Marketplace
Use a fee-free currency conversion card to get the AU$ price in title
Haven't checked if any eBay coupons work on this
Thanks to Slick Deals
AMD RYZEN 7 1700X 8-Core 3.4 GHz Processor - US$411.55 Delivered (~AU$543.80) @ Monoprice eBay
80
Related Stores
closed Comments
I dunno lol I forget what's around, if any! :)
the 10% "c10" voucher expired yesterday
I know :(
Reviews tldr: for encoding, rendering and compression it goes toe to toe with intels big $ boys but gaming ie single core performance it gets
smashedbeaten by 7 year old i7's and i5'sits around 20FPS lower on games, id say the i5 and i7's are smashing it.
Wouldn't that be handled by the graphics cards?
No, games need the CPU as well.
@samfisher5986: in games that aren't graphics card bound … so 1080 and lower. Was hoping it would be a bit better.
As pointed out by a comment on it i just read games would be more optimized for intel then a chip that isn't even on sale yet.
If you think so.
BTW I run an Intel I5 6400 so cut that calling everyone else a fanboy crap out
I didn't say you were a fanboy, I was just asking you not to be! :)
But as I said, there is no such thing as a fix for poor per core performance, which is what Ryzen suffers from, as well as poor overclocking ability.
@samfisher5986: Go watch Linus's video he explains it well that AMD wasn't aiming to completely destroy Intel but was aiming to make a cheap CPU that fit's between the I7 7700k and the I7 6900k at a good price.
Though i was hoping the single core would be a little better but i honestly never exspected much more then what ive seen delivered.
Ive never been into overclocking so haven't seen anything about there OC ability, though i did see something when they announced it the amd broke some OC record though no idea what.
You don't optimise for AMD or Intel
That's complete nonsense obviously.
What is your source?
Both run the same set of instructions, AMD favours multicore because its single core is weak, but Intel's multicore is strong as well.
So you can't favour AMD, its not possible.
"optimising" for AMD means AMD bringing out a CPU that doesn't perform poorly in per core performance.
I read that as well but I'm more talking about AMD actually selling these CPU's which I think they are making it hard to do.
There is no real scenario where you should buy and AMD CPU.
Maybe a user who only used encoding type software who didn't know how to overclock and wasn't planning to upgrade their CPU at all?
Its too specific, Intel still has the crown in most segments unfortunately. Intel will change some pricing perhaps but AMD needed to be more competitive.
Users who need the threads and doesn't mind a little dip in IPC and frequency in exchange for saving a whole bunch? Buying into the x99 platform is expensive. These aren't meant to compete with mainstream i5/i7s. There's really no competitor for the 7700k on the Ryzen lineup. If you ignore all the extra cores and threads of course the mainstream Intel lineup will look comparatively better.
There's no getting around that first gen Zen is a little weak on the single core and the silicon isn't ironed out for high clocks yet but it offers a comparative alternative (with more threads) for less.
It's a pretty compelling choice to go with Ryzen over Broadwell-E,you have to admit that much. You seem pretty aggressive for someone warning against "fanboys".
I'm no expert but instructions can certainly be optimised for a particular architecture,especially if multiple generations share similarities.Optimising for specific processor models is very much a thing. The CPUs have different architectures and therefore will have features that can be taken advantage of.
Hopeful that performance will increase with driver updates. There is currently some issue floating around with RAM and voltage.
This is interesting…
However the single core performance is definitely up there with the big boys.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-proce…
Seems to be a memory latency issue affecting the 'gaming performance' but tbd
Overclocking honestly sucks on this thing tho…
It is the "Athon 64" lie starts all over again. Their performance claim is one thing, real world performance is another.
Until they can show us (RYZEN + Radeon) actually outperform the established (i7 + GTX) on similar price point, don't bother !Ryzen's are compatible with Nvidia…
We all know AMD is not gona beat Intel on performance per clock. This is a good start and much more competitive than the bulldozer/piledriver crap they released lastime round.
I think true value for gamers lies in the lower chips in the $200-$250 range where they should come up with a overclockable 4 core 8 thread of even 6 core/12 thread chip that competes with the non-overclockable i5s (7400 - 7600) in the same $200- $250 range.
Even more so, the budget end sub $100 market where intel just realeased the G4560 2core/4thread non overclockable, if AMD can do a 4core overclockable chip at same price it will be a winner.
TLDR: High end AMD is not gona win this time around. good value will be at lower end <$250 price point. be patient =)
Except that certain i5 and i7 have just recieved massive price cuts so no, not really.
AMD needs to start winning out on something so they get sales. Intel can afford to suck, AMD can not, and we need AMD.
I think it's good value versus intel for specific applications like encoding, compiling, multitasking etc.
For pure gamer, not much to see here.
Although with more games exploiting more than than 4 threads it'll only get faster as time goes on.
Plus AMD won't be switching sockets every year like Intel, so upgrading will be plug and go!I'll quote the main pros for this CPU - the price for a full 8 core 16 thread CPU is RIDICULOUS. CRAZY. BANANAS.
But I'll stick with my 3770K for now anyway :)
Most multicore games still use one core as the main thread so AMD still hugely suffers on this.
I think there are a few multithread games, but I can't actually think of any, maybe Battlefield… The easiest method for picking a multithread game is that it can support 32+ cores if you had it, any game that can only support 4-8 cores is simply offloading some things to other cores while using one core for its main thread which generally means issues for AMD.
I'm not sure how that matters too much.
Do you know how many games exist?
You know its unlikely they will match Intel afterwards?
They are probably working with developers for better multicore support, thats not really a fix, engines are generally the issue not the game.
8 cores… Wowsers!
Isn't this MSRP?
which ones?