NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Just wondering here, but are you going to update the article about the 1700 not actually having a +20C offset? That was the only thing in the article that needed attention
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Review
- Thread starter tinytomlogan
- Start date
Just wondering here, but are you going to update the article about the 1700 not actually having a +20C offset? That was the only thing in the article that needed attention
This is why I am going for 1700x instead of a 1700 chip. The X brand eats less power in this speeds, so it may cost 100 and 170 euros less, but you pay that in your electricity company with the 1700 cpu. In the long term, you earn that money with 1700x or 1800x.
Even if that was true, let's say the power consumption difference is ~20W, it would take roughly a year of consistent high performance usage (100% usage 24/7) to make up for the price difference between a 1700 and a 1700x. Under real life conditions you will no doubt have a new CPU before you make up those $50.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Some reviews said that for 1080p, but once you go up from there, the difference is marginalized a LOT. Plus, at 1080p, the 4 cores get pinned at almost 100% in certain games, therefore you have no headroom at all. I'm going Ryzen 1700 for reasons much like yourself, to give Intel a pair of middle fingers.
And an update was just released showing a very welcome performance increase in Ashes of the Singularity. If they can continue to do that with similarly troubled games like GTA V, Far Cry Primal and Rise of the Tomb Raider then awesome.
BigDaddyKong
Active member
Honestly, unless AMD is paying to have those games updated, there is no good economical reason a dev should go back and patch older releases.
I'm not saying it would not be in AMD's best interest to do so since so many places use those particular games as review benchmarks.
Also, if anyone is looking for a game that is programmed correctly for Ryzen, check out Sniper Ghost Warrior 2. It's CryEngine based. It actually does a better job than Crysis 3 on core usage with Ryzen.
I'm not saying it would not be in AMD's best interest to do so since so many places use those particular games as review benchmarks.
Also, if anyone is looking for a game that is programmed correctly for Ryzen, check out Sniper Ghost Warrior 2. It's CryEngine based. It actually does a better job than Crysis 3 on core usage with Ryzen.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
AMD is giving them basically free dev kits and engineer support. They aren't losing much and they are gaining valuable work for the future titles they release
BigDaddyKong
Active member
I would hope they put most of the engineer support on current games they are working on. Most places don't have the staff they can just stop what they are doing and go back and work on the same project twice.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if they did. I'm just saying it does not make financial sense to do it.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if they did. I'm just saying it does not make financial sense to do it.
Avet
Active member
Does anyone know how these CPUs are differentiated by AMD? They all perform exactly the same at same clocks, and pretty much overclock the same. Was it like: this pile will be 1700, that one 1700X and the one in the back will be 1800X. It doesn't look like 1800X has any advantage compared to the cheaper 2. Was it different naming, just to fill different price points? To me it looks like X ones are just factory overclocked 1700, for people who don't want to overclock.
AlienALX
Well-known member
That's exactly what they are. AMD are selling overclocking in two ways. 1. DIY with whatever result you get. 2. Buy it already done.
The max clocks are around 4-4.1ghz any way, so you may as well buy the 1700. Even if you end up 100-200mhz slower than the upper end part you've saved a bag of cash.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Well I think as yields get better we have see better binned 1800x's. As it is now they really are all the same. There's no point in going for anything but the 1700, lower TDP but just as fast. Strange how it all worked out...
BigDaddyKong
Active member
ouch, 1.45 for 4ghz.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I think the guys have just answered that one. It obviously needs far more voltage to get up to the clocks of the 1800x, hence the massive hike in TDP. I bet the 1700 pulls some serious power with the sorts of voltages mentioned tbh.
Probably just early design. Maybe they designed it to run far slower, then had to push it to the limits in order to compete (same with the Fury X).
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
No, it does pull less watts even when OC'd to the same speed.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Wow, weird. Is that at the same voltage too?
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Yeah. I haven't seen a direct comparison, but at same clocks it's always consuming less, and considering how similar all Ryzen chips are voltage won't be far off each other
AlienALX
Well-known member
I think I have figured it out. The only thing left in the equation is that XFR thing. Maybe with it running on the CPU it uses up more power. I guess the only way to disprove that theory would be to disable it, and I'm not sure you even can?
That's the only difference left tbh.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
It would probably boil down to how aggressive AMD makes the CPU use it's power saving features(through the architecture itself I suppose or there ASEGA/whatever the hell it is called). XFR is disabled I am pretty sure once any manual OCing occurs. Even if you change to manual but keep the same settings, BIOS will turn it off. Not really sure, but it is consistently using less power even under OC load.
