Solved

Intel vs ryzen

Okay, so i know the clear choice for gaming would be an I7-8700k rather than the Ryzen 7 2700x. Really, all i do is game. I need a new CPU now because my i7-6700k took a dump on me. The only reason i dont go with intel is because of the meltdown and specter issues. I looked at some different benchmarks and really didnt see too much of a difference in gaming performance other than 10-15fps. I have 2 questions. Since ive never owned an AMD chip, im 100 percent new to overclocking them. Is it almost the same as an intel chip? I have an h100i v2 so temps arent an issue. My second question is, how sturdy are those pins on a ryzen chip? lmao. I really hope they arent as easy to break as a motherboard pin off and intel board.

Bonus question: Would the extra cores on an AMD chip provide any benefit for the future?
7 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about intel ryzen
  1. You're right; strictly gaming, the Intel chip would win out (more often than not, at least).

    Ryzen really stands out as a value proposition.

    OCing Ryzen is (subjectively) easier than a competing Intel chip. There's usually not as much tweaking required with voltage etc, but fundamentality, the same thing.

    The pins are sturdy... enough. Still got to be careful with them. They're essentially the same deal as Intel socket pins, just on the CPU. They're delicate, but if you're careful, you'll be fine.

    As for benefit in future..... the added cores/threads would be beneficial in a variety of workloads today; streaming (+gaming), production etc.
    In future.....if you ever intend to do anything of that nature, then there's a good chance it'll be beneficial.

    If (in theory) this was to be a strictly gaming rig... and remain so (ie no streaming etc), then the future benefits are likely negated.
    A 2700X is very likely to be (near) obsolete long before games fully utilize 16threads. Same deal with the 8700K though.... 12threads are going to be more than enough (for gaming) in the likely usable lifespan of an 8700K.
  2. Barty1884 said:
    You're right; strictly gaming, the Intel chip would win out (more often than not, at least).

    Ryzen really stands out as a value proposition.

    OCing Ryzen is (subjectively) easier than a competing Intel chip. There's usually not as much tweaking required with voltage etc, but fundamentality, the same thing.

    The pins are sturdy... enough. Still got to be careful with them. They're essentially the same deal as Intel socket pins, just on the CPU. They're delicate, but if you're careful, you'll be fine.

    As for benefit in future..... the added cores/threads would be beneficial in a variety of workloads today; streaming (+gaming), production etc.
    In future.....if you ever intend to do anything of that nature, then there's a good chance it'll be beneficial.

    If (in theory) this was to be a strictly gaming rig... and remain so (ie no streaming etc), then the future benefits are likely negated.
    A 2700X is very likely to be (near) obsolete long before games fully utilize 16threads. Same deal with the 8700K though.... 12threads are going to be more than enough (for gaming) in the likely usable lifespan of an 8700K.


    I would really like to go with an intel chip, because all i do is game. No streaming or anything of the sort. But im still super paranoid about meltdown and specter. I wish they would just announce a 9th gen already with fixes to both. Im not going to sit on the edge of my seat for 6 months waiting for the next gen. So i guess, ryzen it is.
  3. To be honest, either the Ryzen or the Intel chip will be great for gaming. The intel chip may come out with a small advantage for games, that advantage is tossed aside when you perform some hard work on the CPU. If you want to stream, if you want to render video in Adobe Premiere and animations in Adobe After Effects, then those extra cores will offer you a significant advantage that no intel product can deliver at the price and I want to be clear here, my current rig is an intel i9 7920X. I really don't give a crap about the fanboy nonsense.

    It's simply up to you, if you can see a point where you will do more work with the chip the Ryzen is a great way to go. With respet to future proofing, indeed the extra cores will provide benefit. Originally most games didn't utilise more than one core of a CPU, then as CPU's expanded horizontally (more cores rather than simply more speed) game developers leveraged them. We have been constrained to quad core chips for so long at this point that it will take a little time for engines to leverage highly threaded CPU's, however that time is arriving. If you are upgrading a rig why not upgrade to something that offers more resources?

    With respect to the pins, yes the pins are delicate on a CPU PGA package. handle them with care, leave them in their packaging until they are ready for installation, and place the CPU directly into the socket when you remove them from the package. You can pick it up gently by the sides of the package safely enough.
  4. Oddly enough, TH just published a comparison: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-ryzen-2,5615.html.

    Yes, Intel is faster (faster IPC) and can be overclocked more, but with Ryzen, the differences in speed are small enough you just might not notice. Ryzen is such a solid option right now that if forced Intel to go back and bump the core count in Coffee Lake. For Intel to do that, they would even have to feel that Ryzen was too close for comfort in performance. (Notice they did no such thing with Bulldozer, which admittedly had a very poor IPC, and more cores than the Intel offerings.)

    Edit: in the name of disclosure: I go for what I feel is the best at the time of upgrade/purchase... For me, it was Intel (I7-5830k) this last time... Ryzen wasn't on the shelf yet. Previously It was AMD Phenom II.
  5. Oh with respect to Meltdown and Spectre, we are talking about minimal impacts with respect to performance drops in game applications. Speaking as someone with a patched i9 7920X the performance drop in gaming is undetectable without collecting statistics before and after. The real point of pain with respect to these bugs is when it comes to sequential data writes to a high-speed device like my NVME SSD's. This has been impacted by between 15-20% which can make for a longer render time to me in some workloads. with respect to gaming the performance difference is around 2-5%.

    Dont get me wrong the bugs are serious, but the mitigation is already available and the performance loss is pretty minimal especially if you only want to game.
  6. finitekosmos said:
    Oh with respect to Meltdown and Spectre, we are talking about minimal impacts with respect to performance drops in game applications. Speaking as someone with a patched i9 7920X the performance drop in gaming is undetectable without collecting statistics before and after. The real point of pain with respect to these bugs is when it comes to sequential data writes to a high-speed device like my NVME SSD's. This has been impacted by between 15-20% which can make for a longer render time to me in some workloads. with respect to gaming the performance difference is around 2-5%.

    Dont get me wrong the bugs are serious, but the mitigation is already available and the performance loss is pretty minimal especially if you only want to game.


    I was unaware that these patches 100 percent cure the issue? Do they completely block specter and meltdown "attacks"? I knew there were patches that would fix them to some degree, but i didnt know if it was a sure-fire thing.
  7. Best answer
    The problem is that we can't be absolutely certain until someone investigates these fixes and tests them to see if they stand up to further analysis or are open to further exploitation. What we do know is that the attack that they were developed to protect against is dealt with by effectively the patch. In addition to this, the patches weren't just firmware patches, every major operating system vendor also had to issue patches for their operating system's too. It is worth noting that the mitigation the original for Spectre, also appears to successfully mitigate the newly discovered variants too.

    It is important to note though two things, firstly hardware bugs in hardware happen; Indeed this may not be the last we hear about this type of inference attack, the important thing isn't that the bug exists its that Intel took it so seriously that they developed micro-code fixes addressing the problem quickly. Secondly, old bugs still resurface from time to time too, for example a while ago a very old bug that has been known about for nearly 2 decades resurfaced in the form of poorly configured Certificate handshakes between HTTPS web sites and client browsers. A specially crafted attack could cause a secure connection between a secure web site and your client to continually reset using earlier and more broken versions of SSL until a successful connection is negotiated in a manner that renders the traffic pretty much visible to the attacker.

    Do you use Wi-Fi? how about the KRACK attack that forces client devices on a WPA protected Wi-Fi network to reset their connection, each time doing so to the point were the client negotiates a password to the Wi-Fi network known to the attacker so they can access the Wi-Fi traffic.

    I'm not saying this to put you off, more to say that there are bugs in almost everything we do, use and depend on. As long as the correct steps are taken most can be mitigated and as far as Spectre and Meltdown are concerned, as long as you patch you sacrifice a very minute amount of performance (in some scenarios) for ease of mind at least as far as those issues go. :)
Ask a new question

Read More

Intel i7 Intel