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.
As a person who has watched
As a person who has watched every single pcper podcast I say the following:
The lack of benchmarks is Ryan saying its not worth it, move on unless you can’t afford Intel.
Ryan is sick of Ryzen
Honestly I’m going to save up and wait to upgrade my 2700K ….I cannot afford AMD inconsistency.
Not sure if you caught it,
Not sure if you caught it, but he was up at 5AM and hasn't really slept with his Caspar mattress in weeks.
Wait a bit until we have time to fully torture AMD's new offering, then it will become more obvious.
I fucken love you.
I fucken love you.
words matter 😉
words matter 😉
Did you the the letter I sent
Did you the the letter I sent you Ryan?
Only watched the video, was
Only watched the video, was happy to see Ryan biting his tongue and giving an honest assessment of the processor instead of trolling as he usually does. I am looking forward to motherboard reviews to help me narrow down which one to buy (not to mention a desire for lots of vanity shots of the boards.)
My only disappointment was the lack of benchmarks for the most recent top-end FX processor included to contrast the new CPU. As an AMD fanboy I couldn’t care less about Intel numbers.
I don’t think it’s considered
I don't think it's considered trolling when there was simply nothing for AMD to compete with in that space for a number of years. We are more than happy to see them once again competitive on the CPU side.
Does Ryzen Master not allow
Does Ryzen Master not allow you to overclock cores individually?
no, all or nothing
no, all or nothing
I can almost taste Master
I can almost taste Master Chen’s tears…maybe next time AMD. You were going to get my $$$.
So single thread performance
So single thread performance is mediocre and this chip clearly lacks in the gaming department, but it still gets a gold rating? O_o
Because its not 1999 anymore
Because its not 1999 anymore ? and single threaded apps are gone or going away ?
Look at the plethora of real apps where the $330 R7 1700 smack a $430 6800K
The R7 1800x seem to deliver very close performance to a 6900K , overall (even with games), for half the price.
Because it’s great value,
Because it’s great value, very efficient, delivers the smackdown for any real work, incredibly tinkerer friendly, and gives average people who are sick of getting wallet raped for a powerful computer a new choice in the market?
Yeah, it’s trash.
AMD used all the tricks they
AMD used all the tricks they could to make the Ryzen seem like it had equal gaming performance vs Intel. They sent emails telling sites to bottleneck the GPUs by testing at 1440p and 4k.
Look for this text under the 1440p benchmarks.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
This was to serve as a “great equalizer”. Others might call this cheating when employed by a company not named AMD
So review should be made
So review should be made using a Titan X at 1280×720 ?
You now, to remove even more the GPU aspect when doing GAMING evaluation…
This is dishonest reviewing when a general conclusion is made from a single unrealistic configuration.
Even so the result are true, it doesn’t reflect people gaming experience.
At some stage, they stop being CPU/GPU gaming review and simply become CPU benchmarks. “CPU A can render a 280FPS, while CPU B an only do 240FPS… CPU A is the clear winner for PC gamers”
When it reality, both CPU will show little to no difference.
Any review that show gaming benchmark with a GTX 1070 at 1440p ?
Yes a Titanx is more capable
Yes a Titanx is more capable but how about 2. It is needed to push more than 60 fps at 4k. Get more performance out of 1440 too. Show more of the capability of CPU.
Yes a Ryzen is capable of maxing out a single video card made up to this point. An older i7 or newer i5 can probably do this as well. Why limit the GPU by running in higher resolution?
Most people gaming at 1080 or below won’t be buying a $500 Ryzen.
It is a CPU review of its gaming competence. This processor is for an enthusiast build and better be able to push frames.
There will be cheaper Ryzens coming down the pipe for more budget minded systems.
Most reviewers have a $1600 Intel for GPU benchmarks to not limit GPU performance. I agree this does not represent your average gamer in the least.
GPU bottlenecking however is akin to taking a Ferrari vs a $20000 car any brand and putting a governor on the Ferrari to limit speed to cars maximum. Equalizing for anything else such as same tires. Running both on lots of S curved track and saying said $20k car performs similar to the Ferrari. Does this represent true world performance.
Or simpler put. Rating a 20 gallon per minute pump against a 15 gallon per min pump with the same 1 inch pipe to measure output after 1 minute. Going to be pretty similar. If you don’t limit the size of the pipe the performance of both is going to be allowed to reach their maximum.
This is what all reviews of any computer product does. They can’t possibly use a whole slew of processors/video cards/tons of game/application benchmarks. If you have a game they bench with new processor/video card, you can compare your system results to it and see if it is worth you upgrading.
Or it’s the internet age if you look hard enough and you’ll usually find what you need somewhere.
Any chance you can run
Any chance you can run folding @ home benchmarks. Frogs want to know!
For those concerned about
For those concerned about 1080p gaming performance, this video should alleviate some of your concerns, hopefully Pcper can replicate these stellar results in future Ryzen reviews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4
How is this supposed to
How is this supposed to alleviate anything when the results are clearly GPU-limited?
limited? you mean real life
limited? you mean real life gaming as with 99% of gaming PC out there. Look at the GPU spec used…
Using $700 GPU at 1080p (now $500 with the nvidia price drop) is not indicative people gaming experience.
its like recommending an i7-7700k for a GTX 970… and a i5-7600k will be as good and cost $100 less.
Also choosing a CPU with half the cores, because you can get 180fps, vs 150fps at 720p is insane when your gaming rig is 1440p.
frankly, I see a lack of objectivity in those reviews conclusion regarding gaming. you cant make a conclusion when you only test a game on a $700 (now $500) GPU at 1080p.
I cant wait for some “pro” review site take a 1080ti, and do an entire gaming Ryzen review using 1600×900 resolution. And then make a general conclusion about ryzen and modern gaming … sigh
Yes, GPU-limited.
And as
Yes, GPU-limited.
And as such, it’s completely meaningless as an effort to “alleviate some […] concerns” about Ryzen’s performance, as the OP put it.
THE CACHE SPECS ARE WRONG IN
THE CACHE SPECS ARE WRONG IN THE ARTICLE!!!! the 8 cores are dual module set up with 2 of the 4 core modules each with 8 mb of l3 cache 2×8= 16mb not 20…the 6 core skus will be 2 4 core modules (the same as the 8 core) with 1 core from each module deactivated along with the corresponding l2 cache for each of the disabled cores…however the l3 cache will remain at 16 mb
THE CACHE SPECS ARE WRONG IN
THE CACHE SPECS ARE WRONG IN THE ARTICLE!!!! the 8 cores are dual module set up with 2 of the 4 core modules each with 8 mb of l3 cache 2×8= 16mb not 20…the 6 core skus will be 2 4 core modules (the same as the 8 core) with 1 core from each module deactivated along with the corresponding l2 cache for each of the disabled cores…however the l3 cache will remain at 16 mb
well oops on the double post
well oops on the double post chrome decided to be dumb
and i guess your counting l2+l3 which is a tad atypical but not like it doesnt happen so i will ammend my statement pardon me
Adding L2 and L3 is based on
Adding L2 and L3 is based on the latter being implemented as a victim cache, i.e. not duplicating any of the former’s content. It’s also how AMD markets Ryzen.
i was waiting for Josh’s
i was waiting for Josh’s Ryzen review, but it turned out to be Ryan’s… WHY ?
https://twitter.com/JoshDWalr
https://twitter.com/JoshDWalrath/status/837705704324612098
Exactly what you wanted
Exactly what you wanted GUARANTEED!!!
I ran 7970 crossfire
I ran 7970 crossfire fx8320@4.9ghz on a 1080p monitor running at 2880×1620 for a few years and was very happy with that setup. The r7 1700 looks like it’s light years ahead of the 8320, these are the best cpu’s we have seen from amd in like forever even with this so called 1080p issue.
I would love to see a sli/crossfire review.
AMD probably would like you
AMD probably would like you not to see multicard performance. AMD is limited to x8 x8 PCI express 3.0. (x300 chipsets only). It is not x16 x16 PCI express 3.0 like upper end Intels are. Ryzen only has 20 lanes available with 4 reserved. SSD speeds might be impacted if you have more than one.
The benchmarks at lower resolutions show the raw frame throughput of the CPUs. The Intel CPUs were much better when not GPU limited.
Ryzen fans want to show only 1440p and 4k results. I agree except they should do it on 2 Titanx Pascal cards and see who gets the higher frame rates. My money would be on the Intel.
But multicard is dead they say. Dx12 is the future. As long as the abomination of dx12 exists so will dx11. Dx11 just works good and no extra programming required.
Good review and well
Good review and well balanced.
Read a few reviews around the web adn they seem to point to motherboard/chipset makers have a bit of catching up to do.
Compatible memory selections are currently low and a touch confused.
So time will tell… I would like to see some reviews revisited once V4 or 5 of Motherboard Bios’s are out.
That said.. I really wish some reviewers had used a AMD chip GPU instead of Nvidia…
Cheers and thanks for the review
Some questions I still
Some questions I still have.
– What is the effect of ram speed on the R7 ?
– What is the gaming experience at 1440p with a GTX 1070 class card?
– Are AMD GPU drivers better optimized for Ryzen or Intel cpus ?
– How does the r7 1700x perform with 4 core disabled ?
Ryan great coverage as
Ryan great coverage as always. i caught this http://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def4wcj/ it looks like ryzen is suffering form scheduling issues and its being addressed.
Hey, my 1700X came in today!
Hey, my 1700X came in today! Still no word on the motherboard I pre-ordered though. Such BS. And now I’m second guessing those 2 sticks of 3000 DDR4 memory I got weeks ago. From what I’ve read, the Bristol Ridge + AM4 is only rated at 2400 DDR4, which probably should have tipped me off.
You know, if they already had Bristol Ridge CPU’s on AM4 socket, you would think they would release the X370 boards ahead of Ryzen launch, because at least then you could still use them with the older CPU’s. Not to mention the AM4 adapter bracket for my EVO 212 that I don’t think has even shipped yet.
A lot of balls dropped IMO. Very frustrating.
So the AMD to Intel disparity
So the AMD to Intel disparity in gaming apparently comes from devs optimizing based on an Intel architecture due to their market dominance (or so AMD says). The question I have is with the Ryzen hype being what it is, and the launch being as seemingly successful as it is; will devs work in some AMD optimization?
I know a lot of devs already see the PC-port as an afterthought to their console development cycle, and in those cases I doubt the extra effort will be put in. But for the devs that really want to give a solid PC experience to their customers, I wonder if they’ll try to better optimize their titles and to what level of difficulty that optimization will entail.
I am not fan of Intel
I am not fan of Intel although have bunch of their super expensive Xeons V4, randing from 2K usd to 4K usd per CPU… business needs.
I am not big fan of AMD either, I was hoping they will go IBM way, server and workstation market, multisocket. I respect graphic cards, math is fast.
So no bias on any side… I wish I could use IBM processors, but I have to wait for open Risc architecture for that, unless I sell kidneys to buy 400W IBM Power cpus.
Now…
Ryzen is well positioned among average and higher consumer segment. AMD did some good job here and I am glad people will have chance to buy decent cpu for cheap price.
It was time that someone tells Intel to buzz of with their overpriced CPUs (yeah, ultimate Xeon costs 4K USD) and finally office computers can use cheap AMD and have better experience for the same price of Celeron (yes regular office computers usually have celerons if you didn’t notice, that crap is still on the market, even using DDR4… wtf Intel is doing…)
Game over intel with your Celerons and low segment CPUs….
I finally got my 1800x
I finally got my 1800x running (waited for the asus x370 prime)
And my experience is.. not worth overclocking.
Since you boost on all 8 core to 3.7ghz even in heavy apps like Cinebench, going to 4ghz gives you 8% boost at best.
Now if that was “free” it would be fine but.
a) you loose XFR
b) voltage ramp high (1.4v @ 4ghz on a chip that big is massive)
c) the P-state seemed messed up on the asus board with manual clocking
(voltage/clock dont seem to scale, its always max)
So I decided to leave all untouched and simply do an undervolt by 500mv.
Result, the chip run “cold” under prime95 SmallFFT,
and I still get my 4.1ghz clock in single threaded
(I have a corsair H100 AOI set on silent mode, fan barely spin and I peak at 45c in prime95 smallFFT)
But if I do manual overclock to 4ghz, I need 1.4v and the temp and wattage skyrocket. The fan dont ramp fast enough so I need to up the cooling profile…
For an max 8% boost, at best, not worth it. at all.
The only thing I haven’t done is update the bios (still from february). So I’m stuck at 2133mhz ram
I also built another PC on the R7 1700… this was was overclocked to 3.7ghz on an MSI tomahawk. Amazingly the stock cooler is super quiet under stress test. And it look amazing.
(I rotated the AMD logo isn’t sideways, look must better in a 460x corsair crystal case)
Anyways, if I knew all that I know now, I would have gotten two R7 1700 with B350 motherboard.
the XFR on the 1800x is not worth it, and the asus x370 prime is no better then the msi tomahawk.
R7 1700 at 3.7ghz (8% shy of 4ghz) is where the sweat spot it.
And its stock cooler with its copper core is amazing silent.