Shadow of the Tomb Raider: RTX and DLSS Update
ASUS RT-AX88U (AX6000) router review
The Division 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
URCDkey Spring Sale(up to 86% off) Windows 10 Pro $11
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming X review
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 VENTUS XS 6G OC review
Palit GeForce GTX 1660 StormX OC review
Corsair Crystal 680X PC Chassis Review
Corsair Carbide 678C review
Bitfenix Enso Mesh ATX Chassis review
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Review
Posted by: on: 03/14/2017 08:38 AM [
259 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 1 2 3 4 > »
0blivious
Senior Member
Posts: 2421
Senior Member
Posts: 2421
Posted on: 03/14/2017 09:18 AM
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
Sunesha
Member
Posts: 27
Member
Posts: 27
Posted on: 03/14/2017 10:20 AM
Thanks for testing with a aircooler. I am glad that you can get good enough overclock =)
Thanks for testing with a aircooler. I am glad that you can get good enough overclock =)
Toetje583
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:10 AM
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
It's still fine in gaming nothing to worry about FPS wise, that intel is on the top by 15+fps doesen't mean the CPU is "Bad" for gaming. So the CPU is a good deal for both the users Gaming/Content. Intel will be on the top aslong as they wan't unless users like you invest in AMD. Okay perhaps you have no reason to upgrade gaming wise. Anyway I'm getting one to build a new ESXI homelab once the CPU is supported. Great RAW performance!
Don't choose intel over those 10/15FPS
invest in competition aswell.
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
It's still fine in gaming nothing to worry about FPS wise, that intel is on the top by 15+fps doesen't mean the CPU is "Bad" for gaming. So the CPU is a good deal for both the users Gaming/Content. Intel will be on the top aslong as they wan't unless users like you invest in AMD. Okay perhaps you have no reason to upgrade gaming wise. Anyway I'm getting one to build a new ESXI homelab once the CPU is supported. Great RAW performance!
Don't choose intel over those 10/15FPS
invest in competition aswell.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6714
Senior Member
Posts: 6714
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:22 AM
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
In games where the ccx is not causing issues its just there with 6900k np. But mostly yes it is somewhat behind.
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
In games where the ccx is not causing issues its just there with 6900k np. But mostly yes it is somewhat behind.
BlueRay
Senior Member
Posts: 258
Senior Member
Posts: 258
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:27 AM
It's still fine in gaming nothing to worry about FPS wise, that intel is on the top by 15+fps doesen't mean the CPU is "Bad" for gaming. So the CPU is a good deal for both the users Gaming/Content. Intel will be on the top aslong as they wan't unless users like you invest in AMD. Okay perhaps you have no reason to upgrade gaming wise. Anyway I'm getting one to build a new ESXI homelab once the CPU is supported. Great RAW performance!
Don't choose intel over those 10/15FPS invest in competition aswell.
Well it's not just 10 fps. In some games the difference is 25-30 fps. In the future and as GPUs get stronger the Ryzen system may be a greater bottleneck. It's a tough decision. I think if you plan to game only an i5 or an i7 is better option. As for future proofing yes games may utilise more cores and threads but maybe not. Even on heavy threaded games Ryzen is still behind. So this tells me that the performance may not improve so much in the future. It's a very good CPU but not for exclusive gaming. If you are one of those who heavily multi task or stream Ryzen is a better option yes but if you plan to game and only game then it's not.
It's still fine in gaming nothing to worry about FPS wise, that intel is on the top by 15+fps doesen't mean the CPU is "Bad" for gaming. So the CPU is a good deal for both the users Gaming/Content. Intel will be on the top aslong as they wan't unless users like you invest in AMD. Okay perhaps you have no reason to upgrade gaming wise. Anyway I'm getting one to build a new ESXI homelab once the CPU is supported. Great RAW performance!
Don't choose intel over those 10/15FPS
invest in competition aswell.
Well it's not just 10 fps. In some games the difference is 25-30 fps. In the future and as GPUs get stronger the Ryzen system may be a greater bottleneck. It's a tough decision. I think if you plan to game only an i5 or an i7 is better option. As for future proofing yes games may utilise more cores and threads but maybe not. Even on heavy threaded games Ryzen is still behind. So this tells me that the performance may not improve so much in the future. It's a very good CPU but not for exclusive gaming. If you are one of those who heavily multi task or stream Ryzen is a better option yes but if you plan to game and only game then it's not.
Toli001
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:33 AM
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
I very much doubt that you will be playing on 1080p with 1080 Ti in order to see the difference. And if there is a difference it is only on your Afterburner OSD, you cannot see it with your eyes (120fps vs 140fps).
Great review. Thank you.
These Ryzens are great deals if you're a PC user who creates more content.
I wanted to build a Ryzen rig (build itch) to replace my i7, but as a gamer, it just isn't doing it. It's beating the old FX series but still really nowhere near Intel. Any windows fixes aren't closing that gap.
I very much doubt that you will be playing on 1080p with 1080 Ti in order to see the difference. And if there is a difference it is only on your Afterburner OSD, you cannot see it with your eyes (120fps vs 140fps).
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34635
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34635
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:40 AM
The gaming perf is not an issue in every and any situation. If you purchase a GeForce GTX 1080 or 1080 Ti and game in a CPU bound resolution (1080p) yes, you will see a loss in performance (which varies per title). On average 10% 'ish in extremes however that can run up-to a ridiculous 40% (Tomb Raider).
The second you get more GPU bound, you are not going to notice that perf differential. Even with that 1080 in 2560x1440 you'll have a hard time spotting the perf drop. But the reality remains that Ryzen 7 is underperforming compared to Intel in gaming at CPU bound situations. It is what it is, at this point if you plan to build a nice gaming rig and say a GTX 1060 or RX 480 is your sweet spot for gaming and budget, Ryzen 7 1700 makes total sense at 329 USD with desktop perf that is ridiculously fast for the money.
It's in the high-end and enthusiast segment where the true problem sits. For anything below that segment, Ryzen offers superb value/perf wise.
I wish I could tell a different story on Ryzen 7, but that is the reality of it.
The gaming perf is not an issue in every and any situation. If you purchase a GeForce GTX 1080 or 1080 Ti and game in a CPU bound resolution (1080p) yes, you will see a loss in performance (which varies per title). On average 10% 'ish in extremes however that can run up-to a ridiculous 40% (Tomb Raider).
The second you get more GPU bound, you are not going to notice that perf differential. Even with that 1080 in 2560x1440 you'll have a hard time spotting the perf drop. But the reality remains that Ryzen 7 is underperforming compared to Intel in gaming at CPU bound situations. It is what it is, at this point if you plan to build a nice gaming rig and say a GTX 1060 or RX 480 is your sweet spot for gaming and budget, Ryzen 7 1700 makes total sense at 329 USD with desktop perf that is ridiculously fast for the money.
It's in the high-end and enthusiast segment where the true problem sits. For anything below that segment, Ryzen offers superb value/perf wise.
I wish I could tell a different story on Ryzen 7, but that is the reality of it.
Toetje583
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:42 AM
True, however it's still fine in doing so, It's a personal choice of-course as an owner you wan't the best for your daily tasks. However healthy competition is only generated if we but them even if they are "Less" in performance. Better is not always better on the end
Well it's not just 10 fps. In some games the difference is 25-30 fps. In the future and as GPUs get stronger the Ryzen system may be a greater bottleneck. It's a tough decision. I think if you plan to game only an i5 or an i7 is better option. As for future proofing yes games may utilise more cores and threads but maybe not. Even on heavy threaded games Ryzen is still behind. So this tells me that the performance may not improve so much in the future. It's a very good CPU but not for exclusive gaming. If you are one of those who heavily multi task or stream Ryzen is a better option yes but if you plan to game and only game then it's not.
True, however it's still fine in doing so, It's a personal choice of-course as an owner you wan't the best for your daily tasks. However healthy competition is only generated if we but them even if they are "Less" in performance. Better is not always better on the end
pokerapar88
Senior Member
Posts: 1716
Senior Member
Posts: 1716
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:43 AM
I don't really think that would be the case. I think that it might be a tough sell now. Bit future-proof wise it is golden. 1080p gaming is gping to ve conpletely over in months. Maybe a year tops and in 2k and up, most games are gpu bound and will continue tp ve for the subsequent years as 1080p was until 1-2 years ago.
Sooooo, I think this is a must have for the future as all will begin to be more multi threaded and less speed dependant.
Well it's not just 10 fps. In some games the difference is 25-30 fps. In the future and as GPUs get stronger the Ryzen system may be a greater bottleneck. It's a tough decision. I think if you plan to game only an i5 or an i7 is better option. As for future proofing yes games may utilise more cores and threads but maybe not. Even on heavy threaded games Ryzen is still behind. So this tells me that the performance may not improve so much in the future. It's a very good CPU but not for exclusive gaming. If you are one of those who heavily multi task or stream Ryzen is a better option yes but if you plan to game and only game then it's not.
I don't really think that would be the case. I think that it might be a tough sell now. Bit future-proof wise it is golden. 1080p gaming is gping to ve conpletely over in months. Maybe a year tops and in 2k and up, most games are gpu bound and will continue tp ve for the subsequent years as 1080p was until 1-2 years ago.
Sooooo, I think this is a must have for the future as all will begin to be more multi threaded and less speed dependant.
Toetje583
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:43 AM
The gaming perf is not an issue in every and any situation. If you purchase a GeForce GTX 1080 or 1080 Ti and game in a CPU bound resolution (1080p) yes, you will see a loss in performance (which varies per title). On average 10% 'ish in extremes however that can run up-to a ridiculous 40% (Tomb Raider).
The second you get more GPU bound, you are not going to notice that perf differential. Even with that 1080 in 2560x1440 you'll have a hard time spotting the perf drop. But the reality remains that Ryzen 7 is underperforming compared to Intel in gaming at CPU bound situations. It is what it is, at this point if you plan to build a nice gaming rig and say a GTX 1060 or RX 480 is your sweet spot for gaming and budget, Ryzen 7 1700 makes total sense at 329 USD with desktop perf that is ridiculously fast for the money.
It's in the high-end and enthusiast segment where the true problem sits. For anything below that segment, Ryzen offers superb value/perf wise.
I wish I could tell a different story on Ryzen 7, but that is the reality of it.
Couldn't say it any better
The gaming perf is not an issue in every and any situation. If you purchase a GeForce GTX 1080 or 1080 Ti and game in a CPU bound resolution (1080p) yes, you will see a loss in performance (which varies per title). On average 10% 'ish in extremes however that can run up-to a ridiculous 40% (Tomb Raider).
The second you get more GPU bound, you are not going to notice that perf differential. Even with that 1080 in 2560x1440 you'll have a hard time spotting the perf drop. But the reality remains that Ryzen 7 is underperforming compared to Intel in gaming at CPU bound situations. It is what it is, at this point if you plan to build a nice gaming rig and say a GTX 1060 or RX 480 is your sweet spot for gaming and budget, Ryzen 7 1700 makes total sense at 329 USD with desktop perf that is ridiculously fast for the money.
It's in the high-end and enthusiast segment where the true problem sits. For anything below that segment, Ryzen offers superb value/perf wise.
I wish I could tell a different story on Ryzen 7, but that is the reality of it.
Couldn't say it any better
mikeysg
Senior Member
Posts: 2379
Senior Member
Posts: 2379
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:52 AM
It's still fine in gaming nothing to worry about FPS wise, that intel is on the top by 15+fps doesen't mean the CPU is "Bad" for gaming. So the CPU is a good deal for both the users Gaming/Content. Intel will be on the top aslong as they wan't unless users like you invest in AMD. Okay perhaps you have no reason to upgrade gaming wise. Anyway I'm getting one to build a new ESXI homelab once the CPU is supported. Great RAW performance!
Don't choose intel over those 10/15FPS invest in competition aswell.Funny, I've been to a few forums and the sentiment is, if it loses to, say, and Intel 7700K, it MUST suck. The thing is, it handles games just fine, may not be the fastest, but fast enough to keep framerate smooth....plus, it's an awesome CPU for uses other than gaming.
