ASUS ROG THOR 1200W Power Supply review
G.Skill TridentZ Royal DDR4 3200 MHz review
Radeon Adrenalin 2019 Edition Driver Overview
ASRock Z390 Taichi Ultimate review
Team Group T-Force Night Hawk RGB Legend DDR4
MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon review
Promo: Get Windows 10 Pro OEM under 12$
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Gaming X TRIO review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - November 2018
Samsung 860 QVO 2TB SSD review
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 review
Posted by: on: 05/03/2018 10:39 AM [
29 comment(s) ]
It is time to have a look at the non-X model Ryzen 7 2700. This eight-core processor is 30 bucks cheaper compared to the 2700X model. The essence, heck even the hardware is the same, however, the 2700 is clocked substantially lower and the X models are better binned and has better default clock frequencies. If you are willing to tweak a bit yourself, you can save cash and retrieve the very same performance. The Ryzen 7 2700 has eight-cores and sixteen threads priced pretty at just 299 USD.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
alexskyline
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Posted on: 05/03/2018 11:58 AM
Ok Hilbert
Will keep my Ryzen 1700 for a bit, silence wise
Ok Hilbert
Will keep my Ryzen 1700 for a bit, silence wise
vbetts
Posts: 14035
Posts: 14035
Posted on: 05/03/2018 01:03 PM
Kind of figured this was going to be the case, but looks like I won't be ryzen to the 2xxx series, and I'll be keeping my 1700 a little longer!
Kind of figured this was going to be the case, but looks like I won't be ryzen to the 2xxx series, and I'll be keeping my 1700 a little longer!
Vmhasegawa
Member
Posts: 28
Member
Posts: 28
Posted on: 05/03/2018 01:13 PM
Thanks for the review! So... It makes a little bit more sense performance wise the X series this time around. Then again, the original 30 bucks difference gets even bigger around the globe, so it's up to how much the retailers around here will overcharge for each version... Will have to wait ram prices drop a bit before buying either though
Thanks for the review! So... It makes a little bit more sense performance wise the X series this time around. Then again, the original 30 bucks difference gets even bigger around the globe, so it's up to how much the retailers around here will overcharge for each version... Will have to wait ram prices drop a bit before buying either though
RooiKreef
Senior Member
Posts: 307
Senior Member
Posts: 307
Posted on: 05/03/2018 01:30 PM
Thanx again for yet another good review. Nice performance overall for the money. I would like to see if you can squeeze another 100Mhz out with a proper LCS cooler.
Thanx again for yet another good review. Nice performance overall for the money. I would like to see if you can squeeze another 100Mhz out with a proper LCS cooler.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Posted on: 05/03/2018 01:34 PM
I could see this being appealing for certain ITX builds or those few laptops that support socket AM4 - the improvement in performance-per-watt makes a good difference. Unlike the 2600, I think this is worth getting (vs the 2700X) for overclockers.
I could see this being appealing for certain ITX builds or those few laptops that support socket AM4 - the improvement in performance-per-watt makes a good difference. Unlike the 2600, I think this is worth getting (vs the 2700X) for overclockers.
Alienwarez567
Member
Posts: 46
Member
Posts: 46
Posted on: 05/03/2018 02:20 PM
I just returned my 2700x it was impossible to keep cooled i tried with NZXT X62 and it was running at 45-60 at idle even with the fans at full blast, i tried reapplying the thermal paste 3 times with no luck and on top of that it caused a larger amount of BSOD than i have eve er seen on windows 10.
I just returned my 2700x it was impossible to keep cooled i tried with NZXT X62 and it was running at 45-60 at idle even with the fans at full blast, i tried reapplying the thermal paste 3 times with no luck and on top of that it caused a larger amount of BSOD than i have eve er seen on windows 10.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33950
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33950
Posted on: 05/03/2018 02:23 PM
For real? That is nearly impossible unless you mounted it incorrectly. What did you use to check temps?
I just returned my 2700x it was impossible to keep cooled i tried with NZXT X62
For real? That is nearly impossible unless you mounted it incorrectly. What did you use to check temps?
Alienwarez567
Member
Posts: 46
Member
Posts: 46
Posted on: 05/03/2018 02:35 PM
I used HWinfo64, Ryzen master and it wasnt mounted wrong been doing this for 20+ and i even tried with my X61 just to double check if there was something wrong with my X62. This was with everything on stock settings.
For real? That is nearly impossible unless you mounted it incorrectly. What did you use to check temps?
I used HWinfo64, Ryzen master and it wasnt mounted wrong been doing this for 20+ and i even tried with my X61 just to double check if there was something wrong with my X62. This was with everything on stock settings.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Posted on: 05/03/2018 02:39 PM
Did you bother checking voltages? Or whether or not your CPU was actually running at idle speeds? For example, some of the Windows power options can keep the CPU running at full speed even when idle.
I used HWinfo64, Ryzen master and it wasnt mounted wrong been doing this for 20+ and i even tried with my X61 just to double check if there was something wrong with my X62. This was with everything on stock settings.
Did you bother checking voltages? Or whether or not your CPU was actually running at idle speeds? For example, some of the Windows power options can keep the CPU running at full speed even when idle.
Ricepudding
Senior Member
Posts: 420
Senior Member
Posts: 420
Posted on: 05/03/2018 02:51 PM
Either something went wrong, or you must have gotten a really bad chip. But like the guy above me said check voltage, maybe it was going to high for some reason.
Also check other monitors, normally motherboard ones in the bios can be fairly okay.
I used HWinfo64, Ryzen master and it wasnt mounted wrong been doing this for 20+ and i even tried with my X61 just to double check if there was something wrong with my X62. This was with everything on stock settings.
Either something went wrong, or you must have gotten a really bad chip. But like the guy above me said check voltage, maybe it was going to high for some reason.
Also check other monitors, normally motherboard ones in the bios can be fairly okay.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 773
Senior Member
Posts: 773
Posted on: 05/03/2018 03:08 PM
It's hard luck to get a bad chip. Hope your next buy runs more smoothly.
I just returned my 2700x it was impossible to keep cooled i tried with NZXT X62 and it was running at 45-60 at idle even with the fans at full blast, i tried reapplying the thermal paste 3 times with no luck and on top of that it caused a larger amount of BSOD than i have eve er seen on windows 10.
It's hard luck to get a bad chip. Hope your next buy runs more smoothly.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 7919
Senior Member
Posts: 7919
Posted on: 05/03/2018 03:14 PM
I had some stupid high readouts in OS, while in BIOS CPU was down to 37C. But after entering OS, fans were much faster (temperature control). And temperature was around ~50C at idle.
By default many MBs OC CPU, disable Cool&Quiet and that may require additional tweaking for stability. I did reseat my Fractal S24 too to be sure.
There are a lot of reports on internet about bad readouts from Zen+. But for some reason those values are getting better every day. I know that CPU was not hot as even long burn session did not get reasonably hot air from radiator.
(And CPU was eating 180~200W at those times, therefore bad contact would lead to thermal shutdown.) So, only readings improve.
So I expect @Alienwarez567 faced 2 separate issues. 1st unstable settings in BIOS, 2nd scary high readouts. Because if CPU was really hitting 45~60C at idle (10~20W depending on BIOS settings), Once fully used (125~200W depending on BIOS settings), it would cause thermal shutdown instead of BSOD.
Secondly, with that kind of cooling, VRMs would melt down before CPU would overheat as VRMs have much worse passive cooling and quite some energy loss (HWiNFO64 reads Wattage difference between VRMs input and output).
For real? That is nearly impossible unless you mounted it incorrectly. What did you use to check temps?
I had some stupid high readouts in OS, while in BIOS CPU was down to 37C. But after entering OS, fans were much faster (temperature control). And temperature was around ~50C at idle.
By default many MBs OC CPU, disable Cool&Quiet and that may require additional tweaking for stability. I did reseat my Fractal S24 too to be sure.
There are a lot of reports on internet about bad readouts from Zen+. But for some reason those values are getting better every day. I know that CPU was not hot as even long burn session did not get reasonably hot air from radiator.
(And CPU was eating 180~200W at those times, therefore bad contact would lead to thermal shutdown.) So, only readings improve.
So I expect @Alienwarez567 faced 2 separate issues. 1st unstable settings in BIOS, 2nd scary high readouts. Because if CPU was really hitting 45~60C at idle (10~20W depending on BIOS settings), Once fully used (125~200W depending on BIOS settings), it would cause thermal shutdown instead of BSOD.
Secondly, with that kind of cooling, VRMs would melt down before CPU would overheat as VRMs have much worse passive cooling and quite some energy loss (HWiNFO64 reads Wattage difference between VRMs input and output).
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Posted on: 05/03/2018 03:25 PM
Actually, it's not really bad luck. To my understanding, there's no such thing as a bad CPU from factory, at least ones manufactured by GloFo, TSMC, and Intel - I'm not so sure about everyone else. The CPU dies are analyzed before being committed to a package, and further tested before being sold. Anyone who claims to have a DOA or bad CPU either has a faulty motherboard, faulty BIOS, or they did something wrong. And even then, nowadays the manufacturing process is a little too precise for there to ever be hardware errors to this extreme. More often than not, faulty computer hardware is due to user error.
It's hard luck to get a bad chip. Hope your next buy runs more smoothly.
Actually, it's not really bad luck. To my understanding, there's no such thing as a bad CPU from factory, at least ones manufactured by GloFo, TSMC, and Intel - I'm not so sure about everyone else. The CPU dies are analyzed before being committed to a package, and further tested before being sold. Anyone who claims to have a DOA or bad CPU either has a faulty motherboard, faulty BIOS, or they did something wrong. And even then, nowadays the manufacturing process is a little too precise for there to ever be hardware errors to this extreme. More often than not, faulty computer hardware is due to user error.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8180
Senior Member
Posts: 8180
Posted on: 05/03/2018 03:41 PM
Re the 2700, just doesnt make sense if only $30 difference vs 2700x. Can see its viability if the $ spread were more. Secondly, as poorer binned versions of the 2700x, who is to say it will get to 4.2ghz for everyone? What if HH sample is better than what most consumers may end up getting?
Re the 2700, just doesnt make sense if only $30 difference vs 2700x. Can see its viability if the $ spread were more. Secondly, as poorer binned versions of the 2700x, who is to say it will get to 4.2ghz for everyone? What if HH sample is better than what most consumers may end up getting?
wavetrex
Senior Member
Posts: 457
Senior Member
Posts: 457
Posted on: 05/03/2018 04:14 PM
Sounds pretty simple to me:
- Want to overclock/tweak/simply have "the best available" ? Get the X
- Don't care about that ? Get the non-X
You have to remember that the majority of PC gamers in the world are playing all kinds of MMO's or multiplayer shooters (CS:GO?) /RTS (StarCraft?) and so on, games with 10 year old engines.
For them this 10% Mhz difference is completely non-relevant, but those 30-40$ saved = 3 months subscription on their game. That matters for them !
Sounds pretty simple to me:
- Want to overclock/tweak/simply have "the best available" ? Get the X
- Don't care about that ? Get the non-X
You have to remember that the majority of PC gamers in the world are playing all kinds of MMO's or multiplayer shooters (CS:GO?) /RTS (StarCraft?) and so on, games with 10 year old engines.
For them this 10% Mhz difference is completely non-relevant, but those 30-40$ saved = 3 months subscription on their game. That matters for them !
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8469
Senior Member
Posts: 8469
Posted on: 05/03/2018 04:33 PM
Great review , awesome read Hilbert. Like many people stated before this time around the X models make more sense when buying 2xxx Ryzen cpus. Nonetheless a great bargain at that price ! Good stuff AMD , keep it up ...
Great review , awesome read Hilbert. Like many people stated before this time around the X models make more sense when buying 2xxx Ryzen cpus. Nonetheless a great bargain at that price ! Good stuff AMD , keep it up ...
Alienwarez567
Member
Posts: 46
Member
Posts: 46
Posted on: 05/03/2018 04:42 PM
Yes i checked voltages i even manually set them to around 1.4 and it was still way way to hot i check the CPU usage and i check that the frequencies were going down to around 2.1Ghz and it was still running hot so either there was something really wrong with MB or the chip either i didnt want to spend more time fiddling with it so i returned it.
Did you bother checking voltages? Or whether or not your CPU was actually running at idle speeds? For example, some of the Windows power options can keep the CPU running at full speed even when idle.
Yes i checked voltages i even manually set them to around 1.4 and it was still way way to hot i check the CPU usage and i check that the frequencies were going down to around 2.1Ghz and it was still running hot so either there was something really wrong with MB or the chip either i didnt want to spend more time fiddling with it so i returned it.
Alienwarez567
Member
Posts: 46
Member
Posts: 46
Posted on: 05/03/2018 04:44 PM
I am not sure if it was the CPU or the mainboard i suspect the mainboard but i would rather return it for a new CPU so now i am waiting on that.
I went for another mainboard aswell
I am not sure if it was the CPU or the mainboard i suspect the mainboard but i would rather return it for a new CPU so now i am waiting on that.
I went for another mainboard aswell
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 7919
Senior Member
Posts: 7919
Posted on: 05/03/2018 05:38 PM
Here you have it. Those chips do stock 3.7GHz at 1.1V. Manually setting voltage while having XFR active will lead to crash, because chip will still try to go for higher than stable clock. XFR is actually not limited by voltage, but by Power, Thermal and Amperage limits.
If you use XFR, you have to keep CPU voltage on auto too. Once you start setting something manually, you have to set quite a few related values too.
Your 1.4V would get you with XFR maybe up to 4.15GHz if you had strong enough LLC, otherwise this 1.4V drops to like 1.37V And that's like 4.1GHz. Yet XFR will try to go even to 4.35GHz.
Yes i checked voltages i even manually set them to around 1.4 and it was still way way to hot i check the CPU usage and i check that the frequencies were going down to around 2.1Ghz and it was still running hot so either there was something really wrong with MB or the chip either i didnt want to spend more time fiddling with it so i returned it.
Here you have it. Those chips do stock 3.7GHz at 1.1V. Manually setting voltage while having XFR active will lead to crash, because chip will still try to go for higher than stable clock. XFR is actually not limited by voltage, but by Power, Thermal and Amperage limits.
If you use XFR, you have to keep CPU voltage on auto too. Once you start setting something manually, you have to set quite a few related values too.
Your 1.4V would get you with XFR maybe up to 4.15GHz if you had strong enough LLC, otherwise this 1.4V drops to like 1.37V And that's like 4.1GHz. Yet XFR will try to go even to 4.35GHz.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Senior Member
Posts: 3404
Posted on: 05/03/2018 05:49 PM
Well there's your problem... 1.4v is pretty much the upper limit as to how high the voltage should go; AMD claims any higher than that will start shortening the CPU lifespan.
Yes i checked voltages i even manually set them to around 1.4 and it was still way way to hot i check the CPU usage and i check that the frequencies were going down to around 2.1Ghz and it was still running hot so either there was something really wrong with MB or the chip either i didnt want to spend more time fiddling with it so i returned it.
Well there's your problem... 1.4v is pretty much the upper limit as to how high the voltage should go; AMD claims any higher than that will start shortening the CPU lifespan.
metagamer
Senior Member
Posts: 507
Senior Member
Posts: 507
Posted on: 05/03/2018 06:07 PM
Sounds pretty simple to me:
- Want to overclock/tweak/simply have "the best available" ? Get the X
- Don't care about that ? Get the non-X
You have to remember that the majority of PC gamers in the world are playing all kinds of MMO's or multiplayer shooters (CS:GO?) /RTS (StarCraft?) and so on, games with 10 year old engines.
For them this 10% Mhz difference is completely non-relevant, but those 30-40$ saved = 3 months subscription on their game. That matters for them !
By that logic, you might as well buy a 2600 and save even more money.
Sounds pretty simple to me:
- Want to overclock/tweak/simply have "the best available" ? Get the X
- Don't care about that ? Get the non-X
You have to remember that the majority of PC gamers in the world are playing all kinds of MMO's or multiplayer shooters (CS:GO?) /RTS (StarCraft?) and so on, games with 10 year old engines.
For them this 10% Mhz difference is completely non-relevant, but those 30-40$ saved = 3 months subscription on their game. That matters for them !
By that logic, you might as well buy a 2600 and save even more money.
mahanddeem
Senior Member
Posts: 636
Senior Member
Posts: 636
Posted on: 05/03/2018 06:11 PM
A question please, in these reviews and charts, when a 7700k mentioned in stock form, does it mean it operates at 4.5ghz all cores synced at full load?
What about 8700k, does it "usually" mean all cores at 4.7ghz at load?
A question please, in these reviews and charts, when a 7700k mentioned in stock form, does it mean it operates at 4.5ghz all cores synced at full load?
What about 8700k, does it "usually" mean all cores at 4.7ghz at load?
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8180
Senior Member
Posts: 8180
Posted on: 05/03/2018 06:12 PM
Note to Hilbert: If you could include it in future CPU game benches, Fallout 4 is probably the most CPU bound game there is. Even on 1440p it can show sizable differences between CPUs.
Note to Hilbert: If you could include it in future CPU game benches, Fallout 4 is probably the most CPU bound game there is. Even on 1440p it can show sizable differences between CPUs.
xrodney
Senior Member
Posts: 286
Senior Member
Posts: 286
Posted on: 05/03/2018 07:14 PM
Sounds pretty simple to me:
- Want to overclock/tweak/simply have "the best available" ? Get the X
- Don't care about that ? Get the non-X
You have to remember that the majority of PC gamers in the world are playing all kinds of MMO's or multiplayer shooters (CS:GO?) /RTS (StarCraft?) and so on, games with 10 year old engines.
For them this 10% Mhz difference is completely non-relevant, but those 30-40$ saved = 3 months subscription on their game. That matters for them !
Actually X have more sense for those that do not want to bother with OC as you can get close to max oc clocks on default settings.
Sounds pretty simple to me:
- Want to overclock/tweak/simply have "the best available" ? Get the X
- Don't care about that ? Get the non-X
You have to remember that the majority of PC gamers in the world are playing all kinds of MMO's or multiplayer shooters (CS:GO?) /RTS (StarCraft?) and so on, games with 10 year old engines.
For them this 10% Mhz difference is completely non-relevant, but those 30-40$ saved = 3 months subscription on their game. That matters for them !
Actually X have more sense for those that do not want to bother with OC as you can get close to max oc clocks on default settings.
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 606
it seems that this time around the X models are more appealing than the non x to the contrary of the ryzen's 1xxx