AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs AMD Ryzen 7 2800H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 and AMD Ryzen 7 2800H are both Zen-based eight-thread processors, but they target entirely different market segments. The 1700 is a desktop part with a 65W TDP, while the 2800H is a mobile chip with a 15W TDP. Benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with the desktop part dominating in every shared test, though the mobile chip holds its own in its intended power envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two processors share only two benchmark results in the data set: Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core tests. In both, the Ryzen 7 1700 delivers a decisive victory. The multi-core score of 1414 for the 1700 versus 697 for the 2800H represents a 102.9% advantage — more than double the output. This is exactly what one would expect from a processor with twice the core count, as the 1700 offers 8 cores and 16 threads compared to the 2800H’s 4 cores and 8 threads.

The single-core Cinebench R15 result is less lopsided but still favors the desktop chip. The 1700 scores 147, while the 2800H scores 98, yielding a 50% delta. Notably, the 2800H has a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz versus 3.70 GHz) and a higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 3.00 GHz), yet it still trails by half. This suggests that the 2800H’s 15W TDP constraint severely limits sustained single-core performance compared to the 65W desktop part.

Looking at other benchmarks not shared between the two, the 2800H shows respectable absolute numbers. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6922 and single-core score of 977 indicate a capable mobile processor. In Geekbench, the 1700 scores 5475 multi-core and 1023 single-core. The 2800H has no Geekbench data listed, so direct comparison is impossible there, but the Cinebench R15 results provide the clearest head-to-head signal: the 1700 is the outright winner in both available tests, with a wins tally of 2-0.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The 1700 averages 2015 across its tested workloads, while the 2800H averages 2002. That is a margin of only 0.6%, which is surprisingly close given the multi-core disparity. This is because the 2800H’s additional Cinebench R20 and R23 tests (which the 1700 lacks) pull its average upward, masking the true gap in the overlapping tests. Both chips sit at the 45th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers overall.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, but they diverge significantly in implementation. The Ryzen 7 1700 is part of the 1000 series, codenamed Summit Ridge, and features 8 cores with 16 threads. The Ryzen 7 2800H is from the 2000 series, codenamed Raven Ridge, and packs only 4 cores with 8 threads.

The cache hierarchy differs markedly. The 1700 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, while the 2800H has 128 KB per core. Both share 512 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache is a major differentiator: the 1700 has 16 MB shared, while the 2800H has just 4 MB shared. That 4x L3 advantage for the desktop part helps explain its strong multi-core performance, as more data can be cached closer to the cores.

Die size and transistor counts also separate the two. The 1700 has a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The 2800H has a larger die at 246 mm², but the data does not list its transistor count. The larger die for the mobile part is notable because it includes an integrated GPU — the Radeon RX Vega 11 — which the 1700 lacks entirely. The 2800H’s integrated graphics are a key feature for mobile use, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic workloads.

Memory support is another point of difference. Both support DDR4 in dual-channel mode, but the 1700 has a listed memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s and supports ECC memory. The 2800H has no bandwidth figure listed and does not support ECC. The 1700 also uses the AMD Socket AM4, while the 2800H uses the AMD Socket FP5, which is a BGA (ball-grid array) package for laptops.

The 1700 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable for enthusiasts, while the 2800H is locked. PCIe support differs as well: the 1700 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the 2800H has no PCIe information listed. The 2800H’s market segment is Mobile, and it was released on 2018-05-29, over a year after the 1700’s 2017-03-01 launch.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Ryzen 7 1700 is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1414 versus 697 for the 2800H, a 102.9% advantage. This is driven by the 1700’s 8 cores and 16 threads versus the 2800H’s 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 2800H have any performance advantage?

A: In the shared benchmark data, no. The 1700 wins both Cinebench R15 tests (multi-core and single-core). The 2800H’s only advantages are architectural: it has a higher base and boost clock (3.40/3.80 GHz versus 3.00/3.70 GHz) and integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics, which the 1700 lacks.

