AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[Totally]

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.

Fyi, They Ryzen gameplay was a lot smoother than the Intel where the frame rate kept dropping or was jumping between two extremes. I'll take smoothness over that kind of distraction.

 

[Space Lynx]

Fyi, They Ryzen gameplay was a lot smoother than the Intel where the frame rate kept dropping or was jumping between two extremes. I'll take smoothness over that kind of distraction.

I hope you don't play older games, Ryzen can't even play some of them.

 

[W1zzard]

Try using the BCLK to overclock instead of the multiplier

Interesting idea, but won't work to get you any significant increases unless you have a special motherboard that fixes SATA and PCIe clocks to 100

 

[medi01]

Sorry, I just quickly skimmed through the article, had latest Intel's security patches against Meltdown/Spectre been used in this benchmark?

 

[Space Lynx]

Sorry, I just quickly skimmed through the article, had latest Intel's security patches against Meltdown/Spectre been used in this benchmark?

Yes, says it on first page...

lol W1zzard is going to quit posting reviews after this launch, his poor soul

 

[Readlight]

Iznt that StoreMI something like RAPID mode. It steals RAM and won't do anything.

 

[intrepid3d]

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

Actually both are overclocked. 4.4Ghz vs 4.2Ghz.

Most reviewers like to use custom loops or at least high end 240mm AIO's to cool overclocked 8700K's, they don't overclock at all without those, not everyone can afford those high end coolers, maybe the reviewer in this case couldn't.

And if so i don't see anything wrong with the review, it doesn't always have to be shown in its best light needing those very expensive cooling solutions, Ryzen doesn't need them because its HS is soldered and the CPU is power efficient, Intel don't always need to be given a free ride, Make your CPU's better, Intel.

 

[medi01]

yup

Any noticeable impact in games?

Ryzen can't even play some of them.

Are you paid for spreading FUD, or is it sorta hobby?

 

[W1zzard]

Yes, says it on first page...

Added the same text to the conclusion page, in bold.

Any noticeable impact in games?

No idea. I didn't test before and after with just the patches. A lot has changed between now and earlier CPU tests, so you can't just compare scores.

 

[Melvis]

I hope you don't play older games, Ryzen can't even play some of them.

Like which ones?

 

[ikeke]

I quite like mine. Upgraded from launch day R7 1700 which did 3.8Ghz all core max.

http://valid.x86.fr/za2lwf

 

[jabbadap]

Just over 4GHz which is lovely!

Well yeah, 4.05GHz all core says he on occt and blender. Amd did gave the table of threads vs clock.

Spoiler: R7 2700x AVG clock speed per threads

There's striking similarities to that canardpcs printed review on those curvatures(canardpc used smt off). Differencies on core clocks can be explained by used motherboard(Canardpc used a320, which don't support enhanced xfr 2 nor precision boost 2).

 

[medi01]

computerbase.de is also done with review, they focus on memory latencies (which seem to have major impact on gaming) and get to 2700x beating 1800 by about 12% (2-3 times more than techpowerup).
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/8/

 

[laszlo]

must say good job AMD!

is a win-win for all of us no matter preferences so let the price war begin!

 

[I No]

Good for AMD. I'm really impressed more with the pressure it puts on Intel to get their heads out of the gutter. Shame the same thing can't be said in the GPU side of things...

 

[intrepid3d]

Good for AMD. I'm really impressed more with the pressure it puts on Intel to get their heads out of the gutter. Shame the same thing can't be said in the GPU side of things...

According to this review, the 2700X is slower than an i3, which on the face of this review makes them over priced and slow. it should be priced at below the i3.

Other reviews show a vastly better picture than this one but the question is who do you believe? if you believe this one the 2700X is useless for gaming.

As always with AMD how good or bad it is depends on which review site you go to, with that in mind if you use you PC for games why would you buy AMD at all?

 

[I No]

According to this review, the 2700X is slower than an i3, which on the face of this review makes them over priced and slow.

Other reviews show a vastly better picture than this one but the question is who do you believe? if you believe this one the 2700X is useless for gaming.

Doesn't really matter in the long run. It gives people options and this is the big picture. It might take them 2 additional cores to keep up with Intel's offerings but they do it a lower price point. The market will never be 50-50 nor close to that for that matter but it might be a good smack for the competition which would drive innovation and for me that thing matters more than a few %'s in fps in a game. Be that as it may I don't see many current Ryzen owners or anything form Skylake and up upgrading to this platform but it does give people running older gen rigs options as opposed to a forced upgrade pattern based on one manufacturer.

 

[bug]

According to this review, the 2700X is slower than an i3, which on the face of this review makes them over priced and slow. it should be priced at below the i3.

Other reviews show a vastly better picture than this one but the question is who do you believe? if you believe this one the 2700X is useless for gaming.

As always with AMD how good or bad it is depends on which review site you go to, with that in mind if you use you PC for games why would you buy AMD at all?

At this point I can't tell whether you're just being stubborn or you just can't read.
How on Earth does this review paint the 2700X as "useless for gaming", when it shows that even in the most CPU limited scenario (gaming @720p), the 8700k is just 16% faster? There's a big graph showing just this in the review.

