Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, 8400 versus AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, R5 1600X, 1500X

[Julio Franco]

You've read the reviews and now we are putting them together on a single CPU comparison. On deck for this one we tested 8 processors in 9 games at not only 1080p, but also 720p and 1440p, amounting to more than 650 benchmark passes.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1505-intel-core-8th-gen-vs-amd-ryzen/

 

[RealityOverHype]

Hello Steve,

May I ask how the 9 game average is calculated? It seems the math is not quite correct. The chart shows this:
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1505/bench/Average_720p.png

I just spot check the AMD Ryzen 5 1600x results for the 720p, so if I add up the following for average frame rate:
154, 98, 94, 140, 190, 109, 97, 183, 122, I get 1187 and divide by 9 I get 131.89 or 132 rounded up.

That does match what the chart is showing of 158. Is there something I am not understanding?

Thanks.

 

[shakattack]

Conclusion: An interesting comparison comparing all angles of cost and performance in order to evaluate what's only important to a pure gamer that plans to play relatively current/old generation games that are not GPU bound I.e. 720p. Unfortunately very few folks fall into this category. Over the next year, we'll see games that will utilize multiple cores for various purposes other than simply running the game engine. Also a key benefit of the Ryzen platform is being able to upgrade to Zen2 in an affordable manner which cannot be said for intel's next 'lake' platform. Discarding the 720p results, Ryzen is a clear winner. Factoring in newer game titles Ryzen is a winner again. Accounting for overall system performance outside of gaming and future proofing your investment Ryzen is the winner again.

 

[domyz]

^^ Intel is winner in most titles especially when using a high frequency monitor

 

[amstech]

Over the next year, we'll see games that will utilize multiple cores for various purposes other than simply running the game engine. .

Right along with a Half Life 3 release....
Cmon man the 'more core and future proof' angle again?

Maybe games will use more then 4-8 cores/threads in the next few years, sure would be nice. Good luck convincing people its going to happen.

 

[gamerk2]

Conclusion: An interesting comparison comparing all angles of cost and performance in order to evaluate what's only important to a pure gamer that plans to play relatively current/old generation games that are not GPU bound I.e. 720p. Unfortunately very few folks fall into this category. Over the next year, we'll see games that will utilize multiple cores for various purposes other than simply running the game engine. Also a key benefit of the Ryzen platform is being able to upgrade to Zen2 in an affordable manner which cannot be said for intel's next 'lake' platform. Discarding the 720p results, Ryzen is a clear winner. Factoring in newer game titles Ryzen is a winner again. Accounting for overall system performance outside of gaming and future proofing your investment Ryzen is the winner again.

"Discarding the 720p results"

Run in 8k, and pretty much every CPU looks the same. Using that logic, the Core 2 Q6600 looks like the clear winner, since it's an affordable CPU that performs the same as the i7-8600k.

The reason you test at lower resolution is to determine how much headroom each CPU has. Or in other words: How a CPU is expected to perform when you plug a newer more powerful GPU into the rig. Yes, when using a 1080 Ti the CPU has very little effect when running at 1080p. But what about two years from now when the 3080 Ti comes out? Based on these results, I'd expect Intel to be a good 20% faster then Ryzen, as the CPU has more headroom to properly feed faster GPUs.

The big winners are the new i5's, at least in the short term. It's worth noting though, how the slower i5's have lower minimum FPS, which hints they may have some problems going forward. There's probably some thread level scheduling issues causing some threads to get bumped, hurting performance. This bears watching in future reviews to see if this trend continues.

 

[AMDomination]

Back in real life where people use 1080p, 2560x1080p, and 2560x1440p Freesync monitors, Excellent AM4 motherboards were 20% off at newegg (only $60 shipped for ASRock's excellent AB350m Pro4) and Ryzen 5 1600 was $169.99, but let's go ahead and do everything we can to pretend intel is still relevant in price/performance.......

 

[seeprime]

Run in 8k, and pretty much every CPU looks the same. Using that logic, the Core 2 Q6600 looks like the clear winner, since it's an affordable CPU that performs the same as the i7-8600k..

gamerk2: Your comment about the Core 2 Quad is way off base. The Core 2 series performs terribly against any newer i5, i7 or Ryzen CPU, when either is paired with a high end modern GPU. Do a search and find some actual test results, if you want to look into it further.

 

[texasrattler]

Run in 8k, and pretty much every CPU looks the same. Using that logic, the Core 2 Q6600 looks like the clear winner, since it's an affordable CPU that performs the same as the i7-8600k..

gamerk2: Your comment about the Core 2 Quad is way off base. The Core 2 series performs terribly against any newer i5, i7 or Ryzen CPU, when either is paired with a high end modern GPU. Do a search and find some actual test results, if you want to look into it further.

You do realize he wasn't serious. He was mocking the article.

 

[Lionvibez]

Ya that was a terrible example a Core 2 quad will get destroyed by a current gen dual core cpu with HT.

 

[texasrattler]

Back in real life where people use 1080p, 2560x1080p, and 2560x1440p Freesync monitors, Excellent AM4 motherboards were 20% off at newegg (only $60 shipped for ASRock's excellent AB350m Pro4) and Ryzen 5 1600 was $169.99, but let's go ahead and do everything we can to pretend intel is still relevant in price/performance.......

When will AMD fans realize they will never be the best processor. You can have all the value you want, doesn't mean anything when the Intel still has the CROWN. Being KING is what it's all about. There are plenty of ppl in this world who care about having the best not the best value. Best value are for ppl who cant afford the best. AMD will try hard and come up short, as that's always been there moto for almost 20 yrs. The little engine that couldn't beat Intel. Sure they can FINALLY compete, good for them. Know what that really means, nothing. Intel users/fans will still buy the best, which is Intel, that wont be changing anytime soon.

 

[seeprime]

You do realize he wasn't serious. He was mocking the article.

I did not. Thanks.

 

[Steve]

Run in 8k, and pretty much every CPU looks the same. Using that logic, the Core 2 Q6600 looks like the clear winner, since it's an affordable CPU that performs the same as the i7-8600k..

gamerk2: Your comment about the Core 2 Quad is way off base. The Core 2 series performs terribly against any newer i5, i7 or Ryzen CPU, when either is paired with a high end modern GPU. Do a search and find some actual test results, if you want to look into it further.

You do realize he wasn't serious. He was mocking the article.

He wasn't mocking the article

 

[Strawman]

The reason you test at lower resolution is to determine how much headroom each CPU has. Or in other words: How a CPU is expected to perform when you plug a newer more powerful GPU into the rig. Yes, when using a 1080 Ti the CPU has very little effect when running at 1080p. But what about two years from now when the 3080 Ti comes out? Based on these results, I'd expect Intel to be a good 20% faster then Ryzen, as the CPU has more headroom to properly feed faster GPUs.

That's just not true though. Testing in 720p only shows you how the CPU will perform on CURRENT games with future gpus. It doesn't tell you ANYTHING about how it will perform with future games though.

So it's pretty easy to demonstrate where that logic fails. Just take a 7600k and an R5 1600x and test them on 720p on 3 year old games. I'm 100% positive the 7600k will wipe the floor with the R5 1600x. You can try for example Dying Light, GTA V, Shadow of mordor, etcetera. Now fast forward to today's games and you can see that the R5 1600x performs better.

So that theory just fails. The reason why it fails is that you are comparing CPU's with widely different characteristics. The Intel's are single thread beasts but the Ryzen's have more overall power. The more core aware a game is, the better it performs on the overall more powerful CPU. Take for example Crysis 3 that maxes out every single core your PC has. In the heavy scenes, the R5 1600 demolishes the 8400, and not by a small margin.

 

[Steve]

The reason you test at lower resolution is to determine how much headroom each CPU has. Or in other words: How a CPU is expected to perform when you plug a newer more powerful GPU into the rig. Yes, when using a 1080 Ti the CPU has very little effect when running at 1080p. But what about two years from now when the 3080 Ti comes out? Based on these results, I'd expect Intel to be a good 20% faster then Ryzen, as the CPU has more headroom to properly feed faster GPUs.

That's just not true though. Testing in 720p only shows you how the CPU will perform on CURRENT games with future gpus. It doesn't tell you ANYTHING about how it will perform with future games though.

So it's pretty easy to demonstrate where that logic fails. Just take a 7600k and an R5 1600x and test them on 720p on 3 year old games. I'm 100% positive the 7600k will wipe the floor with the R5 1600x. You can try for example Dying Light, GTA V, Shadow of mordor, etcetera. Now fast forward to today's games and you can see that the R5 1600x performs better.

So that theory just fails. The reason why it fails is that you are comparing CPU's with widely different characteristics. The Intel's are single thread beasts but the Ryzen's have more overall power. The more core aware a game is, the better it performs on the overall more powerful CPU. Take for example Crysis 3 that maxes out every single core your PC has. In the heavy scenes, the R5 1600 demolishes the 8400, and not by a small margin.

At the rate games develop and take advantage of new technologies it's more useful to take notice of the low resolution data than to ignore it all together. Back in 2012 low resolution testing pointed to Intel having the best gaming CPUs, those that bought Sandy/Ivy Bridge in favor of AMDs' FX series enjoyed using their PC a lot more

Of course the alternative is to stick your head in the sand, look at the 4K results and just buy anything. The last thing you want to do is research and look at sources that cover a wide range of resolutions.

 

[TrexAverell]

For the next review, it would be interesting to compare an i5 8600K vs i7 7700K at the same clockspeed

 

[Strawman]

At the rate games develop and take advantage of new technologies it's more useful to take notice of the low resolution data than to ignore it all together. Back in 2012 low resolution testing pointed to Intel having the best gaming CPUs, those that bought Sandy/Ivy Bridge in favor of AMDs' FX series enjoyed using their PC a lot more

Of course the alternative is to stick your head in the sand, look at the 4K results and just buy anything. The last thing you want to do is research and look at sources that cover a wide range of resolutions.

I didn't say anything about 4k though. Also, I never said that I'm suggesting R5 over Intel. I don't. The 8400 is a beast.

I just find the 720p benchmarks misleading. I already gave a reason why. The only thing that a 720p benchmark shows is performance in CURRENT games with future cards.

You can do the tests and see that I'm right. Start testing 3 year old games on R5 vs 7600k on 720p, I guess we both agree that the 7600k will wipe the floor with the 1600. How about today's games though? You just can't argue that, it's a reality. Current performance is not indicative of future performance.

Also your FX comment is not quite spot on. The 8300 wasn't the only FX in town. There was also the FX 6100 / 6300, which right now outperforms the 3rd gen i3 which was it's competition.

 

[Steve]

I didn't say anything about 4k though. Also, I never said that I'm suggesting R5 over Intel. I don't. The 8400 is a beast.

I just find the 720p benchmarks misleading. I already gave a reason why. The only thing that a 720p benchmark shows is performance in CURRENT games with future cards.

You can do the tests and see that I'm right. Start testing 3 year old games on R5 vs 7600k on 720p, I guess we both agree that the 7600k will wipe the floor with the 1600. How about today's games though? You just can't argue that, it's a reality. Current performance is not indicative of future performance.

Also your FX comment is not quite spot on. The 8300 wasn't the only FX in town. There was also the FX 6100 / 6300, which right now outperforms the 3rd gen i3 which was it's competition.

"Should we see an influx of quality DX12 titles over the next few years, then this could change the future prediction of the 720p results shown here."

https://www.techspot.com/review/1505-intel-core-8th-gen-vs-amd-ryzen/page6.html

 

[Manuel Diego]

Even so many months after their launch, it makes me very happy and still a little surprised to see CPU charts where AMD competes neck to neck with Intel. It has been so many years since that happened, almost ten years... Competition is so great, was so needed!

 

[Strawman]

"Should we see an influx of quality DX12 titles over the next few years, then this could change the future prediction of the 720p results shown here."

https://www.techspot.com/review/1505-intel-core-8th-gen-vs-amd-ryzen/page6.html

I don't know why you are showing this to me. I didn't argue with you, did I?

 

[Begone]

Back in real life where people use 1080p, 2560x1080p, and 2560x1440p Freesync monitors, Excellent AM4 motherboards were 20% off at newegg (only $60 shipped for ASRock's excellent AB350m Pro4) and Ryzen 5 1600 was $169.99, but let's go ahead and do everything we can to pretend intel is still relevant in price/performance.......

Not all are casual gamers. Ryzen limits the fps for high fps gaming.

 

[vergilangleos]

Seems a little confusing ,
720p chart says in future titles which cpu would be better ?
And also in other articles with dx11 vs dx12 charts we can see how newer and future dx 12 title performance will be .. Something is wrong , dx11 vs dx12 chart and 720p benchmark results are different and cant be used for the same purpose

 

[BSim500]

Another great article. +1 for testing at different settings (720p vs 1080p vs 1440p) to highlight how CPU's scale given variable GPU loads. Now cue the usual "But I don't game at 720p and don't understand what the data shows" comments

That's just not true though. Testing in 720p only shows you how the CPU will perform on CURRENT games with future gpus. It doesn't tell you ANYTHING about how it will perform with future games though.

Actually it does. It may not be a perfect 1:1 prediction for every single game, but it absolutely does highlight how much overhead a CPU can have on average. As for "by 2018, all games will use 16x perfect threads", etc, the two biggest bottlenecks for future games are 1. Developer laziness, and 2. Cross-platform AAA's will continue to be designed for consoles as a primary platform (which have similar overall horsepower on par with a G4560). Buying an R7 1800X and expecting double frame-rates over an R5 1500X / i7-7700K won't change anytime soon as far as mainstream core game design is concerned.

If 2018 games actually loaded up 12-16 threads (vs having as little as 5-15% usage on half the cores) for core game functionality (eg, super AI, or huge cities filled with AC:Unity sized crowds where each person has their own unique animation, personality, dialogue, etc), they flat out would no longer run on consoles (which form 80-90% of AAA sales) plus send development costs soaring (a +10x fold increase in motion capture, voice acting, writing, etc). That's why even after all this time, the biggest driver of PC vs console hardware differences is still stuff that scales easily with minimal extra development effort (ie, 120-144Hz or 1440P / 4K monitors, etc).

I don't doubt things will improve in time, but as far as radical changes in cross-platform AAA game design is concerned, it's always been consoles that have set the baseline, not enthusiast PC CPU's, and even the PS4 Pro, etc, are still using barely 6-7x of those tiny Intel-Atom class Jaguar's. It's going to be yet another console generation before that changes.

 

[pawel04]

Also a key benefit of the Ryzen platform is being able to upgrade to Zen2 in an affordable manner which cannot be said for intel's next 'lake' platform.

Exactly what I was about to point out. I just saw Asus will be releasing an ROG Mini-ITX B350-I so I think ill be building an R5 1600 rig before chrissy with an upgrade to Zen2 in maybe 3 years!

 

[Totee]

Hello Steve,

May I ask how the 9 game average is calculated? It seems the math is not quite correct. The chart shows this:
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1505/bench/Average_720p.png

I just spot check the AMD Ryzen 5 1600x results for the 720p, so if I add up the following for average frame rate:
154, 98, 94, 140, 190, 109, 97, 183, 122, I get 1187 and divide by 9 I get 131.89 or 132 rounded up.

That does match what the chart is showing of 158. Is there something I am not understanding?

Thanks.

On all three resolutions "9 game average" charts are showing the same results.
Something is wrong here.