The Ryzen 1800X: AMD's Brand New Flagship

Yeah, you got triggered. You were like, "Lets try to avoid the whole impulse buying...", but then you were like, "...Buy what you think is right for you..."

1 Like

AM4 seems like a good place to be and the 8 core is probably a worthwhile investment. Odds are the gaming performance will only improve. It's complicated for a gaming system though. If 100 bucks saved gets you a faster graphics card that might be a way better to spend the money, maybe?

This conversation brings back memories..
Roughly 10 years ago, the argument always was "dual cores = higher clocks; better gaming performance". Listening to that piece of advice ultimately resulted in a $160 mistake in buying a dual-core Allendale(only to quickly realize that the games I liked to play would suffer serious stalling issues from the dual-core bottleneck..
While there's validity to your claim now, realize that the industry has been scaling their multi-threading appication at a greater rate(without the traditional thread ceiling imposed in the past).
Your argument was valid ~2 years ago, and is somewhat relevant today; but then again, there are already several scenarios in which the i7 proves beneficial for gaming.

1 Like

Nah, comeback to me when every game in the market gets 8c as a recommended requirement, until then, no.

@AlAl That's why I got an octa core i7 notebook in 2008 (?), it only runs at 1,6GHz but it seems to to it's job. That being said, it is far from being close to my i5 2500k.

@Giulianno_D in terms of games recommending more than four cores:

Witcher 3 recommends 4c/8t (i7 3770) or 8c (FX-8350)
http://en.cdprojektred.com/support/tw3-system-requirements/

That being said, my CPU bottlenecked W3 until I decided to overclock it to 4,3GHz which alleviated this issue.
Mass Effect: Andromeda recommends 4c/8t (i7-4790) or 8c (FX-8350), which means Frostbyte uses around 5-6 cores.

The Unreal 4 engines seems to use as many cores as possible, but only a few are performance relevant.
https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/164573/how-many-cores-does-ue4-support.html

In my experience, I was also never able to enable a physics engine, like the one in Metro: Last Light, and run the game smoothly. That's why I do believe that as of now - and in terms of future proofness - an i5 has too few cores. For gaming though, the best option might be something like the upcoming 1600X.

Hold on, lets pump the brakes a second.. Octa-core i7's existed in 2008? In notebook flavor!?
I shouldnt have to tell you there's no comparing the two, since they arent even in the same ballpark.. 1.6GHz 4c8t(and weaker IPC) vs ~3.5-4.5GHz 4c4t..

Anyway, what I spoke about earlier pertains to people suggesting one buys a core2d clocked at 4GHz for gaming over core2q clocked at 3.6GHz.
The argument was: "most games today do not use more than a single thread; therefore it is more beneficial/economical to own a c2d that can clock higher, vs spending the extra ~$120 and have a slightly slower quadcore."
But there's an issue..
Most mono-threaded games of that time were in no need of a 4GHz single core(specially with the IPC of the core2's at the time). However, some of the newer multi-threaded games reached a cieling with c2d's because they would saturate the two cores, and bog the operating system.

Today, we're presented with a similar issue(albeit diminishing impact)..
I dont know about you, but I could give 0 fecks about gaming @ 300fps vs 250fps; as long as my system can play at a buttery smooth 60fps, I'm happy as a clam

5 Likes

I am pretty sure he meant the first gen i7 mobile chips that were 4c8t but only clocked at 1.6-2ghz
Not an octa core lol

1 Like

We need more of you and your thinking in this world.

4 Likes

Recommending FX 8350 is kind of a misnomer though, because there are other games where it's also a recommended requirement alongside an i5. And with the gaming performance of the current Ryzen 7, I still wouldn't get it over an i5 or four core i7s, if all I'm gonna use it for is gaming the Ryzen 7 isn't worth it to me. All I'm saying is, AMD better fix it or else they ain't attracting gamers out there, specially the budget oriented gamers now that Intel has lowered their prices.

Still rockin' my i5-2500k high five I would like to update at some point though.

Yeah, just like @Cavemanthe0ne assumed, I actually meant quad-core.... an octa-core would have been nice though.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on this subject, but I actually have the same opinion as you regarding this subject.

@dot404 I wouldn't feel the need to upgrade either, if it weren't for my bricked mainboard

So what is everyones thoughts so far?

Launch issues aside (fiddly ram... which I am hoping is fixable) I see this as pretty solid.

Cinebench and video editing scores as well as the accompanying price alone had me sold, as long as the gaming experience isnt sub 60fps then I don't really care too much about it being 20fps (example number pulled out of butt :D) less than intel etc

Single thread is decent enough that it doesnt suffer so much on old api's and multithread is awesome enough that it should be killer on well made titles

TBH the only game I trust at the moment to showcase the cpu's under newer api's is

Doom - Vulcan

Everything else has been an epic clusterfuck.

Examples?

Deux Ex dx12 - ...slightly worse than dx11
Battlefield1 dx12 - really bad at launch, not sure if its been fixed
Quantum Break dx12 - shite performance, better on dx11
Rise of the tombraider dx12 - was crap at launch, not sure if its been fixed
Gears of War 4 dx12 - ....okay
Gears of War 'Ultimate' edition dx12 - shite performance

It's been depressing as f*ck

2 Likes

Meh tbh I wouldn't look at any performance metrics right now and take them as 100% fact. Performance varies widely on motherboard and BIOS and that isn't even mentioning the Windows scheduler.

Seriously it's a mess. Apparently it is scheduling tasks to virtual cores as if they were real ones and registering the wrong levels of cache as well as scheduling tasks on different CCXs than it should and bouncing them around.

AMD submitted fixed but Microsoft has yet to implement them.

4 Likes

@Cavemanthe0ne @Fouquin do these chips gain any overclocking headroom if you knock them down to 4-6 cores?

Where were you reading about that? Sounds interesting.

A few hundred mhz.

so like 4.3-4.4 with like 6 cores or...?

Yep.

I fail to see any real price cutting here ?

also with 4 cores that gets to like 4.4-4.6 depending on how i have the cores set
4+0 seems to give higher clocks but significantly less performance
where 2+2 allows lower speed but is much better performance
is odd