Subject: Processors | March 8, 2017 - 02:43 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: Ryzen 1700X, Ryzen 1700, amd
With suggested prices of $330 for the Ryzen 1700 and $400 for the 1700X, a lot of users are more curious about the performance of these two chips, especially with some sites reporting almost equal performance when these chips are overclocked. [H]ard|OCP tested both of these chips at the same clock speeds to see what performance differences there are between the two. As it turns out the only test which resulted in delta of 1% or more was WinRAR, all other tests showed a minuscule difference between the X and the plain old 1700. They are going to follow these findings up with more tests, once they source some CPUs from retail outlets to see if there are any differences there.
"So there has been a lot of talk about what Ryzen CPU do you buy? The way I think is that you want to buy the least expensive one that will give you the best performance. That is exactly what we expect to find out here today. Is the Ryzen 1700 for $330 as good as the $400 1700X, or even the $500 1800X? "
Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ eTeknix
- AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ Kitguru
- Athlon X4 860K @ Hardware Secrets
- Intel 7th Generation Core i3 7350K Processor Review @ OCC
Subject: Processors | March 2, 2017 - 03:08 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: Ryzen 1700X, Zen, x370, video, ryzen, amd
Having started your journey with Ryan's quick overview of the performance of the 1800X and anxiously awaiting our further coverage now that we have both the parts and the time to test them you might want to take a peek at some other coverage. [H]ard|OCP tested the processor which many may be looking at due to the more affordable pricing, the Ryzen 1700X. Their test system is based on a Gigabyte A370-Gaming 5 with 16GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3600 which ran at 2933MHz during testing; Kyle reached out to vendors who assured him an update will make 3GHz reachable will arrive soon. Part of their testing focused on VR performance, so make sure to check out the full article.
"Saying that we have waited for a long time for a "real" CPU out of AMD would be a gross misunderstatement, but today AMD looks to remedy that. We are now offered up a new CPU that carries the branding name of Ryzen. Has AMD risen from the CPU graveyard? You be the judge after looking at the data."
Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:
- AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 7 1700X, and Ryzen 7 1700 CPUs @ The Tech Report
- AMD’s moment of Zen: Finally, an architecture that can compete @ Ars Technica
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Review: The Wait is Over @ Modders-Inc
- The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Performance Review @ Hardware Canucks
- The AMD Ryzen 7 Performance In 3D Rendering & Video Transcoding @ TechARP
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ Kitguru
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ Guru of 3D
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, and 1700 Processor Review @ OCC
- AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Linux Benchmarks @ Phoronix
Zen vs. 40 Years of CPU Development
Zen is nearly upon us. AMD is releasing its next generation CPU architecture to the world this week and we saw CPU demonstrations and upcoming AM4 motherboards at CES in early January. We have been shown tantalizing glimpses of the performance and capabilities of the “Ryzen” products that will presumably fill the desktop markets from $150 to $499. I have yet to be briefed on the product stack that AMD will be offering, but we know enough to start to think how positioning and placement will be addressed by these new products.
To get a better understanding of how Ryzen will stack up, we should probably take a look back at what AMD has accomplished in the past and how Intel has responded to some of the stronger products. AMD has been in business for 47 years now and has been a major player in semiconductors for most of that time. It really has only been since the 90s where AMD started to battle Intel head to head that people have become passionate about the company and their products.
The industry is a complex and ever-shifting one. AMD and Intel have been two stalwarts over the years. Even though AMD has had more than a few challenging years over the past decade, it still moves forward and expects to compete at the highest level with its much larger and better funded competitor. 2017 could very well be a breakout year for the company with a return to solid profitability in both CPU and GPU markets. I am not the only one who thinks this considering that AMD shares that traded around the $2 mark ten months ago are now sitting around $14.
AMD Through 1996
AMD became a force in the CPU industry due to IBM’s requirement to have a second source for its PC business. Intel originally entered into a cross licensing agreement with AMD to allow it to produce x86 chips based on Intel designs. AMD eventually started to produce their own versions of these parts and became a favorite in the PC clone market. Eventually Intel tightened down on this agreement and then cancelled it, but through near endless litigation AMD ended up with a x86 license deal with Intel.
AMD produced their own Am286 chip that was the first real break from the second sourcing agreement with Intel. Intel balked at sharing their 386 design with AMD and eventually forced the company to develop its own clean room version. The Am386 was released in the early 90s, well after Intel had been producing those chips for years. AMD then developed their own version of the Am486 which then morphed into the Am5x86. The company made some good inroads with these speedy parts and typically clocked them faster than their Intel counterparts (eg. Am486 40 MHz and 80 MHz vs. the Intel 486 DX33 and DX66). AMD priced these points lower so users could achieve better performance per dollar using the same chipsets and motherboards.
Intel released their first Pentium chips in 1993. The initial version was hot and featured the infamous FDIV bug. AMD made some inroads against these parts by introducing the faster Am486 and Am5x86 parts that would achieve clockspeeds from 133 MHz to 150 MHz at the very top end. The 150 MHz part was very comparable in overall performance to the Pentium 75 MHz chip and we saw the introduction of the dreaded “P-rating” on processors.
There is no denying that Intel continued their dominance throughout this time by being the gold standard in x86 manufacturing and design. AMD slowly chipped away at its larger rival and continued to profit off of the lucrative x86 market. William Sanders III set the bar higher about where he wanted the company to go and he started on a much more aggressive path than many expected the company to take.