AMD Ryzen 7 1800X review: robust symbol of a resurgent AMD, but still no gaming CPU

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X review

Begone Bulldozer. AMD’s Zen architecture is here to lay to rest those long, nightmarish days of lacklustre AMD processors. Genuine competition in the CPU space is here again with the top-end Ryzen 7 1800X offering serious computational grunt for half the price of their Intel rivals.

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 over 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 though is how much does the $499 (£499) Ryzen 7 1800X close the gap with their Intel competition when it comes to primarily single-threaded gaming performance? The initial noises at launch weren’t great, so have things levelled out now a few weeks later?

Click on the jump links below to quickly skip sections.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X architecture

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X architecture

Before we get carried away digging around the performance metrics of AMD’s new 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 the full eight-core design. This modular layout is what allows AMD’s new Zen-based Naples server chips to pack a full 32 physical cores inside them and why there is speculation about a new AMD high-end desktop range too.

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.

Interestingly though AMD lists the SMT support of the Zen architecture as optional, paving the way for them to release lower-spec desktop Ryzen chips without the extra thread count, or potentially mobile CPUs without 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 Zen performance

AMD have also made changes to the cache structure of the 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 Zen-based 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

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X specs

The R7 1800X is the flagship of AMD’s new Ryzen range of processors and represents the current pinnacle of their new Zen architecture. Inside the R7 1800X are a pair of those 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 based on the 14nm FinFET design from GlobalFoundaries. Those are all packed inside a die that’s a little over 195mm2. And, as 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 one 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. Unless this HEDT madness actually comes to pass… 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 will also offer lower level overclocking while the low-end A320 doesn’t at all.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X benchmarks 

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Ghost Recon Wildlands performance

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Civ VI performance

 

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X performance

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X performance

This top-end Ryzen CPU is quite remarkable. In pretty much any computationally based 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, even the $1,700 deca-core 6950X only just has the edge in the multithreading benchmark.

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 similarly-specced eight-core 5960X, itself a $1,000 CPU, can’t keep up with the 1800X and the similarly-priced Core i7 6800K is well off the pace too. As you might expect the quad-core, eight-thread 7700K brings up the rear… except in the single-threaded stakes. That’s where the cheaper, lower-spec Core i7 has the edge, with a 22% lead in the single-core Cinebench test. 

The AMD R7 1800X does though struggle on the memory side too. At launch support for different DDR4 memory can be a little flaky and our regular 3,200MHz Crucial Ballistix kit was too rich for Ryzen’s blood. AMD suggested a 2,667MHz speed for the number of DIMMs we were jamming into the Asus Crosshair VI Hero AM4 board. And because the AM4 platform is a resolutely dual-channel one the quad-channel Intel X99 setups are able to dominate it on the memory bandwidth side.

AMD AM4 socket

But it’s really the gaming performance that we care about, and that’s where a lot of the initial 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 Wildlands and 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 and Grand Theft Auto DX11 tests where the R7 1800X is around 30% slower on average than the cheaper i7 7700K. 

You might point to the incredibly low minimum frame rate in GTA V with the Intel chips, but if you take the 99th percentile frame time into account Intel is still able to post smoother overall frame rates. The 99th percentile frame rate for the 1800X is 71fps, while the Intel chips are 91fps, 77fps and 111fps for the 6800K, 5960X and 7700K respectively.

There’s also double-digit percentage performance differences between the two chips when it comes to Hitman and Civilisation VI in DirectX 12 modes. But with the 3DMark, Doom, Ghost Recon Wildlands and Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmarks there was essentially nothing between them.

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. 

Intel Core i7 6800K

The most interesting comparison chip though probably isn’t the Kaby Lake 7700K. For my money it’s the Core i7 6800K which provides arguably the sternest test for the flagship Ryzen CPU. The 6800K is a six-core, 12-thread processor which costs around $100 (£100) less than the octa-core 1800X. In the CPU benchmarks the Ryzen chip has it beat, though it still delivers great multi-threaded performance for the cash. But where it stands out against the 1800X is in that gaming performance. It’s quicker and a good bit cheaper - that’s where my money would still go.

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.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X verdict

I don’t love the Ryzen 7 1800X. It’s certainly not the processor I would instantly recommend any PC gamer out there buy, yet it’s 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. 

You wouldn’t buy a Ryzen chip just for its gaming performance - you’d be leaving too much GPU power on the factory floor if you did - but there are people for whom a computationally-advanced $500 (£500) octa-core processor will be the stuff of their silicon dreams. Content creators, streamers and YouTubers will love the sheer CPU horsepower on offer even if it does limit their graphics card’s performance.

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 eight-core range by so much was always going to be disruptive, but it was something AMD had to do to get noticed.

It does though mean AMD are 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 there’s still the fact most of us will be weighting our next component purchase on graphics and gaming performance over compute power or maximum core/thread count. With the 1800X costing more than either the 6800K or 7700K - even taking the platform costs into account - and unable to perform as well in games with the same GPU, it’s clear Intel will still hold the gamers’ hearts.

That said, we’ve long been suggesting the Ryzen 7 range aren’t the chips gamers should be excited about. The Ryzen 5 release in April will bring a $249 six-core chip with the same essential specs as this 1800X and that could give Intel more of a rough ride in the gaming stakes.

Try these free to play games
?

These are affiliate links - clicking them and playing the games directly supports PCGamesN

Sign in to Commentlogin to comment
Anakhoresis avatarDave James avatarcoquirrabioso avatargamesfront avatardemigod79 avatarYubel avatar+7
Anakhoresis Avatar
499
1 Month ago

Honestly, the only real issue seems to be how much AMD advertised it for gaming. It was pretty obvious it wasn't going to be some sort of beast gaming CPU when most games don't even use over 4 cores or threads, and even then generally limit themselves to 2 cores for most functions.

I'm really interested to see if the Ashes of the Singularity developers really can deliver on the claim that there's a lot more in there but the architecture needs to be optimised for.

2
Dave James Avatar
262
1 Month ago

Yeah, I think the hype train got away from AMD a little bit. We knew from the initial 40% IPC improvement estimates that it wouldn't surpass Intel in the gaming stakes. But everybody got a bit carried away after seeing the slightly misleading 4K performance numbers.

2
Yubel Avatar
5
1 Month ago

No, don't stress that, They shows us Productivity work before gaming, and everyone knows you do not use a 8 core 16 threaded CPU just for gaming, 99% of games are not optimized for that and the 1%'s are like Mafia 3 and Watch Dogs 2

In terms of performance AMD is not optimized in the market, meaning Microcode on the Architecture as well as in gaming applications, its pretty much the same thing when you get Nvidia optimized games and AMD optimized games, it depends on the Microcode and if it's optimized for it. If Ryzen was Delayed til later this year it would be performing better but I don't blame AMD for wanting it to come out now because of money sake and because the hype around Ryzen, and it did live up to the hype, the only misleading thing is gaming performance as well as overclocking.

Ryzen 3 and 5 are coming out next month and should show some better performance for 1080p gaming due to the bios updates on the motherboards and ram stability since Ryzen is weird when it comes to RAM, you do see better performance on higher clocked RAM then lower clocked RAM, but to take away from this all, it's a new architecture and needs time to develop to its maximum,In a few months Ryzen will show its colors more.

2
haevenyottapsye Avatar
1
1 Week ago

I think Ryzen is unique and could be good for gaming. I've seen that while Ryzen matched it's rival in rendering, I think it also provided smoother video in games. The 8-core version also allowed for smooth gameplay while broadcasting the game at the same time. Then, you don't need two computers. The rival cpu had choppy gameplay when recording at the same time. (I saw this at the December 13th, 2016 online event.)

I think 8-cores could be reserved for, if you are a player who plays and streams/records your games at the same time. And fewer cores are perfect for regular gaming.

1
coquirrabioso Avatar
2
1 Month ago

I got my 6800k a couple of months back and was kicking myself for not knowing AMD was doing this CPU and waiting a few months, until I read this article. I do some engineering work on it, which the Zen seems better, but mostly gaming and at a lower cost the 6800k was definitely the better choice.

2
Dave James Avatar
262
1 Month ago

The 6800K has been one of my favourite chips for a long time. It's got a great balance to it, and delivers quad-channel memory alongside it, for only a touch more than the 7700K.

1
gamesfront Avatar
1
1 Month ago

If you want to compare regarding gaming performance, at least make sure to use DDR4 3200 for Ryzen too, because higher memory speed has a big impact regarding fewer latency betwen the CCX (Core Complex) Modules, which gives especially games a great performance boost.

So this test here isnt really helpful to judge the gaming performance of Ryzen, as you could get memory for Ryzen out there which works at speeds of DDR4 3200. Just phone AMD if you are unsure which DDR4 ram could be used successfully or look for test reviews in the internet for specific. But if you dont, the numbers above are not very meaningful to take that test serious.

1
Dave James Avatar
262
1 Month ago

Memory does have an impact on the gaming performance of Ryzen, partially for the reason you're stating, but flaky memory support is also a part of the Ryzen deal too.

I wanted to use the same memory we've been using in our test platform for the last year, one that has spanned dual and quad channel PC platforms. AMD provided us with a lower spec dual DIMM kit for the purposes of the Ryzen tests.

We didn't think that was fair when we were going to be testing it against quad channel platforms.

And speaking with other reviewers they've been having issues with different kits and chips. One told me today they couldn't get the 1700 above 2,133MHz.

1
demigod79 Avatar
1
1 Month ago

I plan on gaming on a 1800X (assuming that my mobo arrives before within the next century :p) and expect no issues with it, based on the benchmarks. I play games on Steam and typically watch a movie or show on a second monitor, and I also run distributed computing apps on the side so the Ryzen 7 looks very appealing. For any gamer who likes to do other things on the side (like heavy data crunching or content creation) or who streams their games or multitasks while gaming, the 1800X provides amazing value. For those who use their PC like a console it would be better to wait for the Ryzen 5 or 3, or go with a Intel CPU like the 7700K.

AMD marketed the Ryzen 7 as a cheaper version of the 6900K and it indeed lives up to that claim. It immediately puts into doubt the very existence of Intel's 8-core processors - for the price of a single 6900K you can get two Ryzen 1800X CPUs (or three 1700s) and still have money left over for lunch. Enthusiasts have long been wanting more processing power at an affordable price AMD delivers. Unless Intel radically altered their pricing scheme they risk losing the high-end PC market to AMD.

Also, like other reviews, this article justifies the low-resolution benchmarks by pointing to increasing GPU power, but this is not a convincing argument. Yes GPU power will increase in the future but so will gaming standards and software, and when we can comfortably game at 4K the industry will move on to 5K/6K/8K gaming. IMO, the GPU will always be the limiting factor for high-end gaming. Of course 1080p is relevant for casual and mid-tier gamers, but the Ryzen 7 is a high-end part (the Ryzen 3 and 5 are for the low- and medium-end, respectively).

1
Youth Counselor Avatar
2
4 Weeks ago

Your helping to illustrate something I've been pointing out since the beginning. The new AMD part really doesn't push new ground, it simply offers a higher core count at a more mainstream price point. The *only* thing keeping the hype up and the CPU relevant is the price point. If intel dropped the price on their 6-8 core processors it would immediately have a profound negative effect on amd, for all the reasons pointed out in this article and others.

I've never been a huge fan of spending a ton on the CPU for my primary system because games don't really need it (I play at 1440p on my first gen i7 still!). And if I want to do encoding or other boring CPU intensive tasks they get shipped over to my headless server to do the job.

That said, when I do decide to upgrade my CPU/MB here in a year or two I really hope that there is a good parity between the players just so I have more options. Intel has dominated for too long now.

Honestly at this point I don't see raw CPU power making my decision for me. More important are MB accessories and support. Stuff like Nvme support, USB 3.1/3.2 support, USB-C PD support, thunderbolt 3 support, PCIe lane count, etc.

2
Dave James Avatar
262
1 Month ago

For your usage case, where you're doing heavy number-crunching on the side, the flagship Ryzen will be great. Fingers crossed your motherboard turns up soon so you can enjoy it!

On the pricing side Intel have had their own way for too long, so it's good to see a bit more value being pushed into the HEDT market. That said I doubt AMD would have been quite so generous on pricing if they didn't have a huge marketshare disparity to chase after ;)

I still maintain the 1080p tests though are absolutely relevant for highlighting differences in CPU performance. There is no point, in a CPU test, in benchmarking the GPU performance instead. Testing situations are not the same as end-user situations and in reviewing a new processor I want to know what's happening on the CPU side, not mask its performance with a high-power GPU. You can, of course, do that as an end user, but in testing I think it's important to get as much of the picture as you can.

But you're right, the GPU will likely remain the limiting factor for high-end PC gaming, and if you update your whole machine every 12 months you wont have an issue. But if you're hoping your Ryzen chip will be be the base for your gaming rig for the next three years or so you will run start to see the performance delta currently visible at lower resolutions creep into higher resolutions too.

1
Moobear Avatar
1
1 Month ago

I m basicly doing equal things on my pc a 1700X and can t agree more with you )

1
shucherlonis Avatar
9
4 Weeks ago

Quote:I plan on gaming on a 1800X (assuming that my mobo arrives before within the next century :p)

So what kind of platform you've got now ? Just interesting..

Thanks

1
yussef961 Avatar
2
1 Month ago

omg so biased, i have a 6700k and i m very happy of it, i wanted a rysen but not sure cause there are instability in vmware 12 etc ... i prefer it to be stable... but saying it s a no gaming cpu is such bullshit.... the ryzen is perfectly capable of gaming, almost as fast as intel so it s very good... and for streaming while gaming it s even better....i ll keep my 6700 for a while though

1
Dave James Avatar
262
1 Month ago

It is almost as good as Intel's chips at gaming. But the 'almost' is the key point here.

If you're happy with leaving some GPU performance in the factory in exchange for higher multi-threaded performance that's a perfectly acceptable choice. But in my opinion, with all the testing I've done, Intel's chips are still the money-no-object pick for gaming.

1
RedSector73 Avatar
1
3 Weeks ago

Spot on, I bought 1800+ and it is a good gaming cpu and a dam monster at everything I throw at it.

1
LegendaryExGamer Avatar
1
1 Month ago

I'm just curious, how many of you actually own a Ryzen processor? Because all the slamming and "not a good gaming processor" bullshit I keep seeing is utterly annoying.

Let's loot at the facts here:

1. At 1080P the gaming may not provide the same amount of frames per second that Ryzen's Intel rivals do. However, it delivers a more consistent game play experience with significantly higher minimum frames per second and an overalll better quality of gaming experience. Visual tearing is at a minimum, no screen micro stutter, etc.

2. The commentary about running the platform at 3200 Mhz memory is significant. It makes a larger impact on AMD systems than it does on Intel systems. Seeing an increase in frames per second at 1080P that rivals or exceeds Intel processors.

3. The Ryzen is more efficient and faster than comparable intel processors at lower clock speeds. Take for example, My Ryzen 1700 is running stable at 4 Ghz and it delivers faster single tread performance than an Intel 7700K (by a couple points with the intel processor sitting at 4.2 Ghz) and more than doubles it's multithreading performance.

4. The platform is in its infancy and many microcode updates are in the works that have been steadily improving performance. Shoddy memory support? What? A couple weeks after launch and my low end B350 Tomahawk has received 32 updates to it's BIOS, supports a wide range of memory (almost anything at this point, with added compatibility setting for generic RAM in the BIOS), full feature set control, in the BIOS from fan controls to disabling individual processor cores, to turning off Multi threading and any number of high end options (I paid 100 bucks for this board).

5. I was coming from a Devils Canyon 4790K intel processor running at 4.5 Ghz and the AMD processor was 33% faster in single threaded performance, and OVER 600% faster in multi threaded testing.

6. I am running everything at 4K at this moment is the processor delivers a SUPERIOR experience, in every way, compared to what I was running before. It's massively noticeable.

So, instead of reading this online drivel and following all the metrics, perhaps you guys should find out for yourselves.

1
Dave James Avatar
262
1 Month ago

Really impressed with how much single-threaded performance you've gotten from your 1700X. Getting over the 194 points of 7700K in CB with a Ryzen running at just 4GHz is mind blowing. The 1700X CPU I'm testing at the moment has gotten nowhere near that.

My experiences with running the 1800X over the last few weeks though hasn't provided me with any proof of Ryzen being superior to Intel in gaming. In my testing any time the 1800X has provided higher minimums the 99th percentile has been higher on Intel chips. And the only issues with stutter have come from AMD on the Total War engine.

I have noticed the 1700X you're running operates cooler and less thirsty than the 1800X in this review.

Sorry you found our findings drivel, but this is all representive of the indepth testing we've been carrying out over the last couple weeks on our test 1800X with the Asus ROG board.

1
shucherlonis Avatar
9
4 Weeks ago

By LegendaryExGamer

Quote:I'm just curious, how many of you actually own a Ryzen processor? Because all the slamming and "not a good gaming processor" bullshit I keep seeing is utterly annoying.

Hi,

Well..I've exact same question to the Ryzen processor actual owners!

I mean..you've said:

5. I was coming from a Devils Canyon 4790K intel processor running at 4.5 Ghz and the AMD processor was 33% faster in single threaded performance, and OVER 600% faster in multi threaded testing.

************************************************************

The question is where do you get this from( AMD processor was 33% faster in single threaded performance) vs Devils Canyon 4790K ???

Where do you get this numbers from??

Thanks

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/2384vs3916

1
shucherlonis Avatar
9
4 Weeks ago

to LegendaryExGamer

Quote; 5. I was coming from a Devils Canyon 4790K intel processor running at 4.5 Ghz and the AMD processor was 33% faster in single threaded performance, and OVER 600% faster in multi threaded testing.

P.s Also..you forgot to mention that I7 4790k was released back in 2013 and still kick the ass of AMD Hypezen nearly 4 years after in single treated performance.

1