Amd Ryzen 7 1700x Vs 1800x
The beauty of building a PC is that a diversity of parts allows users to construct a reckoner specifically designed to best serve their item needs. AMD's Ryzen seven 1800X may not have taken Intel's crown for gaming, but the price vs performance ratio for just about everything else propels the fledgling line of processors well into contention. The Ryzen 7 1800X nosotros recently reviewed isn't the but new AMD viii-core chip you tin can purchase: cheaper 1700X and 1700 processors are bachelor, and that is where the value actually becomes difficult to ignore.
Fundamentally, not much separates the three Ryzen 7s except clock-speeds. The 1700X drops a couple of hundred megahertz, simply saves y'all £130/$100. Meanwhile, the entry-level 1700 sees a 3.0GHz base clock - some way off the meridian-tier model's 3.6GHz - but offers infrequent value at £299/$330. It's cheaper than the i7 7700K here, but offers twice every bit many cores and threads and admittedly monsters information technology in most - only not all - multithreaded tasks. All the Ryzen fries are can overclock, and all take the maximum L3 cache. Provided they OC to approximately the same level, it must exist said that the entry-level 1700 looks particularly compelling.
Going into this review, we were considering the kind of processor that we would choose if nosotros were building one of our office PCs, now dominated by enthusiast-level i7s and older, ten-cadre Xeons (amazingly cheap, and tend to slot into older Sandy Bridge-E boards). Our systems need to adapt gaming, but just as important, if not more than so, is multi-threaded performance for video editing and encoding. Ryzen seven 1800X offers great value confronting the eight-core i7s, but we suspect that the fight would be closer, up against an overclocked half-dozen-core enthusiast scrap (our very own John Linneman runs an i7 5820K at a rock-solid 4.5GHz). However, the Ryzen line is cheaper, and processors can be run on cheaper motherboards - all of which overclock the processor if required.
The bottom line is that for a more versatile PC build, AMD's new Ryzen line has much to commend it, and as nosotros shall run into, if you're willing to spend a little extra on memory and a decent cooling solution, the Ryzen 7 1700 effectively makes its more than expensive counterparts somewhat redundant. And while benchmarks and hardcore multithreaded apps do see a performance differential betwixt the three Ryzen offerings in line with clock-speeds, the fact is that you actually practise pay a premium for just a petty extra, which becomes even more of a non-event in gaming tests. Ironically, while the 1800X does indeed compare favourably with Intel'due south $1050 Cadre i7 6900K, it does expect over-priced compared to the 1700X and 1700.
| Ryzen seven 1800X | Ryzen seven 1700X | Ryzen vii 1700 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cores/Threads | 8/sixteen | 8/16 | 8/16 |
| Base Clock | three.6GHz | three.4GHz | 3.0GHz |
| Boost Clock | 4.0GHz | 3.8GHz | three.7GHz |
| Cache | 16MB | 16MB | 16MB |
| TDP | 95W | 95W | 65W |
| Launch Pricing | £499/$499 | £370/$399 | £299/$329 |
Buy the Ryzen seven line from Amazon with costless aircraft:
- AMD Ryzen vii 1700 Eight-Core CPU
- AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core CPU
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Eight-Core CPU
Initial benchmarks throw up some fascinating comparisons. Cinebench R15 is often used as a basic barometer for single and multi-thread performance. The top-tier Ryzen compares favourably with the terminal two generations of Intel'south eight-core chips in terms of unmarried-thread performance, but fifty-fifty the 1700X beats the 6900K in the multi-threaded benchmark, while the base 1700 takes point over Intel's last-gen eight-thread beast - the Core i7 5960X. The mainstream Intel quad-cadre i7 7700K falls behind in multi-thread performance, as expected, but it remains male monarch of the loma in single-thread power owing to faster clocks and the latest Intel compages.
The video encoding benchmarks are fascinating though. Handbrake uses the open up source x264 video encoder for its h.264 support - a slice of code massively optimised for multi-threaded CPUs. Information technology's fascinating to see the viii-core chips jostle for position in a hardcore 4K encoding challenge based on the settings we utilize for our video download site, DigitalFoundry.net, and indeed our YouTube uploads. The Ryzen 7 1800X is faster than the 6900K, while the 1700X is only a touch slower than the older 5960X. The entry-level Ryzen 7 1700 is slower, merely should be on par or better than the Intel six-core processors, while easily besting the quad-cadre 7700K.
Thus far, what's articulate is that AMD has taken a significant pb over Intel in terms of price vs operation, but even though there is a clear partitioning between the Ryzens, the cheaper you go, the more value you gain. In terms of 'fps for the coin', the Ryzen 7 1700 is the clear winner, with a 14 per cent pb over the 1700X, rising to 25 per cent over the 1800X. Effectively, losing five per cent performance compared to the peak-tier chip saves prospective 1700X owners $100, while 1700 buyers lose 15 per cent in processing grunt but only pay effectually two thirds of the price.
Notwithstanding, the x265 HEVC encoding challenge sees all the challengers grouping up somewhat, and Intel starts to stage a stronger improvement. This 'next-gen' video codec is extremely challenging and takes an age to encode, merely offers approximately the same image quality as h.264 for one-half the bandwidth. We introduced support for this on DigitalFoundry.internet early on this twelvemonth, and it takes an age to consummate with 4K content - even on our eight and 10-core Intel chips. Ryzen is still fast, but loses footing considering HEVC encoding uses AVX2 instructions - an area where AMD's new architecture is weak. It's interesting to note that the sheer frequency offered past the 7700K sees it putting in a great showing overall, stealing a pb over the Ryzen vii 1700 with twice the cores. It's a sign that while Ryzen can command a great lead over its competition at like price-points, it'due south non merely gaming where it can fall a footling short.
| Core i7 7700K | Core i7 5960X | Core i7 6900K | Ryzen seven 1700 | Ryzen vii 1700X | Ryzen 7 1800X | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench R15 Single-Core | 187 | 133 | 167 | 153 | 144 | 162 |
| Cinebench R15 Multi-Cadre | 963 | 1310 | 1460 | 1390 | 1491 | 1605 |
| Handbrake 0.ten.v x264 | thirteen.1fps | 17.5fps | 18.5fps | xvi.2fps | 17.2fps | 19.6fps |
| Handbrake 0.x.five x265/HEVC | 6.2fps | half dozen.9fps | 7.2fps | five.7fps | half-dozen.0fps | 6.5fps |
However, overall, our tests show that the less expensive Ryzens however compete well overall, and if you're looking for a balanced build capable of fast operation on many dissimilar workloads, they demand attention. Merely every bit good every bit productivity and video encoding performance may exist, gaming is still an important part of what we want from a PC so the question is this - to what extent do the frequency drops on the cheaper parts impact gaming performance?
We paired each Ryzen with low latency C14 3200MHz Flare-X DDR4 supplied by GSkill, and ran each processor on an Asus motherboard based on the X370 chipset - the Crosshair 6 Hero, specifically. As always, our gaming tests are carried out using an overclocked Titan Ten Pascal processor operating at 1080p. The objective hither is to shift the primary limiting gene in gaming operation away from the GPU and squarely towards CPU and memory bandwidth. In brusk, we test raw processor power here to judge relative performance and to mensurate how much 'extra' each bit may take in the tank compared to one another. By extension, this is a pretty skilful measure of the longevity of the CPU in an age where we should realistically expect a processor to have a good 4 to five-year lifespan.
Suffice to say that the Intel processors boss in key benchmarks here, but CPU-heavy titles like Assassin's Creed Unity and Crysis 3 yet run across AMD remaining competitive. Performance isn't bad per se on any of the titles (the cheapest Ryzen offering 107fps in 1 of The Witcher 3's most challenging areas is however quite a feat!) simply it'south clear to see that even some heavily multithreaded games where Ryzen should do well sees Intel push ahead. Rising of the Tomb Raider and Ashes of the Singularity'southward hardcore CPU exam stand out here. Far Cry Primal's reliance on unmarried-thread performance also sees a big Intel win, though this is one of the titles where disabling SMT (AMD'south hyper-threading if yous like), brings Ryzen back into contention - against the 6900K at least.
Merely the point is that bold you lot're set on a Ryzen build for not-gaming reasons, yous lose even less performance going for a cheaper AMD viii-cadre chip than y'all practice in video encoding benchmarks. Information technology'due south unlikely that y'all're going to detect much of a difference between the three chips running at stock frequencies based on the results we see here, especially in the hither and now on less capable GPUs than the overclocked Titan X Pascal we're using here. Ryzen vii 1800X was a decent enough gaming CPU in our review, and the paltry differences with the cheaper chips make them much more compelling.
| 1080p/Titan X OC | Ryzen vii 1700 | Ryzen seven 1700X | Ryzen 7 1800X | Core i7 7700K | Cadre i7 6900K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retentiveness Frequency | 3200MHz DDR4 | 3200MHz DDR4 | 3200MHz DDR4 | 3000MHz DDR4 | 3200MHz DDR4 |
| Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA | 116.1 | 118.3 | 119.4 | 132.2 | 122.1 |
| Ashes of the Singularity, DX12, CPU Examination | 33.5 | 34.6 | 35.three | 41.nine | 46.half dozen |
| Crysis 3, Very Loftier, SMAA T2x | 127.1 | 132.4 | 137.five | 138.ii | 150.8 |
| The Division, Ultra, SMAA | 127.iv | 127.1 | 129.three | 133.viii | 131.four |
| Far Cry Cardinal, Ultra, SMAA | 85.2 | 89.3 | 91.one | 137.nine | 105.6 |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider DX12, Very High, SMAA | fourscore.8 | 84.0 | 85.8 | 126.5 | 129.0 |
| The Witcher three, Ultra, No Hairworks | 107.ix | 113.3 | 118.eight | 139.iv | 134.iii |
As we researched farther into Ryzen operation, the wafer-sparse differential between each of the 3 offerings became even more evident. All of them support the same level of memory bandwidth. Similar to Intel processors, gaming performance scales according to the frequency of the DDR4 yous have, and the get-go three entries on the table beneath are somewhat heart-opening. Nosotros ran our GSkill Flare-X modules at a slow 2133MHz to emulate cheaper, less performant DDR4 and then re-benched.
The lesser line is that the deviation between 2133MHz and 3200MHz DDR4 is more impactful on gaming performance than the reductions in core-clock frequencies as nosotros travel downwardly the Ryzen 7 stack. Remarkably, a Ryzen 7 1700 paired with 3200MHz outperforms the much more expensive 1800X paired with 2133MHz retention on all simply one game (Crysis 3 - and even there, it's a margin of error stuff). It should be stressed that nosotros didn't see anything like this in video encoding benchmarks but the difference is profound enough that if gaming has more than importance for you, it makes more than sense to spend coin on faster retention every bit opposed to a faster Ryzen.
Simply the big news based on our testing is that all the Ryzen 7 processors effectively striking their overclocking limits in 4.0GHz to 4.1GHz territory. Pushing higher requires voltages AMD doesn't recommend for the longevity of the processor, so we didn't button further. We benched all of them, and found results entirely within margin of error - so finer, with a reasonable overclock in place, at that place is cipher to separate a cheap Ryzen 7 1700 with the meridian-of-the-line 1800X running at the aforementioned 4.0GHz all-core frequency. All things being equal, you can buy the 1700, pair it with fast memory and a decent libation and still have cash left over. The upshot is a system that beats the Ryzen seven 1800X at stock frequencies and effectively a match when overclocked. However, nosotros should stress that this is just a test based on one chip and with the silicon lottery, at that place is the hazard that you may receive a less capable fleck.
| 1080p/Titan X OC | Ryzen 7 1700 | Ryzen vii 1800X | Ryzen 7 1800X | Ryzen 7 1800X 4.0GHz | Ryzen 7 1700X 4.0GHz | Ryzen 7 1700 4.0GHz |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retentiveness Frequency | 3200MHz DDR4 | 3200MHz DDR4 | 2133MHz DDR4 | 3200MHz DDR4 | 3200MHz DDR4 | 3200MHz DDR4 |
| Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA | 116.1 | 119.4 | 112.2 | 120.8 | 119.5 | 121.3 |
| Ashes of the Singularity, DX12, CPU Test | 33.5 | 35.3 | 31.6 | 36.8 | 37.0 | 36.9 |
| Crysis 3, Very Loftier, SMAA T2x | 127.ane | 137.5 | 128.half-dozen | 143.8 | 143.5 | 144.one |
| The Segmentation, Ultra, SMAA | 127.4 | 129.iii | 125.5 | 128.four | 129.4 | 128.3 |
| Far Weep Primal, Ultra, SMAA | 85.ii | 91.one | 79.2 | 97.2 | 96.9 | 97.2 |
| Rising of the Tomb Raider DX12, Very High, SMAA | 80.8 | 85.viii | 76.8 | 89.ix | 88.9 | xc.0 |
| The Witcher three, Ultra, No Hairworks | 107.ix | 118.viii | 98.9 | 121.three | 120.8 | 120.four |
They say that in that location'south no such thing as a complimentary lunch but on the face of it, the Ryzen seven 1700 may beg to differ - given the correct coaxing, it's only as expert as an 1800X in virtually every measurable benchmark. There is only i caveat: the lower binned chip requires more voltage to run at higher frequencies and in our tests, this resulted in about 45W extra under extreme load when compared to the 1800X performing the same task (more try in voltage tweaking in the BIOS could address this, depending on how good your chip is). And of course, this translates into excess heat, meaning the supplied cooler really isn't upward to the chore - only it should be stated that overclocking whatsoever of the Ryzens requires a adequately meaty thermal solution.
There's diminishing returns in overclocking the 1800X and to a lesser extent, the 1700X. However, with a top-stop 25 per cent boost to throughput on all 8 cores and 16 threads with all under load, clearly the entry-level Ryzen offers the all-time deal here - and in gaming frame-rate terms, that overclock adds around x to 14 per cent of extra juice. And if you check out the h.264 encoding 'performance for the money' metrics beneath, you'll run into just how stark the value proposition is. Even with the 7700K clocked to four.8GHz, the entry-level Ryzen is even so well alee.
It's a fascinating result overall, and with at least one of our workstations here at Digital Foundry due for renewal, replacing it with an overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 seems similar the best bet overall - alternatives would exist a six-core 6800K Intel organisation, or an overclocked 7700K. For the kinds of workloads nosotros have, Ryzen seems to be the best bet. Just plain, if your skew is more towards gaming, we still feel that the i7 7700K offers more longevity. That situation may alter when Ryzen makes an advent in future consoles: at that point, we can safely assume that the game optimisations AMD is promising will become commonplace. Nevertheless, in the hither and now, those who stream their video games and prefer higher quality software encoding results to the efforts of GPU solutions like Nvidia'southward Shadowplay may likewise consider Ryzen - hiving off a couple of cores for video is something yous'd need a half dozen-core CPU to achieve without impacting on gameplay frame-rates.
| Ranked past Value | 4K h.264 Encoding | Toll | FPS per $100 USD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ryzen 1700 4.0GHz OC | 20.2fps | $329 | 6.13 |
| Ryzen 1700 | 16.2fps | $329 | 4.92 |
| Ryzen 1700X | 17.2fps | $399 | iv.31 |
| Core i7 7700K 4.8GHz OC | fourteen.8fps | $349 | iv.24 |
| Ryzen 1800X | 19.6fps | $499 | 3.92 |
| Core i7 7700K | 13.1fps | $349 | 3.75 |
| Core i7 6900K 4.4GHz OC | 22.8fps | $1050 | 2.17 |
| Cadre i7 6900K | 18.5fps | $1050 | i.76 |
AMD Ryzen 7 1700/1700X: the Digital Foundry verdict
There's a range of advice nosotros can offering to any prospective Ryzen owners. First, the more expensive 1800X is merely recommended if y'all want the fastest possible stock processor, no matter what the toll. Highly clocked out of the box, there's not a huge amount more yous can squeeze out of it via overclocking. Compared to a $1050 Intel fleck, information technology's a raging bargain but non a corking bargain when stacked up against its siblings. That said, it follows the m PC hardware tradition of the top-end offering yielding diminishing returns in exchange for a large cost premium.
Non merely that, but based on our memory bandwidth testing, an 1800X should exist matched with fast retentiveness, or its advantages can swiftly diminish into nothingness compared to slower Ryzens running faster RAM (on gaming, at to the lowest degree). The 1700X is conspicuously the meliorate buy out of the two X processors, offering around 95 per cent of the performance of the superlative-tier offering while saving you a hefty amount of greenbacks - coin better spent elsewhere in your PC arrangement. If you're not and so interested in overclocking and desire a potent Ryzen organisation with the minimum of tweaking, the 1700X is our recommendation.
Only in our stance, it'southward the entry-level Ryzen 7 1700 that is perhaps the almost highly-seasoned chip for the PC enthusiast. Its lower base clocks run into the processor drop to a much lower TDP, significant a good cut to energy consumption. And while it is obviously slower in CPU-heavy tasks at stock clocks, information technology remains surprisingly competitive in gaming - even before you start to overclock information technology. Merely it's when you do indeed start to ramp up the frequency that the chip hits the height of its appeal - with all the silicon lottery caveats in place, you practise stand a good run a risk of getting 1800X functioning or perhaps better with a third lopped off the cost. As proficient as that is, it's still non going to challenge Intel in the gaming stakes, but you lot're effectively getting the best that the new Ryzen 7 line offers, and all at a highly reasonable price-point.
Amd Ryzen 7 1700x Vs 1800x,
Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2017-amd-ryzen-7-1700-1700x-vs-1800x-review-1
Posted by: hartmanrase1999.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Amd Ryzen 7 1700x Vs 1800x"
Post a Comment