Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 37

Thread: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

  1. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks
    183
    Thanked
    235 times in 216 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 8GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 850 EVo 500GB | Corsair MP510 960GB | 2 x WD 4TB spinners
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sappihre R7 260X 1GB (sic)
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic)
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x ViewSonic 27" 1440p

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Ideally we'd make the reviewers work harder by insisting on various resolutions and settings even for CPU reviews.
    Some of the higher quality settings do use CPU resources so running at 640x480 or 800x600 in low quality settings doesn't necessarily always show how well a CPU can cope with some theoretical monster drawcall load in the future.
    Another thing reviewers do not cover is having any kind of streaming going on (ShadowPlay, ReLive etc.).
    Also, multiplayer is very tricky to benchmark. This goes back to BF4 and Mantle, where benchmarks noted only small differences but yet people playing multiplayer noticed huge differences with smoothness.
    Someone over on the AT forums posted this:

  2. Received thanks from:

    Phage (05-03-2017)

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked
    468 times in 326 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    I don't see benchmarks as an indication of what to expect at X or Y resolution, to me they are an indication of how much better or worse X is when compared to Y, there are to many variables involved with PCs to be able to compare one system with another.

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    850
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked
    34 times in 30 posts
    • flearider's system
      • Motherboard:
      • asrock taichi x370
      • CPU:
      • ryzen 1700@4ghz
      • Memory:
      • 16gb gskill flare cl14 3200
      • Storage:
      • 500mb 850 evo + 1tb hd space
      • Graphics card(s):
      • gigabyte r9 290
      • PSU:
      • evga 850
      • Case:
      • LD PC-V8 ATX/HPTX Red 2xtripple 1xquad rads
      • Operating System:
      • win 7 ulti
      • Monitor(s):
      • toshiba 32"
      • Internet:
      • 65 d/30 up ee

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    ordered mine today .. asrock taichi and a 1700 .. with 3333 ram .. plus a few other goodies ..now to wait for vega
    What does it matter now if men believe or no?
    What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
    To murmur in pity that my words were true
    (Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)

    To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....

  5. #20
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,396
    Thanks
    75
    Thanked
    411 times in 217 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by anselhelm View Post
    Thank you for your sensible QHD (1440P) gaming benchmarks in this review

    A lot of sites have been annoying benchmarking at ridiculously-low resolutions like 640x480 or 800x600 in order to show a massive Intel bias. I wish I were joking here, but sadly I am not: this is what sites have really been doing.

    Other sites have pointed out that AMD is technically "losing" still at 1080P, but that anything above that shows no discernible difference between AMD and Intel processors (even when paired with the highest-end gaming cards available).

    Any chance you could do a review on the cheaper R7 1700 now too?

    Hi there,

    As soon as we have the R7 1700, which should be in the coming week, it will be on page.

  6. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (05-03-2017),cptwhite_uk (05-03-2017),dfour (05-03-2017),Phage (05-03-2017)

  7. #21
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,841
    Thanks
    3,839
    Thanked
    5,132 times in 3,958 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarinder View Post
    Hi there,

    As soon as we have the R7 1700, which should be in the coming week, it will be on page.
    According to XS forums testing,they saw the R7 1700 at similar voltages to the R7 1700X/1800X consume less power??

    Any chance you could see if that is true - the hypothesis is that the R7 1700X/1800X are leakier parts made for more extreme cooling and the R7 1700 should do better under normal cooling.

  8. #22
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,260
    Thanks
    1,618
    Thanked
    608 times in 518 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VIII
      • CPU:
      • 3800x
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb @ 3600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Samsung 860
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Define 7
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama GB3461WQSU-B1

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarinder View Post
    Hi there,

    As soon as we have the R7 1700, which should be in the coming week, it will be on page.
    Do you know I kinda miss the Tables of Doom ?
    (But then I am an Accountant !)
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  9. #23
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks
    295
    Thanked
    186 times in 145 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by Firejack View Post
    We learn very little about CPU performance by benching in GPU-limited scenarios. I agree that 640x480 is irrelevant as next to nobody uses those resolutions anymore. However 1080p should always be included in any gaming bench. 1080p accounts for 43.23% of Steam users while 1440p is only 1.81% (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey).

    We need results for 1080p and 1440p because it will show CPU performance clearly when you compare the two. By only including 1440p in this review we don't know what to expect when we upgrade our graphics cards. The GTX 1080 Ti is out now. If we swapped one of those with the GTX 1080 in this test suite we would see a clearer difference in CPU performance as the GPU bottleneck is lifted.

    And thats what we need to know in this Ryzen 7 1700X review - CPU performance in real world gaming scenarios.
    A 1080 at 1080p is not a real world gaming scenario. If we benchmark at a sensible resolution for the graphics card we learn whether the CPU is a significant bottleneck, which is what is important - every graphics card has been GPU limited at the resolution du jour, and this is not likely to change within the next decade. A 1080ti at QHD is not realistic, because only an idiot would spend almost £700 on a GPU to run a QHD in this day and age - you'd expect it to perform at 4K, so if a 1080ti is used then the tests should be run at 4K.

  10. #24
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,841
    Thanks
    3,839
    Thanked
    5,132 times in 3,958 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by Xlucine View Post
    A 1080 at 1080p is not a real world gaming scenario. If we benchmark at a sensible resolution for the graphics card we learn whether the CPU is a significant bottleneck, which is what is important - every graphics card has been GPU limited at the resolution du jour, and this is not likely to change within the next decade. A 1080ti at QHD is not realistic, because only an idiot would spend almost £700 on a GPU to run a QHD in this day and age - you'd expect it to perform at 4K, so if a 1080ti is used then the tests should be run at 4K.
    I don't fully agree - people do run GTX1080 cards at 1080P,and from my experience of using a GTX1080,some games like Deus Ex:Mankind Divided I have run can't hit a constant 60FPS at qHD(!).

    Its still playable,but I do have framerate dips,and I can understand why people might use the card at 1080P instead which I personally would not do either,but its a data point which is still useful.

    Planetside 2 is even more ridiculous - I mean I thought it was just a CPU hog,but some of the shadow settings would hit performance badly on the same card at qHD so I reduced them to the lowest.

  11. #25
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,621
    Thanks
    741
    Thanked
    1,482 times in 1,250 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Any chance you could see if that is true - the hypothesis is that the R7 1700X/1800X are leakier parts made for more extreme cooling and the R7 1700 should do better under normal cooling.
    Leakier parts are only really good under LN2 conditions, remember TWKR? http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-phen...processor_1009

    Perhaps the non X 1700 just has a lower default voltage?

  12. #26
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,841
    Thanks
    3,839
    Thanked
    5,132 times in 3,958 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Leakier parts are only really good under LN2 conditions, remember TWKR? http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-phen...processor_1009

    Perhaps the non X 1700 just has a lower default voltage?
    The tests over at XS forums,had the 1700 and 1700X/1800X at the same voltages and the 1700 consumed less power.

  13. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    101
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    8 times in 6 posts
    • Valantar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Biostar X370GTN
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB G.Skill TridentZ 3200C16
      • Storage:
      • 840 Pro 256GB, 850 Evo 500GB. Various HDDs.
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD Radeon Fury X
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R4
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2711
      • Internet:
      • 40/10 fiber

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    The snag, then, is that Intel still has a commanding lead in IPC, which tends to be a key contributor to in-game performance and some everyday workloads. AMD has closed the gap compared to the woeful FX-series, but single-thread proficiency isn't quite what we had hoped. Putting the PiFast result into perspective, the top two Ryzen chips are still playing catch-up with the dated Intel Core i5-2500K, which scored 20.5 way back in 2011.
    That statement strikes me as ... too bombastic.
    a) All the chips in question have faster clocks (4.2-4.5GHz all-core boost vs. 3.5GHz (3.6 if XFR kicks in) all-core and 3.8GHz 2-core boost for the 1700X). That alone should account for 10% (2-core load vs. i3-7350k or i5-7600k) - 20% (pretty much everything else at 4 or fewer cores at full load) performance deficits in up-to-4-threaded workloads.
    b) We still haven't figured out the balance between lack of optimization for Ryzen/very specific optimization for Core vs. actual performance differences in specific tasks.
    c) PiFast is a single application, and as such it's a stretch to make it the be-all, end-all benchmark for IPC.

    Am I saying OMG RYZEN IS TEH BEST U GUISE!!!!1!!? No. But it stands to reason that performance outliers might be corrected by software, driver or microcode updates.

  14. #28
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by Valantar View Post
    The snag, then, is that Intel still has a commanding lead in IPC, which tends to be a key contributor to in-game performance and some everyday workloads. AMD has closed the gap compared to the woeful FX-series, but single-thread proficiency isn't quite what we had hoped. Putting the PiFast result into perspective, the top two Ryzen chips are still playing catch-up with the dated Intel Core i5-2500K, which scored 20.5 way back in 2011.
    That statement strikes me as ... too bombastic.
    a) All the chips in question have faster clocks (4.2-4.5GHz all-core boost vs. 3.5GHz (3.6 if XFR kicks in) all-core and 3.8GHz 2-core boost for the 1700X). That alone should account for 10% (2-core load vs. i3-7350k or i5-7600k) - 20% (pretty much everything else at 4 or fewer cores at full load) performance deficits in up-to-4-threaded workloads.
    b) We still haven't figured out the balance between lack of optimization for Ryzen/very specific optimization for Core vs. actual performance differences in specific tasks.
    c) PiFast is a single application, and as such it's a stretch to make it the be-all, end-all benchmark for IPC.

    Am I saying OMG RYZEN IS TEH BEST U GUISE!!!!1!!? No. But it stands to reason that performance outliers might be corrected by software, driver or microcode updates.
    I agree. I think we may even see big improvements in certain benchmarks over the next few months as the platform matures.

    For me personally though the bottom line is value for money and this is where Ryzen is the big winner (for the moment).

  15. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    230
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    9 times in 8 posts

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarinder View Post
    Hi there,

    As soon as we have the R7 1700, which should be in the coming week, it will be on page.
    According to XS forums testing,they saw the R7 1700 at similar voltages to the R7 1700X/1800X consume less power??

    Any chance you could see if that is true - the hypothesis is that the R7 1700X/1800X are leakier parts made for more extreme cooling and the R7 1700 should do better under normal cooling.
    "Leakier parts"... what does this even mean in terms of a CPU?

  16. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks
    183
    Thanked
    235 times in 216 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 8GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 850 EVo 500GB | Corsair MP510 960GB | 2 x WD 4TB spinners
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sappihre R7 260X 1GB (sic)
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic)
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x ViewSonic 27" 1440p

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Quote Originally Posted by Stu C View Post
    "Leakier parts"... what does this even mean in terms of a CPU?
    A leakier part uses more power but is able to tolerate higher voltages. Ideal for suicide runs under LN2 at crazy voltages.
    A low leakage part usually can't reach the same max clock but uses less power. Ideal for modest overclocks or undervolting.

    TPU's GPU-Z has a read ASIC quality feature for GPUs and what it says mostly applies to CPUs too:

  17. #31
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,531
    Thanks
    1,768
    Thanked
    1,340 times in 1,003 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Am I missing something or does even the high-end Zen only have 16 PCIe Lanes? Seems a bit small for a new architecture/chipset

  18. #32
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks
    295
    Thanked
    186 times in 145 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

    Technically 20, but for anything short of trying to make a supercomputer there's no real performance difference for consumers. SLI/crossfire will happily drop frames whether or not there's a full x16 lane to each card, and the 7700k only has 16

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •