https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470-review-out-beats-i7-8700k-in-7-10-game-tests/
We’re mere days before the official launch of AMD’s upcoming Ryzen 2000 series CPUs on the 19th of April and the performance benchamrks are pouring in. The latest of which comes courtesy of a review from Spain, which includes both professional and gaming benchmarks to quench the thirst of excited enthusiasts looking to snag a Ryzen 7 2700X for $329 in a few days’ time.
►www.facebook.com/wccftech
►www.twitter.com/wccftechdotcom
►www.youtube.com/WccftechTV
Visit us daily at www.wccftech.com for the absolute latest in PC Hardware, Gaming, and Mobile News and Reviews!
Amazon Auto Links: No products found.
![Intel i7-8700K Review vs. Ryzen: Streaming, Gaming, Delidding [UPDATED]](https://img.youtube.com/vi/oCSkyNHXIAE/0.jpg "Intel i7-8700K Review vs. Ryzen: Streaming, Gaming, Delidding [UPDATED]")
Pretty much most of the CPUs we’re close neck and neck on the games a few frames won’t make difference .
Still 1080p is the dominant resolution and GPUs fps output increases the fading of a GPU bottleneck. Intel still having superior single core performance would still have the edge, though the difference would now be much smaller thanks to higher clockspeeds and lower latencies in caches and between CCXs. 1440p or 2k is the likely the next step for mainstream and we are already seeing some visible shift to 2k so taking those results between the current mainstream and higher end 4k would be more ideal.
But then again we have to take into account that majority of the GPUs sold for average gaming PC is between GTX 1050ti and GTX 1070 and at that point even on 1080p Ryzen 1000 series can out put 99% of the fps that any Intel CPU can. So taking that into account having 5-10% less 1080p performance on GTX 1080ti which is stupid setup from the get go isn’t really a big deal. What it comes down to is overall performance per dollar and Ryzen simply rules even with 1000 series. Also Ryzen’s multicore performance really has made Intel’s older higher end platforms pretty much useless. Though Intel’s 8 core CPUs are coming, with 14nm they can’t compete with AMD’s Ryzen if they are not cheating their way out of TDP limits as they are doing with coffeelake.
shouldn’t have joined Wccftech. Wccftech is cancer. Now look at you. You’ve changed. Is it worth it? Selling your soul to the devil?
Ok Now I’m getting excited…can’t wait for later this week and the testing results from the reviewers I actually trust!
Will x370 motherboards work for these zen 2 processors?
Giveaways? Ehehe
ballshit we need 720P to see the real gaming performance please don’t say no one play at 720p i know its a test for benchmark
what the heck was that at 1:06?
Any 2K benchmarks??
What is that voice at 1:06 ?
Those who disliked wants to see Intel return to selling 6 core CPUs for $1000.00 , they don’t like paying less . competition scare them,
And Intel release the new 9 series next week destroying AMD once again
U can overclock the coffelake to 5.2 did they do those benchmarks
I has a 1440p monitor, so think I’ll try Ryzen this time. Cheaper mobo’s too. I don’t care about 1080 or 4K…
Who plays at 1080p on such high end systems is plain stupid.
Eeeh, seems fishy, will just wait for the gods of benchmarks on the 19th
I want the new Ryzens to succeed as much as anyone, but El Chapuzos “review” has so many things suspect I dont even know where to begin. For starters, severely GPU bottlenecked tests, no Cinebench ST score, 2700X platform draws 40W less than 1700X??! Umm, sorry, somethings very wrong with that claim.
At micro center the 8700k is now $300, 2700X $330, 2700 $300, 1700 $230, 2600 $200, 1600 $150
65* Celsius. Thats like 149* Ferinhight. I wouldnt say thats , GOOD in any way shape or form.
if the max boost on the 2700x is listed at 4.3ghz then I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t be able to overclock higher than that (same with whatever the 2700 boost is respectively)
02:10 8MB of L3 cache ?!?
Why did they use DDR4 PC3200 with AMD processors and PC3600 with Intel processors?
You forgot to mention “performance per core” . Makes you wonder if Intel will rise to the occasion yet again and maybe a 9700k 8 core equivalent maybe??? Who will win that battle LOL
Who is going to game @1080p with a 2700X on the long run and who cares about the difference between 160 and 180 FPS in some Valve game or e-‘sport’? That is a mismatch, if you buy a 2700X and you are a gamer then you will be buying a card on the level of Vega56 or 1070 Ti and you will have a 1440p monitor or upgrade to one. Maybe it will take a year or something like that before you can buy one but that would be the long term plan, wouldn’t itI don’t care much about the 1080p performance but it will certainly have improved given the better latency and some other develoments. It is about more than just clock frequency when it comes to the performance of a CPU!
It is not gonna beat the intel i7 8700k in gaming for sure but it will force intel to drop its prices or increase its 6 core to 8 core which is gonna happend end of 2018 most likely.
Think I’ll hold out for the 3rd generation.
(Which is exactly what I did with the Core i series…I’m still using Ivy Bridge based Core i7).
Regardless, AMD is looking good so far. Caught up to Intel, and even giving Chip-zilla a run for its money.
Wow tested at 4k…. the great equalizer… so fucking stupid… u cannot test cpu Performance when the gpu is a limiter
Now Intel will release the kraken i7 9700k 8 cores 16 threads @ 5.0 ghz
Returning back to Bulldozer days?
amd is sooo premium
When Intel CPU wins by 10-30fps it’s “basically no difference”.
When AMD CPU wins by 0.4-2fps (margin of error) in a heavily GPU bottlenecked benchmark (with really weird results like R5-1400 having best fps), it’s a major victory.
Whoever buys any PC parts now is not very wise
What gpu is being used for the gaming tests? if it’s anything under a 1080ti, the 4k gaming tests are going to be gpu bottlenecked, and if the gpu is a 1070, the gaming tests are pointless to begin with, any ryzen 8 core cpu is going to be able to feed the 1070 in most games.
They used a 1070, so it’s not really a cpu test as the GPU will be the bottleneck, they did do 1080p tests too but with a 1070 it’s not really a good indicator.
does anyones that at 4k the gpu Limits the cpu….and that a gtx 1070 is a bottleneck in those resolutions…
but can it run minesweeper?
ryzen 2 is still going to be behind a highly overclocked haswell chip, which is kinda sad really.
MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming Z
Just why would you use a 1070 to benchmark cpu performance in games?
Also, why use 3600mhz ram on intel and 3200mhz on ryzen 2?
https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/
Someone tell these guys how to actually benchmark.
Gaming tests should be done in 720p
AMD on Top position.. Wow.. just wow
Why the f are u reading the whole story from the website
90% of your reviews are wrong so why bother?
farcry 5 ftw !! best game ever
Plus I got my 7700k at 220 so I saved quite a bit . And 300 on Rx 580 . I think I’ll be good till 2020 I’ll probably just switch video cards and that’s it .
OK, this is the data from the flawed comparison I seen in other videos. Note how all of the Intel parts are running 3600 GT/s memory, while the Ryzen parts are below 3000 (as low as 2400 GT/s). This is unacceptable for a serious comparison. Also, the CAS is not listed anywhere, for either setup. There are no fewer than four memory speeds in these lists. If the numbers are this good for Ryzen 2, then just imagine how good it will get with normal memory speeds. This Ryzen 2 supports 3600 GT/s out of the box, and the Intels DDR4 fits the Ryzen boards and work just fine, so there’s really no excuse. The TridentZ 3200 CL14 (running 3333 cl14) said “For Intel” on the box, but works just fine with my 1800x in a CH6H (WiFi).
Great news for AMD
Wait till someone actually reviews the cpu. So far all I see is the click bait