AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

Gatecrasher3000 said:
I wonder how the reviews read on the review sites that focus on raw processing speed for large data computations? Reading the reviews from gaming review sites are bumming me out..

What I mean is, maybe these are not the results WE, as gamers, wanted. But maybe its what AMD wanted, because is gaming really where the money is when it comes to CPUs?
Click to expand...

Yeah read Ians review on anandtech. Seems pretty focused on everything BUT gaming... and gaming is something I don't really care about myself. The most intense game I play is a 4X.

AMD delivered exactly what they wanted to deliver in an eight core CPU. I don't think they missed a thing. This is the foundation core for everything they'll make going forward and leaving the outer fringe of the 1% PC Master Race hanging isn't going to bother them financially. That's something you chase when you have resources. They don't have resources.
 
gunzofdanavarone said:
you seen happy with yourself.... intelliot roots?
Click to expand...
That's pretty stupid and the best you can come up with? Here's the thing I for one would have gladly bought a Ryzen CPU but it's gaming performance is bad, and as GPU bottlenecks go away the CPU bottleneck here is just plain bad no way around that.
 
I would retest Ryzen with Windows 7 and i am saying this because Windows 7 does better CPU scheduling that crap called Windows 10, did lot of comparison againx 10/20 Xeon.
 
Seems pretty good to me. I got a 5960x, samsung 950 pro m2, and mb for 600. I would of got a Ryzen chip if I didnt! I game with the Rift mostly now, but Ryzen seems good for it as well. With new drivers being tweaked and such, it could come out of its shell in,games.
Next cpu purchase will be AMD.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Or maybe, they decided to lead with the 8 core chips first? It's not like Zen is out, and all available zen products are available. Why wouldn't they be able to clock up any higher with half or 2/3s of the cores :)?

or are you implying the clock speed wall is a result of the uArch and not the # of cores ?
Click to expand...

I am just saying if they can come with a 4 core chip with competitive IPC and clocks to current Intel offering now, they would have done it in their initial lineup. Why delay it? I have not seen any roadmap that there's one coming out soon. I am not saying they can't do it later. Not doing so now means there is a problem. This report http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/cpu-guru-david-kanter-digs-into-amd-zen-and-ryzen/ certainly indicated that there are architectural differences that hurt the Ryzen IPC. I think the manufacturing process also makes a difference.
 
NKD said:
All the sudden we all became 1080p gamers. Lol. Whatever fits your boat. You all game at 1080p al of sudden with 8 core chip? Lol.

I can't believe how people change gears just cuz.
Click to expand...
People game at 1080p it's the most common resolution. You definitely game at 1080 if you want high refresh rates. The CPU bottleneck on Ryzen is pretty bad. That's incredibly disappointing.
 
Luka said:
I would retest Ryzen with Windows 7 and i am saying this because Windows 7 does better CPU scheduling that crap called Windows 10, did lot of comparison againx 10/20 Xeon.
Click to expand...
Win 7 and 8.1 would be interesting.
 
Hagrid said:
Seems pretty good to me. I got a 5960x, samsung 950 pro m2, and mb for 600. I would of got a Ryzen chip if I didnt! I game with the Rift mostly now, but Ryzen seems good for it as well. With new drivers being tweaked and such, it could come out of its shell in,games.
Next cpu purchase will be AMD.
Click to expand...
This isn't something that's going to get fixed with drivers. This is a CPU level issue causing low performances.
 
I don't know where AMD went wrong on gaming performance, I dunno if it's fixable, hopefully Zen+ can offer more.
 
bbqrooster said:
I am just saying if they can come with a 4 core chip with competitive IPC and clocks to current Intel offering now, they would have done it in their initial lineup. Why delay it? I have not seen any roadmap that there's one coming out soon. I am not saying they can't do it later. Not doing so now means there is a problem. This report http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/cpu-guru-david-kanter-digs-into-amd-zen-and-ryzen/ certainly indicated that there are architectural differences that hurt the Ryzen IPC. I think the manufacturing process also makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Because the 8 core chips are higher margins so all of their (presumably) limited silicon is going to where more money is. I'm sure they're gradually building up chips with bad cores for the 6 and 4 core parts, but I'd think almost all of their effort is going to the higher margin parts right now.
 
NKD said:
All the sudden we all became 1080p gamers. Lol. Whatever fits your boat. You all game at 1080p al of sudden with 8 core chip? Lol.

I can't believe how people change gears just cuz.
Click to expand...

Because resolution is the only thing that has to do with wanting a higher core CPU...did you think before you posted that?
 
SighTurtle said:
I don't know where AMD went wrong on gaming performance, I dunno if it's fixable, hopefully Zen+ can offer more.
Click to expand...
Lisa Su on Reddit:

Thanks for the question. In general, we've seen great performance from SMT in applications and benchmarks but there are some games that are using code optimized for our competitor... we are confident that we can work through these issues with the game developers who are actively engaging with our engineering teams.
 
Bankie said:
The cheapest Ryzen is $350. The i7-7700k is under $300. Sure the Ryzen is a lot faster at encoding but if you don't do that the 7700k or even 6700k are priced much better.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are off. R7 1700 is $329 everywhere. i7-7700K is only $299.99 at Microcenter. It's $349 at Newegg where the R7 1700 is $329.
 
Also if I sound like an intel fanboy or salty...it's because I'm salty. I still game at 1080P because I really don't care for the 4k monitor selection and would rather have 3 1080P monitors than 1 4K or 1440P. If I get an R7 1700, I'll get great multitasking but then when I go to game I'll get shafted with performance that is potentially worse than my current 3770K.
 
SighTurtle said:
I don't know where AMD went wrong on gaming performance, I dunno if it's fixable, hopefully Zen+ can offer more.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much of "Where did AMD go wrong?" as much as it is Intel using a 20 year old core architecture that has been industry standard for years where programmers know exactly what they're going to get from it. Ryzen very well could be a better chip and be somewhat irrelevant unless market share tips enough to get things optimized for what AMD does well, which is cores, and lots of them.
 
I personally think its still to early to make any calls about Ryzen. Today is the day that everyone can publicly speak about it. I'm sure between bios updates to fix the memory speed issues, and maybe some patches to some games to improve performance.

is it a bit disappointing that they managed 4.1ghz oc? yes, perhaps as the process matures more they will reach higher speeds. Overall though in MT tasks it does really well. Looks like the R7-1700 is the one to get, and just oc it.
 
-Strelok- said:
Also if I sound like an intel fanboy or salty...it's because I'm salty. I still game at 1080P because I really don't care for the 4k monitor selection and would rather have 3 1080P monitors than 1 4K or 1440P. If I get an R7 1700, I'll get great multitasking but then when I go to game I'll get shafted with performance that is potentially worse than my current 3770K.
Click to expand...

How would you get shafted, the FPS was plenty high @ 1080, then if you look at metro last light it was identical.

Then if you ever go 4k you gain 2 fps according to the very limited sample. But hey I'll take a free 2 fps now

Not to mention a lot of upside potential with SMT issues, higher clocked ram etc
 
realworld said:
Lisa Su on Reddit:

Thanks for the question. In general, we've seen great performance from SMT in applications and benchmarks but there are some games that are using code optimized for our competitor... we are confident that we can work through these issues with the game developers who are actively engaging with our engineering teams.
Click to expand...
Like all the games? lol
 
realworld said:
Lisa Su on Reddit:

Thanks for the question. In general, we've seen great performance from SMT in applications and benchmarks but there are some games that are using code optimized for our competitor... we are confident that we can work through these issues with the game developers who are actively engaging with our engineering teams.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a convenient excuse. I won't believe it unless multiple developers confirm it.
 
shad0w4life said:
How would you get shafted, the FPS was plenty high @ 1080, then if you look at metro last light it was identical.

Then if you ever go 4k you gain 2 fps according to the very limited sample. But hey I'll take a free 2 fps now

Not to mention a lot of upside potential with SMT issues, higher clocked ram etc
Click to expand...
Actually no the performance is not equal. I game 1080 @144hz. Ryzen would be an awful CPU for that right now.
 
thesmokingman said:
Saw some 3dmark benches by cdawall at TPU. Ryzen is going to allow yall to get a helluvlot more physics scores for a lot less bank. There's a bit of potential there. For amd users used to getting 7K will now have to get accustomed to 20K+ physics scores lol.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/ryzen-benchmarking-and-overclocking-results.231161/
Click to expand...

I don't care what anybody says, that's a pretty good physics score. It's just slightly lower than one of my 5960X scores that I could find from 2015 - that was at quite a bit higher clocks. And I also didn't get this score on the first day I had the CPU, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see a Ryzen top it shortly.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/7995486

Looks pretty dang good to me for $500 (he was running an 1800X)
 
psy81 said:
The FX-8350 was a good CPU that got a lot of unwarranted hate from Intel Fan Boys (good bang for the buck). I'm still running that system (see Sig) and didn't notice it holding me back in any games at 1080p until recently. You should also consider AM4 is a platform that AMD will be supporting for the next 4 years so you won't need to buy a new motherboard to upgrade to Ryzen X CPU released in 2021. In addition to that you buy that motherboard and will support their APU lineup which adds even more flexibility. I'm considering buying a AM4 motherboard and cheap APU for a HTPC and later upgrade the CPU to replace my FX-8350 system.
Click to expand...

Bulldozer was a turd and the bang for buck really wasn't as great as the AMD fanboys wanted to make it out to be because the performance was so bad and the thermals were so much worse than Intel that they couldn't sell it cheap enough to make it a good value. That was my assessment as a long time AMD fanboy going back 15+ years who was ready to go back, no hate required.

Motherboard features change frequently enough that I don't view the longevity of the socket as a major selling point unless you're talking about upgrading the motherboard in between CPUs (i.e. the exact opposite of what you're talking about)
 
Most gamers game at @1080 which means Ryzen is an awful option for just that.
 
Presbytier said:
That's pretty stupid and the best you can come up with? Here's the thing I for one would have gladly bought a Ryzen CPU but it's gaming performance is bad, and as GPU bottlenecks go away the CPU bottleneck here is just plain bad no way around that.
Click to expand...

You're speaking out of ignorance. Shintai is a known Intel Fanboi here - everything Intel is the BEST EVER and everything not is crap. Not knocking it - just who he is. Who he is not is someone who can give an objective opinion, which is why you've picked a bad horse to back...
 
AMD finally has a great RAM controller. :D:D:D:D:D

Almost the same throughput at 2933 as the 7700k system had at 3600.

As for "only" overclocking to 4.1Ghz.. big whoop. It is an 8/16 CPU.. and the first version of it. And it is also the first iteration of motherboards with the a first version BIOS.

You really can't compare the overclocking of lower core count CPUs to the overclocking of higher core count CPUs.

I don't need an upgrade right now, but I definitely will be watching the AMD setups from now on AND I will most likely be using them for builds I do for others if/when I do them.

And when I do upgrade, I will pretty much be going AMD for my main rig for the first time since Socket 939.
 
Presbytier said:
Actually no the performance is not equal. I game 1080 @144hz. Ryzen would be an awful CPU for that right now.
Click to expand...
You bought a titan x/1080 to play 1080p, you rich bastard

I couldn't stand to play on low details just to maintain 144+ fps though.
(im assuming your setup as your talking like you directly mirror all the test rigs and metro last light wont break 100 fps in VH 1080p as an example, heck GTA V won't either)

But that makes me wonder, what review did you read that had settings to maintain min FPS of 144? Everything Ive seen didnt account for 144Hz monitors, they were all high details msaa etc
 
Last edited:
Lay off your fanboy wars, the Frenchmen have found a reason why Ryzen does so weirdly in games and compression benches:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-22/retour-sous-systeme-memoire.html

Looks like the issue is.... The CCX choice, once again AMD gets bitten by it's clustering.

Basically anything that does not fit in single CCX's L3 is as good as being located outside of L3.
 
shad0w4life said:
You bought a titan x/1080 to play 1080p, you rich bastard

I couldn't stand to play on low details just to maintain 144+ fps though.
Click to expand...
GTX 1080 maintains max details and keeps it between 120-144 in most games. The new 1080Ti should be even better and much better than a titan which makes me wonder why anyone ever buys a titan ever. That being said all reviews are pretty universal if gaming is your primary concern i5 or i7 Kaby Lake is your best bet, and that is disappointing.
 
Presbytier said:
That being said all reviews are pretty universal if gaming is your primary concern i5 or i7 Kaby Lake is your best bet, and that is disappointing.
Click to expand...
Not sure why anyone would expect a 4.5GHz KBL to not continue to be the winner over a Ryzen in games. I know I didn't expect that. To me the fact Broadwell-E 6800/6850K win out over it in that application is cause for a bit of disappointment.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Lay off your fanboy wars, the Frenchmen have found a reason why Ryzen does so weirdly in games and compression benches:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-22/retour-sous-systeme-memoire.html

Looks like the issue is.... The CCX choice, once again AMD gets bitten by it's clustering.

Basically anything that does not fit in single CCX's L3 is as good as being located outside of L3.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, this is not an easy solve, they will have to work with MS to fix it and its just a band aid not a all round fix.
 
ebduncan said:
I personally think its still to early to make any calls about Ryzen. Today is the day that everyone can publicly speak about it. I'm sure between bios updates to fix the memory speed issues, and maybe some patches to some games to improve performance.

is it a bit disappointing that they managed 4.1ghz oc? yes, perhaps as the process matures more they will reach higher speeds. Overall though in MT tasks it does really well. Looks like the R7-1700 is the one to get, and just oc it.
Click to expand...
Ive seen some 2011v3 CPUs that fail to hit more than 4.2GHZ and people loved that. I agree that AMD might not be able to match Intels clocks when compared to 115x parts. But Considering that 2011v3 parts are not guranteed to hit 4.3GHZ every time I think its fair to say AMD has intel beat in CPU in terms of HEDT. Less power with, huge price difference, 90% of the performance.
 
ecmaster76 said:
Yeah I suffer with a 40" Samsung @ 1080P.

OLED will be within my grasp soon and then all the TN/PVA peasants will be groveling at my feet as I revel in HDR and darkest darks
Click to expand...

You play at 1080p on a 40" monitor? :confused: 1080p is a peasant resolution in 2017. It's a fact.
 
I'm always GPU limited in games anyways. And I'm more interested in content creation than gaming. Too bad this didn't come 6 months earlier when I upgraded my rig. Now I can't justify sidegrading to it. Even if it's competitively priced, I'd still loose money on the deal and not get ahead much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top