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

[Actaeon]

And Digital Foundry had a BIOS version that enforced all-core turbo to max turbo.

But then again, we all know these benchmarks should not be directly compared, at least not without careful examination of system specs and testing procedures.

I saw that mentioned in the review but it doesn't matter. Unless there is some temp or power issue the Intel chips never use the base clock during gaming and they'll be running at Turbo 2.0 speeds for all cores all the time anyway. Also the 7800x only gets Boost 2.0 to 4.0ghz and it was compared to the Ryzen 1800X also at 4.0ghz. The 7800x that is down two cores and equal clocks still came out ahead of the 1800X.

WCCFTech may be a clickbait rumors site but they also reviewed the 7800x and it was faster or equal than the 1800X and 1600X in every gaming benchmark they use. Yes these were at 1440p and 4K and while some tests were probably GPU bound the 7800x was still quicker in all tests.

• http://wccftech.com/review/intel-core-x-cpu-asrock-x299-taichi-review/9/
  • Ashes
    • 7800x - 76.3
    • 1800X - 74.9
    • 1600X - 72.5
  • BF1
    • 7800x - 74.9
    • 1800X - 69.1
    • 1600X - 68.5
  • Doom
    • 7800x - 90
    • 1800X - 88
    • 1600X - 84
  • GTAV
    • 7800x - 81
    • 1800X - 81
    • 1600X - 79
  • ME: Andromeda
    • 7800x - 57.4
    • 1800X - 55.1
    • 1600X - 55.2
  • RotR
    • 7800x - 57.4
    • 1800X - 55.1
    • 1600X - 55.2
  • Civ VI
    • 7800x - 92
    • 1800X - 85
    • 1600X - 84
  • Watch Dogs 2
    • 7800x - 48.8
    • 1800X - 44.1
    • 1600X - 45.3

So 3 out of 3 sites that also reviewed the 7800x has shown it is quicker at gaming than a 1800X. And if you include the 8 core 7820x reviews there are even more data that shows SKL-X is faster in gaming. Yet Techspot somehow has the 7800X slower than the 1600 is slower than an 1800X and every other review shows the opposite. There are no other reviews that backs up the results from Techspot and that is why it is highly questionable.

 

[Crumpet]

I saw that mentioned in the review but it doesn't matter. Unless there is some temp or power issue the Intel chips never use the base clock during gaming and they'll be running at Turbo 2.0 speeds for all cores all the time anyway. Also the 7800x only gets Boost 2.0 to 4.0ghz and it was compared to the Ryzen 1800X also at 4.0ghz. The 7800x that is down two cores and equal clocks still came out ahead of the 1800X.

WCCFTech may be a clickbait rumors site but they also reviewed the 7800x and it was faster or equal than the 1800X and 1600X in every gaming benchmark they use. Yes these were at 1440p and 4K and while some tests were probably GPU bound the 7800x was still quicker in all tests.

• http://wccftech.com/review/intel-core-x-cpu-asrock-x299-taichi-review/9/
  • Ashes
    • 7800x - 76.3
    • 1800X - 74.9
    • 1600X - 72.5
  • BF1
    • 7800x - 74.9
    • 1800X - 69.1
    • 1600X - 68.5
  • Doom
    • 7800x - 90
    • 1800X - 88
    • 1600X - 84
  • GTAV
    • 7800x - 81
    • 1800X - 81
    • 1600X - 79
  • ME: Andromeda
    • 7800x - 57.4
    • 1800X - 55.1
    • 1600X - 55.2
  • RotR
    • 7800x - 57.4
    • 1800X - 55.1
    • 1600X - 55.2
  • Civ VI
    • 7800x - 92
    • 1800X - 85
    • 1600X - 84
  • Watch Dogs 2
    • 7800x - 48.8
    • 1800X - 44.1
    • 1600X - 45.3

So 3 out of 3 sites that also reviewed the 7800x has shown it is quicker at gaming than a 1800X. And if you include the 8 core 7820x reviews there are even more data that shows SKL-X is faster in gaming. Yet Techspot somehow has the 7800X slower than the 1600 is slower than an 1800X and every other review shows the opposite. There are no other reviews that backs up the results from Techspot and that is why it is highly questionable.

Test setup: G.SKILL Trident Z RGB Series 32 GB (4 x 8GB) CL16 3600 MHz

So, that'll be a 1000Mhz unfair penalty for Ryzen in this test then. Which can drop FPS MASSIVELY.

 

[Actaeon]

Test setup: G.SKILL Trident Z RGB Series 32 GB (4 x 8GB) CL16 3600 MHz

So, that'll be a 1000Mhz unfair penalty for Ryzen in this test then. Which can drop FPS MASSIVELY.

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. They used the same high quality ram for both platforms. SKL-X CPUs should be benched with quad channel because it makes the most sense to run it that way.

 

[coercitiv]

I saw that mentioned in the review but it doesn't matter.

So it was intentional. Excellent!

 

[swilli89]

I saw that mentioned in the review but it doesn't matter. Unless there is some temp or power issue the Intel chips never use the base clock during gaming and they'll be running at Turbo 2.0 speeds for all cores all the time anyway. Also the 7800x only gets Boost 2.0 to 4.0ghz and it was compared to the Ryzen 1800X also at 4.0ghz. The 7800x that is down two cores and equal clocks still came out ahead of the 1800X.

WCCFTech may be a clickbait rumors site but they also reviewed the 7800x and it was faster or equal than the 1800X and 1600X in every gaming benchmark they use. Yes these were at 1440p and 4K and while some tests were probably GPU bound the 7800x was still quicker in all tests.

• http://wccftech.com/review/intel-core-x-cpu-asrock-x299-taichi-review/9/
  • Ashes
    • 7800x - 76.3
    • 1800X - 74.9
    • 1600X - 72.5
  • BF1
    • 7800x - 74.9
    • 1800X - 69.1
    • 1600X - 68.5
  • Doom
    • 7800x - 90
    • 1800X - 88
    • 1600X - 84
  • GTAV
    • 7800x - 81
    • 1800X - 81
    • 1600X - 79
  • ME: Andromeda
    • 7800x - 57.4
    • 1800X - 55.1
    • 1600X - 55.2
  • RotR
    • 7800x - 57.4
    • 1800X - 55.1
    • 1600X - 55.2
  • Civ VI
    • 7800x - 92
    • 1800X - 85
    • 1600X - 84
  • Watch Dogs 2
    • 7800x - 48.8
    • 1800X - 44.1
    • 1600X - 45.3

So 3 out of 3 sites that also reviewed the 7800x has shown it is quicker at gaming than a 1800X. And if you include the 8 core 7820x reviews there are even more data that shows SKL-X is faster in gaming. Yet Techspot somehow has the 7800X slower than the 1600 is slower than an 1800X and every other review shows the opposite. There are no other reviews that backs up the results from Techspot and that is why it is highly questionable.

The only thing you are really proving is that they provide the exact same gaming experience. There is not a single human being on the planet that could discern between the 1800x and 7800x on any of those scenarios. How can a gamer possibly justify to himself the hundreds of dollars$$$ more for the exact same experience?

 

[Crumpet]

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. They used the same high quality ram for both platforms. SKL-X CPUs should be benched with quad channel because it makes the most sense to run it that way.

Because it purposefully limits Ryzen by 20+ FPS making it look vastly less impressive than it actually is.

If you don't see that as an issue in a "fair" benchmarking situation when we're discussing gaming performance...

 

[Anarchist Mae]

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. They used the same high quality ram for both platforms. SKL-X CPUs should be benched with quad channel because it makes the most sense to run it that way.

It is most likely that the memory was running at 2666MHz because Ryzen still has issues running 4 sticks overclocked past that.

 

[Actaeon]

So it was intentional. Excellent!

Its not intentional but that is the way Boost 2.0 works. You mentioning it as if it some type of anomaly and why the results favored the 7800x is not correct and when that is exactly how it should perform.

The only thing you are really proving is that they provide the exact same gaming experience. There is not a single human being on the planet that could discern between the 1800x and 7800x on any of those scenarios. How can a gamer possibly justify to himself the hundreds of dollars$$$ more for the exact same experience?

I'm proving that TechSpots results are inconsistent with every other review out there. Whatever else you takeaway is up to you. And FWIW the 1800x and 7800X are basically the same price.

Because it purposefully limits Ryzen by 20+ FPS making it look vastly less impressive than it actually is.

If you don't see that as an issue in a "fair" benchmarking situation when we're discussing gaming performance...

Okay if you don't like these benchmarks then look at the two others I shared. They all say the same thing. Or better yet, instead of picking apart these reviews and trying to come up with why Ryzen underperformed show us some benchmarks that align with the results you got from Techspot.

 

[Actaeon]

It is most likely that the memory was running at 2666MHz because Ryzen still has issues running 4 sticks overclocked past that.

That helps, I wasn't aware Ryzen had problems with that. I think it would have been better to test with 2x8 for Ryzen and 4x8 for SKL-X but I'm not the reviewer.

 

[Crumpet]

That helps, I wasn't aware Ryzen had problems with that. I think it would have been better to test with 2x8 for Ryzen and 4x8 for SKL-X but I'm not the reviewer.

From the Eurogamer review you quoted too;

We tested each processor in an MSI X299 Gaming M7 ACK motherboard, paired with four sticks of Corsair Vengeance DDR4 rated for 3000MHz - but running without issue with a 200MHz overclock.

No mention after that with what they tested the Ryzen setup with, so you can presume its the same RAM, which at best case scenario was gimped at 2666 as well. So thats 2666 vs 3200 again.

What was the 3rd review?

 

[Christopher Bohling]

Realistically reviewers ought to either test all configurations with "out of the box" settings (i.e. no BIOS tweaking whatsoever, just CPUs at stock clocks and RAM at whatever speed they run at by default) or they should test all configurations in "ideal" conditions, i.e. highest possible CPU and RAM overclock with an ideal configuration. (and of course they need to be up-front and disclose exactly how they did it.) It's not fair if configs that have been tweaked to achieve maximum performance are being compared to configs that haven't been tweaked at all.

 

[Actaeon]

From the Eurogamer review you quoted too;

No mention after that with what they tested the Ryzen setup with, so you can presume its the same RAM, which at best case scenario was gimped at 2666 as well. So thats 2666 vs 3200 again.

What was the 3rd review?

Eurogamer used 4 sticks on X299 which is appropriate. They did not say what they used on Z370. It could have been 4 sticks or 2 sticks. 3rd review is hardware.info.

So where are the reviews that back up TechSpot's results?

 

[Crumpet]

Eurogamer used 4 sticks on X299 which is appropriate. They did not say what they used on Z370. It could have been 4 sticks or 2 sticks. 3rd review is hardware.info.

So where are the reviews that back up TechSpot's results?

If they didn't specifically mention changing the memory for Ryzen, then I consider it safe to assume they didn't.

This is pretty in depth, i'll find more later, need to have a cup of tea, a pee and read that hardware.info review.

https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings

 

[Actaeon]

If they didn't specifically mention changing the memory for Ryzen, then I consider it safe to assume they didn't.

That isn't a fair assumption. Their comment on setup was specific to X299 since it was an an X299 review. But I did my due diligence, the details are in their Ryzen 1800X review.

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

"GSkill stepped in to provide one of its new Flare X branded kits - two 8GB modules with low 14-14-14-34 latency and 3200MHz bandwidth."

 

[Crumpet]

You don't need to test 30 games to see that the results don't quite match the other sites. Here are results of the same games from two other sites except they put the 7800x versus the 1800X instead of the 1600.

• https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/74...intel-core-i7-7800x7820x-vs-amd-ryzen-7-1800x
  • Hardware.info has the 7800x faster or equal to the 1800X at every game they tested, averaging out to 12.7% faster in gaming overall.
    • In GTA V, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 2-3% slower than a 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x as being 6 to 15% faster than the 1800X.
    • In BF1, Techspot shows the 7800x as being less than 1% slower than a 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x as being 17 to 31% faster than the 1800X.
    • In Doom, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 10% slower than the 1600, but hardware.info shows the 7800x being equal to the 1800X.
    • In RoTR, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 12% faster than the 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x being 16-18% faster than an 1800X

All tests run with RAm @2666 for SK-X and Ryzen.

So this isn't with high speed RAM at all, and definitely plays to Intel's strength and Ryzen's weakness.

So thats 3 tests you linked.

1 where they use bog standard RAM where everyone knows Ryzen has a deficit.
1 Where they blatantly hamper Ryzen with 1000Mhz slower RAM
1 Where they probably hamper Ryzen with 600Mhz slower RAM, where the probably means they either hampered the system, or didn't mention any hardware changes to the Ryzen system, either way, making for a poor and untrustworthy review.

So 3 reviews, 3 reviews that will always favour 7820X.

 

[Kenmitch]

That isn't a fair assumption. Their comment on setup was specific to X299 since it was an an X299 review. But I did my due diligence, the details are in their Ryzen 1800X review.

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

"GSkill stepped in to provide one of its new Flare X branded kits - two 8GB modules with low 14-14-14-34 latency and 3200MHz bandwidth."

The 1080p vs 1440p results are interesting. Too bad it was 7700k vs 1800x only.

 

[Crumpet]

The 1080p vs 1440p results are interesting. Too bad it was 7700k vs 1800x only.

Yeah, shame about the gaming suite too.. RoTR before Ryzen fix, AoTS before Ryzen fix, Far Cry Primal which craps on Ryzen, Witcher 3 known to be really poorly optimised.

Would love it if they did a retest.

 

[Actaeon]

The 1080p vs 1440p results are interesting. Too bad it was 7700k vs 1800x only.

They used the 1800X OCed @ 4.0 results in the Skylake X tests. So you can compare it against 7740x, 7800x, 7820x, and 7900x. They omitted Ashes & RoTR results for Ryzen since they haven't retested.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...view-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-i7-7800x-i7-7740x

 

[Crumpet]

They used the 1800X OCed @ 4.0 results in the Skylake X tests. So you can compare it against 7740x, 7800x, 7820x, and 7900x. They omitted Ashes & RoTR results for Ryzen since they haven't retested.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...view-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-i7-7800x-i7-7740x

To me, that says a lot about their reviews, methodology and trustworthyness.

 

[Zucker2k]

To me, that says a lot about their reviews, methodology and trustworthyness.

Techspot takes the cake on that one. They basically clock the Ryzens as high as they'll go and try to pretend they're doing a clock for clock comparison. For what? Either you run the chips at stock, or you run them overclocked, to whatever clocks they can achieve. If you want to test a Ryzen chip at 4Ghz, you go for the 1800x which'll give you 4Ghz (XFR), but the price will be higher and it won't look too good so what do you do? You take the lower priced Ryzen, overclock it to 1800x+XFR levels (the highest you could clock Ryzen without exotic cooling) and test the chips in as few cpu-demanding games as possible. FYI, the 7820x turbos to 4.3Ghz and Turbo Max is 4.5Ghz. http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...ew-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested so 4Ghz is actually an underclock, for stock conditions! The narrative is changing. Soon, a clearer picture will emerge.

 

[Crumpet]

Techspot takes the cake on that one. They basically clock the Ryzens as high as they'll go and try to pretend they're doing a clock for clock comparison. For what? Either you run the chips at stock, or you run them overclocked, to whatever clocks they can achieve. If you want to test a Ryzen chip at 4Ghz, you go for the 1800x which'll give you 4Ghz (XFR), but the price will be higher and it won't look too good so what do you do? You take the lower priced Ryzen, overclock it to 1800x+XFR levels (the highest you could clock Ryzen without exotic cooling) and test the chips in as few cpu-demanding games as possible. FYI, the 7820x turbos to 4.3Ghz and Turbo Max is 4.5Ghz. http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...ew-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested so 4Ghz is actually an underclock, for stock conditions! The narrative is changing. Soon, a clearer picture will emerge.

And I presume you're missing the part where the 7800X is overclocked to 4.7Ghz? Running a clock so high it burned a contact and singed about 6 more.

 

[TahoeDust]

Here are Digital Foundry's results from that article pulled into one table...

 

[Zucker2k]

And I presume you're missing the part where the 7800X is overclocked to 4.7Ghz? Running a clock so high it burned a contact and singed about 6 more.

See, guy can't even overclock a cpu without toasting it, still submits toasted cpu results, and you talk about trustworthiness?

Edit: Please go back to that review and let us know the fps delta for the 7800x at 4ghz vs 4.7ghz.

 

[lobz]

Click on the link and look at the numbers,the 7700k get's much better FPS then both the hexacores,intel's and AMD's, in 1080p ultra with the best GPU available in the world,they should run these tests in 720 low since there are no GPUs that can cope with modern games now in 1080/ultra but with 2018-19 new GPUs the lead of the 7700k will only get bigger and it would be the right thing to do to show this to the customer.

exactly..... well I mean, if you plan to play the very same games in 18/19 that you suggest to test now... otherwise the logic is flawed

 

[MarkPost]

See, guy can't even overclock a cpu without toasting it, still submits toasted cpu results, and you talk about trustworthiness?

Edit: Please go back to that review and let us know the fps delta for the 7800x at 4ghz vs 4.7ghz.

They test at default settings (so, turboed) and at fixed max OC. Remember, 7820x turbos to 4.3Ghz and Turbo Max is 4.5Ghz. Do you see the fps delta now?