AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Review: The New King of Price To Performance Ratio

[Marvzl1357]

2 hours ago, 4960X said:

Why are people buying the 1800x when the 1700 costs less and overclocks to the same performance as the 1800x?

Because the 1800x can then overclock past the 1700's overclocked performance? Like I believe it was the gtx 770 and 760, the 760 can overclock to nearly the 770s performance and wow gtx 770 for cheaper! But then you go in and overclock the 770 and the 760 is left behind. 

[Shiv78]

2 hours ago, Daniel644 said:

I didn't know how to OC my 6700k, then I watched a video or 2 and then I knew how, NOT knowing how is a STUPID excuse to pay 170 dollars more

It's really not, some people are either unaware/scared to OC. That's like saying not knowing how to build a PC and paying $200 extra for a prebuilt is stupid (while it is, some people do it because they don't know the alternative lol)

[Daniel644]

53 minutes ago, Marvzl1357 said:

Because the 1800x can then overclock past the 1700's overclocked performance? Like I believe it was the gtx 770 and 760, the 760 can overclock to nearly the 770s performance and wow gtx 770 for cheaper! But then you go in and overclock the 770 and the 760 is left behind. 

the 1800x at BEST OC's maybe another 100 or 200 Mhz then people are reporting reaching on store bought (not reviewer sample) 1700's on a performance per dollar it's not even close to being worth it.

[Not_Sean]

2 minutes ago, ONOTech said:

Everyone seems to be on a witch hunt to prove that Ryzen is a better CPU. Perhaps the R7 series is slightly slower than Intel's counterparts in gaming because, you know, AMD made a slower architecture for gaming? It's not even far behind minus a few outliers such as Rise of the Tomb Raider. 99% of the time, you won't notice a difference.

AGREE ! !

right now I'm not of the mind set of which one is better, at top tier you comparing the Difference between a Ferrari and Lambo, Once you get to that level just damn enjoy it it'll do anything you want it to. 

Man the master race has gotten so damn Pathetic over having the 1-5% better rig than the last guy. At lease the console peasants are all just getting along talking about the games and uses. Are our ePenis's really that small and insecure. 

[Daniel644]

the R5's WILL be R7's with failed Cores and i'll bet the R3's will likely be R7's where 1 CCX failed or simply half the Die, I wouldn't expect to see any large improvements in OC as we move to the lower core counts.

[HelplmChoking]

2 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

AGREE ! !

right now I'm not of the mind set of which one is better, at top tier you comparing the Difference between a Ferrari and Lambo, Once you get to that level just damn enjoy it it'll do anything you want it to. 

Man the master race has gotten so damn Pathetic over having the 1-5% better rig than the last guy. At lease the console peasants are all just getting along talking about the games and uses. Are our ePenis's really that small and insecure. 

 

Wow you totally summed up my feelings around this. At r7 levels, you won't be held back by the CPU at all, same on the blue side. That means you get to choose whichever one has the right stuff for you. So for me, I need lots of cores for work as well as gaming, so I'm totally stoked that I can basically get 6900k/6950x performance for half the price or less.

I mean, my current rig isn't about pushing every last fraction of a frame in specific games, same with most people. To keep with cars, people who care about that last 1% increase are going for race cars. The sort of people who want a titanium wheel nut because it's half a gram lighter. That's not normal though.

Right now, it's a case of core count = AMD, and core speed = Intel. Neither is better anymore, and you'll be happy with each for gaming.

[HelplmChoking]

3 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

the R5's WILL be R7's with failed Cores and i'll bet the R3's will likely be R7's where 1 CCX failed or simply half the Die, I wouldn't expect to see any large improvements in OC as we move to the lower core counts.

 

Lower heat though, since they'll be powering fewer cores and hopefully requiring lower voltages for the same clock speeds. This should give more headroom for OC'ing on quality power delivery.

[Daniel644]

Just now, Rangaman42 said:

Lower heat though, since they'll be powering fewer cores and hopefully requiring lower voltages for the same clock speeds. This should give more headroom for OC'ing on quality power delivery.

maybe on the R3's with no SMT, but since the R5's are REALLY and TRULY just R7's with failed cores that can already be explored by disabling cores on an R7 and trying to push it further, which some have tried and at best might get another 100 Mhz out of it, if they are REALLY lucky. Ryzen just doesn't want to go that far.

[Not_Sean]

1 minute ago, Rangaman42 said:

Wow you totally summed up my feelings around this. At r7 levels, you won't be held back by the CPU at all, same on the blue side. That means you get to choose whichever one has the right stuff for you. So for me, I need lots of cores for work as well as gaming, so I'm totally stoked that I can basically get 6900k/6950x performance for half the price or less.

I mean, my current rig isn't about pushing every last fraction of a frame in specific games, same with most people. To keep with cars, people who care about that last 1% increase are going for race cars. The sort of people who want a titanium wheel nut because it's half a gram lighter. That's not normal though.

Right now, it's a case of core count = AMD, and core speed = Intel. Neither is better anymore, and you'll be happy with each for gaming.

Got your back buddy  

For me I'm looking R7 8Threads/8 cores as want to do a 2 Gamers one CPU setup and for that I i'm happy with each system running 4 non HThredded cores and gives me headroom if* more games start to use more than 4 cores 
 I already do gaming and non** Professional* Content creation with GoPros and Streaming on a i5 happily so i'm happy with 4 cores anyways

* I say If as at the moment the consoles rule the roost and we are mostly just getting ports. So until they go more I can't see us.
** That means are you earning a income from it, it is your Profession to all you Sup3rL33T content creators who need i7's

[HelplmChoking]

3 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

Got your back buddy  

For me I'm looking R7 8Threads/8 cores as want to do a 2 Gamers one CPU setup and for that I i'm happy with each system running 4 non HThredded cores and gives me headroom if* more games start to use more than 4 cores 
 I already do gaming and non** Professional* Content creation with GoPros and Streaming on a i5 happily so i'm happy with 4 cores anyways

* I say If as at the moment the consoles rule the roost and we are mostly just getting ports. So until they go more I can't see us.
** That means are you earning a income from it, it is your Profession to all you Sup3rL33T content creators who need i7's

 

Yup, I do a lot of CPU based 3d rendering, so more cores is a huge must. I run my xeon because it was $70USD (I think) when 8 core Intels were around the $1000USD mark. So a 1700 would be great for me.

[Not_Sean]

2 minutes ago, Rangaman42 said:

Yup, I do a lot of CPU based 3d rendering, so more cores is a huge must. I run my xeon because it was $70USD (I think) when 8 core Intels were around the $1000USD mark. So a 1700 would be great for me.

SSSHHHHHH you cant say that around anyone with a X79/99 or 7700K. Boy oh boy Mr do they get upset. 

[HelplmChoking]

Just now, Not_Sean said:

SSSHHHHHH you cant say that around anyone with a X79/99 or 7700K. Boy oh boy Mr do they get upset. 

I mean I did pay double the CPU cost for an x79....

[Hunter259]

6 hours ago, 4960X said:

haha I was just joking. I got this CPU from my rich cousin. I want to get DDR4 tho.

Eh. DDR4 is pretty much nothing to DDR3 for gaming. Not even huge for content creation. DDR2->DDR3 was a much larger jump.

 

6 hours ago, Rangaman42 said:

Good to see people comparing the r7 chips to the correct Intel counterparts. People comparing a big 8 core workstation CPU to a smaller gaming focused SKU is getting really old. I know the r7's are priced around 7700k levels, but they're not a direct competitor.  The smaller 4/6c Ryzens will likely overclock better and compete more directly, especially with fast RAM.

I honestly don't believe that the lower end Ryzen's will clock any better. People have tried overclocking 1800X's in 4 core mode and the chips simply can't run any higher. This is an architectural or fabrication issue that is killed the clock rates. I'm going to lean toward the fab due to this apparently being a node used for mobile chips and not high power desktops. 

[stealth80]

3 hours ago, ONOTech said:

 

Still the only video that has those results. I'm not saying that the guy lied about the benchmarks, but people need to stop betting all their money on 1 review.

 

Everyone seems to be on a witch hunt to prove that Ryzen is a better CPU. Perhaps the R7 series is slightly slower than Intel's counterparts in gaming because AMD made a slightly slower architecture for gaming.  No one seems to even consider that very reasonable & feasible option. I also don't think anyone expected it (or should have expected it) to win. It's not even far behind minus a few outliers such as Rise of the Tomb Raider. 99% of the time, you won't notice a difference.

You've completely mis-interpreted my post. For weeks people (myself included) have been saying that if you want a pure gaming rig then go with a 7700k. I found this yesterday and its the first one I came across that uses ram that high speed for testing, as we know, there been a lot of problems running ryzen ram above 3000mhz. Also keep in mind this was a selection of multi-threaded CPU games, I suspect that in games using less than 4+ the 7700k's ipc/speed will win out, I'm just saying it may not be as clear cut as we thought

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

5 hours ago, Marvzl1357 said:

Because the 1800x can then overclock past the 1700's overclocked performance? Like I believe it was the gtx 770 and 760, the 760 can overclock to nearly the 770s performance and wow gtx 770 for cheaper! But then you go in and overclock the 770 and the 760 is left behind. 

 

Not entirely correct. The r7 1700 isn't the same comparison as the 760 & 770. The GPUs have different chips underneath. But r7 1700 has the same IPC, cores and threads as the 1800x. Both chips at the same clock speeds will have nearly identical performance where as it wouldn't be the same with the 760 and 770. 

 

3 hours ago, ONOTech said:

The R7 1700 is meant to be compared to the 7700K. AMD intentionally & directly compared the two themselves. Ryzen is also voltage limited ie you hit a wall around 1.4 V. I could be wrong, since the R5 CPUs are not available yet minus very specific places, but from my own testing of disabling my R7 1700, the R5 won't OC better. The average OC will probably be 3.8-4.0 & you'd be lucky to get 4.1+

 

Its not voltage limited, it just takes an insane amount of voltage to jump over the "wall" each chip has, usually around 3.8-4.0Ghz. Which is not something one would run on a regular basis. 

 

 

[Tic-Tac]

Ok, how much better multitasking on 1700 vs 7700K are we talking about here? How much faster rendering times on 1700 vs 7700K we are talking here? How much faster gaming on 7700K vs 1700 we are talking here? 

 

I'm asking all these questions because basically ALL are comparing R7 1700/X only with 7700K... And of course I'm looking for a new CPU

[Valentyn]

52 minutes ago, Tic-Tac said:

Ok, how much better multitasking on 1700 vs 7700K are we talking about here? How much faster rendering times on 1700 vs 7700K we are talking here? How much faster gaming on 7700K vs 1700 we are talking here? 

 

I'm asking all these questions because basically ALL are comparing R7 1700/X only with 7700K... And of course I'm looking for a new CPU

In multithreaded workloads anywhere from 40-50% faster. 

While at gaming it's 5-10% slower depending on the suite used. At newer reviews and tests, like from Bitwit RyZen is averaging 7% slower at 4ghz vs 5ghz on 7700K.

 

Then we have outliers where RyZen has ram speeds over 3200mhz and its within 2% of 5ghz 7700k for gaming. 

 

As someone that does more than just game, RyZen looks fantastic. Shame it wasn't around when I built my x99 system. Would have preferred an 8core over 6, but couldn't justify the $1000 just for the 5960X. 

[4960X]

What are the chances of getting ryzen with ram speeds of over 3000mhz? Most reviewers had issues with getting ram over 2667 from what I have seen.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

17 hours ago, Rangaman42 said:

The smaller 4/6c Ryzens will likely overclock better and compete more directly, especially with fast RAM.

Eh, not really -- maybe a 100mhz improvement in overclocking, depending on silicon quality. This is because Zen and the Samsung/GloFo 14nm LPP+ is not particularly great at clocking over 4 GHz.  There're huge voltage (and therefore heat) increases required to keep a stable chip starting at 3.6, and a small jump at 3.2.

 

Read more about this here: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/ 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

7 hours ago, Tic-Tac said:

Ok, how much better multitasking on 1700 vs 7700K are we talking about here? How much faster rendering times on 1700 vs 7700K we are talking here? How much faster gaming on 7700K vs 1700 we are talking here? 

 

I'm asking all these questions because basically ALL are comparing R7 1700/X only with 7700K... And of course I'm looking for a new CPU

Basically, 7700k gets blown out of the water by R7 in everything but gaming and singlethreaded webpage loading and the such (I'm talking milliseconds of difference there -- it's unnoticeable).  Unless you're strictly gaming, and as long as you're willing to overclock, the 1700 is generally the better buy.

 

This is another thing that 7700k wins in: "And Photoshop. Which had to be the most hilarious discovery of all of the Benchmarking.  Freaking Photoshop is optimized for 2 cores and Clockspeed.  We all knew Adobe was pretty stupid, but I'm still laughing about that one." -- Taf the Ghost.  <-- That's also shown in my links.  I forgot in my original post.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987.html

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1700-review,1.html

Edited March 28, 2017 by N3v3r3nding_N3wb
Links to the gods, more comparisons.

[Taf the Ghost]

45 minutes ago, 4960X said:

What are the chances of getting ryzen with ram speeds of over 3000mhz? Most reviewers had issues with getting ram over 2667 from what I have seen.

Depends on the Board right now.  The Asrocks were getting the highest as of recently, but that could easily have changed already.  Asus Hero 6 was supposed to be the top dog, but they ran into a lot of problems.  The recent BIOS updates seem to be getting 2933 pretty easily.

 

Still, unless you're getting a 1080, Titan X (P) or 1080 Ti, you're probably going to see better performance with the Ryzen 7 1700.  Those minimums matter.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Basically, 7700k gets blown out of the water by R7 in everything but gaming and singlethreaded webpage loading and the such (I'm talking milliseconds of difference there -- it's unnoticeable).  Unless you're strictly gaming, and as long as you're willing to overclock, the 1700 is generally the better buy.

And Photoshop. Which had to be the most hilarious discovery of all of the Benchmarking.  Freaking Photoshop is optimized for 2 cores and Clockspeed.  We all knew Adobe was pretty stupid, but I'm still laughing about that one.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

And Photoshop. Which had to be the most hilarious discovery of all of the Benchmarking.  Freaking Photoshop is optimized for 2 cores and Clockspeed.  We all knew Adobe was pretty stupid, but I'm still laughing about that one.

This is true.  I forgot about that.  I'll edit my response.  Thank you, and yes, that was pretty funny (just another reason not to pay for Adobe's crap).

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

This is true.  I forgot about that.  I'll edit my response.  Thank you, and yes, that was pretty funny (just another reason not to pay for Adobe's crap).

I was quite curious about those tests when they dropped because I thought, quite rightly, that the high-core count CPUs would do really well in tasks that should multi-thread really well.  Then you see the i5 7600k beating the 6900k in a bunch of the tests and you're going "okay, someone at Adobe probably needs to be fired".

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I was quite curious about those tests when they dropped because I thought, quite rightly, that the high-core count CPUs would do really well in tasks that should multi-thread really well.  Then you see the i5 7600k beating the 6900k in a bunch of the tests and you're going "okay, someone at Adobe probably needs to be fired".

Honestly, I wish Vegas would've turned out better and been more popular.  I don't do any video editing, but Adobe being the only giant in that segment hurts people I do care about and like watching.