AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[intrepid3d]

What exactly are you looking at? GPU limited?

No i'm looking at your review...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/20.html

 

[dyonoctis]

If you are gaming and doing workstation work the 2700x is a steal, it's only 10% slower than the 7820x in productivity, but 17% faster in games. (HFR)
Overclocking doesn't seem really interesting, since you would have to turn it on and off according to what you are doing.

 

[intrepid3d]

Guys, there are a lot more reviews on the net and all of them look a lot better for Ryzen 2 than this one, especially with its strange claims of 0 performance difference with +600Mhz.

This makes it look like Bulldozer Mk2, Ryzen is not Bulldozer, all other reviews have it close to Intel.

 

[W1zzard]

No i'm looking at your review...

I guess you are looking at 4K resolution only? At that resolution the games are GPU limited - the GPU can not produce frames any faster, which is why the CPU sits idle, waiting for the next frame to be ready from the GPU. So a faster CPU will sit idle, "but faster", ie, not provide any performance gain. Look at lower resolutions, which have higher FPS rates, which means the CPU needs to do more work and become a limiting factor. CPU time for a given frame is roughly constant.

 

[cucker tarlson]

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.

I know it's better than 7600K for streaming, but 8700K is better than ryzen too and costs the same. Let's end this discussion here, we won't draw any conclusions that haven't already been drawn with Ryzen 1xxx series. By the way, there's so much more to talk about in this CPU than its rather mediocre gaming price/perf. I think it's splendid. When they release its non-x version at lower price, people who consider 8700k for a workstation cpu might instead give 2700 and faster ddr4 a try.

 

[kruk]

Guys, there are a lot more reviews on the net and all of them look a lot better for Ryzen 2 than this one, especially with its strange claims of 0 performance difference with +600Mhz.

You should reread the conclusion:

Yes, overclocking is possible and our sample reached 4.2 GHz stable on all cores, but that won't always give you higher performance as our benchmarks show. The underlying reason is that Ryzen has very clever Boost algorithms that automagically increase clock frequencies beyond rated stock frequencies. The 2700X can go up to 4.3 GHz with just a single core is active, which is higher than what we managed with manual overclocking. As result, single-threaded applications will run faster than without overclocking.

You should really look at the green bars if you want to compare 1800x to 2700x ...

 

[W1zzard]

You should reread the conclusion:

I think @intrepid3d is looking at the gaming performance summary charts for 4K and is wondering why all CPUs are identical

 

[intrepid3d]

I guess you are looking at 4K resolution only? At that resolution the games are GPU limited - the GPU can not produce frames any faster, which is why the CPU sits idle, waiting for the next frame to be ready from the GPU. So a faster CPU will sit idle, "but faster", ie, not provide any performance gain. Look at lower resolutions, which have higher FPS rates, which means the CPU needs to do more work and become a limiting factor. CPU time for a given frame is roughly constant.

You ndon't even know your own slides? also why the sub i3 performance? really? did you turn all the graphics settings off to make all your game results single threaded?

I would have thought by now people are clued up enough to know that by turning graphics setting down you're reducing the load on CPU's, especially MT CPU's.

 

[W1zzard]

did you turn all the graphics settings off

All games are at highest settings.

Aaaaah, now I know what you mean. When overclocked, the 2700X is running 4.2 GHz all cores. When at stock (what is listed as 2700X 3.7 GHz in the charts), the CPU will boost, up to 4.3 GHz, which is 100 MHz higher than the manual OC. The 1800X will boost up to 4.1 GHz if I remember correctly, which is close enough to the 2700X's 4.2 GHz, to explain the small difference.

Does that help?

 

[bug]

Just curious, but if "Limited overclocking potential" is a con, why is "Soldered IHS" a pro?

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

First off, thanks for the review @W1zzard.

You can expect the price-performance to change the first time this chip goes on sale. Which, I expect we will be up to $100 on special sales from amazon, and maybe a few other etailers. From what I can gather the 2600 performance is right up there with the 2700, which might be a better price-perfomance buy.

Just curious, but if "Limited overclocking potential" is a con, why is "Soldered IHS" a pro?

because its not TIM!

 

[jabbadap]

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

you mean old kaby lake 7600k? It's actually quite literally same processor as i3 8350k.

 

[Xaled]

Guys, there are a lot more reviews on the net and all of them look a lot better for Ryzen 2 than this one, especially with its strange claims of 0 performance difference with +600Mhz.

This makes it look like Bulldozer Mk2, Ryzen is not Bulldozer, all other reviews have it close to Intel.

0 performance difference with +600? did u smoke something before reading the article? or did u even read it? .. u actually dont need to read it to know that 1800x and all other cpus has clock boost. unless the reviews you found on the net fixed the clock speed of 1800x at 3.6.

Ryzen 2 does look good in this review. not close to bulldozer at all. it is shame even to mention their names together..

 

[intrepid3d]

All games are at highest settings.

Aaaaah, now I know what you mean. When overclocked, the 2700X is running 4.2 GHz all cores. When at stock (what is listed as 2700X 3.7 GHz in the charts), the CPU will boost, up to 4.3 GHz, which is 100 MHz higher than the manual OC. The 1800X will boost up to 4.1 GHz if I remember correctly, which is close enough to the 2700X's 4.2 GHz, to explain the small difference.

Does that help?

Which proves your benchmarks are all limited to single threaded. In a world of Multithreded CPU's what is the point in that?

I'm probably wasting my time here because no reviewer like to be told something is not right with what they are doing, But in the hope that you might listen seriously please look again about how you do your benchmarks, because you are telling your viewers an i3 is a better gaming CPU than any Ryzen CPU, Do you use an i3 for high end GPU gaming? its a dreadful combination, the i3 is a really bad gaming CPU because what your slides don't show is the bad variation in performance you get between complex and empty scenes, you must have run you benchmarks in empty scenes because had you use complex scenes the i3 would have been right at the bottom.

Watch this Ryzen 1600 vs 7600K review, this guy knows what he's talking about and sure enough in actual fact, in complex scenes the 1600 is almost twice, yes twice as fast and the frame rate changes with the 7600K are so bad there is massive stuttering, none of this shows on any of your slides, in fact these days the way you do reviews is so bare-bones its outright not what anyone actually using these products would experience, its misleading, as misleading as you labeling the 8700K as running at 3.7Ghz, its running at at least 4.3Ghz if not 4.7Ghz, why is you tell pepole the CPU is running at 3.7Ghz a problem? because it makes people think they can get another 30% performance out of it by overclocking it, in realty its 10% or 2% if its actually running at 4.7Ghz and we don't know which it is, its certainly not 3.7Ghz.

http://imgur.com/jdinejn

 

[cucker tarlson]

I would have thought by now people are clued up enough to know that by turning graphics setting down you're reducing the load on CPU's, especially MT CPU's.

Uuumm...no. matter of fact, exactly opposite is true. Decrease the visual fidelity and the cpu has more work to do, increase the settings and resolution and the cpu has less work.

 

[btarunr]

 

[fullinfusion]

Great review @W1zzard thank you!

 

[cucker tarlson]

View attachment 99974

AMD - we make your intel CPU a better buy for the money !

 

[W1zzard]

as you labeling the 8700K as running at 3.7Ghz, its running at at least 4.3Ghz if not 4.7Ghz, why is you tell pepole the CPU is running at 3.7Ghz a problem? because it makes people think they can get another 30% performance out of it by overclocking it, in realty its 10% or 2% if its actually running at 4.7Ghz and we don't know which it is, its certainly not 3.7Ghz.

Hmm .. maybe we could list them as Base/Boost. ie "Core i7-8700K 3.7 / 4.7 GHz". But wouldn't that add a ton of noise to the charts?
What do other readers think?

 

[cucker tarlson]

Hmm .. maybe we could list them as Base/Boost. ie "Core i7-8700K 3.7 / 4.7 GHz". But wouldn't that add a ton of noise to the charts?
What do other readers think?

Should be 4.3 for the 8700K. That's what it runs stock in games. Not 3.7, not 4.7. It runs 4.3GHz.

 

[W1zzard]

i3 is a really bad gaming CPU

I cherry picked a result just like you did.

 

[intrepid3d]

Hmm .. maybe we could list them as Base/Boost. ie "Core i7-8700K 3.7 / 4.7 GHz". But wouldn't that add a ton of noise to the charts?
What do other readers think?

It should be what its actually running at.

 

[W1zzard]

It should be what its actually running at.

During each benchmark? Average? Which cores? Average the clocks? Or the highest? Or the lowest? (serious question)

I'm thinking about this right now for the request further up on reporting clocks at various thread-counts

 

[cucker tarlson]

Interpid3d doesn't get one thing.Faster single core performance is not equivalent to less cores, and vice versa. You're gonna find examples of ryzen beating i3 and i3 beating ryzen. That's why I think neither ryzen nor i3 are good for gaming. 6c/6t i5s and 4c/8t i7s have the best balance, fast single core and enough threads not to choke the cpu.

 

[intrepid3d]

I cherry picked a result just like you did.

Bad cherry pick, only a 10% difference, the one i picked the 1600 was 100% faster.

And you have clearly missed the whole point, something as a reviewer worth his salt you should know, you measure a CPU's performance at its weakest, not as you do at its best in empty scenes.

At thier weakest the Ryzen 1600 is 100% faster than the 7600K, that is the true measure of the performance differences in games, how they perform in those parts of the games that actually stress the CPU.