PCPer Says the AMD Ryzen 1700 is the OC Shiznit

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,603
OK, maybe "Rowdy" Ryan Shrout did not say "shiznit" in his "Overclocking the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - The Real Winner?" review, but I know he thought it. What is very fishy though is that PCPer came up with same exact conclusions that HardOCP did, mere hours after we published our 1700 vs 1700X review? Coincidence? I think not. On a serious note, PCPer did a good look at just how meaty the Ryzen 1700 is compared to its bigger 1700X and 1800X brothers, or sisters. I don't want to assume any processors' genders.


Yes, you could easily overclock the Ryzen 7 1800X to 4.0 GHz (or 100-200 MHz higher) but saving $170 that you could put toward a GPU, an SSD or any other purpose for likely the exact same experience is enticing.
Click to expand...
 
This situation makes and excellent case on waiting for reviews before purchase. People bought the 1800X for overclocking and got the same end result performance of an overclocked 1700.
 
I would happily buy a R7 1700 if the boards were more stable. This is coming from someone who invested in X99 when the CPUs were king but the boards were shit. It took months for ASRock to address their piss-poor single-thread performance.
 
Sounds like this Shrout and Bennett bromance is being taken up a notch with all this back and forth compliments for each other.

I have a feeling this Summer these two will be racing their lawn tractors all over the place together.
 
I like the 1700x as I felt it had a better chance of hitting 4.0 ghz easily, seems the 1700's come up just a little short at times but it's really close so I dont blame anyone wanting to save some green and just buying the normal 1700.
 
The difference in cost is best used on the GPU. the 1700 is a fine CPU.
 
Looking at the gaming scores (and assuming you don't care about things like handbrake) it seems like the i7-7700k would be a much better choice, since it's $30 cheaper than the lowest-price Ryzen 1700, and still faster even after overclocking the 1700.
 
ryan_hardocp_2.jpg
 
Well I have a 67 mustang fastback painted that color.

Let's see some hub caps flying. Kyle rent a charger
 
Out of curiosity, How does the wraith spire cooler holdup for overclocking?

How does it do in general?
 
sir-gold said:
Looking at the gaming scores (and assuming you don't care about things like handbrake) it seems like the i7-7700k would be a much better choice, since it's $30 cheaper than the lowest-price Ryzen 1700, and still faster even after overclocking the 1700.
Click to expand...

*Much* better? I'd rather have twice the cores even with the tad lower IPC.
 
sir-gold said:
Looking at the gaming scores (and assuming you don't care about things like handbrake) it seems like the i7-7700k would be a much better choice, since it's $30 cheaper than the lowest-price Ryzen 1700, and still faster even after overclocking the 1700.
Click to expand...
They overclocked with 2400 ddr4, unfortunately there are not benchmarksbwith 3400 yet but some ddr scaling showed a good bump in perf for ryzen. Its also rumored windows 7 had %17 more draw calls.

If you only only care about gaming 4 core ryzen will probably be one to get as it won't have the shared L3 cache that is believed to cause some of the issues witnessed with games not properly optimized for ryzen architecture.
Also seems to cause fps to suffer in Dx12 Vs Dx11 which seems even more odd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top