I have a question...why people keep recommending R7 2700X instead of 2700? Is it because 2700 cannot be OCed to 2700X level?
-
@Jurrunio manual overclocking via BIOS is always the best option
@PacketMan I would say 1700 is more popular than 1700X those days. But after 2000 series came out, suddenly 2700X become popular
-
At least the 1700 has a flaw: early samples regularly don't hit 4 or even 3.9GHz with max safe voltages., while 1700x and 1800x don't have this problem. Don't seem to be a thing for 2nd gen Ryzen as a whole though.
-
@Jurrunio very true. My 1700 couldn't do 3.8 at less than 1.4v where 3.7 was fine at 1.25 and beyond 3.8 was completely impossible.
@GeneXiS_X It's definitely the out-of-the-box clock speed advantage. All 2700X chips do 4GHz easily and with the very small price difference, the 2700X makes more sense if you're not a hardcore overclocker. For instance, here in the Netherlands, a 2700 costs €290 and the 2700X is €320. That difference isn't big enough to jump for the 2700 and OC it.
-
The price difference is low and overclocking is always a bit of a hit or miss situation. If you're on a tight budget, sure, go for the 2700 - but if you can afford the extra 30 bucks you might as well get the X.
-
@Origami Cactus That's why I got a 2700X. I was also stuck on my 1700.
@DocSwag Eh, somewhat. My 2700X didn't play nice with it so I immediately threw it out.
-
@DocSwag even so, can the stock cooler of 2700X handle the heat especially when OCed?
-
@DocSwag you got lucky then. My 2700X ran 90+ C or deafened me with the stock cooler, lol. And that was at stock mind you
-
@NelizMastr Probably bad mounting
-
@Origami Cactus nope. Mounted to the provided backplate, screwed it down as far as it went, replaced paste etc. The problem is that it pulls 1.5v when it hits XFR and that's a lot for a 105W part. So I disabled all boost stuff, locked it at 4GHz and got a quiet AIO.