Intel Core i5-8600 3.1 GHz

[Shatun_Bear]

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]

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]

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

 

[BarbaricSoul]

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

 

[trparky]

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]

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

 

[BarbaricSoul]

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]

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.

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:



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.

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]

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]

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.



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)

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]

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]

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

 

[GoldenX]

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

 

[bug]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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. "

 

[NSX05]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.