Review Index:
Feedback

The Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Zen Matures

Author:
Subject: Processors
Manufacturer: AMD

A Year Later

Despite what might be considered an overall slump in enthusiast PC building due to record low GPU availability and sky-high memory prices, 2017 was one of the most exciting and competitive years in recent history when it comes to CPU innovation. On the desktop side alone, we saw the launch of AMD's new Zen CPU architecture with the Ryzen 1000 series of parts starting last March; we also saw new HEDT platforms from both Intel and AMD, and Intel's first 6-core mainstream CPUs.

Although the timeline doesn't quite work out for Ryzen to have affected the engineering-side of Intel's decision to release a 6-core desktop processor, it's evident AMD's pressure changed Intel's pricing and release schedule.

With little desktop competition, it's likely that the i7-8700K would have been a more expensive part, and released later. It's likely that Coffee Lake would have seen a full stack product launch in early 2018, as opposed to the staggered launch we experienced where only one compatible chipset and a subset of CPUs were available for months.

AMD and Ryzen have put significant pressure on Intel to remain competitive, which is good for the industry as a whole.

View Full Size

We're now at just over a year since AMD's first Ryzen processor releases, and looking at the first appearance of the codename Pinnacle Ridge CPUs. Launching today are the Ryzen 7 2700X and 2700, and the Ryzen 5 2600x and 2600 processors. Can AMD keep moving the needle forward in the CPU space? Let's take a look.

Continuing reading our review of the AMD Ryzen 2700X and 2600X processors!

First, let's get this out of the way. Despite the Ryzen 2000-series branding, the Pinnacle Ridge processors do not mark the appearance of the Zen 2 architecture, nor any other significant architectural-level changes.

Instead, Pinnacle Ridge follows more of the tick-tock model that Intel processor generations traditionally adhered to. The Ryzen 2000 series is a slightly tweaked Zen architecure, but manufactured this time on GlobalFoundries new 12nm process instead of the previous 14nm. Combined, this archituecture tweaks and process node change are being referred to by AMD as "Zen+."

  Ryzen 7 2700X Ryzen 7 1800X Ryzen 5 2600X Ryzen 5 1600X Core i7-8700K Core i5-8600K
Architecture Zen+ Zen Zen+ Zen Coffee Lake Coffee Lake
Process Tech 12nm 14nm 12nm 14nm 14nm++ 14nm++
Cores/Threads 8/16 8/16 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/6
Base Clock 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz
Boost Clock 4.3 GHz 4.0 GHz 4.2 GHz 4.0 GHz 4.7 GHz 4.3 GHz
Cache 20MB 20MB  16MB 16MB 12MB 9MB
Memory Support DDR4-2933 DDR4-2666 DDR4-2933 DDR4-2666 DDR4-2666 DDR4-2666
PCIe Lanes 16 16 16 16 16 16
TDP 105 watts 95 watts 95 watts 95 watts 95 watts 95 watts
Socket AM4 AM4 AM4 AM4 LGA115x LGA115x
Price $329 $320 $229 $200 $349 $259

Editor's Note: A previous version of this specs table incorrectly listed the TDP of the Ryzen 5 2600X as 65W due to a confusion from the AMD reviewer's guide. The TDP has been updated in this chart to reflect the correct value of 95W.

Changes from the Ryzen 7 1800X to the Ryzen 7 2700X include a 100MHz bump in both base and boost clocks, as well as support for DDR4-2933 memory. The TDP of the 2700X also jumps 10W compared to last year's flagship AM4 processor.

The Ryzen 5 2600X gains a 200MHz bump on the boost clock and DDR-2933 memory support while maintaining the same 65W TDP as the R5 1600X.

Latency Improvements

The most significant change to the processor design with this generation comes in the form of latency improvements in the memory system. I'll be blunt here: AMD didn't give us much detail on HOW these changes were made, and instead only left us with a few specific claims:

View Full Size

AMD tells us that L1 cache latency is 13% improved, L2 cache sees the biggest boost with a 34% improvement, and the L3 cache latency improves by 16%. Along with that, main system DRAM gets an 11% improvement. All of this is stated in "up to" terms, so it appears this isn't a global change but one that depends on the workload. The result is a 3% IPC improvement.

