Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Page 10 of 14:

Rendering, Encoding, And Compression

Rendering

Image 1 of 9

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

Image 1 of 7

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

Current page: Rendering, Encoding, And Compression

Prev Page Office And Productivity Next Page XFR2 vs. Manual Overclocking

See more CPUs Reviews

TOPICS

Paul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

Huawei Ascend AI 910D processor designed to take on Nvidia's Blackwell and Rubin GPUs

Elon Musk says Grok 3.5 will provide answers that aren't from internet sources

This MSI Thin 15.6 gaming laptop with Nvidia's RTX 4060 laptop GPU is only $699 — an affordable gaming choice

See more latest

138 Comments Comment from the forums

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
Reply
Sakkura

20899022 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.
Reply
tripleX

7820X is also there with the same number of cores and threads.
Reply
tparkhuose

well i know what im upgrading to now. thanks
Reply
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.
Reply
Ninjawithagun

20899035 said:
20899022 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
Reply
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)
Reply
Ninjawithagun

20899131 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!
Reply
tripleX

20899131 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.
Reply
Sakkura

20899157 said:
20899131 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.
Reply