AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

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 99th 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.

Ryzen 7 2700X continues to come with 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 B470-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. Looks like it's going to be another busy year in the CPU market.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

This thread is closed for comments
138 comments
    Your comment
  • 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).
  • bfwhsm
    I reiterate: the other reviews may have received some form of patch (check out the test dates for the intel cpus; many date from January 2018)

    but it appears that only anandtech has applied the most recent and comprehensive April Meltdown/Spectre patch from MS.

    While there needs to be time for the dust to fully settle, for now, the message seems clear: after the security patches, AMD trumps Intel in every measure conceivable.
  • logainofhades
    Still no justifiable reason to change my 6700k, for something else, as my rig is mostly just gaming. Would be interested in F@H performance, of this CPU, though.
  • PaulAlcorn
    659338 said:
    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).



    We tested the stock 2700X at the supported DDR4-2933.

    We do use average framerates for comparative purposes during benchmark analysis, but minimum fare rates, while useful, can be deceiving at times. They only represent the single worst frame during any given recording, and sometimes you can get an errant result.

    To circumvent this, we use 99th percentile values, converted into an FPS measurement, for our final set of charts on the last page. This is a good metric that quantifies overall smoothness, so we use it for all cost analysis and the overall view of gaming performance relative to other processors.
  • mossberg
    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


    Price bracket is what the vast majority of reviews are based on. It has always been that way.