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

[PetrolHead]

Intels memory controller goes all the way to 4000 mhz and beyond

I'm not saying it hasn't got potential, just that anything beyond 2666 MHz is technically an overclock even on Intel's hardware. I'm not sure if Intel is overly cautious with their specs or if memory manufacturers have just had so many years to tune their modules to suit Intel's hardware, but it does seem low compared to what sort of memory speeds you can obtain using XMP profiles (which are predefined and tested overclocking profiles). The best I've seen from Ryzen (in reviews and forum posts) is 3466 MHz, which is not that great in comparison, but considering that Ryzen represent a new architecture, I wouldn't consider it a bad start.

.Disclaimer.quoted from the read.
Please note none of the cpu's were overclocked.but we do plan to do an overclocked version of this test soon.

Be ready with the comments.

Also from the article:

"all the chips were tested using DDR4-3200 CL14 memory"

This leaves two alternatives: either the memory wasn't used at its rated speed, and we don't know what speed was used (shame on Steve if this is the case), or that both systems ran with a memory overclock (which it is even if that's the rated speed for the RAM modules).

Interestingly, while comparing what sort of memory overclocks the Asrock X370 Taichi and Z370 Taichi support, I came across a table depicting how the maximum memory frequency depends on the amount of modules. The values are:

1 module (single rank or dual rank): 2667 MHz
2 modules (single rank): 2667 MHz
2 modules (dual rank): 2400-2667 MHz
4 modules (single rank): 2133-2400 MHz
4 modules (dual rank or a mix of dual and single rank): 1866-2133 Mhz

I'm not quite sure if these limitations are because of ASRock's motherboard design or if only the memory controller is to blame, but based on the trend of previous AMD CPUs, I'd blame the memory controller. In any case, the amount of modules does seem to affect even the maximum stock clocks on Ryzen as well. I doubt Ryzen 2 will bring improvements on this front, but future versions of AGESA and maybe even new AMD specific RAM (such as G.Skill's Flare X and Fortis) will hopefully improve the situation.

 

[Boilerhog146]

I trust he did get the 2 modules to 3200 mhz.on rysen.pretty sure he would have mentioned it if he did not.one thing I consider Steve to be , during his review process is thorough. That's why the 720p results.if he just tested at 2k/4k ,the margins would be so narrow we wouldn't see hardly any difference.and would have been wasting time, his.and mine.and yours as well if you know .

 

[Steve]

Curious. Perhaps you should explicitly state in your articles that whilst Ryzen may have better average frame rates, they actually have slower turn completion times and result in a worse end user experience than Intel chips? Many people will look at your results and mistakenly think that Ryzen is a better chip to buy if they are playing Civ. this is misleading and I know that you do to want to mislead your readership.

Furthermore, how exactly is measuring the frames per second of a game that is constantly waiting on the CPU to finish a good measure of DX12? I’m genuinely really struggling to understand that logic. Surely the turn completion time would be a better indicator of this?

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3086-intel-i5-8400-cpu-review-2666mhz-vs-3200mhz-gaming/page-4

Gamers Nexus is testing with a GTX 1080 Ti. The Pascal based GeForce GPUs don't have hardware support for DX12, it's handled by the driver and this causes problems for Ryzen and it's weaker single thread performance.

Here you can see Civ tested with Vega 64 LC and a GTX 1080 Ti...
https://www.techspot.com/review/1497-intel-core-i7-8700k/page3.html

 

[amghwk]

The winner is still Intel, price not withstanding.

For once, AMD seemed to be making a stride against Intel with Ryzen, but Intel blasted it back with the new 8th generation core CPUs. AMD's Ryzen only seemed to motivate Intel to improve further.

Unless AMD is willing to drop it's price further (which it can't now), it will be struggling, except for those who want to support AMD no matter what.

 

[HardReset]

The winner is still Intel, price not withstanding.

For once, AMD seemed to be making a stride against Intel with Ryzen, but Intel blasted it back with the new 8th generation core CPUs. AMD's Ryzen only seemed to motivate Intel to improve further.

Unless AMD is willing to drop it's price further (which it can't now), it will be struggling, except for those who want to support AMD no matter what.

These CPU's are 6th generation as there is no difference to Skylake (that 6th generation). 8th generation is simply 6th generation with moar cores and more clocks, nothing else.

Also AMD would have taken more performance even from these first Ryzen's if they just decided to drive power consumption up. Funny that when AMD consumer more than Intel, AMD is hot. When Intel is hotter, no-one cares

 

[Boilerhog146]

These CPU's are 6th generation as there is no difference to Skylake (that 6th generation). 8th generation is simply 6th generation with moar cores and more clocks, nothing else.

Also AMD would have taken more performance even from these first Ryzen's if they just decided to drive power consumption up. Funny that when AMD consumer more than Intel, AMD is hot. When Intel is hotter, no-one cares

Yeah sad ,it is AMD never forced intel into anything more than adding a couple of cores and a tweak to put them back on top.

No, no one cared that Prescott was HOT! Or all the netburst arc.for that matter. Nobody turned and bought the famed athlons (FX) lolz.
if AMD were able to bring another athlon type scenario .Which RYZEN. Is not.you would see intel scrambling to catchup .instead we see just chips being tweaked, relabled ,and dumped into the market just too move them out to make way for the next run off the fab.
oh ,and too add confusion forcing ryzen sales to stall from time to time.bet it's working too.

 

[Flatspin]

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.

You are quite right - this is a review very skewed towards Intel, in an area where it already had the performance edge with higher clock speeds. If you throw in multi-threaded workloads, the balance tips in AMD's favour.

Who's going to run a new game at 720p, anyway?

 

[Flatspin]

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.

It is going to happen, because AMD have shown it can happen, at affordable price points, whilst giving you excellent workstation performance - something Intel wants to charge an arm and a leg for.

 

[amstech]

It is going to happen, because AMD have shown it can happen, at affordable price points, whilst giving you excellent workstation performance - something Intel wants to charge an arm and a leg for.

There have always been affordable Core i3/Core i5's with excellent performance.

 

[HardReset]

Yeah sad ,it is AMD never forced intel into anything more than adding a couple of cores and a tweak to put them back on top.

No, no one cared that Prescott was HOT! Or all the netburst arc.for that matter. Nobody turned and bought the famed athlons (FX) lolz.
if AMD were able to bring another athlon type scenario .Which RYZEN. Is not.you would see intel scrambling to catchup .instead we see just chips being tweaked, relabled ,and dumped into the market just too move them out to make way for the next run off the fab.
oh ,and too add confusion forcing ryzen sales to stall from time to time.bet it's working too.

In other words, adding moar cores and heat was all Intel could do.

Yeah, it seems hot Intel is normal, hot AMD not.

Intel's tactics only works because Ryzen has so poor manufacturing tech. Luckily Ryzen 2 resolves that problem.

There have always been affordable Core i3/Core i5's with excellent performance.

Not for long time. All i3's have been overpriced last 5 years.

 

[Flatspin]

There have always been affordable Core i3/Core i5's with excellent performance.

You're missing the point about workstation performance...

 

[amstech]

.
Not for long time. All i3's have been overpriced last 5 years.

Whatever you say.

You're missing the point about workstation performance...

95% of people don't need more then 4 cores.
Ryzen's overall performance is nothing short of stellar, its almost server like, the architecture is very impressive for its somewhat docile clock speeds.

 

[Boilerhog146]

In other words, adding moar cores and heat was all Intel could do.

Yeah, it seems hot Intel is normal, hot AMD not.

Intel's tactics only works because Ryzen has so poor manufacturing tech. Luckily Ryzen 2 resolves that problem.



Not for long time. All i3's have been overpriced last 5 years.

Your other words, I never mentioned heat .your comment is the first to mention heat.
I said a couple of cores and tweaks.was all they needed ,not all they could.I hope AMD pays you well.

nice to see you finally admitting Rysen has such poor manufacturing tech.
Yes it is lucky Ryzen 2 resolves that problem.can we see your benchmarks.?steve didn't tell us he had a ryzen 2 allready.did AMD fix the busted memory controller on your new Ryzen 2.all memory slot full and running full tilt? Sweet! Maybe I'll get a Ryzen 2 setup for Christmas.

 

[Boilerhog146]

You are quite right - this is a review very skewed towards Intel, in an area where it already had the performance edge with higher clock speeds. If you throw in multi-threaded workloads, the balance tips in AMD's favour.

Who's going to run a new game at 720p, anyway?

welcome to techspot!
Review that is very Skewed toward intel.sounds like another word for bias.
anyone who wishes to compare their cpu score in gaming with steves results will run at 720 p .to remove the gpu bottleneck..had you read the comments you would already know this..but gaming no not many will game at 720p unless all they have is a 1366x768 tv/monitor.I know a couple..but they are poor.and hardware is old.this was NOT a productivity / workstation review.did you read it?

 

[amstech]

Your other words, I never mentioned heat .your comment is the first to mention heat.
I said a couple of cores and tweaks.was all they needed ,not all they could.I hope AMD pays you well.

nice to see you finally admitting Rysen has such poor manufacturing tech.
Yes it is lucky Ryzen 2 resolves that problem.can we see your benchmarks.?steve didn't tell us he had a ryzen 2 allready.did AMD fix the busted memory controller on your new Ryzen 2.all memory slot full and running full tilt? Sweet! Maybe I'll get a Ryzen 2 setup for Christmas.

welcome to techspot!
Review that is very Skewed toward intel.sounds like another word for bias.
anyone who wishes to compare their cpu score in gaming with steves results will run at 720 p .to remove the gpu bottleneck..had you read the comments you would already know this..but gaming no not many will game at 720p unless all they have is a 1366x768 tv/monitor.I know a couple..but they are poor.and hardware is old.this was NOT a productivity / workstation review.did you read it?

Are you drunk?
See kids, this is why you don't do drugs.

 

[Boilerhog146]

Are you drunk?
See kids, this is why you don't do drugs.

Sorry . If I seem some what arrogant. I Am.
I quit the boozing back in the 90's.also abstaining from the fine herbs .though I have a script and a Tweed card.
I do enjoy some of the comments I read here.and can post as I see fit.as long as the posts remain CIVILIZED .also RELATIVE,to the thread... .
I do find the fanbois/ shill,posts quite hilarious .they post the same stuff no matter what facts are presented to them or how the facts are presented. All my posts maybe deleted or edited at mods discretion btw. Have Fun.

 

[Boilerhog146]

Whatever you say.


95% of people don't need more then 4 cores.
Ryzen's overall performance is nothing short of stellar, its almost server like, the architecture is very impressive for its somewhat docile clock speeds.

you are probably correct most don't need more than 4 cores .but want more than 4 cores.
95% of people don't need a server!

yes performance is there compared to previous releases.however it still seems broken .having limited memory options.if you need lots of fast memory .as in a workstation/server platform.Ryzen and. Threadripper for that matter are failures in that regard..! Over clocking will show even more discrepancy.
I find the 8400 impressive.if it were unlocked.a truely affordable,Ryzen Killer!

 

[brutaldoomfan92]

Honestly, the whole kabylake x makes even less sense now. And it took a few years for me to even consider swapping out my 4790k, the 8700k seems a worthy successor. Not for gaming only of course.

 

[Abraka]

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.

AMD was once the best processor. It was during the Athlon era, when Intel had Pentium 4 CPUs. Even though Pentium was running at 3.2 GHz and Athlon at only 1.8 GHz, Athlon was still mopping floor with the Intel CPU.

Then Intel invested a lot of money to try to catch up with AMD. And eventually they succeeded. Now AMD has invested a lot of money and they are catching up with Intel. Considering that AMD has invented the 64-bit instruction set that Intel CPU use, and that they were once technological leaders in the world of CPU, I wouldn't write off AMD so easily.

 

[jason lee]

Why use the VEGA 64 and not GTX 1080 ti? Can someone explain this rationale?
Half these charts CLEARLY show a GPU bottleneck.
Useless for showing CPU power since it's limited by the GPU.