1700 vs 1700x

U Mert BRO · Mar 6, 2017

So accordıng to benchmarks whıch one would u choose?Im gonna use it for streaming/gaming

chemmajorp53 · Mar 6, 2017

I'd get the 1700 and spend the leftover money on a good cooler so you can OC it

boosted1g · Mar 6, 2017

For streaming gaming I would get neither.

Kabylake i7 will perform noticably better in games.

mcadams3 · Mar 8, 2017

boosted1g :

Noticeably? I highly doubt it. Ryzen crushed multi threaded performance (Ie streaming/encoding) and only very slightly lacks behind in single threaded games. Jayz2Cents just put out a video yesterday about this. Unless OP plans on streaming 4k at 60fps his stream would be indistinguishable from that of an i7, for about $600 less.

Ecky · Mar 8, 2017

I expect Ryzen to age better but it's definitely behind per-thread, which will always be important in gaming. One important consideration is that, even if Ryzen doesn't perform significantly differently from Intel's high-end 1151 offerings, it's a fair bit more expensive mostly due to the high cost of motherboards. An i7 7700 will run in a $65 B250 board, whereas you're looking at spending 2-3x that for a Ryzen board, plus an extra $50-100 on the CPU.

Personally I'm attracted to Ryzen but the current 8 cores are more competitors for Intel's socket 2011v3 both in performance and in cost. 1151 systems are noticeably cheaper.

MrN1ce9uy · Mar 8, 2017

A balanced market is good for the consumer. I wouldn't want to talk you out of purchasing a new AMD Ryzen CPU, either one will do well in streaming/gaming.

dangus · Mar 8, 2017

Ecky :

whaaaaat?

where to start? your pricing isnt necessarily even close to correct. you can get a ryzen motherboard for much less than "2x to 3x the price of a b250 motherboard" for a kaby lake i7...

you also can get a b350 AM4 socket motherboard for a ryzen r7 1700 ($329 CPU) starting at $89.99 on newegg...which is not 2x to 3x the cost of a $65 b250 intel motherboard. a b350 offers most of the features a general user would want (unlike the cheapo $65 b250 intel board) and also allows you to overclock...not such a bad value after all.

secondly...an i7 7700 on newegg (again) is $314.99. this makes the r7 1700 no more than like $15 more expensive than the i7. not $50-$100 more than the "intel offering" as you're saying

where you get this info, mang?

Ecky · Mar 8, 2017

The cheapest I can find a 7700 is $295. The cheapest I can find an R7 1700 is $330.

$330 - $295 = $35
$90 - 65 = $25
Total difference: $60, which is in my $50-100 range

How far are you going to OC the 1700 on the stock cooler and a B350 board? 5%?

Aside from the ability to OC, I don't see anything really missing from a $65-70 B250 board. You'll get 4 RAM slots, 8 channel audio, an M.2 slot and all of the standard ports and connectors found on any other board.

I'm not saying Ryzen is bad, or even a bad value, I'm just saying it's more expensive than an i7 and that they both have different strengths and weaknesses.

dangus · Mar 8, 2017

Ecky :

that's not what you said. or maybe you phrased it wrong. i dont know. saying you're going to spend 2x-3x for a ryzen board, plus $50-100 more for the CPU makes it sound like youre going to.......spend 2x-3x more for the motherboard and then another $50-100 extra for the processor. misleading advice.

either way...the most youre going to OC a ryzen CPU on ANY motherboard no matter the price is probably about 100mhz. the motherboard isnt the limiting factor from what we have seen. its the architecture. even the 1800x can only really hit 4.1ghz unless you've seen some magic that i haven't.

Ecky · Mar 8, 2017

My apologies, I probably shouldn't be posting, as tired as I am.

I hadn't checked board prices in a few days and there weren't any available for as little as $90 last I checked.

TheTopMostDog · Mar 9, 2017

boosted1g :

Not true. The 7700k is known for outperforming the 1700 in single thread performance, but as games and game engines optimize for this new technology, we will see a shift in the performance crown. OP specifically asks about streaming, also; the 7700k is already at the high 90's percent utilization in modern games pushing a 1080, so no; I would not recommend the 7700k for this use case.

Just grab a 1700, it saves you even more seeing it comes with a cooler. You'll be sacrificing a small margin of auto-overclock (the x models support Ryzen XFC, google it for info on what it does), but factor in you'll have to buy a [decent] cooler to take proper advantage of it, you're upping the price more and more for no real tangible performance boost over time. You'll probably see better results day one with a higher clocked CPU, but over time, as games are optimized, the CPU will not be a bottleneck and both will run games similarly well despite the lower clock on the 1700.

Look up AdoredTV on Youtube; he's the best no-bs source for information on new hardware.

Find a video on the 1700 by GamersNexus on Youtube to be convinced that it is much better value than anything above it. Lower wattage and likely temps, to boot.

dangus · Mar 9, 2017

TheTopMostDog :

not true. all current ryzen CPUs support *XFR*. the X skus have a "wider range" whatever that means. seems like it means an extra 100mhz (wowee) https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/PSA-AMD-XFR-Enabled-All-Ryzen-CPUs-X-SKUs-Have-Wider-Range

also, there is no way of guaranteeing everyone that ryzen will get optimized and catch up to intel in games. i'm hoping for this just as much as anyone but you simply cannot know this for certain. people have been saying since forever that "once games get better optimized, more cores will get you more FPS." been hearing this for like the past decade and haven't seen much progess

also, by the time your ryzen CPU *does* get optimized for future titles if that even happens, there's going to be a whole 'nother line of CPUs out there most likely. i wouldnt buy a processor now hoping that in a few years it gets better.

this being said, i don't think you should NOT get a ryzen CPU. i very much like what i have read about them

TheTopMostDog · Mar 9, 2017

dangus :

[Ed: yes, I saw the oversights I made when reading the reply, some of my comment is redundant because of this. Thats what I get for commenting using a bluetooth keyboad on a shitty tablet. In bed. :3 ]

You'd be hard pressed to sell a non-x Ryzen on its XFC performance. It has been stated since before release that the impact is miniscule; 100mhz iirc. XFC on an X variant is indeed a selling point irrelevant of the fact that the 1700 supports it also. I already knew about this, hence why I suggested googling it instead of me going into full details about it, here.. Which I'm going to be doing, anyway.

The claim of Ryzen catching the 7700k in performance is far from a long shot; they are already fairly close in performance if you find actual side by side comparisons (YT channels: "joker", "1700 vs 7700k" to name a few) instead of looking at random graphs (which may or may not be influenced by Intel, seeing they are known for having to pay out billions of dollars for doing this kind of shit in the past).

If you look up the AdoredTV channel I suggested, the bloke shows how even the infamous bulldozer (famous for being disappointing) has actually outscaled its competition (the i5-2500k) in the last few years, because of the multithread advances for games (it was 6core; the i5: 4). Games running better on multithreaded chips is a given, a guarantee; it is only a matter of time. ...Especially given that AMD have been setting this whole thing up for a very long time; they're out to grab Intel by the throat. Even the next gen consoles are going to be running Zen technology, meaning console games will inherently optimize for PC also. AMD will not let gaming performance fall by the wayside when they are hugely relying on that gaming market for mind share. They've already announced they're donating 1000+ systems to dev teams so that they can optimize their games for Ryzen. There's also 350 something different software packs to help implement their optmimizations. I digress- just look up the videos I suggested, it's all there.

Alas, OP didn't ask us for advice on the 7700k; I was merely clearing up a misconception about its performance - if you do enough research, you'll also come to the conclusion I have. I am not a biased person, I am just sticking to the facts. Back on topic, if you have to choose between the 1700 and the 1700x, pick the non-x. If you do want alternatives, perhaps wait for either Intel's 8xxx series (promising same core perf at 15% lower clocks) or keep an eye out for the 1500 or 1600 Ryzen CPUs coming soon; they are clocked higher albiet have two less cores than the R7's. I personally will be buying a 1700 and overclocking the snot out of it (gamersnexus show it on par with the 1800x in games when done right). That's my two cents.

dangus · Mar 9, 2017

even the 1800x only goes to 4.1ghz with XFR. so thats a measly like 100-200mhz over the plain jane 1700. its common knowledge overclock is almost non existent on any ryzen CPU. so yes i'd also say get the 1700 as well as it's basically the same thing as the 1800. this is if you are going to get a ryzen CPU.

i think it may have been Tech City who brought up that Joker might have messed up some of his benchmarks and points out some discrepancies in Joker's video benchmarks which are definitely questionable. just thought this may be relevant if you're really interested.

madmatt30 · Mar 9, 2017

You can overclock the 1700 on the stock spire cooler on a $90 Asus prime b350 board to 3.8ghz , its been done by just about anyone who owns one.

Avro Arrow · Mar 13, 2017

boosted1g :

I'm going to have to ask you how that's true. Noticeable on benchmarks maybe but not IRL. A Grandmaster like yourself should know very well that all gaming is perfectly fluid to the human eye at 30fps and higher. In what game is it going to be noticeable, Civilization XXI? The fps is lower but it's nothing that you can call "noticeably" worse. Hell, even the old FX-6300 can run most games perfectly, never mind the AMD R7 series. So how is it going to be "noticeably better"?

Avro Arrow · Mar 13, 2017

TheTopMostDog :

I do believe that this is the video that you're talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50
This video was perhaps the most amazing thing I've seen in investigative tech reporting since Charlie Demerjian exposed nVidia's shady practices towards reviewers. He pointed out that low-resolution gaming benchmarks weren't nearly as conclusive as the tech press considered them to be because even on low-resolution graphics, the more advanced GPUs still made a huge difference regardless of the CPU involved. I honestly think that he's right and that very soon, the R7 will completely outdo the i7 and there will no looking back.

Remember, game developers are developing games for consoles first. This is because piracy isn't an issue on the PS4 and Xbox One like it is on the PC. After the developers make their money on console sales, they'll release PC versions since piracy won't be able to cut into profits they've already made.

Since consoles now use AMD64 parts, the main body of source code won't need to be changed and porting will be a breeze. Only the interface sections of the code would need to be modified or redone to allow the games to interface with Windows instead of whatever OS the PS4 and Xbox One use. This means that in an effort to make the games as great as possible, they will be optimised for 8-cores because the APU that they use is the AMD 8-core Jaguar. The more threaded the game is, the better it will be at leveraging the strengths of both the PS4 and Xbox One.

The Jaguar cores being used do not have a high clock speed but there are a lot of them, similar to a server CPU. This means that the single-thread performance of high-clocked Intel CPUs will be badly beaten by the more heavily threaded AMD CPUs by a mile. To know just how much, take a look at the result of a multithreaded handbrake test.

This essentially means that almost all PC games will be console ports going forward because the porting will be a piece of cake compared to porting an older game for a console that used the RISC-based IBM PowerPC CPU for instance. For me personally, this would be especially good because it would extend the life of my FX-8350 even further. It already games perfectly in any game and I haven't even felt the need to overclock it because it also makes Windows fly (my SSD also plays a huge part in that). I just think of how hard I would laugh if I read the benchmarks one day and saw it beating the "magical" i7-7700K in even just one game.

Intel fanboys laughed at AMD's conquest of the console market, saying "That's the only way AMD can make a buck!". The funny thing is that they were right, it was the only way that AMD could make a buck at the time but it was also a part of a grand strategy that has worked perfectly thus far.

In the end it won't make much difference because a fast CPU does not a gaming PC make. It's just as true now as it has always been that if you want to build the best gaming rig you can for your money, you always go GPU-heavy and CPU-average. That's what the games need and anything more than an average CPU will be power that you paid for that the game will be unable to turn into performance.

Slesreth · Mar 14, 2017

Avro Arrow :

TheTopMostDog :

I do believe that this is the video that you're talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50
This video was perhaps the most amazing thing I've seen in investigative tech reporting since Charlie Demerjian exposed nVidia's shady practices towards reviewers. He pointed out that low-resolution gaming benchmarks weren't nearly as conclusive as the tech press considered them to be because even on low-resolution graphics, the more advanced GPUs still made a huge difference regardless of the CPU involved. I honestly think that he's right and that very soon, the R7 will completely outdo the i7 and there will no looking back.

Remember, game developers are developing games for consoles first. This is because piracy isn't an issue on the PS4 and Xbox One like it is on the PC. After the developers make their money on console sales, they'll release PC versions since piracy won't be able to cut into profits they've already made.

Since consoles now use AMD64 parts, the main body of source code won't need to be changed and porting will be a breeze. Only the interface sections of the code would need to be modified or redone to allow the games to interface with Windows instead of whatever OS the PS4 and Xbox One use. This means that in an effort to make the games as great as possible, they will be optimised for 8-cores because the APU that they use is the AMD 8-core Jaguar. The more threaded the game is, the better it will be at leveraging the strengths of both the PS4 and Xbox One.

The Jaguar cores being used do not have a high clock speed but there are a lot of them, similar to a server CPU. This means that the single-thread performance of high-clocked Intel CPUs will be badly beaten by the more heavily threaded AMD CPUs by a mile. To know just how much, take a look at the result of a multithreaded handbrake test.

This essentially means that almost all PC games will be console ports going forward because the porting will be a piece of cake compared to porting an older game for a console that used the RISC-based IBM PowerPC CPU for instance. For me personally, this would be especially good because it would extend the life of my FX-8350 even further. It already games perfectly in any game and I haven't even felt the need to overclock it because it also makes Windows fly (my SSD also plays a huge part in that). I just think of how hard I would laugh if I read the benchmarks one day and saw it beating the "magical" i7-7700K in even just one game.

Intel fanboys laughed at AMD's conquest of the console market, saying "That's the only way AMD can make a buck!". The funny thing is that they were right, it was the only way that AMD could make a buck at the time but it was also a part of a grand strategy that has worked perfectly thus far.

In the end it won't make much difference because a fast CPU does not a gaming PC make. It's just as true now as it has always been that if you want to build the best gaming rig you can for your money, you always go GPU-heavy and CPU-average. That's what the games need and anything more than an average CPU will be power that you paid for that the game will be unable to turn into performance.

Just wanted say thank you, to Avro Arrow for giving that link to an awesome video! Reporting is hard to find these days where the reporter actually did all of his homework!
[Sorry, I deleted some of the text from a few quotes in the, 'Spoiler', just an attempt to keep my post more concise.]

justasii · Mar 15, 2017

"According to benchmarks"
Since you are comparing two products from the same family, benchmarks will serve you well to compare. You have to develop your decision tree to decide. Are you looking for most value? (Performance/price) highest performance, or lowest cost? Consider your resources. Will this purchase limit a purchase of say a netter video card? That's how I would go through my decision process.

Now that I answered the question: First, shame on all posts trying to compare intel to AMD. Not the question. Second, in general, the actual experience of high cpus will not vary enough to matter to most people. Humans just aren't sensitive enough to notice much. I would make CPU choices based on three things: power/heat, price, and whole system. Power/heat because this affects both noise levels and comfort in your space (high heat can be a problem for your space). Price because well money (I agonize over best performance/cost personally). Whole system because AMD and Intel components may have different features on mother boards and chipsets that may be important to you.

To me, raw performance is about 4th on the list of importance, because like I said, day to day, most people wouldn't be able to tell between one or another.

1700 vs 1700x

Commendable

Dignified

Titan

Honorable

Illustrious

Judicious

Admirable

Illustrious

Admirable

Illustrious

Honorable

Admirable

Honorable

Admirable

Titan

Splendid

Splendid

Honorable

Reputable

Share this page