Corsair H170i Elite Capellix XT review
Forspoken: PC performance graphics benchmarks
ASRock Z790 Taichi review
The Callisto Protocol: PC graphics benchmarks
G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Review
Posted by: on: 03/14/2017 09:38 AM [
255 comment(s) ]
We test the most affordable Ryzen 7 series processor, the 1700 CPU will cost you only 329 USD. This units oozes value as the performance is really good. The 8-core processor will be tested on an X370 motherboard.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « < 46 47 48 49 > »
Bentez
Senior Member
Posts: 1309
Senior Member
Posts: 1309
Posted on: 03/17/2017 05:32 PM
the looks to be at least 120 better than 7700k, hmmm..
the looks to be at least 120 better than 7700k, hmmm..
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Posted on: 03/17/2017 06:06 PM
Well, there is another view. If you are 60 Hz gamer then Ryzen is OK now and in future.
I am not confused about state it is in, I do understand things which hold it back and that some of them can be tweaked by user to reasonable level (CCX threading, STM ON/OFF via BIOS, CCX ON/OFF via OS/BIOS).
I mainly dislike current bclk and multi behavior with memory and CCX. As those are things I can tweak only a bit and most of work has to be done by coders in AMD and MB manufacturers.
Then there is M$ scheduler which they claim is fine, but it is already apparent that it is not fine as it does not recognize CCXes and in some scenarios fails to even assign threads to idle CPU cores. (It has no problem to keep 2 heavy threads on same logical core.)
It would be solved if Ryzen was considered as dual socket CPU. (2 CPUs where each has 4C/8T, then Windows would use it much more consistently.)
Like... since I want 4x16GB at decent clock I was planning 3000MHz memories for around $440. But 3000MHz is not working properly, so 3200MHz is next step and that comes at $670 here. Then there is timing and sub-timing (currently not configurable by users). And many memories which will simply not work.
In other words, there are many things which have to be tackled by someone other than myself and I go by experience. And as such I know that at time those things will be solved I'll get what I want 10~20% cheaper and will not have to spend dozens of hours by tweaking.
I even consider worst case scenario: Ryzen will not be good enough for me as M$ will ignore it and AMD will not improve on memory compatibility.
Intel will not deliver 6C/12T in reasonable price.
=> And then I'll suffer till Zen+ core (2nd Ryzen generation).
At least I'm not the only one feeling confused by this launch. Waiting sounds like a smart idea however apart from bios and mem stability, I'm not sure we'll see many short term gains from Zen. I think I will give it another week, maybe two to make a decision but I'm not waiting months. Though at the moment I am leaning towards something ending in a 'K'..
Well, there is another view. If you are 60 Hz gamer then Ryzen is OK now and in future.
I am not confused about state it is in, I do understand things which hold it back and that some of them can be tweaked by user to reasonable level (CCX threading, STM ON/OFF via BIOS, CCX ON/OFF via OS/BIOS).
I mainly dislike current bclk and multi behavior with memory and CCX. As those are things I can tweak only a bit and most of work has to be done by coders in AMD and MB manufacturers.
Then there is M$ scheduler which they claim is fine, but it is already apparent that it is not fine as it does not recognize CCXes and in some scenarios fails to even assign threads to idle CPU cores. (It has no problem to keep 2 heavy threads on same logical core.)
It would be solved if Ryzen was considered as dual socket CPU. (2 CPUs where each has 4C/8T, then Windows would use it much more consistently.)
Like... since I want 4x16GB at decent clock I was planning 3000MHz memories for around $440. But 3000MHz is not working properly, so 3200MHz is next step and that comes at $670 here. Then there is timing and sub-timing (currently not configurable by users). And many memories which will simply not work.
In other words, there are many things which have to be tackled by someone other than myself and I go by experience. And as such I know that at time those things will be solved I'll get what I want 10~20% cheaper and will not have to spend dozens of hours by tweaking.
I even consider worst case scenario: Ryzen will not be good enough for me as M$ will ignore it and AMD will not improve on memory compatibility.
Intel will not deliver 6C/12T in reasonable price.
=> And then I'll suffer till Zen+ core (2nd Ryzen generation).
Forkinator
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Posted on: 03/17/2017 08:58 PM
Well, there is another view. If you are 60 Hz gamer then Ryzen is OK now and in future.
I am not confused about state it is in, I do understand things which hold it back and that some of them can be tweaked by user to reasonable level (CCX threading, STM ON/OFF via BIOS, CCX ON/OFF via OS/BIOS).
I mainly dislike current bclk and multi behavior with memory and CCX. As those are things I can tweak only a bit and most of work has to be done by coders in AMD and MB manufacturers.
Then there is M$ scheduler which they claim is fine, but it is already apparent that it is not fine as it does not recognize CCXes and in some scenarios fails to even assign threads to idle CPU cores. (It has no problem to keep 2 heavy threads on same logical core.)
It would be solved if Ryzen was considered as dual socket CPU. (2 CPUs where each has 4C/8T, then Windows would use it much more consistently.)
Like... since I want 4x16GB at decent clock I was planning 3000MHz memories for around $440. But 3000MHz is not working properly, so 3200MHz is next step and that comes at $670 here. Then there is timing and sub-timing (currently not configurable by users). And many memories which will simply not work.
In other words, there are many things which have to be tackled by someone other than myself and I go by experience. And as such I know that at time those things will be solved I'll get what I want 10~20% cheaper and will not have to spend dozens of hours by tweaking.
I even consider worst case scenario: Ryzen will not be good enough for me as M$ will ignore it and AMD will not improve on memory compatibility.
Intel will not deliver 6C/12T in reasonable price.
=> And then I'll suffer till Zen+ core (2nd Ryzen generation).
Good info
Well, there is another view. If you are 60 Hz gamer then Ryzen is OK now and in future.
I am not confused about state it is in, I do understand things which hold it back and that some of them can be tweaked by user to reasonable level (CCX threading, STM ON/OFF via BIOS, CCX ON/OFF via OS/BIOS).
I mainly dislike current bclk and multi behavior with memory and CCX. As those are things I can tweak only a bit and most of work has to be done by coders in AMD and MB manufacturers.
Then there is M$ scheduler which they claim is fine, but it is already apparent that it is not fine as it does not recognize CCXes and in some scenarios fails to even assign threads to idle CPU cores. (It has no problem to keep 2 heavy threads on same logical core.)
It would be solved if Ryzen was considered as dual socket CPU. (2 CPUs where each has 4C/8T, then Windows would use it much more consistently.)
Like... since I want 4x16GB at decent clock I was planning 3000MHz memories for around $440. But 3000MHz is not working properly, so 3200MHz is next step and that comes at $670 here. Then there is timing and sub-timing (currently not configurable by users). And many memories which will simply not work.
In other words, there are many things which have to be tackled by someone other than myself and I go by experience. And as such I know that at time those things will be solved I'll get what I want 10~20% cheaper and will not have to spend dozens of hours by tweaking.
I even consider worst case scenario: Ryzen will not be good enough for me as M$ will ignore it and AMD will not improve on memory compatibility.
Intel will not deliver 6C/12T in reasonable price.
=> And then I'll suffer till Zen+ core (2nd Ryzen generation).
Good info
Relayer
Member
Posts: 48
Member
Posts: 48
Posted on: 03/27/2017 05:30 AM
Before Ryzen came out I don't recall anyone sayingthat you need a 7700K to play games. I don't recall anyone complaining about the 6900's gaming performance. Just the price. Now you can get virtually the same performance as a 6900 for 1/2, or less if you can O/C, and for some reason it sucks?
Is everyone really rocking 7700K's?
Before Ryzen came out I don't recall anyone sayingthat you need a 7700K to play games. I don't recall anyone complaining about the 6900's gaming performance. Just the price. Now you can get virtually the same performance as a 6900 for 1/2, or less if you can O/C, and for some reason it sucks?
Is everyone really rocking 7700K's?
pages « < 46 47 48 49 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9797
AMD A10 7890k?