i5-8600k Vs i7-8700 Vs i5-8500 Vs Ryzen5 1600X Vs Ryzen5 2ndGen [ Please exclude OC ] With GTX 1060

[epsilon84]

This where you are wrong, bandwidth is very important of IPC efficiency and multicore performance benefits a lot from it. So no i5 8400 2666MT/s wont beat r5 1600 with 3200MT/s in most scenarios.

Umm, no, I'm not wrong: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-coffee-lake-s-core-i5-8400-i5-8600k-review_1

1080p/Titan X OC Core i5 8400 vs Ryzen 5 1600
DDR4 Frequency 2666MHz vs 3200MHz
Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High 131.1 vs 116.4
Crysis 3, Very High 129.3 vs 124.9
The Division, Ultra 135.7 vs 129.8
Far Cry Primal, Ultra 128.4 vs 91.8
Rise of the Tomb Raider DX12, Very High 121.6 vs 95.6
The Witcher 3, Ultra, No Hairworks 139.8 vs 106.1

 

[epsilon84]

And another one: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3086-intel-i5-8400-cpu-review-2666mhz-vs-3200mhz-gaming/page-4

Can we please debunk this myth now? Not even an overclocked R5 1600 @ 4.1GHz with DDR4 3200 is enough to beat an i5 8400 with DDR4 2666. A stock 1600 has no chance. Look at the stock 1600X (3.6GHz base) and subtract ~10% for the 1600 (3.2GHz) and you'll see why your claim is completely wrong.

Therefore for price/performance, an i5 8400 + DDR4 2666 + H/B series motherboard = clear winner in my books. That would be the value option, otherwise an extra $120 for a 8700 would bring it to a different tier of performance that no Ryzen CPU, current or gen 2, will reach.

 

[Gideon]

Regardless it still depends a lot on whether he plans to upgrade the CPU down the line or not.

Yes when getting the 8400 he could also upgrade to a 8700 or a 8700K at a later date, but those will still be super-expensive even after a couple of years. I mean 4690K still costs 270-350$ today, despite of being released in the first half of 2014.

In comparison a stock R5 2600 (non-x) goes neck-to-neck in geekbench with my 1700X (with 3466CL16 Memory). Considering the turbo (3.9) is very close to the 8400 and is actually working in games (unlike the 1600) the difference won't be all that big. Don't forget that the quoted GamersNexus review uses a 1080 Ti @ 1080p, slower GPUs will be a lot more GPU limited.

Drop in a Zen2 8-core in 2019, and it will destroy anything Coffee Lake (unless AMD majorly underdelivers).

 

[coercitiv]

As an R5 1600X and i7 8700 owner I have the following advice for the OP:

1. Aim for i7 8700 as long as your budget affords it without any compromise on the rest of your build (memory speed / latency, case & motherboard quality, storage etc). When choosing the 8700 factor in the price of a new cooler, the stock cooler will not suffice in certain loads & air flow situations (can be upgraded later, can guarantee you will want ot upgrade). Only opt for this CPU if you think it's worth to keep this system for a long time (3+ years), and make your motherboard choice accordingly (think about form factor for example, small PCs may be easier to repurpose in the future)
2. Even if you choose an Intel platform & H chipset, make sure your chosen memory is low latency (they have an XMP profile @ 1.35V). In the current market conditions the pricing will likely be identical, hence free performance. Choosing 3000/3200 memory and a chipset that can use it may actually be a good idea (it all depends on what parts you can find at the moment of purchase). Certain games will benefit from the extra RAM speed.
   
3. If you can't afford the i7, aim for either i5 8500 or R5 2600X. Both of them will be fine options, choose based on the best price for the CPU + motherboard combo. Don't worry about performance, they will both be fine for 1080/1440p gaming at 60Hz.
   
4. If you do not plan to use a separate soundcard, try to choose a MB with the newest sound codec (Realtek ALC 1220) - this is the first codec I used that I could not easily distinguish from a 70$+ sound card in terms of quality. (motherboard circuitry also matters, but the codec is the starting point)

Best of luck and enjoy your new build!

 

[Kenmitch]

I wouldn't use ram speed as a deciding factor on cpu purchase. Either way one has to purchase ram and the cost difference between slow ram and faster ram isn't all that much in the end....Unless you go for the crazy fast ram with tighter timings.

What's the point of showing charts with a Titan X and cpu scaling?

Being at 1080p @ 60Hz and looking at something in the GTX 1060 or so class I'd imagine Titan X results are somewhat trivial.

OP good luck on your quest. Think your purchase thru and it's probably best to wait and see what AMD launches in the near future.

 

[krumme]

We still need to see how the imc on the new zen rev is improved.
The basic advantage a 2600x will have over a 8500 is certainly raw througput if all threads is used. But it certainly also will suffer on those less demanding situations that goes for 99% all games now.
But we all know where its heading and it is more cores and real dx12. The dx9 like engines we run many games on now will die from age.
At 60fps i would tilt towards the 2600x due to raw throughput if the imc is improved to near skl x perf. That is future proofing more than the platform and thats also why the 8700 is a top bet.
It makes no sense to go for fps in dx9 like games you will never enjoy instead of betting for the future that is bound to head only one way.

 

[epsilon84]

I wouldn't use ram speed as a deciding factor on cpu purchase. Either way one has to purchase ram and the cost difference between slow ram and faster ram isn't all that much in the end....Unless you go for the crazy fast ram with tighter timings.

What's the point of showing charts with a Titan X and cpu scaling?

Being at 1080p @ 60Hz and looking at something in the GTX 1060 or so class I'd imagine Titan X results are somewhat trivial.

OP good luck on your quest. Think your purchase thru and it's probably best to wait and see what AMD launches in the near future.

Actually there is a good ~$50 difference between DDR4-2666 and DDR4-3200 CL14 (just had a quick browse on Newegg) so the fact that Ryzen gaming performance suffers a lot with slower memory should be a consideration. Sure, you can run Ryzen with DDR4-2666 too but you'll lose an additional 5 - 10% in performance compared to what the benchmarks show.

The point is that why should the OP buy a slower CPU for gaming for more money? Right now on Newegg the i5 8400 is $179, the R5 1600 is $188 and the R5 1600X is $199. Then you also have to factor in that you can save an additional $50 on memory and STILL have the i5 8400 be considerably faster than an R5 1600/1600X, that is my point.

 

[krumme]

The old zen is not under consideration.
Imo those argument looks like strawmen to me. We have also seen this vague "r5".
Man up. We all know how those cpu perform its how we interprete the results.

 

[Gideon]

The DDR4-3200 CL14 part is also a strawman argument. Low latency memory is hugely more costly and nets very little benefit. My B-Die 3200 CL16 can easily do CL14 timings @ 3200 (but I prefer CL16 @ 3466, which nets about the same performance). I'm pretty sure that something like DDR4-3000 CL16 would be perfectly acceptable and net 99% of the performance.

Also regarding paying more for less ... I would certainly prefer a R5 2600 which i can upgrade to a 3xxx/4xxx series, once the CPU really becomes a limited factor, rather than be stuck with buying the top-end Coffee Lake for the same price.

 

[epsilon84]

The old zen is not under consideration.
Imo those argument looks like strawmen to me. We have also seen this vague "r5".
Man up. We all know how those cpu perform its how we interprete the results.

So how exactly should they be interpreted?

If we go by the 'OP is GPU limited' angle then this whole discussion is rather irrelevant and academic, as all the CPUs will perform practically the same with a GTX 1060, so you may as well get the cheapest platform, which would be an i5 8400 or 8500 and a H/B series motherboard and DDR4-2666.

If we go by 'potential longevity' of the CPU then the 8700 seems like the best option to me because it's a proven performer in current games and with 6 cores / 12 threads will not be throughput limited anytime soon. For all intents and purposes it will be good enough for many years of gaming until the OP does a total platform overhaul.

 

[epsilon84]

The DDR4-3200 CL14 part is also a strawman argument. Low latency memory is hugely more costly and nets very little benefit. My B-Die 3200 CL16 can easily do CL14 timings @ 3200 (but I prefer CL16 @ 3466, which nets about the same performance). I'm pretty sure that something like DDR4-3000 CL16 would be perfectly acceptable and net 99% of the performance.

Also regarding paying more for less ... I would certainly prefer a R5 2600 which i can upgrade to a 3xxx/4xxx series, once the CPU really becomes a limited factor, rather than be stuck with buying the top-end Coffee Lake for the same price.

The OP doesn't overclock. He made that explicitly clear. The most we can probably expect him to do is run XMP settings on the memory and call it a day. I agree with you that memory can be tweaked, I can run my DDR4-2666 at up to 3200 speeds too with extra voltage, but I've been overclocking and tweaking since my teenage years. I overclock because I can, not because I need to.

Some people just prefer simplicity without tweaking and mucking around with BIOS settings and having to test stability with every step, and I totally understand that too. The OP is probably like that, which is why I think getting an i5 8400 / 8500+ H/B series motherboard + 16GB DDR4 2666 would be a great budget option, with a 8700 being the pricier but obviously superior option.

An R5 2600 with a view to upgrade further down the track is an option too, but it is also the costlier option in the long run, since you will have to spend money again to upgrade the CPU. There is also no guarantee that a Gen 3 Ryzen will be any faster than current CFL chips at gaming, it is still too far in the future to speculate.

 

[IRobot23]

Dont show me gamers nexus or anyother site. Ask people who test it for fun.

I went on lan party and i7 8700k users were surprised by ryzen performance

 

[epsilon84]

Dont show me gamers nexus or anyother site. Ask people who test it for fun.

I went on lan party and i7 8700k users were surprised by ryzen performance

Right, let's ignore all benchmarks and reputable review sites and ask people who 'test it for fun' instead.

 

[IRobot23]

Right, let's ignore all benchmarks and reputable review sites and ask people who 'test it for fun' instead.

Like I said, do check latest benchmarks

 

[ondma]

I wouldn't use ram speed as a deciding factor on cpu purchase. Either way one has to purchase ram and the cost difference between slow ram and faster ram isn't all that much in the end....Unless you go for the crazy fast ram with tighter timings.

What's the point of showing charts with a Titan X and cpu scaling?

Being at 1080p @ 60Hz and looking at something in the GTX 1060 or so class I'd imagine Titan X results are somewhat trivial.

OP good luck on your quest. Think your purchase thru and it's probably best to wait and see what AMD launches in the near future.

With a 1060, the OP will likely upgrade the gpu before the cpu, so performance with a more powerful gpu gives an indication of the potential of the cpu with a more powerful card. Kind of ironic to see all this hype about future proof and upgradable cpus when the part most in need of an upgrade, with much faster progress in performance iz the gpu.

 

[Campy]

If OP absolutely does not want to overclock, 8700 is a fine choice. Might be worth having a look at 2nd gen Ryzen before pulling the trigger though, it's only a couple weeks away isn't it?

 

[Gikaseixas]

Ryzen 2600(X) or i7 8700. That's assuming Ryzen 2600 series delivers the goods.

Having the option to upgrade the cpu later on is great but i trully don't believe the i7 8700 owner will feel the urge to upgrade anytime soon, so best thing for OP is to wait a bit more and compare the new Ryzen vs the i7 and then make an educated decision.

 

[Ranulf]

I didn't see a budget for the OP beyond wanting to run SC better which is a fool's errand since SQ42 nor SC is near release and a 1060 won't be that great for it now. Given card prices now and the likelihood that the OP will want to upgrade is gpu down the road for SC or other games, he should put his budget into a good cpu/mobo/ram. Since he isn't overclocking, buy as fast as you can afford.

The only real debate I see here is whether you think sticking with 6c 8400 intel is worth it or taking a hit on performance now (depending on ryzen2 results) for more threads with 6c/12t R5. If you're going to go 8700, you go 8700k even if not overclocking. $30 bucks for a factory 500mhz OC. Either chip you're going to want a real heatsink/cooler for it.

 

[Glo.]

Because you are advising him to make a purchase based upon that alleged upgradability. But it seems you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is.

His loss, not yours if you predicted the future wrong.

CPU upgradability is really a dumb buying criteria. Spend $200 - $300 for a ~10% CPU performance increase (which is meaningless for gaming) and still be stuck on an old platform. Not the best value around.

Your advice of buying the slower gaming CPU today, so that he may have the ability to spend hundreds more on a new CPU in a year or two that may or may not catch up to today's best gaming CPU, is rather ill-advised.

Do you have ANY signs or information that AM4 PGA CPUs will not be compatible, in future, with this platform? Otherwise, you are plainly spreading FUD.

No, you don't have any information, or signs. AMD stated that future CPUs will be compatible with AM4 motherboards. End of the story.

 

[jpiniero]

AMD stated that future CPUs will be compatible with AM4 motherboards. End of the story.

Compatible, yes, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be limitations. Take the 8700K - imagine if Intel let you run it on a Z170/Z270 board but only with 4 cores enabled, that would be kind of useless.

 

[Kenmitch]

Actually there is a good ~$50 difference between DDR4-2666 and DDR4-3200 CL14 (just had a quick browse on Newegg) so the fact that Ryzen gaming performance suffers a lot with slower memory should be a consideration. Sure, you can run Ryzen with DDR4-2666 too but you'll lose an additional 5 - 10% in performance compared to what the benchmarks show.

The point is that why should the OP buy a slower CPU for gaming for more money? Right now on Newegg the i5 8400 is $179, the R5 1600 is $188 and the R5 1600X is $199. Then you also have to factor in that you can save an additional $50 on memory and STILL have the i5 8400 be considerably faster than an R5 1600/1600X, that is my point.

I didn't suggest any cpu to the OP. Only thing I said about a cpu is it's probably better to wait and see how AMDs new offerings perform.

Newegg search doesn't even show any DDR4-2666 CL14 so how did you compare prices? Dropping to CL15 does show both with about a $20-$30 difference which seems like a moot point in the end.

 

[Kenmitch]

Compatible, yes, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be limitations. Take the 8700K - imagine if Intel let you run it on a Z170/Z270 board but only with 4 cores enabled, that would be kind of useless.

Your response to his question is very FUD like. Seems funny he questioned Phynaz about FUD and you posted some in response....Go figure.

Limitations would be more like a person wouldn't have the new features of the current gen motherboards.

 

[jpiniero]

Limitations would be more like a person wouldn't have the new features of the current gen motherboards.

New features would include better/ideal performance. You already see that with the precision boost 2 that's only available on 400 series boards.

 

[epsilon84]

Ryzen 2600(X) or i7 8700. That's assuming Ryzen 2600 series delivers the goods.

Having the option to upgrade the cpu later on is great but i trully don't believe the i7 8700 owner will feel the urge to upgrade anytime soon, so best thing for OP is to wait a bit more and compare the new Ryzen vs the i7 and then make an educated decision.

A lot of talk about the 2600/X here, and its winning the poll by a landslide so obviously a lot of people think its a better choice than a 8700 (or any other CPU listed)

I find that staggering as we don't even have any gaming benchmarks for Ryzen 2600/X, but unless AMD pulls some serious IPC miracles here, the Gamers Nexus results of the 1600X @ 4.1GHz should provide a rough idea of what we can expect.

I would be very surprised if a 2600/X will come close to a 8700 in gaming, but more than happy to be proven wrong on that.

 

[Markfw]

A lot of talk about the 2600/X here, and its winning the poll by a landslide so obviously a lot of people think its a better choice than a 8700 (or any other CPU listed)

I find that staggering as we don't even have any gaming benchmarks for Ryzen 2600/X, but unless AMD pulls some serious IPC miracles here, the Gamers Nexus results of the 1600X @ 4.1GHz should provide a rough idea of what we can expect.

I would be very surprised if a 2600/X will come close to a 8700 in gaming, but more than happy to be proven wrong on that.

I saw a benchmark somewhere here that led me to believe that it was a real winner. At least in a few weeks we should know for real.