Ryzen 7-1700 Beats Core i7-7700K: AMD

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[chaosmassive]

you saying that AMD 8C/16T win against Intel 4C/8T?
well, duh !

now try that again in single-threaded performance

ps. im not trying to defend Intel here.

 

[champsilva]

you saying that AMD 8C/16T win against Intel 4C/8T?
well, duh !

now try that again in single-threaded performance

ps. im not trying to defend Intel here.

6/12 against 4/8 and still outperformanced in some tasks.

 

[RejZoR]

you saying that AMD 8C/16T win against Intel 4C/8T?
well, duh !

now try that again in single-threaded performance

ps. im not trying to defend Intel here.

Single thread, as demonstrated in release presentation is the same. They were comparing 6900K with R7 1800X, they run at the same clocks so that means IPC is pretty much identical. It should scale down the same with other processors. Only thing giving 7700K is raw clock which gives it the edge. But at that point, as you can see from my specs, I'd rather have more cores than tiny bit higher clock which you can get on your own through OC anyway.

 

[wurschti]

This is of course to be expected from an 8-core piece. But do not forget that the 7700K comes at 4.5GHz Turbo. That means its turbo is 800MHz higher, and its base frequency is 1.2GHz higher. I wish to see reviews with same clocks to really see what difference Ryzen will make. Those graphs will greatly differ, and in some use cases, the 1700 will be 200% faster, fo sho

 

[Gundem]

I can't wait to see reviews... I'm worried that my recent Intel purchase(2 weeks ago) may not have been a great idea. Oh well, we'll see.

 

[wurschti]

I can't wait to see reviews... I'm worried that my recent Intel purchase(2 weeks ago) may not have been a great idea. Oh well, we'll see.

What did you buy?

 

[Gundem]

What did you buy?

A 6700K and a Z170 Motherboard.

 

[DarkHill]

the AMD PR machine are definately in high gears.

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.

 

[bug]

I can't wait to see reviews... I'm worried that my recent Intel purchase(2 weeks ago) may not have been a great idea. Oh well, we'll see.

If your CPU is fast enough for what you need today, it will be fast enough after Ryzen is released. The only sore point would be if Ryzen comes with a more useful mobo (i.e. more ports for storage/USB/TB or more PCIe lanes).

 

[heflys20]

However people that buy the 7700k with mostly be gamers, and will the 1700 beat a 7700k in games? i very highly doubt that.

I'd imagine either processor is overkill for most gamers.

 

[yoyo2004]

I am a gamer and multitasker (Do both at the same time and most of the time), It is no-brainer that Ryzen is the cpu for me as it gives the best in the three worlds (Single, Threaded and PRICE!) without much compromising on performance in any.

 

[wurschti]

A 6700K and a Z170 Motherboard.

Looks good. I would wait for the official reviews and if you like it, just sell them and get some shiny new stuff. Intel is loved by mostly everyone, you will sell them no problem imo.

 

[medi01]

I still hope AMD manages to get to 4.5Ghz mark with 4/6 core offerings.

you saying that AMD 8C/16T win against Intel 4C/8T?
well, duh !

Yep.
$329 8C CPU with 3.7Ghz boost clock beats $349 4 Core CPU with 4.5Ghz boost clock in certain benchmark.

 

[-The_Mask-]

I still hope AMD manages to get to 4.5Ghz mark with 4/6 core offerings.

That won't happen this year.

 

[londiste]

They were comparing 6900K with R7 1800X, they run at the same clocks so that means IPC is pretty much identical.

6900k runs at 3.2/3.7, 1800x runs at 3.5/4.0+xfr

edit:
i was wrong, 6900k does have 4.0ghz max clock.

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.

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.

 

[RejZoR]

6900K turbos to 3.7GHz and maxes out at 4GHz. Besides, trust me, some 100MHz only make a difference to declare one "king of the hill" by few points or 1 frame per second. Insignificant. The fact is, IPC is pretty much identical for Intel and AMD now.

 

[londiste]

6900K turbos to 3.7GHz and maxes out at 4GHz. Besides, trust me, some 100MHz only make a difference to declare one "king of the hill" by few points or 1 frame per second. Insignificant. The fact is, IPC is pretty much identical for Intel and AMD now.

what does 'maxes out' mean, overclocking?
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.

 

[RejZoR]

https://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

 

[londiste]

you are right and i was wrong.
good correction.
(y)

 

[Imsochobo]

6900k runs at 3.2/3.7, 1800x runs at 3.5/4.0+xfr

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.

I see efficient use of my current 1055T 6 core in most scenarios.

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!

 

[BiggieShady]

... skype convo is running in the background the lag spikes shoot through the roof!

I say dual screen setups are the culprit ... they encourage people to use games as yet another multitasking app and unlike other apps (unless they're capped) games are designed to greedily and instantly consume all available resources until bottlenecked, but thankfully for all you power multitaskers out there, all is ok if the game renderer is multithreaded and bottleneck is gpu.

 

[Ed_1]

Reality sets in though, all this hype every day. All the users of 2xxxK and above will have same upgrade issues as with Intel 7700k.
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.

 

[m0nt3]

the AMD PR machine are definately in high gears.

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.

Single threaded performance has already been shown to be very close. Overclocking will bring that even. What AMD is showing with the 1700, is you get more processing power for streaming, due to more cores, at a cheaper price.

 

[BiggieShady]

... unproven platform ...

Fear, uncertainty and doubt ... the fact they have been running open comparison intel vs. amd rigs at shows for some time, really helps their case. Also, way too many motherboard manufacturers have several X370 AM4 models, for it to be unproven platform.
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).