Latest from Tom's Hardware in Amd-ryzen-7-2700x

MORE: All CPUs Content

Hardware-Based Security Fixes, Architecture & Test Setup

Much like the Cascade and Whiskey Lake processors we recently covered, Intel's Coffee Lake refresh comes with hardware-based mitigations for the Meltdown and L1TF (Foreshadow) vulnerabilities. Current Spectre and Meltdown mitigations, which Intel delivers via software and microcode patches, can reduce performance by up to 10% on newer CPUs, with older hardware suffering even larger losses. The new mitigations, baked directly into the silicon, should reduce or even eliminate the performance impact for a few vulnerabilities.

Vulnerability	Coffee Lake Refresh/Whiskey Lake Mitigation	Cascade Lake Mitigation
Variant 1 (Spectre)	Operating System	Operating System/VMM
Variant 2 (Spectre)	Microcode + Operating System	In-Silicon + Operating System/VMM
Variant 3 (Meltdown)	In-Silicon	In-Silicon
Variant 3a	Microcode + Operating System	Firmware
Variant 4	Microcode + Operating System	Microcode + Operating System/VMM
L1TF (Foreshadow)	In-Silicon	In-Silicon

As we're learning, it may take several processor generations before the fixes for all vulnerabilities are applied at a silicon level. Intel's ninth-gen CPUs do still need a combination of microcode and operating system patches. But at least Meltdown and L1TF Foreshadow are patched fully in hardware.

Architecture

Although we don't have much new information about Coffee Lake refresh architectural changes, David Schoor at WikiChip says the new chips use a familiar ring bus, an internal high-speed pathway connecting the cores and cache.

This stands in contrast to the mesh architecture (deep dive here) that Intel uses on its high-end desktop models, including the eight-core Core i7-7820X. We've found that the mesh architecture has a negative impact on some desktop applications, including games, which Intel acknowledges. The mesh architecture was designed to increase scalability as it expands to higher core counts in the Xeon family.

Overclocking, Rounds One and Two

We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.

To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests.

We did not use an offset for the workstation graphics, compute, power consumption, and temperatures sections.

MEG Z390 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform for all Intel processors. This pricey board retails for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i7-8700K

Intel Core i7-7820X

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i5-8600K, i5-8400MSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066 Intel Core i7 MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming) Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD) 4x 1TB Crucial MX300 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)U.S. Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i5-8600K, i5-8400MSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933All SystemsEVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	GermanyAMD Wraith RipperAlphacool Ice Block XPXEnermax LiqTech 240 TR4Thermal Grizzly KryonautU.S.Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The Core i9-9900K's eight cores easily beat Ryzen 7 2700X during the DX12 and DX11 CPU benchmarks. For perspective, the Core i9-9900K has the same 4.7 GHz all-core boost frequency as the Core i7-8700K's single-core boost, which is quite impressive. As expected, tuning Core i9-9900K propels it into a league of its own.

In the DX12 test, we see a nice step forward from Core i7-9700K compared to its predecessor, the Core i7-8700K. That improvement is despite a loss of Hyper-Threading technology on the new Core i7 model.

Architecturally, the Core i5-9600K is very similar to Core i5-8600K. They offer the same number of cores. But the newer chip's higher clock rates deliver tangible gains.

UL's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. UL defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS. The Core i7-9700K posts a surprisingly strong frame rate, beating the overclocked -9900K. That implies this benchmark runs best on eight physical cores.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. A stock Core i9-9900K beats the rest of the processors, except for an overclocked Core i7-8700K.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization VI's AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

The Ryzen processors trail due to their lower per-core performance, defined by instructions per clock (IPC) throughput and frequency. Intel's Coffee Lake microarchitecture already dominates in comparisons of IPC, but bolstering it with higher clock rates extends the design's lead. Notice that the Core i5 and Core i7-9700K also perform exceedingly well, indicating this test runs best on physical cores.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Core i7-9700K takes the lead once again. The Coffee Lake-based Core i7 models remain impressive, though. As you'll see throughout our gaming suite, Intel's Skylake-X-based Core i7-7820X is no match for the mainstream processors' much higher frequencies.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Ryzen 7 2700X is more competitive in the Warhammer 40,000 benchmark, largely because this game responds well to threading. Core i9 is a powerful chip, but the Core i7-8700K challenges it after some overclocking. Intel's Core i7-9700K essentially ties the Core i7-8700K, reminding us that its product stack remains carefully segmented.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry 5

Although the overclocked Core i9 leads, a tuned Core i7-8700K offers similar performance. More than likely, the extra $118 you pay for a Core i9 probably isn't worth it for gamers.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

The -9900K leads in convincing fashion. The Core i7 and i5 models also enjoy a healthy speed-up.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our test to its prior glory.

Given its price point, the Core i5-9600K appears to be a phenomenal chip for gaming, even without taking overclocking into consideration. Notice that the new i5 often outperforms Intel's previous-gen Core i7-8700K. Really, that isn't surprising given both chips' multi-core Turbo Boost ratios. A lack of Hyper-Threading also helps in some games.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Shadow of War leans heavier on graphics resources than host processing, so we don't see large deltas between the fastest and slowest CPUs. This is another reminder that most games are limited by your GPU, so plan accordingly if you're running into a bottleneck.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title's frame rates. Intel's per-core performance advantage pays big dividends in this title, but Core i5-9600K inexplicably trails the previous-gen -8600K. Repeated testing confirmed the results.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, its final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications.

Core i9-9900K takes a commanding lead throughout these tests. However, the Core i7-9700K proves to be an adept competitor. It should come close to matching the Core i9-9900K after overclocking in these types of lightly-threaded tasks.

Web Browser

Intel's single-threaded advantage is clear. Once again the -9700K offers a nice step up from the -8700K, while Intel's Core i5-9600K proves its mettle. Our overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X trails the stock configuration in many of these tests because it offers a higher boost clock rate in stock form.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Core i7-7820X lags the rest of the test pool, possibly as a byproduct of its mesh architecture. Meanwhile, the Core i7-8700K and -9900K are closely matched.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized. This application responds well to the Ryzen 7 2700X, which scores a rare win against the stock Core i9-9900K.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Intel’s processors extend their lead in the single-threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests. However, it's easy to see that AMD’s extra cores help offset their lower IPC in threaded benchmarks.

The Core i9-9900K sets a new high water mark for mainstream desktop performance at stock and overclocked settings in the threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench benchmarks.

Encoding & Compression

Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Ryzen 7 2700X is competitive in these workloads, especially after overclocking. But Intel's Core i9-9900K carves out a commanding lead.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi, is a great test to use for measuring the affect of AVX instructions. Core i7-7820X sports two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, so it isn't surprising to see that CPU leading through the multi-threaded test. Core i9-9900K is still highly competitive, but we dialed back its all-core AVX frequency to 4.8 GHz for our overclocked configuration. Consequently, the tuned -9900K is outperformed by the stock configuration, which benefits from the dual-core 5.0 GHz AVX frequency.

Core i9-9900K leverages high clock frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. Notice that the tuned -9900K outpaces the stock configuration in these tests despite our 4.8 GHz AVX offset. That's because the stock setup drops to an all-core 4.7 GHz under full utilization.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Workstation Graphics

While workstation graphics are a niche for most readers, some might consider using the -9900K's eight cores and 16 threads for professional tasks. Really, though, there aren't many threaded applications for real-time graphics output. These benchmarks mostly benefit from high IPC and frequency.

Cinebench profits equally from more cores and higher clock rates. That makes it one of the very few benchmarks able to show off what Core i9-9900K can do compared to Core i7-8700K.

The older versions of Maya and Catia appear to be bottlenecked, despite the potent Nvidia Quadro P6000 being pushed to its limit. In the end, it makes no difference whether the CPU is overclocked or not. The differences are marginal from the Core i7-8700K upward.

The Blender loop relies on OpenGL and real-time graphics, but host processing power still helps. However, these applications use hardly more than four cores, so high per-core performance pays off.

The same could be said for the GPU composite score of 3ds Max because, in the end, the highest clock rate wins. Multi-threading is not really in demand.

To summarize, we could say there is little added value in upgrading from a fast quad-core to a slightly faster eight-core CPU in these types of applications.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Workstation Compute

The CPU composite score of SolidWorks combines render and compute performance. Multi-core scaling isn't the emphasis. Rather, per-core performance moves the needle furthest.

If the workload consists of strictly rendering, then Core i9-9900K is hard to beat.

Interestingly enough, AMD's CPUs dominate the 3ds Max composite score (this program seems better-optimized for AMD's architecture in general). For the first time, Core i7-8700K doesn't stand a chance against the Core i9.

Intel's CPUs bounce back in the rendering test, whereas AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X drops a few spots.

Creo reminds us that maximizing work done per clock cycle is critical. It'll probably take a very long time for developers to optimize for threading.

Almost everything in this application is perfectly parallelized, so a combination of threads and per-core performance form a brutal alliance.

Aside from the render workloads, there's no reason to buy a Core i9 over the older Core i7-8700K. But then the entire platform is out of place and you might want to consider a real workstation instead.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

Power consumption measurements are always a bit tricky, but as long as the 12V supply (EPS) readings and the sensor values of the power supply of the mainboard plus voltage transformer losses plausibly coincide, everything is fine. Therefore, we again rely on the pure package power to avoid possible influences from the motherboard. The values of the PWM controller are really very reliable if taken as averages over a period of a few minutes.

At idle, everything is perfectly fine. Both the stock and overclocked Core i9-9900K sip power. The fact that the Ryzen 5 2600X lands at the top of our chart is confirmed by our bad sample. This is definitely not a general AMD problem though, as the Ryzen 7 2700X shows. In general, however, all the CPUs are quite economical.

Both -9900K configurations are still in good shape during the CAD workload: the chip's power consumption is only slightly higher than the Core i7-8700K. So far, the very high voltage needed for stable operation does not make a disturbing impression. Everything is still in the green.

Power consumption is also within the expected values during the gaming loop, especially since the game does not fully utilize all cores. Although a comparison test with Assassin's Creed Origins did yield much higher values (up to 20W more), that game is so poorly optimized that we measure completely different values each time.

Five measurements with five strongly diverging results are not something that would be apt for a fair comparison. However, at 5 GHz, the Core i9-9900K never really crossed the 100W limit, so it was still cool enough to make ends meet. At least for games.

But power becomes more of an issue in some productivity applications because a constant load on all cores at high clock rates is almost too much. And to be clear, the Core i9-9900K gets super hot faced with Prime95 and AVX instructions (205W stock, 250W overclocked), exceeding the specified TDP.

We measured 137W (232W) during the Cinebench test, and we topped 145W (241W overclocked) under the larger Blender workload. We even pushed past 120W (198W overclocked) with various CAD plug-ins for Creo and SolidWorks. The limits of normal all-in-one compact water cooling solutions are in sight during standard operation at 4.7 GHz on all cores, but you can easily overwhelm cheaper AIOs during overclocking.

Finally, and because we like the additional detail, here are the line charts corresponding to our long-term measurements.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Temperatures

As we did in the past with Intel's Core i7-8700K, we again created absolutely identical test and measurement conditions. We use the same type of CPU cooler (Alphacool XPX), the same Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut TIM, and the Alphacool Ice Age 2000 chiller that, as always, provides exactly 20°C water temperature. We weigh the thermal paste (0.15 grams) on a laboratory balance to further ensure accuracy. Thus, our older test results are usable for comparisons to the Intel Core i9-9900K.

Thermal Grease Vs. Solder

We have an important preliminary about the change from the thermal paste TIM on the Core i7-8700K to the solder of the Core i9-9900K. Since the height of the CPU has remained absolutely the same with the new chips, one can also assume that Intel uses the same heatspreader as the older CPUs. The distance between the die and heat spreader was previously relatively high due to the design, as the chips have a relatively thick layer of thermal paste.

Therefore, we can assume the solder layer also turns out to be a bit thicker than it would actually have needed. This fact, and the significantly smaller heat spreader (surface area) compared to the LGA 2066 CPUs, will certainly explain why the results that follow are the same as they were. Good, but not perfect.

The Intel Core i7-8700K achieves just under 160 watts in the stress test with Prime95, so we ran the Intel Core i9-9900K with a similar load. The Core i9-9900K did not always use all its cores fully, so slight fluctuations occur despite the same average waste heat over the entire time. But these remain negligible. Logically, the Intel Core i9-9900K runs much cooler than with Solder TIM:

With nearly identical power dissipation and identical cooling conditions, we calculate a mean package temperature of 57°C for the Intel Core i9-9900K and 75°C for the Intel Core i7-8700K. This results in a delta of 18°. Tests of the delidded Intel Core i7-8700K show that this is not necessarily optimal – the delta was at least 20° (better by 2°). In either case, even the industrial solder solution is always worth more than the thermal paste of the previous CPU generation.

Leakage at different temperatures but same load

CPUs are thermistors, where the internal resistance decreases with rising temperature instead of rising. That makes it interesting to see how the temperatures, and thus the leakage currents (and consequently the power loss), develop with the same applied load. To measure this, we have the Core i9-9900K overclocked under Prime95 run once with chiller and with a normal AiO compact water cooling (Corsair H110i).

The result turns out as expected. While the chiller the CPU is at an average of 63° C, but the 90° C with the AiO is already near the absolute limit. Mind you, this result is at stock settings with an AVX load. Interestingly, when using SSE, the delta of 27°C remains nearly the same, as it is still 25°C on average.

But back to the AVX load, because what does the almost 30° C temperature difference ultimately mean for power consumption? Here, too, we are amazed to a certain extent, because between the 205W with chiller and the 229W with the AiO compact water cooling, there is a difference of 24W. We can only attribute that to the now stronger leakage currents.

You can see the remaining power consumption figures on the previous page, but under almost ideal conditions. The better the cooling, the better the power consumption. However, we were only able to record these large differences at package temperatures above 80°C, which then almost rise like an avalanche. This would dissuade us from air cooling, even if the Intel Core i9-9900K should not be overclocked any further. The 4.7 GHz all-core and a constant load are quite sufficient to make air cooling absurd.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Intel's Core i9-9900K answers several requests from the enthusiast community. It sports more cores, higher clock rates, and effective Solder TIM. The delayed 10nm process could be a liability as AMD works feverishly to respond with new 7nm processors. But for now, these 14nm++ CPUs are winners.

In the chart below, we plot gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frame-per-second measurement. Bear in mind that we tested with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 at 1920x1080 to alleviate graphics-imposed bottlenecks. Differences between our test subjects would shrink with higher resolutions.

Core i9-9900K takes the crown as the fastest gaming processor on the market, and it proves to be highly capable in the threaded workloads that AMD's Ryzen processors used to dominate. Pricing is still a problem for Intel, though. You pay dearly for the extra cores, while a majority of games don't fully utilize them. The Core i7-9700K, even at stock settings, is competitive with the -9900K in most titles, especially considering the $115 you save by stepping down a notch. We haven't overclocked our -9700K yet, though, so the small deltas observed between the two chips may shrink further.

Although AMD's second-gen Ryzen processors narrowed the gap with Intel's Coffee Lake-based line-up, these ninth-generation Core chips redefine the playing field. The $263 Core i5-9600K at stock settings regularly beat an overclocked $329 Ryzen 7 2700X in games, and we expect even more performance from the Core i5 once we overclock it. Ryzen 7 2700X does come with a capable cooler, but the Core i5’s lower price diminishes AMD’s value proposition for gaming.

In the end, Core i9-9900K serves up impressive performance across our benchmark suite. If you regularly run heavily-threaded applications, it's probably worth paying a premium for. But if you need real workstation-class features, you should step up to an appropriate platform.

And make no mistake, the Core i9-9900K requires expensive accommodations. You need a premium motherboard with robust power delivery, particularly if you plan on overclocking. The -9900K can drop into existing Z370 motherboards, but we’re sure that many of them will struggle with the chip’s voracious appetite for current. Also plan on investing in a high-end PSU.

The -9900K proved to be an impressive overclocker, largely due to its Solder TIM. Don't think that means you can skimp on cooling, though. High temperatures hampered our overclocking efforts, and a more capable cooler could have facilitated additional headroom. Intel even threw in new packaging to help win back the hearts and minds of enthusiasts.

Now the question is whether Intel can satisfy enthusiast demand. After all, we've already heard reports of delayed pre-order shipments. Even though the company assures us that it can accommodate demand for eight-core CPUs, this doesn't bode well for availability as the company grapples with an ongoing shortage of 14nm manufacturing capacity.

The Core i9-9900K has no direct rival on a mainstream platform, but its high price point encroaches into the realm of AMD’s upcoming $649 12-core Threadripper 2920X (which has hefty platform requirements of its own). That chip isn't available yet, so its performance remains shrouded in mystery. For something more readily available, look to the previous-gen Threadripper 1920X.

Unless you regularly use heavily-threaded applications, it’s hard to justify stepping up to Core i9-9900K from any modern four- or six-core CPU. With that said, Core i9-9900K is the fastest mainstream processor on the market. Plenty of enthusiasts opt for the best possible performance in both single- and multi-threaded workloads at any price. There, the Core i9-9900K doesn’t disappoint.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

A Second Look: DDR4 Motherboard Performance vs Data Rate

Jacob Terkelsen — Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:00:00 +0000

Problem Statement and Product Descriptions

As a hardware reviewers, we like to keep our testing rigs consistent and bug-free in order to maintain data confidence and consistent toolsets for test execution. However, sometimes we get stuck in a routine and we begin to prefer certain brands or configurations. In a Team Group memory review, we found that particular memory kit was performing well in only certain motherboards. That got us thinking: Are we doing this all wrong?

In that review, we noted that particular sets of RAM work better with particular board manufacturers and could be problematic in non-sanctioned systems. On the surface, this may not seem like a major issue, especially if you know going into a buying decision that Team Group's memory tends to work best on Asus motherboards. But according to the testing data we have, 7-zip is showing a 10% performance advantage on the better-matched systems and F1 2015 shows a stark 23% increase in framerates at 1080P. Clearly that Team Group kit works well with that Asus Z390 motherboard, but there seems to be some sketchy UEFI magic going on behind the scenes.

In order to investigate, we’re going to be changing a few variables today. First, we’re getting a new set of eyes to look at this data. Next, we’re going to see how AMD’s motherboards fare with this particular issue. Lastly, we’re going to be throwing some of our top-rated AMD X470 motherboards into the ring to see just how finicky the interface is across vendors. Perhaps our odd Team Group results come from an Intel-specific "feature" that Asus uses, but only time (and lots of testing) will tell.

Test System Configuration

CPU	Ryzen 7 2700X
CPU Cooler	Corsair H110i
Memory	G.Skill AMD DDR4-3600 (2x 8GB)
Motherboard	Aorus X470 Gaming 7 Wi-Fi
Motherboard	MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC
Motherboard	Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi)
SSD	OCZ RD400
Power Supply	Corsair AX860

Drivers and Software

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit networking
Software
OS	Microsoft Windows 10 Anniversary Update
Graphics	Nvidia
Chipset	AMD X470

Since AMD's latest X570 chipset boards just launched, they weren't yet available when we were working on this story. So we’re sticking with X470 because it is very stable, less expensive, and, honestly, very capable of hitting top memory data rates. Our trusty Ryzen 2700X will also be driving our memory traffic since we know how its memory controller functions and we intend on getting consistent results. Our target motherboards today will be the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7, MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC, and the Asus X470 Crosshair Hero VII (WiFi), all of which performed admirably.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 Memory Bandwidth and Memory Latency
Application Tests and Settings
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Game Tests and Settings
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain 1920x1080 - UltraHigh Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64 Very High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation

Beyond that, our memory test methodology has not changed significantly across processor brands and we hope to replicate our data collection across the test platforms. In order to reduce test time, we will only be looking at data across three data rates: DDR4-2933, DDR4-3200, and DDR4-3600. To increase our chances with compatibility, we will only be using two 8GB sticks of DDR4-3600 RAM from G.Skill (which we're also working on reviewing). And to keep things consistent across runs, XMP voltages and timings will be utilized across the test points to help isolate performance to the data and not other factors.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Test Results: Applications and Games

Comparison Products

Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi)

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi

A brief preface: This review is not to determine if a specific motherboard performs better than others, but to identify if data rates for this G.Skill DDR4-3600 kit are impacted across the vendors. We will primarily be focusing on trends in our data, rather than the raw performance measurement for each data sample.

With that out of the way, let’s look at synthetics. Sandra Memory Bandwidth shows us different trends across the vendors. For the Gigabyte board, we see a larger linear correlation between data rate and bandwidth with a 9GBps increase between DDR4-2933 and DDR4-3600. MSI, on the other hand, sees a smaller linear correlation with only a 5GBps improvement. Lastly, the Asus board actually shows a performance plateau starting to show up towards the higher data rates (however, we could have just seen a really low 2933 measurement). In terms of latency, each of the boards is behaving within the margin of error and we see no obvious points of concern.

Blender sees negligible differences in completion times regardless of data rate or motherboard vendor. With a 7.6GB file compression with 7-Zip, we see expected decreases in workload time as we increase the data rate across the motherboards. Again, larger deltas are observed with the Aorus Gaming 7 shaving off nearly two minutes, whereas the MSI board sees a tighter performance range across the rates. Again, Asus completion times show plateauing similar to the memory bandwidth results.

Switching focus over to gaming, we continue to see similar trends across the vendors regarding data rate increases. F1 2015 clearly enjoys the increased memory bandwidth as we drive around the Abu Dhabi track. But again, we see linear results with both the Gigabyte and MSI boards. Oddly enough, the Gigabyte board does appear to “lose” at the standard data rates, but comes screaming ahead when using the DDR4-3600 profile. Metro is a staple in our test suites and does not show a large variance across framerates and data rate changes. Interestingly, we see across all motherboards that performance does plateau after DDR4-3200 is activated. If you'd like us to test more games in our memory reviews, head over to the forums and let us know.

Value vs Performance and Conclusion

So, let's circle back to our original questions up top. Does the motherboard manufacturer impact memory compatibility and performance? Yes and no. For this specific set of DIMMs and processor, the motherboards tested do not see considerable performance differences across the higher-end of memory data rates. We do see some boards increasing their performance with the data rate and others that don’t appear to prefer higher-rated kits.

As for the value argument, we can start to glean some real truth to some marketing teams’ claims. From Asus’ perspective, there is no denying the wealth of options available for overclocking, but our base level of memory overclocking does leave us wanting. MSI’s DDR4 Boost design feature does appear to hold water to an extent, but it is not something that we’d solely judge our purchases by. The Gigabyte board ages well in our testing and sees more potential for being able to utilize even faster memory kits. If more basic overclocking is desired, we definitely recommend the MSI or Gigabyte boards, based solely from a value point of view.

Photo Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X Review: Core i7 Has a New Challenger

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 22:45:00 +0000

Cranking it up to 105W

AMD's Ryzen 3000 series has landed, upping the ante with Intel in its high-stakes game for desktop PC market dominance with a well-rounded lineup of new chips that push mainstream platforms to higher core counts and more raw compute than we've ever seen. As a result, Intel's commanding presence in the enthusiast space is threatened in a way we haven't seen in over a decade.

We began with a look at the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X last week and came away impressed, but our review left us feeling like something was missing.

That something is the Ryzen 7 3800X. AMD cranks the TDP dial up to 105W on this 8-core 16-thread chip, making it the high-performance counterpart to the 65W Ryzen 7 3700X, which is basically the same 7nm chip built with the Zen 2 microarchitecture, but with a lower TDP rating. That chip came away from our first look at the Ryzen 3000 series with an Editor's Choice award, going toe-to-toe with Intel's Core i7-9700K, so it's fair to say we have high hopes for the higher-performance model. AMD still hasn't sampled the chip to the press, so we bought one at retail to put it under the microscope.

The Ryzen 7 3800X slots in beneath the Ryzen 9 3900X, which comes with two 7nm compute die tied together with a 12nm I/O die to yield a 12-core 24-thread part. AMD has worked wonders to reduce the impact of this sort of multi-chip arrangement, but it's fair to assume that the Ryzen 7 3800X's single-compute-die design, paired with a higher TDP rating that facilitates more aggressive boost clocks, could actually rival the 3900X in some applications – games included.

	SEP (USD)	Cores / Threads	TDP (Watts)	Base / Boost Frequency (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe 4.0 Lanes
Ryzen 9 3950X	$749	16 / 32	105W	3.5 / 4.7	64	24
Ryzen 9 3900X	$499	12 / 24	105W	3.8 / 4.6	64	24
Ryzen 7 3800X	$399	8 / 16	105W	3.9 / 4.5	32	24
Ryzen 7 3700X	$329	8 / 16	65W	3.6 / 4.4	32	24
Ryzen 5 3600X	$249	6 / 12	95W	3.8 / 4.4	32	24
Ryzen 5 3600	$199	6 / 12	65W	3.6 / 4.2	32	24

And that's exactly what we've found. The Ryzen 7 3800X takes the basic ingredients of the Zen 2 microarchitecture, which brings an average of 15% more instructions per cycle (IPC) throughput, and 7nm process and melds them into a high-performance chip that is impressive across our test suite, especially when we factor in the competitive pricing, PCIe 4.0 interface, backward compatibility with most AM4 socket motherboards, unlocked overclocking features, and bundled cooler.

But we've also found that, after simple push-button overclocking, the Ryzen 7 3700X offers similar performance to the 3800X, even when it is also overclocked. But for $70 less. The Ryzen 7 3800X is an impressive chip and offers a better mixture of performance than Intel's Core i7-9700K, no doubt, but in this case, value seekers might opt for its less expensive sibling.

Ryzen 7 3800X

We covered the deep dive details of the Ryzen 3000 chip design in our AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X review, so head there for more information on the 3800X's architecture, which is identical to the Ryzen 7 3700X.

The $399 Ryzen 7 3800X lands in the pricing gap between the $488 Core i9-9900K and the $374 Core i7-9700K. Of course, the -9700K slots in as the 3800X's natural competitor, and while it matches the AMD part with eight physical cores, Intel's trimming of the Hyper-Threading feature leaves it eight threads shy of the 3800X.

	Process	SEP / RCP (USD)	Cores / Threads	TDP (Watts)	Base Frequency (GHz)	Total Cache (MB)	PCIe Lanes	iGPU	Price Per Thread
Core i9-9900K	14nm	$488	8 / 16	95w	3.6 / 5.0	16	16 Gen3	Yes	$30.05
Ryzen 7 3800X	7nm	$399	8 / 16	105W	3.9 / 4.5	32	24 Gen4	No	$24.94
Core i9-9700K	14nm	$374	8 / 8	95W	3.6 / 4.9	12	16 Gen3	Yes	$46.75
Ryzen 7 2700X	12nm	$329	8 / 16	105W	3.7 / 4.3	16	20 Gen3	No	$20.56
Ryzen 7 3700X	7nm	$329	8 / 16	65W	3.6 / 4.4	32	24 Gen4	No	$20.56
Core i7-9700	14nm	$323	8 / 8	95W	3.6 / 4.9	12	16 Gen3	Yes	$40.38

The -9700K comes with a 95W TDP rating, whereas the 3800X weighs in with a 105W rating. Contrary to popular belief, these ratings aren't meant to quantify power consumption. Instead, they measure the amount of heat the chip dissipates under load, but both companies use different test methodologies. Intel specs TDP at the base frequency, thus ignoring peak heat output during boost activity, while AMD measures with all cores fully loaded. The only way to make real power comparisons is via power measurement, which we'll get to shortly. In either case, we expect that AMD's 7nm design will continue the trend of heightened power efficiency over Intel's 14nm parts. The 3800X also comes with a healthy serving of 32MB of L3 cache, while Intel's -9700K comes with 12MB.

As the higher-priced version of the Ryzen 7 3700X, the 3800X has higher base and Precision Boost frequencies of 3.9 and 4.5 GHz, respectively. That's a 300 MHz increase in base frequency and a 100 MHz bump to boost clocks, but the real advantage should lay in the higher Package Power Tracking (PPT) envelope, which is a measurement of the maximum amount of power delivered to the socket. The 3700X's PPT tops out at 88W, while the motherboard can pump up to 142W to the 3800X at peak performance. That opens up much more aggressive boost behavior, on both single and multiple cores, that could widen the performance gap beyond what we see on the spec sheet.

(Image credit: AMD)

Like the other Ryzen 7 and 9 chips, the 3800X comes with the capable Wraith Prism RGB cooler which is rated to dissipate up to 124W if you crank the fans up to high. Given the 3800X's maximum 142W PPT measurement, that means, at least on paper, that the Wraith Prism might come up a tad shy of dissipating the full heat output of the 3800X at stock settings.

Due to the dynamic nature of AMD's Precision Boost 2 algorithms, the chip will react based upon its environmental conditions, with thermal dissipation being a key variable that dictates performance. That means you could likely get better performance, even at stock settings, with a better cooler. The Wraith also won't provide much overclocking headroom. Consider buying a heftier cooler for overclocking or unleashing the full benefit of Precision Boost Overdrive (AMD's automated overclocking feature). We've flagged this for additional testing once we receive more mature BIOS revisions.

You can pair the Ryzen 3000 chips with the new X570 chipset to unleash the increased throughput of PCIe 4.0, a feature that Intel doesn't offer, or you can drop the processor into most previous-gen motherboards as a value alternative, but you'll lose PCIe 4.0 support.

DIMM Config	Memory Ranks	Official Supported Transfer Rate (MT/s)
2 of 2	Single	DDR4-3200
2 of 4		DDR4-3200
4 of 4		DDR4-2933
2 of 2	Dual	DDR4-3200
2 of 4		DDR4-3200
4 of 4		DDR4-2667

Ryzen 3000 chips support dual-channel DDR4-3200, a step up from the previous-gen's support for DDR4-2966. AMD has greatly improved its memory compatibility and overclocking capabilities, but you still have to abide by rules that dictate the maximum supported frequency based on DIMM type and slot population.

If you don't like those rules, you can simply bump up the voltage and try your hand at overclocking, or buy a higher-rated kit with a one-click A-XMP profile. As we know, the Zen microarchitecture profits heavily from improved memory performance, so higher-priced kits are a good investment that yield dividends, particularly in gaming.

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD has improved memory overclocking substantially, partly due to decoupling the Infinity Fabric from the memory clock. To sidestep the Infinity Fabric's maximum frequency of 2,000 MHz, which effectively constrains memory overclocking, AMD separated the memory and Infinity Fabric clock dependencies. The domains remain tied together at a 1:1 ratio up to DDR4-3600, but run at a 2:1 ratio beyond that transfer rate. This setting, which is also user-adjustable in the BIOS, improves memory bandwidth but comes with a latency penalty (~9ns). AMD says that the price/performance sweet spot lands at DDR4-3600. As per its usual policy, AMD supports up to 128GB of RAM and enables ECC support, but leaves ECC qualification and enablement to motherboard vendors.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Boost Clocks, Overclocking, Thermals and Test Setup

We observed our Ryzen 7 3800X hit it's 4.5 GHz boost clock sporadically, but like the Core i9-9900K's elusive 5.0 GHz boost, those moments were brief. This tracks well with with the boost clock behavior we've seen with the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X. We're currently waiting for improved BIOS revisions and will update as necessary.

Manual Overclocking

We initially dialed in a 4.4 GHz overclock with the Ryzen 7 3800X with a relatively high 1.45V vCore, and while the configuration passed through our entire test suite, it couldn't pass through a new battery of AI tests we're preparing that uses various flavors of the AVX instruction set. As tantalizingly close as we came, we couldn't get the system 100% stable at 4.4 GHz, even with more intense voltages. We were pushing the limits of our Corsair H115i cooler, often running right at the maximum 95C specification of the processor, so we dialed our overclock back to 4.3 GHz for our testing.

Reaching 4.3 GHz was fairly straightforward: a 1.42 vCore paired with auto Load Line Calibration, uncorked power settings in the BIOS, and memory overclocked to DDR4-3600 with 14-14-14-36 timings proved rock solid throughout our full battery of stress and application tests.

We recorded average temperatures of 80C, 81.64C, and 84.8C during extended x264 encoding, x265 encoding, and y-cruncher workloads, respectively. Our maximum peak temperature of 91C came during our y-cruncher test, but it registered for roughly one second. Overall, temperatures during our test tracked well with the average measurements.

Security Mitigations

The new AMD-optimized Windows scheduler is only present in Windows 10 1903 and promises to expose gains in several types of applications. As such, we updated our test image to the latest version of Windows 10 available (18362.207). All of our test results come from the aforementioned operating system and include all publicly available security mitigations and the latest motherboard firmware revisions. Intel is currently impacted by Spectre, Spectre v4, Meltdown, Foreshadow, Spectre v3a, Lazy FPU, Spoiler, and MDS, while AMD is only impacted by Spectre and Spectre v4. AMD has added hardware-based mitigations for both variants of Spectre, which should reduce the performance impact, but the requisite patches for both companies have performance penalties, which are reflected here in our testing.

A Note on Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE)

Intel's motherboard partners have infused their boards with predefined all-core boost profiles that go by many names, such as Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) with ASUS motherboards and Enhanced Turbo with our MSI motherboard. These features are largely referred to as MCE, but the functionality remains the same: These settings essentially apply an all-core overclock to the processor that is defined by the maximum Turbo Boost bin supported by the processor. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking.

MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications.

MSI MEG X570 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG X570 Godlike as our test platform for the second- and third-gen AMD processors. Due to the compatibility matrix for the AM4 socket, we stepped back to the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC for the Ryzen 7 1800X.

The pricey Godlike board retails for around $800, but has the 14+4+1-phase power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

The MEG X570 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy. It also comes with a few nifty accessories like a 10Gb “Super LAN” Ethernet card and a PCIe Gen 4 Xpander-Z M.2 expansion card. That lets you add two more M.2 drives to complement the three M.2 PCIe Gen 4 M.2 ports on the board. You also get four PCIe 4.0 x16 slots, an RGB Mystic Light Infinity II mirror over the IO shroud, and a tiny OLED screen, alongside the two-digit LCD display for error codes.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i9-9900K

Intel Core i7-9700K

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket AM4 (X570)AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, Ryzen 7 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 7 2700XMSI MEG X570 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill Flare DDR4-3200Ryzen 3000 - DDR4-3200, DDR4-3600Second-gen Ryzen - DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (X470)AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper 2920XMSI MEG X399 Creation4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7920XMSI X299 XPower Gaming AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All SystemsNvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 2TB Intel DC4510 SSDEVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600WWindows 10 Pro (1903 - All Updates)
Cooling	Corsair H115iCustom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, Dual-720mm radiatorsAMD Wraith Prism Stock CoolerEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

Our power measurements, which we recently migrated towards a more efficiency-focused approach, revealed some interesting tidbits. Particularly in regards to both Precision Boost Overdrive and manual overclocking.

AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) is an adaptive overclocking approach that allows the processor to communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on the motherboard's power delivery subsystem and thermal dissipation capabilities. The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT), which is total socket power, and the Thermal Design Current (TDC) variable, which is the motherboard's maximum available sustained current. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions.

105W CPU Limits	PPT
AMD IPM	142W	95A	140A
MSI X570 Godlike	1000W	490A	630A

AMD enables two options for PBO: IPM is AMD's default PBO setting, which is activated if you leave the PBO setting to 'Auto' in the Godlike's UEFI. But you can select 'Enabled' to activate a profile that's dictated by the maximum limits of the motherboard's power delivery subsystem. These limits vary by motherboard and are defined by the vendor. We chose the latter to unlock the full potential of PBO. As you can see in the table, this enables the most robust power delivery options available, kicking the socket's maximum power delivery up to 1000W, and is designed to offer the best of increased multi-core boost clocks while retaining the high single-core boost clocks.

You can also further tune the power delivery options with an Auto OC (AOC) feature. This new feature grants you some control over the maximum attainable boost clocks by allowing you to add up to an extra 200MHz to the maximum boost clock, but it isn't guaranteed that the processor will reach those speeds at all times, or under all conditions. Instead, the processor will still respect the limits imposed by the motherboard maker.

Unfortunately, we've found that the PBO+AOC feature often comes at the expense of performance in single-threaded workloads even though it is billed as retaining, and even heightening, single-core boost clocks. From a performance and power consumption standpoint, it is more comparable to our all-core 4.3 GHz overclock. This might be an issue with early AGESA versions, but for now, the feature actually results in less performance in single-threaded workloads with MSI's X570 Godlike motherboard.

We chose to go with the limits of the motherboard, noted on the charts below as PBO, and the all-core 4.3 GHz overclock we outlined on the prior page. It's noteworthy that our all-core overclock comes at the expense of the single-core 4.5 GHz boost, which was a relatively rare occurrence during our testing in both stock and PBO trim.

We began with the non-AVX stress test in AIDA64 and found that the Ryzen 7 3800X draws very little power at stock settings, nearly matching the stock Ryzen 7 3700X's power draw. We activated Precision Boost Overdrive, and the processor's power draw only increased marginally to 95W. Our all-core overclock, however, sucked down 126W on average, but hit 163W peaks during the test.

You'll notice the Ryzen 7 3700X draws more power with PBO+AOC active than the 3800X's PBO configuration, but that's due to its all-core overclock-like nature. As such, our PBO+AOC results for the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X are more comparable to the 3800X's all-core overclock.

The y-cruncher benchmark computes pi using a heavy multi-threaded AVX workload and also generates a performance measurement that we can use for efficiency metrics. We're also adding in HandBrake in x264 and x265 flavors. The latter uses a heavier distribution of AVX instructions than the former, but both transcoders are great for stressing the processor with a real-world workload.

We see muted increases in the 3800X's power consumption from the PBO option, and as a result, we also see minor performance improvements. Conversely, the all-core overclock consumes much more power but doesn't yield big performance benefits over the PBO settings. It appears that, for stock operation, AMD has tuned the processors right at the point of the voltage/frequency curve that provides the maximum frequency possible that can still provide great efficiency metrics. This PBO configuration also seems to retain some of those same characteristics, but that doesn't leave much headroom for explosive performance gains.

Plotting power consumption over our performance measurements highlights some of the gains we recorded with both overclocked settings. Here we can see the 3800X's 4.3 GHz all-core overclock regularly outperform the stock and PBO configurations, but its performance is very similar to the Ryzen 7 3700X with PBO. The overclocked 3800X's wins over the tuned 3700X weighed in at 1.91% for y-cruncher, 2.6% for x265, and 3.2% with x264 encoding. That shows that the Ryzen 7 3700X, while slower than the 3800X at stock settings by a larger margin, is competitive in threaded workloads after we tune both processors. Let's see how they compare in games.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRmark, 3DMark and AotS: Escalation

We tested the Threadripper 2920X in Game Mode for our game suite, and Creator Mode for our application tests.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The DX11 and DX12 CPU test results expose the full threaded heft of the Ryzen 3000 series processors. The Ryzen 9 3900X dethrones the overclocked Core i9-9900K in both tests. After overclocking, the Ryzen 7 3800X posts a virtual tie with Intel's flagship in the Fire Strike physics test, and the all-core overclock provides a comparable level of performance in the Time Spy test.

The VRMark test benefits heavily from per-core performance, and the Ryzen 3000 processors have made great strides compared to the first- and second-gen models. The Ryzen 3000 series processors have also become much more competitive in this benchmark, with the 3800X beating the stock Core i9-9900K and landing within a few FPS of the Core i7-9700K.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count, but clock speeds and per-core performance play a big role, as evidenced by the overclocked Core i9-9900K's spot at the top of the chart. The Ryzen 3000-series processors notch impressive gains, and we can see that the title responds well to our manual all-core overclock and the automatic PBO overclock. At stock settings, the Ryzen 7 3800X slots in right where we'd expect, and the Intel processors can only challenge if we apply an overclock.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics and AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Ryzen 7 3800X handily beats the previous-gen models in this test of AI performance in a turn-based strategy game. This test is highly dependent on per-core performance. At stock settings, the 3800X matches the 3700X. As expected, the automated PBO overclocking feature yields similar results, but the processor doesn't fare as well with the all-core 4.3 GHz manual overclock because it loses the advantage of the single-core boost frequency of 4.5 GHz.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Ryzen 9 3900X is incredibly impressive in this benchmark, but the Ryzen 7 3800X requires tuning to climb the ranks. The 3800X ties the 3700X at stock settings, but cranking up the voltage gives it a slim ~1 FPS lead over the tuned 3700X.

The all-core overclock, which is manually dialed into a static 4.3 GHz, does provide a 3 FPS advantage in our 999th percentile frame rates over the auto-overclocked PBO configuration. We noticed this almost imperceptible difference between the two processors in several tests, indicating PBO's dynamic clock adjustments might have an impact on smoothness, although it's fair to say it is likely imperceptible.

We also see a 1 FPS difference in the less-stringent 99th percentile measurement, but the differences are slight. The advantage goes either way, either for or against manual tuning, throughout our suite.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The Warhammer 40,000 benchmark responds well to threading, but it's clear that Intel's clock speed advantage has an impact. The Ryzen 7 3800X gains 1 FPS over the 3700X at stock settings, and roughly 2 FPS after tuning. In either case, the Intel processors lead the chart by a large margin after tuning.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5 and Final Fantasy XV

Far Cry 5

The Ryzen 7 1800X reminds us how far AMD has come since its first-gen products, and even the overclocked second-gen model lags behind the stock Ryzen 3000's by a decent margin.

After tuning, the 3800X ranks as the fastest AMD processor, and there is little difference between the manual and auto-overclocked configurations. Less than ~1 FPS separates the overclocked Ryzen 7 3800X and 3700X, which has become a theme. Intel asserts itself with faster performance across the board.

Final Fantasy XV

We run this test with the standard quality preset to sidestep the impact of a bug that causes the game engine to render off-screen objects. We see the slightest of gains for the manual overclock over the PBO configuration, but that's with expected variance for this benchmark, so consider this a tie.

Again, the Ryzen 7 3700X with PBO applied lands within striking distance of the overclocked 3800X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

GTA: V and Hitman 2

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The 3700X with its combination of PBO and an all-core overclock again offers roughly the same performance as the tuned 3800X.

Hitman

Hitman finds an oddity: The tuned 3700X actually ekes out a slim win over both overclocked 3800X configurations, but the differences are slight.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project Cars 2, The Division 2, and World of Tanks enCore

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title's frame rates. Intel's per-core performance, which is a mixture of IPC and frequency, pays big dividends in this title.

A glance at the Ryzen 7 1800X reminds us of the giant strides AMD has made in just three generations.

The Division 2

The Ryzen 7 3700X continues to be a thorn in its sibling's side, once again offering nearly the same performance after we engage automatic overclocking.

World of Tanks enCore

World of Tanks closes out our game testing with much the same pattern we observed in other titles.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office, Web Browser, and Productivity

Web Browser

The Krakken suite evaluates JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most browser-based benchmarks, single-threaded performance reigns supreme.

Browsers tend to be impacted more by the recent security mitigations than other types of applications, so Intel has taken a haircut in these benchmarks of fully-patched systems.

AMD's improved IPC comes into play as the processors post surprisingly good results that we wouldn't have expected with prior-gen models. The tuned Ryzen 7 3800X beats its more expensive counterpart the 3900X in several of these tests, but we see the impact of the 3700X's PBO+AOC configuration hamper its performance in lightly threaded tests. The same applies to the 3800X in some benchmarks even though we aren't engaging the AutoOC feature, meaning there appears to be some work left on the firmware side. Meanwhile, both processors provide great performance in stock trim. The 3800X notches complete victories over the -9700K in Krakken and Speedometer 2, but the -9700K takes the win in WebXPRT 3.

Microsoft Office

Microsoft's office suite makes its debut in our test suite via PCMark 10's new application test. This benchmark tests with real Microsoft Office applications, and we can see that the Ryzen 3000 series processors are very competitive in Excel, the Edge browser, and Word.

Core i7-9700K benefits massively from its overclock in some tests, but in stock form, it often trails the Ryzen 7 3800X. That trend is evident in the overall score.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. The 3000-series processors occupy the middle of the ranks, but it will be interesting to revisit this benchmark with a PCIe 4.0 SSD in the future.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, which plays well to Ryzen's multi-threaded heft. It takes a hefty overclock to boost the -9700K into contention with the 3800X. Again we can see some of the 3700X's performance sapped by the PBO+AOC configuration.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding, Compression, Encryption

Rendering

It shouldn't surprise anyone to see the 12-core 24-thread 3900X bring a taste of HEDT performance to the multi-threaded rendering benchmarks. Ryzen 3800X performs well throughout the suite, particularly in the threaded Cinebench R15 test where it even beats the overclocked Core i9-9900K. And it only lags that overclocked processor slightly in the threaded Cinebench R20 benchmark. The 3800X also matches the 3900X in several of the single-core rendering tests, but we can see the 3800X's all-core 4.3 GHz result tumble in the rankings because the processor loses the benefit of its boost clocks. That doesn't have as much of an impact in the threaded workloads where it largely matches or exceeds its own PBO configuration. The tuned 3700X also posts solid scores in those threaded benchmarks, often slotting in slightly below the Ryzen 7 3800X.

With only eight threads, the -9700K is out of its element in the threaded tests, so the wins go Ryzen 7 3800X's way convincingly. The 3800X also beats the -9700K in the single-threaded Cinebench R20 test, but the -9700K excels in single-threaded work.

Encoding and Compression

Core i9-9900K traditionally leverages high frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. The Ryzen 7 3700X is impressive against its price-comparable competition, notching impressive leads over the Core i7-9700K and nearly matching the stock -9900K.

We can also see the vast improvement in Ryzen's AVX performance in the y-cruncher tests: We would never have imagined such a massive generational leap, particularly in single-threaded performance. The work AMD has done here is truly impressive and benefits a wide range of professional applications.

Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Ryzen 3900X's greatly improved memory performance, along with the generous helping of cores, plays a big role in its commanding lead, but the Ryzen 7 3800X is equally impressive given its single-die design. Here we can see it outperform Intel's -9700K and -9900K across the board.

LAME is the quintessential single-threaded application, and here the Core processors take the lead.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

We came away impressed with the Ryzen 7 3800X, but motherboard firmwares are still raw, leaving us wondering if there is more performance lurking underneath the heat spreader. Particularly with the Precision Boost Overdrive and Auto Overclock features. If history is any indication, we could see that situation improve as AMD and motherboard vendors work out the kinks. For now, these results reflect our experiences with a chip purchased at retail and with publicly-available firmwares, but your mileage might vary.

In the chart below, we plot gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness). It's worth noting that AMD's previous-gen line-up is heavily discounted, so we’re departing from our standard practice of using official price lists. Instead, we’re using average pricing found online (temporary sales excluded). Volatility applies.

For gaming specifically, we did see slightly larger gains with the Ryzen 7 3700X via its PBO feature than we did with the Ryzen 7 3800X, allowing that processor to nearly match the more-expensive Ryzen 7 3800X in average framerates in all configurations. That isn't entirely unheard of – After overclocking, we saw the same trend of less expensive previous-gen models (non-X) offering similar performance to AMD's pricier X-series processors.

As we've seen, gaming remains an advantage for Intel, so if squeezing out every last frame is all you care about, Intel's processors are a good choice. Much of that performance advantage will be less noticeable when gaming at higher resolutions, or if you pair the processors with a lesser graphics card.

But, like most humans, if you do things other than gaming, the Ryzen 7 3800X offers a better mixture of performance in single- and multi-threaded applications. The 3800X offers twice the threads of the price-comparable Core i7-9700K, and it wields them to great effect in threaded workloads. As such, rendering and encoding remain a strong suit of the Ryzen chips, and AMD's improvements to AVX throughput have yielded impressive results.

AMD's platform also supports the PCIe 4.0 interface that provides twice the throughput of the previous-gen standard. The extra throughput doesn't equate to improved performance in gaming, but it does speed up everyday tasks like file transfers and will unlock more performance in storage-bound applications. That's an advantage that Intel can't match.

Unfortunately, the faster interface does result in higher-priced X570 motherboards, but AMD's continued support for the X470 motherboard ecosystem could help blunt the blow. Motherboard partners continue to offer X470 motherboards, and they are cheap and plentiful. You'll lose access to the PCIe 4.0 interface in exchange for lower pricing, but you'll also have a compelling upgrade path in the future.

AMD's Ryzen 7 3800X comes with a bundled cooler while competing Intel processors come with a cardboard box. That's an added value that you should take into consideration, but you might need a beefier cooling solution if you plan on pushing the limits with overclocking.

For now, we don't see massive gains in performance for the 3800X from the automated overclocking features, and AMD says we shouldn't expect too much manual overclocking headroom. Instead, you should look to tuning the Infinity Fabric and memory, which both raise in lockstep to a sweet spot of DDR4-3600. AMD also cites using PBO to boost performance, but in our test environment, that doesn't have a dramatic impact on performance. Given that we overclocked our memory in tandem with activating PBO, it's possible some of those slim gains actually stem from increased memory performance.

That means running the processor cores at stock settings paired with overclocked memory could offer roughly equivalent performance gains in some workloads. We're impatiently awaiting new firmware revisions to gauge how they react, but we have tested a multitude of PBO configurations with the Ryzen 7 3800X, of which there are many potential options, with varying levels of success. None seem to confer large speedups for gaming, though we did see some better uplift in traditional applications.

In either case, AMD is wringing a surprising amount of performance from its comparably lower clock speeds, largely due to the big generational uplift in IPC. In our tests, the Ryzen 3000 series is also more power efficient in terms of the amount of energy required to complete a task, which also equates to lowered thermal output.

Value seekers who aren't afraid to press the Precision Boost Overdrive button and have sufficient cooling should look to the Ryzen 7 3700X for roughly equivalent performance to the 3800X, particularly if gaming factors heavily into the buying decision. That could save you $70, reinforcing our decision to give the Ryzen 7 3700X an Editor's Choice award.

Out of the box, the Ryzen 7 3800X is a better all-arounder than the Core i7-9700K and offers incrementally higher performance than its downstream counterpart. The bundled cooler reduces platform costs, and a wide array of motherboards with both X470 and X570 chipsets offers plenty of choices for builders.

Photo Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Drops to All-Time Low $200

Scharon Harding — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:20:03 +0000

(Image credit: Amazon)

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is currently at its lowest price ever, a whopping $129 off its original MSRP. You can get the deal right now, courtesy of Amazon Prime Day.

Get the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X for $199.99.

The Ryzen 7 2700X has never been cheaper, selling for $330 last year and for about $250 last month. The CPU also comes with a Wraith Prism RGB cooler, so there’s one less thing to worry about before putting this well-priced CPU to work. For comparison, we rank this between an Ryzen 5 2600X and Intel Xeon W-3175X in our CPU hierarchy. (For more help picking a processor, see our CPU Buying Guide).

In our Ryzen 7 2700X review, we praised its memory and cache performance. It also handled heavily-threaded applications well while tackling various workload types with its higher clock speed (3.7 GHz - 4.3 GHz) and memory latency compared to its predecessor, the Ryzen 7 1800X. Just don’t expect fantastic overclocks.

For more savings, check out our list of best Amazon Prime Day deals and best PC hardware deals overall as well as dedicated lists of current sales on SSDs, CPUs, GPUs and gaming laptops.

AMD Ryzen 2000-Series CPUs Hit All-Time Low Prices on Amazon

Sarah Lord — Mon, 08 Jul 2019 19:12:02 +0000

AMD released the new Ryzen 3000-series processors on Sunday night, but those who don’t need the latest and greatest can now pick up the previous generation Ryzen 5 2600X with Wraith Spire Cooler for $160. With only a week left before Prime Day, Amazon looks to be clearing out its stock of the previous generation processors. This current price is 38% off the $259.55 MSRP and also matches Amazon’s all time low for the Ryzen 5 2600X.

Get the AMD Ryzen 5 2600X for $160.

The Ryzen 5 2600X features 6 Cores/12 threads, a frequency of 4.2 and 19MB of combined cache. Its max temperature is 95°C and includes Wraith Spire Cooler.

We praised the Ryzen 5 2600X for its lower cache and memory latencies, more sophisticated multi-core boosts, and felt that the extra threads were helpful for both gaming and everyday productivity.

Ryzen 5 2600 Hits All-Time Low

The Ryzen 5 2600 has hit an all time low of $140 with a Wraith cooler. It's also a 6C/12T processor, but as we said on our review, the extra $20 (even in this sale) can get you the 2600X more overclocking headroom

Get the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 for $140.

Ryzen 7 2700X Gets Cheaper

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X with Wraith Prism LED cooler is selling for $254.99 on Amazon, its lowest selling price yet.

Get the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X for $254.99

We praised this 8C/16T processor's value, memory and cache performance and power over the 1800X.

Not sure what processor is right for you? Be sure to check out our CPU buying guide and our Best CPU picks for 2019 for insights, reviews and recommendations.

Grab A Piece of AMD History For Just $260

Zhiye Liu — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:08:00 +0000

(Image credit: Newegg)

If you're a hardcore AMD supporter, here's your chance to grab the Ryzen 7 2700X Gold Edition for $259.99 even before Amazon Prime Day. Newegg is offering a discount for the next 12 hours.

Get the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Gold Edition for $259.99.

As far as specifications go, the Ryzen 7 2700X Gold Edition is identical to the vanilla Ryzen 7 2700X in every way. The value lies with the included goodies, such as a sticker with Dr. Lisa Su's autograph and the AMD 50th anniversary t-shirt. Not to mention you also get Su's laser etched signature on the chip's IHS (integrated heat spreader).

Model	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost Clock (GHz)	Cache (MB)	PCIe 3.0	Unlocked Multiplier	DRAM	TDP	Price (at time of writing)	Price Per Core
Ryzen 7 2700X Gold Edition	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	16	16	Yes	Dual DDR4-2933	105W	$259.99	$32.50
Ryzen 7 2700X	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	16	16	Yes	Dual DDR4-2933	105W	$273.39	$34.17

AMD also generously includes the latest AMD50 game bundle with every Ryzen 7 2700X Gold Edition purchase. You'll receive codes to download PC copies of World War Z and Tom Clancy's The Division 2 Gold Edition free of charge. If you already own both titles or have no interest in playing anyone of them, we're sure that you'll think of creative ways to recover some of your investment.

With the Ryzen 3000-series processors looming around the corner, it doesn't make much sense to pick up a Ryzen 7 2700X right now. However, this is the first time that we've seen the Gold Edition being sold under AMD's recommended pricing, and we're sure there are collectors out there that would be more than happy to stash this item into their vault.

Should You Buy This CPU?

We highly recommend you check out our in-depth review of the Ryzen 7 2700X before opening your wallet. You can also review our CPU buying guide for help. To see where this processor ranks among others currently available, including from rival Intel, check out our CPU hierarchy page. And for other CPUs we love, see our favorite gaming CPUs and favorite CPUs for productivity performance.

Intel Performance Maximizer (IPM) Tested: One-Click Overclocking Comes to 9th-Gen CPUs

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 22:08:01 +0000

Overclock All (Some?) of the Things

Enthusiasts know the headaches associated with CPU overclocking all too well, like intense research, repetitive reboots and motherboard firmware adjustments, not to mention the possibility of a corrupted operating system. Intel's new free Performance Optimizer (IPM) software tool, which is a needed feature to grapple with AMD's auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive, aims to eliminate those frustrations, thus delivering the goodness of overclocking to the less-technically savvy. It aims to deliver one-click overclocking through a simple-to-use software utility that automatically tunes and overclocks your processor.

The utility is now available to the public for free, so we put the Core i9-9900K to the test to see how Intel's tool compares to other overclocking options. We came away with surprisingly impressive results.

Intel Performance Maximizer Installation and Requirements

The IPM comes with several limitations. For starters, it only works with Intel's 9th-gen K-series processors, of which there are currently only three models available: The Core i9-9900K, the i7-9700K, and the i5-9600K. Intel also supports the F-series models of each respective SKU, but our testing has shown that these graphics-less versions of the chips are nearly identical to their full-fledged counterparts, so we don't expect major differences. As with all of Intel's overclockable processors, you'll also need a Z-series motherboard (Z390 in this case) to unlock the overclocking features.

Intel hasn't shared the reasoning behind the limited support (which could be due to some type of physical aspect on the chip, like advanced sensors), but the company says it will follow up at a later date with more information. We do know that Intel plans to extend support to its future K-series processors and its high end desktop (HEDT) lineup, but we aren't sure if the software will eventually support previous-gen processors. For now, the software overclocks the processor to its highest sustainable frequency on all cores, but a future update (due out this year) will tune each core individually based on its capabilities.

Model	Cores / Threads	Base Clock / Boost Clock	Cache	TDP	RCP
Core i9-9900K	8 / 16	3.6 GHz / 5.0 GHz	16MB	95W	$488 - $499
Core i9-9900KF	8 / 16	3.6 GHz / 5.0 GHz	16MB	95W	$488 - $499
Core i7-9700K	8 / 8	3.6 GHz / 4.9 GHz	12MB	95W	$374 - $385
Core i7-900KF	8 / 8	3.6 GHz / 4.9 GHz	12MB	95W	$374 - $385
Core i5-9600K	6 / 6	3.7 GHz / 4.6 GHz	9MB	95W	$262 - $263
Core i5-9600KF	6/6	3.7 GHz / 4.6 GHz	9MB	95W	$262 - $263

Intel also has restricted support to Microsoft Windows 10 x64 Edition Version RS5 (and newer). You'll also need a minimum of 8GB of system memory and 16GB of unallocated storage capacity. You can use the software to automatically create a new partition with a portion of your drives' unused storage space if the system drive is already fully provisioned. The software also requires the motherboard to be set to UEFI boot mode and be updated to the latest motherboard firmware (versions unspecified). You also have to disable all other software overclocking utilities before proceeding, and use the correct version of the install executable (one is for Hyper-Threaded chips, the other for chips without).

With those requirements met, the software installation is fairly straightforward. Intel's disclaimer reminds you that overclocking is an inherently dangerous pursuit: Increased voltages and frequency can kill components and result in system instability, along with threatening data integrity, so you proceed at your own risk. Intel doesn't provide warranty support for overclocking-induced chip death, but the company is happy to sell you a Performance Tuning Protection Plan (PTPP) that gives you a one-time return if your overclocked chip dies. That extra warranty comes at an additional cost of $20 for the 9th-Gen K-series models, and it only applies to boxed processors bought at retail outlets.

The software creates an 8GB GPT partition during the installation process, and after a glance at the Device Manager to verify the driver is installed correctly, you're off to the races. After installation, the minimalist user interface presents you with two options: Continue or Exit. There is a settings option in the utility, but that only lets you remove the IPM icon from the system tray. Aside from that, the interface doesn't have any options -- it's obviously designed to be simple.

After continuing to the tuning process, the software reboots the computer into a pre-boot Performance Optimizer UEFI application. The application automatically steps through a series of tests that apply various voltage and frequency settings and conducts stress tests to find the maximum stable overclocked all-core frequency. Enthusiasts typically test overclock stability through a series of stress tests conducted from inside the operating system, and frequent BSODs during the extensive trial and error phase can damage the operating system. As such, Intel's pre-boot testing approach removes the lion's share of risk to your OS from the equation during the overclocking phase, though you still run the normal risk associated with overclocking of OS instability when you use your system.

Onward to 5.0 GHz

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

	Base	1 Core	2 Cores	3 Cores	4 Cores	5 Cores	6 Cores	7 Cores	8 Cores
IPM-Overclocked Core i9-9900K	3.6	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0
Stock Core i9-9900K (GHz)	3.6	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7
Core i7-9700K (GHz)	3.6	4.9	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6

The overclocking process took two hours on our Core i9-9900K, and the system crashed and rebooted several times during the process, which is expected. The pre-boot environment gives you the option to cancel the test before each iteration in case you encounter hardware difficulties during testing.

After testing, the system rebooted into the operating system and presented us with the results of its efforts: A 4.8 GHz overclock for the first test, and a 4.9 GHz overclock after a successive run. After remounting our cooler and tweaking the fans to full speed, we pulled off our final 5.0 GHz overclock with the tool.

The Core i9-9900K typically boosts to 4.7 GHz when more than five cores are active, so an additional 300 MHz of frequency is incredibly impressive, especially considering we've topped out at the same 5.0 GHz through exhaustive manual tuning. We also noticed that unlike a typical manual all-core overclock, the clock rates continue to fluctuate during operation. That means you still get the goodness of the rare 5.0 GHz dual-core boost if you're cooling system can't support the full 5.0 GHz overclock. It's also notable that the utility doesn't tune memory settings, so we left the system at the default DDR4-2666 for our tests.

Densely-packed AVX workloads are power-hungry, and thus generate far more heat than non-AVX tasks. The offset is responsible for pulling frequency back when the processor executes AVX instructions, allowing you to achieve higher overclocks without worrying about AVX workloads causing instability. The IPM utility tunes the AVX offset, too, so it increased the i9-9900K's all-core AVX offset to 4.7 GHz, which is a handy feature. Intel's IPM applied a VID of 1.267 (under load), which is much better than the 1.385V vCore setting we used for our manual overclock. We chalk the difference up to our manual configuration's lack of an AVX offset, meaning the processor runs at the full 5.0 GHz regardless of instruction type, which requires more voltage to ensure stability. In either case, AVX offsets are an often-unused yet powerful tuning parameter, even with enthusiasts, so this is a nice addition to the tool.

For now, the tool applies an all-core overclock, but Intel will expand the tool to per-core overclocking in the future to wring as much performance out of each core as possible. The tool modifies the WinOS registers, meaning the software doesn't make changes to the motherboards' firmware. This also means that you'll only get the goodness of the overclock from within the operating system, so dual-booters will need to install and run the tool within each of their OS installs. You'll also have to uninstall the utility to reverse the overclocked settings.

Of course, our results are influenced by the usual vagaries associated with the silicon lottery, meaning that each chip will reach different overclocking ceilings based on silicon quality, cooling, and power delivery accommodations. We tested with the MSI Z390 Godlike motherboard that has a robust power delivery subsystem, but we didn't uncork the extreme power delivery parameters in the motherboard firmware that we employed with our manual overclock. We're testing an auto-overclocking feature for noobs, after all. We also used a powerful custom watercooling setup (with two 360 radiators) that can cool the hottest processors on the market with ease, and a 1600W EVGA Supernova T2 power supply.

We also tested the software with the beefy Noctua NH-C14S air cooler, but the utility reported that our thermal solution wasn't up to the task for overclocking. That means you'll have to bring your liquid-cooling A-game when it comes to tweaking the Core i9-9900K: Air coolers need not apply.

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming

MORE: CPU Benchmarks

MORE: All CPUs Content

IPM vs. Precision Boost Overdrive and MCE, Test Setup

Intel Performance Maximizer vs. Precision Boost Overdrive

AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive is a boon to enthusiasts with its adaptive overclocking approach, and it's making its way from the Threadripper platform to all of AMD's Ryzen 3000 processors. The software allows the processor to communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on the motherboard's power delivery subsystem and thermal dissipation capabilities.

The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT) and Thermal Design Current (TDC) variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds real-time telemetry data back to the processor, which then dynamically adjusts performance based on thermal and power conditions. AMD also exposes some of these monitoring features with its Ryzen Master overclocking software.

In contrast, Intel's Performance Maximizer is a one-click auto tuner that finds the maximum attainable all-core overclock and then applies fixed settings based upon many of the same variables, like the power delivery and cooling capabilities. Like AMD's implementation, you still get the benefit of boost clocks that outstrip the all-core frequency when the processor isn't fully loaded, but Intel's overclock will not improve based upon a change in conditions, like the installation of a better power supply or cooler that could unlock higher clocks. In that case, you'll have to run the application again.

Intel's tool also monitors the system to detect if it has BSODs within three minutes of booting up. If the system generates more than three blue screens, the tool will no longer apply the overclock and send a message that it has reverted due to instability. It also gives the option to re-run the utility to regain a stable overclock.

Intel Performance Maximizer vs. Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE)

Intel's motherboard partners have already infused their boards with predefined all-core boost profiles that go by many names, such as Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) with ASUS motherboards and Enhanced Turbo with our MSI motherboard. These features are largely referred to as MCE, but the functionality remains the same: These settings essentially apply an all-core overclock to the processor that is defined by the maximum Turbo Boost bin supported by the processor. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking.

Motherboard vendors predetermine the voltage settings at the factory, meaning the settings do not take chip quality into account. Instead, the vendor bins a large number of CPUs in each respective SKU and sets the parameters based on the worst common denominator. As such, these settings typically use a much higher voltage than required for even chips of "normal" quality, which can reduce the chips' lifespan and result in a hotter and noisier system.

Again, MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications, but we're enabling it for some of this testing to compare its performance with the IPM tool.

MEG Z390 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform. This pricey board retails for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

The MEG Z390 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy on Intel's mainstream platform. It has a decked-out 18-phase power delivery subsystem that's designed to squeeze every drop of performance out of Intel's new processors.

As mentioned, we left the memory settings at DDR4-2666 to reflect a normal users' one-click overclocking efforts. We disabled the Multi-Core Enhanced feature for all tests, except those explicitly listed.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i5-9600K

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863EVGA Supernova 1600 T2Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)Operating system and motherboard firmware fully patched for all vulnerabilities
Cooling	Custom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, Two 360mm radiators

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark and AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

We tested with the Core i9-9900K in several configurations, as listed in the performance charts. The "MCE @ 5.0" entry reflects our Multi-Core Enhancement configuration that uses the motherboard's predetermined voltage and frequency profile to overclock all cores to the maximum Turbo Boost bin (5.0 GHz). The "IPM 5.0" entry denotes the Intel Performance Maximizer's auto-overclocked 5.0 GHz setting paired with a powerful custom watercooling setup. Meanwhile, the "@ 5.0" entry contains our manually tuned all-core 5.0 GHz overclocking results.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The IPM settings fall within 1.2% of our manually-tuned configuration in the DX12 CPU test and 0.72% in the DX11 physics test. That's within the noise of the benchmarks, which have a 3% expected variance, so the IPM configuration provided nearly the same performance as our painstakingly curated manual overclock.

The IPM configuration also fell within 1% of the manual overclock during the inherently lightly-threaded VRMark workload.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. MSI's automatic MCE setting takes the lead, but we see little difference between our manually-tuned processor and the IPM-imposed overclock. In either case, we only see a maximum boost of ~3% over the stock configuration.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V and Hitman

Far Cry 5

The differences between the Core i9-9900K configurations are slight as we encounter a graphics-imposed bottleneck that is common in many AAA titles.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. This benchmark exposes a more tangible lead for the manually tuned processor, while the MCE and IPM configurations fall within 1% of each other.

Hitman

Slight differences between the overclocked Core i9s boil down to typical run-to-run variance for this benchmark, meaning the differences in performance are largely imperceptible.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding and Compression

Rendering

Loading the cores up with the heavily-threaded Corona benchmark exposes a tie between the manually overclocked and IPM configurations. The 4% increase over the stock configuration isn't incredibly impressive, but we are only dealing with an additional 300 MHz boost to all-core performance. We see a larger improvement of ~7% during the multi-threaded Cinebench test.

Our single-core Cinbench test exposed an odd errata with the IPM-imposed 5.0 GHz overclock. During this test, our Core i9-9900K fell below both its 5.0 GHz all-core overclock to 4.8 / 4.7 GHz, and the issue is repeatable. It's hard to pin the issue on the software. It could just as easily be an issue with the motherboard firmware, but we've followed up with Intel for more information. We're working to identify the issue and will update as necessary.

Encoding and Compression

The IPM configuration trailed the MCE and manually-overclocked configurations during the HandBrake test by 2.45%. Those configurations also outstripped the IPM system during the compression workload. The auto-overclocked system redeemed itself in the decompression and lightly-threaded LAME workload, but the delta fell within the expected standard run-to-run variation for this test.

Y-Cruncher

Y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi, is a great test to use for measuring the affect of AVX instructions. It also exposes the main advantage of manual tuning: The potential for higher frequencies during AVX-enabled workloads.

Our manually overclocked configuration stays at the same 5.0 GHz all-core frequency during the multi-threaded y-cruncher test while the IPM and MCE configurations downshift to 4.7 GHz via the AVX offset. That hands the manually overclocked system a 19.6% advantage during the test.

All three overclocked systems score within the expected variance during the single-thread y-cruncher test.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Thoughts

Intel's Performance Maximizer tool is great for non-technical users who want a simple and easy "free" performance upgrade for their K-series 9th-Gen Intel processors. Unfortunately, limited support for 9th-Gen processors takes some of the shine off of the tool, although we're sure the millions of other users with previous-gen K-series processors would appreciate access to the feature.

The tool competes with AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive that will come standard with all Ryzen 3000-series processors. In contrast, AMD's dynamic real-time alterations appear to be more sophisticated than Intel's IPM tool, which sets a single voltage/frequency profile for long-term use, but we'll have to see how AMD's implementation handles on its new chips before passing judgment. We do know that it is limited to a 200 MHz improvement that might not impart the impressive performance boosts we could see with manual tuning. In contrast, we achieved an extra 300 MHz with Intel's tool, and there are no limits on frequency uplift - the tool will give you as much performance as the processor and its surrounding components can support.

The software itself is as pain-free as imaginable. The option-less software greatly simplifies the process and makes user error an impossibility: Even your parents couldn't mess this one up (although you may have to install it for them first).

We ran the tool several times and received varying overclocks of 4.8 GHz, 4.9 GHz, and finally a full-on 5.0 GHz frequency. We did encounter reduced performance with the IPM-imposed 5.0 GHz setting during the single-core Cinebench test. During that test, our Core i9-9900K fell below its 5.0 GHz all-core overclock to 4.8 / 4.7 GHz, and the issue is repeatable. It's hard to pin the issue on the software, it could just as easily be an issue with the motherboard firmware, but we've followed up with Intel for more information. We're working to identify the issue and will update as necessary.

The MCE feature on our motherboard generally provided similar performance to the settings imposed by the IPM tool, and within a similar voltage range. The MCE-imposed overclock also survived extended stress tests, which serves as anecdotal evidence that it offers the same stability as Intel's optimized settings.

But IPM offers a true advantage over the MCE features embedded in most high-end motherboards. MCE implementations vary wildly by manufacturer, and there doesn't appear to be a set of strictly-defined rules from Intel on the matter. That has led to sloppy implementations that have given the feature a bad reputation with many enthusiasts, but it varies by the motherboard. We tested MCE with the highest-end power supply, cooler, and motherboard we could get our hands on, so the impact of excess heat or VRM-triggered throttling could be more of an issue on lower-end boards.

In either case, all forms of overclocking yielded impressive speed-ups in several of our application tests, but the impact wasn't as explosive in the game titles we tested -- Intel is already pushing its 14nm process to the limits, which is part of the reason we crowned the Core i9-9900K the fastest gaming processor we've tested. As a result, there isn't much headroom to play with.

(Image credit: Intel)

But that could improve. Intel says the tool is still under development and it will add per-core overclocking that could unlock more performance in various workloads. It would be nice if Intel eventually pairs the tool with Turbo Boost 3.0, which targets the fastest cores with lightly-threaded workloads, for its mainstream processors. That feature is currently confined to Intel's high end desktop models but would be a great addition to mainstream platforms. Intel does say it will expand IPM to its HEDT processors, so we will see the capabilities of the combined features soon.

The IPM tool is available today for free, but because Intel still doesn't warranty damage due to overclocking, you still assume all of the risks of manual overclocking.

We're sure most non-technical users will appreciate a customized one-click overclock, and there the IPM tool delivers with a more nuanced approach than the built-in profiles on motherboards that can overwhelm the system with excessive voltage.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Announces 50th Anniversary Ryzen 7 2700X and Radeon VII Gold Editions

Zhiye Liu — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:00:00 +0000

It isn’t every day that a tech company turns 50 years old. AMD has a remarkable trajectory starting from the rock bottom as a small Silicon Valley start-up and turning into one of the world's most respected chipmakers. Like any organization, AMD also faced many ups and downs, but the US chipmaker has persevered through the adversities over the last five decades. There's no doubt that AMD has an even brighter future ahead.

AMD is celebrating its 50th anniversary on May 1 and the company has decided to commemorate this huge achievement by releasing a few special edition products. On this occasion, AMD won't be alone, though, as some of the chipmaker's trusted partners, such as Sapphire and Gigabyte, are contributing to AMD's festivities. So, without much further ado, here's the list of AMD's 50th-anniversary products.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 50th Anniversary Edition

(Image credit: AMD / Shutterstock)

The Ryzen line of desktop processors, which was introduced in 2017, successfully put AMD back into the high-end processor discussion since the company's fall from grace. So, it didn't really come as a surprise that AMD would pay Ryzen tribute by making a commemorative edition of its current mainstream flagship processor, the Ryzen 7 2700X.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X AMD50 Gold Edition View Deal

Despite the numerous leaks and rumors, the Ryzen 7 2700X 50th Anniversary Edition will not differ from the standard version in terms of clock speeds. There were high hopes that AMD would delight us with a cherry-picked chip with higher clocks, much like what Intel did with its Core i7-8086K processor.

Nonetheless, the Ryzen 7 2700X 50th Anniversary Edition will surely find its way into hardcore AMD aficionados' collections. Everything from the elegant packaging to the unique laser engraved signature of AMD's President and CEO Dr. Lisa Su on the processor's IHS (integrated heat spreader) screams collector's material. Now, you just need to find some transparent thermal paste and a transparent CPU cooler, and you'll be all set.

AMD has assigned the same $329 MSRP as the standard Ryzen 7 2700X, so you can pick the bundle up on the cheap. However, it is noteworthy that the normal 2700X models can often be found far below the MSRP, while we're sure the limited number of Gold Edition models will assure this chip stays near the recommended pricing.

AMD is also offering its AMD50 game bundle with its commemorative Gold processors and graphics cards. That includes a coupon code for a free PC version of World War Z and Tom Clancy's The Division 2 Gold Edition, which also includes a Year 1 season pass along with other extra game content.

The Ryzen 7 2700X Gold Edition also includes a sticker with AMD CEO Lisa Su's autograph and a coupon for a free AMD 50th anniversary t-shirt. The processor is available today at numerous retailers.

Best Buy will also run a promotion for select products during the AMD50 promotional period that spans April 29 through June 8. Best Buy is having a one-day AMD 50th Anniversary sale on May 1, 2019, with up to $150 off select AMD products, including processors, graphics cards, and AMD-powered notebooks and PCs. The Best Buy promotion is only available in the US.

You can purchase the Ryzen 7 2700X Gold Edition today from numerous retailers, including Newegg. ~~Upon purchase, AMD also give you a digital code to enter a drawing contest with the chance to win a free Matisse processor when it launches~~. (Update 4/30/19, 5:56am PT: Newegg issued the following statement in regards to the drawing: “The product page has been updated to remove an erroneously posted digital code. The earlier reference to a product drawing was made in error and was removed promptly after it came to our attention.”)

AMD Radeon VII 50th Anniversary Edition

AMD's partners are also getting in on the fun. The Radeon VII arrived at a time when everyone was yearning for Navi. Nevertheless, the Radeon VII allowed AMD to put another feat under its belt for being the first manufacturer to release a gaming graphics card built on the 7nm process node. To celebrate, AMD is giving its vanilla Radeon VII a superficial makeover.

The packaging for the Radeon VII 50th Anniversary Edition depicts the 7nm graphics card with a red shroud as opposed to the typical silver shroud that's currently employed on the Radeon VII. This card also features the same specifications as the normal model and will retail for $699. After 50 years of existence, it's hard not to feel nostalgic, and it seems that AMD might want to relive the long-gone ATI days, even if it's just for a little bit.

You can purchase this card today from numerous retailers. This card is also eligibile for the AMD50 game bundle.

Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 590 AMD 50th Anniversary Edition

(Image credit: Newegg)

The Radeon RX 590 was AMD's first 12nm graphics card, and thus holds a special place in the chipmaker's history. Sapphire, who has pledged loyalty to AMD since the start, will be giving its Nitro+ RX 590 8GB the posh 50th-anniversary treatment.

Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 590 (50th Anniv. Ed.)View Deal

The technical specifications both Nitro+ RX 590 graphics card are identical; therefore, performance is unaffected. However, the Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 590 AMD 50th Anniversary Edition does come with a more ostentatious gold-colored shroud. While the new color certainly gives the graphics card a premium feel, it'll be a challenge to actually put together a build around it without a manual paint job.

Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi-50

(Image credit: Gigabyte)

Now that AMD is contributing with the Ryzen 7 2700X and Radeon VII and Sapphire with its RX 590, the motherboard is the only thing missing to complete the build. Luckily, Gigabyte got that part covered as the motherboard manufacturer has revealed the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi-50. The new ATX motherboard hails from the brand's Aorus gaming line, so you can expect it to come with the flashy LEDs, latest technologies, and gamer-oriented features that Gigabyte has to offer.

AMD's 50th Anniversary 2700X Comes Signed by Lisa Su

mc@matthewconnatser.net (Matthew Connatser) — Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:15:00 +0000

Photo (Image credit: Video Cardz)

Though rumored for some days now, the distinguishing features of AMD's 50th-anniversary edition of the Ryzen 7 2700X have been hard to discern. It doesn't appear that this special CPU will have higher clock speeds like Intel's Core i7-8086K, which was just a higher clocked 8700K that was released to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Intel's famous 8086 processor. Thankfully, we now have more information on just how this 2700X is special thanks to VideoCardz, a website known for its leaks for upcoming products.

VideoCardz published two high-resolution images of the $348 Ryzen 7 2700X's box art, which is very similar to the current orange and grey design, except it uses gold and black instead and also has "AMD 50" emblazoned across the top of the box where the Vega graphics designation would usually be for the 2200G and 2400G. While the packaging is very nice and looks premium, the anniversary-edition's real standout feature is on the CPU itself.

Every 50th anniversary 2700X seems to be getting not just the "AMD 50" logo, but also an engraving of the signature of AMD's current CEO, Dr. Lisa Su. Dr. Su has almost obtained a cult of personality from hardware fans thanks to her speeches, such as the keynote at CES last January, and her central role in coordinating AMD's most recent launches for Ryzen and Vega, the former of which has made AMD certainly relevant again. Avid AMD fans will likely appreciate this small touch, though whether or not this signature will improve performance more than RGB is debatable.

Nevertheless, AMD's special edition of the 2700X is likely to be important to processor collectors and AMD lovers. It will also likely be the last 12nm CPU (or at least the last in its class) AMD launches before Zen 2, which is expected to get a reveal at Computex.

AMD 50th Anniversary Radeon VII and Ryzen 7 2700X Packaging Leaked

Zhiye Liu — Tue, 23 Apr 2019 04:00:00 +0000

According to VideoCardz, AMD's latest ad not only reveals the Ryzen 7 2700X 50th Anniversary processor's packaging but also points to the possibility that the US chipmaker is preparing a special edition of its Radeon VII 7nm gaming graphics card. We've been unable to verify the source of the ad, so it's wise to take this leak with a bit of salt.

(Image credit: VideoCardz)

AMD is celebrating its 50th anniversary in grand style, and with good reason, as it's quite a feat for a company to last this long in the highly competitive tech game. Some of AMD's most important partners, such as Sapphire and Gigabyte, are paying tribute to chipmaker by releasing limited editions of the Radeon RX 590 and X470 motherboard, respectively. The latest leak shows that the Radeon VII could also be receiving the same special Anniversary treatment as the Ryzen 7 2700X.

	Radeon VII
Architecture (GPU)	Vega 20
Shaders	3840
Peak FP32 Compute	13.8 TFLOPS
Tensor/RT Cores	N/A
Texture Units	240
Base Clock Rate	1400 MHz
GPU Boost Rate	1750 MHz
Memory Capacity	16GB HBM2
Memory Bus	4096-bit
Memory Bandwidth	1 TB/s
ROPs	64
L2 Cache	4MB
TDP	300W
Transistor Count	13.2 billion
Die Size	331 mm²
Pricing	$700

For the time being, it's unknown if and how the 50th-Anniversary editions of the Radeon VII and Ryzen 7 2700X will differ from their standard counterparts. For one, the packaging for both 50th-Anniversary products is bathed in gold accents. This selection makes a lot of sense since gold is the official color for a 50th wedding anniversary. We can only hope that there's something more interesting to these two products apart from the fancy box.

The packaging for the Ryzen 7 2700X 50th Anniversary processor shows no hints of any changes to the product. In the Radeon VII's case, the graphics card is pictured on the front side of the box so we can at least note the superficial change: It appears AMD has decided to ditch the silver shroud for a red one, perhaps to reminisce on the Red Team's good old days.

The mysterious ad seemingly points to an April 29 launch date, which is only a few days away from today. We'll keep our eyes peeled and update you if any new information arises before launch day.

AMD 50th Anniversary Ryzen 7 2700X Now In Stock, Specs Listed

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Sun, 21 Apr 2019 14:50:00 +0000

(Image credit: AMD)

Word broke last week that AMD is on the cusp of releasing a special Ryzen 7 2700X to commemorate the company's 50th Anniversary, with several retailers listing the chips (under the YD270XBGAFA50 part number) for availability on April 30th, the day before AMD's 50th anniversary.

Now 500 of the chips are marked as "in stock" at Compsource, meaning you can purchase the chips now for $347.95. Connection.com has also listed a few of the specifications of the commemorative chips.

(Image credit: Connection.com)

As expected, the new anniversary-edition chips come with the same 8-core 16-thread design as the original Ryzen 7 2700X, but according to the listing, this new chip comes with the same base and boost frequencies. Due to the nature of early product listings, these specs could also be incorrect and merely be used as a placeholder. If the listing is correct, the only difference in the 50th Anniversary 2700X model might lay in the packaging, engraving, or a commemorative certificate, but we're sure AMD has included some sort of incentive to pay the premium.

	AMD 50th-Anniversary Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP	Listed at $347.95	$329	$229
Cores/Threads	8/16	8/16	6/12
TDP	?	105W	95W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.7	3.6
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.3	4.2
Cache (L3)	16MB	16MB	16MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	95W Wraith Spire

(Image credit: AMD)

*50th-Anniversary Ryzen 7 2700X specs are unconfirmed

The listing also claims the new 2700X includes the same support for dual-channel DDR4-2933 and 16MB of L3 cache, neither of which is entirely surprising. You also get the same 105W Wraith Prism LED cooler that comes with the "normal" Ryzen 7 2700X.

Connection.com lists 500 of the chips in stock, which we're sure will sell quickly, with an arrival date of April 23, 2019, if you order with next-day air shipping. As expected of a collector's item, the $347.95 price tag is significantly higher than the standard $329 MSRP of the standard 2700X models, though you can often find the latter closer to $300 at retail.

With the chips already out in the retailer ecosystem, we expect AMD's official announcement in the days to come.

AMD 50th Anniversary Ryzen 7 2700X Leaked (Updated)

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:20:00 +0000

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD's 50th Anniversary is fast approaching on May 1, and several new postings at online retailers have revealed that AMD is on the cusp of releasing a new 50th Anniversary Ryzen 7 2700X to celebrate. (Hat tip to @Dayman58 for the spot).

(Image credit: ShopBLT.com)

Aside from the mention of a bundled Wraith Prism LED cooler, the listings tell us little about the chip, including what differentiates it from existing Ryzen 7 2700X models. The chip is listed for preorder at $340.95, which is well above the typical ~$295 street price, but that's to be expected with a collector's item.

Several of the sites haven't listed retail availability yet, but on further investigation, we found a retailer that claims the part will become available on April 30, the day before AMD's anniversary celebration.

Releasing a commemorative chip certainly isn't an entirely new phenomenon: Intel released the Core i7-8086K last year to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the x86 instruction set architecture. That chip came with special tuning that pushed clock frequencies up to 5.0 GHz, a first at the time, and also came with a signed certificate from ex-CEO Brian Krzanich.

We may see a similar approach with AMD's purported new chip. Unfortunately, the Anniversary Edition Ryzen 7 2700X listings don't include clock speeds, so this will remain an open question for now. AMD also chose to stick with the same 2700X naming, so we don't expect any other significant changes to the chip, like more cores or cache. Instead, AMD may include some type of commemorative packaging or engraving on the chip. It's logical to assume there will be some type of certificate enclosed, perhaps signed by Lisa Su.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP	$329	$229
Cores/Threads	8/16	6/12
TDP	105W	95W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.6
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.2
Cache (L3)	16MB	16MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	95W Wraith Spire

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD has also released special edition chips in the past–the company released its Limited Edition Ryzen 7 2700 and Ryzen 5 2600X MAX bundles last year. Even though those chips, which come with a better Wraith Max cooler than the standard models, still haven't made their way to American shores, you can still find them for sale overseas.

AMD is clearly gearing up its 50th-anniversary celebration. Today the company posted an open invitation to the public to its Markham Open House event, which occurs on the company's 50th anniversary on May 1st. AMD has also created a special 50th Anniversary celebration page that touts its advances over the years, so we expect to hear much more from the company as it nears its anniversary.

On an interesting side note, Intel hosted a giveaway for 8,086 of its commemorative chips. AMD opened a "buyback program" for the winners of Intel's Core i7-8086K, instead offering a Threadripper 1950X in exchange. We aren't sure if AMD will also run a sweepstakes to give away the new 50th Anniversary Ryzen 7 2700X processors, but it is a possibility.

We've reached out to AMD for comment and will update as necessary.

Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi) Motherboard Review: High-Priced Excellence

Jacob Terkelsen — Sun, 07 Apr 2019 13:00:00 +0000

Intro and Product Description

Asus' Crosshair line is well respected as a premium platform for overclocking, benchmarking, and system stability. However, competitors are starting to learn a few things from Asus and that may make the X470 Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi) board we're looking at here less appealing for builders in the know. We’re going to open up this board's classic red-and-black box to see how well this flagship brand stands up in 2019. Can Asus justify the high asking price (about $285 when we wrote this), given the general value angle of the Ryzen platform in general and a plethora of (mostly lower-priced) competition?

Specifications

Socket	AM4
Chipset	AMD X470
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	10+2 Phases (5 doubled)
Video Ports	✗
USB Ports	10 Gbps: (1) Type-C, (3) Type A5Gb/s: (8) Type AUSB 2.0: (2) Type A
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet, (2) SMA Antenna
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital Out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	(1) BIOS Flashback, (1) Clear CMOS
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 x16/x0 or x8/x8(1) v2.0 x4x8 slot shared with M.2_2
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v2.0
CrossFire/SLI	4x / 4x
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe v3 x4 / SATA3 42/60/80/110mm(1*) PCIe v3 x4 42/60/80mm
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) USB3.1 Gen2(1) 5Gbps(2) USB2.0
Fan Headers	(8) 4-pin, (1) 3-pin W_FLOW, (2) 2-pin W_IN/OUT
Legacy Interfaces	(1) COM, (1) Speaker
Other Interfaces	(1) Thermal sensor, (2) RGB, (2) Addressable LED, (1) ROG Extension, (1) EXT Fan Header, (1) Front Panel Audio
Diagnostics Panel	Numeric
Internal Button/Switch	(1) Power-ON, (1) Reset, (1) Safe Boot, (1) ReTry, (1) Slow Mode Switch, (1) LN2 Mode
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/10)
Ethernet Controllers	Intel I211AT
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	Asus Wi-Fi GO! Module (2x2) / Bluetooth 4.2 / 3.0
USB Controllers	ASMedia USB 3.1 Gen 2 Controller
HD Audio Codec	ROG SupremeFX S1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / ✗
Warranty	3 Years

At a price of nearly $300 USD, the Asus Crosshair VII Hero Wifi has a lot to live up to for its top-shelf pedigree. The outer layer of the box presents a moderately stylized red and black theme like Asus’ Zenith and other Crosshair products, and opening the box focuses the builder to the beautiful PCB and ROG logo cleanly presented on the underside of the lid.

The contents of the box are slightly underwhelming, with access to Wi-Fi antenna, SLI bridge, four SATA cables, RGB and LED extenders along with documentation and Republic of Gamer adornments. And I won’t lie: I found the ROG coaster very useful for keeping my test bench dry from perspiring cans of Mountain Dew.

This Crosshair VII Hero Wifi comes with an integrated backplate for the rear IO, and the port selection looks more like it belongs in a high-end desktop (HEDT) X399 system. For USB connections, you get eight USB3.0 Type-A, two USB 3.1 Gen2 (one Type-A and one Type-C), and two USB2.0 ports. A PS/2 port accompanies the USB 2.0 ports for legacy input devices.

Network access is enabled via an RJ-45 port wired out to Intel's I211AT Gigabit Ethernet controller and two SMA (antenna) connectors routed to an included Wi-Fi GO! Module which provides a 2x2 antenna setup compatible with the 802.11 specifications up to AC. Asus’ SupremeFX S1220 audio codec is connected to one SPDI/F and five gold-plated analog outputs, which are illuminated in the back for easier port navigation in dark environments. Lastly, how sad would an overclocking motherboard be without buttons for BIOS Flashback and Clear CMOS? The Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero has you covered in that respect as well.

Removed from its packaging, the board presents very little color or visual adornment outside of the stylized and programmable LEDs in the heatsinks and rear IO shield. Sporting an all-black PCB, the board's angular accents do pop when the lighting is right. And there are a lot of ways to go when it comes to lighting: The board has access to two RGB, two addressable LED, and a ROG extension port to equip builders with various lighting and routing options for cables. Whatever lights you connect can be customized either through the UEFI or the Aura Sync program.

Speaking of cable management, there are an amazing eight 4-pin PWM headers spread out across the board for various pre-determined duties like water pumps, AIO connections, and traditional chassis fans. For the overclockers out there, there are also flow-rate headers for use with custom loop scenarios, for those who want to dial in flow rates for various cooling implementations.

AMD’s chipsets enable a modest amount of PCIe on board, and Asus delivers a great layout with only a few caveats regarding connectivity and slot sharing. The top x16 slot is wired for 16 lanes of PCIe Gen3 (so long as you install a Ryzen CPU that supports this as well) but the second slot can be used for either 8 lanes of PCIe Gen3 or equipping the second M.2 slot (located above the top x16 slot). That third x16 slot is wired out for four lanes of Gen2 PCIe and is ideal for capture cards or other high-bandwidth data devices. Besides that, two open-ended PCIe Gen2 x1 connectors are located between each of the x16 slots. Continuing the IO exploration, Asus includes an ASMedia USB3.1 Gen 2 controller for additional high-speed connections, while the board also supports one USB3.0 and two USB2.0 headers for additional ports in the front of your case, or around back.

Speaking of M.2, the Crosshair comes equipped with two M.2 slots which provide the full NVMe standard four lanes of PCIe Gen3. If that high-speed storage wasn’t enough, the standard six SATA3 ports provided by the X470 chipset support RAID 0/1/10 arrays. For RAM, four DIMM slots are provided, with single-latched DIMM connectors, and are rated up to DDR4-3600MHz. Though we do not test that speed in this review, we will be testing a few kits on this platform to see just how well memory scales at these ludicrous speeds.

Up to this point, this board sounds just like a standard X470 offering, but let's get to some of Asus' special sauce. Overclockers love buttons and Asus slaps on Power, Reset, Safe Boot, and ReTry buttons for easy power cycling and recovery of a system after a failed overclock. Also, Slow Mode and LN2 Mode switches are available to slow down boot speeds and enable additional voltage capability for extreme overclocking.

On the top-right side of the board, two seven-segment displays provide for POST code lookup to help diagnose boot errors. As an engineer, I sometimes doubt my software’s accuracy, and Asus gives probe points right next to the ATX power connector for connecting test equipment. Also, a thermal sensor header is located at the bottom of the board.

We’ll only briefly touch on it here, but the Asus X470 Crosshair VII sports an advertised 10+2 phase VReg design, though some might scrutinize that it is a doubled 5-phase design for the Vcore. Either way, Asus’ Digi+ design allows for highly tunable settings and accurate feedback to monitoring software. The Voltage regulator is cooled by a heat-piped heatsink across both banks of regulators, which sports a decent amount of material and serrations for additional surface area. On the frequency side, Asus provides an onboard reference clock generator that again helps stability while providing finer control for tweaking those last stable MHz out of an overclock.

So, what's not to like about the quintessential king of motherboard features? I would have preferred dual-hinged DIMM slots for that satisfying click that is starting to make its way back into higher end boards from other vendors. The EPS power connectors, located at the top-left of the board, are tightly squeezed around the voltage regulator heatsink. I would have preferred a little bit more breathing room for my test chassis. In a similar thread, do we really need the entire kitchen sink for a top tier board? Removing a few fan headers might allow for larger Reset or Clear buttons and might make manipulating the flow sensor or RGB headers a little more enjoyable. These are all very minor nitpicks and we think that Asus does an excellent job equipping builders and overclockers with the platform required to push these AMD processors to their limit.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Test Configuration and Benchmarks

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 399.24

For analysis today, we're throwing in our latest X470 flagship samples from Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI. We'll also throw in the Asus TUF-X470 board to show that standard performance only tells part of the story regarding high-end PC builds. Our X470 test platform has been around the block a few times and provides stable results across the board.

Synthetics, Applications, and Gaming

Our X470 data has been stable over time and this board’s synthetic results are not surprising. For PCMark, the Home suite hits the Crosshair for a last-place finish while the Adobe programs perform admirably with a 2nd place showing. Sandra Arithmetic places the Asus boards towards the back of the pack on average by a single percentage point, and Multimedia displays similar placing overall. With Cryptography, the Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 continues to inch ahead of all boards tested, and continues to stretch its lead with the Memory Bandwidth benchmark.

Cinebench does shake up the rankings though, with the Asus TUF taking 2nd place, bumping the Crosshair VII bumps up to third place. However, that short glimpse of glory is taken away by both the Gigabyte and MSI boards with Compubench with only notable wins in the Facedetect and the unrepresented Fluid 64k workload. Futuremark’s gaming synthetics begin to shed some light for the Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero with a 2nd and 3rd place win on the Skydiver and Firestrike Extreme, respectively.

Application benchmarks do give the Asus boards a reprieve since the MSI board had a hard time with performance anxiety. With Handbrake, the Crosshair lags on its 4k Sintel scene encode, and 7-zip shows a less extreme delay when compressing a large collection of ISOs and mp3 files in our 7.6GB folder. Blender does show all systems performing within seconds of each other, except for that pesky GPU render with the MSI Gaming M7 AC. Lastly, inspecting our PCMark Adobe suite results a bit more closely, the Asus boards finally get the chance to take 1st and 2nd place on average, and the Gigabyte board’s slip up with Illustrator really cripples its results here.

If you’ve read our previous Ryzen board reviews, you know we’re starting to see that all samples tested are beginning to perform within frames of each other, which make this data less exciting than it was at launch time. Regardless, with Ashes, we see the X470 Crosshair VII Hero take last place finishes, but only by less than 3 frames at 1080p and up to 5 frames at 4k. The data looks like everything is within the margin of error, so we’ll have to see how the board does with other games.

With F1 2015, the Crosshair performs slightly better at average framerates and 1080p, but at 4k the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 manages to pull ahead by 3-5 frames. Again, small margins are painting an overly negative image.

Given Metro Last Light’s frame stuttering at lower frame rates, we are scrapping the minimum and maximum framerates from our performance calculations today. With that said, the Crosshair VII stays within frames of the average at 1080p High and does pull to second place at 1080p Very High settings. 4k shows promising results at both High and Very High detail settings for the Asus flagship, with the largest gap being only 2.7 frames.

If you frequent the Humble Bundle, The Talos Principle is regularly available for a low cost and provides an interesting and fluid puzzle solving experience for this processor and graphics card combination. The Full-HD resolution observation of the Asus boards lagging by nearly 4 frames at either detail setting does tighten up with the increased graphical load, but even then, we’re talking 200+ frames per second at Medium presets. 144Hz panels will have no problem at 4k and Ultra settings.

Overall, the Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero Wifi performs as expected compared to all the boards in the lineup today, nearly hitting exactly average performance. Its TUF brother shows even better cumulative performance with all things considered, but the star of the show is the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7. It just goes to show you that the X470 roll out was MUCH smoother than our X370 experience, since our recent tests are still well within the margin of error of our X470 launch article.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Power, Thermals, and Overclocking

As important as the product spec sheet and all the features that are bundled into a product are, it's safe to say that power, efficiency, and overclocking show how well a brand can compete in various product classes. All three flagship boards perform similarly at idle, full CPU, and full GPU load with deltas ranging between 10 and 11 watts for each category. Only when factoring in Full System load (100% CPU and 100% GPU) can we start to see some operating system, firmware, and power control software beginning to step in to regulate things.

The Asus X470 Crosshair remains competitive here, performing with a less than one percent gap from the average. We don’t present the additional chart, but if we removed the full system load values, we would see the Crosshair VII take top prize in efficiency, which might be better considering its CPU-focused overclocking lineage.

As a precursor to our overclocking segment, let’s set the stage for the capabilities of this motherboard. The voltage regulator (also known as VRM) designs of Asus boards are well known as being robust. For our testing today, running at Prime95 for thirty minutes at stock conditions, the Asus’ processor Tdie temperature ramps up to the highest reported value from these boards (when looking at HWiNFO64 sensor data). That might sound bad, but it really is not an issue for Ryzen 2 or any processor going into this board. However, looking at the VERM temperatures (as reported by HWiNFO64) we see the second-best temperatures as a result of what appears to be a modest heatsink design.

Now let’s bump it up to 11. For now, we’ll only compare the MSI X470 M7 AC and the Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero’s maximum short-term overclock (ie, the highest data we’ve collected). Our VRM MOSFET (in black) shows that both boards are reporting within a few degrees of each other at this maximum condition. The blue line shows that the reported Tdie from HWiNFO are hitting our “safe” threshold of around 85C. There are still the important factors of voltage and frequency, which prohibits us from comparing these temperatures directly. But we do have an observation on the reported current. On the Asus board, we see a very small variance in the output current, roughly 2-5 Amps max. On the MSI board, meanwhile, we see swings of up to 10 Amps of current! If all things are created equal, the Asus board could have a much more stable power delivery, which helps enhance confidence on what UEFI settings translate into actual physical conditions. In conjunction with the probe points, the ability to observe these variables becomes invaluable for the X470 Crosshair VII Hero.

After carefully looking at our voltage regulator performance, it is clear that the Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero board is capable of impressive overclocks. Without adjusting the voltage, we easily ran Prime95 to an impressive 4.2GHz for short durations, but cross the line of both our voltage and temperature safe conditions. Manually dialing in a maximum safe voltage of 1.3875, the system eventually crashes at the aggressive frequency target. Dialing back to 4175MHz ensures both safe voltages and temperatures for our full eight-hour test run.

Another impressive feat: our Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3466 RAM hits a respectable 3333MHz when all slots are populated. With a little bit of tuning and reducing the amount of DIMMs installed, we expect to run the XMP settings with minimal adjustment to the system settings.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Value and Conclusion

From a raw performance perspective, the Asus X470 Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi) performs just as good as other offerings today, but does so at a higher cost. When comparing true flagship motherboards, the Asus board comes with a 22-percent price delta compared to the Gigabyte board. Peeling back the onion a bit, raw overclocking capabilities start to show a higher “value” proposition for the Asus board, meaning higher overclocks are capable with arguably safer tmps and voltages, or higher efficiency under extreme load conditions.

The overclocking experience was a bit more straightforward when compared to the competing Gigabyte board. But the MSI board was the easiest, with very little effort. But it’s hard to argue that big names in overclocking continue to choose (or are supplied with) the Asus brand for a reason: They perform well when it comes to pushing systems up to and beyond their limits.

The non-Wi-Fi version of this board costs about $20 less, making it a stronger competitor, especially against the MSI board. However, the Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 can still perform at similar mainstream overclocking conditions on both the core and memory, so the true value only comes from extreme use cases. After testing this board, we'd say the Asus name and ROG brand still represent quality and overclocking performance. But other vendors are inching closer to overclocking enthusiast excellence, and at lower costs.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Biostar Racing B450GT3 Micro ATX Motherboard Review: Giant Value

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 13:00:00 +0000

Features and Layout

Value is often a driving force for AMD buyers, which motivated us to check out the Racing B450GT3 from Biostar. After building a test system around it and putting it through our test suite, we came away mostly impressed. But be warned: Pricing, likely influenced by limited stock, fluctuated wildly at various outlets as we were testing and writing.

If you can find this board for under $100, where it seemed to settle when we were wrapping up this review, it's a good deal. But if it's priced significantly higher when you read this, you should probably look elsewhere, or wait for the price to swing back down.

Specifications

Socket	AM4
Chipset	AMD B450
Form Factor	Micro ATX
Voltage Regulator	6 Phases
Video Ports	VGA, DVI-D, HDMI
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type A5Gb/s: (2) Type A, (2) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(6) Analog
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16, Raven Ridge at x8), (1) v2.0 (x4)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v2.0
CrossFire/SLI	2x / x
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4* / SATA(*Excludes SATA pts 1/2)
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) v3.0, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(3) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	Serial Com Port, System (Beep-code) Speaker
Other Interfaces	SPDIF-Out, FP-Audio, (2) RGB-LED
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / Dual BIOS Selector
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	RTL8118AS PCIe
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	ALC1150
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / ✗
Warranty	3 Years

AMD’s AM4 socket supports a PCIe 3.0 x16 graphics card plus a NVMe SSD without considering chipset features, so the step down from X470 to B450 is a small one. AMD doesn’t let B450 boards split the CPU’s x16 group across two slots as seen on the X470, but this technology (called CPU Bifurcation) is hardly an issue for most people, who will only install one graphics card. The lack of CPU PCIe bifurcation could be more of an annoyance to those who’d like to install a PCIe x8 storage card, but those buyers aren’t a large part of the budget motherboard market, either.

The CPU’s PCIe x4 storage interface, on the other hand, can split, and in the B450GT3’s case this means that half of the lanes to the M.2 slot must be disabled to activate two (of the six) SATA ports. Understanding this, Biostar shoves those two ports under its bottom (four-lane) x16-legth slot, which should help to encourage performance-minded value seekers to put a PCIe NVMe card there. That is, after all, the easiest way to mount to NVMe drives on a board that only has one M.2 interface.

That bottom slot isn’t always x4 either, however, since the two PCIe x1 slots steal lanes from it whenever a card is detected. The three rectangular ICs seen around the top and back of the M.2 connector are responsible for detecting and switching pathways for M.2 to SATA and PCIe x4 to x1 slot enablement.

In addition to the two previously-mentioned SATA ports, the bottom edge includes connectors for front-panel audio, a SPDIF output adapter, two four-pin (three-pin compatible) fans, a switch for dual-firmware IC selection, a legacy COM port, two dual-port USB 2.0 front-panel cables, a USB 3.0 front-panel cable, a PC speaker, and an Intel-style front-panel button/LED connector group. Though most users will not likely need the bottom two SATA ports, those hoping to put a graphics card in the bottom slot may lose access to the front-panel USB 3.0 port if their graphics cooler is longer than 7.5 inches (19.01cm).

Panning out reveals that our greatest concern about this board’s value to budget-minded enthusiasts isn’t its chipset, but its six-phase voltage regulator. The previously tested Racing X470GT8 offered twice the phase count. The B450GT3 has the same number of RGB headers (two) near the upper front corner however. For those paying close attention, the third four-pin connector above the RGB headers is undocumented.

Both of the chipset’s 10Gb/s USB 3.1 ports are located on the back panel, with no Gen2 front-panel connector available on the board. The I/O panel also has a pair of USB 2.0 ports for your keyboard and mouse, a pair of USB 3.1 Gen1 (aka USB 3.0) ports, a PS/2 port for those who prefer an ancient keyboard or mouse, integrated graphics outputs via 15-pin D-sub, DVI-D and HDMI, onboard 7.1-channel audio via up to four of the six stereo minijacks, and the Gigabit Ethernet port.

The Racing B450GT3’s modest accessory kit includes a user’s manual, I/O shield, four SATA cables, and a driver/application disc.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software and Firmware

Biostar simplifies its software interface by launching most controls from its Racing GT Evo utility. Part of that simplicity lies in the software’s limited functionality, though a separate volume booster for the front-panel headphone jack is a nice touch.

RGB control breaks down into four monochromatic patterns, which makes sense when you see that all seven LED’s are located between expansion slots and the board’s rear edge, and all are controlled as a single channel.

CPU overclocking is limited to multiplier and core voltage offset.

Biostar’s eHot-Line utility sends your S.O.S. messages directly to its support hotline, though you’ll need a working email client to receive the replies.

The only other included utility, BIOScreen, is supposed to let you create a custom startup image / logo from your own image. But the utility crashed before I could get a screenshot. An additional utility, Fly.net network optimization, is available from the board’s support page.

Firmware

The B450GT3’s easiest overclocks are accomplished via its O.N.E. menu, where we reached our CPU’s 4.30 GHz setting at 1.40V CPU core. Core voltage isn’t adjustable as a fixed value however, and the board lacks Biostar’s Load-Line Calibration control to reduce the amount by which core voltage drops under heavy software loads. With core voltage changes limited to offset mode, choosing +0.200V (200mV) over stock allowed CPU core voltage to reach 1.40V idle, 1.33V under Prime95’s small-FFTs.

The B450GT3 also pushed our DDR4-2933 C17 memory up to DDR4-3333 at 20-21-21-42 timings. The DDR Memory Voltage adjustment of +0.120V brought us a measured 1.354V at the DIMM slots.

We didn’t find a bunch of memory controls under the AMD’s CBS menu options, so we’ll refer any tweaking discussions to our previous paragraph. There may not be many controls, but the few provided gave us solid results.

Fan and LED controls are available through popup menus using a keyboard’s F5 or F6 keys. Custom fan slopes can be configured as with competing boards, but LED lighting schemes are limited to monochromatic on/off patterns. Don’t expect any cascading effects or rainbow waves here.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We’re comparing Biostar’s Racing B450GT3 to the other five boards tested at this lab, including the retested Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi of Jacob Terkelsen’s original review. Here’s how the other boards compare for overclocking features:

Comparison Products

Biostar Racing B450GT3

ASRock Fatal1ty B450 Gaming-ITX/ac

Biostar Racing X470GT8

While we can see that several of the B450GT3’s voltage controls offer only offset modes, and many of those are in large increments, our overclocking chart will show how much—or how little—those restrictions impacted our results.

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated gigabit networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 399.24

Our classic test platform continues its duty for B470 as it has for Z390, X470, and X299 before it. Apart from not supporting the larger TR4 package, these top-performing components are CPU-agnostic.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
*Ashes of the Singularity*	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920 x 1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920 x 1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
*F1 2015*	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi track, RainMedium Preset, no AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
*Metro: Last Light Redux*	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920 x 1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920 x 1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
*The Talos Principle*	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results and Final Analysis

We take great efforts to make sure every board is benchmarked under the same CPU and DRAM conditions, including the disabling of any automatic overclock, enabling of power-saving features, and reliance on our DRAM’s DDR4-2400 SPD values. Overclock settings and XMP use are limited to our overclocking section.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Our efforts to normalize testing pay off in virtually flat results across our synthetic tests, where the biggest difference seen is in the Fatal1ty B450 Gaming ITX/ac’s memory bandwidth. That difference is likely due to optimizations in advanced memory timings, which we leave set to “automatic” mode.

3D Games

The ITX board’s better memory performance appears to pay off in slightly higher FPS in our lower Ashes test settings but strangely, not in the F1 2015 settings we normally rely upon to illustrate memory performance differentiation. The Racing B450GT3 wins there, but only by a trivial amount, and its Talos “High Quality” results are low enough to effectively crush any gains it would show in performance averages.

Timed Applications

The only things that really stand out in our timed workloads are the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi’s longer MS Word and shorter PowerPoint executions. And even those differences are opposite enough to effectively cancel each other out of performance averages.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

Biostar’s Racing B450GT3 scales back to 3.70GHz under Prime95 small-FFTs, and while that didn’t show up as a performance deficit, it will give the board a lead in efficiency.

We began scanning our voltage regulators for hot spots after testing all the others, so our Voltage Regulator temperatures should be taken with a grain of salt. The average temperature at the place where we used to put our thermistor was approximately 21° lower than the peak temperature shown, which makes this at least the second hottest board even when using the old test method.

The B450GT3’s performance level was 0.4 percent above-average, which isn’t much to talk about, but its power throttling brought average power readings to 11.2 percent below-average for a 13.1 percent efficiency gain. We would have loved to have disabled B450GT3 throttling altogether to make this chart fair, but its voltage regulator was so hot at stock settings that we may have damaged the board before concluding these tests.

Overclocking

Adding a 58CFM fan over the voltage regulator of every board during our O/C tests, the above-mentioned issue vanishes to allow full stress testing at 4.30 GHz. The two boards that got us there were both Biostar products, the Racing B450GT3 and X470GT8.

While the X470GT8 was tested long ago with older firmware that didn’t respond well to our DRAM overclocking efforts, the B450GT3 pushed our DRAM to the board’s DDR4-3333 setting. Other boards went a notch or two higher to DDR4-3466 or DDR4-3600, and the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi even held a stable DDR4-3733 setting with all four modules installed.

Performance gain is the impetus for overclocking, and the Racing B450GT3’s four-DIMM results exceed those of the pricier X470 Taichi Ultimate. This was the X470GT8’s sole shortcoming, and while it may have been addressed post-review, giving every board a second test would severely cut down on the number of reviews we could produce.

Final Thoughts

The Biostar Racing B450GT3 is a nice, solid board that’s a little light on features and really needs a fan over the voltage regulator to get the impressive overclocking results its technically capable of. Since we always use a voltage regulator fan when overclocking, that wasn’t a major test concern. But if you’re looking to replicate our results, know that a fan is necessary.

The biggest remaining concern is availability and its impact on pricing: We’ve seen the full ATX X470GT8 for as little as $154, and when we started this review the Micro ATX Racing B450GT3 sold for roughly the same price. As we considered that the X470GT8 is in a far higher feature class and that Micro ATX is supposed to be cheaper than ATX, we were’n’t too surprised to see the B450TGT3’s price drop below $100. That’s low enough to give it a win, regardless of how light its feature set is. But we’d only opt for this board if its price stays close to the $100 mark. Much more than that, and you can find more robust options in the X470 realm.

Want to comment on this story? Let us know what you think in the Tom's Hardware Forums.

MORE: Best Motherboards

Intel Comet Lake CPUs: Rumors, Release Date, All We Know

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Photo Credits: Tom's Hardware

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K: Which CPU Is Better?

Kevin Carbotte — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 15:28:00 +0000

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K

Both AMD and Intel have compelling consumer CPU platforms. In a previous article, we compared AMD’s second-generation Ryzen against Intel’s new 9th generation Core processors to see which platform deserves to capture your hard-earned money. Looking at the company lineups as a whole, we concluded that the Intel Core i9-9900K is the fastest consumer-class CPU available for almost anything, although the CPU Benchmarks hierarchy has changed quite a bit since then.

However, many people—even enthusiast gamers—can’t justify spending $499 (£432.59) on their processor. Presumably, most people shopping for a higher-end consumer CPU would be more inclined to consider a less-expensive option than a Core i9-9900K, like Intel’s Core i7-9700K or AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X.

To help you choose, we put the two popular processors through a seven-round face-off, based on their features, overclocking, coolers, motherboards, performance and value.

Features

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is an eight-core 16-thread 3.7GHz processor, with a top stock Precision Boost speed of 4.3GHz and a 105W TDP. It is AMD’s top-of-the-line Ryzen processor -- at least until the Ryzen 3000 CPUs arrive with a new Zen 2 architecture, reportedly later in 2019.

AMD’s second-generations Zen architecture features support for DDR4-2933 memory, whereas first-generation Ryzen platform officially supports DDR4-2667. The new architecture also includes improvements to AMD’s SensMI suite, which dynamically adjusts the performance of the CPU to ensure maximum performance efficiency.

SenseMI consists of five components: Pure Power monitors temperatures, voltages and currents, and adjusts the power delivery in real time to limit power usage; Precision Boost dynamically adjusts the CPU’s frequency in 25MHz increments to match the performance needs of the current task; XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) works with Precision Boost to unlock a higher clock ceiling if ample cooling is detected.

The Ryzen 7 2700X features AMD’s second-generation Precision Boost 2, which can address core clocks individually, and it includes XFR2 technology, which now unlocks up to 7 percent more headroom.

	Intel Core i7-9700K	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Architecture	Coffee Lake	Zen+
Socket	1151	AM4
Cores / Threads	8/8	8/16
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.6	3.7
Boost Frequency(Active Cores - GHz)	1 Core - 4.92 Cores - 4.84 Cores - 4.78 Cores - 4.6	4.3GHz
L3 Cache	12MB	16MB
Process	14nm++	12nm
TDP	95W	105W
Memory Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2933 (single rank)DDR4-2677 (dual rank)
Memory Controller	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel
Integrated UHD Graphics GT2(Base/Boost MHz)	350 / 1200	no iGPU
Recommended Customer Pricing	$374 - $385	$329

After trailing AMD's eight-core 16-thread Ryzen CPUs in core count for a couple of generations, Intel gave its Core i7 and Core i9 9th generation CPUs the same eight physical cores. Unfortunately, the new Core i7-9700K doesn't support Hyper-threading (that technology went to the new i9-9900K only), which means that it has half as many threads as its AMD competitor.

The Core i7-9700K features a base frequency of 3.6 GHz, which can reach a boost clock of 4.9GHz in single threaded applications, 4.8GHz across two cores, or 4.7GHz across four cores, and 4.6GHz on all eight cores. Intel’s 9th Generation Core architecture supports DDR4-2666 memory speeds, which is somewhat lower than the new Ryzen platform. Although, you should have no trouble running much faster memory. We ran DDR4-3466 for our i7-9700K review.

	Base	1 Core	2 Cores	3 Cores	4 Cores	5 Cores	6 Cores	7 Cores	8 Cores
Core i7-9700K (GHz)	3.6	4.9	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6
Ryzen 7 2700X (GHz)	3.7	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3

Intel’s 9th generation Core processors now also feature solder-based thermal interface material (STIM), which in theory should improve heat dissipation. The improved thermal interface doesn’t enable much extra headroom for overclocking, but it allowed Intel to add two extra cores without deploying a smaller manufacturing process. These new chips are built on the same 14nm++ manufacturing process as the 8th generation CPUs.

Winner: AMD. In a matchup between the Core i7-9700K and the Ryzen 7 2700X, we have to give AMD the slight edge because both platforms offer dynamic core clock adjustments, but Ryzen features eight cores and 16 threads, whereas Intel’s i7 doesn’t offer thread doubling like AMD.

Motherboard Options

Intel’s 9th generation Core processors share the Intel 300-Series chipsets with the 8th generation processors, which means you have several possible motherboard options to pair with a Core i7-9700K.

Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming

Intel’s H310 is the company’s budget-class 300-series chipset. It technically supports the top-tier Core i9-9900K, but it forgoes features such as Optane memory support, PCIe 3.0, and more than two DIMMs for memory to keep the costs down. The Intel B360 (and iterative B365), H370 and Q370 chipsets offer varying features for different situations, but you shouldn’t even consider those options with the Core i7-9700K, because none of them let you overclock.

Intel doesn’t allow you to overclock your processor unless you have a motherboard equipped with one of Intel’s top-tier Z-series chipsets. The Z370 (with the latest BIOS installed) supports the new Core i7-9700K, but the new Z390 chipset offers additional features such as native USB 3.1 Gen2 ports and integrated Wireless-AC 2x2 160 MHz WiFi hardware.

AMD also offers a wide selection of chipset options for different use cases. The A300 and A330 chipsets are meant for budget-minded consumers who require just the bare minimum. The B350 and B450 chipsets are performance-oriented options that don’t support multi-GPU configurations. And the X370 and X470 are the high-performance options with all the bells and whistles, including support for dual-graphics card configurations.

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate

AMD doesn’t limit overclocking to the top-of-the-line hardware, though. Every Ryzen processor comes unlocked from the factory, and you can overclock them with any motherboard with any chipset, save the lowest-end A320. However, we wouldn’t expect to see the same kind of performance gains as you would with an enthusiast-grade X470 motherboard.

Winner: AMD offers the better platform for motherboard choice. Intel’s options are restrictive and somewhat elitist, which arbitrarily raises the entry costs for Intel-based setups.

MORE: AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel 9th Gen Core: Which CPU Deserves Your Money?

MORE: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2 vs. Intel Skylake-X: Battle of the High-End CPUs

Overclocking Potential

Intel and AMD both support overclocking, but each company has a different philosophy about the practice. All AMD Ryzen processors come unlocked from the factory, which means you can take the cheapest Ryzen CPU and push it to new limits. Intel, on the other hand, restricts overclocking to the expensive K-variants of its CPU lineup.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X features a base frequency of 3.7 GHz, and we managed to get another 500MHz out of our sample before hitting the voltage limitations. Intel’s Core i7-9700K starts at a lower base frequency of 3.6GHz, but it’s not uncommon to hit 5GHz or more on all eight cores.

More importantly, overclocking an Intel CPU nets a substantial performance increase in most tasks, whereas overclocking a Ryzen CPU doesn't offer much in the way of noticeable performance gains because AMD's Precision Boost 2 technology already dynamically pushes the CPU to its performance limits, provided you have a capable motherboard and cooler.

Winner: Intel. With higher maximum clock speeds and more performance gains, an Intel Core i7-9700K offers better overlocking potential.

Cooling Solutions

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X includes the company’s top-of-the-line “AMD Wraith Prism cooler, which features four copper heat pipes and a downward firing fan. The Wraith Prism also offers two modes; “L” mode is rated for 116w and operates at 2,800 rpm, and “H” mode can dissipate 124w of heat and operates at 3,600 rpm. And for the RGB fans out there, the Wraith Prism also features three RGB zones which you can control independently.

The Wraith Prism isn’t the most powerful cooler available, but it certainly gets the job done. In our tests, the cooler kept all eight cores of the Ryzen 7 2700X below 83 degrees Celsius even under our most extreme load tests. Most workloads don’t push your CPU to its limits like our stress tests, so you would likely see somewhat lower average temperatures. You could even manage a moderate overclock on the stock cooler.

AMD Wraith Prism Cooler

However, the Wraith Prism’s performance comes at the expense of sound. AMD said the cooler should produce approximately 39dB of noise, which is true at idle. But under full load, we recorded 44dB coming from the bundled heat sink solution.

The extra noise that the Wraith Prism produces isn’t enough to knock it off the podium in this matchup, though. Intel doesn’t even offer a stock cooler for the Core i7-9700K, which means you must factor in the cost of a cooler when budgeting.

Winner: AMD, without question. Although, you should consider an aftermarket cooler if you wish to overclock your CPU to its fullest.

Gaming Performance

If raw gaming performance is what you’re after, the choice is abundantly clear: Intel’s Core i7-9700K tramples the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X in almost every game we tested. And in several cases, the i7 with stock clock speeds outpaced our overclocked Ryzen 7.

We previously named the Core i9-9900K the fastest gaming CPU we’ve ever tested. But the Core i7-9700K provided essentially the same performance in our latest round of gaming performance tests. The new i7 squeezed out an extra frame or two per seconds in Hitman, Grand Theft Auto V and Civilization V.Project Cars 2 and Ashes of the Singularity are the only games in our test suite that favor the i9’s extra logical threads.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is no slouch when it comes to gaming performance, but the Ryzen CPU doesn’t compete on the same level as Intel’s latest offerings. In fact, Intel’s Core i5-9600K often outperforms the Ryzen 7 2700X in our game lineup.

That said, the Ryzen 7 2700X still falls within the upper range of the best gaming CPUs that we’ve tested over the years. And keep in mind that once you start raising your gaming resolutions above 1080p resolution, these performance difference tend to shrink as the GPU becomes the bottleneck. When gaming at 4K resolution with the same high-end graphics card, frame rates between the Intel and AMD CPUs here tends to be about the same.

Winner: Intel. Intel’s Core i7-9700K is the best overall gaming CPU. The i9-9900K may outperform it in some cases, but the extra costs overshadow the small performance delta. AMD’s CPUs aren't as competitive at the highest level of gaming performance.

Productivity Performance

The battle between Intel’s Core i7-9700K and AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X gets much more interesting when you factor productivity into the equation. AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is better at certain tasks, such as rendering with Cinebench and Blender and compressing files with 7-Zip. However, some tasks, such as encoding with Lame or Handbrake, run faster on Intel’s Core i7-9700K.

Intel’s latest CPUs also favor Adobe’s Creative Cloud suite by a considerable margin.

Winner: Tie. Both Intel’s Core i7-9700K and AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X offer ample performance for day-to-day productivity work. AMD's higher number of threads give it in the advantage in some applications, while Intel's higher clock speeds help in others.

Value Proposition

While its true that Intel’s Core i7-9700K offers more raw performance than AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X, AMD’s chip offers the better value overall because of its dramatically lower price. When you factor in the cost of a motherboard and cooler, a PC based on Intel’s Core i7-9700K can easily cost $130 more than a system equipped with an AMD Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99). For most consumers, the extra performance you get with the i7-9700K isn't worth the money.

Intel’s Core i7-9700K currently carries an MSRP of $385 (if you can find one), but these chips are in short supply and are currently selling for closer to $420 (£499 in the UK) and you need a Z370 or Z390 motherboard to go with it to unlock the CPU’s true potential.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is much cheaper, and these CPUs have been available for a while, so you shouldn’t have trouble getting one at a reasonable price. At press time, we found the 2700X selling for as low as $295 in the U.S. and £295.99 in the UK. What’s more, AMD’s decision to enable overclocking on most chipsets means that you can pick up a compatible motherboard for well under $100, or £80. We even found a couple of B350 boards for under $60 in the U.S. and under £50 in the UK. You can expect to pay $100 and up for a Z370 motherboard in the U.S. and usually more than £90 in the UK.

Winner: AMD. The Ryzen 7 2700X offers much better performance for the money, especially when you factor in the cost of a cooler and motherboard.

The Bottom Line

Intel’s Core i7-9700K excels in two areas that AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X can’t touch: raw gaming performance in games and overclocking potential. If you’re after the absolute highest frame rates in your games, then the choice is clear: The i7-9700K is stronger in most games than a Ryzen 7 2700X. And if eking out the most performance by overclocking is important, you should stick with Intel's platform.

AMD Ryze 7

However, Intel’s hardware comes with a hefty price premium. Not only is the CPU quite a bit more expensive than AMD’s option, the Z370 and Z390 motherboards that you need for overclocking are also costlier than AMD’s alternatives. And to top it off, you also need an aftermarket cooler for the i7 processor, which widens the price gap even further. And, as of this writing, Intel’s new processors are in short supply, so if you manage to find one, you’ll probably pay significantly more than the MSRP for it.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is a much more reasonable option for most people. With its eight cores and 16 threads, it should have no trouble crunching through any task you throw at it, including video rendering, audio encoding, image editing, file compression and modern gaming. Intel’s chip is faster in some tasks, but we’d rather run AMD’s platform and spend the extra $100 (£80) or more on other components than brag about a few extra FPS in our favorite games.

Overall Winner: AMD

Round	Intel Core i7-9700K	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Features		✗
Overclocking	✗
Stock Coolers		✗
Motherboards		✗
Gaming Performance	✗
Productivity Performance	✗	✗
Value		✗
Total	3	5

While AMD's current flagship Ryzen chip definitively wins this battle, those who don't need to build or buy a new system now might want to wait and see what both Intel and AMD have up their respective silicon sleeves later in 2019. To get caught up on the next round of the seemingly unending CPU battle, check out the following features:

AMD Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs: Rumors, Release Date, All We Know About Ryzen 3

MORE:AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel Coffee Lake: What's the Best CPU Platform?

MORE: AMD vs. Intel: Which PC Build is Better for Under $500

MORE: CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i7-9700K

Intel Core i9-9900KF Review: Disabled Graphics and No Discount

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:00:00 +0000

No Graphics and No Discount

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Core i9-9900KF marks a shift in Intel's strategy as the company begins selling processors with disabled graphics engines for the first time. The -9900KF isn't really new at all, though. Rather, it features the same 8C/16T configuration as Intel's celebrated Core i9-9900K. Aside from the lack of on-die graphics, both chips should be otherwise identical.

That's good news for the -9900KF because Core i9-9900K is a winner. It barreled onto the scene last year to become Intel's highest core count model for mainstream platforms. Armed with eight cores and 16 threads, Core i9-9900K established itself as the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested.

But despite impressive performance, Intel can't keep its most popular CPUs on store shelves. The company is grappling with a production shortage of 14nm parts due to record demand and painful setbacks delaying its 10nm process. As a result, many models are marked up severely or simply unavailable.

Surprisingly, Intel decided to boost output by selling new F-series processors with disabled on-die graphics engines. These CPUs suffered defects during manufacturing that would have rendered their graphics subsystems unusable. In the face of a severe shortage, however, Intel figured out how to boost production by resurrecting chips that would have otherwise been considered defective.

Now, you'd expect to pay less for a CPU with fewer features. But Intel assigns its F-series models the same MSRP as existing processors with functional graphics. This gives vendors the green light to charge premium prices for handicapped chips, which is exactly what's going on. The Core i9-9900KF isn't widely available on Newegg or Amazon. However, when you do find it available for preorder on sites like B&H Photo, the processor oddly commands a ~$55 premium over Intel's standard -9900K.

Core i9-9900K (Left), Core i9-9900KF (Right)

Intel isn't sampling the Core i9-9900KF to press. Fortunately, we were able to borrow one from extreme overclocker Allen "Splave" Golibersuch for review. Splave lapped the chip, meaning he thinned the integrated heat spreader by sanding it down, to improve thermal transfer efficiency. Otherwise, as you can see in the picture above, both models are physically identical.

As far as we can tell, the only reason to buy a -9900KF is immediate availability when you see it in stock. Otherwise, the chip offers nearly the same performance as Intel's graphics-equipped Core i9-9900K, meaning it serves up the best performance you can get on a mainstream desktop. Just be ready to pay an exorbitant price tag for the CPU, a beefy motherboard, high-end cooling, and a capable PSU.

Intel Core i9-9900KF

We covered the Core i9-9900K in our original review, so head there for deeper analysis of its architecture. Just like that CPU, the -9900KF is manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ node. It sports an unlocked ratio multiplier (denoted by the "K" suffix) for easy overclocking and support for up to 128GB of dual-channel DDR4-2666 memory. The new "F" suffix indicates that this is a graphics-disabled part.

	Core i9-9900KF	Core i9-9900K	Core i7-9700K	Core i5-9600K
Architecture	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake
Socket	1151	1151	1151	1151
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	8 / 16	8 / 8	6 / 6
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.6	3.6	3.6	3.7
Boost Frequency ( Active Cores - GHz)	1-2 Cores - 5.04 Cores - 4.8 8 Cores - 4.7	1-2 Cores - 5.04 Cores - 4.8 8 Cores - 4.7	1 Core - 4.92 Core 4.8 4 Core 4.78 Core 4.6	1 Core - 4.62 Core - 4.54 Core 4.46 Core 4.3
L3 Cache	16MB	16MB	12MB	9MB
Process	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++
TDP	95W	95W	95W	95W
Memory Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666
Memory Controller	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel
PCIe Lanes	x16	x16	x16	x16
Integrated UHD Graphics GT2 (Base/Boost MHz)	No Graphics	350 / 1200	350 / 1200	350 / 1150
Recommended Customer Pricing	$488 - $499	$488 - $499	$374 - $385	$262 - $263

As mentioned, the Core i9-9900KF lacks an integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine, which Intel marks prominently on its packaging. That's fine by us, since Intel's on-die graphics subsystems are notoriously unfit for even mid-level gaming. But just be sure your build includes an add-in GPU before spending money on the Core i9-9900KF.

	Base	1 Core	2 Cores	3 Cores	4 Cores	5 Cores	6 Cores	7 Cores	8 Cores
Core i9-9900KF (GHz)	3.6	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7
Core i9-9900K (GHz)	3.6	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7
Core i7-9700K (GHz)	3.6	4.9	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6

The -9900KF comes with enthusiast-pleasing solder-based thermal interface material, which improves the chip's ability to dissipate thermal energy and augment overclocking. Better heat dissipation also facilitates the same impressive multi-core Turbo Boost clock rates as Core i9-9900K. Both models stretch up to 5.0 GHz when two cores are active. These high clock rates extend Intel's advantage in lightly-threaded tasks like gaming. Meanwhile, the extra cores help Intel compete against Ryzen in more taxing workloads.

As expected, the -9900KF's cores are accompanied by 16MB of L3 cache. The -9900KF drops into existing 300-series motherboards after a BIOS update, though Intel's partners also have a slew of Z390 motherboards available, which you can see here. The Core i9 models draw enough power to make VRM selection an important factor in your motherboard purchase, especially if you plan on overclocking. Luckily, most high-end Z390 motherboards already employ beefier power circuitry than the Z370 models.

Plan on buying a beefy cooler for Core i9-9900KF, too. The eight-core die hides beneath the same heat spreader used on previous-gen six-core models, meaning that even with Solder TIM, thermal density presents challenges. Intel's official spec sheet lists a 130W cooler as the entry-level solution. If you plan on tuning, open- or closed-loop liquid cooling is a must. Even then, thermal output could be what limits your overclock.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking and Test Setup

Overclocking

We originally used a Corsair H115i v2 cooler to test Core i9-9900K, but encountered thermal limitations that restricted our overclocking efforts. For this round, we used a custom watercooling loop with an EKWB Supremacy Evo waterblock paired with a 360mm radiator to remove thermal limitations from the equation.

With the standard Core i9-9900K, this facilitated a slightly higher 1.35V Vcore that allowed us to run the processor at an all-core 5.0 GHz overclock without an AVX offset, registering slight gains over our previous 4.8 GHz AVX offset. The beefier cooling solution kept the chip at a steady 82°C during extended AVX stress testing, so thermal output was not a limiting factor. Instead, prodigious amounts of extra voltage didn't prove stable at higher clock rates, meaning we simply reached the processor's limits.

As mentioned on the previous page, Intel didn't sample Core i9-9900KF to press. Instead, we sourced a chip from our resident extreme overclocker Allen "Splave" Golibersuch. Splave lapped the processor, meaning he sanded down the integrated heat spreader to reduce its thickness before testing. As with any lapped processor, improved thermal performance enables higher overclocking potential, but unfortunately also makes apples-to-apples comparisons with retail CPUs impossible.

(Image credit: Splave)

We encountered problems measuring power consumption through familiar software utilities. It appears that they aren't yet optimized for Intel's new configuration. We're troubleshooting this issue and speaking with ISVs to find a solution, but we don't expect significant changes compared to the figures we recorded from Intel's Core i9-9900K.

As such, we can't really report definitive thermal or overclocking comparisons between the two chips. Splave did bin a relatively large sample set of 200 Core i9-9900Ks against a smaller pool of five Core i9-9900KFs, and found that a larger percentage of KF models binned to higher frequencies. That anecdotal evidence suggests that Core i9-9900KF could be attractive to overclockers chasing the top overclocking records.

Our Core i9-9900KF is a cherry piece of silicon, though. We were able to attain an all-core 5.242 GHz overclock with no AVX offset and a 1.37V Vcore setting. Paired with our custom loop, the chip hovered at an outstanding 71°C during extended AVX stress testing, highlighting the combined benefits of the -9900KF's solder TIM and the lapped IHS.

MEG Z390 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform for all Intel processors. This pricey board retails for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

(Image credit: MSI)

The MEG Z390 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy. It has a decked-out 18-phase power delivery subsystem that's designed to squeeze every drop of performance out of Intel's new processors. It also comes with a few nifty accessories like an M.2 PCIe riser card and an HDMI streaming card.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i5-9600K

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900KF i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933All SystemsEVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	U.S.Corsair H115iCustom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, 360mm radiator

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark, AotS: Escalation, Civilization VI and Warhammer 40K

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The DX11 and DX12 CPU test results show the Core i9-9900KF and the -9900K essentially tied at stock settings, maintaining Core i9's commanding lead over the Ryzen models. The tuned KF CPU takes a slight lead over its counterpart, which comes courtesy of its extra 200 MHz of overclocking headroom.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. At stock settings, the -9900K and KF models score a perfect tie during the benchmark, but the KF model takes an almost unnoticeable lead after tuning.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Again, we see negligible differences between the two Core i9 processors at both stock and overclocked settings.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Ryzen 7 2700X is more competitive in the Warhammer 40,000 benchmark, largely because this game responds well to threading. But the delta between Core i9 models remains slight.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V, Hitman, and Project CARS 2

Far Cry 5

The differences between Intel's processors are slight as we encounter a graphics-imposed bottleneck.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. This benchmark exposes a slight lead lead for the -9900KF in an overclocked configuration.

Hitman

Slight differences between the two Core i9s boil down to typical run-to-run variance for this benchmark.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title's frame rates. Intel's per-core performance advantage pays big dividends in this title.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office and Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, its final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications.

Core i9 takes a commanding lead throughout these tests. The Adobe suite is very sensitive to clock rates, so we begin to see more differentiation emerge between the stock and overclocked Core i9 models.

Web Browser

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. The -9900KF does take a slightly more pronounced lead over the standard model. However, these results fall within PCMark's three percent variance.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized. Spreading an extra 200 MHz of frequency across all eight of the -9900KF's cores equates to slightly larger leads using overclocked settings.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding and Compression

Rendering

An extra 200 MHz of headroom provides slight advantages to the -9900KF during the suite of threaded rendering benchmarks, though the gains are predictably slight.

Encoding and Compression

Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Core i9-9900KF again benefits from its slightly higher overclocked frequencies, but the extra headroom does little to change the competitive positioning.

Core i9-9900K leverages high frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. In our prior testing, we were unable to reach a stable overclock on the standard -9900K without a 4.8 GHz offset. But we do receive a nice bump from the steady all-core 5.0 GHz gained from additional tuning.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Intel's F-series processors represent a new tactic for the company as it struggles with an ongoing shortage of 14nm production capacity. These new models lack integrated graphics. And while we're told they are in high demand at silicon-starved OEMs, they'll soon be available at retail, too, though Intel hasn't given a firm date. Unfortunately, the only benefit these defeatured processors offer over the fully-fledged models appears to be availability. Yet, F-series processors are listed for preorder at a premium price. At least for now. Clearly, the lack of value is a big problem for Intel.

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

First, it is obvious that you should only consider this processor if you plan on pairing it with a discrete GPU. Intel's integrated graphics, while wholly unsuitable for AAA gaming, are still incredibly useful for troubleshooting when add-in cards fail.

Aside from the obviously poor value proposition of paying more money (or even the same amount of money) for fewer features, the Core i9-9900KF and Core i9-9900K are largely the same, meaning the newer model doesn't do anything to change the competitive landscape when it comes to performance comparisons. With that said, both CPUs are the fastest you can buy for gaming when you pair them with high-end graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia. They're also highly capable in the threaded workloads that AMD's Ryzen processors used to dominate. Unfortunately, you pay dearly for the extra cores, which most games don't fully utilize. For instance, the Core i7-9700K, even at stock settings, is competitive with the Core i9 models in most titles. And it saves you considerable money in the process.

In the end, the Core i9-9900KF serves up the same impressive performance as Core i9-9900K across our benchmark suite, and may facilitate slightly better overclocking potential. Splave binned a relatively large sample set of 200 Core i9-9900Ks and a smaller pool of five Core i9-9900KFs, finding that a larger percentage of KF models achieved higher frequencies. That anecdotal evidence suggests that Core i9-9900KF could be attractive to overclockers looking for more headroom as they chase records.

As with the Core i9-9900K, the Core i9-9900KF requires expensive accommodations. You need a premium platform with robust power delivery, particularly if you plan on overclocking. The chips can drop into existing Z370 motherboards, but we’re sure that many of them will struggle with the chip’s voracious appetite for current. Also, plan on investing in a high-end PSU and cooling solution.

The Core i9 series has no direct rival on a mainstream platform, at least until AMD's Ryzen 3000 series comes to market. But its high price point dampens our enthusiasm. We don't think the KF series represents a good value, particularly at the currently inflated pricing. However, many enthusiasts will opt for the defeatured processors simply because the standard -9900K isn't available. Like the Core i9-9900K, the KF model does provide the best mixture of single- and multi-threaded performance on the market. Unless it shows up at a lower price point than the complete Core i9-9900K, though, there's no real reason to recommend it.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i9-9980XE CPU Review: Still Too Expensive

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 14:00:00 +0000

The Skylake-X Refresh

The battle for high-end desktop supremacy escalated last year when AMD released its first-gen 16-core Threadripper processors, challenging Intel's dominance in that space for the first time in recent history. Intel was forced to hastily launch its Skylake-X family with as many as 18 cores per CPU socket in order to remain king of the hill. AMD struck back earlier in 2018 with second-gen Threadripper processors, including the 32-core Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX. Although a sophisticated topology imposes performance compromises in certain applications, the new Threadrippers dominate heavily threaded tasks.

Not one to back down from a fight, Intel is responding with a refreshed Skylake-X series that tops out with the 18C/36T Core i9-9980XE. There's also an overclockable 28-core Xeon W-3175X waiting in the wings. But that chip's pedigree is decidedly more professional in nature.

That means Intel is dependent on yet another 14nm refresh to fend off AMD's advances. And this time, it won't be reclaiming the core count crown. As such, Core i9-9980XE features the same underlying Skylake-X architecture as previous-gen models. At least this time the company uses a solder-based thermal interface material (STIM) to improve thermal transfer between its die and heat spreader, yielding higher Turbo Boost clock rates. Overclocking might benefit as well. But even at stock clock speeds, expect to invest in a premium motherboard, high-capacity power supply, and beefy cooler to get the most out of Core i9-9980XE.

The competition between AMD and Intel isn't just about core counts or benchmark performance, though. Threadripper CPUs are still cheaper per core, and Intel refuses to budge on its lofty prices. As a result, Core i9-9980XE remains difficult to recommend in the face of AMD's newest Threadripper CPUs.

Intel Core i9-9980XE Extreme Edition Processor

The Core X-series processors are designed for creators and performance aficionados who want workstation-class performance, the freedom to overclock, and other enthusiast-oriented features. They drop into existing X299 platforms, though you'll want to flash the latest firmware in order to properly support Core i9-9980XE.

Similar to previous-gen models, the X-series chips support DDR4-2666 memory. Intel simply disables ECC to prevent its Xeon customers from adopting the cheaper (and inherently less robust) enthusiast-specific platform.

Intel Core i9-9980XE Specifications
Socket	LGA 2066
Cores / Threads	18 / 36
TDP	165W
Base Frequency	3.0 GHz
Turbo Frequency (2.0 / 3.0)	4.4 / 4.5 GHz
L3 Cache	24.75MB
Integrated Graphics	No
Graphics Base/Turbo (MHz)	N/A
Memory Support	DDR4-2666
Memory Controller	Quad-Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes
PCIe Lanes	44

As mentioned, the Core i9-9980XE sports 18 physical cores with Hyper-Threading technology, allowing it to operate on 36 threads at the same time. A $1,979 price tag means that the new Core i9 competes with AMD's 32C/64T Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, even though its core count is more similar to the AMD Threadripper 2950X.

Core i9-9980XE comes with 24.75MB of L3 cache, just like its predecessor. New to this generation, though, is solder-based thermal interface material between Intel's 14nm++ die and heat spreader. The company used the same approach on its Coffee Lake processors to free up headroom for more cores. This time around, the extra headroom goes to enabling higher Turbo Boost frequencies.

Active Cores	1 -2	3 - 4	5 - 12	13 - 16	17 - 18
Core i9-9980XE Turbo Boost	4.5	4.2	4.1	3.9	3.8
Core i9-7980XE Turbo Boost	4.4	4.0	3.9	3.5	3.4

Intel made a slight improvement to its dual-core Turbo Boost 3.0 frequency, bumping it up a mere 100 MHz to 4.5 GHz when the feature can target two "favored" cores with a lightly-threaded workload. Windows 10 now supports this feature natively. Intel also offers a 4.4 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0 bin. The real improvements are apparent in Intel's multi-core Turbo Boost clock rates, which increase between 200 to 400 MHz depending on the number of active cores. Expect modest gains, then, in lightly-threaded tasks like games and productivity apps, along with larger speed-ups in content creation and rendering workloads.

Also similar to Intel's previous high-end desktop CPUs, Core i9-9980XE utilizes a mesh architecture rather than the ring bus. According to company representatives, the mesh design is more scalable for connecting cores, caches, and I/O. For more detail, check out Intel Introduces New Mesh Architecture For Xeon And Skylake-X Processors.

Intel's Xeon processors are based on one of three dies: XCC (up to 28 cores), HCC (up to 18 cores), or LCC (up to 10 cores). Recently, the company was using its HCC die for Core X-series CPUs with more than 10 cores and the LCC die for models with 10 or fewer cores. That allowed Intel to maintain healthy margins (smaller dies are cheaper to manufacture) while minimizing unnecessary power consumption and heat. Now, though, it looks like Intel uses the HCC die for all of its Core X-series models. The newest chips jump to 165W from the previous generation's 140W rating. They also have more cache. As an example, the LCC die offers up to 13.75MB of L3 cache, and yet the Core i9-9820X and Core i9-9800X have 16.5MB on-chip.

	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe 3.0	DRAM	TDP	MSRP/RCP	Price Per Core
TR 2990WX	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1799	$56
TR 2970WX	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1299	$54
Core i9-9980XE	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.5	24.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$1979	$110
Core i9-7980XE	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.4	24.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$1999	$111
TR 2950X	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$899	$56
Core i9-9960X	16 / 32	3.1 / 4.5	22	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$1684	$105
Core i9-7960X	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.4	22	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$1699	$106
Core i9-9940X	14 / 28	3.3 / 4.5	19.25	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$1387	$99
TR 2920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.3	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$649	$54
Core i9-9920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.5	19.25	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$1189	$99
Core i9-7920X	12 /24	2.9 / 4.4	16.50	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1199	$100
Core i9-9900X	10 / 20	3.5 / 4.5	19.25	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$989	$98.9
Core i9-7900X	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	13.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$999	$99
Core i9-9820X	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.2	16.5	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$889	$88.9
Core i9-9800X	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.5	16.5	44	Quad DDR4-2666	165W	$589	$73.65
Core i9-9900K	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	16	16	Dual DDR4-2666	95W	$500	$62.5

In a surprising first, Intel leaves 44 lanes of PCIe 3.0 active on all of its Core X-series models. Previously, it trimmed connectivity as it worked its way down the stack. Clearly, this is a reaction to AMD's Ryzen Threadripper CPUs, which include 60 lanes of PCIe, regardless of the model you choose.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power, Overclocking and Test Setup

We conducted this round of limited testing in our U.S. lab, and our results are not directly comparable with numbers from the German lab used in previous reviews.

We expected high power consumption from the Core i9-9980XE, and Intel's flagship didn't disappoint. At stock settings, we recorded 245W from AVX-optimized workload and 199W in a stress test that didn't use AVX instructions. Fortunately, our Corsair H115i closed-loop liquid cooler proved ample with its fans in performance mode. The H115i maintained temperatures below 75°C during an extended session of Prime95 and 65°C during a non-AVX stress test.

Those numbers skyrocketed when we began overclocking. At 4.4 GHz, we observed 256W during an SSE-optimized stress test and 348W with AVX instructions in play (in spite of a relatively tame 3.3 GHz AVX offset). The new Blender benchmark is an effective power benchmark, too: the Core i9-9980XE consumed up to 392W during its render.

As with the Skylake-X processors we already reviewed, current has a big impact on both performance and heat. It's even possible to generate higher performance scores in threaded benchmarks like Cinebench by using a higher VCCIN voltage setting (at a given frequency).

Unfortunately, Intel didn't give us much time with the Core i9-9980XE before lifting its embargo, so we don't have a complete suite of overclocked benchmark results yet. But we did experiment, dialing the VCCIN to 1.92V and upping Vcore to 1.1V for a 4.4 GHz overclock. We also dialed back the AVX offset to -11, yielding 3.3 GHz, along with a -16 AVX-512 offset to run the processor at its stock 2.8 GHz during the most taxing AVX-optimized workloads. Even with our offsets in place, we saw up to 95°C during the Blender benchmark and 90°C in an extended non-AVX stress test.

Even with our relaxed settings, heat easily overwhelmed our H115i after small voltage increases, and that was with its fans cranking away at maximum speed. Just like the first-gen Skylake-X chips, thermals limited our overclocking efforts before hitting the silicon's limits, despite solder-based TIM. Build your own custom loop if you plan on serious overclocking. Also, we advise forced air or water cooling on the power delivery subsystem. Invest in a PSU able to deliver at least 20A on the +12V rail. MSI’s BIOS warns that you need a power supply capable of providing up to 1000W through the eight-pin EPS cable; a beefy PSU is non-negotiable.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i9-7980XE

Intel Core i9-7960X

Intel Core i9-7900X

Test Setup

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-9980XE, -7960X, -7980XE, -7900XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Ryzen Threadripper Gen 1 & 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3200, DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466All SystemsEVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark, AotS: Escalation and Dawn of War III

We tested the Ryzen Threadripper processors in Game Mode, per AMD's suggestion, halving (or quartering) the available execution cores. Company representatives tell us this facilitates optimal performance in games. Any mention of PBO in the charts indicates that we used AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive, an automatic overclocking feature that wrings out maximum performance based upon our platform's power delivery and cooling capabilities.

Gaming performance is measured at 1920x1080, minimizing graphics bottlenecks. Naturally, as you step up to higher resolutions, the differences between processors shrink.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The 18C/36T Core i9-9980XE fares well at its stock settings. But given the Core i9-7960X's position just behind, it's clear that these tests don't scale linearly based on core count.

AMD's Ryzen Threadripper chips land quite a ways down our charts. With that said, we did test in AMD's recommended Game Mode.

Intel’s processors take the lead in VRMark, largely due to their impressive per-core (a mixture of frequency and IPC) performance. The Core i9-9980XE benefits from a slightly higher single-core 4.5 GHz Turbo Boost 3.0 frequency compared to the -7980XE, which tops out at 4.4 GHz.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that normally scales well with thread count.

Core i9-9980XE takes the lead in our Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation benchmark, though we only recorded an average 0.6 FPS gain over the Core i9-7980XE. The -9980XE also posts similar frame time percentiles, suggesting that the bumped-up frequency provides little real-world advantage in this title.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The Intel Core i9-9900K takes a commanding lead, while AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX with PBO active is competitive with competing high-end desktop CPUs.

Meanwhile, the -9980XE scores a 6.8 percent gain compared to its predecessor, the -7980XE. That outcome isn't surprising given this title's heavily-threaded nature.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V and Hitman

Far Cry 5

Intel's Core i9-9980XE leads the high-end desktop field. But the Core i9-9900K, which drops into a more mainstream platform, is faster still. The Ryzen 7 2700X also fares admirably given its value-oriented price point.

Notice that the HEDT Core i9 models, -9980XE included, suffer a sharp dip in our 99.9th percentile measurements. In other words, they all incur notable frame time outliers during the benchmark run.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

It’s no surprise, then, to see Core i9s up front in our benchmark. Ryzen Threadripper 2950X follows behind, offering solid performance at its price point, particularly after overclocking.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our test to its prior glory.

Hitman responds well to high core counts and clock rates, so our overclocked Core i9-7980XE is rewarded with a first-place finish. Remember, there wasn't time to tune the -9980XE before Intel's embargo. A stock Core i9-9980XE is faster than the -7980XE at its factory settings, though.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War and Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Shadow of War leans heavier on graphics resources than host processing, so we don't see large deltas between the fastest and slowest CPUs. Keep this in mind when shopping for your next gaming processor: modern games respond more readily to cards on the high-end of the GPU hierarchy than powerful CPUs. This is doubly true as you scale up to 2560x1440 and 3840x2160.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect frame rates. The Core i9-9900K consequently makes up for its "meager" eight-core configuration with a blistering 5 GHz dual-core Turbo Boost bin for first place.

Overclocking Core i9-7980XE to 4.2 GHz yields an impressive speed-up, and we expect that the -9980XE will match or exceed those results once we have a chance to tune it.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office and Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, its final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications.

In light of an aggressive 4.5 GHz Turbo Boost frequency and a significant IPC advantage over AMD's Ryzen family, the Core i9-9980XE doesn't fare as well as we expected in these Creative Cloud tasks. It even takes a nosedive in the threaded InDesign workload.

Intel did reorganize its cache hierarchy and moved to a more scalable mesh interconnect with the first-gen Skylake-X processors. Of course, those changes persist through the Skylake-X refresh. While the company's architectural modifications yield big gains in certain enterprise applications, we've also seen the tweaks hurt performance elsewhere. These benchmarks quantify Skylake-X's weaknesses.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite evaluates JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most Web browser workloads, single-threaded performance reigns supreme.

The Core i9-9980XE still doesn't do particularly well, but it's at least competitive through this collection of Web browser benchmarks. High stock clock rates allow Intel's chips to distance themselves from AMD's competing models, though the difference is much smaller than its used to be thanks to improvements made in second-gen Ryzen CPUs.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Core i9-9900K remains a winner, while the -9980XE demonstrates a 7 percent generational improvement.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Mainstream processors offer the best value in these types of applications, but Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is an incredible value for enthusiasts with a focus on productivity.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, which explains why the 2950X fares so well. It costs less than half of a Core i9-9980XE but offers an ideal experience.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding and Compression

Rendering

The 32C/64T Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX enjoys an uncontested core count advantage. Of course, as we've seen in the past, accesses from its remote memory controllers can affect performance in weird ways, depending on the metric. When the 2990WX can really utilize its array of execution resources, though, the competition gets stomped.

Intel's Core i9-9980XE isn't as fast across heavily-threaded rendering tasks, but in our benchmarks that isolate single-threaded performance, it lands much higher compared to other high-end desktop processors.

Encoding and Compression

Our compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation.

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX stretches its legs in the decompression test, but exhibits its bipolar personality during the compression workload. Core i9-9980XE, on the other hand, is impressive in the compression test, largely because AMD's highest-end Threadripper processors are handicapped by memory throughput issues. The Core i9 fares well in decompression workloads as well.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi, is a great test for evaluating AVX-optimized performance. Intel’s Core i9-9980XE employs two 256-bit FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two 128-bit FMA units per core. Intel's AVX instruction support shines during the single-threaded benchmark, though the -9980XE only improves by ~4 percent over the -7980XE. We logged the same performance for both processors during the multi-threaded y-cruncher benchmark. However, both processors dropped to the same all-core 2.8 GHz AVX-512 offset during the test.

While our HandBrake x264 benchmark also leverages AVX instructions, the x265 test has a heavier distribution of the densely-packed instructions. Intel's HEDT Core i9 processors lead the pack in both workloads.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Despite its place at the top of Intel's high-end desktop portfolio, Core i9-9980XE is faced with tougher competition than its predecessor. Aside from a tweaked 14nm manufacturing process and solder-based thermal interface material, there's little else to differentiate this Core i9 flagship from the one that came before. As a result, Intel has a hard time scrapping with AMD's fastest Ryzen Threadripper models.

Don't get us wrong: the Core i9-9980XE is an agile chip. Intel made definite improvements to its Turbo Boost frequencies, which facilitate higher frame rates in games, along with better benchmark results across our application suite. The generational gains are fairly mild, though:

All told, the Core i9-9980XE only provided a 3.3 percent speed-up compared to the -7980XE in the games we test. AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper chips aren’t as fast in those same titles, but the 2950X, specifically, will attract plenty of attention at its price point because it's such an all-around performer. As you shift to QHD resolution and 4K resolutions, it's more than capable of complementing fast graphics cards.

Core i9-9980XE was also impressive in our application benchmarks. It just didn't win in a definitive manner. And a lot of threaded metrics still go AMD's way thanks to the SMT-enabled 32-core behemoth in its arsenal. Both companies force you to make certain compromises due to architectural decisions that enable the big core counts we're seeing. So, at the end of the day, we have to weigh good against the bad.

AMD leaves ECC memory support enabled, if that's important to you. Intel disables it in an effort to protect the Xeon family. Intel leaves all of its PCIe connectivity turned on across the refreshed Skylake-X chips, but AMD already does the same thing. Solder-based thermal interface material was a good choice on Intel's part this time around. However, we consider it less of a luxury and more of a necessity. Meanwhile, Ryzen Threadripper 2950X costs half as much as the Core i9-9980XE and serves up competitive performance in a great many workloads. We think that makes it the obvious value choice for high-end desktop enthusiasts who play games, stream video, create content, and crunch code.

If you're not ready to sink thousands of dollars into a HEDT CPU, compatible motherboard, premium power supply, and water-cooling loop, consider a Core i9-9900K instead. It'd give you a taste of the high-end desktop life using a mainstream platform. The Core i9-9900K isn’t going to win any value awards, but it's an attractive option for well-heeled enthusiasts looking for the fastest gaming platform out there.

While we aren’t particularly excited about the Core i9-9980XE's iterative improvements, more aggressive Turbo Boost bins, larger caches, and full access to the PCI Express controller make downstream models more interesting than their previous-gen equivalents. The Core i9-9980XE itself is a powerful piece of hardware for heavy computing. There's a lot to like if you really do need high-end accommodations. We're simply turned off by Intel's unwillingness to budge on pricing versus the competition.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX Review: 24 Cores on a Budget

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 13:00:00 +0000

The Value-Oriented WX-Series Option

AMD's second-gen Ryzen Threadripper family was introduced to the world in the form of a 32-core, 64-thread 2990WX model priced at $1800. It set new performance records across workloads able to exploit the chip's copious resources. However, the flagship Threadripper chip's unique architecture also causes odd results in more common desktop applications. Consequently, we only recommend the 2990WX to professionals running certain workstation-class software.

The $1300 Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX includes 24 cores and 48 threads. It bears the same WX suffix meant to signal an affinity for heavy multitasking and professional workloads. Moreover, the 2970WX boasts more on-die resources than Intel's $2000 Core i9-7980XE, which offers 18 Hyper-Threaded cores.

Similar to Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, two of the 2970WX's dies aren't connected directly to main memory. So, the CPU delivers great performance in threaded workloads that aren't sensitive to memory throughput, but less impressive results in bandwidth-hungry applications that don't scale well with extra cores. AMD introduced Dynamic mode to its Ryzen Master software in an effort to minimize the architecture's compromises, but it isn't always effective.

Given its similarities to the 2990WX, it's no surprise that Threadripper 2970WX demonstrates a lot of the same behaviors in our benchmark suite. You still need a particular type of workload to maximize its potential. Fortunately, if you have the right software, Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX offers a much less expensive route to 2990WX-like performance.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Earlier this year, AMD retooled its mainstream Ryzen line-up with new Zen+ optimizations that included 12nm manufacturing, improved memory and cache latency, higher clock rates, and enhanced multi-core Precision Boost frequencies. Those changes carry over to the company's newest Threadripper models, too.

AMD also split its Threadripper portfolio into the WX and X families. The two WX models are geared toward intense multitasking workloads, 3D rendering, media encoding, and cinema mastering. That makes them attractive to software developers, video/audio engineers, and content creators.

	Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX	Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX	Ryzen Threadripper 2950X	Threadripper 2920X
Socket	TR4	TR4	TR4	TR4
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	24 / 48	16 / 32	12 / 24
Base Frequency	3.0 GHz	3.0 GHz	3.5 GHz	3.5 GHz
Boost Frequency	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Memory Speed	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)
Memory Controller	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)
Integrated Graphics	No	No	No	No
Cache (L2 / L3)	80MB	64MB	40MB	32MB
Architecture	Zen+	Zen+	Zen+	Zen+
Process	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo
TDP	250W	250W	180W	180W

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is AMD's second quad-die processor for high-end desktops. Again, it sports 24 cores and 48 threads. A 3 GHz base frequency stretches as high as 4.2 GHz via AMD's XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) algorithms. The processor also features an improved Precision Boost 2 technology for achieving more aggressive multi-core turbo clock rates compared to the first-gen models.

Each of the WX CPU's four dies boast eight physical cores and 16MB of L3 cache. Thus, Threadripper 2990WX and 2970WX are both armed with 64MB of L3 cache. That's generous on AMD’s part, since Intel typically disables cache as it turns off cores to create lower-end models. Of course, AMD does carve out two cores per die to create the 2970WX's 24-core configuration, though. And like the 2990WX, Ryzen Threadripper 2970X is rated at 250W.

The dual-die X-series Threadrippers are better suited to enthusiasts and gamers. AMD launched its Ryzen Threadripper 2950X in September, but now there's a 12C/24T Threadripper 2920X available as well. It includes six cores per die and the same 32MB of L3 cache as the 16C/32T 2950X. Both X-series models are rated at 180W.

	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe 3.0	DRAM	TDP	MSRP	Price Per Core
TR 2990WX	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1799	$56
TR 2970WX	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1299	$54
Core i9-7980XE	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.4	24.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1999	$111
TR 2950X	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$899	$56
TR 1950X	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.4	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$750	$47
Core i9-7960X	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.4	22	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1699	$106
TR 2920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.3	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$649	$54
TR 1920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$399	$33
Core i9-7920X	12 /24	2.9 / 4.4	16.50	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1199	$100
Core i9-7900X	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	13.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$999	$99
Core i7-8700K	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	12	16	Dual DDR4-2666	95W	$359	$60
Ryzen 7 2700X	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	16	16	Dual DDR4-2933	105W	$329	$41

AMD ships all Threadripper CPUs with an Asetek bracket that provides partial coverage of the expansive heat spreader using compatible closed-loop liquid coolers. According to AMD, this partial coverage is fine for stock operation. But we found that full-coverage coolers work better. AMD also collaborated with Cooler Master to develop the Wraith Ripper heat sink/fan combo for its Socket TR4 interface. It's sold separately, though.

Of course, AMD uses Indium solder between its dies and heat spreader to improve thermal transfer. In contrast, Intel employs thermal grease and recommends liquid cooling for its Skylake-X processors. AMD says that's not necessary for Threadripper. Intel recently added Indium solder to its Core i9 series, so we may see this feature work its way up into the HEDT segment before long.

All of the second-gen Threadripper processors are backward-compatible with existing X399 motherboards. But older Socket TR4-equipped boards may struggle under the power requirements of AMD's 250W Threadripper WX series chips, particularly if you try to overclock. Consider shopping for a new X399-based platform if tuning is on the menu.

DIMM Config	Memory Ranks	Official Supported Transfer Rate (MT/s)
4 of 4	Single	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-2133
4 of 4	Dual	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-1866

Familiar AMD value-adds abound on the 2970WX: you get an unlocked ratio multiplier for overclocking, the new Precision Boost Overdrive automated overclocking feature, Ryzen Master software, and 60 lanes of third-gen PCI Express (plus four lanes attached to the supporting chipset). Copious connectivity could come in handy for multiple add-in graphics cards, but it's also useful for high-performance storage and networking.

Threadripper CPUs feature independent dual-channel memory controllers located on two dies, which combine to provide quad-channel support with varying data transfer rates based upon your configuration. With the second-gen Threadripper processors, AMD bumps its maximum specification to DDR4-2933 (up from DDR4-2666). The platform supports ECC memory and up to 256GB of capacity, but it can accommodate up to 2TB as density increases.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Benchmark Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Dynamic Mode, Overclocking and Test Setup

AMD’s Threadripper processors employ a unique Multi-Chip Module (MCM) architecture that enables impressive modularity, but also hurts performance in certain workloads. The company masks much of this on the dual-die X-series chips. However, its WX series' four dies present new challenges. We previously covered the design's specifics. In short, though, two of the four dies are only used for their x86 cores, while the other two have active memory and PCIe controllers.

Windows' round robin thread scheduling mechanism tends to push important threads off of the I/O dies, requiring memory-hungry applications to access another die during execution, thereby hurting performance. AMD originally created a couple of operating modes to let its customers tailor the way they wanted Threadripper processors to behave. This did help side-step some of those compromises. But switching between the two modes required rebooting. Moreover, they didn't completely solve AMD's performance issues.

A new Dynamic Local Mode, which is strictly for Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and 2970WX processors, runs as a background service inside the operating system and automatically detects memory-starved application threads (the top 13 to 16). It dynamically assigns them to dies with local memory controllers. Or, it can detect threads that aren't as sensitive to memory latency and move them to dies without memory controllers, thus optimizing the processor’s execution resources.

This new implementation is transparent, and can be switched on without rebooting. AMD doesn't quantify the overhead of this service. However, we observed ~0.5% processor and 1MB memory utilization during normal use with the 2970WX.

For now, the service is enabled in AMD's Ryzen Master software. But the company plans to bake this functionality in to its chipset at some point in the future. The program works best with "mid-threaded" applications (as opposed to lightly-threaded ones). It also ignores apps that run on all cores and threads.

The performance measurements in the above chart were generated by AMD. We have our own tests on the following pages.

Overclocking

We tested several configurations, but stuck with Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) for all of our tuned Threadripper WX-series configurations. This automated feature overclocks the processor to to its fullest based upon available current, power, and thermal headroom. Due to cooling and power delivery constraints, we ran through our full test suite at stock settings and with PBO activated, rather than using an all-core overclock. Our PBO-enabled configurations did benefit from higher memory transfer rates, as detailed in the table below. As with any overclocking feature, using PBO voids your warranty.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i9-7980XE

Intel Core i9-7960X

Intel Core i9-7900X

Test Setup

We tested the second-gen Threadripper models with MSI's MEG X399 Creation motherboard.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper Gen 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 RGBIntel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066 Intel Core i7, Core i9 MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming) Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD) 4x 1TB Crucial MX300 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)U.S. AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper Gen 1 & 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3200, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7960X, -7980XE, -7900XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466All Systems EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	GermanyAMD Wraith RipperAlphacool Ice Block XPXEnermax LiqTech 240 TR4Thermal Grizzly KryonautU.S.Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark, AotS: Escalation and Dawn of War III

Test Notes

Unlike AMD's previous-gen Threadripper models, the WX-series CPUs include a Game Mode preset in the Ryzen Master software that disables three of four dies. Company representatives tell us this facilitates optimal performance in games. But AMD also provides toggles that allow experimentation with two- and four-die configurations. For this review's gaming benchmarks, we tested the Threadripper processors with Game Mode enabled. Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX consequently becomes a 6C/12T CPU for those tests.

Dynamic Local Mode is a new feature that debuts with the 2970WX, and it only applies to the WX-series models. We include a second bar chart for each game to quantify performance with this feature enabled or disabled at stock settings (labeled Creator/DM).

Gaming performance is measured at 1920x1080, minimizing graphics bottlenecks. Of course, as you step up to 2560x1440 or 3840x2160, the differences between processors shrink.

We have application test results with an overclocked Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, but weren't able to run that chip in its tuned state through our game benchmarks before it stopped working. Once we're able to get it back up and running, we'll update the gaming charts.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX's Game Mode drops the 24-core chip's count down to six active cores, but also prevents bandwidth-starved execution resources from handicapping performance during the DX11 and DX12 tests. Nevertheless, the 2970WX drops to the bottom of our chart. A dual-die 2920X easily beats the 2970WX, so it's clear that the quad-die CPU's topography is the issue.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that normally scales well with thread count.

Again, Ryzen Threadripper 2920X facilitates better performance than the 2970WX at stock settings. If there's a silver lining here, it's that PBO pushes today's subject beyond a stock 2990WX.

The second slide shows us that Dynamic Local Mode, which we used in tandem with Creator mode, imposes a slightly lower frame rate. Dynamic Local Mode's background process avoids shuffling threads that fully utilize the CPU's resources. Ashes of the Singularity does this, so the result isn't entirely surprising.

It is clear, however, that the 2970WX doesn’t scale linearly as cores and threads are added in Creator mode. You'll get similar (or better) performance in Game mode with just six cores active.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Threadripper processors perform well in this title. The 2970WX lands close to the top with PBO enabled, though the much cheaper Ryzen 7 2700 isn’t far behind.

The 2970WX in Game mode is faster than the same chip in Creator mode, even after we enable AMD's new Dynamic Local Mode. The company touted that switch's ability to improve performance "up to 49%,” but remember that those gains happen in Creator mode. You probably don't want to game in Creator mode.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V and Hitman

Far Cry 5

Intel's Core i9-9900K is fastest in Far Cry 5. But Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is also impressive after a bit of overclocking. Really, though, there aren't big differences between most of our test field.

While Far Cry 5 is one of the most repeatable metrics in our suite with a variance of less than 0.5 FPS between runs, we did notice some oddities after enabling Dynamic Local Mode. For instance, the results alternated between 60 and 65 FPS. This repeatable phenomenon persisted after several retests. We also recorded much lower 99^th percentile frame rates and uneven gameplay with the feature active. AMD tells us that Dynamic Local Mode is still being optimized for a broader selection of applications and games, so our observation will likely by rectified in the future. For now, Game mode is the go-to choice, as evidenced by the test results.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

An overclocked Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX slides past the Core i9-7900X, while the 2990WX doesn’t benefit as much from tuning. Once again, Game mode proves to be the obvious choice for gaming (despite a larger gain from Dynamic Local Mode this time around).

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our test to its prior glory.

Hitman responds well to high core counts and clock rates, so it isn’t surprising to find the overclocked Core i9-7960X in first place. The Core i9-9900K is impressive even in stock form, and the Ryzen 7 2700X proves to offer great bang for the buck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War and Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Shadow of War leans heavier on graphics resources than host processing, so we don't see large deltas between the fastest and slowest CPUs. The same observation applies to our experiments with Creator mode, Dynamic Local Mode, and Game mode.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect frame rates. If you’re gaming in Creator mode, the Dynamic Local feature serves up a big speed-up. But the standard Game mode still offers the best performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office and Productivity

Test Notes

We tested all Threadripper processors in Creator mode during our application benchmarks.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite evaluates JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most Web browser workloads, single-threaded performance reigns supreme.

AMD's second-gen Threadripper line-up goes a long way to improve the performance of lightly-threaded workloads, but Intel still leads in these tests.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX lags the 2990WX in our Krakken benchmark, but automated overclocking functionality does deliver a solid improvement. Meanwhile, there's little to no improvement in the lightly-threaded Krakken from enabling Dynamic Local Mode. This feature does seem to help in MotionMark and WebXPRT.

Productivity

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX benefits from Dynamic Local Mode at stock clock rates, but still trails the 2990WX right out of its box. Interestingly, the 2920X and 2950X yield the best performance from any Threadripper CPU. Other desktop processors like the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i9-9900K fare well, too.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized. Unfortunately, the Dynamic Local Mode doesn't benefit all applications. It doesn't necessarily hurt performance, either. The 2% delta between our stock 2970WX falls within UL's 3% threshold for run-to-run variability with PCMark 10.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding and Compression

Rendering

Many of these workloads stress the memory subsystem, diminishing Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX's core count advantage due to accesses from the remote memory controllers. The 2970WX benefits from higher clock rates to surpass the 2990WX in our single-threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests. Both are closely matched after we active PBO, though.

If you're looking for single-threaded supremacy, Intel's ninth-gen chips cannot be beaten, as evidenced by Core i9-9900K's dominance.

Threaded workloads are an ideal match to Threadripper's high core counts. But the Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX doesn't scale linearly in these types of workloads. That means the 2970WX's $500-cheaper price is attractive for high-end desktop PCs.

Encoding & Compression

Our compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. This workload should benefit from threading. But either memory throughput or poor software scaling holds the 2990WX back from realizing its potential in the compression test. The same issue affects Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX, though Dynamic Local Mode provides a slight performance uptick. But neither the 2970WX nor the 2990WX are a match for the 2920X and 2950X with their dual-die architectures. Conversely, the WX chips dominate our decompression tests, illustrating the performance trade-offs AMD's highest-end CPUs force you to make.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, is a great test to measure Threadripper’s AVX performance. Intel’s Core i9 employs two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two FMA units per core. Intel's AVX instruction support shines during the single-threaded benchmark. However, spreading the workload across Threadripper's many cores helps improve its standing. Despite an eight-core advantage, the 2990WX offers little benefit over the 2970WX in the threaded y-cruncher test. Clearly, their cores suffer from a memory bandwidth bottleneck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Workstation Compute and Graphics

Workstation Compute

Many workstation applications scale very well with additional cores in certain workloads or with special plugins, but the result is always the sum of many factors and tasks in which the pure computing power of all the cores is important, but even so also not crucial. Often enough, the parallelizable tasks do not scale beyond a certain number of cores / threads, so IPC will co-decide. And that's not the advantage of AMD.

The dynamic mode of the Ryzen TR 2970WX is another such thing in its own right, because between the individual iterations of a benchmark (between 3 and 5, depending on the application), it sometimes comes to very clear differences. We can only explain it again with the missing memory controller, since many AVX- and SSE-optimized codes (but not only those) depend on memory bandwidth. And when a software solution such as Dynamic Mode intervenes, the well-intentioned can sometimes turn into the opposite.

Workstation Graphics

While workstation graphics are a niche for most readers, some might consider using Threadripper 2970WX's twelve cores and 24 threads for professional tasks. Really, though, there aren't many threaded applications for real-time graphics output. These benchmarks mostly benefit from high IPC and frequency, which isn’t one of Threadripper’s inherent strengths. The results are not bad, but also not outstanding.

Nevertheless, there are also applications that have to calculate in parallel and are grateful for every additional thread. AutoCAD is just an example of the clock dependence of fewer threads when it comes to pure 2D drafting or real-time 3D graphics output. The graphic performance is very reminiscent of the general result in gaming, it doesn’t matter if you use DirectX, OpenGL, or just the Windows GDI.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

Interestingly, AMD reduced the idle power consumption of its second-gen Threadripper CPUs a bit. This is certainly motherboard-dependent, so be sure you're using the latest BIOS on your X399-based motherboard.

Just be ready for Windows 10 to bounce you back to 25-40W as background processes kick on and off (and particularly with PBO enabled for additional performance).

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X with PBO enabled hits clock rates as high as 4.3 GHz in our CAD workload, so power consumption spikes as well. The 2970WX is similar in that its high boost frequency results in a >64W measurement.

Our Witcher 3 benchmark is great for GPU power consumption comparisons. But it's less enlightening when we run it across different host processors because the underlying engine doesn't use enough cores. Assassin's Creed Odyssey is better about utilization, causing Threadripper's power to spike in excess of 100W. But that game's averages are far from reproducible, forcing us to keep it on the shelf.

Prime95 certainly isn't representative of an everyday scenario, but it's great for measuring peak theoretical power consumption. Some real-world applications pull even more power. For instance, a real Blender workload drives the 2970WX up to 230W, while we only measured 210W with Prime95! The same applies when we switch on PBO: Blender coaxes 447W from the Ryzen Threadripper chip compared to 416W in Prime95.

The smaller Ryzen TR 2920X is slightly different. It pulls 160W during the Blender workload, whereas Prime95 shows a power consumption of 180W. Activating PBO increases the delta: we measure 200W during the Blender test and 249W in Prime95. We can't explain why both CPUs react differently, but their results are reproducible.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Temperatures

If you really needed to, you could equip the Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX with a potent air cooler, so long as you don't overclock manually or activate Precision Boost Overdrive. However, a large Blender workload would completely overwhelm it. Conventional heat sinks and fans just aren't up to the task.

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX can hit 450W during everyday operation. That amount of waste heat requires more than air or a compact all-in-one liquid cooler. You need a much more capable thermal solution if you want to unlock the CPU's maximum performance potential.

AMD deserves credit for this processor's finely-tuned protection mechanisms. Even with PBO active, you can easily push Threadripper 2970WX to the limits of a weaker cooler without damaging it. But you have to give up proper performance in return.

XFR2 and PBO both work well on a platform with ample cooling. The chip adjusts its voltages based on telemetry data, and PBO is actually preferable to manual overclocking. While we're not fans of hidden mechanisms, PBO does exactly what you expect.

AMD prioritizes package temperature: all measurements and information are based solely on this T_die reading. For compatibility reasons, the 27°C-higher T_ctl value is used for fan control. AMD sets the upper limit for Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX at 68°C, which translates to a T_ctl value of 95°C.

At idle, our cooler keeps Ryzen Threadripper 2920X below 25°C. Under a real-world Blender workload, we average about 43°C with the CPU keeping all cores at 4 GHz. With PBO active, the 2920X accelerates to 4.15 GHz across all of its cores. The average T_die rises to just over 49°C. This gives us a maximum delta of less than 30°C for our potent cooling solution.

During a normal Blender workload without PBO, Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX reaches 3.55 GHz on all cores and averages 48°C. With PBO turned on, the all-core clock rate jumps to 4.025 GHz at an average temperature of 62°C.

The CPU does peak at 68°C though, meaning our sample is at its limit for full performance. Any higher and it would need to throttle back a bit.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX marches onto the HEDT scene with 24 cores and 48 threads. That's more cores than any competing Intel processor. But not all cores are created equal. Intel still gets more work done per clock cycle with its ninth-gen Core CPUs than AMD does with second-gen Ryzen. What's more, the 2970WX exhibits the same idiosyncrasies as the flagship Ryzen Threadripper 2900WX. It's an impressive performer in heavily-threaded workloads that aren't memory-bound, but it struggles in some applications that don't scale well based on core count (particularly if they're sensitive to available memory bandwidth).

More mainstream Ryzen and Core CPUs offer better value to gamers. Even the X-series Threadripper processors are smarter purchases than the halo WX models if you're an enthusiast. AMD's less expensive Threadrippers promise a better experience in the lightly-threaded apps that Intel continues to dominate.

But maybe Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX serves as a less expensive entry point for professionals able to exploit its copious core count in workstation-class software. The $1800 Threadripper 2990WX doesn’t always scale well, particularly in AVX-heavy tasks like HandBrake. If you're going to have to make compromises like that, you might as well save some money on the $1300 2970WX and get similar performance in the apps able to utilize its quad-die design effectively.

The X399 platform is expensive, and while drop-in compatibility with existing motherboards is a big advantage for AMD, you need a board with robust power circuitry. You also want a power supply with two EPS connectors. Cooling is a little easier on AMD's HEDT CPUs than Intel's competing Skylake-X chips, largely due to the Indium solder that AMD uses between its dies and heat spreader. But a beefy water cooler is still almost mandatory if you plan on overclocking.

AMD’s Dynamic Local Mode feature attempts to circumvent the performance issues endemic to its quad-die topology. Unfortunately, the mode is not as effective as we hoped it'd be. Some games do register big benefits. However, they still mostly trail the performance you get by flipping the CPU into Game mode via Ryzen Master, disabling 75% of the 2970WX's cores. AMD claims Dynamic Local Mode's background service will improve over time as the company characterizes more applications. Still, we see this as a bandage for the inconvenience of having to change modes and reboot your PC.

The competition isn't sitting still. Intel continues to get more competitive as it tries winning back the hearts and minds of enthusiasts. Its Basin Falls/Skylake-X Refresh processors should arrive next month. They'll still top out at 18 cores and 36 threads, and undoubtedly bear the company's notoriously high prices. But they are also rumored to employ Indium solder for improved thermal dissipation. That could make the new CPUs more attractive to tuners. It'd also be nice to see higher multi-core Turbo Boost bins that bolster performance in lightly-threaded workloads. Intel is also eschewing the practice of disabling PCIe lanes on less expensive HEDT processors, which is obviously a response to AMD’s practice of exposing all 60 PCIe lanes on every Threadripper model.

For now, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, and as an extension the 2920X, offer the best value for high-end desktop PCs. Much like the Threadripper 2990WX, the 2970WX we tested today is a niche product for professionals seeking very specific capabilities. The competitive landscape is changing though, so we'd recommend waiting this one out.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

ASRock Fatal1ty B450 Gaming-ITX/ac Review: Small Wonder

Thomas Soderstrom — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:00:00 +0000

Features & Specifications

Motherboard makers love to load up tiny boards with big-model-number chipsets, but those boards often lack the bonus features that would have made the big chipset worthwhile. The Fatal1ty B450 Gaming-ITX/ac takes the opposite approach, offering most of the features of AMD’s low-cost chipset while retaining the overclockability associated with high-end motherboard models.

Specifications

Socket	AM4
Chipset	AMD B450
Form Factor	Mini-ITX
Voltage Regulator	8 Phases
Video Ports	DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 2.0
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type-A5Gb/s: (2) Type-A, (2) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	Gigabit Ethernet, (2) Wi-Fi antenna
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital out
Legacy Ports / Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports / Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(1) V3.0 (x16, Raven Ridge at x8)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	✗
CrossFire / SLI	✗ / ✗
DIMM slots	(2) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / SATA
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(4) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) v3.0, (1) v2.0, (1) AMD LED fan
Fan Headers	(3) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	System (beep-code) speaker
Other Interfaces	FP-AudioAMD LED fan (RGB)Addressable LED
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button / Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ehternet Controllers	WGI211AT PCIe
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	Intel 3168 802.11ac (433mb/s) / BT 4.2 Combo
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL / DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	Three Years

Layout & Features

AMD’s B450 chipset appears to be an almost-perfect fit for compact gaming motherboards, since its reduced PCIe pathway count doesn’t impact the PCIe 3.0 lanes fed directly from the CPU to the single x16 slot and four-lane NVME interface. So much of the AM4 platform is fed directly by the CPU that we could almost say “Why even bother adding the B450?” if not for the SATA ports and network controllers connected there.

The B450 Gaming-ITX/ac hammers home the above point by using only two of the B450’s PCIe lanes to connect Gigabit Ethernet and Wi-Fi controllers. The B450 also adds two USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports, located on the I/O panel.

The B450 Gaming-ITX/ac targets gamers specifically, so we power users probably shouldn’t complain too much that the I/O panel is sparsely populated with USB despite the platform’s combination of four CPU-based and two B450-based USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports. ASRock probably wanted more cooling space for the voltage regulator--or at least this is what I told myself as I counted the ports on the front-panel header and found that just four out of the six USB ports were USB 3.0. But the inclusion of two USB 2.0 ports on the I/O panel is no insult since keyboards and mice can’t use a higher-bandwidth standard anyway, and we won’t knock the space consumed by DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 2.0, since ASRock is also marketing the board to APU gamers. That’s right, the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac’s overclocking power could potentially be harnessed to an APU for the ultimate cheapskate gaming build.

Users also get a PS/2 port for legacy peripherals, a Gigabit Ethernet port driven by Intel’s PCIe-based i211AT controller, five analog audio ports served by Realtek’s ALC1220 high-end codec, a digital optical audio output and two Wi-Fi antenna jacks connected to an Intel 433Mb/s Key-E module on a riser bracket.

The B450 Gaming-ITX/ac’s surface features an eight-phase (6+2) voltage regulator with an 8-pin power connector at the rear, its latch exposed between I/O panel connectors. Addressable LED, a 4-pin USB, RGBW (labeled AMD_Fan_LED) and a 4-pin CPU fan header are at the top, behind the DIMM slots. Another 4-pin fan header is positioned in front of the DIMMs. Below that are the 24-pin power header, USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 front-panel headers, four SATA ports, the LPC (low pin count) bus and front-panel button/LED ports. The front-panel audio and beep-code speaker headers are toward the rear of the board, above its PCIe x16 slot.

Located on the board’s underside, its sole M.2 storage interface supports both PCIe x4 (NVMe) and SATA-interface SSDs.

The B450 Gaming-ITX/ac’s installation kit features an I/O shield, two SATA cables, two Wi-Fi antennae, a driver disc and printed documentation, which includes a very thorough manual and a software guide.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Fatal1ty F-Stream software includes an automatic overclocking utility that uses factory-programmed overclocking profiles from firmware to set the baseline for software. Unfortunately, ASRock boards with the AMD AM4 socket (such as the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac) don’t have the overclocking profiles required to activate this feature.

Manual overclocking via F-Stream’s OC Tweaker menu worked, but CPU multiplier is its only clock control. A useful system information page and fan tuning algorithm are also present, though fan tuning can be done just as easily from firmware.

ASRock Polychrome RGB finally supports our Kingston memory, at least on this board, allowing us to synchronize lighting effects between the LED strips and/or RGB CPU cooler and the DRAM.

Firmware

B450 Gaming-ITX/ac firmware has no “EZ Mode” GUI, but its classic interface opens by default to the “Main” menu and can be configured to open to any of the other menus listed as tabs near the top of the screen. We started our overclocking effort using “ASRock Setting” and reached a CPU frequency of approximately 4,275MHz at a mere 1.344V, which is the full-load voltage we found after setting 1.40V on a board that does not have a CPU Loadline Calibration adjustment.

As with other ASRock AM4 motherboards, we had to enable an XMP profile to enable the DRAM timing menu in “ASRock Setting” mode. Voltage is only adjustable in 50mV increments, and the 1.30V setting produced 1.319V when measured at DIMM slots. The 1.363V we measured at the 1.350V setting violates our test standards, which are tightly capped at <1.355V to assure fair overclocking comparison.

The “DRAM Information” menu item opens a sub-menu that shows useful programming information as read from each module.

The DRAM Timing Configuration sub-menu includes primary and secondary timings and a few other useful settings.

Switching from “ASRock Setting” to “AMD CBS Setting” in the OC Tweaker menu enables CBS settings under the "Advanced" menu. The above settings represent the same CAS 21 timings we used for overclocking under “ASRock Setting” mode, but access in this manner didn’t require us to base our overclock on XMP timings. Unfortunately, we were still stuck with the same DDR4-3600 limit.

The “Tool” menu includes less useful functions, such as a very limited RGB control menu, and highly useful functions, such as a network utility that polls ASRock servers for the latest firmware and downloads it to a USB flash drive.

Fan settings at the bottom of the "H/W Monitor" menu include PWM and voltage modes for all three headers, automatic profiles, manual configuration and a “FanTuning” algorithm. The “Fan-Tastic Tuning” menu allows users to make manual adjustments using a visual graph rather than a table.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

A lack of Mini-ITX samples for socket AM4 forced us to re-test an earlier ASRock model, the X370 Gaming-ITX/ac, as a direct comparison to the cheaper and more modern B450 Gaming-ITX/ac. Larger ATX models based on the even higher end X470 chipset, the Biostar Racing X470GT8 and Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi, fill out the rest of our comparison roster. We hope that including those top boards will help to prove the worth of today's lower-cost focus.

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated gigabit networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 399.24

The same platform that cools the intense heat of our X299 motherboards works equally well with AMD’s AM4 processors, as proven in the overclocking evaluation on the next page.

Comparison Products

Asrock Fatal1ty X370 Gaming-ITX/AC

Biostar Racing X470GT8

Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write 128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
*Ashes of the Singularity*	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920 x 1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920 x 1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
*F1 2015*	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi track, Rain Medium Preset, no AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
*Metro: Last Light Redux*	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920 x 1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920 x 1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
*The Talos Principle*	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We ran our basic benchmarks and power tests with XMP disabled and CPU-based power-saving technologies enabled in firmware.

Synthetic Benchmarks

The B450 Gaming-ITX/ac started out with a noticeable lead in our least-stressful 3DMark settings, but the lead diminished as the test settings were made increasingly more stressful. Clicking through to SiSoftware’s Sandra, we found marginal differences in CPU performance that can’t account for any noticeable changes in 3DMark, along with increased DRAM bandwidth that might have helped.

Cinebench and Compubench finish our synthetic series by again showing no appreciable difference in GPU-heavy workloads.

3D Games

If we’re to credit improved memory bandwidth for the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac’s gains in certain synthetics, those same advantages should be visible in our lower Ashes of the Singularity settings, as well as both F1 2015 results. And that was indeed the case.

Metro LL Redux rarely improves with memory bandwidth, primarily reflecting losses for severe bandwidth deficits, yet the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac still achieved the highest number of frames per second (fps) at our lower game settings. It even had a slight lead in Talos.

Timed Applications

The B450 Gaming-ITX/ac started out slightly slower than comparison boards in our mixed workloads, but somehow burst through Adobe Illustrator with an illustratable lead.

The B450 board also led in Microsoft Word (yawn) but then fell behind in PowerPoint.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

Our power tests aren’t so powerful any longer since the top three boards throttle down under full CPU load: the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac to 3,975MHz at 199W; the X370 Gaming ITX/ac to 3,875MHz at 184W; and the Racing X470GT8 to 3,825MHz at 186W. Fortunately, the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac held up to load long enough for us to get a somewhat-accurate maximum continuous (over several seconds) power reading of 208W at full clock speed.

Unfortunately, efficiency ratings need to be taken with two grains of salt since the two boards in the middle of our charts throttled so severely. The only definitive result is the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi’s win.

Overclocking

Setting an overclock is a great way to get rid of default power throttling, though small boards with small heat sinks require an additional fan over the voltage regulator when pushing clocks extra high. The killer stat is that the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac achieved the second highest overclock in spite of a core voltage that sagged from our 1.40V setting to a mere 1.344V under full load. The board also had very comparable numbers to its top rivals in DRAM overclocking, despite the 1.319V vDIMM that we had to use to keep its voltage from exceeding our test ceiling.

Though all three top boards reached DDR4-3600 (give or take a small difference in reference clock), the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi showed a clear advantage in bandwidth.

Final Thoughts

Cheapskates should love that our Performance Per Dollar chart—aka Bang-for-Your-Buck graph—only reflects performance and dollars. The B450 Gaming-ITX/ac is clearly 'less board' than its ATX rivals and also has a lower-cost chipset than its X370 sibling.

The actual price savings compared to the previous-generation X370 Gaming-ITX/ac of $30 is large enough for us to write off the older board in favor of the B450 version. There simply isn’t enough space on a Mini-ITX board to flesh out the extra features of an X-series chipset.

As for the comparison with ATX boards, thus was really just an attempt at proving the little board could keep up with the big guys when overclocking. Big boards usually have more features because they have more space for those features. The Biostar Racing X470GT8, for example, has far more interfaces and even overclocks the CPU better…but it’s only an option if you’re in the full-ATX market.

Apart from a couple missing USB 3.0 ports, the B450 Gaming-ITX/ac makes great use of the B450 chipset’s capabilities in a form factor that can’t support much more, while keeping up with the X470 boards, the Biostar and Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi, on both performance and overclocking. It does all of these things at a lower cost, making it a performance bargain for those who can live with the confines of Mini-ITX.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

AMD Responds to Intel's 9th Gen Benchmarks

Nathaniel Mott — Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:42:00 +0000

Earlier this month Intel and Principled Technologies attracted controversy with their benchmarks comparing the new Core i9-9900K with AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X. (More on the new processor, which is the fastest gaming CPU we've ever tested, can be found in our review.) Now AMD has responded to the issue in new slides outlining its complaints with the first benchmark and the retest as well as its benchmarking best practices.

Make no mistake: there's effectively zero chance AMD released these slides the same day Intel lifted the embargo on Core i9-9900K reviews by accident. The company had ample opportunity to release these slides when the benchmarks first attracted controversy, or when the retest was published, instead of releasing them on the same day as Intel's new processor release.

But that doesn't mean AMD's complaints are invalid. The company has many of the same issues with Principled Technologies' initial benchmarks as most enthusiasts--the first test limited the 2700X's cores, had "questionable memory configurations," and was subject to conditions that favored Intel's processor over AMD's. That doesn't offer an unbiased comparison; it just gives Intel figures it can tout in press materials.

AMD's slides also take issue with the retest of these benchmarks. The company said it had the following concerns about those new benchmarks:

Unclear Multicore Enhancement (or equivalent) setting on Z390 systems
Suspect memory configurations (timings, transfer rates, capacity, derated OE DIMM specs)
Unaddressed thermal environment disparities
Unaddressed GPU assortment and performance deltas
Unaddressed sample size, collection, and selection methodologies
Unaddressed Z370 C-state configuration

The company raised these issues despite the retest showing double-digit performance improvements over the initial benchmarks in Far Cry 5, Forza Motorsport 7, Ashes of the Singularity, and Assassin's Creed Origins at 1080p. Addressing those outstanding concerns might allow the 2700X to compare even more favorably to the Core i9-9900K, but our own benchmarks show that Intel's latest still outperforms AMD's CPUs.

AMD also used the chance to share its "benchmarking best practices" for "consistent, accurate, repeatable" results. We suspect neither Intel nor Principled Technologies will heed the unsolicited advice.

Conversely, AMD has also contracted with Principled Technologies in the past to promote its EPYC data center chips.

Still, the entire back-and-forth shows the hazards of relying on vendor-supplied benchmarks. AMD was right to call out Intel and Principled Technologies for their setup and for touting the new Core i9-9900K's performance based on faulty comparisons. But--and, yes, we're clearly biased here--it's typically better to wait for impartial reviewers to get their hands on new hardware than to trust companies' performance claims.

Biostar Racing X470GT8 Review: Ryzen Higher For Less

Thomas Soderstrom — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

Biostar understands that some enthusiasts just want performance, and that the key to performance often lies with overclocking. Buyers with only those goals don’t tend to go for a full set of features, finding that their money is instead better-spent on an even more-overclockable CPU and a big cooler to help push clock speeds to their limits. The Racing X470GT8 gets AMD fanatics there, without the paid-for add-on feature of SLI support, which they might find offensive as they search for an AMD-based card to complete their build.

The $155 Racing X470GT8 doesn't look quite as fancey than most of its AM4-overclocking rivals, but that's OK because it also costs less. Biostar puts its efforts in places that count, such as voltage regulation and firmware development to deliver a low-cost option for AMD enthusiasts.

The cost cutting comes in places that have little impact on performance enthusiasts, such as I/O ports and decorations that cover the heat sinks and ports. The metal slot frames that so many of Biostar’s competitors would point to as reinforcements appear to be connected to nothing more than the plastic beneath (though Biostar still claims a 70% increase in shear resistance). We still get RGB lighting for the white segments of those covers, but programming for that RGB is reduced to various monochromatic schemes. By high-end standards, the Racing X470GT8 appears solidly mainstream.

There isn’t much crossover between APU and overclocking-optimized products in most competing products, but maybe there should be. Biostar loaded up the Racing X470GT8’s I/O panel with DVI-D, DisplayPort and HDMI outputs, the latter two 4K compatible at 60Hz and 24Hz respectively. USB 3.1 Gen1 (5Gb/s) drops to 4 ports, but a Type A and a Type-C USB 3.1 Gen2 (10Gb/s) port keeps are on offer here. There are no additional USB 2.0 ports to fall back on for your keyboard and mouse, though Biostar retains a PS/2 port for legacy peripherals. Audio is available from the expected 5 analog jacks and single optical output, and the jacks are gold-plated. Oh, and you still get a Gigabit Ethernet port, though nothing in the way of Wi-Fi.

The Racing X470GT8’s bottom edge includes front-panel audio and two (of five total) fan headers, a manual switch for the two firmware integrated circuits (ICs), two USB 2.0 and two USB 3.0 headers. There's also an extended front-panel LED/switch connector that includes the standard nine-pin Intel configuration on the right side and a PC Beep-code speaker on the left side, but with one exception: The tenth pin hasn’t been removed. We’d love it if the industry would standardize completely so that case manufacturers could provide a single connector for that mess of pin headers and cables.

The front edge includes one (of two) RGB LED connectors, a Port 80 diagnostics display, power/reset/CLR_CMOS buttons, and an LN2_Mode switch that, when deployed, forces the system to boot at its lowest clocks to overcome cold-bug issues when attempting an extreme overclock with extreme liquids.

If you’re an experienced builder, you’re probably thinking that you’d not be able to insert a graphics card in the third x16-length slot if either one of the front-panel USB 3.0 headers was connected. And while you’d be right about the fitment issue, you might just be kidding yourself by placing a card there anyway. Like other X470 boards, the bottom slot gets four lanes from the southbridge and is forced to share bandwidth with everything else. So, you’re better-off putting an NVMe add-in card there, if anything. And that option appears even more appealing on a board that only has one M.2 slot, where many competing models have two.

The only other tight spot is the latch for the 8-pin CPU power connector: It’s barely exposed next to the rear voltage regulator heat sink.

Specifications

Socket	AM4
Chipset	AMD X470
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	12 Phases
Video Ports	DVI-D, DisplayPort, HDMI
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type A 5Gb/s: (4) Type A
Network Jacks	Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital Out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16/x0, x8/x8, Raven Ridge at x8/x0) (1) v2.0 (x4)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(3) v2.0
CrossFire/SLI	2x / ✗
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / SATA
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(2) v3.0, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(5) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	System (Beep-code) Speaker
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, (2) RGB-LED
Diagnostics Panel	Numeric
Internal Button/Switch	Power, Reset, CLR_CMOS/ BIOS selector, LN2 mode
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ehternet Controllers	WGI211AT PCIe
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗ / ✗
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	3 Years

Most of the features Biostar advertises for the Racing X470GT8 are matched by its higher-priced competitors, including items like the single M.2 SSD heat sink and the ferrite-core chokes on a voltage regulator rated for 60A per phase. But the key to this board's marketing position is that those competitors have higher prices. That makes us even more anxious to get this board on the bench!

Four SATA cables and nothing else of substance make up the hardware kit for the X470GT8. With an eye to cost, Biostar simply didn’t purchase an SLI license for this product. You’ll still get an I/O shield, manual, and installation disc, however.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Biostar’s Racing GT Evo software encapsulates most of its utilities, including system information, audio (Smart Ear), power options (GT Touch), RGB control (Vivid LED DJ), fan control (A.I Fan), hardware monitor, and overclocking (OC/OV). Vivid LED appears limited to a variety of monochromatic schemes in any fixed color you’d prefer. Our tests confirmed that OC/OV changed both the CPU clock ratio and voltage levels on-the-fly.

Biostar also includes a firmware updater for Windows and a direct email sender that requires users to enter a return email from which to retrieve Biostar’s response.

Firmware

The Racing X470GT8’s firmware GUI opens to its Main page. Digging into the Advanced page, we eventually work our way down to the CBS menu, which typically offers a variety of memory options under its UMC submenu. Biostar’s CBS options are far more limited than some of its competitors, however.

Digging around in the UMC options of the CBS menu and finding the correct settings was never easy, but the limited settings of the Racing X470GT8 almost makes it pointless. We’d rather overclock our DRAM from the simplified O.N.E. menu anyway. And that’s still an option.

The great news is that the Racing X470GT8 pushed our Ryzen 7 2700X CPU to its highest-yet stable overclock of 4.30GHz, using a 1.40V core setting that dropped to 1.344V under load using the board’s most-aggressive “Level 6” CPU Load-Line Calibration (droop compensation). We find it peculiar that a board with less-aggressive voltage compensation provided our highest-yet overclock in spite of its lower loaded voltage, but better (smoother) voltage regulation could produce such a finding.

You’ll notice that the DRAM timings were left at “auto” in the above screen shots and that the memory was left to its DDR4-2933 XMP value. Loosened timings allowed our memory to reach DDR4-3200 on the board, but we couldn’t get it to stay stable under extended testing. And DDR4-2933 performs better at CAS 16 than at our CAS 21 limit.

Keyboard function keys bring up fan (F5) and LED (F6) control menus. While the manual shows a menu with PWM or DC fan control selection, the Racing X470GT8 doesn’t have the necessary hardware to switch from PWM to voltage-based fan control. Neither of these menus support the board’s F11 screenshot saving function, which forced us to dig out our old VGA2USB capture device, along with a VGA-compatible graphics card, to capture these last two images.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

A recent change in memory configuration forced us to begin our X470 testing anew, beginning with a retest of Gigabyte’s X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi, followed by the newly added ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate. These two full-ATX boards stand as our baseline for comparing the far-more-economical Biostar Racing X470GT8.

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated gigabit networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 399.24

The same platform that cooled the intense heat of our X299 motherboards works equally well with AMD’s AM4 processors, as proven in the overclocking evaluation of our next page.

Comparison Products

Biostar Racing X470GT8

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate

Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write 128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
*Ashes of the Singularity*	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920 x 1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920 x 1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
*F1 2015*	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi track, Rain Medium Preset, no AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
*Metro: Last Light Redux*	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920 x 1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920 x 1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
*The Talos Principle*	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Our benchmark and power measurements use DDR4-2400 DRAM defaults with all CPU-based power saving technologies enabled in firmware.

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Racing X470GT8 takes a slight lead in 3DMark scores across three tests, though it started out down a little in the graphics score of our lowest settings. Everything looks normal in PCMark, and even Sandra Memory Bandwidth is spot-on.

With no clear indication of performance differentiation in our longer Cinebench and Compubench tests, it’s time to see if any of these boards stands out in games.

3D Games

Though it lagged behind by a measly 1 FPS in our lowest F1 2015 test, the Racing X470GT8 appears to have an overall lead of approximately 1 FPS across the average of titles and settings.

Timed Applications

The Racing X470GT8 wins a couple of our shorter timed tests, and loses a few longer ones, as if its throttling back slightly over time. That doesn’t seem to affect Adobe After Effects results however, so maybe the other small differences occurred by happenstance?

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The Racing X470GT8 throttled back a little more than its competitors under heavy CPU load, which had a greater impact on our power and heat measurements than on performance metrics, so we’re going to ask users to take the results with a grain of salt. The actual difference between it and the other boards was around 125MHz, which should be around 10W according to our observations, and we can’t get a more-precise number by which a true measure of efficiency would be possible.

Overclocking

The Racing X470GT8 had the greatest amount of voltage sag, resulting in the lowest full-load CPU core voltage, yet still held a higher stable frequency at 4.30GHz. Evidence of the lower voltage reported in software was affirmed in a power reading of around 260W at 4.3GHz full-load, rather than the approximate 267W of the boards that achieved only 4.25 and 4.27 GHz.

DRAM overclocking was nearly impossible, and while retesting with faster-rated modules was an option, the modules we’re using are known to blow past DDR4-4000 on certain other motherboards.

Final Thoughts

Cheapskates love performance-per-dollar charts, because they typically show the board with the fewest features as having the best value. On the other hand, the more-expensive competitors do have a few features that we’d like to use.

For example, both competing boards here have dual M.2 storage slots. The hyper-expensive X470 Taichi Ultimate also includes 10Gb Ethernet, in addition to an identical Gigabit Ethernet controller and a low-end Wi-Fi controller. That sounds like a great configuration for builders who would like their most-powerful system to also be a media hub for their entire home. But the difference in price is quite excessive at $120. Heck, you could almost buy a second Racing X470GT8 for that price premium!

The Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi sits in the middle with a vastly superior Wi-Fi controller, but no 10Gb Ethernet. Gigabyte has the firmware and RGB control nailed down tight on that board, making it a great choice for people who are willing to pay for things done right. But from a features standpoint, it’s still hard to give that board the extra $75 credit it would need to keep up with the Racing X470GT8’s pricing value.

The modestly-priced Racing X470GT8 thus gets an extra point for value, and that puts it into award territory. As editor, I hate giving such a poor DRAM overclocking board an “Editor’s Choice”, but perhaps that’s only because I’m also a DRAM editor. But superior CPU overclocking at a price that easily undercuts the competition is enough to make this board a winner, even if it's not great at pushing memory to the highest possible clock speeds.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate: Just Add 10GbE?

Thomas Soderstrom — Sat, 29 Sep 2018 15:00:00 +0000

X470 Taichi Ultimate Features & Layout

What happens when a manufacturer takes an already-successful and somewhat high-end overclocking board (X470 Taichi) and adds ultra-fast 10GbE networking? We’d ideally find the perfect board for the modern power user, but the X470 Taichi Ultimate just isn’t that polished. At $269, the board is relatively inexpensive for what you get, but it suffers from overly-complex firmware and slow Wi-Fi speeds.

The X470 Taichi gets a new look in its Ultimate edition’s grey accent panels, but the “Ultimate” component comes in the form of Aquantia’s AQC107 10Gb Ethernet controller. The controller is typically priced at $100 when mounted to a PCIe x4 card, but ASRock was able to reduce the premium to a mere $60 by integrating it. X470 Taichi Ultimate users still get the original board’s combination of Gigabit Ethernet and 802.11ac Wi-Fi controller, so that the 10GbE doesn’t cost them any of the earlier board’s features.

Specifications

Chipset	AMD X470
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	16 Phases
Video Ports	HDMI
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type A 5Gb/s: (6) Type A
Network Jacks	10GbE, Gigabit Ethernet, (2) Wi-Fi Antenna
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital Out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16/x0, x8/x8, Raven Ridge at x8/x0) (1) v2.0 (x4, Excluded by 2nd M.2)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v2.0
CrossFire/SLI	2x / 2x
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / SATA, (1) PCIe 2.0 x4* (*Consumes four-lane x16 slot)
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(8) 6Gb/s (two via ASM1061)
USB Headers	(1) v3.1 Gen2, (2) v3.0, (2) v2.0, (1) AMD LED fan
Fan Headers	(5) 4-Pin, (1) AMD LED fan
Legacy Interfaces	System (Beep-code) Speaker
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, RGB-LED, Addressible LED
Diagnostics Panel	Numeric
Internal Button/Switch	Power, Reset / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10), ASM1061 PCIe
Ethernet Controllers	Aquantia AQC107 PCIe x4, WGI211AT PCIe
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	Intel 3168 802.11ac (433mb/s) / BT 4.2 Combo
USB Controllers	ASM3142 PCIe 3.0 x2
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	DTS Connect
Warranty	3 Years

Layout

Other than the extra RJ45 connection, the X470 Taichi Ultimate’s I/O panel matches the layout of its (X470 Taichi) predecessor. Users still get two Wi-Fi antenna jacks, a single PS/2 port for their legacy keyboard or mouse, six 5Gb/s USB and two 10Gb/s USB connections (including a Type-C port), a CLR_CMOS button, an HDMI output for Raven Ridge APUs, a digital optical and five analog audio jacks, and a Gigabit Ethernet jack in addition to the Ultimate-model-exclusive 10GbE. The same limitations apply as well: The Wi-Fi’s 433Mb/s limit could impact its usefulness as an access point, non-APU Ryzen processors lack the internal graphics engine to enable the HDMI output, and Ryzen APU’s loose half of the CPU-based PCIe lanes…which in turn disables one of the x16-length PCIe slots.

Users still get the third x16-length slot, but it’s still limited to PCIe 2.0 x4 mode by the chipset. And that slot gets disabled whenever a drive is added to the second M.2 storage slot. That leaves APU users with two M.2 drives nothing but a single eight-lane slot on top and two x1 slots to load with other expansion cards. We’d not likely buy a high-end board for our APUs, but these limitations are still things to keep in mind if your plan is to upgrade over time.

An open-ended connector on the X470 Taichi Ultimate’s lower PCIe x1 slot enables users to put a longer card there, but we found that installing one over an M.2 drive made for a scary-tight fit. ASRock might not expect anyone to use a longer card and a lower M.2 drive simultaneously, but we’d think that was the point, since installing a drive there causes the bottom x16 slot to be disabled. Covered by an aluminum heat spreader, the upper M.2 drive slot is safely out of harm’s way.

Front panel audio, TPM, Addressable LED, standard RGB strip, chassis fan, legacy Speaker with 3-pin Power LED combo, and two dual-port USB 2.0 headers are lined up behind a Port 80 diagnostics code display along the X470 Taichi Ultimate’s bottom edge. Reset, Power, and a second CLR_CMOS button are lined up in front of the Port 80 display, along with an Intel-standard front-panel LED/Button combo header. The bottom-edge fan header is one of three rated at 2A max load for pump compatibility.

Eight forward-facing SATA ports, a USB 3.0 header, and a Gen2 USB 3.1 header line the lower half of the front edge, where two of the SATA ports interface an added-in ASM1061 controller. The upper half of the front edge features a second 2A fan header, a second USB 3.0 front-panel header, and the main 24-pin ATX power connector.

Eight-pin and four-pin CPU power headers, a third 2A fan header, and two 1A fan headers reside on the X470 Taichi Ultimate’s top edge, just above its 16-phase voltage regulator. Headers for AMD’s RGB/LED CPU fans are located mid-board, just forward of the upper M.2 slot’s heat spreader.

With all the ports located in front of expansion slots pointing forward and none of the stiff-cabled headers (such as USB 3.0 and 3.1) found on the bttom edge, there simply aren’t any noteworthy space conflicts. Even the upper x1 slot is located two spaces below the upper x16 slot, allowing it to be used even when a double-slot graphics cooler is mounted to the top card. Some RGB strip extension cables have stiff connectors, but those are so narrow that we don’t perceive a problem for builders who might bend the header pins down a little simply to install a thick-cooler graphics card over those.

Four SATA cables, two Wi-Fi antennae , an I/O shield, a High Bandwidth SLI bridge, documentation, and a driver disc fill the X470 Taichi Ultimate’s installation kit.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Designed to work across its motherboard lines, ASRock A-Tuning appears to be optimized for other processors on other boards (cough...Intel...cough), though the lack of programmed overclocking profiles in firmware is certainly another restriction: The firmware has no programmed overclocks for EZ OC to read or base its automatic overclock algorithm upon. Clock settings are also limited to the CPU/APU/PCIe frequencies.

ASRock Polychrome RGB provides various single and multi-color patterns to onboard lighting zones and LED strip headers, but couldn’t read our Kingston RGB memory samples, and was thus unable to synchronize its lighting effects.

Firmware

The X470 Taichi Ultimate’s UEFI has no “EZ Mode” GUI, but those tend to be unnecessarily cumbersome rather than helpful to anyone with basic knowledge (such as that gleaned from reading a couple reviews). Instead we see a standard interface opening by default to the “Main” menu, though the default view can be changed within the Advanced menu.

The basic OC Tweaker menu does little more than basic overclocking, and annoyingly requires users to enable XMP settings before allowing the DRAM configuration to be altered. This means that all of our DRAM overclocks are based upon our memory’s XMP-2933 values rather than the looser automatic configuration that might apply if XMP were disabled. And that in turn means our DRAM overclocks were unnecessarily limited, or that finding a workaround would be unnecessarily complicated.

Since I hadn’t overclocked an AMD processor recently, I relied on our own Paul Alcorn’s report of a 1.40V CPU core safe maximum to reach a 4275 MHz overclock, while maintaining a minimum core voltage under load of 1.392V by applying the board’s Level 4 Load-Line calibration. The Level 3 setting boosted voltage under heavy software load to 1.424V, which is too high to assure CPU longevity.

The simplified DRAM Timings menu changes half of its timings to fixed mode when XMP is applied, but manually switching those back to “Auto” allowed them to loosen slightly as we increased DRAM data rate to 3466. Higher settings were bootable but allowed stability tests to crash.

An advanced DRAM frequency and timings menu is available from Advanced mode, but making the changes stick requires going back to the OC Tweaker menu and switching to AMD CBS clock control mode. And doing that meant losing access to all the easy clock controls for the CPU. Having cut my teeth on a far-more user-friendly (Gigabyte X470) board, I initially resigned to frustration before returning to find that choosing 15h/15h/15h/15h/2Ah settings from the Advanced/AMD CBS/UMC Common Options/DDR4 Common Options/DRAM Timing Configuration/I Accept sub-sub-sub-sub-submenu would get us the CAS 21 timings we sought for or DRAM overclocking evaluation.

The number of AMD CBS settings and menus make navigation cumbersome, further enhancing our desire to see additional memory controls on the far-simpler OC Tweaker menu.

The X470 Taichi Ultimate’s “Tool” menu includes an RGB lighting control submenu, Instant Flash utility for firmware ROMs that have been stored on a USB flash drive, Internet Flash that polls the server for new firmware ROMs that can be stored to a USB flash drive, and a Network Configuration utility to help you configure the machine to poll the ASRock update server through restricted networks. The RGB LED menu has far fewer options than ASRock has typically provided on its Intel motherboards, which adds to the unfinished feel of its GUI.

You may have noticed that we used the X470 Taichi Ultimate’s “1.305V” setting for our DRAM and questioned whether that was the cause of our limited DRAM overclocks, but the firmware’s DRAM voltage reading confirms our voltmeter reading of 1.352V for that setting. The memory is rated at 1.350V, and we keep it under 1.3550V simply to maintain a consistent method of overclocking validation.

Farther down the H/W Monitor menu, fan controls are available for all headers using both PWM and Voltage-based methods. The primary CPU fan headers is limited to 1A, the other four PWM-style headers are limited to 2A, and the AMD LED fan header (which isn’t addressed in this menu) is limited to 3A.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We started today’s comparison by retesting the Gigabyte’s X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi, using the new hardware available at a different lab. Unfortunately, we found that the board defaulted our high-flying G.Skill DDR4-3866 to a mere DDR4-1866, crippling our performance metrics. Kingston’s DDR4-2933 now fills that role with an XMP setting that’s optimized for AMD processors and equally impressive overclocking capacity. Unfortunately, its DDR4-2400 defaults boosted performance to the point that none of our prior findings could be properly compared. We’re restarting from a zero baseline.

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated gigabit networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

The same platform that cooled the intense heat of our X299 motherboards works equally well with AMD’s AM4 processors, as proven in the overclocking evaluation of our next page.

Comparison

Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate

With only one X470 board to compare, we filled out the bottom of our charts with an average of all previous Z370 data. You’ll want to see just how well the AM4 boards perform before crying Intel bias on this occasion.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write 128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
*Ashes of the Singularity*	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920 x 1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920 x 1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
*F1 2015*	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi track, Rain Medium Preset, no AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
*Metro: Last Light Redux*	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920 x 1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920 x 1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
*The Talos Principle*	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We enable the CPU/Chipset manufacturer’s power-saving features in firmware prior to running our basic benchmark and power tests. We also disable XMP memory mode, since some manufacturers have tied it to a CPU overclock when applied to certain chipsets.

Synthetic Benchmarks

We’re slightly surprised to see the X470 Taichi Ultimate outperforming the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi in 3DMark, though its performance advantage is less consistent in PCMark. Sandra shows both boards producing very similar CPU and DRAM performance, but there are probably other ways to optimize firmware for benchmarks.

3D Games

The competing Gigabyte board edges out ASRock’s X470 Taichi Ultimate in Ashes and F1 2015, but then gets edged out in Metro LL Redux and Talos.

Timed Applications

Remembering that less completion time means better performance, it’s interesting to watch the Aorus and Taichi board’s swap positions across the field. The biggest loss was found in the X470 Gaming 7 WiFi’s “After Effects” completion time, but the same board finished PowerPoint quickest.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

Poor idle-down power readings have an impact on both AMD platforms, but the X470 Taichi Ultimate suffers equally at high CPU loads. The X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi finishes over 9% ahead of the X470 Taichi Ultimate, even though its performance difference is far less than 1%.

Overclocking

Easy tuning gave the X470 Aorus Gaming a boost in DRAM overclocking, while the X470 Taichi Ultimate edges that board out in CPU overclocking. Reports of four DIMMs being harder to overclock than two appear unfounded for the Ryzen 7 2700X’s memory controller.

Final Analysis

We used the average of the two X470 boards for our value-chart baseline, which shows the 17.4% price difference between these boards as a negative value score for the better-equipped board. The larger question is whether its equipment level is 17.4% better.

Compared to the X470 Aorus Gaming 7, the X470 Taichi Ultimate gains a 10Gb/s controller and several CPU voltage regulators, but loses the 1.73Gb/s Wi-Fi controller to a lower 433Mb/s model. Network configuration alone would make these two boards similarly valuable, depending on the buyer’s needs and/or desires. Still, it would have been nice if the board that has a 10GbE connection plus 1GbE plus Wi-Fi could have included fast Wi-Fi to become the centerpiece of your home connectivity needs. Or you could just get a router and an access point...

We loved the X470 Taichi Ultimate’s CPU overclocking capability, but found DRAM overclocking unnecessarily cumbersome. A quick look back at its firmware RGB control menu completes the feeling that the firmware lacks every finishing touch. Users who would stop at simply enabling the XMP profile of their AMD-listed DRAM won't have those issues, and the rest of the board functions well enough to satisfy most needs. High-end AM4 motherboard buyers who would like to save a little bit of cash on the Aquantia 10GbE controller (compared to a discrete card) and use AMD-approved memory at its rated settings will find good value in the X470 Taichi Ultimate.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Core i9-9900K At 5GHz Purportedly 16.5 Percent Faster Than Stock Ryzen 7 2700X

Zhiye Liu — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:04:02 +0000

(Image credit: Lau Kin Lam/YouTube)

Prolific Chinese overclocker Lau Kin Lam claims he has taken Intel's forthcoming Core i9-9900K processor to a staggering 5GHz on all eight cores using watercooling. As with all leaked test results, take these with a grain of salt. However, the corresponding YouTube video lends some credence to the score.

The Intel 9000-series or Coffee Lake Refresh, whichever you want to call it, is almost here. Needless to say, the spotlight is set on the Core i9-9900K, Intel's first mainstream eight-core processor. As we're nearing the purported launch month of October, supposed benchmark figures are starting to appear left and right. The latest performance leak comes by the hands of Lau Kin Lam from Hong Kong media outlet HKEPC.

Lau Kin Lam claims to have successfully overclocked the Core i9-9900K to 5GHz across all cores with a mere 1.28V with watercooling, producing a Cinebench R15 result of 2,166 points. Lau Kin Lam's result is 158 points higher than a previous result posted by a Facebook user named "18yearsoldangus," who managed to rake in a score of 2,008 points. It's difficult to assess the Core i9-9900K's true multi-core performance based on either result. The processor was running at 5GHz on all its cores when the Core i9-9900K supposedly has an all-core turbo of 4.7GHz. For the sake of comparison, let's see how the overclocked Core i9-9900K fairs against Intel's own Core i7-8700K and AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X.

Both Lau Kin Lam and 18yearsoldangus allegedly used engineering samples of the Core i9-9900K, so it's still subject to tuning. The results should be taken with a degree of skepticism since the final performance numbers could differ greatly. The overclockers also failed to mention the test systems' specifications, which could be what caused the substantial difference between the scores.

At stock speeds, the Core i7-8700K and Ryzen 7 2700X produced a Cinebench R15 result of 1,443 points and 1,859 points, respectively. Based on Lau Kin Lam's figures, a Core i9-9900K running at 5GHz is around 50.1 percent faster than a stock Core i7-8700K, which is understandable considering that the Core i9-9900K has two extra cores, which are overclocked in this case. However, the performance gap closes significantly if we compare the Core i9-9900K to a true eight-core rival. Even with a hefty 5GHz overclock, the Core i9-9900K is only 16.5 percent faster than a stock Ryzen 7 2700X.

With the Core i7-8700K overclocked to 4.9GHz, the processor put up a score of 1,648 points, shrinking the Core i9-9900K's by 31.4 percent. Things get spicy with the Ryzen 7 2700X. At 4.2GHz, the AMD chip scored 1,907 points. If you want to look at it from an overclocking perspective, the Core i9-9900K clocked at 5GHz is basically 13.6 percent faster than a Ryzen 7 2700X at 4.2GHz.

Unfortunately, Lau Kin Lam didn't run the single-core Cinebench R15 test on the Core i9-9900K. so we have yet to see the processor's performance in single-threaded scenarios.

Ryzen Threadripper 2 (2990WX and 2950X) Review: AMD Unleashes 32 Cores

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction

AMD is building on the success of its high-end desktop Ryzen Threadripper processors with a handful of powerful new models known as the Threadripper 2000-Series or, unofficially, Threadripper 2.

The flagship Threadripper 2990WX is an $1800 beast armed with an incredible 32 Zen+-based cores and the ability to work on 64 threads concurrently. Threadripper 2970WX wields 24 cores and 48 threads, plus lower boost frequencies, but also pushes pricing down to $1300. Those are both quad-die configurations. AMD is also updating its dual-die line-up with the Threadripper 2950X, wielding 16 Zen+ cores for $900, and Threadripper 2920X, sporting 12 cores and the ability to work on 24 threads concurrently for $650. The 2950X, specifically, serves up impressive value across a diverse range of workloads. It may very well be the CPU to beat in today's high-end desktop market.

Even though AMD claims its top-end Threadripper 2990WX is up to 51% faster than Intel's $2000 Core i9-7980XE, there are some caveats enthusiasts need to be made aware of. For instance, the WX series' multi-chip module comprises four separate dies. Due to the constraints of AMD's existing Threadripper design, two of the 2990WX's dies aren't connected directly to main memory. That creates an architecture capable of incredible performance in heavily-threaded workloads that aren't sensitive to memory throughput, but less impressive results in bandwidth-hungry applications that don't scale well with extra cores. We found that the Threadripper 2990WX is mostly a niche product for professionals with specific requirements. Still, it sets a new high water mark for compute horsepower on the desktop.

Threadripper 2

Earlier this year, AMD retooled its mainstream Ryzen line-up with new Zen+ optimizations that include 12nm manufacturing, improved memory and cache latency, higher clock rates, and enhanced multi-core Precision Boost frequencies. The net effect of those changes carry over to the new Threadripper models.

And like the previous-gen Threadripper models, AMD offers improved frequency and voltage scaling by selecting the top 5% of Zeppelin dies for its halo product line. That should translate to lower voltage requirements at any given clock rate.

	Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX	Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
Socket	TR4	TR4
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	16 / 32
Base Frequency	3.0 GHz	3.5 GHz
Boost Frequency	4.2 GHz	4.4 GHz
Memory Speed	DDR4-2933 (Varies)	DDR4-2933 (Varies)
Memory Controller	Quad-Channel	Quad-Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64 (Four to the chipset)	64 (Four to the chipset)
Integrated Graphics	No	No
Cache (L2 / L3)	80MB	40MB
Architecture	Zen+	Zen+
Process	12nm LP GloFo	12nm LP GloFo
TDP	250W	180W

With today's introduction, AMD splits its Threadripper portfolio into the WX and X families. Similar to the company's previous-gen X products, the two new WX models are geared toward intense multitasking workloads, 3D rendering, media encoding, and cinema mastering. That makes them attractive to software developers, video/audio engineers, and content creators.

The 32C/64T Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has a 3 GHz base frequency that stretches up to 4.2 GHz via AMD's XFR (eXtreme Frequency Range) algorithms. It does battle with Intel's $2000 Core i9-7980XE, boasting 18 Hyper-Threaded cores. AMD claims the 2990WX's single-threaded performance only lags the -7980XE by four percent. That's the closest the company has come to matching Intel in this important metric.

AMD also has a $1300 Threadripper 2970WX in the works that serves up 24 cores able to work on 48 threads simultaneously. However, it won't be available until October.

Each of the WX processors' four dies feature eight physical cores and 16MB of L3 cache. Threadripper 2990WX and 2970WX both enjoy the benefit of 64MB L3 cache. However, AMD disables two cores per die on the 2970WX to facilitate its 24-core configuration.

The WX family's more sophisticated layout results in a 250W thermal design power. Of course, that's significantly higher than the original Threadripper's 180W rating, meaning you need a high-end cooling solution to realize peak performance (particularly if you plan on overclocking). AMD ships all Threadripper CPUs with an Asetek bracket that provides partial coverage of the massive heat spreader using supported closed-loop liquid coolers. According to AMD, this partial coverage is fine for stock operation. But we found that full-coverage coolers work better. AMD also collaborated with Cooler Master to develop the Wraith Ripper heat sink/fan combo for its Socket TR4 interface. It's sold separately, though. The premium cooler comes with configurable RGB lighting and was designed to accommodate tall memory modules under its fin stack.

AMD uses Indium solder between its dies and heat spreader to improve thermal transfer. In contrast, Intel employs thermal grease. Intel also recommends liquid cooling on its Skylake-X processors, while, again, AMD contends that air cooling is ample.

	Cores /Threads	Base / Boost (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe 3.0	DRAM	TDP	MSRP	Price Per Core
TR 2990WX	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1799	$56
TR 2970WX	24 / 48	3.0 / 3.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	250W	$1299	$54
Core i9-7980XE	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.4	24.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1999	$111
TR 2950X	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$899	$56
TR 1950X	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.4	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$750	$47
Core i9-7960X	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.4	22	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1699	$106
TR 2920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.3	32	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2933	180W	$649	$54
TR 1920X	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.2	64	64 (4 to PCH)	Quad DDR4-2667	180W	$399	$33
Core i9-7920X	12 /24	2.9 / 4.4	16.50	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$1199	$100
Core i9-7900X	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	13.75	44	Quad DDR4-2666	140W	$999	$99
Core i7-8700K	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	12	16	Dual DDR4-2666	95W	$359	$60
Ryzen 7 2700X	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	16	16	Dual DDR4-2933	105W	$329	$41

Unlike AMD's first round of Threadripper chips, which were aimed at prosumers, this time the company is going after enthusiasts and gamers with its X series. The $900 Ryzen Threadripper 2950X weighs in with 16 cores and 32 threads, but features much higher clock rates than the WX models. The 2950X's 3.5 GHz base frequency and 4.4 GHz boost rate are slight steps up from Threadripper 1950X's 3.4/4.2 GHz specifications. Expect to find Threadripper 2950X in stock on August 31, 2018.

AMD plans to launch the $650 Threadripper 2920X in October. That 12-core, 24-thread CPU will offer a base frequency of 3.5 GHz and a maximum boost clock rate of 4.3 GHz. As with previous X-series models, the 2950X and 2920X utilize a pair of eight-core dies and two dummy packages that help with mechanical stability as you tighten down a thermal solution. The active dies expose 32MB of L3 cache, and abide the same 180W TDP rating as first-gen Threadripper processors.

All of the new Threadripper chips sport unlocked ratio multipliers for overclocking, along with 60 lanes of third-gen PCI Express (plus four lanes attached to the supporting chipset). All of that connectivity could come in handy for discrete graphics cards for rendering or compute, but they're also useful for high-performance storage and networking.

Threadripper CPUs feature independent dual-channel memory controllers located on two dies, which combine to provide quad-channel support with varying data transfer rates based upon your configuration. With today's introduction, AMD bumps its maximum specification up to DDR4-2933 from DDR4-2666. Today, the platform supports ECC memory and up to 256GB of capacity. However, it can accommodate up to 2TB as memory density increases.

DIMM Config	Memory Ranks	Official Supported Transfer Rate (MT/s)
4 of 4	Single	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-2133
4 of 4	Dual	DDR4-2933
4 of 8		DDR4-2667
8 of 8		DDR4-1866

Precision Boost 2, XFR2, and Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO)

AMD's previous-gen Ryzen processors included features called Precision Boost, a dynamic voltage frequency scaling technology similar to Intel's Turbo Boost, and eXtended Frequency Range, which provided additional frequency uplift if your cooling solution had thermal headroom to spare. Those 1000-series CPUs only offered quad-core (X series) or all-core Precision Boost and XFR clock rates.

The Threadripper WX processor's highest boost frequency occurs on eight cores simultaneously, while the X-series chips boost on four cores. There remains headroom to exploit, though. 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 16% boost if your cooler is beefy enough.

AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and 2950X launch marks the official introduction of Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), a feature that rolled out quietly alongside second-gen Ryzen CPUs earlier in 2018. PBO is an automated overclocking feature that boosts performance to the limits of a motherboard and cooler's capabilities. Cruelly, using it voids Threadripper's three-year warranty. And AMD unfortunately has no equivalent to Intel's optional Performance Tuning Protection Plan.

The new Threadrippers already push the frequency/voltage curve's boundaries at stock settings, so manual tuning often result in worse single-threaded performance because the silicon can't accelerate as aggressively under an all-core overclock. Locking the processor to a static frequency also prohibits it from downshifting into lower clock rate to save power at idle. PBO addresses the issues with manual overclocking head-on. It dynamically overclocks the processor and communicates with the platform to modulate performance based on what the motherboard's power delivery subsystem can do. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2, XFR2, and PBO bins because the opportunistic algorithms achieve different frequencies based on temperature, current, and load.

All of the 2000-series Threadripper processors are technically backward-compatible with existing X399 motherboards. With that said, power delivery is an important variable to consider, given the requirements of 32 cores versus 16. MSI and Gigabyte both announced new X399 motherboards with beefier power delivery subsystems, while Asus introduced an add-on kit for one of its existing motherboards that improves VRM cooling.

Part of the Threadripper package is, well, AMD's packaging. The original Threadripper box set a new bar for the industry (you can see our Threadripper 2 unboxing here), and the company stepped up its game with an even larger package this time around.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy - CPU Comparison with Benchmarks

MORE: All CPUs Content

Architecture, NUMA & Game Mode

It Starts With 12nm LP

AMD's Threadripper 2 processors are manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 12nm LP process technology. The ported-over design helps boost transistor performance, but does not affect die area or transistor density. As a result, the Zeppelin die's ~4.8 billion transistors and 213mm² area remain similar from first-gen Ryzen. The dual-die X-series models feature a total of 9.6 billion transistors and 426mm² of silicon, while the quad-die WX processors feature 19.2 billion transistors over 852mm².

Lower leakage current does enable 200 MHz-higher clock rates or an 80-120mV core voltage reduction at any given frequency compared to 14nm manufacturing. All told, AMD claims the 12nm design enables up to 11% less power consumption than 14nm-based Threadripper CPUs at the same clock rates, or up to 16% more performance at the same thermal design power. AMD also adds other nuanced refinements, like lower L1 (15%), L2 (9%), and L3 (8%) cache latencies, along with reduced memory latency (2%).

2990WX Architecture

Threadripper 2990WX borrows from AMD's EPYC server designs and comes with four active dies. The company fused off PCIe and memory control from two of the dies, creating silicon only useful for computing. Meanwhile, the other two I/O-enabled dies serve up two channels of DDR4 memory support and 32 lanes of PCIe 3.0 each.

Unfortunately, the compute dies suffer from increased latency on every request to main memory and PCIe-attached devices, as those requests always have to traverse the Infinity Fabric.

AMD added more Infinity Fabric channels to connect two more dies. Unfortunately, that has a tremendous impact on fabric bandwidth, which drops from 50 Gb/s on a 16-core Threadripper 2950X to 25 Gb/s in this implementation. And again, AMD measured performance with a 3200 MT/s data rate, meaning throughput at DDR4-2933 will be lower. Even with the benefits of tightly-controlled fabric scheduling magic, the combination of reduced bandwidth and 32 threads that must communicate over the fabric for I/O and memory requests has an impact on performance.

According to chip analyst David Schor at WikiChip, each request from the compute die requires interfacing with the Cache-Coherent Masters (CCM), which then interfaces with the CAKE (Coherent AMD socKet Extender) module that encodes the request and sends it to the remote I/O die. The remote CAKE module then decodes the request, fetches the requested data via the UMC (Unified Memory Controller), and then encodes the data and transmits it back to the compute die.

Increased traffic and reduced fabric throughput will have a tangible impact on memory-hungry applications, leading to sub-par performance scaling under some conditions. Although Threadripper 2990WX is clearly aimed at the semi-professional market, configurations hosting multiple GPUs may slow down due to increased fabric latency and reduced throughput to remote PCIe lanes. That'd also affect the performance of PCIe-based M.2 storage and LAN devices connected to remote dies.

MSI's MEG Creation motherboard diagram provides a nice summary of the split connectivity between dies. And be mindful of new population rules, such as inserting the first GPU into PCIe slot four, along with custom M.2 recommendations. You need to populate all four DRAM channels or follow dual-channel population rules in order to realize maximum performance, as performance drops sharply in some dual-channel configurations due to the distributed design.

AMD carves the Threadripper 2990WX into four NUMA domains that cannot be altered. As such, the processor does not have a local memory toggle for its Game Mode feature. Instead, the processor simply flips into "1/4" mode, which disables all but one die and effectively creates an 8C/16T CPU. Ryzen Master also has "1/2" and "Off" options that expose 16 cores and 32 threads, or 32 cores and 64 threads.

The company claims it could not enable the compute dies' memory and I/O controllers even partially without significantly overhauling the package's trace routing, requiring a new socket interface. AMD reps say they prioritized drop-in compatibility with the existing motherboard and cooler ecosystem, leading them to build Threadripper 2990WX the way it turned out.

AMD continues working with Microsoft to route threads to the die with direct-attached memory first, and then spill remaining threads over to the compute dies. Unfortunately, the scheduler currently treats all dies as equal, operating in Round Robin mode. As a result, even moderately-threaded applications can suffer at the hands of high memory latency and low throughput. This is further complicated by thread migration. According to AMD, Microsoft has not committed to a timeline for updating its scheduler.

The Zeppelin Building Block

The Zen architecture employs a four-core CCX (CPU Complex) building block. Each CCX has 8MB of L3 cache split into four slices; each core in the CCX accesses all L3 slices with the same average latency. Two CCXes come together to create an eight-core Zeppelin die, and they communicate with each other via AMD’s Infinity Fabric. The CCXes share the same dual-channel memory controller. This is basically two quad-core CPUs talking to each other over the Infinity Fabric pathway that also handles northbridge and PCIe traffic.

Although each core in a four-core CCX can access the local cache with the same average latency, trips to fetch data in adjacent CCXes incur a latency penalty. Communication between threads on cores located in disparate CCXes also suffers.

2950X Architecture & Game Mode

Threadripper 2950X mirrors the layout of AMD's first-gen Threadripper chips: two Zeppelin dies are connected via another layer of the Infinity Fabric. AMD flanks them with a pair of dummy dies that serve as non-functional fillers to ensure the heat spreader's structural integrity and consistent mating with the socket's pins.

Remember, each Zeppelin die has its own memory and PCIe controller. If a thread running on one core needs to access data resident in cache on another die, it has to traverse the fabric between those dies and incur significant latency. Naturally, the latency penalty between dies is higher than it is between CCXes in a single-die configuration. But AMD claims to have made some improvements there. The 2950X purportedly offers 64ns latency to near memory and 105ns to far memory, while the previous-gen 1950X had to wait 78ns and 133ns, respectively. As per usual, the speed of the Infinity Fabric is tied to the memory controller, so higher data rate settings are desirable. AMD measured Threadripper 2's fabric performance with a 3200 MT/s data rate, which means fabric latency at the recommended DDR4-2933 will be higher.

To combat the potential for performance regression as a result of its "go-wide" approach, AMD devised an interesting solution: it introduced a memory access switch that you can toggle via motherboard BIOS or the Ryzen Master software. The Local and Distributed settings flip between either NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access) or UMA (Uniform Memory Access), same as they did for AMD's first-gen Threadripper CPUs.

UMA (Distributed) is pretty simple; it allows both dies to access all of the attached memory. NUMA mode (Local) attempts to keep all data for the process executing on the die confined to its directly attached memory controller, establishing one NUMA node per die. The goal is to minimize requests to remote memory attached to the other die. NUMA works best if programs are designed specifically to utilize it. Even though most desktop PC software wasn't written with NUMA in mind, performance gains are still possible in non-NUMA applications.

AMD also allows you to disable cores in Legacy Compatibility mode, which disables one die via a Windows command. This allows some programs that won't function with 32 threads to execute properly, and it also eliminates cross-die communication. The system can still access I/O connected to the second die, though, so you don't lose any associated memory or attached peripherals.

A set of toggles generally offers the best performance in games and applications by combining these settings optimally. Game Mode disables one die with the Legacy Compatibility mode, and then switches the 2950X into Local memory mode, effectively creating an 8C/16T CPU. Creator mode uses the Distributed memory setting and disables Legacy Compatibility, providing access to Threadripper 2950X's full armament of 16 cores and 32 threads for demanding workloads.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Ryzen Master, Motherboards & Test Setup

Ryzen Master

AMD's second-gen Threadripper processors communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on what the motherboard's power delivery subsystem can do, which is the key enabler for Precision Boost Overdrive.

The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT) and Thermal Design Current (TDC) variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds real-time telemetry data back to the Infinity Fabric, which then allows the processor to affect performance based on thermal and power conditions dynamically. AMD exposes some of these monitoring features with its updated Ryzen Master overclocking software.

Each motherboard vendor defines its own maximum amperage for PBO based on the power delivery subsystem's capabilities. As you can see in the Ryzen Master screenshot below, MSI has its own custom variables assigned for EDC, TDC, and PPT limits in the MEG X399 Creation motherboard. Due to different settings on different motherboards, PBO performance will vary.

You can also use Ryzen Master to switch the X-series processors into Game or Creator Mode, and toggle the WX-series chips into various legacy compatibility modes. AMD's software now supports per-CCX overclocking as well, and includes a built-in stress test. Again, the three-year warranty does not cover damage caused by overclocking, so exercise caution.

X399 Motherboards

Threadripper 2 is compatible with the X399 chipset, and AMD guarantees that all existing motherboards support stock operation. You do need an updated BIOS. However, all X399-based motherboards have an out-of-band BIOS update mechanism, so you won't need one of AMD's Boot Kits. Here's the rub: while all X399 motherboards support PBO (it's baked into the CPU), many existing platforms have limited power delivery subsystems that weren't designed to accommodate the 32C/64T 2990WX. Ultimately, they'll limit overclocking headroom. If you plan to overclock a second-gen Threadripper or enable PBO, it would be wise to verify the capacity of your motherboard's power circuitry first.

If you're building a first Threadripper-based PC, MSI has a new MEG X399 Creation. Moreover, Gigabyte recently introduced its X399 Aorus Xtreme. Both boards feature capable voltage regulation subsystems and robust cooling. Asus also introduced a cooling kit for its existing ROG X399 Zenith Extreme, which should bring that board up to par with the WX family's greater power consumption.

To recap, the X399 chipset supports two USB 3.1 Gen2 and six USB 3.1 Gen1 ports, along with six USB 2.0 connections. Two PCIe 3.0 lanes allow motherboard vendors to add more storage connectivity (four SATA or two SATA Express), and the eight general-purpose PCIe 2.0 lanes accommodate other controllers, such as Ethernet or WLAN/Bluetooth. Eight SATA ports round out the chipset's connectivity options, and you can leverage several RAID configurations with the attached SATA devices.

The Threadripper processor provides an additional eight USB 3.1 Gen1 ports and four SATA connections (hardware RAID supported). The 60 remaining PCIe lanes support up to seven PCIe devices. Threadripper 2 CPUs also benefit from an improved SensMI suite, including StorMI Technology. That's a software-based tiering solution able to meld the low price and high capacity of hard drives with the speed of SSDs, 3D XPoint (including Intel's Optane parts), or even up to 2GB of RAM. For more information, check out AMD and Enmotus Expand FuzeDrive Offerings.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i9-7960X

Intel Core i9-7980XE

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Test Setup

You naturally need a capable power supply to support Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX. After a moderate 3.8 GHz overclock, we observed as much as 38A of current draw during a threaded Cinebench test. Even in its stock configuration, the CPU can pull more than 20A in that benchmark. And if you enable PBO, current draw jumps to a similar level as if you were overclocking manually.

We tested the Threadripper 2 models with MSI's MEG X399 Creation motherboard. Due to cooling and power delivery constraints, we ran through our full test suite at stock settings and with PBO activated, rather than using an all-core overclock. Our PBO-enabled configurations did benefit from higher memory transfer rates, as detailed in the table below.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 RGBIntel LGA 1151 (Z370): Intel Core i7-8700K MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066 Intel Core i7, Core i9 MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming) Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD) 4x 1TB Crucial MX300 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)U.S. AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)Threadripper Gen 1 & 2MSI MEG X399 Creation 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3200Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7960X, -7980XE, -7900XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933Intel LGA 1151 (Z370)Intel Core i7-8086K, Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	GermanyAMD Wraith RipperAlphacool Ice Block XPXEnermax LiqTech 240 TR4Thermal Grizzly KryonautU.S.Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

AMD designed Threadripper 2990WX for prosumer-class applications. Unlike the previous-gen Threadripper models, its WX-series models come with a Game Mode preset in the Ryzen Master software that disables three of the four available dies (1/4). AMD tells us this offers the best average performance in a wide range of titles. But the company also provides toggles that allow experimentation with two- and four-die configurations.

Unlike the first-gen Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, AMD aims its 2950X at enthusiasts and gamers. For this review, we tested Threadripper 2950X using AMD's Game Mode setting. But in our dedicated review of that chip, we'll go into more depth on the available combinations of settings and their impact on performance.

We tested across our gaming suite using a 1920x1080 resolution, minimizing graphics bottlenecks. Of course, as you step up to 2560x1440 or 3840x2160, the difference between processors shrinks. Just bear in mind that, beyond the average frame rates we report, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and 2950X are also well-suited to gaming while multi-tasking and streaming due to their high core counts.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Moreover, UL's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. UL defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.

Tests that are sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput, such as VRMark, were a challenge for AMD's first-gen Threadripper processors. But we saw a big improvement from Threadripper 2950X compared to the previous-gen 1950X, which was expected due to the more aggressive multi-core turbo bins.

The 2990WX's Game Mode reduces overall core count, but it also keeps bandwidth-starved cores from hurting performance. Nevertheless, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX fell to the bottom of our chart due to lower per-core performance. Enabling PBO helped push it up to the middle of our test field.

3DMark typically scales well with higher core/thread counts. But the Threadripper processors, including the 32C/64T 2990WX, lagged Intel's line-up. The 2950X did enjoy a nice speed-up compared to AMD's older Threadripper 1950X. However, the 2990WX was hobbled by its Game Mode setting that turned it into an 8C/16C CPU. Both Threadripper 2 models realized solid gains from enabling Precision Boost Overdrive.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count.

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX lagged the rest of our test pool at its stock settings, but matched an overclocked 1950X with PBO enabled.

Meanwhile, the 2950X scored another solid victory against AMD's previous-gen 1950X. But neither model comes close to matching Intel's highest-end processors.

This is one of the best examples of a game that scales well with host processing resources. However, the fact that Ryzen 7 2700X outperformed most of the test pool at a significantly lower price is telling. It's best to stick with mainstream desktop CPUs if gaming is your primary goal.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization VI's AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

Intel's high-end desktop roster dominated the Civilization VI AI benchmark.

Again, Threadripper 2950X fared well compared to previous-gen Threadripper models.

Although Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX landed behind its overclocked predecessors, automated tuning yielded a respectable performance boost.

This test continues to favor Intel architectures, and it's noteworthy that we don't have overclocked Core i7 and Ryzen 7 models in our chart to keep analysis simpler. But those CPUs offer the best value when gaming is your priority.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX beat the stock 1950X and 1920X. And after enabling PBO, it also beat those two models overclocked as high as we dared take them.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and 2990WX were much more competitive in this game once we enabled their PBO feature.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Far Cry 5, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry 5

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX dragged along the bottom of our chart at its stock settings. Enabling PBO helped quite a bit, though.

Threadripper 2950X was just a bit faster. That's particularly good news for gamers, given a much lower price tag.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

Threadripper 2950X beat the Core i9-7900X after we enabled Precision Boost Overdrive. Then again, Intel's Core i7-8700K and AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X reminded us why we don't recommend installing high-end desktop CPUs in most gaming PCs.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our Hitman test to its prior glory.

Hitman responds to core count and clock rate, so it wasn't a surprise to see Intel's overclocked Core i9-7960X perform best in our benchmark. Otherwise, the results landed where we expected them to.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Both second-gen Threadripper processors were highly competitive in this game (though Ryzen Threadripper 2950X unsurprisingly offered better performance).

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect frame rates. As a result, Intel's Core i7-8700K kept pace with much more expensive alternatives.

We observed a repeatable spike in our Threadripper 2990WX benchmark results. However, it had little impact on overall performance and registered as only a slight dip in the 99.9th percentile frame time.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, the final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications. The Threadripper 2950X outperforms its predecessor handily at stock settings, but the tuned Threadripper 1920X’s 4.0 GHz clock speed steals the show. The 2990WX languishes at the bottom of the overall score chart at stock settings, largely due to its lower frequencies, but tuning boosts it into contention with the Core i9-7980XE.

The Threadripper 2950X generally offers a more balanced profile than the 2990WX in most tests, but the 2990WX’s strength in the Indesign and Photoshop Heavy tests contribute to its overall lead. The tuned 1920X regularly pops up over the 2950X, but we verified the results through extensive retests.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most web browser workloads, single threaded performance reigns supreme here. As such, it’s not surprising to find the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 2700X
at the top of the pile.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics (rather than JavaScript), are also exceedingly sensitive to CPU clock rates. Intel’s processors take the uncontested lead. The same story plays out in the WebXPRT benchmark.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. This benchmark remains firmly in Intel’s favor, and once again we notice the Threadripper 1920X’s 4.0 GHz clock speed boosting it above its newer counterparts.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Ryzen 7 2700X takes the lead while the 2990WX continues to lag in tests that aren’t heavily parallelized, but tuning brightens the picture somewhat.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized and the 2990WX rises to the occasion. The processor easily beats out the rest of the test pool, but
considering its 32 cores, the slight advantage over the tuned 16C Threadripper 1950X reminds us that AMD’s new flagship's performance doesn’t always scale well.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Threaded workloads remain an uncontested strength of AMD's Zen-based processors and their hefty core counts. Many of these workloads stress the memory subsystem, which reduces the advantage of the Threadripper 2990WX’s hefty core count due to accesses from the remote memory controllers.

The Ryzen line-up dominates the multi-core Cinebench and POV-Ray tests, but the 2990WX only provides a 35% speed over the 2950X in the POV-Ray benchmark. In light of its 100% increase in cores, that doesn’t represent the best scaling possible. The 2990WX provides a 66% performance improvement in the Cinebench score.

Corona also scales well as the Threadripper 2990WX unleashes the full might of its 64 threads. Intel’s processors still hold the per-core advantage in the single core POV-Ray and Cinebench tests, but its easy to see that AMD’s multi-die design can help offset that advantage with extra cores in threaded workloads.

Encoding & Compression

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. This workload benefits heavily from threading, but either memory throughput or poor software scaling is holding the 29990WX back from realizing
its potential in the compression test. Threadripper 2950X, which comes with two die outfitted with directly-attached memory controllers, offers a nice boost over its predecessor at stock settings. The Core i9-7980XE reigns supreme in this test, which could be due to its single monolithic die and mesh architecture that facilitates much higher bandwidth to the cores. In contrast, the decompression test highlights the 2990WX’s devastating performance when the cores are properly fed.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, is a great test to measure Threadripper 2’s AVX performance. Intel’s Core i9 employs two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two FMA units per core. That means the 2990WX’s two extra die bring much more AVX performance to the table, provided you can feed the data-hungry AVX operations. The 2990WX nears the top of the chart, but scaling is sub-optimal compared to the 2950X, which has half the AVX units. This could again fall back on poor memory subsystem performance, which hinders some applications.

That same story plays out in Handbrake. AMD said during its briefings that Handbrake is cache dependent and doesn’t utilize cores fully, thus yielding a smaller performance boost than expected. The Handbrake x265 test, which uses a heavier distribution of AVX instructions than the H264 test, yields a minimal performance advantage for the 2990WX compared to the 2950X. We think that memory access plays a larger role in this result than sub-optimal software scaling.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Workstation - Graphics

Anyone interested in using a Threadripper processor in a workstation should carefully consider the applications they're running. Over and over, we're reminded that not all tasks can be effectively parallelized, and many workloads are only optimized for four to eight cores.

AutoCAD is a prime example. If you work in 2D draft mode, it's rare to see more than two cores utilized. There, IPC throughput wins over core count. Ryzen Threadripper 2950X can at least push out in front of Ryzen 7 2700X. However, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX looks out of place, given a much higher price tag.

Our results were similar in the Cinebench graphics benchmark, which combines host processing and 3D workloads. Faced with a slightly more demanding benchmark, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX with PBO enabled hit a high enough clock rate to match Threadripper 2950X.

In the end, though, Intel's line-up fared far better.

SolidWorks consists of several components and packages that utilize host processing resources differently. In the graphics-bound composite, which is not optimized for threading, AMD's portfolio was generally routed.

AMD's extra cores were a little more effective in the Creo graphics composite test. But again, Intel dominated absolutely.

Catia is similar to the Cinebench graphics test, so our results weren't particularly surprising. Ryzen Threadripper 2950X took a wafer-thin lead over the Ryzen 7 2700X, demonstrating that its extra cores don't trip over themselves in lightly-threaded workloads.

This Blender workload doesn't utilize lots of execution cores, but at least it put AMD's newest Threadripper CPUs ahead of Ryzen 7 2700X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Workstation - Compute

Whereas rendering tasks are typically graphics-heavy, favoring CPUs with high clock rates, compute workloads are more up Threadripper's alley. The new 2950X is definitely a step up from AMD's previous-generation Threadripper 1950X. Meanwhile, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX doesn't always scale well, making it difficult to justify that premium price.

In SolidWorks, for example, Threadripper CPUs failed to impress since our benchmark didn't scale well across available cores. It's also no secret that many applications were compiled and optimized for Intel CPUs, putting AMD at an inherent disadvantage.

Once we fire up a benchmark that's able to utilize all available processing resources, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper chips take off. The 2990WX carved out a seemingly insurmountable lead, while the 2950X with PBO enabled nudged past Intel's Core i9-7980XE.

The 3ds Max SPECapc workload is now dominated by AMD, which uses physical cores to outmaneuver Intel's mix of real and logical resources. The Ryzen 7 2700X did score a first-place finish thanks to its higher clock rate, though.

Flip over to the pure rendering score and Threadripper 2950X with PBO enabled jumps into first place. There, Ryzen 7 2700X is easily outperformed by multiple Threadripper configurations.

The LuxRender workload from SPECwpc is well-optimized for threading, allowing AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX to truly shine. Every other model is left in the dust.

HandBrake does scale across multiple cores, but it tops out before the 32C/64T Threadripper 2990WX really takes off. As a result, the flagship Threadripper model loses to AMD's 2950X with PBO enabled.

7-Zip is similar in that our workload doesn't scale perfectly according to core/thread count. In fact, this benchmark is influenced more heavily by clock rate. Eight threads are usually sufficient, allowing Core i7-8700K to claim a first-place finish.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Cooling, Clock Rates & Power Limits

At first, we were amused by AMD's suggestion that these new Ryzen Threadripper CPUs could be cooled effectively with heat sinks and fans. But wouldn't it be something if the company's representatives were correct and we could cover the 2990WX with a beefy-enough sink to keep it running at full speed under load, without throttling issues? After all, we've already seen Intel's flagship stagger under the limitations of thermal grease between its heat spreader and die. Might AMD's use of Indium solder pay off during such an experiment?

Air Cooling And Its Limits

As it turns out, you really can cool the 180W Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and the 250W Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX using a heat sink and fan. It's even possible to leave PBO turned on with Threadripper 2950X, though noise starts becoming an issue under loads where power consumption peaks around 250W.

Although the Cooler Master-supplied heat sink is plenty capable, we have to imagine anyone willing to air-cool such an expensive CPU probably wants a potent Noctua sink with a quieter fan instead. What annoyed us most about AMD's provided cooler was the sleeved cable coming out the side facing your first PCIe add-in card. If you put a thick, high-end board in that first slot, then the cooler's USB port is completely covered and no longer usable. Additionally, a graphics card with a backplate touches the sink, which shouldn't happen.

At this point, we're switching to water cooling, and once the thermal limit of these processors is reached, we'll use an even more powerful chiller system.

Of course, if you're hoping to realize the maximum benefit of XFR2 and PBO, it's important to use the right cooler, and to back it with a high-end power supply. After taking the 2990WX to its limits, we hooked up the chiller and measured more than 42A of current on the motherboard's EPS connectors. Under LN2 cooling, current draw exceeded 50A and we had to circumvent the motherboard's 500W limit.

Both models appear to use a new temperature detection and reporting mechanism compared to the previous generation. Although we do see a 27°C-higher Tctl value, it only exists for backward compatibility on functions like the fan control circuit. Otherwise, both Threadripper models have an upper Tdie limit of 68°C, which would yield a Tctl value of 95°C. Tctl is therefore no longer a measured variable.

The curves for Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX appear in the graph below. With the heat sink/fan and closed-loop liquid cooler, this 32-core beast doesn't get very far under a taxing load.

It's easy to applaud Ryzen Threadripper 2950X's performance, since you don't have to put as much effort into cooling it. Whereas the 2990WX quickly ran out of steam under air or a closed-loop liquid-cooling setup, this model behaves well even if you top it with an all-in-one setup.

While a tuned Ryzen Threadripper 2950X can be cooled at just over 250W using a heat sink and fan (and still operate properly), you really want a liquid-cooler of some sort to get the best performance from it. But without PBO enabled, air cooling is effective enough, even up to 180W.

When it comes to Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX without PBO turned on, it's possible to hit that same 250W threshold and achieve sufficient cooling performance with a heat sink and fan. If you want to overclock much further, invest in a more capable thermal solution.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Power Consumption

It appears that AMD made a conscious effort to minimize idle power consumption compared to previous-generation Threadripper CPUs. This is most impressive from Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, which hosts four active dies. Clearly, that model ducks in well under the level you'd expect by multiplying Ryzen 7 2700X's idle power consumption by four.

Threadripper 2950X fared especially well during our longer CAD run, which predominantly only uses up to four cores.

The 2990WX, on the other hand, sucks down a lot more power without a commensurate performance improvement.

Our gaming workload reflects big gains from AMD's second-gen Threadripper CPUs compared to their predecessors. Even turning PBO on for some extra performance doesn't kill the power story. Both new models offer significant efficiency improvements.

Full load represents a worst-case scenario for any flagship-class CPU.

Both new Ryzen Threadripper models employ Indium solder between their dies and heat spreader, whereas Intel sticks with thermal grease. We delidded CPUs from both families in order to measure overclocked power consumption without thermal throttling ruining our readings. Otherwise, we would have hit a ceiling at around 300W with Intel's grease under the hood.

It's apparent that motherboards impose AMD's specifications as hard limits: Threadripper 2950X, 1950X, and 1920X all top out at 180W without PBO enabled, while 2990WX peaks at 250W and not a watt more.

Power management is therefore the real highlight of today's launch, especially since the influence of cooling was perfectly implemented.

Even during our stress test with PBO enabled, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX's thermal battle ends exactly at 500W. To top this, you need to manipulate your motherboard's limits and start messing with LN2. Then it's possible to top out just under 600W using a static 4.1 GHz.

Really, Threadripper 2950X represents the sensible upper limit for daily use. It also happens to be economically viable at a price point around $900. Compared to the previous-gen Threadripper flagship, this new 16C/32T model is a big improvement. Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, on the other hand, just doesn't impress as much.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Final Analysis

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX continues AMD's assault on Intel's market dominance with 32 cores and the ability to work on 64 threads concurrently. But AMD's new flagship has its issues, too. There's no denying the allure of such a powerful processor. But as we've seen from other high-core-count CPUs, power delivery and thermals can conspire to hinder performance.

While drop-in compatibility with existing X399 motherboards is a big selling point favoring AMD, not every board's power delivery subsystem is up to the job of facilitating maximum performance from the 2990WX (particularly if you plan to overclock). You really need a high-end motherboard, a high-end power supply, and high-end cooling to extract the utmost performance from your investment.

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is nothing short of phenomenal in workloads that can utilize its arsenal of execution cores. Rendering is a good example. But it doesn't scale well in other applications. The distributed architecture leaves half of the processor's compute resources stranded from the memory and I/O controllers, which can drastically reduce performance in applications sensitive to bandwidth or PCIe traffic. Unless you have a very specific workload that can't get enough parallelism, you're better off with Threadripper 2950X.

Threadripper 2950X is much more appealing to the enthusiast audience. Its dual-die design once seemed exotic, but now proves nimble in a wide variety of applications. Moreover, higher Precision Boost frequencies make the 2950X competitive against well-established Intel Core processors in lightly-threaded metrics.

Precision Boost Overdrive offers an easy path to overclocking both new Threadrippers if your supporting hardware can handle the stress. Just be aware that any gains you might see vary based on your system's capabilities. We're sure we can tease even more performance out via manual overclocking when we circle back for the dedicated review, but the automated overclocking feature is plenty capable for most users, and you retain the benefit of a beastly 4.4 GHz quad-core boost frequency. The Threadripper 2950X brings a lot more power for a lower price than the first-gen Threadripper did at launch, but we wouldn't recommend a direct upgrade from the 1950X. If you're looking to upgrade from an older CPU to an all-around crowd pleaser, Threadripper 2950X does not disappoint.

Considering the raw horsepower on offer, AMD's pricing is extremely competitive. Ryzen Threadripper 2950X kept pace with the $1700 Core i9-7960X in many of our tests, but sells for almost half of its price. Both Intel and AMD HEDT platforms are expensive, but X399 motherboards are particularly pricey, which you'll have to consider when weighing your options. Populating all four memory channels will also be expensive in these trying times, but that extra cost applies to both high end platforms.

While we still recommend the mainstream Ryzen 7 2700X or Core i7-8700K for gaming, they clearly can't keep pace with Threadripper in productivity-oriented applications. Intel's Skylake-X processors are still brutally competitive on the performance front, but the company needs to be adjust its pricing.

If you're after the utmost in threaded performance for the dollar, the Ryzen Threadripper 2 series delivers. AMD clearly takes the lead with the most raw computing power on the desktop PC market, and at ultra-competitive pricing. We can't wait to see Intel's response.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI Review: Ryzen Value

Jacob Terkelsen — Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction to B450 and Product Description

AMD's Ryzen 2000 CPUs (like the Ryzen 7 2700X) might be old news by now, but AMD's new budget-focused B450 chipset comes out of the gate ready to inject more value into the AMD AM4 platform. Our success with the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WIFI gives us high hopes for the lesser B450 Aorus Pro board, but Gigabyte does hold back on some features that could have made this board spectacular. Regardless, the B450 chipset is a sweet spot for builders and gamers who don’t need X470’s added feature set, and Gigabyte delivers a great product with the B450 Aorus Pro WIFI, at a surprisingly affordable $120 MSRP.

Specifications

Socket	AM4
Chipset	AMD B450
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	8+3 Phases
Video Ports	(1) HDMI 2.0(1) DVI-D
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type A, (1) Type-C5Gbps: (4) Type-A
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital
Legacy Ports/Jacks	✗
Other Ports/Jack	(2) SMA Antenna
PCIe x16	(1) v3.0(1) v2.0 (x4) *shared with PCIEX1_2(1) v2.0 (x1)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(1) v2.0
CrossFire/SLI	2x / 4x
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe v3 x4 / SATA 42/60/80/110(1) PCIe v3 x2 / SATA 42/60/80
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) 5Gbps(2) USB2.0
Fan Headers	(5) 4-pin
Legacy Interfaces	✗
Other Interfaces	(2) RGB Header(1) RGBW Header(1) CLR CMOS, (1) TPM
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/10)
Ethernet Controllers	Intel® I211AT
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168 card
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	Realtek® ALC1220-VB
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / ✗
Warranty	3 Years

Over the past year of testing Ryzen-based builds, we’ve had nothing but success with the company's boards, and their B450 takes its improvements from X470 and applies them to AMD's updated “mainstream” chipset.

AMD Socket AM4 Chipset Features

	USB 3.1 Gen2	USB 3.1 Gen1	USB 2.0	SATA 3.0	SATA Express / PCIe Gen3	PCIe Gen2	CPU PCIe Gen3	Overclocking	XFR2	XFR2 Enhanced	Precision Boost Overdrive
X470	2	6	6	4	2	8	1x16 / 2x8	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
X370	2	6	6	4	2	8	1x16 / 2x8	Yes	Yes	No	No
B450	2	2	6	2	1	6	1x16	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
B350	2	2	6	2	1	6	1x16	Yes	Yes	No	No

For those of you not keeping up with chipset changes, AMD’s increment from the 300 series to 400 series primarily includes improvements for board physical specifications to formally support XFR2 (an update of AMD's extended frequency range feature) and Precision Boost Override for what AMD calls its 2nd Generation Ryzen chips (Ryzen 2000 series). AMD provides specifications for layer counts and supported memory speeds, regulator design requirements, and other stipulations for these refreshed boards. Between X470 and B450, the same IO support dynamic that was found with last year's X370/B350 remains. In other words, B series boards support fewer USB3.0 Gen1, PCIe Gen3 x16 slots, and PCIe Gen2 lanes than their more expensive brothers. For more details, you can check the chart above.

On the surface, fewer slots and port support sounds like an instant “con,” but honestly the majority of builders don’t support for a second graphics card, larger SATA RAID configurations, or a plethora of 5Gbps USB. Also, with that same mindset, manufacturers don’t need to provide fully enabled lower-end boards that directly compete with their higher-tiered offerings. From there, it really is a thought experiment as to which chipset truly is “better,” and hopefully we’ll shine some light on that throughout the article.

Enter the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI. Gigabyte has traditionally kept its Aorus brand relegated to premium offerings, but for B450 they couldn’t resist unleashing the falcon that we have appreciate from previous reviews. Bringing a well-respected brand to a lower tier might appear to be a marketing gimmick, but it turns out this board is on-par with similar offerings from X470. From an aesthetics perspective, the B450 Aorus Pro WIFI looks shockingly similar to the X470 Aorus 5, with the omission of LED lit DIMM and PCIe slots. Comparing the B450 board against the X470 Aorus Ultra, the inclusion of Wi-Fi in the B450 Pro might be enough for some to negate the X470’s improved connectivity elsewhere.

The B450 Pro WIFI comes equipped with ample RGB lights, RGB power switches, and an addressable LED interface that helps mitigate these deficiencies for future upgrades for builders. For a budget board, we don’t expect the contents of the box to be substantial and Gigabyte doesn't overwhelm with accessories and extra parts. The company includes their badge sticker along with documentation, a couple SATA cables, and a Wi-Fi antenna for connecting the SMA plugs on the back panel.

The I/O panel reflects the B450 chipset’s decreased IO, with access to only four USB3.1 Gen1, two USB3.1 Gen2, HDMI 2.0, DVI-D, Gigabit Ethernet, five analog audio and one digital audio jack, and two Wi-Fi antenna ports. The integrated back panel is a nice aesthetic inclusion that's usually only found on pricier enthusiast-chipset boards. Builders with APUs like the Ryzen 5 2600 are primed for upgrading from older chipsets thanks to the video ports. And the lack of USB 2 means we aren’t left questioning which ports are high speed when reaching around behind the PC.

Audio coverage on the B450 Aorus Pro is provided through the Realtek ALC1220-VB codec boasting improved audio signal-to-noise ratios and impedance detection for use with different strength drivers on various grades of “head-worn audio devices.” As for wired networking, the tried and true Intel I211AT controller is used here and Gigabyte includes its cFosSpeed Internet Accelerator for prioritizing network traffic through the Ethernet port. We don’t have performance results with this tool, but it appears that more vendors are implementing features that mimic Rivet Network’s Killer-brand, which prioritizes packets for improved network performance. One benefit we like with this board is the inclusion of the 802.11ac controller, even if it is a 1x1 design using Intel’s AC3168. Even if you're planning to use wired Ethernet, Wi-Fi can be handy in a pinch when you're building, troubleshooting, or upgrading your PC and your work bench/kitchen table is nowhere near an Ethernet jack.

As we look along the outer edge of the board, we see two USB2.0 headers, one USB3.1 Gen1, and various front-panel headers on the bottom edge. RGB connectors are located in the bottom-left and top-right quadrants of the board, also accompanied by three of the board’s five 4-pin fan headers. The right edge hosts four angled SATA3 headers and the 2 vertical SATA headers which look lonely on this B450 chipset board. System power is provided through the standard 24-pin ATX header next to the four dual-latch DIMM slots, and an 8-pin EPS 12V plug is crammed next to a fan header in the top-left quadrant of the board. Lastly, a single 4-pin fan header is directly below the Vreg heatsink, for use with fans directly above the IO shield.

As simple as the PCIe configuration looks, there are some interesting things to keep in mind when picking parts. First, the M.2 slots are wired out for PCIe Gen3 x4 and x2 respectively, which is a pleasant departure from the Gen2 variants on other boards. However, the x16 slots are misleading, with only the top slot being wired out for PCIe Gen3 x16. The middle x16 and bottom x16 share bandwidth with the x1 slot, and the middle slot only works at x4 when neither of the others is populated. Otherwise, it runs at x2 mode.

Having looked at a few higher-end boards with X470, building with the B450 shows its limitations: The target audience steers component choices and our nitpicks. The fan header by the 8-pin EPS header really needs to be in a different location to be considered useful, and it would have been nice to have the 2 vertical SATA headers converted to angled headers and moved closer to the chipset. As for component recommendations, we suggest a dedicated GPU and either running a capture card or other device in the top or bottom slots. If extra bandwidth is needed, you can populate the x4 slot. But if you do, we see the risk of blocking the GPU’s airflow. We do not recommend running more than two IO cards in this motherboard.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

UEFI and Test Configuration

The Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI’s UEFI, for the most part, is a copy what's found on the company's other AM4 products. So we'll focus on what's different from this board's X470 cousins. One thing we’ve never really covered is Gigabyte’s Easy Mode. Easy Mode is a pleasant departure from the default Classic mode and fills the screen with blocks of information covering system health, frequency settings, boot sequences, and various features enabled by the motherboard. Unfortunately, EZ OC is not enabled by default on this product, so we are stuck looking at the Eco mode icon which should really be swapped out for a “balanced” setting.

Flipping back to the classic menu, we are greeted with the M.I.T. menu by default, have access to the CPU clock ratio, and can engage available XMP profiles and modify the system memory multiplier. We’ll cover these settings in more detail later in the article but for this board and it’s limitations, this menu is all you really need to get a 4GHz overclock and DDR4-3200MHz (provided you have adequate cooling and a capable memory kit). Diving into the CPU core settings, we see similar options to the X470 boards, such as downcore control, SMT mode, and Cool ‘n Quiet.

Though not pictured, the advanced memory menu opens up the JEDEC knobs for DRAM, and users can fine-tune their memory timings until their hearts explode. For our testing, we just brute force XMP profiles and dial up the memory multiplier, but let us not get too far ahead of ourselves. Advanced voltage settings will be covered later on. But we should note that this option is completely different than the X470 boards' options. This B450 board is not wired for the higher level of tuning that X470 provides.

We’ve had mixed success with various vendors’ fan controller software, and Gigabyte’s Smart Fan 5 default fan control schemes are a little loud for our liking. Our Fractal Design fans can run very quiet, but this UEFI defaults the fans to max speed at lower temperature settings, so our provided fan curve proved to be quite effective in our testing. Your mileage--and preferences--may vary.. Another carry over from other AMD UEFIs, the board's RGB Fusion interface is effective in synchronizing the southbridge, audio isolation traces, and backplate shroud. The pulse mode setting is our light show of choice.

Though we often gloss over the Peripherals tab, it's important to know that Precision Boost Override and some Zen thermal control options are buried in the NBIO Common Options menu. In our testing, we do observe instances where the processor would throttle to a 5.5 multiplier, so the options are available if that is a setting you want to exploit. Another tab we primarily ignore is the Chipset tab, but that is where some APU, SATA, and RAID configurations are found.

Test System Configuration

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Software
OS	Windows 10 64-bit
Graphics	Crimson 16.10.1 WHQL

Since our Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 review, we’ve upgraded our memory configuration with a four-piece set of Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3466, specifically the company's limited edition High Contrast SKU. While the aesthetics of this kit are nice, we hope the kit will helps us hit higher memory speeds in our overclocking section in subsequent reviews.

A top-end Ryzen 2700X is our CPU of choice for this testing, and it's cooled by the Corsair H110i 240mm AIO cooler. With the updated processor, it's time to upgrade our GPU from our trusty GTX 970 to a respectable GTX 1080 Gaming 8G from MSI. Our test monitor is a 4k LG 27UD58 that enables us to test FHD, WQHD, and UHD for all our gaming benchmarks. We still employ the Toshiba RD400 256GB M.2 NVMe drive for storage and various hard drives for Steam Libraries and miscellaneous software.

We have some goals to figure out while comparing data today. Our primary focus is how B450 compares against some of our previous X470 samples we have reviewed. Next is how does a “value” X470 board compares against a “premium” B450 board. Last is, of course, how well does the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI handle our test suite. It's a lot of ground to cover, so let’s get started.

Benchmark Suite

Benchmark Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
3D Tests & Settings
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Test Set 1: Skydiver, 1920x1080, Default PresetTest Set 2: Firestrike, 1920x1080, Default PresetTest Set 3: Firestrike Extreme, 2560x1440 Default Preset
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAAHigh Preset - 4k ~3460x1920, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 4k ~3460x1920, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain1920x1080 - UltraHigh Preset, 16x AF4k ~3460x1920 - UltraHigh Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High TesselationVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High TesselationHigh Quality, 4k ~3460x1920, High TesselationVery High Quality, 4k ~3460x1920, Very High Tesselation
The Talos Principle	Version 2672521920x1080 - Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF1920x1080 - Ultra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF4k ~3460x1920 - Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF4k ~3460x1920 - Ultra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Test Results: Synthetics, Games, Power and Thermals

Comparison Products

Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming

Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

Synthetics and Applications

Finally, we have a full set of data where PCMark08 shows negligible differences between test samples, with the largest deviation coming from the creative benchmarks on the B450 board. Sandra’s Arithmetic shows sub-1 percentage point deltas across the board. Multimedia sees only a slightly larger 1.6 percentage point delta with the x16 Integer AVX workload. The Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI draws a virtual tie with the Aorus Gaming 7 in Cryptography and Memory Bandwidth workloads.

Similar spreads are seen with Cinebench, but the Asus TUF X470 starts to creep closer to the B450. Compubench’s seven workloads don’t fit completely on this chart, but with all the data taken into account, the B450 Aorus Pro WIFI is the standard output for all metrics with the MSI X470 M7 AC finally taking a well deserved 2nd place finish.

Gaming synthetics are due for an update on our test bench, and 3DMark Skydiver proves the point with a 15 percentage point gap separating the combined scores. Physics scores don't fare much better with nearly 10 percentage points between 1st and last place. Fortunately, the metrics do start to tighten up with the more-demanding Firestrike at 1080p and Firestrike Extreme’s 1440p output resolution equalizes all test samples to within one percentage point.

Before we get to the gaming results, let’s see how the Ryzen 2700X performs in some application tasks. Handbrake encoding presents a 2.3-minute gap between the MSI board and the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi, and 7-Zip shows a similar trend but with a 1.17-minute gap. In both Blender workloads, it appears the test samples do start to tighten up, but the MSI board continues to struggle. Adobe finally pulls the MSI board back into the competition with impressive After Effects times, but the Aorus B450 board falls behind in Illustrator and After Effects.

Gaming and Performance

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation has been a great indicator of CPU performance in our test bench and we see the B450 Aorus Pro WIFI slump by roughly 4 frames per second (fps) at high settings at 1080p at all batch conditions. Bumping up the details and resolutions though do tighten up the spread across all review samples, but the B450 continues to lag behind the leaders by a few frames. In the end, this RTS game is easily enjoyable on this test bench across all batch conditions all the way up to 4k.

With F1 2018 closely approaching, we are eager to see how Codemasters leverages higher-end machines to increase our racing experience in this authentic simulator. For this Ryzen test bench and GTX 1080, 4k Ultra settings are easily playable with frame rates in the 70s and the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI only manages to slow down by up to 5 frames compared to the Aorus Gaming 7 WIFI. Unfortunately, that does translate into larger percentage gaps between the leaders, so we’ll have to keep testing F1 2015 to see how it stacks up.

Adjusting the CPU speed, GPU speed, and GPU memory settings across various resolutions in The Talos Principle is less than exciting. At Medium settings, we observe a 7.5 percentage point drop in frame rates on average, stepping up to 4k from 1080p. At Ultra settings, we more than double the delta to roughly 17 percentage points, thanks in part to the increased complexity in renders at the elevated resolutions. As for the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI, it manages to best the MSI X470 board in most scenarios, but does lag behind the X470 boards as a whole.

Similar to F1 2018, we look forward to Metro: Exodus in 1Q 2019. But until then Metro: Last Light Redux will have to keep us busy. All four samples show really stable 4k results at both detail levels here. But the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WIFI manages to pull 10 fps ahead of the pack at 1080p and high details.

Taking all the average results for each metric into account, the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI only appears to take wins in the Synthetics category, and lags behind with gaming and applications for the most part. The higher-end Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WIFI is the clear performance winner in this chart, with the TUF X470 showing fairly strong results in areas that the B450 struggled in.

Power, Temps, and Efficiency

This power draw graph is slightly confusing, but we do see some clear winners coming out of this test. For idle power, the B450 runs in the same ballpark between the Asus TUF and the X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WIFI. Full CPU load shows the MSI X470 M7 AC clobbering the B450 board by 14 percentage points, but full GPU load shows a 16W delta between those same boards favoring the B450. However, full system power virus shows how difficult it is to properly load the processor and GPU in a manner that effectively runs each component at TDP conditions in parallel.

The temperature story is very straightforward for a change, now that we aren’t changing our cooling solutions, and each board saw the exact same case and fan configurations. The 10C Tctl delta is apparent in our data, and CPU temperatures only vary by 5C under full Prime95 load. However, the real story is those voltage regulator temperatures. The TUF heatsink is severely under designed for its target market, but the Gigabyte B450 heatsink doesn’t fair much better but is properly suited for its target market.

In our efficiency calculations today, we removed the idle and max power data from our analysis to show a more realistic representation of what these systems are capable of running while in a typical use case. Each board shows interesting behavior: The MSI uses less power under load, but it’s performance suffers, and in-turn it becomes less efficient. The Asus TUF X470 has more performance but at the cost of slightly larger power draw, which hurts its efficiency score. Ultimately, the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI just draws too much power compared to its slight performance loss, thus dragging its efficiency rating below ideal scenarios.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Overclocking, Value and Conclusion

Overclocking

We’ve been quite successful with our latest test bench in generating adequate overclocks, with Prime95 as our CPU workload and AIDA64 driving our memory tests. Having been spoiled by our X470 coverage, it’s time to see how these lower-tiered boards fair. Jumping into the UEFI, we kick the multiplier up to 40.0 for initial testing and both thermals and stability are in line with expectations. Multiplier increases in 0.25 steps get us all the way up to 4100MHz without adding any additional voltage. As we increment the voltage (with 6.25mV step sizes), we observe that this board does not support load line calibration changes. We confirmed with Gigabyte that the analog IC’s do not support loading changes, so we won’t be expecting a UEFI patch for that.

As we increase the voltage, we start to see a frequency overclock threshold of roughly 4175MHz, where the system becomes unstable in Prime95 with varying times to fail. Increasing the voltage up to a +204mV offset, we finally reach the regulator's adjustment limit through UEFI. Regulator temperatures are a toasty 113 C at those settings, which seems hot but is within the safety limits of the PowerPak MOSFETs. Turning down the clock multiplier in our search for stability, we find an effective maximum rate of 4125 MHz.

At this point, we have lots of voltage headroom to play with, so for this board, the regulator design is sufficient. The Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI’s Vreg heatsinks certainly appear to be underdeveloped, and could use some additional slots in the slabs of alloy for an increased surface area. There are some videos out on the web questioning Gigabyte's claim that it utilizes eight “real” phases, but the implemented design appears adequate for modest overclocking. And AMD's 2nd Generation Ryzen chips don't tend to clock significantly higher than 4GHz anyway.

Gigabyte’s X470 board showed exquisite memory overclocking. So we were optimistic when firing up our DDR4-3466 Corsair Dominator Platinums in the lesser B450 board. Shockingly, the system is able to boot at the default XMP profile, but it only got through about two seconds of AIDA64 before the workload crashed. Without load line calibration, we have to dial down settings to gain stability, and we brute force it with the memory multiplier. In 66MHz steps, we have to dial down to DDR4-3266 before we see AIDA64 run for 30 minutes without erroring out. Looking back, this is huge victory compared to B350, and even rivals some of the X470 variants on the market.

Value and Conclusion

As a high-end offering for its mid-range chipset, the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro Wifi draws on the Aorus brand for inspiration, but just barely misses the mark in terms of raw performance. However, this board is well equipped in certain areas that make it a much more straightforward purchase for anyone that is interested in good aesthetics.

Going back to the questions we posed earlier, does the B450 stand up to X470? For the most part, yes. From a raw performance perspective, the chipset can deliver performance that is in line with our 2700X expectations. But that comes at the cost of certain features and quality of life enhancements, namely improved regulator designs, voltage controls, and slight increases in IO.

Next, do we consider this “premium” mid-level board better than a “value” high-end board? Yes, the Gigabyte B450 has features that elevate it above the designs of previous value-oriented boards that make it a clear and easy pick above the X470 chipset. Given our overclocking success and reliability concerns of other designs, the B450 is better suited for a broader audience.

Coming in at a shockingly affordable $120 MSRP, it's hard to argue that Gigabyte doesn't deliver a heaping bucket of value with this board. Sure, some features that come with higher-range chipsets aren’t available, but there has to be some substantive feature delineation between the premium chipset and the one that's a step down.

Gigabyte's inclusion of Wi-Fi, appropriate overclocking for this market segment, and features ideal for a gaming build make the Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro WIFI an excellent choice for someone that isn't willing to drop the coin to jump up to a higher-end package. So long as you aren't plugging in a second graphics card, a big bank of drives, or lots of bandwidth-craving USB devices, the $50 savings this option offers over some of the other X470 options is better spent on a new AAA title, a more spacious and/or speedy boot SSD, or a graphics card upgrade.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming Review: Attractive Value

Jacob Terkelsen — Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:00:00 +0000

TL;DR and Product Description

On the surface, the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming looks to be a low-end board with Asus branding slapped onto it. Fortunately, the frugal facade is misleading, as this TUF motherboard performs quite well in all but one metric, making it a good overall product and a great foundation for an AMD-based TUF Alliance gaming build.

Specifications

Socket	AM4
Chipset	AMD X470
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	4+2 Phases
Video Ports	(1) HDMI 1.4(1) DVI-D
USB Ports	10Gbps: (2) Type A5Gbps: (2) Type A, (1) Type CGen2: (2) Type A
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(3) Analog
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(1) v3.0(1) v2.0 (x4)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(3) v2.0
CrossFire/SLI	✗
DIMM slots	DIMM slots
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe v3 x4 / SATA3 42/60/80/110(1) PCIe v3 x2 / SATA3 42/60/80
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(2) 5Gbps(2) USB2.0
Fan Headers	(5) 4-pin
Interfaces	(1) COM
Other Interfaces	(1) RGB Header, (1) CLR CMOS
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/10)
Ethernet Controllers	RTL8111H
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	ALC887-VD2
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / Yes
Warranty	3 Years

Features

It’s not every day you see companies joining together to make a combined brand. G-Sync is Nvidia’s baby; XMP is Intel’s specification; and let’s not even mention the case manufacturers’ attempt at unifying RGB software. However, several household technology brands have managed to create ecosystems and cross-company brands, and Asus hopes to do the same with the TUF Gamming Alliance, which the company officially unveiled at Computex 2018.

Being the focal point to the alliance (and the original home of the TUF branding), Asus is, in some ways, putting its reputation on the line with the TUF brand. But the company still has its better-known (and higher-end) PC enthusiast / gaming Strix and Republic of Gamers lineups held more tightly under its own umbrella. With TUF, Asus is hoping broaden brand recognition while stealing some thunder from other value-oriented component vendors on e-tailer shelves.

The TUF X470-Plus Gaming (referred to as TUF going forward) motherboard is a stark deviation from the red and black and/or aggressive style you might be used to from other Asus boards. Here, things shift to a more heads-up-display-like scheme, reminiscent of either Doom 3 or, ironically, recent Gigabyte UEFI screens. For the most part, the aesthetic of this board works but we think that the TUF badge could have been a little more angular to help blend with the other visual design choices.

Another element that helps fuse the board and other TUF Alliance components together is the use of digital camo graphics. In our initial build, that included graphics across the board itself, as well as the glass side panel of Cooler Master's MasterBox MB500 TUF Gaming case.

The Tom's Hardware fashion police will now shift our gaze from the graphics-emblazoned PCB itself to the board's lighting effects. The color scheme of choice for this brand is a mix of yellow and grey. So make sure to program Asus's Aura Sync software to flash colors that match. LEDs are focused across the underside of the board, on the right side, which helps provide an ambiance as well as a targeted emphasis on the “TUF Gaming” logo at the bottom right and the angled highlights by the memory slots.

As for lighting expandability, the TUF board only sports one additional RGB header, so use it wisely. This is a great opportunity to implement some of the other TUF Alliance components. Cooler Master's MasterAir MA410M TUF Gaming Edition air cooler includes an RGB splitter, helping to amplify the RGB experience.

Now, back to our standard physical overview. The back panel of the TUF board is efficient--to put it nicely. Asus has gone out of its way to cut off excess connections, and includes only three analogue audio ports, two USB 2.0, three USB 3.1 Gen1, two USB3.1 Gen2, gigabit, and a PS/2 port.

Unfortunately, the USB 3.1 Gen1 ports consist of two Type-A and one Type-C. Ideally, since USB-C is a future-looking port, the Type-C port should be of the faster USB 3.1 Gen2 variety. Then again, there's very little that would take useful advantage of the faster port today. For builders with Ryzen APUs who won't be plugging in a graphics card, DVI-D and HDMI 1.4b connectors are available for plugging in displays. If your monitor is DisplayPort only, you'll need an adapter.

Asus introduces its own twist on the X470 chipset with this board, by changing up the PCIe wiring. The TUF board employs a single PCIe Gen3 slot running at a flat x16 mode, which is atypical. Beyond Gen3 PCIe, the second x16 slot is PCIe Gen2, and wired for x4 mode. The three x1 connectors enable lower-bandwidth devices. This helps eliminate any confusion as to what devices are enabled, and all ports can be used concurrently in this system. While this is less flexible than many other boards, it also simplifies the process of choosing parts and building.

Storage wise, this X470 motherboard places a 42/60/80/110mm M.2 NVMe slot above the primary TUF PCIe connector and a secondary 42/60/80mm M.2 port wired for two lanes of PCIe 3.0 below the chipset. The standard six SATA3 ports are scattered across the bottom-right quadrant of the board. There are four vertical ports and two horizontal ports. The latter are routed out in the unique notch in the board, below the 24-pin ATX power connector.

Here’s our obligatory placement nitpick: six angled headers in the notched section of the board would have been stellar, and could have allowed for something else to be placed on the lower bottom-right section of the board. But we do like the idea of having angled, notched SATA connectors for the sake of hiding cables.

The TUF board's audio design implements a Realtek ALC 887 codec, with the inclusion of DTS Custom hardware for headphone/headset output, which is added beyond most other boards with this codec. Five four-pin fan headers are found in crucial spots of the board, which allows for AIOs and modest custom-loop builds when coupled with lower fan-count cases.

A fact we'll look at in more depth later is the support for DDR4 speeds of up to 2666 MT/s, which is a couple steps lower than many competing X470 products. But overall, the board's exterior delivers a well-rounded experience that cuts just enough corners to keep the cost down, without the TUF board feeling like a purely value-focused product.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

UEFI: Asus' Ace in the Alliance

We half expected a watered-down UEFI experience with this product, given the target audience and limited voltage phase design, but the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming graces us with all of the Asus magic that helps elevate the company's products to the higher tier. Again, deviating from the red / black schemes of yore, the TUF implementation looks and feels like a new rendition of Asus innovation. We won’t dive too deep into the specifics, but we’ll highlight some of the features that make Asus' UEFIs desirable.

The EzMode is the first stop after smashing F2, and we are greeted by a general status view of the system’s processor, DIMMs, fans, boot order and various profiles for different tunable parameters. The top left contains the EZ system tuning, which is limited to either Normal or ASUS Optimal on this product. Clicking on the QFan button towards the lower center brings us to a modal menu where we can use pre-configured fan profiles or manually change the PWM or DC states, depending on the temperature of the thermal sensors.

Finding a specific feature that is listed in a tutorial somewhere is difficult sometimes, so using the included Search menu proved to be a handy feature for some quick adjustments. Beyond that, the main menu gives you a toggle for Aura Sync, prompting you to hit F7 for Advanced Mode, if you haven’t already clicked it. (We sure did).

The Advanced Main menu contains basic items, and we went ahead and grabbed a screen to show you what “security” means. Hopping over to the Advanced Menu, users can select processor-specific features, such as SMT mode, core leveling, precision boost overdrive, and other onboard settings that aren’t governed by the Ai Tweaker. Let us know in the comments if we should spend a little more time talking about these settings in future articles.

The monitor menu gives a text-centric readout of each of the sensors enabled on the board, and prompts several options for the builder as features are installed. Qfan has a nifty feature to tune the system’s PWM fans for optimal minimum duty cycles that can be applied to the fan curves.

On to Ai Tweaker. As we’ll discuss in the overclocking section, this is where tuners will drill down to squeeze every last millivolt out of their regulators, although most probably won’t dive too deep. The options are there, however. First, we’ll set our D.O.C.P. setting. This Asus-specific feature pulls the XMP profile (an Intel-specific feature) out of SPD out of the memory module and sets the appropriate fields in the UEFI for the memory configuration.
From there, you can simply pick the memory frequency that fits your needs. But keep in mind that this is a hit-or-miss process, and your choices might not be successful. OC Tuner is available for users that want to let Asus figure out the ideal overclock for a processor, and Performance Bias is still around to keep us reviewers on our toes when testing. (We made sure it was disabled).

DIGI+ VRM is also around, for users to adjust load lines and phases for more tuning. But for some reason, the information for these settings is a little sparse. For general purposes, elevating the severity of the setting decreases the value of the load line between the regulator and the processor.

An excellent feature that makes its way into the UEFI is the ability to adjust voltages, either through an offset or through direct settings. The latter has very small step sizes compared to most budget boards.

The fact that the Asus UEFI is largely unchanged from its more expensive sibling boards is a great value.The company even goes the extra step to make the UEFI more visually similar to the motherboard itself, which we’ve knocked Gigabyte for in the past. As underappreciated the UEFI can be, this reviewer gives Asus an A+ in effort and execution here. 10 out of 10, would OC.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Test Configuration & Benchmark Results

Comparison Products

Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

Test System Configuration

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Software
OS	Windows 10 64-bit
Graphics	Crimson 16.10.1 WHQL

Since the initial X470 launch (including the excellent Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7), we’ve upgraded our memory configuration with a four-piece set of Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3466 of the company's limited edition High Contrast SKU. The aesthetic is attractive, and we hope to hit higher memory speeds in our overclocking section on subsequent reviews.

We were sampled a Ryzen 7 2700X box sample from AMD for use with our test bench, which is cooled by the Corsair H110i 240mm AIO cooler. With the updated processor, it's time to upgrade our GPU from our trusty GTX 970 to a respectable MSI GTX 1080. Our test monitor is a 4k LG variant that enables us to test FHD, WQHD, and UHD for all our gaming benchmarks.

We still employ the Toshiba RD400 256GB M.2 NVMe drive for storage, and various hard drives for Steam Libraries and miscellaneous software.

Benchmark Suite

Benchmark Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
3D Tests & Settings
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Test Set 1: Skydiver, 1920x1080, Default PresetTest Set 2: Firestrike, 1920x1080, Default PresetTest Set 3: Firestrike Extreme, 2560x1440 Default Preset
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAAHigh Preset - 4k ~3460x1920, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 4k ~3460x1920, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain1920x1080 - UltraHigh Preset, 16x AF4k ~3460x1920 - UltraHigh Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High TesselationVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High TesselationHigh Quality, 4k ~3460x1920, High TesselationVery High Quality, 4k ~3460x1920, Very High Tesselation
The Talos Principle	Version 2672521920x1080 - Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF1920x1080 - Ultra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF4k ~3460x1920 - Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF4k ~3460x1920 - Ultra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

For our purposes today, we'll include our launch X470 data (which included our older test bench running a 1700X and GTX 970) just to give some perspective. Also, we're going to include results for the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC which we're also in the processor of reviewing, to give us a complete set of X470 data for analysis today.

Also note: We are only comparing the three X470 boards against themselves for any value or performance wins here. But we do add the testing data for the 1700X into the mix to show what an older system looks like stacked up against a more modern machine. With that said, let’s look at some charts.

Test Results: Synthetics and Applications

This batch of synthetics starts out with PCMark 8, and it may be the least-exciting data we’ve seen to date. Comparing all the 2700X data, we see on average only 1 percentage point separating the Gigabyte from the TUF, with the largest deltas seen in the Adobe benchmark. Comparing against 2017’s test bench, we see a much-more-substantial 9% increase in performance in all workloads except the storage suite.

With Sandra, we see similar tight margins across all samples, but this time the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 comes out ahead in all but the memory suite. The Asus stumbles across the finish line in Sandra, but excels in the IOmeter test. We see some very odd results with our Cinebench run, where the MSI sample takes a pretty drastic hit in performance of roughly 8 percent compared to the Asus and Gigabyte samples. MSI does stand up to the challenge though, showing strong results with Compubench. But the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming takes another last place finish among the GTX 1080 systems.

Our gaming synthetics consist of 3DMark’s Skydiver, Firestrike, and Firestrike Extreme, which are all pretty light for this system. The TUF takes second place in Skydiver and Firestrike, but it appears that not even the updated processor or graphics card can help lift our 1440p results of Firestrike Extreme. It's interesting to note that the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming takes a hit with Graphics in Skydiver. The physics score helps lift the Combined metric up, showing a pretty good balance for the platform as a whole.

In application tests, the Asus and Gigabyte samples fare well with Handbrake, besting the MSI by nearly four minutes and rendering the Sintel 4k video. The TUF Alliance board shows promising results with the Adobe suite, with the MSI sample starting to pick up steam. Asus continues to take the top spot with the Productivity apps and File Compression shows a 7 second win before the trailing competitor.

With Synthetic performance like this, the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming is off to a good start in our test bench. With any luck, the trend will continue in its intended environment: real-world gaming.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Test Results: Games, Performance & Power

At lower resolutions in 3DMark, we saw the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming suffer a bit. Let’s see if this translates to real gaming scenarios. We'll start with The Talos Principle. FHD presets a modest loss for the TUF at both resolution presets. Bumping up the resolution to 4k helps shift some of the burden off the processor and on to the GPU, but not by much. The TUF still winds up roughly 2 percentage points behind at Medium and half a percent at Ultra.

F1 2015 continues to favor the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7, but the Asus only trails by the slightest of margins here. On the bright side, the MSI X470 continues to hang close to the Asus board for the most part, only showing a real slump at 4k at Ultra settings.

Analyzing the black bars in our charts, which represents average framerates, we see similar results to F1 2015. The Gigabyte board leads the way at 1080p and 4k at both detail settings. Still, with only a few percentage points separating the higher settings, each platform is equally playable on high refresh rate monitors.

Finally a game the Asus board starts to excel at, even if it’s only by 0.6fps! Ashes of the Singularity Escalation’s GPU benchmark still hammers all of our Ryzen cores enough to tax even at 1080. In an interesting turn of events, the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC wins at 4K and the Crazy setting. Overall, this is another situation where each of the X470 boards performs adequately for our purposes today.

With a strong win in Applications and average performance in Gaming and Synthetics, the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming manages to tie the Gigabyte Aorus board in overall performance. The MSI board, however, trails by up to 1.8 percentage points against the average in most metrics, but still performs well above the old Ryzen 1700X bench--as it should. With performance out of the way, let’s look at some of the features that will really prove this value board’s worth.

Power, Thermals & Efficiency

From a total system power perspective, this system delivers. At idle, our system is drawing an impressive 48W from the wall, which made us doublecheck our measurements and previous systems’ data. Kicking off Prime95, Small FFTs actually observe higher system power usage by a considerable margin. FurkMark lets the CPU take a slight break, with the MSI taking a heavy hit burning 12W more power than the TUF contender. However, full system load hits the TUF system hard and we see 425W total system power draw from the socket. For the given target audience, the Asus X470 TUF-Plus Gaming power draw is respectable and will work well for power usage during gaming.

From a temperature perspective, this board's processor installation works just as well as other motherboard samples under full Prime95 load. However, the Vregs are toasty at an impressive 69C above ambient. Fortunately for Asus, that's within the safe zone for these regulators. Even under AIDA64, we’re seeing regulator temperatures that are a little too high for our taste. For a system not even overclocked, it would have been nice to see regulators that had a little more surface area for cooling.

Just as we saw in our initial X470 launch coverage, the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 performs well in terms of efficiency, thanks to its lower idle power and total system usage. The Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming just barely dips in the red for efficiency, due to higher overall system power usage. This might be tunable in the UEFI though, if efficiency is a concern. And for comparison purposes, we leave the 1700X data in the chart. Clearly the newer boards with the new processor are more efficient.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Overclocking & Verdict

Overclocking

As we mentioned in the product overview, the Tuf X470-Plus Gaming doesn’t appear to be a good overclocking performer--at least on the surface. Fortunately, the Asus UEFI is a great asset for builders, and all of the options we typically see in higher-end boards are enabled for us to potentially push this 6-phase board to the edge. If you'v followed overclocking results on other AM4 chipsets, you'll know roughly the same overall overclocks are achievable from any of the available regulator designs.

With all that said, we start our overclock search with a modest 40.0 multiplier on all cores, and observe stable runs through Prime95. Pushing forward, 40.5 and 41.0 also show stable results without adjusting any additional settings. Bumping to 41.25 requires a load line change to “high,” thus reducing voltage droops as the power virus cycles states. We also observe the voltage VID and sense voltage through HWiNFO64 to increase as we overclock. So we are still in safe and acceptable boundaries. 4.15GHz runs fine for 30-minute runs of Prime95l, and we finally hit the wall at 4.2GHz.

At that frequency, we were able to boot and run AIDA64’s FPU stress test for 30 minutes with temperatures hovering in the upper 80’s C. However, our charts require 8-hour-long Prime95 runs, so we ended up with an impresssive 4175MHz at roughly 1.365V Vcore, according to HWiNFO. Processor temps were acceptable, though more aggressive overclockers should be cautious in pushing the system further. At these settings our Vreg heatsinks were starting to reach 131 C, so you'll want to pick a board with higher phase counts and bigger heatsinks for prolonged overclocks maximum.

Since we're now equipped with a DDR4-3466 memory kit, we were hoping to see some impressive results when it comes to RAM settings. Unfortunately, the XMP profile for 3466MHz refused to load. That may be typical, but we also couldn't get DDR4-3200MHz to work in our fully populated configuration. Continuing to step down, DDR4-3000 wasn't bootable, and DDR4-2933 was only stable for about 3 minutes of AIDA64’s memory stress test. From here, we can either live with DDR4-2866, or adjust the SoC load line to High to reach 2933. On the bright side, most builders who opt for this TUF Alliance board will opt for only 2 DIMMs in their system. That configuration should allow for higher memory overclock rates.

Conclusion

Coming in at $150 at the time of writing, this board clearly wins the value award compared to the other premium boards we’ve tested. As a value-targeted board, it succeeds in areas that our previous-generation Biostar X370 GT7 board didn't. Asus delivers a a well-rounded mainstream board with enough performance and polish to compete in this crowded budget board space.

However, as a standalone X470 board, the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming ditches some features we've come to expect from an enthusiast-targeted chipset. Sure, our overclocking was successful. But we hope that people won’t attempt to run the settings we achieved as 24x7 overclocks, because of potential thermal issuees. If you want to push your CPU to the limit, you should opt for something with more robust power delivery and beefier coolers.

Even the system's IO left us scratching our heads. Wiring out the PCIe Gen3 to strictly connect to the top slot is a good move for simplicity's sake, but some builders might want to plug in more bandwidth-heavy secondary cards in the future. To those potential buyers, we’d recommend using a different board.

Now let’s think of the TUF Alliance and gaming. This board is designed specifically to be paired with other TUF componens, and we think it hits all the right marks for a great base-level gaming rig. ESports enthusiasts tend to emphasize performance, aesthetics, and value. And the Asus TUF X470-Plus Gaming checks all those boxes.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

The Core i7-8086K Review: 40 Years Of x86

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Intel Core i7-8086K 40th Anniversary Model

Intel's 8086, the company's first processor to use its ubiquitous x86 instruction set architecture, debuted on June 8, 1978. Forty years later and by some stroke of fortuitous timing, Intel's desktop CPU portfolio is loaded with eighth-generation Core processors. So it was only fitting, then, that after a bit of prodding by a well-known chip analyst, Intel announced that it'd pay homage to the 8086 with a 40th-anniversary limited-edition Core i7-8086K.

Core i7-8086K is based on the same Coffee Lake architecture as Core i7-8700K, right down to its six Hyper-Threaded cores able to work on 12 threads concurrently. But it features a higher base frequency and more aggressive Turbo Boost bins, which tell us that Intel carefully picked out the best dies to use in these chips. This is the first Intel processor to ship with a 5 GHz Turbo Boost bin, matching AMD's record with the FX-9590. And if you're only looking at clock rate, the -8086K represents a 1000x multiplication of the original 8086's 5 MHz frequency.

Incidentally, the -8086K is also Intel's first six-core processor with a 4 GHz base frequency, though that specification isn't as eye-catching.

Intel kicked off its anniversary celebration with a giveaway of 8086 Core i7-8086Ks. If you didn't win one, you'll have to purchase the processor like we did. Your window of opportunity won't be large, though: our sources confirm a production run of just 50,000 units. We expect collector's items to sport premium pricing, and Intel doesn't disappoint in that department. As of this writing, the -8086K sells for $75 more than the once-flagship Core i7-8700K.

So what is this processor's appeal, other than the obvious nostalgia? Core i7-8086K comes from a higher-quality bin than Core i7-8700K, so enthusiasts with deep pockets can expect to receive the very best example of Coffee Lake silicon available. Of course, most folks won't consider the extra $75 worth paying for moderate gains at stock clock rates. But again, this is a limited-edition piece of hardware steeped in history.

Intel Core i7-8600K

The 6C/12T Core i7-8086K is manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ process, just like its other Coffee Lake CPUs. Like the company's Core i7-8700K, its 95W Core i7-8086K also features 13MB of L3 cache, support for up to 64GB of dual-channel memory at DDR4-2666, an unlocked multiplier to facilitate overclocking, and Intel's integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine that can boost up to 1.2 GHz. For more information about the Coffee Lake architecture, check out our Core i7-8700K review.

Frequencies	Base	1	2	3	4 - 5	6
Intel Core i7-8086K	4.0 GHz	5.0 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-8700K	3.7 GHz	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz

The -8086K's real differentiation involves its modified Turbo Boost frequencies. But in an effort to maintain a 95W thermal design power rating, Intel only increased this chip's base clock rate by 300 MHz. Intel also increased the single-core clock rate to 5 GHz. We were able to sustain 5 GHz in tasks confined to a single core, such as Cinebench and LAME. However, the busy scheduling environment in a modern desktop operating system, which finds threads migrating frequently between cores, prevented 5 GHz operation in even mainstream tests like our gaming benchmarks. In other words, don't expect to see 5 GHz very often.

Product	Core i7-8086K	Core i7-8700K
Socket	LGA 1151v2	LGA 1151v2
TDP	95W	95W
Architecture	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake
Process	14nm++	14nm++
Cores/Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Frequency Base / Boost	4.0 / 5.0 GHz	3.7 / 4.7 GHz
Memory Speed	DDR4-2966	DDR4-2966
Memory Controller	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel
Cache (L2+L3)	13.5MB	13.5MB
Integrated Graphics	UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)	UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)
PCIe Lanes	x16 Gen3	x16 Gen3
Price	$425	$359

We've heard reports that some motherboards don't support Intel's 5 GHz single-core Turbo Boost bin. However, updated firmware could fix that in the future. Regardless, it's a shame that Intel didn't port over Turbo Boost 3.0 technology to pin lightly-threaded tasks to the CPU's fastest core. Overclockers might have more luck coaxing higher clock rates from the -8086K: our sample easily stretched up to 5.1 GHz with a bit of extra voltage.

We normally don't cover processor packaging, but it is relevant given the Core i7-8086K's status as a collector’s item. Like all of Intel's K-series SKUs, the -8086K doesn't include a bundled heat sink or fan.

The box tell us us that this is a limited-edition CPU. Intel even includes a certificate of authenticity, along with a signed statement from former CEO Brian Krzanich.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Forty Years Of x86

Compared to the 16-bit 8086, Intel's Core i7-8086K represents a quantum leap in technology. Whereas a modern CPU can spend four years in the design process, Intel brought its 8086 to market in just 18 months. Stephen Morse, then 36 years old, was the lead architect. The 8086 was originally designed to be a filler product before Intel released the 8800, but Morse designed it to be the first in a line of chips that shared a common architecture to ensure forward compatibility.

Product	Intel 8086	Core i7-8086K	Core i7-8700K
Release Date	June 8, 1978	June 8, 2018	October 5, 2017
TDP	1W (power draw)	95W	95W
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	6 / 12	6 / 12
Frequency Base / Boost	5 - 10 MHz (0.005 GHz)	4.0 / 5.0 GHz	3.7 / 4.7 GHz
Transistors	29,000	~3 billion	~3 billion
Manufacturing Process	nMOS/HMOS 3 micron (3000nm)	CMOS 14nm++	CMOS 14nm++
Word Size	16-bit	64-bit	64-bit
Lithography	G-Line (Mercury Arc Lamps) 436nm Wavelength	Argon Fluoride Excismer Laser, 193nm Wavelength	Argon Fluoride Excismer Laser, 193nm Wavelength
Die Size	33mm2	149mm2	149mm2
Minimum Feature Size	3.2 Microns (3200nm)	8nm	8nm
Wafer Diameter	4 inches	12 inches	12 inches
Memory Support	1MB	64GB	64GB
Memory Bus Speed	4.77 MHz	2966 MHz	2966 MHz
Integrated Graphics	None	UHD Graphics 630	UHD Graphics 630
Socket	40-pin	LGA 1151v2	LGA 1151v2
Price	$86.65 (1978) $330 adjusted for inflation	$425	$359

And thus, the x86 instruction set architecture was born. Over the course of 40 years, Intel continually enhanced the x86 ISA, adding more than 3500 new instructions like MMX, SSE, TSX, and three flavors of AVX, among many others. Amazingly, the 64-bit Core i7-8086K is capable of running original 16-bit 8086 code. That's a testament to the x86 instruction set's longevity.

The original 8086 was fabbed on a 3200nm nMOS process using mercury arc lamps. Meanwhile, 40 years later, Intel is on its third-gen 14nm CMOS process that's manufactured with argon fluoride exerciser lasers.

8086 Die

Transistor measurements are no longer based strictly on feature sizes, but we can derive some basic comparative metrics. Die sizes have increased from the 8086's 33mm² to the -8086K's 149mm², and transistor counts are up from 29,000 to ~3,000,000,000 per processor, respectively. That means the original 8086 featured 879 transistors per square millimeter, while Core i7-8086K comes with 20,134,228 transistors per square millimeter for an astounding 22,905x density increase.

Coffee Lake Die

Interfaces have also changed as Intel added more cores, cache, new buses, expanded memory support, and on-die graphics. The original 8086 dropped into a 40-pin quasi-PGA interface, whereas the eighth-generation Core processors employ an LGA 1151v2 socket that boasts 1151 pins. If we widen the scope to Intel's 28-core enterprise behemoths, some interfaces pack a whopping 4637 pins.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Silicon Lottery, Overclocking & Test Setup

Alternately, Silicon Lottery procures batches of processors and delids them to replace Intel's thermal paste with liquid metal Thermal Grizzly Condoctonaut. According to the company, this reduces operating temperatures by 15°C to 25°C, depending on the workload. The improved thermal transfer material helps facilitate more aggressive overclocks. Silicon Lottery sells the modified processors at a premium price, and with a one-year warranty (rather than Intel's standard three-year coverage).

Core i7-8700K - December 2017				Core i7-8700K - June 2018
Clock	Vcore	AVX2	Percentile	Clock	Vcore	AVX2	Percentile
4.9 GHz	1.387	-2	Top 99%	4.9 GHz	1.385	-2	Top 99%
5.0 GHz	1.4	-2	Top 72%	5.0 GHz	1.4	-2	Top 86%
5.1 GHz	1.412	-2	Top 43%	5.1 GHz	1.41	-2	Top 50%
5.2 GHz	1.425	-2	Top 16%	5.2 GHz	1.425	-2	Top 17%
5.3 GHz	1.437	-2	Top 3%	5.3 GHz	-	-	-

Silicon Lottery compiles statistics about the samples it modifies and shares them publicly, giving us a reasonable gauge of what's coming out of Intel's foundries. Some enthusiasts speculate that reserving the highest-quality silicon for Core i7-8086K would hurt the chances of scoring a higher-clocking -8700K. But as we can see, the percentage of -8700Ks able to hit anywhere from 5 to 5.2 GHz actually increased during the period of time we would have expected Intel to set aside top-binned dies for its -8086K. Then again, it looks like samples able to hit 5.3 GHz disappeared entirely, possibly representing those precious -8086K-capable dies.

Core i7-8086K - June 2018
Clock	Vcore	AVX2	Percentile
5.0 GHz	1.4	-2	Top 100%
5.1 GHz	1.41	-2	Top 92%
5.2 GHz	1.425	-2	Top 60%
5.3 GHz	1.435	-2	Top 14%

Silicon Lottery also shares statistics on the Core i7-8086K, and its probability of receiving top silicon is markedly better than what we see from the latest round of Core i7-8700K data. Nearly all of the company's -8086Ks reach 5 GHz, and the top 14% are capable of reaching 5.3 GHz.

Our own Core i7-8086K achieved 5.1 GHz with a 1.35V Vcore and default load line calibration settings. In addition, we adjusted our AVX offset by -1 and saw a peak temperature of 86°C during AVX-heavy workloads using Corsair's beefy H115i closed-loop cooler. Although we successfully dialed in DDR4-3466 rates with 14-14-14-24 timings, we feel we could have pushed even higher with more time for tuning.

Instead of splurging on a Core i7-8086K, you could always purchase a modified Core i7-8700K from Silicon Lottery capable of hitting the same 5.1 GHz that we achieved. Unfortunately, those models sell for $479, making the -8086K's $425 price tag attractive in comparison. If you're chasing the highest overclock possible, the company does sell a Core i7-8086K capable of 5.3 GHz for $849. As with all Silicon Lottery chips, however, you lose two years of warranty coverage in the exchange.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i7-8700 (8th Gen)

Intel Core i7-8700K

Intel Core i7-7700K

Test Systems

Like many other vendors, MSI motherboards feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin on all cores, at all times. For the Core i7-8086K, you're looking at 5 GHz across all six cores.

This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking. Again, MSI enables it by default in the BIOS, similar to most of the competition. But performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected when it's on. We manually disable the feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8086K, Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	Corsair H115iIntel stock thermal solution (Core i7-8700)

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

Out of the box, Core i7-8086K effectively tied Intel's Core i7-8700K in the DX12 CPU benchmark. But its higher overclocked frequency outstripped the tuned -8700K by a decent margin. Both processors traded places in the DX11 test, though again, overclocking propelled Core i7-8086K past the -8700K.

VRMark found the -8086K and -8700K offering virtually the same performance at stock and overclocked settings. The Core i5-8600K and -8400 both beat the Core i7 models though, suggesting that this benchmark rewards configurations without simultaneous multi-threading technology exposing logical cores.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

At stock and overclocked settings, Core i7-8086K and the Core i7-8700K performed almost identically in Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

At stock settings, the Core i7-8086K surprisingly trailed Core i7-8700K and -8700, though just barely. Overclocking provides a minuscule boost over the other tuned Intel processors.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Core i5-8600K dominated at both stock and overclocked settings, which tells us that this benchmark prefers physical cores over logical resources. The overclocked Core i7-8086K fell next in line with a lead over competing Core i7 and Ryzen 7 models. However, it trailed the -8700 by 1 FPS on average at stock settings.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War responds well to Intel's high clock rates, so it was no surprise to find overclocked Coffee Lake-based CPUs at the top of our chart.

Although the overclocked Core i7-8086K landed in first place, it's clear that the outcome in Dawn of War III was limited by graphics performance up top.

A stock Core i7-8086K beat the -8700K. But the difference between them was so small that the -8086K's 300 MHz peak Turbo Boost advantage didn't seem to help much.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Tuning provided small average frame rate boosts to Intel's six-core Coffee Lake-based CPUs. Meanwhile, Core i7-8086K only offered a slight advantage versus the less expensive eighth-gen Core i7s.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

The stock and overclocked Core i7-8086K yielded a small advantage over the Core i7-8700K.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS cap on performance. A few weeks ago, though, a subsequent update restored our Hitman test to its prior glory.

With the frame cap removed, Intel's overclocked processors hit a performance ceiling that may be imposed by available graphics horsepower.

Shifting focus to the stock configurations, Intel's six-core CPUs were clearly faster than last generation's quad-core flagship.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Not all games respond to increased host processing resources; some of them are wholly limited by available graphics horsepower. Middle-earth: Shadow of War is definitely one of those graphics-bound titles, demonstrating a 4.5 FPS average variance from the slowest sample in our pool to the fastest. As a result, it was no surprise to see Core i7-8086K and -8700K tied.

Project CARS 2

Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading. However, our 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beat the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X, so it's clear that parallelism isn't the most influential factor in defining this game's performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

At stock settings, Core i7-8086K offered minimal improvement over the Core i7-8700K in our overall Adobe Creative Cloud score. Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, the final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications. So, it wasn't surprising to see the Core i7-8086K's superior overclock beat the tuned -8700K by 6.5%.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Core i7-8086K trailed the -8700K in stock form, though overclocking changed the story.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics (rather than JavaScript), are exceedingly sensitive to CPU clock rates. Yet, Intel's stock Core i7-8086K trailed the -8700K again, reinforcing our opinion that some motherboard firmware versions aren't fully optimized to exploit the 5 GHz single-core Turbo Boost bin.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Core i7-8086K exploited its clock rate advantage in stock and overclocked trim to provide snappy performance.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Core i7-8700 beat the -8086K by a hair; however, its locked multiplier prevents it from vying for chart-topping performance. Core i7-8086K posted a lead at stock frequencies during the writing benchmark, reinforcing that win after overclocking.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so it's no surprise the tuned Ryzen 7 processors lead by a large margin. The overclocked Core i7-8086K fared best among Intel's CPUs, but there's no substitute for core/thread count in this workload.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Threaded workloads remain an uncontested strength of AMD's Zen-based processors and their hefty core counts. But tasks that are also affected by memory performance, such as Blender, allow Core i7 to claim a lead. The multi-core Cinebench and POV-Ray tests are dominated by the Ryzen line-up.

At stock settings, Core i7-8086K lead the -8700K in our single-core POV-Ray and Cinebench benchmarks. Overclocking opened up a much wider gap between the two CPUs.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is a single-threaded workload that typically illustrates the advantage of higher clock rates and IPC throughput. Not surprisingly, then, Core i7-8086K's frequency advantage lead to a win.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Thus, we found that performance scaled according to core/thread count.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, kept itself isolated to one core during our single-threaded test, allowing the Core i7-8086K to flaunt its higher frequency relative to the -8700K. Conversely, the multi-threaded y-cruncher test reminded us that both processors have the same multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Core i7-8086K's higher base and single-core Turbo Boost frequencies delivered small speed-ups throughout our test suite. But because of Windows' busy nature, those gains were somewhat unpredictable. Although the -8086K rarely stayed in its single-core Turbo Boost bin for long, the same can be said for most CPUs. Regardless, Core i7-8086K earns recognition for becoming the fastest gaming processor on the market, if only just barely.

Our charts below plot gaming performance with a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness) converted into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include the CPUs-only, plus extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

If you're only looking to use Core i7-8086K at its stock settings, the processor provides nearly the same gaming experience as the Core i7-8700K at 4.9 GHz. Its advantage is minor at 1920x1080, and it'll shrink at higher resolutions. Granted, overclocking is one of the -8086K's selling points. But the extra 200 MHz you get compared to our -8700K just doesn't justify a $75-higher price tag. And as with all K-series SKUs, you need to buy your own cooler and 300-series motherboard.

We see similar trends throughout our application tests: Core i7-8086K is strikingly similar to the -8700K, and overclocking opens a slight advantage due to our sample's increased headroom. It's only a shame that Intel didn't have the margins to also improve Core i7-8086K's multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies. Such a move would have yielded bigger gains across the board.

You could always purchase a delidded Core i7-8700K, or do the risky work yourself, to match the -8086K's overclocking potential. But if you go the Silicon Lottery route, expect to pay even more than a brand new Core i7-8086K costs and lose two years of warranty coverage.

Core i7-8086K is probably overkill for most of our readers. Both Intel and AMD have far more economical options that provide similar performance through our benchmark suite. Given the limited supply of Core i7-8086Ks, however, we don't expect them to be available for long, and competitive positioning probably isn't the top priority for this CPU's target market.

In light of the anecdotal evidence we've heard from Silicon Lottery, you can rest assured that the -8086K represents Intel's very best Coffee Lake silicon. There are those among us who always seek out the best performance possible, regardless of price. If that describes you, then Core i7-8086K is the fastest gaming chip out there. Just be aware that you're paying dearly for a bit of overclocking headroom.

Moderate gains at stock clock rates mean Core i7-8086K isn't worthwhile for most of Intel's customers. But if you're willing to pay a premium for a piece of history that just so happens to perform well, the -8086K is a cool, enthusiast-oriented option.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i7-8700 Review: Stock Cooler Falls Flat

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000

The Core i7-8700 Review

Intel's Core i7-8700 packs all of the Coffee Lake architecture's goodness into a 65W envelope, including six Hyper-Threaded cores, the benefits of 14nm++ manufacturing, and higher Turbo Boost clock rates than previous-generation CPUs. Although it's handicapped somewhat by a locked ratio multiplier, stymieing enthusiasts looking for a 5 GHz+ overclock, Core i7-8700 does feature operating frequencies that come close to the flagship -8700K. As a result, its performance is often similar in real-world tasks. And yet, the vanilla -8700 costs $50 less. That's a win if you weren't planning to overclock anyway.

Great benchmark results and an attractive price also put Core i7-8700 up against AMD's revamped Ryzen 7 line-up. Specifically, it's forced to contend with Ryzen 7 2700's eight cores, 16 threads, unlocked multiplier, affordable motherboard support, and capable cooler. Particularly on that last point, Intel's solution is severely deficient.

You see, Intel's thermal design power specification applies to the CPU's base frequency. But its processors exceed that rating when they jump to higher Turbo Boost bins. We found that the Core i7-8700 can overwhelm Intel's bundled heat sink and fan during certain heavily-threaded workloads, negatively affecting performance. You'll have to purchase a better thermal solution for any chance at realizing Core i7-8700's highest Turbo Boost frequencies. Naturally, the CPU loses some of its luster as a result.

Intel Core i7-8700

Core i7-8700 may be destined to live in the -8700K's shadow. But again, it does feature the same complement of six cores, 12MB of L3 cache, and DDR4-2666-capable memory controller. Like all of Intel's Core i7, i5, and i3 models, the i7-8700 comes with an integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine that gives Intel a leg up over competing Ryzen 7 and 5 processors without any on-die graphics.

Unfortunately, due to Coffee Lake's lack of backward compatibility, you do need a 300-series motherboard if you're upgrading from an older platform.

	IntelCore i7-8700K	IntelCore i7-8700	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	Intel Core i5-8600K	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$359	$303	$329	$299	$229	$257	$199	$182
Process	14nm++	14nm++	GloFo 12nm LP	GloFo 12nm LP	GloFo 12nm LP	14nm++	GloFo 12nm LP	14nm++
Cores/Threads	6/12	6/12	8/16	8/16	6/12	6/6	6/12	6/6
TDP	95W	65W	105W	65W	95W	95W	65W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.2	3.7	3.2	3.6	3.6	3.4	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.7	4.6	4.3	4.1	4.2	4.3	3.9	4.0
Cache (L3)	12MB	12MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	9MB	16MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Integrated Graphics	UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz)	UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz)	No	No	No	UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz)	No	UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz)
Cooler	No	Intel Stock	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	95W Wraith Spire	No	65W Wraith Stealth	Intel Stock

Intel is infamous for aggressively segmenting its portfolio, meaning it trims frequencies, only makes overclocking available on premium models, turns Hyper-Threading on and off, and disables cores to create lower-priced models. Of course, the company did this with its seventh-gen Core CPUs, too. The Core i7-7700 was multiplier-locked, while the -7700K catered to enthusiasts. But Intel capped the -7700's top Turbo Boost bin at a mere 4.2 GHz. Core i7-8700 isn't as constrained. Its four-core ceiling is 4.4 GHz, while six active cores reach up to 4.3 GHz, just like Core i7-8700K. In most workloads, the 500 MHz base frequency difference between Core i7-8700 and -8700K quickly disappears as Turbo Boost kicks in.

Frequencies	Base	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i7-8700K	3.7 GHz	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-8700	3.2 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-7700K	4.2 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.4 GHz	-
Intel Core i7-7700	3.6 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz	4.0 GHz	-

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

The Stock Cooler Dilemma & Test Setup

The Stock Cooler Dilemma

Intel ships its multiplier-locked CPUs with basic thermal solutions. Although they are notoriously flimsy and usually pretty noisy, they've proven sufficient for cooling previous-generation models. That changes with Core i7-8700.

In the not-too-distant past, Intel's stock heat sink employed a copper core. More recently, however, the company switched to all-aluminum designs. That means Core i7-8700 comes with the same cooler as quad-core Kaby Lake-based Core i5s.

Frankly, we're surprised that Intel carried over the same heat sinks from those seventh-generation Core CPUs. Despite the -8700's 65W TDP, it's still based on a notably more complex die.

On paper, the -8700's 65W TDP fits nicely within the low-profile cooler's 73W rating. But remember that Intel specs the CPU's thermal design power according to its base frequency. Its chips actually exceed the TDP when they dynamically increase voltage and frequency through their Turbo Boost algorithms. As noted on Intel's Turbo Boost 2.0 informational page:

Note: Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.

According to our measurements, Core i7-8700 peaks at up to 126W during taxing all-core workloads. With that data in-hand, the stock cooler does appear insufficient.

While Intel guarantees base frequencies during normal operation, the company doesn't make promises about Turbo Boost clock rates because its processors only shift to higher P-states (pre-defined frequencies and voltages) when they're running below certain temperature, voltage, power, and current limits. Above them, the opportunistic algorithms are reigned in to keep the CPU in-spec.

As a general rule, Turbo Boost targets lower frequency bins as more cores become active. Intel does still advertise its maximum single-core clock rates, but it no longer divulges the multi-core clock rates (even though you can expose them through the company's XTU software).

Frequencies	Base	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i7-8700K	3.7 GHz	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-8700	3.2 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz

We've seen lots of speculation that Intel stopped disclosing multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies with Coffee Lake-based processors because its stock heat sink and fan couldn't fully facilitate those clock rates. Sure enough, a quick online search reveals several reports from owners claiming that their Core i7-8700s hit the maximum safe temperature of 100°C (TJ Max) during extended workloads. Once the processor reaches TJ Max, it throttles back voltage and frequency (along with power and heat) as a protection mechanism. Of course, throttling also results in lower performance.

Measuring The Impact

To investigate the claims, we observed a Core i7-8700 and its stock cooler during our x265 HandBrake benchmark. This real-world application is optimized to utilize all available cores. Moreover, it employs AVX instructions, which tend to increase power consumption considerably. We opened AIDA's system stability test window to monitor our -8700 during the workload.

As you can see in the second slide, Intel's cooler was quickly overwhelmed, causing the processor to repeatedly bounce off of its 100°C temperature limit and throttle performance to protect itself (charted in red in the lower window).

With the bundled fan manually set to 100% duty cycle, we logged frequency throughout our test run (first album image). Even with the thermal solution working as hard as possible, the -8700 regularly throttled back from its 4.3 GHz all-core bin into lower ranges.

We also monitored VRM temperature during the test to ensure our motherboard's power delivery subsystem wasn't responsible for the throttling. Those measurements landed within the range we expected.

Next, we ran the same test using a beefy Corsair Hydro Series H115i "Extreme Performance" all-in-one liquid-cooler. Manually cranking the two 140mm fans and pump up to 100% helped ensure that thermal output had no impact on our test results.

The difference is night and day. Intel's Core i7-8700 never exceeded 67°C, and the processor's frequency remained at a pleasingly-constant 4.3 GHz (though we did notice a few spikes higher during brief periods of lighter utilization). AIDA's system monitor confirmed that the CPU didn't throttle. Again, we see that our motherboard's power delivery subsystem satisfied the Core i7-8700's power and current requirements.

Comparing the difference between Intel's stock cooler (HS&F) and the all-in-one makes it clear that thermals clearly affect the -8700's performance. Turbo Boost is clearly designed to minimize the impact of thermal throttling: we only observe a 72-second delta over the course of our ~35-minute test.

A mere 3.4% separating those results may seem insignificant, but remember that we tested these configurations on an open test bench. A closed case would change the outcome almost assuredly. Also, we benchmarked at maximum fan settings, generating quite a bit of noise. It's far more common to use the motherboard's default fan curve, or to dial in an optimized fan profile that ramps up gradually. Unfortunately, those algorithms don't respond to control temperature fast enough to mitigate wild spikes and dips. As a result of the normal delay in fan speed adjustments, plus the less-than-ideal airflow in most PC cases, you could see larger slow-downs than what we recorded from a best-case test environment. This doesn't bode well for builders working with small form factors.

We did experiment with various thermal compounds between the stock cooler and heat spreader, but they didn't help much. Thus, we pin the negative outcome of our experimentation on Intel's paltry heat sink and fan combination.

Bear in mind that our benchmarks are run with the stock cooler and Corsair's all-in-one to highlight the difference in thermal performance. Some tests are short, while others take longer to complete. Some are single-threaded, while other are fully parallelized. Thus, the effects of heat influence each result in a unique way. As noted, we kept the fan speed at maximum and tested on an open-air bench, so our results represent a best-case scenario for Intel's stock cooler.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-7700

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	Corsair H115iIntel stock thermal solution (Core i7-8700)

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

Core i7-8700 fell right where we expected it to in VRMark: slightly below the stock Core i7-8700K.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X was a little faster though, as was the Core i5-8400. VRMark tends to reward high IPC throughput and frequency, but it also seems to prefer physical cores over simultaneous multi-threading technology.

Although the Core i7-8700 outstripped its K-series counterpart in the Fire Strike test, its lead isn't significant enough to call a definitive win. The heavily-threaded DX11 and DX12 benchmarks ran for an extended period of time. But frequent breaks in the sequence likely helped Core i7-8700 maintain the same level of performance under Intel's stock cooler and Corsair's Corsair H115i.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Our three-minute Ashes of the Singularity benchmark scales exceedingly well with additional cores, so it was surprising to see Core i7-8700 perform similarly with both thermal solutions.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

In our Core i7-8700K review, we pointed out that Intel's vanilla -8700 often outperformed the flagship -8700K in our gaming benchmarks. Obviously, those results were difficult to explain, given each CPU's specifications. But the issue persisted for several months (and many motherboard firmware updates). Intel and its motherboard partners have been unable to explain this phenomenon. However, we did notice that it was resolved around the time updates went out for our Spectre/Meltdown patch testing. We still saw a few scattered cases of Core i7-8700 beating the flagship K-series chip, but they're typically results that fall within a margin of error.

Our Civilization VI AI test results are a perfect example. The Core i7-8700 with Corsair's cooler slipped past the Core i7-8700K, but just barely. More important is that you can get -8700K-class performance from the locked model if you don't plan on overclocking.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Civilization VI graphics test shows Intel's Core i7-8700 beating the -8700K by a larger margin. In fact, strong performance put the -8700 on equal footing with a tuned Ryzen 7 2700X, and within striking distance of the overclocked Core i7-8700K.

Separately, we saw the Core i7-7700K about 6 FPS ahead of the -7700. This illustrates the bigger gap between Intel's previous-gen locked and K-series models, attributable to large differences in base and Turbo Boost frequencies.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Core i7-8700 almost kept up with the stock -8700K. But tuning Intel's flagship Coffee Lake-based CPU solidified its lead.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal obviously runs well on quad-core processors, and doesn't gain much from architectures with more execution resources. Meanwhile, a big gap between the Core i7-7700K and -7700 tells us that the game is sensitive to operating frequencies, too.

Core i7-8700 and -8700K were nearly indistinguishable through this benchmark run.

AMD's Ryzen CPUs appear to fare worse than the Intel chips in Far Cry Primal. Average frame rates can be misleading, though. Our frame time charts reveal much more performance variability from the Core processors. Ryzen 7 2700X's nice clean line is indicative of a smoother experience.

Grand Theft Auto V

The Grand Theft Auto V benchmark we use is one of our suite's longest in terms of run time. We record 100 seconds of the fly-by scene, first allowing the preceding sequences to run through and keep our hardware nice and toasty for consistent measurements.

Even though Intel's stock heat sink and fan finished in front of the -8700 cooled by Corsair's closed-loop H115i, the results fell within the range we anticipate between tests.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark found the Core i7-8700 and -8700K pretty much tied. Both models are ~4 FPS ahead of the nearest Ryzen CPU.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Middle-earth didn't respond any better to our six-core Coffee Lake-based samples than it did to their quad-core predecessors. Sometimes you just need more graphics horsepower.

Project CARS 2

According to its developers, Project CARS 2 is well-optimized for multi-core CPUs. But a 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beat the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X, so it's clear that threading isn't the most influential variable in determining this game's performance.

The stock Core i7-8700K established a slight lead over the -8700 in our benchmark, although overclocking increased its advantage. More than likely, though, the top of this chart is graphics-bound.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Core i7-8700 with its stock heat sink lost some ground to Corsair's closed-loop liquid cooler in the Illustrator test. Otherwise, there was little to differentiate both configurations.

The stock Core i7-8700K barely beat Core i7-8700 in our aggregate score. However, overclocking the K-series chip to 4.9 GHz propelled it into a second-place finish (after Core i5-8600K, interestingly enough).

Web Browser

The Meltdown and Spectre patches imposed performance penalties on Intel CPUs through our Web browser tests. However, Core processors still lead through these lightly-threaded benchmarks.

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X slid in ahead of Core i7-8700, reminding us that second-gen Ryzen CPUs are much more competitive than their predecessors in workloads that aren't well-optimized for parallelization.

MotionMark emphasizes graphics performance, rather than JavaScript, but is also sensitive to CPU clock rates. There, Core i7-8700 turned things around and beat the Ryzen 7 2700X. We weren't expecting a stock Core i7-8700K to carve out such a large advantage over the vanilla -8700, though.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Core i7-8700 impressed in this benchmark by barely beating a stock -8700K. But the benefit of an unlocked K-series chip became evident in the Core i5-8600K and Core i7-8700K results at 4.9 GHz.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload is parallelized, so it responds well to Ryzen's core count advantage. Nevertheless, a six-core design with Hyper-Threading allowed Core i7-8700K to muscle out the competition when we overclocked it to 4.9 GHz.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

We expected to see more variation from Intel's stock cooler during our Cinebench multi-core test. Given its relatively short run time and our open-air bench, however, we didn't see much difference between our two configurations. Interestingly, the stock Core i7-8700K and -8700 performed almost identically.

Similar trends emerged through the other threaded rendering tasks. While Core i7-8700's stock heat sink and fan imposed slightly lower performance than the liquid cooler in certain cases, we still think the -8700 is a solid alternative to the pricier flagship if you don't plan to overclock and cooling inside your case is sufficient.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is a single-threaded workload that typically illustrates the advantage of higher clock rates and IPC throughput. Case in point: Core i7-7700K and -7700 were separated by a larger delta than the two Coffee Lake-based Core i7s, which we know feature similar single-core Turbo Boost bins.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. These workloads are especially intensive. Yet, we didn't record any surprising variations between the -8700 cooled by Intel's stock thermal solution and the Corsair all-in-one. Both of our HandBrake benchmarks, on the other hand, exploit AVX instruction, generate lots of heat, and illustrate a wider performance gap between the two configurations.

Surprisingly, y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, didn't expose any variation between the two coolers we tested atop Core i7-8700.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Intel made some significant changes to the Coffee Lake architecture in order to keep its Core CPUs competitive with AMD's Ryzen line-up. Beyond giving the Core i7 family six Hyper-Threaded cores, Intel also narrowed the clock rate difference between premium K-series chips and the more mainstream models. Core i7-8700K does boast a 500 MHz base frequency advantage over Core i7-8700. But that gap shrinks as Turbo Boost is enabled and more cores spin up. By the time four cores are active, both chips should sustain 4.4 GHz.

Unfortunately, the decision to bundle Core i7-8700 with an all-aluminum heat sink means that you may not always get the chip's most aggressive Turbo Boost frequencies under taxing workloads. You'd assume that a CPU with 50% more cores would also dissipate more heat than its predecessor. And yet Intel didn't think to include a cooling solution with enough thermal headroom to realize its peak performance. This is especially perplexing given the praise AMD received for packaging its processors with beefy heat sinks.

Most of the time, though, Core i7-8700 does deliver an experience that closely mirrors the flagship -8700K at its stock settings. Check out the charts below, which plot gaming performance with average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness) converted into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include the CPUs-only, plus extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

For those similar performance results, expect to spend about $50 less on a Core i7-8700. If you game at higher resolutions, the differences between CPUs shrink even more. And the -8700 looks a lot like a stock -8700K through most of our other application benchmarks, too.

Intel doesn't have a great track record for building backward compatibility into its platforms, so you are on the hook for a new 300-series motherboard, regardless of what you're stepping up from. But unless specific features of the Z370 chipset catch your eye, Core i7-8700 offers the exact same performance if you drop it onto a cheaper B-series board. That should save a few extra dollars...

...which you'll want to turn around and spend on a better thermal solution than what Intel includes with its -8700. That heat sink and fan combination is obviously a poor fit, and better thermal paste won't fix the issue. By stepping up to a sufficient third-party cooler, you won't have to worry about artificially clipping the -8700's top-end Turbo Boost bins due to overheating. A six-core, Hyper-Threaded CPU rated for 65W sounds great for performance-sensitive applications in small form factors. But power consumption definitely spikes higher under load. Apparently, many low-profile coolers lack the headroom for Core i7-8700, so do your homework before replacing the stock sink in a space-constrained environment.

In the past, we recommended Ryzen 7 2700X over Intel's Core i7-8700K due to AMD's lower price point, similar gaming performance, bundled cooler, and better benchmark results in threaded applications. We expected Core i7-8700's comparable performance and pricing advantage to level the field. However, Intel's sub-standard cooling solution means we can't recommend the -8700 without a suitable replacement, adding to the CPU's overall cost.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 is also worth considering in this category. Its unlocked ratio multiplier and overclocking support on B-series motherboards yields a more attractive value story than what we get from Core i7-8700. Of course, if you need integrated graphics with your high-end CPU, Intel is the only game in town. And if you're looking for the best blend of price and performance for gaming specifically, the Core i5-8400 is still a favorite.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel Coffee Lake: What's the Best CPU Platform?

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 23 May 2018 13:30:00 +0000

Ryzen 2 vs Intel Coffee Lake

It's the age-old question that has spurred endless debate: AMD or Intel? Today, that rivalry has reached new heights with AMD's Ryzen 2000 Series, often referred to by users (but not AMD) as "Ryzen 2," competing against Intel's 8th Gen "Coffee Lake" for desktop dominance.

To help you decide which processor platform to get, we've put Ryzen 2 and Coffee Lake through a seven-round face-off.

Features

AMD and Intel fight their biggest battles in the Core i7/Ryzen 7 and Core i5/Ryzen 5 families that comprise the bulk of the PC market. As we can see, prices are generally comparable between the two companies' lineups, with Ryzen 7/Core i7 spanning from $303 to $360, while the Ryzen 5/Core i5 series span from $182 to $260.

Even after Intel's adjustments to the Coffee Lake Core i7 series, AMD holds the advantage of more cores in its Ryzen 7 product line. Intel's Core i7 models come with six cores and twelve threads, while AMD's Ryzen 7 line wields eight cores and sixteen threads.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	Intel Core i7-8700K	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	Intel Core i7-8700	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	Intel Core i5-8600K	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$329	$359	$299	$303	$229	$257	$199	$182
Cores/Threads	8/16	6/12	8/16	6/12	6/12	6/6	6/12	6/6
TDP	105W	95W	65W	65W	95W	95W	65W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.7	3.2	3.2	3.6	3.6	3.4	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.7	4.1	4.6	4.2	4.3	3.9	4.0
Cache (L3)	16MB	12MB	16MB	12MB	16MB	9MB	16MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	No	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	Intel Stock	95W Wraith Spire	No	65W Wraith Stealth	Intel Stock

The Ryzen 5 and Core i5 series are the general-purpose workhorses of most desktop PCs, and both lineups come with six cores. Intel has segmented its product stack by disabling Hyper-Threading on its Core i5 models, meaning software can only assign a single thread to each core. Meanwhile, AMD's Ryzen 5 models come with the company's Simultaneous Multi-Threading, which allows software to schedule two threads to each core at the same time. That gives Ryzen 5 an advantage with a total of twelve threads.

But not all cores are created equal. Intel holds the per-core performance advantage with its higher frequencies and generally processes more instructions per clock (IPC). Ryzen 7 tops out at 4.3 GHz with the 2700X model, while Intel's Core i7-8700K stretches up to 4.7 GHz. Intel's per-core performance advantage equates to more performance and responsiveness in lightly-threaded applications, such as most games and general desktop PC applications.

AMD's Ryzen 2 (2000 series) offers improved performance in heavily-threaded productivity applications, like rendering, video editing, and transcoding, and it also boosts performance in game titles that can utilize the extra cores and threads. Ryzen 2 also comes with Precision Boost 2, which is similar to Intel's multi-core boost implementation that provides higher boost frequencies when applications exercise multiple cores at once. Neither company discloses the full list of turbo frequencies, so it's hard to make comparisons based on the specifications alone, but we’ll put the processors to the test shortly.

Winner: Tie. AMD Ryzen 2’s has more cores and more threads. However, Intel has higher clock speeds.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i7-8700K

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Overclocking

You'll need an unlocked ratio multiplier to overclock your processor, and AMD holds a distinct advantage with unlocked multipliers on every Ryzen 2 model. AMD also allows you to overclock your processor on any B- or X-series AM4 motherboard, which stands in contrast to Intel's segmentation practices.

Intel only allows overclocking with its K-series processors, which come at a premium, and you'll also need a pricier Z-series motherboard. AMD's flexible overclocking options have earned it plenty of praise in the enthusiast community because you can achieve nearly the same performance with the less-expensive "non-X" models as the pricier X models.

You'll pay for the privilege, but Intel does hold the uncontested lead in overclocking. Intel's processors generally land in the 4.9 to 5.0 GHz range after tuning, while AMD's Ryzen 2 often taps out at 4.2 GHz. Of course, the silicon lottery applies, so chip quality can have an impact on the maximum attainable overclocks.

Intel also holds the advantage on the memory overclocking front, too. The company's processors have a much higher memory data transfer rate potential than AMD's lineup. AMD's Zen microarchitecture profits greatly from increased memory data transfer rates, which often manifests as impressive performance scaling in games, while you don't see as much of a progressive performance increase from the Intel models.

Winner: Intel. You can push Intel’s CPU and your memory far beyond AMD’s processors, which often run very close to the limits at stock settings.

Stock Coolers

Intel's stock coolers certainly aren't noteworthy. These dinky coolers match the processors' TDP rating exactly, and Intel doesn't include them with the overclockable K-series models. Shelling out for an aftermarket cooler adds more cost to your build, so this is a problem you're paying for.

AMD's excellent coolers are one of the hallmarks of its Ryzen lineup. These coolers often support at least some level of overclocking, but they are also attractive. AMD's Ryzen 7 series now comes equipped with beefy LED-lit stock coolers, too.

The processors' TDP rating also serves as a general indicator of power consumption and thermal generation. Most of Intel and AMD's comparably-priced models share similar TDP ratings, though the Ryzen 7 2700X stands alone as the only 105W processor. That's higher than Intel's maximum 95W rating.

Winner: AMD Ryzen 2. Intel's stock coolers are a joke, but nobody's laughing at AMD.

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Intel Core i5-8600K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Motherboards

AMD and Intel's motherboards are also key considerations. As we mentioned, Intel restricts overclocking to its pricey Z-Series motherboards, while AMD allows you to overclock on its less-expensive B-series models.

AMD has also promised to support its AM4 motherboards (the models that support Ryzen processors) until 2020, so you can upgrade your system by simply dropping in a new processor. AMD has already released A-, B-, and X-series 300-series motherboards, and it is refreshing AM4 with newer 400-series motherboards. Compatibility is assured with both generations of Ryzen processors, though you may have to flash the BIOS on an older motherboard to support the newer processors.

In contrast, Intel refreshes its chipsets and sockets more frequently. The Coffee Lake models won't work in the previous-generation 200-series motherboards that have the same socket, so 300-series motherboards are your only option. Intel hasn't guaranteed socket support for its future processors, so it’s possible that newer chip generations will require a new motherboard, which restricts upgrade options.

Winner: AMD. Intel squeezes you for every penny if you want to overclock, and its constant socket and chipset changes restricts future upgrades.

Gaming Performance

When it comes to gaming, Coffee Lake beats Ryzen 2 on most titles, simply because more games are lightly-threaded and benefit from Intel's higher single-core clock speeds. AMD's processors are generally more competitive in game titles that can leverage their additional cores effectively, such as Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, but Intel takes the lead in titles that benefit from increased frequency and instructions per clock cycle, like Grand Theft Auto V.

As you can see with our Middle-Earth: Shadow of War benchmark results, some games don't respond as well to increased host processing resources, instead responding better to more capable graphics cards.

Our first two slides contain a geometric mean of frame rates for all of the games in our standard test suite. We split these values into average frame rates and 99th-percentile frame rates, with the latter being a good indicator of the smoothness of your gaming experience. The remainder of the slides contain the results of each test.

Intel's Core i7-8700K offers the highest average gaming performance at both stock and overclocked settings, though the Core i5-8600K does provide a slightly smoother experience with stock settings. AMD's Ryzen 2 processors don't provide as much peak performance, but they do offer near-equivalency in our tests at 1080p so you may not notice the difference. If you game with higher resolutions, these performance deltas will shrink further as the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

Intel's Core i5-8400 is the least expensive chip in our tests, but it offers a great level of performance for its price point. The Ryzen 5 2600X also stands out as a capable performer but overclocking the Ryzen 5 2600 yields nearly the same performance. We also see the same story play out with the Ryzen 7 2700X and 2700.

Winner: Intel offers stronger performance in more games. However, if you're streaming, AMD's multitasking might is better.

Productivity Performance

Our productivity results generally mirror the respective capabilities of Ryzen 2 (2000 series), which tends to perform better in heavily-threaded applications, and Coffee Lake processors, which tend to perform best in lightly-threaded apps.

That means Ryzen excels in decompression, compression, and rendering applications, but the chips also provide more than acceptable performance across our wide range of lightly-threaded workloads.

Intel's Coffee Lake processors also provide acceptable performance in those applications, but they excel in lightly-threaded apps. That includes applications like the Adobe Creative Cloud Suite, web browsers, single-core rendering workloads, and our LAME encoding benchmark. Intel also enjoys a performance advantage in applications that leverage powerful AVX instructions, like our x265 HandBrake test.

Winner: Tie. If you are primarily browsing the web, using office apps or even playing with Adobe's creative suite, Intel is faster. However, if you use a lot of multi-threaded, non-Adobe software for rendering videos, photos and animations, AMD is a better choice.

Value

By almost any measure, AMD processors offer more bang for your buck. First, with two equivalent chips, the AMD processor is usually cheaper. For example, at publishing time, the high-end AMD Ryzen 7 2700X ($319) was $20 cheaper than the equivalent Intel chip, the Core i7-8700K ($339) while the mid-range Ryzen 5 2600X ($219) was about $35 less its counterpart, the Core i5-8600K ($244).

If you want to overclock with Intel, you have to spend extra for a K-series CPU, but with AMD, you can buy a mainstream chip and overclock it. And if you want to overclock your Intel CPU, you need a pricey, Z-Series motherboard, but with AMD, you can overclock with even an inexpensive B-Series board.

But wait, there's more. The AMD chips all come with really good stock CPU coolers that you might actually want to use while Intel doesn't even give you a fan for its K-series chips and gives you a poor-quality one for the rest of its lineup.

Winner: AMD Ryzen 2 by a landslide.

Bottom Line

Ryzen 2 wins this competition by a nose, winning five rounds to four. Of the seven rounds in our face-off, two -- features and productivity performance -- were a tie. However, the real winner here is you. As a consumer, you have a wide variety of great processor choices from two strong manufacturers.

Which CPU platform you choose should depend on two main factors: your budget and what types of software you use most. If you want the best performance for the majority of games and productivity apps, which are lightly threaded, Intel Coffee Lake is your top choice. However, if you want the best speed for the money or you use a lot of heavily-threaded apps, AMD Ryzen 2 was made for you.

Round	Intel Coffee Lake	AMD Ryzen 2
Features	✗	✗
Overclocking	✗
Stock Coolers		✗
Motherboards		✗
Gaming Performance	✗
Productivity Performance	✗	✗
Value		✗
Total	4	5

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Review: The Non-X Factor

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 16 May 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Go X Or Go Home

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 includes the same eight cores as its more expensive Ryzen 7 2700X flagship, plus simultaneous multi-threading technology that allows each core to work on two software threads at the same time. But its clock rates are trimmed back to create a $30-cheaper model sporting a little less performance. Even though the 2700 loses its enthusiast-targeted X modifier, AMD still arms the chip with an unlocked ratio multiplier for flexible overclocking. And this less expensive CPU should hit nearly the same frequencies as the Ryzen 7 2700X we like so much.

Last generation, plenty of overclocking headroom and lower prices earned AMD's non-X Ryzen SKUs praise up and down the stack. Much of that was based on the company's bundled coolers, though. For example, the then-flagship Ryzen 7 1800X launched at $500 with no thermal solution at all. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 1700 sold for $330 with a cooler in the box. Now, AMD bundles a heat sink and fan with all of its new Ryzen chips. Moreover, it only sells 2700 at a $30 discount. Worse, although it's possible to match Ryzen 7 2700X's performance after a bit of overclocking, you need an aftermarket cooler to get there. AMD's freebie won't cut it. This time around, there's not much reason to step down a tier.

Ryzen 7 2700

With its 2000-series Ryzen processors, AMD was challenged to deliver more than the incremental improvements we've been seeing from Intel lately. To begin, the company swapped out its 14nm manufacturing process with a 12nm node, enabling higher clock rates at the same power consumption levels. AMD also optimized the Zen architecture by adding more sophisticated multi-core boost algorithms and lowering cache and memory latencies. Together, those changes enable speed-ups in pretty much every type of workload we test with, and they're all baked in to Ryzen 7 2700.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	Ryzen 7 1700	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i7-8700K	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$329	$349	$299	$299	$219	$229	$199	$359	$257	$182
Cores/Threads	8/16	8/16	8/16	8/16	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/6	6/6
TDP	105W	95W	65W	65W	95W	95W	65W	95W	95W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.6	3.2	3.0	3.6	3.6	3.4	3.7	3.6	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.1	4.1	3.8	4.0	4.2	3.9	4.7	4.3	4.0
Cache (L3)	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	12MB	9MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	95W Wraith Spire	-	95W Wraith Spire	65W Wraith Stealth	-	-	Intel

AMD rates its Ryzen 7 2700 at a much lower 65W thermal design power than its 105W Ryzen 7 2700X. That's partly why the 2700's base frequency is a much more conservative 3.2 GHz, while its maximum Precision Boost clock rate tops out at 4.1 GHz. You'd think, then, that the bundled 95W Wraith Spire thermal solution with LED lighting would be beefy enough for aggressive overclocking. It's not, though. If you're really after Ryzen's peak potential, purchase a more capable aftermarket heat sink/fan combination or closed-loop liquid cooler.

All 2000-series Ryzen CPUs are compatible with motherboards sporting new X470 or older 300-series chipsets. You can even overclock the new processors on value-oriented B-series platforms. While lower-cost 400-series chipsets aren't available yet, we're counting on them to offer a more affordable option for enthusiasts looking to tune 2000-series Ryzen CPUs.

The Ryzen 7 2700 supports up to DDR4-2933 memory, just like the 2700X. Just be aware that you'll only get those data rates with single-rank modules installed in a maximum of two slots. Even then, it takes a motherboard with six PCB layers to operate at 2933 MT/s stably. AMD uses Indium solder between its Ryzen 7 die and heat spreader, improving thermal transfer performance compared to Intel CPUs reliant on paste instead.

Like all 2000-series models, the Ryzen 7 2700 comes with StorMI Technology, which is a software-based tiering solution that blends the low price and high capacity of hard drives with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint, or even up to 2GB of RAM.

Precision Boost 2 And XFR2

AMD's previous-gen Ryzen processors include Precision Boost functionality, which is similar to Intel's Turbo Boost technology. They also sport a feature called eXtended Frequency Range (XFR), which enables higher clock rates when it's determined that your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare.

The new Precision Boost 2 (PB2) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core PB2 and XFR2 bins because the opportunistic algorithms accelerate to different clock rates based on temperature, current, and load. However, we collected our measurements on a motherboard with solid voltage regulation circuitry and a good cooler, two requirements for optimal frequencies.

The Ryzen 7 2700 offers an impressive 4.1 GHz clock rate benchmarked in a single-threaded workload. Try as we might, though, the CPU wouldn't exhibit the same graceful downward frequency slope as AMD's 2700X as we increased the test's thread count. No doubt, Ryzen 7 2700 is a step up compared to the previous-gen Ryzen 7 1700, but its frequency drops further and faster than the 2700X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking & Test Setup

Overclocking

Like the Ryzen 7 2700X, we overclocked AMD's 2700 to 4.2 GHz. While the lower-end chip did need a bit more voltage to get there, our 1.4V Vcore, 1.2V SoC, and Level four Loadline Calibration (LLC) settings are still within the safe zone for AMD's processors. They just make the CPU operate a little warmer than it would otherwise. Top the 2700 with a capable closed-loop watercooler and thermals won't be an issue. If you're stuck with AMD's bundled heat sink and fan, though, expect Ryzen 7 2700 to fall short of its best possible overclock. Our sample topped out at 4.05 GHz as it exceeded 95°C.

We did match the 2700X's overclocked memory settings (DDR4-3466 at 14-14-14-34 timings) with minimal effort. That's particularly encouraging since memory tuning dramatically improves Ryzen's gaming performance.

Precision Boost Overdrive

AMD isn't giving us much detail about its Precision Boost Overdrive feature, though we know it increases maximum boost voltage and boost duration. However, we also know that Precision Boost Overdrive is an AMD-sanctioned feature. Because this is a standard capability for Ryzen 2000-series processors, we leave it enabled. Conversely, we disable the Multi-Core Enhancement BIOS option found in many Intel-based motherboards because it overclocks beyond the company's specifications.

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

Our MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC has a PCI Express 3.0 slot with a x16 link, a slot with a x8 connection, and another PCI Express 2.0 slot with a four-lane link for graphics cards. Its four RAM slots support DDR4-2933 and scale quite a bit higher through overclocking.

The motherboard also provides two M.2 slots with PCIe connectivity. The I/O panel has a USB 3.1 Type C connector. The USB 3.1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports support fast charging for smartphones and tablets. If RGB is your thing, MSI has you covered. The integrated RGB Mystic lighting allows customizable effects with several software-controlled zones.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-8700K

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	U.S.Corsair H115i

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

While synthetic benchmarks scale well with increased host computing resources, those gains don't always translate to real-world gaming performance. Rather, these benchmarks give us a solid measure of theoretical horsepower available to game engines.

All of our test processors easily passed the 109 FPS threshold that UL sets as the minimum for a smooth virtual reality experience.

The stock Ryzen 7 2700 nearly matched AMD's previous-gen 1800X. However, it also trailed the 2700X by a significant margin. A bit of tuning goes a long way though, and the overclocked 2700 came close to tying our overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X. Also interesting, the stock Ryzen 5 2600X beat Ryzen 7 2700 out of the box.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

The 2700's stock performance was impressive, highlighting the advantage of lower memory latency and enhanced multi-core turbo algorithms. Overclocked, Ryzen 7 2700 exceeded the performance of a stock 2700X.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation scales well with additional threads, so six-core models without Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology like the Core i5-8400 and -8600K languish at the bottom of our chart. Overclocking propelled the Core i5-8600K into contention with a tuned 6C/12T Ryzen 5 2600X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance. Therefore, its comes as no surprise that a stock Ryzen 7 2700 delivered the turn time we expected, given fairly conservative clock rates.

An unlocked ratio multiplier is a mighty equalizer, though. After overclocking, the 2700 outpaced Ryzen 7 2700X operating at its default clock rates and nearly matched the Core i7-8700K. Of course, tuning the Intel processors widened their lead considerably.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Ryzen 7 2700 beat the Ryzen 7 1800X in stock trim, though tuning improved its outcome significantly.

Clearly, Intel's Core i5-8400 is a formidable competitor. It achieved almost the same performance as an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700. Too bad, then, that Intel locks the chip's multiplier, preventing enthusiasts from making it any faster. Stepping up to an overclockable Core i5-8600K yielded a big performance boost, though that also compels you to spend big on a Z-series motherboard and aftermarket cooler.

A tuned Ryzen 7 2700 trailed the 2700X at a similar 4.2 GHz, if only slightly.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III responds best to the high clock rates of Intel's tuned CPUs. This time around, however, an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 nearly matched the stock Core i7-8700K.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Our Far Cry Primal benchmark used to swing entirely in Intel's favor. But AMD's 2000-series Ryzen processors are much more competitive than their predecessors. Again, a stock Ryzen 7 2700 easily outpaced AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700. And this time around, a bit of overclocking even pushed the 2700 beyond AMD's flagship at 4.2 GHz.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The tuned Ryzen processors, which effectively tied each other, go a long way to improve AMD's competitive position.

Hitman

Hitman's Game of the Year update imposed a 90 FPS cap, so this title no longer scales well with high-end PCs. Unfortunately, some popular AAA titles employ similar frame rate limits, so we leave this result in our suite to show that not all titles respond to faster components.

Overall, the results are unsurprising given IO Interactive's newly-imposed performance ceiling. However, the Core i5's results stand out for their low 99th percentile frame rates.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Middle-earth: Shadow of War doesn't scale as well as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and clock rate as Shadow of Mordor.

All of the processors we benchmarked offered a similar gaming experience, though the Ryzen 7 1700 obviously lagged the group due to its lower frequency and lack of multi-core turbo.

Project CARS 2

While the tuned Ryzen 7 2700 effectively tied Core i7-8700K, Intel's Core i5-8400 remained a formidable challenger. Overclocking helped the Core CPUs to some extent, though as we saw from Intel's Core i5-8600K, these numbers are indicative of a graphics bottleneck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

The Ryzen 7 2700 lagged behind AMD's 2700X flagship at stock settings in our Creative Cloud suite, particularly during the benchmark's lightly-threaded tests. Overclocking helped achieve near-parity, though.

Intel's processors benefited from increased overclocking headroom and the ability to get more done per clock cycle, easily outpacing the rest of our CPUs.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography.

AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. So it comes as little surprise that a stock Ryzen 7 2700 suffered in these metrics due to its low frequency range. Of course, overclocking helped rectify this.

Productivity

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 performed admirably right out of the box. While overclocking yielded a big boost, the 2700 still fell behind the pricier Ryzen 7 2700X.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload benefits from parallelism, so the 8C/16T Ryzen models naturally enjoyed the largest advantage from their architecture. Although an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 slipped past AMD's 2700X, its lead fell within the margin of error.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Ryzen 7 CPUs find plenty of fans among the rendering crowd. AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 represents a solid step beyond the company's 1000-series processors in our multi-threaded tests. In fact, it often provided a similar performance level as the previous-generation 1800X flagship in our tests.

The Intel processors demonstrated their per-core advantage in our lightly threaded tests. Meanwhile, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X proved faster than the same chip overclocked in many of the same benchmarks, since its 4.3 GHz dual-core boost frequency is higher than our 4.2 GHz all-core overclock.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is a quintessential single-threaded workload that typically illustrates Intel's per-clock advantage. This time around, though, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X landed on top of the mighty Core i7-8700K in stock form.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing our SSDs from the equation. The Ryzen 7 2700 put its eight cores to good use, beating most of its competition.

There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors in our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark, given the former's heavier reliance on AVX instructions. AMD looks much better in both metrics than it used to, though. The improved multi-core Precision Boost 2 frequencies help level the playing field.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 boasts many of the same features as the flagship 2700X, including an eight-core architecture and 16MB of L3 cache. But it loses quite a bit of steam in our benchmarks due to its lower clock rates. Overclockers can get comparable performance out of both CPUs, but they need to replace the stock heat sink and fan with higher-end aftermarket cooling first. This sullies any value advantage the 2700 might have enjoyed.

How does a frequency disadvantage affect the 2700's viability in a gaming PC versus AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X? The charts below plot performance using average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a FPS measurement. We also present price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

When it comes to gaming, an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 provided a statistically insignificant ~1 FPS advantage over the 2700X in 99th percentile frame rates. In essence, both tuned processors offer a very similar experience through our suite. It's unfortunate, then, that you need to buy an aftermarket cooler in order to overclock Ryzen 7 2700 to its potential. So much for the $30 savings versus Ryzen 7 2700X.

That means you get more value from AMD's flagship than the stepped-down Ryzen 7 2700. In fact, at stock settings, even a Core i5-8400 is roughly equivalent to the 2700. And it costs $110 less. And you can drop it into affordable motherboards. Intel's stock cooler is fine, too. You get the picture.

Similar trends surfaced in our desktop productivity tests. Ryzen 7 2700's frequency deficit resulted in notably less performance than a stock Ryzen 7 2700X across the board. Although Ryzen 7 2700 is faster than Intel's Core i5-8400 and -8600K in threaded workloads thanks to its eight-core design, AMD's own Ryzen 7 2700X is more compelling if you're interested in those types of applications.

If you tune the memory, the Ryzen 7 2700X doesn't gain much from overclocking the cores. That means you can pair the 2700X and its stock cooler with a capable memory kit and get impressive performance. In contrast, you'll have to invest in a more capable cooler to achieve the same level of performance with the Ryzen 7 2700. That largely negates the 2700's scant $30 price advantage.

Gone are the days of AMD selling its X-series Ryzen CPUs at higher prices and without thermal solutions. Newer models like the Ryzen 7 2700X only cost a bit more than the 2700, plus they also include a heat sink and fan. We'd rather spend the extra $30. Of course, gamers might want to go another direction. Intel's Core i5-8400 costs less and is every bit as quick in our favorite titles. And then there's the Ryzen 5 2600X, which is surprisingly fast across a broader range of workloads and much more affordable.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Spectre Patches Weigh In

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Ryzen To The Mainstream

AMD's 2000-series Ryzen CPUs are already available, challenging the Coffee Lake-based Core line-up from Intel. As we found in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, a host of improvements made possible by 12nm manufacturing, such as higher frequencies and Precision Boost 2, add more performance in threaded apps. Meanwhile, lower system memory and cache latencies augment AMD's showing in lightly-threaded apps like games. Unlocked multipliers, backward compatibility with older Socket AM4 motherboards, a beefy bundled cooler, and a $330 price tag combine to leave us impressed. The Ryzen 7 2700X offers a great alternative to Intel's Core i7-8700K, which costs more, doesn't come with a thermal solution, and drops into more expensive motherboards (at least if you want to overclock).

Similarly, Ryzen 5 2600X targets Intel's enthusiast-oriented Core i5-8600K, leveraging similar advancements and a more attractive $230 price tag. As we'll see, it's even faster than the first-gen flagship Ryzen 7 1800X in many workloads.

But First, Spectre Variant 2

Unfortunately, due to a lack of communication from AMD, we weren't told that the company had rolled its Spectre Variant 2 patch into shipping X470 platforms. As a result, our Ryzen 7 2700X launch day coverage didn't include Intel CPUs tested with their corresponding patches. Today's review does, however, feature results generated on Intel-based systems with the latest Spectre microcode updates.

Ryzen 5 2600X

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 (though AMD now uses Zen+ nomenclature to reference the architecture's various improvements). The CPUs still utilize a dual-CCX configuration, tied together with Infinity Fabric, yielding eight physical cores. The flagship Ryzen 7 2700X comes with all eight of its cores active. For Ryzen 5 2600X, AMD turns two off, creating a six-core, 12-thread configuration with an unlocked ratio multiplier.

As mentioned, Ryzen 5 2600X sells for $230, replacing the $220 Ryzen 5 1600X. It slots into the gap between Core i5-8600K and the Core i5-8400, forcing the chip to contend with Intel's recently-announced Core i5-8600. While we don't have that model in our lab yet, we do have the two nearest Coffee Lake-based competitors in today's benchmark charts.

What do you get, performance-wise, for the extra $10? Ryzen 5 2600X sports the same 3.6 GHz base clock rate and a slightly higher 4.2 GHz Precision Boost 2 frequency (+200 MHz) than 1600X. That might seem minor, but as our benchmarks show, the gains are quite pronounced in threaded workloads. Like its predecessor, the 2600X also features 16MB of L3 cache and a 95W TDP.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	Ryzen 5 1600	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8600	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$329	$349	$299	$219	$189	$229	$199	$257	$224	$182
Cores/Threads	8/16	8/16	8/16	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/6	6/6	6/6
TDP	105W	95W	65W	95W	65W	95W	65W	95W	65W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.6	3.2	3.6	3.2	3.6	3.4	3.6	3.1	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.1	4.1	4.0	3.6	4.2	3.9	4.3	4.3	4.0
Cache (L3)	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	9MB	9MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire	95W Wraith Spire	65W Wraith Stealth	-	Intel	Intel

Although AMD didn't include thermal solutions with its original Ryzen X-series processors, the company does bundle coolers with its pricier models now. On one hand, it's nice that the 95W Wraith Spire cooler neatly matches the 2600X's thermal design power. On the other, we're not expecting much overclocking headroom from the combination.

Ryzen 5 2600X can drop into either new X470 or older 300-series motherboards. As usual, AMD allows you to overclock on value-minded B-series boards, too. And even though 400-series B-models aren't available yet, they'll undoubtedly offer a lower-priced alternative for overclocking.

Officially, the Ryzen 5 2600X supports up to DDR4-2933 memory, just like Ryzen 7 2700X. This trumps Coffee Lake's Intel-specified DDR4-2666 ceiling (with a few caveats). AMD also sticks with Indium solder between Ryzen 5's die and heat spreader, improving thermal transfer performance. And as we mentioned in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, these new CPUs also include StorMI Technology, which is a software-based tiering solution that blends 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.

Precision Boost 2 and XFR2

In a nutshell, AMD is leveraging GlobalFoundries' 12nm process to enhance its design, rather than shrink it. The enhancements offer higher performance or lower power consumption at any given frequency, giving AMD headroom for other improvements.

The company's previous-gen Ryzen processors have Precision Boost, which is similar to Intel's Turbo Boost technology, and eXtended Frequency Range (XFR), capable of delivering a frequency uplift when your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare.

The new Precision Boost 2 (PB2) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 bins because the opportunistic algorithms accelerate to different clock rates based on temperature, current, and load.

AMD gave us a graph of the PB2 frequencies for Ryzen 7 2700X, but we followed up with our own measurements to compare the current and previous-gen Ryzen 5 models. As you can see, Ryzen 5 2600X offers more robust multi-core frequencies than its predecessor, and our Ryzen 7 2700X measurements largely mirror AMD's. We tested both CPUs with AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive active. The Ryzen 7 2700X does have a higher TDP rating that some older motherboards may struggle with, so PB2 performance will vary based upon the power delivery subsystem.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Patching Up, Overclocking & Test Setup

Patching Up

The Spectre and Meltdown security vulnerabilities impose overhead that affect performance, but it's the Spectre Variant 2 patches that incur the largest penalties. We've been waiting for AMD and Intel to release their respective updates, leveling the playing field. AMD gave no indication in its press material that the X470 motherboards used in our Ryzen 7 2700X review already had Spectre 2 mitigations built-in. But hours before launch, we learned that the patches were present. At that point, we didn't have enough time to test with Intel's corresponding microcode.

In our 2700X review, the test rigs included Meltdown And Spectre Variant 1 mitigations. Spectre Variant 2 requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches, though. We had already installed the operating system updates for Variant 2 on our Intel-based platforms, so we only lacked the fourth and final piece: new microcode.

There are two options for applying this microcode. One is a Windows KB that allows the operating system to load microcode during boot-up. The other is a motherboard firmware update. We used the Windows KB to install patches on our Z270-based platform, providing a true measure of pre- and post-patch performance.

Faster processors suffer less from the Spectre Variant 2 updates. This creates a conundrum for us and our Z370-based platform. In previous reviews, we noticed that Intel's Core i7-8700 was consistently faster than the more expensive Core i7-8700K on MSI and Gigabyte motherboards. We disclosed this during our launch coverage. The issue becomes relevant today because MSI's latest firmware update, which also includes the Spectre Variant 2 microcode, fixes most of the performance disparities we observed. As we suspected, the problem seems attributable to the Core i7-8700K. It's now faster in several games, performing the way we originally expected. So, on this motherboard, we're using new firmware instead of the Windows-based patch since it fixes our Core i7-8700K issues. That means our Coffee Lake-based CPUs don't correctly reflect pre- and post-patch performance. Instead, allow those results to serve as a general indication of competitive deltas.

In any case, with the exception of our AMD X370-based motherboards, all of the platforms in today's review are fully patched. The company hasn't given us a time frame for securing its previous-gen chipsets, but you can bet that we'll follow up with benchmark results once a Spectre Variant 2 patch becomes available.

Overclocking

We ran our gaming and application tests in the U.S. lab, while power/thermal measurements were collected in our German lab.

In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 5 2600X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3875V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and default Load Line Calibration settings. These are the same settings used on the Ryzen 7 2700X, albeit with a slight 0.009V Vcore boost to ensure stability.

First-gen Ryzen processors don't have much memory overclocking headroom, so we're still testing tuned X370 platforms at DDR4-3200. The X470 chipset is remarkably stable at higher data rates with both 2000-series Ryzen CPUs installed. So, we settled on DDR4-3466 with 14-14-14-34 timings. We also ran our overclocked Intel processors at DDR4-3466.

Precision Boost Overdrive

AMD hasn't shared much information on this pending feature, which increases the maximum boost voltage and boost duration. We attempted to disable Precision Boost Overdrive as we tested for our Ryzen 7 2700X review, but didn't observe a performance difference one way or the other. Now we know the feature wasn't toggling correctly due to an issue with the board. Instead, it remained enabled throughout our benchmarking.

Precision Boost Overdrive is an AMD-sanctioned feature, unlike the multi-core enhancements you often find in Intel-based motherboards. Because this is a standard capability for Ryzen 2000-series processors, we leave it enabled.

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

The motherboard also provides two M.2 slots with PCIe connectivity. The I/O panel has a USB 3.1 Type C connector. The USB 3.1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support fast charging for smartphones and tablets. If RGB is your thing, MSI has you covered. The integrated RGB Mystic lighting allows customizable effects with several software-controlled zones.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-7700K

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 Workstation (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)U.S.AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)U.S.Corsair H115i
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

These are busy charts with the addition of our retested Intel platforms, including the Spectre Variant 2 microcode patches. At stock settings, the Ryzen 5 2600X outperforms its overclocked predecessor across the board, which is especially meaningful in the lightly-threaded VRMark workload. Overclocking yields significant gains in synthetic gaming benchmarks, which don't necessarily translate to the rest of our benchmark suite.

Several of the patched Intel processors do lose performance compared to before the updates. This is particularly apparent in VRMark on Intel's Core i7-8700K, while other tests reflect minimal regression. Meanwhile, the Core i5-8400 and -8600K give us mixed results. Core i7-7700K is a more representative measure of pre- and post-patch performance, and it takes a healthy dive in VRMark as well (verified several times by removing and reinstalling the OS-based Spectre patch).

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ryzen 5 2600X is clearly superior to its predecessor in threaded titles. After all, the stock 2600X beats an overclocked 1600X. Those gains propel the Ryzen 5 up the chart, where it matches a stock Core i7-8700K.

Flip over to the album's next slide, which includes Intel CPUs before and after we patched their platforms. The Core i7-7700K loses a few frames per second in our retest, falling outside of this consistent benchmark's margin of error. Aside from the Core i5-8400's gains, which remind us that firmware updates sometimes fine-tune performance, too, most of the Intel CPUs land within the run-to-run variance we expect to see.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Ryzen 5 2600X represents a nice step forward for AMD, particularly since Intel's processors typically lead in this test due to their per-core performance advantage.

A few of the processors exhibit slight regressions post-patch, but nothing outside of the variances we'd expect.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

An overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X beats the stock Ryzen 7 2700X, which should excite value-seekers.

Then again, Intel's Core i5-8400 slips past the tuned Ryzen 5 in this test, yielding better performance at a lower price (and despite a locked ratio multiplier).

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War finds the tuned Coffee Lake-based CPUs at the top of our chart. Even the fastest Ryzen (overclocked, no less) lands behind a stock Core i7-7700K.

Interestingly, the Coffee Lake CPUs enjoy slight gains after we patch them, while Core i7-7700K doesn't change much.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Ryzen 5 2600X nearly matches Intel's Core i7-8700K at stock clock rates. But tuning propels the chip ahead of an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X and into contention with Core i5-8600K at 4.9 GHz. Clearly, this title responds well to physical core count, favoring platforms without SMT enabled.

Grand Theft Auto V

It's no surprise to see Intel's processors dominate our Grand Theft Auto V charts. An overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X essentially ties the stock Core i7-7700K, while Core i5-8400 stands out again for its higher performance and lower price point.

The post-patch Core i7-8700K averages 9 FPS-higher in GTA V. This is one of the games where -8700K historically lagged the slower Core i7-8700, so it looks like motherboard firmware fixed a few issues. We also see an improvement from the Core i5-8400.

Hitman

A recent update added a frame rate cap to Hitman, causing most of our configurations to reflect a graphics bottleneck. It's no surprise, then, that an overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X nearly matches the fastest Intel CPUs.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Ryzen 5 2600X beats the overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X, and tuning propels it to within 0.5 FPS of the fastest CPU.

Intel's Core i5-8400 is less expensive and tends to outperform the 2600X in many games, but the 2600X does lead in this one. Aside from the Core i5-8400, we observe lower average frame rates from the post-patch Intel processors, though the variances only amount to one or two frames per second.

Project CARS 2

Ryzen 5 2600X delivers a commendable performance in Project CARS 2, but it lags the less expensive Core i5-8400.

Aside from the Core i7-8700K's and i5-8400's performance gains, we don't significant variations related to Spectre mitigations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

The stock Ryzen 5 2600X trails most of AMD's first-gen Ryzen CPUs, notably lagging behind the previous-gen Ryzen 5 1600X. We reran this benchmark several times to verify its results, and the outcome is repeatable. But given the performance observed in other tests, PCMark's Creative Cloud component may be an outlier.

Although we didn't see much performance variation from the patches in our game testing, that changes drastically in our Adobe Creative Cloud suite. Every Intel processor's overall score takes a significant haircut (the Core i7-8700K drops ~9%, while the Core i5-8400 drops ~10%).

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography.

AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. The Ryzen 5 2600X is competitive with Intel's Core i5-8400 in this test. But as we noted in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, overclocking actually results in lower scores during lightly-threaded tasks. That's a bit more surprising in this case because, as we pointed out on the first page, Ryzen 5 2600X sustains up to 4.2 GHz on a single core, which is the same frequency as our all-core overclock. XFR2 contributes an extra boost during sporadic workloads though, and that's likely what we're seeing here.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics performance (rather than JavaScript), are also sensitive to CPU clock rates. Ryzen 5 2600X isn't as competitive compared to the Intel models, reminding us that AMD still lags what it comes to IPC throughput.

Again, we see performance regressions from Intel's processors in these workloads, which we measured with a Spectre-patched version of Firefox.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Initially, we thought that'd be bad news for Intel's CPUs. After all, the security mitigations have an intense impact on I/O operations. Surprisingly, though, we actually recorded higher results from the Intel-based platforms. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 2600X beats AMD's first-gen Ryzen CPUs, but trails the Core i5-8400.

Our video conferencing workload measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Ryzen processors perform well in this test, joining an overclocked Core i7-8700K at the top of the chart. At stock settings, the Ryzen 5 2600X handily dispatches Intel's Core i5-8400.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so Ryzen 7 2700X naturally takes a lead. The Ryzen 5 2600X performs well given its price point. And the Intel CPUs all take a hit after we get them patched.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Threaded rendering workloads favor Ryzen's SMT-enabled cores. Ryzen 5 2600X slots in right where we'd expect it to land, while Intel's processors suffer slight performance hits after installing the Spectre mitigation patches.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, normally favoring Intel's per-core performance advantage. AMD's 2000-series Ryzen CPUs go a long way in closing the gap by offering better per-core performance than their predecessors.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, removing storage from the equation. The Ryzen 5 2600X fares well during the test, easily beating Intel's Core i5-8400 and -8600K. Given Windows' new dual page table addressing structure that prevents Meltdown-based attacks, we expected more performance overhead after the patches. However, the company's latest processors have a PCID (Post-Context Identifiers) feature that accelerates page table translations. As a result, older Core CPUs without the PCID feature are likely affected more than the ones we're testing.

There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to its heavier distribution of AVX instructions. The 2600X slots in where we'd expect given its six cores with SMT technology.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD’s Ryzen 5 2600X isn’t quite as impressive as the higher-end Ryzen 7 2700X, but it does offer a solid mixture of performance and value that's well-suited to many different workloads. Whereas professionals might be more interested in the 2700X's eight cores, gamers on a budget will want to check out the 2600X. After all, saving money on other system components is critical at a time when you're certain to pay a premium for discrete graphics.

In the chart below, we plot gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370). The Intel test results reflect our patched configurations.

Games show the Ryzen 5 2600X offering a universal improvement over AMD's previous-gen Ryzen 5 1600X. Unfortunately, we see limited gains from overclocking, though that's just as well given this family's meager headroom. More important is that Ryzen 5 2600X beats the Ryzen 7 1800X throughout our suite.

Intel's Core i5-8600K is also in the 2600X’s crosshairs; AMD takes aim with a significantly lower price, a bundled thermal solution, and compatibility with less expensive motherboards. If you're not worried about overclocking, though, the Core i5-8400 is an even better buy for gaming. It offers nearly the same performance as the 2600X at a ~$50 discount. The i5-8400 drops into value-oriented B-series motherboards and comes with a stock cooler/fan, too.

Although we're big fans of the Core i5-8400 for entertainment, Ryzen 5 2600X is a smarter all-around value when it has the change to stretch its six cores and 12 threads. The processor distances itself from the i5-8400 in our rendering, encoding, compression, and decompression apps. It even challenges the eight-core Ryzen 7 1700X in several tests, particularly after tuning. That highlights the improvements borne of the Ryzen 2000-series’ enhanced multi-core boost algorithms and lower memory/cache latency.

Like all of AMD’s processors, the Ryzen 5 2600X comes with an unlocked ratio multiplier. AMD is pushing the frequency/voltage curve to its limits, so we didn’t experience massive gains in some mundane workloads. However, we did see more of a benefit with the 2600X in heavily-threaded tasks compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X. That’s largely due to the 2600X’s lower multi-core boost frequencies.

We wish AMD was ready with its B450-series motherboards at launch time. But you can still pair the Ryzen 5 2600X with a capable 300-series model.

The Spectre patches did take some wind out of Intel’s sails in many of our application tests, but the impact varies by application. In most cases, the regressions aren’t severe enough to change our recommendations. Still, it's always disappointing to observe performance stepping backward. Luckily for Intel, gaming wasn't affected much.

Intel beefed up its Coffee Lake-based Core i5s by adding 50% more cores. Up against the Ryzen 5 1600X, we couldn't help but acknowledge Intel's great performance and generally better compatibility with existing games. This time, however, AMD brings the heat in our benchmarks, while most of its optimization-oriented issues are ancient history. If gaming is your only concern, save some cash and pick up a Core i5-8400. But we think you’ll be happier with the Ryzen 5 2600X, which has more resources to handle general desktop workloads with ease.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:00:00 +0000

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.

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.

	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

X470 And Ryzen Master 1.3

AMD's Socket AM4 was designed with robust power delivery capabilities that aren't entirely used by first-gen Ryzen processors. The 2000-series chips are much better at leveraging the platform's current headroom through their improved boost algorithms. Some value-oriented motherboards employ scaled-back power delivery capabilities, so AMD's second-gen Ryzen CPUs communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on what the motherboard can do. That's a necessary addition to accommodate Ryzen 7 2700X's 105W TDP, which didn't exist before this new chip line. As a result, less-capable motherboards may not expose the full performance potential of higher-TDP processors like the Ryzen 7 2700X.

The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT) and Thermal Design Current (TDC) variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds the real-time telemetry data back to the Infinity Fabric, which then allows the processor to dynamically affect performance based on thermal and power conditions.

If the motherboard BIOS supports it, AMD exposes some of these monitoring features with its updated Ryzen Master 1.3 overclocking software. The fastest cores are identified during the binning process and flagged by Ryzen Master with gold stars on a per-CCX basis. The third- and fourth-fastest cores are marked with a circle.

AMD's software now supports per-CCX overclocking as well, and includes a built-in stress test. The warranty does not cover damage caused by overclocking, so exercise caution.

Because there are still plenty of 300-series motherboards available for sale, AMD designed a badge to let you know that a firmware update may be necessary before dropping a 2000-series CPU into one of those older platforms. Unless your 300-series motherboard has an out-of-band update mechanism like BIOS Flashback, you need a previous-gen Ryzen processor to update it. AMD also offers its Boot Kit solution, which is a loaner processor you can use to update the motherboard firmware.

Eventually, all 300-series motherboards will support 2000-series processors right out of the box. AMD expects X470 and X370 boards to coexist for the foreseeable future, so it may be possible to find excellent deals on those previous-gen motherboards.

DIMM Slots Filled	Memory Ranks	Supported Speed
2 of 2	Single	2933*
2 of 2	Dual	2677
2 of 4	Single	2933*
2 of 4	Dual	2400
4 of 4	Single	2133
4 of 4	Dual	1866

*Note: requires a motherboard with at least six PCB layers. DDR4-2667 is supported on four-layer PCBs.

AMD's 2000-series processors support up to DDR4-2933 with a pair of single-rank DIMMs, though you need a six-layer motherboard to unlock that capability. Support drops back to DDR4-2667 for four-layer motherboards. Fortunately for enthusiasts, most mainstream platforms utilize six or eight layers.

From what we've seen thus far, X470 motherboards have an improved layout to facilitate aggressive memory overclocking. As you might expect, X470 boards in our labs are much more mature at launch than the 300-series platforms we battled last year. Thanks to this, we're easily running memory at DDR4-3466 with tight timings. Our motherboard team also noticed vastly improved overclocking with all memory slots populated, which was an issue on some X370 motherboards.

X470-based motherboards feature lower power consumption, higher multi-hub USB throughput, and improved power delivery. But they still have the same connectivity options as 300-series motherboards.

I/O Source	USB 3.1 Gen2	USB 3.1 Gen1	USB 2.0	PCIe Gen3	GPP PCIe Gen2	SATA
AMD Ryzen SoC (1000- and 2000-series)	0	4	0	20x	0	2
X470/370	2	6	6	0	8	8
B350	2	2	6	0	6	6
A320	1	2	6	0	4	6

The first line in our chart covers Ryzen's I/O capabilities, which you then combine with one of the chipsets underneath to determine platform connectivity. A Ryzen CPU sports 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes. Sixteen are dedicated to the PCIe slots, while four lanes are dedicated to SATA ports or a 4x link for NVMe SSDs. Four of the SATA ports can also be assigned to SATA Express interfaces at a 2:1 ratio, yielding a maximum of two SATA Express connections.

As you can see, the X470 chipset offers the same connectivity options as its predecessor, with two USB 3.1 Gen2 ports, four USB 3.1 Gen1 ports, six USB 2.0 ports, and eight general-purpose PCIe 2.0 lanes that vendors can carve up for additional functionality (like hanging M.2 slots off of the chipset or enhanced 5/10GbE support).

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Cache And Memory Performance, IPC

Memory Latency

AMD Measurements	L1 Cache Latency	L2 Cache Latency	L3 Cache Latency	Memory Latency
Latency Improvements	13%	34%	16%	11%

AMD's first-gen processors demonstrated higher memory latency than we expected, affecting the performance of memory-sensitive applications. The company claims it reduced memory latency by 11% this time around, as well as cutting cache latencies by double-digit percentages. We'll start by measuring the memory and Infinity Fabric subsystems, and then move on to IPC tests.

SiSoftware's Sandra is used to measure cache and memory latency with three different access patterns, giving us more granularity than a single test. Sequential access patterns are almost entirely prefetched into the TLB, so that one's a good measure of prefetcher performance. The in-page random test measures random accesses within the same memory page. It also measures TLB performance and represents best-case random performance. The full random test features a mix of TLB hits and misses, with a strong likelihood of misses, so it quantifies worst-case latency.

We tested both the Ryzen 7 1800X and Ryzen 7 2700X on the same X470 motherboard. We include results with the Ryzen 7 2700X at DDR4-2933 for the stock configuration, DDR4-3466 for the overclocked configuration, and DDR4-2666 to normalize it with AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X.

With normalized DDR4-2667 data rates and timings, the Ryzen 7 2700X posts impressive gains over Ryzen 7 1800X, regardless of the data access pattern. As percentages, the 2700X's improvements weigh in at 11.49% for full random, 6.64% for in-page, and 9.35% for the sequential access pattern.

The Infinity Fabric speeds up as we increase memory frequency to the 2700X's default DDR4-2933. This fabric ties the IMC and cores together, so we record even larger improvements of 18% in the full random test, 13.4% with a full random access pattern, and 12.9% with the sequential metric.

AMD isn't fully disclosing the steps it took to improve memory latency, but we suspect the company worked on the Infinity Fabric and integrated memory controller to realize these gains.

Cache Latency And Bandwidth

Regardless of the memory access pattern, the smallest data chunks fit into L1 cache. As the data gets larger, it populates the 2700X's higher tiers of cache, which we outlined in the following table:

	L1	L2	L3	Main Memory
Range	2KB - 32KB	64KB - 512KB	1MB - 4MB	8MB - 1GB

% Improvement Over 1800X	L1	L2	L3
In-Page	11.11%	51.72%	26.38%
Full-Random	11.11%	53.5%	25.64%
Sequential	11.11%	13.3%	13.3%

The cache latency reductions that we measured are even better than what AMD suggested we'd see, though its lab might be using different access patterns. Regardless, the apples-to-apples results in our table are downright impressive.

We also see a notable increase in cache bandwidth. Feeding the cores with lower latency and higher throughput is a win-win on the performance front. Intel's S-series processors still have a big single-core L1 bandwidth advantage, but AMD's updated L2 cache is measurably faster than the 1800X in both single- and multi-threaded tests. AMD even enjoys better L2 cache latency than Intel in the sequential test and better L3 cache latency with several data patterns.

To Infinity, And Beyond

The updated Zen+ design fuses two four-core CCXs together with the Infinity Fabric, which is a crossbar that also handles IMC, northbridge, and PCIe traffic. As such, fabric latency is a critical variable that ensures the memory latency gains we observe can actually be delivered to the cores.

SiSoftware Sandra's Processor Multi-Core Efficiency metric helps illustrate the Infinity Fabric's performance. We use the Multi-Threaded test with the "best pair match" setting (lowest latency). The utility measures ping times between threads to quantify fabric latency in every possible configuration. We boil those benchmarks down to latency averages for the different pathways, but head here for a more detailed explanation of the various components.

AMD reduced Ryzen 7 2700X's intra-core latency by 11.8% and the critical cross-CCX latency by 8.3%. We also notice that Ryzen 7 2700X offers significantly improved fabric bandwidth.

Instructions Per Clock

It's important to remember that IPC can vary by workload, so dissimilar tasks may yield different outcomes. We set a static 3 GHz clock rate for the following tests:

Our single-core Cinebench benchmark suggests a 1.6% IPC improvement favoring Ryzen 7 2700X. But while AMD does improve, Intel still holds onto a distinct IPC throughput advantage. Switching to the Multi-Threaded Cinbench test gives Ryzen 7 2700X a 2.7% improvement over its predecessor.

Core i9-7820X employs two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two FMA units per core. That difference hands the Skylake-X processor a commanding lead in y-cruncher. We do see a 3.9% increase in the 2700X's Multi-Threaded y-cruncher result compared to Ryzen 7 1800X. But the gains in single-threaded AVX performance are marginal.

We see similar results in our single-core cryptographic tests, though Ryzen 7 2700X takes an 8.7% lead over the 1800X in the Multi-Threaded AES-256-ECB encryption workload. AMD's Zen architecture includes two AES cryptographic accelerators for each core, so it isn't surprising to see Ryzen dominate over Intel's S-series CPUs in the AES-256-ECB tests.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, Spectre, And Test Setup

Overclocking

We ran our gaming and application tests in the U.S. lab, while power/thermal measurements were collected in our German lab.

In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 7 2700X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3785V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and the default Load Line Calibration settings. Since we couldn't smash through to 4.3 GHz without exceeding AMD's 1.40V maximum recommended Vcore setting, we stopped at 4.2 GHz.

We did encounter temperatures as high as 90°C during extended AVX testing, so we recommend a capable closed-loop or custom water cooler for overclocking. AMD would really benefit from an AVX-offset feature as well, which could cut clock rates during power-hungry AVX workloads. Should you choose to go the more extreme route, there have been reports of 5.8 GHz with Ryzen 7 2700X under LN2.

First-gen Ryzen processors don't have much memory overclocking headroom, so we're still testing tuned X370 platforms at DDR4-3200. However, the X470 platform was remarkably stable at higher data rates with Ryzen 7 2700X. So, we settled on DDR4-3466 with 14-14-14-34 timings (though we're confident that more time to tune would yield even higher overclocks). We also ran our overclocked Intel processors at DDR4-3466.

Spectre And Meltdown

Our test rigs now include Meltdown And Spectre Variant 1 mitigations. Spectre Variant 2 requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches. We have installed the operating system patches for Variant 2.

Today's performance measurements do not include Intel's motherboard firmware mitigations for Spectre Variant 2 though, as we've been waiting for AMD patches to level the playing field. Last week, AMD announced that it’s making the mitigations available to motherboard vendors and OEMs, which the company says should take time to appear in the wild. We checked MSI's website for firmware updates applicable to our X370 platforms when AMD made its announcement, but no new BIOSes were available (and still aren't).

Unfortunately, we were only made aware that Variant 2 mitigations are present in our X470 board's firmware just before launch, precluding us from re-testing the Intel platforms with patches applied. We're working on this now, and plan to post updated results in future reviews.

The lack of Spectre Variant 2 patches in our Intel results likely give the Core CPUs a slight advantage over AMD's patched platforms. But the performance difference should be minimal with modern processors.

Test Setup

AMD is working on a Precision Boost Overdrive feature, which seems similar to the Multi-Core Enhanced Turbo (MCE) feature that allows Intel's K-series processors to run at their maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. The setting on Intel platforms modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, basically amounting to factory-sanctioned overclocking.

AMD's Ryzen Master 1.3 software doesn't currently let you activate this feature from within Windows. But as we often find with MCE, AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive is enabled by default in many BIOSes. After extensive experimentation, we can conclude that the option doesn't deliver an appreciable performance gain in its current form. Thus, we ran our tests with Precision Boost Overdrive disabled.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-7700K

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 Workstation (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)U.S.AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)U.S.Corsair H115i
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark And AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

Gaming is where rubber meets the road for most enthusiasts. AMD tells us that its 2000-series processors should be nearly equivalent to Intel's comparable models, at least at stock settings. And there's no doubt that Ryzen 7 2700X will excel in heavily-threaded titles. But tests that are sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput, such as VRMark, have traditionally been a challenge for Ryzen.

The 2700X bridges the gap between Intel's processors and first-gen Ryzen. AMD's stock 2700X outstrips the Ryzen 7 1800X by 11.8%. More impressively, it also beats the overclocked 1800X by 2%. The 2700X's lead over its predecessor extends further after tuning its cores and memory subsystem.

Synthetic benchmarks are great because they tend to scale more clearly than real-world applications. 3DMark's real usefulness lies in measuring the amount of performance available to game engines, giving us a peek at what highly-optimized games could be capable of.

Ryzen 7 2700X's 16 threads beat Core i7-8700K's 12 threads in our DX11 and DX12 CPU tests, even after overclocking. The 2700X also bests Intel's $589 Core i7-7820X during both tests.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation evokes memories of AMD's early struggles with the Zen architecture. This was one of the first games to receive an update optimized for AMD's processor design.

Although the patch improved performance, Ryzen 7 1800X still fails to beat a stock Core i7-8700K. But Ryzen 7 2700X and its Precision Boost 2 algorithm turn the tables, giving AMD an advantage in stock and overclocked trim.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance. Ryzen 7 2700X almost ties the Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K at its stock settings. However, Intel gains more from overclocking, pulling away after our tuning efforts.

Again, notice that the stock Ryzen 7 2700X is fast enough to beat the overclocked 1800X.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The stock Ryzen 7 2700X beats every other Ryzen CPU by ~10 FPS (or more). But Intel's stock CPUs have no problem maintaining their advantage.

Tuning the 2700X yields a 6.3% speed-up on average. But that doesn't help it catch the Core i5-8600K, which takes the top two spots in our chart.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X lands just shy of the Core i7-7700K and -8700K. Tuning those chips allows them to walk away from AMD's flagship, though.

Meanwhile, Ryzen 7 2700X beats AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X by 14% right out of the box.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V, Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal responds well to Intel's Core i7-7700K. It's also interesting that a stock Core i5-8600K beats the overclocked 6C/12T Core i7-8700K. Then again, we've seen this tendency before.

The stock Ryzen 7 2700X lags behind Intel's newest K-series CPUs, though tuning does help AMD's case.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X vies with Intel's chips at stock frequencies. But again, giving Coffee Lake the same treatment propels those chips to the top of our chart.

Ryzen 7 1700 suffers from a low base clock rate and languishes at the bottom of our chart as a result. This processor often provides similar performance as AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X after some tuning. However, it's clear that the Ryzen 7 2700X sets a new high water mark for AMD CPUs in games.

Hitman

Hitman's GOTY update imposed a hard 90 FPS cap on performance, so this title no longer scales well with high-end PCs. Unfortunately, some popular AAA games employ similar frame rate limits, so we leave this result in place to show that not all titles respond to faster components.

We do see slight scaling from Ryzen 7 1700 up to Intel's overclocked models. However, these differences would be hard to spot during a gaming session. Ryzen 7 2700X lands in a familiar position ahead of AMD's previous-gen Ryzen CPUs.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War, Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Middle-earth: Shadow of War doesn't scale as dramatically as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and frequency as Shadow of Mordor. While CPU reviews tend to focus on games that scale well with certain host processing specifications, some games just can't get enough graphics performance.

Ryzen 7 2700X comes tantalizingly close to matching the Coffee Lake-based processors at stock and overclocked settings.

Project CARS 2

Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading. A 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beats the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X though, so it's clear that parallelism isn't the most influential factor in defining this game's performance.

A stock Ryzen 7 2700X trails all of the Intel CPUs except for Core i7-7820X. But overclocking nudges AMD's flagship closer to the top.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office And Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Adobe's Creative Cloud suite generally favors higher frequencies and IPC throughput, giving Intel an advantage. Still, Ryzen 7 2700X provides a nice balance of high clock rates and core count, yielding an impressive 13.8% speed-up in the overall score compared to AMD's tuned Ryzen 7 1800X.

Overclocking doesn't deliver the big gains we recorded in our gaming suite. In some of the lightly-threaded application tests (like After Effects), a stock Ryzen 7 2700X is even faster than the overclocked one. This is a result of the 2700X's 4.3 GHz Precision Boost 2 frequency, which outstrips our 4.2 GHz all-core overclock. These tests also aren't as latency-sensitive as gaming workloads, so DDR4-3466 doesn't deliver as much of a performance improvement.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. However, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X still outpaces its overclocked predecessor.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics performance (rather than JavaScript), are also sensitive to CPU clock rates. Again, the 2700X's higher stock Precision Boost 2 frequencies allow it to slip past the overclocked configuration. At the same time, we measure a 14.6% gain over the stock 1800X.

Productivity

Ryzen 7 2700X is much more competitive than AMD's previous-generation CPUs. We also observe slim gains from overclocking in many of these workloads.

Our video conferencing workload measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Not surprisingly then, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X leads the rest of the field at default clock rates thanks to its 8C/16T configuration and higher frequencies.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding, And Compression

Rendering

Ryzen 7 2700X takes a commanding lead in the multi-core Cinebench benchmark, which we expected in light of the radical cache latency and bandwidth improvements that AMD made. POV-Ray also shows the 2700X to be a chart-topper, though again it's faster in stock form than overclocked.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X leads in many of the threaded workloads, but isn't as impressive in workloads that tax a single core. There, Intel's architectures continue shining.

Core i7-7820X leads in LuxMark. But notice that we don't have OpenCL results for it. This is because the older OpenCL SDK doesn't support AVX-512. Intel updated the SDK fairly recently, and it works correctly with Skylake-X-based processors. We'll have to retest all of these CPUs to reflect the changes, but be assured that AVX-512 is a powerful addition.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, and the 2700X posts solid gains over Ryzen 7 1800X in its stock configuration.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, thus removing storage from the equation. As per usual, the Ryzen processors dominate the decompression workload while Intel's Skylake-X leads in compression-oriented benchmarks. It's notable that Core i7-8700K needs overclocking in order to beat AMD's flagship.

There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to its heavier distribution of AVX instructions. Ryzen 7 2700X is particularly impressive in the x264 metric, where it upsets the capable Core i7-7820X.

We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. The 2700X trails Intel's portfolio in the single-core benchmark. However, parallelization puts it in a more competitive position. Also, we clearly see the benefit of Core i7-7820X's dual 256-bit AVX FMA units (per core) in the AVX workloads.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

XFR2 vs. Manual Overclocking

XFR2, Cooling, and Clock Rates

In contrast to the first-gen Ryzen models and their strange temperature curves, the tCTL (core temperature) values now correspond with what we'd expect to see. AMD does add a 10-degree offset to the 2700X specifically, which motherboard BIOSes already take into account. We subtract this offset from our own measurements.

Chip quality naturally influences achievable clock rates as well. These effects are seen much more clearly with second-gen Ryzen CPUs supporting XFR2, since they have to be binned precisely.

With as much cooling performance as we could muster, Ryzen 7 2700X still reaches almost 4.2 GHz. A more conventional thermal solution would result in a lower clock rate. However, with a good air cooler, it should be possible to sustain 4 GHz on all cores.

Manual Overclocking

Ryzen 7 2700X can be manually overclocked to 4.3 GHz. But the 1.475V required for this is more aggressive than we want to get long-term. Pushing to 4.35 GHz resulted in a crash no matter how much voltage we applied.

As the following curve shows, power consumption and performance in Cinebench are almost directly proportional, so long as the system runs stably and doesn't crash. It's also worth noting that Cool'n'Quiet is completely disabled on our test platform when we configure the ratio multiplier manually. When that happens, the configured clock rate doesn't drop from its specified maximum, even at idle.

We measure a maximum of 135W in Cinebench and just over 150W in Prime95 with AVX, although this extreme torture test is more of an exhibition.

If you spend some money on good cooling, there's no reason to manually overclock Ryzen 7 2700X. Thanks to XFR2, AMD's flagship should remain stable above 4 GHz, even under full load. Try to go any higher and you'll pay a hefty price in heat, power, and possibly long-term reliability.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

At idle, Ryzen 7 2700X lands behind most of the Intel competition, but ahead of previous-gen Ryzen CPUs. First and second place in our chart go to a couple of AMD APUs, perhaps surprisingly.

Under a light CAD workload, Ryzen 7 2700X performs better and uses less power than its predecessor. This shows us that AMD didn't pay for better clocks with a sacrifice to power consumption. Its progress is already apparent at this point in the measurements.

Gaming tells a similar story; the performance increase is again more pronounced than the differences in power consumption.

When it comes to our stress test, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X is much more reserved than its predecessor. We attribute this to the chip's XFR2 functionality, along with more granular frequency/voltage settings.

Even when we hit it as hard as possible, the new CPU stays stable above 4 GHz.

Performance rises and power consumption falls (if only slightly). There's truth to AMD's marketing material, so says our lab equipment. Ryzen 7 2700X really does deserve attention for these results.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Thermals And Noise

The Wraith Prism

Ryzen 7 2700X's Wraith Prism thermal solution is a large, high-finned cooler with four flattened heat pipes and a plate behind them for stabilization. The heat sink's entire contact surface is thus made of copper. Its fins are arranged in such a way that the exhaust air is focused toward the memory and I/O shield.

The fastening clamp is a big disadvantage of this large cooler, which takes us back to the old Athlon XP days. Even at maximum load on all cores in the stress test, the CPU only reaches a maximum temperature of 82.8°C (corrected value), so it remains below the thermal throttle threshold. The cooler handles the 105 watts easily. You can expect peaks up to 70°C and a little above, depending on the motherboard's predefined fan curve.

The cooler is loud and emits 44 dB(A) under load (50 cm distance, 45° diagonal) when the fan is spinning at 2600-2700 RPM. The fan can even be a bit noisy even when the system is idling on the Windows desktop. Unfortunately, the fan adjusts much too rapidly as the cooler reacts to short-term temperature jumps.

We see the result in the narrow-band frequency spectrum of the motor noise, which shifts back and forth between approx. 240 and 300 Hz. The fan generates almost 39 dB(A) at idle, which isn't necessary. It helps if adjust the fan curve to a fixed speed of at least 1400 RPM if the processor is under 60°C. However, you'll have to experiment because each case will require different settings.

AMD has made good progress with XFR2 and the powerful cooling finally pays off in terms of performance. The power consumption remains largely the same and you get a nice clock rate increase, but we don't like the unnecessary noise levels or the fiddly mounting mechanism.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD's 2000-series processors aren't revolutionary, but they are far beyond the normal evolutionary updates we've become accustomed to over the last several years.

In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

In gaming, AMD's stock Ryzen 7 2700X delivers a great performance boost that rivals its overclocked predecessor in every one of our tests. Tuning the 2700X provides additional performance, though you probably won't notice the difference. Check out our chart: as you can see, the Ryzen 7 2700X effectively ties Core i7-8700K based on the geometric mean. But it sells at a $30 discount, drops into a less expensive motherboard, and comes with a thermal solution that adds even more value.

While the overclocked Core i7-8700K is a fierce competitor, it requires you to buy a Z-series motherboard for overclocking, along with a capable cooler. Core i5-8600K offers most of the -8700K's performance, but you lose Ryzen 7 2700X's sixteen threads and bundled heat sink/fan. We think it's safe to say that AMD is delivering on its pledge to provide a near-equivalent gaming experience in most titles.

If you're searching for a more productivity-oriented processor, Ryzen 7 2700X is incredibly attractive. It offers superior performance compared to the Core i7-8700K in many of our threaded tests, and is much more competitive in lightly threaded applications than previous-gen models.

AMD's Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 algorithms are already pushing the voltage/frequency curve to its limits, so don't expect much in the way of overclocking headroom. We did tune Ryzen 7 2700X up to 4.2 GHz, but a higher dual-core Precision Boost 2 frequency of 4.3 GHz offers better performance than our all-core overclock in certain applications. Significant gains in games were likely a result of heightened sensitivity to our DDR4-3466 memory.

AMD's latest Ryzen 7 delivers a host of features that make enthusiasts swoon, such as an unlocked multiplier, backward compatibility with 300-series motherboards, solder between the heat spreader and die, and an LED-equipped cooler. We only wish that B450-based motherboards were available at launch time. Hopefully we hear more about AMD's lower-cost platform soon.

In a broader sense, AMD is delivering on its first update to the Ryzen processor series, proving that it can execute on its roadmap. It looks like it's going to be another busy year in the CPU space--and that's more good news for enthusiasts and gamers.

MORE: Best CPUs