A little birdie sent me a note this afternoon that the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X processor was selling on Amazon.com for just $333! Considering the launch price of that CPU was $399 just two months ago, a $60-70 discount makes this platform all the more compelling for consumers looking to build a new PC. Coupling that with the overclocking performance we saw from our Ryzen 1700 sample, you should be able to meet or exceed expectations with the 1700X model.
This link led me down a bit of a rabbit hole as I wanted to see where a solid build would stand using that processor and a focus on budget. Now, keep in mind that this was put together rather hastily this afternoon, but here's what I came up with.
|Ryzen 7 1700X Build|
|Processor||AMD Ryzen 7 1700X – $333|
|Cooler||Thermaltake Contac Silent – $24|
|Motherboard||ASUS Prime B350-Plus – $99|
|Memory||G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB DDR4-3000 – $118|
|Graphics Card||EVGA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB – $149|
|Storage||Samsung 850 EVO 250GB – $107|
|Case||Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case – $56|
|Power Supply||Corsair CX 500 watt – $59|
|Total Price||$945 – Amazon.com Full Cart|
For the base of the system, you can pick up the Ryzen 7 1700X processor for $333, a great B350-based motherboard from ASUS for $99 and 16GB of DDR4 memory running at 3000 MHz for just $118. Getting that memory at higher clock speeds is important for optimal Ryzen performance – hunt around to find the best deal! That's just $550 for the heart of a system that could power anything from the GTX 1050 Ti I included above to the GTX 1080 Ti if you are pushing the limits of graphics performance.
If you try to stay within a reasonable budget, as I did above, you can build a from-scratch machine for under $1000 with some impressive specifications and capabilities. The GTX 1050 Ti will get you peak 1080p gaming capability while the 8-cores and 16-threads of the Ryzen 7 1700X will improve any workstation-class or multimedia workloads.
Separately, but interestingly, the gang at 3DCenter.org posted the results of a survey taken about the Ryzen 5 processor launch, measuring the readers reactions to the release. In it, 83.9% of the audience looked upon the Ryzen 5 favorably, 9.4% as average and 6.7% negatively. If you compare that to the Ryzen 7 launch (74.6% favorable, 17.5% average, 7.9% negative) it seems that Ryzen 5 was better received than its big brother. But if you look back to October 2011 when the same survey was run about AMD Bulldozer, only 6.8% saw the CPU launch as favorable (!!). The last CPU launch that received nearly as positive a reaction as Ryzen 5/7 was the Sandy Bridge CPU back in January of 2011.
Obviously this survey isn't a predictor of success or failure exactly, but it does point to an audience that is incredibly receptive to the new AMD processors. My own experience tells me that these numbers are fairly accurate to the mood about Ryzen, even after the 1080p gaming fiasco that circulates to this day. Interest and reaction are great for a company that needs to make in-roads in the market, but converting that consumer interest into purchases is the key for AMD going forward.
Nice opinion-esqe piece, I
Nice opinion-esqe piece, I like it. Also, I had this idea nagging in the back of my brain and perhaps this is a reasonable hook to latch it on.
When testing rysen on 1080p, when games run very high fps, say unnecessary high, like 150fps (humour me), the latency issue between complexes is emphasised perhaps more than reasonable. I agree with the arguments against testing a cpu in a gpu bottlenecked situation, but perhaps the common 1080p case is not totally reasonable either.
I imagine that future games will require more cpu power for different reasons, but perhaps most of those reasons are not as latency critical as running 150+fps. I think maybe a benchmark at 1080p, while side loading the cpu, i.e. to simulate smarter AI or more realistic simulations in future games could be a way to better balance latency vs throughput when testing in non gpu bottleneck situations.
just so frustrating that the
just so frustrating that the asrock mini itx 350 was supposed to be available by mid april and is still no where to be seen
biostar has a mini itx, but i do not trust biostar quality and it is never in stock at newegg anyway
thanks for the heads up and suggested build
if you are building a atx rig and are willing to spend a bit more, consider the asrock taichi, which is not only getting awesome reviews on tech sites, but has an awesome review distribution on new egg and amazon, which is rare for a mobo from my experience
once again, finding the taichi in stock is not easy; they had some the other day for two hours
come on asrock, get the mini itx in stores already
Pdjblum-. I would do some
Pdjblum-. I would do some research on the Biostar board. I purchased one of their “Racing” series Z170 boards for my Skylake build an in no way did it feel like I was dealing with a budget board. It seemed to be equiped with high quality parts and grade A features. I’m very happy with the part and it’s features as I haven’t had any problems. That being said I haven’t had to deal with Biostar support but I have no doubt that they would steadfastly stand behind their product.
i appreciate that feedback and will keep it mind
their mini itx has gotten a 4/5 with 9 reviews and all three or more stars on newegg, so that is pretty darn good, and it is only $110, but of course it is not available
The 1800x also dropped to
The 1800x also dropped to $460..
It seem the X series are not selling out.
I kind of like the R7 1700 and the R5 1600 because the cooler they come with are fine for 3.9ghz and 4ghz respectively.
I have a R7 1700 at 3.7ghz and the cooler is near silent under load.
Pushing it to 4ghz cause heat to skyrocket (including the VRM)
So totally not worth it for 10% at best performance.
For a gaming PC I would go with the R5 1600. $220 (include great cooler)
For a all around PC, the R7 1700. $312 (includes a great RGB, copper core cooler)
And B350 motherboard are like $90 for quality models.
I hope AMD makes some money so they can re-invest in stronger R&D. A 7nm tweaked out Zen+ might be my next upgrade (if 16 cores come at under $500 in 2 or 3 years time)
Considering total spend on a pc, even a cheap ass would think it foolish not to ante up $220 for the most significant component, considering what the 1600 offers.
The only question is do i pay $90+ for 2 more cores.
Even a power user may, rather than pay half as much again for the cpu, use the premium to pay for half a simple drop in upgrade zen2 cpu a bit later.