I've got a couple of Ryzen 1700's running such as this one running Linux. My current quandary is if I should replace the 1700's with 1700x or not. Apart from the initial cost of buying another CPU there is an extra 30 watts for the 1700x for about a 10 to 12% gain in productivity.

I did some experiments with the Einstein gravity wave tuning run on them. Running 16 at a time average run time was 33,000 to 37,000 seconds, when I limit it to 8 via an app_config they came in at 20,000 seconds. The app was their AVX and it got the Lo work units.

My current experiment is to see if leaving a single thread free improves performance or not. I'm running a single GPU with the Seti CUDA80 app so it can make use of the available thread but certainly doesn't need its own as it sleeps a fair bit (according to top).

---

BOINC blog

From all the various comments from Ryzen users in the forums about their achievable clock speeds, it seems that all the R7 chips can reach all the way up to 4 Ghz. It just matters how many of each population can do so, so it does reflect largely the binning. What I have noticed that is more of a variable is the memory speeds achieved as that doesn't seem to reflect any binning for the IMC of any chip. So you may get a 1700 that can do 3600 Mhz memory and you may get a 1800X that can only do 2933 Mhz with the same memory on the same motherboard.

After all these months for things to settle out, I would in hindsight have saved $70 and chosen the 1700 over my 1700X likely.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

I've got a couple of Ryzen 1700's running such as this one running Linux. My current quandary is if I should replace the 1700's with 1700x or not. Apart from the initial cost of buying another CPU there is an extra 30 watts for the 1700x for about a 10 to 12% gain in productivity.

I did some experiments with the Einstein gravity wave tuning run on them. Running 16 at a time average run time was 33,000 to 37,000 seconds, when I limit it to 8 via an app_config they came in at 20,000 seconds. The app was their AVX and it got the Lo work units.

My current experiment is to see if leaving a single thread free improves performance or not. I'm running a single GPU with the Seti CUDA80 app so it can make use of the available thread but certainly doesn't need its own as it sleeps a fair bit (according to top).

I thought the only difference between the 1700 and 1700X, besides the 400MHz higher base clock on the 1700X, was the XFR auto over clocking feature.
So if you have a sufficient cooling setup you could bump the multiplier and have the same performance for $70 less.
I kind of want to setup a Ryzen 1700 system for testing. As the the CPU run times I've been seeing for Ryzen systems completing normal and VLAR tasks have been about the same as my E5-2670 @ 3.0GHz running 32 tasks at once with the AVX app. When I disable one CPU and only run 16 task at once the run times go down, but less work gets done.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

I thought the only difference between the 1700 and 1700X, besides the 400MHz higher base clock on the 1700X, was the XFR auto over clocking feature.

Exactly. And you lose any advantage of using the XFR feature AS SOON as you overclock or change anything from Auto in the BIOS. The only advantage I see in the XFR feature is for the systems that never change anything from default and simply "run what ya brung" as in standard manufacturer turn-key systems.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)