EDIT: Price has now increased to €386,20 + €5.57 = £341.
Unable to expire or modify any further.
- Uncommon.Sense
Top comments
djames108
19 Mar 1715#2
perhaps the 1st sentence describes you? :smile:
Gkains to tempt
19 Mar 177#5
Could you say the same for the i7-7700K?
Still overpriced for a one trick pony (i.e. crazy max FSPs rates for lightly threaded games running at 720P).
There are plenty of things these 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs are good for not just Cinebench. Just as there are plenty of things where the Intel i7-6950K is better than the i7-7700K (aside from the price).
As always it depends on what you want from your CPU. If you only game and as long as those aren't something really well threaded, then the i7-7700K (especially with it's near 1GHz max clock advantage) is probably a better bet. But even games are slowly getting more threaded and 4C/8T can be near the limit when running BF1 especially if you also want to stream. Although DICE managed to mitigate BF1 problems with 4C/8T with their DX12 implementations so that the i7-7700K no longer gets beaten by Ryzen or the Intel LGA2011 HEDT chips.
BetaRomeo
19 Mar 176#1
This is usually the part where a couple of defensive Ryzen pre-orderers claim that anyone with anything remotely negative to say about Ryzen must not have bought AMD CPUs 10 years ago... (no, I can't see the relevance either! And I've been buying AMD CPUs for 20 years!), and when it's pointed out that most reviews had some negative comments, respond that all the poor benchmarks will be fixed... sometime in the future (no, they probably won't).
Anyway, ignoring unprofessional comments from hardware amateurs for the moment, the common negative points mentioned by professional reviewers are the poor overclocking on the 1700X, the relatively poor gaming performance, and the poor price/performance if buying for gaming or certain productivity tasks (e.g. Photoshop).
£327 offsets the "overpriced" comments a great deal, however... but is it really worth any extra over the 1700, which seems to overclock better to match this chip (and the 1800X) anyway? Either way, for gaming, the cheaper i5-7600K would be better if you're looking to save money, and the i7-7700K would be better if this is exactly how much money you're looking to spend!
jaydeeuk1
19 Mar 174#15
No you don't need to monitor, people posting new deals with updated prices are doing that for you, hence current situation works perfectly.
All comments (58)
BetaRomeo
19 Mar 176#1
This is usually the part where a couple of defensive Ryzen pre-orderers claim that anyone with anything remotely negative to say about Ryzen must not have bought AMD CPUs 10 years ago... (no, I can't see the relevance either! And I've been buying AMD CPUs for 20 years!), and when it's pointed out that most reviews had some negative comments, respond that all the poor benchmarks will be fixed... sometime in the future (no, they probably won't).
Anyway, ignoring unprofessional comments from hardware amateurs for the moment, the common negative points mentioned by professional reviewers are the poor overclocking on the 1700X, the relatively poor gaming performance, and the poor price/performance if buying for gaming or certain productivity tasks (e.g. Photoshop).
£327 offsets the "overpriced" comments a great deal, however... but is it really worth any extra over the 1700, which seems to overclock better to match this chip (and the 1800X) anyway? Either way, for gaming, the cheaper i5-7600K would be better if you're looking to save money, and the i7-7700K would be better if this is exactly how much money you're looking to spend!
djames108
19 Mar 1715#2
perhaps the 1st sentence describes you? :smile:
groenleader
19 Mar 171#3
I have never been a fan to "benchmark beating". Just like Chinese and US universities that changed aims to do well in reviews by targeting the benchmarks, out of context rather then the quality of the education as whole.
Still seems like the Intel CPUs have the edge?
tempt
19 Mar 173#4
Still overpriced for a one trick pony (i.e. cinebench).
Gkains to tempt
19 Mar 177#5
Could you say the same for the i7-7700K?
Still overpriced for a one trick pony (i.e. crazy max FSPs rates for lightly threaded games running at 720P).
There are plenty of things these 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs are good for not just Cinebench. Just as there are plenty of things where the Intel i7-6950K is better than the i7-7700K (aside from the price).
As always it depends on what you want from your CPU. If you only game and as long as those aren't something really well threaded, then the i7-7700K (especially with it's near 1GHz max clock advantage) is probably a better bet. But even games are slowly getting more threaded and 4C/8T can be near the limit when running BF1 especially if you also want to stream. Although DICE managed to mitigate BF1 problems with 4C/8T with their DX12 implementations so that the i7-7700K no longer gets beaten by Ryzen or the Intel LGA2011 HEDT chips.
GwanGy
19 Mar 17#6
These sound like they'd do well in video encoding ... The prices are still set for fans of amd tho, I expect they will drop after initial enthusiasm wanes ??
And 4K. (Yes, that's an overclocked 1700 vs a stock 7700K.)
More "FSPs" across the board, it seems, not to mention the other applications where it wins out. :stuck_out_tongue: It seems your comment about "720P" revealed more about you than about the 7700K. :wink:
Read the link in my first comment if you want the opinions of several professionals about how much Ryzen will catch up over the next few years.
Bigspin
19 Mar 171#8
if you play games @ 4k, Ryzen is totally fine. however if you are fan of stone age 1080p then Ryzen is not for you.
Rhythmeister to Bigspin
19 Mar 171#39
Stone age? Are there any 4K monitors out there which will give me that res and 144Hz refresh rate?
d3k to Bigspin
23 Mar 17#53
No it's not. Simply because gpu bottleneck. You getting nearly equal results in 4k because of it. Gpu just cant go any higher. But if you get a better gpu next year you'll see exactly the same ryzen disadvantage in games as you can see in 1800p now. That's why cpu benchmarks are done in low res and settings - to exclude gpu out of the equation. Than you can measure cpu's performance in games.
In other words all 4k game benchmarks give you fake results at the moment.
The_Hoff
19 Mar 172#9
From someone that actually owns a 1700, I'd recommend the 1700X at this price but note the lack of stock fan. Make sure whatever cooler you buy has an AM4 mount, Noctua are worth a look.
As for benchmarks, not getting in to it. Buy whatever fits your usage, if you want an older platform with more gaming focus choose Intel. If you want a slice of the future and you want a platform that has 3/4 years of CPU's for it, go AMD.
My 1700 is running at 3.9ghz on the stock fan with 3260mhz RAM nicely and isn't a toaster like a 7700k that would need a delid.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
Idealo: £360.10 @Ballicom / £363.79 @Amazon https://m.idealo.co.uk/compare/5406078/amd-ryzen-7-1700x.html
Product
Product Type: 8 Core Processor
Series: AMD Ryzen
Socket: Socket Am4
Processor
Clock Speed: 3,400 Mhz
Number of Processing Cores: 8
Number of Threads: 16
Clock Frequency: 3.4 GHz
Turbo-CORE: yes
Max. Turbo Frequency: 3.8 GHz
Processor Code Name: Summit Ridge
TDP: 95 Watt
Manufacturing Process: 14 nm
Memory
L3 Cache: 16,384 KB
Additional Information
Manufacturer: AMD
Feature: SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading), x86-64, AMD-V, AMD VT, Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX), Advanced Vector Extensions 2.0 (AVX2), NX-Bit, TBT 3.0, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD PowerNow, FMA3, FMA4
EDIT: Price has now increased to €386,20 + €5.57 = £341.
Unable to expire or modify any further.
- Uncommon.Sense
Top comments
Still overpriced for a one trick pony (i.e. crazy max FSPs rates for lightly threaded games running at 720P).
There are plenty of things these 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs are good for not just Cinebench. Just as there are plenty of things where the Intel i7-6950K is better than the i7-7700K (aside from the price).
As always it depends on what you want from your CPU. If you only game and as long as those aren't something really well threaded, then the i7-7700K (especially with it's near 1GHz max clock advantage) is probably a better bet. But even games are slowly getting more threaded and 4C/8T can be near the limit when running BF1 especially if you also want to stream. Although DICE managed to mitigate BF1 problems with 4C/8T with their DX12 implementations so that the i7-7700K no longer gets beaten by Ryzen or the Intel LGA2011 HEDT chips.
Anyway, ignoring unprofessional comments from hardware amateurs for the moment, the common negative points mentioned by professional reviewers are the poor overclocking on the 1700X, the relatively poor gaming performance, and the poor price/performance if buying for gaming or certain productivity tasks (e.g. Photoshop).
£327 offsets the "overpriced" comments a great deal, however... but is it really worth any extra over the 1700, which seems to overclock better to match this chip (and the 1800X) anyway? Either way, for gaming, the cheaper i5-7600K would be better if you're looking to save money, and the i7-7700K would be better if this is exactly how much money you're looking to spend!
All comments (58)
Anyway, ignoring unprofessional comments from hardware amateurs for the moment, the common negative points mentioned by professional reviewers are the poor overclocking on the 1700X, the relatively poor gaming performance, and the poor price/performance if buying for gaming or certain productivity tasks (e.g. Photoshop).
£327 offsets the "overpriced" comments a great deal, however... but is it really worth any extra over the 1700, which seems to overclock better to match this chip (and the 1800X) anyway? Either way, for gaming, the cheaper i5-7600K would be better if you're looking to save money, and the i7-7700K would be better if this is exactly how much money you're looking to spend!
Still seems like the Intel CPUs have the edge?
Still overpriced for a one trick pony (i.e. crazy max FSPs rates for lightly threaded games running at 720P).
There are plenty of things these 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs are good for not just Cinebench. Just as there are plenty of things where the Intel i7-6950K is better than the i7-7700K (aside from the price).
As always it depends on what you want from your CPU. If you only game and as long as those aren't something really well threaded, then the i7-7700K (especially with it's near 1GHz max clock advantage) is probably a better bet. But even games are slowly getting more threaded and 4C/8T can be near the limit when running BF1 especially if you also want to stream. Although DICE managed to mitigate BF1 problems with 4C/8T with their DX12 implementations so that the i7-7700K no longer gets beaten by Ryzen or the Intel LGA2011 HEDT chips.
And 1440P.
And 4K. (Yes, that's an overclocked 1700 vs a stock 7700K.)
More "FSPs" across the board, it seems, not to mention the other applications where it wins out. :stuck_out_tongue: It seems your comment about "720P" revealed more about you than about the 7700K. :wink:
Read the link in my first comment if you want the opinions of several professionals about how much Ryzen will catch up over the next few years.
In other words all 4k game benchmarks give you fake results at the moment.
As for benchmarks, not getting in to it. Buy whatever fits your usage, if you want an older platform with more gaming focus choose Intel. If you want a slice of the future and you want a platform that has 3/4 years of CPU's for it, go AMD.
My 1700 is running at 3.9ghz on the stock fan with 3260mhz RAM nicely and isn't a toaster like a 7700k that would need a delid.