AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Rears Its Head On Geekbench

[evernessince]

my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.

Not counting the CPU cooler, motherboard or RAM. But yeah I just picked a Ryzen 1700 up brand new for $150 off eBay during the 20% off sale. At the end of the day you paid more than double for 5% more performance, grats. I just love people who tout their "on up ism" attitues all the while support a shitty company. I guess the company reflects the buyer.

 

[Suka]

IPC is way higher than Sandybridge birdie. Ryzen is just a few percent behind in IPC if you look at reputable reviews. Their issue is with higher clocks. They win with more cores for the dollar and their SMT is more efficient than HT.

It is slower in some titles, but, many can afford to lose a couple of FPS. That said, others, like you and birdie clearly (me as well), simply prefer not to lose anything on that front.

I like how your explanation is spot on.

 

[GoldenX]

Package: Summit Ridge, not Pinnacle Ridge
hopefully, prices won't be higher than current Ryzens

AMD usually replaces the price-spot, so I don't think that should be a problem.

 

[ShurikN]

my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.

At 1440p at which you are playing, the difference between Ryzen and Coffee Lake is 3% at best... With 2700X the difference would probably be even less...

 

[Space Lynx]

You all seem to be forgetting he 8700k has better min frame rates at every resolution across the board than ryzen by about 5-10 fps depending on the game, and thats stock clocks... sorry but min fps is king, I like how you all only focus on max fps though Kappa

 

[kastriot]

Here we go again "mine is bigger than yours"..

 

[ShurikN]

You all seem to be forgetting he 8700k has better min frame rates at every resolution across the board than ryzen by about 5-10 fps depending on the game, and thats stock clocks... sorry but min fps is king, I like how you all only focus on max fps though Kappa

Avg framerates and no stuttering is king. Min FPS means nothing if the gameplay is fluid during drops. You are not going to notice the difference between 70 and 80 FPS if it happens 5 times in 10 minutes.
The only perfect picture would be a graph with FPS over time, but that's rarely, if ever, done on a CPU test.
Also didn't see anyone mentioning max FPS, and I don't think anyone measures that anymore.
And this is not twitch.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Avg framerates and no stuttering is king. Min FPS means nothing if the gameplay is fluid during drops. You are not going to notice the difference between 70 and 80 FPS if it happens 5 times in 10 minutes.
The only perfect picture would be a graph with FPS over time, but that's rarely, if ever, done on a CPU test.
Also didn't see anyone mentioning max FPS, and I don't think anyone measures that anymore.
And this is not twitch.

I was told that a stuttering 7700K is better, b/c highest framerate XD

 

[ratirt]

I remember some reviews with new release of the 1800x and the first thing that the reviewer mentioned it was damn smooth. Forgot what card he was using during that time but it surely wasn't 1080 Ti so assuming some 1080's were involved. The response time was also great. I really think you people don't give enough credit to the Ryzen CPU's. It's not all about FPS count or single core speed or frequency.

 

[Imsochobo]

I was told that a stuttering 7700K is better, b/c highest framerate XD

I don't think a 7700K should stutter easily, maybe with me using the computer but this is only an issue to 4 thread and lower today.
A Mate with 7600K is not enjoying his computer life, close down everything then start a game.
7700K owners just make sure they're not doing anything heavy in the background.
me: whatever

 

[RejZoR]

I like the way how cores clock in Zen 2 depending on number of them under load and also other factors like temperature.

 

[dyonoctis]

This need to get reposted again apparently :

TLDR:
Ryzen is once again, fine for gaming, yes it's not as fast as intel, but it's not going to be really noticeable, and will not prevent you from enjoying a game, unless 144Hz is one of your absolute requirement.

At this point it really looks like lynx was bored and decided to start a fight by stating the obvious. (And talking about a deal that most people shopping for a cpu won't get, the 8700k is usualy at least 100€ higher than a 1700x).
Zen+ is just a refresh with a small clock bump, I don't think that people really expected it to be a 4.7Ghz stock messia.

 

[EarthDog]

I like the way how cores clock in Zen 2 depending on number of them under load and also other factors like temperature.

Zen2 wont be out until 2019+... Zen+ is coming out soon (weeks).

"Ryzen 2" is the product of the idiotic media (no amd slide/anything said ryzen 2)

 

[OneCool]

So now geekbench has a STD now!!

 

[Gerolf]

The first gen Ryzen was good at 2 things - raw multicore performance and great price for 6 core CPUs. Other things like single thread performance, intercore latencies, memory latency, overclocking potential were exellent if you compare to previous AMD cpus, but average if you compare to Intel 8 gen. And yes, Ryzen is ok for current gen GPUs, even the most powerfull ones, but most people will stay on same CPU for about 2-3 GPUs generation. And 720p CPU tests give us some understanding who is who when there's no GPU bottleneck.

 

[EarthDog]

I was about to like the post above, but 720p testing isnt good at showing 1080p bottlenecks with real settings.

 

[ratirt]

Zen2 wont be out until 2019+... Zen+ is coming out soon (weeks).

"Ryzen 2" is the product of the idiotic media (no amd slide/anything said ryzen 2)

I think he meant Zen2 as a second Ryzen CPU release.

 

[Gerolf]

but 720p testing isnt good at showing 1080p bottlenecks with real settings.

Can you explain why, please? As far as I know lower resolution just drastically reduces load on GPU.

Edit:
I found this explanation and it looks legit to me:

«It depends on the type of game.
If a higher res = more objects on screen, then it affects CPU usage. This is more the case with top-down view games.

Other games like FPS and such, don't have this. A higher res will strain the GPU more, resulting in less 'questions' asked by the GPU to the CPU and result in less CPU usage.»

 

[phill]

I'm just waiting for the reviews and money shots... Geekbench and such is probably no more helpful than XTU for benching... Not something proven I'd say...

 

[EarthDog]

I think he meant Zen2 as a second Ryzen CPU release.

Ok... and as I said, Zen 2 isn't out for a year and some change. Zen+ is what we will see in the coming weeks.

Can you explain why, please? As far as I know lower resolution just drastically reduces load on GPU.

Edit:
I found this explanation and it looks legit to me:

«It depends on the type of game.
If a higher res = more objects on screen, then it affects CPU usage. This is more the case with top-down view games.

Other games like FPS and such, don't have this. A higher res will strain the GPU more, resulting in less 'questions' asked by the GPU to the CPU and result in less CPU usage.»

Honestly, my stance is controversial considering it goes against the grain... but here are my thoughts:

When testing at 720p, an unrealistic environment is created to exaggerate differences which are not found at higher resolutions and settings in game. Also, what many review sites do is to lower settings at that res to make sure the GPU doesn't have much to say about things. This testing would be great if it scaled as the resolution or settings go up, however, it does not. So in the end, users see a result of Hey CPU A is 10% faster than CPU B at 720p... But when we run 1080p and use high settings and use AA, the result isn't remotely the same. And when you are at 1440+, the CPU matters very little. In the end, its not like the 10% result holds true anywhere else and creating a specific exaggerated environment just to squeeze out a data set isn't the best way to go about it. Nobody runs at 1080+ at 720p with low settings.

 

[Gerolf]

Nobody runs at 1080+ at 720p with low settings.

Nobody says that someone runs GTX 1080 at 720p settings, this is usually done to measure maximum CPU capabilities in given game. But at 1080p you can see similar differences in FPS if GPU load stays at moderate level and doesn't create bottleneck. And at 1440p nearly all games push GPU to it's limits so most CPUs will give similar FPS.

 

[the54thvoid]

Ok... and as I said, Zen 2 isn't out for a year and some change. Zen+ is what we will see in the coming weeks.

Honestly, my stance is controversial considering it goes against the grain... but here are my thoughts:

When testing at 720p, an unrealistic environment is created to exaggerate differences which are not found at higher resolutions and settings in game. Also, what many review sites do is to lower settings at that res to make sure the GPU doesn't have much to say about things. This testing would be great if it scaled as the resolution or settings go up, however, it does not. So in the end, users see a result of Hey CPU A is 10% faster than CPU B at 720p... But when we run 1080p and use high settings and use AA, the result isn't remotely the same. And when you are at 1440+, the CPU matters very little. In the end, its not like the 10% result holds true anywhere else and creating a specific exaggerated environment just to squeeze out a data set isn't the best way to go about it. Nobody runs at 1080+ at 720p with low settings.

I agree (I would because I'm a total AMD fanboy, apart from the 1080ti). Thing is, a GPU is used for graphics, not the CPU. The point of a gfx card is to play the game at the best settings you can, or to meet the criteria you play at. Given monitor refresh rates languishing at 60Hz fo rmost, 144Hz for very, very few, the fps situation is null. Real world use of a Ryzen CPU wont be at 720p gaming.

Now, if you offered me a free system, one with an 8700k or a 1800x, I'd take the 8700k. I'm not a fool but when it comes to my money and (charity) I went AMD on Ryzen almost entirely to give them a chance. I knew they would be beaten by Intel but when I moved up from a 6 core 3930k (that cost £450 in the day) to an 8 core 1700X that cost <£400, I saw great improvements. Given how much an 8 core CPU from Intel was back when 1700X came out, I did well.

And we still have the existential argument, WWID (What Would Intel Do) if AMD hadn't released Ryzen? You think you'd have the 8700k for that price? No chance. For once in this crazy monopolistic world, IMO, Ryzen gave both AMD and Intel customers a better deal.

 

[EarthDog]

Nobody says that someone runs GTX 1080 at 720p settings, this is usually done to measure maximum CPU capabilities in given game. But at 1080p you can see similar differences in FPS if GPU load stays at moderate level and doesn't create bottleneck. And at 1440p nearly all games push GPU to it's limits so most CPUs will give similar FPS.

No, you can't... that is what I am trying to say... it DOES NOT SCALE. Also, your GPU should be running 100% in most titles regardless. Its only the jenky 720p low, 1080ti at 1080p playing CS:GO where it doesn't get a full load.

What is the point of knowing CPU A and CPU B difference is 20% at 720p with low settings, but a couple % at 1080p with 'normal' settings?? What use is that 720p dataset when its settings are fabricated to show an exaggerated difference?

Anyway, this isn't about 2700X... so I digress. You are welcome to reach out through PM though.

 

[Gerolf]

I knew they would be beaten by Intel but when I moved up from a 6 core 3930k (that cost £450 in the day) to an 8 core 1700X that cost <£400, I saw great improvements.

Dude seriously what were you expecting when you compare 6 core Intel CPU from 2011 to 8 core Ryzen CPU from 2017? AMD beat Intel cpu 6 years later, wow.

 

[the54thvoid]

Dude seriously what were you expecting when you compare 6 core Intel CPU from 2011 to 8 core Ryzen CPU from 2017? It's bloody 6 years passed.

Yeah but I didnt upgrade from it because Intels chips were just marginally better each year. Tiny % increases in IPC and speeds (well, my cores were at 4.2-4.4Ghz) so the Intel route was a money pit for no real gain. Ryzen offered something different.

Also - you'd be amazed how many people think Ryzen is still Sandy-E level of performance.