Principled Technologies Issues Updated Test Results

[audiospecaccts]

CSGO:
442.4fps = 9900k
298.1fps = 2700x
265fps = fastest monitor money can buy
0 = real-world difference between CPU fps performance in that test

...numbers alone do not provide context. they are essentially equal in CSGO, so the data result is an outlier & should only be included for the sake of bench thoroughness to find anomalies. the 48% gap is valid, and should be noted, but it's being used in this case to skew the final/combined grading curve in a way that does not represent real-world experience.

This is not a benchmark of real-world experience,this is a CPU benchmark

and one CPU is 48% faster than the other.
Just because the difference get's hidden today behind weak GPU performance (or monitor restrictions) doesn't make this difference any less important or any less real,in 4-5years from now the 48% will be the norm instead of an outlier.

the entire purpose of benching is to show real-world perf expectations that the end-user will experience, otherwise we could just pull numbers out of a hat that nobody would be interested in. so, like i said; "the 48% gap is valid, and should be noted" ...as it does show a potential gain in certain circumstances.

...if AMD had some sort of tech that could read/write data to/from storage at 10PB/ns, then it'd def be worth noting. but until the rest of the ecosystem catches up to take adv of it, then including it as a win against Intel would be misleading at best. now, if the ecosystem had that capability within it's reach in a relatively short time, then the tech gains noteworthiness. it's academic at this point, just like 440fps.

It makes me wonder how they would perform on real hard drive controllers and SAS technology (full duplex SATA). I noticed different cpu usages with the windows10 SATA driver it loads for these cheap controllers they stick on these boards. I also notice if I change what windows think the processor is (without changing the cpu), the driver's cpu load changes.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

Solid proof that AMD is the best value and overall best product ;-)

 

[audiospecaccts]

Solid proof that AMD is the best value and overall best product ;-)

I build both. I like the AMD for budget builds but the issue of late I have seen is that the motherboards are not built very well for both processors. I build AV computers for professional audio and video applications. I dip in to the consumer pool for the cheaper builds, but I noticed in both cases its how well the board is designed. I don't understand the overclocking craze. Especially when all those setups I see are still using SATA instead of SAS.

I guess most don't realize onboard hard drive controllers is almost the same performance hit as the old onboard video.

but yes, I like AMD because they price things more "realistic" no matter what chips you buy from them on the MFG side.

 

[Co BIY]

Intel will continue to price their product higher as the premium product and the market leader (also the "safe choice", no one will be fired for choosing the intel solution) and AMD will be the value product priced for more bang for your buck. Actually a pretty good consumer market for one with only two major players.

10-15% more performance available for only ~20% more total system cost can be a pretty good value too. Pretty sure most of these i9s and 2700Xs will go into new full systems.

 

[antilycus]

Apple cares about it's profit margins more than it's product quality. Plus they are also screwing the U.S. over by holding 1 Trillion USD off shores because they don't want to pay U.S. taxes on it. But the sheeple will never disobey their shepherd.

 

[hardarse7]

ALL these reviews need a FPS per $ row in each of these tables. AMD would win every time.

 

[kinggremlin]

ALL these reviews need a FPS per $ row in each of these tables. AMD would win every time.

Pretty pointless. CPU performance has never scaled 1:1 with cost, so the winner will always be some sub $100 CPU.

Even at the highend., you're wrong. Look at Tom's 2700x review. A stock clocked i5-8600K beat an overclocked 2700x in every game benchmark expect Ashes of Singularity which no one plays. When overclocked, the 8600k ran away and hid from the 2700x. Currently the 2700x is selling for $305 at Amazon while the 8600K is at $265. Add a decent $30 HSF for the 8600K and it is still cheaper while delivering better performance pretty much across the board even outside of gaming.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

ALL these reviews need a FPS per $ row in each of these tables. AMD would win every time.

Pretty pointless. CPU performance has never scaled 1:1 with cost, so the winner will always be some sub $100 CPU.

Even at the highend., you're wrong. Look at Tom's 2700x review. A stock clocked i5-8600K beat an overclocked 2700x in every game benchmark expect Ashes of Singularity which no one plays. When overclocked, the 8600k ran away and hid from the 2700x. Currently the 2700x is selling for $305 at Amazon while the 8600K is at $265. Add a decent $30 HSF for the 8600K and it is still cheaper while delivering better performance pretty much across the board even outside of gaming.

Wait a minute, I completely agree with you on the gaming aspect, but you gotta be absolutely mental to believe the i5-8600k delivers BETTER performance to a r7-2700x outside of gaming. Don't forget you need a more expensive Z series motherboard to overclock the i5 while the Ryzen can use a cheaper B series board.

 

[kinggremlin]

ALL these reviews need a FPS per $ row in each of these tables. AMD would win every time.

Pretty pointless. CPU performance has never scaled 1:1 with cost, so the winner will always be some sub $100 CPU.

Even at the highend., you're wrong. Look at Tom's 2700x review. A stock clocked i5-8600K beat an overclocked 2700x in every game benchmark expect Ashes of Singularity which no one plays. When overclocked, the 8600k ran away and hid from the 2700x. Currently the 2700x is selling for $305 at Amazon while the 8600K is at $265. Add a decent $30 HSF for the 8600K and it is still cheaper while delivering better performance pretty much across the board even outside of gaming.

Wait a minute, I completely agree with you on the gaming aspect, but you gotta be absolutely mental to believe the i5-8600k delivers BETTER performance to a r7-2700x outside of gaming. Don't forget you need a more expensive Z series motherboard to overclock the i5 while the Ryzen can use a cheaper B series board.

Again, look at Tom's review. Office and productivity benchmarks? Overclocked i5-8600 won 12 out of 14 tests against overclocked 2700x, many of them not close. Rendering/encoding was more split between the 2. 2700x won some big, 8600 won some big and they were actually close in some as well.

Very little mainstream software scales well beyond 6 cores. Despite AMD trying to convince everyone they need 10+ cores. That's basically because they can't beat Intel in per core performance so they have to go the wide route. Except for very specific use cases, home users will have a faster computer buying and OC'ing an 8600k vs buying and OC'ing 2700x.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Very little mainstream software scales well beyond 6 cores. Despite AMD trying to convince everyone they need 10+ cores. That's basically because they can't beat Intel in per core performance so they have to go the wide route. Except for very specific use cases, home users will have a faster computer buying and OC'ing an 8600k vs buying and OC'ing 2700x.

I'll give you that most mainstream software doesn't scale well beyond a certain point, but to say that AMD is solely responsible for convincing people they need more than 8 cores (or 6 or 10) is just silly. Intel does it too.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

@kinggremlin, Sorry could you link me the Tom's benchmark of i5 8600k vs r7 2700x? I can't find the article.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@TCA_ChinChin
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

@TCA_ChinChin
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html

Thanks for the link.

Still, even when the i5 beats the r7 in these cases, when looking at it from an overall perspective, the performance/value of the 2700/2700x is competitive with the i5 8600k up to a certain degree. I didn't really see too many places where the i5-8600k was significantly more powerful than the r7 in these tests. Even at the end of the article, Tom's mentions that yes, the i5 and i7 will be better at gaming, but the r7 will match and even outperform even the i7-8700k in productivity for many cases. The majority of reputable reviewers(that I follow) put the r7 in the same general class as the i7s for productivity tasks while gaming wise, its widely excepted that Intel's i5s and even i3s[strike][/strike] will perform the same or better than the Ryzen parts.