1800x not worth the money... You sure?

MrMonolitas

Hello, so i been seeing this tendency for a while, people saying that 1800x is not worth getting it and you should go for 1700 or 1700x instead.
I fail to understand why. And here is my logic.
With 1800x you get 3.6ghz stock speed and with one core Boost to 4ghz + XFR to 4.1ghz under right circumstances. Which is great! Half of the games, especially mmo's use one core, and it will let you use cpu to the fullest. With 1700 you get 3ghz and up to 3.7ghz. Also 1700x you get 3.4ghz to 3.8ghz boost. These two lower R7 cpu offer you a decent clock speeds, but in a long run you will want to Over Clock them to get over bottle neck or to make it run better in certain programs or games. With 1800x you are safer for longer time, which means that you dont neglect boost and XFR features by over clocking. Also later CPU is better handling clock speeds, since it is tested to get those boosts and XFR to 4.1~ghz, so you basically gamble less on silicon lottery.  If it couldn't handle those clock speeds, it would be called 1700 or 1700x. 

In my conclusion Ryzen 1800x you are getting better quality chip, which you wont need to OC for some time, i really fail to see the reason for overclocking that cpu at all. By fiddling with clock speed you are just cutting down life time of your cpu and removing features of it too. I guess it all depends on what your goal is. You are benchmark freak, or you want to keep your hardware working for a longer time.

If you think i am wrong, please share your thoughts with me.

Quizzical

If you're willing to overclock, you can get a cheaper CPU and make up a lot of that clock speed difference, though I'd expect the 1800X to still tend to clock higher even if you overclock all of them, as AMD is binning out the best high-clock-speed dies for the 1800X and the Threadripper 1950X.  (EPYC gets the best high energy efficiency at more modest clock speed dies.)  But it's reasonable to want not to overclock.

It's really a question of how much money you have, how much you value reliability, and how much time you're willing to spend fiddling with an overclock.  The 1800X makes a lot more sense for someone who makes $300k per year and doesn't want to fight with his computer than it does for someone trying to fit a strict $1000 budget for the entire computer.

MrMonolitas

But by overcloking it means you will kill your cpu earlier. Looking in a long run, are you really saving ? I bet i can last longer with 1800x at stock speeds than any 1700 oced

RPGMASTERGAMER

AMD are good only in cold winter for heat your house... go intel seriously....

they are year in front for everything.... unless you are in a big low budget it rarely worth it.

MrMonolitas

Are you living in the same world i am? 

Gdemami

Those few MHz do not make a justifiable price difference, it is just very expensive band-aid for poor IPC.

Vrika

At the moment Ryzen 1800X is costs $90 more than Ryzen 1700x at Newegg. With $90 you're getting only about 5% higher turbo clock speed.

Even if you never overclock, in the long run you'll save a lot of money by purchasing 1700x now and then upgrading your computer a bit sooner. 5% speed CPU speed difference won't matter much, whereas $90 is a lot of money.


Not to mention if you want to buy gaming machine at those prices, then I7 7700K is a lot better alternative. Cheaper Ryzens offer some competition to I5 processors, but in top-end gaming machines I7 7700K offers better performance than anything AMD has available.

Ridelynn

The reasoning behind the 1700 being a better buy than the 1800X is strictly on overclocking.

They are the same chip - from the same process, the same fab, the same everything. AMD just bins them according to (some metric).

So would overclocking "kill" your chip? Well, overvolting will definitely have some impact on life. Higher temperatures will have some impact. If your CPU would normally last 50 years, and instead because of overclocking it only lasts 20, but you replace it in 5 because something better has come around - then does it really matter?

Asm0deus

albers said:

But by overcloking it means you will kill your cpu earlier. Looking in a long run, are you really saving ? I bet i can last longer with 1800x at stock speeds than any 1700 oced

Ocing doesn't kill the life of the CPU as much as people think, for example I am still using a i5-750 2.6ghz that has been OCed to 4ghz for the last 6 or 7 years and runs pretty much 24/7 and it's still working fine.

Ridelynn said:

The reasoning behind the 1700 being a better buy than the 1800X is strictly on overclocking.

They are the same chip - from the same process, the same fab, the same everything. AMD just bins them according to (some metric).

So would overclocking "kill" your chip? Well, overvolting will definitely have some impact on life. Higher temperatures will have some impact. If your CPU would normally last 50 years, and instead because of overclocking it only lasts 20, but you replace it in 5 because something better has come around - then does it really matter?

I would like to know what that metric is, I am betting some people believe the metric is the ability to OC higher as we know the ability to OC can fluctuate quite a bit.

Quizzical

RPGMASTERGAMER said:

AMD are good only in cold winter for heat your house... go intel seriously....

they are year in front for everything.... unless you are in a big low budget it rarely worth it.

It's not 2012 anymore.  Check your calendar.  These days, energy usage of a CPU is really just a question of how much power you're willing to burn for the sake of performance, regardless of whether you buy Intel or AMD.

Cleffy

Right now the Ryzen 7 CPUs seem to be limited to 4.0 ghz. So if you plan to overclock there is very little difference aside from the better binning. With the 1700x, you also have XFR which should boost to the same as the 1800x due to similar thermals without an overclock.

Ridelynn

Asm0deus said:

albers said:

I would like to know what that metric is, I am betting some people believe the metric is the ability to OC higher as we know the ability to OC can fluctuate quite a bit.

I have heard it has more to do with the ability to run at specific clock speeds under specific voltages for specific frequencies.

That isn't all that dissimilar from what you do while overclocking, except they aren't trying to find the fastest speed - they just run the chip at X.YZ volts and ABCD MHz and see what the power draw and thermals do. If it passes the first test - it's top bin. If not, they drop the clock in increments until they find which bin it falls under.

I'm sure it is a bit more technical than that, because you also have salvage parts and the like, and you have to have a process that is fast and reliable enough to test every chip coming off the line before it's boxed. But that is my layman understanding.

Ozmodan

Vrika said:

At the moment Ryzen 1800X is costs $90 more than Ryzen 1700x at Newegg. With $90 you're getting only about 5% higher turbo clock speed.

Even if you never overclock, in the long run you'll save a lot of money by purchasing 1700x now and then upgrading your computer a bit sooner. 5% speed CPU speed difference won't matter much, whereas $90 is a lot of money.


Not to mention if you want to buy gaming machine at those prices, then I7 7700K is a lot better alternative. Cheaper Ryzens offer some competition to I5 processors, but in top-end gaming machines I7 7700K offers better performance than anything AMD has available.

That is flat out not true!  I have posted a bunch of benchmarks that show a 1700 can easily out perform even your treasured 7700 on some games, as long as you use fast memory.  Since many of us have other applications going when playing a game the 1700 with the extra cores will be even better.  And that is not mentioning the extra PCI lanes the Ryzen chips have.

As to the 1800x, I don't see the value in the extra cost personally, unless you want peace of mind.

AmazingAvery

Here is a re-test including the 1800X you might find interesting - https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_retest_1500x_1600x_1800x_review/13

Vrika

Ozmodan said:

Vrika said:

At the moment Ryzen 1800X is costs $90 more than Ryzen 1700x at Newegg. With $90 you're getting only about 5% higher turbo clock speed.

Even if you never overclock, in the long run you'll save a lot of money by purchasing 1700x now and then upgrading your computer a bit sooner. 5% speed CPU speed difference won't matter much, whereas $90 is a lot of money.


Not to mention if you want to buy gaming machine at those prices, then I7 7700K is a lot better alternative. Cheaper Ryzens offer some competition to I5 processors, but in top-end gaming machines I7 7700K offers better performance than anything AMD has available.

That is flat out not true!  I have posted a bunch of benchmarks that show a 1700 can easily out perform even your treasured 7700 on some games, as long as you use fast memory.  Since many of us have other applications going when playing a game the 1700 with the extra cores will be even better.  And that is not mentioning the extra PCI lanes the Ryzen chips have.

As to the 1800x, I don't see the value in the extra cost personally, unless you want peace of mind.

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-amd-ryzen-7-1700-1700x-vs-1800x-review


Now how about you post your source, please.

AmazingAvery

Source Anandtech

Quizzical

AmazingAvery said:

Source Anandtech

If that were all the data we had to go by, I'd say that Ryzen beats Kaby Lake outright as a gaming CPU.  The difference between 120 frames per second and 200 in Rocket League doesn't matter.  But the difference between 50 and 60 does.  Ryzen faring well as compared to Kaby Lake is pretty strongly correlated with the frame rates being low enough that the differences matter.

Renoaku

Is that in Ultra Graphics?

I get over 100 FPS non Ultra, and around 50-70 with my 1080ti haven't benched it yet in ultra with the new upgrades I have done ill finish the final ones today.

MrMonolitas

Im not even talking about i7 i think for me personal ryzen is the best available cpu. It has cores to support multyasking and rendering. I still own i7 in my laptop i got years before, it works good, but when it comes to multitasking, its just not good enough. 

As i can asume 1800x is 5% increase over 1700x, and it cost 90 to 100 more. In gaming its few frames, but let me ask how does that 5% increase in rendering, for example,  not touching OC? 

Quizzical

albers said:

Im not even talking about i7 i think for me personal ryzen is the best available cpu. It has cores to support multyasking and rendering. I still own i7 in my laptop i got years before, it works good, but when it comes to multitasking, its just not good enough. 

As i can asume 1800x is 5% increase over 1700x, and it cost 90 to 100 more. In gaming its few frames, but let me ask how does that 5% increase in rendering, for example,  not touching OC? 

The difference might even be less than 5%, as the higher clock speeds will likely mean higher power consumption at base or with all cores at full turbo, and hence less aggressive turbo.  At stock speeds, I'd expect the 1800X to be faster than the 1700X in just about everything that is CPU-bound.  But not by very much.

laserit

Quizzical said:

AmazingAvery said:

Source Anandtech

If that were all the data we had to go by, I'd say that Ryzen beats Kaby Lake outright as a gaming CPU.  The difference between 120 frames per second and 200 in Rocket League doesn't matter.  But the difference between 50 and 60 does.  Ryzen faring well as compared to Kaby Lake is pretty strongly correlated with the frame rates being low enough that the differences matter.

Those Civ 6 frames suck, no matter the CPU. I'd have to call the GTA benchmark into question because when I run the benchmark in 2k ultra settings with a GTX 1080 and a 4770k I average 82 frames.

Vrika

AmazingAvery said:

Source Anandtech

Why is I5 7600 better than I7 7700K?

Quizzical

Vrika said:

AmazingAvery said:

Source Anandtech

Why is I5 7600 better than I7 7700K?

Because benchmarking is hard.  Though you're right:  hyperthreading appears to hurt performance in most of the things listed.

Mawnee

albers said:

But by overcloking it means you will kill your cpu earlier. Looking in a long run, are you really saving ? I bet i can last longer with 1800x at stock speeds than any 1700 oced

I have overclocked nearly every CPU and GPU and RAM in my personal computers since the late 90s. Not once have I lost a part due to a failure related to overclocking.  I still have the first CPU I overclocked, a pentium 150mmx, and it still runs, not terribly useful today though. Unless you are constantly pushing a part to its absolute extreme limit, extreme overvolting, or completely disregarding temps they don't just die. 

MrMonolitas

I have never ever overcloaked anything in my life. But these days i only hear about ocing everything in the world... Ram, graphic cards cpus, monitors! It seems overrated! Buying good cpu with auto overcloaking and downcloaking is a breeze, since it does it itself. Also ocing you lose warranty? 

Ridelynn

There isn't nearly as much margin to overclock today as there was 10-15 years ago.

Almost every chip has some form of "turbo" auto-overclocking today, and advanced thermal and energy management to be able to auto-throttle when needed before anything breaks.

*Edit* but it's still fun and there are still some performance gains to be had. I just wouldn't expect another Celeron 300A or i7 920. Some of the lower bin Ryzens definitely make it worth considering again.