AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

Ryzen is a gaming turd, that's already established. Hello Sandy Bridge IPC whenever you cant exploit the 512KB cache.
 
SilverSliver said:
I think the fair thing to say is that Ryzen is not what you want if you are pushing 1080p at 240hz. If you are using higher resolutions, such as 4k - or do any encoding - Ryzen is the best bang for the buck.
Click to expand...

Yes the same excuses as with FX. If you want more slow cores for cheap. Sure, its a win.

This time around we wont see WinRAR benches tho. :D
 
Geez you two.. get a room!!

AMD_Ryzen_Cooler_Raja_Koduri.jpg
 
I aint got no concerns with my pre-order of a 1700 for desktop with my 3 hour gaming.

But could you look into gpu limits and how that affects things, I know gpu limited and what not, why is the 7700K starting to lag behind at 4K?
https://translate.google.com/transl...er/test-amd-ryzen-7-1800x/377125/3&edit-text=

This is curiosity, not defending any cpu maker as Intel's cpu's with more threads seems to do better as well... this is just quads vs 6-8 core in 4K.
 
ole-m said:
I aint got no concerns with my pre-order of a 1700 for desktop with my 3 hour gaming.

But could you look into gpu limits and how that affects things, I know gpu limited and what not, why is the 7700K starting to lag behind at 4K?
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.tek.no/artikler/test-amd-ryzen-7-1800x/377125/3&edit-text=

This is curiosity, not defending any cpu maker as Intel's cpu's with more threads seems to do better as well... this is just quads vs 6-8 core in 4K.
Click to expand...

Where is it lagging behind in any of those tests at 4K?
 
Looks decent so far. Toms showed 15+% increase in gaming FPS just by setting Windows to high performance power plan and disabling SMT. I think there may be some kinks to be worked out (which is still a mark against AMD) but once things settle out we should see some compelling value.
 
Shintai said:
Yes the same excuses as with FX. If you want more slow cores for cheap. Sure, its a win.

This time around we wont see WinRAR benches tho. :D
Click to expand...

No one was 4k gaming when FX came out. 4k benchmarks are very close in games, and anything besides gaming Ryzen absolutely destroys Intel for the money.

If you are a CSGOBRO gaming at 640 x 480 at a million frames per second, definitely go Intel. If you are basically anyone else, Ryzen is competitive if not superior for some needs.
 
-Strelok- said:
Where is it lagging behind in any of those tests at 4K?
Click to expand...
Results shuffle around, it's still lacking yes :)
In firestrike the results are very different in ryzens favor.

My question is not related to ryzen, but 6-8 core in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
So it appears, if you are primarily going to game at 1080p - why would you be spending this money on the processor anyways? Not like the Intel processors at this price point offer any real advantage. Yes, they score higher, but I think if my main concern was 1080p gaming, I could save money and get a much cheaper CPU.

If you are gaming at higher resolutions, the CPU doesn't make much of a difference, and you have a beast of a processor for other tasks.

To use a baseball analogy, not a grand slam home run that everyone seemed to be hoping for, but certainly a solid line drive double. I think the silver award is well given.

I really look forward to seeing the typical [H] gaming benches to see what performance that will show.
 
As someone that is building a system for my wife to do content creation, BIM/CAD and lots of multi-threaded rending this is a home run. I'm, literally, going to save a ton of money over going with a 6900K or comparable Xeon. She doesn't game.

These will be a fucking home run in the workstation and nuclear physics department.
 
This is kind of what I expected. I was hoping for slightly better gaming results, but they're not horrible. Broadwell-E isn't exactly screaming in gaming benchmarks and that's for twice the price. What I'm more curious about now is the lower core count chips and how they'll stack up with the quad core i7s. Regardless, this is a beast of a release for a budget workstation. And, it should only get better in gaming as thread utilization increases. I'm not disappointed, they set their target and seem to have mostly hit it, so can't really complain about that.
 
As expected, 4 and 6 cores will rule in terms of pure gaming. Still, I think I am going to build a 1700 rig in the coming months.

My 2500k is still plenty for games, though.
 
jardows said:
So it appears, if you are primarily going to game at 1080p - why would you be spending this money on the processor anyways? Not like the Intel processors at this price point offer any real advantage. Yes, they score higher, but I think if my main concern was 1080p gaming, I could save money and get a much cheaper CPU.

If you are gaming at higher resolutions, the CPU doesn't make much of a difference, and you have a beast of a processor for other tasks.

To use a baseball analogy, not a grand slam home run that everyone seemed to be hoping for, but certainly a solid line drive double. I think the silver award is well given.

I really look forward to seeing the typical [H] gaming benches to see what performance that will show.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think if you're primarily gaming the best course of action is to just wait for the entire ryzen line to release and see if there's anything there worth it for you.
 
I just bought a 6850 a few weeks ago and was worried I was going to have buyers remorse. Nothing I've seen here or on the Linus review is significant enough to make me regret my decision. It's good to see AMD back in the game, and I'm still comfortable with my purchase.
 
Awesome, as I pretty much only game in VR now and use my PC for a lot of stuff outside of gaming, it looks like I made the right choice for an upgrade. We'll see how well the 1700 non-X clocks. Looking forward to the OC results and, in particular, how to get more out of the memory.
 
Looks fine to me, not the best at gaming but I am not surprised. It does great in things that require all the cores which is nice. Still looks like some bugs are haunting it a bit, so the performance may get better with some time. Would be nice if it clocked higher but 8 cores is alot to feed. Zen turned out pretty well, they had a huge gap to cover and they got most of that gap covered in 1 generation.
 
davethehedgehog said:
I just bought a 6850 a few weeks ago and was worried I was going to have buyers remorse. Nothing I've seen here or on the Linus review is significant enough to make me regret my decision. It's good to see AMD back in the game, and I'm still comfortable with my purchase.
Click to expand...
you are in good shape brother..... I just find it laughable that my new Ryzen system with SLI titans will suck in gaming at 4k according this this forum lol
 
I say "Good show, AMD!"

It's interesting how AMD and Intel trade blows depending on the task at hand. As someone who found 8 cores a revelation for Handbrake, it's sure nice to see Ryzen do so well in that application. For people who do stuff other than gaming on their PC, this should be a no brainer - and I bet gaming will come around. It's not like the thing won't game at all.

Hard to see how anybody could be disappointed with these new AMD offerings.
 
Having read both the [H] review and the PCPer review, do you think the 1080p issue is hardware related, or do you think it is drivers/bios/memory related? basically is there any thoughts as to whether we will see significant improvement in that area?
 
So there is literally no overclocking headroom? 4/4.1ghz is the max on all cores? So out of the box, the chip frequency is at its' limit?

I recall Intel chips going like 4.4/4.5 GHz right?
 
Furious_Styles said:
Wow that 2600K @ 4.5ghz is still holding its own.
Click to expand...
Made me even sadder to loose mine seeing that. Ah well, Ryzen will be a great platform for the meantime - no slower than the OC 2600k in single and faster in threaded. That's more than enough PC for most, especially workstation+gaming in a single box users.
 
I'm pretty disappointed in the gaming benchmarks. I've read reviews from 5 different sites now. Looks like compared to my overclocked 2600k the 1700x isn't giving me much gaming performance. Maybe even lose some. Think I'll keep the preorder and see what happens. I wanted the platform upgrade as much as the CPU anyway for NVME SSD and better audio.
 
jardows said:
So it appears, if you are primarily going to game at 1080p - why would you be spending this money on the processor anyways? Not like the Intel processors at this price point offer any real advantage. Yes, they score higher, but I think if my main concern was 1080p gaming, I could save money and get a much cheaper CPU.

If you are gaming at higher resolutions, the CPU doesn't make much of a difference, and you have a beast of a processor for other tasks.

To use a baseball analogy, not a grand slam home run that everyone seemed to be hoping for, but certainly a solid line drive double. I think the silver award is well given.

I really look forward to seeing the typical [H] gaming benches to see what performance that will show.
Click to expand...

actually people are starting to do more use of high refresh panels both 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 at and beyond 144hz.. I know way more people using high refresh rate 1440P screens than 4K and I know way more who "downgraded" from 4K@60hz to 1440P@144hz so yes, in those cases CPU make a HUGE role and out of the gate Ryzen is bottlenecking even 2560x1440 not a good sign.. Ryzen is performing WAY worse than what I was expecting.
 
Nirad9er said:
So there is literally no overclocking headroom? 4/4.1ghz is the max on all cores? So out of the box, the chip frequency is at its' limit?
Click to expand...

For a chip that is slated 3.4ghz and single core 3.8ghz turbo, first 14n AMD cpu , Did first generation 14nm Intel overclock that well?
 
Any word on if 1700-1700x-1800x are just binned differently or do they have any fundamental differences that'll impede max clock speeds? Ie. are some people going to get lucky with a few golden 1700/x chips that are essentially 1800x worthy?
 
ochadd said:
I'm pretty disappointed in the gaming benchmarks. I've read reviews from 5 different sites now. Looks like compared to my overclocked 2600k the 1700x isn't giving me much gaming performance. Maybe even lose some. Think I'll keep the preorder and see what happens. I wanted the platform upgrade as much as the CPU anyway for NVME SSD and better audio.
Click to expand...

It was never supposed to compete with games that are bound to frequency strong 4 cores would always outperform 8 fast cores. This might be changing with newer DX12/Vulkan titles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top