AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

[FD2Raptor]

8700k you must add watter cooling price to run that. $359 + $109 = I7 8700k cost $468

In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 7 2700X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3785V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and the default Load Line Calibration settings. Since we couldn't smash through to 4.3 GHz without exceeding AMD's 1.40V maximum recommended Vcore setting, we stopped at 4.2 GHz.

We did encounter temperatures as high as 90°C during extended AVX testing, so we recommend a capable closed-loop or custom water cooler for overclocking.

And so does the Ryzen 7, so what's your point.

 

[mihen]

Maybe AMD spiked the test hardware they sent Anandtech since they know they are the most trusted tech site.

 

[Lostinlodos]

I just want to thank the reviewers for doing real world reviews. Not just games. The 2700x looks even better in real use scenarios than the 1800x did. And it’s quickly pushing on intel. In multi threading uses like compression and conversion where I’m interested I’m seeing what I hoped for. Thanks.

 

[10tacle]

Maybe AMD spiked the test hardware they sent Anandtech since they know they are the most trusted tech site.

Anandtech the MOST trusted tech site? Says who? Not since Anand left. And FYI Anandtech applied Intel's Spectre2 patches.

I just want to thank the reviewers for doing real world reviews. Not just games. T

I'm not sure where you've visited, but every professional site I've been to has both games *and* productivity/scientific tests. Anandtech, Guru3D, Tweaktown, Hothardware, and Techpowerup are five others I went to.

 

[Sakkura]

Maybe AMD spiked the test hardware they sent Anandtech since they know they are the most trusted tech site.

The only thing AMD could do would be to give a golden sample that clocks higher. But Anandtech didn't run overclocked benchmarks anyway.

 

[luckzeh]

It's funny reading the German and English reviews side by side, a few of the charts include rather different tested CPU configurations (for example one chart in German has the 2700X at the top, while the English equivalent sports an overclocked 8700K that's missing from the other one).

P.S.: I wish there were 90% or at least 99% framerates mentioned rather than true 'minimum' ones. They're not too helpful.
The 99% framerates on the last English page, what games are they based on? Civ VI for example isn't all that interesting.

I would have liked SSD testing, SSD RAID testing, StoreMI testing. Meltdown/Spectre and all.

 

[logainofhades]

8700k you must add watter cooling price to run that. $359 + $109 = I7 8700k cost $468

In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 7 2700X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3785V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and the default Load Line Calibration settings. Since we couldn't smash through to 4.3 GHz without exceeding AMD's 1.40V maximum recommended Vcore setting, we stopped at 4.2 GHz.

We did encounter temperatures as high as 90°C during extended AVX testing, so we recommend a capable closed-loop or custom water cooler for overclocking.

And so does the Ryzen 7, so what's your point.

Ryzen typically can be tamed with a large air cooler, like a Cryorig R1 Ultimate. Intel being cheap about the TIM, pretty much requires water cooling, for any kind of real overclock. Still the upfront cost is cheaper, for AMD, as you don't have to get the cooler right away. Being able to use a cheaper board is another plus for AMD. Granted there are some cheaper Z370 boards out now, but they aren't beefy enough on the VRM for overclocking an 8700k very far. They are better suited to 8350k overclocking.

If I were just upgrading my current rig, I would probably stick with Intel, as it wouldn't be affected by my current slower ram, as I run CL13, 2133 corsair currently. I also have a Cryorig A40, so I have the cooling covered.

If I had to buy new, however, I would be looking heavily at Ryzen 2600/2700. I game at 1440p, so the performance differences we see at 1080p wouldn't be that big of an impact.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

It's funny reading the German and English reviews side by side, a few of the charts include rather different tested CPU configurations (for example one chart in German has the 2700X at the top, while the English equivalent sports an overclocked 8700K that's missing from the other one).

P.S.: I wish there were 90% or at least 99% framerates mentioned rather than true 'minimum' ones. They're not too helpful.
The 99% framerates on the last English page, what games are they based on? Civ VI for example isn't all that interesting.

I would have liked SSD testing, SSD RAID testing, StoreMI testing. Meltdown/Spectre and all.

The results on the final page are a geometric mean of the entire gaming suite.

AMD pulled the tiering software and driver prior to launch, but hopes to have it ready soon. Stay tuned.

 

[bernardv]

At Anandtech Ryzen 2700X massively outscored i7 8700K at Civilization 6, other titles as well but with smaller margin. Intel must buy plenty ad space here at Tom's (or the other way around, which I doubt), since they're painting quite the opposite picture.

 

[tripleX]

At Anandtech Ryzen 2700X massively outscored i7 8700K at Civilization 6, other titles as well but with smaller margin. Intel must buy plenty ad space here at Tom's (or the other way around, which I doubt), since they're painting quite the opposite picture.

You must've missed the part where AnandTech's test results don't align with ANY other site. The results are so far off that they've announced they are retesting. From their article:

Update: A number of comments have noted that some of our gaming numbers are different to other publications. To clarify, we used the latest ASUS 0508 BIOS (on X470), full Windows RS3 + updates, Spectre/Meltdown patches, and updated gaming titles. We are reviewing the data.

 

[AgentLozen]

At Anandtech Ryzen 2700X massively outscored i7 8700K at Civilization 6, other titles as well but with smaller margin. Intel must buy plenty ad space here at Tom's (or the other way around, which I doubt), since they're painting quite the opposite picture.

Hi bernard. Thanks for posting on the Tomshardware forums. I like to post here too so we probably have a lot in common =)

The Anandtech benchmark numbers were brought up earlier in this thread. Apparently, Anandtech acknowledges that their numbers are different from other reviewers and they are investigating the cause. Here's a line from the first page of their Ryzen 2700x review:

"Update: A number of comments have noted that some of our gaming numbers are different to other publications. To clarify, we used the latest ASUS 0508 BIOS (on X470), full Windows RS3 + updates, Spectre/Meltdown patches, and updated gaming titles. We are reviewing the data."

Tomshardware has consistently written well researched reviews for as long as I've been visiting their web publication. I sincerely doubt that they accept bribes to make up numbers especially when other websites could rerun their work and test their results.

Thanks for stopping by and posting though. It's good to see a different view on the topic.

 

[FD2Raptor]

Ryzen typically can be tamed with a large air cooler, like a Cryorig R1 Ultimate. Intel being cheap about the TIM, pretty much requires water cooling, for any kind of real overclock. Still the upfront cost is cheaper, for AMD, as you don't have to get the cooler right away. Being able to use a cheaper board is another plus for AMD. Granted there are some cheaper Z370 boards out now, but they aren't beefy enough on the VRM for overclocking an 8700k very far. They are better suited to 8350k overclocking.

You know what... it's not even difficult to just go into PCPP and find plenty of builds featuring the OCed 8700k alongside an air tower.

It's almost ironic you're saying "Being able to use a cheaper board is another plus for AMD. Granted there are some cheaper Z370 boards out now, but..." when there's only X470 boards available right now, and a good chunk of them would have a 8+4 CPU power connectors configuration, and that's certainly available on the cheaper PSU, right?

And a good chunks of the B350 aren't really suitable for OCing the 8-cores parts either. Components are often too low end to include the overclocking as part of a long-lasting system.

OC on these newer Ryzen parts, 2600x/2700x, with their stock cooler will net you temps in the 90, on heavy workload, or out-right crashing so that's really not a selling point, doubly so for the 2600 which now come with the 65W Stealth instead of the 95W Spire of the 1600.

 

[dorsai]

I didn't see it in the article or these comments so I apologize if I missed the answer.

How long until the test results are out that have Spectre/Meltdown patches applied to the 8700k test bed since you indicate (if I read it correctly) only the x470 system had them ?

Will the charts be updated on a certain date or has that work been completed ?

Thanks

 

[Lostinlodos]

Anandtech and Tom’s tend to be the most reliable for testing. @tripleX nobody said they were retesting, just that they are trying to find out why they are off.
Personally I don’t think they’ “wrong”, just more idillic. Anyone can put together a rig that favours the strength of one family or disfavoured a family.
Honestly, as a blatant and unrepentive AMD user and fan, I’m willing to go on a limb and say the reality is probably somewhere between T’s and A’s findings. What I think we’re seeing is opposite ends of a single spectrum. And as I’ve stated multiple Ryzen posts before, Intel has real competition. It started with the 9590 fx which in ideal setups and uses could out pace the matching intel panicle cpu at the time.
AMD has always been the tortoise of CPUs, choosing low cost and stability over grand jumps, nay, leaps. I never went with AMD for price OR ability, but rather STABILITY! I’ve never had an AMD simply choke and die with no warning. Nor burst into flames. nor become so unstable as to disrupt my system under normal use. All things intel chips have done to me.
As for my non game benchmark comment, I’m looking at more mainstream reviews such as Z and T nets and the like, who claim there’s no need to test that stuff since game tests prove everything else. This review and Anandtec show unequivocal proof that games and compression are very different uses.
Since I’m not playing the latest games, or any game, at 4K or 8k or 16k or whatever; that doesn’t really make a difference, unless the same processor is good for everything else I do. I still enjoy firing up doom (like dos box DooM) or Blood and blasting pixels. Call of war in the battle of the field looks nice but it’s just not my thing. GTA 4/5 look nice but they’re no vice city from an immersive standpoint.
And I digress: my point across the board is thanks for the honest review, and I’m happy that maybe I’ll be able to put around in some newer games too, but I’m overjoyed that my platform of choice is competitive in every category again. First time in 20-some years.

 

[cryoburner]

...when there's only X470 boards available right now, and a good chunk of them would have a 8+4 CPU power connectors configuration, and that's certainly available on the cheaper PSU, right?

As I pointed out in another thread, the second power connector should be optional, and is just there for extreme overclocking. To expand on that, I rather doubt any of the overclocking performed in this review would require that much power. Just looking at their overclocking page, the CPU was only drawing 135 watts in Cinebench at the maximum 4.3Ghz all-core overclock they tested, which was comparable to the power draw of their overclocked 8700K (with 2-fewer cores) in the same test, while an 8-pin connector can supply over 200 watts of continuous power. In order to exceed the limits of what a single 8-pin EPS connector could provide, you would likely need to be cooling a 2700X with liquid nitrogen or something. It's just not likely to be a concern under actual usage scenarios.

How long until the test results are out that have Spectre/Meltdown patches applied to the 8700k test bed since you indicate (if I read it correctly) only the x470 system had them?

From what I gathered from that part of the article, it sounds like they might not intend to update the charts for this review, but rather have the motherboard patches properly applied to the Intel systems for subsequent Ryzen 2 reviews, like the 2600X. I kind of think they should have highlighted that fact a bit more though, rather than just hiding it away in the Test Setup section that many readers will probably skip. I'm kind of curious why they didn't actively seek that information out prior to testing though. As it is, that potentially puts the 2700X results at a disadvantage relative to Intel's unpatched motherboards, however small it might be. If they did find any notable differences, I would hope they would update the review though.

...but I’m overjoyed that my platform of choice is competitive in every category again. First time in 20-some years.

It hasn't been quite that long. They were extremely competitive around the Athlon 64 days. In fact, the Athlon 64 CPUs were faster at gaming than their Intel counterparts, cost less, and used less power, while supporting features like 64-bit processing that Intel hadn't made available in the consumer space yet, making them arguably the all-around better option at the time. Intel eventually pulled ahead with their Core series though, and AMD fell well behind on per-core performance in recent years, up until Ryzen brought them back in the game.

 

[husker]

My understanding is that VR setups (Vive or Rift) are more demanding on CPU performance than standard gaming in delivering a smooth visual experience. They might provide an interesting and more realistic scenario in which the CPU has a real impact on FPS and latency in a game. I for one would be really interested in seeing benchmark comparisons for some VR titles.

 

[logainofhades]

The 8700k will do 4.9-5.0, but I don't see a low end Z370 board getting there, and if it does, I don't see it lasting very long. I have damaged boards that were not up to the task of overclocking high wattage overclocks. I ran an overclocked Xeon X3210 in a Gigabyte P35-DS3L. Needless to say the board didn't hold up very long, and I swapped to the better Abit P35 pro. I wouldn't want less than a Z370 extreme4, for an 8700k, and even that might be a bit low. The 8700k is quite power hungry compared to Ryzen. In the torture test it surpassed an FX 8370's power consumption, and even an i7 6950x.


Ryzen doesn't really go much beyond 4.0, and you can do that with a B350 Pro4, or the slightly more expensive X370 Pro4. Spending more for a measly 200mhz more, than what a decent B350 will get you is crazy. Also, you might not even get that extra 200mhz, if you fail to win the silicon lottery.

Not all x470 boards have the 8+4 config, so I am not sure if board partners are doing that for a future CPU, or what. Doesn't seem necessary for currently released chips.

 

[Sakkura]

My understanding is that VR setups (Vive or Rift) are more demanding on CPU performance than standard gaming in delivering a smooth visual experience. They might provide an interesting and more realistic scenario in which the CPU has a real impact on FPS and latency in a game. I for one would be really interested in seeing benchmark comparisons for some VR titles.

Hmm not entirely.

VR games generally tend to be less CPU-intensive, but on the other hand you do certainly want to be hitting a steady 90FPS. So it partially cancels out. There are a few VR games that can push the CPU hard, but also a lot of VR games that aren't all that CPU-heavy, as well as a ton of games that barely care about the CPU at all.

For actual benchmarking, VR is not that great because of that strict adherence to 90FPS. When your system can't hit 90FPS, they use various reprojection tricks to keep you from getting nausea. That all gets in the way of nice simple numbers for framerate and frame time etc.

 

[Slesreth]

I thought this review was a well done, objective piece of work. Thank you, Paul and Igor, for an excellent read!

I am impressed that AMD came out with power improvements on their top Zen+ model that beat the Ryzen 7 1700's power consumption at idle. It broke even in CAD with only a minor increases at gaming. Prime 95 topped out right on AMD's listed TDP for the 2700X while the 1700 exceeds it's own TDP by nearly 20 watts! Both models selling for same MSRP at release make this an affordable upgrade for me after one year with the 1700.

Being able to drop it right into my Gigabyte Arorus AX370 setup using the same EK water blocks and Koolance radiators without having to worry about exceeding my thermal headroom is flarking awesome!

 

[FD2Raptor]

Ryzen doesn't really go much beyond 4.0, and you can do that with a B350 Pro4, or the slightly more expensive X370 Pro4. Spending more for a measly 200mhz more, than what a decent B350 will get you is crazy. Also, you might not even get that extra 200mhz, if you fail to win the silicon lottery.

Despite your concern that the Z370 Extreme4 is not capable of supporting the 8700k, you seem awfully confident that those atrocious 3+1/4+1 VRM with cheap caps and non-existent or functional heatsink on those B350 can safely delivers ~100A to power a 4Ghz 8cores Ryzen for daily usage.

Not all x470 boards have the 8+4 config, so I am not sure if board partners are doing that for a future CPU, or what. Doesn't seem necessary for currently released chips.

As of right now, all the announced ASROCK X470 have that config, all the MSI X470 either have that config or the 8+8 one, the top/high end ASUS and Gigabyte have that config; so surely more than 50% of the X470 out there.

 

[Marlin1975]

When will you add ALL the patches to the intel system and re-test?

 

[dalauder]

7820X is also there with the same number of cores and threads.

I'd like to see how Intel fares in that value comparison.

 

[10tacle]

When will you add ALL the patches to the intel system and re-test?

Why don't you ask that of the other five major hardware review sites that tested the same way? And I'll remind you that Anantech was the only major one that did that and they are reviewing their results and going to re-test.

PS: overclocking Intel's Coffee Lake more than makes up for the 5-7% performance loss with the patches. So don't get all giddy. That's been a dominating factor over AMD ever since the first generation of the Core i-series (i5 7xx, i7 8xx). Here's a nine year old memory refresher for you:

https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intellynnfieldlaunch_090409000254/19910.png

It used to be the other way around.

 

[diacad]

I agree the Ryzen 2700 is a hot chip, but it may not be for everyone. Last year I tried to configure a server with the 2700 and found it seemed incompatible with VMware - at least without hamburger helpers I was unwilling to use. So I put the 2700 on the shelf and switched to a Xeon based board. I have also heard (but had no experience) that there are 2700 problems with Linux. Why aren't these issues openly discussed? Not everyone is a Windows gamer - where the 2700 is undoubtedly a prime contender.

 

[10tacle]

Why aren't these problems discussed more openly? Not everyone is a Windows gamer.

A very valid point but keep in mind this is a consumer-oriented level tech website. Also keep in mind that AMD has never targeted the professional level server business as Intel started doing with their Xeon line from some 20 years ago. While AMD's Threadripper offers an affordable counterpart to Intel's Xeon for a server processor in lower tier use, it has a lot of limitations. There's a reason major professional server vendors like my former employer, Dell/EMC, only use Xeon processors.