AMD Ryzen 7 1700 with Wraith Spire HSF £285.92 delivered using voucher code @ LaptopsDirect
508°Expired

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 with Wraith Spire HSF £285.92 delivered using voucher code @ LaptopsDirect

74
Found 6th Apr 2017
Sign up to Which trial for £1 get a £15 off voucher when spend over £250 (all info on linked page).

Voucher code will arrive instantly via email, use at checkout.

Currently the R7 1700 is £294.97 + £4.95 upto 4 days shipping = £299.92 , technically the voucher is £14 off as you spent £1 getting it, so £285.92.

Quidco offer 2% CB and TCB 2.1% but be aware this element could be hit'n'miss as T&Cs on their pages state non approved voucher codes = no CB and as the Which voucher is not on LaptopsDirect CB pages for those sites I'd expect hit'n'miss on CB.
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
PhilK

If I had this much money I'd be getting an i7


If you actually needed an 8C/16T CPU you wouldn't; Intel's only current 8C/16T offering in their i7 lineup is the ~£1000 i7-6900k.
74 Comments
have some heat, that's a nice price..
Good to see such a good value processor getting even better value!
If I had this much money I'd be getting an i7
What about if you don't want the cooler? Seems the 1700 is only sold as retail box with the cooler. Anyone know if it can be found cheaper sans cooler?
djeyewater

What about if you don't want the cooler? Seems the 1700 is only sold as … What about if you don't want the cooler? Seems the 1700 is only sold as retail box with the cooler. Anyone know if it can be found cheaper sans cooler?



The cooler has been sold for around £25-£30+ on ebay.
sold listings
Edited by: "ShroomHeadToad" 6th Apr 2017
Only took 3 comments...
it's either brand new RYZEN or second hand Intel...
PhilK

If I had this much money I'd be getting an i7


If you actually needed an 8C/16T CPU you wouldn't; Intel's only current 8C/16T offering in their i7 lineup is the ~£1000 i7-6900k.
djeyewater

What about if you don't want the cooler? Seems the 1700 is only sold as … What about if you don't want the cooler? Seems the 1700 is only sold as retail box with the cooler. Anyone know if it can be found cheaper sans cooler?


I've not seen the 1700 for sale without the cooler, though you could sell it (as suggested above).
ShroomHeadToad

The cooler has been sold for around £25-£30+ on ebay.sold listings



Thanks, I did check ebay, but not the completed listings. Looks like on average you should be able to get about £20. I'd rather they just sold a version without the cooler for £20 less, but £266 for a Ryzen seems a great deal when compared to Broadwell-e.
Ryzen already sunken in price! AMD struggling to shift these duds?
ShroomHeadToad

The cooler has been sold for around £25-£30+ on ebay.sold listings



eBay item number: 112342087082

FVF £1 Promo, PPF: £1.90, shipping: £3.59, net: £43.50
Edited by: "gupsterg" 6th Apr 2017
tempt

Ryzen already sunken in price! AMD struggling to shift these duds?



Its not a dud per se. Its just underwhelming if you are buying this as a gamer and expect Intel beating quality at this price.

For gaming, the i5 7600k is the way to go being about £70-£90 cheaper than this processor with better real world gaming performance.

gupsterg

eBay item number: 112342087082;)FVF £1 Promo, PPF: £1.90, shipping: £3.59, net: … eBay item number: 112342087082;)FVF £1 Promo, PPF: £1.90, shipping: £3.59, net: £43.50



Edit: fudge me!
Nice one! X)
Edited by: "ShroomHeadToad" 6th Apr 2017
ShroomHeadToad

Edit: fudge me!Nice one! X)



Tell me about it! . Packed & ready to go .
​Plenty of current games already perform better with more than 4 cores and that's only likely to get worse. Buying a quad core now doesn't make sense anymore.
@tempt
Déjà vu didn't I read this exact comment from you in a few other threads?

Actually, for those who can remember the times of yore when there used be competition in CPUs, price reductions did used to occur.
Edited by: "Gkains" 6th Apr 2017
If I needed a PC a refresh right now, I'd be loving this!

A CPU that's close to Intel's 1700 (if not beyond it with decent memory and the new bios and windows scheduler updates!), but only £286 instead of approx £1000.

Intel owners will be a laughing stock for those who don't buy AMD from this point (more money than sense).
vodzurk

If I needed a PC a refresh right now, I'd be loving this!A CPU that's … If I needed a PC a refresh right now, I'd be loving this!A CPU that's close to Intel's 1700 (if not beyond it with decent memory and the new bios and windows scheduler updates!), but only £286 instead of approx £1000.Intel owners will be a laughing stock for those who don't buy AMD from this point (more money than sense).



The vast majority of PC users who buy high end CPUs will be buying them for gaming and if you buy an i5 7600k for £195 (plus a cooler obviously) instead of any of the Ryzen CPUs you will have better gaming performance every day of the week.

I'm disappointed with Ryzen. I was all set to buy an 1800X and AM4 mobo until I saw the real world gaming benchmarks.
Ev0lution

The vast majority of PC users who buy high end CPUs will be buying them … The vast majority of PC users who buy high end CPUs will be buying them for gaming and if you buy an i5 7600k for £195 (plus a cooler obviously) instead of any of the Ryzen CPUs you will have better gaming performance every day of the week. I'm disappointed with Ryzen. I was all set to buy an 1800X and AM4 mobo until I saw the real world gaming benchmarks.


You were going to buy an 1800X... for gaming? Didn't you see the hardware breakdowns a couple of months before launch?

Anyway, while I sort-of-agree with you about the 7600K offering similar performance to an overclocked 1700 for most games, there are also several games that pull ahead on the 1700. Generally, the performance difference isn't big between them. While I rarely make use of any high-performance activities that aren't gaming, if they were both the same price, I'd lean towards the 1700 - not least because I doubt a solely quad-core CPU is going to do well for much longer.

Of course, they're not the same price, and even with the £10-15 saving on the motherboard (Z270s start from under £100, compared to the B350's £80-85 starting point), anyone upgrading is looking at an extra £50+ for a 1700 over the 7600K. If you're doing that anyway, may as well spend the extra £30 for the 7700K, which whoops both of them for gaming, and 4C8T has that longevity the 7600K lacks.

Still, the 7700K is quite a boring processor... it sort of sits on the tops of all the gaming benchmarks by default, rather than by anything exceptional. I've almost been pushed into buying one several times simply by reading the stupid comments by The Four Ryzeneers here but I'd prefer to have something more interesting.

Personally, I'll be seeing how the six-core Ryzen 5 chips perform, as in theory the 1600X should match the 1800X in most games, while coming in at ~£230. Anyone looking at the 7600K price range should absolutely wait just a couple more weeks (not just for reviews, but to make sure any issues are found). Theory does not always equate to practice, though, so I won't be ordering anything until the proper reviews come in, but it does look a lot more... interesting than the 7600K.

And if it's another inferior price/performance gaming CPU, I might just try to hold out for another year instead of settling for the safe 7700K. I don't really need to upgrade, anyway... I just want to!
wow the intel crew are really milking it still.

first it was the 7700k at 5ghz delided then its oh 4 cores are better than 8, then its that and this oh and intel is better . blah blah blah ..

has anyone bought one for a ESXi home server build?
Ev0lution

Its not a dud per se. Its just underwhelming if you are buying this as a … Its not a dud per se. Its just underwhelming if you are buying this as a gamer and expect Intel beating quality at this price.For gaming, the i5 7600k is the way to go being about £70-£90 cheaper than this processor with better real world gaming performance.



​once developers start coding for loads of cores and threads, then these will be better, until then the i5 would most likely be the better choice for gamers. If someone was planning on keeping their cpu for 5 years I'd probably recommend a ryzen
Not a bad deal, I got a brand new i7-7700k from ebay for £5 more 6 days ago
Reviewers are being a bit too harsh on Ryzen with the gaming benchmarks. It's like a mere 2-6 FPS difference between Ryzen and Inte;s 7600K in performance on games. Ryzen otherwise beats intels offerings in other non gaming benchmarks though like video editing and number crunching stuff.
Ev0lution

Its not a dud per se. Its just underwhelming if you are buying this as a … Its not a dud per se. Its just underwhelming if you are buying this as a gamer and expect Intel beating quality at this price.For gaming, the i5 7600k is the way to go being about £70-£90 cheaper than this processor with better real world gaming performance.



Ryzen optimisation code has pushed the Ryzen performance well above the 7600k, but these optimisations needs to be rolled out across all games.

https://img.purch.com/r/600x450/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9TL04vNjY0NTgzL29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAxLnBuZw==
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-game-optimization-aots-escalation,news-55229.html

Personally, I would get the Ryzen 1700 over the 7600k because over the next few years I think optimised coding will give better parity between AMD and Intel on single thread performance, and the extra Ryzen cores will give more benefit in the long run.
No idea why people are hyped over more cores I thought direct x 12 took away needing a top end multi core cpu ?
C64

No idea why people are hyped over more cores I thought direct x 12 took … No idea why people are hyped over more cores I thought direct x 12 took away needing a top end multi core cpu ?



There's been a lot of claims about DX12. None of them in the past 2 years have actually come to fruition. Thanks AMD fanboys.

Now isn't a great time to buy anyway as DDR4 prices are high and not all the market segments have worked out where they should be in terms of pricing yet.
jmp_ldn

​once developers start coding for loads of cores and threads, then these w … ​once developers start coding for loads of cores and threads, then these will be better, until then the i5 would most likely be the better choice for gamers. If someone was planning on keeping their cpu for 5 years I'd probably recommend a ryzen


And that won't happen until intels 6/8/12 core processors are common, by which time they'll be light years ahead of AMD.
Obviously someone's budget can only stretch to the i5-7600K, and they have to buy right now, then it will give them good gaming performance in most current games.
However, in many games it is already a good bit behind. For instance in this review from pclab.pl, Total War: Warhammer
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/amd_zen/r7_1700/wykresy/oc_nv_twh.png
Taking the stock (both the i5 and i7 should overclock to about the same), the i5 trails the by up to over 25% (60/82 = 0.7317).

Elsewhere in that review, Watch Dogs 2 is similar with the i5 scoring 75% of the i7, with The Witcher3 it's 77%, whereas the best showing of the i5 is BF1 where it scores 93% of the i7's score.

Unfortunately, the review doesn't have average but places which do (for instance Computerbase.de) tend to rate the i5 12% slower than the i7 but of course reviewers generally have no background processes running and in the case of BF1 (like BF4 before it), even people playing on 4C/8T i7's complain about occasional stuttering hence why many Battlefield players bought Intel HEDT or more recently Ryzen.

As for Ryzen 7: well in most games it is behind the Intel Kabylake i7 and (mostly) the i5 too, but it does have plenty of spare cores. Okay, in a lot of games they go unused hence - partially - why TPU got such perf/watt in gaming loads their Ryzen review:
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/images/power_gaming.png
that looks like a lot of the cores aren't anywhere near to 100% loaded unlike with the power consumption tests for applications.
Chances are no matter how good game programmers get at multi-threading in the future, some games may never scale to 8C/16T. However, that doesn't meant those other cores are useless as they can help with general responsiveness (background tasks) or streaming.

LinusTech just did a big streaming review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU
And while Ryzen beating the i7-7700K at streaming while gaming is probably not a surprise, Ryzen's showing against the 8C/16T i7-6900K is. Didn't catch whether all these CPUs are running at stock or not but neither Ryzen nor i7-6900K overclock that much and can't see the Kabylake i7 catching up even if clocked to 5GHz.

Bottom line: there is no perfect gaming CPU. It's all a matter of compromises.
* Ryzen gets you plenty of reasonably quick cores on the cheap,
* An overclocked Kabylake i7 cannot be beaten when IPC is the most important thing,
* Intel HEDT Broadwell-E tends to have higher IPC than Ryzen but Intel charge a lot for their 8C/16T or 10C/20T ones.
* The new upcoming Intel HEDT (Skylake-X, seems they dropped the 'E' suffix), may end up being the best all around gaming CPUs if it clocks 4.5GHZ+ but it won't be cheap.
jaydeeuk1

And that won't happen until intels 6/8/12 core processors are common, by … And that won't happen until intels 6/8/12 core processors are common, by which time they'll be light years ahead of AMD.



Aye, especially given how picky Ryzen is about RAM.
C64

No idea why people are hyped over more cores I thought direct x 12 took … No idea why people are hyped over more cores I thought direct x 12 took away needing a top end multi core cpu ?



DX12 doesn't remove the need for more cores, it simply means the software can more directly identify and utilise the hardware available, so, if more cores exist it has a capability to span all of load across cores evenly to avoid bottlenecking any particular core (which will then stutter and degrade performance).

If you watch benchmarks of a 7700k on titles like Watchdog 2 or Sniper Elite 4 (or any other top end AAA title) you'll see most of the cores hitting 90%-100% utilisation which is effectively the end of the line for the CPU, a Ryzen 7 chip by comparison has x2 the cores/threads to spread the load and as such is still only 50-70% utilised.

http://i.imgur.com/Lemh9mA.png

Right now, only the most advanced titles (also note the above is DX11, DX12 worsens the situation further for Intel) stretch the 7700k to breaking point, but it's more and more likely that the trend will increase, you're buying in to EOL technology.

In terms of games "being coded" for Ryzen, that's not required. All that needs to happen is for further Vulkan/DX12 development to take place and by extension Ryzen directly benefits, it doesn't need a specific development effort of any magnitude.

People will bitch and moan until the end of eternity and defend their choices. But the simple fact of the matter is a Ryzen chip (either R7 or R5) represents the best bang for buck if you're building a new rig, next week any i5 purchase becomes questionable.
ollie87

Aye, especially given how picky Ryzen is about RAM.



You need to be picky in some cases, but provided you've applied the BIOS updates almost all manufacturers have deployed since launch the majority of people running 2x8GB are hitting their stock frequency. A lot has happened this month, though I understand why people are completely out of touch with the current situations.

My Hynix (apparently worse compat than Samsung B-Die) runs happily at 3296 on my Crosshair 6 using 103 BCLK @ 3200 freqeuncy.

In April the AGESA updates will be rolled out improving the situation further and in May AMD are rolling out some microcode to further reduce memory latency and optimise the platform further.

People seem to continually forget this is a new socket, new architecture and a new approach which involves turning the heads of 100's of companies, it's not over night, but even in a month (I've had 4 BIOS updates) it has become orders of magnitude easier.
Gkains

Obviously someone's budget can only stretch to the i5-7600K, and they … Obviously someone's budget can only stretch to the i5-7600K, and they have to buy right now, then it will give them good gaming performance in most current games.However, in many games it is already a good bit behind. For instance in this review from pclab.pl, Total War: Warhammer



The picture that paints is now invalid. As of the last few days with the Bretonnia patch you can add 10fps to each of those Ryzen FPS scores.

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/247141-total-war-warhammer-will-also-receive-ryzen-patch

Here's some further optimisation that's happened in the last day or so:

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/04/06/amd-ryzen-community-update-3

Anybody with a Ryzen chip that's not running on High Performance power policy (you should be, until now at least) should down the PPKG file in the article and run the Ryzen Balanced Windows policy.
Edited by: "The_Hoff" 7th Apr 2017

The vast majority of PC users who buy high end CPUs will be buying them … The vast majority of PC users who buy high end CPUs will be buying them for gaming and if you buy an i5 7600k for £195 (plus a cooler obviously) instead of any of the Ryzen CPUs you will have better gaming performance every day of the week. I'm disappointed with Ryzen. I was all set to buy an 1800X and AM4 mobo until I saw the real world gaming benchmarks.



£195.... that's quite the bargain if you're interested in posting a hot deal........

Cheapest I can find is £215
Edited by: "RogueS" 7th Apr 2017
matt101101

If you actually needed an 8C/16T CPU you wouldn't; Intel's only current … If you actually needed an 8C/16T CPU you wouldn't; Intel's only current 8C/16T offering in their i7 lineup is the ~£1000 i7-6900k.


Not necessarily.
Its not the first time an AMD with multi cores would have given way to an Intel with less cores
Edited by: "PhilK" 7th Apr 2017
http://i66.tinypic.com/5mk955.jpg
PhilK

Not necessarily.Its not the first time an AMD with multi cores would have … Not necessarily.Its not the first time an AMD with multi cores would have given way to an Intel with less cores


But whatever else you can say about Ryzen (especially about the rushed launch), Zen is no Bulldozer. While the gaming performance is 'only' around Haswell on average (except maybe Fallout4), it's application performance generally matches Broadwell-E which is that ~£1000 i7-6900K. Of course there are few outliners where it is way worse (dual channel memory hurts it a lot compared to Intel HEDT in 7Zip, WinRAR etc), but then again it has other features which Intel disable like ECC (yes, amazingly Intel HEDT doesn't offer ECC yet LGA2011v3 Xeons do).

Bulldozer was always hard to recommend outside of very specific loads (mostly media encoding or for virtualisation on a budget which precluded an Intel i7). Ryzen is not.
mehmeh


Sorry, you must be mistaken.
The UK (or at least England and Wales) is now officially an expert free country!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkSEKdjWgAE-FUw.jpg
PhilK

If I had this much money I'd be getting an i7



And that's where you are wrong: 1700 user here upgraded from my 6700k
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text