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

[hahahanoobs]

Intel i5 8600K.
Mine.

"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."

Intel said Canon Lake will be compatible with Z370 boards. Z370 also has the same fan mounts as Z270. Also, with Intel u don't have to upgrade every year, because Intel chips last longer performance-wise, and AMD users are DEFINITELY not upgrading every year, sooooo....

 

[dirtyferret]

Actual data though proves you wrong. The 7600k performs way better on 3+ year old games on 720p than the R5 1600x, therefore according to your argument it highlights that it has more CPU overhead. But does it? Nope, since in today's games it generally performs worse.

lol, ok fan boy. Every single tech review spot has it performing better but sure in your world it performs worse lol

 

[amstech]

My point is you can't judge future performance based on current performance..

Well of course not, but you can speculate based on past and current results.
Things don't change overnight...meh, they barely changed over 5 years.

Still, you are wrong. The R5 1600x is a better gaming CPU than the 7600k and they launched at the same time.

Wrong about what?
I said the 7600k and R5 1600 are very close in gaming benchmarks.
Yes a very few, new specific titles that utilize more then 4/4 run better.
They are still close and exchange blows.

The fx 6300 performs similar to the i3 4130 even in single thread intensive games (like GTA V / arma etc.). Of course it wipes the floor with it in more multithreaded games like BF1 / Civ 6 / crysis 3 etcetera.

Do you have charts/graphs?

 

[BSim500]

Actual data though proves you wrong. The 7600k performs way better on 3+ year old games on 720p than the R5 1600x, therefore according to your argument it highlights that it has more CPU overhead. But does it? Nope, since in today's games it generally performs worse.

Why are you talking about the 7600K which I didn't even mention? The nearest genuine 2017 competition to the R5 1600X is i5-8400 / i5-8600K. Your "argument" consisting of comparing new chips for one brand vs old chips for another is like "i5-7600K vs FX-8350, let's pretend Ryzen doesn't exist", which is flat-out stupid...

Edit : I think you're confusing two separate arguments here on the wrong article. This is about Coffee Lake vs Ryzen. If you wanted a new 4C/4T, you'd be looking at i3-8100 vs R3 1300X today. If you wanted to spend 1600X money, you'd be looking at vs i5-8600K hex cores. If you're arguing that 720p benchmarks have no predictive value, then what you sound like you're trying to do is compare how 3 year old chips (eg, FX-8350 vs i5-4690K) stack up on today's games vs on 3 year old games (in reality, the FX-8350's were regularly bottlenecking more than the 4690K's when the later GTX 970/980's came out). Instead, you seem to be getting confused and mixing up CPU's of different generations whilst leaving out half the main 2017 Q4 CPU's that are the entire point of this article...

 

[dirtyferret]

The fx 6300 performs similar to the i3 4130 even in single thread intensive games (like GTA V / arma etc.). Of course it wipes the floor with it in more multithreaded games like BF1 / Civ 6 / crysis 3 etcetera.

Seems like a gimped i3 beats a slightly OC 6300 in BF1.

 

[senketsu]

I picked up my i5-7600k & Z270 for $250 over the summer...

And you now have a dead end motherboard and a 4 Core cpu......

seriously?? That rig is excellent, likely more than needed, still can upgrade cpu, ssd, gpu, sound, monitor, etc.
How many of us have computers that are way overpowered for what we actually use them for? I get it, I'm an enthusiast and my computer falls squarely in that category, but to chastise someone with modern fairly high powered kit like that is ridiculous.

 

[Puiu]

Intel i5 8600K.
Mine.

"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."

Intel said Canon Lake will be compatible with Z370 boards. Z370 also has the same fan mounts as Z270. Also, with Intel u don't have to upgrade every year, because Intel chips last longer performance-wise, and AMD users are DEFINITELY not upgrading every year, sooooo....

The Z370 being compatible with Canon Lake rumor was started by a fake article which has been since taken down.
Z370 is regarded as a stop gap solution until the Z390 launches around the time Canon Lake. (disclaimer: these 2 pieces of information are taken from "leaks" of slides and other info and should be taken as such)

We don't know yet if Z370 will be compatible with Canon Lake or if Z390 will work with Coffee Lake.

 

[Stebe]

How did you test PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds? There is no benchmark for this game, so I heavily question your results.

And, may as well have used a 1080 Ti, right?

 

[hyperspaced]

Stopped reading at the second line: "On deck for this one we tested 8 processors in 9 ***games*** "

 

[senketsu]

Stopped reading at the second line: "On deck for this one we tested 8 processors in 9 ***games*** "

but you read all the way down to here, just sayin'

 

[DoNotMarket2Me]

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.

Thank you Steve for working hard and putting together all the data and sharing it with everyone. It is terrible that you get attacked for presenting the data as truthfully as you see it.

 

[Steve]

How did you test PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds? There is no benchmark for this game, so I heavily question your results.

And, may as well have used a 1080 Ti, right?

No, there is a built in-benchmark, it's just hard to use. You need to find a vehicle in-game. Get in vehicle. Drive vehicle till you hit top speed and then drive it into the side of a building, just before impact jump out and the built-in benchmark will execute.

Also yeah, may as well have used a 1080 Ti, ya right.

 

[Boilerhog146]

How the blue forgets that at one time Athlon and FX wiped the floor with pentiums II, III, IV, then Core happened. Have both and like both, facts are facts.

Is that how long its been since AMD could charge a 1000.00 bucks for a cpu.? My how time flies!

 

[NightAntilli]

Well Steve... As you know, I've been one of your harsher critics from time to time... But this time, all I have to say is;

Job well done!

 

[000000]

Finally a 6 core became mainstream, I hope this war of cores will continue

 

[Strawman]

lol, ok fan boy. Every single tech review spot has it performing better but sure in your world it performs worse lol

Really? The very site that you are posting at doesn't. Is this site a "fanboy"? Okay..

 

[Strawman]

Well of course not, but you can speculate based on past and current results.
Things don't change overnight...meh, they barely changed over 5 years.

Sure you can speculate based on past and current results. And that's exactly what I did. The 7600k wipes the floor with the R5 1600x on older games. In current games, as you've said, they are close, with a slight advantage to the R5 1600x in modern engines. So the argument about 720p / CPU overhead / future gaming performance is wrong.

Do you have charts/graphs?

There are benches on youtube

 

[Strawman]

Why are you talking about the 7600K which I didn't even mention? The nearest genuine 2017 competition to the R5 1600X is i5-8400 / i5-8600K.

You do realize that 7600k launched in 2017, right? Why am I talking about it? To prove that the argument "720p shows future performance on modern games / cpu headroom" is wrong. Because if it was true, the 7600k would be a better gaming CPU than the R5 1600x. But it isn't.

If you're arguing that 720p benchmarks have no predictive value, then what you sound like you're trying to do is compare how 3 year old chips (eg, FX-8350 vs i5-4690K) stack up on today's games vs on 3 year old games Instead, you seem to be getting confused and mixing up CPU's of different generations whilst leaving out half the main 2017 Q4 CPU's that are the entire point of this article...

R5 1600 isn't Q4 CPU. It launched 3 months after the 7600k. But nevertheless, it doesn't matter which generation CPU's I'm comparing. If CPU headroom is indicative of future performance than it should not matter a tiny bit the generation of the CPU, only the headroom at 720p. Therefore, according to the argument, any CPU that performed better in older titles (or had more headroom) should also perform better in newer and future titles. That's wrong. Which is what I'm saying all along.

 

[Strawman]

Seems like a gimped i3 beats a slightly OC 6300 in BF1.

That's a 3rd gen i3? Or are you just trying to win an e-argument by using strawmans?

 

[Sausagemeat]

Lot of people saying that Ryzen won? Baffling. Did they read the same tests? Intel stomp AMD when it comes to games and this tests prove it again. Especially when you look at 720p tests - something that can actually differentiate between these CPUs and indicate future performance.

Intel is faster at MS office, web, gaming and photoshop. For me this should encompass most users.

Also, if a chip comes in at 10% worse but costs 15% less that doesn’t automatically make it a better buy, I’d happily pay 15% to have the best. I think a lot of people would. If you’re buying your system to last you a few years you do t want to be sitting there wishing you spent that extra $30.

Oh and we should also point out that Intels chips have a GPU built in, so that’s a huge saving for productivity and for gaming, well it helps if your card dies and you have to go without for a bit. It’s a big value add when you think about it.

 

[Strawman]

Lot of people saying that Ryzen won? Baffling.

Nope, nobody said that.

Did they read the same tests?

Did you read the same posts?

Especially when you look at 720p tests - something that can actually differentiate between these CPUs and indicate future performance.

No it's not indicative of future performance. It's only indicative of performance in CURRENT games with future graphics cards.

 

[BSim500]

You do realize that 7600k launched in 2017, right?

Yes and so did Coffee Lake which is the what the whole article is about. If you want to talk about 7600K vs Ryzen, you're 6 months too late and on the wrong thread...

If CPU headroom is indicative of future performance than it should not matter a tiny bit the generation of the CPU, only the headroom at 720p. Therefore, according to the argument, any CPU that performed better in older titles (or had more headroom) should also perform better in newer and future titles. That's wrong. Which is what I'm saying all along.

Again, you seem severely confused. If you're looking back 3 years now, the FX-8350 vs i5-4670K does indeed show that the latter did better on new cards. If you're looking forwards to the future, the obvious comparison you're trying your hardest to pretend doesn't exist is i5-8600K vs R5 1600X. Which yet again, IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.

 

[dirtyferret]

That's a 3rd gen i3? Or are you just trying to win an e-argument by using strawmans?

It's a gimped i3 equivalent to a third gen i3 facing an OC FX-6, can you show us where the facts hurt you?

 

[dirtyferret]

Sure you can speculate based on past and current results. And that's exactly what I did. The 7600k wipes the floor with the R5 1600x on older games. In current games, as you've said, they are close, with a slight advantage to the R5 1600x in modern engines. So the argument about 720p / CPU overhead / future gaming performance is wrong.


There are benches on youtube

OK benches on youtube, discussion is over. No more to see here...but let's just check one or two or more professional sites before we take AMDfanboy1 living in mom's basement as the end all be all on benches.

Does Tom's hardware agree? Nope the further right you go the better the processor performs and notice the gap widens once you OC the 7600k compared to an OC 1600.

Does Anandtech agree? Nope

I have $250, What Should I Get – the Core i5 7600/7600K or the Ryzen 5 1600X?
Platform wise, the Intel side can offer more features on Z270 over AM4, however AMD would point to the lower platform cost of B350 that could be invested elsewhere in a system.

On performance, for anyone wanting to do intense CPU work, the Ryzen gets a nod here. Twelve threads are hard to miss at this price point. For more punchy work, you need a high frequency i5 to take advantage of the IPC differences that Intel has.

For gaming, our DX12 titles show a plus for AMD in any CPU limited scenario, such as Civilization or Rise of the Tomb Raider in certain scenes. For e-Sports, and most games based on DX9 or DX11, the Intel CPU is still a win here.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1124...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/17

Hey Maybe Techpowerup agrees? Nope

Surely PCgamer (aka maximumpc) agrees? Nope

What about techspot, the very site you are posting on? Nope

So other then every professional web site out there not agreeing with you, you are correct because of "youtube benchmark".

I love reading fanboy hissy fits in the morning, they read like...victory.

 

[HardReset]

OK benches on youtube, discussion is over.
So other then every professional web site out there not agreeing with you, you are correct because of "youtube benchmark".

I love reading fanboy hissy fits in the morning, they read like...victory.

Youtube videos generally offers much better indication about real gaming than benchmark runs. When running benchmark, you don't actually play the game. That's big difference and explains why youtube is indeed be much better source than any benchmark result found on "professional website".