Question Will CPU supplies return? Ryzen 2700 (or replacement?)

[asking]

Greetings,

I've been patiently waiting out the pandemic and watching ridiculous price gouging on AMD Ryzen 2700 CPUs. Not all of the AMD line seems affected, so it's hard to know if one should keep waiting or if the 2700 is just being phased out.

Any insights on that, people?

I'd love to buy a newer Ryzen, but the Anandtech reviews of everything newer show that actual power usage on Ryzen 2 CPUs is way over advertised TDP, but the 2700 really does hover at or even below 65W. Is there any other CPU that can compete at this level of (honest) power consumption?

 

[thesmokingman]

Can you elaborate? Are you referring to ECO mode? I've read mixed reviews on its efficacy and not a lot of clarity on even getting it enabled (and certainly not as a way to tune it to exactly what you want).

What? ECO mode is awesome. What reviews are bad on it???

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X Tested at 140W ECO Mode, Still Wrecks the 165W, Intel Core i9-10980XE CPU

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X CPU has been tested under ECO mode, revealing it to be an absolutely efficient monster of a chip, beating the 165W Core i9-10980XE at 140W.

wccftech.com

 

[UsandThem]

That does not square with @Markfw claiming it will run at an even lower(!) level than the 2700 if "PROPERLY CONFIGURED"... something the Anandtech review also seems to refute... which makes me think @Markfw was out of line and unwilling to have a civil conversation when it was pointed out he didn't know about or wasn't remembering one of the differences between Ryzen+ and Ryzen 2 correctly.

You are the one who signed up asking about a CPU that was discontinued around 9 months ago, and seemed to get argumentative right off the bat. The Anandtech article you keep referring to shows that the 3700X can go up to 74w under certain loads, and that additional 9 watts over a 2700 seems to be really, really a big concern for you.

Maybe it's a language barrier or something, and it's not our job to convince you to buy something else, so if that's what you want simply go with a Ryzen 2700.

 

[IEC]

@asking
If power efficiency is your objective, you should be analyzing how many Joules of energy it takes to complete a given task. In that metric, the 3700X in its stock configuration is the undisputed winner:

Then if you desire even further efficiency improvements, you enable ECO mode and set it to 45W PPT limit for even better efficiency.

 

[asking]

You are the one who signed up asking about a CPU that was discontinued around 9 months ago

What's wrong with that?

seemed to get argumentative right off the bat

In fact I did not at all. Fortunately, others were able to see the point I was making and that I was not giving attitude. If you interpreted it that way, I'm sorry, but I also don't appreciate how you handled it.

The Anandtech article you keep referring to shows that the 3700X can go up to 74w under certain loads

You didn't read that very carefully. I already gave the key quote. You have to add the figures in the chart together. Max load they got was 90W, well over the 65W TDP whereas the 2700 barely even reaches the TDP under max load. At least you could be more accurate if you're going to beat people up here for asking reasonable questions.

 

[asking]

What? ECO mode is awesome. What reviews are bad on it???

I haven't looked in the past month or more but at the time I did, there was scant reference at all on the web how to enable it or how well it worked. I kept seeing stuff like this Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dwenk1

However, I'm pleased to hear someone give such a strong endorsement. If you were trying to de-tune, say, a 3700x, would you look to ECO mode or would you try setting the PPT yourself? I have yet to read the article you linked but will do so today.

If power efficiency is your objective <snip> Then if you desire even further efficiency improvements, you enable ECO mode and set it to 45W PPT limit for even better efficiency.

Thank you, but no, I'm strictly concerned about usage, not efficiency. You mention both ECO mode along with PPT... is there a choice between them or is it all one and the same when I'm in BIOS making these changes?

 

[asking]

And if the most viable route is to use a CPU like the 3700x and de-tune its power consumption, are there advantages of going with the 3900x assuming it can also be constrained down to around 65W? (presumably the setting itself would have to be lower, such as 45W) Is that asking too much (little) of the 3900x? Or would there be minimal benefit of the 3900x over the 3700x under such restrictions?

Appreciate the help from everyone so far!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And if the most viable route is to use a CPU like the 3700x and de-tune its power consumption, are there advantages of going with the 3900x assuming it can also be constrained down to around 65W? Is that asking too much (little) of the 3900x? Or would there be minimal benefit of the 3900x over the 3700x under such restrictions?

Appreciate the help from everyone so far!

I’m not an expert in this area however I do know it will require specifics as to what you intentend to run and specifically how are you power or heat constrained as in:

This machine is going to power an interactive digital sign of a business, it needs to fit inside a small metal box with one fan
or
I’m a graphical artist, I need a small portable machine
or
I do remote contract work. I need as much computing power as possible but sometimes I end up in remote areas where I need to run off unreliable power

 

[Hitman928]

You didn't read that very carefully. I already gave the key quote. You have to add the figures in the chart together. Max load they got was 90W, well over the 65W TDP whereas the 2700 barely even reaches the TDP under max load. At least you could be more accurate if you're going to beat people up here for asking reasonable questions.

This is not true. Again, I own a 2700. By default, it will use around 85 W - 90 W when fully loaded. You are comparing two different power readings. The 90 W for the 3700x is total package power. They don't give the total package power of the 2700x in your link, only the core power. If you take the total package power of the 2700 at full load, it will be basically the same as the 3700x. If you change the bios settings to enforce the TDP for both the 2700 and 3700x, they will both max out at 65W and the 3700x will significantly outperform the 2700. It's that simple.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Because, as I've tried to point out politely, Ryzen 2 chips were shown by Anandtech to run well above their advertised TDP, so no, it's not a similar wattage, as otherwise I'd certainly get a Ryzen 2 CPU. See the fourth post in this thread where I gave a link and the relevant quote.

"Well above"? Err, NO. Maybe some AVX-heavy workloads cause it to exceed TDP a little bit, but judging from my 1600 and 3600 CPUs, they stay right within limits, without AVX workloads.

 

[VirtualLarry]

which makes me think @Markfw was out of line and unwilling to have a civil conversation when it was pointed out he didn't know about or wasn't remembering one of the differences between Ryzen+ and Ryzen 2 correctly.

No, Markfw was correct. WWYBYWB?

 

[asking]

I'd rather not keep arguing about it but it bothers me to see casual disinformation based on opinion and the marketing of TDP numbers. I choose to believe that the author of the Anandtech article not only knows what he's talking about but did quality research that is comparing apples with apples.

No, Markfw was correct. WWYBYWB?

WWYBYWB is disingenuous, please don't devolve the conversation like that. I made no aggressive or rude comments before @Markfw came at me (and I tried to respectfully respond without devolving into name calling).

If you take the total package power of the 2700 at full load, it will be basically the same as the 3700x.

Respectfully, I'm sorry, but it looks like you are mis-characterizing the article. I don't think it's unclear what they are saying -- Ryzen+ and Ryzen 2 are *not* the same in their power consumption profie:

"...the power consumption of AMD’s first and second generation Ryzen processors has often been parallel to the TDP rating on the box, with the CPU levelling out to the TDP value as we load up the cores with a high energy workload."

"With Ryzen 3000 and Zen 2, AMD’s attachment to TDP was not as clinical as its first two generations of hardware."

"This shows that Zen 2 has a different strategy to the previous Zen chips when it comes to how AMD is mixing the difference between TDP and PPT."

That said, since it appears the 2700 may not be seeing a resurgence of supply and that at least some of the Ryzen 2 chips can possibly be de-tuned to the same power consumption of the 2700 (max 65W) then it would be better if this thread could focus on those questions, or I can start a new thread asking that question.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thank you, but no, I'm strictly concerned about usage, not efficiency.

Then use an Athlon 3000G. 35W TDP.

Edit: Zen2 make aggressive use of "boost". Disable "Core Performance Boost" in BIOS/UEFI, and the processor should max out at a strict TDP limit, like 65W for the 3600. (You do know that the rated TDP, is when limited strictly to "Base clocks", right? Like Intel also does. If you leave "Turbo" enabled, their default setting in mobos, then they do indeed go WAY OVER their "rated" TDP, at least for a short time.)

The 2700 was the odd-man-out, and lacked XFR and PBO, so it was kind of trapped in 65W TDP land. Other CPUs are configured in ways that are less "unlucky" (less limited in performance boosting capabilities).

 

[scannall]

I'd rather not keep arguing about it but it bothers me to see casual disinformation based on opinion and the marketing of TDP numbers. I choose to believe that the author of the Anandtech article not only knows what he's talking about but did quality research that is comparing apples with apples.



WWYBYWB is disingenuous, please don't devolve the conversation like that. I made no aggressive or rude comments before @Markfw came at me (and I tried to respectfully respond without devolving into name calling).



Respectfully, I'm sorry, but it looks like you are mis-characterizing the article. I don't think it's unclear what they are saying -- Ryzen+ and Ryzen 2 are *not* the same in their power consumption profie:

"...the power consumption of AMD’s first and second generation Ryzen processors has often been parallel to the TDP rating on the box, with the CPU levelling out to the TDP value as we load up the cores with a high energy workload."

"With Ryzen 3000 and Zen 2, AMD’s attachment to TDP was not as clinical as its first two generations of hardware."

"This shows that Zen 2 has a different strategy to the previous Zen chips when it comes to how AMD is mixing the difference between TDP and PPT."

That said, since it appears the 2700 may not be seeing a resurgence of supply and that at least some of the Ryzen 2 chips can possibly be de-tuned to the same power consumption of the 2700 (max 65W) then it would be better if this thread could focus on those questions, or I can start a new thread asking that question.

As Larry pointed out, disable core performance boost and it will stay inside it's yard as it were.

 

[thesmokingman]

I haven't looked in the past month or more but at the time I did, there was scant reference at all on the web how to enable it or how well it worked. I kept seeing stuff like this Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dwenk1

However, I'm pleased to hear someone give such a strong endorsement. If you were trying to de-tune, say, a 3700x, would you look to ECO mode or would you try setting the PPT yourself? I have yet to read the article you linked but will do so today.

Where are these bad reviews?????

All you linked was a user who doesn't what the heck they are doing.

 

[Markfw]

I'd rather not keep arguing about it but it bothers me to see casual disinformation based on opinion and the marketing of TDP numbers. I choose to believe that the author of the Anandtech article not only knows what he's talking about but did quality research that is comparing apples with apples.



WWYBYWB is disingenuous, please don't devolve the conversation like that. I made no aggressive or rude comments before @Markfw came at me (and I tried to respectfully respond without devolving into name calling).



Respectfully, I'm sorry, but it looks like you are mis-characterizing the article. I don't think it's unclear what they are saying -- Ryzen+ and Ryzen 2 are *not* the same in their power consumption profie:

"...the power consumption of AMD’s first and second generation Ryzen processors has often been parallel to the TDP rating on the box, with the CPU levelling out to the TDP value as we load up the cores with a high energy workload."

"With Ryzen 3000 and Zen 2, AMD’s attachment to TDP was not as clinical as its first two generations of hardware."

"This shows that Zen 2 has a different strategy to the previous Zen chips when it comes to how AMD is mixing the difference between TDP and PPT."

That said, since it appears the 2700 may not be seeing a resurgence of supply and that at least some of the Ryzen 2 chips can possibly be de-tuned to the same power consumption of the 2700 (max 65W) then it would be better if this thread could focus on those questions, or I can start a new thread asking that question.

Your first post was almost a callout to those that know the Ryzen series. I only post this as a rebuttal as you subsequent posts also appear to be calling out those that report the Ryzen series as saying they are low power.

So if you have any evidence of this "high power usage" please post a link. Otherwise quit calling me out on my posts refuting you.

 

[UsandThem]

WWYBYWB?

I'm honestly not sure if this thread is serious or not at this point. I mean at most we're talking about a few watts and I don't think I've ever seen anyone that's had that much concern about such a small difference. I guess there is a first time for everything, and sometimes you can just tell how a thread is going to go.

That said, since it appears the 2700 may not be seeing a resurgence of supply and that at least some of the Ryzen 2 chips can possibly be de-tuned to the same power consumption of the 2700 (max 65W) then it would be better if this thread could focus on those questions, or I can start a new thread asking that question.

This thread is going so well, why would you want to start another thread?

Of course you can change BIOS settings to limit the CPU's power usage, and you can change Windows settings to something like Power Saver. I just don't know why if you wanted a Ryzen 2700 CPU on the cheap, why you waited until all the mainstream retailers basically cleared out their stock of the 2000 series at fire sale pricing many months ago? I think the 2700 was available for around $100 for several months after the 3000 series launched.

Anyways, if you want a 2700 they are still available from smaller sellers, and Platinum Micro has them for sale: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B41717Z

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm honestly not sure if this thread is serious or not at this point. I mean at most we're talking about a few watts and I don't think I've ever seen anyone that's had that much concern about such a small difference. I guess there is a first time for everything, and sometimes you can just tell how a thread is going to go.

Running an 8C/16T Ryzen CPU... on a PicoPSU... *g*. LOL.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Trying to achieve running a CPU at the power profile of the 2700.

You can set the TDP allowed in the BIOS. Whichever chip you choose will respect a 65W setting, or you could even set f.x. a 3600 to operate at 35W.

As others have stated, for maximum efficiency the 3600 is most likely your best bet. See here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/18.html

The 3600 closely matches the 2700 in power consumption, but offers much better single thread performance.

 

[DrMrLordX]

@asking

Upcoming 4700G is a 65W APU based on Renoir. 8c/16t, faster than a 3700x in CBR20 (apparently). Use it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

@asking

Upcoming 4700G is a 65W APU based on Renoir. 8c/16t, faster than a 3700x in CBR20 (apparently). Use it.

Assuming you can wait this sounds like the way to go.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Assuming you can wait this sounds like the way to go.

I would be shocked if the product didn't launch in two days (7/7). Considering how weirdly AMD is behaving over product launches this year, I am prepared to the shocked.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I would be shocked if the product didn't launch in two days (7/7). Considering how weirdly AMD is behaving over product launches this year, I am prepared to the shocked.

That would be cool if we got 4000-series Ryzen APUs for desktop, on 07/07/2020, but I thought that was the launch date for the "XT" 3000-series CPUs, and that the 4000-series APUs were going to happen in October, with a December launch of the 4000-series (Zen3!) CPUs...

 

[mxnerd]

A 15 or even 20 watts difference is nothing. It's about what a router consumes.

Let's say it's 20 watts difference and the computer is on 24/7, cost $0.20 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)

The Electricity cost per year: $35

Electricity bill calculator | Energy cost calculator

Electriciy bill cost calculator. Electricity usage/consumption calculator.

www.rapidtables.com

 

[VirtualLarry]

A 15 or even 20 watts difference is nothing. It's about what a router consumes.

But dammit! It's about splitting hairs, demanding to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, AND PROVING AMD WRONG!!!

(Even thought they're not wrong, and disabling "Core Performance Boost" on Zen2, and PBO, will allow your 65W TDP CPU to sit comfortably at 65W Package Power, more or less (within 1W)).

 

[Kenmitch]

I'm honestly not sure if this thread is serious or not at this point. I mean at most we're talking about a few watts and I don't think I've ever seen anyone that's had that much concern about such a small difference. I guess there is a first time for everything, and sometimes you can just tell how a thread is going to go.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm leaning towards contra-marketing.