AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X Glorious Benchmarks Leak; IHS, Pin Layout Photographed

[eidairaman1]

If the non XFR 1700 Model is multi unlocked I will give it a shot at some Air OC

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

1 78870 AMD Ryzen™ 7 1700X, S AM4, 8 Core, 16 Thread, 3.4GHz, 3.8GHz Turbo, 16MB Cache, 95W, CPU, Retail £324.99 £389.99
1 79068 ASRock X370 Gaming K4, AMD X370, S AM4, DDR4, SATA3, M.2 (PCIe/SATA), 2-Way SLi/CrossFire, Intel GbE, USB 3.1 A+C, ATX £126.24 £151.49

Deliver to:
Birmingham
GB

Totals:
Sub Total £451.23
Carriage £0.00
VAT £90.25
Total £541.48

I know I am an idiot but I have a good feeling about this, if I will not be impressed I will return it.

 

[Slizzo]

1 78870 AMD Ryzen™ 7 1700X, S AM4, 8 Core, 16 Thread, 3.4GHz, 3.8GHz Turbo, 16MB Cache, 95W, CPU, Retail £324.99 £389.99
1 79068 ASRock X370 Gaming K4, AMD X370, S AM4, DDR4, SATA3, M.2 (PCIe/SATA), 2-Way SLi/CrossFire, Intel GbE, USB 3.1 A+C, ATX £126.24 £151.49

Deliver to:
Birmingham
GB

Totals:
Sub Total £451.23
Carriage £0.00
VAT £90.25
Total £541.48

I know I am an idiot but I have a good feeling about this, if I will not be impressed I will return it.

Good luck, let us know how it does for you!

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

Good luck, let us know how it does for you!

I will

 

[Manu_PT]

Well its settled now. Intel is shuddering in fear, and their fanboys are rolling in denial.

AMD has pulled an athlon off once again.

I dont really care if AMD isnt significantly faster than intels offering.
AMD is beating intel, at a much lower price. and they are on par in single threaded. So its all good.

"AMD has pulled an Athlon" LOL omg how I have to laugh. I doubt you even used computers when Athlon was launched. Do you really know why Athlon was way better than any intel offer? Because it had techonlogical evolutions. AMD is just releasing something that exists for almost 6 years on other brand, with way more competitive pricing, that´s all. This has nothing to do with Athlon.

I´m loving to read this AMD fanboys posts all over the web, just shows how biased people are

Congrats to AMD! They could (finally) do what was already done by other brand. "Supa Doopa Evolution".

y facts, unless you're claiming 7700K can do ~5.2 GHz easily. Then there's the 4 vs 8 core thing you must've overlooked, or th

You didn´t read what I said. A 7700k gets 4,8ghz on air easily, some chips get 5ghz if you check the forums. Do you really think that if Ryzen needs 1,82v to do 5,2ghz with LN2, that it will clock at 4,8ghz? Keep dreaming. You will get something in the likes of 4,2ghz to 4,4ghz and also with way slower ram as we already seen AM4 ram speeds are not that strong.

A 7700k at 4,8ghz + 4133mhz DDR4 will completly obliterate Ryzen in gaming tasks. Ryzen will obliterate 7700k in multi threaded software/work. But as I said in the first place, I´m a gamer and I want the best chip for... gaming. Don´t care about brand or price ratio, I want the best for my needs. Not everyone builds a PC on a budget. And I game on a 240hz monitor so I need all possible FPS.

 

[Xzibit]

You didn´t read what I said. A 7700k gets 4,8ghz on air easily, some chips get 5ghz if you check the forums. Do you really think that if Ryzen needs 1,82v to do 5,2ghz with LN2, that it will clock at 4,8ghz? Keep dreaming. You will get something in the likes of 4,2ghz to 4,4ghz and also with way slower ram as we already seen AM4 ram speeds are not that strong.

A 7700k at 4,8ghz + 4133mhz DDR4 will completly obliterate Ryzen in gaming tasks. Ryzen will obliterate 7700k in multi threaded software/work. But as I said in the first place, I´m a gamer and I want the best chip for... gaming. Don´t care about brand or price ratio, I want the best for my needs. Not everyone builds a PC on a budget. And I game on a 240hz monitor so I need all possible FPS.

