TR 1900X vs R7 1700 [Tech Showdown]

[Paratus]

Interesting comparison.
He tests them at

• Stock - Both
• 4.0Ghz - Both
• 4.3Ghz - 1900X (His was a good overclocker even on an asestek aio)

Cinebench R15 Single Threaded:

• Stock: 1900x - 166 | 1700 - 148
• 4.0G: 1900x - 163 | 1700 - 163
• 4.3G: 1900x - 177

For comparison here's AT's latest Cinebench Single Threaded scores:

Cinebench R15 Multi-Threaded:

• Stock: 1900x - 1702 | 1700 - 1423
• 4.0G: 1900x - 1746 | 1700 - 1768
• 4.3G: 1900x - 1855

For comparison here's AT's latest Cinebench Multi-Threaded scores:

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hmm, so, one takeaway is, if you want a 4.3Ghz Ryzen rig, get a 1900X? That's quite the overclock on these CPUs.

 

[CatMerc]

It's probably an incredibly rare bin. I doubt most would be able to run 4.2GHz on all cores, let alone 4.3. XFR only has to run on 2 cores after all.
Also appears to still only be as fast or slower than the 1700 at 4GHz in gaming, if that's your thing.

If I was Lisa I would ask the packaging facility for uh, incredibly rare 4.3GHz capable Zeppelin, for my own personal rig 😉

 

[Paratus]

With the least number of active cores, yet the same large die size the 1900X is probably the least thermally constrained.

I'm considering this for my next rig. I tend to keep them for several years and the 1900X is the cheapest entry into the X399 platform, which I feel is currently the best platform on the market.

The gaming scores being roughly equivalent to the 1700 is a little disappointing but at 1440P which I run at, the difference is probably not noticeable at all, even including similarly priced Intel chips.