• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz

FeelinFroggy said:
720p
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ryzen wasn't slower than an i3 at 720p. It was about 3% faster. The review even stated that they got worse performance from over clocking manually, while amd's xfr did a better job overclocking. The overclocking performance numbers are there for consistency with past reviews, and should not be taken as the performance.
 
intrepid3d said:
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
Click to expand...


The 1080p results I see for the cumulative gaming performance shows a stock 2700x beating the i3. The 2700x is about 5% fewer fps than the i3 if BF1. I would not qualify that as notably slower, infact, with a game with no built in benchmark, it is closer to the margin of error. Remember on our lesson on single core performance and overclocking Ryzen. Overclocking the 2700x hurts gaming performance so you should not look at the OC 2700x data as it is not the optimal way to game on the 2700x. The top Intel CPUs are within 1% of each other in BF1. The 8400 cost half as much as the 8700k and has one tenth of a point higher fps. So does that mean the 8700k is "Is very clearly utter garbage" as you have repeated several times? Of course not, it is an outlier on one game with multiple different systems in one sequence of a game that does not have a built in benchmark.

Assumptions? Did you not call W1zzard out twice about specter and meltdown patches? I broke it down to 1,232 individual benchmarks. I am not a math genius, but simple multiplication is not an assumption, its reality. You are the one making assumptions. Since you are such an expert at CPU reviews, kindly leave some links to your previous reviews that you have done to show these ametures how it is done.

You are probably too young to watch Swingers, but look it up on youtube and watch the scene where he calls the girl 20 times and leaves a message. This is what you are doing now and all you have accomplished is embarrassing yourself.
 
Last edited:
@W1zzard - I'd just like to say thank you for the review :) It was decent and showed me enough to want to buy a AMD Ryzen 2 even if for a trial! I find the price point for the CPU very compelling and to be honest, 8 cores is just the sweet spot for everything I think these days. Games and workloads, I don't believe in my opinion why anyone would have anything else really. Yes if your completely wanting the utmost speed then maybe Intel is were you need to go but I hope that in time the CPUs get better and with the new Ryzen 2 next year at some point, it'll be even better... :)

Exciting times ahead for everyone I believe.. I for one, really welcome the competition from AMD and what they are managing to do.. Very pleased :)
Now if they could only do the same in their GPU section....
 
FeelinFroggy said:
The 1080p results I see for the cumulative gaming performance shows a stock 2700x beating the i3. The 2700x is about 5% fewer fps than the i3 if BF1. I would not qualify that as notably slower, infact, with a game with no built in benchmark, it is closer to the margin of error. Remember on our lesson on single core performance and overclocking Ryzen. Overclocking the 2700x hurts gaming performance so you should not look at the OC 2700x data as it is not the optimal way to game on the 2700x. The top Intel CPUs are within 1% of each other in BF1. The 8400 cost half as much as the 8700k and has one tenth of a point higher fps. So does that mean the 8700k is "Is very clearly utter garbage" as you have repeated several times? Of course not, it is an outlier on one game with multiple different systems in one sequence of a game that does not have a built in benchmark.

Assumptions? Did you not call W1zzard out twice about specter and meltdown patches? I broke it down to 1,232 individual benchmarks. I am not a math genius, but simple multiplication is not an assumption, its reality. You are the one making assumptions. Since you are such an expert at CPU reviews, kindly leave some links to your previous reviews that you have done to show these ametures how it is done.

You are probably too young to watch Swingers, but look it up on youtube and watch the scene where he calls the girl 20 times and leaves a message. This is what you are doing now and all you have accomplished is embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

By 2.6% with both at stock, as W1zzard proved you overclock the 2700X you actually end up with much lower performance, the i3 overclocks quite a lot.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/20.html
 
Last edited:
intrepid3d said:
The problem is its not really a compromise is it?

if you get the cheaper 4 core Ryzens then you only pay i3 money but end up with really bad gaming performance and only i3 in anything else, so the i3 is much better.

You could buy the 2700X and have good productivity performance but the 8700K has that too while the 2700X is still worse for games than the i3.

So no, there isn't a single area where any Ryzen makes any sense at all. unless the 2700X is $200 with all the others cheaper the only choice is Intel.
Click to expand...
It all depend of how much thread your applications are using. For 3d rendering for example the 2700x is faster than a 8700k, and only 10% slower than a 7820x while being 38% cheaper, and faster in gaming.
 
dyonoctis said:
It all depend of how much thread your applications are using. For 3d rendering for example the 2700x is faster than a 8700k, and only 10% slower than a 7820x while being 38% cheaper, and faster in gaming.
Click to expand...

Yes its a good low cost productivity CPU, but thats all, its still a sub i3 gaming chip so unless all you do is render in blender its pretty crap.

Edit: faster than what in gaming? a Pentium? congratulations, it beats a $60 CPU
 
intrepid3d said:
Yes its a good low cost productivity CPU, but thats all, its still a sub i3 gaming chip so unless all you do is render in blender its pretty crap.
Click to expand...
It's crap for you because all you care about is gaming on apparently +144 hz screen, Just like a 7920x would also be crap in you eyes, but awesome for everyone else using multithreaded application.
And crap is a pretty strong word, I though that crap was used when something is deficient, ryzen fps don't look deficient to me. Slower yes, but crap ?

to your edit : it's faster than a 7820x. Skylake x doesn't do that well in gaming compared to cofee lake and even ryzen +.
 
Last edited:
The real fun is what GN did. They got the chip to run at 4.0 to 4.1 GHz on 1.125 V which gave performance on par with stock most of the time and drastically lowered power draw and heat output. If I upgraded, that is what I would do since I did the same with my 1800X. I will most likely just want for Zen 2.
 
TheLaughingMan said:
They got the chip to run at 4.0 to 4.1 GHz on 1.125 V which gave performance on par with stock most of the time and drastically lowered power draw and heat output
Click to expand...
So same thing you can do with Intel? but on Intel you can probably go even lower (assuming that OC headroom ==~ under voltage headroom)
 
i vote this thread be closed. its the same arguing back and forth.
 
DeathtoGnomes said:
i vote this thread be closed. its the same arguing back and forth.
Click to expand...

Or move that "arguing back and forth" to another 2700X topic: one that's not a TPU review.
 
To try and move the subject onwards, what improvements will AMD include on zen? Zen+ was a nice improvement on its own and AMD didn't do much.
 
Last edited:
Xaled said:
Does anyone know if there would be such refreshment for Threadripper too or a price cut at least?.. as 1950x now has no point of being sold at 950$-1000. At launch it has the 2x price of of Ryzen 1800x but now that doesnt make sense..

By the way while i searching for that i found this interesting article that claims that 1800x now is 10% faster than 1800x at launch
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267915-psa-the-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-is-faster-than-it-used-to-be
Click to expand...

Interesting. Any other sources to back this up?
 
Imho, on that one chart a couple pages back (purposefully using 1280x720 to exagerate results ...), everything 1500X and up is fine for gaming, the 100% +/- 15% range. It's like 2/3 of the chart. We're splitting performance hairs here.

Anyway, I'm planning to build and 2700X system, just not sure when, or what video card I'll put in it.
 
Interesting, TechSpot made a clock for clock comparison, it seems Ryzen 2 has about a 7% gain in IPC in games like BF1, about 3% in cinebench.

That's as much as the whole gain from the 1800X to the 2700X in the same game in this review.



Test2.png
 
W1zzard said:
So same thing you can do with Intel? but on Intel you can probably go even lower (assuming that OC headroom ==~ under voltage headroom)
Click to expand...
True. Its just good to see that is an option for AMD again. Everything from AMD since the original Black Edition line have been power hungry as hell. I don't recall any desktop AMD processor running on less than 1.25 V in years except the E lines, let alone one with 8 cores @ 4.0 GHz+.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    42.6 KB · Views: 377
Last edited:
HTC said:
Spotted this over @ anandtech forums, translated from French:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cpu-mobo-ram/36169-test-amd-x470-r5-2600x-r7-2700x.html?start=0&edit-text=
They compare a lot of older generation processors, from both camps to 2600X and 2700X and also include Intel's current offerings.
Click to expand...
What a wonderful way to show a chart! When you hover a certain CPU score it shows 100% with the others relative to it :)
That site is on my bookmarks now ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top