8700K vs 2700X on with 2080Ti [computerbase]

[legcramp]

Having used both Intel and AMD at 1080p144hz+ in my favorite FPS, I can't really notice the difference.

Haven't used both Ryzen 1600 @ 4.0ghz using 3200 memory and also i7 8700K @ stock.. the Ryzen system went up for sale right after comparing them side-by-side for 144 Hz gaming. I wanted to keep the Ryzen cause AMD.... but it just wasn't good enough when I want to play competitively. Games like PUBG during that time kicked the crap outta my Ryzen system.

 

[Abwx]

Games like PUBG during that time kicked the crap outta my Ryzen system.

100% accurate, the Computerbase way of course, when after 1400+ posts in their forum discussing the issue they still didnt publish their magic systems set ups...

https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page5.html

 

[Hans Gruber]

Haven't used both Ryzen 1600 @ 4.0ghz using 3200 memory and also i7 8700K @ stock.. the Ryzen system went up for sale right after comparing them side-by-side for 144 Hz gaming. I wanted to keep the Ryzen cause AMD.... but it just wasn't good enough when I want to play competitively. Games like PUBG during that time kicked the crap outta my Ryzen system.

You are comparing a flagship i7 $400 processor against a $150 processor. What did you expect? Impressive that you could get your 1600 stable @ 4ghz. That must have taken quite a bit of voltage. If anything, the 2600 has improved the IPC quite a bit over the 1600 and made OCing to 4ghz very easy compared to the 1600.

Pubg is so broken it kicks the crap out of any processor be it an intel or AMD.

 

[Head1985]

Those new computerbase results are just BS.I trust more hardware unboxed/techspot results.
8700k is little faster than 2700x and not 30-50% like those BS numbers in cb test.

Techspot/hardware unboxed average results:
8700k is 9% faster than 2700x at 1080P and 4% faster in 1440p.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Those new computerbase results are just BS.I trust more hardware unboxed/techspot results.
8700k is little faster than 2700x and not 30-50% like those BS numbers in cb test.

Techspot/hardware unboxed average results:
8700k is 9% faster than 2700x at 1080P and 4% faster in 1440p.

Where are the 4k numbers? Does the 2700x scale with higher resolution as well as it does on 1440P? Ryzen really does much better with higher speed memory. Put the same memory in an intel based system and the performance is the same as 2400mhz ram as it is for 3200mhz ram.

 

[Muhammed]

8700k is 9% faster than 2700x at 1080P and 4% faster in 1440p.

It's not BS. If you select the games that DO stress the CPU, the difference with the 8700K WILL reach 30%. In fact many games do show that difference: Far Cry Primal, Total War, StarCraft 2, Wreckfest ..etc.

If you structured your review around CPU limited scenes, the 8700K will be 30% ahead indeed, if not more.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

 

[Abwx]

It's not BS. If you select the games that DO stress the CPU, the difference with the 8700K WILL reach 30%. In fact many games do show that difference: Far Cry Primal, Total War, StarCraft 2, Wreckfest ..etc.

If you structured your review around CPU limited scenes, the 8700K will be 30% ahead indeed, if not more.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

That s 720p, Computerbase tested at 1080p.....

Besides the graph you posted say 13% on average at those 720p, even using only the 5 games of the top wont produce 30%, and you think that it will be more at 1080p...?
At stock frequency..?

Because the Techspot review you linked state that the all core frequency is 16% higher than stock :

For testing the Core i7-8700K, we put together a rig featuring the Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 with 16GB of DDR4-3400 Samsung B-die memory using The Stilts timings. The CPU has been overclocked to 5 GHz.


https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/

 

[Ranulf]

Bah, yet another review that uses Starcraft 2 compared to anything other than previous SC2 measurements.

 

[ZGR]

Haven't used both Ryzen 1600 @ 4.0ghz using 3200 memory and also i7 8700K @ stock.. the Ryzen system went up for sale right after comparing them side-by-side for 144 Hz gaming. I wanted to keep the Ryzen cause AMD.... but it just wasn't good enough when I want to play competitively. Games like PUBG during that time kicked the crap outta my Ryzen system.

I only play 1 game at 144hz+ and both AMD and Intel can easily do 144hz. At 240hz, Intel really shines for Rainbow 6.

 

[Muhammed]

For testing the Core i7-8700K, we put together a rig featuring the Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 with 16GB of DDR4-3400 Samsung B-die memory using The Stilts timings. The CPU has been overclocked to 5 GHz.

Sigh, and the 2700X has been overclocked by the same amount too. But you left that out didn't you? Both CPUs were oveclocked.

Then for the Ryzen 7 2700X rig we have the Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero with 16GB of DDR4-3400 Samsung B-die memory, again using The Stilts timings. The 2700X has been overclocked to 4.2 GHz and this time we’re using the Corsair Hydro H150i Pro inside the Corsair Crystal 570X.

There is no escaping or sugar coating this fact, in ultra CPU gaming situation the 8700K will crush any Ryzen CPU you throw at it.

 

[ZGR]

Sigh, and the 2700X has been overclocked by the same amount too. But you left that out didn't you? Both CPUs were oveclocked.

The 2700X can't do 5 GHz.

 

[gdansk]

There is no escaping or sugar coating this fact, in ultra CPU gaming situation the 8700K will crush any Ryzen CPU you throw at it.

Except, for example, when you're trying to play a game at a reasonable resolution and also encode the footage. I'm not sure what is meant by 'ultra CPU gaming situation'. But in an even more contrived scenario, >6 thread games, the 2700X may well win.

 

[PeterScott]

Except, for example, when you're trying to play a game at a reasonable resolution and also encode the footage. I'm not sure what is meant by 'ultra CPU gaming situation'. But in an even more contrived scenario, >6 thread games, the 2700X may well win.

It isn't about thread count. Modern games use dozens of threads. Use the process explorer and check.

It is about Percentage parallel vs serial code(Amdahls law). It is extremely unlikely that many games will ever get above 90% parallel and even then 8700K would still be in front.

 

[gdansk]

It isn't about thread count. Modern games use dozens of threads. Use the process explorer and check.

It is about Percentage parallel vs serial code(Amdahls law). It is extremely unlikely that many games will ever get above 90% parallel and even then 8700K would still be in front.

I don't know about that. If there is a game like Civilization, where the AI turns take a lot of CPU time, there is potentially a way where AI could do much of their turn simultaneously. Similarly in Hearts of Iron, especially for any nation not at war. In such cases, while these games are not currently highly threaded, they could benefit from many more cores. They don't have to, though, because gamers tolerate it as is.

And in the near future, it seems raytraced games will ask for more threads from the CPUs too.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Bah, yet another review that uses Starcraft 2 compared to anything other than previous SC2 measurements.

Not sure why they are still including that game in anything other than reviews specific to SC2. That, Total War, and a few other titles probably deserve separate reviews.

 

[Muhammed]

The 2700X can't do 5 GHz.

And this is the kind of comments that gets thrown around when Intel beats Ryzen. It's overclocked! It's memory limited! It's blah blah.

Just what kind of CPU analysis are you satisfied with? computerbase and hardwareunboxed just seems unsatisfactory for you. Show me what you find satisfactory!

Oh wait a moment! How about some numbers directly from AMD themselves showing the 8700k being 30% or even 50% faster than 2700X in several games! Unbelievable I know!

https://videocardz.com/75194/amd-ryzen-2000-series-exposed-pricing-performance-leaked

 

[tamz_msc]

The numbers are dubious because nobody seems to have noticed these two massive performance discrepancies with different driver versions, the data being available only for the 2700X:

Clearly the driver/OS setup on the 2700X system is completely effed up because no driver change results in swings of -31% to 18% in two titles which no longer receive targeted optimizations.

 

[Abwx]

Sigh, and the 2700X has been overclocked by the same amount too. But you left that out didn't you? Both CPUs were oveclocked.

Not at all, at stock the 2700X turbo is up to 4.35GHz...

Oh wait a moment! How about some numbers directly from AMD themselves showing the 8700k being 30% or even 50% faster than 2700X in several games! Unbelievable I know!


https://videocardz.com/75194/amd-ryzen-2000-series-exposed-pricing-performance-leaked

What is unbelivable is that you dont know how to read the graph you linked and are making a fool of yourself, where are those 50% ?

 

[Muhammed]

Not at all, at stock the 2700X turbo is up to 4.35GHz...

Nope

 

[Abwx]

4.35 with XFR according to AMD...

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/974-2/frequence-turbo-latence.html

HFR test state that :

nous avons constaté en pratique sur plusieurs cartes mères X470 que l'on atteignait 4.35 GHz sur 1 coeur (core) actif, et entre 4.05 et 4.075 GHz sur 8 coeurs actifs (8 active cores).

 

[TheGiant]

I don't get this. a CPU test is a CPU test. So running saved games instead averagejoe test is expected. CPU test should run with scenes, where 95% of time is bottlenecked by CPU not GPU. Average review site test are just average of averages. Even the minimums scenes are not taking more than 5% of benchmarking time.
Also the result is expected. We should see more of test like this, so we don't have just one source of results.
I am going to buy the 9900K and out it to the test with 2700X my friend bought a month ago. In most intensive CPU scenes. I expect the difference in min fps will be 50%. In average 10-20%.
The ring bus shines here and will do so against the ryzen concept, which is fine (and if AMD created a crowd funding project I will send them 50USD because they are doing so well with that budget)
Without 2700X I am pretty sure the first general desktop 8C CPU from Intel- 2020 Icelake 8C 10nm

 

[Zucker2k]

The 2700X can't do 5 GHz.

Fact! Poor overclocker, out of the box.

 

[Abwx]

The numbers are dubious because nobody seems to have noticed these two massive performance discrepancies with different driver versions, the data being available only for the 2700X:

Clearly the driver/OS setup on the 2700X system is completely effed up because no driver change results in swings of -31% to 18% in two titles which no longer receive targeted optimizations.

Actually everyone has noticed the thing but so far the "reviewer", who is known to be an Intel shill, refuse to publish what he has changed in the RAM set up, neither did he state the bioses used for what is apparently a paid review.


I cant imagine that an honnest journalist would behave this way, members are trying in their forum to guess how he proceeded, and after 1500 posts you would think that Computerbase would give them a slight hint, but nothing of the sort, they kept being mum as to why the picture shifted this way in full contradiction of their previous tests....

 

[epsilon84]

Where are the 4k numbers? Does the 2700x scale with higher resolution as well as it does on 1440P? Ryzen really does much better with higher speed memory. Put the same memory in an intel based system and the performance is the same as 2400mhz ram as it is for 3200mhz ram.

What?

https://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

Just an example, but all the games show gains with faster memory. I'm sure Ryzen would show similar gains with faster memory too, but your post is classic 'anti Intel FUD' at its best.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I am going to buy the 9900K and out it to the test with 2700X my friend bought a month ago. In most intensive CPU scenes. I expect the difference in min fps will be 50%. In average 10-20%.

It's great that you want to do some testing, but try not to have any expectations going in. Otherwise, confirmation bias and all that . . .

Fact! Poor overclocker, out of the box.

Aw, shucks.

Just an example, but all the games show gains with faster memory. I'm sure Ryzen would show similar gains with faster memory too, but your post is classic 'anti Intel FUD' at its best.

You'll likely see bigger swings on Ryzen just going from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-3200. Getting DDR4-4000 to run on any AM4 setup is (currently) nearly impossible. ​