![]() ![]() Our usual testing methodology is defined further below, per typical copy/paste of methods between reviews, but we have a few explicit items to address with Ryzen.ĭuring testing, GamersNexus discovered that Windows would occasionally engage core parking or other power saving features that could impact framerate in some games, specifically with Ryzen. We’ve heard there are a few more updates worth testing first. We’ve begun testing on Gigabyte boards and have largely seen no difference in performance (in February BIOS revisions), but will publish those numbers in a separate content piece. We’re still testing on the ASUS Crosshair motherboard, still with the latest stable EFI release – version 5704. This generally shows improvement, and is something we’d recommend for gaming-only users until the relevant Windows updates push). We focused on overclocking and SMT enabled testing for the 1700 for now, but have disabled SMT and included it on the charts. In our later overclocking tests, we were able to jump back to 2933MHz without issue, further validating that this is likely a stability and clock issue at the lower CPU frequencies. We were only able to hit 2666MHz out of box, even using the same kit as in the 1800X review, which indicates some sort of IMC limitation on the R7 1700. Memory support is the same on paper, just with the caveat that we had greater memory clocking limitations on the 1700 than the 1800X. TDP of the 1700 is 65W, with the 1800X and 1700X both at 95W, but with higher native frequencies. On the topic of cooling, the 1700 requires a much less powerful cooling option than the 1800X, largely thanks to lower voltage and frequency on the 1700. ![]() The CPU we received did not include the Wraith cooler, though we’ve purchased our own 1700 and are awaiting its arrival so that we can independently test the cooling solution. Lowered overall voltage also impacts thermals, but we’ve still got thermal, frequency, and voltage headroom to apply potentially significant overclocks.ĪMD’s R7 1700 ships with a stock frequency of 3.0GHz, with a boost of 3.7GHz. The TDP is lower, sure, but it’s all tied to the frequency and voltage of the chip. The R7 1700, then, is different primarily insofar as its clock-rate. In terms of architecture and cache, you’re looking at the same thing for the unfamiliar, you can read (P1) or watch our original reviews for a straight-shooter recap of the architecture. The Ryzen R7 1700 is an 8C/16T CPU with the exact same CCX layout as the 1800X and 1700X. Overclocks and SMT toggling further complicate testing, but provide a look at how the R7 1700 is capable of eliminating the gap between AMD’s own flagship and its more affordable SKU. We’re benchmarking the R7 1700 in our usual suite of gaming, synthetic, and render tasks, quickly validating average auto voltages and temperatures along the way. In this AMD R7 1700 review, we look at the price-to-performance of AMD’s new $330 CPU, which was explicitly marketed as an i7-7700K counter in price/performance when presented at AMD’s tech day. It’s not as good for formatting or page load times, but it’ll hopefully ensure the other content is at least scrolled past, even if still ignored altogether. We are also restricting this review to one page, as a significant portion of readers had unfortunately skipped straight to the gaming results page without context. The R7 1700 – by nature of that very argument, but also by nature of a trivial overclock – effectively invalidates the 1800X for gaming machines, finally granting AMD its champion for Ryzen. Before venturing into the 1440p/4K argument, we’d encourage you to read this review. It’s about value, not raw performance: Multiplicative increments in price to achieve performance equivalence (gaming) to cheaper chips is not good value. For gaming, both are poor choices the 1800X performs on par with i5 CPUs in game benchmarks, and the 6900K is $1000. Of course, as we said previously (page 5, 8), the 1800X makes more sense for our tested production tasks than the $1000 6900K when considering price:performance. AMD’s R7 1700 CPU ($330) immediately positions itself in a more advantaged segment than its $500 1800X companion, which proved poor value for pure gaming machines in our tests. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |