​perhaps the 1st sentence describes you? :smile:

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.

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!

No you don't need to monitor, people posting new deals with updated prices are doing that for you, hence current situation works perfectly.

Wow, it's dropped down to 349.99 Euros again! So £299.33 + £5.48 Shipping @ Amazon.fr £304.81 :wink:

Back down from 410 to 359.90 Euros, which equates to £308.46 + £5.48 Shipping @ Amazon.fr £313.94 :smiley:

At this price, why would anyone go for a 1700?

Price down to 349.99 Euros now! So around £302.66 :confused:

if you play games @ 4k, Ryzen is totally fine. however if you are fan of stone age 1080p then Ryzen is not for you.

There's little point in even having this conversation. You're comparing a chip with half the cores and looking at loaded wattage? It has more cores, it will use more energy, very simple. Compare it to the HEDT Intel chips, otherwise wait for the R5 and then compare it to the 5700/6700/7700K.

If I had a data centre and I happened to be running full tilt on OCed chips, I might care.

Here's a better example:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review/11/

But what i said is still factually correct, theres no denying it. :smiley:
I picked on the 1800x because it is the best performing yet lowest power at idle.

Even idle load on an OC'd 1700 is 44.7w (less than any of the intels on that chart).
There again, very rare i OC these days anyway, uses more power for arguably marginal gains and less stability!

Oh, I see it! Thank you!

No, you're looking at the 1800X when we were talking about the overclocked 1700. That's why you confused me.

I'm not sure why that point has gone over the heads of two people now. I'll say it three more times, just to make it clear:

OVERCLOCKED 1700.
OVERCLOCKED 1700.
OVERCLOCKED 1700.

Hope that helps to improve your ability to read + look at charts. :wink:

Yes, perhaps you have spent too much time reading useless articles and not relying on common sense + a small amount of research + looking at the chart that was posted to determine it, dont need to read any articles!.:smile:

With your laptop/PC with HUKD webpage open, have a look at how much your CPU is being used. 1%?
Here is my secondary laptop, with outlook open and some folders and 2 webpages.

[img][/img]

So, assuming your PC isnt going to be gaming 24/7 every time it is being used, looking at the chart posted above
- the Ryzen 1800X is using 37.6watts
- the i7 7700k is using 47.4 watts.

So a 10 watt difference between the two, which will add up over time. Depending wildly upon your usage (if you 90% use the PC for basic tasks and 10% use it for gaming for example), you could end up using less power on the AMD processor than the intel.

Price has now gone up to £341, unable to expire.

I'm sorry, I can't quite see where you're getting that "10w/ph" figure from..? Or the web surfing / word processing figures? (Might be screen blindness on my part, sorry! I've seen so many baseless, sourceless lies in these Ryzen deals that I'm trying not to be paranoid that comments like these are just conjecture based on nothing! :wink:)

Er, come again? If you're never going to use your CPU at load for any amount of time, why bother spending £330 on a CPU?

Or are you suggesting that I was suggesting that CPUs only ever run at load? What an embarrassing strawman. :confused:

No, you've confused your processors and clock speeds. We were talking about the overclocked 1700, not the stock 1800X. Here's the article (yes, it's not the one you linked to and claimed was the article I'd referenced!), you can see they said it clearly:"At stock settings, the Ryzen 7 1700 system draws 108 watts but when overclocked, that peaks at 214 watts! That’s a gain of 106 watts over the 65-watt TDP that the part is rated at."

No, you've confused your processors and clock speeds. We were talking about the overclocked 1700, not the stock 1800X. Don't you understand that the whole point of the comment was that overclocking considerably changes things?

Right... so you did know that we were talking about overclocking. So why direct all those paragraphs about stock performance/watt at me? :neutral_face:

Apart from anything else, your assumption that the 7700K would require a similar wattage boost is simply wrong - it's roughly a 30W increase to 4.8GHz (compared to over 100W on the 1700 at 4GHz).

No, you've confused your processors and clock speeds. We were talking about the overclocked 1700, not the stock 1700 vs the 1800X.

Thank you very much for the paragraphs about a different topic, though. If you fancy responding to the actual point, please, be my guest. Maybe leave the strawmen out of it this time, though? :wink:

Eh, that's strange. I linked to that article in the first comment in this deal. Didn't you get past page one? They drew some rather different conclusions from the one you imply in your rather dubiously-picked quote. For example, starting with the paragraph that follows your pick:





And the final sentence...


Despite those doom and gloom quotes I've intentionally picked out to show why your chosen quote was misleading, the article isn't completely negative about Ryzen - but they are quite clear that the benefits of Ryzen for gaming are going to be the exception, not the norm:


It's still worth reading through the whole thing, IMO, as there are other positives and negatives for Ryzen discussed, but the idea that it paints a rosy picture for today's Ryzen chips overall..? I'm not sure how even a non-technical native English speaker could draw that conclusion. Heck, Ars' Ryzen review subtitle said it all:

I think the telling thing is their similar benchmark article about Photoshop and multi-core performance where they took a 10C/20T Xeon:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/
Unbelievable that after decades*, Photoshop mostly still doesn't scale past two cores.
I guess it is possible that some specific third-party filters do scale well, but haven't seen any benchmarks for that.
Of course, it seems that photo editing isn't as parallel as I though - or not easily at any rate - as GIMP on Linux doesn't scale well either:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=6
a very similar story: 2-4 cores and a high clock are all that matter.

*Anyone who remembers the 1990s where Mac Photoshop users were willing to spend £1000s on NuBus and later PCI DSP accelerators to gain a bit of extra speed from certain filters would probably be surprised that nearly three decades later so many Photoshop functions don't take advantage of the hardware.

My 7700K 5Ghz does every thing i need it to do! lol

Idle power makes up for it. 10w/ph less, assuming the CPU isnt going to be running at full load continuously, i think it will even out to be about the same power usage (if you account for normal PC usage such as web surfing and word processing etc.)

Sensible article on gaming with Ryzen Info

No, I didn't pre-order Ryzen..? And considering the reviews, I haven't subsequently bought a Ryzen chip, either. The main performance concern on my PCs would be gaming.

These processors are great for gaming, anyone that says otherwise is clueless. Its the same as saying the 6700k, 6600k, 2600k, etc, etc, are poor for gaming - nonsense. The 2500k and 2600k have been perfectly fine as gaming CPUs for the last 6 years, and even older CPUs are still fine for 1080p gaming.

Just because they're not the fastest doesn't mean they're not good for gaming. If your new PC build is CPU bound for gaming you're doing it wrong.

Wrong.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/

Hate it when people cite the future (DX12, better multi-threaded gaming design) etc etc. Fact is everyone was underwhelmed by the gaming performance of these chips. Great if you're doing some number grinding or encoding, but if it's gaming or a mix of them, then it's difficult to exchange fps loss in gaming for a few seconds made up on encoding.

These chips are nicely priced and fill in a market gap, but the wow factor has all but disappeared.

People are really leaning on the extra core and thread count. It's literally only part of the picture, the intels core clocks and per core performance are still making them very suitable in real world applications.

The thing is the Windows OS isn't even optimized properly to make use of all of the CPU cores on Ryzen. Once that update comes I think we will see a difference in all of the benchmarks.

Which also includes the 99% of the CPU's already in the world that are not 7th Gen Intel CPU's. I guess people will just wait for some GPU's to be made compatible, and hopefully more browsers.

Can't wait for Ryzen 5 because it's more suited for gamers and also within my budget :smiley:

Ryzen is not a consideration if you want to use the PC for 4K streaming or with 4K UHD drives because both as of now only work wih Intel CPUs.

I wonder if everything will even be sorted by then. Obviously some the BIOS's were getting almost daily updates so that should be mostly sorted, but looking at some of the performance variations reviewers had (especially with games) with SMT on/off, memory clocks, Windows power saving etc.
While Ryzen would really like a change to the Windows scheduler (for the Ryzen's with more than one CCX), it looks like Microsoft said no to that. However, a power profile might do, if these Project Cars results are any indication:

My guess is people are going to argue that these Ryzen 5 chips, even the high end ones, can only fairly be compared to the 7600k due to the £300+ price of the 7700k.

I'd forgotten about Ryzen not having an iGPU, that pretty much means it's only for the enthusiast market. OEMs won't care until the APUs come out and they can use one chip for CPU and graphics.

As you say, Ryzen 5 must perform competitively in 1080p and 1440p gaming, the resolution people actually play at (which is still mainly 1080p). There's no hiding behind being "designed for 4k gaming" or any other excuse to move the bottleneck to the GPU when you're talking about systems with ~£200 CPUs.

Roll on April 11th; all will become clear, I'm sure.

Er, come again? Ever heard of race to idle?
That's the max power while running Cinebench, so from the same PCPer review, you forgot to include a rather important metric, what each CPU scores:


The Ryzen 7 1800X scores about 166% of the i7-7700k's scores, but only uses 120% of the power (both running at stock) making the Ryzen a lot more efficient at this task. In fact, for efficiency for CineBench (CB per Watt) Ryzen is only beaten by Intel's i7-6950X which has 10C/20T and lists at $1,723. Here's the summary of those two PCPer results against each other:


Now overclocking does of course change that but that will apply to all the other CPUs too. Yes, the Ryzen platform is still a bit immature (wonder if some beancounter at AMD stopped them spending money on getting the Excavator based Bristol Ridge into retail; if they had then there wouldn't have been this crazy motherboard shortage for Ryzen like now), but perf/watt is no longer something AMD have to worry about.

Higher clock speeds would of course be nice as at 5GHz, Ryzen would be a lot better for games but the current GF process is really not suited for high speeds. So much so, that I would imagine the Ryzen 7 1700 running at stock would get a lot better CB/watt than the 1700X or the 1800X. Bodes well Ryzen as a server or mobile chip, but less so for playing poorly threaded games (Fallout4 with lots of scripted mods seems to be one of the worst).

The real question for high-clocking Ryzen is whether AMD have another process they can use as the Samsung/GlobalFoundries 14nm LPP is not meant for high frequencies and its ideal clock is below 3.3GHz (The ideal frequency range for the process or the design (as a whole) appears to be 2.1 - 3.3GHz (25mV per 100MHz). Above this region (>= 3.3GHz) the voltage scaling gradually deteriorates to 40 - 100mV+ per 100MHz.see this thread[/url]):

As I said for server or mobile this LPP is probably about as good as can be, but for desktop the LPE would be better. But whether AMD consider that worth their while ATM is another question. Probably from a pure sales point of view it is not, but then they tend to ignore the effect a halo 5GHz Ryzen part would have on their other sales.

Yeah, realistically the 4C/8T and 6C/12T are aimed squarely at the gaming enthusiasts just like the 7600 and 7770K are at their price point and unlocked multipliers.

None of these Ryzens have integrated graphics so it's absolutely NOT for the wide OEM market. They have to actually perform in games 1080p-1440p and overclock, no excuses.

Looking at this vs 7700k, mixed reviews on this and all seems to be positive for the i7, mainly needed for photo editing etc!

Yes, and there's no convincing argument that the 6 and 4 core Ryzen 5 chips aren't aimed squarely at gamers; they don't have the thread count for for massively multi-threaded professional workloads and "normal" consumers don't buy CPUs with that much power, because they simply don't need them. In terms of PC hardware, in this case CPUs, the market between professionals and "normal" consumers is often higher end PC gamers.

At this point, I'm inclined to agree that I don't think AMD can get these CPUs to reliably clock much higher that ~4Ghz using normal air or water cooling. Obviously, I'd be happy for April 11th to roll around and end up looking like a fool for being totally wrong; a 4.4 or 4.5Ghz, SMT enabled, 4 or 6 core chip for between £170 and £250 (judging by AMD's USD figures for Ryzen 5) would be fantastic for AMD and consumers alike.

The overclocking is a problem if it is aimed at gaming enthusiasts. I don't think Ryzen is a very well refined architecture and could struggle to go beyond 4GHz on any Ryzen chip. The lower clocks of even the 4 core versions seems to be a very early indicator of AMD's problems binning faster chips. It could be a major problem for the future of the design too, unless lots of silicon revisions can improve it significantly.

If you can get the 6 cores consistently to like 4.2-4.4GHz then it'll be the best compromise of multi thread and single thread performance for a mainstream price. If you can get the 4 cores to like 4.5ghz then that would be respectable if not scorching. If you can't, then alarm bells will start to ring for all the mainstream parts and future of the architecture.

Unless you know you NEED 8 cores you just don't. Virtually nobody does for home use.

The best Ryzen for the mainstream consumer could potentially be the 1600. IF it isn't too much more than £200 in the UK and IF it over clocks higher than these 8 core parts. Two condition TBD. Then it'll be a bargain.

Otherwise forget it and buy intel for home desktop use.

Holy crap, the HUKD web engineer needs to get this website performance fixed. Comments made at the time of Bulldozer's release are only just starting to show up! :confused:

Just make sure you budget extra for your electricity bill this month...



Nearly double the load power consumption of the 7700K... :confused:

I think anyone thinking about buying these needs to consider how early this platform is in its life cycle and any comparisons should probably wait until the other AMD chips are out and the prices from both companies settle.

if you play games on 1080p at 144hz this is not for hows every 1440p and 4k should be ok

No you don't need to monitor, people posting new deals with updated prices are doing that for you, hence current situation works perfectly.

Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realise I had to monitor it every minute, I updated it yesterday, and again today. After I had my price drop notification, in the e-mail that I don't check every single minute, my bad.. oops.

The latest price drop was updated on that thread only after the OP posted this deal. Do you expect people to not post new deals just because there is another thread at a higher price?

I'm not a thread abandoner (new word I just invented) like a lot of folk around here, if you looked you will see that I've updated it three times to reflect the decreasing prices from the same supplier.

It was a lot higher when you posted your thread.

Duplicate of my thread here - http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/amd-ryzen-1700x-cpu-327-from-amazon-fr-2627110?p=30290390

No idea why people cannot use the blooming search function tbh.

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.

Well, it also beats out Ryzen at 1080P.

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.

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 ??

Still overpriced for a one trick pony (i.e. cinebench).

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?

​perhaps the 1st sentence describes you? :smile:

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!