AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[W1zzard]

AMD's new second-generation Ryzen processors are here. We run the Ryzen 7 2700X flagship through our completely revamped test suite, which features the latest BIOS, OS, and software updates, as well as new tests and games. Results are very impressive and considerably reduce the gap to Intel's offerings.

Show full review

 

[jabbadap]

So no point of overclocking it, or? Can't you tune single core clock manually any higher? Very puzzling results I might say.

 

[v12dock]

Way more than I expected, I think we can all expect a knee jerk reaction from Intel.

 

[Vario]

Thanks for the review. About time things got competitive for CPUs. I am excited to see what Intel counters with.

 

[Fleurious]

Looks like a great CPU. For me it’s a toss up with the i5 8400 and will be decided by the chipset/platform features.

 

[yeeeeman]

Nice, 7% difference in gaming at 1080P is nothing compared to 8700K. You get more cores, cheaper platform, best buy in my opinion.

 

[phill]

Bottom line - Overclocking or not, I'd like one, maybe two....

Hopefully as time goes on with the refresh, the performance will become even better and more so with overclocking which I believe would make a bigger difference if they can push 4.4Ghz or more..

So no point of overclocking it, or? Can't you tune single core clock manually any higher? Very puzzling results I might say.

As they said in the review, it's possibly down to how well AMD's auto boosting is working and the fact that they couldn't go above the base boost level of 4.3Ghz.. Here's hoping for 4.5Ghz or more at some point...

 

[Mussels]

At 4K gaming overclocking it made it run slower? what?

 

[jabbadap]

Nice, 7% difference in gaming at 1080P is nothing compared to 8700K. You get more cores, cheaper platform, best buy in my opinion.

Until you overclock intel to ~5 GHz...

 

[W1zzard]

At 4K gaming overclocking it made it run slower? what?

As explained in the overclocking section and conclusion, the CPU will boost higher than our manual OC when few cores are loaded.

 

[Vario]

Would it overclock higher with a better cooler?

 

[W1zzard]

Can't you tune single core clock manually any higher?

Unlike Intel, it seems there is no way to adjust boost levels for specific core-count-workloads

 

[jabbadap]

As explained in the overclocking section and conclusion, the CPU will boost higher than our manual OC when few cores are loaded.

Did you use Bios or Wattman for overclocking?

 

[W1zzard]

Would it overclock higher with a better cooler?

Sure, get out the LN2 I did some quick testing with a 240 mm watercooler and saw negligible improvements, maybe 50 MHz.

Did you use Bios or Wattman for overclocking?

Tried both, makes no difference. For me Ryzen Master is nice to quickly find the rough maximum OC (not so many reboots), and then fine-tune using BIOS because you'll have to reboot anyway due to system crash.

 

[Mussels]

As explained in the overclocking section and conclusion, the CPU will boost higher than our manual OC when few cores are loaded.

Its still mind boggling how good XFR2 is

 

[jabbadap]

What are the all core clocks by the way, can't seem to find that information anywhere.

 

[phill]

Thank you W1zzard, brilliant review I wonder how it works for Cancer Crunching....

 

[W1zzard]

What are the all core clocks by the way, can't seem to find that information anywhere.

Great idea. This is something I'll include in future CPU reviews.

 

[Mussels]

Oh @W1zzard - just to be a pita, can you see if the clocks/performance (with XFR/high manual OC/voltages) change with active cooling on the VRM's? My ryzen systems had lower performance over time until i did that, although my MSI boards dont exactly have high end VRM cooling, it still made a massive difference when using the ryzen 1700 chip (invisible thermal throttling, basically)

 

[cucker tarlson]

Stock 7600K-like performance in games from an overclocked 8c/16t is disappointing to say the least . 2700X has serious workstation performance tho. I just can't explain people putting ryzen in rigs that are mostly for gaming.

 

[Mussels]

Stock 7600K-like performance in games from an overclocked 8c/16t is disappointing to say the least . 2700X has serious workstation performance tho. I just can't explain people putting ryzen in rigs that are mostly for gaming.

Ryzens cheaper, especially outside the USA. Simple as that.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Ryzens cheaper, especially outside the USA. Simple as that.

Than 7600K ? What ?
Here Ryzen 2700X is 1350, 8700K is 1400, and 8700K is just better overall.

 

[intrepid3d]

Why is your Ryzen 2700X at 4.2Ghz gaming performance pretty much identical to the 1800X at 3.6Ghz? despite a 600Mhz clock speed difference the performance is exactly the same?
Did you make a mistake or has Ryzen 2 lost a huge lump of IPC vs Ryzen 1?

Your review is very strange i don't understand it.

 

[W1zzard]

Why is your Ryzen 2700X at 4.2Ghz gaming performance pretty much identical to the 1800X at 3.6Ghz? despite a 600Mhz clock speed difference the performance is exactly the same?
Did you make a mistake or has Ryzen 2 lost a huge lump of IPC vs Ryzen 1?

Your review is very strange i don't understand it.

What exactly are you looking at? GPU limited?

 

[kruk]

Stock 7600K-like performance in games from an overclocked 8c/16t is disappointing to say the least .

No, its actually not, some games just don't scale. Also, this is a benchmark, where interference from other apps is kept to a minimum. In real world use cases (where you have background apps running), you might notice that (in heavily threaded scenarios) frame drops can occur on the 4T CPU but the 8C/16T CPU will have no problems.