AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

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: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
138 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • Sakkura
    146263 said:
    Once again, Tom's provides an incorrect comparison in this review. Intel's 8700K is comparable to the 2600 or 2600X and NOT the 2700 or 2700X. Just count the number of cores and threads and one should be able to figure that out O.o


    The 2700X costs $329, the 8700K costs $359. It is a very reasonable comparison to make.
  • justin.m.beauvais
    It sure is nice to see an AMD chip up there in the thick of it with Intel's best offerings. Competition has finally officially returned. I'm impressed that AMD gained so much ground and managed to make the price more competitive than the 1800x was. It is slightly disappointing that overclocking remains less impressive than the Intel offerings, but everything else sort of makes up for that.

    I didn't feel like AMD was quite "there" yet with the 1000 Ryzens, but with the 2000 series I feel like we can finally say that they have arrived.
  • bfwhsm
    Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should.
    And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure).

    (check out anandtech's review to get an idea)
  • Other Comments
  • Ninjawithagun
    Once again, Tom's provides an incorrect comparison in this review. Intel's 8700K is comparable to the 2600 or 2600X and NOT the 2700 or 2700X. Just count the number of cores and threads and one should be able to figure that out O.o

    Whine all you want. Just because you down vote me only means you don't know how to read or count :P
  • Sakkura
    146263 said:
    Once again, Tom's provides an incorrect comparison in this review. Intel's 8700K is comparable to the 2600 or 2600X and NOT the 2700 or 2700X. Just count the number of cores and threads and one should be able to figure that out O.o


    The 2700X costs $329, the 8700K costs $359. It is a very reasonable comparison to make.
  • tripleX
    7820X is also there with the same number of cores and threads.
  • tparkhuose
    well i know what im upgrading to now. thanks
  • justin.m.beauvais
    It sure is nice to see an AMD chip up there in the thick of it with Intel's best offerings. Competition has finally officially returned. I'm impressed that AMD gained so much ground and managed to make the price more competitive than the 1800x was. It is slightly disappointing that overclocking remains less impressive than the Intel offerings, but everything else sort of makes up for that.

    I didn't feel like AMD was quite "there" yet with the 1000 Ryzens, but with the 2000 series I feel like we can finally say that they have arrived.
  • Ninjawithagun
    551379 said:
    146263 said:
    Once again, Tom's provides an incorrect comparison in this review. Intel's 8700K is comparable to the 2600 or 2600X and NOT the 2700 or 2700X. Just count the number of cores and threads and one should be able to figure that out O.o
    The 2700X costs $329, the 8700K costs $359. It is a very reasonable comparison to make.


    Incorrect. It has nothing to do with price. Comparing like CPU architectures is the only logical course of action. 6 core/12 thread vs 8 core/16 thread makes no sense. Comparing the Intel 8700K 6 core/12 thread @ $347 to the AMD 2600X 6 core/12 thread @ $229.99 makes the most sense here. Once the proper math is done, AMD destroys Intel in performance vs. cost, especially when you game at any resolution higher than 1080P. The GPU becomes the bottleneck at that point, negating any IPC benefits of the Intel CPUs. I know this how? Simple. I also own a 8700K gaming PC ;-)

    Once again, whine all you want. Just because you down vote me only means you don't know how to read or count :P
  • bfwhsm
    Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should.
    And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure).

    (check out anandtech's review to get an idea)
  • Ninjawithagun
    2672992 said:
    Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should. And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure). (check out anandtech's review to get an idea)


    I will definitely check out that review as well. Thanks bfwhsm!
  • tripleX
    2672992 said:
    Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should. And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure). (check out anandtech's review to get an idea)


    Maybe you should read the comments on the AnandTech article. They all point out that the test results don't match any other site's results.
  • Sakkura
    1440742 said:
    2672992 said:
    Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should. And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure). (check out anandtech's review to get an idea)
    Maybe you should read the comments on the AnandTech article. They all point out that the test results don't match any other site's results.


    ... because of the different testing procedure that he just referred to.
  • tripleX
    551379 said:
    1440742 said:
    2672992 said:
    Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should. And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure). (check out anandtech's review to get an idea)
    Maybe you should read the comments on the AnandTech article. They all point out that the test results don't match any other site's results.
    ... because of the different testing procedure that he just referred to.


    Multiple other sites have patched fully, but their results are drastically different than AT. Due to the obvious disparities, AT now says via twitter that it is investigating its results.
  • Blas
    Hi Paul, Igor, great review!
    A point to correct, on page 1: where it says "We still don't have a release date for the less expensive B470- and A470-based motherboards" it should be "We still don't have a release date for the less expensive B450- and A420-based motherboards". (Chipset numbers)
  • East17
    The the multi-core enhancement enabled on the Intel 8700K system or not ?!

    Because we see AMD's 2700X never goes beyond 105 W total power consumption while Intel's 8700K reaches 160W.

    Somehow, the Intel platform is allowed to use up to 65% more power and we believe this is not really a fair comparison.
  • PaulAlcorn
    127850 said:
    Hi Paul, Igor, great review! A point to correct, on page 1: where it says "We still don't have a release date for the less expensive B470- and A470-based motherboards" it should be "We still don't have a release date for the less expensive B450- and A420-based motherboards". (Chipset numbers)


    Thanks! Late nights around NDA time :) We'll fix it.
  • PaulAlcorn
    190859 said:
    The the multi-core enhancement enabled on the Intel 8700K system or not ?! Because we see AMD's 2700X never goes beyond 105 W total power consumption while Intel's 8700K reaches 160W. Somehow, the Intel platform is allowed to use up to 65% more power and we believe this is not really a fair comparison.


    We disabled MCE on all platforms (covered in test setup). I'll follow up with Igor to make sure this isn't a typo.
  • AgentLozen
    JUSTIN.M.BEAUVAUS said:
    I didn't feel like AMD was quite "there" yet with the 1000 Ryzens, but with the 2000 series I feel like we can finally say that they have arrived.


    Those are my thoughts exactly. Last year I was really happy to see AMD make tremendous progress on it's CPU architecture but if I were forced to choose between Intel and AMD, I still would have gone Intel. This was compounded when Coffee Lake came out. It was a no brainer then.

    Today's story paints a picture of how much the Zen architecture has matured in the last year. A year of development has smoothed over the wrinkles in the 1800x and made the 2700x a truly worthy competitor to Intel's 8700K.
  • jpe1701
    Maybe I missed it in the article, but does xfr2 or precision boost 2 work on x370 boards?
  • PaulAlcorn
    1934870 said:
    Maybe I missed it in the article, but does xfr2 or precision boost 2 work on x370 boards?


    It does work on 300-series boards, but performance gains could be limited by power delivery. we cover that right at the top of page 2.
  • Ninjawithagun
    1934870 said:
    Maybe I missed it in the article, but does xfr2 or precision boost 2 work on x370 boards?


    My current understanding is that the X370 motherboards do support XFR2 and Precision Boost 2.0. As long as your motherboard manufacturer has developed and released a compliant BIOS update, you should be good to go. I just installed my 2700X into an AsRock X370 Fatal1ty Professional Gaming motherboard (BIOS update P4.60) and this thing is running crazy fast. Running Prime95 @ 3.92Ghz on all 8 cores and 16 threads. Amazing! I do have a custom watercooling system, so that will definitely help the 2700X maintain full XFR2 and Precision Boost when I need it. Also, was able to increase my DDR4 speeds from 2933Mhz to 3200Mhz with no issues. I will try 3400Mhz and 3466Mhz later this weekend and see if those speeds run stable. So far, extremely happy with my upgrade ;-)
  • darth_adversor
    Just to make sure I understood this correctly (and I apologize if I'm a little slow): any of the 2700X's "stock" benchmarks are ran at DDR4 2667?

    Aside from that, and this is just my .02, I feel like too much emphasis is placed on average framerates on the gaming benchmarks, and not enough on minimum framerates (though I do appreciate that you include both).