Tag Archives: Intel Core i7-6700K

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 Benchmarks Leaked!

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 Benchmarks Leaked!

SiSoftware was one of the few companies to receive early samples of the 2nd Generation Ryzen processors. They tested both Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors, and inadvertently leaked their benchmark results and performance findings.

They have since removed their leaked performance evaluation of the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600, but the Internet never forgets. So we present to you – the leaked benchmark results and findings of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors!

Note : The SiSoftware team only compared the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors against the Ryzen 7 1700X processor, and the Intel Core i7-6700K processor, which is two generations old. Still, it gives us an advanced performance preview of the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors.

 

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 CPU Native Performance

by SiSoftware

We are testing native arithmetic, SIMD and cryptography performance using the highest performing instruction sets (AVX2, AVX, etc.). Ryzen supports all modern instruction sets including AVX2, FMA3 and even more like SHA HWA (supported by Intel’s Atom only) but has dropped all AMD’s variations like FMA4 and XOP likely due to low usage.

Results Interpretation: Higher values (GOPS, MB/s, etc.) mean better performance.

Environment: Windows 10 x64, latest AMD and Intel drivers. 2MB “large pages” were enabled and in use. Turbo / Boost was enabled on all configurations.

Dhrystone Integer : Right off Ryzen2 is 8% faster than Ryzen1, let’s hope it does better. Even 2600 beats the i7 easily.

Dhrystone Long : With a 64-bit integer workload – we finally get into gear, Ryzen2 is 12% faster than its old brother.

FP32 (Float) Whetstone : Even in this floating-point test, Ryzen2 is again 12% faster. All AMD CPUs beat the i7 into dust.

FP64 (Double) Whetstone : With FP64 nothing much changes, Ryzen2 is still 11% faster.

From integer workloads in Dhyrstone to floating-point workloads in Whestone, Ryzen2 is about 10% faster than Ryzen 1: this is exactly in line with the speed increase (9-11%) but if you were expecting more you may be a tiny bit disappointed.

Integer (Int32) Multi-Media : In this vectorised AVX2 integer test Ryzen2 starts to pull ahead and is 16% faster than Ryzen1; perhaps some of the arch improvements benefit SIMD vectorised workloads.

Long (Int64) Multi-Media : With a 64-bit AVX2 integer vectorised workload, Ryzen2 drops to just 10% but still in line with speed increase.

Quad-Int (Int128) Multi-Media : This is a tough test using Long integers to emulate Int128 without SIMD; here Ryzen2 drops to just 7% faster than Ryzen1 but still a decent improvement.

Float/FP32 Multi-Media : In this floating-point AVX/FMA vectorised test, Ryzen2 is the standard 11% faster than Ryzen1.

Double/FP64 Multi-Media : Switching to FP64 SIMD code, again Ryzen2 is just the standard 11% faster than Ryzen1.

Quad-Float/FP128 Multi-Media : In this heavy algorithm using FP64 to mantissa extend FP128 but not vectorised – Ryzen2 manages to pull ahead further and is 15% faster.

In vectorised AVX2/FMA code we see a similar story with 10% average improvement (7-15%). It seems the SIMD units are unchanged. In any case the i7 is left in the dust.

Crypto AES-256 : With AES HWA support all CPUs are memory bandwidth bound; as we’re testing Ryzen2 running at the same memory speed/timings there is still a very small improvement of 1%. But its advantage is that the memory controller is rated for 2933Mt/s operation (vs. 2533) thus with faster memory it could run considerably faster.

[adrotate group=”2″]

Crypto AES-128 : What we saw with AES-256 just repeats with AES-128; Ryzen2 is marginally faster but the improvement is there.

Crypto SHA2-256 : With SHA HWA Ryzen2 similarly powers through hashing tests leaving Intel in the dust; SHA is still memory bound but with just one (1) buffer it has larger headroom. Thus Ryzen2 can use its speed advantage and be 12% faster – impressive.

Crypto SHA1 : Ryzen also accelerates the soon-to-be-defunct SHA1 and here it is even faster – 14% faster than Ryzen1.

Crypto SHA2-512 : SHA2-512 is not accelerated by SHA HWA (version 1) thus Ryzen has to use the same vectorised AVX2 code path – it still is 12% faster than Ryzen1 but still loses to the i7. Those SIMD units are tough to beat.

In memory bandwidth bound algorithms, Ryzen2 will have to be used with faster memory (up to 2933 Mt/s officially) in order to significantly beat its older Ryzen 1 brother. Otherwise there is only a tiny 1% improvement.

Black-Scholes float/FP32 : In this non-vectorised test we see Ryzen2 is the standard 11% faster than Ryzen1.

Black-Scholes double/FP64 : Switching to FP64 code, nothing changes, Ryzen2 is still 11% faster.

Binomial float/FP32 : Binomial uses thread shared data thus stresses the cache & memory system; here the arch(itecture) improvements do show, Ryzen2 23% faster – 2x more than expected. Not to mention 3x (three times) faster than the i7.

Binomial double/FP64 : With FP64 code Ryzen2 is now even faster – 28% faster than Ryzen1 not to mention 2x faster than the i7. Indeed it seems there improvements to the cache and memory system.

Monte-Carlo float/FP32 : Monte-Carlo also uses thread shared data but read-only thus reducing modify pressure on the caches; Ryzen2 does not seem to be able to reproduce its previous gain and is just the standard 11% faster.

Monte-Carlo double/FP64 : Switching to FP64 nothing much changes, Ryzen2 is 10% faster.

Ryzen 1 does very well in these algorithms, but Ryzen2 does even better – especially when thread-local data is involved managing 23-28% improvement. For financial workloads Intel does not seem to have a chance anymore – Ryzen is impossible to beat.

SGEMM : In this tough vectorised AVX2/FMA algorithm Ryzen2 is still “just” the 10% faster than older Ryzen1 – but it finally manages to beat the i7.

DGEMM : With FP64 vectorised code, Ryzen2 only manages to be 4% faster. It seems the memory is holding it back thus faster memory would allow it to do much better.

SFFT : FFT is also heavily vectorised (x4 AVX/FMA) but stresses the memory sub-system more; Ryzen2 is just 4% faster again and is still 1/2x the speed of the i7. Again it seems faster memory would help.

DFFT : With FP64 code, Ryzen2’s improvement reduces to just 1% over Ryzen1 and again slower than the i7.

SNBODY : N-Body simulation is vectorised but many memory accesses to shared data and Ryzen2 gets back to 12% improvement over Ryzen1. This allows it to finally overtake the i7.

DNBODY : With FP64 code nothing much changes, Ryzen2 is still 13% faster.

With highly vectorised SIMD code Ryzen2 still improves by the standard 10-12% but in memory-heavy code it needs to run at higher memory speed to significantly overtake Ryzen 1. But it allows it to beat the i7 in more algorithms.

Blur (3×3) Filter : In this vectorised integer AVX2 workload Ryzen2 is 11% faster allowing it to soundly beat the i7.

Sharpen (5×5) Filter : Same algorithm but more shared data does not change things for Ryzen2. Only the i7 falls behind.

Motion-Blur (7×7) Filter : Again same algorithm but even more data shared does not change anything, but now the i7 is so far behind Ryzen2 is 50% faster. Incredible.

[adrotate group=”2″]

Edge Detection (2*5×5) Sobel Filter : Different algorithm but still AVX2 vectorised workload still changes nothing – Ryzen2 is 11% faster.

Noise Removal (5×5) Median Filter : Still AVX2 vectorised code and still nothing changes; the i7 falls even further behind with Ryzen2 2x (two times) as fast.

Oil Painting Quantise Filter : Again we see Ryzen2 11% faster than the older Ryzen1 and pulling away from the i7.

Diffusion Randomise (XorShift) Filter : Here Ryzen2 is just 8% faster than Ryzen1 but strangely it’s not enough to beat the i7. Those SIMD units are way fast.

Marbling Perlin Noise 2D Filter : In this final test, Ryzen2 returns to being 11% faster and again strangely not enough to beat the i7.

With all the modern instruction sets supported (AVX2, FMA, AES and SHA HWA) Ryzen2 does extremely well in all workloads – but it generally improves only by the 11% as per clock speed increase, except in some cases which seem to show improvements in the cache and memory system (which we have not tested yet).

Next Page > AMD Ryzen 7 2700X + Ryzen 5 2600 Software VM Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 Software VM Performance

We are testing arithmetic and vectorised performance of software virtual machines (SVM), i.e. Java and .Net. With operating systems – like Windows 10 – favouring SVM applications over “legacy” native, the performance of .Net CLR (and Java JVM) has become far more important.

Results Interpretation: Higher values (GOPS, MB/s, etc.) mean better performance.

Environment: Windows 10 x64, latest drivers. .Net 4.7.x (RyuJit), Java 1.9.x. Turbo / Boost was enabled on all configurations.

.Net Dhrystone Integer : .Net CLR integer performance starts off OK with Ryzen2 just 8% faster than Ryzen1 but now almost 3x (three times) faster than i7.

.Net Dhrystone Long : Ryzen seems to favour 64-bit integer workloads, with Ryzen2 20% faster a lot higher than expected.

.Net Whetstone float/FP32 : Floating-Point CLR performance was pretty spectacular with Ryzen already, but Ryzen2 is 15% than Ryzen1 still.

.Net Whetstone double/FP64 : FP64 performance is also great (CLR seems to promote FP32 to FP64 anyway) with Ryzen2 even faster by 20%.

Ryzen1’s performance in .Net was pretty incredible but Ryzen2 is even faster – even faster than expected by mere clock speed increase. There is only one game in town now for .Net applications.

.Net Integer Vectorised/Multi-Media : Just as we saw with Dhrystone, this integer workload sees a 9% improvement for Ryzen2 which makes it 2x faster than the i7.

.Net Long Vectorised/Multi-Media : With 64-bit integer workload we see a similar story – Ryzen2 is 8% faster and again 2x faster than the i7.

.Net Float/FP32 Vectorised/Multi-Media : Here we make use of RyuJit’s support for SIMD vectors thus running AVX/FMA code; Ryzen2 is 11% faster but still almost 2x faster than i7 despite its fast SIMD units.

.Net Double/FP64 Vectorised/Multi-Media : Switching to FP64 SIMD vector code – still running AVX/FMA – Ryzen2 is still 12% faster. i7 is truly left in the dust 1/4x the speed.

Ryzen2 is the usual 9-12% faster than Ryzen 1 here but it means that even RyuJit’s SIMD support cannot save Intel’s i7 – it would take 2x as many cores (not 50%) to beat Ryzen2.

Java Dhrystone Integer : We start JVM integer performance with the usual 12% gain over Ryzen1.

Java Dhrystone Long : Nothing much changes with 64-bit integer workload, we have Ryzen2 12% faster.

Java Whetstone float/FP32 : With a floating-point workload Ryzen2 performance improvement is 13%.

Java Whetstone double/FP64 : With FP64 workload Ryzen2 is just 7% faster but still welcome

Java performance improves by the expected amount 7-13% on Ryzen2 and allows it to completely dominate the i7.

Java Integer Vectorised/Multi-Media : Oracle’s JVM does not yet support native vector to SIMD translation like .Net’s CLR but here Ryzen2 manages a 15% lead over Ryzen1.

[adrotate group=”2″]

Java Long Vectorised/Multi-Media : With 64-bit vectorised workload Ryzen2 (similar to .Net) increases its lead by 24%.

Java Float/FP32 Vectorised/Multi-Media : Switching to floating-point we return to the usual 14% speed improvement.

Java Double/FP64 Vectorised/Multi-Media : With FP64 workload Ryzen2’s lead somewhat unexplicably drops to 1%.

Java’s lack of vectorised primitives to allow the JVM to use SIMD instruction sets (aka SSE2, AVX/FMA) gives Ryzen2 free reign to dominate all the tests, be they integer or floating-point. It is pretty incredible that neither Intel CPU can come close to its performance.

Software VM Performance Summary

Ryzen1 dominated the .Net and Java benchmarks – but now Ryzen2 extends that dominance out-of-reach. It would take a very much improved run-time or Intel CPU to get anywhere close. For .Net and Java code, Ryzen is the CPU to get!

Next Page > AMD Ryzen 7 2700X + Ryzen 5 2600 Memory Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 Memory Performance

by SiSoftware

Core Topology & Testing

Cores on Ryzen are grouped in blocks (CCX or compute units) each with its own 8MB L3 cache – but connected via a 256-bit bus running at memory controller clock. This is better than older designs like Intel Core 2 Quad or Pentium D which were effectively 2 CPU dies on the same socket – but not as good as a unified design where all cores are part of the same unit.

Running algorithms that require data to be shared between threads – e.g. producer/consumer – scheduling those threads on the same CCX would ensure lower latencies and higher bandwidth which we will test with presently.

We have thus modified Sandra’s ‘CPU Multi-Core Efficiency Benchmark‘ to report the latencies of each producer/consumer unit combination (e.g. same core, same CCX, different CCX) as well as providing different matching algorithms when selecting the producer/consumer units: best match (lowest latency), worst match (highest latency) thus allowing us to test inter-CCX bandwidth also. We hope users and reviewers alike will find the new features useful!

Native Performance

We are testing native arithmetic, SIMD and cryptography performance using the highest performing instruction sets (AVX2, AVX, etc.). Ryzen supports all modern instruction sets including AVX2, FMA3 and even more.

Results Interpretation: Higher rate values (GOPS, MB/s, etc.) mean better performance. Lower latencies (ns, ms, etc.) mean better performance.

Environment: Windows 10 x64, latest AMD and Intel drivers. 2MB “large pages” were enabled and in use. Turbo / Boost was enabled on all configurations.

Total Inter-Core Bandwidth – Best : Ryzen2 manages 15% higher bandwidth between its cores, slightly better than just 11% clock increase – signalling some improvements under the hood.

Total Inter-Core Bandwidth – Worst : In worst-case pairs on Ryzen must go across CCXes – and with this link running at the same clock (1200 MHz) on Ryzen2 we can only manage a 2% increase in bandwidth. This is why faster memory is needed.

Inter-Unit Latency – Same Core : Within the same core (sharing L1D/L2), Ryzen2 manages a 13% reduction in latency, again better than just clock speed increase.

Inter-Unit Latency – Same Compute Unit : Within the same compute unit (sharing L3), the latency decreased by 7% on Ryzen2 thus L3 seems to have improved also.

Inter-Unit Latency – Different Compute Unit : Going inter-CCX we still see a 6% reduction in latency on Ryzen2 – with the CCX link at the same speed – a welcome surprise.

The multiple CCX design still presents some challenges to programmers requiring threads to be carefully scheduled – but we see a decent 6-7% reduction in L3/CCX latencies on Ryzen2 even when running at the same clock as Ryzen1.

Aggregated L1D Bandwidth : Right off we see a 18% bandwidth increase – almost 2x higher (than the 11% clock increase) – thus some improvements have been made to the cache system. It allows Ryzen2 to finally beat the i7 with its wide L1 data paths (512-bit) though with twice as many (8 vs 4).

Aggregated L2 Bandwidth : We see a huge 32% increase in L2 cache bandwidth – almost 3x clock increase (the 11%) suggesting the L2 caches have been improved also. Ryzen2 has thus 2x the L2 bandwidth of i7 though with 2x more caches (8 vs 4).

Aggregated L3 Bandwidth : The bandwidth of the L3 caches has also increased by 19% (2x clock increase) though we see the 6-core 2600 doing better (398 vs 339) likely due to less threads competing for the same L3 caches. Ryzen2 L3 caches are not just 2x bigger than Intel but also 2x more bandwidth.

Aggregated Memory : With the same memory clock, Ryzen2 does still manage a small 2% improvement – signalling memory controller improvements. We also see Ryzen’s memory controller at 2400 having better bandwidth than Intel at 2533MHz.

We see big improvements on Ryzen2 for all caches L1D/L2/L3 of 20-30% – more than just raw clock increase (11%) – so AMD has indeed made improvements – which to be fair needed to be done. The memory controller is also a bit more efficient (2%) though it can run at higher clocks – hopefully fast DDR4 memory will become more affordable.

Data In-Page Random Latency : In-page latency has decreased by a noticeable 6% on Ryzen2 – we see 5 clocks reduction for L2 and 4 for L3 a welcome improvement. But still a way to go to catch Intel which has 1/3x (three times less) latency.

Data Full Random Latency : Out-of-page latencies have also been reduced by 8% on Ryzen2 (same memory) and we see the same 5 and 4 clock reduction for L2 and L3 (on both 2700X and 2600 thus no fluke). Again these are welcome but still have a way to go to catch Intel.

Data Sequential Latency : Ryzen’s prefetchers are working well with sequential access pattern latency and we see a 8% latency drop for Ryzen2.

Ryzen1’s issue was high memory latencies (in-page/full random) and Ryzen2 has reduced them all by 6-8%. While it is a good improvement, they are still pretty high compared to Intel’s thus more work needs to be done here.

Code In-Page Random Latency : Code latencies were not a problem on Ryzen1 but we still see a welcome reduction of 9% on Ryzen2.

Code Full Random Latency : Out-of-page latency also sees a 9% decrease on Ryzen2 but somewhat surprisingly a 1-2 clock increase.

Code Sequential Latency : Ryzen’s prefetchers are working well with sequential access pattern latency and we see a 8% reduction on Ryzen2.

While code access latencies were not a problem on Ryzen1 and they also see a 8% improvement on Ryzen2 which is welcome.

Memory Update Transactional : Ryzen2 is 10% faster than Ryzen1 but naturally without HLE support it cannot match the i7. But with Intel disabling HLE on all but top-end CPUs AMD does not have much to worry.

Memory Update Record Only : With only record updates we still see an 11% increase.

Ryzen2 brings nice updates – good bandwidth increases to all caches L1D/L2/L3 and also well-needed latency reduction for data (and code) accesses. Yes, there is still work to be done to bring the latencies down further – but it may be just enough to beat Intel to 2nd place for a good while.

At the high-end, ThreadRipper will likely benefit most as it’s going against many-core SKL-X AVX512-enabled competitor and we cannot wait to test those.

 

Final Thoughts & Conclusion On The Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600

[adrotate group=”2″]

As with original Ryzen, the cache and memory system performance is not the clean-sweep we’ve seen in CPU testing – but Ryzen2 does bring welcome improvements in bandwidth and latency – which hopefully will further improve with firmware/BIOS updates.

With the potential to use faster DDR4 memory – Ryzen2 can do far better than in this test (e.g. with 3200MHz memory). Unfortunately at this time DDR4 – especially high-end fast versions – memory is hideously expensive which is a bit of a problem. You are better off using less but fast memory with Ryzen designs.

Ryzen2 is a great update that will not disappoint upgraders and is likely to increase AMD’s market share. AMD is here to stay!

 

Suggested Reading

Go Back To > First PageReviews | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Quad-Core Processor Review

The AMD Ryzen 7 may have upended the CPU industry and wowed the socks of reviewers and fans alike, but not everyone can afford them. Not everyone needs eight processor cores either. Ordinary users and gamers only need quad-core processors, after all. That’s where the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X processor comes in.

The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) is a quad-core processor that supports up to four simultaneous threads, and boasts a 2 MB L2 cache as well as an 8 MB L3 cache. Priced at just US$ 129, it also comes with a bundled AMD cooler. Let’s take a closer look at Ryzen 3 1300X processor and check out how well it performs!

Updated @ 2017-10-09 : Replaced all of the original charts with newer, better charts. Added a video on the Ryzen 3 1300X running CINEBENCH. Numerous other small updates.

Originally posted @ 2017-08-07

 

Introducing The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

The AMD Ryzen 3 family has some common features – 4 processor cores, a 2 MB L2 cache and a large 8 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) is the top-of-the-line model, with a base clock of 3.5 GHz, a boost clock of 3.7 GHz and an XFR clock of 3.9 GHz. Here is a comparison of the first two Ryzen 3 processors to hit the market :

SpecificationsAMD Ryzen 3 1300XAMD Ryzen 3 1200
TDP65 W65 W
SocketAM4AM4
Process Technology14 nm FinFET14 nm FinFET
Processor Cores44
Number of Simultaneous Threads44
L2 Cache Size2 MB2 MB
L3 Cache Size8 MB8 MB
Base Clock Speed3.5 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost Clock Speed3.7 GHz3.4 GHz
XFR Speed3.9 GHz3.45 GHz
Bundled CPU CoolerAMD Wraith StealthAMD Wraith Stealth
Launch Price (2017-07-27)US$ 129US$ 109

The AMD Ryzen 3 processors lack SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading) capability, which allows each core to handle two simultaneous threads, as if they are two virtual processor cores. It is only available in the higher-end Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 processors.

 

Unboxing The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) processor comes bundled with a low-profile AMD Wraith Stealth cooler, which adds to its value proposition. Let’s unbox it!

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

A Closer Look At The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

Let’s take a closer look at the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) processor, which looks exactly the same as the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) processor. It uses the same 1331-pin AM4 socket as its more powerful brothers. In fact, processors from all three Ryzen families can be used interchangeably on any AM4 motherboard.

 

Benchmarking The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

In this article, we will take a look at the work and gaming performance of the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X processor. We will it to the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check), the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check), and the Intel Core i7-6700K processor. Here is a table comparing their key specifications.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-6700K AMD Ryzen 5 1500X AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
Cores / Threads 8 / 16 4 / 8 4 / 8 4 / 4
Base Clock 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 3.5 GHz 3.5 GHz
Boost Clock 4.0 GHz 4.2 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.7 GHz
L2 Cache 4 MB 1 MB 2 MB 2 MB
L3 Cache 16 MB 8 MB 16 MB 8 MB
Memory Speed DDR4-2666 DDR4-2133 DDR4-2666 DDR4-2666
Current Price US$ 499 US$ 298 US$ 189 US$ 129

Here are the specifications of the testbeds we used :

Intel Testbed AMD Testbed
Processors Intel Core i7-6700K
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme4 GIGABYTE AORUS GA-AX370 Gaming-5
ASRock AB350 Gaming K4
Memory Speed Corsair Vengeance LPX
DDR4-2666 (4 GB x 2)
Corsair Vengeance LPX
DDR4-2666 (4 GB x 2)
Graphics Card AMD Radeon RX 480 AMD Radeon RX 480
Storage Western Digital Black² Western Digital Black²
Operating System Microsoft Windows 10 (64-bit) Microsoft Windows 10 (64-bit)

Now, we would be the first to admit that this is a completely unfair comparison, but let’s see how this “underdog” performs against such a formidable field!

Next Page > 3D Rendering, Video Transcoding & Photoshop Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

3D Rendering Speed – CINEBENCH R15

CINEBENCH R15 is a real-world 3D rendering benchmark based on the MAXON Cinema 4D animation software. This is a great way to accurately determine the actual performance of a processor in 3D content creation.

CINEBENCH R15 Single Core

This Single Core test is not reflective of real world performance, but it is useful to find out the performance of the individual core.

The Single Core test shows that the individual processor core of the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) is about 13.4% slower than the processor core of the Core i7-6700K. Of course, the Core i7-6700K has a 5% higher boost clock speed. If we adjust the results to account for that, the Intel Skylake core is about 10% faster than the AMD Ryzen core, clock for clock.

After correcting for the lower clock speed of the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) and Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check), we can determine that the smaller L3 cache size of the Ryzen 3 1300 reduced the core performance by 4%.

CINEBENCH R15 Multi Core

This shows the real-world 3D rendering performance of four processors. Even though the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) appears to be slower than the Intel Core i7-6700K, it is actually equivalent in performance at the same clock speed.

Even though they both have the same clock speeds, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) is 31% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X, because it has half the L3 cache and does not support SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading).

CINEBENCH R15 MP Ratio

The analysis of the Multi-Processing Ratio is useful in checking the efficiency of the SMT implementation. The MP Ratio is independent of the processor’s clock speed.

As we pointed out in the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) review, AMD’s SMT implementation is 5.8% more efficient than Intel Skylake’s Hyper-Threading in CINEBENCH.

Due to its lack of SMT capability, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) was 28% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check).

 

Video Transcoding Speed – HandBrake

HandBrake is a free, open-source video transcoding utility. Video transcoding basically converts a video file from one resolution / format to another. As you can imagine, it’s very compute-intensive. In our test, we converted a 4K video of 1.3 GB in size into a 1080p video (HQ1080p30).

The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) transcoded the 1.3 GB video in just over 11 minutes2.5X slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check). That’s surprisingly good performance, considering it has half the cores and caches and does not support SMT. In fact, the Ryzen 3 1300X was just 21% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check).

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

Radial Blur Speed – Photoshop CC 14

The radial blur filter adds the perception of motion to a picture. This is a compute-intensive operation that benefits from multiple processing cores. This radial blur test was performed on a single 13.5 megapixel photo, with a filesize of 4,910,867 bytes.

The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) applied the radial blur filter in 17.5 seconds – just under 3 seconds slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check). In other words, its lack of SMT support and smaller L3 cache size only sapped its performance by 18%.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : 3DMark & Ashes of the Singularity

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

3DMark – Time Spy (DirectX 12)

In the Time Spy DirectX 12 benchmark, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) was 18% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) in the CPU test. However, that only translates into a small 3.4% drop in overall gaming performance.

 

Ashes of the Singularity (1080p)

In the RTS game, Ashes of the Singularity, we can see that the frame rates were significantly impacted by CPU performance. The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) delivered 14.7% lower frame rates than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) at the common gaming resolution of 1920 x 1080.

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

Ashes of the Singularity (4K)

When we bumped up the resolution to 4K, the performance difference was greatly reduced. The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) was now just 1.3% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check), 2% slower than the Core i7-6700K, and 2.2% slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check).

Next Page > Gaming Performance : Warhammer & The Witcher 3

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Total War: Warhammer (1080p)

When we tested Warhammer at 1080p, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) delivered 9% lower frame rates than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check), 11% lower than the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check), and 15.7% lower than the Intel Core i7-6700K.

 

Total War: Warhammer (4K)

But when we increased the resolution to 4K, all four processors delivered practically the same average frame rates. Naturally, at this high resolution, the graphics card was the most important factor in delivering high frame rates.

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

The Witcher 3 : Wild Hunt (1080p)

At 1080p, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) was about 1.3% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check), 3.7% slower than the Intel Core i7-6700K, and 4.4% slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check).

 

The Witcher 3 : Wild Hunt (4K)

When we bumped up the resolution to 4K though, all four processors were virtually equivalent in performance. That’s not to say that they are equally fast, just that the graphics card mattered far, far more at such a high resolution.

Next Page > Our Verdict & Award, Where To Buy, Reading Suggestions

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Our Verdict & Award

The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) is not the most powerful desktop CPU in the market. That honour goes to the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (Lowest Price)… at least until the AMD Ryzen Threadripper hits the market!

Unlike its higher-performance Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 brethren, the Ryzen 3 1300X only has four physical cores and half the cache and no SMT support. Even so, it delivered astonishingly good performance – it was just 31% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X in 3D rendering and 21% slower in video transcoding. Even in the Photoshop radial blur test, it was just 18% slower.

Based on its performance in work applications alone, it offers roughly a 12% better price-performance ratio than the Ryzen 5 1500X, which itself offers incredible value for money. But what about games, you say?

Depending on the game, the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) delivered between 1.3% and 14.7% lower average frame rates than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check).

Increasing the resolution to 4K may wipe out the difference, but that’s because the games were now GPU-limited on the AMD Radeon RX 480 we used.

If you are using a suitably-powerful graphics card like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, you should see similar drops in frame rates. Obviously, if you intend to game at 4K, you will need a suitably fast processor like the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) to complement such a fast graphics card.

[adrotate group=”2″]

Here is our takeaway from the gaming test results…

If you want to maximise the gaming performance of the Radeon RX 480 / Radeon RX 580-class graphics card, you should pair it with a faster processor like the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X.

If you don’t mind a small 8% (average) drop in gaming frame rates, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) offers unbeatable value – 35% better price-performance ratio than the Ryzen 5 1500X!

If that’s not enough value for your money, AMD even bundles the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) with a low-profile AMD Wraith Stealth CPU cooler!

Because it offers such great value for money, we think the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) deserves nothing less than our Editor’s Choice Award! Congratulations, AMD!

 

Where To Buy

Here are direct links to the AMD Ryzen CPU and bundles on sale on Amazon :

 

[adrotate group=”2″]

Reading Suggestions

Don’t forget to also read our other AMD Ryzen-related articles :

Go Back To > First Page | Reviews | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X Quad-Core Processor Review

The AMD Ryzen is, no doubt, the most anticipated CPU to be introduced in 2017. It is the processor that AMD fans have always wanted, but AMD did not quite deliver… until now. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X literally blew away the competition, with its 8 cores, large 16 MB cache and highly competitive price.

Even so, not everyone can afford it. That’s where the AMD Ryzen 5 family comes in. It offers a more affordable selection of AMD Ryzen processors with 4 to 6 cores. In this review, we will take an in-depth look at the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X – their top-of-the-line quad-core processor, and show you why we awarded it our Editor’s Choice Award!

 

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

The AMD Ryzen 5 family is divided into two main lines – the lower-end quad-core processors and the higher-end hexa-core processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) is the top-of-the-line quad-core Ryzen 5 model. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a 3.5 GHz base clock and a 3.7 GHz boost clock.

How does it compare against the other Ryzen 5 processors? Find out in this specification comparison of the current AMD Ryzen 5 processors.

SpecificationsAMD Ryzen 5 1600XAMD Ryzen 5 1600AMD Ryzen 5 1500XAMD Ryzen 5 1400
TDP95 W65 W65 W65 W
SocketAM4AM4AM4AM4
Process Technology14 nm FinFET14 nm FinFET14 nm FinFET14 nm FinFET
Processor Cores6644
Number of Simultaneous Threads121288
L2 Cache Size3 MB3 MB2 MB2 MB
L3 Cache Size16 MB16 MB16 MB8 MB
Base Clock Speed3.6 GHz3.2 GHz3.5 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost Clock Speed4.0 GHz3.6 GHz3.7 GHz3.4 GHz
Bundled CPU CoolerNoneAMD Wraith SpireAMD Wraith SpireAMD Wraith Stealth
Launch Price (2017-03-02)US$ 249US$ 219US$ 189US$ 169
[adrotate group=”1″]

 

Unboxing The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) comes with a bundled CPU cooler – the AMD Wraith Spire. Hence it comes in a much larger box. Let’s take a look inside!

 

A Closer Look At The Ryzen 5 1500X & Wraith Spire Cooler

Let’s take a closer look at the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) CPU and the bundled Wraith Spire cooler.

Next Page > Benchmarking The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X & 3D Rendering Speed

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Benchmarking The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

In this review, we will take a look at the work and gaming performance of the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X processor. We will compare it to the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check), the Intel Core i7-6700K, and the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) processors. Here is a table comparing their key specifications.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-6700K AMD Ryzen 5 1500X AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
Cores / Threads 8 / 16 4 / 8 4 / 8 4 / 4
Base Clock 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 3.5 GHz 3.5 GHz
Boost Clock 4.0 GHz 4.2 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.7 GHz
L2 Cache 4 MB 1 MB 2 MB 2 MB
L3 Cache 16 MB 8 MB 16 MB 8 MB
Memory Speed DDR4-2666 DDR4-2133 DDR4-2666 DDR4-2666
Current Price US$ 499 US$ 298 US$ 189 US$ 129

On paper, the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) is a quad-core processor that handles up to 8 simultaneous threads like the Intel Core i7-6700K. The Ryzen 5 1500X has a 12% lower clock speed, but boasts L2 and L3 caches that are twice as large. Let’s see how it performs in real life!

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

3D Rendering Speed – CINEBENCH R15

CINEBENCH R15 is a real-world 3D rendering benchmark based on the MAXON Cinema 4D animation software. This is a great way to accurately determine the actual performance of a processor in 3D content creation.

CINEBENCH R15 Single Core

This Single Core test is not reflective of real world performance, but it is useful to find out the performance of the individual core.

The Single Core test shows that the individual processor core of the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) is about 6.2% slower than that of the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check), and 18.8% slower than the Core i7-6700K.

The Intel Core i7-6700K has a 14% higher clock speed than the Ryzen 5 1500X. If we adjust the results to account for that, the Intel Skylake core is about 8% faster than the AMD Ryzen core, clock for clock.

Since both the Ryzen 5 1500X and Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) have the same clock speeds, we can determine that the Ryzen 5 1500X’s larger L3 cache size improved its core performance by 4%.

CINEBENCH R15 Multi Core

This shows the real-world 3D rendering performance of the four processors. Even though the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) appears to be 12% slower than the Intel Core i7-6700K, it is actually equal in performance at the same clock speed.

Even though they both have the same clock speeds, the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) is 31% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check), because it has half the L3 cache and does not support SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading).

CINEBENCH R15 MP Ratio

The analysis of the Multi-Processing Ratio is useful in checking the efficiency of the SMT implementation. The MP Ratio is independent of the processor’s clock speed.

After adjusting for their clock speed difference, we calculated that the SMT implementation in the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) was 7% more efficient than Hyper-Threading in the Intel Core i7-6700K.

Next Page > The Video Transcoding & Photoshop Radial Blur Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Video Transcoding Speed – HandBrake

HandBrake is a free, open-source video transcoding utility. Video transcoding basically converts a video file from one resolution / format to another. As you can imagine, it’s very compute-intensive. In our test, we converted a 4K video of 1.3 GB in size into a 1080p video (HQ1080p30).

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) transcoded the 1.3 GB video in under 8 minutes and 48 seconds – just 14.7% slower than the Intel Core i7-6700K. After adjusting for the difference in clock speed, the Core i7-6700K is just 3% faster than Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check), clock for clock.

The Ryzen 5 1500X was 26.4% faster at transcoding the video than the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check). Since they have the same clock speeds, that performance advantage is entirely due to its ability to process twice as many threads simultaneously – SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading).

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

Radial Blur Speed – Photoshop CC 14

The radial blur filter adds the perception of motion to a picture. This is a compute-intensive operation that benefits from multiple processing cores. This radial blur test was performed on a single 13.5 megapixel photo, with a filesize of 4,910,867 bytes.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) applied the radial blur filter in 14.7 seconds – just 2 seconds slower than the Intel Core i7-6700K. On a clock-for-clock basis, the Core i7-6700K is 2.4% faster than the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check).

The Ryzen 5 1500X was 21.6% faster at performing radial blur than the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check). Since they have the same clock speeds, that performance advantage is entirely due to its ability to process twice as many threads simultaneously – SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading).

Next Page > The 3DMark & Ashes of the Singularity Performance Results

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

3DMark – Time Spy (DirectX 12)

In the Time Spy DirectX 12 benchmark, the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) was 22% slower than the Intel Core i7-6700K in the CPU test. That’s 7.5% slower on a clock-to-clock basis, and only translates into a small 2.4% drop in overall gaming performance.

 

Ashes of the Singularity (1080p)

In the RTS game, Ashes of the Singularity, the single core CPU performance has a significant effect on the actual frame rate.

At the resolution of 1920 x 1080, the Intel Core i7-6700K delivered 4.5% and 17% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) and Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) respectively.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X was 17% faster than the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check). As they both have the same clock speeds, the performance difference was due to the Ryzen 5’s SMT capability and larger L3 cache.

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

Ashes of the Singularity (4K)

When we bumped up the resolution to 4K, the performance difference was greatly reduced. The Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check), Core i7-6700K and Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) were essentially equal in performance. Even the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check) was now just 2% slower than the other 3 processors.

Next Page > The Warhammer & Witcher 3 Performance Results

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Total War: Warhammer (1080p)

Like Ashes of the Singularity, the single core performance appeared to be crucial in Total War: Warhammer.

When we tested Warhammer at 1080p, the Intel Core i7-6700K delivered an average frame rate that was 6% and 8% faster than the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) and Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) respectively.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) was 10% faster than the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check). As they both have the same clock speeds, the performance difference was due to the Ryzen 5’s SMT capability and larger L3 cache.

 

Total War: Warhammer (4K)

But when we increased the resolution to 4K, all four processors delivered practically the same average frame rates. Naturally, at this high resolution, the graphics card was the most important factor in delivering high frame rates.

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (1080p)

The CPU performance has a smaller effect with FPS games like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. On the other hand, it appears support multi-core processors. Hence, the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) came out on top, albeit by a very small margin over the Intel Core i7-6700K.

The average frame rate of the Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) was 3% and 2.4% lower than the Ryzen 7 1800X and Core i7-6700K respectively, and just 1.3% higher than the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check).

 

The Witcher 3 : Wild Hunt (4K)

When we bumped up the resolution to 4K though, all four processors were virtually equivalent in performance. That’s not to say that they are equally fast, just that the graphics card mattered far, far more at such a high resolution.

Next Page > Our Verdict & Award, Where To Buy, Reading Suggestions

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Our Verdict & Award

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) is not the most powerful desktop CPU in the market. That honour goes to the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check)… unless you include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper HEDT processor! But it is an amazing processor.

Like the Ryzen 3 1300X (Price Check), it has four physical cores, a large 2 MB L2 cache, and clock speeds of 3.5 GHz to 3.7 GHz. However, its support for SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading) allows you to handle twice as many threads, and it has twice as much L3 cache – a whopping 8 MB!

All that allowed the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) to come close (~14%) to the performance of the Intel Core i7-6700K. In fact, on a clock-to-clock basis, they’re basically equal in performance! In other words, if you overclock the Ryzen 5 1500X to 4.0 GHz (base clock), it performs like the Core i7-6700K.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X performs like the Intel Core i7-6700K on a clock-to-clock basis

Now, its big brother, the Ryzen 7 1800X (Price Check) is king when it comes to video transcoding and 3D rendering. However, if you are only interested in gaming performance, the Ryzen 5 1500X is a much better choice. It performs almost as well in games, but is much, much cheaper!

In RTS games, the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X is just 2-10% slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X at 1080p.

In FPS games, the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X is just 2-3% slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X at 1080p.

Increasing the resolution to 4K totally wipe out the difference, but that’s because the games were GPU-limited on the AMD Radeon RX 480 we used. If you are using a suitably-powerful graphics card like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, you should see similar minor drops in frame rates.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X‘s gaming performance makes it great value for money. Let’s not forget – AMD bundles it with a Wraith Spire cooler! That’s why the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (Price Check) deserves nothing less than our Editor’s Choice Award! Congratulations, AMD!

 

Where To Buy

Here are direct links to the AMD Ryzen CPU and bundles on sale on Amazon :

 

Reading Suggestions

Don’t forget to also read our other AMD Ryzen-related articles :

[adrotate group=”2″]

Go Back To > First Page | Reviews | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Octa-Core Processor Review

The AMD Ryzen 7 is, no doubt, the most anticipated processor to be introduced in 2017. This is the 8-core processor that AMD fans always wanted, but AMD did not quite deliver… until now. That changes with the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor.

Based on current benchmarks, the AMD Ryzen 7 processors give even the latest 7th Generation Intel Core i7 processors a run for their money. And with AMD pricing them so competitively, they will make you wonder – why opt for a quad-core processor when you can have an 8-core processor?

 

Introducing The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

The AMD Ryzen 7 family has some common features – 8 cores that can handle 16 threads simultaneously, a 4 MB L2 cache and a large 16 MB L3 cache. The 1800X is the top-of-the-line model, with a base clock speed of 3.6 GHz, with a boost clock of 4.0 GHz. Here is a specification comparison of the three AMD Ryzen 7 processors :

SpecificationsAMD Ryzen 7 1800XAMD Ryzen 7 1700XAMD Ryzen 7 1700
TDP95 W95 W65 W
SocketAM4AM4AM4
Process Technology14 nm FinFET14 nm FinFET14 nm FinFET
Processor Cores888
Number of Simultaneous Threads161616
L2 Cache Size4 MB4 MB4 MB
L3 Cache Size16 MB16 MB16 MB
Base Clock Speed3.6 GHz3.4 GHz3.0 GHz
Boost Clock Speed4.0 GHz3.8 GHz3.7 GHz
Bundled CPU CoolerNoneNoneAMD Wraith Spire
Launch Price (2017-03-02)US$ 499US$ 399US$ 349

The AMD Ryzen 7 processors do not just boast 8 cores, they are also the first AMD processors to support SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading). SMT allows each core to handle two simultaneous threads, as if they are two virtual processor cores.

 

Unboxing The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor does not come with a bundled CPU cooler, so you will need a Ryzen 7-compatible cooler. It comes in a rather large but light cardboard box. Let’s unbox it!

 

A Closer Look At The Ryzen 7 1800X

Let’s take a closer look at the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor. After all, AMD took the effort to laser-etch the RYZEN logo into the heatspreader! 😀

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

Benchmarking The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

In this article, we will take a look at the work and gaming performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor. We will compare the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X to the Intel Core i7-6700K processor. Here is a table comparing their key specifications.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Intel Core i7-6700K Difference
Cores / Threads 8 / 16 4 / 8 + 100%
Base Clock 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz – 10%
Boost Clock 4.0 GHz 4.2 GHz – 4.8%
L2 Cache 4 MB 1 MB + 300%
L3 Cache 16 MB 8 MB + 100%
Memory Speed DDR4-2666 DDR4-2133 + 25%
Current Price US$ 499 US$ 298 + 67%

Now, we will be the first to admit that this is a rather “unfair” comparison because the Core i7-6700K is a quad-core processor that costs only as much as the Ryzen 7 1700. However, this is the fastest Intel processor we have on hand, so let’s just roll with it, and see what we find…

Next Page > 3D Rendering, Video Transcoding & Radial Blur Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

3D Rendering Speed – CINEBENCH R15

CINEBENCH R15 is a real-world 3D rendering benchmark based on the MAXON Cinema 4D animation software. This is a great way to accurately determine the actual performance of a processor in 3D content creation.

CINEBENCH R15 Single Core

This Single Core test is not reflective of real world performance, but it is useful to find out the performance of the individual core.

The Single Core test shows that the individual processor core of the Ryzen 7 1800X is about 13.4% slower than the processor core of the Core i7-6700K. Of course, the Core i7-6700K has a 5% higher boost clock speed. If we adjust the results to account for that, the Intel Skylake core is about 10% faster than the AMD Ryzen core, clock for clock.

