First Ryzen 7 1700X Review finds its way onto the web
Iranian website ShahrSakhtafzar just went online with a review on the Ryzen 7 1700X processor. Shahryar states that they did not receive the processor and motherboard from AMD, but was obtained (likely) through a regular e-tail channel.
The content released prior to the embargo tomorrow was bound to happen I guess. Earlier this year a french magazine already posted a wide scope of results.
The review carries a good number of benchmarks based on a B350 motherboard from MSI as well as what they claim to be is an AMD Ryzen 1700X processor. Looking at the photo it is an engineering sample though. But that model would be and indeed has a 3.4 GHz base and 3.8 MHz Turbo clock. They use a GeForce GTX 980 for gaming, which definitely forms a bit of a GPU bottleneck. ShahrSakhtafzar goes through the benchmark paces with a Core i7 7700K, 6700K and 6950X for comparison.
Their full review is posted here. Below a couple of benchmarks courtesy of ShahrSakhtafzar, click the thumbnails to enlarge.
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 46372
Joined: 2000-02-22
Shahrsakhtafzar is actually one of the largest websites in Iran, they quite an open western style and feel.
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 2016-12-10
I think it's important to note the ram paired is running only at 2133mhz. And sure why note compare it with a 7700k/6700k which we all know will exceed it and the 6950x out of all the broadwell-e processor on the line-up.

Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 2015-05-04
I wonder why Bioshock did so poorly. Most of the other results don't really surprise me, when you consider the 1700X is dual channel while the Intel systems are triple.
@mrbull3tproof
There are hardly any games out there that can take advantage of 16 threads. Most hardly can take advantage of 8. So yeah, the 1700X is a poor choice for gamers, but I already knew that before seeing benchmarks for it.
I am a gamer and the 1700x is worth it for me. Why? because its significantly faster as a CPU. gamers extract files, install games, compress files, record video, convert videos. stream, browse tons of tabs, run games while other things are in the background etc etc. getting a 7700k for a few fps more when nearly everything else that is demanding would be much faster on the 1700 or 1700x isn't best choice imo.
Senior Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 2013-06-04
I stopped caring when I saw the resolutions used: 1366x768? 1600x900?
If these are valid, they're are hard at work making the processor look bad versus Intel. It's obvious that with lower clocks vs Intel they'll perform worse, but 16 threads aren't meant just for gaming...
Dude, do you game on a 1366x768 resolution monitor? Quite worse by how much: 1 to 10 fps? Shut up!
And not biased.
Finally someone intelligent.
A CPU is not made for games, it's made for processing things you do.
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 2003-07-08
Threads. Future proofing. Also mothersboards are cheaper.