AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Review: The Non-X Factor

By Paul Alcorn
published

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.

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

Image 1 of 3

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

Image 1 of 3

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: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy


MORE: All CPUs Content

Paul Alcorn
Paul Alcorn
Deputy Managing Editor

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

39 Comments Comment from the forums
  • rantoc
    @1440p or 4k the gaming difference wont be noticeable as the gpu starts to become the bottleneck. Game with an 2700x on an 3440x1440 100hz display (1080ti) and couldn't be happier as it also have the benefits of chewing through threaded workloads like a champ and that at a good price. So good mid-high res gaming with very good threaded performance, hard to beat really.
    Reply
  • philipemaciel
    I am going to buy the 2700.

    The 65W TDP is low enough for passive cooling. That it is cheaper than the 2700X is just the icing on the cake.

    For *my* needs, it is perfect. I am more than happy to lose a little performance and have the TDP drop 40W.
    Reply
  • mitch074
    I think @philipemaciel hit it right on the head: the 2700 is a much better choice if you're looking for a powerful CPU that sips power (65W is damn impressive, and that's before taking into account the possibilities offered by undervolting), as this puts it in a spot both the 2700X and the 2600X can't touch. For pure gaming, the 2600X is a much more sensible choice, and if you need absolute power without the need to tinker with it, the 2700X is perfect (an 8-core CPU that overclocks itself, it's a dream come true).
    Now though, it would have been better if AMD had sold those without a cooler for $20 less - the price gap with 2700X would have made it much more enticing, and overclockers could have pushed the hell out of it with watercooling etc.
    Reply
  • redgarl
    You rated that 6/10? Are you mad? Also, the stock cooler is not sufficient for Overclocking? Do you realize that this is the case for all marketed CPUs?

    OMG, YOU GUYS ARE GENIUSES!
    Reply
  • theyeti87
    20974031 said:
    I am going to buy the 2700.

    The 65W TDP is low enough for passive cooling. That it is cheaper than the 2700X is just the icing on the cake.

    For *my* needs, it is perfect. I am more than happy to lose a little performance and have the TDP drop 40W.

    Your reasoning is the same logic I used in selecting my 1700 non-X. I am attracted to efficient power.
    Reply
  • Combat_Medic
    "...our 4.0V Vcore, 1.2V SoC"

    That's a LOT of vcore right there!
    Reply
  • PaulAlcorn
    20974322 said:
    "...our 4.0V Vcore, 1.2V SoC"

    That's a LOT of vcore right there!

    Thanks, good eye! fixed. (1.4V)
    Reply
  • LORD_ORION
    I would expect the 2700 to have longevity.

    NeoHome economics 101: Buy quality parts that/and don't push the hardware limits.
    Main System(5-7 years) becomes Utility System(5+ years)
    Repeat

    Unless of course you burn out the mainsystem in 3-4 years *factory overclocks tend to do this too). ;)
    Reply
  • Garrek99
    The point of this processor is power efficiency not performance.
    Where are the performance per Watt or Temp charts?
    Reply
  • ElectrO_90
    You do realise, the whole point is to sell the 2700 for $30 so they can sell the main 2700x, because people don't mind spending 10% more, unless they are really restricted for power/heat.
    Reply