AMD Ryzen vs Intel Kaby Lake

Hello,
I am looking into building my first PC in the near future, and I'm having a hard time deciding which CPU to choose.
I am currently using a Dell Studio XPS 9100 (i7 960 @ 3.20 GHz, 16gb ram, & AMD Radeon HD 6770).

I have looked into the current market, and I feel like I should consider these few different options:

AMD:
Ryzen 5 1500x
Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 1700

Intel:
i5 7500
i7 7700

I am not currently playing PC games, but want to get into it with this build. I use my current computer for University, and mild multi-tasking. I am also unsure about if I am going to overclock or not, but I am not opposed to the idea. I would like to keep this build in the mATX sizing, and hopefully $1500 & under (I am in Canada too!)
My question is what other people think I should do? Should I try my hand at the Ryzen market, or should I stick with Intel? If I choose Intel, should I even with the Skylake instead of the new Kaby Lake processors?


Here are a few PC Part Picker builds I have put together too:
Ryzen 5 1500x build
Ryzen 5 1600 build
Ryzen 1700 build
i5 7500 build
i7 7700 build
(Updated the i5 & i7, credit to elbert for mentioning the bios issues!)
Reply to Zigzagoon
20 answers Last reply
More about amd ryzen intel kaby lake
  1. If you include the 7700 also the 1700 as they are about the same price. Only the i7 7700K stands out in gaming. Ryzen pretty much owns all the rest at the price points. The 1700 can be overclocked with its stock wraith cooler to 3.7~3.8Ghz so it really doesn't need an aftermarket cooler. Your Intel builds have bios issues with the motherboard and the newer kabylake.

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: AMD RYZEN 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($406.95 @ shopRBC)
    Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-AB350M-Gaming 3 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($129.50 @ Vuugo)
    Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($154.98 @ DirectCanada)
    Storage: ADATA Premier SP550 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($68.99 @ Newegg Canada Marketplace)
    Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($58.83 @ Vuugo)
    Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Video Card ($539.99 @ Amazon Canada)
    Case: Corsair SPEC-02 ATX Mid Tower Case ($64.99 @ Amazon Canada)
    Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 620W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($74.99 @ Newegg Canada)
    Total: $1499.22
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-01 14:48 EDT-0400
    Reply to elbert
  2. So in a nutshell intel's cores are stronger, Ryzen has MORE cores.
    To simplify CPU perfromance itis how many Instructions Per Cycle a cpu can do (IPC), how many cycles a second it can do (that is the GHZ speed), and how many cores it has (so IPC X clock speed x cores).
    If your application will use all 12 cores/threads then the fact that the IPC of ryzen is only say 75% of intel still means Ryzen is better.
    However if your programs will only use 8 of the threads then the better IPC of intel becomes much more noticable.

    In gaming the IPC of intel is more needed for most games then the higher core count. For general multitasking this is also the case.
    For something like video editing or 3d modeling or other applicaiton that will use every core/thread you have then the Ryzen 1700 has a distinct advantage over an i7.
    Now with that said there should be more enhancements to games in the future to make Ryzen perform closer to the level of intle chips.

    In regards to skylake vs kabylake, kabylake is just skylake with slightly faster clock speed + 4k netflix capabile. Absolutly nothing wrong with skylake if you are getting a better price for it.
    Reply to boosted1g
  3. I have noticed increasing my fsb and dropping my clock rate increases my IPC for amd.
    Reply to Jack_242
  4. Ryzens IPC is more around 95% of Intels Kabylake this is why only the 7700K wins out in games. This is why a 1700X can beat the i7-6900K in many tests because its more on par with broadwell. The ryzen CCX does have a greater effect in games seeming to make a 9% advatage for Kabylake. The i5 7600K only has 4 threads so it has to be OCed to 5Ghz to match the 1600X in games. The i7 7700 is locked at a low speed so kind of hard press to beat the Ryzen.
    http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/How-does-IPC-compare-between-AMDs-Ryzen-and-Intels-Kaby-Lake/108


    It takes the 7700K.
    Reply to elbert
  5. boosted1g said:
    So in a nutshell intel's cores are stronger, Ryzen has MORE cores.
    To simplify CPU perfromance itis how many Instructions Per Cycle a cpu can do (IPC), how many cycles a second it can do (that is the GHZ speed), and how many cores it has (so IPC X clock speed x cores).
    If your application will use all 12 cores/threads then the fact that the IPC of ryzen is only say 75% of intel still means Ryzen is better.
    However if your programs will only use 8 of the threads then the better IPC of intel becomes much more noticable.

    In gaming the IPC of intel is more needed for most games then the higher core count. For general multitasking this is also the case.
    For something like video editing or 3d modeling or other applicaiton that will use every core/thread you have then the Ryzen 1700 has a distinct advantage over an i7.
    Now with that said there should be more enhancements to games in the future to make Ryzen perform closer to the level of intle chips.

    In regards to skylake vs kabylake, kabylake is just skylake with slightly faster clock speed + 4k netflix capabile. Absolutly nothing wrong with skylake if you are getting a better price for it.


    Thanks for the replies everyone!

    That's really useful information Boosted1g, It’s still a tough decision between both as of right now, since Ryzen is still getting updates to make it better. But since I don't use / have heavy applications that will need more cores / threads, and the only thing I can see myself getting into is gaming, and not video editing – that may lead me more towards the Intel side.

    As for the Skylake / Kabylake - PC part picker is showing the Kabylake CPU's for slightly less than Skylake, so I guess it makes more sense to stick with the Kabylake builds that I have set up. I feel like I won't need the i7's power, so maybe I should just go with the cheaper i5?


    elbert said:
    Ryzens IPC is more around 95% of Intels Kabylake this is why only the 7700K wins out in games. This is why a 1700X can beat the i7-6900K in many tests because its more on par with broadwell. The ryzen CCX does have a greater effect in games seeming to make a 9% advatage for Kabylake. The i5 7600K only has 4 threads so it has to be OCed to 5Ghz to match the 1600X in games. The i7 7700 is locked at a low speed so kind of hard press to beat the Ryzen.
    http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/How-does-IPC-compare-between-AMDs-Ryzen-and-Intels-Kaby-Lake/108

    It takes the 7700K.


    Thanks for the good info too elbert!

    These are all good points, but I feel that the Ryzen 1700x is a little bit out of my price range. The i7 7700 & Ryzen 1700 is probably the most that I am willing to spend, but preferably a little bit less.
    That and I feel like since I am not doing a whole ton of heavy multitasking applications / games on my computer, wouldn’t I be wasting the 1700x’s potential?
    Reply to Zigzagoon
  6. Alright, I think that I have found something pretty interesting in my search!
    The Ryzen 5 1600 is within my price range, and has some pretty interesting performance points that Tech Showdown has shown. If I choose this one, I will most likely have to overclock it, but I feel like the growing support / compatibility is making Ryzen a really compelling choice.
    Even though the Intel CPU's have stronger single cores, the fact that the Ryzen will help me more in the future / future proofing for other programs (and not slouching at gaming either) it makes a bit more appealing overall performance.

    Here is the Tech Showdown video that helped me!
    It is a direct comparison of the Ryzen 5 1600 and the Intel i5 7600k (better chip than the i5 7500 I had my sights on)

    If anyone has any other points that will help, I would really appreciate any information!
    Again, thanks to everyone who posted already!
    Reply to Zigzagoon
  7. What's with the misinformation guys? Ryzen's IPC isn't close to Intel's. At the same configuration and clocks-speeds, Ryzen lags ~10% behind Broadwell when it comes to computing performance, and ~20% when it comes to gaming performance, give or take a few percentages, on average.

    Skylake/Kaby Lake is ~2.7% faster than Broadwell on average, so there's that.

    Anyhow, the 1600 build looks quite nice. You could get a 1600X if you want a higher chance at better overclocking, although it comes with no stock fan, so there's that to keep in mind. The 1600 looks to be the best value CPU on the market now, and the AM4 platform will last for a long time. I guess you should pick a motherboard you'll be content with.
    Reply to Gon Freecss
  8. Do you mean like this IPC test of computing performance? Thats an 8 core broadwell only a bit ahead of the X1700.


    Then there are these with them both OC'ed to 3.8Ghz. The 7700 is much faster at 4.2Ghz and it does have an IPC advantage. No one is saying the 7700k doesn't have the advantage but its the only one. For 8 core vs 8 core it on par with IPC wise. Games give the i7's only a bit of an advantage.



    Reply to elbert
  9. The 1700X is clocked a bit higher than the i7-6900K. Also, Ryzen shines in throughput and GPU-workloads, but not in latency sensitive workloads such as games. Anyhow, I've never said Ryzen is 10% worse than Broadwell all of the time. It's 10% slower than Broadwell on average.

    Also, it's near the i7-6900K in Cinebench because of its extra L2 cache. Cinebench seems to like more L2 cache.

    Reply to Gon Freecss
  10. The 1700x and 6900k have the same boost clock. If the cooling was good they both should be the same. When you say better IPC that means average across everything. The link in my earlier post has the correct IPC average.
    Reply to elbert
  11. elbert said:
    The 1700x and 6900k have the same boost clock. If the cooling was good they both should be the same. When you say better IPC that means average across everything. The link in my earlier post has the correct IPC average.
    6900K's stock speed is 0.2GHz slower, and its boost speed is 0.1GHz slower.

    I've already posted a benchmark that measures Ryzen and Broadwell in multiple applications. It's ~10% faster on average.
    Reply to Gon Freecss
  12. AMD renamed Zen to ryzen in mid December of last year. Yup those benchmarks are some very old leak/fakes back before it was renamed Ryzen. IE 2016 and one needs a full spoon of salt with those results. Userbench says kabylake is only about 9% faster so your IPC is way off. All my benchmarks post but the top one has them both at 3.8Ghz. They are both running at the same speed in the benchmarks. Even the 7700k is clocked at 3.8Ghz.
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3149051/components/amd-offers-more-proof-that-zen-now-renamed-ryzen-is-its-best-chip-in-a-decade.html
    http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/How-does-IPC-compare-between-AMDs-Ryzen-and-Intels-Kaby-Lake/108
    Reply to elbert
  13. elbert said:
    AMD renamed Zen to ryzen in mid December of last year. Yup those benchmarks are some very old leak/fakes back before it was renamed Ryzen. IE 2016 and one needs a full spoon of salt with those results. Userbench says kabylake is only about 9% faster so your IPC is way off. All my benchmarks post but the top one has them both at 3.8Ghz. They are both running at the same speed in the benchmarks. Even the 7700k is clocked at 3.8Ghz.
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3149051/components/amd-offers-more-proof-that-zen-now-renamed-ryzen-is-its-best-chip-in-a-decade.html
    http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/How-does-IPC-compare-between-AMDs-Ryzen-and-Intels-Kaby-Lake/108
    Those benchmarks aren't fake. They were made when the website received the Ryzen chips. Prove your claim.

    You're looking at very few applications where Ryzen shines brighter. Again, as I've said, on average, it's behind Broadwell.
    Reply to Gon Freecss
  14. Now that AMD has released new AGESA updates and motherboard support, there is no reason to choose Intel other than for gaming, which is only the i7 7700K.

    Intel is dead in the water until Cannonlake 10nm / Purley. i5 7500 is out of the question with only 4C 4T. At the price of a comparable 6C 12T.

    The Ryzen 7 1700 is a better deal, it has 8 overclockable cores which can easily be OCed to 1800X (3.6GHz) levels under the stock cooler, where it beats the multicore performance of the i7 6900K (Maxon Blender demo).

    The i7 7700 is clocked low and is as expensive as a 1600x/1700, while the 7700K requires a more expensive Z270 board for OC, Ryzen only needs B350.

    Passmark Single Core
    i7 7700- 2335
    R7 1700- 1752 OC- 1951

    Passmark Multi Core
    R7 1700- 13802 OC- 15364
    i7 7700- 10831

    Ryzen 7 1700 is no doubt better for your needs.

    Who cares about a few FPS in gaming, when the framerates are >100FPS where you will not percieve on a 60Hz monitor?
    Reply to kgt1182
  15. As soon as you start a thread titled 'amd vs intel' youre going to start a debate full of graphs & arguments & a thread that will run for ages & go way off topic.

    Why even compare them ,its essentially pointless,pick a cpu that suits your needs at the budget you can afford.

    Your ryzen 1600 build is easily the best balanced & best price to performance ratio there.
    The ryzen 1600 is imo currently THE best cpu price to performance wise on the market,I dont see how anyone could argue that at all (even a blatant intel fanboy)
    Its quite simply extremely good at everything at the end of the day,an i5 7500 performs about the same in gaming at this current time & its virtually the same price.
    The 7600k will perform better (just for gaming) but requires an aftermarket cooler & a better/more expensive board if you want to overclock.

    For this reason I absolutely would not entertain an i5 for your uses,not going to condemn the 7700 build - the i7's are great chips but $120 more expensive.

    Value for money absolutely go with the Ryzen 1600.

    I have however taken the liberty of tinkering & getting you a 1070 in there for under your $1500 budget.

    Minor swaps ,board & ram (the pro 4 is stilla great board although the white color scheme may not suit?)
    Swapped that 1tb hybrid secondary out for a straight fast good quality 2tb 7200rpm drive - youre not going to get much benefit with a hybrid drive as a secoondary when you already have a very very fast m2 ssd boot drive.

    I think the 1070 will absolute suit that matx build better than a 580

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($277.98 @ DirectCanada)
    Motherboard: ASRock - AB350M Pro4 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($99.00 @ Vuugo)
    Memory: Team - Dark 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($139.99 @ Newegg Canada)
    Storage: Crucial - MX300 525GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($199.99 @ Newegg Canada)
    Storage: Toshiba - 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($84.99 @ Newegg Canada)
    Video Card: Zotac - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Mini Video Card ($507.99 @ Newegg Canada)
    Case: Fractal Design - Define Mini C with Window MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($105.75 @ Vuugo)
    Power Supply: Corsair - CXM 450W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($67.50 @ DirectCanada)
    Total: $1483.19
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-06 03:30 EDT-0400
    Reply to madmatt30
  16. Just need to say that my 1600x is awesome and i do not regret it, super smooth gaming.
    Reply to Moshud
  17. madmatt30 said:
    As soon as you start a thread titled 'amd vs intel' youre going to start a debate full of graphs & arguments & a thread that will run for ages & go way off topic.
    People are posting false information here. It's bound to be countered sooner or later. :/
    Reply to Gon Freecss
  18. Gon Freecss said:
    madmatt30 said:
    As soon as you start a thread titled 'amd vs intel' youre going to start a debate full of graphs & arguments & a thread that will run for ages & go way off topic.
    People are posting false information here. It's bound to be countered sooner or later. :/


    Yup Zen false information is the worst. No biggy tho as no links make them easy to spot.
    Reply to elbert
  19. It sounds like you may have all the information you need to make an educated decision, so here are just some additional points to consider.

    I also agree with "Grandmaster" in that your build will be better suited by the 1070.
    Unless you can wait until May 16th when the AMD Vega line is announced to see if the prices for the GTX 1070 will drop in relation to whatever AMD has to offer.

    In regard to AMD:
    Cheaper and more productivity benefits. The CPU's provide more than acceptable frame rates for any gaming scenario you would encounter with a 1070 or less. Further you have the option of gaining more cores for less price and not paying a premium for an unlocked CPU. And given that nearly all Zen processors max out at 4.0 ghz give or take 100mhz, there is no reason to by an "X" series chip, simply purchase the 1600, 1700, 1500, and overclock. (with the 1600x you also do not get a stock cooler)

    The Spire Wraith that comes with the 1600 offers sufficient (though not entirely quiet) cooling for even some mild overclocking saving you some money now until you can invest in a larger cooler.
    Purchasing adequate RAM and overclocking it can up your relative performance even further.

    Rumors: Zen 2 is supposed to be compatible with the same motherboards as Zen1, therefore if there is substantial improvement in either IPC or Clockspeed in Zen2, you may be able to just purchase a new CPU


    In regard to Intel:
    I would avoid Skylake if the prices are similar for the simple reason that Kaby is clocked higher out of the box which is "free" extra performance. If you do plan to overclock it shifts more in Kaby's favor as they over-clock higher as well.
    Here the performance is not entirely "free" as the processors benefit substantially from delid/change of thermal interface material and a decent cooler to control temperatures. But you are often able to overclock further which would make the processor more competitive with Canonlake (which will also be 14nm, and we don't know if there will be IPC improvements or simply a Clock speed increase like Kaby was). Thus no real need to upgrade by next cycle.

    I would also only consider 7700k given that there are enough mainstream titles that can take advantage of the extra threads in a meaningful (not just benchmarking) way. The adage of "4 threads" is all you need, seems to be slowly going away.

    Rumors: Canonlake is supposed to be 14nm for the mainstream processors. We don't know if they are supposed to be backwards compatible with the current Z270 chipsets.
    Intel (and most manufacturers) are encountering the limitations of silicon, such that Intel's relative performance in each subsequent generation of i7's has been declining.
    This could mean that AMD could close the gap before Intel is able to jump ahead again, and why I suspect that Canonlake is not going to be "much" of an improvement over Kabylake clock for clock. The biggest news seems to be 6-core processors, but they are too far out for you to hold off a build over.
    Reply to Spring1898
  20. Before buying a CPU always look to see how they benchmark and read the reviews on each CPU.

    I still like my Intel i5-2500k
    Reply to Jack_242
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Dell Studio Xps New Build AMD Intel