As far as I can tell from the graph you presented, the i7-8700 isn't really very far ahead of the i7-7700. While the Kaby Lake series had better single threaded IPC than Ryzen, Ryzen came with up to eight cores on the mainstream platform. Ryzen thusly, tended to outperform Kaby Lake by a wide margin in productivity apps that can utilize more cores. Making, AMD a great choice for users who game but also do a fair amount of productivity work.
Coffee Lake then, is all about bridging that gap for Intel.
"but it soundly thrashes the Ryzen 1800X in terms of performance"
Really? There are actually gaming scenarios where Ryzen performs better than Coffee Lake.
But generally speaking, Coffee Lake is faster in gaming, just as Kaby Lake before it was. This actually seems to be the smallest IPC improvement in single threaded performance for Intel ever in a single generation.
Multithreaded is where things get a lot more interesting. Doesn't look like AMD is being soundly thrashed in any productivity tests but Intel does seem to have found parity. While the 6 cores of the 8700K can't quite match the 8 core Ryzens, the performance does scale well with the price, unlike the previous 7700K. Now, rather than paying Intel for a CPU that kills at gaming but falls way behind AMD in everything else, the decision is more of a trade off. The 8700K still pumps out more frames than the AMD offerings, but still falls behind in heavily threaded productivity applications, albeit by a much smaller margin, and by a margin in line with it's price. Opting for AMD, rewards the user with more cores for your money, an possibly identical gaming performance depending on how GPU bound the system is.
So now the consumer is going to have a great product in overall computing for their money regardless of manufacturer. Really the only losers seem to be the individuals that bought the X299 platform. Coffee Lake provides higher clocks and 6 cores at a much lower price point.
Well, development for this cpu started two years ago, so I wouldn't thank AMD for that. If anything, AMD forced a different price, and time to market was a few months earlier. The existence of the 8700k was well underway long before Ryzen.
Ryzen shines in workstation tasks, and some synthetics, where all those threads can be used. I have looked into Ryzen quite a bit this past month, because I am sick of my current computer (infrequent stability issues). The problem is that I game, and in a few, not insubstantial amount of games, the Ryzen just tanks with poor performance. If you have a high end GPU, the ryzen is almost always slower than intel. To narrow the difference, you need to get good fast RAM, and if you want 32 GB of RAM, then you are kind of screwed if you want to run at 3200 or better. There is about only one brand that can run it, G.Skill Flare X, which cost like $100 more.
At this point, I can get the higher performing 8700k for the same price of a 1700x (which sale dropped to same price of 1700 yesterday) because of this memory situation. I tried every way I could to justify buying the ryzen, but because of the memory situation with 32gb, I just did not want to mess with it. I look at intel's memory compatibility list, and 32gb just works with many sets at 3200 and better. So I did order the 8700k for my new build. Who knows when I can get one, just waiting on amazon to fill order.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
"and if you want 32 GB of RAM, then you are kind of screwed if you want to run at 3200 or better."
I currently run 32 GB of RAM on Ryzen at 3200 MHz (4 DIMMS, 8GB each). I used a Corsair Dominator Platinum kit, not the Flare X as well. I think their are quite a few users on here who run 3200 MHz or better with 32 GB (3333, and 3466 at 2T were stable for me as well).
Here are just a few of the builds, note: none of them use Flare X RAM.
I thought about asking a question in the processor forum about which memory kit to use, but never did. Thanks for the info.
Wow, 12 custom versions of the 8700k, ranging from 870 euros(high bin chip ?) to 440 euros (low bin chip ?).