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

Published by

Click here to post a comment for First Ryzen 7 1700X Review finds its way onto the web on our message forum
#5400034
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/198/198862.jpg
Higher clocks makes all the difference we see in those charts. They also didnt test any real multithreaded games. An ancient Bioshock is using a single core, no wonder i7 4.5ghz will win.
#5400035
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/99/99142.jpg
Seriously, what was exactly the let down? The only modern thing tested (Firestrike) was faster.
In games it is poor. I'm a gamer.
#5400036
data/avatar/default/avatar37.webp
There is a smoking gun here. The 5960X using the same 2133mhz ram doesn't have any game benchmarks posted but only some synthetics. Just how much is the ram holding performance back compared to a similar 8core-16thread processor from Intel. The 5960X does post decent memory bandwidth numbers but what is its gaming performance? Conveniently left out of the comparison. 10/20 thread is present. No 6800/6850k with which the 1700X competes in price.
#5400037
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/197/197287.jpg
I'm a little confused. What processor did they use? It says 1700x, yet the picture they provided is: http://www.shahrsakhtafzar.com/fa/images/amd-ryzen-7-1700x/IMG_04045550.jpg but that's not what the ryzen 1700x looks like... http://www.game-debate.com/blog/images/_id1487678658_343178.jpg Are they testing an engineering sample? Even says copyright 2016, which COULD be current, but considering the official release of the processor is 2017, it would kinda surprise me if it said 2016
#5400038
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/252/252732.jpg
Still looks like a great CPU to me, minimum FPS is pretty much inline with all the Intel CPUs and that's what really matters. Found this interesting from a staff member over on the OCUK forum.
Hi there Just to help educate a little. Ryzen is compatible with all current DDR4 memory and officially supports upto 3600MHz. However the sweet spot is 2400-2666MHz, this speed will work with all mainboards including cheaper options. 3000MHz and above will ONLY work at such frequencies in the flagship mainboards like Asus Crosshair for example and even then the maximum stable speed we achieve with a lot of messing around was 3200MHz, which really makes 3000MHz the maximum speed we advise. Of course you could buy 3200 or even 3600 kit now, and just run it at a lower frequency with more aggressive CAS Timings and as BIOS updates come out then you might be able to achieve higher frequency. As such we recommend 2400-3000MHz kits for use with Ryzen, faster kits will work just fine but you might have to run them below the rated speed and just set the memory timings more aggressive. 🙂
So it's looking like high RAM frequencies aren't really advisable on the current available BIOS's that is, hopefully that improves over time.
#5400039
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/266/266825.jpg
Those who say Ryzen is a fail , are you looking @ the same benchmarks as i am , becouse the CPU is a monster for the price , stop acting stupid INTEL fanboys , don't be buthurt intel is geting his ass handed , bioshock test is irelevant , something is fishy there , or some bugs with the driver's , even if the IPC is haswell level is more then enough , it will run any game , while you have the treads to run as much stuff you want w/o to care(as long you have ram) . GG AMD you played your card well , INTEL your turn
#5400040
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/231/231931.jpg
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:
Your using the same argument as FX owners. "Play at 4k you'll see that they perform the same". No sh1t sherlock. Explain how testing 100% GPU bound apps/games help show the performance difference of different CPUs? Anyways this should come to no surprise to anyone. 4c i7 CPUs will be better in games for a while Ryzen will be fairly good in games but excelling in multi-threaded applications at good price points.
Are they testing an engineering sample?
Most review samples sent out are engineering ones. Performance of late samples won't differ much(most likely none) than retail.
#5400041
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/235/235398.jpg
From Iran? Aren't they under all kinds of blockades and embargoes?
Yep. I'll wait a week and see some ACTUAL reviews.
#5400043
data/avatar/default/avatar03.webp
Yupp this was (exactly) what I was affraid of- Intel holding the lead on Gaming benchmarks but I would still like to see a complete review from HH. Thanks for posting this btw.
#5400044
data/avatar/default/avatar02.webp
It si an ES sample people.. move on
#5400045
data/avatar/default/avatar23.webp
Actually i'm amazed by the results given the broken setup they did 😀 106ns RAM latency gonna hurt almost every real world test i can think of not to mention the slow RAM settings themselfs. My old brick with 955 has 54ns with DDR3 at 1801 CL7 even my very old K7 was hovering around 50ns with DDR400 🙂 So still waiting for the real results i bet in the CPU intesive games it will lack no more than 10% to 15 % compared to the 7700K at stock.
#5400046
data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp
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.
OK, googlefied it says:
It should be noted in default on all platforms Bios settings are set final Bios also because not ready motherboard we used in this study enable XMP memory modules was configured and tested with the same standard frequency of 2133 MHz, However, on other platforms enable XMP been configured.
@ 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
OK, cool.
#5400049
data/avatar/default/avatar21.webp
If we presume these to be legit (and tested with a worthwhile setup), I cannot quite understand any potential uproar. Looking at the Full HD numbers Ryzen is right there with Intel. Chances are it would be as well, if they did 1440p. I suspect that longterm a Ryzen will turn faster into a CPU bottleneck than say a 7700K unless the GPU feeding gets adjusted to use 8c/16t (and games in general). Generally speaking I don't think anyone expected Ryzen to be a fantastic pick up for those already on Skylake or Kabylake - but given price parity and those numbers everyone still on Sandy/Ivy or even older would likely take 8c/16t over 4/8 with price parity when the performance is fairly equal in actual realistic gaming scenarios (i.e between Full HD and 4K). Looking forward to tomorrow afternoon 😉
#5400052
data/avatar/default/avatar08.webp
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:
It's not BS. It's basically you who doesn't understand how benchmarking CPUs works. To benchmark a CPU you need to utilize it and you can't have a GPU bottlenecking the CPU benchmark. Thus you are using lower resolutions to let the full potential of the CPU be unleashed.
#5400056
data/avatar/default/avatar25.webp
It's not BS. It's basically you who doesn't understand how benchmarking CPUs works. To benchmark a CPU you need to utilize it and you can't have a GPU bottlenecking the CPU benchmark. Thus you are using lower resolutions to let the full potential of the CPU be unleashed.
and for that you use 1080p and not these resolutions
#5400057
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/197/197287.jpg
duplicate post
#5400068
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/197/197287.jpg
I'm a little confused. What processor did they use? It says 1700x, yet the picture they provided is: http://www.shahrsakhtafzar.com/fa/images/amd-ryzen-7-1700x/IMG_04045550.jpg but that's not what the ryzen 1700x looks like... http://www.game-debate.com/blog/images/_id1487678658_343178.jpg Are they testing an engineering sample? Even says copyright 2016, which COULD be current, but considering the official release of the processor is 2017, it would kinda surprise me if it said 2016
Most review samples sent out are engineering ones. Performance of late samples won't differ much(most likely none) than retail.
I highly doubt it and realistically it wouldn't make sense that review samples would be engineering ones. For one, why? Why have them test an engineering sample when that'll just disqualify the results? Two, it's so close to launch, there would be absolutely no need to use engineering samples Three, the rest of the reviewers including Guru3d do not have CPUs that look like the one used in this test, including Guru3d's kit, as shown in the picture above. And what would "qualify" a late sample? And how would we tell? This CPU looks like it'd have to be at least 4 months old, but could be much older, and what revision of Ryzen would it be based off of, who knows?
#5400072
data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp
I highly doubt it and realistically it wouldn't make sense that review samples would be engineering ones. For one, why? Why have them test an engineering sample when that'll just disqualify the results? Two, it's so close to launch, there would be absolutely no need to use engineering samples Three, the rest of the reviewers including Guru3d do not have CPUs that look like the one used in this test, including Guru3d's kit, as shown in the picture above. And what would "qualify" a late sample? And how would we tell? This CPU looks like it'd have to be at least 4 months old, but could be much older, and what revision of Ryzen that is based off of, who knows?
These guys did not receive the processor from amd and yes it is a es sample

Previous Page

Next Page