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs.

Intel Core i7-7700

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

O AMD Ryzen 7 1800X opera com 8 núcleos e 16 threads de CPU. É executado em 4.00 GHz base 3.80 GHz todos os núcleos enquanto o TDP está definido em 95 W .O processador está conectado ao soquete da CPU AM4 Esta versão inclui 16.00 MB de cache L3 em um chip, suporta canais de 2 DDR4-2666 e recursos 3.0 PCIe Gen 20 lanes. Tjunction mantém abaixo de 95 °C graus C. Em particular, Summit Ridge (Zen) Arquitetura é aprimorada com 14 nm e suporta AMD-V, SVM . O produto foi lançado em Q1/2017

Intel Core i7-7700

O Intel Core i7-7700 opera com 4 núcleos e 16 threads de CPU. É executado em 4.20 GHz base 4.00 GHz todos os núcleos enquanto o TDP está definido em 65 W .O processador está conectado ao soquete da CPU LGA 1151 Esta versão inclui 8.00 MB de cache L3 em um chip, suporta canais de 2 DDR4-2400 e recursos 3.0 PCIe Gen 16 lanes. Tjunction mantém abaixo de — graus C. Em particular, Kaby Lake S Arquitetura é aprimorada com 14 nm e suporta VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d . O produto foi lançado em Q1/2017

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

Intel Core i7-7700

Detalhes de comparação

3.60 GHz Frequência 3.60 GHz
8 Núcleos 4
4.00 GHz Turbo (1 núcleo) 4.20 GHz
3.80 GHz Turbo (todos os núcleos) 4.00 GHz
Yes Hyperthreading Yes
Yes Overclocking No
normal Arquitetura Central normal
no iGPU GPU

Intel HD Graphics 630

No turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.15 GHz
14 nm Tecnologia 14 nm
No turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.15 GHz
Versão DirectX 12
Máx. monitores 3
DDR4-2666 Memória DDR4-2400
2 Canais de memória 2
Memória máxima
Yes ECC No
L2 Cache
16. 00 MB L3 Cache 8.00 MB
3.0 Versão PCIe 3.0
20 PCIe lanes 16
14 nm Tecnologia 14 nm
AM4 Soquete LGA 1151
95 W TDP 65 W
AMD-V, SVM Virtualização VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d
Q1/2017 Data de lançamento Q1/2017

Mostrar mais dados

Mostrar mais dados

Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)

O Cinebench R23 é o sucessor do Cinebench R20 e também é baseado no Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 é um software usado mundialmente para criar formas 3D. O teste de núcleo único usa apenas um núcleo de CPU, a quantidade de núcleos ou capacidade de hyperthreading não conta.

Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)

O Cinebench R23 é o sucessor do Cinebench R20 e também é baseado no Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 é um software usado mundialmente para criar formas 3D. O teste multi-core envolve todos os núcleos da CPU e tira uma grande vantagem do hyperthreading.

Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)

O Cinebench R20 é o sucessor do Cinebench R15 e também é baseado no Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 é um software usado mundialmente para criar formas 3D. O teste de núcleo único usa apenas um núcleo de CPU, a quantidade de núcleos ou capacidade de hyperthreading não conta.

Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)

O Cinebench R20 é o sucessor do Cinebench R15 e também é baseado no Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 é um software usado mundialmente para criar formas 3D. O teste multi-core envolve todos os núcleos da CPU e tira uma grande vantagem do hyperthreading.

Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)

O Cinebench R15 é o sucessor do Cinebench 11.5 e também é baseado no Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 é um software usado mundialmente para criar formas 3D. O teste de núcleo único usa apenas um núcleo de CPU, a quantidade de núcleos ou capacidade de hyperthreading não conta.

Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)

O Cinebench R15 é o sucessor do Cinebench 11.5 e também é baseado no Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 é um software usado mundialmente para criar formas 3D. O teste multi-core envolve todos os núcleos da CPU e tira uma grande vantagem do hyperthreading.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 5 é um benchmark de plataforma cruzada que usa muito a memória do sistema. Uma memória rápida empurra muito o resultado. O teste de núcleo único usa apenas um núcleo de CPU, a quantidade de núcleos ou capacidade de hyperthreading não conta.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 5 é um benchmark de plataforma cruzada que usa muito a memória do sistema. Uma memória rápida empurra muito o resultado. O teste multi-core envolve todos os núcleos da CPU e tira uma grande vantagem do hyperthreading.

iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)

O desempenho teórico de computação da unidade gráfica interna do processador com precisão simples (32 bits) em GFLOPS. GFLOPS indica quantos bilhões de operações de ponto flutuante o iGPU pode realizar por segundo.

Blender 2.81 (bmw27)

O Blender é um software gráfico 3D gratuito para renderizar (criar) corpos 3D, que também podem ser texturizados e animados no software. O benchmark Blender cria cenas predefinidas e mede o (s) tempo (s) necessário (s) para a cena inteira. Quanto mais curto for o tempo necessário, melhor. Selecionamos o bmw27 como cenário de referência.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 3 é um benchmark de plataforma cruzada que usa muito a memória do sistema. Uma memória rápida empurra muito o resultado. O teste de núcleo único usa apenas um núcleo de CPU, a quantidade de núcleos ou capacidade de hyperthreading não conta.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 3 é um benchmark de plataforma cruzada que usa muito a memória do sistema. Uma memória rápida empurra muito o resultado. O teste multi-core envolve todos os núcleos da CPU e tira uma grande vantagem do hyperthreading.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)

O Cinebench 11.5 é baseado no Cinema 4D Suite, um software popular para gerar formulários e outras coisas em 3D. O teste de núcleo único usa apenas um núcleo de CPU, a quantidade de núcleos ou capacidade de hyperthreading não conta.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

O Cinebench 11.5 é baseado no Cinema 4D Suite, um software popular para gerar formulários e outras coisas em 3D. O teste multi-core envolve todos os núcleos da CPU e tira uma grande vantagem do hyperthreading.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)

O Cinebench 11.5 é baseado no Cinema 4D Suite, um software popular para gerar formulários e outras coisas em 3D. O teste iGPU usa a unidade gráfica interna da CPU para executar comandos OpenGL.

Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark

Alguns dos CPUs listados abaixo foram testados por CPU-Comparison. No entanto, a maioria das CPUs não foi testada e os resultados foram estimados por uma fórmula proprietária secreta de CPU-Comparison. Como tal, eles não refletem com precisão os valores reais da marca Passmark CPU e não são endossados pela PassMark Software Pty Ltd.

Monero Hashrate kH/s

A criptomoeda Monero usa o algoritmo RandomX desde novembro de 2019. Este algoritmo PoW (prova de trabalho) só pode ser calculado de forma eficiente usando um processador (CPU) ou uma placa gráfica (GPU). O algoritmo CryptoNight foi usado para Monero até novembro de 2019, mas pode ser calculado usando ASICs. RandomX se beneficia de um grande número de núcleos de CPU, cache e uma conexão rápida da memória por meio de tantos canais de memória quanto possível

Estimativa de uso elétrico

Média de horas de uso por dia

Utilização média da CPU (0-100%)

Custo de energia, dólar por kWh

Estimativa de uso elétrico

Média de horas de uso por dia

Utilização média da CPU (0-100%)

Custo de energia, dólar por kWh

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-7700
95 W Max TDP 65 W
NA Consumo de energia por dia (kWh) NA
NA Custo de funcionamento por dia NA
NA Consumo de energia por ano (kWh) NA
NA Custo de funcionamento por ano NA

Comparação popular

Comments

Intel may cut prices in response to AMD’s Ryzen 1700, 1700X, and 1800X launch

  • By Joel Hruska on March 3, 2017 at 9:20 am

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Earlier this week, Intel quietly began cutting the prices on some of its Core i5 and i7 processors. This happened in the run-up to Ryzen’s launch, and was likely a move to preempt unattractive price comparisons that would otherwise be front and center when Ryzen 7 hit shelves.

Micro Center has adjusted its prices dramatically downward, with the Core i7-7700K falling to $300 from $380, the Core i5-7600K to $200 from $270, and the Core i5-6600K to $179, from $270, HotHardware reports. Even Broadwell-E chips get on the action, with the Core i7-6850K dropping to $550 (down from $700) and the i7-6800K itself now priced at $360, from $500.

It isn’t clear yet if these price cuts are locked in for all Intel’s product lines or if they reflect a temporary Micro Center promotion. As of this writing, none of the list prices for Intel processors have been updated. The Core i7-6850K is still listed with a 1KU price of $617-$628, and Amazon prices don’t seem to reflect this price cut. It’s possible that the Micro Center deals are a test market for Intel to gauge how consumers respond to price cuts with Ryzen now officially available.

Meanwhile, on Amazon, AMD has managed to seize multiple spots on Amazon’s top-selling microprocessor list. First, here’s a screenshot of October 11’s best-selling CPUs, courtesy of Wayback Machine.

Bestselling CPUs #1 – #12 at Amazon, circa October 2016

Now, compare that with a screenshot from Amazon on Thursday evening:

Best-selling CPUs #1 – #12 for March 2, 2017.

While I only screenshotted the first 12 spots to keep the images from being even longer, I tallied up the prices and products in spots #1- #15, then averaged their selling prices. This is a simple arithmetic average that doesn’t attempt to estimate total revenue or profit for either company, since we lack sales figures and manufacturing cost estimates. Still, there’s an interesting pattern at work here.

On October 11, 2016, Intel held twelve of the top fifteen CPU slots. The average price of these 12 cores was $264, with prices ranging from a low of $118 up to $439. There was less correlation between CPU cost and placement on the list than you might think; the top seller cost $325, while a $118 Core i3-6100 was in third place.

AMD had the remaining three slots held down by the FX-6300, the FX-8350, and the FX-8320. Average selling price on these chips was just $129, with a range from $100 to $138. It’s not hard to see how poorly this works out for AMD — its lower prices aren’t getting the company much sales volume, and it its earnings per CPU sale are significantly smaller than Intel’s.

Fast forward to today, and Intel holds nine of the top 15 slots, not 12. Not only has AMD gained more spots in the Top 15, the CPUs in those slots sell for far more money than the old FX lineup did (if you’re AMD, this is a very good thing). Today, Intel’s average CPU price is $230, down 13% from October. AMD’s average price, meanwhile, has risen to $282 — 2. 19x higher than what it was last fall.

We would need per-chip sales figures to even try to estimate the relative revenue contribution of each SKU, but even this basic data points to a much healthier mix for AMD and Ryzen. The big question is, how long will AMD CPUs hold on to those best-selling spots?

How much would these price cuts matter?

Assuming Micro Center’s prices become the new normal, how much would they change the competitive situation between AMD and Intel? The answer, I think, depends on which CPU family you compare. If you’re looking at multi-threaded applications and embarrassingly parallel workloads, the Ryzen 7 1700 will still make hash of the Core i7-7700K, despite the latter’s significant clock advantage. High IPC and greater speed count for a lot, but unlike the old FX family, Ryzen’s single-threaded performance is high enough to truly slug it out with Kaby Lake. If, on the other hand, you primarily care about single-threaded performance and gaming, the 7700K is easily the better choice. The Core i5 price cuts look like a preemptive move to cut Ryzen 5 off before it can wreak havoc in Intel’s lower-priced Core i3 / i5 division.

As for Broadwell-E, a $360 Core i7-6800K could tempt customers who want some multi-threaded performance but also desire good single-threaded scaling. A 6850K at $550 is a much tougher sell. The 6800K would be $40 cheaper than Ryzen 1700X, while the 6850K would come in $50 more expensive.

All of this is speculation, of course, until Intel formally announces a move. If AMD keeps holding multiple spots on the top-selling CPU lists, it’s going to see that trend reflected in Q1 revenue, even though we’ve only got 30 days left in the quarter.

Tagged In

    This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

    ExtremeTech Newsletter

    Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

    This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
    Terms of Use and
    Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.

    More articles

    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs Intel i7-7700k CPU

    The R7 1700 performs very well against not only the i7-7700k but also AMD’s flagship 1800x. See all the benchmarks you’re looking for, below

    Today we’re testing the newly released Ryzen 7 1700 CPU up against its closest competitor from Intel, the i7 7700K. AMD has placed the 1700 processor at a very competitive price point at $329, directly competing with the $340 i7 7700K.

    The AMD R7 1700 is the lowest price SKU in the Ryzen 7 stack, behind the 1700X and 1800X, but sports the same 8 Cores & 16 threads as its bigger brothers. The only difference, other than the price, is the out of the box clock speed of 3GHz and a lower TDP of 65W. This means we should expect it to run a fair bit cooler than the 95W TDP SKUs from AMD.

    From my tests, this is definitely true as the R7 1700 idles at just under 30C on a Noctua air cooler with two fans in a push-pull configuration. That’s with an overclock of 3.9GHZ at 1.3v. After running Aida64 for just over an hour the max temp that I saw was 57C. That’s roughly 20 degrees cooler than my 1800X that I tested recently at the same exact clock speed. The 1800X however required 1.35v in order to maintain the 3.9GHz clock speed and when testing the 1700 and 1800X at the same speed they returned nearly identical performance.

    R7 1700 Overclocked vs R7 1800X Average FPS

    Before we get into our i7-7700k vs R7 1700 comparison, there’s one chart I simply had to share. Here’s how the R7 1700 stacks up against the R7 1800X in average FPS across 10 modern titles.

    I think what this shows is that clock for clock the Ryzen 7 CPUs are the same. What you’re essentially paying for is a higher guaranteed speed out of the box.

    Obviously, I only have one 1700 CPU to test this with, so I won’t know until launch day what others are seeing for their overclocks. There’s a good chance that I may have just been extremely lucky with my 3. 9GHz overclock. That’s just the way the silicon lottery goes. However, if others are able to achieve results as I did above, there’s a good chance the AMD R7 1700 will be a popular choice. (From what I’m hearing from other reviewers it’s no fluke.)

    Test Systems

    For our testing, I had both the Intel i7 7700K and the R7 1700 overclocked to the highest stable point I could get. As previously mentioned, the R7 1700 is running at 3.9GHz and 1.3v while the i7-7700K is at 5GHz with 1.365v.

    Both systems utilized 16GB of DDR4 memory clocked at 3000Mhz, however one was Corsair Vengeance and the other was a G.Skill TridentZ kit. Both motherboards were Gigabyte boards. For AMD we had the AM4 X370 Gaming 5 and for Intel, we used the Z270 K7 board that I recently used in my Frame Raider Quiet PC build.

    For the graphics card, we’re using the GTX 1080 overclocked 200Mhz on the core and 300MHz on the memory and all of our games were tested with the Ultra preset at 1080p & 1440p.

    Here’s a $1,000 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Editing build as well as our B350 motherboard rundown for those looking for more information.

    AMD Ryzen R7 1700 Intel i7-7700k AMD Ryzen R7 1800X
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price

    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs i7-7700k 1080p Gaming Benchmarks

    Now that we’ve gone through all of that, here’s the chart that many of you have been waiting for:

    Average FPS:

     

    Starting off we get a look at the averages at 1080p and then we will move into the minimums as well as 1440p testing. I’ll be honest that I was rather surprised with just how well the Ryzen CPU was able to keep up with the 5GHz 7700K. We can see here that while Intel did take the majority of the titles tested, most of them were only by a few FPS.

    Games like The Division, Rainbow Six Siege and Battlefield 1 leveraged the additional cores of the Ryzen R7 1700 showing the potential of having an 8-core CPU for games that are optimized to take advantage of them. I think this is going to be a very important proving ground as we move forward with more developers working on multithreaded utilization.

    AMD Ryzen R7 1700 Intel i7-7700k AMD Ryzen R7 1800X
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price

    Minimum FPS:

    Those results we saw continue over into the minimums where the 1700 and 7700K are neck in neck in the majority of games. GTA V and Rise of the Tomb Raider are exceptions where the Intel i7-7700k seems to pick up a larger margin of victory. That being said, we see the R7 1700 winning in The Division & Battlefield 1.

    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs i7-7700k 1440p Benchmarks and Performance

    I did also want to include 1440p testing for people that were curious about the performance they could see with a Ryzen CPU at higher resolutions, but nothing changes here with our results against Intel because we are depending solely on the pixel throughput of our GTX 1080 to handle having more pixels on screen so we don’t get to see any big surprises here.

    Average FPS:

    Once again AMD wins out in The Division, Rainbow Six and Battlefield 1, but falls behind on other games tested.

    Lastly here are the minimums for 1440p up on your screen although there isn’t really much to say about these because we’re really just seeing the same exact story as 1080p, only with fewer frames per second.

    Minimum FPS:

    I will touch on Overwatch for those of you that are curious as to why its basically the same or within one frame of the average. That’s because Overwatch has a CPU bottleneck where it only utilizes 2 cores at any one time so this prevented our GTX 1080 from seeing its full potential.

    Conclusion

    So, at the end of all of this, would I recommend a R7 1700 over the Intel i7 7700K? Yes, I would, depending on what you expect to get out of it. I think the performance we are seeing here is close enough, that the benefits of having the 8-cores/16-threads for the future are going to be extremely useful for gamers in the long run. That being said, it really comes down to what games you play. If Battlefield 1 is your bread and butter and you want the most FPS possible, then it will benefit greatly from Ryzen. Another fanastic performance improvement for Ryzen is fast memory. Take a look at some of our best kits for AMD Ryzen here.

    Also, another thing to consider is content creation. Having those additional cores and threads can add up to nearly 50% faster performance for highly intensive multithreaded workloads like video editing or game streaming. I do plan to do a follow-up post on this shortly after launch day where I’ll be testing game performance during a live stream to see how much our performance is impacted between these processors.

    Want more benchmarks on the Ryzen lineup? Here’s how the Ryzen 5 1600x stack up against Intel’s i5 CPU. Also, take a look at our Ryzen 5 1600x PC Build.

    Final Thoughts:

    One thing is for sure, AMD Ryzen is here in a very big way and it seems to have delivered on the promises its made in the months leading up to release. AMD had a plan to come in and crush the competition with Intel and I think they’re managing to get right in there to be truly competitive again. This is something that will only benefit us consumers as it will force Intel to innovate sooner and even drop its prices, which has already begun to happen.

    If you enjoyed this information, you can help me out by leaving your feedback and comments below. Also, if you’re planning on purchasing the AMD Ryzen 1700, use the links in this post to give me a small kickback.

    AMD Ryzen R7 1700 Intel i7-7700k AMD Ryzen R7 1800X
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price
    See Amazon Price
    See Newegg Price

    Test setup & Performance : AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. Intel Core i7-7700K: Next-gen flagship CPU matchup!



    ?>

    Trending

    Apple iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max review: Is this the start of a new era of iPhones?

    Tesla Model Y review: Popping my Tesla cherry

    6 things to know about the iPhone 14 before you buy one

    • News
    • Reviews & Articles


    • Page 1 of 4 — AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. Intel Core i7-7700KPage 2 of 4 — Test setup & PerformancePage 3 of 4 — Gaming benchmarks & overclockingPage 4 of 4 — Conclusion

      Page 2 of 4 — Test setup & Performance

    • Next >

    Test setup

    The configurations of the test setups we used are listed below. We’ve actually used different coolers for the AMD and Intel systems as the Noctua cooler provided by AMD is the only AM4-compatible cooler with us at the moment.

    AMD Ryzen rig

    • AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (3.60GHz, 20MB L2+L3 cache) with Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4
    • Gigabyte Aorus AX370 Gaming 5
    • 2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 at 2,667MHz (Auto timings: CAS 16-16-16-36)
    • ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming (GeForce Driver Version 378.66)
    • Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB SATA 6Gbps solid state drive (one single NTFS partition)
    • Windows 10 Home (64-bit)

     

    Intel Kaby Lake rig

    • Intel Core i7-7700K (4. 20GHz, 8MB L3 cache) with Cooler Master MasterAir Maker 8
    • ASUS ROG Maximus IX Formula
    • 2 x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3000 at 2,400MHz (Auto timings: CAS 15-15-15-35)
    • ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming (GeForce Driver Version 378.66)
    • Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB SATA 6Gbps solid state drive (one single NTFS partition)
    • Windows 10 Home (64-bit)

    Here’s a list of the benchmarks used:

    • SYSmark 2014 ver 1.5
    • SPECviewperf 12.1
    • Cinebench R15
    • Handbrake 1.0.2
    • 3DMark (2013)
    • Ashes of the Singularity
    • Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

     

    All the benchmarks were carried out in Windows High Performance mode (including that from Intel), as AMD tells us that this is needed to enable the full hardware functionality of the Ryzen processor’s built-in SenseMI features. Both the voltage regulation and clock speed control feature of Ryzen’s Pure Power and Precision Boost technologies can respond to varying workloads quickly (as fast as 1ms).   (Doesn’t this sound like Intel’s Speed Shift technology that first debuted in Skylake and improved again in Kaby Lake?) Under the default Balanced Performance mode, the OS can request which P-state to use, which could increase response times to as high as 30ms. High Performance mode instead hands over control from the OS to the processor, ensuring more granular control and maximum performance.
























    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and Intel Core i7-7700K compared
     

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X


    Intel Core i7-7700K Processor
     



    Launch SRP

    • From S$818

    • From S$543
    Processor Name

    • AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

    • Intel Core i7-7700K
    Processor Model

    • Ryzen 7 1800X

    • Core i7-7700K
    Rated Processor Frequency

    • 3. 6GHz

    • 4.2GHz
    Max Processor Frequency

    • 4.1GHz (with XFR technology)

    • 4.5GHZ
    No. of Cores
    Base Clock

    • 100MHz
    L2 Cache

    • 4 x 256KB

    • 4 x 256KB
    L3 Cache
    Memory Controller

    • Integrated Dual Channel (up to DDR4-2667)

    • Integrated Dual Channel (up to DDR4-2133 or DDR4-2400)
    PCIe Controller

    • PCIe 3. 0

    • 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0
    TDP (W)
    Instruction Set Support

    • SSE 4.1/4.2, AVX 2.0

    • SSE 4.1/4.2, AVX 2.0
    64-bit Processing Technology
    Packaging

    • Socket AM4

    • LGA1151
    Process Technology
    Bus Type

    • DMI 3.0
    Bus Speed

    • 100MHz
    Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST) / AMD Cool ‘n’ Quiet
    Virtualization Technology

    • Yes (VT-x)
    Processor Codename

    • Kaby Lake

    Beyond the core comparison between Ryzen and Kaby Lake, we’ve also provided selective comparisons with the best of Broadwell-E in certain tests as time was limited.

     

    Performance results

     

    SYSmark 2014 ver 1.5

    SYSmark is a business productivity benchmark suite that measures the response times of tasks on a PC using real-world applications in the areas of office productivity, media creation, and data and financial analysis. Task response times from simulated user input are used to generate a performance rating that reflects actual user experience, so the faster a PC responds to application workloads, the higher its score will be. The method of measuring response times can take many forms, such as the time it takes for an application to show a pop-up completion message, or how long it takes a progress dialog to disappear and for a user to regain application control.

    The Intel Core i7-7700K was overall around 15 per cent faster than the Ryzen 7 1800X. It looks like the lower clock speeds of the Ryzen 7 set it back against the higher clocked Core i7-7700K, even though the latter is just a 4-core/8-thread part. Developers often have to code their applications to explicitly take advantage of multiple cores, and it looks like most productivity apps haven’t progressed much to take advantage of more than four cores. 

    Since AMD has been comparing their top Ryzen to Intel’s Broadwell-E, we’ll also share some numbers based from our recent Intel X99 motherboard shootout. Note that we tested with an Intel Core i7-6950X as opposed to AMD referencing the one rung lower Core i7-6900K. Well, one is a 10-core part running at lower clocks versus the 8-core part running higher clocks; logically speaking they should even out any differences, subject to the bias of each particular test scenario. We decided to showcase scores from an ASUS motherboard, since Kaby Lake test rig was also using the same board brand.






    Best of Ryzen vs. Kaby Lake vs. Broadwell-E
    Sysmark 2014 test suites / Processor models AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-7700K Intel Core i7-6950X
    Office Productivity 1439 1979 1576
    Media Creation 2221 2530 2568
    Data/Financial Analysis 3188 3099 3521
    Overall Score 2168 2494 2425

    As can be seen from the tabulation, the best of Ryzen isn’t quite a match for the best of Intel’s mainstream or high-end where everyday-use applications are concerned. Still, it’s quite a showing and is definitely the strongest performance AMD has put up in a long while.

     

    SPECviewperf 12.1

    SPECviewperf is used to measure the 3D graphics performance of systems in professional applications. Each individual workload, called a viewset, represents graphics and content from an actual real-world application. SPECviewperf actually runs a total of eight different viewsets, but we’ve picked the four which have the greatest performance variation across CPUs display here. 

    The 3ds-max viewset comes from traces of the graphics workload generated by 3ds Max 2016, while maya-04 is derived from Autodesk’s Maya 2013 application. The catia-04 viewset involves the numerous rendering modes from the CATIA V6 R2012 application, and includes things like anti-aliasing, depth of field, and ambient occlusion. Finally, the sw-03 viewset comes from SolidWorks 2013 SP1, and involves various rendering modes including environment maps.

    The Ryzen 7 didn’t do too well here, coming in behind the i7-7700K in all our workloads. This suggests that modeling and rendering applications like those here still aren’t very effective at making use of multiple cores, so you’re probably better off going for fewer cores and higher clock speeds (the Core i7-7700K can boost to 4.50GHz) if you do a lot of this sort of work.

    Now, what if we compare it with the best of what Broadwell-E has to offer? Let’s draw out the comparison once more, but this time just focusing on one viewset — maya-04:-



    Best of Ryzen vs. Kaby Lake vs. Broadwell-E
    SPECviewperf 12.1 viewset / Processor models AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-7700K Intel Core i7-6950X
    maya-04 142.24 177.43 151.47

    Well, as we deduced above, these rendering applications aren’t quite as well threaded as we would like them to be and the Intel’s mainstream Core i7-7700K comes out well ahead with its aggressive higher clocks, even though it’s just a four-core part natively.

     

    Cinebench R15

    Cinebench R15 is a better indicator of the Ryzen’s 7 performance because of its ability to utilize up to 256 threads to evaluate a processor’s performance in a photorealistic 3D rendering. We ran both single-core and multi-core benchmarks to evaluate single-threaded performance and multi-threaded scalability here.

    The multi-threaded benchmark is where the Ryzen 7 really shines, and it shot ahead of its Kaby Lake counterparts in the multi-core benchmark with its 8 cores and 16 threads. Here, it was 63 per cent faster than the quad-core Core i7-7700K.

    It did lag behind in the single-threaded benchmark, which was expected of its lower base 3.60GHz clock speeds per core. Remember, the Kaby Lake part has a 4.20GHz base clock, and can boost till 4.50GHz, so it naturally came out ahead here.

    Once more, let’s break out further to see how a Broadwell-E compares in this mix:-



    Best of Ryzen vs. Kaby Lake vs. Broadwell-E
    Cinebench R15 / Processor models AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-7700K Intel Core i7-6950X
    Multi-threaded performance 1577 973 1798

    Over here, it comes within 15% range of the Intel Core i7-6950X and it solidifies AMD’s stance that the Rzyen was made for well-threaded applications. In AMD’s official marketing literature, it scored a tad higher than what we’ve experienced and is able to dethrone a Core i7-6900K (8C/16T) processor that was claimed to score ‘only’ 1474 points.

     

    Handbrake 1.0.2

    Handbrake is a video transcoder that converts videos into a format for use on PCs and portable electronic devices, and is a good indicator of a processor’s video encoding capabilities. YouTube content creators, Twitch streamers, and other video creators will be most interested in this performance metric.

    The Ryzen 7 was very impressive here too, shaving about 35 per cent off the encode time compared to the Core i7-7700K. These additional cores will come in handy especially in CPU-intensive games, and one of AMD’s main talking points is the improvement to multi-tasking. Instead of a straight performance bump, you should look forward to less of a performance hit when attempting to do multiple things, such as playing a game and streaming simultaneously.

     

    Power consumption

    To test power, we ran the energy-01 viewset in SPECviewperf 12.1 and recorded the peak power consumption. 

    Power consumption figures were rather close across the processors, but it’s nice to see Ryzen’s 8-core chip consuming slightly less power than the quad-core Core i7-7700K. Ryzen’s Pure Power and Precision Boost features are capable of modulating frequency, voltage, and temperature on-the-fly, and that appears to have worked out here. For once, it seems like AMD’s power consumption figures are about on par with Intel’s — but it’s subjective when it comes to performance-per-watt comparisons since AMD isn’t exactly leading in raw performance although it has put up a good show.

    Remember, AMD recommends you to put Windows into High Performance mode in order to get the most out of Ryzen’s hardware-based monitoring features.

    What’s even more interesting is to see how well an even more complex chip like the Core i7-6950X chalk up power consumption figures that are actually no more than the Core i7-7700K.

    • Page 1 of 4 — AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. Intel Core i7-7700KPage 2 of 4 — Test setup & PerformancePage 3 of 4 — Gaming benchmarks & overclockingPage 4 of 4 — Conclusion

      Page 2 of 4 — Test setup & Performance

    • Next >

    Join HWZ’s Telegram channel here and catch all the latest tech news!




    Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.





    Sponsored Links

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x vs Intel Core i7-7700: What is the difference?

    54 BALLLA

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    52 Ballla

    Intel Core i7-7700

    VS

    64 Facts compared to

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    Intel Core i7-7700

    Why AMD RY Intel Core i7-7700?

    • 2x higher CPU speed?
      8 x 3. 6GHz vs 4 x 3.6GHz
    • 267MHz higher RAM speed?
      2667MHz vs 2400MHz
    • 8 more CPU threads?
      16 vs 8
    • 3MB more L2 cache?
      4MB vs 1MB
    • 47.05% higher PassMark score?
      16234 vs 11040
    • 8MB more L3 cache?
      16MB vs 8MB
    • 512KB more L1 cache?
      768KB vs 256KB
    • Has an unlocked multiplier?

    Why is Intel Core i7-7700 better than AMD Ryzen 7 1800x?

    • 30W below TDP?
      65W vs 95W
    • Does it have integrated graphics?
    • 8.75% higher PassMark score (single)?
      2362 vs 2172
    • Has NX bit?

    What are the most popular comparisons?

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    vs

    Intel Core i7-7700K

    Intel Core i7-7700

    vs

    Intel Core i5-10400

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 5 3600

    Intel Core i7-7700

    VS

    Intel Core i3-10100

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x 9000) AMD Ryzen 5 5600x

    Intel Core i7-7700

    VS

    Intel Core i7-7700K

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 5 2600

    9000 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS i7-6700

    AMD RYZEN 7 1800X

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 7 5800x

    Intel Core i7-7700

    AMD RYZEN 9 3900X

    AMD RYZEN 700X

    VS

    9000 3 i7-7700

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 7 1700

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 5 3600x

    Intel Core i7-7700

    AMD Ryzen 5 3600

    AMD RYZEN

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

    Intel Core i7-7700

    VS

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 5 5600h

    Intel Core I77-ANTEL INTEL CORE

    Intel Core i7-3770

    AMD RYZEN 7 1800X

    VS

    AMD Ryzen 5 2600x

    Intel Core i7-7700

    VS

    Intel Core i5-9400

    Respons0019

    Performance

    1. CPU speed

    8 x 3.6GHz

    4 x 3.6GHz

    CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second the processor can perform, considering all its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.

    2nd processor thread

    More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.

    3.speed turbo clock

    4.2GHz

    When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

    4. Unlocked

    ✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✖Intel Core i7-7700

    Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and can be easily overclocked for better performance in games and other applications.

    5.L2 cache

    More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

    6.L3 cache

    More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

    7.L1 cache

    More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

    8.core L2

    0.5MB/core

    0.25MB/core

    More data can be stored in L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

    9.core L3

    2MB/core

    2MB/core

    More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

    Memory

    1.RAM speed

    2667MHz

    2400MHz

    Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.

    2.max memory bandwidth

    42.7GB/s

    38.4GB/s

    This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

    3. DDR version

    DDR (Dynamic Dynamic Random Access Memory Double Data Rate) is the most common type of RAM. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.

    4.Memory channels

    More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.

    5.maximum memory capacity

    Maximum memory capacity (RAM).

    6.bus baud rate

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

    The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device.

    7.Supports memory troubleshooting code

    ✖AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✖Intel Core i7-7700

    Memory error recovery code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

    8.eMMC version

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    A newer version of eMMC — Built-in Flash Memory Card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.

    9.bus frequency

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device

    Geotagging

    1. PassMark result

    This test measures processor performance using multi-threading.

    2. PassMark result (single)

    This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.

    3. Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor. (Source: Primate Labs,2022)

    4. Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    Cinebench R20 is a benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.

    5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.

    6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the single-core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

    7. Blender test result (bmw27)

    233.4seconds

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    The Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

    8.Blender result (classroom)

    708.7seconds

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

    9.performance per watt

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    This means that the processor is more efficient, resulting in more performance per watt of power used.

    Features

    1.uses multithreading

    ✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✔Intel Core i7-7700

    processor cores into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.

    2. Has AES

    ✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✔Intel Core i7-7700

    AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

    3. Has AVX

    ✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✔Intel Core i7-7700

    AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.

    4.Version SSE

    SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

    5.Has F16C

    ✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✔Intel Core i7-7700

    F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.

    6.bits transmitted at the same time

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.

    7. Has MMX

    ✔AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✔Intel Core i7-7700

    MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.

    8.Has TrustZone

    ✖AMD Ryzen 7 1800x

    ✖Intel Core i7-7700

    Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and video streaming through Digital Rights Management (DRM) ).

    9.interface width

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 1800x)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-7700)

    The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means the processor performs better

    Price comparison

    Cancel

    Which CPUs are better?

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs.

    Intel Core i7-7700

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X runs with 8 and 16 CPU threads It runs at 4.00 GHz base 3.80 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 95 W .Processor connects to CPU socket AM4 This version includes 16.00 MB of L3 cache on a single die, supports 2 to support DDR4-2666 RAM, and supports 3.0 PCIe Gen 20 . Tjunction is kept below 95°C degrees C. In particular, the Summit Ridge (Zen) architecture is advanced beyond 14 nm and supports AMD-V, SVM . The product was launched Q1/2017

    Intel Core i7-7700

    Intel Core i7-7700 runs with 4 and 16 CPU threads It runs at 4.20 GHz base 4.00 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 65 W .CPU connects to LGA 1151 CPU socket This version includes 8.00 MB of L3 cache on a single die, supports 2 to support DDR4-2400 RAM, and supports 3.0 PCIe Gen 16 . Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, Kaby Lake S Architecture is advanced beyond 14 nm and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d . The product was launched Q1/2017

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

    Intel Core i7-7700

    Frequency 3. 60 GHz 8 Cores 4 4.00 GHz Turbo (1 core) 4.20 GHz 3.80GHz Turbo (all cores) 4.00 GHz Yes Hyper Threading Yes Yes Overclocking No. normal Basic architecture normal no iGPU GPU

    Intel HD Graphics 630

    no turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.15 GHz 14nm Technology 14nm no turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.15 GHz DirectX Version 12 Max. displays 3 DDR4-2666 memory capacity DDR4-2400 2 Memory channels 2 Maximum memory Yes ECC No. — L2 Cache — 16.00MB L3 Cache 8.00 MB 3.0 PCIe version 3.0 20 PCIe lanes 16 14nm Technology 14nm AM4 Connector LGA 1151 95 W TDP 65W AMD-V, SVM Virtualization VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d Q1/2017 Release date Q1/2017

    Show more details

    Show more details

    Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)

    Cinebench R23 is the successor to Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.

    Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)

    Cinebench R23 is the successor to Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.

    Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)

    Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.

    Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)

    Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.

    Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)

    Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.

    Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)

    Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.

    Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)

    Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.

    Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

    Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.

    iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)

    Theoretical processing performance of the processor’s internal graphics unit with simple precision (32 bits) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS specifies how many billions of floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.

    Blender 2.81 (bmw27)

    Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies that can also be textured and animated in the program. The Blender test creates predefined scenes and measures the time(s) required for the entire scene. The less time it takes, the better. We chose the bmw27 as our reference scene.

    Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)

    Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.

    Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)

    Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.

    Cinebench R11.

    5, 64bit (Single-Core)

    Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.

    Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

    Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.

    Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)

    Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU’s internal graphics unit to execute OpenGL commands.

    Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark

    Some of the processors listed below have been tested with CPU-Comparison. However, most of the processors were not tested and the results were evaluated by the secret patented CPU-Comparison formula. As such, they do not accurately reflect the actual values ​​of Passmark CPU ratings and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.

    Monero Hashrate kH/s

    Monero has been using the RandomX algorithm since November 2019of the year. This PoW (proof of work) algorithm can only be computed efficiently using either a processor (CPU) or a graphics card (GPU). The CryptoNight algorithm was used for Monero until November 2019, but it could be calculated using ASICs. RandomX benefits from a large number of CPU cores, cache, and fast memory connectivity through as many memory channels as possible.

    Estimated energy use

    Average hours of use per day

    Average CPU usage (0-100%)

    Cost of electricity, USD/kWh

    Estimated energy use

    Average hours of use per day

    Average CPU usage (0-100%)

    Cost of electricity, USD/kWh

    Popular comparison

    Comments

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs Intel Core i7-7700K.

    Benchmarking

    For a long time, Intel dominated the processor market. But this year, AMD managed to release worthy competitors by introducing multi-core Ryzen processors. In this review, we will check the potential of the older Ryzen 7 1800X at nominal and overclocking, and compare it with the Intel Core i7-7700K. The main focus is on performance testing in games.

    The Ryzen 7 1800X is AMD’s top consumer processor for socket AM4. Based on the Summit Ridge core with Zen architecture. Let’s note the main features of the processor. Eight cores with Simultaneous Multi-threading technology provide 16 threads for computing. The processor has 4 MB L2 cache (512 KB per core) and 16 MB L3 cache. The built-in dual-channel DDR4 controller officially supports memory modules up to 2667 MHz. The CPU runs at 3.6 GHz, but in Boost mode it can accelerate to 3.7 GHz in multi-threaded workloads and up to 4 GHz in single-core workloads.

    Older AMD Ryzen are usually compared with top-end Intel processors for LGA2011-3, because such CPUs have the maximum number of cores. Under LGA 1151, until recently, only 4-core processors with 8 threads were produced. The situation changed after the release of the Coffee Lake processor family, in which the Core i7 gained 6 (12) cores. However, previous models are also available for sale. Among them is the Intel Core i7-7700K, which was tested. It has 4 cores with 8 threads, a frequency of 4.2 GHz with a maximum acceleration in Boost mode up to 4.5 GHz. In essence, the Core i7-7700K processes half as many threads, but Intel’s per-core performance is better. The latter may be relevant for games, namely, gaming performance is of interest to us in the first place.

    The main characteristics of the processors are shown in the table.

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-7700
    95 W Max TDP 65W
    NA Power consumption per day (kWh) NA
    NA Operating cost per day NA
    NA Power consumption per year (kWh) NA
    NA Operating cost per year NA

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

    Intel Core i7-7700K

    Connector

    AM4

    LGA 1151

    Technical process, nm

    14

    14

    Cores (threads)

    8 (16)

    4(8)

    Rated frequency, GHz

    3. 6

    4.2

    Maximum Frequency Boost

    4

    4.5

    L1 cache

    768 KB

    256 KB

    L2 cache

    4 MB

    1 MB

    L3 cache

    16 MB

    8 MB

    Supported memory

    DDR4-2667

    DDR4-2400

    DDR4-2400

    DDR3L-1600

    TDP, W

    95

    91

    Tests carried out in standard mode and during overclocking. The test systems configuration is described below.

    Test bench AMD

    • CPU: Ryzen 7 1800X
    • motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4
    • memory: DDR4 G. Skill TridentZ F4-3200C16D-16GTZB, 2×8 GB
    • graphics card: GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition
    • drives: Intel SSD 520 Series 240GB and Hitachi HDS721010CLA332 1TB
    • power supply: Seasonic SS-750KM
    • operating system: Windows 10 Ultimate x64
    • video card driver: NVIDIA GeForce 382.53

    At nominal value, the memory worked in the official DDR4-2666 mode. For optimal CPU performance mode, core parking is disabled. During overclocking, the processor frequency is increased to 4 GHz. Memory in DDR4-3200 mode with timings 16-17-17-39.

    Test bench Intel

    • Processor: Core i7-7700K
    • motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty Z270 Gaming K4
    • memory: DDR4 G.Skill TridentZ F4-3200C16D-16GTZB, 2×8 GB
    • graphics card: GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition
    • drives: Intel SSD 520 Series 240GB and Hitachi HDS721010CLA332 1TB
    • power supply: Seasonic SS-750KM
    • operating system: Windows 10 Ultimate x64
    • video card driver: NVIDIA GeForce 382. 53

    The memory was nominally running at 2666 MHz. In overclocking, the processor frequency is increased to 4.6 GHz, and the memory is in DDR4-3200 mode at timings of 16-17-17-39.

    Memory settings on two systems:

    • DDR4-2666 nominal at 16-18-18-38-1T timings
    • Overclocked DDR4-3200 with timings 16-17-17-39-1T

    Both configurations use a GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition graphics card. To neutralize the effect of temperatures on frequency variability in Boost mode, the fan speed was increased.

    Testing methodology

    For a general understanding of the situation, several benchmarks are used to show mathematical performance and performance in everyday tasks. These results are at the top of the list. Further results in 3DMark and gaming applications. Gaming tests were performed in graphics modes that are relevant for high-performance PCs. This is a resolution of 1920×1080 with high or maximum quality settings.

    CPU-Z Benchmark

    The built-in test in the CPU-Z utility is enabled, which allows you to evaluate the speed of multi-threaded calculations.

    7- Zip 16.04

    Built-in 7-Zip performance test, six iterations

    PCMark 8

    Launched in Home mode.

    3DMark Fire Strike

    The benchmark was run three times at default settings at 1920×1080. The general results and the results of the physical test, which depends on the CPU, are given.

    3 DMark Time Spy

    The benchmark was run three times at standard settings at a resolution of 1920×1080. The general results and data on the results of the processor test are given.

    Battlefield 1

    The Cape Helles mission from The Runner story campaign was selected for testing in the game. Explosions are constantly generated around the player, a lot of smoke, and performance sags more than in many other battle scenes.

    This episode recreates the maximum load, so the tests were carried out at high (High) and maximum (Ultra) graphics quality in DirectX 11.1037 Divided

    The built-in benchmark was launched, five repetitions.

    Tested with Very High and Ultra graphics settings when rendering in DirectX 12.

    Dishonored 2

    Tested with Fraps. A certain sequence of actions in the port area was replayed immediately after arriving in the city of Karnak.

    Two test modes: when selecting the Very High quality profile and in the Ultra maximum mode with HBAO+.

    Fallout 4

    Testing was carried out in manual mode by replaying the same game scene with strict adherence to the sequence of actions. Frame rate was measured by Fraps.

    Normal version of the game with standard textures. Ultra quality profile selected, HBAO+ enhanced shading additionally activated. More about this shading in a separate article.

    For Honor

    For testing, we used the built-in gaming benchmark, which was run 7 times for each video card.

    The maximum quality profile Very High in 1920×1080 is selected.

    Grand Theft Auto 5

    The game has a built-in benchmark, which is used for this test. Based on the data on the average fps of each scene, the average result for the entire benchmark was calculated. The minimum fps was fixed based on the results of passing all the test scenes using Fraps.

    Testing was carried out in two modes at maximum quality settings, in the advanced settings section all shadow parameters and object loading distance were increased to the maximum. The type of anti-aliasing was changed: in the first test mode, a simple FXAA algorithm was selected, in the second mode, MSAA 4x.

    Read more about the influence of individual parameters on the quality of graphics in a special article.

    Hitman

    Fraps manual testing was used for our comparison. The average and minimum frame rates were measured during the introductory sequence to the training mission. At least 6 repetitions were performed. It is worth noting that after numerous updates, the intro scene has changed slightly, and the video below shows the old version.

    All graphics settings are set to maximum quality. Insane texture quality enabled (Insane). Disabled Adaptive Resolution FPS Target to ensure fixed resolution. Simple TSAA is enabled.

    Tom Clancy’ s Ghost Recon: Wildlands

    Built-in game benchmark used. It was run 7 times for each video card.

    The game is extremely demanding on the video card, so testing was carried out only with Very High graphics settings.

    Tom Clancy’ s The Division

    For testing, we used the built-in game benchmark, which was launched 7 times.

    Testing was carried out in two modes: at standard Very High settings and at maximum graphics settings in DirectX 11. The second option involves an additional increase to the maximum quality of reflections, detail and background shading (HBAO + option). Read more about graphic nuances in a special article.

    War Thunder

    The built-in performance test «Tank battle» was used for testing. It was run at least 7 times for each video card.

    Highest graphic quality selected, above Cinema profile. All sliders in the maximum position. Among the anti-aliasing modes, the quality mode AA 4x is selected.

    Watch Dogs 2

    A test scene with a run around the Palo Alto area has been selected. The route runs through city streets and a small grove.

    Testing was carried out in two modes, with Very High and Ultra settings.

    Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

    Story prologue. The hero and his partner are galloping along the road to the village. This moment is chosen for performance measurement using Fraps. Six repetitions for each video card.

    Adjusted settings close to the maximum level. In the main section, «outrageous» quality is selected, but without HairWorks. In post-processing, SSAO shading, anti-aliasing, glow and pillars of light are active, other effects are disabled. Read more about graphic nuances in a special article.

    Power consumption

    Total computer power consumption was measured using the Cost Control 3000 instrument. The readings were monitored in the control application group:

    • 3DMark Time Spy
    • Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
    • For Honor
    • Grand Theft Auto 5
    • Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Wildlands
    • Tom Clancy’s The Division
    • War Thunder

    Based on the maximum values ​​for each test, an average total value was calculated.

    More in this category:

    « ASRock Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 Motherboard Mini Review

    HyperX Cloud Stinger Gaming Headset Mini Review »

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (AM4, L3 16384) review. Comparison with Intel Core i7-6900K and Intel Core i7-7700K

    This week, the long-awaited start of sales of AMD Ryzen took place, the chips will enter the market sequentially. Unlike RADEON, here the company relied on professionals and enthusiasts, first releasing flagship solutions, and by the summer budget options. For the company, this is a chance to regain lost ground and make itself known against the backdrop of several years of lack of innovation from them in this segment. In fact, until March 2017, Intel was in the lead in all segments, from work machines to gaming systems. Will AMD’s reboot change the balance of power in the market? Let’s try to figure it out in the course of a series of comparative reviews, we will start by comparing the performance of the Intel Core i7-6900K Broadwell E and AMD Ryzen 7 1800X.

    The main advantage of the new ZEN architecture was the dismemberment of the cores and support for multithreading. Now L2 cache, FPU, SIMD blocks have become individual for each core. This is done to achieve maximum efficiency in applications that use only one core. Unfortunately, full-fledged multi-core support in programs and games is still far away, so this solution can be called successful. Another change was the introduction of the micro-op cache, which was added by Intel much earlier. It reduces consumption when performing repetitive operations and relieves the load on the decoder, improving performance. The address translation buffer has been moved to the branch prediction block, increasing prediction speed and increasing prefetch aggressiveness.

    Added an additional zero level of the address translation buffer, it can store up to 8 entries. L1 LTB — 64 entries, L2 LTB — 512 entries. The volume of the scheduler window has increased by 75 percent, the rate of execution of instructions. The decoder can process up to four x86 instructions per clock, versus five for the Intel Core i7 7700K Kaby Lake. There are two address generation devices and four arithmetic logic devices. Each of them with a 14-position queue, together they work with register files for 168 entries. Optimizations have been made to reduce power consumption and speed up instruction processing against this background. Saves and loads are symmetrical and work in parallel in AGU. The out-of-order read and write queues have grown to 72 and 44 operations deep. Address generation devices serve up to two 128-bit reads and one 128-bit write per cycle. The address translation buffer itself is implemented in a two-level scheme. A 64-kilobyte L1 cache appeared with four-fold associativity for instructions and a 32-kilobyte one for data. Each cycle of the processor issues 32 bytes per fetch block, the cache services two 16-bit loads and one 16-bit store instruction. Between L1 and L2 is a 32-byte full-duplex bus.

    The cache of the second level is 512 KB with eight times associativity. It also comes with writeback. L3 cache shared by four cores. Its size is 8 MB with 16-fold associativity. It consists of two 8-megabit parts. Data from it is transferred to L1 and L2. The latency of the L3 cache in the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X will depend on where the data goes, to its own cache in the CPU Complex or a neighboring one. A high-speed Infinity Fabric bus with traffic prioritization is built between them. Of the interesting things, it is worth noting about the division of kernel resources into two threads for improved utilization, threads do not block each other due to divisions based on time slicing.

    Tests AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, Intel Core i7-6900K, Intel Core i7-7700K

    Test data was collected in two modes: factory frequency and overclocked. We failed to overclock the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X above 4.050 MHz, increasing to 4100 MHz leads to a blue screen.

    The air-cooled Intel Core i7-6900K overclocks to 4400 MHz in the graphs below, we limited it to 4100 MHz, to compare processors with the same frequency in OS mode. The Intel Core i7-7700K takes a frequency from 4800 to 5100 MHz depending on the board and the specific chip, in tests we limited its operation to 4600 MHz (the minimum overclocking with standard means in the boards). Tests in games were carried out with the PALIT GeForce GTX 1080 Super JetStream video card. Each game with maximum graphics settings was tested in Full HD and 2K resolution.

    DX12, ASHES of the Singularity

    DX12, Hitman

    Project Cars

    Watch Dogs 2

    Battlefield 4

    The next set of tests determines the speed of execution, faster is better.

    Tests in applications, more points — better.

    AMD has taken a significant step forward from the Bulldozer, a move that has been expected for almost five years. To achieve maximum performance, the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X comes with overclocking, which does not allow further frequency increases higher than 100-200 MHz (Intel Core i7-6900K accelerates to 4.5 GHz). As a result, system power consumption with AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is higher than with Intel Core i7-6900K. But then again, even taking into account the price difference in favor of AMD, there is no noticeable superiority that stimulates the upgrade of a working PC. There are problems with the operation of DDR4 memory at high frequencies, most likely there is a problem with the memory controller. As an alternative to older Intel processors, the new Ryzen 7 can be considered, offering enthusiasts and professionals a platform for rendering, 4K streaming and 3D graphics. In games, the revolution has not yet been made, all the beautiful graphics on presentations have nothing to do with real performance, the Intel Core i7 7700K processor remains the best solution for assembling a high-performance gaming assembly. But what can not be taken away is a significant plus in the form of the emergence of competition and the price war that has already begun between AMD and Intel.

    Ryzen 7 1800X vs Core i7-6900K: Gaming performance test

    Published by the author Egor Likospastov

    Today, sales of three top AMD processors from the Ryzen family have started, and, accordingly, the first reviews with their performance tests have appeared. Our colleagues at Tom’s Hardware have published the results of testing the oldest model, the 8-core Ryzen 7 1800X, which was compared with two Intel processors, the 8-core Core i7-6900K and 4-core Core i7-7700K, as well as AMD FX-8350 (3.8 GHz), the top processor, released in October 2012.

    We selected those Intel processors where they operate at standard frequencies, and in the case of Ryzen 7 1800X — in High Performance mode and disabled SMT (simultaneous multi-threading). With these settings in most games, it shows the highest performance. To evaluate performance in games, all these processors were paired with the top-end (from relatively affordable), until recently, the Nvidia GTX 1080 gaming graphics card. All games were set to maximum settings.

    Let me remind you that AMD itself positions the Ryzen 7 1800X as an alternative to the Core i7-6900K — according to the manufacturer, it is 9% faster (1601 vs 1474) in the Cinebench R15 benchmark (multi-threaded test), while being more than twice cheaper . The test carried out by Tom’s Hardware even surpasses this result — they got 1597 vs 1346 (19%). However, the main issue of interest to some potential buyers of the Ryzen 7 1800X is, of course, the behavior of this processor in games. And here comes the disappointment:0003

    Core i7-6900K Core i7-7700K Ryzen 7 1800X FX-8350
    $1050 $350 $499 $150
    min Wednesdays min Wednesdays min Wednesdays min Wednesdays
    Ashes of the Singularity
    (1920 x 1080)
    55 9049four

    95. 8 59 84.7 48 70.9 31 45.3
    Ashes of the Singularity
    (2560 x 1440)
    53 96.3 60 87.5 47 69.6 31 45.5
    Battlefield 4
    (1920 x 1080)
    131 161.5 128 161.1 130 160.5 121 138.0
    Battlefield 4
    (2560 x 1440)
    85 105.9 85 105.5 85 105.6 82 101.4
    Hitman
    (1920 x 1080)
    54 105. 3 58 106.3 54 96.7 36 68.3
    Hitman
    (2560 x 1440)
    55 89.5 55 90.9 54 86.2 36 66.3
    Metro: Last Light Redux
    (1920 x 1080)
    64 93.7 63 93.8 61 92.1 57 85.4
    Metro: Last Light Redux
    (2560 x 1440)
    33 53.5 34 53.6 32 53.1 33 52.3
    Project CARS
    (1920 x 1080)
    61 90. 0 61 96.3 48 78.4 35 9049four

    56.6
    Project CARS
    (2560 x 1440)
    57 86.4 61 94.8 48 78.3 34 56.5

    As you can see in this table, the Core i7-6900K can be dismissed as extremely expensive and yet outperforms (13%) three times the cheaper Core i7-7700K in just one game, Ashes of the Singularity . Thus, only the Core i7-7700K can be considered as a real rival to the Ryzen 7 1800X, and being $149 cheaper, it noticeably outperforms it in at least two games, Ashes of the Singularity (by 19-26%) and Project CARS (21-23%). Another game, Hitman , showed a noticeable difference at Full HD resolution (10%). In other games, the gap between the Ryzen 7 1800X and the Core i7-7700K is insignificant, but in any case, there is no reason to prefer the AMD processor to the Intel processor in games.

    However, two reservations must be made. Firstly, given the almost identical result for the Core i7-6900K and Core i7-7700K, it is likely that the performance of the 8-core Ryzen 7 1700 ($329), which is actually positioned by AMD as an alternative to the 4-core Core i7- The 7700K ($350) will be about the same level in games as the Ryzen 7 1800X.

    Second, we are talking about preliminary results obtained on new processors. It is possible that over time the software will be improved and the games optimized (although the latter is less likely). It is also possible that with AMD graphics cards, its new processors will perform better than with the GTX 1080.

    Tom’s Hardware

    AMD, Benchmarks, Desktop processors and video cards

    Ryzen 7 1800X

    review, tests and feedback / Page 16

    Evaluation and feedback

    The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X retails for $499.


    • AMD processors are competitive again
    • Excellent performance in heavy multi-threaded applications
    • Cheaper than Intel HEDT
    • processors

    • Improved single thread performance
    • Low power consumption and excellent energy efficiency
    • The platform has been updated to include the latest features (PCIe 3.0, USB 3.1, NVMe)

    • «Fun» motherboards/BIOS, not ready for the market
    • Limited gaming performance
    • Memory frequency limit
    • Advanced installation (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT and power profile)
    • Overclocking is not worth it
    • Requires optimized applications, not many
    • No integrated graphics

    8.6

    With the release of the new Ryzen processors, a new era began for AMD — the company’s return to competitiveness and the fight against Intel. Restoring competition will certainly bring benefits, whether it be performance, features or price. The first released processors are part of the Ryzen 7 Series and are 8-core models with a new HyperThreading technology called SMT, long overdue in the AMD lineup. Huge improvements in single-threaded performance, headaches and issues for the previous Bulldozer architecture have been found. Another fundamental note — incredible energy efficiency, ahead of Intel processors in many tests. In general, the whole set of changes makes the Ryzen 7 1800X an excellent alternative to processors from the Intel HEDT line (for example, Core i7-6900K) — at a much more attractive price.

    Caveat: software that heavily uses (loads) multiple cores should be used, and frankly, there is not so much software in its mass that really makes sense. Almost all professional/workstation/production applications now have a GPU accelerated work path that delivers results much faster than any CPU used in a similar mode while being more power efficient at the same time. There are some notable exceptions. For example, media encoding can be done on the GPU, often done using native GPU media encoding and as a result producing low quality video other than CPU encoders such as x264 or x265. This is where Ryzen shines. In most applications tested, such as Office, Photoshop, or Web Browsing, the Ryzen 7 1800X is found to perform comparable to Intel processors one or two generations below. However, it’s still incredibly impressive considering how far behind AMD was in pre-Ryzen applications, mostly single-threaded and dual-threaded. The information described above is important to know. Ryzen doesn’t magically make things an order of magnitude faster just yet. On the other hand, the listed applications usually work quite quickly; when was the last time you waited more than two seconds for an operation to complete in Microsoft Office?

    Tested a decent selection of games at 1080p and 1440p versus the Intel Core i7-7700k as a typical gamer’s choice and $150 less than the Ryzen 7 1800X. Depending on the game, the results were either nearly on par with the Intel processor or were significantly slower, especially at 1080p. The only exception is Civilization VI, where the additional Ryzen cores show a clear performance improvement. The simplest explanation for why some games run at lower performance is that the games themselves tend to have more limited CPU when testing frames. Every game has a certain amount of CPU usage it generates to compute a single frame (almost regardless of resolution), some games create more, others less.
    When paired with a fast graphics card and at standard 1080p, the frame rate will be high, which will lead to a significant load on the processor. At some point, the processor will start at maximum, which will limit the frame rate. This is aggravated by games that do not properly scale several CPU cores, or specifically work, for example, with only four cores. Although, of course, «the mistake of the game developer», but the reality of today’s gaming market is not going to change.
    The second set of benchmarks at 1440p shows less performance loss as the GPU can’t handle such high frame rates; it is busy processing the increased number of pixels due to the WQHD resolution. The trend will continue in 4K resolution.

    What does all this mean for Ryzen? With a graphics accelerator under $300 in 1080p gaming, it should be in order for the GPU to act as the limiting factor in performance. When running a GTX 1070, GTX 1080 or GTX 1080 Ti at 1080p, Ryzen will result in reduced game performance. Another solution would be to play at 1440p or higher so that the GPU becomes the bottleneck again or just buy an Intel processor.

    It is worth mentioning the flaws in the motherboard. AMD sent a Gigabyte Aorus motherboard with Corsair memory, supposedly the combination was properly tested for optimal user experience. Actually, it doesn’t. After setting up the system, the memory will work at a frequency of 2133 MHz, which is really very low and severely limits performance both in applications and in games. With a frequency of 2666 MHz, it was worth fooling around. So, in the BIOS, put down 2666 MHz, but nothing happened. The wonderful BIOS of the motherboard simply did not apply the specified memory frequency. At the moment, many beginners have taken advantage of the RMA (return) of the memory, motherboard or processor, claiming «it does not work.» The «fairy bullet» (at least on the Gigabyte board) is that each individual memory timing and voltage should be set to «manual» rather than «auto» (the theme works fine on Intel, where you can leave most settings on auto). or just select «XMP3000» and boom, you’re good to go). With this kind of change on a Gigabyte Ryzen board, it would boot 100% at 2666MHz and run fine all day. Nevertheless, in the end it turned out to ride 3000 MHz, and 2933 MHz turned out to be completely unstable. Having finished with the purchase and delivery of new Corsair 3000 MHz memory kits, among which we managed to “hook” one kit that started to “plow” (AMD sent a similar model, but, apparently, not tested for stability at 2933 MHz). Several 3200 MHz memory kits, which worked fine on Intel at even higher clock speeds, barely started at 2666 MHz and gave up on 2933 MHz. After mastering the memory problem, various posts were found on the Internet of users plus AMD reviewers recommending disabling HPET and SMT, using the Windows High Performance performance profile and other settings. There is no confidence in the seriousness of these arguments in their usefulness for professional users of workstations who want to see the system set up quickly and ready to go.

    Some people claim it’s not AMD’s fault that motherboards aren’t ready. Most likely, it is. Why not provide motherboard manufacturers with all the hardware and support they need with plenty of free time?

    Despite the motherboard issues, overclocking the processor itself works well (functionally) also thanks to the AMD Ryzen Master utility, you can make changes in real time and apply them without rebooting. In particular, is the Ryzen 1800X model worth overclocking at all. AMD Boost and XFR work in tandem to maximize CPU performance in automatic mode. For example, in a multi-threaded workload, the processor will go up to 4.1 GHz without any manual intervention, a frequency that is probably hard to achieve by manual overclocking without water cooling or ultra-high voltage. Manual overclocking can still be beneficial for heavy, all-core workloads where XFR and Boost may be inactive or offering lower frequencies.

    For years, Intel has fed the public with incremental improvements to its architecture, especially on the energy efficiency side, claiming that their processors may have culminated in x86 power-wise. Then comes AMD Ryzen with a significantly lower R&D budget and at least matches and sometimes surpasses Intel’s power efficiency, often delivering better performance at the same time. Even with all its eight cores loaded in Prime95, the Ryzen 7 1800X consumes the same amount of power as a quad-core i7-7700K.

    Comparing the price of the Ryzen 7 1800X to Intel’s highest offerings, AMD will emerge as the clear winner with platform fixes. The 1800X comes at a much more affordable price and similar performance. However, looking at the Ryzen 7 line, most people won’t need the 1800X, they’ll probably get by with the non-X Ryzen 7 1700, which is still an order of magnitude cheaper than its older brother and has only slightly lower performance (we’ll check in a future review). Those hungry for Ryzen should definitely wait for the maturation of the platform and fixes for critical bugs.