Assassin’s Creed: Origins – AMD R7 2700X vs. 2700, 1700, 8700K
We test Assassin’s Creed: Origins at 1080p/medium and 1440p/medium. We test in CPU-intensive parts of the game and have specifically tuned our benchmark to minimize GPU bottlenecking.
Assassin’s Creed: Origins is new to our test bench. For this one, the AMD R7 2700X stock CPU performs at 107FPS AVG with X470, or 112FPS AVG when overclocked to 4.2GHz. Lows are reasonably tight, in the 80s for 1% and 70s for 0.1%. We want consistency of frametimes, and we get that here. The stock R7 2700 performs at about 103FPS AVG, marking the stock 2700X as 4.2% ahead at 107FPS AVG. The R7 2700X performs about 7.5% ahead of the R7 1700X stock CPU on X370. Overclocking the R7 1700 to 4GHz gets it to 106FPS AVG, with lows reasonably behind. This places it just below the stock 2700X, with the overclocked 2700X about 5.7% ahead.
The 8700K stock CPU operates at 120FPS AVG, with lows at 91FPS and 80FPS, thus landing the 8700K about 11.6% ahead of the stock 2700X. The i5-8600K is also a bit ahead, including rough equivalency in frametime pacing and consistency of the lows. Overclocking the 8700K pushes our GPU limits and hits a bottleneck, landing at 125FPS AVG, or about 12% ahead of the overclocked 2700X.
For comparison, here’s Assassin’s Creed at 1440p. Most of the differences vanish here, thanks to the creation of a hard GPU bottleneck that prohibits further scaling on the CPU. Still, the Intel CPUs hold a bit of a lead, averaging about 10FPS, or around 10% of a lead.
Watch Dogs 2 Benchmark – AMD R7 2700X
Watch Dogs 2 at 1080p is next. For this one, the 2700X stock CPU and overclocked 2700X performed equivalently with thanks to XFR2’s frequency boosting. The 2700X stock CPU ends up 6.5% ahead of the stock 2700, but keep in mind that overclocking the 2700 nets the same performance. The 2700X at 111.8FPS also ends up about 10.4% ahead of the stock 1700X, although overclocking the original R7 CPUs closes that gap partially, as indicated with the R7 1700 at 4GHz.
The 8700K stock CPU at 132.5FPS maintains a lead of 18.5% over the 2700X stock CPU, at 111.8FPS AVG. The lows are also advantaged somewhat significantly on the 8700K, marking its overall frametime consistency as superior in this test. Overclocking gives us some extra performance, but not much.
At 1440p, we observe similar performance to what we saw in Assassin’s Creed: Origins. Our numbers plot the AMD CPUs as limited to about 92 to 98FPS AVG, with the Intel CPUs limited to about 102-106FPS AVG.
Project Cars 2 – AMD R7 2700X vs. i7-8700K Overclocked
Project Cars at 1080p posts the R7 2700X stock CPU at 111FPS AVG, with overclocking boosting to 114FPS AVG. This lands the 2700X stock CPU about 10% ahead of the 2700 – which can be overclocked to equivalence – and about 14.4% ahead of the original R7 1700X with X470. The fact that the 8600K at 5GHz surpasses the stock 8700K, but comes close to the 5GHz 8700K, suggests that Project Cars favors frequency to threads. That’d be where our rather sizeable performance delta emerges, with the stock 8700K’s 135.8FPS landing 22% ahead of the 2700X stock CPU. Overclocked, we ned up at 152FPS AVG, 122FPS 1% lows, and 116FPS 0.1% lows, which is 34% ahead of the overclocked 2700X. Clearly, there’s still something to be said for frequency in some applications.
Civilization VI – AMD R7 2700X vs. i7-8700K Turn Times
We test turn times for Civilization VI, but the game recently got a huge update that completely upended our previous testing. We have retested as a result. The 2700X stock CPU finishes each turn in 11.05 seconds, with all five turns taking about 55 seconds. Overclocking reduces the time requirement to 10.88 seconds, for a 1.5% time reduction. The 8700K stock CPU operates at 10.75 seconds – not a huge change – with the overclocked variant at 10.17 seconds, also not particularly game-changing. Civilization’s update has tightened turn times to a point of limited usefulness in benchmarking, although it is still a highly consistent and unique benchmark for the CPU.
Power Testing – AMD R7 2700(X) Power Draw
This is where it gets a bit interesting for AMD. AMD’s version of “TDP” isn’t comparable to Intel’s. You can’t point to a 95W TDP on the 8700K and compare it to a 95W TDP on the 1700X. The numbers are reached in different ways.
For AMD, TDP is calculated by subtracting 42 from 61.8 and dividing by 0.189. Those numbers are derived from the following: AMD claims that the “optimal” tCase temperature is 61.8 degrees, hence 61.8. AMD also says the optimal ambient temperature at entrance to the heatsink fan is 42 degrees at the inlet. They also say that the minimum degrees per Watt rating of a heatsink to achieve rated performance should be 0.189 thermal resistance.
For power testing, Cinebench multithreaded positions the 2700X stock CPU at 143W consumption when left to full auto settings, or 192W when overclocked to 4.2GHz and 1.4V. The 1700X stock operated at 113W multithreaded. Single-threaded, the 2700X operated at about 46W on the X470 board, or 37W on the X370 board. The 1700X ran at 43W on X470 and 37W on X370. Remember that this is more a factor of the BIOS and board vendor.
For 3DMark Physics, we measured 80W for the stock 1700X, 110W for the overclocked 1700X, and 100-106W for the stock 2700X. Overclocking pushed us to 130W on the 2700X.
First of all: If you’ve skipped here, and if you haven’t seen the video or read the article, you waive your right to complain about anything said in the conclusion. Go read or watch the rest. We don’t retype everything in our conclusion for people who skip ahead. The entire article is the conclusion.
Working our way from neutral to the rest: If you already own Ryzen 1 systems and you are considering upgrading, don’t bother. Skip this generation. Performance-wise, it’s not a huge climb, and a trivial OC can get most of it.
But raw performance is sort of the wrong way to look at Ryzen 2. The performance improvement is in voltage at a given frequency, which is now sustainable at a much lower value than previously. At 4.0GHz, power consumption is pulled down significantly, voltage requirement is pulled down significantly, and thermals (obviously) are pulled down. This is where AMD made its gains. Frequency is unexciting. We wanted 4.5GHz, and that didn’t come close to happening. All of our chips are stuck at 4.2GHz, maybe 4.25 (on ambient).
What we got instead was a massive uplift in volt-frequency curves, and that’s important.
As for purchase or upgrade considerations for those who don’t presently own a Ryzen CPU, the R7 2000 series parts seem fine. You’ve got all the charts above – make a decision from those. We’d recommend the non-X CPUs (e.g. 2700), as the R7 2700X basically just pre-overclocks for you. That’s not difficult, and is something that can be done in moments while saving $30. The same is true for the 2600(X), but we’ll talk about that in our next piece. We’d recommend the R7 2700 (with an OC) for anyone who needs the CPU to render, but can’t afford HEDT parts. An example of this use case would be project files that exceed available GPU memory, as system memory is more readily expanded in greater volume. We’d also recommend the R7 2700(X) for anyone who might be streaming daily, perhaps as a job or one-day-job, if handling processing on the local system that also handles the gaming. We would recommend the 8700K for a flat-out gaming PC, as it is hands-down the best gaming performer. The 8700K and 2700X oppose one another well; they each fill a role where the other falls behind: The 2700X exceeds 8700K raw performance in game streaming and 3D rendering; the 8700K exceeds the 2700X in raw gaming. Pick based on your needs.
We’re working on some major volt-frequency content with thermals, so check back for that.
Host, Editorial: Steve Burke
Testing: Patrick Lathan
Video: Andrew Coleman