The gap is that small.Įither way, of course, you're getting a great gaming chip.
#Amd ryzen 7 driver#
It's not faster for gaming, of course, but it's close enough that your choice of graphics driver version is almost certainly more important than whether you have a Ryor 7700X installed. In fact, thanks to running a slightly newer Nvidia driver with our RTX 3080 test-rig GPU, the newer, cheaper chip occasionally returns better frame rates.
Blender rendering runs around 9% faster, for instance, on the 7700X.Īs for gaming, if anything the gap is even tighter.
#Amd ryzen 7 full#
That's all pretty much in line with the fact that we found the 7700X runs at around 5.15GHz under full multi-core load, while the new non-X 7700 is generally at 4.9GHz. It's an absolute no brainer to go with this non-X model. Likewise, x264 video encoding is only 1.5% quicker on the more expensive 7700X. Restrict Cinebench to a single core and it's just 0.25% faster. If you take a pure CPU test like Cinebench 3D multi-core rendering, the more expensive 'X' model is less than five percent faster. Across our suite of benchmarks, this new low-power 65W CPU runs its 105W sibling awfully close. If that's expectations set for this new chip then, spoiler alert, the new 65W Ryzen 7700 non-X very much delivers on them. And as we found with the 7700X, Eco mode works remarkably well, significantly reducing power and heat at only a slight cost in terms of performance. But if that 65W figure is familiar, it's because 7700X also runs at 65W when you toggle Eco mode. If that base clock number looks like a big step down, it's worth remembering that these chips rarely run at those lower figures when under load.Īs for power consumption, the new non-X chip is rated at 65W where the full-fat X model has a 105W TDP. Where the Ryzen 7 7700X rocks a 4.5GHz base clock and 5.4GHz boost clock, the new non-X 7700 is rated at 3.8GHz and 5.3GHz respectively. The differences, then, come in two key areas, clocks and power consumption. That opens up much more aggressive boost behavior, on both single and multiple cores, that could widen the performance gap beyond what we see on the spec sheet.It plugs into the same AM5 socket, it has 8MB of L2 and 32MB of 元 cache memory, supports the same DDR5 memory up to 5200 speeds, and, well, you get the idea. The 3700X's PPT tops out at 88W, while the motherboard can pump up to 142W to the 3800X at peak performance. That's a 300 MHz increase in base frequency and a 100 MHz bump to boost clocks, but the real advantage should lay in the higher Package Power Tracking (PPT) envelope, which is a measurement of the maximum amount of power delivered to the socket. The 3800X also comes with a healthy serving of 32MB of 元 cache, while Intel's -9700K comes with 12MB.Īs the higher-priced version of the Ryzen 7 3700X, the 3800X has higher base and Precision Boost frequencies of 3.9 and 4.5 GHz, respectively. In either case, we expect that AMD's 7nm design will continue the trend of heightened power efficiency over Intel's 14nm parts.
The only way to make real power comparisons is via power measurement, which we'll get to shortly. Intel specs TDP at the base frequency, thus ignoring peak heat output during boost activity, while AMD measures with all cores fully loaded. Instead, they measure the amount of heat the chip dissipates under load, but both companies use different test methodologies. Contrary to popular belief, these ratings aren't meant to quantify power consumption. The -9700K comes with a 95W TDP rating, whereas the 3800X weighs in with a 105W rating.
0 kommentar(er)
