AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[bug]

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?

Friendly advice: tone it down while all your activity here is basically one thread spamming of "your review is wrong because it doesn't show what I want".
Grow a reputation before you can expect people will listen to you.

 

[W1zzard]

why no min fps tests this time around?

it seemed nobody cared, so i just dropped them. i couldn't find much to read out of them anyway tbh

 

[Shatun_Bear]

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).

I don't care how many cherry-picked games you found, the two processors are virtually neck-and-neck at 1440p on average, across 32 games. I will say again, look at the graphs.

You sound like someone insecure about his CPU choice who is trying to justify it against something that is far more powerful and ought to be much more expensive. And if you bring your 8600K into the price equation, don't try and pretend the 2600 or 2600X doesn't exist . The 2600X is just 1.9% slower than the 2700X (which has parity with your 8600K) at the res you game at, while only costing $230! That blows the 8600K out of the water in its price-to-performance ratio. Or are you just choosing to ignore that inconvenient fact?

Also, why would you pair a 1080 Ti with a bargain-price 6-thread CPU?

 

[unclesharkey]

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.

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?

I under standing what you are saying but you seem to be rather harsh regarding this specific review. A lot of the information presented in these types of reviews can be rather cryptic. I also think some of these graphs can be misleading because one low score can skew the entire set of numbers in a particular set. I mean if I was doing research I don't know if I could trust half of these results. That is why I prefer some of the sites on YouTube where you can see them actually playing the game for 15-30 minutes at a time. You see when the fps go up and down etc. I also think people make to much out of these reviews and benchmarks. Benchmarks aside most things in life are subjective, and I believe in the good enough philosophy. Hell I run a FX8320 stock with a 1060 6gb and I have no problems playing all the games I like. But if you look at the benchmarks my CPU is crap, garbage, portable heater. That may be true but it is good enough for me and cost wise I have saved a lot of money.

My opinion is that Ryzen is a great CPU when compared to Intel. In a lot of cases superior. Faster than intel in most threaded applications and very little difference in games. But everyone likes to point out the game benchmarks and that Intel is faster..... well in some specific situations. The truth is unless you are gaming with a 1080 there is very little difference between the Ryzen and Intel chips.
Ryzen is for the most part faster where it counts and is more cost friendly.

 

[bug]

I under standing what you are saying but you seem to be rather harsh regarding this specific review. A lot of the information presented in these types of reviews can be rather cryptic. I also think some of these graphs can be misleading because one low score can skew the entire set of numbers in a particular set. I mean if I was doing research I don't know if I could trust half of these results. That is why I prefer some of the sites on YouTube where you can see them actually playing the game for 15-30 minutes at a time. You see when the fps go up and down etc. I also think people make to much out of these reviews and benchmarks. Benchmarks aside most things in life are subjective, and I believe in the good enough philosophy. Hell I run a FX8320 stock with a 1060 6gb and I have no problems playing all the games I like. But if you look at the benchmarks my CPU is crap, garbage, portable heater. That may be true but it is good enough for me and cost wise I have saved a lot of money.

My opinion is that Ryzen is a great CPU when compared to Intel. In a lot of cases superior. Faster than intel in most threaded applications and very little difference in games. But everyone likes to point out the game benchmarks and that Intel is faster..... well in some specific situations. The truth is unless you are gaming with a 1080 there is very little difference between the Ryzen and Intel chips.
Ryzen is for the most part faster where it counts and is more cost friendly.

I'm totally with you.
I mean, people forget all too easily that many times the difference between the fastest and the slowest CPU in a benchmark is really the difference between an ok CPU and a more than ok CPU. They'll all get the job done after all. Video card, motherboard, SSD reviews, they all tell similar stories.
That said, games are not the only weakness for Ryzen. Ryzen also loses in a number of productivity benchmarks. Basically if what you do doesn't saturate a lot of cores most of the time, then you're probably better of with Intel. But that's for everyone to judge, there can (and usually are) more factors involved.

 

[W1zzard]

Charts have been remade and now include both base clock and max turbo

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm totally with you.
I mean, people forget all too easily that many times the difference between the fastest and the slowest CPU in a benchmark is really the difference between an ok CPU and a more than ok CPU. They'll all get the job done after all. Video card, motherboard, SSD reviews, they all tell similar stories.
That said, games are not the only weakness for Ryzen. Ryzen also loses in a number of productivity benchmarks. Basically if what you do doesn't saturate a lot of cores most of the time, then you're probably better of with Intel. But that's for everyone to judge, there can (and usually are) more factors involved.

yep. that is what I originally said. and since all I do is game, it makes sense for me to do Intel. now if I gamed and streamed... well I might do 2700x. but I don't, I am a private person and would never stream, so Intel it is.

also 8600k at 5ghz beats 8700k at 5ghz in Assassins Creed Origins at 1440- according to GamersNexus review min fps is again 12 fps better than ryzen OC'd at 4.3... so yeah, Intel for pure gaming experience.

Charts have been remade and now include both base clock and max turbo

you should have added in a 5.1 ghz 8600k to fight the oc'd 2700x

 

[HTC]

you should have added in a 5.1 ghz 8600k to fight the oc'd 2700x

1st: just because some manage to get the 8600k to 5.1 GHz doesn't mean everyone does, so a more "conservative" number would be required: 4.9? I'm sure most would reach that number.

That said, it the object of this review were an 8600k, sure: i'd totally agree. Since it's not, don't see the need, really.

 

[Space Lynx]

1st: just because some manage to get the 8600k to 5.1 GHz doesn't mean everyone does, so a more "conservative" number would be required: 4.9? I'm sure most would reach that number.

That said, it the object of this review were an 8600k, sure: i'd totally agree. Since it's not, don't see the need, really.

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8602/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-5-2600x-review/index9.html

another review showing 8700k stock beating ryzen 2700x stock at 1440p by 20 fps in multiple games.

also GamersNexus shows multiple OC's in his review. its fine TPU doesn't as I have other sources that do, so meh. also like 90% of the chips hit 5ghz.

You wanted more games being tested? Sure thing, here you go, 8700k is 100-42% faster in many games, the cherry picked latest games its only 10 fps or 10% faster, sure...

I have 20 more games as well... you get the picture by now I think...

 

[Vya Domus]

I am seeing some pretty considerable discrepancies between benchmarks of the same games on several other sites. Don't know what to make of any of them.

 

[Space Lynx]

I am seeing some pretty considerable discrepancies between benchmarks of the same games on several other sites. Don't know what to make of any of them.

Same. Intel leads in all of them for pure gaming min, max, and avg FPS though. So if you are a 'I only game on PC' gamer, there you go, buy Intel 8th gen. If you are a gamer who streams, 2700x is the winner. Simple as that.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

Same. Intel leads in all of them for pure gaming min, max, and avg FPS though. So if you are a 'I only game on PC' gamer, there you go, buy Intel 8th gen. If you are a gamer who streams, 2700x is the winner. Simple as that.

Here you go again.

It's not as simple as that. If you only game on PC, it only makes sense to buy an 8700K if:

1. You game at 1080p using a 1080 Ti

Seeing as the gaming performance differences are small even in this extremely narrow scenario, imo it makes sense in nearly all other circumstances to choose a 2700X. Much more multicore performance, comes with a cooler, cheaper motherboards, and AM4 will last you another gen on top of this one. No brainer.

 

[FYFI13]

when your gaming performance depends on the CPU, not the GPU, the Ryzen 1600 is roughly around 100% faster than the 7600K.

This is what happens to kids that eat Tide pods.

 

[evernessince]

Was the spectre/meltdown patch applied to the Intel system in this review?

 

[intrepid3d]

I asked that, didn't get an answer ^^^
----------------------------

Meh... to all these random slides. Anyone can make a slide and write anything they like on it, its why slide reviews are a dying breed, some of them are so extreme they are an obvious fake.

In videos you can actually see whats going on, and they don't lie.

Other than 10 FPS in Arma III there is nothing between the 8700K and the Ryzen 2700X.

 

[xorbe]

What's going on here? 8700k minimum is 101, and the AMD average is 123, so Intel's min is not greater than AMD's average. And all the charts say 1700X?

 

[intrepid3d]

What's going on here? 8700k minimum is 101, and the AMD average is 123, so Intel's min is not greater than AMD's average. And all the charts say 1700X?

Its Tweaktown, anything more need to be said? A known Intel shill site.

 

[magickai]

I asked that, didn't get an answer ^^^
----------------------------

Meh... to all these random slides. Anyone can make a slide and write anything they like on it, its why slide reviews are a dying breed, some of them are so extreme they are an obvious fake.

In videos you can actually see whats going on, and they don't lie.

Other than 10 FPS in Arma III there is nothing between the 8700K and the Ryzen 2700X.

you talk about lies, but thats what this video about, OC 2700x vs stock 8700K

 

[Melvis]

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

Just over 4GHz which is lovely!

 

[Nima]

Its Tweaktown, anything more need to be said? A known Intel shill site.

OMG, you are so obsessed with AMD that you are loosing your mind. listen kid these companies don't care about you. they are like monsters, they eat your flesh and spit your bones if they could. don't waste your mind and soul for them.

 

[W1zzard]

Was the spectre/meltdown patch applied to the Intel system in this review?

yup

 

[sergionography]

Thanks for the excellent review.
One point i wasn't sure about and couldn't find mention of in the review was whether the intel systems were tested with the latest spectre/meltdown variant 2 patches. Because to my knowledge all the x470 motherboards are patched on release.

 

[geon2k2]

Hmm, there is something wrong with the graphs, somehow you just like to show Ryzen at the bottom, when it is clear winner and should be at the top.

If lower is better why won't you sort the entries in the opposite order so that the lowest (better) would be at the top?
See the wprime graph for example.

 

[W1zzard]

whether the intel systems were tested with the latest spectre/meltdown variant 2 patches.

see two posts further up, or the end of the intro

at the bottom

we have always been sorting "best" to bottom. starting at the top from the worst scores

opposite order

charts that have higher is better are sorted "opposite", ie, still: best result at bottom

 

[[XC] Oj101]

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

Try using the BCLK to overclock instead of the multiplier