Gaming Performance

For those of you lot hoping to come across vastly improved gaming functioning, y'all're going to exist disappointed, though there are some decent results hither and in that location. For Ashes of the Singularity, the 2700X only matched the 1800X while the 2600X was a good bit faster than the 1600.

Overclocking did little for the 2600X while the 2700X enjoyed a decent performance uplift -- nada extreme, just it did overtake the overclocked 7700K and 8600K processors.

Moving on to Assassin'due south Creed Origins, nosotros have a few noteworthy things to discuss here. Firstly, we are GPU-bound. Even with the GTX 1080 Ti at 1080p -- the ultra quality settings are very demanding. Yet, the Kaby Lake and Java Lake CPUs beat the Ryzen seven 1800X with ease and sadly the second-gen Ryzen CPUs aren't much faster than the 1800X.

Yet, it's worth nix that they do still lucifer the Skylake-X parts in this game and you'll see more than of this as we await at other titles. Basically, this comes down to how the cores are connected and while extremely efficient for connecting up to ten cores, the ring bus method doesn't scale beyond that too well and this is where Intel's mesh interconnect will take over. I'll discuss this more subsequently in the article. For now, let's check Assassinator's Creed once again with a lower quality preset.

Dropping down to the loftier quality preset doesn't change much and we over again see very similar performance trends. The 2700X and 2600X deliver basically the same results and once again while on par with the Skylake-10 parts they are quite a flake slower than the Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake CPUs.

Overclocking doesn't really help and the bottleneck here doesn't appear to be frequency related. The 2nd-gen Ryzen CPUs also aren't able to amend on the performance of the 1800X which is disappointing to see.

Moving on to Battlefield 1, here we run into similar results between the 2700X and 2600X with only 2-3 fps separating the two. Performance here is competitive though the 8700K completely walks away with the 1% low result hitting 120fps.

Overclocked, we see reasonable gains from the 2700X but again it trails the GPU limited Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake CPUs.

In an effort to remove or at the very to the lowest degree reduce the GPU bottleneck I've dropped down to the medium quality preset. Here the 2700X and 2600X once again delivered similar results as Battlefield one doesn't require 16-threads --12 will happily become the job done. The 2700X still trailed the 8700K by an 18% margin and the 8600K past a ten% margin.

Again, overclocking doesn't really help that much. The 2700X saw the average frame rate increased past just v% and that was just enough to match the stock 7700K. Meanwhile, the 8700K was 24% faster.

Next upward we take Far Cry and again the 2700X is only slightly faster than the 2600X, though information technology does offer a noteworthy pace forrad from the 1800X. The 2700X was roughly 10% faster than the 1800X, which isn't bad.

Boosting the chip's frequency helped squeeze out a few more frames but the gains were even improve with the Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake CPUs. The 8700K is now 21% faster for example.

Our Overwatch bot benchmark is very CPU intensive only the trouble hither is that we're artificially GPU express as the game has a 300fps frame cap. That said, y'all'd look the average frame charge per unit to be much closer to the frame cap than information technology is. Before the bots engage, we are locked at 300fps just in one case they come together the frame rate for all CPUs drops downwardly closer to 200fps.

I'grand non quite certain what the limit is here, peradventure it has something to do with the game engine. I oasis't used Overwatch to examination loftier-finish CPUs for a while. It was cracking for comparing two, four and vi core CPUs but with today's loftier-end CPUs we seem to be pushing the game to its limits. Here nosotros see that the Ryzen vii 2700X is fast enough to accomplish the limit and therefore it's able to roughly match the Intel CPUs.

Because of this apparent limit, the 2700X doesn't gain much from overclocking in this examination and the 2600X doesn't typically proceeds much from its overclock, which can once more be seen here.

Warhammer Vermintide 2 was slower with the GTX 1080 Ti on all tested CPUs when using DX12 and so I've removed those results and stuck with DX11 exclusively. At 1080p, nosotros're striking the limits of the GTX 1080 Ti using the extreme quality settings and this sees the 2700X basically friction match the 8700K, here it trails the Intel CPU past iii-4fps.

Overclocking provides a few extra frames hither and in that location merely the gains are small because we're mostly GPU-limited.

Wrapping upwardly the game benchmarks we have Vermintide 2 using the medium quality settings and here the 2700X was 9% faster than the 1800X while the 2600X was thirteen% faster than the 1600. Although the 2700X was ten% slower than the 8700K, it was 16% faster than the 7820X and that's a very interesting result.

Overclocked, we see small gains from the second-gen Ryzen CPUs and again, overclocking the 2600X looks to be a waste of time. I'll discuss this more than when looking at the power consumption figures, which we might as well do correct at present.