• 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."

The Ryzen vs Coffee Lake choice.

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

Which CPU would you choose for your next Build?

  • Ryzen

    Votes: 54 41.2%
  • Coffee Lake

    Votes: 62 47.3%
  • Something Else

    Votes: 15 11.5%

  • Total voters
    131
  • Poll closed .
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,011
126
The i5-8400 came in at lower clock speed than I was expecting. I could have been happy with base 3.2 GHz and all core turbo closer to 4.0GHz, on a standard MB. That would have been an easy choice for me.
All-core turbo on the 8400 is 3.8GHz.
 

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
549
210
116
I don't buy the platform argument when performance between generations has been so flat for the past 7 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
All-core turbo on the 8400 is 3.8GHz.
Where does that number come from, and what are the chances it will maintain all 6 cores at 3.8GHz on long encodes, on a non overclocking MB?

Does the 2.8GHz base clock have any meaning at all?
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,011
126
Where does that number come from, and what are the chances it will maintain all 6 cores at 3.8GHz on long encodes, on a non overclocking MB?

Does the 2.8GHz base clock have any meaning at all?
It will maintain 3.8GHz on all cores for as long as the cooling solution can handle the temp at that frequency.

Base frequency is pretty meaningless on desktop.
 

thecoolnessrune

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
9,586
485
126
I was able to get my two Ryzen 7 1700Xs about 2 weeks ago for $260, so vs. an i7-8600K, getting the 1700X's was an easy choice for me. They'll have no problem keeping up with the 1080Ti's.
 

IRobot23

Senior member
Jul 3, 2017
601
183
76
I think best choice for gamer is R5 1600/X. R5 1600 comes with cooler, it can be OC-ed, but all it matters B350 boards will support fast memory. All you need to do is buy, DDR4 3200MT/s memory + put off-set or manual SOCV to 1.0-1.1v run XMP and you are good to go. Invest more $ into GPU.

Since AM4 will last and 7nm is showing some great improvements, you can simply upgrade, if you need to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kawi6rr

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
It will maintain 3.8GHz on all cores for as long as the cooling solution can handle the temp at that frequency.

Base frequency is pretty meaningless on desktop.
Ok thanks. But from benchmarks 8400 is significantly behind Ryzen 1600X, on heavy multi-threaded tasks, and that is before you OC the 1600X...

8600K would let you OC to erase that deficit, but it costs more, and needs a more expensive MB.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,474
136
It will be interesting to see what happens in 2019, but it has no impact on what you buy today.

Today it's probably an easy decision for those who aren't that price sensitive. Just get an 8700K and a good cooler, and you pretty much have the best overall performance.


It's bit tougher when, when you are looking to cut the price down. This is where AMD still has very strong option.

The i5-8400 came in at lower clock speed than I was expecting. I could have been happy with base 3.2 GHz and all core turbo closer to 4.0GHz, on a standard MB. That would have been an easy choice for me.

But much more of dilemma with i5-8600K and expensive 370 MB to OC it, it certainly makes Ryzen 1600 the more economical choice.
To be fair the 8700k / 8600k is not really available for buying given a small token supply at launch. Lets see how the situation plays out over the next few months. Anyway unless Intel supplies Coffeelake in high volume AMD will not feel the pressure to even cut prices officially (since resellers already are selling them at lower prices than MSRP). AMD is getting Pinnacle Ridge ready now and production will be starting soon if the products are to hit shelves in late Q1 2018.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
To be fair the 8700k / 8600k is not really available for buying given a small token supply at launch. Lets see how the situation plays out over the next few months. Anyway unless Intel supplies Coffeelake in high volume AMD will not feel the pressure to even cut prices officially (since resellers already are selling them at lower prices than MSRP). AMD is getting Pinnacle Ridge ready now and production will be starting soon if the products are to hit shelves in late Q1 2018.
Part of the 8700K issue is massive pent up demand. Lesser CL parts were available when I checked, but everyone seems to have eyes for the 8700K.

You will certainly be able to get your hands on an 8700K before a Pinnacle Ridge which is a complete unknown.

If you really want one, order it and wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
It will maintain 3.8GHz on all cores for as long as the cooling solution can handle the temp at that frequency.

Base frequency is pretty meaningless on desktop.
The confusion I think is going to start and adores probably a bit gaslighting video on coffee lake hits on is that while we always assumed because past CPU's that were closer in clockspeed always seemed to hit their all core turbo consistently with good cooling that it was a sure thing, something you could set your clock too.

But with Coffee Lake I don't think that's actually the case and even the 8700k and 8600k are going to suffer a bit from this mindset. But the 8400 is certainly looking like a garbage bin of binning. Making it able to assume basically all dies that can't be 8700 and 8600's. That all core turbo is not a promise and there are a half a dozen things including silicon lottery that will play into whether the CPU will actually clock itself consistently 1GHz above stock. I would be interested in someone in the future actually tracking 3.8GHz all core clocks without setting an OC to see how many 8400's sustain that.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
The confusion I think is going to start and adores probably a bit gaslighting video on coffee lake hits on is that while we always assumed because past CPU's that were closer in clockspeed always seemed to hit their all core turbo consistently with good cooling that it was a sure thing, something you could set your clock too.

But with Coffee Lake I don't think that's actually the case and even the 8700k and 8600k are going to suffer a bit from this mindset. But the 8400 is certainly looking like a garbage bin of binning. Making it able to assume basically all dies that can't be 8700 and 8600's. That all core turbo is not a promise and there are a half a dozen things including silicon lottery that will play into whether the CPU will actually clock itself consistently 1GHz above stock. I would be interested in someone in the future actually tracking 3.8GHz all core clocks without setting an OC to see how many 8400's sustain that.
I bet a dollar that it holds 3.8 all day under load, and that if you can set the multi to 40 on a Z board, it holds 4.0 all day. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick and ozzy702

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,656
983
136
All I care about is gaming and e-peen, so 8700K for me. Ryzen is great and if I had to build on a budg...well actually I'd just grab an 8600K at this point or 8700 non K. Honestly, Ryzen just got REKT by Coffee Lake, so AMD needs to get off their ass and release a higher clocked chip or they will lose all that momentum they worked so hard to achieve. You can't just release one good generation of chips and be like, "Hell yeah, we did it". You need to be able to respond in a timely fashion and as much as I love to hate Intel for a variety of reasons, they have demonstrated their ability to respond to the new desktop threat presented by AMD. Intel responded pretty forcefully, even if their HEDT prices are still high.
Before Intel's response, they were an overpriced and VERY hilarious joke on both mainstream and HEDT platforms. After their response, they once again have the fastest chips on both platforms, by far, and it only took them a few months to make it happen. It's AMD's turn to respond now and they better haul ass, because mindshare evaporates faster than a drop of sweat rolling of Satan's...that's right.
:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
748
353
106
IF your are building a system after this long time, you can wait 1 month for CFL being available and less priced.

IMO- i7-8700K without a doubt. I built several system around ryzen and kaby (ryzen is really good for the price) last 3 month for friends and relatives but this CFL has no weakness and the price difference is so low (some of them didn't pay cash but have a "loan" and the monthly difference is so negligible)...

But it all comes to a simple question?

Can you or can you not see the difference of 60 fps and above- or even better will you buy a monitor of 144Hz refresh rate?

if the answer is yes, then buy coffee lake and OC it as you like.

IF not, buy ryzen and you will be very happy..

The choice is yours
 

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,381
509
136
For me its ryzen vs coffee lake vs Sandy Bridge vs ivy bridge.
I could drop a used i5 or i7 ivy or Sandy in my old lga 1155 pc and slap in a new gpu and save on Motherboard and ram. I'm definitely considering the latter.
Much cheaper than upgrading the pc.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
I bet a dollar that it holds 3.8 all day under load, and that if you can set the multi to 40 on a Z board, it holds 4.0 all day. :D
If it is 100% on all chips I'll be happy. But between Intel's statement that in the future they will only list 1 and 2 core max clocks and the clock difference between stock and Turbo I have my doubts.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
If it is 100% on all chips I'll be happy. But between Intel's statement that in the future they will only list 1 and 2 core max clocks and the clock difference between stock and Turbo I have my doubts.
The single core max clock gives you the max multiplier, so that's really all you need to know. :grinning:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,613
559
126
Really depends on your use and how long you plan to have the build, so there's no one correct answer.

For me, I game a lot so the 8700k was the obvious choice. CFL is clearly the best gaming line of cpus. Or you could even go with the 8600k.

For those that do a mixture of gaming and processing tasks, then ryzen is the better choice imo. Especially if you game at 1440p or higher.

If you plan to have your rig for five years, then I think ryzen is the better option since it sounds like the socket will work with newer upcoming cpus.

Either way, it's great that we have these options.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
The single core max clock gives you the max multiplier, so that's really all you need to know. :grinning:
Not my point. Like I said I'll wait and see. The 2.8 is bothersome because it is a laptop like clockspeed. Is it a confidence issue it's not a 3.3, the grand canyon between that and it's max all core is just surprising. It makes me wonder if it's the 1400 of Coffee lake 6 core dies and if so does that mean not everyone will be able to get 3.8 all core speeds.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
214
106
A whole lot of confusion here between Base vs Turbo vs MCE vs Overclock:-

- Base clocks on i5//i7 Turbo are applicable only if Turbo Boost is disabled in the BIOS or if the motherboard is set to have a power / time limit for Turbo for thermal / power envelope reasons (often done on laptops / NUC's to ensure, eg, constant maxed out Turbo for hours on end doesn't fry a 55w power brick PSU even if the CPU cooler can handle it). For desktops, as long as the thermals are good, the Turbo's are:-

i7-8700K = 3.7GHz Base. 4.7 (1C) / 4.6 (2C) / 4.4 (4C) / 4.3 (6C)
i7-8700 = 3.2GHz Base. 4.6 (1C) / 4.5 (2C) / 4.3 (4C) / 4.3 (6C)
i5-8600K = 3.6GHz Base. 4.3 (1C) / 4.2 (2C) / 4.2 (4C) / 4.1 (6C)
i5-8400 = 2.8GHz Base. 4.0 (1C) / 3.9 (2C) / 3.9 (4C) / 3.8 (6C)
i3-8350K = 4.0GHz Base (No Turbo but Unlocked)
i3-8100 = 3.6GHz Fixed

- These Turbo's are guaranteed to work at those freqs under constant load, ie, an i5-8400 is pretty much a 3.8-4.0GHz chip and an i7-8700 a 4.3-4.6GHz chip, as long as temps aren't hitting throttle limit. That's what separates a Turbo from an OC - Turbo is officially guaranteed (even on non-K chips), an OC isn't (even on K chips).

- Z boards allows overclocking (and raising clocks on a K chip to above Turbo speeds will disable override default Turbo's anyway), but all boards including cheaper H and B boards can hold Turbo at rated speeds just fine.

- MCE forces "all load cores" to the highest 1T core frequency but this isn't an official feature and whether this works or not may be motherboard vendor specific

- CPU speeds normally fluctuate under non maxed gaming loads due to SpeedStep and you'll often see 3-4GHz variations as cores are lightly loaded (down to 1GHz for lightweight / older games). This isn't the same as thermal / power / Turbo throttling. Disabling this whilst benchmarking (High Performance Power Option or at least advanced setting "Minimum Processor State" to 100%) can clear up confusion.

- There's nothing abnormal about low listed base speeds on the slowest i5 variant and is simply how Intel's marketing works on all previous chips too (eg, i5-7400 = 3.0GHz, i5-6400 = 2.7GHz, i5-4430 = 3.0GHz, i5-3330 = 3.0GHz, i5-2300 = 2.8GHz, etc). It has nothing to do with "binning limitations because there's a big gap". Remember prior to Haswell, both Sandy + Ivy Bridge chips had that +4-bin limited OC on non-K chips that allowed +400MHz on top of max Turbo which created similar large gaps, eg, i5-3450 = 3.1GHz Base / 3.9GHz max Turbo.

Pretty much any software monitor that polls then logs CPU freq several times per second (eg, HWInfo64) under an all core load shows this up quite clearly. As for 8400's "real speeds", it's exactly the above Turbo speeds as multiple review sites have already checked : For 6C loads (Examples 1, 2), 2-4C loads (Example 1) and 1C loads (Examples 1, 2).
 
Last edited:

IRobot23

Senior member
Jul 3, 2017
601
183
76
A whole lot of confusion here between Base vs Turbo vs MCE vs Overclock:-

- Base clocks on i5//i7 Turbo are applicable only if Turbo Boost is disabled in the BIOS or if the motherboard is set to have a power / time limit for Turbo for thermal / power envelope reasons (often done on laptops to ensure, eg, constant maxed out Turbo for hours on end doesn't fry a 55w power brick PSU even if the CPU cooler can handle it). For desktops, as long as the thermals are good, the Turbo's are:-

i7-8700K = 3.7GHz Base. 4.7 (1C) / 4.6 (2C) / 4.4 (4C) / 4.3 (6C)
i7-8700 = 3.2GHz Base. 4.6 (1C) / 4.5 (2C) / 4.3 (4C) / 4.3 (6C)
i5-8600K = 3.6GHz Base. 4.3 (1C) / 4.2 (2C) / 4.2 (4C) / 4.1 (6C)
i5-8400 = 2.8GHz Base. 4.0 (1C) / 3.9 (2C) / 3.9 (4C) / 3.8 (6C)
i3-8350K = 4.0GHz Base (No Turbo but Unlocked)
i3-8100 = 3.6GHz Fixed

- These Turbo's are guaranteed to work at those freqs under constant load, ie, an i5-8400 is pretty much a 3.8-4.0GHz chip and an i7-8700 a 4.3-4.6GHz chip, as long as temps aren't hitting throttle limit. That's what separates a Turbo from an OC - Turbo is officially guaranteed (even on non-K chips), an OC isn't (even on K chips).

- Z boards allows overclocking (and raising clocks on a K chip to above Turbo speeds will disable Turbo anyway), but all boards including cheaper H and B boards can hold Turbo at rated speeds just fine.

- MCE forces "all load cores" to the highest 1T core frequency but this isn't an official feature and whether this works or not may be motherboard vendor specific

- CPU speeds normally fluctuate under non maxed gaming loads due to SpeedStep and you'll often see 3-4GHz variations as cores are lightly loaded (down to 1GHz for lightweight / older games). This isn't the same as thermal / power / Turbo throttling. Disabling this whilst benchmarking (High Performance Power Option or at least advanced setting "Minimum Processor State" to 100%) can clear up confusion.

- There's nothing abnormal about low listed base speeds on the slowest i5 variant and is simply how Intel's marketing works on all previous chips too (eg, i5-7400 = 3.0GHz, i5-6400 = 2.7GHz, i5-4430 = 3.0GHz, i5-3330 = 3.0GHz, i5-2300 = 2.8GHz, etc). It has nothing to do with "binning limitations because there's a big gap". Remember prior to Haswell, both Sandy + Ivy Bridge chips had that +4-bin limited OC on non-K chips that allowed +400MHz on top of max Turbo which created similar large gaps, eg, i5-3450 = 3.1GHz Base / 3.9GHz max Turbo.

Pretty much any software monitor that polls then logs CPU freq several times per second (eg, HWInfo64) under an all core load shows this up quite clearly. As for 8400's "real speeds", it's exactly the above Turbo speeds as multiple review sites have already checked : For 6C loads (Examples 1, 2), 2-4C loads (Example 1) and 1C loads (Examples 1, 2).
These speeds are not guaranteed.
But gaming will probably do at turbo clock, heavy load might slow them down, specially AVX
 
Last edited:

Ferzerp

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,435
106
106
A whole lot of confusion here between Base vs Turbo vs MCE vs Overclock:




- Z boards allows overclocking (and raising clocks on a K chip to above Turbo speeds will disable Turbo anyway), but all boards including cheaper H and B boards can hold Turbo at rated speeds just fine.
Indeed, and you've added to it. Overclocking with a K chip does not disable turbo. In effect you are overriding the max turbo frequency with what you set. The clock still changes with via the turbo frequency scaling functionality. Typically, used with "multi-core enhancement".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY