AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Review: The Non-X Factor

[logainofhades]

I think Toms is missing the critical feature: 65W TDP.

I am using the R7 2700, in a mini ITX build, air cooled, in a Node 202 case for video encoding much of the time. The nicer behavior, of the 65W TDP makes it a far better choice.

In video encoding this chip matches my i7-7700K @ 4.9GHz. The i7 has a 360mm water cooler. The R7 2700 is quitter and cooler.

Tom, you are far too focused on peak performance.
Like favoring a car with a higher peak horse power rating that is horrible to daily driver...

I have to agree here. For someone that cares about power consumption, this is a great choice of a CPU. Also for the person that is upgrading an existing rig, and has a compatible aftermarket cooling solution, there is little point in getting the 2700x, unless you don't like to OC.

 

[Shumok]

It's nice that AMD is offering both a performance part (X version) and an efficiency part (non-X). In the past it seemed like efficiency versions of cpu's were sometimes more costly.

 

[dorsai]

Bought the 2700x, Asrock x470 Gaming K4, 16gig CAS 14 DDR4-3200, and a 240mm AIO cooler and never looked back.

Set the CPU options in BIOS to max performance without overclocking it, set the memory to 3466 CAS 15 @ 1.37 v and it was off and running...has been completely stable in hours of gaming and running Milkyway@home for a few days now.

Much faster and much smoother in gaming than the i7 3770k @ 4.5 I replaced...cant say enough good things about the ease of setup and the stability of the 2700x build.

 

[10tacle]

Once again we have a Tom's review and the AMD fanboys don't like hearing the truth and claim an Intel bias. Some people just don't need to even be here. There. I said it. Oh and I'd also like to point out the Tom's trashers are not regulars who help others solve problems in forums, so there's that too. They just come out of the woodwork panting like rabid dogs waiting to jump on a Tom's review that DARES say something negative against an AMD product.

 

[Darkbreeze]

And visa versa as well. It happens both ways, and both ways are lame, and lacking in any actual substance at all. Lamerz with nothing better to do than cry about something that actually has zilch to do with them personally in any stretch of the imagination. Facts and results are just that. They are not attacks on your personal favorite. Get over it.

 

[Olle P]

... the 2700 is a much better choice if you're looking for a powerful CPU that sips power (... and that's before... undervolting), ... For pure gaming, the 2600X is a much more sensible choice, ...

* For gaming I agree that the 2600X is the most sensible option.

* For low power the 2700 is better than 2700X at stock settings, since the controllers will limit the power consumption.
I do have a hunch that the 2700X will be more power efficient once you tinker with clocks and voltages though. For the test samples the 2700X can run 4.2 GHz at a lower voltage, so question is what the voltage difference can be at 3.2 GHz, and if it's symptomatic to the average CPUs of each SKU?

... Anyone who was intending on overclocking and using a third-party cooler anyway, might arguably be better off going with the 2700 and putting that extra $30 toward their cooling solution of choice. ...

Not necessarily. Assuming that the chips are binned so that 2700X get the better ones you're likely going to reach better clocks with the 2700X given the same cooling.

This CPU surely will be the best option for some users, but not as many as the 1700.
I think that's good for AMD!

 

[mitch074]

* For low power the 2700 is better than 2700X at stock settings, since the controllers will limit the power consumption.
I do have a hunch that the 2700X will be more power efficient once you tinker with clocks and voltages though. For the test samples the 2700X can run 4.2 GHz at a lower voltage, so question is what the voltage difference can be at 3.2 GHz, and if it's symptomatic to the average CPUs of each SKU?

I don't think there is that much of a difference (physically, I mean) between a X and non-X 2700 - part of the price difference can be attributed to the much beefier, "small" series cooler provided with the X version (I've had both coolers in hand), so the chance that you might get slightly lower voltages on a downclocked 2700X compared with a non-X is already quite low.
But, yes, I meant with stock settings. Note though that the 2700X's stock settings make "casual" overclocking rather pointless: that damn chip overclocks itself! I'll come back here if a beefier cooling solutions makes it necessary to tinker with it.

 

[nzahran81]

Max power consumption and TDP is mostly not based on X vs. non-X chip, but based on BIOS settings (such as clock, multiplier, and turbo mode settings). Both are essentially the same CPU. The 2700X could be made to consume less power and run at a lower TDP in the BIOS than 2700 at stock (if you want). However, 2700X has a better cooler and was factory tested/certified at higher clocks (could mean better efficiency, stability, etc.). Worth the extra $20-30.

 

[lsatenstein]

If you do moderate overclocking, to just using the 2700x as you would the 2700, power consumption should be the same. Its when you push performance that both cpus will go beyond the 65 watt level.
The 2700x is shown to support more performance push.
I will be installing the 2700x with fast ram, and I will be getting the performance level I expect, with far less than the top wattage listed.

 

[victor.gladkikh]

Bad stock cooler for overclock? I'm running Ryzen 1700 with stock cooler at 3.8Hz. Zero issues. 2700 will allow even more clock with zero spend on coolers

 

[mitch074]

No, you can't overclock the 2700X with its stock cooler: the thing is already maxed out (I tried). Noisy as hell, a non X version is actually better here- the bundled cooler has some margin compared with the CPU's default power envelope.

 

[orlando.arroyoocasio]

So I bought both CPU's 2700 first then returned it and got the X Version. I came from a R1700 non X. I had issues with the performance of the 2700 due to that the increase of performance was minimal coming from the 1700(running 3.9 @1.32V with a 240mm AIO). Couldn't get the 2700 to 4.1 stable, the most I got from it was 4.050Ghz with the AIO. So the next day returned it and got the X version and was able to get the 4.3Ghz with the same AIO.

 

[orlando.arroyoocasio]

To add to my last post I run the 2700X @stock since the gains from manual overclocking imo are minimal.

 

[Olle P]

No, you can't overclock the 2700X with its stock cooler: the thing is already maxed out...

To add to my last post I run the 2700X @stock since the gains from manual overclocking imo are minimal.

This is a matter of definition.
Given that "overclocking" is defined as "running all cores above base speed" it's definitely possible with the stock cooler for 2700X.
At stock settings PB2 does an excellent job of automatically overclocking the CPU about as far as the cooling allows, so manual overclocking is futile.

 

[orlando.arroyoocasio]

what I meant by stock I was referring to bios settings.