AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel 9th Gen Core: Which CPU Deserves Your Money?

[kcarbotte]

AMD's second generation Ryzen processors offered better value than Intel's 8000-series Core processors, but Intel's 9000-series chips are ready to take the crown back from AMD.

AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel 9th Gen Core: Which CPU Deserves Your Money? : Read more

 

[dave.jeffers]

Why not just get a Ryzen 2700X, and use the $200-300 that you will save NOT buying a 9900k, and then you can maybe afford that 4k monitor, plus higher-end GPU, and then get to do 4k gaming!

 

[drinkingcola86]

Just a heads up but your formatting in the chart is showing dates for 16-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug 6-Jun 16-Aug 12-Jun instead of the cores/threads.

 

[shabbo]

Need to correct the pricing in this article. i9 9900K is around $600 because of poor yield. Ryzen 2700X is $309 or less. Save the $290 and buy a better GPU or SSD and instantly get way more performance. Also AMD has a much better upgrade path come 2019.

 

[shabbo]

actually you'll save about $400 with 2700X because you need a $100 water cooler for Intel. Makes no sense, may as well go with a Threadripper at that point and upgrade to Zen2 next year.

 

[abryant]

[quotemsg=21450455,0,193170]Just a heads up but your formatting in the chart is showing dates for 16-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug 16-Aug 6-Jun 16-Aug 12-Jun instead of the cores/threads.[/quotemsg]

Thanks for catching that! It has been fixed. - AB

 

[John Nemesh]

Yeah, this is almost as bad as the "just buy it" Nvidia article. AMD's 2700x can handle any game you throw at it, and the differences between it and the 9900k aren't enough to justify the $400 difference in cost! Not even at 1080p. And while not everyone is gaming at 4k quite yet, plenty are gaming at 1440p (as am I), and the differences between the 2700x and 9900k are even more minuscule at that resolution. tl;dr Only suckers would buy intel right now.

 

[AlistairAB]

I just built a BF 5 gaming rig for my friend: used a 6 core Ryzen 2600 that cost $160 USD plus tax. I think these kind of articles, the "implications" don't match up with reality. At 4.1ghz, it matches Intel at 1440p with every single game. Pricing for the 9600k is almost double ($290 USD where I am), and is just a 8600k rebrand. Saved so much money we bought a used 1080 ti for $550 and he is all set. Think hard about your own needs, I think statistics can be misleading. You usually don't actually see any higher fps with Intel in practice with the games (and settings) you play. (I use an 8086k, but I don't care about the money, and would never recommend Intel to anyone with a budget, as you are better off taking your savings and buying a better GPU).

 

[silverblue]

Alternatively, just buy a non-X Ryzen, and overclock it. There you go - a possible tie in the Overclocking department, and a clear win in Value (especially when you factor in motherboard prices).

As for features... I literally cannot think of what the 9th generation Core architecture has in terms of additional features over Ryzen 2. I'm not sure I can class IPC as a "feature", and ignoring the lack of HT on all but the i9, the i5 doesn't even have an unlocked multiplier. If I was to be pedantic, I could say that Ryzen has better security features.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[s1mon7]

I'm not a fan of such comparisons since they don't seem to capture any actual needs. If you need the most future-proof processor for general computing and probably even gaming for the money, the Ryzens still are the better buy in all price tiers due to offering significantly more cores at speeds that are close to Intel's.

Intel makes sense if you care about the absolute highest frame rates, if you use a >120hz refresh rate monitor and don't plan on sacrificing refresh rate to go up to 4K anytime soon. They are also better at single-threaded workloads, but come with significantly fewer cores/threads in all price tiers. All valid points, completely not captured by this text's point score, which seems detached from the reality.

You can't list "productivity performance" as a tie if they specialize in completely different things.
Value can't be a tie if you're clearly getting better value with AMD, despite Intel pushing out more frames in games even with their quad cores. I mean, it's just impossible to quantify such buying decision or you end up with nonsense. Those are simply very different products for very different buyers who will be able to place their clear "X" marks on such charts, but doing such vague chart for a general buyer makes no sense, as they don't mean anything.

 

[japps2]

you have the i7-9700k listed as a 8/16 core thread...not a 8/8

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=21450459,0,616405]Need to correct the pricing in this article. i9 9900K is around $600 because of poor yield. Ryzen 2700X is $309 or less. Save the $290 and buy a better GPU or SSD and instantly get way more performance. Also AMD has a much better upgrade path come 2019.[/quotemsg]

They do need to correct the article but not what you said. The 9900K is not $600 because of poor yield. Its because they don't have the capacity to manufacture all their products on 14nm.

The correction though is the boost.

1. Precision Frequency Boost is an AMD specific name. Change it to just Boost Frequency.

2. Add in the AMD boost levels. The 2700X does not just boost to 4.3GHz it boosts just the same way depending on thread load.

 

[redgarl]

Unboxed Hardware was saying you can get a 2700x and a 1080 TI for the same price as 9900k and a 1070 GTX...

What do you think is going to be better for the money... a 2700x with a TI or a 9900k with a 1070 GTX...

There is no contest, AMD is the best value for the money.

 

[redgarl]

How about it Toms, FOR THE SAME BUDGET... build a 2700x system and a 9900k system and compare them... I can tell you the AMD build will win off the bat.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

Intel's prices need to be $199(9600k), $299(9700k), and $399(9900k) to recommend their purchase over the AMD alternatives.

It is just impossible to justify the pricing of these Intel CPUs. While they do hold a performance edge, it is very small while the price gap is significant. Regardless of your use case, the Ryzen 2xxx CPUs can manage any task a CPU requires for substantially less money. For the 9900k (+ cooler), it gives you a 10% performance boost for about 100% more cost over the 2700x

 

[redgarl]

Patrick, IS THAT SATIRE?


By the way, Value, is clearly a win for AMD... Intel has the worst value ever with the 9th gen. Only a blind fool would say the contrary.

Also, in your test, you are missing THERMAL and POWER... which AMD wins easily.

This comparison is trash.

 

[haknukman9]

9900k is $580 and $90 for cooler that $670 not $500. stop being bias

 

[haknukman9]

if you talk like that then - the wraith prism 2700x is $220. microcenter $279.

 

[redgarl]

Let's do this again... the right way...

https://imgur.com/a/MG8OkDr

Mode edit: Was that necessary? Let's cool the ad hominem attacks

 

[haknukman9]

my son computer 1600 gtx 1060 play game and srteam at the same time no problem at the viewer end. I do not see the need for 9900k.

mod edit: please tone it, just a little. Thanks.

 

[Karadjgne]

I still don't get why ppl are fascinated by max fps. Minimum fps is everything, and highly dependent on the gpu. Wouldn't make a single bit of difference in reality if the 9900k can get a game to 500fps, and the Ryzen2 was only pushing 300fps. The best you'll see is 165. With either cpu capable of exceeding that, you'll be beyond monitor refresh limits. So the question to all those non benchmark freaks, is it worth an extra $400+ to get specs on paper saying one cpu is better, when there's no visible difference.

 

[JoeNM84]

Thought Ryzen 2 was AMD's next round of CPU's, AKA Zen 2. Headline fooled me into thinking they had some info on them.

 

[buzznut47]

The Ryzen 5 2600 is $150-160, nowhere near the MSRP, meanwhile the 2600X is $80 more. If you look at the CPU Hierarchy, you can see in games it out performs many processors that are much more expensive. I think thats the real value here, you're getting 6 cores and 12 threads for $150. Plus competitive gaming at a budget price, and a more budget friendly platform.

In my book (pocketbook), that = WIN

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=21450777,0,1011591]I still don't get why ppl are fascinated by max fps. Minimum fps is everything, and highly dependent on the gpu. Wouldn't make a single bit of difference in reality if the 9900k can get a game to 500fps, and the Ryzen2 was only pushing 300fps. The best you'll see is 165. With either cpu capable of exceeding that, you'll be beyond monitor refresh limits. So the question to all those non benchmark freaks, is it worth an extra $400+ to get specs on paper saying one cpu is better, when there's no visible difference. [/quotemsg]

Not all CPUs are equal in that aspect either though.

The one benefit to a CPU today that can push more is longevity. Look at most benchmarks from a few years ago and only some CPUs are still good enough for recommended gaming. BF5 shows this. In Recommended specs (minus DXR of course) it recommends an i7 4790 or Ryzen 3 1300X. The Intel CPU is 4 years old vs the Ryzen which is 1. It goes to show that a good performing CPU now will be a capable CPU in the future.

[quotemsg=21450798,0,911095]Thought Ryzen 2 was AMD's next round of CPU's, AKA Zen 2. Headline fooled me into thinking they had some info on them.[/quotemsg]

The 2000 series is Zen+. Pretty much like a new stepping with better clocks and power numbers normally.

 

[kidfusion3000]

how do you give a value award to both sides? that's BS. one has better value than the other. period. also your core and thread counts. the only 9000 series intel chip with hyperthreading is the 9900, 9700 does not. and the 2600x is 6/12 not 8/16.