The best Ryzen SKU so far,and just look at the power consumption!
I'll be using one of these for my next build. Excellent performance for the price and gaming performance is good enough for me even if they don't fix the SMT problem (I'm sure they will though).
I already got ym Ryzen (R7 1700x and Asus prime x370-pro) very impressed by it, great performance (coming froma i7 6700k). I need to extra power in the work i do but i also game so it is a great cpu for me, really really impressed by it.
A good chip though it's a bit of a mixed result. The 7600k beating it on Total War for a £100 pound less being the obvious point (SMT issue related). Maybe OC it until fixes come or Creative Assembly supports Ryzen in future games.
Just a heads up Hexus; in the review you're using CPU-Z 178.1 released in November 2016, however, 178.3 was released on 17 February 2017, which improved the support of the new AMD Ryzen CPUs.
Link >>
http://www.cpuid.com/news/48-cpu-z-for-ryzen.html
CAT-THE-FIFTH
The best Ryzen SKU so far,and just look at the power consumption!
Yes, a pity Tarinder doesn't do a perf/watt chart…
… but a few mins entering some data and voila:
or for those who love charts;
While all the Ryzen results are good, the 7-1700 results bode well for Naples. Seems at ~3GHz or less, Ryzen is very very efficient. A 32C/64T monster like Naples is likely to be clocked at way under 3GHz so should be even more efficient than this.
This is the best CPU on the market right now!
Thanks, kompukare,
If perf-per-watt matters enough to everyone, I'll add in our own chart.
Just had a quick scan of the review, but why no 1080P benchmarks?
From some of the reviews I saw after launch AMD were pushing for reviewers to use the QHD because the GPU becomes more of a bottleneck at these resolutions rather than the CPU, which makes sense.
If this turns out to be true, and looking at the prices:
AMD 1700 - £320
AMD 1700X - £370
i7-7700k - £336
The Intel wins on all the benchmarks still, so why would I pay more money for less punch?
gordon861
… The Intel wins on all the benchmarks still, so why would I pay more money for less punch?
The 1700 is cheaper than the 7700k, so you wouldn't be paying more, you'd be paying less.
You might have a combination of GPU and monitor that means your bottleneck is always going to be the GPU (e.g. 1080 @ 4k) in which case it's actually useful to know that your CPU isn't going to significantly affect your gaming experience.
You might be interested in something other than gaming? If you use heavily threaded software a lot, why would you pay more for significantly less performance (~20% in handbrake, ~ 35% in cinebench)?
I don't think anyone would recommend a Ryzen 7 for a pure gaming machine - that's not where its strength lies. There will be cheaper Ryzen CPUs that fill that slot better. However, the gaming benchmarks will still be relevant to someone whose non-gaming workloads benefit from lots of threads, but who still wants to do some gaming on their machine too.
gordon861
The Intel wins on all the benchmarks still, so why would I pay more money for less punch?
You are asking a baying mob of AMD fans why you should buy an AMD chip ?
You need to be in the small % of people that use all the cores, then the Ryzen shines and Intel looks poor value (especially the big processors that hardly any of us bought anyway). For the vast majority of us, we don't need these cores and an i5 / i7 remains the better option with faster single core performance.
Andy14
You are asking a baying mob of AMD fans why you should buy an AMD chip ?
Yea I know.
I really wanted AMD to pull the rabbit out of the hat and hurt Intel but instead they have done exactly what I expected them to do and have been predicting. I expected a chip that for most (gamin) users the chip would be a little cheaper than the Intel and provide a little less power than the Intel which is exactly what they have done. They have done a great job and for specific tasks they have halfed the CPU costs, but a lot of these tasks are already using GPUs to do the number crunching too.
But at least they are back in the game, perhaps the next chips will beat Intel, we can just hope that as consumers this brings back some competition.
gordon861
… I really wanted AMD to pull the rabbit out of the hat and hurt Intel …
And you don't think offering better performance than Intel's flagship prosumer processor at half the price is going to hurt Intel?
I really don't think you understand the position of Ryzen 7 CPUs. They're high margin parts. They're intended for prosumers, not gamers. Watch the launch presentation - or any of AMD's info presentations about Ryzen 7 - and you'll see that they make a big thing of the app performance first - gaming is almost an afterthought.
gordon861
… I expected a chip that for most (gamin) users the chip would be a little cheaper than the Intel and provide a little less power than the Intel which is exactly what they have done.
I still don't think you're comparing like for like. Wait until the 4C/8T Ryzen 5 processors come out. They'll be a *lot* cheaper than i7s, but shouldn't be that far behind in games. That's the comparison that will be very telling.
Also, remember that Ryzen isn't only trying to gain AMD market share in the desktop market. The same silicon is going in to servers, and in that market the remarkable energy efficiency that the 1700 typifies is going to make BIG waves. Server workloads tend to run 24/7, and across a huge datacentre 2 - 3 W per chip is going to be a big TCO saving. Naples will be the processor that really determines whether Zen is a financial success or not - the Ryzen SKUs are pretty much just icing on the cake… ;)
Hey Tarinder why didnt you guys make a comment about the stock wraith cooler? I picked up a 1700 over the 1700x after finding out they clock almost identically and before I stuck it under water I tried out the stock cooler and it was damn impressive for a stock cooler! People are hitting 3.7Ghz+ no problem with the stock cooler, it really puts intel to shame and its reasonably quiet for stock as well.
Very happy with the 1700 performance, putting to 3.9ghz for me is great performance for little effort and the games look like the issues are solvable rather than hardware issues (or design flaws). Going to be a great year for consumers with the competition being present, onto vega next!
Impressive stuff, sort the scheduling issue and it will be a total winner.
scaryjim
<SNIP>
I really don't think you understand the position of Ryzen 7 CPUs. They're high margin parts. They're intended for prosumers, not gamers. Watch the launch presentation - or any of AMD's info presentations about Ryzen 7 - and you'll see that they make a big thing of the app performance first - gaming is almost an afterthought.
<SNIP>
And yet, there is *NO* ECC-enabled Ryzen motherboard on the horizon (but plenty of “gaming” motherboards) and ECC support in Ryzen is almost mentioned as an afterthought, if at all.
Yeah, I know. I should shut up about ECC, but it's somewhat of an obsession with me. :)
Oh, and sorry for taking your reply a bit out of context. It just fit so well with my pet peeve that I felt compelled to do it.
azrael-
And yet, there is *NO* ECC-enabled Ryzen motherboard on the horizon (but plenty of “gaming” motherboards) and ECC support in Ryzen is almost mentioned as an afterthought, if at all.
Yeah, I know. I should shut up about ECC, but it's somewhat of an obsession with me. :)
Oh, and sorry for taking your reply a bit out of context. It just fit so well with my pet peeve that I felt compelled to do it.
The Asrock taichi has ECC support. Naples has ECC support but the consumer version has the support but no official validation as far as i am aware, if you have the Asrock board you shouldn't have a problel
.
Hicks12
The Asrock taichi has ECC support. Naples has ECC support but the consumer version has the support but no official validation as far as i am aware, if you have the Asrock board you shouldn't have a problel
.
Are you absolutely sure about that? There's a single blurb about ECC both in the specs and in the manual for the TaiChi. There's no mention of a BIOS option or anything and the whole thing seems a bit vague. I've checked the specs and manuals for most X370 boards and have pretty much come up short.
azrael-
The HardwareLuxx link was very informative, as was the Anandtech one, which correctly brings up the following requirement for ECC:
At lot of people seem to think it's merely a BIOS/UEFI setting if the MMU of the processor supports it, but that is far from true, which is why I usually take those vague “ECC supported” statements in the specs with a huge grain of salt.
I have FM2 socket boards that merely tolerate ECC ram but offer no protection. Sounds like the IMC on the chip can do ECC, but AMD left out the extra data traces on the consumer socket.
Worse still, my Wife's PC had an AM3+ ASUS board with ECC ram but swapping to an Asrock when the Asus failed the ECC ram is now just run as normal.
I guess most people are cheapskate and/or don't run home servers as ECC doesn't seem to get talked about much.
DanceswithUnix
I have FM2 socket boards that merely tolerate ECC ram but offer no protection. Sounds like the IMC on the chip can do ECC, but AMD left out the extra data traces on the consumer socket.
Worse still, my Wife's PC had an AM3+ ASUS board with ECC ram but swapping to an Asrock when the Asus failed the ECC ram is now just run as normal.
I guess most people are cheapskate and/or don't run home servers as ECC doesn't seem to get talked about much.
Well, it *seems* as if it's a question of having the necessary traces on the motherboard and having an option to enable ECC on the new Ryzen systems. As I understand it both the CPU and the socket (AM4) are capable of using ECC.
Seems like a nice upgrade for my i7-2600k … oh wait.. DDR4.
Ain't gonna throw the 32GB DDR3 I already have and paid a fortune for out the window.
Bambooz
Seems like a nice upgrade for my i7-2600k … oh wait.. DDR4.
Ain't gonna throw the 32GB DDR3 I already have and paid a fortune for out the window.
At some point you have to. Perhaps right now the DDR3 has some second hand value so you could sell it before it is worth as little as DDR2.
It seems to me, u r doing a piece on overclocking, but at an unambitious 2666MHz clocked ram?
3,000 MHz seems common even in these early days.
Ryzen I hear, is v affected by mem clock, as the northbridge is clocked to .5 memory speed.
msroadkill612
Ryzen I hear, is v affected by mem clock, as the northbridge is clocked to .5 memory speed.
Just to clarify, the on-die fabric is clocked *at* memory clock, not half. People confuse clocks and transfer rate with DDR, where as its name implies, has transfer rate at twice the clock speed.
E.g. 2400 ‘MHz’ DDR4 is actually 2400 MT/s, and its clock is 1200MHz.