AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Zen+ Is Here
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Which reads better?
Original: "I should also note that the Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1800X performed the same on both B350, X370 and X470 motherboards, but memory support was better on the X470 board. I had a few stability problems with the newer Ryzen chips when installed on 300-series boards, but that could just be a BIOS issue."
Edited: "Note that the Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1800X performed the same on B350, X370 and X470 motherboards. However, memory support is better on the X470. There were fewer stability problems with the newer Ryzen chips on the 300-series boards, but that could be BIOS related."
If you said edited, then TechSpot needs to hire an Editor. It is challenging to read an article on a professional site that sounds like a lengthy blog entry. Journalism has standards in print. Journalists online should follow the same rules.
Original: "I should also note that the Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1800X performed the same on both B350, X370 and X470 motherboards, but memory support was better on the X470 board. I had a few stability problems with the newer Ryzen chips when installed on 300-series boards, but that could just be a BIOS issue."
Edited: "Note that the Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1800X performed the same on B350, X370 and X470 motherboards. However, memory support is better on the X470. There were fewer stability problems with the newer Ryzen chips on the 300-series boards, but that could be BIOS related."
If you said edited, then TechSpot needs to hire an Editor. It is challenging to read an article on a professional site that sounds like a lengthy blog entry. Journalism has standards in print. Journalists online should follow the same rules.
I see no IPC advantage for intel any more. They have the frequency advantage only. If an AMD chip with 4.2 ghz freq can compete (can score a little less/a little more) with a 5.2 ghz intel I see that as a win for AMD. Also anandtech benches are worthy of a look if you havent already
I'd take anandtech's benches with a grain of salt, they showed the 2700X matching or outperforming the 8700k on every game they tested. Not that it wouldn't be nice if it could, but being realistic there's something wrong there.
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
They did say that, rather than relying on prior testing, they made sure that all of the CPUs -- Zen+, original Zen, Kaby Lake & Coffee Lake -- had all Spectre/Meltdown patches (both microcode & motherboard) applied, plus all motherboard BIOS updates & all Windows 10 updates. So it's possible that a combination of those updates (possibly not done on other testing sites) might be the reason for the discrepancy...
The anandtech benches are screwed-up for the intel CPUs because they used a lousy Silverstone AR10-115XS for their test bed. See:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/8
http://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?area=en&pid=652
The thing only got 3 heat pipes and a max 19.5 CFM from a 70mm fan. Even the stock intel hsf that goes with the non-K cpus, are at least 90mm fans. What kind of bad joke is this?!
If you wanted to go cheap on your air cooled HSF, you'd at least get a hyper212(whatever the latest modifier +/evo etc.) And use it on all the CPUs under test.
Just because the AMD wraith coolers are noisy and garbage, doesn't give then the liberty to conduct crappy testing by introducing an uncontrolled variable in HSF.
Last edited:
fadingfool
Posts: 330 +415
I lost around 5% on benches after the last lot of micro-code patches on my 7820X. I have since compensated by OC to 4.5 base clock with 4.7 on the best 2 cores
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
That would only skew test if the CPU was getting too hot. Which is only likely if testing included over-clocks. And even then it would only be the over-clocks that was effected. Just because one fan is 90mm, doesn't mean it cools better than the other 70mm. A the three heat pipes you are throwing stones at are cooling from both ends. That is essentially six heat pipes the way they have it designed. And lets not forget the Intel OEM cooler you was conpairing it to doesn't have heat pipes at all.
Abraka
Posts: 176 +54
I know that Intel didn't fix their chips (series 6, 7 and 8) because they can't be fixed without releasing a new CPU. The patches don't really work. Which means I won't be buying Intel's crap until they release the series 9 of their CPUs (I'd be interested in i5-9400).
Until that happens, maybe in one or two years, I'm more interested whether the new AMD chips are safe from "meltdown" and "spectre" bugs. Could you run some expert tests to verify that?
Until that happens, maybe in one or two years, I'm more interested whether the new AMD chips are safe from "meltdown" and "spectre" bugs. Could you run some expert tests to verify that?
Sausagemeat
Posts: 1,597 +1,423
Interesting, reviewers claim both those games are very well optimised. In fact we even see a Vega 64 almost matching a 1080ti and that game is DX11 only!
Oh wait of course you are claiming games that dont run well on Ryzen are optimised because you are a massive AMD fanboy and everybody knows it!
Do you think a Ryzen 2700 is worth $100 more than a 1700 out of curiosity?
ACo is definitely not optimized. Take the benchmark run for example. It maxes my 8700k @ 5.0ghz yet the difference between a 7700k @ 5ghz is ~5 fps. +2cores + 4 threads at 100% utilization for 5 frames. "optimized"
Nah
No, but the price will drop. It just got released, what do you expect.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
Interesting, reviewers claim both those games are very well optimised. In fact we even see a Vega 64 almost matching a 1080ti and that game is DX11 only!
Oh wait of course you are claiming games that dont run well on Ryzen are optimised because you are a massive AMD fanboy and everybody knows it!
Do you think a Ryzen 2700 is worth $100 more than a 1700 out of curiosity?
First, Vega has nothing to do with Ryzen.
Second, show me a reviewer that calls that game well optimized.
Third, pulling the fanboy card again? Expected, when a troll can't win an argument he attacks the person, not the argument. Sad.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
Well at least the upside of this is that software performance can only go up for Ryzen.
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
That really depends on how you look at the results - perhaps a 7700K is close to the 8700K because the GPU is the main limiting factor in framerates? Or perhaps 4C/8T or 6C/6T is the point of diminishing returns for this game, and throwing additional threads at it only yields minimal gains.
I say this because in Techspots own testing, there is significant improvement from a 1500X to 1600X (4C/8T vs 6C/12T) and also a 7600K to 7700K (4C/4T vs 4C/8T), however the difference between a 1600X and 1800X is minimal, as is the 7700K to 8700K.
Yes, you are partially correct. The problem though is that ACO maxes out a 6c / 12 th even though it gives no extra fps compared to 4c/8t. That's not really a sign of good optimization.
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
Do you know of any other games that scale much past 6 cores? I can't really think of any off the top of my head. I don't really count AOTS as hardly anyone plays that, I mean like popular AAA titles.
Yeah, Crysis 3 does, although you can't call it popular any more. Also watchdogs 2 seems to use those extra threads and produce extra frames, unlike ACo. Probably the multiplayer segment of BF1, although I'm not sure how many threads it uses, it seems to be up there.
In crysis 3 for example you can see that in the cpu heavy scenes the Ryzen 1600 screams past the 7600k. And I really do mean scream, it's getting literally double the framerate. That's what a game engine should look like nowadays in my opinion.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
The witcher 3 is pretty multi-threaded. You don't really want games using more than 6 cores on an 8 core system though. Typically you'll want to have headroom for the OS and the game as load and background tasks do vary. You can see that in 2700X vs 8700K streaming benchmarks, where when streaming 12mbps quality video causes the 8700K to drop nearly 70% of it's frames on the viewer's side while the 2700X will only drop 7%.
I'd only expect more games to scale past 6 cores when 10 core becomes mainstream.
MaikuTech
Posts: 1,127 +190
That I agree on if anyone can get a hexacore for amd or intel just go ahead and do so now while the sales are still good.
Just open up task manager and lock the affinity to 4 cores and it will do just fine.
When I had my old 1055T I had to do that with half the games I had but after that it was just smooth sailing without a stutter.
Look up in the task manager again I am using less than 30% of my cpu resources and windows 7 had plenty of room to do whatever in the background.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
My bet is Lisa Su is listening to the comments - and is not happy with everyone yelling WTF - you said it would be better. At least, if she is listening, her street savvy is as great as her technical savvy.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.
Last edited:
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
I have said it elsewhere, but IMO, AMD was smart NOT to go after the gaming market with the Zen architecture. The smart choice, as I see it, was to go after the enterprise arena - which they did. Their MT performance is way better than Intel's at a far better price. The enterprise market is far more lucrative than the gamer market and that is where they are currently getting their profits.
As far as gaming is concerned, we will see where they take this. While AMD can survive without gamers, they cannot survive without having something competitive in the enterprise market - which they now have.
As far as gaming is concerned, we will see where they take this. While AMD can survive without gamers, they cannot survive without having something competitive in the enterprise market - which they now have.
MaikuTech
Posts: 1,127 +190
I don't agree with half of what you say amd taking their zen architecture for gaming/streaming and work related was a smart move.
I don't see alot people on the internet crying/complaining about pc gaming sucking on the ryzen platform. =/
Now for emulation such as dolphin, citra, a little bit of PCSX2, that I can understand because the ipc rate still sucks.
This is the main reason I steered into the kabylake platform and I am glad I did, but all in all amd has done some really good things lately.
I don't see alot people on the internet crying/complaining about pc gaming sucking on the ryzen platform. =/
Now for emulation such as dolphin, citra, a little bit of PCSX2, that I can understand because the ipc rate still sucks.
This is the main reason I steered into the kabylake platform and I am glad I did, but all in all amd has done some really good things lately.
Last edited:
veLa
Posts: 1,243 +985
I took a while to comment on this so I could process this release a bit more. Realistically, I think this was what everyone was expecting, even though I was hoping for even larger gains, to be frank. If you're building a new rig and want to go with AMD, absolutely go with Zen+. Of course, if you already bought a first generation Zen last year, you aren't really feeling too bad about not waiting to upgrade until 2018. The CPU Wars might not be as exciting as Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 days, but you have to give props to AMD for putting the heat back on.
Similar threads
- Locked
