AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[BasedOndread]

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

did you forget 8700k dont come with cooler you must and must buy water cooling for 8700k to max out performance and what margin ? 10 FPS ? adding freaking cost to gain 10 to 20 FPS ? AIO Cooler 109$ + Z board

 

[cucker tarlson]

did you forget 8700k dont come with cooler you must and must buy water cooling for 8700k to max out performance and what margin ? 10 FPS ? adding freaking cost to gain 10 to 20 FPS ? AIO Cooler 109$ + Z board

Yes. Are you kidding ? 20 fps ? Even 10 fps ? It's a huge difference. That's 1080Ti vs 1080 difference.

 

[dicktracy]

Anand are one of the oldest, most knowledgeable and professional reviewers there are, they have been around doing it better than most for decades.

I think they are on to something, they usually are.

That was valid when Anand was still heading it. It’s not the same site it once was.

 

[BasedOndread]

Yes. Are you kidding ? 20 fps ? Even 10 fps ? It's a huge difference. That's 1080Ti vs 1080 difference.

no no no no

we are talking price on initial moderator reply,, he talking about price,, if you are rich kid and want more 10 fps with 200$ more money than 10 less fps ryzen, fine,, because you said 8700k is same price and its better but forget about Overall Build cost

but ryzen has great bargain, the gaming is good and dominate multithreaded workload,, im always buy 4 core since phenom II x4 era and current i5 2500 im using, for this reason more core giceme lot headroom

 

[cucker tarlson]

no no no no

we are talking price on initial moderator reply,, he talking about price,, if you are rich kid and want more 10 fps with 200$ more money than 10 less fps ryzen, fine,, because you said 8700k is same price and its better but forget about Overall Build cost

but ryzen has great bargain, the gaming is good and dominate multithreaded workload,, im always buy 4 core since phenom II x4 era and current i5 2500 im using, for this reason more core giceme lot headroom

I hear your point, I think you're right up to a point, but you're exaggerating as well. You don't have to spend $200 more on z370 and cooling. Matter of fact, for 1700X/2700X you WILL need a good x370/x470 board too if you wanna overclock. Sure, mulitplier is unlocked on b350, but vrm quality just won't handle a 8 core chip at 1.35-1.45v. A good cooler is a quality feature on its own. Sure, you may stick with amd's cooler but you'll never get the noise/performance ratio of a good $50 air cooler like TR Macho, which is usually best price/quality.

 

[B-Real]

So 7% difference in FHD gaming, 3% in 1440P and 1% in 4K with a 1080 Ti, same overall CPU performance for 40$ less? And I still didn't mention the 2700 or the 2600. Great work again, AMD.

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.

Maybe gamers don't buy Ryzen 2700X but 2600-2600X for gaming and a better than 8600K CPU performance? 2600X and 8600K difference is 7% only with a 1080Ti, and you get a better overall CPU performance with the 2600X for 12% less money. BTW, gamers don't buy 8700K either, but a 8600K.

 

[unclesharkey]

Interesting results from Anandtech... Ryzen 2700X walks all over the 8700K https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/17

And this may be why....

"We ran our tests on a fresh version of RS3 + April Security Updates + Meltdown/Spectre patches using our standard testing implementation. "

Did TPU do that or was it a clean system without the performance hampering Intel fixes?

View attachment 99976

Did you just come here to troll? Just read the review, and the many other reviews online, and on YouTube, and come to your own conclusions. If you don't like the reviews being done then do your own. But don't be a troll.

 

[VSG]

Did you just come here to troll? Just read the review, and the many other reviews online, and on YouTube, and come to your own conclusions. If you don't like the reviews being done then do your own. But don't be a troll.

I don't see him trolling at all, he's being courteous and trying to understand discrepancies in expectations and numbers from one outlet to another. Whether the reasoning is valid is a different matter, but I have zero problems with him.

 

[S@LEM!]

aside from getting closer ( 3% in 1440P ) which most will play at, these benchmark does not represent the real-world scenario where you have 10 Apps running background with windows updates all over the place, unremoved registers and bloated files. things will get interesting.

good review!
the point where you have to mention the boosted Hz while gaming is a great value to be added and frankly, even me missed it out

 

[intrepid3d]

Did you just come here to troll? Just read the review, and the many other reviews online, and on YouTube, and come to your own conclusions. If you don't like the reviews being done then do your own. But don't be a troll.

Because i disagree with some of it? did you actually study anything i said or do you just want to live in an echo-chamber?

 

[CheapMeat]

Man, I love it all. It's amazing how well the XFR and similar tech in it does. I can't imagine how much better Zen 2 will be (I decided to wait).

 

[cadaveca]

or do you just want to live in an echo-chamber?

Interestingly enough, asking all sites to do the exact same review is kind of asking for an echo-chamber.

 

[Vario]

did you forget 8700k dont come with cooler you must and must buy water cooling for 8700k to max out performance and what margin ? 10 FPS ? adding freaking cost to gain 10 to 20 FPS ? AIO Cooler 109$ + Z board

No you don't. It runs just fine on air.

 

[Space Lynx]

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

at 1440p (which is what I game at) stock clocks 8600k beats it by 10 fps in Far Cry 5 and 9 fps in BF1... and since my 8600k runs at 5.1ghz 24.7 on air never breaking 60 celsius... probably can add another 5 fps on top of that if not more. If I needed that many threads 2700x would be a good deal though, but since all I do is game, I will stick with my 8600k at 5,1

@W1zzard why no min fps tests this time around? its an important bench for smooth gameplay... would love to see how much of a difference there is, was 10 fps across the board last gen / time... big difference for smooth gameplay imo.

@Vario is correct. i never break 60 celsius on air at 5.1ghz no downclocking ever.

edit: i found a review with min fps... https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/page3.html decimation - tho it woulda been nice to see 1440p numbers

though it would have been nice to see it at 1440p... at 1080p my 5.1 8600k is utterly decimating OC'd ryzen 2700x... 20-30 fps across the board... yikes, not to mention $100 cheaper and I re-used my old Noctua cooler from 5 years ago...

 

[R0H1T]

Interestingly enough, asking all sites to do the exact same review is kind of asking for an echo-chamber.

Not really, as has been said & discussed over a million times on this forum & many others ~ ideally these tests should include spectre & meltdown fixes, all of them. Do you think people should hold off updating their OS, to fall (Creator's) update or whatever comes next, because they'll have these fixes baked in? You aren't showing the full picture unless you're running the tests with the latest patches, that impact performance & most importantly security. I can't believe how tech (review) sites don't highlight this aspect of hardware more rigorously! If the situation is more fluid, wrt performance impact of the patches, then users will get a better idea as to what they can expect from their current hardware or even future purchases.

 

[efikkan]

The amd official system memory for Ryzen 7 2700x is 2933MHz, over than that is considered overclocking(xmp profiles). Last gen. Ryzen 7s it was 2666MHz, thus review were with 2667MHz memory.

Sorry, you missed my point. I know DDR4-2933 is the spec, I was asking if anyone knew why AMD (and Intel) chose this.
Actually, this review says "DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34".

 

[trparky]

at 1440p (which is what I game at) stock clocks 8600k beats it by 10 fps in Far Cry 5

No offense but can you really see tell the difference? Ten frames per second is really no big deal. Now if we were talking about a 25 to 30 frames per second difference then we would definitely have something to talk about. But ten? Really? Other than having the bragging rights there's really no difference.

 

[Space Lynx]

No offense but can you really see tell the difference? Ten frames per second is really no big deal. Now if we were talking about a 25 to 30 frames per second difference then we would definitely have something to talk about. But ten? Really? Other than having the bragging rights there's really no difference.

When you add in my 5.1ghz OC its prob more like 15. and yes I can tell the difference between 144hz and 165hz, I switch back and forth in game all the time to test it, I have also seen a 240hz monitor, and while its huge diminishing returns after 165 fps, its still slightly better, but 165 is indeed my sweet spot.

 

[trparky]

When you add in my 5.1ghz OC its prob more like 15. and yes I can tell the difference between 144hz and 165hz, I switch back and forth in game all the time to test it, I have also seen a 240hz monitor, and while its huge diminishing returns after 165 fps, its still slightly better, but 165 is indeed my sweet spot.

Here I am at 1080p@60Hz. I feel like such a pleb with that comment of yours.

 

[Space Lynx]

Here I am at 1080p@60Hz. I feel like such a pleb with that comment of yours.

In all honesty, 100hz is the real sweet spot, like say you are slaying Orcs in lord of the rings game, there is no blur at all, you can see the sword move in full, its glorious and very immersive. anything above 100hz is diminishing returns. but 60hz is too blurry for me, sword in mid swing is blurry, ruins the immersion. just imo.

 

[trparky]

Oh, I would definitely love to go to 1440p@100Hz but damn if I can afford it. Not only are the monitor prices high but GPU prices are still stupidly above MSRP. If it wasn't for price I would go for that it in a heart beat but seeing as I'm trying to stay below $1450 USD with this build of mine I have to cut corners where I can.

 

[the54thvoid]

Here I am at 1080p@60Hz. I feel like such a pleb with that comment of yours.

I wouldn't worry, all major media is still at, what, 24fps, it's a bit of a phallic contest with gamers right now with ultra high fps with marginal gains. I'd rather have 4k, given I'm not a pro gamer and would rather have more pixel real estate.

 

[Space Lynx]

I wouldn't worry, all major media is still at, what, 24fps, it's a bit of a phallic contest with gamers right now with ultra high fps with marginal gains. I'd rather have 4k, given I'm not a pro gamer and would rather have more pixel real estate.

Enjoy your blurry sword swings. Also, head shots are easier to get in FPS games at 100hz, its just more immersive, but we all have different tastes, no reason to call those of us that don't enjoy blurry messes "phallic".

 

[Shatun_Bear]

at 1440p (which is what I game at) stock clocks 8600k beats it by 10 fps in Far Cry 5 and 9 fps in BF1... and since my 8600k runs at 5.1ghz 24.7 on air never breaking 60 celsius... probably can add another 5 fps on top of that if not more. If I needed that many threads 2700x would be a good deal though, but since all I do is game, I will stick with my 8600k at 5,1

though it would have been nice to see it at 1440p... at 1080p my 5.1 8600k is utterly decimating OC'd ryzen 2700x... 20-30 fps across the board... yikes, not to mention $100 cheaper and I re-used my old Noctua cooler from 5 years ago...

What on earth are you talking about?

1. 8600K virtually neck-and-neck with the 2700X @ 1440p resolution on average. Throwing in outliers is not going to change that fact. Look at the graphs.
2. 5.1Ghz OC is not going to add much as in this very review, TPU found that 5Ghz overclock on a 8700K nets only....1-3% gaming performance gains over stock.
3. Please tell me you game with a 1080 Ti or this is all just face-palm, as you do realise that for the Intel's to gain this small amount of performance advantage (was it 7%) in gaming, you've got to be using a 1080 Ti whilst gaming at 1080p (which, bizarrely, you're talking about 1440p to add to the silliness)?

Please explain the critical thinking inside your head by all means...

 

[Space Lynx]

What on earth are you talking about?

1. 8600K virtually neck-and-neck with the 2700X @ 1440p resolution on average. Throwing in outliers is not going to change that fact. Look at the graphs.
2. 5.1Ghz OC is not going to add much as in this very review, TPU found that 5Ghz overclock on a 8700K nets only....1-3% gaming performance gains over stock.
3. Please tell me you game with a 1080 Ti or this is all just face-palm, as you do realise that for the Intel's to gain this small amount of performance advantage (was it 7%) in gaming, you've got to be using a 1080 Ti whilst gaming at 1080p (which, bizarrely, you're talking about 1440p to add to the silliness)?

Please explain the critical thinking inside your head by all means...

I found 5 games that have 10+ fps increase in same system over 2700x OC'd and 8600k at stock...
Learn to use System Specs under peoples names, yes I use a 1080 Ti...
Also, min fps is increased across the board with Intel, as shown in the techspot review I linked a few posts up, (min fps creates a smoother gaming experience).