• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X vs Intel Core i7-8700K?

Pandoranian

Junior Member
Feb 11, 2018
1
0
1
Which processor is better?
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
  • Intel Core i7-8700K
The tasks they have to take is running Windows 10 as well as Ubuntu and within both OS virtualization though VirtualBox and possibly KVM Qemu. The graphic end will be powered by one of the new Nvidia graphics cards, possibly GTX 1050 Ti.

Reading through reviews they both seem well equipped. CPU Benchmark rates the AMD at 14625 (1879 single core) and the Intel at 16153 (2722 single core). So according to them the Intel looks better and as well has a much better single core performance. The thing is that the AMD has 8 cores able of handling 16 threads, while the Intel has 6 cores able of handling 12 threads. Hence, it looks like the multi-threading performance of the AMD is better than the Intel. The price difference is notable though. The Intel is currently at about $380 while the AMD is at $300, 21% cheaper.

Is there any difference in functionality between the two? It would be horrible to order one and to later find out that some functionality isn't available with on, but would be working with the other. The needed functionality is virtualization, multi threading, 3D stuff through the graphics card.
 

Justinbaileyman

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2013
1,905
227
106
Maybe just get what ever is cheaper for you at the time of buying?? Personally I would wait it out just for a couple more months for the newer AMD chipsets and cpu's. I think they come out in April or May.. Supposed to be faster clock speeds and better memory controllers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,809
1,309
136
We really don't have a clear picture of what the final performance numbers will be after Meltdown is fully addressed on Intel chips. Unless you're in a rush, it might be a good time to wait a few months and see what shakes out.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
201
106
Which processor is better?
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
  • Intel Core i7-8700K
The tasks they have to take is running Windows 10 as well as Ubuntu and within both OS virtualization though VirtualBox and possibly KVM Qemu. The graphic end will be powered by one of the new Nvidia graphics cards, possibly GTX 1050 Ti.

Reading through reviews they both seem well equipped. CPU Benchmark rates the AMD at 14625 (1879 single core) and the Intel at 16153 (2722 single core). So according to them the Intel looks better and as well has a much better single core performance. The thing is that the AMD has 8 cores able of handling 16 threads, while the Intel has 6 cores able of handling 12 threads. Hence, it looks like the multi-threading performance of the AMD is better than the Intel. The price difference is notable though. The Intel is currently at about $380 while the AMD is at $300, 21% cheaper.

Is there any difference in functionality between the two? It would be horrible to order one and to later find out that some functionality isn't available with on, but would be working with the other. The needed functionality is virtualization, multi threading, 3D stuff through the graphics card.
If buying today I'd go with the 1700 and save ~$90. Unless you aren't going to overclock. Personally, I'd wait for the 2000 CPU's and 400 series mobos to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
We really don't have a clear picture of what the final performance numbers will be after Meltdown is fully addressed on Intel chips. Unless you're in a rush, it might be a good time to wait a few months and see what shakes out.
This ^

I mean... Even before this I'd probably go the Ryzen route and save a little whilst keeping the multi threaded performance. But VM performance is also dependent on memory IO and these are the sort of tests where people have seen "up to" 30% performance hits when they installed the Meltdown fixes on intel CPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Justinbaileyman

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2013
1,905
227
106
Ditto. Ryzen is nearing the end of its shelf life. A 1700X is still a fine CPU, but something better is coming in 2 months.
Yeah but they should still work well for at leased another 3-5 years. I just can't see CPU's improving all that much more within that time frame. I could be wrong though seeing how Ryzen really was a miracle chip for AMD and who knows maybe they can do it again with Ryzen 2? Very exciting times we live in!! :p
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,843
6,819
136
I think that you meant Ryzen (1st-Gen CPU). The architecture has a long, prosperous road ahead of it.
Correct, though Zen is the name for the overall family of microarchitectures.

Yeah but they should still work well for at leased another 3-5 years. I just can't see CPU's improving all that much more within that time frame. I could be wrong though seeing how Ryzen really was a miracle chip for AMD and who knows maybe they can do it again with Ryzen 2? Very exciting times we live in!! :p
Of course. Just remember that Summit Ridge is a first stab at the desktop class of Zen products, complete with some warts that are probably going to be smoothed over by Pinnacle Ridge and 400-series chipsets. I still have to stepwise-boot my machine from defaults to get all the way up to DDR4-3466, for example (set all settings/RAM timings in UEFI, boot to DDR4-2133, then 3200, then 3466). Going straight for 3466 results in lockups/reboot loops.

Considering how close we are to Pinnacle Ridge, I see no reason to invest in March 2017's technology, no matter how good it is, unless there's a nice discount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Madpacket

Platinum Member
Nov 15, 2005
2,068
326
126
I would until you see ZEN+ performance figures. If they can hit around 4.5Ghz with some cache latency improvements there should be a pretty significant increase in single core performance. We're not that far away. I also suspect memory controllers may be slightly improved to allow for easier 3200Mhz+ memory speeds.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY