OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:17440N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):105 W

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 58 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

7.0/10

▲Better than 59% of processors

7.9

▲Better than 81%

6.1

▲Better than 54%

8.7

★Better than 97%

6.1

▲Better than 89%

4.2
Gaming
Gaming
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
4.3
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
3.7
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
5.8
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
2.5
L3 cache
8.0%
4.9
N. of physical cores
5.5
Video editing
Video editing
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
5.2
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
4.9
N. of physical cores
20.0%
8.9
CPU threads
15.0%
2.5
L3 cache

Where to buy

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Based on 10 · 28

Reviewers praise its strong multi-core and rendering performance and decent stock cooler, but agree it falls behind in gaming.

Praised

Mixed views

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Based on 195 owners sharing their experience in online comments

69%positive6%mixed25%negative

Owners praise its low price, strong multicore performance, and gaming value, while criticizing heat and weaker gaming speed than rivals.

What owners like

Strong value at its launch-era price, often around $140–$160 used or on sale, with a cheap cooler and good motherboard deals making it cheaper still.38
Runs 1080p, 1440p and 4K gaming well with a GTX 1080 Ti or RTX 2070-class card, often staying above 100 fps at 1440p.26
Strong for multitasking and work, handling video rendering, streaming, and VMs or machine learning well, with 8 cores helping on heavy tasks.23
Keeps up with newer games at 1440p and 4K, so owners see little reason to upgrade the CPU while the GPU stays the bottleneck.16
Overclocks well, reaching about 4.1–4.3 GHz all-core on many chips with tuned settings and decent cooling, which closes much of the gap to newer CPUs.9
Works with newer Ryzen CPUs on the same AM4 motherboard, so owners can upgrade later without changing the board.8
Faster RAM with tight timings noticeably improves performance, with some owners running 3200–3600 MHz kits stably.4
The included stock cooler is good enough for most owners at stock speeds and looks decent, though some find it loud under load.4
Handles game streaming and background tasks smoothly, so streaming while gaming runs without much slowdown.4
A large upgrade over older Intel quad-cores and earlier Ryzen chips, especially for gaming and multitasking.4

What owners dislike

Trails newer and Intel 8th/9th-gen chips in some CPU-bound games, especially at 1080p with high-refresh monitors where frame rates can be lower.11
Runs hot under heavy loads, often reaching around 80–85°C in demanding games or renders, so a better cooler helps.6
The stock cooler runs loud and can struggle under load, so many owners swap in a better air or liquid cooler.3
Pushing past about 4.2 GHz often needs more voltage and can cause instability, so some owners stay at lower, safer overclocks.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

7.0

Show more

Hide

Platform

8.4

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

Show more

What reviewers say

Performance

6.0

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

PassMark multi-core score

Show more

What reviewers say

Architecture

5.7

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

6.7

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

What reviewers say

Integrated graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

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

Power & Thermal

6.0

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

N/A

Configurable TDP

Show more

What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs the average processor

Why is AMD Ryzen 7 2700X better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

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
5.33x larger L2 cache
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
16 MB vs 3 MB
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.
20 usable 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.
29.9% higher review score
Reviews score
8.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
80%
8.4
Average grade
20%
10
Popularity
Grades by review (58)
35 reviews: 17 with a printed score, 18 estimated from the review. 23 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.
8.7 vs 6.7
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
8x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.

29.9% higher review score
Reviews score
8.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
80%
8.4
Average grade
20%
10
Popularity
Grades by review (58)
35 reviews: 17 with a printed score, 18 estimated from the review. 23 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.
8.7 vs 6.7
20.8% higher sentiment score
8.7 vs 7.2
2.78x cheaper
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
£90 vs £250
8.3% better value for money
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X has better value for money than the average processor (7.89 vs 7.3).
7.89 vs 7.29

Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
AM4 vs FP5
More extensive crypto acceleration
This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
Supports heterogeneous scheduling
This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.

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 (8x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
8x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
52.1% higher PassMark score
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (17,440 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
17,440 vs 11,469
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
41.1% better multi-core performance
This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,956 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
3,956 vs 2,804.5
17.2% higher multi-core score
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,107 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
6,107 vs 5,209

5.33x larger L2 cache
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
16 MB vs 3 MB
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.
20 usable 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.
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.
15 °C lower CPU temperature
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (85 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
85 °C vs 100 °C

Why is AMD Ryzen 7 2700X worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

21.8% lower list score
List score
6.1/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
6.1 vs 7.8
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.
2.33x higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (105 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
105 W vs 45 W
Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
18.3% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,254 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,254 vs 1,535
15 °C lower temperature limit
This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (85 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
85 °C vs 100 °C
12.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (430 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
430 vs 490

21.8% lower list score
List score
6.1/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
6.1 vs 7.8

Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard 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

18.3% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,254 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,254 vs 1,535
12.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (430 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
430 vs 490
5.6% weaker single-core performance
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,415 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
2,415 vs 2,558
2.3% lower boost clock
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
4.3 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.
2.33x higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (105 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
105 W vs 45 W
15 °C lower temperature limit
This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (85 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
85 °C vs 100 °C
2.33x higher TDP
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (105 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
105 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

7.0

Overseer PC Hardware

≈ estimated

12/06/2024

Hands-on gaming test · 2024 benchmarks

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a workable budget gaming chip in 2024 if you keep your expectations in check.

9.0

RA Tech

≈ estimated

06/03/2023

Hands-on review · gaming, temperatures and overclocking

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is still a good upgrade for older PCs, though demanding games like Cyberpunk show its limits.

7.0

Hardware Unboxed

≈ estimated

07/07/2021

Gaming benchmark · 30 games, 2021 retest

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is good for productivity, but it trails rivals in games, and the Ryzen 5 3600 is the better budget gaming pick.

9.0

Ethically Sourced Hardware

≈ estimated

22/12/2020

Build and benchmark · gaming tests with a mid-range GPU

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X ran most games smoothly in this build, with heat and cooler setup as the main drawbacks.

9.0

James Develops

≈ estimated

03/01/2020

Unboxing and review · benchmarks, compiling and editing tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is good value for the money and strong for compiling and video editing, but less ideal for pure gaming.

5.0

Gamers Nexus

≈ estimated

04/05/2019

Overclocking test · frequency and undervolting checks

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X runs the same clocks and overclocks no better than the standard 2700X, so it only suits buyers who want the commemorative extras.

9.0

Nicolas11x12 English

≈ estimated

27/05/2018

Overclocking test · benchmarks, temperatures and power draw

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X gains very little speed from overclocking, so running stock settings is the better choice.

7.0

optimum

≈ estimated

24/04/2018

Clock speed analysis · six workloads tested

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X never reached its advertised 4.3 GHz boost in testing and settles around 3.9 GHz under load.

9.0

PCWorld

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

Full review · gaming and rendering benchmarks

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X largely shuts Core i7 out for now, offering strong multi-core performance at a lower price.

8.0

KitGuruTech

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

Hands-on review · Cinebench run and cooler impressions

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X performs well, but it is not a must-have upgrade for first-gen owners.

9.0

optimum

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

Benchmark review · gaming tests against Intel i7 8700K

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is excellent for multi-threaded work and narrows the gap with Intel, but Intel still leads in gaming.

8.0

goldfries

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming, power and heat tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is good value and a clear step up for older systems, but it runs hot and draws more power.

More graded video reviews (4)

Hardware Unboxed

creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Nicolas11x12 Deutsch · 27/05/2018

Overclocking test · stock vs 4.2 GHz benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X gains very little from overclocking, so stock settings are the better choice.

Likes

Automatic boost works very well at stock
Clocks high without any tuning
Stable 4.2 GHz overclock on a well-binned chip

Dislikes

Only minimal extra performance from tuning the clocks yourself
Higher power draw and temperatures when overclocked
Stock cooler runs hot at stock clocks

Nicolas11x12 Deutsch · 05/05/2018

Hands-on review · upgrade from 8700K, memory and benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is an excellent choice for top performance at a reasonable price, despite its higher power draw.

Likes

First-generation memory compatibility problems are gone
Large performance gains over the first generation
Strong multi-threaded and rendering performance
Wraith Prism cooler with attractive RGB lighting

Dislikes

Around 40 W higher power consumption than the 1700X or 8700K
Gaming gains at 1080p are hardly noticeable

Rovelman · 31/05/2020

Long-term use review · six months of creative work

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a good choice for designers, animators and filmmakers, and you are unlikely to regret buying it.

Likes

Runs 2D and 3D animation software well
Handles 4K green screen rendering without problems
Runs Photoshop and After Effects at the same time
Good value compared with newer models

Dislikes

Slow 4K After Effects renders, about 40 minutes for a 7-minute clip
Slows down with heavy projects during screen recording

AlexBlade · 24/04/2020

Review · benchmarks and 2020 value check

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is still worth it in 2020 for its upgrade path, but the 3600 is the better gaming buy.

Likes

Fast and cool-running for its generation
Unlocked chip on the AM4 platform with an upgrade path
Good RGB cooler included
Strong for compiling, editing and multitasking

Dislikes

Not built mainly for gaming
Not the fastest chip against current processors
The 3600 is the better buy for gaming and moderate work

JandroTech · 16/03/2019

Hands-on review · 4K render and Cinebench tests

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a strong all-round processor for multitasking, rendering and gaming, with very good cooling.

Likes

Performance beats an Intel i7-8700K and comes close to an i9-9900X
Stock Wraith Prism cooler is quiet and keeps temperatures low
RGB fan adds a clear lighting effect
All-round CPU for multitasking, rendering and gaming

Dislikes

Full XFR 2.0 and Precision Boost 2.0 require an X470 motherboard
Tests shown are CPU-Z, Cinebench and a 4K render only, with no game benchmarks

HAS-Tecno · 08/06/2018

Personal opinion · temperatures, power use and value

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is worth it, especially for the price, with good temperatures and only minor platform limits.

Likes

Strong performance in rendering and gaming
Power use of 380 to 420 watts while gaming
Good temperatures with the included cooler
Good value compared with the Intel 8700K

Dislikes

Premiere rendering glitches with some plugins, still being ironed out
Shared M.2 and SATA ports on the tested board limit storage
Tested board supports only 3200 MHz RAM

OZEROS · 19/04/2018

Comparison review · benchmarks, gaming and power use

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is very strong for professional workloads and much closer in gaming, though its power draw is a weak point.

Likes

Very strong performance in professional tasks
Gaming gap with the Intel 8700K narrowed to about 10%
Handles rendering, video editing and heavy workloads

Dislikes

Power consumption higher than the previous generation
Peak platform draw of 411 W needs a 600 W power supply

Inside The Box · 11/11/2019

Unboxing and spec rundown · quick look

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X offers good value for money, runs cool, and stays stable under demanding loads.

Likes

Good price-performance ratio
Stays cool and stable under demanding loads
Included cooler with RGB lighting
Unlocked multiplier for overclocking by hand

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0

tomshardware.com

✓ explicit

19/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

Lab test · Launch review

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a clear step up from the 1800X in heavy threaded work and includes a capable RGB cooler, but overclocking headroom is limited.

9.0

techspot.com

✓ explicit

19/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600X Review - TechSpot

Lab test · Zen+ desktop chips

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a clear step up from the 1800X, about 8–11% faster in Cinebench, but overclocking gains are small.

8.5

kitguru.net

✓ explicit

20/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review – 2nd Gen Ryzen 4GHz+ out of the box

Launch review · Zen+ refresh

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a refined 8-core chip that runs at about 4.05GHz all-core out of the box and suits buyers already on AM4 boards.

8.0

extremetech.com

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Can AMD Cream Intel's Coffee Lake?

Benchmark review · Coffee Lake rivalry

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X holds near 4GHz across all cores and gains about 3% per clock, aiming to beat Intel's Core i7-8700K in threaded work.

9.0

overclockers.com

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X CPU Review

Benchmark review · Zen+ head-to-head

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X gains about 10% over the 1700X and beats Intel's Core i7-8700K in most 1080p games, but trails it in floating-point math.

8.0

hothardware.com

✓ explicit

19/04/2018

AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Review: 2700X And 2600X Deliver More

Hands-on review · Zen+ processors

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a refined Zen+ chip with higher clocks that fits existing AM4 boards, though its 105W rating needs a good cooler.

7.0

gamersnexus.net

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

AMD R7 2700 & 2700X Review: Streaming Benchmarks & Memory Scaling

Lab test · Voltage and memory

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X reaches 4.0GHz at far lower voltage than Ryzen 1 chips, but 4.3GHz and memory above 3666MHz are hard to reach.

9.0

trustedreviews.com

✓ explicit

19/04/2018

Ryzen 7 2700X Review - Trusted Reviews

Hands-on review · Boost and cooler

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a fast eight-core chip for multitasking and multi-threaded work, but Intel's higher clock speeds still win in gaming.

8.0

pcmag.com

✓ explicit

31/08/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review - PCMag(www.vortez.net) | 19 April 2018 | AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review - Vortez

Lab test · Stock and overclock

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a strong multi-core chip for video encoding and 7-Zip, but Intel still leads in single-core work and 1080p gaming.

9.0

computerbase.de

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, 2700, 5 2600X & 2600 Review

Lab test · Gaming benchmarks

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X gains noticeably in games from lower memory latency, but Intel's Core i7-8700K is still about 11% ahead in gaming.

9.0

pcgameshardware.de

≈ estimated

24/04/2018

AMD hunts the i7-8700K: Ryzen 7 2700X and R5 2600X benchmarked

Lab test · Turbo and memory

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a strong upgrade for demanding applications, with a higher turbo, but games still favor Intel's Core i7-8700K.

9.5

chip.de

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review - CHIP

Lab test · Benchmark leader

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a strong multi-core chip that matches Intel in gaming, but needs a separate graphics card and runs a little hotter.

6.4

computerbild.de

✓ explicit

19/04/2018

Ryzen 7 2700X: AMD Processor Review - COMPUTER BILD

Lab test · Multi-core speed

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a good choice for archiving, rendering and other multi-core work, but it needs a separate graphics card and uses more power at idle.

7.0

hardware-journal.de

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Don't Worry, It Only Wants to Play

Hands-on test · Memory and boost

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X reaches 4.35GHz and runs memory at 3600MHz, but four memory sticks lower its official speed.

9.0

tomshardware.fr

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

Ryzen 2700X and 2600X Review: AMD Does Even Better

Lab test · 3D and CAD workloads

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X beats the Core i7-8700K in 3D rendering and 3ds Max workflows, but Intel still leads in AutoCAD.

6.0

lesnumeriques.com

✓ explicit

13/08/2018

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: A Balanced and Fast CPU

Lab test · Multi-core performance

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a strong chip for rendering and video encoding, clearly ahead of the Core i7-8700K, though slightly behind in games.

8.8

ginjfo.com

✓ explicit

21/04/2018

Ryzen 7 2700X: The Full Review

Full review · Gaming and productivity

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is a solid upgrade over the 1800X, with clear gains in gaming and a more mature X470 platform.

9.0

lemondeinformatique.fr

≈ estimated

22/01/2019

AMD Ryzen 2700X Review: 2018's Real Pleasant Surprise

Long-term test · Multi-core workloads

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X held up well over two months of heavy use, leading in multi-core work like 7-Zip but trailing Intel in single-core tasks.

8.0

tomshw.it

✓ explicit

18/04/2018

Ryzen 7 2700X Review: More Powerful, Intelligent, and Efficient

Lab review · Zen+ 8-core

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X brings higher clocks, faster memory support and lower latency with a bundled cooler, but has limited overclocking headroom.

8.0

multiplayer.it

≈ estimated

19/04/2018

Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 2700X: The Review

Benchmark review · Gaming tests

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X gains around 10% in raw performance over the previous generation, though some games still drop frames.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Excellent multi-threaded performance for workstation tasks like video editing and rendering
Competitive pricing and overall value compared to Intel counterparts
Includes a high-quality Wraith Prism RGB stock cooler
Backward compatibility with existing AM4 (X370) motherboards via BIOS update
Improved memory latency and clock speeds over first-generation Ryzen chips
Unlocked multiplier for easier overclocking

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Single-threaded performance still lags behind equivalent Intel Core i7 processors
Higher power consumption (105W TDP) compared to previous generations
Limited manual overclocking headroom as Precision Boost 2 already pushes frequencies near their limit
Gaming performance at high refresh rates (144Hz+) is generally lower than Intel's flagship offerings
No integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU
Performance is highly sensitive to RAM speed and sub-timings

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is an 8-core, 16-thread desktop processor based on the 12nm Zen+ architecture, featuring a 3.7GHz base clock and a 4.3GHz max boost frequency. It includes 16MB of L3 cache, a 105W TDP, and is bundled with the RGB-equipped Wraith Prism cooler. Main pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance for workstation tasks like video editing, backward compatibility with AM4 motherboards, and improved memory latency over its predecessor. However, it lags behind contemporary Intel rivals in single-core gaming performance and has limited overclocking headroom due to its already aggressive stock clock speeds.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600

Processors

Intel Core i3-12100F

Processors

Intel Core i3-14100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 4600G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Processors

Intel Core i5-9400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 2700X with other processors

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and other processors

No results found