AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Zen+ Is Here

[Julio Franco]

It's been great to have more competition in the CPU sector since Ryzen arrived. Based on the refreshed Zen+ architecture, today we're testing AMD's new X processors: the 2700X is an 8-core/16-thread CPU with a 3.7 GHz base and a 4.3 GHz max boost and the 2600X is a 6-core/12-thread CPU operating at 100 MHz lower clocks.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/

 

[ZackL04]

Underwhelming IMO, still slower than a stock 7700k in games too.

Laaaaame

 

[enemys]

Nice review, Steve.

Nice job, AMD. The gains aren't outstanding, but still welcome. And 10% gaming performance distance from a 8700K with 1080Ti shouldn't be a dealbreaker for most.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Underwhelming IMO, still slower than a stock 7700k in games too.

Laaaaame

It wasn't that long ago AMD didn't have anything to offer faster than an i5. You should be happy that is no longer the case.

 

[fadingfool]

Underwhelming IMO, still slower than a stock 7700k in games too.

Laaaaame

So a chip that offers i7 7820X performance at half the price (less than if the full system is included) is lame?

[disclaimer] I have an i7 7820X [/disclaimer]

 

[LeroN]

Scalability of performance with overclocking for new AMD CPUs is miserable in games. Still is neck to neck with 8400 despite on fast RAM 3400.

 

[ZackL04]

It wasn't that long ago AMD didn't have anything to offer faster than an i5. You should be happy that is no longer the case.

I agree there, just underwhelming compared to current Ryzen offering. Seems like a waste of time for them, why bother?

 

[R00sT3R]

Whilst these Ryzen CPU's are still too slow in Single threaded scenarios for my needs, I'm glad they're at least in the market place, giving lazy Intel an incentive to compete.

..If only they could do the same thing in the GPU market

 

[Charles Olson]

Roughly priced the same as Intel's I7 8700k but includes a half decent cooler ! If you could sell that cooler for 40 bucks and get a decent AIO or fan cooler it's a decent deal ! I wonder how bad it would be on an older X370 motherboard ?

 

[Puiu]

Pretty much what everybody realistically expected. The 2700x is great for heavy workloads and the 2600x is great at both heavy workloads and games. It seems Ryzen 2 got a nice boost for GCC compiling which will help a lot of people I know

 

[Cooe14]

It wasn't that long ago AMD didn't have anything to offer faster than an i5. You should be happy that is no longer the case.

I agree there, just underwhelming compared to current Ryzen offering. Seems like a waste of time for them, why bother?

Wow. Maybe you should read some more reviews first, because something isn't quite clicking yet obviously (though Steve's results are still plenty impressive [his game selection isn't particularly favorable to the red team though, and poorly show off it's gaming gains with games more latency sensitive getting much bigger jumps, hence why you should look at some others first before saying stuff like that], but obviously weren't enough to sink in). Try Gordan Mah Ung's over at PCWorld. He's about as OG and reputable as it gets.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3268953/components-processors/2nd-gen-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review.html

 

[Puiu]

Underwhelming IMO, still slower than a stock 7700k in games too.

Laaaaame

That's a weird way of looking at things. The difference between the 7700k at stock and 5.0Ghz (at least in the games tested here) is just 5fps.
If we look at things objectively, the 8700k is pretty much the only high end Intel CPU that I will recommend others to buy (unless they have some applications that I know work better on Intel systems).

But I do agree with others that it's a bit underwhelming. Not hitting 4.3GHz on all cores is a bummer.

 

[FreeBetaTester]

The 2700x at $330 is what AMD should had debuted last year for Ryzen. This show just how gallingly overpriced AMD was with their pricing. And having lost credibility there, and being a year late and many dollars short, $330 for 2700x is too high in today's market. They need to drop that by $50 at least.

 

[Cooe14]

The 2700x at $330 is what AMD should had debuted last year for Ryzen. This show just how gallingly overpriced AMD was with their pricing. And having lost credibility there, and being a year late and many dollars short, $330 for 2700x is too high in today's market. They need to drop that by $50 at least.

WHAAAAAT???? 1st Gen was competing against Broadwell-E which was 2-3x the price at $1000 for less performance. What are you smoking, and where can I get some by tomorrow?????

 

[starx5]

Where is DX12 games?

 

[FreeBetaTester]

The 1600 was massively overpriced at launch. I as able to gethe 1600 for essentially $100 this year. $150 - $30 discount on mobo - $20 rebate = $100.

See:
https://I.imgur.com/azHv52j.jpg

 

[NightAntilli]

Question....

Were these tests performed with or without the Spectre/Meltdown patches?

 

[FreeBetaTester]

The 2600 is already $50 too high people already knows it. Why do think there is $50 discount on them already see:

http://www.microcenter.com/product/...M4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Stealth_Cooler

 

[Charles Olson]

Wow. Maybe you should read some more reviews first, because something isn't quite clicking yet obviously (though Steve's results are still plenty impressive [his game selection isn't particularly favorable to the red team though, and poorly show off it's gaming gains with games more latency sensitive getting much bigger jumps, hence why you should look at some others first before saying stuff like that], but obviously weren't enough to sink in). Try Gordan Mah Ung's over at PCWorld. He's about as OG and reputable as it gets.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3268953/components-processors/2nd-gen-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review.html

Was a good review but they did there's differently ! They tested at 1080p and at stock clocks out of the box ( like most run them at only some over clock ) and maybe their ambient temperatures were lower as they had no trouble hitting 4.2 while Steve had to go down to 4.1 ( or it could be just the silicon lottery here ) ! They used a reference GTX 1080 ( while Steve used a GTX 1080 Ti ) and at most the AMD Ryzen 7 2700x was only 8 or 10 fps slower at most and had some wins ! Gordon also mentioned that at higher resolution that gap might be closer !

 

[FreeBetaTester]

And the even the 2700x has already got a $50 mobo discount see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Prism_Cooler

The market knows pricing and knows AMD is overpriced.

 

[cldmstrsn]

I am still rocking my 3770k @ 4.2 GHz. I think I will wait till Zen 2 comes along.

 

[Potato Judge]

Great review! Now I only need to wait for B450s?

By the way, what is this Monte Carlo simulation in excel? Does it simulate a workload with a crap ton of numbers on it? I would love to try the same test on my locked i5 (which I'd be replacing soon ) and see how it fairs in comparison as we often work on huge excel files.

 

[Mirek]

What do you mean "Lower is Better" in SiS Software Sandra 2016 benchmark?
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1613/bench/Memory.png
When the graphics clearly show the opposite ranking I.e. "Higher (throughput) is Better". Pay more attention, please.

 

[Kumicho]

And the even the 2700x has already got a $50 mobo discount see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Prism_Cooler

The market knows pricing and knows AMD is overpriced.

Have you ever even *heard* of MicoCenter before?

 

[FreeBetaTester]

Have you ever even *heard* of MicoCenter before?

Did you see my receipt? The proof is in the pudding. Discounts are being provided to make up from AMD's overpriced MSRP.