Ryzen 7 1700X vs i5 8600K

[PacMqn]

For my new build i am planning to use either a Ryzen 7 1700X or an Intel i5 8600K, my decision is leaning towards the ryzen option, but after seeing some benchmarks I saw that the i5 performed better in some games. My main tasks are games such as Overwatch and Fortnite and I use Autodesk Inventor as kind of a hobby type of thing, for those who used those CPU's for the aforementioned tasks PLEASE tell me what problems you might of ran into.

 

 

Note: If I use big words and formal sentences please don't judge me, I'm used to a crazy English teacher reading EVERYTHING that I write ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[1234vietnam]

8600k will perform better by a decent bit in games

[TheGlenlivet]

Just now, PacMqn said:

For my new build i am planning to use either a Ryzen 7 1700X or an Intel i5 8600K, my decision is leaning towards the ryzen option, but after seeing some benchmarks I saw that the i5 performed better in some games. My main tasks are games such as Overwatch and Fortnite and I use Autodesk Inventor as kind of a hobby type of thing, for those who used those CPU's for the aforementioned tasks PLEASE tell me what problems you might of ran into.

 

 

Note: If I use big words and formal sentences please don't judge me, I'm used to a crazy English teacher reading EVERYTHING that I write ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Formality in English is appreciated, my good Sir.  It makes things easier to understand.

If your Autodesk application will take advantage of the extra cores the R7 has, then I would go that way.  They will; both handle all the games you play easily.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, PacMqn said:

For my new build i am planning to use either a Ryzen 7 1700X or an Intel i5 8600K, my decision is leaning towards the ryzen option, but after seeing some benchmarks I saw that the i5 performed better in some games.

replace this word, in ALL games...

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

replace this word, in ALL games...

That's an outright lie.

 

Because if a game uses all 16 Threads of Ryzen, it will perform better with the memory.

There is no question about it.

 

Also if you do 2 heavy load things at the same time (streaming a video), the ryzen is better.

So the Intel is not that awesom you make it out to be....

[Maxxtraxx]

The 8600k will generally perform noticeably better in games by a decent margin especially when overclocked

 

The Specific size of the FPS improvement in gaming will depend heavily upon the Framerates that you are interested in, The higher the framerates that you will be encountering the greater the difference in the performance of the 8600k vs the 1700x. This is entirely due to lower FPS generally games being GPU bound/bottlenecked and thusly the CPU performance difference will only arise when higher FPS situations allow the GPU to utilize the CPU more.

 

SO, generally higher refresh/FPS focused gaming will see a bigger difference between the 8600k and the 1700x while higher resolution and lower FPS gaming will see a smaller difference between the two. In the end, the 8600k is the better gaming performer by a decent margin but you will not see that difference until the GPU is able to leverage the CPU better as your gaming becomes less GPU bound.

 

I'm very unfamiliar with autodesk... but i'll go out on a limb here and guess that solidworks may perform and function similarly to autodesk. Puget systems has some benchmarks showing a 8600k vs 1800x for you to view. In general it seems that the 8600k performs quite similarly to the 1800x and would likely see even more improvment if you decided to overclock by any decent amount.

 

Remember: the 1700x will have the higher core count and thread count to lean when all cores/threads can be leveraged BUT the 8600k has much higher per thread throughput due to it's more efficient IPC(instructions per clock) performance and its outright higher speed(as much as 1Ghz with some overclocks)

 

Gaming uses fewer cores generally but benefits greatly from higher IPC and Clock speed thusly helping the 8600k.

Some optimized productivity programs can better leverage the full 16 thread capacity of the 1700x and thusly perform better.

 

Puget systems review can be found: HERE

 

Toms Hardware also has an 8600K review that has some autocad and solidworks performance tests vs 1700x/1700 that may interest your in your decision.

 

Toms Hardware review can be found: HERE

[Princess Luna]

4 hours ago, PacMqn said:

Note: If I use big words and formal sentences please don't judge me, I'm used to a crazy English teacher reading EVERYTHING that I write ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Pretentious much eh?

[Zeitec]

The 8600k @5.0ghz performs better than the 1700x in all games today. That being said I would take the 1700x all day long. I fully believe that the 8600k is going to really start struggling within the next 24 months due to a lack of threads, just like quad cores are today. The 1700x has nearly triple the threads. I believe the 1700x should last 4-5 years in AAA games at 60fps, where I expect the 8600k to start struggling to meet the 60fps minimums within 36 months. 

[xg32]

i7 8700 would be the best option here, it beats the 8600k for the same price as you can slap a cheaper heatsink on there.

[Maxxtraxx]

30 minutes ago, xg32 said:

i7 8700 would be the best option here, it beats the 8600k for the same price as you can slap a cheaper heatsink on there.

Not in gaming when the 8600k is overclocked or not by any strech, only in applications that can fully saturate 12 threads through the CPU.

 

1 hour ago, Zeitec said:

The 8600k @5.0ghz performs better than the 1700x in all games today. That being said I would take the 1700x all day long. I fully believe that the 8600k is going to really start struggling within the next 24 months due to a lack of threads, just like quad cores are today. The 1700x has nearly triple the threads. I believe the 1700x should last 4-5 years in AAA games at 60fps, where I expect the 8600k to start struggling to meet the 60fps minimums within 36 months. 

All speculation and oppinion,

 

(now my opinion with survey results)

 

Migration in that direction but it will be a slow 5-10 year march.

 

4 cores has been the gaming norm for 7 years plus and new gaming releases continue to be based on engines that cannot or do not usually take advantage of more than 6 cores for certain reasons:

Game makers would be heavily reducing their available gaming population by making games that begin requiring minimum specs that MOST gamers do not have and most gamers will not have for 5 years as current systems begin to get into the hands of more common users.

 

 

As you can see, the most recent steam survey shows (correction)73% of users currently have 4 cores, this after 7 plus years of 4 cores being common.

While (correction)23% still have only dual cores.

These users are not going away and machines with these specs will take years to lose their dominance in market share.

Now that Intel and AMD have gone almost entirely 4 core and up, we'll see more movement, but the finances needed to make games requires that a large gaming population be able to run said games.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Maxxtraxx
corrections

[xg32]

1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Not in gaming when the 8600k is overclocked or not by any strech, only in applications that can fully saturate 12 threads through the CPU.

 

i have both the 8600k and 8700k, the 8700k is consistently beating out the 8600k. The "problem" is quite a few games already put the 8600k on full load, the difference isn't huge but i'd definitely take the i7 8700 at stock over a i5 8600k @5ghz.

 

There's a Tom's article with all the numbers.

[epsilon84]

2 hours ago, Zeitec said:

The 8600k @5.0ghz performs better than the 1700x in all games today. That being said I would take the 1700x all day long. I fully believe that the 8600k is going to really start struggling within the next 24 months due to a lack of threads, just like quad cores are today. The 1700x has nearly triple the threads. I believe the 1700x should last 4-5 years in AAA games at 60fps, where I expect the 8600k to start struggling to meet the 60fps minimums within 36 months. 

The 1700X already struggles to maintain 60fps minimums on some of todays games - and you think it will be good for 5 years?

 

And I mean 60fps in highly multi-threaded games like Watch Dogs 2 and Assasins Creed: Origins, games that can take advantage of 16+ threads.

 

The relatively low IPC and clockspeed of the 1700X will always hinder it no matter how many threads it has. Sure, it will run games in a few years time, but so will the 8600K. You have no way of predicting that the extra threads on the 1700X will enable it to match, let alone surpass, a 8600K in the future.

 

As of today, a 8600K runs practically all games, even highly multi-threaded games, better than a 1700X.

 

 

 

[xg32]

43 minutes ago, epsilon84 said:

The 1700X already struggles to maintain 60fps minimums on some of todays games - and you think it will be good for 5 years?

 

And I mean 60fps in highly multi-threaded games like Watch Dogs 2 and Assasins Creed: Origins, games that can take advantage of 16+ threads.

 

The relatively low IPC and clockspeed of the 1700X will always hinder it no matter how many threads it has. Sure, it will run games in a few years time, but so will the 8600K. You have no way of predicting that the extra threads on the 1700X will enable it to match, let alone surpass, a 8600K in the future.

 

As of today, a 8600K runs practically all games, even highly multi-threaded games, better than a 1700X.

 

 

 

I actually hold back alot of my opinions on ryzen vs 8600k vs 8700/k.

 

Let's just say i'd never go for ryzen for performance until their ipc+clock improves closer to 4.5ghz (a 4.5ghz 1600 would probably trash a 8600k in the future, but ill believe it when i see it)

 

There's a nice space for the r5 1600in 1080p/1440p gaming on a budget but that's about it(i wouldn't pair a 1600 with a 1080ti for 4k), 

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, epsilon84 said:

The 1700X already struggles to maintain 60fps minimums on some of todays games - and you think it will be good for 5 years?

Any proof of that?
And yes, the 1700X has more potential because 2 more cores.

 

But hey, lets not buy AMD at all, even if they are a totally viable option, so that we can pay 500€ or even 1000€ for the next successor of the i7-8700...

Especially since it took AMD to force Intel to get more than 4 Cores with SMT to the Consumers. We were at almost 10 years for 4 Cores/8 Threads in the normal Desktop segment!!

And the first 8 Core/16 Thread CPU that Intel made was also from either 2008 or 2009, though the rare LGA 1567 socket...

 

And what I see here is the usual propaganda, using ancient game titles from 2 years ago or more to "prove" that Intel is better. And also use the "@5GHz!!111" Argument.

 

Why not state, that:
a) its not possible for all chips to reach 5GHz

b) there might be modifications needed that void the warranty of the CPU!

[Aggravated Salmon]

4k gaming or not? what gpu? if 4k gaming, go with ryzen all day

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

The 8600k will generally perform noticeably better in games by a decent margin especially when overclocked

 

Yes, the usual "overclocking" argument, without mentioning that the IHS isn't soldered to the die and that one might need either a really beefy cooler or delid the CPU for it to be stable or in a reasonable temperature range...

 

 

4 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Toms Hardware review can be found: HERE

There are better sites than Tomshardware, why use them as an argument?!
Because they tested with DDR4 3200 memory @ 2667?? So that the Ryzen looses performance??

 

They don't state in the diagrams, what memory they use. And that's something that really gains performance on Ryzen...

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, the usual "overclocking" argument, without mentioning that the IHS isn't soldered to the die and that one might need either a really beefy cooler or delid the CPU for it to be stable or in a reasonable temperature range...

You can get a modest overclock on the i5 with a budget cooler.  Even if you don't, the 8600k is still significantly better for gaming.

[epsilon84]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Any proof of that?
And yes, the 1700X has more potential because 2 more cores.

Watch Dogs 2:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3157-intel-i5-8600k-review-overclocking-vs-8700k-8400/page-2

 

Assasins Creed: Origins

https://www.techspot.com/article/1525-assassins-creed-origins-cpu-test/

 

This one looks even worse for Ryzen:

http://www.pcgamer.com/assassins-creed-origins-performance-guide/

[epsilon84]

5 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's an outright lie.

 

Because if a game uses all 16 Threads of Ryzen, it will perform better with the memory.

There is no question about it.

 

Speaking of proof, you demanded proof from me, so I want to see which games perform better on the 1700X? Surely if that is an outright lie and 'there is no question about it' you can show us many examples of this?

[johnukguy]

 

[Tytan64]

An actual Ryzen R7 1700 @4GHz here ... I have a 60Hz 1080p display and I play most AAA games with V-Sync on. Butter smooth. And before you ask, no I didn't get an 8-core for gaming only. I stream and I like to use the h.264 option for encoding and when I bought the R7 1700 there were only 4-core i7 CPUs.

Anyways. I get about 170fps in DOTA 2 and LoL when V-Sync off. I also play GTA V online with a couple of friends and it's said that GTA V doesn't like Ryzen. Again, butter smooth experience. 

I don't think you can really go wrong with either Intel or AMD at this point if you're a gamer. But I'd choose to buy the R5 1600 instead of the R7 1700 or the i5-8600K because it delivers good performance and is way cheaper than both options. Also you can upgrade your CPU in the future without having to switch the whole platform. I'm thinking about Ryzen 3 (or whatever they will call it) when they use the 7nm process. 

Coffeelake delivers the most frames per second, yes. But it's a more expensive and also more limiting plattform in my opinion. Personally I was very happy to not having the need to build an Intel system again.

I had a Core 2 Quad Q9550, an i7-2600K and an i7-4790K ... boring.