AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700 CPU reviewed

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X has proven itself an impressive range-topper for the second generation of Ryzen CPUs, but that chip’s 105-W TDP and attendant cooling requirements aren’t the right fit for every PC. On one end of the spectrum of PC enthusiasm, small-form-factor systems and low-noise builds want a lower-TDP chip that can be cooled using slimmer hardware than AMD’s own Wraith Prism.

On the other end, overclockers  who are going to shelve or sell the AMD stock cooler probably don’t want to shell out for the Ryzen 7 2700X’s stock-clocked smarts and fancy heatsink. AMD’s Precision Boost logic goes out the window when one overclocks any Ryzen part, so those folks likely just want a Ryzen chip that will get out of the way and let them pursue peak all-core clock speeds. In our experience, Ryzen CPUs all tend to overclock about the same, too, so it’s not worth paying extra for a top-end model when a cheaper part will likely respond to tuning in a similar fashion.

Enter the 65-W Ryzen 7 2700. This non-X chip benefits from all the improvements of moving to GlobalFoundries’ improved 12LP lithography process, including better-performing transistors and improved cache and memory latency compared to first-generation Ryzen parts. The Ryzen 7 2700 also gets the improved, finer-grained Precision Boost 2 voltage-and-frequency-scaling logic that governs the Ryzen 7 2700X. That’s especially important for getting the maximum performance out of the tightly-constrained thermal envelope the 2700 needs to work in at stock speeds.

A representation of the behavior of Precision Boost 2 on Ryzen second-gen CPUs. Source: AMD

Extracting the maximum performance from its thermal envelope isn’t the only challenge facing the lower-power Pinnacle Ridge part. When the Ryzen 7 1700 first launched, it established an attractive entry point for eight-core Summit Ridge chips at $329. To get better stock-clocked performance, one had to shell out $399 for the Ryzen 7 1700X or $499 for the Ryzen 7 1800X. Neither of the first Ryzen 7 X-marked parts included a cooler in the box, either, while the Ryzen 7 1700 included AMD’s capable Wraith Spire heatsink. That made the Ryzen 7 1700 an attractive value.

AMD’s pricing and provisioning for its second generation of Ryzen CPUs does a lot to dull the appeal of a Ryzen 7 1700-class chip. The Ryzen 7 2700 carries a $299 suggested price with the same Wraith Spire cooler of the Ryzen 7 1700, while the Ryzen 7 2700X is just $30 more with the more capable Wraith Prism cooler in the box. Given the trifling price difference at play, it’s tough to understand why a builder who doesn’t fit either of the two niches I described above would pick the 65-W part over the 105-W part.

As always, then, the question comes down to just how much performance one is giving up for 30 bucks and 40 watts of thermal headroom. Let’s find out.

Our testing methods

As always, we did our best to deliver clean benchmarking numbers. We ran each benchmark at least three times and took the median of those results. Our test systems were configured as follows:

Processor Intel Core i7-8086K Intel Core i7-8700K
CPU cooler Corsair H110i 280-mm closed-loop liquid cooler
Motherboard Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7
Chipset Intel Z370
Memory size 16 GB (2x 8 GB)
Memory type G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3866 (rated) SDRAM
Memory speed 3400 MT/s (CPUs at stock), 3866 MT/s (CPU OC)
Memory timings 16-16-16-36 2T
System drive Samsung 960 Pro 512 GB NVMe SSD

 

Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X AMD Ryzen 2700 AMD Ryzen 7 1700
CPU cooler AMD Wraith Prism (where noted)

EK Predator 240-mm AIO

AMD Wraith Spire (stock)

EK Predator 240-mm AIO (OC)

AMD Wraith Spire
Motherboard Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi
Chipset AMD X470
Memory size 16 GB (2x 8 GB)
Memory type G.Skill Sniper X DDR4-3400 (rated) SDRAM
Memory speed 3400 MT/s (actual)
Memory timings 16-16-16-36 1T
System drive Samsung 960 EVO 500 GB NVMe SSD

Our test systems shared the following components:

Graphics card Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition
Graphics driver Nvidia 398.36
Power supply Thermaltake Grand Gold 1200 W (AMD)

Seasonic Prime Platinum 1000 W (Intel)

Where applicable, our overclock for the Core i7-8086K was 5.1 GHz all-core with 1.38 V and no AVX offset. Our Core i7-8700K OC was set at 5 GHz with a -2 AVX offset and 1.35 V. While our Ryzen 7 2700X was not overclocked, its Precision Boost 2 all-core clock speed was observed to be 4.075 GHz under AVX workloads. Our Ryzen 7 2700, where overclocked, was operating at 4.2 GHz all-core clocks with a 1.45-V Vcore.

Out of curiosity, I also ran our CPU benchmarking suite on the Ryzen 7 2700X with AMD’s included Wraith Prism heatsink installed. We normally use a massive EK Predator 240-mm all-in-one liquid cooler to allow our Ryzen chips to perform at their best, but I wanted to see what effect, if any, that massive heatsink has on stock-clocked performance given that Ryzen CPUs’ boost smarts actually do care about the cooler on top. Throughout this piece, you’ll see the EK-equipped Ryzen 7 2700X without any notes, while the Wraith Prism-equipped 2700X is marked as such throughout our article.

Some other notes on our testing methods:

  • All test systems were updated with the latest firmware, graphics drivers, and Windows updates before we began collecting data, including patches for the Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities where applicable. As a result, test data from this review should not be compared with results collected in past TR reviews. Similarly, all applications used in the course of data collection were the most current versions available as of press time and cannot be used to cross-compare with older data.
  • Our test systems were all configured using the Windows Balanced power plan, including AMD systems that previously would have used the Ryzen Balanced plan. AMD’s suggested configuration for its CPUs no longer includes the Ryzen Balanced power plan as of Windows’ Fall Creators Update, also known as “RS3” or Redstone 3.
  • Unless otherwise noted, all productivity tests were conducted with a display resolution of 2560×1440 at 60 Hz. Gaming tests were conducted at 1920×1080 and 144 Hz.

Our testing methods are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have any questions regarding our testing methods, feel free to leave a comment on this article or join us in the forums to discuss them.

 

Memory subsystem performance

The AIDA64 utility includes some basic tests of memory bandwidth and latency that will let us peer into the differences in behavior among the memory subsystems of the processors on the bench today, if there are any.

With nearly-identical frequencies and timings among our test systems, performance on each team is about the same across the board. The Ryzen 7 2700 offers read, write, and copy bandwidth on par with the Ryzen 7 2700X, while the Ryzen 7 1700 lags it slightly across the board. Score one improvement for the 2700.

Memory access latency was another pain point AMD sought to mitigate with the Zen+ architecture, and the Ryzen 7 2700 pares several nanoseconds off its predecessor’s result here.

Some quick synthetic math tests

AIDA64 also includes some useful micro-benchmarks that we can use to flush out broad differences among CPUs on our bench. The PhotoWorxx test uses AVX2 instructions on all of these chips. The CPU Hash integer benchmark uses AVX and Ryzen CPUs’ Intel SHA Extensions support, while the single-precision FPU Julia and double-precision Mandel tests use AVX2 with FMA.

The Ryzen 7 2700 is a better performer than its predecessor in these synthetics, but not by much. Stock clock for stock clock, the Ryzen 7 2700X takes advantage of its higher TDP to deliver much higher performance across the board. The overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 leads the 2700X in turn, but it’s clear AMD’s Precision Boost 2 magic is already letting the 2700X deliver most of the performance potential of Pinnacle Ridge silicon.

 

Javascript

The usefulness of Javascript benchmarks for comparing browser performance may be on the wane, but these collections of tests are still a fine way of demonstrating the real-world single-threaded performance differences among CPUs.

The 2700’s performance across all of our Javascript results shows a marked improvement compared to its pokey predecessor. The 2700’s improved latency characteristics and 400-MHz-higher peak clock speed versus the Ryzen 7 1700 lead to a lower-power chip that’s not delivering single-threaded performance reminiscent of Intel CPUs circa 2011.

WebXPRT 3

The WebXPRT 3 benchmark is meant to simulate some realistic workloads one might encounter in web browsing. It’s here primarily as a counterweight to the more synthetic microbenchmarking tools above.

Weirdly enough, WebXPRT doesn’t seem to benefit from the Ryzen 7 2700’s improvements in the same way that our other Javascript benchmarks do at stock clocks. Crank the chip to 4.2 GHz, though, and the 2700 turns into the best Ryzen performer of this bunch.

 

Compiling code with GCC

Our resident code monkey, Bruno Ferreira, helped us put together this code-compiling test. Qtbench records the time needed to compile the Qt SDK using the GCC compiler. The number of jobs dispatched by the Qtbench script is configurable, and we set the number of threads to match the hardware thread count for each CPU.

Even for all of its Precision Boost 2 mojo, the Ryzen 7 2700 only delivers a modest performance increase in Qtbench versus the Ryzen 7 1700. Overclocking the chip puts it in the ballpark with the Ryzen 7 2700X, but we didn’t have to tune the 2700X at all to gain the handful of seconds we got out of the higher-end part.

File compression with 7-Zip

The free and open-source 7-Zip archiving utility has a built-in benchmark that occupies every core and thread of the host system.

Of late, Ryzen CPUs have experienced a major boost in throughput during 7-Zip’s decompression test for some reason, allowing them to take a massive lead in that half of the 7-Zip benchmark. The AMD chips put up a good showing in the compression portion of 7-Zip, as well, but the standings are closer and the overclocked Coffee Lake parts take the top spot.

Disk encryption with Veracrypt

In the accelerated AES portion of this benchmark, the Ryzen parts lead the Coffee Lake competition at stock clocks. Overclocking the i7-8700K and i7-8086K lets them take the top spots, though.

Flip over to the unaccelerated Twofish portion of the benchmark, and the multithreaded grunt of the Ryzen 7 parts really shows itself. The Ryzen 7 2700 turns in a modest performance increase over the Ryzen 7 1700, and the overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 takes the top spot.

 

Cinebench

The evergreen Cinebench benchmark is powered by Maxon’s Cinema 4D rendering engine. It’s multithreaded and comes with a 64-bit executable. The test runs with a single thread and then with as many threads as possible.

Cinebench tends to be a best-case performance scenario for any CPU, and this single-threaded result is no exception. The Ryzen 7 2700 handily outpaces the Ryzen 7 1700 and doesn’t even trail the Ryzen 7 2700X by that much.

Cinebench is really about its multithreaded portion, though, and here, the 2700 proves itself with a nice shot of extra performance compared to its 65-W forebear. Even overclocking Coffee Lake isn’t enough to stop the Ryzen onslaught in Cinebench.

Blender

Blender is a widely-used, open-source 3D modeling and rendering application. The app can take advantage of AVX2 instructions on compatible CPUs. We chose the “bmw27” test file from Blender’s selection of benchmark scenes to put our CPUs through their paces.

Blender once again shows that the Ryzen 7 2700 offers some modest gains over its predecessor, enough to match the stock-clocked Core i7-8700K and i7-8086K on our bench. The higher TDP and higher clocks of the Ryzen 7 2700X pay off handsomely here, though. Overclocking the 2700 to 4.2 GHz is good for the top spot.

Corona

Corona, as its developers put it, is a “high-performance (un)biased photorealistic renderer, available for Autodesk 3ds Max and as a standalone CLI application, and in development for Maxon Cinema 4D.”

The company has made a standalone benchmark with its rendering engine inside, so it’s a no-brainer to give it a spin on these CPUs.

Another multithreaded app, another modest increase in performance from the Ryzen 2700 watt-for-watt.

Indigo

Indigo Bench is a standalone application based on the Indigo rendering engine, which creates photo-realistic images using what its developers call “unbiased rendering technologies.”

Same story here. Indigo stretches every thread of these chips, and the Ryzen 7 2700 turns in a modest performance improvement over its predecessor.

Handbrake

Handbrake is a popular video-transcoding app that just hit version 1.1.1. To see how it performs on these chips, we converted a roughly two-minute 4K source file from an iPhone 6S into a 1920×1080, 30 FPS MKV using the HEVC algorithm implemented in the x265 open-source encoder. We otherwise left the preset at its default settings.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the Ryzen 7 2700 only turns in a small performance improvement over the Ryzen 7 1700 here. The Ryzen 7 2700X delivers much better stock-clocked performance in Handbrake. To really wake up the Ryzen 7 2700 in this benchmark, it’s necessary to overclock it to 4.2 GHz on all of its cores.

CFD with STARS Euler3D

Euler3D tackles the difficult problem of simulating fluid dynamics. It tends to be very memory-bandwidth intensive. You can read more about it right here. We configured Euler3D to use every thread available from each of our CPUs.

It should be noted that the publicly-available Euler3D benchmark is compiled using Intel’s Fortran tools, a decision that its originators discuss in depth on the project page. Code produced this way may not perform at its best on Ryzen CPUs as a result, but this binary is apparently representative of the software that would be available in the field. A more neutral compiler might make for a better benchmark, but it may also not be representative of real-world results with real-world software, and we are generally concerned with real-world performance.

Same story we’ve been seeing: the Ryzen 7 2700 is better than the Ryzen 7 1700 at stock clocks, but Intel chips dominate the benchmark overall.

 

Crysis 3

Even as it passes six years of age, Crysis 3 remains one of the most punishing games one can run. With an appetite for CPU performance and graphics power alike, this title remains a great way to put the performance of any gaming system in perspective.


The Ryzen 7 2700 gets off to a good start with Crysis 3, turning in higher frame rates and a lower 99th-percentile frame time than its predecessor. Overclocking the chip really lets it shine here, as well. Only Intel’s Coffee Lake chips are faster, but boy, are they faster when overclocked.


These “time spent beyond X” graphs are meant to show “badness,” those instances where animation may be less than fluid—or at least less than perfect. The formulas behind these graphs add up the amount of time our graphics card spends beyond certain frame-time thresholds, each with an important implication for gaming smoothness. Recall that our graphics-card tests all consist of one-minute test runs and that 1000 ms equals one second to fully appreciate this data.

The 50-ms threshold is the most notable one, since it corresponds to a 20-FPS average. We figure if you’re not rendering any faster than 20 FPS, even for a moment, then the user is likely to perceive a slowdown. 33 ms correlates to 30 FPS, or a 30-Hz refresh rate. Go lower than that with vsync on, and you’re into the bad voodoo of quantization slowdowns. 16.7 ms correlates to 60 FPS, that golden mark that we’d like to achieve (or surpass) for each and every frame.

To best demonstrate the performance of these systems with a powerful graphics card like the GTX 1080 Ti, it’s useful to look at our three strictest graphs. 8.3 ms corresponds to 120 FPS, the lower end of what we’d consider a high-refresh-rate monitor. We’ve recently begun including an even more demanding 6.94-ms mark that corresponds to the 144-Hz maximum rate typical of today’s high-refresh-rate gaming displays.

From the get-go, we can see a major improvement in the Ryzen 7 2700’s performance at the 8.3-ms mark. The second-gen Ryzen part shaves more than two seconds off time spent holding up our GTX 1080 Ti, resulting in a smoother gameplay experience. The problem, as usual, is that the 2700X does the job even better.

 

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Thanks to its richly detailed environments and copious graphics settings, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided can punish graphics cards at high resolutions and make CPUs sweat at high refresh rates.


Deus Ex: Mankind Divided has never gotten on well with Ryzen parts at 1920×1080 and high refresh rates, and this round of testing doesn’t do anything to change that picture. The Ryzen 7 2700 gives us a small performance improvement over the Ryzen 7 1700, but even the overclocked 2700 can’t come anywhere close to the peaks of Coffee Lake in this title.


 

 

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V‘s lavish simulation of Los Santos and surrounding locales can really put the hurt on a CPU, and we’re putting that characteristic to good use here.


Grand Theft Auto V tends to love what Intel’s CPUs have to offer, and it shows even at stock speeds. On the AMD side of the aisle, the stock Ryzen 7 2700 posts a nice increase in performance over the Ryzen 7 1700, but the 65-W second-gen Ryzen eight-core is outshined by its slightly-more-expensive sibling without overclocking in the picture.


Our time-spent-beyond-8.3-ms graph shows some of the magnitude of the Ryzen 7 2700’s performance improvements. The second-gen chip spends about half the time holding up our GeForce GTX 1080 Ti that its first-gen relative does. The Ryzen 7 2700X pares down that time even more, however, and only overclocking the 2700 can bring its performance into the same ballpark as its $30-more-expensive sibling.

 

Assassin’s Creed Origins

Assassin’s Creed Origins isn’t just striking to look at. It’ll happily scale with CPU cores, and that makes it an ideal case for our test bench.


Assassin’s Creed Origins hasn’t been the kindest game to Ryzen CPUs in the past, but it appears driver or game updates (or both) have helped bring performance more in line with the Intel competition. Less than 10 FPS separate the worst from the best in this test on average, and 99th-percentile frame times are tightly grouped, as well. Even so, Intel chips are still somewhat faster and smoother in this game, overclocked and stock alike. The Ryzen 7 2700 offers a small average-FPS boost and a small decrease in 99th-percentile frame times over the Ryzen 7 1700, but it’s still fighting things out at the back of the pack.


Our advanced metrics give us a better look at just what second-generation Ryzen chips do for Assassin’s Creed Origins performance. The Ryzen 7 2700 shaves nearly two seconds off its predecessor’s result at 11 ms (or 90 FPS), although even overclocking the chip doesn’t produce performance as good as what we get from the Ryzen 7 2700X. The Intel chips spend anywhere from a third to almost half the time holding up our test system’s graphics card at this mark, though.

 

Far Cry 5


Our observations suggest Far Cry 5 tends to bind up a single thread, so it’s no surprise that the Ryzen 7 2700 delivers a nice increase in performance over the Ryzen 7 1700 in both average FPS and 99th-percentile frame times. Still, Coffee Lake reigns supreme in the Montana backwoods.


At the 8.3-ms mark, the Ryzen 7 2700 turns in a huge improvement over the Ryzen 7 1700. Once again, though, the higher-TDP Ryzen 7 2700X turns in another large performance improvement even with the stock Wraith Prism heatsink, far beyond its marginal increase in cost over the 2700.

 

Streaming with Far Cry 5 and OBS Studio

To test software-encoded streaming performance with our CPUs, we fired up the latest version of OBS Studio and captured Far Cry 5 running at 1920×1080 before feeding it through the x264 encoder using the “faster” preset, a 60 FPS target frame rate, and Twitch’s maximum ingestable bit rate of 6000 Mbps from our location.

We verified that the resulting stream looked OK to the eye by playing it back on a separate PC in the TR labs. CPUs that couldn’t stream without noticeably dropping frames failed our test. Happily, all of the CPUs on the bench today provided a good-looking stream to this reviewer’s eye.




One thing is clear from these results: all of our chips take a big performance hit from being asked to game and stream all at once. At least in the case of streaming Far Cry 5, though, the Coffee Lake competition keeps frame rates higher and 99th-percentile frame times lower than any of the Ryzen 7 parts we tested.

If you just want to stream using CPU encoding from a single PC, the Ryzen CPUs can certainly get you there. If you want the best high-refresh-rate gaming experience at the same time, however, a Coffee Lake CPU is probably a better choice on the client side.


A look at the time each chip on the bench spends past 8.3 ms is perhaps the most illuminating threshold to consider for this test. Even in the worst case, our stock-clocked Coffee Lake parts spend about half the time holding up our GTX 1080 Ti by this measure than even the overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 does. Overclock either of those chips, and the blue team only pulls further ahead.

 

A quick look at power consumption and efficiency

We can get a rough idea of how efficient these chips are by monitoring system power draw in Blender and using that information to fill in the blanks on the convenient fact that one joule equals one watt expended over one second. Our observations have shown that Blender consumes about the same amount of wattage at every stage of the bmw27 benchmark, so it’s an ideal guinea pig for this kind of calculation. First, let’s revisit the amount of time it takes for each of these chips to render our Blender “bmw27” test scene:

Next, let’s look at the system power draw from the wall we observed during our testing:

By a small margin, the Ryzen 7 2700 has the lowest system power draw of this bunch while rendering out our bmw27 test scene—13 W lower than even the Ryzen 7 1700.

Instantaneous power draw doesn’t tell us much about how efficient a CPU is, though. Some chips will take more time to finish this workload than others, and a slow chip that doesn’t seem to draw a lot of power at a glance will ultimately consume a ton of juice if it’s running a workload for days at a stretch. Conversely, a power-hungry chip might finish a task much faster than slower, less-power-hungry parts, ultimately expending less task energy overall.

Our estimates of task energy expended over the course of our Blender workload put the Ryzen 7 2700 on top. By our estimation, it expends slightly less energy than even the Core i7-8700K and i7-8086K while delivering even slightly better performance. That’s an impressive result for the 65-W second-generation Ryzen eight-core part.

This scatter plot might help visualize our results in a different manner. The best results on this chart would, in theory, gather in the lower-left corner, where task energy is lowest and time-to-completion is fastest. What we’re really showing here is Pareto efficiency, though: the various balances between task energy expended and time to completion that each of these chips strikes.

If you care the most about low task energy, the Core i7-8700K, i7-8086K, and Ryzen 7 2700 are the clear winners on this chart. To get better performance, as the Ryzen 7 2700X and our overclocked chips deliver, power consumption over the course of the task climbs significantly.

 

Conclusions

AMD’s $299 Ryzen 7 2700 occupies a peculiar spot in the second-generation Ryzen lineup. Back when the Ryzen revolution began, the Ryzen 7 1700 proved popular for its cores-per-dollar ratio and appealing overclocking headroom—usually enough to match or beat the performance of the $170-more-expensive Ryzen 7 1800X. That kind of overclocking potential made the 1700 an easy sell for folks after the best multi-threaded bang for the buck.

The argument for the Ryzen 7 2700 is less clear. GlobalFoundries’ 12LP process, Precision Boost 2, and all XFR 2 help the Ryzen 7 2700 deliver roughly 12.5% higher all-core clock speeds in the same thermal envelope as its predecessor. That’s all well and good, to be sure, but it’s not enough to make the Ryzen 7 2700 a repeat hit.

Here’s why: at stock clocks, the Ryzen 7 2700X is much better for both gaming and productivity for just $30 or so more at e-tail, discount winds aside. That step up should be a no-brainer for most.

That said, the Ryzen 7 2700 still fills some important niches. Maybe you want to overclock a second-gen Ryzen processor to its limits, a practice that still shuts down all of these chips’ dynamic-voltage-and-frequency intelligence. Given that all second-gen Ryzen chips overclock about the same, in our experience, there’s little point in spending the extra cash on the brains of the Ryzen 7 2700X and the Wraith Prism cooler if you’re not going to let AMD’s SenseMI features do their work. Hawk the 2700’s handsome Wraith Spire RGB LED cooler on eBay, get out your big air cooler or all-in-one liquid heatsink, and go nuts.

Or, y’know, just put that same big cooler on the Ryzen 7 2700X and get 4-GHz-or-higher all-core speeds without touching a single setting outside of XMP. Our overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 topped out at 4.2 GHz on all cores, and it took a fair bit more effort to eke out that extra 5% of clock speed than it did to just slap a big cooler on the 2700X and enjoy all of its stock-clocked smarts. Heck, you can even get the vast majority of the stock-clocked performance potential out of the 2700X just by installing its included Wraith Prism cooler, as our comparative tests versus a monster EK Waterblocks all-in-one show throughout this review.

The strongest case for the Ryzen 7 2700 is in systems where performance-per-watt is paramount, as this 65-W chip is a lot less power-hungry at stock speeds than its X-marked sibling. It beats out the Core i7-8700K in our estimates of Blender efficiency, to say nothing of its frugality versus the no-holds-barred 2700X. It’s pretty cool what GlobalFoundries’ 12LP process can do when a product isn’t heaved over the shoulder of the voltage-and-frequency-scaling curve. If you’re building a tiny workstation or a quiet yet high-performance system, the Ryzen 7 2700 is an outstanding choice.

Those niches aside, though, the wish list for most enthusiasts begins and ends at raw performance. By that measure, the Ryzen 7 2700 is just too expensive for what it loses against the Ryzen 7 2700X. Unless you really, really need a 65-W TDP or intend to squeeze every last hertz out of second-gen Ryzen silicon, you’ll be happiest with AMD’s top-end second-gen Ryzen CPU.

Comments closed
    • pogsnet1
    • 1 year ago

    Why test Intel and AMD dont use same rated RAM? One is slower over the other.

      • Redocbew
      • 1 year ago

      Didn’t Jeff do that test a while ago and found that it made no difference?

    • fyo
    • 1 year ago

    Really not a fan of the crayola color scheme for the charts. Ideally, the main chip being reviewed should be highlighted and anything overclocked should be grayed out to some extent. Visually, it’s just a mess currently. I get that there’s an attempt to color it “red team” vs “blue team”, but yellow, orange, red, brown, light blue, and dark blue isn’t good, IMHO.

    Maybe something like the following…

    [url<]https://i.imgur.com/f4tQykl.png[/url<]

    • snowMAN
    • 1 year ago

    “Second generation”? This is nothing more than a small refresh, the real second generation Zen is yet to be announced.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 1 year ago

      Take it up with AMD! 😉

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      That’s what passes for a generation these days. There’s actually a bigger difference between Ryzen 1×00 generation and 2×00 generation than there is between Intel’s 6th and 7th gen. It’s more like Haswell -> Broadwell.

    • NeroProtagonist
    • 1 year ago

    I’d love a quiet yet high-performance system!

    • EzioAs
    • 1 year ago

    I’m not complaining about performance cause I think it’s great value but the Ryzen name still doesn’t do well with me. Whether I’m reading or hearing it or saying it out loud, it just doesn’t sound good. Does anyone else think this too?

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      RyZen

      ThreadRipper

      Epyc

      All are the kind of names a teenager would come up with.

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        Which is probably how AMD came up with those names.

        How about Athlon, Phenom, Sempron, Duron, and Opteron?

      • ronch
      • 1 year ago

      Yeah Ryzen sounds stupid. As are all the other product names AMD has ever spawned. Pity everything with those names printed on them, either by ink or electronically (web sites and all).

        • just brew it!
        • 1 year ago

        They could’ve just stuck with the “K” designations and not bothered with names at all. Put suffixes on them to designate different market segments.

        “Duron” was particularly bad; it sounds like a brand of condoms. “Epyc” is epycally lame. And “Threadripper” makes me think of [url=https://www.amazon.com/Ultima-Piece-Colorful-Ripper-Assortment/dp/B07932YDBW/<]these[/url<].

          • Krogoth
          • 1 year ago

          To be honest, the majority of computer-related branding has always been lame and cringe inducing.

            • meerkt
            • 1 year ago

            Fatal1ty FTW! kekeke

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    Back in 2007 I got my first multi-core CPU, an ‘Energy Efficient’ Athlon 64 X2 4800+ with a 65w TDP.

    Just saying.

      • heinsj24
      • 1 year ago

      Woah, that’s right after AMD decided to follow Intel with an average TDP for processors. One year previous, that same processor would have had a TDP of 130W.

      50% reduction… IT’S MAGIC!

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        AMD came up with ACP (Average CPU Power.. which never stuck) only with Phenom. K8 IIRC still used standard TDP.

          • Redocbew
          • 1 year ago

          TDP has always been somewhat arbitrarily defined. It’s useful as a guide, but otherwise it’s just another TLA.

            • ronch
            • 1 year ago

            Yep, but still probably a fairer metric than ACP.

            • Redocbew
            • 1 year ago

            Probably, but it still doesn’t make much sense to compare the numbers across architectures.
            Some of the early Pentium 4’s also had a TDP of about 65 watts.

            • just brew it!
            • 1 year ago

            It also provides some reasonable guidance as to how much cooling you need to provide, which ACP does not. I mean, hey, that’s really kinda the point – [i<]Thermal Design[/i<] Power. IOW, design your cooling solution to remove this much heat, and the CPU should rarely (if ever) need to throttle.

    • B166ER
    • 1 year ago

    Sooooo…

    We’re not doing audio workstation performance anymore?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      Jeff’s twitter is full of issues with the Focusrite interface he’s been using. Windows 10 across multiple systems resulted in nonstop crackling in the audio.

        • B166ER
        • 1 year ago

        Bad capacitors!

    • Shobai
    • 1 year ago

    Last paragraph before Testing Methods, you’ve written 45 Watts instead of 40 Watts.

    • plonk420
    • 1 year ago

    what happens if you make Euler3D think that it’s running on an Intel? (i think one of the VM softwares can do that)

    • elites2012
    • 1 year ago

    I still hate these types of review.

    1. the benchmarks are not up to date. so they are still written with the intel chips in mind. ryzen was not out when they made these benchmarks.

    2. Handbrake has been updated and still the ryzen looses to a 6 core cpu.

    3. programs that we use today, still use a single core/thread to run? so why are we still running benchmarks for single threads?

    4. 40 watts makes a difference when your paying you own electric bill and it comes once a month.

    5. when has intel make a chip from the ground up? the coffee lake is just a tweaked haswell chip.

    6. I hate how intel convinced the world that 4 cores was all you need to run anything. they did this to spare the software programmers from writing code for 8 cores.

      • Shouefref
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<] 4. 40 watts makes a difference when your paying you own electric bill and it comes once a month. [/quote<] That was my idea too. And anyway, you have to draw the line somewhere. TechReport argues: [quote<]Here's why: at stock clocks, the Ryzen 7 2700X is much better for both gaming and productivity for just $30 or so more at e-tail, discount winds aside. [/quote<] That is true, but it's not just ' $30 or so more ' , it's ANOTHER ' $30 or so more '. And a higher electricity bill. It's like buying a car, you know: it's extra option 'only' adds so much, but in the end all those nicely priced extra options make a high bill. The Ryzen 7 2700 does add extra choice. And if need be, you can still overclock it. To me the 2700X is feels a bit like that really big, fast car you neighbour has, who never needs the space and is far from a racer.

        • heinsj24
        • 1 year ago

        40W? Oh, 40W is the difference in TDP. Remember, TDP is used for determining cooling solutions; it is not a measure of actual power usage.

        • Pettytheft
        • 1 year ago

        The whole electricity bill argument is such a non-factor for home use. Unless you are a data center or running your machine full tilt 24×7 it’s not even a cost that’s worth noting. It only makes sense in terms of cooling and overclocking requirements.

          • uni-mitation
          • 1 year ago

          1- If you are having trouble with your electricity costs, I think that is the least of your worries: DEA.

          2- People actually do work with their computers. In that case, Time > electricity costs. Time is the one resource that can’t be bought, or quantified. Time for a CEO is different than that of a bum off the street. The same goes for people that earn their living using their computers.

          3- Write off the costs to your business expense, or bill client.

          4- It is a non-issue. What truly matters is the amount of work, and the increase of productivity that will make you competitive in the marketplace: your competitors will try to do more work for a cheaper price. You need to remain competitive. There is a reason we no longer use typewriters.

          uni-mitation

            • strangerguy
            • 1 year ago

            Power bill is a consideration if you one of those still using OCed pre-SB platforms that are burning relatively huge amounts of power just on idle, even if performance wasn’t an issue. The more you keep using it the more you throw good money into the energy bill of being put towards a far faster and energy efficient faster system (with warranty to boot).

          • godforsaken
          • 1 year ago

          That is a false equivalency… You’re essentially comparing the electrical usage of your cpu to your a/c with that argument.. It’s not that I don’t understand why people see it this way, but, let me break it down for you in simple terms..

          The electricity bill argument is simple and solely relates to when you’re putting the price of a cpu in your choice of which cpu to buy (rare, I know).. like so:

          you have two equivalent processors:
          CPU A is $200 and 2 years of normal usage costs $90 worth of electricity, aka cpu A= $200+$90, or $290
          CPU B is $225 and 2 years of normal usage costs $50 worth of electricity, aka cpu B= $225+$50, or $275

          so, yes, if price is an issue, the electric bill has good reason to be taken into consideration..

          it’s really simple, a $200 cpu that costs you an extra $40 in the long run is not cheaper than a more efficient $225 cpu

            • Redocbew
            • 1 year ago

            You could also just stay at home and cook your own food a few nights a week and make back far more than you’d save by fretting over the power efficiency of your CPU.

            I’ve known people who truly would consider saving $25 over the course of two years a “good reason” to do something, but you do realize that’s kind of bonkers, right?

            • godforsaken
            • 1 year ago

            I’m not arguing the efficiency of factoring in efficiency, I’m just stating that the argument is valid..

            and, yes, sometimes, in the end of the day, this is the best argument [url<]https://xkcd.com/1445/[/url<]

          • Shouefref
          • 1 year ago

          It is NOT a non-factor, nor a non-issue. It’s the unendless chain of the each non-factor rise in the use of elec which made the total bill so high in the end, not to mention the climate shift. There IS a climate shift.
          And if people go on buying monstrous cars with huge engines of over 2l, then sooner or later it will be forbidden to have a car, and you will be obliged to use public transport. Except, of course, if you are rich. Because the rich always do anything they want. Rules are for the poor.

      • Redocbew
      • 1 year ago

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRS1dwCotw[/url<]

        • Waco
        • 1 year ago

        Agreed. That post is full of fail.

      • DancinJack
      • 1 year ago

      I hate these types of comments (mostly because you’re wrong a lot).

      • Goty
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]1. the benchmarks are not up to date. so they are still written with the intel chips in mind. ryzen was not out when they made these benchmarks.[/quote<] I'm not sure if you know this, but software can be (and is) updated to support new features, instruction set extensions, architectures, etc. The 7-zip benchmarks are likely a good indicator of this, though I've not personally perused the change logs to see. [quote<]2. Handbrake has been updated and still the ryzen looses to a 6 core cpu.[/quote<] The x265 encoder used in TR's particular test makes use of the extra AVX units in Intel's CPUs, which can easily explain this result. [quote<]3. programs that we use today, still use a single core/thread to run? so why are we still running benchmarks for single threads?[/quote<] I'm pretty sure what you typed isn't what you meant, but the fact of the matter is that there are still a large number of applications where single threaded performance is still relevant and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. [quote<]4. 40 watts makes a difference when your paying you own electric bill and it comes once a month.[/quote<] Running at full load 24/7, which is obviously unrealistic, 40W of extra power consumption would cost the average user in the United States $3.50/month or $42.05/year. It's not exactly game changing. [quote<]5. when has intel make a chip from the ground up? the coffee lake is just a tweaked haswell chip.[/quote<] If it performs, who cares? [quote<]6. I hate how intel convinced the world that 4 cores was all you need to run anything. they did this to spare the software programmers from writing code for 8 cores.[/quote<] Uh. Ok?

      • xrror
      • 1 year ago

      Dude, I’m an AMD fan too but this isn’t the way to go about it.

      Intel does lead in power efficiency and single core (Instructions Per Clock). If they didn’t, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

      I’m glad AMD has something competitive again. I’ll accept a max 15% loss in max framerate while having a platform that isn’t locked down as f*ck in the name of market segmentation (and won’t be garbage in 6 months because arbritary microcode BS), while giving me WAY more cores for my distributed computing.

      But that doesn’t really help for Jim eSport buying prebuilt online. And every review site saying “Ryzen is shit for games” when it’s what? 20FPS less in 1080p? But apparently that’s a big deal even when it’s already over 200FPS.

      And that right there is it. You’re not going to convince them otherwise. Short of Cyrix coming back from the dead with a processor that runs the same games +10FPS more they’re not listening.

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        I’ve been saying this all the time. If either Intel or AMD can run your games beyond 100fps or so, who cares if AMD is 10% slower? It’s like arguing whether the Core i7-8700K is better than my FX-8350 in Quake 2. But then, when you need to crunch numbers, the 2600X will walk all over any i5 at the same price tier. So when Intel’s faster, it’s not like you’ll have a horrible gaming experience with AMD, and when AMD is faster, it ultra-kills Intel.

      • ronch
      • 1 year ago

      Ryzen is not an Intel killer but it’s a very good product from a company with an annual R&D budget that’s probably less than Intel’s quarterly coffee machine budget.

      And for that principle alone I’m getting a Ryzen even if it doesn’t run King’s Quest 3. (Oh but it does! -Ed)

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      TL;DR — every review should omit all tests where AMD doesn’t have a baked in advantage.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      I like how #2 directly refutes #1.

        • Redocbew
        • 1 year ago

        You like? You’re supposed to hate. Hate hate hate!

          • derFunkenstein
          • 1 year ago

          I am too cool to hate.

      • just brew it!
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]3. programs that we use today, still use a single core/thread to run? so why are we still running benchmarks for single threads?[/quote<] Most real-world applications do not scale perfectly with core/thread count, so single-thread performance still matters for a lot of workloads. [quote<]4. 40 watts makes a difference when your paying you own electric bill and it comes once a month.[/quote<] But the CPU doesn't draw its rated TDP all the time; it only does so at full load. If the system is idling, the power draw is going to be much lower (and likely close to identical for the two chips). Yes, the 2700X is less efficient at full load. But it also completes tasks faster. To put some hard numbers to this based on the power usage tests in the article, if you're doing Blender renders 24x7 and your electricity costs 15 cents/kWH, you'll be spending around $6.75 more per month using the 2700X vs the 2700; but you will also be getting 20% more renders done.

        • f0d
        • 1 year ago

        whenever i see how cheap electricity is in america (15c KWH wow) i cry a little inside
        you can double that and then some more for electricity prices in australia 🙁

          • just brew it!
          • 1 year ago

          It varies a lot by region. Apparently our national average is just over 13c, but it ranges from a low of around 10c to a high of 32c. And the current exchange rate is 0.74 USD to 1 AUD, so the difference isn’t as large as it looks at first glance (unless you already adjusted your numbers for that).

            • f0d
            • 1 year ago

            our minimum is about 30c and high is probably something stupid for those not living in a major city

            • HERETIC
            • 1 year ago

            Just paid power bill in perth-25.75 cents per KWH

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 1 year ago

            Extensive data are available here:
            [url<]https://www.eia.gov/electricity/[/url<] Residential electricity pricing in May 2018: Hawaii: 32¢/kWhr Louisiana: 9½¢/kWhr U.S. total: 13.15 ¢/kWhr

      • YellaChicken
      • 1 year ago

      I hate how all these AMD fanboy posts get so many upvotes on this site…oh.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 1 year ago

      Great, now chuckula will never stop parodying this. XD

      • alphadogg
      • 1 year ago

      40W/1000 = 0.04 kW * 8760h (if on 24/7) = 350.4 kWh * $0.20/kWh = $70/yr. (Note, I excluded hawaii’s outlier of $0.28/kWh. However, many states are around $0.20/kWh, so I used that as typical worst-case rate.)

      More realistically, you are not at max TDP, maybe 2/3. Also, you run it 8hrs a day on average. So, this becomes ~$23/yr, or ~$2 per month.

      I’m all for saving money and energy, but this is a minor, minor point to make.

      • figyo
      • 1 year ago

      6. nothing to do with programmers, they did this to reduce costs/increase margins

      • cheesyking
      • 1 year ago

      1 core is all you NEED to run anything 😉

    • DPete27
    • 1 year ago

    [quote<]not worth paying extra for a top-end model when a cheaper part will likely respond to tuning in a similar fashion[/quote<] Except that overclocking Ryzen means losing idle clocks since your CPU will always run at the set overclock frequency...right?

      • MOSFET
      • 1 year ago

      Seems like it may depend on mobo and even UEFI version. I have two Ryzen 5 systems and I’m still trying to figure this out. I haven’t checked in a while, and the Asus UEFI has matured a great deal since I’ve checked.

      • ptsant
      • 1 year ago

      Not necessarily. At least that’s not what I observed with RyzenMaster and an Asus Crosshair VI.

      I expected it to run at 4GHz all the time, but was happy to see it idle at a much lower frequency/voltage. Don’t remember the specifics because I reverted to stock, but I can try it again.

      • enixenigma
      • 1 year ago

      P-State overclocking will allow you to overclock while still being able to keep idle clocks. How easy/possible this is varies from board to board.

      • Zan Lynx
      • 1 year ago

      There isn’t much point to the lower frequencies in my opinion.

      I’m running a 1700X on an ASUS board for a Linux server. I used the ASUS feature to just clock all cores at 3.7. It’s sort of an overclock and disables XFR.

      Linux was able to switch the speed states between 2.2 and 3.7. But after a while I just set the speed scaler to performance and left them at 3.7.

      Because when the cores are not working they are in idle, essentially 0 MHz. And when they are working, I want them at full speed.

      According to my UPS watts readout, the power use difference at idle is essentially zero. There’s no point to using a slower clock if the cores are at idle anyway.

      You can get power savings if you use the “conservative” Linux scheduler, which waits for CPU usage to remain high over time before raising the speed. Or if you regularly run low priority jobs like Whatever@Home. But I don’t do that.

    • crystall
    • 1 year ago

    really nice MT performance + 65W TDP + ECC support = sweet NAS/SOHO server build

      • ptsant
      • 1 year ago

      That is THE use case for 2700.

      I run a NAS/server that can run encodes from time to time (multithreaded is useful) but is otherwise lightly loaded and has had memory issues recently. A frugal 65W CPU with ECC and decent MT would be perfect. Unfortunately, I can’t afford a brand new 2700 for that purpose. But it would be perfect.

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 1 year ago

    The price point is bad, but it’s impressive the 2700 delivers 10%+ more performance over the 1700 while using less power.

      • Peldor
      • 1 year ago

      The price point is the easiest thing to change.

      Heck it’s currently going for $279 (aka $50 cheaper than the 2700X) at the Egg and Amazon.

    • dragontamer5788
    • 1 year ago

    I’m still surprised that Zen beats the 6-core Coffee Lakes in AVX2 accelerated Blender / Corona / Indigo.

    Well, its a virtual tie for Indigo. But not bad at all! I figured that Coffee Lake’s superior AVX implementation would allow it to beat out the 8-core consistently in those tests.

    Cinebench R15 is SSE-based. So its the least-realistic of those renderers (even though its the most popular).

      • xrror
      • 1 year ago

      I’m not versed in all of the AVX flavors, but I wonder if it’s triggering the “AVX offset” (nice PR for downclock) on Coffee Lake.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 1 year ago

        I dunno why you’re downvoted. But you’re right, 256-bit AVX slightly downclocks Coffee Lake. (AVX512 doesn’t exist on the i7-8700k).

        Still though, Intel has 3x 256-bit pipelines per core, and each core has 2x 256-bit Load + 1x 256-bit Store unit.

        In contrast, AMD has 4x 128-bit pipelines per core, with 2x 128-bit load/store units per core.

        Even if the Intel cores downclock slightly, these numbers are [b<]no where[/b<] close. The Intel machine ought to be 2x faster in theory. Obviously, I'm wrong and the 8-core AMD beat out the 6-core Intel. I'm just curious why my theory is wrong. My main guess is that maybe Blender / Corona / Indigo have other instructions aside from AVX. They're probably doing some other stuff aside from just SIMD all of the rays or whatever calculations they do. Alternatively, maybe Raytracing is heavily in L3 cache, so Intel's superior core / L1 / L2 designs don't see much benefit. Hard to tell from these benchmarks alone. But... it certainly is curious.

          • accord1999
          • 1 year ago

          With Corona (and Cinebench), my experience with a 8700K is that it doesn’t clock down at all to my configured AVX offset, suggesting that these benchmarks have little AVX usage.

    • cozzicon
    • 1 year ago

    As a long time AMD fan… this is still exciting. The sad thing is that my existing rigs don’t need an upgrade 🙁

    By the time I need an upgrade I’ll be on Ryzen 4.

    • blastdoor
    • 1 year ago

    But where’s Threadripper 2? I thought it was supposed to come out in August, and it’s been August for nearly [b<]10 hours[/b<] (in my time zone). How much longer do I have to wait????

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      I’m not saying Buffalo.

      BUT BUFFALO!

      In the meantime I have an easy way to get your fix: Just read this review FOUR TIMES and it’s like Threadripper 2.

        • drfish
        • 1 year ago

        Dang it, I was about to reply, “Nice one, chuck.”

        • Mr Bill
        • 1 year ago

        Made me laugh.
        [quote<]Just read this review FOUR TIMES and it's like Threadripper 2.[/quote<]

      • Krogoth
      • 1 year ago

      Patience my friend. The NDA will be lifted soon enough.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    Nah just spend $30 more.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    Do current Intel chips and previous AMD chips also turn off their power saving wizardry if you OC them? I seem to recall my Phenom II still clocking down after I tried to OC it. Never even attempted to OC my FX though. Also, will Ryzen and recent Intel and AMD CPUs clock down if you remove the cooler? I reckon the Pentium 4 was already capable of doing this, so I’d expect current x86 CPUs to be capable of this also.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 1 year ago

      I can’t speak to past AMD platforms but current Intel chips do not disable Speed Step etc. unless you specifically turn it off when overclocking.

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        Any way to force Ryzen to clock down if you OC them? Disable SenseMI maybe?

          • Tirk
          • 1 year ago

          My 1700 still clocks down when I OC with the Pstates.

          Also make sure the power options in windows has a cpu min state that allows it to clock down as well.

      • just brew it!
      • 1 year ago

      My Phenom 9550 didn’t fry itself (and kept running) when the CPU fan died, so I assume there was some sort of thermal throttling going on.

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        Good to know AMD already seems to have the technology. I recall my Athlon 64 X2 (K8, 65w, Brisbane) shut down when things got too hot, so maybe AMD started to include the technology with Phenom. It would be shocking if AMD didn’t even have 18-year old technology (P4 came out in ’00).

          • Krogoth
          • 1 year ago

          AMD had dynamic clocking and undervolting ever since K8 which they called “Cool’n’Quiet”. Phenom had an improved version of it. XFR is pretty much a highly evolved version of the same standard.

            • ronch
            • 1 year ago

            Yes, Cool n Quiet. Heard of it. But the thing that makes Pentium 4’s mechanism better is that it doesn’t shut the computer down and everything still running. I saw this with my Pentium 4 in 2005, but my Athlon 64 shut my PC down in 2008.

      • davyjones
      • 1 year ago

      With the early bios versions, my R7 1700 would stay locked at 3.7 GHz when overclocked to that. Around August of last year, the updated bios allowed it to clock down at idle. Currently, it idles around 1.5GHz & ramps up to 3.7 when needed. Voltage varies between 0.4 & 1.275 on my chip. To get a higher overclock, I’d have to lock in the voltage & clock, which can be done on the better boards. For my particular use case, the compromise approach is better

      • Froz
      • 1 year ago

      You sure Phenom II did that? I remember I was using PhenomMsrTweaker utility and IIRC it was precisely to have ability to OC and not lose power states.

      Also, frequency is one thing, another is voltage. My Skylake CPU doesn’t lower its frequency, but it does lower its voltage during idle, by a lot.

      Also, I think those things also depend on motherboard.

        • Waco
        • 1 year ago

        I’m sure mine did. Can’t remember the board off the top of my head (an ASRock maybe?) but I had my Phenom II cranked as high as it would go and it would still drop down at idle.

        • heinsj24
        • 1 year ago

        A lot of overclockers would recommend turning off AMD’s Cool’N’Quiet before overclocking.

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        Yeah I was thinking it could depend on your motherboard as well.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        As long as you didn’t turn off Cool’n’Quiet on my Asus board, it would downclock my OC’d (and core-unlocked) Phenom II X2 550BE.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 1 year ago

      Not even Haswell turns off speed step with an OC.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 1 year ago

      My FX still did speed step when I OC’d it

    • XTF
    • 1 year ago

    > It draws much less juice than even Intel’s Core i5-8400 for i7-8700K-beating performance in our estimates of Blender efficiency,

    How so? Both power draw and task energy are only a bit less than the i7-8700K aren’t they?

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 1 year ago

      My mistake, should have caught that during editing.

    • jigzaw
    • 1 year ago

    My first build was with 1700 on an Asrock AB350 Pro4. I find it pedestrian as I want to on IRONCAD on generating associative 2D drawings from the 3D model. I change it to a 1700X when the price dipped and it was great along with KeyShot rendering. I recently setup another workstation for onsite work with a 2700 with Asrock AB350M Pro4, it was snappy as with 1700X with faster generation of the associative 2D drawings as it boosted higher where it is needed plus KeyShot again.

    One note though: I first used the wraith spire and it only boosted all core to 3292 mhz @ 56° C on tctl most of the time as compared to what Ryhadar lined to. I replaced it with the wraith cooler I kept from a FX8370, the all core boost was 3313+ @46° C on tctl. So the cooler it gets the all core boost gets better.

    • shank15217
    • 1 year ago

    Can the Ryzen 2700 be TDP limited to 45W?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      Anandtech says that’s coming in the form of the Ryzen 7 2700E.

      [url<]https://www.anandtech.com/show/12841/amd-preps-new-ryzen-2000series-cpus-45w-ryzen-7-2700e-ryzen-5-2600e[/url<] 2.8GHz base, undisclosed/unknown turbo. The referenced CPU chart has been updated and 2700E has been removed on ASRock's site.

    • turtlepwr281
    • 1 year ago

    I went for the 2700 instead of the 2700X.

    I wanted to use a mATX B350 board and didn’t feel like any of their tiny 4-phase VRM’s could cope with the 2700X’s 145+ watt power draw.

      • Veerappan
      • 1 year ago

      Likewise.

      My home system is on almost 24/7 and I’d rather have the better power efficiency for the work I have that machine do. I’m not on a mATX board, but I am running a B350.

    • Ryhadar
    • 1 year ago

    Did your testing uncover some weirdness in the XFR 2 implementation on the 2700? [s<]I think it might have been AnandTech, but they[/s<] TechpowerUp saw the clock speed curve react more like the 1700's where one or two core boost was high then a sharp drop off to max, all core boost. Here's a link: [url<]https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/16.html[/url<] Also, good review! Thanks. *Edit* - Fixed some spelling mistakes I made on mobile 🙂

      • jihadjoe
      • 1 year ago

      Not strange IMO. I think that’s just the chip trying to stay within its specified 65W TDP.

        • Goty
        • 1 year ago

        I agree. The 1800X drops to a frequency floor and stays there whereas the 2700 has a big drop after four threads and then a gradual decrease as load increases.

        • Ryhadar
        • 1 year ago

        Good point, but it’s still a bit weird to me only because the 2600 (also 65W TDP) doesn’t exhibit this behavior: [url<]https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/16.html[/url<] Now, granted, the 2700 has 2 more cores enabled but with all the touting of how great the curve is of XFR2 versus XFR by AMD you'd think it'd have a much less pronounced drop off. Was more just wondering if this was indeed due to TDP limitation or if there was some screw up with the release microcode/BIOS.

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      That’s concerning. Definitely not something the average Joe would expect. Interesting about the 2600 also.

        • Ryhadar
        • 1 year ago

        Yeah I was pretty surprised to see it myself. I mean, it makes sense for power conservation but I expected a more gradual decline.

    • strangerguy
    • 1 year ago

    tl;dr version: Might as well just spend $30 more for the 2700X.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      Indirectly, it also indicates that the automatic clock management in the 2700X is very good. Put a good cooling solution on it and it can automatically match what you could get if you spent hours manually tuning an overclock.

      *That* seems like a feature that’s worth $30….

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This