Ryzen 2700 power consumption: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 SoC — Benchmarks and Specs

AMD

There is one other possibility, of course, which is that for the overclocking enthusiasts out there that will be hoping to reach similar speeds to the Ryzen 7 2700X. This is a possibility although seeing as my Ryzen 7 2700X sample couldn’t match its own stock-speed boost frequencies when overclocking it, that’s looking unlikely. It’s an interesting proposition, then, but lets take a look at the performance numbers, especially against Intel’s Core i7-8700K, which is the Ryzen 7 2700’s key competitor in terms of price.

Intel System:

Asus ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming

AMD System

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

Common hardware

Corsair 16GB 3000MHz Vengeance memory

Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! Edition

Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD

Corsair 860i PSU

Cooler Master MasterLiquid ML120L RGB

Overclocking frequencies:

Core i5-8600K — 5GHz, Core i7-8700K — 5GHz,

All AMD CPUs used a vcore of 1.425V; Ryzen 7 2700 — 4.1GHz, Ryzen 5 2600X — 4.2GHz, Ryzen 7 2700X — 4.25GHz, ryzen 7 2700Ryzen 7 1800X — 4.05GHz, Ryzen 5 1600X — 3.95GHz, Ryzen 5 1600 — 3.9GHz Ryzen 7 1700 — 4.05GHz, Ryzen 5 2600 — 4.15GHz

Gaming

First up is Ashes of the Singularity and that low base frequency did hurt the Ryzen 7 2700, being a few fps short of the Core i5-8600K and a long way south of the Core i7-8700K. That’s to be expected, but the overclock of 4.1GHz saw it match the Ryzen 7 2700X with the minimum frame rate rising from 35fps to 41fps and using faster memory than the 3,000MHz kit I used would likely see it perform similarly to the 46fps the Core i7-8700K managed.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation performance

Antony Leather

Final Fantasy XVsaw very little difference between the CPUs I tested — at these settings and with a high-end graphics card, the latter is the limiting factor — not the CPU and that’s the same for Fallout 4 and World of Tanks, where these relatively powerful CPUs of six cores and up were evenly matched.

Final Fantasy XV performance

Antony Leather

Deus Ex performance

Antony Leather

Deus Ex is certainly one title that benefits from fast CPUs and while Intel still holds a lead here, using 3,400MHz memory saw the Ryzen 7 2700X come within a few fps of the Core i7-8700K. using slower 3,000MHz RAM, though, saw the Ryzen 7 2700 set a minimum frame rate of 61fps — 14fps south of what the Core i5-8600K managed. Once overclocked, though, that minimum rose to 68fps, matching the Ryzen 7 2700X in the joint-fastest result. It’s fairly clear that when the Ryzen 7 2700 is overclocked, there’s very little between it and the Ryzen 7 2700X in games, even where CPU choice makes a difference, but the X-edition CPU is much quicker if they’re both at stock speed.

Fallout 4 performance

Antony Leather

World of Tanks performance

Antony Leather

Unigine Superposition performance

Antony Leather

VR Mark performance

Antony Leather

Content creation

If you’re looking for a CPU that will churn though video editing and rendering, then the Ryzen 7 2700 is a fanatstic choice for money compared to the Core i7-8700K, which it beat convincingly in Cinebench’s multi-core test as well as the PC MArk 10 photo editing test. It was also a little quicker in the HandBrake video encoding test so it’s little suprising Intel is looking to strengthen its position here with an 8-core mainstream CPU as even AMD’s slowest 8-core CPU, which is cheaper than the Core i7-8700K, outperforms it convincingly in moth content creation tests, especially multi-threaded ones.

Cinebench multi-core performance

Antony Leather

Cinebench single core performance

Antony Leather

PC Mark 10 photo editing performance

Antony Leather

HandBrake performance

Antony Leather

The choice between the Ryzen 7 2700 and Ryzen 7 2700X is less clear, though. The latter was significantly quicker in every test here at stock speed and when overclocked thanks to a higher overclocked frequency I managed. As a result, whether you’ll be overclocking or not, the Ryzen 7 2700X is a more attractive proposition given it costs just $40 more.

Power consumption

By far the strongest case for the Ryzen 7 2700 is its peak power consumption. At just 126W under load, this was nearly 100W less than the Ryzen 7 2700X as a whole by the system and nearly 50W less than the Core i7-8700K. Clearly AMD has a big advantage there in terms of efficiency if you’ll be focussing on content creation as the Ryzen 7 2700 is much faster than the Intel CPU too.

Power consumption — stock speed

Antony Leather

Power consumption — overclocked

Antony Leather

With a higher overclock it wasn’t surprising to see the Ryzen 7 2700X top the charts, while the Ryzen 7 2700 drew around 40W less and this was still lower than the Core i7-8700K, which despite an overclock to 5GHz, could only just about beat the Ryzen 7 2700 at stock speed, but fell short when the latter was overclocked.

Conclusion —  Ryzen 7 2700 vs Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-8700K

While I’ve included a whole bunch of CPUs in the graphs, this is very much a three-horse race given the three above CPUs all retail close to $300. Compared to the Core i7-8700K, the Ryzen 7 2700 is a better choice for content creation regardless of whether you’ll be overclocking or not — it’s faster in every test thanks to the fact it has two more cores and four more threads despite the fact it has much lower frequencies. In games, the Intel CPU is the better option — certainly at stock speed, but once overclocked and with fast memory, the gap here is not worth worrying about in all but a select few titles. Even there, the differences are just a couple of frames per second, which is what you’d expect given the Intel CPU costs $40 more.

AMDs 2nd Gen Ryzen

Antony Leather

The question over whether to opt for the Ryzen 7 2700 vs Ryzen 7 2700X depends on your circumstances. At stock speed, the Ryzen 7 2700 is signficantly slower to the point that the Ryzen 7 2700X is absolutely worth the extra $40, and that’s in content creation as well as gaming. As my own samples saw the Ryzen 7 2700X also reach a higher overclock, I’m also inclined to say that, based on my own findings, the X-edition CPU is also worth the extra cash if you’ll be overclocking, but only in certain situations. The extra overclocking headroom didn’t amount to much in games, for example, but made much more of a difference in content creation. The fact of the matter is, though, that for that paltry $40 extra, you’re getting a CPU that performs the same or better at stock speed as the Ryzen 7 2700 does when overclocked and personally, given you’re already spending $300, that’s a no-brainer.

That’s not to say the Ryzen 7 2700 isn’t worth considering, though. As a low power option that needs minimal cooling, it makes a great case for itself if you want to build a quiet, small, but powerful content creation system. Similarly, that $40 might be better spent on a higher-performing cooler or case. In the end, AMD still wins, though, and while the Ryzen 7 2700 isn’t quite the bargain its predecessor was, it gives the more expensive Core i7-8700K a bloody nose in many tests and has reasonable overclocking headroom too. It also paves the way for some exciting launches for the rest of the 2nd Generation Ryzen lineup, which will likely give Intel even more headaches.

I’d like to thank AMD for providing me with a sample of the Ryzen 7 2700 and you can buy it right now for $289. 95.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 & Ryzen 5 2600 Review

Verdict

Pros

• Great value
• Huge multi-thread performance
• Overclockable

Cons

• Slower single-core performance than Intel
• Poor overclocking headroom

Key Specifications

• 12nm manufacturing process
• 65W TDP
• Precision Boost 2 technology
• XFR2 technology
• Unlocked multiplier
• Eight or six-core performance

What are the AMD Ryzen 2700 and 2600?

The Ryzen 2700 and 2600 are the two slightly slower eight-core and six-core counterparts to the AMD Ryzen 2700X and 2600X. Their lower clock speeds correspond to lower prices but, unlike with Intel’s lower-tier processors, they still retain an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking. As such, they could potentially be the better option for those willing to overclock.

In particular, the 2600 could be an ideal mid-range gaming choice. It costs just £166 yet offers six-cores capable of processing 12 threads at a time and a peak clock speed of 3.9GHz.

Otherwise, these two chips offer the same core features as their X brethren. These include a new 12nm manufacturing process, Precision Boost 2 and XFR2. Read on to see if they deliver on their promise.

AMD Ryzen 2700 & 2600 – Features

In essence, the only thing separating the 2700X from the 2700 and the 2600X from the 2600 is clock speed, so let’s dive right into the numbers.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i7-8700K	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8400	Intel Core i3-8350K
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	8 / 16	6 / 12	6 / 12	6 / 12	6 / 6	6 / 6	4 / 4
Base clock speed	3. 7GHz	3.2GHz	3.6GHz	3.4GHz	3.7GHz	3.6GHz	2.8GHz	4.0GHz
Boost clock speed	4.3GHz	4.1GHz	4.2GHz	3.9GHz	4.7GHz	4.3GHz	4.0GHz	4.0GHz
L3 cache	20MB	20MB	19MB	19MB	12MB	9MB	9MB	6MB
TDP	105W	65W	65W	65W	95W	95W	65W	91W
Manufacturing process	12nm	12nm	12nm	12nm	14nm	14nm	14nm	14nm
Price	£350	£260	£200	£170	£350	£230	£170	£155

Starting with the 2700, its maximum clock speed of 4.1GHz is within touching distance of the 2700X and is a marked improvement over both the 1700X and 1700 of last year. As a result, it should do a decent job of keeping up with the 2700X in single-core workloads.

However, its base clock speed is relatively low at just 3.2GHz, compared to 3.7GHz for the 2700X. This was also the case with the older 1700X and 1700, and it particularly hampered those chips once more than one core was under load; the chip essentially dropped to that base clock speed.

For the 2700 to be a viable option, it will have to do a better job of maintaining its clock speed under multi-core workloads.

The upside to these lower clock speeds is that the 2700 has a power consumption rating of just 65W TDP. That compares to 105W for the 2700X.

As for the 2600, it peaks at 3.9GHz, which is a little further back from the 4.25GHz of the 2600X. This means it will struggle a little to keep pace, unless overclocked. However, it has a base clock speed of 3.4GHz, which suggests it will do a slightly better job than the 2700 of maintaining a higher clock speed once several cores are under load.

Moreover, compared to the 1600 of last year, it’s been given a nice boost. Its base clock speed is 200MHz higher, while its boost clock is 300MHz higher.

Clock speed aside, the other main difference between these two chips and the X chips is the included cooler. For its first-generation Ryzen processors, AMD didn’t bundle a cooler with its top-tier processors. This made its lower-tier products all the more of a bargain for those who didn’t already have a compatible cooler.

This time round, however, the 2700X ships with the excellent Wraith Prism cooler, which bumps up its value considerably – especially compared to the Intel 8700K and 8600K which don’t include a cooler.

With the 2700, AMD has dropped down to the less fancy and less capable Wraith Spire LED cooler. It uses a milled aluminium heatsink, rather than the folded sheet-metal arrangement of the Wraith Prism, and it doesn’t include any heatpipes. Overall, it’s far less able to dissipate heat.

Meanwhile, the 2600 drops even further to the Wraith Stealth, which has a heatsink that’s half the height of the Wraith Spire and doesn’t even include a copper base.

Both coolers will keep the processors running quite happily in their default configuration, but overclocking will be limited with such basic coolers.

All told, as they stand these processors will be noticeably slower than their X counterparts. However, if you already have a quality cooler that will be compatible with these processors, and are willing to overclock, then there’s still potential here.

Meanwhile, Intel’s main competition for the 2700 isn’t a direct rival as such, since it’s only a six-core part that lacks HyperThreading, and can only process six threads at a time. However, the 8600K has a base clock speed of 3.6GHz and a boost clock speed of 4.3GHz, giving it a clear advantage in this regard.

As such, while they’re the same price, they almost serve different needs. The 2700 will be the choice for those who value multi-core workloads, while the 8600K will be for those who just need the raw speed – gamers, for example.

For the 2600, the competition is a bit more direct. The Core i7-8400 is Intel’s closest competitor. It’s a six-core processor that doesn’t have HyperThreading, either and has relatively modest clock speeds of 2.8GHz base and 4.0GHz turbo. It also has a locked multiplier, so overclocking is much more limited.

Alternatively, there’s the 8350K, which is just a quad-core part clocked at a fixed 4GHz (it has no boost clock speed) but can be overclocked. This high overall clock speed and overclockability makes it potentially the best choice at this price for gamers.

For more information on the underlying improvements brought in with the AMD’s second generation of Ryzen processors, head on over to our review of the 2700X and 2600X.

The short version is that AMD has boosted clock speeds without increasing power consumption, thanks to the move to a 12nm manufacturing process. You also get the improved Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 automatic overclocking features.

Also improved is memory latency and compatibility. These chips are officially compatible with 2993MHz DDR4 (faster RAM should work, but isn’t officially supported), plus memory latency has been reduced, making the processors a little less reliant on fast RAM.

AMD Ryzen 2700 & 2600 – Performance

The AMD chips were loaded into an Asus Strix X470-F Gaming motherboard equipped with a Zotac Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics card, Corsair Vengeance RGB 3000MHz RAM (CMR16GX4M2C3000C15) and Samsung 860 Evo SSD. For comparison, we tested the Intel Core i7-8600K, Core i5-8400 and Core i3-8350K loaded into an Asus Z370 motherboard.

We started out testing with the ever reliable Cinebench R15, whichgives a very consistent measure of raw CPU speed. It provides both a single-core and multi-core test.

Looking at the results for the single-core test and the clock speed advantage of Intel’s processors is clear to see, with all three rival chips coming out on top.

However, it’s a complete role reversal when it comes to the multi-threaded test. Here, AMD’s advantage in the number of cores means its chips pull out massive leads.

Next we ran the render test in POV-Ray, which is another very reliable test of both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In the single-core test, we again see the small advantage in single-core performance for Intel then a big flip round for the multi-core test.

Gaming

As for gaming, this is where clock speed is still king. We largely see results that reflect Intel’s overall single-core speed advantage.

However, notably, this advantage is only at all significant at lower resolutions, where the graphics card isn’t otherwise the performance bottleneck. In the 1440p test with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, for instance, the difference is less than 2.6fps across all five processors.

Even at 1080p, this only increases to 22.5fps. This isn’t to be sniffed at, but considering all the processors were delivering well over 100fps, those dropped frames per second are felt far less acutely than they would be if the overall average were much lower.

It’s a similar story in Rise of the Tomb Raider, with a very small difference in performance at higher resolutions. However, there’s more of a wild variation at lower resolutions, so much so that the results were a little bit anomolous – the 8350K shouldn’t really be quicker than the 8600K, but there’s enough of a pattern to get the general idea: if gaming is your priority then any of the Intel processors tested here will be a better choice than the 2700 or 2600.

Overclocking

One of the key things AMD has been keen to flaunt with its latest processors is that they’re all multiplier unlocked and so are easy to overclock. However, in actuality, this is of very limited benefit.

In our tests we struggled to get either the 2700 or 2600 running all cores at the same frequency as their single-core boost, meaning single-core performance, and thus gaming performance, wasn’t improved.

Now, there are reports of these chips merrily being overclocked to beyond 5GHz in extreme situations, but at sensible voltages and temperatures, they just don’t seem to deliver the goods.

In fact, we’d almost go so far as to say that you shouldn’t really think about overclocking these chips as a matter of course, but rather think of overclocking potential as a little extra that you can gamble on.

In contrast, if you buy any of the Intel 8700K, 8600K or 8350K then you can all but guarantee they’ll run at 4.8GHz without any extra voltage, so long as you’ve got a decent cooler. For the 8700K this is only a small upgrade, but for the 8600K and 8350K that’s a big bump up in performance, making them potential bargains.

Why buy the AMD Ryzen 2700 or 2600?

These are both great-value processors, ideal for heavy-duty workstations where heavy multi-tasking or multi-threaded workloads are the norm. They absolutely obliterate the competition from Intel for such tasks. They’re also perfectly adequate for anything else, including gaming.

However, there’s no getting round the fact that AMD just can’t keep pace with Intel for clock speed, so when it comes to single-core tasks – including gaming – Intel’s competing offerings will prove a better choice.

AMD should have been able to counter this basic fact with the offer of easy overclocking, but these chips just don’t stretch far enough to make up the gap. As such, it depends where your priorities lie.

As compared to the faster 2700X and 2600X, both chips make a solid case for themselves. The lower base clock speed of the 2700 does hold it back, but then it’s £90 cheaper than the 2700X.

Meanwhile, the 2600X is only £30 more than the 2600, but its reasonably high base clock means it delivers consistent performance.

Verdict

It’s the same old story. AMD’s latest chips are great value for certain tasks but less so for others. You get masses of multi-thread performance, but single-thread and gaming performance trails Intel’s rival processors a little.

AMD Ryzen 7 Processor Review 2700

Skip to content

• Description

Description

Specifications

Release year	2018
Segment	for desktop computers
Socket	Socket AM4
Number of cores	8
Number of threads	16
Base frequency	3200 MHz
Turbo Core	4100 MHz
Casket L1/L2/L3	768Kb/4Mb/16Mb
Unlocked multiplier	yes
Architecture (core)	Zen+
Process	12nm
Max. memory frequency	DDR4 2933
TDP	65W
Max. temperature	95C

Description

Starting Review of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Processor It is worth first of all to tell the stuffing. The processor is the flagship of the Ryzen 2000 series built on the Zen + core. Compared to the Zen architecture, the novelty received a thinner 12-nanometer process technology, which made it possible to increase the number of transistors in a chip, energy efficiency and increase processor clock speeds.
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 has 8 physical cores with SMT logical division into 16 threads. It is worth noting SMT technology, which organizes the logical division of physical threads better than Intel’s Hyper Threading, which provides higher performance for each virtual core in production applications. The base frequency of the CPU is 3200 MHz with the possibility of increasing in Boost mode up to 4100 MHz. The cache of the 2nd level has a volume of 4 megabytes, and the 3rd reaches 16 MB. Processor supports DDR4 memory up to 2933 megahertz, and its «ash pack» fits into an acceptable 65W, which allows using a standard, non-tower cooler as a cooling source, which is a very good indicator for a processor of such power.
This processor is the Hi-End solution in its series and provides the highest performance in both work applications and games. The “horse” of this CPU, as well as all AMD processors, is computing power, which allows you to get maximum performance in working applications, graphics processing or streaming. The main competitor of the Ryzen 7 2700 can be considered the Core i7 8700, which is 5-15% ahead in games and lags behind in other applications by the same 5-15%, but costs 2 times more.
With the release of Ryzen 3rd generation, many people think that it makes no sense to take this processor — it’s not. Thanks to a balanced pricing policy, this product is given at a very attractive price, and if you need an excellent performance option, the Ryzen 7 2700 is your choice.
There is no integrated video core, so a discrete video card will be required in conjunction with this CPU.

Ryzen 7 2700 [in 15 benchmarks]

AMD
Ryzen 7 2700

• Interface
• Core frequency
• Video memory size
• Memory type
• Memory frequency
• Maximum resolution

Description

AMD started AMD Ryzen 7 2700 sales on April 12, 2018 at a suggested price of $299. This is a desktop processor based on the Zen + architecture, primarily designed for office systems. It has 8 cores and 16 threads and is manufactured using 12nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 4100MHz, the multiplier is unlocked.

In terms of compatibility, this is an AMD Socket AM4 processor with a TDP of 65W. It supports memory
DDR4
dual-channel.

It provides poor benchmark performance at

15.65%

from the leader, which is AMD EPYC 7h22.

Ryzen 7
2700

vs

EPYC
7h22

General information

Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Ryzen 7 2700, as well as the time when sales started and the cost at that time.

9ATH0015 of 305 (Core i7-870)

9000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

To obtain an index, we compare the characteristics of processors and their cost, taking into account the cost of other processors.

• 0
• 50
• 100

Features

Ryzen 7 2700 quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock status. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.

RAM support

Types, maximum size and channels of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 2700. Higher memory frequencies may be supported depending on the motherboard.

Integrated Video Specifications

General parameters of the integrated video card in Ryzen 7 2700.

Peripherals

Ryzen 7 2700 supported peripherals and how to connect them.

Tests in benchmark

These are the Ryzen 7 2700 non-gaming benchmark results. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest processor at the moment.

Overall performance in tests

This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ryzen 7 2700
15.65

• Passmark
• GeekBench 5 Single Core
• GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
• Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
• Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
• 3DMark06 CPU
• Cinebench 11. 5 64-bit multi-core
• Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
• Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
• Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
• TrueCrypt AES
• x264 encoding pass 2
• x264 encoding pass 1
• WinRAR 4.0

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption, and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.

Benchmark coverage: 69%

Ryzen 7 2700
15776

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.

Benchmark coverage: 37%

Ryzen 7 2700
928

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses all available processor cores.

Benchmark coverage: 37%

Ryzen 7 2700
6137

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is a very outdated ray tracing benchmark for processors developed by the authors of Cinema 4D, Maxon. The Single-Core version uses a single CPU thread to render a futuristic motorcycle model.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Ryzen 7 2700
4505

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 that uses all CPU threads. The possible number of threads in this version is limited to 16.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Ryzen 7 2700
31385

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is an outdated set of benchmarks based on DirectX 9 by Futuremark. Its processor part contains two tests, one of which calculates the pathfinding of game AI, the other emulates game physics using the PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Ryzen 7 2700
9475

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 that uses all processor threads. This version supports a maximum of 64 threads.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Ryzen 7 2700
17

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core (sometimes referred to as Multi-Thread) is a variant of Cinebench R15 that uses all of the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Ryzen 7 2700
1551

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (Release 15) is a benchmark created by Maxon, the creator of the popular Cinema 4D 3D modeling package. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench using more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes referred to as Single-Thread) uses only one CPU thread to render a room full of mirror balls and complexly shaped lights.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Ryzen 7 2700
161

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark developed by Maxon. authors of Cinema 4D. It has been superseded by later versions of Cinebench which use more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads one CPU thread with ray tracing, rendering a glossy room full of crystal spheres and lights.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Ryzen 7 2700
1.8

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a deprecated program that was widely used to encrypt disk partitions on the fly. It contains several built-in benchmarks, one of which is TrueCrypt AES. It measures the speed of data encryption using the AES algorithm. The result of the test is the encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen 7 2700
9

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower MPEG4 x264 video compression benchmark, resulting in a variable bit rate output file. This results in a better quality of the resulting video file, as a higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. The benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen 7 2700
90

x264 encoding pass 1

The x264 benchmark uses the MPEG 4 x264 compression method to encode the sample video in HD (720p). Pass 1 is a faster option that produces an output file at a constant bit rate. Its result is measured in frames per second, that is, how many frames of the source video file were encoded in one second on average.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen 7 2700
196

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of the popular archiver. It contains an internal speed test using maximum compression by the RAR algorithm on large amounts of randomly generated data. Results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 12%

Ryzen 7 2700
4440

Relative capacity

Overall performance of the Ryzen 7 2700 compared to its closest competitor in desktop processors.

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G
103.45

AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748
102.94

AMD Ryzen 5 4500
101.79

AMD Ryzen 7 2700
100

Intel Core i7-11700T
99.49

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
99.42

AMD Ryzen 5 4600GE
99.11

Competitor from Intel

We believe that the nearest equivalent to Ryzen 7 2700 from Intel is Core i7-11700T, which is slower by 1% on average and lower by 3 positions in our rating.

Core i7
11700T

Compare

Here are some of Intel’s closest competitors to the Ryzen 7 2700:

Intel Core i9-9900
106.52

Intel Core i7-10700
106. 39

Intel Core i5-12500TE
105.11

AMD Ryzen 7 2700
100

Intel Core i7-11700T
99.49

Intel Core i9-10900T
98.34

Intel Core i3-12300
95.21

Other processors

Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.

Core i7
11700T

Compare

Ryzen 7
1700X

Compare

Ryzen 5
4600GE

Compare

Ryzen 5
4600G

Compare

Ryzen 5
PRO 4650GE

Compare

Core i9
10900T

Compare

Recommended graphics cards

According to our statistics, these cards are most often used with Ryzen 7 2700:

GeForce GTX
1660 Super

9. 3%

GeForce GTX
1050 Ti

6.2%

Radeon RX
580

5.6%

GeForce RTX
2060

5.4%

GeForce GTX
1650

4.7%

GeForce GTX
1660

4.5%

GeForce GTX
1060 6GB

4.3%

Radeon RX
570

3.7%

GeForce GTX
1650 SUPER

3.4%

GeForce GTX
1070

3.2%

User rating

Here you can see the evaluation of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.