• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.16/day)
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
VBA is single-threaded "by design" meaning: it's designed as single-threaded. Excel has one process for VBA interpreting. There are some more or less complicated workarounds but nothing usable at work.

2) you code some perf heavy stuff that you regularly execute

Correct. What's wrong with that?
As I've said: I prioritize single-threaded performance because of the tasks I perform.

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

Laughable because?
Puget Systems is an acclaimed custom PC building company and I have no reasons to discredit their analysis - especially since I've seen similar results both on the web and in my work.

Yes, importing files from a USB drive is limited by the drive speed, but they tested it anyway. Why?
a) Because the purpose of the article was to go through a typical workflow and importing files is inevitable.
b) Because testing things that seem obvious is very important (also in more scientific problems). From time to time you'll actually get some interesting (unexpected) result.
Example from the text (which I've mentioned earlier): RAW->JPG conversion is fully parallelized (using as many cores as it can), but for some reason RAW->DNG doesn't benefit from more than 4.

Did I miss anything?

Possibly the fact that you asked me why I value single-threaded performance more and that's what I've been answering. However, you seem to think I generally underestimate multi-threading, which is not true ("fuck multithreaded performance"). :D

Multi-threading is very important in many computer tasks. I'm just pointing out that single-thread performance is more fundamental. There will always be some tasks that only utilize a single thread. Even if at some point in the future CPUs will have hundreds of cores (e.g. CPU and GPU will be unified), single-core performance will have to be on an acceptable level.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
1,458 (0.30/day)
Processor Ryzen 9 7950X3D
Motherboard MSI X670E MPG Carbon Wifi
Cooling Custom loop, 2x360mm radiator,Lian Li UNI, EK XRes140,EK Velocity2
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill DDR5-6400 @ 6400MHz C32
Video Card(s) EVGA RTX 3080 Ti FTW3 Ultra OC Scanner core +750 mem
Storage MP600 Pro 2TB,960 EVO 1TB,XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB,Micron 1100 2TB,1.5TB Caviar Green
Display(s) Alienware AW3423DWF, Acer XB270HU
Case LianLi O11 Dynamic White
Audio Device(s) Logitech G-Pro X Wireless
Power Supply EVGA P3 1200W
Mouse Logitech G502X Lightspeed
Keyboard Logitech G512 Carbon w/ GX Brown
VR HMD HP Reverb G2 (V2)
Software Win 11
So if it proves out that this processor is only very marginally behind a comparable Broadwell-E processor, will you still be going to an Intel processor?
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
3,946 (0.62/day)
Location
Police/Nanny State of America
Processor OCed 5800X3D
Motherboard Asucks C6H
Cooling Air
Memory 32GB
Video Card(s) OCed 6800XT
Storage NVMees
Display(s) 32" Dull curved 1440
Case Freebie glass idk
Audio Device(s) Sennheiser
Power Supply Don't even remember
So if it proves out that this processor is only very marginally behind a comparable Broadwell-E processor, will you still be going to an Intel processor?

After haswell and ludicrous 8 core pricing? Might as well circumcise me, again.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,899 (1.69/day)
Location
Essex, England
System Name My pc
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus Rog b450-f
Cooling Cooler master 120mm aio
Memory 16gb ddr4 3200mhz
Video Card(s) MSI Ventus 3x 3070
Storage 2tb intel nvme and 2tb generic ssd
Display(s) Generic dell 1080p overclocked to 75hz
Case Phanteks enthoo
Power Supply 650w of borderline fire hazard
Mouse Some wierd Chinese vertical mouse
Keyboard Generic mechanical keyboard
Software Windows ten
1 78870 AMD Ryzen™ 7 1700X, S AM4, 8 Core, 16 Thread, 3.4GHz, 3.8GHz Turbo, 16MB Cache, 95W, CPU, Retail £324.99 £

Had to pop my head in to say this. Please remove your address it's not a sensible thing to post online, not because people may order countless pizzas and dildos to your house but because clever folks can use your address for more malicious needs.



Anyway aside from that I have a tremendous nerd boner over the potential of Ryzen and Vega ( I pre ordered the bull dozer cpu and got burnt so I'm waiting for proper 3rd party reviews) it's seriously tempting me to do a full system build....

But at the same time wouldn't mind a laptop with a Ryzen + Vega set up if the hype is real. Clevo get on it 1800x plus high end Vega please.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
1,269 (0.34/day)
Location
Birmingham UK
System Name El Calpulator
Processor AMD Ryzen R7 7800X3D
Motherboard ASRock X670E Pro RS
Cooling ArcticCooling Freezer 3 360ARGB AIO
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengance 6000Mhz C30
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 4080 Gaming Trio X @ 2925 / 23500 mhz
Storage 5TB nvme SSD + Synology DS115j NAS with 4TB HDD
Display(s) Samsung G8 34" QD-OLED + Samsung 28" 4K 60hz UR550
Case Montech King 95 PRO Blue
Audio Device(s) SB X4+Logitech Z623 2.1+Astro A50 Wireless
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 1000W ATX 3.0 80+ Gold
Mouse Logitech G502X Plus LightSpeed Hero Wireless plus Logitech G POWERPLAY Wireless Charging Mouse Pad
Keyboard Logitech G915 LightSpeed Wireless
Software Win 11 Pro
Benchmark Scores Just enough
Had to pop my head in to say this. Please remove your address it's not a sensible thing to post online, not because people may order countless pizzas and dildos to your house but because clever folks can use your address for more malicious needs.



Anyway aside from that I have a tremendous nerd boner over the potential of Ryzen and Vega ( I pre ordered the bull dozer cpu and got burnt so I'm waiting for proper 3rd party reviews) it's seriously tempting me to do a full system build....

But at the same time wouldn't mind a laptop with a Ryzen + Vega set up if the hype is real. Clevo get on it 1800x plus high end Vega please.

If 1700X is not more than 12% slower ipc performance than 7700k at same clocks 4.2ghz I will keep it. Otherwise it will go back
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
630 (0.21/day)
I disagree to a point. Most games now are built with a focus on 4 cores as a minimum and scaling up to 6 cores. So far any more than that has yielded little to no return in most AAA titles; however this also has slowly been changing and will continue to do so with a lot of titles like Ashes of the Signularity and City Skylines pushing for as many threads as you will give them.

Setting that aside, that we can't expect AMD to jump from as far behind as they were to first place in one revision. They seemed to have achieved their 40% IPC target and that put them right around the 4770K and 6900K in single threaded performance. That is damn impressive. I am sure they have Ryzen+ design already in the works for further refinement. Is it the best for gaming? No. Well what if we consider that price thou!

I have bad news for you....it's basically the same.

Where is AMD's IPC slower than intels on any of the supposed leaked benchmarks? your talking shit and making it up as you go along by my reckoning.... you do realise of all the leaked benchmarks, the Ryzen chips have been run at stock/boost clocks which are a good 400-500mhz slower than intels

Not really. You want IPC * Clock for single threads. If AMD's turbo/XFR works better than Intel's version then the single threaded performance can be better.

So it's very much a 'wait and see'.

Nope, Multi thread is what you need actually from now on, witcher 3 gta v watch dogs 2 etc, and let's say older games that interesting me to, needs better single thread performance ok look if you have time many videos in you tube comparison between
5960x vs 6700k.the 6700k has far better single thread performance isn't? in all games i was checked there is absolutely no one game older or new between those cpus 6700k and 5960x and say that the one performs better than the other,not only that and if you carefully look the benchmarks you'll see that the 5960x has better minimum frames and that is the most important in pc gaming.Anyway if you think that the new cpus like R7 1700x will have the same performance like i7 4770k or 4790k then you are completely wrong.In games like gta v witcher 3 watch dogs 2 battlefield1 the R7 1700X will be far far ahead.But let's wait and see real time results.Don't worry these new chips will be great for everything.4 cores will be useless from now on,very soon

Lot of new members talking shit and coming across as butthurt on ALL Ryzen threads, think they anticipate the onslaught that's coming, happy days :D

So many people here somehow think that ryzen will be worse for gaming. :D Sure if we talk about CSGO FPS in 2017 at +1300 FPS ye you'll get some principal win having better singlethreaded performance. But the thing is; new games are not made for the CPUs but the GFXes; im pretty sure ryzen vs. 6700K will be 1:1 when it comes to FPS in games UNLESS the game either is HEAVILY coded for single-core(6700K wins or multicores(Ryzen wins). So in other words; If you are buying a computer to play older games and NOT newer titles; go with singlethreaded performance; if you are planning on playing new games the comming years (2017-2019) Go with a multithreaded performer because if you think that technology will not find its way you are a dinosaur in the field.

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.

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.

Remember me? I said I would be back when official gaming benchmarks released. As you can see as of March 2th, Ryzen is basically raped by Intel on games. The differences can go as much as from 20% to 30% if you use a GPU like GTX 1080/Titan and the upcoming 1080ti.

Maximum average overclock 4 to 4,1ghz while Intel with 4,8ghz to 5ghz stinks even more on Ryzen. Same with ddr 4 3200mhz vs 4000mhz.

Ryzen is competing with an i5 for gaming and it still looses on some games.

Just wanted to make sure I would quote you all on the D-Day, after you all hated on me and called me fanboy. There you go.

Don´t expect any reply from me. My replies are all on the benchmarks you have around the internet.

Cheers.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
748 (0.25/day)
Remember me? I said I would be back when official gaming benchmarks released. As you can see as of March 2th, Ryzen is basically raped by Intel on games. The differences can go as much as from 20% to 30% if you use a GPU like GTX 1080/Titan and the upcoming 1080ti.

Maximum average overclock 4 to 4,1ghz while Intel with 4,8ghz to 5ghz stinks even more on Ryzen. Same with ddr 4 3200mhz vs 4000mhz.

Ryzen is competing with an i5 for gaming and it still looses on some games.

Just wanted to make sure I would quote you all on the D-Day, after you all hated on me and called me fanboy. There you go.

Don´t expect any reply from me. My replies are all on the benchmarks you have around the internet.

Cheers.

Don't worry, we will quote you back soon enough when Ryzen 5 and 3 get released :cool:.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
3,946 (0.62/day)
Location
Police/Nanny State of America
Processor OCed 5800X3D
Motherboard Asucks C6H
Cooling Air
Memory 32GB
Video Card(s) OCed 6800XT
Storage NVMees
Display(s) 32" Dull curved 1440
Case Freebie glass idk
Audio Device(s) Sennheiser
Power Supply Don't even remember
Remember me? I said I would be back when official gaming benchmarks released. As you can see as of March 2th, Ryzen is basically raped by Intel on games. The differences can go as much as from 20% to 30% if you use a GPU like GTX 1080/Titan and the upcoming 1080ti.

Maximum average overclock 4 to 4,1ghz while Intel with 4,8ghz to 5ghz stinks even more on Ryzen. Same with ddr 4 3200mhz vs 4000mhz.

Ryzen is competing with an i5 for gaming and it still looses on some games.

Just wanted to make sure I would quote you all on the D-Day, after you all hated on me and called me fanboy. There you go.

Don´t expect any reply from me. My replies are all on the benchmarks you have around the internet.

Cheers.

You are a fanboy b/c you pulled a mailman and ignored everything else proving your fanboyness.

There's obviously an issue, so I'll be sure to come back and taunt you.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
28,358 (6.76/day)
Remember me? I said I would be back when official gaming benchmarks released. As you can see as of March 2th, Ryzen is basically raped by Intel on games. The differences can go as much as from 20% to 30% if you use a GPU like GTX 1080/Titan and the upcoming 1080ti.

Maximum average overclock 4 to 4,1ghz while Intel with 4,8ghz to 5ghz stinks even more on Ryzen. Same with ddr 4 3200mhz vs 4000mhz.

Ryzen is competing with an i5 for gaming and it still looses on some games.

Just wanted to make sure I would quote you all on the D-Day, after you all hated on me and called me fanboy. There you go.

Don´t expect any reply from me. My replies are all on the benchmarks you have around the internet.

Cheers.
Good, don't reply. Almost everyone is benchmarking Intel VS AMD and Ryzen is holding ground or beating out Intel's best offerings and kicking the crap out of everything else. Gaming performance may not be the best of those numbers but it's not the extreme loss that you inferred. The gaming numbers are on par and respectable with Intel's $800, $900 and $1000 units. Then again not everyone is a hardcore gamer. Some of us are more balanced in our needs for computing power and Ryzen seems to deliver big time and for a lot less money. The numbers prove it.

AMD has a winner here and it's about damn time. Now we'll see some good competition again and both sides will force each other to make advances.

So yes, go crawl back under your rock, fanboy. Stay there. At least until you grow up a bit.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
5,731 (1.07/day)
Location
West Midlands. UK.
System Name Ryzen Reynolds
Processor Ryzen 1600 - 4.0Ghz 1.415v - SMT disabled
Motherboard mATX Asrock AB350m AM4
Cooling Raijintek Leto Pro
Memory Vulcan T-Force 16GB DDR4 3000 16.18.18 @3200Mhz 14.17.17
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ 4GB RX 580 - 1450/2000 BIOS mod 8-)
Storage Seagate B'cuda 1TB/Sandisk 128GB SSD
Display(s) Acer ED242QR 75hz Freesync
Case Corsair Carbide Series SPEC-01
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair VS 550w
Mouse Zalman ZM-M401R
Keyboard Razor Lycosa
Software Windows 10 x64
Benchmark Scores https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6220813
Remember me? I said I would be back when official gaming benchmarks released. As you can see as of March 2th, Ryzen is basically raped by Intel on games. The differences can go as much as from 20% to 30% if you use a GPU like GTX 1080/Titan and the upcoming 1080ti.

Maximum average overclock 4 to 4,1ghz while Intel with 4,8ghz to 5ghz stinks even more on Ryzen. Same with ddr 4 3200mhz vs 4000mhz.

Ryzen is competing with an i5 for gaming and it still looses on some games.

Just wanted to make sure I would quote you all on the D-Day, after you all hated on me and called me fanboy. There you go.

Don´t expect any reply from me. My replies are all on the benchmarks you have around the internet.

Cheers.
You're talking maximum overclock NOT IPC clock for clock, at yea you're still wrong and a troll to boot, welcome to my ignore list :slap::toast:
 

AsRock

TPU addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
19,114 (2.99/day)
Location
UK\USA
From the reviews i have seen the 1080P is not on par, which makes me wounder if using some thing with VSR ( or what ever nVidia call theirs ) would act like the higher resolutions which seems to be more on par with intel.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
3,595 (1.16/day)
The gaming numbers are on par and respectable with Intel's $800, $900 and $1000 units.

Why do people supporting AMD still use such arguments? :(
The $1000 Intel CPUs are not targeted at gamers. They fall behind much cheaper consumer chips like the 7700K, which didn't shock anyone a few weeks back.

While Ryzen looks like a very good, highly optimized chip and a great choice for some uses (or users), I think many here are so overwhelmed that they struggle in admitting that Intel CPUs are still leading in some applications.
We're getting to the point when people start to blame software developers for bad design, because a good one would have supported more cores...
I've even seen comments like "future patches for games will improve Ryzen performance". They just won't (not significantly, anyway).
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
28,358 (6.76/day)
Why do people supporting AMD still use such arguments? :(
Because it's a valid argument.
The $1000 Intel CPUs are not targeted at gamers. They fall behind much cheaper consumer chips like the 7700K, which didn't shock anyone a few weeks back.
Because tons of gamers buy them. Why you ask? Because a majority of gamers ALSO do other things with their PC's, things that need beefy CPU's.
While Ryzen looks like a very good, highly optimized chip and a great choice
Yes, it is. More on that below.
I think many here are so overwhelmed that they struggle in admitting that Intel CPUs are still leading in some applications.
I disagree. The users here are simply trying to point out how solid an entry Ryzen is. It is very competitive in both performance and price.
We're getting to the point when people start to blame software developers for bad design, because a good one would have supported more cores...
And that is a valid argument at any time, not just when talking about Ryzen.
I've even seen comments like "future patches for games will improve Ryzen performance". They just won't (not significantly, anyway).
That is just wrong altogether. New generations of technologies always need a bit of time for tweaking and optimizations regardless of who is making it.

Ok here's the deal. In the 35+ years since I first built a PC I've built literally 10's of thousands of them. I used AMD chips only when requested by the client/customer. There were times when I actively promoted them, but ONLY when they were competitive and using their chips made sense from a performance/cost point of view(Hell, at one point I promoted Cyrix CPU's because they performed better and ran cooler than anything AMD/Intel offered in that price point).

For the past 10 years, Intel has been the best deal in town bang-for-buck, full stop. Nothing AMD has offered since the release of Core2 has been a performance competitor to Intel's offerings. Ryzen has just changed that. The numbers prove that Ryzen is very performance competitive and at a price point that is likewise competitive. And AMD is just getting started with this generation of CPU's.

I am most certainly an Intel guy, but history has taught me to be objective. Have always admired AMD for regularly bringing kick-ass stuff to market. So yes, I am absolutely delighted that AMD has brought Ryzen to the table! It will force Intel to actually compete again instead of releasing the incremental stuff they've been releasing the past few years. The tech industry just got interesting, fun and exciting again and my guess is that it will stay that way for a while. Here's my logic as to why; AMD has only just released the FIRST set of this new generation of tech. They still have their mainstream CPU's to release. I'm betting AMD also has a few higher performance CPU's offering waiting in the wings[1900x, 2000x anyone?]. Then there's the Vega GPU line they're about to release.

The testing and benchmarks done by everyone who has the chips PROVE Ryzen is an excellent all-around performer. And bang for buck, AMD is now the best option. Intel still has it's performance Kings but in every test except memory bandwidth, Ryzen is competing well with Intel's best offerings. So unless you're blind and in need of glasses, can't read or can't tell the difference between your bum and a hole in the ground, you can not deny the achievement AMD made with Ryzen.

We geeks are going to have a lot of fun over the next few years!

Note to TPU editors; The fact that you've had a delay in receiving your Ryzen samples, you actually have a bit of an advantage. You've seen everyone else's article's and can now test aspects of the technology that have been brought to light, such as overclocking and the memory clocks struggles. Try doing something different and covering points of view that others have missed. Just an idea..
 
Last edited:

de.das.dude

Pro Indian Modder
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
9,131 (1.72/day)
Location
Internet is borked, please help.
System Name Monke | Work Thinkpad| J1nnx took Old Monke
Processor Ryzen 5600X | Ryzen 5500U | FX8320
Motherboard ASRock B550 Extreme4 | ? | Asrock 990FX Extreme 4
Cooling 240mm Rad | Not needed | hyper 212 EVO
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 Corsair RGB | 16 GB DDR4 3600 | 16GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX6700XT 12GB | Vega 8 | Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB
Storage Samsung 980 nvme (Primary) | some samsung SSD
Display(s) Dell 2723DS | Some 14" 1080p 98%sRGB IPS | Dell 2240L
Case Ant Esports Tempered case | Thinkpad | Antec
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 | Jabra corpo stuff
Power Supply Corsair RM750e | not needed | Corsair GS 600
Mouse Logitech G400 | nipple
Keyboard Logitech G213 | stock kb is awesome | Logitech K230
VR HMD ;_;
Software Windows 10 Professional x3
Benchmark Scores There are no marks on my bench
Any one else notice that on 720p low settings, I.E Ruling out the GPU, AMD cores are never reaching 70% utilization when the intel's are reaching 90%..

This only means that the games are still heavily unoptimized for Ryzen arch, which is logical TBH.
 

deu

Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
493 (0.16/day)
System Name Bo-minator (my name is bo)
Processor AMD 3900X
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory G-SkiLL 2x8GB RAM 3600Mhz (CL16-16-16-16-36)
Video Card(s) ASUS STRIX 1080Ti OC
Storage Samsung EVO 850 1TB
Display(s) ACER XB271HU + DELL 2717D
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar Essence STX
Power Supply Antec HCP 1000W
Mouse G403
Keyboard CM STORM Quick Fire Rapid
Software Windows 10 64-bit Pro
Benchmark Scores XX
Remember me? I said I would be back when official gaming benchmarks released. As you can see as of March 2th, Ryzen is basically raped by Intel on games. The differences can go as much as from 20% to 30% if you use a GPU like GTX 1080/Titan and the upcoming 1080ti.

Maximum average overclock 4 to 4,1ghz while Intel with 4,8ghz to 5ghz stinks even more on Ryzen. Same with ddr 4 3200mhz vs 4000mhz.

Ryzen is competing with an i5 for gaming and it still looses on some games.

Just wanted to make sure I would quote you all on the D-Day, after you all hated on me and called me fanboy. There you go.

Don´t expect any reply from me. My replies are all on the benchmarks you have around the internet.

Cheers.


Wauw; you should have read what I wrote. Basically you say that the new games that make use of 8 core is out already. You dont have to be a math genius to figure out that 4x(higher clock) is faster in applications that ONLY utilizes 1-4 cores. IF the games (as they will in the future is coded correctly), will make use of the 8-16 threads avalible (to the degree it makes sense.) You completely ignore my 'newer games in 2017-2019'. Either you want to play CSGO in 1080p (with 2000-4000 fps), or you wanna play the new dx12/13 titles on a 4K monitor. Now we know your choice!
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,413 (0.99/day)
System Name M3401 notebook
Processor 5600H
Motherboard NA
Memory 16GB
Video Card(s) 3050
Storage 500GB SSD
Display(s) 14" OLED screen of the laptop
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores 3050 scores good 15-20% lower than average, despite ASUS's claims that it has uber cooling.
AMD released seismic simulation on Naples vs 44 core (2x 22 I guess) Intel system.

First they've shown 44 core Ryzen wiping the floor with 44 core Xeon (nearly twice as fast).
Then enabled all 64 (it is 2x32) and, well, wiped the floor again.

And then they increased data size to a point where... 0.75Tb in Intel's system wasn't enough (AMD's had 1Tb). (lol)

 
Top