Clash of the Titans: AMD Ryzen 7 vs Intel 6950X, 6900K & 7700K

Overview With unfortunate regularity Intel has been the dominate player the high-end mainstream and enthusiast corner of the markets for the past couple generations. This is because much like what Intel did with their Pentium 4 series… AMD went down a CPU design road that did not quite pan out like they had hoped it would. Don't get us wrong AMD's Bulldozer based designs (like the Excavator) were fantastic value CPUs but they never were able to quite match Intel's latest and greatest. This lack of true competition is why Intel has gotten downright miserly with their performance improvements in each new generation. So much so that when looking only at Intel 115x CPUs its pretty darn hard to justify upgrading from a Z87 Haswell system to a Z270 Kaby Lake system! Intel's socket 2011-v3 is even worse with prices that are so high you need a mortgage to afford them.

Thankfully AMD like the phoenix of mythology has risen… eer 'Ryzen' from the ashes and have released their own "Core 2 Duo" that takes them in a new, exciting direction. Ok… to be fair AMD's Ryzen is pronounced 'Rye-Zen' and not 'risen'… but the new Ryzen 7 series of CPUs is a phoenix. It not only promises a IPC performance improvement of better than 50% over their previous Excavator design, they also promise to take Intel on at their own game and beat them.

So what exactly has AMD's Ryzen team done and how do they specifically plan on beating monster CPU designs like Kaby Lake (i7 7700k) and Broadwell-E (6950X)? By doing what AMD does best: offering consumers more processing power for their hard-earned dollar. However, this time around it is not just 'bang for your buck' consumers that should be interested as AMD 7 CPU's offer eight real cores capable of handling a combined 16Threads. Yes that is twice what an i7 7700K offers (4c/8t), the same as a thousand dollar Intel Socket 2011-v3 6900K offers, and only 2c/4T less than a fifteen hundred dollar i7 6950k ten core option. More importantly the top of the line Ryzen 7 1800X only costs $499, the 7 1700X costs $399, and the real value star of the show the 7 1700 will only set consumers back a mere $329 – or only $29 more than a piddly little 4c/8t i7 7700k.

This alone is a lot of information to digest, and on paper the Ryzen 7 series does indeed look like it is going to rekindle the enthusiast's imagination for building AMD based systems. We of course don't live in a paper world. Instead we live in the real world ruled by facts and not promises. So today we are going to put the AMD 7 1800X, 1700X, and 1700 under the microscope to see how they match up against Intel's socket 2011-v3 and socket 1151 CPUs. Then and only then can we decide if AMD is indeed 'back' and ready to take Intel on in all markets and not just a select few.

AMD's Zen: Hashing Intel's Mellow The reason that Intel has been able to outperform AMD's processors can be summed up in one simple acronym: IPC. IPC or Instructions Per Clock is a simple, yet effective, method of judging how efficient a CPU design is as it does not matter how fast the core is clocked, it does not matter how many cores there are… as the IPC of a design will remain the same. Oh sure the overall performance will go up when comparing a 3Ghz to a 4Ghz version of the same design, but the actual number of instructions per clock cycle it can handle will be the same.

This is the area that AMD has fallen a bit behind in when compared to Intel. This is not because of a lack of talent and simply a lack of resources. This should come as no surprise as Intel literally has a yearly research and development budget in the ten-figure range. When 'you' as a company can literally throw hundreds and hundreds of millions and dollars at CPU architecture design every year 'you' can release a new architecture a lot faster than a company with a lot less resources. This is why even though AMD's Excavator team have refined the underlying design and reached performance levels they could have only imagined of when its ancestor Bulldozer was created Intel has been able to outpace them.

AMD really is the scrappy underdog of the computer world and their 'make do with less' attitude is why they are the only x86 CPU manufacture to still be standing and not be crushed into dust by the Intel juggernaut. So AMD knew they had a problem, they knew they were falling further and further behind – to the point where simply pushing the speed of the core would not let them stay competitive – and they decided to do something about it.

This is how Zen came about… and the dream of Zen was rather ambitious – to create a new design that had a 40% higher IPC than Excavator. To put this goal in to perspective they basically wanted to create a design that when running at a mere 2.8Ghz could perform the same as a 4Ghz Excavator core. Let the shear audacity sink in… and then realize that Intel is perfectly happy, and consider it a good return on their investment, when their new architecture is 5-10% better than their old one.

So did AMD succeed at their intended goal? Well yes and no. You see Zen is indeed did hit 40% improvement… but no AMD's team did not stop there. Instead they created a monster that is 52% better. Yes, and with all other things being equal (which they are not… more on this later) a single 1.92Ghz Zen core will basically perform the same as a 4Ghz Excavator core. Basically, Zen is an AMD 'Athlon 64 X2' sized leap forward for them.

So how did AMD go about creating this miracle? They rethought about how they were designing CPU's in the past and took a page from their APU and GPU design teams. At Zen's heart beats a modular building block called a CCX or CPU Complex. Much like a AMD's "Compute Unit" APU building block this CCX block is made up of a bunch of prefab parts. Want a bigger CPU… add more CCXs. Want a smaller one… turn off parts of a CCX. To be a bit more precise each ZEN CCX block houses four cores, 64K of L1 cache per core (256KB total), 512KB L2 cache per core (2MB total), and 8 MB of L3 cache that is shared across all four cores.

Unlike previous Compute Unit building block core a Zen CCX has native simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) technology baked right in allowing each core to process two threads at a time… just like Intel cores… ish… as AMD's SMT is arguably smarter/better/more efficient than Intel's 'hyperthreading' design (right now). Put another way each four core CCX block can handle eight

Drilling down further each core in the CCX can not only handle two threads at once but AMD has given the Zen design a much-needed performance boost thanks to a much quick instruction scheduler. To think of what an instruction scheduler is and does… is to imagine the I.S. is the foreman on a worksite directing what tasks go to what parts of the 'job site' and who will work on what (i.e. parts of the core). Basically, this foreman is a heck of a lot faster and smarter than its predecessor and a big reason why the IPC is 52% higher.

Backstopping this desperately needed scheduler is some really… really advanced predictive math for the cache buffer. You see a modern CPU vastly outstrips even the fastest external memory going so in order to keep the CPU actually working on tasks and not waiting for the equivalent of a cement mixer to come from across town the CPU itself has to 'pre-order' data to fill its 'on-site' buffer (i.e. its extremely fast L cache buffers). This is called 'pre-fetch' and if the pre-fetcher gets it wrong the CPU cycles that were used on going down that rabbit hole are wasted and the buffer may even need to be flushed before the CPU can do the actual work that comes in next. Basically, when it works the CPU humms along at max capacity and the overall system performance is outstanding… but when it gets it wrong and wrong often the system gets 'slow'.

AMD's improvement in this predictive analysis is called Neural Net Predication and is based on some pretty advanced deep learning and machine intelligence science. No its no SkyNet, or even StarTrek's Data… but it is a lot better than its ancestors. How it stacks up against Intel and their mega-budget remains to be seen… but AMD states the CPU 'learns' your habits and adjusts its pre-fetch routines based on your usage pattern… which is a little creepy… as do you really want the CPU knowing your web viewing habits… and judging you based on them?!

Zooming out a bit, a Zen CPU (or the eventual Zen APU's for that matter) does not need to rely upon just one CCX building block… or even a full building block. For example a Ryzen 7 CPU makes use of two full CCX's, but smaller ones only need one or one and a half. When more than one is used these CCX's are connected via what AMD calls Infinity Fabric… but can be considered AMD's next generation processor interconnect that sits on top of the CCX's and allows them to communicate with each other. In other words, you can consider it a modified/improved/etc version of AMD APU's Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) idea…ish. This additional layer is however why you can expect Ryzen 'G' processors with built in GPUs to land in the future… and carry on the AMD APU tradition.

Now as this CCX is modular all the way down to the core level AMD can easily disable 1, 2 or even 3 cores in a CCX to create smaller core-count Zen processors. For example, disable two in one CCX and have a fully working CCX and you have a '6 core Zen' (AKA Ryzen R5). Use only one CCX and you have a '4-core Zen' CPU (AKA Ryzen 3). This not only allows AMD a lot of flexibility in creating tailor made Zen processors for a wider range of the marketplace, it allows them to use Zen 7 cores that don't quiet pass muster at the full CCX level in the lower R5 series. Waste not want not is the name of the game when your resources are limited!

So in summary Zen is a heck of a lot faster at single tasks, is a heck of a lot smarter, is much more modular and overall a radical improvement for a single generation. This is exactly what AMD needed and we are glad to see that is what they did.

XFR and Precision Boost Ryzen is choke full of performance improve nets with everything from native SMT – that is arguably better than Intel's 'HyperThreading', on down to eight physical cores. There are however two new technologies that are really, really exciting and deserve to be highlighted and showcased. These two technologies are of course XFR and Precision Boost.

Let's start with Precision Boost. For many, many years now CPU's come with two speed specifications: stock and boost. In a nut shell the 'stock' speed is what the CPU can do on all cores all the time, while 'Boost' (or 'Turbo Boost' as Intel calls it) is a higher clock speed that a couple of the cores can do. The CPU does this by increasing the multiplier a couple extra levels on an 'as needed basis' but usually only on a couple cores. In practical terms this means single and dual threaded tasks get more speed and for people who are unwilling to manually adjust the multiplier… the CPU does it for them. Of course, the boost in multiplier is a lot less than what you can do manually but it too was a game changer back when it first hit the scene.

The downside is that this 'boost' is extremely course in its adjustments as it only can go in 100Mhz– ie 1 CPU multiplier – increments. Thus on systems that are right at the ragged edge of cooling the boost number is a pipe dream. This is how Intel does it and how AMD did it. Ryzen on the other hand is a new and much more elegant take on things as Precision Boost allows for much, much finer grained core speed control.

This is because, just as the Ryzen design team borrowed their 'building block' idea for processor design from the APU and GPU team, the design team also borrowed precision frequency adjustment from their GPU team. Basically, the boost speed can vary from core to core in real time based upon actual loads upon the cores, can be adjusted in 25 Mhz increments, and allows up to 0.6miliVolts of additional voltage can be fed to each core… all in real-time.

Of course, there is a few caveats to this new and improved Boost. First and foremost, these Precision Boost is smart enough to actually not fry the CPU cores. So while it will Boost speeds there is two hard limits baked in. First it will start lowering CPU core speed (especially on those that don't need the extra performance) when the CPU starts demanding 128 Watts of power. The other one is actually more troubling for the average consumer… as Precision Boost will start lowering core speed once Tcase (ie the CPU temperature via its integrated thermistors) hits 60-degrees C.

Sixty degrees is not all that hot and for most consumer it will be the real limiting factor. Thus cooling is very, very important to overall system performance and consumers who over-build with a high performance cooler will be rewarded with better real-world performance compared to those who stuck the cheapest cooler they could find on it. Lastly Precision Boost speed is different from all core boost speed. Basically, don't expect to get a Boost speed of say 4.0Ghz on all cores all the time. The CPU would probably pull more than PBoost allows. So its really more like a 1800x will routinely do 4.0Ghz on two cores, with others running at lower core clocks… and maybe do more than 2 cores if power draw and cooling limitations are not hit first. This is still pretty darn decent as PBoost does adjust each core based on individual needs in real time so the cores that need the speed now get it while cores that don't… don't needless raise the overall CPU temperature or pull more electricity than they need.

AMD however did not just stop there as they also included an entirely new boost mode. Basically on top of Precision Boost AMD also offers XFR. XFR, or Extended Frequency Range, is designed solely for low core demand scenarios and only does a small boost on the max Boost specification. Basically Ryzen 7 'X' models will hit 100Mhz higher than their Boost rated speed, while non-X models will only go up to 50Mhz faster. Of course cooling is once again the real limiting factor. So if you routinely are seeing 60-degree plus temperatures… swap out the cooler for a bigger, better model… and it in theory the CPU will reach its 'true' potential.

XFR is indeed a potential game changed but 100Mhz at most is a bit of a disappointment… and something AMD did not do a great job of explaining in prelaunch. Which to be fair is to be expected as it is brand-new way of looking at things and they didn't want to give Intel time to prepare.

Will this change much as time goes by and Ryzen matures? Possibly. But AMD has to ensure that all 7's can do it – even the 'worst' of them. Thus XFR is not going to (entirely) replace manual overclocking… as with manual you the owner find and set the core speed limit.

What we fully expect to happen is that each Ryzen family – R3, R5, R7 – will have different XFR limitations and the smaller cores will probably will get more aggressive XFR profiles. Possibly even larger X vs non-X XFR differences. We say this as overclocking 8-cores is an entirely different undertaking than four core CPUs. It is quite likely that 7 will prove to be just like socket 2011-v3 big core CPUs… and simply not be as good at overclocking as their smaller brethren. Time will tell on this. In the meantime, XFR is very interesting technology but it does have that 'fresh from the oven' smell. Its enticing, but even it in conjunction with Precision Boost it may leave you wanting even more.

Closer Look Ryzen 7 Series Right now the sum total of the Ryzen series are three CPUs. The top of the line 1800X, the 1700X, and the more value orientated 1700. Thanks to AMD we can show you what the all three of these are and can do. So let's look at each model in a bit of detail to see how they differ; but first let's see how they are all similar.

First and foremost, all Ryzen 7 CPUs come with exact same number of cores, onboard cache, same 4.8 billion transistor count, and same manual overclocking features. In practical terms what this means is all 7's are eight core CPUs that offer native multithreading on all cores. So all are 8 core, 16 thread CPUs. This is pretty darn impressive all on its own as Intel only offers more than 4c/8T processors on their expensive 'enthusiast' orientated 2011-v3 socket ecosystem.

This however is only the tip of the iceberg as these CPUs offer 16MB of on-board L3 cache – whereas Intel's 115x eco-system max's out at 8MB and even on the 2011-v3 models only the top two of the latest Broadwell-E generation have more onboard cache.

Next up all Ryzen 7s, including non-'X' models, come with unlocked multi-pliers. Yes AMD is not demanding you the consumer spend more to remove this artificial limit like Intel does with their special X and K models. In more practical terms the actual stock speed of the Ryzen 7 CPU is not as important as it is with Intel… as you can adjust the multiplier to emulate the higher priced models. Or at least you can do as long as 1) you do not mind overclocking your CPU and 2) your particular 7 can handle the higher speeds. In testing all handled the same max speed fine – it was just the amount of extra voltage needed that varied. More on this later in the review.

The other things that all Ryzen 7's share in common in their new socket type. Basically, Ryzen means AM4 socket so there is no backwards compatibility. This is partially because Ryzen's integrated memory controller is a dual channel DDR4 only controller, but it mainly is because these are bigger CPUs that require 1331 pins. That is the two big reasons for needing an entirely new motherboard… an AM4 motherboard.

The downside to the new and bigger AM4 socket is that not every aftermarket CPU cooling solution is compatible. Basically, if your cooling solution relies upon the 'stock' AMD mounting brackets and uses a 'clip' retention mechanism… you are good to go. On the other hand, if your existing CPU cooling solution uses a custom backplate and top-bracket mechanism… you will need a new AM4 bracket as the mounting holes are further apart than on a AM3 board. Right now, cooling manufactures are rushing to bring out AM4 brackets for their existing line but it's still slow going.

Thankfully all is not lost. Some motherboards like the ASUS Crosshair VI Hero we are using come with the mounting holes for both AM4 and earlier AM3 retention brackets. Yes that means any old AM3 cooler will work with the Crosshair VI. That is a pretty big reason to opt for ASUS in the short term as peace of mind is priceless.

Lastly all Ryzen 7 CPUs come with 16+8 PCIe lanes. This is not the same as saying '24' PCIe lanes as its really 16 PCIe 3 lanes for graphics and the rest is divided evenly between NVMe and SATA storage (two SATA3 ports are paired directly to the CPU, and the rest is for IO hub duties such as USB 3.1 gen 1). For those hoping for native USB 3.1 Gen 2 (aka real USB 3.1 with 10Gbps speed) well all is not lost.

The new X370 chipset, that enthusiast grade boards like the ASUS Crosshair VI Hero we are using, natively supports two USB 3.1 gen 2 ports. The new B350 chipset also has dual 3.1 G2 support baked in, and the A320 will support one port. X300 and A300 chipset based boards however will not.

Lastly the shipping container they come in will not differ beyond labels – but the cooling solution if any will differ.

Basically, please don't expect to get a shiny new Ryzen wooden box if you buy the full set. The above is a reviewer's only option… though if you do have contacts at AMD and are willing to pay for it… they probably can hook you up… but it will not come with the ASUS motherboard.

We have to send a quick shoutout and thank you to Memory Express for providing us with the 1700x and 1800x pictured above as well as a thank you to AMD for the great kit they sent us for today's review.

As a side note we reached out for the RAM for this review to our contacts at Ballistix and they came through in spades. The Ballistix Sport line really like Ryzen and we had zero issues with this two stick 32GB kit.

So how does the three Ryzen 7s differ? In a couple key ways.

First up is the 1800X. This is the top of the line, 'flagship' Ryzen 7 processor. As such it gets all the bells and whistles. This means XFR with 100MHz boost abilities. It means all core base clock speed of 3.6Ghz, with a Boost speed of up to 4.0Ghz. In other words under optimum circumstances at least one core will hit 4.1Ghz via Precision Boost and XFR.

In either case this flagship model has a TDP of 95 watts and has a MSRP of only $499! Though this is for the WOF version… i.e. 'WithOut Fan/heatsink'. Expect to pay more for the Wraith Max version when in lands in the near future.

The 1700X is the mid-tier option of the existing 7 lineup in that it offers a fully enabled XFR (up to 100Mhz) but comes with a slight stock down-clock on the cores. Basically in return for saving a hundred dollars (MSRP of 399 vs 499 USD) buyers will get a CPU with 8c/16t set at 3.4Ghz and a maximum Boost specification of 'only' 3.8Ghz. This means under optimum circumstances at least one core will hit 3.9Ghz via Precision Boost and XFR… or 200MHz difference over the 1800X.

Also like the 1800X the 1700X has a TDP of 95 watts, and the MSRP of 399 is for the no-heatsink or fan 'base model'.

This brings us to the last but not certainly least model. In fact, the 1700 quickly became our favorite. This is because this 8c/16t Ryzen CPU has an MSRP of only $329. That is significantly less than what Intel's i7 7700K processor was originally released at, and only 29 (US) dollars more than what that 4c/8t processor demands now thanks to Intel's 'aggressive' price cutting.

On the downside, this Ryzen 7 comes with a base clock of only 3.0Ghz, a Boost Clock that is limited to 3.7Ghz and XFR hobbled with only a 50Mhz boost. Put another way under optimum circumstances at least one core will hit 3.75Ghz via Precision Boost and XFR. On the positive side… its overclocks basically as well as the more expensive 7's and for the knowledgeable consumer this is one heck of a deal.

Testbeds & Giveaway Ryzen Testbed: Motherboard: ASUS RoG Crosshair VI Hero X370 CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 1700/1700x/1800x RAM: 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT White 2x16GB DDR4-2400 Cooling: EVGA CLC 280 AIO Video Card(s): MSI GTX 980Ti Lightning SSD: 1x Crucial MX300 2050GB, 2x Intel DC S3700 800GB SSDs Power Supply: Corsair AX860i X99 Testbed: Motherboard: ASUS X99 TUF Sabertooth Processor: Intel i7-6950X, i7-6900K Memory: 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT Red 2x16GB DDR4-2400 Cooling: EVGA CLC 280 AIO Video Card(s): MSI GTX 980Ti Lightning SSD: 1x Crucial MX300 2050GB, 2x Intel DC S3700 800GB SSDs Power Supply: Corsair AX860i Z270 Testbed: Motherboard: ASUS Z270 TUF Sabertooth Mark 1 Processor: Intel i7-7700K Memory: 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT White 2x16GB DDR4-2400 Cooling: EVGA CLC 280 AIO Video Card(s): MSI GTX 980Ti Lightning SSD: 1x Crucial MX300 2050GB, 2x Intel DC S3700 800GB SSDs Power Supply: Corsair AX860i AMD FM2+ Testbed: Motherboard: Gigabyte G1.Sniper A88X Processor: AMD A10-7890K Memory: 32GB GSkill TridentX DDR3-2400 4x8GB Cooling: EVGA CLC 280 AIO Video Card(s): MSI GTX 980Ti Lightning SSD: 1x Crucial MX300 2050GB, 2x Intel DC S3700 800GB SSDs Power Supply: Corsair AX860i RHR Win a HyperX Cloud Stinger Headset Overclocking It should certainly come as no surprise, yet alone rise to the level of 'controversial', when we say that one area that AMD's previous generations was behind Intel in was ease of overclocking. Ryzen changes all that. First and foremost, all Ryzen 7 (and upcoming lower tier Ryzen CPUs) will be 'Black' or 'K' processors… though considering how much horsepower they have on tap its more fair to equate them with Intel 'X' processors. Yes AMD will not artificially limit any multipliers with these bad boys. That is a game changer and in theory puts AMD not just back on equal footing but actually a step up from Intel -as Intel makes consumers pay a premium for unlocked multipliers.

Unfortunately, unlocked multipliers is only one part of overclocking and processor overclocking limitations is the real limitation. After all it's not like every CPU can handle a multiplier of say 50… as otherwise AMD would simply sell a 5.0Ghz Ryzen in the first place! In this area AMD still does have a bit of work cut out for them as Ryzen 7 CPUs are not able to hit massive overclocks enthusiasts have come to expect from the Intel alternatives. Overclocking also turns off XFR and Precision Power Calibration so in some instances manual may not be noticeably 'better'.

In testing our three 7 (1700, 1700X and 1800X) all topped out at 4.1Ghz even when going above 1.5v this was a hard wall. The only difference is that the 1700 required above 1.45v while the 1700X and 1800X only needed 1.4v range. Could we have pushed to 4.2Ghz if we had gone past 1.5v? Maybe, even probably in the case of the 1800X, but that is a lot of voltage to be feeding the processor and beyond our comfort level. Especially when all three processors also needed SOC voltage increased to 1.25V and 'NorthBridge' voltage set to 1.15. Yes to do this properly you are going to need heavy duty cooling – just as you would with Intel socket 2011-v3 processors.

On the positive side this still is 4.1Ghz on all cores and if you so choose you probably could a bit better if you play with 2-core vs 8-core overclocking. We don’t believe in asymmetrical overclocking as we favor consistency over variable performance. Call us old-fashioned. Either way it does make the 1700 one heck of a bargain as the top-limit is pretty much the same for all Ryzen 7 cores – right now. As time goes by this may change… and probably will, but right now the 1700 is one sweet deal.

Also on the positive side 4.1Ghz is only a couple 100Mhz lower than what Intel socket 2011-v3 processors can do. Basically, people used to muster 4.8 or even 5Ghz overclocking on their itty-bitty 4 core socket 1151 system are in for some disappointment… as even Intel can't do that right now using extremely mature tech.

Lastly, as Ryzen matures we fully expect this couple hundred MHz difference in overclocking to disappear in future batches… and do expect smaller Ryzen R5s (and especially R3's) to do better. After all they have fewer cores and thus fewer links in the chain… and when dealing with multi-core overclocking it is always the weakest link in the chain that limits overclocking. Time will tell on this last bit.

On the RAM side all three CPUs integrated memory controllers proved to be very similar and our RAM topped out at DDR4-2600 which is a bit lower than we would have liked but still pretty darn decent all things considered. This is the other major weakness of Ryzen: the Integrated Memory Controller. Right now, DDR4-3000 and higher speeds is just not all that likely. For most this is not that big a deal as real world performance differences between ultra-high (and expensive) RAM and lower and cheaper RAM is minor to say the least. Our recommendation is opting for 2400 or 2600 at the most as that way you will get all the performance you pay for.

So how would we rate the three Ryzen processors in over-clocking? We give all of them a solid 8 out of 10. There is still room for improvement but AMD has come a long way in a very short period of time. In value for overclocking… the 'cheap' 'little' 7 1700 blew us away. It may have needed a smidge more voltage but it did keep pace with the 1800X – for a lot less. That to us makes it a solid 9 out of 10.

Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 Adobe Photoshop is a raster graphics editor developed and published by Adobe Systems for macOS and Windows. To further make loading slower we have included a bunch of extra brushes that need to be loaded before the program is ready to use.

Adobe Premiere Elements 2015 Adobe Premiere Elements is a video editing software published by Adobe Systems. It is a scaled-down version of Adobe Premiere Pro and is tailored to novice editors and consumers. The entry screen offers clip organization, editing and auto-movie generation options. To stress the CPU we have disabled GPU rendering and instead Premier will use the CPU only.

CINEBENCH R15 CINEBENCH is a real-world cross platform test suite that evaluates your computer's performance capabilities. CINEBENCH is based on MAXON's award-winning animation software CINEMA 4D, which is used extensively by studios and production houses worldwide for 3D content creation.

GeekBench Benchmark Geekbench is a cross-platform processor benchmark, with a scoring system that separates single-core and multi-core performance, and workloads that simulate real-world scenarios

PC Mark 8 PCMark is a computer benchmark tool developed by Futuremark to test the performance of a PC at the system and component level. In most cases the tests in PCMark are designed to represent typical home user workloads.

POV-Ray Benchmark The Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer, or POV-Ray, is a ray tracing program which generates images from a text-based scene description, and is available for a variety of computer platforms.

Assassins Creed: Syndicate Gaming Benchmark Assassins Creed: Syndicate is an historical action-adventure video game, published by Ubisoft and released in October 2015. Like Battlefield 4 this games does not include an in-game benchmark. This makes it perfect for more real world gaming testing. To obtain repeatable results we have used FRAPs and recorded a custom run through Thames River section starting on St. Pual's Pier. An average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are stock highest settings for quality, VSync disabled and a resolution of 1920x1080.

Battlefield 4 Battlefield 4 is first person shooter video game, published by EA Digital Illusions CE and released in October 2013. Unlike most, this games does not include an in-game benchmark. This makes it perfect for more real world gaming tests. To obtain repeatable results we have used FRAPs and recorded the first 90 seconds of the single player Tashgar level. An average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are Ultra pre-set for quality, with VSync disabled and a resolution of 1920x1080.

Crysis 3 Gaming Benchmark Crysis 3 is a first person shooter video game, published by Electronic Arts and released in February 2013. While older than some of the others it is one of the most visually stunning games released to date and puts a lot of demands on the GPU. This makes it perfect for more real world gaming testing. To obtain repeatable results we have used FRAPs and recorded 90 seconds of the single player ‘Post Human' level, starting as soon as soon as prophet is handed a Hammer II pistol by Psycho. An average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are highest settings for quality, VSync disabled and a resolution of 1920x1080. Texture Quality, Game Effects, Objects, Particles, Post Processing, Shadows, Shading, Water, and System Specs all set to Very High. Motion Blur was set to High and Lens Flare was set to On. Anti-Aliasing was set to MSAA 8X and Antistrophic Filtering was set to 16x.

Grand Theft Auto 5 Gaming Benchmark GTA V is an open world action-adventure video game published by Rockstar Games and released in April 2014 for the PC. The game has a benchmark component to it that mimics game play and an average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are stock 'very high' settings for quality, VSync disabled and AA set to off, with a resolution of 1920x1080.

Metro: Last Light Gaming Benchmark Metro: Last Light is a DX11 first-person shooter video game developed by Ukrainian studio 4A Games and published by Deep Silver released in May 2013. The game is set in a post-apocalyptic world and features action-oriented gameplay. The game has a benchmark component to it that mimics game play. Scene D6 was used and an average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are Very High for quality and a resolution of 1920x1080. DirectX 11 is used, texture filtering is set to AF 16X, motion blur is normal, SSA turned on and tessellation is set to high.

winRAR Benchmark WinRAR is a popular file compression and decompression tool that also happens to be multi-threaded application. While it does have a built in benchmark we have opted to use a custom 5GB test consisting of small, medium, and moderately large files. We then time how long it takes to compress the files into one .rar file with all WinRAR settings left at their defaults.

x264 HD Benchmark x264 HD Benchmark is a benchmark that allows you to measure how fast your PC can encode a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 video file. It allows for an easy comparison because everyone running it will use the same video clip and software. The x264 video encoder has a fairly accurate internal benchmark (in frames per second) for each pass of the video encode and it also uses multi-core processors very efficiently. All these factors make the x264 HD Benchmark an ideal tool in comparing the video encoding performance of different processors and systems.

Summary: Ryzen vs Intel 6950X, 6900K, 7700K Of the three main competitors to the Ryzen 7 series the 6950X makes the most compelling case in opting for AMD over Intel. A mere 6-14 percent reduction in real world performance for a massive reduction in price? That is about as close to 'no-brainer' levels as you are going to find. After all, that extra money you just found in your budget can go towards getting a lot more video card horsepower… horsepower that turns the 4-7 percent lower gaming performance into a massive gain for the AMD rig. Of course, if you do have the cash to burn the 6950X is still faster… so if 'money is no object' AMD is close but not optimal. Considering how few consumers have that much extra cash to waste on relatively small performance boosts AMD is indeed back in the race!

Summary: Ryzen vs Intel 6900K The Intel 6900K is actually AMD Ryzen 7's stiffest competition. Yes it costs 1 to 2 times as much (depending on which 7 you are using for comparison) but it is one heck of a CPU on one heck of a platform – easily the best overall Intel offers. However, in apples to apples / stock vs stock comparison the 6900K is still not that great deal. Single digit improvement (and in some cases darn near rounding error differences) is simply not worth paying the 'Intel tax'… unless you need quad channel RAM and 40 PCIe lanes that is. If you do… well you already know the answer.

Summary: Ryzen vs Intel 7700K While the Intel i7 7700K is indeed the PC gaming enthusiast's choice right now, the great gaming performance it offers is simply annihilated once consumers start doing non-gaming related things. In other words, unless you are building a PC Gaming only build… the Ryzen 7 series in general and the Ryzen 7 1700 in specific is the better deal. Better real world performance, good gaming performance… and a darn decent price tag makes Intel's LGA 1151 offerings seem unappealing – Intel's recent reduction in asking price or not!

Summary: Ryzen OC vs Intel 6950X OC, 6900K OC, 7700K OC The Intel 6950X is not a great overclocking CPU… but it does overclock noticeably better than AMD's Ryzen 7 series. Thus, the difference in performance between the Ryzen and Intel X CPU only gets wider. Is the 5-18 percent performance difference worth huge increase in cost? We don't think so… but AMD really needs to figure out how to get some more headroom as Ryzen 7 is good… but not the slam dunk it could have been. That or figure out how to make a three CCX Ryzen and offer a twelve core beast. Then the reduction in individual core performance would be negated by having more cores on tap. Until then the 6950X is still the king of bling computers.

Summary: Ryzen OC vs Intel 6900K OC As with the 6950X AMD's Ryzen series is an excellent choice and one that is hard to justify not opting for. Better overclocking headroom or not, the doubling (or more) of cost is just too high to justify.

Summary: Ryzen OC vs Intel 7700K OC Let's face it… smaller CPUs overclock like scaled cats in comparison to larger core CPUs. This is why the 7700K's gaming performance lead only widens when both it and the Ryzen 7 series are overclocked. However four cores, even four heavily overclocked cores, simply cannot compete against an eight core beast like the Ryzen 7 series. Honestly, for all but hardcore PC gaming enthusiast, consider the Ryzen 7 1700's extra thirty bucks money well spent!

Closing Statement Due to the immaturity of this brand-new processor design the Ryzen 1700 is pretty much in the sweet spot for consumers. It manually overclocks basically has high as not only the 1700X but also the 1800X yet costs significantly less than those already excellent value processors. Basically the 1700 is meant for people who know what they are doing and do not want to spend more than they need to. Alternatively, the 1800X is the better option for consumers who just want to press the power button and enjoy darn near Intel 6900 or 6950X performance without the budget killing price tag… and yes that is one of the main competitors for the Ryzen 7 series. We say that as it gives you nearly the same horsepower in most common scenarios for the enthusiast at less than half the upfront cost. No matter how you slice it, and no matter if you consider future promises in your final judgement, AMD is back. They are back and ready to compete for your hard-earned enthusiast dollar. The 1700X on the other hand is for people who don’t want to spend five hundred dollars on a CPU but want to get darn near the same overall performance. In other words its for people who want a good deal but don’t want to overclock.

Now with all that said Intel does have two very mature CPU designs and they are indeed stiff competition for the Ryzen 7 series. That is to be expected as their 'Kaby Lake' and 'Broadwell-E' are mature designs that Intel has a lot of time to refine. When you compare a mature design to a fresh from the oven design the extra time and experience is going to win out almost every time. Now with that said, the differences are not 'massive' outside a few niche areas, and with time yes we do believe AMD will reach parity and probably even pull ahead. AMD really has put Intel on notice that releasing rehashes with minor improvements is not going to fly in the consumer market any more. For that AMD need a standing ovation as the 6950X is indeed a beast but no non-Enterprise CPU should ever reach the above the 1K let alone 2K like when it was first released.

So with such stiff competition it really will depend on what you the buyer is looking for. If you want a killer deal on a beast of a multi-processing system that is also a great jack of all trades system the Ryzen 7 in general and the 1700 in specific is awfully hard to beat – especially when paired with kick ass RAM like the Crucial DDR4-2400 Ballistix White and the excellent ASUS Crosshair VI Hero. If you are interested in hitting massive overclocks… Ryzen is still not optimal. Basically, all 7's are going to top out at about the same in 4.1 to 4.2Ghz range. This however is what makes the 1700 such a killer deal as it can be pushed this far with ease and yet costs only 329 vs the 1800X's 499! That makes it a steal of a deal for the overclocking enthusiast on a tight budget.

Now for a gaming system, and only a gaming system where typical application performance make no mind… it is not quite cut and dry. On the one hand until AMD gets MS to get the lead out over their SMT driver issue Intel's faster 7700K CPU is a better option. On the other hand few people actually build an expensive system just to game on. Most want their hard-earned money to do more than one job. Thus, the proliferation 'of general purpose gaming rigs' that can do double duty as work machines during the day and then game rigs at night.

This is where Ryzen starts to really shine as it is tailor made for those who want an all-round system that can handle a multitude of tasks. While Intel's similarly priced 1151 i7 7700K is stiff coemption for Ryzen 7 series we are firmly in the 'more cores is better than higher core speed' camp. More cores simply can do more at the same time. For example, you can "crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women"... and live stream it all in real time so that all your friends can see it. That is a lot to ask of any 4core/8thread system and why 8 cores humming along at even 'stock' 3-3.7Ghz is usually more optimal in the real world than 4 cores at 4.2-4.5Ghz.

Whether you agree with our assessment or not, one thing that you cannot disagree with is that AMD is back and ready to compete for your hard-earned dollar on numerous fronts.