You might remember that we spent quite a bit of time last year looking into the latency questions surrounding the Zen architecture, from Ryzen to Threadripper. We used a "ping tool" to find the thread-to-thread communication times of the Ryzen parts, facilitating a bit more understanding of what the underlying architecture was doing.

Obviously, we wanted to do the same here for the Ryzen 2700X.

View Full Size

The gray and the yellow lines represent the Ryzen 1800X and the Ryzen 2700X at a fixed clock speed of 3.6 GHz and running at a DDR4 memory speed of 2667 MHz. I wanted to get a clear clock-for-clock change in the latencies we measured. The green line bumps up the memory speed to 2933 MHz, the highest JEDEC memory speed for the 2700X. 

Here's what is interesting: the latency on the inter-CCX threads (thread 2 to thread 7) indicates that the 2700X is SLOWER than the 1800X when running at the same memory speed and clock speed. The CCX-to-CCX latency is FASTER on the 2700X, however, going from ~130ns to ~120ns. The performance improvement on the last layer of latency does appear that it is more valuable to the overall performance of the system than the inter-CCX latency (that goes from 50ns up to 55ns). 

But clearly, the performance change on the CCX-to-CCX comms didn't come without a cost in other areas of the chip. But the balance likely weighed heavier in favor of this shift than leaving the architecture as-is. Again, AMD didn't share details about this change, so we are just guessing at the REASONS for the results we are measuring.

Interestingly, when we bump the memory speed up to 2933 MHz, the new JEDEC speed supported by the 2700X, the inter-CCX latency of the 2700X matches that of the 1800X and nets us ANOTHER 8-10ns of latency reduction on the CCX-to-CCX latency.

We are doing more diving on this moving forward, but for now, that's what we're left with.

X470

With a new processor launch, comes a new chipset. For the Pinnacle Ridge processor release, the newest AM4 chipset is the X470. The X470 chipset itself doesn't have any dramatic changes over its X370 predecessor, except for the addition of native USB 3.1 Gen 2 directly from the chipset.

View Full Size

However, the launch of the X470 is a great opportunity for motherboard vendors to release revised AM4 boards, taking what they've learned in the past year about the platform and building upon it. One such example of this is the ASUS Crosshair VII Hero board we used for our review testing.

The X470 chipset also marks the launch of NVMe RAID for the AM4 platform, as well as StoreMI caching technology.  These features will be also be added to at least some previous AM4 boards through UEFI updates. For more information on these storage technologies, you can check out Allyn's quick look at storage performance.

Stock Coolers

This time around, all Ryzen 2000-series processors will come with a stock cooler option in the box. Previously, the higher-end products such as the Ryzen 7 1800X required users to bring their own cooling solution. In the early days of the AM4 socket, this proved a bit of a challenge finding a compatible cooler.

While the AM4-enabled cooler ecosystem is much more robust now, stock coolers can be a good option for users not looking to overclock their system.

View Full Size

With the Ryzen 7 2700X comes the new Wraith Prism, RGB LED-enabled cooler.

View Full Size

In the box with the Ryzen 5 2600X, users will receive the Wraith Spire cooler previously bundled with the last generation Ryzen 5 processors.

Review Terms and Disclosure
All Information as of the Date of Publication
How product was obtained: The product is on loan from AMD for the purpose of this review.
What happens to the product after review: The product remains the property of AMD but is on extended loan for future testing and product comparisons.
Company involvement: AMD had no control over the content of the review and was not consulted prior to publication.
PC Perspective Compensation: Neither PC Perspective nor any of its staff were paid or compensated in any way by AMD for this review.
Advertising Disclosure: AMD has purchased advertising at PC Perspective during the past twelve months.
Affiliate links: This article contains affiliate links to online retailers. PC Perspective may receive compensation for purchases through those links.
Consulting Disclosure: AMD is a current client of Shrout Research for products or services related to this review. 

April 19, 2018 | 09:20 AM - Posted by Anonymous23423 (not verified)

So how come the i7 8700k got the full 3200MHz in its review? Also why didn't you test the i7 8700k and the i5 8400 with their stock coolers?

April 19, 2018 | 09:39 AM - Posted by Ken Addison

We actually tested the 8700K at 2400MHz in the initial review, I'll have to correct the memory section of that article to more accurately reflect that despite using a DDR4-3200 kit, it was running at a slower frequency.

As for stock coolers, the i7-8700K does not come with one, and the i5-8400 we recieved from Intel near the Coffee Lake launch was not in retail packaging, so we don't have the exact stock cooler it shipped with.

April 19, 2018 | 12:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous23423 (not verified)

Cool then.

Just an idea for some future testing: I think a comparison of 8400 vs 2600 (non X) with a B3xx motherboard and the stock coolers would be really interesting, if you are up for it. For some reason AMD didn't sent the 2600 (with the small cooler) to any reviewer. I think something could be hiding there.

April 19, 2018 | 10:06 AM - Posted by Daniel N Howell (not verified)

Did you do the tests with all security patches and bios updates for Spetre and Meltdown?

April 19, 2018 | 10:13 AM - Posted by Ken Addison

Windows 10 was fully patched with all security updates until the beginning of April when we started this testing. Additionally, all motherboards were on their latest revision of UEFI, which for Z370 and Z270 included the Spectre patches.

April 19, 2018 | 10:15 AM - Posted by Ken Addison

I've updated the article with exact BIOS revisions, as well as to reflect the patched state of Windows 10. Hope this helps clear up any potential confusion!

April 19, 2018 | 10:34 AM - Posted by Lemonsquare

This confirms testing was not performed with Microsoft's April Patch Tuesday (April 10) Spectre V2 mitigations for AMD CPUs then. I know as well some AMD motherboard OEMs have not issued accompanying microcode updates/mitigations as well, even today (Andandtech mentioned MSI as one OEM who hasn't yet).

I think there's quite a bit of variation in different sites reviews due to this mess of who has what update and when, but at least it doesn't change the overall takeaway. I think I'll probably go AMD for my next build, but my 4670k is still going strong.

April 19, 2018 | 12:57 PM - Posted by Ken Addison

It appears while we did not have the patch from April 10th, it shouldn't have been an issue. If you look at the Microsoft support page discussing the Spectre/Meltdown patches, they have a section about the AMD Meltdown 2 update (scroll down to the bottom of the page.

Here, they give instructions on how to enable the Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier (IBPB) in the registry. It appears that even if you have the patch installed, this mitigation factor isn't enabled by default (at least not yet).

I'm going to run some tests this afternoon with IBPB turned on to see what kind of difference it makes to be sure though!

April 19, 2018 | 02:46 PM - Posted by Lemonsquare

You're right I think, Microsoft's wording is somewhat unclear to me. AMD's own security page flat out says "Microsoft is releasing an operating system update containing Variant 2 (Spectre) mitigations for AMD users running Windows 10 (version 1709) today." Not 'it's disabled by default and you need to enable it in the registry.' Hmmm... Anway, please do make note if any real difference is seen. Thanks.

April 20, 2018 | 02:43 PM - Posted by Ken Addison

We got some additional clarification from AMD about this earlier today.

With the April 10th patch, IPBP is enabled on platforms that also have the appropriate firmware support (which all X470 boards have). The MSDN document is apparently referring to enabling IBRS, which is not recommended by AMD as a necessary mitigation and provides a potential hit to performance.

Quick testing in both of these states saw no performance effect on our normal CPU and gaming benchmarks as far as we could find. Going forward, we will be using the April 10th patch without the additional registry keys enabling IPRS for Ryzen testing.

April 19, 2018 | 11:41 AM - Posted by David (not verified)

Hmmm but what about the Spectre2 patches?

It looks like over at Anandtech that a secured Intel system doesn’t do so well?

What about XFR2?

April 19, 2018 | 10:08 AM - Posted by ihatefindingauniqueusername (not verified)

2 remarks :

1) I might have missed it but which bios was used on platforms , i think you need PR AGESA 1.0.0.2a for amd-spectre , and well on intel I have no clue.

2) something silly , but really the 2700X blue graph bars and the intel part orange , xD

April 19, 2018 | 10:09 AM - Posted by Synonymous (not verified)

Curious that the idle power consumption hasn't improved one bit.
I wonder if the new fabrication process actually does have a smaller feature size, or if it's a tweaked version of the old process with feature size measured differently.

April 19, 2018 | 10:25 AM - Posted by Brother Michigan (not verified)

It's pretty well understood that this is more "12nm" than 12nm. Individual feature sizes haven't really changed that much for a few processes now, I think.

As for the idle power consumption, it's so low for modern CPUs (in the <10W range) that the system idle power is likely to be dominated by other components, meaning that any gains by the CPU are unlikely to be noticed.

April 19, 2018 | 11:07 AM - Posted by somebodys_kid (not verified)

What format was the Handbrake test output? H.265?

April 19, 2018 | 11:13 AM - Posted by Ken Addison

The final export was H.264. I updated the article with clarification of this. Thanks!

April 19, 2018 | 11:43 AM - Posted by Martin Trautvetter

I'm going to guess from the context that whenever "inter-CCX" is used, what is really meant is intra-CCX.

April 19, 2018 | 11:56 AM - Posted by Sticks435 (not verified)

The information for the 2600X is wrong or you actually tested a 2600 and not a 2600X. For example, X is not 65W TDP and doesn't come with Wraith Stealth, it comes with the Spire.

April 19, 2018 | 12:46 PM - Posted by Ken Addison

Good catch with the Wraith Spire/Stealth confusion, I misspoke when I referred to the name of the cooler, and this has been changed in the review. The pictured cooler in the review is, in fact, the Wraith Spire.

You are also correct about the TDP of the R5 2600X. It appears that AMD's reviewer's guide has a typo in one of the specs tables, calling it a 65W part while another specs table lists it as 95W. The review will be updated to reflect the accurate TDP of the 2600X. This TDP change does not change the outcome of our review.

Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention!

 

April 19, 2018 | 01:48 PM - Posted by James

In “For Honor”, why do lower end processors outperform higher end processors? The Ryzen 5 has what looks like significantly higher performance compared to Ryzen 7. That looks like it is true for intel parts and Ryzen 1xxx parts also, although those may be in the margin of error. This points to maybe some multithreading problem in this game or perhaps some problem with your test.

Also, I would like to see benchmarks with an AMD graphics card. The game testing is, in large part, testing the Nvidia driver on AMD CPUs.

April 19, 2018 | 02:03 PM - Posted by Vesperan (not verified)

Just getting started on the article - but a correction for your specifications table: the TDP of the Ryzen 1600X is 95 watts, not 65 watts (I know - I have one). See: https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1600x

They haven't increased the TDP between the 1600X/2600X.

April 19, 2018 | 05:24 PM - Posted by Ken Addison

Thanks for the correction, noted and fixed!

April 19, 2018 | 02:21 PM - Posted by Maurice Fortin (not verified)

good review and all, give more insight over the many many sites that are doing this with ryzen 2 (crappy naming from AMD, they should have made sure folks called it as Ryzen 2xxx so that when the proper Ryzen 2 comes out it can be called Ryzen 2 likely model 3000)

not sure why some sites show these walking all over the various intel models whereas others (including this one to a point) are really painting the new chips far more power hungry and less performance then they likely actually have.

bias much?

anyways, I myself quite like the look of 2600 over the 1600, ~10% more expensive but easily a good 15% quicker as well , 2600x vs 1600x ~12% more expensive seems about that much quicker as well so it works out.

also for the limited overclock potential, I do not know about this as many other sites claimed to be able to get closer or above 5Ghz with a substantial cooler but the included coolers at least pretty much allow them to get near clock wall vs pricey AIO coolers compared to first gen which seemed that much more limited.

kudos to the mainboard makers as they did a bang up job on clock tuning for memory where you are pretty much just use it as it is manually tuning the memory seems to just not be worth doing compared to gen 1 (seems to reduce performance for nothing compared to just plug it in and go)

seems x400 vs x300 and Ryzen 2000 vs Ryzen 1000 they really have done a terrific job of fine tuning them in not even 1 year for a "refresh" kudos to AMD.

anyways, they "seem" power hungry, maybe but take that Intel vs AMD bias away (which is very hard to do) and the performance given, the build quality of them, the ability to run at decent temperatures vs frying themselves in the process Ryzen/Ryzen 2000 are AMAZING, full stop.

April 19, 2018 | 03:25 PM - Posted by Peter2k (not verified)

You wouldn't have a link handy to those 5Ghz? Or nearly 5Ghz.

All I am aware of is this one guy using LN2
Which doesn't means much since the 1800X was clocked nearly as high using LN2 back in the day

April 19, 2018 | 03:02 PM - Posted by mikeinseattle (not verified)

Who runs their i7-8700K at stock? While I understand there needs to be some standard basis in comparison the i7 easily boosts to 4.7 with just 1 setting in bios. Considering the new Ryzens are already hitting the speed ceiling it's clear the testing differentials are understated.

April 19, 2018 | 03:35 PM - Posted by Peter2k (not verified)

I'm often told many people keep they're K parts at stock speed.

Might also be a reasonable assumption, given that K parts have a higher boost than non K parts

Btw
A few hundred Mhz more are not going to matter a lot (4.3 vs 4.7)

What would is a 5.2 OC on a 8700K, cause that's a cool Ghz more on all cores than Ryzen 2 can manage (it seems)
though this is even more niche than normal OC'ing since you need to delid; thx Intel (or buy it that way for an even bigger premium price)

April 19, 2018 | 03:43 PM - Posted by mikeinseattle (not verified)

Stock on the i7-8700K is 3.7 so it makes a HUGE difference. This is a CPU begging to be overclocked. I'm pulling 4.9 air cooled.

April 19, 2018 | 04:45 PM - Posted by Peter2k (not verified)

Max boost for 1 core is 4.7Ghz
I know using more cores you get lower boost, but at worst its 4.3 for all core boost

Using multicore enhancement can lead to instability if the voltage doesn't scale up with it

3.7 might be base frequency, but it's always boosting as much as it can.
That's stock behavior.

K parts have higher/more aggresive boost than non K parts

That's a good reason for many to buy a K CPU and to leave as is
It'll boost to 4.7 when you need it the most

Btw
Leaving everything at stock also means base frequency is actually 800Mhz :D
In a way
When the CPU is idle it clocks down and ramps up to 4.7 when needed

April 19, 2018 | 05:53 PM - Posted by mikeinseattle (not verified)

MCP is no big deal with proper settings and cooling. Despite some AMD fans who would dismiss a 400 mhz clock difference as negligible the fact is it is significant (some are extolling the 200 mhz diff with Ryzen2 over Ryzen1) plus 4.7 is pretty much an easy speed to begin with. The benchmarks here show a nearly crippled K series cpu capable of more against a cpu with little to no extra overheard.

Of course all i7 cores clock at the same speed when pushed with the right settings and I can't wait to see overclocked scores against the Ryzen. Probably no contest except for some multi-thread tests. I'm fully aware of power throttling but it's not relevant when it comes to this article. I'm glad to see AMD competitive again, just show me the tests when both are pushed.

April 19, 2018 | 04:46 PM - Posted by Peter2k (not verified)

Also get yourself a rockit 88 or some other means of de-lidding and you pull 5.2 on high end air

These CPU's are begging to be OC'ed higher than 4.9 :D

April 19, 2018 | 05:59 PM - Posted by mikeinseattle (not verified)

Nah, there's diminishing returns over 4.8 in cooling costs and effort over performance. 5.2 stable is no guarantee either but hey, we can always hope. Then again one can always pimp their RealBench scores and say it was stable for a few hours when in fact no one but you knows it blue screened in a minute lol.

April 20, 2018 | 12:57 PM - Posted by James

That would make comparing them difficult due to the extra cost of cooling. Ryzen 2 parts all current come with a good quality cooler, much better that the junk coolers intel ships with their parts, if they even ship one If you start overclocking the intel parts, you could drive the cost up significantly. How much does a water cooler cost these days? Also, overclocking is of questionable value in many cases. Even at stock speeds, you will often be GPU limited.

April 19, 2018 | 03:27 PM - Posted by Peter2k (not verified)

Are all Ryzen 2 parts using TIM instead of solder this time?
As far as I know the 2400g isn't soldered.

Obviously might hinder OC ability

April 19, 2018 | 08:21 PM - Posted by JumboCarrot87 (not verified)

No, the Ryzen APU's were not soldered solely for the purposes of cost savings. Regular Ryzen CPU's are all soldered from the factory my friend, none of this "toothpaste TIM" garbage to see here :)

April 19, 2018 | 04:07 PM - Posted by tatakai

Can I have the 2700x, motherboard and RAM when you're done? I want to confirm your results.

...

April 19, 2018 | 06:31 PM - Posted by CK (not verified)

Ken, did you use the standard Windows 10 power profile for the Ryzen 2000 parts?

April 19, 2018 | 07:20 PM - Posted by Dark_wizzie

Are there any plans for clock for clock comparisons? Thank you.

April 19, 2018 | 08:43 PM - Posted by Stever (not verified)

So what I get from this is for an extra $20 from AMD 2700X to Intel 8700X I can get better performance (for most standard stuff) all around with less power consumption. If the price difference was say $100 that would be different but since the difference is so marginal I will stick with Intel. Sorry AMD you did not make me jump ship on this one!!

April 19, 2018 | 11:15 PM - Posted by NotBuyingYourLoadOfThatFertilizerLogic (not verified)

You conveniently forgot to factor in the cost of the cooling solution that comes boxed with the The 2700X. And that's rather disingenous with that "(for most standard stuff)" for the Intel part as the 2700X offers 2 more cores and 4 more threads and did you go look at GN's game streaming videos at higher resolution on the Ryzen 7 2700X and see that Intel part stuttering like a Model T.

Really you do not appear to be able to do the most simple of Cost/Benefit analysis and factor in that boxed cooling solution or the Cost/Per-core math that is lower still on that Ryzen 7 2700X SKUs. Even the productivity scores are there with the Ryzen 7 2700X as well as some aother usual workloads where the 2700X comes out ahead performance and value wise.

What kind of cooling solution comes with that Intel Part compared to what AMD provides with the 2700X for that very same MSRP, at no extra charge.

April 19, 2018 | 08:44 PM - Posted by Stever (not verified)

So what I get from this is for an extra $20 from AMD 2700X to Intel 8700X I can get better performance (for most standard stuff) all around with less power consumption. If the price difference was say $100 that would be different but since the difference is so marginal I will stick with Intel. Sorry AMD you did not make me jump ship on this one!!

April 19, 2018 | 11:16 PM - Posted by NotBuyingYourLoadOfThatFertilizerLogic (not verified)

You conveniently forgot to factor in the cost of the cooling solution that comes boxed with the The 2700X. And that's rather disingenous with that "(for most standard stuff)" for the Intel part as the 2700X offers 2 more cores and 4 more threads and did you go look at GN's game streaming videos at higher resolution on the Ryzen 7 2700X and see that Intel part stuttering like a Model T.

Really you do not appear to be able to do the most simple of Cost/Benefit analysis and factor in that boxed cooling solution or the Cost/Per-core math that is lower still on that Ryzen 7 2700X SKUs. Even the productivity scores are there with the Ryzen 7 2700X as well as some aother usual workloads where the 2700X comes out ahead performance and value wise.

What kind of cooling solution comes with that Intel Part compared to what AMD provides with the 2700X for that very same MSRP, at no extra charge.

April 20, 2018 | 10:33 AM - Posted by Stef (not verified)

(Did you reply twice to a double post... really? XD) Your logic is funny, what about if he already owns a good cooler and couldn't care less about streaming?

April 20, 2018 | 01:20 PM - Posted by YourNotThinkingThingsThroughLogically (not verified)

Just to make sure my reply was not deleted along with one of your superfluous posts. Game Streaming is just one area where Ryzen 7 2700X is better. And your other nonsense was also called out like your specious price comparsion that did not factor in any Ryzen 8 core SKU vs Intel 6 core SKU Price/Per-Core metrics or the Value of that Free cooling solution that came boxed in with the Ryzen 7 2700X SKU when compared to an Intel SKU where the user has to purchased at extra cost a cooling solution.

Buy Hey I'm also very quick to jump on any Threadripper for workstation usage folks also for not doing any proper cost/benefit and cost/feature metrics that claerly show that AMD's Epyc True Server/Workstation CPUs/SP3 motherboards are the better solution for workstation/encoding/other non gaming tasks than any Threadripper/TR4 MB solution.

So I'm more about using a proper cost/benifit analysis for any product be it Intel or AMD. I'll always be commenting on any Threadripper for workstation usage where the owner does not also want to game as Epyc is the real solution for server/workstation usage! And Epyc/SP3 is more affordable on a cost/feature basis than any Threadripper or Intel consumer CPU/MB HEDT options.

AMD's Epyc/SP3 options are so damn affordable that no person wanting True server/workstation hardware need to ever be forced to substitute any consumer grade parts like Intel's users are forced to do simpley because Intel's real Server/Workstation options are too damn expensive!

If you already own a cooler then you should have mentioned that as part of your cost/benifit comparsion while also mentioning that Ryzen 7 2700X came with a boxed cooler included in that SKU's MSRP. And even there if you already own a cooler then maybe that included Ryzen 7 2700X boxed cooler SKU can be readily sold on eBay or other sites and that figured into the overall price savings comparsion.

April 20, 2018 | 05:48 PM - Posted by Stef (not verified)

A wall of text for no reasons at all, congrats!

P.S.
My what? You failed to note that I'm not the author of the original post you were replying at, yet I easly realized he probably already own a decent cooler and may not care of streaming... as for obtaing anything worth by reselling the stock cooler, the important thing is that... you believe that.

April 22, 2018 | 10:27 AM - Posted by MoreDaftFolksHateReading (not verified)

That Wall-O-Text was there just to piss you off and that other poster is just being disingenuous.

There is much more to a cost/benifit analysis than just price and an 8 core SKU at lower cost by $20, or even at some resonable higher cost, compared to a 6 core part is still going to have the 8 core CPU be a better feature(Per core)/cost. That included cooling solution has value so that's has to be included for Ryzen's value eguation for more than just one person that may or may not already have a cooling solution.

Intel 8700X at $349/6-cores = $58.16(rounded) per core.

Ryzen 7 2700x at $329/8-core = $41.23(rounded) per core, add the cost saved for the included cooling solution and the Cost/Core is even lower than that $41.23.

It's just fine if that other poster is looking at what he wants but that does not erase the fact that over that GN, Steve's review tested gaming while streaming as that's what some folks do. There are other all around workloads that like the extra 2 cores/4 threads and the latency improvements for Ryzen 2 in addition to the lower voltage needed to achieve higher clock speeds on Ryzen 7 2700X.

Sure that 12nm process is somewhat improved for voltage inside the regular clock envelope(3.7 to 4.3) GHz up to aroud a little above 4.3 Ghz and that's a good thing for Ryzen 2. And Yes the overclocks above that 4.3 GHz range come at an extra cost. Ryzen 7 2700X and Zen+ are still an improvment and maybe Ryzen 2 will also improve over time as much as Ryzen 1 if you look at the 1800X and lower Ryzen 1 SKUs and those SKUs improvments over time.

GF will be tweaking its 12nm over time just like GF tweaked that licensed from Samsung 14nm process over time to get the diffusion tweaked and the Ryzen 1/14nm chips performing better. The diffusion QA/QC will improve over time at 12nm and that will result in better transistor leakage metrics ans well as other improvments.

Zen+ also got those latency improvments IF tweaks and that had an even better affest on some gaming workloads than higher clocks, ditto for any non gaming workloads that are latency sensitive. Faster memory and better 400 series MBs are also an improvment over the 300 series MB/memory speeds.

Actually you are just adding to that other poster's specious argument so much so that just: you believe that!

April 22, 2018 | 10:31 AM - Posted by MoreDaftFolksHateReading (not verified)

Edit: better affest
to: better affect

April 20, 2018 | 05:56 PM - Posted by elites2012

one hell of a review. curious to know why you guys keep running old benchmarks written for intel chips?

April 25, 2018 | 12:29 PM - Posted by hujiiioooo (not verified)

i5-8400 has always higher FPS than i5-8600K, it's hard to believe... looks like you have some mistake in your graphs...

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.