Skip to main content

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Review

Workstation & HPC Benchmarks

2D Benchmarks: DirectX And GDI/GDI+

Image 1 of 3

Image 2 of 3

Image 3 of 3

Even though it sports considerably lower base and boost frequencies (and doesn't benefit from XFR), the Ryzen 7 1700 stays within striking distance of its faster 1700X and 1800X counterparts. 

2D Benchmarks: Adobe Creative Cloud

Image 1 of 5

Image 2 of 5

Image 3 of 5

Image 4 of 5

Image 5 of 5

As with most productivity-focused workloads, AMD's Ryzen 7 processors battle fiercely for a position near the top of these charts. They're especially attractive in light of their low price points. Intel's less expensive Core i7-7700K leads though, so it takes a Ryzen 7 1700 to make a value case.

3D Benchmarks: DirectX And OpenGL

Image 1 of 8

Image 2 of 8

Image 3 of 8

Image 4 of 8

Image 5 of 8

Image 6 of 8

Image 7 of 8

Image 8 of 8

We see more of a delta between the 65W 1700 and 95W X SKUs during the DirectX and OpenGL tests. Many of these metrics respond best to single-threaded performance at high clock rates, so Kaby Lake enjoys a natural advantage.

CPU Performance: Workstation

Image 1 of 4

Image 2 of 4

Image 3 of 4

Image 4 of 4

Parallelized workloads are in Ryzen's wheelhouse, so all three models turn in strong results in our SolidWorks 2015 and 3ds Max 2015 composite/computing benchmarks. In many cases, they're faster than Intel's pricier Core i7-6900K in its stock configuration.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

Image 1 of 7

Image 2 of 7

Image 3 of 7

Image 4 of 7

Image 5 of 7

Image 6 of 7

Image 7 of 7

The 95W Ryzen processors compete aggressively against the Core i7-6900K in our CPU rendering test suite, while the 65W 1700 trails its faster counterparts and battles the stock Core i7-7700K during many of the Blender tests. AMD's 1700 does beat the Core i7-6900K in 3ds Max, but falls behind during the LuxRender benchmark.

CPU Performance: Encoding & Compression/Decompression

Image 1 of 4

Image 2 of 4

Image 3 of 4

Image 4 of 4

The 1700 is particularly competitive in HandBrake. It beats the -6900K during high-quality encoding tasks, and puts up a fight in our test using default settings. At $330, it's impossible to dismiss the 1700's value proposition compared to Intel's $1100 price point. Likely due to its lower frequency, the 1700 loses steam when we decompress an archive using 7-Zip (it even trails the old FX), but it fares better in the more parallelized compression workloads.

HPC Benchmarks (High Performance Computing)

Image 1 of 17

Image 2 of 17

Image 3 of 17

Image 4 of 17

Image 5 of 17

Image 6 of 17

Image 7 of 17

Image 8 of 17

Image 9 of 17

Image 10 of 17

Image 11 of 17

Image 12 of 17

Image 13 of 17

Image 14 of 17

Image 15 of 17

Image 16 of 17

Image 17 of 17

The results of these HPC-oriented benchmarks vary depending on how they utilize each architecture. As a general trend, though, when a test is able to exploit Ryzen 7's eight cores, AMD beats the Core i7-7700K. It's usually able to give Core i7-6900K a run for its money, too. In the cases where Intel's -6900K is significantly faster, we might suspect specific optimizations for efficiency on Intel CPUs. We know, for example, that there are accelerated packages for LAMMPS, one of which includes Intel CPUs and Xeon Phi. SPEC doesn't say if any of these are part of its wpc 2.0 suite, though. AMD's market penetration with the Naples server chips will likely determine how much reaction we see in the HPC software ecosystem.

  • mitch074
    And how about testing with some AMD GPU? Seems Ryzen gets the short hand of the stick when using an Nvidia GPU... https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/nvidia-dx12-driver-holding-back-ryzen.18774744/
    Reply
  • Sakkura
    Why are the graphs blurry?
    Reply
  • envy14tpe
    Why no 1440p or 4k gaming? Who buys 1700 for 1080p gaming? In gaming, the new 1700, 1700x, 1800 don't compare to 7700k in gaming. But i don't see that like all other testing methodologies done by likes of gamernexus and what not.

    EDIT. Based on the downvoting of this comment it seems AMD lovers are a little butt hurt.
    Reply
  • ykki
    Thanks for the review. Will Tom's bench (or has already benched) the R5s with AMD GPUs? (i5 + 1060, i5 + 480, R5 + 1060, r5 + 480)?
    Reply
  • PaulAlcorn
    19526350 said:
    Why no 1440p or 4k gaming? Who buys 1700 for 1080p gaming? In gaming, the new 1700, 1700x, 1800 don't compare to 7700k in gaming. But i don't see that like all other testing methodologies done by likes of gamernexus and what not.

    Here is some recent testing at 1440p. It includes the 1700, as well.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-lake-gaming,4977.html

    Reply
  • envy14tpe
    19526465 said:
    19526350 said:
    Why no 1440p or 4k gaming? Who buys 1700 for 1080p gaming? In gaming, the new 1700, 1700x, 1800 don't compare to 7700k in gaming. But i don't see that like all other testing methodologies done by likes of gamernexus and what not.

    Here is some recent testing at 1440p. It includes the 1700, as well.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-lake-gaming,4977.html

    That shows the new AMD cpus as is. From all I see the i7-7700k blasts the new AMD 1700, 1700x, 1800x series at 1440p +. That's important to keep in mind for gamers that want the most out of a CPU n high end GPU.
    Reply
  • ddpruitt
    even if Ryzen isn't shaping up to be universally superior, as many hoped prior to launch.

    This makes it difficult to universally recommend those high-end parts.

    Why do they have to be universally superior? They do a killer job on highly threaded workloads and are a lot cheaper than equivalent Intel. Sure gamings a wash but they're all playable. Aiming for universally superior is shooting for the moon and doesn't happen even with a single Intel chip.

    But looking at these figures on their own can be misleading. Remember that Intel's top Kaby Lake-based CPU demonstrated a commanding lead in the previous page's AutoCAD workloads, so it ends up offering superior performance per watt.

    Any chance you can multiply the numbers out so we can compare the differences?
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    So I have to ask, is there any reason to buy a 1700X/1800X over a 1700 if you're comfortable with overclocking?
    Reply
  • Ian_85
    Can you please repeat this test after each of the Ryzen bios updates in April and May?

    I think people would be interested to show just how much performance in a new CPU architecture improves in the months after its initial release.
    Reply
  • elbert
    19526465 said:
    19526350 said:
    Why no 1440p or 4k gaming? Who buys 1700 for 1080p gaming? In gaming, the new 1700, 1700x, 1800 don't compare to 7700k in gaming. But i don't see that like all other testing methodologies done by likes of gamernexus and what not.

    Here is some recent testing at 1440p. It includes the 1700, as well.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-lake-gaming,4977.html
    I dont believe that has Ashes of the Singularity updated tests. Good review and I would like to see more. Now that all the Ryzen's have been benchmarked on 1080p maybe 1440p and 4k would make a good review. With and without SLI/crossfire also just to see how it works for Ryzen. Possibly Gskills could pitch in some of their Flare X 3466 RAM for Ryzen.
    Reply