Intel Core i5-8400 (B360) vs. AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (B350)

[Puiu]

Can we stop the useless arguing about extremely small differences that nobody is going to notice anyway?

We can sum up everything like this: buy the 8400 if you care about gaming, buy the 1600 if you plan on working on your PC, or wait for the 2600 if you care about both (an 8-10% bump in performance should be enough).

Also think about how often you will upgrade your PC. For the 8400 you have only the 8700k as an upgrade option (which is by no means bad), for the 1600 you have Zen+, Zen2 and maybe Zen2+/Zen3 (or whatever they'll call it) if AMD sticks to their 2020 plan.

You can't go wrong with either choice because of how similar in performance and price they are.

 

[dirtyferret]

Probably yes. I was basically saying that 720p doesn't tell us anything about future gaming performance and you basically called me a fanboy.

Anyways, try some gaming benchmarks with 3466c14 ram on the R5. You will be amazed. It's performing very very similar to my 4.8ghz 8700k with 3200c16 on ACrigins

Well you are wrong, 720p does give us an indication of future performance. It's not the be all and end all but to dismiss it would mean you have an agenda. It doesn't take into account how game engines might change in the future but generally we've seen GPUs develop faster.

Much like neighborhood cats, if you feed the trolls then they keep coming back yet offer little in return.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

For pure gaming, Intel wins. Even more so if you can budget up for the unlocked CPUs where clock speed is a huge benefit for gaming.
For pure productivity, AMD wins. 12 threads are better than 6.
For a mix of productivity and gaming (especially game streaming), I think AMD wins.
But for budget / value gaming, where you won't have a GTX 1080 in the box, then it's a bit of a crapshoot. Right now, probably go for Intel but try to wait and see what the Ryzen2 chips offer.
Personally I am mostly gaming but still went for the Ryzen 1600 (OC to 3.8) as I don't game above 60fps and will probably upgrade to a future Ryzen chip on the same motherboard.

Agreed, and well said.

Personally, if I had a mixed workload of gaming and productivity, I would choose Ryzen in a heartbeat. As Steve said, the productivity advantage is huge when utilising software that can take advantage of 12 threads. And its not like you can't game on Ryzen, it just scores a bit lower than Intel. It ain't the end of the world, especially with a more mainstream graphics card or higher resolutions like 1440P where CPU performance matters a lot less.

Like you, I mainly game on my system, but I do have a 144Hz panel so I'm sticking with my 6700K @ 4.7GHz until games start bottlenecking on a 4C/8T CPU. I think it has a couple more years left in it yet as a decent gaming CPU, but time will tell.

Oh it has a ton of time left. My 3570k at 4.2 GHz still isnt a bottleneck at 1080p. I think we are hitting the point of diminishing returns both on the hardware and software side.

 

[GreenNova343]

It's irrelevant to make a comparison between an unclockable and a clockable CPU, if it would have compared that Ryzen 5 against the Intel 8400k that would be a different story, in which the Intel CPU would have been litteraly crushed the Ryzen 5.

They were compared because they were almost identical in price:

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#s=60,12&sort=price&k=33,30

-- $175 USD for the R5 1600 (comes with its own cooler, which allows for light to moderate overclocking if you want, but the main benefit is you don't have to pay for another cooler)
-- $179 USD for the i5-8400 (comes with its own cooler)
-- $238 USD for the i5-8600K (does not come with its own cooler, which means you have to plan to pay another $20-50 USD even if you're going to stick it into a B360 chipset motherboard)

Note, that's an extra $80-110 USD you have to spend for the i5-8600K (including cooler) even if you go with a non-Z370 motherboard. Note also that, when they originally tested the i5-8600K (& the i7-8700K) against Ryzen (https://www.techspot.com/review/1505-intel-core-8th-gen-vs-amd-ryzen/), the 720p numbers may have shown a decent-sized gap between Coffee Lake & Ryzen in performance...but not only would the gap only be noticeable on monitors with refresh rates over 144hz, but the gaps were drastically reduced (almost to the point of non-existance) as you increased the resolution (especially once you hit 1440p). Nor was the 8600K noticeable faster than the 8400; despite its much faster stock base speed (3.6 vs. 2.8GHz), their max Turbo speeds are nearly identical (4.1 vs 3.8 GHz with 5 or 6 cores, 4.2 vs. 3.9 GHz with 2-4 cores, & 4.3 vs. 4.0GHz on a single core). Even the i7-8700K's improved performance was due more to clock speed than to having double the threads.

Now, maybe the extra $100 doesn't bother someone that's having to do a complete rebuild of their system: storage (I.e. because they're upgrading from a 7200RPM, or even a 5400RPM, HDD), OS (I.e. they were still using Windows XP or Vista), removable drive (I.e. old system only had a CD-ROM drive), new case, new GPU (I.e. old system was "rocking" a Radeon HD 4670). etc. On that kind of build, with the current GPU prices, an extra $100 isn't going to break the bank. But... if you're reusing your existing case/PSU/SSD, you're holding off on a "new" GPU because your current one still works (especially if you were lucky enough to pick up a GTX 1060/1070/1080 or RX 480/Vega before prices went up), & you're only looking at CPU/motherboard/RAM replacement, then $100 is a much more significant part of your expense.

 

[phanbuey]

I'd consider buying the Ryzen 5 1600 because it's cheaper overall including platform costs and the savings could buy you a decent cooler or some flashy RGB lights. It's also available right now for the MSRP or a little less when on sale, and is supported by a massive range of affordable B350 motherboards. If you're using anything less than a GTX 1080 Ti or play at realistic resolutions the experience is going to be similar or identical to that of more expensive Intel CPUs.

So I own/owned a 1700, 1800x @4ghz, 7820x, and 6700k and I've tried all of them at different points with a 1080 and the 1800x and 7820x with a 1080ti. I can definitely tell you that this statement is false.

You will NOT have a similar experience in games between Intel and AMD systems. I actually bought the initial 1800x after the positive R7 techspot reviews...

In fact in games like Deus Ex, the Witcher 3, dishonored 2, and Fallout 4 (as some examples) there are huge performance drops or systematic frame drops (stutters/lurches) vs the Intel systems. If you tune both systems to the max, and play on a 1070+ @ 1080P or a 1080ti @ 1440P a 5 year old would notice the difference side by side - this is especially true if your monitor does above 60hz.

I love my ryzen system for what it does (it is an amazing SQL database and dev machine), but it makes me cringe when I read "the experience [in Games] is going to be similar to the Intel CPUs". It won't. That's just not true -- the experience will be similar in some games, worse in most games, and downright annoying in many.

 

[Steve]

So I own/owned a 1700, 1800x @4ghz, 7820x, and 6700k and I've tried all of them at different points with a 1080 and the 1800x and 7820x with a 1080ti. I can definitely tell you that this statement is false.

You will NOT have a similar experience in games between Intel and AMD systems. I actually bought the initial 1800x after the positive R7 techspot reviews...

In fact in games like Deus Ex, the Witcher 3, dishonored 2, and Fallout 4 (as some examples) there are huge performance drops or systematic frame drops (stutters/lurches) vs the Intel systems. If you tune both systems to the max, and play on a 1070+ @ 1080P or a 1080ti @ 1440P a 5 year old would notice the difference side by side - this is especially true if your monitor does above 60hz.

I love my ryzen system for what it does (it is an amazing SQL database and dev machine), but it makes me cringe when I read "the experience [in Games] is going to be similar to the Intel CPUs". It won't. That's just not true -- the experience will be similar in some games, worse in most games, and downright annoying in many.

Something was wrong with your setup (Intel Windows install I assume), because what you're saying simply isn't true. I've spent hundreds of hours gaming on an 8700K and an R5 1600 system and they are virtually indistinguishable. Hell I even often game on my editing rig with a 1950X and it runs like a dream. People would be going nuts (more so than normal) if what you've found is even remotely normal.

Tim also games heavily on a Ryzen 7 1700X system and he's never experienced anything like what you describe and he's tested a wide range of games:

 

[Strawman]

Something was wrong with your setup (Intel Windows install I assume), because what you're saying simply isn't true. I've spent hundreds of hours gaming on an 8700K and an R5 1600 system and they are virtually indistinguishable.

Although I don't disagree with your overall point, in PUBG / FH3 and NFS payback there is a drastic difference going from a 1600 to 8700k. Granted, that's the only 3 games I noticed any difference, but they do exist.

Honestly if you don't have a 144hz monitor there is absolutely no point going for anything faster than a 1600 for games. Even with a 1080ti at 1080p, who cares if the gpu is bottlenecked? The only reason I upgraded to 8700k was because of the 144 hz monitor I just bought.

 

[phanbuey]

Something was wrong with your setup (Intel Windows install I assume), because what you're saying simply isn't true. I've spent hundreds of hours gaming on an 8700K and an R5 1600 system and they are virtually indistinguishable. Hell I even often game on my editing rig with a 1950X and it runs like a dream. People would be going nuts (more so than normal) if what you've found is even remotely normal.

Tim also games heavily on a Ryzen 7 1700X system and he's never experienced anything like what you describe and he's tested a wide range of games:

Thanks for the response - I'm not certainly not ruling out the possibility that it was something specific to my setups (esp since I have 144hz monitor and like to game at ~80-100fps); but just sharing my experience (across 2 win 10 installs) and the games I play -- I know there are other games out there too that are poorly optimized that show a big difference. For those reasons, I think the term "virtually indistinguishable" is rather strong.

For some tests - Witcher 3 in white orchard, as you run around the town the game would skip frames, deus x - consistent frame skip as you run around, Fallout 4 - heavy shadowed areas/metros/ towns - 40% fps difference.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Something was wrong with your setup (Intel Windows install I assume), because what you're saying simply isn't true. I've spent hundreds of hours gaming on an 8700K and an R5 1600 system and they are virtually indistinguishable. Hell I even often game on my editing rig with a 1950X and it runs like a dream. People would be going nuts (more so than normal) if what you've found is even remotely normal.

Tim also games heavily on a Ryzen 7 1700X system and he's never experienced anything like what you describe and he's tested a wide range of games:

Im curious, looking at the benchmarks there must be a noticeable difference if gaming at 144hz? I mean in quite a few games AMD scores 100fps where Intel scores 133 for example, this is based on general results ive read across multiple reviewers - gamers nexus - GTA V has 108fps avg on a Ryzen 1700 (OC'd) compared to 150 avg on an i7 8700K (OC'd), and this isnt irellevant, high refresh rate gaming appears to be becoming more mainstream and I know far more people who game at 144hz than do at 4k. I agree that at 60hz today, looking at the results I would be surprised if you can tell the difference. However it seems to me that whilst this is great for Ryzen users now, if they upgrade to a midrange card in 2-3 years time the differences between these CPU's would become more apparent. Also, according to gamers nexus CIV can complete a turn in 15s on average on an 8700k where its more like 18 on an overclocked 1700 and falling as low as 20 on the R5 parts. Might sound silly but I would notice that but then again maybe I play too much CIV!


But this is it for me, the 1600 is a better all rounder. But if you are enthusiastic about PC gaming and overclocking then Intel is still well ahead. Im definitely in the latter category, I wouldnt bother spending money on my PC if I didnt play games on it. Ironically my work PC is used more than my gaming rig and I couldnt care less about it, so long as its able enough.

 

[Steve]

Im curious, looking at the benchmarks there must be a noticeable difference if gaming at 144hz? I mean in quite a few games AMD scores 100fps where Intel scores 133 for example, this is based on general results ive read across multiple reviewers - gamers nexus - GTA V has 108fps avg on a Ryzen 1700 (OC'd) compared to 150 avg on an i7 8700K (OC'd), and this isnt irellevant, high refresh rate gaming appears to be becoming more mainstream and I know far more people who game at 144hz than do at 4k. I agree that at 60hz today, looking at the results I would be surprised if you can tell the difference. However it seems to me that whilst this is great for Ryzen users now, if they upgrade to a midrange card in 2-3 years time the differences between these CPU's would become more apparent. Also, according to gamers nexus CIV can complete a turn in 15s on average on an 8700k where its more like 18 on an overclocked 1700 and falling as low as 20 on the R5 parts. Might sound silly but I would notice that but then again maybe I play too much CIV!

But this is it for me, the 1600 is a better all rounder. But if you are enthusiastic about PC gaming and overclocking then Intel is still well ahead. Im definitely in the latter category, I wouldnt bother spending money on my PC if I didnt play games on it. Ironically my work PC is used more than my gaming rig and I couldnt care less about it, so long as its able enough.

Ahh there is a big difference between trying to spot the difference between 100 - 130 fps on average compared to "huge performance drops or systematic frame drops (stutters/lurches)". In the GTA V example both processors deliver well over 60 fps for the 0.1% low, so neither are going to be anything but silky smooth. If you're playing competitive titles on high refresh rate monitors then yes the Core i7-8700K can be better, which is why we recommend it for high refresh rate gaming.

 

[Strawman]

Ahh there is a big difference between trying to spot the difference between 100 - 130 fps on average compared to "huge performance drops or systematic frame drops (stutters/lurches)". In the GTA V example both processors deliver well over 60 fps for the 0.1% low, so neither are going to be anything but silky smooth. If you're playing competitive titles on high refresh rate monitors then yes the Core i7-8700K can be better, which is why we recommend it for high refresh rate gaming.

Exactly that. Sure the 8700k has better numbers on msi afterburner, but there are only a handful of games that you can actually see the difference. At least that's my experience with the 2 cpu's

 

[phanbuey]

Exactly that. Sure the 8700k has better numbers on msi afterburner, but there are only a handful of games that you can actually see the difference. At least that's my experience with the 2 cpu's

The difference between a 1080 and a 1080ti is 35% - and no one is arguing that the differences between these two cards in gaming is not material - because it is... but that's the argument that being made between these CPUs... that a 20 - 30% difference in gaming "is not material" because one can hobble over the 60 fps mark in a handful of games and therefore is 'silky smooth'...

I'm not saying that this is not a good CPU - it is.

But I am saying that very few people are sitting around handbraking, compressing, and doing monte carlo simulations all day - (most excel operations - formatting, conditional rules, filter, color, VBA, copy / paste data are single threaded) -- more people do single threaded office work and even more people game -- to claim that the R5 1600 is 'almost the same' in gaming when it is 20-30% slower and better at everyday tasks when most everyday tasks are single threaded/legacy apps is contrary to everything I have seen and experienced, and a bit disingenuous.

In addition, my personal experience with these CPUs in gaming is sub par...

I think in only rare cases is the 1600 a better 'all round' CPU - if I was to build a daily rig for a friend who also played games, I would not pick this unless I knew he did a substantial amount of threaded work.

 

[mat9v]

It is not "because one can hobble over the 60 fps mark in a handful of games and therefore is 'silky smooth'..." when 0.1% lowest is above 60 fps - in such situation you will have typical fps above 80 and in most cases around 100 fps.

 

[Strawman]

In addition, my personal experience with these CPUs in gaming is sub par...

I think in only rare cases is the 1600 a better 'all round' CPU - if I was to build a daily rig for a friend who also played games, I would not pick this unless I knew he did a substantial amount of threaded work.

This is so wrong it's not even funny honestly. I had the 1600 with a 1060 for half a year, and you know what, the 1060 was bottlenecking the CPU like mad in every single game. And we are talking about huge bottlenecks here. So what are you suggesting, that you wouldn't buy a 1060 for gaming either, since it's plenty slower than a 1600? Need I remind you that's a 350$ GPU, right?

 

[Sausagemeat]

Ahh there is a big difference between trying to spot the difference between 100 - 130 fps on average compared to "huge performance drops or systematic frame drops (stutters/lurches)". In the GTA V example both processors deliver well over 60 fps for the 0.1% low, so neither are going to be anything but silky smooth. If you're playing competitive titles on high refresh rate monitors then yes the Core i7-8700K can be better, which is why we recommend it for high refresh rate gaming.

I struggle telling the difference beyond 100 fps. But from my experience I wouldnt try telling someone who owns one of these fancy panels that!

 

[jannclaude]

Ryzen 5 2600 ( b350 ) vs i5 8400 ( b360 ) for gaming? I'll be pairing it with a gtx 1060

 

[Steve]

Ryzen 5 2600 ( b350 ) vs i5 8400 ( b360 ) for gaming? I'll be pairing it with a gtx 1060

I'd say you'll probably want to check out the Ryzen 5 2600X benchmarks when they come out tomorrow.

 

[jannclaude]

I'd say you'll probably want to check out the Ryzen 5 2600X benchmarks when they come out tomorrow.

Yeah. I can't wait haha will be waiting for your benchmark Steve! BTW, If I choose the r5 2600. Should I go with r5 2600 with b350 or r5 2600x with a320?

 

[Strawman]

Ryzen 5 2600 ( b350 ) vs i5 8400 ( b360 ) for gaming? I'll be pairing it with a gtx 1060

The 8400 will probably have better performance / dollar when it comes to gaming. Though with a 1060 there isn't gonna be any difference, and we all know that the 2600 is the better overall processor. So ball is in your court, both choices will leave you absolutely satisfied, no doubt.

 

[jannclaude]

The 8400 will probably have better performance / dollar when it comes to gaming. Though with a 1060 there isn't gonna be any difference, and we all know that the 2600 is the better overall processor. So ball is in your court, both choices will leave you absolutely satisfied, no doubt.

It shouldn't matter that much if I just play for 60 fps right? The only thing I don't like about ryzen is that you need a very fast ram for it to compete the 8400. 8x2 3200mhz ram here cost $100 more than 8x2 2666mhz here in the Philippines

 

[dso24]

Damn, I'm surprised the 1600 fared so well. will be interesting to see how it compares to the 2600X in gaming

 

[Nightfire]

You can usually take that 2666 ram and o/c to 2933. All ram I used has had some headroom. Honestly, the 8400 will most likely be faster either way I'm gaming.

The 2600/b350 is definitely a better option than the 2600x/a320.

 

[CheekyP]

It shouldn't matter that much if I just play for 60 fps right? The only thing I don't like about ryzen is that you need a very fast ram for it to compete the 8400. 8x2 3200mhz ram here cost $100 more than 8x2 2666mhz here in the Philippines

Technically, the 8400 is the faster gaming CPU, but for 60Hz gaming, either CPU will be fine, so just get the cheapest option, which I assume would be the 8400 + DDR4 2666 + B360 mobo.

I've been saying all along that Ryzen needs faster memory in order to compete with Intel in gaming, which hurts its value somewhat. The CPU price is great, the motherboards are reasonably priced, but DDR4 3200+ (Ryzen 2000 series can run 3466 reliably now) is pretty expensive compared to the slower memory kits, which themselves aren't even that cheap to begin with!

 

[jannclaude]

After watching alot of benchmarks I noticed that ryzen 5 2600x has a higher single core Cinebench than i5 8400. Yet i5 8400 is giving out more fps, why is this?

 

[Sausagemeat]

After watching alot of benchmarks I noticed that ryzen 5 2600x has a higher single core Cinebench than i5 8400. Yet i5 8400 is giving out more fps, why is this?

Clock speed.