Ryzen 7 2700X vs FX-9800P

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-9800P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.60
Ryzen 7 2700X
2018
8 cores / 16 threads, 105 Watt
11.03
+589%

Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms FX-9800P by a whopping 589% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-9800P and Ryzen 7 2700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2091701
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data9.01
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeAMD Ryzen 7
Power efficiency10.099.94
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Zen+ (2018−2019)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-9800P 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads416
Base clock speed2.7 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz4.35 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data37
L1 cache320 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per module)512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm12 nm
Die size250 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,100 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on FX-9800P 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFP4AM4
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9800P and Ryzen 7 2700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9800P and Ryzen 7 2700X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9800P and Ryzen 7 2700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9800P and Ryzen 7 2700X.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes820

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.

FX-9800P 1.60
Ryzen 7 2700X 11.03
+589%

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.

FX-9800P 2543
Ryzen 7 2700X 17517
+589%

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.

FX-9800P 496
Ryzen 7 2700X 1254
+153%

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.

FX-9800P 1119
Ryzen 7 2700X 6122
+447%

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.

FX-9800P 14.4
Ryzen 7 2700X 3.48
+314%

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.

FX-9800P 3
Ryzen 7 2700X 19
+553%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

FX-9800P 236
Ryzen 7 2700X 1762
+647%

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.

FX-9800P 74
Ryzen 7 2700X 176
+137%

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.

FX-9800P 0.91
Ryzen 7 2700X 1.95
+114%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.60 11.03
Recency 31 May 2016 19 April 2018
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 16
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 105 Watt

FX-9800P has 600% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 7 2700X, on the other hand, has a 589.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 7 2700X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9800P in performance tests.

Be aware that FX-9800P is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 2700X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9800P and Ryzen 7 2700X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-9800P
FX-9800P
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Ryzen 7 2700X

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 44 votes

Rate FX-9800P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 2910 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 2700X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9800P or Ryzen 7 2700X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.