CINEBENCH R15 Multi Core

This shows the real-world performance of both processors. Having twice the number of cores allowed the Ryzen 7 1800X to beat the Core i7-6700K by 81%. Adjusting for the average 7.5% difference in base and boost clock speeds, the Ryzen 7 1800X would deliver 94% better performance than the Core i7-6700K at the same clock speeds.

CINEBENCH R15 MP Ratio

The analysis of the Multi-Processing Ratio is useful in checking the efficiency of the SMT implementation. The MP Ratio is independent of the processor’s clock speed.

The multi-threading capability of the Intel Core i7-6700K delivered a 22% boost to its Multi-Core processing speed. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, on the other hand, recorded a 27.4% boost to its Multi-Core processing speed. This means the AMD Ryzen’s SMT implementation is 5.8% more efficient than the Intel Skylake’s Hyper-Threading.

 

Video Transcoding Speed – HandBrake

HandBrake is a free, open-source video transcoding utility. Video transcoding basically converts a video file from one resolution / format to another. As you can imagine, it’s very compute-intensive. In our test, we converted a 4K video of 1.3 GB in size into a 1080p video (HQ1080p30).

The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X transcoded the video in less than 4.5 minutes, while the Intel Core i7-6700K took just under 7.5 minutes. This makes the Ryzen 7 1800X 68% faster than the Core i7-6700K.

If we adjust for the average 7.5% difference in base and boost clock speeds, the Ryzen 7 1800X would deliver 81% better performance than the Core i7-6700K at the same clock speeds.

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

Radial Blur Speed – Photoshop CC 14

The radial blur filter adds the perception of motion to a picture. This is a compute-intensive operation that benefits from multiple processing cores. This radial blur test was performed on a single 13.5 megapixel photo, with a filesize of 4,910,867 bytes.

The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X applied the radial blur filter in just 7.3 seconds, while the Intel Core i7-6700K took 12.6 seconds. This makes the Ryzen 7 1800X 73% faster than the Core i7-6700K.

If we adjust for the average 7.5% difference in base and boost clock speeds, the Ryzen 7 1800X would deliver 85.5% better performance than the Core i7-6700K at the same clock speeds.

Next Page > Gaming Performance – 3DMark & Ashes of the Singularity

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

3DMark – Time Spy (DirectX 12)

In the Time Spy DirectX 12 benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1800X was 60% faster than the Core i7-6700K in the CPU test. Obviously, not all of its 8 cores were being used.

But when it came to the two graphics tests, all that extra boost in CPU performance only gave it a small 0.6% to 1.25% boost in frame rates. The overall DirectX 12 performance improved by 5.7%.

 

3DMark – Fire Strike (1080p)

We ran the Fire Strike benchmark in the 1080p resolution, because this is the most common resolution gamers use today. The CPU is used exclusively to process Physics, and the Ryzen 7 1800X was 48% faster than the Core i7-6700K.

Surprisingly, the Graphics Score was 1.5% lower with the Ryzen 7 1800X, than it was for the Core i7-6700K. The Overall Score though was 3% better with the Ryzen 7 1800X.

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

Ashes of the Singularity (1080p)

In the RTS game, Ashes of the Singularity, we can see that the frame rates were consistently lower with the Ryzen 7 1800X, albeit only by by 2-7% (4% on average).

 

Ashes of the Singularity (4K)

When we bumped up the resolution to 4K, the results were flipped. The Ryzen 7 1800X was slightly faster in the Normal and Medium batches. Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X was identical in performance to the Intel Core i7-6700K.

Next Page > Gaming Performance – Total War: Warhammer & The Witcher 3

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Total War: Warhammer (1080p)

When we tested Warhammer at 1080p, it ran about 5% slower with the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X.

 

Total War: Warhammer (4K)

But when we increased the resolution to 4K, the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X was identical in performance to the Intel Core i7-6700K.

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

The Witcher 3 : Wild Hunt (1080p)

At 1080p, The Witcher 3 was about 1.5% slower with the Ryzen 7 1800X on average.

 

The Witcher 3 : Wild Hunt (4K)

When we bumped up the resolution to 4K though, the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X was identical in performance to the Intel Core i7-6700K.

Next Page > Our Verdict & Award, Where To Buy, Other AMD Ryzen Articles

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

Our Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is definitely a far more powerful processor than the Intel Core i7-6700K. It has twice as many cores, and far more memory bandwidth. It was fantastic in 3D rendering and video transcoding, delivering 70-85% better performance. Sadly, most games are unable to make use of all those cores.

Games that run in the lower, mainstream resolution of 1920 x 1080 will be slightly slower with the Ryzen 7 1800X. It’s not much slower though – just 5% on average.

But that performance deficit is completely erased at the higher resolution of 3840 x 2160. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is virtually identical in performance to the Intel Core i7-6700K.

Obviously, at the 4K resolution, the graphics card is far, far more important than the CPU. But as the Warhammer and The Witcher 3 results show, the Ryzen 7 1800X actually helped to push up the minimum frame rate.

If you are going to buy the Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming, you are not going to worry about the small 5% deficit in 1080p frame rates, because you will most likely be playing in 1440p or 2160p resolutions.

[adrotate banner=”4″]

What is our takeaway from the test results? Simple.

In games : The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is more or less equivalent to the Intel Core i7-6700K in performance.

In work applications : The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is about 75% faster than the Intel Core i7-6700K.

If you plan on building a gaming machine, you might want to go for the cheaper Ryzen 7 1700 CPU (US$ 329 with a Wraith Spire LED cooler), or the Core i7-6700K.

But if you are building a workstation for 3D rendering or video transcoding, you can’t do wrong with the Ryzen 7 1800X. Especially if you want the best computing performance for under US$ 500. For that reason, we think the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X deserves no less than our Reviewer’s Choice Award! Congratulations, AMD!

 

Where To Buy

Here are direct links to the AMD Ryzen CPU and bundles on sale on Amazon :

 

Other AMD Ryzen Articles

Don’t forget to also read our other AMD Ryzen-related articles :

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!