I still think this second-generation Ryzen came too fast but I am also glad I can do a performance review right this day.
I’m not sure if that sounded right but regardless I’ll be walking you through my experience testing out the new Ryzen 7 2700 X CPU, and of course I’ll be sharing my performance results compared to my 1700 X sitting right behind me, in my workstation PC and perhaps come to a conclusion as to whether or not it’s worth upgrading.
The specs on the 2700 X are pretty good, but it’s not significantly better than its predecessor, it’s still worth finding out especially if you’re working on an existing Ryzen system, and if you are you know it is a rocking one.
I’ll also be talking about my overclocking experience with this new processor, and of course talk about the new architecture and the new platform which is X 470, so let’s dive in.
Before we move on to the performance results I wanted to briefly talk about the new Zen+ architecture, and what AMD has done to improve the performance of these new second-generation Ryzen CPUs.
First and foremost, these processors are based off a new 12-nanometer process, but they’ve only done a few optimizations to improve latency, don’t confuse Zen plus with Zen – that’s not the case here. What they’ve done here is increased the IPC by roughly 3%, improved L3 cache latency by 16% and better memory latency by 11%.
These new Ryzen CPUs won’t have a problem supporting faster memory speeds, Zen plus also brings a few more improvements like top clock speeds. Have lifted it easy by 250 megahertz so theoretically you won’t have a problem achieving 4.35 gigahertz on your best core, and all core overclocks round out to about 4.2 gigahertz.
Products from Amazon.com
- Price: $319.99Was: $329.00
- Price: $98.89
- Price: $149.99Was: $189.00
AMD has also managed to lower power consumption by 11% when compared to last generation processors, at the same clock speed this could potentially give us a more thermal Headroom for overclocking, as well which is nice.
Let’s start with precision boost, expect substantial clock speed increases in multi-threaded workloads, again with the new Zen+ technology these processors can achieve higher frequencies with the same power consumption compared to 1st gen Ryzen, so essentially expect turbo clocks reaching as far as 4.3 gigahertz and stock settings XFR has now been applied to all cores on these new CPUs.
Now the algorithms can automatically detect if there’s thermal headroom and apply the frequency boost automatically on all cores, provided you have adequate cooling in the first place.
Let’s take the 2700 X for instance, AMD has included a great Ryzen cooler that features an RGB ring and RGB fan, with an RGB logo. Complete RGB all over. Plus, it features direct contact heat pipes and overall it looks like a beefier, out of the cooling schooling solution when compared to Intel’s offerings.
Speaking of Intel, if you decide to acquire an 8700K right now, you won’t find a cooler included, which is something to note especially since you’re paying $50 more than the 2700X, yet, you’re only getting six cores and twelve threads.
I do plan on putting the 2700 X to the 8700 K to see how well they do head-to-head so, stay tuned for my full performance analysis article later on. that that just had to happen.
The new wraith prism cooler that comes out of the box with the new Ryzen 7 2700X CPU it’s directly from AMD, and it comes with two LED zones. It has a ring that goes around the fan and of course, the LED fan itself. You can control this either through MSI’s mystic light software, which is part of some motherboards, or you can use case controllers.
The only thing is that to control these RGB zones through those protocols you’ll have to use dedicated software, which interestingly enough, is a partnership with Coolermaster. That’s pretty interesting.
It gives full control of the cooler, you can adjust the lighting through the software you will need a link to the download page for this software and, by the way, I had a hard time to figure out how to control the lighting zones through for the Wraiths prism cooler, because out of the box AMD doesn’t give you any proper instructions.
The manual sheet which or instruction sheet doesn’t give you proper instructions as to where to find the software link or where you’re supposed to go and download it from, I wish they included that in the instruction sheet.
A little about the X470 motherboards – this isn’t a major upgrade over the X 370 platforms to be honest, because the only difference is an improved power infrastructure for achieving higher clock speeds with these new processors and the introduction of a new storage technology.
It’s basically a storage software that fuses two or more storage devices, so in this case, it could be your SSD and hard drive into a virtual disk, so the operating system reads it as a single drive. This is compatible with NVMe SATA and 3d Crosspoint drives and it can be installed and reversed at any time provided you have backed up your data beforehand.
Is an enhanced algorithm that learns your computing habits and it moves frequently accessed blocks, in this case, applications and files, between the array giving users a speedy experience. I still have to play around with this technology to give you guys my full verdict on this, because AMD is still finalizing on the software which should be available by the time this article goes live.
Over the test bench setup: I have the Ryzen 7 2700 X setting on an MSI gaming x470 motherboard, I’m also using 16 gigabytes of G-skill Sniper X memory DDR4 kit. It’s weighted speed as 3400 megahertz, which is kind of crazy and, interestingly enough, I was able to boot the 2700 X at that speed which is great, unfortunately, the 1700 X can only go as far as 3200 megahertz, so for the start comparison what I’ll be doing is using the exact same memory kit.
3200MHz on the 2700 X and the 1700 X and to even make things even fair, to avoid as much as variables as possible, I will be testing the 2700 X initially with stock settings.
Products from Amazon.com
- Acer Aspire Gaming Desktop, AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Processor, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060, 16GB DDR4, 256GBSSD, 1TB HDD, GX-281-UR12Price: $1,190.99Was: $1,299.99
- Price: $319.99Was: $329.00
I am using the stock cooler that they provide, and of course, I’ll be running on my overclocking capabilities, if I’m successful with the stock cooler.
But I’ve been spending about an hour trying to play around with the overclock with a stock cooler and I was, unfortunately, not lucky enough to get a solid stable result.
I first tried 4.2 gigahertz at 1.45 volts and luckily enough Cinebench ran successfully, I got a score of 1881, which was impressive, but I did run the AIDA64 FPU stress test and the system almost crashed halfway through so, that wasn’t stable.
I did try multiple configurations 4.1 to 5GHz. I play around with the voltage too and this was all in Ryzen master software, it’s actually fairly straightforward but I was unlucky, and I did try playing around with the BIOS as well to see if I can fit some settings. That also didn’t work out that great too.
In the end, I’ve successfully overclocked the 2700x to 4.2 gigahertz with a core voltage of 1.45v and was running the Adobe premiere test as the encoding test in a 4k, 12-minute project. It’s really stressing the CPU, I could see the core clock speeds at 4.2 gigahertz 100% of the time.
After a successful 4.2 gigahertz overclock on the 2700x I ran some synthetic, real-world, and some gaming tests on this processor. And of course, throwing in the 1700 X as well so here are the numbers:
Starting with Cinebench r15, running the CPU test lead 2700X at stock settings with the stock cooler scored a little over 1,800 points, that’s 20% more performance compared to the 1700x at stock settings.
The overclocked 2700 x with the memory speed bumped up to 3400 megahertz gave us a score of 1886, so it’s pretty darn impressive if you ask me.
Switching to OpenGL and we see that the lower clock speeds on these 1700 X becoming a bottleneck at stock settings. I got around a little over 100 frames per second compared to 118 frames per second on the 2700 X at stock. This is all thanks to Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 being applied on all 8 cores.
Along with the faster IPC overclocking, the 2700x at 4.2 gigahertz give us 124 frames per second.
Blender running the BMW scene took 5 minutes and 10 seconds to complete on the 1700 X, compared to 4 minutes and 26 seconds on the 2700 X, so it’s roughly 16% faster. Overclocking the 2700 x2 4.2 gigahertz saves a little bit of time as well, not by that much but at least it’s something.
The same story goes for 3DMax Corona, the 2700 X takes the lead here once again at stock settings, completing the render 18 seconds faster than the 1700 X. the 4.2 gigahertz OC shaves a little bit of time but once again not too significant.
As you can see there is an expected difference between the 1700 X and the 2700 X, but realistically speaking, it’s all about the experience. Editing a video, personally, I did notice a huge difference in that regard, but on gaming, not as much.
Honestly, I didn’t expect better frame rates with this new processor, sure you’ll get slightly better 3DMark scores, like what you see in time spy and fire strike, but throughout my testing period, I didn’t notice a significant increase in frame rates, at least through my naked eye.
Battlefield one for instance set to 1440p Ultra settings I got 5% increase compared to the 1700 X, I’d like to reiterate that memory speeds were sent to 3200 megahertz just to give an apple to apples comparison.
Overwatch at 1440p set to epic yielded roughly the same frame rates on both the 1700 X and the 2700 x, so nothing spectacular here too.
Doom at 1440p set to ultra, using the Vulcan API once again yields us same results on both CPUs and in this case around 177 frames per second.
I didn’t notice a huge difference between the 1700 X and 2700 X just in gaming performance by itself but when you are thinking about synthetic workloads like Cinebench or Blender you could notice a slight improvement in rendering times.
I would recommend the CPU to anyone who is looking into building themselves right now, and if you were looking for build a workstation PC, I recommend this CPU absolutely because for $329 you’re getting an 8 core CPU with 16 threads. You can get great rendering performance out of a $329 CPU, much better than what Intel is offering.
But if you are a Ryzen system owner, for example, you’re on the 1700 X, if you’re thinking about upgrading to Ryzen second generation, I hate to say this but I don’t think you’re going to notice a significant increase in performance.