Overclock.net banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
New to Posting
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/cp...x-print-review-is-online-incl-benchmarks.html

Remember that pending Ryzen 7 2700X print review we mentioned? As you could see from the cover, the magazine is to feature Ryzen 2200G but also Ryzen 7 2700X (the 12nm Zen+ processor), which should be launching April 19th. Well, the results have indeed been posted.

So as it turns out the CanardPC tweet wasn't some kind of Aprils fools joke, but the real thing. The numbers have been scanned and then posted on Reddit and include gaming benchmarks for GTA5, GRID Autosport, Battlefield 4, ARMA 3, Witcher 3 and COH2 indicate a 4% gain compared to last-gen flagship Ryzen 7 1800X.

The overall latency has improved quite a bit, but so did power efficiency. Unfortunately, the review was performed with an A320 motherboard, CPC Hardware claims the changes from X370 to X470 chipset are trivial (however they did not test one). A320 is not very likely optimized whatsoever for such a high-end processor and we know for sure the new Turbo mechanism will not function properly on A320. Time will tell though, but this review raises concerns. But hey, if the 1080p game performance differential was 10%, we can now shave off another 4%, perhaps with a bit of tweaking a few % more? AMD might be able to close that CPU gaming gap.
just waiting to see what improvments the 400 series boards bring to the table
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
I just don't get why they would test this using an A320 board..... It kind of makes the entire review a little useless since we still don't know how XFR2 will change things, or how high these CPU's can really OC to. I guess the waiting game continues....
 

·
Debian Dude
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
The one good point about using an old 300 series motherboard is that we can see that despite this the average clock frequencies were staying higher at each load level. That is to say that turbo is more aggressive even without XFR2 if XFR2 truly does not work without a 400 series board like we've been led to believe.
 

·
Noctua Fanboy
Joined
·
1,083 Posts
A lot of things why test it on a A320 board? Plus why test it with such slow memory do we know if Pinnacle Ridge supports faster memory then Ryzen like having 3466mhz become more the norm over 3200mhz? They didn't even test overclocking which is what most of us will be doing.
 

·
New to Posting
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I think the idea behind testing on an a320 board is to give the idea of a minimum baseline you'll see on lack luster budget 300 series boards. Improvements across the board while maintaining a minimum hardware specs signifying a drop in upgrade for those who already have an am4 board
 

·
New to Posting
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
And not sure if any of the information has violated the NDA but posting overclocking results would certainly do so
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
They used 2933MHz memory on R7 2700X :(

All core turbo seems to be 3.9GHz ; anything below 6 cores' load it seems to maintain 4GHz

As far as productivity it seems it has a 10% gain over R7 1800X. Keep in mind that XFR2 enhanced and Precision Boost Overdrive aren't present on A320 or X370 boards.

I am curious why they freak out about 13W. Even with +13W it is less than i7-7820x.

Non-prime95 power draw

----------------

* I am pretty much going to buy a R7 2700X regardless once it drops in price due to the segfault-ing of my R7 1700X. However I have an Intel system that may either go to a i7-8700k delid or the R7 2700X depending on how well the R7 2700X overclocks.
 

·
Debian Dude
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
Plus why test it with such slow memory do we know if Pinnacle Ridge supports faster memory then Ryzen like having 3466mhz become more the norm over 3200mhz? They didn't even test overclocking which is what most of us will be doing.
The maximum officially supported memory speed with Zen+ is DDR4-2933. That is the correct memory to test with when testing at stock.
 

·
Waiting for 7nm EUV
Joined
·
11,521 Posts
It's a bit weird to make the cover of a magazine the world's first review of the top of the lineup, eight core, unlocked CPU on a previous series chipset board and on top of that it's the entry level A320 chipset, which doesn't allow for overclocking. It's a combination that people won't usually be making. It would be the same had anyone tested an i7-7700K on a H110 chipset motherboard.

Well, at least it's confirmed to be working and those motherboards apparently can handle the 105w TDP (do they officially?).

As has been said, we still need to see how XFR2 enhanced and Precision Boost Overdrive work on a 400 series chipset (btw, baseline XFR2 is not motherboard dependent and as such was most probably working properly in the review). We also need CPU, RAM and IF overclocking results.

For now, it does seem to be more or less as expected.

Anyway, I'm still wondering, now that this review is out, what did Bits and Chips mean a few weeks ago when they said this:

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/971899396458770432



* I am pretty much going to buy a R7 2700X regardless once it drops in price due to the segfault-ing of my R7 1700X. However I have an Intel system that may either go to a i7-8700k delid or the R7 2700X depending on how well the R7 2700X overclocks.

Why didn't you send it back for a replacement?
 

·
Network Enthusiast
Joined
·
4,793 Posts

·
Network Enthusiast
Joined
·
4,793 Posts
If you think about...most overclocked ryzen's will be beat by a stock 2700x.
+ the 2700x is only $369. Much better than the 1800x at $499. I'll buy the 2700x day one if they all OC to 4.4Ghz. That'd be a nice 550Mhz boost over my 1700. I wouldn't even look at the 3700 over the 2700x if i hit 4.4Ghz as i wouldn't really need 4 more cores (If its 12 core), or a slightly higher clockspeed at that point. If i get to the point where i need 12 cores for gaming ever i could just pop in the 3700x in 5 years on the cheap ala the Xeon users on 2011v1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,230 Posts
+ the 2700x is only $369. Much better than the 1800x at $499. I'll buy the 2700x day one if they all OC to 4.4Ghz. That'd be a nice 550Mhz boost over my 1700. I wouldn't even look at the 3700 over the 2700x if i hit 4.4Ghz as i wouldn't really need 4 more cores (If its 12 core), or a slightly higher clockspeed at that point. If i get to the point where i need 12 cores for gaming ever i could just pop in the 3700x in 5 years on the cheap ala the Xeon users on 2011v1
Or 4700X. :)

On other news... Just found this on reddit. Ashes of the benchmark.

https://imgur.com/fpzR1b8
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts

Attachments

·
curmudgeon
Joined
·
5,930 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,200 Posts
+ the 2700x is only $369. Much better than the 1800x at $499. I'll buy the 2700x day one if they all OC to 4.4Ghz. That'd be a nice 550Mhz boost over my 1700. I wouldn't even look at the 3700 over the 2700x if i hit 4.4Ghz as i wouldn't really need 4 more cores (If its 12 core), or a slightly higher clockspeed at that point. If i get to the point where i need 12 cores for gaming ever i could just pop in the 3700x in 5 years on the cheap ala the Xeon users on 2011v1
I bought a 1800x on MicroCenter @ $350 on the summer last year. so idk XD
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top