8700K vs ryzen 2600: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i7-8700K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i7-8700K

28 May20|Techpowerup

Intel Core i5-10400F Review — Six …
18 % FarC5 39%, BFV 24%, SotTR 2%, Rage2 1%, Witcher3 5%, Civ6 27%, ACO 12%, MetroEx 14%, Sekiro 38%, Wolf2 18%
30 Oct19|Gamers Nexus

Intel i9-9900KS Review: Overclocki…
28 % Hitm2 29%, TWarW2 21%, GTAV 24%, SotTR 37%
14 Nov19|PCGamer

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
20 % Hitm2 31%, FarC5 33%, TWarW2 28%, SotTR 31%, ACO 18%, MetroEx 14%, MESoW 13%, Divis2 13% StrangeB 0%
Memory

Avg. Memory Latency
91.4 Pts Lower memory latency.
+21%
75.6 Pts
1-Core

Avg. Single Core Mixed Speed
130 Pts Faster single-core speed.
+25%
104 Pts
2-Core

Avg. Dual Core Mixed Speed
253 Pts Faster dual-core speed.
+27%
199 Pts
4-Core

Avg. Quad Core Mixed Speed
476 Pts Faster quad-core speed.
+29%
369 Pts
8-Core

Avg. Octa Core Mixed Speed
799 Pts Faster octa-core speed.
+25%
637 Pts
Memory

OC Memory Latency
97 Pts Lower OC memory latency.
+16%
83.9 Pts
1-Core

OC Single Core Mixed Speed
148 Pts Faster OC single-core speed.
+30%
114 Pts
2-Core

OC Dual Core Mixed Speed
295 Pts Much faster OC dual-core speed.
+32%
224 Pts
4-Core

OC Quad Core Mixed Speed
558 Pts Faster OC quad-core speed.
+28%
437 Pts
8-Core

OC Octa Core Mixed Speed
937 Pts Faster OC octa-core speed.
+29%
728 Pts
Age

Newest
59 Months 52 Months More recent.
+12%
TDP

Thermal Design Power (TDP)
95 Watts 65 Watts Much more energy efficient.
+32%
Cores

CPU Processing Cores
6 cores 6 cores
Threads

CPU Processing Threads
12 threads 12 threads
Lithography

Manufacturing process
14 nm 12 nm Newer manufacturing.
+14%
Base Clock

Base Clock Speed
3.7 GHz Slightly faster base frequency.
+9%
3.4 GHz
Turbo Clock

Turbo Clock Speed
4. 7 GHz Faster turbo frequency.
+21%
3.9 GHz
64-Core

OC Multi Core Mixed Speed
1186 Pts Faster OC 64-core speed.
+22%
972 Pts
64-Core

Avg. Multi Core Mixed Speed
1012 Pts Faster 64-core speed.
+19%
848 Pts

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i7-8700K: What is the difference?

52points

67points

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

59points

68points

Intel Core i7-8700K

Comparison winner

Cost-effectiveness winner

vs

64 facts in comparison

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Intel Core i7-8700K

Why is AMD Ryzen 5 2600 better than Intel Core i7-8700K?

  • 267MHz higher ram speed?
    2933MHzvs2666MHz
  • 2nm smaller semiconductor size?
    12nmvs14nm
  • 1. 5MB bigger L2 cache?
    3MBvs1.5MB
  • 30W lower TDP?
    65Wvs95W
  • 4MB bigger L3 cache?
    16MBvs12MB
  • 192KB bigger L1 cache?
    576KBvs384KB
  • 0.25MB/core more L2 cache per core?
    0.5MB/corevs0.25MB/core
  • 0.67MB/core more L3 cache per core?
    2.67MB/corevs2MB/core

Why is Intel Core i7-8700K better than AMD Ryzen 5 2600?

  • 8.82% faster CPU speed?
    6 x 3.7GHzvs6 x 3.4GHz
  • 5°C higher maximum operating temperature?
    100°Cvs95°C
  • 23.19% higher PassMark result?
    16270vs13207
  • 0.8GHz higher turbo clock speed?
    4.7GHzvs3.9GHz
  • Has integrated graphics?
  • 21.03% higher PassMark result (single)?
    2728vs2254

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

Intel Core i5-12400

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

Intel Core i5-9400F

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

Intel Core i7-9700K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

Intel Core i9-9900K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

Intel Core i5-10600K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 4500U

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

Intel Core i7-8700

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

Intel Core i3-10100F

Intel Core i7-8700K

vs

Intel Core i5-9600K

Price comparison

Cheap alternatives

User reviews

Overall Rating

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

4 User reviews

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

10. 0/10

4 User reviews

Intel Core i7-8700K

1 User reviews

Intel Core i7-8700K

10.0/10

1 User reviews

Features

Value for money

10.0/10

4 votes

10.0/10

1 votes

Gaming

10.0/10

4 votes

10.0/10

1 votes

Performance

10.0/10

4 votes

10.0/10

1 votes

Reliability

10.0/10

4 votes

10.0/10

1 votes

Energy efficiency

10.0/10

4 votes

10.0/10

1 votes

Performance

1.CPU speed

6 x 3.4GHz

6 x 3.7GHz

The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.

2.CPU threads

More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.

3.turbo clock speed

3.9GHz

4.7GHz

When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

4.Has an unlocked multiplier

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.

5.L2 cache

A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

6.L3 cache

A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

7.L1 cache

A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

8. L2 core

0.5MB/core

0.25MB/core

More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

9.L3 core

2.67MB/core

2MB/core

More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

Memory

1.RAM speed

2933MHz

2666MHz

It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

43.71GB/s

42.7GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.DDR memory version

DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.

4.memory channels

More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.

5.maximum memory amount

The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.

6.bus transfer rate

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

7.Supports ECC memory

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✖Intel Core i7-8700K

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.

9.bus speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

Benchmarks

1.PassMark result

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.

2.PassMark result (single)

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

5.Cinebench R20 (single) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7.Blender (bmw27) result

295.1seconds

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

8.Blender (classroom) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

9.performance per watt

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.

Features

1.uses multithreading

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.

2.Has AES

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3. Has AVX

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.

4.SSE version

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5.Has F16C

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

6.bits executed at a time

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.

7.Has MMX

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

8.Has TrustZone

✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✖Intel Core i7-8700K

A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).

9.front-end width

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best CPUs?

Intel Core i7 8700K vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600: performance comparison

VS

Intel Core i7 8700K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

We compared two 6-core desktop CPUs: the 3.7 GHz Intel Core i7 8700K against the 3.4 GHz AMD Ryzen 5 2600. On this page, you’ll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information.

  1. Review
  2. Differences
  3. Performance
  4. Specs
  5. Comments

Review

General overview and comparison of the processors

Single-Core Performance

Performance in single-threaded apps and benchmarks

Core i7 8700K

65

Ryzen 5 2600

54

Performance

Measure performance when all cores are involved

Core i7 8700K

41

Ryzen 5 2600

36

Power Efficiency

The efficiency score of electricity consumption

Core i7 8700K

41

Ryzen 5 2600

50

NanoReview Final Score

Generic CPU rating

Core i7 8700K

51

Ryzen 5 2600

47

Key Differences

What are the key differences between 2600 and 8700K

Advantages of Intel Core i7 8700K

  • Supports up to 128 GB DDR4-2666 RAM
  • 21% higher Turbo Boost frequency (4. 7 GHz vs 3.9 GHz)
  • 20% faster in a single-core Geekbench v5 test — 1242 vs 1038 points
  • Includes an integrated GPU Intel UHD Graphics 630

Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 2600

  • Consumes up to 32% less energy than the Core i7 8700K – 65 vs 95 Watt
  • Has 4 MB larger L3 cache size
  • Newer — released 11-months later
  • More modern manufacturing process – 12 versus 14 nanometers
  • Around 2.11 GB/s (5%) higher theoretical memory bandwidth

Benchmarks

Comparing the performance of CPUs in benchmarks

Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)

Core i7 8700K
+20%

1215

Ryzen 5 2600

1016

Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)

Core i7 8700K
+25%

8864

Ryzen 5 2600

7115

Passmark CPU (Single-Core)

Core i7 8700K
+23%

2773

Ryzen 5 2600

2254

Passmark CPU (Multi-Core)

Core i7 8700K
+5%

13955

Ryzen 5 2600

13234

Geekbench 5 (Single-Core)

Core i7 8700K
+20%

1252

Ryzen 5 2600

1040

Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)

Core i7 8700K
+17%

6667

Ryzen 5 2600

5697

▶️ Submit your Cinebench R23 result

By purchasing through links on this site, we may receive a commission from Amazon. This does not affect our assessment methodology.

Specifications

Full technical specification of Intel Core i7 8700K and AMD Ryzen 5 2600

General

Vendor Intel AMD
Released October 5, 2017 September 11, 2018
Type Desktop Desktop
instruction set x86-64 x86-64
Codename Coffee Lake Zen+
Model number i7-8700K
Socket LGA-1151 AM4
Integrated GPU UHD Graphics 630 No

Performance

Cores 6 6
Threads 12 12
Base Frequency 3. 7 GHz 3.4 GHz
Turbo Boost Frequency 4.7 GHz 3.9 GHz
Bus frequency 100 MHz 100 MHz
Multiplier 37x 34x
Bus Bandwidth 8 GT/s
L1 Cache 64K (per core) 96K (per core)
L2 Cache 256K (per core) 512K (per core)
L3 Cache 12MB (shared) 16MB (shared)
Unlocked Multiplier Yes Yes
Transistors 4.8 billions
Fabrication process 14 nm 12 nm
TDP 95 W 65 W
Max. temperature 100°C 95°C
Integrated Graphics Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU Base Clock 350 MHz
GPU Boost Clock 1200 MHz
Shading Units 192
TMUs 24
ROPs 3
Execution Units 24
TGP 15 W
Max. Resolution 4096×2304 — 60 Hz

iGPU FLOPS

Core i7 8700K

0.38 TFLOPS

Ryzen 5 2600

n/a

Memory support

Memory types DDR4-2666 DDR4-2933
Memory Size 128 GB 64 GB
Max. Memory Channels 2 2
Max. Memory Bandwidth 41.6 GB/s 43.71 GB/s
ECC Support No Yes
Official site Intel Core i7 8700K official page AMD Ryzen 5 2600 official page
PCI Express Version 3.0 3.0
PCI Express Lanes 16 20
Extended instructions SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2

Cast your vote

Choose between two processors

Core i7 8700K

14 (48.3%)

Ryzen 5 2600

15 (51.7%)

Total votes: 29

Сompetitors

1.
Core i7 8700K or Ryzen 5 5600X

2.
Core i7 8700K or Core i7 12700K

3.
Core i7 8700K or Core i5 12400F

4.
Ryzen 5 2600 or Ryzen 5 5600X

5.
Ryzen 5 2600 or Core i5 10400F

6.
Ryzen 5 2600 or Ryzen 5 Pro 4650G

Ryzen 5 2600 vs Core i7-8700K

Availability

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler — YD2600BBAFBOX

Buy on Amazon

$210

In Stock

Updated 27 minutes ago

Availability

Intel Core i7-8700K Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.7GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W

Buy on Amazon

$330

In Stock

Updated 27 minutes ago

Key Differences

In short — Core i7-8700K outperforms the cheaper Ryzen 5 2600 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Ryzen 5 2600 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i7-8700K is 196 days older than the cheaper Ryzen 5 2600.

Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 2600

  • Up to 36% cheaper than Core i7-8700K — $210.0 vs $330.0

  • Up to 30% better value when playing VALORANT than Core i7-8700K — $0.49 vs $0.7 per FPS

  • Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Core i7-8700K — 65 vs 95 Watts

Advantages of Intel Core i7-8700K

VALORANT

Resolution

1920×1080

Game Graphics

High

Ryzen 5 2600

Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018


FPS

428

91%

Value, $/FPS

$0.49/FPS

100%

Price, $

$210

100%

Value Winner

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler — YD2600BBAFBOX

Buy for $210 on Amazon

In Stock

Updated 27 minutes ago

Core i7-8700K

Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017


FPS

472

100%

Value, $/FPS

$0. 7/FPS

70%

Price, $

$330

63%

FPS Winner

Intel Core i7-8700K Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.7GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W

Buy for $330 on Amazon

In Stock

Updated 27 minutes ago

Resolution

1920×1080

Game Graphics

High

Ryzen 5 2600

Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018

Core i7-8700K

Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017

1314

FPS

1440

FPS

Minecraft

603

FPS

664

FPS

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

245

FPS

271

FPS

Grand Theft Auto V

985

FPS

1081

FPS

League of Legends

428

FPS

472

FPS

VALORANT

Geekbench 5 Benchmarks

Ryzen 5 2600

Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018


Single-Core

966

78%

Multi-Core

5243

81%

Core i7-8700K

Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017


Single-Core

1245

100%

Multi-Core

6510

100%

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

Intel Core i7-8700K

Apr 19th, 2018

Release Date Oct 5th, 2017
Ryzen 5 Collection Core i7
Pinnacle Ridge Codename Coffee Lake
AMD Socket AM4 Socket Intel Socket 1151

Desktop

Segment

Desktop

6 Cores 6
12 Threads 12
3. 4 GHz Base Clock Speed

3.7 GHz

3.9 GHz Turbo Clock Speed

4.7 GHz

65 W

TDP 95 W

12 nm

Process Size 14 nm
34.0x Multiplier

37.0x

None Integrated Graphics

UHD Graphics 630

Yes Overclockable Yes

Builds Using Ryzen 5 2600 or Core i7-8700K

VALORANT, 1080p, High

Allied Gaming Stinger Desktop PC

216 FPS

$4.39/FPS

GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

Ryzen 5 2600

16 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$949

In Stock

Updated 17 minutes ago

SkyTech Blaze II Gaming Computer PC

181 FPS

$4.56/FPS

GeForce GTX 1660

Ryzen 5 2600

8 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$824.99

In Stock

Updated 19 minutes ago

SkyTech Blaze II Gaming Computer PC

216 FPS

$5. 09/FPS

GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

Ryzen 5 2600

16 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$1,099.88

In Stock

Updated 19 minutes ago

Allied Gaming Patriot Desktop PC

217 FPS

$5.29/FPS

GeForce RTX 2060

Ryzen 5 2600

16 GB, 480 GB SSD

Buy on Amazon

$1,149

In Stock

Updated 11 minutes ago

SkyTech Blaze II Gaming Computer PC

206 FPS

$5.58/FPS

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Ryzen 5 2600

8 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$1,149.99

In Stock

Updated 20 minutes ago

SkyTech Blaze II Gaming Computer PC

134 FPS

$6.93/FPS

GeForce GTX 1650

Ryzen 5 2600

8 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$928

In Stock

Updated 17 minutes ago

SkyTech Blaze II Gaming Computer PC

181 FPS

$7.07/FPS

GeForce GTX 1660

Ryzen 5 2600

16 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$1,279. 99

In Stock

Updated 16 minutes ago

Allied Gaming Stinger Desktop PC

217 FPS

$8.75/FPS

GeForce RTX 2060

Ryzen 5 2600

16 GB, 480 GB SSD

Buy on Amazon

$1,899

In Stock

Updated 18 minutes ago

CYBERPOWERPC Gamer Supreme Liquid Cool SLC10060 Gaming PC

289 FPS

$10.38/FPS

GeForce GTX 1080

Core i7-8700K

16 GB, 240 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$2,999

In Stock

Updated 18 minutes ago

Dell Inspiron i3670 Desktop PC

131 FPS

$15.26/FPS

GeForce GT 1030

Core i7-8700K

8 GB, 1 TB SSD

Buy on Amazon

$1,999.11

In Stock

Updated 16 minutes ago

Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.

Ryzen 5 5600X

Ryzen 5 2600

Core i5-4590

$97. 43

Ryzen 5 2600

Ryzen 5 2600

Core i5-3570

$219.95

Ryzen 5 2600

Xeon E3-1270 v3

N/A Stock

Ryzen 5 2600

Phenom II X4 980

N/A Stock

Core i7-8700K

A8-7650K

Core i7-5775R

N/A Stock

Ryzen 5 2600

Ryzen 7 5800X

Ryzen 5 2600

Ryzen 9 5900X

$387.99

Ryzen 5 2600

Intel Core i7-8700K vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600








Intel Core i7-8700K vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Intel Core i7-8700K on one side and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, It has 6 cores, 12 threads, a maximum frequency of 4,7GHz. The second is used on the desktop segment, it has a total of 6 cores, 12 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 3,9 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values ​​obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.

Specifications:

Processor

Intel Core i7-8700K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Market (main)

Desktop

Desktop
ISA

x86-64 (64 bit)

x86-64 (64 bit)
Microarchitecture

Coffee Lake

Zen+
Core name

Coffee Lake-S

Pinnacle Ridge
Family

Core i7-8000

Ryzen 5 2000
Part number(s), S-Spec

BX80684I78700K,
BXC80684I78700K,
CM8068403358220,
SR3QR, QNMK

YD2600BBM6IAF
Release date

Q4 2017

Q2 2018
Lithography

14 nm++

12 nm
Transistors

3. 000.000.000

4.800.000.000
Cores

6

6
Threads

12

12
Base frequency

3,7 GHz

3,4 GHz
Turbo frequency

4,7 GHz

3,9 GHz
Cache memory

12 MB

16 MB
Max memory capacity

128 GB

64 GB
Memory types

DDR4-2666

DDR4-2933
Max # of memory channels

2

2
Max memory bandwidth

41,6 GB/s

43,71 GB/s
Max PCIe lanes

16

20
TDP

95 W

65 W
Suggested PSU

600W ATX Power Supply

600W ATX Power Supply
GPU integrated graphics

Intel UHD Graphics 630 (Coffee Lake)

None
GPU execution units

23


GPU shading units

184


GPU base clock

350 MHz


GPU boost clock

1200 MHz


GPU FP32 floating point

423,2 GFLOPS


Socket

LGA1151

AM4, PGA-1331
Compatible motherboard

Socket LGA 1151 Motherboard 

Socket AM4 Motherboard 
Maximum temperature

100°C

95°C
Crypto engine

AES New Instructions,

Secure Key


Security

Software Guard Extensions,

Memory Protection Extensions,

OS Guard,

Trusted Execution Technology,

Execute Disable Bit,

Boot Guard


Max display resolution

4096 x [email protected]


CPU-Z single thread

475

438
CPU-Z multi thread

3. 693

3.542
Cinebench R15 single thread

194

161
Cinebench R15 multi-thread

1.402

1.384
Cinebench R23 single thread

1.216

1.022
Cinebench R23 multi-thread

8.985

8.126
PassMark single thread

2.775

2.243
PassMark CPU Mark

13.883

13.215
(Windows 64-bit)
Geekbench 4 single core

6.100

4.441
(Windows 64-bit)
Geekbench 4 multi-core

24. 045

20.954
(SGEMM)
GFLOPS performance

453,8 GFLOPS

267,1 GFLOPS
(Multi-core / watt performance)
Performance / watt ratio

253 pts / W

322 pts / W
Amazon


eBay


Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.

Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.

Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.

We see that the two processors have an equivalent number of cores, the maximum frequency of Intel Core i7-8700K is greater, that the thermal dissipation power of AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is less. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 was started more recently.

Performances :

Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.





CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score
Intel Core i7-8700K

475

3.693
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

438

3.542

In single core, the difference is 8%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 4%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.





Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score
Intel Core i7-8700K

194

1.402
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

161

1.384

In single core, the difference is 20%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 1%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.





Cinebench R23 — Multi-thread & single thread score
Intel Core i7-8700K

1.216

8.985
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

1.022

8.126

In single core, the difference is 19%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 11%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Cinebench R23 is cross-platform testing software that allows you to assess the hardware capabilities of a device such as a computer, tablet, server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant. The test scene contains no less than 2,000 objects and more than 300,000 polygons in total.





PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread
Intel Core i7-8700K

2.775

13.883
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

2.243

13.215

In single core, the difference is 24%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 5%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.

On Windows 64-bit:





Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit
Intel Core i7-8700K

6.100

24.045
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

4.441

20.954

In single core, the difference is 37%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 15%.

On Linux 64-bit:





Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux 64-bit
Intel Core i7-8700K

6.115

27.677
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

4.570

20.707

In single core, the difference is 34%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 34%.

On Android 64-bit:





Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Android 64-bit
Intel Core i7-8700K

5.646

21.101
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

4.361

13.960

In single core, the difference is 29%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 51%.

On Mac OS X 64-bit:





Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Mac OS X 64-bit
Intel Core i7-8700K

6. 084

28.485
AMD Ryzen 5 2600

4.213

19.017

In single core, the difference is 44%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 50%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.

Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.

Equivalence:

Intel Core i7-8700K AMD equivalentAMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel equivalent

See also:

Intel Core i7-8700Intel Core i7-8700BIntel Core i7-8700T

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i7-8700K

Summary

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600

    100%

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    115%

Relative performance

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600

    100%

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    125%

Relative performance

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600

    100%

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    106%

Relative performance

Reasons to consider AMD Ryzen 5 2600
None
Reasons to consider Intel Core i7-8700K
Much higher single threaded performance (around 25% higher), makes a noticeable performance difference in gaming and the majority of applications.
6% higher multi threaded performance.
Has an integrated GPU, which allows to run the system without a dedicated graphics card, unlike the AMD Ryzen 5 2600.
Around 15% higher average synthetic performance.

Gaming

HWBench recommends Intel Core i7-8700K

Based on game and synthetic benchmarks, and theoretical specifications.


Productivity

No clear winner declared

Features
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K
MMX
3DNow!
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSE4A
AMD64
CnQ
NX bit
AMD-V
SMT
SSSE3
SSE4. 2
AVX
AVX2
EIST
Intel 64
XD bit
VT-x
VT-d
HTT
AES-NI
TSX
TXT
CLMUL
FMA3
F16C
BMI1
BMI2
Boost 2.0

Architecture
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K
Architecture AMD Zen+ vs Intel_Coffelake
Market Desktop vs Desktop
Memory Support DDR4 vs DDR4
Codename Zen vs Coffee Lake
Release Date Mar 2018 vs Oct 2017

Cores
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K
Cores 6 vs 6
Threads 12 vs 12
SMPs 1 vs 1
Integrated Graphics No vs Intel UHD 630

Cache
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K
L1 Cache 96 KB (per core) vs 64 KB (per core)
L2 Cache 512 KB (per core) vs 256 KB (per core)
L3 Cache 16384 KB (shared) vs 12288 KB (shared)

Physical
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K
Socket AMD Socket AM4 vs Intel Socket 1151
Max Case Temp unknown vs 72°C
Package uPGA vs FC-LGA1151
Die Size 192mm² vs 151mm²
Process 14 nm vs 14 nm

Performance
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K
Cpu Frequency 3400 MHz vs 3700 MHz
Turbo Clock 3900 MHz vs 4700 MHz
Base Clock 100 MHz vs 100 MHz
Voltage unknown vs unknown
TDP 65 W vs 95 W
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600

    4290 points

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    5640 points

Points — higher is better

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600

    27376 points

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    31968 points

Points — higher is better

points — higher is better

points — higher is better

Intel Core i7 8700K vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600:

performance comparison

VS

Intel Core i7 8700K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Which is better: Intel Core i7 8700K at 3. 7 GHz (with Turbo Boost up to 4.7) or AMD Ryzen 5 2600 at 3.4 GHz (with Turbo Core up to 3.9)? To find out, read our comparative testing of these 6-core desktop processors in popular benchmarks, games and heavy applications.

  1. Overview
  2. Differences
  3. Performance
  4. Features
  5. Comments

Overview

Overview and comparison of the main metrics from NanoReview

Single -flow performance

Rating in tests using one nucleus

Core i7 8700k

65

Ryzen 5 2600

54

Multi -flow performance

Tests in benchmarks where all nuclei 9 are involved0003

Core i7 8700k

41

Ryzen 5 2600

36

Energy Equality

EXPRESSITY EVERATION CARETS

Core i7 8700k

Ryzen 5 2600 9000

Core i7 8700K

51

Ryzen 5 2600

47

Key differences

What are the main differences between 2600 and 8700K

Reasons to choose Intel Core i7 8700K

  • Supports up to 128GB DDR4-2666
  • 21% faster Turbo Boost (4. 7GHz vs 3.9GHz)
  • 20% faster single core Geekbench v5 and 12382 points
  • There is an integrated graphics accelerator Intel UHD Graphics 630

Reasons to choose AMD Ryzen 5 2600

  • 32% lower than Core i7 8700K peak power consumption — 65 vs 95 Watts
  • Has 4MB more L3 cache
  • Arrived 11 months later than rival
  • More modern process — 12 vs. 14 nanometers
  • 2.11 GB/s (5%) higher maximum memory bandwidth

Benchmark tests

Compare the results of processor tests in benchmarks

Cinebench R23 (single core)

Core i7 8700K
+20%

1215

Ryzen 5 2600

1016

Cinebench R23 (multi-core)

Core i7 8700K
+25%

8864

Ryzen 5 2600

7115

Passmark CPU (Single Core)

Core i7 8700K
+23%

2773

Ryzen 5 2600

2254

Passmark CPU (multi-core)

Core i7 8700K
+5%

13955

Ryzen 5 2600

13234

Geekbench 5 (single core)

Core i7 8700K
+20%

1252

Ryzen 5 2600

1040

Geekbench 5 (multi-core)

Core i7 8700K
+17%

6667

Ryzen 5 2600

5697

▶️ Add your score to Cinebench R23

Specifications

List of full technical specifications for Intel Core i7 8700K and AMD Ryzen 5 2600

General information

Manufacturer Intel AMD
Release date October 5, 2017 September 11, 2018
Type Desktop Desktop
Instruction set architecture x86-64 x86-64
Codename Coffee Lake Zen+
Model number i7-8700K
Socket LGA-1151 AM4
Integrated graphics UHD Graphics 630 No

Performance

Cores 6 6
Number of threads 12 12
Frequency 3. 7 GHz 3.4 GHz
Max. frequency in Turbo Boost 4.7 GHz 3.9 GHz
Bus frequency 100 MHz 100 MHz
Multiplier 37x 34x
Tire speed 8 GT/s
Level 1 cache 64KB (per core) 96KB (per core)
Level 2 cache 256KB (per core) 512KB (per core)
Level 3 cache 12MB (shared) 16MB (shared)
Unlocked multiplier Yes Yes

Power consumption

Number of transistors 4.8 billion
Process 14 nanometers 12 nanometers
Power consumption (TDP) 95 W 65 W
Critical temperature 100°C 95°C
Integrated graphics Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU frequency 350 MHz
Boost GPU frequency 1200 MHz
Shader blocks 192
TMUs 24
ROPs 3
Computer units 24
TGP 15W
Max. resolution 4096×2304 — 60Hz

Igpu Flops

Core i7 8700k

0.38 Teraflops

Ryzen 5 2600

N/D

Memory Support

Memory type DDR4-2666 DDR4-2933
Max. size 128 GB 64 GB
Number of channels 2 2
Max. bandwidth 41.6 GB/s 43.71 GB/s
ECC support No Yes

Other

Official site Site Intel Core i7 8700K AMD Ryzen 5 2600 9 site0190
PCI Express version 3.0 3.0
Max. PCI Express lanes 16 20
Extended instructions SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2

Poll

What processor do you think is the best?

Core i7 8700K

14 (48. 3%)

Ryzen 5 2600

15 (51.7%)

Total votes: 29

Competitors

1.
Core i7 8700K vs Ryzen 5 5600X

2.
Core i7 8700K vs. Core i7 12700K

3.
Core i7 8700K vs. Core i5 12400F

4.
Ryzen 5 2600 vs Ryzen 5 5600X

5.
Ryzen 5 2600 vs Core i5 10400F

6.
Ryzen 5 2600 vs Ryzen 5 Pro 4650G

What will you choose: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 or Intel Core i7 8700K?

Name

Message

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs Intel Core i7-8700K: What is the difference?

52points

67points

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

59points

68points

Intel Core i7-8700K

Comparison Winner

Price-performance winner

vs

64 facts in comparison

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Intel Core i7-8700K

Why is AMD Ryzen 5 26008 better than Intel0 Core i7?

  • 267MHz higher RAM speed?
    2933MHz vs 2666MHz
  • Semiconductor size 2nm smaller?
    12nm vs 14nm
  • 1. 5MB more L2 cache?
    3MB vs 1.5MB
  • 30W below TDP?
    65W vs 95W
  • 4MB more L3 cache?
    16MB vs 12MB
  • 192KB more L1 cache?
    576KB vs 384KB
  • 0.25MB/core more L2 cache per core? more L3 cache per core?
    2.67MB/core vs 2MB/core

  • 8.82% higher CPU speed?
    6 x 3.7GHz vs 6 x 3.4GHz
  • 5°C higher than maximum operating temperature?
    100°C vs 95°C
  • 23.19% higher PassMark score?
    16270 vs 13207
  • 0.8GHz higher turbo clock speed?
    4.7GHz vs 3.9GHz
  • Does it have integrated graphics?
  • 21.03% higher PassMark score (single)?
    2728 vs 2254

Which comparisons are the most popular?

AMD RYZEN 5 2600

VS

AMD Ryzen 5 5600x

Intel Core i7-8700k

VS

Intel Core i5-12400

AMD

VS

VS

VS

AMD RYOT RYTAR Core i7-8700K

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

vs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Intel Core i7-8700K0003

VS

AMD Ryzen 7 3700x

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

VS

AMD Ryzen 5 5500u

Intel Core i7-8700k

VS

VS

AMD Ryzen 5 2600x

AMD Ry

Intel Core i5-9400f

Intel Core i7-8700k

VS

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

VS

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Intel Core i7-87-87002 VS

Intel Core i7-87-87002 VS Core i7-9700k

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

VS

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

Intel Core i7-8700K

VS

Intel Core i9-9900k

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

VS 9000 VS 9000 VS

VS

AMD Ry Intel Core i7-8700K

VS

Intel Core i5-10600k

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

VS

AMD Ryzen 5 4500U

Intel Core I7-8700K

2 VS

Intel Core I7-8700 Intel Core I7-8700 AMD Ryzen 5 2600

10. 0 /10

1 reviews of users

Functions

Price and quality ratio

10.0869 /10

4 Votes

/10 9000

1 /10

4 Votes

10.0 /10

1 Votes

performance

10.0869 /10

4 Votes

10.0 /10 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000

002 1 votes

Reliability

10.0 /10

4 Votes

10.0 /10

1 Votes

Energy Enough efficiency

/10 9000 9000 9000 4 VOTES

9000 /

1 votes

Performance

1.CPU speed

6 x 3.4GHz

6 x 3.7GHz

CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second a processor can perform, considering all its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.

2nd processor thread

More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.

3.speed turbo clock

3.9GHz

4.7GHz

When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

4. Has unlocked multiplier

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.

5.L2 Cache

More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

6.L3 cache

More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

7.L1 cache

More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

8.core L2

0.5MB/core

0. 25MB/core

More data can be stored in the L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

9.core L3

2.67MB/core

2MB/core

More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

Memory

1.RAM speed

2933MHz

2666MHz

Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.

2.max memory bandwidth

43.71GB/s

42.7GB/s

This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

3.DDR version

DDR (Dynamic Random Access Memory, Double Data Rate) is the most common type of RAM. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.

4 memory channels

More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.

5.Maximum memory

Maximum memory (RAM).

6.bus baud rate

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device.

7.Supports memory troubleshooting code

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✖Intel Core i7-8700K

Memory error recovery code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.

9.bus frequency

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device

Geotagging

1. PassMark result

This test measures processor performance using multi-threading.

2. PassMark result (single)

This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform test that measures the performance of a multi-core processor. (Source: Primate Labs,2022)

4. Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.

5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the single-core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7.Blender test result (bmw27)

295.1seconds

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

8.Blender result (classroom)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

9.performance per watt

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

This means that the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.

Functions

1.uses multithreading

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides higher performance by dividing each physical processor core into logical cores, also known as flows. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.

2. Has AES

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3. Has AVX

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.

4.Version SSE

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5.Has F16C

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.

6 bits transmitted at the same time

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.

7. Has MMX

✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✔Intel Core i7-8700K

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.

8.Has TrustZone

✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600

✖Intel Core i7-8700K

Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and video streaming through Digital Rights Management (DRM) ).

9.interface width

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-8700K)

The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means that the processor performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which CPUs are better?

i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 — Overwatch vs RX 5700 performance comparison

RX 5700 with

i7-8700K
Ryzen 5 2600


Ultra Quality
Resolution Frames per second
1080p

156.5 FPS

1080p

129. 7 FPS

1440p

108.2 FPS

1440p

89.7 FPS

2160p

55.7 FPS

2160p

46.2 FPS

w1440p

87.7 FPS

w1440p

72.7 FPS

High quality
Resolution Frames per second
1080p

229.1 FPS

1080p

195.9 FPS

1440p

168.4 FPS

1440p

143.8 FPS

2160p

95.9 FPS

2160p

81.7 FPS

w1440p

141.1 FPS

w1440p

120. 3 FPS

Medium quality
Resolution Frames per second
1080p

301.6 FPS

1080p

262.2 FPS

1440p

228.5 FPS

1440p

197.8 FPS

2160p

136.1 FPS

2160p

117.2 FPS

w1440p

194.4 FPS

w1440p

168.0 FPS

Low quality
Resolution Frames per second
1080p

446.8 FPS

1080p

394.6 FPS

1440p

348.8 FPS

1440p

306. 0 FPS

2160p

216.5 FPS

2160p

188.3 FPS

w1440p

301.1 FPS

w1440p

263.3 FPS

i7-8700K
  • In some games, a processor with a higher clock speed, or with the technical name IPC (Instructions per clock), performs better than other processors with more cores and a lower core frequency.
  • The i7-8700K has a higher turbo clock. Turbo Boost is a processor feature that will run at a processor clock speed faster than its base clock speed if certain conditions are present. This will allow older software that runs on fewer cores to run better on newer hardware. Since games are also software, they are also applicable.
Ryzen 5 2600
  • Ryzen 5 2600 has higher level 2 cache. Data/instructions that need to be processed can be loaded from fast L2 and the CPU doesn’t have to wait for very slow DDR 9 RAM0012
  • Ryzen 5 2600 has higher L3 cache. This is useful when you have significant multi-processor workloads, many computational processes at the same time. Rather on a server rather than a personal computer for interactive workloads.
  • Ryzen 5 2600 The Ryzen 5 2600 is more energy efficient and generates less heat.
  • Ryzen 5 2600 The Ryzen 5 2600 has a smaller process size. The faster a transistor can turn on and off, the faster it can work. And transistors that turn on and off with less power are more efficient, reducing the operating power or «dynamic power» required by the processor.

Compare i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 specifications

i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 Architecture
i7-8700K Ryzen 5 2600
Codename Coffee Lake Zen
Generation Core i7
(Coffee Lake)
Ryzen 5
(Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge))
Market Desktop Desktop
Memory Support DDR4 DDR4
Part# SR3QR YD2600BBM6IAF
Production Status Active Active
Released Oct 2017 Apr 2018
i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 Cache
i7-8700K Ryzen 5 2600
Cache L1 64K (per core) 96K (per core)
Cache L2 256K (per core) 512K (per core)
Cache L3 12MB (shared) 16MB (shared)
i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 Cores
i7-8700K Ryzen 5 2600
# of Cores 6 6
# of Threads 12 12
Integrated Graphics UHD Graphics 630 N/A
SMP# CPUs 1 1
i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 Features
i7-8700K Ryzen 5 2600
MMX
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSSE3
SSE4. 2
AVX
AVX2
EIST
Intel 64
XD bit
VT-x
VT-d
HTT
AES-NI
TSX
TXT
CLMUL
FMA3
F16C
BMI1
BMI2
Boost 2.0
MMX
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSSE3
SSE4A
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AES
AVX
AVX2
BMI1
BMI2
SHA
F16C
FMA3
AMD64
EVP
AMD-V
SMAP
SMEP
SMT
Precision Boost 2
i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 Notes
i7-8700K Ryzen 5 2600
This processor comes with an unlocked BCLK multiplier, allowing users to set the multiplier value higher than shipped value, to facilitate better overclocking. This processor comes with an unlocked base clock multiplier, allowing users to set the multiplier value higher than shipped value, to facilitate better overclocking.
i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 Performance
i7-8700K Ryzen 5 2600
Base Clock 100 MHz 100 MHz
Frequency 3. 7 GHz 3.4 GHz
Multiplier 37.0x 34.0x
Multiplier Unlocked Yes Yes
TDP 95W 65W
Turbo Clock up to 4.7 GHz up to 3.9 GHz
Voltage variable unknown
i7-8700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 Physical
i7-8700K Ryzen 5 2600
Die Size unknown 192 mm²
Foundry Intel GlobalFoundries
Package FC-LGA1151 µOPGA-1331
Process Size 14 nm 12 nm
Socket Intel Socket 1151 AMD Socket AM4
Transistors unknown 4800 million
tCaseMax 72°C unknown

Share your comments 98

Elden Ring

2022

God of War

2022

Overwatch 2

2022

Forza Horizon 5

2021

Halo Infinite

2021

Battlefield 2042

2021

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

2020

Microsoft Flight Simulator

2020

Valorant

2020

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War

2020

Death Stranding

2020

Marvel’s Avengers

2020

Godfall

2020

Cyberpunk 2077

2020

Apex Legends

2019

Anthem

2019

Far Cry New Dawn

2019

Resident Evil 2

2019

Metro Exodus

2019

World War Z

2019

Gears of War 5

2019

F1 2019

2019

GreedFall

2019

Borderlands 3

2019

Call of Duty Modern Warfare

2019

Red Dead Redemption 2

2019

Need for Speed: Heat

2019

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey

2018

Battlefield V

2018

Call of Duty: Black Ops 4

2018

F1 2018

2018

Far Cry 5

2018

Final Fantasy XV

2018

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

2018

Forza Horizon 4

2018

Fallout 76

2018

Hitman 2

2018

Just Cause 4

2018

Monster Hunter: World

2018

Strange Brigade

2018

Assassin’s Creed Origins

2017

Dawn of War III

2017

Ghost Recon Wildlands

2017

Shadow of War

2017

Total War: Warhammer II

2017

Wolfenstein II

2017

Destiny 2

2017

PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds

2017

Fortnite Battle Royale

2017

Need For Speed: Payback

2017

For Honor

2017

Project CARS 2

2017

Forza Motorsport 7

2017

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

2016

Battlefield 1

2016

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

2016

Doom

2016

F1 2016

2016

Total War: Warhammer

2016

Overwatch

2016

Dishonored 2

2016

Grand Theft Auto V

2015

Rocket League

2015

Need For Speed ​​

2015

Project CARS

2015

Rainbow Six Siege

2015

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

2012

League of Legends

2009

Minecraft

2009

Ryzen 5 3600 Review — Testing the New People’s Processor

Review Ryzen 5 3600 — Testing the New People’s Processor

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is the successor to the Ryzen 5 2600, one of the people’s favorite processors for its perfect combination of price and performance. The Ryzen 5 3600 is AMD’s new 6-core, 12-thread processor for $200. It operates at frequencies from 3.6 GHz to 4.2 GHz, features a 32 MB L3 cache and 65 W power consumption. The boxed version includes a Wraith Stealth cooler, and the price is similar to that of the Ryzen 5 2600 at launch. We will compare this processor with Intel Core i5-9600K, which costs $255 without a cooler included.

The new Ryzen processor was tested using an MSI X570 Creation motherboard, DDR4-3200 CL14 RAM, and a stock cooler. The 8th and 9th generation Intel Core processors were tested on a Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra motherboard using the same RAM modules but cooled using a Corsair h215i RGB Platinum AIO coolant. In all cases, the MSI Trio GeForce RTX 2080 Ti graphics card was used.

Test Ryzen 5 3600

  • Overclocking
  • CPF
  • Conclusion
  • Cinebench R20

    Let’s start with the Cinebench R20 multi-core test, where the Ryzen 5 3600’s results are immediately amazing. In multi-core mode, it matches the Ryzen 7 1800X with just over 3600 points. The Ryzen 5 3600 is 4% faster than the 8700K, nearly 20% faster than the 2600X, and 28% faster than the Ryzen 5 2600.

    Compared to the R5 1600, the new R5 3600 is 45% faster. In 2 years, AMD has increased the performance of a $200 processor by almost 50%.

    Single-core performance is also impressive, here the Ryzen 5 3600 was only 4% slower than the 3700X and matched the Intel Core i5-9600K processor ahead of the Intel Core 8700K.

    WinRar

    The WinRAR R5 3600 looks very good, falling short of the Intel Core 8700K by only 4%. But it’s 45% faster than the Core i7-7700K and Ryzen 7 2700X.

    7-Zip

    When tested with 7-Zip in compression mode, the Ryzen 5 3600 outperforms the R7 2700X. Excellent compression speed, outperforming the Core 8700K by 14%. In unpacked mode, it remains from 8-core Ryzen processors, but even so, the Ryzen 5 3600 is 16% faster than the 8700K.

    Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2019

    For content creators, the Ryzen 5 3600 is a godsend, it did 4K video work 4% faster than the 8700K. Although the difference doesn’t seem like much, the 8700K is a $360 processor, while the Ryzen 5 3600 is $200.

    V-Ray Benchmark

    The new processor is 17% faster than the Ryzen 5 2600 and a whopping 32% faster than the Ryzen 5 1600 in V-Ray. The R5 3600 trails the Core i7 8700K in the latest V-Ray Benchmark by 6%.

    Corona 1.3 Benchmark

    The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 was 5 seconds behind the 8700K in the Corona test, but considering the price difference, that’s a great performance for the R5 3600. in the Blender test, outperforming the Intel Core i7-8700K and easily beating the previous generation Ryzen and i5-9600K, which fell to the bottom of the table.

    Power Consumption

    Power consumption taken from testing in Blender. The Ryzen 5 3600 used the same amount of power as the quad-core Core i7-7700K and slightly more than the i5-9600K. But at 8W difference, the Ryzen 5 3600 was almost 40% faster in Blender than the Core i5-9600K. In terms of energy efficiency, this is an impressive result.

    Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey

    In Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey, the Ryzen 5 3600 processor is 1% behind the Core i7-8700K, but a couple of frames ahead in the minimum FPS. 3rd generation Ryzen processors are a little behind at 1440p. Specifically, the R5 3600 is 6% slower than the i7-8700K at 1440p.

    Battlefield V

    The results for Battlefield V compared to the i7-8700K are a little disappointing, though the Ryzen 5 3600 shouldn’t compete. Compared to the i5-9600K, it delivers 23% more in minimum FPS and delivers the same average FPS.

    At 1440p, the i5-9600K outperforms the R5 3600 by 5 frames in average FPS, but lags behind by 18% in minimum FPS, allowing for a smoother AMD-powered gaming experience.

    Shadow of the Tomb Raider

    In Shadow of the Tomb Raider AMD Ryzen 5 3600 processor matches Intel Core i5-9600K, which is a good result considering the 9600K costs more. Results at 1440p were pretty much the same, with the i5-9600K taking the lead by a few frames. The minimum R5 3600 is much larger than any of the previous generations of Ryzen processors.

    The Division 2

    Moving on to The Division 2. At 1080p, the R5 3600 outperformed the i5-9600K and took a significant step forward not only from the 2600X, but also from the 2700X. Interestingly, this time at 1440p, the Ryzen 5 3600 was able to beat the i5-9600K. The R5 3600 proved to be much faster here than the R7 2700X and i7-8700K.

    Far Cry New Dawn

    As expected from Ryzen, performance in Far Cry New Dawn was not great compared to competing Intel processors, but overall gameplay was smooth. At 1440p, the Ryzen 5 3600 lagged far behind the i5-9600K, especially when looking at minimum FPS.

    World War Z

    World War Z performance was also poor compared to Intel processors, but at over 100 FPS it probably doesn’t matter much. The Ryzen processors in World War Z hit a ceiling of 135 fps, which is very strange considering that Intel processors go up to 150 FPS.

    Rage 2

    The Ryzen 5 3600 performed well in Rage 2, averaging 160 FPS, not much slower than the i5-9600K.

    Hitman 2

    When tested in Hitman 2, we see that the Ryzen 5 3600 is 7% slower than the i5-9600K on average FPS. Similar results at 1440p, although here the Ryzen 5 3600 matches the minimum FPS of the i5-9600K.

    Total War: Three Kingdoms

    In the new Total War: Three Kingdoms, the Ryzen 5 3600 processor produces a higher minimum FPS than 9600K but lower average FPS. At 1440p, the RTX 2080 Ti compares.

    Overclocking

    Like the 3700X and 3900X, you won’t get much overclocking with the Ryzen R5 3600. The best thing you can do with liquid cooling is overclocking to 4.2 GHz. You’d better enable the PBO + AutoOC feature in the Ryzen Master software. This will increase the multi-core score of Cinebench R20 by only 4%.

    PBO + AutoOC improved single-core score by 1.6%, which is clearly not worth the effort and additional power consumption.

    Cost per frame

    To estimate the cost per frame, add the cost of the cooler to Intel processors. With these adjustments, the Core i5-9600K ships at a total cost of $295, which translates into a cost per frame of $2.18, putting it on par with the Ryzen 7 2700X. The

    Ryzen 5 3600 is priced at $1.53 per frame and delivers the same level of performance but costs almost $100 less. This makes the Ryzen 5 3600 better than the 2600X at its current $19 price.5. Considering the efficiency gains and superior performance boost, the Ryzen 5 3600 is totally worth buying.

    Conclusion

    As expected, the Ryzen 5 3600 is a very good value processor for the money. It will even work on a base motherboard with a B350 chipset, as long as it gets the required BIOS update. For new builds, you can use the B450 chipset and have a powerful platform for just $300. That’s exactly what you’ll pay for the i5-9600K with cooler.

    In the future, you could install a Ryzen 7 3700X, a Ryzen 9 3900X, or maybe even a 16-core 3950X there. Those who bought two years ago, say a Ryzen 5 1600 with a B350 motherboard, can now install a Ryzen 5 3600 there with up to 35% gain in games, and up to 45% gain in applications.

    For those who are building a new PC from scratch, the Ryzen 5 3600 looks like the best option. It beat the Intel Core i5-9600K in every application test. Plus, you get 12 threads, not just 6. The Intel Core i5 was slightly faster in a few games we tested, but in general the Ryzen 5 3600 was much more powerful. 9

    Part 1>> Part 2 >> Part 3

    One of the most popular processors of the outgoing decade was the Intel Core i7- 2600K. The design was revolutionary, as it offered a significant jump in performance and efficiency from a single-core processor, and the processor itself was also highly overclockable. The next few generations of Intel processors didn’t look as exciting, and often didn’t give users a reason to upgrade, so the phrase «I’ll stay with my 2600K» became ubiquitous on the forums and resounds even today. In this review, we dusted off the box of old processors and ran the veteran through a set of 2019 benchmarks.years, both factory and overclocked, to make sure it’s still a champion.

    Core i7 Family Photo

    Why 2600K was defining generation

    Sit in a chair, lean back in your chair, and imagine yourself in 2010. That was the year you looked at your aging Core 2 Duo or Athlon II system and realized it was time for an upgrade. You are already familiar with the Nehalem architecture, and you know that the Core i7-920 accelerates well and beats competitors. It was a good time, but suddenly Intel changed the balance of the industry and created a truly revolutionary product. Echoes of nostalgia for which are still heard.

    Core i7-2600K: the fastest Sandy Bridge (up to 2700K)

    This new product was the Sandy Bridge. AnandTech released an exclusive review and the results were almost unbelievable, for many reasons. According to our tests at the time, the processor was simply incomparably superior to anything we had seen before, especially considering the thermal monsters of the Pentium 4 that had been released a few years earlier. The core upgrade based on Intel’s 32nm process was the biggest turning point in x86 performance, and we haven’t seen a similar breakthrough since. It will take AMD another 8 years to get their moment of glory with the Ryzen series. Intel, on the other hand, managed to take advantage of the success of its best product, and take the place of the champion.

    In this basic design, Intel did not skimp on innovation. One of the key elements was the micro-op cache. This meant that newly decoded instructions that were needed again are taken already decoded, instead of wasting energy on re-decoding. With Intel with Sandy Bridge, and much later with AMD with Ryzen, enabling micro-op cache has been a miracle for single-threaded performance. Intel also began to improve concurrent multithreading (called HyperThreading for several generations), gradually working on dynamic distribution of computational threads.

    The quad-core design of the top processor at launch, the Core i7-2600K, became the mainstay of products in the next five generations of Intel architecture, including Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, and Kaby Lake. Since Sandy Bridge, although Intel has moved to a smaller process and taken advantage of lower power consumption, the corporation has not been able to recreate this exceptional jump in net instruction throughput. Later, the growth for the year was 1-7%, mainly due to an increase in operational buffers, execution ports and command support.

    Because Intel couldn’t replicate the Sandy Bridge breakthrough, and the microarchitecture of the cores was the key to x86 performance, users who bought the Core i7-2600K (I bought two) stayed with it for a long time. Largely due to the expectation of another big jump in performance. And their frustration grows over the years: why invest in a 4.7GHz quad-core Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K when your quad-core Sandy Bridge Core i7-2600K is still overclocked to 5.0GHz?
    (Intel’s responses are usually about power consumption and new features like running GPUs and storage over PCIe 3.0. But some users weren’t satisfied with those explanations.)

    That’s why the Core i7-2600K defined the generation. It remained in place, initially to Intel’s delight, and then to its disappointment when users were unwilling to upgrade. Now, in 2019, we understand that Intel has already gone beyond four cores in its mainstream processors, and if the cost of DDR4 is tough for the user, he can either move to a new Intel system or choose the AMD path. But here’s the question, how does the Core i7-2600K handle 2019 workloads and games?of the year; or more specifically, how does an overclocked Core i7-2600K do?

    Spot the difference: Sandy Bridge, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake

    In truth, the Core i7-2600K was not the fastest mainstream Sandy Bridge processor. A few months later, Intel brought the slightly more «high-frequency» 2700K to market. It performed much the same and overclocked similarly to the 2600K, but it cost a bit more. By this time, the users who saw the performance jump and upgraded were already on the 2600K and stayed with it. 9The 0003

    Core i7-2600K was a 32nm quad-core processor with HyperThreading technology, with a base frequency of 3.4GHz, a turbo frequency of 3.8GHz, and a nominal TDP of 95W. At that time, Intel’s TDP was not yet out of touch with reality: in our testing for this article, we saw a peak power consumption of 88 watts on a non-overclocked CPU. The processor shipped with integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics and supported DDR3-1333 memory by default. Intel set a price of $317 at the chip’s launch.

    For this article, I used a second i7-2600K that I bought when they first came out. It was tested both at stock frequency and overclocked to 4.7 GHz on all cores. This is an average overclock — the best of these chips run at 5. 0 GHz — 5.1 GHz in everyday mode. In fact, I remember well my first Core i7-2600K running at 5.1 GHz on all cores, and even 5.3 GHz (also on all cores) when during an overclocking competition in the middle of winter, at room around 2C, I used a powerful liquid cooler and 720mm radiators. Unfortunately, over time, I damaged this chip, and now it does not boot even at the nominal frequency and voltage. Thus, we have to use my second chip, which was not as good, but still able to give an idea of ​​the performance of the overclocked processor. When overclocking, we also used overclocked memory, DDR3-2400 C11.
    It’s worth noting that we’ve moved from Windows 7 to Windows 10 since the launch of the Core i7-2600K. The Core i7-2600K doesn’t support AVX2 instructions, and wasn’t built for Windows 10, so it’ll be especially interesting to see how that translates into results.

    Core i7-7700K: Intel’s latest quad-core HyperThreading Core i7 processor

    Intel’s fastest and newest (and last?) quad-core HyperThreading processor was the Core i7-7700K, a member of the Kaby Lake family . This processor is built on Intel’s improved 14nm process, running at a base frequency of 4.2GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.5GHz. Its TDP with a power rating of 91 watt in our testing showed a power consumption of 95 watts. It comes with Intel Gen9 HD 630 graphics and supports standard DDR4-2400 memory. Intel released the chip with a list price of $339.
    Simultaneously with the 7700K, Intel also released its first overclockable dual-core hyperthreaded processor, the Core i3-7350K. In this review, we overclocked such a Core i3 and compared it to the Core i7-2600K at factory settings, trying to answer the question of whether Intel managed to achieve dual-core processor performance similar to their old quad-core flagship. In the end, while the i3 had the upper hand in single-threaded performance and memory handling, the lack of a couple of cores in the account made most tasks too much work for the Core i3.

    Core i7-9700K: Intel’s latest pinnacle of Core i7 (now with 8 cores)

    Our latest processor to test is the Core i7-9700K. This generation is no longer the flagship of Coffee Lake (now the i9-9900K), but has eight cores without hyperthreading. Comparing it to the 9900K, which has twice as many cores and threads, makes no sense, especially when the i9 is priced at $488. In contrast, the Core i7-9700K retails for «only» $374, with a base frequency of 3.6 GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.9GHz. Its TDP is specified by Intel at 95W, but on a consumer motherboard, the chip consumes ~125W at full load. DDR4-2666 memory is supported as standard.

    The Core i7-2600K is forced to work with DDR3, supports PCIe 2.0 rather than PCIe 3.0, and is not designed to work with NVMe drives (which are not included in this test). It will be interesting to see how close the overclocked veteran is to the Core i7-7700K, and what kind of gains we see when moving to something like the Core i7-9700K.

    Sandy Bridge: Core architecture

    In 2019, we are talking about 100-200mm2 ICs with up to eight high-performance cores and built on the latest Intel or AMD GlobalFoundries/TSMC process technology. But the 32nm Sandy Bridge was a different beast. The manufacturing process was still flat, with no FinFET transistors. The new CPU has implemented the second generation of High-K and achieved 0.7x scaling compared to the previous, larger 45nm process. The Core i7-2600K was the largest quad-core chip, and housed 1.16 billion transistors at 216mm2. By comparison, the latest 14nm Coffee Lake processor packs eight cores and over 2 billion transistors in a ~170mm2 footprint.

    The secret to the huge performance leap lies in the microarchitecture of the processor. Sandy Bridge promised (and delivered) significant performance at the same clock speed over the previous generation of Westmere processors, and also set the baseline for Intel’s chips for the next decade. Many key innovations first hit retail with the introduction of Sandy Bridge, and then iterated and improved over many iterations, gradually reaching the high performance we enjoy today.

    In this review, I have relied heavily on Anandtech’s initial 2010 microarchitecture report on the 2600K. Of course, with some additions based on the modern look at this processor.

    Brief overview: out-of-order CPU core

    For those new to processor design, here’s a quick overview of how out-of-order processors work. In short, the kernel is divided into external and internal interfaces (front end and back end), and data first enters the external interface.

    In the frontend, we have prefetchers and branch predictors that will predict and fetch instructions from main memory. The idea is that if you can predict what data and instructions will be needed in the near future (before they are needed), you can save time by placing this data close to the kernel. The instructions are then put into a decoder, which converts the bytecode instruction into a series of «micro-ops» that the kernel can then process.

    There are different types of decoders for simple and complex instructions — simple x86 instructions are easily mapped to a single micro-op, while more complex instructions can be decoded to more operations. The ideal situation is to have the lowest possible decoding ratio, although sometimes instructions can be split into more micro-ops if these operations can be executed in parallel (instruction-level parallelism or ILP).

    If the kernel has a micro-op cache, aka uOp cache, then the results of each decoded instruction are stored in it. Before an instruction is decoded, the kernel checks to see if that particular instruction has been recently decoded, and if successful, uses the result from the cache instead of re-decoding, which consumes power.

    Micro-ops are now placed in an allocation queue. A modern kernel can determine if instructions are part of a simple loop, or if uOps (micro-ops) can be combined to speed up the whole process. The uOps are then fed into the re-order buffer, which forms the «back end» of the kernel.

    In the backend, starting from the re-order buffer, uOps can be rearranged depending on where the data needed by each micro-op is located. This buffer can rename and allocate micro-ops depending on where they should go (integer operations or FPs) and, depending on the kernel, it can also act as a mechanism for removing completed instructions. After re-ordering, the uOps buffers are fed into the scheduler in the right order to make sure the data is ready and maximize the uOp throughput.

    Scheduler sends uOps to execution ports (to perform calculations) as needed. Some kernels have a single scheduler for all ports, however in some cases it is split into a scheduler for integer/vector operations. Most out-of-order kernels have 4 to 10 ports (some more), and these ports do the necessary calculations to get the instruction to «pass» through the kernel. Execution ports can take the form of a load module (load from cache), a store module (store in cache), an integer math module, a floating point math module, as well as vector math operations, special division modules, and some others for special operations. . After the execution port has completed, the data can be stored in a cache for reuse, placed in main memory; at this time, the instruction is sent to the delete queue, and finally deleted.

    This brief overview does not cover some of the mechanisms that modern kernels use to facilitate data caching and retrieval, such as transaction buffers, stream buffers, tagging, etc. Some mechanisms are iteratively improved with each generation, but usually when we talk about «instructions per clock» as a measure of performance, we aim to «pass» as many instructions as possible through the core (through the frontend and backend). This figure depends on the speed of decoding at the front end of the processor, instruction prefetching, buffer re-order, and the maximum use of execution ports along with the removal of the maximum number of executed instructions per clock cycle.

    With that said, we hope that the reader will be able to better understand the Anandtech test results obtained during the launch of Sandy Bridge.

    Sandy Bridge frontend

    The Sandy Bridge CPU architecture looks evolutionary at a glance, but it is revolutionary in terms of the number of transistors that have changed since Nehalem/Westmere. The most important change for Sandy Bridge (and all microarchitectures after it) is the micro-op cache (uOp cache).

    Sandy Bridge introduced a micro-op cache that caches instructions after they are decoded. There is no complex algorithm here, the decoded instructions are simply stored. When the Sandy Bridge prefetcher receives a new instruction, it first looks for the instruction in the micro-op cache, and if it is found, then the rest of the pipeline works with the cache, and the frontend is disabled. The decoding hardware is a very complex part of the x86 pipeline, and turning it off saves a significant amount of power.

    This is a direct-mapped cache, and can store approximately 1.5 KB of micro-ops, which is effectively equivalent to a 6 KB instruction cache. The micro-op cache is included in the L1 instruction cache, and its Hit Rate reaches 80% for most applications. The micro-op cache has a slightly higher and more stable throughput than the instruction cache. The actual L1 instruction and data caches have not changed, they are still 32 KB each (64 KB L1 in total).

    All instructions coming from the decoder can be cached by this mechanism, and, as I said, there are some special algorithms in it — simply, all instructions are cached. Long-unused data is deleted when space runs out. The micro-op cache may seem similar to the trace cache in the Pentium 4, but with one significant difference: it does not cache traces. It is simply an instruction cache that stores micro-ops instead of macro-ops (x86 instructions).

    Along with the new micro-op cache, Intel also introduced a completely redesigned branch prediction module. The new BPU is roughly the same as its predecessor, but much more accurate. The increase in accuracy is the result of three major innovations.

    The standard branch predictor is a 2-bit branch predictor. Each branch is marked in the table as accepted / not accepted with the corresponding reliability (strong / weak). Intel found that almost all of the branches predicted by this bimodal predictor have «high» confidence. Therefore, in Sandy Bridge, the bimodal branch predictor uses one confidence bit for multiple branches, rather than one confidence bit for each branch. As a result, you will have the same number of bits in the branch history table as before, representing many more branches, resulting in more accurate predictions in the future.

    Sandy Bridge: near core

    With the rise of multi-core processors, managing the flow of data between cores and memory has become an important topic. We have seen many different ways of moving data around the CPU, such as crossbar (cross), ring (ring), mesh (grid) topologies, and, more recently, completely separate I / O chips. The battle of the next decade (2020+), as mentioned earlier by AnandTech, will be the battle of inter-core connections, and it is already underway.
    The peculiarity of Sandy Bridge is precisely that it was the first consumer CPU from Intel that used a ring bus connecting all cores, memory, last-level cache and integrated graphics. It’s still the same design we see in today’s Coffee Lake processors.

    Ring bar

    In Nehalem/Westmery Bridge, a GPU and a video transcoding engine are added to the chip that share the L3 cache. And instead of running more wires to L3, Intel introduced the ring bus.

    Architecturally, this is the same ring bus used in Nehalem EX and Westmere EX. Each core, each L3 cache (LLC), integrated GPU, media engine, and system agent (funny name for a northbridge) are attached to the ring bus. The bus consists of four independent rings: a data bus, a query bus, an acknowledgment bus, and a status monitoring bus. Each call to any of the rings can transfer 32 bytes of data per cycle. As the number of cores and cache size increase, your cache bandwidth increases accordingly.

    Each core ends up with the same amount of L3 cache bandwidth as high-end Westmere processors — 96 GB/s. The total throughput of Sandy Bridge is 4 times higher than the quad-core Westmere, because it is simply multiplied by the number of cores, and is 384 GB / s.

    This means that L3 latency has been significantly reduced from about 36 clocks in Westmere to 26 — 31 clocks in Sandy Bridge (with some variable cache latency that depends on which core is accessing which cache chunk). Also, unlike Westmere, the L3 cache now runs at the core clock speed — the un-Core concept still exists, but Intel calls the non-core part the «system agent», and no longer includes the L3 cache in it. (The term «un-Core» is still used today to describe interconnects.)

    With L3 cache running at core speed, you get the benefits of a much faster cache. The downside is that L3 overclocks along with the CPU cores when turbo or idle modes are enabled. If the GPU needs L3 when the core frequency is down, the L3 cache will not perform as fast as if it were independent. Or the system will have to overclock the core and consume additional power.

    The L3 cache is divided into fragments, each of which is associated with a separate core. Because Sandy Bridge has a fully accessible L3 cache, each core can address the entire cache. Each fragment has its own bus access controller, and a complete cache pipeline. Westmere had one cache pipeline and a queue to which all cores sent requests, but in Sandy Bridge they are distributed across cache segments. The use of a ring bus means that adding new access points to the bus has ceased to critically affect the size of the matrix. Even though each user on the ring gets their own controller, the data always takes the shortest path. Bus control is distributed throughout the ring, and as a result, each module «knows» whether there was a free slot on the bus one cycle ago.

    System agent

    For some reason, Intel stopped using the term un-core in SB, and in Sandy Bridge called this part «system agent». (Again, nowadays un-core is back in vogue for interconnects, I/O, and memory controllers). The system agent is a traditional Northbridge. You have 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes available, which can be divided into two x8 lanes. There’s a redesigned dual-channel DDR3 memory controller that finally delivers memory latency around Lynnfield levels (Clarkdale moved the memory controller from the CPU to the GPU).

    The system agent also has a DMI interface, a video output unit, and a PCU (power control unit). The SA clock speed is lower than the rest of the core and has a separate power circuit.

    Sandy Bridge Graphics

    Another significant improvement in Sandy Bridge’s performance over Westmere is graphics processing. While CPU cores show a 10-30% performance improvement, Sandy Bridge’s graphics performance is simply twice that of pre-Westmere (Clarkdale/Arrandale) Intel products. Despite the jump from 45nm to 32nm, graphics processing speed improves thanks to a significant increase in IPC.

    The Sandy Bridge GPU uses the same 32nm transistors as the CPU cores. The GPU is in its own little world in terms of power and frequency. The GPU can be turned off or on regardless of the processor. Graphics turbo is available for both desktop and mobile processors.

    The GPU is treated as an equal citizen in the world of Sandy Bridge, and gets full access to the L3 cache. The graphics driver controls what goes into the L3 cache, and you can even limit the amount of cache that is available to the GPU. Storing graphics data in cache is particularly important because it reduces main memory accesses, which are costly in terms of both performance and power consumption. But rebuilding the GPU to use the cache is not an easy task.

    SNB graphics (internal name Gen 6) make extensive use of fixed-function hardware. The idea is this: everything that can be described using a fixed function, which must be implemented by a hardwired fixed function. The advantage is performance, power, and reduced die size, albeit at the expense of flexibility.

    Shader firmware consists of shaders/cores/execution units, which Intel calls EU. Each EU can receive instructions from multiple threads. The internal ISA is mapped one-to-one with most of the DirectX 10 API instructions, which means a CISC-like architecture. Moving from a one-to-one API to instruction mapping increases IPC by effectively increasing the width of the EU.

    There are other improvements in the EU. The transcendental math is handled by the hardware in the EU and its performance has been greatly improved. Intel then reported that the sine and cosine operations are now several orders of magnitude faster than pre-Westmere graphics.
    In previous Intel graphics architectures, the register reallocated on the fly. If a thread needs fewer registers, the remaining registers can be allocated to another thread. While this was a great approach to save die area, it proved to be a performance limiter. Often streams could not be processed because there were no registers available to use. Intel increased the number of registers per thread, first from 64 to 80, and then to 120 for Sandy Bridge. Downtime scenarios due to lack of registers have been significantly reduced.

    In sum, all these improvements have doubled the instruction throughput in the EU.

    There were two versions of the Sandy Bridge GPU at launch, one with 6 EU and one with 12 EU. All mobile processors (at launch) use 12 EU, while desktop SKUs can use 6 or 12 depending on the model. Sandy Bridge was a step in the right direction for Intel, as integrated graphics began to become mandatory for consumer products, and Intel gradually began to increase the percentage of chip area devoted to GPUs. Contemporary (2019d.) similar level desktop processors have 24 EU (Gen 9.5), while future 10nm processors will have ~64 EU (Gen11).

    Sandy Bridge Media Engine

    Next to the Sandy Bridge GPU is the media processor. Media processing in SNB consists of two main components: video decoding and video encoding.

    The hardware accelerated decoding engine has been improved compared to the current generation: now the entire video pipeline was decoded using fixed function modules. This contrasts with Intel’s pre-SNB design, which uses an EU array for some video decoding steps. As a result, Intel claims that the power consumption of the SNB processor is halved when playing HD video.

    The video encoding engine was a brand new addition to Sandy Bridge. Intel took ~3 minutes of original 1080p 30 Mbps video and transcoded it to iPhone 640 x 360 video format. The whole process took 14 seconds and finished at approximately 400 frames per second.

    The principle of fixed function encoding/decoding is now common in any graphics hardware for desktops and even smartphones. At that time, Sandy Bridge used 3mm2 matrices for this basic encoding/decoding structure.

    New Aggressive Turbo

    Lynnfield was the first Intel processor to actively promote the idea of ​​dynamically increasing the clock speed of active processor cores while disabling idle cores. The idea is that if you have a TDP of 95W for a quad-core processor, but three of those four cores are idle, then you can increase the clock speed of one active core until you hit the turbo limit.

    All current generation processors assume that the processor reaches its turbo power limit immediately after turbo is enabled. In reality, however, the processor does not heat up instantly — there is a period of time when the processor does not dissipate its full power consumption and heats up.

    Sandy Bridge takes advantage of this feature by allowing the PCU to overclock active cores above TDP for short periods of time (up to 25 seconds). The PCU monitors the available thermal budget during idle time and spends it when the CPU load increases. The longer the processor is left idle, the greater the margin by which TDP can be exceeded. As a result, when a workload occurs, the CPU turns on the turbo at an over TDP, and downclocks again when the CPU heats up, eventually stalling at its TDP. Although the SNB may go beyond its TDP, the PCU will not allow the chip to exceed its reliability limits.

    Both CPU and GPU Turbo can work in tandem. Workloads that rely heavily on GPUs running on SNB may cause CPU cores to drop and GPUs to clock up. Also, CPU-bound tasks can lower the GPU frequency and increase the CPU frequency. Sandy Bridge as a whole turned out to be a much more flexible mechanism than anything that was created before it.

    Thank you for staying with us. Do you like our articles? Want to see more interesting content? Support us by placing an order or recommending to friends, 30% discount for Habr users on a unique analogue of entry-level servers, which was invented by us for you: The whole truth about VPS (KVM) E5-2650 v4 (6 Cores) 10GB DDR4 240GB SSD 1Gbps from $20 or how to properly share a server ? (available with RAID1 and RAID10, up to 24 cores and up to 40GB DDR4).

    Dell R730xd 2 times cheaper? Only here 2 x Intel TetraDeca-Core Xeon 2x E5-2697v3 2.6GHz 14C 64GB DDR4 4x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100 TV from $199 in the Netherlands! Dell R420 — 2x E5-2430 2.2Ghz 6C 128GB DDR3 2x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100TB — from $99! Read about How to Build Infrastructure Corp. class with the use of Dell R730xd E5-2650 v4 servers worth 9,000 euros for a penny?

    Second generation AMD Ryzen: finally official presentation

    Leaks on AMD’s new CPUs, the updated Ryzen line, have been circulating on the Web for quite a long time — in fact, these are not even «streams», but full-flowing information flows. It seems that Ryzen 2nd Gen was almost known even before the official announcement — but nevertheless, it was very interesting to get first-hand information, so we took the opportunity and attended AMD’s presentation, which the company held on April 12 in Munich.

    We help

    You could already learn most of the information provided from our news “AMD announces 2nd generation Ryzen processors”, published immediately after the presentation, however, the company asked to hold some of the information until April 19th. Well, the “H” hour has finally arrived, and we can tell in more detail what happened a week ago at the Steigenberger Hotel in Munich.

    So, Ryzen 2nd Gen is not Ryzen 2, we are still waiting for its release (maybe next year?), It is an updated and improved «first» Ryzen, built on the Zen + architecture. But — in order. Jim Anderson, senior vice president and general manager of AMD’s Computer and Graphics Division, spoke to reporters first.

    Course

    Frontend sales

    Earn $1800 in two weeks and study at the open hour

    REGISTER!

    He “started from afar” — remembered the release of the first Ryzen in 2017 and how it affected the market (read: made Intel stir), and that in addition to twenty different first-generation Ryzen processors, AMD then also released high-performance Radeon RX Vega GPUs and the EPYC server processor line — according to Jim, the release of three products of this level in one year means that AMD is returning to high-performance «computing». In support of these words, he recalled the first desktop 16-core Ryzen Threadripper processor, as well as Ryzen Mobile, which appeared at the end of the year, in which, quote, “Zen met Vega”, which made it possible to obtain high gaming performance in thin laptops without a discrete graphics card (according to He said the company expects mobile Ryzen solutions from five major laptop manufacturers in the first half of 2018).

    And of course, he couldn’t help but spit on Intel, mentioning the «Ryzen effect»: «manufacturer competition is always good for the consumer, look — Intel had 4 cores in desktop systems for 10 years, but after the appearance of the eight-core AMD Ryzen 7 In the 1800s there were suddenly six; For thin laptops, Intel has been offering dual-core processors since 2010, and after the release of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, Intel also suddenly had quadcores.

    2018, according to Jim, should be even more productive for AMD — Ryzen processors with Vega graphics have already been released for both ultra-thin laptops and desktop systems. In the coming months, mobile Ryzen PRO is expected, again with Vega, in the second half of the year — the second generation of Ryzen PRO for business and Ryzen Threadripper for «ultimate» desktop systems with maximum performance; and, of course, today’s official release of the main character of this presentation — Ryzen 2nd Gen, made according to the 12 nm process technology, the first processor based on the Zen + architecture.

    So, the flagship processor in the second generation of Ryzens is the Ryzen 7 2700X: base clock speed of 3.7 GHz (4.3 GHz in Max Boost mode), 20 MB cache, 8 cores and 16 threads, comes with a proprietary cooler Wraith Prism, MSRP $329. The younger version of this processor, without the X index, costs $30 less — it has a slightly lower frequency (3.2 GHz / 4.1 GHz), the same number of cores and threads, the same amount of cache memory, and a simpler bundled cooler Wraith Spire. The second generation also includes two versions of the Ryzen 5 2600: the older 2600X (6 cores, 12 threads, 19MB cache, frequencies 3. 6 GHz/4.2 GHz, recommended price $229) and the younger one, with frequencies lowered to 3.4 GHz/3.9 GHz, priced at $199.

    The rest of the presentation was mainly based on comparison with competitive models from Intel, and the main idea was “the same performance in games, higher performance in applications, and all this for less money, plus a cool cooler in the kit «.

    So, according to Jim Anderson, the second generation of Ryzen performs much better in multi-threaded computing — photo editing, video, audio and other typical tasks for the average user are performed on average 20% faster than on the «analogue from Intel» .

    In more detail on performance and other technical details, the next speaker — Joe Macri (Joe Macri), CTO of AMD’s client direction, dwelled on.

    According to him, when developing the updated Zen+ architecture, on which the second generation of AMD Ryzen is based, special attention was paid to reducing memory access latency: compared to Zen, the new architecture boasts 11% lower memory access latency , by ~15% — to the cache memory of the first and third levels, and by a third less — to the cache memory of the second level. As a result, this made it possible to obtain higher performance in single-threaded calculations (3% more instructions per cycle compared to Zen).

    In addition, the transition of GlobalFoundries (chip manufacturer for AMD) to the new 12 nm process technology allowed us to raise the maximum frequencies by ~250 MHz, and overclocking of all cores can now reach 4.2 GHz, and the voltage at similar frequencies is lower by an average of 50 mV compared to first generation Ryzen. In more understandable numbers, the benefit of moving to 12 nm sounds something like this: up to 11% less power consumption at the same frequencies, or up to 16% more performance at the same TDP.

    The updated Precision Boost 2 technology, included in the AMD SenseMI proprietary “set,” is designed to get the highest possible performance in each specific task. With its help, the system automatically raises the processor frequency to a certain safe maximum value, if it «sees» the need and opportunity for this (taking into account the ambient temperature, supply voltage, etc. ). And if the first version of Precision Boost operated with only two concepts “load of 1-2 threads” and “load of 3 or more threads” (in the second case, immediately significantly limiting the maximum possible frequency), then Precision Boost 2 offers a linear graph for reducing the maximum frequency by depending on the number of threads, which allows the processor to work at higher frequencies in case of incomplete loading (but more than two threads). The effect of this technology was illustrated by the results in the Cinebench R15 benchmark, where the Ryzen 7 2700X at the same ambient temperature, in automatic mode, was able to demonstrate a 4% increase in performance when switching from a “regular cooler” to a proprietary Wraith Prism, and 7% -ny — on Noctua NH-D15S.

    If we talk about the performance of new processors compared to solutions from a competitor — according to AMD measurements, in multi-threaded computing, the Ryzen 7 2700X is faster than the Intel Core i7 8700K by an average of ~ 21% in popular benchmarks and application applications like Cinebench R15, Blender, Handbrake, etc.

    In games, of course, the situation is different, here AMD calls the performance of these two processors «virtually identical», demonstrating on charts its own results in a dozen popular gaming benchmarks in 1080p and 1440p (which differ minimally from each other, and not always in in favor of Intel). Almost similar performance in applications and games is shown for the younger «couple» — AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs Intel Core i5 8600K. As Joe Macri summed up this part of the presentation, «the player is unlikely to understand whose system he is playing on — ours or Intel, because if there is a difference in performance, it is so small that the average person will not notice it.»

    And the last, third speaker of the evening was Travis Kirsch, AMD’s director of client solutions management.

    He told how important the opinion of its users is for the company, to which they listen very carefully — so in the second generation of Ryzen AMD, as before, uses solder: according to the company, this allows to reduce the temperature regime by at least 10 degrees compared to with thermal paste. This is good news for overclockers, as is the fact that all second generation Ryzen processors have an unlocked multiplier. Also, the complete coolers of the Wraith series are aimed at enthusiasts, which are very different from what we used to call “boxed” coolers — for example, the older one, Prism (comes bundled with the flagship Ryzen 7 2700X), direct contact of heat pipes with the processor, noise level does not exceed 39dB, there is support for switchable fan speed profiles, independent RGB lighting for three different elements (plus the ability to turn it off completely “for RGB haters”) and “improved motherboard compatibility”, so that it can also be used in compact systems.

    Separately, Travis mentioned AMD’s proprietary overclocking utility Ryzen Master, which in the new version 1.3 has learned to display extended information on the capabilities of the motherboard, has received a built-in stability test, etc. All this combined, Travis summed up, makes overclocking the new Ryzen processors very easy and yet effective.

    AMD offers Ryzen 2nd Gen processors as part of its existing Socket AM4 platform (scheduled to support it until at least 2020) to maintain compatibility with motherboards already released (which will require a BIOS update — you will either need to do it yourself or » look for 300-series chipset motherboards with the AMD Ryzen Desktop 2000 Ready sticker).

    Travis Kirsch also spoke about the new top-end AMD X470 chipset — motherboards based on it will receive an optimized power scheme for overclocking the processor, support for memory modules with a higher frequency and reduced power consumption in idle mode. In addition, the X470 supports AMD StoreMI technology, which combines all drives, SSD and HDD, into a kind of “pool” (adding up to 2 GB of RAM to it) and creates a single logical drive, which speeds up the operating system and launches installed games. (StoreMI automatically transfers the most used files to the fastest storage in the system). Theoretically, this should help in the case when a relatively small system SSD is installed in the computer, and all games and applications are on a more capacious and slower HDD (according to data voiced by AMD, using StoreMI on a combination of «NVMe SSD + HDD + RAM» leads to a threefold acceleration the launch of the game World of Warcraft and almost ten times — applications like browsers and text editors) — but how effectively this technology works in real conditions, you need to watch «live», of course.