7700K user - Sell me on a 2700X.

[chameleoneel]

I have always liked AMD and have owned many of their products.

Reality is, Ryzen 2 will be a success if it gains IPC parity and latency parity, with what Intel currently has. Expecting Ryzen 2 to best Intel clock for clock, is pipe dream. It's like when people though Ryzen 1 was gonna match Skylake/Kaby Lake. I was saying it would be a success, if they did as good ir better than Ivy Bridge.

It could happen that Ryzen 2 is the R&D marvel AMD has been digging for, but I don't think it is likely. I mean, the Ryzen+ refresh shows the only performance gain coming from a few extra mhz. And the architecture still chokes in all the same places. I mean that many programs and games are pretty good. But there are some which are that much worse, for some reason. Ryzen 2 has a lot of ground to gain.

 

[ReaperX22]

I have always liked AMD and have owned many of their products.

Reality is, Ryzen 2 will be a success if it gains IPC parity and latency parity, with what Intel currently has. Expecting Ryzen 2 to best Intel clock for clock, is pipe dream. It's like when people though Ryzen 1 was gonna match Skylake/Kaby Lake. I was saying it would be a success, if they did as good ir better than Ivy Bridge.

It could happen that Ryzen 2 is the R&D marvel AMD has been digging for, but I don't think it is likely. I mean, the Ryzen+ refresh shows the only performance gain coming from a few extra mhz. And the architecture still chokes in all the same places. I mean that many programs and games are pretty good. But there are some which are that much worse, for some reason. Ryzen 2 has a lot of ground to gain.

Agreed. Give me a 6-8 core AMD at the same price point that can hit 4.5ghz+ and I'm sold. They're not that far off anyway!

TBH if I had the need/spare cash, I'd go out buy a r5 2600/2600x right now to replace my aging 4690k. But, as I do basic tasks + gaming only, I don't really need the upgrade.. I'm also at 1440p so CPU is less of an issue.

 

[bobzdar]

Intel is still the best beat for the desktop. I'm not a brand whore. I'm strictly about performance.

I would strongly encourage anyone about to build or upgrade to look at the 8700K, 8086K, or the 8900K and 9900K that are expected to ship shortly.

Faster memory speeds, interconnect speeds, overclockability. Intel is still ahead in IPC ( instructions per cycle ) I also laugh at all the kiddies talking about "cores" ..... less than 1% of you guys are encoding MKV's. 99%+ of you are gaming.

For those of you barely scraping buy, broke, on a budget, I think it's awesome you have at least AMD to fall back on. AMD def has it's place.

I think the 2700x and 8700K are close to the same price tho on Newegg? The 8700K at 4.8Ghz ( which is a guaranteed overclock ) bests the 2700x even if it's overclocked to 3.9 - 4.0ghz.

That's not overclocked... it does that stock with the stock cooler.

For gaming it doesn't make sense to upgrade from any intel 6th gen i7 or higher. Below that and it might, and then I would go for maximum cores if you are after longevity (and if you're on a pre 6700k, you probably are). Right now that's amd. Given the extreme acceleration in cores - 2 years ago 10 cores was max in the hedt space and now we're at 32 - anything sub 8 core will be obsolete fairly quickly.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Intel is still the best beat for the desktop. I'm not a brand whore. I'm strictly about performance.

"Desktop" is too general. Intel is best for a pure gaming-only rig. AMD is best for gaming + streaming, because they give more threads at any given price point. For productivity, it depends on use case. Rendering is a strong point for AMD. AVX workloads a strong point for Intel. You buy based on your use case.

Faster memory speeds, interconnect speeds, overclockability. Intel is still ahead in IPC ( instructions per cycle ) I also laugh at all the kiddies talking about "cores" ..... less than 1% of you guys are encoding MKV's. 99%+ of you are gaming.

Citation needed. I do rendering, multitrack audio editing, video encoding, compiling, and other various things with this box, many of which leverage the extra cores. I also game, but these days that's less than 20% of what I use this box for. Nor am I alone in this. Many folks here are content creators AND gamers. They are not mutually exclusive categories. And never mind gamers who are streaming - for them more cores is still helpful.

For those of you barely scraping buy, broke, on a budget, I think it's awesome you have at least AMD to fall back on. AMD def has it's place.

Ah yes. For those unwashed peasants who don't want to pay extra to Intel. Lolwut? Buy what works best for your use case and budget. Many of those calculations will land on Ryzen. Many will land on an Intel CPU. *shrug*

I think the 2700x and 8700K are close to the same price tho on Newegg? The 8700K at 4.8Ghz ( which is a guaranteed overclock ) bests the 2700x even if it's overclocked to 3.9 - 4.0ghz.

2700X easily overclocks to 4.2. Lol @3.9. It runs at 3.9 on all cores with its default boosting, without overclocking. That's basically guaranteed at the same rate an 8700k will hit 4.8. The 2700X is about $20 cheaper last I looked, comes with a respectable cooler in the box (more $ savings) and can be paired with inexpensive B350 or B450 motherboards - while retaining overclocking ability. The 8700k, OTOH, retains the single-threaded performance crown, even over other Intel products - save only the 8086k. The 2700X will be faster in many threaded workloads, but slower in lightly threaded workloads. Again... buy what makes sense for your use case. They are both excellent CPUs.

 

[funkydmunky]

Yeah and then 2024 and 2032... you'll always be waiting on the next big thing just to find the day it comes out its obsolete already. Just upgrade when you want. There is no strategy anymore or tick tock rhythms.

I politely disagree. There is a strategy. We know exactly when Zen 2 ships so why not take a wait and see attitude. It's a year at most.
We are mostly smart enough around here to understand that Ryzen @ 4.2 and the i7 @ 4.8, with IPC factored in, give Intel an approx 1GHz advantage real world. Not something a gaming centrist user would be advised to throw away at this point in time when games have yet to leverage the extra cores.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

I have always liked AMD and have owned many of their products.

Reality is, Ryzen 2 will be a success if it gains IPC parity and latency parity, with what Intel currently has. Expecting Ryzen 2 to best Intel clock for clock, is pipe dream. It's like when people though Ryzen 1 was gonna match Skylake/Kaby Lake. I was saying it would be a success, if they did as good ir better than Ivy Bridge.

It could happen that Ryzen 2 is the R&D marvel AMD has been digging for, but I don't think it is likely. I mean, the Ryzen+ refresh shows the only performance gain coming from a few extra mhz. And the architecture still chokes in all the same places. I mean that many programs and games are pretty good. But there are some which are that much worse, for some reason. Ryzen 2 has a lot of ground to gain.

I've been on record saying that my guess for Zen 2 would be either a 6 core CCX or an extra CCX. 12 cores per die (and for AM4), in any event. I would also expect roundabout +5% IPC, and another 300-400MHz in max boost frequency and overclockability, though I would also expect base frequency to remain roughly the same as now to keep TDP respectable. Essentially a 12 core @ 4.7 max boost, with IPC still a hair less than Skylake, but only a hair. I wonder, though, if Zen 2 will address the AVX shortcomings. Maybe.

 

[Tzeh Pesh]

I've been on record saying that my guess for Zen 2 would be either a 6 core CCX or an extra CCX. 12 cores per die (and for AM4), in any event. I would also expect roundabout +5% IPC, and another 300-400MHz in max boost frequency and overclockability, though I would also expect base frequency to remain roughly the same as now to keep TDP respectable. Essentially a 12 core @ 4.7 max boost, with IPC still a hair less than Skylake, but only a hair. I wonder, though, if Zen 2 will address the AVX shortcomings. Maybe.

To again be too gaming-centric, are there any indications or logic to the idea that Zen 2 would see latency improvements to the Mesh interconnect, assuming Ring Bus latency is where Intel is getting an advantage in gaming?


While admittedly on much older hardware than the OP, I had all but convinced myself to go the 2600 route (having talked myself out of the equivalently priced Intel on delusions of the scale of multi-tasking I do, and not really caring to support a product that was knowingly released with hardware level vulnerabilities my use case be damned)... but I may have been a little hooked by some of the Zen 2 speculation and hype, just hold out a little longer.

 

[OnceSetThisCannotChange]

This whole "gaming centric" approach is really questionable, as with proper memory 2700X is really close to 5ghz 8700k.

Surprised that nobody referenced this review:



Based on "1 ghz advantage" some may expect Intel to be 25% ahead, but it it not near that level of difference.

8700k is 9% faster over 35 games at 1080p and only 4% faster at 1440p with 1080ti, where some older games skew numbers in 8700k favour like CS GO with 36% (ie 500FPS vs 700 FPS or something ridiculous like that), while there are some newer games at 1440p which are faster on 2700X, like Warhammer Vermintide 2.

Sum total, 8700k is faster now, with the focus on older games, while with newer titles in general they are close, in some cases 2700x is faster too.

 

[Tzeh Pesh]

This whole "gaming centric" approach is really questionable, as with proper memory 2700X is really close to 5ghz 8700k.

"Proper" memory being the kicker locally, and taking 16gb of DDR4 from $250 for an Intel system to $340 for an AMD system here.

Surprised that nobody referenced this review:

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

Based on "1 ghz advantage" some may expect Intel to be 25% ahead, but it it not near that level of difference.

Definitely appreciate their review, but taking away that frequency advantage, with the extra core and thread count its still pulling up on par with the supposedly multi-thread optimised Ashes, and in some other games a 8600K is able to extract more performance out of a 1080 Ti in the here and now, while being nearly $100 cheaper than a 2700X system (without factoring in the memory saving from earlier) - which makes gaming an outlier, hence my curiosity if this is something they will be able to address.

Ryzen 5 2600X vs. Core i7-8700K IPC Comparison, AMD's Hot On Intel's Heels!

8700k is 9% faster over 35 games at 1080p and only 4% faster at 1440p with 1080ti, where some older games skew numbers in 8700k favour like CS GO with 36% (ie 500FPS vs 700 FPS or something ridiculous like that), while there are some newer games at 1440p which are faster on 2700X, like Warhammer Vermintide 2.

Sum total, 8700k is faster now, with the focus on older games, while with newer titles in general they are close, in some cases 2700x is faster too.

I'm a little confused here. Vermintide 2 was performing significantly better on the 8700K up until the GPU bottleneck in that review, no? And there were a mix of old, recent and just released titles in that list and while the average might be 9% average over 35 games at 1080p it was faster in 32 of 35 games. Very much playing Devil's Advocate here regarding the gaming argument as like I said had been all but set on a 2600 based system, just as someone that prefers to upgrade my GPU more often than my CPU am wary of something that might be reigning in the GPU in some way.

 

[OnceSetThisCannotChange]

I should have picked Sniper Elite 4 or Dirt 4, but there was no graph and in WH we reach GPU bottleneck which gives a slight advantage to AMD at that stage.

Either way the difference with the worst case 1080p scenario in terms of FPS average is 100FPS vs 115FPS (or 80 vs 92 for minimums) for a game like PUBG, and with VRR it will not make a difference for 99% of users. Main point being that the expected difference is not around 25%, but closer to 10%, with newer games likely showing an even lower delta, which in all likelihood will not be perceptible for vast majority of gamers.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

To again be too gaming-centric, are there any indications or logic to the idea that Zen 2 would see latency improvements to the Mesh interconnect, assuming Ring Bus latency is where Intel is getting an advantage in gaming?

That's the wrong way of looking at it. Sort of. So within each CCX you have a ring - and Zen is actually a hair faster than Intel within the CCX, with regards to latency. The latency penalty with Zen happens between CCXs (and later with memory access). Now, if Zen 2 provides a 6 core CCX instead of a 4 core CCX, we should see latency improvements. There would be less reason for lightly-threaded workloads to hop CCXs and incur the penalty. However, if Zen 2 retains the 4 core CCX, then we should only see minor improvements/tweaks to this latency. In either event, the penalty is not as large as folks are thinking, or else the 1-CCX Zen APUs would demonstrate higher IPC than their 2-CCX counterparts. They don't. Intel's primary advantage in gaming comes from higher IPC and higher clock rates, both of which I expect to be narrowed considerably (but not entirely eliminated) in Zen 2.

While admittedly on much older hardware than the OP, I had all but convinced myself to go the 2600 route (having talked myself out of the equivalently priced Intel on delusions of the scale of multi-tasking I do, and not really caring to support a product that was knowingly released with hardware level vulnerabilities my use case be damned)... but I may have been a little hooked by some of the Zen 2 speculation and hype, just hold out a little longer.

If you don't need to upgrade, waiting a little while might be good. We have the 8 core mainstream Intel product coming out in a few months. And a few months after that, Zen 2. Both are very interesting products. But OTOH, you have to buy someday - and there is always something better a few months away. One advantage of AMD in this context is platform support. Buy now, drop-in replace later if Zen 2 turns out to be amazing. It's an option. But if your current CPU isn't hurting you in any real way, just wait.

 

[cyberguyz]

Intel is still the best beat for the desktop. I'm not a brand whore. I'm strictly about performance.

I would strongly encourage anyone about to build or upgrade to look at the 8700K, 8086K, or the 8900K and 9900K that are expected to ship shortly.

Faster memory speeds, interconnect speeds, overclockability. Intel is still ahead in IPC ( instructions per cycle ) I also laugh at all the kiddies talking about "cores" ..... less than 1% of you guys are encoding MKV's. 99%+ of you are gaming.

For those of you barely scraping buy, broke, on a budget, I think it's awesome you have at least AMD to fall back on. AMD def has it's place.

I think the 2700x and 8700K are close to the same price tho on Newegg? The 8700K at 4.8Ghz ( which is a guaranteed overclock ) bests the 2700x even if it's overclocked to 3.9 - 4.0ghz.

Not all of us are using our PCs just for gaming bruh. There is a thing called multitasking that a lot of us do. Personally I do a lot of stuff in virtual machines that are happy as pigs in shit having 16 phys cores & 64GB memory to romp around in. Yes I do game on my PC too and as far as that goes as long as the game is playable, I don't need my system running 4.8Ghz. Nor does the game. 3.7Ghz is more than plenty for any gaming I do - even with a VM guest or churning up in the background.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Not all of us are using our PCs just for gaming bruh. There is a thing called multitasking that a lot of us do. Personally I do a lot of stuff in virtual machines that are happy as pigs in shit having 16 phys cores & 64GB memory to romp around in. Yes I do game on my PC too and as far as that goes as long as the game is playable, I don't need my system running 4.8Ghz. Nor does the game. 3.7Ghz is more than plenty for any gaming I do - even with a VM guest or churning up in the background.

This ability to play a game while waiting for some shit to render because you have cores out the wazoo is damned awesome.

 

[cyberguyz]

This ability to play a game while waiting for some shit to render because you have cores out the wazoo is damned awesome.

And that is what sets us enthusiasts apart from your average computer user.

 

[tangoseal]

This whole "gaming centric" approach is really questionable, as with proper memory 2700X is really close to 5ghz 8700k.

Surprised that nobody referenced this review:



Based on "1 ghz advantage" some may expect Intel to be 25% ahead, but it it not near that level of difference.

8700k is 9% faster over 35 games at 1080p and only 4% faster at 1440p with 1080ti, where some older games skew numbers in 8700k favour like CS GO with 36% (ie 500FPS vs 700 FPS or something ridiculous like that), while there are some newer games at 1440p which are faster on 2700X, like Warhammer Vermintide 2.

Sum total, 8700k is faster now, with the focus on older games, while with newer titles in general they are close, in some cases 2700x is faster too.

I agree with your observation

 

[Dan_D]

As a gaming processor alone, you won't find a Ryzen 7 2700X an upgrade over what you have. Its an upgrade in some other areas but useless if you don't leverage the CPU to do more than just play games.

 

[KingGlade]

I wouldn't do it since your 7700k is just fine and relatively new. I honestly went with the 2700x instead of an 8700k from a 3770k because I've always purchased intel, and I wanted to try something else. It wasn't the best overclocker, so I have noticed a decent jump in performance. It's an excellent chip overall, and I hope that Zen 2 can increase IPC further to foster more competition.

 

[CyberJunk]

if you are coming from a 7700k stock you don't loose any single threaded performance but you gain a shitload of mult threaded performance which some games actually use. You also can do multiple things at once like if you have multiple monitors or let say you had 3 monitors you can have other things running in the background and it won't affect the performance of the game. It's really cool

 

[Stryke1983]

if you are coming from a 7700k stock you don't loose any single threaded performance but you gain a shitload of mult threaded performance which some games actually use. You also can do multiple things at once like if you have multiple monitors or let say you had 3 monitors you can have other things running in the background and it won't affect the performance of the game. It's really cool

How many games are going to use more than 8 threads effectively though? It'd just mean that in the best case scenario he'll see no difference but in the worst case he'll actually see dips in performance.He stated he does no other taxing workloads, so the additional cores/threads will basically just sit there doing nothing useful.

Plus if he's at stock then he'd be better served by overclocking his 7700K. But as he's asking about Ryzen's overclocking abilities and how it responds to water cooling I'm going to assume his current chip is already overclocked as well.

 

[KingGlade]

How many games are going to use more than 8 threads effectively though? It'd just mean that in the best case scenario he'll see no difference but in the worst case he'll actually see dips in performance.He stated he does no other taxing workloads, so the additional cores/threads will basically just sit there doing nothing useful.

Plus if he's at stock then he'd be better served by overclocking his 7700K. But as he's asking about Ryzen's overclocking abilities and how it responds to water cooling I'm going to assume his current chip is already overclocked as well.

I would have to agree. The jump only makes sense if he will use the extra threads on rendering or maybe if he is a streamer. Even then waiting on the 9700k to release may be a better option since it is supposedly 8-core as well.

 

[Rockenrooster]

If you're not OCD about having the max FPS possible, the 2700x will serve you for a long while to come with its 16 threads whether it be gaming or anything else. You don't even need to buy an aftermarket cooler since the stock one does a pretty good job too!

 

[Dermac]

If you aren't already maxing out the 7700K in terms of threads, then the 2700/2700X is a side-grade at best. But for my use, I can game on one monitor and have a full 1080p youtube video playing on the other monitor with the Twitch App, Discord, OBS and X number of tasks all running in the background with no loss in fps on the game, and that is with last gen's 1700 non-X. Even though I'm not getting the 165fps in Doom, I will just have to live with the 160fps.

 

[CyberJunk]

yeah if you are not using all the threads now there is no need to get a 2700x or any 8 core cpu. It's not gonna give you any added performance. But if do then tthe 2700x is great

 

[misterbobby]

if you are coming from a 7700k stock you don't loose any single threaded performance but you gain a shitload of mult threaded performance which some games actually use. You also can do multiple things at once like if you have multiple monitors or let say you had 3 monitors you can have other things running in the background and it won't affect the performance of the game. It's really cool

And that is flat-out bullshit too. Not only is the 7700k about 10 to 12% faster for clock in games it also clocks much much higher. You can look at the guru3d review of the 2700 X and see that even the old 4790k matches or beats the 2700 X in some games.

 

[CyberJunk]

And that is flat-out bullshit too. Not only is the 7700k about 10 to 12% faster for clock in games it also clocks much much higher. You can look at the guru3d review of the 2700 X and see that even the old 4790k matches or beats the 2700 X in some games.

you have to look at the date of the reviews. Intel has alot of spectre meltdown patches that have come out since 2700x launched and the per clock performance is really close like 1-2% difference.

 

[CyberJunk]

Personally this is why i switched to AMD from intel i got tired of the patches and security updates killing performance.

 

[Rockenrooster]

No the fuck it isn't so stop with your bullshit. And the patches only made a couple of percent difference at worst case scenario according to Hardware Unboxed. And the reviews I'm talking about was after the patches anyway.

Dang... Overreact much...

BTW I'll take a 2700x any day over a 7700k. I multitask too much.

 

[cageymaru]

I wouldn't buy a 7700K or any 4 core in the future unless I was dead set against getting one of the Nvidia RTX cards with real-time ray tracing.
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2018/0...ed_gaming_dreams_reality_in_just_eight_months

“What we have done with our DXR implementation is we go very wide on a lot of cores to offload that work, so we’re likely going to require a higher minimum or recommended spec for producing RT. And very wide is the best way for the consumer in that regard, with a four-core or six-core machine.

“We haven’t communicated any of the specs yet so they might change, but I think that a six-core machine – it doesn’t have to be aggressively clocked – but 12 hardware threads is what we kind of designed it for. But it might also work well on a higher clocked eight thread machine.”


DICE is one of the best developers in the world as far as pushing the envelope in graphics technology. If anyone is considering a CPU with less that 6 or 8 cores for gaming; I think they are making a mistake. Save another month and grab something that that the developers of the game recommend at least.

6 core Intel, AMD 6 or 8 core would be my choice. I guess that Intel 8 core is coming soon so maybe wait and see what it is capable of.

Leave the 4 cores on the shelf!

 

[Sodapopjones]

I wouldn't buy a 7700K or any 4 core in the future unless I was dead set against getting one of the Nvidia RTX cards with real-time ray tracing.
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2018/0...ed_gaming_dreams_reality_in_just_eight_months

“What we have done with our DXR implementation is we go very wide on a lot of cores to offload that work, so we’re likely going to require a higher minimum or recommended spec for producing RT. And very wide is the best way for the consumer in that regard, with a four-core or six-core machine.

“We haven’t communicated any of the specs yet so they might change, but I think that a six-core machine – it doesn’t have to be aggressively clocked – but 12 hardware threads is what we kind of designed it for. But it might also work well on a higher clocked eight thread machine.”


DICE is one of the best developers in the world as far as pushing the envelope in graphics technology. If anyone is considering a CPU with less that 6 or 8 cores for gaming; I think they are making a mistake. Save another month and grab something that that the developers of the game recommend at least.

6 core Intel, AMD 6 or 8 core would be my choice. I guess that Intel 8 core is coming soon so maybe wait and see what it is capable of.

Leave the 4 cores on the shelf!

Honestly, Watch Dogs 2 spelled the death of quad cores, and what caused me to move to a 1600, granted I just upgraded to a 2700X..

 

[CyberJunk]

And that is flat-out bullshit too. Not only is the 7700k about 10 to 12% faster for clock in games it also clocks much much higher. You can look at the guru3d review of the 2700 X and see that even the old 4790k matches or beats the 2700 X in some games.

I don't care what chip you use ok ? believe what you want to believe. Have fun with the security vulnerabilities and dealing with intel management engine and paying more money for total bullshit yay

 

[amigafan2003]

I'm debating these processors, too. I have a bit of a dumb question, though. Maybe, it has been asked before? Why would someone want to get into 'game recording' or 'game streaming?'

Because if you're good at it you can make a reasonable amount of money doing it.

 

[pavel]

Because if you're good at it you can make a reasonable amount of money doing it.

How?

Anyway, I have some comments and questions:
When people are comparing CL and Ryzen - especially, these processors - I don't see why Intel is always pushed for 'superior gaming' - yes, maybe there is a fps advantage in a lot of games - but, sometimes, you need an OC for that. You will increase power consumption and temps doing that - also, I think you need to delid that chip. Second, I don't think anyone will really notice - unless you are comparing to another builder who has the 'other side' or who has two systems. Or if you find recent benchmarks - which brings me to another concern. The spectre/meltdown stuff: Yes, I think the gaming part does not suffer a significant impact but some people complain of lags and stutters have the patches/mitigations - at least, that is what I have read on forums and reviews on the newegg/amazon and other sites where you buy this hardware. Are they doing something wrong or is it due to user error or something? I don't think so - not to a great extent. Because, there are so many who are complaining about this.

In saying all that, I think it's difficult to choose between the two - with Intel's security problems and possible peformance degradation and AMD / Ryzen - being a pretty good system albeit with maybe a bit of a loss in overall performance when relying on single cores and straight-out speed, but they make up for it with the extra cores and supposedly, aren't as affected from the patches/fixes.

 

[pendragon1]

How?

if youre good and entertaining you stream and get subs/patrons and "earn" money.

 

[Topweasel]

And that is flat-out bullshit too. Not only is the 7700k about 10 to 12% faster for clock in games it also clocks much much higher. You can look at the guru3d review of the 2700 X and see that even the old 4790k matches or beats the 2700 X in some games.

And that is bullshit too. IPC doesn't translate to dirrect performance neither does clockspeed. At it's worst outside of one or two outliers, a 77000k is about 10-12% better at 1080p gaming over a 1700x. The rift has closed for many reasons but without an overclock the difference between a 7700k and a 2700x is about maybe 5%.