To put it another way, a £300 1700 putting out 65W will blow the socks off a delidded, overclocked, binned 7700K costing nearly twice as much in any heavily multithreaded workload. It'll beat many of the X99 chips costing even more.

Will the 7700K be better for gaming - yup. Will Ryzen game well - yup, AMD have just made different compromises.

The 1700 looks like a total bargain. If I hadn't just bought a cheap 5820K setup I'd be moving to Ryzen and not a 7700K.

think ill stick with my i5 6600

​i wouldn't trust flubit for something expensive no tracking and no receipt for warranty

Good deal for a cracking CPU.

This thread isn't worth the debate though, if you want decent conversation with informed view points (apparently 1 YouTube video doesn't account for gospel in the real world) take it over to Anandtech.

Waste of breath trying to convince people one is better than the other and if they want to keep investing in a dead socket, let them.

only 100mhz overclock :disappointed:
U canna be serious man :wink:

That 3.8GHz is on 1 core boost, it usually hangs around 3.5GHz on all cores without OC

Isn't the 1700, non X, considered the best R7, less power, runs cooler and still overclocks.

Think it also comes with a stock cooler?

If you use Flubit you can get the standard 1700 65W Ryzen for £295 Inc (RRP £319). Don't forget Topcashback of 1.1% as well.

think ill stick with my i5 6600

pay on credit card and you're covered either way

have we got passmark etc yet? my xeon e5620 is about 5000 1

9% off with flubit makes it £334.49.

If your just a gaming I'll advise waiting for Ryzen 5 if not kabylake per core performance is too much. If abit of both then this hands down. I'm saving up !

to be honest all the RYZEN CPU are amazing but for gaming you can get better but you'll be paying another 300-500 so just if you want the top and money no object then don't get a RYZEN but if you want the top but have a budget then RYZEN is the one

got a 1700 for £311, but no mobo yet... out of stock everywhere. I think I'm just return and get this one.

If you're after B350 Chipset AM4 motherboards try AWD-IT, Lambdatek, and Novatech.

If you email Flubit and request an invoice they will send email you one.

There's this US vendor called Silicon Lottery (siliconlottery.com) who sell pre-binned parts. Herea are some of their stats:
Ryzen 7 1700
93% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.376V
70% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.440V
Ryzen 7 1700X
100% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.360V
77% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.392V
33% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.424V
Ryzen 7 1800X
100% reach 3.8GHz (assumed)
97% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.376V
67% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.1GHz @ 1.440V
Note: Their test setup used the Realbench stress test for 1 hour on an Asus Crosshair VI, cooled by a Corsair H105 with 2 X 8GB of 2400MHz CL15 RAM.
Taken from Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xybp7/silicon_lottery_ryzen_overclock_statistics/

So there is some differences between 1700 and 1700X but I still think the 1700 is the better buy. Would love if someone did one of these clock and volts charts with wattage (doesn't have to be at the mains, even HWiNFO's reading of package would be of interest).

Would be nice if there were actually any boards around! I got my 1800X on the 4th, but my pre-ordered Gaming 5 is nowhere to be seen...

1700 is where the smart money is at.

Great price, same on SCAN. Although considering getting through i7 7700k 4.2. Main use will be photoshop & lightroom and never know gaming maybe! Seem to both have their + & -?

1700 available for just under 304 from LaptopsDirect

And so did people? They bought the Q9xxx series after owning a c2d for a while whilst others overclocked the heck out of the e8xxx series. Nothing wrong with both choices as at the time there wasn't much of a benefit to more cores.

I'm talking 2007-2008 here, with the Q6600 etc. It can still handle modern games, however a core 2 duo would struggle. Very future-proof CPU there.

AMD Always Making Duds

My point is that given 6 months this CPU will be better optimised and will probably leapfrog the 7700K. The raw power is there - developers need to just utilise it

Its looking as if they are lightly binned but also having limits on oc. That will change with newer stepping

"The raw power is there - developers need to just utilise it"

Multi core CPU's have been around for years and (for the most part) developers don't take advantage of the power available. A CPU coming out with even more cores isn't suddenly going to change this. If using Cinebench is your thing then buy Ryzen and move to that ecosystem. If it's not, stick with Intel.

More like crap Adobe multi threading:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/#Conclusion

Talking of binning, OCUK do a 5GHz guaranteed i7-7700 for under £500. They also replace the internal thermal compound.

It removes the risk and it'll blow the socks off this wave of AMDs for practically everything most people use their computers for.

ps is lightly threaded (except for the 3d stuff) and also uses gpu acceleration. PS bench marking is kinda dumb if you actually have used ps and realise its not cpu intensive !

Probably not. Photoshop is not heavily threaded and until most people have more than 4 cores and 8 threads then most software isn't going to use more than 4 cores and 8 threads. If you are using it for Photoshop and Lightroom and a bit of gaming a faster Intel quad easily wins.

http://www.game-debate.com/news/22457/amd-zen-2-pinnacle-ridge-ryzen-successor-on-target-for-early-2018-launch

Ryzen 2 due early 2018. Ryzen 3 early 2019. Claims all will use AM4 socket. Talking 5-15% jump on Ryzen 2.All guess work really. 2nd generation will likely improve on Zen. So expect Intel and AMD to keep fighting it out here for next 2 years.

It's the old how long do you hold off upgrading? Always something else to wait for. 2nd/3rd generation should overclock better? 4ghz is not bad considering 6-12 months back they were worried about hitting 3-3.2ghz.

A Q6600 cannot handle modern games, it is far too slow. Any modern dual core annihilates it.

Buying more slower cores is only useful if you actually need more cores. Everyone else is better off with fewer faster ones. Within 5-6 years you usually end up with a chip with half the cores winning against the old one so you upgrade then anyway.

Yes, saw those benches. The 6850K is 3.6/4.0 while 6900K is 3.5/4.0 so it looks like a lot of tasks don't scale. I guess taking only the Broadwell-E (and ignoring Skylake/Kabylake as it has a different IPC) it should be easy to see what threads well.


So HDR Creation seems to not be well-threaded as the 6850K is faster than the 6900K (but it uses more than 1 core or they'd both be on their 1C boost of 4.0GHz).

Photomerge is a bit more threaded, as the 6900K is faster, same for General Actions.

I think the Adobe code is generally not that well threaded despite them doing this for decades (I remember in the 1990s seeing the £1000s DSP NuBus accelerator boards for 68K Macs).

But the other question is what about third-party plugins? Anyone using a specific, slow Photoshop plugin would be well advised to try and find someone who has benched it.

I personally think that for workstation usage the 4C/8T i7-7700K will eventually be limited, although especially with a modest overclock (I would value stability for productive uses and that CPU has no ECC) it should be reasonably fast. So I'd want at least 6+ cores. For just the shown Photoshop results, the 6800K might be a good choice and the CPU is about the same price as the Ryzen 7 1700X but LGA2011v3 boards are more expensive and for other tasks it will be slower.

personally think amd have screwed up the launch of these chips bigtime, only a tiny percent of the market will pay this sort of money for "non optimised " kit they should of lauynched the new am4 + quadcores to match i6600@ £300 all in, get people buzzed, too many dissapointed folk out there bitten by bulldoze etc a big splash was needed and those in charge of larger corporate purchases won't waste time when intel have held the market for soo long.

They should some easy fixes and improvements for Ryzen 2 informed from the engineering samples they got back over the last 6-12 months and AMD actually have pretty good record at iterative improvements. For example Phenom vs Phenom was a big jump, and especially Bulldozer vs Piledriver and Excavator (at which stage Zen was close to so they never released at FX desktop part). And for the 'Dozer designs their resource allocation and budget would not have been that high, whereas Zen is very important to them.

All CPU designs are about compromises as even Intel with their extra deep pockets cannot include everything at once. The biggest compromise with Ryzen (Zen1) seems the speed of the CCX interconnect which has hurting their performance in Windows (10 at least, Win7 seems better) as Windows' scheduler seems to love moving threads between cores. A higher bandwidth interconnect should be easy for Zen2 (although the current limit was probably not designed because of the 2 CCX version like Ryzen 7, but maybe thinking ahead how making it wider would make Naples with 8 CCXs too big).

Well, the launch suffered from motherboard not being ready (and there are still many outstanding BIOS issues especially with trying to run 4 DIMMs at a decent speed etc.), plus of course the Windows 10 scheduler.

If AMD had more resources they could have launched a good stable reference motherboard but board partners had the AM4 specs since last year and there were already Excavator-based APUs for it for big OEMs.

But AMD don't have huge resources, and there were always going to be teething issues. So launching high-end desktop / workstation was probably the correct approach. They just shouldn't have said anything about gaming. Then later when everything is more polished, launch the Ryzen 5 and 3 stack. While Ryzen's IPC for games is lower than Skylake/Kabylake it's not that bad. But the process the used is probably limited to 4.0GHz (at least for now) and the tests done by The Stilt over on the AT forums, show at at 3GHz or lower it is very very efficient.

They should've capitalised on the hype and expectation by launching R5 at a lower price point. It'll be very difficult for them to recover from this setback and even if they manage to set things right they'll struggle to gain market share. First impressions matter a lot and AMD blew it.

The reason they launched the highest end 8 cores first was probably to avoid day one comparisons to Skylake and Kaby Lake X which is due in the summer. Broadwell-E and specifically X99 is old.

You're seeing brand new Ryzen chips and AM4 up against years old Intel architecture and platform. Skylake X is going to add at least 15 percent onto everything you see Broadwell do, likely more if they ramp the clocks which they will.

​Probably a good idea, never going to be cost effective to buy a new CPU every generation.

The pretty obvious reason was time and money. High-end parts earn you the most margin. But I think the main reason was simply to get it to market. Even if AMD had enough R5 and R3 parts ready (which wouldn't happen) there are just not enough motherboards about.

Sadly unlike Apple they can't sit on a product forever until they have full stock availability before launching. They launched simply to put some cash in the till.

It seems they had to decide whether they had the production capacity for volume mainstream parts and they didn't, but that wasn't a mystery. They even moved the launch forward a little bit and made a concerted PR push to compare these chips to Broadwell-E.

Any 8 core at this point is a halo product with decent margins. One would imagine they want confirmation bias to filter down to the mainstream before the launch of those parts. It's a fairly typical strategy and only sensible for AMD when they know Broadwell-E isn't a million miles from end of life.

Watch the entire video:
Ryzen - The Tech Press Loses The Plot

i7 7700k destroy all ryzen in games and it's cheaper, so NO, you don't have to pay another 300-500.

on scan computers get it and pay within 9 months then no interest. Good way

I7-7700K Cheaper? £329 compared to the Ryzen 1700 £319 RRP £301 - 306 in certain stockists. The issue is the Ryzen release was rushed. At present motherboard stability due to manufacturer lacking sufficient time to program the BIOS (CMOS) correctly, Microsoft WIndows 10 & games lacking optimisations, and shortage of cheap high level components (i.e. 3200hz memory) or the mainboards themselves. With a complete radical new architecture there are normally hiccups, and I remember loads with Intel, and Nvidia but that is the problem with early adoption for the consumer as they come to terms with a new product.

If consumers hold off purchasing the product for a month (or two if you want the Ryzen 5) you should see stable architecture with improvements in performance (10% or so) due to Microsoft releasing their optimisation for gaming, and AMD hopefully with a new stepping of their processor and chipset in the future, and working in partnership with motherboard manufacturers their product will see higher clocked 4 to 6* Core processors to compete against the I7700K and future Intel processors.

Buy and return a 99p processor in the box

Where can I buy a Sock cooler. I hate hot feet.

I managed to get a offer with 325quids via Flubit

I paid for mine on amazon pre-order back in 2015.

£155 what a steal that was compared to todays crazy prices.

Good deal for a cracking CPU.

This thread isn't worth the debate though, if you want decent conversation with informed view points (apparently 1 YouTube video doesn't account for gospel in the real world) take it over to Anandtech.

Waste of breath trying to convince people one is better than the other and if they want to keep investing in a dead socket, let them.

not sure it(comparisons) would of mattered, by the time this is a mature product that will be happening anyway.
Desktop PC market is bound to be shrinking at a far old rate, not many people have them in homes now, only the enthusiast and corporate market to consider and imo the way forward was get into the second via the first.
Personally after the dirty tricks intel pulled, amd should have got support/subsidies from their government to flog these out at a minimal profit and screwed up intels entire stock of consumer chips :smile:

Dunno why people are arguing about Ryzen.

Everyone has a 2500K. Still no need to upgrade. Check back in another 6 years.

I find these fights "Intel/AMD is better" funny and silly at the same time. I my opinion the BEST thing is that Intel has competition now! AMD's Ryzen core is on par (+-10%) with Intel's core, and prices are already dropping.

It will be exciting to watch how both will try to segment the market. Are we going to see Intel without iGPUs? Intel 8 core desktop CPUs? AMD server CPUs? More innovation?

AMD server CPUs are back and look like beasts!

8 channel memory, 32 cores:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=PN93G6Rg2ek

20 pounds cheaper than at launch good find a op and great cpu!

Competition is good for the consumer and businesses (usually), as a resurgent AMD has pressurized Intel into fundamental prices cuts to their processor line-up. Without a product to challenge Intel's dominance, both enterprise (server) and consumer market has stagnated with only marginal incremental improvements (clock frequency) through building upon a mature architecture. Whilst this isn't a bad thing, especially as it ensure stability and compatibility as a result the consumer had to pay higher prices for a slight performance gain.


As a person that has adopted Cyrix, IDT, VIA, AMD and of course Intel processors, seeing AMD return to the market with a competitive new architecture should encourage the PC and Console market to evolve and improve, especially to cater for VR technology. At least the consumer is starting to see the adoption and release of affordable Octa-core, Hexa-core outside the server market. Also this summer we should see IPS / PLS and OLED 4K (and 8K) Panels, HDR and of course the graphics card by NVIDIA / AMD with processor power to run monitors at a 4K native resolution at frequencies above 100hz or more. So it's going to be an exciting year!

I'm not sure why that person thinks it's worth the extra £190 to get that 7700K. :/

Just get a normal £311 7700K, and you've got much better gaming performance than the £320 Ryzen 1700. You don't need 5GHz to have a great-performing 7700K - certainly not at nearly twice the cost.

I'm as disappointed with Ryzen's launch as anyone else (more so, probably - I'm a big fan of AMD CPUs, loved my XP-M 2500+ and Opty 165, and would have 100% bought a Ryzen CPU last week if reviews and benchmarks had been better). Hopefully it will improve. But it's also funny going back and re-reading some Bulldozer reviews, too. There are some startling similarities, right down to the SMT patch, and some of the comments are almost word for word with the people defending Ryzen's results today.

Bulldozer was completely different, they were hardware limitation and was DOA, Ryzen is software and microcode, the issues will be resolved.

The whole situation is lacking any perspective at all.

Should we all talk about the HT issues Intel had on launch, or the busted TSX function of Haswell/Broadwell (one of their main selling points)?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8376/intel-disables-tsx-instructions-erratum-found-in-haswell-haswelleep-broadwelly

If you want to buy one, do so. If you don't want to, don't. It's all very simple.

No, the SMT situation with Bulldozer was a software problem - the clue was, it was patched. (You can't patch hardware, FYI :wink:)

It's not a 1:1 situation with Ryzen's SMT issues now, but certainly a funny coincidence - along with Ryzen's relative strengths and weaknesses, and the fanboys all chanting that it'll definitely be great in time. You're right - the fanboys don't have any perspective at all. There's no "definitely" about it. Equally, just because Bulldozer had similar strengths and weaknesses, doesn't mean Ryzen is a guaranteed failure, either. This time next month, maybe it will have caught up with Intel's chips for gaming.

Or maybe next year.

Or in five years...

Don't trust companies and their marketing departments - they're not your friends, so don't listen to their promises.

1700 is overall THE best cpu on the market ATM, followed by this 1700x. Heat added

Think I'll stick with my i5 2400

wow what a load rubbish ...

The ryzen 5 and 3 are derived from non functioning ccxs .. so you have to wait for the six and 4 core variants .

The launch was not botched. Amd Itself hasn't done much wrong. The mobo makers have had issues, Microsoft has had issues with w10. how is that AMD's problem. Is there issues - yes. are they resolvable - yes .

There actually needs atm (with the current issues) no microcode update.

Unless you have a intel mobo (which can take another generation at least) then stay with intel. Otherwise the 7700 is dead in the water. Its an old backward product which yes has high clocks and ipc but LACKS CORES.

There is no need for that many cores or threads unless you have a real use for them. 2nd gen cpu died many years ago, but that didnt stop users from using it, and if you push it hard on oc it still can compete with newer gen cpu in most tasks. Socket 1151 will still go strong for couple years with easy, especially when amd shares are falling now!

I would say 16c/32t is more than most need.. 8c/16t is average especially if they can run in low power modes and down to 16w or less .. 4 cores seriously is PANTS .. OH AND PANTS AGAIN ..

Many system and other tasks need threads but are low ipc and usage values, and like games bursty. As i've said before just because your fave game only uses 4 or 2 cores doesn't mean you don't actually need more cores.

I wasn't talking about SMT, please stop trying to be a smart ass.

I was talking about the architecture as a whole, the poor design and IPC made the chip DOA, the same isn't true with Ryzen.

Plus, as you failed to comment on, it's not as if AMD are alone in teething issues largely driven by third parties outside of their control. Intel also fk things up, and in the case of HT they managed to get it over the line, in the case of TSX that was broken at silicon level and had to be completely disabled - on that front you're wrong, they fixed their chip with firmware by DISABLING the broken feature.

Nothing is "broken" with Ryzen, games need optimising for better threading (that's something nobody should be resisting), and MS need to update W10 to fix THEIR code. BIOS updates will mature and memory clocks will raise... It's not rocket science, it's a whole new architecture, new socket, new platform entirely.

If you were expecting seamless transition that's your own fault. Even with all that said, it still performs very well indeed.

Like i said, don't buy it.

1151 is dead after Kaby. I briefly considered a 7700k from my 4770k and then realised I'm investing money in the past.

6 cores/threads should be the minimum now really, with streaming etc to bear in mind. I will deffo go Ryzen when my 5820k goes

And this is why...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5ybmq3/video_r7_1700_running_multiple_games_at_the_same/

Hmm, I like it!
...or wait ...is pointy haired boss now expecting results in half the time?!? Maybe I don't like it after all :laughing:

There wount be future upgrades for that socket, but still plenty of benefits over your 1150 socket. If you manage to survive with your 4770k for that long time, cant see why could you do same with 7700k.

I use the same judgement there as I do here.

Why didn't I comment on it here? Because it's entirely irrelevant to today's gaming performance - no, wait, entirely irrelevant to performance in general. I wasn't criticising AMD for having issues at launch - you were. I'm looking at the gaming performance on Ryzen and seeing that the i7-7700K leaves every available Ryzen CPU far behind. Which company is behind the best chip doesn't matter to me, although it apparently matters to you - another Ferrari-esque comment which sadly shows your hand. :wink:

Oh, yeah, coding games to use more threads is as simple as that. :smile: John Carmack, is that you?

That does seem to be the consensus of the reviews in terms of gaming, true. Don't buy Ryzen.

Hopefully they'll do better with Ryzen 5. They've lost against the 7700K, but I could still see them beating the 7600K.

​Apart from Athlon 64 and now these? I STILL don't even need to upgrade from a 4 year old FX6300 to play any modern game at dull tilt with a GTX 1060 anyway :sunglasses:

man i ordered sometime ago noctua fans that yellowish collor and industrial ones arrived...

These are amazingly powerful chips. They can even make a robot act like a human (watch the following and check the message at 2m17s!)

https://youtu.be/kycXcflQJx4

I won't be drawn in to debate. Sorry.

7700k is a limited one trick pony, enjoy your slice of the past. I'm looking for something bigger.

That's probably the best attitude for your people to have for the time being, as the facts really don't help you at all. Maybe your favourite company in the whole wide world will do better soon, though. Stay optimistic! :smiley:

hhghbbhnbhlnnl. llgbvhb.by a why ghy tyugyyyyyygytyugyyyyyygyya

I have ordered one via flubit and received an used cpu... open box with thermal paste on it... beware!