Q: Why is the 2800H’s TDP so much lower?

A: The 2800H is a mobile processor with a 15W TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency is critical. The 1700 is a desktop part with a 65W TDP. This 50W difference explains why the 1700 can sustain much higher multi-core performance despite similar architecture.

Q: Can the Ryzen 7 1700 be overclocked?

A: Yes. The 1700 has an unlocked multiplier, as indicated in its specifications. The 2800H does not have an unlocked multiplier, so it cannot be overclocked in the same way.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ryzen 7 1700 supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 7 2800H does not. Both support DDR4 in dual-channel mode, but only the 1700 lists a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 1700’s average score of 2015 places it 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B (2012) and 0.5% above the Intel Core i5-8300H (2005). The 2800H’s average of 2002 is essentially tied with the Intel Core i5-8400T (2001, 0% delta) and 0.1% below the Intel Core i5-8400H (2003).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: the Ryzen 7 1700 is the superior processor for raw compute performance. Its 102.9% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 50% lead in single-core leave no ambiguity. Anyone needing heavy multi-threaded workloads — rendering, compiling, scientific computing — should choose the 1700. Its 16 MB of L3 cache, 8 cores, and 65W TDP make it a desktop workhorse, and the unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for enthusiasts.

The Ryzen 7 2800H, despite losing both head-to-head tests, is not without merit. Its 15W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount. The integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 GPU provides graphics capability that the 1700 entirely lacks, making the 2800H a self-contained mobile solution. Its average benchmark score of 2002 is within 0.6% of the 1700’s 2015, showing that in a broad mix of workloads, the gap narrows considerably — though this is due to the 2800H having additional Cinebench R20 and R23 results that the 1700 does not have.

For a desktop user with access to a discrete GPU, the 1700 is the obvious pick. For a mobile user who needs integrated graphics and low power draw, the 2800H is the only option of the two. The 2800H’s higher clock speeds (3.40/3.80 GHz) do not compensate for its halved core count in multi-threaded tasks, but they help it remain competitive in lightly threaded scenarios, as evidenced by its single-core score of 98 in Cinebench R15 — a figure that is 50% lower than the 1700’s 147, yet still functional for everyday tasks.

Both processors sit at the 45th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are neither flagship nor entry-level. The 1700’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-8300H (0.5% behind) and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B (0.2% behind), while the 2800H’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-8400T (exact tie at 0% delta). This puts both chips in a competitive mid-range tier, with the 1700 offering more headroom for demanding desktop workloads and the 2800H offering efficiency for mobile use.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications:

• Cores: 8 (1700) vs 4 (2800H)
• Threads: 16 (1700) vs 8 (2800H)
• Base Clock: 3.00 GHz (1700) vs 3.40 GHz (2800H)
• Boost Clock: 3.70 GHz (1700) vs 3.80 GHz (2800H)
• TDP: 65W (1700) vs 15W (2800H)
• Socket: AMD Socket AM4 (1700) vs AMD Socket FP5 (2800H)
• Codename: Summit Ridge (1700) vs Raven Ridge (2800H)
• Die Size: 213 mm² (1700) vs 246 mm² (2800H)
• L1 Cache: 96 KB per core (1700) vs 128 KB per core (2800H)
• L3 Cache: 16 MB shared (1700) vs 4 MB shared (2800H)
• Memory Bandwidth: 42.7 GB/s (1700) vs not listed (2800H)
• ECC Memory: Supported (1700) vs not supported (2800H)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 lanes (1700) vs not listed (2800H)
• Integrated Graphics: None (1700) vs Radeon RX Vega 11 (2800H)
• Market Segment: Desktop (1700) vs Mobile (2800H)
• Release Date: 2017-03-01 (1700) vs 2018-05-29 (2800H)
• Launch MSRP: $329 (1700) vs not listed (2800H)
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes (1700) vs No (2800H)
• Transistor Count: 4,800 million (1700) vs not listed (2800H)