Ryzen 7 2700 vs Ryzen 5 1400

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1400
2017
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.07
Ryzen 7 2700
2018
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
10.26
+102%

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms Ryzen 5 1400 by a whopping 102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1229773
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.769.05
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD Ryzen 7
Power efficiency7.1114.39
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Zen+ (2018−2019)
Release date16 March 2017 (7 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169$299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 7 2700 has 228% better value for money than Ryzen 5 1400.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700 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)
Threads816
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier3232
L1 cache384 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache2 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm12 nm
Die size213 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors4800 Million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM4AM4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA
AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size64 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card--

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes2020

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 5 1400 5.07
Ryzen 7 2700 10.26
+102%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 7753
Ryzen 7 2700 15700
+103%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 964
Ryzen 7 2700 1121
+16.3%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 3129
Ryzen 7 2700 5529
+76.7%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 4205
Ryzen 7 2700 4505
+7.1%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 17557
Ryzen 7 2700 31385
+78.8%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Ryzen 5 1400 6437
Ryzen 7 2700 9475
+47.2%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 7.8
Ryzen 7 2700 5.14
+51.8%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 8
Ryzen 7 2700 17
+115%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Ryzen 5 1400 688
Ryzen 7 2700 1551
+125%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 134
Ryzen 7 2700 161
+20.4%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 1.53
Ryzen 7 2700 1.78
+16.3%

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.

Ryzen 5 1400 4.1
Ryzen 7 2700 9
+120%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Ryzen 5 1400 43
Ryzen 7 2700 90
+109%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Ryzen 5 1400 147
Ryzen 7 2700 196
+33.2%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Ryzen 5 1400 2758
Ryzen 7 2700 4440
+61%

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 1400 3038
Ryzen 7 2700 6560
+116%

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 1400 682
+121%
Ryzen 7 2700 308

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 1400 831
Ryzen 7 2700 1000
+20.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.07 10.26
Recency 16 March 2017 19 April 2018
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm

Ryzen 7 2700 has a 102.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 7 2700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 1400 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 7 2700, 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 Ryzen 5 1400
Ryzen 5 1400
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
Ryzen 7 2700

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.


4 746 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 3064 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1400 or Ryzen 7 2700, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.