So your adding 30W+ on your CPU adding way more expensive ram to get around 5-7fps in some games

Strange i don't see any of those games even near 240 fps.

 

[notb]

I checked the currently announced prices and suddenly became much less interested. :/
We'll see if in real life 1800X actually beats i7-6900K - if yes, great. Intel will have to cut the prices at last.

But what happened with the Ryzen 1700? We're after weeks of leaks and discussions that Ryzen will be much cheaper, but AMD aligned this CPU with i7-7700K.
The price is almost identical... While AMD includes a cooler, it's not really a model designed for OC, which a user would need to actually beat an overclocked 7700K.

So yeah... I'm kind of disappointed. People started to compare Ryzen to legendary Athlon - coincidentally (or not?) also named 1700 - but it doesn't seem that way at all (and I've actually had an Athlon 1700+ ). Athlons offered the same performance Intel did at the time, but sometimes for almost as little as half the price. At that time AMD not only matched Intel's architecture, but was actually leading with innovations - e.g. with consumer-grade 64-bit.

I'm glad we're once again getting a market with 2 equally advanced manufacturers, but possibly nothing more - nowhere near what we've seen in all the hype lately.

And I hope AMD is already thinking about refinement (and the Ryzen 3 and 5 are great), because at this point they've reached (maybe beaten) a polished 3-year-old Broadwell architecture. Intel was not sleeping in the meantime and should also show a significant IPC gain in 2017 (and Optane might also change the situation).

 

[TheGuruStud]

We have to put the Intel IPC new stuff to bed. There will be no improvement until the next real uarch change in 2019. It's just a shrink coming. AMD is in a good position.

 

[Xzibit]

I checked the currently announced prices and suddenly became much less interested. :/
We'll see if in real life 1800X actually beats i7-6900K - if yes, great. Intel will have to cut the prices at last.

But what happened with the Ryzen 1700? We're after weeks of leaks and discussions that Ryzen will be much cheaper, but AMD aligned this CPU with i7-7700K.
The price is almost identical... While AMD includes a cooler, it's not really a model designed for OC, which a user would need to actually beat an overclocked 7700K.

So yeah... I'm kind of disappointed. People started to compare Ryzen to legendary Athlon - coincidentally (or not?) also named 1700 - but it doesn't seem that way at all (and I've actually had an Athlon 1700+ ). Athlons offered the same performance Intel did at the time, but sometimes for almost as little as half the price. At that time AMD not only matched Intel's architecture, but was actually leading with innovations - e.g. with consumer-grade 64-bit.

I'm glad we're once again getting a market with 2 equally advanced manufacturers, but possibly nothing more - nowhere near what we've seen in all the hype lately.

And I hope AMD is already thinking about refinement (and the Ryzen 3 and 5 are great), because at this point they've reached (maybe beaten) a polished 3-year-old Broadwell architecture. Intel was not sleeping in the meantime and should also show a significant IPC gain in 2017 (and Optane might also change the situation).

So your comparing a 8c/16t to a 4c/8t ?

You might want to compare the 1400X @ $199 to the 7700k @ $350. You'll give up some clocks and IPC but the question is going to be, Is it $150 worth ? That's 3/4th of another chip or $150 you can add to a GPU upgrade.

 

[kruk]

Intel was not sleeping in the meantime and should also show a significant IPC gain in 2017 (and Optane might also change the situation).

They was almost no IPC gain between Sky Lake and Kaby Lake* and it is highly unlikely anything that is coming in 2017 will change the situation. Higher clocks: yes, big IPC gains: no way.

*See for yourself: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-7700K_vs_6700K_Game_Performance/25.html

 

[notb]

So your comparing a 8c/16t to a 4c/8t ?

You might want to compare the 1400X @ $199 to the 7700k @ $350. You'll give up some clocks and IPC but the question is going to be, Is it $150 worth ? That's 3/4th of another chip or $150 you can add to a GPU upgrade.

AMD is comparing Ryzen 1700 to 7700K (official launch event). I'm just following their suggestion.

The "is it $150 worth?" is a good point. We don't know. We've learned nothing about the cheaper Ryzen variants.
The "3/4th of another chip" is a bit like "free 3rd shoe", but the GPU argument is valid.
For me this would be an easy choice: a better GPU will not compensate the loss of CPU power (especially single-core performance), because I'm mostly CPU dependent.
Looking at the way iGPUs improve and my need for them decreases over time, my next discrete GPU (choosing between 1050ti and 1060) might as well be the last ever. But single-core CPU performance is so easy to utilize it'll always be my priority.
For others... that depends. Ryzen is a product designed for hardcore gamers, which is a tiny group on the whole market. They'll have to choose based on how high they value multi-core performance, e.g. how they use their PCs beside gaming. In machines built just for high resolution gaming Ryzen seems like an obvious choice (if the benchmarks are realistic).
Generally, because Ryzen lacks iGPU, it is going to be a niche product - far less important to the whole PC market than AMD tries to convince us. We'll see how next AMD APU peform, because that's were the money is (it should get similar IPC gain).

And of course CPU performance and practicality is a bit more than just benchmark numbers. We'll see how Ryzen finds itself in real-life tasks, which benefit not just processing power, but also instruction set, software optimization and so on.

 

[de.das.dude]

"AMD has pulled an Athlon" LOL omg how I have to laugh. I doubt you even used computers when Athlon was launched. Do you really know why Athlon was way better than any intel offer? Because it had techonlogical evolutions. AMD is just releasing something that exists for almost 6 years on other brand, with way more competitive pricing, that´s all. This has nothing to do with Athlon.

I´m loving to read this AMD fanboys posts all over the web, just shows how biased people are

Congrats to AMD! They could (finally) do what was already done by other brand. "Supa Doopa Evolution".

Wow. Thats a lot of bark from a new user.

Your fanboisim is showing through dude. Get some chill. If you had been here back in 2010's you would have known i had started off with an Athlon based PC.

 

[R0H1T]

If the non XFR 1700 Model is multi unlocked I will give it a shot at some Air OC

All Ryzen CPU are unlocked, at least that's what all the headlines claimed.

They was almost no IPC gain between Sky Lake and Kaby Lake* and it is highly unlikely anything that is coming in 2017 will change the situation. Higher clocks: yes, big IPC gains: no way.

*See for yourself: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-7700K_vs_6700K_Game_Performance/25.html

There was zero IPC gain from SL -> KL, it's just like 4770K -> 4790K except that KL has a slightly better IGP.

 

[Xzibit]

AMD is comparing Ryzen 1700 to 7700K (official launch event). I'm just following their suggestion.

You do realize all the references to 7700k where in the form of multi-threading.

Just pointing out that some things are so obvious but people like to run with them for their convenience. If people cant tell the difference when its being pointed out to them then they have bigger issues.

The one that made sense that was not included in the Presentation Stream was 7700k vs 1700 with "Twitch Streaming". 7700k 82% vs 1700 100%. That will be interesting once its independently tested.

2:00 mark

 

[medi01]

Do you really know why Athlon was way better than any intel offer? Because it had techonlogical evolutions

No, because it was cheaper and faster.

because I'm mostly CPU dependent.

Oh, really? What kind of mostly single thread tasks are you loading your CPU with?

 

[Parn]

Unless Intel massively lowers the price of their HEDT lineup, I don't see how they can compete with Ryzen.

 

[notb]

You do realize all the references to 7700k where in the form of multi-threading.

Of course they were!
From what we've seen 7700K is much better in single-core tasks.

The one that made sense that was not included in the Presentation Stream was 7700k vs 1700 with "Twitch Streaming". 7700k 82% vs 1700 100%. That will be interesting once its independently tested.

I'd love to see how many cores were doing the encoding, because maybe AMD gave us a proof that 4 is enough for games.

Honestly, game streaming as a form of CPU benchmark?
In one of the comments I said that I find Ryzen to be a very niche product, but this is just a whole new level of WTF.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Of course they were!
From what we've seen 7700K is much better in single-core tasks.



I'd love to see how many cores were doing the encoding, because maybe AMD gave us a proof that 4 is enough for games.

Honestly, game streaming as a form of CPU benchmark?
In one of the comments I said that I find Ryzen to be a very niche product, but this is just a whole new level of WTF.

You have no clue if you are making a snarky comment about it. Streamers/recorders will buy Ryzen instantly.

 

[Lionheart]

You should use your's instead

The fact here is that for GAMING:

Ryzen will be worse than Intel comparing both at stock clocks.
Ryzen will be worse than Intel comparing both at max CPU + RAM overclock.

If your concern is price vs performance ratio or Multi-Threaded operations on your computer, be happy, but don´t try to convince others that they need it too. We´re all different.

I did use my brain to destroy your comment lol & you ignored what I said.

Facts? CPU's aren't even out yet & you're claiming these facts? Lol okay... I'm not trying to convince you or anyone too buy this, do what ever you like but seriously stop sucking on Intel's corporate schlong, so obvious xD

 

[medi01]

Gaming doesn't need more cores, they say (these sure are cherry picked games, but still):

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-dishonored-2-fps

 

[notb]

Oh, really? What kind of mostly single thread tasks are you loading your CPU with?

1) I do a lot of Excel+VBA coding, simulations, data analysis. Some things can utilize many cores and some can't.
E.g. Excel's spreadsheet computations are beautifully parallelized, but VBA is single-threaded by design.
If I write the code myself and the language doesn't utilize multithreading automatically, I don't bother - it's to time consuming for ad-hoc programming.

2) Beside this computation stuff I do quite a lot of photo postprocessing and here - thanks to people at Puget systems - we can look at some actual numbers:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/
As you can see Lightroom is pretty much insensitive to anything above 4 cores, where the jump from 3 to 4 is already marginal.
Facial recongnition is a good example of a single-thread algorithm, so there is no gain in multicore systems. Adding second core simply makes it possible to have one thread exclusively for the computation task.
But even in something like batch file conversion (80 files) Lightroom will benefit just from 4 threads (while in theory it could just give 1 file to 1 thread and have linear improvement).
So how much of mainstream software is actually optimized for >4 threads? We don't know, but possibly not much. I've seen a few more tests like this one and they had similar results (also for popular consumer/pro software).

Keep in mind the most popular CPUs are Intel's i3, i5 and mobile i7-xxxxU - all have 4 threads. That's what software developers are targeting.

 

[medi01]

...(amazing stuff)....

So, to summarize, you need higher single core performance and fuck multithreaded because:
1) your "single threaded by design" CPU heavy VBA code that you regurarly execute runs faster
2) you code some perf heavy stuff that you regularly execute
3) last but not least, because there is laughable article on the internet that checks how much faster an image file is read from an USB drive, with more cores

Did I miss anything?

 

[BiggieShady]

Did I miss anything?

Daily prescription? The one that makes you less sensitive to insensible people?

 

[TheGuruStud]

So, to summarize, you need higher single core performance and fuck multithreaded because:
1) your "single threaded by design" CPU heavy VBA code that you regurarly execute runs faster
2) you code some perf heavy stuff that you regularly execute
3) last but not least, because there is laughable article on the internet that checks how much faster an image file is read from an USB drive, with more cores

Did I miss anything?

Does anyone ever multitask?

With Ryzen I can encode AND play a game at the same time. I find that advantageous. Sure, I could run the encode on one of the many other PCs...but I'm too lazy to file transfer lmao.

 

[de.das.dude]

Does anyone ever multitask?

With Ryzen I can encode AND play a game at the same time. I find that advantageous. Sure, I could run the encode on one of the many other PCs...but I'm too lazy to file transfer lmao.

i used to play dota 2 while running rendering software (max threads pre set by me) on the background. i did this on my FX 8320 already.

One of the best uses for AMD was cheap multithreading. Single core perf is meh buti t gets the job done. The ability to actually multitask is liberating.


Also on AMDs release they showed a Setup running DOTA2 while streaming at the same time. No frames were dropped in the stream! While the intel stuttered a bit.

Note that the intel system also had 2x the RAM.