AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (14nm Zen)

[HEXUS]

20 per cent cheaper than the 1800X and almost every bit as good.

Read more.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Also a note to perspective buyers - the people over on XS forums tested the various models. At the same voltages the R7 1700 consumes less power than a R7 1700X or R7 1800X.

This hints that the R7 1700 is a lower leakage chip according to them and will be the better buy for most people. At least for a lot of non-gaming work the Core i7 6900K looks massively overpriced.

[Jowsey]

As far as I'm concerned, I reel like this review, of the 1700x, has successfully sold a lot of 1700's!

Super interesting looking scaling!

[Dashers]

Well at a couple of hundred quid cheaper than my 5930K it looks like much better value for money. Although I was somehow hoping for more.

All academic for me as it's a good few years until I'll be upgrading again.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As far as I'm concerned, I reel like this review, of the 1700x, has successfully sold a lot of 1700's!

Super interesting looking scaling!

The R7 1700 is the star - it consumes less power at 4GHZ apparently than a R7 1700X or R7 1800X.

[Kanoe]

Hexus - how good was the XFR? did it mean that it was boosting to the same level as the 1800X when it was boosting too or did it come in lower even with the same cooler?

[Bluecube]

I've obviously missed the briefing. I'm seeing "XFR" bandied about all the time - what is it?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've obviously missed the briefing. I'm seeing "XFR" bandied about all the time - what is it?

Its an auto-overclock of upto 200MHZ on the X series and upto 100MHZ on the non-X series.

[Ttaskmaster]

Just been looking at some comparison sites (with pretty pictures and big, bold numbers, because that's about my level of understanding on these things)... but there doesn't look to be that much between this 1700 and my years-old 3930K, at least until you get into the multicore stuff, anyway.
Higher TDP and a few such, but many of the scores are around the same, or slightly better than the 1700.

I'm kinda impressed, actually!!

Certainly won't be adopting Ryzen, at least not just yet. I still need to update my GPU and get a better monitor, but it's good to hear AMD might have started getting at least as good as Intel's current stuff. Last AMD processor I had was a 6350, IIRC... Seems AMD like to stay on the same platform for-EVERRRRRRRRRRRRR, while Intel change theirs faster than the Ttaskmistress changes her mind!!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Just been looking at some comparison sites (with pretty pictures and big, bold numbers, because that's about my level of understanding on these things)... but there doesn't look to be that much between this 1700 and my years-old 3930K, at least until you get into the multicore stuff, anyway.
Higher TDP and a few such, but many of the scores are around the same, or slightly better than the 1700.

I'm kinda impressed, actually!!

Certainly won't be adopting Ryzen, at least not just yet. I still need to update my GPU and get a better monitor, but it's good to hear AMD might have started getting at least as good as Intel's current stuff. Last AMD processor I had was a 6350, IIRC... Seems AMD like to stay on the same platform for-EVERRRRRRRRRRRRR, while Intel change theirs faster than the Ttaskmistress changes her mind!!

When it comes to games SMT currently can regress performance quite a bit,so much so you can get 5% to 15% better gaming performance overall.

So the best is still to come - its a bit of a bummer,but I expect down the line gaming performance will improve.

For non-gaming stuff,some of the reviews are showing great performance especially under Linux where even a Core i7 6900K or Core i7 6950K is challenged.

[jigger]

8 cores for the price of 4. Don't mind if I do.

[elites2012]

pretty sad that review companies still focus on single core performance, on a multi core proc. i guess they have to find something negative to say about AMD.

[=assassin=]

The results are very positive, and certainly look good for situations that require a bigger core count. I'd like better gaming performance ideally, but with patches, and a more mature process, a few months later things may have evened out a little. Thanks for the review!

[anselhelm]

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?

[Phage]

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?

This. I'd really like to see an OC'd 1700 with at least an 1080 at 1440p in BF1 against a 6700k and a 7700k

[Firejack]

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).

.....

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.