AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review — Tom’s Hardware
Skip to main content
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.
Early Verdict
We would recommend Ryzen 7 1800X for desktop and heavy workloads, such as rendering and workstation applications, but it isn’t as competitive with a diverse range of game titles. Ryzen sets a low pricing bar, and the addition of the new Zen microarchitecture and SMT yield an impressive performance improvement over AMD’s previous generation products.
Cons
- —
Sub-par gaming performance in some titles
- —
Poorly optimized software ecosystem
Why you can trust Tom’s Hardware
Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Today’s best Ryzen 7 1800X deals
851 Amazon customer reviews
☆☆☆☆☆
$163. 99
View
No price information
Check Amazon
The Ryzen Debut
The conundrum AMD currently faces started when it launched Bulldozer to lackluster reviews back in 2011. The following years found it trying to right the ship with Piledriver, Steamroller, and Excavator. But it’s safe to say the company’s host processing portfolio never regained its lost luster. Meanwhile, Intel dominated the mobile, desktop, and server markets with a seemingly insurmountable performance built on the excellent Sandy Bridge design and an unrelenting cadence of incremental improvements.
Heading into today’s review, nobody can argue the fact that AMD is far behind by comparison. Wouldn’t that make a comeback all the more impressive, though?
We started seeing Zen micro-architecture teasers last year.
Company representatives told us its next generation would usher in incredible performance gains, matching or surpassing Intel’s best efforts on multiple fronts. Zen also promised to revitalize an aging platform through Socket AM4 and new core logic. And AMD says it has a clear path forward planned for future versions of Zen.
At some point, though, the rubber has to meet the road. A good first step was taking aim at a competitor. Intel’s $1000+ Core i7-6900K seemed like an ambitious choice, but early hand-picked benchmark results made AMD’s eight-core engineering samples look formidable. Then, announcing that the flagship model would sell for less than half of of the -6900K’s price sent the masses into a frenzy. Most online vendors even sold out of their Ryzen 7 1800X allocation during pre-sales based on little more than AMD’s own endorsement.
Now it’s time for Ryzen to stand up on its own accord and show us what it can do in the real-world. We have several Ryzen SKUs in-house, spread across multiple Tom’s Hardware labs.
We’ve identified a number of unexpected results that bear continued investigation. We’ll continue updating our coverage as answers materialize. But we want to start putting our findings in front of you so enthusiasts can make more informed buying decisions in the face of general availability, which begins today.
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (AMD Ryzen 7) at Newegg for $163.99
Finding Zen
Four years ago, AMD began its work on the Zen core, which is its first clean-sheet architecture since Bulldozer. AMD’s initial objective was to transition from the 28nm process used for its modern APUs to GloablFoundries’ 14nm FinFET node, which offers increased performance and density within a similar power envelope. The company also set an ambitious goal to increase instruction-per-clock throughput by 40% over Excavator through a series of design choices that significantly boost performance. Notably, AMD deployed a new architecture and a lithography shrink simultaneously, which is a daunting challenge.
Last year, we published Everything Zen: AMD Presents New Microarchitecture At HotChips. In that story, we stepped through the composition of Zen, from front to back, right up to describing the CPU complex (CCX) responsible for housing four execution cores, each core’s 512KB L2 cache, and 8MB of shared L3 cache. If you aren’t already familiar with Zen and how it differentiates from prior-gen designs, check that piece out.
Moving forward, you need to know that the Zen core is Ryzen’s fundamental building block. All three SKUs we’re introducing today employ two quad-core CCXes, adding up to 4.8 billion transistors across the entire die. The company says its Infinity Fabric connects the CPU complexes, but remains shy about how that’s a quantifiable benefit.
As we established in our architectural deep-dive, AMD also arms Zen with simultaneous multi-threading support, allowing each physical core to operate on two threads in parallel. In theory, this improves the utilization of available hardware resources.
A lot of our real-world benchmarks bear that out with phenomenal performance gains. But other workloads expose teething pains we’re still trying to diagnose.
How about the 40% IPC improvement goal AMD set for itself? Well, after factoring in the new micro-op cache (bypassing the L1 and L2 for frequently-accessed micro-ops), the better branch prediction engine, the 1.75x-larger instruction scheduler window, and faster caches, the company cites a +52% final tally compared to Excavator. Naturally, we have our own single-threaded workloads to run and will gladly make comparisons using CPUs from our lab.
The Ryzen 7 Line-Up
AMD is splitting its newest CPUs into the eight-core Ryzen 7 family, a six-core Ryzen 5 series, and the quad-core Ryzen 3 line-up. Only the Ryzen 7 SKUs are shipping today, but it’s easy to see that AMD is targeting Intel’s Core i7, i5, and i3 portfolios with a similar naming scheme.
Aside from Intel’s eight- and 10-core i7s, the Ryzen 7s deliver higher core counts across the board.
The AMD CPUs also blow Intel’s Broadwell-E prices out of the water, though four-core/eight-thread Kaby Lake is generally cheaper (albeit with half as many cores).
It’s not entirely clear what features AMD plans to roll out across the Ryzen 5 and 3 CPUs, but we do know 7s sport the SenseMI suite. We’ll go into more depth on SenseMI shortly. What’s important here, though, is that SKUs with an X suffix include the eXtended Frequency Range capability. XFR automatically increases clock rate beyond the factory-set Precision Boost frequency if you provide additional thermal headroom with an aggressive cooler. This extra bit of speed applies to two of the chip’s cores.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
Ryzen 7 1700X
Ryzen 7 1700
Ryzen 7 is solely a host processor, devoid of integrated graphics. All three models debuting today drop into the Socket AM4 interface, include eight physical cores, and boast 16MB of shared L3 cache.
They also sport unlocked ratio multipliers, though you’ll need a motherboard based on the X370, B350, or X300 chipsets to overclock.
The Ryzen 7 1800X features a 3.6 GHz base frequency able to hit 4 GHz under lightly-threaded workloads via Precision Boost technology. Both of those specifications are higher than Intel’s eight-core Core i7-6900K. With Precision Boost enabled, all of the 1800X’s cores can operate at 3.7 GHz. And with enough thermal headroom, two cores jump as high as 4.1 GHz.
Perhaps surprisingly, given the comparisons to Intel’s 140W Broadwell-E behemoths, 1800X bears a 95W TDP. If that’s not enough to make you believe AMD has a new lease on life, the $500 price tag should excite professional content creators especially. Of course, if you don’t regularly find yourself running heavily-threaded tasks, Ryzen 7’s value isn’t as pronounced. After all, Intel’s Kaby Lake-based Core i5s and i7s offer solid performance and generally sell for less than the top-end AMD chips.
Ryzen 7’s performance in our benchmark suite will have to justify the premium.
The 95W Ryzen 7 1700X’s clock rates drop to 3.4 GHz base and 3.8 GHz under Precision Boost. Those frequencies compare favorably against the 140W Core i7-6800K, which tops out at 3.6 GHz in lightly-threaded tasks and only comes equipped with six cores. Worse, Intel charges $425 for the -6800K, while AMD is introducing Ryzen 7 1700X at $400. The Core i7-7700K also becomes relevant at this point, with its $350 price tag.
AMD’s Ryzen 7 1700 has a 65W TDP, making it the lowest-power eight-core desktop CPU available. A 3 GHz base clock rate and 3.7 Precision Boost ceiling are significantly lower than Intel’s 91W Core i7-7700K. However, the company compensates with twice as many physical cores and a comparable price tag.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Ryzen Memory Support | MHz |
|---|---|
| Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Four-DIMM | 1866 |
| Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Four-DIMM | 2133 |
| Dual-Channel/Dual-Rank/Two-DIMM | 2400 |
| Dual-Channel/Single-Rank/Two-DIMM | 2677 |
The six-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 family should surface in Q2, and include at least two models.
The Ryzen 5 1600X will feature a 3.6 GHz base and 4 GHz Precision Boost ceiling, while the 1500X is expected to start at 3.5 GHz and ramp up to 3.7 GHz in lightly-threaded workloads. AMD hasn’t shared cache configurations yet for those models. Ryzen 3s are also in the queue, though those aren’t expected until the second half of 2017.
AMD geared its pricing structure to target the 99% of enthusiasts it says buy CPUs priced under $500. If Ryzen 7 is successful, the stage is set for even more disruption in the mid-range and low-end segments as well. So, does Ryzen begin its life on stronger footing than Bulldozer? Let’s find out.
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD CPU Comparisons
MORE: Everything Zen: AMD Presents New Microarchitecture At HotChips
MORE: Intel Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K, i7-7700, i5-7600K, i5-7600 Review
MORE: Broadwell-E: Intel Core i7-6950X, 6900K, 6850K & 6800K Review
- 1
Current page:
The Ryzen Debut
Next Page AMD SenseMI Suite & XFR
Tom’s Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.
Visit our corporate site .
©
Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street,
New York,
NY 10036.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X review: now a decent gaming chip and symbol of a resurgent AMD
Thanks to the Ryzen 7 1800X, and its ilk, Bulldozer feels almost like a long-forgotten dream. Now that AMD’s Ryzen CPU tech is here to lay to rest those long, nightmarish days of lacklustre AMD processors genuine competition in the CPU space is here again. The top-end Ryzen 7 1800X offers serious computational grunt for half the price of its Intel rivals, though is still no wonder gaming chip.
The CPU is only one half of the PC picture, you’ll also need the best graphics card to support your shiny new processor.
It’s hard to believe it’s been quite so long in the CPU wilderness for AMD, but since they gambled early on pushing thread-count ahead of single-core performance with the Bulldozer architecture Intel have ruled the roost.
Admittedly the Zen architecture is arguably doing the same thing, pushing the industry forwards towards a cheaper multi-core future, but the timing for that is now arguably better, and AMD have also made moves to shore up the single-core performance of their latest chips.
The big question for us gamers right now though is how much does the $349(£282) Ryzen 7 1800X close the gap with AMD’s Intel competition when it comes to primarily single-threaded gaming performance? Though with the spectre of the AMD Ryzen 2 launch in April should you buy now or wait for the new CPUs to land?
Click on the jump links below to quickly skip sections.
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X specs
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X benchmarks
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X performance
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X architecture
Before we get carried away digging around the performance metrics of AMD’s chip we need to have a look at how it’s been put together. The Zen architecture represents a brand new, ground-up x86 CPU design, and AMD is right when they say that’s a real rarity in today’s mature PC component market.
The basic make-up of the 14nm FinFET Zen design surrounds the core complex (CCX).
This is a modular chunk of silicon sporting four discrete CPU cores and allows the architecture to scale the core count upwards from there. The octa-core chips then feature a pair of these CCX modules at their hearts to provide this full eight-core design. This modular layout is what allows AMD’s Zen-based Naples server and Threadripper chips to pack a full 32 physical cores inside them.
The major departure from the old Bulldozer architecture is the use of simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) to allow the Zen-based chips to better utilise the available compute pipelines and spread the load from a single core. Essentially it nominally delivers two concurrent processing threads from one core, doubling the thread count of processors which take advantage of the SMT tech.
AMD listed the SMT support of the Zen architecture as optional, which pavined the way for them to release lower-spec Ryzen 3 chips without the extra thread count, and potentially future mobile CPUs without the extra multi-threading support.
Partly it’s this increased parallelism which provides the Zen architecture with its boosted single-core performance. AMD have also specifically improved other parts of the design to target a higher instructions per clock (IPC) rating for Zen too. The architecture is now better able to predict what work is going to be required next, thanks to its neural network-based branch predictor, and is also able to chuck more work into the individual execution units too.
