What's new

Discussion I7-8700K vs I7-7820X

  • Thread starter MARTYNHETTINGER
  • Start date
  • Views 2,741
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
I debating which CPU i should get. The 7820X is $200 more for a octa core with a 3.6 base speed compared to the hex core 8700K 3.7 but has faster multi-core speeds. They both only support R4-2666 memory but he 8700K can only do 2 sticks while the 7820X can do 4. Then on top of that the 7820X needs a x299 board as opposed to a more "mainstream" z270 or z370. I honestly cant decide whether the extra cores and inter-core speeds are worth the cost.
 
H

Habofro

PC Enthusiast
Retired
Messages
7,741
Reaction score
3,921
If you're only going to use it for gaming, go for the 8700k

Keep in mind that the 8700k requires a z370 board, the z270 boards are NOT compatible
 
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
If you're only going to use it for gaming, go for the 8700k

Keep in mind that the 8700k requires a z370 board, the z270 boards are NOT compatible
Its going to be probably about 75% gaming with some other moderate work on it like running AutoCad. Now in that case do you have any z370 boards that you could suggest that lead onto possible expansion or have dual CPU slots? Also I do plan on overclocking at least occasionally and if you could suggest a good set-up for that I would much appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
H

Habofro

PC Enthusiast
Retired
Messages
7,741
Reaction score
3,921
Its going to be probably about 75% gaming with some other moderate work on it like running AutoCad. Now in that case do you have any z370 boards that you could suggest that lead onto possible expansion or have dual CPU slots? Also I do plan on overclocking at least occasionally and if you could suggest a good set-up for that I would much appreciate it.
What's your budget? I'll build you something good for that price

Dual CPU motherboard only exist for server CPUs like Xeons.
 
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
What's your budget? I'll build you something good for that price

Dual CPU motherboard only exist for server CPUs like Xeons.
Id really like to stick around 2.5k but my max I'm willing to put in is about 3k. Also I'd like to stay away from liquid cooling and have at least some RGB lighting, Thanks a ton. :smile:
 
Last edited:
P

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Id really like to stick around 2.5k but my max I'm willing to put in is about 3k. Also I'd like to stay away from liquid cooling and have at least some RGB lighting, Thanks a ton. :smile:

Buy a 16 core Ryzen threadripper rig.
 
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
Buy a 16 core Ryzen threadripper rig.
Just because I have a $2.5k doesnt mean Ill spend 800-1k on a processor. Although the 1900X Threadripper does look tempting. Though in the end Im probably going to stick with a Intel as for now they remain just a little bit more versatile and the only real categories the new Ryzen CPUs excel in is 3D Rendering in applications(Not games) and video streaming such as Twitch.
 
Last edited:
P

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Lmao threadripper maked no sense for gaming. You're taking fanboying to a new level

User specified he was using "AutoCad" he never said it was just gaming. Nothing over a 1600 is worth it for just gaming anyone who buys anything above a 1600 for gaming is an idiot.

Ryzen Threadripper chips are very good for professional workloads & streaming.

Just because I have a $2.5k doesnt mean Ill spend 800-1k on a processor. Although the 1900X Threadripper does look tempting. Though in the end Im probably going to stick with a Intel as for now they remain just a little bit more versatile and the only real categories the new Ryzen CPUs excel in is 3D Rendering in applications(Not games) and video streaming such as Twitch.

Gaming is barely intensive on the CPU if all you do is game the Ryzen 1500x is more than enough & 1600 is overkill. New AMD chips come out next month basically same IPC but faster clock speeds.

The best "gaming" intel chip is 1% faster than the best Ryzen "Gaming" chip in raw FPS. Background tasks would push closer to Ryzen favor. Its true Intel wins, but are you going to pay $350 for an 8700k vs 1600 for $180 & the additional cost of the Intel mobo's just for 1% performance in gaming & worse performance in streaming/rendering/professional workloads?

 
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
User specified he was using "AutoCad" he never said it was just gaming. Nothing over a 1600 is worth it for just gaming anyone who buys anything above a 1600 for gaming is an idiot.

Ryzen Threadripper chips are very good for professional workloads & streaming.



Gaming is barely intensive on the CPU if all you do is game the Ryzen 1500x is more than enough & 1600 is overkill. New AMD chips come out next month basically same IPC but faster clock speeds.

The best "gaming" intel chip is 1% faster than the best Ryzen "Gaming" chip in raw FPS. Background tasks would push closer to Ryzen favor. Its true Intel wins, but are you going to pay $350 for an 8700k vs 1600 for $180 & the additional cost of the Intel mobo's just for 1% performance in gaming & worse performance in streaming/rendering/professional workloads?

You are correct, I did say I would be building a rig for about 70-75% gaming and the rest as medium to heavy-medium work such as using Auto-CAD. Although while you are correct in the fact that Ryzen chips are good for streaming, however they arent as good as Intel chips are at running labor intensive programs like Auto-CAD. Theyll run it just fine but under more stress than an Intel processor. On top of that Intel cpus almost always have longer lifespans unless the user fries the cpu or it is shipped defective. Probably the most important part is that Ryzen slack off in physical processing speed for more physical cores and threads which is good if you actively utilize most or all of the available core which in most cases people dont come close to doing so.
 
P

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
You are correct, I did say I would be building a rig for about 70-75% gaming and the rest as medium to heavy-medium work such as using Auto-CAD. Although while you are correct in the fact that Ryzen chips are good for streaming, however they arent as good as Intel chips are at running labor intensive programs like Auto-CAD. Theyll run it just fine but under more stress than an Intel processor.

You are talking clock for clock core per core. In single threaded tasks Intel wins, in labor intensive tasks Ryzen wins. Why not compare the comparable products? Ryzen 1600X cost $220 destroys the $350 I7-8700k in labor intensive tasks.


1700 beats the 8700k and an overclocked watercooled 8700k loses to the 1800x stock.




On top of that Intel cpus almost always have longer lifespans unless the user fries the cpu or it is shipped defective. Probably the most important part is that Ryzen slack off in physical processing speed for more physical cores and threads which is good if you actively utilize most or all of the available core which in most cases people dont come close to doing so.
This is actually the opposite.

Intel chips run WAY hotter and end up requiring far more cooling as well as dying out faster due to Intel using cheap chinese thermal paste for TIM, while AMD uses Liquid metal. I mean I guess if you delid your intel chip you could get an Intel chip to last as long as an AMD chip, but unless you delid the Intel chip is going to be way worse off.

If you buy a Ryzen chip or an Intel chip both will probably last 25 years without breaking at reasonable workloads but the Intel chip will die far faster due to Intel cheaping out on the TIM.


Ryzen doesn't clock low because of they cram more cores it clocks low because Ryzen was built of the 14nm LPE node which was designed for ARM chips in your smartphone, it was meant to be performance per watt its actually slightly more power efficient than Intel's 14nm however I would argue Intel's 14nm node is better overall as it scales better with voltage. Its actually funny because this node is actually better in the server market where AMD's Epyc chips have far higher clock rates than similar Intel chips.

Ryzen 2 coming out next week is already showing higher clock rates which indicates its likely on a new or improved node.
 
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
Nobody here is talking about a goddamn server in the slightest. Also hasnt Cinebench been under some fire lately for being a tad bit unreliable in its results. Now in concern to labor intensive tasks which are multi-core and multi-thread such as VIDEO EDITING and STREAMING Ryzen manages a small lead over comparable Intel cpu's now in regards to applications such as Auto-CAD which is more thread intensive than core intensive such as many of the "work" applications out there and that means that higher clock speeds allow for faster and more numerous IPC. This is why Intel in still in the lead for gaming and workstation performance while AMD's Ryzen is more of for a editing rig for a youtuber or streamer
 
H

Habofro

PC Enthusiast
Retired
Messages
7,741
Reaction score
3,921
User specified he was using "AutoCad" he never said it was just gaming. Nothing over a 1600 is worth it for just gaming anyone who buys anything above a 1600 for gaming is an idiot.

Ryzen Threadripper chips are very good for professional workloads & streaming.



Gaming is barely intensive on the CPU if all you do is game the Ryzen 1500x is more than enough & 1600 is overkill. New AMD chips come out next month basically same IPC but faster clock speeds.

The best "gaming" intel chip is 1% faster than the best Ryzen "Gaming" chip in raw FPS. Background tasks would push closer to Ryzen favor. Its true Intel wins, but are you going to pay $350 for an 8700k vs 1600 for $180 & the additional cost of the Intel mobo's just for 1% performance in gaming & worse performance in streaming/rendering/professional workloads?

Please explain to me how literally everyone on this site knows how biased you are toward AMD, even people who don't go on this forum much.

Your opinions are a joke and no one takes them seriously. Just stop.

Intel is much much better for gaming. Simple as that. Even AMD themselves admitted it. Stop trying and most importantly Stop wasting everyone's time


Also, you can quite easily get the same performance as a 1800 with the 8700k for rendering and all that heavily threaded stuff simply by overclocking the 8700k to 4.8GHz (Can easily be OCed to 5GHz) and before you say that you can overclock the ryzen chips, they're waay worst at it, you're lucky to even get 4GHz before blue-screening.

IF OP wants to spend 1k on a processor he should go with the 7900x as it will give significant better gaming performance while only being a bit worst for heavily threaded workloads. I would, however, wait for the next 8th gen i9s though as I'd expect them to drop fairly soon and to have higher clock speed or more core for the same price.
 
P

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Please explain to me how literally everyone on this site knows how biased you are toward AMD, even people who don't go on this forum much.

Your opinions are a joke and no one takes them seriously. Just stop.
I link objective facts & benchmarks you are counting my data & facts with some random youtuber.

TechPowerUp's list is a comparison among about 20 games average. Some random youtube video can say look here are the 4 games X product does better or worse in.

Intel is much much better for gaming. Simple as that. Even AMD themselves admitted it. Stop trying and most importantly Stop wasting everyone's time

This is objectively not true. It performs so minuscule gains at double the price point.

Bias & wrong are not the same thing.

I link objective facts from sites with actual data like TechPowerUp, Guru3d, and Anandtech

You link things like HERE IS WHAT LINUSTECHTIPS & GAMERSNEXUS SAID ABOUT AMD! Or other random youtubers.

I use TPU's comparison charts mostly because they have a huge comparison across many games. Where sites like Linus will be like ok lets test AMD vs Intel and we will run the test on 4 Indie single threaded games using Intel's old compiler from 2002.

Or lets compare AMD vs Nvidia and we will test Project Cars & Batman Arkam Asylum.


For low budget builds the Ryzen 2400g is the best chip to buy.

For low budget builds with a high/mid range end GPU the i3-8100 is the best chip to buy while the Ryzen R3 are good buys

For just gaming the 1600x is the best buy the 1700x & 8700k are retarded to buy for gaming only, and the 8600k is a bad buy for gaming only.

For streaming the 8600k is not a good buy, the 1600x is an amazing buy and the 1700/1700x are the best buys.

For production workloads TR is the best buy.


Intel's only good product in any price performance ratio right now is the i3 8100. And the reason I don't recommend it more is Intel mobo costs kinda ruin the whole benefit of the budget chip.

AMD is objectively better than Intel at every single price point until you get into 5,000 super rigs. And when you get into server markets the Epyc chips destroy Intel in performance to price ratio considering the 32core Epyc's are cheaper than Intel's top 16 core chips.


Also, you can quite easily get the same performance as a 1800 with the 8700k for rendering and all that heavily threaded stuff simply by overclocking the 8700k to 4.8GHz (Can easily be OCed to 5GHz) and before you say that you can overclock the ryzen chips, they're waay worst at it, you're lucky to even get 4GHz before blue-screening.
3.9 is easy on stock cooler & 4.0-4.1 is average to get with watercooling. 5ghz on Coffeelake usually requires watercooling so sure you have it clocked 20% higher but the issue is Intel has less cores vs competing products & also has a far inferior SMT implementation.

Coffeelake has trouble maintaining stock clocks without a decent cooler (like a Cryorig H7 or better), due to the chinese thermal paste for TIM.

AMD isn't bottlenecked by temps but due to the node it was built on that scales poorly on voltage (it is most optimal on AMD's arch around 3ghz while Intel's node is optimal around 3.5 on Intel Arch, but Intel's voltage/clock can scale well even to 5ghz while AMD scales to around 4ghz.)

When I say optimal I am saying everything like voltage scaling. The diminishing returns on adding voltage hits AMD hard when getting most chips around 3.8 and Intel around 4.5 but Intel can still push arround 5 while AMD only usually pushes around 4.

Pretty much anyone (like 95% of users) with a Cryorig H7 can get an 8700k to 4.7 and Ryzen desktop sku to 3.9 and most can prob get 4.9 on coffeelake or 4.0ghz on Ryzen.

The new Ryzen 2700k has already been benchmarked on 3dmark at 4.2ghz but its unknown if that is the default clock rates or overclocked or what cooling was used. I am expecting that the 4.2 reading was probably XFR and we will prob see Ryzen 2 arround a 4.4ghz-4.5ghz soft wall


The 7900k is no where close to the CPU power of the 1950x, to beat a stock clocked 1950x you would need over 6ghz overclock on Liguid nitrogen.

Are you claiming you can get the 7900x to 6ghz?



IF OP wants to spend 1k on a processor he should go with the 7900x as it will give significant better gaming performance while only being a bit worst for heavily threaded workloads. I would, however, wait for the next 8th gen i9s though as I'd expect them to drop fairly soon and to have higher clock speed or more core for the same price.

The 7900k is 40% slower power (both stock) than the 1950x

Notice how all my claims about performance I list charts comparing the products?
 
P

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
Nobody here is talking about a goddamn server in the slightest. Also hasnt Cinebench been under some fire lately for being a tad bit unreliable in its results. Now in concern to labor intensive tasks which are multi-core and multi-thread such as VIDEO EDITING and STREAMING Ryzen manages a small lead over comparable Intel cpu's now in regards to applications such as Auto-CAD which is more thread intensive than core intensive such as many of the "work" applications out there and that means that higher clock speeds allow for faster and more numerous IPC. This is why Intel in still in the lead for gaming and workstation performance while AMD's Ryzen is more of for a editing rig for a youtuber or streamer

No Cinebench is not under Fire and has not been under fire for anything in years. You are referring to 3dmark that is always facing criticism.

Clock speed & IPC are not related. IPC is instructions per clock or basically performance per clock rate.


Intel Chips clock higher this means core per core they typically out perform AMD
AMD solves this by offering more cores which means they will usually have more overall performance
AMD's SMT implementation is FAR superior to Intel's SMT implementation and AMD actually uses the industry standard IBM has been using it for years. This means AMD's logical threads are superior to Intel Logical Threads.

If you look at an 8700k vs a 1600x and say look the 6 Core AMD Chip vs 6 Core Intel chip is about the same in rendering this is a huge mistake because the 8700k cost twice the price.

Comparing the 8700k to the 1700x would be a more fair comparison where the 1700x is still far cheaper to the 8700k. Even though the 1700x has more cores its a fair comparison because its cheaper.


IPC on Ryzen vs Intel is similar some tasks Intel wins some AMD wins. It depends how Integer or Floating points are used & what instruction sets are being used. Cinebench algorithm has about a 3% IPC lead on Intel vs AMD in single thread. In multithread they would actually lose clock per clock core per core. I would argue Cinebench algorithm is unbiased and I think the Ryzen 2 chips will be about the same IPC in Cinebench due to the cache fix.

CPU synthetic benchmarks are very good & accurate the hard part is synthetic GPU benchmarks where there are too many differences in GPU arch to actually make a balanced benchmark.


Cinebench only fire they were ever involved it was like 10 years ago where Intel's compiler was artificially lowering performance on AMD chips.

It actually led to a lawsuit that Intel lost. It was nothing to do with Cinebench & they fixed their product as soon as the issue was revealed.

The Lawsuit was settled in 2010.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel
 
Last edited:
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
No Cinebench is not under Fire and has not been under fire for anything in years. You are referring to 3dmark that is always facing criticism.

Clock speed & IPC are not related. IPC is instructions per clock or basically performance per clock rate.


Intel Chips clock higher this means core per core they typically out perform AMD
AMD solves this by offering more cores which means they will usually have more overall performance
AMD's SMT implementation is FAR superior to Intel's SMT implementation and AMD actually uses the industry standard IBM has been using it for years. This means AMD's logical threads are superior to Intel Logical Threads.

If you look at an 8700k vs a 1600x and say look the 6 Core AMD Chip vs 6 Core Intel chip is about the same in rendering this is a huge mistake because the 8700k cost twice the price.

Comparing the 8700k to the 1700x would be a more fair comparison where the 1700x is still far cheaper to the 8700k. Even though the 1700x has more cores its a fair comparison because its cheaper.


IPC on Ryzen vs Intel is similar some tasks Intel wins some AMD wins. It depends how Integer or Floating points are used & what instruction sets are being used. Cinebench algorithm has about a 3% IPC lead on Intel vs AMD in single thread. In multithread they would actually lose clock per clock core per core. I would argue Cinebench algorithm is unbiased and I think the Ryzen 2 chips will be about the same IPC in Cinebench due to the cache fix.

CPU synthetic benchmarks are very good & accurate the hard part is synthetic GPU benchmarks where there are too many differences in GPU arch to actually make a balanced benchmark.


Cinebench only fire they were ever involved it was like 10 years ago where Intel's compiler was artificially lowering performance on AMD chips.

It actually led to a lawsuit that Intel lost. It was nothing to do with Cinebench & they fixed their product as soon as the issue was revealed.

The Lawsuit was settled in 2010.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel
You do realize that high clock speed means a faster IPC rate? They are literally connected to one another. Also Im not arguing about which has better "artificial" performance which is what you see on benchmarks but rather real world performance due to the fact that almost all programs whether they be games or work applications dont ever utilize all cores and threads unless the cpu is so underpowered that it must. AMD has specifically stated in their product description that their cpus are more aimed at video editing, streaming and applications the are core heavy which most "work" applications such as Auto-CAD are not which is why Intel still rules both workstations and gaming rigs
 
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
You link things like HERE IS WHAT LINUSTECHTIPS & GAMERSNEXUS SAID ABOUT AMD! Or other random youtubers
Also in regards to this statement. Id trust people such as Linus who has had a very long and reliable run in the computer world to be credible source on how the cpus work in actual real life scenarios and not artificial scenarios such as on a benchmark test. Hell he often runs multiple benchmarks and then compares them to actual usage tests.
 
P

Prefix_NA

Seasoned Member
Messages
3,770
Reaction score
963
You do realize that high clock speed means a faster IPC rate? They are literally connected to one another. Also Im not arguing about which has better "artificial" performance which is what you see on benchmarks but rather real world performance due to the fact that almost all programs whether they be games or work applications dont ever utilize all cores and threads unless the cpu is so underpowered that it must. AMD has specifically stated in their product description that their cpus are more aimed at video editing, streaming and applications the are core heavy which most "work" applications such as Auto-CAD are not which is why Intel still rules both workstations and gaming rigs

IPC stands for instructions per clock. If clock rate is higher it does not affect the IPC.

Every respectable site says you are wrong Anandtech, Computerbase, TPU, & Guru3d.

Maybe Toms Hardware might agree with you or maybe people on forums of Hardocp lol.

My benchmark I posted from TechPowerUp was the overall comparison average FPS in all games tested. They have a huge variety of tests & btw they use Nvidia's review guide for the settings & games to test so trying to argue its in AMD favor is pretty dumb.

Single threaded performance is increased by clock speed increases. As well as overall speed increases.

Single threaded performance = IPC * Clock Rate
IPC is not actually an objective measurable thing as well because This also varies by application based on instruction sets, compiler used, optimizations for specific archs etc. But you can usually say IPC on Ryzen & Intel chips are close.

in most cases AMD and Intel are within 5% of each other in IPC but there are some cases AMD wins by more, and some Intel wins by more.

You can use any professional application or any application that scales well when applications scale well AMD destroys Intel. When its mostly single threaded workloads Intel has a slight edge but due to their price points are often still a bad buy.

Go try any application that scales to 8-16 threads and test Ryzen chips it will beat the competing Intel chip due to having more cores & better SMT.

Gaming is barely CPU intensive, unless you are running at super low settings your bottleneck will almost always be the GPU, which is why even i3's & Ryzen 3's are still great gaming chips.

Also in regards to this statement. Id trust people such as Linus who has had a very long and reliable run in the computer world to be credible source on how the cpus work in actual real life scenarios and not artificial scenarios such as on a benchmark test. Hell he often runs multiple benchmarks and then compares them to actual usage tests.

Linus is for people with slightly above average computer knowledge, and his video's are filled with errors & he is also a shill for any company funding him also fun fact Intel & Nvidia are Linus media Group sponsors.


So you are saying the most respected review sites on the internet like Anandtech, Techpowerup, Guru3d, Computerbase, etc are all wrong because Linus Tech Tips & Jayz2Shekels said so?

Linus literally has one video where he tried to say 64bit applications can't be any faster than 32bit unless they are using over 4gb of ram. He has huge flaws in his video's and I have more computer knowledge than he does.

If you join any higher level tech group or forum its literally a meme saying her der but Linus tech tips said so.

For people starting computers linus is fine when people get better they move up to Level1Tech & Buildzoid video's and as they go further they start reading things like Anandtech.
 
Last edited:
T

theroach

Premium
Premium
Messages
392
Reaction score
40
Buy the 8700k, a decent motherboard, along with a 1080TI, 32Gig of ram, and walk away. End of story, next.......
 
M

MARTYNHETTINGER

Enthusiast
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
Buy the 8700k, a decent motherboard, along with a 1080TI, 32Gig of ram, and walk away. End of story, next.......
I was gonna do exactly that except I can only afford 16gb of GSkill Ripjaws V RAM and a Maximus X Hero, only because a EVGA 1080TI is $1400.
 
Top Bottom