Monday, March 19th 2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600 Review Popped Up Ahead of Time

Not sure whether intentional or an error, SiSoftware posted a review of the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors on their website. The creators of the popular Sandra benchmark suite has taken down the review for the meantime. Luckily, our good old buddies at VideoCardz have ninja reflexes and downloaded the graphs before SiSoftware removed them. In their review, SiSoftware pitched the upcoming Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors against AMD's previous Ryzen 7 1700X processor and Intel's Core i7-6700K Skylake processor.

The SiSoftware team evaluated CPU performance using a plethora of synthetic benchmarks. Unfortunately, they didn't evaluate gaming performance. Nevertheless, their review gave us a taste of what we can expect from the Ryzen 2000 series. The Ryzen 2000 series (or Zen+) officially supports DDR4 frequencies up to 2933 MHz which should help improve its performance. Similar to its predecessor, Zen+ processors possess the most cores and threads. Therefore, performance improvements depend hugely on IPC and clock speeds. While we're on the subject of clock speeds, Ryzen 2000 series' base clock is 9% higher while the Turbo/Boost/XFR frequency is 11% higher when compared to previous Ryzen chips. In terms of CPU performance, we can expect at least a 10% improvement in CPU-heavy benchmarks. All of this comes at a cost though. The TDP for Zen+ (105W) is 11% higher than the first-generation Ryzen processors (95W). Beefy cooling solutions are highly recommended especially if you plan to overclock these CPUs. Although Zen+ based processors' L1, L2, and L3 caches suffered no changes, latencies should show some improvement. AMD may launch the Ryzen 2000 series on April 19, so we won't have to wait long to get our hands on the new processors.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

30 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600 Review Popped Up Ahead of Time

#1
v12dock
I will of course wait for official benchmarks but I might be making a trip to Microcenter.
Posted on Reply
#2
hellrazor
Somebody forgot to label the aqua bars on the inter-core latency picture.
Posted on Reply
#3
IceScreamer
Wait, hold up, the TDP increased? I'll wait for further benchmarks but this seems like a clock bump with with latency/memory improvements.
Posted on Reply
#4
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Why are they not comparing against the 8700K?
Posted on Reply
#5
theoneandonlymrk
CrAsHnBuRnXp, post: 3815603, member: 44048"
Why are they not comparing against the 8700K?
That is a kick in the shin of common sense ,they didn't really pick a good intel chip from the point of view of a buyer looking to upgrade either, If I had a 6700K I would be fine for a bit.
The only good bit is not long to wait now, I just hope @W1zzard has a lovely review hid up those massive sleaves of his.
Posted on Reply
#6
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Its not even necessarily picking from a buyer point of view. They need to compare it to whatever intels latest and greatest is. It certainly isnt a 6700k or even a 7700k.
Posted on Reply
#7
owen10578
Is it just me or this smells AMD-biased? I mean comparing it to an old 6700K? And the graphs are also not scaled properly so the difference between the latency for example looks smaller than it actually is if you read the labels...
Posted on Reply
#8
theoneandonlymrk
owen10578, post: 3815627, member: 165994"
Is it just me or this smells AMD-biased? I mean comparing it to an old 6700K? And the graphs are also not scaled properly so the difference between the latency for example looks smaller than it actually is if you read the labels...
Thats textbook leak stuff to be fair , and it does make sense to compare first to second generation, just poor choice and not much choice.
@CrAsHnBuRnXp yes im with you their ,i just meant they also didn't piçk a good intel chip from a upgrade path Pov.
I am sure someone will compare chips more then adequately:D soon.
Posted on Reply
#9
CrAsHnBuRnXp
theoneandonlymrk, post: 3815637, member: 82332"
Thats textbook leak stuff to be fair , and it does make sense to compare first to second generation, just poor choice and not much choice.
@CrAsHnBuRnXp yes im with you their ,i just meant they also didn't piçk a good intel chip from a upgrade path Pov.
I am sure someone will compare chips more then adequately:D soon.
If someone donates me the money or parts, hell ill do it :D
Posted on Reply
#10
theoneandonlymrk
CrAsHnBuRnXp, post: 3815638, member: 44048"
If someone donates me the money or parts, hell ill do it :D
I think a few here are in That bracket me included:)
Posted on Reply
#11
Steevo
Still that cache issue, I wonder what it will do to performance if/when they fix it, or if the "fix" Intel has is at the cost of security since nothing being dumped in gets checked for permissions and the assumption is if its paged in its trusted code.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheinsanegamerN
Looks promising, I eagerly await official benchmarks.

