1700 vs 1700X?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jh4nTy

Honorable
Mar 30, 2016
155
0
10,680
The only reason I'm asking for your opinion is because a local store from my country is making a huge promotion on the 1700X dropping it's price from 339.90€ to 279.90€ and the non-X 1700 is tagged at 284.90€.

I was already planning on buying the normal 1700 since it brings it's own cooler and all but this promotion kinda makes me think twice. What do you guys think?
 
Solution
Karadjgne
3.6/3.7GHz on 16 threads is respectable by anyone's standards, especially on a stock cooler. Agreed that you'd be better off with a good aftermarket cooler if you plan on going higher, but something like that Arctic 92mm is actually worse than the stock Wraith cooler on the 1700, so unless op plans on coming up with some serious $change for a decent cooler, he'd be far better off with what the 1700 can supply.
Sort by date Sort by votes
1LiquidPC

1LiquidPC

Splendid
Oct 11, 2014
5,314
83
31,590
Are you OCing? They both should get to same speed. I had my 1700 at 3.85Ghz. Boots at 4Ghz, but 1.4v wasn't enough for stability. If you don't OC, I'd get the 1700x and a basic decent cooler. If you do OC, even the included cooler should be fine for 3.7Ghz across all cores on the 1700, maybe a little more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890
Since most Ryzen chips have so little overclocking headroom beyond 3.8GHz before power draw shoots up drastically and require expensive high-end cooling, I'd just go with the 1700 to avoid the cost of a basic aftermarket HSF that won't get you much beyond what the stock HSF is capable of handling. (You have very good chances of managing 3.8GHz and nearly no chance in hell of doing any better than 4GHz without cryo-cooling.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

3GHz is only the base frequency. Unless you have a craptacular HSF worse than stock or grossly inadequate case airflow, the typical clock frequencies under load will be higher. Some of Intel's CPUs have base clocks under 2GHz but turbo frequencies in excess of 3.5GHz and will spend most of their time above 3GHz while under load when power and cooling are sufficient.

The stock cooler will almost certainly get you to 3.7GHz without much trouble and there is no guarantee that the 1700X will get you beyond 3.8GHz no matter how much power and cooling you throw at it, which means you are looking at a 3-5% gain from going with the 1700X at the expense of spending ~10% extra for an aftermarket HSF.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
madmatt30

madmatt30

Titan
Ambassador
Jan 1, 2013
24,574
650
91,240
The 1700 wraith cooler is very nice (& nice looking too)

I just dont think its quite enough for overclocking the ryzen 7 to any great extent.

3.5/3.6 with 'acceptable temps , soon as it went past that in my system it was touching 80c & even over at points.

Within spec but imo too hot for me personally if you're likely to push very heavy usage regularly
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,740
4,559
142,790
3.6/3.7GHz on 16 threads is respectable by anyone's standards, especially on a stock cooler. Agreed that you'd be better off with a good aftermarket cooler if you plan on going higher, but something like that Arctic 92mm is actually worse than the stock Wraith cooler on the 1700, so unless op plans on coming up with some serious $change for a decent cooler, he'd be far better off with what the 1700 can supply.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom