AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

So to sum it up:

Gaming = Intel
Overclocking = Intel
Single threaded = Intel
Price/perf = Intel in everything but multithreaded and/or content creation

Zendozer confirmed? Seems that way.

Feels like the purpose of the strict NDA regarding benchmarks was to get as many of those pre-orders in from the suckers.

And I just have to laugh at all the AMD fanboy apologists defending this bullcrap, all of them wearing rose colored glasses. It's a decent chip for sure, but it's massively late to the party and forgot to BYOB. Zen is turning out to be the CPU equivalent of Polaris; no overclocking headroom and needs rediculous voltage just to run stock clocks.
 
Nothing to see here as far as im concerned. Im getting the 7700k on the polished intel platform for $100 less. Mostly gaming here btw.
 
it may not be the fastest but at least its nice to see more then a 5% jump a year. now its time for Intel to drop a chip that is 20% faster
 
Disappointing gaming performance for sure but disabling SMT brings it up to where I thought the gaming performance will end up at anyways. Great all-around chip and just decent gaming performance for now. I say this is a win for AMD and a silver award is about right given the price/performance. (Although I was really really hoping waking up to see gold award performance to shake things up a bit like when the Athlon 64 debuted)

This platform should be pretty damn good in a year or two, or maybe when Zen+ comes out. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel pulls another Core 2 Duo though by then though since AMD is much closer now.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
So to sum it up:

Gaming = Intel
Overclocking = Intel
Single threaded = Intel
Price/perf = Intel in everything but multithreaded and/or content creation

Zendozer confirmed? Seems that way.

Feels like the purpose of the strict NDA regarding benchmarks was to get as many of those pre-orders in from the suckers.

And I just have to laugh at all the AMD fanboy apologists defending this bullcrap, all of them wearing rose colored glasses. It's a decent chip for sure, but it's massively late to the party and forgot to BYOB. Zen is turning out to be the CPU equivalent of Polaris; no overclocking headroom and needs rediculous voltage just to run stock clocks.
Click to expand...

You are dilusional if you think its Zendozer. Intel has you by the nuts it seems. Gaming at 1080p, yes intel for now. Not across all games though, so there. Overclocking, yea intel by what? few 200mhz on 8 core to 8 core chip? Price/Performance intel? You are dilusional here everything minus multithreaded/content creation is everything, lol.


Your post is paid intel advertising. As soon as you called it Zendozer it makes it clear you don't know whats real and whats fake.

calling everyone blind amd fans when you have intel drooling all over you. Seriously hate fanboys.

Whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong. Say it like it is. Performance is not there on some games at 1080p, true, but Ryzen keeps up with intel clock for clock with intel 1000 dollar chips. Call it like it is stop drinking cool-aid.

ridiculous voltage to run stock clocks? But more power effecient then intel out of box? Sorry forgot you have intel drooling out of your mouth.
 
Last edited:
samops03 said:
Nothing to see here as far as im concerned. Im getting the 7700k on the polished intel platform for $100 less. Mostly gaming here btw.
Click to expand...

Same here. My last serious build was back in 06; Shuttle SN25P, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester, ATI X1900XT, 2 Western Digital Raptor X HDDs 150GB 10,000RPM, Mushkin Enhanced Extreme Performance 2GB (2x1GB) DDR 500 (PC4000). All of this was top of the line back then; all in all I remember burning through $2K+; he'll the GPU alone was $480 back in 06!

Haven't touched a single AMD/ATI part since, and unless they step it up I probably won't ever again. I'm neither an Intel, NVIDIA, AMD or ATI fanboy; in just simply a performance enthusiast. Planning to gather funds for a build sometime in the near future, possibly end of the year and I'm likely going with Intel and NVIDIA.
 
For me, if I hadn't lucked out and bought a 3930k that hit 4.8Ghz 5 years ago, that still today puts up totally respectable performance, I'd be giving Ryzen a serious look.

As it stands however, Ryzen wouldn't be an upgrade in most circumstances (in some, it would be a downgrade). In some heavy render/encode benchmarks it would be an upgrade, but I don't do that all that much.

I would be struggling to make a decision between Ryzen and an i7-6850K if I were shopping today.

I don't need all those cores, but having a couple more than 4 is nice, so hexacore seems like the best balance for me. While IPC advancements generation over generation from Intel have been disappointing, they add up enough that I think that a 6850k at ~4.1Ghz would match my [email protected], so anything I could get above 4.1 would just be a bonus. With my water setup, unless I'd lose the silicon lottery, I'd be thinking 4.5 should be achievable.

With all cores loaded up, in rendering/encoding a 6850k at 4.5Ghz would likely fall behind Ryzen a little bit, but not terribly so, and it would make up for that by performing better in games and other tasks where the single thread is still king.

I really want to support AMD. It is great to see them finally make a CPU that I'd consider buying. I still can't bring myself to do a CPU "upgrade" where the end result is something that isn't faster in everything than what I currently have

I'm probably going to hold on to my 3930k until the 5+ years of high voltage overclocks finally kill it, and then revisit the CPU world again and see what Ryzen looks like and what Intel's offerings (Skylake-X?) look like.
 
filip said:
All I have to say is that every new processor AMD releases has a Z in it...
Bulldozzzer, zzzen, Ryzzzen. Never a gold award always zzz.
Click to expand...
Yes and Intel joined in with Zzzz170, Zzzzzzz270 . . . :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
like this
ill be upgrading my second rig with ryzen 5 most likely. Right now it has a fx 6300. It should be cheap
ZeroBarrier said:
There's some red sticky stuff on your chin, take a look at yourself in the mirror.
Click to expand...


LOL. you are funny. No one will stand behind your claims you made. Get real and move on. How old are you actually? 16? Because no sane person spreads so much crap, and you are the only one I have seen call it zendozer. So I assume you are kid who knows nothing better and likes to hug a brand like your life depends on it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
For me, if I hadn't lucked out and bought a 3930k that hit 4.8Ghz 5 years ago, that still today puts up totally respectable performance, I'd be giving Ryzen a serious look.

As it stands however, Ryzen wouldn't be an upgrade in most circumstances (in some, it would be a downgrade). In some heavy render/encode benchmarks it would be an upgrade, but I don't do that all that much.

I would be struggling to make a decision between Ryzen and an i7-6850K if I were shopping today.

I don't need all those cores, but having a couple more than 4 is nice, so hexacore seems like the best balance for me. While IPC advancements generation over generation from Intel have been disappointing, they add up enough that I think that a 6850k at ~4.1Ghz would match my [email protected], so anything I could get above 4.1 would just be a bonus. With my water setup, unless I'd lose the silicon lottery, I'd be thinking 4.5 should be achievable.

With all cores loaded up, in rendering/encoding a 6850k at 4.5Ghz would likely fall behind Ryzen a little bit, but not terribly so, and it would make up for that by performing better in games and other tasks where the single thread is still king.

I really want to support AMD. It is great to see them finally make a CPU that I'd consider buying. I still can't bring myself to do a CPU "upgrade" where the end result is something that isn't faster in everything than what I currently have

I'm probably going to hold on to my 3930k until the 5+ years of high voltage overclocks finally kill it, and then revisit the CPU world again and see what Ryzen looks like and what Intel's offerings (Skylake-X?) look like.
Click to expand...

Yes and sadly if the board situation doesn't liven up with the x370 I'm totally considering another x99 build. The x99 platform is just so good right now, it's absolutely overkill for the average user.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
For me, if I hadn't lucked out and bought a 3930k that hit 4.8Ghz 5 years ago, that still today puts up totally respectable performance, I'd be giving Ryzen a serious look.

As it stands however, Ryzen wouldn't be an upgrade in most circumstances (in some, it would be a downgrade). In some heavy render/encode benchmarks it would be an upgrade, but I don't do that all that much.

I would be struggling to make a decision between Ryzen and an i7-6850K if I were shopping today.

I don't need all those cores, but having a couple more than 4 is nice, so hexacore seems like the best balance for me. While IPC advancements generation over generation from Intel have been disappointing, they add up enough that I think that a 6850k at ~4.1Ghz would match my [email protected], so anything I could get above 4.1 would just be a bonus. With my water setup, unless I'd lose the silicon lottery, I'd be thinking 4.5 should be achievable.

With all cores loaded up, in rendering/encoding a 6850k at 4.5Ghz would likely fall behind Ryzen a little bit, but not terribly so, and it would make up for that by performing better in games and other tasks where the single thread is still king.

I really want to support AMD. It is great to see them finally make a CPU that I'd consider buying. I still can't bring myself to do a CPU "upgrade" where the end result is something that isn't faster in everything than what I currently have

I'm probably going to hold on to my 3930k until the 5+ years of high voltage overclocks finally kill it, and then revisit the CPU world again and see what Ryzen looks like and what Intel's offerings (Skylake-X?) look like.
Click to expand...

I don't know if its worth it for you. I do have a 6850k at 4.4. Very good chip running at like 1.275v. But its really hard to hit 4.5 on this chips unless you get a gold sample. I couldn't get mine stable even with 1.35v and I didn't see much value in pushing any higher volts and getting another 100mhz.
 
so it looks like
stick with Intel for maximum compatibility
go with AMD if you just handbrake all day
 
Looking very much forward to new rig with 1700x, ASUS Rog VI Hero and so on. Would be neat to keep data on improvements in performance as time goes on for games and other applications. Just the reviews here over time will show that or not.

You should not have to set SMT off in the bios, that would be stupid. For applications that Windows do not yet assign the most optimum cpu configuration (I expect this will be fixed) you have to do it yourself which is easy if you are an enthusiast and can extract every ounce of performance. Just set the affinity for the process either in Task Manager for each core and not the virtual processor or create a shortcut that will automatically assign the cpu configuration that works best (well you will have to know what that is) -> Did this in the initial Bulldozer days until Microsoft fixed the scheduler.

https://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/40339-cpu-affinity-shortcut-program-create-windows.html

For games with 4 cores or less, you can just set affinity for one CCX and no virtual cores (CPU Complex of four cores - this actually almost sounds like a Bulldozer module :ROFLMAO:).

Anyways I will do what I did with Bulldozer and get the most out of the 1700x. This time around though RyZen is kicking some good stuff right off the start.

Oh, I should mention only do the above if your game or program experience would actually be noticeable if at all - even above would be a waste of time if all you want is higher numbers with zero difference in the outcome or experience.
 
Last edited:
Arma III benches - Ryzen beating stock clocked Broadwell E's and the 5960X by a decent gap, over the HEDT processors Ryzen shines here.

nv_arma3.png


oc_nv_arma3.png


Watch Dogs 2

http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/8

again solid performance with intels modern architectures, holding very competitive frame time variance making transitions feel better.

Doom Vulcan

http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/6

Doom another bench that puts AMD right up with Intel in 1080 performance, no real surprise as Vulcan is a good API for both Intel and AMD

Battlefield 1 multiplayer 1080P

Latency test

210-630.1488454490.png


190-630.1488453980.png


https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...-frametimes-ryzen-7-1800x-gegen-core-i7-6900k

Frame rate is good to.

I think there is a careful selection of games used in review and settings, I have added a bunch of sites to do not trust for shit list, as the results are significantly different to independent test.s
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Arma III benches - Ryzen beating stock clocked Broadwell E's and the 5960X by a decent gap, over the HEDT processors Ryzen shines here.

nv_arma3.png


oc_nv_arma3.png


Watch Dogs 2

http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/8

again solid performance with intels modern architectures, holding very competitive frame time variance making transitions feel better.

Doom Vulcan

http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/6

Doom another bench that puts AMD right up with Intel in 1080 performance, no real surprise as Vulcan is a good API for both Intel and AMD

Battlefield 1 multiplayer 1080P

Latency test

210-630.1488454490.png


190-630.1488453980.png


https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...-frametimes-ryzen-7-1800x-gegen-core-i7-6900k

Frame rate is good to.

I think there is a careful selection of games used in review and settings, I have added a bunch of sites to do not trust for shit list, as the results are significantly different to independent test.s
Click to expand...


And at the same time you show an i3 7350K destroying Ryzen. Including minimum FPS.
That Haswell IPC ended at Sandy Bridge IPC ;)
 
Shintai said:
And at the same time you show an i3 7350K destroying Ryzen. Including minimum FPS.
That Haswell IPC ended at Sandy Bridge IPC ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, it's getting much higher scores than Ivy and Haswell per clock, so definitely not Sandy IPC...
 
Shintai said:
And at the same time you show an i3 7350K destroying Ryzen. Including minimum FPS.
That Haswell IPC ended at Sandy Bridge IPC ;)
Click to expand...

Gaming is clockspeed driven, and the arma benches show it beating 6800, 6850, 5960X, cliearly not an IPC thing.
 
So many posts about the same complaint. Supergamers here are all about them hertz! The 1700, 1700x, and 1800x all max out at 4.0-4.1 ghz. In one review, the 1700 did best!
For productivity/$, the R7 is unbeatable, especially the 1700. I am more curious in the 1400x-1600x overclocking ability. After all, 8-12 threads is PLENTY. All said, Ryzen looks to be a solid cpu.
 
KazeoHin said:
You keep showing this one graph, I'll raise you a graph of an 8-core Ryzen beating out a simillarly clocked Broadwell chip with the same core configuration. Please explain:

povray.png
Click to expand...

But that doesn't show IPC does it. When you see SKL-X vs SKL/KBL you will understand ;)

upload_2017-3-3_11-38-17.png

upload_2017-3-3_11-41-39.png

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9YLzkvNjU2OTczL29yaWdpbmFsLzAyLU1hamEtMjAxMy5wbmc=

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9YLzgvNjU2OTcyL29yaWdpbmFsLzAxLUJsZW5kZXItUnl6ZW4ucG5n
 
KazeoHin said:
You keep showing this one graph, I'll raise you a graph of an 8-core Ryzen beating out a simillarly clocked Broadwell chip with the same core configuration. Please explain:

povray.png
Click to expand...

Simple: AMD has a stronger SMT implementation, so in a situation where all cores get loaded to 100% and the CPUs are clocked the same, Ryzen should come out slightly ahead. In terms of per-core IPC for general workloads, Ryzen comes in around Haswell IPC.
 
gamerk2 said:
Simple: AMD has a stronger SMT implementation, so in a situation where all cores get loaded to 100% and the CPUs are clocked the same, Ryzen should come out slightly ahead. In terms of per-core IPC for general workloads, Ryzen comes in around Haswell IPC.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Haswell IPC is what I'm seeing as well. It's just that some people are saying they see Sandy Bridge IPC, which feels off.
 
os2wiz said:
That is easy to fix. AMD is probably working with Microsoft to optimize the windows scheduler for Ryzen. That is no big deal , it is not a hardware flaw, it is simply an optimization issue. There is absolutely no reason Microsoft won't tale care of this expeditiously given the close relationship that exists on the console front.
Click to expand...

There's an easier fix, one I noted way back during the Bulldozer launch: Re-purpose the CPUID HTT field to let the scheduler know you have a SMT capable processor. There's a reason why Intel made a dedicated CPUID field, rather then rely on MSFT to path the scheduler every single time they released a new CPU. Windows is not Linux; it shouldn't need special code paths on a per-architecture basis. AMD just needs to either re-use or add a CPUID field to let the scheduler/programs know about its capabilities.
 
Looks like the new Pentiums will be sitting pretty for awhile, in the budget sector. Or someone like me, who already has an i3-6100. They don't win at encoding and multi-media. But if you just wanna play some games, they are totally fine and will be, for some time.
 
So before page 19 Intel fanboys are resorting to a 4c/8t chip to defend the gaming crown against a slow and power hungry 8c/16t from AMD?
If Haswell is better than Ryzen, why no one recommends a Haswell chip over Ryzen?
Be careful what you wish for: AMD may decide to bring R5 and R3 faster to market.
Are Intel fanboys that eager to see how a 4c/8t Ryzen performs?
Let us all rejoice that 7600k and 770k have now lowered prices.
May peace fall upon this thread, time to look for 1080ti leaks.
 
In case you didn't notice, Haswell has been EoL'ed for at least 2 years at this stage, hence why Haswell isn't recommended because any "new" stock would be at least a year old at this stage, if not second hand. Same reason why people don't recommend Sandy or Ivy vridge.
 
gamerk2 said:
Simple: AMD has a stronger SMT implementation, so in a situation where all cores get loaded to 100% and the CPUs are clocked the same, Ryzen should come out slightly ahead. In terms of per-core IPC for general workloads, Ryzen comes in around Haswell IPC.
Click to expand...

Hi Gamerk, long time
 
Those frame times for the I7 7700K look terrible. The I7 7700K looks like a turd here in this game. The Ryzen cpu is holding 90fps + while the 7700K almost goes down to 35fps at times. I guess we need to see more dealing with frame times and not solely based arguments on fps times. Also maybe something wrong with how this test was done - need more samples and more games tested.
 
noko said:
Those frame times for the I7 7700K look terrible. The I7 7700K looks like a turd here in this game. The Ryzen cpu is holding 90fps + while the 7700K almost goes down to 35fps at times. I guess we need to see more dealing with frame times and not solely based arguments on fps times. Also maybe something wrong with how this test was done - need more samples and more games tested.
Click to expand...

There is plenty wrong, ie: it contradicts performance obtained by Gigabyte and Asus in house tests, also most reviews completely left off titles that AMD do quite well at and pushed titles they knew Intel excel at. Arma, BF1 SP and MP, Doom, Sleeping Dogs 2 all left off to try widen the disparity, they took games that do well with clockspeed
 
I am running an i7 4770k at the moment, would the Ryzen 1700x be an upgrade to it ? I do game on it, but also use it for productivity etc.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
There is plenty wrong, ie: it contradicts performance obtained by Gigabyte and Asus in house tests, also most reviews completely left off titles that AMD do quite well at and pushed titles they knew Intel excel at. Arma, BF1 SP and MP, Doom, Sleeping Dogs 2 all left off to try widen the disparity, they took games that do well with clockspeed
Click to expand...

It's not just clockspeed, but also IPC: and using games that show a difference is the point of a review.
 
That guy over at Anand did that, 850 cinebench at 30w, which he quotes as 'unprecidented efficiency'. Bodes well for laptop use. Would beat the living shit out of Intel's 2c/4t low power "i7's".
 
bobzdar said:
That guy over at Anand did that, 850 cinebench at 30w, which he quotes as 'unprecidented efficiency'. Bodes well for laptop use. Would beat the living shit out of Intel's 2c/4t low power "i7's".
Click to expand...

Does your assessment account for the Intel part having an IGP and the AMD part not?
 
Chebsy said:
I am running an i7 4770k at the moment, would the Ryzen 1700x be an upgrade to it ? I do game on it, but also use it for productivity etc.
Click to expand...

Short answer yes.

Long answer: It depends, if you're a gamer that ONLY plays games, I mean absolutely just goes home, ramp up your TItans or twin 1080TIs and ONLY play in 1080p and does NOTHING else, then maybe MAYBE you should get a 7700K

Otherwise just get a 1700X and enjoy the 8C/16T goodness that is Ryzen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top