First Ryzen 7 1700X Review finds its way onto the web

So basically when go to benchmarks Ryzen is pretty good but still quite worse in games. With the price 319 GBP in UK for 7700k or 4770k (290 GBP) there's no reason to go for more expensive 1700X (390 GBP). So much for the hype.

 

I wonder why Bioshock did so poorly. Most of the other results don't really surprise me, when you consider the 1700X is dual channel while the Intel systems are triple.

@mrbull3tproof
There are hardly any games out there that can take advantage of 16 threads. Most hardly can take advantage of 8. So yeah, the 1700X is a poor choice for gamers, but I already knew that before seeing benchmarks for it.

 

The website is down here.


EDIT: People are disappointed because the CPU is slower than all the archaic sh*t they tested? The only title with any meaningful difference for Intel was Bioshock Infinite which is using a modified Unreal Engine 3.0. Even in Firestrike 2013 (a four year old title), the 1700x wrecks everything from Intel except the ten-core CPU.

I'm waiting for Hilbert's tests which I actually do know will be much more all around.

 

From Iran? Aren't they under all kinds of blockades and embargoes?

 

check twice its back!

 

Threads. Future proofing. Also mothersboards are cheaper.

 

I think it's important to note the ram paired is running only at 2133mhz. And sure why note compare it with a 7700k/6700k which we all know will exceed it and the 6950x out of all the broadwell-e processor on the line-up.:banana:

 

I am a gamer and the 1700x is worth it for me. Why? because its significantly faster as a CPU. gamers extract files, install games, compress files, record video, convert videos. stream, browse tons of tabs, run games while other things are in the background etc etc. getting a 7700k for a few fps more when nearly everything else that is demanding would be much faster on the 1700 or 1700x isn't best choice imo.

 

I stopped caring when I saw the resolutions used: 1366x768? 1600x900?
If these are valid, they're are hard at work making the processor look bad versus Intel. It's obvious that with lower clocks vs Intel they'll perform worse, but 16 threads aren't meant just for gaming...

Dude, do you game on a 1366x768 resolution monitor? Quite worse by how much: 1 to 10 fps? Shut up!

And not biased.

Finally someone intelligent.
A CPU is not made for games, it's made for processing things you do.

 

I do not know what you smoke man but it ain't good for you! Look at the benchies again and again and maybe will "come down to you"!

 

Dat memory latency tho , is that a bug ? or memory controler still needs some working

 

Higher ram @ 3000-3200MHz would definitely help by those cpu directx api bound games..

Looks like a bug, it doesn't read NB frequency either. I remember the same by Haswell rls..

 

They should put accent on comparing same amount of 8 cores from Intel and AMD. Also shall not damage if HH will do a value/performance clasification of processors tested.

Btw the link IS DOWN!

 

Well, it runs slower than all the Intel CPUs, the 7700k is up to 4.5ghz. Though the 4770k is only 3.9ghz by default.

The RAM speed difference, dunno, not really that relevant for overall performance I'd imagine.

 

Look at that score on CPU-Z! :banana:

Matches single thread with the 7700K and the mutlithreaded is double it , Ryzen has double the cores yes but that 7700K is at @ 4.5


INTEL You Scumbags! , you could have been giving us this for years! :mad2:

 

Games care more about clock speeds than number of threads, as these benchmarks have clearly shown. Most of the outperforming intels have fewer threads but are clocked higher.

But let's look at each of the things you mentioned:
* Compressing or decompressing files - not necessary during gameplay
* Record video - you only need 1 extra thread for that, and GPUs nowadays do most of the work
* Convert videos - not necessary during gameplay
* Stream videos - also only needs 1 extra thread
* Browse tons of tabs - not necessary during gameplay. Also, how many websites do you browse where most of your tabs become taxing on their designated CPU thread?
* Running other background tasks - If you're a serious gamer to the point that whatever you record/stream is even worth looking at to others, you shouldn't be running things in the background that could affect your performance in the game. You don't see race car drivers with a TV playing in the background. You don't see football players with headphones on. You don't see professional cyclists towing a trailer behind them. If you're just listening to music, you only need 1 extra thread for that.

That being said, if you are streaming, recording, playing music, and maybe updating something in the background, you only need 4 extra cores for that. And even then, whatever you are streaming to could do the recording, and your music source likely takes up a negligible amount of CPU cycles. The 6c/12 thread models would be plenty sufficient for your needs.

 

I'd like to see Ryzen in true dog scenarios.
Going against cpu pigs, ie:

• S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
• Flying sims, DCS
• ARMA2/3, DayZ
• WoW raiding
• Nvidia PhysX

I couldn't care less about ideal gaming cases with model Multithreading.
For those kind of games you can keep your i5-760.

What I am concerned with gaming wise is, what's the worst case scenario.
Is Zen's IPC good enough to plow through pig code, or I am still better off with Intel.

 

Let down.

I'll wait for more reviews.