AMD Ryzen 1700 CPU vs 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

lazz said:
This is exactly the type of information that keeps me coming back to [H].

What I'd love to see as a follow-up is an in-depth compare of the 1700 vs. the 6700k and 7700k, both stock and all OC'd, as they share (relatively) a price point.
Click to expand...

1700x was compared directly to the others in the original review; the 1700 linked here was stated to be identical (for all intent and purpose) to the 1700x and 1800x for that matter.
 
I'm gonna get a 1700 when I have time to do a build. Hopefully by then the ek brackets will be available in the US.
 
Thinking of upgrading my well seasoned Intel 2500k. I need recommendation from [H] readers. Ryzen 1700 for $330 or Kabylake 7700k for $300 (Microcenter)? I predominantly game and will pair one of these CPU's with one GTX 1080 Ti at 3440x1440 at 100 Hz.
 
hv43082 said:
Thinking of upgrading my well seasoned Intel 2500k. I need recommendation from [H] readers. Ryzen 1700 for $330 or Kabylake 7700k for $300 (Microcenter)? I predominantly game and will pair one of these CPU's with one GTX 1080 Ti at 3440x1440 at 100 Hz.
Click to expand...

4K creates a GPU bottleneck. The 1700 and 7700K will perform identically at 4K.
 
I'm wondering if someone has disabled some cores on the 1800X to try to show some real world previews for the 1600X.
 
Question, does it clocks down when idle? I meant, an overclocked CPU.

if yes, how low did it go?
 
hv43082 said:
Thinking of upgrading my well seasoned Intel 2500k. I need recommendation from [H] readers. Ryzen 1700 for $330 or Kabylake 7700k for $300 (Microcenter)? I predominantly game and will pair one of these CPU's with one GTX 1080 Ti at 3440x1440 at 100 Hz.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the differences in motherboard prices and capabilities. Z270 boards are about $80-100 more expensive than the X370 boards for the AMD chips, but the Z270 has a lot more advanced capabilities.
 
dgz said:
I think am about to pull the plug on a 1700. On the other hand, I just checked RAM prices and they are roughly twice as high as what I expected. What happened?
Click to expand...

Samsung, phones mostly. Ram/SSD prices have been going up for 6 months or so. Its just the basic ram cartel cycle.
 
Right now I'm just waiting for better reviews on motherboards and OCing. I'm pretty sure I'll go with a Prime Pro if the TUF series doesn't release.
 
dgz said:
I think am about to pull the plug on a 1700. On the other hand, I just checked RAM prices and they are roughly twice as high as what I expected. What happened?
Click to expand...

more demand = higher prices.. before you only had intel systems using DDR4 now you have both platforms using it.
 
Found this interesting review of Ryzen 1700 OC'ed to 3.9 Ghz vs Kabylake 7700k OC'ed to 5.0 Ghz on gaming at 1080p and 1440p. I wonder if Intel will retaliate by dropping 7700k price.
 
hv43082 said:
Thinking of upgrading my well seasoned Intel 2500k. I need recommendation from [H] readers. Ryzen 1700 for $330 or Kabylake 7700k for $300 (Microcenter)? I predominantly game and will pair one of these CPU's with one GTX 1080 Ti at 3440x1440 at 100 Hz.
Click to expand...

since the 2500k isn't really going to be suffering any time soon with just gaming, it might be worth waiting for the ryzen 5 series chips to release next month to see if the platform matures and maybe get better overclocking results without the extra heat and potentially drive the price down further on the 7700k. just my opinion though since i have the same cpu as you and that's my plan.
 
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985 said:
since the 2500k isn't really going to be suffering any time soon with just gaming, it might be worth waiting for the ryzen 5 series chips to release next month to see if the platform matures and maybe get better overclocking results without the extra heat and potentially drive the price down further on the 7700k. just my opinion though since i have the same cpu as you that's my plan.
Click to expand...

Good advice. I can focus my upgrade on the GTX 1080 Ti for now...if it will be in stock after launch.
 
amd.jpg


Holy crap AMD. Leave some warm bodies to report back to Intel, will ya!?
 
This is a return to the good old days of buying a lower end CPU and overclocking it.

Intel has essentially turned overclocking into something only for those buying the top end CPU, which defeats the reason I always did it.

I think there are very good odds of an AMD CPU in my next PC.

A low end 6c/12t will be cheaper than some locked Intel 4c/8t i7s, and once it is overclocked should outperform them nicely.
 
grtitan said:
Question, does it clocks down when idle? I meant, an overclocked CPU.

if yes, how low did it go?
Click to expand...
I use High Power setting for our benchmarking, so no, it does not clock down then. But if you use Balanced or Power saver it clocks down to 1.5GHz.
 
Can't wait to see how the R5 1600X will compare to this, because it's the only reason keeping me from buying this processor.
 
hv43082 said:
Found this interesting review of Ryzen 1700 OC'ed to 3.9 Ghz vs Kabylake 7700k OC'ed to 5.0 Ghz on gaming at 1080p and 1440p. I wonder if Intel will retaliate by dropping 7700k price.
Click to expand...

The 1440p minimums are interesting where the 1700 seems to put a whipping on the 7700k in a bunch of games. I wonder if at lower res the ryzen struggles a bit in comparison to the 7700k at geometry but is faster at other stuff that the vid card needs at higher resolutions?
 
bobzdar said:
The 1440p minimums are interesting where the 1700 seems to put a whipping on the 7700k in a bunch of games. I wonder if at lower res the ryzen struggles a bit in comparison to the 7700k at geometry but is faster at other stuff that the vid card needs at higher resolutions?
Click to expand...

The reviewer states, "...all of our games were tested with the Ultra preset at 1080p & 1440p."

If Ryzen is a dud for gaming as I keep reading all over the Internet, then how are these results possible? Is the GTX 1080 really the GPU-limit at 1080p and 1440p for these titles? There are a few that diverge, with the largest average framerate difference at 1080p being 15% in GTA V (14% minimum framerate deficit) whereas the R7 1700 actually beat the 7700k in several titles.

What is going on with these benchmarks?
 
hv43082 said:
Thinking of upgrading my well seasoned Intel 2500k. I need recommendation from [H] readers. Ryzen 1700 for $330 or Kabylake 7700k for $300 (Microcenter)? I predominantly game and will pair one of these CPU's with one GTX 1080 Ti at 3440x1440 at 100 Hz.
Click to expand...

I'm in almost the same situation as you. I have a 3770K that will be going to the wife to replace her 2600K that is failing and I'm going to be using a 3440x1440 60hz monitor with the new system. The video card for the new system is going to be either a regular 1080 or a 1080 Ti. The resolution isn't quite 4K but it is a lot more demanding than regular 1440p. Right now I think there wouldn't be much difference to notice, but I wonder about ~2-3 years down the road, as I tend to keep my systems for ~5-6 years with just video card and hard drive upgrades every couple of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecktt
like this
Virtual_Bomber said:
lol, I had a celeron 333 mhz chip and it would oc to damn near 500 mhz. Remember the "fiasco" during the athlon xp days when they were selling 1800+ B core chips (the same cores used for 2400+'s and up I believe it was) for like 120$? Haha, AMD caught on to that shit real fast because people noticed the serial number differences and started buying the shit out of them, then just doing some slight tweaking in the bios you had a 2600+ for a third, if not lower, of the price.

Great review though and its good the see AMD getting some of the spotlight again.
Click to expand...

AMD's pretty good about making those mistakes, lol. but then again makes sense they bought ATi which is just as notorious for making those same mistakes.
 
bobzdar said:
The 1440p minimums are interesting where the 1700 seems to put a whipping on the 7700k in a bunch of games. I wonder if at lower res the ryzen struggles a bit in comparison to the 7700k at geometry but is faster at other stuff that the vid card needs at higher resolutions?
Click to expand...
March 2, 2017 By Joker
Click to expand...

