AMD Ryzen 7 Processor Specifications
It’s finally here. Is this the $499 you’ve been looking to spend?
It’s finally here and its finally time to talk about. The AMD Ryzen processor is being released onto the world and based on the buildup of excitement over the last week or so since pre-orders began, details on just how Ryzen performs relative to Intel’s mainstream and enthusiast processors are a hot commodity. While leaks have been surfacing for months and details seem to be streaming out from those not bound to the same restrictions we have been, I think you are going to find our analysis of the Ryzen 7 1800X processor to be quite interesting and maybe a little different as well.
Honestly, there isn’t much that has been left to the imagination about Ryzen, its chipsets, pricing, etc. with the slow trickle of information that AMD has been sending out since before CES in January. We know about the specifications, we know about the architecture, we know about the positioning; and while I will definitely recap most of that information here, the real focus is going to be on raw numbers. Benchmarks are what we are targeting with today’s story.
Let’s dive right in.
The Zen Architecture – Foundation for Ryzen
Actually, as it turns out, in typical Josh Walrath fashion, he wrote too much about the AMD Zen architecture to fit into this page. So, instead, you'll find his complete analysis of AMD's new baby right here: AMD Zen Architecture Overview: Focus on Ryzen
AMD Ryzen 7 Processor Specifications
Though we have already detailed the most important specifications for the new AMD Ryzen processors when the preorders went live, its worth touching on them again and reemphasizing the important ones.
Ryzen 7 1800X | Ryzen 7 1700X | Ryzen 7 1700 | Core i7-6900K | Core i7-6800K | Core i7-7700K | Core i5-7600K | Core i7-6700K | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Architecture | Zen | Zen | Zen | Broadwell-E | Broadwell-E | Kaby Lake | Kaby Lake | Skylake |
Process Tech | 14nm | 14nm | 14nm | 14nm | 14nm | 14nm+ | 14nm+ | 14nm |
Cores/Threads | 8/16 | 8/16 | 8/16 | 8/16 | 6/12 | 4/8 | 4/4 | 4/8 |
Base Clock | 3.6 GHz | 3.4 GHz | 3.0 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.4 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 4.0 GHz |
Turbo/Boost Clock | 4.0 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
Cache | 20MB | 20MB | 20MB | 20MB | 15MB | 8MB | 8MB | 8MB |
Memory Support | DDR4-2400 Dual Channel |
DDR4-2400 Dual Channel |
DDR4-2400 Dual Channel |
DDR4-2400 Quad Channel |
DDR4-2400 Quad Channel |
DDR4-2400 Dual Channel |
DDR4-2400 Dual Channel |
DDR4-2400 Dual Channel |
TDP | 95 watts | 95 watts | 65 watts | 140 watts | 140 watts | 91 watts | 91 watts | 91 watts |
Price | $499 | $399 | $329 | $1050 | $450 | $350 | $239 | $309 |
All three of the currently announced Ryzen processors are 8-core, 16-thread designs, matching the Core i7-6900K from Intel in that regard. Though Intel does have a 10-core part branded for consumers, it comes in at a significantly higher price point (over $1500 still). The clock speeds of Ryzen are competitive with the Broadwell-E platform options though are clearly behind the curve when it comes the clock capabilities of Kaby Lake and Skylake. With admittedly lower IPC than Kaby Lake, Zen will struggle in any purely single threaded workload with as much as 500 MHz deficit in clock rate.
- Ryzen 7 1800X - $499 - Amazon.com
- Ryzen 7 1700X - $399 - Amazon.com
- Ryzen 7 1700 - $329 - Amazon.com
- Amazon.com Ryzen Landing Page
- ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero - $254 - Amazon.com
- ASUS Prime X370 Pro - $169 - Amazon.com
- ASUS Prime B350-Plus - $99 - Amazon.com
- ASUS Prime B350M-A - $89 - Amazon.com
One interesting deviation from Intel's designs that Ryzen gets is a more granular boost capability. AMD Ryzen CPUs will be able move between processor states in 25 MHz increments while Intel is currently limited to 100 MHz. If implemented correctly and effectively through SenseMI, this allows Ryzen to get 25-75 MHz of additional performance in a scenario where it was too thermally constrainted to hit the next 100 MHz step.
XFR (Extended Frequency Range), supported on the Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700X (hence the "X"), "lifts the maximum Precision Boost frequency beyond ordinary limits in the presence of premium systems and processor cooling." The story goes, that if you have better than average cooling, the 1800X will be able to scale up to 4.1 GHz in some instances for some undetermined amount of time. The better the cooling, the longer it can operate in XFR. While this was originally pitched to us as a game-changing feature that bring extreme advantages to water cooling enthusiasts, it seems it was scaled back for the initial release. Only getting 100 MHz performance increase, in the best case result, seems a bit more like technology for technology's sake rather than offering new capabilities for consumers.
Ryzen integrates a dual channel DDR4 memory controller with speeds up to 2400 MHz, matching what Intel can do on Kaby Lake. Broadwell-E has the advantage with a quad-channel controller but how useful that ends of being will be interesting to see as we step through our performance testing.
One area of interest is the TDP ratings. AMD and Intel have very different views on how this is calculated. Intel has made this the maximum power draw of the processor while AMD sees it as a target for thermal dissipation over time. This means that under stock settings the Core i7-7700K will not draw more than 91 watts and the Core i7-6900K will not draw more than 140 watts. And in our testing, they are well under those ratings most of the time, whenever AVX code is not being operated. AMD’s 95-watt rating on the Ryzen 1800X though will very often be exceed, and our power testing proves that out. The logic is that a cooler with a 95-watt rating and the behavior of thermal propagation give the cooling system time to catch up. (Interestingly, this is the philosophy Intel has taken with its Kaby Lake mobile processors.)
Obviously the most important line here for many of you is the price. The Core i7-6900K is the lowest priced 8C/16T option from Intel for consumers at $1050. The Ryzen R7 1800X has a sticker price less than half of that, at $499. The R7 1700X vs Core i7-6800K match is interesting as well, where the AMD CPU will sell for $399 versus $450 for the 6800K. However, the 6800K only has 6-cores and 12-threads, giving the Ryzen part an instead 25% boost in multi-threaded performance. The 7700K and R7 1700 battle will be interesting as well, with a 4-core difference in capability and a $30 price advantage to AMD.
Sucks that AMD decided to
Sucks that AMD decided to blatantly lie about the power consumption of these chips. If the other tests are any indication, this becomes downright laughable with the “65 What?” 1700.
Anyone else notice the
Anyone else notice the Handbrake 1.0.2 Chart has Ryzen 7 1700 included at the bottom. 🙂
Oops, a top secret early look
Oops, a top secret early look at our upcoming story!
😀
Meh, Im glad I canceled my
Meh, Im glad I canceled my pre order.
They hyped this up for gaming and its no better than a 7600k that is $100 less than the 1700. Average consumers dont need these cpus, maybe content creators and the like. AMD just can beat Intel when it comes to IPC.
I’ll wait until the aib boards iron out all the issues and bugs, then I will rethink this then.
The first generation
The first generation Zen/Ryzen was never expected to beat Intel outright! AMD did beat the 40% IPC improvment over excavator though with a 52% better IPC improvment. There are other things to consider as far as the AM4 motherboard maturity(Brand new) against Intel’s motherboard maturity(Around for longer with more tweaks available).
There are too many uncontrolled variables to consider this early in the game but AMD/AM4 motherboard partners have some tweaking to do with regards to getting more performance out of it brand new Ryzen CPU/AM4 hardware/firmware ecosystem. The total gaming ecosystem is so directly tuned to Intel’s hardware and compiler exosystem, and even M$’s OS ecosystem has some tweaks and optimizations ahead for Ryzen/AM4 and its compiler ecosystem tuning requirements for Ryzen/AM4 under windows 10.
You should try the 1800x with
You should try the 1800x with SMT off. I think there is a bug.
You do Know that Ryzen has a
You do Know that Ryzen has a lot of new CPU core thread priority IP built into the micro-arch and some benchmarks and games are not ready at this time to take advantage of these new features in Ryzen. But even for Intel Turning Intel’s SMT(HyperThreading) off shows some improvment for some games.
There is still too many unknowns and tweaks incomimg and there is some benchmarking software still not working properly to be of any use for Ryzen Benchmarking at this time. The benchmarking rigs are running full tilt with more new information to come so its still a waiting game until more testing can be done.
I’d like to see Doom Vulcan
I’d like to see Doom Vulcan (AMD card) benchmarks as a multi-threaded gaming sample.
I’ve got to say I found the
I’ve got to say I found the quality of this review very disappointing.
– No overclocking results
– Results structured as if the 1800X’s rival is the 7700K and not the 6900K (very strange not to focus on the apples to apples comparison. Can we expect the Ryzen 5 1600X’s rival in your next review to be the 6950X in opposite-land?)
– 3 games tested, one resolution, one API (come on guys)
– And basically: “Due to time constraints we couldn’t be as thorough as we wanted to”
It’s the last one that REALLY confuses me. The Ryzen release has been one of the most hotly anticipated CPU releases in a decade, and you didn’t schedule your time around it? Why?
It feels like in light of the many leaks that you gave up on this review. I’m not saying that you guys didn’t put effort into it, just that it wasn’t enough for me to feel like I don’t NEED to read more reviews to get a complete picture.
Hopefully GamersNexus, Anandtech or HardwareCanuks can do that.
Please keep these criticisms in mind for the Ryzen 5 1600X review.
Is it possible to ask AMD for
Is it possible to ask AMD for some clarity regarding XFR as your article says it’s only available on X chips while other sites like Andantech is saying it’s available on all Ryzen.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/11
That’s not to degenerate your article BTW as everyone covering Ryzen seem to be saying opposite things concerning XFR.
Ryan is confirming, but from
Ryan is confirming, but from what we understood, the X in the processor name stands for XFR.
According to Anandtech XFR is
According to Anandtech XFR is on all the SKUs but only the X versions get more of a boost. So the X means eXtended XFR boost above the XFR ability of the non X Ryzen SKUs
“All the CPUs are multiplier unlocked, allowing users to go overclocking when paired with the X370 or B350 chipset. At this point we’re unsure what the upper limit is for the multiplier. We have been told that all CPUs will also support XFR, whereby the CPU automatically adjusts the frequency rather than the OS based on P-states, but the CPUs with ‘X’ in the name allow the CPU to essentially overclock over the turbo frequency. XFR stands for ‘eXtended Frequency Range’, and indicates that the CPU will automatically overclock itself if it has sufficient thermal and power headroom. We’ll mention it later, but XFR works in jumps of 25 MHz by adjusting the multiplier, which also means that the multiplier is adjustable in 0.25x jumps (as they have 100 MHz base frequency). XFR does have an upper limit, which is processor dependent. All CPUs will support 25 MHz jumps though XFR above the P0 state, but only X CPUs will go beyond the turbo frequency.
A side note: As to be expected, XFR only works correctly if the correct setting in the BIOS is enabled. At this point the option seems to be hidden, but if exposed it means it is up to the motherboard manufacturers to enable it by default – so despite it being an AMD feature, it could end up at the whim of the motherboard manufacturers. I suspect we will see some boards with XFR enabled automatically, and some without. We had the same issue on X99 with Turbo Boost 3, and Multi-Core Turbo.”(1)
(1)[Page 3 of the article]
“The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700”
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/3
I get what you’re saying but
I get what you’re saying but extended extended frequency range sounds a little odd, that’s what we get when putting the X from the chip next to the XFR from the technology.
Maybe I’m being slightly pedantic but it just seem off to say the non-X chips don’t have XFR when it seems they have a less version.
Great chip for game …
Great chip for game … developers.
Allow me to Explain the
Allow me to Explain the Gaming Performance Numbers in a way people will understand….
Most Games today don’t use any more than 4 Cores and 4 Threads. As a result, AMD’s Ryzen Architecture isn’t able to show its full strength due to limitations in Game Engines and Programming that favors single-threaded Quad-Cores (aka Intel CPUs).
This is why right now, If you are JUST Gaming and nothing else, AMD’s Ryzen 7 CPUs are not a very good choice, and you are better off waiting for Ryzen 5 or 3 (Their 6- or 4-Core Variants), or going for Intel’s Core i5 and i7 Kaby Lake Options.
HOWEVER:
If you plan to do MORE than Gaming, like Video Editing or Streaming, or heck, doing other Complicated Tasks like 3-D Rendering and Advanced Programming, then the Ryzen 7 Line really hits the Sweet Spot at $330-500. The Performance you get will no doubt match, come close, or even beat Intel’s Broadwell-E Options, while being SIGNIFICANTLY Cheaper and having a stronger value for money.
Heck, you could make a System based on the R7 1700 Non-X, and you’d likely be able to make a system that matches the price of an i7-6900K, and get performance that is close to or better than it.
So keep being triggered by AMD’s Not-so-surprising Gaming Performance. AMD’s Ryzen CPUs have certainly met their expectations. It may not beat Intel Completely, but it certainly is Fantastic and brings back MUCH needed Competition to the CPU Market.
—–End Explanation—–
Now to my final Opinion on PCper’s Review:
I personally think it would have made more sense to Test More Games (GTAV, BF1, COD:IW, Overwatch, DOTA 2, CS:GO, The Witcher 3, Crysis 3, etc.) and Test Video Encoding using Adobe Premiere, Art Encoding using GIMP, and Other Encoding Programs that I cannot mention or don’t know about, since I believe this is where Ryzen can Show its true Colors.
This Review could be A Lot better than what this has come out to be. Instead of Rushing out the Review, why not give it more time so that way we have a More thorough Review that can give us a Clear Idea of what Ryzen really is all about. As Viewers, it’s best we get the most accurate information available, not the most immediate.
Thanks,
SoundFX09
Buying a Ryzen7 for just
Buying a Ryzen7 for just gaming is like buying a Dump Truck for commuting
This is the first time I’ve
This is the first time I’ve been excited about a CPU launch in a while. All of the recent Intel launches have been somewhat of a bunch of fizzles. Finally something to make me consider AMD again for a new build. The 1800x is out my price league so I’m really interested to see what you have to say about the 1700 and 1700X. I’d be really interested to see how these multi-threaded beasts handle research programs such as F@H and World Community Grid projects.
That Idle consumption is
That Idle consumption is pretty nice!!!
This would make for a great home server.
Thanks PC Per, loved the
Thanks PC Per, loved the info, way to go AMD, now just keep it up 🙂
Why did all the sites use the
Why did all the sites use the 6950 10 core processor which is valued at 3-4 times the ryzen cores?? You could build two high end ryzen systems with decent graphics for just one of these cores. These cpus are an expensive joke and don’t belong in these reviews??? Did you simply follow the piss weak intel review guide to make sure any threaded benchmarks have an intel core at the top??? Wouldn’t it have been better to show the progression from amd’s previous cpu cores??? If you want to be impartial, why don’t you benchmark an IBM power8 12 core with 96 threads under Linux and really put both AMD and intel in their place under highly threaded workloads???
Lets be real, if Ryzen were
Lets be real, if Ryzen were faster, you’d absolutely demand it be tested against the 6950X.
^ this.
^ this.
You don’t get the point here.
You don’t get the point here. There was reports of Intel up to their dirty old tricks and getting to all the media groups to push their case and keep AMD down. There is no reason a $2400aud CPU is compared to a $699aud unless the big guy wants to keep the little guy down. The only reason most of the sites have it in the charts is to ensure ryzen doesn’t win the heavy threaded tests. I personally have an Intel-nvidia system at home, but the fake media has the world conned if you can’t see what is obvious here and on many sites which simply followed the Intel review guide… Competition is great, but fair competition is what we actually need to ensure everyone can get a fair product for their dollar… Why not bench it against the power8/9 cores which feature crazy SMT (8x) abilities and see how fast it is against a CPU 10-15x the cost in highly threaded performance, especially as there are rumours of a possible future Zen core design possibly expanding to SMT 4x, and would this be a worthwhile design choice?????
As soon as you go to the
As soon as you go to the performance per dollar page you will find out that Intel i7-6950 is quite bitter deal.
What about real world
What about real world multi-tasking? Is there a good benchmark for that? I’m talking about the following:
1 AAA gaming while streaming 1080p video thru twitch with high quality webcam
2 running handbrake while AAA gaming
3 running handbrake while web browsing
4 running handbrake while watching a 1080p youtube video
5 running a medium/heavy compute application while playing a AAA video game
This is real world use and I’m curious if the extra cores on the Ryzen make your computer run smoother.
You messed up the comparison
You messed up the comparison at 3.5GHz, the 6900k is running at default clocks, compare Cinebench results for example – 151 at 3.5GHz and a few pages later at 3.7GHz
We double checked the data.
We double checked the data. It's just a coincidence. The 6900K ended up running at a similar speed when clocking freely under that workload.
And how out of touch are
And how out of touch are reviewers?
90% of users buy GPUs below 250$ and game at 1440p and bellow, mostly 1080p
Anyone that has payed 700$ to game at 1080p needs to seek medical help and i guess reviewers are equally insane.
Been through 20 reviews and nobody tests with a 480 or 1060.
In the 1990’s when I was a
In the 1990’s when I was a computer hobbyist and becoming a Systems Administrator, I would read reviews like these, buy the CPUs, and wonder why I was not getting similar FPS in games and encoding times. Of course, I later learned reviewers used high-end motherboards, GPUs, and most other components when testing the CPUs. However, this is actually a good experimental designed to mitigate bottlenecks so the CPU is not hampered by other parts of the system, resulting in an under performing CPU. As you pointed out, this does little for the average consumer with a small, and realistic, budget. The Ryzen 1800+ was not designed for us mere mortals, but rather people who would gladly pair a $500 CPU with an equally high-end GPU. I would much rather get the 1800+ than the 6900K based on this review if I had the need and the money for this performance.
That being said, this review really highlights the 7600K. The 7600K offers slower performance, but not so much slower that people would be suffering, it is unlocked, noticeably better power consumption, and the best price per performance of all the CPUs in this review. If I were to build a machine now, I would pair the 7600K with a GTX 1060 and a 24″ 1080p monitor to offer the best bang-for-buck for gaming and most everything else.
What would be the point of
What would be the point of testing scenarios limited by GPU performance for a CPU review?
It stands to reason that in a
It stands to reason that in a CPU review, you test games that are CPU limited, and choose GPUs that will not be as much as a limiting factor / influence on the results. It's the same reason why we test GPUs with as fast of a CPU as we can throw at them.
For those who bet core count
For those who bet core count will be more important in upcoming games then IPC, It would be nice to show CPU utilization.
It does, but it seems kind of
It does, but it seems kind of like a vacuum if you only test in that fashion. For *most* gamers, I dare to say what matters most is overall performance across a variety of titles. Based on this, they should see results for both 1080p and 1440p, and for the highest end AMD processor, it’s fair to test at 4K as well.
I know if I’m buying a $500 processor I’m doing it after reading reviews, and making a decision based on the aggregate results. If all I see are a lot of 1080p results, and I’m sitting here with a 1440p or 4K screen, I’m going to be begging for more information before I take the plunge.
I’m not an AMD CPU user. I have a 6700K machine and a 5930K machine. If I were in the market (which I’m not) I would be looking at AMD and asking what is the value proposition for both use cases (productivity and gaming.) I don’t have enough information if all I have are 1080p gaming benchmarks.
I’m with you, and in an ideal
I'm with you, and in an ideal world with infinite manpower and testing time, we would have results for every possible combination of CPU and GPU. That not being practical, we observe the relative differences in various parts by performing comparison tests with the other hardware in the system being as out of the way as possible. We occasionally do lower end builds as well, but adding multiple CPU speeds to a GPU review would multiply what is already typically 4-6 rounds of testing.
Who would pair a $500 cpu
Who would pair a $500 cpu with a $250 gpu?
You wouldn’t be looking at
You wouldn’t be looking at getting a $500 Ryzen with a 480 or 1060 either. These cards can be a GPU bottleneck even at 1080. Doesn’t give a full representation of power of CPU.
Testing is done at 1080 to show maximum frames a CPU can push. The lower the frame rate is the less capable the CPU is.
Somehow I think you may already know this but if not you do now.
I would like to see a vishera
I would like to see a vishera system included in all these tests to see how the platform as a whole had matured. I know it would pale in comparison but all other things being equal it would show at least the potential of optimization as the am3 platform is very mature and will supported.
Fair. I wanted to include
Fair. I wanted to include other AMD CPUs but ran out of time.
On page #3: attempting to
On page #3: attempting to draw far-reaching conclusions about the IPC of a chip based on performance of Audacity and Cinebench, then stating that you’d trust the latter more? Chuckle… be a bit more rigorous, please. These are just two application-specific instruction streams that were never generated (let alon alone tuned) for the new AMD arch at best and quite likely well-optimized for Intel at worst. So you execute these mostly Intel-tuned binaries on the new chip to draw general conclusions about IPC properties. Color me skeptical!
(Correct me if I’m wrong and you’ve received at least recompiled binaries, though!)
Definitely no re-compiles.
Definitely no re-compiles. This is off-the-shelf software as consumers that buy hardware today would be using.
I should remind you that
I should remind you that AMD's own public demos of Ryzen used Cinebench.
A lot of these comments were
A lot of these comments were predictable. “AMD only closed 80% of the performance gap between Bulldozer and Broadwell. This sucks!!!!!”
Sure, I wanted to see AMD leapfrog Intel and they didn’t. For gaming, they didn’t even hit parity. But:
1. Even if you’re sticking with Intel, you can bet the price you pay going forward drops because they now have these parts as competition.
2. There are millions of gamers getting along just fine with a Haswell i7 or older. This is still a step forward from that.
3. AMD is at least back in the game well enough to generate a positive cash flow, which improves their chances of being able to invest in Ryzen++ or Ryzen 2 or whatever it is that they’ll need to offer against Cannonlake/Icelake.
I read half a dozen review
I read half a dozen review and I like the R7 1700, a lot.
It seem to squeeze nearly all you can get out of a $500 GPU at 1440p, and deliver 6800k performance in productivity apps.
The fact that a 7770k can get 130fps vs 110fps in some game at 720p doesn’t bother me much. I prefer having double the core and thread for the same price for all the other apps I run . (Visual Studio C++ being my top app)
Anyone tested the 1700X
Anyone tested the 1700X overclocked with 4 core disabled ?
This would could be a preview of the $199 Ryzen 5 1500X (4core/4 thread) coming in Q2 …
For people that only care about gaming in the next 24month , this might be the best option ?