AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[bug]

@W1zzard Consider this my reporting on @intrepid3d for spamming/rambling.

 

[intrepid3d]

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.

Why bother testing for it?

He also tested 1080P and it has the same outcome and with what was it? about 20 games? most of them even at 1080P the performance is below the i3.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

Again why would anyone buy something like that to play games on?

 

[I No]

Why bother testing for it?

He also tested 1080P and it has the same outcome and with what was it? about 20 games? most of them even at 1080P the performance is below the i3.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

Again why would anyone buy something like that to play games on?

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/14.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

Are these results make the games tested unplayable? we're talking about less that 2% difference in 1080p gaming..... and a whole 7% less than a 8700k for a much cheaper price point. The only way this would mean something is that if the 2% would make the difference between playable and unplayable which clearly isn't the case........ Seriously this discussion is pointless if you think something that's priced lower and offers performance within single digits of the competition in games is wrong .... I rest my case

 

[cucker tarlson]

Why bother testing for it?

He also tested 1080P and it has the same outcome and with what was it? about 20 games? most of them even at 1080P the performance is below the i3.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

Again why would anyone buy something like that to play games on?

I don't know whether you like or dislike that 2700x cpu, can you give us like a two sentence summary ?

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/14.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

Are these results make the games tested unplayable? we're talking about less that 2% difference in 1080p gaming..... and a whole 7% less than a 8700k for a much cheaper price point. The only way this would mean something is that if the 2% would make the difference between playable and unplayable which clearly isn't the case........ Seriously this discussion is pointless if you think something that's priced lower and offers performance within single digits of the competition in games is wrong .... I rest my case

It's 7% in this review. If you find more cpu intensive scenarious, the gap grows substantially.

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,34
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,35
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,36
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,37
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,38
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,39
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,40
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,41
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,42
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,43

This here can be interpteted as worst possible scenario. It depends on a particular game whether it is indicative of how a game will run. I played most of them, and I can tell you this: in some of them you'll see this difference quite often, in some it will definitely not be indicative of how a game runs overall. If you're a performance enthusiast, you'll likely be disappointed by how ryzen handles some cpu intensive scenarios.

also, occt power draw

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,44

their 1800x system needed 280W for 4.1GHz OC, so that's a lot more power to achieve that 150MHz OC, mostly due to voltage, it needs crazy 1.475v to stay stable at 4250MHz on all cores.

 

[intrepid3d]

I don't know, when mulling over a gaming CPU all i can see from these slides is the i3 at half the price is better. ^^^^

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/14.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

Are these results make the games tested unplayable? we're talking about less that 2% difference in 1080p gaming..... and a whole 7% less than a 8700k for a much cheaper price point. The only way this would mean something is that if the 2% would make the difference between playable and unplayable which clearly isn't the case........ Seriously this discussion is pointless if you think something that's priced lower and offers performance within single digits of the competition in games is wrong .... I rest my case

According to these slides all the Intel CPU's have margin of error the same performance, what that tells me is they can't all be the same so they must be bottlenecked by the GPU, given that only the Ryzen CPU's are actually slower it can only be that they are the bottleneck.

 

[mroofie]

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

Savage

 

[FeelinFroggy]

I don't know, when mulling over a gaming CPU all i can see from these slides is the i3 at half the price is better. ^^^^

I have read all your comments on this thread and it reminds me of the scene in the movie Swingers. Where the guy leaves about 20 messages on the girls phone. Its still painful to watch.

A lot of games, scale very well with fast single threaded CPU performance. This is something the i3 8350k and other Intel chips are very good at. They have a lead over AMD (a small lead) in IPC for single threads and they have higher clock speeds. Thus, they will perform better in applications (games) that like single threaded performance. In these situations, the i3 will perform better than the 2700x, 2600x, 1950x, and so on. This is why the i3 (particularly the 8100) is a fantastic budget CPU.

Not all games scale to faster single cores. BF1, like you showed on an earlier is a very CPU heavy title. One of the hardest games on a CPU. The 1600 is going to do a lot better a lot better than a 4 thread CPU on that game as 6600k is the minimum CPU requirement for that game. There is not one CPU that is great at everything. But the 2700x is good at everything.

You are also comparing the 2700x OC to the stock 2700x. When you overclock a Ryzen CPU and an Intel CPU for that matter, you disable turbo. The way these turbos work is they scale to cores. All core turbo on a 8700k is 4.3, but running at stock clocks the 8700k will run single threaded processes at 4.7. AMD has a similar feature with their single core boost (I think it is 4.35 but it has only been out for a day so someone will correct me if I am wrong). So when you overclock the 2700x to 4.2, the turbo and XFR is disabled and all cores are running at 4.2. When an application (game) that scales well to single threaded CPU performance (see paragraph above) is played on an overclocked 2700x the single core speed is only 4.2ghz, instead of 4.35ghz of a stock 2700x. So when you overclock the 2700x, you hurt it's single core performance, which in turn will hurt performance in a lot of games.

The best part about Ryzen+ is also the worst part. AMD in a low of ways has eliminated the need for overclocking Ryzen CPUs in gaming with their turbo boost technology. You dont need an expensive "x" motherboard or cooler. You just need a motherboard and cooler that will handle the turbo and XFR. The worst part is it does not look like Ryzen+ can overclock past it's single core turbo. They have squeezed all of the juice out of the orange. This was an issue with the first gen because it looks like Ryzen hits a hard wall at 4.2-4.3. Maybe Zen 2 will fix these issues as I am sure that AMD is trying.

I am impressed with what AMD has done as they really have closed the gap in gaming and this review shows that. It also shows, that in today's gaming that single threaded CPU performance is still very important and AMD has closed the gap considerably from where they were 2 years ago.

 

[intrepid3d]

I have read all your comments on this thread and it reminds me of the scene in the movie Swingers. Where the guy leaves about 20 messages on the girls phone. Its still painful to watch.

A lot of games, scale very well with fast single threaded CPU performance. This is something the i3 8350k and other Intel chips are very good at. They have a lead over AMD (a small lead) in IPC for single threads and they have higher clock speeds. Thus, they will perform better in applications (games) that like single threaded performance. In these situations, the i3 will perform better than the 2700x, 2600x, 1950x, and so on. This is why the i3 (particularly the 8100) is a fantastic budget CPU.

Not all games scale to faster single cores. BF1, like you showed on an earlier is a very CPU heavy title. One of the hardest games on a CPU. The 1600 is going to do a lot better a lot better than a 4 thread CPU on that game as 6600k is the minimum CPU requirement for that game. There is not one CPU that is great at everything. But the 2700x is good at everything.

You are also comparing the 2700x OC to the stock 2700x. When you overclock a Ryzen CPU and an Intel CPU for that matter, you disable turbo. The way these turbos work is they scale to cores. All core turbo on a 8700k is 4.3, but running at stock clocks the 8700k will run single threaded processes at 4.7. AMD has a similar feature with their single core boost (I think it is 4.35 but it has only been out for a day so someone will correct me if I am wrong). So when you overclock the 2700x to 4.2, the turbo and XFR is disabled and all cores are running at 4.2. When an application (game) that scales well to single threaded CPU performance (see paragraph above) is played on an overclocked 2700x the single core speed is only 4.2ghz, instead of 4.35ghz of a stock 2700x. So when you overclock the 2700x, you hurt it's single core performance, which in turn will hurt performance in a lot of games.

The best part about Ryzen+ is also the worst part. AMD in a low of ways has eliminated the need for overclocking Ryzen CPUs in gaming with their turbo boost technology. You dont need an expensive "x" motherboard or cooler. You just need a motherboard and cooler that will handle the turbo and XFR. The worst part is it does not look like Ryzen+ can overclock past it's single core turbo. They have squeezed all of the juice out of the orange. This was an issue with the first gen because it looks like Ryzen hits a hard wall at 4.2-4.3. Maybe Zen 2 will fix these issues as I am sure that AMD is trying.

I am impressed with what AMD has done as they really have closed the gap in gaming and this review shows that. It also shows, that in today's gaming that single threaded CPU performance is still very important and AMD has closed the gap considerably from where they were 2 years ago.

So why is it not a single one of the reviews show this? using your example, BF1, the i3 is 15% out infront of the 2700X. if that's a case where the 2700x is supposed to come good in CPU heavy games its still really bad, far worse than the i3.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/12.html

lol, Same guy keeps down voting me, don't lurk laszlo say whats on your mind.

 

[trparky]

Seriously this discussion is pointless if you think something that's priced lower and offers performance within single digits of the competition in games is wrong .... I rest my case

Not in my area, I'm seeing prices for both AMD Ryzen and the Intel 8600K to be nearly neck-and-neck. Then again. Microcenter is known to run some really good deals on motherboard and processor bundles where they take a loss on the processor because they're betting on you wanting to buy other things with it (case, PSU, RAM, etc.).

Microcenter AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and ASUS ROG Strix X470-F Processor and Motherboard Bundle -- $394.98
Microcenter Intel Core i5-8600K and ASUS ROG Strix Z370-E Processor and Motherboard Bundle -- $399.98

They're practically trading blows here.

 

[Space Lynx]

The thing that no one seems to be looking at here, is that min frame rates are still 10-15% better across the board with intel, which means more smooth gameplay when more enemies get on screen, etc. This is according to GamersNexus youtube review.

Not in my area, I'm seeing prices for both AMD Ryzen and the Intel 8600K to be nearly neck-and-neck. Then again. Microcenter is known to run some really good deals on motherboard and processor bundles where they take a loss on the processor because they're betting on you wanting to buy other things with it (case, PSU, RAM, etc.).

Microcenter AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and ASUS ROG Strix X470-F Processor and Motherboard Bundle -- $394.98
Microcenter Intel Core i5-8600K and ASUS ROG Strix Z370-E Processor and Motherboard Bundle -- $399.98

They're practically trading blows here.

that is a bad price example... I got my Z370 tomahawk for $99, and 8600k for $221 just two weeks ago on a sale.

 

[trparky]

that is a bad price example... I got my Z370 tomahawk for $99, and 8600k for $221 just two weeks ago on a sale.

I'm just saying that the idea that AMD is somehow drastically cheaper than Intel is patently false, the prices I quoted (even though they may not be as good as the prices you got) prove that.

 

[bug]

Not in my area, I'm seeing prices for both AMD Ryzen and the Intel 8600K to be nearly neck-and-neck. Then again. Microcenter is known to run some really good deals on motherboard and processor bundles where they take a loss on the processor because they're betting on you wanting to buy other things with it (case, PSU, RAM, etc.).

Microcenter AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and ASUS ROG Strix X470-F Processor and Motherboard Bundle -- $394.98
Microcenter Intel Core i5-8600K and ASUS ROG Strix Z370-E Processor and Motherboard Bundle -- $399.98

They're practically trading blows here.

Intel doesn't come with a haetsink, so that's another $20-30 in favour of AMD

 

[cucker tarlson]

I'm just saying that the idea that AMD is somehow drastically cheaper than Intel is patently false, the prices I quoted (even though they may not be as good as the prices you got) prove that.

People fall for the illusion of amd being cheap, that is what their marketing team is trying to achieve and is doing it successfully. Of course amd has an in-box cooler and can be oc'd on b350 boards. But what oc can you achieve with stock cooler and b350 ? You need as good cooling and as good a mobo for 2600X as you need for 8600K if you wanna push them.

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm just saying that the idea that AMD is somehow drastically cheaper than Intel is patently false, the prices I quoted (even though they may not be as good as the prices you got) prove that.

holy crap, I just realized I got my mobo and 8600k cheaper than a single 2700x chip, lol i didn't realize that until now for some reason, I re-used my 5-6 year old NH-d14 as well, meh its all good. competition is good for all of us we can all agree there. im very happy with the deals i got though

 

[FeelinFroggy]

So why is it not a single one of the reviews show this? using your example, BF1, the i3 is 15% out infront of the 2700X. if that's a case where the 2700x is supposed to come good in CPU heavy games its still really bad, far worse than the i3.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/12.html

lol, Same guy keeps down voting me, don't lurk laszlo say whats on your mind.

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the 720p resolution stats. In fact, I don't really care. Some people think running at 720p puts all of the bottleneck on the CPU, and in some ways it definitely does. But it is not a real world indicator and there are more factors going into playing a game than the CPU. No one is going to run a system with a 1080ti at 720p. The 1080ti was not designed to run at such low resolution so there are going to be anomalies. When you look at the 1080p results for BF1 the results are very different as the is only a few fps difference between all of the top Intel CPUs. Maybe it was the sequence that was benched in BF1. The game does not have a built in benchmark which makes things very difficult. In fact many of the games don't have built in benchmarks. This is why you should be look at cumulative averages and not one off performances because there are just too many variables from hardware configuration to settings to what sequence used in the games.

Oh, and here is a nickel's worth of free advice. Expect to be down voted if you come to a site criticizing the reviewer and saying that they do not know how to do a review. You have basically accused the reviewer of being paid by Intel to make an AMD product look bad. You accused him of running Intel CPUs pre specter and meltdown patches and accused his graphs as being misleading. When the reviewer addressed the meltdown and specter patches and went back and updated every graph to include the base and boost clocks so your feelings would not get hurt. That is 14 games with 22 different CPUs at 4 different resolutions. That comes out to 1,232 individual results in just gaming benchmarks. Do you have any idea how long it takes to bench 1,232 individual gaming results on three different platforms? And you are complaining about 1 of 1,232. Show some respect and you will get respect.

 

[trparky]

OK then...

ASUS TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING LGA 1151 ATX Intel Motherboard -- $119.99
Intel Core i5-8600K Coffee Lake 3.6 GHz LGA 1151 Boxed Processor -- $219.99 Retail Price ($189.99 if bought with a compatible motherboard)
Corsair Certified Hydro Series H100i v2 -- $69.99

Total price... $379.97

Compare that to the Microcenter AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and ASUS ROG Strix X470-F Processor and Motherboard Bundle which is $394.98.

Again, all I'm saying is that the idea that AMD is somehow drastically cheaper than Intel is patently false. I'm not trying to be a fanboy here, all I'm doing is doing the math and the math doesn't lie.

 

[Space Lynx]

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the 720p resolution stats. In fact, I don't really care. Some people think running at 720p puts all of the bottleneck on the CPU, and in some ways it definitely does. But it is not a real world indicator and there are more factors going into playing a game than the CPU. No one is going to run a system with a 1080ti at 720p. The 1080ti was not designed to run at such low resolution so there are going to be anomalies. When you look at the 1080p results for BF1 the results are very different as the is only a few fps difference between all of the top Intel CPUs. Maybe it was the sequence that was benched in BF1. The game does not have a built in benchmark which makes things very difficult. In fact many of the games don't have built in benchmarks. This is why you should be look at cumulative averages and not one off performances because there are just too many variables from hardware configuration to settings to what sequence used in the games.

Oh, and here is a nickel's worth of free advice. Expect to be down voted if you come to a site criticizing the reviewer and saying that they do not know how to do a review. You have basically accused the reviewer of being paid by Intel to make an AMD product look bad. You accused him of running Intel CPUs pre specter and meltdown patches and accused his graphs as being misleading. When the reviewer addressed the meltdown and specter patches and went back and updated every graph to include the base and boost clocks so your feelings would not get hurt. That is 14 games with 22 different CPUs at 4 different resolutions. That comes out to 1,232 individual results in just gaming benchmarks. Do you have any idea how long it takes to bench 1,232 individual gaming results on three different platforms? And you are complaining about 1 of 1,232. Show some respect and you will get respect.

ignore all 720p benches. go look at TPU's own 1440p benches. my 8600k at stock beats 2700x in every game at 1440p. sometimes by as much as 10 fps. not to mention all min frames rates across all resolution are still better on intel (check gamers nexus review and tweaktown)

that being said. AMD is def the winner if you stream on twitch, etc. intel just cant keep when it comes ot high end streaming. those extra cores really benefit twitch streamers.

 

[SIGSEGV]

Great reviews. Thanks wizz
AMD is able to catch up Intel right now. yes. bring the competition.

