4GHz CPU Battle: AMD 2nd-Gen Ryzen vs. Intel 8th-Gen Core

errr ZEN+ is backwards compatible mate, you can put a 2600x on a x370 (just a reminder)

What does backwards compatible really mean? Why bother getting a x470 and when a B350 will do then? Ah... the memory bandwidth is going to be gimped on older boards. Well what kind of backwards compatibility is that? Sure you got faster CPU, but it will be gimped by slower memory. Since everyone knows that it is an open secret that the 1700 is equivalent to an 1800x, and since you won't be getting the higher performance from gimped memory on old board, might as well go with old 1700 for essentially $170 that have been shown by this review to match the 2700x in IPC at 4.0Ghz for all the compute workloads.

http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler

What is compelling reason to spend $330 on a 2700x when the 1700 is so much better value? Neither of them will top Intel for gaming.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the memory controller built into the SOC..? I don't see memory frequency support in the chipsets' specs.
 
I don't get what's the difference between 90 and 110 fps in a game. Without fps counter it's unnoticable. Higher variability of framerate could make gaming uncomfortable, but the difference between min and avg fps looks similar for all of the tested CPUs.

Functionality (basically it's the same for PC builds of similar generations), price per performance ratio (or rather total cost - including power usage - per time needed for a given real life task), possibility of future upgrade - these should be the most important factors when buying PC equipment. "Money is no object" guys are just show-off.

EDIT: Security flaws should probably figure in the functionality factor :p
 
Last edited:
This guy created a new account (again) to keep spreading his nonsense. It seems kinda fishy. He is probably an Intel employee I'm assuming

Apparently AMDs biggest sins are selling the 1800x for $500 at launch (even though other R7s could be had for far cheaper) as well as selling last year's new car (R7 1700) for a better value than this year's new car (2700).

I think we need to get Congress involved!!

He is also rather clueless on where the memory controller is. Plenty are getting 3200mhz or more using Ryzen+ on B350.

The guy has nothing at all. Very sad.
 
I don't get what's the difference between 90 and 110 fps in a game. Without fps counter it's unnoticable. Higher variability of framerate could make gaming uncomfortable, but the difference between min and avg fps looks similar for all of the tested CPUs.

Functionality (basically it's the same for PC builds of similar generations), price per performance ratio (or rather total cost - including power usage - per time needed for a given real life task), possibility of future upgrade - these should be the most important factors when buying PC equipment. "Money is no object" guys are just show-off.

EDIT: Security flaws should probably figure in the functionality factor :p

A competitive fps player could probably tell a slight difference, otherwise what is the point of 144Hz or even 240Hz gaming monitors? We may as well cap it at 100Hz if anything above that point has no discernible difference to the overall smoothness.

Now, I'm with you, personally I can't really tell much difference past 90fps, it all seems pretty smooth to me. But I do notice when minimums drop below 60fps though, so for me thats the more important metric, I prefer a CPU that gives me the highest possible min fps, so the 8700K was the logical choice for me in that regard. Yes, I could most definitely still game well on a Ryzen system, but I came from a 6700K @ 4.7GHz and I wasn't prepared to downgrade my gaming performance for the sake of better multi-threaded performance. The 8700K was a no compromise solution, although slightly costly. I did manage to sell my 6700K/Z170 combo for a good price though to offset the 8700K / Z370 purchase, older i7s retain surprisingly good resale value on the used market.
 
The thing that gets me is with reviewers, etc, in games no one is going to buy a high end GPU such as a 1080TI and put it to work running lower resolutions and detail levels. Gamers are also more likely to tweak their RAM timings on the AMD board. I don't even think they sat down to design things like that. Given the high frames in that region anyway, the entire topic is overdone in the media and in reviews. Going forward that gap will not open, software is catching up ect, and a lot of developer work was done between developers and AMD.

Benchmarks are great but they still need to be interpreted.

To get the best out of the 8700k (but someone may just as well use an 8600k or other from intel) they would need to get a good cooling solution. In certain places this could cost over 100 local dollars; because not everyone is near/close by (I.e local to the good price range) the distribution for a cheap/quality cooler from say newegg: so they will invariably pay slightly more through their channels. Thats why the cooler on top of that is another unit of hundreds for them, taking a high 400 dollar local currency processor to a high 500 or even a low-mid 600 dollar one.



I don't think Intel will get high clocks on the 8 core as some may think. Its not simply an 8700k with 2 extra cores, it will be slightly redesigned or it would be far too toasty and inefficient, and the 8700k already uses a fairly high power draw especially when over clocking, it could also require a new socket. Whether Intel needed to come up with new user-facing solutions is anyone's guess, but the 8 core I am pretty sure will be somewhat different in its use than the 6 core.

The 14nm node is a good one and its been upgraded umpteen times so its like 14+++++++, and their node is good for high clocks, but an 8 core will be a bit different. There's a few other niggles different than an 8700k too, so its not like slapping in two more cores and calling it a day; things need to be adjusted. The trouble is when cutting out the silicon it just reaches a point of when you add too many cores to these lines of processors for something that was not designed finance-wise to do so, its introducing overheads that dont stack up. I.e you make something for X amount and intend to sell it for X amount to make money, but now you are adding in extra cores which decreases money in your pocket again. Its good for the consumer though, and of course the 8 core Intel is a stop gap until they - well they seemed to have gotten Keller - until they can design something as modular as AMD, perhaps with what Keller puts in place.

The power draw and all that is one of the main reasons the CFL 6 core was limited to 6 cores, too. As it is CFL is a mish-mash of different 'borrowed' engineering as this era has been transformative and transitional. Even so, such an 8 core mainstream chip is expected later this year. Its at the point now where since its all been brought forward, their prior products will take a hit in the kaby lake realm.

Next year AMD go to a high clocking node too, but their chip design is very modular. The difference is AMD is ready to roll on higher clocked high core count chips, with an efficient node and manufacturing process, and this just limits what Intel can respond with for now. Also with AMD EPIC ramping up in servers, its complimentary to the whole product stack. Typically the best silicon goes into higher tier products, like Threadripper and HDEP chips. Its a credit to the node maturity that an 8700k is possible at all given some chips are hitting high clocks.

So the AMD production is very vertical in its integration, its really nice for them. And the Intel for one reason or another has a wider remit (and because they're large and do many things); so the way they would go about this current generation of mainstream CPU's is different.

I mention that because from all this in telling it, I want to make it clear to not expect some 5.3 Ghz overclocking 8 core chip from intel sending C15 results through the roof. Not only do I think its not doable at all right now, even if they did, they would not be charging you anywhere near a Ryzen for it since they couldn't possibly do that and remain happy.




well it didn't go off the radar, but people are choosing to either ignore it or wait for the next designs from Intel that stomp it out at the hardware level.

Ice lake I think is designed to pretty much fully mitigate it innately.

__

But to state: I think the 8 core intel will be a nice bump. Its true any chip atm will be a good chip for the buyer. And intel chips are great too, though I focussed on AMD here.

We've got to look at the 8 core intel as being a reallocation of resources for a cpu. If it reaches 4.5, be happy. To previously get the advantage they had to clock to 4.8 ish.

There is no right or wrong way for gamers to build a gaming rig. You say its not realistic for 1080 Ti owners to run at 1080P? Maybe so, but perhaps they want 144fps+ at all times to max out their 144Hz 1080P gaming monitor? Or perhaps a 1440P 144Hz panel but at high settings instead of ultra, because even a 1080 Ti won't hit 144fps consistently at 1440P ultra. There are a myriad of settings available to a gamer to customise their gaming experience, there is a reason why pros never game at ultra settings as it actually puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

RE: The 8700K, I have mine aircooled on a Hyper 212 HSF, which is hardly high end. You can buy one for about $30, maybe less. I can hit 5.0GHz stable, using 1.35V and temps max out in the high 70s under stress testing with Intel XTU. You most definitely do not need a $100 cooler to get a good overclock out of a 8700K. If you want over 5.0GHz, OK, maybe go for a delid and an AIO, but 5.0GHz is generally attainable with a half decent HSF and 'reasonable' volts (under 1.4V)

Which leads me to your comment about power draw - yes, if you push a 8700K (or any CPU) past a certain point, the power curve rises exponentially and efficiency goes out the window. That being said, its not out of the realms of possibility to overclock a hypothetical 8 core '9700K' to 5.0GHz - if my Hyper 212 can do it on a 8700K, then a much more powerful AIO most certainly can sufficiently cool 8 cores - its simple physics. A 9700K @ 5.0GHz would draw ~33% more power than a 8700K @ 5.0GHz, assuming the same voltages and process is used. Therefore any cooler that can dissipate ~33% more heat than a Hyper 212 would be up to the task - which means high end air coolers or AIOs.

I would expect a stock 9700K to run at 4.0 - 4.1GHz all core turbo, unless Intel has been able to further refine the 14nm process in which case, 4.3GHz like the 8700K could be possible. Don't forget that Intel only lost 100MHz on the all core turbo speed between the 7700K and 8700K, and that was with a 50% increase in cores. 6 to 8 cores represents a 33% increase in core count, so whilst a 9700K will certainly draw more power than a 8700K, it's not like it will be an absolute furnace that can't be tamed by a decent air cooler, especially at stock speeds.

Intel has to get to 10nm eventually, but a 14nm 8 core will be more than enough to 'hold the fort' until they sort out their 10nm troubles. In fact, as others have mentioned, its highly likely that an 8 core 9700K would have outright market leadership in the mainstream market, Intel has the IPC and clockspeed advantage over AMD after all, but currently run at a core deficit. If they achieve core parity with AMD, I don't see how AMD can possibly compete until perhaps Ryzen 2 on 7nm arrives in 2019.
 
Yeah, Intel is doomed.

While they have already 10nm chips, AMD is selling Ryzen+ as 12nm and in fact, it is just on 14nm+ and they don't even compare those two processes but to 16nm finfet of TSMC...

Intel 10nm is in development hell as it is being delayed again. Ryzen 2 will probably arrive before Icelake at this point.

Yup, because AMD is the punctual one of the bunch....
 
I didnt like this test. You say they are clocked the same but the reality is you underclocked one and overclocked the other, clock speed is unique to every chip, I dont see how making them both go at 4hz is a fair comparison, Intels advantage is in its core quality and speed and AMD's is in its core count. I understand that you were trying to determine IPC but all it proves to me is that even if AMD had the same IPC their engineers arent getting enough clock speed for it to mean anything, its like comparing car engines at the same RPM, pointless. Personally I think that a core for core test is better. 6 cores with hyperthreading vs 6 cores with smt etc. But then again looking at the results from Ryzen plus its very apparent to me that if Intel drop an 8 core chip its going to slaughter the Ryzen 8 cores by quite a margin. Or maybe a power consumption test? This test had the Ryzen setup using far more power to run its chips at 4ghz than Intel used to go at the same frequency. Whats even worse is that these numbers are from Intels ageing core architecture compared to Ryzen which turned 1 this month. Meaning that AMD's latest brand new architecture performs worse core for core than Intels nearly 10 year old core stuff. AMD are not out of the woods yet.

Anyone in the market for a new CPU really ought to wait for the Intel 8 core coffee lake to arrive, it will be easily faster than anything from Ryzen and will probably push down the prices of everything out right now.

This guy gets it.
 
As someone who needs all the single core IPC he can get (flight simulators & emulation) these results look good for AMD at 4Ghz, but then I remember with an 8600/8700 I could very easily add a 15-20% overclock and leave the Ryzen's for dust in the area of performance I need the most.

..until Zen can match, or very nearly match Intel clock speeds, I think intel will still be my go-to CPU choice.
They did match them in most tests for general usage. For niche markets its better to go with whatever matches ur needs, but for the general market, why would anyone pay more for a cpu( intel) that performs on par with another one?(amd)
 
They did match them in most tests for general usage. For niche markets its better to go with whatever matches ur needs, but for the general market, why would anyone pay more for a cpu( intel) that performs on par with another one?(amd)
I would say the general market for these chips are gamers.
 
The cheapest R5 2600X bundle will run you $270 USD...about $35 USD cheaper than the Intel version. ...
To put it into financial perspective, assuming $40-50 USD is needed for a cooler for the Intel, the AMD bundles will save you $100-120 USD. ....

It's quite the sleight of hand trick to go from $35 cheaer to $120 now isn't it?

The stock coolers with the Ryzen are garbage. They are loud and they are inadequate. I know because my R5 1600 uses the same crap, it gets really loud really quick. I replaced it with an old Hyper 212 that I removed from an old 1155 build, replaced the stock cooler master fan with a old Cougar CF-V12HPB I had lying around and was able to overclock to 4.0 Ghz at 1.295V Vcore(as reported by CPU-Z), which I could not do with stock AMD HSF and be stable and get good temps and keep the noise level down.

If you are really into saving money, you are better off with the 1700x bundle with CPU at $230, or better yes the 1700 at $200. But 2700x, 2600x, 1700x, 1700, they will all fail to achieve the gaming performance the 8600K will get you. For compute load, that Ryzen will be the better choice, but for gaming value is on the 8600k side.

It's not "sleight of hand" when the 1st gap is because of one item, & the 2nd gap includes two additional items... items that are absolutely required in order for the 1st item (CPU) to operate. Unless you're going to somehow claim that a CPU can run sans motherboard & cooler. Now that would be real sleight-of-hand there...
 
Most to have access. They have stores in most major metro areas. And they have a web online store too. You act as if people can not order the stuff online.

I don't know what environment you are in that convinces you to pay the price gouging prices at Amazon or Newegg. Call them up demand them to pricematch. Microcenter will pricematch both Amazon and Newegg, all you need to do is talk to person. There is no good reason to overpay.
Microcenter don't ship internationally. Amazon and Newegg do. Not that I would use them as we have our own local and online stores in our countries. But their customer reviews are useful.
 
I would politely disagree. Their gaming performance is sub-par for a reason; they weren't focusing on it!
Ive genuinely never met a person who spends this much time and money to improve their render times. Im sure they exist but in general the sort of people buying pretty RGB motherboards and the latest parts are doing it for a gaming rig IMO. I have a friend who works for a large electronics retailer in the UK and he says by far the best selling stuff when it comes to home builders is the gaming stuff. He also noted how they sold 5 7700K's for every one Ryzen product last year. Linus stated also that in 2017 the most bought part under Amazon affiliate was the 7700K. This is quite shocking considering how that CPU got wrecked by AMD when it comes to workstation tasks. We also hear tubers going on about how if you mark a part "gaming" then it will sell more regardless of what it is.

I guess im the same. I use a computer for work and I build my own at home. I definitely need more CPU power at work than I do for my home gaming rig. The thing is I wouldnt bother spending loads of money on my work PC but I happily cough up more than I should on my fancy gaming box.

AMD are doing great on the value for money side of things. But the sort of people buying the top end consumer CPU's are primarly gamers imo and I dont think they are making a good case to persuade these people from Intel. Even more so when the 8 core comes out.

I guess my other point would be why dont these sites and tubers do extensive testing on actual workstation hardware like Xeon? If the readership and therefore the market really cared about multithreaded and workstation performance then these would have been the go to prior to Ryzen.
 
Ive genuinely never met a person who spends this much time and money to improve their render times. Im sure they exist but in general the sort of people buying pretty RGB motherboards and the latest parts are doing it for a gaming rig IMO. I have a friend who works for a large electronics retailer in the UK and he says by far the best selling stuff when it comes to home builders is the gaming stuff. He also noted how they sold 5 7700K's for every one Ryzen product last year. Linus stated also that in 2017 the most bought part under Amazon affiliate was the 7700K. This is quite shocking considering how that CPU got wrecked by AMD when it comes to workstation tasks. We also hear tubers going on about how if you mark a part "gaming" then it will sell more regardless of what it is.

I guess im the same. I use a computer for work and I build my own at home. I definitely need more CPU power at work than I do for my home gaming rig. The thing is I wouldnt bother spending loads of money on my work PC but I happily cough up more than I should on my fancy gaming box.

AMD are doing great on the value for money side of things. But the sort of people buying the top end consumer CPU's are primarly gamers imo and I dont think they are making a good case to persuade these people from Intel. Even more so when the 8 core comes out.

I guess my other point would be why dont these sites and tubers do extensive testing on actual workstation hardware like Xeon? If the readership and therefore the market really cared about multithreaded and workstation performance then these would have been the go to prior to Ryzen.
AMD was never going to outsell the 7700k. it just wasn't going to happen, but if you are talking about Amazon then the 1600 was in 2nd place for a very long time (with some rare days showing it in 1st). AMD needed to regain the trust of both the consumers and the business market (which includes distribution, OEMs, retail, etc) and it did just that.
Now all they need to do is keep up with Intel and attack their weak points. They'll naturally gain market share as the products mature and software updates finally include proper support for their architecture.
 
AMD was never going to outsell the 7700k. it just wasn't going to happen, but if you are talking about Amazon then the 1600 was in 2nd place for a very long time (with some rare days showing it in 1st). AMD needed to regain the trust of both the consumers and the business market (which includes distribution, OEMs, retail, etc) and it did just that.
Now all they need to do is keep up with Intel and attack their weak points. They'll naturally gain market share as the products mature and software updates finally include proper support for their architecture.
Cant disagree with you about needing to regaining trust. I think a lot of people hate Intel but a considerable amount more hate AMD. I personally dont hate them but I can understand the pain that some have had, unfortunately I was an FX owner and in over 20 plus years of PC gaming and building it was by far the worst CPU I have ever owned. I have had better luck with AMD GPU's but they are definitely less user friendly than their Nvidia counterparts. I dont think they have won much back yet though, with CPU's they have made ground but Radeon's name is headed for the dirt. And as for business, well I work in systems support and we would never consider AMD parts for one big reason, no GPU. If we supplied Ryzen based systems to the business I work for we would also have to supply a graphics cards. Which will never happen. You might think the APU's would be good but they use more power, perform worse and cost more than an i3 so wel just supply an i3... Also, compared to Intels lower power stuff AMD dont have anything that can compete, Ryzen isnt bad at power consuption but its worse than Intel. On top of this Intels chipsets have far more SYSSUP friendly features on board than Ryzen consumer grade stuff - which is their only stuff. I dont know of any large scale business that has opted for Ryzen.

Personally, id like to see a more competent company enter the CPU market. Intel seem to be stepping into the GPU arena. If only Nvidia would step into the X86 consumer grade desktop arena! Ive given up on AMD. Im the sort of user who is happy to pay above the odds to have the best and I just dont see AMD making a product like that anytime soon. Maybe/hopefully im wrong but currently an AMD 8 core is just edging out the Intel 6 cores. What happens when the Intel 8 core drops? I know what will happen, it will humiliate Ryzen and Intel will charge loads for it. But all us enthusiasts will pay the premium to have it!
 
Cant disagree with you about needing to regaining trust. I think a lot of people hate Intel but a considerable amount more hate AMD. I personally dont hate them but I can understand the pain that some have had, unfortunately I was an FX owner and in over 20 plus years of PC gaming and building it was by far the worst CPU I have ever owned. I have had better luck with AMD GPU's but they are definitely less user friendly than their Nvidia counterparts. I dont think they have won much back yet though, with CPU's they have made ground but Radeon's name is headed for the dirt. And as for business, well I work in systems support and we would never consider AMD parts for one big reason, no GPU. If we supplied Ryzen based systems to the business I work for we would also have to supply a graphics cards. Which will never happen. You might think the APU's would be good but they use more power, perform worse and cost more than an i3 so wel just supply an i3... Also, compared to Intels lower power stuff AMD dont have anything that can compete, Ryzen isnt bad at power consuption but its worse than Intel. On top of this Intels chipsets have far more SYSSUP friendly features on board than Ryzen consumer grade stuff - which is their only stuff. I dont know of any large scale business that has opted for Ryzen.

Personally, id like to see a more competent company enter the CPU market. Intel seem to be stepping into the GPU arena. If only Nvidia would step into the X86 consumer grade desktop arena! Ive given up on AMD. Im the sort of user who is happy to pay above the odds to have the best and I just dont see AMD making a product like that anytime soon. Maybe/hopefully im wrong but currently an AMD 8 core is just edging out the Intel 6 cores. What happens when the Intel 8 core drops? I know what will happen, it will humiliate Ryzen and Intel will charge loads for it. But all us enthusiasts will pay the premium to have it!

I'm not sure what you mean by APU's performing worse than the I3 CPUs. On what benchmarks? What workloads do you have? Do you use any CAD software or something similar that can take advantage of the better GPU or just Office workloads?
As for the power, unless you tax both the CPU and/or the GPU at 100% you won't see any significant differences. Unlike synthetic benchmarks, the CPU will generally not sit at 100% for more than a few seconds.

On a side-note, if it's a big business then you will generally be going for the new Pro version of AMD's CPUs not the mainstream APUs for the extra reliability, stability and security.

"What happens when the Intel 8 core drops? " --> Intel already has 8 core CPUs and has had them for a very long time. We already know how they'll perform.

You may be confused on the performance of Intel's 6 cores compared to AMD's 8 cores. For productivity performance is not close at stock speeds (with a few exceptions) and Intel generally needs to be OCed to get closer (at around 4.9-5.0GHz) and since you are clearly very concerned about reliability (as you should be for your business) I don't think you'll be OCing that high anytime soon.
you can check a few productivity results here (stock and OC): https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/page2.html

I must admit that I'm a bit out of the loop with the system support features. Can you tell me what Intel has over AMD? In general, I assumed that it's not the chipset but the mobo manufacturer that adds or removes such features to differentiate between product lines and from competitors.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by APU's performing worse than the I3 CPUs. On what benchmarks? What workloads do you have? Do you use any CAD software or something similar that can take advantage of the better GPU or just Office workloads?

A Ryzen 2200G, for example, would be weaker in CPU intensive tasks compared to a CFL i3:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_2200G_Vega_8/19.html

An i3 8100 would perform similarly to the i5 7500 as shown, which would put it about 25% ahead of a stock 2200G. Overclocking reduces that deficit but I highly doubt anyone will be overclocking work PCs, it just doesn't happen in the real world.
 
AMD seems to have solved half the equation in regards to catching Intel. They pretty much are equal in IPC. Hopefully now they can work on getting the frequencies up as well.

Either way, Zen has been great for the market. Competition is awesome.
But if you were in market today for good gaming performance, Intel is your only choice.

For starters, only if you are gaming at 1080p, at 1440p and 4k the CPU isn't the bottleneck, take for instance my rig,

1700x oc'd to 4.3ghz 3200mhz trident gskill 16gb, EVGA 1080ti ftw icx with using the Alienware 34 inch 1440p ultrawide IPS gsync 120htz.

I never see less than 80fps at the 1% fps dips while maintaining the 120fps refresh rate average on Ultra settings, when using an Asus 27inch 4k IPS gsync 60htz I run AA off or at 2x and maintain the 60htz with a 1% of 40fps.

So what are you even talking about the differential is 3-10fps in extreme cases where it doesn't matter as even with gsync you lock the frame to the monitor so you aren't arbitrarily overheating components for giggles. Hopefully most are finally switching due to falling prices to higher quality monitors as the greatest feature of PC gaming is being ahead of console gaming.

CPU really doesn't matter as the GPU is the bottleneck in gaming, buy a Ryzen 8core if you are gaming while recording and streaming as well as are using it for editing for YouTube channels, that is exactly what my rig is for.

If you are at the bottom end of the spectrum of PC gaming then sure Intel is your only option but it's the only option you left yourself with.
 
A Ryzen 2200G, for example, would be weaker in CPU intensive tasks compared to a CFL i3:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_2200G_Vega_8/19.html

An i3 8100 would perform similarly to the i5 7500 as shown, which would put it about 25% ahead of a stock 2200G. Overclocking reduces that deficit but I highly doubt anyone will be overclocking work PCs, it just doesn't happen in the real world.
Yes, for some workloads, like the one you mentioned, it will indeed perform better and yes, nobody will OC their office PC :D
People who do their research will be rewarded, performance can vary wildly between different software and workloads. This is why I always look up tests/benchmarks and do my own before I buy something. I may be biased towards AMD if there is only a very small difference when I buy for me(they are also a bit cheaper where I live compared to some Intel CPUs), but when it comes to work I have to be more professional. :D
 
Sigh... we keep seeing these again and again, year after year... that AMD still trying to catch up with Intel, but could never really trounce it once and for all and claim clear superiority.

But, if AMD can slash at least 30% off it's current price of the CPUs, I think many will have second thoughts buying an Intel.

Considering the fact that AMD is like 10 times smaller than Intel I think they doing amazing :) As for the price I bet you even if they dropped it by 50% you still wouldn't buy one :p
 
This review seems a bit Bias in Intels Favor. When Intel would win a benchmark this review would praise them. When AMD would win they would somehow not mention the 2700x was top dog and focus on the 2600x being a bit behind. Why? The 2700x already 20$ cheaper than the 8700k so when the 8700k loses they resort to ignoring the loss and focusing on the fact that it Beat a 2600x that cost around 100$ less. Seems like every bench that AMD did well this article did this.
 
This review seems a bit Bias in Intels Favor. When Intel would win a benchmark this review would praise them. When AMD would win they would somehow not mention the 2700x was top dog and focus on the 2600x being a bit behind. Why? The 2700x already 20$ cheaper than the 8700k so when the 8700k loses they resort to ignoring the loss and focusing on the fact that it Beat a 2600x that cost around 100$ less. Seems like every bench that AMD did well this article did this.
You know
 
The author of this text is indoctrinated like many who write subjective tests everywhere on the Internet. In which tests of scientific applications AMD wins, when all I've tested in recent years say the opposite? This can be done at any time. The results shown here are fake, especially in PCMark benchmark and Cinebench, but also the rest.
 
Back