(bright music)
- Today, we're taking a look in the Ryzen 7 2700x
and comparing it to the i9 9900k.
And what we have here is, two CPU's
that really are worlds apart in pricing.
Honestly, the appeal straight away with the 2700 X
is there. And I would say it's there for the
majority of people.
It comes in at around 300 dollars U.S.
It includes a very nice RGB cooler
which does a great job of taking the CPU
to 4.0 Ghz day in and day out.
And the best thing is, you can couple it with a
B350 motherboard, granted the motherboard
supports 2000 series chips, and you can call it
a day, knowing you are getting phenomenal performance
for the dollar, that will play games well, and do
productivity tasks equally as well.
Now before we get a little bit more in depth,
I will say that there are cheaper Ryzen 1700 chips
out there, going for even less than this.
They represent good value on the surface though,
personally I've used the Ryzen first series A Core
in my main work station, last year, for quite some time.
I even had it overclocked to 4.0 Ghz, and I feel
like the Ryzen 2000 series processors are
a step up in many ways.
First of all, they clock higher in general
and they do so in lower voltages.
This means less power consumption
and higher performance.
They also have lower lane C's.
This to me was a big one, and was noticeable
in every day tasks; especially when you are plowing
through a lot of actions per minute.
Whether it be mixing music, to editing videos.
It does add up over time, in my opinion.
So although the value appeal is there,
the Ryzen 2700x is just a more desirable chip
than it's 1000 series counterpart,
and I feel is worth the premium.
Though the 9900k, it's just been released
and it's one hot chip, all pun intended,
it can easily go over 100 degrees,
even with the out of the box settings
with a solid 240 millimeter all in one
cooling solution, like the cooler I use.
The Corsair H100i PRO for example.
The damages were very hot, and in this
particular case, I am not comparing coolers
to one another so, I didn't use a static fan speed.
Also, most people are down have their CPU fans running
at 80 to 100 percent at all times.
I mean if I did, I don't know how you guys would
watch videos if I recorded them for you.
Because, I'd just simply be bombarding
your ears non-stop.
(static)
Ladies and gentleman, we are now approaching
Tokyo city, before we begin our descent,
make sure your seats and GBU's are all
in an upright position.
Captain out.
(static)
The one that note out of the box setting,
it will get to 4.7 Ghz with ease.
This is a 9900k, and at these levels
it will produce quite fast numbers.
Beating the 2700x in games and productivity.
Though doing so at nearly double the cost.
Then you have to factor in more expensive
costs involved, with a bigger cooling solution,
better motherboard, and also possibly
a higher rate of power supply too.
And in doing so, the appeal does start to wear off
a bit in my opinion.
The power consumption over time will also mean
more money spent daily on the electricity bill,
and let's face it, electricity isn't cheap now days
especially after the crypto currency reigned
the scene for over a year and more and more
people are accessing things like, air conditioning and
having auto appliances left on in their homes all the time.
Though let's talk about gaming specifically.
Frame rates were higher in general when I tested
the 1080p settings.
And this was tested at low, by the way,
which I doubt only the most competitive
of pro's would actually use.
Me personally, even in a game like
Call of Duty Black Ops 4, for example,
I put my settings on high because it allows
me to see things easier in this particular game.
And when we do start increasing the graphics
and turning up settings, then the power of the graphics
card then takes more of a strain and we see
the frame rate gaps start to close quite fast.
And this was tested within a Zeus RDX 2280 TI.
Pretty much the best card you can get out there
at the moment for gaming.
So, the Ryzen 2700x is still a solid choice
for gamers, and the better news is, if you are
streaming from the CPU, then the 2700x
will yet again, do very well on this particular task.
So unless you need those frame rates desperately,
Then AMD solution is one that has a lot of appeal,
especially when it comes to value.
Though on to the next factor.
And this is productivity.
Here's where the 9900k does score more victories
though, they aren't a whole lot more.
If we were to look at the raw benchmark numbers
it only comes out on top by a marginal victory
most of the time.
And I'd argue the real benefit of the 9900k
vs the 2700x is actually the ring boss vs sing cause
and it's infinity fabric.
The ring boss architecture is the snappiest CPU
architecture out there at the moment.
Not just because of its higher clog speed,
but also because of the design itself.
It beats that of Intel's own mesh architecture.
But, as we have seen in the 8700K vs 9900k video,
if you haven't seen that already I'll put the link up here,
it comes at a cost of poor scaling.
In that, when you add more cause and threads to
this architecture, then the heat dissipation,
and also the power consumption, start to go
through the roof, of the IHS, like literally.
This thing gets quite hot, and Intel raised
the TJ max thermal threshold on this chip to 115
degrees Celsius.
Which, I'm not sure if that's a good thing in the long term
as most people I know, don't even like running their
CPU's above 80 degrees for a lengthy amount of time.
However, when we move over to AMD's Zen core
architecture, these are the cores going in the
Ryzen 7 2700x for example, we can see that AMD's
utilizing smaller silicon die sized areas.
And then, interconnecting those by what they call
the infinity fabric.
This design itself has some great benefits.
Especially when it comes to the likes of scaling
as we've seen in their higher end CPU's
like the 2950X or even the 32 core 2990WX for example.
Also, since the inherent die size is smaller,
they do benefit from running very efficiently
and also very cool.
And so you don't need a massive cooler to keep
these things under control, as witnessed with
the 2700x and it's included cooler.
They also tend to run pretty cool in terms
of their overall temperatures compared to
the Intel counterparts.
However, one disadvantage to this architecture
of course, is that there are increased
Latencies across the cores themselves.
They do have to talk across the infinity fabric.
This does add up to more cores and threads
you introduce, as seen in the 2990WX.
AMD themselves, are doing however, a fantastic job
of shrinking the node and also increasing
the core counts, as time progresses.
So ultimately though, when it comes down to it,
the 2700x is a big value play.
Represents some of the best value we have
seen in the CPU market ever.
And it comes so it being a very practical
CPU with IPC that is so close to that of
Intel, it's not funny.
AMD also had their 7 nanometer Ryzen 2
chips ready for 2019.
So, that isn't that far away, and we could
possibly see a new king of mainstream
desktop lines, when it comes to IPC when that drops.
But until then, the 9900k is the mainstream king,
but does come at a considerable cost.
If you need this extra speed and are willing
to pay for it, then be my guest.
But if value is your main concern, then
the 2700x is the winner here.
Anyway guys, hope you enjoyed today's video.
If you did, then be sure to hit that like button.
Let me know in the comment section below,
which would you go for at the moment,
the i9 9900k or the Ryzen 7 2700x.
Love reading your thoughts and opinions as always.
And I'll catch you on another tech video very soon.
Peace out for now. Bye
(soft upbeat music)