OOT : I am so sick but it's also really fun and makes me lol reading the comment section especially with so many intel fanboys butthurt with this AMD Ryzen 2 release. am i psycho ? lol

 

[intrepid3d]

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the 720p resolution stats. In fact, I don't really care. Some people think running at 720p puts all of the bottleneck on the CPU, and in some ways it definitely does. But it is not a real world indicator and there are more factors going into playing a game than the CPU. No one is going to run a system with a 1080ti at 720p. The 1080ti was not designed to run at such low resolution so there are going to be anomalies. When you look at the 1080p results for BF1 the results are very different as the is only a few fps difference between all of the top Intel CPUs. Maybe it was the sequence that was benched in BF1. The game does not have a built in benchmark which makes things very difficult. In fact many of the games don't have built in benchmarks. This is why you should be look at cumulative averages and not one off performances because there are just too many variables from hardware configuration to settings to what sequence used in the games.

Oh, and here is a nickel's worth of free advice. Expect to be down voted if you come to a site criticizing the reviewer and saying that they do not know how to do a review. You have basically accused the reviewer of being paid by Intel to make an AMD product look bad. You accused him of running Intel CPUs pre specter and meltdown patches and accused his graphs as being misleading. When the reviewer addressed the meltdown and specter patches and went back and updated every graph to include the base and boost clocks so your feelings would not get hurt. That is 14 games with 22 different CPUs at 4 different resolutions. That comes out to 1,232 individual results in just gaming benchmarks. Do you have any idea how long it takes to bench 1,232 individual gaming results on three different platforms? And you are complaining about 1 of 1,232. Show some respect and you will get respect.

Not really advice given you based it entirely on your assumptions.

I do think his reviews could be better given how oddly clumped together Intel and Ryzen are, the only variation there is lays between Ryzen and Intel, between the low end Ryzens there is little variation from the bottom up, its even worse on the Intel side with low end older gen Intel's pretty much the same performance as the latest and greatest, i think any reasonable observer would look at that and wonder "this isn't a good review if he couldn't separate these clearly different levels of CPU's into different levels of actual performance" many other reviewers do manage that seemingly quite easily.

Quite aside from all of that if the top Ryzen is notably slower than the near bottom i3 then Ryzen is very clearly utter garbage.

The same is still true for 1080P https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

 

[cucker tarlson]

OOT : I am so sick but it's also really fun and makes me lol reading the comment section especially with so many intel fanboys butthurt with this AMD Ryzen 2 release. am i psycho ? lol

No, you're not psycho, just not a great reader.

 

[Space Lynx]

Great reviews. Thanks wizz
AMD is able to catch up Intel right now. yes. bring the competition.

OOT : I am so sick but it's also really fun and makes me lol reading the comment section especially with so many intel fanboys butthurt with this AMD Ryzen 2 release. am i psycho ? lol

No, you're not psycho, just not a great reader.

not butthurt at all... I just enjoy looking at the numbers. if i didnt get my z370 mobo on sale for $99 i prob woulda waited for the 2700x, just because I enjoy looking at the numbers and reporting them doesn't mean I am butthurt...

does 10 fps matter? nope, not at all. and any cpu you buy is going to be great. i didn't name call anyone, but you guys feel the need to for some reason. well take it easy i guess, i have stuff to get to now

 

[dyonoctis]

Some comments here is making pc gaming look like cancer, like just because ryzen is slower than an i3 in gaming they are overpriced ? really ? following that twisted logic the 7820x is also overpriced since it's slower than the 2700x in gaming :

geez, again the conclusion is simple, while not the fastest in gaming you can game just fine on ryzen, it's really a good multipurpose cpu, decent in gaming and decent in multitasking, the 8600k/8700 is a better buy if you value gaming above everyhting else. Using gaming as the sole mesuring point is really too narrow.

 

[Xaled]

I'm just saying that the idea that AMD is somehow drastically cheaper than Intel is patently false, the prices I quoted (even though they may not be as good as the prices you got) prove that.

No it is true. at least for launch period, before Intel drop prices or give better product for same price so they compete with AMDs products.

Also dont forget that AMD doesnt change socket as much as Intel does. all am4 owners can now upgrade to Zen+ (correct me please if i am wrong).

 

[Readlight]

Everything works why new, its all just how good programs, games are made. Memory latency is same. And if i want i can go to someday to i5-2400. i haw no money for it now.
There cooler is good, but they put less aluminum then old ones.

 

[Xaled]

nice slide there. where did you get that from? can you share it with us cause i really want to see how my 2500k performs against other new cpus. this exactly what i was searching for..