AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K: Which CPU Is Better?

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K
Contributor

Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.

  • paul prochnow

    OK I am hoping this screenie is visible......you can see the CPU and Max Turbo that was done with a 3575 multi and 3300RAM in my common rig....all air....
    Reply
  • svan71
    where are the 1440p gaming #'s ? you know the ones that don't make intel look so good.
    Reply
  • gdmaclew
    I was wondering that myself.
    Reply
  • yeti_yeti
    Excellent performance from that i7, what a beast of a cpu. Unfortunately, it looks like its not going to be very popular due to its absurd price and stiff competition from i9 and Ryzen.
    Reply
  • pitarziu
    No one buys those cpus and plays in 1080p ...
    Reply
  • Onus
    I think this article was much better than some similar ones I've seen lately. I did not get a sense that the author was straining to make one CPU look better than it is, nor setting it up to fail in certain tasks. People are price-sensitive (as I personally believe they should be), and in that context, I have to agree that the 2700X is the better CPU.
    Note that the article was not answering "Which CPU is Faster?" which will typically favor Intel, particularly in games; it was "Which CPU is Better?" I don't think there's any task you can run well with one but be suffering on with the other, so both are good. If you're an edge case, running a specific money-earning productivity application, then you'll want the fastest one for that specific task, but for the vast majority of people, cheaper will indeed be better.
    Reply
  • Onus
    21471715 said:
    No one buys those cpus and plays in 1080p ...
    Sure they do. Just look at the Steam survey. Or, consider all those for whom gaming is a secondary function for their PCs; they run three monitors to spread out a nice array of productivity applications, but when the workday is done, might want to crank up a game.

    If the article had been about top-tier graphics cards, then I'd agree, but not for CPUs.

    Reply
  • spdragoo
    21471614 said:
    where are the 1440p gaming #'s ? you know the ones that don't make intel look so good.

    21471634 said:
    I was wondering that myself.

    Although it's not Tom's Hardware, this article over at Techspot goes into great detail why a) CPU benchmark comparisons are best at 1080p or lower resolutions, & b) why they use as powerful of a GPU as possible when testing.

    21471715 said:
    No one buys those cpus and plays in 1080p ...

    Not true. Even ignoring any potential limitations from GPUs, many eSports players are going to play at 1080p resolution to maximize their FPS (& supposedly also maximize the responsiveness of the game to the slightest movement of their mouse/controller).
    Reply
  • richardbrown2445
    I happy with my I7-8700K as I won the silicon lottery as my CPU is clocked at 5GHZ across all cores and stable, it is cooled by a Cosair 240 Aio. It can go to 5.1GHZ stable but that just pushes the chip to far.
    Reply
  • dave.jeffers
    Hey, Kevin is coming around. He is starting to see the light. Game at 1440p or higher and it completely neutralizes the only argument for buying the Intel 8-cores.

    I'm going to get a new monitor one of these days, and it will not be a 1080p. I have a feeling I'm not alone. So, at this point, going into 2019, I don't see any utility in 1080p gaming benchmarks, as they are no longer relevant.

    Get the B450 motherboard for cheap, plus 2700X/2600X. Drop in the 7nm 3700X next Christmas, and enjoy that smart and smug feeling of contentment, knowing its faster and more efficient at absolutely everything, including gaming, than 14nm Intel any-core. IMO.
    Reply