Thursday, February 23rd 2017
Ryzen 7-1700 Beats Core i7-7700K: AMD
AMD is very confident that it has a lineup of desktop processors that compete with Intel's best. In its recent Ryzen 7 series launch presentation, the company released benchmark numbers to claim that the $499 Ryzen 7-1800X performs on par with the $1,099 Core i7-6900K, despite a narrower memory bus, and at less than half its price.
More interestingly, the company claims that the Ryzen 7-1700, its third fastest Ryzen part, will be a clear winner against the identically-priced Core i7-7700K ($329). The Ryzen 7-1700 posts up to 46% higher performance than the i7-7700K, and even holds up a slim lead over its rival in tests that are not very multi-threaded.
More interestingly, the company claims that the Ryzen 7-1700, its third fastest Ryzen part, will be a clear winner against the identically-priced Core i7-7700K ($329). The Ryzen 7-1700 posts up to 46% higher performance than the i7-7700K, and even holds up a slim lead over its rival in tests that are not very multi-threaded.
58 Comments on Ryzen 7-1700 Beats Core i7-7700K: AMD
well, duh !
now try that again in single-threaded performance
ps. im not trying to defend Intel here.
Faster than 7700k in what? cinebench? thats not very surprising since its multithreaded. However people that buy the 7700k with mostly be gamers, and will the 1700 beat a 7700k in games? i very highly doubt that.
The "games will catch up to the corecount" argument have been heard since i7-920 vs i7-960 but it havent caught up yet. Sure now 4 cores are better than 2, but nothing above this so far.
Im happy AMD is finally showing some actual promise, but they are really laying it on thick.
$329 8C CPU with 3.7Ghz boost clock beats $349 4 Core CPU with 4.5Ghz boost clock in certain benchmark.
edit:
i was wrong, 6900k does have 4.0ghz max clock.we are further along than that. games with good use of 4-6 threads are now common enough. only few examples of scaling further than this though.
amd slides do not mention anything about clocks which would have to mean cpus running stock. which in case of 6900k is the boost clock of 3.7ghz for single thread.
edit:
i was wrong, 6900k does have 4.0ghz max clock.
good correction.
(y)
Bought R7 1700 as it's value!
Other system is intel 10 core and I don't primarily game so more cores = better.
My web browser use all 6 cores, my games use 4 cores well, if I have 2 extra it's a bonus as less chance of background tasks swallowing cpu time away from what the game requires.
My conclusion and recommendation
if you think you need 4 cores go for 6.
If you think you need 6 go for 8.
If you have nothing up except the game, dualcore is mighty fine for many actually, but as soon as a skype convo is running in the background the lag spikes shoot through the roof!
The IPC is close but not surpassing, its would be very helpful on something that uses heavy multi-threaded app, like video encoding or something.
Good thing it does bring competition to market ,
You still are dealing with a whole new unproven platform, its not just CPU in this case its MB, memory compatibility ,stability etc and we don't know how OC is yet.
So for me and my uses not much changed, but hopefully it pushes Intel a bit which is good.
First engineering sample had one bug affecting performance in the platform code that was fixed by a simple flash. I wouldn't expect any crippling bugs by now at launch, only future architecture microcode optimizations and platform updates through bios flashing ... and some time until people start compiling code with latest compilers that have zen optimizations (all ipc tests so far have been on intel optimized executables).
One thing Intel does good is with stability and compatibility , we will see, few months in users and reviewers hand should show whats up.