1800x or i7 8700k Build?

[pyrojoe34]

4 minutes ago, Armakar said:

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

Yea, lets be honest. It just can't. Even at max OC and with a program that uses all 16 threads, the 8700k will still come out even or slightly ahead (with 1-14 thread performance handily beating the R7, even though the 8700k only has 12 threads). I'm far from a fanboy (I have two Intel PCs and two AMD PCs), but emperically speaking, the 8700k just seems like a better choice (unless the price is massively different in which case an argument could be made for the R7, given the price of the build though and the other components, I just can't recommend going with the 1800x).

[Phentos]

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Benchmarks?It also lags a lot in gaming.

Playing devil's advocate here... Not everyone does 144hz gaming

[Armakar]

1 minute ago, pyrojoe34 said:

Yea, lets be honest. It just can't. Even at max OC and with a program that uses all 16 threads, the 8700k will still come out even or slightly ahead (with 1-14 thread performance handily beating the R7, even though the 8700k only has 12 threads). I'm far from a fanboy (I have two Intel PCs and two AMD PCs), but emperically speaking, the 8700k just seems like a better choice (unless the price is massively different in which case an argument could be made for the R7, given the price of the build though and the other components, I just can't recommend going with the 1800x).

Yeah, agree. The tiny benefit of slightly better multicore performance isn't worth the pretty big difference in gaming..

If OP wants the threads, just get a 1700. The 1800X  has always been a pretty weird choice seeing as the 1700 is the same thing with like 100mhz less turbo.

[pyrojoe34]

2 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Playing devil's advocate here... Not everyone does 144hz gaming

True but he's buying a 100Hz 21:9 1440p monitor with 1-2 1080Tis... He would definitely benefit from an 8700k. Also a lot of data science can't always multi-thread well so he might be better off the the 8700k even for his workstation use.

 

1 minute ago, Armakar said:

Yeah, agree. The tiny benefit of slightly better multicore performance isn't worth the pretty big difference in gaming..

If OP wants the threads, just get a 1700. The 1800X  has always been a pretty weird choice seeing as the 1700 is the same thing with like 100mhz less turbo.

Normally I would agree but you don't know if the dad wants to mess around with OC and with a workstation you really need great stability. I built a workstation for my buddy recently and went with the 1600x over the 1600 for exactly that reason (he's not going to OC anyway, and he needs the stability of staying at stock without any time taken to OC and validate the OC).

[Phentos]

4 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

True but he's buying a 100Hz 21:9 1440p monitor with 1-2 1080Tis... He would definitely benefit from an 8700k. Also a lot of data science can't always multi-thread well so he might be better off the the 8700k even for his workstation use.

Ah guess I missed that part. Was distracted while reading it initially.

 

Personally I feel that X299 would be a smarter choice tbh, considering 1080 TI SLI. OP said his father has no price restriction, so why not. More PCIe lanes to keep the 1080 TI's fed and happy.

[MyName13]

14 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Playing devil's advocate here... Not everyone does 144hz gaming

It shows how much more computational power i7 has.

[Phentos]

Just now, MyName13 said:

It shows how much more computational power i7 has.

I am aware of that.

[Sauron]

50 minutes ago, Armakar said:

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

A 4ghz 1800x easily beats a 4.9GHz 8700k in multicore cinebench.

 

(link to video)

 

I could not find a reliable 5ghz benchmark, so if you have one to show me please do so. If you don't, I don't know where you get your confidence from...

 

Regardless, getting 5GHz on the 8700k is not easy at all and requires either delidding or custom loop cooling outside of golden sample chips. It's definitely not something you can expect every chip to reach. Please stop making it out as if it were a given and don't claim a performance superiority you can't back up with benchmarks.

 

@Doomed83 also makes an excellent point - for workstation use, you don't really want to overclock.

49 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

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.

We're talking about the 1800X.

[Sauron]

42 minutes ago, Armakar said:

Yeah, agree. The tiny benefit of slightly better multicore performance isn't worth the pretty big difference in gaming..

If OP wants the threads, just get a 1700. The 1800X  has always been a pretty weird choice seeing as the 1700 is the same thing with like 100mhz less turbo.

Why would he buy a 1700 over an 1800X when he can get them at almost the same price? Did you read the original post?

[pas008]

at that resolution gaming is either/or what you losing 2% if that going with ryzen?

 

I'd aim at which cpu does better for his workload at stock settings

like many said reliability on work related things is a must

 

summary of performance but not sure what he needs(single/multi threaded) only skimmed through the topic

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/18.html

[Phentos]

I still think OP's father would be better off going X299 tbh. 1080 TI SLI hindered by 8 lanes per GPU does make a difference when compared to x16. Plus I don't know about everyone else, but the notion of $1400 worth of GPUs being bottlenecked in this fashion would really irk me.

[done12many2]

59 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

Yea, lets be honest. It just can't. Even at max OC and with a program that uses all 16 threads, the 8700k will still come out even or slightly ahead (with 1-14 thread performance handily beating the R7, even though the 8700k only has 12 threads). I'm far from a fanboy (I have two Intel PCs and two AMD PCs), but emperically speaking, the 8700k just seems like a better choice (unless the price is massively different in which case an argument could be made for the R7, given the price of the build though and the other components, I just can't recommend going with the 1800x).

 

1 hour ago, TahoeDust said:

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.

 

I think you gents hit the nail on the head.  95% of our use generally doesn't involve all cores at 100% utilization.  Of that 95% of the time, a stock 8700k would easily outperform a stock R7 1800x.  

 

@SSJGodemis  You should check with your dad and find out specifically if his software takes advantage of a lot of cores effectively.  Ask him if it uses a lot of AVX and so on.  Is it possible that he's going to use that GPU?  If so, the 1080 Ti isn't such a crazy idea after all.  

[pas008]

20 minutes ago, Phentos said:

I still think OP's father would be better off going X299 tbh. 1080 TI SLI hindered by 8 lanes per GPU does make a difference when compared to x16. Plus I don't know about everyone else, but the notion of $1400 worth of GPUs being bottlenecked in this fashion would really irk me.

have link?

[done12many2]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

have link?

 

Depends on the workload and GPU configuration, but running x8 instead of x16 can definitely cost you performance in certain scenarios.  For overall gaming, the difference between x8 and x16 is minimal for single GPU use, but it can be needed for full GPU performance when running a SLI on top cards.  

 

I'd say the use of x16 is more important in GPU type workloads of a non-gaming nature.  

 

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Titan-X-Performance-PCI-E-3-0-x8-vs-x16-851/

 

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/hpc/PCIe-X16-vs-X8-for-GPUs-when-running-cuDNN-and-Caffe-887/

 

Quote

 

Overall, the results of our testing is pretty mixed. With a single Titan X, we saw a wide range of results between using a PCI-E 3.0 slot at x8 and x16. Some applications (Unigine Heaven Pro and Octane Render) showed no difference, while others (Ashes of the Singularity, GRID Autosport, and Davinci Resolve) showed up to ~5% difference in performance. 

 

With dual GPUs, the results actually got a bit more confusing. Although Unigine Heaven Pro didn't see much of a difference with a single card, with two cards in SLI driving three 4K displays in surround we saw roughly a 15% drop in performance running at x16/x8 and a massive 30% drop in performance running at x8/x8. On the other hand, Ashes of the Singularity only showed minimal differences, and GRID Autosport was actually faster at 1080p when running in x8/x8 - although it was about 8% slower at 4K and 4K surround. On the professional side, Octane Render still didn't show a difference when using two cards but Davinci Resolve did see up to a ~10% drop in performance with both x16/8 and x8/x8.

 

 

[TacoSenpai]

At this point in time I'd probably go for the 8700K.  The 1800X isn't a bad chip by any means I use one just fine even at stock settings but the better IPC from the 8700K will be better for gaming and premiere.  Though neither choice here is really bad.

[Phentos]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

have link?

Not atm. Don't have the time to dig one up either.

[A_Mediocre_Kangaroo_Farmer]

I'd say get the 8700k and 4x8GB 3200Mhz cl14 ram.

[pas008]

30 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Depends on the workload and GPU configuration, but running x8 instead of x16 can definitely cost you performance in certain scenarios.  For overall gaming, the difference between x8 and x16 is minimal for single GPU use, but it can be needed for full GPU performance when running a SLI on top cards.  

 

I'd say the use of x16 is more important in GPU type workloads of a non-gaming nature.  

 

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Titan-X-Performance-PCI-E-3-0-x8-vs-x16-851/

 

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/hpc/PCIe-X16-vs-X8-for-GPUs-when-running-cuDNN-and-Caffe-887/

 

 

yes I read that one before

 

and this one too

 

 https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2963-intel-12k-marketing-blunder-pcie-lane-scaling-benchmarks

 

maybe you should to some benchmarking of larger amount of gamebenchmarks

hint hint

[johnukguy]

If you are in the US, near a Microcenter or a Staples, you can pick up the 1700X for $230 or $209 respectively and no, it's not 'destroyed' by the 8700K. It's also not 'somewhat cheaper' but a hell of a lot cheaper. Unless someone can point out where we can buy an 8700K for around $210? If you try Staples though, be careful and get everything confirmed for the price match.

[SSJGodemis]

3 hours ago, Armakar said:

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


 

I decided to go with the 8700k instead! My dad is cool with a $100 price increase. Though I wish I could give the win to team red.