AMD Ryzen 1700 CPU vs 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,714
AMD Ryzen 1700 CPU vs 1700X CPU Review - So there has been a lot of talk about what Ryzen CPU do you buy? The way I think is that you want to buy the least expensive one that will give you the best performance. That is exactly what we expect to find out here today. Is the Ryzen 1700 for $330 as good as the $400 1700X, or even the $500 1800X?

Update: We just got our new retail purchased Ryzen 1700 in this morning that we purchased. Here is a quick unboxing video, and I take a few minutes to check IHS and Wraith mating surface flatness.

​
 
Last edited:
Cool deal. BTW why are you up so late? Of course I am too, but my excuse is I threw my back out and can't sleep. Anyway, I suppose I should have purchased a non X 1700 instead of the X I have now. Oh well, it's only money. Nice to see AMD back in the game is all I can say.
 
Good review. The AX370 gaming 5 does not allow any baseclock modification (not even in the bios) otherwise this board would be very nice.
 
That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for doing that comparison testing.

There's a bit of a puzzle how the X and non-X differ, if both can be OC'ed the same way.
 
interesting comparison, thanks for the work..

have a question either for you kyle or brent.. since there's some information going around that AMD's still using the algorithm based cpu temp readings that they used with the FX chips, do you think it would be worth testing temps using the old way you guys did heat sink testing with a temp sensor embedded into the IHS would be worth seeing how accurate that algorithm is or do you think it wouldn't make much of a difference? that is if you happen to get a chip worth sacrificing to test in that way, wouldn't want to see a good one go to waste.

c3k said:
That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for doing that comparison testing.

There's a bit of a puzzle how the X and non-X differ, if both can be OC'ed the same way.
Click to expand...

better way of looking at ... 1700x = lazy consumer product, 1700 = intelligent consumer product (slight jab at dookey, lol).. there ya go ;)
 
c3k said:
That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for doing that comparison testing.

There's a bit of a puzzle how the X and non-X differ, if both can be OC'ed the same way.
Click to expand...

In the news I covered this article. Basically the XFR is enabled on all Ryzen chips. If you OC then it disables XFR. The XFR range is higher on the X model chips compared to the non X. XFR is good if you don't OC, but pointless if you do.
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/03/06/psa_amd_xfr_enabled_on_all_ryzen_cpus_x_skus_have_wider_range
 
That is great to know since I already have my 1700 here waiting for a motherboard. I am starting to worry that all the board manufacturers are going to keep going the way they have with AMD and just make shit micro atx and mini itx motherboards. I would love a micro atx with vrm like on the top of the line atx boards. I see you can get intel micro atx boards that way.
 
dcds1 said:
That is great to know since I already have my 1700 here waiting for a motherboard. I am starting to worry that all the board manufacturers are going to keep going the way they have with AMD and just make shit micro atx and mini itx motherboards. I would love a micro atx with vrm like on the top of the line atx boards. I see you can get intel micro atx boards that way.
Click to expand...

probably will have to wait for the x300 itx based chipset to release first. i would guess you'll see high end vrm's on that since it's just a slightly stripped down x370.
 
Well deserved Gold Award! Amazing for $320, I do believe many who do serious stuff with computers at home will find this a very nice bargain.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
better way of looking at ... 1700x = lazy consumer product, 1700 = intelligent consumer product (slight jab at dookey, lol).. there ya go ;)
Click to expand...
Nah, the 1800X is the REAL lazy consumer product ;)
noko said:
Well deserved Gold Award! Amazing for $320, I do believe many who do serious stuff with computers at home will find this a very nice bargain.
Click to expand...
Actually $279 now :)
https://slickdeals.net/f/9845604-am...ebay-bucks-no-tax-for-most?v=1&src=SiteSearch
 
dcds1 said:
That is great to know since I already have my 1700 here waiting for a motherboard. I am starting to worry that all the board manufacturers are going to keep going the way they have with AMD and just make shit micro atx and mini itx motherboards. I would love a micro atx with vrm like on the top of the line atx boards. I see you can get intel micro atx boards that way.
Click to expand...

In stock form on my b350m-a from asus it ran 110% stable without any form of fans on my shuriken cooler with only case fans on stress test.
8 core sub 65 W.
the B350m-a have an "undervolt" option that works decent but one can undervolt even more and run passive systems with these 1700's at stock clocks - efficiency around 1.9-3ghz full load is off the charts!!!

Also if you have cooling 3.8 ghz with a low profile cooler like the shuriken was no issue at all, with fan on ofc.!
VRM was cool enough to touch without any cooling too up to 3.7 ghz.
 
Isn't it normally the case that a lower voltage, lower power CPU variant gets the premium pricing? Why the heck is the best Ryzen 7 the cheapest?

Also, did you notice the Neural Net working, people reported scores rise over multiple runs, or frame rates improve over time in games.. ever so slightly.
 
Bahanime said:
Also, did you notice the Neural Net working, people reported scores rise over multiple runs, or frame rates improve over time in games.. ever so slightly.
Click to expand...
3567653086_9c8d8580a8.jpg
 
Bahanime said:
Isn't it normally the case that a lower voltage, lower power CPU variant gets the premium pricing? Why the heck is the best Ryzen 7 the cheapest?

Also, did you notice the Neural Net working, people reported scores rise over multiple runs, or frame rates improve over time in games.. ever so slightly.
Click to expand...

Well it sounds like they binned the chips based on voltage. So the only real differences is how much voltage the chips can tolerate. Meaning the 1700 may be the same as a 1700x only speced to run at a lower voltage hence using less juice when in spec while OCed it will burn just as much power... still if 10 chips on a wafer couldn't push the voltage they got binned as 1700s. If AMD is getting good yields its a win for everyone. If they are not getting good yields your taking a gamble as an Over clocker that your 1700 wasn't the runt of its wafer, and won't tolerate even a small voltage bump.

Sounds to me like its a fantastic deal though... as so far at least based on reviews from provided chips and purchased retail that these things seem pretty consistent across all 3 skus. Unless I start hearing horror stories about 1700s having issues bumping up on the voltage I think they are shaping up to be the best "deal" since the early celeron and athlon OC darlings
 
Bahanime said:
Also, did you notice the Neural Net working, people reported scores rise over multiple runs, or frame rates improve over time in games.. ever so slightly.
Click to expand...
Considering that the improvement over multiple runs is somewhere around 1%, it is kind of tricky to notice, since it lands inside margin of error.
 
Great review - Thanks, Kyle.

Thermals maxed out at 75C with it OC'd to 3.9 GHz using either good air or water? I'm impressed!

This feels like the Venice release all over again with the way the bottom tier chip OC's and performs identically to the upper binned offerings.
 
Good read, thanks. Yeah, my 1700X is pretty much a 3.9GHz monster but dies immediately at 4 Ghz. Would have loved to get 4 but, I am still extremely pleased with it nonetheless.
 
very very nice. Can't wait for more in-depth reviews and the other chip :) Still curious what might be possible with a MB revision and any fixes? :/ Looks to be a great bang for your buck - which is what i'm all about :)
 
DejaWiz said:
Great review - Thanks, Kyle.

Thermals maxed out at 75C with it OC'd to 3.9 GHz using either good air or water? I'm impressed!

This feels like the Venice release all over again with the way the bottom tier chip OC's and performs identically to the upper binned offerings.
Click to expand...
I can confirm it's all the things I expected and so much more!
ECC support, virtualization, very efficient below 3.2 ghz, hilariously efficient in fact.
 
Wow............

Maybe it's time to jump ship and go back to buying AMD stuff.

Ok......now I need a good board.
 
my OG cool-it eco c240 will never get adapters...

kind of a let down. it still is a great cpu cooler.
 
I think am about to pull the plug on a 1700. On the other hand, I just checked RAM prices and they are roughly twice as high as what I expected. What happened?
 
dgz said:
I think am about to pull the plug on a 1700. On the other hand, I just checked RAM prices and they are roughly twice as high as what I expected. What happened?
Click to expand...

Who knows, something happends, Me no like, I need memory for my cores!

32gb 2 module kits:
Corsair LPX 2666 works out of the box just FYI on an B350M-A
3000 LPX was a bit more meh but it works
 
This is exactly the type of information that keeps me coming back to [H].

What I'd love to see as a follow-up is an in-depth compare of the 1700 vs. the 6700k and 7700k, both stock and all OC'd, as they share (relatively) a price point.
 
This is really interesting and takes me back to the Intel Celeron 300 days when that processor was, for it's time, a overclocking monster. Times have definitely changed as this is a multi-core monster of a overclocking cpu and game companies are getting on board on making their games Ryzen optimized which will definitely change the benchmark landscape for games in the near future. Even the benchmarks though where the Ryzen was behind the Intel processors though, 80-100fps is still really good for a maxed out game to be running at, imo, even on the optimized games. So looking to the future things can only get better for AMD's latest CPU and I'm hoping Intel starts to be more competitive as far as pricing goes. Their ridiculous pricing schemes for the longest time have been out of the reach of most consumers.
 
What? No Artic Liquid Freezer brackets coming out? I wasn't going to upgrade for at least one more generation but that's some bull shit lol. My Liquid Freezer 240 Keeps a 4.2 Ghz 5820k at full load at like 61 degrees for days, that's a damn good and affordable unit :(
 
Evil said:
This is really interesting and takes me back to the Intel Celeron 300 days when that processor was, for it's time, a overclocking monster. Times have definitely changed as this is a multi-core monster of a overclocking cpu and game companies are getting on board on making their games Ryzen optimized which will definitely change the benchmark landscape for games in the near future. Even the benchmarks though where the Ryzen was behind the Intel processors though, 80-100fps is still really good for a maxed out game to be running at, imo, even on the optimized games. So looking to the future things can only get better for AMD's latest CPU and I'm hoping Intel starts to be more competitive as far as pricing goes. Their ridiculous pricing schemes for the longest time have been out of the reach of most consumers.
Click to expand...

lol, I had a celeron 333 mhz chip and it would oc to damn near 500 mhz. Remember the "fiasco" during the athlon xp days when they were selling 1800+ B core chips (the same cores used for 2400+'s and up I believe it was) for like 120$? Haha, AMD caught on to that shit real fast because people noticed the serial number differences and started buying the shit out of them, then just doing some slight tweaking in the bios you had a 2600+ for a third, if not lower, of the price.

Great review though and its good the see AMD getting some of the spotlight again.
 
Wierdo said:
There are some corner cases where the 1700 and 1700x seem to diverge sometimes, for example:
Click to expand...
Well, these are stock, and of course having a 10% difference in clocks can lead to diverging. Overclock them both to the wall (1700x on average clocks ~50Mhz higher on same voltage than 1700 from what i see), and you would not find such difference again.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Well, these are stock, and of course having a 10% difference in clocks can lead to diverging. Overclock them both to the wall (1700x on average clocks ~50Mhz higher on same voltage than 1700 from what i see), and you would not find such difference again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I didn't expect it to be as divergent, Was thinking the turbo freq would be easy to stay close to so expected it to be similar to the 1700x vs 1800x difference.

Maybe that's indeed the reason though, true.
 
Wierdo said:
Perhaps, but I didn't expect it to be as divergent, Was thinking the turbo freq would be easy to stay close to so expected it to be similar to the 1700x vs 1800x difference.

Maybe that's indeed the reason though, true.
Click to expand...
Perhaps? Yeah, different CPU clocks have never affected frame rates....:eek:
 
Nice chip for workstation use. I think however, I'll wait 6 months to let things settle down and mature on the drivers, updates, BIOS side before recommending for customers. I'll let others take the pain.
 
The 1700 is reminding me of the FX-8320e, cheapest of the 4 modules, binned for efficiency, and overclocked great as a result!
 
No shock here. 1700 is the real winner of the lineup when it comes to 8 cores.

Looking forward to the 4-6 core CPUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top