OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark multi-core score:14761N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 48 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 7 1700
7.2/10

Overall score

Score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 67% of models
Score components

40%

5.5

Technical score

25%

8.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

10

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 67% of processors
8.1

Value for money

Value for money
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

★Better than 90%
5.5

Technical score

Technical score
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

60%

5.1

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

6.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 54%
8.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models

80%

8.3

Average grade

20%

9.8

Popularity

Grades by review (48)
23 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 25 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
★Better than 95%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-ryzen-7-1700
  • amd-ryzen-7-1700
  • amd-ryzen-7-1700
amd-ryzen-7-1700
amd-ryzen-7-1700
amd-ryzen-7-1700
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Based on 10 · 28

Reviewers praise excellent multi-core power and value for rendering and streaming, but gaming and buggy BIOS software disappoint.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Based on 209 owners sharing their experience in online comments

80%positive14%mixed6%negative

Owners value its strong, affordable performance and overclocking, while memory setup and gaming limits are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say memory compatibility is hit or miss: many kits fail to post or stay stable above 2133 to 2933 MHz unless the motherboard lists them as compatible.13
  • Owners say it feels dated next to Ryzen 2000, 3000 and newer chips, and a Ryzen 5 2600 or 3600 gives noticeably higher frame rates in games.9
  • Owners say reaching 3.9 to 4.0 GHz often needs 1.35 to 1.45 V, which runs hot and pushes the motherboard hard.8
  • Owners say overclocking results vary a lot: some chips reach 4.0 GHz easily while others stop near 3.8 GHz even with more voltage.6
  • Owners say AMD stopped BIOS updates for 300-series boards, so buyers may not get newer chip support or fixes on older motherboards.6
  • Owners say that in some newer games, such as Cyberpunk 2077 and GTA V, frame rates fall well below a GPU's potential and can drop to around 40 FPS.6
  • Owners say the chip and motherboards cost more at launch than expected, and a later price drop was small.4
  • Owners say weak motherboard power circuits cause performance dips and micro-stutter under load, so a board with a better VRM handles the chip more reliably.3
  • Owners say running the chip at 4.0 GHz with a 1.4 V setting raises temperatures and fan noise, so they keep it at stock or 3.7 GHz to stay quiet.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Technical score
Technical score
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

60%

5.1

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

6.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

5.5
Reviews score
8.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components:

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

8.1
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X570, B550, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X570, B550, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 71.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 74.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 73.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
14,761
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 14,761 in PassMark, which is higher than 58.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
768 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 768 KB which is larger than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,667 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,667 MHz, which is lower than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
2,666 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is higher than that of 89.2% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 usable lanes
    24 vs 16
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 28.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 95% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    9.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (48)
    23 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 25 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.6 vs 6.7
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 28.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 95% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    9.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (48)
    23 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 25 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.6 vs 6.7
  • 38.9% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.2
  • 10.5% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has better value for money than the average processor (8.05 vs 7.3).
    8.05 vs 7.29
  • 2.63x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
    £95 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 28.7% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (14,761 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    14,761 vs 11,469
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (768 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    768 KB vs 384 KB
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 usable lanes
    24 vs 16
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 33.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,027 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,027 vs 1,535
  • 32.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (331 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    331 vs 490
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 21.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1997 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,997 vs 2,558
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    March 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, SME, SEV, SKINIT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, SME, SEV, SKINIT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 33.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,027 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,027 vs 1,535
  • 32.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (331 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    331 vs 490
  • 21.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1997 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,997 vs 2,558
  • 36.6% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (252.5 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    252.5 vs 398.015
  • More basic Turbo Core
    This processor has a more basic Turbo Core version than the average processor (1 vs 2).
    Precision Boost 1
    1.0 vs 2.0
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 8.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (192 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    192 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Thermal Grease Monkey
≈ estimated
28/04/2026
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 remains a great value for budget builds, multitasking and streaming, with a solid upgrade path on AM4.
5.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
12/05/2023
Re-evaluation · benchmarks across nine games and synthetics
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700, first-gen Zen, has aged poorly, and newer six-core chips make more sense for budget gaming.
8.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
11/07/2020
Revisit review · benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has aged well for multi-threaded work and offers a good upgrade path, though Intel's Core i7 7700K still wins for pure gaming.
8.0
LukeLiterally
≈ estimated
09/02/2019
Hands-on review · gaming and editing benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is worth it for editing and multitasking, but gaming-focused buyers should look elsewhere.
7.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
19/04/2018
Hands-on test · overclocking on an X470 board
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 overclocking results depend on the silicon lottery, and an X470 board does not beat X370 here.
8.0
Tinker Therapy
≈ estimated
03/01/2018
Buying advice · personal use and overclocking notes
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is the best value for budget gaming and editing, though Intel is better for pure rendering.
9.0
AFlyingModem
≈ estimated
05/05/2017
Personal overview · rendering and gaming experience
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is a happy purchase and recommended to anyone, despite trailing Intel in some benchmarks.
8.0
ThinkComputers
≈ estimated
08/04/2017
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and platform tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has strong multi-threaded performance and is competitive with Intel, but gaming and platform stability lag.
9.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
28/03/2017
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and memory tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is the best buy among the R7 chips, though it needs tweaking to shine.
9.5
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
24/03/2017
Build showcase · 4K encode and gaming benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is a strong, good-value video editing CPU that comes close to a much pricier 10-core chip.
9.0
Tech By Matt
≈ estimated
22/03/2017
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and overclocking
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is our top pick for workstation builds, though it trails the 7700K in games and has early growing pains.
7.0
HardOCP TV
≈ estimated
21/03/2017
Hands-on review · overclocking on air and water
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 retail chips reach 3.8 to 3.9 GHz, but the stock cooler is not enough for overclocking.
More graded video reviews (4)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
14/03/2017
Hands-on test · Overclocking
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 offers eight cores and 16 threads in a 65W chip that overclocks to 4.0 GHz, but it needs a new AM4 motherboard.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
08/03/2017
Lab test · Gaming and overclocking
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is strong at multi-core work and overclocks well, but it lags Intel's Core i7-7700K in single-core speed and 1080p gaming.
8.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
06/04/2017
Lab test · Gaming and productivity
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is strong in heavily threaded work and, once overclocked, matches the Ryzen 7 1800X, but it trails Intel quad-cores in most games.
9.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
15/03/2017
Review · Cooler and overclocking
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is an eight-core, 65W chip with an unlocked multiplier and bundled cooler, suited to small builds, though it boosts less than the X models.
9.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
05/12/2017
Benchmark analysis · Gaming and encoding
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is the best value of the Ryzen 7 chips: overclocked to 4.0GHz it matches the 1800X, though it needs more voltage to get there.
9.5
tweaktown.com
✓ explicit
06/03/2017
Benchmark review · Cooler and transcoding
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is a strong multi-core chip for video transcoding and rendering with a bundled cooler, but it trails Intel in single-thread speed and gaming.
9.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
03/03/2017
Lab test · Linux benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is nearly as fast as the 1700X on Linux, a strong pick for code builds, but it needs a recent kernel to avoid crashes.
9.8
relaxedtech.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2017
Hands-on test · Desktop and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 runs cool, draws little power and suits developers who also game, though it trails the i7-6900K in some 1080p games.
9.0
notyouraveragetech.wordpress.com
≈ estimated
06/03/2018
Hands-on review · Streaming and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 handles gaming during live streaming well, staying stutter-free at stock speed, though it has less single-core speed than the 7700K.
9.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
23/03/2017
Hands-on review · Multi-threaded performance
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is a strong pick for multi-threaded work like video encoding, but single-threaded tasks and games run slower than on the Core i7-7700K.
6.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
04/04/2017
Lab test · SMT and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is strong in multi-core tests and holds performance under long loads, but turning on SMT can lower frame rates in some games.
9.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
12/03/2017
Lab test · Multi-core performance
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is a strong multi-core chip for rendering, encryption and encoding, rated at 65W, but it trails Intel in PCMark 8 photo and video editing.
9.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
20/03/2017
Lab test · Multi-core and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 offers strong multi-core speed, low power use and cool running, with gaming still trailing Intel, though future software updates may close that gap.
9.0
hardware.fr
≈ estimated
15/03/2017
Lab test · Power and overclocking
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 draws about 65W with all cores busy and beats Intel's Core i7-6900K in one efficiency test, but its boost headroom is only 50 MHz.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
03/04/2017
Lab test · Eight-core CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 matches the Core i7-7700K on average and beats it in rendering and video encoding, but in games it performs more like a Core i5.
9.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
15/03/2017
Lab test · Overclocking and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 reaches 3.8 GHz without overheating, matching the 1800X once overclocked, but its gaming performance is held back.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
07/04/2017
Lab test · Eight-core CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is an eight-core chip that excels at heavily threaded work and overclocks well, but it trails Intel chips in Full HD gaming.
9.0
tech.everyeye.it
≈ estimated
03/04/2017
Lab test · Multi-core performance
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is an eight-core chip that beats the Core i7-7700K in multi-threaded tasks at 65W, though it trails in single-thread speed and gaming.
8.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
31/03/2017
Lab test · Eight-core desktop
Verdict
The Ryzen 7 1700 uses little power under load and delivers strong multi-core speed, but it trails Intel's Core i7-7700K in several 1080p games.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 7 1700

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance for the price, ideal for workstations and content creation
  • High value proposition, offering 8 cores and 16 threads at a much lower cost than competing Intel chips
  • Low 65W TDP makes it power-efficient and easy to cool compared to its higher-end siblings
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for significant overclocking potential, often matching the performance of the more expensive 1800X
  • Includes a capable and aesthetically pleasing stock cooler (Wraith Spire with RGB)

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 1700

  • Lower single-threaded performance and clock speeds compared to Intel's Kaby Lake competitors
  • Lags behind Intel in 1080p gaming scenarios, particularly in older or less optimized titles
  • Early platform issues included memory compatibility limitations and buggy BIOS firmware
  • Overclocking headroom is often limited to around 3.9 - 4.0 GHz across all cores
  • Lack of 'XFR' (Extended Frequency Range) support found in higher-tier 'X' models

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is an 8-core, 16-thread desktop processor based on the 14nm Zen architecture and the AM4 socket. It features a base clock speed of 3.0 GHz, a maximum boost clock of 3.7 GHz, and 20MB of combined L2 and L3 cache, all within a highly efficient 65W TDP. Its primary advantages include exceptional multi-threaded performance for productivity tasks like video encoding, an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, and a significantly lower launch price compared to competing high-core-count Intel chips. However, it is noted for trailing behind Intel's contemporary flagships in single-threaded performance and 1080p gaming, and early models were often sensitive to specific DDR4 memory speeds and compatibility.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 1700 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 7 1700 and other processors

No results found