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

[dirtyferret]

lol and you sound like an intel fan boy.

Actually I like AMD have owned equal AMD and Intel cpus over the years. I hate the more cores for your money MO the phenom II x6 and FX series took when they should have focused on better IPC. Ryzen took a turn for the better but still trails Intel for most everyday performance and gaming. It's great for a small niche of multi-threaded performance and has good IPC but need to be better.

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.

Incorrect on both counts; from a professional review site as why 720p is important to testing, please read and educate yourself as not to be confused again.

"Of course, nobody buys a PC with a GTX 1080 to game at 720p, but the results are of academic value because a CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will never reach that mark at higher resolutions either. So these numbers could interest high refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast 120 Hz and 144 Hz monitors."

In laymen's terms it shows the headroom available to each processor in a game.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/12.html

Intel has shown a history of a new socket at every new generation.

Yes and it sucks at times (see socket 1151) but perhaps AMD should take a page out of their playbook if it means IPC improvement.

 

[dirtyferret]

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.

the 212 is mediocre at best but you can get the Cryorig H5 ultimate, scythe Mugen, and Fuma for under $50 and all three should hold for 5ghz at gaming. For $7 more there it the Noctua U12s that held an OC 8700k @ 4.8ghz under 80c in prime testing and at $65 you can pick up the U14s.

 

[Strawman]

Just to clear things up, and in order for me to be actually fair and balanced towards both companies, the 8700k is a better CPU than the 2700x. It's just a fact, and it's not only because of gaming. It is because it has enough cores to get anything done, a crazy amount of frequency (even at stock) and great IPC.

The 1700 / 1700x / 1800x (whatever, it was the same CPU) WAS better than the 7700k, because the core difference was immense. Intel leapfrogged ahead with coffeelake adding 2 extra cores and a little bit of frequency, while AMD just offered a measly ~200mhz (at most).

Now in the midrange category I still think AMD has the lead with the 2600x, but it's not as commanding as it was last gen with the 1600 against the 7600k.

 

[Puiu]

Just to clear things up, and in order for me to be actually fair and balanced towards both companies, the 8700k is a better CPU than the 2700x. It's just a fact, and it's not only because of gaming. It is because it has enough cores to get anything done, a crazy amount of frequency (even at stock) and great IPC.

The 1700 / 1700x / 1800x (whatever, it was the same CPU) WAS better than the 7700k, because the core difference was immense. Intel leapfrogged ahead with coffeelake adding 2 extra cores and a little bit of frequency, while AMD just offered a measly ~200mhz (at most).

Now in the midrange category I still think AMD has the lead with the 2600x, but it's not as commanding as it was last gen with the 1600 against the 7600k.

The biggest change with the refreshed Zen+ was the improved memory support and the ability to OC to 5GHz using very low voltages (higher than 5GHz sees the voltages jump up). The small IPC gain and frequency bump is just the cherry on top of the cake. AMD also brought their boost technology more inline with how Intel does things (more granular and aggressive when using fewer cores).

It's still not enough to make people upgrade from Zen or more recent Intel high end CPUs, but it's enough to make a few people upgrade from older PCs. AMD gained a lot of trust from consumers this past year and it shows in their rising market share.

Now if only Zen 2 will be as good as people hype it up to be now

 

[faaaaq]

The only game that should have even mattered in this comparison, AC:O, wasn't benchmarked..? Obviously the 8700k would win on basically every game, that shouldn't even be questioned at this point. AC:O is a taste of the future, when games will be more CPU bound and core/thread count will more come into play. AC:O would have been a perfect test, to see how the lower clocks but 30% higher core count (and different architectures) would affect framerates, and give a good idea of which CPU to buy if you are looking for a bit of future-proofed-ness.

 

[Lionvibez]

Incorrect on both counts; from a professional review site as why 720p is important to testing, please read and educate yourself as not to be confused again.

"Of course, nobody buys a PC with a GTX 1080 to game at 720p, but the results are of academic value because a CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will never reach that mark at higher resolutions either. So these numbers could interest high refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast 120 Hz and 144 Hz monitors."

I don't need to educate myself. The majority of the market is not gaming on 120hz or 144hz monitors.

Which will require you to have 1080ti class graphics cards to two card in SLI to achieve those numbers.

The amount of people doing that is tiny.

I'm aware of why they are posting the numbers but you are deluding yourself in the relevance of them.

Most people are still gaming on 1080p/1440p 60hz monitors.

That graph you posted is for 4.8 I said 5Ghz which most people have to delid for.

Cryorig H5 ultimate, scythe Mugen, and Fuma all 3 of these cost more than 50CAD I'm in Canada.

all of the Noctua's are over 80CAD.

 

[EClyde]

Can someone elucidate on this statement please "while the Z370 board is at the end of the road, likely with nowhere to go."

 

[dirtyferret]

Can someone elucidate on this statement please "while the Z370 board is at the end of the road, likely with nowhere to go."

Intel has gotten into the habit of using a new chipset for each new "generation" of chips. Z170 for Skylake, z270 for kaby lake*, z370 for coffee lake and if they stay true to form then Z470 for the new 9xxx series and most likely an incompatible socket like the z270 to Z370 1151 socket.

As opposed to the Ryzen 2 chips that will work on the AM4 socket.

*You could run a kaby lake on the Z170 mobo but you need to update the BIOS requiring a skylake chip to do so.

 

[oldtink]

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.

AMD 7nm 2019! < Intel 10nm 2019?
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/intel-9th-gen-cpu-release-date-specs-3501382

 

[JohnnyStone]

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 misunderstand the situation. The reason the 8700 does fine, is because the games do not take advantage of the extracores, not yet anyway. So the 8 core Intel is not going to be better at games. Intel is bringing it out to combat other software. Also do remember that Intelis stuck at 14nm, while AMD will be going to 7nm (compared to Intel's 10nm).

You also need to understand Intel's business model of using unethical methods to dominate the market. That alone make me choose against them!

 

[JohnnyStone]

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) .

Your comparison is flawed. You cannot compare rinbus with infinity fabric. You have to compare how AMD's CCX design work with Intel. Ringbus is the design between cores, while infinity fabric is the design between dies, a huge difference. At this stage Intel has nothing to compare to infinity fabric, maybe EMIB in a sense, but it is different.

People so blindly follow Intel as if they are god's. Intel is an unethical company I am in no way willing to support.

 

[RealNeil]

They're fairly close in a lot of aspects. I have a Ryzen 1700X already, and I own an i7-8700K setup that I haven't built yet.
Comparing my Ryzen 1700X to my two I7-7700Ks and one i7-6600K, they're all pretty close to one another too.
It's a good time to be a PC builder as long as you have some RAM sitting in the wings to use. (I do)
It's safe to say that AMD isn't mopping the floor with Intel yet, but they sure as hell have their attention now.

 

[NightAntilli]

Just to clear things up, and in order for me to be actually fair and balanced towards both companies, the 8700k is a better CPU than the 2700x. It's just a fact, and it's not only because of gaming. It is because it has enough cores to get anything done, a crazy amount of frequency (even at stock) and great IPC.

Not anything...

 

[Evernessince]

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.

There's no concrete evidence that Intel 9th gen processors are going to be 10nm. If fact Intel has been very hesitant on announcing when exactly they will have it ready. Intel has already told us that the first version of their 10nm won't be better then their current node, so I wouldn't count on Intel getting an advantage from that.

"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 wouldn't call a delid and watercooling safe per say. I don't really see it as a disadvantage that all the performance you see in this benchmark you can get with Ryzen with very little work. Overclocking is great for enthusiasts on the 8700K and you get rewarded with a 10% performance advantage but obviously whether that's good is going to depend on each person's need / skill. You just can't recommend an 8700K to someone who doesn't know what they are doing if you are depending on that overclock performance. It's actually really surprising to see how many people buy the popular Intel CPUs (4790K, 6700K, 7700K) and don't overclock. I've gotten so many systems in that haven't been touched even though they have high end cooling and huge overclocking headroom. Most people just want a system that works out of the box. In fact, I think that may a huge driver for the growth of PC gaming. It is so much easier to build a PC nowadays and we should continue to make it easier. Hopefully Intel implements something like AMD's XFR, as it does most of the overclocking for you.

 

[Foobario]

So when a game developer makes an effort to optimize for Ryzen's CCX design (Dirt 4) AMD wins across all three resolutions.

Even winning at 720p, a resolution that less than 1% of the buyers of these two CPUs will be playing on. I get it, 720p shows the hypothetical performance a person that can't afford a monitor upgrade, but can afford a $300+ CPU would get. Beneficial to all three gamers that fall into that category, I'm sure.

Seems a better service could be provided to the apparently massive 720p market by comparing Pentiums and Ryzen 1200s or 2200Gs as these would be individuals that could actually pull real world knowledge out of such a review.

 

[dirtyferret]

So when a game developer makes an effort to optimize for Ryzen's CCX design (Dirt 4) AMD wins across all three resolutions.

Even winning at 720p, a resolution that less than 1% of the buyers of these two CPUs will be playing on. I get it, 720p shows the hypothetical performance a person that can't afford a monitor upgrade, but can afford a $300+ CPU would get. Beneficial to all three gamers that fall into that category, I'm sure.

Seems a better service could be provided to the apparently massive 720p market by comparing Pentiums and Ryzen 1200s or 2200Gs as these would be individuals that could actually pull real world knowledge out of such a review.

I don't think you do get it, 720p shows the available headroom each CPU has available for future video cards (in other words an actual future test rather then fanboy hyperbole).

 

[Evernessince]

the 212 is mediocre at best but you can get the Cryorig H5 ultimate, scythe Mugen, and Fuma for under $50 and all three should hold for 5ghz at gaming. For $7 more there it the Noctua U12s that held an OC 8700k @ 4.8ghz under 80c in prime testing and at $65 you can pick up the U14s.

You also have to remember that is a benchmark environment. You really want to spend more than that if you want that overclock to be stable year round and in a regular, non-bench system. Being that close to Tmax just isn't comfortable.

 

[dirtyferret]

You also have to remember that is a benchmark environment. You really want to spend more than that if you want that overclock to be stable year round and in a regular, non-bench system. Being that close to Tmax just isn't comfortable.

It's wPrime testing in a Thermaltake Core P3 in a 72F room , gaming temps would be lower from 5-10c. Throttling occurred at just over 90c. So assuming the user doesn't run programs for hours on end with AVX like wPrime then a $50 cooler like the Scythe Fuma can handle the 8700k at 5ghz while gaming, surfing, MS excel, etc.,

 

[mrjgriffin]

You guys really need to match core clocks to really give a fair comparison or at least overclock both processors lol wtf. intel is barely winning @ 1080p and even less @ 1440p. that 800 mhz difference in clock speed is giving intel an advantage. I mean framerate in games cpu wise is based on single core performance (mostly) and processor clock speed........so why are the processor clock speeds not matched here? or in any of these other amd - intel comparisons? the max boost on the 2700x is 4.3ghz but yours is at 4.2 for some reason. why? I dont think these tests are a fair comparison. you're comparing an overclocked intel vs a non overclocked ryzen. boost frequency isnt the same as overclocking frequency and intels boost on the 8700k is 4.7 ghz so at the very most you should be running tests with your 8700k @ 4.7 ghz and not overclocking it that extra 300 mhz. so a "technically" 300 mhz overclocked 8700k vs a ryzen 2700x that isn't even reaching it's maxed boost frequency of 4.3 ghz let alone being overclocked whatsoever. not a fair comparison.

 

[Evernessince]

It's wPrime testing in a Thermaltake Core P3 in a 72F room , gaming temps would be lower from 5-10c. Throttling occurred at just over 90c. So assuming the user doesn't run programs for hours on end with AVX like wPrime then a $50 cooler like the Scythe Fuma can handle the 8700k at 5ghz while gaming, surfing, MS excel, etc.,

That's my point. 72f is an ideal ambient temperature and the Thermaltake Core P3 is an open test bench. Of course because of it's open design it's one of the better cases when it comes to temperature. You are looking at the case being 8c hotter simply by switching to a closed design. That alone puts you over the temperature limit of the 8700K on the coolers you mentioned, not considering that a good chunk of people don't have perfect ambient temps either.

I'm not saying you couldn't run that CPU with those coolers but there are many people with less than ideal conditions that wouldn't be able to. I can't just throw a blanket recommendation for something cutting it so close.

 

[Questors]

One of the most important take-aways from this article is, as the resolution increases, Intel drops significantly in performance. The match up a 1440, my perferred resolution, AMD is very competitive.

Something that should be included in the comparison is CPU load. If Intel runs away at at low resolutions, which is does, why doesn't it run away at higher? The CPU is loaded and can't handle the load while the AMD CPU still has headroom to play with. There is more to comparison, especially with regard to the silly term "future proofing" than just benchmarks.

If one snags a 4K or one of the ultrawides and game titles require more, the Intel may not give you that so-called future proofing people are looking for. Meanwhile the AMD Ryzen most likely will give you more time to keep the system you have without the need to invest in a complete rebuild.

Just a thought.

 

[Questors]

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

You are looking at it in the wrong way. At low resolutions the Intel runs significantly faster than the AMD. As the resolution (therefore load) the Intel CPU consistently drops frame rates. This indicates the Intel CPU has an inability to maintain the percentage of lead as the resolution increase due to less headroom. In other words, the title becomes CPU bound with Intel as the resolution increase. The inclusion of CPU load with this tests like this is absolutely necessary to make a proper assessment.

It has nothing to do with anyone being a fanboy. No one in their right mind argues a result, whether favoring one brand or another, if the result is carefully arrived at with full transparency. All the numbers, tell the better story. There is no such thing as future proofing with computers. There is only buying what will operate at the capacity necessary for now and allowing room to scale for later. Right now, Intel is falling down with regard to this.

 

[Misagt]

I just did a build with the Ryzen 7 2700x I've been very happy with it so far.

 

[RealNeil]

I just did a build with the Ryzen 7 2700x I've been very happy with it so far.

This.

Both of them probably provide a great experience gaming

 

[Outlander04]

OK so we are testing high end systems ..... Hands up who is going to run a 720p or even 1080p monitor on their new high end build.
Reality is you are looking at 1440p , ultrawides and maybe 4k if you are spending that much on computer hardware .
Fabulous the intel can make more fps at low resolution but is it even useful? Its like having a 5 legged dog and arguing its 25% better .