First Ryzen 7 2700X And Ryzen 5 2600 Review Hits The Net

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fake. Wait for real reviews please. You can down vote me all you want, it just means I'm right. There are way too many discrepancies for this review to be legitimate. Just because you fell for it, doesn't mean everyone will. Case in point - WHY would a legitimate review use a 6700K for comparison? That makes zero sense. It would have been very easy to compare the new Ryzen CPUs with a 7700K and 8700K with no issue. Again, this is fake. Wait for real reviews to be released in April.
 
I don't really know enough about these benchmarks to get a feel for how these processors would perform IRL, but I would like to see Ryzen 1600 in the comparisons when Toms does their own review, preferably with its memory overclocked to 2933MHz.

Also, those images at the bottom of the article are pretty much entirely unreadable for me.
 


Maybe it's really popular with SiSoftware's clients?
 


Because there's no architectural changes between Skylake and Coffee Lake, just process improvements allowing for higher clocks.

 
I hope you'll take the time to test 2700X with fastest ram available, particularly in games seeing as that was the culprit behind Ryzen's suboptimal gaming performance.
 
Ryzen was only behind Intel in gaming by 10% or less but was far ahead of it in everything else...this will close that gap and put Ryzen ahead by a little in gaming and further distance itself in productivity apps.
 
Good review of the Sissoft benchmarks. I guess as the April launch comes closer we will see more. The 2800X I would guess is missing due to AMD want the see what Intels coffee lake 8 core does plus give the new 12nm process time to mature.

I found a typo. "you could have just grabbed a $299 AMD eight-core Ryzen 5 1700." It should be Ryzen 7 1700.
 


Thanks elbert, Fixed!
 


AMD's desktop processors aren't susceptible to Meltdown, and the company has not yet released the Spectre microcode updates.
 


Hey, this is a somewhat frustrating issue with our compression algorithms. I've tried a few things to fix it, nothing works.

So, instead, I give you direct links (these are still up). I can't say how long they will stay live, but they do have some interesting numbers, such as the frequencies during each test 😉


Ryzen 7 2700X

Ryzen 5 2600
 


But, there are still performance differences and core count changes. If this is legit, it should be latest vs. latest.
 
It's not the sole culprit, but otherwise I agree that they need to test it with faster memory. If the IMC has been improved, then faster memory overclocks is a good possibility. Though as with Ryzen, it may be held back by early AGESA revisions. If Ryzen+ can hit ~3600 at decent timings without aggressive tuning, that would be most excellent.

They'll also have to look at 300 vs 400 chipsets to see if there's any differences outside of the Precision Boost Overdrive and XFR2 Enhanced support.
 
The 2700X is looking good on clock speed. XFR and Boost2 will hold all core boost quite a bit higher in multi thread workloads. Single thread 4.35ghz that would be impressive.
 


No, it doesn't mean you are right, it just means you are clueless to the ways and means in which reviewers get their data. Clearly you have no understanding of the fact that bona fide reviewers receive review samples ahead of release times and are generally prohibited, through NDA agreements, from releasing results of testing before a specific date which correlates with the actual launch. The fact that they compared their results with an older Intel CPU is likely due to the fact that THAT particular reviewer likely did not have a newer SKU to put through the paces of a similar lab environment or that the closest thing they had already tested was the 6700k and they did not want to have to go through the entire process of obtaining and testing something newer just to offer a specific test result compared to another specific test result.

A lot of these reviewers are independent, without major backing/funding, and cannot simply go by hardware for testing in order to make everybody happy. They test with what they have or what they are sent in the way of review samples. If you don't like it, I'd suggest you do your own testing if you think you are capable of doing so. Having hardware early, whether the review is a good measure or is realistic, or not, does not mean it is fake. Doesn't mean it isn't either, but in this case, you certainly don't have the information necessary to say that it is. Pffft.
 
Synthetic benchmarks are always nice for me to see because they’re closer to my real world use than how many frames per second some new hot game can be pushed. However it would be REAL nice to see an actual comparison of the two Ryzen generations vs Intel on these same tasks. My constant complaint is all these benchmarks tests are about games. Somebody grab a copy of gone with the wind in plain text and ebook and run compression testing. See how fast each one is. And real world encryption? Though that shouldn’t be too far off from synthetics.
How about h265 video encoding? Or running a single term search in a multi gigabyte database? Things like this are where I am concerned.
All said looks like non-game ability has AMD creating an even bigger gap over intel on this latest iteration of CPUs.
 


Actually no, it means we believe you are wrong. Which we do believe. False equivalency because you declare it does not automatically make your OPINION right. And considering the overwhelming response against you, clearly every downvote means you are wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom