The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM ESTCPU Legacy Tests
Our legacy tests represent benchmarks that were once at the height of their time. Some of these are industry standard synthetics, and we have data going back over 10 years. All of the data here has been rerun on Windows 10, and we plan to go back several generations of components to see how performance has evolved.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
3D Particle Movement v1
3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. This is the original version, written in the style of a typical non-computer science student coding up an algorithm for their theoretical problem, and comes without any non-obvious optimizations not already performed by the compiler, such as false sharing.
CineBench 11.5 and 10
Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 and 10 due to our back data.
x264 HD 3.0
Similarly, the x264 HD 3.0 package we use here is also kept for historic regressional data. The latest version is 5.0.1, and encodes a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 file. Version 3.0 only performs the same test on a 720p file, and in most circumstances the software performance hits its limit on high end processors, but still works well for mainstream and low-end. Also, this version only takes a few minutes, whereas the latest can take over 90 minutes to run.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
545 Comments
View All Comments
John_M - Friday, May 11, 2018 - link
And still there's nothing on the StoreMI page. What's the excuse for that?AmbroseAthan - Friday, May 18, 2018 - link
Are we really over 3.5 weeks after this was updated as TBD, and you guys have fallen this far behind?This is not the standard I feel like Anandtech normally adheres to.
klatscho - Monday, May 21, 2018 - link
I second that.Maxiking - Monday, May 21, 2018 - link
LOL, the benchmarks are now updated, Ryzen+ absolutely outperformed in games by 8700k even with Meltdown and Spectre patches. So nothing new, Ryzen is still bad.klatscho - Monday, May 21, 2018 - link
If your usecase is 1080p gaming I would agree, however the difference becomes marginal as resolution increases. Also keep in mind that the 8700k currently retails for about $20 more than the 2700x and doesn't include a cooler, which means it is overall about $50 dearer...peevee - Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - link
"and the speed is limited to how the system reads from a drive that spins at 7200 or 5400 times per second"It is PER MINUTE. As in RPM.
cvearl - Friday, June 8, 2018 - link
My 2600 X at stock does 177 in single core cinebench. But that is with h100i V2 cooler. With the default cooler it gets the same score as you 173. The cooler the chip the higher the Boost. Also out-of-the-box XMP in the Bios Works 3200 no problem. In fact cl14. Out of the box versus my 1600 X in the exact same system it is 15% faster across the board.virpuain@gmail.com - Tuesday, June 19, 2018 - link
Nice review.On thing that bothers me is the inclusion of Winrar for this review without a note stating it is a underperforming compression tool. It is know that 7zip can compress almost twice as fast as Winrar.
Not that but also the lack of consistency in between compressions tests as instead of compressing and decrompressing a set file you are taking different procedures for each benchmark. I mean the job is to compress/decompress, let the user know how it does and why it does that.
0ldman79 - Monday, July 23, 2018 - link
I realize they probably don't have an FX 6300 and 83xx system for comparison.The FX 8350 scores 23719 MIPS on the 64 MB 7zip test, a good deal higher than the Kaveri or Bristol Ridge. I need to bench my 6300 just for giggles.
mrinmaydhar - Friday, July 27, 2018 - link
Try and run a S.M.A.R.T. test on the drives. The virtual adapter is unable to provide any data and causes a Blue-Screen. At least the last time I used the Enmotus version did.