Ryzen 7 1700 vs Core i9-7900X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-7900X
2017
10 cores / 20 threads, 140 Watt
13.65
+42.5%

i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking508750
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.819.43
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore i9 (Desktop)AMD Ryzen 7
Architecture codenameSkylake-X (2018)Zen (2017−2020)
Release date26 June 2017 (7 years ago)2 March 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999$329
Current price$864 (0.9x MSRP)$212 (0.6x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 7 1700 has 96% better value for money than i9-7900X.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores10 (Deca-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads2016
Base clock speed3.3 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)768 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)4096 KB
L3 cache14 MB (shared)16384 KB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-
Unlocked multiplierYesYes

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketSocket R4AM4
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
FMAno dataFMA3
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data
XFRno data-
SenseMIno data+

Security technologies

Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4
Maximum memory size128 GB64 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth85 GB/s42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/A-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700.

PCIe version3.0n/a
PCI Express lanes4420

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i9-7900X 13.65
+42.5%
Ryzen 7 1700 9.58

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

i9-7900X 21107
+42.5%
Ryzen 7 1700 14810

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 43% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i9-7900X 1432
+41.9%
Ryzen 7 1700 1009

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 42% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i9-7900X 8896
+73.7%
Ryzen 7 1700 5121

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 74% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

i9-7900X 7287
+64.9%
Ryzen 7 1700 4419

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 65% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i9-7900X 49738
+69.6%
Ryzen 7 1700 29330

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 70% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i9-7900X 12678
+52.1%
Ryzen 7 1700 8335

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 52% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

i9-7900X 2.91
+106%
Ryzen 7 1700 6

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Core i9-7900X by 106% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

i9-7900X 24
+52.1%
Ryzen 7 1700 16

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 52% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i9-7900X 2148
+51.9%
Ryzen 7 1700 1414

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 52% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i9-7900X 193
+31.1%
Ryzen 7 1700 147

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 31% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

i9-7900X 2.2
+32.5%
Ryzen 7 1700 1.66

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 33% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 12.1
+68.1%
Ryzen 7 1700 7.2

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 68% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 5918
+71.7%
Ryzen 7 1700 3447

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 72% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 121
+62.6%
Ryzen 7 1700 74

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 63% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 217
+41%
Ryzen 7 1700 154

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 41% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

i9-7900X 26145
+41.6%
Ryzen 7 1700 18461

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 42% in Geekbench 2.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

i9-7900X 27533
+42.7%
Ryzen 7 1700 19292

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 43% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

i9-7900X 4987
+20.3%
Ryzen 7 1700 4145

Core i9-7900X outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 20% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.65 9.58
Recency 26 June 2017 2 March 2017
Physical cores 10 8
Threads 20 16
Cost $999 $329
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 65 Watt

The Core i9-7900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 7 1700 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1700, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i9-7900X
Core i9-7900X
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
Ryzen 7 1700

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 196 votes

Rate Core i9-7900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1451 vote

Rate Ryzen 7 1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-7900X or Ryzen 7 1700, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.