Ryzen 2700X OCed to 4.3Ghz (1.4v) across all cores, performance numbers included.

[Master Disaster]

 

Coming from a YouTube channel called H3rdw3re Numb3rs via WCCF tech we have some promising looking overclocking numbers for the upcoming Ryzen 7 2700X.

 

Spoiler

At the same time another reviewer (El Chapuzas Informatico) has shown the chip can go as far as 4.35Ghz on a single core however it still can't beat Skylake on Single Threaded Performance but Multi Core Performance is another story entirely

Spoiler

The site noted they could not run gaming benchmarks as they were getting constant crashing and blue screens while running games

Quote

Note: We have not been able to test games because the platform became unstable when opened , with crashes shortly after starting or even blue screenshots. Not having specific drivers for the new generation, it’s something that could happen, but the funny thing is that it only happens in games , which would foreseeably be his weak point against Intel, so we’ll have to wait a little longer to know if this will continue to be the case.

WCCF also noted that the new chip seems to have a much better thermal profile than previous chips with even the stock cooler keeping the chip under 60c

Quote

One of the better part of the review is the temperature which even with the stock cooler, the chip stayed at a cool 31C (idle) and 56C (load) under 20C ambient temps. The cooler performed really well with good noise levels, 40 dB to be exact however, heavier loads could lead up to 45 dB noise output. That would probably be a rare scenario considering the great temps.

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-cpu-review-overclock-benchmarks-leak/

 

[GoldenLag]

Ive got a feeling that some Golden Samples might reach 4,4 ghz or mabve even 4,45 ghz. Similar to Ryzen 1000 series. Most chips stopped at 4-4,1 however some have reached 4,2 using "okay" voltages. Overall. Not the major generational jump i was hoping. 

 

Edit: i know there wasnt much change since last gen. However i had hopes for 12 nm to really help.

Edited April 9, 2018 by GoldenLag

[Cookybiscuit]

12 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The site noted they could not run gaming benchmarks as they were getting constant crashing and blue screens while running games

Fascinating.

 

Numbers are pretty weak anyway.

[8uhbbhu8]

Hmmm interesting. Good but not great. As said above ^^ Was hoping for a slight bit more in terms of performance.

 

BUT.

 

This is only a 2700x we have yet to see what the "high end" has to say about this. I'd say that's where we will really see gains compared to last gen.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

Fascinating.

 

Numbers are pretty weak anyway.

I wouldn't go that far, the thing is pretty competitive in 3D Mark and MTP is better than Intel's offering.

 

Sure it's not a huge jump from the 1700X however it's certainly not weak.

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

I wouldn't go that far, the thing is pretty competitive in 3D Mark and MTP is better than Intel's offering.

 

Sure it's not a huge jump from the 1700X however it's certainly not weak.

Call me when the single core performance is at least half as good as Intel's offerings.

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Call me when the single core performance is at least half as good as Intel's offerings.

Single core performance is already way better than half of what it is on an Intel CPU. What's your number?

[Cookybiscuit]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

Single core performance is already way better than half of Intel's offerings. What's your number?

Still too slow.

[NelizMastr]

7 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Still too slow.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Still too slow.

16%, roughly, isn't that bad. It's not really even much to do with the difference in very high FPS games as well, that's frequency and optimization not single core performance.

[Cookybiscuit]

2 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

Ryzen is a disaster for single-threaded workloads.

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Ryzen is a disaster for single-threaded workloads.

 

Call me when I care about CS:GO and when monitors can do over 240Hz 

 

I won't be expecting a call though since I don't care about CS:GO and never will lol.

[jde3]

At the open source level nothing is optimized for Ryzen yet. clang had some with version 5.0 and GCC 8 will have real optimizations (not the fake flag it has). The reason I post this is because some people think "all the work has been done by now" and in reality most of it is just starting to see use.

[jde3]

Some of it's optimized incorrectly too. The GNU guessed that zen would be similar to bulldozer and so.. yeah. I don't know what this means for games because it's closed source but I assume games are highly optimized for intel and possibly a few bulldozer.. so adding something entirely new takes a great deal of time..

[Hugs12343]

50 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The site noted they could not run gaming benchmarks as they were getting constant crashing and blue screens while running games

Overclock too high maybe.

[Hugs12343]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

when monitors can do over 240Hz

I thought there were monitors that could do 288Hz

[asus killer]

One year ago AMD's CPU were potatoes, so in less than 12 months this is how far AMD gone, so i completely lost the critics on this one. I guess if you want to critic slow advances, focus on Intel, years and years of increasing as least as possible of performance to keep milking consumers.

 

 

[jde3]

10 minutes ago, Hugs12343 said:

I thought there were monitors that could do 288Hz

Alert the media. hea, now I can microwave my face.

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Hugs12343 said:

I thought there were monitors that could do 288Hz

Not that I've seen, or google comes up with. Might be a panel that can do it just might not be in any products available yet. Either way for me anything over 120Hz is pure wastage and could increase the graphical fidelity.

 

I used to play competitive cod4 using an X800 GTO, a CRT and horrible internet to servers hosted in another country (80-120ms) and the only thing that would have made me play better was actually improving myself not the equipment. If anyone remembers what good PCs were back then then you'd know my system was trash lol.

[NelizMastr]

36 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Ryzen is a disaster for single-threaded workloads.

Disaster? And your source is CS:GO at 1080p? Lulz. AMD came from Core 2 Duo IPC to basically Broadwell and that's called a disaster? Nah mate. 2Edgy4me.

[NelizMastr]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

should have lowered to find a stable setting then ._.

Apparently they thought it was a driver issue (which is bogus, because they used X370). It's weird how Cinebench worked fine but not games, though.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

Disaster? And your source is CS:GO at 1080p? Lulz. AMD came from Core 2 Duo IPC to basically Broadwell and that's called a disaster? Nah mate. 2Edgy4me.

I think this calls for 

Spoiler

 

If I were looking at CPUs today I'd rather get one with more cores that's decent in single core performance than one with 4 with excellent single core performance, multi core utilization in games has already been increasing over the last few years. There's a reason I went with X79. Best to never go full smug face for anything, it might not last, who knows so just enjoy what you have.

[Cookybiscuit]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I think this calls for 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If I were looking at CPUs today I'd rather get one with more cores that's decent in single core performance than one with 4 with excellent single core performance, multi core utilization in games has already been increasing over the last few years. There's a reason I went with X79. Best to never go full smug face for anything, it might not last, who knows so just enjoy what you have.

People have been saying "effective multi-core utilization in games is just around the corner" since Bulldozer came out and it still hasn't happened, CPUs with fewer, stronger cores still win handily. Buying components in the hope that they'll be better in the future doesn't seem like too bright an idea, a 2500K is still a perfectly good CPU in 2018, a 8150 belongs in the bin. 

 

That said, it isn't all about gaming of course.

[jde3]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

People have been saying "effective multi-core utilization in games is just around the corner" since Bulldozer came out and it still hasn't happened, CPUs with fewer, stronger cores still win handily. Buying components in the hope that they'll be better in the future doesn't seem like too bright an idea, a 2500K is still a perfectly good CPU in 2018, a 8150 belongs in the bin. 

 

That said, it isn't all about gaming of course.

Yeah intel upped their core count as a response though.. so we might actually be here now.

 

Dosen't much matter to me, I rarely play new games (XCom2 being about the newest) I went with Ryzen because I usually build my desktop system from scratch. Make -j17 is fantastic and for $300 it rips through code like you wouldn't believe.

[hobobobo]

5 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

People have been saying "effective multi-core utilization in games is just around the corner" since Bulldozer came out and it still hasn't happened, CPUs with fewer, stronger cores still win handily. Buying components in the hope that they'll be better in the future doesn't seem like too bright an idea, a 2500K is still a perfectly good CPU in 2018, a 8150 belongs in the bin. 

 

That said, it isn't all about gaming of course.

With coffe lake being 6c and ice like, according to rumors, being 8c and consoles moving forward with multi-core x86 hardware this is the time it is literally around the corner. God bless AMD for forcing Intels hand.

 

And hey, if it comes to CS:GO g4560 is all you need.