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

[kcarbotte]

To help you choose, we put AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X and Intel's Core i7-9700K through a 7-round face-off based on features, value, performance and more.

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

 

[paul prochnow]

OK I am hoping this screenie is visible......you can see the CPU and Max Turbo that was done with a 3575 multi and 3300RAM in my common rig....all air....

 

[svan71]

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

 

[gdmaclew]

I was wondering that myself.

 

[yeti_yeti]

Excellent performance from that i7, what a beast of a cpu. Unfortunately, it looks like its not going to be very popular due to its absurd price and stiff competition from i9 and Ryzen.

 

[pitarziu]

No one buys those cpus and plays in 1080p ...

 

[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.

 

[Onus]

No one buys those cpus and plays in 1080p ...

Sure they do. Just look at the Steam survey. Or, consider all those for whom gaming is a secondary function for their PCs; they run three monitors to spread out a nice array of productivity applications, but when the workday is done, might want to crank up a game.

If the article had been about top-tier [gaming, vs. workstation] graphics cards, then I'd agree, but not for CPUs.

 

[spdragoo]

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

I was wondering that myself.

Although it's not Tom's Hardware, this article over at Techspot goes into great detail why a) CPU benchmark comparisons are best at 1080p or lower resolutions, & b) why they use as powerful of a GPU as possible when testing.

No one buys those cpus and plays in 1080p ...

Not true. Even ignoring any potential limitations from GPUs, many eSports players are going to play at 1080p resolution to maximize their FPS (& supposedly also maximize the responsiveness of the game to the slightest movement of their mouse/controller).

 

[richardbrown2445]

I happy with my I7-8700K as I won the silicon lottery as my CPU is clocked at 5GHZ across all cores and stable, it is cooled by a Cosair 240 Aio. It can go to 5.1GHZ stable but that just pushes the chip to far.

 

[dave.jeffers]

Hey, Kevin is coming around. He is starting to see the light. Game at 1440p or higher and it completely neutralizes the only argument for buying the Intel 8-cores.

I'm going to get a new monitor one of these days, and it will not be a 1080p. I have a feeling I'm not alone. So, at this point, going into 2019, I don't see any utility in 1080p gaming benchmarks, as they are no longer relevant.

Get the B450 motherboard for cheap, plus 2700X/2600X. Drop in the 7nm 3700X next Christmas, and enjoy that smart and smug feeling of contentment, knowing its faster and more efficient at absolutely everything, including gaming, than 14nm Intel any-core. IMO.

 

[yeti_yeti]

"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.

 

[hugogu]

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?

 

[redgarl]

Any reason why Value, all of a sudden is AMD as the winner... and for the 9900k, AMD is the loser...?

 

[capri435]

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

And according to this survey only 7% are using CPUs with 3.7ghz or above speed. That means 93% of them are not using i7 8700k or even i5 8600k. When we are talking about top tier gaming its 4k or atleast 1440p where all three 8700k, 9900k and 2700x are about the same.

 

[redgarl]

"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.

First off, many of these stats are impossible to verify since many of these specs are also including internet cafe or esport center, which are getting extremely popular and all owns 1080p monitors.

Secondly, many games like CS or FPS, for esport, are played at 1080p. Don't tell me you are playing DOTA, WOW or Fortnite at 4k, I will laugh at you.

Thirdly, these setups ARRE NOT CPU bottleneck. Most of these setups are hosting mainstream card, and at 1080p with mainstream card, you are GPU BOTTLENECK... TALAM!

So, all in all, these CPU bottleneck bench with a 1080 GTX and above at 1080p, are total BS that actually matter for the 1080p @ 144Hz users, and even there, anything over 144Hz is totally useless and only matter as bragging rights.

Once again, these are not good to define Use Cases.

These benches, should be done with a mainstream card, a high end card and an enthusiast card... @ 1080p, 1440p and 2160p. As of now, these benches are useless.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

This one seems to be more balanced than the 9900K piece. That 9900k one seems to have been an attempt at justification of the 9900k over the 2700X

 

[mcconkeymike]

Redgarl, I actually do play Dota 2 at 4k with my i7-7700k and 980ti. I also play Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty WWII all at 4k. Laugh all you want, but I play all of those games at max settings without a hiccup.

 

[Gurg]

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.

 

[Corporate_goon]

Re: 1440p and higher -

There's simply no point in running these benchmarks in a CPU comparison as they're not CPU-bound, they're GPU-bound. Everyone reading these articles on Tom's should be aware of this fact, and it's a waste of time to run the comparisons. If all you do with your PC is game at 4k, you're going to be perfectly well off with a five year old four core Ivy Lake processor.

It's also worth noting that at 1080p, all of these games are running at 100fps+ - you're not going to perceive any difference between a Ryzen at 105fps and a Core at 115fps, so again, for gaming right now, you're not going to see a perceptible difference in actual gameplay between these processors. The test is still interesting and relevant, though, because it shows that the Core processors are more efficient / effective at doing what games are asking of them, which may make a difference down the road as new games come out that tax CPUs more than current games.

 

[redgarl]

Redgarl, I actually do play Dota 2 at 4k with my i7-7700k and 980ti. I also play Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty WWII all at 4k. Laugh all you want, but I play all of those games at max settings without a hiccup.

My point is esport is at 1080p because frequency is more important than resolution... hence the stupid steam servey results.

I play everything at 4k myself, but if I was to play competitively at Battlefield or Counter-Strike or any FPS for that matter, I would play at 1080p or 1440p.

Even there, you are going to be above 144Hz with either a Ryzen or a i9 at 1080p.

 

[redgarl]

Re: 1440p and higher -

There's simply no point in running these benchmarks in a CPU comparison as they're not CPU-bound, they're GPU-bound. Everyone reading these articles on Tom's should be aware of this fact, and it's a waste of time to run the comparisons. If all you do with your PC is game at 4k, you're going to be perfectly well off with a five year old four core Ivy Lake processor.

It's also worth noting that at 1080p, all of these games are running at 100fps+ - you're not going to perceive any difference between a Ryzen at 105fps and a Core at 115fps, so again, for gaming right now, you're not going to see a perceptible difference in actual gameplay between these processors. The test is still interesting and relevant, though, because it shows that the Core processors are more efficient / effective at doing what games are asking of them, which may make a difference down the road as new games come out that tax CPUs more than current games.

CPU bottleneck in today reality is way overrated.

The bench that toms is using is applicable for less than 1% of the user base.

If you play at 1080p with an RX 580, the bottleneck will be the GPU in many case, rendering this whole Intel is better at gaming useless.

It is with CPU/GPU combo worth 1000$+ at 1080p and nowhere else.

If you buy a mainstream GPU, this whole picture is simply inaccurate.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

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? ....

The reason is that CPU gaming benchmarks rarely show "real-world" results -- it's all theoretical. The testing criteria for CPU and gaming is to artificially bottleneck the crap out of the CPU, and then present the numbers, because tat is the only way you can really see any difference - so that is what is done. Create artificial bottleneck, get artificial results.

But anyone who actually builds a gaming rig and purposely bottlenecks the CPU would be a few bricks short of a load ... No one with a brain would ever do that, ever.

It's interesting to ask ... "what if I bottleneck the CPU, then how would it perform?", but it's useless as a real life benchmark result, That's why when you see only 720 or 1080 bench results with a 1080 or 1080ti or higher you are seeing artificial results. No one would ever bottleneck their CPU in real life, why are we pretending that that these gaming benchmarks represent anything anyone would ever actual see in their own rig? If you actually did your own testing and got the same results in gaming that we always see between intel and AMD, that would mean that your rig was built to bottleneck the CPU in gaming ... lol.

It makes no sense to me why any reviewer would show ONLY bottleneck results knowing full well that the results don't represent any real gaming rig in real life, anywhere in the universe, and that 90% of readers aren't swift enough to understand that the numbers are artificially induced and only representative of some such computer build that only a brainless toad would try to build.

1080p and 720p tests are valid to some extent, but are they valid with a 1080ti GPU? Are they valid without a "real world" comparison?

 

[joeblowsmynose]

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.

See my response to hugogo for more insight into what you are actually seeing ...

 

[logainofhades]

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.