Review of Ryzen 2700X - X470

[FYFI13]

Do you expect the 2700X to be on par with or better than the 8700K in games?

Trolling or what?

 

[yeeeeman]

It can't be the same since there is no uArch change. But in any case, the difference, even of 10-15FPS is negligible at over 60FPS baseline and you can't see it with naked eyes, only with FRAPS.

 

[Whitestar]

Reviews when are we gonna se the first today? Is there a time limited when they are allowed to relase reviews

If you looked two posts up you would see 9AM Eastern (15:00 CEST)

Trolling or what?

No trolling. The question was based on that review I linked to where it seemingly beat the 8700K in a couple of games. I do of course realize that that one review must be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[gasolin]

If you looked two posts up you would see 9AM Eastern (15:00 CEST)

No trolling. The question was based on that review I linked to where it seemingly beat the 8700K in a couple of games. I do of course realize that that one review must be taken with a pinch of salt.

very little or no difference since it's done in 3840x2160 where a new modern cpu doesn't make a different

 

[Whitestar]

very little or no difference since it's done in 3840x2160 where a new modern cpu doesn't make a different

There are both 1080p and 4K benchmarks there.

 

[gasolin]

There are both 1080p and 4K benchmarks there.

In this review? Ryzen review

 

[TheGuruStud]

DDR5 isn't coming to 10nm CPUs anytime soon, IIRC there's no DDR5 on any roadmap in the immediate future.

10nm isn't coming anytime soon LOL

Idk - it's a tough call - at full OC - six fat cores at 5Ghz w/ a very strong IMC vs 8 thinner cores at 4.3 w/ a weaker IMC?

I still think the 8700k will be the faster machine if you're not a heavily threaded user.

Idk what you mean... IPC should be virtually identical, now. Most people aren't running fast ram at all, especially due to current pricing. And Ryzen has a very robust IMC (if you haven't looked at bandwidth numbers). Sure, it would be nice if they reliably went above 3200/3400, but the real issue was IF speed being tied to it. That should have been independently clocked, so we can crank it up to max. After updates the IMC is pretty good for a first iteration. Subtimings are important, so I do think they need comprehensive profiles for all the sticks.

 

[Whitestar]

In this review? Ryzen review

No, the link in my OP.
Anyway, only 2 hours to embargo lift now, so we'll know soon enough.

 

[gasolin]

Oh that one, have seen that, what i don't get is that sometimes a litte i5 8400 score better than a i7 8700 like in tom raider

 

[TheGuruStud]

Oh that one, have seen that, what i don't get is that sometimes a litte i5 8400 score better than a i7 8700 like in tom raider

No HTT. That's why the self-proclaimed "high refresh rate" gamers (would love to see their actual fps, goof balls) are just OCing the 8600K.

 

[gasolin]

Oh HT Hyper Threading

 

[GirlyMan]

Interesting

 

[jboydgolfer]

Interesting

Its about What I expected. It's good to see that AMD brought it up to such a small margin

 

[dozenfury]

Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom), it'd be tough to make the case for the 2700X at $330. AMD has shown a willingness to drop pricing if needed though. At a $279 price point the 2700X would be a more compelling option. Otherwise for $20 difference to a 8700K, it would be really tough to consider too hard unless a person absolutely wanted to get off of Intel. Good to see them closing the gap though. And if I had an AMD gpu, being able to build a full AMD system for perf/$ close to Intel is great.

 

[Whitestar]

Anandtech's benchmarks results seem to massively favour the 2700X, especially RotTR and GTA5. What's going on there?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/

 

[phill]

Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom), it'd be tough to make the case for the 2700X at $330. AMD has shown a willingness to drop pricing if needed though. At a $279 price point the 2700X would be a more compelling option. Otherwise for $20 difference to a 8700K, it would be really tough to consider too hard unless a person absolutely wanted to get off of Intel. Good to see them closing the gap though. And if I had an AMD gpu, being able to build a full AMD system for perf/$ close to Intel is great.

TechPowerUp did mention about the cost of coolers etc which I suppose helps AMD in a way, but agreed, if there was a bigger price difference again, it would be even more appealing to even more people...

 

[jboydgolfer]

Anandtech's benchmarks results seem to massively favour the 2700X, especially RotTR and GTA5. What's going on there?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/

IMO, tech site benchmarks and reviews are just shy of worthless on their own, the only time i will even put half stock in them, is when i can average out what many different reviews have to say, and form a basic result from them as a "survey" of sorts. I just dont trust them, I always will wait until actual users get the product in their hands (the product that they paid for with their hard earned dollars, and have no reason to lie, or favor any particular brand, other than embarrassment for making a poor decision), and post real world experiences, until then, i ignore the gas bags for the most part. Im not saying Anandtech is a bad site, or reviewer, Im just saying I personally dont trust any of them.

i hope the Chip turns out to be a good value, AMD needs it, and the market needs it, for everyones best interest. no matter what chip anyone prefers for brand or whatever reason, the competitive market is essential for consumers best interest.

 

[gasolin]

Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom), it'd be tough to make the case for the 2700X at $330. AMD has shown a willingness to drop pricing if needed though. At a $279 price point the 2700X would be a more compelling option. Otherwise for $20 difference to a 8700K, it would be really tough to consider too hard unless a person absolutely wanted to get off of Intel. Good to see them closing the gap though. And if I had an AMD gpu, being able to build a full AMD system for perf/$ close to Intel is great.

They could make one 2600 and one 2700 for a low price and just make a bios of some kind so you can chose a stock cpu or the oc bios.

Why do you wanna have a 2700x just get a 2700 and oc the crap out of it, my 1600 did 4ghz not bad

 

[Whitestar]

Hardware Unboxed

GamersNexus

 

[trparky]

Still with the 8700K at only $349 now and faster in almost every test (plus much more oc headroom.

OK, here's the problem and what people seem to forget about is that yes... Intel chips do overclock much higher than AMD chips; there's no denying this. However, look at what you have to do to get said super-overclocks on Intel. You practically need to de-lid the stupid thing (thus voiding your warranty) and even then temps aren't that great unless you go for elaborate and expensive AIOs or custom liquid cooling. So yes, Intel does win in the clock speed arena with its ability to overclock like mad but there's a lot of issues in doing so, namely cooling.

When you put the 8700K at the same clock speed that the 2700X is running at it would be interesting to see which chip is best. I would not at all be surprised to see that both chips are nearly neck and neck.

 

[jboydgolfer]

OK, here's the problem and what people seem to forget about is that yes... Intel chips do overclock much higher than AMD chips; there's no denying this. However, look at what you have to do to get said super-overclocks on Intel. You practically need to de-lid the stupid thing (thus voiding your warranty) and even then temps aren't that great unless you go for elaborate and expensive AIOs or custom liquid cooling. So yes, Intel does win in the clock speed arena with its ability to overclock like mad but there's a lot of issues in doing so, namely cooling.

When you put the 8700K at the same clock speed that the 2700X is running at it would be interesting to see which chip is best. I would not at all be surprised to see that both chips are nearly neck and neck.

thats a generalization, all intel chips arent hot, nor do they require delidding to get good temps or OC. the issue is, the harshest critics seem to disregard the first 500 300+Mhz of overclock you can get on almost any intel chip over the past 10 years on even basic cooling (air or Water) as "a given" , and they only consider the last 4.5Ghz + as the "subject to mention" when making claims of high temps, required delidding, etc.

out of curiosity, which current intel cpu do You own?

 

[trparky]

out of curiosity, which current intel cpu do You own?

I don't have a current Intel chip, I do however have an ancient Core i5 3570K @ 4.4 GHz. This is the system that I have plans to upgrade to an AMD Ryzen 2600X.

EDIT

the harshest critics seem to disregard the first 500+Mhz of overclock you can get on almost any intel chip over the past 10 years on even basic cooling (air or Water) as "a given"

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Vayra86]

Oh that one, have seen that, what i don't get is that sometimes a litte i5 8400 score better than a i7 8700 like in tom raider

Its margin of error, everything from the Ryzen 3 1300X to the top falls in that category to be fair.

Its a clear indication this is quite a useless bench to gauge relative CPU performance, if anything. All this tells you is that all of these CPUs do fine in this specific game

 

[jboydgolfer]

What exactly do you mean by that?

what i mean is, i often see people (not necessarily You) claiming Intels factory TIM is awful, or that they MUST be delidded to get an OC, but the simple fact is, 90% or more of intels Current Chips, can atleast get a 300+Mhz OC right out of the gate, often on just multiplier increases. I have noticed Many of the claims that people make are based on the final (Coffee Lake for example) 4.5Ghz and up frequencies, where users get grumpy that their CPU doesnt reach the same clocks that others have, and so they become Very vocal about it, and make broad claims that "You cant get a good OC on a coffee lake CPU unless you delid it" , or " You have to run a Ln2 cooling system, or get lucky with the silicon lottery, to get them to OC", essentially, making claims that this or that is the case, based on anecdotal experiences. I have noticed this often, and (again not You) these people seem to make a lot of fuss, about what is the final 10% of OC headroom, or performance.

the only time you NEED to delid a (for example) 8700k ,is if your chasing some high OC, noone MUST delid to get 4.4Ghz, it just (imo) isnt happening anywhere. thats what my point is in a nutshell. The complaints & claims of required waranty voiding and elaborate cooling is only ever (slightly) true, if You chasing higher OC's, above what could be considered the "respectable OC" range

Also as a TL: DR but from the othe angle . If you were to go out and buy ten 8600K CPUs , im confident every one of them would reach 4.7Ghz on a standard cooling setup that is suitable, with factory TIM under the IHS. And if there was a issue, id be surprised if it was more than 1. keeping in mind that they are factory clocked to boost past what many can reach on AMD's current offering with experienced OC.

also, i meant to write 300+ earlier, my bad, fat fingers

 

[qubit]

@Whitestar So, the reviews are out and the latest top end Ryzen is very good, but still isn't quite as fast as the 8700K in gaming. Go ahead, open your CPU box and forget about AMD.

Personally, when AMD makes a CPU that's faster than Intel's in gaming, only then will I consider going for it. This makes sense for me, as gaming is the only area where I need max performance from my PC.