Power Usage and Temperatures

For the last testing section, I just like to take a look at power usage and overall temperatures. These aren’t important to everyone, but in some cases (literally and figuratively) it is very important. For the power testing I have our AIDA64 stress test running to put the CPU under load and then I use a Kill-A-Watt to document the power being drawn for the entire system. In this case, the 2600 actually pulled a few more watts than the 2700. I think this comes back to those base clock speeds again as when all of the cores are loaded the boost clocks aren’t going to come into play as much. For comparison, the 133 watts that the 2600 pulled is 30 watts lower than the 1600X that it performed right within almost every test. This is in the bottom half of our charts but still 16 watts higher than Intel’s ik7-8700K.

graph17

For temperature testing, I used the same AIDA64 Stress Test as before to heat things up. This is done using a Noctua U12S heatsink and Noctua thermal paste, not the included stock coolers. This is done to keep testing consistent as possible between CPUs. Of course, all of these tests are done using the sensors onboard the CPU and motherboard and those themselves aren’t always the most accurate. So keep that in mind with these results. So how did the 2600 and 2700 do? Well, they both had the same result, not too much of a shock considering they both have the same TDP. The 2700X and 2600X being a little lower in temps though was interesting and a great example as to why testing like this is only going to get us into a range. I don’t know if our launch 2700X and 2600X were just better chips or if there was some other issue, but what is still clear though is that the new Ryzen 2000 series CPUs still run worlds cooler than what Intel is putting out right now. This is in part due to AMD using solder not cheap thermal compound under the integrated heatspreader to help pull that heat up and out of the package into the heatsink.

graph18

 

Log in to comment

VaporX's Avatar
VaporX replied the topic: #38527 01 Jun 2018 22:19
For gaming oriented builds I think the Ryzen 5 is a superior choice to the Ryzen 7. The performance delats are very close and the extra cores have minimal impact in a gaming system. The lower cost means more budget for graphics card, monitor or peripherals.

I am curious about your actual clock speeds. As I understand it the new new boost technology is more about the cooling solution than the work load and works to boost as many cores as it can within the cooling potential. I am seeing people say they are seeing around 3.8 Ghz on all cores under load with decent cooling, all the time.
garfi3ld's Avatar
garfi3ld replied the topic: #38528 02 Jun 2018 07:22
With the 2600, I'm seeing 4100MHz on single threaded applications and 3400 when using every core. The issue here is without manual overclocking, AMD still has to work within the limitations of the 65-watt TDP on both CPUs. So the new Precision Boost 2 works well, but is going to give you a lot more with the higher TDPs of the 2600X and 2700X.

HardOCP just posted up good overclocking coverage where they ran into the same TDP limitation as well. But the 2700 that they tested (and the 2600 that they haven't published) are both going to have similar overclocking room manually that the 2600X and 2700X have with PB2 and more, at a lower price even. Have to love all of the CPUs being unlocked :D

We have 875 guests and one member online

supportus