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

[Nightfire]

This is why Techspot is my favorite tech site. The 2700k gives up very little in gaming even at 1080p. Even if you were to use a 2080ti, you would see very little difference at resolutions above that.

Truth be told, the 1080ti/2080ti make up a very small percent of the market. On top of that, gamers are moving to 1440p and 4k, which see very little cpu bottleneck.

Even a stock 2700 is miles above the cpus that are inside consoles.

 

[Strawman]

The fact is, faaaq is correct, most users are hitting 5.0ghz with air, on coffee lake without deliding and running at reasonable temps that aren’t going to cause problems. When people say that most can’t get 5.0 ghz or that you have to delid the CPU it’s just a desperate attempt to put misinformation out there about the current coffee lake CPUs.

You need to define what you mean by hitting 5ghz. Can they boot on 5ghz? Sure, most users can. Is it a stable overclock that can run without flaws whatever you throw at it and with no harm done to the cpu due to heat or voltage? Nope.

For gaming yes, even half stable overclocks can run games with low Temps but that's not something that we should use as a benchmark.

Even silicon lottery uses extreme amounts of voltages on the best vrm wise mobos with a delided cpu to hit those numbers.

So if we are talking about 24/7 overclocks (winter through summer) that can run anything then no, you can't achieve that without delidding. I know because I have one and I'm running it on locked 5 ghz with an h100i

 

[BuddhaChrist]

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.

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

We are in very similar situations and I had the same dilemma as well. I have a i7-4790 with a R9 280x and I decided to go with the 2700x because the difference with the 8700K was not $30 as someone said in this thread. 2700x is EUR 320 and 8700 is EUR 450 (€130 difference plus €90 for noctua if you want a really good cooler, which I guess it's what anyone who is building a power PC wants). So the difference is more than €200 if you go with the 8700k (65% more expensive for a 10-15% FPS difference and less cores? Thanks, but no thanks).
This is the PC I built in the end: https://www.pccomponentes.com/configurador/709476Aa6

 

[BuddhaChrist]

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.

2700x is EUR 320 and 8700k is EUR 450 (€130 difference plus €90 for noctua if you want a really good cooler, which I guess it's what anyone who is building a power PC wants). So the difference is more than €200 if you go with the 8700k. 65% more expensive for a 10-15% FPS difference and less cores? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[BuddhaChrist]

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.

The FPS difference between 2700x and 8700k is 10-15% (less at higher resolutions).
The cost difference between 2700x and 8700k is 65% (2700x = €320, 8700K = €450 + €90 for a good cooler like the noctua which I guess you want if you spend 450 on your CPU).

The difference is so big that the decision is easy to make. Unless you **** money and like giving it away for free.

 

[Outlander04]

2700x is EUR 320 and 8700k is EUR 450 (€130 difference plus €90 for noctua if you want a really good cooler, which I guess it's what anyone who is building a power PC wants). So the difference is more than €200 if you go with the 8700k. 65% more expensive for a 10-15% FPS difference and less cores? Thanks, but no thanks.

You made a good choice . And don't worry about running a few FPS slower .
Most people don't seem to know or realise that most of lot of FPS they pay for doesn't help them at all because of their monitor .
A 60 Hz monitor runs at 60 FPS . That's what Hz is . If you have a computer making 90 fps connected to a 60 Hz monitor you see 60 fps because the monitor can't display them and drops them .
The only time paying for the highest possible fps pays off is if you have also shelled out for a high refresh rate monitor , and even then a lot of people can not tell the difference

 

[dj2017]

2700x is EUR 320 and 8700k is EUR 450 (€130 difference plus €90 for noctua if you want a really good cooler, which I guess it's what anyone who is building a power PC wants). So the difference is more than €200 if you go with the 8700k. 65% more expensive for a 10-15% FPS difference and less cores? Thanks, but no thanks.

The article is old and keeps updating. Going for the 2700X was the logical choice.

 

[davitski]

I don't believe the csgo benchmarking.. No way that setup can run 550 fps on average on the benchmarking map with everything on ultra/highest on 1080p+. I can't get it over 400; with my setup

2700x 4.2
1080ti asus strix overclocked.
3600 mhz cl15

 

[Nightcrawler67]

Here's a thought....why not run these tests with GPU's that are actually the most commonly used? Every time its a 1080/1080Ti or even newer 20 series GPU's. I want to see the comparison with a 1070/1060/1050Ti, something that most of the people actually use, not a $700-$1200 card that most will never buy and use.

 

[PotatoComputer]

On CS:GO:
"The only saving grace for the Ryzen 7 CPU is the fact that is averaged over 500 fps at all times, that’s probably enough even for the most pro of pro players."
You don't know that. Every CS:GO pro uses intel so....

 

[Evernessince]

On CS:GO:
"The only saving grace for the Ryzen 7 CPU is the fact that is averaged over 500 fps at all times, that’s probably enough even for the most pro of pro players."
You don't know that. Every CS:GO pro uses intel so....

That's likely because pros will always use the processor that gives them the highest FPS regardless of whether there is an actual benefit or not. Once you get above 500 FPS you are getting some serious diminishing returns.

 

[RealNeil]

That's likely because pros will always use the processor that gives them the highest FPS regardless of whether there is an actual benefit or not. Once you get above 500 FPS you are getting some serious diminishing returns.

It could also be that Intel ~sponsors~ some of these gamers in order to be the company that the gamers use.

 

[Evernessince]

It could also be that Intel ~sponsors~ some of these gamers in order to be the company that the gamers use.

Also true, Intel spends a ton on sponsoring eSports. Honestly it's a good idea because people see their favorite pros using Intel and then they go and buy Intel.