Ryzen 1700X Just as Good as 1800X

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,600
Now that I am back in town and the Ryzen embargo has expired, we can talk a bit more openly about the different Ryzen models; the 1700X and 1800X. I was told by sources inside AMD to not expect to find any discernible differences between the 1700X and 1800X processors if you were going to overclock the processors and use good cooling.

I could find no one over the last week that could explain any appreciable "binning" going on to separate the two chip models based on performance abilities. I do have a retail Ryzen 1700 processors waiting to be shipped to me as well for overclock testing. While I cannot definitively say that the 1700 will look just like the 1700X/1800X as of yet when overcocked, I have not found any real reason to think differently as of this morning. So the 1700 model may certainly be the "enthusiast" model. You can read our 1700X review here.
 
I've seen a couple reviews of the 1700 showing they can't hit the clocks of the X models, will be interesting when you get your hands on one to see if it aligns.
 
This is exactly what I wanted to know. In theory there's nothing outside of a binned chip that'd prevent the 1700 from being just as overclockable, right?
 
Kyle,

Read the review and get a general feel for the chip. But in your own opinion, does this chip take AMD out of the "Suck" category and in line with Intel. The review makes me think its on par, but I get this subliminal message that it's not what it was hyped to be? Please tell me i'm wrong.

I guess I've been shell shocked so many times by AMD, that I can't accept success?
 
Nukester said:
Kyle,

Read the review and get a general feel for the chip. But in your own opinion, does this chip take AMD out of the "Suck" category and in line with Intel. The review makes me think its on par, but I get this subliminal message that it's not what it was hyped to be? Please tell me i'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Did you read the conclusion?
 
the handful of reviews I've read on the 1700 shw them getting up to 4.0 comfortably. Some even 4.1. 4.0 is quite respectable and I feel a lot less guilty for "cheaping out" with a 1700. (Chip arrives today from Indiana, shipped 3/1 - the motherboard shipped yesterday from California and arrives........NEXT FREAKING FRIDAY!!!!)
 
SeymourGore said:
Too many fancy words, I reckon.

Are we going to get some motherboard reviews? I'm interested to see how their B350s perform.
Click to expand...

I think it is appropriately long winded. I mean this IS a big deal for AMD and us fickle Hard readers have been waiting for this.

Maybe we need an easier conclusion.

Kyle's personal opinion in one word.

Awesome
Good
Meh
Underwhelming
Sucks.

The AGMUS rating.
 
rgMekanic said:
I've seen a couple reviews of the 1700 showing they can't hit the clocks of the X models, will be interesting when you get your hands on one to see if it aligns.
Click to expand...
You are discussing a different topic all together. Kyle is saying the ~350$ and ~500 x1700 and x1800 are essentially the same chip, and will hit the same wall when overclocking, (which preliminarily is like ~4.2ghz). There is no reason to waste the extra $150 when you are getting the same chip/preformance/everything. This is less of a guess and more of an educated insider opinion, and further shows that they have a $350 cpu that is competing with Intels 1k park in virtually all but gaming scenarios, which are pretty close, and almost not even noticeable differences gameplay wise.
 
oldmanbal said:
You are discussing a different topic all together. Kyle is saying the ~350$ and ~500 x1700 and x1800 are essentially the same chip, and will hit the same wall when overclocking, (which preliminarily is like ~4.2ghz). There is no reason to waste the extra $150 when you are getting the same chip/preformance/everything. This is less of a guess and more of an educated insider opinion, and further shows that they have a $350 cpu that is competing with Intels 1k park in virtually all but gaming scenarios, which are pretty close, and almost not even noticeable differences gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

Which is why the reading here is so good. I mean it makes economical sense to get the x1700 and put the money in the GPU. As Kyle said and I live by (GPU>CPU)
 
Nukester said:
Kyle,

Read the review and get a general feel for the chip. But in your own opinion, does this chip take AMD out of the "Suck" category and in line with Intel. The review makes me think its on par, but I get this subliminal message that it's not what it was hyped to be? Please tell me i'm wrong.

I guess I've been shell shocked so many times by AMD, that I can't accept success?
Click to expand...

Intel cut their prices substantially. That's a pretty clear sign that AMD has stepped up and raised the bar.

I hoped for more overclocking potential, but I look forward to setting up my 1700x machine in a few days. I'm limping along on a dying x79 rig that I spent way too much on.

I'm very curious about their upcoming server platform, a 16-core chip with quad channel memory (?) would be quite a beast if they can get decent clockspeeds.
 
Nukester said:
I reread it and it just makes me feel underwhelmed by the Ryzen. This is their Intel killer? Don't think so. BUT, for the budget gamer, it would work out pretty good. I just get that "suck" feeling, but it doesn't suck, it's just lackluster.
Click to expand...

I get get a very different take....it seems pretty bad for the budget gamer....it seems like revelation for the budget workstation/part time gamer. For budget gaming it's no better than the k-series i5, but I think that's missing the point. If you want an 8 core Intel chip with ECC RAM over 3ghz you're talking about a $2,000 Xeon chip....the cost benefits if you're trying to outfit a graphics department or really any kind of compute intensive workgroup. AND the Xeon part is a 135w chip.

So budget gamer? Eh, no. For literally every other high end computer situation? It's literally in a league of it's own.
 
Nukester said:
Which is why the reading here is so good. I mean it makes economical sense to get the x1700 and put the money in the GPU. As Kyle said and I live by (GPU>CPU)
Click to expand...

Given how long I've been on this 2600K, with several GPU upgrades over those years.. I would tend to agree with you :D
 
Nukester said:
Kyle,

Read the review and get a general feel for the chip. But in your own opinion, does this chip take AMD out of the "Suck" category and in line with Intel. The review makes me think its on par, but I get this subliminal message that it's not what it was hyped to be? Please tell me i'm wrong.

I guess I've been shell shocked so many times by AMD, that I can't accept success?
Click to expand...

Dont' look to someone else to tell you what to think or feel. Look at the reviews and make up your own mind.
 
For gaming it's going to be the 1600x, 1500x, 1400x If the 1500x can get close to a 7700k for $200 then it should be a good value. If it' or the 1400x isbehind a 7600k by a reasonable amount then AMD is going to have some issues. IMO the market wants either the same performance as Intel for less money (or in the case of the 1700x slightly lower performance for vastly lower cost) or better performance for the same money.

I want to see same core and thread chips against each other so in that case 1500x should go against a 7700k and a 1400x against a 7600k.
 
Good thing I got a 1700 on the way.
I don't game much but will see if I can bump it a few hundred mhz, maybe a 3.4 or 3.5 setup, should be good for the girls I go out with.
 
Looks like an Intel killer to me.

Motherboards with day one bios.... kicking ass in content creation.

Day one Bios Day one Launch drivers... within single digit numbers on almost every game people actually play. At half the cost of the = intel product.

Lets all be very very honest with ourselves now. Most of us, even the hardest gamers out there are not buying new GPUs every 6 months. The GPU matters more then the CPU 99 times out of a 100... unless you really are running a mid range chip from 6+ years ago.

Ryzen performs well enough in games that you are clearly better off spending the extra $ on a better GPU... or saving that extra $ and throwing it at the next GPU to come down the pipe. For content creation it is proving to be a power house that Intels products aren't really besting save their absolute top of the line, and Intel isn't winning those by much. With newer bios and driver updates I doubt Intel retains a lead their at all.

Not to try and make 101 points in one post... lots of gamers are streaming these days as they play, I haven't seen any benchmark evidence. Still I have to believe AMD likely takes the win in that scenario.

Most of the reasons I have seen people arguing as their reason to shun AMD right now and stick with Intel... are personal feelings about AMD. I get it they had so so processors for a long time now, they have been the budget guy for quite a few years.... yes yes they have hyped up lots of substandard chips the last X number of years. That is all true, still if we don't support AMD now. We may as well just give up on desktop computing right now go buy a console or force ourselves to love mobile games. If Intel isn't forced to push themselves... then the desktop doesn't have a ton of years left imo. We need AMD right now... and they have at last given us a reason to support them.

Ryzen doesn't have to be 20% faster then Intel... they need to be = most of the time... and slightly faster or slightly slower the rest of the time at a lower cost. From what I have read so far that is exactly what they have delivered.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That could make the 1700 an amazing deal for overclockers if it turns out to be true, especially since you lose XFR when overclocking anyway.

Looking forward to reading this.
Click to expand...

I will be earnest here. Did you honestly expect XFR to cater to the type of croud that frequents this site? Automatic overclocking is almost always waved off as a lazy man's way of getting extra performance here.

If anything it only caters to those whom want/need extra performance but don't have the inkling or time to want to fiddle with coolers, bios settings, cpu binning, etc to care.

The only take away is that all three chips are starting to appear to be maxed out at the same frequency which reinforces your excitement for an even better value chip in the 1700. I may fork over the extra cash for the sabertooth if that is true. Why not at that point, right.
 
oldmanbal said:
Price and a small mhz bump. 1800 looks a lot cooler than 1700 too.
Click to expand...

upload_2017-3-3_12-51-51.png
upload_2017-3-3_12-53-0.png


I feel like they look pretty much the same :p
 
Pusher of Buttons said:
I get get a very different take....it seems pretty bad for the budget gamer....it seems like revelation for the budget workstation/part time gamer. For budget gaming it's no better than the k-series i5, but I think that's missing the point. If you want an 8 core Intel chip with ECC RAM over 3ghz you're talking about a $2,000 Xeon chip....the cost benefits if you're trying to outfit a graphics department or really any kind of compute intensive workgroup. AND the Xeon part is a 135w chip.

So budget gamer? Eh, no. For literally every other high end computer situation? It's literally in a league of it's own.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it stated yesterday when I was reading reviews, but it does appear to support ECC unofficially. So if you can find a board that also has the toggle for it, this does in fact make a compelling server / workstation for someone to build.
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_confirms_that_ryzen_supports_ecc_memory/1
 
rgMekanic said:
I've seen a couple reviews of the 1700 showing they can't hit the clocks of the X models, will be interesting when you get your hands on one to see if it aligns.
Click to expand...

It's going to be more of a lottery on the 1700. Overclockers club had all three, and the 1700 clocked the highest:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_1700x_1700/4.htm
Overclocking:

  • AMD R7 1800X 4041MHz 100MHz x 40.5
  • AMD R7 1700X 3991MHz 100MHz x 40
  • AMD R7 1700 4091MHz 100MHz x 41
Click to expand...
 
A 1700 might be the sweet spot. Same price as a 7700K, but twice the cores. Performance varies, 7700K will do better in single thread, but for a home PC with some VM's, maybe a webserver, and some game playing, Ryzen would win.

I dont know. I actually am thinking of AMD for the first time in 5 years, thats nice.
 
Right now the thing holding me back from buying Ryzen is the motherboards. There really need to be some updates to the BIOS and reviews comparing all of them.

Cali3350 said:
A 1700 might be the sweet spot. Same price as a 7700K, but twice the cores. Performance varies, 7700K will do better in single thread, but for a home PC with some VM's, maybe a webserver, and some game playing, Ryzen would win.

I dont know. I actually am thinking of AMD for the first time in 5 years, thats nice.
Click to expand...

The 1700 has better frame minimums than the 7700K. There's a lot of stuttering with the 7700K that just doesn't happen with the 1700.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
ChadD said:
Looks like an Intel killer to me.

Motherboards with day one bios.... kicking ass in content creation.

Day one Bios Day one Launch drivers... within single digit numbers on almost every game people actually play. At half the cost of the = intel product.

Lets all be very very honest with ourselves now. Most of us, even the hardest gamers out there are not buying new GPUs every 6 months. The GPU matters more then the CPU 99 times out of a 100... unless you really are running a mid range chip from 6+ years ago.

Ryzen performs well enough in games that you are clearly better off spending the extra $ on a better GPU... or saving that extra $ and throwing it at the next GPU to come down the pipe. For content creation it is proving to be a power house that Intels products aren't really besting save their absolute top of the line, and Intel isn't winning those by much. With newer bios and driver updates I doubt Intel retains a lead their at all.

Not to try and make 101 points in one post... lots of gamers are streaming these days as they play, I haven't seen any benchmark evidence. Still I have to believe AMD likely takes the win in that scenario.

Most of the reasons I have seen people arguing as their reason to shun AMD right now and stick with Intel... are personal feelings about AMD. I get it they had so so processors for a long time now, they have been the budget guy for quite a few years.... yes yes they have hyped up lots of substandard chips the last X number of years. That is all true, still if we don't support AMD now. We may as well just give up on desktop computing right now go buy a console or force ourselves to love mobile games. If Intel isn't forced to push themselves... then the desktop doesn't have a ton of years left imo. We need AMD right now... and they have at last given us a reason to support them.

Ryzen doesn't have to be 20% faster then Intel... they need to be = most of the time... and slightly faster or slightly slower the rest of the time at a lower cost. From what I have read so far that is exactly what they have delivered.
Click to expand...

You make some good points for supporting AMD. It isn't easy to forget the past, overblown AMD CPU let-downs (esp. Bulldozer). However, compared to their recent generations, Ryzen wins on many levels.
 
Snowdog said:
It's going to be more of a lottery on the 1700. Overclockers club had all three, and the 1700 clocked the highest:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_1700x_1700/4.htm
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder what you can do with more extreme cooling. There was that Cinebench record story going around last week with a Ryzen running at 5.2Ghz on all cores, but that must have been a publicity stunt aided by AMD with a very cherry picked CPU, in combination with LN2 to hit those speeds.

And LN2 is not a daily driver type solution. I'm honestly rather disappointed in the Ryzen clock speeds. Before launch I was thinking with some luck and good water cooling 4.5Ghz might be possible, but apparently not.
 
mvmiller12 said:
the handful of reviews I've read on the 1700 shw them getting up to 4.0 comfortably. Some even 4.1. 4.0 is quite respectable and I feel a lot less guilty for "cheaping out" with a 1700. (Chip arrives today from Indiana, shipped 3/1 - the motherboard shipped yesterday from California and arrives........NEXT FREAKING FRIDAY!!!!)
Click to expand...
That's the smart move.
It's like the Pentium II 333 vs. 400 - both OCed about the same.
Of course the Celeron 300A came a few months later and wrecked both of them, but I'm not sure what the contemporary AMD equivalent would be :p
 
I tend to agree with Kyle's conclusion if all you care about is games 7700K wins. If its a content creation/VMs/multipurpose 1700X starts to look really good. I see a 1700X in my future for my workstation and keeping the i5 for games.
 
Cali3350 said:
A 1700 might be the sweet spot. Same price as a 7700K, but twice the cores. Performance varies, 7700K will do better in single thread, but for a home PC with some VM's, maybe a webserver, and some game playing, Ryzen would win.

I dont know. I actually am thinking of AMD for the first time in 5 years, thats nice.
Click to expand...

Well, 7700k isn't only a stronger single thread. It's a stronger "First 8" threads. So if you're creating video content and doing transcoding - or VM's - then Ryzen is interesting. But for the usage scenarios employed by most us here, having a stronger "First 4C/8T" > weaker 8C/16T.

Fortunately and unfortunately, the sweet spot for the vast majority of software and games is 4C/8T or less. And in terms of software optimization and rewrites, that needle won't be moving too quickly into the >4 core direction until 6C and 8C chips from Intel enter mainstream.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yikes, 5.8 on all cores, but 1.97 VOLTS!? :eek:

I wonder how long that CPU will survive...
Click to expand...

Long enough for a screenshot! This from one of the worlds best overclockers. I don't think there is much room left to go, even if the article suggests otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top