Ryzen 7 2700X first review

Better than 1800X, worse than i7 8700K.
Energy consumption increased, perf/watt decreased.
Another disappointment.

Attached: AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-CPC.jpg (909x1219, 228K)

Other urls found in this thread:

translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-BR?sl=auto&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://www.overclockingmadeinfrance.com/premier-test-du-ryzen-7-2700x/
tweaktown.com/articles/8379/amd-threadripper-vs-intel-core-i9-cpus-clock/index3.html
fuse.wikichip.org/news/1064/isscc-2018-amds-zeppelin-multi-chip-routing-and-packaging/
youtube.com/watch?v=ucMQermB9wQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>caring about performance per watt
>being too poor to use anything that isnt the stock cooler

>worse than i7 8700K.
Got proof for that claim you just pulled out of your ass?

>tested on an A320 board

it's simple math, you gentiles were never very good at it

>Simple math
>No proof
Nice one faggot.

>486DX2/4 vs Pentium
>60 FPS sur Doom II

Attached: right-in-the-n7rjhl[1].jpg (600x384, 32K)

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYYMDPOORFAGS CONFIRMED ON SUICIDE WATCH

i guess my i7 6700k is not going to be replaced by anything AMD anytime soon.

Meanwhile I'm still happy with my Phenom II x4 955

>people still pay money for computer magazines
that is somehow more pathetic than people who still pay money for porn magazines

Amd sucks ha

i don't want a review
i don't want a single sample

i want benches
lots of them

Shouldn't have expected it to, its been known for quite some time it will be a 10% boost off previous generation thanks almost entirely to 12nm lithography change

Matisse AKA Zen2 in 2019 is where the real excitement is, generational improvement of Ryzen architecture combined with 7nm lithography, sounds very appealing

Its amd lol its going to be good at cinebench and 7zip and suck dicks at everything else

>Better than 1800X
>Another disappointment.
The fuck? The 1800x is a great CPU. I don't even gayme at 240fps and most titles that aren't unoptimized garbage reach 120fps.
This was always a refresh. The god tier gains will be with Zen2 using a much better process and possibly upping core count.

more "details"

translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-BR?sl=auto&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://www.overclockingmadeinfrance.com/premier-test-du-ryzen-7-2700x/

The architecture receive "improvements", -10ns latency from RAM, and moderate clock increase. From the clocks alone the improvement is not what was expected, and the perf/watt should improve not get worse with the better litography.
There's a comment about being able to overclock the cores and uncore independently.
For me it seems like AMD once again is forcing the chip to use an unnecessary high voltage for no reason.

AMD was ahead of Intel for like 6 months but if this doesn't close the gap again they're fucked for an entire year, Epyc notwithstanding.

>>The Ryzen Pinnacle Ridge have a better staggered Turbo than the Summit Ridge, which saw their frequency drop as soon as more than two hearts were used. The Pinnacle Ridge, including the Ryzen 7 2700X therefore, have a Zeppelin in B2 stepping, and also have a uncore "modified" (to understand that he repaired with their stepping B2 which worked poorly with the B1). This brings, a better latency of caches and memory. In addition, it is now possible to clock the core and the uncore in a differentiated way. But what does it give?

>>In games the Ryzen 7 2700X is of course better than the 1800X, but still does not reach the level of Hexacore Intel (Core i7 8700K in mind). By cons in application, AMD has a sacred advantage. Consumption level, it's a bit cold shower since the latter takes off against the old generation (equivalent processors: 1600X vs 2600X, 1800X vs 2700X ...). The engraving "12 nm" (note the quotation marks) does not make miracles either: the ratio perf / conso does not evolve, worse it almost decreases. It was pretty good on the first generation, as we showed in our test of Ryzen 7 1800X , Ryzen 7 1700X and Ryzen 7 1700 , so it's not too bad.

>>The small nuance to bring is the fact that CPC Hardware had to use an A320 motherboard, with an AGESA 1.0.0.1a. Which implies that the CPUs in question had their Precision Boost disabled, this technology being only on the 400 series cards. This does not change the performances much, 1 to 2% maximum maximum, and does not change the ratio perf / conso in half-tone.

probably worse single thread and gaming performance

Its the same back end with a different transistor library for the front end. It isn't really a different process. Clocks improved at ISO power, these SKUs are just pushing further beyond the parts they replaced.

>they used an old mobo so the new turbo was disabled

Wow the French are retarded

I am crossing my fingers on that one.

I'm guessing the power consumption is the bad news that they mentioned on the cover?
As expected, there is no point in upgrading from Ryzen to Ryzen+. If you're moving to AM4, there's no point getting Ryzen over Ryzen+. It's basically what Ivy Bridge was to Sandy Bridge, just another way to keep the product development cycle going.

>A320 mobo

Wow, so not only are half the boost features enabled XFR is disabled too.

Won't make too much of a difference. We're talking about a 200MHz difference, which still won't put it ahead of Skylake's base clock range

5% extra is enough when the difference is small to begin with.

Who cares about skylake's clock?
Broadwell is faster than skylake/etc per clock. And zen is faster than broadwell per clock.

It's not 5%, it's less than that.
>Broadwell is faster than skylake
Wrong, Skylake is faster than Broadwell at the same clock speed (the only place where Broadwell shines is anything that relies on cache size, and that's only for the Broadwells with L4 cache on them).
Zen is about the same as Haswell and Broadwell, so it's quite a way behind Coffee Lake. With this refresh, Zen can not catch up to the superior Coffee Lake architecture. It's too slow and lacks competitive IPC.

Wait for Ice Lake.

CFL==SKL

Same architecture, there's less than 5% difference in IPC between Broadwell and Skylake, what are you smoking?

Didn't meltdown fuck over intel CPUs?

Coffee Lake is improved over Skylake thanks to what is basically the same refinements that Ryzen+ went through from Ryzen. It's just that Intel has no need to market these improvements since Coffee Lake sells on more cores for the money. AMD hypes things that are consider trivial and minor because that's all they have to hope on to move their products.

Get used to mediocre improvements until CPU's get an overhaul guys. GPU maybe different story, but you are paying more than youre getting these days. This tech shit has about hit the ceiling and until they find a new manufacturing method etc things arent gonna improve much beyond energy consumption.

No, Meltdown only affected certain workloads that most consumers will never need to worry about. And even with the full impact of the updates, Intel CPUs are well enough ahead of Ryzen that the Meltdown updates might as well never have happened.

tweaktown.com/articles/8379/amd-threadripper-vs-intel-core-i9-cpus-clock/index3.html
That's a relatively recent test.

And Skylake-X does not share the same layout of their Skylake-S counterparts, nor do they feature the same benefits of their Coffee Lake brothers. Skylake-X has slightly worse IPC than Skylake thanks to its smaller L3 cache and higher latency between cores.

No there's not, Skylake and Coffelake are the exact same core, latency and IPC wise.
It's not anywhere close to the same as Ryzen and Ryzen+ where the major changes are in memory and cache latencies.

They don't mention meltdown nor spectre type 1 mitigations. This favors intel.
Regardless, it's quite close. Or pretty bad for intel, when prices are in consideration.

fuse.wikichip.org/news/1064/isscc-2018-amds-zeppelin-multi-chip-routing-and-packaging/
Intel fanboys confirmed on suicide watch.

As long as it can OC to 4.4/4.5 it fulfilled its purpose.

>Skylake and Coffelake are the exact same core, latency and IPC wise
Not so, their libraries are different, starting with Kaby Lake. Coffee Lake is an evolution of Kaby Lake's improvements.
Kaby Lake also features a different node layout that makes it larger than Skylake, with Coffee Lake inheriting most of the same node design with smaller gaps between gates to make it have almost the same node density as Skylake.

Any talk of Coffee Lake being equal to Skylake is invalid.

There is a very strong case that the 2700X will barely push 4.4GHz.

Intel is literally screwed due to yields.
AMD can make zeppelin like pancakes with high yields, Intel can't do the same with the coffee lakes, due to the large die.
youtube.com/watch?v=ucMQermB9wQ

This.
At this point, all Intel can do is undercut AMD by selling at a loss, to try and prevent the loss of marketshare.

>Ayydored
Opinion discarded
The 14nm++ Ryzen+ is on will not have the same yields as 14nm that Ryzen was on. It could be worse for all we know.
Intel produces more wafers than most other foundries, including GloFo. It won't matter if the yeilds aren't as high as Zeppelin allegedly was, since Intel can churn out more wafers to meet demands and still make a profit. AMD needs to push as many dies as they can per wafer because they can not afford inefficiencies at their profit margin.

based Jim Keller.

That's all on the process, it's common knowledge Intel's process iterations sacrifice a bit of density for performance and that's expected of 10nm family too (wider fins for better clocks and thermal management), in any way that's got little to do with the core itself, which is unchanged from Skylake as you can see for yourself in compiler flags, CFL and KBL still use -march=skylake and mtune=skylake

>The 14nm++ Ryzen+ is on will not have the same yields as 14nm that Ryzen was on. It could be worse for all we know.
- 14nm Process improves.
- Yields go down
?!

This looks shopped. I can tell from the article about the 486 DX2 and from seeing many shops in my time.

>performance per watt
It totally matters. My ideal CPU/cooler combination is a massive 140+W TDP rated cooler on a 65W TDP CPU.

Attached: this_looks_shopped.jpg (398x700, 91K)

>14nm Process improves.
By what metric? Performance, certainly. But that does not mean yields.

Who cares? People are gonna buy the 2700 and 2600's anyway and overclock them.

Ryzen and Ryzen+ are not good overclockers, so that's a stupid argument. It's like saying people buy Priuses to rice them and make them go faster.

terrible analogy, cars are far more moddable than individual PC parts

How are they not good overclockers? The non X ones have significantly lower base clocks, stop looking at fucking single core turbos jesus fuck.

>Performance, certainly
What do you think performance means in a process, if not yields?

A 3.6GHz CPU hitting 4.0GHz is not impressive (that's what people gave Intel shit over with Haswell). Sandy Bridge had it right where you could hit 4.5GHz or above from a mere 3.5GHz base clock. Zen is simply not capable of this sort of overclock.

Posting pic of a frog-eater's tech magazine.
kek

Performance of the chips themselves, who uses performance to refer to the yields of the silicon?

Everybody.
Such as: With these improvements, now we yield more at 5GHz target than before.

It's clear to ignore your opinions, as you've demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you're saying it's the opposite?
As the process improves, yields get worse?


Has this EVER happened without going down in transistor size?

seriously this kek, Im betting 50% in those magazines are ads

1600 and 1700 don't have 3.6 base clock
Neither do 2600 and 2700.

What are you talking about? Who the fuck cares about the overpriced flagships?

Intel shills are getting desperate.

You are dodging the question faggot.

>worse than i7 8700K
*in CSGO

Loved that lineup, great processor, doesn't Support SSE4.1, get fucked as more and more CAD Renderers and games don't support your shitty CPU anymore.
Still rocking my trusty [email protected].

What a retarded comment.
Everyone recommended getting the 3ghz 1700 and oc'ing it to 4ghz. All the ryzen leaderboards for highest oc are not held by 1800xs, but 1700xs or 1700s.

Attached: 1521197601454.jpg (1428x2160, 1.32M)

It's not shopped, this magazine always have a retro section where they go in depth like it's 1995.
Last time was about the Cyrix 6x86, and before that RAMBUS.

Damn, PC hardware magazines are still alive and kicking.

When talking about silicon manufacturing, yield means the percentage of good dies you get out of each wafer. That's why yields != peformance.

Attached: Wafer_die's_yield_model_(10-20-40mm)_-_Version_2_-_DE.png (3000x1000, 164K)

>worse than i7 8700k
Probably in one thing only: single-threaded performance.
>beat it in every regard except this
>it's worse because muh games

>"i don't have a real argument, so I'll deflect and tell people to ignore him because I'm a fucking idiot"

>L-R
>skylake-X, coffee lake, ryzen

>sucks dicks everywhere else
t. a brainlet

>Its intel lol its going to be good at video games and suck dicks at everything else
reasonable argument

To be fair, ryzen makes for a terrible room heater whereas coffee lake is fantastic at it.

you convinced me i will buy inlel for winter heating purposes and summer baking and roasting

t.proudcuck

>not having additional 8%+(-30%) performance in gayming
HAHAHAHA what are you poor ????

>Won't make too much of a difference
LOL
A series mobos are for office machines

I'm gonna get only 370 fps instead of 390 this is a disaster :(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

This. You faggots who bellyache over 5% differences when you already have an insane 200% performance margin is getting old as fuck. AMD is the winner right now and for the foreseeable future. Where is cannonlake, shintells? At this rate I'm going to have a 7nm AMD part in my PC before intel can do production wafer starts for 10nm.

super satan is right

>yield means the percentage of good dies you get out of each wafer
Sure, so everything else being equal (same transistor size), isn't yield the "performance" of a wafer?

Jesus christ guys here is how it works and why it is important:
>Yield has nothing to do with performance, aside from cases where parts are intentionally segmented due to sacrificial defect modules (e.g. low/mid-range GPU dies).
>The extreme performance end of an individual die is driven by so many factors it's not even worth quantifying each factor.
>Yield is important, because as the defect rate for a wafer increases (think of each defect as a hitscan killshot anywhere on the 300mm wafer), the yield goes down at an exponential rate due to probabilities and die sizes. This is a huge deal for AMD, because they broke with tradition and decided to do non-homogeneous dies. This means that each die that MUST not have a defect anywhere on it is much smaller than it would otherwise need to be for a monolithic solution. As a result, each individual die is much less likely to see a defect (AMD reports they can use 99% of dies). The only downside to this approach is that they have to "glue" groups of these dies together (infinity fabric) which will increase latency, but most would argue its so worth the upside in yield and what it does for the cost/performance ratio.

>of an individual die
Nobody is talking about an individual die.
Wafer performance != die performance.

There is no such thing as wafer "performance" unless you are talking about yield. What are you on about?

Not him: but "performance of a wafer" could also be construed as the quality of the chips. Let's say we have two wafers A and B the with the same yield and the functional chips in wafer A all overclock higher than the ones in wafer B because wafer A has less impurities in its functional chips. Then you could say wafer A is a better wafer with higher "performance", I guess. No idea if there's any standard terminology though.
On the other hand I don't think I made a realistic scenario since good yields on wafer probably correlate with high overall purity of the chips but I don't know about that.

Dumb niggers, as expected of AMDrones
Wafer quality is measured in yields only. Overclocking has very little to do with the percentage of better yields and is almost entirely down to the MATURITY of the process making those wafers.The term "performance" is not used to refer to either of those characteristics.

Fucking stupid AyyMDrone niggers

>There is no such thing as wafer "performance"
>unless you're talking about YIELD.
Great.
It took a long way, but you finally agreed.

Good to know.

What a stupid stubborn cunt, just like a typical AMDrone.
Performance is never used to describe the wafer or the process. You're patting yourself on the back for admitting that you know absolutely nothing that you're talking about.
Go back to r/amd and go file false (and illegal) FTC reports about Nvidia's legitimate and legal marketing practices

>*sigh*
>TFW its not possible to simultaneously support AMD and have a valid understanding of basic semiconductor manufacturing process concepts.
>Maybe this combined understanding concerns the intel shill.

Oh I see. Here's where the argument go started. One could have said "Oh he used the word performance, let's find out what exactly he means" or "I'm going on a semantic crusade".

>TFW its not possible to simultaneously support AMD and have a valid understanding of basic semiconductor manufacturing process concepts.
Well you just proved this correct by insisting on using the incorrect terminology for a very well documented industry characteristic, you fucking mong.
It just so happens that you're a filthy subhuman AMD supporter who deserves nothing more than a barbed fishing wire shoved into your cockhole.

And I meant performance as the performance of the Ryzen+ die, not the fucking wafer. So yes, this semantics arguing retard is a fucking twat of a cunt

I am curious, user. What exactly do you perceive to be so much better about Intel than AMD? It has to be quite a huge deal for you to be this salty and uninformed on the internet...

>And I meant performance as the performance of the Ryzen+ die
Speculation. No actual specs or tests, only dubious leaks.
AMD hasn't shown them at all, or even talked about the models and clocks.