AMD Ryzen 7 1700X CPU - 3.8GHz £299.14 + £5.48 Shipping @ Amazon.fr - HotUKDeals - Page 2
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
404

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X CPU - 3.8GHz £299.14 + £5.48 Shipping @ Amazon.fr £304.62

£304.62 @ Amazon France
Edit 2: Back at €349.99 = £299.14 Edit 1: Price went down from £321 to £302. Thanks nellygtfc Idealo: £360.10 @Ballicom / £363.79 @Amazon https://m.idealo.co.uk/compare/5406078/amd-ryzen-7-1700x… Read More
answark Avatar
4m, 1w agoFound 4 months, 1 week ago
Edit 2: Back at €349.99 = £299.14

Edit 1: Price went down from £321 to £302. Thanks nellygtfc

Idealo: £360.10 @Ballicom / £363.79 @Amazon https://m.idealo.co.uk/compare/5406078/amd-ryzen-7-1700x.html

Product

Product Type: 8 Core Processor

Series: AMD Ryzen

Socket: Socket Am4

Processor

Clock Speed: 3,400 Mhz

Number of Processing Cores: 8

Number of Threads: 16

Clock Frequency: 3.4 GHz

Turbo-CORE: yes

Max. Turbo Frequency: 3.8 GHz

Processor Code Name: Summit Ridge

TDP: 95 Watt

Manufacturing Process: 14 nm

Memory

L3 Cache: 16,384 KB

Additional Information

Manufacturer: AMD

Feature: SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading), x86-64, AMD-V, AMD VT, Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX), Advanced Vector Extensions 2.0 (AVX2), NX-Bit, TBT 3.0, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD PowerNow, FMA3, FMA4
answark Avatar
4m, 1w agoFound 4 months, 1 week ago
Options

All Comments

(58) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#41
Sensible article on gaming with Ryzen Info

... Even where the gap is quite substantial, such as Rise of the Tomb Raider, where we saw 135fps on both the Kaby Lake i7-7700K and the (eight-core/16-thread) Broadwell-E i7-6900K, the 1800X managed 110fps. That speed is still comfortably playable. Tech Report saw even more extreme differences in Doom in OpenGL mode; 170fps for the 7700K, just 123fps for the 1800X; Tech Report doesn't include the 6900K, but the 10-core/20-thread 6950X achieves 156fps. The 1800X certainly gives up some fps, but it remains perfectly playable. Switch to the newer Vulkan API instead of OpenGL and the difference evaporates away, with both the 7700K and the 1800X averaging 165fps. The 6950X, for what it's worth, is slightly behind at 161fps ...
#42
BetaRomeo
The_Hoff
Buy whatever fits your usage, if you want an older platform with more gaming focus choose Intel. If you want a slice of the future and you want a platform that has 3/4 years of CPU's for it, go AMD.
Holy crap, the HUKD web engineer needs to get this website performance fixed. Comments made at the time of Bulldozer's release are only just starting to show up! oO
The_Hoff
My 1700 is running at 3.9ghz on the stock fan with 3260mhz RAM nicely and isn't a toaster like a 7700k that would need a delid.
Just make sure you budget extra for your electricity bill this month...https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-03-08/oc-power.png
Nearly double the load power consumption of the 7700K... oO

Idle power makes up for it. 10w/ph less, assuming the CPU isnt going to be running at full load continuously, i think it will even out to be about the same power usage (if you account for normal PC usage such as web surfing and word processing etc.)
#43
Panda221
My 7700K 5Ghz does every thing i need it to do! lol


Lol?
#44
I think the telling thing is their similar benchmark article about Photoshop and multi-core performance where they took a 10C/20T Xeon:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/
Unbelievable that after decades*, Photoshop mostly still doesn't scale past two cores.
I guess it is possible that some specific third-party filters do scale well, but haven't seen any benchmarks for that.
Of course, it seems that photo editing isn't as parallel as I though - or not easily at any rate - as GIMP on Linux doesn't scale well either:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=6
a very similar story: 2-4 cores and a high clock are all that matter.

*Anyone who remembers the 1990s where Mac Photoshop users were willing to spend £1000s on NuBus and later PCI DSP accelerators to gain a bit of extra speed from certain filters would probably be surprised that nearly three decades later so many Photoshop functions don't take advantage of the hardware.

Edited By: Gkains on Mar 20, 2017 09:11
#45
iDealYou
Sensible article on gaming with Ryzen Info
... Even where the gap is quite substantial, such as Rise of the Tomb Raider, where we saw 135fps on both the Kaby Lake i7-7700K and the (eight-core/16-thread) Broadwell-E i7-6900K, the 1800X managed 110fps. That speed is still comfortably playable. Tech Report saw even more extreme differences in Doom in OpenGL mode; 170fps for the 7700K, just 123fps for the 1800X; Tech Report doesn't include the 6900K, but the 10-core/20-thread 6950X achieves 156fps. The 1800X certainly gives up some fps, but it remains perfectly playable. Switch to the newer Vulkan API instead of OpenGL and the difference evaporates away, with both the 7700K and the 1800X averaging 165fps. The 6950X, for what it's worth, is slightly behind at 161fps ...
Eh, that's strange. I linked to that article in the first comment in this deal. Didn't you get past page one? They drew some rather different conclusions from the one you imply in your rather dubiously-picked quote. For example, starting with the paragraph that follows your pick:

That's all well and good for the games of today, but what about the games of the future? As games become more demanding, there may become a point at which the 7700K is just at the threshold of "playable framerates" and the 1800X falls short. Doesn't that make the 1800X a bad buy?

Even if game developers make AMD's suggested changes to accommodate Ryzen's topology, we wouldn't expect to see a night-and-day performance from any existing game. While there may be some small driver improvements to come, if the past is anything to judge by, Ryzen's performance on games today is about as good as it's ever going to be for those games. Historical figures from ComputerBase provides some context here. The site performs gaming tests at a very low resolution in a bid to maximise the load on the CPU and minimise the influence on the GPU. In 2012, the then-new FX 8350, using AMD's Piledriver core (the second generation follow-up to the Bulldozer core) offered 85 percent of the performance of an Intel Sandy Bridge i5-2500K; both chips were paired with a GTX 680 video card. In 2015, and with a much faster GPU, the GTX Titan 6GB, the gap had closed, but only barely: the 8350 represented 87 percent of the performance of the i5-2500K.

We spoke to several game developers about how they optimise their games and what Ryzen meant. Some themes were immediately clear: high performance game development is largely done in C++, and Microsoft's Visual C++ is the development tool of choice. Developers don't appear to be interested in hand-writing assembler routines tuned to the vagaries of a specific processor.

This in turn has consequences. As with any good C++ compiler, Visual C++ tries to optimise the code it produces. For example, Intel processors can decode four instructions at a time; three "simple" instructions and a fourth "complex" instruction, and some of those decoded instructions can be "fused" together, which means they can be executed on a single arithmetic unit rather than having to use multiple units.

If a compiler emits two "complex" instructions back to back, they'll both compete for the complex decoder, and one will have to wait. If the compiler emits a steady sequence of complex-simple-simple-simple, complex-simple-simple-simple, all the decoders can be used simultaneously. Similarly, if a compiler tries to prefer instructions that can be fused, it will free up additional arithmetic units that can in turn be used to execute more instructions.

In the past, Visual C++'s optimisation options included the ability to tune the output for specific microarchitectures. As well as following the general rules for optimal instruction decoding, this might mean preferring some particular instruction sequences over other, equivalent ones. For example, when compiling for the Pentium 4, the compiler might try to avoid "branch" instructions because of the Pentium 4's long pipeline and high penalty for wrongly predicted branches and instead use "conditional move," which optionally moves a value from one register to another, depending on the result of a third register, without requiring a branch.

But the current compiler does not offer any specific ability to target particular architectures. Competing compilers, such as gcc, do retain this ability, but Visual C++ aims for a one-size-fits-all output. Given the broadly similar constraints of both Intel and AMD processors over the last decade, this is arguably justified, but it has a consequence: if Ryzen has any uniquely peculiar requirements for its instruction scheduling, they're not going to be met. Developers are trusting their compilers to do something sensible, and as far as we can tell, they're not going to write their game engines in hand-crafted assembler to eke out extra performance that the compiler is leaving on the table.

This can have measurable performance consequences; a weakness of the branch predictor in AMD's K8 processor required an unusual workaround to achieve optimal performance. Should a similar issue occur with Ryzen, the lack of Ryzen-aware code generation could hurt performance.

Over the next few years, we'd expect that unevenness to become a thing of the past in high performance games. While that can only handle, say, two or four threads, a reasonable approach to multithreading can be to create several distinct, well-defined tasks and run each one in a thread of its own; a thread for rendering, one for sound, one for AI, and so on. But as developers have to consider systems capable of running tens of threads simultaneously, that approach breaks down, and a system like that in Nitrous—where breaking up the graphical rendering across all the processors is handled by the engine itself—becomes essential. There aren't 16 balanced, well-defined tasks for the game to perform; it has to split its work up to take advantage of however many cores happen to be available.
That said, that older approach to multithreading will still have a role, especially when one moves away from the graphics domain. The 2013 SimCity reboot was flawed in many ways, not least of which was size: we simply couldn't build the sprawling metropolises that we'd grown to love in previous incarnations of the game. One of the fundamental limits of that game was that its core simulation engine was strictly single-threaded. Its graphics and sound engines did use multiple threads, but with the simulation itself limited to one core, the game rapidly hit the performance limit.
Newer games don't escape this problem; Civilization VI shows substantially better performance on Kaby Lake systems than on Broadwell-E or Ryzen, and when the computer is taking its turn, the thread load is very uneven, with some cores busy and others much less so.

And the final sentence...

But certain multithreaded sticking points are set to remain, and this will likely continue to be a problem for AMD and Intel processors alike.

Despite those doom and gloom quotes I've intentionally picked out to show why your chosen quote was misleading, the article isn't completely negative about Ryzen - but they are quite clear that the benefits of Ryzen for gaming are going to be the exception, not the norm:

But at a higher level, developers do consider the capabilities of the processors they target. Ashes of the Singularity, developed by Oxide Games and Stardock Entertainment, has been promoted by Microsoft and AMD alike as an example of a game that takes advantage of cutting edge technology. The game was an early adopter of DirectX 12 and has been regularly used as a showcase to demonstrate how DirectX 12 allows game engines to spread their work over multiple cores more effectively, thereby reducing processor overheads and maximising performance.

It's still worth reading through the whole thing, IMO, as there are other positives and negatives for Ryzen discussed, but the idea that it paints a rosy picture for today's Ryzen chips overall..? I'm not sure how even a non-technical native English speaker could draw that conclusion. Heck, Ars' Ryzen review subtitle said it all:

Ryzen is an excellent workstation CPU, but gamers should look elsewhere.
#46
Gkains
BetaRomeo
Just make sure you budget extra for your electricity bill this month...https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-03-08/oc-power.png
Nearly double the load power consumption of the 7700K... oO
Er, come again? Ever heard of race to idle?
Er, come again? If you're never going to use your CPU at load for any amount of time, why bother spending £330 on a CPU?

Or are you suggesting that I was suggesting that CPUs only ever run at load? What an embarrassing strawman. oO

Gkains
That's the max power while running Cinebench, so from the same PCPer review, you forgot to include a rather important metric, what each CPU scores:
The Ryzen 7 1800X scores about 166% of the i7-7700k's scores, but only uses 120% of the power (both running at stock)
No, you've confused your processors and clock speeds. We were talking about the overclocked 1700, not the stock 1800X. Here's the article (yes, it's not the one you linked to and claimed was the article I'd referenced!), you can see they said it clearly:"At stock settings, the Ryzen 7 1700 system draws 108 watts but when overclocked, that peaks at 214 watts! That’s a gain of 106 watts over the 65-watt TDP that the part is rated at."

Gkains
In fact, for efficiency for CineBench (CB per Watt) Ryzen is only beaten by Intel's i7-6950X which has 10C/20T and lists at $1,723. Here's the summary of those two PCPer results against each other:
No, you've confused your processors and clock speeds. We were talking about the overclocked 1700, not the stock 1800X. Don't you understand that the whole point of the comment was that overclocking considerably changes things?

Gkains
Now overclocking does of course change that but that will apply to all the other CPUs too.
Right... so you did know that we were talking about overclocking. So why direct all those paragraphs about stock performance/watt at me? :|

Apart from anything else, your assumption that the 7700K would require a similar wattage boost is simply wrong - it's roughly a 30W increase to 4.8GHz (compared to over 100W on the 1700 at 4GHz).

Gkains
Higher clock speeds would of course be nice as at 5GHz, Ryzen would be a lot better for games but the current GF process is really not suited for high speeds. So much so, that I would imagine the Ryzen 7 1700 running at stock would get a lot better CB/watt than the 1700X or the 1800X.
No, you've confused your processors and clock speeds. We were talking about the overclocked 1700, not the stock 1700 vs the 1800X.

Thank you very much for the paragraphs about a different topic, though. If you fancy responding to the actual point, please, be my guest. Maybe leave the strawmen out of it this time, though? ;)
#47
118luke
BetaRomeo
The_Hoff
Buy whatever fits your usage, if you want an older platform with more gaming focus choose Intel. If you want a slice of the future and you want a platform that has 3/4 years of CPU's for it, go AMD.
Holy crap, the HUKD web engineer needs to get this website performance fixed. Comments made at the time of Bulldozer's release are only just starting to show up! oO
The_Hoff
My 1700 is running at 3.9ghz on the stock fan with 3260mhz RAM nicely and isn't a toaster like a 7700k that would need a delid.
Just make sure you budget extra for your electricity bill this month...https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-03-08/oc-power.png
Nearly double the load power consumption of the 7700K... oO
Idle power makes up for it. 10w/ph less, assuming the CPU isnt going to be running at full load continuously, i think it will even out to be about the same power usage (if you account for normal PC usage such as web surfing and word processing etc.)
I'm sorry, I can't quite see where you're getting that "10w/ph" figure from..? Or the web surfing / word processing figures? (Might be screen blindness on my part, sorry! I've seen so many baseless, sourceless lies in these Ryzen deals that I'm trying not to be paranoid that comments like these are just conjecture based on nothing! ;))
#48
Price has now gone up to £341, unable to expire.
1 Like #49
BetaRomeo
118luke
BetaRomeo
The_Hoff
Buy whatever fits your usage, if you want an older platform with more gaming focus choose Intel. If you want a slice of the future and you want a platform that has 3/4 years of CPU's for it, go AMD.
Holy crap, the HUKD web engineer needs to get this website performance fixed. Comments made at the time of Bulldozer's release are only just starting to show up! oO
The_Hoff
My 1700 is running at 3.9ghz on the stock fan with 3260mhz RAM nicely and isn't a toaster like a 7700k that would need a delid.
Just make sure you budget extra for your electricity bill this month...https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-03-08/oc-power.png
Nearly double the load power consumption of the 7700K... oO
Idle power makes up for it. 10w/ph less, assuming the CPU isnt going to be running at full load continuously, i think it will even out to be about the same power usage (if you account for normal PC usage such as web surfing and word processing etc.)
I'm sorry, I can't quite see where you're getting that "10w/ph" figure from..? Or the web surfing / word processing figures? (Might be screen blindness on my part, sorry! I've seen so many baseless, sourceless lies in these Ryzen deals that I'm trying not to be paranoid that comments like these are just conjecture based on nothing! ;))

Yes, perhaps you have spent too much time reading useless articles and not relying on common sense + a small amount of research + looking at the chart that was posted to determine it, dont need to read any articles!.:D

With your laptop/PC with HUKD webpage open, have a look at how much your CPU is being used. 1%?
Here is my secondary laptop, with outlook open and some folders and 2 webpages.

[img]http://i65.tinypic.com/2ymbzpw.png[/img]

So, assuming your PC isnt going to be gaming 24/7 every time it is being used, looking at the chart posted above
- the Ryzen 1800X is using 37.6watts
- the i7 7700k is using 47.4 watts.

So a 10 watt difference between the two, which will add up over time. Depending wildly upon your usage (if you 90% use the PC for basic tasks and 10% use it for gaming for example), you could end up using less power on the AMD processor than the intel.
#50
118luke
BetaRomeo
118luke
BetaRomeo
The_Hoff
Buy whatever fits your usage, if you want an older platform with more gaming focus choose Intel. If you want a slice of the future and you want a platform that has 3/4 years of CPU's for it, go AMD.
Holy crap, the HUKD web engineer needs to get this website performance fixed. Comments made at the time of Bulldozer's release are only just starting to show up! oO
The_Hoff
My 1700 is running at 3.9ghz on the stock fan with 3260mhz RAM nicely and isn't a toaster like a 7700k that would need a delid.
Just make sure you budget extra for your electricity bill this month...https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-03-08/oc-power.png
Nearly double the load power consumption of the 7700K... oO
Idle power makes up for it. 10w/ph less, assuming the CPU isnt going to be running at full load continuously, i think it will even out to be about the same power usage (if you account for normal PC usage such as web surfing and word processing etc.)
I'm sorry, I can't quite see where you're getting that "10w/ph" figure from..? Or the web surfing / word processing figures? (Might be screen blindness on my part, sorry! I've seen so many baseless, sourceless lies in these Ryzen deals that I'm trying not to be paranoid that comments like these are just conjecture based on nothing! ;))
Yes, perhaps you have spent too much time reading useless articles and not relying on common sense + a small amount of research + looking at the chart that was posted to determine it, dont need to read any articles!.:D
With your laptop/PC with HUKD webpage open, have a look at how much your CPU is being used. 1%?
Here is my secondary laptop, with outlook open and some folders and 2 webpages.
[img]http://i65.tinypic.com/2ymbzpw.png[/img]
So, assuming your PC isnt going to be gaming 24/7 every time it is being used, looking at the chart posted above
- the Ryzen 1800X is using 37.6watts
- the i7 7700k is using 47.4 watts.
So a 10 watt difference between the two, which will add up over time. Depending wildly upon your usage (if you 90% use the PC for basic tasks and 10% use it for gaming for example), you could end up using less power on the AMD processor than the intel.
Oh, I see it! Thank you!

No, you're looking at the 1800X when we were talking about the overclocked 1700. That's why you confused me.

I'm not sure why that point has gone over the heads of two people now. I'll say it three more times, just to make it clear:

OVERCLOCKED 1700.
OVERCLOCKED 1700.
OVERCLOCKED 1700.


Hope that helps to improve your ability to read + look at charts. ;)
#51
BetaRomeo
118luke
BetaRomeo
118luke
BetaRomeo
The_Hoff
Buy whatever fits your usage, if you want an older platform with more gaming focus choose Intel. If you want a slice of the future and you want a platform that has 3/4 years of CPU's for it, go AMD.
Holy crap, the HUKD web engineer needs to get this website performance fixed. Comments made at the time of Bulldozer's release are only just starting to show up! oO
The_Hoff
My 1700 is running at 3.9ghz on the stock fan with 3260mhz RAM nicely and isn't a toaster like a 7700k that would need a delid.
Just make sure you budget extra for your electricity bill this month...https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-03-08/oc-power.png
Nearly double the load power consumption of the 7700K... oO
Idle power makes up for it. 10w/ph less, assuming the CPU isnt going to be running at full load continuously, i think it will even out to be about the same power usage (if you account for normal PC usage such as web surfing and word processing etc.)
I'm sorry, I can't quite see where you're getting that "10w/ph" figure from..? Or the web surfing / word processing figures? (Might be screen blindness on my part, sorry! I've seen so many baseless, sourceless lies in these Ryzen deals that I'm trying not to be paranoid that comments like these are just conjecture based on nothing! ;))
Yes, perhaps you have spent too much time reading useless articles and not relying on common sense + a small amount of research + looking at the chart that was posted to determine it, dont need to read any articles!.:D
With your laptop/PC with HUKD webpage open, have a look at how much your CPU is being used. 1%?
Here is my secondary laptop, with outlook open and some folders and 2 webpages.
[img]http://i65.tinypic.com/2ymbzpw.png[/img]
So, assuming your PC isnt going to be gaming 24/7 every time it is being used, looking at the chart posted above
- the Ryzen 1800X is using 37.6watts
- the i7 7700k is using 47.4 watts.
So a 10 watt difference between the two, which will add up over time. Depending wildly upon your usage (if you 90% use the PC for basic tasks and 10% use it for gaming for example), you could end up using less power on the AMD processor than the intel.
Oh, I see it! Thank you!
No, you're looking at the 1800X when we were talking about the overclocked 1700. That's why you confused me.
I'm not sure why that point has gone over the heads of two people now. I'll say it three more times, just to make it clear:OVERCLOCKED 1700.
OVERCLOCKED 1700.
OVERCLOCKED 1700.

Hope that helps to improve your ability to read + look at charts. ;)
But what i said is still factually correct, theres no denying it. :)
I picked on the 1800x because it is the best performing yet lowest power at idle.

Even idle load on an OC'd 1700 is 44.7w (less than any of the intels on that chart).
There again, very rare i OC these days anyway, uses more power for arguably marginal gains and less stability!
#52
There's little point in even having this conversation. You're comparing a chip with half the cores and looking at loaded wattage? It has more cores, it will use more energy, very simple. Compare it to the HEDT Intel chips, otherwise wait for the R5 and then compare it to the 5700/6700/7700K.

If I had a data centre and I happened to be running full tilt on OCed chips, I might care.

Here's a better example:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review/11/




Edited By: The_Hoff on Mar 22, 2017 17:42: .
#53
Bigspin
if you play games @ 4k, Ryzen is totally fine. however if you are fan of stone age 1080p then Ryzen is not for you.


No it's not. Simply because gpu bottleneck. You getting nearly equal results in 4k because of it. Gpu just cant go any higher. But if you get a better gpu next year you'll see exactly the same ryzen disadvantage in games as you can see in 1800p now. That's why cpu benchmarks are done in low res and settings - to exclude gpu out of the equation. Than you can measure cpu's performance in games.
In other words all 4k game benchmarks give you fake results at the moment.
2 Likes #54
Price down to 349.99 Euros now! So around £302.66 oO

https://charts.camelcamelcamel.com/fr/B06X3W9NGG/amazon.png?force=1&zero=0&w=725&h=440&desired=false&legend=1&ilt=1&tp=all&fo=0&lang=en
#55
At this price, why would anyone go for a 1700?
#56
tempt
At this price, why would anyone go for a 1700?
I guess people just wanting to get the Wraith Spire cooler that's included, the basic 1700 should do mininum 3.9GHz. 1700X back up to 389.99 Euros for now, will probally drop again soon.
1 Like #57
Back down from 410 to 359.90 Euros, which equates to £308.46 + £5.48 Shipping @ Amazon.fr £313.94 :)
1 Like #58
Wow, it's dropped down to 349.99 Euros again! So £299.33 + £5.48 Shipping @ Amazon.fr £304.81 ;)

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!