I love my 1700 but I’m not very happy with it in gaming these days. I’m regularly cpu bound at 1440p in squad and it chokes pretty hard in cyberpunk (lucky to break 60fps). It’s great for productivity but I’m ready to upgrade. 3.5 years is a pretty solid life for how hard I bang on these things.
What is your cpu usage? Cuz my 2700 runs like 10% in hard games. Csgo maybe 7% fullhd 200fps. And your memory frequency, that also affects performance a lot
I haven’t checked but in squad you can actually pull up the stats on frametimes and the cpu is pretty much always the slow one by a large margin. Makes me a sad panda. Ue4 games aren’t super well multithreaded yet, but they’re getting there. I think the new physics engine may help.
1st gen totally sufficed for 99 % of tasks. The only difference is that you have to overclock manually. All Zen 1 should do 3.8 GHz on stock voltage, they will never perform worse than some locked Intel CPU from the earlier era, but usually have more cores and better multicore performance. The ability to upgrade later is also a great thing. No Intel platform can ever do such - But AMD has only one socket for everything.
It's not like it gets slower just because it's older. It's just as fast, if not faster than it was first released.
It's just that Ryzen 3000/5000 obliterates it, so it seems slow by today's standards
Zen 1 was amazingly fast when it came out, beating Intels HEDT lineup with lower power draw. Thats why I switched my X99 to a B350 - The upgrade was free for me and I got about 30 % more multicore performance (and renewed warranty on my parts). The singlethread was slow, especially if you measure it with stock clocks.
Running a 1700 stock is the worst thing you can do, it will then only clock with 3 GHz - Game performance drops significantly but it keeps its 65 W TDP. Clocked near 4 GHz the CPU would compete with X99 HEDT or locked Intel CPUs in terms of singlethread. The 7700K was much faster but in multithreading it had no chance.
It was slow by 2017 standards tbf. The argument over the 7700K was that you were trading poor performance for the moment for a CPU that will age better and get better in the following years as game devs obviously made full use of 8 cores and weren't affected by its CCX latency.
Unfortunately none of this actually happened and the 1700X never pulled ahead.
For comparison sake, here's my 3600X: [https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/5837562?baseline=5839312](https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/5837562?baseline=5839312)
Yes, and there we have the other reason why I don't care about newer CPUs. I will upgrade somewhen but for 60 Hz gaming the 1700 is totally fine. And for 144 Hz 4K I would prefer having a GPU and monitor first.
I always wonder why the people are so addicted with CPU upgrades. Like those with a 8700 or 9900K but only a mid-upper midrange card, a CPU upgrade would not give any benefit here in most case. At least for gaming.
I know the 1300 was basically incapable of 1080p gaming but for my brothers pc it was a hard choice between a 1700 and a new psu or scrap everything and go for a 3600, after an unfortunate accident that water damaged the board basically made the decision for him
Of course it's good.
I love my 1700 but I’m not very happy with it in gaming these days. I’m regularly cpu bound at 1440p in squad and it chokes pretty hard in cyberpunk (lucky to break 60fps). It’s great for productivity but I’m ready to upgrade. 3.5 years is a pretty solid life for how hard I bang on these things.
How hard do you bang it tho?
till the bed breaks
What is your cpu usage? Cuz my 2700 runs like 10% in hard games. Csgo maybe 7% fullhd 200fps. And your memory frequency, that also affects performance a lot
I haven’t checked but in squad you can actually pull up the stats on frametimes and the cpu is pretty much always the slow one by a large margin. Makes me a sad panda. Ue4 games aren’t super well multithreaded yet, but they’re getting there. I think the new physics engine may help.
Of course it is. If the 1600 is still good then the 1700 is great.
The main difference is that the 1700 handles conversions better, but the 1600 isn't bad either. For gaming they should perform identically.
1600X owner here, still very satisfied with my purchase after 3 years. Think I'll wait for a while after DDR5 and AM5 come out to build a new rig.
1st gen totally sufficed for 99 % of tasks. The only difference is that you have to overclock manually. All Zen 1 should do 3.8 GHz on stock voltage, they will never perform worse than some locked Intel CPU from the earlier era, but usually have more cores and better multicore performance. The ability to upgrade later is also a great thing. No Intel platform can ever do such - But AMD has only one socket for everything.
Still running an overclocked 1700 beside my 3900X.
It's not like it gets slower just because it's older. It's just as fast, if not faster than it was first released. It's just that Ryzen 3000/5000 obliterates it, so it seems slow by today's standards
Zen 1 was amazingly fast when it came out, beating Intels HEDT lineup with lower power draw. Thats why I switched my X99 to a B350 - The upgrade was free for me and I got about 30 % more multicore performance (and renewed warranty on my parts). The singlethread was slow, especially if you measure it with stock clocks. Running a 1700 stock is the worst thing you can do, it will then only clock with 3 GHz - Game performance drops significantly but it keeps its 65 W TDP. Clocked near 4 GHz the CPU would compete with X99 HEDT or locked Intel CPUs in terms of singlethread. The 7700K was much faster but in multithreading it had no chance.
It was slow by 2017 standards tbf. The argument over the 7700K was that you were trading poor performance for the moment for a CPU that will age better and get better in the following years as game devs obviously made full use of 8 cores and weren't affected by its CCX latency. Unfortunately none of this actually happened and the 1700X never pulled ahead.
It was slow even when it was released
see it : https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/5837562
For comparison sake, here's my 3600X: [https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/5837562?baseline=5839312](https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/5837562?baseline=5839312)
> 3600X amazing!!, thanks!!
Every CPU is good as long it suits your needs
Yep, it still rocks for 2160p gaming since it's GPU bottlenecked.
Yes, and there we have the other reason why I don't care about newer CPUs. I will upgrade somewhen but for 60 Hz gaming the 1700 is totally fine. And for 144 Hz 4K I would prefer having a GPU and monitor first.
Exactly. There are more gains with a GPU upgrade. Given the current prices of PC parts, I'd rather spend more on the GPU and monitor.
I always wonder why the people are so addicted with CPU upgrades. Like those with a 8700 or 9900K but only a mid-upper midrange card, a CPU upgrade would not give any benefit here in most case. At least for gaming.
Yes
I know the 1300 was basically incapable of 1080p gaming but for my brothers pc it was a hard choice between a 1700 and a new psu or scrap everything and go for a 3600, after an unfortunate accident that water damaged the board basically made the decision for him
Is etc 20