Ryzen 7 260 vs Ryzen 7 1700
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 260 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1023 | 474 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.28 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.81 | 38.21 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Hawk Point (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 2 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 260 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 30 | no data |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16384 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 260 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 260. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | Ryzen AI, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | FMA3 | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| SenseMI | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 260 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 260. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon 780M |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 260.
| PCIe version | n/a | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 20 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.38 | 16.05 |
| Recency | 2 March 2017 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 45 Watt |
Ryzen 7 260 has a 91.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 44.4% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 7 260 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
