• 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 3 - 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

legcramp

Golden Member
May 31, 2005
1,623
85
91
How is the 8700k route $300 more than the 1600? That sounds a bit much, $200 sure.
8700K $400
mobo = $150
ram = $150
$700

Ryzen 1600 + tomahawk B350 mobo = $270 after discount
ram = $150
$420 total

So about $280 difference plus the wait for the 8700K for me if I get the Ryzen combo at Microcenter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Markfw

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
51,993
6,916
126
8700K $400
mobo = $150
ram = $150
$700

Ryzen 1600 + tomahawk B350 mobo = $270 after discount
ram = $150
$420 total

So about $280 difference plus the wait for the 8700K for me if I get the Ryzen combo at Microcenter.
Thanks for that comparison. I've got another friend that might want me to build a rig for his eldest daughter. She is a "gamer", so she's going to need something fairly nice.

Thinking i5-8400 (6C/6T), ??? Z370 mobo, ??? DDR4-3200 RAM (should I aim higher? how is compatibility with faster-than-3200 RAM these days?).

I mean, maybe my friend would want her to have an 8700K, but ... he still has somewhat of a budget.

That, or build a Ryzen 5 1600X rig. Which, I'm not sure which would be better, the i5-8400, or the R5 1600X, if they don't plan to OC?
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
8700K $400
mobo = $150
ram = $150
$700

Ryzen 1600 + tomahawk B350 mobo = $270 after discount
ram = $150
$420 total

So about $280 difference plus the wait for the 8700K for me if I get the Ryzen combo at Microcenter.
Not everyone has access to a Microcenter. But on Newegg there is a combo for 280. So the difference to the *8700k* is close to 300, although one could narrow that somewhat because there are motherboards cheaper than 150.00. But OTOH, I would not get a low end motherboard to pair with a top of the line cpu.

However, I dont consider the Ryzen 1600 even remotely in the same class as the 8700k. A more fair comparison is the 8700 (the cpu the OP was considering acutally), which I showed in an earlier post is only 200.00 more and will be faster overall in both gaming and productivity. The 8400 would be an even better value, but the cpu/mb combos (listed at around 350.00) are out of stock and they are jacking up the cost of the cpu alone to 300, so one might as well get the 8700.
 

kyubi

Senior member
Feb 11, 2008
544
33
91
Currently run a 1230v2 which is essentially a 3770

Ran cod ww2 at around 80fps at 1080p on my 970.

Has some life still. I'm doing the same going ryzen in a year or 2
 

legcramp

Golden Member
May 31, 2005
1,623
85
91
Not everyone has access to a Microcenter. But on Newegg there is a combo for 280. So the difference to the *8700k* is close to 300, although one could narrow that somewhat because there are motherboards cheaper than 150.00. But OTOH, I would not get a low end motherboard to pair with a top of the line cpu.

However, I dont consider the Ryzen 1600 even remotely in the same class as the 8700k. A more fair comparison is the 8700 (the cpu the OP was considering acutally), which I showed in an earlier post is only 200.00 more and will be faster overall in both gaming and productivity. The 8400 would be an even better value, but the cpu/mb combos (listed at around 350.00) are out of stock and they are jacking up the cost of the cpu alone to 300, so one might as well get the 8700.
For sure, different class of CPU but I was just giving some thoughts on whether the $$$ difference is worth it for my needs which is currently PUBG. I also agree the i5-8400 is definitely the sweet spot right now and even better when cheaper mobos come out but I won't ever consider a 8400 or 8700 non-K because half the fun is overclocking and tweaking stuff. I think the dead platform Z370 argument that was brought up persuaded me to go ahead with the Ryzen setup.

I got a decent deal on a MSI x370 Gaming Pro Carbon + 16GB Trident Z 3200 for $230 shipped + $190 Ryzen 1600. I can throw a Ryzen 2 chip in there down the line or upgrade to the Intel 8C/16T setup after selling my current stuff without too much loss. My brother also gave me his pre-order of the 8700K today when the price was $379.99 at launch so I will probably end up having both systems to compare before selling one.

Also +1 on getting the 8700K and not getting the bottom of the barrel motherboard; the Aorus Gaming 5 and 7 were/is on sale for $150 and $190 AMIR which is nice. The tomahawk on Ryzen seems to be pretty solid all-around for the price.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,001
710
136
The 8700k should be the foundation of any new gaming oriented system irrespective of the GPU.:D
Budget permitting. The actual gains over, say, an i5 8400 is marginal at best on most current titles and virtually non existent at resolutions above 1080P unless running a 1080 Ti. I would say that for 90% of gamers, the i5 8400 would be the better buy in terms of bang for buck, but of course you can't overclock that 8400 and its potential longevity would pale in comparison to an overclocked 8700K (3.8GHz 6C/6T vs ~5GHz 6C/12T)
 
Last edited:

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,001
710
136
For sure, different class of CPU but I was just giving some thoughts on whether the $$$ difference is worth it for my needs which is currently PUBG. I also agree the i5-8400 is definitely the sweet spot right now and even better when cheaper mobos come out but I won't ever consider a 8400 or 8700 non-K because half the fun is overclocking and tweaking stuff. I think the dead platform Z370 argument that was brought up persuaded me to go ahead with the Ryzen setup.
If PUBG performance was your main prerequisite then why did you choose Ryzen? Even an overclocked R7 @ 4GHz performs about 10% worse than a stock i5 8400 when looking at min fps, and gets slaughtered by the overclocked 8600K/8700K (min fps is the the most important metric as thats usually when firefights happen and you actually need the extra smoothness for aiming)

PUBG results @ 2:01

Honestly if PUBG performance mattered to me, I would go with an overclocked 8600K and call it a day. Yes its probably about $100 more (maybe $150 with a high end HSF) than an R1600 setup, but we are talking about min fps in the 80s vs 50s for an overclocked Ryzen, that is a 50% difference in min fps, any twitch fps gamer will tell you (and I'm sure you probably already know) that is a significant advantage unless you happen to run a 60Hz screen. Is $100 - $150 worth a 50% jump in minimum framerates? For me, definitely.

I somewhat understand your point about overclocking and non K CPUs being 'boring' (I overclock everything myself) but from a practical POV are you saying you would prefer lower performance just so you can say you have overclocked your CPU? Was it a smart idea to get an overclocked FX vs a stock i5/i7 a few years ago for gaming? Of course not. So why is it a good idea now to get an overclockable CPU that is still clearly inferior? (for gaming at least) Not saying Ryzen is as bad as the FX series, but those minimums results are quite damning, it seems IPC and clockspeed are still the main limiting factors for PUBG and in that domain AMD is quite a fair way behind Intel.

Dead end platform or not, an overclocked i5/i7 is where its at for PUBG, quite frankly the upgradeability argument doesn't really sit with me because you are looking at 2019 until AMD potentially has anything that can even match todays i5/i7s in gaming, so you're giving up 12+ months of better gaming performance just so you can 'upgrade' to a CPU that might (or might not) match todays CFL chips at gaming.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy702

legcramp

Golden Member
May 31, 2005
1,623
85
91


....

Dead end platform or not, an overclocked i5/i7 is where its at for PUBG, quite frankly the upgradeability argument doesn't really sit with me because you are looking at 2019 until AMD potentially has anything that can even match todays i5/i7s in gaming, so you're giving up 12+ months of better gaming performance just so you can 'upgrade' to a CPU that might (or might not) match todays CFL chips at gaming.
Point taken and I have thought if Ryzen 2 would even match coffee lake right now. I'll probably end up trying both platforms myself and selling the one I don't keep.
 

el etro

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,581
14
81
The 1600x would be a better choice, but it don't comes close to the 1600 power efficiency. Overclock the RAM is thing that i don't like, but would be good for your gaming performance to get 3200MHz RAM. The power consumption diff of the memorys(from dual D4-2400 to dual D4-3200) is negligible, even at sleep/poweroff/shortidle/longidle levels.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY