This was posted 5 years 5 months 13 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X $229.90 Delivered @ Newegg

790
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X $229.90 Delivered @ Newegg
Go to Deal
Cashback
jasswolf on 13/11/2018 - 22:18 newegg.com (1755 clicks)
Last edited 14/11/2018 - 17:52

All-time low, likely due to stock clearance. This is part of the US Black Friday sales, but the deal seems to apply for us as well. Price is of course GST inclusive, and standard international shipping from Newegg is free for this item.

Note that this does not come with a cooler, but generally clocks a tad higher than the 1700 (as well as having its own high-end clock scaling as standard).

Enjoy!

EDIT: For those concerned with DOA returns, Newegg will cover return shipping in those circumstances. AMD's warranty for retail CPUs is 3 years, and is an international warranty.

People have been asking for motherboard recommendations in the comments, I've lifted these from TechSpot and then quickly priced them, but they check out:

El Jefe
El Medio (slightly cheaper via Amazon Prime)
El Cheapo

Computing AMD Computer Component CPU

Related Stores

Newegg
Newegg

closed Comments

  • Ostrk on 13/11/2018 - 22:28
    +5

    Holy shit that's a good price

    • jasswolf on 13/11/2018 - 22:31
      +1

      AMD did stuff like this last year as well. This is just them running through their 1st gen inventory.

      Hopefully suggests that the 7nm Ryzen 7 will be a 16-core CPU at the same starting MSRP as the rest of the series.

      • p1 ama on 13/11/2018 - 22:38
        +1

        Hopefully suggests that the 7nm Ryzen 7 will be a 16-core CPU at the same starting MSRP as the rest of the series.

        I really doubt that. The 16 core Threadripper is still much more expensive and the 9900K is still an 8 core, 16 thread chip at double the price of the 2700. I reckon if they do release a 16 core 7nm Ryzen, it'll be around the price of the 9900K.

        • jasswolf on 13/11/2018 - 23:36
          +1

          They've specifically sacrificed density gains to make an affordable design for Zen 2 but it's still double the density (and double the cores per CCX/chiplet), so I think you're underestimating the targeted price point.

          Also keep in mind that the 2700 and the 2700X debuted at $425 and $470 respectively.

          • TheContact on 14/11/2018 - 07:14

            @jasswolf: I don't think a CCX is equivalent to the new chiplet, everything points to it still being 8 cores per die with it currently 2 4 core CCXs per die. Lisa Su held up a 64 core Epyc which had 8 dies.

            Of course Ryzen could still double the cores by increasing doubling the number of dies, but it's not a guarantee like your comment implies as the fundamental building block still is an 8 core die.

            • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 10:40

              @TheContact: Yeah I wasn't sure whether CCX and chiplet were exactly interchangeable, but the main point was that density has doubled, and thus core count has also.

              I guess we'll find out if it's still two clusters packed into each chiplet or a new design!

            • sane on 14/11/2018 - 11:32

              @TheContact: I think it's quite likely they will go for the 2 chiplet design for Ryzen 3000 - so 16 cores max. They might put the price for those up though, with the 1 chiplet 8 core being comparable to the current gen price.

              However, the generation after maybe the one to target for a new build. Not only will 16 cores be old hat, they will need to compete with an Intel that finally has 10nm, and they are scheduled to have PCIE4(also likely on Zen2) and DDR5 for the memory bandwidth (eg AM5 motherboard).

              As such a cheap 1700X to tide you over …..

      • BenR31415 on 14/11/2018 - 09:16

        It's likely going to be 12 cores for zen 2. The CCXs for epyc and ryzen will likely be different this time, as the CCXs need to have IO on them where epyc gives this responsibility to another chip.

        • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 11:45

          The I/O die is new for SP3 as well, which means it'll be on TR4 with some modifications, and then a smaller variant will be on AM4. This slide explains it well.

          They're souping up infinity fabric so they can uncouple the core scaling from the IO scaling. It's a clever way to achieve a better cadence with each set of design challenges.

      • hamwhisperer on 14/11/2018 - 10:57

        Unlikely, now it's time for AMD to try to make their 8 core CPU, compete with Intel.
        Price? No problem, performance? Hurmmmmmmmmmmmm…

        They need to increase the instructions per clock and the clock speed, once achieved, they have Intel on the ropes.
        No need to go 16 core, not for normal desktop, it's going to be diminishing returns.

        • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 11:52

          IPC is already neck and neck, and there's rumours swirling of a further 13% gain in common workloads. If that translates to gaming as well, then that'll put AMD over the top at the same clocks.

          From the clock speed perspective, there was talk of engineering samples coming in at 4.5 GHz a few months back, so if that continues to trend, a 5 GHz OC should be manageable.

          Anything from there is a bonus, but I'm sure they'll focus on increasing core counts, which will not age badly for future use cases, and keep them competitive as they shift focus to a 7nm+ design to compete against Intel's 10nm.

          • p1 ama on 14/11/2018 - 17:47
            -3

            @jasswolf:

            IPC is already neck and neck

            Not really. I fully support AMD and have a Ryzen 2700 myself, but its single core performance is nowhere near Intel at the moment. The 7960X in my other computer beats the Ryzen 2700 for single core performance and the 9900K would be even faster with its higher clocks.

            • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 17:54

              @p1 ama: IPC = instructions per clock

              The problem is the clock speed (up to 5.3 GHz in standard configs, vs 4.2 GHz).

              • p1 ama on 14/11/2018 - 18:18
                -2

                @jasswolf: Exactly my point. My 7960X is not OC'd, and its single core turbo is 4.2 GHz, my R7 2700 is OC'd to 4.1 GHz, the 7960X already has faster single core performance, hence higher IPC. On top of that, like what you say, the 9900K will have even better single core performance due to the higher clock.

                Some sources which do formal testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doGp5LI6igg

                Also, note that I think the 2700 is a great chip (hence, why I own one - it has two more cores than the 8700K, and came in at 75% the cost), but saying it has higher IPC than Intel is just not true.

                • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 18:20

                  @p1 ama: Performance = IPC * Clock

                  Your i9 has a Turbo max of 4.4 GHz, while the 2700 isn't tuned the same way as the 2700X, which would turbo up to 4.3 GHz. I'm not sure what testing you're doing to see that kind of single core performance gap, but I don't expect it to be an identical ratio across the board, by virtue of them having different architecture.

                  I'm not sure what you're not following there? Zen 2 should close the gap in terms of the clock, while it may gift AMD an IPC lead for at least 6-9 months.

            • hamwhisperer on 15/11/2018 - 09:44
              -2

              @p1 ama: Voted down by AMD fanboys, sad :(

              I'm with you. It's just not the same, better than before, not great.

  • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 13/11/2018 - 22:52
    +4

    Dam that's a good deal. Ryzen 5 prices.

    • macrocephalic on 13/11/2018 - 23:11
      -5

      Also Ryzen 5 performance. The R7-1700x is only slightly (~8%) faster than the R5-2600 - which is a lower power CPU. The R5-2600 is faster in single thread, it's only in highly multithreaded use that the 1700x is faster.

      Not saying this isn't a good deal, but the zen+ chips are significantly better than the last gen zen chips, so the 7 series isn't such a big deal.

      • jasswolf on 13/11/2018 - 23:54
        +16

        For the love of all that is good in this world, please read the UserBenchmark comparison properly before you espouse it as your own opinion.

        The difference between the 2600 and 2700x is negligible in 1-4 core benchmarking, but it also has 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads, which gives it another 30% when needed.

        The power draw for the 2600 is only marginally lower when both are at full load. The advantage that Zen+ has is slightly better silicon and slightly better clock scaling (but that only really matters for the 2600X and the 2700X), all of which results in an absolute maximum of 10% better results in very specific circumstances, but usually 3-6%.

        But I wouldn't need to explain any of this to you if you were aware that the 1600 and 2600 models are just 1700/1800 and 2700 models with a couple of cores disabled. At the same price, this is a no-brainer.

        Source:
        https://www.techspot.com/review/1614-ryzen-2600/
        https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-A…
        https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-A…

        • Julesxzzz on 14/11/2018 - 00:16
          +2

          You're looking at about $10/year at 40c/kwh(ouch) when run on average 8hrs day 25% load. Pretty much insignificant imo.

          A no brainer at this price I agree, but with more black friday sales coming, can we expect the 2600 to come down significantly?

          • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 00:21
            +1

            @Julesxzzz: Would need to be below $175 to make it worth your while.

        • macrocephalic on 14/11/2018 - 00:33
          -3

          So I should read all those articles you posted which reaffirm exactly what I said, that the 1700x is, about 8% faster, but [slightly] slower in single thread scores?

          • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 00:38
            +2

            @macrocephalic: No, it's 30% faster when both CPUs are using all their cores, which is basically 90% of what you do on a PC. Zen+ isn't even consistently that much better in single-thread performance.

            And you're completely glossing over that you thought it had significantly less power draw. It's not 33% more energy efficient, at all.

            • MagicMushroom on 14/11/2018 - 10:52

              @jasswolf: Just look at passmark, easiest comparison.
              Ryzen 5 2600 Score: 13521
              Ryzen 7 1700X Score: 14640

              • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 11:14
                +1

                @MagicMushroom: Even if it's a worst case multicore boost of 15% like what you've linked, that does little to detract from my original point, which is that at the same price you of course opt for the 1700X.

        • Sopzo on 14/11/2018 - 13:05

          You should use userbenchmark as the last resort. It's the most inaccurate source. Use real in-game/software benchmarks first

          • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 13:07

            @Sopzo: Of course, but you can see I've posted a full review for the Ryzen 2600 from April right there, and it compares the 1800X, which is a close approximation of the 1700X.

            That being said, none of this info accounts for the performance gained when using CL14 3000 MHz or 3200 MHz DDR4 DIMMs.

        • 4foxache on 15/11/2018 - 09:48

          I have a Ryzen 2600 which clocks easily to 4ghz all cores. I also built a Ryzen 1700X PC for my bro which he just runs at stock. Here are the userbench results:

          Ryzen 2600 (@4ghz): https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/11767996
          Ryzen 1700X (stock): https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/10334840

          As you can see my Ryzen 2600 has a faster single & quad core speed by approx. 12%. However as mentioned 1700X due to 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads even at stock is 14% faster than the 2600 @4ghz.

          That said for my use office apps and gaming, browsing etc. I'd prefer the better single core, cheaper and ability to o/c the 2600 further.

          • jasswolf on 15/11/2018 - 09:54

            @4foxache: With anything but the cheapest setup, the 2600 should clock easily to 4.1, as should the 1700X.

            I'd suggest more than two thirds of the gap you're seeing comes down to the gap in clocks, memory selection and configuration, and throttling under load.

            • 4foxache on 15/11/2018 - 10:01

              @jasswolf: 1700X is built on 14nm process the 2600 is built on 12nm process. So the Ryzen 2nd gen should in theory and generally in practice overclock further than the Ryzen 1600/1700 series.

  • mcmount33 on 14/11/2018 - 00:16
    +2

    This is a good CPU for a great price.

  • Cyphar on 14/11/2018 - 00:43
    +3

    Unbelievable price. Was looking at upgrading from my Ryzen 3 1200. Good thing I held off on the 2600 purchase last week. Bought myself one. Thanks so much for posting it =D

    • GTG on 14/11/2018 - 00:45

      Will it be worth buying since claiming warranty will be a bit tough/expensive? :/

      • dcep on 14/11/2018 - 01:15
        +4

        i never had a cpu died on me, like ever

        • GTG on 14/11/2018 - 01:22

          Same here. I might go for it then.

      • OWKnowitall1 on 14/11/2018 - 01:16
        +1

        How will it be tough and expensive? Should be Under warranty from the day purchased.

        • GTG on 14/11/2018 - 01:23

          You still gotta send it back to the US :/

          • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 04:09
            +3

            @GTG: That should only be an issue for DOA, and I suspect they'll just direct you to ship it back to their Australian delivery centre.

            AMD's warranty on retail processors is 3 years, and international.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2018 - 16:07
      +1

      I was in the exact same boat, been monitoring the 1700x prices for the last 3 months for a good deal and got it, so glad haha

  • hengzhan on 14/11/2018 - 01:02
    +1

    This or a 2600 for a similar price?

    • Ostrk on 14/11/2018 - 01:29
      +2

      This

    • MHLoppy on 14/11/2018 - 11:57
      +1

      If you're not expecting to regularly do any tasks that would actually see much gain from the extra couple of cores (e.g. video editing / rendering), I'd actually suggest the 2600 instead if you would be happy to use the 2600's stock cooler. Most aftermarket coolers will set you back $30 or so even on the cheaper side of things, which I think is enough to go for the 2600 if the prices are equivalent and your workload isn't very "workstation-y".

    • p1 ama on 14/11/2018 - 17:50
      -1

      This is a tough choice. I used to have a Ryzen 1700X which I got on launch day, but eventually I got rid of that for the Ryzen 2700. I find the benefits of 2nd generation Ryzen worthwhile. You'll get a better OC with the second generation parts, the 2600 will also come with a decent cooler which if good for a light OC.

      I also had a lot of issues with first generation Ryzen that sorted itself out, things like memory compatibility and stability are just a lot better with the Ryzen 2000 series.

  • OWKnowitall1 on 14/11/2018 - 01:04
    +1

    Sweet deal

  • Matcha Milk Tea on 14/11/2018 - 07:17
    +1

    With someone with a budget of $700-$800 not inc monitor, would you suggest a eBay 20% new pc or building by parts and buying this?

    • scottySK on 14/11/2018 - 07:50
      +2

      I prefer to buy everything used from gumtree when I build my PC's but the ryzen 2600 pre-built on eBay with the 8gb 580 at the moment for under $720 represent good value for someone just getting into the hobby

      • freefall101 on 14/11/2018 - 11:16
        +2

        FYI, if you go used a lot try the overclockers Australia forum. I've been buying and selling parts on there for over 15 years, great community.

        • pronoun on 14/11/2018 - 14:08

          I can 2nd the motion that OCAU forums have a fantastic community.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2018 - 16:33

          Cheers mate! just joined OCAU, looks like a great forum.

  • iironhide on 14/11/2018 - 08:08

    Great, i just bought r5 2600 for about the same price. :((

    • OWKnowitall1 on 14/11/2018 - 08:26

      It's a good deal mate :)

    • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 10:22

      Return it and buy this?

      • iironhide on 14/11/2018 - 14:51
        +1

        I just crack open the 2600 yesterday and saw this offer today. I dont think you can return a broken seal CPU.

    • p1 ama on 14/11/2018 - 17:50

      The 2600 is a good CPU, in many ways, I'd prefer it to this, having owned a 1700X and 2700 myself.

  • Piranha2004 on 14/11/2018 - 08:39

    Are the newer motherboards backwards compatible with Ryzen Gen 1? Eg B450 series? Pretty sure AX370 series is OK from my quick reading.

    • sane on 14/11/2018 - 09:50

      Yes, but makes sure the VRM can handle the TDP - you sometimes find cheap B450 MB say they can only handle a lower TDP.

      • Piranha2004 on 14/11/2018 - 10:10

        The TDP for the CPU? How do I confirm whether it can handle it or not?

        • sane on 14/11/2018 - 10:38

          If you look up the specs for the motherboard it might say "compatible with 8 core processors" or give the maximum TDP.

          In general, the more you pay, the more the VRMs aren't junk. On Youtube Buildzoid does technical breakdowns of boards, and which ones are junk.

  • mickeyjuiceman on 14/11/2018 - 09:13
    +3

    Any suggested builds around this?

    I'm thinking of grabbing it as my i7 2600K 16GB RAM build is getting old and somewhat erratic. I built it in 2011, so it's been great. Replaced the video card for the new monitor and that's been it.

    Usage is mostly web and so on, but I do run PM/Lightroom fairly often, with some light video editing. Have a fair bit going at once, so thinking 32GB might be a good idea.

    Gaming is on the XBOX (as the video card shows :-)

    I have a new video card that drives my Dell 34" screen (Sapphire Radeon Nitro R7 360 (1060MHz). 26B GDDRS {6500MHz), PCI-E 3.0. DVI. HDMI. DisplayPort)

    Case is good. PSU is good (Corsair 650).

    So I'm looking for a MOBO with RAM and a CPU/cooler, basically. I have 6-7 drives to run off it.

    Ideas appreciated.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2018 - 16:24
      +1

      not worth it, RAM prices are nuts right now. upgrade your GPU instead. Vega is going down in price.

      • mickeyjuiceman on 14/11/2018 - 18:02

        My GPU is fine, as I said, the issue is with the old MOBO/CPU, and they need to be replaced as it's very clearly on its last legs. So I have to make a move.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2018 - 20:18

          I don't think it's worth spending close to $1000 for web browsing and some lightroom. But hey if you have money go for it.

          • mickeyjuiceman on 14/11/2018 - 21:48
            -1

            @[Deactivated]: No, much better of not having a PC at all when this one falls over in the near future. Correct.

            • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2018 - 23:03
              +1

              @mickeyjuiceman: Not sure why you asked for ideas when you seem pretty adamant on purchasing a new pc. Lol!

              • mickeyjuiceman on 20/11/2018 - 19:21

                @[Deactivated]: I guess "Any suggested builds around this?" was confusing.

                • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2018 - 23:39

                  @mickeyjuiceman: Suggesting a build for a motherboard and ram. Yeah great build. Not much we can suggest for that mate. Your pc is still working, hardly on its last legs if you're borrowing most of the parts as well. Like I said, your money.

                  • mickeyjuiceman on 21/11/2018 - 00:32

                    @[Deactivated]: No, you're right, the MOBO and the CPU are utterly unimportant parts, and if they die, I can just carry on. Thanks genius.

                    • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2018 - 06:07

                      @mickeyjuiceman: Has it died yet? No? Then keep using till it does. If you want suggested builds ask google. Not that hard.

  • EnALup on 14/11/2018 - 09:14

    Its been over 10 years when I used AMD processor. Last one I used was Athlon.
    Can anyone advise similar processor in intel range to compare?
    Also, are these processor good for gaming?

    • sane on 14/11/2018 - 09:48
      +2

      i9-9900k is Intel's attempt to catch up.

      That's a bit faster if you are using 1-2 cores and can overclock to 5Ghz (and feed the true 140W TDP) but it's on Newegg for …. $872.

      Intel is generally considered good for gaming, but it's the graphics card that makes the difference there, most games aren't CPU limited.

    • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 10:27
      +3

      Unless you're gaming at 240 Hz in some fairly modern DX11 titles, you're golden with this. Comparable or superior chips would be:

      i7-8700k - $500+
      i7-9700k - $600+
      i9-9900k - $800+

      • EnALup on 14/11/2018 - 16:49

        Wow. That is some hard core value there in the case. Are these on clearance for a reason?
        The new processors replacing them are big game changer as well?
        I hope these will be compatible with good motherboards and non AMD GPUs.

        • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 16:51

          They'll likely be debuting Ryzen 3 in 6 weeks time. At least 12 cores at the same MSRP ($470), but 16 cores in the same form factor. Higher clocks, etc.

          Either way it'll be a big jump compared to this, but it'll also probably be twice the price.

        • sane on 14/11/2018 - 17:02

          The Ryzen 1000s were replaced by the Ryzen 2000s in April. These were a bit faster, a bit better with memory, etc. - but not a massive jump. Old processors are remaining on EoL.

          Next generation Ryzen 3000s will likely be Q3/Q4 next year and will be a bigger jump (better IPC, better freq, more cores), but it's not as if these 1000s will be obsolete.

          Intel's will clock higher, but are much worse value for money. Hence why they are panicking. Till they can get their new process working (2020 likely) they are falling more and more behind.

  • mavis30551 on 14/11/2018 - 09:59
    +2

    Daaam thats good. Im tempted to buy it even though I am not building anything atm :S

  • bobbie34567 on 14/11/2018 - 10:12
    +3

    Hmm whats a good mini-itx mobo to pair this with :S is it best to get the latest 470 chipset for upgradability later…

  • ellamasarms on 14/11/2018 - 10:15
    +1

    just bought this instead of the ryzen 5 2400g i was originally gonna get! can anyone recommend an air cooler? :)

  • Junglegreen on 14/11/2018 - 10:32
    +2

    Hey guys, still running an i5 2500k from 2015 in a GA-Z68XP-UD3 Motherboard.

    My GPU is a 970, I've started to notice some hanging in some recent games (COD etc), pretty sure its the CPu starting to bottleneck.

    Would this be an okay upgrade for the time being? I cam upgrade the GPU later on?

    • splango on 14/11/2018 - 11:54
      +2

      GPU is still good! For sure CPU will be a HUGE upgrade
      I recently had 2600K for wife at 4.7Ghz and changing that CPU with more cores and threads with the same GPU 7970 made a massive improvement in games we played.

    • B3 on 14/11/2018 - 11:58
      +2

      From 2015? 2500k was released in 2011.

      Have you overclocked it?

    • Piranha2004 on 14/11/2018 - 11:59
      +1

      Mine is exactly the same but from 2011. Although I have a GTX1070 which is more than enough. Only get the occasional slowness due to CPU heavy games such as AC Origins/Odyssey.

    • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 12:03
      +1

      Clock for clock, your CPU hasn't really dated (and it's from 2011, FYI), but you do lack hyperthreading.

      You're looking at $500 right now to create that interim build, when honestly, your issue might just be some recent W10 updates and related optimisations (or lack thereof) for Spectre and Meltdown related protection, or even just thermal paste-related. Take a look at your temps, because it can dry out over that length of time.

      This would be a big upgrade from the CPU side of things, up to tripling your CPU performance, but next year's CPUs will be a big step up from this, as will the year after. See if you can DIY a solution for your existing hardware, otherwise go for it.

    • Junglegreen on 14/11/2018 - 12:38
      +1

      Yeah wow I have just looked and it is 2011 :0

      Thanks for the replies guys, I'll just need an AM4 socket Mobo yeah?

      • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 16:56

        Yup, B450 or B350 is usually the value choice.

        • p1 ama on 14/11/2018 - 17:53

          Remember with B350, you might have to update the BIOS. B450 not much more expensive and would be the easier choice.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2018 - 16:25

      No, ram prices are crazy, upgrade your GPU and you should be good.

  • Konstantin on 14/11/2018 - 12:03

    Not experienced with AMD series although seeing everyone saying its a great price it got my attention , is this the equivalent of an i7 7700?

    • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 12:04
      +1

      The i7-8700k was brought in as its competitor.

    • sane on 14/11/2018 - 12:15

      i7 7700 is a 4 core / 8 thread locked CPU with a passmark of 10755

      Ryzen 1700X is an 8 core / 15 thread unlocked CPU with a passmark of 14640 and the scope to be overclocked higher.

      So the Ryzen is about 50% faster, more so if you can use all those cores, for about half the price.

      If you had the 7700 I probably wouldn't upgrade, but if it were a choice for a new build, then there's no debate.

      • Konstantin on 14/11/2018 - 12:24

        I already have a 7700k which I managed to get recently in a very good price down to $220 with postage compatible with my current mobo , I didn't put the K at the end which makes a difference , still would be ok with a 7700 but not worth the cost at this point for me changing also a mobo, thank you all

  • PDeez on 14/11/2018 - 12:55
    +1

    Thanks picked one up

  • misterpotatomato on 14/11/2018 - 13:15

    This or a 2700x for software development?

    • jasswolf on 14/11/2018 - 13:17
      -1

      Biggest differences in favour of the 2700X:

      • slightly better silicon, so slightly better clocks, temps & IPC
      • much tighter clock scaling, so will turbo higher when using less cores

      Biggest con: it's $170 more.

      I can't speak to your individual compile/use cases, so check benchmarks relevant to your workflow.

    • kennyzzz on 14/11/2018 - 13:17
      +1

      2700x - I use it in my machine learning rig

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join