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 ESTBenchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests
One of the interesting elements on modern processors is encoding performance. This includes encryption/decryption, as well as video transcoding from one video format to another. In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, this remains pertinent to on-the-fly encryption of sensitive data - a process by which more modern devices are leaning to for software security. Video transcoding as a tool to adjust the quality, file size and resolution of a video file has boomed in recent years, such as providing the optimum video for devices before consumption, or for game streamers who are wanting to upload the output from their video camera in real-time. As we move into live 3D video, this task will only get more strenuous, and it turns out that the performance of certain algorithms is a function of the input/output of the content.
7-Zip
One of the freeware compression tools that offers good scaling performance between processors is 7-Zip. It runs under an open-source licence, is fast, and easy to use tool for power users. We run the benchmark mode via the command line for four loops and take the output score.
WinRAR 5.40
For the 2017 test suite, we move to the latest version of WinRAR in our compression test. WinRAR in some quarters is more user friendly that 7-Zip, hence its inclusion. Rather than use a benchmark mode as we did with 7-Zip, here we take a set of files representative of a generic stack (33 video files in 1.37 GB, 2834 smaller website files in 370 folders in 150 MB) of compressible and incompressible formats. The results shown are the time taken to encode the file. Due to DRAM caching, we run the test 10 times and take the average of the last five runs when the benchmark is in a steady state.
AES Encoding
Algorithms using AES coding have spread far and wide as a ubiquitous tool for encryption. Again, this is another CPU limited test, and modern CPUs have special AES pathways to accelerate their performance. We often see scaling in both frequency and cores with this benchmark. We use the latest version of TrueCrypt and run its benchmark mode over 1GB of in-DRAM data. Results shown are the GB/s average of encryption and decryption.
HandBrake H264 and HEVC
As mentioned above, video transcoding (both encode and decode) is a hot topic in performance metrics as more and more content is being created. First consideration is the standard in which the video is encoded, which can be lossless or lossy, trade performance for file-size, trade quality for file-size, or all of the above can increase encoding rates to help accelerate decoding rates. Alongside Google's favorite codec, VP9, there are two others that are taking hold: H264, the older codec, is practically everywhere and is designed to be optimized for 1080p video, and HEVC (or H265) that is aimed to provide the same quality as H264 but at a lower file-size (or better quality for the same size). HEVC is important as 4K is streamed over the air, meaning less bits need to be transferred for the same quality content.
Handbrake is a favored tool for transcoding, and so our test regime takes care of three areas.
Low Quality/Resolution H264: He we transcode a 640x266 H264 rip of a 2 hour film, and change the encoding from Main profile to High profile, using the very-fast preset.
High Quality/Resolution H264: A similar test, but this time we take a ten-minute double 4K (3840x4320) file running at 60 Hz and transcode from Main to High, using the very-fast preset.
HEVC Test: Using the same video in HQ, we change the resolution and codec of the original video from 4K60 in H264 into 1080p30 HEVC. This causes a dramatic reduction in filesize.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
lakerssuperman - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
People like me. I was previously running a 2600k overclocked. Nice chip. Still runs great, but I was looking for an upgrade about a year ago as one of the things I do a lot of is Handbrake conversion for my HTPC. Going to even the newest Intel 4 core got me maybe 20% improvement on one of my major workloads for insane amounts of money and going to the high end to get 8-10 cores was just not justifiable.I ended up buying a used Xeon/X79 motherboard combo for around $300 off ebay. 8 cores/16 threads and it works great for Handbrake. I lost some clock speed in the move so single thread performance took a bit of a hit, but was more than made up for in multi-thread performance. I can still game on this CPU just fine and I don't play the newest stuff right away anyway just because of time constraints.
The X79 platform is fine for what I'm doing with it. Would I like the new stuff? Sure. And if I was in the position I was last year looking for an upgrade I don't see how I wouldn't get an 1800x. It gives me the right balance of features for what I do with my computer.
If I was just gaming, I'd look at Intel currently because their 4 core i5 is the sweet spot for this. But I'm not just gaming so this chip is infinitely more attractive to someone like me. With the price and features I can't see how it isn't a winner and when the 4 and 6 core parts come out at likely higher frequencies, I think they are going to be the real winners for gaming.
rarson - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
Ryzen is clearly well-suited to anyone who values high performance in a multitude of usage scenarios over one single usage scenario, especially if one cares about how much money they need to spend to achieve those results.injurer - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
1800X is definitely designed for enthusiast, and AMD fans, but when you go to 1700X this is a price killer targeting the mainstream. 1700 is on the same boat but at even lower price. All the 3 are 8 core chips and are quite close to the 6900K but at 2-4 times lower price.At the end I really believe AMD are still having to show us the real potential of their architecture. Those chips are just the start. Remember Ryzen design is a new from its core, so they definitely have room to ecpand and enhance it.
bill.rookard - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
Well, thing to remember is that for those looking for a new build, they now have a legitimate choice. I still do see in the future that things will only go more multithreaded, and even though the i7-7700k is still a great chip, having more physical cores and resources to throw at it will only help.To that end, again, anyone planning a NEW build from the ground up will be able to seriously consider a Ryzen system.
Worst case, think about it. In the deep dive they had mention of 'competitive resource sharing' with SMT enabled. If you were to disable SMT on Ryzen - it would give you 8 PHYSICAL cores versus the 4 physical/4 logical cores of the 7700k. Without those resources being partially used across 16 threads - all resources would be allocated to the physical cores instead, potentially allowing more processing power per physical core.
There's still quite a bit to be checked out and dug through.
lilmoe - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
This. I want 2 things dug deeper in follow ups:1) Single/multi threaded performance with SMT disabled VS SMT enabled.
2) Game comparisons with more sensible GPUs (which actually ship and sell in volume, IE: the ones people actually buy), like the GTX 1060 and/or RX 480.
BurntMyBacon - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
@lilmoeI agree with 1). Intel had HT for several generations before it was universally better to leave it enabled (still needs to be disabled some times, but these are more the edge cases now).
Not so sure I'm onboard with 2). Pairing a $200 GPU with a $500 processor for gaming purposes seems a little backwards. I'd like to see that (GTX1060 / RX480) gaming comparison on a higher clocked R5 or R3 processor when they are released.
Meteor2 - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
I'd rather see tests paired with a 1080 Ti. At RX480/1060 level, it's well known the bottleneck is GPU performance not CPU. A 1080 Ti should be fast enough to show up the CPU.lilmoe - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link
@BurntMyBacon @Meteor2Lots of people, like me, are more into CPU power. I'm OK with a mid-range GPU. Gaming is not my top priority, and when I do, It's never above 1080p.
It'd be interesting to see if there are differences. I wouldn't dismiss it, saying the GPU would be the bottleneck so fast.
bigboxes - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
I'm with you on that. Gaming is way down in my priority list. I do it occasionally just because I love to see what my hardware can do. I currently have a ultrawide 1080p monitor. When I move to 4K then hopefully midrange GPU will cover that. My CPU is a 4790K. It's great for most tasks. I've been wanting to go to 6/8 core for some time, but the cost for the platform was too high. I think in a couple of years I will seriously think about Ryzen when building a new workstation.rarson - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link
I am interested in seeing potential improvement due to BIOS updates. Additionally, I'm interested in seeing potential improvement due to better multi-threaded software. My hunch is that AMD is either on-par or better than Intel, or maybe damn near that prediction, so I think the 4-core parts will compare well to the current Skylake SKUs. I also expect them to overclock better than the 8-core chips. I guess we'll just have to wait for them to release.8 physical cores is definitely better than 4 cores with SMT/HTT/whatever you want to call it.