AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

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

Loading...

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware

Germany

AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):
Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400
MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666

AMD Socket AM4 Workstation (300-Series)
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400
MSI X370 Tomahawk
4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200

Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)
Intel Core i7-7700K
MSI Z270 Gaming 7
2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200

All Systems
GeForce 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 Supply
Windows 10 Pro (Creators Update)

U.S.

AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):
Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400
MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466

AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600X
MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200

Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)
Intel Core i7-7700K
MSI Z270 Gaming M7
2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400

Intel LGA 2066

Intel Core i7-7820X
MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666

All
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE
1TB Samsung PM863
SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W
Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling
Germany
Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 Chiller
Alphacool Eisblock XPX
Thermal 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 Function
4x 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: 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.