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

[tamz_msc]

The only change there would be the memory. These DDR4 3600Mhz are priced the same, and just a bit faster.

I'm not certain of this but the same bin of B-die can do both 3600CL16 and 3200CL14. Might be wrong though.

 

[Markfw]

There has been some talk in other threads about anandtech’s results not matching up with other sites. For example they show that an 8700k is slower than older intel cpus in some tests. Clearly something going on since so many other sites are showing intel to have an advantage in gaming due to single thread performance being a bit better and not every game using heavy multi threading.

There is also, other sites not using all the patches for meltdown/spectre, not using good memory or memory settings, etc.. I am not really positive who is correct, but everyone admits its better than the 1000 series, and that was close to Intel (10% maybe) and they are about 10% faster in this series.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There is also, other sites not using all the patches for meltdown/spectre, not using good memory or memory settings, etc.. I am not really positive who is correct, but everyone admits its better than the 1000 series, and that was close to Intel (10% maybe) and they are about 10% faster in this series.

Motherboard selection makes a bigger difference with the new AMD cpus than it does for Intel as well. Some boards are producing results that are much slower than others.

It’s all a little weird and confusing but like I said the OP would be fine either way. I simply went with an 8700k for stronger single thread performance and more overclocking headroom. Plus I didn’t want to wait for reviews when I purchased hardware. I’m impatient and had the money burning a hole in my pocket lol.

 

[TheELF]

There is also, other sites not using all the patches for meltdown/spectre, not using good memory or memory settings, etc.. I am not really positive who is correct, but everyone admits its better than the 1000 series, and that was close to Intel (10% maybe) and they are about 10% faster in this series.

This is not 10%
Per core gaming performance is way behind intel.

i5-7500 r3-1300x both 4cores at 3.4Ghz
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1930?vs=1862

i5-8400 4Ghz max boost vs. AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.6Ghz max boost
Microsoft Flight Simulator X youtube link

i5-8600k 6c 4.3Ghz max boost, r5 1600x 6c/12t 4Ghz max boost
Assassin's Creed Origins Benchmark youtube link

Ryzen is already burning through it's "futureproofiness" (moar coars) just to keep up with today's games while you can start out with a unlocked intel chip at stock and with a cheap cooler and rethink the situation in 3-4 years,either get a good cooler and overclock 20% + or just move forward to the next system.




Off topic posting. The question of the topic
is about a Ryzen 2700.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Kenmitch]

This is not 10%
Per core gaming performance is way behind intel.

Ryzen is already burning through it's "futureproofiness" (moar coars) just to keep up with today's games while you can start out with a unlocked intel chip at stock and with a cheap cooler and rethink the situation in 3-4 years,either get a good cooler and overclock 20% + or just move forward to the next system.

The OP would be better off selecting a current gen offering from either AMD or Intlel so not really sure why you posted older stuff.

Here' s the bench of the 8700k vs the 2700X and the landscape looks to have changed.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2110?vs=2109

I'm not building anytime soon but it looks like Intel is loosing it's luster.

 

[tamz_msc]

As usual, a thread asking for upgrade advice getting derailed with cherry-picked benchmarks. Isn't Anandtech's Rocket League benchmark an outlier? X-plane? Really? Weren't the developers for that game moving on to Vulkan? What does one screenshot tell about overall performance? That isn't the most taxing scene in AC:O either.

I guess the next step is to load 720p benchmarks.

 

[Markfw]

This is not 10%
Per core gaming performance is way behind intel.

i5-7500 r3-1300x both 4cores at 3.4Ghz
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1930?vs=1862

i5-8400 4Ghz max boost vs. AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.6Ghz max boost
Microsoft Flight Simulator X youtube link

i5-8600k 6c 4.3Ghz max boost, r5 1600x 6c/12t 4Ghz max boost
Assassin's Creed Origins Benchmark youtube link

Ryzen is already burning through it's "futureproofiness" (moar coars) just to keep up with today's games while you can start out with a unlocked intel chip at stock and with a cheap cooler and rethink the situation in 3-4 years,either get a good cooler and overclock 20% + or just move forward to the next system.

I was talking Ryzen 2700x, the current CPU we are discussing here, not the 1300x or 1600x

 

[chrisjames61]

This is not 10%
Per core gaming performance is way behind intel.

i5-7500 r3-1300x both 4cores at 3.4Ghz
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1930?vs=1862

i5-8400 4Ghz max boost vs. AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.6Ghz max boost
Microsoft Flight Simulator X youtube link

i5-8600k 6c 4.3Ghz max boost, r5 1600x 6c/12t 4Ghz max boost
Assassin's Creed Origins Benchmark youtube link

Ryzen is already burning through it's "futureproofiness" (moar coars) just to keep up with today's games while you can start out with a unlocked intel chip at stock and with a cheap cooler and rethink the situation in 3-4 years,either get a good cooler and overclock 20% + or just move forward to the next system.

What does this have to do with anything? The 2700 is close in most gaming reviews, pulls away in any kind of heavy multitasking such as gaming and streaming. Comes with a great cooler and is cheaper.

 

[Kenmitch]

As usual, a thread asking for upgrade advice getting derailed with cherry-picked benchmarks. Isn't Anandtech's Rocket League benchmark an outlier? X-plane? Really? Weren't the developers for that game moving on to Vulkan? What does one screenshot tell about overall performance? That isn't the most taxing scene in AC:O either.

I guess the next step is to load 720p benchmarks.

Did any of he Ryzen + reviews even include 720p results?

As far as advice threads go....Sometimes I wonder if they're just generated for the amusement aspect of them. They do make decent boredom busters at times with the bickering back and forth, etc.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The OP would be better off selecting a current gen offering from either AMD or Intlel so not really sure why you posted older stuff.

Here' s the bench of the 8700k vs the 2700X and the landscape looks to have changed.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2110?vs=2109

I'm not building anytime soon but it looks like Intel is loosing it's luster.

Problem is anandtech is the only site that has results that look like that. I’ve not seen one other review that shows intel behind for gaming. Also there is no way kaby lake is faster than coffee lake and some tests on anandtech show that. It’s a little confusing. Motherboards have never shown such performance differences that I can remember either.

I guess one has to consider what they want. Fast single core performance and overclocking headroom or more cores and better multithreading.

 

[Markfw]

Problem is anandtech is the only site that has results that look like that. I’ve not seen one other review that shows intel behind for gaming. Also there is no way kaby lake is faster than coffee lake and some tests on anandtech show that. It’s a little confusing. Motherboards have never shown such performance differences that I can remember either.

I guess one has to consider what they want. Fast single core performance and overclocking headroom or more cores and better multithreading.

I think I also replied elsewhere on this. Other sites may not be using the full patches for Meltdown/spectre, using inferior memory, bad timings, etc. They may or may not be outliers, I have seen a few others that agree. Give or take a percent or 2 (margin of error) This 2700x and the 8700k appear to be almost tied, and the 2700x appears to have a lead in the 99%ile thing. (smooth gameplay) Motherboards ? Also does not surprise me, but no ASRock boards, like what used to be the king, the Taichi. Maybe the other bios have issues ?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Could be bios issues dunno. As for the rest well I think people are making excuses because they want AMD to do well against Intel which is understandable because it sucks to really have no choice if you want the best performance. If they are on par or slightly better (I think they are on par overall) then you have some consumer choice. I’ve nothing to back that up of course, just an opinion I have. In another thread here I saw some links to a site that used fast memory with low timings but I would have to try tracking it down.

edit: found it https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04..._benchmarks_mit_ddr43466_und_scharfen_timings

 

[Markfw]

Could be bios issues dunno. As for the rest well I think people are making excuses because they want AMD to do well against Intel which is understandable because it sucks to really have no choice if you want the best performance. If they are on par or slightly better (I think they are on par overall) then you have some consumer choice. I’ve nothing to back that up of course, just an opinion I have. In another thread here I saw some links to a site that used fast memory with low timings but I would have to try tracking it down.

edit: found it https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04..._benchmarks_mit_ddr43466_und_scharfen_timings

So you agree they are on par, within margin of error ?

 

[epsilon84]

Well, here is one example of where the 2700x wins most of the time. The 99% in games: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2110?vs=2109

And it has been proven that Anandtech's testing is the clear outlier here - have you even seen the GTA V results? Historically AMD has been ~20% behind, now they are 20% ahead? Something isn't right.

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-ryzen-2000/launch-analyse-amd-ryzen-2000-seite-3

That right there shows how much of an outlier Anandtech's results are. I'm actually curious to see further testing from Anandtech on this, as there is no way a 2700X should be that far ahead (or even faster than) a 8700K, as shown by every other reviewer. And no, its not due to the Meltdown/Spectre patches, I myself have applied the latest BIOS / windows updates on my 6700K system and whilst I/O results are definitely lower, gaming performance hasn't really been affected at all. Memory timings? Well, if you go to computerbases review, you will see that a 2700X with highly tuned DDR4-3466 comes within 5% of a 8700K using the same timings - which is actually very impressive stuff. That is actually what I would call close to a 'wash', using your words. But thats only one site, I would definitely like to see more testing done on this by other reviewers or perhaps end users who own both a 8700K and 2700X.

 

[ondma]

I think I also replied elsewhere on this. Other sites may not be using the full patches for Meltdown/spectre, using inferior memory, bad timings, etc. They may or may not be outliers, I have seen a few others that agree. Give or take a percent or 2 (margin of error) This 2700x and the 8700k appear to be almost tied, and the 2700x appears to have a lead in the 99%ile thing. (smooth gameplay) Motherboards ? Also does not surprise me, but no ASRock boards, like what used to be the king, the Taichi. Maybe the other bios have issues ?

It would be pretty hard find a test that used worse memory for either chip than Anand did for the 8700k.

 

[whm1974]

Personally I think the 2700 with a x470 board will be a fine replacement for the OP's Core2Quad system.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So you agree they are on par, within margin of error ?

In general yes, but as I said before Intel is better at single threaded tasks and AMD with more cores wins for multithreaded tasks. Depends on the usage. Gaming, you won't even notice unless all you do is look at fps counters.

 

[tamz_msc]

Did any of he Ryzen + reviews even include 720p results?

As far as advice threads go....Sometimes I wonder if they're just generated for the amusement aspect of them. They do make decent boredom busters at times with the bickering back and forth, etc.

Techpowerup has 720p benchmarks, thankfully they test modern games, not something like StarCraft 2 or Xplane.

 

[krumme]

Problem is anandtech is the only site that has results that look like that. I’ve not seen one other review that shows intel behind for gaming. Also there is no way kaby lake is faster than coffee lake and some tests on anandtech show that. It’s a little confusing. Motherboards have never shown such performance differences that I can remember either.

I guess one has to consider what they want. Fast single core performance and overclocking headroom or more cores and better multithreading.

Give H a look. More or less same picture as AT imo.

 

[beginner99]

Given that I have a pretty slow upgrade cycle, should I jump to the top with a Ryzen 2700 + X470 motherboard as that might provide greater longevity or stick with a Ryzen 1600 + X370?

I would say the price difference of these 2 options where you live will also matter and how much money you have to spend. For the budget constraint the Ryzen 1600 + X370 combo with OC makes the most sense. But if you live in the west and are reasonable well off, What is another $200 bucks to move up the stack?
The real challenge will be the RAM. Anything below 16GB doesn't make much sense and more just costs too much.

Also are you going to OC? If not I would rather choose the 2600x over the 2700. Single-threaded performance / clock speed is just that important still especially for gaming. There is no really need for 8-cores in what you will use it for. VR gaming is 100% GPU limited. But then again the 2700x is only $100 more and if you keep it for 6 years, that $100 shouldn't bother you at all financially. IF I will buy Ryzen 2, I will get the 2700x for this reason even if I don't really need 8-cores.

However at this point I have waited so long with an upgrade and with current RAM and GPU prices I might as well wait it out for PCIe 4/5 and ddr5.

 

[epsilon84]

Give H a look. More or less same picture as AT imo.

So that is 2 reviews that go against the grain. Basically, either the majority is wrong, or something is up with H and Anandtechs testing.

I can list 10+ reviews that show the 'expected' gaming results, which to most would be a lead for the 8700K in gaming.

 

[stAbb]

Dear Kolath,

After making the jump from a core2quad processor to a 1600x I never looked back. An AMD 2700x CPU with a 470x motherboard looks like a no-brainer to me now. It has better performance then my first gen processor because it boosts to a higher frequency and has some internal optimizations.

As for the rest of the discussion, at the moment the 8 cores won't help you as much in most current gaming titles as they would help you in compiling. However, in games that are CPU limited rather then GPU limited like the new civilization the AMD 2700x is ahead. Enjoy the new core2duo vs core2quad discussion tread, it's quite a funny read.

And remember, you could probably swap out the CPU at a later point in time.

With kind regards,
stAbb

 

[USER8000]

To the OP - ask yourself a question why did you buy a Q6600 instead of an E8400?? Remember back to that era,where people were wheeling out reasons for why a dual core was better than a quad core,and look at how long your quad core system has lasted. That alone should indicate to you,that many enthusiasts are short term purchasers as they will upgrade sooner rather than later,but you are not,and AM4 is being supported for a few years.

Intel also is trying to push for better use of more cores:

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-03/multi-core-cpu-games/

That was from March - Intel wants more people to upgrade so it is in their own interest to push for this to happen!

And it has been proven that Anandtech's testing is the clear outlier here - have you even seen the GTA V results? Historically AMD has been ~20% behind, now they are 20% ahead? Something isn't right.

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-ryzen-2000/launch-analyse-amd-ryzen-2000-seite-3

That right there shows how much of an outlier Anandtech's results are. I'm actually curious to see further testing from Anandtech on this, as there is no way a 2700X should be that far ahead (or even faster than) a 8700K, as shown by every other reviewer. And no, its not due to the Meltdown/Spectre patches, I myself have applied the latest BIOS / windows updates on my 6700K system and whilst I/O results are definitely lower, gaming performance hasn't really been affected at all. Memory timings? Well, if you go to computerbases review, you will see that a 2700X with highly tuned DDR4-3466 comes within 5% of a 8700K using the same timings - which is actually very impressive stuff. That is actually what I would call close to a 'wash', using your words. But thats only one site, I would definitely like to see more testing done on this by other reviewers or perhaps end users who own both a 8700K and 2700X.

The Ryzen 5 looks much better value compared to the Ryzen 7.

 

[epsilon84]

The Ryzen 5 looks much better value compared to the Ryzen 7.

If you don't need the extra 2 cores / 4 threads, most definitely. Though it should be mentioned that the 2600 only comes with the Wraith Stealth, a 65W rated HSF that won't allow much overclocking headroom. The 2600X comes with the Wraith Spire which is rated for 95W I believe, a much better choice for overclocking, though the 2600X is already clocked so high at stock that there is almost no headroom left, so for most people its probably better to just get the 2600X and let XFR do its thing.

 

[DownTheSky]

OP, I'd go the conservative way and buy an i5-8400, a decent mobo and cheap RAM. It will put you through the next 2 years with ease. Then upgrade to 7nm CPU maybe with DDR5.