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?

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[humbug]

I think the 7800x is as redundant as it gets

That crown goes to the 7640K

 

[humbug]

It's not a game it's a compiling benchmark lol. I've seen the slide. I've seen the video I'm just not sure how or why it warrants it's own thread. We all know skylake x was DOA.

Well your slide is more than a year old, is nothing to do with the topic and doesn't even involve the CPU's we are talking about.

Maybe we should get back on topic?

 

[humbug]

@Zeed, i'm trying to to react here but seriously look at his reaction to any Ryzen thread, not least this one, with that its actually impossible to have any sort of discussion that does not involve me being an AMD fanboy, even when i say things like this

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.

In them.....

There isn't actually anything i can do or say that makes him happy, so, stop encouraging him.

Yes let's enjoy yet another ryzen circle jerk thread. We really need more of these.

You think that's healthy? why would you quote that and use it to play the YOU are the fanboy card?

This is what he does, he goes round the threads trolling them hoping i will react enough to get banned or the mods close them because they blow up after he instigates it, you think that's good, why are you playing a part in this?

We all want clean reasonable debates, so I'll ignore the baiting.... don't everyone else fall into the trap and involve yourselves pulling every thread into the gutter for him.

 

[humbug]

Good to see some competition. Better for all camps. Humbug does bang the drum for AMD but I can't argue with the facts. It makes a change from Intel getting all the plaudits.

Let's stick to facts and remember we are not our hardware

Right, please lets.

Edited my post to expend on what i'm saying, i'm off for some dinner.

 

[humbug]

I found it quite interesting, for the simple fact that it was comparing Intel's mesh architecture to AMD's version of Mesh architecture. It was a far more apples to apples comparison that the 8700k vs 2600(x) as they are two completely different CPU's architecturally.

That is a very good point, Architectures are going to get more scalable because core counts are going up and for as good as traditional inter-core connects like the ring bus on coffeelake are they don't scale or work with higher core counts.

Both AMD and Intel know this which is why you get these new interconnects in the form of AMD's Infinity Fabric and Intel's Mesh.

 

[humbug]

We can play HEDT game also

Normal for normal desktop ryzen on CB cant be beated BUT [email protected] is around 1670 range very nice score for 6 core cpu

And there is this:

If someone is using Single core performance apps and games like MMO's Ryzen is not best choice.

If you're going to include the 8700K overclocked scores you also cannot ignore the same for Ryzen, which scores about 1950, even the £160 2600 scores about 1500, that's closer to the 5.1Ghz 8700K than it is to the 2700X.

There is no such thing as a game that only uses one core, not since about 1999, the only way you can judge a CPU's gaming performance is by doing actual gaming benchmarks, there are 37 of them on page one of this thread.

 

[humbug]

I haven't done the maths on this yet but here is the thing, Coffeelake vs Ryzen 1###

Intel 8### series ST +7% IPC
Intel 8### series MT +3% IPC

We tested that ^^^^^

Ryzen 2### has gained significant IPC over Ryzen 1###, that was inevitable, brand new architecture and platform, a lot of low hanging fruit, the point being the only thing Intel have now is Mhz, IPC? no.
And because the IPC is lower on Skylake-X what you end up with is higher IPC on Ryzen 2###, to the tune of about 10%.
This is why we are seeing these results where even in games like World of Tanks and GTA-V Intel in the form of Skylake-X at least are no longer faster, certainly not clock for clock. i'll do the maths later.

And you know what, for the first time since about 2004 AMD may beat Intel outright in 2019 with Zen 2.

 

[humbug]

Spoiler

7800-X Average FPS 171 (100%) 4.6Ghz (100%)
2600 Average FPS 168 (98%) 4.2Ghz (91%)

So with 9% higher clock the 7800X is 2% faster, a difference of about 7% IPC to the 2600.

Yes its give and take some in this review and this is an accumulative result however there are a lot of games in it that are traditionally Intel heavy, or at least they used to be vs Ryzen 1###.
For example:
Farcry Primal
GTA-V
PUBG
World of Tanks

Spoiler: Screenshots

Ryzen 2### vs Coffeelake

8700K all core boost 4.3Ghz, single core boost 4.7Ghz

MT
2600X @ 4.1Ghz (100%) score 1439 (100%)
8700K @ 4.3Ghz (105%) score 1419 (98%)
At 105% clock speed vs Ryzen 2### the 8700K scores 98%, a difference of +7% IPC to Ryzen 2###

ST
2600X @ 4.1Ghz (100%) score 176 (100%)
8700K @ 4.7Ghz (115%) score 198 (113%)
At 115% clock speed vs Ryzen 2### the 8700K scores 113%, a difference of 2% IPC to Ryzen 2###

Spoiler: Cinebench

@Martini1991 the numbers say Ryzen 2### gained 10% IPC, that's in line with what AMD said.

Edit: 159 at 3.9Ghz / 3066 ST

 

[humbug]

If you have a GTX 1080TI yeah, for anything less than that you're not gaining anything over a 2600 so i don't see the point in spending £160 more, a 2600 will net you the same performance with a GTX 1080 an an 8700K.

 

[humbug]

Where did AMD say Zen "2" was 10%? I've literally never once seen the claim.

I'll run a Cinebench now, and like I say, I expect to be lower than you which will prove the point.

Would you be offended if i take an internet full of reviews as more factual than what you are about to do?

 

[humbug]

Well, I made the statement before I did the test.
I get 158, so I'm exactly as I thought.

Show me where AMD said Zen+ is 10%. You're the only one saying it. Based on my Cinebench there's really no IPC gain, which is what I thought before I ran the Cinebench.

The difference between 3.8Ghz and 4.1Ghz is 8% yet your scoring 12% lower, you look at every review on the internet all Ryzen 2### score around 175 at around 4Ghz give or take slightly, i think you should ask what is different about your Ryzen 2700 that it seems slower than all others.
Against the rest of the internet i think you might understand that i don't take you singular result as fact above all others.

Show me where AMD said Zen+ is 10%. You're the only one saying it.

I miss read a slide, however again i have a whole internet of figures to go from.

 

[humbug]

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/3

AMD say it's 3%.

Right, And that is a rough match to what i found.
AMD are being a little conservative. Which of course isn't a bad thing.