• Hey there Guest! This holiday season you have a chance to win some cool AnandTech swag! Check out “The Holiday Hotlist” giveaway, which you can find here.

Upgrade now or wait?

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
3,970
46
91
#51
For today only, the 1700X is $127 through Newegg's Ebay store. Use the PICKFAST code through the Ebay app.

That is a screaming deal. I would pick up that chip with a good X370 or X470 board. You'll be able to drop in a Ryzen 3000 chip when they launch next year.
I domt see for 147 got link?
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
3,970
46
91
#53
The 15% off coupon was only good from 9am to 9pm EST today.

it was 8pm eastern.. oops why do they make eastern coupons so silly :) but i still didnt see the 149$ newegg link either.

(i have a feeling there will be a 20% off tomorrow or next day) if not its ok just wanted to buy one to upgrade my boys pc for him mainly for m.2 support.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,782
11
106
#54
it was 8pm eastern.. oops why do they make eastern coupons so silly :) but i still didnt see the 149$ newegg link either.

(i have a feeling there will be a 20% off tomorrow or next day) if not its ok just wanted to buy one to upgrade my boys pc for him mainly for m.2 support.
Looks like the Newegg deal through Ebay is dead too. :/
 
Oct 22, 2018
72
5
36
#55
I did a move from a i5 4670 and 8gb to a i5 8400 and 16gb and i went from majorly cpu bottlenecked in about every game right up to BF1 with my 1070ti at 1080p to getting pretty much full gpu usage outside of extreme high fps caps in games like BF4 which cap out at 200.

Ryzen would prob get more recommendations and for good reason but i can't express how solid the i5 8400 has been,i haven't felt a worthwhile upgrade this nice since i moved from a e6750 to a q6600 back in 2008 for UT3! If i wasn't so much into my older titles i would have jumped on a ryzen 1600 in a second though.Any other recommendations for ryzen chips on sale obviously would be good choices too! :)
 
Apr 27, 2000
10,192
112
126
#56
i5-8400 has been pretty cheap from time to time, but lately the 8600 and 8600k have had similar prices. Getting hard to recommend the 8400 when prices are maybe $20 off.
 
Oct 22, 2018
72
5
36
#57
i5-8400 has been pretty cheap from time to time, but lately the 8600 and 8600k have had similar prices. Getting hard to recommend the 8400 when prices are maybe $20 off.
Was a bit more when i purchased but still i'm beyond happy with it,not into overclocking or anything of the sort and a 300mhz bump on the i5 8600 unlikely will give me a 10% increase in performance to cover nearly a 10% cost increase.I paid the $220 for it from Newegg.
 
Apr 27, 2000
10,192
112
126
#58
Hey if it works for you, no problem. Though you get something like 800 MHz more base clock with an 8600k which is selling for ~$240 right now (8400 is still $220). It's the boost clock that is only 300 MHz different (4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz).
 
Feb 23, 2017
306
58
96
#59
Yup, that boost is typically only for up to 28s at a time too, so that higher base clock is a big plus for the 8600k.
TBH, we've probably got to the point that most CPUs are far exceeding typical usage needs, even in the various market segments. It's been a while since there was a large uplift from one generation to the next.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
916
86
136
#60
Yup, that boost is typically only for up to 28s at a time too, so that higher base clock is a big plus for the 8600k.
TBH, we've probably got to the point that most CPUs are far exceeding typical usage needs, even in the various market segments. It's been a while since there was a large uplift from one generation to the next.
Actually the 8400 basically permanently stays at 3.8GHz all core - it's definitely not a 28s limit, at least not with the standard out of box settings with mobo BIOSes. The base clock is practically redundant because I've never seen a 8400 run at base clock - not even on a cheap B360 mobo with the stock Intel HSF.

That being said, I personally wouldn't pay $220 for one. If you wanted to 'max out' high refresh gaming on a relative budget a $240 8600K overclocked to 5.0GHz makes a lot more sense.
 
May 1, 2011
84
0
71
#61
I would suggest to Sonikku to put i7 3770 (or K) in his H77. It has 5% more IPC over i7 2700 and marginally better clocks, and it will serve him good for the next year.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,250
47
136
#62
Actually the 8400 basically permanently stays at 3.8GHz all core - it's definitely not a 28s limit, at least not with the standard out of box settings with mobo BIOSes. The base clock is practically redundant because I've never seen a 8400 run at base clock - not even on a cheap B360 mobo with the stock Intel HSF.

That being said, I personally wouldn't pay $220 for one. If you wanted to 'max out' high refresh gaming on a relative budget a $240 8600K overclocked to 5.0GHz makes a lot more sense.
I went with the Ryzen 2600X. Stock settings, no overclock at all. Stock cooler, and it runs 4.2 Ghz all day, all core. 4.3 to 4.4 single core once in a while. Paid $180. Paid $80 for the Asrock B450 Pro4 motherboard it sits in.
 
