Too lazy to read all those above. Just tell did I make mistake buying i5-8700k ?
Well, hopefully it is an i7-8700k but no you did not. Enjoy your cpu and game on.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Too lazy to read all those above. Just tell did I make mistake buying i5-8700k ?
Too lazy to read all those above. Just tell did I make mistake buying i5-8700k ?
Basically if you are running 1080 60hz, Ryzen is fine. If you have a 120hz+ monitor and want fps to match(in all games), 8600k/8700k/7700k?/etc will do it.Assuming you meant i7-8700k, definetly no. It is the best gaming CPU money can buy and a beast in worker things too. You have to pay big bucks but if you have the money it delivers.
If you meant i5-8600k, the answer is still no if you are a gamer only. For gaming it is almost on par with Kaby Lake i7, the king of last gen Intel. In situations where simply more threads rules the Kaby i7 is better but in situations where having more real cores is better than hyperthreading 8600k is even better than Kaby was. It is a great gaming CPU and OK as a worker CPU. Longevity is a question but that is always the case with i5. Hell, i5 7600K was outdated the moment it was released, 4 core 4 thread CPU's have no place in midrange gaming CPUs at 2017. Intel milked that cow way too long, so long that it is a dry husk now...
Best bang for the buck still belongs to Ryzen 5 1600. It is good for gaming and great for working. Ever since Coffee Lake was announced Ryzen 7 is in a little bit odd place right now. For a working CPU it is magnificient (better value than i7 Coffee Lake I think) but for gaming it is too expensive for the performance it gives because it is pretty much on par with Ryzen 5 hexcores right now. This is just an assumption but whenever gaming evolves to a point that the 8/16 threads of R7 becomes a clear boon over R5 6/12 the low clockseed of 1.gen Ryzens has probably become a problem by then and you are looking for upgrade anyway.
Basically if you are running 1080 60hz, Ryzen is fine. If you have a 120hz+ monitor and want fps to match(in all games), 8600k/8700k/7700k?/etc will do it.
Assuming you meant i7-8700k, definetly no. It is the best gaming CPU money can buy and a beast in worker things too. You have to pay big bucks but if you have the money it delivers.
Yeah, sorry, I meant i7. It was way overpriced n Finland in comparison with Rizen but I still went for it for the sake of "it is the best gaming CPU" I hear everywhere. And I do play on 100Hz G-Sync AOC AGon 35 Inch Ultrawide so it will be handy.
Too lazy to read all those above. Just tell did I make mistake buying i5-8700k ?
i7-8700k is better in almost everything, and when it loses to 1800X does by a tiny amount.
Yes but it cost more.
It cost less.
It cost more.
whatever you say
I venture to guess that in the end, both Intel and AMD are making products that about equal the other, in price and performance. Sure, there may be a sale here or deal there but all in all they are about the same price for what they are. In some areas, AMD holds the lead in performance and in other areas Intel holds the lead. If one only uses a PC to benchmark it, then get intel and your e-peen will be so happy. If you encode/transcode video while doing other stuff then AMD might be in your wheelhouse. If you game, either is a good choice since most games don't tax a CPU all that much at all. Pointless thread has turned more pointless.
Gaming performance is relative, what is the difference between 100fps and 115fps in your favorite title? To me it makes not the slightest difference.
It still can't even match skylake/Kabylake in how strong and fast a core is and singlethread. It's still like 20-30% slower. but then it has the multithread advantage.
If you were to do a build probably the 1600x, that's even more affordable.
20-30% in certain caveats, if running top of turbo or overclocked vs a stock ryzen in a load that is more affected by latency and clockspeed yeah maybe, same locked clocks its under 10%
20-30% in certain caveats, if running top of turbo or overclocked vs a stock ryzen in a load that is more affected by latency and clockspeed yeah maybe, same locked clocks its under 10%
8700k match or even beats 1800X in multithreaded benches. It is not difficult to see this implies CFL core has to be at least 33% faster than Zen core, not «20-30% in certain caveats».
Comparing clock for clock. Kabylake/CoffeeLake is 10--20% ahead of Zen with ancient software. The Stilt got Kabylake is 24% ahead of Zen with newest software
Yeah, it's not really thattt significant. 7700k is and was still a few bucks cheaper than the 1800x, so kinda just came down to that.
It is very significant, clockspeed affects results more than cores do, it is like racing a Golf GTR against and an SLS AMG. IPC tests are always done clock vs clock and that has become a issue because reality is very different when you take away the 23-34% difference in clock speed base to turbo.
There is a reason why Floyd Mayweather didn't fight Mike Tyson even though pound for pound at mayweathers weight catogory he would beat just about anyone as it is easier going up than going down in weight class, similar thing, intel without the clockspeed it hides results behind it is not that far off.
If you take the 8700K CB ST score around 199 at 4.7ghz, then apply the test to Zen at the same clock the 1800x got 161~ at 4ghz that is at least 189 at 4.7ghz, just showing the effect of clockspeed. At 3ghz the 8700K scores 127 to Zens 120 even though the 1600 scores oddly enough 124.
Compare apples to apples or accept the reality that despite the handicap Zen is still rather punchy with Intels speed freaks.
For general usage its like 12% which is about right, bearing in mind that these tests are normally stock and clock factor will play its part. This is why clock vs clock IPC cinebench test scores are hated, in general compute used by 90% of the mainstream marked, it is to close, enough for a nose bleed.
If you take the 8700K CB ST score around 199 at 4.7ghz, then apply the test to Zen at the same clock the 1800x got 161~ at 4ghz that is at least 189 at 4.7ghz, just showing the effect of clockspeed. At 3ghz the 8700K scores 127 to Zens 120 even though the 1600 scores oddly enough 124.
Compare apples to apples or accept the reality that despite the handicap Zen is still rather punchy with Intels speed freaks.
Even though it has two fewer cores than the Ryzen 1800X (a CPU that costs a hefty £437), the 8700K comes in faster in many production workloads. It's four seconds quicker in Blender at stock, and 11 seconds quicker when overclocked. It's faster at Handbrake video encoding too, and miles ahead in 7-Zip's synthetic benchmark, which tends to favour clock speed even in multithreaded mode.
It's only in PovRay and Cinebench that 1800X comes out on top—and only then by a small amount.
Ok so what I get from this is BS, obfuscate, outright mislead, and more BS.That 12% is the IPC gap after eliminating the workloads where Zen does worse and then eliminating further the workloads with 256bit support. But there is no reason to eliminate those workloads to favor RyZen, It is so stupid as pretending that we cannot use recent versions of Blender or Handbrake only because they come with 256bit support.
When all the workloads are considered, Kabylake IPC is a 28.94% above Zen. We can round that to 29%.
So you pretend that the IPC gap in CineBench is 5% (199/189). But you are using wrong data. The 8700k does more than 200cb @4.7GHz. The 8700k does 220cb @ 5Ghz. The 1800X does 160cb @4.1GHz.
So the IPC gap in CineBench is much bigger than you pretend. A simple computations gives 12% IPC gap in CineBench, but to not get you confounded with clocks we have measurements at same clocks
IPC gap in Cinebench is 11%.
Finally no one is hating "IPC cinebench test scores". What people is explaining to you is that CineBench is a favorable benchmark for RyZen. Measurement made with CineBench do not represent measurements made with rest of hundred production workloads or games. What people is saying you is that you cannot take only CineBench scores and ignore everything else. To quote again from the review:
So stop mentioning only Cinebench scores and ignoring everything else, only because CineBench favor Zen.
The IPC gap in Cinebench is 11--12%, but the IPC gap in rest of workloads is 20--30%.
Ok so what I get from this is BS, obfuscate, outright mislead, and more BS.
For everyone else please take note. The quoted post is what a shill post looks like. This is the end result of a poster that can not stand the fact that in REALITY, where a great deal of us live, the difference is minimal to non-existent. There are no links to graphs to attain time frame of results, where updates to software, bios, drivers or the like may have impacted results. Add to that the bickering over a % point or 2. And the belief that there is a 20-30%IPC gap in all other software other than Cinebench.
Here is a question for all you guys, does IPC really impact your daily lives? I am sure some it does, especially when their lively-hood depends on it. But how about us tinkerers and gamers? I doubt there is a difference of any measurable kind there. And before the idiocratic post about some 165Hz gaming, that only applies to about <0.05% of the market.
Uhm will Pinnacle Ridge with higher clockspeeds compared to the current Ryzens be decent with MMORPG games? MMO's are poorly optimize and single core heavy.
That 12% is the IPC gap after eliminating the workloads where Zen does worse and then eliminating further the workloads with 256bit support. But there is no reason to eliminate those workloads to favor RyZen, It is so stupid as pretending that we cannot use recent versions of Blender or Handbrake only because they come with 256bit support.
When all the workloads are considered, Kabylake IPC is a 28.94% above Zen. We can round that to 29%.
So you pretend that the IPC gap in CineBench is 5% (199/189). But you are using wrong data. The 8700k does more than 200cb @4.7GHz. The 8700k does 220cb @ 5Ghz. The 1800X does 160cb @4.1GHz.
So the IPC gap in CineBench is much bigger than you pretend. A simple computations gives 12% IPC gap in CineBench, but to not get you confounded with clocks we have measurements at same clocks
IPC gap in Cinebench is 11%.
Finally no one is hating "IPC cinebench test scores". What people is explaining to you is that CineBench is a favorable benchmark for RyZen. Measurement made with CineBench do not represent measurements made with rest of hundred production workloads or games. What people is saying you is that you cannot take only CineBench scores and ignore everything else. To quote again from the review:
So stop mentioning only Cinebench scores and ignoring everything else, only because CineBench favor Zen.
The IPC gap in Cinebench is 11--12%, but the IPC gap in rest of workloads is 20--30%.
If you can't agree that AMD has a decent product at it's price range, you get put on ignore because you're an idiot.
Ok so what I get from this is BS, obfuscate, outright mislead, and more BS.
For everyone else please take note. The quoted post is what a shill post looks like. This is the end result of a poster that can not stand the fact that in REALITY, where a great deal of us live, the difference is minimal to non-existent. There are no links to graphs to attain time frame of results, where updates to software, bios, drivers or the like may have impacted results. Add to that the bickering over a % point or 2. And the belief that there is a 20-30%IPC gap in all other software other than Cinebench.
Here is a question for all you guys, does IPC really impact your daily lives? I am sure some it does, especially when their lively-hood depends on it. But how about us tinkerers and gamers? I doubt there is a difference of any measurable kind there. And before the idiocratic post about some 165Hz gaming, that only applies to about <0.05% of the market.
Cinebench favours AMD? was this after they were busted for using codex in the bast that boosted intel scores artificially? Cinebench used to be the Intel bench of choice, now it is Tomb Raider lol.
Even though it has two fewer cores than the Ryzen 1800X (a CPU that costs a hefty £437), the 8700K comes in faster in many production workloads. It's four seconds quicker in Blender at stock, and 11 seconds quicker when overclocked. It's faster at Handbrake video encoding too, and miles ahead in 7-Zip's synthetic benchmark, which tends to favour clock speed even in multithreaded mode.
It's only in PovRay and Cinebench that 1800X comes out on top—and only then by a small amount.
Learn to read. I didn't say that Cinebench favours AMD. I said "CineBench is a favorable benchmark for RyZen".
CineBench was broadly used because the IPC obtained agreed very well with the average obtained when testing IPC with different workloads. So instead running a dozen of different tests and getting the average, people preferred to just run CineBench and take that value as the average.
This doesn't work for RyZen chips. It continues working for other AMD chips as Piledriver, Jaguar, etc. No for RyZen.
Cinebench runs particularly well on RyZen. The performance measured using CineBench on RyZen don't correspond to the performance measured using dozens of other workloads. So you cannot take Cinenbench scores for RyZen and take that as the average performance because it is not. I will repeat this part from the Arstechnica review:
CineBench is a favorable case for RyZen, not the rule. The rule is that 8700k is faster.
Learn to read. I didn't say that Cinebench favours AMD. I said "CineBench is a favorable benchmark for RyZen".
CineBench was broadly used because the IPC obtained agreed very well with the average obtained when testing IPC with different workloads. So instead running a dozen of different tests and getting the average, people preferred to just run CineBench and take that value as the average.
This doesn't work for RyZen chips. It continues working for other AMD chips as Piledriver, Jaguar, etc. No for RyZen.
Cinebench runs particularly well on RyZen. The performance measured using CineBench on RyZen don't correspond to the performance measured using dozens of other workloads. So you cannot take Cinenbench scores for RyZen and take that as the average performance because it is not. I will repeat this part from the Arstechnica review:
CineBench is a favorable case for RyZen, not the rule. The rule is that 8700k is faster.
Learn to read. I didn't say that Cinebench favours AMD. I said "CineBench is a favorable benchmark for RyZen".
CineBench was broadly used because the IPC obtained agreed very well with the average obtained when testing IPC with different workloads. So instead running a dozen of different tests and getting the average, people preferred to just run CineBench and take that value as the average.
This doesn't work for RyZen chips. It continues working for other AMD chips as Piledriver, Jaguar, etc. No for RyZen.
Cinebench runs particularly well on RyZen. The performance measured using CineBench on RyZen don't correspond to the performance measured using dozens of other workloads. So you cannot take Cinenbench scores for RyZen and take that as the average performance because it is not. I will repeat this part from the Arstechnica review:
CineBench is a favorable case for RyZen, not the rule. The rule is that 8700k is faster.
Decent performance for what?
The reason single-core performance is harped upon is because it is the one metric that an end-user is most likely to make use of. Gaming is a prime example, but not the only one.
An end-user may certainly notice the additional threaded resources per dollar with workloads other than gaming, of course, but in those cases the work (rendering? compiling? video editing?) simply takes a little more time, and if for that work time is money, then they're undercutting themselves by not going HEDT anyway. Below that range, gaming is the target.
Fine, you won the internet. Many cheers for the winner. May his prophetic prowess actually help society now instead of being wasted on a pointless thread.
Arsrechnica the bible now? The same fools that ignore clockspeed factors more than core count? So a 30% higher clocked part should in most cases except in domains that actually scale full thread counts.