Який сокет Ryzen 7 2700X

0 Comments

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a desktop processor with 8 cores, launched in April 2018, at an MSRP of $329. It is part of the Ryzen 7 lineup, using the Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge) architecture with Socket AM4. Thanks to AMD Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) the core-count is effectively doubled, to 16 threads. Ryzen 7 2700X has 16 MB of L3 cache and operates at 3.7 GHz by default, but can boost up to 4.35 GHz, depending on the workload. AMD is building the Ryzen 7 2700X on a 12 nm production process using 4,800 million transistors. The silicon die of the chip is not fabricated at AMD, but at the foundry of GlobalFoundries. You may freely adjust the unlocked multiplier on Ryzen 7 2700X, which simplifies overclocking greatly, as you can easily dial in any overclocking frequency.
With a TDP of 105 W, the Ryzen 7 2700X consumes a good deal of power, so decent cooling is needed. AMD’s processor supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel interface. The highest officially supported memory speed is 2933 MT/s, but with overclocking (and the right memory modules) you can go even higher. For communication with other components in the system, Ryzen 7 2700X uses a PCI-Express Gen 3 connection. This processor does not have integrated graphics, you will need a separate graphics card.
Hardware virtualization is available on the Ryzen 7 2700X, which greatly improves virtual machine performance. Programs using Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) will run on this processor, boosting performance for calculation-heavy applications. Besides AVX, AMD is including the newer AVX2 standard, too, but not AVX-512.

Physical

Socket:AMD Socket AM4
Foundry:GlobalFoundries
Process Size:12 nm
Transistors:4,800 million
Die Size:213 mm²
Package:µOPGA-1331
tJMax:85°C

Processor

Market:Desktop
Production Status:Active
Release Date:Apr 19th, 2018
Launch Price:$329
Part#:YD270XBGAFBOX
YD270XBGM88AF

Performance

Frequency:3.7 GHz
Turbo Clock:up to 4.35 GHz
Base Clock:100 MHz
Multiplier:37.0x
Multiplier Unlocked:Yes
TDP:105 W

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Rendering, Encoding, And Compression

  • Page 1: Redefining Ryzen
  • Page 2: X470 And Ryzen Master 1.3
  • Page 3: Cache And Memory Performance, IPC
  • Page 4: Overclocking, Spectre, And Test Setup
  • Page 5: VRMark, 3DMark And AotS: Escalation
  • Page 6: Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III
  • Page 7: Far Cry Primal, GTA: V, Hitman
  • Page 8: Shadow Of War, Project CARS 2
  • Page 9: Office And Productivity
  • Page 10: Rendering, Encoding, And Compression
  • Page 11: XFR2 vs. Manual Overclocking
  • Page 12: Power Consumption
  • Page 13: Thermals And Noise
  • Page 14: Final Analysis

Rendering, Encoding, And Compression

Rendering

Ryzen 7 2700X takes a commanding lead in the multi-core Cinebench benchmark, which we expected in light of the radical cache latency and bandwidth improvements that AMD made. POV-Ray also shows the 2700X to be a chart-topper, though again it’s faster in stock form than overclocked.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X leads in many of the threaded workloads, but isn’t as impressive in workloads that tax a single core. There, Intel’s architectures continue shining.

Core i7-7820X leads in LuxMark. But notice that we don’t have OpenCL results for it. This is because the older OpenCL SDK doesn’t support AVX-512. Intel updated the SDK fairly recently, and it works correctly with Skylake-X-based processors. We’ll have to retest all of these CPUs to reflect the changes, but be assured that AVX-512 is a powerful addition.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, and the 2700X posts solid gains over Ryzen 7 1800X in its stock configuration.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, thus removing storage from the equation. As per usual, the Ryzen processors dominate the decompression workload while Intel’s Skylake-X leads in compression-oriented benchmarks. It’s notable that Core i7-8700K needs overclocking in order to beat AMD’s flagship.

There’s a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to its heavier distribution of AVX instructions. Ryzen 7 2700X is particularly impressive in the x264 metric, where it upsets the capable Core i7-7820X.

We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. The 2700X trails Intel’s portfolio in the single-core benchmark. However, parallelization puts it in a more competitive position. Also, we clearly see the benefit of Core i7-7820X’s dual 256-bit AVX FMA units (per core) in the AVX workloads.

MORE: Best CPUs

We check over 250 million products every day for the best prices

Current page: Rendering, Encoding, And Compression

Stay on the Cutting Edge

Join the experts who read Tom’s Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We’ll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.

By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.

Repair shop offers 2TB SSD upgrades for M1, M2 Macbook Air — solders on bigger flash chips

One runaway prison laptop caused 1,200 incarcerated students to lose their devices — jailbroken laptop spurs prison officials to issue a recall of now-unsecured notebooks

M3 MacBook Air hits eye-popping 114 degrees Celsius in stress test and didn’t melt — temperature settles down at 100 degrees after thermal throttling

Once again, Tom’s provides an incorrect comparison in this review. Intel’s 8700K is comparable to the 2600 or 2600X and NOT the 2700 or 2700X. Just count the number of cores and threads and one should be able to figure that out O.o

Whine all you want. Just because you down vote me only means you don’t know how to read or count 😛

Once again, Tom’s provides an incorrect comparison in this review. Intel’s 8700K is comparable to the 2600 or 2600X and NOT the 2700 or 2700X. Just count the number of cores and threads and one should be able to figure that out O.o

The 2700X costs $329, the 8700K costs $359. It is a very reasonable comparison to make.
7820X is also there with the same number of cores and threads.

It sure is nice to see an AMD chip up there in the thick of it with Intel’s best offerings. Competition has finally officially returned. I’m impressed that AMD gained so much ground and managed to make the price more competitive than the 1800x was. It is slightly disappointing that overclocking remains less impressive than the Intel offerings, but everything else sort of makes up for that.

I didn’t feel like AMD was quite “there” yet with the 1000 Ryzens, but with the 2000 series I feel like we can finally say that they have arrived.

Once again, Tom’s provides an incorrect comparison in this review. Intel’s 8700K is comparable to the 2600 or 2600X and NOT the 2700 or 2700X. Just count the number of cores and threads and one should be able to figure that out O.o

The 2700X costs $329, the 8700K costs $359. It is a very reasonable comparison to make.
Incorrect. It has nothing to do with price. Comparing like CPU architectures is the only logical course of action. 6 core/12 thread vs 8 core/16 thread makes no sense. Comparing the Intel 8700K 6 core/12 thread @ $347 to the AMD 2600X 6 core/12 thread @ $229.99 makes the most sense here. Once the proper math is done, AMD destroys Intel in performance vs. cost, especially when you game at any resolution higher than 1080P. The GPU becomes the bottleneck at that point, negating any IPC benefits of the Intel CPUs. I know this how? Simple. I also own a 8700K gaming PC 😉

Once again, whine all you want. Just because you down vote me only means you don’t know how to read or count 😛

Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should.
And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure).

(check out anandtech’s review to get an idea)

Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should.
And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure).

(check out anandtech’s review to get an idea)

I will definitely check out that review as well. Thanks bfwhsm!

Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should.
And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure).

(check out anandtech’s review to get an idea)

Maybe you should read the comments on the AnandTech article. They all point out that the test results don’t match any other site’s results.

Now, do the tests again with meltdown/spectre applied on intel cpus, as you should.
And you will see a VERY different story, with 2700k destroying 8700k in almost every measure).

(check out anandtech’s review to get an idea)

Maybe you should read the comments on the AnandTech article. They all point out that the test results don’t match any other site’s results.
. because of the different testing procedure that he just referred to.