Ryzen 7 2700X vs Core i5-7500T
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms i5-7500T by a whopping 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1489 | 646 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.90 | 23.71 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i5 | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Architecture codename | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) | Zen+ (2018−2020) |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $202 | $329 |
| Current price | $114 (0.6x MSRP) | $171 (0.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 7 2700X has 718% better value for money than i5-7500T.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 4.35 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 80 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1151 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| TSX | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| SIPP | + | no data |
| Status | Launched | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| MPX | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | no data |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 630 | - |
| Max video memory | 64 GB | - |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | - |
| InTru 3D | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | - |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | - |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096x2304@24Hz | - |
| Max resolution over eDP | 4096x2304@60Hz | - |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 4096x2304@60Hz | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | - |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 20 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 234% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 12% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 99% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 5% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 155% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Core i5-7500T outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by 203% in wPrime 32.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 219% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 244% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 36% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 32% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Core i5-7500T by 293% in TrueCrypt AES.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.39 | 11.33 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 19 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Cost | $202 | $329 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 105 Watt |
The Ryzen 7 2700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-7500T in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-7500T and Ryzen 7 2700X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
