AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,868
... "3DMark Benchmarks Leaked, 18% Faster vs 1700X & Cheaper":

Ryzen-7-2700X-leaked-3dmark-benchmark.png


Source: https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-3dmark-benchmarks-leaked-18-faster-vs-1700x-cheaper/

 
Pricing is at the bottom of that article. With that said I don't see a reduction from the current prices.
 
Looks like the 2700X is replacing the 1800X as the flagship for now with the 2700 taking over at the 1700X price point...no price reduction but higher performance at both price points.
 
So... no 2800x? 2600x for sure looks even sweeter. Got to be honest, I was hoping to see RAM supported higher than 3000.
 
CombatChrisNC said:
So... no 2800x? 2600x for sure looks even sweeter. Got to be honest, I was hoping to see RAM supported higher than 3000.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I mean, 1800x really was a pointless product. While it did quarantee high stock clocks it was meaningless when it came to overclocking, it was still a complete crapshoot. 1700 was simply a better deal and you had just as good (or bad) chances of hitting the 4.0ghz wall as any 1800X and only a slim hope that it is actually 100% stable at that speed.
 
I'm not happy with the 105w rating of the 2700X.

10% more TDP for 10% higher clockspeed... Not exactly the miracle improvement we were hoping for...
 
KazeoHin said:
I'm not happy with the 105w rating of the 2700X.

10% more TDP for 10% higher clockspeed... Not exactly the miracle improvement we were hoping for...
Click to expand...

Compared to Intel's 8700k which is 6 cores @ 95W, that is pretty damn good if you ask me. Specially if its 4.4ghz @105w. That is pretty damn good for 8cores. Just my 0.02c
 
Last edited:
we’re told that the Ryzen 7 2700X for will reliably overclock to ~4.4 GHz, as compared to the current 4.0-4.1 GHz limit that most people run into when overclocking their first gen Ryzen 7 chips.
Click to expand...

This is the only part I'm most interested in. Pretty sizeable bump if we're assuming this is avg/median clocks.
 
Brackle said:
Compared to Intel's 8700k which is 6 cores @ 95W, that is pretty damn good if you ask me. Specially if its 4.4ghz @105w. That is pretty damn good for 8cores. Just my 0.02c
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but Ryzen 1st gen was already impressive in that regard. This isn't much more efficient.
 
KazeoHin said:
You're not wrong, but Ryzen 1st gen was already impressive in that regard. This isn't much more efficient.
Click to expand...

Efficient compared to what? I mean I agree this isn't earth shattering bump in performance I agree with that. But neither was the 6700k to 7700k.

To be fair you could even compare the 2700x to the 7820X. 8 Cores to 8 Cores. The 2700x is 105W for 8/16 CPU. The 7820x is 140w for 8/16 CPU. IF you ask me that is very fucking efficient compared to Intel's 8core CPU......TBH You cant get much more efficient than that.
 
Brackle said:
Efficient compared to what? I mean I agree this isn't earth shattering bump in performance I agree with that. But neither was the 6700k to 7700k.

To be fair you could even compare the 2700x to the 7820X. 8 Cores to 8 Cores. The 2700x is 105W for 8/16 CPU. The 7820x is 140w for 8/16 CPU. IF you ask me that is very fucking efficient compared to Intel's 8core CPU......TBH You cant get much more efficient than that.
Click to expand...

"But it's Intel..." (say with a whiny voice while stomping feet)
 
Brackle said:
Efficient compared to what? I mean I agree this isn't earth shattering bump in performance I agree with that. But neither was the 6700k to 7700k.

To be fair you could even compare the 2700x to the 7820X. 8 Cores to 8 Cores. The 2700x is 105W for 8/16 CPU. The 7820x is 140w for 8/16 CPU. IF you ask me that is very fucking efficient compared to Intel's 8core CPU......TBH You cant get much more efficient than that.
Click to expand...

I'm holding AMD to AMD. AMD was already more efficient than Intel, but this new chip isn't much more efficient than Ryzen Gen 1.
 
KazeoHin said:
I'm holding AMD to AMD. AMD was already more efficient than Intel, but this new chip isn't much more efficient than Ryzen Gen 1.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like it’s a bad thing. Intel does this all the time. It’s to be expected. Specially for a 8core cpu.
 
As a resident "bang for the buck" whore, a new 1700x is "only" $270 right now. 18% more performance for 37% more money.

Probably should be priced in the $329 range.
 
kirbyrj said:
As a resident "bang for the buck" whore, a new 1700x is "only" $270 right now. 18% more performance for 37% more money.

Probably should be priced in the $329 range.
Click to expand...

I agree. If anything I think the bang for the buck will be the new 2600x. But it all depends what it can clock up to. If it can hit 4.4ghz like the 2700k.....well I would get one of those over a 2700x.
 
I think the 1600x is real bang for you're buck right now right at only around $200. I think it's awesome idea try to convince some to throw that together with a good board to learn Ryzen. And probably have some fun doing it.
 
KazeoHin said:
I'm not happy with the 105w rating of the 2700X.

10% more TDP for 10% higher clockspeed... Not exactly the miracle improvement we were hoping for...
Click to expand...

At least it's linear and not exponential. The latter one would concern me for a refresh.
 
quasar56 said:
Looks like the 2700X is replacing the 1800X as the flagship for now with the 2700 taking over at the 1700X price point...no price reduction but higher performance at both price points.
Click to expand...

2700X replaces both 1800X and 1700X

AMD-Ryzen-2000-Series-1000x563.jpg
 
KazeoHin said:
I'm not happy with the 105w rating of the 2700X.

10% more TDP for 10% higher clockspeed... Not exactly the miracle improvement we were hoping for...
Click to expand...

Relabeling an extension of 14nm as 12nm wasn't going to provide any technical miracle. Why do you believe Glofo is not even offering 12LP to general customers?

https://www.globalfoundries.com/technology-solutions/cmos/performance

Some of us expected 200--400MHz extra for Pinnacle Ridge. Those 10% extra TDP provides about 5% higher clocks. So the new node brings about 5% higher clocks on the 2700X and the other ~5% are the result of increasing the TDP to 105W.

Brackle said:
Compared to Intel's 8700k which is 6 cores @ 95W, that is pretty damn good if you ask me. Specially if its 4.4ghz @105w. That is pretty damn good for 8cores. Just my 0.02c
Click to expand...

Except those former 95W AMD chips real TDP was 128W, so one cannot compare marketing TDPs for both companies.

getgraphimg.png


So, it is pretty evident those new 105W chips will not be 105W, but real TDP will be higher.
 
take a few days off and learn to play nice
juanrga said:
Relabeling an extension of 14nm as 12nm wasn't going to provide any technical miracle. Why do you believe Glofo is not even offering 12LP to general customers?

https://www.globalfoundries.com/technology-solutions/cmos/performance

Some of us expected 200--400MHz extra for Pinnacle Ridge. Those 10% extra TDP provides about 5% higher clocks. So the new node brings about 5% higher clocks on the 2700X and the other ~5% are the result of increasing the TDP to 105W.



Except those former 95W AMD chips real TDP was 128W, so one cannot compare marketing TDPs for both companies.

View attachment 59200

So, it is pretty evident those new 105W chips will not be 105W, but real TDP will be higher.
Click to expand...

Man thats a funny ass graph you made up there mr CTS-LABS. I could of done a better job then that piece of work. I know you are trying very hard to prove everyone in this forum wrong. Just won't work anymore, 99% of the people on here know you are full of it.
 
Hopefully that TDP increase is real TDP, and not 'AMD TDP'

;)

[sarcasm aside, I do hope that AMD has managed to at least maintain performance / watt while upping clockspeeds a smidgen]
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTDEW
like this
IdiotInCharge said:
[sarcasm aside, I do hope that AMD has managed to at least maintain performance / watt while upping clockspeeds a smidgen]
Click to expand...

I think performance per watt would improve on all models, except maybe the top 2700X. It seems the updated node[let] has been improved in the middle F/V region. This would explain why all middle models maintain the same official TDPs than first gen Ryzen.
 
juanrga said:
Relabeling an extension of 14nm as 12nm wasn't going to provide any technical miracle. Why do you believe Glofo is not even offering 12LP to general customers?

https://www.globalfoundries.com/technology-solutions/cmos/performance

Some of us expected 200--400MHz extra for Pinnacle Ridge. Those 10% extra TDP provides about 5% higher clocks. So the new node brings about 5% higher clocks on the 2700X and the other ~5% are the result of increasing the TDP to 105W.



Except those former 95W AMD chips real TDP was 128W, so one cannot compare marketing TDPs for both companies.

View attachment 59200

So, it is pretty evident those new 105W chips will not be 105W, but real TDP will be higher.
Click to expand...

is there a source for that?

power_gaming.png


power_multi_thread.png


i can do that too you know.

7700k 152 watt TDP!

This is epic. We're assuming you've sifted through our game-test results before seeing this page, and so you'll find that the gaming power draw of the 8-core Ryzen makes Intel's quad-core i7-7700K look bad. Power draw is as much as 30W lesser!
Click to expand...
 
Either my CPU or mobo crapped out so I found myself in need to build something in a week and got an 1800x. Hate to do so with the 2700x around the corner, but got the 1800x for ~$255. Don't intend to overclock, any other particular reason I might regret the purchase?
 
stm said:
Either my CPU or mobo crapped out so I found myself in need to build something in a week and got an 1800x. Hate to do so with the 2700x around the corner, but got the 1800x for ~$255. Don't intend to overclock, any other particular reason I might regret the purchase?
Click to expand...

if you don't intend on overclocking the 1800x is fine. i've enjoyed the hell out of my R5 1600 and this is honestly the first processor i haven't felt the need to overclock, it does everything i need perfectly. zen 2 will be coming out some time in 2019 which will work on AM4 as well and that should be the go to processor after the 1800x.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
if you don't intend on overclocking the 1800x is fine. i've enjoyed the hell out of my R5 1600 and this is honestly the first processor i haven't felt the need to overclock, it does everything i need perfectly. zen 2 will be coming out some time in 2019 which will work on AM4 as well and that should be the go to processor after the 1800x.
Click to expand...

I really don't upgrade real often given that I'm more active in the mobile world. Hell my last 2 builds were a Q9550 -> 4790K -> this.... So maybe a Ryzen 4 is in my future :)
 
stm said:
I really don't upgrade real often given that I'm more active in the mobile world. Hell my last 2 builds were a Q9550 -> 4790K -> this.... So maybe a Ryzen 4 is in my future :)
Click to expand...

zen 2 will be the last generation that goes onto the am4 platform, after that it'll be switching to DDR5 most likely with zen 2+/3 or what ever they end up designating it. so if you don't upgrade often that'll probably be the one to get and just sit on it for a few years since i'm sure ddr5 prices will be just as screwed up as ddr4 prices when amd and intel switch to it in 2020 or later.
 
Master_shake_ said:
is there a source for that?

View attachment 59544

View attachment 59546

i can do that too you know.

7700k 152 watt TDP!
Click to expand...


Do you mean a source for the real TDP of 1800X being 128W? Of course

TDP and TDP ...

Indeed with a consumption measured on the ATX12 at 128.9 watts, it is obvious that the consumption of the Ryzen 7 1800X exceeds the 95 watts announced TDP (Thermal Design Power). Indeed even if we base on a yield of 85% in the power stage of the motherboard, we arrive at almost 110 watts. An estimate confirmed by the internal monitoring of the processor which even indicates 112 watts under x264.

[...]

What are then the TDP, in the sense of the limit of consumption and thus the maximum number of watts to dissipate, Ryzen? AMD also communicates this value, less markedly: 128 watts for the 1800X / 1700X, and 90 watts for the 1700. These are the values that are the most comparable with the TDP released by Intel.
Click to expand...

CPCHardware guys also confirmed the real TDP of the 1700 is 90W


The TPU graphs are really interesting, so they are measuring higher power consumption during gaming than during a power virus test? Also let me recall that TDPs aren't measured with power virus with unrealistic 100% AVX loads.
 
Nightfire said:
Of course not Silly Billy. This is Juangra we are talking about. He will ignore are legitimate sites to fit his agenda and post some random outlier.
Click to expand...

Not only sources there exist, contradicting your claim that there is no sources, but HFR got confirmation from AMD of which are the real TDPs (as quoted above). It is also kind of ironic that you reject the ordinary results of a respected top tech site, but support the weird results of a less respected site, that is measuring more power consumption during gaming than during a power virus test. :rolleyes:
 
juanrga said:
Do you mean a source for the real TDP of 1800X being 128W? Of course



CPCHardware guys also confirmed the real TDP of the 1700 is 90W


The TPU graphs are really interesting, so they are measuring higher power consumption during gaming than during a power virus test? Also let me recall that TDPs aren't measured with power virus with unrealistic 100% AVX loads.
Click to expand...

and yet the REAL TDP of the 7700k is 152-154.

i mean i have a source therefore it's real.

see how it works?
 
Master_shake_ said:
and yet the REAL TDP of the 7700k is 152-154.

i mean i have a source therefore it's real.

see how it works?
Click to expand...

But not all sources are the same. And part of the art of finding references consists on differentiating good sources from bad sources. There are good sources as HFR (whose findings are confirmed by AMD) and there are bad sources, whose findings are nonsensical.

Your argument there is a source so it is real is as pretending that just because one can find a website that says that Earth is flat, the Earth is flat, as if that website had the same validity as source than website from the NASA for instance.
 
juanrga said:
But not all sources are the same. And part of the art of finding references consists on differentiating good sources from bad sources. There are good sources as HFR (whose findings are confirmed by AMD) and there are bad sources, whose findings are nonsensical.

Your argument there is a source so it is real is as pretending that just because one can find a website that says that Earth is flat, the Earth is flat, as if that website had the same validity as source than website from the NASA for instance.
Click to expand...

152 watts juan

152 WATTS!

and has exploits to beat the band juan

so lets recap.

152 watts and shit loads of REEEAL exploits.

are you saying the TPU isn't a real source?

is that what you are going with jaun?

cause i need to know.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top