The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X retails for $329.

Solid performance improvements

Outstanding performance in multi-threaded apps

More affordable than competing Intel processors

Unlocked CPU multiplier

Supports existing AM4 motherboards

CPU cooler with RGB lighting included

Soldered IHS Single-threaded performance still lower than Intel's

Limited overclocking potential

Memory still a bit more problematic than on Intel

Lacks integrated graphics

This review uses our updated test suite for processors in 2018, which includes the latest BIOS updates with microcode fixes for recent security issues, Windows 10 Fall Creators Update with all updates, and new software tests and games, which are all using the latest versions as well.



Just a year after the original Ryzen launch, AMD brings us a refined version of Zen, called Zen+. The new processors use an improved 12 nanometer process which AMD used to increase clock frequencies without having to bump the voltage. AMD also added refinements to their cache and memory subsystem, which result in a few percentage points of extra performance. Also new are improvements to how Boost works, which will now dial in higher clocks more consistently.



When looking at overall CPU performance, which is a mix of single- and multi-threaded tests, we see the Ryzen 7 2700X easily overtake the previous flagship 1800X with an almost 10% improvement! Actually, the 2700X's average pretty much matches the Intel Core i7-8700K's in these tests (<1% difference). Taking a more detailed look at scores, we find that the 2700X is winning big in multi-threaded benchmarks due to having more cores and threads than Intel counterparts. When it comes to single-threaded workloads, Intel is still king, but the margin has shrunk significantly. This means that for general productivity, AMD's Ryzen is now on par with what Intel has to offer—pretty exciting for "just a refresh."



Gaming performance has also improved dramatically, especially at lower resolutions, which serves to indicate at which framerate the CPU bottleneck lies. I would specifically like to point you to the "Rise of the Tomb Raider" results, which previously were one of AMD's weakest showings. The game has since received a Ryzen-focused performance update that turned things around. Now, Ryzen is clearly faster than Intel in this one game, which shows what can happen when game devs jump on the Ryzen train. The majority of games definitely run faster on Intel, but the differences are relatively slim and get smaller the higher the resolution you play at (the bottleneck shifts from the CPU to the GPU). Overall, these numbers inspire confidence in what AMD is doing, being able to so quickly make up lost ground. Nevertheless, if you are a 1080p gamer looking to drive your monitor at 144 Hz, Intel is the way to go since the Ryzen 7 2700X won't be able to provide framerates nearly as high. Everybody else can consider Ryzen for gaming now, even more so than before; especially when using slower GPUs or running at 4K—both scenarios which are completely GPU limited.



AMD is marketing the unlocked multiplier on all their processors as a unique selling point. We tested this on the Ryzen 7 2700X with mixed results. Yes, overclocking is possible and our sample reached 4.2 GHz stable on all cores, but that won't always give you higher performance, as our benchmarks show. The underlying reason is that Ryzen has very clever Boost algorithms that automagically increase clock frequencies beyond rated stock frequencies. The 2700X can go up to 4.3 GHz with just a single core active, which is higher than what we managed with manual overclocking. As a result, single-threaded applications will run faster than without overclocking. Multi-threaded applications saw a clear advantage, though, but overall, I'm slightly unsure about whether overclocking is worth it on the Ryzen 7 2700X. However, this is the result of AMD putting a ton of work into maximizing the out-of-the-box performance of their CPUs, which is a good thing as the majority of users will get a better experience without having to deal with overclocking. If the silicon lottery deals you a good hand and your processor can reach significantly higher than its maximum boost, then overclocking will give you small gains, but I'm not sure if that's worth all the trouble. It is worth mentioning that overclocking on the Intel Core i7-8700K works very well, with the majority of CPUs reaching 5 GHz and more, which provides significant extra performance (around 10% in CPU tests and 1%-3% in games).



We have added new energy consumption tests in addition to our usual power consumption tests, which show interesting results because they also take a given processor's performance into account. When looking at multi-threaded power-consumption values in watts, we see that the Ryzen 7 2700X clearly uses more power than the 1700X and even 1800X (199W vs. 172W and 180W, respectively). Our new tests reveal that thanks to improved overall performance, the difference in energy used to complete a given task is negligible (5.1 kJ vs. 5.1 kJ and 5.0 kJ, respectively). For single-threaded workloads, the picture is even more drastic. The watt power consumption metric suggests those three CPUs to be similar in power consumption (all at around 85W), but with calculation speed taken into account, the 2700X is the clear winner with around 6% efficiency gained over the earlier models. Compared to Intel's processors, Ryzen is still a good deal behind what the competitor has to offer, but the margin is shrinking.



Price-wise, the Ryzen 7 2700X clocks in at $330, which is probably the most convincing argument for it. The Core i7-8700K, its main competitor, is $350 right now, but it doesn't come with an included heatsink, so you'll probably spend at least another 40 bucks on that, bringing the effective cost closer to $400, which means the Ryzen 7 2700X roughly has a $70 performance advantage, or 20%. With that money, you could buy a faster graphics card or more/faster memory. The exception here is for when you build a high-performance system that doesn't need strong graphics—the integrated graphics would suffice. Intel's processors come with that, but on the higher-end Ryzen models, you'll have to buy a cheap graphics card. AMD does have Ryzen APUs with integrated graphics since earlier this year, but they don't span the whole performance range. Motherboards for Ryzen are clearly cheaper, especially when you don't pick from the currently overpriced X470 motherboards, which really don't give you anything on top of what X370 offers. Yes, motherboard vendors had one year to learn, but BIOS updates exist for nearly all existing AM4 motherboards, so these new tricks will certainly be integrated into those BIOS updates. One small point is that X470 boards promise a stronger VRM, but unless you plan on fully loading your system 24/7 while running an overclock, I don't think that's enough of a reason to spend the extra money.



AMD's first Zen refresh has made an excellent impression overall. The company's incremental update has given us more than Intel's have for a long time (think Skylake to Kaby Lake or Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge). It will now be interesting to see what the big blue giant comes up with.