Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
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.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5399992 Posted on: 03/01/2017 05:37 PM
Games care more about clock speeds than number of threads, as these benchmarks have clearly shown. Most of the outperforming intels have fewer threads but are clocked higher.
But let's look at each of the things you mentioned:
* Compressing or decompressing files - not necessary during gameplay
* Record video - you only need 1 extra thread for that, and GPUs nowadays do most of the work
* Convert videos - not necessary during gameplay
* Stream videos - also only needs 1 extra thread
* Browse tons of tabs - not necessary during gameplay. Also, how many websites do you browse where most of your tabs become taxing on their designated CPU thread?
* Running other background tasks - If you're a serious gamer to the point that whatever you record/stream is even worth looking at to others, you shouldn't be running things in the background that could affect your performance in the game. You don't see race car drivers with a TV playing in the background. You don't see football players with headphones on. You don't see professional cyclists towing a trailer behind them. If you're just listening to music, you only need 1 extra thread for that.
That being said, if you are streaming, recording, playing music, and maybe updating something in the background, you only need 4 extra cores for that. And even then, whatever you are streaming to could do the recording, and your music source likely takes up a negligible amount of CPU cycles. The 6c/12 thread models would be plenty sufficient for your needs.
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.
Games care more about clock speeds than number of threads, as these benchmarks have clearly shown. Most of the outperforming intels have fewer threads but are clocked higher.
But let's look at each of the things you mentioned:
* Compressing or decompressing files - not necessary during gameplay
* Record video - you only need 1 extra thread for that, and GPUs nowadays do most of the work
* Convert videos - not necessary during gameplay
* Stream videos - also only needs 1 extra thread
* Browse tons of tabs - not necessary during gameplay. Also, how many websites do you browse where most of your tabs become taxing on their designated CPU thread?
* Running other background tasks - If you're a serious gamer to the point that whatever you record/stream is even worth looking at to others, you shouldn't be running things in the background that could affect your performance in the game. You don't see race car drivers with a TV playing in the background. You don't see football players with headphones on. You don't see professional cyclists towing a trailer behind them. If you're just listening to music, you only need 1 extra thread for that.
That being said, if you are streaming, recording, playing music, and maybe updating something in the background, you only need 4 extra cores for that. And even then, whatever you are streaming to could do the recording, and your music source likely takes up a negligible amount of CPU cycles. The 6c/12 thread models would be plenty sufficient for your needs.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 8230
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 8230
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5399993 Posted on: 03/01/2017 05:37 PM
I'd like to see Ryzen in true dog scenarios.
Going against cpu pigs, ie:
I couldn't care less about ideal gaming cases with model Multithreading.
For those kind of games you can keep your i5-760.
What I am concerned with gaming wise is, what's the worst case scenario.
Is Zen's IPC good enough to plow through pig code, or I am still better off with Intel.
I'd like to see Ryzen in true dog scenarios.
Going against cpu pigs, ie:
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Flying sims, DCS
ARMA2/3, DayZ
WoW raiding
Nvidia PhysX
I couldn't care less about ideal gaming cases with model Multithreading.
For those kind of games you can keep your i5-760.
What I am concerned with gaming wise is, what's the worst case scenario.
Is Zen's IPC good enough to plow through pig code, or I am still better off with Intel.
eclap
Senior Member
Posts: 31492
Joined: 2005-01-08
Senior Member
Posts: 31492
Joined: 2005-01-08
#5399995 Posted on: 03/01/2017 05:39 PM
Let down.
I'll wait for more reviews.
Let down.
I'll wait for more reviews.
JAMF72
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 2015-03-25
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 2015-03-25
#5399997 Posted on: 03/01/2017 05:41 PM
Observation:
-It is weird that the AIDA memory benchmark says the test was done with 2133 memory, but the tests system has the RAM listed as GSkill 3200 CL14 sticks.
-Some of the graphs are the bad type, not starting from 0. The Bioshock chart looks bad for Ryzen, but on 1080p it's a drop of 11.5% or the fastest CPU is 13% faster.
-looks like they tested it on a MSI B350 TOMAHAWK board.
Observation:
-It is weird that the AIDA memory benchmark says the test was done with 2133 memory, but the tests system has the RAM listed as GSkill 3200 CL14 sticks.
-Some of the graphs are the bad type, not starting from 0. The Bioshock chart looks bad for Ryzen, but on 1080p it's a drop of 11.5% or the fastest CPU is 13% faster.
-looks like they tested it on a MSI B350 TOMAHAWK board.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: 2015-12-18
Look at that score on CPU-Z!
Matches single thread with the 7700K and the mutlithreaded is double it , Ryzen has double the cores yes but that 7700K is at @ 4.5
INTEL You Scumbags! , you could have been giving us this for years!