After these security flaws should i go with Intel 8700k or AMD R 1700?

[R-T-B]

And I mentioned performance because Intel sacrifised security to get better benchmark results to sell more cpus. Am I wrong?

Pretty much. There are likely ways to fix this bug on silicon without impacting performance.

What they did do, and ARE guilty of, is launching a flawed product to market knowingly and not giving two shits about it. They basically did this to ensure a 1-2 punch to Ryzen, IMO. It was all about market position.

 

[Vayra86]

Ironically, I think that if you look at performance loss per type of workload, the overall recommendations for Intel or AMD CPUs really haven't changed.

if you need the cores/threads for your workload > AMD Ryzen or TR; even the HEDT platform is in a better shape for that
if you need the single thread responsiveness > Intel.

What's new I think is that HEDT space; to still consider Intel for thát right now, really has become a no-no unless you need it for a very specific piece of software/optimization of software for Intel.

 

[Solaris17]

1 week into this fiasco and I am happy to report my chip not only still manages to launch video games but my machine has not come to a crawl.

Also no breaches to my security have been made and my machine has not had a ransomware infection as of yet.

Stay tuned!

 

[Abdullah Aman]

My work mostly mostly related to wed development android studio and gaming

 

[HD64G]

Pretty much. There are likely ways to fix this bug on silicon without impacting performance.

What they did do, and ARE guilty of, is launching a flawed product to market knowingly and not giving two shits about it. They basically did this to ensure a 1-2 punch to Ryzen, IMO. It was all about market position.

This can only been proven if they launch soon a secure cpu with the same size and transistor count and specs and get the same perfomance. Until then...

 

[pigulici]

Not sure about Photoshop , didn't find any test, but here they tested only for Windows pre-post patch(not microcode patch), look ok for me:

https://www.techspot.com/article/1554-meltdown-flaw-cpu-performance-windows/

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

This can only been proven if they launch soon a secure cpu with the same size and transistor count and specs and get the same perfomance. Until then...

That be 2020 minimum and its the one likely to be first fixed cpu ,ie released as fixed ,it will have to be similar to the current fix at this point though due to redesign r and d ,masks tests etc, an optimal redseigned fix is like 2022 territory in reality and anyone saying different lies.

Am4 makes Amd the only choice to me at least if something gets known or done you Have options.

You won't with intel.

 

[erocker]

My work mostly mostly related to wed development android studio and gaming

So then, other than for gaming you don't need much of a powerful CPU. Get whatever is in your budget, put more money into a good video card. Patch or no patch, the Intel chip is going to be faster most of the time in games.

 

[R-T-B]

This can only been proven if they launch soon a secure cpu with the same size and transistor count and specs and get the same perfomance. Until then...

I suppose that's true, but I mean, isn't AMD already close enough in that regard to prove it is technically possible?

 

[Vario]

8700K. Even with the CPU patch it will probably be faster for an individual user and might be a class action on these things anyway

 

[Bones]

R-T-B's first post sums it up nicely, it's really about what your intended useage is for the build plus the budget you have for doing it. Both chips will do and I seriously doubt you'd see enough difference between them to matter so much, if wanting the absolute max FPS in a game then the 8700K is the setup you'd want - If running programs with an emphasis on multi-threaded useage then the 1700 is the ticket.

Personally if going AMD I'd consider getting the 1700X since you can do more with it from a tweaking standpoint but again the cost is another factor, the 1700 itself is plenty for what you could use it for. Intel based boards are more expensive too vs AMD based boards based on a comparable model standpoint as I'm finding out for myself since I have a 7700K headed my way and I'm browsing ATM for something that I could get for it. It's really up to you if the extra $$ is worth it or not going with an Intel because honestly, the AMD based setups as a whole are cheaper to get, esp now since DDR4 RAM is so expensive and you'd have to have some of that regardless.

 

[notb]

Intel is forced to reply in detail as their the big player in CPU industry for private customers and server and cloud also and are in big risk losing contracts and maybe face mass suits on court.

And AMD is not a big player?!

If AMD is proven false in their claims they are evil also.

Oh man... I'm going to have a laugh quoting this post in few weeks... or days...

And I mentioned performance because Intel sacrifised security to get better benchmark results to sell more cpus. Am I wrong?

No. But earlier you were talking about releasing a new CPU knowing it has a security flaw - something both Intel and AMD did.
Now you're saying that AMD is cute, because in their case a fix doesn't affect performance.

Generally speaking, Intel did not sacrifice anything. Your opinion (similarly to that of many people here) clearly shows you didn't read much about the problem.
Meltdown attack exploits a fairly popular design principle (CPU optimization). The idea works also on AMD CPUs - it's just that their design is slightly different to Intel's, so the particular attack technique created by Project Zero didn't work. It doesn't mean someone won't find a way to do this in the future. Project Zero at first also didn't succeed with ARM, but half a year later we know ARM is also affected (and they confirmed). So you should hope that AMD, while saying their CPUs are safe, quietly fixes this problem. And yes, this could also result in a performance drop.

Seriously, all 3 flaws are pretty typical and serious from security standpoint. I find it rather disturbing that on this forum we're talking so little about security and so much about performance.
Things like this happen. They are identified, analyzed and fixed - sometimes after a long time. Intel and ARM (and possibly AMD) will patch their current CPUs and will have to think about other ways to increase performance.
We end up in a better PC world with more secure systems. It might be a slightly slower PC world, but performance is not the most important thing in IT.

 

[FireFox]

if you need the single thread responsiveness > Intel.

You forgot the most important thing ( GAMING )

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

And AMD is not a big player?!

Oh man... I'm going to have a laugh quoting this post in few weeks... or days...

No. But earlier you were talking about releasing a new CPU knowing it has a security flaw - something both Intel and AMD did.
Now you're saying that AMD is cute, because in their case a fix doesn't affect performance.

Generally speaking, Intel did not sacrifice anything. Your opinion (similarly to that of many people here) clearly shows you didn't read much about the problem.
Meltdown attack exploits a fairly popular design principle (CPU optimization). The idea works also on AMD CPUs - it's just that their design is slightly different to Intel's, so the particular attack technique created by Project Zero didn't work. It doesn't mean someone won't find a way to do this in the future. Project Zero at first also didn't succeed with ARM, but half a year later we know ARM is also affected (and they confirmed). So you should hope that AMD, while saying their CPUs are safe, quietly fixes this problem. And yes, this could also result in a performance drop.

Seriously, all 3 flaws are pretty typical and serious from security standpoint. I find it rather disturbing that on this forum we're talking so little about security and so much about performance.
Things like this happen. They are identified, analyzed and fixed - sometimes after a long time. Intel and ARM (and possibly AMD) will patch their current CPUs and will have to think about other ways to increase performance.
We end up in a better PC world with more secure systems. It might be a slightly slower PC world, but performance is not the most important thing in IT.

The wording again theoretically it could be used to attack an amd processor but due to how they do pre execution it's believed to be and so far proven to be (unlike some)safe ,and the attack techniques could advance on either platform to be fair making me right when I say the only motherboard worth getting is one where their are chips being designed now for that Could be intrinsically safe and that could be Am4 zen3 by the time 6 months more research is done.
Intel(sorry per board, platform) have no upgrade path and hence No future option's to me imho.

 

[Vario]

No upgrade path argument is kind of silly. Upgrading the CPU and keeping your dated board? You can sell the old board on eBay and get a decent amount of money to buy a new board when you upgrade because people will pay a lot of money for an old socket. Its not a big deal to have to switch to a new socket when a new cpu comes out. Given that modern CPUs are good for 4+ years before they are even remotely irrelevant its a moot point. And boards improve a lot as technology improves. Also boards seem to fail around 10 years anyway.

 

[Abdullah Aman]

Guys if i can't wait i want to buy a PC in few days so then which way should i go Ryzen or intel 8700k

 

[HTC]

Guys if i can't wait i want to buy a PC in few days so then which way should i go Ryzen or intel 8700k

What's the intended use? Gaming only?

EDIT

Also: what are your other components? You should fill in your system specs.

 

[Abdullah Aman]

What's the intended use? Gaming only?

EDIT

Also: what are your other components? You should fill in your system specs.

gaming on ultra setting (I already have GTX 1070) Android studio work (For AMD Ryzen Android studio emulator works only on Linux) and web development and database work

 

[FireFox]

which way should i go Ryzen or intel 8700k

Definitely 8700K

 

[Abdullah Aman]

I already have GTX-1070, 16GB DDR4 3200MHZ ,SSD Samsung EVO 850 250GB, WD 1TB hard drive, and Deepcool Assassin 2 cpu cooler only thing i need is Motherboard processor and case

 

[HD64G]

I'd go for Ryzen 1600X or 1700X depending on the badget and buy better GPU or PSU or bigger SSD with the money earned from not getting the intel.

UPDATE: Just saw the above post. You need to check if this RAM you have is compatible with any decent mobo for Ryzen.

 

[Abdullah Aman]

I'd go for Ryzen 1600X or 1700X depending on the badget and buy better GPU or PSU or bigger SSD with the money earned from not getting the intel.

UPDATE: Just saw the above post. You need to check if this RAM you have is compatible with any decent mobo for Ryzen.

yes it is compitible with ryzen or Intel

 

[cucker tarlson]

What a surprise it is to see that now that this security flaw has been revealed AMD is the only option for guys who chose FX over Core

 

[notb]

yes it is compitible with ryzen or Intel

Just go Intel - it'll be way easier to live with. And since you're into Android Studio, going Ryzen is just asking for trouble and unnecessary workarounds.

As for RAM... well... it may/should work, but imagine a situation it doesn't and you have to buy a new set. You'll be near a X299 budget...

 

[Vayra86]

Definitely 8700K

Only if you need +100 FPS. If its a 60fps / 1440p or higher res target you have, Ryzen is MUCH more cost effective and will perform exactly the same.

The 8600k/8700k are only good for high refresh gaming, anything below that, doesn't use the extra Ghz. For all his other tasks, the extra threads will be much more helpful than high single thread performance. At lower price.