AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen — Tom’s Hardware
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.
Editor’s Choice
Tom’s Hardware Verdict
AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is another big step forward for AMD. The improved boost algorithms add to Ryzen’s performance advantage in heavily-threaded applications, while the increased frequency and reduced memory latency provide a boost to a wide range of workloads. AMD delivered on the pricing front, too, and the bundled LED cooler and storage tiering software adds to the value.
TODAY’S BEST DEALS
Pros
- +
Significant performance boost vs. 1800X
- +
Bundled coolers
- +
Backward-compatible with 300-series motherboards
- +
Indium solder
- +
Better memory and cache performance
Why you can trust Tom’s Hardware
Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Today’s best AMD Ryzen 7 2700X deals
13 Amazon customer reviews
☆☆☆☆☆
$159.99
View
$259
View
$399.99
View
Redefining Ryzen
AMD’s return to prominence last year found it rolling out a long stream of CPUs that pressured Intel in almost every segment of the desktop PC market. Even after Intel countered with dramatic adjustments to its processor portfolio, AMD continues gobbling up market share.
Even in the face of stiff competition, AMD says it enjoys as much as 50% of CPU sales to DIYers on sites like Newegg and Amazon.
And a slow transition to 10nm manufacturing continues to leave Intel vulnerable. AMD is now ready to evolve its Zen architecture with a round of new processors. To be sure, the improvements they offer are iterative. The low-hanging fruit that made it possible for first-gen Ryzen to compete are already baked in. These chips do incorporate some notable advantages, though.
To begin, second-generation Ryzen processors are manufactured using an optimized 12nm LP node that promises performance and efficiency gains compared to the original Ryzen’s 14nm LPP process. AMD also tweaked the Zen architecture, now dubbed Zen+, to support higher frequencies, more sophisticated multi-core boost rates, and faster memory/caches. Overall, the company claims that its 2000-series facilitates nearly equivalent gaming performance compared to similarly-priced Core CPUs, plus a 20% advantage in threaded workloads.
AMD certainly hasn’t forgotten its core message: more cores and features for less money. The second-gen Ryzen processors are priced competitively, all models come with beefy stock coolers, and they are backward compatible with older Socket AM4 motherboards. AMD even throws in free caching software to sweeten the deal. It all starts with silicon though, so let’s take a look.
- AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (AMD Ryzen) at Amazon for $259
Ryzen 7 2700X
Ryzen 2000-series processors, otherwise known by their «Pinnacle Ridge» code name, are based on the same basic Zen core design as previous-gen models. But they benefit from 12nm manufacturing, along with targeted tweaks to improve cache and memory latency. The company says its resulting Zen+ architecture delivers up to a 3% boost in IPC (instructions per cycle) throughput.
The CPUs still utilize a dual-CCX configuration tied, together with Infinity Fabric. Not surprisingly, then, they’re divided into eight-core, 16-thread Ryzen 7 and six-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 families, both with 16MB of L3 cache.
Like the Ryzens that came before, all 2000-series models boast unlocked ratio multipliers for easy overclocking. Intel, in comparison, still charges a premium for its overclockable K-series SKUs.
AMD separates its the 2000-series stack into high-performance X-series models and their non-X counterparts. But it shrinks the Ryzen 7 family from three models to two. Ryzen 7 2700X would seem to suggest a Ryzen 7 1700X replacement. However, it actually replaces the flagship Ryzen 7 1800X. AMD claims that its 2700X offers up to 12% more performance than Ryzen 7 1800X in threaded applications. Much of that improvement comes from a 100 MHz-higher base clock and 200 MHz of additional boost frequency (though multiple other refinements also contribute).
While the Pinnacle Ridge processors drop into 400-series motherboards, AMD is only releasing its X470 chipset at launch time. We still don’t have a release date for the less expensive B450- and A420-based motherboards. As the company originally promised, it continues supporting Socket AM4 (and purportedly will until 2020), so the new Ryzen CPUs also work with 300-series motherboards after a BIOS update.
First-gen Ryzens do work with 400-series platforms as well, allowing you to drop an older CPU into a brand-new board, if desired.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Row 0 — Cell 0 | AMD Ryzen 7 2700X | AMD Ryzen 7 1800X | AMD Ryzen 7 2700 | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X | AMD Ryzen 5 2600 | Intel Core i7-8700K | Intel Core i7-8700 | Intel Core i5-8600K | Intel Core i5-8400 |
| MSRP | $329 | $349 | $299 | $219 | $229 | $199 | $359 | $303 | $257 | $182 |
| Cores/Threads | 8/16 | 8/16 | 8/16 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 6/6 | 6/6 |
| TDP | 105W | 95W | 65W | 95W | 95W | 65W | 95W | 65W | 95W | 65W |
Base Freq. (GHz) |
3.7 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 2.8 |
| Precision Boost Freq. (GHz) | 4.3 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| Cache (L3) | 16MB | 16MB | 16MB | 16MB | 16MB | 16MB | 12MB | 12MB | 9MB | 9MB |
| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Cooler | 105W Wraith Prism (LED) | — | 95W Wraith Spire (LED) | — | 95W Wraith Spire | 65W Wraith Stealth | — | Intel | — | Intel |
The $329 Ryzen 7 2700X should sell for $20 less than an 1800X (though prices of previous-generation chips will likely fall as long as stock is robust), while the $299 Ryzen 7 2700 lands right where you formerly found the 1700.
