AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Review

[orifiel]

It would be good for a review that was not based on gaming, some of us actually work for a living and require a machine that can handle the load.

there is dozen reviews and ryzen is better than the best intel in the work load and if you wait a few months more, a 12/24 or 16/32 and 32/64 (i think) core is advertized as well. youtube it or google it, many reviewers use only workload because they are not gamers. The whole point is the gaming, because gaming is the whole debate.

 

[dalauder]

It would be good for a review that was not based on gaming, some of us actually work for a living and require a machine that can handle the load.

There are many reviews of specific workstation loads, including in this review. What kind of work not listed are you referring to? SAP2000 analyses?

 

[InvalidError]

The whole point is the gaming, because gaming is the whole debate.

That's only your opinion. The truth is that people do stuff other than gaming on their PC and massively parallel CPUs aren't meant for gaming as most games aren't heavily threaded. Gaming is only one more data point in the overall performance picture and isn't any more or less important than any other.

 

[TechyInAZ]

People complain about the 6800K is not as good as the 7700K, but my 6800K clocked to 4GHz, G1 1080, 1440p, running Ghost Recon Wildlands an average of 74 fps, at very high preset. While most reviews have managed only an average of 67 or 68 fps at very high preset. Also, my 6800K always 20C cooler than the G1 1080, 47C vs 67C after 2 or 3 hours of gaming.

That's because you overclocked it. Typically reviewers only run stock speeds.

 

[orifiel]

The whole point is the gaming, because gaming is the whole debate.

That's only your opinion. The truth is that people do stuff other than gaming on their PC and massively parallel CPUs aren't meant for gaming as most games aren't heavily threaded. Gaming is only one more data point in the overall performance picture and isn't any more or less important than any other.

In gaming that supports multiboxing its important to have many cores especially if you also record and stream video. The latest mass effect andromeda needs a quad.

 

[weberdarren97]

Ashes of the Singularity is now optimized for Ryzen.

 

[goldstone77]

********** Infinity Fabric performance is directly proportional to RAM speed and latency! Benchmarks!!!! FPS!!!*************
CORSAIR Dominator Platinum
DDR4 2400 (PC4 19200)
Timing 10-12-12-28
Cas Latency 10
Voltage 1.35V
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233999
Thread I started at AMD
https://community.amd.com/message/2789837#comment-2789837
That was the wrong link https://community.amd.com/thread/214043
Also, a moderator suggesting he may agree with this assumption. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3347338/amd-ryzen-1800x-cpu-review/page-10.html#19512388

 

[Olle P]

You can't compare those %CPU usage numbers directly and claim that one performs better than the other based on that. ...

The numbers doesn't say that it does perform better in that specific situation, but that something is holding it back and it has the potential to deliver a lot more in other circumstances (which the other doesn't since it's already using its full potential).

AMD should publicly be stating that in today's software ecosystem, the R3's or R5's will be the gaming sweetspot. ...

The key word in that sentence is "today". When I buy parts for a computer I don't want it to be good today only, but also for a couple of years into the future and the further the better (within reason and economy). (See also below.)

... This article has told me that I don't need to upgrade my FX-8350 yet, and probably won't have to for quite awhile. ...

An i3 and i5 are both better value CPUs than the 8350, as is a Sandy Bridge i7.

Yes, this is interesting. When the FX-8350 was released in 2012 it was competing (by price) with the Core i5-3570K.
In the then current games the Core i5 was decidedly superior, and the 8350 was taking a hard beating from reviewers and community. Eight cores/threads and relatively poor single thread performance was of little use back then.
Even the 2500K (which I purchased in 2011 and kept until recently) is still a pretty good gaming CPU for the games of today, but what has happened to the 8350? Compared to the 2500K it's now at least as good or (mostly) even better, trailing the 2600K by a narrow margin!
So:
Ivy Bridge i3 and i5 perform worse and are therefore not better value today.
The Sandy Bridge Core i7-2600K, while slightly better performing than the 8350, is also twice the price (if at all available). Not better value!

My feeling is that the six and eight core Ryzens will grow as gaming CPUs over time, just as Piledriver did.
The main difference from Piledriver is that Ryzen is (more than) sufficiently good at release day.
Today a Ryzen 7 1700 provides slightly less gaming performance than a Core i7-7700K, but five years from now that Ryzen 7 1700 will dominate the Core i7-7700K.
That's why I think Ryzen is the gaming platform of choice today if you want good performance from it in a couple of years as well as now.

 

[10tacle]

You can't compare those %CPU usage numbers directly and claim that one performs better than the other based on that. ...

The numbers doesn't say that it does perform better in that specific situation, but that something is holding it back and it has the potential to deliver a lot more in other circumstances (which the other doesn't since it's already using its full potential).

Well a Ferrari F430 can hit 200mph, but only in a specific situation (like a long flat road). Most owners however never see that speed.

Today a Ryzen 7 1700 provides slightly less gaming performance than a Core i7-7700K, but five years from now that Ryzen 7 1700 will dominate the Core i7-7700K.
That's why I think Ryzen is the gaming platform of choice today if you want good performance from it in a couple of years as well as now.

I have been building gaming PCs for 20 years, and never have I kept one as my primary machine past 3-4 years with the same CPU and GPU. The newest tech always wins out. Speaking of which, this year I'm due for both a CPU and GPU upgrade from my two and a half year old Haswell/GTX 970 SLI build.

However, if you like to keep your hardware for years, then AMD is the better solution, especially from a GPU side. Nvidia can't touch AMD on GPU longevity. I go through PC hardware like cars: never keep one past four years old as my primary machine. My six year old Sandy Bridge i5 2500K/680 SLI build still works as a retro gaming machine fro 1080p. It could not handle today's games at 1440p.

 

[goldstone77]

You can't compare those %CPU usage numbers directly and claim that one performs better than the other based on that. ...

The numbers doesn't say that it does perform better in that specific situation, but that something is holding it back and it has the potential to deliver a lot more in other circumstances (which the other doesn't since it's already using its full potential).

Well a Ferrari F430 can hit 200mph, but only in a specific situation (like a long flat road). Most owners however never see that speed.

Today a Ryzen 7 1700 provides slightly less gaming performance than a Core i7-7700K, but five years from now that Ryzen 7 1700 will dominate the Core i7-7700K.
That's why I think Ryzen is the gaming platform of choice today if you want good performance from it in a couple of years as well as now.

I have been building gaming PCs for 20 years, and never have I kept one as my primary machine past 3-4 years with the same CPU and GPU. The newest tech always wins out. Speaking of which, this year I'm due for both a CPU and GPU upgrade from my two and a half year old Haswell/GTX 970 SLI build.

However, if you like to keep your hardware for years, then AMD is the better solution, especially from a GPU side. Nvidia can't touch AMD on GPU longevity. I go through PC hardware like cars: never keep one past four years old as my primary machine. My six year old Sandy Bridge i5 2500K/680 SLI build still works as a retro gaming machine fro 1080p. It could not handle today's games at 1440p.

I have a 2500K overclocked 4.3GHz on air. It's old as dirt. I just have to throw a new Video card in it when it drops below 60FPS@1080p. I bought a RX480 with 4GB. About every 4 years on a mid grade card. I have 16GB of CAS 10 RAM, and a 500GB samsung EVO 850 SSD with 6GB Western Digital Black for long term storage. With the low latency RAM and SSD this computer is still incredibly snappy when doing anything. If I want I could just buy skip the motherboard, CPU, RAM upgrade, and get 1080Ti or wait for Vega if I want to game at higher than 1080p. My single thread score on cinebench is 153.

 

[rantoc]

Personally i like Ryzen even when i have a 7700k system for gaming, i don't game in low res like 1080p resolutions where the difference is big.

Really doubt that many will game in such low res as 1080p resolutions when spending 300$/€ on the cpu alone so those 1080p tests don't say much about gaming for the enthusiasts that are the target for those CPU's. 1440p or 2160p is more likely for those monster CPU's and there the difference aren't big enough to be noticeable by most...

 

[goldstone77]

Personally i like Ryzen even when i have a 7700k system for gaming, i don't game in low res like 1080p resolutions where the difference is big.

Really doubt that many will game in such low res as 1080p resolutions when spending 300$/€ on the cpu alone so those 1080p tests don't say much about gaming for the enthusiasts that are the target for those CPU's. 1440p or 2160p is more likely for those monster CPU's and there the difference aren't big enough to be noticeable by most...

Eventually, there won't be any 1080p monitors like the old box TV's. The consumer market will continue to push out more advanced technology. 4k TV's are pretty cheap, and it's going to get to the point that TV's will be just as good as monitors. And eventually, we will abandon monitors for Augmented Reality glasses, and good bye desktops!

 

[10tacle]

Eventually, there won't be any 1080p monitors like the old box TV's. The consumer market will continue to push out more advanced technology. 4k TV's are pretty cheap, and it's going to get to the point that TV's will be just as good as monitors. And eventually, we will abandon monitors for Augmented Reality glasses, and good bye desktops!

Well we seem to be in a stagnant period. I remember seeing the first "HD" TV (720p) at a Smithsonian science center display back in 1995. Everyone was blown away by seeing a soccer game and actually being able to see faces of people in the stands. It wasn't until the early '00s when that tech made it to consumer TVs, and most of them were still the old tube type.

By the mid-'00s HD flat panels were replacing tube HDTVs and 1080p came out and took off in popularity at the same time. There was little main stream 720p HDTV popularity. Most retail stores don't even carry them anymore except in real small sizes like for kitchens (19"-24"). However, there is still not pure 1080p programming by cable and satellite companies. If you have a DVR box that has the capability it will show you the native programming resolution by the provider. I have AT&T Uverse and have had DirecTV. Most channels are 720p/1080i. The only true 1080p content I get is playing movies through my BD player or PS3/PS4.

Then there's 4K. Even fewer native programming content, and the 4K Blu-Ray players and movies are still out of reach of the main stream consumer. Not many people can afford $300+ for a 4K player and $20-$25 for each 4K Blu-Ray movie. Standard 1080p Blu-Ray players are now $50 and movies under $10. I just do not see the difference worth the price between 1080p and 4K unlike say jumping from 480p to 1080p. I believe we are getting into the law of diminished returns on what the human eye can appreciate. And then there's the GPU power required to run games at 4K and keep FPS at or above 60 (minimum frames specifically). That's a tall order requiring at least GTX 1080s in SLI.

So the point being is that we are a long way away from 4K becoming standard mainstream in our homes from both HDTVs and computer monitors. 8K (7680x4320) is around the corner as well which is a joke since there won't even be full 4K content on cable channels when that comes out.

 

[ajac09]

1700x getting great gaming performance.

 

[goldstone77]

Eventually, there won't be any 1080p monitors like the old box TV's. The consumer market will continue to push out more advanced technology. 4k TV's are pretty cheap, and it's going to get to the point that TV's will be just as good as monitors. And eventually, we will abandon monitors for Augmented Reality glasses, and good bye desktops!

Well we seem to be in a stagnant period. I remember seeing the first "HD" TV (720p) at a Smithsonian science center display back in 1995. Everyone was blown away by seeing a soccer game and actually being able to see faces of people in the stands. It wasn't until the early '00s when that tech made it to consumer TVs, and most of them were still the old tube type.

By the mid-'00s HD flat panels were replacing tube HDTVs and 1080p came out and took off in popularity at the same time. There was little main stream 720p HDTV popularity. Most retail stores don't even carry them anymore except in real small sizes like for kitchens (19"-24"). However, there is still not pure 1080p programming by cable and satellite companies. If you have a DVR box that has the capability it will show you the native programming resolution by the provider. I have AT&T Uverse and have had DirecTV. Most channels are 720p/1080i. The only true 1080p content I get is playing movies through my BD player or PS3/PS4.

Then there's 4K. Even fewer native programming content, and the 4K Blu-Ray players and movies are still out of reach of the main stream consumer. Not many people can afford $300+ for a 4K player and $20-$25 for each 4K Blu-Ray movie. Standard 1080p Blu-Ray players are now $50 and movies under $10. I just do not see the difference worth the price between 1080p and 4K unlike say jumping from 480p to 1080p. I believe we are getting into the law of diminished returns on what the human eye can appreciate. And then there's the GPU power required to run games at 4K and keep FPS at or above 60 (minimum frames specifically). That's a tall order requiring at least GTX 1080s in SLI.

So the point being is that we are a long way away from 4K becoming standard mainstream in our homes from both HDTVs and computer monitors. 8K (7680x4320) is around the corner as well which is a joke since there won't even be full 4K content on cable channels when that comes out.

It might not be as far as you think with the help of https://liquidsky.com/, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVhF3ai44Xo we might not use screens much longer. There are 1080p AR glasses now, which you can buy for $1800. What if here in the near future you have the power a desktop in your glasses. Cloud computing will probably take over for the most part. We could transmit and receive 100 Gbps in 2013 https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/168566-worlds-fastest-wireless-network-hits-100-gigabits-per-second-can-scale-to-terabits and a little longer after that you will no longer need to communicate verbally.

 

[BDA2]

Dusty13 hit it on the head!!! You can tell NOOO DIFFERENCE between the 2 cpus in actual game play... just a bunch of people who try to convince themselves that there 4 core CPUs are more awesome than 8/16 CPUs...4790k currently but I'm not an idiot. RYZEN IS A BEAST!!!

 

[Olle P]

Personally i like Ryzen even when i have a 7700k system for gaming, i don't game in low res like 1080p resolutions where the difference is big.
Really doubt that many will game in such low res as 1080p resolutions when spending 300$/€ on the cpu alone ...

To me the thing is that in low resolution the (gaming) performance is sufficient with just about any reasonable CPU. Any differences in performance are mostly academic.
At that point it boils down to what else you want the computer to do. I'll happily pay a little more to get extra CPU power for image and video editing.

 

[RanKing7]

More reaching from the AMD fanboys in the comment section. I don't understand why facts are so hard for you all to grasp. Why do you keep grasping at straws to support this CPU? So you can say it beats last-gen Intel? Who cares? Skylake and Kabylake-X will be out in two months and then it's back to Intel and with development already catering to Intel processors -- it's the better choice.

Nevertheless, competition is good for the consumer. Why do you care so much about AMD "beating" Intel? All this means is prices get better for us. Want the max performance? Intel is likely the better choice. Best bang for your buck (currently), AMD is likely the better choice if you are willing to wait for developers to patch performance issues.

 

[-Fran-]

Why do you care so much about AMD "beating" Intel?

Short answer: pushes the other company harder and we all win. This includes prices on current tech from the new underdog. Take a look at AMD when they had the Athlon64 and what happened with Conroe (Core2).

Intel keeping a strong lead, means there will be less competitors to challenge them. History can tell you that VIA is no longer a player in the X86 arena for that reason as well. If AMD heads that way, we will all lose big time.

Cheers!

 

[InvalidError]

Skylake and Kabylake-X will be out in two months and then it's back to Intel and with development already catering to Intel processors -- it's the better choice.

Developers targeting mainstream users (most games and everyday stuff) won't be optimizing for Intel's $1000+ CPUs, they will be optimizing for $50-300 CPUs. Without AMD significantly raising the bar for what people can get under $200, we'd likely see Intel continue to push negligible incremental performance bumps every year.

Now that AMD is providing about twice as much performance per buck in some applications, specially the more high-end stuff that people previously bought i7-6850k/6900k for, Intel is going to have to review its pricing structure and accelerate the rate at which it migrates extra cores down into the price structure.

The end-users win either way, which is something that hasn't happened in about six years.

 

[goldstone77]

Skylake and Kabylake-X will be out in two months and then it's back to Intel and with development already catering to Intel processors -- it's the better choice.

Developers targeting mainstream users (most games and everyday stuff) won't be optimizing for Intel's $1000+ CPUs, they will be optimizing for $50-300 CPUs. Without AMD significantly raising the bar for what people can get under $200, we'd likely see Intel continue to push negligible incremental performance bumps every year.

Now that AMD is providing about twice as much performance per buck in some applications, specially the more high-end stuff that people previously bought i7-6850k/6900k for, Intel is going to have to review its pricing structure and accelerate the rate at which it migrates extra cores down into the price structure.

The end-users win either way, which is something that hasn't happened in about six years.

Also, when you look at Ryzen it's virtually the same CPU with a little less quality X verses non X. 1700 overclock it to 3.9GHz and you have a 1800x for $319! Pair it with 3200 CAS 14 RAM and you have great performance for your dollar! The 1600 may bring similar performance at $219 price point overclocked! You have to realize how good Ryzen architecture really is compared to Intel. Ryzen is 14nm advertised but actually measures 17nm, and Intel's 14nm is actually 13nm. 4nm difference and still a cool running CPU with great performance compared to the smaller process node of Intel. Next year is going to be HUGE for AMD. It will for the first time have a process node smaller than Intel. Intel 10nm(9.5nm) vs AMD 7nm(9.2nm). AMD will have a reduction of almost half the processing node at 7.8nm vs. Intel's 3.5nm. It will be the first time AMD has had a smaller process than Intel. And every time you shrink the process node you get increased performance at a reduced power cost. By then AMD will have performance issues fixed. And Intel's CEO already admitted they are having issues shrinking down their process. On the process node flow chart Intel is last place of the 4 semi conductor foundries! It's going to be providing the processors for the new xbox and ps4 gaming consoles, so there it may capitalize on those relationships with game makers to increase compatibility. And not everyone can afford expensive processors look at all the other countries around the world not just America. That's why AMD has so many fans. They were able to use 1 design for all their CPU's passing on the performance and savings to us the consumer! I'm am still using a 2500k overclocked to 4.5GHz, but I'm really excited to see technology finally getting pushed at these price points! It's hard to upgrade from this chip with Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD, because I can still have a great gaming experience by just buying a good video card every 3 years or so. And the 2500k is going on 8 years old! People complain about Ryzen's gaming capability at 1080p, but its pretty much a joke. Most people are using 60HZ 1080p monitors, and anything beyond that doesn't matter for most people. It's just an exciting time for technology!

 

[techy1966]

Check this out, there's a YouTube Channel...

YouTube reviews are not trustworthy IMO. We do not know what they are doing "behind the scenes" and only taking their word for it. I prefer to trust credible professional hardware review websites like Tom's who have been in the business for at least 15 years and built up a reputation.

That's the same reason I never trust anyone's FPS bragging about their rig and showing the FPS counter in the video during gameplay. Anyone can say anything: "Check out how my RX 470 is hitting 90fps at 1080p in ultra and 4xAA in Doom!"

I just started watching a few Youtuber's for their reviews because after the Ryzen release and the old school sites were getting different or odd results from site to site I was a bit confused by the weird results. I watched a lot of different Youtuders and I weeded out the ones I just thought were mindless fools and was left with 5 or six that were adept enough to understand what they were saying and actually put the time in to find the answers. It is much easier to be able to decide if someone is worthy of our time to watch their videos when they have their face smack dab on camera.

Oh just for info I get 200 fps @ 1080p in Doom with Vulkan. I know this because the little thingy in the top right corner says it does.lol not bragging just brought it up because you mentioned fps. I would assume almost anyone can get those fps in Doom pretty easy since it has Vulkan and lets face it the Graphics are so 5 years ago but still good enough and the sound track is spot on for the mood of the game.

 

[goldstone77]

Check this out, there's a YouTube Channel...

YouTube reviews are not trustworthy IMO. We do not know what they are doing "behind the scenes" and only taking their word for it. I prefer to trust credible professional hardware review websites like Tom's who have been in the business for at least 15 years and built up a reputation.

That's the same reason I never trust anyone's FPS bragging about their rig and showing the FPS counter in the video during gameplay. Anyone can say anything: "Check out how my RX 470 is hitting 90fps at 1080p in ultra and 4xAA in Doom!"

I just started watching a few Youtuber's for their reviews because after the Ryzen release and the old school sites were getting different or odd results from site to site I was a bit confused by the weird results. I watched a lot of different Youtuders and I weeded out the ones I just thought were mindless fools and was left with 5 or six that were adept enough to understand what they were saying and actually put the time in to find the answers. It is much easier to be able to decide if someone is worthy of our time to watch their videos when they have their face smack dab on camera.

Oh just for info I get 200 fps @ 1080p in Doom with Vulkan. I know this because the little thingy in the top right corner says it does.lol not bragging just brought it up because you mentioned fps. I would assume almost anyone can get those fps in Doom pretty easy since it has Vulkan and lets face it the Graphics are so 5 years ago but still good enough and the sound track is spot on for the mood of the game.

I have an almost 7 year old i5 2500k@4.5GHz and with a $144.99 RX 480 4GB Red Dragon custom video bios setting thermal limit at 80 and overclocking 1360/1850. In DOOM@1080p I can get 140-160 FPS running around, and 200 staring at a wall. If this is the future of API's gaming reviews about FPS won't last much longer.