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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Intel does have the higher clocks but they need to fix the TIM and the Vulnerabilities before rolling out a new series of chips. Why should I spend any cash on new cpu's that need to be de-lidded to stay cool or have the back door wide open...
 
I'd call gaming performance between the two a draw. I mean lets get real here folks, can you honestly, really feel or see a difference between the one at say 110 fps and the other at 105 fps? No, you can't. I'll say this for the millionth time. Getting 5-10 frames more on an Intel (while youre already way and above 100fps) wont make you run faster. Won't make you snipe faster. Won't make your frame rate any more smoother than it already is. You won's see or feel anything.
Also, I've seen many cases where Ryzen wins with stronger lowest frame results.
And finally, you get a proper soldered manufactured product that doesn't need delidding - thus risking voiding warranties. AMD has alot of small wins like this under its belt. It's the little things like this that matters, or well, that I appreciate.
 
Both options are compelling.
Unless you own 120hz monitor, or beyond, Intel's offering is the only option.

Completely unrelated, my1600 refuse to go 3,9 with h80 for the life of me.
That 4ghz+ the 2000 series has, made me cry inside a little.
 


Some would argue that the h80 is too small a cooler. If you got something larger, you could see if it helps.
 
I believe the author has erred in the assessment of Value. He has neglected the fact that Intel CPUs have built in graphics capabilities. Of course, if you are a gamer, you would need to purchase a discrete graphics card no matter which CPU you chose. But for those of us who do not game, I believe GPU feature alone would be worth at least $100 in today's GPU market. Second, I feel the author places too much emphasis on the AMD cooling fan. The Intel fan I have has been adequately cooling my CPU for the past 8-years; in my previous computer, an Intel fan cooled the CPU for over 9-years with no problems. As for the lights on the fan, my computer has a closed case and sits under my desk. Lights, or any other cosmetics, are of no value - to me.

Of course this is just from my perspective. I am neither a gamer nor have I needed to overclock - yet. I use my computer for Photoshop, Lightroom, Quicken, household chores, and web browsing.
 


True. But there's only so much die space. In order to get a Ryzen 2 with the APU (built-in graphics), I'm sure they'll have to sacrifice a few cores and cache to make room for it.
 


8 cores are coming soon but I still don't get where people think AMDs Ryzen had anything to do with the 6 cores. You can find the 6 core mentioned in Intels roadmaps well before we knew what Ryzens performance was. We could assume Intel had some idea as to the performance but that I doubt.

I don't see the stock cooler as important when choosing a system. The majority of people here will pick a higher end CPU and will overclock, so they will go with a K series CPU from Intel/Ryzen equivalent, and the majority of people whom overclock will not use a stock cooler.

I also don't think this was a in depth enough platform comparison. Intel tends to push newer technologies and offers more to their "platform" faster than AMD does which is one benefit it might have if you like newer tech faster.

That said there is more than just the few listed here that makes a platform work for a person.



I would honestly be interested. One thing Intel has always had over AMD, or others, is their storage controller is normally much stronger and results in better top end speeds for drives. I would be interested to see if AMD has gotten any better at theirs.
 
its hilarious reading all these comments from gamers running on 10-20 year old hardware still waiting for something better to come along when even the lowest end I3's and ryzen 3 CPU's put their PC's to shame. apparently they never got the memo that something new always comes along weeks or even days after buying new hardware
 


I am a big backer of the idea of "Buy what you need when you need it, something better is always coming next year anyway." So get what you need when you need it.
 
Got a 2700X last week. System is already much snappier than my overclocked i5 4670K. Bundled cooler is impressive (no throttling), even though I'm going to replace it as soon as the free mounting kit for my Noctua comes in - I have learned to enjoy the silence, but I could have done without it easily. Corresponding Întel coolers are a joke. When it comes to embedded graphics, Vega 11 seems to be where it's at.
 


It's ironic isn't it? Ryzen is basically better than Intel in applications that doesn't need a discrete graphics card. But it requires a discrete card to become a functional PC. I don't know how reviewers ignore this.

 

What are you talking about? AMD has that covered with Ryzen 2200G and 2400G. It's Vega graphics runs circles around Intel's iGPU just by the way. If you want a CPU with a capable iGPU, those are the chips to get. Forget ANYTHING Intel.
And it's not as if most enthusiasts don't have an old backup GPU lying in a closet somewhere. Hell, I still have 3 or so stored away. Even a few S3 and SiS PCI cards from the 90's. If my GPU broke and I had a Ryzen7 system, I'm sure that the lack of an iGPU is easily dealt with. Even if you don't have any backup cards, borrow one from a friend, from a colleague at work. It's not the end of the bloody world.


 
How hard it is to call it Ryzen 2nd gen and not Ryzen 2?

You'll be surprised by the big number of people that think Ryzen 2 is slower than Ryzen 3.

You're helping spread this confusion. Ryzen 2 name has to end. Please stop using it.

LE: I'm not seeing you call it Core 8, do I?
 


What i take from this, is that old hardware is still adequate for most people's needs, cpu's havn't come that far. I see no reason to upgrade my Ivy Bridge any time soon, it still plays every game i throw at it with relative ease. I would love to see some comparisons of these new CPU's vs some older hardware though, i have not been able to find any benches of modern games with Current gen cpu's vs older "bread and butter" cpu's like Bulldozer and Ivy/Sandy bridge.
 


2200G and 2400G has less application performance as well losing the advantage. Also you will be surprised to know that majority of PCs in the world doesn't use discrete GPUs. There is a world outside of US as well :)

 
Benchmarks. Such a useless endeavor for the most part. Why? Too subjective. Far too many take it as Gospel. Intel is better. Why because in a few games at 1 particular set of scenes, on a specific test bench, under certain conditions, it gets more fps. Whoop-de-do. Comparing CoffeeLake to Ryzen+ is nothing like comparing Devils Canyon to FX. The 2x cpu lines are so close in ability, for gaming there's really no clear advantage. When most of the world is using 1080p/60Hz monitors, it really doesn't mean a damn thing if Intel can push 150fps and Ryzen+ gets 140fps. OP will get 60. There'll be exactly no differences IRL. And that's where everything matters. IRL. Want to push a 1440p/144Hz monitor? Good luck seeing any difference with anything over @100fps. Your eyes/brain can't see it, it all looks the same. Most ppl can't see a difference between 50 and 60fps. So gaming is pretty much moot. Production? Different story. Got a whole lot less to do with your eyesight and a whole lot more to do with butt prints in your chair. Can make a huge difference when an older Ryzen 1700 can half the time it takes to winzip large files compared to an i7-8700k. Yes, that's Half the time taken. To many ppl, time is money, and sitting and waiting for 1hr vrs 2hrs is huge. Maybe an extreme example but the point remains, for production Intel can't touch Ryzen for the most part. This time around. In mainstream pc's.

Intel vrs Ryzen+? Really doesn't matter, just get a cpu strong enough to do the job you need, be it a 2200g or i5-8400 or 2700x or i7-8700k.
 
No! I run my overclocked Ryzen 5 on the stock cooler, and the case isn't particularly ventilated either.

Given that the software can make use of more threads than there are cores in the given CPU hyper-threading/SMT is always better than not having it. The amount of advantage varies though, from 10% to 80%.

Intel's IGPs are nowhere near a $100 discrete card in performance, but closer to a $30 card.
Also there are some enthusiast Intel motherboards that don't support integrated graphics.
But sure. Some value should be given to the IGPs. (And for the Optane option.)

As for the stock coolers: Intel coolers are decidedly noisier and provide less cooling headroom than the AMD counterparts. The one possible exception is that AMD now provide their Stealth cooler with the 2600, which is a step down from the Wraith provided with the 1600.

I totally agree!
(And for those that want to use the CPU for also streaming video while playing the Ryzen win big!)

So to sum it up:
Features: Marginal win Intel (IGP, Optane, Thunderbolt) 1p
Overclocking: Draw. 0p (Intel has few CPUs/mobos that allow good overclock. AMD has all CPUs and most mobos provide mediocre automatic overclock, even with the boxed coolers.)
Stock Coolers: AMD +1p
Motherboards: AMD +1p
Gaming performance: Draw (small differences depending on game)
Productivity: Draw (usage dependant)
Value: AMD +2p
RESULT: Intel 1p, AMD 4p
 
Great article guys. Pretty much mirrors everything that has been said since the Ryzen launch as we've beaten the coverage on these chips TO DEATH.

Now, you guys should do this in the low end space. Celerons, Pentiums, Ryzen 3, i3, lower end Ryzen 5, and... well I think we can leave the A series APUs out of this. HOWEVER there are a lot of people looking for options for a low end machines and because most people aren't super clear on how these low end chips perform we can't really make suggestions. We beat the exciting stuff to death, but people buy in the mainstream more often than not, and coverage of these "uninteresting" CPUs is REALLY sparse.
 


You won't use it - but NO ONE will use an Intel cooler, whether it's provided or not; so AMD wins by default.

  • ■ AMD: cooler always provided, is enough for normal use, may allow overclock (90W cooler on 65W chip => all-core overclock is possible);
    ■ Intel: cooler not always provided, will throttle on heavy use, never allows overclock.
 


No. Ryzen wins because it bundles a cooler that most will find acceptable. On top of the fact that it costs $30 less and the i7 8700K doesn't come with a cooler. So, even if you bought a $30 cooler you'd still match the i7 price, but the i7 still needs a cooler so you are still saving money.
 
AMD's biggest fight with stock is brand recognition. Everybody knows that amd stock coolers really suck. Why? Because most ppl had either Phenoms/Athlon or FX cpus, and the stock coolers were abysmal noise monsters compared to Intel stock, which were actually functional. Just so happens to be totally reversed position now, amd coolers are superb, bordering the same performance as a CM hyper212, yet Intel still hands out the barely adequate. But just like any fanboy is stuck with gusto to vote for his team, so have many decided that the red team just plain sucks and changing their minds is an uphill battle, both ways, through deep snow drifts on a really cold day in (that place). Stubborn.

Fact is, amd has always been a leader in innovation, everything from tri-core, quad-core, Hexa-core, octo-core, all amd. Intel took the safer route and increased performance in what was already there. And now amd ups the game again with stock coolers, some even led/RGB that are far superior to the cpus needs.

Amd may not be quite as good as Intel, on some stuff, but give'm a break, compared to Intel 'tick-tock', Ryzens 40% IPC increase is huge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom