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 Stock Coolers: Wraith v2
When AMD launched the Wraith cooler last year, bundled with the premium FX CPUs and highest performing APUs, it was a refreshing take on the eternal concept that the stock cooler isn’t worth the effort of using if you want any sustained performance. The Wraith, and the 125W/95W silent versions of the Wraith, were built like third party coolers, with a copper base/core, heatpipes, and a good fan. In our roundup of stock coolers, it was clear the Wraith held the top spot, easily matching $30 coolers in the market, except now it was being given away with the CPUs/APUs that needed that amount of cooling.
That was essentially a trial run for the Ryzen set of Wraith coolers. For the Ryzen 7 launch, AMD will have three models in play.
These are iterative designs on the original, with minor tweaks and aesthetic changes, but the concept is still the same – a 65W near silent design (Stealth), a 95W near silent design (Spire), and a 95W/125W premium model (Max). The 125W models come with an RGB light (which can be disabled), however AMD has stated that the premium model is currently destined for OEM and SI designs only. The other two will be bundled with the CPUs or potentially be available at retail. We have asked that we get the set in for review, to add to our Wraith numbers.
Memory Support
With every generation of CPUs, each one comes with a ‘maximum supported memory frequency’. This is typically given as a number, with the number aligning with the industry standard JEDEC sub-timings. Technically most processors will go above and beyond the memory frequency as the integrated memory controller supports a lot more; but the manufacturer only officially guarantees up to the maximum supported frequency on qualified memory kits.
The frequency, for consumer chips, is usually given as a single number no matter how many memory slots are populated. In reality when more memory modules are in play, it puts more strain on the memory controller so there is a higher potential for errors. This is why qualification is important – if the vendor has a guaranteed speed, any configuration for a qualified kit should work at that speed.
In the server market, a CPU manufacturer might list support a little differently – a supported frequency depending on how many memory modules are in play, and what type of modules. This arguably makes it very confusing when applied at a consumer level, but on a server level it is expected that OEMs can handle the varying degree of support.
For Ryzen, AMD is taking the latter approach. What we have is DDR4-2666 for the simplest configuration – one module per channel of single rank UDIMMs. This moves through to DDR4-1866 for the most strenuous configuration at two modules per channel with dual-rank UDIMMs. For our testing, we were running the memory at DDR4-2400, for lack of a fixed option, however we will have memory scaling numbers in due course. At present, ECC is not supported ECC is supported.
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.