Only upgrade every 4-6 years, worth it to go Ryzen 2700 + X470?

[Zucker2k]

If you use good RAM for Ryzen with proper timings, it would be about 8-10% faster on average in 1080p gaming, basically equal at 1440p. The 2700x would still win in heavily multi-threaded situations and performance per watt.

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/7/#abschnitt_benchmarks_mit_uebertaktung

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html

For me personally, I'd take the 2700x (actually would probably take the 2700 or 2600x but that's not the current comparison). It looks to me like Ryzen 2nd gen has closed the gaming gap such that practically no one would actually be able to tell the difference between the two when gaming outside of maybe a couple of outliers. For me, having the extra cores/threads would be of more benefit because I would notice that a lot more than the difference in gaming especially since I'm usually at 1440p and am GPU bottlenecked anyway. Even when I'm not, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't notice any difference at all between getting 100 fps with the 2700x or 109 fps with the 8700k OC (on average) at 1080p. If you play at 1440p it'd be more like the difference between 70 fps and 72 fps.

If you game at 1080p and you'd rather have the 8% extra fps and give up the multi-threaded advantage of the 2700x, then great, go for it, but I and others in this thread feel differently. There's no need to make it seem like intel rox and AMD is teh sux over it.

Multi-threaded advantage in what software exactly? How many users actually use it on a daily basis? Sorry, a 5GHz 8700k with the higher ipc to boot is a more potent tool in everyday tasks.

At 1440p which the OP uses? Probably 10 percent at max. For VR the extra frames do nothing once you get to 90 Hz.

Oh, that 1440p again. Let's shift the burden to the gpu and allow all to shine. At this point, the 2080Ti can't drop fast enough hehe.

I got a spanking 8700k myself so i take it quite easy. You might want to look at what the op writes. Its 4 to 6 years perspective. Thats a darn long time. I am pretty sure you get throughput limited in 5 years time while nobody in the year 2023 care about how gta v performed in 2018.
Its not about fastest 144Hz gaming for the next 2-3 years. Context.

Are you ignoring the 6x 800mhz high ipc threads (with hyperthreading to boot) difference between the two chips? You know how games love high frequency chips, right? You're already limited as it is from day one on your 4.2 fmax chip, and you're looking at 5-6 more years ahead? Goodluck!

 

[tamz_msc]

Multi-threaded advantage in what software exactly? How many users actually use it on a daily basis? Sorry, a 5GHz 8700k with the higher ipc to boot is a more potent tool in everyday tasks.

"I don't have many multithreaded things to do on my CPU", meaning others can't have many multithreaded things to do either. - kek.

Oh, that 1440p again. Let's shift the burden to the gpu and allow all to shine. At this point, the 2080Ti can't drop fast enough hehe.

"Who cares about what resolution the OP uses, I got a point to prove using hypotheticals" - top kek.

 

[TheELF]

If you use good RAM for Ryzen with proper timings, it would be about 8-10% faster on average in 1080p gaming, basically equal at 1440p. The 2700x would still win in heavily multi-threaded situations and performance per watt.

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/7/#abschnitt_benchmarks_mit_uebertaktung

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html

For me personally, I'd take the 2700x (actually would probably take the 2700 or 2600x but that's not the current comparison). It looks to me like Ryzen 2nd gen has closed the gaming gap such that practically no one would actually be able to tell the difference between the two when gaming outside of maybe a couple of outliers. For me, having the extra cores/threads would be of more benefit because I would notice that a lot more than the difference in gaming especially since I'm usually at 1440p and am GPU bottlenecked anyway. Even when I'm not, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't notice any difference at all between getting 100 fps with the 2700x or 109 fps with the 8700k OC (on average) at 1080p. If you play at 1440p it'd be more like the difference between 70 fps and 72 fps.

If you game at 1080p and you'd rather have the 8% extra fps and give up the multi-threaded advantage of the 2700x, then great, go for it, but I and others in this thread feel differently. There's no need to make it seem like intel rox and AMD is teh sux over it.

Seriously,this is what you are basing your rant on?
Best performing ryzen is at 94% while the 4Ghz 2c/4t i3-7300 is at 91%
You can just use two cores+ht on your intel and leave the rest idle for "heavy multitasking" ,holy crap that would leave a full 7700k completely idle,oh hey it would leave two i3-7300s completely idle,overclockable ones even...

(Also the i3-7300 at 5Ghz instead of 4Ghz... 25% more... )

 

[Hitman928]

Seriously,this is what you are basing your rant on?
Best performing ryzen is at 94% while the 4Ghz 2c/4t i3-7300 is at 91%
You can just use two cores+ht on your intel and leave the rest idle for "heavy multitasking" ,holy crap that would leave a full 7700k completely idle,oh hey it would leave two i3-7300s completely idle,overclockable ones even...

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. . .

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Seriously,this is what you are basing your rant on?
Best performing ryzen is at 94% while the 4Ghz 2c/4t i3-7300 is at 91%
You can just use two cores+ht on your intel and leave the rest idle for "heavy multitasking" ,holy crap that would leave a full 7700k completely idle,oh hey it would leave two i3-7300s completely idle,overclockable ones even...

Why are you posting results from first gen Ryzen? The question was about Ryzen 2.

 

[tamz_msc]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. . .

He's saying why buy Ryzen and settle for 94% when you can buy a dual core i3 and settle for 90%. Or alternatively, why buy Ryzen when you can buy CFL for 100 percent.

 

[TheELF]

He's saying why buy Ryzen and settle for 94% when you can buy a dual core i3 and settle for 90%. Or alternatively, why buy Ryzen when you can buy CFL for 100 percent.

Dude hitman was claiming that the 8700k would already be maxing out just with the games,if you compare the i3-7300, if clocked at 5Ghz ,would match any ryzen and be pretty close even to the highest intel,especially if limiting to 60FPS or at 1440...so the 8700k has plenty of headroom for anything you want to do.

 

[TheELF]

Why are you posting results from first gen Ryzen? The question was about Ryzen 2.

Hitman posted those,I only replied.
Does this help you out a lot?
Intel only has 4 cores while the 2700x has 8 cores + another 8 smt threads...

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Does this help you out a lot?
Intel only has 4 cores while the 2700x has 8 cores + another 8 smt threads...

The stock result is faster. Why are we even considering the overclocked ones? You want to cherry pick every last detail. I'm not even saying you should buy a 2700X for gaming (I didn't buy Ryzen, and I wouldn't recommend either gen over the 8700K at the same price for gaming), just calling out your obvious, pointless, cherry picking. Just let the results stand as they should.

 

[Zucker2k]

"I don't have many multithreaded things to do on my CPU", meaning others can't have many multithreaded things to do either. - kek.

Actually, the 8700k is a multi-threader too. No? Sure, it lacks two cores, but it makes up for that deficit rather nicely with the superior (about 20%) clocks. No?

"Who cares about what resolution the OP uses, I got a point to prove using hypotheticals" - top kek.

1440p on a GTX 970? Okay.

 

[Hitman928]

Dude hitman was claiming that the 8700k would already be maxing out just with the games,if you compare the i3-7300, if clocked at 5Ghz ,would match any ryzen and be pretty close even to the highest intel,especially if limiting to 60FPS or at 1440...so the 8700k has plenty of headroom for anything you want to do.

That's not what I was claiming. All I was saying was that for my main use, a 2700x will outperform an 8700k, even overclocked, because of the higher throughput of the 2700x. Then when gaming, it performs close enough to the 8700k, even overclocked, that I wouldn't be able to tell a difference. So for me, the choice would be the 8700k with noticeably slower performance in something that I need for productivity and an unnoticeable difference in gaming or the 2700x with noticeably faster performance in productivity and an unnoticeable difference in gaming.

You can have a different use case, that's fine, but don't just ignore the situation the OP is in and then pretend like one use case is the only one that matters and that any lead in that use case, no matter how small, is all we should consider.

 

[TheELF]

The stock result is faster. Why are we even considering the overclocked ones? You want to cherry pick every last detail. I'm not even saying you should buy a 2700X for gaming (I didn't buy Ryzen, and I wouldn't recommend either gen over the 8700K at the same price for gaming), just calling out your obvious, pointless, cherry picking. Just let the results stand as they should.

The stock result that goes up to 4.3Ghz while this one is only at 4.2 ? giving a difference of 4% total?
What would be different?If you clock the 7600k to 4.3Ghz wouldn't it still be the same?

 

[TheELF]

That's not what I was claiming. All I was saying was that for my main use, a 2700x will outperform an 8700k, even overclocked, because of the higher throughput of the 2700x. Then when gaming, it performs close enough to the 8700k, even overclocked, that I wouldn't be able to tell a difference. So for me, the choice would be the 8700k with noticeably slower performance in something that I need for productivity and an unnoticeable difference in gaming or the 2700x with noticeably faster performance in productivity and an unnoticeable difference in gaming.

You can have a different use case, that's fine, but don't just ignore the situation the OP is in and then pretend like one use case is the only one that matters and that any lead in that use case, no matter how small, is all we should consider.

Yeah that's not what you brought across the first time.
"You can have a different use case, that's fine, but don't just ignore the situation the OP is in and then pretend like one use case is the only one that matters and that any lead in that use case, no matter how small, is all we should consider."
That's what you are doing,I was just pointing out that you don't need nearly as much cores to get the same result,or close enough so that someone wouldn't care.

 

[Hitman928]

Yeah that's not what you brought across the first time.
"You can have a different use case, that's fine, but don't just ignore the situation the OP is in and then pretend like one use case is the only one that matters and that any lead in that use case, no matter how small, is all we should consider."
That's what you are doing,I was just pointing out that you don't need nearly as much cores to get the same result,or close enough so that someone wouldn't care.

Maybe you should go back for context of my original post because you keep saying that I'm saying things that I never said.

 

[Hitman928]

Actually, the 8700k is a multi-threader too. No? Sure, it lacks two cores, but it makes up for that deficit rather nicely with the superior (about 20%) clocks. No?

Depends on the application. The 8700k has an all core turbo of 4.3 GHz at stock according to gamersnexus (https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3077-explaining-coffee-lake-turbo-8700k-8600k). The 2700k has an all core turbo of 4 GHz I believe if you keep it cool enough, so that's <10% clock speed advantage versus a 33% thread advantage. The 8700k does have higher IPC but that advantage tends to largely disappear due to Ryzen's higher SMT throughput. If AVX2 is used significantly by the application, then the 8700k will have an advantage but many heavily multi-threaded applications don't use AVX2 and run better on Ryzen with the benefit of additional cores/threads.

If you overclock both, you're looking at about a %20 clock speed advantage for the 8700k which obviously makes it more favorable for the 8700k but again will depend on the application and how well optimized it is for both architectures. From a pure throughput measurement, the 2700x beats the 8700k if AVX2 isn't used.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare a stock 8700k to a 2700x. The 8700k is clearly there for overclocking, Intel don't even bother shipping a cooler with it. I would at least compare it to a 8700k with mce enabled, so that is 4.7 on all cores.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare a stock 8700k to a 2700x. The 8700k is clearly there for overclocking, Intel don't even bother shipping a cooler with it. I would at least compare it to a 8700k with mce enabled, so that is 4.7 on all cores.

MCE does not give a 4.7GHz clock on all cores. It goes up to about 4.3GHz and that's it. Not all 8700Ks can even clock to 4.7GHz all core without a delid, mine among them.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3268-multi-core-enhancement-and-core-performance-boost-testing

Edit: I didn't read the whole review, with some BIOS settings you can get 4.7GHz on all cores with MCE on, but I know for sure that not all 8700Ks can do it.

 

[ElFenix]

Everything purchased!

Thank you everyone for your input!

Locking this thread as it has run its course and is headed the wrong direction.

AT Moderator ElFenix