Ryzen 2600 vs Core i9 7800X in 37 game benchmark.

[humbug]

Another massive CPU game comparison from Steve.

Ryzen 5 2600 £159
Core i9 7800X £320

Stock:
2600 3.4Ghz / 2933
7800X 3.5Ghz / 2400

Overclocked:
2600 4.2Ghz / 3400Mhz
7800X 4.6Ghz / 3400Mhz and overclocked Mesh.

If you have seen the other comparisons then this one shouldn't be so much of a surprise, although in the 2600 vs 8400 review the 8400 was clearly faster out of the box with the 2600 faster overclocked in this case the 2600 is mostly faster out of the box while the 7800X catches up when overclocked, tho it still isn't faster.
Another noteworthy thing are the 1% lowest frame rates, overall the Ryzen 2600 seems to maintain higher 1% low frame rates than the 7800X, a couple of times that difference is not small even where the averages are about even, i'll screenshot one example in a spoiler below.

Anyway despite no CPU being the outright gaming performance winner IMO it has to be handed to the 2600, the cost difference between the 7800X and 2600 is huge, the 7800X is nearly twice the money and when you factor in the cost difference between motherboards and memory in the end the 7800X will cost you more than twice as much.

overall performance after 37 games.

Spoiler: 1% lows frame fate difference.

Given they are both 6 core 12 thread CPU's and the 7800X also isn't any better in productivity performance would you join me in saying the 7800X is a pointless CPU at its price point, it needs to be cheaper, a lot cheaper?

 

[passifid]

Let's be honest the 7800x is pointless because of the 8700k mainly

 

[humbug]

Let's be honest the 7800x is pointless because of the 8700k mainly

There is no denying the 8700K is a great gaming CPU, the best gaming CPU in fact, if you have a 1080TI what you want is the 8700K and nothing else will do.

So yes ok, in that sense i tend to agree its the 8700K that makes the 7800X pointless, but the 2600 shows just how pointless it is because while you can justify 8700K vs the 2600 the 7800X at its £320 it has nothing on the 2600, the 2600 has its place for a GTX 1080 if that's what you have and the 8700K at twice the cost is no better in that sort of GPU range, its not actually that much better even on a GTX 1080TI.... but where does the 7800X fit in? or the 7820X? or any Skylake-X below the £1600 7980XE given Threadripper....?

What about when AMD go 12 core mainstream? then what? :O

 

[humbug]

Edit the OP, forgot to add the video

 

[AiiR]

The more I read the more I want to jump on Ryzen but the 1700 offered me nothing over a 6700k and in some cases dropped performance. I get stutters on my 5.2ghz 7700k when gaming and multitasking but for pure gaming there's nothing better at the moment.

Great to see AMD's mid range desktop matching up to Intel's HEDT offerings though.

 

[fadingfool]

7820X v 2700X - Intel has more PCIE lanes (28 v 20). Overclocks on an AIO to 4.7 (but gets toasty) - haven't seen any AIO OC on the 2700X yet. Supports up to 128GB memory - 64 On 2700X. It is also faster IPC (just)
Unfortunately it is double the price and the X299 platform will be abandoned by intel a lot sooner than AMD will abandon the AM4.

 

[Radox-0]

There is no denying the 8700K is a great gaming CPU, the best gaming CPU in fact, if you have a 1080TI what you want is the 8700K and nothing else will do.

So yes ok, in that sense i tend to agree its the 8700K that makes the 7800X pointless, but the 2600 shows just how pointless it is because while you can justify 8700K vs the 2600 the 7800X at its £320 it has nothing on the 2600, the 2600 has its place for a GTX 1080 if that's what you have and the 8700K at twice the cost is no better in that sort of GPU range, its not actually that much better even on a GTX 1080TI.... but where does the 7800X fit in? or the 7820X? or any Skylake-X below the £1600 7980XE given Threadripper....?

What about when AMD go 12 core mainstream? then what? :O

Its true that most of the lower core Skylake-X CPU's have been negated now somewhat, but similarly, this is by CPUs that came out after and have had improvements, would one buy a 7800x / 7820x now, not really. Ryzen 2 has had a chance to improve performance with the improvements to infinity fabric and the 8700k with Ring bus has been a monster from the onset, I don't imagine anyone would pick up anything below the 7900x on X299 really.

In regards to CPUs in Skylake-X line below the 7980XE, I would argue the 7920x/40x/60x do have a place of sorts, sure while there is Threadripper, it has not yet seen the improvements second generation Ryzen has seen and with like for like number of cores, the Skylake-X CPU's can clock higher, take quicker RAM and overclock the mesh. Similarly while we have seen AMD improve with Ryzen 2 and will do with TR 2, I also expect Intel will improve performance on Cascade-X

Still nice to see and as I mentioned in the other comparison thread, some competition in the CPU market.

 

[humbug]

7820X v 2700X - Intel has more PCIE lanes (28 v 20). Overclocks on an AIO to 4.7 (but gets toasty) - haven't seen any AIO OC on the 2700X yet. Supports up to 128GB memory - 64 On 2700X. It is also faster IPC (just)
Unfortunately it is double the price and the X299 platform will be abandoned by intel a lot sooner than AMD will abandon the AM4.

The only thing i would challenge on that is your IPC claim, clearly not.

At stock the 7800X is running all cores 3.5Ghz, the 2600 3.4Ghz, soo 100Mhz lower and yet despite this the 2600 is faster.
Overclocked its the same story, at 4.6Ghz the 7800X on the average FPS is less than 2% faster, in the minimums, where it matters more for Gaming IPC comparisons the 2600 is just under 3% faster, the 2600 is only running at 4.2Ghz, 400Mhz (<10% lower) you do the maths thats about <12% higher IPC on the Ryzen CPU.

Oh yes this is an AMD CPU with significantly higher IPC than a current high end Intel.

As for the rest, Threadripper has even more PCIe lanes (60), even more memory capacity (2TB i think) and ECC and bootable NVMe raid out of the box.

 

[gavinh87]

The only thing i would challenge on that is your IPC claim, clearly not.

At stock the 7800X is running all cores 3.5Ghz, the 2600 3.4Ghz, soo 100Mhz lower and yet despite this the 2600 is faster.
Overclocked its the same story, at 4.6Ghz the 7800X on the average FPS is less than 2% faster, in the minimums, where it matters more for Gaming IPC comparisons the 2600 is just under 3% faster, the 2600 is only running at 4.2Ghz, 400Mhz (10% lower) you do the maths thats about 12-13% higher IPC on the Ryzen CPU.

Oh yes this is an AMD CPU with significantly higher IPC than a current high end Intel.

As for the rest, Threadripper has even more PCIe lanes, even more memory capacity and ECC and bootable NVMe raid out of the box.

I wouldn't use these games for IPC calculations. The memory speeds are different for a start.

 

[Martini1991]

Isn't the 7800x just borked in general?
And lol at Ryzen IPC once again magically improving.

 

[humbug]

I wouldn't use these games for IPC calculations. The memory speeds are different for a start.

The memory speeds are 3400Mhz on both.

Anyway I know you wouldn't use these games, everyone else thinks its fine, Arma III, the minimum 1% lows thing that i posted in the spoiler is The Witcher 3, GTA-V... World of Tanks! you can't say these are not the right games because these these things are no longer Intel skewed. it means AMD have caught up.

Competition is good.

 

[Martini1991]

I know you wouldn't, everyone else thinks its fine, Arma III, the minimum 1% lows thing that i posted in the spoiler is The Witcher 3, GTA-V... World of Tanks! you can't say these are not the right games because these these things are no longer Intel skewed. it means AMD have caught up.

Competition is good.

I don't disagree, but this thread is a misrepresentation given that you make the comparison with a cheaper Intel CPU versus the i9 and have the same thing (i7 8700K v i9)

 

[humbug]

I don't disagree, but this thread is a misrepresentation given that you make the comparison with a cheaper Intel CPU versus the i9 and have the same thing (i7 8700K v i9)

I don't understand what you are driving at here?

The 2600 is £160
The 7800X is £320

In that sense it is unfair, but it not unfair to Intel, the Intel CPU costs twice as much, there are other comparisons that i have posted comparing Ryzen to Coffeelake, and there maybe more if Steve makes more, this is about the 7800X vs the 2600.

How is any of this a misrepresentation?

a cheaper Intel CPU

Its not, its £160 more expensive.

 

[Martini1991]

Derp.....
You could compare the i7 8700k versus the i9 and the i9 would still end up being shown up.

The point being you're making statements with a comparison that isn't really all that relevant other than to once again show AMD in a positive light.

 

[humbug]

Derp.....
You could compare the i7 8700k versus the i9 and the i9 would still end up being shown up.

Yes.... you're not the first to say this, post #2 and my response to it post #3

There is no denying the 8700K is a great gaming CPU, the best gaming CPU in fact, if you have a 1080TI what you want is the 8700K and nothing else will do.

So yes ok, in that sense i tend to agree its the 8700K that makes the 7800X pointless, but the 2600 shows just how pointless it is because while you can justify 8700K vs the 2600 the 7800X at its £320 it has nothing on the 2600, the 2600 has its place for a GTX 1080 if that's what you have and the 8700K at twice the cost is no better in that sort of GPU range, its not actually that much better even on a GTX 1080TI.... but where does the 7800X fit in? or the 7820X? or any Skylake-X below the £1600 7980XE given Threadripper....?

What about when AMD go 12 core mainstream? then what? :O

So i agree with you, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, like ** Can you use a better analogy next time please - EVH ** that is Skylake-X, because people think its a good CPU worth its money, its not bad but its also not that good, and it isn't worth its money, this illustrates it from a different angle that isn't just the obvious.

I mean seriously what is it for? where does it stand out from all others? its not as good for gaming as Coffeelake, is it at least better than Ryzen 2###? No. is it a better HEDT chip than Threadripper? No... so what then?

 

[gavinh87]

The memory speeds are 3400Mhz on both.

Anyway I know you wouldn't use these games, everyone else thinks its fine, Arma III, the minimum 1% lows thing that i posted in the spoiler is The Witcher 3, GTA-V... World of Tanks! you can't say these are not the right games because these these things are no longer Intel skewed. it means AMD have caught up.

Competition is good.

I'm talking about stock testing. As per the other thread - overclocking results are not guaranteed. So 2933 vs 2400 will skew any kind of IPC testing.

 

[gavinh87]

You are making the skylake x sound redundant. For gaming and certain loads then yes there is no real point. However there are a few certain uses where it comes into its own and ryzen cannot touch it. The 7800x $389 is whooping the $499 1800x here. Its not as black and white as you make out.

 

[humbug]

We can all cherry pick individual singular applications to bolster our arguments and forever go round in circles ^^^^ its a mindless game that has no relevance what-so-ever ^^^^^^ that slide even ignores Coffeelake let alone Ryzen 2###

I'm talking about stock testing. As per the other thread - overclocking results are not guaranteed. So 2933 vs 2400 will skew any kind of IPC testing.

2933Mhz is Ryzen 2### stock memory.

Erm? oh ok have it your way. The 2600 is faster out of the box..... seriously look at the slide.

 

[Martini1991]

I think the 7800x is as redundant as it gets

 

[humbug]

I think the 7800x is as redundant as it gets

That crown goes to the 7640K