Is an Intel CPU with Optane better then AMD?

[OniDirx]

So, I'm building a new computer.

I've been using Intel for ages, but am starting to look at AMD.

 

What is better?

AMD Ryzen 7 2700x OR an Intel i7 8700k With Optane (32gb)?

Main use would be Gaming, Streaming, and Video/Photo editing.

 

The Ryzen is cheaper for me to get, but I'm having a hard time working out if the i7 with Optane would be better or not.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Optane won't make the cpu any faster, its just a disk caching program. Amd has storemi that does a simmilar thing

 

Id personally get a 2700x here, cheaper, about the same speed in most tasks.

[airdeano]

optane is a cache initiative to accelerate/store common file/.exe usages.

so a comparison with/without optane is irrelevant unless describing HDD performances.

optane can be used in the ryzen platform, too. a bit janky, but usable.

 

as to which, what is the budget, resolution of use (gaming/productivity), break out on gaming/streaming/productivity in percentages (50/20/30?)

[TheRaggingSword]

10 minutes ago, OniDirx said:

Main use would be Gaming, Streaming, and Video/Photo editing.

Streaming would be better on the 2700x but gaming and video editing would be better on the 8700k. If you want intel see if you can get the 9700k for that little bit of performance.

[Jurrunio]

32gb optane is too small to be of any significant advantage (if at all). Throw that aside.

 

Streaming performance seems to be the most important one if you ask me, You can't compensate this with time (like you can with video editing) or less but still enough fps (in games). In this case 8 core Ryzen is the best. However, why not the 2700? The better cooler usually isnt worth the price difference (or anywhere close) while not everyone prefer paying for PBO (you can still do static overclock on 2700)

[corrado33]

10 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

32gb optane is too small to be of any significant advantage (if at all). Throw that aside.

 

Really? 32 Gigs seems like a lot in terms of a HDD cache. I mean, you could run windows FROM optane itself. Is there a reason why you think this? (Aka is there a video I can go watch?)

[OniDirx]

I understand that optane is unrelated to CPU performance. I should have made it clearer, my bad.

A better way of phrasing my question would be. Since Optane is made to work with Intel, how much value does an Intel CPU get when you combine it with Optane overall? 

Should I factor in the ability to use Optane when deciding my CPU?

 

15 minutes ago, airdeano said:

optane is a cache initiative to accelerate/store common file/.exe usages.

so a comparison with/without optane is irrelevant unless describing HDD performances.

optane can be used in the ryzen platform, too. a bit janky, but usable.

 

as to which, what is the budget, resolution of use (gaming/productivity), break out on gaming/streaming/productivity in percentages (50/20/30?)

4

Mid-range budget wise (exact numbers is up in the air). as for a break down of my usage, 40 gaming, 40 streaming, 20 productivity

[Jurrunio]

1 hour ago, corrado33 said:

Really? 32 Gigs seems like a lot in terms of a HDD cache. I mean, you could run windows FROM optane itself. Is there a reason why you think this? (Aka is there a video I can go watch?)

HDD cache itself isn't all that useful when there's a independent SSD in the first place (which I expect any build that's cost more than $400 to have one).

[Esper22]

There is a video in the linustechtips channel that goes through this exact thing, best thing was found when using AMD and even Intel was to use a third party software called Promocache and a really good m.2 ssd like the Samsung ones. Granted this will only help with load times and so forth of programs, bootup, and load times in games but it could give a nice crisp feel to your overall system experience. Nice thing is you can download the program and use it for 60 days before purchasing it to determine if it will fit you needs. currently trying it out myself and it dose seem to do a little specially since upon my first run on my build I only got a regular mechanical 4tb hdd and have everything only on that, using the entire 250gb of my Samsung 970 evo for a cache drive. 

[mxk]

2 hours ago, TheRaggingSword said:

Streaming would be better on the 2700x but gaming and video editing would be better on the 8700k. If you want intel see if you can get the 9700k for that little bit of performance.

Isn't editing on the 2700x better? Or am I wrong about this.

[pstarlord]

Optane won't give you a noticeable upgrade over just using an SSD in a vast majority of tasks, like boot times and load times. 

 

2700X is a fantastic CPU, great for a well rounded list of tasks, and over clocks nicely. 

[TheRaggingSword]

21 hours ago, mxk. said:

Isn't editing on the 2700x better? Or am I wrong about this.

Its around the same for adobe premier pro since they use the integrated intel uhd 620 for rendering and stuff like that now

[mxk]

1 minute ago, TheRaggingSword said:

Its around the same for adobe premier pro since they use the integrated intel uhd 620 for rendering and stuff like that now

oh god why would it use the integrated graphics?

[TheRaggingSword]

1 minute ago, mxk. said:

oh god why would it use the integrated graphics?

It uses both the cpu and integrated graphics for a combined better performance

[mxk]

9 minutes ago, TheRaggingSword said:

It uses both the cpu and integrated graphics for a combined better performance

That makes sense to me, but I guess that it doesn't use the actual GPU if you have a card seems silly.