Performance per Dollar Measurements
This section of the review is where we attempt to consider the prices of the various CPUs being tested when presenting the performance data. The method is straight forward and asks the question: how much do you pay per unit of performance? The answer is more complex of course because these graphs don’t portray the raw performance of CPU and depending on your use-case, you may personally be willing to pay more for more performance up to a certain breaking point. That point will vary from customer to customer.
Because the 1800X has such a poor showing in the single threaded Audacity results, the value of this CPU is not impressive when compared to Kaby Lake. Still, the $499 price tag, half that of the 6900K and a third of the 6950X, means that Broadwell-E is less cost efficient. The same holds true for Cinebench R15 single threaded results.
All of these results show fantastic results for the value proposition of the Ryzen 7 1800X. The “cost per performance” meets or exceeds the Kaby Lake options in our testing while jumping well ahead of the 8C 6900K and the 10C 6950X. In these applications, not only are you getting peak or near-peak available performance, you aren’t over paying for it.
With the performance discrepancy described on the previous page, it shouldn’t surprise you that the 1800X isn’t nearly as cost efficient an option and in fact is less cost effective than the less expensive 7700K. Only the 6900K and 6950X (2-3x the cost) end up looking like a worse deal for users only concerned with gaming at 1080p.
(Again, worth noting, we are looking more into the gaming results here to find a potential reversible bug or conflict.)