Friday, March 2nd 2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Spotted With a 3.7 GHz Base Clock, 4.1 GHz Turbo

AMD's next iteration on their very positively received Zen microarchitecture is preparing for take-off in the coming months, and as we draw ever close to the release date, more details are trickling in. This time, it's the appearance of a Ryzen 7 2700X (which supersedes the original Ryzen 7 1700X) on Futuremark's 3DMark database. The Ryzen 7 2700X was paired with an ASRock X370 Taichi motherboard (still considered one of the best ever to grace AMD's new AM4 platform), and its 8 cores and 16 threads are locked into a 3.7 GHz base and 4.1 GHz turbo clocks (respectively 300 MHz higher base and turbo clocks that the 1700X's).

The usage of AMD's XFR 2.0 (eXtended Frequency Range) and Precision Boost 2.0 could mean that the CPU is able, in certain scenarios, to turbo over the specified limit of 4.1 GHz, up to 4.2 GHz, thus delivering an even bigger boost to its performance. The usage of a 12 nm process means AMD has taken the power savings and increased frequency potential that comes from shrinking their original Zen microarchitecture, and put those to increased frequencies across the board, thus increasing their CPU's single-thread performance. Being an X chip,. AMD has kept the package TDP at a still respectable 95 W, much like its 1000 series Ryzens, though we know that this 95 W figure doesn't really spell out just how energy efficient these AMD CPUs really are.
Sources: ComputerBase, WCCFTech
Add your own comment

71 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Spotted With a 3.7 GHz Base Clock, 4.1 GHz Turbo

#1
cryohellinc
If 4.3 - 4.4 Achievable that will be Fantastic!
Posted on Reply
#2
EarthDog
It would be. However, these struggle mightily to get past xfr...wondering if the clock increases gobbled any headroom up.
Posted on Reply
#3
Joss
If this translates to the 2800X it'll mean 3.9/4.3 GHz
That would be quite good :)
Posted on Reply
#4
the54thvoid
Well, the 1700X is a 3.9 Turbo and I believe majority can get all 8 cores at 3.8Ghz on OC. A very few get 4Ghz on all 8. If the situation repeats, I'll be happy with 4Ghz on all 8 cores with a few getting 4.2Ghz.

Interesting to see if the 2800X is the same incrementally above as the 1800X was (hypothetically to 3.9Ghz base and 4.3Ghz boost).

We'll know soon enough.
Posted on Reply
#5
NdMk2o1o
I'd happily take a 4.2-4.3ghz (OC of course) 2600 for my 3.9ghz 1600, fingers crossed :respect:
Posted on Reply
#6
Chaitanya
Engineering samples, will wait for amd to publish full specs. I am considering upgrade for one of my pcs in home soon.
Posted on Reply
#7
cucker tarlson
Exactly the same thing intel did with 4770K/4790K and 6700K/7700K while they were miles ahead of AMD, now it's done by AMD who are far behind coffee lake in performance and somehow this is great.
Posted on Reply
#8
NdMk2o1o
"cucker tarlson said:
Exactly the same thing intel did with 4770K/4790K and 6700K/7700K while they were miles ahead of AMD, now it's done by AMD who are far behind coffee lake in performance and somehow this is great.
Where are you getting far behind from??? They are near the same ipc the only difference is amd needs to match the higher clocks Intel run at which they will slowly do with zen+ and then even more so with zen2
Posted on Reply
#9
cucker tarlson
That's rich.

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,31

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,32

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,33

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,34

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,35

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,36

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,37

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,38

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,39

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,40
Posted on Reply
#10
the54thvoid
"cucker tarlson said:
That's rich.

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,31

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,32

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,33

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,34

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,35

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,36

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,37

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,38

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,39

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,40
Yes but people buy dependant upon needs. For example, I knew gaming at 1440p the res scaling would be less of a hit on an inferior AMD chip. But gambling that in a few years (I know - not gonna happen) 8 cores will be better coded for, I moved to a 1700X. Regardless, the superiority of IPC is diminished as GPU intensity increases. Ryzen for 1080p gaming - sure - duff choice. But at 1440p and higher it's less of an issue. Plus, for the giggles, AMD gave us 8 cores for bargain price on an architecture that actually does okay.

Had those 6 core Coffee Lake chips been out at the same time and same price - would I have bought Ryzen? - Hell, no. But I did, so do i see these new chips as a great thing? If I can get 4GHz+ on 8 cores - absolutely. Pricing will make them great or mediocre though.
Posted on Reply
#11
cucker tarlson
"the54thvoid said:
Yes but people buy dependant upon needs. For example, I knew gaming at 1440p the res scaling would be less of a hit on an inferior AMD chip. But gambling that in a few years (I know - not gonna happen) 8 cores will be better coded for, I moved to a 1700X. Regardless, the superiority of IPC is diminished as GPU intensity increases. Ryzen for 1080p gaming - sure - duff choice. But at 1440p and higher it's less of an issue. Plus, for the giggles, AMD gave us 8 cores for bargain price on an architecture that actually does okay.

Had those 6 core Coffee Lake chips been out at the same time and same price - would I have bought Ryzen? - Hell, no. But I did, so do i see these new chips as a great thing? If I can get 4GHz+ on 8 cores - absolutely. Pricing will make them great or mediocre though.
All correct.
Though,frankly,I saw my 4790K bottleneck my 1080 at 1440p in some cpu heavy games like watch dogs 2 so 1080p testing is not just for those who play at 1080p, it's good for determining cpu -heavy scenario. If you're as heavily cpu bottlenecked at 1080p as ryzen seem to be there is no guarantee you won't be bottlenecked 1440p, chances are you'll find a slight to moderate cpu bottleneck as well, upping the resolution can't solve everything.
Just going by the fact that games can utilize 16 threads does not automatically translate to "having more threads can fully compensate for weaker ipc". This is absolutely a case of false equivalency. IPC is still #1 performance factor as long as the cpu has enough threads available not to exceed 80-85% on each.
Posted on Reply
#12
trparky
The boost clocks need to be closer to 4.5 GHz for me to take this new chip seriously.
Posted on Reply
#13
cucker tarlson
"trparky said:
The boost clocks need to be closer to 4.5 GHz for me to take this new chip seriously.
My thoughts exactly.
Though it has to be said that a 4.1GHz Ryzen will stroll past 8700K in any video-creation software pretty easily. For gaming though, it's still not nearly as high as I'd like to see it.
Posted on Reply
#14
dicktracy
So they will finally catch up to a max overclocked 5960x. Not exciting for highend but it’s still good for midrange and below.
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
turbo over the specified limit of 4.1 GHz, up to 4.2 GHz, thus delivering an even bigger boost to its performance
That's a 2.4% increase, "bigger" is not the word I'd use here.
Overall we get 300 more MHz, which is less than 8% faster than the previous generation. Faster, for sure, but you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference outside benchmarks. Whoever bought first gen Ryzen is still good.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheMailMan78
Big Member
You guys understand that a 1700X is more than enough for gaming. In fact I think its a superior chip to Intel's equivalent. Why you didn't ask? Simple. Most games are played at 1080 plus and at that its mostly GPU driven and the FPS is maintained by the refresh rate. So my system with a 1080 and a 1700X runs a demanding game like BF1 on its highest settings and 150% scaling and I get WELL above my refresh rate at all times. No dips below. Any FPS gain on an Intel chip will be completely unnoticeable. Impossible to tell. However I can tell the difference in anything that I encode.....by a LOT. So please explain to me why Intel is the better chip at a higher price?
Posted on Reply
#17
ShurikN
It will be interesting to see how much it oveclocks
Posted on Reply
#18
GhostRyder
I am interested to see how far these will go. It would be nice to get 4.5ghz but I think that is a way a long shot. Here's hoping for 4.3ghz!
Posted on Reply
#19
MT66
"Chaitanya said:
Engineering samples, will wait for amd to publish full specs. I am considering upgrade for one of my pcs in home soon.
Its a quality sample not engineering sample as specified by the Z. This is very likely what the retail part will be.
Posted on Reply
#20
amlett
I've a 1700 at 3,8ghz with ram at 3200C14 and an ocead 1080ti. I play in a eizo foris at 1080p@120fps heavy titles like Witcher 3

I suppose I must be doing some kind of sorcery because ryzen can't manage high fps...

Everytime I read ryzen is bad for gaming I laugh hard.

Sure a 8700k would give me more fps, but thinking that ryzen is not valid for gaming is having literally no clue about how good they are. Not the top of course, but sure is not limited for 60hz gaming, even on 1080. I guarantee that
Posted on Reply
#21
dyonoctis
"amlett said:
I've a 1700 at 3,8ghz with ram at 3200C14 and an ocead 1080ti. I play in a eizo foris at 1080p@120fps heavy titles like Witcher 3

I suppose I must be doing some kind of sorcery because ryzen can't manage high fps...

Everytime I read ryzen is bad for gaming I laugh hard.

Sure a 8700k would give me more fps, but thinking that ryzen is not valid for gaming is having literally no clue about how good they are. Not the top of course, but sure is not limited for 60hz gaming, even on 1080. I guarantee that
That's just a statement that bound to appear each time that a news on ryzen is posted. The "Ryzen is bad for gaming" is a statement made by people focusing solely on gaming, and who are looking for the highest FPS at the lower price. for those people Ryzen is "bad" because it doesn't meet this single requirement. The fact that ryzen is still getting more than playable FPS doesn't elude the fact that it's not the best for the money for gaming. "Bad" is just misused. a lot.
Posted on Reply
#22
bug
"amlett said:
I've a 1700 at 3,8ghz with ram at 3200C14 and an ocead 1080ti. I play in a eizo foris at 1080p@120fps heavy titles like Witcher 3

I suppose I must be doing some kind of sorcery because ryzen can't manage high fps...

Everytime I read ryzen is bad for gaming I laugh hard.

Sure a 8700k would give me more fps, but thinking that ryzen is not valid for gaming is having literally no clue about how good they are. Not the top of course, but sure is not limited for 60hz gaming, even on 1080. I guarantee that
Where did you read Ryzen is bad for gaming?
If you want/need the absolute highest fps, Intel will oblige (it will also oblige for several other applications that don't use many cores at once). But nowhere have I read Ryzen was bad for gaming.
Posted on Reply
#23
amlett
I've read that en many forums and comments. Even at user reviews in stores. Sure us not stated literally in this thread, but every time ryzen is talked about, someone comes with that Intel obliterated stuff.

If 1080p is supposed to be the worst scenario for gaming on ryzen and I play personally over 120 framerates at that resolution, I cannot see how this cpu is not good for gaming. Just saying.

Not to mention what a beast is this chip in other stuff.

But yeah when you're over 120fps, having a little more makes the usual comparation night and day between both manufacturers.

The impression you get reading some places is ryzen should be avoided if you want mora than 60fps, and that's absolutely lie.
Posted on Reply
#24
EarthDog
"amlett said:
The impression you get reading some places is ryzen should be avoided if you want mora than 60fps, and that's absolutely lie.
What review gave an impression like that??? Link?!!! I can't think of one remotely close to that conclusion, lol!
Posted on Reply
#25
amlett
Oh now I have a new job. Sorry for posting guys. Sure anyone got the impression Ive talked about ever.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment