Ryzen 7 2700X vs. Core i7-8700K: 35 Game Benchmark

[Julio Franco]

Today we're finally bringing you the epic gaming battle between the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-8700K that so many have been requesting. The flagship Ryzen packs 8 cores and 16 threads, while the i7-8700K offers two less cores for a 6 core/12 thread configuration, but at a higher frequency and with more room for overclocking.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/

 

[Puiu]

I was expecting the difference to be bigger at around 20%. Up to 15% is not a bad showing for AMD and this gives me hope that Zen2 can close the gap in terms of IPC and frequency.

I'm really excited about future CPU releases from both AMD and Intel. Let's see how they can one-up each other.

 

[BSim500]

Good article. I don't own (or intend to buy) either chip, but +1 for doing extended 35 game benchmarks. The effort that goes into that is not unappreciated by many of us.

 

[TomSEA]

Wow...gotta give you guys props for putting this together with that many games. Anyone who walks away from this thinking "which proc should I buy" simply didn't read the article.

 

[R00sT3R]

Zen 2 in 2019 will finally be the moment when we'll be able to put this argument to bed once and for all, IMO.

IPC & Clock speeds will be almost identical on the 7nm process to Intels current & future CPU's, Once Ryzen can reach 4.5Ghz(or more) it will become an academic choice, Intel CPU's aren't going to get much faster for the next 2-3yrs in terms of IPC,Clock speeds or core count.

How $$$ you're willing to spend will be the only choice you'll have to consider, not performance.

 

[texasrattler]

Wow...gotta give you guys props for putting this together with that many games. Anyone who walks away from this thinking "which proc should I buy" simply didn't read the article.

Thats makes no sense since the writer of the article even said hes torn about which to choose.
The point of the article imo is about no matter which of these you choose you are going to enjoy the latest games for awhile.
So no one should worry about choosing which is best, both are very good CPUs. In the end, get which ever one you like. Im a Intel guy so I go with them.

 

[Dosahka]

Zen 2 in 2019 will finally be the moment when we'll be able to put this argument to bed once and for all, IMO.

Well it might be true but this extended benchmark showed how powerful the Intel Hexa core against AMD's Octa, on higher resolutions the GPU was a limiting factor but this year Intel will bring 8 core to consumer like they did it with the 6 core. I think AMD can be competition (as the benchmarks shows) again! but if intel keeps up the speed this little technological advance will be remain between these two or even grow bigger. We will see.

 

[Evernessince]

Zen 2 in 2019 will finally be the moment when we'll be able to put this argument to bed once and for all, IMO.

Well it might be true but this extended benchmark showed how powerful the Intel Hexa core against AMD's Octa, on higher resolutions the GPU was a limiting factor but this year Intel will bring 8 core to consumer like they did it with the 6 core. I think AMD can be competition (as the benchmarks shows) again! but if intel keeps up the speed this little technological advance will be remain between these two or even grow bigger. We will see.

I think you may be confused, adding additional cores won't improve Intel's gaming performance. If Intel releases an 8 core CPU this year it won't change anything in these benchmarks. If anything an 8 core Intel CPU is less desirable than a 6 core for gaming as it won't clock as high and it will be harder to cool.

I wouldn't worry about AMD being competitive, their product roadmap is a heck of a lot more promising than Intel's is right now. After all, there is a reason Intel hired Jim Keller, who had just left AMD.

 

[fadingfool]

Ringbus > infinity fabric (at up to 6 cores) hence 8600k > 2700X.
Mesh = infinity fabric (8 cores and above) hence 7820X = 2700X (in heavy threaded workloads).
So if Intel do release an 8 core on the ringbus (Low Core Count) architecture will this still be faster than infinity fabric and intel's own mesh or does it introduce latency problems a greater than six cores?
I'd love to see an in depth comparison of i7-8600k v i7-7800X v Ryzen 2600X all clocked at 4.2 GHz so we can compare architectures across a complete suite of tasks (and multi-tasks) .

 

[Regentvoo]

I would get intel just because of habit. I need one because my last one was 5 years ago. But I love that AMD is closing the gap and creating heated competition for intel.

I was going to get a 8700k until the 9700k was made officially known this week so I guess I'll wait a little while longer

 

[Fidster]

8700k can usually reach 4133-4266mhz CL17 on Samsung B-Die. I think the tests should've been run on such speeds, rather than just copy-paste Ryzen's optimal settings over to a platform where it's not optimal.

 

[NimbusTLD]

I miss Skidmarksdeluxe

 

[Adi6293]

Well I would pick the 2700X due to only being a little bit slower and having those extra threads might come in handy in the future. I remember when the i5 2500K was beating i7 980X when it was first released, now days overclocked Xeon W3680 to 4.5Ghz would probably beat that i5 in modern games due to have 3 times more threads

 

[Adi6293]

I would get intel just because of habit. I need one because my last one was 5 years ago. But I love that AMD is closing the gap and creating heated competition for intel.

I was going to get a 8700k until the 9700k was made officially known this week so I guess I'll wait a little while longer

Well that's why AMD can't really rise up, because people still buy Intel out of habits, remember all those millions they invest need to be made back so they can stay competitive.
Btw 9700 looks to be slightly faster 8700 so probably won't matter what you buy if both are clocked at 5.0Ghz

 

[dj2017]

Between those two, and purely for gaming and based on numbers shown in the review, for a 1080p or 720p resolution, the 8700K is the only choice.

Now, the cost of the cooler does give some extra points to 2700X. $40 for a good cooler IS a difference that counts.

2700X is also cheaper, not the same price. At least that's what I see when looking at Amazon. 320 vs 350 dollars. Not same price.

I also expect that 470 motherboards that are somehow equivalent to 370, will be probably cheaper. Intel brand adds to costs.

Power consumption is also in Ryzen's side.

And let's not forget, that there is always the option of the non-X 2700 that is also unlocked.

 

[NightAntilli]

I'd get the 2700X regardless because;

- I can actually stream and play at the same time.

- It is more efficient for mining.

- The flexibility in upgrading for AM4 is a plus I can't overlook.

- As someone with a 75 Hz FreeSync display, the additional gaming performance of the 8700k is completely irrelevant to me.

- You have to be extremely lucky to get your 8700K to 5Ghz without delidding and water cooling, while the 2700X performance shown is practically guaranteed even with the boxed cooler. In fact, stock performance with XFR2 is known to have better results than overclocking to 4.2 GHz, because it can reach 4.35 GHz on the cores it needs (feel free to test it Steve).

- You get StoreMI for free with an X470 motherboard, which is practically the best technology there is right now to keep your PC performance at SSD speeds without having storage limits.

 

[Puiu]

Well it might be true but this extended benchmark showed how powerful the Intel Hexa core against AMD's Octa, on higher resolutions the GPU was a limiting factor but this year Intel will bring 8 core to consumer like they did it with the 6 core. I think AMD can be competition (as the benchmarks shows) again! but if intel keeps up the speed this little technological advance will be remain between these two or even grow bigger. We will see.

In this case where we already have a lot of cores and threads, 2 extra cores mean nothing in most of these games, IPC has a bigger impact (albeit, we do see that a few games managed to get close to the 5GHz 8700k using the 4.2GHz 2700x).

As a side-note, Intel will most likely release the 8 core chip around the time AMD will release Zen2.

 

[Imran Mikayle]

Seems like those benchmark shows Intel is faster due to higher clock speeds. Imagine if they can make Ryzen Turbo boost to 5.0-gigahertz. Probably would have perform better.

 

[erickmendes]

Intel = Best Gaming CPU
AMD = Best Overall Value.

I am always on a budget, I go for value.

 

[Kevin Frye]

With such a small difference in gaming performance, you lose more with a 8700k over a 2700x.
the 2700x IS already and will continue to be the better choice for content creators and streamers.
that multi core performance makes a big difference compared to the 8700k.
shoot, I let my 2700x pc run duel virtualization, and split 4 cores even, one runs games on my desktop monitors, the other lets my brother handle his HTC vive set in the room next door. all while im streaming and encoding with my gpu in 1440p down scaled to 1080p/60fps.

 

[msroadkill612]

Ringbus > infinity fabric (at up to 6 cores) hence 8600k > 2700X.
Mesh = infinity fabric (8 cores and above) hence 7820X = 2700X (in heavy threaded workloads).

So if Intel do release an 8 core on the ringbus (Low Core Count) architecture will this still be faster than infinity fabric and intel's own mesh or does it introduce latency problems a greater than six cores?

Afaik, intels ringbus starts to bog down after six cores (as evidenced by Intel skuS favoring 6 core & if not, why use mesh on bigger cpuS?).

Amd are already wearing the latency they must endure from inter ccx latency on their dual ccx zeppelin die.

Intel are top of their "game" at 6 core. Latency (gaming) goes downhill for intel at 8 cores.

7nm ryzen should equalise the buses and give amd a clear advantage with 8 cores vs 6 at equal latency.

So this article shows that at 1440p gaming resolution they are ~even, and at 1080p both are ridiculously fast anyway.

Add any multi tasking or threading, and intel is crushed by the extra cores of amd.

If I had decided on Amd graphics for Freesync e.g., I would lean to an all amd system for the inevitable synergies of harmonised sibling processors.

It bears noting that there are numerous tacky hidden extra costs to the intel option:

afaik, mobos are a mess, the cooler is a joke even at stock speeds vs an excellent one free w/ 2700x, no free lanes for a proper nvme like am4, the new auto dynamic clocking on zen+ is way under rated IMO.

btw, out of curiosity, I selected cpu/intel/4 core/new on newegg, and it reveals they are sold new for an astonishing 9 different socket mobos.

You need a college course to be sure what u r buying. How dare they waste peoples time like that?

Experienced gamers know the best gaming machine is the most often updated. $100 more spent on marginal value now pales against $100 of excellent value future tech temptations.

The sweet spot cpu for gamers is the 2600x imo. There are few gaming downsides. Its ~$100 less and overclocks more.

I dont agree that am4 socket longevity is valueless.

The 2600x would make a great place holder for a drop in 7nm Zen later.

 

[Nobina]

What I noticed not just here but in a couple of CPU benchmarks is that AMD tends to catch up on Intel the more you increase resolution/quality. It's almost as if it's not working at it's max if not pushed to the limits.

 

[tb49913]

Love the fact that you guys go through all the trouble to run these benchmarks, but... Why does it seem like most places that review CPU's are tending to only post overclocked benchmarks? Do you realize that some people just buy a CPU or a computer and then continue to run it at stock? Shocking, I know! Could we please get benchmarks that run these systems at stock CPU frequencies and memory set at the max XMP frequency the board will run? I feel like only posting overclocked results will bias the findings towards the Intel camp since everyone knows that Intel overclocks higher.

 

[HyPeroxya]

Ecosystem around 'tel is more developed ... greater choice of mobo , with better features.. m-itx specially in this regard. Used to be power usage too .
I can never forget the fx9590 , chutzpah for even bringing it out, toasty.

 

[Capaill]

You guys must not have been very good at overclocking, my 2700x is on air cooling and is clocked at 5.1ghz stable

Wo wo wo. A 2700x on 5.1 ?? Please explain how? As any overclocking articles I have read say that 4.4 is the likely max you can get to, even with water cooling. Anybody who got near 5 GHz used liquid nitrogen.