• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PC GAMER CPU of the Year: Intel Core i5-8400

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
WilliamM2 said:
Even older chips only published max turbo for single core. 6600K: [...]
Seems like they are publishing turbo speeds as they always have.
Click to expand...
This is how they used to publish turbo speeds: turbo bin matrix depending on number of cores loaded. They no longer do this for 8th gen.
n08bhRK.png
 
PCGamer is obviously a gaming focused website so it makes sense they chose a 8400. Personally I think the 8700 is the better cpu. That may sound crazy but for me part of purchasing is future proofing and I suspect the 8700 will last longer than the 8400 in much the same way the 2600k has outlasted the 2500k. 8700k is overkill for gamers but hey, we are computer geeks.
 
StinkyPinky said:
PCGamer is obviously a gaming focused website so it makes sense they chose a 8400. Personally I think the 8700 is the better cpu. That may sound crazy but for me part of purchasing is future proofing and I suspect the 8700 will last longer than the 8400 in much the same way the 2600k has outlasted the 2500k. 8700k is overkill for gamers but hey, we are computer geeks.
Click to expand...
I agree. but however the 8700 is around twice as much as the 8400. The later is more suited for a mid-range or even a budget build.
 
StinkyPinky said:
PCGamer is obviously a gaming focused website so it makes sense they chose a 8400. Personally I think the 8700 is the better cpu. That may sound crazy but for me part of purchasing is future proofing and I suspect the 8700 will last longer than the 8400 in much the same way the 2600k has outlasted the 2500k. 8700k is overkill for gamers but hey, we are computer geeks.
Click to expand...

You are right, the 8700 is the more future proof CPU. You will probably get an extra year or two of useful life out of it as a gaming CPU compared to the 8400.

The other angle though is that the $120 you save today can be put into a more powerful GPU - its enough to go from a GTX 1060 to 1070, or RX580 to Vega 56 if you prefer the red team.
 
StinkyPinky said:
PCGamer is obviously a gaming focused website so it makes sense they chose a 8400. Personally I think the 8700 is the better cpu. That may sound crazy but for me part of purchasing is future proofing and I suspect the 8700 will last longer than the 8400 in much the same way the 2600k has outlasted the 2500k. 8700k is overkill for gamers but hey, we are computer geeks.
Click to expand...

epsilon84 said:
You are right, the 8700 is the more future proof CPU. You will probably get an extra year or two of useful life out of it as a gaming CPU compared to the 8400.

The other angle though is that the $120 you save today can be put into a more powerful GPU - its enough to go from a GTX 1060 to 1070, or RX580 to Vega 56 if you prefer the red team.
Click to expand...

That's why If I were building today, I would go with the 1600X. Unless you need every last fps, the 1600X should age much better. It will also be considerably better at many non gaming tasks. If you're someone who games but also does a fair bit of x264, the 1600X will probably be the better choice.

Resolution also matters. 1080p at 120/144Hz, maybe go for the 8700. 1440p/4K at 60Hz, Id go for the 1600.
 
Thunder 57 said:
That's why If I were building today, I would go with the 1600X. Unless you need every last fps, the 1600X should age much better. It will also be considerably better at many non gaming tasks. If you're someone who games but also does a fair bit of x264, the 1600X will probably be the better choice.

Resolution also matters. 1080p at 120/144Hz, maybe go for the 8700. 1440p/4K at 60Hz, Id go for the 1600.
Click to expand...

Why 1600X and not 1600? Its cheaper and you don't need to get a HSF with the 1600, and should be good to OC to 3.8GHz with the Wraith HSF.

I agree the 1600/1600X should age better but it's also coming from behind in terms of IPC, so for the next 2 or so years the 8400 will still be faster than a 1600. Maybe by 2019 or 2020 we will see 6C/6T start to bottleneck games like 4C/4T does today, but even then, Ryzen 1600 has quite a deficit to make up. For example, compare a 4C/4T i3 8100/8350K to a 4C/8T 1400 /1500X today, despite the lack of threads the i3 chips still outperform the Ryzen chips due to higher IPC.

Looking at PCGamers chart with a 1080 Ti the 8400 sits about 20% faster than a stock 1600X and 25% faster than a 1600, although if you overclock the Ryzen 5 chips naturally the margin will narrow, probably to about 10% if you can get 4GHz on the 1600. Of course, not everyone overclocks, so in that case the 8400 wins easily. If you overclock, you can make a case for Ryzen 5 because at or near 4GHz it is 'close enough' to the 8400 that you will probably not notice the difference, and as you said if you run anything else that needs the extra threads the 1600 will win out.

On your point about resolution, yes definitely it matters. As I said earlier, the 8400 is ideal for 144Hz gaming as it comes close enough to the 8700K in this respect while being significantly cheaper.

At 1440P and especially 4K, CPU makes a much smaller difference, though assuming a 1.5x increase in GPU power from Volta, we *may* see 1440P be somewhat CPU bound in 2018 in some titles as the CPU vs GPU equation changes with each generational leap in GPU power.
 
Last edited:
epsilon84 said:
Why 1600X and not 1600? Its cheaper and you don't need to get a HSF with the 1600, and should be good to OC to 3.8GHz with the Wraith HSF.

I agree the 1600/1600X should age better but it's also coming from behind in terms of IPC, so for the next 2 or so years the 8400 will still be faster than a 1600. Maybe by 2019 or 2020 we will see 6C/6T start to bottleneck games like 4C/4T does today, but even then, Ryzen 1600 has quite a deficit to make up.

Looking at PCGamers chart with a 1080 Ti the 8400 sits about 20% faster than a stock 1600X and 25% faster than a 1600, although if you overclock the Ryzen 5 chips naturally the margin will narrow, probably to about 10% if you can get 4GHz on the 1600. Of course, not everyone overclocks, so in that case the 8400 wins easily. If you overclock, you can make a case for Ryzen 5 because at or near 4GHz it is 'close enough' to the 8400 that you will probably not notice the difference, and as you said if you run anything else that needs the extra threads the 1600 will win out.

On your point about resolution, yes definitely it matters. As I said earlier, the 8400 is ideal for 144Hz gaming as it comes close enough to the 8700K in this respect while being significantly cheaper.

At 1440P and especially 4K, CPU makes a much smaller difference, though assuming a 1.5x increase in GPU power from Volta, we *may* see 1440P be somewhat CPU bound in 2018 in some titles as the CPU vs GPU equation changes with each generational leap in GPU power.
Click to expand...
The expressoin is "a bird in the hand", etc. I would take the proven faster gaming performance of the 8400 today vs some theoretical "aging better" from the 1600. As you said, the 1600 (x) is at a deficit now of 10 to 20 percent, so even if it "ages better", who knows when if ever it will catch up, much less surpass the 8400. And one can turn around the "good enough" argument that is a favorite of AMD fans to the 8400 as well. Even if the 1600 someday catches up or passes the 8400, I seriously doubt it will be enough faster than the 8400 will still not be very close and "good enough".
 
frozentundra123456 said:
The expressoin is "a bird in the hand", etc. I would take the proven faster gaming performance of the 8400 today vs some theoretical "aging better" from the 1600. As you said, the 1600 (x) is at a deficit now of 10 to 20 percent, so even if it "ages better", who knows when if ever it will catch up, much less surpass the 8400. And one can turn around the "good enough" argument that is a favorite of AMD fans to the 8400 as well. Even if the 1600 someday catches up or passes the 8400, I seriously doubt it will be enough faster than the 8400 will still not be very close and "good enough".
Click to expand...

I actually edited my post with a real world example that we can relate to: comparing the 4C/4T i3 8100/8350K chips to the 4C/8T 1400/1500X. In most games the i3s still win out because the IPC difference is enough to compensate for the lack of threads.

Fast forward a few years where then the 6C/6T i5 8400/8600Ks vs 6C/12T 1600/1600Xs comparisons may play out in a similar manner.

The difference between IPC (and higher clocks) and additional threads is that *ALL* games can take advantage of higher IPC and clockspeeds. Not all games can take advantage of extra threads though, or reach a point of diminishing returns where additional threads yields negligible gains in performance.

So in that sense, the 8700 vs 8400 comparison isn't the same as the R5 1600 vs 8400 as we don't have the IPC variable.
 
The problem with the Core i5 8400 is the Z370 boards, the cheapest one is at $105 when the cheapest AM4 B350 at only $50.
The extra $50 can be put for faster RAM on the RYZEN that will close the performance difference to single digits.

Also the 8400 lacks the upgradability of the AM4 platform (Up to 8C 16T Ryzen 2).

If cheap H310 boards were available today the Core i5 8400 could be the better option, but with only the expensive Z370 boards any advantages 8400 has, disappears.
 
Last edited:
AtenRa said:
The problem with the Core i5 8600 is the Z370 boards, the cheapest one is at $105 when the cheapest AM4 B350 at only $50.
The extra $50 can be put for faster RAM on the RYZEN that will close the performance difference to single digits.

Also the 8600 lacks the upgradability of the AM4 platform (Up to 8C 16T Ryzen 2).

If cheap H310 boards were available today the Core i5 8600 could be the better option, but with only the expensive Z370 boards any advantages 8600 has, disappears.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, 8600K @ 5GHz dominates Ryzen @ 4GHz, even with fast memory:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3157-intel-i5-8600k-review-overclocking-vs-8700k-8400/page-2

The difference is definitely not 'single digits' as you claim. Maybe against a stock 8400, but not a 8600K @ 5GHz.
 
AtenRa said:
If cheap H310 boards were available today the Core i5 8400 could be the better option, but with only the expensive Z370 boards any advantages 8400 has, disappears.
Click to expand...
I agree. The 8400 is just sitting in a bad position today. If the motherboards were cheaper, then it would be different. But there just are very few situations where the 8400 wins.

1) If your software needs 1 to 4 threads, the 8350K is faster AND cheaper.

2) If your software needs more than 6 threads, the 8700 is the way to go (or overclock the 8700K) unless you want to really have poor performance.

3) So you are left with software that needs exactly 5 or 6 threads. But, now you run into thermal questions. You are pushing the 8400 to its limits in this situation. The base clock on the 8400 is so low that if there is ever thermal throttling, then the 8350K again is faster as the 8350K doesn't throttle. Even though it has fewer cores, the 8350K will likely be faster than a downthrottled 8400 unless you have perfectly parallel code, which is rare.

The number of situations where you need exactly 5 to 6 threads and can guarantee no thermal throttling is not that great. Pairing this with an expensive motherboard and there just aren't many reasons for the 8400. Either get the 8350K or the i7 line and be done with it.

Once the cheaper motherboards are available, then the i5 line will be the line to get. But by then, the rumored 8550, 8650, 8670, and 8650K might all make us forget about the 8400.

I really want to buy one of the Dell XPS or Alienware computers with the 8400. But, each time I try to pull the trigger, I can't justify it. I'm pretty sure I'll end up with an 8650 in the spring, assuming that chip materializes.
 
Last edited:
AMDisTheBEST said:
Don’t forget am4 platform will be supported until zen+ but for intel, there is no guaranteed of anything
Click to expand...
Don't forget that is a great feature that virtually no one actually uses. Why put in a shiny new high-end chip into a motherboard with out-of-date ports and slow memory.
 
AMDisTheBEST said:
because it makes no difference in cpu performance and it saves money?
Click to expand...
Memory speed certainly makes a difference, and for those who are upgrading top CPUs year after year money isn't the driver (money often isn't even a consideration). Don't get me wrong, the ability is great. Just very few people actually do that.
 
dullard said:
Memory speed certainly makes a difference, and for those who are upgrading top CPUs year after year money isn't the driver (money often isn't even a consideration). Don't get me wrong, the ability is great. Just very few people actually do that.
Click to expand...
how often do people upgrade rams when switching out a cpu into the same socket?
Rather, how often do people buy new mother board with the same socket just to upgrade to a faster ram?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top