CPU Buyer’s Guide: Q1 2017

In our series of Buyer Guides, here’s the latest update to our recommended CPUs list. All numbers in the text are updated to reflect pricing at the time of writing (3/19). Numbers in graphs reflect MSRP.

CPU Buyer’s Guide: Q1 2017

As we move through to the second quarter of the year, we have had two major updates to the desktop CPU landscape. First, Intel launched its Seventh generation of Core-based CPUs, known under the Kaby Lake name, using a refined version of their 14nm process that allowed for some frequency gains over the previous generation Skylake microarchitecture. Then AMD made their biggest CPU launch in five years, with a renewed attack on high-performance computing with the Ryzen 7 family. After spending so many years fighting 32nm and 28nm on Bulldozer based microarchitectures, AMD introduced not only a new core design but also a new process (GlobalFoundries’ 14nm) with FinFET based technology. Both of these launches have drastically shaken up our recommended CPU lists moving into Spring and Summer. 

For all the information about Intel’s Kaby Lake and AMD’s Ryzen, our deep dive reviews are open to all readers and we highly encourage enthusiastic users to give them a once over, to understand how the hardware performs and why. 

The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Lineup: Hex-Core from $219, Available April 11th
The Intel Core i7-7700K (91W) Review: The New Out-of-the-box Performance Champion
The Intel Core i5-7600K (91W) Review: The More Amenable Mainstream Performer
The Intel Core i3-7350K (60W) Review: Almost a Core i7-2600K
Intel Launches 7th Generation Kaby Lake: 15W/28W with Iris, 35-91W Desktop and Mobile Xeon

In our CPU Guides, we consider certain environments and budgets and give you our pick of some of the best processors available, supplying data from our Benchmark Database where possible.

As a result, our recommendations are as follows:

The majority of our recommendations aim to hit the performance/price curve just right, with a side nod to power consumption as well. Here’s a breakdown of those recommendations:

Peak Gaming / VR

In the midst of the launches this quarter, the talk of CPUs that are suitable for Virtual Reality has died down to some extent. Now that AMD has parts on the shelf that are unquestionably suitable, it just comes down to what price can you enter into VR, or at what level can you be future proof as VR gaming becomes more demanding. Even with this is mind, a non-VR gaming machine that wants to be ahead of the curve has similar demands, especially as DirectX12 titles are in the pipeline. Single thread performance still helps here, especially for the simpler casual games and driving high frame rates. 

The king of the crop is the Intel Core i7-7700K. It boasts the highest per-core performance of any x86 processor, and then heaps on a lot of frequency as a result. A good processor will run up to 5 GHz with a nod for overclocking, giving a user the best premium VR experience today. At $350 list price, plus some more for a good cooler and a decent motherboard, an i7-7700K should provide a premium gaming system for several years to come. 

If you want to go through AMD, then the latest Ryzen 7 1700 is a good option here at $329. It doesn’t quite match the single threaded performance of the Intel CPU, but offers double the threads which will be more important as games get more complex. A good 1700 can also overclock near to 4.0 GHz, saving some money over the more expensive 1800X are $499. As an added benefit, the price of the 1700 also includes AMD’s Wraith Spire stock cooler, suitable for high ambient environments, and has RGB lighting. 

Smart Gaming / VR

For users looking for a nicer price on their wallets, moving slightly down the stack can retain most of the expected performance and retain some significant savings. It won’t give you the premium frame rates, but the cost savings can easily be justified for user budgets where it could mean the difference for the next GPU upgrade. 

For this segment from Intel I’ve chosen the Core i5-7500. At a list of $202, it provides four full cores at 3.4 GHz with a turbo up to 3.8 GHz, but also has 6MB of inclusive L3 cache. With no hyperthreading, each thread gets the full use of all the cores resources, ensuring fewer potential bottlenecks. The Core i5-7400 would be another option, however the difference in frequency (400 MHz base, 300 MHz turbo) in favor of the i5-7500 is worth the $10 difference. The i5 will happily power the biggest GPUs on the market, only breaking a sweat with the most demanding titles at extreme settings. 

For AMD, no current CPU on the shelves really fits the bill here. So it puts me in an awkward position of pointing to a CPU that isn’t out yet: the Ryzen 5 1600X. AMD has announced that this CPU will be on shelves on April 11, and based on our Ryzen 7 testing, we can make good estimates on performance. The 1600X is a six-core processor with hyperthreading, giving a full twelve threads, and runs at the same frequencies as its bigger brother, the 1800X. In our performance/price predictions, it sails above any other AMD offering, and should be highly competitive on single thread performance with the low-end Intel Core i5 parts. We really want to get this part in for testing ASAP. 

Smarter Gaming

For users after a sub $1000 monster rig, or something a bit more conservative around $700, here are our ‘smart’ gaming recommendations. The CPUs here will still drive a single graphics card at near peak performance at higher resolutions and good settings, although cranking up the details on AAA games might be a selective process. Nonetheless, eSports titles will still run as smooth as you like with these processors. 

Again, starting with Intel, I’ve pulled out the Core i3-7100 at $117. This is a dual core part with hyperthreading, running at 3.9 GHz. At that frequency it rises high up the charts for single thread performance, nearly matching the vastly more expensive Core i7 and Core i5 overclockable processors. For DirectX9, DirectX10 and DirectX11 games, where single thread performance helps drive a good GPU, something like the i3-7100 can provide best-in-class results. 

For this segment, AMD does have much to play with right now. At this level of performance AMD’s strength is price, so as the FX CPUs are being sold at low cost, something like the FX-6300 on sale and a cheap AM3 motherboard can be picked up for very little. The FX can’t compete on single threaded performance with Intel, but by having three modules and six threads, it might be happy when users require multitasking during their gaming, such as watching video on a second monitor or light streaming with eSports. 

Cheap Gaming

For those on a tight budget, where trying to get a reasonable gaming system under $300-$500 is a must, we have to look at the entry level processors. A number of system integrators will use these parts for their entry level builds, often paired with cards such as an RX 460, or a second-hand GTX 700-series card, a standard hard drive, some small amount of memory and a generic PSU/case. Having a base level of performance is critical here though, given the type of games these systems are designed for tend to be several years old, or indie titles.

Starting with Intel again, and to be honest they have recently launched somewhat of a surprise processor for this market. The Pentium G4560 is essentially a Core i3 by any other name, given it has two cores and four threads, but a slightly reduced L3 cache. The G4560 has a list price of $64 (retails at $80) and runs at 3.5 GHz – that’s a dual core Kaby Lake processor only 900 MHz off of the top Core i7 for less than one-fifth of the price. Previous Pentium processors did not have hyperthreading, but this one does – Intel hasn’t given any specific reason for the change, but it’s one we will gladly take.

Intel’s Pentium is hard to beat in so many ways, AMD does not particularly have an answer. The nearest thing we can get to it, until we see what price points Ryzen 3 will hit, is the Athlon X4 860K. This is one of AMD’s APUs with the GPU disabled, but also comes with AMD’s 95W near-silent cooler. While the last iteration, called Excavator, performs quite well in the context of AMD’s APU line, but there’s still a sizeable jump north of 40% performance gap that Intel can take advantage of. The upside here is perhaps the motherboard could be cheaper.

Integrated Graphics 

Not many users take the line of integrated graphics because GPUs like the RX460 are relatively cheap and usually outperform what is on offer. Nonetheless, almost all mainstream CPUs come with integrated graphics for several reasons: invest now in a good CPU then later in a GPU, or the amount of space limited in the system is small, or features such as QuickSync or OpenCL are needed for the user workloads.

The champion of this world is the AMD A10-7890K. Technically Intel has higher performing parts in Broadwell-based eDRAM processors, but these are 3x the cost and difficult to find anywhere due to the limited launch. AMD’s A10-7890K thus sits at the top of that stack, giving somewhat near RX460 levels of performance that is more than suitable for eSports such as League of Legends, DOTA2, CS:GO or Rocket League at very honest settings.

Users who still need to save a few $$ from the A10-7890K can look the A10-7860K instead. This APU offers a small step down in performance, but was one of the last A10 parts produced fully aimed at PC builders trying to hit the performance/price metrics.

CPU Workstation

Sometimes all you need is raw CPU power. Whether it is rendering, compute, encryption, or a varied office or enterprise load, CPU performance is king. This is where the worlds of the mainstream processors and the high-end desktop collide, given that the high-end usually gives more cores and more performance, but the price rises faster than you can think. Finding the right balance is key, especially when a user can potentially justify spending above the odds if it means processing their clients faster.

For this segment, AMD recently blew the doors wide open. With the launch of Ryzen 7, in software that likes to scale across cores and threads, the Ryzen 7 1800X was the winner. With its eight cores and 3.6G/4.0G arrangement, it matched Intel’s latest 8-core part at only half the cost: $499 instead of $1049. If what you need is pure horsepower, the Ryzen 7 1800X is the processor to get.

While the Ryzen 7 1800X is fun, it is actually the lower ranked Ryzen 7 parts that are better for performance per dollar. The Ryzen 7 1700 has a slight performance deficit to the 1800X, by virtue of being 3.0G/3.7G rather than 3.6G/4.0G, but it comes in at only two-thirds of the price. At $329, and coming it at 90% of the overall performance of the 1800X, the 1700 is a better choice for workstation users that still look to save a few pennies.

Memory Workstation

One of the downsides of the Ryzen 7 CPUs is that they only have dual channel memory controllers. At two modules per channel, that lends them to 64GB for maximum DRAM capacity. Sometimes a workstation needs so much more, and that is where the only direction to turn is Intel, but there will be a platform premium on CPU and motherboard as a result.

Intel has a few options, and users willing to trawl through the second-hand market can find some HEDT bargains, but for users buying new there are a couple of options. First up is the Core i7-6800K, which is Intel’s low-end HEDT part from the latest launch. This is a six-core processor on Intel’s Broadwell microarchitecture, with 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes, but will run up to 128GB of un-buffered memory. It runs at the same price as AMD’s Ryzen 7 1800X, but in exchange for two cores the user gets double the memory capacity and a few more PCIe lanes. It is worth noting that the cheapest platform cost for this CPU, the X99 platform, will also be higher than the cheapest AMD variant.

Consequently, if you want 1800X performance but still need more than 64GB of DRAM or more than 16 PCIe lanes, then Intel’s i7-6900K is your option. It has an MSRP of $1049, although at the right moment it might be on sale for just under $1000. This 140W TDP part will require a decent cooler, as well as an X99 platform underneath it. For a workstation user that needs it all, the Core i7-6900K will be overly sufficient, unless you try and find something like the Core i7-5960X (the previous generation 8-core CPU) on sale.

One to Watch

I’ll be honest, the initial plan was to launch this Q1 list last week. I’m in a little bit of trouble for delaying, but I think it was worth it as we can now talk about AMD’s latest announcement on Ryzen 5. The Ryzen 5 processors are quad-core and hexa-core parts using AMD’s latest Zen microarchitecture, and are available at prices such that where Intel offers four cores and four threads, AMD can offer six cores and twelve threads. This 3x difference is somewhat neutered by Intel’s Kaby Lake having better single core performance, but overall the Ryzen 5 CPUs are predicted to make a splash on the scene. Here is our graph of predicted performance per dollar for these CPUs:

For this chart, we can basically draw a straight line from the Ryzen 7 1800X to the Ryzen 5 1500X, which covers five of AMD’s new CPUs. The major outlier is the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X, which sits way above this line. We’re desperately waiting to get hold of one, to see if it can live up to predictions. We’ll see where the data takes us for final conclusions, but this processor is definitely on our one-to-watch list. The Ryzen 5 family will be available from April 11th.

AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Lineup: Hex-Core from $219, Available April 11th

As part of our initial Ryzen 7 review, AMD also teased the presence of two more elements to the Ryzen lineup, specifically Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3, both aiming at a lower cost market and allowing AMD to sell some of the silicon that didn’t quite make it to the Ryzen 7 lineup. Today is the official announcement for Ryzen 5, featuring four processors in hex-core and quad-core formats, all with Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT) and all using the same AM4 platform as Ryzen 5.

Ryzen 5

Whereas Ryzen 7 was AMD’s main attack on high-performance x86 and a shot across the bow against Intel’s high-end desktop platform, Ryzen 5 is targeted more at mainstream users. The goal here is that where Intel has four cores with no hyperthreading, AMD can provide six cores with SMT, effectively offering three times as many threads for the same price and potentially smashing any multithreaded workload.

Without further ado, here is where the Ryzen families stand:

Traditionally we are used to a part with fewer cores having a higher clock frequency, however perhaps due to the voltage scaling of the design, we see a matched Ryzen 5 1600X in frequency to the Ryzen 7 1800X, but the rest of the Ryzen 5 family are offered at a lower TDP instead.

All the Ryzen 5 parts are unlocked, similar to the Ryzen 7 parts, and all four exhibit some movement in XFR mode, with the 1500X offering +200 MHz depending on the cooler used. AMD is going to offer some of these SKUs with their redesigned Wraith coolers:

It is worth noting that the Wraith Spire for Ryzen 5 will not have RGB lighting, whereas the Wraith Spire for Ryzen 7 does use an RGB ring. OEMs will be able to use the higher-end Wraith Max stock cooler for their pre-built systems. AMD stated that at present, there are no plans to bring the Wraith coolers to retail as individual units, however they will keep track of how many users want them as individual items and regularly approach the issue internally.

To clarify some initial confusion, AMD has given me official TDP support numbers for the coolers. The entry level Wraith Stealth is 65W, the Wraith Spire is 65W for high-ambient conditions (AMD states this might be considered an ’80W’ design in low-ambient), and the Wraith Max is 95W for OEM builds using Ryzen 7 95W parts.

All the Ryzen 5 parts will support DDR4 ECC and non-ECC memory, and the memory support is the same as Ryzen 7, and will depend on how many modules and the types of modules being used. Recently companies like ADATA announced official support for AM4, as some users have found that there were memory growing pains when Ryzen 7 was launched.

Platform support for Ryzen 5, relating to PCIe lanes and chipset configurations, is identical to Ryzen 7. Each CPU offers sixteen PCIe 3.0 lanes for graphics, along with four lanes for a chipset and four lanes for storage. Chipsets can then offer up to eight PCIe 2.0 lanes which can be bifurcated up to x4 (AMD GPUs can use chipset lanes for graphics as well, however at reduced bandwidth and additional latency).

Competition

The high-end Ryzen 5 1600X, at $249, is a shoe-in to compete against Intel’s i5-7600K at $242. Intel’s CPU is based on the Kaby Lake microarchitecture, and we’ve already shown in the Ryzen 7 review that by comparison Ryzen is more circa Broadwell, which is two generations behind. AMD won’t win much when it comes to single-threaded tests here, but the multi-threaded situation is where AMD shines.

Here we have twelve threads against four, at a 95W TDP compared to a 91W TDP (the 1600 is 65W, which looks better on paper). It is expected that for situations where a compute workload can scale across cores and threads that the AMD chip will wipe the floor with the competition. For more generic office workloads, it will interesting to see where the marks fall.

On the quad-core parts, there are several competitive points to choose from. The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, at $189, sits near Intel’s Core i5-7500 at $192. This would be a shootout of a base quad-core versus a quad-core with hyperthreading.

The reason why I didn’t pull out the Core i3-7350K there, at $168, is because the performance of the 7350K sits near the Pentium G4560, which is only $64 (and the subject of an upcoming review). That all being said, the $168 price of the i3-7350K matches up to the $169 price of the Ryzen 5 1400, although the 1400 has double the cores and double the threads of the 7350K.

Cutting up the Cores

Ryzen 5, both the hex-core and the quad-core variants, will use the same eight-core base Zeppelin silicon that Ryzen 7 does.

The silicon design consists of two core complexes (CCX) of four cores apiece, and each with 8MB of L3 cache that is an exclusive victim cache. One of the suggestions regarding Ryzen 7’s performance was about thread migration and scheduling on the core design, especially as core-to-core latency varies depending on where the cores are located (and there’s a jump between CCXes). Despite the use of AMD’s new Infinity Fabric, which is ultimately a superset of HyperTransport, there is still a slightly longer delay jumping over that CCX boundary, although the default Windows scheduler knows how to manage that boundary as demonstrated by Allyn at PCPerspective earlier this week.

So when dealing with a four-core or six-core CPU, and the base core design has eight-cores, how does AMD cut them up? It is possible for AMD to offer a 4+0, 3+1 or 2+2 design for its quad-core parts, or 4+2 and 3+3 variants for its hexacore parts, similar to the way that Intel cuts up its integrated graphics for GT1 variants. The downside with this way is that performance might differ between the variants, making it difficult to manage. The upside is that more CPUs with defects can be used.

We have confirmation from AMD that there are no silly games going to be played with Ryzen 5. The six-core parts will be a strict 3+3 combination, while the four-core parts will use 2+2. This will be true across all CPUs, ensuring a consistent performance throughout.

Performance Estimates

We won’t have these CPUs in for a while, but given our new benchmark suite and the results we’ve seen so far with Ryzen, we’ve tried to lay out some estimates in performance in both single thread and multi-threaded workloads.

Single thread performance is easy enough to estimate – we work from the turbo and XFR frequencies of each processor. For users looking for peak single thread performance, something like Intel’s Pentium G3258 or i3-7350K that can be overclocked to 5GHz+ (or starts as a base 4.2 GHz) is going to be a performance per dollar crown here. On the AMD side, we expect the Ryzen 5 1600X to match the Ryzen 7 1700X as it has the same frequency.

Multithreaded is more difficult to predict. Some of our benchmarks offer perfect scaling across cores and threads, meaning that if you half the cores, you get half the score. Some of the benchmarks are not as clear cut though, hence why we see something like Intel’s Core i3-7350K, which should get about half the score of an i7-7700K, scoring 65% instead of 50%. We’ve tried to take this into account with the Ryzen 5 parts, and we get the graph above.

The key results here show that the 1600 and 1600X should sit way above the i5-7600K, and the 1600X should offer so much better performance per dollar than the Core i7-7700K.

On overall performance, taking the combination of results (our suite is slightly unbalanced in favor of MT, but this is taken into consideration) we funnily see a straight line between the 1800X, 1700X, 1700, 1600 and 1500X, putting the 1600X at a really good position as a performance per dollar CPU.

The caveat here is that the Ryzen 7 processors came across as good workstation processors. Ryzen 7 was marketed towards that group of users, and it made sense. Ryzen 5 is more targeted towards mainstream gamers and users, which might offer some interesting results. Our results don’t feature any gaming numbers yet (still working on a Ryzen 7 part 2 for this), but it will be interesting to see how the core counts and frequency will affect gaming performance.

The Bottom Line

Ryzen 5.
Two CPUs with six-core, from $219-$249.
Two CPUs with four-core. From $169-$189.
Retail availability on April 11^th.
Stay tuned for the AnandTech review.

_{(Ryzen 3 is still slated for 2H17.)}

Gallery: AMD Ryzen 5 Press Deck

Related Reading

• The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
• Making AMD Tick: A Very Zen Interview with Dr. Lisa Su, CEO

How To Get Ryzen Working on Windows 7 x64

Officially, AMD does not support Ryzen CPUs on Windows 7. Given that Microsoft has essentially ended support for the OS, this is the type of response we expect from AMD – Intel has also stopped officially supporting Windows 7 on the newest platforms as well. ‘Official’ is a general term: some special customers may receive extended lifetime support, or drivers currently out in the ecosystem still work on the platforms. Official support refers to driver updates and perhaps security updates, but there’s nothing to stop you trying to install an OS to either system or platform.

For clarification, we did not converse with AMD in writing this piece. AMD’s formal position on Windows 7 on Ryzen is that it is unsupported, and as a result this means they will not provide support around it. There may also be other methods to install an unsupported OS, however here are a few solutions.

The Main Issue: USB Support

For installing Windows 7, the issues typically revolve around USB support. When there’s a mouse/keyboard plugged in, everything else after that is typically simple to configure (installing drivers, etc). However, from the 100-series chipsets on Intel and the AM4 motherboards on AMD, this can be an issue. When the CD or USB stick is being used to install the OS, the image needs USB drivers in order to activate a mouse or keyboard to navigate the install menus. This is the primary process that fails on both platforms and acts as a barrier to installation.

General Solution: Use a PS/2 Keyboard, if the motherboard has a PS/2 port

By default, on most systems, the way to guarantee the presence of a mouse pointer or keyboard activity during installation is to hook up a PS/2 keyboard. I’ve never known an installation to fail to recognize a PS/2 peripheral, so this is often the best bet. However, PS/2 as a connectivity standard is near dead (sometimes new keyboards will offer dual connectivity, like one of my Rosewill mechanical keyboards), with fewer motherboards supporting it, and it falls to USB as a backup.

GIGABYTE AX370 Gaming 5 with a PS/2 Port

The main reason why PS/2 should work where USB doesn’t is due to the protocol. PS/2 uses interrupts through the system, compared to USB which is based on polling. This results in different levels of engagement: the PS/2 keyboard injects its commands, but this means limited n-key rollover support, whereas a USB keyboard will bundle its commands up and send it over when the system requests it. Unfortunately, the latter requires a default driver to be able to do this.

(As a general rule, always use USB 2.0 ports. These are most likely to be natively supported over USB 3.0 which can require chipset drivers.)

The problems facing users wishing to install Windows 7 who do not have a PS/2 port or peripherals come in two forms:

Problem 1: Installing Windows 7

With Intel on the Z170 series and above, it was a case of the USB 2.0 needing to be emulated through a BIOS option in order to install Windows 7, due to the EHCI support being removed. After a couple of weeks when motherboard manufacturers started rolling out BIOS/EFI updates to each of their products and enabling the option allowed users to have a keyboard during a standard install.

However, from personal experience, this only really worked when installing Window 7 from a CD, never from a USB stick. Somehow using a data-based USB stick would nullify having a mouse/keyboard via USB in the installation.

With AMD, it gets a little tricky. There is no EHCI emulation. But apparently this comes down to where the USB ports come from.

Potential Install Solution 1.1: Use a Chipset USB 2.0 Port

According to some documents obtained by AnandTech, the AMD BIOS treats USB ports from the CPU (because the CPU is a SoC) and USB ports from the 300-series chipset differently. From what we’ve seen, USB support is enabled on the chipset ports, but not on the CPU-based ports. Ryzen is a little different to previous desktop platforms because it can have USB ports from both. For example, here’s a CPU layout from Bristol Ridge and the B350 chipset, each showing USB ports.

The USB ports from the chipset are supposed to be natively supported in Windows 7 installation, allowing users to have access during either an OS install via USB or via a CD. But finding which ports on your device are supported via the chipset rather than the CPU can be tricky, especially if the motherboard manufacturer does not provide a block diagram of the onboard pathways and controllers. There’s also the fact that the onboard headers might be the ones based on the chipset, requiring header-to-port cabling to use.

However, on my Crosshair VI Hero, this method as described in the documents, did not work. It may work on other boards, but not here.

Even if it did work, there may be a larger problem when it comes to accessing the OS, as explained further down.

Potential Install Solution 1.2: Use an Unattended Windows 7 Install

For users that customize their operating system packages, using tools available online, an unattended install usually covers this whole scenario. By being unattended, as long as no additional input is needed, it should sail straight through. Of course, this method usually means that the drive you want to use is ready to be used (with appropriate settings and partitioning). Power users familiar with this method will be comfortable here.

Potential Install Solution 1.3: Install Windows 7 on a Different System First

In our initial Ryzen review, in order to get SYSMark numbers comparable to the ones in our database, this is the method I had to use. In order to do so, we had to bend one of our more steadfast rules.

As a general thing to note, installing a Windows-based OS on one system and transferring the drive to another system is a bad idea. As part of the installation, Windows will detect what system is being used and install the base drivers for that system, for that CPU, and for that chipset. This provides clutter and confusion when moving the drive to another system, which is why we typically suggest that a new system gets a fresh OS install to help with this. While it’s still a bad idea, a fresh operating system is easier to manage than a fully-laden, well-used OS.

So for this method for our review, due to the timing of events, I had access to a Sandy Bridge system. I did a base install of Windows 7 x64 Professional using a USB stick on the Z77 motherboard with an R7 240 graphics card, and when the OS was loaded, did not install any extra drivers.

But, there lies a second issue.

Problem 2: USB Drivers on Windows 7

The 300-series based chipsets are identical to those offered by Bristol Ridge, and in part based on the Carrizo hardware, and as a result the Windows 7 drivers for these platforms work with AM4 for the main chipset support. Audio and Network drivers are a slightly different kettle of fish, and you may have to go hunting for the Windows 7 variants of these.

If you installed Windows 7 via a PS/2 keyboard and mouse, the OS should have access to the hardware and installing drivers should be easy.

The drivers that worked on launch day are the Crimson ReLive 17.2.1 Chipset Drivers, dated March 3^rd. The following links are for the 64-bit versions.

• Most Up-to-Date: http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset?os=Windows+10+-+64
• Previous Versions: http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset/previous?os=Windows%2010%20-%2064

However, the USB fall back methods of 1.2 and 1.3 above do not account for actually having USB drivers in Windows 7 for Ryzen. Windows 7 may apply some base driver, which will allow users to access the hardware, but this is not guaranteed. There is a sure-fire method for doing this.

Windows 7 USB Driver Install 2.1: Integrate Drivers In The Unattended Install

For a power user that is familiar with adding installation packages or driver packages to their OS images, the following drivers extracted from the files above need to be:

• USB30_ZP\
• USB31_PT\

Rope this into your OS image and the USB ports will work. Otherwise…

Windows 7 USB Driver Install 2.2: Set Drivers To Install at Boot

This is the method I used to install the drivers. The basic premise is for the OS to install the drivers when the OS loads. All these actions need to take place on the secondary system that Windows 7 was installed on, aside from the last couple of instructions.

(Step 1) Download the ReLive 17.2.1 Chipset Drivers from the links above.
(Step 2) Run the Installer, but only to the point where it extracts the files and the Radeon screen comes up:

When this happens, go to where the drivers were extracted to, usually C:\AMD. Make a copy of this directory, wherever you need it to go, and exit the installer. The installer usually removes the original copy, and you can place it back into C:\AMD.

(Step 3) Go into the Radeon-Crimson-ReLive-17.2.1… directory and you will see the following:

Now right click, and navigate to New -> Text Document:

Select this, press enter to accept the default name, and open the file up. You should see an empty notepad file. In this, add the following:

Setup.exe -install

Save this file as ‘setup.bat’ in the same directory. You should see the following now in the setup folder:

If the Setup file has the same icon as New Text Document, then the ‘.bat’ part of the filename did not work. You will need to go through Tools -> Options and enable ‘File Name Extensions’ in order to see the full file name and rename it this way to setup.bat (right click on the file, select rename).

(Step 4) We now need to create a shortcut to this batch file in the Startup directory. From the start menu, go to ‘All Programs’, find the startup folder, right click and select ‘Open’.

It should offer an empty directory. Right-click, and select New -> New Shortcut, and a menu will popup. Select Browse, and navigate to the batch file (in this example, c:\AMD\Radeon-Crimson…).

Select OK, the select next, and select finish. You should see the following in the directory:

(Step 5) Shut down the system, and transfer the SSD over to the Ryzen system. Turn it on, and wait a few minutes after the system loads for the drivers to install. At some point, control of the mouse and keyboard will occur.

The TL;DR Flow Chart

For some of our power user readers that know how to extract files and create shortcuts, this flow chart might be easier to follow:

Limitations

Arguably this solution could be ported to other circumstances where installing Windows 7 and not having USB is an issue. However, due to our limits in Ryzen testing, we’ve only tested this method, installing Win7 x64 Professional, on the Crosshair VI Hero so far. Other methods may work better as the platform evolves. However, it should still be stated that AMD is not officially supporting Ryzen and the AM4 platform on Windows 7.

Any users with other methods, or success/failure stories, please post below.