AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

[ORLY]

Minimum FPS?
0.1% and 1% lows? It would be really cool to know what CPUs give better gaming experience, average framerate doesn't tell you that.

 

[Vayra86]

Oh mate I think we did not understand each other. I agree and even stated that games like Starcraft 2 (which I play, pretty well might I add as long as I am drunk!) do matter. I play such titles, I even mentioned Call of Chernobyl which when configured for max simulation simply slaughters CPUs. Starcraft 2 looks like an idle test in comparison for single-threaded benches in comparison, it is that bad.

My point is that the performance profile at 720p and at 1080p or above is not QUITE the same. People have this idea that CPU resources are unaffected by resolution (incorrect) and that all things a game needs require similar percentile resources or time to complete. That is not true, unfortunately. Now you will say "OK Alex, fair enough you are right. I will add that nuance. Still at 720P or low resolutions in general we see more of the CPU at work even with that nuance added in." and I would agree with you. I just do not think it matters for most titles bar E-Sports ones. That was my point. It is not me not knowing or disagreeing with you in general.

As for Starcraft and Stellaris (which I admit I do not play) ... egh I am divided. You see old games we can not expect to run perfectly well on new CPUs. I know that and that is the reason why I personally, whilst happy with my 1500X (at least it is never slower than my old Haswell i5!) will wait for Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 before I consider an upgrade. I hope for higher clocks and IPC especially in niche scenarios, from AMD. I play such titles a lot and want good performance in them. What I mean though is that the big onus is on those developers to work on their engines and games. In the case of Starcraft, it still gets dev time and is a popular title even to this day. Stellaris I have not played so I dont know. But if Ashes of the Singularity and Total War can do multi-threading well whilst using MUCH more CPU resources on every single front, and a low budget game like Men of War too can at least use 8 threads well (whilst simulating ballistics, destructible terrain, AI for every soldier, Inventory, armor penetration, destructible buildings and more) ... well there is no excuse. Starcraft 2 should receive an update in general and that would improve performance for all players. We should demand more as gamers too because IPC and clocks are at a wall. They can not improve by much, no matter what Intel or AMD do. At least not with silicon. That was my point.




Should have a small impact but not for Digital Foundry. There it should be zero.
IMHO it would be cool if you can do some CPU tests under ... more unclean conditions. I should likely not mention how many things I have open most of the time else people will mock me !

You're absolutely right I think about the onus being on the devs, but there are limitations to that as well. In budget, the engine in use and the limitations of that engine, and coding talent as well. And wherever the devs fall short, we use hardware to compensate for it. Its always been that way and always will be that way. Software is almost never 'perfect'.

The bottom line for a vast majority of games in my view, doesn't really change: single thread is and will for the foreseeable future be the limiting factor when it comes to CPU performance. You're right about Ashes. And there are other examples of new games as well that use cores extremely well, I see them too. And at the same time, even in those cases the performance does not scale linearly with core counts. There are many more things in the entire pipeline that can limit FPS some of which even faster hardware cannot overcome. But it does still help in lots of scenarios.

Physics simulations are easy to divide across cores and threads, and any non-sequential workload in games as well. New APIs provide easier access to actually implementing code in that way, and this will in the longer term (we're not really seeing it yet, today, let's be honest, almost every bench linked in this topic is proof of that, almost none of the results actually show a tangible FPS increase from core counts/thread counts) provide the headroom to make more complex games.

You find it funny that in 2018 im running a FX CPU with a SLi setup thats still able to play games at 1440P? I think the jokes on you kid
You obviously have no clue at all how a CPU works with modern software in 2018. Might need to go do some research before commenting next time?

Here I shall give you a few links so you can go looking for yourself and find out how even a older CPU is still able to play modern games even in 2018.

https://www.google.com.au/
https://www.youtube.com/



Just another kid know it all we have here, and yes I will over and over again till you finally catch up with reality and get out of the dark ages.

Look we know your new to the computer world its ok we are here to educate you on these things so you can be more respected on forums when replying. We know that if you dont understand that 720p is a dead res from 2003 and that in the real world no one uses it with said hardware, its just a fact otherwise you or anyone else would be linking me to someone that actually games at 720p with said hardware, but alas im still waiting. You dont have to agree or like the facts thats totally up to you and you can just skip this and stop responding, its probably in your best interest honestly. So your going to skip the facts and comment on my FX system? which has no baring on this subject at all, now I know your reaching. Maybe before attacking my computer you should go back to when they came out and see the threads (yes ill be there) and you might learn something, but again we can tell your new to this since you only been on here since 2014 so if you cant find your answers I will be more then happy to explain it to you, so you can catch up with the rest of us oldies. FYI Multi-threaded programs/games is alot more now then when it was back in 2012.

You keep harping on about a dead res and if you are not running into a performance bottleneck on your rig, more power to you. I'm not 'skipping' facts by the way, quite the opposite, I am supplying evidence that supports them and I will always keep asking questions when it comes to performance - all you've done is repeat yourself a couple times and link Google.com. And yes, there are a lot more multi-threaded programs but if you had taken the time to actually get into the supported evidence of single thread limited gaming scenario's, you would see most cores are loaded with nothing substantial, at least nothing that improves FPS. We're at 15 pages now... do scroll through them and take a look. The comment about FX and 2012... you do realize I just upgraded from Ivy Bridge, yes? I was around back then, just not here... I suppose I shouldn't tell you how old I am but you're quite far off the mark with 'kid'

Beyond that, lets agree to disagree, because this is going nowhere substantial, except for getting personal.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Minimum FPS?
0.1% and 1% lows? It would be really cool to know what CPUs give better gaming experience, average framerate doesn't tell you that.

it depends on the game, you cant just lump all games into this statement.

 

[cucker tarlson]

it depends on the game, you cant just lump all games into this statement.

Agreed, but they still need to be tested for the majority.

 

[GoldenX]

Man this is good, pass the popcorn!

 

[cucker tarlson]

I have a feeling that Zen 2 is going to be where Ryzen will take off like a rocket. Not only is Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000 Series) going to be based upon GloFlo 7nm process node but AMD has also partnered up with IBM and they have some seriously smart people at IBM. If there's anybody in the business that will know how to take Zen to the next level, it will be the people at IBM.

What's really funny about Intel is what I was reading over at AnandTech's forums regarding Intel's struggles to get to 10nm. It seems that Intel is completely drunk on their own Kool-Aid and refuses to reach out to outside experts despite the fact that the likes of TSMC and Samsung have both successfully made the leap to 10nm (and beyond) while Intel is still struggling at 14nm.

David Schor: Intel 10nm in big problems

This is why I have a very good feeling that AMD is going to thoroughly kick Intel's ass with Zen 2.

Intel has had 8 cores hitting 4.5ghz since haswell-e 22nm while ryzen is struggling to hit 4300 on 12nm. I don't know about skylakex but I think it can do 4700 on 12 or even 14 cores if You replace the pigeon poop they put under IHS. Coffeelake is an improvement over skylake already. I don't think they'll have any problems with releasing an 8 core 9700k at 4.5ghz stock capable of +5ghz. I don't think amd can leap from 4.2 to 5ghz that easily, You can see how hard it was to jump from 4100 on ryzen to 4250 on ryzen 2.

 

[GoldenX]

Pentium 4 reached 4GHz while a 2,2GHz Athlon destroyed it.
Max frequency is not an argument, price/perfoance is. Or do you preffer a hedt 8 core? Right now there is no 8 core i7 on the mainstream socket.
If it wasn't for AMD, we would still have $200 dual core i3s.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Pentium 4 reached 4GHz while a 2,2GHz Athlon destroyed it.
Max frequency is not an argument, price/perfoance is. Or do you preffer a hedt 8 core? Right now there is no 8 core i7 on the mainstream socket.
If it wasn't for AMD, we would still have $200 dual core i3s.

Well it clearly wasn't for pentium vs athlon then. Check with @Melvis what year it is. the whole point of this ryzen 2 is frequency increase so You pretty much touche'd yourself sir lol.


Yeah 2K 2 core i3s, are there unicorns in that story too ?

 

[Melvis]

Your purchase is not my problem.
So you're saying no bottlenecks ?
Not with fx cpu ? Not with 2.0 lanes ?

Well apparently it is as you brought it up?
No I didnt say that, Im saying it can still play the games I play at 1440P.
2.0 lanes dont effect it at all.

 

[phill]

Jezz... I'm glad I only posted once or twice.. Who's had the hand bags out?? I think the keyboard warriors are out in force again!!

 

[Shatun_Bear]

AMD Pinnacle Ridge: Ryzen 2000 also benefits greatly from memory tuning

The findings on memory speed/timings with respect to FPS and frametimes for 2700X is pretty awesome. Or too good to be true. Intel doesn't benefit nearly as much and in some cases the 2700X is faster than the 8700K:

 

[cucker tarlson]

In case of 8700K intel gains about the same as AMD when it comes to the leap from stock memory to 3466, but Intel gains additional 1% from timings while AMD gains like another 8%. They test 1080p Ultra with a 1080Ti, so it seems 8700K with 3466 pretty much maxes out the GPU as the gain from improved timings is marginal. Ryzen needs those timing tweaks on top of speed to max out the GPU utilization.
And come on dude, 1% is not faster, 1% is margin of error when both can drive the GPU at max utilization. I know you're rooting for AMD but don't do that, don't use double standards, it will come back to bite you. You're the one who said 10% is small when Ryzen is behind 8700K.

This is a good find, though it actually means you can go 3400 CL16 with Intel and max out your 8700K performance, while you gotta go for 3400 CL14 to max out ryzen, though People will still claim Ryzen is cheaper cause it includes a stock cooler .....

 

[GoldenX]

Well it clearly wasn't for pentium vs athlon then. Check with @Melvis what year it is. the whole point of this ryzen 2 is frequency increase so You pretty much touche'd yourself sir lol.


Yeah 2K 2 core i3s, are there unicorns in that story too ?

200, please, if you are going to answer, read carefully.
Check the i3 7350K, and the almost released i3 7360X.
Ryzen 2 is refining the existing arch, so you get lower power, higher clocks, improved specs (xfr2) and fixed problems (Linux segfaults fixed from the get go).
Only you see it as only a frequency increase. Only Intel does that and calls it an improvement.
Ryzen is cheaper because you don't need to expend on a cooler and an expensive chipset. And you get more cores for the same price.
Intel's lineup has been the same joke for years until coffee lake, that it' just kaby lake with two extra cores.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Almost released. That wins it for today.

Ryzen 2 is refining the existing arch, so you get lower power
Only you see it as only a frequency increase. Only Intel does that and calls it an improvement.

looooool
an improvement of -0.1 kJ worse efficiency than 1800X

 

[GoldenX]

Same eficiency with higher clocks equals better performance without drawbacks. Not like the i9 line being worse than previous hedt processors.
No discussion about price, multi thread performance, delid necesity or stoping a virtual monopoly?
Of course the i3 7360X is a joke, do you want to pay $200 for a dual core, on a platform designed for over 10 cores? Best thing is, Intel even released review samples.

 

[W1zzard]

Same eficiency with higher clocks equals better performance without drawbacks

Our new Energy Usage test takes performance into account

 

[GoldenX]

Our new Energy Usage test takes performance in
to account

Point taken, thank you.
Will you review the non X versions too?

 

[Shatun_Bear]

In case of 8700K intel gains about the same as AMD when it comes to the leap from stock memory to 3466, but Intel gains additional 1% from timings while AMD gains like another 8%. They test 1080p Ultra with a 1080Ti, so it seems 8700K with 3466 pretty much maxes out the GPU as the gain from improved timings is marginal. Ryzen needs those timing tweaks on top of speed to max out the GPU utilization.
And come on dude, 1% is not faster, 1% is margin of error when both can drive the GPU at max utilization. I know you're rooting for AMD but don't do that, don't use double standards, it will come back to bite you. You're the one who said 10% is small when Ryzen is behind 8700K.

This is a good find, though it actually means you can go 3400 CL16 with Intel and max out your 8700K performance, while you gotta go for 3400 CL14 to max out ryzen, though People will still claim Ryzen is cheaper cause it includes a stock cooler .....

No ok I should clarify I mean Ryzen rising 16% to overtake the 8700K is very impressive not that it's 1% faster.

 

[W1zzard]

Will you review the non X versions too?

AMD plans to sample then in early May, so yes. I have half a dozen Intel CPUs here that will keep me busy until then

 

[GoldenX]

I would love to see some Pentiums, the G4560 still tops the price/performance chart.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Same eficiency with higher clocks equals better performance without drawbacks. Not like the i9 line being worse than previous hedt processors.
No discussion about price, multi thread performance, delid necesity or stoping a virtual monopoly?
Of course the i3 7360X is a joke, do you want to pay $200 for a dual core, on a platform designed for over 10 cores? Best thing is, Intel even released review samples.

I agree. Broadwell-E pretty much strolls over Skylake-X when it comes to efficiency. Look at 7800x vs 6800K when both at 4500MHz

power draw
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,40

performance

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,30
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,31
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,32
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,33
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,34
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,35
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,36
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,37
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,38
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...e_i77800x_szesciordzeniowy_skylakex?page=0,39

 

[GoldenX]

If they some day release a Coffee Lake-E without that "cache rework", Threadripper will have to lower it's prices. I hope this time they don't fragment the HEDT socket with desktop parts.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I think mesh is here to stay, they'll wanna improve it tho. It works well in workstation stuff, and that's the priority. It sucks what they did with skylake-x tho. Haswell-E/Broadwell-E had some great gaming SKUs like 6850K, 6 cores with solder and 40 pci-e lanes for multi gpu. It was something that an enthusiast gamer would buy without having to rob a bank. Now you can only find the increased number of lanes on 10 cores.

 

[W1zzard]

I would love to see some Pentiums

I even have Celerons

 

[GoldenX]

Now you have me really interested. The low end never gets love, and it's what sells the most.
AMD has those horrible 9000 APUs as the cheap options, the Celeron should destroy them.