[Techspot] AMD Ryzen 5 1600 vs. Intel Core i7-7800X: 30 Game Battle! [Links Fixed - Updated]

swilli89

Golden Member
Mar 23, 2010
1,465
60
136
#1
Came across an excellent review video from Hardware Unboxed featuring the brand new Intel i7 7800X versus the AMD R5 1600. Both 6-core models are equipped with identical RAM and put through the paces in 30 games with both stock and overclocked, complete with power consumption testing. Video Link -- Text Link


At stock frequency:
i7 7800X is using 22.6% more power than Ryzen 1600X

Overclocked:
i7 7800X is using 17.9% more power than Ryzen 1600X

Note: incredibly.. Ryzen 1600X is using a good bit less power than a stock clocked, quad core 7700k.

Gaming composite:


Performance is identical with both platforms overclocked. Almost spooky how they are completely equal. 7700k is about 10% ahead but if you take out just 1 game from the stack, Gears of War 4, the delta is equal to 6%. Not a bad showing for the Ryzen despite a 20% clockspeed advantage.



My biggest takeaway here would be the value you get from each as a gamer.



In fairness you could delete the AOI but OC would suffer according to most reviews on Skylake-X, and you could use less RAM but as the author states, it would be odd to get such a platform and use 4x4gb to maintain quad channel memory, or conversely equivalent RAM but only dual channel operation. A closer comparison for some may be more like $514 vs $800 if you use a cheap air cooler and less RAM. That ~$300 difference may very well mean the difference between a 1070 and a 1080Ti.

Gaming Value:
Ryzen 1600: 0.245 FPS/$
Core 7800X: 0.1575 FPS/$

note: I used the more Intel friendly $800 figure with air cooler and dual channel memory.

Bottom line: AMD Ryzen 1600 a whopping 55% more cost effective for gaming compared to the Intel i7 7800X all the while being 20% more power efficient.
 
Last edited:

cfenton

Senior member
Jul 27, 2015
268
26
71
#2
Definitely an impressive result for the R5 1600. I do wish Techspot was a little more careful with their graphs, though. On the Ryzen R5 vs. Core i7 7800X [Overclocked] graph, the X-axis isn't labeled. Is that percent faster or FPS faster? Also, are they measuring minimum or average framerate? It's percent difference between minimums, I think, but that's not clear in the graph.

Also, your text link is broken. It goes to the Youtube video.
 

HellBound

Junior Member
Jun 23, 2015
11
0
51
#3
And don`t forget this one after the test..



 

USER8000

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2012
1,493
3
136
#4
Thats an impressive result,as it at 1080P using a GTX1080TI.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
6,998
11
126
#6
Wow. That's not a good sign.
That's after he smugged it apparently. He said it looked worse than that before he spread the spot IIRC. So may not simply be a misaligned pin. Hopefully though, that's all it was.
 

swilli89

Golden Member
Mar 23, 2010
1,465
60
136
#7
That's after he smugged it apparently. He said it looked worse than that before he spread the spot IIRC. So may not simply be a misaligned pin. Hopefully though, that's all it was.
These chips are drawing a crazy high amount of power for 6 cores.. Imagine the power draw on their 12+ core x299 chips. Hopefully this will be an isolated incident.
 

.vodka

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2014
1,080
163
136
#8
These chips are drawing a crazy high amount of power for 6 cores.. Imagine the power draw on their 12+ core x299 chips. Hopefully this will be an isolated incident.
Remember there's also 14, 16, and 18 cores coming.

We'll see once people try to overclock these...
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
3,999
34
136
#9
Ryzen 5 1600 provides incredible value to gamers in the high volume mainstream price range at < USD 220. Its really amazing to see a Ryzen 5 1600 at 4 Ghz perform on par with 7800x at 4.7 Ghz and 10% below 7700k at 4.9 Ghz. This bodes extremely well for Pinnacle Ridge (Zen on 14nm+) in 2018 which should be able to hit much higher frequencies. I think if Pinnacle Ridge hits 4.6 Ghz max overclock (15% higher clocks) for every day usage on air cooling it would pretty much catch up with a 7700k at 4.9 Ghz. Its going to be exciting to see Zen on 14nm+ in 2018 and Zen 2 on 7nm in 2019.
 

Hi-Fi Man

Senior member
Oct 19, 2013
558
15
106
#10
These skylake-x chips are pretty terrible for games. Much lower IPC than zen, broadwell-e, or haswell-e. That new cache design is really hurting them in games. It should be interesting to see how that rumored cannonlake 6 core chip does in comparison.

It also seems as if Intel has hit a bit of a wall in trying to scale up their architecture. Broadwell-e has better performance in gaming, slightly worse per clock in productivity applications, but way lower power consumption. Unless you need AVX-512, I honestly don't think skylake-x is that good of a chip minus the platform. Threadripper should give Intel some hell.
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
491
126
86
#11
I think this test isn't good. Gaming CPU testing needs to evolve.

CPU gaming should be tested in every game in 5-10 CPU intensive areas or fights (which not accidentally are important game fights) .
Not like now, where most of the time even at 1080p its GPU limited- looking at that nice green field at sunset.....
If we had a ryzen at 5GHz and KBL at 4GHz the picture will be just the opposite (maybe even less because KBL has generally better per clock gaming perf).

Otherwise, we get this impression- 10%. My experience its a night and day difference between ryzen 1600x (built a system for my cousin last week) and KBL oced - pretty much the same as with sandy vs KBL

this test reminds me of https://www.techspot.com/review/921-dragon-age-inquisition-benchmarks/page6.html

by reading it you get the same impression, haswell 2.5GHz is pretty much enough and 4,5GHz one is just plain not worth it- oh man how badly I was surprised with this game and low CPU power....

don't get me wrong/ ryzen is an exceptional value especially for non gaming use (value and performance, the king), just don't make it more than it is

as with skl-x the server cpu design has its drawbacks
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
801
99
136
#12
I think this test isn't good. Gaming CPU testing needs to evolve.

CPU gaming should be tested in every game in 5-10 CPU intensive areas or fights (which not accidentally are important game fights) .
Not like now, where most of the time even at 1080p its GPU limited- looking at that nice green field at sunset.....
If we had a ryzen at 5GHz and KBL at 4GHz the picture will be just the opposite (maybe even less because KBL has generally better per clock gaming perf).

Otherwise, we get this impression- 10%. My experience its a night and day difference between ryzen 1600x (built a system for my cousin last week) and KBL oced - pretty much the same as with sandy vs KBL

this test reminds me of https://www.techspot.com/review/921-dragon-age-inquisition-benchmarks/page6.html

by reading it you get the same impression, haswell 2.5GHz is pretty much enough and 4,5GHz one is just plain not worth it- oh man how badly I was surprised with this game and low CPU power....

don't get me wrong/ ryzen is an exceptional value especially for non gaming use (value and performance, the king), just don't make it more than it is

as with skl-x the server cpu design has its drawbacks
Well said. The picture is not as bad as it's being portrayed in this thread and elsewhere. Sure, SKL-X is not Kabylake, gaming-wise, but it does everything very well while consuming the appropriate amount of power, relative to the competitor's products (7800x vs 1600x).

Here's Performance/Consumption:








And Gaming:






https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 2015
176
0
71
#13
Well is the Skylake-X "poor" gaming performance really from changed cache layout, or is it simply that currently they have slow thread to thread communication latencies (which can be lowered by overclocking cache).

Offtopic. I really hate to whine, but would it be possible to add spoilers in posts that contains multiple pictures, please?
 

Sable

Golden Member
Jan 7, 2006
1,093
1
91
#14

Hi-Fi Man

Senior member
Oct 19, 2013
558
15
106
#15
Well said. The picture is not as bad as it's being portrayed in this thread and elsewhere. Sure, SKL-X is not Kabylake, gaming-wise, but it does everything very well while consuming the appropriate amount of power, relative to the competitor's products (7800x vs 1600x).

Here's Performance/Consumption:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/
That's an extremely poor showing for Skylake-X. In Excel the i7-7800X (a six core CPU) uses more power than the i7 6950X (a ten core CPU) and is slower. In CB15 It also uses more power than the i7 6900K (an eight core CPU) and is also slower.

Intel has destroyed efficiency by using thermal paste, adding AVX-512, using a mesh, and changing the cache hierarchy.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
801
99
136
#16
That's an extremely poor showing for Skylake-X. In Excel the i7-7800X (a six core CPU) uses more power than the i7 6950X (a ten core CPU) and is slower. In CB15 It also uses more power than the i7 6900K (an eight core CPU) and is also slower.

Intel has destroyed efficiency by using thermal paste, adding AVX-512, using a mesh, and changing the cache hierarchy.
I was highlighting the relatively similar performance/consumption numbers between the 7800x and the 1600x. But as you've pointed out, SKL-X's performance in certain apps leaves much to be desired. I suspect, code needs to be optimized for the new cache system. At moment, it has weaknesses (I hope they're not trade-offs).
Another area is the thermals. Intel really dropped the ball there. In one of the reviews, they slashed 40w off of their previous figures by simply keeping thermals below 80c @ around 4.6ghz IIRC.
Another observation I've made is that a lot of the reviews used/are using engineering samples for their tests. This, again, is Intel's doing. By not supplying a sizable number of reputable reviewers with kits, a lot of engineering samples seemingly made the rounds and were reviewed.
What I really want to see, more than anything else at this point, is a boxed SKL-X processor, delidded and direct-die-cooled under an AIO, as per Intel's recommendation. Such a review, might paint a different power consumption picture.
Edit: No, Intel does not recommend delidding. I meant Intel's cooling recommendation - watercooling.
 
Last edited:

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,690
630
136
#17
I was highlighting the relatively similar performance/consumption numbers between the 7800x and the 1600x. But as you've pointed out, SKL-X's performance in certain apps leaves much to be desired. I suspect, code needs to be optimized for the new cache system. At moment, it has weaknesses (I hope they're not trade-offs).
Another area is the thermals. Intel really dropped the ball there. In one of the reviews, they slashed 40w off of their previous figures by simply keeping thermals below 80c @ around 4.6ghz IIRC.
Another observation I've made is that a lot of the reviews used/are using engineering samples for their tests. This, again, is Intel's doing. By not supplying a sizable number of reputable reviewers with kits, a lot of engineering samples seemingly made the rounds and were reviewed.
What I really want to see, more than anything else at this point, is a boxed SKL-X processor, delidded and direct-die-cooled under an AIO, as per Intel's recommendation. Such a review, might paint a different power consumption picture.
"SKL-X processor, delidded and direct-die-cooled under an AIO, as per Intel's recommendation"

Is Intel really making this recommendation? Seems rather shocking.
 

Hi-Fi Man

Senior member
Oct 19, 2013
558
15
106
#18
I was highlighting the relatively similar performance/consumption numbers between the 7800x and the 1600x. But as you've pointed out, SKL-X's performance in certain apps leaves much to be desired. I suspect, code needs to be optimized for the new cache system. At moment, it has weaknesses (I hope they're not trade-offs).
Another area is the thermals. Intel really dropped the ball there. In one of the reviews, they slashed 40w off of their previous figures by simply keeping thermals below 80c @ around 4.6ghz IIRC.
Another observation I've made is that a lot of the reviews used/are using engineering samples for their tests. This, again, is Intel's doing. By not supplying a sizable number of reputable reviewers with kits, a lot of engineering samples seemingly made the rounds and were reviewed.
What I really want to see, more than anything else at this point, is a boxed SKL-X processor, delidded and direct-die-cooled under an AIO, as per Intel's recommendation. Such a review, might paint a different power consumption picture.
Unfortunately Intel has decided to sell these processors like this and as such they should be evaluated based on their out of the box state. Delidding should not be necessary.

The review ES chips usually are of the same stepping as the retail chips so this should not matter.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
6,998
11
126
#19
Well is the Skylake-X "poor" gaming performance really from changed cache layout, or is it simply that currently they have slow thread to thread communication latencies (which can be lowered by overclocking cache).
I read somewhere that Intel was claiming the change to the Mesh setup was the likely reason for the lower gaming performance compared to BW-e.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
6,998
11
126
#20
Is Intel really making this recommendation? Seems rather shocking.
Ha, I'm sure he meant the AIO cooler being recommended by Intel, not the de-lid. :)
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
801
99
136
#21
"SKL-X processor, delidded and direct-die-cooled under an AIO, as per Intel's recommendation"

Is Intel really making this recommendation? Seems rather shocking.
The cooling part. I'll edit that language. Thanks.
 

Sable

Golden Member
Jan 7, 2006
1,093
1
91
#22
I was highlighting the relatively similar performance/consumption numbers between the 7800x and the 1600x. But as you've pointed out, SKL-X's performance in certain apps leaves much to be desired. I suspect, code needs to be optimized for the new cache system. At moment, it has weaknesses (I hope they're not trade-offs).
Another area is the thermals. Intel really dropped the ball there. In one of the reviews, they slashed 40w off of their previous figures by simply keeping thermals below 80c @ around 4.6ghz IIRC.
Another observation I've made is that a lot of the reviews used/are using engineering samples for their tests. This, again, is Intel's doing. By not supplying a sizable number of reputable reviewers with kits, a lot of engineering samples seemingly made the rounds and were reviewed.
What I really want to see, more than anything else at this point, is a boxed SKL-X processor, delidded and direct-die-cooled under an AIO, as per Intel's recommendation. Such a review, might paint a different power consumption picture.
I say again

Similar performance/power (but tbh slight advantage to 1600X on the power) but LOOK AT THE PRICE DIFFERENCE!!!

7800X - £345.90
1600X £216.98

£128

Zotac AMP 1080Ti - £678.32
Zotac AMP 1080 - £520.80

£157.52

You can practically upgrade to a Ti for difference.
 
Mar 1, 2017
158
0
71
#23
Came across an excellent review video from Hardware Unboxed featuring the brand new Intel i7 7800X versus the AMD R5 1600. Both 6-core models are equipped with identical RAM and put through the paces in 30 games with both stock and overclocked, complete with power consumption testing. Video Link -- Text Link


At stock frequency:
i7 7800X is using 22.6% more power than Ryzen 1600X

Overclocked:
i7 7800X is using 17.9% more power than Ryzen 1600X

Note: incredibly.. Ryzen 1600X is using a good bit less power than a stock clocked, quad core 7700k.

Gaming composite:


Performance is identical with both platforms overclocked. Almost spooky how they are completely equal. 7700k is about 10% ahead but if you take out just 1 game from the stack, Gears of War 4, the delta is equal to 6%. Not a bad showing for the Ryzen despite a 20% clockspeed advantage.



My biggest takeaway here would be the value you get from each as a gamer.



In fairness you could delete the AOI but OC would suffer according to most reviews on Skylake-X, and you could use less RAM but as the author states, it would be odd to get such a platform and use 4x4gb to maintain quad channel memory, or conversely equivalent RAM but only dual channel operation. A closer comparison for some may be more like $514 vs $800 if you use a cheap air cooler and less RAM. That ~$300 difference may very well mean the difference between a 1070 and a 1080Ti.

Gaming Value:
Ryzen 1600: 0.245 FPS/$
Core 7800X: 0.1575 FPS/$

note: I used the more Intel friendly $800 figure with air cooler and dual channel memory.

Bottom line: AMD Ryzen 1600 a whopping 55% more cost effective for gaming compared to the Intel i7 7800X all the while being 20% more power efficient.
Really rare to see to a reviewer testing 30 games... those are a lot of games. Kudos for him. Thanks to extensive reviews like this one, users have a better whole picture before they decide between the different options available.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,843
69
126
#25
even considering this test is likely to GPU bottlenecked, seeing AMD more often than not keeping up and using significantly less power is pretty amazing,
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS