1700 VS 2700X?

[onipar]

1700 + MSI B350 PC Mate = $290

2700X +Gigabyte 470 Aorus Ultra Gaming =$469

So I guess my question is does the 2700X + 470 MB provide a significant enough increase in performance to justify the extra $179 cost?

I've read through TONS of benchmarks and watched scores of videos, so I have a pretty firm grasp of what the two chips are capable of, their respective clock speeds, overclocking ability with stock coolers, and general FPS results. Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding many 1 to 1 comparisons of the two.

But the knowledge I'm lacking is how does this all translate into real world scenarios. Some stuff I've read suggests the 2700X with shave off seconds in encoding, but will it be noticeable? I'll do minimal gaming (if any), and mostly use this for video editing (adobe premier, encoder, illustrator, photoshop, handbrake, youtube uploads, etc).

Will I notice a significant difference in for the extra $179? Looking for "best bang for my buck" essentially.

For reference, the rest of the build will be 16 GB 3000 Ram, GTX 960 (until perhaps prices drop, this is what I have on hand), 240GB SSD, 2 TB HDD, 550 W PSU.

Thanks for any and all thoughts!

 

[beers]

If you're rolling your own oc they're pretty similar. The 2700x has a couple hundred mhz higher headroom and better support for faster ram. You can use the clock speed as a percentage difference to how much time it will take off of your encoding jobs.

Since the 1700 has been price discounted after the refresh launch it offers a better price to performance ratio.

 

[onipar]

If you're rolling your own oc they're pretty similar. The 2700x has a couple hundred mhz higher headroom and better support for faster ram. You can use the clock speed as a percentage difference to how much time it will take off of your encoding jobs.

Since the 1700 has been price discounted after the refresh launch it offers a better price to performance ratio.

Yeah, i figured if I went 1700, I'd do a mild overclock--something I could pull off with the stock cooler--so maybe try for 3.7? I saw someone get to 3.9 with the stock cooler, but they had to run the fan at 100% to keep temps in check, which I would like to avoid.

If I went 2700X, I wouldn't bother with an overclock since it seems to me you'd really need to get an aftermarket cooler to reach beyond what the boost will give you, which sorta defeats the purpose of getting that beefy stock cooler with the CPU (IMHO).

Yeah, so I was trying to figure if that $179 premium would be worth it. so using what you said above, 3.7 to 4.2, you mean would roughly be a 5% difference with encoding, so a five second difference per minute job? (Sorry, that confused me a bit). Because if that's the case, then yeah, I'd probably for with the 1700. Unless I misunderstood.

 

[Intel_man]

I would not overclock on the stock cooler. Not even with their new Prism cooler.

 

[onipar]

I would not overclock on the stock cooler. Not even with their new Prism cooler.

Are you speaking strictly for the 2700x, or the same recommendation on the 1700? Thanks!

 

[Intel_man]

It applies to both. The stock cooler just isn't that capable of the extra heat generated from overclocking.

 

[onipar]

It applies to both. The stock cooler just isn't that capable of the extra heat generated from overclocking.

Okay, thanks! That does change things a bit, as to get full performance from the 1700 I'd now need to purchase an aftermarket cooler, which decreases the price savings by a bit... I wonder then if the 1700 would still be best bang for the buck in that scenario?

 

[Intel_man]

You can always just look at overclocking later and stick with the stock cooler for now if you're on a really tight budget.

 

[onipar]

That's true, plus sorta how I've been approaching this build anyway, so it makes sense. Thanks again!

 

[Jiniix]

Are you looking to play games? If so, the 2700X is much stronger. AMD made changes to the internal memory on Zen+, and even at the same GHz as Zen, it's much faster for gaming.
My general advice for Ryzen is not to overclock. XFR is actually doing a really good job, at least on my 1800X, where I couldn't get a stable OC above 4.1GHz without using much more voltage than just running auto. And running everything on auto, the cores that actually worked would boost to max speed, except when running 100% load on all cores.

 

[Darren]

Are you looking to play games? If so, the 2700X is much stronger. AMD made changes to the internal memory on Zen+, and even at the same GHz as Zen, it's much faster for gaming.
My general advice for Ryzen is not to overclock. XFR is actually doing a really good job, at least on my 1800X, where I couldn't get a stable OC above 4.1GHz without using much more voltage than just running auto. And running everything on auto, the cores that actually worked would boost to max speed, except when running 100% load on all cores.

On the 2nd gen this might be true but I definitely got better performance locking my voltage and clock speed versus letting XFR do stuff, even at the same clocks. Granted I have a 1700 which doesn't boost that high but I was benching noticeably higher than a stock 1800X when locked at 4.0GHz and about on par at 3.9GHz. I did hear they made some improvements to XFR though and it works better in the 2nd gen.

 

[onipar]

Jiniix and Darren,

Thanks for the replies! Jiniix, gaming is definitely not my central focus, and if I game at all, it'll likely be pretty minimal (I'm a wretched console gamer mainly). My central usage will be Adobe Suite (photoshop, illustrator, Premier), Handbrake, Word, Web, maybe some skype or other video recording at some point.

Yeah, I have been seeing a lot of videos and articles suggesting the the Zen+ chips, especially the 2700X, doesn't benefit much from overclocking and that the XFR does a great job in most cases. Most of these same articles also seem to suggest that the only way to make an overclock on the 2700X worthwhile is to purchase an aftermarket cooler, because the stock cooler won't let you get much better clock speeds than the XFR will provide. For me, at least at the moment, that's a dealbreaker, as I can't justify an extra $50-$130 for a cooler that will *maybe* let me eek out a few extra percentage point of performance.

If I went with the 1700 on the other hand, it seems like I'd *have* to overclock to really get my money's worth, but even then I'm being told I'd need an aftermarket cooler to get the best overclock, and again, that's an extra cost that shrinks the savings enough that I figure I might as well just jump top the 2700X. At least, that's how I've been thinking about it lately. Especially if I wait a little longer an perhaps get a cheaper board when they come out, and maybe even a price drop on the 2700X.

Sorry, mostly just "thinking out loud" now.

 

[Darren]

I guess it's just matter of cost to you. If you plan on keeping it a good while I'd swing the 2700X now and then maybe later down the line add an aftermarket cooler if you feel like it's needed. You would need to OC the 1700 to make it competitive with a 2700X, the stock boost speed is only 3.7 but you can overclock pretty much any to 3.8, most to 3.9, and if you're lucky 4.0GHz (like mine ).

All of that said, they're both very fast chips and comparable performance in the grand scheme of things. Just a matter of what you want to spend. If it were me, I'd do as above and go 2700X and cooler later if needed.

 

[onipar]

I guess it's just matter of cost to you. If you plan on keeping it a good while I'd swing the 2700X now and then maybe later down the line add an aftermarket cooler if you feel like it's needed. You would need to OC the 1700 to make it competitive with a 2700X, the stock boost speed is only 3.7 but you can overclock pretty much any to 3.8, most to 3.9, and if you're lucky 4.0GHz (like mine ).

All of that said, they're both very fast chips and comparable performance in the grand scheme of things. Just a matter of what you want to spend. If it were me, I'd do as above and go 2700X and cooler later if needed.

Thanks! Yeah, I'm going to take that advice. I do want this to last a while, and this build is going to start off with a low end graphics card and 16 GB of memory, so after a while I can upgrade those elements, and maybe that aftermarket cooler as you said.

 

[Jiniix]

I would highly recommend watching this video. I doubt you can find a more unbiased and deep-dived review.
A fresh breath of information compared to just slides of gaming/synthetic benchmarks. It says "not for normies, lol", but that portion is really only a few minutes and the gist of it is very easy to understand

On my 1800X, it's been a while and I gave it to my brother, but I recall getting 4.0GHz on all cores at around 1.45v, but with XFR it could do 4.125GHz on around 4-6 cores with 1.35v.
For me, that looks like I'm losing gaming performance (since it won't boost from 4.0 to 4.125GHz even if possible) at the cost of heat. Doesn't sound like a good trade to me.
But if I threw a normal benchmark/stress test at it, it would go about 3.8GHz on all cores, which is obviously less.
For my use case, just letting it stay on auto and doing it's thing yielded better FPS and thermals. A bit of a let down as I was looking forward to getting 4.4GHz (it replaced my [email protected]), but I was still impressed with the setup.

The takeaway from above video is basicly that Zen+ is better in every way, and in some ways (like gaming) a lot.

I should update my sig to reflect my 8700k/1080 build I think..

 

[Darren]

1.45v?

Holy heat Batman! Mines locked at 3.9GHz 1.3625 IIRC. Was stable at 4.0GHz at 1.375...? 1.45v seems stupid high.

 

[onipar]

Very nice video, thanks for the link! Kinda solidifying the 2700X for me.

 

[Intel_man]

You can also take a look at this video. He talks about the reasons he switched back to Intel from Ryzen due to Adobe Premiere Pro not playing well on Ryzen and the performance of the extra cores didn't directly correlate to Adobe products in general. Something that has to be dealt with between AMD and Adobe. It may or may not affect you because the guy talks about certain specific problems he's running into.

Just some more information for you to digest to come to an informed decision.

 

[onipar]

You can also take a look at this video. He talks about the reasons he switched back to Intel from Ryzen due to Adobe Premiere Pro not playing well on Ryzen and the performance of the extra cores didn't directly correlate to Adobe products in general. Something that has to be dealt with between AMD and Adobe. It may or may not affect you because the guy talks about certain specific problems he's running into.

Just some more information for you to digest to come to an informed decision.

Thanks, Intel_man. I've actually watched this video already, and yeah, it gave me pause because I'll be strictly using Adobe software. I reconsidered Intel after this video, but in the end, I figured the software would hopefully get updates and perhaps not be quite as volatile as he describes for my use, as I won't be messing with any 4K or advanced editing really. It'll probably still be at least a couple months before I have the money together for the build, so I may reevaluate at that point, but I'm hoping by time I'm ready perhaps some updates will roll out and fix bugs and such.

 

[Intel_man]

Thanks, Intel_man. I've actually watched this video already, and yeah, it gave me pause because I'll be strictly using Adobe software. I reconsidered Intel after this video, but in the end, I figured the software would hopefully get updates and perhaps not be quite as volatile as he describes for my use, as I won't be messing with any 4K or advanced editing really. It'll probably still be at least a couple months before I have the money together for the build, so I may reevaluate at that point, but I'm hoping by time I'm ready perhaps some updates will roll out and fix bugs and such.

Sounds like a plan!