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 ESTAMD Ryzen 7 Launch Details
The Ryzen family of CPUs is designed to compete, initially, in the performance-mainstream and high-end desktop market. At first will be the launch of Ryzen 7 CPUs, a trio of eight-core, sixteen-thread designs, with Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 coming in Q2 and 2H17 respectively. Out of the CPUs we know about, the Ryzen 7 parts, the processors have a TDP of either 65W or 95W, and prices will range from $330 to $500.
AMD Ryzen 7 SKUs | ||||||
Cores/ Threads |
Base/ Turbo |
L3 | TDP | Cost | Launch Date | |
Ryzen 7 1800X | 8/16 | 3.6/4.0 | 16 MB | 95 W | $499 | 3/2/2017 |
Ryzen 7 1700X | 8/16 | 3.4/3.8 | 16 MB | 95 W | $399 | 3/2/2017 |
Ryzen 7 1700 | 8/16 | 3.0/3.7 | 16 MB | 65 W | $329 | 3/2/2017 |
All the processors will be using the AM4 socket, with bases frequencies from 3.2 GHz to 3.6 GHz, and turbo frequencies up to 4.0 GHz for the high-end parts. The base design supports 512KB of private L2 cache per core and 2MB of a shared exclusive L3 victim cache.
The CPUs follow a naming scheme which most CPU enthusiasts will be familiar with:
- The high-end parts are ‘Ryzen 7’, which all happen to be eight-core parts and start around $300-$320. With a fully enabled chip, 16MB of L3 cache is available.
- In the mid-range are ‘Ryzen 5’ processors, set to be launched in Q2, which are all eight-core parts under the hood but are either 6-core parts or 4-core parts depending on the model. Leaks would tend to suggest that despite having two cores disabled, the 6-core parts still have access to all the L3 cache.
- At the bottom are ‘Ryzen 3’, due 2H17, all of which are quad core parts but do not have hyperthreading.
- All parts support overclocking.
- Technically all parts support XFR, although only X can overclock with XFR (more on this later)
- It’s worth noting that ‘Ryzen 7 1900X’ is a gap waiting to be filled.
The formal name for these CPUs is ‘Ryzen 7’ followed by the SKU number. Having conversations with AMD, and noting that I suspect these names will colloquially be shortened to R7, R5 and R3 very quickly, we will be following convention and using the formal CPU names.
All these parts come from a single silicon design, with binning to ensure that the quality of each silicon die gets placed in the right bin. It is worth noting AMD’s tactics to launch a handful of SKUs at once follows on from its previous strategy. Part of it is a function of size (AMD by contrast to other players is actually small), and it allows AMD to react to how the market changes, as well as adjust product lines due to factors in the production (such as better semi-con characteristics).
All the CPUs are multiplier unlocked, allowing users to go overclocking when paired with the X370 or B350 chipset. At this point we’re unsure what the upper limit is for the multiplier. We have been told that all CPUs will also support XFR, whereby the CPU automatically adjusts the frequency rather than the OS based on P-states, but the CPUs with ‘X’ in the name allow the CPU to essentially overclock over the turbo frequency. XFR stands for ‘eXtended Frequency Range’, and indicates that the CPU will automatically overclock itself if it has sufficient thermal and power headroom. We’ll mention it later, but XFR works in jumps of 25 MHz by adjusting the multiplier, which also means that the multiplier is adjustable in 0.25x jumps (as they have 100 MHz base frequency). XFR does have an upper limit, which is processor dependent. All CPUs will support 25 MHz jumps though XFR above the P0 state, but only X CPUs will go beyond the turbo frequency.
A side note: As to be expected, XFR only works correctly if the correct setting in the BIOS is enabled. At this point the option seems to be hidden, but if exposed it means it is up to the motherboard manufacturers to enable it by default – so despite it being an AMD feature, it could end up at the whim of the motherboard manufacturers. I suspect we will see some boards with XFR enabled automatically, and some without. We had the same issue on X99 with Turbo Boost 3, and Multi-Core Turbo.
So Why No Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 3?
AMD is remaining relatively quiet on the other Ryzen CPUs. At the Tech Day, we were told about one other CPU: the Ryzen 5 1600X.
AMD Ryzen SKUs | ||||||
Cores/ Threads |
Base/ Turbo |
L3 | TDP | Cost | Launch Date | |
Ryzen 7 1800X | 8/16 | 3.6/4.0 | 16 MB | 95 W | $499 | 3/2/2017 |
Ryzen 7 1700X | 8/16 | 3.4/3.8 | 16 MB | 95 W | $399 | 3/2/2017 |
Ryzen 7 1700 | 8/16 | 3.0/3.7 | 16 MB | 65 W | $329 | 3/2/2017 |
Ryzen 5 1600X | 6/12? | 3.6/4.0 | 16 MB? | ? W | N/A | Q2 2017 |
Ryzen 3 ? | 4/4? | ? | 8 MB? | ? W | N/A | H2 2017 |
This six-core part will have two CPU cores disabled, though it is unclear if AMD will disable one core per cluster of four (giving a 3+3 arrangement) or if they could disable two from one cluster (giving 2+4). Nonetheless, it maintains the 3.6 GHz base frequency and 4.0 GHz turbo frequency similar to the Ryzen 7 1800X. This puts it square in the firing line of the Core i7-6850K (six core, Broadwell-E) and Core i7-5930K (six core, Haswell-E).
Ryzen 5 is scheduled for ‘Q2’, meaning the second quarter of 2017, or April-to-June inclusive. The big event in that time frame in the PC world is Computex at the beginning of June, which might be an apt time to launch some other products as well. The scale of the Ryzen 5 launch is unknown, and I suspect that if the demand for Ryzen 7 is high then AMD might not have enough CPUs to go around. If enough parts come out of the Fab working well, and Ryzen 7 is still selling strong, then we might have to wait for Ryzen 5. This aids part of AMD’s trickle-out strategy, though based on some of the comments we’re seeing online, Ryzen 5 is also highly anticipated.
The Ryzen 3 family is even more unknown. At this point the leaks suggest that these will be quad core parts without simultaneous multi-threading, however AMD has not released any information as to how they will work. The only thing we know is that AMD is planning a H2'17 launch, meaning the second half of 2017. That’s a very, very wide window, encompassing things like the Server chips launch but also the notebook SoCs. I suspect AMD will be constantly looking at their product lines and sales, determining what opportunities there are for Ryzen 3 CPUs – if they get a full launch or end up a footnote if the rest of the stack performs above expectations. Or Ryzen 3 could end up mobile only, but that’s just a low-chance hypothesis.
I saw Ryzen Pro being in the leaks?
At this time AMD is not announcing any Pro parts, although it was confirmed to be that there are plans to continue the Pro line of CPUs with Ryzen to be launched at a later time. These parts will be similar in practice to previous ‘Pro’ models we saw with Kaveri and Carrizo: designed for the big OEMs as an indication of large-contract support. AMD’s prominent partners for this are HP, Lenovo and Dell. These processors will most likely not be sold to the public, although OEM resellers typically get hold of a few. That means availability at this point is unknown. AMD states that multiplier overclocking is supported on all processors, however at the time of writing we’re unsure if that would naturally include the ‘Pro’ line. My gut instinct says ‘probably’, although the systems these CPUs will go into will likely have overclocking disabled, so it would have to be placed into a consumer motherboard.
A side note on ECC: given the design of Naples and the fact that it should be supporting ECC, this means that the base memory controller in the silicon should be able to support ECC. We know that it is disabled for the consumer parts, but nothing has been said regarding the Pro parts. We can confirm that ECC is enabled on the consumer Ryzen parts.
The Competition
Just after Tech Day, I ran a twitter poll regarding comparisons that my followers were interested in. The poll results were as follows:
So what CPU comparison is more vital for you? (for other suggestions, simply reply)
— Ian Cutress (@IanCutress) February 24, 2017
That’s
- 32% for the Ryzen 7 1800X vs Core i7-7700K,
- 31% for the Ryzen 7 1700 vs Core i7-7700K
- 25% for the Ryzen 7 1800X vs Core i7-6900K
- 11% for the Ryzen 7 1700 vs Core i7-2600K
- Mentions for
- Core i3-7350K numbers,
- Core i5-7600K numbers,
- Ryzen 5 1600X numbers (no can do before R5 launch)
- 1800X vs i7-5960X,
- 1700X vs 7700K,
- 1700X vs 6900K,
- DRAM testing,
- single thread testing,
- Maximum OC on each Ryzen part
- SPEC06 vs A10
- Dual Core Ryzen at 800 MHz vs Core m3 to simulate passive tablets
Naturally AMD has suggested processors which it feels offer direct competition against the various Ryzen CPUs. These are as follows:
Comparison: Ryzen 7 1800X vs Core i7-6900K | ||
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X |
Features | Intel Core i7-6900K |
8 / 16 | Cores/Threads | 8 / 16 |
3.6 / 4.0 GHz | Base/Turbo | 3.2 / 3.7GHz |
16 | PCIe 3.0 Lanes | 40 |
16 MB | L3 Cache | 20 MB |
95 W | TDP | 140 W |
$499 | Price (MSRP) | $1049 |
At the top end we see the eight-core R7 1800X put directly against a Broadwell-E based eight-core Core i7-6900K. The Ryzen 7 1800X sits at 3.6 GHz base and 4.0 GHz turbo for 95W, while the Core i7-6900X is 3.2G/3.7G for 140W. The i7-6900K has the bigger L3 cache and more PCIe lanes, but costs twice as much ($1049 vs. $499).
Comparison: Ryzen 7 1700 vs Core i7-7700K | ||
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 |
Features | Intel Core i7-7700K |
8 / 16 | Cores/Threads | 4 / 8 |
3.0 / 3.7 GHz | Base/Turbo | 4.2 / 4.5 GHz |
16 | PCIe 3.0 Lanes | 16 |
16 MB | L3 Cache | 8MB |
65 W | TDP | 91 W |
$329 | Price (MSRP) | $350 |
In the mid-range, the Ryzen 7 1700 is so near in price to the Core i7-7700K that it is hard to miss. The i7-7700K is based on Intel’s latest Kaby Lake microarchitecture, which AMD has already shown is ahead of the game compared to Zen. So while Intel gets a frequency advantage (4.2G/4.5G vs 3.0G/3.7G) and is likely to have a fundamental IPC advantage, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 comes with eight cores over four, and has 16MB of L3 cache compared to 8MB on Intel. The 1700 and 7700K are similar in price ($330 vs $350) but the 1700 also comes with a new variant of AMD’s high performing Wraith cooler.
Comparison: Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5-7600K | ||
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X |
Features | Intel Core i5-7600K |
6 / 12 | Cores/Threads | 4 / 4 |
3.6 / 4.0 GHz | Base/Turbo | 3.8 / 4.2GHz |
16 | PCIe 3.0 Lanes | 16 |
16 MB? | L3 Cache | 6 MB |
? | TDP | 91W |
? | Price (MSRP) | $239 |
Because we know some specs already, it’s worth pointing out about the Ryzen 5 1600X. Expected pricing should put it close to the price of the Core i5-7600K, but offering three times as many threads. The Ryzen 5 will be down on frequency, but cache and cores is hard to miss. When we get in the Ryzen 5 samples it is sure to be a major test.
The validity of these comparisons will come down to how well AMD has executed in single core performance, and if having the L3 as an exclusive victim cache actually hampers performance, especially in memory heavy workloads such as compression.
Typically we would expect fewer cores at the same power to be clocked higher as there is TDP to spare. However, these four core designs can differ between two successive chips. The base design of all of these CPUs is a set of eight cores, split into two quad-core ‘Core Complexes’ (known as a CCX). Each CCX has four cores and 8MB of L3 cache, but are still part of the same silicon die and connected by the new Infinity Fabric. For a quad core design, four of those cores (and their L3 caches) are disabled, however it is never guaranteed which ones. Users could end up with 4+0, 1+3 or 2+2 cores active per CCX, which gives a slightly skewed latency response when having to pull memory from other caches. Because the L3 cache is an exclusive victim cache, this won’t happen as often as perhaps an inclusive cache might, but as a result it is expected that the reduce frequency might be to compensate for the different CCX configurations that might exist.
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.