**Power Testing: A Closer Look at the AMD Ryzen 2700X and 3900X**

In our latest power testing, we put the AMD Ryzen 2700X and 3900X through their paces to see how they compare. We started with a stock vs. overclocked comparison, where the 2700X was found to be only slightly slower than the 3900X in most workloads.

**A Closer Look at Power Consumption**

When it came to power consumption, we were surprised to find that the 3900X required significantly more power than the 2700X. The 2700X required around 76 watts to run an hour, while the overclocked 2700X blew that out of proportion with a power draw of over 200 watts. In contrast, the 3900X required a whopping 150 watts to achieve similar results.

**A New Benchmark: The Ryzen 10 5600K**

To put these results into perspective, we ran our tests on the new Ryzen 10 5600K. This CPU was found to be around 77 watts at stock speeds and 104 watts when boosting, with Cinebench R20 scores of 20. These numbers give us a better idea of how the different CPUs compare.

**A Note on Bin Quality**

For those who have owned or are considering purchasing an AMD Ryzen 2700X, it's worth noting that there is some variation in bin quality among these chips. The first generation of Ryzen 7 processors was found to be relatively soft, while the second generation of Ryzen 7000 series offered improved performance and power efficiency.

**The 3700X: A New Option?**

With the release of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, many are wondering if there's a compelling reason to upgrade from the existing Ryzen 3000 series. We looked at the Ryzen 3 3700X as an option for those looking to stay within the current generation.

**The 2700X: Still a Great Option**

Despite being released over two years ago, the AMD Ryzen 2700X is still a great option for those who want a powerful CPU without breaking the bank. With its ability to overclock and its relatively low price point, we encourage readers to try their hand at overclocking this chip.

**CPU Power Efficiency: A Key Consideration**

When choosing a CPU, power efficiency should be a key consideration. We looked at how each of these CPUs compares in terms of power consumption, with the 3900X standing out as one of the least efficient options.

**Upgrading from the Ryzen 2700X**

For those who have owned an AMD Ryzen 2700X and are wondering if it's worth upgrading, we recommend waiting for the release of the AMD Ryzen XT series. These new CPUs are expected to offer significant performance gains and power efficiency improvements over the current generation.

**A Word on Resale Value**

Finally, we want to emphasize that resale value can be a key consideration when deciding whether or not to upgrade from an existing CPU like the Ryzen 2700X. In some regions, this chip may still hold significant resale value, making it worth considering for those looking to stay within the current generation.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, our power testing has shown that the AMD Ryzen 3900X is a powerful and efficient CPU option, but also one that comes with a significant price tag. The Ryzen 3700X offers improved power efficiency and a more compelling value proposition, while the Ryzen 2700X remains a great option for those looking to overclock or stay within budget.

**A Final Note**

If you're still unsure about which CPU to choose, we recommend checking out our separate articles on memory tuning, cash ratio tuning, and other topics related to optimizing your system for maximum performance.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enAndie's risin 7 2700 launch was really interesting because it was right in between when Intel was starting to lose its grasp a little bit with the 7700 K and when Intel really came back strong against the first launch of risin and then the subsequent is n plus launch so the 2700 came out in a way that looked really impressive it was starting to turn the tide in a significant way against Intel where is n1 looked reasonable in a lot of workloads like production it was hey this is a real architecture AMD can actually do this then plus became a Hey AMD might actually be starting to gain some ground where Intel was untouchable so it was a big deal but the 8700 K came out and really changed things in a way that made the market exciting for a while so today we're revisiting the AMD risin 7 2700 CPU and basically 2700 X by matter of overclocking to see how it does in 2020 which isn't that long after launch but there's more stuff coming soon before that this video is brought to you by US and our brand new gamers Nexus wireframe mouse mat aside from being the best way to directly support our long-form investigative reporting you can also get a custom made high quality mouse mat made with a high detail 3d design that we created to show off heat sinks coolers of video cards and more the mouse mat uses a stitch to blue border for added longevity a blue rubber underside for unique Flair and a microfiber cloth for smooth tracking the mat is 36 inches by 12 inches and fits a keyboard and mouse easily we sold out of the first run in 48 hours but have more getting made right now to backorder your mouse mat and ensure you get one in the next run go to store gamers nexus net and backorder yours while reducing our reliance on advertisers or click the link in the description below so again the thing that really made the 20 780 700k era exciting as reviewers was specifically that it wasn't really one sided anymore it was clearly the 2700 came out and established a firm foothold the 8700 K came out and really socked AMD pretty hard it was a lot more level than it used to be but it went from the 2700 start to really gain ground in gaming objectively leading and production workloads especially dollar-for-dollar and even at a price class up versus Intel to suddenly with 8700 K Intel's in the lead for gaming Intel's basically tied in a lot of production applications it's a head and some of them and that's where it was interesting for us because now you've got a really direct head-to-head fight between two good processors and it was actually a company responding to another company's gauntlet throw and so that's what we likes today we're looking again at the 2700 for a while it was priced at about $200 so towards the end of its life and right around the 3,000 launch the 2700 came down significantly in price there were times we saw it on retailers brand-new for $180 and that's part of what made it a really widespread choice because even though its value was decent after Intel launched its response and good when it first launched it became extremely good when it was in the $200 price class is just untouchable at that in that pricing so really widespread processor now a couple of notes here the 3000 series we already looked at how that does versus the 2000 series back and everything launched this is with all new updated methodology for us it's with updated versions of Windows of drivers all that stuff so all the data is new and then the other point is that obviously publicly now the XT series is coming up and that's going to be a higher clock update to the 3003 CPUs so if you're watching this wondering if you should upgrade your 2700 this will help you start to get the barians on where it falls today or if you want to buy a used one maybe and then the those should buy become pretty prevalent and then the piece to check back on obviously would be our XT reviews where you'll be able to see what is that pathway look like our key focuses will be the 3900 X because since it's only one generation of a jaunt that's going to be the the best way to really extract any value out of it we have 3,700 X numbers we've got all the other numbers that are relevant in here and then the 10 600k would be your one to look at if you're interested in swinging away from it AMD n going back towards Intel or towards Intel for the first time for a gaming build so let's get started with the numbers shredder the Tomb Raider will start us off in this one the AMD are seven 2700 fully stocked plotted at 123 FPS average ranking it alongside the r7 1700 at 3.9 gigahertz all core the differences between these two results are functionally non-existent more impressively however the 1600 AF leads the 2700 at 4.2 gigahertz but this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's followed our 1600 AF coverage it's just an r5 2600 so it's the same architecture and at this point we're looking at a frequency advantage versus modern parts that are 7 2700 stock CPU allows the AMD 3,300 X a lead of 10% the 3600 stock has a lead of 14% and the 3700 X has a lead of 21% the Intel i5 10 600 K for gaming reference drops 2 cores but bombs the clocks and also moves to Intel landed at 163 FPS average and leading the r7 2700 stock CPU by 32% overclocking the 2700 which is comparable in some ways to a 2700 X if you have one of those you should look at these numbers lands it at the level of an i-5 10 400 with 2666 memory and just behind the 3300 acts and 7700 K a stock CPUs although the 3300 X ranks higher from its single CCX configuration and its architectural improvements we wouldn't consider it an upgrade for many other reasons if you bought an r7 2700 you probably bought it to use at least sometimes and non-gaming workloads even if that's not the case dropping threads feels bad and the performance uplift is without many merits once the 2700 is overclocked anyway the 3900 X feels like a more appropriate or meaningful upgrade pathway all around given that it's only been one generation but this would still be a jump to an r9 CPU instead it might be best to wait a little longer though before buying a replacement at all total wars campaign benchmark is up next for this one the am the r7 2700 stock CPU ran at 100 FPS average ranking it again functionally equivalent to the r7 1700 all core OC of 3.9 gigahertz and just below the 1600 AF but that's error and variance at this point the 3700 X ran at 125 FPS average leading the 2700 stock CPU by 25% in average FPS as for Low's the 3700 accident those measurably as well jump into 87 and 78 FPS 1% and 0.1% up from 70 and 63 previously that said the 2700 overclocked shrinks the gap to 15% in averages overall as we said in our original rise in 3000 series reviews these are not CPUs that generally should be upgraded to from just one generation back at least not without a jump in rank as well again going to a 3900 X would make more sense but not because of gaming that'd be for production workloads the XT series might be the one that deserves more observation of its performance for gaming but we need to wait for that one to come out but from what we know so far officially from AMD it should increase performance specifically in these types of workloads hitman 2 is up now the stock r7 2,700 falls fairly low on the hitman 2 charts it beats the 1600 AF at 96 FPS average vs. 94 but by a narrow enough margin to imply that the extra threads don't really make or break the performance the four core eight thread 3300 ex confirms this with its own average of 114 fps generational improvements are clear the original 1700 average is only 87 FPS stock and the 3700 X average is 118 fps pushing the 2700 to 4.1 gigahertz gives it a 10 percent uplift over the stock results to 106 FPS average but still behind the 3300 axes results the 3900 X + 10 600 K are in another class entirely for both of them plotting well beyond the range where the 2700 is located the 3900 X average is 1 24 fps whether overclocked or not putting it 29% beyond the stock 2700 and the stock 10 600 K does better still at 128 FPS average f1 2019 is next starting at 1080p and moving to 1440p in the next chart this game typically shows a wide range of performance from its heavy dependence on frequency and limited thread performance in this scenario the r7 2700 stock CPU ends up just ahead of the 1600 AF outside of error this time and just below the 1700 at 3.9 gigahertz all core the 4.1 gigahertz all core 2700 OC lands it close to the Intel i5 10 400 was 2686 RAM which is what you'd use on a B 460 or H 470 platform as for meaning full or reasonable upgrade pathways bar the suggestion to wait for the XT line it looks like this people who want to transition to a more gaming focus build would benefit from the 10 600 KS stock performance of 260 FPS average here a leap of 35 percent stock to stock or more with an overclock and even more still with a cache and a memory tune not plotted here but shown in different content people more focused on improving workstation performance would only really see worthwhile value again and a jaunt to something like the 3900 X which has a limited benefit in gaming we see its baseline performance still improves by 24% stock to stock though which is a lot for a single generation it's just that in the other games we don't see this level of scaling especially when you can consider something a 3,700 X or a 3600 instead would still benefit from the architectural changes 1440p creates more of a GPU constraint so we start to see the performance clamping down towards the same values they're all closer together now with the 2700 OC functionally equating the 3900 X stock CPU and 3600 stock CPU I'll be it with measurably but not appreciably lower 1% low results the upgrade options matter less as always if you're gaming the workloads are GPU bound Red Dead Redemption - at 1080p high is next we've been testing medium lately to reduce the GPU bottleneck but the 2700 is still under a clearer CPU constraint even with high settings that said that does mean that the CPUs at the top of this chart have more scaling Headroom if graphics settings were reduced so the Intel i5 and I 9 parts would be further ahead than they are here ultimately though is important to keep realism in mind even with targeted component benchmarking and most people will realistically be playing this game with a GPU constraint because it's very hard for GPUs to run under these more realistic use conditions the r7 2700 stock CPU ends up just ahead of the 1600 AF and just below the 1700 3.9 gigahertz all core results overclocked in the 2700 to 4.1 gigahertz all core has it nearing the 7700 case stock which isn't meaningfully GPU bound here so they're about the same the 8700 K is the one that gave AMD trouble when it launched and it still maintains a lead and is against a GPU limit right alongside the newer 10 series and the 9900 K these top parts are all with an error of each other from an upgrade standpoint then in gaming you're not gaining much with the pre XE parts so we'll have to check back to see if it's worth the jump or if he should wait it out for rising 4,000 or if you're just unhappy with your gaming frame rates are getting now the 10 600 K is still what we think as the best gaming CPU right now especially for its level of tuning that's available to it our next game is Assassin's Creed tested at 1080p this game is interesting for its mix of high frequency reliance and high thread reliance combined so our 720 700 stock CPU holds about 93 FPS average with lows proportionally behind the 1600 AF stock and 1700 OC CPUs flank the 2700 stock result with the 2700 OC at about the level of an i7 77 okay CPU in stock the thirty six hundred and thirty three hundred acts were both improvements but obviously it's not worth paying a few hundred dollars for a couple of FPS at least not on last year the type to buy Titans for gaming the 87 heart case still gives the 2700 trouble as it did at launch and the 3,700 X gets into territory where it's a real improvement we need to see impact from the XT series to know more but if you feel like your 2700 isn't giving you enough framerate the obvious path is the 10 series CPUs we'll see if the XT launch can give these enough competition in gaming while keeping people on the same platform and at that point it's just a war between who's part is in stock people like to complain about GTA 5 being old but the point of testing it is pretty simple we have new games in our charts this year like the division 2 and a lot of our benchmarks read dead 2 3 Kingdoms and others but we also need some more anchors from older times GTA 5 remains one of the most popular games in the world and gives us a unique look at a different way of programming a game Grand Theft Auto 5 is reminiscent of our recent experience with crisis and that it responds much more to increases in frequency than core count at least past the point of the quad-core CPUs that ruled the market when the game launched 8 cores 16 thread 2700 operates at 85 FPS average here while the r3 1200 AF 4 core 4 thread runs at 87 fps hash with a 4.2 gigahertz overclock applied and these XQ tips have also retained a speed advantage here with a stock 3700 axe averaging 1 9 FPS and the stock 3900 ax averaging 112 fps a 32 percent lead over the 2700 stock the 3900 access high limited core boost clocks means it gains almost nothing from an overclock at least without doing memory tuning and things like that well the 2700 improves by 12 percent up to an average of 95 FPS with a four point one gigahertz OC in South 10 600k leads all the AMD results with a stock average of 114 and an overclocked average of 122 without a cache tune AMD has narrowed the gap significantly but Intel CPUs generally have an advantage in gaming but especially in GTA due to their high limited core boost speeds production testing is where the Zen and Zen plus top CP is really shown in comparison to their Intel competition mostly the 7700 K of the era the later 8700 K did challenge AMD Zen plus launch but it was a close fight the 2700 is still a strong performer in blender even with a modern perspective applied it's time to render our monkeyhead scene was nineteen point four minutes stock putting it amongst the results for the faster six core 12 threat Intel parts like the 8700 K and the 10 600 K this is why the 8700 K was such fierce competition for the 2700 it was winning in gaming and it was pretty close if not about equal in most of the production tests the fact that Lee stock r5 3600 outperforms the 2700 here with a render time of 18 point 3 minutes as a credit says n two's improvements since the 2700 s greater core account is a direct advantage in tile based rendering as done with the blender cycles renderer each thread spawns one tile and even that direct advantage couldn't outrun the 36 hundreds gains overclocked in the 2700 reduced render time by thirteen point four percent down to sixteen point eight minutes making it faster than the 3600 0 C render time of seventeen point five minutes with all cores pushed to their maximum speed the 2700 takes its rightful place on the chart above the CPUs with fewer threads and below the ones with more although within that category it's still well below and these own 3700 X the render time is thirteen point nine minutes docked for that 117 percent time reduced from the 27 hundreds all core OC results as for the 3900 acts that jump would you at about nine point six minutes for this particular render or a reduction of 51% stock to stock against the 2700 our Jian logo seen as a heavier workload and takes longer to render than the monkey heads so it leaves the CPU stack mostly the same one change is that the twenty seven hundred twenty three and a half minute render time was have a minute faster than ten six hundred KS here whereas the ten 600 K led by about the same amount and the monkey head test it's close but more cores is an explicit benefit in this test so the 2700 has an advantage with a 2700 at 4.1 gigahertz and the ten 600k at five gigahertz the 2700 wins out by eight percent reduced time comparisons to Andy's current gen products are less favorable for the older CPU with the 3,700 X completing the rounder 14 percent faster than the overclocked to 2700 the 3900 X meanwhile is now again at about $400 and it completes in 51 and a half percent last time Adobe premier is what we use in the house for video editing and rendering and the test files we use with Adobe Premiere are real GN videos the 1080p projects completed in 5.1 minutes on the stock 2700 and like the blender benchmarks the stack here correlates almost directly with the number of cores each CPU has the 2700 is relatively low stock clocks puts it closer to the performance of six core 12 thread CPUs like the stock 10 600 K which landed at 5 minutes to render overclocked in the 2700 cut render time down by 12% to four and a half minutes but the stock 3,700 X is still a tier Beyond in performance at three point eight minutes to render the 3900 X offers an additional cut totally in 33% stock to stock versus the 2700 our 4k premier project operates in much the same way as the 1080p one but the longer render times can better reveal scaling between CPUs as well as reducing the impact of limited duration turbo boosts and tau the stock 27100 has a 4% advantage over the stock 10 600 K in this test whereas in the 1080p test they seem nearly tied overclocked in the 2700 causes the same 12% reduction render time that it did in the 1080p test and this result is still behind the stock 3700 acts at 12 point 7 minutes versus 11.1 minutes as for 3,900 X's dock CPU now priced not distant from the original 2700 X buy in price that one jumps to eight point nine minutes stock the 3900 X reduces render time by 39% when compared to the unmodified or stock 2707 of compression and decompression testing is what we're plotting next the compression results are closer together than decompression so we'll start there the 7-zip ranks are in MIPS or millions of instructions per second with the 2700 stock CPU running at 55,000 mips and directly comparing into the 30 610 600 k this changes in the next chart where the 2700 will establish a wider lead over the 10 600 k for now though in the compression chart the 10 600 k offers an appreciable gaming performance uplift in CPU bound scenarios at least but its production performance is often more of a side grade at best or a downgrade depending on which application were running the 3900 acts would be the best upgrade path ignoring the upcoming xt launch at 84% improves as opposed to the 2700 stock CPUs result that's the biggest jump that we've seen so far and it represents a clear architectural and core advantage a 2700 OC gets it between the 1700 OC and 3700 X or 9900 K stock CPUs for further reference but not anywhere close to the 3900 X decompression has the 2700 at 75,000 mips stock or 87,000 overclocked that hasn't stock result below the 3.9 gigahertz all core 1700 results showing benefit to the fixed all core frequency and also has it one step above the 3600 the 10 600 K even at 5 gigahertz it gets left behind in this benchmark both threads and frequency have a fairly direct and scalable impact here but not enough for the 10 600 K with just that frequency change the 3900 X puts this to the test further with a 66% gain over the overclocked 2700 results or a 93% gain over the stock result building chromium is a task that benefits directly from higher core counts and greater parallelism but also faster CPUs to make up some of the difference the stock 2700 finished the build process and 133 minutes very slightly behind the stock 10 600 K at 132 minutes and further behind the overclocked r7 1700 at 126 minutes the 2700 reduced completion time by 13 percent down to 116 minutes with an all core 4.1 gigahertz overclock but unlike the render benchmarks this isn't enough to push it beyond all of the six court well thread parts on the chart the five gigahertz ten 600 K couldn't keep up with the completion time of 122 minutes but the overclocked 4.3 gigahertz 3600 did and it did so exceptionally well by completing the build in 115 minutes the 3700 axon 3900 X have advantages in speed and core count over the original 2700 here but they also benefit over the Intel line and things like cache which can matter in this test especially the 3700 X stock completed in 91 minutes 21% faster than even the overclocked 2700 in stock versus stock the 3900 ax took less than half the time to finish then the 2700 did power testing is last this one is pretty interesting and blender tested after tower expiry for Intel the 2700 required about 76 watts to run an hour platform and configuration when measured at the EPS 12 volt cables the r7 2700 overclocked blew that out of proportion but only because we blast the voltage to complete overclocked numbers for reviews note that this could be tuned down and voltage with the newer bins primarily than ours was which was a review sample the 3900 X required about 150 watts so although we're seen 50% 80% or similar uplifts and some applications it's also increased in power consumption the 3700 X meanwhile measured 10 watts higher than stock while offering universally disproportionate performance meaning high obviously against the 2700 so there's an overall efficiency increase in the 3700 X versus the 2700 the 10 600 K for reference ran at about 104 watt stock and Cinebench are 20 where we take Intel's numbers during boosting so it's more relevant for high-end parts like the 10 900k and these positioning doesn't really change that much it's still about 77 watts for the stock results with the 3700 X still at about 84 to 85 watts so that's it for the 2700 again quick note if you have a 2700 ax you're wondering where that falls just remember that the first gen of risin the second gen of rising so Zen Zen plus the the axe and the non ex versions of the 700 series 1727 they were basically just pre overclocked versions of the non axe versions and there's maybe an argument to the bin quality but overall if you're looking at a 2700 X numbers basically just look at our 2700 overclock and you're gonna fall pretty close to that so depending on the OC you'll be between the base number and the OC number or right around the OC number it's close enough doesn't matter it's hardened plus or minus a couple percent at that point so that's where you would follow the 2,700 X same fan same idea and overall the CP is obviously still plenty fine it's only one generation old but we wanted to specifically look back at it because of its popularity because of the pivotal moment and CPU history recently we're intone AMD were both really embattled and truly responding to each other in a direct almost month-to-month fashion the upgrade pathways basically you're looking at do you really want to go heavy with gain maybe you bought the 2700 and your habits have changed or you didn't quite use it the way you thought you would you want to push more towards gain but well 10 600 K is incredible value for what it can do we would really encourage you to try your hand at overclocking it especially cash ratio tuning it's not that difficult and if you feel adventurous try memory tuning we have all the separate piece on that but really tunable CPU good for gaming it's basically best-in-class especially at the price right now 10900 k's technically above it but unless you're absolutely FPS nah but the difference is negligible for most people for non-gaming the 3700 ex clearly is not really worth a dollar for dollar upgrade maybe you could justify it if you can get good resale value out of your 2700 depending on your region and then you only spend maybe a delta of 100 bucks to go to a 3700 that's probably worth it but otherwise well first of all wait for the XT series and see how that does secondly you're either waiting for rise in 4,000 or you're basically upgrading within the 3000 category to to the next SKU up so that would be like a 3900 X and at $400 for 20 ish these days the 3900 axis is actually fairly compelling now again the f-series might impact that so maybe give it a little bit that series at this point should have a known release date it's soon not can't recall right now if we are able to say it it should be out there go google it but either way that's what you're looking at so there's the 2700 retested and updated for this new set of results coming out for the xt series soon thank you for watching as always you can support us directly at patreon.com slash gamers and axis or a store doc gamers access dotnet if you want to pick up something functional like a mod mat a mouse mat or one of our AMD x 5 so many chipset posters where it's laid out like a metro map thanks for watching and subscribe for more we'll see you all next timeAndie's risin 7 2700 launch was really interesting because it was right in between when Intel was starting to lose its grasp a little bit with the 7700 K and when Intel really came back strong against the first launch of risin and then the subsequent is n plus launch so the 2700 came out in a way that looked really impressive it was starting to turn the tide in a significant way against Intel where is n1 looked reasonable in a lot of workloads like production it was hey this is a real architecture AMD can actually do this then plus became a Hey AMD might actually be starting to gain some ground where Intel was untouchable so it was a big deal but the 8700 K came out and really changed things in a way that made the market exciting for a while so today we're revisiting the AMD risin 7 2700 CPU and basically 2700 X by matter of overclocking to see how it does in 2020 which isn't that long after launch but there's more stuff coming soon before that this video is brought to you by US and our brand new gamers Nexus wireframe mouse mat aside from being the best way to directly support our long-form investigative reporting you can also get a custom made high quality mouse mat made with a high detail 3d design that we created to show off heat sinks coolers of video cards and more the mouse mat uses a stitch to blue border for added longevity a blue rubber underside for unique Flair and a microfiber cloth for smooth tracking the mat is 36 inches by 12 inches and fits a keyboard and mouse easily we sold out of the first run in 48 hours but have more getting made right now to backorder your mouse mat and ensure you get one in the next run go to store gamers nexus net and backorder yours while reducing our reliance on advertisers or click the link in the description below so again the thing that really made the 20 780 700k era exciting as reviewers was specifically that it wasn't really one sided anymore it was clearly the 2700 came out and established a firm foothold the 8700 K came out and really socked AMD pretty hard it was a lot more level than it used to be but it went from the 2700 start to really gain ground in gaming objectively leading and production workloads especially dollar-for-dollar and even at a price class up versus Intel to suddenly with 8700 K Intel's in the lead for gaming Intel's basically tied in a lot of production applications it's a head and some of them and that's where it was interesting for us because now you've got a really direct head-to-head fight between two good processors and it was actually a company responding to another company's gauntlet throw and so that's what we likes today we're looking again at the 2700 for a while it was priced at about $200 so towards the end of its life and right around the 3,000 launch the 2700 came down significantly in price there were times we saw it on retailers brand-new for $180 and that's part of what made it a really widespread choice because even though its value was decent after Intel launched its response and good when it first launched it became extremely good when it was in the $200 price class is just untouchable at that in that pricing so really widespread processor now a couple of notes here the 3000 series we already looked at how that does versus the 2000 series back and everything launched this is with all new updated methodology for us it's with updated versions of Windows of drivers all that stuff so all the data is new and then the other point is that obviously publicly now the XT series is coming up and that's going to be a higher clock update to the 3003 CPUs so if you're watching this wondering if you should upgrade your 2700 this will help you start to get the barians on where it falls today or if you want to buy a used one maybe and then the those should buy become pretty prevalent and then the piece to check back on obviously would be our XT reviews where you'll be able to see what is that pathway look like our key focuses will be the 3900 X because since it's only one generation of a jaunt that's going to be the the best way to really extract any value out of it we have 3,700 X numbers we've got all the other numbers that are relevant in here and then the 10 600k would be your one to look at if you're interested in swinging away from it AMD n going back towards Intel or towards Intel for the first time for a gaming build so let's get started with the numbers shredder the Tomb Raider will start us off in this one the AMD are seven 2700 fully stocked plotted at 123 FPS average ranking it alongside the r7 1700 at 3.9 gigahertz all core the differences between these two results are functionally non-existent more impressively however the 1600 AF leads the 2700 at 4.2 gigahertz but this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's followed our 1600 AF coverage it's just an r5 2600 so it's the same architecture and at this point we're looking at a frequency advantage versus modern parts that are 7 2700 stock CPU allows the AMD 3,300 X a lead of 10% the 3600 stock has a lead of 14% and the 3700 X has a lead of 21% the Intel i5 10 600 K for gaming reference drops 2 cores but bombs the clocks and also moves to Intel landed at 163 FPS average and leading the r7 2700 stock CPU by 32% overclocking the 2700 which is comparable in some ways to a 2700 X if you have one of those you should look at these numbers lands it at the level of an i-5 10 400 with 2666 memory and just behind the 3300 acts and 7700 K a stock CPUs although the 3300 X ranks higher from its single CCX configuration and its architectural improvements we wouldn't consider it an upgrade for many other reasons if you bought an r7 2700 you probably bought it to use at least sometimes and non-gaming workloads even if that's not the case dropping threads feels bad and the performance uplift is without many merits once the 2700 is overclocked anyway the 3900 X feels like a more appropriate or meaningful upgrade pathway all around given that it's only been one generation but this would still be a jump to an r9 CPU instead it might be best to wait a little longer though before buying a replacement at all total wars campaign benchmark is up next for this one the am the r7 2700 stock CPU ran at 100 FPS average ranking it again functionally equivalent to the r7 1700 all core OC of 3.9 gigahertz and just below the 1600 AF but that's error and variance at this point the 3700 X ran at 125 FPS average leading the 2700 stock CPU by 25% in average FPS as for Low's the 3700 accident those measurably as well jump into 87 and 78 FPS 1% and 0.1% up from 70 and 63 previously that said the 2700 overclocked shrinks the gap to 15% in averages overall as we said in our original rise in 3000 series reviews these are not CPUs that generally should be upgraded to from just one generation back at least not without a jump in rank as well again going to a 3900 X would make more sense but not because of gaming that'd be for production workloads the XT series might be the one that deserves more observation of its performance for gaming but we need to wait for that one to come out but from what we know so far officially from AMD it should increase performance specifically in these types of workloads hitman 2 is up now the stock r7 2,700 falls fairly low on the hitman 2 charts it beats the 1600 AF at 96 FPS average vs. 94 but by a narrow enough margin to imply that the extra threads don't really make or break the performance the four core eight thread 3300 ex confirms this with its own average of 114 fps generational improvements are clear the original 1700 average is only 87 FPS stock and the 3700 X average is 118 fps pushing the 2700 to 4.1 gigahertz gives it a 10 percent uplift over the stock results to 106 FPS average but still behind the 3300 axes results the 3900 X + 10 600 K are in another class entirely for both of them plotting well beyond the range where the 2700 is located the 3900 X average is 1 24 fps whether overclocked or not putting it 29% beyond the stock 2700 and the stock 10 600 K does better still at 128 FPS average f1 2019 is next starting at 1080p and moving to 1440p in the next chart this game typically shows a wide range of performance from its heavy dependence on frequency and limited thread performance in this scenario the r7 2700 stock CPU ends up just ahead of the 1600 AF outside of error this time and just below the 1700 at 3.9 gigahertz all core the 4.1 gigahertz all core 2700 OC lands it close to the Intel i5 10 400 was 2686 RAM which is what you'd use on a B 460 or H 470 platform as for meaning full or reasonable upgrade pathways bar the suggestion to wait for the XT line it looks like this people who want to transition to a more gaming focus build would benefit from the 10 600 KS stock performance of 260 FPS average here a leap of 35 percent stock to stock or more with an overclock and even more still with a cache and a memory tune not plotted here but shown in different content people more focused on improving workstation performance would only really see worthwhile value again and a jaunt to something like the 3900 X which has a limited benefit in gaming we see its baseline performance still improves by 24% stock to stock though which is a lot for a single generation it's just that in the other games we don't see this level of scaling especially when you can consider something a 3,700 X or a 3600 instead would still benefit from the architectural changes 1440p creates more of a GPU constraint so we start to see the performance clamping down towards the same values they're all closer together now with the 2700 OC functionally equating the 3900 X stock CPU and 3600 stock CPU I'll be it with measurably but not appreciably lower 1% low results the upgrade options matter less as always if you're gaming the workloads are GPU bound Red Dead Redemption - at 1080p high is next we've been testing medium lately to reduce the GPU bottleneck but the 2700 is still under a clearer CPU constraint even with high settings that said that does mean that the CPUs at the top of this chart have more scaling Headroom if graphics settings were reduced so the Intel i5 and I 9 parts would be further ahead than they are here ultimately though is important to keep realism in mind even with targeted component benchmarking and most people will realistically be playing this game with a GPU constraint because it's very hard for GPUs to run under these more realistic use conditions the r7 2700 stock CPU ends up just ahead of the 1600 AF and just below the 1700 3.9 gigahertz all core results overclocked in the 2700 to 4.1 gigahertz all core has it nearing the 7700 case stock which isn't meaningfully GPU bound here so they're about the same the 8700 K is the one that gave AMD trouble when it launched and it still maintains a lead and is against a GPU limit right alongside the newer 10 series and the 9900 K these top parts are all with an error of each other from an upgrade standpoint then in gaming you're not gaining much with the pre XE parts so we'll have to check back to see if it's worth the jump or if he should wait it out for rising 4,000 or if you're just unhappy with your gaming frame rates are getting now the 10 600 K is still what we think as the best gaming CPU right now especially for its level of tuning that's available to it our next game is Assassin's Creed tested at 1080p this game is interesting for its mix of high frequency reliance and high thread reliance combined so our 720 700 stock CPU holds about 93 FPS average with lows proportionally behind the 1600 AF stock and 1700 OC CPUs flank the 2700 stock result with the 2700 OC at about the level of an i7 77 okay CPU in stock the thirty six hundred and thirty three hundred acts were both improvements but obviously it's not worth paying a few hundred dollars for a couple of FPS at least not on last year the type to buy Titans for gaming the 87 heart case still gives the 2700 trouble as it did at launch and the 3,700 X gets into territory where it's a real improvement we need to see impact from the XT series to know more but if you feel like your 2700 isn't giving you enough framerate the obvious path is the 10 series CPUs we'll see if the XT launch can give these enough competition in gaming while keeping people on the same platform and at that point it's just a war between who's part is in stock people like to complain about GTA 5 being old but the point of testing it is pretty simple we have new games in our charts this year like the division 2 and a lot of our benchmarks read dead 2 3 Kingdoms and others but we also need some more anchors from older times GTA 5 remains one of the most popular games in the world and gives us a unique look at a different way of programming a game Grand Theft Auto 5 is reminiscent of our recent experience with crisis and that it responds much more to increases in frequency than core count at least past the point of the quad-core CPUs that ruled the market when the game launched 8 cores 16 thread 2700 operates at 85 FPS average here while the r3 1200 AF 4 core 4 thread runs at 87 fps hash with a 4.2 gigahertz overclock applied and these XQ tips have also retained a speed advantage here with a stock 3700 axe averaging 1 9 FPS and the stock 3900 ax averaging 112 fps a 32 percent lead over the 2700 stock the 3900 access high limited core boost clocks means it gains almost nothing from an overclock at least without doing memory tuning and things like that well the 2700 improves by 12 percent up to an average of 95 FPS with a four point one gigahertz OC in South 10 600k leads all the AMD results with a stock average of 114 and an overclocked average of 122 without a cache tune AMD has narrowed the gap significantly but Intel CPUs generally have an advantage in gaming but especially in GTA due to their high limited core boost speeds production testing is where the Zen and Zen plus top CP is really shown in comparison to their Intel competition mostly the 7700 K of the era the later 8700 K did challenge AMD Zen plus launch but it was a close fight the 2700 is still a strong performer in blender even with a modern perspective applied it's time to render our monkeyhead scene was nineteen point four minutes stock putting it amongst the results for the faster six core 12 threat Intel parts like the 8700 K and the 10 600 K this is why the 8700 K was such fierce competition for the 2700 it was winning in gaming and it was pretty close if not about equal in most of the production tests the fact that Lee stock r5 3600 outperforms the 2700 here with a render time of 18 point 3 minutes as a credit says n two's improvements since the 2700 s greater core account is a direct advantage in tile based rendering as done with the blender cycles renderer each thread spawns one tile and even that direct advantage couldn't outrun the 36 hundreds gains overclocked in the 2700 reduced render time by thirteen point four percent down to sixteen point eight minutes making it faster than the 3600 0 C render time of seventeen point five minutes with all cores pushed to their maximum speed the 2700 takes its rightful place on the chart above the CPUs with fewer threads and below the ones with more although within that category it's still well below and these own 3700 X the render time is thirteen point nine minutes docked for that 117 percent time reduced from the 27 hundreds all core OC results as for the 3900 acts that jump would you at about nine point six minutes for this particular render or a reduction of 51% stock to stock against the 2700 our Jian logo seen as a heavier workload and takes longer to render than the monkey heads so it leaves the CPU stack mostly the same one change is that the twenty seven hundred twenty three and a half minute render time was have a minute faster than ten six hundred KS here whereas the ten 600 K led by about the same amount and the monkey head test it's close but more cores is an explicit benefit in this test so the 2700 has an advantage with a 2700 at 4.1 gigahertz and the ten 600k at five gigahertz the 2700 wins out by eight percent reduced time comparisons to Andy's current gen products are less favorable for the older CPU with the 3,700 X completing the rounder 14 percent faster than the overclocked to 2700 the 3900 X meanwhile is now again at about $400 and it completes in 51 and a half percent last time Adobe premier is what we use in the house for video editing and rendering and the test files we use with Adobe Premiere are real GN videos the 1080p projects completed in 5.1 minutes on the stock 2700 and like the blender benchmarks the stack here correlates almost directly with the number of cores each CPU has the 2700 is relatively low stock clocks puts it closer to the performance of six core 12 thread CPUs like the stock 10 600 K which landed at 5 minutes to render overclocked in the 2700 cut render time down by 12% to four and a half minutes but the stock 3,700 X is still a tier Beyond in performance at three point eight minutes to render the 3900 X offers an additional cut totally in 33% stock to stock versus the 2700 our 4k premier project operates in much the same way as the 1080p one but the longer render times can better reveal scaling between CPUs as well as reducing the impact of limited duration turbo boosts and tau the stock 27100 has a 4% advantage over the stock 10 600 K in this test whereas in the 1080p test they seem nearly tied overclocked in the 2700 causes the same 12% reduction render time that it did in the 1080p test and this result is still behind the stock 3700 acts at 12 point 7 minutes versus 11.1 minutes as for 3,900 X's dock CPU now priced not distant from the original 2700 X buy in price that one jumps to eight point nine minutes stock the 3900 X reduces render time by 39% when compared to the unmodified or stock 2707 of compression and decompression testing is what we're plotting next the compression results are closer together than decompression so we'll start there the 7-zip ranks are in MIPS or millions of instructions per second with the 2700 stock CPU running at 55,000 mips and directly comparing into the 30 610 600 k this changes in the next chart where the 2700 will establish a wider lead over the 10 600 k for now though in the compression chart the 10 600 k offers an appreciable gaming performance uplift in CPU bound scenarios at least but its production performance is often more of a side grade at best or a downgrade depending on which application were running the 3900 acts would be the best upgrade path ignoring the upcoming xt launch at 84% improves as opposed to the 2700 stock CPUs result that's the biggest jump that we've seen so far and it represents a clear architectural and core advantage a 2700 OC gets it between the 1700 OC and 3700 X or 9900 K stock CPUs for further reference but not anywhere close to the 3900 X decompression has the 2700 at 75,000 mips stock or 87,000 overclocked that hasn't stock result below the 3.9 gigahertz all core 1700 results showing benefit to the fixed all core frequency and also has it one step above the 3600 the 10 600 K even at 5 gigahertz it gets left behind in this benchmark both threads and frequency have a fairly direct and scalable impact here but not enough for the 10 600 K with just that frequency change the 3900 X puts this to the test further with a 66% gain over the overclocked 2700 results or a 93% gain over the stock result building chromium is a task that benefits directly from higher core counts and greater parallelism but also faster CPUs to make up some of the difference the stock 2700 finished the build process and 133 minutes very slightly behind the stock 10 600 K at 132 minutes and further behind the overclocked r7 1700 at 126 minutes the 2700 reduced completion time by 13 percent down to 116 minutes with an all core 4.1 gigahertz overclock but unlike the render benchmarks this isn't enough to push it beyond all of the six court well thread parts on the chart the five gigahertz ten 600 K couldn't keep up with the completion time of 122 minutes but the overclocked 4.3 gigahertz 3600 did and it did so exceptionally well by completing the build in 115 minutes the 3700 axon 3900 X have advantages in speed and core count over the original 2700 here but they also benefit over the Intel line and things like cache which can matter in this test especially the 3700 X stock completed in 91 minutes 21% faster than even the overclocked 2700 in stock versus stock the 3900 ax took less than half the time to finish then the 2700 did power testing is last this one is pretty interesting and blender tested after tower expiry for Intel the 2700 required about 76 watts to run an hour platform and configuration when measured at the EPS 12 volt cables the r7 2700 overclocked blew that out of proportion but only because we blast the voltage to complete overclocked numbers for reviews note that this could be tuned down and voltage with the newer bins primarily than ours was which was a review sample the 3900 X required about 150 watts so although we're seen 50% 80% or similar uplifts and some applications it's also increased in power consumption the 3700 X meanwhile measured 10 watts higher than stock while offering universally disproportionate performance meaning high obviously against the 2700 so there's an overall efficiency increase in the 3700 X versus the 2700 the 10 600 K for reference ran at about 104 watt stock and Cinebench are 20 where we take Intel's numbers during boosting so it's more relevant for high-end parts like the 10 900k and these positioning doesn't really change that much it's still about 77 watts for the stock results with the 3700 X still at about 84 to 85 watts so that's it for the 2700 again quick note if you have a 2700 ax you're wondering where that falls just remember that the first gen of risin the second gen of rising so Zen Zen plus the the axe and the non ex versions of the 700 series 1727 they were basically just pre overclocked versions of the non axe versions and there's maybe an argument to the bin quality but overall if you're looking at a 2700 X numbers basically just look at our 2700 overclock and you're gonna fall pretty close to that so depending on the OC you'll be between the base number and the OC number or right around the OC number it's close enough doesn't matter it's hardened plus or minus a couple percent at that point so that's where you would follow the 2,700 X same fan same idea and overall the CP is obviously still plenty fine it's only one generation old but we wanted to specifically look back at it because of its popularity because of the pivotal moment and CPU history recently we're intone AMD were both really embattled and truly responding to each other in a direct almost month-to-month fashion the upgrade pathways basically you're looking at do you really want to go heavy with gain maybe you bought the 2700 and your habits have changed or you didn't quite use it the way you thought you would you want to push more towards gain but well 10 600 K is incredible value for what it can do we would really encourage you to try your hand at overclocking it especially cash ratio tuning it's not that difficult and if you feel adventurous try memory tuning we have all the separate piece on that but really tunable CPU good for gaming it's basically best-in-class especially at the price right now 10900 k's technically above it but unless you're absolutely FPS nah but the difference is negligible for most people for non-gaming the 3700 ex clearly is not really worth a dollar for dollar upgrade maybe you could justify it if you can get good resale value out of your 2700 depending on your region and then you only spend maybe a delta of 100 bucks to go to a 3700 that's probably worth it but otherwise well first of all wait for the XT series and see how that does secondly you're either waiting for rise in 4,000 or you're basically upgrading within the 3000 category to to the next SKU up so that would be like a 3900 X and at $400 for 20 ish these days the 3900 axis is actually fairly compelling now again the f-series might impact that so maybe give it a little bit that series at this point should have a known release date it's soon not can't recall right now if we are able to say it it should be out there go google it but either way that's what you're looking at so there's the 2700 retested and updated for this new set of results coming out for the xt series soon thank you for watching as always you can support us directly at patreon.com slash gamers and axis or a store doc gamers access dotnet if you want to pick up something functional like a mod mat a mouse mat or one of our AMD x 5 so many chipset posters where it's laid out like a metro map thanks for watching and subscribe for more we'll see you all next time\n"