 

[intrepid3d]

Well i'm struggling to understand what is and isn't real.

Of course it matters, forget about the 8700K, if the 2700X can't even compete with the i3 its junk for gaming, think about it, what place does it have if it cannot keep up with an i3?

Can you answer that?

 

[I No]

Well i'm struggling to understand what is and isn't real.

Of course it matters, forget about the 8700K, if the 2700X can't even compete with the i3 its junk for gaming, think about it, what place does it have if it cannot keep up with an i3?

Can you answer that?

It actually depends. For example if you only base it on benchmarks alone it would paint a picture far from what you might end up using it for. Let's say you're getting a new rig and your aim is gaming. Further down the road you might want to stream or do a little bit of video encoding and whatnot. Would you take 4 cores for the FPS or you'll go for the extra cores and threads that would help out in something other than gaming? And since we're on that note no one uses their PCs for only gaming.
Truth be told the reason why I went to a 8700k instead of a Ryzen was the platform instability that was a deal breaker for me at that time. One thing sticks to AMD and always has been they are trying to be the jack of all trades the only difference is this time they put a dent in market. Ryzen maybe many things but Bulldozer it is not. I wouldn't have any issues with recommending AMD vs Intel in this day and time.

 

[intrepid3d]

It actually depends. For example if you only base it on benchmarks alone it would paint a picture far from what you might end up using it for. Let's say you're getting a new rig and your aim is gaming. Further down the road you might want to stream or do a little bit of video encoding and whatnot. Would you take 4 cores for the FPS or you'll go for the extra cores and threads that would help out in something other than gaming? And since we're on that note no one uses their PCs for only gaming.
Truth be told the reason why I went to a 8700k instead of a Ryzen was the platform instability that was a deal breaker for me at that time. One thing sticks to AMD and always has been they are trying to be the jack of all trades the only difference is this time they put a dent in market. Ryzen maybe many things but Bulldozer it is not. I wouldn't have any issues with recommending AMD vs Intel in this day and time.

Its not actually Bulldozer, but i'm sorry this looks to me like Bulldozer of 2018. Bulldozer was also good for gaming and streaming at the same time, it was junk just for gaming so people had to find merrits to apply to it, "its good for streaming your games" yes but a low end Intel CPU is better for gaming full stop.

Look at this slide the gaming performance is abysmal, again why would any one spend more than $100 on anything this bad?

 

[bug]

Well i'm struggling to understand what is and isn't real.

Of course it matters, forget about the 8700K, if the 2700X can't even compete with the i3 its junk for gaming, think about it, what place does it have if it cannot keep up with an i3?

Can you answer that?

The same graph shows the i3 giving 97.1% of the performance of a 2700X in gaming @720, so you may want to explain what do you mean by "the 2700X can't even compete with the i3".

 

[I No]

Its not actually Bulldozer, but i'm sorry this looks to me like Bulldozer of 2018. Bulldozer was also good for gaming and streaming at the same time, it was junk just for gaming so people had to find merrits to apply to it, "its good for streaming your games" yes but a low end Intel CPU is better for gaming full stop.

Look at this slide the gaming performance is abysmal, again why would any one spend more than $100 on anything this bad?

View attachment 100018

It's 16% out of the box at a lower price-point for gaming and it's better for productivity. I don't see anything wrong with that. Furthermore no one will keep a CPU until it becomes the bottleneck. The GPU will bottleneck the system far faster than a CPU will. If you put the whole context into day-to-day use you won't notice a big difference between the platforms no one games at 720p with a shiny new processor let's be honest. The only thing that 720p test shows is how do CPU's stack up against each other in a CPU limited scenario and I for one never felt that scenario actually happening and no gamer would. If you up the resolution the GPU becomes the elephant in the room so yeah....
And oh the only thing Bulldozer was good for was a coaster and heating up your room.

 

[intrepid3d]

The Ryzen CPU is already a massive bottleneck, look at the slide. ^^^^^

The same graph shows the i3 giving 97.1% of the performance of a 2700X in gaming @720, so you may want to explain what do you mean by "the 2700X can't even compete with the i3".

Ironically the 2700X is slower when overclocked, thats why, the i3 overclocks too, but it actually gets faster when you overclock it.

Look, its an i3, a cheap and cheerful CPU, better than AMD's finest, clearly its Bulldozer 2018.

 

[I No]

The Ryzen CPU is already a massive bottleneck, look at the slide. ^^^^^



Ironically the 2700X is slower when overclocked, thats why, the i3 overclocks too, but it actually gets faster when you overclock it.

Look, its an i3, a cheap and cheerful CPU, better than AMD's finest, clearly its Bulldozer 2018.

Dude you're looking at the picture from GAMING at 720p point of view. Widen the frame, people use these things for a lot more things that getting high FPS in CS:GO. Put yourself in a content creator's shoes and look at this from his POV. No one games on 720p in 2018 with a brand new CPU check the standard resolutions and draw your conclusions from there.