• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Ryzen 7 2700x vs i7-8700k

OllieC

OllieC

OllieC

Associate
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Posts
48
Hey guys. So it seems i've narrowed down my upgrade choices to the new Ryzen 7 2700x and the i7-8700k. or is there an even better choice?
Which one of these do you think would be better for primarily gaming?
I need to overhaul my entire PC, with my current setup being:
ASRock H81 PRO BTC
i5-4460
16gb HyperX Savage DDR3 RAM
Nvidia Geforce GTX 970
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250gb
1TB SSHD
Antec VPF550 550W PSU

I'll need to replace the MOBO+RAM aswell, so any bundles or combo's that you could advise me on would be great. and I'll be upgrading my GPU in a month or so as too, most likely being a GTX 1070 or 1080.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking for same advice really. In leaning towards Ryzen as come next year dropping in the next Ryzen would be a very simple upgrade where as the 8700k would require new mobo
 
Pure gaming, can't beat 8700k. But you need top end you and high refresh monitor to get the most out of it.
If you want to push the 8700k though you're potentially looking at delid and high end cooling.

2700x pretty much good to go out of the box.
 
Sosuke. said:
I'm looking for same advice really. In leaning towards Ryzen as come next year dropping in the next Ryzen would be a very simple upgrade where as the 8700k would require new mobo
Click to expand...

That is precisely why I didn't buy the 8700k. I'm not investing in a board in which the socket is going to be obsolete in 6-9 months, at least with Ryzen you will be good for a few years with plenty of upgrade options.
 
As others mentioned, if you don't play many e-sports games at 1080p-240hz, then 2700x is a better choice, coz of extra 2 cores for rendering and other work and a free rather decent cooler.

At 2560-1440 and above there will be zero perceivable difference.
 
Right now I'm only playing on 1080p 144hz. Might step up to 1440p at some point but not in my thoughts that much at the moment.
 
Waiting to see what the Ryzen is like myself. I think I'm edging toward it due to playing mostly MMOs and always alt-tabbing, internet surfing and watching stuff at the same time.

2560x1440 60Hz, 1080 and a [email protected] at the moment.
 
hulari said:
Waiting to see what the Ryzen is like myself. I think I'm edging toward it due to playing mostly MMOs and always alt-tabbing, internet surfing and watching stuff at the same time.

2560x1440 60Hz, 1080 and a [email protected] at the moment.
Click to expand...

Almost exacty the same here!

2500k @ 4.3, but with a 1060, also 1440p at 60hz.

I play mmorpgs and want to use cpu power to "brute force" increase minimum fps during crowded times.

8700k seems like it would be "best", but the 2700k seems like it would do what I want for now, potentially improve as newer games use more cores and have more of an upgrade path than Intel... Also no aftermarket cooler needed (so £70 or so saving there). Even considering the 8600k at nearly £100 less than the 8700k... I also alt-tab a lot and always have some Firefox tabs open, but not usually streaming while playing.
 
I went from 2500k@ 4.6ghz to 4770k @ 4.4ghz to Ryzen 1700 @ 3.9ghz, both @ 1440p 144hz, what i can tell you is this the 4770k felt smoother than the 2500k, but the 1700 is even smoother than the 4770k, incredibly more smoother infact.

I only really play MMORPGS (WoW, ESO, Rift, EQ) and ARPGS (D3, Grim Dawn, POE) and the Ryzen by far is the best experience ive had, the fact i can alt tab out instantly while playing to look up quest info, or watch a youtube video etc and tab back in instantly was a massive plus for me.

I leave Chrome open with atleast 12 tabs open, zero impact on my gaming, on my 4770k this would often give me stuttering issues at times, especially in ARPGs, these have been eliminated with the Ryzen chip.

With more and more engines moving towards multicore usage now the Ryzen is only going to get better, ESO just announced their next big update will have better multicore optimisation, i cannot wait as currently the engine is a bit naff.

If i was buying right now, id buy the 2700X + the best high end board i could get and then shut up shop for a couple of years minimum as quite frankly you wont need to do anything to the rig for a long time, coupled with the fact you can leave the 2700X at stock speed, as the XFR2 will tune the CPU for single threaded stuff and push the frequency up, and then for multicore stuff it will start pushing other cores etc, so not even any need to really tinker with an overclock. Add in the cooler than comes with it and your already on to a winner.
 
The 8700s gaming results are not that much higher than the 2700, it really isnt going to be noticed by anyone other than a few extreme cases. In normal gaming use i bet a beer that no one would be able to tell the difference side by side.
So you might as well the the higher threaded cpu for future proofing, down the line you might want to do streaming or windows becomes even more bloated requiring more resources to run games well - you can only go so far with more mhz.
You get a cooler running, lower power hogging and more powerful cpu along with a really rather decent stock cooler.
 
I had a 1700X and was very prepared to go to 2700X. I now have an 8700K and as much as I really wanted to love and adore and stick with AMD. There isn't a choice in it. The 2700X overclocked barely makes 8700K stock all core boost and you still have a stronger IPC at that with the Intel.

Tickle it upwards a bit and get a mediocre clock and those additional cores from the AMD become worthless.

I have no benchmarks to prove this other than simply having owned a 1700X and 8700K, but hey what does real world usage and experience mean against the plethora of benchmarks that will be used to quote me and show me how wrong I am?
 
^^
Benchmarks may be quoted to dispute your first sentence, but not your last. Based on your experience you have formed your opinion and no one can dispute that. Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses and your contribution helps others make a more informed choice.
 
You also have no proof to backup the statement that additional cores from the AMD chip are worthless, they are not.
the games you currently play may not use them, but what about in 6 months??? what about more bloated crap from MS? we had this argument with quads as well and look at it now.

Of course its not much use going from an 8700 to a ryzen chip, heck i am not moving from my old 5820k to a new cpu until next year because of the same thing.
 
Steveocee said:
I had a 1700X and was very prepared to go to 2700X. I now have an 8700K and as much as I really wanted to love and adore and stick with AMD. There isn't a choice in it. The 2700X overclocked barely makes 8700K stock all core boost and you still have a stronger IPC at that with the Intel.
Click to expand...

Could you comment on the "smoothness" having had both please? A lot of people say frames seem smoother on a Ryzen and it does make it sound tempting :D
 
Had the same choice, went with 2700X, Gaming is ~5% at 1080P? Irrelevant at higher resolutions. Plus the 2700X wipes the floor with 8700K in most other things, runs cooler and on a chipset with a longer lifespan. 2700X is clear choice imho, that's why I went for it myself.

The next Intel chip (8 Core) Might be worth a look if you can wait, otherwise 2700X is obvious choice imho.
 
Steveocee said:
I had a 1700X and was very prepared to go to 2700X. I now have an 8700K and as much as I really wanted to love and adore and stick with AMD. There isn't a choice in it. The 2700X overclocked barely makes 8700K stock all core boost and you still have a stronger IPC at that with the Intel.

Tickle it upwards a bit and get a mediocre clock and those additional cores from the AMD become worthless.

I have no benchmarks to prove this other than simply having owned a 1700X and 8700K, but hey what does real world usage and experience mean against the plethora of benchmarks that will be used to quote me and show me how wrong I am?
Click to expand...
With the greatest of respect, the opinions of people who have made [CHOICE] and now strongly recommended that everybody else make [CHOICE] too because it's definetly the right decision always need to be taken with a truckload of salt. I'd say that objective benchmarks carry a lot more weight than somebody potentially looking for validation and justification about the money that they've spent and the choices that they've made. Not only in the PC building realm either.

And for what it's worth, as somebody who has also owned a 1600, 1700, 1700X, 8400 and 8700K, I strongly disagree with your assertion that there's a night and day difference in play. In fact, even with the "mere" 1600 that I'm currently running as a placeholder chip, my overclocked 1080 Ti taps out well before the CPU does in anything remotely demanding at 1440p/144Hz. An 8700K at 5GHz would gain me precisely nothing over this chip that I paid £130 for (sat in a motherboard that I paid £85 for). I'll still end up upgrading it this year anyway because I'm a consumerist sucker, but I don't need to.

I guess perhaps if you game at 1080p and a high refresh rate it might be different, but I'd recommend upgrading your monitor before anything else in that case, unless you're a professional esports player.
 
Aretak said:
With the greatest of respect, the opinions of people who have made [CHOICE] and now strongly recommended that everybody else make [CHOICE] too because it's definetly the right decision always need to be taken with a truckload of salt. I'd say that objective benchmarks carry a lot more weight than somebody potentially looking for validation and justification about the money that they've spent and the choices that they've made. Not only in the PC building realm either.

And for what it's worth, as somebody who has also owned a 1600, 1700, 1700X, 8400 and 8700K, I strongly disagree with your assertion that there's a night and day difference in play. In fact, even with the "mere" 1600 that I'm currently running as a placeholder chip, my overclocked 1080 Ti taps out well before the CPU does in anything remotely demanding at 1440p/144Hz. An 8700K at 5GHz would gain me precisely nothing over this chip that I paid £130 for (sat in a motherboard that I paid £85 for). I'll still end up upgrading it this year anyway because I'm a consumerist sucker, but I don't need to.

I guess perhaps if you game at 1080p and a high refresh rate it might be different, but I'd recommend upgrading your monitor before anything else in that case, unless you're a professional esports player.
Click to expand...

?

Urm..

So yeah the OP asks which chip to go for..

I had the same choice and went for 2700X, due to reason above. I have no idea why this would require a wall of text from you?

People have different opinions, I gave mine.
 
I went with Ryzen in the end for a few reason

Easy upgrade path, solder rather then tooth paste, supporting AMD to keep things competitive in a hobby I love. Gaming performance too close to care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom