WYP
News Guru
This is £30-40 lower than this part's standard retail price!
Read more on AMD's limited time Ryzen 7 1700X price.
Read more on AMD's limited time Ryzen 7 1700X price.
AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X will cost £289.99 for a limited time
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
WYP
News Guru
The 1700X does not ship with a cooler...
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Cracking pic to use for the article then
HA!
This is amazing value. I could go for this over the 1600X and have beastly performance. It would completely wasted on me, but still.
AlienALX
Well-known member
HA!
This is amazing value. I could go for this over the 1600X and have beastly performance. It would completely wasted on me, but still.
Not forever it wouldn't be. At some point you would say "Man am I glad I went with the extra cores". Even if that took a decade lol.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Ha!
Well, I do plan on going 8 cores when Zen 2 comes out next year (or whenever), but mostly because of the higher clock speeds and higher per core performance. That's the only thing holding Ryzen back from being the perfect CPU. I was gonna go with a 1600X (not the 1600 because the 1600X is better binned) until Zen 2/Zen+ and then upgrading to an 8 core variant and being happy for many years. I could still do that with a 1700X, but I'd be less inclined to since I paid more in the beginning and would only be upgrading clock speed by going Zen 2.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Very sensible tbh fella. It's always good to wait 3-4 gens before upgrading, then you get a nice 20% or so. I thought the drop in clocks on my 14 core would hinder me, but thankfully the jump from Haswell - Broadwell E seemed to have totally equalised that for me. I get the same or more FPS than I did before and I am running 100mhz or so slower.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
You need to look at the widest spread of processors to see which consistently hit higher clocks, and from what I've seen it's the X variants. There are of course 1600 and 1700 CPUs that hit 4Ghz or more, but there are fewer of them, at least recorded on OCN.
evilcorp
New member
I can hit 3.95ghz no problem. The voltage scaling at 4ghz isnt worth it for me. IIts the silicon lottery again. I wouldnt mind the free game though.
MacLeod
New member
The 1700 won't have that temp offset either like the X chips will. That seems like it would be kind of a pain with your fans spinning up to supersonic levels because your system thinks it's running several C hotter than it actually is. That alone makes me prefer the 1700 over the X.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
It's been fixed
evilcorp
New member
Im happy with my 1700. Changing it for 1700x would be entering back into the silicon lottery again. Doing a lot of reading on ryzen it does seem that for the most part people can get between 3.8 and 4.0ish ghz. On water my cpu could go further than 3.95ghz im sure. It does 4ghz stable at 1.43 v which isnt worth the slight bump in performance for quite a bit more voltage.
NBD is right about the offset temp on the 1700x, it displays ok now. The 1700x always seemed like the harder sale to me before the price drop. Its performance could be matched easily with a bit of overclocking work, I understand why someone would buy the 1800x if they didnt want to overclock
NBD is right about the offset temp on the 1700x, it displays ok now. The 1700x always seemed like the harder sale to me before the price drop. Its performance could be matched easily with a bit of overclocking work, I understand why someone would buy the 1800x if they didnt want to overclock
MacLeod
New member
Has it? That's great, I hadn't heard. If that's the case then it's definitely worth it. A few extra dollar for a little better binning and better chance of higher overclocks would be worth it to me.
