# Intel Core i5-8600 3.1 GHz



## W1zzard (Apr 25, 2018)

Intel's recently-released Core i5-8600 comes with an identical boost frequency as the i5-8600K, for a lesser price that happens to match that of the Ryzen 5 2600X. While base frequency might look low with 3.1 GHz, in reality, out of the box, the processor runs above 4 GHz all the time.

*Show full review*


----------



## Folterknecht (Apr 25, 2018)

Nice review. 

3200 MHz CL14 RAM ain't cheap and AMD gains significantly  more from faster RAM than Intel. That should have been mentioned in my opinion (maybe when reflecting on price/performance or platform cost). Nothing wrong with using it in a review and good that both teams compete under the same conditions.


----------



## Joss (Apr 25, 2018)

Intel offering that minimalist excuse of a cooler...


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Apr 25, 2018)

for budget minded builders, this might be a decent pick. 4.3GHz on all 6 cores is pretty impressive, despite it's lack of HT.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 25, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> for budget minded builders, this might be a decent pick. 4.3GHz on all 6 cores is pretty impressive, despite it's lack of HT.



4.3GHz is single core clock boosts mind you. But what were the all core clocks while bclk OC 4.425GHz, could it keep it on those are was it still lowering clocks to lower multiplier(was it 41*102.975=4.222GHz)?

Edit: are there coming any lower end B360/H370 motherboard reviews? With 2666MHz memory speed would be good to see too, because it will be restricted to that on those.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 25, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> 4.3GHz is single core clock boosts mind you. But what were the all core clocks while bclk OC 4.425GHz, could it keep it on those are was it still lowering clocks to lower multiplier?


It could keep them of course and boost should behave exactly the same since it doesn't take into account BCLK.


----------



## Xuper (Apr 25, 2018)

so You can not OC it much more !??


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 25, 2018)

behrouz said:


> so You can not OC it much more !??



No Multiplier is clocked. And like W1zzard said anything equal/over 103MHz Bclk will lock the system and prevent it from booting.

EDit:


W1zzard said:


> It could keep them of course and boost should behave exactly the same since it doesn't take into account BCLK.



So the behavior, which was present on i5 8400 review, was a bug? Highest boost state settings works now?


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Apr 25, 2018)

I wouldn't exactly say the 2600 CPU's give you the freedom to overclock, when they're already pretty much maxed out from the factory.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 25, 2018)

The Quim Reaper said:


> I wouldn't exactly say the 2600 CPU's give you the freedom to overclock, when they're already pretty much maxed out from the factory.



Well r5 2600 has quite good OC headroom. It runs all core at 3.65-3.75GHz depending on your cooling at stock and have decent amount of OC headroom ~4.2GHz all core(from Techspot review).


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 25, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> Highest boost state settings works now?


There is not even an option in BIOS to change the boost levels. Trying the same using Throttlestop has no effect, so I guess that's how Intel designed those CPUs


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Apr 25, 2018)

Joss said:


> Intel offering that minimalist excuse of a cooler...



Well it works well enough, and it's not like you really need much better other than for noise levels.


behrouz said:


> so You can not OC it much more !??



Correct, however, the I5 8600k is $210 which is cheaper than this, not sure where these prices came from...


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 25, 2018)

Th3pwn3r said:


> not sure where these prices came from...


Newegg as always


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Apr 25, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> Newegg as always


Ah, I almost bought an I5 8600k from Micro Center for $210 on Saturday but resurrected an older machine instead. A mosfet went kablooey on my daughter's X79 board


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 25, 2018)

Folterknecht said:


> Nice review.
> 
> 3200 MHz CL14 RAM ain't cheap and AMD gains significantly  more from faster RAM than Intel. That should have been mentioned in my opinion (maybe when reflecting on price/performance or platform cost). Nothing wrong with using it in a review and good that both teams compete under the same conditions.



IT IS!
3200 cl14

Cheapest 2666 16gb kit I found:
2666 16gb

Ohh nooo, so expensive, not...
It's such a small difference and it's performance delta is absolutely HUGE regardless of cpu, I don't know why people say high speed memory is expensive when it's not, capacity is expensive, speed is not within reason.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 25, 2018)

It doesn't apply to us, but this performance doesn't exist on OEM. You'll be throttled until you throw it in the trash.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Apr 25, 2018)

I don't see the point when for $20 you have a unlocked CPU and have full control of the wheelhouse.  8600K can go to 5Ghz+ most all hit at least 5 with a good cooling solution of course.  and without good cooling you can still run 4.8 or even 4.6 for again only $20 more.

I understand the big picture is budget and running it on non Z boards etc but even then Z boards are NOT crazy cost...   oh and if that is the case you should run budget friendly RAM and cooler and and and... don't mix high end with budget


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 25, 2018)

Folterknecht said:


> Nice review.
> AMD gains significantly  more from faster RAM than Intel


No. Abslolutely not.

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_5_2600x_vs_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,45

https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k


----------



## hapkiman (Apr 25, 2018)

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I am intrigued by this processor.  Especially if the price drops just a tad.

Nice review thanks.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 25, 2018)

TBH $20 less than 8600K is a pretty bad price point. 8600K can hit 5 GHz easily.


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 25, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> TBH $20 less than 8600K is a pretty bad price point. 8600K can hit 5 GHz easily.


With a 100$ more expensive motherboard. or maybe not 100$ but total price equals 100$ more.

Ryzen2600x is about same price + 20$ more with high performance memory and cheaper motherboard (b350)


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 25, 2018)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> I don't see the point when for $20 you have a unlocked CPU and have full control of the wheelhouse.  8600K can go to 5Ghz+ most all hit at least 5 with a good cooling solution of course.  and without good cooling you can still run 4.8 or even 4.6 for again only $20 more.
> 
> I understand the big picture is budget and running it on non Z boards etc but even then Z boards are NOT crazy cost...   oh and if that is the case you should run budget friendly RAM and cooler and and and... don't mix high end with budget





cucker tarlson said:


> TBH $20 less than 8600K is a pretty bad price point. 8600K can hit 5 GHz easily.



this CPU is for people that do not OC. If I didn't OC, and was in the market for a 6c/6t chip, I wouldn't spend the $20 for the K chip, plus the cost of a heat sink since K chips no longer come with heat sinks.


----------



## bug (Apr 25, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> *4.3GHz is single core clock boosts mind you.* But what were the all core clocks while bclk OC 4.425GHz, could it keep it on those are was it still lowering clocks to lower multiplier(was it 41*102.975=4.222GHz)?
> 
> Edit: are there coming any lower end B360/H370 motherboard reviews? With 2666MHz memory speed would be good to see too, because it will be restricted to that on those.


Yeah, the all-cores turbo is a "paltry" 4.1GHz


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 25, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> this CPU is for people that do not OC. If I didn't OC, and was in the market for a 6c/6t chip, I wouldn't spend the $20 for the K chip, plus the cost of a heat sink since K chips no longer come with heat sinks.


But you'd spend $48 more than i5 8400 for 1-2% more performance ?


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 25, 2018)

bug said:


> Yeah, the all-cores turbo is a "paltry" 4.1GHz



Uhm yeah right, all core clocks at 4.1GHz is respectable itself, but that was not the point now was it?


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 25, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> TBH $20 less than 8600K is a pretty bad price point. 8600K can hit 5 GHz easily.


I agree, this 8600 makes the 8400 look even better.
Good to know there are more 6 core options, anyway.


----------



## Assimilator (Apr 25, 2018)

Would be nice if the Ryzen reviews had a similar active threads vs clock speeds graph.


----------



## ClashClan (Apr 25, 2018)

Are there any explanations for the benchmarks (especially Java and MySQL but also Excel etc.) what they do and what they measure? For example some sites admit that their sql database fits into the level 3 cache and are therefore meaningless.


----------



## Renald (Apr 25, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> But you'd spend $48 more than i5 8400 for 1-2% more performance ?



I agree.
I see no  point for this CPU where  the i5 8400 does nearly the same job for a cheaper price.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 25, 2018)

ClashClan said:


> Are there any explanations for the benchmarks (especially Java and MySQL but also Excel etc.) what they do and what they measure? For example some sites admit that their sql database fits into the level 3 cache and are therefore meaningless.


The database is 2 GB on disk. TPC-C is well specified.

Java measures a mix of various operations/benchmarks/threaded unthreaded, no disk intensive or networking stuff
Excel is just typical operations, not Monte Carlo, or similar pure compute tests, which I find highly unrealistic to be done in Excel.


----------



## trparky (Apr 25, 2018)

Renald said:


> I see no point for this CPU where the i5 8400 does nearly the same job for a cheaper price.


But more often than not the price difference is a less than $50 USD. Now if there was a $100 difference then I could see why one would would go for the cheaper locked i5 chip. With decent Z370 boards being often being priced very close to that of the lesser chipset it's really not very much more expensive to get a Z370 board and K-series chip and get the added benefit of being able to overclock it. After all, that's why people go Intel to begin with; to overclock.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Apr 25, 2018)

yeah that is my point, the $20 just isn't right... grab an 8400... or spend $20 and get the unlocked 8600k...  I KNOW 8600 is for those that don't OC but for $20 why cut yourself short. if you want budget get the 8400.

"budget" whatever that means... is basically the way this is playing out.  but if you are truly on a "budget" and in this case a "low budget" you would go with the 8400 because the step up to the 8600 makes no sense.   

I guess this is just Intel filling every hole they could in the market, knocked the K off and took a whole $20 off the top for fill a nitch


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 25, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> But you'd spend $48 more than i5 8400 for 1-2% more performance ?



Huh? Where did I say I'd buy an 8600? Actually, I'd probably go with the 8500 myself.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#s=12


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 26, 2018)

A better HSF and mobo have a value on their own, I don't understand people complain about the added costs of 8600K. Were you going to put a stock intel cooler on that 8600 ? Good luck. A z370 mobo not only has support for multiplier change but also faster ram,better vrm,more connectors and better audio.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 26, 2018)

You can put all that, multiplier included, on a H310. Why we don't have such a thing? Because Intel can make you pay more by forcing the Z370 chipset.
In the past you could overclock a core 2 duo even on a i865 chipset. Now you have to pay, slave.

I can reach the max "normal" air cooler oc of my R3 1200 with just the stock cooler, and a B350 chpset, no need to spend extra on anything. Don't justify bad consumerism.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 26, 2018)

Cause you have the cheapest 4c 4t, not the 8c 16t. That's why you can hit max oc on a cheap board. It also doesn't change the fact that stock cooler is going to sound like a jet engine compared to a 140 mm aftermarket cooling. Most of us don't cheap out like that on quality components. A cheap board and cooler is still a cheap board and cooler, no matter what cpu you have.
I admit I know very little about such budget components so You're probably right. But what you claim does not apply to people who wanna run a 4.2ghz oc on 2600x daily, with 3400 ram, while staying cool and quiet.


----------



## Xuper (Apr 26, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> No. Abslolutely not.
> 
> https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_5_2600x_vs_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,45
> 
> https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k



4800Mhz vs Stock ............


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 26, 2018)

behrouz said:


> 4800Mhz vs Stock ............


Lol 4200 is both stock and max oc on 2600x.

And @GoldenX why are you running a b350 board not a 320 one ? For the same reason some of us would choose an x370 over b350 for ryzen 1600x. Lay off that 'all You ever need is budget components" and "intel made You slaves" talk from time to time, you're sounding like that crazy old lady at the bus station who screams at birds


----------



## Assimilator (Apr 26, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Cause you have the cheapest 4c 4t, not the 8c 16t. That's why you can hit max oc on a cheap board. It also doesn't change the fact that stock cooler is going to sound like a jet engine compared to a 140 mm aftermarket cooling. Most of us don't cheap out like that on quality components. A cheap board and cooler is still a cheap board and cooler, no matter what cpu you have.
> I admit I know very little about such budget components so You're probably right. But what you claim does not apply to people who wanna run a 4.2ghz oc on 2600x daily, with 3400 ram, while staying cool and quiet.



That's not the point.

The point is that you can get an AMD platform that you can overclock with, for significantly less than what an equivalent-functionality Intel platform would cost. You then put some of that saved money towards a quiet HSF (AMD's stock cooler is pretty good, just noisy). Alternatively, you can buy a top-end AMD motherboard and the lowest-end AMD Ryzen, and overclock the balls out of it - you cannot do that with Intel.

Bottom line is, AMD gives you more choice and flexibility to buy what you want and need, not what they think you should be buying to inflate their profit margins.


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> The point is that you can get an AMD platform that you can overclock with, for significantly less than what an equivalent-functionality Intel platform would cost. You then put some of that saved money towards a quiet HSF (AMD's stock cooler is pretty good, just noisy).



Yes, the point about a no-overclock CPU (the type IBM, HP and others put in in every employee's system) is you can overclock similarly priced CPUs from the competition. 




Assimilator said:


> Alternatively, you can buy a top-end AMD motherboard and the lowest-end AMD Ryzen, and overclock the balls out of it - you cannot do that with Intel.
> 
> Bottom line is, AMD gives you more choice and flexibility to buy what you want and need, not what they think you should be buying to inflate their profit margins.



If by "overclock the balls out of it" you mean get ~300MHz more than the default turbo, then yes, that's also what TPU's reviews have shown.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 26, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Most of us don't cheap out like that on quality components. A cheap board and cooler is still a cheap board and cooler, no matter what cpu you have.



Correction, most of us who frequent tech forums , that tweak their computers for the best performance, and those of us that build custom computers don't don't cheap out like that on quality components. The average computer buyer goes the cheapest route they can. "Oh, it has a six core CPU, with 8 gb or RAM and a gaming video card (not knowing exactly what CPU, what speed RAM, or exactly what video card it has) for under $1000? I'll take it"


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 26, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Correction, most of us who frequent tech forums , that tweak their computers for the best performance, and those of us that build custom computers don't don't cheap out like that on quality components. The average computer buyer goes the cheapest route they can. "Oh, it has a six core CPU, with 8 gb or RAM and a gaming video card (not knowing exactly what CPU, what speed RAM, or exactly what video card it has) for under $1000? I'll take it"


Yes but such people do not come here. You expect people whom you talk to on TPU to be able to apprieciate quality, not just be all about $10 saved.


----------



## trparky (Apr 26, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> The point is that you can get an AMD platform that you can overclock with


If you mean a measly 300 MHz then yes, you can overclock it; that is if you can even call that overclocking. The bad part is that a lot of the reviewers have been getting worse performance with manual overclock than just letting XFR2 do its thing. Meanwhile in the Intel camp you can overclock by as much as 500 to 600 MHz (or even higher) depending on if you have good cooling. When you take that into account the AMD Ryzen Platform looks pretty pathetic. No fanboy here, just facts here.


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 26, 2018)

"When looking purely at gaming, the i5-8600 is still slightly ahead, but the ~5 percent gap won't make the difference between "playable" and "slide-show"."

When looking purely at livesteaming, the difference IS a between playable and a slideshow... just that the 8600 is a slideshow:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3288-amd-r5-2600-2600x-review-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2018)

Nihilus said:


> "When looking purely at gaming, the i5-8600 is still slightly ahead, but the ~5 percent gap won't make the difference between "playable" and "slide-show"."
> 
> When looking purely at livesteaming, the difference IS a between playable and a slideshow... just that the 8600 is a slideshow:
> https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3288-amd-r5-2600-2600x-review-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender


You will note that, while the results are not unexpected, only two games were tested and in one of them the 8600k did just fine when streaming at realistic settings.

But yes, when you use more cores, having more cores is beneficial.


----------



## trparky (Apr 26, 2018)

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you do streaming correctly and let the video card do the video encoding (which it's really great at doing) you shouldn't need more cores. Use the hardware for what its designed for, video cards have hardware video codecs; general purpose CPUs don't.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 26, 2018)

Encoding is only one part of the process, a GPU doesn't replace the horsepower needed for IO.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Apr 26, 2018)

Am I being blind, but I don't see anything on the temperature of this CPU with its shoddy-looking cooler? It would be nice to see how that holds up compared to Ryzen 200-series more robust offerings.



trparky said:


> If you mean a measly 300 MHz then yes, you can overclock it; that is if you can even call that overclocking. The bad part is that a lot of the reviewers have been getting worse performance with manual overclock than just letting XFR2 do its thing. Meanwhile in the Intel camp you can overclock by as much as 500 to 600 MHz (or even higher) depending on if you have good cooling. When you take that into account *the AMD Ryzen Platform looks pretty pathetic. No fanboy here, just facts here.*



Yeah, you don't sound like a fanboy at all...

Calling the whole platform 'pathetic' is ridiculous. Get your head out of Intel's backside and breathe.


----------



## trparky (Apr 26, 2018)

Excuse me? You can overclock a Core i7 8700K to 4.7 GHz with relatively no effort at all and more often than not you can do this simply by enabling Multi-Core Enhancement. Meanwhile AMD Ryzen can barely break 4.3 GHz. Combine this with the fact that Intel has an IPC advantage on Ryzen and you have a chip that can outperform Ryzen by a wide margin. Will this be the case for forever? I'm not saying that at all, however the 8700K is the better chip when compared to Ryzen; there's no denying this. Next year? Ryzen may be very well on top but not this year.


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> Excuse me? You can overclock a Core i7 8700K to 4.7 GHz with relatively no effort at all and more often than not you can do this simply by enabling Multi-Core Enhancement. Meanwhile AMD Ryzen can barely break 4.3 GHz. Combine this with the fact that Intel has an IPC advantage on Ryzen and you have a chip that can outperform Ryzen by a wide margin. Will this be the case for forever? I'm not saying that at all, however the 8700K is the better chip when compared to Ryzen; there's no denying this. Next year? Ryzen may be very well on top but not this year.


Citing flat numbers is not the best way to go about overclocking (I admit, I did it above), percentage increase is more like it. Intel has no IPC advantage (less than 5%, depending on the banchmark). Look it up, I believe HardOCP tested CPUs at the same clock speed. At this point Intel is only faster because of clock speed.
I do believe Intel has some advantage over Ryzen, but that in _perf/W_ department, not perf/GHz (aka IPC).


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Apr 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> Excuse me? You can overclock a Core i7 8700K to 4.7 GHz with relatively no effort at all and more often than not you can do this simply by enabling Multi-Core Enhancement. Meanwhile AMD Ryzen can barely break 4.3 GHz. Combine this with the fact that Intel has an IPC advantage on Ryzen and you have a chip that can outperform Ryzen by a wide margin. Will this be the case for forever? I'm not saying that at all, however the 8700K is the better chip when compared to Ryzen; there's no denying this. Next year? Ryzen may be very well on top but not this year.



Look I hate to deflate your bubble but overclocking the 8700K all the way to 5Ghz only adds 1-3% performance if you are talking about gaming. Quoted from our very own TPU:



> It is worth mentioning that overclocking on the Intel Core i7-8700K works very well, with the majority of CPUs reaching 5 GHz and more, which provides significant extra performance (around 10% in CPU tests and *1%-3% in games*).



The 2700X is the better CPU from my perspective:

1. Cheaper
2. Comes with a $30+ cooler
3. Better multi-threaded performance
4. Cheaper motherboards
5. Negligible performance loss in games under real-world use (and only around 10% using 1080 @ 1080p res)

It's a no brainer for me that the Ryzen is the better buy. If you game only then it's a toss up if you want to spend $$$ more for extra performance you will only see if you have a powerful card and game at 1080p.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 26, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Yes but such people do not come here. You expect people whom you talk to on TPU to be able to apprieciate quality, not just be all about $10 saved.



I wouldn't be so sure of that, considering at the time of this posting there are 6,659 people on TPU, but only 119 are logged-in members. The other 6,540 people I'd guess are mostly unregistered guests that got here by a google search trying to research some topic having to do with tech.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 26, 2018)

I don't think that's a legitimate fact.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 26, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I don't think that's a legitimate fact.


----------



## trparky (Apr 26, 2018)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Cheaper


Where I bought my parts prices for both the Intel and AMD systems were about right in line with each other ($75 difference). Finding compatible memory for Ryzen is a pain whereas with Intel any memory you find on the shelf will work. Not only that but you need fast memory for Ryzen and that stuff is expensive.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 26, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


>


Yeah but I was questionning how you got there from supermarket PCs.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 26, 2018)

Most people will do so research. They'll search answers for problems they are having. They'll search what's available as they prepare to make a purchase (though most of them won't adequately research the product they are looking at). Then there's also the people like college students that are doing assignment research (I used this site in some papers I wrote for college). That, among other similar scenarios, are where I'm saying most of those not logged-in guests are coming from.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 27, 2018)

You still make no sense.

you said:
"The average computer buyer goes the cheapest route they can. "Oh, it has a six core CPU, with 8 gb or RAM and a gaming video card (not knowing exactly what CPU, what speed RAM, or exactly what video card it has) for under $1000? I'll take it"

I said:

"Yes but such people do not come here. You expect people whom you talk to on TPU to be able to apprieciate quality, not just be all about $10 saved. "

you said

"I wouldn't be so sure of that, considering at the time of this posting there are 6,659 people on TPU, but only 119 are logged-in members. The other 6,540 people I'd guess are mostly unregistered guests that got here by a google search trying to research some topic having to do with tech. "


Can non members post or am I losing my mind here talking to you or people like shatun who decided ryzen is better cause of a $30 cooler.

I don't understand this save a few bucks obsession with AMD.



Shatun_Bear said:


> Look I hate to deflate your bubble but overclocking the 8700K all the way to 5Ghz only adds 1-3% performance if you are talking about gaming. Quoted from our very own TPU:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol mr. no brainer. You are very short sighted. Anyone who says the battle between 2700 and 8700 is so obvious it's a "no brainer" *has got to be a fanboy* of one of those brands. He just has to. Period.
All in all 8700K is a much better cpu for enthusiasts who mostly game and build custom computers. Ryzen is better for people who don't go custom and do not game that much, but do other CPU heavy work. Both will serve any purpose, but there's a clear distionction as to their intended use.

8700K
1. same price point, only +10-15 bucks more expensive
2. A lot faster than Ryzen in gaming stock, crushes it when OC'd. Ryzen with their stock cooler at 1.45v - bad idea. You are clinging to one review like there were no others. TPU only presents one scenario, games tend to be longer than benchamrk runs - did you know that? See other reviews - you'll find the gap all sorts of bigger and smaller, from 2700 tying 8700 to 8700 being 50% faster. One thing you won't find is 8700 getting beat by 2700.

https://pclab.pl/art77545-28.html
https://pclab.pl/art77545-30.html
https://pclab.pl/art77545-17.html



3.  Same MT performance as Ryzen stock, you're not relying on factual information. Will be a lot faster once you OC






4.Better IMC and RAM support, you can go +4000MHz with 8700K
5. Better motherboards (support for multiple full speed pci-e 3.0 x4 drives)


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 27, 2018)

Why are you including me with your statement "Can non members post or am I losing my mind here talking to you or people like shatun who decided ryzen is better cause of a $30 cooler" . I have not mentioned Ryzen in this thread. I have not said a thing about Ryzen being better than any Intel CPU. The only thing I have said remotely close to that is that if I was not an OC'er, I would not spend the extra money on a K chip. Why would/should I. That's like buying a high-end video card to place Candy Crush with (a waste of money buying performance/features that will never be used). Believe it or not, there are people out there that refuse to OC for various reasons.

Ok then, what do you think those +6k people that have a device with a internet browser opened and on TPU are doing? No, a not logged-in guest can not post on TPU. But they sure can browse the forums, read the news articles and reviews, and download drivers and software tools.


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 27, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> You still make no sense.
> 
> you said:
> "The average computer buyer goes the cheapest route they can. "Oh, it has a six core CPU, with 8 gb or RAM and a gaming video card (not knowing exactly what CPU, what speed RAM, or exactly what video card it has) for under $1000? I'll take it"
> ...




Comments on 4\5

4.\
Ryzen IMC is superior to intel, frequency doesn't equate to performance (see Intel P4 vs Athlon 64 on memory).
See Ryzen vs Coffee lake on memory (not latency)

See something interesting ?
The ryzen has hilarious bandwidth at lower clock because it's memory controller is driving the dimms so much harder than Intel's.
So, judge the IMC by max frequency it can achieve or by the performance it delivers?

5.\
**Talking AM4 vs LGA115X ONLY

Intel's NVME is NOT full speed, it's shared with multiple, if you add sata say bye to full speed.
AM4 has Dedicated 1x NVME at full 3.0 speed at all times regardless of USB, SATA and whatnot.

Look at the below, see DMI 3.0 ? that is 4x Pci-e 3.0
the cpu has 16 directly to mobo on 16x slot or the other configs but it's never nvme as far as i've seen.







Now let's look at Ryzen.
Ryzen has 4x extra pci-e lanes _(wonder where amd threw 4 of them, seems like the bin as the core has extra unused lanes)_
it has a superior advantage with the NVME directly to cpu.
it's drawbacks are however pci-e 2.0 on the chipset side and nvme to nvme copy where 4x lanes will be through the chipset (like intel) and 4 dedicated (superior)
Other advantages are some USB 3.0 coming directly from the cpu and not stealing bandwidth from the chipset.







To end on 5.\
It's not a architecture issue for the most part, 2.0 pci-e on chipset somewhat Is.
Amd's platform is superior by design but the chipset on pci-e is a let down.
Intel's chipset is superior but it's platform design is inferior.

The biggest let down to me is that most aib manufactures doesn't include 2 M2 slots on amd boards, especially on b350 boards.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 28, 2018)

Thanks for an extensive explanation.
I still look at results tho. Ryzen's memory bandwidth is great, but the latency is key in gaming, so raw bandwidth numbers mean very little when latency is high. I know they've improved it with Ryzen 2, but still Intel has a noticeably lower memory latency.
I read tweaktown ssd reeviews on the regular, cause they always tets both on intel and ryzen (at least they used to), and ryzen gets beat all the time. I get why it's better theoretically, but results don't support that. Ryzen's performance at 4K write just falls off a cliff


https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8...rdea-240gb-2-nvme-pcie-ssd-review/index5.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8220/adata-xpg-sx8000-512gb-2-nvme-pcie-ssd-review/index5.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8176/samsung-pm961-1tb-2-nvme-pcie-ssd-review/index5.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8131/plextor-m8pey-2-aic-nvme-pcie-ssd-review/index5.html

whole review on ryzen vs intel ssd performance, look how bad it can be

https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8073/amd-ryzen-ssd-storage-performance-preview/index3.html

I also don't get the point how it can be superior but be a let down. I mean I do get it, but why call it superior if it gets beat by intel in nvme becnhmarks 10 times out of 10. Isn't it AMD speciality to be superior by design but a let down in performance ? Have we not learnt to judge them by performance already ?


----------



## Xuper (Apr 28, 2018)

oh yeah now you're telling people do not buy Ryzen.I get it.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 28, 2018)

Fanatism is something special,  you would thing that after so many centuries it would change...


----------



## bug (Apr 28, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Thanks for an extensive explanation.
> I still look at results tho. Ryzen's memory bandwidth is great, but the latency is key in gaming, so raw bandwidth numbers mean very little when latency is high. I know they've improved it with Ryzen 2, but still Intel has a noticeably lower memory latency.
> I read tweaktown ssd reeviews on the regular, cause they always tets both on intel and ryzen (at least they used to), and ryzen gets beat all the time. I get why it's better theoretically, but results don't support that. Ryzen's performance at 4K write just falls off a cliff
> 
> ...


That's a bit weird, iirc AMD's chipseste were supposed to have dedicated PCIe lanes for NVMe straight from the CPU. Add to the weirdness, Anandtech doesn't seem to have _one_ article about recent AMD chipsets. But all in all, AMD isn't that much worse. Just a bit behind.


cucker tarlson said:


> *I also don't get the point how it can be superior but be a let down.* I mean I do get it, but why call it superior if it gets beat by intel in nvme becnhmarks 10 times out of 10. Isn't it AMD speciality to be superior by design but a let down in performance ? Have we not learnt to judge them by performance already ?


That doesn't apply here. However, when it does apply, the rule is you look pnly at the aspects in which the product/competitor you root for is superior and deem other aspects irrelevant. Simple.


----------



## Xuper (Apr 28, 2018)

bug said:


> That's a bit weird, iirc AMD's chipseste were supposed to have dedicated PCIe lanes for NVMe straight from the CPU. Add to the weirdness, Anandtech doesn't seem to have _one_ article about recent AMD chipsets. But all in all, AMD isn't that much worse. Just a bit behind.
> 
> That doesn't apply here. However, when it does apply, the rule is you look pnly at the aspects in which the product/competitor you root for is superior and deem other aspects irrelevant. Simple.


also that review didn't apply Patch , did it? that patch reduce 4K's performance on Intel side.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 28, 2018)

bug said:


> That's a bit weird, iirc AMD's chipseste were supposed to have dedicated PCIe lanes for NVMe straight from the CPU. Add to the weirdness, Anandtech doesn't seem to have _one_ article about recent AMD chipsets. But all in all, AMD isn't that much worse. Just a bit behind.


Agreed, they're very competitive. I'm laughing my ass off at those cry babies above who think everyone who has intel has got to be an amd hater. There,there...no one is telling people they should not buy Ryzen. But I understand from the enthusiast's viewpoint, you don't wanna pay for a top of the line MLC ssd and have cheap TLC-class performance, especially when it comes to low qd 4k write, which is most of a system does on a daily basis. Crybabies don't understand you can't hide the problem when it exists, but what you should do is assess the extent of it and still come out with a conclusion that ryzen is competitive for the money.



behrouz said:


> also that review didn't apply Patch , did it? that patch reduce 4K's performance on Intel side.



Only for some reviewers, and that was only like qd32. I can tell you honestly that I did a before and after testing ,and my 4K read and write went up after the patch, though it was either margin of error or not enough to really call it improvement.
Can't find anything of value to present to you other than this. 960 Pro results (well before any peatches existed) vs the new 970 Pro (with all patches). 970 Pro wins hands down in every metrics. I know that's a faster drive, but if there was any funny business you'd see that reflected to some extent, like drives losing 50% 4k write performance on ryzen - in extreme cases (nvme drives only).

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7940/samsung-960-evo-1tb-250gb-2-nvme-pcie-ssd-review/index5.html

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8606/samsung-970-evo-1tb-2-nvme-pcie-ssd-review/index5.html


found this, confirms intel has the upper hand, though not by much when it comes to single drive vs single drive. Funny how the amd raidxpert driver totally ruins performance, z270 buries x470 with two drives in raid.






Here's what the author had to say in the comments:

"Used an adapter to confirm CPU-connected speeds. Agreed QD1 random read performance is the major contributor to client workloads. Latency is included because it is painting the rest of the performance picture, especially at QD>1. AMD performance seems to come down to the platform adding some latency and then the RAIDXpert driver stack adding some more. "


----------



## dylricho (Apr 29, 2018)

Can you confirm that this chip has 24 execution units?

Intel's previous listings indicated that everything below the 8600K had 23 execution units. And now they don't tell you at all.


----------



## bug (Apr 29, 2018)

behrouz said:


> also that review didn't apply Patch , did it? that patch reduce 4K's performance on Intel side.


Please, if you have no idea what Spectre and Meltdown do, just don't bring them into discussion. Ok?
For further reference, the fixes for those two _do not mean an automatic, across the board_, performance hit.


----------



## Xuper (Apr 30, 2018)

bug said:


> Please, if you have no idea what Spectre and Meltdown do, just don't bring them into discussion. Ok?
> For further reference, the fixes for those two _do not mean an automatic, across the board_, performance hit.



Benchs are over internet. otherwise please elaborate.I only mentioned "4Kib's performance" on storage.

Edit : I think someone thought i mean 4K game , No I mean 4Kib ( Q32T1 ) CrystalDisk Mark


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 30, 2018)

z170 before and after patches ("po aktualizacji") vs amd's x370 and 470

4k qd64 read






WoT installation (in seconds, less is better)






7.25gb of small files (read)






7.25gb of small files (write)


----------



## Countryside (Apr 30, 2018)

Nice review but i see no point in buying it because for 40-50 bucks less you can get the 8400 and in real life 
usage there is absolutely no difference at all so why pay more.


----------



## Xuper (Apr 30, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> z170 before and after patches ("po aktualizacji") vs amd's x370 and 470


I have no idea how they tested and got zero hit but here another bench :

https://www.techspot.com/article/1556-meltdown-and-spectre-cpu-performance-windows/page3.html

as you can see biggest hit is 4K Read.also there are reports about AWS.


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 30, 2018)

behrouz said:


> I have no idea how they tested and got zero hit but here another bench :
> 
> https://www.techspot.com/article/1556-meltdown-and-spectre-cpu-performance-windows/page3.html
> 
> as you can see biggest hit is 4K Read.also there are reports about AWS.




I'm very skeptical about any reviews on system at this time because of retpoline, meltdown and such, I believe the difference is minor between platforms but acknowledge the performance win from Intel.
I assume it's because of the CPU\memory latencies rather than controllers or what not (it's pretty much just PCI-E)

Would be interesting to see I/O head to head with Ryzen 1700 vs 2700 with no reuse of benchmarks that is soo damn popular for some reason.


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 30, 2018)

bug said:


> Please, if you have no idea what Spectre and Meltdown do, just don't bring them into discussion. Ok?
> For further reference, the fixes for those two _do not mean an automatic, across the board_, performance hit.


No it doesn't, but then you're talking about outliers. For the vast majority of applications, including games, there is a hit ranging from minimal to substantial.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 30, 2018)

behrouz said:


> I have no idea how they tested and got zero hit but here another bench :
> 
> https://www.techspot.com/article/1556-meltdown-and-spectre-cpu-performance-windows/page3.html
> 
> as you can see biggest hit is 4K Read.also there are reports about AWS.


cause mine is 3 days old and yours is from january, there have been more patches after the initial one.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 30, 2018)

Performance impact or not with the patches, these vulnerabilities are a nasty threat to CPU path prediction, on the long run these could slow the CPU performance progress of future releases.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 30, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> Performance impact or not with the patches, these vulnerabilities are a nasty threat to CPU path prediction, on the long run these could slow the CPU performance progress of future releases.


I don't think the average Joe or even people who build HEDT computers got anything to worry about. It's in the server and workstation department that Intel could have a headache, one of EPYC proportions


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2018)

behrouz said:


> Benchs are over internet. otherwise please elaborate.I only mentioned "4Kib's performance" on storage.
> 
> Edit : I think someone thought i mean 4K game , No I mean 4Kib ( Q32T1 ) CrystalDisk Mark


Another one too lazy too Google, so I have to elaborate.
Spectre and Metdown affect execution of code/instructions. IO is a whole different path. Oh, well...
If you'll look no further than here: https://www.techpowerup.com/215333/intel-skylake-die-layout-detailed
you'll see the IO controller is a separate block altogether. So whatever performance hit you may be taking from fixing Meltdown and Spectre, they will only indirectly affect IO. And evne than it's a worst case scenario not something you'd see in the real world.


----------



## Xuper (Apr 30, 2018)

so far only report I heard was about Storage performance on VM.yeah I'm lazy to google it!


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2018)

You're also too lazy to learn how a CPU works, but, sadly, not lazy enough to post on the Internet.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 1, 2018)

bug said:


> You're also too lazy to learn how a CPU works, but, sadly, not lazy enough to post on the Internet.


Okay,you're getting a little too harsh....


----------



## Xuper (May 1, 2018)

bug said:


> You're also too lazy to learn how a CPU works, but, sadly, not lazy enough to post on the Internet.


Sure i'm lazy , Now Peace.We will see it or later.


----------



## Imsochobo (May 1, 2018)

bug said:


> Another one too lazy too Google, so I have to elaborate.
> Spectre and Metdown affect execution of code/instructions. IO is a whole different path. Oh, well...
> If you'll look no further than here: https://www.techpowerup.com/215333/intel-skylake-die-layout-detailed
> you'll see the IO controller is a separate block altogether. So whatever performance hit you may be taking from fixing Meltdown and Spectre, they will only indirectly affect IO. And evne than it's a worst case scenario not something you'd see in the real world.



meltdown and spectre is in the core, not in the I/O.

all tasks can get a hit if branch prediction is used, it's not I/O issue, it's a cpu Core affecting I/O.


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2018)

According to Steve Gibson's InSpectre newer Intel CPUs shouldn't have a performance hit.


> The presence of the relatively recent PCID and INVPCID support allows Windows (when it chooses to take advantage of this) to protect against the Meltdown vulnerability without significant system performance impact.


----------

