Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
AMD's Ryzen 7 launch represents more than just a new CPU family. For most of our readers, it signals the return of competition to the enthusiast-oriented processor market. And considering the flagship 1800X’s potent cost advantage compared to Intel's Core i7-6900K, the competitor AMD singled out months ago, Ryzen 7 does deliver. It's just not as universally superior as the company wanted everyone to believe.
We come away from today's coverage with a number of questions that couldn't be answered in time for the launch. For instance, we discovered Ryzen's tendency to perform better in games with SMT disabled. Could this be a scheduling issue that might be fixed later? AMD did respond to our concerns, reminding us that Ryzen's implementation is unique, meaning most game engines don't use if efficiently yet. Importantly, the company told us that it doesn’t believe the SMT hiccup occurs at the operating system level, so a software fix could fix performance issues in many titles. At least one game developer (Oxide) stepped forward to back those claims. However, you run the risk that other devs don't spend time updating existing titles.
The evening before launch, AMD sent us a list of games that it says should perform well with Ryzen, including Sniper Elite 4, Battlefield 1, Star Wars: Battlefront, and Overwatch, among others. Many of the titles tend to be heavily threaded, which would lend itself well to Ryzen's high core count. We plan on revisiting some of those. Further, AMD suggests adjusting several different parameters for games that suffer from low performance. It recommends using Windows' High Performance power profile (which also helps Intel CPUs). It also says to disable the HPET (High Precision Event Timer), either in your BIOS or operating system, to gain a 5-8% advantage. Our results already reflect HPET disabled, though. Interestingly, AMD's Ryzen Master software requires HPET to “provide accurate measurements,” so you may find yourself toggling back and forth for the best experience.
It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance. That's not a knock against AMD, specifically. After all, we say the same thing about Intel's own Broadwell-E CPUs. High-end Kaby Lake processors constantly challenge pricier competitors, and the flagship -7700K sells for $350. Even after down-clocking the -7700K to 3.8 GHz, it still beats Ryzen 7 1800X in nearly every game in our suite. Those issues would only be exacerbated on a Ryzen 7 1700X, which operates at lower clock rates.
Conversely, the Ryzen 7 1800X is in its element when you throw professional and scientific workloads at it. It isn't the fastest in every high-end benchmark, but any calculation that factors in value almost assuredly goes AMD's way. For years, Intel has operated with impunity, charging inflated prices for incremental speed-ups. The 1800X’s $500 price tag and competitive performance will no doubt excite power users on a budget. To that end, when we weigh the 1800X’s strong showing in workstation and HPC workloads against its issues with games, we can't help but believe that AMD designed this specific configuration with a datacenter-driven mindset and didn’t optimize it thoroughly for desktops. Much like Intel and Broadwell-E, in fact.
AMD’s Precision Boost technology yields a nice dual-core boost during lightly threaded workloads, but it isn’t as advanced as Intel’s sophisticated multi-core Turbo Boost functionality. XFR is a nice feature that automatically offers improved performance with robust cooling solutions, but most of us only get 100 MHz out of it, so it's hard to call it a compelling advantage. Achieving a 4 GHz overclock was straightforward enough through multiplier and voltage adjustments, and there are plenty of AMD-specific firmware settings we need to explore. More headroom could certainly be available (though the Core i7-7700K is honestly more exciting to overclock if all you care about is higher numbers). On the memory overclocking side, AMD hasn’t opened all of the sub-timings yet, and the Core i7-6900K has a throughput advantage with its quad-channel controller.
Ryzen 7 1800X's aggressive price might help put enough pressure on Intel to compel price cuts on Broadwell-E, but the bigger battle is going to happen when Ryzen 5 and 3 emerge to challenge the competition's more affordable (and difficult to usurp) models. AMD is also bringing its Naples server CPUs forward soon, and with what we’ve seen from the Zen core, that should be an exciting launch.
It's a bummer the Ryzen launch was so clearly rushed. We expected AMD to have a better explanation for its gaming performance, but all of the feedback we received from the company came very last-minute. It's hard to imagine these shortcomings weren't discovered previously and diagnosed more thoroughly. We're happy to put in the time and effort, though. Expect more information as it becomes available.
In the meantime, we would recommend Ryzen 7 1800X for heavily-threaded workloads like rendering and content creation. And while we won't judge a processor on its gaming performance alone, current indications suggest AMD's $500 flagship doesn't beat Core i7-7700K for value in that specific segment.
MORE: Best CPUs
Current page: ConclusionPrev Page Results: Power Consumption And Temperatures
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Well, at the very least, it is competition. Competition drives innovation and lower costs. Well done AMD.Reply
Why did I feel AMD was hiding something? Understandably the "gamer market" is comparatively small. But couldn't AMD have designed a CPU that worked well in gaming/desktops and in data centers? Disappointing.Reply
(But I have a 5820K. The best Ryzen in the world would not have had me switch anyway.)
Bias review as always. Most of your information is obviously screwed up. How do you get 4.0ghz at 1.45v. When that's not even an overclock for the chip (not really at least compared to stock) yet you're already pushing 1.45v? You're tailoring your articles for the uneducated. Duck off tomsReply
in the end the best anyone can hope from AMD is that it spooked intel enough to lower its pricesReply
In a hurry to compare various site's gaming results, it appears differing sites are finding the same thing: gaming performance is acceptable but below 4c/8t Intel offerings. If you spend your day encoding or multi-thread benching this is a monster bargain.Reply
With the good and bad, I think we can all agree the good here is competition. There is some now.
All along AMD was claiming to equal/beat Broadwell-E in comparative tasks at half the price, and from another review that included Broadwell-E, it's done that. I don't recall ANY AMD press saying it was going to beat the 7700K in straight up gaming. So, target set, and hit. That's a win in my book. But now, need to see what they can do with the smaller core count chips and if they can scale frequency to be competitive in the gaming sector.Reply
Maybe i missed it but i would love to see a perf/dollar ratio comparison. Im sure Ryzen would occupy the top position, and it would also make it clear that AMD achieved extraordinary results in bringing such high performance to the average consumer that cant 700+ dollars for a CPU.Reply
@Dionisiatis the 7700K is cheaper then the 1800X so for gamers it currently is the best CPU. now games have yet to optimize for the new AMD architecture, so maybe soon it will be a different story.Reply
Your "Heating up AMD Ryzen" video on the Power and Temperatures tab is still private. I can't watch it.Reply
Fails in gaming, and for multitasking stuff i got Xeon 14/28 who is doing all that encoding and other stuff for $300 on eBay.Reply
In my opinion AMD failed and they really pulled BS by fooling people into pre ordering but it turns out that in gaming sucks..