Jun 10, 2013
178
0
81
#63
It should, but it doesn't. I get 20-30 fps in WoW. I can actually play it in 4k with a 1060 gtx and still not push the card to it's fullest. And yet, whether the resolution is 1080p or 4k, the framerate is the same.
If you have the 6GB version of GTX 1060, then you should be able to run it well, even at 4K. The 3GB version will probably spill into main RAM at 4K, especially if you go bananas with the other graphics settings.
If you have 16GB of RAM, I wouldn't upgrade. You'll need CPU+Mobo+RAM+Cooler, and the performance of current platforms does not justify the price in my opinion, unless you're doing something very well threaded (rendering, compiling, transcoding, etc)
What I would do, is buy an i7 3770. Your mobo will support it out of the box, but I would apply the latest pre-2018 Bios update anyway. With ~$100-$150 you'll be done.
I'm playing WoW with i7 3770 and an RX470 at 1080p but rendered at 4K and down-scaled (that in-game setting for 200% resolution) and am pretty happy with the performance and everything looks gorgeous. Just to give you an idea, in Boralus right outside the inn on the evening after the weekly reset I'm getting 35-40 fps, but I only noticed this when I ran Fraps because it's smooth (probably Freesync helps). In the wild I'm getting 50-60 fps. I haven't run Fraps during raid or dungeons, but I only noticed a little stuttering very occasionally in Uldir 25-man, and this is with many addons alerting me. I've noticed slowdowns when I back into a wall and the third person view practically becomes first person and there are many spell effects, but I quickly reorient the camera angle.

If you're interested, I can post here my WoW graphics settings. I found the main CPU resource waste is the view distance and environment detail. Mine defaulted to 7-7 but didn't like the responsiveness and lowered them to 6-6 and it's much better. They only influence the rendering of things very far, like far away mountains won't have features, just a shape.
 
Feb 25, 2004
20,934
3
106
#64
i5-8400 has been pretty cheap from time to time, but lately the 8600 and 8600k have had similar prices. Getting hard to recommend the 8400 when prices are maybe $20 off.
Yeah, when coffeelake came out everyone was talking about the 8600k and 8700K but I remember reading all the benchmarks and thinking the 8400 was the real hot chip that was accidentally released at a sweet price. 6 cores, under $200 and seemed to hang tough with its bigger brothers in gaming. With the 14nm shortages though its price has ballooned up enough its kind of pointless. AMD has stronger offerings in its old price point now that Ryzen+ is out.
 
Last edited:
Oct 22, 2018
72
5
36
#65
Actually the 8400 basically permanently stays at 3.8GHz all core - it's definitely not a 28s limit, at least not with the standard out of box settings with mobo BIOSes. The base clock is practically redundant because I've never seen a 8400 run at base clock - not even on a cheap B360 mobo with the stock Intel HSF.

That being said, I personally wouldn't pay $220 for one. If you wanted to 'max out' high refresh gaming on a relative budget a $240 8600K overclocked to 5.0GHz makes a lot more sense.
True mine sits at a constant 3.8GHz even under a long prime95 load.At first it did idle at 800mhz till i adjusted some settings.
 

jimbotronics

Junior Member
Jul 4, 2018
8
0
41
#66
Still amazed that my 2500K (now overclocked) from 2011 is still doing fine - RAM, SSD, second HDD, graphics card, and case fans upgraded but CPU still going. Have ordered a laptop with 8300H and 1060 in the black Friday sales as a secondary system - was going to go with a 1050Ti but that may not have lasted long enough (with medium settings).
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,500
94
126
#67
Can point precision bring a regular 2600 to the same 4.2ghz a 2600x can get to?
Honestly the recommendations for Non-X 2k series Ryzen makes no sense. It's the opposite of First gen. First gen you could hit the clocks of the X but maybe not the overclock, the savings was a bit better. For the X on this XFR2 does better than most overclockers can do and basically for an extra $20-$30 you are getting the best performance you can get out of the die. Only get the Non-X if you are going for a lower power setup.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,250
47
136
#68
Honestly the recommendations for Non-X 2k series Ryzen makes no sense. It's the opposite of First gen. First gen you could hit the clocks of the X but maybe not the overclock, the savings was a bit better. For the X on this XFR2 does better than most overclockers can do and basically for an extra $20-$30 you are getting the best performance you can get out of the die. Only get the Non-X if you are going for a lower power setup.
And the X gets a better cooler as well. I'm loving the 2600X I bought. It was only $20 more than the 2600 when I picked it up. More than worth the price difference.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
916
86
136
#69
And the X gets a better cooler as well. I'm loving the 2600X I bought. It was only $20 more than the 2600 when I picked it up. More than worth the price difference.
At current prices the 2600 is the better buy, $160 vs $239 using Amazon prices.

Sure, you'll need to overclock to reach 2600X performance, but for an $80 saving that's worth it.

At $239 for the 2600X you're at 8600K pricing already, so for gaming purposes you may as well get the 8600K instead.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,250
47
136
#70
At current prices the 2600 is the better buy, $160 vs $239 using Amazon prices.

Sure, you'll need to overclock to reach 2600X performance, but for an $80 saving that's worth it.

At $239 for the 2600X you're at 8600K pricing already, so for gaming purposes you may as well get the 8600K instead.
At that difference, then sure. When I bought mine it was $200 vs $180 for the 2600. Seems like these prices shift around a lot.

For those fortunate enough to be near a Microcenter they have the 2600X for $189. Then add in the motherboard combo deal, a very nice start.
 
Last edited:
Jun 23, 2005
14,551
81
126
#71
At that difference, then sure. When I bought mine it was $200 vs $180 for the 2600. Seems like these prices shift around a lot.

For those fortunate enough to be near a Microcenter they have the 2600X for $189. Then add in the motherboard combo deal, a very nice start.
Newegg had the best deal. 2600x for $160 on BF. They sold fast though. I missed it and went with an Intel combo.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY