AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen 2 2700X Zen+ CPU Review @ [H]

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,710
Is that really true if you're not using a 144 or 120Hz monitor?

Read what I wrote above your reply (if you haven't had the chance to): games aren't standing still and neither are GPUs, and games tend to err toward single-core performance even as they continue to make more use of extra threaded resources. The 8700k already presents 'extra' threads; this is why the 2600(x) is such a great budget deal, and why stepping up to a 2700x for gaming solely doesn't make as much sense, as it has slower single-core/single thread performance and more 'extra' threads. It's not bad! It's just less balanced toward gaming.
 

bpizzle1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
4,199
Kyle, any news on the stock cooler numbers? I have a 2700x on the way from the eBay deal, so I'm interested to see how the prism actually performs. Especially since I have to wait for Arctic to ship me an AM4 extension for my Liquid Cooler 240.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Read what I wrote above your reply (if you haven't had the chance to): games aren't standing still and neither are GPUs, and games tend to err toward single-core performance even as they continue to make more use of extra threaded resources. The 8700k already presents 'extra' threads; this is why the 2600(x) is such a great budget deal, and why stepping up to a 2700x for gaming solely doesn't make as much sense, as it has slower single-core/single thread performance and more 'extra' threads. It's not bad! It's just less balanced toward gaming.

2700X is more for folks like me. I don't game much anymore - though I still do on occasion, and expect good performance when I do. However, I do an awful lot of rendering, compiling, etc... on this box. At the time I built it (originally with a 1700X), it was 7700k, 6900k at obscene dollars, or 8 core Ryzen. Went Ryzen. If I were building from scratch right now, I'd have a hard time deciding between 8700k, 7820X, or 2700X. But since I already had this board and the 2700X was a drop in, and I got most of my $$ back by ebaying the 1700X, the choice was easy.
 

Cooe

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
7
Yeah it's kind of an interesting question too, when you consider that Kyle is not taking it lightly to say what he did in his conclusion:


I've been always insistent on the DIY experience, and whatever I upgrade to next, it's likely I still do it manually, as I have been since 1999. But if Precision Boost 2 is as good as advertised - and Ryzen 2000-series is a testament to that, it certainly helps the more layman get the same performance that many of us at [H] have been getting for nearly two decades through manual overclocking. I wonder if it's too early to start getting nostalgic about it, to see effective boosting mechanisms now on *both* CPU and GPU. What is left to manually tweak and change?
Oh it's still there if you wanna look for it. Just in different places. With Ryzen in particular it's ALL about dat memory. Really gotta go balls deep into them subtimings if you wanna make her purr. Expect hours and hours of bluescreens playing with like 5-6 different voltages, and plenty of good old-fashioned anger & frustration and then finally.... Glorious, oh the Glorious significant gains to be had!!! Totally worth it. :p (Sold my 1700 to a friend and got a 2700X).
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

bpizzle1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
4,199
Oh it's still there if you wanna look for it. Just in different places. With Ryzen in particular it's ALL about dat memory. Really gotta go balls deep into them subtimings if you wanna make her purr. Expect hours and hours of bluescreens playing with like 5-6 different voltages, and plenty of good old-fashioned anger & frustration and then finally.... Glorious, oh the Glorious significant gains to be had!!! Totally worth it. :p (Sold my 1700 to a friend and got a 2700X).

Pretty much this. From what I've been reading, it seems like the memory scaling is pretty huge for the new Ryzen. It looks like it actually gets extremely close to an 8700k when you get the memory up around 3400ish with nice timings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
I got the TridentZ FlareX 3200Mhz 14 and called it a day lol.

I'll pass on the BSODs and crying kids because they lost all their progress rather than the negligible 2% extra fps ;)
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
Thanks for the advice!




What?




Any thoughts about this?
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232623

Second half of that post was directed at the couple posts before yours. OCing RAM and being unstable isn't my thing anymore.

I personally spend more for the FlareX. Ryzen 2700x is much more compatible with RAM, but I like no bullshit. Especially if you are pushing 32GB it's more finnicky so buying a good brand is worth it in my book.

I just needed the damn thing to be fast, quiet and work all the time. So far the 2700x with stock cooler has been perfect.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
Any thoughts on the kit I linked and how well it will work with the 2700X on a ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero?

I've seen the 16GB kit work on the Crosshair VII Hero so the 32GB should have a decent chance... but I haven't witnessed it personally.

In the reviews you linked the guy OC'd it to 3600Mhz on some board ;).
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,649
I got the TridentZ FlareX 3200Mhz 14 and called it a day lol.

I'll pass on the BSODs and crying kids because they lost all their progress rather than the negligible 2% extra fps ;)
Far more then 2%. Some of the numbers I have seen had me spray milk out of my nose. And I wasn't even drinking milk!
In all seriousness the gains are substantial especially in gaming.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
Far more then 2%. Some of the numbers I have seen had me spray milk out of my nose. And I wasn't even drinking milk!
In all seriousness the gains are substantial especially in gaming.

Link? I haven't seen anythung crazy out of the same stick of ram.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,439
This is about the best information I've found but they don't give many details: computerbase.de

I've seen bigger improvements mentioned but they had even less context.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
Then you haven't researched much. My right?

I've looked at some charts, but it was large jumps. 2133, 2400, 3200, 3466 Ect. Didn't look like enough gain for me to go through the instability of trying to get another 200 Mhz out of my 3200Mhz ram... you seemed to think it was more than a negligible jump. I thought maybe you had a review in mind that made you say this.
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,649
I've looked at some charts, but it was large jumps. 2133, 2400, 3200, 3466 Ect. Didn't look like enough gain for me to go through the instability of trying to get another 200 Mhz out of my 3200Mhz ram... you seemed to think it was more than a negligible jump. I thought maybe you had a review in mind that made you say this.
Not higher clocks, but low latency and tight timings. The stilt (apparent current expert on this) says he would rather have super tight 3200MHz the CL16 3600 on Ryzen.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Not higher clocks, but low latency and tight timings. The stilt (apparent current expert on this) says he would rather have super tight 3200MHz the CL16 3600 on Ryzen.

It is a combination of both. Clocks > 3000 + CL14 or less = massive jump in Ryzen gaming performance. See attached chart. (Note, LL means the massaged timings. I think he was using CL14, but I will have to go back and check later).
 

Attachments

  • 68n8LJN.png
    68n8LJN.png
    234.2 KB · Views: 0

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,649
It is a combination of both. Clocks > 3000 + CL14 or less = massive jump in Ryzen gaming performance. See attached chart. (Note, LL means the massaged timings. I think he was using CL14, but I will have to go back and check later).
Exactly right.
That was the chart I was trying to dig up. Those LL scores are drastic.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
It is a combination of both. Clocks > 3000 + CL14 or less = massive jump in Ryzen gaming performance. See attached chart. (Note, LL means the massaged timings. I think he was using CL14, but I will have to go back and check later).

Exactly right.
That was the chart I was trying to dig up. Those LL scores are drastic.

If you need those FPS go for it (VR or high Hz monitors) I already have 3200 14CL RAM which puts me way above the 90Hz I need for VR and from what I've seen I could hope for 1-2% more fps if I bothered to tweak it... even less in a realistic scenario.

At normal frame rates RAM speed matters much less.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11857/memory-scaling-on-ryzen-7-with-team-groups-night-hawk-rgb/6

http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...tform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259/4

If you have the time and will have at it but be realistic in what typical scenarios will see for returns.
 
Last edited:

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,649
If you need those FPS go for it (VR or high Hz monitors) I already have 3200 14CL RAM which puts me way above the 90Hz I need for VR and from what I've seen I could hope for 1-2% more fps if I bothered to tweak it... even less in a realistic scenario.

At normal frame rates RAM speed matters much less.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11857/memory-scaling-on-ryzen-7-with-team-groups-night-hawk-rgb/6

http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...tform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259/4

If you have the time and will have at it but be realistic in what typical scenarios will see for returns.
Your showing nothing to do with LL tight timings. CL16 at various speeds has minimal returns as you have linked. This is not what we are talking about.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
Your showing nothing to do with LL tight timings. CL16 at various speeds has minimal returns as you have linked. This is not what we are talking about.
The point is it's at diminishing returns with slower ram at real world FPS. Even faster ram is even further along the curve.
 
Last edited:

Cooe

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
7
Cooe I haven't done any serious memory tuning since my DFI days (A64 and Core2).
Well, then there's never been a better time to get yourselves all nice & reacquainted! :p Because as long as AMD continues to so tightly couple the Zen's uncore (with the IMC being kind of the chip's Infinity Fabric bus command & control center; including providing their clock signal) & the ever approaching fab process wall, it's gonna be all about memory first and foremost from here to ad nauseum. :)
That's actually the tiny seed of utter brilliance in the center of Jim's general design for Zen. By so heavily intertwining the chip's Infinity Fabric infrastructure & the IMC (which is ofc what happens when you let a total interconnect & memory controller nut design you an MCM CPU XD ) not only was space saved among other positives, but that the design itself would self-refine / improve it's biggest weaknesses over time simply by the inevitable forward march of RAM tech (ofc also accompanied by IMC updates to match, ala Zen+).
 
Last edited:

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,103
How does the 2700 compare to the 2700x? 65w vs. 105w ratings -> Does the performance show that much difference? Does the nonX version not have PB2? Anyways if the 2700 is truly a 65w part that maybe rather fantastic for small system builds if the performance is there. Hopefully that comparison is in the works.
 
Last edited:

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
How does the 2700 compare to the 2700x? 65w vs. 105w ratings -> Does the performance show that much difference? Does the nonX version not have PB2? Anyways if the 2700 is truly a 65w part that maybe rather fantastic for small system builds if the performance is there. Hopefully that comparison is in the works.

I went with the x for higher stock clocks and the way better cooler. Some people have undervolted the x with success getting better results too... I'd personally buy the x and undervolt than the non x. The cooler alone is worth the $30.

I can't imagine the non x being binned in a positive manner lol. Generally chips like that are failed x's but I could be wrong.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
How does the 2700 compare to the 2700x? 65w vs. 105w ratings -> Does the performance show that much difference? Does the nonX version not have PB2? Anyways if the 2700 is truly a 65w part that maybe rather fantastic for small system builds if the performance is there. Hopefully that comparison is in the works.

basically lower base clocks = lower required voltage = 65w tdp rating.
 

Cooe

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
7
Not higher clocks, but low latency and tight timings. The stilt (apparent current expert on this) says he would rather have super tight 3200MHz the CL16 3600 on Ryzen.
Stilt's Ryzen 1st Gen B-die timings (the 14-13-13-13-26 ones; I have B-die DIMMs but dual-rank [16GBx2] so required some extra juice) is where I started with both my timing tightening quests for both my 1700 & 2700X. If your chip/DIMMs can handle those, that's a fantastic place to start, and has a number of easy improvements you can still make from that starting point (prolly not gonna get anything further outta the primary's, but the subtimings are ripe for further optimization if one's willing to invest the necessary time & effort. Dropping both tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL to their minimum possible values of "2" for example [or as low as you can get them] gives decent, easy gains & is prolly the first place I'd start).

And to whomever said there's no noticeable gains to be have from manually tightening your memory timings & maximizing it's clock-speed either has never done it or looked at results from those whom have, or is absolutely freaking delusional. The potential gains are HUUUUGE in comparison to just about any other tweaks you can do with Ryzen, & 2nd Gen in particular. My 3200MHz CL15 kit after applying my current ridiculously tight primary & sub memory timings smokes even vastly pricier 3600MHz CL16 kits. Improving latency at both the memory level (by tightening timings), and cache level (by increasing DDR4 clock & thus Infinity Fabric speed) are absolutely KEY to maxmizing Ryzen's performance, and ESPECIALLY in CPU limited gaming scenarios. That's why AMD focused on that area in particular so intensely for Zen+.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,103
Stilt's Ryzen 1st Gen B-die timings (the 14-13-13-13-26 ones; I have B-die DIMMs but dual-rank [16GBx2] so required some extra juice) is where I started with both my timing tightening quests for both my 1700 & 2700X. If your chip/DIMMs can handle those, that's a fantastic place to start, and has a number of easy improvements you can still make from that starting point (prolly not gonna get anything further outta the primary's, but the subtimings are ripe for further optimization if one's willing to invest the necessary time & effort. Dropping both tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL to their minimum possible values of "2" for example [or as low as you can get them] gives decent, easy gains & is prolly the first place I'd start).

And to whomever said there's no noticeable gains to be have from manually tightening your memory timings & maximizing it's clock-speed either has never done it or looked at results from those whom have, or is absolutely freaking delusional. The potential gains are HUUUUGE in comparison to just about any other tweaks you can do with Ryzen, & 2nd Gen in particular. My 3200MHz CL15 kit after applying my current ridiculously tight primary & sub memory timings smokes even vastly pricier 3600MHz CL16 kits. Improving latency at both the memory level (by tightening timings), and cache level (by increasing DDR4 clock & thus Infinity Fabric speed) are absolutely KEY to maxmizing Ryzen's performance, and ESPECIALLY in CPU limited gaming scenarios. That's why AMD focused on that area in particular so intensely for Zen+.
The testing I did, 3466 memory with Cas 14 (Stilts 3300 safe sub timings) beat out Stilt's 3200 Fast settings (Cas 13 . . .). Only a few programs actually showed any significant advantage, for games it was the minimal FPS speeds that gained the most. Sitting at the computer not knowing if it was 3200 Cas 14 or Stilts Safe 3200 speeds that has Cas 14 timing or Stilts Fast with Cas 13 or 3466mhz with fastest sub timings supported- I would be very surprised if anyone could accurately tell the difference other then certain benchmarks. Any intensive CPU, cache based type programs will see insignificant improvement from 2666mhz to 3600mhz. Hitman was the game that showed the most improvement - other games less to much less improvement with memory speeds.
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,649
The testing I did, 3466 memory with Cas 14 (Stilts 3300 safe sub timings) beat out Stilt's 3200 Fast settings (Cas 13 . . .). Only a few programs actually showed any significant advantage, for games it was the minimal FPS speeds that gained the most. Sitting at the computer not knowing if it was 3200 Cas 14 or Stilts Safe 3200 speeds that has Cas 14 timing or Stilts Fast with Cas 13 or 3466mhz with fastest sub timings supported- I would be very surprised if anyone could accurately tell the difference other then certain benchmarks. Any intensive CPU, cache based type programs will see insignificant improvement from 2666mhz to 3600mhz. Hitman was the game that showed the most improvement - other games less to much less improvement with memory speeds.
You compared awesome with awesome, so we could expect close results. But Joe blow at 3200MHz CL16 (or far, far worse) being standard Ryzen proud to hit 3200MHz, isn't in the true zone of what these chips can perform.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,140
Since we are on the topic of timings:

He only managed 3466 mhz but still had good results with the tight timings. FC5 really stood out in the Mindblank Tech test.
fc5.PNG
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,103
You compared awesome with awesome, so we could expect close results. But Joe blow at 3200MHz CL16 (or far, far worse) being standard Ryzen proud to hit 3200MHz, isn't in the true zone of what these chips can perform.
I should redo this, especially if I get a 2700K. Anyways I went to 32gb (4 sticks of TridentZ 3200 cas 14 ram) running it at 3200mhz Stilt's safe preset which is actually much tighter than D.O.C.P memory settings (X.M.P).

Another note on ram speeds, while some of the numbers may look greatly improve like 99% percentile, for the user with 60hz monitors it usually is meaningless since FPS is already faster than refresh rate or you are at higher resolution making the GPU the restriction. So in essence I am monitor/GPU limited while faster memory timings only just give better benchmark results but no significant user experience improvement due to other restrictions. My thoughts at least on that.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,140
FC5 is a low core use game - the area where Ryzen struggled the most. Witcher 3 and AotS also showed nice improvements in the test.
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,649
Another note on ram speeds, while some of the numbers may look greatly improve like 99% percentile, for the user with 60hz monitors it usually is meaningless since FPS is already faster than refresh rate or you are at higher resolution making the GPU the restriction. So in essence I am monitor/GPU limited while faster memory timings only just give better benchmark results but no significant user experience improvement due to other restrictions. My thoughts at least on that.
Faster is faster. Whether your system is capable of the benefits is irrelevant to the focus of the thread.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,103
Faster is faster. Whether your system is capable of the benefits is irrelevant to the focus of the thread.
Faster is faster but also may be irrelevant in the end. Like OCing the 2700x, the gains are so pitiful compared to smart XMR2 and PB2 it becomes irrelevant.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
187
Well, if you checked the video Steve used Flare X here, with the baseline result representing standard 3200 CL14 (5:30 in the video). If you push the same ram to 3400 speed and use timings from The Stilt, you can net 10 - 15%, in three out of four games.

He promised another test with 30 games, looking forward to seeing those results.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,288
Well, if you checked the video Steve used Flare X here, with the baseline result representing standard 3200 CL14 (5:30 in the video). If you push the same ram to 3400 speed and use timings from The Stilt, you can net 10 - 15%, in three out of four games.

He promised another test with 30 games, looking forward to seeing those results.

Yeah if you’re running at 190 FPS which is meaningless and reinforces what noko has been saying the last few posts.

Like for me I run 70 FPS. The difference is generally 70.1 vs 70.2. Whoop dee do. The overall point is if you want 144Hz locked, sure go for it. If someone is using 60Hz maybe suggest slightly slower ram, making the justification to go AMD more appealing as it costs even less.

Suggesting everyone needs and gets huge bonuses from $250 16GB pack of RAM does AMD no justice at all. If the person is running a 60Hz monitor they would be overspending for no noticeable gain.
 
Top