AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Review

[PaulAlcorn]

Why no 1440p or 4k gaming? Who buys 1700 for 1080p gaming? In gaming, the new 1700, 1700x, 1800 don't compare to 7700k in gaming. But i don't see that like all other testing methodologies done by likes of gamernexus and what not.

Here is some recent testing at 1440p. It includes the 1700, as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-lake-gaming,4977.html

I dont believe that has Ashes of the Singularity updated tests. Good review and I would like to see more. Now that all the Ryzen's have been benchmarked on 1080p maybe 1440p and 4k would make a good review. With and without SLI/crossfire also just to see how it works for Ryzen. Possibly Gskills could pitch in some of their Flare X 3466 RAM for Ryzen.

RAM is the bottleneck in modern systems: the CPU can process data faster than it can be read and written from/to RAM.

The benchmarks use @2400MT/s RAM for Intel and @2666MT/s for Ryzen. It is 11% difference RAM speed. How is that a valid comparison?

I use 7700K with @4000MT/s RAM, for example.

I have seen little to suggest that modern Intel CPU performance is particularly dependent on RAM speed, especially past a certain threshold.

Ryzen on the other hand seems to love high speed memory, which is apparently in part due to higher speed RAM actually increasing the speed of the infinity fabric between CCXs.

Look for more on that very soon

 

[yeeeeman]

I really do think that either most reviewers are payed to put these AMD chips in a bad light or they are Intel fanboys. Here is something - you say: "The Ryzen 7 1700 and 1700X trail the other contenders, but pull up to the faster processors after overclocking" after the Battlefield 4 gaming results chart and actually if I struggle, I cannot see a difference greater than 5 FPS between top performing CPUs and the "worst" on a 160FPS median result.
I do not understand why you bash so hard these AMD CPUs in games? Why do you recommend the 7700K when this CPU is a platform which will support no upgrade from the next generation, has only 4 cores (and in a few years more cores will be necessary, always more cores is better), is much slower in computing tasks and is only marginally and not really relevant for the human eye/normal player in games?
Just give us a good reason and I will believe, because I am really tired to hear the same story - Ryzen is good, but as good as 7700K. Who cares? If you have 160FPS, who would give a f**k that 7700K will give you 165? What about in two years time? What about the upgradeability, the fact that you have to throw the Intel motherboard in the bin if you want Cannonlake? Why do you mislead?
Calming down...I think Ryzen 7 1700 is a best buy, period. Great power even when not overclocked, great power consumption, even better than the highly praised 7700K, tons of computing power with its 8 cores, great price. Really, what you could want more?

 

[someone-crazy]

I wonder why AMD cant compete with Intel compiled games. Lets not mention the fact that Intel has paid game developers to use their compiler for years, but rub it in that AMD cant overcome this "hidden" obstacle.

 

[sosofm]

The last BIOS updates + DDR4 3200Mhz , even higher , gives to Ryzen more Fps in games and better results in productivity. And this is just the beginning when more games and software will be optimize for new AMD architeture.

 

[damric]

Despite a few quirky drawbacks, this has been a great product launch for AMD.

Anyone remember Phenom 1 or FX-8150?

 

[TMTOWTSAC]

I really do think that either most reviewers are payed to put these AMD chips in a bad light or they are Intel fanboys. Here is something - you say: "The Ryzen 7 1700 and 1700X trail the other contenders, but pull up to the faster processors after overclocking" after the Battlefield 4 gaming results chart and actually if I struggle, I cannot see a difference greater than 5 FPS between top performing CPUs and the "worst" on a 160FPS median result.
I do not understand why you bash so hard these AMD CPUs in games? Why do you recommend the 7700K when this CPU is a platform which will support no upgrade from the next generation, has only 4 cores (and in a few years more cores will be necessary, always more cores is better), is much slower in computing tasks and is only marginally and not really relevant for the human eye/normal player in games?
Just give us a good reason and I will believe, because I am really tired to hear the same story - Ryzen is good, but as good as 7700K. Who cares? If you have 160FPS, who would give a f**k that 7700K will give you 165? What about in two years time? What about the upgradeability, the fact that you have to throw the Intel motherboard in the bin if you want Cannonlake? Why do you mislead?
Calming down...I think Ryzen 7 1700 is a best buy, period. Great power even when not overclocked, great power consumption, even better than the highly praised 7700K, tons of computing power with its 8 cores, great price. Really, what you could want more?

The part you quoted in full:

The Ryzen 7 1700 and 1700X trail the other contenders, but pull up to the faster processors after overclocking. In many ways, these results mirror the common trend we see at higher resolutions. All of the processors offer acceptable performance when you encounter a graphics bottleneck.

They clearly states BF1 and BF4 were GPU bottlenecked. Did you look at any of the other benchmarks?

 

[harly2]

My 1800x at stock clocks crushes your results, get your system configured correctly

 

[Ramin rostami]

BOYS do you know ryzen cpu is too smoot than intel 7700, very low latency in games and ..., very smooth in games because ryzen GRAPHIC CARD, mouse ,keyboard directly connect to ryzen cpu ! see am4 and 270 board diagram

http://uupload.ir/files/7kxp_crosshair-diagram-1280x1024.jpg

note= (in intel below picture intel has PCI3 out from cpu but it is cpu internal graphic out,not independant in )!!!!!

http://uupload.ir/view/6fej_z270-diagram.png

 

[Reginald_Peebottom]

Con: "Lower stock performance than other Ryzen 7 models"

Um, how is this a con? I see it reasonable to expect a lower positioned and priced CPU to out perform higher positioned and priced CPUs from the same series?

I think the author is trying to stretch the cons section a tad.

 

[bluzbrother]

I would be curious to see a poll of people that have actually purchased an R7 chip. What motherboard and gpu they have it paired with. Most reviews show benchmarks with the highest end cards, but personally I think a lot of people are pairing it with an AMD graphics card. I bought an RX 480 on sale. There was no way I was going to spend over $300 on a GPU after spending $600 on a CPU/Memory/Motherboard/SSD. Total I spent a little over $800 after buying the GPU and a copy of Windows. Paired it with existing 2TB hard drive, Full ATX case, and LG Ultrawide monitor (2560x1080).

 

[kinney]

Reviews that don't include ~3600MHz memory tests aren't really worth writing at this point. Given that seems to be the point where Ryzen starts beating the 7700K across the board in gaming, that's what people need to see and what would be more than "just another R7 review".

I'm going to build a R7 1700 with GF1060 once some good mini-itx boards land. I'm well informed on Ryzen and that setup suits my needs well, doesn't matter if someone out there thinks a 7700K with bad TIM and an extra 20C of unnecessary temp is a better gaming CPU. No self respecting enthusiast would put one of those in any system without delidding. I'll stick to 8C/16T Ryzen and have a great all around system.
The only quadcore and less CPUs I'll be buying going forward are laptops.

 

[dalauder]

I would like to see an investigation into Ryzen's performance with AMD cards. In theory, a 1060 6GB should consistently beat an RX 480 8GB. Does Ryzen do better with Radeon?

I've already got an RX 480 and I'm not sure how much longer I plan to keep running my Sandy Bridge i7.

 

[kinney]

Nvidia will get their drivers sorted out with Ryzen. I don't think that will take too long. Probably be fixed before anyone can do much of an indepth investigation on it. RX480 allows a guy to rest easy though.

 

[dalauder]

No self respecting enthusiast would put one of those in any system without delidding. I'll stick to 8C/16T Ryzen and have a great all around system.
The only quadcore and less CPUs I'll be buying going forward are laptops.

+1 to the delidding. I'm still rocking a Sandy Bridge i7 (soldered heat sink), but there's no way I'd run an Ivy or newer without picking up a delidding tool.

I've got an i3 sitting in a new Gigabyte socket 1151 board (nearly free w/ Microcenter discount). That build might be waiting for a Coffeelake i7 that I would definitely delid. I kind of wish I'd waited and just gone with a RyZen R3 for that build.

 

[mitch074]

So, to sum up the pros & cons:
* pros: overclocks like a charm, low power, 8 cores, mucho performance for less cash
* cons: it's not Intel / Nvidia hates

 

[envy14tpe]

Is there any test that can be done to compare the ryzen 1700 to a 7700k while streaming a game? I hear lots of talk saying the Ryzen chip is better at task like that, so some gamers do want it even though it doesn't give the highest possible fps.

 

[Ramin rostami]

important , be carefull

in page 7 there is some test base on render with graphic card, openGL,directx ... understand???

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,5009-7.html

some software like autocard,3d max can cut cpu , and render by graphic card !!!!
these test only show 1 core power like games and cant show 100% cpu total power,threat

these test not cpu pure test , only motion test like games (like games need update to use all 8 cores 16 threat)

 

[randomizer]

Why are the graphs blurry?

For the slideshow charts it's because they are (for some unfathomable reason) stretched to the full width of the containing element, which not only causes them to be upscaled, but also causes the forward/back buttons to get in the way. They are also just low quality JPEGs. For the non-slider charts it's because they are a low quality JPEG that is slightly squashed, even though there is a large crisp PNG available (that's the one you see by clicking to enlarge).

 

[jpaulbiss]

I am not a gamer, so these test really don't tell much about real world use. How does AMD fair with photo or video editing. How about testing them with programs like Darktable or Lightworks.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

My 1800x at stock clocks crushes your results, get your system configured correctly

You keep saying that, but haven't posted your own setup or results. Mind sharing?

 

[Ramin rostami]

ryzen work better with amd graphic card(+5% powerfull)
ryzen will work with amd zen graphic (+30%)
ryzen work better on directx 12(+5%)
in future next directx 13 (+40%)

IMPORTANT = be inform old base games use @ max 2 core now (for this 4 core 7700 win 10 core 6950x-6900
but new games (new games update comming) to use all 8 core (+40%) fbs and speed will increase

 

[Giroro]

How does an overclocked 1700 perform on workstation tasks, compared to overclocked 1800x and 1700x?

 

[Niva]

I have seen little to suggest that modern Intel CPU performance is particularly dependent on RAM speed, especially past a certain threshold.....

Well, I am a software engineer involved with low latency systems and once your dataset does not fit in L3 cache, or the memory access pattern is not cache-friendly, the memory transfer rates are quite observable.

Also, have a look at http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/

The memory benchmarks on Tom's Hardware recently have been of rather poor quality.

Wow, thank you for the useful information. Frankly, I'm also shocked at reading that review, especially the Photoshop benchmarks. I'm a heavy Photoshop user and this link you posted has been the single most entertaining benchmark research I've read in years. Tom's Hardware should take notes...

 

[Antonio_34]

Truly, it doesn't make sends to use an Nvidia GPU to bench Ryzen CPU's when it's well known that Nvidia's DX12 implementation is botched.

I don't mean to tell Tom's Hardware to do their jobs, but over the last few months it's become noticeable that this is either a second rate website, or a bought and paid for one.

 

[Reichard]

So am I the only person that looks up a motherboards memory compatibility list and guys the one that runs at 3200? Why do all these reviewers say they have problems reaching 3K with their memory?