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

[pawel04]

Thanks for the article, good stuff! Pretty much confirms what I thought before I read it. Buy the Intel if you want to game, if you plan on doing anything else with your computer, get the AMD...

 

[Evernessince]

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) .

Actually according to research recently done at the university of Toronto, inter-die connection technologies like AMD's infinity fabric can be faster than any monolithic inter-core communication system.

The researchers were able to come up with a method of linking the cores together on an MCM that was faster than a single die solution.

FYI ringbus is only suitable for so many cores. It was never designed for high core count CPUs in mind.

 

[Lionvibez]

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.

5.1 on a 2700x I'm calling BS on that.

Proof or GTFO.

Also for the author.

"while the 8700K needs to be paired with an aftermarket unit, of which there are a ton of great options for less than $50."

Where are you finding great aftermarket coolers for a 8700k for less than $50?

 

[Lionvibez]

Actually according to research recently done at the university of Toronto, inter-die connection technologies like AMD's infinity fabric can be faster than any monolithic inter-core communication system.

The researchers were able to come up with a method of linking the cores together on an MCM that was faster than a single die solution.

FYI ringbus is only suitable for so many cores. It was never designed for high core count CPUs in mind.

Cool video watching it now.

UofT campus is only a few blocks from my place!

 

[darkzelda]

I'll buy the AMD processor, it seems more future proof to me, besides I use my pc for many things besides gaming.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

I'm mildly uprised and delighted at the R7's performance here - but alas, nameology is too important to me. Until Intel and AMD begin a proper nameology (R8, i8 for 8-cores, etc.) I will be boycotting any upgrades and languishing in the past with my Phenom II x6 and my original Athlon 2. I will play every game at 1 frame per second. I will die. And we have only Intel and AMD to blame for my pain, as I cry in the dark attic eating nothing but ketchup packets and bemoaning my dead WinPhone.

Pray for my soul, friends. Dark days ahead.

 

[Uthur]

Question.I have is, if your doing more than gaming at the same time shouldn't you pick AMD? Streamers, of course but what about when Discord, Steam and Blizzard launcher are running and have browsers on a second screen may need AMD. I am not a streamer but I always have a browser up, Discord and steam running...

Basically I feel reality is for most gamers in 2018 benching games alone could greatly skew the reality we get at home

 

[Grumpy Wolf]

Why would you even benchmark at 720p? Who do you think is gonna buy one of these CPUs and play at 720? You should have tested at 4k.

 

[Evernessince]

I'm mildly uprised and delighted at the R7's performance here - but alas, nameology is too important to me. Until Intel and AMD begin a proper nameology (R8, i8 for 8-cores, etc.) I will be boycotting any upgrades and languishing in the past with my Phenom II x6 and my original Athlon 2. I will play every game at 1 frame per second. I will die. And we have only Intel and AMD to blame for my pain, as I cry in the dark attic eating nothing but ketchup packets and bemoaning my dead WinPhone.

Pray for my soul, friends. Dark days ahead.

The term you are looking for here is nomenclature in place of "nameology".

Question.I have is, if your doing more than gaming at the same time shouldn't you pick AMD? Streamers, of course but what about when Discord, Steam and Blizzard launcher are running and have browsers on a second screen may need AMD. I am not a streamer but I always have a browser up, Discord and steam running...

Basically I feel reality is for most gamers in 2018 benching games alone could greatly skew the reality we get at home

Yes, if you are doing any multi-tasking then the AMD processor will have the advantage simply because it has 2 more cores. The reason this benchmark focuses on gaming entirely is because that's the only point of contention those two processors are still fighting over. There's no question the 2700X wins in multi-threaded and thus no reason to rehash that argument. I think Julio did a good job in his opening and closing statement pointing out that the 8700K is really mainly targeted at no compromise gamers. For everyone else the 2700X is likely your best choice, of course depending on your circumstances and app use.

Why would you even benchmark at 720p? Who do you think is gonna buy one of these CPUs and play at 720? You should have tested at 4k.

Benchmarking at 720p is used to make sure there isn't a GPU bottleneck. It's not a realistic scenario but it does show you the maximum potential performance of a processor in a given game and is an indicator of future performance assuming no other bottlenecks exist. The problem with testing at 4K is that nearly every modern i5/i7 or Ryzen CPU is going to get around the same FPS. That's not a very good CPU review when only 20% of the CPU is being used. At that point it's more of a GPU review than a CPU review. You absolutely have to isolate CPU performance in order to properly show how a product performs.

 

[Jon Tseng]

Benchmarking at 720p is used to make sure there isn't a GPU bottleneck. It's not a realistic scenario but it does show you the maximum potential performance of a processor in a given game and is an indicator of future performance assuming no other bottlenecks exist. The problem with testing at 4K is that nearly every modern i5/i7 or Ryzen CPU is going to get around the same FPS. That's not a very good CPU review when only 20% of the CPU is being used. At that point it's more of a GPU review than a CPU review. You absolutely have to isolate CPU performance in order to properly show how a product performs.

Basically what Evernessince said. My take from this is that if prices are comparable you should go for the 8700K. When you look at performance without GPU bottlenecking it is the faster processor despite the lower core count. Looks to me like it will be more future proofed as GPU speeds increase and this becomes less of a bottleneck.

 

[Candymancan]

I actually had the same dilema myself yesturday,, Should I buy the 8700k since im a gamer, or should I get the 2700x. I had a 4790k with a 1080ti.. All watercooled with an AIO just for the cpu..

In the end that 10% more fps wasnt worth the future upgradability.. you forget the new AMD cpu's coming out will be on 7nm and there are reports clock speeds will be 5ghz according to global founderies.. Which means in 1-2 years I can sell my 2700x take a probably 50$ loss, and buy a new Zen 3 on 7nm.. While the 8700k im well stuck with.. and I garuntee that a 7nm zen will beat a 8700k by more then just 10%.

I bought a 2700x gigabyte x470 Gaming 7, and 16gb of Flare X G.skill memory.. and the 30$ I saved I used toward a sound blaster x AE5 sound card because realteks audio sucks

 

[Candymancan]

Basically what Evernessince said. My take from this is that if prices are comparable you should go for the 8700K. When you look at performance without GPU bottlenecking it is the faster processor despite the lower core count. Looks to me like it will be more future proofed as GPU speeds increase and this becomes less of a bottleneck.

More future proof is the AM4 socket.. the 2700x can be sold in a year or two and the money plus 50$ used for the 7nm zen 3 which will beat a 8700k by alot. The 8700k on a z370 board is a dead end socket

 

[Sausagemeat]

We seem to be receiving the message quite clearly from the reviewers. If building a workhorse, say something to crunch multiple big spreadsheets at the same time etc then Ryzen is probably best suited towards your needs. If you want to build a beast of a home gaming system then Intel is definitelty the better buy.

Simple really. Of course there will be scenarios where users are on a tight budget and might want to save a few dollars by opting for the cheaper of these two regardless. But I don’t think most users buying flagship CPUs will be that concerned about saving a few dollars as far better value is found further down the product stack.

 

[Candymancan]

We seem to be receiving the message quite clearly from the reviewers. If building a workhorse, say something to crunch multiple big spreadsheets at the same time etc then Ryzen is probably best suited towards your needs. If you want to build a beast of a home gaming system then Intel is definitelty the better buy.

Simple really. Of course there will be scenarios where users are on a tight budget and might want to save a few dollars by opting for the cheaper of these two regardless. But I don’t think most users buying flagship CPUs will be that concerned about saving a few dollars as far better value is found further down the product stack.

Im a gamer I bought a 2700x x470 gaming 7 and 16gb of g.skill flare x memory.. Reason being is 10fps isnt worth the loss of no socket support in the future.. I went fro ma 4790k.. Id rather keep my motherboard for 1-2 years get a 7nm zen 3 then have to stayt with the 8700k for 2-3 years then sell the mobo cpu and so forth AND spend more money..

Just was a no brainer.. The days of getting a E8400 wolfdale vs a Phenum, or a 4790k and Phenum are over... it was clear for 10 year to buy intel.. but now AMD has pretty much identical performance the small diff in IPC on the 8700k isnt worth your brand new z370 board not supporting the next cpu lol.. thats stupid.

Especially if youre gaming at 2560x1440 like me..

 

[Sausagemeat]

Im a gamer I bought a 2700x x470 gaming 7 and 16gb of g.skill flare x memory.. Reason being is 10fps isnt worth the loss of no socket support in the future.. I went fro ma 4790k.. Id rather keep my motherboard for 1-2 years get a 7nm zen 3 then have to stayt with the 8700k for 2-3 years then sell the mobo cpu and so forth AND spend more money..

Just was a no brainer.. The days of getting a E8400 wolfdale vs a Phenum, or a 4790k and Phenum are over... it was clear for 10 year to buy intel.. but now AMD has pretty much identical performance the small diff in IPC on the 8700k isnt worth your brand new z370 board not supporting the next cpu lol.. thats stupid.

Especially if youre gaming at 2560x1440 like me..

Fair enough. I’m a gamer and I’d choose the 8700K. Personally I always buy a new motherboard with a new CPU and the AM4 socket is only supported for another 2 years, I don’t think I’d be upgrading either of these parts within 2 years if I bought them now, if you have a 4790K then you’ve held onto that for 4 years at this point. It’s actually the same chip I currently have and it’s more than enough for gaming today for me and handles the meagre amount of editing I do when making scuba diving videos without causing me any issues so I’m not upgrading yet. I also feel that Intels parts are more futureproof for games as they are faster at games now. When the new Nvidia cards come out the GPU bottleneck will be lifted somewhat and that might show a bigger difference between these chips, especially at higher resolutions, this is quite important as I personally usually buy 2-3 GPUs over the life cycle of each CPU I own and in a couple of generations 1080ti performance will be available at much lower cost along with much faster more powerful GPUs coming available. I don’t think games are going to start preferring higher core count to higher IPC anytime soon as still less than 5% of gamers have more than 4 cores according to survey results and if they do 6 cores seems to be more than we need currently anyway. And I think that’s a good thing, I like that we can get away with a basic quad core to get the most out of our graphics cards rather than having to buy expensive multi core CPUs.

 

[Dosahka]

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.

I wont be sure about that there will be no changes adding 2C/4T, for example: AoS is cpu heavy not GPU that's why the FPS is the same, but if you considering that it is a 6C/12T (14nm++++++) vs 8C/16T(12nm) and performs the same...I bet that there will be an improvement specially when pairing with a 1080(Ti) and using a monitor above 1440p in gaming.
And there is the 4% difference AVG at 1440p (I don't care about lower resolutions because these cpus simply overkill for those)
which isn't too much and convincing to spend a couple more on an intel, true, but again 6C/12T vs 8C/16T, 5ghz vs 4.2ghz, 14nm+ vs 12nm, if we put into the play the 10nm (better voltages, less heat) with 8C/16T (probably Ring bus architecture) it can achieve higher clock speed (or maintain the previous gen's) that 4 percent will be more like 10 compared to the Ryzen 2, imho.
Also you can safely overclock nearly any 8700K to 5GHZ with watercooling while the Ryzen stops around 4.2-4.4 (same with the 6 core version) and worth to mention that you have to be lucky to get a good overclockable Ryzen cpu.
I couldn't find the youtube video but one guy had 6 Ryzen (1st gen) cpu ( two 1600/1700/1800 ) and different overclock potential with liquid nitrogen, and he stated that you have to be lucky to get a good AMD cpu.

Note that intel in the past years just sitting and releasing cpus with the same 14nm and just refreshing cpu models, if Intel moves to 10nm the gap might be bigger.

 

[LemmingOverlrd]

As resolutions go up, the differences between the CPUs shrink, making a 2700X as valid a CPU as the 8700K. Additionally, if you factor in:
- the price of the CPU & mobo (AMD is cheaper and so is its mobo)
- the fact that you get 2 additional cores that you can use for background tasks like streaming and other stuff (moar cores!)
- you don't really buy a high-end CPU for gaming to waste it on low-res gaming (nor on that shitty iGPU)

Then you're left with an easy choice... right?

 

[Zachrael]

As resolutions go up, the differences between the CPUs shrink, making a 2700X as valid a CPU as the 8700K. Additionally, if you factor in:
- the price of the CPU & mobo (AMD is cheaper and so is its mobo)
- the fact that you get 2 additional cores that you can use for background tasks like streaming and other stuff (moar cores!)
- you don't really buy a high-end CPU for gaming to waste it on low-res gaming (nor on that shitty iGPU)

Then you're left with an easy choice... right?

The reason the differences shrink as the resolution increases is because you are no longer stressing the CPU but instead the GPU. For example if you set it all to 4k they would be the same. Set it all to 8k and it would be the same. It doesn't matter what CPUs you are even testing when you are running higher resolutions as it's all gpu bound at that point. That is the entire reason you test lower resolution, which is where IPC is almost always the king. Which is exactly why Intel is in the lead in the majority of these. The higher clock speeds will always beat out more cores. You can take an 8600k and overclock it and have it beat out the 2700x all day long as well. It's because the IPC is faster. Core count means nothing in gaming.

As far as streaming goes, web browsers being opened, steam, blizzard alm that garbage. The 8700k handles it perfectly. You dont need 32 cores to do basic back ground tasks or encoding / decoding.

AMD cpus and mobos should be cheaper as they are slower than Intel's currently. No one would pay the same price for an inferior product which is why they are playing the price game. Until they can actually beat Intel in ipc again, they will have cheaper parts. We've seen this in the past and we will see it in the future.

And for your last point. You are correct. You buy a high end CPU for 144hz gaming at 1080p. Exactly why the 8700k is a great choice for anyone. I know guys who run multiple virtual machines on the 8700k, they program, they game etc. They are all running the 8700k for a reason. To be fair though, they aren't budget oriented, saving 50 bucks at the cost of performance isn't worth it for some.

 

[Zachrael]

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.

5.1 on a 2700x I'm calling BS on that.

Proof or GTFO.

Also for the author.

"while the 8700K needs to be paired with an aftermarket unit, of which there are a ton of great options for less than $50."

Where are you finding great aftermarket coolers for a 8700k for less than $50?

You can get the hyper 212 for like 20 to 30 bucks and a decent fan or two and be absolutely set for 50 dollars and under. You can also get entry level all in one water cooling kit's for around that price when they are on sale.

 

[Kitsone]

I disagree that the 8700k is no-compromise. As it has 2 fewer cores. Period. Further- future games will be utilize more cores. Now that both Blue and Red are smashing more cores into CPU's this will definitely be happening even more than currently or in the past. Also comparing a 5GHz 8700k sounds like best case scenario for that chip while a Ryzen 2700X just OC'd to 4.2Ghz on all cores is the wrong way to OC it. Use BCLK or PBO to OC a Zen+ CPU.
P.S. People care about 720p? That are getting an i7 or Ryzen 7? I think not. Also not a valid future-proof test method anymore.

 

[Sausagemeat]

I disagree that the 8700k is no-compromise. As it has 2 fewer cores. Period. Further- future games will be utilize more cores. Now that both Blue and Red are smashing more cores into CPU's this will definitely be happening even more than currently or in the past. Also comparing a 5GHz 8700k sounds like best case scenario for that chip while a Ryzen 2700X just OC'd to 4.2Ghz on all cores is the wrong way to OC it. Use BCLK or PBO to OC a Zen+ CPU.
P.S. People care about 720p? That are getting an i7 or Ryzen 7? I think not. Also not a valid future-proof test method anymore.

720p testing is the best way we have of determining future performance and is still very much valid. Which doesn’t mean to say that people are or will be playing at 720p. But reducing the resolution only reduces the load on the graphics card. This means the CPU power required by the game goes unchanged and then becomes the limiting factor. Because of this we can get an idea of the true speeds these CPUs can run games at when the graphics card isn’t holding the CPUs back. This is relevant as graphics cards become more powerful we will see the CPU becoming the slowest component at higher resolutions than 720p. 8 cores Is the future in games I’m sure but we are talking years and years from now. By the time it’s advantageous to have an 8 core CPU over a faster 6 core in games these chips here will easily be 5+ years old and outdone by budget solutions from either manufacturer. The 2700X will not leapfrog the 8700K in gaming in its useable life. Core count advantage has never delivered that Kind of futurepoofness in the past.

The 8700K is definitely compromised by comparison with 2 less cores. But not in games. If it had 8 cores it would be near identical in games if it was clocked at the same speeds. On the other hand Ryzen is compromised with a lower IPC and clock. But that won’t have a huge effect on its ability to multi task or affect its multithreaded results by that much at all. I would say that if you know you need 8 cores and will definitely use them then get 8 cores. But if you are buying 8 cores because you think it’s future proof then it’s asking a lot to sacrifice IPC for those 2 extra cores which could just sit there unused for years in my opinion. Always better to get what’s best for you now rather than what you think might be better for you in a few years time.

 

[dirtyferret]

Lol I love all the AMD fan boys stating how future proof the Ryzen is uit completely disregard the 720p showing how much more head room the intel 8700 has. The AMD kool aid is in good supply as is the tears and cries of their fanboys.

Also why is 20% behind Intel's 8700k at gaming, MS word, and internet browsing "good enough" for Ryzen yet in a few synthetic multi-thread tests the 2700x has a 15% increase over the the stock 8700 and that is "not good enough". So real world the 8700k wins every tests and headroom to spare but hey in the fake world we win a few tests so lets hang our hats there.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/20.html

 

[ZackL04]

Looks like AMD have closed the IPC gap, and may actually be doing more with less in some circumstances. Good for them.

Zen 2 should clock higher and will be great for all us consumers, I cant be more excited

 

[Lionvibez]

You can get the hyper 212 for like 20 to 30 bucks and a decent fan or two and be absolutely set for 50 dollars and under. You can also get entry level all in one water cooling kit's for around that price when they are on sale.

Those are low end products none of that will help you get a 8700k To 5Ghz!

I would pay money for you to show me a 50 Dollar AIO water cooler that will take you to 5ghz and be 24/7 stable.

A more realistic budget is going to be $100+ when it comes to overclocking. At stock clocks you can use any junk on sale.

 

[Lionvibez]

Lol I love all the AMD fan boys stating how future proof the Ryzen is uit completely disregard the 720p showing how much more head room the intel 8700 has. The AMD kool aid is in good supply as is the tears and cries of their fanboys.

lol and you sound like an intel fan boy.

The purpose of showing the 720 numbers was just to remove the gpu bottleneck for this review. In real life no one builds a system in 2018 to game at 720p. And the reason those amd guys are talking about future proof is they are talking about the socket not the CPU and they are 100% correct. Intel has shown a history of a new socket at every new generation.