That being said, I wont be upgrading anytime soon, between ridiculous GPU and RAM prices, and OEM's refusal to make good micro ATX AM4 motherboards.
Posted on Reply
#13
Liviu Cojocaru
decent results, I am really curious to see what's the OC limit of these...probably 4.25 also if the memory will work properly from the start
Posted on Reply
#14
vega22
comparing it to skylake gives a ballpark figure to work from. nothing new intel has done since has changed much of the tech inside the chips other than adding 2 extra cores.

throw a 50% bump on its score's and you have a ball park figure for the 87k.

i have to say it gives the buyer more choice but the performance jump being tied with the tdp jump is kinda sad :(
Posted on Reply
#15
theoneandonlymrk
vega22, post: 3815681, member: 41040"
comparing it to skylake gives a ballpark figure to work from. nothing new intel has done since has changed much of the tech inside the chips other than adding 2 extra cores.

throw a 50% bump on its score's and you have a ball park figure for the 87k.

i have to say it gives the buyer more choice but the performance jump being tied with the tdp jump is kinda sad :(
To be expected since it's not a full node jump just a tidy up shrinkish , the Tdp isn't bad for the number of cores v speed v competition though, be nice to dream for a bit, maybe someone will want me to make one or something.
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
owen10578, post: 3815627, member: 165994"
Is it just me or this smells AMD-biased? I mean comparing it to an old 6700K? And the graphs are also not scaled properly so the difference between the latency for example looks smaller than it actually is if you read the labels...
And the 6700k still wins a few cryptography benchmarks. But there anyone here that thinks pre-launch leaked data is not cherry-picked?
Still, this confirms the small incremental gains that were to be expected. And curbs the hopes of those hoping to see some work done on the memory controller or IF.
Posted on Reply
#17
trparky
In other words, it's not the "Ultimate Intel Killer" that all of us were hoping for. That probably won't come until the Ryzen 3000-series.
Posted on Reply
#18
pseudografx
trparky, post: 3815744, member: 170376"
In other words, it's not the "Ultimate Intel Killer" that all of us were hoping for. That probably won't come until the Ryzen 3000-series.
I think no one really expected that the Ryzen refresh will be dramatically better than the original chip. IMHO the improvements are decent, even if I wished them to be a little better.
Posted on Reply
#19
trparky
Part of me was hoping for that.
Posted on Reply
#20
las
owen10578, post: 3815627, member: 165994"
Is it just me or this smells AMD-biased? I mean comparing it to an old 6700K? And the graphs are also not scaled properly so the difference between the latency for example looks smaller than it actually is if you read the labels...
Old and old, it's the exact same arch as Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake. Pretty much nothing has happened since Skylake arch and IPC wise - Clock for clock.

CFL is 4th 14nm release. 3rd release with same arch. CFL was all about the core bump (thank AMD for that)

My 6700 at 5 GHz performs almost 1:1 compared to 7700K at 5 GHz.
And 7700K beats 8700K in some games (because the quads generally clocks higher, both with turbo and manual OC - requires less cooling)

Can't wait for Ice Lake. New arch, 10nm and hopefully 8C on mainstream. This is what we have been waiting for, for years.
Hopefully they will fix the crappy TIM / gap between die and IHS too. Or else I will delid (sigh).
Posted on Reply
#21
R0H1T
So when can we see the official reviews :confused:
Posted on Reply
#22
trparky
las, post: 3815823, member: 111974"
it's the exact same arch as Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake.
Yes, that's because the architecture is mature, it has reached the end goal that Intel set when they first designed the architecture.
las, post: 3815823, member: 111974"
Pretty much nothing has happened since Skylake arch and IPC wise - Clock for clock.
See above. In order for Intel to do anything more they will have to take a page out of AMD's book and design a new architecture from the ground up. This current architecture has reached the end of the line.
las, post: 3815823, member: 111974"
And 7700K beats 8700K in some games (because the quads generally clocks higher, both with turbo and manual OC - requires less cooling)
Yeah, more cores equals more heat.
Posted on Reply
#23
Chaitanya
trparky, post: 3816037, member: 170376"
See above. In order for Intel to do anything more they will have to take a page out of AMD's book and design a new architecture from the ground up. This current architecture has reached the end of the line.
Developing new architecture wont be cheap nor will it be quick. Amd took 4-5 years for Zen. Might be same time frame for Intel if they were to start last year would mean we are still stuck with Nehalem rehash for another 3-4 years atleast.
Posted on Reply
#24
Da Rooster
las, post: 3815823, member: 111974"
Old and old, it's the exact same arch as Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake. Pretty much nothing has happened since Skylake arch and IPC wise - Clock for clock.

CFL is 4th 14nm release. 3rd release with same arch. CFL was all about the core bump (thank AMD for that)

My 6700 at 5 GHz performs almost 1:1 compared to 7700K at 5 GHz.
And 7700K beats 8700K in some games (because the quads generally clocks higher, both with turbo and manual OC - requires less cooling)

Can't wait for Ice Lake. New arch, 10nm and hopefully 8C on mainstream. This is what we have been waiting for, for years.
Hopefully they will fix the crappy TIM / gap between die and IHS too. Or else I will delid (sigh).
Da Rooster, post: 3816191, member: 170043"

7700k cannot play and stream games at the same time. the stream side of the game choppy. ryzen 1600 play and stream smoothly. take that!
Posted on Reply
#25
bug
Chaitanya, post: 3816083, member: 93474"
Developing new architecture wont be cheap nor will it be quick. Amd took 4-5 years for Zen. Might be same time frame for Intel if they were to start last year would mean we are still stuck with Nehalem rehash for another 3-4 years atleast.
If we're lucky, Intel already knew Core is getting long in the tooth and started working on their next thing sooner than that. If we're lucky.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment