Thursday, March 2nd 2017

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

#26
dyonoctis
amlett said:
Oh now I have a new job. Sorry for posting guys. Sure anyone got the impression Ive talked about ever.
I don't think he was talking about you...
Posted on Reply
#27
avenger001
What type of performance impact have we see in gaming as a result of all these windows patches and microcode updates? Has the single threaded gap narrowed?
Posted on Reply
#28
evernessince
GhostRyder said:
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!
At 4.5GHz, these chips would pretty much be equal to the 8700K in IPC. The 2900X might be 4.5 GHz if the 2700X is 4.1 GHz.
Posted on Reply
#29
R0H1T
avenger001 said:
What type of performance impact have we see in gaming as a result of all these windows patches and microcode updates? Has the single threaded gap narrowed?
They're still fixing the BIOS patches for spectre, I think it'll be a while before we see fully patched stable systems that can accurately depict the IPC gain/loss post the GPZ disclosure. Till then Intel is still 5~10% ahead with a huge lead in clocks.
Posted on Reply
#30
kastriot
This is just upgraded and polished version of 1xxx series so don't be greedy it's ok, if you want more wait for next gen of ryzen cpu-s.
Posted on Reply
#31
Fiery
FinalWire / AIDA64 Developer
"AMD has kept the package TDP at a still respectable 95 W"

AMD has no reason to stick to 95W in the long run. Just sayin' ... ;)
Posted on Reply
#32
snakefist
It's a wide-known fact that everything people (with computer) do is playing at 1080p with 120/144Hz.

I am no exception. To be able to see the difference of frame or two, I transplanted eyes of grey falcon, and now I hunt for drops oh, so much efficiently. At the same time, with much much practice, I trained myself to differ Ultra High from anything less, and don't foolishly think that it doesn't matter so much, and that fully concentrate on background - if the leaf isn't anti-aliased with at least 16AA, it's a catastrophe! When I was young I was in some team doing graphics, and we tested extensively the effects of AA in it's varieties - foolishly, we didn't took sellers word for granted, and concluded that none of us isn't capable to notice meaningful difference above 4AA - how young and naive we were! As gamer's eye progressed toward grey falcon, everything changed and 16AA is long pass obsolete...

My mistake was choosing bird species, it's kinda noctural... BUT NO MATTER! It can see in UV! Known fact is that Ryzen CPUs are and always will be worse than Intels in UV based 1080p games...

News containing word 'Ryzen' generate automatic comment 'Intel is better, though very slightly, in 1080p, when using TitanGT or something'. Seriously, WE KNOW.
Posted on Reply
#33
cucker tarlson
Yes, although not just very slightly, not only at 1080p, and not only with Titan X.
Ryzen owners get triggered when mentioning gaming or 1080p, we know, but on the other hand it's hard to judge CPU performance in games without testing CPU performance in games.
Yes, at 1440p Ryzen 7 looks much better in comparison with 8700K, but same is true about any other CPU, including Intel's i3 series.
Posted on Reply
#34
HD64G
If 8% faster in stock and better memory support and higher oc limits are the result of this manufacturing node, I will not coall it bad update at all. Especially if they are sold in the same price as the 1X00 series. Ryzen 2 on 7nm will be another story in 2019. This is just an update to iron things out since the Zen arch is totally new and had some problems with memory compatibility and top end clocks.
Posted on Reply
#35
Vya Domus
snakefist said:
It's a wide-known fact that everything people (with computer) do is playing at 1080p with 120/144Hz.
720p* :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#36
T1beriu
AMD's XFR 2.0
AMD never talked about a second version of XFR, but they did talk about Turbo Boost 2.
AMD has kept the package TDP at a still respectable 95 W
And how did you figure this out?! I know it must be true, but I have seen no proof to confirm this.
Posted on Reply
#37
InVasMani
I'm more curious about new 12nm threadripper CPU's. I imagine those will benefit even further from a few hundred MHz clock boost with more cores and threads plus they've got better bandwidth to boot.
Posted on Reply
#38
dyonoctis
cucker tarlson said:
Yes, although not just very slightly, not only at 1080p, and not only with Titan X.
Ryzen owners get triggered when mentioning gaming or 1080p, we know, but on the other hand it's hard to judge CPU performance in games without testing CPU performance in games.
Yes, at 1440p Ryzen 7 looks much better in comparison with 8700K, but same is true about any other CPU, including Intel's i3 series.
To be fair, on this thread it started because you seemed mad that Intel got unfair treatment when it come to improvement between generation. AMD said for a while that zen+ would just be a slight optimization, and zen 2 would be the real stuff to look up to.

