cpu i5-8600k Vs. Ryzen 7 2700X

[NPDPdev]

I am building a new PC.

I already have some components (GPU and suitable PSU), but I need to decide what CPU to go with before deciding on a motherboard or memory.

Although I have always been a proponent of "blue team", I have seen some comparisons of the 8700(k) and the 2700X, and I can't deny that the results look very good for AMD.

It is much cheaper than an 8th gen i7, and only a little more expensive than an 8th gen i5.  For me, an i7-8700k would be out of my price range. I was planning on getting an

i5-8600k but for not much more I can go with the 2nd gen Ryzen 7, get two more CPU cores, and hyper-threading (haven't checked AMD's vs Intel's). Yes I do recognize that

Intel chips have noticeably superior single-core performance. I feel like the Ryzen 7 would still outperform the i5.

 

I have very little knowledge of the features contained on AMD motherboards as well. I would imagine that most features carry over from Intel boards (such as overclocking), but

rarely see things like SLI support (good thing RTX killed it off, I guess). Would there be any huge features that just are nonexistent on AMD chipset boards?

[Streetguru]

3 minutes ago, NPDPdev said:

 

Do you need 8 cores?

If not buy a Ryzen 5 1600/2600 as they're just about the best value CPUs right now

 

If you needed intel you'd want an i7 8700 non K instead of the 8600K for hyperthreading.

AMD's boards have all of the same basic features as equivilant intel boards.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, NPDPdev said:

i5-8600k but for not much more I can go with the 2nd gen Ryzen 7, get two more CPU cores, and hyper-threading (haven't checked AMD's vs Intel's). Yes I do recognize that Intel chips have noticeably superior single-core performance. I feel like the Ryzen 7 would still outperform the i5.

Any performance difference in single threaded performance is likely not going to be a appreciable enough.

 

1 minute ago, NPDPdev said:

I have very little knowledge of the features contained on AMD motherboards as well. I would imagine that most features carry over from Intel boards (such as overclocking), but rarely see things like SLI support (good thing RTX killed it off, I guess). Would there be any huge features that just are nonexistent on AMD chipset boards?

Optane, but that's a practically useless feature anyway. Also whereas you have to get a high-end board on Intel, high-end features are available for B450, or midrange boards. You just lose SLI support, two fewer SATA ports (you still get 4), and 4 fewer USB 3.1 ports (you still get 6).

[Shiv78]

What are you going to use the computer for?

 

Regardless though, the 2700x is probably the better option

BUT save some money and get a 2700. You can overclock it to be the same as an X.

[r2724r16]

10 minutes ago, NPDPdev said:

Intel chips have noticeably superior single-core performance. I feel like the Ryzen 7 would still outperform the i5.

What is the primary use of your PC? If gaming or video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro, then the 8600K is superior to the 2700X. The 2700X does beat the 8600K in certain applications, but you'd have to tell us what you're doing with your PC. 

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

If you needed intel you'd want an i7 8700 non K instead of the 8600K for hyperthreading.

The i7 8700 is ~$330 while the 8600K is $250 (according to PCPP US). That's a significant price difference. 

[DocSwag]

What are you using the computer for? It really depends. Most likely though I would actually suggest an R5 2600 or 2600x instead. They're a lot cheaper and most likely you won't lose out much.

[NPDPdev]

9 minutes ago, Shiv78 said:

What are you going to use the computer for?

 

Regardless though, the 2700x is probably the better option

BUT save some money and get a 2700. You can overclock it to be the same as an X.

@r2724r16

@Shiv78

@DocSwag

 

I'm going to be gaming and some light video/photo manipulation. I will also be running virtual machines fairly regularly.

[r2724r16]

4 minutes ago, NPDPdev said:

I'm going to be gaming and some light video/photo manipulation. I will also be running virtual machines fairly regularly.

What software are you using for the video/photo manipulation?

[NPDPdev]

9 minutes ago, r2724r16 said:

What software are you using for the video/photo manipulation?

Likely GIMP and VSDC, which are both free pieces of free software. I only use VSDC when editing things as favors for friends, and GIMP when I need to do a quick photoshop or design a logo for something.

[xg32]

1 minute ago, NPDPdev said:

Likely GIMP and VSDC, which are both free pieces of free software. I only use VSDC when editing things as favors for friends, and GIMP when I need to do a quick photoshop or design a logo for something.

i cannot recommend a 8600k for a 2018/19 build due to a lack of threads, it's even worse for editing as it goes to 100% on writes, also bottlenecks your download speed if you have a fast connection, 2600->zen 2 next year or just a flat out 2700x is the solution here. zen 2 is gonna be alot faster than the 2700x.

[AvogadrosDog]

If you want to go AMD then just pick up a 2600, OC to 2600(X) level and use the money saved towards Zen 2 where there's a good chance you'll get a really good CPU for your needs at a budget price. i5-8600k is good for gaming (although the difference between the 8600k and 2600(X)/2700(X) at 1080p is almost non-noticeable) and better than AMD for intel-optimised adobe programmes. My only issue with the i5-8600k is you're getting a 6c/6t CPU for the price of an AMD 8c/16t CPU - intel pricing is just not attractive at the moment with Ryzen running about. 

 

But like with all PC building it depends on your needs and budget so good luck!

[Streetguru]

36 minutes ago, r2724r16 said:

What is the primary use of your PC? If gaming or video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro, then the 8600K is superior to the 2700X. The 2700X does beat the 8600K in certain applications, but you'd have to tell us what you're doing with your PC. 

The i7 8700 is ~$330 while the 8600K is $250 (according to PCPP US). That's a significant price difference. 

The 8700 comes with a cooler and doesn't necessitate a decent Z370 motherboard, that makes up for the price difference 

[Shiv78]

11 minutes ago, xg32 said:

i cannot recommend a 8600k for a 2018/19 build due to a lack of threads, it's even worse for editing as it goes to 100% on writes, also bottlenecks your download speed if you have a fast connection, 2600->zen 2 next year or just a flat out 2700x is the solution here. zen 2 is gonna be alot faster than the 2700x.

do you mean Ryzen 3000? is that the same thing?

not sure, been outta the loop for a while.

[xg32]

Just now, Shiv78 said:

do you mean Ryzen 3000? is that the same thing?

not sure, been outta the loop for a while.

ya, it's zen 1, zen+ and zen 2, probably less confusing calling it ryzen 3000 series.

[Swes]

IMO the flow chart for Desktop is 9900k----->>>9700k/8700k------->>>>2700X (only if you needz dem sweeet threads) -------->>>2600------>>>> (gets muddy here IMO but proably just a 2200G)

 

All of the other options don't make much sense if you think about what you get for the price hike. Now the 9900k is just the fastest so it doesn't really follow this rule but technically if you want the best it is the best. If you are willing to settle honestly for a very high end system I'd go 9700K/8700K but if you cant do that I'd just go for a plain 2600 because you can save SO much you can literally go from $700 CPU cooler MB set up to a $350 one for a 2600 and a X470 Tachi, less if you dont worry about possibly moving up to a 8 core later and go for a cheaper MB.

 

$400  let me say that again $400    You can save up to $400 to $350 ie half the cost by going to a 2600 for a 10-15% loss in frames at 1440P (for the same GPU) that you can put towards the rest of the system. Thats the difference between a 1060 and an RTX2070 or a used 1080 Ti. Now obviously that 400 figure is because you're going from 9700k to a 2600 . It will be smaller for the CPUs below that in price tier but my point is that the GPU per dollar gains outweigh the CPU per dollar gains.

 

If you are going RTX2080 Ti I can see a 9700k/8700k, if you plan on anything else forget that and go all the way to the 2600, buy a 500gb SSD, 16 gb of 3000-3200 RAM, 650 watt psu if you dont plan on upgrading the CPU later down the line otherwise maybeeee an 860. Basically the build depends on if you commit to the 2600 or think you might want to upgrade.

 

So you might say why not get a quad core well at that point you lose even more freq and you dont really save much and games are indeed starting to use more threads so I'd be more worried about long term 3 years out what life will be like for the quad core when windows update kicks in while you're playing battlefield 1 1/2 but for a real low budget budget yes a QC is fine.

 

After having stared at PC part picker and spread sheeting this the answer to the end it is simply get the 2600 and the best GPU you can get with your budget till the 2080 Ti at which point you cant spend any more on the GPU so you have to start buying a better CPU to get better performance. If you think you might go crazy in a year or two and go for an enthusiast GPU buy a good AIO and PSU now then you can go to either 3rd or 4th gen and if you have the tachi you save $200 not having to go to a new MB to support a high freq./ core count in the future.

 

What Ive told people before is this:

 

I wish I bought a 1st gen ryzen 14 month ago instead of a 7700k and sucked up the 10-15% performance hit at 3440x1440p because I would have been able to go to 3rd/4th gen AMD in a year or two from now and I have SLI 1080 Ti's . I would have been able to simply fork over $350 for whatever the best gaming Ryzen CPU is which I believe will really hold up another 2-3 years after that when games are eating up all those threads and cache. Then I'd be set till 2020-2022 and actually enjoy getting to upgrade instead of being annoyed I need to get a new MB and CPU that will likely cost around $600 instead of $350.

[DocSwag]

56 minutes ago, NPDPdev said:

@r2724r16

@Shiv78

@DocSwag

 

I'm going to be gaming and some light video/photo manipulation. I will also be running virtual machines fairly regularly.

I would probably say 2600/x tbh, a 2700/x probably wouldn't give much of a benefit except in VMs due to the extra cores so unless you really need more threads for that I would go a 2600/x

[NPDPdev]

5 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I would probably say 2600/x tbh, a 2700/x probably wouldn't give much of a benefit except in VMs due to the extra cores so unless you really need more threads for that I would go a 2600/x

Based on the information I have received, I will likely be going with a 2600/x, and then upgrading once Zen 2 drops. It is worth the wait, especially since I will not be gaming on 1440p or 4k as soon as I am finished with the build.