# Review of Ryzen 2700X - X470



## Whitestar (Apr 18, 2018)

What do you make of these benchmarks? Representative, or a best case scenario for the Ryzen?

https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/#juegos
Do you expect the 2700X to be on par with or better than the 8700K in games?

Just to make things clear: I have no intention of starting a flame war. Nor do I have ANY sort of bias towards or against any manufacturer.
I am genuinely just curious, since I have an 8700K waiting for me at the post office, and I wonder if I should wait unpacking it (in case I want to switch to a Ryzen). 

And yes, I know the review embargo ends tomorrow. It's just that I'm aching to unpack that 8700K.


----------



## phill (Apr 18, 2018)

Personally, dead excited about the release of this CPU..  I'm definitely set on buying an AMD CPU next time I do build a new system, it won't be Intel..

I'm very interested in the proper reviews.  It does seem that the overclocking headroom is somewhat limited but how true that is, I'll wait and see..  But that review doesn't have constant results for all of the CPUs in some of the graphs, bit of a shame.. (by that I mean, I couldn't see 8700k in some of the results but could in others...)


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 18, 2018)

phill said:


> But that review doesn't have constant results for all of the CPUs in some of the graphs, bit of a shame.. (by that I mean, I couldn't see 8700k in some of the results but could in others...)


Yeah I was wondering a bit about that too.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 18, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> What do you make of these benchmarks? Representative, or a best case scenario for the Ryzen?
> 
> https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/#juegos
> Do you expect the 2700X to be on par with or better than the 8700K in games?
> ...


It's always good to wait and see what other CPU company has to offer. 

If this turns out to be true the 2700x is a great CPU. I'm thinking of going with something new myself. I'm looking over Ryzens with curiosity and amusement


----------



## ppn (Apr 18, 2018)

If you intend replacing 2700K with 2700X. I suggest waiting the 8 Core 10nm mainstream by Intel, vulnerabilities fixed in hardware and DDR5.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 18, 2018)

I think it would be great if this review was true....
I don't believe it is...
We shall see.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 18, 2018)

ppn said:


> If you intend replacing 2700K with 2700X. I suggest waiting the 8 Core 10nm mainstream by Intel, vulnerabilities fixed in hardware and DDR5.


Nah, that would just involve even more waiting. I want a new CPU now. 
At some point one just has to get in the market. There's always something new being announced.


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2018)

I'm going with AMD Ryzen simply on account that I don't want to support Intel's shady business practices. Instead of having to take a shower with sandpaper I'll be able to just use a shower pouf.


----------



## qubit (Apr 18, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> And yes, I know the review embargo ends tomorrow. It's just that I'm aching to unpack that 8700K.


Hold on for a day and then you can make an informed decision. Heck, maybe it's even less than 24 hours now. Wait, you won't regret it.

Unofficial benchmarks show it beating the 8700K too. Check this out:

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-gaming-benchmarks-vs-1700-at-4ghz-10-faster-on-average/


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 18, 2018)

that 2700x looks awesome - i doubt it will dethrone the 8700k, but it looks like it will be very close.


----------



## phill (Apr 18, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> that 2700x looks awesome - i doubt it will dethrone the 8700k, but it looks like it will be very close.



I think personally, I'd still have the 2700x over an 8700k.....


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 18, 2018)

phill said:


> I think personally, I'd still have the 2700x over an 8700k.....



Idk - it's a tough call - at full OC - six fat cores at 5Ghz w/ a very strong IMC vs 8 thinner cores at 4.3 w/ a weaker IMC?

I still think the 8700k will be the faster machine if you're not a heavily threaded user.


----------



## phill (Apr 18, 2018)

I'm just thinking gaming really..  Get it at 1440P and there's nothing much in it at all..  I do agree tho that 8700k might be faster but tomorrow we will all be able to see   But at that point, I think I'd like to avoid Intels prices and thermals and then try the under dog    For less money and having more cores, I'd just go with it and not look back 

Helped a friend upgrade from X99/5820k to a 1700 Ryzen, says he doesn't miss Intel at all


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 18, 2018)

phill said:


> I'm just thinking gaming really..  Get it at 1440P and there's nothing much in it at all..  I do agree tho that 8700k might be faster but tomorrow we will all be able to see   But at that point, I think I'd like to avoid Intels prices and thermals and then try the under dog    For less money and having more cores, I'd just go with it and not look back
> 
> Helped a friend upgrade from X99/5820k to a 1700 Ryzen, says he doesn't miss Intel at all



I hear ya... the value feeling you get when you use the 1700 feels like you won some kind of CPU lottery.


----------



## phill (Apr 18, 2018)

I believe that AMD will be able to have a bigger chunk of the pie this year, I mean 8 cores for £300 and less..  A few people I know run these and even when under 100% load of the 16 threads, 140w max pull from the socket   Seriously impressive I think


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> that 2700x looks awesome - i doubt it will dethrone the 8700k, but it looks like it will be very close.


Even if it's just slightly slower than the 8700K it's still a massive win for consumers. For too long Intel has been screwing us year-after-year for incremental upgrades because... we're Intel.


phill said:


> I think personally, I'd still have the 2700x over an 8700k.....


Yeah like I said above, buying AMD will not make me feel quite as dirty when compared to Intel.


----------



## phill (Apr 18, 2018)

trparky said:


> Even if it's just slightly slower than the 8700K it's still a massive win for consumers. For too long Intel has been screwing us year-after-year for incremental upgrades because... we're Intel.
> 
> Yeah like I said above, buying AMD will not make me feel quite as dirty when compared to Intel.



I agree on both points, I really do   The 5960X was my last Intel gaming CPU..  I've got some Xeon's simply because work uses them and I didn't want servers at home with just one CPU lol


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 18, 2018)

phill said:


> I believe that AMD will be able to have a bigger chunk of the pie this year, I mean 8 cores for £300 and less..  A few people I know run these and even when under 100% load of the 16 threads, 140w max pull from the socket   Seriously impressive I think



You're absolutely right:

Here is my current development workstation:





I've been beating this thing up since they came out a year ago, pretty much every day 24/7 on except for reboots on updates.  I would not do the same thing to the 7820x rig, nor would i spend the extra money on it (need more ssd space).  Stock cooler lol...


----------



## phill (Apr 18, 2018)

I'd really like to get one, I've really no need at all for one, but I would like to buy one!! 

Maybe I would make the excuse, 'My daughter needs one....'  bearing in mind she's 5 years old, I think it's a decent enough excuse  

Have you tried overclocking it at all? (Not meaning to derail the thread!!)


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 18, 2018)

ppn said:


> If you intend replacing 2700K with 2700X. I suggest waiting the 8 Core 10nm mainstream by Intel, vulnerabilities fixed in hardware and DDR5.


DDR5 isn't coming to 10nm CPUs anytime soon, IIRC there's no DDR5 on any roadmap in the immediate future.


----------



## megawatts (Apr 18, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> DDR5 isn't coming to 10nm CPUs anytime soon, IIRC there's no DDR5 on any roadmap in the immediate future.



I believe you are correct. While the DDR5 spec may be finalized this year, having established consumer report for components this year is highly unlikely.


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2018)

megawatts said:


> I believe you are correct. While the DDR5 spec may be finalized this year, having established consumer report for components this year is highly unlikely.


Yep, the spec may be done but it usually takes more time than a couple of months to get the fabs ready to produce it.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 18, 2018)

phill said:


> I'd really like to get one, I've really no need at all for one, but I would like to buy one!!
> 
> Maybe I would make the excuse, 'My daughter needs one....'  bearing in mind she's 5 years old, I think it's a decent enough excuse
> 
> Have you tried overclocking it at all? (Not meaning to derail the thread!!)



So yes - it gets up to 3.8 but weird stuff starts to happen after about a week of being on so I settled on 3.6 at stock volts.

Still a 20% boost on all cores.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 18, 2018)

Just skip this chipset unless you are on a budget, Z490 is the top Ryzen Chipset.


----------



## BMfan80 (Apr 18, 2018)

I already ordered my 2700x and Crosshair VII,I'm glad I can finally go back to AMD,it felt like i was shaking the hand of the devil when i went Intel.

I wish i could of gone Vega as well but the stores here in South Africa near me didn't have so I sold my soul even more and bought a 1080Ti.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 18, 2018)

BMfan80 said:


> I already ordered my 2700x and Crosshair VII,I'm glad I can finally go back to AMD,it felt like i was shaking the hand of the devil when i went Intel.
> 
> I wish i could of gone Vega as well but the stores here in South Africa near me didn't have so I sold my soul even more and bought a 1080Ti.



BLASHPEMY!

I still remember when going green was AMD/NVIDIA


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 18, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> BLASHPEMY!
> 
> I still remember when going green was AMD/NVIDIA



AMD was Mint Green, not Chartreuse- AKA Nvidia.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 18, 2018)

What time/zone tomorrow can we expect the TPU 2700x review @W1zzard


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 18, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> What do you make of these benchmarks? Representative, or a best case scenario for the Ryzen?
> 
> https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/#juegos
> Do you expect the 2700X to be on par with or better than the 8700K in games?
> ...



If you watch the leaked video of the 2700x, in World of Warcraft 1 core is taking up 95% cpu usage, and if you compare it to my 8600k at 5ghz, 1 core only takes up 60% or so cpu usage... so if you play a lot of single core run games, which is most as DX12 still is not all that great, well numbers are numbers, wait for reviews tomorrow, and decide then.


----------



## Tropicocity (Apr 18, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> I hear ya... the value feeling you get when you use the 1700 feels like you won some kind of CPU lottery.


Really depends on your usage though. I personally only game, and I don't see the 1700 as any value to me when it's beaten by a 4790k from nearly 4 years ago in 99% of gaming situations. I really hope the 2700x can narrow the gap enough that I won't just have to go with an 8700k. Sure, I have nothing against either company, it'd just be nice to have a completely different platform as I've been with Intel since Core 2 duo days due to gaming performance


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 18, 2018)

Tropicocity said:


> Really depends on your usage though. I personally only game, and I don't see the 1700 as any value to me when it's beaten by a 4790k from nearly 4 years ago in 99% of gaming situations. I really hope the 2700x can narrow the gap enough that I won't just have to go with an 8700k. Sure, I have nothing against either company, it'd just be nice to have a completely different platform as I've been with Intel since Core 2 duo days due to gaming performance



I learned that the hard way (hence my home computer and the one in my sig is intel work computer AMD)... the 2700x does look like it closed the gap -but it's very unlikely that Zen+ is going to beat an 8600/8700k in gaming when both are clocked / tuned to their maximum potential.

Maybe in newer games.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 18, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> If you watch the leaked video of the 2700x, in World of Warcraft 1 core is taking up 95% cpu usage, and if you compare it to my 8600k at 5ghz, 1 core only takes up 60% or so cpu usage... so if you play a lot of single core run games, which is most as DX12 still is not all that great, well numbers are numbers, wait for reviews tomorrow, and decide then.



It's not most at all, most are multi threaded and can take advantage of at least 4+ cores, WOW is of the minority as it still has a lot of code from 10+ years ago


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 18, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> It's not most at all, most are multi threaded and can take advantage of at least 4+ cores, WOW is of the minority as it still has a lot of code from 10+ years ago



Well I intend to play the new WoW expansion and I don't want a $330 2018 CPU to be maxing out at single core as I play it... but we all have different needs with our CPU purchase so enjoy your 2700x, no hate from me, just stating numbers.


----------



## John Naylor (Apr 18, 2018)

Deja Vu all over again ? ... time (tho not much of it), will tell.  Not saying the new CXPU won't deliver, my issue is, last time around Ryzen was the Intel killer and it just didn't pan out.  I saw a few of them as good choices for the gamer who was doing workstation apps more then 1/3 of the time.  Recommend waiting till the facts are out and not buying into the pre-release rumor and fanfare.  I'll wait to see what TPU has to say before making any decisions.

Ryzen 1300X - _Single-threaded performance still lags behind competing Intel chips, Gaming performance slightly behind Intel chips, 
Lacks integrated graphics,  Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile), 
Requires optimized apps of which there are not many_
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/20.html

Ryzen 1200 - _Lacks integrated graphics, Significantly slower than the Ryzen 3 1300X, Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance doesn't match up to competing Intel parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1300X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz) in single core performance, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many_
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1200/21.html

Ryzen 1400 - _Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance in the league of cheaper Core i3 dual-core parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1500X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz), Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics_
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/20.html

Ryzen 1600 - _Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than Intel CPUs, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Boost frequency significantly lower than on Ryzen 5 1600X, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics_
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/21.html

Ryzen 1500x - _Gaming frame-rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than competing Intel parts. Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics_
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/20.html

Ryzen 1800x -_Horrible motherboards / BIOS, feels not ready for market, Limited game performance, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics_
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/16.html

The long history of "[Insert new AMD technology here] is gonna change everything" just has not delivered.  Been disappointed way too many times to get excited ... yet.


----------



## erocker (Apr 18, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> It's not most at all, most are multi threaded and can take advantage of at least 4+ cores, WOW is of the minority as it still has a lot of code from 10+ years ago


Not sure if it works with WoW or not, but I find with some apps/games, just setting the affinity off of the core being loaded all the time seems to help. Is WoW working the same way (poorly) with current Ryzen?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 18, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> Deja Vu all over again ? ... time (tho not much of it), will tell.  Not saying the new CXPU won't deliver, my issue is, last time around Ryzen was the Intel killer and it just didn't pan out.  I saw a few of them as good choices for the gamer who was doing workstation apps more then 1/3 of the time.  Recommend waiting till the facts are out and not buying into the pre-release rumor and fanfare.  I'll wait to see what TPU has to say before making any decisions.
> 
> Ryzen 1300X - _Single-threaded performance still lags behind competing Intel chips, Gaming performance slightly behind Intel chips,
> Lacks integrated graphics,  Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile),
> ...



It helped them catch up considering the Damage that already had been done to Bulldozer(Piledriver/Excavator sould of been the Launch models in 2011). Board makers were just not ready even. I'm glad they did announce a Z490/490Z chipset that replaces the x370 as top end via features considering it seemed X370 was somewhat a step back from the 990FX chipset that preceeded it, so second round should be better overall for a tock being a Gen 1+ Arch. The only thing I do not agree with is the naming convention this Cycle- it should be a 1700+ or a 1790+ where as 2700 should be reserved for Second Gen Ryzen Tick.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 18, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> Well I intend to play the new WoW expansion and I don't want a $330 2018 CPU to be maxing out at single core as I play it... but we all have different needs with our CPU purchase so enjoy your 2700x, no hate from me, just stating numbers.


No hate from you, just the same posts about your awesome 8600k at 5.2ghz and how it's so amazing in every single way, and hey, if you can get that into ANY AMD Ryzen thread then all the better (which you always do) or do you think people don't read multiple threads on TPU?


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 18, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> No hate from you, just the same posts about your awesome 8600k at 5.2ghz and how it's so amazing in every single way, and hey, if you can get that into ANY AMD Ryzen thread then all the better (which you always do) or do you think people don't read multiple threads on TPU?



I intend to inform people you are correct.  Ryzen = slower NVMe speeds, min FPS is inferior by about 5-10 fps across the board, max FPS at 1080p is inferior, and fyi, I went to 5.1ghz for my 24.7 OC, I felt that 5.2 was to pretentious of me.  Kappa

did I mention my 5.1ghz never breaks 60 Celsius in games, on air? 

and the delid was free from a fellow TPU member sharing his kit with me ~ because this is a website about being bros to each other.

I have also said in many threads, that I am an AMD fanboy since they allow me to build on budget when I was a teenager, but now that I game at high rez high refresh I do like to have that 40 fps gain the 1080 ti gives me, as games are more immersive, I have also stated multiple times that I hope Vega 2 and Zen 2 in 2019 win me back to the red team.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 18, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> Deja Vu all over again ? ... time (tho not much of it), will tell.  Not saying the new CXPU won't deliver, my issue is, last time around Ryzen was the Intel killer and it just didn't pan out.  I saw a few of them as good choices for the gamer who was doing workstation apps more then 1/3 of the time.  Recommend waiting till the facts are out and not buying into the pre-release rumor and fanfare.  I'll wait to see what TPU has to say before making any decisions.
> 
> Ryzen 1300X - _Single-threaded performance still lags behind competing Intel chips, Gaming performance slightly behind Intel chips,
> Lacks integrated graphics,  Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile),
> ...



So in a nutshell, where we're talking gaming performance you're knocking Ryzen's for not having an IGP in one hand and stating how it's slightly lower gaming performance (with dGPU) in the other? Horrible motherboards only for the 1800x, the same motherboards are great for lower end Ryzen?
Higher power draw for competing chips... competing on price or cores? 6 cores tends to be higher power draw than 4 last time I looked 
Setup complicated (_memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile)_ ummmm insert memory, it either runs at XMP or jedec, why compare day 1 reviews with mature platform updates compared to Intel? CCX what exactly as a user do you have to setup regarding CCX? oh... nothing, point noted. SMT... works as it should, yeilds better performance over htt, check. Power profile.... huh, you need chip[set drivers, do you not need these for Intel?



lynx29 said:


> I intend to inform people you are correct.  Ryzen = slower NVMe speeds, min FPS is inferior by about 5-10 fps across the board, max FPS at 1080p is inferior, and fyi, I went to 5.1ghz for my 24.7 OC, I felt that 5.2 was to pretentious of me.  Kappa
> 
> did I mention my 5.1ghz never breaks 60 Celsius in games, on air?
> 
> ...


you seem to mention it in most of your Intel loving, AMD bashing posts my man, don't think they go unnoticed.

Being bros? are you stiffler from 2001?

it's not 40fps gain at all, again blatantly lying and changing what you see fit to suit your Intel e-peen agenda, you have your rig be happy, why lie to make it seem bigger unless you're insecure in that department? 5-10 fps in the same post goes to 40fps? no credability whatsoever.

You're actually an anti-AMD fanboy who likes to think his Intel e-peen is bigger by being passive aggressive in all AMD threads...


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 18, 2018)

Uhm...Ryzen competes just fine with single core apps @3.8Ghz which most if not all do with ease.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 18, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Being bros? are you stiffler from 2001?



Check your PM man lol


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 19, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> So in a nutshell, where we're talking gaming performance you're knocking Ryzen's for not having an IGP in one hand and stating how it's slightly lower gaming performance (with dGPU) in the other? Horrible motherboards only for the 1800x, the same motherboards are great for lower end Ryzen?
> Higher power draw for competing chips... competing on price or cores? 6 cores tends to be higher power draw than 4 last time I looked
> Setup complicated (_memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile)_ ummmm insert memory, it either runs at XMP or jedec, why compare day 1 reviews with mature platform updates compared to Intel? CCX what exactly as a user do you have to setup regarding CCX? oh... nothing, point noted. SMT... works as it should, yeilds better performance over htt, check. Power profile.... huh, you need chip[set drivers, do you not need these for Intel?
> 
> ...





correct, 5-10 fps minimum frames beat ryzen in same test benches, according to tpu review:  as seen here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




95% of games benefit min FPS to Intel, in 5-15 fps range, BF1 at 13 FPS according to TPU review.

below:  1440p 42 FPS gain, tho its closer to 50 for me since my 1080 ti is clocked higher than the one reviewed below... have a look at all the games... https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Ti_Gaming_X_Trio/23.html





I do find it interesting you ignored my 7 posts in which I said I am an AMD fan boy who is waiting for Vega 2 and Ryzen 2 though, but at the moment I require high performance. Continue to create your own narrative without links or supportive facts, you and @eidairaman1 seem to be quite the duo.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 19, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> correct, 5-10 fps minimum frames beat ryzen in same test benches, according to tpu review:  as seen here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 19, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Troll alert



Just reporting the numbers as reported by TPU review, but sure thing. Also, my 8 year old niece says bro a lot, and I have fun with it with her, you shouldn't take life so seriously or judge someone because they used one word. Blocked, you are a waste of time.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 19, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> Just reporting the numbers as reported by TPU review, but sure thing. Also, my 8 year old niece says bro a lot, and I have fun with it with her, you shouldn't take life so seriously or judge someone because they used one word. Blocked, you are a waste of time.


You take one review numbers, take another different sets and then make your so called point, you have an agenda, anyone with half a brain can see it, you continue to say you love AMD yet bash them at every opportunity whilst citing your so called golden chip, grow up. You dont have a golden chip anymore than I have a magical penis. Block away, you have been found out. Seems like I'm not the only one either as your stats have took a nose dive

I'm out of here


----------



## ratirt (Apr 19, 2018)

I wonder what would be the prices for x470 Motherboard. I looked over the ram modules also 3k and 3200Mhz. Knowing how 1700x behaves with ram speed I bet the 2700x will be similar. Do you think settling at 3k or 3200Mhz is worth it or go for lower and OC? I have seen somewhere that 2900Mhz with CL14 is almost like 3200Mhz CL16. Of course not in every scenario but they practically matched. I'm guessing that I will need to put over 1k$ to get that upgrade.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 19, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> What time/zone tomorrow can we expect the TPU 2700x review @W1zzard


I believe it's 9AM Eastern time. In other words 15:00 CEST (Central European Summer Time).
I.e. in about 5 hours 20 minutes from writing this post.

EDIT: Sorry, that's when the review embargo lifts. Don't know when TPU's review is coming.


----------



## yeeeeman (Apr 19, 2018)

Chinese Ryzen review here https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.hkepc.com/16564/12nm_%E5%88%B6%E7%A8%8BZen%2B_%E5%BE%AE%E6%9E%B6%E6%A7%8B_AMD_Ryzen_7_2700X_%E8%99%95%E7%90%86%E5%99%A8%E8%A9%B3%E7%B4%B0%E6%B8%AC%E8%A9%A6/page/3/preview/a39b505722dc1dbb427880fd438e7354#view&edit-text=&act=url
2700X closes the gap on gaming with the 8700K. At 4K there is absolutely no difference between them and on Unigine you can see that it is actually close to 8700K compared to 1800X.
Whoever complains about gaming with this 2700X is either a kid and choses a CPU based on negligible differences or it is an Intel fanboy.


----------



## gasolin (Apr 19, 2018)

Reviews when are we gonna se the first today? Is there a time limited when they are allowed to relase reviews


----------



## yeeeeman (Apr 19, 2018)

I can bet that whatever results we see in that chinese one we'll see in reputable reviews like on TPU.


----------



## FYFI13 (Apr 19, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> Do you expect the 2700X to be on par with or better than the 8700K in games?


Trolling or what?


----------



## yeeeeman (Apr 19, 2018)

It can't be the same since there is no uArch change. But in any case, the difference, even of 10-15FPS is negligible at over 60FPS baseline and you can't see it with naked eyes, only with FRAPS.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 19, 2018)

gasolin said:


> Reviews when are we gonna se the first today? Is there a time limited when they are allowed to relase reviews


If you looked two posts up you would see 9AM Eastern (15:00 CEST) 


FYFI13 said:


> Trolling or what?


No trolling. The question was based on that review I linked to where it seemingly beat the 8700K in a couple of games. I do of course realize that that one review must be taken with a pinch of salt.


----------



## gasolin (Apr 19, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> If you looked two posts up you would see 9AM Eastern (15:00 CEST)
> 
> No trolling. The question was based on that review I linked to where it seemingly beat the 8700K in a couple of games. I do of course realize that that one review must be taken with a pinch of salt.



very little or no difference since it's done in 3840x2160 where a new modern cpu doesn't make a different


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 19, 2018)

gasolin said:


> very little or no difference since it's done in 3840x2160 where a new modern cpu doesn't make a different


There are both 1080p and 4K benchmarks there.


----------



## gasolin (Apr 19, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> There are both 1080p and 4K benchmarks there.


 
In this review? Ryzen review


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 19, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> DDR5 isn't coming to 10nm CPUs anytime soon, IIRC there's no DDR5 on any roadmap in the immediate future.



10nm isn't coming anytime soon LOL



phanbuey said:


> Idk - it's a tough call - at full OC - six fat cores at 5Ghz w/ a very strong IMC vs 8 thinner cores at 4.3 w/ a weaker IMC?
> 
> I still think the 8700k will be the faster machine if you're not a heavily threaded user.



Idk what you mean... IPC should be virtually identical, now. Most people aren't running fast ram  at all, especially due to current pricing. And Ryzen has a very robust IMC (if you haven't looked at bandwidth numbers). Sure, it would be nice if they reliably went above 3200/3400, but the real issue was IF speed being tied to it. That should have been independently clocked, so we can crank it up to max. After updates the IMC is pretty good for a first iteration. Subtimings are important, so I do think they need comprehensive profiles for all the sticks.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 19, 2018)

gasolin said:


> In this review? Ryzen review


No, the link in my OP.
Anyway, only 2 hours to embargo lift now, so we'll know soon enough.


----------



## gasolin (Apr 19, 2018)

Oh that one, have seen that, what i don't get is that sometimes a litte i5 8400 score better than a i7 8700 like in tom raider


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 19, 2018)

gasolin said:


> Oh that one, have seen that, what i don't get is that sometimes a litte i5 8400 score better than a i7 8700 like in tom raider



No HTT. That's why the self-proclaimed "high refresh rate" gamers (would love to see their actual fps, goof balls) are just OCing the 8600K.


----------



## gasolin (Apr 19, 2018)

Oh HT Hyper Threading


----------



## GirlyMan (Apr 19, 2018)

Interesting


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 19, 2018)

GirlyMan said:


> Interesting



Its about What I expected.  It's good to see that AMD brought it up to such a small margin


----------



## dozenfury (Apr 19, 2018)

Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom), it'd be tough to make the case for the 2700X at $330.  AMD has shown a willingness to drop pricing if needed though.  At a $279 price point the 2700X would be a more compelling option.  Otherwise for $20 difference to a 8700K, it would be really tough to consider too hard unless a person absolutely wanted to get off of Intel.  Good to see them closing the gap though.  And if I had an AMD gpu, being able to build a full AMD system for perf/$ close to Intel is great.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 19, 2018)

Anandtech's benchmarks results seem to massively favour the 2700X, especially RotTR and GTA5. What's going on there?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/


----------



## phill (Apr 19, 2018)

dozenfury said:


> Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom), it'd be tough to make the case for the 2700X at $330.  AMD has shown a willingness to drop pricing if needed though.  At a $279 price point the 2700X would be a more compelling option.  Otherwise for $20 difference to a 8700K, it would be really tough to consider too hard unless a person absolutely wanted to get off of Intel.  Good to see them closing the gap though.  And if I had an AMD gpu, being able to build a full AMD system for perf/$ close to Intel is great.



TechPowerUp did mention about the cost of coolers etc which I suppose helps AMD in a way, but agreed, if there was a bigger price difference again, it would be even more appealing to even more people...


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 19, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> Anandtech's benchmarks results seem to massively favour the 2700X, especially RotTR and GTA5. What's going on there?
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/



   IMO, tech site benchmarks and reviews are just shy of worthless on their own, the only time i will even put half stock in them, is when i can average out what many different reviews have to say, and form a basic result from them as a "survey" of sorts. I just dont trust them, I always will wait until actual users get the product in their hands (the product that they paid for with their hard earned dollars, and have no reason to lie, or favor any particular brand, other than embarrassment for making a poor decision), and post real world experiences, until then, i ignore the gas bags for the most part. Im not saying Anandtech is a bad site, or reviewer, Im just saying I personally dont trust any of them.

i hope the Chip turns out to be a good value, AMD needs it, and the market needs it, for everyones best interest. no matter what chip anyone prefers for brand or whatever reason, the competitive market is essential for consumers best interest.


----------



## gasolin (Apr 19, 2018)

dozenfury said:


> Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom), it'd be tough to make the case for the 2700X at $330.  AMD has shown a willingness to drop pricing if needed though.  At a $279 price point the 2700X would be a more compelling option.  Otherwise for $20 difference to a 8700K, it would be really tough to consider too hard unless a person absolutely wanted to get off of Intel.  Good to see them closing the gap though.  And if I had an AMD gpu, being able to build a full AMD system for perf/$ close to Intel is great.




They could make one 2600 and one 2700 for a low price and just  make a bios of some kind so you can chose a stock cpu or the oc bios.

Why do you wanna have a 2700x just get a 2700 and oc the crap out of it, my 1600 did 4ghz not bad


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 19, 2018)

Hardware Unboxed









GamersNexus


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2018)

dozenfury said:


> Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom.


OK, here's the problem and what people seem to forget about is that yes... Intel chips do overclock much higher than AMD chips; there's no denying this. However, look at what you have to do to get said super-overclocks on Intel. You practically need to de-lid the stupid thing (thus voiding your warranty) and even then temps aren't that great unless you go for elaborate and expensive AIOs or custom liquid cooling. So yes, Intel does win in the clock speed arena with its ability to overclock like mad but there's a lot of issues in doing so, namely cooling.

When you put the 8700K at the same clock speed that the 2700X is running at it would be interesting to see which chip is best. I would not at all be surprised to see that both chips are nearly neck and neck.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 19, 2018)

trparky said:


> OK, here's the problem and what people seem to forget about is that yes... Intel chips do overclock much higher than AMD chips; there's no denying this. However, look at what you have to do to get said super-overclocks on Intel. You practically need to de-lid the stupid thing (thus voiding your warranty) and even then temps aren't that great unless you go for elaborate and expensive AIOs or custom liquid cooling. So yes, Intel does win in the clock speed arena with its ability to overclock like mad but there's a lot of issues in doing so, namely cooling.
> 
> When you put the 8700K at the same clock speed that the 2700X is running at it would be interesting to see which chip is best. I would not at all be surprised to see that both chips are nearly neck and neck.



thats a generalization, all intel chips arent hot, nor do they require delidding to get good temps or OC. the issue is, the harshest critics seem to disregard the first 500 300+Mhz of overclock you can get on almost any intel chip over the past 10 years on even basic cooling (air or Water) as "a given" , and they only consider the last 4.5Ghz + as the "subject to mention" when making claims of high temps, required delidding, etc.

out of curiosity, which current intel cpu do You own?


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> out of curiosity, which current intel cpu do You own?


I don't have a current Intel chip, I do however have an ancient Core i5 3570K @ 4.4 GHz. This is the system that I have plans to upgrade to an AMD Ryzen 2600X.

*EDIT*


jboydgolfer said:


> the harshest critics seem to disregard the first 500+Mhz of overclock you can get on almost any intel chip over the past 10 years on even basic cooling (air or Water) as "a given"


What exactly do you mean by that?


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 19, 2018)

gasolin said:


> Oh that one, have seen that, what i don't get is that sometimes a litte i5 8400 score better than a i7 8700 like in tom raider



Its margin of error, everything from the Ryzen 3 1300X to the top falls in that category to be fair.

Its a clear indication this is quite a useless bench to gauge relative CPU performance, if anything. All this tells you is that all of these CPUs do fine in this specific game


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 19, 2018)

trparky said:


> What exactly do you mean by that?



what i mean is, i often see people (not necessarily You) claiming Intels factory TIM is awful, or that they MUST be delidded to get an OC, but the simple fact is, 90% or more of intels Current Chips, can atleast get a 300+Mhz OC right out of the gate, often on just multiplier increases. I have noticed Many of the claims that people make are based on the final  (Coffee Lake for example) 4.5Ghz and up frequencies, where users get grumpy that their CPU doesnt reach the same clocks that others have, and so they become Very vocal about it, and make broad claims that "You cant get a good OC on a coffee lake CPU unless you delid it" , or " You have to run a Ln2 cooling system, or get lucky with the silicon lottery, to get them to OC", essentially, making claims that this or that is the case, based on anecdotal experiences. I have noticed this often, and (again not You) these people seem to make a lot of fuss, about what is the final 10% of OC headroom, or performance.

the only time you NEED to delid a (for example) 8700k ,is if your chasing some high OC, noone MUST delid to get 4.4Ghz, it just (imo) isnt happening anywhere. thats what my point is in a nutshell. The complaints & claims of required waranty voiding and elaborate cooling is only ever (slightly) true, if You chasing higher OC's, above what could be considered the "respectable OC" range

Also as a TL: DR but from the othe angle . If you were to go out and buy ten 8600K CPUs , im confident every one of them would reach 4.7Ghz on a standard cooling setup that is suitable, with factory TIM under the IHS. And if there was a issue, id be surprised if it was more than 1. keeping in mind that they are factory clocked to boost past what many can reach on AMD's current offering with experienced OC.

also, i meant to write 300+ earlier, my bad, fat fingers


----------



## qubit (Apr 19, 2018)

@Whitestar So, the reviews are out and the latest top end Ryzen is very good, but still isn't quite as fast as the 8700K in gaming. Go ahead, open your CPU box and forget about AMD. 

Personally, when AMD makes a CPU that's faster than Intel's in gaming, only then will I consider going for it. This makes sense for me, as gaming is the only area where I need max performance from my PC.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 19, 2018)

qubit said:


> @WhitestarGo ahead, open your CPU box and forget about AMD.


Already did


----------



## qubit (Apr 20, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> Already did


Yeah, thought you had.  Enjoy.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 20, 2018)

qubit said:


> @Whitestar So, the reviews are out and the latest top end Ryzen is very good, but still isn't quite as fast as the 8700K in gaming. Go ahead, open your CPU box and forget about AMD.
> 
> Personally, when AMD makes a CPU that's faster than Intel's in gaming, only then will I consider going for it. This makes sense for me, as gaming is the only area where I need max performance from my PC.



Streamers with intel are crying, though LOL


----------



## qubit (Apr 20, 2018)

TheGuruStud said:


> Streamers with intel are crying, though LOL


Sorry, I don’t understand.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 20, 2018)

qubit said:


> Sorry, I don’t understand.



Gamers Nexus did streaming tests. 8700K can't stream at decent quality. 10Mb is fine, though.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 20, 2018)

qubit said:


> Sorry, I don’t understand.


Ryzen which is 5% slower at gaming in 1080p than Intel has 50% more cores per $ and so provides a better overall experience especially when you start to look at not just raw FPS but also productivity and streaming whilst gaming, would be my understanding anyway


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 20, 2018)

LOL, intel fanboys are having a meltdown over on anandtech. They're throwing tantrums. These security patches sure are making things juicy (ram speed being the other offset)!


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 20, 2018)

TheGuruStud said:


> LOL, intel fanboys are having a meltdown over on anandtech. They're throwing tantrums. These security patches sure are making things juicy (ram speed being the other offset)!


Seems many reviewers aren't taking into consideration the spectre patches and are comparing the latest Ryzen 2700x to unpatched Intel 8700k's


----------



## trparky (Apr 20, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Seems many reviewers aren't taking into consideration the spectre patches and are comparing the latest Ryzen 2700x to unpatched Intel 8700k's


Is there any proof of that?


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 20, 2018)

trparky said:


> Is there any proof of that?


Only AT has mentioned all the BIOS+OS patches being applied to their system(s) while many others don't mention the same, should be easy to figure out if we see prior numbers & compare them to the latest scores.
Just to be clear I'm not saying there's anything wrong with other reviews, but the large discrepancy could be down to some of these patches.


----------



## trparky (Apr 20, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> Only AT has mentioned all the BIOS+OS patches being applied to their system(s) while many others don't mention the same, should be easy to figure out if we see prior numbers & compare them to the latest scores.
> Just to be clear I'm not saying there's anything wrong with other reviews, but the large discrepancy could be down to some of these patches.


Why do I have a feeling that things could get messy? I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nutjob though. Intel has been known to be shady.

Edit
Wrong thing was on my clipboard of my phone when I initially posted this post, it has been edited with what I meant to say.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 20, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> Only AT has mentioned all the BIOS+OS patches being applied to their system(s) while many others don't mention the same,


good that we mention it in 3 places


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 20, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> *good that we mention it in 3 places*


Yes it is but perhaps it'd be nice if you include the OS build number, like in my case it's Insider build 17133.73, now wrt AT they *explicitly mentioned the spectre & meltdown patches* (at the end) so there's that. If you look at MS & then win10 updates it's a giant mess, for instance ~








So while all of us appreciate the work you do, some extra info (wrt OS in the test bench) is always welcome, the same goes for other reviews who don't do that.


----------



## qubit (Apr 20, 2018)

TheGuruStud said:


> Gamers Nexus did streaming tests. 8700K can't stream at decent quality. 10Mb is fine, though.


My old 2700K can stream no problem, so why would an 8700K be unable to? Perhaps if you could link to it that would to get a handle on this.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Ryzen which is 5% slower at gaming in 1080p than Intel has 50% more cores per $ and so provides a better overall experience especially when you start to look at not just raw FPS but also productivity and streaming whilst gaming, would be my understanding anyway


Oh yes, as AMD gets more competitive, Intel’s displeasure grows. With gaming performance so close now, Ryzen could well be a better purchase, that’s why I was careful to specify for my specific use.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 20, 2018)

I looked over the benchmarks for 2700X Ryzen and I must say I'm impressed. Honestly I don't see much difference between 8700k and 2700x in games for 1080p except 720p. 4 or 5 FPS difference average is like nothing. Of course there are 1080p res  games (DOTA2) making 2700X lower in FPS than 8700K but with the FPS count over 170 does it really matter? 
I'd like to see the minimum FPS count for the 2700X Oh and yet the 2700X hit 4.4Ghz according to https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700x_review,23.html
Pretty nice


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 20, 2018)

Looking at the benchmarks it's hard to know how much that latest Spectre microcode thingy affects the 8700K performance. I wish all tech sites could just follow Anandtech's example and disclose all the relevant info in their tests. I mean, how hard can it be, right?
I know Techradar has it applied. And Steve from Techspot (Hardware Unboxed) said in comments that he has it applied.

Speaking of which: Anandtech apparently tested with everything stock, even the coolers. And with official memory from both manufacturers (2666MHz for Intel and 2933MHz for AMD). Also, they used a GTX 1080 for some reason.


----------



## Vya Domus (Apr 20, 2018)

I really don't know why people give Anandtech so much shit , if anything they've always been extremely transparent about their testing.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 20, 2018)

Just found this comment. So that means at least 4 sites tested with the patches applied:
Anandtech
Techradar
GamersNexus
Hardware Unboxed


----------



## ratirt (Apr 20, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> Just found this comment. So that means at least 4 sites tested with the patches applied:
> Anandtech
> Techradar
> GamersNexus
> ...


So what does it mean? They are faking the results somehow? I thought that Anandtech is a genuine benchmarking site.


----------



## Vya Domus (Apr 20, 2018)

ratirt said:


> They are faking the results somehow?



It means they used a different testing methodology which influences results in a way that it can't be easily accounted for. This happens all the time and it doesn't make the results any faker or truer , I hate it when reviewers call them "strange/fake" or "wrong" as if whatever is that they are doing must definitely be fault free.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 20, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> It means they used a different testing methodology which influences results in a way that it can't be easily accounted for. This happens all the time and it doesn't make the results any faker or truer , I hate it when reviewers call them "strange/fake" or "wrong" as if whatever is that they are doing must definitely be fault free.


Completely agree. Steve could have left out that comment.
It would be interesting to see Anandtech test with higher mem speed, better cooler and a 1080 Ti though. Maybe that would skew the results more in Intel's favour.


----------



## Vya Domus (Apr 20, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> Steve could have left out that comment.



I noticed he is extremely defensive and vocal about his work and always assumes that everyone else that didn't get the same results as him is wrong.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 20, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> I noticed he is extremely defensive and vocal about his work and always assumes that everyone else that didn't get the same results as him is wrong.


Yeah he doesn't like to be wrong, like the guy from Adored TV said.  Still, he seems legit enough.
I like Steve Burke over at GamersNexus better, but his voice is really monotonous and makes me sleepy, lol. 



ratirt said:


> I thought that Anandtech is a genuine benchmarking site.


They are. And have always been (IMO). Can't imagine they would EVER manipulate anything.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 20, 2018)

Reading the reviews I am very impressed with AMD.
I'm still glad I got an 8700k instead of upgrading my Ryzen system.
IMO AMD released exactly what they needed to release.
They actually have a high end desktop solution that is just as good as Intel's at stock speeds.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 20, 2018)

Different testing methodology. Ok but why it must be wrong? Different doesn't mean wrong. Especially if people here agree that Anandtech is a genuine benchmarking site. 
Anyway i'm pleased with the Ryzen 2700x The question is now. Do I really need to upgrade or leave it as it is for now.  
AMD did good job in my opinion


----------



## GirlyMan (Apr 20, 2018)

jmcslob said:


> Reading the reviews I am very impressed with AMD.
> I'm still glad I got an 8700k instead of upgrading my Ryzen system.
> IMO AMD released exactly what they needed to release.
> They actually have a high end desktop solution that is just as good as Intel's at stock speeds.


I don’t want to be mean or alarmist here but the Spectre and Meltdown issues cannot be fully patched on any Intel platform, why would anyone care about a few FPS over having a totally undetectable security vulnerability that doesn’t require terminal access. 
I’m running a 3770k build I’m totally happy with but am moving to AMD because of these issues.
Intel cannot patch there flaws they are hardware based, guess there PR worked wonders as it seems most everyone forgets that.


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 20, 2018)

GirlyMan said:


> ...the Spectre and Meltdown issues cannot be fully patched on any Intel platform


They can't? I haven't followed all this GPZ mess but I thought there were firmware patches for both platforms?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 20, 2018)

GirlyMan said:


> I don’t want to be mean or alarmist here but the Spectre and Meltdown issues cannot be fully patched on any Intel platform, why would anyone care about a few FPS over having a totally undetectable security vulnerability that doesn’t require terminal access.
> I’m running a 3770k build I’m totally happy with but am moving to AMD because of these issues.
> Intel cannot patch there flaws they are hardware based, guess there PR worked wonders as it seems most everyone forgets that.


I don't really care if they patch it or not.
Considering the type of attack I'm not concerned in the slightest.


----------



## GirlyMan (Apr 20, 2018)

Whitestar said:


> They can't? I haven't followed all this GPZ mess but I thought there were firmware patches for both platforms?


There are patches to help mitigate the problem or reduce risk on the Intel platform I guess but these are hardware level flaws so I’m not sure how and are completely undetectable meaning you’d never know or really be able to tell if you’d been compromised and is why it was such a huge deal, it allows data to be taken from a hardware level somehow and cannot be detected in any normal software manner. Everyone went very quiet about things after the initial findings so I’d imagine it’s super bad or Intel would have said “everything’s ok” by now and instead of that we get silence. Again don’t want to be alarmist because this stuff is way over my head but all of it put huge red flags up across the whole industry and no ones come forward saying things are fixed. What does seem clear though is that AMD did not have the same hardware level unfixable issue.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 20, 2018)

Oh... I already have Microcode update 84...
And apparently every review I've seen has mentioned the most up to date of everything... So
I am pretty sure the 8700k is still King by a hair...
That's seriously awesome for AMD.
Slightly cheaper with a cool heatsink...on a known not dead platform.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 20, 2018)

ratirt said:


> Different testing methodology. Ok but why it must be wrong? Different doesn't mean wrong. Especially if people here agree that Anandtech is a genuine benchmarking site.
> Anyway i'm pleased with the Ryzen 2700x The question is now. Do I really need to upgrade or leave it as it is for now.
> AMD did good job in my opinion



For the upgrade path might be worth it



jmcslob said:


> Oh... I already have Microcode update 84...
> And apparently every review I've seen has mentioned the most up to date of everything... So
> I am pretty sure the 8700k is still King by a hair...
> That's seriously awesome for AMD.
> Slightly cheaper with a cool heatsink...on a known not dead platform.



The WraithMax in person is a sweet stock cooler.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 22, 2018)

With my current CPU I'm sure it is  looking for honest opinion


----------



## evernessince (Apr 22, 2018)

For anyone interested in my experience, I just got my 2700X in today.  It boosts to 4.35 GHz on two cores as advertised but most of the time it sits at 4.25 GHz.  When in a stress test the cores don't drop below 4 GHz.  Max temp is 88c (78c after the 10c offset is removed) after 8 hours of y-cruncher.

What's odd is I'm not getting DDR4 3200 with my RAM as I was with my Ryzen 1700.  I'm going to chalk that up to ASRock needing to update the X370 Taichi to the latest Agesa code.  As it stands they are two revisions behind.


Whitestar said:


> They can't? I haven't followed all this GPZ mess but I thought there were firmware patches for both platforms?



The patches applied so far can only mitigate Spectre/Meltdown, not completely prevent them.  Intel won't have full protection until 2 hardware gens from now.


----------



## Tropicocity (Apr 23, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> I learned that the hard way (hence my home computer and the one in my sig is intel work computer AMD)... the 2700x does look like it closed the gap -but it's very unlikely that Zen+ is going to beat an 8600/8700k in gaming when both are clocked / tuned to their maximum potential.
> 
> Maybe in newer games.



Did you make the switch from a 4790k to a 1700x or something? I'm sitting in my 4670k and looking to upgrade very soon as I already got a ram deal


----------



## Whitestar (Apr 24, 2018)

Here's Adored TV's take on the Ryzen 2700X, reviews and whatnot:


----------



## gasolin (Apr 26, 2018)

Wort upgrading mb from X370 to X470 ?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2018)

gasolin said:


> Wort upgrading mb from X370 to X470 ?



If you have a Crosshair 6 Hero/Extreme or Taichi/Fatal1ty already, no not worth it, just add cooling where need be. If coming from A320/and some B350s from GA/MSI/Biostar, yes.

Bear in mind there are talks of the Z490 Chipset too, might be the top to go for if moving from x370.


----------

