Ryzen 7 1700 CPU by AMD Review

We tested the Ryzen 7 1700, the entry CPU from AMD’s new Ryzen 7 lineup. It has eight cores, 16 threads, 3.0 GHz base clock, 3.7 GHz turbo clock, TDP of 65 W, and uses the new AM4 socket. Check it out!
After several years, AMD finally launched a new generation of CPUs, based on a brand new architecture, called Zen, using the new AM4 socket. The first CPUs based on this new socket are called Ryzen 7 and they are high-end processors. AMD already launched the Ryzen 5 (mainstream) processors, and the Ryzen 3 (entry) models will be available soon.
The first models launched were the Ryzen 7 1700, the Ryzen 7 1700X, and the Ryzen 7 1800X, all of them with eight cores and 16 threads, thanks to the SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading) technology, similar to Intel’s Hyper-Threading technology, which simulates two logic cores on each physical core. We already tested the Ryzen 7 1700X, click here to read the review.
Ryzen CPUs use the new AM4 socket, and are compatible with DDR4 memory. This means they are incompatible with “old” motherboards that use AM3+ and FM2+ sockets.
These new CPUs are manufactured under 14 nm “FinFET” technology. Each core has 128 kiB L1 cache and 512 kiB L2 cache, and there is an 8 MiB L3 shared cache for each four-core block. The Ryzen 7 1700 have two of those blocks, with a total of 4 MiB of L2 cache and 16 MiB of L3 cache. That’s why AMD says the CPU has a 20 MiB cache.
Ryzen CPUs have unlocked clock multiplier, which allows the user to overclock it simply by changing the settings on the motherboard setup, if it uses one of the chipsets compatible with this feature (B350 e X370).
Besides that, Ryzen CPUs have a set of features called “SenseMI”, where the CPU detects and controls the clock in 25 MHz steps, according to several factors.
The Ryzen 7 1700X and Ryzen 7 1800X are sold without a cooler, but the Ryzen 7 1700 comes with a cooler named “Wraith Spire”. The mounting frame used by AM4 socket is similar to the older ones with respect to the “hook” where the CPU cooler holds. So, coolers that use this center hook (like the Wraith) are compatible with AM4 socket. However, the motherboard holes are different, so AM3/FM2 coolers which mounting system uses the motherboard holes will not fit.
The closer competitor of the Ryzen 7 1700 is the Core i7-7700K. So, we compared the Ryzen 7 1700 to the Core i7-7700K and to the Ryzen 7 1700X. We also included in our comparison a FX-8350, in order to compare performance to the previous generation.
Figure 1 shows the box of the Ryzen 7 1700.

Figure 1: Ryzen 7 1700 package

In Figure 2 you see the box contents: the Wraith Spire cooler (that has RGB lights inside the top frame), a cable to control the cooler lights, the CPU itself, and a case sticker.

Figure 2: box contents

The Wraith Spire cooler has a copper base and comes with preapplied thermal compound.

Figure 3: base of the Wraith Spire cooler

In Figure 2 you see the Ryzen 7 1700 processor.

Figure 4: the Ryzen 7 1700 CPU

As the Ryzen 7 1700X has no integrated video, we used a GeForce GTX 1080 video card on all tests.
Let’s compare the main specs of the reviewed CPUs in the next page.
[nextpage title=”The Reviewed CPUs”]
In the tables below, we compare the main features of the CPUs included in our review.

CPU	Cores	HT/SMT	IGP	Internal Clock	Turbo Clock	Core	Tech.	TDP	Socket	Price
Ryzen 7 1700	8	Yes	No	3.0 GHz	3.7 GHz	Summit Ridge	14 nm	65 W	AM4	USD 330
Ryzen 7 1700X	8	Yes	No	3.4 GHz	3.8 GHz	Summit Ridge	14 nm	95 W	AM4	USD 400
Core i7-7700K	4	Yes	Yes	4.2 GHz	4.5 GHz	Kaby Lake	14 nm	91 W	LGA1151	USD 350
FX-8350	8	No	No	4.0 GHz	4.2 GHz	Vishera	32 nm	125 W	AM3+	USD 160

Below you can see the memory configuration for each CPU.

CPU	L2 Cache	L3 Cache	Memory Support	Memory Channels
Ryzen 7 1700	8 x 512 MiB	2 x 8 MiB	Up to DDR4-2667	2
Ryzen 7 1700X	8 x 512 kiB	2 x 8 MiB	Up to DDR4-2667	2
Core i7-7700K	4 x 256 KiB	8 MiB	Up to DDR4-2400 or DDR3L-1600	2
FX-8350	4 x 2 MiB	8 MiB	Up to DDR3-1866	2

[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions, the only variable devicand was the CPU being tested, besides the motherboard and memory, which had to be replaced to match the different CPUs.
Hardware Configuration

Motherboard (AM4): ASRock X370 Taichi
Motherboard (LGA1151): Gigabyte AORUS Z270X-Gaming 7
Motherboard (AM3+) ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer
Memory (DDR4): 16 GiB DDR4-2133, two G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-2133C15D-16GVR 8 GiB memory modules configured at 2133 MHz
Memory (DDR3): 16 GiB DDR3-2133, four G.Skill Ripjaws Z F3-17000CL9Q-16GBZH 4 GiB memory modules configured at 213
Boot drive: WD Blue 1,000 GiB SSD
Video Card: GeForce GTX 1080
Video Monitor: Philips 236VL
Power Supply: Corsair VS500

Operating System Configuration

Windows 10 Home 64-bit
NTFS
Video resolution: 1920 x 1080 60 Hz

Driver Versions

NVIDIA driver version: 378.49

Software Used

Error Margin
We adopted a 3% error margin. Thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”PCMark 8″]
PCMark 8 is a benchmarking software that uses real-world applications to measure the computer performance. We ran three tests: Home, which includes web browsing, writing, light gaming, photo editing, and video chat tests; Creative, that includes web surfing, video editing, group video chat, video conversion, and gaming; and Work, which runs tasks such as writing documents, web browsing, spreadsheets, editing, and video chatting. Let’s see the results.

On the PCMark 8 Home benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 12% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 28% faster than the FX-8350.

On the Creative benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 7% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 39% faster than the FX-8350.

On the Work benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 13% slower than the Core i7-7700K, also performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 16% faster than the FX-8350.
[nextpage title=”3DMark”]

3DMark is a program with a set of several 3D benchmarks. Fire Strike runs a “heavy” DirectX 11 simulation. Sky Diver also measures DirectX 11 performance, and is aimed on average computers. The Cloud Gate benchmark measures DirectX 10 performance, and the Ice Storm Extreme measures DirectX 9 performance and is targeted to entry-level computers, so we don’t ran it.

On Fire Strike, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 13% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 40% faster than the FX-8350.

On the Sky Diver benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 4% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 36% faster than the FX-8350.

On the Cloud Gate benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 12% faster than the Core i7-7700K, 6% slower than the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 92% faster than the FX-8350.

[nextpage title=”Performance in programs”]

Cinebench R15

Cinebench R15 is based on the Cinema 4D software. It is very useful to measure the performance gain obtained by the presence of several processing cores while rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is an area where a bigger number of cores helps a lot, because usually this kind of software recognize several processors (Cinebench R15, for example, can use up to 256 processing cores).
We ran the CPU benchmark, which renders a complex image using all the processing cores (real and virtual) to speed up the process. The result is given as a score.

On Cinebench R15 CPU benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 43% faster than the Core i7-7700K, 8% slower than the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 125% faster than the FX-8350.

CPU-Z

On its current version, the well-known hardware identification software CPU-Z comes with a benchmarking tool, which measures CPU performance for one core and for all available cores.

On the single thread benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 17% slower than the Core i7-7700K, 15% slower than the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 57% faster than the FX-8350.

On the multiple thread benchmark, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 89% faster than the Core i7-7700K, 93% faster than the Ryzen 7 1700X, and 188% faster than the FX-8350. Aparelntly, this program has some bug related to the performance measure of the Ryzen 7 1700X.

DivX

We used the DivX converter, a tool included in the DivX package, in order to measure the encoding performance using this codec. The DivX codec is capable of recognizing and using all available cores and the SSE4 instruction set.
We converted a Full HD, six-minute long .mov video file into an .avi file, using the “HD 1080p” output profile. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

On DivX encoding, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 28% slower than the Core i7-7700K, 8% faster than the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 24% faster than the FX-8350.

Media Espresso

Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video engine to speed up the conversion process. We converted a 1 GiB, 1920x1080i, 23,738 kbps, .mov video file to a smaller 320×200, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a smartphone. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

Here the Ryzen 7 1700 was 35% slower than the Core i7-7700K, similar to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 9% faster than the FX-8350.

Photoshop CC

The best way to measure the performance of a CPU is by using real programs. The problem, of course, is to create a methodology that offers precise results. For Photoshop CC, we used a script named “Retouch Artist Speed Test,” which applies a series of filters to a standard image and gives the time Photoshop takes to run all of them. The results are given in seconds, so the less, the best.

In this test, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 22% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed like the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 40% faster than the FX-8350.

WinRAR

Another task where the CPU is very demanded is on file compacting. We ran a test compacting a folder with 8 GiB on 6.813 files to a file, using WinRAR 4.2. The graph below shows the time taken on each test.

On WinRAR, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 12% slower than the Core i7-7700K, similar to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 37% faster than the FX-8350.
[nextpage title=”Gaming Performance”]

Battlefield 1

Battlefield 1 (BF1) is a first person shooter launched in October 2016, base on the Frostbite engine. To benchmark using this game, we played the same misson on the campaign mode, in Full HD and graphic settings as “high”, measuring the framerate with FRAPS.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.

On Battlefield 1, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 5% slower than the Core i7-7700K, 7% slower than the Ryzen 7 1700X, and performed like the FX-8350.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is an action RPG with FPS elements, launched in August 2016, that uses the Dawn engine, being compatible with DirectX 12. We tested it using the benchmark included in the game, with DirectX 12 enabled, Full HD, and graphic options as “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.

On this game, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 25% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 19% faster than the FX-8350.

Dirt Rally

Dirt Rally is an off-road racing game released in April 2015, using Ego engine. To measure performance using this game, we ran the performance test included in the game, in 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) resolution and image quality configured as “medium” and MSAA off.
The results below are expressed in frames per second (fps).

In this game, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 32% slower than the Core i7-7700K, similar to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 36% faster than the FX-8350.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V, or simply GTA V, is an open-world action game released for PCs in April of 2015, using the RAGE engine. In order to measure the performance on this game, we ran the performance test of the game, measuring the framerate with FRAPS. We ran GTA V at Full HD, with all image quality set as “high” and MSAA off.

The results below are expressed in frames per second.

On GTA V, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 22% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 33% faster than the FX-8350.

Hitman

Hitman is an action/stealth game, launched in March 2016, that uses a DirectX 12 compatible version of the Glacier 2 engine. To measure performance in this game, we ran the benchmark in it, measuring the framerate with FRAPS. We ran this game with DirectX 12 enabled, with image quality set as “high”.
The results below, in Full HD and 4K, are expressed in frames per second.

On Hitman, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 27% slower than the Core i7-7700K, performed similarly to the Ryzen 7 1700X, and was 11% faster than the FX-8350.

Mad Max

Mad Max is an open-world action game launched in September of 2015, using the Avalanche engine. In order to measure the performance using this game, we ran its intro, measuring the framerate with FRAPS three times. We ran the game with image quality set as “high”.

The results below are expressed in fps and they are the mean between the three collected results.

On Mad Max, all the CPUs performed similarly.

Rise of the Tomb Rider

Rise of the Tomb Rider is an adventure/action game launched in January of 2016, based on Foundation engine. In order to measure the performance using this game, we ran the benchmark included on it, using Full HD resolution and graphics quality set to “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.

Also on Rise of the Tomb Rider, the Ryzen 7 1700 was 41% slower than the Core i7-7700K, 7% slower than the Ryzen 7 1700X, and similar to the FX-8350.
[nextpage title=”Overclocking”]
All the Ryzen processors have unlocked clock multiplier, which means you can overclocking it just by changing its multiplier, as long as the motherboard has this feature.
We were able to configure the CPU to run stable at 3.65 GHz (100 MHz reference clock and x36,5 multiplier), with the original voltages. Raising the voltage to 1,35 V, we were able to run it stable at 3,9 GHz.
It may be possible to reach higher frequencies if you “play” with the available adjusts, as long as you have a good power supply, motherboard, and cooling system.
It is also good to keep in mind that the overclock capability depends on pure luck, since two CPUs of same model can reach different maximum clocks.
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
Comparing the results of the Ryzen 7 1700 benchmarks to the the Core i7-7700K, it is clear that, in some testes (like the Cinebench R15), the Ryzen 7 1700 is far superior (because of its number of cores and threads). On the other hand, in other tests and games, the Ryzen 7 1700 was slower than the Core i7-7700K.
So, the Ryzen 7 1700 is a great buy if you need a CPU for tasks that use heavy parallelism, like image rendering, for example. For other applications, like a gamer PC, the Core i7-7700K has a better cost/benefit ratio.
It is also important to compare the Ryzen 7 1700 to the Ryzen 7 1700X, which is a more expensive model. We discovered that, in the real world, the performance difference between those CPUs is small, so we can say the Ryzen 7 1700 has a better cost/benefit ratio than its brother. Besides that, it comes with a cooler (the more expensive models don’t), and it has a lower TDP. And you can even overclocking it to reach higher clock rates if you want.
Another important point is that, even using a mainstream cooler, the Ryzen 7 1700 ran cold during all our tests. Keeping a room temperature around 20 degrees Celsius, the maximum temperature the CPU reached was 49 degrees Celsius during a stress test with Prime95.