AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[Joss]

@cucker tarlson
@intrepid3d

get a room

 

[cucker tarlson]

@cucker tarlson
@intrepid3d

get a room

I adamantly and vehemently reject and deny any and all implication and allegation that I have ever engaged in any relations with this person.

Seriously,he is something else ....

Then we simply agree, and i'm glad of that. i'm not alone in realizing how flawed a lot of mainstream reviews are becoming.

If so then just say that in one sentence or one post, explain that clearly, don't antagonize or pick on people. You're PMSing all over his thread since it was created.

 

[intrepid3d]

I adamantly and vehemently reject and deny any and all implication and allegation that I have ever engaged in any relations with this person.

Seriously,he is something else ....

View attachment 100075


If so then just say that in one sentence or one post, explain that clearly, don't antagonize or pick on people. You're PMSing all over his thread since it was created.

Point taken

 

[Totally]

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.

Since when is 3% massive? I could understand it if we were talking about computational work where that 3% might get translated to several hours or a couple days but this is gaming performance where talking about could you please get real for a moment.

 

[heflys20]

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

Good lord. Are you being serious?

 

[Swift_owl]

Long time (7 years) reading W1zzard reviews and going through the discussions. Had to register finally, just to put in my two cent on the discussion. Another great review W1zzard, you my friend are one of the best in the business.

This discussion (by 1 person), turned into first shitting all over W1zzard's review, looking for something to attack, then just blatantly attacking the Ryzen cpu itself. You cant keep injecting your opinion, over the facts of what is laid out right in front of you. You have all W1zzard test results in plan view. Couldn't wait for this review to go live, so I can see if I want to buy the new 2700x. W1zzard did another great job, laying down facts, so I can use my own opinion on which cpu, I want to buy.

Thanks W1zzard, keep up the good work, you are a vital part of the tech hardware community.

 

[Melvis]

Find me one person on the planet that uses a current 7/8th Gen or even 6th Gen i7 CPU or a Current Ryzen 7 CPU with a GTX 1080 Ti that games at 720p, just one! then report back. That will tell you how irrelevant 720p gaming benchmarks are.....

 

[HTC]

720p is immensely useful to estimate what FPS you can get on that specific CPU with the fastest GPU money can buy and what to expect from <next-gen NVIDIA monster GPU>.

But yes, I would consider it a synthetic test and not a real-life benchmark. That's why I benchmark 1080/1440/4K, too.

The problem with this is that there are cases such as RotTR, where the 8700K goes from being 25.9 FPS ahead @ 720p to 13 FPS behind @ 1080p: "stock" figures.

I figure AMD (or the motherboard makers) pulled an "Intel's MCE" on us, which is why stock figures tend to be actually higher than OCed ones (mostly games, but also some applications).

Also (if it was already asked / replied to, i missed it): what was the cooler used for each CPU? I see no mention of this in the test setup section.

 

[Super XP]

Do people not realize this quote: "AMD stated that the IPC increase was 3%" doesn't mean a 3% IPC on every single thing that's tested. Its On Average, you will achieve less or more than 3%. It varies, just like how PC Gaming FPS varies. Components also have a say in how your overall setup performs.
Anyhow, this Ryzen refresh is just that, a refresh from the original ZEN release. It's meant for those that want an upgrade not for those that already own the original Ryzen CPUs.

And for those that are claiming Ryzen is Bulldozer 2018, need to see Dr. YouKnowJack as soon as possible.

 

[Vayra86]

@Melvis
@intrepid3d

Just get this line into your head when it comes to 720p game CPU tests:

'720p is a resolution that removes any kind of GPU bottleneck and serves as a synthetic test to gauge relative CPU performance'

Key words: synthetic, and relative performance.

If you want to know how a game runs with any given CPU in a real world scenario, find a performance test of that specific game. There really isn't much more to say about it

 

[Super XP]

I game at 2K 144Hz. Personally I think all gaming reviews should be done at 1080p, 2K & 4K. But I do understand the reasoning behind this sites reviews.
W1zzard offers a different perspective of course. Hence why I've had TechPowerUp bookmarked for years now. Reviews are rock solid.

 

[W1zzard]

I think all gaming reviews should be done at 1080p, 2K & 4K

Yup. That's why i go the extra mile to get you 720p on top of 1080p, 1440p and 4K. 4K is pretty boring but I think it's important for people to realize that CPU matters less the lower your FPS

 

[intrepid3d]

I have and would argue again W1zzard's like all 'slide only' reviews are misleading.

His review tell the observer the i3 is as or near as good as the i5's, even i7's, and better than the 2700X in gaming, because they constraint on a very narrow and unrealistic set of perimeters.
Completely disembodied frame rate numbers from an unknown testing methodology, for all we know W1zzard could have spend his time benching looking at walls in game, certainly it is obvious from the similarity in performance results between the i3 and i7 that he didn't do anything that would actually tress the CPU at all, which defeats the object of CPU performance testing.

The fact is W1zzard is telling his reader the i3 is near as good for gaming as the i7 and much better than any Ryzen.

The truth is the i3 is a dreadful CPU to pair with a high end GPU, an observer choosing the i3 as its so cheap would actually end up with much lower performance that the lowly Ryzen 1600, yes much lower performance in complex game areas that actually matter to the CPU, whats more the likely hood is they would also experience stutter in games, as i do with my i5 and GTX 1070 combo because it just doesn't have enough threads to keep up with my GTX 1070 never mind a GTX 1080 or 1080TI.

Hardwarte reviews have moved on and for good reason, a slide tells you absolutely nothing about the hardware other than what the author of them might want you to think, a side by side run through of any given game tells you everything, its why reviews like that are taking over.

 

[GoldenX]

Solid option for a new AM4 build. I like how overclocking is worse than the auto clocking with turbo and XFR for games, you get better performance at the best power consumption, and save time testing stability.

Thanks to these Ryzen 2, the Ryzen APUs are finally lowering their prices here.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

What I would like someone to explain with how CPUs are reviewed/tested:

CPU tests - most of these tests are produced under conditions that may be synthetic but are meant to represent real-world

But

Gaming tests - produced under conditions that are not realistic or unlikely to be encountered by the user i.e benches at 720p resolution, or even 1080p tests using a 1080 Ti.

It seems there's jumping through hoops with gaming tests to find any difference between processors (in this case the 2700X and 8700K) that essentially offer identical (difference not noticeable) gaming performance. Of course, most of the CPU tests show performance gaps that are not noticeable. But with gaming, the perception seems to be the engineered performance gap is a deal-breaker, prompting enthusiasts the internet over to proclaim they're not buying the Ryzen because of less gaming performance. This is my issue.

I wish people would actually read the reviews and look at the settings used, and then comprehend how, actually, they're not running any kind of set-up where the gaming performance is going to be appreciably less or more with the processors being reviewed.

 

[Vayra86]

I have and would argue again W1zzard's like all 'slide only' reviews are misleading.

His review tell the observer the i3 is as or near as good as the i5's, even i7's, and better than the 2700X in gaming, because they constraint on a very narrow and unrealistic set of perimeters.
Completely disembodied frame rate numbers from an unknown testing methodology, for all we know W1zzard could have spend his time benching looking at walls in game, certainly it is obvious from the similarity in performance results between the i3 and i7 that he didn't do anything that would actually tress the CPU at all, which defeats the object of CPU performance testing.

The fact is W1zzard is telling his reader the i3 is near as good for gaming as the i7 and much better than any Ryzen.

The truth is the i3 is a dreadful CPU to pair with a high end GPU, an observer choosing the i3 as its so cheap would actually end up with much lower performance that the lowly Ryzen 1600, yes much lower performance in complex game areas that actually matter to the CPU, whats more the likely hood is they would also experience stutter in games, as i do with my i5 and GTX 1070 combo because it just doesn't have enough threads to keep up with my GTX 1070 never mind a GTX 1080 or 1080TI.

Hardwarte reviews have moved on and for good reason, a slide tells you absolutely nothing about the hardware other than what the author of them might want you to think, a side by side run through of any given game tells you everything, its why reviews like that are taking over.

No, you just fail at reading comprehension, that is all.

Nobody is saying people should buy a high end GPU. More specifically, for anything 60hz most CPUs do the job fine so @W1zzard is quite right in that sense. The numbers are not misleading, they tell the simple truth, and it is up to each and every reader himself to decide whether or not the extra threads are needed. Thus far, for the gaming scenario on its own, 4 threads 'will cut it'. Is it optimal? Of course not. Similarly, Ryzen's extra cores do benefit certain situations and at the same time, higher clocks benefit in others. What is lacking though is any kind of linear scaling for core counts in gaming. Even today the best scaling occurs across 4 cores. Not 6, not 8. Four. What is NOT lacking, is a clear advantage especially at 60-120 FPS/hz due to high CPU clocks, which is where neither Ryzen or an i3 will be sufficient.

So, really, the conclusion is spot on.

 

[trparky]

Gaming tests - produced under conditions that are not realistic or unlikely to be encountered by the user i.e benches at 720p resolution, or even 1080p tests using a 1080 Ti.

Yeah especially since you damn near need to win the lottery to buy a 1080ti card. Most gamers aren't going to be playing with one unless they're loaded. At most they might be playing with a GTX1060 or GTX1070 at most.

 

[intrepid3d]

No, you just fail at reading comprehension, that is all.

Nobody is saying people should buy a high end GPU. More specifically, for anything 60hz most CPUs do the job fine so @W1zzard is quite right in that sense. The numbers are not misleading, they tell the simple truth, and it is up to each and every reader himself to decide whether or not the extra threads are needed. Thus far, for the gaming scenario on its own, 4 threads 'will cut it'. Is it optimal? Of course not. Similarly, Ryzen's extra cores do benefit certain situations and at the same time, higher clocks benefit in others. What is lacking though is any kind of linear scaling for core counts in gaming. Even today the best scaling occurs across 4 cores. Not 6, not 8. Four. What is NOT lacking, is a clear advantage especially at 60-120 FPS/hz due to high CPU clocks, which is where neither Ryzen or an i3 will be sufficient.

So, really, the conclusion is spot on.

You're both wrong, 4 cores as i have demonstrated many times in this thread is not "sufficient" its sufficient for a 1050TI perhaps but it is not sufficient for anything much above that.

look at the 7600K and the horrendous performance here, not just the fact that its half the frame rates compared with the Ryzen 1600 but look at the blue line, that's some pretty bad stutter.

Yet according to this review none of that exists on 4 core CPU's, according to this review they are at least as good as 8 core CPU's, i can pull up a bunch of reviews where you can clearly see stutter in games running 4 cores Intel CPU's, including my own videos where i experience it.

W1zzard's review doesn't demonstrate this, i don't know what he is doing to get these results but whatever it is it isn't finding the reality that is low performance and stuttering with the 4 core CPU's on high end GPU's, its not good enough.

http://imgur.com/jdinejn

 

[Melvis]

@Vayra86

Just get this into your head when it comes to 720p gaming benchmarks.

It is still GAMING BENCHMARKS! No matter how you want to spin it, in the end its still GAMING BENCHMARKS!

Again show me one person that uses this res with those specs, so far no one can, funny that....

 

[cucker tarlson]

@Vayra86

Just get this into your head when it comes to 720p gaming benchmarks.

It is still GAMING BENCHMARKS! No matter how you want to spin it, in the end its still GAMING BENCHMARKS!

Again show me one person that uses this res with those specs, so far no one can, funny that....

You want 1080p or higher ? You can't handle the truth.

My 2 cents, based on my thousands of hours spent gaming on 3570K + 980Ti and 4790K + 1080. Even at 1440p you'll find plenty of places across various games that are CPU heavy. Plenty. It is impossible for the reviewer to recreate those, taking into account they bench 10+ games, they'd spend hundreds of hours just looking for good testing places. I know one guy from a Polish website who is responsible for gpu and cpu tests exclusively, and he always goes through the routine of finding them - look how different his results are from W1zzard's or the majority of other reviews for that matter.

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

Forget about 3-10% percent that most sites usually show, this tells a completely different story. Now you may rightfully wonder how those results can be reproduced without all this time spent pciking the right locations. 720p testing. It won't show you what fps you'll be running at, let's say 1440p, when you find a cpu heavy scene, but they will show how CPUs would cope in such scenario.

You're both wrong, 4 cores as i have demonstrated many times in this thread is not "sufficient" its sufficient for a 1050TI perhaps but it is not sufficient for anything much above that.

look at the 7600K and the horrendous performance here, not just the fact that its half the frame rates compared with the Ryzen 1600 but look at the blue line, that's some pretty bad stutter.

Yet according to this review none of that exists on 4 core CPU's, according to this review they are at least as good as 8 core CPU's, i can pull up a bunch of reviews where you can clearly see stutter in games running 4 cores Intel CPU's, including my own videos where i experience it.

