• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD RYZEN 2000 Builders Thread

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
gammaray said:
build a 2700x or wait for z390 and 8790k ? i am tingling to update my 4770k
Click to expand...
Well, I think that depends. If you want efficiency and a "cooler" (heat wise) CPU, you would get eh 2700x. The 8700K may be faster when OC'ed, but its toasty. And its not as efficient on power usage. Oh, and its platform is dead, and any new CPU (as you pointed out) would be on a new motherboard.

Now, granted, the 2700x comes out also with a new motherboard, but its just a little better in some things, the current 370 boards will work fine with a bios update.
 
it's not about money or getting new parts, i just want the best. I already have a 1080ti with a 27in Acer predator 2560x1440p
 
gammaray said:
it's not about money or getting new parts, i just want the best. I already have a 1080ti with a 27in Acer predator 2560x1440p
Click to expand...
The best what ? The 2700x has more cores and is supposed to be close or better than the 8700k at stock. But games ? still no real benchmarks out. The 2700x has more cores, but still may not OC and beat the 8700k. What is your first priority ? and if you are that worriedm wait until later this weeks when official benchmarks show up.
 
Markfw said:
Just put the results here, you can even do pics.
Click to expand...

I probably will, started doing some initial tests tonight, and as I suspected, rumors that more cores != better gaming performance aren't holding water even for older games. Going to pick up an 8700k or whatever Intel's best sub 1k chip is around July/August and take a closer look. Sure, you can compare stock to stock, but as I suspected, there are a ton of holes in testing at pretty much every review site...especially those of us who actually game at max settings and decent (1440p+) resolutions. To be clear, I'm not a fan of either camp, but I see a lot of influence on both sides, so I am working on a system to clear that up once and for all. Any review site not using at least a 1080ti loses my respect instantly. If you are going to spend $350 on a top of the line CPU, why would you buy a 1060 for a GPU? I just don't get it. we'll find out. I'm going to be digging deep. Some of my stuff will have to be on a dedicated website because I am buying hardware outright and need to fund that initiative. If I could get away with it, I'd post it all here and/or go ad free. However, I am going to have a system in place to deal with that. I mean no disrespect to AT, but this whole review system has to change.
 
rainy said:
Higher CPU clocks, lower latencies of cache and memory controller, improved turbo, better compatibility of RAM and also support of faster/higher clocked RAM.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I couldn't help thinking Coffee Lake the whole time I was reading your post. Lol. The irony!
 
I'll be building a new mini itx workstation with the 2700x once those boards are released on the 1st. That'll be going inside the Fractal Nano S I snagged for $45 a while back. The only real question is 16gb or 32gb of memory. Since I'm only working with two slots I might splurge for the 32gb.
 
gammaray said:
i don't think you are serious, more like sarcastic, but the 1080ti does everything gaming wise a titan V would do. and 4k? hmm, never really thought about it. The acer predator already does 144hz OC to 168hz.
Click to expand...
The Titan V isn't worth the premium for gaming in my opinion. 4k 144Hz monitors will probably be priced in the same range. There's a big difference between 1440p and 4k. There's a lot more pixels to push at the higher refresh rates, I don't think a 1080Ti would be able to handle the higher refesh rates at 4k Ultra settings.

I'm still at 1440p 144Hz with a 1080Ti for gaming because I hated going back to 60Hz at 4k.

Edit to add link comparing them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGuXo3_3hNc
 
guskline said:
From what I read, the 2700x is the highest clock new Ryzen to be released.
Click to expand...
We don't have a lot of sample yet. But based on this video and El Chapuzas "review", unless the process significantly improves, it doesn't seem very likely that we'll get a 2800x (at least not as a Ryzen, maybe as a Threadripper). Hardware Numb3rs chip needed between 1.45-1.5v for 4.3 GHz. El Chapuzas got 4.2Ghz @1.456v, 4.3 was not stable. There doesn't seem to be all that much headroom left.
 
These memory prices!!! arggghh I yield...

current system shall stay the course for now... maybe this summer a 2700X to tie me over until the next chipset.
 
I had a pre-order, with 1 day shipping, on both sites. Amazon has shipped, but isn't yet at the carrier according to tracking, and they are both set to be delivered April 20.
I did see quite a few other people state that their pre-orders from Amazon shipped April 18 and will be delivered on launch day, April 19. I believe that is Amazon making penance for botching the Ryzen release last year.
 
I am considering upgrading my Ryzen system with a 2600 or 2700 and a small OC. Currently has a 1600X. Thing is, I have a B350 board, the AB350M gaming 3 from Gigabyte. While a good board, would it have the power delivery and cooling needed for the OC?
 
eek2121 said:
I probably will, started doing some initial tests tonight, and as I suspected, rumors that more cores != better gaming performance aren't holding water even for older games. Going to pick up an 8700k or whatever Intel's best sub 1k chip is around July/August and take a closer look. Sure, you can compare stock to stock, but as I suspected, there are a ton of holes in testing at pretty much every review site...especially those of us who actually game at max settings and decent (1440p+) resolutions. To be clear, I'm not a fan of either camp, but I see a lot of influence on both sides, so I am working on a system to clear that up once and for all. Any review site not using at least a 1080ti loses my respect instantly. If you are going to spend $350 on a top of the line CPU, why would you buy a 1060 for a GPU? I just don't get it. we'll find out. I'm going to be digging deep. Some of my stuff will have to be on a dedicated website because I am buying hardware outright and need to fund that initiative. If I could get away with it, I'd post it all here and/or go ad free. However, I am going to have a system in place to deal with that. I mean no disrespect to AT, but this whole review system has to change.
Click to expand...

I have an i7-8700K/Z370 combo, a 1800X/X370 combo, and will likely purchase a 2700X/X470 combo in the June-July timeframe (or whenever there's a discounted bundle with a ASRock X470 Taichi available).

I also have 1080p 144Hz, 1440p 144Hz, and 4K60 monitors.

If you want someone to independently validate your results I may be able to help.
 
Markfw said:
Well, I think that depends. If you want efficiency and a "cooler" (heat wise) CPU, you would get eh 2700x. The 8700K may be faster when OC'ed, but its toasty. And its not as efficient on power usage. Oh, and its platform is dead, and any new CPU (as you pointed out) would be on a new motherboard.

Now, granted, the 2700x comes out also with a new motherboard, but its just a little better in some things, the current 370 boards will work fine with a bios update.
Click to expand...

Now that reviews are out, that has proven to be untrue, they are both 'toasty' CPUs when overclocked, with the 2700X @ 4.2GHz/1.4V actually drawing significantly more power than the 8700K @ 4.9GHz/1.4V, using Cinebench MT as an example we are looking at 141W for the 8700 OC vs 191W for the 2700X OC https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...w-game-streaming-cpu-benchmarks-memory/page-3

Of course, the 2700X is also significantly faster than a 8700K at Cinebench MT, but its efficiency is most definitely not better when both are overclocked.
 
I will run my 2700x stock since it will likely outperform my present 1800x @ 4Ghz OC.
My system is custom watercooled with an EK Waterblock and 2 360mm rads.

I have the Asus Crosshair VI Hero mb and have updated the BIOS to 6001.
 
gammaray said:
build a 2700x or wait for z390 and 8790k ? i am tingling to update my 4770k
Click to expand...

What exactly is a 8790K? Is that just a higher clocked 8700K? Or do you mean the supposed upcoming 8C/16T CPU from Intel?

The 2700X is now a known quantity, the '8790K' is not. But if its still 6C/12T like the 8700K, then it still won't beat the 2700X in most MT applications. If its 8C/16T then that is a whole new ballgame, as Intel has the IPC and clockspeed advantage, and at core parity would most likely come out ahead (think 8700K vs 2600X)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top