AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Linux Benchmarks

[TitanFighter]

Here you can compare 6900 (3.2/3.7) vs 1800x (3.6/4.1), both 8/16. Higher GHz does not mean faster.

So

7700K is clocked at 4.2GHz stock, why anyone is surprised it's faster in single thread tests than 3.4GHz (and even OC-ed to 3.9GHz) Ryzen?

In this case is not reliable argument. I said that 7700k wins in games and I meant if a customers do not need MT (read as "play games"), Intel is preferable.

P.S. I am happy to see competitive CPUs from AMD again. I remember the time when Athlon 1700 (this one I had), 1800 and 2100 were the superstars, because could be overclocked almost easily (I was very happy to get ~2.2GHz from standard 1.4GHz with 0.5 kilo cooler). And definitely my next CPU will be AMD, because I am not a game player.

[Khudsa]

Not bad AMD... My next build, in short time, will be Ryzen based... Great work AMD!

[leipero]

Exactly what I expected, some of those benchmarks are simply not good for direct comparison, single-threaded performance is actually very good per-clock from allr eviews i saw, i7-7700k just runs at higher default frequency, thus the performance is better per core, while architecture wise, they are about equal. Now platform, expected problems (mem latency etc.), but this is great CPU no doubt .

[dungeon]

Windows game tests show that 7700k, which is cheaper, is better. Interesting to see Linux game tests.

Yes that is true, stock singlethread is about 8% slower than on 7700k - that is only place where it is better Of course if you ignore mulithread capabilities of this Ryzen which is way faster.

[Dandeloreon]

Here is collection of tests from different sites. 7700k almost everywhere wins In many tests very notably.

Yes, and like what was said before, Most of the benchmarks shown are probably using completely stock settings on all chips. This means the Intel Core i7-7700k clocked at 4.2ghz ( 4.5ghz turbo) will always beat the AMD Ryzen 7-1800K clocked at 3.6Ghz ( 4Ghz turbo). However I would like to point out the TDP and core count5... The Core i7-7700K is 4 Cores, 8 threads at 91W. This may seem good until you realise the the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is twice the chip since it has 8 cores, 16 threads and is rated at 95W. This means that the Intel Chip is using approximately 22.75 watts per core, while the AMD Ryzen chip is using about 11.875 watts per core... Also on the pure cost per core, the Intel CPU costs about $20 more per cpu-core.

Here you can compare 6900 (3.2/3.7) vs 1800x (3.6/4.1), both 8/16. Higher GHz does not mean faster.

So

In this case is not reliable argument. I said that 7700k wins in games and I meant if a customers do not need MT (read as "play games"), Intel is preferable.

P.S. I am happy to see competitive CPUs from AMD again. I remember the time when Athlon 1700 (this one I had), 1800 and 2100 were the superstars, because could be overclocked almost easily (I was very happy to get ~2.2GHz from standard 1.4GHz with 0.5 kilo cooler). And definitely my next CPU will be AMD, because I am not a game player.

Most of the graphs are done intentionally to stack the deck against AMD in this case. I believe that if you take into consideration that games are slowly moving towards using more cores ( and threads ), the results start to look a lot more different. Some of the reviewers did mention that the Core i7-7700k exhibits micro stutters that are not displayed when compared to the Ryzen chip.

[rabcor]

Damn, imma get me some of this action, that's some impressive work by AMD.

[dungeon]

Yes, and like what was said before, Most of the benchmarks shown are probably using completely stock settings on all chips. This means the Intel Core i7-7700k clocked at 4.2ghz ( 4.5ghz turbo) will always beat the AMD Ryzen 7-1800K clocked at 3.6Ghz ( 4Ghz turbo).

Do not forget these plus 100Mhz XFR - basically 4.1GHz on Ryzen vs 4.5GHz on Kaby equaling of these average 8% difference in gaming

It is equal for gaming if on same clocks, blah, blah.

[theriddick]

NOT really, the Ryzen is struggling in game performance on all platforms atm, but I think mostly that is because of teething issues that I hope amd & motherboard vendors sort out over the next few months. In saying that I'm pretty happy with my 5820k, I was considering Ryzen if it turned out to be a good overclocker (like 4.5ghz) but that isn't the case so I will stick with my current setup and hopefully get a VEGA card once thats out (rolling a 980ti atm).

[leipero]

NOT really, the Ryzen is struggling in game performance on all platforms atm, but I think mostly that is because of teething issues that I hope amd & motherboard vendors sort out over the next few months. In saying that I'm pretty happy with my 5820k, I was considering Ryzen if it turned out to be a good overclocker (like 4.5ghz) but that isn't the case so I will stick with my current setup and hopefully get a VEGA card once thats out (rolling a 980ti atm).

Exactly, per core, it actually beats (on some benchmarks) even higher clocked 7700k, i think if this is not BIOS problem, conclusion could be very interesting for why this is happening in some games (not all, g3d did a review and you can clearly see it).

[hoohoo]

Oh jeez, I think I am in love.

The upgrade for my APU based home server is definitely a Ryzen, probably 1700.