I wasn't expecting there to be this much of an overall improvement, particularly in places where latency has issues (like games). It's nice to see that AMD has been pretty consistent with their performance claims lately; back in the AM3(+) days, they cherry-picked a lot of their numbers. I'm a bit curious to know what the performance-per-watt is like vs a similarly clocked 1800X.

alanm:

So AMD went all out in maxing the clocks to get these results. OC'ing therefore may not be a worthy endeavor. Also noticed in another review (Anand) that the 2700x does better in gaming across the board vs the 8700k. Of course different selection of games, but for heavily multi-threaded games like Civ 6, the 2700x will clearly have the advantage.

I'm sure some people could reach 4.5GHz. I never got the impression Hilbert really strived for the highest OC possible, but rather focuses on what the average person is likely to achieve (and I'd say that's a more useful metric). As for performing better than the 8700K, I wonder if the tests here are showing results before Spectre/Meltdown patches were applied.

Ian Cutress from Anandtech is rerunning his benchmarks.. his numbers don't match any other reviewer and I've definitely seen other reviews mention spectre/meltdown patches. Pretty sure Ian's numbers are wrong though.. like Rocket League 2700x is 30% faster than a 8700K .. lol

Another little performance quirk.. the power draw is significantly higher in web browsing. 95w, about 34w more than the 8700k. Something in web browsing that is hampering this chip.

Thanks for the review, was a good read! Well this new generation of Ryzen CPUs bring a little bit extra performance to the table in comparison to previous Ryzen, but it's not a big difference that is worthy of an upgrade from one to the other, but that was never to be expected. Intel i7 CPUs are still clearly the best CPUs to get if you're doing high refresh rate gaming at the 120/144Hz+ sector - the fact that the gaming comparison tables were showing stock Intel vs overclocked Ryzen, and Intel were still winning, you can add another 15% to the 8700K if you overclock it to 5Ghz, and then the performance differences are even larger. But, still a great time to buy a Ryzen based PC for all PC needs including gaming as long as you've got a standard 60Hz/75Hz/(maybe 100Hz) monitor.

This is mine (Today i was tinkering with RAM 😉) For stability it is 1T with Gear Down enabled (2T is also good, but little slower in Gaming) ~1.395v with 1.137v SOC Im waiting for 32GB 3600-4000 B-die or X-die to go with easy 3466/3600 CL14 -> 😀 Now im on 3200 CL16-16-16-16 D-die RAM, CLDO_VDDP at 855 (this Value creates Opening for 2933-3100 RAM freq.) Need to test some more for better OC... but no time cuz' I'm Gaming too much lol 😛 http://i63.tinypic.com/30xbjo5.jpg

schmidtbag:

I'm sure some people could reach 4.5GHz. I never got the impression Hilbert really strived for the highest OC possible, but rather focuses on what the average person is likely to achieve (and I'd say that's a more useful metric).

Sure, but is it worth it? HH used an LC cooler to get that slight OC. Of course, the poor OC'ability of this chip is a complete non-issue to others, incl me. If I were to buy it, would run it with stock cooler at default clocks. I only see OC'ing as a worthy pursuit if you are able to get good gains from your effort.

As usual late to the party but thoroughly enjoyed the read nonetheless! As mentioned already I also waited for to read HH's proper review first(okay okay I took a peek only once on that spanish article) and it was totally worth it. Seriously if this was 5 months ago when I got my 8700K I would surely had gotten the 2700X. No questions asked. Would love an 8C/16T 2700X@4.4GHz with some 3200CL14 or 3600CL15-16 ram! Tbh personally I would take those extra 2C/4T of the 2700X over the 8700K's 600-700MHz OC headroom I currently have. If this was 5 months ago that is. Which is not. In the end I would gladly recommend the 2700X over 8700K for 60-100Hz gaming! And as a small bonus lets break some things down and also check current prices just for comparison: Cinebench scores and pricing per cb: AMD Ryzen 1700X = €259 Cinebench score at 4.1GHz: 1827cb= €0,14/cb AMD Ryzen 1600X = €169 Cinebench score at 4GHz: 1337cb= €0,12/cb AMD Ryzen+ 2700X = €319 Cinebench score at 4.4GHz: 1964cb= €0,16/cb AMD Ryzen+ 2600X = €225 Cinebench score at 4.3GHz: 1497cb= €0,15/cb Intel Core 8700K = €323 Cinebench score at 5.2GHz: 1677cb= €0,19/cb *note: I get 1640-1660 with 5GHz Intel Core 8600K = €225 Cinebench score at 5GHz: 1187cb= €0,19/cb All in all one phrase said multiple times comes to mind: "Ryzen 2000 series is what Ryzen 1000 should have been!" And I mean that in the most complimentary way. Funny note: the 1700X looks like a better purchase for general usage(not just gaming) over the 2600X.

coth:

They cost almost same in retail. 8700K is a bit cheaper. And it's reviewed with XFR enabled, so overclocked. Intel has one-click solution as well. It's just not branded or advertised. Anyway hope to see 8-core i7 soon.

I honestly disagree with the clocks part. If its not enabled, then it's not default. And XFR, overclocking or not, is a default feature, is it not? And Intel did not ship 8700K with 4.7GHz @all-cores, true? There are reasons why the manufacturer/designer decided to ship with particular settings. IMHO you should always evaluate the product at stock. Because that's intended use, and that's how 90%+ of users will end up. After you've done with stock, Overclock, Overvolt and Bench as much our heart desire. But then don't quote 95W TDP, because it's not anymore the same product - AT ALL. -- Anyway dunno why I am preaching, because this how every respectable website, guru3d included, has been doing for ages

alanm:

Just noticed something. The review done with the Corsair H110 LC cooler. Then the extra 100mhz OC is probably not worth it. Wonder how the stock cooler performs at default speeds. Because thats a big part of the value equation vs the 8700k since it does not come one. So AMD went all out in maxing the clocks to get these results. OC'ing therefore may not be a worthy endeavor. Also noticed in another review (Anand) that the 2700x does better in gaming across the board vs the 8700k. Of course different selection of games, but for heavily multi-threaded games like Civ 6, the 2700x will clearly have the advantage.

I've tested liquid cooling on the 2700X and then mix it up a bit, used an AMD stock air cooler for the 2600X review. So you can check results there. Also with the upcoming motherboard reviews we'll mix a little, LCS in one review, air-cooling on the other. Overall though on-air 4200~4300 MHz on all cores is doable, however, these stock coolers tend to get too noisy for my taste.

alanm:

Sure, but is it worth it? HH used an LC cooler to get that slight OC. Of course, the poor OC'ability of this chip is a complete non-issue to others, incl me. If I were to buy it, would run it with stock cooler at default clocks. I only see OC'ing as a worthy pursuit if you are able to get good gains from your effort.

"it" being what? Overclocking, or upgrading from 1st gen? Because if you can get to at least 4.4GHz, I think overclocking is worth it. If you already have a Ryzen 7 then I would agree with HH's conclusion: the 2700X isn't worth upgrading to.

Not bad! Seen them for 319€ at geizhaltz.eu

schmidtbag:

"it" being what? Overclocking, or upgrading from 1st gen? Because if you can get to at least 4.4GHz, I think overclocking is worth it. If you already have a Ryzen 7 then I would agree with HH's conclusion: the 2700X isn't worth upgrading to.

Speaking about OC'ing in general, that if you only get a 1-200mhz bump, then it may not be worth it. Especially if it comes with a big increase in heat/power draw. Which may not be a problem for an LC cooler, but may for stock or other coolers.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

I've tested liquid cooling on the 2700X and then mix it up a bit, used an AMD stock air cooler for the 2600X review. So you can check results there. Also with the upcoming motherboard reviews we'll mix a little, LCS in one review, air-cooling on the other. Overall though on-air 4200~4300 MHz on all cores is doable, however, these stock coolers tend to get too noisy for my taste.

Thanks for that.

Just out of curiosity... Intel's numbers for the benchmarks are all including both OS patching and also BIOS patching of meltdown/spectre?

alanm:

Speaking about OC'ing in general, that if you only get a 1-200mhz bump, then it may not be worth it. Especially if it comes with a big increase in heat/power draw. Which may not be a problem for an LC cooler, but may for stock or other coolers.

Yeah, for these 8-cores, the increase in TDP may not be worth it to everyone. There have been CPUs of mine where I had the potential to reach 5GHz, but opted not to for that reason. I'm a PC enthusiast, but I don't care much for bragging rights if it makes everything else less convenient.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Yeah, I can ... I have been puzzled about what is happening there. But I think that is the result of the Windows Spectre/meltdown patches. I am going to restart that bench suite from scrap.

I was waiting all day for the review to come out , finally back from work and reading it . Good job Hilbert , thank you . The results are exactly what was expected , nice little speed boost with a great price to match , no brainer which cpu to buy right now . I am also wondering what is going on with the Mozilla Kraken benchmark , massive performance drop ...strange .

alanm:

Just noticed something. The review done with the Corsair H110 LC cooler. Then the extra 100mhz OC is probably not worth it. Wonder how the stock cooler performs at default speeds. Because thats a big part of the value equation vs the 8700k since it does not come one. So AMD went all out in maxing the clocks to get these results. OC'ing therefore may not be a worthy endeavor. Also noticed in another review (Anand) that the 2700x does better in gaming across the board vs the 8700k. Of course different selection of games, but for heavily multi-threaded games like Civ 6, the 2700x will clearly have the advantage.

In the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC review HH tested the 2700X@4.3GHz with the stock AMD air cooler in page 28(overclocking section). Quote: "We used the stock AMD air cooling here, 4300 MHz ran upwards to ~90 Degrees"

I would not bother overclocking the 2700 X , the cpu runs good out of the box with decent cooling the gains after oc seem too small to me , the ddr4 memory on the other hand ....hell yeah .

-Tj-:

Not bad! Seen them for 319€ at geizhaltz.eu

they called me to tell you to stop refreshing 78637128381/ sec, else they gonna report you to your IP for DOS-ing them Thanks 🙂

Lol I saw that price on Monday for pre-order 😉 Edit: i see its still the same, well 319€ for a 8 core 4.3ghz is very good, impressed. I payed 329€ for my 4770k back then l, ff now I can get a decent 8 core 😀 things changed.. well i kind of expected 2018 would be that real 8core year, intel icelake q3 2018 l, now for sure 8core around 330€.