i7 9700k or Ryzon 7 2800x

silk186

silk186

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,628
I've been sitting on my i5 2500k for a long long time. I think it is finally time to upgrade. I almost jumped on an i5-8600K or i7-8700K but memory prices and the rumours of an 8-core i7 9700k made me reconsider.

Intel: i7-9700k & z390
AMD: Ryzen 7 2800X here and here & X470 here and here

I was debating between the i5-9600k and i7-9700k assuming both are 8 core. I'm a writer and editor with tons of tabs and apps open and loads of other software and game at night. Now I'm starting to consider between Intel and AMD. I've seen more discussion of tech news sites than I am on [H] which is unusual.

What are predictions her for release dates? Will AMD get close to Intel in single threaded performance?
 
I haven't heard of any confirmed dates for either platform. Then again, the skeptic in me believes that Intel won't release its new platform before mid-2019 at the earliest.

I believe that AMD will never reach the level of Intel's single-threaded performance, but historically, AMD's claim to fame was providing <80% of Intel's performance for <75% of the cost. If you don't mind playing games at less-than-max frame rates or visual quality at ultra-high resolutions (beyond 1440p), then AMD will work just fine for your needs.

If you need a processor right now, what's stopping you from getting, say, a Ryzen 7 1700X and a X370 motherboard?
 
If Intel doesn't have a response to AMD releasing the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 they will lose a lot of potential buyers in the consumer market. The AMD option will be cheaper, newer, more cores and upgradable.

My next build will be with a 1440p monitor. I'm waiting for the i5 9600k and i7 9700k.
 
For a writer, and editor, with lots of tabs open at any one time, I would be looking for 4-6 cores with as much memory as you can stuff in the box(32 gig is probably enough), with (perhaps) an optane ssd and a discrete graphics card (1060ti or better). Processor speed itself isn’t going to make that much difference to your experience.
 
I upgrade to 16GB about a year ago. Currently, 16GB is enough, I will go 32GB if prices come down.
I find that my system isn't very responsive and that it will hang a lot. I use Mendeley with a database of 1000+ references (not sure if it is related) and it can be extremely slow with longer documents. As I result I will copy a paragraph over to a new instance of Word if I need to add more than one reference. Word and Mendeley will both lock up until the reference is added. Chrome can also be slow sometimes, I had to switch because of performance issues with Firefox.

I'm not sure if faster memory, more cores or faster single threaded performance, or a faster SSD will improve responsiveness but I'm hoping one of them will.
 
Neither of these processors exist, but personally, if Intel release an 8-Core 1151 CPU, it will be faster than any 8-core Ryzen in every aspect. But because it is Intel, it will also probably be $500+ destroying any value in it.

What I expect is that Intel is raking in enough cash with the 8700 series, they aren't going to cannibalise that by releasing a bigger piece of silicon.
 
silk186 said:
I upgrade to 16GB about a year ago. Currently, 16GB is enough, I will go 32GB if prices come down.
I find that my system isn't very responsive and that it will hang a lot. I use Mendeley with a database of 1000+ references (not sure if it is related) and it can be extremely slow with longer documents. As I result I will copy a paragraph over to a new instance of Word if I need to add more than one reference. Word and Mendeley will both lock up until the reference is added. Chrome can also be slow sometimes, I had to switch because of performance issues with Firefox.

I'm not sure if faster memory, more cores or faster single threaded performance, or a faster SSD will improve responsiveness but I'm hoping one of them will.
Click to expand...

Mendeley is an online database system. Your issue with that isn't your PC, it's your internet connection. A faster processor will make a difference, but essentially your bottleneck is the speed of your internet connection.
 
KazeoHin said:
But because it is Intel, it will also probably be $500+ destroying any value in it.

What I expect is that Intel is raking in enough cash with the 8700 series, they aren't going to cannibalise that by releasing a bigger piece of silicon.
Click to expand...

And you divine a departure from what they've been doing for the last decade, including putting out a bigger piece of silicon for the 8600+ while maintaining the same price range, how exactly?

I expect the i7-9700 to be priced like every i7-x700 before it. If anything, AMD releasing a slightly more competitive part would dissuade them from hiking prices. They didn't do it when AMD was nowhere to be found, why would they do it now?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
And you divine a departure from what they've been doing for the last decade, including putting out a bigger piece of silicon for the 8600+ while maintaining the same price range, how exactly?

I expect the i7-9700 to be priced like every i7-x700 before it. If anything, AMD releasing a slightly more competitive part would dissuade them from hiking prices. They didn't do it when AMD was nowhere to be found, why would they do it now?
Click to expand...

The 8700K was released early, and because Ryzen was taking market share. The 7700K was no match for AMD's product, and people were getting wise to that. The 8700K now steals back the top spot and keeps Intel at the top, so no bigger, badder CPU is needed. If Intel can make buckets of cash with 6-core silicon, why would they release a larger piece of silicon and charge the same price?

Also, historically, i7 CPU silicon has gotten smaller, and more expensive. the 8700K is the first departure from that norm in a while, and Intel really didn't want it to happen. If Ryzen wasn't a thing, we'd still have a quad-core i7 at the top spot.
 
KazeoHin said:
The 8700K was released early, and because Ryzen was taking market share. The 7700K was no match for AMD's product, and people were getting wise to that. The 8700K now steals back the top spot and keeps Intel at the top, so no bigger, badder CPU is needed. If Intel can make buckets of cash with 6-core silicon, why would they release a larger piece of silicon and charge the same price?

Also, historically, i7 CPU silicon has gotten smaller, and more expensive. the 8700K is the first departure from that norm in a while, and Intel really didn't want it to happen. If Ryzen wasn't a thing, we'd still have a quad-core i7 at the top spot.
Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assumptions as to what Intel wants and why they did what, and you still haven't addressed why Intel continued to keep pricing the same when they had no competition lol.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
You're making a lot of assumptions as to what Intel wants and why they did what, and you still haven't addressed why Intel continued to keep pricing the same when they had no competition lol.
Click to expand...

Kept prices the same? I'm pretty sure they charged more per square mm of silicon.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm pretty sure you're being fucking obtuse, I said nothing about price per square mm.
Click to expand...

You mentioned pricing. I gave you a metric of pricing.

Intel offered smaller and smaller chips for static prices. 4c/8t for nearly a decade on smaller and smaller processes. Remember when all the rumours were saying Haswell would be 6-core? then Broadwell? Then Skylake? Then Kaby Lake?.

Zen comes around and suddenly we get the 6-core 8700K rushed out the door with little to no supply, firmware locked to a single series of re-badged mainboards on a pre-existing socket. I'm sure this was Intel's plan all along, and zen had nothing to do with this launch at all ever in no way possibly at all ever.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I mentioned pricing within a metric, and then you went off on a tangent.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. You claimed Intel did not raise prices. I said they did. We are both on the same tangent.

Per product cost increases are much harder to swallow than slowly reducing the return of a static price. Not to mention, when you have 90+% of the market, you become your biggest competitor. It would be a lot harder to persuade previous gen owners to upgrade if the product price went up. Whereas selling a slice of silicon the size of last-gen's i3 for i7 prices keeps the status quo, but at the same time nets more profit.

On top of thinning out the PCB, and replacing solder with TIM, and firmware locking CPUs to renamed chipsets, Intel has become quite good at getting more money for a given amount of product, which is to say, you're paying the same for much less product on their part.

The 8700K is a welcome change to this. and it holds true as a damn good product, but unless Intel is forced to, they aren't going to offer that same jump in silicon size and performance, especially while 8700ks are flying off the shelves, guaranteed Intel make less money per 8700 chip than they did per 7700 chip. They never wanted that to happen. This is why they locked the CPUs via firmware to only be compatible renamed chipsets that cost very little (probably nothing) to develop. This way every 8700K also gets Intel a chipset sale for a Chipset that had no R&D cost.

of course there will be a product called '9700K', but it won't be an 8-core unless:
A - It maintains or increases Intel's profit margin per mm of silicon
B - Intel are forced to by a competitor.
 
KazeoHin said:
On the contrary. You claimed Intel did not raise prices. I said they did. We are both on the same tangent.
Click to expand...

No, I claimed that they kept pricing the same in a specific context, and you're talking about some other irrelevant context, especially with respect to the discussion at hand.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
No, I claimed that they kept pricing the same in a specific context, and you're talking about some other irrelevant context, especially with respect to the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

Alright, your original post was about Intel breaking tradition/historical activity. Saying they wouldn't increase the price of the X700 chip compared to the previous generation.

In the context of the 9700k being referenced (the 8-core chip rumoured) I don't see that happening because of the same reasons. Not to mention Intel has already broke tradition and released a bigger piece of silicon (compared to last gen) on the mainstream chipsets for the first time ever, it's also the first time Intel has ever kept the same socket but firmware locked the chip compatibility with no option for a BIOS update on older boards. It's also the first time Intel has released a 6-core chip on the mainstream.

So there is no merit in relying on previous actions dictating future ones. Business and profit, however, are universal. An 8-core chip on the same process size as the coffee lake chips would cost more. Intel are already making less profit on the 8700k versus what they made on the 7700k, but they mitigated that by forcing a chipset purchase.

Intel wouldn't take a bigger hit unless forced. And seeing as how Ryzen isn't as big of a threat any more, and the new Ryzen chips are basically a +200mhz refresh, I doubt Intel will feel the pressure.
 
silk186 said:
I've been sitting on my i5 2500k for a long long time.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat with my trusty 2600k. I got it at release, and replaced every component over time, until last year when I got a good deal on a 3770k, so now I have a 3770k rig, and just assembled all the old parts into my original 2600k build :LOL:.

I think we've reached a near-plateau in single thread performance, and future performance gains will be seen in multi-threading efficiency, where core count will be more of a deciding factor.

So I'm waiting on intel's next 8-core release too. At least, that's what it'll take to get me to shell out for a new CPU mobo & ram. Pretty sure Intel will keep their performance crown, and AMD will win in the "best value" category. It'll come down to budget, business as usual :cool:.
 
Keljian said:
Mendeley is an online database system. Your issue with that isn't your PC, it's your internet connection. A faster processor will make a difference, but essentially your bottleneck is the speed of your internet connection.
Click to expand...
I use the desktop version with locally stored data and documents with a word plugin. The entries are synced online but not the files. Mendeley works fine without an internet connection. I have 100/100Mb Unlimited which will be upgraded to 150Mb soon.

7211951890.png
 
IdiotInCharge said:
And you divine a departure from what they've been doing for the last decade, including putting out a bigger piece of silicon for the 8600+ while maintaining the same price range, how exactly?

I expect the i7-9700 to be priced like every i7-x700 before it. If anything, AMD releasing a slightly more competitive part would dissuade them from hiking prices. They didn't do it when AMD was nowhere to be found, why would they do it now?
Click to expand...
I agree, no big price increase moving up to 4 or 6 core in the past so I don't see why they would now.
 
KazeoHin said:
On the contrary. You claimed Intel did not raise prices. I said they did. We are both on the same tangent.

Per product cost increases are much harder to swallow than slowly reducing the return of a static price. Not to mention, when you have 90+% of the market, you become your biggest competitor. It would be a lot harder to persuade previous gen owners to upgrade if the product price went up. Whereas selling a slice of silicon the size of last-gen's i3 for i7 prices keeps the status quo, but at the same time nets more profit.

On top of thinning out the PCB, and replacing solder with TIM, and firmware locking CPUs to renamed chipsets, Intel has become quite good at getting more money for a given amount of product, which is to say, you're paying the same for much less product on their part.

The 8700K is a welcome change to this. and it holds true as a damn good product, but unless Intel is forced to, they aren't going to offer that same jump in silicon size and performance, especially while 8700ks are flying off the shelves, guaranteed Intel make less money per 8700 chip than they did per 7700 chip. They never wanted that to happen. This is why they locked the CPUs via firmware to only be compatible renamed chipsets that cost very little (probably nothing) to develop. This way every 8700K also gets Intel a chipset sale for a Chipset that had no R&D cost.

of course there will be a product called '9700K', but it won't be an 8-core unless:
A - It maintains or increases Intel's profit margin per mm of silicon
B - Intel are forced to by a competitor.
Click to expand...
An 8 core 9700k could get a lot of enthusiasts to upgrade from 8700k. I used to upgrade frequently until I picked up an i5-2500k.
I was waiting for a 6 core, but this one was rushed with a rushed platform and Meltdown and Spectre didn't help.
 
silk186 said:
I use the desktop version with locally stored data and documents with a word plugin. The entries are synced online but not the files. Mendeley works fine without an internet connection. I have 100/100Mb Unlimited which will be upgraded to 150Mb soon.

View attachment 65409
Click to expand...

Ok so being that you use the desktop version, and being that it is based on SQLite, you should seriously consider an optane “drive” for Mendeley, as it is literally the fastest solution for it.
 
Keljian said:
Ok so being that you use the desktop version, and being that it is based on SQLite, you should seriously consider an optane “drive” for Mendeley, as it is literally the fastest solution for it.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that sounds like a useful solution. I"m not sure if I will go optane given current prices.Would moving from a Samsung 830 256GB to a Samsung PM961 1TB improve SQLite performance?
 
I will be building an mITX SFF system so I will only have one M.2 slot which I plan on filling with a 1TB drive.
 
Figure out what you'll use it for.. and go from there.. Gaming? 8700/9700(?).. Less gaming more anything else.. Ryzen great option
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top