Ryzen 7 1700 vs. Core i7-7820X: 8-Core Royal Rumble

[Julio Franco]

Buying an 8-core processor was a wallet ripping affair prior to the arrival of Ryzen. And while it's clear that the R7 1700 is considerably cheaper than the Core i7-7820X, we've been wondering just how much faster Intel's solution is considering both chips have 8 cores and 16 threads.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1457-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-octa-core/

 

[yeeeeman]

Great conclusion. You have to be stupid to buy anything but Ryzen at almost all the price points. For 300 bucks R7 1700 is amazing value for money and really all that you could need for a few years on.
I just hope that AMD will have the same bang for buck with TR line-up, because as it stands now you get ~ same performance as Intel but at half the price for the entire platform. From initial benchmarks, it seems that 1920X will match 7900X but costing less.

 

[ET3D]

Thanks for the interesting review. Ryzen does look like great value for money.

 

[SamuraiSamson]

Intel is going to drop those prices , otherwise they are gonna see AMD take a good chunk of their user base. At these price points its a no-brainer unless you are a rabid fanboy/girl who likes to donate money to the chums at Intel.

As for me, I am happy that once again there is some serious competition in the market across all categories. Intel was getting away with murder with their thermal paste, so the average user would have to upgrade their Intel CPU every couple of years.

PS to Techspot: If Threadripper is based on EPYC , can you guys do some hypothetical benchmarks like you did with Ryzen 3?

 

[namesrejected]

Intel is going to drop those prices , otherwise they are gonna see AMD take a good chunk of their user base. At these price points its a no-brainer unless you are a rabid fanboy/girl who likes to donate money to the chums at Intel.

As for me, I am happy that once again there is some serious competition in the market across all categories. Intel was getting away with murder with their thermal paste, so the average user would have to upgrade their Intel CPU every couple of years.

PS to Techspot: If Threadripper is based on EPYC , can you guys do some hypothetical benchmarks like you did with Ryzen 3?

I think EPYC scares Intel more than Threadripper. Intel makes more off of servers and nand, they probably dont really care about the PC so much anymore.

 

[oldikes]

I think EPYC scares Intel more than Threadripper. Intel makes more off of servers and nand, they probably dont really care about the PC so much anymore.

Its usually pretty easy to tell by how intel stoops down to petty insults

"but but theyre glued together"

at least they dont use glue for the IHS.

 

[Puiu]

Does the CPU become unstable if you try to OC the mesh even higher? And as a rough estimated, how much does it affect the power usage and temps?

As a side-note, I'm surprised by how much the memory clock impacts the performance in games for the R7 1700. I knew that going from 2400 to 3200 was fairly big, from what I've gathered from past benchmarks was that going from 2400 to 2666/2933 was good enough with 3200 not giving that much of a boost.
I'm assuming that you can get 3200MHz with better timings now because of the new BIOS updates which helps with performance.

 

[SamuraiSamson]

I think EPYC scares Intel more than Threadripper. Intel makes more off of servers and nand, they probably dont really care about the PC so much anymore.

Its usually pretty easy to tell by how intel stoops down to petty insults

"but but theyre glued together"

at least they dont use glue for the IHS.

It can't be due to sheer incompetence alone. I mean anyone can de-lid with just a youtube video and a 20 dollar tool to get a drastic drop in temps, so it begs the question whether it was done on purpose.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Kinda makes me wonder why the HEDT Intel processors still exist.

 

[penn919]

Another excellent article from Mr. Walton. He's quickly becoming the hardest working tech journalist on the net.

 

[amstech]

The 1700 really gets a nice gaming boost with the 3200 RAM.
If your building a rig to game keep that in mind.

 

[EClyde]

No faster

 

[Puiu]

Kinda makes me wonder why the HEDT Intel processors still exist.

well, to be honest, performance is not the only thing people look for. companies have other priorities too, like accessibility, support, software compatibility and other factors.
for example in some places Intel can provide 24h on-site tech support while AMD might not have such services there, but in another location.

but for smaller companies these things might be pushed aside and they will buy what will bring them the biggest profits. most workloads lean towards AMD being better.

 

[JudasSheep]

If only Ryzen could overclock past 4GHz. Eventually someone will figure it out.

 

[Nandiman]

If only Ryzen could overclock past 4GHz. Eventually someone will figure it out.

Well, it can, if you have some LN2 lying around.

 

[CaptainTom]

Just popping in to see if there is anyone left who will defend Fail Lake....**COUGH**.... Skylake-X.


It's such a bad design that Broadwell-E is a better choice in terms of efficiency and usually even performance lol. Then throw in the fact that Ryzen is pretty much the exact same performance as Skylake-X with substantially less power draw and under half the price.

 

[CaptainTom]

Kinda makes me wonder why the HEDT Intel processors still exist.

I have a feeling there will be some big shake-ups to how Intel organizes it's line-up by late 2018.


Cannon Lake looks poised to make the entire Skylake-X line-up a waste of money. That is, unless it also has less IPC than Kabylake...

 

[wiyosaya]

Personally, I find it interesting that the 7820, being a next-gen part from Intel, is slower than the 6900. Seems that has been pretty much the same story in all Intel's next-gen parts for the past several years. In this case worse performance, in other cases middling if any at all performance improvements making it not worth it for some, at least, to upgrade - case in point, my several years old E5-1650v2.

It seems highly likely, although we will have to wait until August 10th to find out for sure, that Intel will have to drop its prices across the board or risk being highly oversold in the desktop/hedt market.

I think EPYC scares Intel more than Threadripper. Intel makes more off of servers and nand, they probably dont really care about the PC so much anymore.

I agree, and I also think that AMD specifically targeted that market segment with gen 1 of these parts. It makes complete sense, to me at least, from an economic standpoint.

 

[Kibaruk]

It's funny how some people see for the first time in tens of years AMD taking the lead and suddenly everyone starts asking themselves how Intel made it this far... I mean... seriously??

Without a doubt the performance of Ryzen is going strong and this time Intel took the hard end, definitely the X series can't compete with Ryzen at half the price/same performance on average. Intel seems to be put off balance with this line, and they are looking like slackers, but don't think for a second this will be the end of Intel.

 

[Reehahs]

I think EPYC scares Intel more than Threadripper. Intel makes more off of servers and nand, they probably dont really care about the PC so much anymore.

Its usually pretty easy to tell by how intel stoops down to petty insults

"but but theyre glued together"

at least they dont use glue for the IHS.

It can't be due to sheer incompetence alone. I mean anyone can de-lid with just a youtube video and a 20 dollar tool to get a drastic drop in temps, so it begs the question whether it was done on purpose.

... and possibly ruin the processor in the process in addition to throwing the warranty out of the window.

Having said that it would be interesting to also see the 6900K overclocked to 4 GHz with 3200 ram.

Given the sheer value proposition of AMD CPU I am pretty sure that my next build will use AMD CPUs with the fastest RAM that I can afford.

 

[lostinlodos]

More Apples and oranges. As long as everyone keeps leaving my precious 9590 out of these benchmarks they're lacking.
That pointed out; looks like, again, AMD is even with intel.
And where this latest AMD cpu will shine I'm sure is where AMD always shines, raw number crunching.

Gaming is all good, but if you really want to torture and verify a cpu try encoding an h264 60 minute 4K video with DTSHD audio to h264 2k and 7c AACHE audio.

Come back and tell us the results of a test like that.
I believe the results will be alphabetical.

 

[GreenNova343]

If only Ryzen could overclock past 4GHz. Eventually someone will figure it out.

Well, they already have with liquid nitrogen -- & blown far past it, being able to hit 5GHz or higher on every Ryzen 5 & 7 CPU (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen-ln2,5116-12.html).

But even if you can't use LN2 for your cooling, some of those overclock results are pretty impressive, even if they aren't reaching that 4GHz mark you seem to want so desperately. Take that Ryzen 5 1400, for example. 3.9GHz on air cooling is right below that 4GHz threshold you're clamoring for...but not only is that over a 20% overclock, it's overclocking all 4 cores; the Ryzen 5 1400 on stock cooling is limited to a Turbo of 3.4GHz (but only if only 1 or 2 physical cores are in use), 3.45GHz if the XFR determines there's sufficient cooling. So you're talking about being able to get 13-14% faster than the Turbo speed and having it work on all 4 cores instead of just 2.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, sure, the overclock for the Ryzen 7 1800X is only ~10% (& falling in between the standard Turbo & XFR-enabled Turbo speeds)...but I think the better comparison is the Ryzen 7 1700 that they used in this article -- 30% overclock over stock speed, 4-5% overclock over Turbo/XFR speeds & you get to have it on all 8 cores. And it's an 8C/16T CPU like the i7-7820X. Sure, they've shown the i7-7820X to overclock higher (https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i7_7820x_skylake_x_review/3, 4.8 to 5.0GHz; http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-7820x-skylake-x,5127-2.html topped out at 4.6GHz), but a) that's involving water cooling (& in terms of cooling, air cooling < water cooling < LN2 cooling), & b) their percentage increase is actually in line with the Ryzen 7 chip (i7-7820X starts out at 3.6GHz base; Tom's Hardware only managed a 28% overclock, with higher results requiring -- in their opinion -- excessively high voltages & temperatures; although overclock3d.net managed to OC higher, they only actually managed to get 33-39% improvement over base clock speeds)...& again, those OC results used water cooling, so I strongly suspect that air-cooling efforts won't be as successful.

 

[AntiShill]

The R7 1700 has to compete with the like of i5-7600k and i7-7700k, where is loses badly in gaming. The strawmen of using 7820x or 6900k is a pointless comparison. Those are massively overpriced to start with. It is child's play to price lower than the massively overpriced junk.

Now if you want to win at the application benchmarks, costs be damned, then Intel overpriced premium is what you got to pay. But if you going to play bang-for-buck, the R7 is going to lose badly to the i5-7600k and i7-7700k, at that price point gaming performance is king and that is what matters. Furthermore the Ryzens right now all have built-in time bomb, given that it is blatantly obvious they have serious GPU bottleneck. See:
https://www.techspot.com/community/...u-gaming-benchmarks-using-ryzen-as-an.233727/
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/13
http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bot...ed-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585

This problem only gets worse with SLI, multi-GPU, or the upcoming next generation GPUs. Every single ryzen is already bottlenecking the GTX 1080ti at 1440p. With faster GPU, due in couple of years it will show bottlenecks at 4K.

The Ryzen's need to priced with replace/disposable pricing in mind. Because you will need to replace them in a couple years to match the newer GPUs. AMD needs to price ryzen like they did with the socket A AthlonXP (t-bird, barton, thoroughbred) vs the P4 back in the days. I remember having brought by $100 athlons and embarassed my friends $200 P4 builds at LAN parties.

The pricing should be
R7 - $250 max for the 1800x
R5 - $150 max for the 1600x
R3 -- $100 max for the 1300x

This what AMD needs to do earn back the whatever little goodwill that is left, especially since Ryzen is NOT winning across the board. We need AMD force a price war with Intel to drive down prices of CPUs in the $100 to $300 range, not mess around with stuff at the $800+.

 

[penn919]

The R7 1700 has to compete with the like of i5-7600k and i7-7700k, where is loses badly in gaming. The strawmen of using 7820x or 6900k is a pointless comparison. Those are massively overpriced to start with. It is child's play to price lower than the massively overpriced junk.

Now if you want to win at the application benchmarks, costs be damned, then Intel overpriced premium is what you got to pay. But if you going to play bang-for-buck, the R7 is going to lose badly to the i5-7600k and i7-7700k, at that price point gaming performance is king and that is what matters. Furthermore the Ryzens right now all have built-in time bomb, given that it is blatantly obvious they have serious GPU bottleneck. See:
https://www.techspot.com/community/...u-gaming-benchmarks-using-ryzen-as-an.233727/
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/13
http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bot...ed-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585

This problem only gets worse with SLI, multi-GPU, or the upcoming next generation GPUs. Every single ryzen is already bottlenecking the GTX 1080ti at 1440p. With faster GPU, due in couple of years it will show bottlenecks at 4K.

The Ryzen's need to priced with replace/disposable pricing in mind. Because you will need to replace them in a couple years to match the newer GPUs. AMD needs to price ryzen like they did with the socket A AthlonXP (t-bird, barton, thoroughbred) vs the P4 back in the days. I remember having brought by $100 athlons and embarassed my friends $200 P4 builds at LAN parties.

The pricing should be
R7 - $250 max for the 1800x
R5 - $150 max for the 1600x
R3 -- $100 max for the 1300x

This what AMD needs to do earn back the whatever little goodwill that is left, especially since Ryzen is NOT winning across the board. We need AMD force a price war with Intel to drive down prices of CPUs in the $100 to $300 range, not mess around with stuff at the $800+.

Was this serious?

 

[Kibaruk]

@AntiShill... I know we are not supposed to say it, but god damn you are plain. You just pasted two articles debating on GPU bottlenecks for performance testing (In simplified terms, how a dedicated video card versus another could show similarities in performance while testing on different processors).