First Ryzen 7 1700X Review finds its way onto the web

BlueRay

2017-03-01 16:43

And what will happen once games go multi-thread? Will you still be covered with a 4 core i5? Sure some older games benefit from it for now but what happens with multi-tasking, many programs open and running? All I see is few frames difference but a lot of potential and lots of future proofing. We need the reviews badly. Need to see the whole picture and not just some old games. This thing is really close to Kaby on gaming while running cooler.

#5400000

Silva

2017-03-01 16:44

Let down. I'll wait for more reviews.

You're let down by non official probably fake reviews? The processors are half the price of Intel and perform better. Wait for HH review and you'll change your mind. Doing reviews at 1366x768...what a load of BS. I'll be interested to see Guru3D review with 4K results 😛c1:

#5400001

devicenull

2017-03-01 16:44

I was somewhat worried about this, AMD's hype train ran wild... 🙁 It's basically an average CPU, only showing teeth when actually going for heavily multi threaded workloads? Which means... If you're an avg user the Ryzen is kinda expensive... If you're a poweruser the Ryzen is dirt cheap... (doing rendering, en-/trans-coding all day) What isn't clear to me as I can't read Iranian, is how much does the Memory/RAM issue hamper it? (dual channel and slow RAM speed?) It seems leaky or??? Wattage draw is lower (aligns with the 95W TDP listing) but thermals are not that impressive, maybe that's the 8C/16T working? All in all, Ryzen is a good product, for AMD, but it's not gonna give Intel a 'real' beatdown just yet... We need to push multi threaded computing/usage scenarios even further before the Ryzen really makes sense? Am I way off here or? EDIT: Somewhat hope that review is fake or they messed up... Cause yeah I'm not impressed *does the McKayla Maroney face*

#5400007

schmidtbag

2017-03-01 16:47

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.

Not too weird, because from what I recall, the chipset doesn't go that high unless you allow for overclocking. So yes, it should be able to handle 3200MHz, but it doesn't use that by default. People who use the A-series chipsets should be wary of what kind of RAM they buy.

#5400008

Silva

2017-03-01 16:47

I was somewhat worried about this, AMD's hype train ran wild... 🙁 It's basically an average CPU, only showing teeth when actually going for heavily multi threaded workloads? Which means... If you're an avg user the Ryzen is kinda expensive... If you're a poweruser the Ryzen is dirt cheap... (doing rendering, en-/trans-coding all day) What isn't clear to me as I can't read Iranian, is how much does the Memory/RAM issue hamper it? (dual channel and slow RAM speed?) It seems leaky or??? Wattage draw is lower (aligns with the 95W TDP listing) but thermals are not that impressive, maybe that's the 8C/16T working? All in all, Ryzen is a good product, for AMD, but it's not gonna give Intel a 'real' beatdown just yet... We need to push multi threaded computing/usage scenarios even further before the Ryzen really makes sense? Am I way off here or?

As good or as bad R7 might be, we still have to wait for reviews of R5 AND R3.

#5400009

AlmondMan

2017-03-01 16:47

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.

The cpu-z screenshot shows them at only 2133.

#5400011

devicenull

2017-03-01 16:48

Look at that score on CPU-Z! :banana: 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! :mad2:

I can't really read if you're being sarcastic here... But my question to you sir is: Are you gonna run CPU-Z Bench on it all day? If not, that score means next to nothing... :/

#5400012

Kohlendioxidus

2017-03-01 16:48

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.

the one I ordered! 🤓 I hope I did no mistake :bang:!

#5400013

Quicks

2017-03-01 16:49

Well I am sure it will perform better with better memory as well, seeing that they used 2133 CL15 which is slow compared to the memory used for benchmarks on intels. I call foul play of sort. Certain games also love faster mem, brings up overall FPS. checked some reviews on 1600 vs 2133 and that was a huge difference by just changing ram.

#5400014

devicenull

2017-03-01 16:50

As good or as bad R7 might be, we still have to wait for reviews of R5 AND R3.

Yeah I really want to see what an 1400X can do? (1400X = 3.5GHz/3.9GHz, 4C/8T 65W TDP @ 200$ USD)

#5400017

PrMinisterGR

2017-03-01 16:51

Let down. I'll wait for more reviews.

Seriously, what was exactly the let down? The only modern thing tested (Firestrike) was faster.

#5400018

CalculuS

2017-03-01 16:51

How come it does so well on single core cpu-Z but then still kinda sits back behind the 4770k in gaming benchmarks?

#5400019

AlmondMan

2017-03-01 16:51

I was somewhat worried about this, AMD's hype train ran wild... 🙁 It's basically an average CPU, only showing teeth when actually going for heavily multi threaded workloads? Which means... If you're an avg user the Ryzen is kinda expensive... If you're a poweruser the Ryzen is dirt cheap... (doing rendering, en-/trans-coding all day) What isn't clear to me as I can't read Iranian, is how much does the Memory/RAM issue hamper it? (dual channel and slow RAM speed?) It seems leaky or??? Wattage draw is lower (aligns with the 95W TDP listing) but thermals are not that impressive, maybe that's the 8C/16T working? All in all, Ryzen is a good product, for AMD, but it's not gonna give Intel a 'real' beatdown just yet... We need to push multi threaded computing/usage scenarios even further before the Ryzen really makes sense? Am I way off here or?

Dunno, the Intel CPUs are all clocked way higher than this, except the 4770k. I dunno what might be breaking the performance in games for the R7, but overall performance is very high. The thermals are decent for that meh CPU cooler they're using. The wattage is afterall equal to the Intel CPUs its going up against, and it has twice the number of cores and threads as all of them...

#5400021

Noisiv

2017-03-01 16:55

How come it does so well on single core cpu-Z but then still kinda sits back behind the 4770k in gaming benchmarks?

CINEBENCH, which AMD itself is pushing as the Zen's benchmark, says otherwise Zens IPC is worse than that of 4770, let alone 7700

#5400023

Denial

2017-03-01 16:55

This is what I was talking about in the other thread. It's going to be easy to make 8 core CPU's look worse when reviewers use older titles at lower resolutions. They are pretty much all single threaded and they are going to scale well to clockspeed - which is where Ryzen is going to fall a bit behind the Intel mainstream stuff that's clocked high. Needs more diverse test set, with modern games, at resolutions people actually play at.

#5400024

schmidtbag

2017-03-01 16:55

How come it does so well on single core cpu-Z but then still kinda sits back behind the 4770k in gaming benchmarks?

Synthetic benchmarks are useless metrics to go by. It's probably slower than a 4770K in gaming because of the lower clock speed, dual-channel memory, and lower frequency memory. Does anyone know which OS was used?

#5400026

devicenull

2017-03-01 16:57

Dunno, the Intel CPUs are all clocked way higher than this, except the 4770k. I dunno what might be breaking the performance in games for the R7, but overall performance is very high. The thermals are decent for that meh CPU cooler they're using. The wattage is afterall equal to the Intel CPUs its going up against, and it has twice the number of cores and threads as all of them...

Valid point about the cooler... About the frequencies, well it would be cool/fun to see an mainstream Intel at the exact same clocks... It would need a myriad of tests to reveal any real IPC weaknesses/strengths but why not 😉

#5400027

devicenull

2017-03-01 17:00

Zens IPC is worse than that of 4770, let alone 7700

Exactly, AMD hype train only pushed CineBench, Handbrake and some very specific usage scenarios... And when mentioning IPC only referring to the 52% increase compared to their own architecture (not a word about Intel here... Or did I miss that?)

#5400032

zer0_c0ol

2017-03-01 17:07

@ HH ES sample old bios and the ddr4 not breaking the 2133 mark, i hope that you will do all the res in your review 😀 all in all disregard this one

#5400033

eclap

2017-03-01 17:08

You're let down by non official probably fake reviews? The processors are half the price of Intel and perform better. Wait for HH review and you'll change your mind. Doing reviews at 1366x768...what a load of BS. I'll be interested to see Guru3D review with 4K results 😛c1:

I've noticed you being angry in most of your posts. Calm down.