W1zzard's review doesn't demonstrate this, i don't know what he is doing to get these results but whatever it is it isn't finding the reality that is low performance and stuttering with the 4 core CPU's on high end GPU's, its not good enough.

http://imgur.com/jdinejn

I hear you, but you need to stop this.
You've been playing that same Crysis DF card over and over.
It does reflect what happens to 4c/4t sometimes, but the margins that this benchmark shows are way higher than anything you'll ever see. Look at two different games that use multithreading very heavily - Crysis 3 and WatchDogs2.

This is what usually happens, 15-20% deifference

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i3_8350k_prawie_jak_core_i5_7600k?page=0,38
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz..._s_creed_origins_problemy_w_egipcie?page=0,12

This is what happens in Crysis 3, 50% difference

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i3_8350k_prawie_jak_core_i5_7600k?page=0,31

Crysis 3 is an oddball example.

 

[Vayra86]

You're both wrong, 4 cores as i have demonstrated many times in this thread is not "sufficient" its sufficient for a 1050TI perhaps but it is not sufficient for anything much above that.

look at the 7600K and the horrendous performance here, not just the fact that its half the frame rates compared with the Ryzen 1600 but look at the blue line, that's some pretty bad stutter.

Yet according to this review none of that exists on 4 core CPU's, according to this review they are at least as good as 8 core CPU's, i can pull up a bunch of reviews where you can clearly see stutter in games running 4 cores Intel CPU's, including my own videos where i experience it.

W1zzard's review doesn't demonstrate this, i don't know what he is doing to get these results but whatever it is it isn't finding the reality that is low performance and stuttering with the 4 core CPU's on high end GPU's, its not good enough.

http://imgur.com/jdinejn

Again you fail at reading comprehension...
That pic right there shows the 7600K pushing 62 FPS. You're linking sources that prove you wrong, but you still don't want to see it... Very odd.

I did say:

More specifically, for anything 60hz most CPUs do the job fine

So here we have a worst-case scenario that is not only that but also an outlier in terms of what you usually see in games, and it still does not dip below 60. Or it may even dip below 60 momentarily, it still doesn't make a world of difference for any gamer with a 60hz panel.

The odd truth is that a Ryzen at relatively low clocks is more readily capable of dipping below 60 even with 6 or 8 cores, because most games still rely on a heavy single thread that is forced to run on a single core. In most games, thát is the limiting factor, way before the number of cores becomes relevant.

@Vayra86

Just get this into your head when it comes to 720p gaming benchmarks.

It is still GAMING BENCHMARKS! No matter how you want to spin it, in the end its still GAMING BENCHMARKS!

Again show me one person that uses this res with those specs, so far no one can, funny that....

Going all caps doesn't make gaming benchmarks about the game itself in a CPU review, and it still doesn't change a thing about the relative performance gaps you see there. Its fine if you don't (want to) get it, so skip the 720p page and move right on to your preferred resolution to see what's the CPU for your use case. No one is stopping you...

 

[Shatun_Bear]

No, you just fail at reading comprehension, that is all.

Nobody is saying people should buy a high end GPU. More specifically, for anything 60hz most CPUs do the job fine so @W1zzard is quite right in that sense. The numbers are not misleading, they tell the simple truth, and it is up to each and every reader himself to decide whether or not the extra threads are needed. Thus far, for the gaming scenario on its own, 4 threads 'will cut it'. Is it optimal? Of course not. Similarly, Ryzen's extra cores do benefit certain situations and at the same time, higher clocks benefit in others. What is lacking though is any kind of linear scaling for core counts in gaming. Even today the best scaling occurs across 4 cores. Not 6, not 8. Four. What is NOT lacking, is a clear advantage especially at 60-120 FPS/hz due to high CPU clocks, which is where neither Ryzen or an i3 will be sufficient.

So, really, the conclusion is spot on.

Actually, I would tend to agree with him.

My issue is the final score of these reviews and the perception formed from them is overwhelmingly based (it seems) on the 'gaming performance' despite the fact the performance during real-world use would be nigh on identical with the lauded 8700k, yet the difference in CPU grunt would be noticeable for certain real-world tasks (rendering) because the performance gap isn't artificially magnified by 100% (benching at 720p, or 1080p with a 1080 Ti for gaming).

It's like reviewing a new racing car that has more horsepower than a rival. But when racing at low speeds in the rain (not real world racing conditions), it's slower by 10%, despite having faster speed on the road, and the reviewer forming a conclusion largely based on that. This then leads everyone to a false conclusion on the car.

Reviews (not just TPU) should include the caveat: 'differences in gaming performance are only visible under artificial conditions. Real-world scenarios and use the performance gap would be non-existent.

 

[Vayra86]

Actually, I would tend to agree with him.

My issue is the final score of these reviews and the perception formed from them is overwhelmingly based (it seems) on the 'gaming performance' despite the fact the performance during real-world use would be nigh on identical with the lauded 8700k, yet the difference in CPU grunt would be noticeable for certain real-world tasks (rendering) because the performance gap isn't artificially magnified by 100% (benching at 720p, or 1080p with a 1080 Ti for gaming).

It's like reviewing a new racing car that has more horsepower than a rival. But when racing at low speeds in the rain (not real world racing conditions), it's slower by 10%, despite having faster speed on the road, and the reviewer forming a conclusion largely based on that. This then leads everyone to a false conclusion on the car.

Reviews (not just TPU) should include the caveat: 'differences in gaming performance are only visible under artificial conditions. Real-world scenarios and use the performance gap would be non-existent.

So, once again, reading comprehension, I'll quote it for you, straight out of the review

Game Tests: 720p
On popular demand from comments over the past several CPU reviews, we are including game tests at 720p (1280x720 pixels) resolution. All games from our CPU test suite are put through 720p using a GTX 1080 graphics card and Ultra settings. This low resolution serves to highlight theoretical CPU performance because games are extremely CPU-limited at this resolution. Of course, nobody buys a PC with a GTX 1080 to game at 720p, but the results are of academic value because a CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will never reach that mark at higher resolutions either. So these numbers could interest high refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast 120 Hz and 144 Hz monitors. Our 720p tests hence serve as synthetic tests in that they are not real-world (720p isn't a real-world PC-gaming resolution anymore) even though the game tests themselves are not synthetic (they're real games, not 3D benchmarks).


Its not anyone else's fault but your own that you skip right on to the relative performance summaries, skim over the review conclusion and fail to read the rest and interpret the data properly. But please, don't bother us with your lack of attention and understanding. You have a Youtube full of crappy reviewers that can cater to your shallow demands.

Another option is that you might want to open your eyes a bit and learn something along the way.

Or translate all of what you're saying to 'real world use cases'. How many hardcore gamers do actually use that same CPU for heavy multithreaded workloads? I'd reckon about as many as there are gaming on 720p... For them the relative performance summaries are just about as relevant as for anyone building a workstation. The only way out of this is creating a bench suite that covers the CPUs' limitations in every possible way, so that each reader can extract the data set that is most relevant to his/her personal use case.

Oh, and about gaming on that 8700K at 'normal settings', seen this?

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_7_2700x_vs_intel_core_i7_8700k?page=0,19

Tell me again you don't want the fattest CPU money can buy when all you care about is FPS. Tell me again cores matter more than clocks in any gaming scenario... We have a 7700K and 8600K literally spitting out the same FPS as 8c16t Ryzens at the *same clock* and the ONLY CPU that pushes over 40 (!) minimum FPS is the one that can push 4.7 Ghz on a single core.

 

[Readlight]

Can you make review for i5 8500 190€ and Pentium Gold G5500 91€ vs Ryzen 2600

 

[intrepid3d]

@Vayra86 you're the one failing to grasp what we are talking about, you're talking about something entirely different to what the rest of us are, you're talking about resolution, no one is disputing using low resolution is a good idea because it helps stop the GPU from becoming the bottleneck, its actually really obvious what we are talking about higher stress complex scenes in games that cause low performance and sometimes stutter on the 4 core Intel CPU's.

I don't know how many times i have to explain this to you over and over and over again.... if you benchmark your games by using scenes that have little to no work for the CPU to do you can make a 4 core look as fast or faster than an 8 core, if you are looking at a wall there is nothing for the CPU to do and with that a low threaded high clocked CPU's will do better than a low clock speed high core count CPU.
take the same CPU and look at an explosion, or even just a scene with long draw distances, a lot of shading and lighting, physics..... the 4 core i3 will be running at 100% causing stutter and low performance, the 6 or 8 core lower clocked CPU's will have much higher performance and still be smooth.

W1zzard utterly failed to demonstrate that fact, his slides proport that the i3 is not only close to as good as the Intel i7 but also much better than the 2700X, the real truth is even the Ryzen 1600 is a far better gaming CPU, including at very low resolution..