Review of Ryzen 2700X - X470

[phanbuey]

I already ordered my 2700x and Crosshair VII,I'm glad I can finally go back to AMD,it felt like i was shaking the hand of the devil when i went Intel.

I wish i could of gone Vega as well but the stores here in South Africa near me didn't have so I sold my soul even more and bought a 1080Ti.

BLASHPEMY!

I still remember when going green was AMD/NVIDIA

 

[eidairaman1]

BLASHPEMY!

I still remember when going green was AMD/NVIDIA

AMD was Mint Green, not Chartreuse- AKA Nvidia.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

What time/zone tomorrow can we expect the TPU 2700x review @W1zzard

 

[Space Lynx]

What do you make of these benchmarks? Representative, or a best case scenario for the Ryzen?

https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/#juegos
Do you expect the 2700X to be on par with or better than the 8700K in games?

Just to make things clear: I have no intention of starting a flame war. Nor do I have ANY sort of bias towards or against any manufacturer.
I am genuinely just curious, since I have an 8700K waiting for me at the post office, and I wonder if I should wait unpacking it (in case I want to switch to a Ryzen).

And yes, I know the review embargo ends tomorrow. It's just that I'm aching to unpack that 8700K.

If you watch the leaked video of the 2700x, in World of Warcraft 1 core is taking up 95% cpu usage, and if you compare it to my 8600k at 5ghz, 1 core only takes up 60% or so cpu usage... so if you play a lot of single core run games, which is most as DX12 still is not all that great, well numbers are numbers, wait for reviews tomorrow, and decide then.

 

[Tropicocity]

I hear ya... the value feeling you get when you use the 1700 feels like you won some kind of CPU lottery.

Really depends on your usage though. I personally only game, and I don't see the 1700 as any value to me when it's beaten by a 4790k from nearly 4 years ago in 99% of gaming situations. I really hope the 2700x can narrow the gap enough that I won't just have to go with an 8700k. Sure, I have nothing against either company, it'd just be nice to have a completely different platform as I've been with Intel since Core 2 duo days due to gaming performance

 

[phanbuey]

Really depends on your usage though. I personally only game, and I don't see the 1700 as any value to me when it's beaten by a 4790k from nearly 4 years ago in 99% of gaming situations. I really hope the 2700x can narrow the gap enough that I won't just have to go with an 8700k. Sure, I have nothing against either company, it'd just be nice to have a completely different platform as I've been with Intel since Core 2 duo days due to gaming performance

I learned that the hard way (hence my home computer and the one in my sig is intel work computer AMD)... the 2700x does look like it closed the gap -but it's very unlikely that Zen+ is going to beat an 8600/8700k in gaming when both are clocked / tuned to their maximum potential.

Maybe in newer games.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

If you watch the leaked video of the 2700x, in World of Warcraft 1 core is taking up 95% cpu usage, and if you compare it to my 8600k at 5ghz, 1 core only takes up 60% or so cpu usage... so if you play a lot of single core run games, which is most as DX12 still is not all that great, well numbers are numbers, wait for reviews tomorrow, and decide then.

It's not most at all, most are multi threaded and can take advantage of at least 4+ cores, WOW is of the minority as it still has a lot of code from 10+ years ago

 

[Space Lynx]

It's not most at all, most are multi threaded and can take advantage of at least 4+ cores, WOW is of the minority as it still has a lot of code from 10+ years ago

Well I intend to play the new WoW expansion and I don't want a $330 2018 CPU to be maxing out at single core as I play it... but we all have different needs with our CPU purchase so enjoy your 2700x, no hate from me, just stating numbers.

 

[John Naylor]

Deja Vu all over again ? ... time (tho not much of it), will tell. Not saying the new CXPU won't deliver, my issue is, last time around Ryzen was the Intel killer and it just didn't pan out. I saw a few of them as good choices for the gamer who was doing workstation apps more then 1/3 of the time. Recommend waiting till the facts are out and not buying into the pre-release rumor and fanfare. I'll wait to see what TPU has to say before making any decisions.

Ryzen 1300X - Single-threaded performance still lags behind competing Intel chips, Gaming performance slightly behind Intel chips,
Lacks integrated graphics, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile),
Requires optimized apps of which there are not many
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/20.html

Ryzen 1200 - Lacks integrated graphics, Significantly slower than the Ryzen 3 1300X, Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance doesn't match up to competing Intel parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1300X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz) in single core performance, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1200/21.html

Ryzen 1400 - Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance in the league of cheaper Core i3 dual-core parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1500X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz), Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/20.html

Ryzen 1600 - Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than Intel CPUs, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Boost frequency significantly lower than on Ryzen 5 1600X, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/21.html

Ryzen 1500x - Gaming frame-rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than competing Intel parts. Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/20.html

Ryzen 1800x -Horrible motherboards / BIOS, feels not ready for market, Limited game performance, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/16.html

The long history of "[Insert new AMD technology here] is gonna change everything" just has not delivered. Been disappointed way too many times to get excited ... yet.

 

[erocker]

It's not most at all, most are multi threaded and can take advantage of at least 4+ cores, WOW is of the minority as it still has a lot of code from 10+ years ago

Not sure if it works with WoW or not, but I find with some apps/games, just setting the affinity off of the core being loaded all the time seems to help. Is WoW working the same way (poorly) with current Ryzen?

 

[eidairaman1]

Deja Vu all over again ? ... time (tho not much of it), will tell. Not saying the new CXPU won't deliver, my issue is, last time around Ryzen was the Intel killer and it just didn't pan out. I saw a few of them as good choices for the gamer who was doing workstation apps more then 1/3 of the time. Recommend waiting till the facts are out and not buying into the pre-release rumor and fanfare. I'll wait to see what TPU has to say before making any decisions.

Ryzen 1300X - Single-threaded performance still lags behind competing Intel chips, Gaming performance slightly behind Intel chips,
Lacks integrated graphics, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile),
Requires optimized apps of which there are not many
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/20.html

Ryzen 1200 - Lacks integrated graphics, Significantly slower than the Ryzen 3 1300X, Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance doesn't match up to competing Intel parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1300X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz) in single core performance, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1200/21.html

Ryzen 1400 - Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance in the league of cheaper Core i3 dual-core parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1500X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz), Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/20.html

Ryzen 1600 - Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than Intel CPUs, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Boost frequency significantly lower than on Ryzen 5 1600X, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/21.html

Ryzen 1500x - Gaming frame-rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than competing Intel parts. Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/20.html

Ryzen 1800x -Horrible motherboards / BIOS, feels not ready for market, Limited game performance, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/16.html

The long history of "[Insert new AMD technology here] is gonna change everything" just has not delivered. Been disappointed way too many times to get excited ... yet.

It helped them catch up considering the Damage that already had been done to Bulldozer(Piledriver/Excavator sould of been the Launch models in 2011). Board makers were just not ready even. I'm glad they did announce a Z490/490Z chipset that replaces the x370 as top end via features considering it seemed X370 was somewhat a step back from the 990FX chipset that preceeded it, so second round should be better overall for a tock being a Gen 1+ Arch. The only thing I do not agree with is the naming convention this Cycle- it should be a 1700+ or a 1790+ where as 2700 should be reserved for Second Gen Ryzen Tick.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Well I intend to play the new WoW expansion and I don't want a $330 2018 CPU to be maxing out at single core as I play it... but we all have different needs with our CPU purchase so enjoy your 2700x, no hate from me, just stating numbers.

No hate from you, just the same posts about your awesome 8600k at 5.2ghz and how it's so amazing in every single way, and hey, if you can get that into ANY AMD Ryzen thread then all the better (which you always do) or do you think people don't read multiple threads on TPU?

 

[Space Lynx]

No hate from you, just the same posts about your awesome 8600k at 5.2ghz and how it's so amazing in every single way, and hey, if you can get that into ANY AMD Ryzen thread then all the better (which you always do) or do you think people don't read multiple threads on TPU?

I intend to inform people you are correct. Ryzen = slower NVMe speeds, min FPS is inferior by about 5-10 fps across the board, max FPS at 1080p is inferior, and fyi, I went to 5.1ghz for my 24.7 OC, I felt that 5.2 was to pretentious of me. Kappa

did I mention my 5.1ghz never breaks 60 Celsius in games, on air?

and the delid was free from a fellow TPU member sharing his kit with me ~ because this is a website about being bros to each other.

I have also said in many threads, that I am an AMD fanboy since they allow me to build on budget when I was a teenager, but now that I game at high rez high refresh I do like to have that 40 fps gain the 1080 ti gives me, as games are more immersive, I have also stated multiple times that I hope Vega 2 and Zen 2 in 2019 win me back to the red team.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Deja Vu all over again ? ... time (tho not much of it), will tell. Not saying the new CXPU won't deliver, my issue is, last time around Ryzen was the Intel killer and it just didn't pan out. I saw a few of them as good choices for the gamer who was doing workstation apps more then 1/3 of the time. Recommend waiting till the facts are out and not buying into the pre-release rumor and fanfare. I'll wait to see what TPU has to say before making any decisions.

Ryzen 1300X - Single-threaded performance still lags behind competing Intel chips, Gaming performance slightly behind Intel chips,
Lacks integrated graphics, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile),
Requires optimized apps of which there are not many
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/20.html

Ryzen 1200 - Lacks integrated graphics, Significantly slower than the Ryzen 3 1300X, Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance doesn't match up to competing Intel parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1300X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz) in single core performance, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1200/21.htmlReply

Ryzen 1400 - Low single-thread performance takes away the Ryzen "wow factor", Gaming performance in the league of cheaper Core i3 dual-core parts, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Lack of 200 MHz XFR makes it effectively 450 MHz slower than the 1500X (3.45 GHz vs. 3.90 GHz), Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/20.html

Ryzen 1600 - Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than Intel CPUs, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Boost frequency significantly lower than on Ryzen 5 1600X, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/21.html

Ryzen 1500x - Gaming frame-rates lower than competing Intel chips, Higher power draw than competing Intel parts. Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/20.html

Ryzen 1800x -Horrible motherboards / BIOS, feels not ready for market, Limited game performance, Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited, Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile), Overclocking barely worth it, Requires optimized apps of which there are not many, Lacks integrated graphics
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/16.html

The long history of "[Insert new AMD technology here] is gonna change everything" just has not delivered. Been disappointed way too many times to get excited ... yet.

So in a nutshell, where we're talking gaming performance you're knocking Ryzen's for not having an IGP in one hand and stating how it's slightly lower gaming performance (with dGPU) in the other? Horrible motherboards only for the 1800x, the same motherboards are great for lower end Ryzen?
Higher power draw for competing chips... competing on price or cores? 6 cores tends to be higher power draw than 4 last time I looked
Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile) ummmm insert memory, it either runs at XMP or jedec, why compare day 1 reviews with mature platform updates compared to Intel? CCX what exactly as a user do you have to setup regarding CCX? oh... nothing, point noted. SMT... works as it should, yeilds better performance over htt, check. Power profile.... huh, you need chip[set drivers, do you not need these for Intel?

I intend to inform people you are correct. Ryzen = slower NVMe speeds, min FPS is inferior by about 5-10 fps across the board, max FPS at 1080p is inferior, and fyi, I went to 5.1ghz for my 24.7 OC, I felt that 5.2 was to pretentious of me. Kappa

did I mention my 5.1ghz never breaks 60 Celsius in games, on air?

and the delid was free from a fellow TPU member sharing his kit with me ~ because this is a website about being bros to each other.

I have also said in many threads, that I am an AMD fanboy since they allow me to build on budget when I was a teenager, but now that I game at high rez high refresh I do like to have that 40 fps gain the 1080 ti gives me, as games are more immersive, I have also stated multiple times that I hope Vega 2 and Zen 2 in 2019 win me back to the red team.

you seem to mention it in most of your Intel loving, AMD bashing posts my man, don't think they go unnoticed.

Being bros? are you stiffler from 2001?

it's not 40fps gain at all, again blatantly lying and changing what you see fit to suit your Intel e-peen agenda, you have your rig be happy, why lie to make it seem bigger unless you're insecure in that department? 5-10 fps in the same post goes to 40fps? no credability whatsoever.

You're actually an anti-AMD fanboy who likes to think his Intel e-peen is bigger by being passive aggressive in all AMD threads...

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Uhm...Ryzen competes just fine with single core apps @3.8Ghz which most if not all do with ease.

 

[eidairaman1]

Being bros? are you stiffler from 2001?

Check your PM man lol

 

[Space Lynx]

So in a nutshell, where we're talking gaming performance you're knocking Ryzen's for not having an IGP in one hand and stating how it's slightly lower gaming performance (with dGPU) in the other? Horrible motherboards only for the 1800x, the same motherboards are great for lower end Ryzen?
Higher power draw for competing chips... competing on price or cores? 6 cores tends to be higher power draw than 4 last time I looked
Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile) ummmm insert memory, it either runs at XMP or jedec, why compare day 1 reviews with mature platform updates compared to Intel? CCX what exactly as a user do you have to setup regarding CCX? oh... nothing, point noted. SMT... works as it should, yeilds better performance over htt, check. Power profile.... huh, you need chip[set drivers, do you not need these for Intel?


you seem to mention it in most of your Intel loving, AMD bashing posts my man, don't think they go unnoticed.

Being bros? are you stiffler from 2001?

it's not 40fps gain at all, again blatantly lying and changing what you see fit to suit your Intel e-peen agenda, you have your rig be happy, why lie to make it seem bigger unless you're insecure in that department? 5-10 fps in the same post goes to 40fps? no credability whatsoever.

You're actually an anti-AMD fanboy who likes to think his Intel e-peen is bigger by being passive aggressive in all AMD threads...

correct, 5-10 fps minimum frames beat ryzen in same test benches, according to tpu review: as seen here

95% of games benefit min FPS to Intel, in 5-15 fps range, BF1 at 13 FPS according to TPU review.

below: 1440p 42 FPS gain, tho its closer to 50 for me since my 1080 ti is clocked higher than the one reviewed below... have a look at all the games... https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Ti_Gaming_X_Trio/23.html

I do find it interesting you ignored my 7 posts in which I said I am an AMD fan boy who is waiting for Vega 2 and Ryzen 2 though, but at the moment I require high performance. Continue to create your own narrative without links or supportive facts, you and @eidairaman1 seem to be quite the duo.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

correct, 5-10 fps minimum frames beat ryzen in same test benches, according to tpu review: as seen here

95% of games benefit min FPS to Intel, in 5-15 fps range, BF1 at 13 FPS according to TPU review.

below: 1440p 42 FPS gain, tho its closer to 50 for me since my 1080 ti is clocked higher than the one reviewed below... have a look at all the games... https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Ti_Gaming_X_Trio/23.html

I do find it interesting you ignored my 7 posts in which I said I am an AMD fan boy who is waiting for Vega 2 and Ryzen 2 though, but at the moment I require high performance. Continue to create your own narrative without links or supportive facts, you and @eidairaman1 seem to be quite the duo.

There's more than 7, you start out by saying how much of an AMD fan you are then go about talking crap about your "golden 8600k" do you think I sit here commenting on posts not reading a whole damn thing? I quoted your 5-10% in one post then you go on to say 40fps difference in the same post... I don't ignore anything you say, you have an agenda, I'm surprised more people can't see through your crap.

 

[Space Lynx]

Troll alert

Just reporting the numbers as reported by TPU review, but sure thing. Also, my 8 year old niece says bro a lot, and I have fun with it with her, you shouldn't take life so seriously or judge someone because they used one word. Blocked, you are a waste of time.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Just reporting the numbers as reported by TPU review, but sure thing. Also, my 8 year old niece says bro a lot, and I have fun with it with her, you shouldn't take life so seriously or judge someone because they used one word. Blocked, you are a waste of time.

You take one review numbers, take another different sets and then make your so called point, you have an agenda, anyone with half a brain can see it, you continue to say you love AMD yet bash them at every opportunity whilst citing your so called golden chip, grow up. You dont have a golden chip anymore than I have a magical penis. Block away, you have been found out. Seems like I'm not the only one either as your stats have took a nose dive

I'm out of here

 

[ratirt]

I wonder what would be the prices for x470 Motherboard. I looked over the ram modules also 3k and 3200Mhz. Knowing how 1700x behaves with ram speed I bet the 2700x will be similar. Do you think settling at 3k or 3200Mhz is worth it or go for lower and OC? I have seen somewhere that 2900Mhz with CL14 is almost like 3200Mhz CL16. Of course not in every scenario but they practically matched. I'm guessing that I will need to put over 1k$ to get that upgrade.

 

[Whitestar]

What time/zone tomorrow can we expect the TPU 2700x review @W1zzard

I believe it's 9AM Eastern time. In other words 15:00 CEST (Central European Summer Time).
I.e. in about 5 hours 20 minutes from writing this post.

EDIT: Sorry, that's when the review embargo lifts. Don't know when TPU's review is coming.

 

[yeeeeman]

Chinese Ryzen review here https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.hkepc.com/16564/12nm_%E5%88%B6%E7%A8%8BZen%2B_%E5%BE%AE%E6%9E%B6%E6%A7%8B_AMD_Ryzen_7_2700X_%E8%99%95%E7%90%86%E5%99%A8%E8%A9%B3%E7%B4%B0%E6%B8%AC%E8%A9%A6/page/3/preview/a39b505722dc1dbb427880fd438e7354#view&edit-text=&act=url
2700X closes the gap on gaming with the 8700K. At 4K there is absolutely no difference between them and on Unigine you can see that it is actually close to 8700K compared to 1800X.
Whoever complains about gaming with this 2700X is either a kid and choses a CPU based on negligible differences or it is an Intel fanboy.

 

[gasolin]

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

 

[yeeeeman]

I can bet that whatever results we see in that chinese one we'll see in reputable reviews like on TPU.