Ryzen 2700 vs 2700x in overclocking?

Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by 2wiced, Apr 22, 2018.

  1. 2wiced

    2wiced 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,364
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    I'm debating selling my 1700 that runs at 4ghz and buying a 2700 or 2700x to play around with. Given that I don't need the $30 heataink, is there a silicon difference between 2700 and 2700x that would increase overclocking potential?

    Any links? Experiences?

    Thanks guys.
     
  2. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    8,088
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Reviewers didn't get 2700 non-x CPUs, so I'm expecting information to be a bit thin.

    But given that you're trying to 'upgrade' from an r7 1700- why not pay the extra $30, and sell the cooler with the 1700?
     
    MrC4 likes this.
  3. Woot910

    Woot910 n00bie

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2018
    If OP is like me, perhaps the 65w envelope is more attractive than the 105w one? My 1700 was bought strictly due to its thermal characteristics. I know the normal 2700 is looking mighty tempting to me!
     
    Manny Calavera and dragonstongue like this.
  4. 123Lanoix

    123Lanoix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,732
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    if you want just all out performance get the 2700x if you need to run in a tighter temps envelop for a itx build you might want to go 2700 as it will run cooler out of the box. the 2700x runs at 105tdp out of the boxs so you need to cool that. You may overclock a 2700 to a stock 2700x speeds
     
  5. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,113
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    For me, I never really got the whole 'power efficient' debate as far as home use goes. We are talking pennies or a few dollars month to month. Now, data centers, sure. If you have 1,000's of CPU's ... pennies and a few dollars add up hugely.

    Heat is also less of an issue with a lot less transistors going into cpu's these days.

    At any rate. The 2700 should be able to overclock nicely, at least to the same levels as the 2700x. My GF has a 1700 and she can surpass the speeds of a 1800x 24/7 easily. I think most people can. HardOCP says the 1700 is the best value for the money when they review it compared to the 1800x last year.

    There might be a reason why no 2700's were provided in review kits. Surely it would be found out that the 2700 would overclock extremely well which would have been reported and more than likely impacted 2700x sales.
     
    Archaea and convexion like this.
  6. atmartens

    atmartens [H]Lite

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    One word: noise.
     
    ReaperX22 likes this.
  7. convexion

    convexion Gawd

    Messages:
    975
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    One word response: water.
     
    spine and alxlwson like this.
  8. Nightfire

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,028
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    Some thought that the x models might have more o/c headroom this time. It doesn't seem to be the case.

    Steve at Hardware unboxed actually got a better o/c from the 2600 vs the 2600x
     
  9. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    20,823
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    it's not so much the headroom but more to do with a higher chance of hitting that barrier.. the non X's typically have worse memory compatibility and lower chance of hitting what ever that barrier may be.. in the case of first gen a lot of the non X's typically fell short of the 4Ghz mark.

    i'd say steve got lucky more than anything.. first gen the 1600 typically hit a wall at 3.8-3.9Ghz while most 1600x's hit 4Ghz and didn't run into as many issues going over ddr4 3200 with samsung B dies like the non X model did.
     
    kirbyrj likes this.
  10. dragonstongue

    dragonstongue 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,962
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    less transistors LOL wut?
    there is MORE not LESS, if you mean die size, well that is different I suppose.
    just throwing it out there, transistor count
    Phenom II x6 1090T---FX 8370-----------AMD Ryzen 7 2700
    904M----------------------1.2B----------------4.8B
    45nm---------------------32nm----------------14nm+/12m (whatever THEY want to call it lol)

    i7 980x-------------------IvyBridge 3770k---CoffeeLake 8700k
    1.17B---------------------1.4B------------------3.3B (estimated)
    32nm---------------------22nm------------------14nm++

    6700k ~1.75B, 7700 ~2.4B..core count cache etc 8700k approx ~3.3-3.7B or so..
    Intel has not released transistor count in many years "officially" so one can only esitamte based on die size, increased gate pitch etc..........
    ===================================
    ================

    not that it really matters, the transistor count has more or less been going up over the years (from 1971 through to now)
    as the die size has shrunk CPU do this, GPU pretty much do exactly the same
    (shrink it, might as well stuff more in there because the shrink let you do it while not really hurting the raw power to drive it..course the cpu or gpu in question still need ample ability to cool the far hotter much smaller area is not a good thing either even if the "TDP" has more or less been for many years in the 35-140w range "stock")

    I do not know why they do not do "shrink" for die size to reduce power consumption but keep same raw power it already has could maybe jump the clocks a bit because there would be less crap to have to power up ^.^

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    +++++++++++++++++
    heat still very much is an "issue" always will be, well unless you "declock" the cpu or gpu than the heat is drastically reduced this much I know.
    my poor old 45nm Phenom II 955 if I downclock to 0.975v 2.1Ghz all cores 100% max load temps 22-25c year round
    current clock 1.33-1.35v (windows) 3.7g all cores 100% max load temps 35-43c (when is super hot in my room)

    just goes to show chasing high clocks is not "needed" especially with the crazy fast cpu that are out there now (are people not always touting how much IPC advantage Intel has would imagine if they are that much faster than why have them clocked up so damn high LOL) they burn a bunch of extra power when they pass certain clock steps, need more volts to drive so heat goes up and up
    (intel chips may be considered cool running, at least until the clocks get cranked up and thereby so do amp/volt/watt).

    take a leaner TDP chip and clock it down, temps and power required drop massively, but is nice to have more cores on top of reducing the power overall, 8 core 16 thread at lower clocks (if can use it) will beat a higher clocked 6 core 12 thread and demolish 4 core 8 thread this much I know...granted it depends on what program/app or whatever you are using I suppose

    ^.^
     
  11. Woot910

    Woot910 n00bie

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2018
    The reason I went with a 65w processor is due to running an ITX motherboard, 16gb ram, (2) 1 TB drives, 250gb NVME, GTX 1060... all shoehorned into a box the size of a shoebox. Having a 95w or 105w processor was not really an option due to heat output. I am running a single 120mm AIO water cooler, so did not want a furnace sitting next to me. Price of electricity did not play a factor in my decision.
     
  12. 123Lanoix

    123Lanoix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,732
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    i was able to get the 2700x to run a similar temps of my old 1600x @3.9 1.3v by undervolting with an offset - 0.1000 I'm getting the same performance with the 2700x running auto voltage.
     
  13. Keljian

    Keljian Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    291
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    I have a 1700, under a D15, which I am running at 3.7/1.23v for all cores. Why not more? Cause I need to push more voltage through to hit 3.8/4.0 etc and the difference in performance is marginal in comparison to the extra heat produced when I am actually using that power. The motherboard can handle it, but my study needs to be comfortable to work in.


    In the winter it is less of an issue than summer.
     
  14. 2wiced

    2wiced 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,364
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Seems like I've added a 2600 vs 2700 possibility. The $199 Ryzen 2600 vs $287 Ryzen 2700.

    I'm still looking around internet. It looks like there's little difference. Ive seen people get 2600/2600x to 4.2-4.3ghz. Maybe I'll order both 2600 and 2700 and test them both. And sell the other.

    If ryzen 3600/3700 is coming out next year I'll just be hopping from 1 CPU to another
     
  15. housecat

    housecat Gawd

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    The main reason you'd want the 65w chips on the AMD side is that you don't have the 10C temp offset. It hard throttles at 85C instead of 95C on the X SKUs. Soft throttles (algorithmically) at 50C rather than 60C.

    I have a 2700X but the 2700 is the better choice. I knew this when I bought but also knew it wasn't the last CPU ever since I'm on AM4. I'll probably buy the last gen AM4 (Ryzen4) and go 65W with that one since I'll have it for a while.
     
  16. os2wiz

    os2wiz Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    493
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011


    Better binning means better chance for high overclock. I have a 2700X running 24/7 at 4.2 GHZ fully stable. As a matter of fact, I can run it 4.275 GHZ at 24/7 stable but I prefer keeping my voltage at a little safer level. Ryzen 2 generation should not exceed 1.40 cpu voltage on a 24/7 basis un;ess you don't care if 12 to 18 months down the line when your cpu suffers performance degradation.Here is some of my benchmarks with my 2700X at 4.2 to 4.3 GHZ.
     

    Attached Files:

    Nightfire likes this.
  17. spinejam

    spinejam Gawd

    Messages:
    708
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    My experience: Ryzen 2700 rock solid @4.1 Ghz all-core 24/7 @1.39 vCore.
     
  18. housecat

    housecat Gawd

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Just an update on my 2700X, I'm having no issues at all with it in my (properly configured) mITX case with a Cryorig C7 Cu on a Strix X470-i. Max temp in real world gaming usage is 75C max, sustaining 4GHz+ during that. It's quiet in desktop usage as well. I decided to go for it because they are making efficiency improvements and crunching the numbers, I figured I could make this work and it does. I'm hitting short bursts of 4.35GHz boost clock as well according to hwinfo.

    Would I buy the 2700X again? I don't think it matters if you have the gear to properly work around a more demanding chip. If you have a motherboard with bad fan controls and such, then no, hands down the 2700. It'll cover you and I really doubt the performance difference is worth quibbling over.
    2700 is 4.1GHz turbo and 2700X is 4.3? If you can keep the 2700 cool and at 4.1GHz, that's not really that far behind 4.3. I think it would be tough to maintain 4.1 or 4.3GHz 24/7 on all 8 cores though in any situation. With 8 cores at either of those speeds, both are going to be thermally limited unless you really go to town with your setup.

    I have some of the better gear on the market paired with my mini-ITX 2700X setup, but I think I'd still generally recommend the 2700. I just don't think someone is losing much. Thanks to AMD solder, a 2700X can work though, would not be possible to do what I'm doing with Intel unless you delidded.
     
  19. Nightfire

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,028
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    Nice score of 1900 points with the 4.2 Ghz 24/7 overclock. Tech showdown got the same 177 single core score with a 1900x at 4.3 Ghz but only managed 1855 points in multicore, possibly due to thermal throttling.
     
  20. Brackle

    Brackle Old Timer

    Messages:
    7,405
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    I got my 2700 non K at 4.2ghz 1.41v stable. I also run my memory at super low timings. To me I see no reason to get a 2700k unless you dont want to overclock. If you dont mind overclocking get a 2700 non k.

    When I last ran CB15 i think I hit 1902 or something like that. Either way great damn CPU's if you ask me.

    Edit: Updated CB15 score! Ryzen loves low latency memory!
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
    primetime and Nightfire like this.
  21. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger 3.5GB GTX 970 Slayer

    Messages:
    18,139
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    It goes straight into your room/office. That's why. People don't like to sweat because of their pc.
     
    IdiotInCharge and Brackle like this.
  22. Nightfire

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,028
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    Impressive results. It seems that the 6 cores have a much easier time hitting 1500 points than the 8 cores hitting 2000 points. It is a lot of extra heat to dump, and thus higher required voltages even with solder.

    I have little doubt that the 2900x will hit 2000 points with the larger die surface area and possibly better silicon given a good 360mm or 280mm aio.

    So ignoring the heat issue, an 8 core Ryzen at around 4.4 ghz is right a double the score of a 6700k running at 4.7 ghz or so.

    Not bad for "Sandy Bridge-like" (sarcasm) IPC.
     
  23. housecat

    housecat Gawd

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Just so it's clear, there's a contradiction between buying the 2700 to overclock it and the reasoning that it's the chip that "won't make you sweat". Overclocking at 4.1GHz+ 24/7 is going to produce more heat than just using a stock 2700X that gets to downclock the 90% of the time you don't actually need ~4.2GHz on 8 cores.

    If you want max performance + efficiency you'd get the 2700X.
    If you want efficiency you'd get the 2700.
    If you want performance you can get either the 2700X or 2700 and overclock them.

    There is no wrong answer here bros. I am pretty happy with mine though.
    upload_2018-7-6_21-32-35.png
     
    Brackle and Nightfire like this.
  24. Nightfire

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,028
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    There have been leaks of a CFL part (8 core) hitting 2200 points on CB. This is right at 33% higher than the typical 1650 or so score of an overclocked 8700k.

    Honestly I don't see this happening even with a delid and big cooling.

    But as we have seen with the 28 core HPDT, Intel loves big cooling!
     
  25. Brackle

    Brackle Old Timer

    Messages:
    7,405
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    TBH I expect the Intel 8core to beat Ryzen+ in CB15. Just based on clock speed alone. As much as I do love these new Ryzen, you can't take away the fact that Intel has the clock speed advantage. To me the main reason I went Ryzen is because I won't need to upgrade when 7nm Ryzen 2 comes out next year. Just Bios update, and drop in the CPU!

    Now you are right, that 8core will need big cooling, and if Intel still goes with crap thermal grease again, yea you will need to delid, but either way I expect the 8core Intel to beat Ryzen+
     
  26. Nightfire

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,028
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    Oh I agree, I just think 2100 points will be closer to a 24/7 overclock for that chip. Single thread work will be better as well. It will be rather expensive I am guessing.
     
    Brackle and housecat like this.
  27. housecat

    housecat Gawd

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    You won't find me moving to 8C CFL, no matter how many points it eeks out in a synthetic benchmark. The slowdown in my work (.Net compilation, heavy IO usage) is ~30% for me with Meltdown. Supposedly this 8C revision fixes it in silicon but I'm not going to rush out to buy one when my 1700, 1800X and 2700X have been great and without that flaw.

    Cherry on top is the solder. I get to run a chip that normally would be too hot for a case this small and it works. No way I'd put an 8700K or 9700K in this thing and expect it to work very well. My 2700X hits 75C max in real world use cases.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 7, 2018
    Shadowed and Nightfire like this.
  28. Ebernanut

    Ebernanut Gawd

    Messages:
    894
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Pstate overclocking will downclock/downvolt but it takes more effort and you still lose XFR so no single core boosts.

    Personally I think if there was a much larger price difference then it would make sense to get the 2700 and overclock it but with prices so close it makes more sense to get the 2700x for better stock clocks and a better cooler. I plan on replacing the stock cooler but it's good enough that I haven't felt rushed and it will make a good backup, last I heard they were selling for a decent amount too.
     
  29. housecat

    housecat Gawd

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    I hear you. Ya I know, I'm not a fan of downclocking/volting. If you want something lesser than what you bought... buy a 65W TDP CPU next time. :D I've bought both and if forced to buy 65 or 105 TDP chips, I'd go 65. While the entire performance curve is going to be different, if the max boost is 4.1 vs 4.3 I really doubt it will matter if the goal if you keep both cool.

    Most people are picking based on price, not thermal profiles. People will almost always defend what they bought for themselves. I'm not short on money so I just buy whatever I want. I like both of these options. I also bought both the 1800X and 1700.
    This won't be popular but I don't think it matters, these are all the same class of CPU for what most people are doing. 1700 vs 1800X, 2700 vs 2700X, doesn't matter. Maybe once you step down to the 6 core or 4 core things change in a meaningful way.

    I always have to tell my buddy that calls AMD CPUs "slow" in gaming that he's being retarded. No modern CPU can be called "slow", that's just fanboy nonsense. If someone calls any Ryzen CPU "slow", smash their head in with a hammer before they reproduce. What is slow? Intel CPUs affected by Meltdown on large IO transfers, I know because I see it in my work, and at home I'm all AMD at the moment. That's one of the very few real problems facing CPUs, and Intel only, today. Everything is objectively fast.

    I use the 2700X but I like the 2700 more. I wouldn't buy it for myself but I do appreciate it more, I get a kick out of saving power even if it's not much. I use a GF1060 for the same reason, it's all the GPU power I need (I think it's fast !!!! It is a 980 in performance) and it's the "cool and quiet" solution... but even this 1060 gets pretty warm. I was going to buy a 1080Ti, I didn't pass due to financials, I just don't care. I care more about my CPU performance since that's used by everything I do.
     
  30. 123Lanoix

    123Lanoix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,732
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005


    Hi what type of case are you using? I have the x370-i and using cryorig c1 heatsink getting similar peformance but my case is really tiny not much airflow sometimes i hit 80c on hot days like 90f
     
  31. housecat

    housecat Gawd

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    80C and 90F? Big difference. I never see 80C on my system, as noted 75C is the max I've ever encountered. I'm using a Node202. The C1 is a good cooler. It's far too tall for my case. The C7 is a lot smaller, but I have the all copper edition which helps a little bit.
     
  32. 123Lanoix

    123Lanoix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,732
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    ive owned both the c7 and now the c1 the c1 has a TDP of 140w but my case is the silverstone shoe box case. my temps are usually like 65 70 c its just on these extremely hot days when my ambient temp is like90c it got up in 80s when running a game.
     
  33. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    54,831
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    If only someone wrote a review on the 2700 and used the 2700X to compare it to.
     
    primetime, Algrim, Nobu and 2 others like this.