# i5 8400 or Ryzen 1600



## Techtu (Oct 17, 2017)

I'm pretty torn, I was set on Ryzen until Coffee Lake got released! I don't upgrade my rig very often, I do plan on upgrading the CPU in a few years though, that's why I wanted Ryzen in the first place as I knew Zen 2 will offer more. Now I'm thinking how much more can Zen 2 actually offer? Will it beat the current flagship i7 8700K that I could upgrade to in a few years or will it offer more than that? If Zen 2's lineup is highly likely to offer something more than the i7 8700K then it makes sense to stick with a Ryzen for now as budget is limited and always will be. The rig won't likely ever be used outside of the desktop use or gaming.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 17, 2017)

Yep it's a tough time. I would wait and watch benchmarks. At least for a couple of weeks I know Ryzen had a memory issues in the beginning. Have those been resolved?


----------



## Techtu (Oct 17, 2017)

Jetster said:


> Yep it's a tough time. I would wait and watch benchmarks. At least for a couple of weeks I know Ryzen had a memory issues in the beginning. Have those been resolved?



Yes, some boards are able to reach 3400mhz and beyond now.


----------



## hapkiman (Oct 17, 2017)

i5 8400- not the most authoritative site on the web, but his logic is sound.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/12/intels-core-i5-8400-review/


----------



## ASOT (Oct 17, 2017)

Even if is new i5 8400 still lacks behind Ryzen..get 1600 or 1700 and the long path is Yours!


----------



## mad1394 (Oct 17, 2017)

ASOT said:


> Even if is new i5 8400 still lacks behind Ryzen..get 1600 or 1700 and the long path is Yours!



Long path to what? Someone please explain this need to keep your motherboard for the next cpu ugrade.
8400 is the logical choice at the moment as the best budget cpu.


----------



## EntropyZ (Oct 17, 2017)

While the i5-8400 is great, I don't see any point pairing it with a Z370 board, because those are the only motherboards that are out right now and the cheapest one will set you back a bit more. Strange how the other chipset boards are delayed.

A B350 board will do overclocking and will be kinda cheap depending on where you get it. The on-board sound is probably going to be strapped with older Realtek codec, which in my experience isn't good in 2017, it's OK but don't expect the on-board sound to be good unless you opt for motherboards that have ALC1220 codec which are probably nearing the $100 mark.

The AM4 socket will live on at least until 2020. Intel is probably going to switch pin count or their placement the next time they release the other generation. It's not so bad if you have an overclockable CPU, but good luck trying to get even turbo frequencies to be good on Coffee Lake. And then again the K parts are already pushed pretty far in terms of clocks already, without delidding them, you can't overclock more than 100-300MHz on the stock TIM they used between the die and the heatspreader.

Current Ryzen gen is limited to 3.8-4.1GHz on clocks. In my experience I keep my R5 1600 at 3.8GHz because I can set a really low voltage and keep a good overclock while having thermals in check, I do run a closed loop cooler though. 3200MHz memory is probably pretty expensive, you can sometimes find lower clocked memory modules that can overclock, but the memory controller on the CPU is picky sometimes and might not run the desired clock speed unless it is guaranteed to run it.

For Intel you have to have both the CPU and motherboard that can support overclocking in order to get anything higher than 2666MHz on the memory. If you are planning to upgrade to the i7 later, you might have to invest in a Z370 board regardless.

For gaming you can get extra 5-10FPS on games on lower resolutions with Kaby/Coffee Lake CPU, it's worth it to hit near 144FPS if you have the monitor to refresh that fast. If you don't plan on high-FPS, I think the R5 1600 extra SMT cores trump the i5-8400 from a longevity standpoint.

I've been on the i5-2400 before, but I could overclock that to some degree. It lasted quite a while and going to R5 1600 was a big jump in performance, but some games still prefer faster clock speeds over core count. A lot of older titles still love Intel's better single-thread, but now that Ryzen is pretty close in terms of that (it's pretty equal to Haswell chips and people are still happy with their 4790K's). It's not much of a big deal, especially if you're gaming over 1080p.

So be aware of those factors. In the end, you probably want a good price-performance ratio and right now Ryzen 5 1600 delivers, *until *Intel decides to release lower-end motherboards, Ryzen is the better choice.

It's a great shame Intel locked down most SKU overclocking. I always like to entertain the idea of the i5-8400 being OC'd, it would be a complete beast. But it will never happen, because that would cut into sales of their other CPU's and they don't want that.


----------



## Techtu (Oct 17, 2017)

EntropyZ said:


> While the i5-8400 is great, I don't see any point pairing it with a Z370 board, because those are the only motherboards that are out right now and the cheapest one will set you back a bit more. Strange how the other chipset boards are delayed.
> 
> A B350 board will do overclocking and will be kinda cheap depending on where you get it. The on-board sound is probably going to be strapped with older Realtek codec, which in my experience isn't good in 2017, it's OK but don't expect the on-board sound to be good unless you opt for motherboards that have ALC1220 codec.
> 
> So be aware of those factors.



Either I go for will have a future CPU upgrade,  Zen 2 on the AMD side and as I mentioned for the Intel it would have to be the currently released 8700K so I higher end board on either platform is something I'm kean on anyway.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 17, 2017)

In a few years, see whats out then. I dont get the thinking of holding on to tech for so long...unless budget constrained.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> In a few years, see whats out then. I dont get the thinking of holding on to tech for so long...unless budget constrained.



It doesn't seem to matter with CPUs as much, from what I can tell. Seems people do quite well with 5/6th gen Intel. I imagine that will continue being the case for current chips.


----------



## EntropyZ (Oct 17, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> It doesn't seem to matter with CPUs as much, from what I can tell. Seems people do quite well with 5/6th gen Intel. I imagine that will continue being the case for current chips.


It's better to invest in a better graphics card anyway. That's what games are really going to benefit from. Unless they are CPU bound, which not many of them are.

Those 5% performance improvements each gen are sending everyone and their cat into panic mode sometimes and people start selling their CPU+MB combo immediately. I think this only applies to people that are running best Intel everything and have money to drop, but the point stands.

Skylake/Kaby Lake are still very good, especially the i7's, hell even Ivy Bridge and Haswell kick ass (though increased core count for those parts is desired...), because Intel didn't improve much in the raw performance, performance per watt is more important now.


----------



## ppn (Oct 17, 2017)

You won't be able to upgrade to current flagship i7 8700K in a few years. It will be long gone, maybe second hand used, overvalued beaten to a pulp by unreasonable 1.4V and 5.Ghz and etc.. 

In its place some 10nm 8-Core with triple the transistor density of current 14nm. And it won't be supported by Z370. So that motherboard is junk.

Zen+ can be at least 10% faster moving to 12nm by clock speeds. and slightly smaller. They could join the dual 4-core CCX to a single 8-core CCX, until then it is just high core ping latency riddled junk..

And why do this upgrade now, prices of memory are insane. wait till 35$ per 8GB and wait for everything to transition to 10nm and build something really impressive. You have a pretty decent setup now.


----------



## mad1394 (Oct 17, 2017)

*Processor:* AMD 1090T
Sigh. If this is "decent" what would you define as in need of an upgrade?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 17, 2017)

Yeah, the last couple of gens offer little improvement...makes sense they still work fine. That said, its literally been slightly over 2 years for broadwell and skylake releases...not enough time to go stale. This dude is talking several years. Like sandybridge style released in 2011. Seems like thats how long he wants to keep it... while SB cpus are still potent, they are ptlutting a glass ceiling on many titles, particularly with higher end video cards.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 17, 2017)

If you want to stay on a platform for longer go for Ryzen, Intel is switching platforms almost every year. There isn't much a difference between those CPUs, but in my opinion a unlocked CPU is better. Ryzen also has SMT compared to none on the i5. Take the R5 1600 and overclock it on a decent mainboard. That's my opinion. You will get decent performance anyway.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2017)

Ryzen+ is due out next year, if you want true longetivity, aim for threadripper.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 17, 2017)

8400 + Z370 SLI Plus. Best price/perf for gaming ATM. You may still wait for B360, but that's next year. It's worth the wait tho, since if you're gonna use it for gaming then those 6 core i5s are really sweet spot for budget rigs. Still, if by any chance you can splurge to get a 8600K and Z370 SLI Plus, then they're worth it by all means.


----------



## wurschti (Oct 17, 2017)

Techtu said:


> I'm pretty torn, I was set on Ryzen until Coffee Lake got released! I don't upgrade my rig very often, I do plan on upgrading the CPU in a few years though, that's why I wanted Ryzen in the first place as I knew Zen 2 will offer more. Now I'm thinking how much more can Zen 2 actually offer? Will it beat the current flagship i7 8700K that I could upgrade to in a few years or will it offer more than that? If Zen 2's lineup is highly likely to offer something more than the i7 8700K then it makes sense to stick with a Ryzen for now as budget is limited and always will be. The rig won't likely ever be used outside of the desktop use or gaming.



The i5-8400 is without a doubt an excellent CPU, meaning that those cores are pretty smart and can at the same time turbo at 3.8GHz, something the Ryzen can't do, without manually OCing. If you like OCing than it's better to get the Ryzen. The upgrade path will be open for longer, the extra threads will help in some scenarios. But also keep in mind, with Ryzen you will need faster RAM, which will increase the cost of the build.

Personally I'd go with the i5-8400 because I feel for the same OCed performance of Ryzen, you get lower TDP, since OCing will use more power. When I was younger, I loved OCing etc, but now I just want a stable working machine. Maybe this will change in the future, I don't know. As of GPU both can handle high end GPUs, but I wouldn't put more than a GTX 1080 in there.

Edit: As far as Zen 2 goes, no one knows, but AMD has promised a lot of exciting stuff liek increased IPC, higher clocks etc. I would bet on 4GHz stock clocks on most/all models and 4.5-4.7GHz Turbo. I also believe they will increase clock count on the different Ryzen models, eg Ryzen 3 will be like R5, and R5 like R7 and maybe R7 like some TR models.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 17, 2017)

3rold said:


> The i5-8400 is without a doubt an excellent CPU, meaning that those cores are pretty smart and can at the same time turbo at *3.8GHz*, something the Ryzen can't do, without manually OCing. If you like OCing than it's better to get the Ryzen. The upgrade path will be open for longer, the extra threads will help in some scenarios. But also keep in mind, with Ryzen you will need faster RAM, which will increase the cost of the build.
> 
> Personally I'd go with the i5-8400 because I feel for the same OCed performance of Ryzen, you get lower TDP, since OCing will use more power. When I was younger, I loved OCing etc, but now I just want a stable working machine. Maybe this will change in the future, I don't know. As of GPU both can handle high end GPUs, but I wouldn't put more than a GTX 1080 in there.
> 
> Edit: As far as Zen 2 goes, no one knows, but AMD has promised a lot of exciting stuff liek increased IPC, higher clocks etc. I would bet on 4GHz stock clocks on most/all models and 4.5-4.7GHz Turbo. I also believe they will increase clock count on the different Ryzen models, eg Ryzen 3 will be like R5, and R5 like R7 and maybe R7 like some TR models.


The all core turbo isn't guaranteed, that's why we had this ~ On Intel's Decision to no Longer Disclose All-core Turbo

Basically 3.8GHz on all cores is like the speed guaranteed only in an ideal scenario, especially considering the cheapo cooler Intel sells them along with. So while the stock 8400 would likely be faster at stock vs 1600, once OCed I'd expect the 1600 to be faster on avg, except in rare cases where ST performance matters, even then it'd be real close.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 17, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> asically 3.8GHz on all cores is like the speed guaranteed only in an ideal scenario


I've assambled 5 computers with 8400s. 3 with stock coolers. All 8400s reached 3800 on all cores.
The only way it would drop is if it reaches critical temps

All 8400s are the same, you won't see one running below that


----------



## Cvrk (Oct 17, 2017)

i5 for the love of GOD! Cuz i lost the again....first it was with Amd RX series and the useless FreeSync. and now with the new 1700x, witch is also useless.
When will i ever learn ?! Problem is.... nobody kinda supports. They just argue on no valid facts. In the end the decision is just yours. I watched so many reviews, decided to go with Amd... and i was wrong!
Amd sucks! Intel is the only way to go.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 17, 2017)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> I've assambled 5 computers with 8400s. 3 with stock coolers. All 8400s reached 3800 on all cores.
> The only way it would drop is if it reaches critical temps
> 
> All 8400s are the same, *you won't see one running below that*


They will because they are specced for it, but even Intel will not back them to run @3.8 on all cores all the time.

They can when the power consumption exceeds 65W over a sustained period, I don't think temp is the only criteria which determines turbo, at least from whatever Intel said.


----------



## Frick (Oct 17, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> i5 for the love of GOD! Cuz i lost the again....first it was with Amd RX series and the useless FreeSync. and now with the new 1700x, witch is also useless.
> When will i ever learn ?! Problem is.... nobody kinda supports. They just argue on no valid facts. In the end the decision is just yours. I watched so many reviews, decided to go with Amd... and i was wrong!
> Amd sucks! Intel is the only way to go.



Why's the 1700X useless? If you bought it for superior gaming perfomance (which is what I assume you were based on your lingo) you obviously didn't read reviews. Ditto with Polaris.

Personally I'd go with a cheap B350 motherboard and the 1600X, which is as much as the 1600 now where I live. But yeah the i5 8400 is a beast, and it's a wee bit cheaper than the 1600.


----------



## wurschti (Oct 17, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> The all core turbo isn't guaranteed, that's why we had this ~ On Intel's Decision to no Longer Disclose All-core Turbo
> 
> Basically 3.8GHz on all cores is like the speed guaranteed only in an ideal scenario, especially considering the cheapo cooler Intel sells them along with. So while the stock 8400 would likely be faster at stock vs 1600, once OCed I'd expect the 1600 to be faster on avg, except in rare cases where ST performance matters, even then it'd be real close.



But you can still OC it lol 
https://proclockers.com/reviews/cpus/intel-core-i5-8400-cpu-review/page/0/4

tbh I'm not a fan of what Intel does, but AMD is also not playing fair with this whole GPU thing. Prices have skyrocketed and this falls on our shoulders. The market is pretty f'ed up right now.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 17, 2017)

3rold said:


> But you can *still OC* it lol
> https://proclockers.com/reviews/cpus/intel-core-i5-8400-cpu-review/page/0/4
> 
> tbh I'm not a fan of what Intel does, but AMD is also not playing fair with this whole GPU thing. Prices have skyrocketed and this falls on our shoulders. The market is pretty f'ed up right now.


Actually the *multiplier goes down to 39* when you OC the BCLK, CPUz is right, core temp is likely reporting the wrong frequency. I've seen this elsewhere as well, all this just to get a 100 or 200 MHz OC is not worth it IMO.

I'd get the 8400 as a low(er) power option, for sure, if I want something slightly more powerful I'd pick the 1600 & also because *I like to OC*.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Oct 17, 2017)

I am watching this thread as i am debating between i5 8400/8600k vs 1600/1600x next year or get a used i7 4790.


----------



## wurschti (Oct 17, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> Actually the *multiplier goes down to 39* when you OC the BCLK, CPUz is right, core temp is likely reporting the wrong frequency. I've seen this elsewhere as well, all this just to get a 100 or 200 MHz OC is not worth it IMO.
> 
> I'd get the 8400 as a low(er) power option, for sure, if I want something slightly more powerful I'd pick the 1600 & also because *I like to OC*.



Yep, that's a great choice. Also the upgrade path is open for much longer than Intels.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 17, 2017)

kurosagi01 said:


> I am watching this thread as i am debating between i5 8400/8600k vs 1600/1600x next year or get a used i7 4790.


Well if you aren't in any hurry, just wait for AMD's PR & the rumored 8c CFL. There's very good chance you'll get even better VFM next year.


----------



## hat (Oct 17, 2017)

I'd go with the i5 8400, but I'd be waiting until the cheap motherboards come out. No reason to put that chip in a high end z370 board.

Of course this socket/chipset is most likely already at a dead end, but will you really be upgrading that soon anyway?


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 17, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> They will because they are specced for it, but even Intel will not back them to run @3.8 on all cores all the time.



And again, They will. All CPUs have the same frequency settings. Not one Kaby lake decided to go bellow the others in working requency just because. Even though they all ran higher than intel's official spec


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2017)

If you oc I wouldn't spend on intel for a non k part at all, you are just limiting yourself. Intel swiches sockets almost yearly now.

I'd Honestly say AM4, Skt 2066, or TR4 would be a better choice...


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 17, 2017)

Get the 1600 with a decent B350 motherboard and OC it. Best perf/price ratio no question about , you also a get a CPU that's more capable in general not just in games.

Or wait and see what the Zen refresh brings , I don't expect much but might be worthwhile.



Cvrk said:


> i5 for the love of GOD! Cuz i lost the again....first it was with Amd RX series and the useless FreeSync. and now with the new 1700x, witch is also useless.
> When will i ever learn ?! Problem is.... nobody kinda supports. They just argue on no valid facts. In the end the decision is just yours. I watched so many reviews, decided to go with Amd... and i was wrong!
> Amd sucks! Intel is the only way to go.



Troll much ? Or am I missing something ? Your comment makes 0 sense.


----------



## Cvrk (Oct 18, 2017)

Frick said:


> Why's the 1700X useless?


Not the Ryzen 1700x. More like Amd as a company.  Strange enough i had the same exact problems as Dmitry, with the exceptions of the external drives (cuz i don't own this). Nothing works on amd platform,and if it does it's only buy pure luck. Starting your computer one morning just to see it does not recognize your ssd... this is the sadness of amd. I don't need workarounds, and solutions.  I want a pc that just works. Intel is that pc . For the past decade everything has been made for Intel, if you got amd you're just hoping things will fit in and eventually work.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 18, 2017)

urk .... i would consider an option to a 1600/1600X only if it was a 8600K, since i would come from a 6600K tho for the price i would prefer to have 6C/12T instead of 6C/6T 

and changing mobo for changing mobo .... i rather go with the one that would support the next refresh  



Frick said:


> But yeah the i5 8400 is a beast, and it's a wee bit cheaper than the 1600.


beast ... are overrated (the use of the term "is a beast", is ) price consistency is also overrated .... the 8400 is as much as a  1600X where i live .... the 8600K is bound to be close to a 1700X and the 1600 is "the best budget CPU offering 6core and SMT"
tho if the 8400 was a "wee bit" (3€? really? well that's the price difference i see atm outside Switzerland)  cheaper for me too ... i would still go for the 1600 because 6C/12T and 16mb vs 9mb (even if HT/SMT are not really that useful ) and same TDP (or 1600X since 30w more is not that big ... that was rather what i expected for the 1600 alone .... since my 6600K is a 95w )

as far as looking benchmark .... i don't like biiiig result panel that make a 0.1-5-10fps difference seems worlds apart  

ofc if i had to choose between a 8600K and a 8400 ... i would go 8400, not much difference for the overprice 

but for the moment i would go AMD for the sake of supporting them (ok not GPU wise tho ... but for CPU they did a real good coming back even against CL that came after) and also because, even if my main domain is gaming ... i never know when i could fall into Ryzen's predilection domain (Rendering streaming encoding, etc etc etc )


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 18, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Nothing works on amd platform,and if it does it's only buy pure luck.* Starting your computer one morning just to see it does not recognize your ssd... this is the sadness of amd. I don't need workarounds, and solutions.  I want a pc that just works. Intel is that pc . *For the past decade everything has been made for Intel, if you got amd you're just hoping things will fit in and eventually work.



Are you serious right now? How is this specifically AMD's fault? LOTS of things could have caused that SSD to not be recognized, and this scenario is probably FAR more likely than it being specifically AMD's fault. But, right, I keep forgetting how you operate - simply blame AMD for everything, Intel is GOD, etc.,etc.


----------



## Apocalypsee (Oct 18, 2017)

hat said:


> I'd go with the i5 8400, but I'd be waiting until the cheap motherboards come out. No reason to put that chip in a high end z370 board.
> 
> Of course this socket/chipset is most likely already at a dead end, but will you really be upgrading that soon anyway?


I second this opinion. You better wait for a cheaper Coffee Lake motherboard. As you wait, Zen+ and/or Raven Ridge would be out/close to launch. You made a decision from there.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 18, 2017)

Gmr_Chick said:


> Are you serious right now? How is this specifically AMD's fault? LOTS of things could have caused that SSD to not be recognized, and this scenario is probably FAR more likely than it being specifically AMD's fault. But, right, I keep forgetting how you operate - simply blame AMD for everything, Intel is GOD, etc.,etc.


to be completely fair, not recognozing ssds will probably have to do with a buggy bios.
I kinda feel Cvrk. back in april I had a friend build himself a new system. I told him to go with R5 1600, X370 Prime and Corsair LPX DDR4. I said to him "you're gonna love this over the years, this is so much better for the future, just wait for the bios updaes and software patches". It's now been several months and he's still dealing with the bugs that plagued him since day one. He can't use his 3000MHz ram at marketed speed, 2933 works but has negative scaling (less fps rather than more in cpu intensive benches), and he's stuck at 15x multiplier if he tries to OC and change voltages. Sounds like AMD's fault to me.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 18, 2017)

as much as i hate rumor .... i wouldn't wait on cheaper intel mobo ...  latest rumor : the 350 series will make the CPU slower than if used with a 370 (probably/certainly just a rumor ... but who know .... it's Intel )

tho ... i doubt the "cheaper" from Intel would be cheaper than a B350 (or even a X370) also don't forget that even with a mere B350, you still have around 80% of a X370 (and still full OC settings, even if the potential is a little "weak" with Ryzen), while a B250 is rather a 55-60% of a Z270 and no OC potential (probably same "limitations" for 3XX )

also even the cheapest Ryzen is unlocked unlike the non K Intel



cucker tarlson said:


> to be completely fair, not recognozing ssds will probably have to do with a buggy bios.
> I kinda feel Cvrk. back in april I had a friend build himself a new system. I told him to go with R5 1600, X370 Prime and Corsair LPX DDR4. I said to him "you're gonna love this over the years, this is so much better for the future, just wait for the bios updaes and software patches". It's now been several months and he's still dealing with the bugs that plagued him since day one. He can't use his 3000MHz ram at marketed speed, 2933 works but has negative scaling (less fps rather than more in cpu intensive benches), and he's stuck at 15x multiplier if he tries to OC and change voltages. Sounds like AMD's fault to me.


well .... between 2 user with the same hardware but one has an issue and the other has none .... either it's a situation of luck .... or a user issue ....

i guess my friends are lucky then ... (they are QVL active reader i have to say .... and i am their counselor/assembler  )

btw i had the sames issues from time to time buuuuttt ... as much with Intel than AMD (if not a little bit more ...) do i say/write "intel sucks" or put the blame on them? nay .... not my style ... (let say a buggy bios release is the mobo manufacturer's fault usually)


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 18, 2017)

cucker tarlson said:


> to be completely fair, not recognozing ssds will probably have to do with a buggy bios.
> I kinda feel Cvrk. back in april I had a friend build himself a new system. I told him to go with R5 1600, X370 Prime and Corsair LPX DDR4. I said to him "you're gonna love this over the years, this is so much better for the future, just wait for the bios updaes and software patches". It's now been several months and he's still dealing with the bugs that plagued him since day one. He can't use his 3000MHz ram at marketed speed, 2933 works but has negative scaling (less fps rather than more in cpu intensive benches), and he's stuck at 15x multiplier if he tries to OC and change voltages. Sounds like AMD's fault to me.




Actually, I'd blame it more on the company that makes the motherboard, as they are the ones putting out the actual BIOS. Plus, keep in mind, the AM4 platform, while having greatly improved stability-wise now compared to launch, is still new and maturing. I understand that's not an excuse, but people can't tell me they weren't expecting problems with it. That's why it's crucial that people keep their BIOS updated, especially when dealing with a completely new platform. Of course, sometimes said updates can actually break more than they fix...


----------



## Melvis (Oct 19, 2017)

Id vote the Ryzen, it might not be as quick in games until you over clock it but overall its a better CPU and the platform is more future proof at this stage anyway.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i5-8600k-processor-review,1.html


----------



## mad1394 (Oct 19, 2017)

8400 wins the out of the box battle in gaming performance. Also if AMD does change its socket for Zen2  I will lmao. Platform platform platform..."you can keep your am4 motherboard for the next 10 years"
You should learn not to trust what companies promise. I learned my lesson from MSI earlier.


----------



## Loosenut (Oct 19, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Id vote the Ryzen, it might not be as quick in games until you over clock it but *overall its a better CPU and the platform is more future proof at this stage anyway.*



^My thoughts exactly


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 19, 2017)

AMD has kept up with CPU updates for old sockets, AM2+ CPUs could work in many AM2 mobos, same with AM3+CPUs in AM3 sockets.

Ryzen+ , Ryzen 2, Ryzen 3, Ryzen 4, (Ryzen 2+, 3+, 4+, 5, 5+ all speculative) I see AMD improving the cpus while giving older board users upgrades.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Oct 19, 2017)

I vote Ryzen


----------



## lyndonguitar (Oct 19, 2017)

i just read this review earlier, and this says that the 8400 is way faster than 1600x,. https://www.techspot.com/review/1505-intel-core-8th-gen-vs-amd-ryzen/page4.html


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 19, 2017)

lyndonguitar said:


> i just read this review earlier, and this says that the 8400 is way faster than 1600x,. https://www.techspot.com/review/1505-intel-core-8th-gen-vs-amd-ryzen/page4.html


mmhhhh.....? the average is different...

slight error in the pictures, tho my following thought remain

even for 1080p or above .... the minima fps of the 1600/1600X is not "way under" nor is the max (as long as it's above 100fps and the difference doesn't exceed 30)


----------



## mad1394 (Oct 19, 2017)

This is the image I am seeing at the end of the article...where did you get that from?


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 19, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Id vote the Ryzen, it might not be as quick in games until you over clock it but overall its a better CPU and the platform is more future proof at this stage anyway.



lol, how well was the phenom II x 6, bulldozer and piledriver in future proofing.  This is th estandard AMD response, it doesn't work great but down the road it will because we all know technology gets quicker as it ages...


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 19, 2017)

kurosagi01 said:


> I am watching this thread as i am debating between i5 8400/8600k vs 1600/1600x next year or get a used i7 4790.



For gaming; the i7-4790 (I assumed OC), i5-8400 and Ryzen 1600 (avoid the 1600x unless you don't want to OC then avoid the 1600) will offer the same ballpark performance and all will most likely need a platform upgrade around the same time.  If you need more multi-threaded performance the Ryzen chips have an edge there.

My personal opinion if I was going to wait a year; all the chips are overkill for modern gaming yet none really wow you like the 2500k when it came out.  If I could score a used i7-4790 system I would and avoid paying for the current state of overpriced  DDR4 ram and video cards.  I would see if AMD can actually create a chip with better IPC then Ryzen or will they just release re-branded Ryzen chips with a slight OC (think pilederiver chips).  I would also see if Intel can create a chip with better IPC as their current releases have been lateral improvements since skylake.

Otherwise most sites like PCgamer, techspot, and TPU are calling the i5-8400 the best gaming chip on the current market.  If I could secure one without paying a premium for it I would go in that direction.  You can always have an upgrade path to 8700 down the road as all Ryzen CPUs offer the same gaming performance from 1600 on once you hit the same frequency.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Oct 19, 2017)

mad1394 said:


> This is the image I am seeing at the end of the article...where did you get that from?


Griever's screenshot is weird AF. it's like there was a switcheroo to favor the Ryzen. even the 1800X was switched to be BETTER than 7700k and 8700k, which we know it isn't(in gaming). Gonna read the article again

EDIT: Reading the comments, there was a mistake in the average pics, Griever seemed to have seen the wrong version, they have since corrected it, displaying that 8400 > 1600 that I was saying


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 19, 2017)

corrected the previous post, tho i stay on Ryzen 
mmhhhh.... yet the difference isn't huge at all even with the one from the article ....

that article conclusion is valide only for a 8400 at 190$ (the one i see are .... 230$) and the 1600/1600X 210/240$ (the one i see are ... 199 and 220$ )
situational indeed ... for me the 1600 (even the 1600X) are a far better choice than a 8400

also .... 720p results ....  ....



> Conclusion: An interesting comparison comparing all angles of cost and performance in order to evaluate what's only important to a pure gamer that plans to play relatively current/old generation games that are not GPU bound I.e. 720p. Unfortunately very few folks fall into this category. Over the next year, we'll see games that will utilize multiple cores for various purposes other than simply running the game engine. Also a key benefit of the Ryzen platform is being able to upgrade to Zen2 in an affordable manner which cannot be said for intel's next 'lake' platform. Discarding the 720p results, Ryzen is a clear winner. Factoring in newer game titles Ryzen is a winner again. Accounting for overall system performance outside of gaming and future proofing your investment Ryzen is the winner again.


that comment is right nonetheless


----------



## dir_d (Oct 19, 2017)

AMD is keeping the socket through 2020, i feel it would benefit someone like the OP more than then intel rig.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Oct 19, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> corrected the previous post, tho i stay on Ryzen
> mmhhhh.... yet the difference isn't huge at all even with the one from the article ....
> 
> that article conclusion is valide only for a 8400 at 190$ (the one i see are .... 230$) and the 1600/1600X 210/240$ (the one i see are ... 199 and 220$ )
> ...



there are 1080p and 1440p results though, scroll down.

anyway, 720p results is to show the REAL power of the CPU. it's quite useless to compare higher resolutions because the workload gets pushed to the GPU even more. so for longevity, in the next few years, when GPUs get stronger and stronger, The gap between the 8400 and the 1600 will only widen and the 8400 will definitely last longer. also the 8400 is cheaper on average, but the cheap motherboards I think won't come until next year, so there's that. 

Zen+ is rumored to be increased clockspeeds of the Ryzen series, so they'll be better in gaming than Ryzen and will finally match up to Intel levels of gaming performance. I hope., so that's another thing to consider(because you can ditch the 1600 by then if you buy one now, no need to change mb)


----------



## hat (Oct 19, 2017)

I keep seeing people praise ryzen for overclocking potential... And while it's nice they let us do that, it's kind of a moot point when the i5 8400 already runs at 3.8 out of the box, which is the same speed one could expect from ryzen, maybe a nice even 4.0 if you're lucky.

I like amd and am rather discontented with Intel for the way they're running their business and the products they put out, but Intel is still just better.


----------



## siluro818 (Oct 20, 2017)

Well first of all, I'd never buy a CPU that has SMT disabled just because the company felt like it for the same money that I can get double the threads.
Either give me the hardware OR give me the discount.
But anyway, that's just me.

Now a lot of people keep running on the "Intel is better" mantra, but better for what exactly?
Just look at those TPU benchmarks.
A 1600 Ryzen destroys the 8400 in pretty much any real-life software scenario, whereas for games the 8400 will indeed deliver more FPS in the majority of titles, BUT (with the exception of Hitman) these are 5-15 FPS in 1080p where you already have the game running with 100+ FPS in most cases. What's the actual point of that? None.
Even if you don't do anything, but game there's no reason to get the 8400. EVEN if you don't consider your future upgrade paths.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 20, 2017)

hat said:


> I keep seeing people praise ryzen for overclocking potential... And while it's nice they let us do that, it's kind of a moot point when the i5 8400 already runs at 3.8 out of the box, which is the same speed one could expect from ryzen, maybe a nice even 4.0 if you're lucky.
> 
> I like amd and am rather discontented with Intel for the way they're running their business and the products they put out, but Intel is still just better.



I tested a ryzen 1400 (4c 4t) vs my i7 3770k (also 4c 4t) - the ryzen at 3.85Ghz perfectly matched the i7 at 4.7ghz, except games with GPU settings at minimum, where the i7 got 10% more at best

they may clock lower, but they're more efficient per clock too. I ran a lot of synthetic benches between the two setups, and games often showed improvements on ryzen where benches showed intel in the lead - everythings intel optimised in the benchmarks, which throws some results off.
(big hardware changes, havent updated my specs yet)


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 20, 2017)

siluro818 said:


> Well first of all, I'd never buy a CPU that has SMT disabled just because the company felt like it for the same money that I can get double the threads.
> Either give me the hardware OR give me the discount.
> But anyway, that's just me.
> 
> ...



Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 20, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> and now with the new 1700x, witch is also useless.



You see the Ryzen 1700X as useless?  Mine chews through WCG work units like a hot knife through butter.
Gaming with it is great too.


----------



## londiste (Oct 20, 2017)

siluro818 said:


> Well first of all, I'd never buy a CPU that has SMT disabled just because the company felt like it for the same money that I can get double the threads.
> Either give me the hardware OR give me the discount.


But you DO get a discount. 8400 is considerably cheaper than 8700.



siluro818 said:


> Now a lot of people keep running on the "Intel is better" mantra, but better for what exactly?
> Just look at those TPU benchmarks.
> A 1600 Ryzen destroys the 8400 in pretty much any real-life software scenario, whereas for games the 8400 will indeed deliver more FPS in the majority of titles, BUT (with the exception of Hitman) these are 5-15 FPS in 1080p where you already have the game running with 100+ FPS in most cases. What's the actual point of that? None.
> Even if you don't do anything, but game there's no reason to get the 8400. EVEN if you don't consider your future upgrade paths.


Threaded performance is not everything and you might be surprised how little people actually use well-threaded applications. Even threads in this forum are mostly targeted directly to gaming. OP of this thread:





Techtu said:


> The rig won't likely ever be used outside of the desktop use or gaming.



But OK, lets look at TPU benchmarks:
- Scientific/Synthetic are not relevant to even production-minded of us.
- MP3 encoding is essentially single-threaded, Ryzen has no game there.
- Video encoding - h.264 1600x is 2 seconds faster, 1600 2 seconds slower than 8400. Whatever h.265 does differently, Intel is slightly faster there overall.
- Photoshop, Word, Excel, Powerpoint - 1600(x) loses to 8400.
- 7Zip 1600 is faster in compressing, much faster in decompressing (7Zip decompression is a strong point for Ryzen overall).
- WinRAR - 8400 is faster.
- Antivirus/Java/SQL are strange for benchmarks but OK. AV 8400 faster, Java/SQL 1600 faster.
- Blender/Cinebench - 1600 is faster. Euler - 8400 is faster.
- Web and Gaming is squarely to 8400.
When we are talking about desktop and gaming, 8400 does look better here.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 20, 2017)

londiste said:


> But you DO get a discount. 8400 is considerably cheaper than 8700.
> 
> Threaded performance is not everything and you might be surprised how little people actually use well-threaded applications. Even threads in this forum are mostly targeted directly to gaming. OP of this thread:
> 
> ...



poor selection, having to swap boards for a new cpu just about yearly is stupid.


----------



## londiste (Oct 20, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> poor selection, having to swap boards for a new cpu just about yearly is stupid.


While you are technically right, are you honestly sure it is that relevant? Generally, upgrades tend to be over several years and both CPU and motherboard will get replaced together and after several years.

Just look at OP or you or me. OP is on a motherboard and cpu from 2010. You are on a motherboard and CPU from 2012. I am on motherboard and CPU from 2015. It has been a little while for OP so he needs to think about an upgrade. There is nothing available for his current motherboard worth upgrading to and has not been for years. Are you thinking about an upgrade? You might, but that will mean replacing motherboard as well as CPU (and some other things). I have no incentive to think about an upgrade. My current platform is also pretty much dead and any upgrade will mean both new mobo and CPU.

Replacing CPUs yearly is stupid. Well, not stupid but just an expensive hobby and not performance- or value-driven.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 20, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> lol, how well was the phenom II x 6, bulldozer and piledriver in future proofing.  This is th estandard AMD response, it doesn't work great but down the road it will because we all know technology gets quicker as it ages...



What are you talking about? we are not talking about back then we are talking about now, Ryzen, please keep on track!

The Phenom II X6 was actually very good at the time, bulldozer wasnt great but piledriver was not bad at all.  What are you talking about? everyone knows Ryzen works really well, better then anyone expected actually. Ryzen only needs a frequency pump to put it basically on par with Intel in gaming or single threaded tasks which should be addressed next yr hopefully. 

FYI my 8350 has actually gotten faster over time with how software can now make use of 8cores alot better then it ever used to, even in games it has closed the gap alot from back in the days against the i7-2600.


----------



## Komshija (Oct 20, 2017)

Ryzen 5 will be not only cheaper but also more powerful and more future proof. AMD will continue with their AM4 platform for a few years, while Intel might move from LGA1151 (v3) onto new platform during the next year. There's not much sense buying Intel these days, because you can get more for your money from AMD. The fact that Intel's top "mainstream" CPU can offer some 7 or 8 FPS more in certain games that's definitely not worth the extra price. AMD's are right now the best possible bang for the buck.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 20, 2017)

londiste said:


> While you are technically right, are you honestly sure it is that relevant? Generally, upgrades tend to be over several years and both CPU and motherboard will get replaced together and after several years.
> 
> Just look at OP or you or me. OP is on a motherboard and cpu from 2010. You are on a motherboard and CPU from 2012. I am on motherboard and CPU from 2015. It has been a little while for OP so he needs to think about an upgrade. There is nothing available for his current motherboard worth upgrading to and has not been for years. Are you thinking about an upgrade? You might, but that will mean replacing motherboard as well as CPU (and some other things). I have no incentive to think about an upgrade. My current platform is also pretty much dead and any upgrade will mean both new mobo and CPU.
> 
> Replacing CPUs yearly is stupid. Well, not stupid but just an expensive hobby and not performance- or value-driven.



Cpus are drop in, don't require a driver reinstall or os format, mobos do. ryzen has an upgrade path, intels 2066 skt has an upgrade path. Msdt for intel don't...


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 21, 2017)

I get so tired of this "you like X so you must be a fan boi" BS -- on both sides, mind you, but I've noticed Intel fans tend to be a bit more obnoxious about it, even going so far as to call people who buy AMD "poor" just because they don't feel the need to blow X amount of money on something that, at best, is only a couple steps ahead of (insert AMD CPU here) for a sh**load more money. Take Coffee Lake for instance. You can't find nearly any of them (with the exception of maybe the lowly i3's, but "gamers" don't want those) and the ones that you do manage to find demand a SIGNIFCANT premium. All I gotta say is if you're dumb/impatient enough to fork over said premium (especially if you're already on Skylake or Kaby Lake) for a CPU, whether it be CFL i7 or i5 just to have an additional two cores and petty bragging rights is just stupid. Intel's got you eating out of their hand, for sure. Hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 21, 2017)

Clearly intel has pretty much hit its fastest and has done for awhile now, Ryzen is a brand new arch which has room to grow, the past is living proof of this from Phenom to Phenom II and bulldozer to Piledriver and excavator. The difference is this time Ryzen is already very close to intel from the word go.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2017)

No.. wasnt considering next gen for either. Just talking software optimizations. I wouldnt expect miracles out of it (ryzen). 

For zen2 or w/e, i dont expect more than 5-10% gains. Which, is good, and should be spot on with current intel or beating it. I hope it gets higher clocks as well.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 22, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> No.. wasnt considering next gen for either. Just talking software optimizations. I wouldnt expect miracles out of it (ryzen).
> 
> For zen2 or w/e, i dont expect more than 5-10% gains. Which, is good, and should be spot on with current intel or beating it. I hope it gets higher clocks as well.



Ryzen + is expected next year


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 23, 2017)

Yep..but that isnt zen2. I expect less out of "+" than i do zen2. Perhaps increased clocks and some overclocking headroom, minimal ipc gains at best.


----------



## Regeneration (Oct 23, 2017)

Both CPUs offer somehow similar performance, but Intel CPUs are normally better for overclocking, even locked ones.

For example, your current AMD 1090T, I had one of those, poor overclocker, tcase max 62c, managed to boost it by only 200-300 MHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 23, 2017)

Gmr_Chick said:


> I get so tired of this "you like X so you must be a fan boi" BS -- on both sides, mind you, but I've noticed Intel fans tend to be a bit more obnoxious about it, even going so far as to call people who buy AMD "poor" just because they don't feel the need to blow X amount of money on something that, at best, is only a couple steps ahead of (insert AMD CPU here) for a sh**load more money. Take Coffee Lake for instance. You can't find nearly any of them (with the exception of maybe the lowly i3's, but "gamers" don't want those) and the ones that you do manage to find demand a SIGNIFCANT premium. All I gotta say is if you're dumb/impatient enough to fork over said premium (especially if you're already on Skylake or Kaby Lake) for a CPU, whether it be CFL i7 or i5 just to have an additional two cores and petty bragging rights is just stupid. Intel's got you eating out of their hand, for sure. Hook, line, and sinker.


The $120 difference (MSRP) of 8700K when compared to 1600X isn't that much when purchasing a new system for over a grand or even for a cpu/mobo/ram combo. With that, you receive a few % faster CPU in IPC, 100MHz faster base clock, 400 MHz faster all core boost, and a 700 Mhz single core speed difference. Many 8700K can see 5GHz all cores with dual-rad AIO...a 1GHz difference with the 1600x maxed out on its overclocking too. Some math... that is a full 25% faster not including IPC.

Those can EASILY be worth it to many people. I am not saying there isn't a time or place for Ryzen, its a hell of a performer. On the flip side, for the same money, one can have an OCTO core (Ryzen 7 1700X) compared to the Intel for the same price. If the person uses the additional cores, its a no-brainer to me, go Ryzen. If not, the buyer needs to determine if the above earlier example is worth it. Or if cores don't matter, is a 300 Mhz base clock increase, 500 Mhz all core boost and 900 Mhz single core speed difference worth it. Again, if 8700K reaches 5 GHz all cores, that's a 1GHz advantage again with the 1700x maxed out.

It just depends on needs. Both are incredibly viable chips for the majority of users. If people are looking to save a money, there are only usage scenarios that should steer people away from Ryzen. On the other hand, if people want the (slightly) faster in IPC, higher clocked out of the box and better overclocker for more........................................is it really a hook, line, and sinker type deal? Is it really a "SIGNIFICANT" premium??? Seems there are plenty of circumstances where buyers wouldn't be a 'sucker' to choose the higher performing part.


----------



## mad1394 (Oct 23, 2017)

I think TPU needs to write an article on why high resolution gpu bound scenarios should not be used for cpu gaming benchmarks. Too many people seem to not know this/are in need of education on the matter.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 23, 2017)

mad1394 said:


> I think TPU needs to write an article on why high resolution gpu bound scenarios should not be used for cpu gaming benchmarks. Too many people seem to not know this/are in need of education on the matter.


The problem is not as much 1440p being a high res, as it is the choice of scenes. Even with a GTX 1080 at 1440p I often found myself bottlenecked by the CPU. If you have a game running at 70-100 fps but there's certain parts of it where the CPU gets hammered and fps drops to 50 then it's not very comfortable playing, even with g-sync. Pretty much every modern game that came out in the last year or two can be both insanely GPU or CPU intensive depending on settings and locations. Ryzens just don't cope well with certain locations at certain settings, Intel is the most consistent across the board. 4c/4t i5s often got hammerred by multi threaded games and showed low min fps and stutter, 6c/6t i5s are actually pretty kickass CPUs for current games, even the locked SKUs that run at close to 4GHz. Ryzen looks well suited for CPU intensive games with a high core count, but that doesn't always reflect the reality. Tests show inconsistent results from game to game and from location to location. Like in Watch Dogs 2, all 12 threads on R5 1600 are utilized, the GPU usage sits at 98%, and yet somehow the fps isn't there and it loses to i5 8400.


----------



## Techtu (Oct 24, 2017)

Wow what did I create by asking my question! 

Took me a fair while to read through all the comments but thank you for them. So far you guys between you sound exactly like what I've been thinking on the subject. So still no closer to a decision. I almost feel like I should go with the Intel build, something is pulling me towards it however I feel Ryzen and the platform may be more suited to me which doesn't help ofcourse! I'm on 6 cores now and yes its an old chip but I also find it hard upgrading to another 6 core CPU, stupid I know, the gains are obvious over my 1090T. I guess I want to see more when I upgrade? How silly is that.

EDIT: Not that it really makes any difference to what my system is upgrading from in the original post but I've updated my system specs to what I have now, the others listed was somewhat out of date as I've not been here awhile.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 24, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> Anyone who calls someone else "poor" based on their preference of PC tech is a loser.  My issue is with the whole AMD mind set of "it's not fast now but wait until it's optimized and it will be faster then" of delusional fan boys.  This has been the battle cry for AMD fan boys for years now and I've built just as many PCs with AMD (from Athlon 64 to Phenom II X4 and everything in-between) as I have with Intel over the decades.  AMD offered good performance for your money in the now but starting with the Phenom II X 6 performance I saw no reason to update from my OC Phenom II X 4 955.  Every message board you went to you heard, the X6 performance will be better in Windows 7, just wait and see yet it trailed the higher clock Phenom II x 4 in practically every task.  The i5-2500k came out and it was no a brainer to switch to that chip.  Then you had bulldozer come out and the AMD fan boy message was just wait and see until Win 7 gets optimized in the next patch and games will start using six core immediately because the new Xbox & PS4 are using AMD jaguar cores.  Never Happened.  Then Piledriver will fix everything, nope.  Windows 8 will fix everything, nope.  Windows 10?  Nope.



Heh, believe me, there are actually people out there who have that mindset, which, I agree, makes them a douchebag. Totally. And, now that you've explained your reasoning to me, I can understand where you're coming from, even if I don't entirely agree with you. But, to be fair, Windows 8 sucked no matter which CPU was running it, lol. I think 8 had the shortest lifetime out of all the Windows OS thus far. And 8.1 -- now with more Start button! -- wasn't much better. 



Techtu said:


> Wow what did I create by asking my question!



Lol, don't worry. Just add AMD Vs. Intel to that ever growing list of rivalries and passionate fans.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 24, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> The $120 difference (MSRP) of 8700K when compared to 1600X isn't that much when purchasing a new system for over a grand or even for a cpu/mobo/ram combo. With that, you receive a few % faster CPU in IPC, 100MHz faster base clock, 400 MHz faster all core boost, and a 700 Mhz single core speed difference. Many 8700K can see 5GHz all cores with dual-rad AIO...a 1GHz difference with the 1600x maxed out on its overclocking too. Some math... that is a full 25% faster not including IPC.



the last few words almost cover it, but just being 25% higher in clock speed doesnt mean its faster in reality.

My ryzens (1400 and 1700) match my 3770k, at about 800Mhz slower clock speeds - so while there very may well be a gap in intels favour, its not as large as the clock speed difference implies (and then theres the seperate argument, where that CPU performance only shows up in games in very specific high FPS circumstances)


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2017)

Mussels said:


> the last few words almost cover it, but just being 25% higher in clock speed doesnt mean its faster in reality.
> 
> My ryzens (1400 and 1700) match my 3770k, at about 800Mhz slower clock speeds - so while there very may well be a gap in intels favour, its not as large as the clock speed difference implies (and then theres the seperate argument, where that CPU performance only shows up in games in very specific high FPS circumstances)


Not going to split hairs on the butt dyno mention of performance. Empirically tested reviews, like tpus own, speak for itself. 
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/5.html

I dont want to split hairs here, but the point remains, according to reviews, single threaded clock for clock they are a bit slower in some tests. While scaling may not be 1:1 with clocks, its just a bigger sifference between the two. Everything i posted earlier was a fact. Not sure I could have played both sides to the middle better, honestly.

All i am saying is people will pay a slight (not "SIGNIFICANT" like gmr chk said) price premium for the generally better performing, always higher overclocking cpu. This does NOT mean ryzen is a slouch by any means!!!!! Just trying to put some perspective on things for those reading as the reality is the price premium isnt much if yoy are looking outside of the vacuum of cpu price only.


----------



## londiste (Oct 24, 2017)

ryzen ipc is roughly on par with haswell/broadwell, maybe slightly lower.
ivy is a bit slower.


----------



## Vlada011 (Oct 24, 2017)

I advice you to add little more for i5-8600K.
That real gaming CPU and I suppose he will become favorite CPU to many gamers.
No HT to destroy OC and sometimes make problems even for games. Pure 6 core and OC.
Difference is arround 35$. 500MHz OC is not small improvement.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Oct 24, 2017)

X vs X will exist as long as there is always competition,keeps the market healthy.
Nice example would be Android vs IOS, as much as i love and prefer Android OS and the fanboys will always argue about how good the hardware is etc. However it will never win in optimisation software department when comparing between the two despite the weaker hardware on paper.

People that upgrade phones yearly for the sake of what a milliseconds faster allowing you to send a text message or email? Not justifiable in my opinion which is now slowly happening with the average consumers noticing there is almost no need to upgrade so fast unless you have the cash.

As for the AMD vs Intel, again i have always leaned towards intel purely because of power consumption and software optimisation. But after building a Ryzen build for my partner(in signature) in real world situation in terms of web browsing and gaming which is mainly what i use my PC for, there is barely any difference if we are talking core vs core performance. 
Anything new will feel fast in my opinion and slowly feeling under-performing from age.


----------



## Vlada011 (Oct 24, 2017)

I still have some more confidence in Intel. Example i7-8700K or i7-5960X or i7-6900K over Ryzen 7.
I don't need more than 8 cores in best scenario.


----------



## HammerON (Oct 24, 2017)

Cleansed this thread up a bit.  Please back off the fan boy crap and stay on topic.  I edited/deleted quite a few posts so please be understanding if your post has been changed or removed.

Thank you and carry on.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 25, 2017)

Melvis said:


> What are you talking about? we are not talking about back then we are talking about now, Ryzen, please keep on track!
> 
> The Phenom II X6 was actually very good at the time, bulldozer wasnt great but piledriver was not bad at all.  What are you talking about? everyone knows Ryzen works really well, better then anyone expected actually. Ryzen only needs a frequency pump to put it basically on par with Intel in gaming or single threaded tasks which should be addressed next yr hopefully.
> 
> FYI my 8350 has actually gotten faster over time with how software can now make use of 8cores alot better then it ever used to, even in games it has closed the gap alot from back in the days against the i7-2600.



Unfortunately professional reviews have proven you wrong but I'm sure you are used to it already.  See the linked review by a professional not hyperbole, please learn the difference it will aid you later in life.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1474-ryzen-vs-older-budget-cpus/


----------



## Durvelle27 (Oct 25, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> Unfortunately professional reviews have proven you wrong but I'm sure you are used to it already.  See the linked review by a professional not hyperbole, please learn the difference it will aid you later in life.
> 
> https://www.techspot.com/review/1474-ryzen-vs-older-budget-cpus/


Man that really shows Piledrivers limits


----------



## ASOT (Oct 25, 2017)

Get the one wich is cheaper if money concern and problem for you,both offers great performance,no doubt ...

With intel u will have better gaming fps with amd u will have 6 threads on more.. and cheaper then intel(mobo/ram/cpu)


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 25, 2017)

I wish people would just go like "oh,okay,I guess these results are a new prespective on what I believe" when they see the actual test results instead of arguing with facts.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 26, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> Unfortunately professional reviews have proven you wrong but I'm sure you are used to it already.  See the linked review by a professional not hyperbole, please learn the difference it will aid you later in life.
> 
> https://www.techspot.com/review/1474-ryzen-vs-older-budget-cpus/



That is OC results, we are talking out of the box state, but nice try though.










As you can clearly see the gap has got alot closer over the yrs from the original days when  both these CPU's where released.

Can you please stop with your BS replies, this thread has already been cleaned up with your stupid comments. Thanks!


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 26, 2017)

Melvis said:


> That is OC results, we are talking out of the box state, but nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol, 4.4GHz is like not even trying on 2500K, they run 5GHz on air. Ryzen is 2017, SB is 2011, both 4c/4t, and 2500K wins.Comparing 2500K stock is retarded, this is probably the best overclocking chip ever. I ran mine @5050MHz on air, could go even higher if it wasn't for a $40 cooler.

But nice try to be another one of those AMD apologists though. Only way Ryzen can one up Intel's old chips is by core count on Ryzen 7 SKUs.


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 26, 2017)

Melvis said:


> That is OC results, we are talking out of the box state, but nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you post something from a professional review site, which would be a first in this thread, I will gladly reply but until then like others have already stated you are just posting fake YouTube reviews


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 26, 2017)

You were all asked 2 days ago to cut the fanboy nonsense and any references to it, clearly some struggle with comprehension so the reply bans are starting to flow nicely, after that it will be TPU sponsored vacations.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 26, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> You were all asked 2 days ago to cut the fanboy nonsense and any references to it, clearly some struggle with comprehension so the reply bans are starting to flow nicely, after that it will be TPU sponsored vacations.



Take my advice to everyone, been there done that with the Thread Bans, 30 days at a time.


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 26, 2017)

Techtu said:


> The rig won't likely ever be used outside of the desktop use or gaming.



Well desktop usage certainly isn't going to be impacted in any real way as, in my experience, the bottleneck there will always be the user.  With workstation type apps being absent from the decision making process, that just leaves gaming, Looking at TPUs review comparison of the two CPUs

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/19.html

"on both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads ... Against AMD's offerings, it [8400] wins the Ryzen 1600 fight with +5%"

"For gaming, things are different. Here, the i5-8400 breezes past all AMD Ryzens thanks to its high per-thread performance and the boost clock of 4.0 GHz. I find it surprising that there is very little difference between the i5-8400, i5-8600K, and i7-8700K in gaming, even at the highly CPU-limited scenario of 720p. This suggests that today's games see limited gains from more than four cores. It is good news for gamers on a budget because a Core i5-8400 will be completely sufficient to not bottleneck even the fastest graphics cards."


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Yeah, the last couple of gens offer little improvement...makes sense they still work fine. That said, its literally been slightly over 2 years for broadwell and skylake releases...not enough time to go stale. This dude is talking several years. Like sandybridge style released in 2011. Seems like thats how long he wants to keep it... while SB cpus are still potent, they are ptlutting a glass ceiling on many titles, particularly with higher end video cards.


I'm running a 2600k and a 1080 and I'm beating 6700ks with a 1070. Not sure about that ceiling yet. With that being said I hope to upgrade to a 1700x here soon.


----------



## Techtu (Nov 10, 2017)

So I'm pretty sure I want to stick with AMD and with a Ryzen 1600, I'm just unsure of the motherboard and RAM, I like two mainly. The Asus Prime Pro X370 and the Asrock Killer X370. what are your guys thouhgts between the two and what RAM would you put with the board, budget restricted for now so sticking with 8GB RAM which is fine for me anyway.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 10, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm running a 2600k and a 1080 and I'm beating 6700ks with a 1070. Not sure about that ceiling yet. With that being said I hope to upgrade to a 1700x here soon.


Lacks context....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 11, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Lacks context....


Context is the fact games are more GPU based than CPU based. 2600K is still VERY relevant in gaming.


----------



## Thefumigator (Nov 11, 2017)

Techtu said:


> So I'm pretty sure I want to stick with AMD and with a Ryzen 1600, I'm just unsure of the motherboard and RAM, I like two mainly. The Asus Prime Pro X370 and the Asrock Killer X370. what are your guys thouhgts between the two and what RAM would you put with the board, budget restricted for now so sticking with 8GB RAM which is fine for me anyway.



I like both of those motherboards, however I would check for the features, as how many M2 slots it got (if you are going to use M2), SATA ports, and their placement in the motherboard (some are poorly placed and sometimes are great) and other stuff. I usually read the manual to see how well it fits my needs. 
Just to mention an example, on my gigabyte motherboard I can update the bios under windows, while on my MSI board I have to use a flash drive. If I had known this I would have go for gigabyte. However the MSI got some fancy leds and looks gorgeous. So there you go. 

As for the RAM, it seems to me corsair has got those fast (3000Mhz) vengeance sticks ram at almost same cost as lower spec ram, but as you are in a budget, you will be fine with any pair of sticks as long as you get dual channel setup. Just update the bios so the ryzen cpu will run those sticks to its real speed. I had to do it on my AB350 gaming board for getting XMP support.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 12, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Context is the fact games are more GPU based than CPU based. 2600K is still VERY relevant in gaming.



the i5 range from the 2400 and up, are still relevant for gaming.
AMD fell behind til ryzen, intel changed nothing - so games were designed to work with common CPU performance.

Fortunately that means that ryzens per-core performance is still above average, with shittons more cores than average.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 12, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Context is the fact games are more GPU based than CPU based. 2600K is still VERY relevant in gaming.


depends. In enough titles, it shows its age. Particularly with highend cards.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 12, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> depends. In enough titles, it shows its age. Particularly with highend cards.



from firsthand experience, the RAM speed plays a large amount in feeding my GTX1080 - going from 1333 to 1866 was a large difference, 1866 to 2400 (on my 3770k i replaced it with) less so, but still measurable

It wasnt the CPU performance that held them back, it was the rest of the platform (DDR3 1866 max, 2x sata 3 ports, etc)


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 12, 2017)

Ddr3 wasnt really the culprit. Memory bandwidth, unless you amd ryzen or use integrated gpu, typically doesnt offer large increases. Ddr4 from 2133 to 3200 didnt make much of a difference, for example...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8959...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/8

2 770s...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8959...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/7

And ddr3....
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/7


If you have some other results, feel free to post them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 12, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ddr3 wasnt really the culprit. Memory bandwidth, unless you amd ryzen or use integrated gpu, typically doesnt offer large increases. Ddr4 from 2133 to 3200 didnt make much of a difference, for example...
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/8959...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/8
> 
> 2 770s...
> ...


Well doing real world comparisons I saw maybe a 5-10 FPS difference between the 2600K and a 6700K. That was the MOST in FPS difference and those were all well above 60FPS so it didn't make much of a difference.


----------



## Vario (Nov 12, 2017)

I think I'd just try to save for the 8700K.  It should be competitive for gaming for the next 5+ years.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 12, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well doing real world comparisons I saw maybe a 5-10 FPS difference between the 2600K and a 6700K. That was the MOST in FPS difference and those were all well above 60FPS so it didn't make much of a difference.


i mean, its the buyer's choice if they want to pay for an expensive card and lop off 10%(more? Less?) percent performance (going by fps isnt a great idea. 5-10 fps means something at 60 fps, not so much at 100+... talk in percent ).

 Sure a high end card will play 60 fps+, but, i dont see paying so much for a high-end card (1080+) and limiting it. Others may not care.


----------



## hat (Nov 13, 2017)

Vario said:


> I think I'd just try to save for the 8700K.  It should be competitive for gaming for the next 5+ years.



Agreed. That's what kept the 2500k/2600k going for so long. The platform was already strong, but the open endedness of the K platform made it last. I wish I had a K series CPU right now. I could run faster than 1333 ram, which is a pretty decent bottleneck, and I could clock my chip higher than 3.2GHz. I still wouldn't be thinking about upgrading. Since I'm held back by the locked, non-k CPU, I'm stuck with a slow core speed and slow RAM. The 8700k (or 8600k) will not face this issue.


----------



## Vario (Nov 13, 2017)

hat said:


> Agreed. That's what kept the 2500k/2600k going for so long. The platform was already strong, but the open endedness of the K platform made it last. I wish I had a K series CPU right now. I could run faster than 1333 ram, which is a pretty decent bottleneck, and I could clock my chip higher than 3.2GHz. I still wouldn't be thinking about upgrading. Since I'm held back by the locked, non-k CPU, I'm stuck with a slow core speed and slow RAM. The 8700k (or 8600k) will not face this issue.


  You would need a different motherboard too, right?  You could update your processor, might be like $50 out of pocket.  Maybe buy a used CPU ram mobo bundle and sell your whole setup for the same.

As far as K series, its not like the 8700K will be that much faster for having the K, it starts off at 4.7 turbo and I think all cores at 4.3? Most overclockers max out at 5.0 on typical cooling solutions.  Still, looks to be the first CPU in a while from Intel that might be worth upgrading from 1155 and definitely will extend its range over non K.


----------



## hat (Nov 13, 2017)

It's not just core speed that counts. It has been shown that faster ram has a noticeable impact on gaming and truly overall performance. That's the other thing the K platform offers - faster than standard ram. The i5 8400 supports ddr4 2666, but the sky is the limit with a K CPU. I'm not sure how much faster than 2666 ram makes a difference, or will in the future, with the 8600k or 8700k, but faster than 1333 damn sure makes a difference on the older platforms like sandy bridge.

As for your comment on the 8700k's overclockability, remember I'm comparing the overall performance level of the K platform with the standard i5 8400 based platform. The i5 8400 is only 3.8ghz all core turbo, period. Just because the 8700k doesn't overclock very far (because it starts off much faster) doesn't mean it won't be better than the locked i5 8400.
Maxing out at 5.0 still means 1200mhz faster across 6 cores than the i5 8400. And then there's the faster ram too.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 14, 2017)

playing pubg at 4k, i lost about 30FPS when my 3770k dropped from 2400 to 1333 on the ram due to a bios screwup

the actual hit will vary between the various platforms, but RAM speed definitely matters for feeding video cards at high resolutions (not for high FPS at low res like 1080p, so it doesnt show in standard benchmark programs that are all GPU load, and no VRAM load)


----------



## hat (Nov 14, 2017)

Mussels said:


> playing pubg at 4k, i lost about 30FPS when my 3770k dropped from 2400 to 1333 on the ram due to a bios screwup
> 
> the actual hit will vary between the various platforms, but RAM speed definitely matters for feeding video cards at high resolutions (not for high FPS at low res like 1080p, so it doesnt show in standard benchmark programs that are all GPU load, and no VRAM load)



That's what I'm talking about. There have been noticeable differences with faster RAM on the older platforms. Like I said I'm not sure what difference faster than DDR4 2666 makes, or will make in the future, but because of how good Sandy K was, I wouldn't want to buy into a limited platform again. If I had the money to upgrade right now I wouldn't settle for any less than the 8600k.


----------