Oh, by that tool. I can easily explain to you why minimums vary so drastically: he almost certainly used absolute minimums without any sort of frametime analysis.
 
We just got our new retail purchased Ryzen 1700 in this morning that we purchased. Here is a quick unboxing video, and I take a few minutes to check IHS and Wraith mating surface flatness.

​
 
MrCaffeineX said:
The reviewer states, "...all of our games were tested with the Ultra preset at 1080p & 1440p."

If Ryzen is a dud for gaming as I keep reading all over the Internet, then how are these results possible? Is the GTX 1080 really the GPU-limit at 1080p and 1440p for these titles? There are a few that diverge, with the largest average framerate difference at 1080p being 15% in GTA V (14% minimum framerate deficit) whereas the R7 1700 actually beat the 7700k in several titles.

What is going on with these benchmarks?
Click to expand...

Apparently, Windows 10 scheduler does not treat Ryzen as an SMT CPU, it thinks all 16 cores are physical with a HUGE amount of cache available. Not appropriating tasks correctly, it's putting too much burden on the SMT threads and choking it.

I too would like to see someone disable 4/8 core/thread to see how the R5 1600 is going to perform, again with the cache the 7 has too much but whatever. It would still be a cool test.
 
Mugato said:
Apparently, Windows 10 scheduler does not treat Ryzen as an SMT CPU, it thinks all 16 cores are physical with a HUGE amount of cache available. Not appropriating tasks correctly, it's putting too much burden on the SMT threads and choking it.

I too would like to see someone disable 4/8 core/thread to see how the R5 1600 is going to perform, again with the cache the 7 has too much but whatever. It would still be a cool test.
Click to expand...


There's also this

http://hwbot.org/newsflash/4335_ryz...bias_w88.110_not_allowed_on_select_benchmarks

Seen a few posts on the ocuk forums saying that a lot of the reviews are basically void until this gets sorted out.
 
Thanks [H] I was about to go and return my 1700 that I purchased at MC on Sun and hadnt even opened yet. But looks like its not really worth the gas money to go.
 
Mugato said:
Apparently, Windows 10 scheduler does not treat Ryzen as an SMT CPU, it thinks all 16 cores are physical with a HUGE amount of cache available. Not appropriating tasks correctly, it's putting too much burden on the SMT threads and choking it.

I too would like to see someone disable 4/8 core/thread to see how the R5 1600 is going to perform, again with the cache the 7 has too much but whatever. It would still be a cool test.
Click to expand...
So I get this argument, but how come we don't see a big increase in performance when SMT is disabled though?
 
hv43082 said:
I read your review on the 1700x. Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I have gathered:
1. At lower resolution (1080p and below), the games are CPU limited more than GPU limited. We do see a performance difference and Intel outperforms AMD.
2. At resolutions above 1080P, the limitation switch to GPU and AMD outperform Intel in some games and remain comparable in other games.
Click to expand...
So far, yes. I have three systems going out to Brent and we are going to run through through a full apples to apples real world gaming scenario to get data on all that. Should put an end to any argument.
 
hv43082 said:
Found this interesting review of Ryzen 1700 OC'ed to 3.9 Ghz vs Kabylake 7700k OC'ed to 5.0 Ghz on gaming at 1080p and 1440p. I wonder if Intel will retaliate by dropping 7700k price.
Click to expand...
Those results seem odd especially the ROTR ones as every other reviewer had it behind by nearly 20%+
 
Presbytier said:
So I get this argument, but how come we don't see a big increase in performance when SMT is disabled though?
Click to expand...

I've seen a few results that looked better for sure, not sure how much the cache issue affects things either. Or, if there is anything else going on right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top