Intel vs AMD: The Start of Core Wars

This year has seen a number of CPU releases from both Intel and AMD. AMD’s resurgence with a high-performing x86 core, combined with their performance-per-dollar strategy, has started to make inroads into the markets that AMD lost during its Bulldozer architecture era. When Intel was offering 10 cores for $1700, AMD started offering 8 cores of almost similar performance for $329, marking a significant shift in what the ‘right price’ for a processor should be.

We collated all the tray prices for the recent processor launches for easy comparison, using the launch price of each product. Exact pricing today may differ due to retailers or sales – we have confirmed that these are still the official MSRPs for these processors.

Kaby Lake i7-K vs Coffee Lake i7-K (MSRP)
AMD   Coffee Lake Kaby Lake Skylake-X
  $1199+     i9-7980XE
i9-7960X
i9-7940X
i9-7920X
TR 1950X $999     i9-7900X
TR 1920X $799      
  $599     i9-7820X
TR 1900X $549      
R7 1800X $499      
R7 1700X $390-$400     i7-7800X
  $359 i7-8700K    
  $340-$350   i7-7740X
i7-7700K
 
R7 1700 $329      
  $303 i7-8700 i7-7700  
  $257 i5-8600K    
R5 1600X $240-$250   i5-7640X
i5-7600K
 
R5 1600 $219   i5-7600  
R5 1500X $180-$190 i5-8400 i5-7400  
R5 1400 $169 i3-8350K i3-7350K  
  $149   i3-7320  
  $138   i3-7300  
R3 1300X $129      
  $117 i3-8100 i3-7100  
R3 1200 $109      
  $86   G4620  
  $64   G4560  

Almost every Coffee Lake processor is identical in price to its Kaby Lake predecessor. The main deviations are the K processors, with the Core i7-8700K being +$20 over the i7-7700K, and the i5-8600K being +$15 over the i5-7600K. There is still competition in every segment.

The Competition: Red Mist (AMD)

AMD’s Ryzen and Threadripper parts occupy anywhere from almost $100 for a base quad core design up to $999 for sixteen cores with simultaneous multithreading. It is widely expected that Intel will have a standard instructions-per-clock advantage with its processors, but also Intel is running its processors north of 4.0 GHz for the most part, while AMD is limited by its manufacturing process to 4.0 GHz at best. 

If we do a straightforward price breakdown, the Core i7-8700K ($359) sits almost equally between the Ryzen 7 1700X ($399) and Ryzen 7 1700 ($329). Here this would be a battle of sixteen Zen threads compared to 12 Coffee Lake threads, with the IPC and frequency advantage heavily on Intel’s side. It will be interesting to see where the Core i7-8700 ($303) sits in performance per dollar compared to the Ryzen 7 1700.

The Core i5-8600K ($257) has a nearer neighbor for company: the Ryzen 5 1600X ($248). Before today, this battle was between a quad-core, quad-thread Core i5 against a 12-thread AMD Ryzen chip. With Intel moving the Core i5 parts to having six full cores, albeit without hyperthreading but with a high frequency, it is going to be an interesting battle between the two at this price.

The Core i5-8400 ($182) and Core i3-8350K ($169) sit near the Ryzen 5 1500X ($189) and the Ryzen 5 1400 ($169) respectively. The difference between the Ryzen 5 1500X and the Core i3-8350K would be interesting, given the extreme thread deficit (12 threads vs 4) between the two.

The Competition: Friendly Fire (Intel)

Intel cannot escape competing with itself. Having played with six-core chips in the high-end desktop space, there was ultimately going to be a time when the mainstream platform would start to overlap with the high-end desktop and potentially consume some sales.

As mentioned above, for most of the 8th Generation Coffee Lake processors, the new parts are simple swap-ins for the old ones. The only ones that have a difference of opinion are going to be the overclockable K models.

Straight off the bat it looks like that the new Coffee Lake processors are going to consume both of the quad-core Kaby Lake-X parts. There is a +$10 price difference for the Six-Core Coffee Lake CPUs, but that $10 gets an extra two cores, cheaper motherboards, an easier to understand ecosystem, and if you need it, integrated graphics. On paper it is a no-brainer – quad-core HEDT processors should be dead now.

Comparing the six-core Skylake-X i7 parts to the Coffee Lake-K parts is going to be interesting. Here’s a straight specification comparison.

Skylake i7-7800X vs Coffee Lake i7-8700K
Skylake-X
i7-7800X
  Coffee Lake-S
i7-8700K
6C / 12T Cores 6C / 12T
3.5 GHz Base Frequency 3.7 GHz
4.0 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0 4.7 GHz
1 MB/core L2 Cache 256 KB/core
8.25 MB L3 Cache 12 MB
Quad Channel DRAM Channels Dual Channel
DDR4-2400 DRAM Support DDR4-2666
- Integrated Graphics GT2: 24 EUs
- IGP Base Freq 350 MHz
- IGP Turbo 1.20 GHz
28 PCIe Lanes (CPU) 16
< 24 PCIe Lanes (Chipset) < 24
140W TDP 95 W
$383 Price (tray) $359
$380 Price (Newegg) $380
$363 Price (Amazon) $N/A
$200-$600 Motherboard Price $100-$400

The main two in contention are the Core i7-8700K ($359) and the Core i7-7800X ($389). For a difference of $30, the Skylake-X chip is two generations behind and slower on frequency, but offers quad-channel memory and 28 PCIe lanes for more PCIe coprocessors. While the Coffee Lake will almost certainly win in terms of raw processor performance, features such as DRAM support and PCIe lanes are not to be thrown away lightly. If you absolutely need > 64 GB of memory, or more than two add-in cards, you have no choice but to look at the Skylake-X platform.

Key Comparisons to Look Out For

In the next series of pages, we will go through our benchmark suite. While we have only had time to run through a limited number of tests with the Core i7-8700K and the Core i5-8400, there are two battles worth keeping an eye on:

  • Core i7-8700K vs Core i7-7800X
  • Core i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 1500X

Hopefully we will get the other components in for review, in particular the Core i7-8700 and Core i3-8100, both of which will be interesting to plot in performance-per-dollar graphs.

Physical Design, Integrated Graphics, and the Z370 Chipset: Differences Power Consumption, Test Bed and Setup
Comments Locked

222 Comments

View All Comments

  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Anyone having an issue with Bench? I'm trying to compare my i7-3770k to the i7-8700k and it comes back with no data. Same with trying the Threadripper 1920x
  • mkaibear - Friday, October 6, 2017 - link

    CPU tests changed so benchmarks weren't comparable. Latest processor tested on the old tests was the 7700K iirc, and not everything is tested on the new tests.

    I'd compare results for the 3770k and the 2600K to get a baseline then you can compare 2600K to the 8700K. It's a bit fiddly, I have to do the same with my 4790K.
  • Ian Cutress - Saturday, October 7, 2017 - link

    We updated our CPU testing suite for Windows 10 in Q1. Regression testing is an on-going process, though it's been slow because of all the CPU launches this year. Normally we have 1/2 a year. We're so far at what, 6 or 7 for 2017?
  • mczak - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Doesn't look to me like the die size actually increased at all due to the increased gate pitch.
    The calculations in the article forgot to account for the increase of the unused area (at the bottom left) - this area is tiny with 2c die, but increases with each 2 cores added significantly. By the looks of it, that unused area would have grown by about 2 mm^2 or so going from 4 to 6 cores, albeit I'm too lazy to count the pixels...
  • jjj - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Your conclusion is weirdest thing ever, you fully ignore the 8359k and AMD.

    In retail, the 8350k will do very very well and retail is what matters for most readers
    And ignoring AMD is not ok at all, it's like you think that we are all idiots that buy on brand.You do think that, your system guides make that very clear but you should not accept, support and endorse such an idiotic behavior.
    AMD got hit hard here, Intel takes back the lead and it's important to state that. Sure they might have Pinnacle Ridge in a few months and take back the lead but buyers that can't wait should go with Intel right now, for the most part. AMD could also adjust prices ofc.
  • Tigris - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Really confused why the pricing listed in this review isn't consistent- for Intel you were posting prices you found online, but for Ryzen you appear to be posting MSRP.

    The truth is- you can find 1700x for $298 right now EASILY (Amazon), yet Microcenter is selling the 8700k for $499.

    If you factor this information in, the AMD solutions are still far more valuable per dollar.
  • wolfemane - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    I really can’t belive the amount of flak Anandtech takes these days. I find it un-earned an unwarrented. Out of all the tech sites and forums I manage to read in a given week, Anandtech is the most often quoted and linked to. Hell I use it as my go to for reference and comparison (and general reading). My only big complaint is your ads, and I’d gladly pay a sub to completely remove that nonsense and directly support the site!

    Ian, you and your staff deserve far more credit than you get and that’s an injustice. Each piece is pretty thorough and pretty spot on. So for that thank you very much.

    This article is no exception to the rule and is superb. Your graph layouts are a welcome feature!!!!! I look forward to your ever expanding tests as new chips roll in. I think the 8600k is going to be a game changer in the i5 vs i7 performance category for these hexacore cpus. I think that’s why almost all the reviews I’m reading today are with the 8700k and 8400.

    Agin, thank you and your staff very much for the work you put into publishing amazing articles!!
  • vanilla_gorilla - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Personally I buy whatever is best at the time. Right now I'm typing this on a 1700x and I can see a 4770k build on the desk next to me. So it's always funny to see the bias. Intel review gets posted, AMD fanboys come out of the wood works to trash them as paid shills. But it works exactly the same on any positive AMD reviews. Intel fans come in trashing them. It's really odd. Anandtech is one of the most unbiased sites I've found and I trust their reviews implicitly.
  • mkaibear - Saturday, October 7, 2017 - link

    > Anandtech is one of the most unbiased sites I've found and I trust their reviews implicitly.

    Yep. Anyone who looks at AT and sees bias needs to examine their own eyesight.
  • SeannyB - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    For the H.264 encoding tests, you could consider using the "medium" preset or better. The "very fast" preset has a tendency to use fewer cores.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now