AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Overclocking – Best Ryzen Processor?

Jump To:

Memory Bandwidth Benchmarks

SiSoftware Sandra 2016 SP3 Memory Bandwidth: link

SiSoftware Sandra 2016 is a utility, which includes remote analysis, benchmarking and diagnostic features for PCs, servers, mobile devices and networks. This test has been popular for CPU and memory benchmarks for well over a decade and it is one of the easiest benchmarks out there to run.

AIDA64 5.80 Memory & Cache Benchmark: link

AIDA64 is an industry-leading system information tool, loved by PC enthusiasts around the world, which not only provides extremely detailed information about both hardware and installed software, but also helps users diagnose issues and offers benchmarks to measure the performance of the computer.


Memory Bandwidth Results Summary: Overclocking the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 processor up to 4.0 GHz didn’t make a significant impact on the platforms dual-channel DDR4 memory kit that was running at 2933 MHz with CL14 timings as we didn’t alter the memory clock.

Jump To:
  • Backwards tech guy

    this is all very encouraging. the IPC is still lower than Intel’s offering, but then it also operates on lower TDP and it has more cores available that more than compensate (if you use multithreading). Include price in the mix and AMDs offering is rock solid. Intel has a few things on their side, like integrated graphics, which help with system lag when using all threads to render something, for instance.

    Now for the next iteration of AMDs Ryzen CPUs (whatever they may be called), they need to focus hard on the issue with overclocking, because they now sit at an uncomfortable near 1GHz behind intel and closing that gap (and also on the RAM OC side of things) would be a great help. As it stands, the 14nm manufacturing they use is heavily limited on this front, so if they can tackle that and possibly improve their IPC performance, they will truly be in the lead here.

  • adobepro

    i7 2700 avg 123FPS with GTAV on a 1080 at 1080P? Something is fishy and i dont think this is a “legitreview” I have a i7 2600 clocked at 4.2GHz: 34 base, +4 multiplier and +4 turbo and struggle to maintain 60FPS with a 1070 FE on a 1080p monitor. No way the 1080 will give you that much more performance nor will the i7 SB combined. I have a Gigabyte Z68, 32GB ram and a Intel 730 ssd.

  • Najeeb Shah

    lol wtf ? 2700k @ 4,5 ghz is going toe to toe with ryzen in gaming xD

  • Sam Atherton

    Does anyone km now if there’s a bug with the 1700 I’m Aida 64? I couldn’t confirm if this was the real temperature as I didn’t have anything else open but with the stock cooler at 38x the temp jumped to 107 but didn’t seem to throttle at all. I just noticed the crazy numbers and was like “ohhh shit” and turned off the test. It instantly dropped back down but I’d never seen that before… Is there Any chance this was real? It was only at 1.38v so I’m really confused.

  • Jacob Idris

    Good share!

  • Edward D’Esposito

    I have never owned an Intel CPU. Not because I am a AMD fan boy, price per performance vs the need for speed has never been there for me to open my wallet and drop that much money for a Intel part. Still using a Phenom II x4 955 CPU. With 30-40 DPS my graphics card is my bottle neck for games like Doom. I was seriously looking at Intel CPUs but looks like I’ll be sticking with AMD.

  • Maurice Fortin

    so basically around the same power usage of the 7770k in the test system, 4 cores more and 8 threads more, I daresay that is very acceptable, based on your own testing, stock vs stock overclock vs overclock Ryzen is comparable to actually better power use for performance given, if anything it seems that the “holy” 7770k to attain those really high speeds needs one hell of a cooler and a drastic increase in raw voltage therefore also an equally massive increase in power used and temperature output (is it even safe to do this 24/7 for long term I doubt it)

    Though the way it is worded “214w more” implies that it is the cpu gaining this massive power usage increase, that is not factual, if you really wanted to test this at best case, you would use the absolute lowest power gpu available even if you massively downclock it, then run these type tests, 65w TDP is not going to magically chew over 200w when clocked up a wee bit, just does not add up in no way shape or form.

    Anyways, IMO Ryzen and AM4 is one hell of a nice release for AMD, even more so when so many folks claimed “it cannot be done” yet here it is, do they need to optimize etc, for sure, is it slow, useless for gaming etc, hell no, not by a long shot, raw FPS numbers do not tell the whole story, Ryzen 7 compared to i7 is silk smooth performance, often enough even faster clock for clock performance given in REAL WORLD vs performance or price compared cream of crop Intel chips.

    can core i chips clock faster (mostly) yes, will they last for years running insane overclocks, very unlikely, same thing I think about Nv and the 1000 series, running insane clock speeds out of the gate let alone manually pushing them, it leads to things breaking or at very least degrading so you need to keep pushing higher volts and need better cooling over the long term.

  • Irwin Choy

    Wait, the 4GHz is base speed right? How about turbo speed when overclocked? Thanks!

    • Russell Collins

      No, that’s the oc speed. The 1700 is 3ghz base and 3.7 or 3.6ghz boost.

  • Yesse

    At OP: Could you overclock the 1700 even more with your AOI Watercooler? What is the Max Clock possible?

  • sean s

    I just purchased all the items I need today for a ryzen 7 1700 im stoked.


    This processor is going to be awesome i hope.

  • Joshua Manning

    Where’d you get the 117 BIOS for that board? I dont see it anywhere on MSI

    • Nathan Kirsch

      Came straight from MSI Taiwan on 2/23/2017 with a build date of 2/22/2017. UEFI 115 didn’t have the latest ucode for Ryzen. I see 1.1 is on the MSI website… Let me find out if the retail numbers are different than the beta pre-production versions.

  • Zaxx

    I’m a huge fan of ‘best bang for the buck’ builds…and the 1700 at 4ghz may just be my next build…thats if 4ghz is doable on an average grade mobo (~$175 range). Always been proud of my ‘ol 2500K Z68 @ 4.6GHz 24/7 build…unless the Ryzen 5 series has an equally impressive ‘BBftB’ contender at a $225ish price point then the more expensive 1700 @ 4ghz giant killer will be worth doing…for my broke ass anyway…lol

    • Dan $tack-Royd

      I have the 2600K at 4.6GHz 24/7. How does the 1700 stack up to our processors at our speeds? Is it worth it?

      • MR

        It will be same ballpark of performance when you clock the 1700 to 4.0, but the 1700 will be much more versatile. 2600k may still win here or there though.

  • Irwin Choy

    I wonder if there is any stable overclocking room if I just use the default Wraith Spire cooler? But anyway, I’m pretty impressed with the price-performance. I will wait a month or 2 first before deciding my new build.

    • AbuseNab

      I am at 3.6GHz with the wraith cooler at 1.25Volts, Stress testing it gives me 67c on CPU.

      You can push it to hit the 85c limit of the CPU, I have yet to do that tho

      • Irwin Choy

        Thanks! Sounds good enough, I’m not much into overclocking.

  • Ware

    What is the core speed of all cores of Ryzen 1700 without overclocking ?

  • girish chandra b

    Can we achieve these same overclocking results when we couple ryzen 1700 with a b350 motherboard and a 120mm aio 70$ liquid cooler?

    • GrimmReaper WithaSpoon

      Idk if a 120mm rad is enough. I’d recommend going for 240mm ones.

    • Jon Donnelly

      long as you got push pull fans on it i would say it would work fine, people are getting 4ghz on the shitty spire wrath.

      • Maurice Fortin

        compared to Intel stock cooler, Wraith is hardly shitty, it is actually quite good especially for a stock cooler, best ever released, wraith max even more so, and at least they use screws not tarded plastic push pins, they are also use proper solder not thermal paste, maybe they are not the fastest ever released, but the power usage, temps etc show AMD put LOTS of design time and love into Ryzen, and are being equally fair with pricing.

        1700x I dont understand cause really very little difference vs it compared to 1800x, they almost could have/should have just did the 1700x as the 1700 is in regards to clock speeds and the like while having that $329 price point like a stock speed of maybe 3.4Ghz and turbo up to 3.9 whereas 1800x stock 3.7 turbo up to 4.1 for $399 type deal, leave the 1700x in a weird pricing/performance spot or it leaves the 1700 in an odd spot, am sure they could have “combined” the 1700 x and non x for clock speeds etc.

        Anyways, still think they are awesome for what they are and pricing they are sold at, AMD and Ryzen is back in the game, now just comes down to optimization for OS, BIOS, and dev support, even without all this, they are still awesome.

        Anyways, to say it a shitty cooler, is just wrong, look at the TDP stock of 1700 it is 65w(heat output) wraith spire can handle 95w, wraith max on Ryzen that are 95w TDP yet the cooler can handle 140w, hardly call that shitty(actually much better than many aftermarket coolers that cost a chunk more) whereas just as example Intel stock coolers barely can handle stock heat output, just try overclocking on them, they really cannot handle it, and take a long time to cool back down, Ryzen stock cooler can handle its own temps, and cools back down very quickly, says they did a very awesome job of fabricating them, period.

    • Nathan Kirsch

      I think you should be able to pull it off with a good push/pull fan configuration.

  • slim

    myth busters “Is Ryzen Frame latency smoother?”

    What i would like done if possible is run set benchmarks like the
    division run and get an high speed camera one that can rec the frames
    higher than the pc is rendering and rec both Ryzen and Intel and analyse
    the footage and see if one is smoother than the other or which one as
    more hick ups ……….I think AMD has the smoothness the special hp

    Yes i know you can get info with frame times ect but to see it with ones owns eyes with high speed footage would be great

    • Johan Krüger Haglert

      Well, I guess you’re wrong 🙂

      • MDF

        No, he’s right. Ryzen has lower peak/average FPS but higher and SMOOTHER minimums. This observation has been confirmed by multiple reviewers.

        • Johan Krüger Haglert

          In Division?
          On average it unlikely have higher minimum and there’s no need to bring a camera since there’s software which can measure the time between frames.
          If Ryzen have higher and smoother minimums then that’s great news.
          Got any link to one of them?

        • MR

          I call BS

  • Daniel

    Turbo 3.0 – 6900K = 4Ghz

  • Cherry

    Good to see the level of progress AMD have made with Ryzen. My experiences with AMD go back to the 1990’s, My last AMD processor was the Barton 2500, an over clocking beast. That was replaced with a Q6600 as price to performance was epic with that one. Replaced that with 3570k but had to retire that one when z77 board went bad and price to replace was unsupportable. Currently have W3680 on X58 (gift mobo) and 3930k on X79 (gift mobo)…. Am going to be super happy to save my Pennies to finally return to being an AMD owner. Not a fanboy by any description, just have good memories of AMD and still the behaviour of Intel in the AMD-64 days leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would rather spend my money with a smaller company who innovates. Good job and here’s hoping that the games devs and mobo manufacturers get their ducks lined up to show what Ryzen is capable of.

    • Sic Semper Beats

      You’re awesome.

    • Ahmed A. Helmy

      Respect, I’d do the same, my experience with AMD is back to Athlon 850 Mhz in 2001, then Palomino XP 1800+ and some of the FX and A10 Apus, and had lot of intel as well E6600, Core i7 2600K, but going to this beast this week 🙂

      • Cherry

        I think my favourite was a duron 800, that got so hot it changed colour, thing still worked after… And I kept it enclosed in glass as a paper weight. Really hope that MS do their thing with optimizing win10 for the Ryzen and the games devs do the decent thing and start coding more games to use more cores in the not too distant future. Guess it all hangs on market penetration for Ryzen. I do believe that the R5 series WILL become the biggest sellers in the whole range though.

        • mrgerbik

          Loved my Duron – back in the days of the pencil bridge trick!

          The celeron 300A as well – such a beast .. and a big reason they were even made was to combat AMD’s aggressive price/performance

  • GlandsHead

    Ryzen X Series = Cash Cows.

    • Timoo van Esch

      Nope, they actually perform better.
      And to turn it into a partisan discussion: 1000$ for a 6900K.
      Thát’s a cash cow. The 1800X and 1700X are simply the best performing cores from the platter…

      • GlandsHead

        Yeah, 1800x is better than 6900k budget wise.
        but from 1700 vs 1800x perspective, there is little performance gain paid with extra $180 . AMD should cut its price by $100 at least .

        • MR

          Halo products are always more expensive. It’s called binning

        • MrRandom

          Just buy the 1700 and over clock it. Same performance and you save $170 USD. You get 6900k workstation performance for 1/3 the price. (even more is saved when you look at the price of a decent Broadwell motherboard.)

  • buddy

    A very solid start for ryzen. Waiting for series 5

    • Nathan Kirsch

      We all are now that AMD has promised improvements and a Windows power driver in roughly 30 days. AMD needs to show that they can get the performance up before Ryzen 5 to calm the nerves of gamers!

      • Ronald

        Devs develop games according to Intel microarchitecture, always been the case. I just hope now that there is a legit competitor in Zen that devs start to optimize for it

        • Watcher

          You are correct, that is exactly the case.

        • GlandsHead

          Yep, it’s also more efficient for new devs to build games on $400 r7 than on $1000 i7. Sama function, better value. They can use their funds for more coffee and beer.

      • Sim Lash

        Gamers who have 120+Hz monitors are gaming at 2K or 4K, so Ryzen’s gaming performance is great for them. Gamers who run at 1080p @ 60Hz are fine as well since all of the Ryzen 1080p benchmarks show 80+ fps. Your eyes won’t be able to tell the difference between a 5 fps difference and your monitor is only refreshing at 60 hertz anyway. It’s not a big deal. Those RAM speeds though…

        • MR

          I run 1080p/120hz and I would reckon that is actually the largest group of 120hz gamers out there. Anything higher becomes difficult to push at 120fps. My bottleneck is indeed CPU, with an i5 3570k @ 4.4 and it all comes down to clocks at the end of the day, not threads.

          I would say that the only base Ryzen can’t really cover well is precisely mine. Which is a shame, I can’t justify going AMD yet, even though I’d really like the extra cores.

        • Sim Lash

          You’re right. 4k @ 120 isn’t normal…yet, but if someone bought a nice monitor then I doubt they spent hundreds for 1080p gaming.

        • Kaizer

          Then you’d be wrong, pro gaming is at 1080p/144hz. Regular consumer gaming is at 1080p/60hz.

  • Billy Pistocco

    nice to see It’s more power efficient.

    • Nandiman

      At stock yes, but once overclocked it’s efficiency goes down drastically, and you’ll want to overclock these.

      • Laurence

        Here in Finland the 1800X costs around 150% the price of the 1700 in almost all retailers. The 1800X really just seems like it clocks higher on it’s own but unless AMD has binned the CPUs you might end up spending 200€ more for a CPU that performs almost exactly the same

        • me

          Pretty much. You pay extra for slightly lower wattage at those higher clocks. Not worth it for most people.

        • Maurice Fortin

          give a few weeks/months for it to be optimized code and BIOS, it might be the 1800x is notably faster via XFR and so forth, as it stand, 1700 max TDP is 65watt, 1700x 1800x max TDP is 95w, so, there might be a hard cap on 1700 with the X variants in this case having that extra headroom, maybe through more aggressive binning, it lets stretch legs that bit more, cooling is everything,

          very well could be futurs bios will allow individual core control so those chasing the best mix of performance, power usage, temperatures have more fine grained control of the 8 available cores(16 threads) can turn off say core 2-3-5-7 as they are “weaker” to give extra headroom so the remaining cores(therefore threads) can clock that much higher.

          Likely is something can be done, probably is more a background optimization AMD needs work with partners on to really let Ryzen shine, takes time for a very $ strapped company to optimize and fine tune things, and their partners(ASUS, MSI etc) also take awhile to optimize things from their end, might be they just didnt have quite enough time fine tune things as much as would have liked?