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

[hahahanoobs]

TDP of 95W and 105W are too hot already. Why would anyone want 120W? I though the whole point of ryzen was lower TDP, more effieciency, no?

It was joke, which is fitting for Zen+.
AMD needed 12nm to give us an additional 300MHz in its boost clock and higher temps and power consumption over the 1800X.

That's a fail if I've ever seen one.

 

[gachimuchi]

Talking about overprice, no one beat intel really.
7700k cost almost 500$ year ago for just a quad cores, and 1000$ for 8 cores ???
After arrival of ryzen, you know the rest. 8700k 6 cores became 350$, and the rest of their cpu are also dropped in prices. Intel can't milk their customer anymore, thx to ryzen lol

 

[FreeBetaTester]

...
Based on your logic AMD and NVIDIA were selling their GPU's at a massive discounted rate as 12 months ago I could get a 1060 for $350 but now they are $750..... I don't know why no body told them they were loosing money.

Really my logic? Sure like to invent strawman about things I would never say. Both nVidia and AMD are priced to high for their video cards even before the crypto currency craze. BTW the 1060 should go for about $150 ideally.

And you can see here nearly a year ago I got pretty close for my 1060, there was a $25 rebate in the mail that made it $160:
https://I.imgur.com/URnddqD.jpg

And the 1050ti had a $15 rebate making it $105. I should have gotten some more had I know what the crazy crypto hype would have done.

 

[FreeBetaTester]

Talking about overprice, no one beat intel really.
7700k cost almost 500$ year ago for just a quad cores....l

A year ago the 7700K was about $270 to $300. People that paid $500 did not do their due diligence shopping.

 

[Flebbert]

I don't think you understand how the value of items work, I paid 10K for my bike 6 years ago but can get it today for 6K, are you saying that things get cheaper over time? and people give specials to create incentive for people to buy?

My world has been blown!!!!

Losing 4K after 6 years or 40% over 4 years is heck of a lot better than losing 50% in less than 9 months. If you can not make the distinction, then maybe your mind have been blown, and world just moved on without you.

Actually I do not think you understand how money and value works. Stuff that is actually of value increase in price over time. Good stocks, good real estate, good investments, they increase in value over time. Even simple saving with compounded interest, increases the money your save over time.

For consumables, like CPUs, bikes, cars, etc., the goal to reduce the loss ratio as much as possible. Overpaying upfront for consumables, is the surest way for you to lose money.

BTW I am saying AMD should have the incentives built into their pricing to start with, and not what they had done with pricing the 1800x at $500, or even now the 2700x at $330.

You are looking at a product without any context to the rest of the world that it exists in, the intel CPU to match the 1800X was over twice the price.

Just read previous posts and see that other people have already replied to you in the past, also a reason they have 10+ likes as well.

Performance was a little less than I think people were expecting but it is only day one so hopefully there is some improvement.

To say that they are not great value is insane an I think this still puts all of this in the same position...... if you want the fastest get an 8700K (5% of people), if you want to look at value there is an AMD / Intel option and if you want workstation processing AMD is your JAM.

 

[Flebbert]

...
Based on your logic AMD and NVIDIA were selling their GPU's at a massive discounted rate as 12 months ago I could get a 1060 for $350 but now they are $750..... I don't know why no body told them they were loosing money.

Really my logic? Sure like to invent strawman about things I would never say. Both nVidia and AMD are priced to high for their video cards even before the crypto currency craze. BTW the 1060 should go for about $150 ideally.

And you can see here nearly a year ago I got pretty close for my 1060, there was a $25 rebate in the mail that made it $160:
https://I.imgur.com/URnddqD.jpg

And the 1050ti had a $15 rebate making it $105. I should have gotten some more had I know what the crazy crypto hype would have done.

Woah, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot call a product over priced if it gets cheaper over time and then not call a product under priced if it then gets more expensive over time.

It is your logic, you are saying the CPUs are over priced because they are getting cheaper over time.

 

[ZackL04]

Yeah, IF you play the poorly optimized assasin's creed or far cry 5. Remove those from the benchmark and the 2700X is faster.

Or any game from the last 30 years

 

[Evernessince]

Did you realize not everyone wants to drink AMD's marketing Koolaid? AMD might as well be comparing against a pentium pro that went for $1500 in 1996. They so stacked that deck to make themselves look good. The real on the street situation is that the 1800x had to compete directly against a 7700K at the $300 price point. Why do you think the 2700x is priced right in that ballpark. AMD had to face the market reality.



No they are not misguided. This was the marketing story put out by AMD. AMD starting from its initial release of Ryzen got all the gamers excited only to underdeliver and underwhelm. It is a bait-and-switch and cop out to say "oh it's compute".

Bottom line, it is not up to AMD to decide what their products and prices has to compete with. It is the buyers and market that decide and have decided. The pricing trends are just a trailing indicator for that.

"AMD starting from its initial release of Ryzen got all the gamers excited only to underdeliver and underwhelm. It is a bait-and-switch and cop out to say "oh it's compute"."

/facepalm

That was Vega. If you are going to criticize a product, at least make sure you match up the correct criticism to the correct product.

Also, you do realize that the 7700K and 8700K retail for about the same price right now. The 2700X's pricing has more to do with the 8700K as the 2700X pretty much matches the 7700K in games and demolishes it in multi-tasking. Zero reason to get a 7700K when Intel offers better products at the same price.

 

[hahahanoobs]

" Still, it's well worth noting that the 2700X just managed to edge out the 7820X and that's a big deal."

Not really. Gamers are more likely to buy dual channel Intel chips for gaming, not quad channel HEDT chips. Price matters. And the different markets they are designed for matters. Ryzen could be sold as a work and play chip, but a 7820X is primarily for productivity. You could buy a 16T Ryzen chip because of its low price alone and go home and could get the same performance you desire for less. You don't buy a 7820X for those same reasons. You just don't. Common sense says so.

7820X was out before Ryzen and didn't have its memory compatibility problems. A lot of people are willing to pay extra for stability. Again, common sense.

 

[Flebbert]

Did you realize not everyone wants to drink AMD's marketing Koolaid? AMD might as well be comparing against a pentium pro that went for $1500 in 1996. They so stacked that deck to make themselves look good. The real on the street situation is that the 1800x had to compete directly against a 7700K at the $300 price point. Why do you think the 2700x is priced right in that ballpark. AMD had to face the market reality.



No they are not misguided. This was the marketing story put out by AMD. AMD starting from its initial release of Ryzen got all the gamers excited only to underdeliver and underwhelm. It is a bait-and-switch and cop out to say "oh it's compute".

Bottom line, it is not up to AMD to decide what their products and prices has to compete with. It is the buyers and market that decide and have decided. The pricing trends are just a trailing indicator for that.

"AMD starting from its initial release of Ryzen got all the gamers excited only to underdeliver and underwhelm. It is a bait-and-switch and cop out to say "oh it's compute"."

/facepalm

That was Vega. If you are going to criticize a product, at least make sure you match up the correct criticism to the correct product.

Also, you do realize that the 7700K and 8700K retail for about the same price right now. The 2700X's pricing has more to do with the 8700K as the 2700X pretty much matches the 7700K in games and demolishes it in multi-tasking. Zero reason to get a 7700K when Intel offers better products at the same price.

Just want to say I am disappointed with VEGA

Know a few people who do after effects for movies and they were pretty excited by the 1800X, to be fair a lot of them do run MAC but they really wanted this change.

 

[Flebbert]

" Still, it's well worth noting that the 2700X just managed to edge out the 7820X and that's a big deal."

Not really. Gamers are more likely to buy dual channel Intel chips for gaming, not quad channel HEDT chips. Price matters. And the different markets they are designed for matters. Ryzen could be sold as a work and play chip, but a 7820X is primarily for productivity. You could buy a 16T Ryzen chip because of its low price alone and go home and could get the same performance you desire for less. You don't buy a 7820X for those same reasons. You just don't. Common sense says so.

7820X was out before Ryzen and didn't have its memory compatibility problems. A lot of people are willing to pay extra for stability. Again, common sense.

Some valid points, and all this comes down to opinion from all of us really.

I think the reality is that these will still sell well and we represent less than 5% of the market. I guess that's the key point, if AMD can market these chips really well then they will sell well...... they just have to break the mentality of that just because it is AMD and doesn't suit the top 5% that they don't matter.

I think none of us should be fan boys and just look at the product at hand and they are not the "best" but still pretty darn great.

EDIT: Yeah have been up for a very long time and jacked on coffee.

 

[Evernessince]

Just want to say I am disappointed with VEGA

Know a few people who do after effects for movies and they were pretty excited by the 1800X, to be fair a lot of them do run MAC but they really wanted this change.

I was really disappointed by Vega as well. Raja over promised and we only got a so-so gaming video card. I don't know what he was thinking by adding a high bandwidth cache controller to the GPU that takes up so much space but it hasn't helped AMD in non-gaming segments and it doesn't help gamers at all.

 

[hahahanoobs]

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?????

People buying Intel HEDT's buy it for stability and performance compatibility with hardware and software, and reviewers only show you a couple examples of productivity workloads, when there are dozens more they don't that people buying these systems actually use.

If Ryzen was selling so well, Zen+ chips wouldn't cost less than last gen. Think about it. We're talking about a company that wanted $1500 for the Pro Duo, $650 for the Nano and $999 for the 9590.

AMD would love nothing more than to charge Intel prices and get it, but they can't because Ryzen has shortcomings and immaturity going for it.

 

[FreeBetaTester]

... you cannot call a product over priced if it gets cheaper over time and then not call a product under priced if it then gets more expensive over time.

Says who? These consumables are never underpriced. They can only be overpriced by definition of them being consumables.

It is your logic, you are saying the CPUs are over priced because they are getting cheaper over time.

That is not my logic, that your made up words for me. AMD overpriced it and now has to reduce prices. That evidence along proves AMD overpriced ryzen from the start. Prices will eventually stabilize around a range that the market is willing to accept. Any prices over that is overpriced.

 

[Flebbert]

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?????

People buying Intel HEDT's buy it for stability and performance compatibility with hardware and software, and reviewers only show you a couple examples of productivity workloads, when there are dozens more they don't that people buying these systems actually use.

If Ryzen was selling so well, Zen+ chips wouldn't cost less than last gen. Think about it. We're talking about a company that wanted $1500 for the Pro Duo, $650 for the Nano and $999 for the 9590.

AMD would love nothing more than to charge Intel prices and get it, but they can't because Ryzen has shortcomings and immaturity going for it.

I think there is another piece to this as well and that is that AMD want Intel to bleed a little as well. AMD chips are hugely cheap to manufacture compared to Intel so if they can make make money and hurt Intel a little they will.

The more chips they have out there the more confidence people will have in their products.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Some valid points, and all this comes down to opinion from all of us really.

I think the reality is that these will still sell well and we represent less than 5% of the market. I guess that's the key point, if AMD can market these chips really well then they will sell well...... they just have to break the mentality of that just because it is AMD and doesn't suit the top 5% that they don't matter.

I think none of us should be fan boys and just look at the product at hand and they are not the "best" but still pretty darn great.

EDIT: Yeah have been up for a very long time and jacked on coffee.

AMD marketing is an oxymoron.
AMD needs profits, not just sales.
AMD needs a product everyone can benefit from. Reviewers are always using Ryzen's threads as a selling point, when 80% of us don't need them.
AMD really can't even compete with i3's and i5's if you really think about it.

 

[Flebbert]

... you cannot call a product over priced if it gets cheaper over time and then not call a product under priced if it then gets more expensive over time.

Says who? These consumables are never underpriced. They can only be overpriced by definition of them being consumables.

It is your logic, you are saying the CPUs are over priced because they are getting cheaper over time.

That is not my logic, that your made up words for me. AMD overpriced it and now has to reduce prices. That evidence along proves AMD overpriced ryzen from the start. Prices will eventually stabilize around a range that the market is willing to accept. Any prices over that is overpriced.

So the GPUs were under priced and now they are stabilized?

 

[Flebbert]

Some valid points, and all this comes down to opinion from all of us really.

I think the reality is that these will still sell well and we represent less than 5% of the market. I guess that's the key point, if AMD can market these chips really well then they will sell well...... they just have to break the mentality of that just because it is AMD and doesn't suit the top 5% that they don't matter.

I think none of us should be fan boys and just look at the product at hand and they are not the "best" but still pretty darn great.

EDIT: Yeah have been up for a very long time and jacked on coffee.

AMD marketing is an oxymoron.
AMD needs profits, not just sales.
AMD needs a product everyone can benefit from. Reviewers are always using Ryzen's threads as a selling point, when 80% of us don't need them.
AMD really can't even compete with i3's and i5's if you really think about it.

Agree on the first
The second they need both
This is the tricky one as only gamers look at reviews, business world we hate Intel laptops because of the fact they didn't have threads. Know of a few large enterprise who really wanted Ryzen due to the fact that their desktop applications were running like crap when they did anything slightly intensive. EDIT: 80% don't need insane gaming performance either.
The fourth I agree and disagree because it is hard to separate personal use etc out of it, I would't buy a 4 core CPU non stop for a whole lot of reasons but they do still perform well....... this one is just look at the need of the user really as too many variables.

I still think we are in the 5% of people who are buying CPU's and looking at reviews

 

[CheekyP]

I think there is another piece to this as well and that is that AMD want Intel to bleed a little as well. AMD chips are hugely cheap to manufacture compared to Intel so if they can make make money and hurt Intel a little they will.

The more chips they have out there the more confidence people will have in their products.

I think AMD would be hurt more in a price war than Intel. In a war of margins attrition there is only one winner and that won't be AMD.

Ryzen gen 1 from what I've seen sold well, so AMD will price them at what they think the market will bear, not what they think will hurt Intel the most.

 

[Lionvibez]

I've read 3 reviews including yours and the results are all over the place.

Anandtech,Techreport, Techspot.

Will have to read a few more before I can get a concrete idea of the total package.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

@Steve,
"Interestingly, the difference between G.Skill’s Sniper X DDR4-3400 CL16 and DDR4-3600 CL19 memory is virtually non-existent. The looser timings of the higher clocked memory nullify any advantage the higher frequency might bring."

It's hard to tell if your using the word interestingly as a replacement word for "suprisingly"? As much as you know about hardware your surely not surprised by your memory kit observations, are you?

I'm not but it's only because I just learned recently that 2 different memory kits running @ 2 different speeds can produce exactly (or maybe a more accurate word would be approximately), the same usable bandwidth because of different timings.

So a memory kit with inferior genetics (is that fair to say or am I being too colorful) I.e., IC chips running @ 2933MHz might produce the same usable bandwidth as a memory kit running @ 2666MHz with superior genetics, I.e. IC chips. So while 1 memory kit is working harder, the other one is working slower but smarter (or more efficiently) I guess.

What a wonderful way for memory manufacturers to fleece the uneducated public huh? And I just learned this recently after having just purchased an AMD 2200G CPU/motherboard combo....where memory speed is king...no...is God!

 

[Angga B]

Question....

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

Yeah, one or two sites out there do with the patches applied. Ohh boy do they flip the table upside down...

Poor blue team. They think they can get on with the 10+ years investment on insecure branch prediction without reaping what they sowed in the first place.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Poor blue team. They think they can get on with the 10+ years investment on insecure branch prediction without reaping what they sowed in the first place.

Seriously why do you think they can not?

 

[Flebbert]

Question....

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

Yeah, one or two sites out there do with the patches applied. Ohh boy do they flip the table upside down...

Poor blue team. They think they can get on with the 10+ years investment on insecure branch prediction without reaping what they sowed in the first place.

I am confused, I would have assumed that all systems would be fully patched?

Edit: this looks more like a scripting issue with running the benchmarks. Intel still ahead.. just give it a few hours

 

[Strawman]

They so stacked that deck to make themselves look good. The real on the street situation is that the 1800x had to compete directly against a 7700K at the $300 price point. Why do you think the 2700x is priced right in that ballpark. AMD had to face the market reality.

It's blatantly obvious to see why the 1800x cost 500$ and the 2700x 330$. Do I really have to explain it?

Let's say the competition was indeed the mainstream from Intel. What CPU was the 1800x competing against? That's right, it was competing against the 7700k. A 4c / 8t CPU that was completely demolished in productivity even by the R5 1600. Now the 2nd gen Ryzen are competing against a coffeelake, which is essentially 50% more cores in the same price point. Of course their prices are going to be lower!

The 1800x dropped in price because it's actually competition, the HEDT from Intel had MASSIVE pricecuts. That's it, Intel lowered their prices and then AMD followed. Anything else is just you daydreaming