We tested the AMD processor on a new X470 motherboard (the Asus Strix X470-F Gaming) while the 8700K was tested on a Z370 motherboard (the Asus TUF Z370-Pro Gaming). Its slower clock speeds means it’s almost guaranteed to be a little slower across the board, but with the right pricing it could make for a great choice for gamers. Ultimately, though, it’s the main choice buyers will be looking to make.Īlso, the new Ryzen 5 2600X is a direct, six-core competitor to the 8700K. It makes for a slightly lop-sided comparison, as Intel’s chip has fewer cores yet runs at a faster clock speed. This puts it up against the Intel Core i7-8700K. Instead, it’s only really right to compare the top-of-the-line processor from AMD’s mainstream platform (AM4) to Intel’s top-of-the-line for its mainstream platform, LGA1151. However, that chip only runs on Intel’s high-end LGA2066 platform. Ryzen 7 2700X – Performance and Verdict ReviewĪs an eight-core chip, the Ryzen 7 2700X could be considered a competitor to the Intel Core i7-7820X.Thankfully, it's no slouch when it comes to content creation either. However, if you'll mostly be gaming, then the Core i7-9700K is the better option, although you won't see noticeable gains in all games. If content creation and casual gaming are your things, then the Ryzen 7 2700X is not only the cheaper option but where multi-threaded performance is concerned, it's very often faster too. The Ryzen 7 2700X has no problems in content creation, but it's still a little slow in some games both old and new. It's also lacking in several content creation tests and has no advantage in power consumption either. The Core i7-9700K is quicker in some games, but there are many titles where it offers no advantage over AMD. It's noticeably slower or only as fast as the AMD CPU in other tests, meaning there's little point paying the extra for the Core i7-9700K - its lack of hyper-threading really hurts it against AMD's flagship.Ĭlearly, there are drawbacks to both CPUs here. Everywhere else, the extra threads on offer from the AMD CPU mean it's by far the better choice. Thankfully, this part is a bit easier as there's just one test where the Core i7-9700K beat the Ryzen 7 2700X, which was in Adobe Premier Pro when it was overclocked. If, though, you just play a handful of titles regularly and they're very GPU-bound like Shadow of the Tombraider or in my case being a big World of Tanks fan, then CPU choice, at least amongst the 6 and 8-core CPUs I tested here, makes next to no difference. The trouble in recommending the Core i7-9700K, though, is that the Core i7-8700K is just as fast here and costs $40 less, meaning it's perhaps a better choice, although obviously not an eight-core CPU. If you play a wide range of games, then paying the premium for the Intel CPU is probably wise, especially at lower resolutions or if you have a reasonably powerful graphics card. Not only this, but opting for 3200MHz or 3466MHz memory can improve performance with AMD systems too, and for often not a lot more cash. However, this isn't always the case, as we saw in World of Tanks and Shadow of the Tombraider, even at 1080p, which is not only the most popular gaming resolution by far, but is also the most likely to reveal any CPU-bound tendencies. Far Cry 5, Ashes of the Singularity and Deus Ex all point at the Intel CPU being worth the extra cash if don't want your frame rate to take a hit due to CPU choice. In the more CPU-bound game tests, this was certainly true. Overclocked power consumption Antony LeatherĪs the Core i7-9700K costs noticeably more than the Ryzen 7 2700X, to win this fight it needs to be noticeably quicker too.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |