AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K: Which CPU is Better?

[Redneck5439]

I think this article was much better than some similar ones I've seen lately. I did not get a sense that the author was straining to make one CPU look better than it is, nor setting it up to fail in certain tasks. People are price-sensitive (as I personally believe they should be), and in that context, I have to agree that the 2700X is the better CPU.
Note that the article was not answering "Which CPU is Faster?" which will typically favor Intel, particularly in games; it was "Which CPU is Better?" I don't think there's any task you can run well with one but be suffering on with the other, so both are good. If you're an edge case, running a specific money-earning productivity application, then you'll want the fastest one for that specific task, but for the vast majority of people, cheaper will indeed be better.

"I don't see any utility in 1080p gaming benchmarks, as they are no longer relevant"
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Only 6% percent of steam users game at 1440p +, remaining 95% use 1080p or lower.
I'd say 1080p benchmarks are as relevant, as they could get.

The argument is being made that if you are buying a processor for $500 - $600 (newegg current prices for 9700K and 9900K) then your not building a mid range gaming machine like the vast majority of users on Steam. The reason most of them are gaming at 1080p is simply because high end 1440p to 4K capable GPUs are extremely expensive and if you had to settle for a lower card then your also settling for 1080p. However if your buying a processor and actually sinking $500 - $600 on just the processor (which doesn't even include a cooler) then you simply are building a high end gamer that is going to have high end parts and is going to be gaming at 1440p+. It makes no sense to buy one of these Intel 8 core processors and game at 1080p as you can build an entire quality 1080p Ryzen 5 2600 full system for the same price.

 

[Redneck5439]

To me it looks like the 9700 without overclocking is still faster than AMD with overclocking, does it not make sense then to compare pricing such a way, instead of saying intel is too expensive per performance? If you are tacking about value you need to compare at similar performance levels, and if Intel does not give significant boost with overclocking, then why do that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfGz22ZjeGk

As stated in a previous post of mine, "without overclocking" and "stock" for Intel processors is total bullsh*t. Their "stock" TDP rating of 95W (which they laud to say they are more efficient than the 105W TDP of the R7 2700X) is totally thrown out the window by default on virtually all Intel motherboards. The motherboard boosts the 8 core Intel processors to 4.7Ghz which consumes over 150W by default so therefore the Intel processors ARE BEING OVERCLOCKED BY DEFAULT.

 

[Redneck5439]

From the charts the real comparison is the 9600k vs the 2700x. The 9600k beats the 2700x across the entire suite and in gaming (was the 9600k even overclocked to the max?). AMD and Intel both realize this and both are priced at $279 at Microcenter.

You want to compare the 9600K to its actual AMD competition- the R5 2600? The R5 2600 can very easily be overclocked to 4.2Ghz even on a cheaper "B" motherboard and match the overall gaming performance of the R7 2700X as most games aren't going to use more than 6 cores and 12 threads. The R5 2600 costs $150 compared to the $280 i5 9600K. Are you telling me that 16% better performance overall at 1080p (and that number goes down a lot when you get into 1440p performance) is worth nearly a 90% increase in price?

The pure gaming processors in the Ryzen line are the R5 processors, the R7 are meant more for productivity and workstations (however can still do an amazing job in gaming). If your going to compare processors and price, make sure your comparing the correct ones.

 

[svan71]

where are the 1440p gaming #'s ? you know the ones that don't make intel look so good.

Lower resolutions are used to eliminate any GPU bottleneck. This has been standard practice, for as long as CPU's have been benchmarked. I remember the days when 720p was used, when 1080p was considered high res gaming. Fanboys need to give it a rest already. AMD was given the nod, as the overall winner, yet you still complain.

Not complaining only asking why in a " review " titled Which is Better isn't more information ie 1440p results, and not less information a good thing. I'm not sure whats worse "Fanboys" or Haters of which i'm neither.

 

[Redneck5439]

Ok, here we finally have some answers. How does the i9 9900K, a better processor than the i7 9700K, perform at actual Intel specified "stock" settings with 95W enforced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmAWqyHdebI

Here we see that no surprise to anyone the 8 core Intel processors will still perform marginally better in games, however with the 95W TDP enforced the mighty 9900K performs no better than the R7 2700X in productivity with the benchmarks overall averaging the same performance. In fact in several workstation class operations the under $300 R7 2700X actually outperforms the $600 i9 9900K. Now if the R7 2700X is even with the mighty 9900K when its stock settings are actually enforced - i.e. BOTH processors running at true stock then the R7 2700X will actually perform better than the i7 9700K for workstation tasks. This is due to the i7 9700K lacking hyperthreading.

Saying that there are much better pure gaming processors in the i5 9600K, and especially the R5 2600, people actually looking at the i9 9900K or i7 9700K are going to be looking at these processors for more productivity needs than just gaming needs. If at true stock the new 9th gen 8 core processors can't best the R7 2700X its no wonder why Intel was very keen to have these processors run overclocked by default. Running them overclocked by default was the only way they could best the 2700X in the actual tasks someone buying an 8 core processor is looking for. Yes overclocked the i7 9700K breaks basically even with the R7 2700X in overall productivity and the 9900K will outperform it. However it is also important to note that both will require serious premium aftermarket cooling to do this as well as needing serious PSU needs. When running without power constraints the i9 9900K actually draws more system power consumption than the Threadripper 2950X which is just absurd. What did everyone say about the last 8 core processors out there to draw such absurdly high system power? Funny how now that the shoes on the other foot all of a sudden power usage really isn't all that important- hypocritical much??

The simple fact is that no matter how you look at them the 8 core 9th gen Intel processors just don't make sense. It makes no sense as a workstation class processor when the much more expensive i7 9700K can only break even with the R7 2700X (even with no power constraints on the 9700K) and the i9 9900K makes no sense because to outdo the R7 2700X its drawing 255W of total system power consumption. Compare that to the Threadripper 2950X that draws 225W and is much, much more robust as a workstation and will run circles around the 9900K in productivity. When these processors are actually limited to true stock even the $600 9900K only breaks even with the 2700X in overall productivity. As a workstation they really don't make sense.

If gaming is your need then again they don't make sense as the much cheaper $280 i5 9600K will give you the same exact overall gaming experience. Then you have to decide if the ~16% FPS advantage it holds over an overclocked R5 2600 is worth the extra $130 (plus buying aftermarket cooling) that you'll spend for the i5 9600K. At the very least though you can make the argument that i5 9600K has a real purpose and fills that purpose well-- gaming. The 8 core i9 processors really just don't have a specific purpose and don't fill any specific purpose well, add onto that their extremely high cost and there is just no way they should be recommended in a gaming rig or in a workstation rig.

 

[Gurg]

Let's make this real clear for those that appear to be result challenged, average frame rate across the entire suite:
9600k----95.5
2700x----94.9
Both are priced identically at MC at $279 with 9600k having advantages in gaming
2600x----87.5 is not in same performance class.

 

[Redneck5439]

Let's make this real clear for those that appear to be result challenged, average frame rate across the entire suite:
9600k----95.5
2700x----94.9
Both are priced identically at MC at $279 with 9600k having advantages in gaming
2600x----87.5 is not in same performance class.

The i5 9600K is without a doubt a great gaming processor. In fact it is my recommended gaming processor for pure dominance, FPS at all costs. It can match the gaming performance of the i9 9900K and i7 9700K (at the same clock speeds) for a fraction of their costs coming in at $280. However my recommended price to performance processor is the R5 2600. It can overclock with little trouble to 4.1 - 4.2Ghz and is the equal to the 2700X at pure gaming. Therefore you now have the R5 2600 at $150 that is only overall 16% slower at 1080p (and of course at higher res will be even closer) however is over 85% cheaper than the i5 9600K. When building a system I give customers both options show them the numbers and let them decide do they want the most FPS possible in a pure gaming dominance build or do they want the best value that still packs a ton of gaming prowess (as an added bonus the R5 2600 with 12 threads will outperform the i5 9600K in most productivity/ workstation tasks you may throw at it). Either way they decide to go that customer is leaving happy.

With regards to the R7 2700X and i5 9600K being basically the same cost keep in mind that gaming is really a bonus to someone buying an 8 core 16 thread processor. Most people looking at the extra cost need these processors more for workstation use than gaming. The "go to" gaming processors are the 6 core counterparts that typically have the same overall gaming benchmarks at same clock speed due to the fact that most games don't utilize 6 cores let alone 8. So yes the R7 2700X and i5 9600K will have similar gaming benchmarks, however the i5 9600K will have better scores overall. Where the 8 core 16 thread R7 2700X will shine over the the six core, six thread i6 9600K is in workstation related tasks, where quite frankly the R7 2700X overall will simply dominate the i5 9600K.

The right processor has to be looked at for the right jobs. Gaming only your looking at the 6 core mainstream processors, productivity i.e. workstation class your looking at the 8 core mainstream processors or enthusiast Threadripper or "X" class Intel processors. The problem with the 9700K is it is outclassed via price to be a gamer (when compared to the i5 9600K) and its outclassed as a workstation being only even to the much cheaper R7 2700X even when the 9700K is being overclocked by default and exceeding its TDP limit by the motherboard. When a strict 95W limit is set on the 9700K the R7 2700X outperforms it with its stock 105W limit in place.

 

[siman0]

If that was the case the r5 2600k would be the target for myself. Its still able to multi-task and OC would be a little better. If you really dont need the extra multi-tasking horsepower of an 8 core. Its more of the gamer's ideal spot.

 

[siman0]

2600x*

 

[Redneck5439]

If that was the case the r5 2600k would be the target for myself. Its still able to multi-task and OC would be a little better. If you really dont need the extra multi-tasking horsepower of an 8 core. Its more of the gamer's ideal spot.

You can find a lot of reviews for the R5 2600 quoting just those facts. It is an amazing gamer, when overclocked, and with 6 cores and 12 threads hold its own in workstation related tasks. It is a very good all around processor for an unbelievable $150 - $159. Its not going to have greater performance than something like the i7 8700K (which will beat it outright), and will be outperformed in pure gaming by the i5 9600K but for ~$150 is the best value bang for the dollar processor available. The reason the R5 2600 is picked as the focal point over the R5 2600X is because the "X" version comes at a bit more cost, listed at Newegg for $219.99. When overclocked the R5 2600 will easily match the performance of the "X" and in 99% of games have the same overall benchmarks at the R7 2700X (as most titles don't use more than 6 cores yet). For people who are either afraid to overclock or would just rather have the processor do it for them the R5 2600X is a very good processor and does an excellent job of boosting itself with proper cooling. As far as performance vs Intel goes the R5 2600(X) (overclocked 4.1 - 4.2Ghz) will have the same overall FPS scores as the 2700X so processors like the i7 8700K and i5 9600K will outperform it, however with 12 threads the R5 2600 (overclocked) will outperform the i5 9600K (6 threads) in productivity related tasks and come in well under the cost of the i7 8700K or i5 9600K.

I personally opted for the R7 2700X over the 2700 because I wanted the better overall binning, however I have found that just setting a negative offset on the Vcore,setting the SOC to 1.1V while setting the RAM speed to its rating and tightening up timings, and enabling Precision Boost Overdrive in bios with a scalar of 10X. Those are the only settings I have changed and when benchmarking it will boost all core to between 4.175 - 4.225Ghz and hold for the entire bench, when rendering a lot of times its only using 3 or 4 cores and those cores will boost to 4.3 - 4.350Ghz. Saying that the processor is doing the scaling itself that is very impressive and I max out at 1.4V on the processor. With these settings I average Cinebench R15 scores of 1910 - 1920. Now using this as an example of how well an "X" processor can scale itself I should also add that I have seen true overclocks on the R7 2700X overclocked to 4.4 - 4.5Ghz scoring over 2000 in Cinebench R15, so that just goes to show you the difference between true overclocking and scaling with Precision Boost Overdrive. While I've never tried extreme overclocking on either the 2600 or the 2700X I have seen people who have achieved very good overclocks with custom loop cooling. Usually when I overclock a R5 2600 I am using air cooling like the Cryorig H7 and am happy getting to the 4.1 - 4.2Ghz all core overclock which so far every one that I have overclocked has managed without issue.

 

[Onus]

I think this article was much better than some similar ones I've seen lately. I did not get a sense that the author was straining to make one CPU look better than it is, nor setting it up to fail in certain tasks. People are price-sensitive (as I personally believe they should be), and in that context, I have to agree that the 2700X is the better CPU.
Note that the article was not answering "Which CPU is Faster?" which will typically favor Intel, particularly in games; it was "Which CPU is Better?" I don't think there's any task you can run well with one but be suffering on with the other, so both are good. If you're an edge case, running a specific money-earning productivity application, then you'll want the fastest one for that specific task, but for the vast majority of people, cheaper will indeed be better.

"I don't see any utility in 1080p gaming benchmarks, as they are no longer relevant"
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Only 6% percent of steam users game at 1440p +, remaining 95% use 1080p or lower.
I'd say 1080p benchmarks are as relevant, as they could get.

The argument is being made that if you are buying a processor for $500 - $600 (newegg current prices for 9700K and 9900K) then your not building a mid range gaming machine like the vast majority of users on Steam. The reason most of them are gaming at 1080p is simply because high end 1440p to 4K capable GPUs are extremely expensive and if you had to settle for a lower card then your also settling for 1080p. However if your buying a processor and actually sinking $500 - $600 on just the processor (which doesn't even include a cooler) then you simply are building a high end gamer that is going to have high end parts and is going to be gaming at 1440p+. It makes no sense to buy one of these Intel 8 core processors and game at 1080p as you can build an entire quality 1080p Ryzen 5 2600 full system for the same price.

Not exactly. I'd argue that the person isn't building a machine primarily for gaming, but for productivity tasks. It would not be unusual to spend a lot on the CPU, and relatively little on the graphics card(s). In that case, 1080p monitors would still be quite common, just likely 2-3 of them. If, when the work is done, the machine is also used to play games, it will be on one of those 1080p monitors, possibly on a low-midrange card like a GTX1050 or even on a workstation card.

 

[Redneck5439]

I think this article was much better than some similar ones I've seen lately. I did not get a sense that the author was straining to make one CPU look better than it is, nor setting it up to fail in certain tasks. People are price-sensitive (as I personally believe they should be), and in that context, I have to agree that the 2700X is the better CPU.
Note that the article was not answering "Which CPU is Faster?" which will typically favor Intel, particularly in games; it was "Which CPU is Better?" I don't think there's any task you can run well with one but be suffering on with the other, so both are good. If you're an edge case, running a specific money-earning productivity application, then you'll want the fastest one for that specific task, but for the vast majority of people, cheaper will indeed be better.

"I don't see any utility in 1080p gaming benchmarks, as they are no longer relevant"
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Only 6% percent of steam users game at 1440p +, remaining 95% use 1080p or lower.
I'd say 1080p benchmarks are as relevant, as they could get.

The argument is being made that if you are buying a processor for $500 - $600 (newegg current prices for 9700K and 9900K) then your not building a mid range gaming machine like the vast majority of users on Steam. The reason most of them are gaming at 1080p is simply because high end 1440p to 4K capable GPUs are extremely expensive and if you had to settle for a lower card then your also settling for 1080p. However if your buying a processor and actually sinking $500 - $600 on just the processor (which doesn't even include a cooler) then you simply are building a high end gamer that is going to have high end parts and is going to be gaming at 1440p+. It makes no sense to buy one of these Intel 8 core processors and game at 1080p as you can build an entire quality 1080p Ryzen 5 2600 full system for the same price.

Not exactly. I'd argue that the person isn't building a machine primarily for gaming, but for productivity tasks. It would not be unusual to spend a lot on the CPU, and relatively little on the graphics card(s). In that case, 1080p monitors would still be quite common, just likely 2-3 of them. If, when the work is done, the machine is also used to play games, it will be on one of those 1080p monitors, possibly on a low-midrange card like a GTX1050 or even on a workstation card.

I agree with you, If your buying an 8 core processor your looking for more productivity. That is why I bought the R7 2700X over the R5 2600(X). Gaming is just a nice bonus, and I actually fit your point perfectly... I have the R7 2700X, and good supporting hardware, but am running an old R9 290. I needed the processor for rendering and editing, I can most definitely see your point of view. I'm just hoping for some good Black Friday deals on the 1070Ti or 1080, as I would like to replace my aging R9 290 and don't really see AMD coming forward with anything to challenge the 1070Ti or 1080 at a good value anytime soon.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Ok, here we finally have some answers. How does the i9 9900K, a better processor than the i7 9700K, perform at actual Intel specified "stock" settings with 95W enforced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmAWqyHdebI

Here we see that no surprise to anyone the 8 core Intel processors will still perform marginally better in games, however with the 95W TDP enforced the mighty 9900K performs no better than the R7 2700X in productivity with the benchmarks overall averaging the same performance. In fact in several workstation class operations the under $300 R7 2700X actually outperforms the $600 i9 9900K. Now if the R7 2700X is even with the mighty 9900K when its stock settings are actually enforced - i.e. BOTH processors running at true stock then the R7 2700X will actually perform better than the i7 9700K for workstation tasks. This is due to the i7 9700K lacking hyperthreading.

Saying that there are much better pure gaming processors in the i5 9600K, and especially the R5 2600, people actually looking at the i9 9900K or i7 9700K are going to be looking at these processors for more productivity needs than just gaming needs. If at true stock the new 9th gen 8 core processors can't best the R7 2700X its no wonder why Intel was very keen to have these processors run overclocked by default. Running them overclocked by default was the only way they could best the 2700X in the actual tasks someone buying an 8 core processor is looking for. Yes overclocked the i7 9700K breaks basically even with the R7 2700X in overall productivity and the 9900K will outperform it. However it is also important to note that both will require serious premium aftermarket cooling to do this as well as needing serious PSU needs. When running without power constraints the i9 9900K actually draws more system power consumption than the Threadripper 2950X which is just absurd. What did everyone say about the last 8 core processors out there to draw such absurdly high system power? Funny how now that the shoes on the other foot all of a sudden power usage really isn't all that important- hypocritical much??

The simple fact is that no matter how you look at them the 8 core 9th gen Intel processors just don't make sense. It makes no sense as a workstation class processor when the much more expensive i7 9700K can only break even with the R7 2700X (even with no power constraints on the 9700K) and the i9 9900K makes no sense because to outdo the R7 2700X its drawing 255W of total system power consumption. Compare that to the Threadripper 2950X that draws 225W and is much, much more robust as a workstation and will run circles around the 9900K in productivity. When these processors are actually limited to true stock even the $600 9900K only breaks even with the 2700X in overall productivity. As a workstation they really don't make sense.

If gaming is your need then again they don't make sense as the much cheaper $280 i5 9600K will give you the same exact overall gaming experience. Then you have to decide if the ~16% FPS advantage it holds over an overclocked R5 2600 is worth the extra $130 (plus buying aftermarket cooling) that you'll spend for the i5 9600K. At the very least though you can make the argument that i5 9600K has a real purpose and fills that purpose well-- gaming. The 8 core i9 processors really just don't have a specific purpose and don't fill any specific purpose well, add onto that their extremely high cost and there is just no way they should be recommended in a gaming rig or in a workstation rig.

Digging up this old thread ... Can you imagine if AMD made a claim that the TR 2950x had only a 95w TDP? Do you think the reviewers would have something to say about it? Wouldn't there be a bit of an outrage with AMD pegged as liars? But when Intel does it, everyone looks the other way ...

+50w or +100w deficit on a GPU and that's a major deciding factor on which GPU to buy, the reviewers tell us, but a CPU that uses 150w more than its TDP ... no problem at all, "just buy it".

Lesson --- you can get away with blatant lies as long as you are Intel and you market the product as "the best", everyone, even supposed discerning "reviewers" will look past the lies or be the fool that believes the BS. Intel might as well claim all its CPUs have a 10w TDP -- their claimed TDPs all just a lie anyway, what tf difference would it make?

I still am eagerly awaiting the new 5ghz 28 core processor that'll launch before the end of the year, its a real product with only 105w TDP and will be available any day now! Already have 7 grand saved up, only need a few more ...

 

[Insakna]

Not sure why you would give Ryzen the edge in "features" based on having more threads. Threads are directly and exclusively related to performance and the benchmarks favored intel.

 

[littleleo]

Well with the new hardware issues popping up. Turning off HT will clearly put the AMD in front since it doesn't have the mitigating issues to deal with.

 

[delaro]

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/291649-intel-performance-amd-spectre-meltdown-mds-patches

Intel Performance Hit 5x Harder Than AMD After Spectre, Meltdown Patches

It is still unclear how much Intel owners need to be concerned about the practical, real-world impact of these threats. But enabling the full suite of fixes definitely incurs a significant performance penalty. This is most visible with the Core i7-8700K, which falls back to offering unpatched Broadwell 6800K performance — and the 6800K is a three-year-old CPU with a much lower maximum clock speed.

I guess this review was done before all the patches hit? Maybe that warrants a redo?

 

[TerryLaze]

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/291649-intel-performance-amd-spectre-meltdown-mds-patches






I guess this review was done before all the patches hit? Maybe that warrants a redo?

With the full suite of mitigations enabled (ed: including turning off HTT) , the CPU performance ranking is:

1. 2990WX (238) 32c/64t
2. 7980XE (231) 18c /36t
3. 2700X (213) 8c/16t
4. 8700K (204) 6c /12t

And if these tests where made at stock then intel cpus still have some 20-25% overclock headroom...

 

[jgraham11]

Complete crap worth of a comparison! Only used older games that highlight memory latency advantages. Ashes of the singularity at 1440p: Ryzen 2700x is identical with 2080ti. Red dead redemption at 1440p: Identical performance with 2080ti. As games are built for more threads, the 2700x will simply pull away.

Productivity benchmarks are also cherry picked. There are more applications than just Adobe products! With Handbrake: Ryzen wins by a lot, With Cinebench R20: Ryzen destroys the 9700k. Even decompression work, Ryzen just destroys the 9700k, again not mentioned in this comparison.

Security flaws found in the Intel chips are not even mentioned (there are many, newest one is Cached Out: Bypasses all previous fixes, even Cascade Lake is affected.

Power consumption is not even mentioned, otherwise it would show how much more efficient the Ryzen chips are. Even in the 9700k review (there's a link in this article to it), they only tested it against other Intel chips but then went on to compare performance against both Intel and AMD chips.

Best part is that even now the 9700k is selling for $549 cad vs $329 cad for the Ryzen 2700x (newegg prices)

Toms hardware continues to deceive and does not give a proper representation of how these products will perform for the average user.

Just buy it!!!