2nd-Gen Core i7 vs. 8th-Gen Core i7: RIP Sandy Bridge?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
For what task? At what price point? Your conclusion is really generic. But since the discussion was talking about May and how Ryzen was overpriced, please explain to me. Compared to WHAT was the R5 1600 and 1700 overpriced? Cause you know, the xeon series can't compete core for core either, yet they are priced 8k.
The fact is, Ryzen was massively better on tasks that required multiple cores against Intel CPU's that were more expensive, and only a fraction behind in single threaded tasks. Those are the facts.
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
Geez how did this thread turn into another AMD vs Intel flamewar?
I agree with Strawman the R5 1600 was and continues to be a good value - if you can make use of the cores and threads. It's single threaded performance is relatively lacking because of lower IPC and clockspeed.
It's still a decent gaming CPU, especially if you overclock it. The 6C/12T will ensure it remains relevant in gaming for many years to come, though as I mentioned earlier the lower IPC/clockspeed will mean it will probably never be the best CPU for outright gaming.
I agree with Strawman the R5 1600 was and continues to be a good value - if you can make use of the cores and threads. It's single threaded performance is relatively lacking because of lower IPC and clockspeed.
It's still a decent gaming CPU, especially if you overclock it. The 6C/12T will ensure it remains relevant in gaming for many years to come, though as I mentioned earlier the lower IPC/clockspeed will mean it will probably never be the best CPU for outright gaming.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
I agree! Great discussion!
With any luck, AMD and Intel will be nudging each other for many years to come, and we will see better performance gains between CPU generations coming out of each of them.
Reehahs
Posts: 1,297 +970
Lol, why though?
If AMD is dropping price by 40% or more in less than 8 months, that means AMD has been overpriced and may still continue to be overpriced. Your silly strawman about "compared to what" is just can excuse to hide behind massively overpriced Intel crap. Any one with a brain wants to see the price stabilize at a proper price point, otherwise it would be utter stupidity to buy something now and pay more when you can get it for 40% in a few months. Your blind worship is obviously showing.
Last edited:
That's pretty much what happens when there is competition in a technological field. Intel dropped prices just as much in the meanwhile. Heck, even more, considering the i5 7600k is now the 8350k. Also, launch prices are not indicative. Usually a hyped product has high demand and low supply, so the prices are rising. Just look at the 8700k, when it launched in my country it had 380€, now it has 440€.
I bet you a paycheck in 8 months, when supply and demand will stabilize it will drop to the 350ies, from the 440€ it costs today.
Do you even know what a strawman is? Apparently, you don't. Anyways, in order for something to be overpriced it needs to be compared to something else. You can't say X CPU is overpriced when it's direct competition for example costs double. Also, it's a nice thing you mentioned it, cause that made the 2 of you criticizing Ryzen Intel drones, doesn't it? You just admitted that Intel is massively overpriced crap, but you 2 made comments about how overpriced Ryzen was. Isn't that just....dumb?
It's technology, prices don't stabilize unless there is a stagnation on new technologies. Don't you forget that after Ryzen launched we had 2 product lines from Intel, the coffeelake and the sky-x. That's going to drop prices on older CPU's. And it's ALWAYS the case, even in the Intel stagnation era that you could buy CPU's cheaper if you waited for months. I don't understand how you find it weird.
Also, you really need to go back and read my original post which you replied to when you called me an AMD drone. I didn't even say it wasn't overpriced! I said that CPU prices aren't determined by how many FPS they deliver in games, especially when we are talking about 16/32/64 threads CPU's, and for someone that wants 16 threads it was a steal compared to everything else on the market. Those are not mainly gaming CPU's. So when FreeBetaTester said that the R7 was overpriced BECAUSE it delivered sandy bridge gaming performance, he was wrong, and I just pointed it out. Do you disagree with that?
And btw, my worship is showing, but I just ordered an 8700k and a Z370 strix-E. Also all of my GPU's that are used for mining are nvidia's. Heck, the last AMD gpu I had was a 7870 about 4-5 years ago. The only reason I bought the R5 1600 back in July was because it was stupidly cheap and stupidly better compared to the i5 7600k.
Now go ahead, continue explaining what an AMD drone I am.
PS1. Also, where have you seen the R7 for 190$? In my country as well as in Germany, France, UK and the Netherlands the R7 1700 costs 270 to 300€. It's just a 15 to 20% price cut compared to it's launch price. So seriously, wtf are you talking about?
Last edited:
I feel bad for you that you have been conditioned to over pay for computer parts. Just recently before christmas, for work, I had gotten a pair of R7 1700 from Microcenter for our build servers. This was probably a christmas sale special, which worked out well. The R7 1700 was essentially $190. The bundle was $220 for the chip with $30 discount when you also buy a motherboard at microcenter, which my workplace needed anyways to put together the new build servers.
So a christmas sale special...and that's considered a price drop of 40% due to how bad Ryzen is for gaming. Okay, I'm out. This is getting too dumb
Great review compare. I happen to own a i7 2600K@5.0GHz (will also do 5.1GHz) ram 2200MHz 32GB & a Sapphire TRI-X R9 390x@1215MHz 8GB GDDR5. The scores for the 2600K@4.8GHz seemed a bit low to me when I compare my own fps to the games I have the same as tested here. I know my CPU kicks a Haswell i7 at stock and overclocked since haswells are not great overclockers I can over take them with more speed on my cores than they have overclocked.
Anyways the only game I tested this evening after work was COD WW1 2017 game. I have no idea where you test from so I picked the mission on the bridge where you have to fight to get to the other end and then over take the tower and after go to the area where you have to use the big gun to shoot planes down. I picked this mission because it has alot of action and lots of stuff going on which taxes both the GPU and the CPU as well as system memory.
My settings were all set to low & 1600x900. These settings were used because I do not have a 1080 Ti and the idea is to test the CPU speed not the GPU speed so you try to take it out of the picture as a bottleneck. So at the beginning of the mission FPS min was 139fps max was 189fps GPU usage 70-85% so not bottle necking the CPU. I turned away from the fighting and looked at the other end of the bridge fps went to 165fps to 257fps.
Once I got into the tower fps was 210-357fps but this is in doors so to be expected. After the tower where you have to take out the last guys before going into the trenches there is a heavy fire fight and lots of smoke fps was 143-209fps during this. Like I said I do not know where you test from in this game. in my own speed test this was a very heavy action area and hard on everything in the system most likely. I am not sure why your fps was sp much lower in this game than mine the 200mhz and slightly faster memory might help a bit not sure or your test area is more taxing than mine...lol
I will test some of the other games as well and see how my old rig does in them. All I know is the game was very fugly with everything turned down and the CPU was getting a lot warmer than it did when I actually played the game with everything set to ultra & 1080p because the GPU at this point was holding back my CPU and not allowing it to strut it's stuff like in my test tonight. I am sure a 8700K and a 1080TI in this same area will probably do better but I was fairly impressed by my 7 year old Sandy maybe I will test it again at 5.1GHz but I am sure at this point the 2200MHz memory is holding the CPU back. The IPC gain between Snady and Haswell were not all tht different what Intel did was improve the multi threading at the Haswell range more than anything.
I say this because in CPUZ my old Sandy scores 12% faster than a 7700K single thread but is 7% slower in multi thread when mine is at 5GHz. When at 5.1GHz mine is 14% faster single and 6% slower multi. Anyways great review lots of info to take in thank you.
Anyways the only game I tested this evening after work was COD WW1 2017 game. I have no idea where you test from so I picked the mission on the bridge where you have to fight to get to the other end and then over take the tower and after go to the area where you have to use the big gun to shoot planes down. I picked this mission because it has alot of action and lots of stuff going on which taxes both the GPU and the CPU as well as system memory.
My settings were all set to low & 1600x900. These settings were used because I do not have a 1080 Ti and the idea is to test the CPU speed not the GPU speed so you try to take it out of the picture as a bottleneck. So at the beginning of the mission FPS min was 139fps max was 189fps GPU usage 70-85% so not bottle necking the CPU. I turned away from the fighting and looked at the other end of the bridge fps went to 165fps to 257fps.
Once I got into the tower fps was 210-357fps but this is in doors so to be expected. After the tower where you have to take out the last guys before going into the trenches there is a heavy fire fight and lots of smoke fps was 143-209fps during this. Like I said I do not know where you test from in this game. in my own speed test this was a very heavy action area and hard on everything in the system most likely. I am not sure why your fps was sp much lower in this game than mine the 200mhz and slightly faster memory might help a bit not sure or your test area is more taxing than mine...lol
I will test some of the other games as well and see how my old rig does in them. All I know is the game was very fugly with everything turned down and the CPU was getting a lot warmer than it did when I actually played the game with everything set to ultra & 1080p because the GPU at this point was holding back my CPU and not allowing it to strut it's stuff like in my test tonight. I am sure a 8700K and a 1080TI in this same area will probably do better but I was fairly impressed by my 7 year old Sandy maybe I will test it again at 5.1GHz but I am sure at this point the 2200MHz memory is holding the CPU back. The IPC gain between Snady and Haswell were not all tht different what Intel did was improve the multi threading at the Haswell range more than anything.
I say this because in CPUZ my old Sandy scores 12% faster than a 7700K single thread but is 7% slower in multi thread when mine is at 5GHz. When at 5.1GHz mine is 14% faster single and 6% slower multi. Anyways great review lots of info to take in thank you.
You make a good point so I tried the 640x480 idea with the game maxed out like I played it. Not much really changed from the last test I did the FPS was near the same I did notice it did not spike as high as before for the max fps & there may have been a few dips here & there & the GPU usage was higher hitting 100% once and a while that was when the fps dips would happen. The video memory usage was lower it was around 6.8GB used when I play at 1080p it sits around 7.6GB GDDR5 usage & 6.5 to 10GB system ram usage I turn on the shader cache the sun/sky cache so that's probably why a game like this that just has average graphics uses so many resources. This is according to MSI/Riva Tuner OSD telling me this I am not sure how close they are to displaying the actual usage.
The one thing I noticed when doing the 640x480 maxed out settings test my CPU temps were lower they were in the 42c-45c range. When I did my first test when I got home with setting at low and 1600x900 my CPU temps were hovering around 57c-63c so I am going to assume My CPU was working a lot harder when I did my first test run and was more in line of showing the actual raw CPU Horse power because it was being forced to work harder so it was closer to hitting it's performance profile as in closer to it's max performance than when I did the second test. The GPU in the second test yes did hit 100% once in a while but not very often maybe 2 or 3 time it was mostly in the 87%-90% range so not maxed out either.
When I was actually playing the game before finishing it and used these maxed out settings @1080p The CPU temps were always around 47-56c some small spikes into the low 60c range & the only time it got to what I call my uncomfortable zone was in a loading screen once it got to around 78c not sure what happened there but it sat there for about 15 seconds then went back down to normal. I do not think COD WW1 is the best game to test with mind you as the FPS can be all over the place depending on where you are looking or what you are doing. Example: look away from the fighting and it shots up to high 200's or look at the sky and it hits over 500 FPS (551FPS to be exact) or if you go in doors it hits high 200's again. So if you get a guy that wants to be not honest they could inflate the numbers.
If there is a built in bench mark then I guess dismiss my remark on it being a bad bench test source but if there is I missed it in the menus...lol Sorry for the long winded reply and pretty much useless information for me at least it tells me my system can handle the modern games fairly well and my next upgrade is either a new GPU which would be cheaper than the other upgrade which is CPU/DDR4/MB but at some point in the near future I am going to have to bite the bullet and spend the cash on a full system upgrade I am thinking in the not to distant future i7 4/8 setups are going to be the huge bottleneck no matter if they are a old Sandy or a newer Kaby once games take advantage of at least 6-8 real cores 4/8 CPU's are going to chug down hard.
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
Want to know what is "too dumb"? Someone who refuse to accept the fact that they paid to much for ryzen on launch day. Christmas price will become average daily price in short order. When ryzen+/2 is due for 2018, you are guaranteed that the prices will have to go lower still. On the other hand, even with all the meltdown negative press for intel, the intel prices have not dropped in any significant or noticeable way. Heck the kabylakes compared to January of 2017 is still only around $50 less than the nominal $300 for the 7700k. That is 17% over 12 months compared to 40% in 8 months.
Thanks for this review. I think I made the right decision. I got, late last year, a new build, i7-7700k, 1080TI. This year I was planning to build a much lower specs secondary browser/light game rig. Instead of building a new system from scratch, I decided to upgrade my older i5-2500 gamer. Given today's prices for GPU and DDR4 I think it's a good decision. So, my new old rig is now a i7-3700, GTX1050 (I just purchased it 02-07-2018 at Newegg for 130 after 10 bucks rebate). So, the old system gets a new lease on life. Cost was minimal for my rebuilt system. New CPU was only 88 bucks on ebay.
Intel prices have not dropped? How about the 4c/4ct i5's that became the i3 8100 / 8350k? How much drop in price is there?
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
Intel getting away with bloody murder way overpricing the 7600K is no justification for AMD to price gouge people. But those who like to make donations to AMD will gladly and proudly give their hard-earned dollars to AMD. Can't fix the "too dumb", they will do what they like.
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
Says you. Overpriced is overpriced, just like all the DDR4 and GPUs right now. "Comparatively" is an arbitrary nonsense you came up with. In any case you can compare with past product pricing and pricing trends, and you can see overpriced easily.
Nope, you are comparing prices yourself, you are just not admitting it. You just admitted that GPU and DDR4 prices are overpriced right now. That's because you are COMPARING them to what the price was 10 months ago! Saying it's overpriced is meaningless without actual data. And what's that data? Comparing them with other CPU's is the data.
You are just making claims out of a thin air, and when I demolish them you change the subject. You said Intel hasn't dropped prices (as that's any kind of argument against them being overpriced, when it's not), yet I provided you the example of the 7600k becoming 8350k and dropping price significantly. Then you are saying Ryzen have dropped prices by 40% because of a special sale you found ONCE over the Internet. Yeah, no, you are trolling, I'm not buying it.
R5 1600 launched at 261€, and today it costs 184€ (that's an average across ~50 shops from my country). The 7600k launched at 291€ and today it costs 180€. Taking into account that the 7600k is 3 months older, they have dropped pretty much the same amount % wise. So, you are wrong. Period. Get over it.
And the truth is that the R5 1600 wasn't overpriced. Every bit of data shows it. It smashed the more expensive 7600k and it's price hasn't dropped more than the 7600k's has. Therefore, you are wrong. Sorry, you have to get over it. Every single reviewer out there handed it a vfm price. You are just plain wrong.
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
Here is the more evidence that Ryzen across the board was overpriced. It is only 3 months removed from Christmas and now we have for a regular sale price of effectively
$120 for the R5 1600 see ($150 - $30 discount):
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
And the R7 1700 is now $170 ($200 - $30 discount)
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
Anyone can see AMD's pricing trends and if you know it is going to be cheaper in less than 9 months, the logical decision is to wait and not overpay for early access privileges (also known as making donations for AMD.)
Just image the 1700 at $170 back in May of 2017, all the people on Sandybridge, Haswell, etc. would have had a serious incentive to jump ship.
BTW to date, there has been so such price cuts for the kabylakes. Intel still overprices them as high as ever, spectre, meltdown doesn't even seem to bother them.
$120 for the R5 1600 see ($150 - $30 discount):
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
And the R7 1700 is now $170 ($200 - $30 discount)
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
Anyone can see AMD's pricing trends and if you know it is going to be cheaper in less than 9 months, the logical decision is to wait and not overpay for early access privileges (also known as making donations for AMD.)
Just image the 1700 at $170 back in May of 2017, all the people on Sandybridge, Haswell, etc. would have had a serious incentive to jump ship.
BTW to date, there has been so such price cuts for the kabylakes. Intel still overprices them as high as ever, spectre, meltdown doesn't even seem to bother them.
Here is the more evidence that Ryzen across the board was overpriced. It is only 3 months removed from Christmas and now we have for a regular sale price of effectively
$120 for the R5 1600 see ($150 - $30 discount):
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
And the R7 1700 is now $170 ($200 - $30 discount)
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
Anyone can see AMD's pricing trends and if you know it is going to be cheaper in less than 9 months, the logical decision is to wait and not overpay for early access privileges (also known as making donations for AMD.)
Just image the 1700 at $170 back in May of 2017, all the people on Sandybridge, Haswell, etc. would have had a serious incentive to jump ship.
BTW to date, there has been so such price cuts for the kabylakes. Intel still overprices them as high as ever, spectre, meltdown doesn't even seem to bother them.
That is some crazy low prices for R5 and R7. Those still on old intels like sandybridge 2nd gen can switch now with almost no risk.
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
And the prices just got even lower. AMD is providing a $20 rebate on the 1600 see:
https://www.amdpromos.com/index.php?s_id=&u_id=claim_entry
So that effectively gets to be $150 - $30 (for mobo) - $20 (for rebate) = $100 for a 1600. Where are the intel rebates? 9 months ago it would have been $220 out of pocket at least no discounts and rebates.
https://www.amdpromos.com/index.php?s_id=&u_id=claim_entry
So that effectively gets to be $150 - $30 (for mobo) - $20 (for rebate) = $100 for a 1600. Where are the intel rebates? 9 months ago it would have been $220 out of pocket at least no discounts and rebates.
Despite you desperate attempt to spam AMD's talking points, and unjustified hostility to everyone that does not want to go along with your AMD marketing, it is totally obvious that the market has spoken and it said that AMD was overpriced by a lot to start with. Tell we which coffeelake, kabylake, or heck even skylake has price drops like a 1600 at $100? That is like getting a i5 for i3 prices, and the a R7 dropping into the R5 pricing would need equivalent i7 priced like and i5.
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
I like to buy some that 8700K for $210. But it is not happening. Link where you get those. But here is where the actual prices are:
See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/485321/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby_Lake_42_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
http://www.microcenter.com/product/486088/Core_i7-8700K_Coffee_Lake_37_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
The 7700K is still that same $280 - $30 deal that it was back in May of 2017. For awhile back in 2017, it even went up to $300 with not discounts. I'm not sure how Intel thinks they can still get *****s paying too much for 7700K, but Intel hasn't dropped the prices or offered rebates on the kabylakes.
The 8700K is more like $320 - $30 or $290, basically taking up the 7700K slot. Perhaps you just might have a reading problem confused $319 for $210. And the horrible value in spring of 2018 that is the 7600K is still that $190 - $30 deal since last may. Perhaps you lost your glasses. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/485322/Core_i5-7600K_Kaby_Lake_380_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
And the 8600K is at $220 - $30 (not your mistaken 210-30 or 180 and then subtracts another 30 for God know why?). See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/486089/Core_i5-8600K_Coffee_Lake_36_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
The coffeelakes are basically roughly in the same ballpark as what Intel specified for their release price. The ridiculous seller mark-ups of last November have all evaporated and the paper launch that stalled ryzen became a reality as of January just as Intel claimed.
The market trends and real facts all point to Ryzen being priced to high so Intel can use a simple paper launch to mess with their sales.
Last edited:
