AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Review

[MelchiorGaspar]

This Temperature tests OMIT ONE CRUCIAL BIT OF INFO..
IT DOES NOT SAY WHETHER THE TEMPERATURES DISPLAYED ARE Fahrenheit or Celsius! :ROLL-EYES:

 

[Rogue Leader]

This Temperature tests OMIT ONE CRUCIAL BIT OF INFO..
IT DOES NOT SAY WHETHER THE TEMPERATURES DISPLAYED ARE Fahrenheit or Celsius! :ROLL-EYES:

Its common knowledge that Celcius is used in all professional tests. Also anyone familiar enough with the technical stuff that even cares enough about these stats can easily tell that its Celsius.

 

[TMTOWTSAC]

This Temperature tests OMIT ONE CRUCIAL BIT OF INFO..
IT DOES NOT SAY WHETHER THE TEMPERATURES DISPLAYED ARE Fahrenheit or Celsius! :ROLL-EYES:

Page 2, Overclocking and Test Setup:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,5009-2.html

During our tests in the U.S. lab, we saw the 1700 peak at 65°C (according to AIDA), while the 1700X and 1800X reached 70°C.

 

[damric]

This Temperature tests OMIT ONE CRUCIAL BIT OF INFO..
IT DOES NOT SAY WHETHER THE TEMPERATURES DISPLAYED ARE Fahrenheit or Celsius! :ROLL-EYES:

Technically it is neither. There is no real on-die temperature sensor that can give you said reading. What is derived from the registers is from the TCTL scale which is based on a TDP calculation. I'll be updating the sticky information for Ryzen soon to clarify, as requested.

 

[dalauder]

This Temperature tests OMIT ONE CRUCIAL BIT OF INFO..
IT DOES NOT SAY WHETHER THE TEMPERATURES DISPLAYED ARE Fahrenheit or Celsius! :ROLL-EYES:

Troll?

Note that the user has made a total of ONE post. If this is the one time they feel they need to post, I'm pretty sure they're just screwing with people...especially since it actually says "°C" multiple times.

 

[VenX]

Ryzen 1700 strongly beats the i7-7700K in VFX/CGI related apps.

 

[Cyberats]

Faulty testing if Intel/Nvidia GPU was used with AMD CPUs, bordering sabotage of the experiment.

 

[Cyberats]

So let me see here - an Intel Fanboy test of AMDs with a predetermined outcome.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

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?

It isn't just the reviewers saying it. AMD has stated that memory support will get better with time, but it certainly isn't there yet.

 

[damric]

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?

Probably 99% of reviewers, just like most users, are not good at tuning memory. You can't just tune the first four primary timings and leave everything else in auto. Knowing how to properly tune every timing is what separates the wannabees from the real overclockers. People are spoiled by X.M.P. and unlocked SKUs.

 

[__Isomorph__]

ok a lot of you people seem confused. so let's set the record straight with these links:

Ryzen 5 beats the pants off a 7700K OC'ed @ 4.9GHz!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/04/05/amd-ryzen-5-1600-review-leak-200-cpu-beats-350-intel-core-i7-7700k/#143a186e1784

this vid destroys the fallacy that Ryzen doesn't perform well with games--remember, playing at 300+ FPS vs 150 FPS is a meaningless contest you fools!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

Ryzen 7 gets best FireStrike score in the world! : https://level1techs.com/article/fastest-ryzen-1800x-system-world-2017-03-20

for those who need to understand the importance of VRM and voltage phase: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-motherboard-voltage-regulator-circuit/ --> pointint at ASRock Taichi mobo best-of-breed it seems.

don't kill the messenger! ;-)

 

[__Isomorph__]

yeah, i agree with MITCH074. something is not right here. the damn benchmarks are all over the place depending on who does them.

Paul--did you watch this? https://youtu.be/0tfTZjugDeg and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50 ?

if not, please do and let us know what you guys think because it appears that Ryzen 7 1800X lays waste to the Intel CPUS.

and the NVidia DX12 driver seems to be a POS holding back Ryzen compared to perf improvements gotten with AMD DX12 driver.

this is all a confused messed.

 

[mitch074]

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?

Probably 99% of reviewers, just like most users, are not good at tuning memory. You can't just tune the first four primary timings and leave everything else in auto. Knowing how to properly tune every timing is what separates the wannabees from the real overclockers. People are spoiled by X.M.P. and unlocked SKUs.

Back in the DDR 1 times, when the memory controller wasn't integrated in the CPU, I used to fine-tune each and every setting in the BIOS - including (but not limited to) RAM timings. And indeed, on my Duron 950 with a mere 50MHz actual CPU overclock (dropping multiplier to 7.5 down from 9.5, increasing the FSB from 100 to 133MHz, increasing PCI cycles, activating sound acceleration on the Ensoniq-based sound card I had, sync'ing RAM cycles with the FSB, lowering timings from 3-5-5-8 2T to 2-3-3-5 1T, etc.), I managed up to 40% (!) more performance on select benchmarks (more like 20-25% on most). Now THAT was worthwhile!

Then I got an Athlon X2 3800+, also DDR1-based (but dual channel). Here I also tried tightening settings... And barely got 1% improvement after hours and hours of tests. So I decided it wasn't worth my time and nowadays I don't go past ensuring that dual channel is enabled and using the highest XMP setting the RAM can handle. I can understand heavy overclockers spending hours trying to squeeze out that last half point in performance, but I don't do that anymore.

 

[Faux_Grey]

Toms, when your benchmarks list equal performance across all tested parts, it's time to change benchmarks.
BF1 @ 1080p. Joy.

 

[damric]

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?

Probably 99% of reviewers, just like most users, are not good at tuning memory. You can't just tune the first four primary timings and leave everything else in auto. Knowing how to properly tune every timing is what separates the wannabees from the real overclockers. People are spoiled by X.M.P. and unlocked SKUs.

Back in the DDR 1 times, when the memory controller wasn't integrated in the CPU, I used to fine-tune each and every setting in the BIOS - including (but not limited to) RAM timings. And indeed, on my Duron 950 with a mere 50MHz actual CPU overclock (dropping multiplier to 7.5 down from 9.5, increasing the FSB from 100 to 133MHz, increasing PCI cycles, activating sound acceleration on the Ensoniq-based sound card I had, sync'ing RAM cycles with the FSB, lowering timings from 3-5-5-8 2T to 2-3-3-5 1T, etc.), I managed up to 40% (!) more performance on select benchmarks (more like 20-25% on most). Now THAT was worthwhile!

Then I got an Athlon X2 3800+, also DDR1-based (but dual channel). Here I also tried tightening settings... And barely got 1% improvement after hours and hours of tests. So I decided it wasn't worth my time and nowadays I don't go past ensuring that dual channel is enabled and using the highest XMP setting the RAM can handle. I can understand heavy overclockers spending hours trying to squeeze out that last half point in performance, but I don't do that anymore.

Yup, pretty much a forgotten art.

 

[dorsai]

Ryzen is still a new ecosystem...this time next year will paint a very different picture if the recent game optimizations and ram speed increases are a sign of things to come for Ryzen. To me, picking either an i7 7700k or Ryzen to build a gaming rig today will leave some questions that only time will answer...either ones a roll of the dice depending on whether or not game designers start pushing more than 4 cores in their game engines

 

[Licentia]

The Ryzen 7 looks highly competitive with Intel. Keep in mind that the i7s are also running on a more mature socket than the Ryzen and are less likely to have issues within their BIOS. Performance might improve with BIOS updates, but even without fixes to the BIOS or optimizations to software for the Ryzen processor, it is still able to match or exceed the performance of Intel in most cases clock for clock. That's really impressive considering the fact that the Intel i7-6900k costs more than twice the amount of the Ryzen 7 1800x. With that kind of price difference the performance difference between the two should be like comparing a Pentium III to a Dec Alpha 21264.

 

[Galaga_Mods-YT]

Just got the Ryzen 7 1800X, WOW SOLITARE NEVER PLAYED THIS GOOD!

 

[akula2]

Paul,

There is good difference between:

lags behind Intel's quad cores in most gaming scenarios
vs
lower game performance than Intel processors

Anyway, I do not really care about Gaming numbers. Now, coming to the Software optimization, it is the genuine concern. However, we all must note that Ryzen and the upcoming Vega are brand new architectures hence it'll take a few months to iron out the minor issues. I'd expect more pro-active support from the MOBO manufacturers in form of regular BIOS releases.

My verdict: I reckon it is right time for me to retire many P55 based workstations. I'll build several dozens of medium-high end Workstations based on Ryzen CPUs and Vega GPUs during 2017-18 period presuming Vega might create ripples in terms of performance and power numbers.


Overall, no more wastage of lot of money on Intel platform. Enough!