$230 for Ryzen 7 2700 w/ Division 2

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,166
A nice B450/x470 and 16 GB of ram can be had for around $250. This means after you sell the game, you are looking at CPU, ram, and MB for nearly the 9700k.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,081
A nice B450/x470 and 16 GB of ram can be had for around $250. This means after you sell the game, you are looking at CPU, ram, and MB for nearly the 9700k.

Very true...I had one of these for a while. Great bang for the buck.
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
14,537
I really should wait for zen 2 but man these zen+ chips are hard to pass up. On a 1600 @ 4.0ghz so probably not really worth it for a 10% increase in performance
 

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
Can this cpu be easily overclocked to 2700x clocks?

Oh. With the stock cooler of course.
 
Last edited:

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,738
I really should wait for zen 2 but man these zen+ chips are hard to pass up. On a 1600 @ 4.0ghz so probably not really worth it for a 10% increase in performance

In multitasking you are looking at much more than 10% though. Keep in mind you can also run 2700 at 4ghz just fine. So apples to apples its decent performance increase.
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
15,190
I really should wait for zen 2 but man these zen+ chips are hard to pass up. On a 1600 @ 4.0ghz so probably not really worth it for a 10% increase in performance

I'm on a 4770k....waiting eagerly for Zen2. NEED CHIPLETS.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,263
A nice B450/x470 and 16 GB of ram can be had for around $250. This means after you sell the game, you are looking at CPU, ram, and MB for nearly the 9700k.
I mean, you are getting 15% less performance compared to the 9700K. The 9600K is closer to the performance bracket of the 2700, which is $260.
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
14,537
I mean, you are getting 15% less performance compared to the 9700K. The 9600K is closer to the performance bracket of the 2700, which is $260.

It's really not as cut and dry as that. The 2700 slightly edges the 9700k in multi-threaded benchmarks, and pushed a bit more when overclocked. The 9700k absolutely annihilates the 2700 in gaming and any application that can't use all 16 threads of the 2700. The 9600k wins out in gaming, but gets absolutely wrecked at multi-threaded computing. Both have their use cases, however if you are only using the chip for gaming and have to buy right now, the 9600k is probably the better option at this price point. and even still, thats a 6 core 6 thread chip. I feel like once zen2 comes out, that chip will be left in the dust. Only time will tell.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,081
I mean, you are getting 15% less performance compared to the 9700K. The 9600K is closer to the performance bracket of the 2700, which is $260.

I think he meant price. As in you can get a whole system for the price of the 9700k.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,081
It's really not as cut and dry as that. The 2700 slightly edges the 9700k in multi-threaded benchmarks, and pushed a bit more when overclocked. The 9700k absolutely annihilates the 2700 in gaming and any application that can't use all 16 threads of the 2700. The 9600k wins out in gaming, but gets absolutely wrecked at multi-threaded computing. Both have their use cases, however if you are only using the chip for gaming and have to buy right now, the 9600k is probably the better option at this price point. and even still, thats a 6 core 6 thread chip. I feel like once zen2 comes out, that chip will be left in the dust. Only time will tell.

I mean annihilate is a strong word. it's not like it is double the performance. It definitely wins in the bang-for-the-buck category though. I played plenty of games on Zen chips and haven't had any issues. Last year I played Assassin's Creed origins on my 1600x and this year I played Assassin's Creed Odyssey on my 2700x. I fired it back up on my 8086k and it doesn't really feel that much different if different at all.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,166
I mean, you are getting 15% less performance compared to the 9700K. The 9600K is closer to the performance bracket of the 2700, which is $260.

Right, because given a choice between a 2950x and a 9600k system for the same price, you should always get the 9600k system because MORE FPS!!

Ok, we get it. Intel is faster at gaming. Do you really need to put it in every CPU related thread??
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
14,537
I mean annihilate is a strong word. it's not like it is double the performance. It definitely wins in the bang-for-the-buck category though. I played plenty of games on Zen chips and haven't had any issues. Last year I played Assassin's Creed origins on my 1600x and this year I played Assassin's Creed Odyssey on my 2700x. I fired it back up on my 8086k and it doesn't really feel that much different if different at all.
I mean, it's a pretty big difference, like 30-40% according to here:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700/4030vs3957

Realworld results mean that 1080p and to some extend 1440p gaming is going to see a much higher FPS on the Intel chip compared to AMD. And I never said AMD would cause issues. The fact of the matter is that Intel produces a faster, better gaming chip. AMD can still game, but depending on the title and resolution and other factors, in general Intel will give you better FPS given the much higher clock speeds.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,081
I mean, it's a pretty big difference, like 30-40% according to here:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700/4030vs3957

Realworld results mean that 1080p and to some extend 1440p gaming is going to see a much higher FPS on the Intel chip compared to AMD. And I never said AMD would cause issues. The fact of the matter is that Intel produces a faster, better gaming chip. AMD can still game, but depending on the title and resolution and other factors, in general Intel will give you better FPS given the much higher clock speeds.

This really isn't the place to debate this as it's a Hot Deal thread. However, NO ONE is debating that the Intel chip is giving you better FPS. It's the value proposition that Intel sucks at (e.g. cost per frame, etc.). Unless you are a competitive gamer or trying to push 240Hz panels, you probably won't notice a big difference except in the wallet. I've used both. I don't play competitive games. I notice a VRR monitor more than I notice the difference between 120 and 160 FPS.

That user benchmark site is only sort of useful. And in this case it's not. I have never seen a review that has the 9700k at 30-40% faster than the 2700 overall.
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
14,537
This really isn't the place to debate this as it's a Hot Deal thread. However, NO ONE is debating that the Intel chip is giving you better FPS. It's the value proposition that Intel sucks at (e.g. cost per frame, etc.). Unless you are a competitive gamer or trying to push 240Hz panels, you probably won't notice a big difference except in the wallet. I've used both. I don't play competitive games. I notice a VRR monitor more than I notice the difference between 120 and 160 FPS.

That user benchmark site is only sort of useful. And in this case it's not. I have never seen a review that has the 9700k at 30-40% faster than the 2700 overall.

This isn't a specific review for either, but pretty much all the benchmarks reflect what I stated, the only benchmark the 2700 wins at is the muli-threaded blender benchmark. All the games have a pretty big performance bump from the 9700k over the 2700. I agree that it's not the right place, however I just don't think it's as cut and dry to say one CPU is better than the other, especially given that the 2700 is $230 and the 9700k on a good day is nearly $400.... And that the 2700 does win out by a small amount in some multithreaded benchmarks where the extra threads help out.

 

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
Not to bring up the Intel comparison again but the Intel boards that allow overclocking are quite a bit more expensive than a b450 board. That part ads to the cost of an Intel system.
So as has been the case for the past 10 years, Intel may be faster for most users but it comes at a price.
 

Spun Ducky

Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
674
These deals are killing me. I use laptops or tiny systems like nucs for my home work flow so I have a pile of ddr4 sodimm ram but it seems there is a lack of am4 boards that take sodimm. I would love to have a mini itx or smaller board that takes sodimms and can accept a 2700 cpu with a single pcie slot or thunderbolt 3. That is my unicorn system at this point. This is a very good deal for workstation or gaming.
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
14,537
These deals are killing me. I use laptops or tiny systems like nucs for my home work flow so I have a pile of ddr4 sodimm ram but it seems there is a lack of am4 boards that take sodimm. I would love to have a mini itx or smaller board that takes sodimms and can accept a 2700 cpu with a single pcie slot or thunderbolt 3. That is my unicorn system at this point. This is a very good deal for workstation or gaming.

They do make adapters for sodimm to dimm.
No idea if this would actually work correctly but...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Laptop-DDR...fd:m:mADpjh6i6Zm6sx-xCEsHt7Q&var=541887253792
 
Top