add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

[Finance] Ryzen 1000 series or 2000 series

Dragoons55
  • 17 months ago

Hi there,

So im looking into Ryzen for Streaming/Recording/Gaming simultaneously and in the future heavy rendering for 3d models and plan on pushing my computer to its limits when I eventually start developing in unreal engine.

So for the money what benefits does the Ryzen 2700x 2700 offer over the 1800x 1700?

1700: $218.90

2700: $279.99

I have researched via cpu.userbenchmark.com and try to pull up general benchmarks but I don't know if the $80 ~$60 is really worth it, what else should I be looking into when considering the processor?

Edit: I realized that the 1000 series "x" models dont come with a cooler, so im redoing the post to the 1700.

Comments

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

From a functionality standpoint, both the 1700 and 2700 are going to be similar. Both well suited to a broad range of compute tasks and both offering excellent raw compute power for the dollar. The 2700 is about 10-15% faster.

So, is $60 worth it.....

A: Consider for a moment, a $1000 computer. If you could make that computer 10-15% faster for 6% higher cost would you do it?

B: Consider for a moment, that the 2700 costs 27% more than the 1700, but is only 10-15% faster. Is that a raw deal?

There are different ways of looking at this, but I lean more towards "A" when rationalizing these things, as there are many aspects of a new computer build that are going to have a fixed minimum cost regardless.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

So for the money what benefits does the Ryzen 2700 offer over the 1700?

Faster clock speeds and 3% more IPC from the cache latency improvements is it.

The 2700 uses the older 1st gen boost profile and does not offer XFR enhanced or Precision Boost Overdrive, so it is essentially a 65w tdp 1800X.

To be blunt though you could easily get a 1800X and an aftermarket cooler for cheaper then a 2700 and have all the performance in a cooler quieter system.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

The 2700 is ideal for overclocking and should hit 4.2GHz like any other zen+ while the 1800x will be 10% slower (when equally pushed). It will also be much noisier as reducing overclocking isn't nearly as efficient as boost. XFR enhanced and precision boost go out the window anyway on overclocked systems.

If you want a loud speed demon, then the 2700 begins to make sense. If you are willing to give up a bit less than the last 15% (which uses naive clock scaling which you won't get) then get the 1800X. I'm a bit unsure of the difference between the 1700 and the 1800X once boost is accounted for, if you are adding an aftermarket cooler anyway the 1700 might make more sense.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Sadly most 2700 seem to start topping out in the 4-4.1ghz range even with higher voltages, and it does not use the newer boost profiles only pushing two thread too max before dropping back to an all core turbo.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/16.html

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

To throw a monkey wrench into this... There's a chance the behavior of the 2700's precision boost was not working as intended as tested in that article. The test was performed with AGESA code 1.0.0.2a, while newer versions claim, in some utterances, to come with improved precision boost characteristics for select 2000 series CPU's.

There seems to be a disconnect though on communicating the features and changelogs of agesa code to the public. BIOS updates that may include hundreds of changes to the AGESA code in a particular update, will summarize the entire slew of changes with some bogus oversimplification like "improved stability for USB devices and memory." Like.... wtf? If AMD maintains an actual changelog for AGESA I have yet to find it.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Yup that's why I consider them equal even though clocks would have the 1800X ahead once more then four threads are in use.

It is very odd though you would think that something like those notes would have to be accessible to consumers.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

It is very odd though you would think that something like those notes would have to be accessible to consumers.

what?

I did not say they have to be accessible. I said there appears to be a disconnect on the communication, and an oversimplification of that communication. If AGESA code can impact performance and compatibility for the product that the consumer owns or considers owning, it is reasonable to think the consumer should be in the loop on the highlights with a bit more specificity than "improves some unspecified stuff."

99% of software out there includes reasonably detailed change-logs that effect the bottom line for consumers. I often read the changelogs to the software that I use frequently and that has frequent updates. Even programs as simple as a picture viewing application I enjoy using come with far more detailed changelogs than AGESA code. I find this curious considering the implications.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

A review you may wanna take a look.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube