AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Review

Overclocking

We don't push every CPU to its limit for the simple reason that to do so on AM4 can be a little more trying at the moment compared to Intel systems, plus AMD has stated that 1.45V is a maximum for temporary overclocks anyway. Therefore, we drop down to 1.435V and see what's available in terms of stability for an everyday overclock.

Something we have found is that the sustained load in our Terragen rendering benchmark does trip up many an overclock with Ryzen, so we're content to use it as our stability test even if other programs are happy at higher frequencies. Sadly, at 4GHz, the Ryzen 7 1700X didn't pass the test, even if we upped the voltage to 1.44V, so we dropped the frequency to 3.95GHz, which was fine. In fact, doing this allowed us to drop the vcore further to 1.425V too. Temperatures never rose above 80°C, although due to AMD's odd 20°C temperature offset, that's actually no higher than 60°C.

Performance Analysis

For the most part, the Ryzen 7 1700X performed as expected - somewhere in between the 1700 and 1800X and usually closer to the latter, which makes sense given it has the same higher TDP as the 1800X and its stock speed frequencies are closer to it than the 1700. Despite the fact it was a little slower than the flagship, its performance was still enough to better the more expensive Intel Core i7-6850K, even when the latter was overclocked in the HandBrake video transcoding test, CPU-Z benchmarks, Terragen 4, and Cinebench R15's multi-threaded test - not bad considering the Intel CPU costs close to £600 compared to just £370 for the Ryzen 7 1700X.

Our game tests haven't received any updates, and we're still using the BIOS we used with the first CPU reviews to keep our results comparable. As a result, the 1700X once again is in line with where we expected it to be with marginal increases thanks to overclocking and poor performance in Ashes of the Singularity, although there is admittedly an update in the works for at least this title that will boost performance with Ryzen CPUs. Our standard CPU tests are at 1080p as well - typically an area that might not be indicative of £370 CPUs, but it's a valid test nonetheless, and that argument won't hold with Ryzen 5 either.

Elsewhere, overclocking did help boost performance thanks to all eight cores ramping up to 3.95GHz. This shaved 10 seconds off the 89 second rendering time in the HandBrake test and added nearly 200 points to the 1,547 point Cinebench score too. Power consumption was similar to the 1800X, except for overclocking, where the lower frequency and vcore resulted in unsurprisingly more power-frugal numbers.

Conclusion

Gaming performance is still a work in progress for AMD, but the Ashes of the Singularity patch does offer some signs of encouragement. However, in a more general view, the argument that low resolutions aren't a target for the Ryzen 7 series may hold for now, but they don't stack up when you drop below £250 with Ryzen 5, which will encompass a range of resolutions including 1080p. As a result, we hope that optimisation continues, as this will paint the whole range in a better light and not just the Ryzen 7 series.

Focussing on the eight-core beasts, it's tricky making sweeping statements when we've only had hands on with a select few samples, but we can't help but feel that the Ryzen 7 1700 is still a better buy than the 1700X if you're game for a bit of overclocking. Even if you can only reach 3.8GHz with an everyday overclock, the £/$70 you'd save is definitely worth it given that, as our sample showed, the 1700X may only be good for around 3.9GHz with safe voltages. Once you plumb in your overclock settings, this immediately kills XFR too, so the only other benefits on offer by splashing out for the X-edition CPU are higher stock speed frequencies.

As a result, the Ryzen 7 1700X is a much better value option for stock speed systems than the Ryzen 7 1800X, losing only small amounts of ground for £100 less. Similarly, it offers a good deal more grunt than the 1700 at stock speed, so it is definitely worth the extra cash, especially if that 10 percent or so speed increase results in reduced times in rendering or video editing that save you money. So, the question is, will you be overclocking? If the answer is yes, go for the Ryzen 7 1700, but if not, opt for the 1700X or maybe even wait to see what Ryzen 5 brings next week.