The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
by Ian Cutress on March 2, 2017 9:00 AM ESTTest Bed Setup and Hardware
As always, defining a regular test bed is key to these tests. At a CPU launch, with a new chipset, new socket, and almost new everything, that can be difficult. It’s also worth noting that our testing suite is currently in a state of flux as well, as we migrate testing to Windows 10. For the most part, our test beds use off-the-shelf components, sometimes supplied by vendors for the purpose of being in our test bed. For the Ryzen review, our AMD Test bed is as follows:
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (8C/16T, 3.6-4.0 GHz, 95W, $499)
- AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (8C/16T, , 95W, $399)
- AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (8C/16T, 3.0-3.7 GHz, 65W, $329)
- ASUS Crosshair VI Hero Motherboard
- Corsair Vengeance 2x8GB DDR4-3000 C16 running at DDR4-2400 C15
- Crucial MX200 1TB SSD
- Rosewill SilentNight 500W Platinum PSU
- ASUS GTX 950 Ti (95W)
- MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8GB
- Windows 10 Pro
Of course, many thanks to all our partners who supplied equipment for our test beds.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
mikeZZZ - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
Anadtech, can we please run closer to real life scenarios such as a gaming benchmark with a file compression benchmark running at the same time. Even gaming enthusiasts run more than one program at a time. For example, file decompression in the background while playing a game, or baseball game streaming in a small window while playing a game. You already have many individual benchmarks, so why not go the extra but significant benchmark of running two? We know this favors the higher core CPUs (maybe even Ryzen 7 1700 over all other lower core ones CPUs) but that is closer to real life and should be very meaningful to someone wanting to make an informed purchase.ValiumMm - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
Would also like to see thisUrQuan3 - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
Just want to put out a quick comment about benchmarking with Handbrake. In dealing with Broadwell-E, and especially ThunderX, I've found that Handbrake often doesn't scale well past about 10 cores, and really doesn't scale well past 16 or so. What seems to happen is that the single-threaded parts of Handbrake tend to dominate the encode time. In extreme cases, ultra-fast and placebo will take almost the same amount of time as x264 is consuming input faster than the rest of Handbrake can generate it. On ThunderX, I've found I can complete four 1080p placebo encodes in the same amount of time that I can complete one. I would expect a similar result on a 48 core Intel, though I do not have access to one beyond 24 cores. Turbo boost would hide this effect a bit.I am not knocking using Handbrake for benchmarking. The Handbrake and ray-trace results are the two that I care about most. I just thought I'd give a heads up about this limitation. You can check CPU usage statistics to get an indication of when you are running up against this limit.
Oh, and I am very excited to see multiple ray-tracers in your runs. Please continue.
Meteor2 - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
Presumably though you can have several x264 jobs running simultaneously on that hardware? So while your time to encode a certain piece doesn't decrease, you have more total-throughput (e.g. encoding several different bitrates for adaptive streaming). Should give good efficiency too on a larger Broadwell-E or a ThunderX.UrQuan3 - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Exactly. It's the first time I've thought about installing a queue manager for a single computer.jade5419 - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
I agree with this. In my experience Handbrake has a core / thread limit.I have a Z600 system with dual Xeon 5570 @ 2.93GHz, 6 core / 12 threads (total 24 threads), 48GB of RAM and a Z620 system with dual Xeon E5-2690 @ 2.9GHz 8 core / 16 threads (total 32 threads), 64GB RAM.
The two systems transcode video at the same speed using Handbrake 1.0.3. Monitoring CPU usage shows all threads of the Z600 at 100% utilization whereas the CPU utilization on the Z620 is approximately 80%.
Notmyusualid - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Ever tried running GTA5 on 28 cores?It doesn't work. You have to adjust the game 'launchers' core affinity to < 26 cores or it won't even load.
Given this discovery, I expect there are many more applications out there, that may crap-out as we see more and more cores come into the mainstream.
Just a thought.
mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
I'd love to know why this happens. I'm guessing something dumb within Windows.Outlander_04 - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
There is more than enough good news to make me want to buy a 6 core Ryzen when they become available .Likely that will be the sweet spot for gamers
0ldman79 - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
I'm looking forward to seeing Ryzen updated in the bench.There aren't any apps or benchmarks that cross over between the FX series and the Ryzen series, so we can't do any side by side comparison.
Great review guys. Looking forward to the six core Ryzen. I think just like the FX series the six core will be the sweet spot.