The Core i5-11400F coupled with a B560 motherboard make for an interesting build configuration, as it's significantly cheaper than the Core i5-11600K/Z590 and less than the cost of the Ryzen 5 5600X.
The Core i5-11400F coupled with a B560 motherboard make for an interesting build configuration, as it's significantly cheaper than the Core i5-11600K/Z590 and less than the cost of the Ryzen 5 5600X.
It really isnt a problem for the consumer though. ACtually its great for us, we can get 95% of OC performance for the price a core i3 was going for not 3 years ago. And we dont have to buy silly $300+ motherboards anymore, since OCing isnt really a big deal.The problem is that we are way past the peak at what manual OCing adds for value for money in any linear manner. Eg, I remember taking a Celeron 366 and OC'ing that +50% to 550MHz with no extra cost beyond having to buy a larger CPU cooler for £12 (+50% performance for +10% cost). Today though, those figures are flipped around and that last +10% performance costs almost +50% by the time you've added up the "unlock premium" for K chips, Z boards, greater cooling capacity, etc, it can easily end up more than simply buying the next locked CPU up.
Perfect example - the biggest performance upgrade to the i5-10400F isn't an i5-10600K / i5-11600K. It's still a B460 + i7-10700F (3/4 of the price of a 5600X in many regions and not far off the 10700K in the article), with still no real reason to buy "budget" Rocket Lake at current B560 premium board prices (and nor is a B460 lack of compatibility going to be much of an issue in the big picture of things given Rocket Lake's incredibly short predicted lifespan swiftly followed by yet another new socket in 6 months time...)
The problem is that we are way past the peak at what manual OCing adds for value for money in any linear manner. Eg, I remember taking a Celeron 366 and OC'ing that +50% to 550MHz with no extra cost beyond having to buy a larger CPU cooler for £12 (+50% performance for +10% cost). Today though, those figures are flipped around and that last +10% performance costs almost +50% by the time you've added up the "unlock premium" for K chips, Z boards, greater cooling capacity, etc, it can easily end up more than simply buying the next locked CPU up.
Perfect example - the biggest performance upgrade to the i5-10400F isn't an i5-10600K / i5-11600K. It's still a B460 + i7-10700F (3/4 of the price of a 5600X in many regions and not far off the 10700K in the article), with still no real reason to buy "budget" Rocket Lake at current B560 premium board prices (and nor is a B460 lack of compatibility going to be much of an issue in the big picture of things given Rocket Lake's incredibly short predicted lifespan swiftly followed by yet another new socket in 6 months time...)
Are you sure ? I had a hard time finding release prices for the B460 Tomahawk but the HardwareLuxx review states that the lowest price at time of review was €129, the cheapest price I could find for the B560 version is €175, that‘s almost €50 or 36% more.No idea why you complain about b560 prices. It launched with the same pricing as b460 counterparts in europe. I paid €170 for nice asus rog itx board while it has more features in comparison to b460 that costs the same then and now too.
Telling exactly as it is. I’m not looking outside of itx boards as I have no interest in ATX, but z490 were all around €250+ mark, decent b460 or h470 were going around 140-160 (msi had front usb type c connection for example), while z590 begin around €260-270 and good b560 around €160-170, just like the one I bought. I don’t think €160 for a quality b560 itx board with strong vrm and enough ports is a lot to ask.Are you sure ? I had a hard time finding release prices for the B460 Tomahawk but the HardwareLuxx review states that the lowest price at time of review was €129, the cheapest price I could find for the B560 version is €175, that‘s almost €50 or 36% more.
This could be a similar situation as with B450 vs B550 boards where prices went up due to better materials (e.g. PCB) for PCIe 4 support and often better features.
Also, I am not sure who would have bought an expensive high end B460 mainboard due to the large differences in what it allowed you to do vs Z490.
Would really be interested in a review comparing the B560 Tomahawk to its B460 predecessor.
The problem is that we are way past the peak at what manual OCing adds for value for money in any linear manner. Eg, I remember taking a Celeron 366 and OC'ing that +50% to 550MHz with no extra cost beyond having to buy a larger CPU cooler for £12 (+50% performance for +10% cost). Today though, those figures are flipped around and that last +10% performance costs almost +50% by the time you've added up the "unlock premium" for K chips, Z boards, greater cooling capacity, etc, it can easily end up more than simply buying the next locked CPU up.
Perfect example - the biggest performance upgrade to the i5-10400F isn't an i5-10600K / i5-11600K. It's still a B460 + i7-10700F (3/4 of the price of a 5600X in many regions and not far off the 10700K in the article), with still no real reason to buy "budget" Rocket Lake at current B560 premium board prices (and nor is a B460 lack of compatibility going to be much of an issue in the big picture of things given Rocket Lake's incredibly short predicted lifespan swiftly followed by yet another new socket in 6 months time...)
Totally agree. Just remember the whining when B550 boards were released like „why is the B550 Tomahawk more expensive than B450“. I have the latter which for €100 is a great board, but the B550 version is what I would have bought even for the higher price due to its higher build quality and better features.Telling exactly as it is. I’m not looking outside of itx boards as I have no interest in ATX, but z490 were all around €250+ mark, decent b460 or h470 were going around 140-160 (msi had front usb type c connection for example), while z590 begin around €260-270 and good b560 around €160-170, just like the one I bought. I don’t think €160 for a quality b560 itx board with strong vrm and enough ports is a lot to ask.
Honestly the 400 series are fine cpu's for gaming. My previous setup was a 2060 combined with a 9400. Perfect for 1080p gaming and very potent for 1440p gaming. Throw in freesync/gsync and you'll have a wonderful experience.
It should actually be better for 1440p than 1080pHonestly the 400 series are fine cpu's for gaming. My previous setup was a 2060 combined with a 9400. Perfect for 1080p gaming and very potent for 1440p gaming. Throw in freesync/gsync and you'll have a wonderful experience.
You must’ve skipped all the benchmarks in this article to claim that 3600 is somehow better.IMHO...This still cannot beat the AMD 3600 for value, especially if you factor in the price of a useful cooling solution, and motherboard.
It performs only a smidgen below the 11400, but is MUCH cheaper. AND there is an upgrade path if you so wish.
Alfatawi never said the 3600 is better, but that the difference in performance between the 3600 and 11400F doesn't justify the difference in cost to consider it the best value option, to which I somewhat agree. You can run the 3600 with the boxed cooler in many applications and games without reaching dangerous temps or even throttling, and even using a sub $100 motherboard. Based on this review, you'd need an aftermarket cooler for the Intel CPU along with a somewhat more expensive mobo.You must’ve skipped all the benchmarks in this article to claim that 3600 is somehow better.
Also there are no upgrade paths for 11400. While on AM4 socket you can double cores (5900X) or even more (5950X), LGA1200 best CPU is 11900K that's not worthwhile.Alfatawi never said the 3600 is better, but that the difference in performance between the 3600 and 11400F doesn't justify the difference in cost to consider it the best value option, to which I somewhat agree. You can run the 3600 with the boxed cooler in many applications and games without reaching dangerous temps or even throttling, and even using a sub $100 motherboard. Based on this review, you'd need an aftermarket cooler for the Intel CPU along with a somewhat more expensive mobo.
If you stick to tdp limits - stock is fine. They tested it with those disabled. Look at wattage - it’s higher than 5600x, but not by any long mile. You won’t run 5600x on simple cooler either if you want the best from it.Alfatawi never said the 3600 is better, but that the difference in performance between the 3600 and 11400F doesn't justify the difference in cost to consider it the best value option, to which I somewhat agree. You can run the 3600 with the boxed cooler in many applications and games without reaching dangerous temps or even throttling, and even using a sub $100 motherboard. Based on this review, you'd need an aftermarket cooler for the Intel CPU along with a somewhat more expensive mobo.
It’s not worthwhile to buy a cpu with a mindset of upgrade path when the next gens midrange will most likely put even 5900x to shame and will cost far less.Also there are no upgrade paths for 11400. While on AM4 socket you can double cores (5900X) or even more (5950X), LGA1200 best CPU is 11900K that's not worthwhile.
Considering that and also higher power consumption, 3600 is much better choice.