Nvidia RTX Card එකක් ගන්න එක කරන්න බැරි දෙයක් කියල හිතන ගොඩක් Gamersලට පුංචි අස්වැසිල්ලක් එක්ක අලුත්ම News එකක් කියන්නයි මේ ලෑස්ති වෙන්නෙ. Budget එකත් එක්ක දැනට තියෙන 50,000ට අඩු Card වලට වඩා වැඩි Performance තියෙන GTX 1660 ගැන leak වෙච්ච අලුතම් තොරතුරු කියවන්න.

හොදයි ගොඩක් අය දන්නව මේ වෙනකොට Nvidia සමාගමෙන් එලි දක්වපු අලුත් Graphic Card පරම්පරාව පිලිබදව සහ Graphic Card Type ගැන මේ දක්වා ඔවුන් විසින් වෙලදපොලට නිකුත් කර ඇති නිශ්පාදන දිහා දැක්කම. ඒ ගැන මන් කලින් ලිපියක සදහන් කලා AMD සහ Nvidia සමාගම් දෙකේම නව Graphic Card මාදිලි පිලිබදව.

2019ට අලුත් Graphic card ගෙන් AMD සහ Nvidia

Computer Shop ගැන ඔයාගෙ අත්දැකීම කියන්න එන්න shop rating

ඉතින් මන් මේ කියන්න යන්නෙ Nvidia සමාගමෙන් එන අලුත්ම අලුත් ආරන්චියක් ගැන. අපි කවුරුත් දන්නව Nvidia සමාගම විසින් ඔවුන්ගෙ නවතම Graphic කාඩ් මාදිලි ටික වෙන RTX TITAN,RTX Quadro 6000 ,RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080, RTX 2070 සහ අවසාන වශයෙන් ඔවුන් මෙම වසර ආරම්භයේදී RTX 2060 Graphic Card එකද එලි දක්වමින් නව පරිච්චේදයකට ගෙන යන්න පුලුවන් උනා මොකද මේ හැම කාඩ් එකක්ම දැනට තියෙන අලුත්ම තාක්ශනයන් ගොන්නකින් සමන්විත වීම. (උදා Ray Tracing and GDDR6) කොහොම උනත් ඉතින් මේ කාඩ් වල වටිනාකම නම් කලින් වර ඔවුන්ගෙ නිශ්පාදන තරම් අඩු වුනේ නම් නැහැ ඒ කියන්නෙ Nvidia සමාගමෙ GTX 1000 series එකේ මුදලටත් වඩා මේ නිශ්පාදන මිලෙන් අධික වුනා.

Nvidia සමාගම Mid Range Card එකක් විදිහට RTX 2060 එක හදුන්වා දුන්නත් එයත් යම් තාක් දුරට මිලෙන් ඉහල ( $350ක් පමන)  අගයකින් ඔවුන් එලි දැක්වුවත් එය ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට පැමිනෙන විට ලංකාවෙ මුදලින් රුපියල් 80,000ත් ඉක්ම වන අගයක් ගනිවි යයි සිතීමට පුලුවනි(බදු මුදල් සහ ඩොලරයේ අගයට සාපෙක්ශව මෙම අගයන් වෙනස් විය හැක) එහෙත් අපි හැමෝම දන්න දෙයක් තමයි එතරම් මුදලක් Graphic Card එකක් සදහා යෙදවිය නොහැකි අපි හැමෝටම, ඉතින් බහුතරයක් දෙනාට අවශ්‍ය සාදාරන මුදලකට හොදම Graphic Card එකක් මිල දී ගැනීමට, ගොඩක් දුරට Nvidia නිශ්පාදනයක්ම මිලදී ගැනීමට බලාපොරොත්තු වෙන අය සදහා (ඒ අය කියන්නෙ නම් මේක Low end Card එකක් කියල ඉතින්) Nvidia සමාගම විසින් ඇමරිකානු ඩොලර් 200 ත් 300ත් අතර ඒ කියන්නෙ රුපියල් 30,000 ත් 50,000 ත් අතර මිලකින් යුතු අගයකින් ඔවුන් සමාගමේ නවතම නිශ්පාදනය එලි දැක්වීමට නියමිතව තිබෙනව Nvidia GTX 1660 යන නමින්.(ඩොලරයෙ අගයට සාපේක්ශව මිල ගනන් වෙනස් විය හැක)

ඉතින් මෙ අලුත් කාඩ් එකෙ විස්තර ටිකක් මන් හොයාගත්ත ඒව පහලින් දාන්නම්.

 GTX 1660 TiGTX 1660GTX 1660 - 3GB
Architecture (GPU) TU116-400 TU116-300 TU116-300
CUDA Cores1536 *1280 *1280 *
Texture Units96 *80 *80 *
Base Clock1500 MHz1530 MHz1530 MHz
GPU Boost1770 MHz1785 MHz1785 MHz
Memory6GB GDDR66GB GDDR63GB GDDR6
SLINoNoNo

Nvidia GTX 1660 කාඩ් එක ගනන් අඩු ඇයි කියල කෙනෙක්ට හිතෙන්න පුලුවන් මේ දේවල් දිහා බැලුවත් එතරම් වෙනසක් නැති නිසා විශේෂයෙන්ම කියන්න ඕන දෙයක් තමයි මේ අලුත් කාඩ් එකට ඔවුන් හදුන්වා දුන් නව තාක්ශනයක් වන Ray TRACING කියන දේ ඇතුලත් වෙන්නෙ නැහැ ඒ වුනත් බජට් කාඩ් එකක් විදිහට මේ කාඩ් එක අඩු විදුලි බලයකින් GTX 1050, 1050 Ti, 1060 සහ RX 590 කියන නිශ්පාදනයන්ට වඩා 25% ක වැඩි වේගයකින් වැඩ කරන්න පුලුවන්.

මේ කාඩ් එක Ray Tracing නැති උනාට GDDR6 තාක්ශනයෙන් තමයි එන්නෙ, ඉතින් ලංකාවෙ ගේමස් ලට මේ ආරන්චිය නම් ගොඩක් හොද වෙයි මොකද ගොඩක් අය බලන් ඉන්නෙ අඩුවට සුපිරි කාඩ් එකක් ගහල එන හොදම ගේම්ස් ටික සෙල්ලන් කරන්න. කලින් ආව කාඩ් වල මිලත් එක්ක මේ කාඩ් එක සසදනකොට ඒක ගොඩක් හොද මිලකට ගන්න පුලුවන් වීම හැමෝටම ලොකු අස්වැසිල්ලක් කියල තමයි මන් නම් දකින්නෙ. ඒ වගේම කියන්න තවත් දෙයක් තියෙනව,  ඒ තමයි ඇපල් සමාගම ඔවුන්ගෙ නවතම ලැප් ටොප් පරිගණක සදහා මෙම කාඩ් එක යොදාගැනීමට ගිවිසුම් අත්සන් කර ඇති බවට පැතිරෙන නිල නොලත් ආරන්චි. මේ සම්බන්දව වැඩි විස්තර හරියටම ඉදිරියේදි අරගෙන එන්නම්.

ප.ලි. මගේ ලිපි වල අඩු පාඩු තියෙනව නම් හරි මීට අමතරව ඔයාලත් දන්න දෙයක් තියෙනව නම් කමෙන්ට් එකකින් දාන්න අමතක කරන්න එපා, ඒ වගේම තමයි මේ වගෙ ලිපි හැමදාම කියවන්න ලිපියක් දාපු ගමන් දැනගන්න PCguide.lk වෙබ් අඩවියට පිවිසෙන්නත් අමතක කරන්න එපා.
තවත් අලුත් දෙයක් අරන් එන්නම් මීලග ලිපියෙන්. ස්තූතී.

4 COMMENTS

  1. Radeon RX 590 vs. RX 580 vs. GeForce GTX 1060

    Battle for the Best Value sub-$300 GPU
    Today we’re checking out the new-ish Radeon RX 590 and on hand for testing we have the XFX Radeon RX 590 ‘Fatboy’. This is technically a new GPU, but kind of not new at the same time. What we have here is Polaris 20 XT on the 12nm FinFET process, and this small change translates into slightly better clock speeds.

