AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel Coffee Lake: What's the Best CPU Platform?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AgentLozen

Distinguished
May 2, 2011
517
3
19,015
22


Be careful or you might end up playing that game indefinitely.
What do you want from 7nm Thread Ripper that today's Ryzen 2000 doesn't offer? You can't be involved in any CPU intensive tasks if you're still using 10 year old hardware. Anything you buy today would be a tremendous upgrade.
 

CerianK

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
128
6
18,695
2
Possibly confusing choice of words in Gaming result: "... AMD's multitasking might is better."
Could be interpreted as '... multitasking might be better' or '... multitasking is stronger/mightier'.
 

JonDol

Reputable
Nov 30, 2015
141
4
4,685
0
I tend to buy/play modern games i.e. able to take advantage of all the cores. Playing games that use only one core feels like a trip in the past. Even more frustrating is watching YouTube/Twitch channels of pro players streaming at 720p because they can't do better with their Intel platforms...

@Agentlozen: What the TR 7nm has above the Ryzen 2x series is the more PCIe lanes but the actual TR also has that.
 

Specter0420

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2010
74
1
18,635
0
I disagree AgentLozen,
I use the i7-920 OCed to 3.6 Ghz today and do all kinds of CPU intensive tasks. I game heavily, even VR with the Oculus Rift, fly flight simulators, edit videos, and zip/unzip large packages. CPU advancement slowed WAY down starting about 10 years ago. In the old days, the 10 years newer CPU would be about 512X faster than the old one. These days it is only 3-4 times faster, it is sad.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Also of note, Between AMD and Intel, with the AVERAGE user (not really so much for enthusiasts though) will not even be sensitive enough to determine there is a difference between the platforms... Surfing the web, in general, and your basic office type apps, don't require a lot of power. Multi-core systems from 10-15 years ago, if well maintained, would be enough power for them. Please note however, that I'm not saying that there may not be issues, or that there wouldn't be potential and real security problems. These even exist for the bleeding edge production (if you can call any of them bleeding edge) CPUs of today.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished


While I upvoted you, for the waiting game trap, 10 year old hardware, still has some teeth. Its less than it used to be, but some intensive tasks are still not much of an issue. It just depends on exactly what is involved in the intensive task(s) put to it and your expectations.
 
IMO the decision between Ryzen and Intel completely depends on whether you want integrated graphics or not. Remember most applications just require integrated graphics and doesn't require a discrete card. Also if the discrete GPU dies for any reason you would be left without a functional PC for quite a time if it doesn't have integrated graphics.
 

ghettogamer

Prominent
Mar 3, 2017
92
0
660
10
if your on a budget ( not enough money for dedicated GPU) and you think Intel hd graphics wont cut it its easy! go with the AMD APU w/ Vega graphics. mid range is so damn close its a matter of personal preference,high end non fanboy enthusiasts may lean towards Intel because its simply the fastest as of right now
 

Ilya__

Reputable
Jan 7, 2016
118
1
4,710
9
While I appreciate that Intel finally bumped up its commoner offerings to 6-cores (thanks to AMD for pressuring them), the single-core improvements have been minimal. I will wait for DDR5 systems before I consider changing my 6700k.
 

soccerdude84

Reputable
Apr 13, 2014
18
0
4,510
0
"stock coolers" is a weak category. If you're overclocking it doesn't matter, you should be buying an aftermarket cooler regardless. If you're not overclocking it still doesn't matter, you won't need a good cooler to run at stock settings.
 

stdragon

Commendable
Apr 5, 2018
1,551
4
1,660
196
Yeeeeaaaahhh.....let's bench the comparison again AFTER the new Spectre exploits have been patched within the next month or so. Rumors of up to 8% hit in integer performance is to be expected on Intel CPUs
 

ubercake

Splendid
Moderator
If you live near a Micro Center, the 8700K is only $299. The 2700X was still $329 at the time I bought the 8700k (now down to $319).
I've had Intel builds for many years. I wanted to change, but when it came down to it, I went with the brand I've learned to trust over the years. I am satisfied with the 8700k on the Asus Prime Z370-A. It has everything I need. Compared to my last motherboard (Asus P9X79 Pro) which also had great features, I have been especially impressed with the new motherboard's sound and built-in headphone amp.
 
May 13, 2018
2
0
10
0
If you want to overclock an AMD processor, you need to replace the entire cooling unit. Thus it actually, in the end, costs more than the Intel rig as is. ...and Intel upgrades its chipsets more often an so it has better compatibility with newer graphics systems and such and somehow this greater compatibility and computing power is a loss? You are treating Intel like Hillary Clinton was treated in the last election... Intel's processor and stock cooling unit has faster game speeds and better chipsets... Yet somehow Ryzen wins because it is 30 bucks cheaper? Tripe... Intel's bios upgrades are more frequent also, this means more reliability if you own a business; how much is that peace of mind worth?
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
0
19,780
0
Got both an 2700x and an 7700k rig, both perform well and does their job just fine. Have gamed on both with my UW monitor (3440x1440 100hz gsync) paired with an 1080ti and the difference in gaming at that res/refresh and gpu isn't noticeable at all, what is noticeable is the performance in properly threaded apps but let's not forget that the 7700k is quad core and the 8700k is an hexa core so it would close the gap in that area.

Both systems are stable, both are easy to tweak etc (was actually amazed how mature the ryzen platform have already became considering its time on the market).

What it boiled down to in this latest upgrade for not choosing the 8700k was that i liked to try something else and also that i think intel have become way to lazy with it's lack of competition, very little to zero real innovation (heck IPC have barely improved, most gains have been from clock). They need a kick in the nuts to wake up and be forced to innovate, without amd stirring it all up we would likely still have read about that upcoming DT cannon lake being a quad cpu....

Competition is good for us who buys CPU's, it forces innovation and i for one don't want the stagnation back.
 

george_osborne

Prominent
Dec 25, 2017
5
0
510
0
A thought on threading from a retired software engineer about hyper-threading only helps in certain scenarios. Your application has to be written and compiled to take advantage of this feature in some form. First, you have to code in such a way as to actually use threads but, just being threaded, by itself, does not improve performance. The new thread(s) has/have to be written so as to not block the initiating thread, if possible. For single threaded applications, there a compile/build option that allows what is called 'pipelining' that allows instructions in a single thread to execute out of sequence. That option is (usually) not selected as a default and, if you choose to avail yourself of the feature, be aware that it sometimes may cause random execution failures that are hard to pinpoint. It all depends on the software you are using.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS