Monday, March 6th 2017

First Leaked Benchmarks of AMD's Ryzen 7 2000 Processor

A few days ago, we spotted AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7 2700X processor at the 3DMark playground. We got word today that our Korean buddies over at the Hardware Battle forums have leaked some benchmarks of a mysterious Ryzen 7 2000 processor. While the graphs don't explicitly state the model of the so-called "Future Processor", it's very likely that it's the Ryzen 7 2700X. First off, the clock speed matched the specifications from the previous 3DMark leak. HWBattle also compared it to the Ryzen 7 1700X numerous times which makes perfect sense considering that the Ryzen 7 2700X is the next successor to the throne. Initially, we projected the Ryzen 7 2700X to hit the 4.2 GHz mark thanks to AMD's XFR 2.0 (eXtended Frequency Range) and Precision Boost 2.0 technologies. However, HWBattle's sample reached 4.35 GHz which makes it even more impressive.

Comparing the Ryzen 7 1700X and 2700X side by side in AIDA64's memory benchmark, the latter was 11% faster in the memory latency test and 30% and 16% faster in the L2 and L3 Cache tests, respectively. The Ryzen 7 2700X's single thread performance was surprisingly strong as well. It surpassed the likes of the Intel Core i9-7980XE, i7-8700K, and Threadripper 1950X processors in the Dhrystone Aggregated-int Native benchmark. The Ryzen 7 2700X started to fall behind in multi-core performance, but it still managed to beat the Intel Core i7-8700K. We saw a similar scenario with the Physics test in 3DMark's FireStrike Ultra benchmark. The Ryzen 7 2700X once again annihilated the Intel Core i7-8700K.
Source: Hardware Battle
Add your own comment

62 Comments on First Leaked Benchmarks of AMD's Ryzen 7 2000 Processor

#26
Patriot
Benoit Lévesque said:
20K is only 5% more than 19K, that's not what I would call ''annihilation''
Also considering it has 2 more cores ...... yea, not annihilated at all lol
24% ahead in cinebench multi, matches it's ipc in drystone, 15% behind in whetstone

lemonadesoda said:
Are these results with/without Spectre/Meltdown protection on/off.

I wonder what other "in-house benchmarking" tweaks can be done to the microcode (e.g. skip all housekeeping, reconfigure L1/L2/L3 cache for max single thread performance, later, switch to max multi-thread performance) to improve benchmark scores to get more heat into early PR interest.

A bit like VW diesel engines. Synthetic "monitored" performance radically different to real world on-the-road behaviour?

I'm not knocking this specific CPU, just becoming increasingly cynical about what's going on in the R&D labs.
We will find out what special settings they used... normally relating to realtime clock and power modes.

As far as meltdown patches... They should disable those as zen is immune to meltdown, also it mainly hurts i/o performance related tasks.
Gaming really doesn't take that much of a hit, other than loading times. Spectre patches are within margin of error for performance impact. (0-1%)
Posted on Reply
#27
dyonoctis
Compared to a 7820x it's pretty compeling. The multithread cinebench and the firestrike score are in favor of the 2700x (but still losing in single thread).

https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/
The memory latency seems similar to skylake-x too. And seeing the 2661mhz memory in AIDA, it might even be faster. IF this is true, then that's a pretty nice cpu to have. Especialy when the 7820x seems to max out at 4,5-4,6 Ghz for most people (according to techspot).
If threadripper is scaling well the HEDT might be very interesting...

(BTW the 7820x is also only 5% faster than a 8700k in firestrike)
https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu
Posted on Reply
#28
windwhirl
I may actually build my first AMD system later this year, if this is true..
Posted on Reply
#29
ensabrenoir
....was just about to buy a current gen 8 core Ryzen....so when are these things suppose to hit the market
Posted on Reply
#30
Xzibit
ensabrenoir said:
....was just about to buy a current gen 8 core Ryzen....so when are these things suppose to hit the market
Q2-2018

PCGamesN
AMD will release their second generation of Ryzen CPUs in April, but we’ll get a sneak preview of the new chips at the Game Developers Conference in March, just ahead of launch.
Posted on Reply
#31
ensabrenoir
Xzibit said:
Q2-2018
...thanks somehow i missed that... prob wont make it cause of a sale or craigslist but....let the waiting game begin....
Posted on Reply
#32
Prima.Vera
Too bad the mobos are crap for AMD,,,, I would love some more test with this CPU. Also very curious on what Intel is going to bring to the table. Usual 3.5% performace increase over previous gen?? :kookoo::banghead::roll::roll::roll::roll:
Posted on Reply
#33
ratirt
Imsochobo said:
4.4 is not a miracle it was more expected, 4.5 OC which this opens up for is a bit of a surprise and 4.6 OC on the best bins (Not what we'll see a lot of, but TR will probably do it late 2018)
above is speculation but it opens up for it but regardless of the clocks it will still lack in IPC somewhat by some minor amount but a Ryzen at 4.4 ghz with 1-2% less ipc vs 8700K @ 4.7-5ghz is not going to compete in games as usual.

But the surprising thing to me is that Latencies is improved quite a lot and should improve gaming performance a lot more than any other benchmark, with slightly higher than expected clocks and hopefully memory compability should make this launch very interesting indeed.
It will not be playing with an 8700K in games still me thinks, for me good enough.
Well it is a miracle maybe not for me or you but some people here on TPU said that 4.3Ghz for Ryzen is unreachable. That's just to clarify what I meant.
I'm really thinking of buying that CPU. 1080p is nothing for me since I play mostly on higher resolutions. 1440p is the min for me. This CPU has a chance to be great. Who knows maybe till the release it will be clocked bit higher? Either way it is very promising and I think the time to change my old rig is just round the corner :) In terms of games maybe it depends which titles?
I think with Ryzen+ we see some changes and AMD is catching up good. That's just fantastic. :)

Prima.Vera said:
Too bad the mobos are crap for AMD,,,, I would love some more test with this CPU. Also very curious on what Intel is going to bring to the table. Usual 3.5% performace increase over previous gen?? :kookoo::banghead::roll::roll::roll::roll:
I don't think AMD mobos are crap. It is a new platform and it has matured a bit lately. 3.5% for Intel. wishful thinking in my opinion :)
Posted on Reply
#34
deu
trparky said:
AMD needs to focus on that because there's many of us who are still playing at 1080p because 4K is still too expensive to adopt.
Im going to recommend you to look at a 1440p screen instead of 4K :) I would argue that 1440p and geometrical enchancement is the visual advancement that makes sense right now to developers. 4K 144hz is PRETTY far out with NVIDIA stalling next release due to miners and AMDs graphicdivisions being in 'lol-k'-mode. In 3 year; ye 4K might make sense in 3D games too, but for now 1440p is the way to go in shooters and graphicheavy games :)
Posted on Reply
#35
phill
If this is actually true and things get better, I will be skipping the first gen and going straight for the second.. Lets hope it all comes true in the reviews..... :)
Posted on Reply
#36
lynx29
n-ster said:
Except if the 8700K beat Ryzen by 5%, no one would be saying the Intel chip annihilates the Ryzen chip... Sure AMD's feat to come back from so far behind is unbelievable, doesn't make their chip better. AMD's 5% lead isn't any better than Intel's 5% lead when it comes down to numbers
I bet Intel still wins in min fps for gaming across the board. which is the most important to me for smoother gameplay. :/
Posted on Reply
#37
dozenfury
I agree that the annihilate word choice might be a stretch, but the numbers are impressive. And I have to admit I built a 8700K system a few months ago, and while it benches fine for whatever reason the overall feel of it's performance is very sluggish. Many others have reported the same. It's tough to put a finger on since the benches generally do well on my PC. But when it comes to general use it just doesn't quite feel right. And this is with a fast NVMe Windows drive, fast ram, etc. If I hadn't just built one and/or had it to do over I'd definitely take a hard look at the Zen2.

That said, a friend with a Threadripper 1950X has had plenty of his own issues with game performance all over the board. Many games just don't seem to handle the plethora of threads well and run incredibly slow until some are disabled for those games. It seems to happen on more games than it doesn't. A process manager like BitSum Process Lasso is pretty much mandatory with a TR imo, since it makes adjusting affinity and cores to resolve those issues much easier.

Also benchmarks like these with AMD seem to always conveniently leak before release, and the release numbers don't always match the leaked numbers. Not saying AMD is doing it intentionally for marketing, but the pattern has been very consistent over the past few years. So I'd wait for third-party benchmarks before reaching any conclusions.
Posted on Reply
#38
trparky
dozenfury said:
I agree that the annihilate word choice might be a stretch, but the numbers are impressive. And I have to admit I built a 8700K system a few months ago, and while it benches fine for whatever reason the overall feel of it's performance is very sluggish. Many others have reported the same. It's tough to put a finger on since the benches generally do well on my PC. But when it comes to general use it just doesn't quite feel right. And this is with a fast NVMe Windows drive, fast ram, etc.
How is that even possible? The 8700K is the cream of the crop, the best money can buy! How the heck are people like you having those kinds of issues?
Posted on Reply
#39
kruk
Here are some further leaks:

https://videocardz.com/75194/amd-ryzen-2000-series-exposed-pricing-performance-leaked

Take with a mountain of salt ... :)

Important points:
- no 2800X yet, current lineup consists of 8C/16T 2700X, 2700 and 6C/12T 2600X, 2600
- 2700X turbos up to 4.35 GHz, but it has 105 W TDP. This boost also might only be achievable on 400 series boards
- 2700X is on average 5% better than 1800X in gaming (with GTX 1080)
- optimized BIOSes for existing boards are coming in March

Also, higher clocks might be coming in next gen CPUs:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/News/AMD-Ryzen-3000-Globalfoundries-7-nm-Taktraten-1251629/
Posted on Reply
#40
yeeeeman
kruk said:
Here are some further leaks:

https://videocardz.com/75194/amd-ryzen-2000-series-exposed-pricing-performance-leaked

Take with a mountain of salt ... :)

Important points:
- no 2800X yet, current lineup consists of 8C/16T 2700X, 2700 and 6C/12T 2600X, 2600
- 2700X turbos up to 4.35 GHz, but it has 105 W TDP. This boost also might only be achievable on 400 series boards
- 2700X is on average 5% better than 1800X in gaming (with GTX 1080)
- optimized BIOSes for existing boards are coming in March

Also, higher clocks might be coming in next gen CPUs:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/News/AMD-Ryzen-3000-Globalfoundries-7-nm-Taktraten-1251629/
Yeah, I think 2700X looks quite good and it is a best buy at 369$ price. If it can be OCed to 4.5Ghz, then it is going to be snatched by a lot of people. Or maybe the 2700.
Onto the other topic, 7nm. I think GF has a pretty good chance to make great things with 7nm, since they work with Samsung, IBM and people who worked there in the past. AMD, at last, has a great partner in the manufacturing side of things, so if they execute well and bring good IPC improvements with Zen2 - lets say 20% - coupled with more cores, 12/24 cores on a single die, they can do great things and maybe surpass Intel.
Posted on Reply
#41
trparky
kruk said:
Also, higher clocks might be coming in next gen CPUs:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/News/AMD-Ryzen-3000-Globalfoundries-7-nm-Taktraten-1251629/
That might just be what makes me decide to go with AMD Ryzen over the Intel 8700K.

Step 1: Buy a 2000-series Ryzen chip.
Step 2: Wait a year and deal with a year of not-so-great 1080p gaming performance.
Step 3: Buy a 3000-series Ryzen chip when it comes out.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!!!
Posted on Reply
#42
Xzibit


They all come with included coolers. How many will buy the 2700 just for the LED and the 2700X for the RGB lights. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#43
ratirt
trparky said:
That might just be what makes me decide to go with AMD Ryzen over the Intel 8700K.

Step 1: Buy a 2000-series Ryzen chip.
Step 2: Wait a year and deal with a year of not-so-great 1080p gaming performance.
Step 3: Buy a 3000-series Ryzen chip when it comes out.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!!!
Don't exaggerate with Ryzen's 1080p performance that it is not-so-great. It's not best but it is really good. Besides if you go Ryzen + now, you will be able to switch to 3000 series with no problems. Just the CPU nothing more. That is great since you have an upgrade path.

Add on:
I wonder why there is not 2800x? Could it be possible AMD is diching it or they will go with 12 cores maybe? That would be something new.
Posted on Reply
#44
HTC
ratirt said:
Don't exaggerate with Ryzen's 1080p performance that it is not-so-great. It's not best but it is really good. Besides if you go Ryzen + now, you will be able to switch to 3000 series with no problems. Just the CPU nothing more. That is great since you have an upgrade path.

Add on:
I wonder why there is not 2800x? Could it be possible AMD is diching it or they will go with 12 cores maybe? That would be something new.
One possible explanation is that they are saving the 2800X to replace the 1900X threadripper, thus being for threadripper platform and not AM4.
Posted on Reply
#45
ratirt
HTC said:
One possible explanation is that they are saving the 2800X to replace the 1900X threadripper, thus being for threadripper platform and not AM4.
Yeah that's one explanation. I really hope mine will come true. 2800x for AM4 desktop with 12 cores :) That would be so damn awesome. The other question is if the 2700x reaches 4.3Ghz would that mean the 2800X will be clocked higher? I'd like to see that happen.
Posted on Reply
#46
phill
I've changed my mind...

I REALLY bloody want one!! :laugh: :toast:
Posted on Reply
#47
trparky
ratirt said:
Don't exaggerate with Ryzen's 1080p performance that it is not-so-great.
I'm talking about consistently high frame rates. It was said a year ago that Ryzen suffers from bad 1% lows. Cruising along at 80 FPS and then suddenly having multiple drops to 30 FPS and then back up again is not cool. Intel appears to delivers more consistent frame rates where you don't see that huge bounce (or at least not as many).
Posted on Reply
#48
ratirt
trparky said:
I'm talking about consistently high frame rates. It was said a year ago that Ryzen suffers from bad 1% lows. Cruising along at 80 FPS and then suddenly having multiple drops to 30 FPS and then back up again is not cool. Intel appears to delivers more consistent frame rates where you don't see that huge bounce (or at least not as many).
No it doesn't. You are talking about benchmarks from a year ago. Try now :) Besides there are games that perform better on Ryzen than Intel. Tell me why that happens? Ryzen is a great CPU despite the so called frame dips which now-days are not there. You confuse me man. look at the 1080 performance once again. It is a great CPU not the best but kicking and that's what matters.

BTW: 8700k is not the cream of the crop :) It's got flaws. Surprised you haven't spotted it yet :)
Posted on Reply
#49
wiyosaya
Maybe innovation and competition are finally returning to the CPU market.
Posted on Reply
#50
phanbuey
wiyosaya said:
Maybe innovation and competition are finally returning to the CPU market.
I think that happened with the initial Ryzen launch... we had quad cores as the high end for 5 years up until about 12 months ago...

CPUs are hot right now... this is a great launch with these initial benches... i think the 2700x will really be an amazing chip.

xorbe said:
I've been very pleased with my 1500X @ 3.9, planning to build a 2800X opensuse Tumbleweed box, and I'd be happy with 4.0 on all cores if I can get that. 4.2+ would be icing on the cake, but I don't think I'm really going to notice a difference.
On ryzen you really do notice that extra 200Mhz - the architecture scales really well with clock speed. I think a 4.4Ghz 2700x would be able to match my 4.7Ghz 7820x in cinebench multi... probably at less power consumption.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment