FX-9800P vs Ryzen 7 1700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 1700
2017
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
9.32
+479%
FX-9800P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.61

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms FX-9800P by a whopping 479% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking8222102
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.94no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7AMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency13.5610.15
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date2 March 2017 (7 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads164
Base clock speed3 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz3.6 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier30no data
L1 cache768 KB320 KB
L2 cache4096 KB1 MB (per module)
L3 cache16384 KBno data
Chip lithography14 nm28 nm
Die size192 mm2250 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million3,100 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4FP4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI++
FMAFMA3+
AVX++
SenseMI+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanes208

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 9.32
+479%
FX-9800P 1.61

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 14808
+478%
FX-9800P 2562

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 1025
+105%
FX-9800P 501

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 5202
+360%
FX-9800P 1131

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 6
+140%
FX-9800P 14.4

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 16
+449%
FX-9800P 3

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Ryzen 7 1700 1414
+499%
FX-9800P 236

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 147
+98.6%
FX-9800P 74

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.

Ryzen 7 1700 1.66
+82.4%
FX-9800P 0.91

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.32 1.61
Recency 2 March 2017 31 May 2016
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 16 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 15 Watt

Ryzen 7 1700 has a 478.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

FX-9800P, on the other hand, has 333.3% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 1700 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9800P in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor while FX-9800P is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 1700 and FX-9800P, 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.


AMD Ryzen 7 1700
Ryzen 7 1700
AMD FX-9800P
FX-9800P

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.


4.2 1543 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 44 votes

Rate FX-9800P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 1700 or FX-9800P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.