AMD’s non-X models were apparently more popular with enthusiasts since they also had unlocked multipliers, enabling similar performance as the pricier models (after some tuning) for less money. You could save $50 stepping down from Ryzen 7 1800X to the 1700, for example. But that gap shrinks to $30 this time around.
AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X grapples with Intel’s $359 flagship Core i7-8700K. Though that seems like an uncomfortably close comparison, AMD allows you to overclock with one of its value-oriented B-series motherboards (B350-based, for now), whereas Intel compels users splurge on a Z-series platform for overclocking. Adding the CPU and motherboard together, Intel’s premium ends up being quite a bit higher.
Second-gen Ryzens now support up to DDR4-2933 RAM as well, trumping the Coffee Lake architecture’s official DDR4-2666 ceiling (with a few caveats that we’ll cover shortly). More bandwidth should help latency-sensitive apps, such as games. Also, X470 motherboards pave the way for better memory overclocking than previous-gen platforms.
AMD’s first-gen X-series processors, which topped out at 95W, came without a bundled thermal solution. This time around, all 2000-series CPUs include a cooler. The 105W Ryzen 7 2700X includes a «Wraith Prism» LED cooler that features four direct-contact copper heat pipes, three independent RGB zones, switchable fan profiles, and a 39 dB(A) noise rating. The cooler is rated to dissipate 116W of waste heat in «L» mode (2800 RPM) and 124W in «H» mode (3600 RPM). Cooler Master manufactures the heat sink/fan, while AMD provides software for controlling the lighting and fan profiles. Company representatives claim the cooler represents a roughly $43 value, and that it also allows for some overclocking headroom.
As with the generation before, AMD employs Indium solder between its die and heat spreader to improve thermal transfer. In contrast, Intel uses standard thermal interface material on its Core i7-8700K. Also, that Intel chip doesn’t come with a cooler, widening the price gap between a Ryzen 7 2700X-based configuration and a current-generation unlocked Intel Core i7.
According to AMD, its 2000-series CPUs benefit from an improved SensMI suite that also includes its new StorMI Technology. The latter is a software-based tiering solution that melds the low price and high capacity of a hard drive with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint (including Intel’s Optane parts), or even up to 2GB of RAM. AMD sold this software as a $20 add-on in the past, but now it comes free as part of the 2000-series package. As with any tiering utility, you assume the same risks of data loss inherent to a RAID 0 array. For more details about this software, read our feature: AMD and Enmotus Expand FuzeDrive Offerings.
The GlobalFoundries 12nm LP Process
As mentioned, AMD’s 2000-series CPUs are not manufactured on GlobalFoundries’ 14nm GPP node, but rather its 12nm LP process technology. The ported-over design helps boost transistor performance, but does not affect die area or transistor density. As a result, Pinnacle Ridge’s ~4.8 billion transistors and 213mm2 area remain the same as first-gen Ryzen.
Lower leakage current does enable roughly 300 MHz-higher clock rates or a 50mV core voltage reduction at any given frequency compared to 14nm manufacturing. The company also refined some of the architecture’s critical pathways with higher-performance transistors. All told, AMD claims the 12nm design enables up to 11% less power consumption than 14nm-based Ryzen CPUs at the same clock rates, or up to 16% more performance at the same thermal design power. All-core overclocks are expected to land in the 4.2 GHz range moving forward.
AMD also adds other nuanced refinements to the performance story, reportedly improving L1, L2, and L3 cache latencies, while also reducing memory latency by 11%.
Ryzen 7 2700X’s 105W TDP represents a 10.5% increase compared to the 1800X for a 4.65% increase in boost frequencies. That seems like a simple trade-off of power consumption for higher clock rates. But the TDP rating also takes the multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 algorithms’ higher power draw into account, allowing access to Socket AM4’s full 95-amp current ceiling even during stock operation.
Precision Boost 2 And XFR2
AMD’s previous-gen Ryzen processors have Precision Boost (a Dynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling implementation similar to Intel’s Turbo Boost), and eXtended Frequency Range, which provides additional frequency uplift if your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare. Those 1000-series CPUs only offer dual-core or all-core Precision Boost and XFR clock rates. But lightly-threaded applications (like games) often offload less-critical tasks to other threads. Unfortunately, light helper threads can apply enough of a load to trigger the lower all-core frequency, limiting performance potential even when the CPU could be operating at higher clock rates.
The new Precision Boost 2 (which debuted on the desktop with AMD’s Raven Ridge processors) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. Precision Boost 2 delivers up to 500 MHz-higher clocks during multi-core workloads, while XFR2 adds an additional 7% boost if your cooler is beefy enough.