    There are no additional stream processors, no fancy GDDR6 memory, or even GDDR5X memory for that matter. So in essence we’re getting the same RX 580 with a 15% overclock, at least when comparing the reference clock speeds. However since most entry-level RX 580 models are clocked at 1380 to 1410 MHz, this gives the RX 590 a 10-12% clock frequency advantage out of the box. Then there’s the higher-end models like the Gigabyte Aorus RX 580 XTR, which we use for testing, and that particular model comes clocked at 1425 MHz, reducing the RX 590’s clock speed advantage to 8%.

    It’s important to clarify this context because for testing we felt it would be misleading to compare the RX 590 with a base model RX 580 using the AMD reference clocks. AMD has sullied this launch by pricing the RX 590 at $280, which is a considerably premium for this slightly overclocked RX 580. Meanwhile, the RX 580 comes in at around $230 (MSRP), and right now can be found for as little as $200.

    AMD claims up to a 12% performance boost over a reference clocked RX 580, yet they think that means they can increase the MSRP by 22%, so this should be interesting, or upsetting depending on your position.

    For testing we’re using the XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy and it will be compared to the Gigabyte Aorus RX 580 XTR and MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X+. We were unable to test the usual big battery of GPUs for this review, so you’ll notice the absense of more affordable models such as the RX 570 and 3GB GTX 1060, though we included as many results as we could. If you don’t mind extrapolating however, previous tests will give you plenty of straight GPU comparisons if that’s what you want (RX 590 excluded of course).

    Our benchmarks were ran using a Core i7-8700K clocked at 5GHz and 32GB of Vengeance DDR4-3400 memory. In total we have results for 21 games at two resolutions, 1080p and 1440p but the commentary will be focused on 7 of the more recently released titles.

    Benchmarks
    First up we have Battlefield V results (don’t miss our recent RTX ray tracing test!) and here the XFX 590 was 7% faster than the Aorus 580 XTR, taking the average frame rate from 85 fps to 91 fps. This is the kind of margin we were expecting, though that difference is reduced to just 3% at 1440p. On the upside, the RX 590 was a full 20% faster than our GTX 1060 card.

    Strange Brigade results at 1080p have the RX 590 performing 5% above the 580 and 16% faster than the GTX 1060. At 1440p we see the same 5% margin, here the 590 provided an additional 3 fps over the Aorus RX 580 XTR, not exactly exciting stuff is it?

    The Assassin’s Creed series has been a bit brutal for AMD recently and Odyssey is no different. Here the 580 and 590 are easily beaten by the GTX 1060 at 1080p. We find a similar story at 1440p. The RX 590 was 7% slower than the GTX 1060 and just 6% faster than the 580, which equates to two extra frames.

    This is our first time benchmarking with Hitman 2… shame it’s not a more exciting occasion. Here the RX 590 offered a 5% performance bump over the 580 and that meant it was 11% faster than the 1060 at 1080p. Then at 1440p the margin between the 580 and 590 is reduced to just 2fps, a 4% performance advantage going the way of the 590.

    Another 5% performance gain is seen in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, rendering 63 fps on average opposed to the 580’s 60 fps.

    At 1440p we see just a single frame advantage going to the 590, that said it was 14% faster than the GTX 1060.

    Forza Horizon 4 played really well on the RX 590 at 1080p as frame rates never dipped below 80fps. Oddly we did see a 10% performance boost at 1440p, I suspect with a reference clocked 580 you’d see more double digit gains and I’ll look into this in a moment.

    Of the 21 games we’ve tested the last one we’re going to discuss is Monster Hunter World. At 1080p we see another unexciting 4% performance gain over the 580, though the 590 was 10% faster than the GTX 1060. Then at 1440p we see a single extra frame and I don’t know about you, but that’s about all the single digit gains I can handle in a review.

    Overclocking
    Overclocking the XFX Fatboy landed us a core clock speed of 1620 MHz with a GDDR5 memory frequency of 2250 MHz, resulting in a transfer speed of 9 Gbps. This boosted Battlefield V 1080p performance by 4% with similar gains seen at 1440p.

    You will note that the Aorus RX 580 XTR is a power hungry 580 model, using ~10% more power than a more standard 580. With that said, we see XFX’s RX 590 pushing total system consumption slightly higher, and that resulted in a 42% increase over the GTX 1060 configuration, which is no small difference.

    Realistically, your power supply won’t have an issue with this increase and you’re not exactly going to notice it on the power bill either, unless you game 24/7. The only real issue is dealing with the extra heat that’s dumped in your case. If you have a well ventilated case then this is less of an issue, but for budget builds this will heat things up.

    Operating Temps
    Under load for an hour, the XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy peaked at 79 degrees which is reasonable, but also starting to get up there. The good news is at this temperature it was relatively silent as the fans were only spinning at up to 1380 RPM.

    Overclocking actually reduced the temperature to 78 degrees as the fans were now spinning at up to 1600 RPM and here they could be heard over the case fans. The operating volume wasn’t unacceptably loud and certainly nothing like a Vega reference cooled card.

    Putting It All Together, Cost Per Frame
    Coming in first place by a country mile is the Radeon RX 580. You can currently buy 8GB models for $200 which is a super purchase. Not that long ago gamers would have sacrificed a finger for a price like that on a mid-range graphics card.

    The GTX 1060 is also down at the MSRP, though the 9Gbps models are likely going to cost a bit more. Honestly they are a gimmick for the most part, we never saw much of a performance uplift over the standard models. In any case, the RX 580 costs 20% less per frame so it’s the obvious value choice. The RX 590 is far less appealing at $280, coming out at a cost of $4 per frame or 32% more expensive on a cost per frame basis. Instead we’d rather spend $100 more and get a GTX 1070 or the 1070 Ti.

    Performance-wise the Radeon RX 590 was always going to be unexciting — a mildly overclocked RX 580 is only going to take you so far — but pricing is what’s killed this offering. We’re just hoping this is a situation where AMD introduce it at $280 then axe pricing down to a $250 street price before the year is over. At $250 it matches the GTX 1060 while offering superior performance. Given AMD’s current position in the GPU market they need to offer compelling options and that’s what a $250 RX 590 would be.

    The RX 590 might consume more power and while not ideal, it makes up for that with a healthy ecosystem of affordable FreeSync monitors and an extra 2GB of VRAM. But as a mid-range value offering, its biggest problem is having to be sold alongside a $200 RX 580. And the biggest problem the RX 580 faces is the $150 RX 570, so it appears AMD is AMDying themselves…

    Bottom line, the RX 590 is not a bad product, it’s just got the wrong price sticker. If you’re in the market for a new graphics card these holidays, there are plenty of GPUs on offer at attractive prices which is a welcome change from where we were a year ago

  2. Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 & 2080 Ti Review.
    The Future of Computer Graphics Is (Almost) Here
    After a month-long wait since Nvidia unveiled the GeForce RTX 20 series, we can finally bring you our performance review. As you all know by now, we have a new flagship graphics card in the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti with pricing starting at $1,000 for partner cards and $1,200 for the Founders Edition version, we’re talking Titan X money here.

    Meanwhile the vanilla RTX 2080 is landing at $700 for partner models and $800 for the Founders Edition. Later next month we’ll also get the RTX 2070 at $500 or $600 for the FE card. This means gamers are looking at somewhere between $100 and $300 more for an equivalent model from the previous generation. On top of that, the Founders Edition models carry a further $100 to $200 price premium, and just know these will be the only models in stock from time to time.

    Nevertheless it’s worth noting that graphics card prices are down to regular levels. After a year of inflated prices due to indirect mining demand, the now two-year old GTX 1080 which currently sells for less than its $500 MSRP, was reaching nearly $1,000 at one point in early 2018. Thankfully for gamers, the craze is now over. We’ll discuss RTX 20 series pricing and availability in better detail towards the end of the review. For now let’s get the specs out of the way and then jump into the benchmarks.

    Based upon Nvidia’s Turing architecture, and as the RTX in the name suggests, Ray Tracing is all the rage now. Basically what we have here is a type of hybrid rendering that combines ray tracing with traditional rasterization, so along with the new Tensor Cores we’re also getting “RT cores.”

    Nvidia states that the fastest GeForce RTX model can cast 10 Billion rays per second, which compared to the unaccelerated Pascal is a 25x improvement in ray tracing performance. However today’s games don’t use ray tracing as it’s extremely slow on current hardware, so it’s hard to say exactly what the benefits of hybrid rendering will be. Utimately that will depend on how future games implement the technology, which we’ll touch more on towards the end of the review.

    The flagship RTX 2080 Ti packs 4352 CUDA cores, a 21% increase over the 1080 Ti. This along with the Tensor and RT cores has seen the GPU die size increase by a massive 60%, partly explaining why this part is so damn expensive. Although these new GPUs are manufactured using TSMC’s 12nm “FinFetNvidia” process, it’s basically just 16nm with a larger reticle limit. Performance wise they are identical according to TSMC which explains the clock speeds.

    Speaking of which, the 4352 cores are clocked at a base frequency of 1350 MHz with a boost clock of just 1545 MHz, which is comparable to the 1080 Ti. I should note that the FE model is overclocked to a boost of 1635 MHz. Then using 11GB of 14 Gbps GDDR6 memory on a 352-bit wide memory bus the card has a memory bandwidth of 616.0 GB/s.

    The GeForce RTX 2080 comes with 2944 CUDA cores, a base clock speed of 1515 MHz and a boost clock of 1710 MHz, 1800 MHz for the FE model. It uses the same 8GB of 14 Gbps GDDR6 memory but on a slimmer 256-bit wide bus for a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s.

    As noted earlier the 2080 Ti packs 10 Giga Rays per second, this figure has been reduced by 20% for the standard 2080 down to 8 Giga Rays per second. Then the RTX 2070 to come later next month packs 6 Giga Rays per second, a 40% reduction from the flagship. At this point we have no idea what this means. Is 6 Giga Rays per second going to be useful? Only time will tell.

    For testing we’re using a Core i7-8700K clocked at 5GHz and 32GB of Vengeance DDR4-3400 memory. For the AMD GPUs I’ve used the Radeon Adrenalin Edition 18.9.1 driver and for Nvidia the GeForce 399.24 driver, while the new GeForce GTX 20 series GPUs will be using driver version 411.51. In total we have a dozen games to go over along with a few other tests. Let’s get to the results.

    Benchmarks
    Editor’s note: Also check out our day 2 follow-up mega 35 game benchmark feature.

    Starting with the Battlefield 1 1440p results we see that the RTX 2080 is able to deliver GTX 1080 Ti like performance, initially I was worried that the 2080 would be slower than the 1080 Ti, placing it between the 1080 and 1080 Ti. Thankfully it’s better than that and here we see it delivering 27% more performance when comparing the average frame rate, 23% for the frame time result.

    The 2080 Ti is an absolute beast here, beating both the 2080 and 1080 Ti by over a 25% margin. Pretty incredible stuff, but let’s move on to 4K. Here the GTX 2080 like the 1080 Ti was able to provide playable performance, rendering 24% more frames on average when compared to AMD’s Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid.

    But it was the 2080 Ti that again blew us away with an incredible 100 fps on average, at 4K, in Battlefield 1, using the ultra quality settings. The frame time performance of the 2080 Ti was higher than that of the 1080 Ti’s average frame rate.

    Moving to Far Cry 5 and again we see the RTX 2080 mirroring the GTX 1080 Ti’s performance with 112 fps on average, making it 27% faster than the GTX 1080.

    As for the 2080 Ti, that pushed the average frame rate out to 132 fps, but we are clearly running into a system bottleneck here as the frame time performance is similar to that of the 1080 Ti.

    Who would have thought that at 1440p using ultra quality settings a 5GHz 8700K would be holding things up.

    Moving to 4K relieves the system bottleneck and now the 2080 Ti is 28% faster than the 1080 Ti on average and 25% faster for the frame time result. The 2080 is also 30% faster than the GTX 1080. That said, while the 2080 does average 61 fps you will notice dips below that, of course it’s still very playable but for a silky smooth experience the 2080 Ti is truly breathtaking.

    Next up we have ARMA 3, a title that’s always heavily requested. Now at 1440p we’re certainly not GPU bound, it’s quite clear there is some kind of system bottleneck or possibly even a limitation with the game. So we’ll have to move to 4K to see what the new RTX GPUs can offer there.

    Right, so at 4K we see a drop in performance for the 2080 Ti when compared to the 1440p numbers. This means it’s now ~11% faster than the 1080 Ti. Meanwhile, the 2080 is 27% faster than the GTX 1080 and that’s a pretty serious margin right there.

    Moving along we have some Grand Theft Auto V results and again I know this is a seriously old title but it’s still very popular and you guys seem to lose you mind if I don’t include it, so in an effort to keep the peace here are the results. Also please note the game has been maxed out, including the advanced graphical settings.

    Despite that we’re seeing a pretty heavy system bottleneck at 1440p so these results are somewhat useless, though they do inform us that if you’re a massive GTAV fan and only play at 1440p then the RTX series won’t provide a notable performance boost.

    Once again it’s the 4K resolution that helps separate the RTX’s from the GTX’s. Here the 2080 Ti was 37% faster than the 1080 Ti, and that’s a seriously nice gain. We also see that the 2080 roughly matched the 1080 Ti, placing it well ahead of the vanilla 1080, in fact it was almost 50% faster, so an amazing result here

  3. AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600X Review

    Zen+ Is Here, Benchmarked
    This might be surprising, but it’s been more than a year since we tested AMD’s original Ryzen CPU series based on the 14nm Zen architecture, a launch that represented a clean slate for AMD and wound up being a huge success, especially among value-oriented system builders. After seeing several processor generations from AMD that couldn’t keep up with rival Intel chips, it’s been great to have more competition in the CPU sector and it raises the question of whether we can expect similar results from the new Zen+ architecture.

    Based on the 12nm process, AMD sent us its new Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X processors for testing. The company tells us that Zen+ offers a reduction in cache latency (anywhere from 13% up to 34%), an 11% reduction in DRAM latency, IPC improvements of approximately 3%, and improved memory support for greater frequencies. So that all sounds good.

    In addition to all of that, being that Zen+ is based on the Globalfoundries 12LP process (LP for “Leading Performance”), you can reportedly expect these chips to handle higher frequencies and offer improved power consumption. AMD says this new process provides transistor performance that is 10-15% better than the previously used process. In short, we are seeing a 300MHz increase in clock speed up to 4.3GHz, a 50mV reduction in core voltage, and a possible all-core overclock of around 4.2GHz.

    AMD has announced four 2nd-gen Ryzen CPUs so far, and today we are testing the X models. The non-X 2600 and 2700 are available, but AMD forbid us testing them in time for today’s release. So we’ve pre-ordered those models and will have a proper review of them shortly.

      Ryzen 7 2700X Ryzen 7 2700 Ryzen 5 2600X Ryzen 5 2600
    MSRP $330 $300 $230 $200
    Cores / Threads 8 / 16 8 / 16 6 / 12 6 / 12
    Base Frequency 3.7 GHz 3.2 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.4 GHz
    Boost Frequency 4.3 GHz 4.1 GHz 4.2 GHz 3.9 GHz
    L2 Cache 4MB 4MB 3MB 3MB
    L3 Cache 16MB 16MB 16MB 16MB
    Memory Config Dual-Channel
    Max Mem Support DDR4-2933
    TDP 105 W 65 W 95 W 65 W
    Box cooler AMD Prism RGB AMD Spire RGB AMD Spire AMD Stealth
    Things worth noting from the table above is that the 2700X is an 8-core/16-thread CPU with a 3.7 GHz base and a 4.3 GHz max boost frequency. The 2600X is a 6-core/12-thread CPU that operates 100 MHz lower for the base and boost clocks.

    The 2700X costs $330 and the 2600X just $230. So that means the 2700X is coming in well under the 1800X and 1700X launch prices, matching the 1700. The 2600X sits between the launch price of the 1600X and 1600, so AMD looks as though they’re going to continue to be extremely competitive on pricing.

    Those are the highlights and while there are more things we could talk about, such as XFR2 or SenseMI Technology, we’re going to skip over that for now and discuss our testing methods before jumping right into the results.

    Testing Notes

    For testing the new second-gen Ryzen CPUs, we’re primarily using the Asrock X470 Taichi Ultimate, but we’ve also double checked the results using the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7. Both boards worked flawlessly. The memory of choice is G.Skill’s SniperX DDR4-3400 CL16 and I’ve merely loaded the XMP profile. All testing has been conducted with the box coolers unless specified otherwise and this goes for all CPUs benchmarked in this article. For the unlocked Intel K processors the Corsair H110i v2 was used.

    The first-gen Ryzen CPUs which include the Ryzen 7 1800X and Ryzen 5 1600 have been tested on the Asrock X370 Taichi using G.Skill’s FlareX DDR4-3200 CL14 memory. Unfortunately, I didn’t have more time to include additional first-gen Ryzen CPUs to the results, but these two parts will give us a good idea of what we’re looking at in terms of gains for the newer processors.

    All of the data has been updated for this review, meaning it’s all fresh and has been gathered in the past two weeks, so I couldn’t simply just carry over the 1600X or 1700 data from previous tests, those need to be retested. All testing was done with the latest drivers, Windows updates, motherboard BIOS updates, game and application updates.

    Throughout the testing we’ll be looking at stock out of the box performance as well as overclocking. The first-gen Ryzen CPUs have been overclocked to 4GHz, while I was able to get the 2600X stable at 4.1GHz and the 2700X at 4.2GHz. I should note that it was difficult getting my 2700X stable at 4.2GHz.

    Hitting 4.2GHz on all cores wasn’t easy and it required 1.4 volts to pass our hour-long Blender stress test. For this overclock I used the Corsair H150i Pro. The 2600X failed the stress test at 4.2GHz, forcing our chip down to 4.1GHz which was disappointing, but maybe we got a bad chip, time will tell. Also remember nothing is guaranteed with overclocking and as we put this article together we don’t know if these are good or bad overclocks. AMD suggests that overclocks are now in the range of 4.2GHz, but we’re taking that with a grain of salt until there is more data.

    Still, the good news is that our 2600X was stable at 4.1GHz using the Wraith Spire box cooler and I’ll include temperatures at the end of the review. Due to time constraints, as mentioned before, we did run out of time for testing and including as many first-gen Ryzen CPUs as we’d have liked to. We also didn’t have time to overclock the Skylake-X CPUs, but is something we’ll do in a future article.

    That’s about everything, time to get into the benchmarks.

    Benchmarks
    Before we get into the application and gaming benchmarks, here’s a quick look at memory bandwidth performance. Despite using slightly faster DDR4-3400 memory, the second-gen Ryzen CPUs are comparable to the original parts with a throughput of around 39GB/s.

    Overclocked memory bandwidth remains much the same but I’ll likely explore memory scaling performance in greater detail during a future article.

    Above are Cinebench R15’s results and here we see some really nice gains. Please note that we don’t report the absolute best score but rather the average of six back to back runs and the 2700X does deliver slightly better results with an upgraded cooler.

    The 2700X improves on the 1800X’s single thread score by 11%, though just 8% for the multi-threaded score, but that was enough to edge out the Core i7-7820X. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 2600X looks impressive compared to the non-X 1600, and although it only matched the single-thread score of the 7800X, it was 7% faster for the multi-threaded test.

    The 2700X is a beast when overclocked, producing a multi-threaded score of 1879pts or 7% faster than a 1800X that is maxed out at 4GHz. It also beat the 5.2GHz 8700K by a convincing 13% margin. The 2600X on the other hand was less impressive, improving on its stock score by just 4%.

    The Ryzen 7 2700X was 10% faster than the 1800X for the PCMark 10 video editing test and this placed it roughly on part with the 7700K and ahead of the 7820X and 8600K. The 2600X managed to match the R7 1800X and i7-7800X, though it was only slightly faster than the R5 1600.

    Overclocked, the 2700X was 6% faster in this test while the 2600X was just 3% faster. It’s already looking like overclocking the Ryzen 5 2600X is going to be a waste of time.

    The Ryzen 7 2700X dominated the PCMark 10 physics benchmark with a score of 20985pts, once again 10% faster than the 1800X. This time the 2600X was 15% faster than the 1600 which is an impressive gain, though of course the margin will be reduced compared to the 1600X.

    Overclocked, both the 2700X and 2600X eke out a little extra performance, though in this test it’s hardly worth getting excited over

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here