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

[CheekyP]

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?

Because Cinebench isn't representative of gaming performance.

 

[msroadkill612]

Yeah that's what the bloody graphs are for LOL

Its also what the shills (not you steve - respect) take great liberties with in misinforming readers.

 

[Nightfire]

It looks like the gaming advantage of the i5 all but evaporated with the release of the 2600.
Steve often changes the games and quality settings, but we can use Far Cry 5 and Assassins Creed at Ultra.

1600@4.0 ghz / 2600@4.2Ghz / i5-8400 (B-360) / 8400 (z-370)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assassins Creed (fps): 88 / 98 / 101 / 105
Battlefield 1 : 148 / 160 / 157 / 166

Even if you compare to the Z-370 setup, the i5 advantage goes from 19% and 12% on AC and BF1 to 7% and 4%. I didn't cherry pick these, I just used the ones that had continuity. If you compare to the B-360 setup, the o/c 2600 actually trades blows with the i5. Very good progress for AMD!

 

[CheekyP]

It looks like the gaming advantage of the i5 all but evaporated with the release of the 2600.
Steve often changes the games and quality settings, but we can use Far Cry 5 and Assassins Creed at Ultra.

1600@4.0 ghz / 2600@4.2Ghz / i5-8400 (B-360) / 8400 (z-370)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assassins Creed (fps): 88 / 98 / 101 / 105
Battlefield 1 : 148 / 160 / 157 / 166

Even if you compare to the Z-370 setup, the i5 advantage goes from 19% and 12% on AC and BF1 to 7% and 4%. I didn't cherry pick these, I just used the ones that had continuity. If you compare to the B-360 setup, the o/c 2600 actually trades blows with the i5. Very good progress for AMD!

i5 8400 still holds a small advantage over an overclocked 2600X, especially for min fps. Not to mention it is actually cheaper than a 2600/2600X by $20 and $50 respectively, it is more comparable to an overclocked 2700X for gaming:

 

[CheekyP]

It should be mentioned that the above results are for a Z370/DDR4 3200 combo for the i5 8400, naturally a B360/DDR4 2666 combo would be a bit slower.

So basically I would say a heavily overclocked 2600/2600X at 4.1 - 4.2GHz with DDR4 3200 CL14 would be about equal with a 8400 with B360 + DDR4 2666. That still represents a significant cost savings for the 8400 platform, not just because of the cheaper memory, but you will probably need aftermarket cooling to overclock the Ryzens, especially the 2600, which only ships with a Wraith Stealth. I believe it tops out at 4GHz with the stealth cooler.

 

[Nightfire]

Yes, all things considered (memory cost, mb cost, cooling) the i5 still have a slight edge in gaming. However, it is a fraction of what it was with the gen 1 R5 as the new review shows.

It is now VERY hard to recommend the i5 over the R5 considering the MT hit for a few fps.

 

[CheekyP]

Yes, all things considered (memory cost, mb cost, cooling) the i5 still have a slight edge in gaming. However, it is a fraction of what it was with the gen 1 R5 as the new review shows.

It is now VERY hard to recommend the i5 over the R5 considering the MT hit for a few fps.

For a gaming only machine (or where gaming is the most demanding task) the i5 would be my choice, otherwise I agree that the R5 is the better all round CPU.

Personally if I was building for myself, I would get a 2600 over a 8400, firstly because I enjoy overclocking, and it should prove more ''future proof' for higher threaded games in future.

But from a purely bang for buck perspective for gaming, the i5 8400 is a good choice, especially with B360 mobos.