AMD 10-core Ryzen 2800X in response to Intel Core i9-9900K?

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Sep 10, 2018.

  1. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,772
    Likes Received:
    2,709
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    You are right. 6C/12T intel definitely does not suffer from 1s freezes. That must be something with OS.
    But as you go into not as many people benefit... there you have to face facts. And it is cost vs. benefit. That's: what you save on CPU/MB is going towards GPU. And with today prices vs. needs...
    Average gamer should not be getting 2700X, yet alone more expensive 8700K. They should aim at 2600X and invest saved money towards GPU.
    You see it at all graphs everywhere. While 8700K can get you higher fps, it is with high end GPU. It does not matter at all when you can barely afford even GTX 1060 moment you go for 8700K. So, it is better to get GTX 1070(Ti) and Ryzen 2600(X).
     
    Jagman and Maddness like this.
  2. JamesSneed

    JamesSneed Master Guru

    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    385
    GPU:
    GTX 1070
    Its simply windows runs smoother with a higher core count. The way the system interrupts are handled are a bit sloppy in Windows which is also why Linux CPU tests say geekbench turn out higher numbers. It's not an Intel or AMD issue.
     
  3. icedman

    icedman Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    110
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX 1080
    I dont get why everyone compares the ryzen 2700 with 8700k considering at least here where I live the 2700 is priced closer to the i5 8600k.
     
  4. Jayp

    Jayp Member Guru

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    59
    GPU:
    2080 Ti
    In the U.S. they are within like $40 of each other for the CPU.
     

  5. Jayp

    Jayp Member Guru

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    59
    GPU:
    2080 Ti
    I agree with your case for the most part but I would still argue it depends on what you are using the system for. If you can afford a 1070 Ti and want to high refresh game then I would pick the 8600K over the 2600x all day long. I have compared these two configurations extensively myself. If you are not a high refresh gamer then yes 2600x poses as good value. Another point to argue is some money can be saved on B chipset boards for AMD but AMD needs much better memory to even be a contented in gaming versus Intel. You can run 2933 Mhz memory or even slightly slower if you had to and still have a gaming advantage in many gaming cases. Picking the right CPU is definitely relative to ones use. Being on a budget or Ryzen offering more cores per dollar doesn't translate to an automatic value for everyone. I like my 2700x system quite a bit it definitely has it strengths. Overall daily use I find much smoother on my 8700K system and gaming at 120+ frame rates is much better on Intel right now. I use Adobe creative cloud products a lot too and Ryzen has certainly improved but I still like 8700K especially in Lightroom. Ryzen and 8700K are pretty close in Premier Pro. Anyways, I just hope people don't rush into a particular setup because others think one is good for all. I will end on my appreciation for Ryzen bringing AMD back into the CPU market and presenting strong competition.
     
  6. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,772
    Likes Received:
    2,709
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    From what I have seen. 8600K is reasonably better in games once OCed. And I think that should be main point in comparison. For those few who do overclock and only game, 8600K wins. That's if they have adequate GPU and monitor. If computer is pre-built from shop and there is no OC or not much, then it is questionable. As those CPUs would not be paired with high-end graphics in most cases.
    But then even in situation where 2600X is at stock and 8600K gets OC, there are few games where they are practically equal even with 1070Ti even at 1080p. Like Witcher 3.
    Then there is productivity. But as you wrote... 8700K/2700X.
     
  7. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,365
    Likes Received:
    389
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 Quadrobake
    Might be that the new CCX design is for 16cores in 7nm, and they have most of it disabled not to cannibalize TR?

    It would make sense in the long run, and it would not get chocked by the dual channel mobos. If they disable only three CPUs on each side and they keep the cache, it could be a monster.
     
  8. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,772
    Likes Received:
    2,709
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    That would look very good indeed. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I do not think AMD would do that in way you described... disabling specific 3 and 3 cores on specific places.
    Reason why AMD disables some cores is either defect or that they do not clock well enough.

    Disabling always same cores to achieve certain effect would actually cannibalize opportunity to use such chip as full 16C/(32T).
    So if chip would come from 16C/32T source, it would come with randomly disabled cores.
     
  9. Jayp

    Jayp Member Guru

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    59
    GPU:
    2080 Ti
    In my personal testing with the 8600K I have and the 2700x with 2 cores disabled the 8600K is better even at stock clocks. In some situations when insisting on playing at ultra settings the 1070 Ti simply won't get high enough frames to cause a difference in performance as result of the CPU. The difference is when you change settings in favor of high frame rates to match a high refresh monitor. I think this is where people get it mixed up and where the mainstream tests fail is that everything is always tested on ultra. Yes there is a slight reduction in CPU draw calls when visual settings, outside of resolution, are decreased but the increase in frame rate from GPU working less on complex visuals reveals more of a performance gap. Memory is a big determining factor for Ryzen as well. a 2600x can game much closer to an 8600K when it is using fast B-die memory with tweaked sub timings. Top memory performance on Ryzen also varies CPU to CPU as the IMC determines much of the memory overclocking performance and it lives on the CPU for those that don't know.

    Talking about prebuilt systems and value you could easily get an 8600 (non K) and a B360 motherboard with some DDR4 2933Mhz/3000Mhz and have a great value gaming system. A 2600/2600x with a B350/B450 motherboard and DDR4 2933 Mhz memory will not be as good in as many games. Additionally, I think that most consumers can handle configuring a 5Ghz overclock on an 8600K versus trying to fully tweak the memory on Ryzen for full performance and blowing the money on some 3200 Mhz+ B die. The fact remains that there are plenty of games that still don't use more than about 6 cores and much of those are popular games running on the Unreal engine.

    Summary - High refresh gamers will see better results overall with 8600K versus anything Ryzen. Especially when saving money on the memory end of the purchase. If your gaming goal is 75 Hz or less then Ryzen at any speed will be perfectly fine. If you plan to use Vega 56 or 1070 Ti level card with 120-144hz monitor then Intel is a better choice. This is discussing one use case high refresh gaming. Moving forward though I think we will see a great trend in Ryzen gaming performance. I have benchmarked and gamed my self silly on both Ryzen and Coffee lake 6 cores and Intel simply games better.

    Wondering off topic - When I switched from my 6700K to Ryzen 1700 (both overclocked) I was extremely disappointed in my gaming performance and noticed immediately.

    I am starting to see more 16 thread support in games which is nice. BFV and COD blackout both supported 16 threads nicely which had 2700X and 3400 Mhz memory running nice. We might even see some "fine wine" action in the future for CPUs like the 1700 in the years to come.
     

Share This Page