It's still fine in gaming nothing to worry about FPS wise, that intel is on the top by 15+fps doesen't mean the CPU is "Bad" for gaming. So the CPU is a good deal for both the users Gaming/Content. Intel will be on the top aslong as they wan't unless users like you invest in AMD. Okay perhaps you have no reason to upgrade gaming wise. Anyway I'm getting one to build a new ESXI homelab once the CPU is supported. Great RAW performance!
Don't choose intel over those 10/15FPS
invest in competition aswell.Funny, I've been to a few forums and the sentiment is, if it loses to, say, and Intel 7700K, it MUST suck. The thing is, it handles games just fine, may not be the fastest, but fast enough to keep framerate smooth....plus, it's an awesome CPU for uses other than gaming.
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 780
Senior Member
Posts: 780
Posted on: 03/14/2017 11:53 AM
Awesome, thank you HH! Now I just need the mobo's to be in stock.
Awesome, thank you HH! Now I just need the mobo's to be in stock.
ViRGE
Member
Posts: 35
Member
Posts: 35
Posted on: 03/14/2017 12:39 PM
Hilbert, I need help, all ryzen CPUs have unlocked multiplier's, and all of then clock the same (3.9~4.1Ghz), its hard to see any reason to buy the 1700X and 1800X when they achieve the same overclocks, if you put all Ryzen 7 at 4ghz the 1700 will consume more voltage and power then the other two? Thx for the review
Hilbert, I need help, all ryzen CPUs have unlocked multiplier's, and all of then clock the same (3.9~4.1Ghz), its hard to see any reason to buy the 1700X and 1800X when they achieve the same overclocks, if you put all Ryzen 7 at 4ghz the 1700 will consume more voltage and power then the other two? Thx for the review
mitzi76
Senior Member
Posts: 8641
Senior Member
Posts: 8641
Posted on: 03/14/2017 12:54 PM
The gaming perf is not an issue in every and any situation. If you purchase a GeForce GTX 1080 or 1080 Ti and game in a CPU bound resolution (1080p) yes, you will see a loss in performance (which varies per title). On average 10% 'ish in extremes however that can run up-to a ridiculous 40% (Tomb Raider).
The second you get more GPU bound, you are not going to notice that perf differential. Even with that 1080 in 2560x1440 you'll have a hard time spotting the perf drop. But the reality remains that Ryzen 7 is underperforming compared to Intel in gaming at CPU bound situations. It is what it is, at this point if you plan to build a nice gaming rig and say a GTX 1060 or RX 480 is your sweet spot for gaming and budget, Ryzen 7 1700 makes total sense at 329 USD with desktop perf that is ridiculously fast for the money.
It's in the high-end and enthusiast segment where the true problem sits. For anything below that segment, Ryzen offers superb value/perf wise.
I wish I could tell a different story on Ryzen 7, but that is the reality of it.
Might sound a bit petty but for me it's a simple thing of pricing it too high. Let's say $50-100.
If it were this it would look a lot healthier. But then if these "patches" do do something then again another 10 or so fps would help sales.
I dont think Ryzen is competitive at all myself as arent the lower end segment looking at the next chips rather than this bunch? If I were to upgrade my current chip why would I get anything other than say a 7700k?
The other problem is overclockability. 4ghz to me isnt what am after when I can hit 5ghz on air with some chips...
But as you rightly point out perhaps am more high-end so for me intel still is king. (I actually think I just about sit in high-end..obviously not now as I need an upgrade but next upgrades I will be going up a res from 1920x1200).
p.s am a bit miffed by what Amd want to achieve. Are they trying to say hey look our chips are as good therefore pay the same as Intel? Then that's moving away from what previously people regarded them as.
I.e You would pay say $100 less but lose out on a fair chunk of performance but then as more of a casual/lower end gamer this wasnt a deal breaker.
When I was a student that's how I started into the hobby. The £50 saving was quite a bit and meant a better gpu etc etc...
Curent prices here in UK for 1700 are £329! Exactly the same as the 7700K!!!
The gaming perf is not an issue in every and any situation. If you purchase a GeForce GTX 1080 or 1080 Ti and game in a CPU bound resolution (1080p) yes, you will see a loss in performance (which varies per title). On average 10% 'ish in extremes however that can run up-to a ridiculous 40% (Tomb Raider).
The second you get more GPU bound, you are not going to notice that perf differential. Even with that 1080 in 2560x1440 you'll have a hard time spotting the perf drop. But the reality remains that Ryzen 7 is underperforming compared to Intel in gaming at CPU bound situations. It is what it is, at this point if you plan to build a nice gaming rig and say a GTX 1060 or RX 480 is your sweet spot for gaming and budget, Ryzen 7 1700 makes total sense at 329 USD with desktop perf that is ridiculously fast for the money.
It's in the high-end and enthusiast segment where the true problem sits. For anything below that segment, Ryzen offers superb value/perf wise.
I wish I could tell a different story on Ryzen 7, but that is the reality of it.
Might sound a bit petty but for me it's a simple thing of pricing it too high. Let's say $50-100.
If it were this it would look a lot healthier. But then if these "patches" do do something then again another 10 or so fps would help sales.
I dont think Ryzen is competitive at all myself as arent the lower end segment looking at the next chips rather than this bunch? If I were to upgrade my current chip why would I get anything other than say a 7700k?
The other problem is overclockability. 4ghz to me isnt what am after when I can hit 5ghz on air with some chips...
But as you rightly point out perhaps am more high-end so for me intel still is king. (I actually think I just about sit in high-end..obviously not now as I need an upgrade but next upgrades I will be going up a res from 1920x1200).
p.s am a bit miffed by what Amd want to achieve. Are they trying to say hey look our chips are as good therefore pay the same as Intel? Then that's moving away from what previously people regarded them as.
I.e You would pay say $100 less but lose out on a fair chunk of performance but then as more of a casual/lower end gamer this wasnt a deal breaker.
When I was a student that's how I started into the hobby. The £50 saving was quite a bit and meant a better gpu etc etc...
Curent prices here in UK for 1700 are £329! Exactly the same as the 7700K!!!
mahanddeem
Senior Member
Posts: 638
Senior Member
Posts: 638
Posted on: 03/14/2017 01:05 PM
Thank you Hilbert for the review.
Concerning the CPU-Z benchmark, my stock 7700K (all cores boost to 4.5GHz) scores 2256 and 10129 for single and multicore. Last CPU-Z available version seemed to bump the result a bit (you have 2237 and 9537 in your chart)
I think it is fair to have all CPU compared with the same version of CPU-Z to have valid comparison.
Thanks man
Edit: Here is a screenshot
image hosting over 5mb
Thank you Hilbert for the review.
Concerning the CPU-Z benchmark, my stock 7700K (all cores boost to 4.5GHz) scores 2256 and 10129 for single and multicore. Last CPU-Z available version seemed to bump the result a bit (you have 2237 and 9537 in your chart)
I think it is fair to have all CPU compared with the same version of CPU-Z to have valid comparison.
Thanks man
Edit: Here is a screenshot
image hosting over 5mb
DarkLiberator
Member
Posts: 40
Member
Posts: 40
Posted on: 03/14/2017 01:11 PM
1700 seems to be the best out of the bunch honestly. Great value.
1700 seems to be the best out of the bunch honestly. Great value.
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8583
Senior Member
Posts: 8583
Posted on: 03/14/2017 01:20 PM
Great review as always Hilbert , thank you for a well written informative and to the point review !
Great review as always Hilbert , thank you for a well written informative and to the point review !
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34635
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34635
Posted on: 03/14/2017 01:34 PM
Thank you Hilbert for the review.
Concerning the CPU-Z benchmark, my stock 7700K (all cores boost to 4.5GHz) scores 2256 and 10129 for single and multicore. Last CPU-Z available version
I would love to validate the results, unfortunately previous tested processors have all been returned to Intel, next to that Intel doesn't seed Benelux press with processor samples anymore hence I cannot update them.
Also considering: your single core results are pretty close, multi-core differ. That tells me that you have a turbo bin on all cores (e.g. not testing at default Intel settings).
E.g. ASUS/GBT boards etc all have a BIOS mode activated at default that make all cores Turbo to say 4.5 GHz (or something higher than default Intel binned frequencies).
Thank you Hilbert for the review.
Concerning the CPU-Z benchmark, my stock 7700K (all cores boost to 4.5GHz) scores 2256 and 10129 for single and multicore. Last CPU-Z available version
I would love to validate the results, unfortunately previous tested processors have all been returned to Intel, next to that Intel doesn't seed Benelux press with processor samples anymore hence I cannot update them.
Also considering: your single core results are pretty close, multi-core differ. That tells me that you have a turbo bin on all cores (e.g. not testing at default Intel settings).
E.g. ASUS/GBT boards etc all have a BIOS mode activated at default that make all cores Turbo to say 4.5 GHz (or something higher than default Intel binned frequencies).
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34635
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34635
Posted on: 03/14/2017 01:41 PM
In the end it is the same processor yet say a 1800X is binned for better XFR, frequency and voltage ranges. Once tweaked they all consume roughly the same amount of juice. Sure, it might differ 10 maybe 20 watts here and there but that's it.
In my honest opinion, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the best AMD processor value money wise you can get. Give it a proper cooler, clock it at 4.0 GHz or something close to that and never look back. All you need to do is change the multiplier and the motherboards do the rest.
I am making one disclaimer here though, my tweaking results can differ with yours. Yes there will be samples that do not reach 4.0 GHz (albeit I doubt it), but there will also be samples that will go higher. That 4.0 GHz should be a pretty safe estimation for generic tweak results though.
Hilbert, I need help, all ryzen CPUs have unlocked multiplier's, and all of then clock the same (3.9~4.1Ghz), its hard to see any reason to buy the 1700X and 1800X when they achieve the same overclocks, if you put all Ryzen 7 at 4ghz the 1700 will consume more voltage and power then the other two? Thx for the review
In the end it is the same processor yet say a 1800X is binned for better XFR, frequency and voltage ranges. Once tweaked they all consume roughly the same amount of juice. Sure, it might differ 10 maybe 20 watts here and there but that's it.
In my honest opinion, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the best AMD processor value money wise you can get. Give it a proper cooler, clock it at 4.0 GHz or something close to that and never look back. All you need to do is change the multiplier and the motherboards do the rest.
I am making one disclaimer here though, my tweaking results can differ with yours. Yes there will be samples that do not reach 4.0 GHz (albeit I doubt it), but there will also be samples that will go higher. That 4.0 GHz should be a pretty safe estimation for generic tweak results though.
AlmondMan
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Posted on: 03/14/2017 01:43 PM
Might sound a bit petty but for me it's a simple thing of pricing it too high. Let's say $50-100.
If it were this it would look a lot healthier. But then if these "patches" do do something then again another 10 or so fps would help sales.
I dont think Ryzen is competitive at all myself as arent the lower end segment looking at the next chips rather than this bunch? If I were to upgrade my current chip why would I get anything other than say a 7700k?
The other problem is overclockability. 4ghz to me isnt what am after when I can hit 5ghz on air with some chips...
But as you rightly point out perhaps am more high-end so for me intel still is king. (I actually think I just about sit in high-end..obviously not now as I need an upgrade but next upgrades I will be going up a res from 1920x1200).
p.s am a bit miffed by what Amd want to achieve. Are they trying to say hey look our chips are as good therefore pay the same as Intel? Then that's moving away from what previously people regarded them as.
I.e You would pay say $100 less but lose out on a fair chunk of performance but then as more of a casual/lower end gamer this wasnt a deal breaker.
When I was a student that's how I started into the hobby. The £50 saving was quite a bit and meant a better gpu etc etc...
Curent prices here in UK for 1700 are £329! Exactly the same as the 7700K!!!
Why? Because overall it's a much more powerful CPU than a 7700k? And priced the same?
I dunno what you want more than that... it's a different arcitecture to Intel - the OC'ing is different, I don't know what your point is with the 5ghz vs 4ghz. Intel's will cook at that OC and require more cooling to keep it quiet.
In the end I doubt that we'll see anything but performance increases over time, as we've seen with the FX series in a lot of titles when you get more powerful GPUs.
Doesn't really matter though, it's a great CPU, more alround powerful than Intels offering. But nothing groundbreaking on a gaming level to justify upgrading anything midrange, like an i5, purchased in the past 5 years. Which is sad, sure, but nothing terrible.
The 7700k, 7600k, R7 1700 aren't "mainstream casual" CPUs, they're highend tech for enthusiast level consumers and professional content creation.
Might sound a bit petty but for me it's a simple thing of pricing it too high. Let's say $50-100.
If it were this it would look a lot healthier. But then if these "patches" do do something then again another 10 or so fps would help sales.
I dont think Ryzen is competitive at all myself as arent the lower end segment looking at the next chips rather than this bunch? If I were to upgrade my current chip why would I get anything other than say a 7700k?
The other problem is overclockability. 4ghz to me isnt what am after when I can hit 5ghz on air with some chips...
But as you rightly point out perhaps am more high-end so for me intel still is king. (I actually think I just about sit in high-end..obviously not now as I need an upgrade but next upgrades I will be going up a res from 1920x1200).
p.s am a bit miffed by what Amd want to achieve. Are they trying to say hey look our chips are as good therefore pay the same as Intel? Then that's moving away from what previously people regarded them as.
I.e You would pay say $100 less but lose out on a fair chunk of performance but then as more of a casual/lower end gamer this wasnt a deal breaker.
When I was a student that's how I started into the hobby. The £50 saving was quite a bit and meant a better gpu etc etc...
Curent prices here in UK for 1700 are £329! Exactly the same as the 7700K!!!
Why? Because overall it's a much more powerful CPU than a 7700k? And priced the same?
I dunno what you want more than that... it's a different arcitecture to Intel - the OC'ing is different, I don't know what your point is with the 5ghz vs 4ghz. Intel's will cook at that OC and require more cooling to keep it quiet.
In the end I doubt that we'll see anything but performance increases over time, as we've seen with the FX series in a lot of titles when you get more powerful GPUs.
Doesn't really matter though, it's a great CPU, more alround powerful than Intels offering. But nothing groundbreaking on a gaming level to justify upgrading anything midrange, like an i5, purchased in the past 5 years. Which is sad, sure, but nothing terrible.
The 7700k, 7600k, R7 1700 aren't "mainstream casual" CPUs, they're highend tech for enthusiast level consumers and professional content creation.
ViRGE
Member
Posts: 35
Member
Posts: 35
Posted on: 03/14/2017 03:20 PM
In the end it is the same processor yet say a 1800X is binned for better XFR, frequency and voltage ranges. Once tweaked they all consume roughly the same amount of juice. Sure, it might differ 10 maybe 20 watts here and there but that's it.
In my honest opinion, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the best AMD processor value money wise you can get. Give it a proper cooler, clock it at 4.0 GHz or something close to that and never look back. All you need to do is change the multiplier and the motherboards do the rest.
I am making one disclaimer here though, my tweaking results can differ with yours. Yes there will be samples that do not reach 4.0 GHz (albeit I doubt it), but there will also be samples that will go higher. That 4.0 GHz should be a pretty safe estimation for generic tweak results though.
Thx for the info! I don't want another quad core, so R7 1700 will be my choice, I will play safe and go for an 3.9Ghz overclock and stuck with it, now I need a good mATX board, I am looking after the Asrock AB350M Pro4, its the only mATX I have seen so far that that have more than 6 phases and heatsinks on all vrms, guys any suggestions?
In the end it is the same processor yet say a 1800X is binned for better XFR, frequency and voltage ranges. Once tweaked they all consume roughly the same amount of juice. Sure, it might differ 10 maybe 20 watts here and there but that's it.
In my honest opinion, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the best AMD processor value money wise you can get. Give it a proper cooler, clock it at 4.0 GHz or something close to that and never look back. All you need to do is change the multiplier and the motherboards do the rest.
I am making one disclaimer here though, my tweaking results can differ with yours. Yes there will be samples that do not reach 4.0 GHz (albeit I doubt it), but there will also be samples that will go higher. That 4.0 GHz should be a pretty safe estimation for generic tweak results though.
Thx for the info! I don't want another quad core, so R7 1700 will be my choice, I will play safe and go for an 3.9Ghz overclock and stuck with it, now I need a good mATX board, I am looking after the Asrock AB350M Pro4, its the only mATX I have seen so far that that have more than 6 phases and heatsinks on all vrms, guys any suggestions?
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 802
Senior Member
Posts: 802
Posted on: 03/14/2017 03:39 PM
CPU-bound game performance has a simple answer...game-engine and game optimization by developers. Game-engines and games are optimized far differently than benchmarks, which are mainly optimized around compilers, which was relatively easy for AMD to achieve. As everyone knows, there is a vast difference between game code and synthetic benchmarks. It will take time for the game-code to become optimized for Ryzen as the current Intel-optimization by developers is as mature as it is ever going to be until Intel moves to a new architecture. Ryzen is a new architecture but most existent games have been optimized for the Intel architectures--which has to be done by developers, so it isn't as immediate as we saw with the synthetic benchmarks. Not much of a mystery, really--same thing happened with the original Athlon years ago. Watch for "cpu-bound" game code to drastically improve on Ryzen as the cpu begins to proliferate the markets and developers begin optimizing for it.
CPU-bound game performance has a simple answer...game-engine and game optimization by developers. Game-engines and games are optimized far differently than benchmarks, which are mainly optimized around compilers, which was relatively easy for AMD to achieve. As everyone knows, there is a vast difference between game code and synthetic benchmarks. It will take time for the game-code to become optimized for Ryzen as the current Intel-optimization by developers is as mature as it is ever going to be until Intel moves to a new architecture. Ryzen is a new architecture but most existent games have been optimized for the Intel architectures--which has to be done by developers, so it isn't as immediate as we saw with the synthetic benchmarks. Not much of a mystery, really--same thing happened with the original Athlon years ago. Watch for "cpu-bound" game code to drastically improve on Ryzen as the cpu begins to proliferate the markets and developers begin optimizing for it.
Tuukka
Member
Posts: 71
Member
Posts: 71
Posted on: 03/14/2017 03:40 PM
But unlike Intel, AMD doesn't use bubblegum between IHS. Price/Perf looks very good
But unlike Intel, AMD doesn't use bubblegum between IHS. Price/Perf looks very good
mattm4
Senior Member
Posts: 157
Senior Member
Posts: 157
Posted on: 03/14/2017 03:59 PM
.... sheesh, I really don't understand the ones bashing these procs. A CPU is designed for a lot more than gaming. Yet the lower FPS issues are not apparent above 1080p, and on top of that 10-15 frames makes no difference above 60fps to the naked eye.
For a $329 processor to beat a $1000 6900k and in some cases beat a $1500 6950x.. Please tell me how its not a good deal? Have you ever done more tasks while gaming? Ever streamed your games for the world to see at or over 1080p? Go try that out on your i7 7700k and compare the two, I can guarantee you, more cores will win the bet.
I just think its silly to think this processor is no good, cause of 1080p performance difference in games.
.... sheesh, I really don't understand the ones bashing these procs. A CPU is designed for a lot more than gaming. Yet the lower FPS issues are not apparent above 1080p, and on top of that 10-15 frames makes no difference above 60fps to the naked eye.
For a $329 processor to beat a $1000 6900k and in some cases beat a $1500 6950x.. Please tell me how its not a good deal? Have you ever done more tasks while gaming? Ever streamed your games for the world to see at or over 1080p? Go try that out on your i7 7700k and compare the two, I can guarantee you, more cores will win the bet.
I just think its silly to think this processor is no good, cause of 1080p performance difference in games.
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9068
4GHz... Niceuuuu. If I were upgrading I'd definitely consider the R7 1700.