AMD have also made changes to the cache structure of the Ryzen chip’s Zen architecture, providing each core with 512KB of dedicated level 2 cache memory and a full 8MB of level 3 cache shared between each four-core CCX module. AMD estimates this provides around five times the cache bandwidth per core compared with the final Excavator generation of the Bulldozer CPU family.
In between the individual CCX modules AMD are using an interface they’re calling Infinity Fabric. It’s this high-speed interconnect which allows the different parts of the chip, from the cores to the memory to the system controllers, to communicate and feedback to each other.
The Infinity Fabric interconnect is intrinsic to the SenseMI tech AMD have also jammed into the Zen architecture.
It’s the SenseMI features which allow a Ryzen CPU to dynamically adjust its voltage and frequency on-the-fly as energy and temperature demands require. The Precision Boost and Pure Power features mean the chip can almost instantly push up the frequency and dial down the power on different parts of the CPU in milliseconds. When a part of the processor is not needed it gets gated off and the logic then doesn’t draw any power, which can then be distributed elsewhere.
Finally the Extended Frequency Range (XFR) is a feature which apes what Nvidia have been doing with their graphics cards – offering a clockspeed boost if there is enough thermal headroom available to the chip. XFR is primarily available to the ‘X’ models of Ryzen CPUs, allowing those SKUs to push beyond the clockspeed limits of Precision Boost, essentially given them an automated overclock of around 100MHz beyond their rated Boost clock.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X specs
The R7 1800X is the flagship CPU in AMD’s Ryzen range of processors and is the top mainstream chip before you get into the ultra-enthusiast Threadripper territory. Inside the R7 1800X are a pair of CCX modules giving it the full eight-core beans with 16 threads of processing grunt to back that up.
That layout means it’s filled with 4.8 billion transistors, with the smallest being based on the 14nm FinFET design from GlobalFoundaries. Those are all packed inside a die that’s a little over 195mm2. And, because it’s rocking two CCX modules, the R7 1800X has a total of 16MB of L3 cache inside it. It’s also the highest-clocked of all the Ryzen chips, with a base clockspeed of 3.6GHz and a maximum boost speed (on a single core) of 4GHz.
As an ‘X’ rated Ryzen processor the R7 1800X comes with a TDP of 95W, like the R7 1700X, to help it get its XFR on when there’s the thermal support available. In practice we didn’t really see any evidence of XFR pushing up the clockspeeds of the 1800X, though with this early platform our measuring tools aren’t necessarily 100% accurate.
CPU-Z, AMD’s own overclocking tool and Windows all seem to give different results in terms of actual second-by-second clockspeed.
In terms of platform the R7 1800X drops into any AM4 motherboard, as all good AMD chips from here on out should. Well, at least that was the plan before the HEDT Threadripper chips screwed that up for us. We’ve been testing in an X370 board as that is the chipset which offers the best chance of high-performance overclocking. The B350 chipset also offers overclocking, meant to be of a lower class level, but we’re not 100% convinced of the reality of that, while the low-end A320 chipset doesn’t give you any at all.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X benchmarks
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X performance
This top-end Ryzen CPU is quite remarkable. In pretty much any computationally intensive benchmark you care to throw its way the R7 1800X will greedily chomp through it before rapidly coming back for more. It’s one of the finest performers in the Cinebench test I’ve ever seen at this level, with only Intel’s $560 (£505) octacore i7 7820X and almost $1,000 (£1,000) i9 7900Xbeating it.
But those are far more expensive CPUs.
And that’s with our sample seemingly refusing to top 3.64GHz when all its cores were occupied. My first taste of XFR hasn’t been the most exciting…
The six-core i7 8700K and i7 7800X sit behind AMD’s top mainstream processor until you start to factor in the broader overclocking potential of Intel’s modern silicon. In fact they both struggle against the slightly slower AMD Ryzen 7 1700Xin terms of straight CPU performance.
At launch the Ryzen processors all struggled on the memory side of things, unable to consistently hit the highs many memory modules list on their specs sheets. That has been subsequently fixed via AGESA BIOS updates. Now the memory support is far more widespread, so finding compatible high-performance DDR4 kits isn’t the trial it was at first.
But it’s really the gaming performance that we care about, and that’s where a lot of the concerns for Ryzen have… er… arisen. Before I get into that though a quick note about testing – I’ve heard a lot of people getting stick for testing at 1080p when they themselves play at 1440p or 4K and want to see results for that.
But here I’m testing the R7 1800X, not the GTX 1070 we’ve used in our test rig since we started benching CPUs here at PCGamesN.
At 1440p or 4K all you’re really testing is the GPU performance, even at 1080p you can run into GPU limitations – as with Rise of the Tomb Raider – but you will still get a better idea of the performance delta between different chips when you’re not overly taxing the graphics silicon.
The performance difference though can almost disappear at the higher resolutions, so you may ask what does it matter? But as GPU power increases over time, as it inevitably does, the hidden performance differences will become more apparent as the platform matures. You may not care about it now, but you might in a year or two.
The good news though is that the performance delta between the top-end AMD chip and the Intel competition isn’t that great. There are though a couple of cases which display a severe performance difference, most noticeably in the older Total War tests where the R7 1800X is around 17% slower on average than the similarly priced i7 8700K.
We knew that Intel’s high-performing cores would mean they could retain their lead as the go-to purveyors of gaming CPUs, but the fact AMD have closed the gap this much with the limited R&D resources they have at their disposal should be applauded.
Ryzen is also a hot and thirsty architecture by comparison too. Even if AMD are to believed that their own Ryzen monitoring software is reporting the temperatures incorrectly (or correctly so “all AMD Ryzen processors have a consistent fan policy”) it’s still pretty toasty. The ‘X’ chips are supposedly reporting temperatures 20°C higher than the real CPU temps, but even then the 1800X is idling – under liquid chilling – above the 40°C mark.
And that plays into possibly why the Ryzen 7 1800X isn’t a particularly impressive overclocker. The 1800X is designed to boost up to 4GHz on a single core and it’s simple to switch that around so all cores are running at that speed, but pushing any further is a lot tougher.
We managed an almost completely stable 4.1GHz all-core overclock by upping the multiplier, but had better luck (i.e. a more stable chip) pushing up the BCLK and dropping the multiplier. Even then the actual performance improvement was negligible and with AMD themselves recommending you don’t run with a core voltage of 1.45v, or else risk the longevity of your silicon, it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense running Ryzen above stock clocks.
The Ryzen platform as a whole does also seem a little slow out of the blocks. It’s nothing to do with the storage performance of the setup, but it seems to take an age for our system, with a high-end Asus X370 board, to even get to the POST screen.
- Check out today’s Amazon US and Amazon UK pricing.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X verdict
I didn’t love the Ryzen 7 1800X at launch. It’s high initial price meant it couldn’t be the processor I’d instantly recommend any PC gamer out there buy, yet it’s always been tough to argue against what an important processor it is.
With Ryzen AMD haven’t taken the CPU market by storm, they haven’t ousted Intel and they’re not suddenly going to become top dog. But what they have done though is become competitive and relevant once again.
But with the recent price drops, bringing the 1800X more in line with the Coffee Lake i7 8700K, that makes it a much more tantalising prospect. It’s got the top mainstream Intel chip licked in terms of straight CPU performance and it’s incredibly close when it comes to gaming speeds too, to the point where there’s often almost nothing in it.
The fact there is even a question as to whether you should consider Intel or AMD for your next purchase, and that it’s not just an automatic decision, is huge. Of course it helps AMD have gone so aggressively into the market with the pricing of their new chips. Undercutting Intel’s high-end range by so much was always going to be disruptive, but it was something AMD had to do to get noticed.
It does thoughmean AMD are almost reinforcing the old-school status quo, still occupying the more price-conscious end of the CPU spectrum.
Money-no-object you’d go for the Intel platform whether you’re a gamer or a serious content producer. They still have the absolute best processor technology and motherboard platforms around. But AMD have produced a great-value eight-core processor for those who can’t, or don’t want to, spend over a grand on one.
But that said, we’ve long been suggesting the Ryzen 7 range aren’t the chips gamers should be excited about. The Ryzen 5 range, with the stunning R5 1600X, is able to deliver almost Intel i5 levels of gaming performance while offering three times the thread-count for the same price. That’s where the smart gaming money goes. But with the new Ryzen 2000-series CPUs looming large, the Ryzen 7 2800X that’s coming in April should deliver a healthy performance uplift over the first-gen Ryzen. As long as AMD don’t go crazy with the pricing, in line with what’s happened with today’s graphics cards, then it’s tough to recommend buying a Ryzen 1000-series chip right now.
- Check out today’sAmazon USandAmazon UKpricing.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor:
The breakthrough that the Bolsheviks have been talking about for so long
Testing methodology for
computer systems of the 2016 model
We think it will not be an exaggeration to say that AMD Ryzen processors are already about a year ago gained the status of «the most anticipated product» — at least among those who generally continued to follow the segment of processors for «traditional» personal computers, which had lost a little popularity, and for a long time. At the same time, it cannot be said that the past year was so poor in events in this market, but … But nothing so radically changing the alignment of forces on it was simply not expected. Which, of course, is AMD’s own fault: its «colors» in the high-performance processor market continued to protect the «construction» FX, which have not changed since 2012, and precisely high performance has long been incapable of boasting.
The example of Intel 10 years ago shows that the way out of the impasse often leads to a «breakthrough», the absence of which over the past five years has already begun to sadden some computer users. With a stretch, of course, Bay Trail can be considered a breakthrough — the first significant «shake-up» of the Intel Atom architecture in many years, but these processors of «performance at any cost» lovers still could never please, and Intel had no other groundwork. AMD, on the other hand, created one with his own hands, so many people were interested in how things would end, even those who were not going to buy anything, but simply like to read the news of the corresponding market. Related to this is, for example, the wave of various «leaks» and «preliminary testing» that covered the news of the IT press in recent months and became more and more dense. nine0003
And finally, it’s all over — in a good, of course, sense of the word: the new microarchitecture is officially presented, processors based on it began to gradually enter the retail chains, and data that was previously classified was revealed.
In a word, the waiting period is over — there are topics for a substantive conversation. It is of the topic, since the assumption that the new architecture will significantly affect the market has been fully confirmed. At least if we talk about the already presented processors of the Ryzen 7 family — the best of what AMD plans to offer in the near future, but not aimed at the mass market. Before mobile devices, and indeed before any APU (in the terminology of the manufacturer — processors with an integrated video core), which in recent years have accounted for the lion’s share of shipments from both AMD and Intel, there are still a few months left. And even those claiming to be «people’s gaming» (when integrated video is not needed) processors at prices around $200 will not appear on the market right away tomorrow. The three models currently available directly compete with Core i7 — mainly for LGA2011-3, where, in general, the lack of video is the same problem, compensated, however, by a large number of PCIe lanes and four-channel memory controllers (which, at least with other equal allows you to install twice as many memory modules).
Intel values its processor cores more, shipping eight of them for $1000, while AMD keeps within $500 even in the older model, which thus competes with six-core processors for LGA2011-3. True, there are also server Xeons with eight cores from the same $300, and even 10 cores can be found from $600 (considering the recommended prices, of course), but the clock speeds of these processors are extremely low, so they are not suitable for «general purpose» applications. And Ryzen 7 is aimed specifically at this segment of the market, and even able to manage with inexpensive motherboards, etc. In general, there is a good reason for testing, and we decided not to shelve it, and to conduct it on the already formally “outdated” version of the test methods. We have accumulated a lot of results suitable for comparison, and the Ryzen 7 1800X was just in time for the results of testing. And then there will be new tests of this and other models, and the study of related issues too — the AM4 platform has come in earnest and for a long time 🙂
6/4.0 What is the new processor compared to? It directly competes with lower models for LGA2011-3, such as i7-6800K or i7-5820K. Yes, the Ryzen 7 1800X itself is a hundred dollars more expensive (if we consider the recommended prices; anything can happen with retail ones at the start of the platform), but the boards are cheaper by the same hundred, or even more. It is clear that the high price of boards for LGA2011-3 is largely due to their functionality: it is (for example) much more difficult (and therefore more expensive) to separate four memory channels into eight slots (and therefore more expensive) than two by four.
But in more or less mass-produced systems, this functionality remains potential (it is practically not used in our tests), so it can be neglected. So if we consider the total cost of the processor and boards (and this is what the buyer is interested in), the picture is as follows: the older Ryzen against the younger Core i7. In any case, even for $600, Intel offers only six cores for this segment, and eight for only $1000. But we also need them for comparison, since there are just eight cores in 1800X. Thus, the i7-6800K and i7-6900K would be ideal benchmarks, but we have not tested them before, but the results of the previous i7-5820K and i7-5960X are at hand — you can use them, since there are significant differences between Broadwell-E and Haswell -E no (the new generation is a little faster and a little more economical, but exactly what «a little»). nine0003
For the same reason, it is not necessary to test the Core i7-7700K with the results of the i7-6700K — in their case, the differences are even smaller.
But a top-end solution for the Intel mass platform is also needed — let’s take the i7-6700K. Note that here the competition issues are already less clear: Intel processors are cheaper, boards are not more expensive, and you can save money on a discrete video card if you are not interested in games. But if you are interested, a discrete is mandatory, so this advantage is absorbed, and the other difference in price is a priori compensated by the number of cores: four is somehow even is not fashionable , but eight is just right. As a result, for example, Ryzen 7 1800X (and 1700/1700X) may also be of interest to users of LGA1155, which is already “tired”, but I don’t want to change four cores to four cores. And for eight — there is an incentive if they work well. And this is what we’re going to check.
And we definitely need some kind of FX — these processors originally «dwelled» in a different price segment, but not at all from a good life. It is desirable, of course (for obvious reasons), to take a top-end processor, which, in principle, is the FX-8370.
Was in the range of AMD and family 9000, but it’s better to forget about it already … which the company itself actually did. It is clear that FX could have long been considered «top» models only in the assortment of AMD itself, but it is logical to push off from them and estimate the size of the «big leap» not in paper numbers, but in terms of performance and power consumption.
Test methodology
The methodology is described in detail in a separate article. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:
- iXBT.com performance measurement method based on real applications of the 2016 sample
- Methodology for measuring power consumption when testing processors
- Methodology for monitoring power, temperature and processor load during testing
- Methodology for measuring performance in games iXBT.com sample of 2016
Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). Directly in the articles, we use already processed data.
This is especially true for application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (as last year, a laptop based on Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD) and grouped by the areas of application of the computer. nine0003
iXBT Application Benchmark 2016
Above, it was not for nothing that it was said about the “big leap”, although within the framework of AMD products it is generally huge: superiority over FX by almost 70%. And no need to talk about the difference in price — it’s just that FX had to be repeatedly discounted precisely because of performance problems. Ryzen has no problems — these are fast processors. Of today’s participants, the 1800X is the fastest, and even behind the Core i7-6950X, it lagged behind by a microscopic amount, and in this case the price difference is in its favor (to put it mildly). It is clear that the more cores, the more problems with their disposal, which is why the «ordinary powder» in the form of i7-6700K does not look so bad here, but this problem also hits LGA2011-3.
Senior representatives for AM4 behave no worse. In fact, even better. So those who work a lot with video should definitely take a closer look at Ryzen 7: at the moment this family of processors is practically unrivaled. nine0003
Yes, and this also applies to the photo — 1800X did not become a leader here, if only because of the lower craving of programs in this group for multithreading (however, in Lightroom and Capture One, where it is in demand, the processor is slightly behind the 5960X, but it can — it much cheaper; in Photoshop, but faster), but showed more than a decent result. In any case, this is not FX, which is already lagging behind modern Core i3 — the level of Ryzen 7 is Core i7 without exaggeration. Moreover, most of the not very old processors of this family (for example, any models for LGA1150 or LGA2011) are already behind (and the first one is even on sale). In general, AMD does not have to blush for its new product. Blue too 🙂
Since, as has been said more than once, the program is essentially optimized for Core 2 Duo, and later only the interface was redrawn, it does not need not only eight, but also quad-core processors.
But you can evaluate the performance gain «per thread» in the microarchitectures of AMD itself. It exists and is very noticeable; which is actually enough. In general, as we will see below, it was practically the worst case. Which, as has been said more than once, will not be in the new test method — it is not interesting to use programs for which (albeit useful) a modern Pentium or so is sufficient. nine0003
Since this application also cannot boast of high-quality multi-threaded optimization — there is some, but not sufficient for a clear victory for multi-core processors. On the contrary, Intel solutions clearly have an inflection point somewhere around six cores, after which the performance drops completely. Eight work fine in Ryzen, so although the processor did not become the leader in the overall standings, it overtook any models for LGA2011-3. And not only them — looking ahead (since this is already the topic of “results”), only three or four Intel models, such as 479, are faster than him here0K and similar high frequencies.
And superiority over FX up to 60%, respectively.
And if there is room for 16 streams to expand, you can reach the double, although, as we already know, such programs were the best that FX could encounter. And all Intel processors are naturally behind — except, perhaps, 6950X, but this is a completely different story .
With data archiving and the reverse process (where, by the way, FX also looked very good), the Ryzen 7 1800X copes, if not the best, but excellently. It could be faster, but these are details: in the end, all multi-core processors here are hindered by single-threaded unpacking of archives. The operation, of course, is frequent, but it is still so fast that next year we will no longer take into account the time spent on it. Which, of course, will «help» processors with 8-10 cores to the greatest extent. nine0003
With this, everything is clear — single-threaded performance has some value, but very little. Simply because any decent desktop platform can already “fill up with work” far from the slowest (to put it mildly) SATA SSD.
So first of all, we just had to make sure that the relatively new AM4 did not have any problems, which, however, we did not expect.
The program scales well across cores, is not too enthusiastic about SMT technologies, and is susceptible to the memory system. At the same time, it responds well to architectural optimizations — they are even more important to it than quantitative indicators. In general, everything is going well for Ryzen — you can’t say that he tears all shattered and in half , but no one expected this (except for the unrestrained optimists for the whole head ). The main thing is that there is simply no lag behind competing developments in principle. Yes, of course, more expensive Intel processors are faster — but much more expensive and not much faster. Core i7-6700K (as well as 7700K, and, especially, 7700) are cheaper, but not too much. It is enough for them to at least not give in — fortunately there are cases when they are much slower. Enough to remember the same video coding.
That is, the alignment has fundamentally changed compared to the «FX era», which performed in some places is relatively good , but at the same time I had to turn a blind eye to many work scenarios where this was not observed.
All in all, the Ryzen 7 1800X finished first! It cannot be said that he was so radically ahead of other participants, but he was able to do something that had not been done for 10 years already. Despite the fact that, as has been written more than once, mass software still cannot boast of any increased craving for multi-core processors, often calmly content with a couple of cores — even four can be dispensed with, but here there are eight. But, as you can see, this hits expensive (very expensive at the moment) eight-ten-core Intel processors a lot — and much weaker for Ryzen. Which, nevertheless, is also not designed specifically for the mass market — in the current version, in any case. But it’s not required either — Ryzen 5 will certainly look good there, and even better APUs on the new microarchitecture.
Ryzen 7, on the other hand, are processors for those who know how to use many cores. And in this case, it may turn out to be the fastest even when compared with more expensive processors. But it also performs well in other cases, unlike FX, which somehow could only be sold at low prices and thanks to these same prices. And not only because of the performance, which could not be compared even with the old Core i7 based on Ivy Bridge, but also in other important parameters. nine0003
Power Consumption and Energy Efficiency
Ryzen’s 14nm manufacturing process allows us to hope for low power consumption. However (which is no longer a secret), nanometers are different, and even with the same process, energy consumption depends on the architecture. Not to mention the fact that for approximately the same crystals it decreases over time — the first steppings turn out to be worse than the next ones, if only because of the debugging of the production process. Therefore, the results of the first tests should always be treated with caution — the performance of a particular processor model usually remains invariant (although it can be influenced by third-party factors, including those related to power consumption and heat dissipation).
nine0003
However, even without adjusting for all of the above, we have nothing to criticize the Ryzen 7 1800X — unlike. Yes — the power consumption of the platform (recall that not only the processor, but also the memory card is taken into account in the measurements, as well as what the discrete video card receives through the PCIe slot, and not through its own dedicated power lines) is somewhat higher than typical for modern desktop processor models Intel for LGA1151, but quite comparable to LGA1150, not to mention LGA1155. In general, Ryzen 7 is most correctly compared with processors for LGA2011-3 (the reasons for which have been repeatedly voiced above) — and here, in general, parity. In any case, if we consider Haswell-E — Broadwell-E is a little more economical, but we are talking about a few watts. nine0003
The main thing is that all this cannot be compared with the archaic AM3 +, which, even with simple data copying, required the same amount of energy as AM4 with an «average» top-end processor.
And “on average” the FX-8370, together with the harness, “ate” almost as much as the Ryzen 7 1800X with its environment to the maximum. That is, in this case, the progress is even more impressive than when considering performance alone.
And when evaluating “energy efficiency”, both improvements (reducing consumption and increasing productivity) are multiplied, providing such a cumulative effect: if “construction equipment” lost even the first generation Core (despite the advantage in the technical process — as we see, it is only limited to them when comparing not worth it), then the older Ryzen easily settled between Haswell-E and Haswell. The younger processors of the line, very likely, will be even better. This is still not Broadwell / Skylake, but do not forget that their results have been achieved over many years of continuous work in small steps, and the technical processes are slightly different (although formally both there and there are 14 nm), and Intel already uses these standards two and a half years.
nine0003
iXBT Game Benchmark 2016
We thought for a long time whether to include this section: after all, the Radeon R9 380 is a rather old solution and not too fast, and the games we used earlier are not too demanding on the number of processor cores, voting, mainly , for «performance per thread» — in any case, those of them where at least something depended on the processor. On the other hand, contrary to the first and thanks to the second, FX often showed depressingly low results, so it’s interesting to see how the situation has changed in the same games with the release of Ryzen (and judging by the results above, it could not help but change). We will conduct such a quick test today, leaving a detailed study of the behavior of the new platform in games for the future — in the new version of the methodology and the game is «harder», and the video card is noticeably more powerful. nine0003
It is worth starting, of course, with the “tanks”, where the state of affairs was quite bad, but it became quite normal.
The version of the game we used earlier was not able to distribute the load among the cores at all, and in newer ones the situation has changed at least a little, which should first of all help slow “multi-cores” (such as Core 2 Quad, Phenom II or FX), but also fast at least nothing to lose. How it really is — we will find out a little later. In the meantime, it is clearly visible that in FHD everything possible is “squeezed” out of this video card, and in HD the results are approximately the same as Core i7 for LGA2011-3 — there was neither one nor the other before. nine0003
Engines of the EGO family have supported multi-threading almost since their inception, but this did not help FX much earlier. More precisely, in the FHD mode, it could (at least) “reach” the potential capabilities of the R9 380, but as soon as the load on the video card was reduced, it immediately became clear — whose bumps are in the forest.
With the release of Ryzen 7, the question has ceased to be so unambiguous. Moreover, the state of affairs in F1 2015 is especially interesting, with which processors for LGA2011-3 did not cope well. The Ryzen 7 1800X is much less affected. nine0003
But the most «powerful» example is perhaps Thief. Note that the game itself is “heavy”, obviously interested in a large number of cores (in tests on the GTX 1070, it turned out to be one of the few where the youngest Core i5-6400 still worked a little faster than the older Core i3-6320) — in in general, weaklings have no place here . What happened in the end — it seems to us that it simply does not need detailed comments.
Significantly lighter design, where the difference between different processors is mainly described by the formula: 9There were a lot of 0161 — there are more . But if we talk simply about comparing processors, and not about practically significant results, then you can pay attention to it. Although, in principle, nothing fundamentally differs from the above cases.
In general, the new one does not have any problems inherent in the previous family of AMD processors. As mentioned above, we will study the layout in gaming applications (and already other gaming applications) in more detail a little later — for now, this conclusion is enough. nine0003
Total
To begin with, let’s remember what some people expected a year ago: a processor priced at three hundred dollars, easily outperforming all Intel solutions in any price segment and costing almost passive cooling. Are we exaggerating? Just a little — it’s nice to believe in miracles even for adults 🙂 In practice, it’s usually not miracles at all, but the painstaking work of hundreds of engineers, limited in creativity by the laws of physics (and not only physics), which also needs to be paid constantly and without waiting for results — and the costs of «beat off» later. Therefore, not $300, but $500. More precisely, “a little more than $300” is already there, but eight cores “up to $300” (which some were really waiting for) are not presented.
nine0003
An interesting point related to this: at the introduction of new processors, one of the slides said that «99% of people do not buy processors more than $ 500.» It is curious that around 2008 the main postulate sounded a little different: «97% of people do not buy processors more than $200.» Both of these are true. But ideally, any company strives to master all 100% of the price niches that AMD successfully demonstrated in the middle of the 2000s, offering buyers processors for $1,000 (more expensive dollars than modern ones, it should be noted) — because there was something to offer for such a price. For example, the fastest dual-core processors. And when you can’t do something “the most”, you have to limit the target audience — until it works again. In 2008, the «two hundred dollar framework» was overcome by the release of a very successful Phenom II family, today — Ryzen. Moreover, its birth in the projection for those years looks in the first approximation, as if the 45-nanometer Phenom II X4 appeared immediately after 90nm Athlon 64 X2 — without intermediate stages.
Yes, it is, in fact, it is. You can simply make improvements step by step (not forgetting that not all steps will be equally successful), not paying attention to the dissatisfaction of a part of potential buyers (small, but the most active and constantly following the market, at least out of sporting interest) with the low rate of progress. On the contrary, one can put aside the idea of »creeping progress» for some time, thereby preparing a springboard for a «great leap» from a low base. As a result, however, some of the mentioned users will begin to demand an annual miracle, and it is not clear what to show between the “decisive stages”. nine0003
In general, it’s all lyrics. If we talk about the facts, then AMD now has a processor that is really worth its five hundred evergreens. Moreover, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, from the point of view of the buyer, he can compete with cheaper Intel processors — thanks to a cheaper platform. On the other hand, a cheaper platform means a little less functionality, so once again we come to the conclusion that any choice is always a compromise.
And the times when processors could be easily and naturally ranked by price and performance are also in the past. In fact, the Ryzen 7 family is addressed to those users who have something to load all eight cores — and in such conditions, its representatives look much better than the Core i7 for LGA2011-3, and without any price adjustments: Ryzen 7 1800X is capable in some cases overtake Core i7-5960X, and the Core i7-6900K is able to cope. And given the price at the moment, everything is even better — recall that even the older Ryzen 7 model will have to compete on store shelves only with younger six-core Intel processors, and the younger Ryzen 7 1700 can to some extent be compared with solutions for LGA1151. However, other Ryzen families, as well as APUs based on the new microarchitecture, will be more likely to compete for the mass market. The latter will certainly perform well in a laptop version, and in the desktop models of the new APUs, the processor cores will no longer look like a free load on an entry-level video card.
nine0003
All this can already be stated for sure. The appearance of finished products and their tests will increase the degree of detail of the overall picture, but will not change it fundamentally. Thus, the market is guaranteed to change. In any case, AMD is now returning to many of its segments in earnest, and the competitor will most likely have to react to this somehow. It is unlikely that Intel will change LGA2011-3 (this platform has already worked its way out and is still leaving the market), but the Skylake-X line expected in the near future will most likely turn out to be somewhat more attractive to buyers than it could. And the appearance of six-core processors for LGA1151 (which, by the way, some were waiting for back in 2015, since there are generally no technical problems preventing their appearance), it seems to us, has become almost guaranteed. In general, we will not be surprised if all desktop Core i7s in the Intel assortment “suddenly” become six or more “core”, and in laptop models the account will be opened from four, and not from two (for the period from the beginning of 2010, this situation already a little fed up).
nine0003
But this is a shaky ground of assumptions and hypotheses, so let’s leave it for now. It can be said for sure that 2017 will not be boring anymore. Take seats according to the purchased tickets 🙂
In conclusion, we invite you to watch our video review of the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor:
in 20 benchmarks]
AMD
nine0275 Ryzen 7 1800X
- Interface
- Core frequency
- Video memory size
- Memory type
- Memory frequency
- Maximum resolution
Description
AMD started AMD Ryzen 7 1800X sales on March 2, 2017 at a suggested price of $499. This is a desktop processor based on the Zen architecture, primarily designed for office systems. It has 8 cores and 16 threads and is manufactured in 14 nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 4000 MHz, the multiplier is locked.
nine0003
In terms of compatibility, this is an AM4 socket processor with a TDP of 95W. It supports DDR4 memory.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
13.22%
from the leader, which is AMD EPYC 9654.
EPYC
9654
Compare
General information
Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Ryzen 7 1800X, as well as the time when sales started and the cost at that time. nine0003
- 0
- 50
- 100
Features
Ryzen 7 1800X quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock status. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.
Virtualization technologies
Technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1800X that accelerate virtual machines are listed.
| AMD-V | + |
Memory support
Types, maximum amount and channels of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1800X. Higher memory frequency may be supported depending on the motherboard. nine0162
Build
General parameters of the integrated video card in Ryzen 7 1800X.
| Video core | — |
Peripherals
Ryzen 7 1800X supported peripherals and how to connect them. nine0003
Overall performance in tests
This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Ryzen 7 1800X
13.22
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 Single Core
- GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
- Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
- Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
- 3DMark06 CPU
- Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
- Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
- Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
- Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
- TrueCrypt AES
- x264 encoding pass 2
- x264 encoding pass 1
- Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
- Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
- Geekbench 2
- Geekbench 4.
0 64-bit multi-core - Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core
nine0171 WinRAR 4.0
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption, and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test. nine0003
Benchmark coverage: 67%
Ryzen 7 1800X
16406
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
nine0275 Ryzen 7 1800X
941
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can be used to accurately measure performance.
This version uses all available processor cores.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Ryzen 7 1800X
6266
nine0003
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is a very outdated ray tracing benchmark for processors developed by the authors of Cinema 4D, Maxon. The Single-Core version uses a single CPU thread to render a futuristic motorcycle model.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Ryzen 7 1800X
5062
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 that uses all processor threads. The possible number of threads in this version is limited to 16.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 7 1800X
32833
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is an outdated set of benchmarks based on DirectX 9 by Futuremark. Its processor part contains two tests, one of which calculates the pathfinding of game AI, the other emulates game physics using the PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 7 1800X
nine0161 9585
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 that uses all processor threads. This version supports a maximum of 64 threads.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Ryzen 7 1800X
18
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core (sometimes referred to as Multi-Thread) is a variant of Cinebench R15 that uses all of the processor threads. nine0003
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 7 1800X
1618
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (Release 15) is a benchmark created by Maxon, the creator of the popular Cinema 4D 3D modeling package. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench using more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes referred to as Single-Thread) uses only one CPU thread to render a room full of mirror balls and complexly shaped lights.
nine0003
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 7 1800X
161
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old Maxon development benchmark. authors of Cinema 4D. It has been superseded by later versions of Cinebench which use more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads one CPU thread with ray tracing, rendering a glossy room full of crystal spheres and lights. nine0003
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 7 1800X
1.8
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a deprecated program that was widely used to encrypt disk partitions on the fly. It contains several built-in benchmarks, one of which is TrueCrypt AES. It measures the speed of data encryption using the AES algorithm. The result of the test is the encryption speed in gigabytes per second. nine0003
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 7 1800X
10
WinRAR 4.
0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of the popular archiver. It contains an internal speed test using maximum compression by the RAR algorithm on large amounts of randomly generated data. Results are measured in kilobytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 12%
Ryzen 7 1800X
nine0161 3967
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower MPEG4 x264 video compression benchmark, resulting in a variable bit rate output file. This results in a better quality of the resulting video file, as a higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. The benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
Benchmark coverage: 12%
nine0275 Ryzen 7 1800X
84
x264 encoding pass 1
The x264 benchmark uses the MPEG 4 x264 compression method to encode the sample video in HD (720p). Pass 1 is a faster option that produces an output file at a constant bit rate. Its result is measured in frames per second, that is, how many frames of the source video file were encoded in one second on average.
Benchmark coverage: 12%
nine0275 Ryzen 7 1800X
179
Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 6%
Ryzen 7 1800X
30389
Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 6%
Ryzen 7 1800X
4014
Geekbench 2
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Ryzen 7 1800X
20615
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Ryzen 7 1800X
21595
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Ryzen 7 1800X
4490
Relative capacity
Overall performance of the Ryzen 7 1800X compared to its closest competitor in desktop processors. nine0003
Intel Core i7-10700
102.12
Intel Core i5-12500TE
101.
06
AMD Ryzen Embedded V2718
100.53
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
100
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G
99.47
AMD Ryzen 5 4500
98.49
Intel Core i7-11700T
96.44
Competitor from Intel
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Ryzen 7 1800X from Intel is Core i5-12500TE, which is 1% faster on average and higher by 3 positions in our rating.
Core i5
12500TE
Compare
Here are a few of Intel’s closest competitors to the Ryzen 7 1800X:
Intel Core i9-9900
102.19
Intel Core i7-10700
102.12
Intel Core i5-12500TE
101.06
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
100
Intel Core i7-11700T
96.
44
nine0275 Intel Core i3-13100F
95.16
Intel Core i9-10900T
92.28
Other processors
Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.
Core i9
9900
Compare
Ryzen 7
PRO 2700X
Compare
Ryzen Threadripper
1900X
Compare
Ryzen 7
2700
Compare
Ryzen 7
1700X
Compare
Core i7
7820X
Compare
Best graphics cards for Ryzen 7 1800X
There are 534 configurations based on Ryzen 7 1800X in our database.
According to statistics, these cards are most often used with Ryzen 7 1800X:
GeForce GTX
1060 6GB
8.4%
GeForce GTX
1080 Ti
nine0276
7.1%
GeForce GTX
1070
7.1%
GeForce GTX
1080
6%
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
5.4%
Radeon RX
580
4.7%
GeForce GTX
1060 3GB
3.6%
GeForce RTX
2060
3%
GeForce RTX
3060
2.
8%
GeForce GTX
980 Ti
2.4%
Here are the most powerful graphics cards used with the Ryzen 7 1800X according to user statistics:
GeForce RTX
3090 Ti
0.4% (2/534)
GeForce RTX
3080 Ti
0.2% (1/534)
GeForce RTX
3090
0.6% (3/534)
GeForce RTX
3080 12GB
0.2% (1/534)
GeForce RTX
3080
0.4% (2/534)
GeForce RTX
3070 Ti
0.2% (1/534)
GeForce RTX
nine0161 3070
0.