This extends Ryzen’s already-strong threaded performance to a wider variety of tasks, though it levels off when the processor reaches 60°C (tCase) or 95 amps of current. Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 also work on 300-series motherboards.
AMD doesn’t share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 bins, because its opportunistic algorithms achieve different frequencies based on temperature, current, and load.
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Comparison Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X: Price Comparison
13 Amazon customer reviews
☆☆☆☆☆
$159.
99
View
$259
View
$399.99
View
powered by
- 1
Current page:
Redefining Ryzen
Next Page X470 And Ryzen Master 1.3
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X review
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.
AMD’s complete victory over Intel
By Kevin Lee
published
Best in Class
TechRadar Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X fully outpaces the Intel Core i7-8700K, thanks to serious improvements made with Zen+ and higher clock speeds ending Team Blue’s frequency advantage.
TODAY’S BEST DEALS
Why you can trust TechRadar
Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
AMD had a banner year in 2017, introducing Ryzen to shake up the whole processor world with higher-core counts, better multi-threaded performance and lower prices than what Intel’s CPUs retailed for. For all its success, it was inevitable that we would see AMD Ryzen 2nd Generation do the same in 2018 expect bigger and better – and oh boy has it.
AMD Ryzen 2nd Generation is a huge deal for the best processors, as it introduced the first 12nm architecture in mainstream processors, along with lightning fast clock speeds and plenty of new features. The Ryzen 7 2700X is a perfect example of all of this: not only does it outperform the original Ryzen chips, but it even topples the mighty Intel Core i7-8700K.
What’s more, though, is that it’s an incredibly affordable part for the performance on offer.
Especially now that its followup, the Ryzen 7 3700X, has hit the market, the 2700X is a budget superstar, and will likely be the headline PC component of a lot of Black Friday deals.
- AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (AMD Ryzen) at Amazon for $259
Spec sheet
Cores: 8
Threads: 16
Base clock: 3.7GHz
Boost clock: 4.3GHz
L3 cache: 20MB
TDP: 105W
Pricing and availability
Priced at $329 (£299, AU$469), the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is slightly more expensive than the Ryzen 7 1700X even at its initial $309 (£269, AU$429) pricing. However, based on the performance of this processor, we would also consider it to be a successor of the $499 (£299, AU$475) Ryzen 7 1800X.
Plus, the processor now comes with the Wraith Prism, which we consider to be a premium RGB CPU cooler. So, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X looks like an overall better deal than its predecessor.
Meanwhile, Intel’s competing chip, the Intel Core i7-8700K costs $349 (£319, AU$499).
Features and chipset
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X might feature the same eight-core and 16-thread configuration as its predecessor, but it’s significantly faster with a 3.7GHz base clock and 4.3GHz boost. Comparatively, the Ryzen 7 1700X would max out at 3.8GHz and the Ryzen 7 1800X could go a smidge faster to 4GHz.
A large part of this speed boost comes thanks to Ryzen 2nd Generation’s new 12nm Zen+ architecture being a very literal generational leap over the 14nm Zen architecture Ryzen debuted with last year. AMD claims it’s latest chips provide 16% better performance and 11% lower power draw than a last generation processor running at the same clock speed.
Of course, new CPUs also means new chipsets and AMD has introduced the X470 platform to provide the better power delivery and efficiency we see with Ryzen 2nd generation. Together the enhancements enable the Precision Boost 2 to consistently push higher frequencies across all threads, which comes in handy for workloads like gaming and encoding.
Overclocking also sees an improvement through Extended Frequency Range 2 (XFR2) now being enabled on all CPU cores rather than just one.
Although Ryzen 2nd generation processors will run best on the new X470 platform, it’s almost entirely optional. The 2700X and AMD’s other new chips will run just fine on a X370 or B350 motherboard because they’re fully compatible with the existing AM4 socket.
The only slight caveat is users will have to update their motherboard with a compatible BIOs, which unfortunately at least requires an 1st generation Ryzen part to do so. AMD tells us it’s working on a solution for users who want to buy into its new family of processors with an older platform. Otherwise, users will be able to see compatible motherboards in stores clearly labeled with a ‘AMD Ryzen Desktop 2000 Ready’ sticker.
Lastly, AMD has introduced a new optional StoreMI technology that basically ties all your storage mediums together for the quickest access to the most commonly used files and programs.
Basically, if you have a solid-state drive and hard drive, AMD StoreMI will move the most commonly used files to the fastest storage in the system.
It’s very similar to Intel’s Rapid Storage technology, but AMD Store Mi also uses up to 2GB of DDR4 system memory to temporarily cache files and transfer them between drives. Again, it’s optional, but a nice feature that AMD promises to include on all its Ryzen 2nd generation CPUs.
Image 1 of 10
Higher is better Higher is better Higher is better Higher is better Higher is better Higher is better Lower is better Lower is better Lower is better Lower is better
Test system specs
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti (11GB GDDR5X VRAM)
RAM: 16GB G.Skill Sniper X DDR4 (3,400MHz)
Motherboard: Aorus X470 Gaming 7 Wi-Fi
Power Supply: Cooler Master V750
Storage: 512GB Intel 760p M.2 SSD (NVMe PCIe 3.0 x4)
Cooling: Corsair h210i
Case: Fractal Design Meshify-C
Operating system: Windows 10
Performance
In our past processor reviews, the fight between Intel and AMD would always result in the former having better single core and gaming performance, while the later would win out with multi-core performance.
With the Ryzen 7 2700X, however, AMD wins the whole kit and caboodle.
Thanks to the higher-frequencies Ryzen 2nd generation is able to achieve, the 2700X overtakes the Intel Core i7-8700K in all our single-core benchmarks. The processor also continues to hold onto AMD’s crown for the best multi-core performance. Both of these figures translate to better overall performance, as evidenced by the Ryzen 7 2700X being able to encode files with the highest frame rate out of all the processors we tested in this review.
Of course, one thing to note is Intel processors are possibly at their weakest state in years. Not only does the Intel Core i7-8700K have two fewer cores than AMD’s new Ryzen flagship, the Spectre and Meltdown patches have significantly impacted its performance.
When we originally tested the flagship Coffee Lake processor last October, it scored much better in Cinebench with 204 points in single core and 1,543 on multi-core. And, in Geekbench, the 8700K landed 5,831 and 25,811 points in the single- and multi-core tests, respectively.
Image 1 of 4
Higher is better Higher is better Higher is better Higher is better
As for gaming, the Ryzen 7 2700X doesn’t beat the Core i7-8700K, but it has eroded Intel’s lead by a mere one to two frames per second.
The only thing we’re not in love about with the Ryzen 7 2700X is the high energy draw necessary for its impressive performance numbers – though that is ultimately a limit of physics. Good news is this processor will happily soak up as much juice as it can take, and easily overclocks to 4.375GHz on all cores when we initially tested it with other editors at an event.
Final verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is undoubtedly the best consumer processor on the market right now. It’s only fair competitor ,the Intel Core i7-8700K, is slower on the single- and multi- core front and doesn’t offer much better gaming performance to justify its slightly more expensive price tag.
Though this is all partially thanks to Intel’s weakened post Spectre and Meltdown state, the improvements AMD has brought with Ryzen 2nd generation are astonishing.
With the slow and steady tick-tock-tock CPU upgrade cycle we’ve been accustomed to in the last few years, we only expected bring marginal speed increases, but AMD has delivered yet another tidal shifting platform.
The greater frequency finally puts AMD’s processors on par and even above those of Intel’s. Meanwhile, the enhancements made to Precision Boost and XFR2 are impressive. Along with the inclusion of the Wraith Prism cooler and an AMD’s new StoreMI technology, the Ryzen 7 2700X is an incredible value package.
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X: Price Comparison
13 Amazon customer reviews
☆☆☆☆☆
$159.99
View
$259
View
$399.
99
View
$399.99
View
powered by
Kevin Lee was a former computing reporter at TechRadar. Kevin is now the SEO Updates Editor at IGN based in New York. He handles all of the best of tech buying guides while also dipping his hand in the entertainment and games evergreen content. Kevin has over eight years of experience in the tech and games publications with previous bylines at Polygon, PC World, and more. Outside of work, Kevin is major movie buff of cult and bad films. He also regularly plays flight & space sim and racing games. IRL he’s a fan of archery, axe throwing, and board games.
Testing AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 2700X processors (Pinnacle Ridge)
Testing methodology for 2017 computer systems
About a year ago, the Ryzen 5 family of processors was announced, and the triumphant market launch of Ryzen 7 happened even earlier, so it’s time to update the top models of both families.
Intel managed to accustom users to annual «radical changes» (at least nominally), and with a platform change at every second step — AMD at one time approached the issue a little less radically, but it seems. For example, Zambezi was released on AM3+, and a year later Vishera, on FM2 — Trinity and Richland, as part of FM2+, the company «marked» Kaveri and Godavari. What do each couple have in common? The technical process and microarchitecture — but with some modifications of the latter and the results of debugging the production process. I didn’t feel like global changes — in fact, a new stepping of crystals, taking into account evolutionary debugging during the year.
Pinnacle Ridge (Ryzen 2000 series) and Summit Ridge (CPUs of the 1000 family already familiar to us) are in a similar relationship with each other. However, in their case, the technical process has officially changed from 14 nm to 12 nm, and the microarchitecture is now called Zen + instead of just Zen. However, what it gives in practice — in practice it is necessary to check.
The influence of production technology numbers is especially interesting — all semiconductor manufacturers have long had nanometers of their “own system”, and the example of TSMC is too fresh in memory, in which the density of transistors at formal 16 and 20 nm differed by less than 5% (at the same time, with on the other hand, 14 nm Samsung and 14 nm Intel differ by more than 20%). One thing is for sure: something has changed, since the “ceiling” of the clock frequency has noticeably moved away from the former 4 GHz: earlier this value had to be stormed by extreme methods, and new models sometimes go abroad and in normal mode. But what happens to power consumption in this case — you need to check: the TDP of the top model of the new family has been officially increased compared to its predecessor. In addition, the “peripheral component” of the SoC and the memory controller have been upgraded — now they correspond to “Ryzen with graphics”.
Should all of the above be taken positively or vice versa? A priori — neutral: the situation on the market a year ago and now is very different.
Then AMD should have shown a miracle — the company eliminated competition in the upper segment for several years, concentrating on Zen, and it also lingered for several months relative to the original plans, so no one would forgive her mistakes. However, there were no mistakes: in fact, new processors began to easily compete with Intel’s developments for LGA2011-3 at a price of $600 — despite the fact that even the older Ryzen 7 was priced at only $500, and even motherboards for the AM4 platform could be significantly more cheap. In the autumn, however, Intel recovered from the blow by launching the first representatives of the Coffee Lake family on the market, but here it was not without some rough edges. The company had to urgently release a new LGA1151 platform, initially almost identical in terms of consumer characteristics to the old LGA1151 — but new, incompatible with the old one. And the announcement of processors and chipsets for it lasted for several months, ending just a few days ago.
Accordingly, AMD did not need to rush to respond — the company simply reduced prices for the existing Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 models around the New Year, since the stock for this was initially laid down. From the new AMD models, «feats» are no longer required — they just need to be a little better than the old ones for the same money . Moreover, the company already has Ryzen Threadripper on the floor above, for which Intel has not presented a clear alternative (the LGA2066 platform in the “desktop” version looks too, to put it mildly, strange, and it costs much more), and arrange intra-company competition there is no need for their AMD products.
It would also not be superfluous to immediately mention that money is also not quite “the same”. And in both senses 🙂 The recommended prices of new processors are slightly higher than those of their predecessors, but literally by 10-20 dollars, which is logical: the processors are fully compatible, so you need to «help» partners get rid of stocks.
However, now all “boxed” models also include effective coolers, and earlier this was true only for Ryzen 5 1600 and younger. It is clear that the absence of a cooler in the kit of any Ryzen 7 did not bother real enthusiasts (this category of users still prefers a separate approach, often paying more for the cooling system than middle-class processors cost), however, for the masses of workers its availability is more convenient. Those who don’t need a cooler can save money by choosing an OEM version (as before).
This is how it looks in the first approximation. And what exactly has changed for the buyer (and is it always in one direction) — we will now check using a couple of new Ryzen.
Test stand configuration
| Processor | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X | AMD Ryzen 7 1800X | AMD Ryzen 7 2700X |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kernel name | Summit Ridge | Pinnacle Ridge | Summit Ridge | Pinnacle Ridge |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 12 nm | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3. 6/4.0 |
3.6/4.2 | 3.6/4.0 | 3.7/4.3 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 6/12 | 8/16 | 8/16 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 384/192 | 384/192 | 512/256 | 512/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×512 | 6×512 | 8×512 | 8×512 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2933 | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2993 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 | 95 | 105 |
| Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Price |
ask prices |
ask prices |
ask prices |
ask prices |
There were three Ryzen 7 models in the first generation — two remained in the second.
This can be explained by the fact that, having no direct competitors among low-cost Intel processors, AMD initially set prices with a fairly wide step of $100, which resulted in three processors: «inexpensive» 1700, «fast» 1700X and «best» 1800X. Moreover, in the last pair, the performance differed by literally 5%, but the power consumption of the top-end device was already 10% lower — thanks to the use of specially selected crystals of the highest quality. Now, it makes sense to “save” those for large assemblies, such as Ryzen Threadripper or server models, since the price niche of desktop has been greatly reduced: $300-$330, and not $300-$500 like last year. But in the Ryzen 5 family there are no special changes, so it remains correct to compare models that differ only in the family number.
| Processor | Intel Core i5-8600K | Intel Core i7-8700K |
|---|---|---|
| Kernel name | Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3. |
3.7/4.7 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/6 | 6/12 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×256 | 6×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 9 | 12 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 |
| Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 16 | 16 |
| Price |
ask prices |
ask prices |
With whom? Of course, with Intel processors for the “updated” LGA1151, and the best in the Core i5 and Core i7 lines. Note that only they are supplied with an unlocked multiplier — unlike Ryzen, where it makes sense to choose cheaper models “without indexes” for overclocking. In normal mode, there is direct competition for top modifications. In principle, initially a little “skewed” towards AMD, since the recommended prices for 2600X/2700X are slightly lower than for 8600K/8700K, and there are no problems with the availability of inexpensive motherboards for AM4 for a long time, and “very inexpensive” support overclocking — based on the B350 chipset (but let’s not talk about sad things — the situation with the release of the second generation LGA1151 to the market, as it seems to us, has already bothered everyone), but what is it.
| Processor | Intel Core i7-7800X | Intel Core i7-7820X |
|---|---|---|
| Kernel name | Skylake-X | Skylake-X |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3.5/4.0 | 3.6/4.3 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 8/16 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 256/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×1024 | 8×1024 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 8.25 | 11 |
| RAM | 4×DDR4-2666 | 4×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 140 | 140 |
| Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 28 | 28 |
| Price |
ask prices |
ask prices |
And to make it not boring, we decided to add a couple of processors for the LGA2066 platform to the number of subjects. Moreover, AM4 is somewhat closer to the Intel HEDT platform than it might seem at first glance — it can also offer the buyer more than six cores and more than 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes, but much cheaper. But older models of Ryzen processors, as well as Core i7 / i9for LGA2066, integrated graphics are dispensed with — so their areas of application will largely coincide in many respects. The more interesting is the direct performance comparison.
All systems were equipped with a GeForce GTX 1070 based graphics card. The RAM in all cases was 8 GB per channel, i.e. its total amount was 16 GB for AM4 / LGA1151 and twice as much for LGA2066 (but this platform is already involved «out of competition»). Its clock speed is the maximum «official» for Intel processors and 2933 MHz for Ryzen. Accordingly, for the 2600X/2700X it is also already official — that is why we did not touch it during the first test: among other things, this makes the comparison with the processors of the previous generation more correct.
Test Method
The method is described in detail in a separate article. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:
- iXBT.com performance measurement method based on real applications of the 2017 sample
- How to Monitor Power, Temperature, and Processor Load During Testing
- 2017 Sample Game Performance Measurement Methodology
Processor Power Test Methodology
Detailed results for all tests are available as a complete results spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. This is especially true for application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (AMD FX-8350 with 16 GB of memory, GeForce GTX 1070 graphics card and Corsair Force LE 9 SSD60 GB) and grouped according to the areas of application of the computer.
In principle, we have already prepared an updated version of the performance measurement methodology, but so far we have not begun to use it — there are more results accumulated from the «old» ones for comparison, and new processors should definitely be included in the final material. And later we will return to them again — especially since by that time there may be some improvements in terms of supporting devices with motherboard firmware (we used for testing a new model based on the X470 chipset, compatible with the 2000 series out of the box ”, but the debugging process may still not be finished yet).
We also decided to do without gaming tests today — any of the processors presented in the review is more than enough to completely «load» the used video card based on the GTX 1070 (and more powerful ones too).
iXBT Application Benchmark 2017
In principle, under loads of this kind, after the price correction, the old six-eight-core Ryzens looked good (and even at the start they had to compete with much slower Intel processors, so there were no complaints about prices too), but the new ones are a little faster. Not enough to call wow effect — but the advantage over competing designs has increased.
In this case, the Ryzen 5 1600X continued to look good in autumn and winter, but the Ryzen 7 lost some of its superiority in speed. Updating this line could return the leadership. Not unconditional like a year ago, but then Ryzen 7 was also more expensive than Core i7 — now we are talking about approximate price parity.
The degree of utilization of multithreading by these programs leaves much to be desired. This became clear after processors with more than four cores began to penetrate into the mass sector — before that tea was hot , and now programmers still need to manage the opportunities that have opened up. But this situation is only beneficial for the new family — even the old models continued to keep at the level of Skylake-X and Coffee Lake that appeared later, and the tweaked microarchitecture and improved memory controller of the new processors simply made them leaders. The Ryzen 5 2600X looks especially good, being somewhere between the Intel Core i7-5960X and i7-6900K in terms of speed: some three years ago, the former was the undisputed leader among desktop (at least conditionally desktop) processors, and both cost about $1000 . It cannot be said that these solutions are morally outdated (if only because nothing much faster has been released for a long time) — just as a result of last year’s «big leap» for such performance in video processing tasks, you will have to pay only about $ 229. Back then, just a decent board for LGA2011-3 could cost more, not to mention the starting prices of DDR4 memory.
As for working with photos, it’s impossible to talk about records here, and the performance increase in the new family is rather modest. On the other hand, it is, so the gap from the Core i7 of new generations (to put it mildly, the not so old Core i7-7700K is even slower — it roughly corresponds to the Ryzen 5 1600X in terms of points) has decreased. And the likelihood of problems such as the identified feature of one of the Photoshop filters we use (previously — we removed it from the new version of the methodology) is still lower. Just because the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 processors are architecturally similar (and the APUs of the first line are similar) and do without any qualitative “cuts” — limited to quantitative ones: in the form of blocking some of the cores. Since 2011, Intel has been using interleaving: two cores, two cores plus SMT, four cores, four cores plus SMT… In laptop models, however, for a long time there were almost no processors without Hyper-Threading — only budget Celeron and Pentium. Under such conditions, the probability of missing some kind of bug when testing a new version of the software, which manifests itself only in part of the configurations (but it is stable — we have already seen that both the new Core i3 and Ryzen 3 “suffer” from it), is quite large. In the end, many families of Intel processors were affected (there were more of them in the «eighth» generation than in the «seventh»), but only budget models for AM4. Special case, of course. But the overall picture is made up of many special cases 🙂
Everything is simple here — not too complicated (for modern architectures) «integer» that scales well in terms of the number of computation threads. Accordingly, Core i5 / i7 and for the “updated” LGA1151 still could not compete even with the old Ryzen 5/7 on an equal footing, taking into account the price. And second-generation processors are even faster — albeit a little. However, it is clear that all this is true considering the price — in terms of abstract performance, Intel’s cores are still more powerful than AMD’s, so with an equal number of them, the processors of the first company will be a little faster in the end. Well, actually, and what of the buyer, who will definitely not reject the price factor?
Archiving was once considered Ryzen’s weak point. Before the advent of the LGA2066 platform, it turned out that Intel generally knows how to sometimes move in reverse . The Ryzen update is a step forward. Not too big, but, again, the Core i7-8700K managed to not only catch up, but also slightly overtake the Ryzen 7 1800X — the 2700X countered this. And the six-core Ryzen 5 looked good before — they got a little better.
An example of applications with good optimization for modern instruction sets, high demands on the memory system, etc. etc. This manifests itself to varying degrees for everyone, but in general it is observed. As well as the “love” for a large number of physical cores, some are expressed, so here, too, the processors of the Coffee Lake family could not overtake the first generation Ryzen. The second one accelerated by more than 10%, so that the 2600X caught up with the former flagship of the AM4 platform. The i7-7820X remains the absolute leader of the processors presented in the diagram — but it is also the leader in terms of price. And at the cost of the platform too. The Core i7-7800X isn’t cheap either, by the way, but it’s starting to look like 9 every month0011 is getting weirder and weirder .
The general picture is as follows. Intel managed to achieve approximate performance parity between the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 1800X, although in terms of tasks (as we have seen above) the second processor still remained faster — the release of the Ryzen 7 2700X allowed AMD to regain its leadership and «on average «. A little higher than the Core i7-7820X and other solutions for LGA2066, but this is a completely different price range, where AM4, in principle, is no longer obliged to fall — there is already Ryzen Threadripper for this. As for more budget solutions, in principle, nothing needed to be improved here — the 6/12 versus 6/6 formula allowed Ryzen 5 to look more convincing than Core i5 even after updating the latest line. Now, AMD’s leadership has only increased — in fact, the 2600X can be considered a competitor even for the Core i7-8700, although it costs less than the Core i5-8600K.
Energy consumption and energy efficiency
Unfortunately, the energy consumption is not so good — it has increased in the new family.
And it’s not possible to «write off» this only on the board: on the «processor» line +12 V, the increase in power consumption is even greater. However, some “degree of fault” of the motherboard may also be present: if the default settings are too aggressive, then the power consumption will be higher than it could be. That is why we want to definitely return to this issue — having tested other motherboards, and, possibly, updated firmware.
However, there is a chance that nothing will change: the result can be explained by the fact that all the improvements in the manufacturing process went to increase clock frequencies and, accordingly, increase performance. In terms of energy efficiency (as we already know very well), this always hits — Core processors «suffer» from the same problems. They just have better absolute values - unless, of course, we consider the LGA2066 platform 🙂 As for solutions for AM4, even if there are no improvements, there is nothing wrong with their “appetite”: in the worst case, it turns out that Ryzen 7 2700X in this parameter, it is approximately equal to the FX-8350, but much more productive than the latter — more than twice! And against the background of how much energy a “decent” modern discrete video card consumes, this is also not much, and we recall that there is still no integrated video core in older Ryzen, so APUs are intended for compact low-power systems in the company’s assortment.
Total
So, the new processors of the “2000 family” return the leadership in pure performance to the AM4 platform. More precisely, in some segments it did not lose it even after the appearance of the “updated” LGA1151, but now the parity that has been established for some time has again shifted towards Ryzen 7. As for Ryzen 5, competition was easy for six-core models of this family before — now they got even faster. In addition, do not forget about the cheaper Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 2700, which differ from older models only in clock frequencies, but are quite favorable for overclocking (at least to the level of older ones, or even more — this is a separate issue). In any case, Intel offers only three «overclockable» processors within the LGA1151, and only one «full» Core i7: the Core i5-8600K does not have Hyper-Threading support, and the Core i3-8350K has only four processing cores, but even it not radically cheaper than the Ryzen 5 2600. And taking into account the fact that overclocking will require a motherboard based on a top-end chipset (AMD takes a more humane approach), a complete set in the case of Intel will cost more.
Nothing new in all of this, it just retains the merits of the previous Ryzen processor family. And due to the increase in performance and frequency potential, the new processors are even more attractive. A «miracle» was not required this year — just a normal evolutionary improvement of an already successful platform was more than enough. Unfortunately, the improvement was not achieved in all areas — power consumption has grown slightly along with performance. But, as mentioned above, we will definitely return to this issue — this may not be a feature of new processors, but the influence of the environment that can be corrected.
Ryzen 7 2700X [in 15 benchmarks]
AMD
Ryzen 7 2700X
- Interface
- Core frequency
- Video memory size
- Memory type
- Memory frequency
- Maximum resolution
Description
AMD started AMD Ryzen 7 2700X sales on April 12, 2018 at a suggested price of $329. This is a desktop processor based on the Zen + architecture, primarily designed for office systems. It has 8 cores and 16 threads and is manufactured using 12nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 4350MHz, the multiplier is unlocked.
In terms of compatibility, this is an AMD Socket AM4 processor with a TDP of 105W. It supports memory
DDR4
dual-channel.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
14.18%
from the leader, which is AMD EPYC 9654.
EPYC
9654
Compare
General information
Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Ryzen 7 2700X, as well as the time when sales started and the cost at that time.
| Performance ranking | 438
Features
Ryzen 7 2700X quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock status. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.
RAM supportTypes, maximum amount and channels of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 2700X. Higher memory frequency may be supported depending on the motherboard.
Integrated Video Specifications
General parameters of the integrated graphics card in Ryzen 7 2700X.
PeripheralsRyzen 7 2700X supported peripherals and how to connect them.
Tests 9,00022 Overall performance in testsThis is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Ryzen 7 2700X
PassmarkPassmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption, and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test. Benchmark coverage: 67%
Ryzen 7 2700X GeekBench 5 Single-CoreGeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core. Benchmark coverage: 37%
Ryzen 7 2700X GeekBench 5 Multi-Core GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. Benchmark coverage: 37%
Ryzen 7 2700X Cinebench 10 32-bit single-coreCinebench R10 is a very outdated ray tracing benchmark for processors developed by the authors of Cinema 4D, Maxon. The Single-Core version uses a single CPU thread to render a futuristic motorcycle model. Benchmark coverage: 20%
Ryzen 7 2700X Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-coreCinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 that uses all processor threads. The possible number of threads in this version is limited to 16. Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 7 2700X 3DMark06 CPU 3DMark06 is an outdated set of benchmarks based on DirectX 9 by Futuremark. Its processor part contains two tests, one of which calculates the pathfinding of game AI, the other emulates game physics using the PhysX package. Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 7 2700X Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-coreCinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 that uses all processor threads. This version supports a maximum of 64 threads. Benchmark coverage: 17%
Ryzen 7 2700X Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-coreCinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 that uses all CPU threads. Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 7 2700X Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core Cinebench R15 (Release 15) is a benchmark created by Maxon, the creator of the popular Cinema 4D 3D modeling package. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench using more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes referred to as Single-Thread) uses only one CPU thread to render a room full of mirror balls and complexly shaped lights. Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 7 2700X Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-coreCinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark developed by Maxon. authors of Cinema 4D. It has been superseded by later versions of Cinebench which use more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads one CPU thread with ray tracing, rendering a glossy room full of crystal spheres and lights. Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 7 2700X TrueCrypt AESTrueCrypt is a deprecated program that was widely used to encrypt disk partitions on the fly. It contains several built-in benchmarks, one of which is TrueCrypt AES. It measures the speed of data encryption using the AES algorithm. The result of the test is the encryption speed in gigabytes per second. Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 7 2700X x264 encoding pass 2 x264 Pass 2 is a slower MPEG4 x264 video compression benchmark, resulting in a variable bit rate output file. Benchmark coverage: 12%
Ryzen 7 2700X x264 encoding pass 1The x264 benchmark uses the MPEG 4 x264 compression method to encode the HD (720p) sample video. Pass 1 is a faster option that produces an output file at a constant bit rate. Its result is measured in frames per second, that is, how many frames of the source video file were encoded in one second on average. Benchmark coverage: 12%
Ryzen 7 2700X WinRAR 4.0WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of the popular archiver. It contains an internal speed test using maximum compression by the RAR algorithm on large amounts of randomly generated data. Results are measured in kilobytes per second. Benchmark coverage: 12%
Ryzen 7 2700X Relative capacity
Overall performance of the Ryzen 7 2700X compared to its closest competitor in desktop processors.
Intel Core i7-9800X
Intel Core i5-11500B
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Intel Core i5-11500
Intel Core i7-6950X
Intel Core i7-7820X Competitor from IntelWe believe that the nearest equivalent to Ryzen 7 2700X from Intel is Core i5-11500, which is roughly equal in speed and lower by 2 positions in our rating. Compare Here are some of Intel’s closest competitors to the Ryzen 7 2700X:
Intel Core i5-11600
Intel Core i7-9800X
Intel Core i5-11500B
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Intel Core i5-11500
Intel Core i7-6950X
Intel Core i7-7820X Other processorsHere we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one. Compare Compare Compare Compare Compare Compare Best graphics cards for Ryzen 7 2700X There are 7325 configurations based on Ryzen 7 2700X in our database. According to statistics, these cards are most often used with the Ryzen 7 2700X: 7.7% 6.5% 5.2% 5.1% 4.4% 4% 3.5% 3.2% 2. 2.7% Here are the most powerful graphics cards used with the Ryzen 7 2700X according to user statistics: 0.3% (19/7325) 0.07% (5/7325) 0.05% (4/7325) 0.01% (1/7325) 0.3% (20/7325) 0.03% (2/7325) 0. 
|