Games are a stupid benchmark imo.
1 Like
Well, if you’re building a system to play games you probably want to know what sort of performance you’re going to get.
The CPU is almost never a limiting factor in gaming, the GPU is. Get the 2700 and put more money into the GPU or SSD or ram, somewhere it will actually make a noticeable difference in usage. Especially due to all of the slowdowns caused by the security patches for Meltdown, Specter etc for Intel, the 2700 will just be faster and it will actually feel like it when doing things.
Sure, e.g. here: https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/
(And note that that’s for regular 1440p.)
Except for SC2-Engine based games. My GPU rarely reaches 50% load and rarely clocks above 700Mhz. Nontheless I sit here at 50FPS average down to 20FPS stuttering.
There are other games that are as bad or even worse (famously: Arma III, GTA V) that rely on 2 cores to do all the work.
The hardware bottlenecks are rare these days, it is mostly software beeing way behind the curve.
Something useful would also be if Ryzen owners could speak up about what the performance is like on which kernel versions. Are they still playing catch up, or are the bugs more or less worked out now?
Based on the Linux suggestion and the workcase is split between productivity and gaming, I feel Ryzen is pretty appropriate for this case IF someone could give us some real world data on how R2 chips are doing and what bugs are presenting.
If all you care about is maximum frame rate gaming in some contrived situations that do not represent reality (e.g., 1080p with a GPU no one will run at 1080p), today the 8700k is the chip to pick.
However in most other respects, including minimums, long term viability, productivity, price, upgrade path, etc. i would (and did) go AMD all the way.
I have a 2700X. I haven’t benchmarked it under linux, but i am yet to see any bugs related to it.
There is a ton of linux benchmarks to search for there. Just search 1080ti or 8700K etc.
it depends on do you want “the best”, and pay a premium of *2 or do you just need what is “good enough”, and pay half the price of “the best”, but in most cases just more cores.
if i had your money to throw around id get a 2700X and a AMD gpu(mainly because nvidia really doesn’t play ball with opensource, i refer to linus and his epic “F… you nvidia” interview).
my experiences with AMD, ryzen, and vega, is that for some reason the ubuntu 18.04 installer is a retard(and crashes) when installing meaning i have todo workarounds like installing the server version the manually installing desktops etc, or install the 16.04 and do a release-upgrade(i am guessing this may be some wierd m.2 issue) either way it’s a pita. But once done, it works like a charm. GPU wise there is no thought(using vega 64), it just works right out of the box, i dont even have to install external hardware drivers or anything, just install steam, and click install/play.
To end my rant i guess my point really is, do you really need the extra premium for 10% pr. core performance, and do you really want to support Nvidia who actively gives opensource/linux a big F… you with every driver update, both while paying a big premium for their product.
To keep this on track. The OP has a budget for a 1080ti. So nvidia tax cause nothing can compete. Given that an 8700K is a great match and yes expensive. I hope they overclock both and rock out on games.
You cant sell AMD value performance to someone that whats to game at 1080ti levels.
Nvidia has the GPU and games only need a few fast cores. Intel has 5Ghz locked in.
1 Like
Holy crap! Forget to check for one day and I didn’t expect this much of a response. Thanks everyone! So I guess to clarify a bit, when I play games it’s single player and for me to enjoy. Sure 100+ fps number can be cool to see but I’m fine with less if it looks good.
I’m kind of leaning towards AMD CPU for longer socket support and nvidia for graphics. Sure it may be a little rough getting it going but that’s half the fun right!
2 Likes
Id probaly go with AMD CPU and NVIDIA GPU this time around.
AMD CPUs are
- cheaper
- not far off in gaming performance
- better performance in tasks that take advantage of multiple cores/threads, that could even mean they actually dont and you just have a lot of stuff running at the same time
- future upgradeability sounds promising. 7nm CPUs are comming, although from what I read its more of a fancy marketing buzzword these days and you cannot compare that number very well to intels nm, its still probably gonna result in a decent performance jump. It just may not beat the 9th gen intel platform. Though, you can buy now and upgrade later. I expect ryzen 2xxx series to be easy to sell too as ryzen 1xxx owners can upgrade to a used 2nd gen then. And that also makes it easier to justify a baller Mainboard for that platform imo. But you dont need to b450 is fine.
- More PCI lanes for expansions stuff. Like NVMe SSDs, Capture cards for consoles, 10gbit ethernet (once that becomes affordable), soundcards maybe. And whatever else.
But either one is fine. If you want the best Gaming performance period. Then there is only one way to go and that ain´t AMD.
And NVIDIA gpus are just better right now, I would not really consider AMD gpus until some revision. Id say get a 1070ti or a 1080ti. RTX cards don´t really seem worth the premium. At least not right now. And maybe never if it ends up like physx. Witch it very well might since who is gonna bother to program in RTX support when nobody buys the cards? But my magic bulb that sees the future does not work so well yet.