Intel vs AMD 2017 -- 8700K vs 1700X
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Amazon US Links (Affiliate):
Intel Core i7-8700K: amzn.to/2zsLZFt
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X: amzn.to/2xSy1Ib
Amazon UK Links (Affiliate):
Intel Core i7-8700K: amzn.to/2A3B697
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X: amzn.to/2iVGvvE
Side-by-side comparison. Another interesting showdown in 2017 -- Intel versus AMD.
What's the better CPU overall? The i7-8700K or the Ryzen 7 1700X?
Systems used:
-- Intel --
Intel Core i7-8700K
CRYORIG A40 Ultimate
ASRock Z370 Extreme4
GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC BLACK
G.Skill Flare X 16GB DDR4-3200
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 120GB
Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB
DeepCool Quanta DQ650 EVO 650W
Cooler Master Test Bench V1.0
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
-- AMD --
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
CRYORIG A40 Ultimate
ASUS Crosshair VI Hero
GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC BLACK
G.Skill Flare X 16GB DDR4-3200
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 120GB
Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB
DeepCool Quanta DQ650 EVO 650W
Cooler Master Test Bench V1.0
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Music:
BTS Prolog by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommon...)
Source: freepd.com/Uncl...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Time Passing By by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommon...)
Artist: audionautix.com/
Here's the new version of this comparison: ruclips.net/video/hzIGD9qJsaQ/видео.html
Intel is certainly on top in terms of performance but for the pricing right now I think AMD still has the best performance/price ratio. One thing I will ad is that you tested BF1 on single player which is way way less demanding than playing a full match on multiplayer.
Squad is like arma it hates amd cpus.
8700k definitely the best overall mainstream CPU. Comes at a price though. I enjoy mine but my R7 1700 definitely stands at a great value.
The 8700k is the top dog new CPU that has been extremely hard to find in stock, it has gone from $369 to $414 in 2 months. It's not going to be on Sale for Black Friday.
I will explain myself and you can explain yourself T150rs. I say the 8700K is King mainstream at a high price because it smashes any Ryzen chip per thread and even more when overclocked. The 8700K is extremely close to R7 1700-1800x in multi-threaded apps as well. The 8700K will give you the best performance across a massive range of games and performs in heavy multi-threaded workloads with a difference that isn't really perceivable when compared to R7 chips. Surely in 2018 things will change again and then again. As it stands now 8700K is top dog overall. That doesn't mean that the R7 chips don't stand as an excellent value, especially the R7 1700! Your turn T150rs why is Ryzen best Mainstream multicore processor? Lets not forget that the 1800X is $460 right now on Newegg. $40 more than 8700K. The best bang for buck IMO is the R7 1700 but Ryzen still comes with compromise.
@Jay P 8700k is expansive, very hot, very bad TIM so you need to have a watercooler, you cant use the Z270, jou cant even buy it now, its just skylake/kabylake with 2 extra cores, it is a litle faster on old games like GTA 5 (2012).
Ryzen = alot cheaper and cheaper MB, you can overclock every Ryzen, its not hot even with heavy OC, there are only 2 cons: litle lower IPC and the clockspeed is lower.
best mainstream CPU is Ryzen its a nobrainer.
By watching this results I'm now satisfied with my 1700 😄 thanks Nicholas love from India.
Mandhatasinh Chudasama can you tell me about your experience with 1700 I'm thinking about buying this with b350
vishal Sharma it's perfect and satisfied me 💯% though if you are a high fps gamer then I would recommend Intel side btw I'm not tell AMD isn't good... it fulfills me in each and every aspect this video specifies better. I hope you got your awnser.
Knowing that from a humble R5 1600 today I can go to a future 2nd or 3rd gen ZEN 8-core chip, makes me all giddy. Just hope its not the same 7%-15% performance improvement intel was swindling us before.
SamuHell782 well the zen+ cores will likely only be a 5 to 15% increase overall, While the actual ipc wont change much zen+ will likely fix a lot of manufacturing problems, Also things like timings, instructions, use of resources ect ect, giving the same effect by using what is there better and removing many of the gen 1 problems faults and flaws.
Your also likely to see silicone lottery winners able to clock to 4.6-4.8 with most chips in the 4.2 to 4.4 range and base clocks of 4.0+.
as for zen2 and zen3 my guess is you may see them matching or slightly excedeing intel single core but thrashing it in multicore assumeing amd doesnt drop the ball or intel doesnt come out with something new, We are pretty much at the limits of what we can do with silicone waffers with known tech and materials, at most we may see another 25-50% faster ipc on single core from either brand before we hit the wall and need to develop new tech or transition into using multi core multi thread as you are seeing with assasins creed.
I do re-call when amd did their whole FX update, They did improve a ton! So, I'd imagine the same will happen for Zen. I wasn't expecting much, When I had an old fx 8100, jumped the wagon and bought an 8300 and the performance gains were great! 15-20+ fps in titles. So, If they're still that smart, We'll see a good boost in ZEN.
The sensible choice is ryzen 7. Fps is not a worry for both chips, the price is the deal maker.
That's what i wanted to hear, anotha amd fanbou.
Please ad 1% and 0,1% lows as frametimes next time.
Moreover you should benchs those tis against each other so that we have more of an understanding how each system performs.
Would also be greate if you could list those Paltform costs against each other!
Yeah he do but i think Don is referring to the Lottery. There could be a performance difference up to 30% between those two cards! - winning vs losing
Exactly thats what i was trying to say.
One more point would be that it would be better to show the difference not only in 1440p but also in 1080, 2160 and maby 720p.
Quick key fact: if you are gaming 90% of us here ( be honest ) Intel....
If you want strict performance all around, and do work that requires CPU a lot... get AMD.... or Intel
If you are a strict gamer and crying how AMD is better, you shut your mouth and stay in the corner. Fanboy
you'd be right if they were the same price, but Intel is 44% more expensive than AMD and offers less than 10% performance, and that's only in games(some offer less than 5%).
For Intel to be better, it should be higher by at least 15% and on all tasks.
And finally: Nobody notices the difference between 100 fps and 109 fps
double price for +20 fps(max)?
no thanks
amd win
Can you say the same in 2021?
8700k is still a very, very good CPU
Where is 1700x in 2021?
Answer: under 60 FPS in newest titles
AMD : Price to Performance
Hes test in 1440p, and Sony VEGAS, the GPU does all the work
Not anymore. I5 8400 kills 1800x on 4ghz and i5 is only 6 c/6t 3.8 ghz. This test is just shit. Testing CPUs on 1440p is just retarded. To test true power of delivering frames by CPU you go 720p or 1080p. This whole test is just shit. Go watch harware unboxed or tech yes city or any other channel with some reputation behind it. I7 8700k destroys anything ryzen offers, the numbers in this video are just retarded. Even i5 8400 destroys every ryzen from r3 to r7 when it comes to gaming. I5 8400 definetly the best value CPU even when you buy z370 board.
huh don't know what you mean , but i think you see to match benchmarks on the web check my channel than you know what gain off power Amd have and i have only Fx
vasilije94 no cry
No, AMD = Advanced Micro Systems xD
Amd:"how give best performance at good value?"
Intel:"how I should i ripp off my customers for good?"
Check out my new INTEL VS AMD 2018 video!
ruclips.net/video/EqbXKK2lDW0/видео.html
Cette vidéo est nettement plus parlante car on vois en temps réelle la différence
who the hell keeps their 1700x on 3,4?!
I like blue...... so...intel for me.
thank you so much, i can see you worked hard on this and you put everything that interested me that's awesome dude +1sub
Thanks for appreciating the hard work I put into this. :)
I'd assume multicore enhancement was enabled in the bios for the intel chip? So the 8700k is running at 4.7ghz all cores whereas the 1700x can only turbo up to 3.5ghz all cores. That's a clock disparity of 1.2ghz.
same shit!
So basically coz of high single core performance 8700k beats 1700x. I wouldn't really say "beat". It's just that games don't stress too much on multicore. If you can notice in the video, the percentage of fps difference between two cpus equals the percentage of CPU utilization during benchmarks.
Ex: GTA V
1700x - CPU @30% = 105 FPS
8700k - CPU @43% = 142 FPS
There's a ~50% difference in CPU usage and ~40% fps gain.
8700k would widen that gap if OC'd to 5Ghz.
Yes, 8700k is gaming king at the moment but given that hardware cost and the fact that not everyone buys gtx 1080 or 1080ti, at this point of time, an ideal consumer would go for 1700x build (perhaps 1700 to significantly reduce overall cost).
I recommend waiting though. Intel builds will be good to go once their motherboards get cheaper. If that happens coffee lake's i5s will be the new budget king.
And I hope story doesn't ends there, and hope AMD fights back!
HOw to scam users into amd, use full GPU bottleneck at 1440p
Intel = Easy To understand
AMD = I don't understand anything
Intel = More expensive
AMD = Less Expensive
Which is the best?
Intel & AMD
*The WORST And Overprice cpu is Apple Processors :D*
Dumb comparison. 8700k clearly blows 1700X out of the water. A fairer comparison would maaaybe be 7700K vs 1800X.
And the 7700K would still win in pure FPS, that being said the differences in 70% of games played on that 7700K is only a 10-20 fps difference increase from Ryzen.
TIMES--------------------------------------)
CPUZ: 0:12
Systems info: 0:24
Monitors: 0:33
Cinebench R15 Multicore: 0:45
Cinebench R15 Singlecore: 0:57
Vegas Pro14 AVC/AAC (4min 13sec;1080p): 1:08
Battlefield 1 : 1:22
Crysis 3: 1:11
Far Cry Primal: 2:59
Grand Theft Auto V: 2:47
Rise of the Tomb Raider: 4:32
The Elders Scrolls V: Skyrim SE: 5:20
The Witcher 3: 5:46
Power Consumption (Windows Desktop): 6:36
Power Consumption (Cinebench R15): 6:40
i5 8600k is enought i think
i just can'e believe that were hitting over 100 avg fps in 1440p now even up to 200 on high to ultra settings. i love the look of 1440p but i personally prefer 1080p as i play on a triple monitor n i like my frames but damn playing 1080p with med-high settings i should be hitting my 144hz screens possible fps display for 1s xD after this build of course.. but damn so excited for coffee lake
... and now overclock the CPU´s and test again ... 5GHz singlecore power inc! RIP AMD shit...
i got my 1700x for 150 new in the box and i was thinking about upgrading to a 8700k but it’s even less of a difference that i figured at 1440p. it’s not worth throwing over 450$ to barely beat what my 220$ combo would do.
if you would of OC both of these cpus, the 8700k to 5+ ghz and the 1700x to 4ghz then the productivity test would been pretty much the same and in gaming the 8700k would have gotten even a bigger fps advantage over the r7
intel 8700
God intel
You should've tested more CPU intensive games like csgo and pubg. The GPU games when CPU usage is at like 20% and they have the same framerate are useless because they are testing the graphics card
this is bullshit why use a intel k chip if your not overclocking, should've used a 8700 non-k
AMD:ryzen is by the people,for the people,of the people.
Intel: shut the fuck up and give your kidney
are you sure this is stock because notice that the i7 is clocked at 4.3ghz... not that coffeelake will ever lose xD it crazy performance per $
Asus B350 + ryzen 1600 = 280 doller
Msi Z370 + Intel 8600k = 392 doller
Msi Z370 + Intel 8400 = 316 doller
But little bit Intel is the high but price and performance but ryzen is the best which one best you deside...... 😎😎😎😎
Intel has higher clock speeds out of the box and since Intel has been dominating the market for nearly half a decade, the software is much more optimised for Intel hardware. I have a feeling that Zen2 or Zen+ would improve Ryzen's clock speeds
I like intel and all, but I personally prefer AMD's Ryzen, due to the fact that it can render a video, and livestream more efficient.
As long as I can play GTA or The Witcher 3 in 1080p 60FPS I okay with either. One thing I realized while building a Setup on Newegg, is that a AMD built computer vs Intel(Nvidia) built computer, yield similar performances, but pricing is not drastically different. The AMD built was 1680$ while the Intel built was 1780$ about 100 $ difference...
Went to Micro Center for their Xmas prices. Got a 1700x for $240 and Asus ROG STRIX Z370-F GAMING MOBO for $150, plus a $15 rebate. I'm a happy boy. Going to be selling my older stuff for some more savings.
Intel little better, because they use 4.3GHz, (okay, amd use more cores). So I would like see compare: Amd use only 6 cores, and Intel use only 3.5GHz.
Sorry for my bad english😶
zseko77 More clock speed doesn’t mean it’s better dumbfuck.
Prices:
i8700K = R$ 1658,90
r1700X = R$ 1149,90
44% most expensive to 9% performance IN GAMES. (My English is bad, i say: 44% mais caro para 9% melhor performance em jogos)
Rayzen wins.
I don't know, I saw the 1700x's lowest price on Ebay just now going for $265 and the 8700K on Ebay going for $325. Both New, That's only a $60 difference and for the performance gain, I don't see how or why you'd choose AMD's side, it's $60 less for about just the right performance drop. Interesting. You guys that put AMD over Intel so badly (not all of you just some I seen in the comments section) are totally over-exaggerating or something. I get that in some games the difference in FPS isn't huge at all BUT in some, there is a huge 10+ FPS difference. That's totally worth the small extra $60 going into getting a 8700K in my opinion, It's better than taking the risk of having a game you really love and/or were anticipating for, for a year or more to end up having more than 10 FPS less than if you would've just spent the extra $60 to begin with.
Edit: If the price difference was $100 or more back then when this video was first made, then I guess maybe I would see you guys's points for somewhat making Intel look like a total rip-off. Otherwise. I don't see it.
Supposedly, Zen 2 architecture coming next year will clock higher then the current chips. If it can hit 4.5Ghz O.C., since Zen 1 is around 3.9-4.0Ghz, then it will really close the gap in fps to the Intel counterparts. I think that is the main reason AMD Zen 1 CPUs are falling behind on fps, because of their lower clock speeds, as opposed to Intel O.C. to about 4.7Ghz.
As for now, Intel is the way to go for a rig strictly for gaming, AMD for a balance between multi-task & gaming. We'll have to wait and see how Zen 2 performs.
What's the point of this video if you didn't OC both CPUs? They are both unlocked and should be utilized to their maximum performance i7-8700k @5.2ghz and Ryzen R7 1700x @4.0Ghz ghz. The reason you bought an unlocked processor is to overclock it.
About that massive stutter on Ryzen @ 06:08 , I'm running my RTX 2080Ti with my Ryzen 7 1700x @3.7 and it's happening every once in a while, even with capped fps to 60 via RTSS. Is it something related to Ryzen CPUs in general? Do you have tests focused exclusively in stuttering that we could compare?
AMD for me as its cheaper, yes single core not as good as Intel but if it was not for AMD we still be in 4 core 5% increase from Intel. so i bought an r5 1600, its amazing and overclock it to 3.8 and get over 1200 on cinebench r15 multi-core and 156 single core coming from fx8350 am so happy.
AMD for me because SOMEONE has to challenge intel and nvidia's market share. People out there 'only' buy intel and nvidia, even if it is the worst choice, so the inverse needs to also exist to keep the market healthy. It is sad it is necessary, but people are too ignorant to realize how unhealthy it is to have single brand loyalty.
The day intel no longer is the market dominator, I will support intel again. Someone has to do it.
6core was on roadmaps for the past two years from intel buddy. Amd did nothing
imBriz no worries
ive always bought AMD simply because upgrading to next gen is usually just dropping the proc in... upgrading to next gen for intel means buying a new mobo potentially RAM and going thru a wallet emptying headache each and every upgrade...
warmfreeze look how Intel just drop there line and now new motherboard...amd said am4 will last few generations of ryzen so good
The difference is so minimal...thank God at least one memory manufacturer made Ryzen optimized memory...if regular DDR4 3200 Memory with higher latencies was used, the difference would have been far more...Plus the 8700k should be pitted against the upcoming Ryzen refresh...I doubt Intel will have the single core performance crown for much longer.
Also judging how old is video is this was before AMD released all their upgrades and optimizations for the ryzen
Anybody who still saying on behalf of of Intel, See you guys in 2019! Upcoming CPU and GPU from AMD is way more than Intel will be. AMD took big time that is right. But they redesigned their existing architecture from scratch for new chips. Whether Intel is still on motion on their previous platform. And also, If you have kept proper information, as of the performance record Intel has made 45% gain this year but was only less than 10% each year before it. Reason is AMD pushed them to do it. So, lets see what happens further. As AMD already re-scratched and Intel still layering over which have limit.
I bought a 1700x for $260 (on sale) last week brand new, As where the Coffee lake was $380 (on sale)... With the money I was gona spend on the Coffee lake , I bought a high end motherboard for the 1700x.. Once the new ryzen chips come out i can just swap it out and still use the same high end motherboard. Ryzen , keep doing your thing.
On the one hand I'm happy AMD finally made a competitive product. On the other buying one means you buy AMD and that puts you in the Fanboy Club. Personally speaking I would pay more just not to be in that group
the mistake most people do is compare based on core number ,release date etc etc. What you should be doing is take that sweet AMD 1700X TR4 and compare it to some crap made by Intel with the exact same price (+-20$).After all when i go out to buy a new cpu i have a 350$ budget, what would 350bucks get me in cpu power AMD-wise vs Intel-wise.
Then you would see who would totally wreck who in FPS and all these crazy numbers and percentages contest benchmarks. No need to make a new video , 1700X would be Top by far and far
The resolution you used was on purpose so they would match a bit more... Hell with my Rx480 Asus strix flashed to 580, some games don't even run well on 1080P like Squad on some maps drop to around 30fps...
We all know the higher the resolution, the less Cpu will bottleneck and more Gpu bottleneck it will have...
Where im from the i7 8700 is almost double the proce of the 1700X...its stupid, AMD CPU's rule in price to performance always with ryzens...
Interesting that although the 8700K was hitting higher average FPS in the gaming benchmarks they were also utilizing more overall CPU% than the 1700X. I'm guessing that means unutilized cores on the 1700X. When devs begin to code for 8+ cores it will be interesting to come back to this benchmark. I'm sure though by that point Intel will have wide adoption of 8 core cpus
I found many ppl claiming Intel is better at gaming after watching reviews like this.
I like this vid, because it has FPS and cpu utilization together.
You can clearly see that FPS is proportional to cpu utilization, roughly, which means after optimization, they will be almost same. But Ryzen does have 2 additional cores, so I would recommend Ryzen Zen 2 in the future, personally.
You people need to calculate prior to stating. The higher the DX goes, more complex graphics, the gap is either 1/2 FPS or equal. Also in all games CPU usage on AMD platform was either lower or much lower. The biggest difference comes to GTA where the intel is on its 70% whereas the AMD..which means that even in single core the already existing games were not programmed to be optimised with zen arch
.now you take into consideration that DX 10 or 11 are already here for a long time DX 12 must be our criteria. Everything evolves to multiple core usage ..even upcoming games. not to mention that in true productivity intel may r.i.p. My only complaint on AMD is the lack of thunderbolt due to stupid copyright by intel.
intel intel intel heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Why are the GTA 5 results so embarrassingly low for AMD. 100 vs 150 fpm? WTF is going on. Is that an indication of how much less the single cores perform on AMD or is it some kind of an unfortunate architecture incompatibility in GTA 5 for Ryzen?
If I could use my old Z170 motherboard or even a Z270 then Intel would be the clear winner. If I buy the Z370 motherboard I have to totally rebuild my system. Which means I am better off first starting with a whole new case. I can not afford all that. Plus my time is limited.
Then when the Z470 motherboards come out with no backward compatibility I will be screwed again. I am still feeling the scalding burn of Sockets 1155 and 1156.
Unfair match, they aint The same league, Intel is far powerful gaming, AMD is for productivity (rendering etc) not that much of a gaming CPU, but still capable, In my country it aint cheap none of this CPUs
One thing to have in mind, AMD isn't just a CPU, its more than that, so the real thing between "Intel vs AMD" is NO GRAPHIC CARD, chip vs chip in many OS as you can, that's the real deal!
It is ironic how the frame rate is lower on many game comparisons, yet the cpu is taxed even less on AMD than Intel's core. Perhaps because the game is more optimized out of the box for Intel? Regardless, very happy with my 1600 purchase last fall...a great deal for price, performance.
I'm sorry, but games like Battlefiled 1 SHOULD be tested in the multiplayer enviroment. Nobody buy this game for the campaign.
I5 6600k @4.3GHz, 8GB ram @3000MHz, zotac 1070 ti... 100% usage and FPS are doing what they want: from 35 to 90. Unplayable
Good video, I just got 1600x and 1080ti for 1440p gaming. Frame difference isn’t too big a deal for me to cry about. Are these stock settings, and what temps for both?
Sry dude but next time go for low ress low quality in game and compare fps for comparing the CPu´s cause all this boys think now its just 5-10% increase of power.
But they dont know that the gtx 1080 ti is the limit in 4k in all this games. So please do it correct.
The main issue here is that u compare a high mhz CPU with an "more core less mhz" CPU
most of the games do not profit from more cores but from higher speeds
so from the beginning the winner was clear.
For Today normally CPUs are not the problem, if u get lag its normally your graphic card.
I prefer the AMD version, it has more cores and will be better supported in the Feature.
people today can buy a Ryzen 5 and in 2 years a risen 7 or (ryzen 2 gen). For Intel u always need a new socket.
All games cpu 50% and gpu performance 100% little bit fps low but I am so happy because I am using beast processor low price ryzen is the best ..... 👍👍👍👍
8700k at 349$ would be appealing, right now the 8700k is priced higher than the 1800x. 1700x is 299 every other day on amazon.
It's a fact that intel is going to be winning majority of the time in gaming performances. But I don't think it's worth getting intel unless their prices drop. Spending a couple of hundred for a CPU and another couple hundred on a motherboard for intel? I think AMD still has a better value for the money.
I not goint to pay 414us for a little More performance fuck Intel. I Buy 1700+ board with that 414us 270us+140us cuekkkkk
Tbh i think it's the devs fault not AMD's for the games that perform so much better on Intel. Like GTA5, really the difference is too big. Maybe cause of the new architecture.
Finally an honest comparison. Well done. I have an Intel system currently, but I must say with the Ryzen refresh coming out next month price to performance is very interesting on the AMD side. You still get great gaming fps and superior work and virtual rendering out of it. Not to be a broken record but thanks to AMD Intel had to pony up a 5ghz overclocker they had been sandbagging because they had no competiion. I am still angry at Intel for treating us the customer like stupid little minions and drip dropping advancements to us.
Ryzen 1600x support 1080ti as well but intel same price but 1080it performance not well.....
Good video, but I didn't know music could be this annoying.
I'd rather want to know if the EV2456 is good for casual gaming? lol
The AMD runs at a lower FPS and lower CPU%... That makes me think the bottle neck isn't the CPU, but rather the RAM or the main board. Am I wrong?
Great review and well deserved like. Big request: could you do the same test in 1080p? Previous your job unfortunately with the video card 1070. And at 1080p it rested in her. And when 720p was the low setting, which removes the burden from the CPU and we get a spherical horse in vacuum.Not going to teach you how to test processors. Just asking: please make these processors with the latest 1080 Ti in 1080p and on ULTRA SETTINGS. Many people will be grateful to you and I in the first place. )) What do you say?
Hello. Does the 8700K need watercooling out of the box? or is it only for OC projects. I have read a lot about it running hot. Regards Emil
2-6 fps extra. Ryzen is future proof so when games utilise all cores then gg Intel
Ryzen 7 1700x is currently available for 149 $ in newegg. Huge vfm compared to Intel i78700k ( 339$)
right because processors make any fucking differences these days playing a !!video!!! Game long as a thread is open to the PCI bus the GPU is doing all the work
Still rocking with my 1700x at 4,1ghz just only if amd can make ryzen oc up to 4,8ghz i'm willing to pay 30% more
Great comparison, the R7 1700x is basically on par with a 8700 (non k) AT GAMING applications...
AMD loses overall, but it's entirely due to the sheer clock advantage that Intel has. Give it a year for Ryzen 2 to pop up and we'll hopefully see that gap vanish altogether. :)
For some reason I always have been a fan of AMD. IDK why maybe the whole underdog thing? I fear AMD is done though, with the "working with Intel" deal and Raja Koduri moving to Intel, yeah I see Intel swallowing up AMD over the next 2 yrs. If that happens? I fear too Nvidia will start the count down to their doom too. With Intel using AMD tech to produce say a Intel GPU or even worse/better, depending what you want to happen, say an integrated CPU/GPU combo like never seen before, a chip that is more powerful than any GPU or CPU out today but in one chip? Ouch! Yeah buy your Intel stocks now I guess.
You must be smoking something. This has been AMDs best year in a long time. Intel launched coffee lake early because they are loosing market share to AMD. Why do I say early? because they had almost no CPUs to actually sell. It's called a paper launch.
AMD are doing fine. Intel had to add more cores to compete with AMD because they haven't had hardly any IPC gains in years, and you're still getting more for your money and a better upgrade path with AMD. I'm looking forward to the second iteration of Ryzen!
10-15 frames difference isn't really worth the extra 160 dollars
Just look at Cpu usage in some games..In crysis usage of intel cpu is sometimes 20% higher.Hmm maybe the optimization is just bad.
1700x był odpowiedzią na 7700k. Czemu porównujecie do nowszego procesora? Powinno być sprawiedliwie, czyli 8700k vs procesor amd, który wyjdzie niebawem.
Being so close to the 8700K in games is very impressive from the 1700X considering that it has a weak 3.8ghz all core boost
And you see how many 7700K people are complaining about temps now those high overclocks is burning up that toothpaste inside those cpus.
This test should be revisited now, after applying Spectre&Meltdown patches to see how it realistically impacted previous results.
Intel is always best and to high price and Amd is the cheap one and its good to but bit worse than intel
Very different clock speeds. Clock AMD to 4 and you would get better marks than Intel for less price.
once games will get optimization for ryzen this 1700x will beat the i7 8700k for sure
What monitors are used in the video for the side by side at 1440????????? @Nickolas
Not a big difference between these two CPUs. I think that ryzen 7 gen 2 will be much closer to i7 8700k!
If you want best, you need to pay a premium... say what you want about "price to performance", at the end of the day if you something with the power of the 1080ti, Nvidia is the only one offering that level of performance...
My i5 8600k (overclocked to 5.1 Ghz) completely shits on my friends 1700x (for gaming at least, that's our primary use), which he struggled to even get to 4Ghz... Which is apparently a common problem. If you have the money and want the best it's a no-brainer.
Its not fair, 8700k is the newest one and its price is fucking illegal, so this comparison doesnt make any fucking sense.
should've also used assasins creed origins, would've like to see performance on a game heavily optimized towards multi core processors