1800x or i7 8700k Build?

[SSJGodemis]

 

Hi All, 

 

My father asked me to help but together a gaming PC and workstation. He has money and really is not all that worried about price. That said I dont want to just waste his  money and would like an efficient build for the price. Right now I think everything is solid but am not to sure on the 1800x.  Its on sale and I am thinking its a great deal for $319. I mean 8 cores and 16 threads for that price seems like a great value.  However, would the 8700k be better suite for this role? I know its more expensive but if its better than its worth it. 

 

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6GHz 8-Core Processor  ($319.99 @ Amazon) 
CPU Cooler: EVGA - CLC 240 74.8 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($99.99 @ Newegg) 
Motherboard: ASRock - Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($233.98 @ Newegg) 
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z RGB 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  ($194.88 @ OutletPC) 
Storage: Crucial - MX300 525GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($129.99 @ Amazon) 
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB SC Black Edition Video Card (2-Way SLI)  ($743.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB SC Black Edition Video Card (2-Way SLI)  ($743.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Case: NZXT - Noctis 450 ROG ATX Mid Tower Case  ($179.99 @ Amazon) 
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA P2 850W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($103.98 @ Newegg) 
Monitor: AOC - AG352UCG 35.0" 3440x1440 100Hz Monitor  ($899.99 @ Best Buy) 
Total: $3650.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-11-20 12:14 EST-0500

[Armakar]

I think the 8700k makes the 1800X redundant. To be honest, it dumpsters all over every ryzen chip especially when you use it's OC potential, and it even beats the 1800x in some workstation loads. 

I think ryzen 3,5 and the 1700(x) still have their place, but the 8700k just makes the 1800x worthless imo.

[just_dave]

I'd say R7 is better suited for the workstation use, but get a better mobo

[katoptrys]

The 1800X isn't worth it, go for a 1700 and overclock it manually. Also, if possible pick a board from Asus or AsRock, they are the best where AMD is concerned.

 

In multithreaded use, the Ryzen beats intel, and it doesn't lag -that- far behind in games

[GuiltySpark_]

Have you thought about a a better SSD setup? That beastly system and a SATA SSD don't seem to match.

[SSJGodemis]

3 minutes ago, dave_k said:

I'd say R7 is better suited for the workstation use, but get a better mobo

Just did! 

[pyrojoe34]

What kind of work is he using it for? That really determines the best parts for the build. I also wonder if 1080Ti SLI is a but overkill. How hardcore of a gamer is he? Does he play specific games and do those games use even SLI well?

 

The 8700k is much better for gaming and any programs that prefer high IPC (~30% faster for 1-12 threads, R7 is only faster with 15+ threads) or don't scale threads well (like AE for example). R7 is only better if you use it for heavily multi-threaded uses. I would say 8700k is the better bet for most people and most uses.

[SSJGodemis]

Just now, rickeo said:

Have you thought about a a better SSD setup? That beastly system and a SATA SSD don't seem to match.

What would you recommend? 

[SSJGodemis]

Just now, pyrojoe34 said:

What kind of work is he using it for? That really determines the best parts for the build. I also wonder if 1080Ti SLI is a but overkill. How hardcore of a gamer is he? Does he play specific games and do those games use even SLI well?

He's a data scientist. I know he runs some pretty demanding math applications and modeling software.   I suppose the 1080 Ti SLI probably is a bit overkill. I mean he probably will be mostly playing Overwatch with me and maybe the new Assassins Creed. 

[just_dave]

9 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

The 8700k is much better for gaming and any programs that prefer high IPC

High clocks*

[WereCat]

16 minutes ago, Armakar said:

I think the 8700k makes the 1800X redundant. To be honest, it dumpsters all over every ryzen chip especially when you use it's OC potential, and it even beats the 1800x in some workstation loads. 

I think ryzen 3,5 and the 1700(x) still have their place, but the 8700k just makes the 1800x worthless imo.

It does not make it redundand however, R7 1700 is still the better pick over 1800X (when it is at its normal price and not at a nice $319 price).

 

Ryzen offers more PCI-e lanes and ECC support (on some motherboards) so depends on what he wants to do.

For games, yeah, definitely i7 8700k. Premiere benefits more from 8700k as well.

[Sauron]

For 319$ the 1800x is definitely much better value. The 8700k is a bit faster in some workloads, but the difference is not really worth the higher price in this case.

16 minutes ago, Armakar said:

I think the 8700k makes the 1800X redundant. To be honest, it dumpsters all over every ryzen chip especially when you use it's OC potential, and it even beats the 1800x in some workstation loads. 

I think ryzen 3,5 and the 1700(x) still have their place, but the 8700k just makes the 1800x worthless imo.

If you look at stock benchmarks, the 8700k doesn't really beat ryzen in multithreaded. Overclocking is harder to judge since each chip is different. Given the offer price, I'd say the 1800X is much better for the money in this case.

[Phentos]

Ryzen will be fine if gaming at less than 100hz. 

 

If your father wants to game at 100hz or more then I recommend the 8700K. 

[TahoeDust]

8700k will destroy Ryzen 7 in any workload that can not use more than 12 threads and be more or less equal with any workload that can.

 

It is a no brainer if he has the budget.

[Armakar]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

For 319$ the 1800x is definitely much better value. The 8700k is a bit faster in some workloads, but the difference is not really worth the higher price in this case.

If you look at stock benchmarks, the 8700k doesn't really beat ryzen in multithreaded. Overclocking is harder to judge since each chip is different. Given the offer price, I'd say the 1800X is much better for the money in this case.

You know the MSRP of both chips is pretty much the same?

You get slightly better (sometimes) multithreaded.. the 8700k destroys the 1800x in games, and you need quite a powerful gaming CPU if you don't want to bottleneck a 1080Ti SLI...

As for overclocks, no it's not hard to judge. Most Ryzen chpis can't even get 4ghz, 8700ks can easily get to 5ghz.

[GuiltySpark_]

20 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

What would you recommend? 

That motherboard has a single M.2 slot so one any of those, at least. The Samsung 960 EVO 500GB would be a good choice without being overly expensive like the PRO series.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Armakar said:

You know the MSRP of both chips is pretty much the same?

You get slightly better (sometimes) multithreaded.. the 8700k destroys the 1800x in games, and you need quite a powerful gaming CPU if you don't want to bottleneck a 1080Ti SLI...

As for overclocks, no it's not hard to judge. Most Ryzen chpis can't even get 4ghz, 8700ks can easily get to 5ghz.

@SSJGodemis said he can get an 1800x for 319. Why does the MSRP matter? Amazon lists the 8700k at almost 100$ more. "destroying" in games is a big word, given the boost is about 15% at best (without automatic overclocking by the motherboard). He'd be paying 30% more for a 15% gain... sometimes, and even worse performance in some other scenarios. As for overclocking numbers, please provide a reliable statistic of how many chips of each type reach a certain frequency... I think you'll have a hard time finding one. Regardless, it's always a hit or miss metric. I think it's undeniable that, at these prices, the 1800X offers better value. Whether OP is willing to pay a premium for a comparatively small gain in select games is up to them.

[pyrojoe34]

11 minutes ago, dave_k said:

High clocks*

high clock speed =/= high IPC unless you're comparing two chips with identical architecture. There are <3Ghz CPUs that will beat a 5+Ghz CPU in IPC.

 

13 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

He's a data scientist. I know he runs some pretty demanding math applications and modeling software.   I suppose the 1080 Ti SLI probably is a bit overkill. I mean he probably will be mostly playing Overwatch with me and maybe the new Assassins Creed. 

It depends on the type of data science he does. A lot of computations/statistical models can't be multi-threaded well and would benefit more from high IPC. Languages like R or MatLab often require special libraries and a ton of optimization to use all threads efficiently and many analysis steps will still not be able to be parallelized. I would say go with an 8700k for him. Also don't get SLI 1080Tis, get a single one and if he decides it's not enough he can always add another one.

 

You should also add a large HDD for game/data storage.

[TahoeDust]

5 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

high clock speed =/= high IPC unless you're comparing two chips with identical architecture. There are <3Ghz CPUs that will beat a 5+Ghz CPU in IPC.

Correct.

 

IPC has absolutely nothing to with frequency.  They are independent of each other.  

 

IPC - Instructions per Cycle

Frequency - How many cycles per given time

[Doomed83]

You mention that the machine will be used as a workstation and one of the most important things for a workstation in my opinion is reliability. I've built dozens of workstations for my company over the years and can tell you that I no longer overclock them at all because they need to work every time you want to use them. I don't know about your specific workloads but I personally have a mix of multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. For my single-threaded workloads the only thing that matters is raw clock speed. The point I'm trying to make is to think about your specific use case and decide what's most important to you. Will 8 lower clocked cores work better than 6 higher clocked cores for your workload? Is it worth risking downtime or possibly having to restart an 8 hour processing session because an overclock failed? Is the workstation performance secondary to gaming performance?

[Armakar]

http://prntscr.com/hcyoid, project cars, 8700k winning by 25%

http://prntscr.com/hcyp36 battlefield, 8700k wins by 30fps

http://prntscr.com/hcypq5 mass effect, 20-30 fps lead

http://prntscr.com/hcyq5h gta v(supposed to be optimised well for high core counts, 20-30 fps lead

http://prntscr.com/hcyqvn arma 3, cpu heavy game, 20fps lead

http://prntscr.com/hcyr8g fallout 4, 20-30fps lead 

 

the 8700k also wins in streaming games, even cpu heavy ones

If you think around 20-40fps difference in games at STOCK speeds (bare in mind the 1800x can get a few hundred mhz while the 8700k can easily get an extra ghz and more) is "a small gain" you might as well buy the 1050 over a 1080Ti, it's just a small gain


 

[Armakar]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

@SSJGodemis said he can get an 1800x for 319. Why does the MSRP matter? Amazon lists the 8700k at almost 100$ more. "destroying" in games is a big word, given the boost is about 15% at best (without automatic overclocking by the motherboard). He'd be paying 30% more for a 15% gain... sometimes, and even worse performance in some other scenarios. As for overclocking numbers, please provide a reliable statistic of how many chips of each type reach a certain frequency... I think you'll have a hard time finding one. Regardless, it's always a hit or miss metric. I think it's undeniable that, at these prices, the 1800X offers better value. Whether OP is willing to pay a premium for a comparatively small gain in select games is up to them.

oh, i'd also love to see the 1800x match a 5ghz 8700k in.. anything

[MyName13]

Since i7 8700k matches r7 1700 even in multithreaded tasks while demolishing it in single threaded tasks, the choice is obvious.r7 is somewhat cheaper though.

[MyName13]

41 minutes ago, katoptrys said:

.

 

In multithreaded use, the Ryzen beats intel, and it doesn't lag -that- far behind in games

Benchmarks?It also lags a lot in gaming.

[pyrojoe34]

6 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

Correct.

 

IPC has absolutely nothing to with frequency.  They are independent of each other.  

 

IPC - Instructions per Cycle

Frequency - How many cycles per given time

Yea, I should clarify... IPC is constant with a given CPU regardless of clock speeds. Single core performance scales with clock speed, but only within an identical architecture. That is to say: Don't use clock speeds as a performance metric unless you're comparing two CPUs of the same architecture/generation (like 8700 vs 8700k) in which case there is a direct, proportional relationship. A modern 3Ghz 2-4 core Intel chip will destroy a 5+Ghz 8-"core" FX chip in single core (and probably even multi-core) performance.