Yes we are not mad at AMD for now that because they just got back from dark times, don't have the abysimal R&D budget of Intel, and didn't looked like they were just taking it easy for 6 years because they could afford it.
I'm not even a huge gamer, but the "Intel gaming master race" stuff tend to make thing looks much worse than they really are. I can easily see unfinformed people believe that gaming on ryzen is akin to playing on console, and not deserving to be part of the glorious PC master race.
Posted on Reply
#39
bug
evernessince said:
At 4.5GHz, these chips would pretty much be equal to the 8700K in IPC. The 2900X might be 4.5 GHz if the 2700X is 4.1 GHz.
Besides the little fact that IPC is independent of clock speed (it's right there, in the definition of the term), you're spot on.
R0H1T said:
They're still fixing the BIOS patches for spectre, I think it'll be a while before we see fully patched stable systems that can accurately depict the IPC gain/loss post the GPZ disclosure. Till then Intel is still 5~10% ahead with a huge lead in clocks.
It's already done: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/microsoft-will-soon-start-shipping-the-intel-spectre-microcode-fixes/
There's already a patch for Haswell and Broadwell even, but I don't think people are talking about these when want to see the performance impact.
Posted on Reply
#40
cucker tarlson
dyonoctis said:
To be fair, on this thread it started because you seemed mad that Intel got unfair treatment when it come to improvement between generation. AMD said for a while that zen+ would just be a slight optimization, and zen 2 would be the real stuff to look up to.

Yes we are not mad at AMD for now that because they just got back from dark times, don't have the abysimal R&D budget of Intel, and didn't looked like they were just taking it easy for 6 years because they could afford it.
I'm not even a huge gamer, but the "Intel gaming master race" stuff tend to make thing looks much worse than they really are. I can easily see unfinformed people believe that gaming on ryzen is akin to playing on console, and not deserving to be part of the glorious PC master race.
I pointed out hypocrisy, not got mad. This is basically rebranding 1800X as 1700X a year later, only way this is fantastic is if looking through red glasses. I didn't even get mad, more like upset that you can still see a person around TPU that can call a review fake news and sh*t on the site that produced it when apparently they know nothing of their work, just don't like the outcome of the benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#41
R0H1T
bug said:
Besides the little fact that IPC is independent of clock speed (it's right there, in the definition of the term), you're spot on.

It's already done: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/microsoft-will-soon-start-shipping-the-intel-spectre-microcode-fixes/
There's already a patch for Haswell and Broadwell even, but I don't think people are talking about these when want to see the performance impact.
Well the last round didn't go well, & the one before that & no this isn't just Intel ~ it's also MS & AMD (to a much lesser extent) who need to step up given that they had at least 7 months to make the fix work.
Posted on Reply
#42
dirtyferret
Isn't this just the same speeds as the 1800x? A nice bump in base clock speed but I don't see why any ryzen owner would switch to an equal core ryzen 2 series if they already OC their current CPU.
Posted on Reply
#43
bug
dirtyferret said:
Isn't this just the same speeds as the 1800x? A nice bump in base clock speed but I don't see why any ryzen owner would switch to an equal core ryzen 2 series if they already OC their current CPU.
CPUs are never meant to entice you to upgrade from the previous generation.
The right way to think about them is: whoever is in the market for an upgrade, for $300 can get a 3.4GHz CPU till April and a 3.8GHz CPU after that. Assuming pricing doesn't move much, whit it usually doesn't.
Posted on Reply
#44
dirtyferret
bug said:
CPUs are never meant to entice you to upgrade from the previous generation.
The right way to think about them is: whoever is in the market for an upgrade, for $300 can get a 3.4GHz CPU till April and a 3.8GHz CPU after that. Assuming pricing doesn't move much, whit it usually doesn't.
Phenom I to Phenom II was pretty enticing. I5-760 to i5-2500k was red hot enticing...
Posted on Reply
#45
trparky
But skipping five generations is like a quantum leap.
Posted on Reply
#46
bug
trparky said:
But skipping five generations is like a quantum leap.
Not if you're going from 2500k to 7600k :D
Posted on Reply
#47
trparky
How about going from a 3570K to an 8700K? Yeah... that's a big upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#48
GoldenX
dirtyferret said:
Phenom I to Phenom II was pretty enticing. I5-760 to i5-2500k was red hot enticing...
Or Pentium D to Core 2 Duo.

dyonoctis said:
Those were new microarchitecture, and was from a time when "Tick-Tock" was a thing. Intel had to give up on Tick-Tock, and zen+ is just a refresh with some optimization. Zen 2 is where we can hopefully expect something enticing.
Phenom II is only a process reduction from 65nm to 45nm, with the extra space used for more L3 cache.
Posted on Reply
#49
dirtyferret
dyonoctis said:
Those were new microarchitecture, and was from a time when "Tick-Tock" was a thing. Intel had to give up on Tick-Tock.
Thank you captain obvious...
Posted on Reply
#50
Caqde
dirtyferret said:
Isn't this just the same speeds as the 1800x? A nice bump in base clock speed but I don't see why any ryzen owner would switch to an equal core ryzen 2 series if they already OC their current CPU.
Actually at these speeds the 2700X would be faster than the stock 1800X and possibly even an overclocked one depending on the workload.

To understand this realize that the 1800X runs at 3.6 to 4.0Ghz (without XFR) the 2700X is 3.7 to 4.1Ghz (No XFR) based on the specs given. This means that the 2700X is 2.4 - 2.7% faster than the 1800X. BUT because of the way turbo works on the 2700X this is not the whole story. Because the 1800X only hits the 4.1Ghz clockspeed during limited single core situations the 2700X with a more granular clockspeed shift between the max and min speeds will have situations where it can run at 4.175Ghz-3.9Ghz while an 1800X would only be running at 3.7Ghz meaning there are situations where the 2700X can be 12.8% faster than the 1800X at stock speeds.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment