2700 vs 8700: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 vs Intel Core i7-8700: What is the difference?

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 vs Intel Core i7-8700: What is the difference?

57points

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

55points

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

64 facts in comparison

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Intel Core i7-8700

Why is AMD Ryzen 7 2700 better than Intel Core i7-8700?

  • 33.33% faster CPU speed?
    8 x 3.2GHzvs6 x 3.2GHz
  • 267MHz higher ram speed?
    2933MHzvs2666MHz
  • 4 more CPU threads?
    16vs12
  • 2nm smaller semiconductor size?
    12nmvs14nm
  • 2.5MB bigger L2 cache?
    4MBvs1.5MB
  • 4MB bigger L3 cache?
    16MBvs12MB
  • 384KB bigger L1 cache?
    768KBvs384KB
  • Has an unlocked multiplier?

Why is Intel Core i7-8700 better than AMD Ryzen 7 2700?

  • 5°C higher maximum operating temperature?
    100°Cvs95°C
  • 0. 5GHz higher turbo clock speed?
    4.6GHzvs4.1GHz
  • Has integrated graphics?
  • 16.95% higher PassMark result (single)?
    2594vs2218
  • 19.35% higher Cinebench R20 (single) result?
    481vs403
  • Has NX bit?

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Intel Core i5-10400

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Intel Core i7-9700

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Apple M1

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

Intel Core i5-10400

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Intel Core i7-6700

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Intel Core i7-7700

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Intel Core i5-8500

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Intel Core i7-8700K

Intel Core i7-8700

vs

Intel Core i5-9400

Price comparison

User reviews

Overall Rating

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

2 User reviews

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

10. 0/10

2 User reviews

Intel Core i7-8700

0 User reviews

Intel Core i7-8700

0.0/10

0 User reviews

Features

Value for money

10.0/10

2 votes

No reviews yet

 

Gaming

10.0/10

2 votes

No reviews yet

 

Performance

10.0/10

2 votes

No reviews yet

 

Reliability

10.0/10

2 votes

No reviews yet

 

Energy efficiency

9.0/10

2 votes

No reviews yet

 

Performance

1.CPU speed

8 x 3.2GHz

6 x 3.2GHz

The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.

2. CPU threads

More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.

3.turbo clock speed

4.1GHz

4.6GHz

When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

4.Has an unlocked multiplier

✔AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✖Intel Core i7-8700

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.

5.L2 cache

A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

6.L3 cache

A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

7.L1 cache

A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

8.L2 core

0.5MB/core

0. 25MB/core

More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

9.L3 core

2MB/core

2MB/core

More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

Memory

1.RAM speed

2933MHz

2666MHz

It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

43.71GB/s

42.7GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.DDR memory version

DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.

4.memory channels

More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.

5. maximum memory amount

The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.

6.bus transfer rate

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

7.Supports ECC memory

✔AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✖Intel Core i7-8700

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.

9. bus speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

Benchmarks

1.PassMark result

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.

2.PassMark result (single)

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

5. Cinebench R20 (single) result

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7.Blender (bmw27) result

243.7seconds

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

8.Blender (classroom) result

750.9seconds

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

9.performance per watt

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.

Features

1.uses multithreading

✔AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✔Intel Core i7-8700

Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.

2.Has AES

✔AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✔Intel Core i7-8700

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3.Has AVX

✔AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✔Intel Core i7-8700

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.

4.SSE version

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5.Has F16C

✔AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✔Intel Core i7-8700

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

6.bits executed at a time

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.

7.Has MMX

✔AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✔Intel Core i7-8700

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

8.Has TrustZone

✖AMD Ryzen 7 2700

✖Intel Core i7-8700

A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).

9.front-end width

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700)

The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best CPUs?

Intel Core i7 8700 vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700: performance comparison

VS

Intel Core i7 8700

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

We compared two desktop CPUs: the 3.2 GHz Intel Core i7 8700 with 6-cores against the 3.2 GHz AMD Ryzen 7 2700 with 8-cores. On this page, you’ll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information.

  1. Review
  2. Differences
  3. Performance
  4. Specs
  5. Comments

Review

General overview and comparison of the processors

Single-Core Performance

Performance in single-threaded apps and benchmarks

Core i7 8700

63

Ryzen 7 2700

54

Performance

Measure performance when all cores are involved

Core i7 8700

36

Ryzen 7 2700

43

Power Efficiency

The efficiency score of electricity consumption

Core i7 8700

44

Ryzen 7 2700

49

NanoReview Final Score

Generic CPU rating

Core i7 8700

48

Ryzen 7 2700

50

Key Differences

What are the key differences between 2700 and 8700

Advantages of Intel Core i7 8700

  • Supports up to 128 GB DDR4-2666 RAM
  • 15% faster in a single-core Geekbench v5 test — 1172 vs 1016 points
  • Includes an integrated GPU Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 12% higher Turbo Boost frequency (4. 6 GHz vs 4.1 GHz)

Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 2700

  • Unlocked multiplier
  • Has 2 more physical cores
  • Has 4 MB larger L3 cache size
  • More modern manufacturing process – 12 versus 14 nanometers
  • Newer — released 7-months later
  • Around 2.11 GB/s (5%) higher theoretical memory bandwidth

Benchmarks

Comparing the performance of CPUs in benchmarks

Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)

Core i7 8700
+15%

1213

Ryzen 7 2700

1055

Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)

Core i7 8700

7115

Ryzen 7 2700
+26%

8934

Passmark CPU (Single-Core)

Core i7 8700
+21%

2643

Ryzen 7 2700

2181

Passmark CPU (Multi-Core)

Core i7 8700

12926

Ryzen 7 2700
+21%

15591

Geekbench 5 (Single-Core)

Core i7 8700
+15%

1161

Ryzen 7 2700

1008

Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)

Core i7 8700

6164

Ryzen 7 2700
+10%

6753

▶️ Submit your Cinebench R23 result

By purchasing through links on this site, we may receive a commission from Amazon. This does not affect our assessment methodology.

Specifications

Full technical specification of Intel Core i7 8700 and AMD Ryzen 7 2700

General

Vendor Intel AMD
Released October 5, 2017 April 19, 2018
Type Desktop Desktop
instruction set x86-64 x86-64
Codename Coffee Lake Zen+
Model number i7-8700
Socket LGA-1151 AM4
Integrated GPU UHD Graphics 630 No

Performance

Cores 6 8
Threads 12 16
Base Frequency 3. 2 GHz 3.2 GHz
Turbo Boost Frequency 4.6 GHz 4.1 GHz
Bus frequency 100 MHz 100 MHz
Multiplier 32x 36x
Bus Bandwidth 8 GT/s
L1 Cache 64K (per core) 96K (per core)
L2 Cache 256K (per core) 512K (per core)
L3 Cache 12MB (shared) 16MB (shared)
Unlocked Multiplier No Yes
Transistors 4.8 billions
Fabrication process 14 nm 12 nm
TDP 65 W 65 W
Max. temperature 100°C 95°C
Integrated Graphics Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU Base Clock 350 MHz
GPU Boost Clock 1200 MHz
Shading Units 192
TMUs 24
ROPs 3
Execution Units 24
TGP 15 W
Max. Resolution 4096×2304 — 60 Hz

iGPU FLOPS

Core i7 8700

0.38 TFLOPS

Ryzen 7 2700

n/a

Memory support

Memory types DDR4-2666 DDR4-2933
Memory Size 128 GB 64 GB
Max. Memory Channels 2 2
Max. Memory Bandwidth 41.6 GB/s 43.71 GB/s
ECC Support No Yes
Official site Intel Core i7 8700 official page AMD Ryzen 7 2700 official page
PCI Express Version 3.0 3.0
PCI Express Lanes 16 20
Extended instructions SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2

Cast your vote

Choose between two processors

Core i7 8700

2 (22.2%)

Ryzen 7 2700

7 (77.8%)

Total votes: 9

Сompetitors

1.
Intel Core i7 12700K and Intel Core i7 8700

2.
Intel Core i5 12600K and Intel Core i7 8700

3.
Intel Core i5 12400F and Intel Core i7 8700

4.
Intel Core i7 12700KF and Intel Core i7 8700

5.
Intel Core i3 12100 and Intel Core i7 8700

6.
Intel Core i3 12100F and Intel Core i7 8700

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 vs Intel Core i7-8700

Summary

  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    106%

  • Intel Core i7-8700

    100%

Relative performance

  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    100%

  • Intel Core i7-8700

    116%

Relative performance

  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    127%

  • Intel Core i7-8700

    100%

Relative performance

Reasons to consider AMD Ryzen 7 2700
Much higher multi threaded performance (around 27% higher). This allows for higher performance in professional applications like encoding or heavy multitasking.
Reasons to consider Intel Core i7-8700
16% higher single threaded performance.
Has an integrated GPU, which allows to run the system without a dedicated graphics card, unlike the AMD Ryzen 7 2700.

Gaming

No clear winner declared


Productivity

HWBench recommends AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Based on productivity benchmarks, overall multithreaded performance and theoretical specifications.

Features
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
MMX
3DNow!
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSE4A
AMD64
CnQ
NX bit
AMD-V
SMT
XFR
SSSE3
SSE4. 2
AVX
AVX2
EIST
Intel 64
XD bit
VT-x
VT-d
HTT
AES-NI
TSX
TXT
CLMUL
FMA3
F16C
BMI1
BMI2
Boost 2.0

Architecture
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
Architecture AMD Zen+ vs Intel_Coffelake
Market Desktop vs Desktop
Memory Support DDR4 vs DDR4
Codename Zen vs Coffee Lake
Release Date Mar 2018 vs Jan 2018

Cores
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
Cores 8 vs 6
Threads 16 vs 12
SMPs 1 vs 1
Integrated Graphics No vs Intel UHD 630

Cache
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
L1 Cache 96 KB (per core) vs 64 KB (per core)
L2 Cache 512 KB (per core) vs 256 KB (per core)
L3 Cache 16384 KB (shared) vs 12288 KB (shared)

Physical
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
Socket AMD Socket AM4 vs Intel Socket 1151
Max Case Temp unknown vs 72°C
Package uPGA vs FC-LGA1151
Die Size 192mm² vs 151mm²
Process 14 nm vs 14 nm

Performance
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
Cpu Frequency 3200 MHz vs 3200 MHz
Turbo Clock 4100 MHz vs 4600 MHz
Base Clock 100 MHz vs 100 MHz
Voltage variable vs unknown
TDP 65 W vs 65 W
  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    4510 points

  • Intel Core i7-8700

    5520 points

Points — higher is better

  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    34355 points

  • Intel Core i7-8700

    27648 points

Points — higher is better

points — higher is better

  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700 (simulated)

    169. 66

  • Intel Core i7-8700 (simulated)

    197.7

points — higher is better

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 vs Intel Core i7-8700


Comparative analysis of AMD Ryzen 7 2700 and Intel Core i7-8700 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Peripherals, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization, Graphics, Graphics interfaces, Graphics image quality, Graphics API support, Security & Reliability.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps).

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Buy on Amazon


vs

Intel Core i7-8700

Buy on Amazon

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Ryzen 7 2700

  • CPU is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 3 month(s) later
  • Processor is unlocked, an unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
  • 2 more cores, run more applications at once: 8 vs 6
  • 4 more threads: 16 vs 12
  • A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 12 nm FinFET vs 14 nm
  • 2x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
  • 2.7x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
  • Around 33% more L3 cache; more data can be stored in the L3 cache for quick access later
  • Around 21% better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 15785 vs 13006
  • Around 6% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 6255 vs 5903
  • Around 4% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score: 7478 vs 7161












Launch date 19 April 2018 vs 5 January 2017
Unlocked Unlocked vs Locked
Number of cores 8 vs 6
Number of threads 16 vs 12
Manufacturing process technology 12 nm FinFET vs 14 nm
L1 cache 768 KB vs 384 KB
L2 cache 4 MB vs 1. 5 MB
L3 cache 16 MB vs 12288 KB
PassMark — CPU mark 15785 vs 13006
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 6255 vs 5903
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score 7478 vs 7161

Reasons to consider the Intel Core i7-8700

  • Around 12% higher clock speed: 4.60 GHz vs 4.1 GHz
  • Around 5% higher maximum core temperature: 100°C vs 95°C
  • Around 21% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 2655 vs 2193
  • Around 25% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 1173 vs 940





Maximum frequency 4.60 GHz vs 4. 1 GHz
Maximum core temperature 100°C vs 95°C
PassMark — Single thread mark 2655 vs 2193
Geekbench 4 — Single Core 1173 vs 940

Compare benchmarks


CPU 1: AMD Ryzen 7 2700
CPU 2: Intel Core i7-8700






PassMark — Single thread mark

CPU 1
CPU 2


PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1
CPU 2


Geekbench 4 — Single Core

CPU 1
CPU 2


Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core

CPU 1
CPU 2


3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score

CPU 1
CPU 2



















Name AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
PassMark — Single thread mark 2193 2655
PassMark — CPU mark 15785 13006
Geekbench 4 — Single Core 940 1173
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 6255 5903
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score 7478 7161
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)

2.323
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)

84.295
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)

1.14
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)

4.787
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)

11.951
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)

2171
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames)

4740
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)

7902
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)

2171
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)

4740
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps)

7902

Compare specifications (specs)















































































AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Intel Core i7-8700
Architecture codename Zen+ Coffee Lake
Family AMD Ryzen Processors
Launch date 19 April 2018 5 January 2017
Launch price (MSRP) $299 $312
OPN PIB YD2700BBAFBOX
OS Support Windows 10 — 64-Bit Edition, RHEL x86 64-Bit, Ubuntu x86 64-Bit
Place in performance rating 638 488
Price now $265. 99 $439.98
Series AMD Ryzen 7 Desktop Processors 8th Generation Intel® Core™ i7 Processors
Value for money (0-100) 16.67 10.15
Vertical segment Desktop Desktop
Processor Number

i7-8700
Status

Launched
64 bit support
Base frequency 3. 2 GHz 3.20 GHz
Die size 213 mm
L1 cache 768 KB 384 KB
L2 cache 4 MB 1.5 MB
L3 cache 16 MB 12288 KB
Manufacturing process technology 12 nm FinFET 14 nm
Maximum core temperature 95°C 100°C
Maximum frequency 4. 1 GHz 4.60 GHz
Number of cores 8 6
Number of threads 16 12
Transistor count 4940 Million
Unlocked
Bus Speed

8 GT/s DMI3
Maximum case temperature (TCase)

72 °C
Max memory channels 2 2
Supported memory frequency 2933 MHz
Supported memory types DDR4 DDR4-2666
Maximum memory bandwidth

41. 6 GB/s
Maximum memory size

128 GB
Max number of CPUs in a configuration 1 1
Sockets supported AM4 FCLGA1151
Thermal Design Power (TDP) 65 Watt 65 Watt
Thermal Solution Wraith Spire with RGB LED PCG 2015C (65W)
Low Halogen Options Available

Package Size

37. 5mm x 37.5mm
PCI Express revision 3.0 x16 3.0
Max number of PCIe lanes

16
PCIe configurations

Up to 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4
Scalability

1S Only
AMD Ryzen VR-Ready Premium
AMD SenseMI
AMD StoreMI technology
Intel® AES New Instructions
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology

Idle States

Instruction set extensions

Intel® SSE4. 1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
Intel 64

Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX)

Intel® Hyper-Threading technology

Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported

Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP)

Intel® TSX-NI

Intel® Turbo Boost technology

Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility

Thermal Monitoring

AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x)

Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)

Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT)

Device ID

0x3E92
Graphics base frequency

350 MHz
Graphics max dynamic frequency

1. 20 GHz
Intel® Clear Video HD technology

Intel® Clear Video technology

Intel® InTru™ 3D technology

Intel® Quick Sync Video

Max video memory

64 GB
Processor graphics

Intel® UHD Graphics 630
Number of displays supported

3
4K resolution support

Max resolution over DisplayPort

[email protected]
Max resolution over eDP

[email protected]
Max resolution over HDMI 1. 4

[email protected]
DirectX

12
OpenGL

4.5
Execute Disable Bit (EDB)

Intel® Identity Protection technology

Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX)

Intel® OS Guard

Intel® Secure Key technology

Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX)

Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT)

Secure Boot

Intel Core i7-8700 review | Rock Paper Shotgun

For some, spending more than £300 / $300 on a graphics card can sometimes feel like a step too far. For me, it’s spending that kind of money on a processor, as I’ve just never been able to justify forking out that kind of cash for a top-notch gaming CPU. Is it really worth it? In the case of Intel’s Core i7-8700, I’m not so sure it is, especially when its Intel Core i5-9600K cousin offers similar (ish) levels of performance for £100 / $80 less. Don’t get me wrong — there are definitely benefits to stepping up to one of Intel’s Core i7 Coffee Lake CPUs, but is the six-core i7-8700 really best gaming CPU material? Here’s wot I think.

One of the main advantages the Core i7-8700 has over the Core i5-9600K is the fact it supports Intel’s Hyper Threading technology, giving it 12 threads to deal with your PC’s various tasks and instructions instead of six. This effectively gives it much better multi-tasking potential for when you’re running CPU intensive applications such as photo and video editing software, as more threads a CPU has, the more hands it’s got to stuff all that juicy data into the CPU’s mouth, if you catch my drift.

It’s also more power efficient than the i5-9600K, with a TDP (or thermal design point) of 65W as opposed to 95W. The downside, though, is that it doesn’t support overclocking (there’s no K in its model name, you see), so you’re pretty much stuck with its base clock speed of 3.2GHz and its max Turbo Boost speed of 4.6GHz. The latter, at least, is exactly the same as the i5-9600K’s top Turbo Boost speed, but as I mentioned in my Core i5-9600K review, I was able to push that all the way up to 4.9GHz when I came to overclock it.

What’s more, while the i7-8700 does indeed offer quicker multi-tasking performance than an i5-9600K running at its stock speeds (see its multicore Cinebench results below), it quickly starts to lose ground again once you compare it to the i5-9600K’s faster overclocked score. In fact, there were just six points separating the two CPUs’ multicore Cinebench scores in the end, which rather negates the benefit of having all those extra threads on hand.

The RPS Test PC:
Motherboard:
Asus Prime Z370-P (Intel), Asus Prime X370-Pro (AMD)
Cooler: BeQuiet BK009 Pure Rock (Intel), AMD Wraith Prism (AMD)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 2133MHz
GPU: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FE
PSU: OCZ ZX850W

Or at least it does for general desktop tasks. When it comes to gaming, the Core i7-8700 is still very much in the race — if only just. Now, admittedly, testing any CPU’s gaming performance is still rather difficult. As our friends at Digital Foundry have explained in the past, a lot of benchmarks either don’t test your CPU properly, or simply aren’t very accurate in the first place. Fortunately, a handful of gaming benchmarks have got a lot better at this recently, with the likes of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Forza Horizon 4, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and more all providing an in-depth look at your CPU’s performance as well as what your graphics card’s doing.

That said, there are also several other factors that can impact gaming performance, such as your graphics card, the type of RAM you’ve got, and even what type of storage you’ve installed the game on. As a result, getting a truly accurate picture of a CPU’s gaming performance is tricky, but I’ve done the best I can with the equipment available to me.

I’ve also focused a lot more on gaming performance in this review than I have on, say, application performance or media creation bits and bobs because, well, I’m not really interested in that. As you’ve already seen above, I’ve included some cursory Cinebench scores as a basic indicator of what each CPU will be like for general PC tasks, but really, my main goal here is to work out what CPU is the best for gaming and gaming alone.

Compared to the Core i5-9600K, then, the Core i7-8700 is faster at both 1080p and 1440p in almost every game in my testing suite, but it’s also not the kind of blistering speed you might expect from a CPU that costs another hundred-odd quid. Its superior performance in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey might be enough for some to earn a place at the table, for example, but others will likely discard it immediately due to its lacklustre Forza Horizon 4 results.

One thing is clear, though. Regardless of how it shapes up to the Core i5-9600K, the Core i7-8700 is definitely a much better gaming CPU than either of AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700 / 2700X chips. Sure, the Ryzen 7 2700X is currently a lot cheaper than the i7-8700 (£265/ $280 vs Intel’s £320 / $305), but if I did have somewhere in the region of 300 quid to spend on my CPU, then I’d almost certainly be willing to spend the extra on the i7-8700 to get those significantly quicker gaming speeds.

Really, though, I think you’d probably be much better off saving yourself some of those hard-earned pennies and getting the i5-9600K instead. Admittedly, you’ll still have to factor in the cost of a cooler with the i5-9600K, as it sadly doesn’t come with one in the box like the i7-8700, but overall I reckon it’s still much better value for money.

AMD RYZEN 7 2700 VS INTEL 8700 平民級高階遊戲平台組合對決 @ KingS Multi-Tech :: 痞客邦 ::

大約在農曆年前曾向大家分享了AMD在消費級最高階的RYZEN 7 2700X以高CP的平台組合方式,並與對手的I7 9700K做了測試比較,不過對大多數玩家可能是高CP的組合也不完全適用於所有人,也許對少數使用者來說可能還會希望有更平民化的組合方式,所以這次再度要向大家分享的則是以次一級的RYZEN 7 2700搭配最入門級的B450主機板及超值又好用的RX580顯示卡,另外散熱的部份也直接使用原廠散熱器,以最陽春但又兼俱效能與實用性的入門級組合,並同樣會與對手做測試比較,而這次PK的對手產品也以價格最為接近的I7 8700出任擔當,以下開箱請耐心觀賞

 

主要硬體簡介

配備開箱的部份僅對於主要使用的CPU、主機板、顯示卡做簡單介紹

AMD陣營

AMD RYZEN 7 2700基本規格表

AMD RYZEN 7 2700

 

ASUS PRIME B450M-K,非常基本的入門款主機板,內部擴充的部份提供有1 x PCIe 3. 0/2.0 x16 (x16 mode,若是使用APU的情況下僅提供x8 mode)、2 x PCIe 2.0 x1(由晶片組提供)、4 x SATA 6Gb/s(支援Raid 0, 1, 10)、1 x M.2插槽

後I/O擴充方面提供有4 x USB 3.0 連接埠、2 x USB 3.1 連接埠、2 x PS/2 鍵盤/滑鼠、1 x DVI-D、1 x D-Sub、1 x LAN連接埠、3 x 音訊插孔

 

INTEL陣營

INTEL CORE I7-8700

 

ASUS PRIME B360M-K,同樣是非常基本的入門款主機板,內部擴充的部份提供有1 x PCIe 3.0/2.0 x16 、2 x PCIe 3.0/2.0 x1、6 x SATA 6Gb/s、1 x M.2插槽

 

後I/O擴充方面提供有2 x USB 3.0 連接埠、2 x USB 3.1 連接埠、2 x USB 2.0 連接埠、2 x PS/2 鍵盤/滑鼠、1 x DVI-D、1 x D-Sub、1 x LAN連接埠、3 x 音訊插孔(在USB連接埠方面感覺起來就給的比B450的規格稍弱了一點)

 

顯示卡

顯卡方面本次使用的是外觀與效能兼俱的PowerColor Red Devil Radeon RX 580 8GB

十分搶眼的5芒星魔法陣強化背板

輸出方面提供有1 x DVI、1 x HDMI、3 x DP

 

上機實測

AMD Ryzen 7 2700效能測試-預設

測試軟體方面皆以CineBench R15、3DMark 做為基準,遊戲方面則是以虹彩六號與PUBG這2款熱門的射擊遊戲為基準,特效設定方面皆為近最高

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 
Cooler: Wraith Spire with RGB LED (原廠散熱器)
MB: ASUS PRIME B450M-K
RAM: Apacer PANTHER黑豹 DDR4 3000 8GBx2 (2400)
VGA: PowerColor Red Devil Radeon RX 580 8GB
Storage: WD Black 1TB NVMe SSD
PSU: Seasonic FOCUS+ GOLD 550W 
OS: Windows 10專業版 64 Bit

測試平台資訊驗證

CineBench R15

3DMARK FIRE STRIKE

3DMARK SKY DIVER

3DMARK NIGHT RAID

3DMARK TIME SPY

PUBG特效設定

實際遊戲平均FPS約72張

 

虹彩六號特效設定

遊戲內建測試

實際遊戲平均FPS約91張

 

AMD Ryzen 7 2700效能測試-超頻

在這塊入門款板子上的極限大約就是全核4G左右了

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 (O. C 4G)
Cooler: Wraith Spire with RGB LED (原廠散熱器)
MB: ASUS PRIME B450M-K
RAM: Apacer PANTHER黑豹 DDR4 3000 8GBx2 (以懶人方式開啟XMP後再拉至3200)
VGA: PowerColor Red Devil Radeon RX 580 8GB
Storage: WD Black 1TB NVMe SSD
PSU: Seasonic FOCUS+ GOLD 550W 
OS: Windows 10專業版 64 Bit

測試平台資訊驗證

CineBench R15

3DMARK FIRE STRIKE

3DMARK SKY DIVER

3DMARK NIGHT RAID

3DMARK TIME SPY

 

PUBG特效設定

實際遊戲平均FPS約75張

 

虹彩六號特效設定

遊戲內建測試

實際遊戲平均FPS約96張

 

INTEL I7 8700效能測試

雖然非K版處理器無法超頻,不過記憶體的部份開個XMP到支援的最大幅度2666還是可以的

CPU: INTE I7 8700
Cooler: 原廠散熱器 
MB: ASUS PRIME B360M-K
RAM: Apacer PANTHER黑豹 DDR4 3000 8GBx2 (XMP 2666)
VGA: PowerColor Red Devil Radeon RX 580 8GB
Storage: WD Black 1TB NVMe SSD
PSU: Seasonic FOCUS+ GOLD 550W 
OS: Windows 10專業版 64 Bit

測試平台資訊驗證

CineBench R15

3DMARK FIRE STRIKE

3DMARK SKY DIVER

3DMARK NIGHT RAID

3DMARK TIME SPY

 

PUBG特效設定

實際遊戲平均FPS約74張

 

虹彩六號特效設定

遊戲內建測試

實際遊戲平均FPS約93張

 

各測試得分總表

 

總結

由以上各項測試可以看到AMD RYZEN 7 2700與INTEL CORE I7 8700這2組價格相近的平台組合在遊戲上的效能表現差異,R7 2700在超頻前後與I7 8700互有輸贏,但在多工處理方面R7 2700在比對手多了2顆核心的情況下很明顯有著強力的優勢而勝出不少,表現十分不錯。

像這樣在價位差不多的CPU選購時AMD讓使用者以實惠的價格擁有更多的核心數量及更強力的多工效能,而且沒有會被入侵的漏洞也不會讓人覺得在擠牙膏,若是想要組個入門級高階平台玩遊戲跟偶爾做些影音轉檔或圖片渲染之類的多工作需求作業但礙於金錢上的考量的話不妨以本文為參考對象(但長期使用來說建議至少購置600W以上的POWER),以上是本次的評測分享,謝謝收看

 

磁碟效能測試

另外再附上在這張主機板上所使用的WD Black 1TB NVMe SSD的磁碟效能表現

就算是使用入門款的B450主機板仍然有著漂亮的測試結果甚至超越了官標值,實際使用時的速度提升也是非常有感

在現今SSD不斷降價加上遊戲越做越肥大的世代來說,組機時直接入手這樣一顆大容量的平價好碟真的會比一買再買來的好很多

若仍然覺得容量不足還可以再搭配一顆HDD後使用AMD獨家的AMD StoreMI軟體來擴增空間(詳細測試請點我)

 

    ryzen

    amd

    測試

    2700

    8700

    powercolor

    b450m

    主機板

    radeon

    金大帥

    KingS Multi-Tech

    金大帥 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

    E-mail轉寄

    ‘;
    }
    function generateInReadAdPos(id) {
    var ads = [
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    (width >= 700 ? » :
    »),
    ];
    return ads[id];
    }
    function hasAdInParagraph(p) {
    return p. innerHTML.toLowerCase().indexOf(‘

    Test i7 8700K vs R7 2700X: gaming performance

    This content has been written by a website visitor and has been rewarded.

    • Introduction
    • System configuration
    • List of tested games, description of tested scenes
    • Test results
      • Assassins Creed Origins
      • Far Cry 5
      • GTA V
      • Kingdom Come: Deliverance
      • The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
      • Overwatch
      • Civilization VI
    • Conclusion
    • Links to test results

    Introduction

    This article will provide an overview of the gaming performance comparison of the latest generation of processors — Intel i7-8700K and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, as well as AMD Ryzen 7 1700 from the first generation of AMD Ryzen 7 processors.

    This review was produced together with slafniy . It is he who owns the config of the system with the i7-8700K, and it was he who carried out this test (for the first time in my life I saw so many pieces of iron in one room at once).

    recommendations

    System configuration

    System #1:

    • Processor: Intel i7-8700K @5 GHz, scalped
    • Motherboard: ASRock Extreme4 Z370
    • Cooler: Noctua NH-D15
    • RAM: 2×8 Patriot Viper 4 PV416G373C7K @3733 MHz (XMP)
    • Video card: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X 11G
    • SSD: Crusial MX500
    • PSU: Corsair RM650x 650 Watt

    System #2:

    • Processor: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, autoboost
    • Motherboard: ASRock Taichi X470
    • Cooler: Thermalright Le Grand Macho RT
    • RAM: 2×16 G.Skill Trident Z @3200 MHz (14-14-14-14-28)
    • Video card: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X 11G
    • SSD: Crusial MX500
    • PSU: Corsair RM650x 650 Watt

    System #3:

    • Processor: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3. 8 GHz
    • Motherboard: MSI B350 KRAIT GAMING
    • Cooler: Scythe Mugen 5
    • RAM: 2×16 G.Skill Trident Z @3133 MHz (14-14-14-14-28)
    • Video card: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X 11G
    • SSD: Crusial MX500
    • PSU: Corsair RM650x 650 Watt

    We proceeded from the following theses during tests:

    • The system for testing must be stable. Stability tested with Linx, 10 runs at 14k, and also with Memtest 2.5
    • Overclocking should be as simple as possible for the average user (i.e. no subtle tweaks to the system yet)

    In the case of 8700K , you can immediately notice that it is scalped, which is not quite compatible with the «simple overclocking» principle. Unfortunately, we no longer had a non-scalped processor, and we will not be able to «descalp» it. It was decided to consider this overclocking as the maximum possible, and compare the rest with this peak overclocking (especially since we couldn’t take the frequency higher — the memory began to give errors, and we couldn’t get at least some information about setting the timings for Intel).

    In the case of 2700X , we initially tried to use 4200 MHz. We managed to take them stably at 1.3815V VCore (which is already slightly higher than the 1.38V recommended in the 2X00 thread), with maximum LLC1 and temperatures over 90 on the last runs of LinX. With all this, we didn’t see much exhaust in games, so it was decided to leave the bus and not torment the processor. As for overclocking RAM, the approach was as follows — we enter the first data from the calculator (thanks to comrade 1usmus again), run the memtest, and if we get an error, we reduce the frequency. With a high probability, you can get better overclocking of RAM at the cost of sorting out timings, but this does not fit the definition of «simple overclocking», let’s leave this as a topic for a separate test. In this config, we stopped at 3200 safe timings.

    In the case of 1700 , stable results for the processor were known, because this was my 24/7 config. Unfortunately, on our bad head, we updated the BIOS on the B350 to the latest version and immediately lost the stability of overclocking the RAM. MSI does not allow us to roll back the BIOS version (or this is done in some non-trivial way). As a result, I had to lower the frequency to 3133 with safe timings. I send a separate hello to the tester, from whom all Ryzen processors take 4000 MHz stably and without problems.

    List of tested games, description of tested scenes

    Tested games:

    • Assassins Creed Origins
    • Far Cry 5
    • GTA V
    • Kingdom Come: Deliverance
    • The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
    • Overwatch
    • Civilization VI

    Assassins Creed Origins : built-in performance test + frametime recording via Fraps 3.5.99. Graphics settings — maximum possible with anti-aliasing turned off, in 1080p and in 720p.

    Far Cry 5 : built-in performance test + frametime recording via Fraps 3. 5.99. Graphics settings — maximum possible with anti-aliasing turned off, in 1080p and in 720p.

    GTA V : part of the built-in performance test (the last fragment with a fighter flight and car chases) + frametime recording via Fraps 3.5.99. Graphics settings — maximum possible with anti-aliasing turned off, in 1080p and in 720p.

    Kingdom Come: Deliverance : horse riding through Rattay from the southwest gate to the east, through the Shift key (path map attached) + frametime recording via Fraps 3.5.99. Graphics settings — maximum possible with anti-aliasing turned off, in 1080p and in 480p (NOT 720p). The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt : riding a horse through Beauclair from the Metinn Gate to the tree at the Barrel Gate by holding Shift (path map attached) + frametime recording via Fraps 3.5.99. Graphics settings — maximum possible with anti-aliasing turned off, in 1080p and in 720p. Overwatch : fast single hero play, no overlays and kill cam off + frametime recording via Fraps 3. 5.99. Graphics settings — k2viper settings in 1080p. Civilization VI : Built-in graphics and artificial intelligence test, no frametime recording. Graphics settings — maximum possible without anti-aliasing in 1080p and 768p (NOT 720p).

    Test results

    Assassins Creed Origins

    If we take the results of the i7-8700K as 100%, then the results of the Ryzen processors as a percentage:

    1% Medium FPS
    2700X in 1080p 71.49% 92.45%
    2700X in 720p 68.42% 88.46%
    1700 in 1080p 67.42% 89.62%
    1700 in 720p 63.16% 85.44%

    Far Cry 5

    Taking the i7-8700K results as 100%, the Ryzen results in percentage terms:

    1% Medium FPS
    2700X in 1080p 87. 11% 85.94%
    2700X in 720p 79.41% 77.03%
    1700 in 1080p 77.08% 77.01%
    1700 in 720p 69.79% 68.90%

    GTA V

    Taking the i7-8700K results as 100%, the Ryzen results as a percentage:

    1% Medium FPS
    2700X in 1080p 77.57% 73.51%
    2700X in 720p 79.03% 76.50%
    1700 in 1080p 74.52% 73.51%
    1700 in 720p 72.66% 71.02%

    Kingdom Come: Deliverance

    Taking i7-8700K scores as 100%, Ryzen scores as a percentage:

    1% Medium FPS
    2700X in 1080p 83. 50% 82.76%
    2700X in 720p 86.61% 80.44%
    1700 in 1080p 83.50% 77.83%
    1700 in 720p 82.14% 71.56%

    The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

    If we take the i7-8700K results as 100%, then the results of the Ryzen processors as a percentage:

    1% Average FPS
    2700X in 1080p 85.79% 91.12%
    2700X in 720p 80.91% 81.89%
    1700 in 1080p 118.27% 83.29%
    1700 in 720p 66.94% 69. 75%

    Overwatch

    Unfortunately, it was not possible to record the results for the Ryzen 1700 for a number of reasons.

    Taking i7-8700K results as 100%, Ryzen processor results as a percentage:

    1% Medium FPS
    2700X in 1080p 93.00% 96.43%

    Civilization VI

    Unfortunately, we were unable to record results for the Ryzen 1700 due to a number of reasons.

    If we take the results of the i7-8700K in the graphics test as 100%, then the results of the Ryzen processors in percentage terms:

    1% Medium FPS
    2700X in 1080p 85.1% 82.14%

    Conclusion

    I will not draw conclusions for anyone. Feelings are mixed. On the one hand, the 2700X is more than enough for games (especially since it competes with the 8700K at 5 GHz, in fact, with the leader). On the other hand, I’d like to see a bigger performance boost in games compared to the 1700. Right now, in modern games, the 8700K is by far the fastest processor out there.
    At the same time, the experience of owning a Ryzen 1700 processor tells me that one can expect some additional performance improvement for Ryzen-based systems (in particular, it still smells damp from motherboard firmware), but I would not recommend counting on it especially. Perhaps I don’t know about some tricky system tweaks for Ryzen — I’ll be glad to hear if the data accumulates and there is a really noticeable exhaust — I will retest taking into account these tweaks.
    Separately, I say hello to the testers of 100500 different systems in more than a dozen games and in different graphics settings. Empirically, it has been established that, in general, changing the system consumes at least half an hour on average (with all overhead costs). Not everything goes smoothly during tests — and this also eats up time (we spent about 3 days of pure time on this test, even if we had any scripts for automating tests — we would spend a lot of time controlling the test, checking results, etc.).
    Separately, I say hello to the idea «you can test lower processors by simply disabling a core or two.» No, you’re testing an older processor, just with the cores disabled.

    I’ll highlight it again and bigger — if you have any suggestions for the test (any additional test factors, other nuances that affect performance), let me know. I’ll be happy to do more testing.

    Links to test results

    Table with all results
    Link to all results (frametimes)
    For your convenience, screenshots of frametime charts are also attached next to the frametimes themselves.
    Please note — for Civilization VI, it was not possible to record frametimes through Fraps, frametimes that the game generates on its own are attached.

    This material was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.

    Amd ryzen 5 2600 vs intel core i7-8700: What is the difference?

    Benchmarks Intel Core i7-8700K vs. AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Gaming speed

    Core i7-8700K
    89.4 (+16.3%)

    Ryzen 7 2700
    74.8

    Performance in games and similar applications, according to our tests.

    The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.

    The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

    Speed ​​in office use

    Core i7-8700K
    89.5 (+16.4%)

    Ryzen 7 2700
    74.8

    Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office programs.

    The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

    Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

    Speed ​​in heavy applications

    Core i7-8700K
    53.5 (+9%)

    Ryzen 7 2700
    48.7

    Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.

    The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

    At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

    Speed ​​of numerical operations

    Core i7-8700K
    89.8 (+13.1%)

    Ryzen 7 2700X
    78

    Core i7-8700K
    74.5 (+3.6%)

    Ryzen 7 2700X
    71.8

    Core i7-8700K
    18. 5

    Ryzen 7 2700X
    23.2 (+20.3%)

    Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

    We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

    Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

    When choosing a processor to work with, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

    Data obtained from tests of users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

    Speed ​​of numerical operations

    Core i7-8700K
    89.8 (+20.6%)

    Ryzen 7 2700
    71.3

    Core i7-8700K
    74.5 (+15.2%)

    Ryzen 7 2700
    63.2

    Core i7-8700K
    18.5

    Ryzen 7 2700
    20.4 (+9.3%)

    Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

    We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

    Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

    When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

    Benchmarks Intel Core i7-8700K vs. AMD Ryzen 5 2600

    Gaming Speed ​​

    Core i7-8700K
    89.4 (+15.3%)

    Ryzen 5 2600
    75.7

    Performance in games and similar applications, according to our tests.

    The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.

    The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

    Office speed

    Core i7-8700K
    89.5 (+14.3%)

    Ryzen 5 2600
    76.7

    Performance in daily activities such as browsers and office programs.

    The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

    Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

    Speed ​​in heavy applications

    Core i7-8700K
    53.5 (+13.8%)

    Ryzen 5 2600
    46.1

    Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.

    The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

    At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

    General information

    1.Supports 64-bit
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

    system
    Intel Core i7-8700K

    A 32-bit operating system can support up to 4 GB of RAM. 64-bit allows more than 4 GB, which improves performance. It also allows you to run 64-bit applications.

    2. size semiconductors

    7nm

    14nm

    A smaller size indicates a newer chip creation process.

    3.GPU clock speed

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 4800H)

    350MHz

    The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

    4.Design requirements for heat dissipation (TDP)

    45W

    95W

    The heat dissipation requirement (TDP) is the maximum amount of energy that the cooling system will have to dissipate. A lower TDP also usually means less power consumption.

    5. PCI Express (PCIe) version

    3

    3

    PCI Express (PCIe) is a high speed expansion card standard that is used to connect a computer to its peripherals. Newer versions support higher throughput and provide better performance.

    6.CPU temperature

    105°C

    100°C

    If the processor exceeds its maximum operating temperature, an accidental reset may occur.

    DirectX version 7

    12

    12

    DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.

    8.number of transistors

    9800 million

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

    A higher transistor count usually indicates a newer, more powerful processor.

    9.OpenGL version

    4.6

    4.5

    The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.

    Functions

    1.Has AES
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

    2. Has dynamic frequency scaling
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    Dynamic frequency scaling is a technology that allows the processor to conserve power and reduce noise when it is under light load.

    3. Has AVX
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.

    4th version SSE

    4.2

    4. 2

    SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

    5 bits transmitted at the same time

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 4800H)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

    NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.

    6.Has F16C
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.

    7. Has MMX
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting picture contrast or adjusting volume.

    8.Multi-threaded
    AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides better performance by dividing each physical processor core into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.

    9.interface width

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 4800H)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

    The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means that the processor performs better

    Performance

    1.cpu speed

    8 x 3.2GHz

    6 x 3.2GHz

    CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second a processor can perform, considering all its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.

    2nd processor thread

    16

    12

    More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.

    3.L2 cache

    4MB

    1.5MB

    More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

    4.speed turbo clock

    4.1GHz

    4. 6GHz

    When the processor is running below its limits, it may jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

    5.L3 cache

    16MB

    12MB

    More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

    6.L1 cache

    768KB

    384KB

    More L1 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

    7. L2 core

    0.5MB/core

    0.25MB/core

    More data can be stored in L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

    8. Has an unlocked multiplier
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Intel Core i7-8700

    Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.

    9.core L3

    2MB/core

    2MB/core

    More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

    The never-ending struggle

    But despite AMD’s best efforts, Intel continues to hold the leading position. 2.5 years is not enough to displace her from the first place, which she held for more than 10 years.

    According to analyst firm Mercury Research, AMD reached 18% share in the desktop processor segment in Q3 2019, up 5% year-on-year, even though the company experienced a number of technical difficulties in the production of Ryzen 3000 series processors.

    AMD owns the server market by 4.3% against 2.74% a year ago. Analysts at Mercury Research have suggested that by the end of 2020 AMD’s share in this segment will exceed 10%. In the field of mobile processors, AMD is also in second place with a score of 14.7%.

    General information

    1.Supports 64-bit
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    system
    Intel Core i7-9700K

    A 32-bit operating system can support up to 4 GB of RAM. 64-bit allows more than 4 GB, which improves performance. It also allows you to run 64-bit applications.

    2.size semiconductors

    12nm

    14nm

    A smaller size indicates a newer chip creation process.

    3.GPU clock speed

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

    350MHz

    The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

    4.Design requirements for heat dissipation (TDP)

    65W

    95W

    The heat dissipation requirement (TDP) is the maximum amount of energy that the cooling system will have to dissipate. A lower TDP also usually means less power consumption.

    5. PCI Express (PCIe) version

    3

    3

    PCI Express (PCIe) is a high speed expansion card standard that is used to connect a computer to its peripherals. Newer versions support higher throughput and provide better performance.

    6.CPU temperature

    95°C

    100°C

    If the processor exceeds its maximum operating temperature, an accidental reset may occur.

    DirectX version 7.

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

    12

    DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.

    8.number of transistors

    4800 million

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-9700K)

    A higher transistor count usually indicates a newer, more powerful processor.

    9.OpenGL version

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

    4.5

    The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.

    Functions

    1.Has AES
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Intel Core i7-9700K

    AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

    2. Has dynamic frequency scaling
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Intel Core i7-9700K

    Dynamic frequency scaling is a technology that allows the processor to conserve power and reduce noise when it is under light load.

    3. Has AVX
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Intel Core i7-9700K

    AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.

    4th version SSE

    4.2

    4.2

    SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

    5 bits transmitted at the same time

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-9700K)

    NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.

    6.Has F16C
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Intel Core i7-9700K

    F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.

    7. Has MMX
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Intel Core i7-9700K

    MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting picture contrast or adjusting volume.

    8.Multi-threaded
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700

    Intel Core i7-9700K

    Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides better performance by dividing each physical processor core into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.

    9.interface width

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 7 2700)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-9700K)

    The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means that the processor performs better

    How a quantum computer works

    Quantum computers use properties of quantum systems such as superposition and entanglement to calculate . In a superposition, quantum particles are a combination of all possible states until they are observed and measured. Entangled qubits form a single system and influence each other. By measuring the state of one qubit, it is possible to draw a conclusion about the rest. As the number of entangled qubits increases, the ability of quantum computers to process information grows exponentially.

    Bits and qubits

    (Photo: Yandex Practice Journal)

    The basic element that performs logical operations in a classical computer is a gate. For the operation of a quantum computer, quantum gates assembled from qubits are used. They are single qubit and double qubit. There are also universal sets of gates that can be used to perform any quantum computation

    In addition, quantum computers cannot run standard software like Windows. They require their own operating system and applications. Some tech giants are already offering organizations the option of quantum computing in the cloud. Cloud quantum computing provides direct access to emulators, simulators and quantum processors.

    Quantum computing in the cloud

    (Photo: Medium)

    Vendors also provide development platforms and documentation for languages ​​and computing tools. IBM has already introduced an open source quantum computing software platform called Qiskit. And Microsoft released a free Q# computing developer tool and a quantum computing simulator. 1QBit, Cambridge Quantum Computing, QSimulate, Rahko, Zapata and other companies are also developing software for quantum computers.

    Zapata’s Orquestra platform offers a set of computational methods for quantum computers

    Quantum computers require quantum algorithms to operate. Three of the most famous quantum algorithms can be distinguished:

    • Shor (decompositions of a number into prime factors)
    • Grover (solving the enumeration problem, fast search in an unordered database)
    • Deutsche-Joji (question answer, constant or balanced function)

    Quantum computer works on the probabilistic principle. Its result is a probability distribution of possible answers, the most likely answer is usually the best solution.

    Quantum qubits in physical implementation are of several types: superconducting, charge, ion traps, quantum dots and others.

    The current level of technology development allows creating a large number of qubits, the difficulty arises with the stability of such a system. Like all quantum systems, qubits easily lose a given quantum state when interacting with the environment (their decoherence occurs). At the same time, the number of computational errors in the operation of a quantum computer is growing. To ensure its stability during calculations, it is required to protect the system from any background noise, for example, in the case of superconducting systems, cooling them to temperatures close to zero Kelvin (-273.1 ° C). Developers use superfluids to achieve this cooling.

    The first open quantum network was launched in test mode in Moscow

    As Ruslan Yunusov explained, superconductors have historically been considered the most promising direction due to their good scalability, time stability, parameter control and relative ease of control. It is on this platform that the quantum computers of IBM, Google and Rigetti are built. However, according to him, recently alternative quantum platforms have become increasingly popular: ions, which demonstrate the highest stability and accuracy of operations to date (Honeywell, IonQ), and photons, the advantages of which are the small size of the photonic processor and the ability to work at room temperature. temperatures (Xanadu, PsiQuantum, Quix).

    In addition, new concepts are being developed: systems based on polaritons or magnons, systems of Bose-Einstein condensates, coherent Ising machines, coherent CMOS architectures. So, in the polariton architecture, the bit is a polariton, a quasiparticle that combines the properties of light and matter. Theoretically, a polariton quantum computer could operate at room temperature, which would reduce its cost and simplify manufacturing. Skoltech is currently studying polariton structures.

    Intel Core i7-8700K or AMD Ryzen 7 2700x

    • Home
    • >
    • Processors
    • Comparison
    • 000
    • Intel Core I7-8700K VS AMD RyZen
    • Core i7-8086k
      Compare
    • Core i3-8350K
      Compare
    • Core i5-8600K
      Compare

      9000 Ryzen 5 2600x
      Compare

      9,000 9,000

    • Ryzen 5 2600
      Compare
    • Ryzen 7 2700
      Compare
    • Ryzen 5 1600AF
      Compare

    Speed ​​in Games

    Core I7-8700K

    (+9. 8%)

    RYZEN 7 27 22 27 2,27 2,27 2,2EL Performance in games and similar applications, according to our tests.

    The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.

    The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

    Speed ​​in office use

    Core i7-8700K

    79.4 (+9.8%)

    Ryzen 7 2700X

    71.6

    Performance in everyday work, such as browsers and office programs.

    The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

    Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

    Speed ​​in heavy applications

    Core i7-8700K

    53.5

    Ryzen 7 2700X

    53.9 (+0.7%)

    maximum

    The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

    At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

    Speed ​​of numerical operations

    Simple household tasks

    Core i7-8700K

    76.7 (+13.2%)

    Ryzen 7 2700X

    66.6

    Demanding games and tasks

    Core i7-8700K

    57.5 (+3.8%)

    Ryzen 7 2700X

    55.3

    Extreme

    Core i7-8700K

    18. 5

    Ryzen 7 2700X

    23.2 (+20.3%)

    Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

    We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

    Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

    When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

    Benchmarks

    Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.

    Cinebench R23 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    1209 (+11.4%)

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    1071

    Cinebench R23 Multi Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    8960

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    9971 (+10. 1%)

    Cinebench R20 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    487 (+15.6%)

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    411

    Cinebench R20 Multi Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    3689

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    3951 (+6.6%)

    Cinebench R15 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    208 (+14.9%)

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    177

    Cinebench R15 Multi Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    1447

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700x

    1817 (+20.4%)

    Geekbench 5 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-87700 128 1282 1282 1282 1282 1282 1282 1282 1282 1282 1282 1282 1287 AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    1062

    Geekbench 5 Multi Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    6693

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    7100 (+5.7%)

    Blender 2.81 bmw27

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    232.4 (+9.1 %)

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    211.2

    Geekbench 3 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    5330 (+9%)

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    4850

    Geekbench 3 Multi Core

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    27445 (+5. 1%)

    AMD RYZEN 7 2700X

    26040

    Cinebench R11.5

    Intel Core i7-8700k

    2.4%

    9000 9000 9000 AMD Ryzen 7 2,2700x 9 R11.5

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    15.96

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    18.72 (+14.7%)

    Passmark

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    13906

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    17596 ( +21%)

    Features

    The data is not yet populated, so the tables may be missing information or missing existing functions.

    Basic

    Manufacturer Intel AMD
    DescriptionInformation about the processor, taken from the official website of the manufacturer. Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz)
    ArchitectureCode name for the microarchitecture generation. Coffee Lake
    Process The manufacturing process, measured in nanometers. The smaller the technical process, the more perfect the technology, the lower the heat dissipation and power consumption. 14 No data
    Release dateMonth and year of the processor being available for sale. 10-2020 10-2020
    Model Official name. i7-8700K
    Cores The number of physical cores. 6 8
    ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. 12 16
    Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores by the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. Hyper-threading (note that some games may not work well with Hyper-threading, for maximum FPS you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard). SMT (note that some games may not work well with SMT, for maximum FPS, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard).
    Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. 3.7 GHz 3.7 GHz
    Turbo frequencyThe maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. 4.7GHz 4.05 GHz
    L3 cache size The third level cache acts as a buffer between the computer’s RAM and the processor’s level 2 cache. Used by all cores, the speed of information processing depends on the volume. 12 No data
    Instructions 64-bit
    Extended instruction set Allows you to speed up calculations, processing and execution of certain operations. Also, some games require instruction support. SSE4.1/4.2, AVX2
    Embedded Options Available Two housing versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. No No
    Bus frequency The speed of communication with the system. 8 GT/s DMI3
    Number of QPI links
    TDPThermal Design Power is an indicator that determines the heat dissipation in standard operation. The cooler or water cooling system must be rated for a larger value. Remember that with a factory bus or manual overclocking, TDP increases significantly. 95 No data
    Cooling system specifications PCG 2015C (130W)

    Video core

    Integrated graphics core Allows you to use your computer without a discrete graphics card. The monitor is connected to the video output on the motherboard. If earlier integrated graphics made it possible to simply work at a computer, today it can replace budget video accelerators and makes it possible to play most games at low settings. Intel® UHD Graphics 630
    GPU base clockFrequency in 2D and idle. 350 No data
    Max GPU ClockMaximum 3D clock. 1200 No data
    Intel® Wireless Display (Intel® WiDi) Supports Wireless Display technology over Wi-Fi 802.11n. Thanks to it, a monitor or TV equipped with the same technology does not require a cable to connect.
    Supported monitorsThe maximum number of monitors that can be connected to the integrated video core at the same time. 3

    RAM

    Maximum RAM Amount of RAM that can be installed on the motherboard with this processor. 64 No data
    Supported type of RAM The type of RAM depends on its frequency and timings (speed), availability, price. DDR4-2666
    RAM Channels The multi-channel memory architecture increases data transfer speed. On desktop platforms, two-channel, three-channel and four-channel modes are available. 2
    RAM bandwidth
    ECC memory Support for error-correcting memory that is used in servers. Usually more expensive than usual and requires more expensive server components. However, second-hand server processors, Chinese motherboards and ECC memory sticks, which are sold relatively cheaply in China, have become widespread. No data No data

    PCI

    PCI-E PCI Express computer bus version. The bandwidth and power limit depend on the version. There is backward compatibility. 3 No data
    PCI configuration options Up to 1×16 or 2×8 or 1×8+2×4 Up to 1×16 or 2×8 or 1×8+2×4
    Number of PCI lanes 16 Up to 1×16 or 2×8 or 1×8+2×4

    Data Security

    AES-NI The AES command set extension speeds up applications that use appropriate encryption. No data No data
    Intel® Secure Key An RDRAND instruction that allows you to create a high performance random number generator. No data No data

    Decoration

    Dimensions No data No data
    Supported sockets No data No data
    Maximum processors per motherboard No data No data

    Which is better

    Intel Core i7-8700K

    • On average, gaming performance is 8% better.
    • The speed of work in office applications and browsers is increased by 8%.
    • $90 down

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

    • Faster and 5% better in complex multi-threaded applications.
    • The number of physical cores is 2 more.
    • The number of threads is 4 more.

    How are they similar

    • The base frequency is equal.

    Amd ryzen 7 2700 in games • Web cheat sheet for internet entrepreneurs!

    Price

    On the other hand, the list of used Intel processors has been «expanded and deepened» in the direction of inexpensive models. There will be four of them — as in the last article, but the place of a couple of models for LGA2066 will be taken by the Core i5-8400 (the cheapest six-core Intel) and. The Core i3-8350K, which, in fact, has to compete directly in retail not only with the Ryzen 5 2400G, but also with the Ryzen 5 1600/2600. And the presence of an integrated video core does not quite save the situation: after all, the UHD Graphics 630, by today’s standards, has not only too low performance in gaming applications, but also limited multimedia capabilities. As a result, even for simple viewing of video in modern formats or for connecting high-resolution monitors, many buyers prefer to purchase at least an inexpensive discrete plug. In addition, the i3-8350K is also interesting from the point of view that (as we saw in our time) in normal mode, it is almost identical to the Core i5-7600K, i.e. the best Core i5 «generations» up to the seventh inclusive. A lot of them have been sold over the past years, and many owners are already interested in the question: what can you get when switching to new platforms for money comparable to the initial costs? In the case of Intel, everything is simple and clear: two more cores of comparable architecture. But Ryzen 5 can also be considered as a possible upgrade option, this is about the same price class.

    All processors except (as already mentioned) Ryzen 5 2400G were tested in conjunction with a GeForce GTX 1070 video card. RAM in all cases is 16 GB, its clock speed is 2666 MHz for Intel processors (it is also the maximum standard) and 2933 MHz for Ryzen (for five out of eight processors, it is also already standard, and we did not test the «thousanders» with the current version of the methodology with lower frequencies).

    Test Method

    The technique is described in detail in a separate article. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:

    Detailed results for all tests are available as a complete results spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. This is especially true for application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (AMD FX-8350 with 16 GB of memory, GeForce GTX 1070 graphics card and Corsair Force LE 960 GB SSD) and grouped by computer application areas.

    With this material, we seem to be finishing the use of the 2017 version of the test methodology, since the new one is almost ready. For the same reason, it was decided to do without gaming tests — how they behave on the GeForce GTX 1070 together with the tested processors is understandable, and what will change in newer projects, we will study a little later.

    iXBT Application Benchmark 2017

    In principle, the Ryzen 7 2700 is already enough to slightly overtake the Core i7-8700K, but it is just as slightly behind the previous «flagship» AMD — which can be considered the rationale for the existence of the 2700X 🙂 As for cheaper models, here is the situation things are even more favorable for the new line: the Ryzen 5 2600 not only outperforms any Core i5, but is practically equivalent to the “old” 1600X, and this calls into question the need for a 2600X. And it is clearly seen that further attempts to save on performance are already fraught: after all, APUs and “clean” CPUs of the Ryzen 5 family differ more in technical characteristics than six- and eight-core models.

    Nothing changes in rendering for Ryzen 5, but Ryzen 7 looks a little less convincing: in fact, only one model for AM4 can compete with the older Core i7-8700K (which once again hints that comparing only the number of different cores is not always correct ). However, the Ryzen 7 2700 looks good for its price, and the speed can be increased manually if desired — which distinguishes it from, for example, the Core i7-8700.

    The degree of multithreading utilization by these programs is lower than in the previous two cases — which plays into the hands of Ryzen 5: the 2600X almost caught up with the 2700. And let’s focus on the fact that in the older pair of new processors for AM4, the performance differs much more than in the younger one. In fact, this is no coincidence — and below we will show why.

    «Multi-core» is needed even to a lesser extent, so «per thread» performance is extremely important. And in this case, as we already wrote, there are no special improvements in the “restyled” Ryzen — they still lag behind Intel processors in such conditions. Even the already known problems with one of the Photoshop filters inherent in the latest generation Core i3 and Core i5 still do not let them noticeably lag behind, for example, the Ryzen 5 2400G in the overall standings, and the Core i7 turn out to be the undisputed leaders. On the other hand, the new AMD processors are slightly faster than their immediate predecessors — and that’s enough.

    Once again, we see that, despite the success of the new AMD architecture, it still cannot directly compete with Intel developments — a certain head start is required in the number of cores (or, at least, computation threads). But since the company can provide it at the current price level, everything is in order from the point of view of the buyer.

    And the work with memory has also practically not changed, so the state of affairs has not changed radically either. By the way, let’s again pay attention to the big difference in the 2700/2700X pair and the small one in the 2600/2600X.

    However, some internal architecture optimizations were carried out. And they led to funny effects — already the Ryzen 5 2600 is enough to overtake any Intel processors for the «new» LGA1151, the 2600X does it with the «last year» series of processors for AM4, and the new Ryzen 7 is simple. the fastest in the class. It is in its own way — since, for example, the Core i7-7820X is even faster. But this is a completely different story — and not always with a happy ending.

    What can be said about performance in the end? Firstly, the spread in the Ryzen 5 family is very large — APUs and CPUs differ radically: the former compete with the Core i3 at best, which is not bad, but the latter convincingly overtake the Core i5. Secondly, it’s hard to say that “X is only slightly faster than without X”: in the Ryzen 7 line, the difference cannot be called insignificant. On the other hand, there is a «third»: Ryzen 7 2700 still looks great. And, perhaps, not only in terms of performance.

    Energy consumption and energy efficiency

    With power consumption, the picture is even more variegated. Ryzen 5 2600X, as we have already noted, is not only faster than 1600X, but also hotter — but this does not apply to Ryzen 5 2600: it is identical to 1600. Our copy of Ryzen 7 2700X turned out to be very voracious — but 2700 is more economical than even 2600, not just 2600X.

    This is especially evident if you pay attention to the «net» consumption of processors. For example, it is clearly visible that at minimal loads, the new «without X» behave like last year’s Ryzen. But the «X» models, even in this case, began to work worse. Moreover, inspired by the results of the new younger members of the family, we also retested the Ryzen 7 2700X (and what if this is a consequence of “finishing” the firmware of the board or something like that) — he did not feel better.

    Performance, however, is also different for everyone, so it’s better to evaluate everything as a whole. And it is clear that for Intel processors, for example, the “energy efficiency” introduced in this way is largely a characteristic of the platform: the results of different processors and even different models, but of the same family, are always close. But for AM4, the spread of values ​​was large before, but the new processors only increased it. And you can’t just write it off for different instances — both X’s turned out to be worse than the old models, and both X’s were better. That is, in the first, the company clearly squeezed out all the juice, forcing the processors to give their best, operating at the highest possible frequency — a kind of «factory overclocking» (which, however, is not unique on the modern market). But the amount of «run-up» is probably related to specific instances — to the great horror of the company’s partners, who are forced to focus on the worst cases in final products. And for users, there is nothing good in such instability. Moreover, last year AMD had the opportunity to more or less flexibly sort the crystals, sending the “worst” ones to Ryzen 3 (as a result, our 1300X copy, recall, had an “energy efficiency” of only 1.05 points, which is much worse than all the other tested processors of this architecture) , and the “best” on Ryzen 7 (especially on the most expensive 1800X, which, as we observed in our time, not only worked a little faster than the 1700X, but also consumed a little less). In the same year, the freedom of maneuver was greatly reduced. On the one hand, junior quad-core models now simply make sense to do on completely different crystals. On the other hand, the “best” ones are needed for multi-chip models (Epyc or Ryzen Threadripper), and the “regular” Ryzen 7 also fell in price. Nothing criminal, of course, but that’s it. And it would be nice to see all the processors of the new family have the same “energy efficiency” as the Ryzen 7 2700, or at least close to that.

    Total

    If in the previous article we had complaints about the new Pinnacle Ridge family in terms of high power consumption, now they can probably be replaced by a complaint about the «lack of stability» of this indicator. On the other hand, it makes the choice of a particular processor more interesting and multivariate than when building a system based on Intel processors, adding some luck factor — which is exactly what many people like: it allows you not to get bored. And if you’re lucky, you’ll also save a lot of money.

    And one more small remark concerns the «hole» between the 2400G and 2600 — despite the fact that both processors belong to the Ryzen 5 family, they are very different in terms of functionality and performance. To some extent, the predicted Ryzen 5 2500X will be an intermediate solution, but this quad-core model without graphics and at a price comparable to the 2400G does not look very promising — even despite 16 MiB of cache and «full-width» PCIe 3. 0 x16 (recall, that all APUs have only eight PCIe lanes). In the end, the Ryzen 5 2600 also has it — not much more expensive, but with six cores. A year ago, such a distribution of processors by families did not raise any special questions, but now. Maybe it’s time to «devalue» all quad-core models to Ryzen 3 and, for example, Athlon? 🙂

    Modern processors are so complex that it is quite difficult to efficiently use all their nodes at the same time. That is why, in an effort to increase efficiency, Intel has long introduced Hyper-Threading technology. The new AMD Ryzen processors also take this approach.

    Imagine that you need to build a house and you even have helpers, but each of them is an expert in one thing. If you work strictly alternately, then the process will drag on for a very long time, so it’s best to try to perform different tasks at the same time whenever possible. The same principle applies to processors: you can organize a parallel processing thread on idle nodes.

    Translated from English SMT (Simultaneous MultiThreading) means «simultaneous multithreading». Its essence is that the operating system represents each physical processor core in the form of two logical or virtual cores, and directs them to process two data streams instead of one. Since processes have to compete for the resources of one core, in theory its nodes are more fully loaded with work and do not stand idle, that is, efficiency increases.

    The greatest difficulty lies in the fact that it is good to implement a flexible system for accessing threads to the computing resources of the kernel, and they do not slow down each other. To do this, 4 methods are used in different blocks of the AMD Zen microarchitecture. Green blocks use time slicing, that is, they allocate the same time for each thread. If the system, based on internal analysis, selects any of the two threads as a priority, then it will be the first to get access to the blue blocks. But one of the two threads can be initially marked as higher priority, in which case it gets access to the turquoise blocks first. The rest of the knots, painted in red, operate on the principle of «whoever got up first, that and slippers.»

    In addition, for efficient operation, it is not enough to implement SMT technology at the processor hardware level. It must also be supported by the operating system, drivers, and application programs. Therefore, at first with AMD Zen, everything was not going smoothly in this regard. For example, the system could load two threads of one core or half of the cores to the maximum, while the rest were idle. Of course, instead of growth, it turned out to be a slowdown in work. Over the past year, the situation in this regard should have improved markedly, but is it really so? Let’s check.

    At the heart of the test bench is an 8-core flagship AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, which can run in 16-thread mode. It is mounted on an MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC motherboard and is cooled by be quiet! CBO. So that the VRM of the motherboard does not overheat and does not reduce system performance, we put a Noctua NF-A14 industrialPPC fan on top. The operating system and disk-demanding games were installed on a GOODRAM Iridium PRO series SSD, the rest on a Seagate HDD. Graphics processing was assigned to the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti GAMING 8G graphics card with an efficient cooler. All this goodness was collected on the Thermaltake Core P5 TGE, and the Seasonic PRIME series block was responsible for the power supply.

    • AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
    • MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC
    • be quiet! Silent Loop 240mm
    • 2x 8GB DDR4-3400 G.Skill Sniper X
    • MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti GAMING 8G
    • GOODRAM Ir >

    Let’s note right away that we decided to fix the processor frequency at around 4 GHz so that dynamic overclocking technologies do not affect the test results. And to increase the stability of the clock frequency, the Spread Spectrum option was manually turned off. It allowed the clock generator to output a floating frequency in order to reduce electromagnetic interference from the computer to surrounding equipment. The SMT technology itself is active by default, but it can be disabled in the BIOS.

    Let’s move on to testing, and we’ll start with a few synthetic benchmarks. In the archiver 7-ZIP , the benefit from the operation of SMT technology is estimated at 16-59%.

    Activating this option in WinRAR allows you to increase the overall speed by 19%.

    The results in CINEBENCH R15 turned out to be very interesting: the performance of the processor part alone increases by 40% when using SMT. But in conjunction with a video card, the opposite is true — the results improve by 10% after its deactivation.

    As you can see, in work tasks, on average, the bonus from using SMT will be at the level of 18%, and in some well-optimized applications for multithreading, the acceleration will reach 40% or more. So far so good.

    And what is the state of affairs in the games? After all, this is where you can wait years for optimization and not wait, and inert engines are still learning to work on multi-core processors.

    The test will be carried out in two stages: first, we will run benchmarks in HD resolution in order to deliberately reduce the load on the video card and better feel the difference; then we’ll switch to Full HD to see how it is noticeable under more realistic conditions.

    We will mainly use the FPS Monitor utility for monitoring. It allows you to customize the interface and display not only the percentage of CPU and video card usage, but also useful statistics. For example, indicators of 1 and 0.1% Low, which are also rare and very rare events, more correctly reflect the level of comfort in the game than the minimum FPS. The smaller the difference between them and the closer they are to the average FPS, the smoother the video sequence and the more comfortable the gameplay. And do not pay attention to the temperature of the processor — in this case it is displayed incorrectly.

    Let’s start with the aged Counter-Strike: Global Offensive engine . In auto settings, the system chose very high settings and the average FPS was 6% higher on a system with SMT. Apparently background bots are well parallelized. But the statistics of 1 and 0.1% Low were 7-27% better when working in 8-thread mode.

    The fact that older games value core performance more than multithreading can be clearly seen in example Far Cry Primal . Here we are already fixing an increase in all indicators at the level of 12-20%.

    Disabling SMT in Rainbow Six Siege also has a positive effect. And although monitoring shows a good balancing of tasks between 16 logical cores, nevertheless, in the absence of competition for resources, the performance bonus can reach 35%.

    In theory, DirectX 12 allows better distribution of tasks between cores and more efficient use of CPU resources, so running Deus Ex: Mankind Divided in this mode at ultra preset, we expected to see an advantage for SMT, but in fact there was not. On the contrary, running in 8-thread mode provided an advantage of 10-16%.

    In Hitman , with the same API, there is no clear trend: the average frame rate improves by 2.5% after turning off SMT, and the 1% Low indicator worsens by 10%. In general, the statistics are quite similar, so in this case, the presence or absence of SMT does not play a role.

    An even more equal situation is observed in Assassin’s Creed Origins at maximum settings: the difference in performance is 2-5% in favor of SMT, but in practice it is 1-2 fps, which can be attributed to measurement error.

    And only Far Cry 5 shows a noticeable gain from enabling multithreading on the Ryzen 7 2700X, however, only in one indicator of very rare events — an increase of 53%. For the rest, the difference does not exceed 4%, which can be attributed to the measurement error.

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 7 2700 Processor Overview

    Last year’s release of AMD’s Ryzen processors with Zen architecture renewed competition in the desktop chip market. The new CPUs turned out to be quite good, bringing intrigue to a segment where Intel’s positions seem to be unshakable. A year later, the company introduced the second generation of processors, transferring new chips to a 12-nanometer process technology, increasing clock frequencies and improving acceleration algorithms, while maintaining compatibility with the Socket AM4 platform. As part of the new Pinnacle Ridge line, the company introduced two 8-core models — Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 7 2700. Let’s check how much the 2nd generation Ryzen chips have improved and how the older models of the series will look in direct comparison with Intel’s main opponent — Core i7 -8700K.

    AMD Zen+ architecture and 12nm manufacturing process

    GlobalFoundries helped speed up the release of a new line of AMD processors, which managed to establish a mass production of chips according to the 12nm process technology. This turned out to be very handy and allowed AMD to keep up with the processor update schedule for its desktop platform.

    The manufacturer claims to use the optimized Zen + architecture for new processors, but if we summarize the changes, we are more likely talking about the already well-known Zen, and the most significant difference between the Pinnacle Ridge chips and their Summit Ridge predecessors was the same transition to new technological standards and increase in operating clock frequencies.

    In its presentation materials, AMD highlights improved IPC performance as well as cache latency at all levels. Again, here the effect will be to a greater extent from an increase in operating frequencies, however, we assume that some optimizations were also carried out at the architecture level. We will try to verify this in practice.

    Another bonus of Pinnacle Ridge was the official support for DDR4-2933 RAM, while for the previous generation Ryzen, the manufacturer guaranteed the modules to work in DDR4-2666 mode. However, we do know that the Summit Ridge has also played with faster kits. Since the announcement, the developers have been diligently optimizing the AGESA microcode, trying to improve the performance of Ryzen with high-speed memory modules. It was not possible to radically change the situation here, but the improvements are quite noticeable. With good sets based on Samsung B-die chips, first-generation processors can operate in DDR4-3400/3466 modes.

    Precision Boost 2 and XFR2

    For new chips, the manufacturer has thoroughly revised the algorithm of dynamic acceleration of computing units. First generation Ryzen processors actually have two Precision Boost auto-overclocking states. In the mode with a load of 1-2 cores, the maximum boost is used, and if more threads are involved, the processor noticeably drops the operating frequency, only slightly exceeding the base one.

    Pinnacle Ridge chips use a multi-variant Precision Boost 2 algorithm that allows much more efficient use of processor resources under changing workload conditions.

    The presented screen clearly demonstrates the differences in the operation of acceleration technologies in processors of both generations. As you can see, as the number of threads involved increases, the actual clock speed of the Pinnacle Ridge is smoothly adjusted in 25 MHz steps. Of course, this applies not only to the top model Ryzen 7 2700X, but also to the rest of the chips of the new family.

    Another option for 12nm processors is support for the XFR 2 mechanism. The technology gives an additional boost if, according to internal telemetry, the processor can still accelerate without consequences. The first version of XFR, used for Summit Ridge, worked with one core, the second can be extended to all computers. Therefore, for Ryzen 2nd generation, it makes sense to use the most efficient cooling systems, this will allow you to get a performance boost.

    Power Consumption, Operating Temperatures

    Looking at the power consumption when tested with Ashes of the Singularity, we can see that the 2700X only increased overall system consumption by 4% compared to the 2600X, it also only used 2% more than the 8700K. Now the Core i7-8720X looks good, using 15% more power than the 2700X, but remember it was 14% faster so performance per watt is actually pretty much the same in that title.

    Overclocking only increased power consumption for 2nd gen Ryzen processors by a small margin, like 6% for the 2700X. The 8700K increased system hardware consumption by 18%, making it less efficient after overclocking. The

    The 2700X and 2600X again used the same amount of power, this time when tested with Far Cry 5. They were basically on par with the 8700K but drew less power than the Skylake-X parts. So in this title, the second generation Ryzen processors were much more efficient than the 7820X and 7800X.

    Overclocking hasn’t had a huge impact on power consumption for 2nd generation Ryzen processors, although it has seen Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake processors consume more power.

    For our workload, the Blender 2600X used about the same power as the 8700K, while the 2700X was on par with the 7800X. The overheated second-generation Ryzen processors drew 20% more power, which is much better than the nearly 60% increase when overclocking the 8700K.

    The 2700X is 9% faster than the 1800X and has reduced encoding time by 4%. Interestingly, however, the 2600X used 10% more power than the 1600, but was able to reduce encoding time by 16%. In terms of performance per watt, second generation Ryzen processors were comparable to the Skylake-X 7820X and 7800X in that title.

    Ryzen 7 2xxx processor lineup

    At launch, the new processor lineup includes two 8-core models — Ryzen 7 2700 and Ryzen 7 2700X . The younger one has a frequency formula of 3.2 / 4.1 GHz, while the current flagship is additionally accelerated — 3.7 / 4.3 GHz. Recall that in the Summit Ridge series, the top chip was the Ryzen 7 1800X. There is no formal successor among Pinnacle Ridge yet, but judging by the frequency configurations, AMD decided to limit itself to two 8-core chips in order to simplify the choice for potential owners.

    Due to the massively increased operating frequencies, the Ryzen 7 2700X’s TDP has been increased to 105W. Obviously, the extra megahertz didn’t come easy, even with the 12nm process. An important difference between the new flagship and its predecessor was the obligatory complete set of retail chips with a standard cooling system. If the Summit Ridge with the “X” index in the model name was often shipped without a cooler, then the Ryzen 7 2700X comes with a new AMD Wraith Prisme air cooler with additional spectacular RGB lighting. This option is definitely better than no cooler, however, with this cooler, it will not be possible to fully reveal the potential of a top-end processor. We will return to this issue later.

    The Ryzen 7 2700X is priced at $329. But, despite the fact that Pinnacle Ridge chips have been on sale for two months, the retail price of this model is still above $375.

    Ryzen 7 2700 is another 8-core processor in the Pinnacle Ridge line, which differs from the older model in lower operating frequencies — 3. 2 / 4.1 GHz. Obviously, the supply voltage level is lower here, because the CPU fits within the 65 W TDP. The Ryzen 7 2700 also comes with a simpler cooling system — Wraith Spair (LED) with red backlight. Of course, the chip has an unlocked multiplier, which allows you to independently adjust the processor frequency with a resolution of 25 MHz, but for overclocking, you will probably need to replace the stock cooler with a more efficient model.

    Ryzen 7 2700 MSRP is $299. At the same time, this model in Ukrainian retail can already be bought even cheaper.

    Like its predecessors, the Pinnacle Ridge processors received low-melting indium solder under the cover. Thus, the manufacturer saved the owners from headaches due to the efficiency of heat removal directly from the processor chip. Practical tests confirm that it makes no sense for Ryzen to remove the heat spreader cover and replace the internal thermal interface. He’s already great here. That’s why Pinnacle Ridge also has a simple dependence: a more efficient cooler means better cooling.

    Along with the Pinnacle Ridge processors, the developer also introduced an updated top-end AMD X470 chipset. However, 12nm chips will work without problems with AMD 3xx motherboards, but only after a firmware update.

    Reply to Intel Optane

    We mentioned earlier that the new Ryzen processors won’t require any motherboard upgrade. However, the replacement may make some sense due to the new X470 chipset, which provides lower power consumption, for example. But much more interesting, in our opinion, is a function called StoreMI. If your system has both an SSD drive and a classic hard drive, you can combine the two devices into one logical drive. In this case, the SSD will be used as a kind of cache, to which the system will automatically transfer frequently used data. This way you can, for example, speed up your games a bit or launch Photoshop faster.

    Wraith Prism Cooler

    As we noted, the Ryzen 7 2700X comes with the new Wraith Prism cooler with additional RGB lighting.

    In general, it can be called new only with some stretch. Rather, it is a slightly modified version of the Wraith MAX cooler.

    The basis of the radiator block is a stacked cassette of aluminum plates, penetrated by four 6 mm heat pipes. The design of Wraith Prism assumes direct contact of the tubes with the processor.

    Heat sink sole is not perfect, only rough sanding is done here. However, possible voids should be filled with thermal paste. Initially, a thermal interface has already been applied in the contact area.

    The radiator block is blown by a 92 mm axial fan with translucent blades. The rotation speed is adjustable from 800–3000/3800 rpm, depending on the mode used.

    One of the highlights of the Wraith Prism is spectacular RGB lighting. Separate LEDs are installed in the stator part of the fan. Additionally, two translucent strips in the cooler’s protective cover are illuminated. A separate illumination is also provided for the AMD logo.

    On one of the side faces of the cooler there is an L-H toggle switch that allows you to select the fan speed, as well as a couple of additional connectors, initially covered with rubber plugs. Using one of the connectors, the fan can be connected to the motherboard connector for an external LED strip (if there is one, of course). After that, the cooler illumination can be synchronized with the general illumination of the platform. The second connector can be used to connect the Wraith Prism to the internal USB 2.0 header on the PCB. In this case, the cooler lighting can be controlled individually. Both cables are included in the kit.

    A special utility is available to set the illumination. The AMD Wraith Prism cooler was developed jointly with Cooler Master, so the proximity of the logos of both companies in this application is not surprising. Curiously, during the first run, the utility offered to update the cooler controller firmware. Several modes are available for use, with the impeller, concentric stripes and logo controlled independently. The largest number of modes are available for circles. If necessary, they can beat the message in Morse code format.

    Wraith Prism isn’t ideal for the Ryzen 7 2700X. When all computing units are loaded, the CPU clock frequency is kept at 3825–3900 MHz. At the same time, with a more efficient cooler, the Ryzen 7 2700X automatically accelerates to 3950-4000 MHz under the same conditions.

    Overclocking

    The transition to a more advanced manufacturing process of crystals often promises an improvement in the frequency potential of processors. For Pinnacle Ridge, this is also true, but the increase was not very large. At the extremes, the 12nm silicon wafers provided an additional 100-200MHz to what could be squeezed out of the Summit Ridge. For 8-core Ryzen 7 models, this is about 4100-4200 MHz.

    Our Ryzen 7 2700X instance allowed us to increase the clock speed to 4125 MHz during the load on all computing cores. To get stable operation of the CPU in this mode, it was necessary to increase the supply voltage to 1. 425 V. Considering that in the normal mode this chip independently increases the frequency to 3975–4000 MHz, then such an additional increase is hardly noticeable. Recall that when loaded on a smaller number of blocks, the processor automatically accelerates to 4300+ MHz, and therefore, in tasks with weak parallelism, the Ryzen 7 2700X in normal mode will be even more productive than the option with a fixed 4100-4200 MHz on all cores. When developing the top model, the manufacturer used almost the entire potential of the processor, so attempts to further speed up this model do not make much practical sense. Here everything is already dispersed to us.

    Otherwise, the prospects for overclocking the Ryzen 7 2700 are presented. In normal mode, with a load on all blocks, this processor with good cooling accelerates to 3300-3350 MHz. In express mode, we managed to bring this value to 4075 MHz by increasing the supply voltage to 1.4 V. The total frequency increase was + 21.6%, and therefore we can certainly expect a good increase in performance in multi-threaded tasks. In general, there is nothing outstanding here, but the potential of Pinnacle Ridge is still somewhat higher than that of its predecessors. For example, our Ryzen 7 1700X only clocked up to 3900 MHz.

    Summarizing, we can say that overclocking of the top Pinnacle Ridge model is possible, but it will no longer be possible to give a noticeable acceleration — the Ryzen 7 2700X operates almost at the frequency limit in air-cooled conditions. Overclocking the Ryzen 7 2700 is more justified, although for good results you will have to increase the supply voltage and take care of heat dissipation.

    Benchmarks

    21.0178

    Cinebench R23 Single Core 1092
    Cinebench R23 Multi Core 10545
    Cinebench R20 Single Core 411
    Cinebench R20 Multi Core 3951
    Cinebench R15 Single Core 177
    Cinebench R15 Multi Core 1817
    Geekbench 5 Single Core 1062
    Geekbench 5 Multi Core 7100
    Blender 2. 81 bmw27
    Geekbench 3 Single Core 4850
    Geekbench 3 Multi Core 26040
    Passmark 17612
    Cinebench R10 Single Core 5256
    3DMark06 CPU 10643
    TrueCrypt AES 10.6
    x264 encoding pass 20178

    227
    WinRAR 4.0 4779
    Cinebench R11.5 Multi Core 18.7
    Cinebench R11.5 Single Core 1.95
    Cinebench R10 Multi Core 34763

    Memory and cache latency

    Before starting practical measurements of processor performance in applications, we were interested in evaluating the improvements promised by the manufacturer in working with RAM and CPU cache. To do this, we used the corresponding test step from the AIDA64 package. Note that all platforms were equipped with a dual-channel G.Skill SniperX 2x8GB DDR4-3400 (F4-3400C16D-16GSXW) memory kit with standard timings of 16-16-16-36 .

    First, let’s compare the performance of Ryzen 7 2700 and Ryzen 7 1700X as the closest participants in terms of operating frequency. As you can see, the throughput has not actually changed, but the memory latency has improved by 7% — from 70.7 to 66.1 ns. The delays of the L2 and L3 buffers have also improved. Moreover, caches of the second and third levels have accelerated even more than stated. In such «subtle matters», we still won’t rely entirely on the results of one diagnostic utility, but we can note that the latency of RAM and cache memory in chips with the Zen + architecture is indeed slightly improved. Well, let’s see how this will affect practical results in the future.

    If we compare the figures with those for Intel processors, then AMD chips still cannot get a similar latency when working with RAM. The Core i7-8700K has 27% lower RAM latencies than the Ryzen 7 2700X. However, it is worth recognizing that AMD has made significant progress here. After the announcement of the first Ryzen, the delays were at the level of 85-90 ns, but AGESA optimizations and support for faster modules managed to improve the situation. As you can see, Zen+ has also contributed. 9GHz. This level is available to most instances of this model.

    To compare the capabilities of the Ryzen 7 2700X with those of the Summit Ridge chips, we also used the Ryzen 7 1700X (3.4/3.8 GHz) in the test. Although this is not the flagship of the previous generation processor line, in terms of frequency formula it is slightly inferior to the Ryzen 7 1800X (3.6 / 4.0 GHz), but otherwise it is no different from the top. Additional interest is given by the nominal heritage of both models.

    Ryzen 7 2700 results will also be very helpful. Still, this is the most affordable 8-core model of the still small Pinnacle Ridge family. Here the difference from the most pumped flagship will be indicative. In addition, we added the results of the overclocked chip to 4075 MHz to assess whether the lower model can come close to the results of the Ryzen 7 2700X.

    Traditionally, we start practical tests of new processors with a simple and visual Cinebench R15, which allows us to estimate the balance of forces in the first approximation. It is not surprising that the forced Ryzen 7 2700 takes the first place in multi-threaded mode. In such conditions, the increased operating frequency of all computers gives an advantage, allowing the chip to bypass even the new flagship in the normal mode. In a bundle Ryzen 7 2700 vs. The Ryzen 7 1700X has a slight advantage over the previous generation model, which is easily explained by the 100-200 MHz higher operating frequency when all computers are loaded. The Core i7-8700K processor managed to achieve similar indicators here only after overclocking to 4.9GHz. In normal mode, the 6-core Intel is almost 10% behind the younger Pinnacle Ridge.

    In the single-threaded Cinebench R15 test, the situation is reversed. Core i7-8700K is beyond competition. Even without additional overclocking, the top Coffee Lake is 15% ahead of the Ryzen 7 2700X here. The latter was not saved even with frequency pumping up to 4300+ MHz. In single-threaded tasks, Intel processors still have an advantage, and with the release of Pinnacle Ridge, the situation has not changed in any way.

    Note that the Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms the overclocked Ryzen 7 2700. This is exactly the situation we mentioned. With a light load, the top-end chip receives additional acceleration of individual cores, so frequency equalization, even when it comes to overclocking, will not always benefit this model. Again, the advantage of the Ryzen 7 2700 over the Ryzen 7 1700X is logical. The increased frequency decides, but here it is higher for the updated model.

    The situation with archivers is curious. It would seem that the same task, but the results are so different. In WinRAR 3.60, the unconditional victory of the Intel processor. In the case of AMD chips, one gets the impression of force majeure resistance. The results of all chips in the family are very close, even despite the noticeably different clock speeds of the participants.

    But 7-Zip uses all the computing resources to the fullest. The first place belongs to the overclocked Ryzen 7 2700, the Ryzen 7 2700X is slightly behind it in normal mode. Only additional overclocking helped the Core i7-8700K chip to rise from the last position in the test. Let’s pay attention to the fact that the test of the new version of 7-Zip (18.05) has noticeably increased the speed of decompression, so the results obtained cannot be compared with those for the archiver of previous revisions.

    We have picked up several utilities at once that evaluate rendering speed. On the one hand, this is not the most typical task for most users of home systems, on the other hand, you often think about processor performance just when performing resource-intensive tasks that take a lot of time. And here, visual art applications with good multi-threaded optimization are indicative indicators. In such conditions, even the first generation Ryzen processors felt very confident, and with the release of updated chips, AMD’s position has only improved. In stock modes, the Core i7-8700K was consistently inferior to the Ryzen 7 2700X. Moreover, in some cases the difference was minimal, in others it reached 20%.

    Additional overclocking to 4.9 GHz helped the older 6-core Intel improve its position and even outperform its counterpart in Fryrender. Note the very close positions of Ryzen 7 2700 and Ryzen 7 1700X at all stages.

    The Core i7-8700K’s high frequency capability also served it well during video transcoding in HandBrake. Equal to those of the Ryzen 7 2700X, Intel’s processor takes the lead after an additional frequency spurt. When rendering video in 4K using Adobe Premier Pro CC, we see a similar picture, except that the minima and maxima are less pronounced.

    PerformanceTest 9 and GeekBench 4.2.3 synthetic apps register similar scores for Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-8700K. Under conditions of heterogeneous loads, the former is helped by a larger number of cores / threads, while the latter is saved by more efficient computers. The Intel chip again helps out with a high frequency potential, allowing it to take the first position in both test disciplines after overclocking.

    At the end of the computational steps, we present the results of the processor test from 3DMark Time Spy. All 8-core Ryzen numbers are very optimistic. The Core i7-8700K barely outperformed the Ryzen 7 2700/1700X, while overclocking only brought it closer to the stock Ryzen 7 2700X. Well, Pinnacle Ridge’s performance here is excellent, but it’s the perfect picture of the game world in which the processor is loaded at 100%. Reality can sometimes be completely different.

    Photo: chip.de, manufacturing companies

    Gaming performance

    To evaluate the performance of processors in real games, we equipped the test system with a very fast graphics card — ASUS ROG POSEIDON GTX1080TI P11G GAMING. The graphics adapter can fully open up when using a liquid cooling system, but in air it is one of the fastest versions of the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with very good factory overclocking (1594/11010 MHz).

    Even when it comes to games, in the processor test, first of all, we want to evaluate the computing capabilities of the CPU directly, so we used graphics modes with a resolution of 1920×1080 and medium graphics quality settings. Thus, we reduced the load on the GPU, allowing the processors to show their abilities.

    The first results in Tom Clancy’s The Division are generally very good for AMD chips. However, in this case, even with medium quality settings, there is a big emphasis on the graphic component, so the actual spread of indicators for all systems is not very large.

    The latest installments in the Far Cry series are not well multi-threaded. According to CPU load monitoring, Far Cry Primal relies on only 2-3 threads at best, so additional processing cores are simply not used here. In such situations, the Core i7-8700K will have an advantage, which can actually be seen in the diagrams.

    In the new Far Cry 5, despite the mention of AMD Ryzen and Radeon in the opening credits, the situation is not much different from what we saw in Primal. Here, we can only note the noticeable advantage of the Ryzen 7 2700X over the overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 in terms of the minimum number of frames. This once again confirms the weak multithreading and the importance of the performance of a single computer.

    We also saw similar results in the resource-intensive Deus Ex:Mankind Divided, the still current The Witcher: Wild Hunt, and the age-old Dirt Rally. In all cases, the platform with the Core i7-8700K showed a noticeable advantage. When overclocking the processor, we got a noticeable increase in performance, which removes the question of possible restrictions on the part of the video card in the modes used.

    Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands evens things out a bit. The Core i7-8700K has a 7% advantage over the Ryzen 7 2700X, although again we see a slight dependence on processor frequencies in this game. At least when it comes to top chips from both manufacturers. By the way, the CPU load indicators in the built-in benchmark are far from the actual values, they are significantly underestimated. Instead of displaying 20-25%, according to the system monitor and data from MSI Afterburner, the Ryzen 7 2700X chip was loaded at 40-60% here. That is, it cannot be said that the game is not processor-dependent.

    We diluted the classic games with the specific strategy Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, which has a built-in benchmark and is often used to assess the capabilities of new pieces of iron. The integrated processor test favors the Core i7-8700K. Even though this game has previously been used as one of the benchmarks for good multi-threaded optimization, with 16 threads it is difficult to characterize it as such. Ryzen 7 2700X sees CPU usage at 80-90%, which is very good, but still not perfect.

    In the Total War: WARHAMMER II battle scene test, the Intel chip is the winner. The advantage over the Ryzen 7 2700X is relatively small (~7.5%), but it is there, and the additional overclocking of the Core i7-8700K increases the gap to 21%.

    Something similar can be seen in Rise of the Tomb Raider. Overclocking to 4.9 GHz gives a boost to the 6-core Intel processor. At the same time, we see that the Ryzen 7 2700 fixedly increased to 4075 MHz does not give it any advantage over the Ryzen 7 2700X running in stock mode. Additional overclocking of the top model Pinnacle Ridge will not bring noticeable results in games. Growth is more likely to be expected in multi-threaded applications, and even then, if your instance runs stably at 4200+ MHz.

    If you overclock the younger model — Ryzen 7 2700, then you can count on an increase in the number of frames / s in games (5-15%). Whether it is worth fighting for them is up to you. Here it is also important to clarify that in our case the system was equipped with a top-end video card, and for games the Full HD mode was used with medium graphics quality settings. With an increase in resolution and image quality, the impact of additional CPU frequency on the final result will decrease.

    Assassin’s Creed: Origins was not original in terms of resource preferences. It is also a very CPU-intensive game with good multi-threaded optimization. However, besides the number of cores/threads, there are many other factors that affect the final result. As a result, we have an 11% advantage of the Core i7-8700K over the Ryzen 7 2700X. Overclocking the Intel chip adds only 4% to the average number of frames / s, which is not much at all for +600 MHz.

    A similar pattern can be seen in Final Fantasy XV. Unless the gap between the platform with the Intel chip is even smaller here, and additional overclocking practically does not bring any results.

    Replacing the graphics engine in WoT did not radically improve the situation with multi-threaded optimization in this game. 1-2 threads are still actively used here, so it is not surprising that the Core i7-8700K has a serious advantage over AMD chips. The announced cooperation with Intel in the development of the Core engine probably primarily concerned the possibility of a tolerable game on the manufacturer’s integrated graphics and hardly implied any additional optimizations for the architecture of Intel chips. Of course, if that does not count the rejection of multi-threaded processing.

    Analyzing the data obtained, we can say that the top-end Core i7-8700K chip in games has a strong advantage over the Ryzen 7 2700X. More often we are talking about 5-15%, but in projects with weak multi-threaded optimization, the gap can be up to 20-30%. By overclocking the Core i7-8700K, you can count on an additional performance boost, especially when it comes to games at medium settings.

    Ryzen 7 2700X does not require additional overclocking, in games it will not bring any dividends, except that it will increase the overall power consumption of the system. The processor, when loaded on 1-2 cores, automatically accelerates up to 4300+ MHz, and when using the maximum number of computers, the operating frequency does not drop below 3900 MHz. But the Ryzen 7 2700 can be boosted, getting an increase in the number of frames / s.

    Application performance: Excel, Handbrake, Blender, Adobe Premiere

    For those of you who love Excel, you’ll be happy to know that the new Ryzen processors will let you process data faster and faster without disrupting your work. The 2700X took just 2.2 seconds to complete the workload while the 2600X took 2.7 seconds.

    As expected, SMT is still significantly more effective for decompression work as opposed to compression. This means that the 2700X was 12% faster than the 7820X when extracting files, it was 17% slower when archiving. It’s a similar story when comparing the 2600X and 7800X.

    Overclocked the 2600X is slightly faster, but again the gain is hardly worth the effort. The 2700X is more impressive as it enjoyed a 7% performance increase, even though it was only 5% faster than the overclocked 1800X. The

    2700X is slightly slower than the Core i7-8700K in our HandBrake test and quite slower than the 7820X. Meanwhile, the 2600X matched the 8600K and beat the 8400, putting it in Coffee Lake Core i5 territory.

    When overclocked, the 2700X still beats the 8700K by a reasonable margin, although it was able to beat the 8600K. We then see that overclocking the 2600X was enough to see it just outperform the 7700K at 5GHz, so that’s a pretty impressive result.

    The Corona render time for the 2700X was only a few seconds longer than the Core i7-7820X, which is a solid result for AMD. The 2600X managed to overcome the 7800X, making for an even better result. The 1800X already had 8700K bits in this test, so the 2700X really just made sure of that.

    After overclocking, the 8700K can match the overclocked 1800X, and this is placed as on par with the stock 2700X. However, overclocking the 2700X reduced render times by 10%, all the way down to 108 seconds, although the 2600X was only able to improve its time by 2% when overclocked.

    Switched to the Blender rendering test and here the 2700X was only 5% faster than the 1800X and the 2600X outperformed the 1600 by 15%. This made the second generation Ryzen parts slightly slower than Skylake-X chips with the same core count.

    Overclocking, we again saw only slightly more performance from second-gen Ryzen processors. Render times for the 2700X have been reduced by 7% and 5% for the 2600X.

    V-Ray Benchmark is another free offline application to help you test how fast your hardware is fast and we are of course focused on CPU results. Here we can see that the 2700X basically matched the 7820X while the 2600X was on par with the 7800X, which made the Ryzen 2nd gen series quite competitive with the Skylake-X.

    Overclocking the 8700K to 5.2GHz cannot cover the overclocked 2700X, and in fact it can only handle the stock 2700X. Meanwhile, the 2600X was only slightly faster with upclocking. I really want to overclock the 7820X and 7800X and review these tests again.

    Finishing up our application testing, we have Premiere Pro CC, and we’ll look at encoding performance first. Here the 2700X is able to cut the export time of the 1800X by 4%, which means it’s still at 9% slower than 7820X. The 2600X does better against the 7800X but is still slightly slower.

    We’ve figured it out, we’re seeing good gains from 2nd gen Ryzen parts, but again I’ll have to revise these tests once I’ve had time to overclock the Skylake-X processors.

    Where Ryzen has struggled in the past is lightly loaded workloads. Video encoding generally makes good use of all cores, but most editing tasks do not use all available CPU resources. The higher clock speeds of the second generation Ryzen processors really help, and here the 2700X managed to cut workload times by 7% from the 1800X. As you can see, the 2700X and 2600X delivered pretty much the same result.

    Overclocking still shows a decent performance boost, but again the 2700X and 2600X give similar results. You can’t help but notice how much faster the 8700K is for these kinds of workloads. For example, compared to the 2700X, the 8700K reduced the competition time by 19%. Even at 5GHz you can still expect it to be 15% faster.

    Full HD «at maximum speed»

    If you have a top-end video card, focusing on system performance in games with average graphics quality is correct from the point of view of processor testing methods. However, the results obtained under such conditions are rather of academic interest. It is obvious that the owner of a bunch of powerful video cards and processors will certainly use the maximum graphics quality settings. For this reason, we decided to satisfy our curiosity and compare the number of frames / c in the same games, but using presets with the maximum picture quality. The most curious was the balance of power between the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 2700X.

    According to the results of measurements, the Core i7-8700K processor still looks somewhat preferable. In some games, the gap remained quite significant (~20%), but in most projects, the performance difference was reduced to 5-10%. If you turn off the frame / s counter, then in practice it is difficult to feel the difference between both platforms. With the increase in resolution to 1440p, the indicators will converge even more, and the 4K mode will simply equalize all test participants.

    Power Consumption

    Considering the increased TDP for the Ryzen 7 2700X to 105W, we were of course interested in the energy efficiency of the new Pinnacle Ridge chips.

    We measured the power consumption of the systems during the resource-intensive task of video encoding in the HandBrake app. As you can see, despite the use of a 12-nanometer process technology, an increase in operating frequencies also increases the power consumption of processors. The Ryzen 7 2700X drew about 25W more than the Ryzen 7 1700X with a claimed 95W TDP. Additional overclocking also increases performance, so when planning independent experiments with frequencies, you need to think about efficient heat dissipation.

    Let’s pay attention to the fact that with the often equal performance indicators of Ryzen 7 1700X and Ryzen 7 2700, the latter is more economical even at high loads. Still, the new process technology brings certain advantages to Pinnacle Ridge. Although, if you need to further increase the operating frequencies, simultaneously increasing the supply voltage, then we are no longer talking about some special energy efficiency.

    Temperatures

    For some reason, the maximum temperature for this processor is set by AMD at 85 degrees Celsius, which is lower than other processors. The neighboring 2600X has 95 degrees. We tested the 2700X on a boxed RGB cooler, and when loaded under LinX 0.8.0 it showed 79 degrees at a relatively low temperature in the room. A boxed cooler is obviously enough, but we would recommend buying something more serious. Nevertheless, the 2700X is a top-end processor with a large number of cores and, as a result, noticeable heat dissipation.

    Results

    Pinnacle Ridge family processors have become a natural continuation of generally successful AMD chips with Zen architecture. The new models have added in performance and have a listed price on par with that of their predecessors. The transition to a new process technology allowed the manufacturer to increase the base clock frequencies by 200-300 MHz, pulling up the performance indicators of Pinnacle Ridge. Perhaps, even before the official launch of the new chips, we expected that the 12-nanometer process technology would significantly improve the frequency potential of Ryzen (4.5+ GHz), but the real increase here turned out to be more modest.

    The Ryzen 7 2700X, the new flagship of AMD’s desktop processor lineup, uses almost the entire resource of an 8-core silicon wafer. For the top model, the manufacturer has set high frequency values ​​with an aggressive acceleration algorithm. It is interesting for those who want to get the most productive AMD chip without experimenting with overclocking on their own. The Ryzen 7 2700 is cheaper and is inferior to the older model only in the frequency formula and the bundled cooler. The unlocked multiplier allows you to adjust the values ​​if you wish, but in this case you cannot do with the base cooler.

    In general, the launch of Ryzen 2nd generation was without revolution. An additional 5–10% of productivity improves positions, but does not fundamentally affect the balance of power between two irreconcilable rivals in the market. AMD’s 8-core processors perform well under multi-threaded workloads, while Intel’s Coffee Lake chips still have some edge in games and offer more frequency potential. The processors of both manufacturers have their strengths and weaknesses, allowing you to choose the best option for your tasks. We hope that Pinnacle Ridge will allow AMD to prepare well for the release of future 7nm chips with Zen 2 architecture, and from Intel, in turn, we expect 8-core processors within LGA1151 and ideally with solder under the cover.

    Operating Temperatures

    The Ryzen 5 2600X ran very reasonable temperatures out of the box using the provided Wraith Spire cooler. While gaming, you can expect temperatures to fluctuate between 50 and 60 degrees if you have a well-ventilated case. It’s worth noting that the fan was quiet during these tests, and overclocking had little to no effect on gaming temperatures. However, we saw a significant increase in Blender’s heavy workload, and after an hour, the CPU peaked at 90 degrees.

    The 2700X gets a fancy new Wraith Prism cooler, and while more substantial than the Spire, the temperatures are higher when paired with an octa-core processor. The strapping on the Corsair h250i Pro solved this problem and lowered Blender’s boot rate to 81 degrees, which is reasonable. Game temperatures have now dropped below 60 degrees. So overlockers will want to upgrade the cooler, and I’ll explore more economical options in a future article.

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700 — Best Power Efficiency

    Rating & Review


    The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 retails for $299.


    • Solid performance boost
    • Excellent energy efficiency
    • Excellent multithreading performance
    • Unlocked multiplier
    • Supports existing boards on AM4
    • Cooler included
    • IHS soldering

    • Gaming performance below Ryzen 5 2600X
    • Weaker than Intel chips in single-threaded tests
    • Limited overclocking potential
    • While memory problems remain
    • No integrated graphics

    8. 8


    AMD Ryzen 7 2700 turned out to be more affordable and less glamorous than its flagship brother 2700X. But something tells consumers may still be mesmerized by its psychologically pleasing sub-$300 price plus the fact that none of its on-die components are cut and it still has an unlocked multiplier, allowing the overclocker to return the performance level of 2700X. A million questions about $30 — is the savings worth it?

    With a focus on performance, unfortunately we tend to report «not worth it». The Ryzen 7 2700 runs at a clock speed significantly lower than the 2700X, 3.20 GHz vs 3.70 GHz, but the boost clocks are narrower, 4.10 GHz vs 4.30 GHz. XFR 2.0 technology gives the 2700X an extra 200MHz beyond boost, while the 2700 gets only a minor 50MHz boost. Unlike Intel’s Core i5-8600K and i5-8600, which have nearly identical performance out of the box, the imbalance in clock speeds, combined with AMD’s boost algorithm, results in a noticeable gap between the 2700X and 2700.

    The Ryzen 7 2700 is almost 11% slower than the 2700X in CPU benchmarks, which reflects poorly in terms of price/performance considering the 2700 is only 9% cheaper. When it comes to gaming, the gap is small, about 2-3 points, but the 2700 is beaten head on by the 2600X, which is $70 cheaper. The 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 2600X benefits from higher clock speeds for better gaming performance and generally better performance for non-parallelized tasks. But thanks to having two extra cores and four threads, the Ryzen 7 2700 manages to outperform the 2600X in multi-threaded performance despite lower clock speeds.

    And yet, the Ryzen 7 2700 managed to surprise at least something — energy efficiency. Its multi-threaded power consumption is 50W below the 2700X (141W vs. 199W), while not losing much performance. The main reason is that the 2700X accelerates very high, into an area where the processor is faster but not as efficient. The Ryzen 7 2700, on the other hand, runs at lower frequencies and lower voltage in this scenario, resulting in better efficiency. The new power efficiency benchmarks, which don’t just measure power but also take into account how quickly tasks complete due to higher performance, show this product’s amazing score, making the Ryzen 7 2700 the most power efficient processor we’ve ever tested.

    Overclocking the Ryzen 7 2700 is easy with unlocked multiplier; however, pushing the chip beyond 4.00 GHz proved to be an extremely difficult process. We fixed 4.00 GHz for the 2700 in all CPU benchmarks and set the 2700X as our benchmark. Back in our second review of the Ryzen 7 2700X, we found that it barely benefits from manual overclocking due to AMD’s excellent boost implementation. The Ryzen 7 2700 comes with a much more conservative overclocking system, and this is where manual overclocking starts to make sense, even if the overclocking potential itself isn’t all that great. In our case though (4.0 GHz manual OC vs 4.1 GHz max boost), it must be said that single-threaded workloads lose quite a bit of performance. However, multi-threaded downloads and games show significant gains.

    Across the competitive landscape, the Ryzen 7 2700 is priced on par with the non-K i7-8700. We didn’t get a chance to test this chip, but it’s expected to be within striking distance of the i7-8700K as its max turbo frequency is only marginally lower (3.60GHz vs. 3.70GHz). Of course, the user loses the unlocked multiplier, but in the end he gets almost the same fast processor (according to most reviews) with much better performance in games and less in parallel loads.

    Based on all of the above, there is no reason to recommend the Ryzen 7 2700 over the 2700X other than energy efficiency, and it’s also not worth picking for the $30 difference. The 2700X is faster, has a much better cooler, and is a better product overall. If gaming is a priority, then 8th generation Intel Core processors are still the best choice in this case, and the i7-8700 looks like the best choice in this price segment. Even the Ryzen 5 2600X (-70$) offers better end product value.