Intel 7700k or AMD 2600?

[easyrider]

really? id say its balanced, with a slight skew towards amd if anything.

I'll buy the fastest chip for my needs regardless of manufacturer .

Fact is Ryzen 2 performs worse in music creation DAW software, Its slower in games.... ( the first thing I checked on Ryzen 2 release)

The two main uses of my computer.

Got nothing to do with anything else.

I've had countless AMD chips when AMD were in the game...Ryzen 2 is good but its not an Intel beater by any stretch.

 

[james_2k]

I'll buy the fastest chip for my needs regardless of manufacturer .

Fact is Ryzen 2 performs worse in music creation DAW software, Its slower in games.... ( the first thing I checked on Ryzen 2 release)

The two main uses of my computer.

Got nothing to do with anything else.

I've had countless AMD chips when AMD were in the game...Ryzen 2 is good but its not an Intel beater by any stretch.

no sorry, you are a rabid Intel fanboy, feel ashamed.

 

[easyrider]

no sorry, you are a rabid Intel fanboy, feel ashamed.

Wind it in...Its post like that this that ruin the cpu section.

 

[james_2k]

Wind it in...Its post like that this that ruin the cpu section.

errr, really? poking fun at people shouting fanboy is ruining the section? okay dude

 

[bru]

No, no, no. Ryzen was first. No need to wait for a replacement from the late company. They should have stayed on their quad cores, why should they release 8-core chips at all?
Not to see something from the competition

Not wanting to be picky but Intel's first 8 core chip was Aug 2014 AMD's Ryzen Feb 2017, that to me and anyone else who knows how a calendar works makes AMD the late company.

 

[easyrider]

Not wanting to be picky but Intel's first 8 core chip was Aug 2014 AMD's Ryzen Feb 2017, that to me and anyone else who knows how a calendar works makes AMD the late company.

Too easy

 

[TrixP10]

Too easy

Ok, First dual core?

If it wasn't for AMD then Intel would still be pluggin MONO core

 

[humbug]

Right now the 7700K is a bit faster in most games but it is a quad core and IMO not future proof.

Another vote for the 2600X.

 

[gavinh87]

Nothing in this game is future proof imo.
Today's fastest 8 core will get beaten by tomorrow's 6 core.
Buy what is fastest NOW

 

[humbug]

Nothing in this game is future proof imo.
Today's fastest 8 core will get beaten by tomorrow's 6 core.
Buy what is fastest NOW

No but one can take sensible steps to mitigate potential pitfalls, like running out of compute thread by making sure you have more than enough.

You don't buy a 1L car today because its all you need when tomorrow you're revving the bolts off it to get up the hill.

 

[bru]

Ok, First dual core?

If it wasn't for AMD then Intel would still be pluggin MONO core

First CPU Intel 4004 back in 1971, so you were saying.

 

[bru]

but enough sidetracking, the opening poster wanted to know 7700k or Ryzen 2600.

Unless you already have some of the parts required, 2600 all the way.

 

[humbug]

First CPU Intel 4004 back in 1971, so you were saying.

AMD made those too under license for IBM.

Both companies have contributed firsts and important things for the industry. The fact is one could not function without IP from the other and nVidia needs IP from both.

 

[moogle]

really? id say its balanced, with a slight skew towards amd if anything.

It is a bit Intel biased. Hopefully that doesn't get me labelled as an AMD fanboy! I did love AMD back in the Athlon days, but have been on Intel for many years and it does look like the 8700K has better IPC, but the extra cores on Ryzen wins it in the current battle.

The perfectionist in me though says that the 8700K is the better processor because of its IPC and lesser cores keeping on par with the Ryzen CPUs (in the same way that I vouched for AMD cpu's at a lower clockspeed but were beating Intels range at the time P4 EE cpu anyone? ).

I'd tell the OP to try and find a cheap 7700K, unless he could flog his setup at a good price and go Ryzen.

 

[humbug]

It is a bit Intel biased. Hopefully that doesn't get me labelled as an AMD fanboy! I did love AMD back in the Athlon days, but have been on Intel for many years and it does look like the 8700K has better IPC, but the extra cores on Ryzen wins it in the current battle.

The perfectionist in me though says that the 8700K is the better processor because of its IPC and lesser cores keeping on par with the Ryzen CPUs (in the same way that I vouched for AMD cpu's at a lower clockspeed but were beating Intels range at the time P4 EE cpu anyone? ).

I'd tell the OP to try and find a cheap 7700K, unless he could flog his setup at a good price and go Ryzen.

It's marginally better IPC in single threaded workloads, one of the reviewers tested it, its was 3% vs Ryzen refresh, the 8700K is probably less IPC in heavy multithreaded workloads given that Ryzen 1 was 99% the 8700K's IPC and Ryzen 2 has gained IPC, 7% in games, or at least in the tested BF1.

So yes the 8700K has a higher IPC, if at all its so close, in some circumstance, possibly lower in others, so... meh.

 

[james_2k]

It marginally better IPC in single threaded workloads, one of the reviewers tested it, its was 3% vs Ryzen refresh, the 8700K is probably less IPC in heavy multithreaded workloads given that Ryzen 1 was 99% the 8700K's IPC there and Ryzen 2 has gained IPC, 7% in games, or at least in the tested BF1.

So yes the 8700K has a higher IPC, if at all its so close, and in some circumstance, possibly lower in others, so... meh.

well, look at the single thread cinebench results. which would give a good indication of game performance due to fewer cores being used. 8700k dominates the 2700x et al
IPC is all well and good if they clocked the same, they do not: https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/amd-2nd-gen-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-review/5/

 

[humbug]

well, look at the single thread cinebench results. which would give a good indication of game performance due to fewer cores being used. 8700k dominates the 2700x et al
IPC is all well and good if they clocked the same, they do not: https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/amd-2nd-gen-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-review/5/

180 vs 200 is 10%, that's clearly higher but 10% is not so hyperbolic as to "dominate", its 10%, and almost all of it is down to the 8700K's 4.7Ghz single core boost vs the 4.3Ghz Boost on the 2700X.

You do understand IPC? yes? 4.7Ghz vs 4.3Ghz... do the maths.

 

[james_2k]

180 vs 200 is 10%, that's clearly higher but 10% is not so hyperbolic as to "dominate" its 10% and almost all of it is down to the 8700K's 4.7Ghz single core boost vs the 4.3Ghz Boost on the 2700X.

You do understand IPC? yes?

you may want to look at overclocked results there my amd friend. who buys these and doesnt? :O

oh and my 7900x gets 217 single thread, hardly poor for gaming either. now then whats you got?

 

[EsaT]

No they're not...

The 7700k has hyperthreading and is a brilliant chip for gaming.

Hyperthreading is no substitute for actual cores in heavier loads.
It's good for helping with all that background stuff running in PC, but beyond that it struggles.
And all higher profile games are now going to look into utilizing more than just few cores.

Intel doesn't even have any upgrade path.
Wouldn't wonder if rumoured 8 core Coffee Lake would require new motherboards because its honest full load TDP would be far beyond 100W.
And next CPU model certainly won't fit.
Unlike AMD keeping AM4 socket to 2020.

Unless current motherboard is good and 7700K is available for good price (for core count) there's no sense in buying it anymore.

 

[humbug]

you may want to look at overclocked results there my amd friend. who buys these and doesnt? :O

oh and my 7900x gets 217 single thread, hardly poor for gaming either. now then whats you got?

You clearly have no understanding of IPC, and what does any of this crap have to do with the OP question? he's asking 7700K or 2600. would you suggest a Skylake-X because that is no better for gaming than Ryzen 2 and 3x as expensive.