308°
EXPIRED
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 305€ (~260£) + 6€ delivery (refundable?) £266 @ amazon.fr
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 305€ (~260£) + 6€ delivery (refundable?) £266 @ amazon.fr

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 305€ (~260£) + 6€ delivery (refundable?) £266 @ amazon.fr

Buy forBuy forBuy for£266
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 305€ (~260£) + 6€ delivery (posibly refundable, ordered 1600 and it was send from uk warehouse, send them email with question why they charge me int post if they ship it from uk amd they refund me delivery charges...). Best price ever?

Top comments

Chuggee

Not most games, that's for sure. Anyone who wanted a good value CPU with … Not most games, that's for sure. Anyone who wanted a good value CPU with more than 4 cores bought the 5820K a few years ago at £300. Quad channel memory, 28 PCIe lanes (instead of Ryzen's 16) and Intel SpeedStep support when overclocked.Ryzen is a decent architecture, but it's going to take a few months before the teething issues are sorted out. I don't think most users will be able to get more than 3.9GHz out of these CPUs though.



You might want to check your misinformation, all R7 chips have 24 CPU PCIe lanes, most boards also add 8 Chipset lanes on top of that.

If you hate AMD, go buy an Intel chip and enjoy your house fire. This is excellent value.

I have both i7-6700k and ryzen 1700 in the house and I tested both myself (doom and andromeda) fhd 144hz monitor, 1080ti
- When having music in the background in real life I7 loses by about 10%, while spikes become significantly more frequent for i7
- 6700k does beat 1700 with just the game running but what most reviews seems to ignore are spikes, every so often the 6700k drops about 20% under "normal" fps you see in reviews. I have never seen this happening with 1700. So again if you like stable high frame rates 1700 is better...
- both cpus are overclocked (1700 to 3.8GHz and 6700 to 4.6GHz)
- other than this, outside of certain programming stuff where 1700 is miles ahead I can never feel the difference.

Generally I would say I am more of an Intel fanboy, as since I started building pcs I have never used an amd cpu until now.

I had a chance to get a new 7700k for 215£ or 1700 for 225£ (6700k rig is going to my brother) and I went with the latter even though I believed that for my use case (about 90% gaming and 10% programming) 7700k was a better cpu according to reviews simply because I don't like being ripped of by a greedy company because it doesn't have any competition (read intel) and after getting 1700 and doing tests myself I no longer believe that 7700k was better for my use case.

To summarise 1700 vs 6700k:
- I believe 1700 is more future proof than 6700k, with a lot more headroom for improvement being new architecture
- I really can't tell the difference between 110 and 120 fps, which is where most of the difference exists with just the game
- I prefer 110fps 100% of the time over 120% 99% of the time and weird and obvious frame drop below 90fps 1% of the time
- Better performance with background programmes running
- no useless integrated gpu taking over half the cpu
- you support an underdog who if they succeed will probably keep prices in check for both Intel and amd cpus in the future, also a company which doesn't have a history of ripping of their customers...

All this comes from someone who actually owns both cpus in question (I hope most people would agree that 7700k is barely better than 6700k) and is giving you first person experience with stuff I actually bought with my own money. (also I used the same cooler, case, psu and graphics card in both rigs.

You take from this what you want...
56 Comments

Hella lot of cpus ..must be a render farm

ordered, do you think I could get them to ship a 1700 from the UK instead of waiting till may 17th,

dragonline77

ordered, do you think I could get them to ship a 1700 from the UK instead … ordered, do you think I could get them to ship a 1700 from the UK instead of waiting till may 17th,



Amazon are a funny bunch, I received one of my 1600's from UK the other from France, and the 1700 I ordered was from France but said it wasn't in stock, I just shrug my shoulders now. Can't figure it out.

The old haven't received or empty box

8 cores, but what applications or games use eight cores?

Original Poster

Uncommon.Sense

Amazon are a funny bunch, I received one of my 1600's from UK the other … Amazon are a funny bunch, I received one of my 1600's from UK the other from France, and the 1700 I ordered was from France but said it wasn't in stock, I just shrug my shoulders now. Can't figure it out.


I had same, my 1600 wasn't in stock whe ordering from France for over week, then it comes from UK warehouse... git it for 176£. Amazon UK using brexit excuse to hike prices as many others...

Protip: if you have, or are able to get, a credit card that has zero transaction fees for a different currency, change the card (in Amazon) to the "native" currency.

Amazon adds a bit extra to the GBP cost, basically charging you around 4.2% for the currency conversion. Your card won't. In this particular case, it looks like the saving would be around £11.

I use a pre-paid Monzo card for all my non-GBP purchases.


Edited by: "hukd14" 5th May

Not most games, that's for sure. Anyone who wanted a good value CPU with more than 4 cores bought the 5820K a few years ago at £300. Quad channel memory, 28 PCIe lanes (instead of Ryzen's 16) and Intel SpeedStep support when overclocked.

Ryzen is a decent architecture, but it's going to take a few months before the teething issues are sorted out. I don't think most users will be able to get more than 3.9GHz out of these CPUs though.

Chuggee

Not most games, that's for sure. Anyone who wanted a good value CPU with … Not most games, that's for sure. Anyone who wanted a good value CPU with more than 4 cores bought the 5820K a few years ago at £300. Quad channel memory, 28 PCIe lanes (instead of Ryzen's 16) and Intel SpeedStep support when overclocked.Ryzen is a decent architecture, but it's going to take a few months before the teething issues are sorted out. I don't think most users will be able to get more than 3.9GHz out of these CPUs though.



You might want to check your misinformation, all R7 chips have 24 CPU PCIe lanes, most boards also add 8 Chipset lanes on top of that.

If you hate AMD, go buy an Intel chip and enjoy your house fire. This is excellent value.

jasee

8 cores, but what applications or games use eight cores?



Hardly anything at the moment. Having so many cores is kind of a redundant feature. In terms of Price vs Performance though the Ryzen's are extremely good.

jasee

8 cores, but what applications or games use eight cores?


If a game supports multithreading the load is spread between all cores.

All Triple A games support all cores, like Doom, Prey ect. They will fully utilize all cores.

miawanyun

If a game supports multithreading the load is spread between all … If a game supports multithreading the load is spread between all cores.All Triple A games support all cores, like Doom, Prey ect. They will fully utilize all cores.



Exactly right. Anything capable of DX12/Vulkan in addition.

But titles like Watchdogs 2, Battlefield 1 etc all thread very well.

It's like Groundhog day in these threads...

Original Poster

price jump to 330€.

jasee

8 cores, but what applications or games use eight cores?



I would avoid that type of question. as your computer runs an operating system, (normally windows) You may leave other programs open, then maybe game. - so how many cores do you need again..

Its never been about how many programs use x amount of cores.. its about how many u need above what you use your computer for.

The_Hoff

You might want to check your misinformation, all R7 chips have 24 CPU … You might want to check your misinformation, all R7 chips have 24 CPU PCIe lanes, most boards also add 8 Chipset lanes on top of that.If you hate AMD, go buy an Intel chip and enjoy your house fire. This is excellent value.



​16 3.0 lanes for the slots which admittedly is a problem if you have a another GPU, WiFi card, an Audio card. With HBM 2.0, anything less than x16 is going to hinder streaming performance.
Edited by: "Chuggee" 5th May

The_Hoff

Exactly right. Anything capable of DX12/Vulkan in addition.But titles … Exactly right. Anything capable of DX12/Vulkan in addition.But titles like Watchdogs 2, Battlefield 1 etc all thread very well.It's like Groundhog day in these threads...



Not that this comment is any way relevant. He is obviously meaning practical application of 8 cores of which there is none since these CPU's cannot bench higher than Quad Cores 6 and 7th Gen intels.

To answer his question - There isn't any point in using 8 cores when you can achieve the same results (often better) with 4.

In the future hyper-threading will be a big thing, but as of right now it's essentially redundant.

Original Poster

steve_bezerker

Not that this comment is any way relevant. He is obviously meaning … Not that this comment is any way relevant. He is obviously meaning practical application of 8 cores of which there is none since these CPU's cannot bench higher than Quad Cores 6 and 7th Gen intels.To answer his question - There isn't any point in using 8 cores when you can achieve the same results (often better) with 4.In the future hyper-threading will be a big thing, but as of right now it's essentially redundant.


Thats only if you talking about gaming point of view. Use adobe premier or software which boost on all cores for rendering and you got big difference against 8 vs 4 core. Also gaming problem of ryzen processors are only in 1080p, really you invest in high end processor and get 1080p monitors?

marcz

Thats only if you talking about gaming point of view. Use adobe premier … Thats only if you talking about gaming point of view. Use adobe premier or software which boost on all cores for rendering and you got big difference against 8 vs 4 core. Also gaming problem of ryzen processors are only in 1080p, really you invest in high end processor and get 1080p monitors?



You're correct about rendering being much faster, about 125% than a 6700k for example. But in terms of gaming the Ryzen falls pretty flat, which is what the previous guy mentioned about using it well in BF1 and WD2, both benching higher on intels.

Original Poster

steve_bezerker

You're correct about rendering being much faster, about 125% than a 6700k … You're correct about rendering being much faster, about 125% than a 6700k for example. But in terms of gaming the Ryzen falls pretty flat, which is what the previous guy mentioned about using it well in BF1 and WD2, both benching higher on intels.


Again, on 1080p only. Get your graphic card to do a work! 1440p with GTX1080 (or ti) and you got almost same FPS. And future proof CPU...

marcz

Again, on 1080p only. Get your graphic card to do a work! 1440p with … Again, on 1080p only. Get your graphic card to do a work! 1440p with GTX1080 (or ti) and you got almost same FPS. And future proof CPU...



Not entirely future proof though,It's only a matter of months before intel CPU's accomodate 8 cores at better architectural quality (and affordability, because they already exist) and considering the price of the Ryzen's most people are still better off paying for the 6th gen intels for a better quality CPU.

No matter how you spin it, a GTX 1080Ti Intel i7 7700k will always outbench a Ryzen 1700 GTX 1080Ti, 1080p through to 4k.

Edited by: "steve_bezerker" 5th May

being much faster, about 125% than a 6700k

Do you mean 25% faster, or more than double as you implied?
There are myriad apps which use more than 1 core, or 2 , or 4 .. (so 8 or 12 is good, 16 is nice, 32 is v nice) so yes beyond gaming more cores is more power.
Gaming itself tends to be 80-90% GPU , even more so on 1440 and above

Original Poster

steve_bezerker

Not entirely future proof though,It's only a matter of months before … Not entirely future proof though,It's only a matter of months before intel CPU's accomodate 8 cores at better architectural quality (and affordability, because they already exist) and considering the price of the Ryzen's most people are still better off paying for the 6th gen intels for a better quality CPU.No matter how you spin it, a GTX 1080Ti Intel i7 7700k will always outbench a Ryzen 1700 GTX 1080Ti, 1080p through to 4k.


on 1080p yes, 1440 & above - faster by few frames.. Also if your thing are benchmarks, then you cant be converted... In real life, gaming isn't much different and you wouldnt experience big difference side by side if you got good graphic card... For multi cpu application ryzen eat easily intel's 4 cores.. Any its only going to be better and better in few months time..
Edited by: "marcz" 5th May

Jesus. That is a lot of CPU for the money!

That is just flat out wrong.

There are already games that perform better on the 8C16T Ryzens than the 7700k.

How are the Intel CPU's better quality? is it the 20 degree delta T between their die and IHS?

Better arch for 1080p gaming, at the moment. sure. However the performance per watt of Ryzen is incredible, **** all over the current skylake and kabylake lineup. So the arch is just fine.

marcz

Thats only if you talking about gaming point of view. Use adobe premier … Thats only if you talking about gaming point of view. Use adobe premier or software which boost on all cores for rendering and you got big difference against 8 vs 4 core. Also gaming problem of ryzen processors are only in 1080p, really you invest in high end processor and get 1080p monitors?


I've never understood that 1080P belief. All of the reviews of Ryzen 7 show it trailing far behind the 7700K in 1440P, too. The only source for the "1080P" myth that I've been able to find is a comment by Lisa Su: "Ryzen is doing really well in 1440p and 4K gaming when the applications are more graphics bound."

That's Lisa Su, CEO of AMD, by the way. Now, what kind of a person would ignore the benchmarks and simply take her word as gospel...?

Meanwhile, over in the real world (where the Party isn't devoting their workday to changing the past to fit the facts they want), we get:

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Hitman.png
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Civ.png
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_Warhammer.png
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1348/bench/1440_GTAV.png

And while you may be more GPU-limited today, I'd wager that the majority of people upgrade their graphics card more often than their CPU/motherboard/RAM, so while you may not be feeling Ryzen's squeeze today, you probably will with the GTX 1270.

So, Ryzen: more future-proof for games? Sure, I'd agree that the 1800X will probably be matching the 7700K in the vast majority of new titles in 2022. But not this year, and not next year, and that's a sentiment shared by the professionals.

So if you disagree, it might be useful to share with us why you know better than they do.

(Of course, I'm only talking about gaming. Ryzen's excellent value for non-gamers.)

http://i.imgur.com/69AOjNS.jpg

Original Poster

Well, I talk about real word, not enthusiasts fanatic gamers who chasing highest fps possible just because its better, even they dont see much difference between 60 and 120 fps.. For me its just benchmark theory.. If game title is good, I can enjoy it even in 30fps...

I don't know why these deals constantly descend into fanboyism.

Irrespective of price/cores/performance and any other crap you want to mention the cold hard fact is the i7 7700k is the best gaming processor on the market.

I waited and waited and waited for Ryzen and when it came it hit the bar instead of putting it into an open goal past the Intel goalie. So I went with an i7 7700k and a (now) GTX 1080ti. Why? Because its the best on the market.

Looking at getting this CPU come summer time (new build in summer), should I buy now or wait? Would this go down in price any more by then?

Back up to €329, will certainly be interested if it drops back to the price quoted in the deal

marcz

Well, I talk about real word, not enthusiasts fanatic gamers who chasing … Well, I talk about real word, not enthusiasts fanatic gamers who chasing highest fps possible just because its better, even they dont see much difference between 60 and 120 fps.. For me its just benchmark theory.. If game title is good, I can enjoy it even in 30fps...



It's not about chasing benchmarks and FPS. The games just run better, and you absolutely can tell the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS. Have you ever played a FPS(First person Shooter) game on a 120hz or 144hz monitor? It gives you a huge advantage over people who are playing on standard 60hz.

This is also true for people who are using widescreen 4k monitors who have a greater depth of field and panoramic view.

Either way - The Ryzen is a great CPU, just not for gaming. In terms of the Price vs Performance in specifically gaming terms, the 7700k Is still the best commercial processor on the market.

Ryzen CPU's have barely scratched the surface of hyper-threading, and it's only a matter of time until Intel release their own multi-core CPU's that fall into affordability range of the majority of consumers....Unless the VEGA is a game changer (which it's not looking to be) then AMD will remain where it always has - As the 2nd choice, built on a budget.

http://i.imgur.com/gI6eUL6.jpg

Bearing in mind the official advice from Intel is that you should not OC their unlocked CPU's now as they decided to put lovely low grade TIM across all of their range.

You can cherry pick all you like. The door swings both ways, choice is a fine thing.
Edited by: "The_Hoff" 6th May

I bought something on amazon.fr and paid international shipping but how do you know it it shipped from a UK warehouse? And how do you message them in French?

Ev0lution

I don't know why these deals constantly descend into fanboyism. … I don't know why these deals constantly descend into fanboyism. Irrespective of price/cores/performance and any other crap you want to mention the cold hard fact is the i7 7700k is the best gaming processor on the market. I waited and waited and waited for Ryzen and when it came it hit the bar instead of putting it into an open goal past the Intel goalie. So I went with an i7 7700k and a (now) GTX 1080ti. Why? Because its the best on the market.

What you are terming "fanboyism" in many cases is just people pointing out the fact Ryzen is better value for money.

HotUKDeals is a forum about finding a bargain. Your argument that you should spend a lot more (inc cooler+motherboard), to get slightly more performance in 1 usage category, is totally out of place.

Edited by: "Firejack" 6th May

I have both i7-6700k and ryzen 1700 in the house and I tested both myself (doom and andromeda) fhd 144hz monitor, 1080ti
- When having music in the background in real life I7 loses by about 10%, while spikes become significantly more frequent for i7
- 6700k does beat 1700 with just the game running but what most reviews seems to ignore are spikes, every so often the 6700k drops about 20% under "normal" fps you see in reviews. I have never seen this happening with 1700. So again if you like stable high frame rates 1700 is better...
- both cpus are overclocked (1700 to 3.8GHz and 6700 to 4.6GHz)
- other than this, outside of certain programming stuff where 1700 is miles ahead I can never feel the difference.

Generally I would say I am more of an Intel fanboy, as since I started building pcs I have never used an amd cpu until now.

I had a chance to get a new 7700k for 215£ or 1700 for 225£ (6700k rig is going to my brother) and I went with the latter even though I believed that for my use case (about 90% gaming and 10% programming) 7700k was a better cpu according to reviews simply because I don't like being ripped of by a greedy company because it doesn't have any competition (read intel) and after getting 1700 and doing tests myself I no longer believe that 7700k was better for my use case.

To summarise 1700 vs 6700k:
- I believe 1700 is more future proof than 6700k, with a lot more headroom for improvement being new architecture
- I really can't tell the difference between 110 and 120 fps, which is where most of the difference exists with just the game
- I prefer 110fps 100% of the time over 120% 99% of the time and weird and obvious frame drop below 90fps 1% of the time
- Better performance with background programmes running
- no useless integrated gpu taking over half the cpu
- you support an underdog who if they succeed will probably keep prices in check for both Intel and amd cpus in the future, also a company which doesn't have a history of ripping of their customers...

All this comes from someone who actually owns both cpus in question (I hope most people would agree that 7700k is barely better than 6700k) and is giving you first person experience with stuff I actually bought with my own money. (also I used the same cooler, case, psu and graphics card in both rigs.

You take from this what you want...

Nexusfifth

I have both i7-6700k and ryzen 1700 in the house and I tested both myself … I have both i7-6700k and ryzen 1700 in the house and I tested both myself (doom and andromeda) fhd 144hz monitor, 1080ti- When having music in the background in real life I7 loses by about 10%, while spikes become significantly more frequent for i7- 6700k does beat 1700 with just the game running but what most reviews seems to ignore are spikes, every so often the 6700k drops about 20% under "normal" fps you see in reviews. I have never seen this happening with 1700. So again if you like stable high frame rates 1700 is better... - both cpus are overclocked (1700 to 3.8GHz and 6700 to 4.6GHz)- other than this, outside of certain programming stuff where 1700 is miles ahead I can never feel the difference. Generally I would say I am more of an Intel fanboy, as since I started building pcs I have never used an amd cpu until now. I had a chance to get a new 7700k for 215£ or 1700 for 225£ (6700k rig is going to my brother) and I went with the latter even though I believed that for my use case (about 90% gaming and 10% programming) 7700k was a better cpu according to reviews simply because I don't like being ripped of by a greedy company because it doesn't have any competition (read intel) and after getting 1700 and doing tests myself I no longer believe that 7700k was better for my use case. To summarise 1700 vs 6700k:- I believe 1700 is more future proof than 6700k, with a lot more headroom for improvement being new architecture - I really can't tell the difference between 110 and 120 fps, which is where most of the difference exists with just the game- I prefer 110fps 100% of the time over 120% 99% of the time and weird and obvious frame drop below 90fps 1% of the time- Better performance with background programmes running- no useless integrated gpu taking over half the cpu- you support an underdog who if they succeed will probably keep prices in check for both Intel and amd cpus in the future, also a company which doesn't have a history of ripping of their customers... All this comes from someone who actually owns both cpus in question (I hope most people would agree that 7700k is barely better than 6700k) and is giving you first person experience with stuff I actually bought with my own money. (also I used the same cooler, case, psu and graphics card in both rigs. You take from this what you want...



Right, this seems to be a common theme of avoiding buyers remorse.

"I feel its better" is not evidence. You bought something and *want* it to be better, that is totally understandable.

The problem is, there are tests to show exactly what you are talking about. The '99%' frames issue.

https://youtu.be/uXepIWi4SgM

Gamernexus is completely on board with this concept. Check this statement out.

Average FPS, 1% low, and 0.1% low times are measured. We do not measure … Average FPS, 1% low, and 0.1% low times are measured. We do not measure maximum or minimum FPS results as we consider these numbers to be pure outliers. Instead, we take an average of the lowest 1% of results (1% low) to show real-world, noticeable dips; we then take an average of the lowest 0.1% of results for severe spikes.



They don't even report min or max FPS, they are garbage stats, as you suggest.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2827-amd-r7-1700-review-amd-competes-with-its-1800x

Scroll down to the games results, they cover Average FPS, 1% low and .1% lows.

What is the point I'm making? Those 'spikes' you are referring to have been measured here, and they show the i7 is lightyears ahead of the 1700, 1700x, and 1800x. It's not even a close race.

If you are buying a CPU for gaming and you're looking to spend $300 on the CPU, there is no sane reason to buy anything but the i7 7700k.

jasee

8 cores, but what applications or games use eight cores?


Video encoders (e.g. HandBrake), 3D image renderers (e.g. Blender), Web servers (e.g. Apache), Excel, Photoshop, Web browsers (if you open 8+ windows/tabs), compressors/decompressors (e.g. 7-Zip), some games (these are getting more multi-threaded as the years progress), source code compilation (e.g. "make -j 8") and the majority of chess engines. So it's not as "niche" as you might think...

> If you are buying a CPU for gaming and you're looking to spend $300 on the CPU, there is no sane reason to buy anything but the i7 7700k.

I think right now and if you're *only* using your PC for gaming and nothing else, then I'd probably agree with this. However, if you do anything I listed above, then you'll find the 1700 gives the 7700K a very good run for its money in multi-threaded applications and is probably the better bet in the long term for this sort of use. It must be remembered that we're still in the early days of Ryzen - BIOS updates and game patches have already managed to close the Ryzen performance gap to the 7700K a fair bit already.
Edited by: "rkl" 6th May

Firejack

What you are terming "fanboyism" in many cases is just people pointing … What you are terming "fanboyism" in many cases is just people pointing out the fact Ryzen is better value for money. HotUKDeals is a forum about finding a bargain. Your argument that you should spend a lot more (inc cooler+motherboard), to get slightly more performance in 1 usage category, is totally out of place.



No its fanboyism. All I ever see on here is AMD will pummel Intel into the dirt with the 'next update' or it wipe the floor with Nvidia 'when Vega is released'

By all means people can buy whatever the hell they like. Its when they come on here and spew blatant lies to back up their love of a label that it becomes a problem.

Ev0lution

No its fanboyism. All I ever see on here is AMD will pummel Intel into … No its fanboyism. All I ever see on here is AMD will pummel Intel into the dirt with the 'next update' or it wipe the floor with Nvidia 'when Vega is released' By all means people can buy whatever the hell they like. Its when they come on here and spew blatant lies to back up their love of a label that it becomes a problem.



All you do is game on your PC apparently, you're prepared to make huge concessions in other areas of compute I guess Ryzen doesn't benefit you.

I'll happily give up my 10fps for the benefits of the chip.

Just make sure you don't OC your 7700k X)
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text