REVIEW AMD Ryzen 1700x Review

Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by headin2001, Dec 30, 2017.

  1. headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    [​IMG]


    Introduction



    HELLLLOOOOOO OCAU!!!!!!


    Our good friends over at AMD decided to give me a look into the #RyzenLyf to see what the platform is like. For me, like many folk here, this is a territory I am very unfamiliar with.


    Intel has basically been my go to for the past 10 years and more, with my last experience on an AMD platform being my very old Athlon 4400 CAD system. For its time, it was amazing! Plenty of computing power, handle my gaming needs very well and never, ever skipped a beat for me. Time then moved on, I went the route of the Core2 and so on until the past couple of months on this new architecture.


    I am sure most people here have already read plenty of Ryzen reviews before now, so I am not going to delve into the Architecture that much, because, to be frank, not many people know nor care about the goings on inside the processors. What we want to know is basically how they perform, in synthetics and gaming, well…….. probably more just the latter.


    For comparisons, I have lined up the 8 Core/16 Thread Ryzen 1700X up against Intels 4 Core/8 Thread 7700K mainstream offering. Both CPU's feature in around the same price range now (1700X - $485AUD and the Intel 7700K - $435 as at December 2017). Both CPU's are, in my opinion a strong offering from both teams without moving to the ridiculous high price ranges of the Intel HEDT or Threadripper products.


    Enough babble, let's get in and see how this 95W TDP 3.4/3.8Ghz 8c/16t CPU performs.


    [​IMG]


    Changelog:
    03-01-17 - Final Updates
    02-01-17 - Gaming results added
    02-01-17 - Power Consumption added
    02-01-17 - Added 3D Benchmark Results
    31-12-17 - Added CPU Synthetic test results
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    DR2K, Bertross, Lou and 1 other person like this.
  2. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Specifications


    As you can see below, the 1700X is the second highest CPU in the Ryzen 7 range. With a base clock of 3.4GHz and pumping to 3.8GHz or more with XFR enabled. The main differences between the 1700, 1700X and the 1800X being TDP, and CPU ASIC quality, allowing for higher Turbo/XFR ratings.

    All three CPUs are made on the same 14nm FinFET process, as well as feature the same PCIe Lane count (24lanes), 4MB of L2 Cache, and 16MB of L3 Cache.


    [​IMG]



    And a CPUz shot at base settings.



    [​IMG]







    Photo’s


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    And some photo's of the other products I used in this review. Thanks to ASUS and Cooler Master for their forever amazing support!!!


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    darkbastard likes this.
  3. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Overclocking


    The ASUS Crosshair VI Hero provides a myriad of options for overclocking the Ryzen 1700X and other AM4 CPU’s. There’s many options for a quick and dirty CPU overclock, and also many memory profiles to suit the mostly essential Samsung B-Die based memory.


    Manual OC


    Ok, now I’m what I would like to call an “enthusiast overclocker”. I have been in the hobby now for many years, and like to delve in and fine tune my BIOS to suit me. With the Asus RoG Crosshair VI Hero, all this is quite easy. As with most modern motherboards, the auto settings itself for most voltages are well set, and really only require changing literally a couple of settings to find your maximum OC off the bat.

    So, with only changing:

    • Set the DRAM to 3200C14, and manually set the DRAM voltage to 1.35v. Added the primary timings of 14-14-14-36-1t.

    • Set the VCore to Fixed and apply a voltage you are comfortable with. For me, it was 1.42v as my maximum to keep within the suggested guidelines and avoid any possible CPU degradation

    • Set the multiplier you would like for the CPU (in my circumstance, went straight for 38x)

    • Hit F10, save the BIOS and check it out in windows

    • Run your stability tests and increase the Core Ratio until you either hit your thermal limit, or it fails your selected stability tests.

    • Once you are happy with the stability speed, you can then adjust the VCore one step at a time to find the best possible voltage setting for the CPU to be stable. If you hit a point where it become unstable, increase the VCore 0.01v and test once more.

    • If you find problems with the memory, usually fine tuning of the VDIMM and the SOC Voltage (remembering a maximum daily of 1.2v to avoid degradation) will usually help bring this in check.


    There is many other ways to overclock these processors, by adjusting the bclk allowing you to run in-between memory speeds if necessary, so this is only a brief "how I got to what I set" guide.


    Now, we all have our own process, and obviously finding a maximum stable clock at a voltage isn’t always this simple, but with what’s above, it’s basically that simple. For the purpose of this review, 3 consecutive passes of Cinebench (a bad OC will usually show within these 2 quite quickly), a good hour pass with Asus Realbench V2, as it is a good overall system stability test, followed by some good old-fashioned gaming, in my case, Battlefield 4. I find Battlefield the best to bring things to their knees, pushing the RAM, CPU and IO’s, PCH and GPU. It all gets a hammering. I’m not a fan of Prime95, but if you want to run it for days on end, it’s totally up to you.


    Here’s the results, which I have put through my suit of stability testing and found to be totally reliable in gaming, 3D rendering and googling. For me, I did find I could quite easily hit the 4ghz mark, but sooner or later I would always find myself locked up with the old “8” code. Due to this, I took it back 100Mhz to ensure reliability, and to keep everything well within AMD’s voltage specifications whilst having the added benefit of reduced temperatures from the system as an added bonus.

    For Daily use, I was able to push to a not so shabby 3466C15-15-15-1t at 1.45v. Again, quite strong, and really shows how far AMD have come with their Agesa updates to help push memory further and further with ease.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    I also spent quite a bit of time to tune the memory on the platform. As everyone is probably aware, having the right memory IC type on the X370 Platform is a must when pushing memory speeds over 2933. For this, we need the now infamous Samsung B-Die based memory IC’s. You can find a compiled list of what to buy “HERE” to ensure you have the “right stuff”. Generally, anything over 3600C17 in speed and in a 8GB per DIMM Module will be of the B-Die variety. I’m not saying others won’t work, you will just find yourself in a lot more pain trying to manually set timings to have them working like they should.


    The DDR4 RAM I have on hand are a set of 2x8GB Galax OC LAB Edition 4000C19. I have 2 sets which have let me test out 4DIMM on the platform, but also 2DIMM for maximum speed and the tightest timings. What I achieved was greatly helped by the in-built memory profiles provided on the Crosshair VI Hero, allowing a very good base setup to get straight into it. With some base voltage setting, and gradual increases to the BCLK over the multiplier, I was able to achieve a “Tight” 3611C11!!!


    [​IMG]


    And bench worthy 3600+C12-11-1T timings.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
    darkbastard likes this.
  4. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Benchmarks


    Test Setup

    CPU – AMD Ryzen 7 1700X, Stock, OC - 3900
    Intel i7 7700K, stock 4500/4200, OC - 5000/4800
    Cooler – Coolermaster Master Liquid Pro 280
    Thermal Paste – Coolermaster Mastergel Maker Nano
    Motherboard – Asus X370 Crosshair VI Hero
    Asrock Z170M OC Formula
    Ram – Galax OC LAB HoF 4000C19 (3200C14 Profile, Samsung B-Die IC)
    Storage – Samsung 840 120Gb/ Samsung 850 Evo 500Gb
    Graphics – Asus Strix RX580 8Gb, Asus Dual RX580 8GB
    PSU – Coolermaster MasterWatt 1200
    OS – Windows 10 Pro x64




    Methodology

    For benchmarking, I have come up with a suite to show mostly CPU and memory performance. Memory was set to 3200C14 on both platforms. Each benchmark was run 3 times, and the best score recorded, discarding any obviously glitched runs.


    CPU Synthetics


    Here, I ran some synthetic benchmarks to show the differences between the Ryzen 1700X 8c/16t CPU vs the somewhat equivalent Intel Core i7 7700k 4c/8t CPU


    Cinebench R11.5

    [​IMG]


    We can see here, that the Ryzen 1700X really pulls away from the 7700K with the help of double the core count.


    Cinebench R15


    [​IMG]


    Again, the Ryzen 1700X is king in rendering using Multiple Cores. The tide is a bit different when you look at it's single core strength though, with the 7700K overtaking it by a healthy margin. Clock speed is certainly a help here.


    Cryptonight - XMR Stak

    [​IMG]


    For those looking into mining, there is absolutely no doubt that the Ryzen R7 is the CPU for Cryptonight mining. Stock pulling nearly 570mh/s at only 109W total system is amazing. Especially when you look at it as 230mh/s more for the same power usage in comparison to the Intel system.


    Geekbench 3

    [​IMG]


    No surprises here, again, core count rules. Overclocking the Ryzen system helps to reduce the single core score difference, but the Intel still wins out here.


    Geekbench 4

    [​IMG]


    Geekbench 4 sees the difference lessen, with the 7700K smashing the AMD system in single core performance, and almost matching at multicore. When the 1700X is overclocked though, the multicore score really pulls away.


    X265 Encoding

    [​IMG]


    Here, the results are neck and neck really. Intels ability at encoding video with the X265 Codec is extremely strong with the extra speed available.


    SuperPi 32m

    [​IMG]


    Superpi32m, one of the best benchmarks to show overall IPC strength. It's ageing a lot now, but still works wonders for showing how well a single core can do reliably. Sorry AMD, but the Ryzen 1700X just cannot compete, with the strength of the Intel architecture really pulling away.

    WPrime

    [​IMG]

    Similar to superpi, WPrime stresses all cores to test the overall compute strength of the CPU. In this benchmark, CPU speed, IPC and overall core count will achieve the strongest time. The Ryzen 1700X with a total of 16 Threads here just walks over the 8 Threaded 7700K.

    Firestrike Physics

    [​IMG]

    The final synthetic test in my suite is 3DMark Firestrike Physics. Like WPrime, the Physics test loves the same CPU attributes. The more cores, increased CPU clocks, and memory timings all work in harmony to achieve the best possible score. The Ryzen 1700X with the extra cores just eats this up, with the 7700K even overclocked to 5GHz unable to catch it, even at stock.



    3D Synthetics


    3DMark Timespy

    [​IMG]



    In 3DMark Timespy, the Ryzen R7 manages to outpace the Intel 7700K albeit only by a small amount. Once overclocked though, the difference really shows.


    3DMark Firestrike

    [​IMG]


    Firestrike has the results much closer, with the Intel system winning at stock settings. Overclocked though has the Ryzen winning by a small margin, mostly supported by the stronger Physics Test results.


    3DMark Firestrike Extreme


    [​IMG]


    The higher resolution of Firestrike Extreme tightens the scores even further, with both systems basically neck and neck. Overclocking the Ryzen system though seems to help pull away, especially in the multi-GPU configuration




    3DMark Firestrike Ultra

    [​IMG]



    And, to finalise, Firestrike Ultra. The results at this resolution are only a fraction off each other.

     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
    breno and darkbastard like this.
  5. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Gaming


    Rise of the Tomb Raider


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]



    Shadow of Mordor


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]



    Battlefield 1


    [​IMG]


    Battlefield 4



    [​IMG]



    Power Consumption

    [​IMG]




    Temperatures


    CPU is tested at stock, and overclocked. Room ambient is +/- 28deg and results have been delta adjusted.



    [​IMG]


    Personally, I found the Ryzen 1700X to be incredibly cool running. At stock in gaming, we only saw a max of 45°C in my 28-degree room. Even overclocked to 3.9G and cooled by the Coolermaster MasterLiquid Pro 280, temperatures were an extremely acceptable 56°C, and maxing out in benchmarks at 65°C. Just amazing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
    DR2K and darkbastard like this.
  6. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Conclusion


    AMD, what can I say. I am impressed. Performance is great, in both synthetics thanks to the extra cores available over the 4 Core 7700k, and in Gaming, matching well enough IMO. Multi-threaded applications though really allowed the CPU to shine in comparison.


    Lots of consumers in the world seemed to be left disappointed in the Ryzen platform at the start, mostly due to the lack of memory support. I wasn't fortunately, most likely due to having the "must have" Samsung B-Die based RAM modules. The latest Agesa release seems to have improved the issues people were having, and by all reports now, are working quite solidly and improving further and further with every release. I tested the platform with both B-Die and S-Die, and encountered no issues at all.


    Overclocking on this sample was, well, just a little disappointing for me. I really wanted to see a 4Ghz daily setting, but was only able to achieve what I would class a 3.9Ghz stable daily setting. This though, maybe due to my limited experience using AMD processors and platform, and with more time testing, I am sure would be able to fine tune to the 4Ghz state, especially with some Benchmarks allowing it to pass with little problem. I will be testing this more though, I feel there is still more to be unlocked! Some examples have been reported to hit 4.3GHz for benching to date on water cooling, so there is surely more to be untapped.


    Power usage was very acceptable, with Gaming power use near on par to the Intel offering, falling behind a bit on general use and video encoding.


    The Asus Crosshair VI board supplied by Asus was a treat. The available BIOS options were aplenty, memory tuning with the help from the already well tuned memory profiles all added to a fantastic experience on the X370 platform.


    [​IMG]


    For anyone that had been left with a bad taste at the release of the platform, between the motherboard manufacturers and AMD's engineering departments digging in and continually improving upon the base, I am left with a very good impression on the Ryzen.


    Pros

    Cool Running thanks to the Soldered Core

    Extra CPU cores for Multithreaded Applications

    Monero/Cryponight mining efficiency is off-the-chain



    Cons

    Gaming Speed slightly behind

    Single Core performance down comparatively to the 7700K



    I look forward to seeing the refresh of the Ryzen line up. Clock speed seems to be the biggest hurdle now, which hurts in Single Threaded applications and Gaming. Once the architecture can break into the 4Ghz-5Ghz range, I really feel there will be some serious competition against the Blue Team.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    DR2K, RnR, breno and 3 others like this.
  7. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    31-12-17 16:56pm - CPU Synthetic test results added

    I will keep adding results as I go guys. Apologies, but I have a large amount of data, and adding to the forum takes a fair bit of setting up.

    Single GPU Gaming and 3D Benchmarks to come soon. Stay tuned.
     
  8. darkbastard

    darkbastard Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    Duranbah - near Kingsclif
    Good Info - Thanks Headin :)
     
    headin2001 likes this.
  9. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    And I think that's it guys. Hope you enjoyed the read.
     
    sugaris likes this.
  10. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    14,160
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    nice numbers nice presentation
     
    headin2001 likes this.
  11. CAMS

    CAMS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    1,344
    I get that it takes a while to run these benchmarks but maybe want to do it again after MS do all the CPU bug patching to see what type of CPU performance hit is about to be received.
     
    headin2001 and vonners like this.
  12. vonners

    vonners Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Bertross and headin2001 like this.
  13. Lou

    Lou Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    436
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Very well done headin2001. Thanks for the comparison.
    Ryzen shaping up well with this processor.

    Cheers.
     
    headin2001 likes this.
  14. someon3

    someon3 Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    137
    Thanks for the detail post, very interesting if we would have a re-run and re-crunch number / graph after patching!
     
  15. vonners

    vonners Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    2
  16. OP
    OP
    headin2001

    headin2001 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,365
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Thanks for all the kind comments.

    On the patch:
    To be perfectly honest, the info I have received so far seems quite hyped up, and the more solid info isn't showing a huge difference a time all. Claiming 5-30% performance difference on a kernel patch sounds pretty far fetched IMO.

    But, I will keep an eye on it and will run some more benchmarks if it needs more confirmation.
     
  17. FOTW

    FOTW Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    965
    Location:
    Kilcock, Ireland
    Great review man well done :D
     
  18. onthepulse

    onthepulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    652
    Location:
    Box Hill Sth, Melbourne
    Interested in how the 1700X compares to the 1700. In terms of OC, etc. From what I have heard, they are pretty much on par. So for the average consumer, you can save a few $s and buy the 1700.

    Numbers are very impressive. I haven't owned an AMD since San Diego 3700 (+?). That was amazing chip with a DFI board. Always liked AMD, but the performance race wasn't even close for so many years.

    You have to be impressed with the bold move to make more cores competitively priced. And with the transistor shrink coming soon (March), OC will be VERY interesting...
     
  19. MotoMan

    MotoMan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,764
    Location:
    Vic Rural
    I have a 1700 Running rock solid at 3.8Ghz on the stock cooler..
    Didn't see the point of buying the 1700x plus a cooler for no real benefit
     
  20. budzilla

    budzilla Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    Right There->
    It's a great processor but how does the fit in with the Zen refresh which is only months away?
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: