heck ill buy x299 instead of threadripper or ryzen just to troll and piss off people :D :D.Im the kind of person that hates whatever every1 likes and loves whatever every1 hates.
Zero Sense You are not pissing anyone off cos noone knows you. You could also be jerk, simply trying to troll guy who originaly posted that comment and you even cant afford that kind of pc. Big deal, this is YT... website for small talks and trolling guys you never meet, and probably never will. Meh...
u shouldn't be mad cuz first, u have spent ur money on something good and saved a lot of it to spend on better things than an i7x and 2nd their customers are also a joke since they get easily scammed by intel. if u have ryzen, Good for you. if you don't, I Highly recommend it and if you are going on a budget, Ryzen 1500x/1600 are the way to go.
Hey you are absolutely right. I really like ryzen 7 and would immediately buy one if there wasnt this one problem. Ryzen 7 has 24 PCIe lanes of which only 20 are usable. I really need 1 Graphics card (x16), one NVMe SSD (x4) and one 10Gbit Networking card (x4). Thats why Im forced to buy a threadripper chip with more lanes at 550+ $. Together with a super expensive X399 motherboard I would have to pay about as much as for the 7820X and a Motherboard. Intel has just enough PCIe lanes (28) and seems to be my best bet I think. I know I could get even more PCIe lanes with ryzen threadripper but I dont need more, the 7820X is faster and I could run mac os (hackintosh) alongside windows. What do you mean? HELP
Exactly Robert, Ryzen 7 is aimed at low-level enthusiasts IMO, they offer more power for less money than intel does. But if you rely on certain pro-user features like quad-channel, a lot of RAM and PCIe Lanes, Intel is also well worth considering. I don't like one company over the other but for my demands i went with the Intel 7820X instead of the Threadripper 1900X. In the low-level enthusiast market AMD is the clear winner but if you move up to the more professional market they are on par IMO.
The X299 system is about £300-350 more expensive? (Or would be with a cheap but good Gigabyte B350 board.) Isn't that the price difference between a GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 TI? So for dollar equal comparisons, it should be Ryzen + GTX 1080TI vs Intel 7820X + GTX 1070? I wonder which one would win that comparison? ;)
Wait so I should pay a $100 more for an Intel 8-core plus $300 more for a shitty x299 platform, not to mention the shitty toothpaste TIM they use for these furnace CPU's all for the gain of 5 more 'fps' , whilst on the otherhand I can get a Ryzen 1700+B350 Mobo saving $400 that I can put towards a better GPU thus having a better overall gaming experience..... yeah you'd have to be a special kind of braindead to buy ANY Intel CPU, and I realize many people actually are. Those who say Ryzen is shit for gaming are literally the scum of the earth. The TRUTH is Ryzen is AMAZING for gaming, and GODLY for productivity. Ryzen and ThreadRipper are simply superior annihilating Intel's current offerings.
ryzen 1700 $300 x2 + cheapest oc mobo $90 x2 + you get 2 coolers with cpus = $780 VS 7820x $600 + cheapest x299 $220 with no cpu cooler = $820 newegg prices
Go myself 1700 and Asroxh Taichi X370, 3.8GHz on all cores at 1.25v, temps never go above 50 degress with Noctua NH-D15 under stress. CPU usage never goes above 15% in games. Awesome build so far.
Interesting video, Intel 7820X $859 Aussie dollars, 1800X $675 Aussie Dollars. you said it well, if money is no object then intel is the winner, if you are budget minded which if Steam has it correctly something 75% of stream users are, AMD win
Twice the cost, twice the heat, and a forced delid - which might kill your brand new, expensive, equipment (trash can).. Yeh.. Think I'd go for the Ryzen. (When I write twice the cost, I included the price of the X299 motherboard for the Intel, vs. that of an B350-X370 one for the Ryzen)
Far far far from it. Especially for gaming. Skylake 4 core beat Ryzen in gaming by a long shot. I'll gladly pay the price premium for the new intel ANYDAY.
You do realize that things have changed since Ryzen's release, right? Pair Ryzen with good, fast, memory, the latest AGESA, and the current chipset drivers and you will be hard pressed to find Ryzen losing to a Skylake quad core by any notable amount. Even here, Intel's Skylake-X has a 500MHz+ clock advantage, same core count, quad channel memory, and BARELY beats Ryzen in gaming.
Daryll Dalayoan that doesnt make sense ! people who spend 70+% more for 10% gains are not big baller fans... but brainless ! not to mention 2nd section in my previous comment !
7820X is not even worth considering. A DOA platform and fear the day you put 12+ core CPU in it as it may just go up in smoke from poor VRM cooling or the CPU will throttle so much due to Intel toothpaste. R7 1700 vs 7820X? It's a no brainer really. You can build two yes two Ryzen 8 core systems for the price of one i9. Why? Mobo prices near $100, CPU $300-320 and only 2 RAM sticks needed. Where as with x299 platform just the CPU and mobo alone will put you at almost a $1k.
Yes the differences are still huge value wise. It was 3 times CPU alone vs X99 now it's "only" 2 times on CPU alone, roughly. The coolers etc. are definitely to be taken into account, the AMD coolers are decent, dies are soldered, you don't need to buy a 3rd party cooler unlike Intel platforms to keep temps. and noise down. The Intel platforms are not twice as fast for twice as much money and it's only getting worse quality wise too, toothpaste on HEDT and probably upcoming Xeons as well based on the same chips, Intel cost cutting where ever they can to keep their profit.
I vote with my wallet, simple as that. Same reason I didn't buy Faildozer and definitely wouldn't buy a quad core in 2017 when there are better faster options. If Chinese finally launch their CPUs I will buy them, I don't give a damn what brand it is. My wallet cares about value, not max performance or brands or blinky lights. Intel drops their prices to 50% of they are now, I will be happy to recommend their products again.
Many games these days are already starting to use 8 cores and this trend is only going to continue. For gaming if you can afford it the R7 1700 is the smarter buy.
I don't think X299 will get any gaming optimization as if am correct Intel will release a new CPU next year so it is waste of time and resources for game development companies also as you mentioned CPU + MB will cost a lot. Yes, also push both CPUs to the limit then benchmark them at different RAM speeds :). For me I will go for Ryzen Money/Performance is a win-win lol.
It's so hard to find people that do memory overclocking on X299 and X399. X299 is capable reaching much higher speeds then X399, where they are already on 4,1MHz, X399 is struggling super hard near 3600MHz.
the 1800x is superior. Why ? Cause the 7820X has 4.5ghz boost while the 1800X has 4.1ghz boost and both perfom almost identically. So, at same clock speed ryzen would most probably crush intel.
humbleHuman Why does it matter which one is best at a particular clock speed? The only thing that matters is what you run them at, either stock vs stock or overclocked vs overclocked.
Yeh you cant compare stock speeds to overclock speeds but if you were actually able to overclock these damn x299 chips but they get hot as balls even with water cooling
humbleHuman That may be true with the high core count CPUs, but only matters if efficiency is a metric you value highly. Performance & price are generally the two biggest ones, Ryzen clearly wins value across the board, but it is beaten by Intel in pure performance.
haha you need to get on with the times. . . With the recent updates ryzen is matching the 5ghz 7700k in gaming while fucking it up the ass in anything else.
+ Peter S So??????? What's wrong with having some idle cores? They might just be very beneficial in less than 2 years from now when games actually utilize all of them. That's when YOU wish that you had bought a higher core processor earlier in your life. But hey, if you want to continue harping on the fact that quad cores are enough, be my guest.
@ perter S. Idle cores? Nope you have what I like to call 4 core thinking. If a game uses 1-4 cores it just means Lr, PS, firefox with a ton of tabs, videos, backups, chat programs, ect, ect can be running on my machine while I play a game. Plus more cores than your game needs means less hitching and stuttering if all you are doing is running the game because than background processes/windows can use the cores the game isn't. Not to mention several titles already use 8 cores as it is.
TechteamGB Did you lock the fan speed on the AIO liquid cooler? If you didn't, the fans on the AIO might have ramped up more on the Intel CPU to compensate for the higher heat output, resulting in temperatures that aren't actually directly comparable.
Lueiriueiur lueiriuediuR and upgradeable to Ryzen 3, since the AM4 platform will last 3 gens of Ryzen. With Intel, youll probably need another board for their next cpu to compete with Ryzen 2, then 3, etc...
You mean Zen 3. Ryzen 3 is the lower end Ryzen which will compete with the i3. Zen = architecture, Summit Ridge = design, Ryzen = product name, 3/5/7 = perf tier. Comparatively, Intel: Core = architecture, Kaby Lake = design, Core i = product name, 3/5/7 = perf tier.
5% difference? Try almost 30% difference when the gpu is not the bottleneck and it's max overclock vs max overclock. Your benchmarks also don't line up with other reviewers. Not sure if you are on a dated bios or turbo boost 3.0 isn't working for you or what. I'd still recommend Ryzen unless you have a specific use case like I do that requires pushing out frames and needing multiple cores. But I still feel like people aren't giving this chip the credit it deserves. It's an all around monster(at a cost of course)
plz when you oc spend some real time on powerdraw and vrm heat, after der8aur, or what he's called, I'd be really interested how the 8 core intel reacts.
I spoke about this here: czcams.com/video/Q5sUSY-6Ong/video.html Both Asus boards couldn't handle more than 4.5GHz @ 1.3V. Chip ran at 100°c just at 4.5GHz too...
Nice comparison, though I'm much more interested in overclocked vs overclocked :D Why no mention of the 1700 non-X? That's even cheaper than the 1700X & also clocks up to 3.8-4.0ish!
I'd love to have run OC vs OC, but X299 mobos have issues OCing well. The chip is capable of 4.8GHz at least, but I can only get 4.5GHz. If I didn't mention the 1700 non-X specifically then that was a mistake - I did make a full video explaining why I'd choose a 1700 myself! czcams.com/video/aj7l8WxyAlw/video.html
TechteamGB Ah fair enough, sounds an awful lot like Ryzen launch issues with RAM compatibility being atrocious! Yes I know you got the non-X & agree it's clearly the best buy that's why I thought it was odd to omit it in this one. In fairness, if you're not overclocking then the non-X will trail the 1800X quite a bit, & stock to stock is a totally fair test as not everyone overclocks. Can't wait to see the mobo issues resolved & see if the 7820X can hit 5GHz. I *almost* pulled the trigger on getting one but after hearing about the issues decided to wait. I just want 8 real cores at 5GHz! That'll last a good long while :)
Core i7-7820X is the clear winner. It is faster in every benchmark. And we don't even see the overclocked benchmark. Ryzen 7 is poor overclocker. Best you can get is 4.1 GHz but many people are stuck with 3.9 GHz. On the other side, Core i7-7820X overclocks like a beast. Sure Core i7-7820X is more expensive. It might not even worth the price because of the existence of Ryzen 7. So let's just forget Core i7-7820X and wait for Core i9-7980X instead.
Intel 7820 is intels FX 9590 ..... (SKU on "steroids") - High power consuptions, - high temps, - watterocooling is nesessary - temps problems in X299 VRM - High cost AMD R7 1700 is the best 8C/16T cpu in the market now. It cost only 300$ , it is unlock and it has a deautiful cooler . You can o/c at 3,8Ghz (all cores) with default cooler. Only 65watt TDP. AM4 mothreboards haw extremely low price, all low cost chips/ mobos (a320,a300,b350) has M2 NVME PCI-E X4 feature etc..... Inclusiveness, 5 years upgradability
This was the first video of yours that I've watched. I'll be watching yours as much or more than the few other channels at the top of the genre, since it was pretty good. Very concise, stuck to the relevant details, and very unbiased. Nicely done. Maybe these are things you've addressed in newer videos, but there are only two criticisms I have- the audio is slightly muffled, but not enough that most people would notice (presumably it's the mic rather than the room treatment or processing). More noticeably, it was the bar graphs where the results weren't directly next to each other. Great video otherwise! Thanks.
Ryzen gives a lot more smoother game performance..very good tech that is new and not another 7700k rehashed intel bullshit with added features or is it a lack of features and running a fire hazard with intel..hhhmmmmm
Even though the i7 7820X beats the Ryzen 7 1800X by a little bit, the Intel chip has a stupidly high price. And the gains for that price are very small.
depends on the application. Also the 7820x has far better overclocking capabilitys while ryzen struggles to get 4 GHz. So you could increase the gap pretty much and it is like 20% more performance.
Fry's has the 7820X online Thanksgiving day for $430 :-) Yea, no one is mentioning the overclocking superiority of the intel chip aside from Dom. Plus apple uses intel, so there is better support and stability for Hackintosh with Intel.. I plan to run 7820x Hackintosh with windows virtualized :-)
nope not really. he used games that would make the 1800x look good which in reality its a totally trash cpu i have it and my old i5 4690k beats it in single threaded situations by alot. ryzen is a joke for gaming.
I went to a Ryzen 1700x 2 months ago from an older i5 3570k. 0 complaints so far. Everything runs super smooth and fast. I'm no fanboy of either, just a consumer looking for the best bang per dollar, regardless of what name is printed on it. I have a feeling this chip will last me a while.
Did you have any problems with the motherboard overheating when using 7820x? I have seen a video from another reviewer claiming temps would go up to 100-110 C range...
I've explained in multiple other comments on this video, but yes. CPU hit 100°c @ just 4.5Ghz and neither Asus motherboard I have can handle past that, the VRMs throttle the CPU clock.
3:42 As a constructive criticism I suggest you cluster together the bars of the same test side by side, like: Image Editing (still below the bars) : (Blue Score) (Red Score) / Encoding: (Blue Score) (Red Score). This avoids looking in zigzag through the screen to compare both scores. If you choose to do so, you'd have to make clear which color is which processor, one way is colorcoding the processor name or putting a small colored rectangle in one of its side. Also I'd say that its preferable to darken up a little bit the background footage or remove it since it can be distracting.
The Asus Crosshair VI Hero has been selling on Amazon for £210. So that works out at £90 cheaper than the Asus X299 mobo. Also, the 1800X is available on Amazon for £399. I assume prices for the AMD platform have dropped a bit more since your review. Bearing in mind price to performance ratio, Ryzen is incredibly compelling. I want to upgrade to Thread-Ripper but bearing in mind I purchased Ryzen and X370 when they first hit the shelves, prices were high at the time, so this time I will hang fire for three months until Thread Ripper prices come down a bit.
If you are gaming even on 1080p,buying Intel processor is just stupid.It costs a lot more and its Mobo is quite costly as compared to Ryzen Mobo.I would say go for the Ryzen 1700 and overclokck it to 4Ghz to match 1088x performance and beat stock I7 7820x performance.Pair Ryzen with 3200Mhz Ram which is not very hard now and you are good to go.Intel pricing sucks like hell.
@Noodle Confusion Well i am still going to buy Ryzen 5 1600 very soon.It has SMT and a free stock cooler.I will buy it soon.I will be replacing it with my I5 4440 shitty processor.
Ladies (if there are any) and gentlemen (if there are any), Intel lost this round (this generation) not today, not yesterday but on March 3rd of 2017, the release date of the R7-1800X. That's really all that there is to say.
No, "whipped" is not a word with the same meaning as "barely edged out". Because 6-9 fps difference in gaming is not whipping, and same goes for their difference in productivity. Maybe it would have been a "whipping" if it was on the same price but it's not.
@StarWarsNerd 85 - Performance aside, the AMD chip whupped the Intel in cost. How is that a "lost?" It looks just as idiotic when you say it your way. "Forget what it is that has completely defeated Intel, let's only look at what didn't." Go back to playing with lightsabers and TIE Fighters, it's obvious that you don't understand that price is just as big a part of the equation as performance. That's true about EVERYTHING in life. Otherwise, you better go buy a palace with a private jet and a Ferrari. After all, performance aside, they "whup" everything else right?
Their is a big cost difference between these platforms, for a tiny difference in performance. The i7 7820X is $599.99 while the Ryzen 7 1800X is $459.99 giving a $140 advantage to AMD. Though it doesn't stop there as you can get a motherboard for the AM4 for under $99 while the X299 is a high end platform with an entry cost over $200 bringing that cost gap to about $250. So in a word yes $250 isn't worth it considering that in some games the Ryzen 7 1800X out performed the Intel chip, also this Intel chip is performing at the level of a Ryzen 7 1800X clocked at 4.0Ghz (all cores). The only real advantage you get with the intel chip is that it will over clock higher then the Ryzen 7 1800X however as time goes by that overclock gap will shrink. Really though the big problem Intel has is cost, they especially can not produce their higher end chips without incurring huge cost.
My #1 concern with the new Intel chips is the very high TDP and potentially having to manage a very hot CPU. I am fine using closed loop CPU & GPU coolers, but don't want to set up a full liquid cooling loop. This may be my first foray into AMD processors; Ryzen looks great to me at the moment. A little disappointed in the PCI-E lane count, but I'm only doing single GPU anyway.
So lets necro this.... i have owned a 1700x then 1950x then 8700k then 7820x and a 8600k. Overall the Threadripper was awesome for video misic and heavy threaded work but... 7820x by far runs circles around AMDs fastest hands down. Just general everything is smoother and faster. Synthetics aside the real measure of a CPU is how it makes its owners feel. I love the Intel part the most after several months of trying them all.
How is the 8700k compares to 7820x? You feel any noticeable difference gaming-wise with 8700k? And also how is the thermals like with your 7820x? I have been struggling to decide between 7820x, 1800x & 8700k.
Would be nice if you thru in a link or just added the specs for each system used for the benchmarks (Ram amount, speed, stuff like that) Ryzen is the best price/perf but I hope you do the OC video. Once you OC the Intel you will notice it pushing past the 1800x. Ryzen is solid but limited with the max 4.1 ghz OC. Where as hit 46. all core on the Intel and hands down the Intel wins perf wise. It is like most things in life, you make compromises to get the best price/perf but if you want the best you have to pay a hefty sum for it.
If you OC'd them both to the max you'd need a pretty insane cooler for the 7820x. Triple fan or 280mm. Again, an additional premium cost for the Intel.
Here's my thing ya? Either, I'm going to be buying a Ryzen 7, or, if the price is low enough and the overclocking potential high, the lower tiered Threadripper. Now, as for the RX Nova Vega or a 1080ti, that remained to be seen. But I hope the RX kicks ass, since it'll be less money!! I'm moving out in two days, and I cannot fucking WAIT to finally build a gaming computer!! And what an awesome summer this is going to be to do it! 😁
The question I always ask is the difference in performance as noticeable as the difference in price? If all you want to do is win benchmarking wars, then by all means Intel will not turn down your money. But if you want a good gaming experience with the ability to still feed your family then AMD can help you with that.
The only consideration overlooked favoring the Intel platform is the maximum supported memory capacity is almost double that of the AMD platform. Yes from broadwell all the way up to Skylake-X most motherboards support up to 512 GB of memory. Assuming most of the target audience for both platforms don't care to much about having large capacity for system RAM the AMD platform wins in price/performance. Unfortunately I am in the boat of needing Quad Channel, and higher memory capacity support so Intel is my only option.
Good overview. 1st, I'm an Intel fan boy. That said, I'm pleased that (at least technically) Intel is the better performance chip, but I must admit - I agree with you: AMD is a far better value. ..... I'm not a gamer. I do video editing. I wish Intel had a lower power version of the i7 7820x with the Iris graphics embedded. I wish they would put 28 pci lanes on the lower end i7 chips. I want fast SSDs (read NVMe drives), Thunderbolt iii and room for Optane drives when they become available. :-)
I'm from the US. The 1600 goes for a lot less that the I7 at about 1/3 the price and you can get just about the same game performance. If you are gaming at 1080p you really don't need the really expensive chip. So save some money and get the same joy for a lot less.
You ignored one important factor and that is the fact that the i7 draws much more power and runs hotter. Even if you ignore the price difference that would not really make it superior with the tiny performance gap.
Why is the i7-7820X the best of the best, bearing in mind the 1800X is £180 cheaper and it is literally within spitting distance (c.10%) of the 7820X performance?. As you have correctly stated, the 1800X is at stock 3.6GHz and the 7820X is at stock 3.6GHz also, but if you were to overclock the 1800X to 4GHz, it would be on par (if not slightly faster) than the 7820X.
I don't see much mention about how Ryzen really needs fast RAM..3200MHz... and how finicky they can be to get that speed. You're best off with Samsung B die IC's, which are costlier as well.
I think Ryzen right now has the upper hand. I don't think the 1800X needs to exist, though. Overclock the 1700 and you get nearly identical performance. You also save a lot of dough.
Neither...Get a Ryzen 1700, OC the $h!t out of it, get same performance as 1800X, and they're only $299. For the price of just the Intel CPU+X299 board, you can build an entire Ryzen PC, with near identical performance.
Be careful with OC the INTEL X299 MOBO AND CPU'S they draw a lot of power vrm temps and mobo in general gets very toasty hot if the mobo only has one 8pin and no additional power 4/6pin connector the b8auer did a video about it just to let you know if you haven't seen or heard about it :)
AMD Is the more realistic choice here. The amount of fps are not worth to go Intel. For most of the ppl (avg users) the Ryzen CPUs still packs more horsepower than they need (me included) and the price/performance ratio is awesome...
We are still forgetting an important aspect of Ryzen. Not only is it cheaper, cooler (in temp.), and overall better, but it STILL runs at litterally 20-35% in games, while Intel runs like at 80-90%. If Ryzen did that, it would make Intel shit everywhere. *AMD wins again.*
Oh boy, I had that happen on my 4690k last summer when I upgraded to a 980 ti... The extreme heat must have started this, cause I couldn't run 4,5GHz anymore, even though I opened up the case and had the fans blasting at it at 100%; so I had to go down to 4GHz again... But after the delid + liquid metal, I can run 4,5GHz again without a problem, even during summer and even when my TWO 980 ti cards are heating up the case^^
That makes no sense whatsoever: 1. It is NOT super durable, alot of people report rising temperatures over time. 2. Durabillity and conductivity aren't exclusive to each other. A good TIM does booth.
thermal paste is a lot more complicated than you might think. you can't have everything, i.e. perfect thermal conductivity and perfect durability as they exclude each other. thermal paste consists mainly of the following ingredients: 1: A liquid, e.g. silicone oils, hydrocarbon oils (e.g. polyol esters) 2: A filler material for the thermal conductivity, so more filler means better thermal conductivity, but worse workability, conformability, and spreadability of the paste. Filler materials can be: 2A: Ceramics: pros=no electrical conductivity, good chemical resistance, good thermal conductivity; cons=thermal conductivity could be better 2A1: oxide ceramics like Al₂O₃ (very good chemical resistance, esp. against oxidation) 2A2: non-oxide ceramics like boron nitride (good chemical resistance, good thermal conductivity 2B: Metals: pros=exceptional thermal conductivity; cons=electrical conductivity, low chemical resistance 2B1: Aluminium (cheap, good thermal conductivity, but very prone to oxidation) 2B2: Copper (very good thermal conductivity, but still prone to oxidation) 2B3: Silver (best thermal conductivity from all the metals, but prone to oxidation and really expensive) 2B4: Gold (very good thermal conductivity, very resistant to oxidation, but too expensive) 2C: Allotropes of Carbon 2C1: Graphite (good chemical resistance, extremely cheap) 2C2: Carbon Nanotubes (good chemical resistance, exceptional directional thermal conductivity, but useless as a blend, extremely expensive) 2C3: Graphene (good chemical resistance, exceptional planar thermal conductivity, ", ") 2C4: Diamond (good chemical resistance, extremely good thermal conductivity, terribly expensive) 3: Antioxidants and/or phase stabilizers. They increase the durability of the paste. Antioxidants are self explanatory. Phase stabilizers reduce the phase separation, e.g. the spreading of the oily phase. These additives lower the thermal conductivity. I can go more into depth if you want me to. Sry fur mah bat inglish.
Diamond isn't expensive, actually. It's extremely cheap and abundant. Especially pulverized industrial diamond. Still, there's no reason for Intel to use what they are. It breaks down over time AND is a poor conductor. Cheap silicone pastes from the 90s did better.
I'm planning my build right now as we speak and I'm going X299 with the Asus Rampage VI Extreme. I'll be using the 7820X chip. This will be my first computer powered by Intel. I've owned three AMD PCs and all ran like shit. For me, I don't care about the AMD charts. I'm giving Intel the chance they deserve because AMD has failed to impress me.
What processor? I personally wouldn't choose amd for laptops. But for a custom rig, with production work '3d rendering, animation, modelling, graphic design and a little bit of gaming' Im not looking at Intel anymore. For people like me ryzen seems nice but threadripper has literally ripped 1 for intel. Im not the only one, a lot of people in my industry are keen to jump ships now, it doesnt make sense anymore to keep a fire extinguisher next to your desk while funding Intels' narcissistic pricing model.
Just to note, here in the US are the X299 MB prices, You dont need a super fancy and pricey MB www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007627%20601299335&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36
As the cpus on this X299 board consume much power and thus produce a lot of heat, they will consequently put a huge amount of stress on the motherboard vrms... just saying
AMD has the advantage that all ther current chips are on one unified socket, Intel separates theirs instead of just having one, meaning you could theoretically buy a low end R3 or APU and upgrade to an 1800X, but with intel you could have a Pentium or i3 and only upgrade to a consumer i7, if you want an 8 core or above, then you need to buy a new motherboard and CPU, and intel X series boards are never on the cheap side unlike the AMD ones. It will be interesting when Threadripper launches though as that is the exact same as the amd extreme chips and will need an X type new mobo to go with it.
Hrmm, so the 10 core 7900x OC to 4.7 Ghz all core hitting 100c (Yes it is much hotter then I want to deal with it) is how you are going to frame ALL of the X299 platform? You are either trolling or not very informed. The cpu he discusses int he video is the 8 core 7820X model that can easily hit 4.7 ghz all core OC with a max temp of 72c using a 280mm AIO. So please stop spreading uninformed misleading info.
1800X can't really get to that kind of frequency, however the R7 chip is soldered and thus will, in most cases, run cooler simply due to Intel's toothpaste under the IHS.
Let me tell you something guys, while Intel has the horsepower advantage it's honestly not by much and Ryzen is actually really fast that you wouldn't be able to tell the two systems apart if you had them side by side without knowing the numbers... If Intel CPU+Board combo was about 75-100 bucks more, then I would say that it's justifiable to go for it over AMD (it's not though), but if you're willing to overclock Ryzen, you can get a 1700+B350 board combo for $400 while on the other hand the cheapest x299 board (at the time of writing this comment) sits at 220 bucks... Also Intel's anti-conusmer practices have really turned me off from x299, and not to mention that they're using freakin' thermal paste under their $1000 chip's IHS, unbelievable...
my money is on ryzen 1700 for price performance king - threadripper for ultimate performance at reasonable price. intels 18 core when it comes out will be minutely faster most likely ... but also way to expensive to even consider.
Plus the elephant in the room is that with high yields and the modular CCX+infinity fabric design it meas AMD can just keep gluing R7's together for little cost. So they can easily release a 24 or 32 core threadripper priced below or at the Intel 18 core chip. Even with slightly lower per core performance a 24 or 32 core threadripper will stomp the Intel 18 core in anything you would be buying such high core CPUs for on the desktop.
Strangly enough my 1700 OCed to 3.7 GHZ on all cores gives me 1633 to 1655 con cinebench. I mean, if you consider the price... Im not sure if Intel is a joke or if AMD just rocked it. Considering the last Intel marketing attacking AMD.. it might be a bit of both.
So Ryzen is just... cheaper. LMAO Owning a cheaper but inferior product is nothing to brag about. You pay less and get less with budget brand AMD. That's been their motto for decades!
Stop arguing which platform is slightly more powerful or has better performance to price ratio. You should be happy AMD can compete with Intel again. This benefits everyone, ever blind fanboys.
I googled clock for clock, AMD vs Intel, and Intel came out about 10-20% faster. However these results that TechTeamGB are showing, say clock for clock is almost equal. Making Intel a waste of money.
Awful time to build an audio system for those viewers looking into such. Ryzen has worse audio performance than X99 chips, and pushing the 7820X to superior high clocks will only make it heat up like crazy. Doubt Threadripper will perform any better than Ryzen in audio given the same architecture.
Because X299 motherboards can't OC to 4.8GHz if you don't have high airflow over the VRMs. My chip was 100°c when running 1 run of cinebench at 4.5Ghz with a 240mm AIO - so in reality you won't want to do more than ~4.3Ghz long term. That's what Ryzen 1800X OCs to as well. I apologise for not also making it clear that the 7820X is OCable, but it's also a risky/painful business at the moment.
Shitty Ryzen 7? Really? What's so bad about it? You also are advocating voiding your warranty, spending even more money on good TIM and potentially destroying the more expensive CPU just to get a decent overclock... How does that make Ryzen shit and Intel great?
Damn, 100C? My 1800x idles at 28C to 32C with a little Noctua air cooler and gets to maybe 50C with repeated runs of Cinebench. I'm glad I sent my 7700K back and waited on a deal ($319 w/ Quake Champions) on Ryzen. I'd probably have to risk deliding with an Intel chip. Those temps would drive me nuts worrying that something would break or melt down.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Intel boost technology actually reduces the overall performance which reduces frames when running games.
People will still buy Intel X299 chips... and that makes me mad cos Intel threw a huge joke at its consumers.
heck ill buy x299 instead of threadripper or ryzen just to troll and piss off people :D :D.Im the kind of person that hates whatever every1 likes and loves whatever every1 hates.
Your money, your call... Easy as it goes.
Zero Sense You are not pissing anyone off cos noone knows you. You could also be jerk, simply trying to troll guy who originaly posted that comment and you even cant afford that kind of pc. Big deal, this is YT... website for small talks and trolling guys you never meet, and probably never will. Meh...
u shouldn't be mad cuz first, u have spent ur money on something good and saved a lot of it to spend on better things than an i7x and 2nd their customers are also a joke since they get easily scammed by intel. if u have ryzen, Good for you. if you don't, I Highly recommend it and if you are going on a budget, Ryzen 1500x/1600 are the way to go.
And i agree.
Very interesting video. Ryzen is absolutely the way forward. You just can't justify the intel price for the marginally better performance
Hey you are absolutely right. I really like ryzen 7 and would immediately buy one if there wasnt this one problem. Ryzen 7 has 24 PCIe lanes of which only 20 are usable. I really need 1 Graphics card (x16), one NVMe SSD (x4) and one 10Gbit Networking card (x4). Thats why Im forced to buy a threadripper chip with more lanes at 550+ $. Together with a super expensive X399 motherboard I would have to pay about as much as for the 7820X and a Motherboard. Intel has just enough PCIe lanes (28) and seems to be my best bet I think. I know I could get even more PCIe lanes with ryzen threadripper but I dont need more, the 7820X is faster and I could run mac os (hackintosh) alongside windows. What do you mean? HELP
it's not a problem of pci lines only. Ryzen can handle only 32gb, it's impossible to find a working 64gb modules. The x299 can handle 128gb.
Exactly Robert, Ryzen 7 is aimed at low-level enthusiasts IMO, they offer more power for less money than intel does. But if you rely on certain pro-user features like quad-channel, a lot of RAM and PCIe Lanes, Intel is also well worth considering. I don't like one company over the other but for my demands i went with the Intel 7820X instead of the Threadripper 1900X. In the low-level enthusiast market AMD is the clear winner but if you move up to the more professional market they are on par IMO.
The X299 system is about £300-350 more expensive? (Or would be with a cheap but good Gigabyte B350 board.) Isn't that the price difference between a GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 TI?
So for dollar equal comparisons, it should be Ryzen + GTX 1080TI vs Intel 7820X + GTX 1070?
I wonder which one would win that comparison? ;)
Wait so I should pay a $100 more for an Intel 8-core plus $300 more for a shitty x299 platform, not to mention the shitty toothpaste TIM they use for these furnace CPU's all for the gain of 5 more 'fps' , whilst on the otherhand I can get a Ryzen 1700+B350 Mobo saving $400 that I can put towards a better GPU thus having a better overall gaming experience.....
yeah you'd have to be a special kind of braindead to buy ANY Intel CPU, and I realize many people actually are. Those who say Ryzen is shit for gaming are literally the scum of the earth. The TRUTH is Ryzen is AMAZING for gaming, and GODLY for productivity. Ryzen and ThreadRipper are simply superior annihilating Intel's current offerings.
ryzen 1700 $300 x2 + cheapest oc mobo $90 x2 + you get 2 coolers with cpus = $780 VS 7820x $600 + cheapest x299 $220 with no cpu cooler = $820 newegg prices
Not to mention the r7 1700 you can overclock identically to the 1800x
Go myself 1700 and Asroxh Taichi X370, 3.8GHz on all cores at 1.25v, temps never go above 50 degress with Noctua NH-D15 under stress. CPU usage never goes above 15% in games. Awesome build so far.
badass system but %15 is quite low even taking into account that the 1700 is a beast. what games do you play that dont even use %15 cpu?
I thinking of going threadripper but will my old games work with it.
Interesting video, Intel 7820X $859 Aussie dollars, 1800X $675 Aussie Dollars. you said it well, if money is no object then intel is the winner, if you are budget minded which if Steam has it correctly something 75% of stream users are, AMD win
Pretty high prices over there huh? Thanks!
it is actually cheaper then in uk, i saw i think 440 pounds in uk cheapest 1800x, that is 40 pounds more expensive then in Australia (675Aud=398gbp)
Huh, exchange rate is different that what I had in mind. 1800X is £419 on Amazon I believe though.
Get the 1700 and OC it to 1800x levels. MUCH cheaper and for the same performance.
Wouldn't like the super high temps of the 7820X tho LOL
Twice the cost, twice the heat, and a forced delid - which might kill your brand new, expensive, equipment (trash can).. Yeh.. Think I'd go for the Ryzen.
(When I write twice the cost, I included the price of the X299 motherboard for the Intel, vs. that of an B350-X370 one for the Ryzen)
Yeah, AMD is still the winner in my book.
Far far far from it. Especially for gaming. Skylake 4 core beat Ryzen in gaming by a long shot. I'll gladly pay the price premium for the new intel ANYDAY.
You do realize that things have changed since Ryzen's release, right?
Pair Ryzen with good, fast, memory, the latest AGESA, and the current chipset drivers and you will be hard pressed to find Ryzen losing to a Skylake quad core by any notable amount.
Even here, Intel's Skylake-X has a 500MHz+ clock advantage, same core count, quad channel memory, and BARELY beats Ryzen in gaming.
Uh, no? Current benchmarks show quite the opposite.
Poopy Poop That's why they are called enthusiast grade for a reason bro; to cater the big baller fans.
Daryll Dalayoan that doesnt make sense ! people who spend 70+% more for 10% gains are not big baller fans... but brainless ! not to mention 2nd section in my previous comment !
Intel's performance edge doesn't justify it's extra cost. I'll take Ryzen and put the extra money toward a second graphics card.
7820X is not even worth considering. A DOA platform and fear the day you put 12+ core CPU in it as it may just go up in smoke from poor VRM cooling or the CPU will throttle so much due to Intel toothpaste. R7 1700 vs 7820X? It's a no brainer really. You can build two yes two Ryzen 8 core systems for the price of one i9. Why? Mobo prices near $100, CPU $300-320 and only 2 RAM sticks needed. Where as with x299 platform just the CPU and mobo alone will put you at almost a $1k.
nice comment ! ryzen 1700 $300 x2 + cheapest oc mobo $90 x2 + you get 2 coolers with cpus = $780 VS 7820x $600 + cheapest x299 $220 with no cpu cooler = $820 newegg prices LOLOLOLOL
Yes the differences are still huge value wise. It was 3 times CPU alone vs X99 now it's "only" 2 times on CPU alone, roughly. The coolers etc. are definitely to be taken into account, the AMD coolers are decent, dies are soldered, you don't need to buy a 3rd party cooler unlike Intel platforms to keep temps. and noise down.
The Intel platforms are not twice as fast for twice as much money and it's only getting worse quality wise too, toothpaste on HEDT and probably upcoming Xeons as well based on the same chips, Intel cost cutting where ever they can to keep their profit.
LOL, AMD FANBOY
IHate Amd we are not fanboys, we just have brains !!! compared to shitel brainless fanboys who pay 100% more for 10% gains xDDDDD
I vote with my wallet, simple as that. Same reason I didn't buy Faildozer and definitely wouldn't buy a quad core in 2017 when there are better faster options. If Chinese finally launch their CPUs I will buy them, I don't give a damn what brand it is. My wallet cares about value, not max performance or brands or blinky lights. Intel drops their prices to 50% of they are now, I will be happy to recommend their products again.
Recommended by: Ryzen
I recommend the 1600 or 1600X for gaming.
Yep, the 1600(x) perform basically identical in games. I'm actually going to be ordering the 1600x next week for my build.
King Shrewd get the 1600. It comes with stock cooler
Many games these days are already starting to use 8 cores and this trend is only going to continue. For gaming if you can afford it the R7 1700 is the smarter buy.
josh885, 8 cores? lol
MegumiFF7 GTA V likes 8 cores
I don't think X299 will get any gaming optimization as if am correct Intel will release a new CPU next year so it is waste of time and resources for game development companies also as you mentioned CPU + MB will cost a lot. Yes, also push both CPUs to the limit then benchmark them at different RAM speeds :). For me I will go for Ryzen Money/Performance is a win-win lol.
It's so hard to find people that do memory overclocking on X299 and X399.
X299 is capable reaching much higher speeds then X399, where they are already on 4,1MHz, X399 is struggling super hard near 3600MHz.
Ryzen has ridiculous price:performance. So I'd recommend Ryzen every time.
ALSO REDICULOUS TEMPS/PERFORMANCE, WHICH IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE/PERFORMANCE
newbprofi with the 1700x,1800x there is a +20C° offset if it's showing 80C° its 60C° :)
-20C
Intel 140 Watt , AMD ryzen 95 watt
Intel 140 Watt , AMD ryzen 95 watt
the 1800x is superior. Why ? Cause the 7820X has 4.5ghz boost while the 1800X has 4.1ghz boost and both perfom almost identically. So, at same clock speed ryzen would most probably crush intel.
humbleHuman Why does it matter which one is best at a particular clock speed? The only thing that matters is what you run them at, either stock vs stock or overclocked vs overclocked.
Yeh you cant compare stock speeds to overclock speeds but if you were actually able to overclock these damn x299 chips but they get hot as balls even with water cooling
even the best water cooling system wasnt able to keep a i9 under 70ºc
Ryzen = more efficient architecture
humbleHuman That may be true with the high core count CPUs, but only matters if efficiency is a metric you value highly. Performance & price are generally the two biggest ones, Ryzen clearly wins value across the board, but it is beaten by Intel in pure performance.
1800X is the way to go right now but hey ThreadRipper is gonna be the real monster here!
Ryzen with high-end RAM is as fast as any Intel in games; but without the micro stuttering of shintel^^
haha you need to get on with the times. . . With the recent updates ryzen is matching the 5ghz 7700k in gaming while fucking it up the ass in anything else.
+ Peter S
So???????
What's wrong with having some idle cores? They might just be very beneficial in less than 2 years from now when games actually utilize all of them. That's when YOU wish that you had bought a higher core processor earlier in your life. But hey, if you want to continue harping on the fact that quad cores are enough, be my guest.
@ perter S. Idle cores? Nope you have what I like to call 4 core thinking. If a game uses 1-4 cores it just means Lr, PS, firefox with a ton of tabs, videos, backups, chat programs, ect, ect can be running on my machine while I play a game. Plus more cores than your game needs means less hitching and stuttering if all you are doing is running the game because than background processes/windows can use the cores the game isn't. Not to mention several titles already use 8 cores as it is.
Did you test the temperature differences? Or did I miss that?
Sorry, meant to clarify that. At stock clocks, Ryzen was 55-60°c, whereas the 7820X was 65-70°c with the same 240mm AIO cooler.
Is that considering the 20º offset on the 1800x?
+Blasto that has been fixed for a while now yes
TechteamGB Did you lock the fan speed on the AIO liquid cooler? If you didn't, the fans on the AIO might have ramped up more on the Intel CPU to compensate for the higher heat output, resulting in temperatures that aren't actually directly comparable.
Ryzen 1800X is also 150$ lower!
Plus is super reliable, quiet and cooler and motherboards cost less, so yes Ryzen wins
Lueiriueiur lueiriuediuR and upgradeable to Ryzen 3, since the AM4 platform will last 3 gens of Ryzen. With Intel, youll probably need another board for their next cpu to compete with Ryzen 2, then 3, etc...
You mean Zen 3. Ryzen 3 is the lower end Ryzen which will compete with the i3.
Zen = architecture, Summit Ridge = design, Ryzen = product name, 3/5/7 = perf tier.
Comparatively, Intel:
Core = architecture, Kaby Lake = design, Core i = product name, 3/5/7 = perf tier.
Sorry, my mistake, that's correct, up to Zen 3, with Zen 2 being code-named: Pinnacle Ridge.
Then there's the r7 1700 that comes in at about half the price lol
5% difference? Try almost 30% difference when the gpu is not the bottleneck and it's max overclock vs max overclock. Your benchmarks also don't line up with other reviewers. Not sure if you are on a dated bios or turbo boost 3.0 isn't working for you or what.
I'd still recommend Ryzen unless you have a specific use case like I do that requires pushing out frames and needing multiple cores. But I still feel like people aren't giving this chip the credit it deserves. It's an all around monster(at a cost of course)
plz when you oc spend some real time on powerdraw and vrm heat, after der8aur, or what he's called, I'd be really interested how the 8 core intel reacts.
I spoke about this here: czcams.com/video/Q5sUSY-6Ong/video.html
Both Asus boards couldn't handle more than 4.5GHz @ 1.3V. Chip ran at 100°c just at 4.5GHz too...
Good video! I'd look at the 1700X as it seems to be a bit cheaper than the 1800X and you should be able to overclock it to get similar results too.
Nice comparison, though I'm much more interested in overclocked vs overclocked :D
Why no mention of the 1700 non-X? That's even cheaper than the 1700X & also clocks up to 3.8-4.0ish!
I'd love to have run OC vs OC, but X299 mobos have issues OCing well. The chip is capable of 4.8GHz at least, but I can only get 4.5GHz. If I didn't mention the 1700 non-X specifically then that was a mistake - I did make a full video explaining why I'd choose a 1700 myself! czcams.com/video/aj7l8WxyAlw/video.html
TechteamGB Ah fair enough, sounds an awful lot like Ryzen launch issues with RAM compatibility being atrocious! Yes I know you got the non-X & agree it's clearly the best buy that's why I thought it was odd to omit it in this one. In fairness, if you're not overclocking then the non-X will trail the 1800X quite a bit, & stock to stock is a totally fair test as not everyone overclocks.
Can't wait to see the mobo issues resolved & see if the 7820X can hit 5GHz. I *almost* pulled the trigger on getting one but after hearing about the issues decided to wait. I just want 8 real cores at 5GHz! That'll last a good long while :)
Yeah that's a good point. Probably a good idea to hold on yeah!
Core i7-7820X is the clear winner. It is faster in every benchmark. And we don't even see the overclocked benchmark. Ryzen 7 is poor overclocker. Best you can get is 4.1 GHz but many people are stuck with 3.9 GHz. On the other side, Core i7-7820X overclocks like a beast. Sure Core i7-7820X is more expensive. It might not even worth the price because of the existence of Ryzen 7. So let's just forget Core i7-7820X and wait for Core i9-7980X instead.
Intel 7820 is intels FX 9590 ..... (SKU on "steroids")
- High power consuptions,
- high temps,
- watterocooling is nesessary
- temps problems in X299 VRM
- High cost
AMD R7 1700 is the best 8C/16T cpu in the market now. It cost only 300$ , it is unlock and it has a deautiful cooler . You can o/c at 3,8Ghz (all cores) with default cooler. Only 65watt TDP.
AM4 mothreboards haw extremely low price, all low cost chips/ mobos (a320,a300,b350) has M2 NVME PCI-E X4 feature etc..... Inclusiveness, 5 years upgradability
This was the first video of yours that I've watched. I'll be watching yours as much or more than the few other channels at the top of the genre, since it was pretty good. Very concise, stuck to the relevant details, and very unbiased. Nicely done. Maybe these are things you've addressed in newer videos, but there are only two criticisms I have- the audio is slightly muffled, but not enough that most people would notice (presumably it's the mic rather than the room treatment or processing). More noticeably, it was the bar graphs where the results weren't directly next to each other. Great video otherwise! Thanks.
+Tucker Farce brilliant, glad you enjoy the video! I did address the graphs in later videos yes!
Ryzen gives a lot more smoother game performance..very good tech that is new and not another 7700k rehashed intel bullshit with added features or is it a lack of features and running a fire hazard with intel..hhhmmmmm
0:30 o man that hand was shaking.
You need to oc the ram if you want to boost ryzen. It makes a big difference. My 1700 is running 3.9ghz with 2933ghz on the ram
Even though the i7 7820X beats the Ryzen 7 1800X by a little bit, the Intel chip has a stupidly high price. And the gains for that price are very small.
So, for a 5% difference in performance, you pay 150$ more and have a much higher electricity bill from Intel.
X299 is a joke, lmao
Intel just needs to drop the price.
not even a 5% difference lol. maybe like 1.5% difference at most.
depends on the application. Also the 7820x has far better overclocking capabilitys while ryzen struggles to get 4 GHz. So you could increase the gap pretty much and it is like 20% more performance.
Fry's has the 7820X online Thanksgiving day for $430 :-) Yea, no one is mentioning the overclocking superiority of the intel chip aside from Dom. Plus apple uses intel, so there is better support and stability for Hackintosh with Intel.. I plan to run 7820x Hackintosh with windows virtualized :-)
nope not really. he used games that would make the 1800x look good which in reality its a totally trash cpu i have it and my old i5 4690k beats it in single threaded situations by alot. ryzen is a joke for gaming.
I went to a Ryzen 1700x 2 months ago from an older i5 3570k. 0 complaints so far. Everything runs super smooth and fast. I'm no fanboy of either, just a consumer looking for the best bang per dollar, regardless of what name is printed on it. I have a feeling this chip will last me a while.
Intel has moved their L3 cache to more L2 cache
Yes, the L3 is now a non-inclusive cache, with 1MB L2/core if I remember, I think Ryzen is 512KB/core but more L3. Different designs though.
So whats better 1mb L2 or 512kb with More L3?
Luke - they are different architectures so not directly comparable. In theory more L2 as it's faster but again down to how the CPUs use them.
Did you have any problems with the motherboard overheating when using 7820x? I have seen a video from another reviewer claiming temps would go up to 100-110 C range...
I've explained in multiple other comments on this video, but yes. CPU hit 100°c @ just 4.5Ghz and neither Asus motherboard I have can handle past that, the VRMs throttle the CPU clock.
3:42 As a constructive criticism I suggest you cluster together the bars of the same test side by side, like: Image Editing (still below the bars) : (Blue Score) (Red Score) / Encoding: (Blue Score) (Red Score). This avoids looking in zigzag through the screen to compare both scores. If you choose to do so, you'd have to make clear which color is which processor, one way is colorcoding the processor name or putting a small colored rectangle in one of its side. Also I'd say that its preferable to darken up a little bit the background footage or remove it since it can be distracting.
+José Carlos thanks for this, I've actually done this for an upcoming video on streaming with the 7700k, 7820x and 1800x.
The Asus Crosshair VI Hero has been selling on Amazon for £210. So that works out at £90 cheaper than the Asus X299 mobo. Also, the 1800X is available on Amazon for £399. I assume prices for the AMD platform have dropped a bit more since your review. Bearing in mind price to performance ratio, Ryzen is incredibly compelling. I want to upgrade to Thread-Ripper but bearing in mind I purchased Ryzen and X370 when they first hit the shelves, prices were high at the time, so this time I will hang fire for three months until Thread Ripper prices come down a bit.
If you are gaming even on 1080p,buying Intel processor is just stupid.It costs a lot more and its Mobo is quite costly as compared to Ryzen Mobo.I would say go for the Ryzen 1700 and overclokck it to 4Ghz to match 1088x performance and beat stock I7 7820x performance.Pair Ryzen with 3200Mhz Ram which is not very hard now and you are good to go.Intel pricing sucks like hell.
@Noodle Confusion Well i am still going to buy Ryzen 5 1600 very soon.It has SMT and a free stock cooler.I will buy it soon.I will be replacing it with my I5 4440 shitty processor.
Great video and performance comparison mate. Top marks! 10/10 would sure watch again! 👍🏻
Thanks man!
Ladies (if there are any) and gentlemen (if there are any), Intel lost this round (this generation) not today, not yesterday but on March 3rd of 2017, the release date of the R7-1800X. That's really all that there is to say.
Cost aside, the Intel chip whupped the AMD in performance. How is that a "lost"?
No, "whipped" is not a word with the same meaning as "barely edged out". Because 6-9 fps difference in gaming is not whipping, and same goes for their difference in productivity. Maybe it would have been a "whipping" if it was on the same price but it's not.
@StarWarsNerd 85 - Performance aside, the AMD chip whupped the Intel in cost. How is that a "lost?" It looks just as idiotic when you say it your way. "Forget what it is that has completely defeated Intel, let's only look at what didn't." Go back to playing with lightsabers and TIE Fighters, it's obvious that you don't understand that price is just as big a part of the equation as performance. That's true about EVERYTHING in life. Otherwise, you better go buy a palace with a private jet and a Ferrari. After all, performance aside, they "whup" everything else right?
Their is a big cost difference between these platforms, for a tiny difference in performance. The i7 7820X is $599.99 while the Ryzen 7 1800X is $459.99 giving a $140 advantage to AMD. Though it doesn't stop there as you can get a motherboard for the AM4 for under $99 while the X299 is a high end platform with an entry cost over $200 bringing that cost gap to about $250. So in a word yes $250 isn't worth it considering that in some games the Ryzen 7 1800X out performed the Intel chip, also this Intel chip is performing at the level of a Ryzen 7 1800X clocked at 4.0Ghz (all cores). The only real advantage you get with the intel chip is that it will over clock higher then the Ryzen 7 1800X however as time goes by that overclock gap will shrink.
Really though the big problem Intel has is cost, they especially can not produce their higher end chips without incurring huge cost.
My #1 concern with the new Intel chips is the very high TDP and potentially having to manage a very hot CPU. I am fine using closed loop CPU & GPU coolers, but don't want to set up a full liquid cooling loop.
This may be my first foray into AMD processors; Ryzen looks great to me at the moment. A little disappointed in the PCI-E lane count, but I'm only doing single GPU anyway.
I'm so glad I went with Ryzen over Intel!
ryzen 1600 or ryzen 1700 is the way to go..I don't give a sh....for 5 or 10 fps.
So lets necro this.... i have owned a 1700x then 1950x then 8700k then 7820x and a 8600k. Overall the Threadripper was awesome for video misic and heavy threaded work but... 7820x by far runs circles around AMDs fastest hands down. Just general everything is smoother and faster. Synthetics aside the real measure of a CPU is how it makes its owners feel. I love the Intel part the most after several months of trying them all.
How is the 8700k compares to 7820x? You feel any noticeable difference gaming-wise with 8700k? And also how is the thermals like with your 7820x? I have been struggling to decide between 7820x, 1800x & 8700k.
noticed about a 50 euro price drop on the 7820x today, not enough by far but its at least showing intel is starting to realize their misstake
Would be nice if you thru in a link or just added the specs for each system used for the benchmarks (Ram amount, speed, stuff like that) Ryzen is the best price/perf but I hope you do the OC video. Once you OC the Intel you will notice it pushing past the 1800x. Ryzen is solid but limited with the max 4.1 ghz OC. Where as hit 46. all core on the Intel and hands down the Intel wins perf wise. It is like most things in life, you make compromises to get the best price/perf but if you want the best you have to pay a hefty sum for it.
If you OC'd them both to the max you'd need a pretty insane cooler for the 7820x. Triple fan or 280mm. Again, an additional premium cost for the Intel.
Here's my thing ya?
Either, I'm going to be buying a Ryzen 7, or, if the price is low enough and the overclocking potential high, the lower tiered Threadripper.
Now, as for the RX Nova Vega or a 1080ti, that remained to be seen. But I hope the RX kicks ass, since it'll be less money!!
I'm moving out in two days, and I cannot fucking WAIT to finally build a gaming computer!! And what an awesome summer this is going to be to do it! 😁
Looking forward to the OC video on both chips
The question I always ask is the difference in performance as noticeable as the difference in price?
If all you want to do is win benchmarking wars, then by all means Intel will not turn down your money.
But if you want a good gaming experience with the ability to still feed your family then AMD can help you with that.
The only consideration overlooked favoring the Intel platform is the maximum supported memory capacity is almost double that of the AMD platform. Yes from broadwell all the way up to Skylake-X most motherboards support up to 512 GB of memory. Assuming most of the target audience for both platforms don't care to much about having large capacity for system RAM the AMD platform wins in price/performance. Unfortunately I am in the boat of needing Quad Channel, and higher memory capacity support so Intel is my only option.
Good overview. 1st, I'm an Intel fan boy. That said, I'm pleased that (at least technically) Intel is the better performance chip, but I must admit - I agree with you: AMD is a far better value. ..... I'm not a gamer. I do video editing. I wish Intel had a lower power version of the i7 7820x with the Iris graphics embedded. I wish they would put 28 pci lanes on the lower end i7 chips. I want fast SSDs (read NVMe drives), Thunderbolt iii and room for Optane drives when they become available. :-)
I'm from the US. The 1600 goes for a lot less that the I7 at about 1/3 the price and you can get just about the same game performance. If you are gaming at 1080p you really don't need the really expensive chip. So save some money and get the same joy for a lot less.
get a ryzen and a better GPU with the money you save
Speaking from that fact you can overclock a r7 1700 to match a 1800x at like $300 compared to the 7820x for $600 LOL
ryzen wins
I personally picked up a Ryzen 7 1700 CPU wise it is a beast very happy.
this was the first video I watched. it was a good listen. ty
You ignored one important factor and that is the fact that the i7 draws much more power and runs hotter. Even if you ignore the price difference that would not really make it superior with the tiny performance gap.
great comparison mate, subscribed!
+Bilal Fouzi thank you!
Why is the i7-7820X the best of the best, bearing in mind the 1800X is £180 cheaper and it is literally within spitting distance (c.10%) of the 7820X performance?. As you have correctly stated, the 1800X is at stock 3.6GHz and the 7820X is at stock 3.6GHz also, but if you were to overclock the 1800X to 4GHz, it would be on par (if not slightly faster) than the 7820X.
I don't see much mention about how Ryzen really needs fast RAM..3200MHz... and how finicky they can be to get that speed. You're best off with Samsung B die IC's, which are costlier as well.
I think Ryzen right now has the upper hand. I don't think the 1800X needs to exist, though. Overclock the 1700 and you get nearly identical performance. You also save a lot of dough.
Neither...Get a Ryzen 1700, OC the $h!t out of it, get same performance as 1800X, and they're only $299. For the price of just the Intel CPU+X299 board, you can build an entire Ryzen PC, with near identical performance.
Be careful with OC the INTEL X299 MOBO AND CPU'S they draw a lot of power vrm temps and mobo in general gets very toasty hot if the mobo only has one 8pin and no additional power 4/6pin connector the b8auer did a video about it just to let you know if you haven't seen or heard about it :)
would have been nice if you did a little more benchmarking in games though.
With websites i use which are well known, ebuyer and scan there is a £90 difference, so i will happily get the i7 7820x
AMD Is the more realistic choice here. The amount of fps are not worth to go Intel. For most of the ppl (avg users) the Ryzen CPUs still packs more horsepower than they need (me included) and the price/performance ratio is awesome...
We are still forgetting an important aspect of Ryzen. Not only is it cheaper, cooler (in temp.), and overall better, but it STILL runs at litterally 20-35% in games, while Intel runs like at 80-90%. If Ryzen did that, it would make Intel shit everywhere.
*AMD wins again.*
do the test in 1 year.....when the TIM in the Intel chip starts to break down and crumble
Oh boy, I had that happen on my 4690k last summer when I upgraded to a 980 ti...
The extreme heat must have started this, cause I couldn't run 4,5GHz anymore, even though I opened up the case and had the fans blasting at it at 100%; so I had to go down to 4GHz again...
But after the delid + liquid metal, I can run 4,5GHz again without a problem, even during summer and even when my TWO 980 ti cards are heating up the case^^
actually they use super durable TIM, that's also a reason why it conducts heat so badly.
That makes no sense whatsoever:
1. It is NOT super durable, alot of people report rising temperatures over time.
2. Durabillity and conductivity aren't exclusive to each other. A good TIM does booth.
thermal paste is a lot more complicated than you might think. you can't have everything, i.e. perfect thermal conductivity and perfect durability as they exclude each other.
thermal paste consists mainly of the following ingredients:
1: A liquid, e.g. silicone oils, hydrocarbon oils (e.g. polyol esters)
2: A filler material for the thermal conductivity, so more filler means better thermal conductivity, but worse workability, conformability,
and spreadability of the paste. Filler materials can be:
2A: Ceramics: pros=no electrical conductivity, good chemical resistance, good thermal conductivity; cons=thermal conductivity could be better
2A1: oxide ceramics like Al₂O₃ (very good chemical resistance, esp. against oxidation)
2A2: non-oxide ceramics like boron nitride (good chemical resistance, good thermal conductivity
2B: Metals: pros=exceptional thermal conductivity; cons=electrical conductivity, low chemical resistance
2B1: Aluminium (cheap, good thermal conductivity, but very prone to oxidation)
2B2: Copper (very good thermal conductivity, but still prone to oxidation)
2B3: Silver (best thermal conductivity from all the metals, but prone to oxidation and really expensive)
2B4: Gold (very good thermal conductivity, very resistant to oxidation, but too expensive)
2C: Allotropes of Carbon
2C1: Graphite (good chemical resistance, extremely cheap)
2C2: Carbon Nanotubes (good chemical resistance, exceptional directional thermal conductivity, but useless as a blend, extremely expensive)
2C3: Graphene (good chemical resistance, exceptional planar thermal conductivity, ", ")
2C4: Diamond (good chemical resistance, extremely good thermal conductivity, terribly expensive)
3: Antioxidants and/or phase stabilizers. They increase the durability of the paste. Antioxidants are self explanatory. Phase stabilizers reduce the phase separation, e.g. the spreading of the oily phase. These additives lower the thermal conductivity.
I can go more into depth if you want me to.
Sry fur mah bat inglish.
Diamond isn't expensive, actually. It's extremely cheap and abundant. Especially pulverized industrial diamond.
Still, there's no reason for Intel to use what they are. It breaks down over time AND is a poor conductor.
Cheap silicone pastes from the 90s did better.
What's the chance you could do a comparison of these chips running Lockheed Martins Prepar3d V4?
a moment if silence for all the people that bought X299
I'm planning my build right now as we speak and I'm going X299 with the Asus Rampage VI Extreme. I'll be using the 7820X chip. This will be my first computer powered by Intel. I've owned three AMD PCs and all ran like shit. For me, I don't care about the AMD charts. I'm giving Intel the chance they deserve because AMD has failed to impress me.
I smell bullshit. Post your last 3 rigs what were you running
Magic Three Laptops all with AMD chips. All Three after less than 6 months run like garbage. Even my 4 core that i currently own.
What processor? I personally wouldn't choose amd for laptops. But for a custom rig, with production work '3d rendering, animation, modelling, graphic design and a little bit of gaming' Im not looking at Intel anymore. For people like me ryzen seems nice but threadripper has literally ripped 1 for intel. Im not the only one, a lot of people in my industry are keen to jump ships now, it doesnt make sense anymore to keep a fire extinguisher next to your desk while funding Intels' narcissistic pricing model.
Any idea when the 8700K is out? and will u do a VS 1800X?
+tehredundant no although I suspect I will compare them yes
Not to mention the ridiculous cost of the x299 motherboards. Great video as usual!
Mentioned that at the start yeah! Thank you!
Just to note, here in the US are the X299 MB prices, You dont need a super fancy and pricey MB www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007627%20601299335&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36
None are under $200 there - B350 and even some Z270 boards are $100-150 for the same kind of semi-budget/mid range boards.
$230 price difference. 1800X is $419 and 7820X is $650.
Dan K The 1700 is 350$ :)
How about a power consumption test between these two processors?
throughout the whole video I couldn't stop watching the way his head moves as he talks
As the cpus on this X299 board consume much power and thus produce a lot of heat, they will consequently put a huge amount of stress on the motherboard vrms... just saying
AMD has the advantage that all ther current chips are on one unified socket, Intel separates theirs instead of just having one, meaning you could theoretically buy a low end R3 or APU and upgrade to an 1800X, but with intel you could have a Pentium or i3 and only upgrade to a consumer i7, if you want an 8 core or above, then you need to buy a new motherboard and CPU, and intel X series boards are never on the cheap side unlike the AMD ones. It will be interesting when Threadripper launches though as that is the exact same as the amd extreme chips and will need an X type new mobo to go with it.
"Intel vs AMD is back, and it's serious" - Yeah, serious in fucking heat, lmao. ( justslightystatingshintelreaching100°conwatercooling280mm)
Hrmm, so the 10 core 7900x OC to 4.7 Ghz all core hitting 100c (Yes it is much hotter then I want to deal with it) is how you are going to frame ALL of the X299 platform? You are either trolling or not very informed. The cpu he discusses int he video is the 8 core 7820X model that can easily hit 4.7 ghz all core OC with a max temp of 72c using a 280mm AIO. So please stop spreading uninformed misleading info.
In my testing, with a 240mm AIO this chip hit 100°c at 4.5GHz and the motherboards both failed to allow any higher than 1.3V...
To be fair, how hot does the 1800x get at 4.8?
1800X can't really get to that kind of frequency, however the R7 chip is soldered and thus will, in most cases, run cooler simply due to Intel's toothpaste under the IHS.
Carl Hill on ln2 it can
the tdp is that from amd spec sheets or from the chip under load? because some are getting close to 200w
Let me tell you something guys, while Intel has the horsepower advantage it's honestly not by much and Ryzen is actually really fast that you wouldn't be able to tell the two systems apart if you had them side by side without knowing the numbers... If Intel CPU+Board combo was about 75-100 bucks more, then I would say that it's justifiable to go for it over AMD (it's not though), but if you're willing to overclock Ryzen, you can get a 1700+B350 board combo for $400 while on the other hand the cheapest x299 board (at the time of writing this comment) sits at 220 bucks... Also Intel's anti-conusmer practices have really turned me off from x299, and not to mention that they're using freakin' thermal paste under their $1000 chip's IHS, unbelievable...
my money is on ryzen 1700 for price performance king - threadripper for ultimate performance at reasonable price.
intels 18 core when it comes out will be minutely faster most likely ... but also way to expensive to even consider.
Plus the elephant in the room is that with high yields and the modular CCX+infinity fabric design it meas AMD can just keep gluing R7's together for little cost. So they can easily release a 24 or 32 core threadripper priced below or at the Intel 18 core chip. Even with slightly lower per core performance a 24 or 32 core threadripper will stomp the Intel 18 core in anything you would be buying such high core CPUs for on the desktop.
Strangly enough my 1700 OCed to 3.7 GHZ on all cores gives me 1633 to 1655 con cinebench.
I mean, if you consider the price... Im not sure if Intel is a joke or if AMD just rocked it.
Considering the last Intel marketing attacking AMD.. it might be a bit of both.
What are you talking about the 1800x goes to 4.0 on all cores easy or up to 4.1 you did it wrong.
When AMD's consumer products compete with your enthusiast products you need to reconsider your pricing...
My intel i7 5820k was clocked @ 4.5ghz all cores stable before I sold it.
anikanbounty97 Your 5820K was a solderedIHS 6 Core.
I do not understand a word of this... which should I get?
So Ryzen is just... cheaper. LMAO Owning a cheaper but inferior product is nothing to brag about. You pay less and get less with budget brand AMD. That's been their motto for decades!
Stop arguing which platform is slightly more powerful or has better performance to price ratio. You should be happy AMD can compete with Intel again. This benefits everyone, ever blind fanboys.
I googled clock for clock, AMD vs Intel, and Intel came out about 10-20% faster. However these results that TechTeamGB are showing, say clock for clock is almost equal. Making Intel a waste of money.
7900x with two gtx 480's
*MOLTEN EARTH CORR ACTIVATED*
Please do the OC video
Dude, cut down on the Red Bull drinks. Your hands are shaking too much when you do the close ups on the CPUs at 0:27.
I don't drink that sorta stuff... I've always shaken like a mad man.
Honestly, is that extra $100 really worth it? not to mention X299 boards are expensive as crap....
X299 really is, a joke.
Awful time to build an audio system for those viewers looking into such. Ryzen has worse audio performance than X99 chips, and pushing the 7820X to superior high clocks will only make it heat up like crazy. Doubt Threadripper will perform any better than Ryzen in audio given the same architecture.
Dont get confuse. X is stand for Xpensive
why do you keep saying you can overclock the 1800x to get better performance when the 7820x can have all cores overclocked to 4.8 ghz
Because X299 motherboards can't OC to 4.8GHz if you don't have high airflow over the VRMs. My chip was 100°c when running 1 run of cinebench at 4.5Ghz with a 240mm AIO - so in reality you won't want to do more than ~4.3Ghz long term. That's what Ryzen 1800X OCs to as well. I apologise for not also making it clear that the 7820X is OCable, but it's also a risky/painful business at the moment.
Watch oc3d's video he got the 7820x upto 4.8 with an h115i without a fan facing the vrms
Shitty Ryzen 7? Really? What's so bad about it? You also are advocating voiding your warranty, spending even more money on good TIM and potentially destroying the more expensive CPU just to get a decent overclock... How does that make Ryzen shit and Intel great?
Damn, 100C? My 1800x idles at 28C to 32C with a little Noctua air cooler and gets to maybe 50C with repeated runs of Cinebench. I'm glad I sent my 7700K back and waited on a deal ($319 w/ Quake Champions) on Ryzen. I'd probably have to risk deliding with an Intel chip. Those temps would drive me nuts worrying that something would break or melt down.
is there any can help me?
for 3ds max users and rendering which one is better
Don't buy the 1800x. Buy the 1700 and OC it if you want a Ryzen 8 core.
currently (as of posting this) the i7 is $499.99 and the ryzen is $499.89. so a $0.10 difference in price.
Where are you looking for Ryzen? I've seen it as low as $279.99 on offer, but it's $349.99 right now on Amazon: amzn.to/2hQ97Td
i found it here. i didn't search for the best deals, i just looked for like an average price. www.directron.com/yd180xbcaewof.html?aff=2
ryzen 1700 with a nice b350 overclock. amazing value.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Intel boost technology actually reduces the overall performance which reduces frames when running games.
Too bad Ryzen doesn't overclock for crap. Still nice to see AMD taking value jabs at higher end products.