Ryzen vs Coffee Lake

Yep, you can argue one way or the other, but if you say one setup is trash then you are a full on fanboy.
 
Nightfire said:
Yep, you can argue one way or the other, but if you say one setup is trash then you are a full on fanboy.
Click to expand...

More or less this. When reading the reviews of the 2700X and comparing to the 8700k, I got the impression that it was more or less a tie - it depends much more heavily on your use case than one being objectively superior to the other overall. Of course, fanboys can spin it either way with some clever cherry picking. But I figured more or less equal.
 
Tzeh Pesh said:
Bad local/RAM pricing is the kicker. Struggling with the choices, happy to be shown my faulty logic here.
Click to expand...

No faulty logic- RAM compatibility, pricing, and availability has been unfortunately dragging down Ryzen's competitiveness since release and still has some effect today despite very admirable gains in terms of compatibility on AMD's and their motherboard vendor's part.

And Nightfire is right that the question of which to go for would largely be answered by intended use. For most desktop uses and many gaming uses the difference is trivial today, but generally speaking you'll get more gaming legs out of an Intel system assuming at least six cores and more out of an AMD system if you need the extra theaded resources for say video editing.

[and I do mean need; as an amateur photographer/videographer myself, I do not need the extra threaded resources as I am not doing enough of it personally to matter, while I do game]
 
Tzeh Pesh said:
I was really looking forward to the Hardware Unboxed Ryzen 5 2600 vs. Core i5-8400, 36 Game Benchmark Battle video given my P55 motherboard is showing signs its about to take the choice of whether to continue the perpetual wait for the next generation or not out of my hands, and wanting to finally have a definitive answer... but it feels like its just muddied the waters.

There's my issue... assuming the *cheapest* local listings for each component - i5 8400 and R5 2600, Z370 and X470 motherboards respectively, and 16gb DDR4 kit at 2666 or greater for the Intel system and a kit that will likely be able to do 3400 for the AMD system:

Code: 
Item            | Intel      | AMD     
--------------------------------------
CPU             | $249       | $275    
Motherboard     | $165       | $229    
RAM             | $259       | $325    
--------------------------------------
Total           | $673       | $829

I understand that there are cheaper motherboards for both, and RAM options for a 2600, but without the better memory especially, aren't you back to comparing stock i5 8400 and stock R5 2600 and so hamstringing the latter? And otherwise, the $156 difference would be enough to swap out the i5 8400 for an i5 8700 (non-K) here... boosts to the same or slightly higher all core clocks as the OC 2600 (and +10% higher than the i5 8400), has the same 6/12 threads as the 2600...

Bad local/RAM pricing is the kicker. Struggling with the choices, happy to be shown my faulty logic here.
Click to expand...

Go with a B-350. Mine ended up being $25 after the rebates, and it's been fantastic. When playing Fortnite, my 2700x boosts to 4.3Ghz and hovers around there for a while. In Overwatch it clocks to 4.175-4.25....I say go with a B-350, a 240mm AIO, and the best ram you can get. Were going to get at least another round compatible with these boards (Ryzen 3700x?) and maybe two (Ryzen 4700x)...I can't as confidently say that about a z370...even within the existing CoffeeLake line up (the 8-Core 8790k may require z390 board.
 
Steve at Hardware Unboxed really outdid himself with this phenomenal comparison:



Not exactly Ryzen v. CFL, but more so CFL if it had a mesh interface.
Here are the results for instant gratification:

hw.JPG


A few things to point out:

1.) The o/c 2600 matched the 7800 despite a 400 mhz deficit. Min frames were actually better, especially at 1440p.
2.) Much of the performance improvements for the 2600 were likely due to the ram increase due to Precision Boost- A stock 2600x with faster ram might match the o/c 2600.
3.) Power draw was not measured, but no doubt the o/c 2600 setup was drawing FAR less watts.
4.) The Ryzen platform was about half the price.
5.) If power draw or price are of low concern, and you are more concerned about I/O and quad channel memory, the upcoming 2900x/2920x/2950x will really be attractive to consumers.
6.) Steve deserves more Patreon supporters!
 
I traded some stuff a buddy needed for an 8700k board and chip, been using that with my V56. Stock for stock with the 2700X I'm seeing 30-50 more fps in PUBG and WoT with the same RAM and I don't even need to overclock. I also didn't have to dick with the RAM for two weeks to get it stable, just pressed XMP and voila, good to go. Ended up selling the 2700X, I still have my 1800X rig, but not sure what I will do with it.
 
Nightfire said:
It seems like you have up alot in order to p0wn a few more n00bs in PUBG.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean "gave up a lot", but since it cost me next to nothing to try it out for myself I don't see what the issue is. In other games they perform nearly identical, it just so happens that the ones I put the most hours in favor intel by a large margin. I see a wider gap than some tests I've seen but I'm guessing that has to do with me lowering some settings because I'm using a Vega 56 not a 1080ti.

Make sure to keep trying to ridicule what I use my system for though.
 
It seems like you are very clearly a gamer and I am not trying to ridicule that. It is just a wonder that you didn't go Intel in the first place of that is the case.
 
Nightfire said:
It seems like you are very clearly a gamer and I am not trying to ridicule that. It is just a wonder that you didn't go Intel in the first place of that is the case.
Click to expand...

I prefer not to use intel and I don't want to give them my money. I got this setup in trade for some crap I'm never going to use again.
 
Nightfire said:
It seems like you have up alot in order to p0wn a few more n00bs in PUBG.
Click to expand...

How can you claim that he gave up 'a lot'?

The performance margins are slim regardless of application, in general; for most consumer uses, the difference would not be noticeable, but the greater single-thread performance of the 8700k is more likely to be of use to a consumer than the extra core of an oct-core Ryzen.

So, unless the user in question is time dependent on multi-threaded workloads (such as compiles or renders), they likely aren't giving up anything at all.
 
adobian said:
Has anyone bought a Ryzen 1700 and overclocked it then regret that you could have bought the i7 8700K instead ?
Click to expand...

No, I also bought an 1800X alongside my 1700. I bought a 2700X on release too, using it now. Wouldn't come near a 8700K that shit is garbage with the Meltdown flaw.
 
LigTasm said:
I traded some stuff a buddy needed for an 8700k board and chip, been using that with my V56. Stock for stock with the 2700X I'm seeing 30-50 more fps in PUBG and WoT with the same RAM and I don't even need to overclock. I also didn't have to dick with the RAM for two weeks to get it stable, just pressed XMP and voila, good to go. Ended up selling the 2700X, I still have my 1800X rig, but not sure what I will do with it.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I have his 2700X now and I just put it in to a X470 board, hit XMP with 4x8GB of RAM and had zero issues ;).

Something else to consider. You could always turn your 2700X to mine Cryptonight when you're using it and maybe make $0.50 a day@45W or so. Almost double the hashrate of a 8700k at same W.
 
kirbyrj said:
In fairness, I have his 2700X now and I just put it in to a X470 board, hit XMP with 4x8GB of RAM and had zero issues ;).

Something else to consider. You could always turn your 2700X to mine Cryptonight when you're using it and maybe make $0.50 a day@45W or so. Almost double the hashrate of a 8700k at same W.
Click to expand...

I had the Asus Crosshair whatever X470 board, the top of the line one. My Gigabyte X370 clocks ram leagues better than that thing tbh. I still have 3 AM4 boards and an 1800X along with 3 kits of DDR4 so I still have some stuff to work with, but the 8700k for my use (1080p 240hz) is just flat out better. I haven't even overclocked it.
 
LigTasm said:
I had the Asus Crosshair whatever X470 board, the top of the line one. My Gigabyte X370 clocks ram leagues better than that thing tbh. I still have 3 AM4 boards and an 1800X along with 3 kits of DDR4 so I still have some stuff to work with, but the 8700k for my use (1080p 240hz) is just flat out better. I haven't even overclocked it.
Click to expand...

Hmm...I put it in the Crosshair Hero VII and it went right to 3200mhz @ Cas 14, 1T with 4 sticks. I almost bought that Gigabyte board also ;). I don't run a high refresh monitor. At 4k with a 1080Ti, it runs fine for me.
 
In 720/1080p gaming intel will be faster overclock to overclock. When at 1440p. You are gpu limited by both cpu’s.

So if you game at 1440p. It will be a tie.
 
Brackle said:
In 720/1080p gaming intel will be faster overclock to overclock. When at 1440p. You are gpu limited by both cpu’s.

So if you game at 1440p. It will be a tie.
Click to expand...

Remember that this is dependent on both the game and the GPU used...
 
It's actually pretty cool that you can't make a really bad choice right now. Some workloads tilt one way or the other, but overall, they're really pretty competitive.

I'm happy that this is the case once again.
 
PhaseNoise said:
It's actually pretty cool that you can't make a really bad choice right now. Some workloads tilt one way or the other, but overall, they're really pretty competitive.

I'm happy that this is the case once again.
Click to expand...

That was true until Intel Meltdown/Spectre. With Meltdown perf penalties in my work I see 30% performance reduction. For gamers, ya they don't even matter, just wasting time.. sure, great, anything works for them, including a Playstation.
 
housecat said:
That was true until Intel Meltdown/Spectre. With Meltdown perf penalties in my work I see 30% performance reduction. For gamers, ya they don't even matter, just wasting time.. sure, great, anything works for them, including a Playstation.
Click to expand...

In my crunching tasks, the max observed penalty was under 5% (lots of signal processing, compilation, etc) post-patch penalty. While not awesome, it didn't change the playing field. Some tasks favored Intel (especially ones where we have hand-tuned AVX code - man, that stuff screams), and some favored AMD (massively parallel GP compute) - those cases still favor the respective solutions.

But yes, it would be prudent to know if one's workload was in the camp of "castrated by meltdown patches"!
 
I'm seeing up to 30% in my Java and .Net projects. It may not affect everyone but it affects me, and I wouldn't recommend people buy Intel until it's fixed.. you never know when you need your IO performance. Maybe you're just gaming today.... but it's a general purpose machine. If you just want a game machine, there are Playstations and Xboxes.
 
Brackle said:
In 720/1080p gaming intel will be faster overclock to overclock. When at 1440p. You are gpu limited by both cpu’s.

So if you game at 1440p. It will be a tie.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely true or cover all situations. I run 1440p 165Hz and I lower settings to achieve higher FPS for competitive play. My Ryzen build struggles to keep up to intel in this department. Cranking it up the gap closes but.. for competitive gaming you are chasing all the FPS you can get. Still, I really like my Ryzen build and hope the next chip is neck and neck with Intel in gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top