• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ryzen5 1600 vs i7 3770(non K) For Games

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ryzen5 1600 vs i7 8700 vs i7 3770


  • Total voters
    44
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
The increase is the mixture of clock speeds, core count, and power usage. The 1700 is an 8 core CPU at 3.3GHz that only uses 60w. Yes Ryzen sacrifices some IPC (though who is to say that they did that to get power usage down) and max clocks (this contributes to the power usage though).

You only need to look at the numbers for Raven ridge to see the efficiency. A 4 core CPU with a large IGP running at Ultrabook/Tablet power usage. Or a 32 core running mid 2GHz CPU on Epyc.

The 8400 us barely clocked over the 1600/1800, both of which have more cache. The 1600 has SMT on for its cores. The 1700 has 2 more cores and SMT. Even the 8700 only looks as good as it does against the 1600/1600x/1700 if maintains it's turbo long term on all boards. Even then a 1600x is pretty close at nearly $100 less.

So there is efficiency there to be had. I think the major point is that Intel offers Halo chips in the -k chips that bring their CPU's well out of the range of any competitors offerings. To do that and honestly all of Skylake and Kabylake (and by definition Coffee Lake) has been taking the ultra conservative broadwell efficiency and tweaking it for outright clock speeds. This allows for really high turbos and really well clocked Halo's. But it wouldn't take a lot to tweaking it back to being more efficient. I think it's why Intel seems even more driven to segment their offering in terms of platforms. They can start being a little more mobile focused on some variations and more performance driven with others while not changing up too much.
And the 8400 and 8700 are 65 watt cpus, what is your point? You conveniently state some arbitrary, undocumented power usage for ryzen while failing to prove the intel chips use significantly more. And what do Epic and ultrabook cps (which we only have AMD's results) have to do with this discussion?

As for 8700 and 8400 maintaining turbo, I have no proof they can maintain all core turbo in non-gaming loads, just as you have no proof that they cannot. 8700 has an all core turbo of over 4ghz though, so I seriously doubt it wont maintain a far higher clockspeed than the 1700, which you somehow seem to assume will, conversely, be assured of maintaining its turbo speeds. The 1700 is a terrible value as a gaming cpu. Low clockspeed, and lots of cores which are not fully utilized in most games, especially older ones such as the op says he will be playing. 1600/1600x will offer similar or better performance at a cheaper price, while either Coffee Lake cpu, IMO, will be a better choice than either of them for gaming.

Perhaps the OP should look at anand's own Coffee Lake tests. The i5 8400 beats Ryzen in 4 out of 5 games, and is far from being a power hog. In fact it uses less power than any of the Ryzen cpus tested. All in all a far different picture than you, and a lot of others, are trying to portray in these forums.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,394
1,594
136
And the 8400 and 8700 are 65 watt cpus, what is your point? You conveniently state some arbitrary, undocumented power usage for ryzen while failing to prove the intel chips use significantly more. And what do Epic and ultrabook cps (which we only have AMD's results) have to do with this discussion?

As for 8700 and 8400 maintaining turbo, I have no proof they can maintain all core turbo in non-gaming loads, just as you have no proof that they cannot. 8700 has an all core turbo of over 4ghz though, so I seriously doubt it wont maintain a far higher clockspeed than the 1700, which you somehow seem to assume will, conversely, be assured of maintaining its turbo speeds. The 1700 is a terrible value as a gaming cpu. Low clockspeed, and lots of cores which are not fully utilized in most games, especially older ones such as the op says he will be playing. 1600/1600x will offer similar or better performance at a cheaper price, while either Coffee Lake cpu, IMO, will be a better choice than either of them for gaming.

Perhaps the OP should look at anand's own Coffee Lake tests. The i5 8400 beats Ryzen in 4 out of 5 games, and is far from being a power hog. In fact it uses less power than any of the Ryzen cpus tested. All in all a far different picture than you, and a lot of others, are trying to portray in these forums.
My response was mostly about efficiency. I do have my questions about the all core turbo specially of the non-k parts specially given the huge rift between stock clocks and turbo clocks of the 8400. I brought up EPYC and the Mobile chips to elaborate on the efficiency. In terms of performance I am not trying to discount the lead that Intel has but I also couldn't sit by and let a comment that I responded to go without at least attempting to correct it.
 

gregoryvg

Senior member
Jul 8, 2008
241
10
76
OP, since you have a P68 based motherboard you could also try the i7-2600k. They go for a bit less on eBay (than the i7-3770k) and should definitley be a drop in upgrade for your mobo.

I would do a similar upgrade if my P68 motherboard was in good enough shape. Unfortunatlely I got one of the ASUS P68 boards that had a recall. I only have two good SATA ports left - the others are all dead.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
My response was mostly about efficiency. I do have my questions about the all core turbo specially of the non-k parts specially given the huge rift between stock clocks and turbo clocks of the 8400. I brought up EPYC and the Mobile chips to elaborate on the efficiency. In terms of performance I am not trying to discount the lead that Intel has but I also couldn't sit by and let a comment that I responded to go without at least attempting to correct it.
Did you actually look at the power consumption numbers in Anand's test? The 8400 consumes only 49 watts, while every ryzen cpu consumes at least 20 watts more. Even the 8700k consumes only 86 watts, equal to the 1700x and lower than 1800x. For gaming, "efficiency" is actually better for intel, since in the video coercitiv posted below, the 8400 is overall faster in games than a 1600 at 4ghz, which would certainly consume even more power than the stock 1600, which already consumes 20 watts more than the 8400. And speculate all you wish about the inability of the 8400 to maintain turbo. Whatever it does, it is faster in gaming than the 1600 overclocked to 4ghz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
But... are you adjusting for the fact that the Ryzen CPU is an SoC, while the 8400 has a seperate chipset? Did you add the two Intel chips (CPU + chipset) together?
So? The 8400 has an igpu and Ryzen doesnt. Actually both cpus are quite efficient. Just seems that based on some early Skylake X 10 core, highly overclocked monsters with immature Bioses and marginal motherboards, there is a lot of FUD being spread around in these forums about how much more efficient Ryzen is, and how intel cpus use a lot of power, when in actual fact, examining concrete data does not bear out that conclusion.
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,127
508
136
Any documentation from a reliable source that an 8700 won't run at all core turbo under gaming workloads?
He's spreading FUD. Yes, the 8700 stays within it's TDP and yes it's very power efficient, especially in non-avx workloads. That doesn't take anything away from Ryzen which is extremely power efficient when clocked low.
 

DeadlyTitan

Member
Oct 20, 2017
144
11
41
Apologizes for the very delayed reply. I was moving to an another city. Thank you all for your input, it helped me a lot. I have decided to go Ryzen 5 1600 and pair it with a GTX 1060 6GB. I really appreciate the help.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
14,836
5,036
136

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,546
6,258
136
He's spreading FUD. Yes, the 8700 stays within it's TDP
You might want to check that with 8700 owners. Hint: it depends on motherboard stock settings, my MSI Z370M AC PRO does not enforce a power limit for the 8700 with optimized stock settings. However, that speaks nothing about the efficiency of the chip, which is excellent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,127
508
136

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,127
508
136
You might want to check that with 8700 owners. Hint: it depends on motherboard stock settings, my MSI Z370M AC PRO does not enforce a power limit for the 8700 with optimized stock settings. However, that speaks nothing about the efficiency of the chip, which is excellent.
He claimed that it wouldn't be able to sustain all core turbo speeds, which as far as I can tell isn't true.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,546
6,258
136
He claimed that it wouldn't be able to sustain all core turbo speeds, which as far as I can tell isn't true.
It is true if you enforce the stock TDP, since the 8700 reports a package power of 90W+ while running CB15 at sustained 4300Mhz with stock voltage settings on the motherboard. Power usage variance is also very high, with Load Optimized Settings in the BIOS resulting in 110W+ package power while custom undervolted settings lowering that bellow 80W (Optimized Settings are a joke on my board). All these power figures are for the same CB15 score (max reported package power value, although CB is quite consistent in terms of max vs average power usage)

However, people expecting future 8400 and 8700 performance to drop heavily in future non-Z are in for a surprise, since current boards are mainly configured for overclocking and mobo makers likely use high voltage margins to pave the way for one button overclocking. Expect tighter voltage settings on future locked boards, and power usage to match that as well.

For reference running CB15 at 3200Mhz (base clock for 8700) results in aprox 40W package power, going for 3700Mhz (max turbo clock for R5 1600X) keeps power usage bellow 60W, 3800Mhz hits 60W+ and 3900Mhz finally goes a bit over 65W.

To simulate the 8400 in both clocks and throughput I disabled HT for a 3800Mhz run and got ~50W package power. Even with significantly lower silicon quality the 8400 still has 15W headroom (30% more) until the 65W TDP limit, and even if it cannot sustain 3800Mhz in CB that chip is still in a good place power and performance wise.

To summ it all up, just like I said in the CFL builders thread, the 8700 is a 95W TDP chip in disguise, and that is a good thing because it comes with good efficiency at that performance point and with excellent efficiency at 65W TDP and bellow. People who currently entertain the FUD that both 8400 and 8700 will work close to their base clocks for heavy MT loads in non-Z boards will eat a lot of crow in 2018.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZGR and ozzy702

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,919
2,427
136
Apologizes for the very delayed reply. I was moving to an another city. Thank you all for your input, it helped me a lot. I have decided to go Ryzen 5 1600 and pair it with a GTX 1060 6GB. I really appreciate the help.
Glad you made a good choice. I made that very same upgrade from an intel 3rd gen to ryzen 5 1600 and have been very happy. Despite what people say about benchmarks saying the 8700k is superior.. the 1600 really feels like a solid upgrade after about 6 months of having it and I have zero regrets except I should have gotten a better motherboard to overclock it higher with LLC - the 1 feature my motherboard lacks.

P.S. if you ever encounter any instability, make sure your SoC voltage is 1.1v. I think it sometimes defaults to 0.9v on some motherboards (atleast it did for me) but other than that, my system has been rock stable, no problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeadlyTitan

DeadlyTitan

Member
Oct 20, 2017
144
11
41
Glad you made a good choice. I made that very same upgrade from an intel 3rd gen to ryzen 5 1600 and have been very happy. Despite what people say about benchmarks saying the 8700k is superior
Well, the i7 8700k is superior to Ryzen in gaming and multitasking, but for that cost to performance ratio? no thnx i'll pass. That i7 8700k alone costs more than Ryzen 5 1600 + B350 Motherbozrd where i live. Its just not worth the money its asking for the meager performance boost its providing, not to mention intel's dead end platforms, atleast with Ryzen i can just swap a 3rd gen ryzen CPU when it arrives if we are to believe what AMD has promised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el etro

TeknoBug

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,083
30
91
My i7 3770K was a beast back in the days, but the difference in performance between DDR3 and DDR4 warrants the choice of going with Ryzen.

I have a Skylake motherboard with both DDR3 and DDR4 slots and I have tested both 16GB DDR3 1600 and 16GB DDR4 2133 and the difference was rather significant.
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,127
508
136
It is true if you enforce the stock TDP, since the 8700 reports a package power of 90W+ while running CB15 at sustained 4300Mhz with stock voltage settings on the motherboard. Power usage variance is also very high, with Load Optimized Settings in the BIOS resulting in 110W+ package power while custom undervolted settings lowering that bellow 80W (Optimized Settings are a joke on my board). All these power figures are for the same CB15 score (max reported package power value, although CB is quite consistent in terms of max vs average power usage)

However, people expecting future 8400 and 8700 performance to drop heavily in future non-Z are in for a surprise, since current boards are mainly configured for overclocking and mobo makers likely use high voltage margins to pave the way for one button overclocking. Expect tighter voltage settings on future locked boards, and power usage to match that as well.

For reference running CB15 at 3200Mhz (base clock for 8700) results in aprox 40W package power, going for 3700Mhz (max turbo clock for R5 1600X) keeps power usage bellow 60W, 3800Mhz hits 60W+ and 3900Mhz finally goes a bit over 65W.

To simulate the 8400 in both clocks and throughput I disabled HT for a 3800Mhz run and got ~50W package power. Even with significantly lower silicon quality the 8400 still has 15W headroom (30% more) until the 65W TDP limit, and even if it cannot sustain 3800Mhz in CB that chip is still in a good place power and performance wise.

To summ it all up, just like I said in the CFL builders thread, the 8700 is a 95W TDP chip in disguise, and that is a good thing because it comes with good efficiency at that performance point and with excellent efficiency at 65W TDP and bellow. People who currently entertain the FUD that both 8400 and 8700 will work close to their base clocks for heavy MT loads in non-Z boards will eat a lot of crow in 2018.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. All properly configured current mobos (and I assume all future mobos with 8700 support) will push the 8700 to it's max all core turbo speed and sustain it there so it gets annoying when the Intel haters spread FUD. The 8700 is a great chip and for anyone that doesn't OC THE chip to purchase.

I honestly don't understand the cultish nature for computer hardware that some people have. I've owned and built dozens of AMD and Intel machines. I've owned a solid 20-30 AMD cards and another 30 or so NVIDIA GPUS. I'll use whatever components from whatever company fits the budget and performance goals I need. The CFL hate is simply ridiculous.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,219
781
126
The 8700 is a great chip and for anyone that doesn't OC THE chip to purchase.
It also happens to be the cost of a 1600X and an X370 mainboard here. Whether or not it is worth the cost is, and should be, an individual opinion.

But yeah, you're right. I'll buy whatever fits the task, and doesn't break the budget.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
He claimed that it wouldn't be able to sustain all core turbo speeds, which as far as I can tell isn't true.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. All properly configured current mobos (and I assume all future mobos with 8700 support) will push the 8700 to it's max all core turbo speed and sustain it there so it gets annoying when the Intel haters spread FUD. The 8700 is a great chip and for anyone that doesn't OC THE chip to purchase.

I honestly don't understand the cultish nature for computer hardware that some people have. I've owned and built dozens of AMD and Intel machines. I've owned a solid 20-30 AMD cards and another 30 or so NVIDIA GPUS. I'll use whatever components from whatever company fits the budget and performance goals I need. The CFL hate is simply ridiculous.
Yea, for me the extra cost of the 8700 is worth it, or even the 8400 at slightly lower cost and overall better gaming performance. Just too bad availability is still sketchy and cheaper motherboards are not available.
 

legcramp

Golden Member
May 31, 2005
1,623
85
91
Well, the i7 8700k is superior to Ryzen in gaming and multitasking, but for that cost to performance ratio? no thnx i'll pass. That i7 8700k alone costs more than Ryzen 5 1600 + B350 Motherbozrd where i live. Its just not worth the money its asking for the meager performance boost its providing, not to mention intel's dead end platforms, atleast with Ryzen i can just swap a 3rd gen ryzen CPU when it arrives if we are to believe what AMD has promised.
I am pretty much in this situation right now... buy a 1600 / mobo / ram for $420 or pay $300 more for the 8700K system. It seems from videos I've seen with systems running similar cards with Ryzen vs 8700K in PUBG, the 8700K average FPS is much much higher and that's the main game I am playing right now. I am talking about 50-90 fps on the Ryzen vs. 70-100+ on the 8700k with the 8700k staying above 90+ fps almost always.
 

DeadlyTitan

Member
Oct 20, 2017
144
11
41
I am pretty much in this situation right now... buy a 1600 / mobo / ram for $420 or pay $300 more for the 8700K system. It seems from videos I've seen with systems running similar cards with Ryzen vs 8700K in PUBG, the 8700K average FPS is much much higher and that's the main game I am playing right now. I am talking about 50-90 fps on the Ryzen vs. 70-100+ on the 8700k with the 8700k staying above 90+ fps almost always.
There is also an another reason why i am not willing to buy the 8700, that being it feels its a little rushed out, and intel is planning for 8 core 16 thread mainstream cpu's

Source - 1
Source - 2
Source - 3

weather they maybe right or wrong will be an another topic to discuss, but if they are then, we going to get an another dead end platform with coffee lake.

also its just a personal opinion, that extra $300 aient worth it for me for a mere 10 ~ 20% performance in games.
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,127
508
136
I am pretty much in this situation right now... buy a 1600 / mobo / ram for $420 or pay $300 more for the 8700K system. It seems from videos I've seen with systems running similar cards with Ryzen vs 8700K in PUBG, the 8700K average FPS is much much higher and that's the main game I am playing right now. I am talking about 50-90 fps on the Ryzen vs. 70-100+ on the 8700k with the 8700k staying above 90+ fps almost always.
How is the 8700k route $300 more than the 1600? That sounds a bit much, $200 sure.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
How is the 8700k route $300 more than the 1600? That sounds a bit much, $200 sure.
Yes, 200.00 difference seems much more realistic, at least in US prices. 8700 is 340.00 on Amazon, add a motherboard and you are looking at around 500.00. The 1600 itself is 200.00, and unless you really go bottom of the barrel, another hundred for a motherboard, so 500 vs 300. Yea, you can go nuts with a very expensive Z370 motherboard, but not necessary. At least for the extra cost you can overclock the ram. Yes, one can go nuts with a 400 dollar Z370 motherboard, but there are also boards on new egg just barely over a hundred dollars, with a large selection between 100 and 150.
 
Last edited:

fkoehler

Member
Feb 29, 2008
136
79
101
OT here, however been waiting for Ryzen forever. Too busy over the summer, and haven't been able to figure out if I wanted to go now or wait for Ryzen+.
So, just picked up an HP 4770 3.4 16GB for $300.

While I need to wire up a new PSU as its only 320w, it should get me back into gaming until Ryzen 2 is out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY