Wednesday, March 14th 2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Rears Its Head On Geekbench

As we grow ever closer to the launch of AMD's 2000-series, details and scores are expected to be revealed in increasingly faster fashion. Today, some Geekbench benchmarks (reportedly) of an AMD 2700X CPU have appeared, shedding some light on the expected performance - and performance improvement - of the new AMD top-of-the-line CPU.

The Ryzen 7 2700X CPU that has been tested achieved scores of 4746 single core and 24772 multi-core, which show some interesting improvements over the original flagship Ryzen 7 1800X. The official Geekbench baseline scores for AMD's 1800X are 4249 and 21978, respectively, for single and multicore benchmarks. This means that the new 2700X, which is expected to carry an increased 100 MHz base (3.7 GHz vs 3.6 GHz) and 350 MHz higher boost (4.35 GHz vs 4.0 GHz) over the 1800X, is pulling some additional performance from some micro-architecture refinements, and not just from the added clockspeed. The mobo used, an ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero motherboard, is a X370-series chipset motherboard, so while it supports the new AMD CPUs, it might not fully support all their SenseMI Gen 2 improvements. From what can be gleaned, the Ryzen 7 2700X ran at its default base frequency of 3.7GHz, and the accompanying 16GB memory ran at 2.4GHz.
Source: Hexus.net
Add your own comment

70 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Rears Its Head On Geekbench

#1
Fleurious
Looks promising. Hopefully there are some pleasent surprises with this line of CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#2
_JP_
it might not fully support all their SenseMI Gen 2 improvements
One AGESA update away, I would wager. :)
With RAM @2400MHz, this looks promising. Shouldn't the comparison be made against the R7 1700X, the direct predecessor?
Posted on Reply
#3
HTC
_JP_, post: 3813062, member: 83671"
One AGESA update away, I would wager. :)
With RAM @2400MHz, this looks promising. Shouldn't the comparison be made against the R7 1700X, the direct predecessor?
Not necessarily: supposedly, the 2700X is the flagship CPU this gen so it should be compared VS previous gen flagship, no?
Posted on Reply
#4
lynx29
my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.
Posted on Reply
#5
Imsochobo
HTC, post: 3813071, member: 51238"
Not necessarily: supposedly, the 2700X is the flagship CPU this gen so it should be compared VS previous gen flagship, no?
Maybe, Maybe not.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vya Domus
HTC, post: 3813071, member: 51238"
Not necessarily: supposedly, the 2700X is the flagship CPU this gen so it should be compared VS previous gen flagship, no?
The 1700X was the weird middle option which no one really looked at much. Hopefully they got rid of the useless segmentation.
Posted on Reply
#7
Imsochobo
lynx29, post: 3813087, member: 153071"
my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.
So it's only a bit over 2x the speed of an Iphone X in multi and iphone X is faster than Current gen ryzen ?
hahaha, intel cannot make cpu's! 95W vs sub 5W cpu and only 2x performance.

No, that's not how this works, geekbench is not a benchmark one trusts...
In realworld 1800X is about the same as 8700K so .. yeah..
Posted on Reply
#8
TheGuruStud
Imsochobo, post: 3813095, member: 66457"
So it's only a bit over 2x the speed of an Iphone X in multi and iphone X is faster than Current gen ryzen ?
hahaha, intel cannot make cpu's! 95W vs sub 5W cpu and only 2x performance.

No, that's not how this works, geekbench is not a benchmark one trusts...
In realworld 1800X is about the same as 8700K so .. yeah..
Sshhhh, let their little minds dream. It's all they have. They must remain in their delusion to stay safe from the evil AMD monster under their bed.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vya Domus
Yeah , Geekbench is horrible. It's just a clock speed bump , we don't really need many benchmarks to figure out how it will be.
Posted on Reply
#10
lynx29
Vya Domus, post: 3813098, member: 169281"
Yeah , Gee
[quote=TheGuruStud, post: 3813096, member: 42692"]Sshhhh, let their little minds dream. It's all they have. They must remain in their delusion to stay safe from the evil AMD monster under their bed.
Imsochobo, post: 3813095, member: 66457"
So it's only a bit over 2x the speed of an Iphone X in multi and iphone X is faster than Current gen ryzen ?
hahaha, intel cannot make cpu's! 95W vs sub 5W cpu and only 2x performance.

No, that's not how this works, geekbench is not a benchmark one trusts...
In realworld 1800X is about the same as 8700K so .. yeah..
I'll make sure to check cinebnech single core score as well later on ;) and min frame rates in games across the board :D[/quote]
Posted on Reply
#11
Imsochobo
lynx29, post: 3813103, member: 153071"

The fact that 8700K is beaten by 1800X in cinebench multi and geekbench is saying your multi is higher than 1800x and even 2700x shows that geekbench isn't a trusted source
Ain't saying anything about AMD beating singlecore performance.

I for one couldn't care if I had 3Ghz single as long as I have my damn threads. :)
Posted on Reply
#12
EarthDog
Its interesting... i wouldnt have put in a news article a deduced IPC improvement from one bench named geekbench though... yeesh.


lynx29, post: 3813087, member: 153071"
my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.
Good for you! Though they are typically $360 new. Seems a bit silly to compare used or an incredible deal new, to what the overwhelming majority will pay.
Posted on Reply
#13
birdie
So, IPC is barely higher than of the seven years old Core i5 2500? I still don't understand why people are so excited about Ryzen. AMD kinda ended Intel's monopoly but not so much.

Wake me up when Zen can achive at least 5500 score in single threaded mode in GeekBench 4, so that I'd be finally tempted to upgrade my aging PC.
Posted on Reply
#14
lynx29
birdie, post: 3813115, member: 131299"
So, IPC is barely higher than of the seven years old Core i5 2500? I still don't understand why people are so excited about Ryzen. AMD kinda ended Intel's monopoly but not so much.

Wake me up when Zen can achive at least 5500 score in single threaded mode in GeekBench 4, so that I'd be finally tempted to upgrade my aging PC.
yep, lot of people only play games in this community, in which single thread is still king for 90% of games in existence. Might change someday, but meh
Posted on Reply
#15
EarthDog
IPC is way higher than Sandybridge birdie. Ryzen is just a few percent behind in IPC if you look at reputable reviews. Their issue is with higher clocks. They win with more cores for the dollar and their SMT is more efficient than HT. ;)

It is slower in some titles, but, many can afford to lose a couple of FPS. That said, others, like you and birdie clearly (me as well), simply prefer not to lose anything on that front.
Posted on Reply
#17
mcraygsx
For stock those numbers look very promising. AMD is headed in right direction with ZEN architecture while enroute to ZEN 2. I would like to see the TOP tier chip 2800X.
Posted on Reply
#18
phanbuey
mcraygsx, post: 3813149, member: 151421"
For stock those numbers look very promising. AMD is headed in right direction with ZEN architecture while enroute to ZEN 2. I would like to see the TOP tier chip 2800X.
I dont think there will be a 2800X... I heard a rumor somewhere that there were only going to be 2700x and 2700.
Posted on Reply
#19
FrustratedGarrett
That's a ~13% increase in multi-threaded performance for roughly 3% increase in base clock frequency. Single threaded performance is up by ~12% for an 8% increase in frequency. Not bad AMD!

I don't think there are any architectural changes to the Ryzen core. The IPC improvements are the result of improving the interconnect technology that glues to Ryzen CCX's.
Posted on Reply
#20
ymbaja
lynx29, post: 3813087, member: 153071"
my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.
I hope you sent a thank you note to AMD for that price point...
Posted on Reply
#21
B-Real
lynx29, post: 3813087, member: 153071"
my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.
Official price of the 8700K is $359, so actually that $263 is irrelevant. And BTW, the 2700 will be 300$, which is $60 less than the 8700K.

lynx29, post: 3813125, member: 153071"
yep, lot of people only play games in this community, in which single thread is still king for 90% of games in existence. Might change someday, but meh
Actually, if you play on 1440P with your 1080Ti, you wont get so much more performance with a 8700K then a Ryzen 1xxx: it's around the difference with GTX 1080 on 1080P - 10%. . With a CPU costing a hell lot more than a 6 or 8 core Ryzen. And the 2XXX should get a ~10% boost in single core performance, so that 10% gap will narrow. And we are still talking about 20% extra price for the 8700K in comparison with the 2700X. On FHD with GTX 1080Ti yes, but who the heck plays 1080P with a $700-800 GPU?
Posted on Reply
#22
Joss
phanbuey, post: 3813164, member: 45008"
I dont think there will be a 2800X
I still hope there'll be a 125W 2800x further down the line.
Posted on Reply
#23
dicktracy
phanbuey, post: 3813164, member: 45008"
I dont think there will be a 2800X... I heard a rumor somewhere that there were only going to be 2700x and 2700.
That make sense. 1800x was only viable in the market when Intel only had the 7700k to compete.
Posted on Reply
#24
TristanX
Package: Summit Ridge, not Pinnacle Ridge
hopefully, prices won't be higher than current Ryzens
Posted on Reply
#25
evernessince
lynx29, post: 3813087, member: 153071"
my 8700k at stock just got 5978 cpu single core and 24660 on multi in geekbench... and it only cost me $263 free ship on ebay during that presidents day sale they had... hmm well I will see you again next year AMD, hopefully one of these days you will win me over, but not today.
Not counting the CPU cooler, motherboard or RAM. But yeah I just picked a Ryzen 1700 up brand new for $150 off eBay during the 20% off sale. At the end of the day you paid more than double for 5% more performance, grats. I just love people who tout their "on up ism" attitues all the while support a shitty company. I guess the company reflects the buyer.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment