OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180PassMark multi-core score:15617N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 24 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 62% of models
Score components

40%

5.7

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.8

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 62% of processors
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–²Better than 77%
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

60%

5.4

Performance

18%

5.1

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 51%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 78% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

9.3

Popularity

Grades by review (24)
17 reviews: 7 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 78%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-ryzen-7-2700
  • amd-ryzen-7-2700
  • amd-ryzen-7-2700
  • amd-ryzen-7-2700
amd-ryzen-7-2700
amd-ryzen-7-2700
amd-ryzen-7-2700
amd-ryzen-7-2700
Where to buy
    N/A~ £180
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Based on 10 · 8

Reviewers praise its multi-core muscle and efficiency, but are split on gaming and find single-core speed lacking.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Based on 182 owners sharing their experience in online comments

69%positive8%mixed23%negative

Owners praise its strong value and capable performance, while overclocking instability and heat cause recurring frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report overclocks crashing or failing stress tests, especially above about 4 GHz, and some report crashes in AIDA64 or Cinebench.13
  • Owners report the chip not boosting to its rated 4.1 GHz, staying around 3.2–3.7 GHz, especially in some Dell builds and with budget motherboards.12
  • Owners with the stock cooler report temperatures climbing to 80 °C or more when they raise the clock or voltage above about 3.8 GHz.11
  • Some owners report black screens, no display or failure to boot after applying an overclock in Ryzen Master, and had to clear the settings in BIOS.11
  • Some owners find Ryzen Master unresponsive or refusing to run on B450 boards, and report that BIOS options or saved overclocks do not stick.8
  • Owners say the 2700 can trail rivals in some games, and that a newer 3600 is about 30% faster for the same money.7
  • Some owners report RAM speeds stuck around 2666–2933 MHz or errors at higher speeds, and find the chip picky about memory.4
  • Owners report that a stable overclock gives only a small real-world gain in games and renders, so the extra heat and tuning may not be worth it.3
  • Owners report that going past about 4.0–4.1 GHz needs about 1.35–1.45 V, which makes the chip run hot and is unstable on some stock coolers.3
  • Some owners report that cheap motherboards have weak VRM cooling and overheating, which limits overclocking and can lead to failure.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #450 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components:

60%

5.4

Performance

18%

5.1

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

5.7
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

7.8
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 74.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 58.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 75.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
15,617
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 15,617 in PassMark, which is higher than 59.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
12 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 12 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 48% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 12 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 12 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 48.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
768 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 768 KB which is larger than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 54% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 78% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (24)
    17 reviews: 7 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 78% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (24)
    17 reviews: 7 with a printed score, 10 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 22.2% higher sentiment score
    8.8 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 36.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (15,617 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    15,617 vs 11,469
  • 22.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,448 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,448 vs 2,804.5
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (768 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    768 KB vs 384 KB
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Pinnacle Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Pinnacle Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 27.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,116 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,116 vs 1,535
  • 17.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (403 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    403 vs 490
  • 15.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,171 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,171 vs 2,558
  • 41.2% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (234 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    234 vs 398.015
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 6.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    April 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 27.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,116 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,116 vs 1,535
  • 15.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,171 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,171 vs 2,558
  • 17.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (403 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    403 vs 490
  • 41.2% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (234 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    234 vs 398.015
  • 6.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Pinnacle Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Pinnacle Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 20.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (213 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    213 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
Tech community
≈ estimated
03/08/2020
Ownership experience · clock limits and replacement
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is not recommended: this unit wouldn't clock past about 3.3GHz, so the Ryzen 5 2600 was the better buy.
8.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
19/04/2018
Review · gaming, streaming and memory overclocking tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is much more stable than before, with nearly no blue screens, though overclocking adds little performance.
9.0
LSG
≈ estimated
21/07/2019
Short review · editing and gaming impressions
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is more than enough for editing and gaming, and hard to beat on price.
8.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
13/09/2018
Comparison · CPU benchmarks and game tests vs 2700X
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is a solid value, especially if you overclock it or can get it for less than the 2700X.
Overview video
Shop video
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
techpowerup.com
≈ estimated
03/05/2018
Benchmark review · Power efficiency
Verdict
The Ryzen 7 2700 is the most power-efficient chip tested, but it runs about 11% slower than the 2700X in CPU tests.
8.0
techbuyersguru.com
≈ estimated
04/06/2018
Benchmark review · Overclocking and power
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is a power-efficient eight-core chip that is strong in multi-core work, though overclocking gains little and the 2700X is faster out of the box.
8.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
21/05/2018
Hands-on test · Stock and matched-clock comparison
Verdict
The Ryzen 7 2700 wins at multi-threaded tasks and holds its own in games, but it trails Intel in floating-point math and memory latency.
7.0
legitreviews.com
≈ estimated
25/05/2018
Lab test · Power efficiency
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is an efficient eight-core chip that overclocks well, but its lower clocks mean the 2700X is faster out of the box.
8.5
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
08/06/2018
Gaming test · 1080p and 4K
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is a capable gaming chip, but Intel's 8th Gen chips still post the highest frame rates at 1080p.
9.0
modders-inc.com
≈ estimated
31/03/2023
Hands-on test · Gaming and overclocking
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 beats the Ryzen 5 2600 in most 4K games and physics tests, but trails it at 1440p and in overall benchmarks, and runs hotter when overclocked.
9.0
bit-tech.net
≈ estimated
03/05/2018
Benchmark review · Non-X 8-core
Verdict
The Ryzen 7 2700 is a 65W eight-core that suits tiny mini-ITX builds, but its lower clocks make it a niche pick next to the 2700X.
8.5
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
08/06/2018
Benchmark review · Lower-power 8-core
Verdict
The Ryzen 7 2700 is a 65W sibling of the 2700X with the same silicon and features, suiting buyers who want less heat and plan to overclock.
8.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
18/06/2018
Lab test · Multi-core and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is strong for multi-core work with 16 threads and a low 65W rating, but single-thread and gaming speed trail rival Intel chips.
9.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
10/09/2018
Lab test · Eight-core CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is a low-power eight-core chip for demanding multitasking, but it has no integrated graphics, so you need a separate graphics card.
8.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
01/06/2018
Lab test · Efficiency and gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is an eight-core chip that uses less power than the 2700X and beats the older 1800X in places, but needs fast DDR4 memory for full speed.
8.9
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
04/07/2018
Benchmark review · Eight-core CPU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is an energy-efficient chip that trails the 2700X in speed but handles multi-core work well, while memory handling still lags Intel.
9.2
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
28/05/2018
Hands-on test · Overclocking and noise
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is an eight-core chip with a 65W rating that suits compact systems, though it lacks the 2700X's higher clocks and XFR.
7.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
17/05/2018
Hands-on test · Cooler and overclocking
Verdict
The Ryzen 7 2700 can match the 2700X only with an aftermarket cooler, so it suits buyers willing to add better cooling.
8.0
tweakers.net
✓ explicit
09/07/2018
Review · Low-power eight-core
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 suits compact or modestly cooled cases that need eight cores with low power draw, while the 2700X is faster for most buyers.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 7 2700

  • Excellent multi-core performance for productivity tasks like video editing and rendering
  • High power efficiency with a 65W TDP, making it ideal for compact or quiet systems
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for flexible overclocking to reach near 2700X performance levels
  • Includes a capable stock cooler (Wraith Spire LED) that is easy to install
  • Great value-for-money compared to similar Intel processors for multi-threaded workloads

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 2700

  • Single-core performance lags behind competing Intel chips and newer Ryzen generations
  • Stock cooler can become noisy under heavy loads or when attempting to overclock
  • Lower out-of-the-box clock speeds compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X
  • Potential for bottlenecking when paired with modern, high-end GPUs at 1080p
  • Lacks integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated graphics card to boot and operate

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is a Zen+ architecture desktop processor featuring 8 cores and 16 threads with a 3.2 GHz base clock and a max boost frequency of up to 4.1 GHz. Built on a 12nm process for the AM4 socket, it includes 16MB of L3 cache and operates at a power-efficient 65W TDP. Main pros include its high multi-core performance for productivity tasks like video editing, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and the inclusion of a Wraith Spire LED cooler. Notable cons include lower stock clock speeds compared to the 2700X variant and the lack of integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU.

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 2700 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 7 2700 and other processors

No results found