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

[redgarl]

Principled Technologies, The Return! (Tomshardware Edition)

 

[daglesj]

For me it's simply a case of the AMD stuff looks far more interesting and better value right now. Intel looks pretty moribund and superfluous, price wise.

When I built my workstation rig in 2016 I went Intel 5820K because well...no way was I going for a FX8350 or whatever.

Now in 2018...AMD has some really juicy choices in that arena now. I'd go AMD.

We'll see what's going on in 2021 when I might think of upgrading. Amazing to think at one time around 2003 to 2006 I was upgrading my CPU every 6 months almost. Now its 5-6 years!

 

[Olle P]

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

That's also my reflection.

Maximum absolute performance in a consumer CPU is a win for Intel Core i9-9900K, but it comes at a big cost in purchase price and power consumption.
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X does marginally less at a much lower power level and cost, and do thus provide a much better value.

The Core i5 with its six thread limitation is also less suited to tackle future work loads that only seem to favor more threads. See for example Battlefield V recommendations: Core i5-6600K is the minimum, recommended is Core i7-4770K which runs at exactly the same clock speeds as the 6600K.

Best value in terms of overall performance to price is currently hands down a Ryzen 5 2600 paired with a B450 motherboard.

 

[AeroWB]

It's sad that this article is using so little game benchmarks and then one of them is probably the most favorable game for Intel CPU's, GTA V should be disqualified for such an article as it does not show a good real life comaprison for games in general. Look at it, the fastest stock Ryzen is outperformed by the cheapest core i5. Yes Intel is on average better in gaming than AMD but the difference is almost never so black and white as is shown here. So Kevin what bonus did Intel give you to use such a lousy choice of benchamarks?

 

[Onus]

Without addressing this specific article, in our (Moderators') experience, no matter which way an article seems to be (or may actually be) biased, someone is going to accuse the writer, or the site in general, of a general bias, or even being some kind of shill. This is not at all useful. If half the vendors were paying half of us half the money some people seem to think, we'd all be able to retire rich. I've never known a "rich" tech writer, and the Moderators are unpaid volunteers who like tech and helping people get better at it.
Please consider each article for the data it presents. Add what you find valuable to your "personal index" of information, and discard the rest. Insults aren't necessary, and accusations of outright dishonesty tend to enrage (some more than others; some have a lot more pull than Moderators). Thanks.

As to the article, I recall what another writer said about graphics cards a few years ago, "There are no longer any bad graphics cards, only bad prices." Imho, whatever you are doing, Intel and AMD both make CPUs that can do that. Whichever you choose, you're not likely to fall flat on your face. Pay more than you had to, yes; make sacrifices in some other part of the build, maybe; end up with a dud? Highly unlikely. Any really bad combinations will be called out if you start a build thread in the forums to ask your questions.

 

[stdragon]

The Ryzen 7 2700x now lists for $310.

IMHO, AMD's website sucks. The layout and navigation sucks when looking for product info. That's not a slam insomuch as pleading with AMD to redesign it.

 

[Math Geek]

lol that's how i feel about amazon's site. i can rarely find anything unless i know EXACTLY what i am looking for. simply browsing and trying to filter results is pretty much impossible from what i have seen.

but darn if the "you may also like" isn't usually spot on!!

 

[shrapnel_indie]

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.

Agreed. By the time monitors can handle 300-500FPS rates, these CPUs will be considered retro at best. Obsolescence is guaranteed by then.

 

[hannibal]

I would like to see test about what you get for your money. What is the best gaming rig that you can get by using $1000, $1500, $2000 or $2500.
What combination gives you best bang for the buck!

 

[jimmysmitty]

@jimmysmitty
BF5 also lists the fx 8350 too and in BF1 the 8350 was second only to the 4770k/4790k even beating the 4690k by a good amount , so old games aren't really as relevant as they are. You could take something like skyrim or fallout and be totally off the mark since both are still popular and neither one does worth a damn on any amd cpu pre-ryzen, but will play just fine on an old 2nd Gen pentium. So games will vary the fps, some more than others, some less, but in general the Intels and Ryzens are close enough in clock speeds and IPC that there's not enough difference to make margins like there was before when fx/Haswell were your choices.

It lists it as the minimum CPU not recommended. Thats the difference.

My only point is that a CPU that today gets better performance will last longer. No it wont be as big of a gap as it was with Haswell and the FX series but it will still apply to either side. I would say the exact same thing of AMD if Ryzen was a better gaming CPU than Intels lineup.

 

[Onus]

It made a much bigger difference when a lot of systems were right at the margin of [good] playability for given games. Now, 100 vs. 200 FPS is a much bigger difference on a benchmark, but really shouldn't matter on enjoyment of the game; it's not like 20fps vs. 40fps used to be.

 

[stdragon]

I would like to see test about what you get for your money. What is the best gaming rig that you can get by using $1000, $1500, $2000 or $2500.
What combination gives you best bang for the buck!

That answer can get as long and deep as you want. But basically, there's a term you should remember - "Diminishing Returns". Basically, at a certain point, the same additional dollar you keep spending, the less of a return in performance you get. Meaning, the dollar to performance ratio isn't liner as it scales out.

 

[johnrob]

I'm sorry intel and nvidia, I simply can't afford to buy that gaming performance that you are offering.

Didn't expect to be priced out of the high end gaming market with a budget of $2000 but here we are.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

I would like to see test about what you get for your money. What is the best gaming rig that you can get by using $1000, $1500, $2000 or $2500.
What combination gives you best bang for the buck!

I don't remember if your name popped up in relation to this or not, but...

Best PC Builds 2018 Competition

No real testing, at least yet, but it was an exercise in what you can get for your money.

 

[San Pedro]

I went and revived my dormant account just to comment on this article.

Really, I'm just echoing many others.

There was a lot of talk about value and gaming, but the article did not seem to put the together in any way that made common sense, like buying a $200 CPU instead of a $500-600 CPU with higher related costs, so that you can buy a better graphics card. I think that is pretty basic when talking about gaming and value.

Also, the article seemed to focus on top end CPUs, while mostly ignoring more affordable options, like not even talking about the Ryzen 5 2600 as a great value chip, or even lower like Ryzen 3 chips.

Honestly, I am thinking about buying a new gaming desktop, but I don't even think the Haswell platform is holding me back in games as to make the difference between playable and not. i could probably just get a much better graphics card and be good for another couple years, or even a $100 used i7 4770...

 

[SkyBill40]

@jimmysmitty
BF5 also lists the fx 8350 too and in BF1 the 8350 was second only to the 4770k/4790k even beating the 4690k by a good amount , so old games aren't really as relevant as they are. You could take something like skyrim or fallout and be totally off the mark since both are still popular and neither one does worth a damn on any amd cpu pre-ryzen, but will play just fine on an old 2nd Gen pentium. So games will vary the fps, some more than others, some less, but in general the Intels and Ryzens are close enough in clock speeds and IPC that there's not enough difference to make margins like there was before when fx/Haswell were your choices.

It lists it as the minimum CPU not recommended. Thats the difference.

My only point is that a CPU that today gets better performance will last longer. No it wont be as big of a gap as it was with Haswell and the FX series but it will still apply to either side. I would say the exact same thing of AMD if Ryzen was a better gaming CPU than Intels lineup.

Of course the 8350 isn't going to be listed as anything but the minimum. Who would think anything outside of that? CPUs today, being far more powerful and multi threaded will, as you said, give you even longer life in the gaming and productivity spaces than some of the older stuff that at one time was the top of the heap. It's still pretty telling at how well some things have retained performance over time though, isn't it? My FX8350 is going on 7 years old now and to see that it is still a viable choice (though now as a minimum recommendation) is pretty impressive and especially seeing that the architecture was seen by many as a failure even though that's simply not the case. Updates to coding have allowed things to utilize all available cores and some other updates along the way definitely helped it (and Intel CPUs, too). Though it's now woefully long in the tooth for gaming, it's still more than adequate for general tasks. I have absolutely no regrets in my choice to build it and when the time comes to upgrade (which for me will be next year), I'll buy AMD once again without hesitation.

 

[quilciri]

Error in the article? Afaik, Intel does not have an IPC advantage, the Ryzen have better IPC. Intel has a frequency advantage.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/

 

[jimmysmitty]

Error in the article? Afaik, Intel does not have an IPC advantage, the Ryzen have better IPC. Intel has a frequency advantage.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/

Um yes it does. The only way to truly test IPC is with a single core at the same clock. Otherwise applications that can take advantage of more cores will benefit.

Only the CineBench R15 did this and the i5 and i7 have a score of 174 vs Ryzens 168. Small but it does exist.

 

[kiniku]

How many computer owners read articles such as these, appreciate the intricate details of this article, comb through and compare its benchmarks, and game at 1080P?

 

[mohamed.soliman.cv]

fake price I9-9900K in Poland cost 900$ the Ryzen 2700X 329$ so sure AMD ryzen most win

 

[araczynski]

not really sure why you'd include the 8700k@4.9 but leave out the 9700k@4.9, unless you're just trying to lead people to believe that the 9700k just sucks since its always below the 8700k@4.9...

...or perhaps make it look like the 2700X is a direct competitor to the 9900k, instead of the 9700k, which is cheaper, and the smaller $delta of the 9700k/2700X would make for less fanboy noize to preach about...

 

[Karadjgne]

@kiniku
More than you'd think actually, me being 1 of them still gaming on an i7-3770K and gtx970 on 1080p. There's many ppl who get Christmas or birthday or graduation or tax returns or win the lottery or who can convince parents on the necessity of an upgrade, and many don't want last years models. Considering the disparity in performance between the i9's/Ryzen2's and a i7-7700k, ppl want what's good, and what's going to last. Articles such as this go a long way to justify the expense of new, especially when performance per $ is so clearly and firmly in AMD's basket.

 

[jimmysmitty]

How many computer owners read articles such as these, appreciate the intricate details of this article, comb through and compare its benchmarks, and game at 1080P?

A lot still game at 1080P however 1080P is still the best to see a CPU performance. Once you move beyond that you start to hit a GPU bottleneck.

fake price I9-9900K in Poland cost 900$ the Ryzen 2700X 329$ so sure AMD ryzen most win

Its not a fake price. MSRP is MSRP. What retailers set pricing at is not MSRP but price gouging.

 

[SkyBill40]

not really sure why you'd include the 8700k@4.9 but leave out the 9700k@4.9, unless you're just trying to lead people to believe that the 9700k just sucks since its always below the 8700k@4.9...

...or perhaps make it look like the 2700X is a direct competitor to the 9900k, instead of the 9700k, which is cheaper, and the smaller $delta of the 9700k/2700X would make for less fanboy noize to preach about...

They're comparing apples to apples in terms of each manufacturer's top offering and not doing so with consideration to the cores and threads or price as the basis for comparison. Personally speaking, I'd rather they keep it that way seeing that it just goes to show that AMD isn't as far off as some people might believe when it comes to performance and way ahead when general value per dollar are brought into it.

AMD doesn't have an equivalent CPU to the 9700k because, well, they'd rather offer more cores and threads for less rather than having a 1:1 CPU. Additionally, they're not price gouge their customers by taking away HT/SMT and forcing those who want that tech to move up to their top offering which has climbed further up market. This is exactly what Intel has done with the 9900k and it's not likely to pay off given all that'll be required to make it run as designed.

 

[Redneck5439]

I would really love to agree with this article, and would really love to say that the author wasn't Intel biased, but I just can't. Many others have already jumped all over many things in this article, but let me just highlight a few.

#1 Intel holds the gaming crown and outdoes the Ryzen 7 2700X in productivity when compared to the i9 9900K. That is true, the 9900K despite being on a very old process clocks much higher and has core parity and a very slight IPC advantage. However it is also literally twice the money and comes without a heat sink. Its also worth noting that outside of the Adobe world the 2700X is so close in performance in productivity that Intel's "edge" is practically non existent.

#2 Intel doesn't deserve a check under the value area to give them a 5 - 4 "win" over AMD in the conclusion of this article, that is just total bias and bull crap. When comparing the Ryzen 5 2600x to the i5 9600K the actual cost (all prices I'm about to list are from Newegg to keep it fair for everyone) is $219.99 (2600X) vs 279.99 (9600k). That alone is a $60 difference, but it gets even worse for Intel for "value" when you compare the Ryzen 5 2600 $159.99 vs the 9600K at $279.99. a whopping $120 dollar difference. The Ryzen 5 2600 can easily be overclocked to match the performance of the 2600X and is a very good gamer, in fact it is the #1 pick by virtually every other hardware site going as the best value gaming processor available, too bad the author doesn't seem to know it exists. Factoring in the true value numbers takes that little check mark away form Intel in the real final chart and puts Intel and AMD at a very fair 4 - 4 break even score.

In closing, yes the "9th gen" if you can call another 14nm refresh a generation again.... is slightly better IPC and can clock ~ 800Mhz faster than Ryzen 2nd gen on average. They enjoy a slight advantage in gaming and overall in productivity are the equal of AMD Ryzen 2nd gen. However lets look at actual, real price breakdowns and keep in mind with Ryzen the non "X" models are very easily overclocked to the same 4.2Ghz average that the "X" versions can obtain. The Ryzen "X" versions are largely for people who don't intend to overclock and want to utilize the full auto scaling Ryzen does very well. Also keep in mind that the Ryzen 7 2700X dominates the i9 9700K in productivity.

Ryzen 7 2700X... $309.99--------------------------------Intel i9 9900K... $601.99
Ryzen 7 2700 ... $269.99--------------------------------Intel i9 9700 ... $385.00 (Amazon)

Ryzen 5 2600X... $219.99--------------------------------Intel i5 9600K... $279.99
Ryzen 5 2600 ... $159.99

***Also keep in mind that every Ryzen processor comes with a cooler and none of the listed Intel processors come with a cooler which in the case of the 9900K and 9700K will add on at least $100 to your Intel build***

I think anyone looking at the prices of these processors and small level of performance difference can see what the better buy is right now. Intel right now is in major "scare mode". We saw it when AMD was showcasing their Threadripper 2nd gen and Intel had to lie about a 28 core 56 thread "monster" at 5Ghz across all cores. Only to find out that their real product is far from the "monster" and could only get to 5Ghz on a golden chip with an industrial chiller (and was probably just stable enough to run Cinebench and not much else). Then they hired and paid for the most biased benchmarks in recent history to launch their "9th gen Core" processors. In those benchmarks the Ryzen 7 2700X was gimped by not setting the RAM to approved specs and by turning off half the cores of the Ryzen 7 2700X. They also ran the Ryzen 7 2700X on its stock Prism cooler while giving the 9900K a Noctua premium cooler. They said that was "fair because Intel doesn't come with a stock cooler and they wanted to give the out of the box experience" Seriously... that's what they said... To be fair then really the benchmark should have been run with the 9900K having no cooler as that is "out of the box". Intel is trying every underhanded trick in their extensive playbook right now, but look at the actual performance delta compared to the price delta and it becomes clear what the best processors on the market are right now.