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

[Julio Franco]

Before the incoming 2nd-gen Ryzen parts arrive this shootout will let us establish how AMD and Intel currently stack up with all the latest Windows updates, BIOS updates, driver updates and new motherboards we have on hand, giving us an up to date reference point for the new CPUs.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1608-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-1600-best-value/

 

[dj2017]

First 8400 vs Ryzen 1600 test
8400 is a God send piece of hardware, any victories for Ryzen should be ignored as an anomaly, go for the 8400, forget Ryzen.


Fast forward to today and Ryzen is a better option? Even for gaming "you are not going to notice a difference". Back in the first comparison "Look at the 720p results. They matter the most. 8400 is more future proof". Now "you can upgrade to Ryzen 2000, with Intel you can't".



Maybe I was correct back then objecting to the bias conclusion that between 8400 and 1600 there is only one choice? People should really read both reviews and then double check it is the same site.

 

[Strawman]

What I find amusing here is that in the last 8400 vs 1600 article you were basically calling me a troll, and in this one you pretty much used every single point I made back then. Well....okay

 

[Explz]

Hmm the 720p benchmarks are now missing on the page of the original 8400 review...

 

[Steve]

What I find amusing here is that in the last 8400 vs 1600 article you were basically calling me a troll, and in this one you pretty much used every single point I made back then. Well....okay

Are you talking about the article that focused solely on gaming performance?

Hmm the 720p benchmarks are now missing on the page of the original 8400 review...

The 8400 review never featured 720p results bud. I think you are confused. I used the 1080 Ti and Vega 64 LC @ 1080p in that review.

First 8400 vs Ryzen 1600 test
8400 is a God send piece of hardware, any victories for Ryzen should be ignored as an anomaly, go for the 8400, forget Ryzen.

Fast forward to today and Ryzen is a better option? Even for gaming "you are not going to notice a difference". Back in the first comparison "Look at the 720p results. They matter the most. 8400 is more future proof". Now "you can upgrade to Ryzen 2000, with Intel you can't".

Maybe I was correct back then objecting to the bias conclusion that between 8400 and 1600 there is only one choice? People should really read both reviews and then double check it is the same site.

I don't understand this crap? We've called the Ryzen 5 1600 the best value CPU since it released. This stupid fanboying rubbish needs to stop.

Here is a quick refresher:

The Best CPU & GPU Purchases of 2017
https://www.techspot.com/article/1530-best-cpu-gpu-purchases-2017/

 

[Strawman]

Are you talking about the article that focused solely on gaming performance?

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

 

[dj2017]

Yeah, maybe your readers are stupid fanboys posting crap. Everything is solved now.

 

[Steve]

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.

Yeah, maybe your readers are stupid fanboys posting crap. Everything is solved now.

Statistically we're not off to a good start but I'm confident the ratio will improve.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

So the same results as before, ryzen is a better production chip, i5 is the better gaming chip, ryzen is more flexible, i5 draws less power.

Surprised to see AMD's memory controller curb-stomping intel's with the same memory. When is the last time that happened, 2005?

 

[Steve]

So the same results as before, ryzen is a better production chip, i5 is the better gaming chip, ryzen is more flexible, i5 draws less power.

Surprised to see AMD's memory controller curb-stomping intel's with the same memory. When is the last time that happened, 2005?

Exactly, we were even impressed on release day what the Ryzen 7 CPUs could do with slower memory.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page2.html

 

[CheekyP]

Nothing surprising in those results except the power draw, I didn't expect a chipset change to lower power consumption so much for the i5 8400.

So basically, AMD is still king for productivity and Intel is still king for gaming - provided you have a GPU fast enough to take advantage of it.

 

[Steve]

For those wondering here is the previous i5-8400 vs. R5 1600 comparison, I'm not sure what dj2017 and Strawman are complaining about:

"I know there's going to be AMD fans screaming that I'm biased because I included low resolution results or because I didn't base my pricing analysis on today's special at Microcenter. On the other side of that fence, Intel fans will be up in arms that I didn't use a GTX 1080 Ti for testing or that 1440p limits CPU performance and therefore AMD paid me.

The truth is, I don't care either way. Buy the Ryzen 5, buy the Core i5, it's all the same to me. I'm just trying to provide the best information I can on the subject for potential buyers. Just for fun though and something a little different, let's make a case for buying the Ryzen 5 1600 and then the Core i5-8400.

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.

The included cooler is good enough to support a 4GHz overclock with a custom fan curve and most chips hit at least 3.9GHz with the right voltage setting. Ryzen's efficiency is also great and the R5 1600 is rather power efficiency for a 6-core/12-thread CPU. Speaking of which, it does support 12-threads and that could be handy in the future. Gaming aside, the R5 1600 is the superior CPU for productivity even before it's overclocked (vastly superior in some tests).

And I'd consider buying the Core i5-8400 because it's the stronger gaming CPU for the vast majority of titles available right now. Stronger low resolution performance could point to it being a better CPU down the track and a better pairing for future generation GPUs. That said, a high refresh rate monitor will surely be better served by the 8400 right now. It's also a beast out of the box, no need to fine tune or overclock -- not that you can, but you're getting superior performance in games anyway.

Although Z370 motherboards are the only option right now, going this route is only slightly more expensive and it provides a flexible upgrade path in the future, so it might not even be worth saving $30 to $50 on a B360 board for a lot of gamers. In the end, the 8400 is a simple, yet powerful option for gamers.

I'm trying to look at this as objectively as I can and you can certainly make a strong case for buying either the Ryzen 5 1600 or the Core i5-8400. The only hiccup is that you can actually buy the Ryzen CPU right now whereas you can't get the 8400. This is likely to change in the coming weeks however, so let's not complicate the issue. You'll just have to cross that bridge when it comes time to update or build your new gaming PC."

 

[CheekyP]

Steve I'm going to disagree somewhat that with anything less than a 1080 Ti you won't notice any difference in gaming performance - and that is because game settings are scalable - for example, I have a Fury X and while it is obviously much slower than a 1080 Ti, I generally run at medium/high settings (except on undemanding or older games) rather than very high or ultra at 1080P so I can max out my 144Hz gaming monitor. I mostly play FPS games so the action happens so fast that I honestly cannot tell the difference in IQ between high and ultra during actual gameplay. What I do notice are the much higher framerates, though.

FWIW I run a 6700K at 4.7GHz, so its a pretty good CPU for high refresh rate gaming. I doubt a Ryzen, even at 4GHz, could provide the same framerates as my current setup, and I don't own a 1080 Ti (though I wish I did!)

 

[Steve]

Steve I'm going to disagree somewhat that with anything less than a 1080 Ti you won't notice any difference in gaming performance - and that is because game settings are scalable - for example, I have a Fury X and while it is obviously much slower than a 1080 Ti, I generally run at medium/high settings (except on undemanding or older games) rather than very high or ultra at 1080P so I can max out my 144Hz gaming monitor. I mostly play FPS games so the action happens so fast that I honestly cannot tell the difference in IQ between high and ultra during actual gameplay. What I do notice are the much higher framerates, though.

FWIW I run a 6700K at 4.7GHz, so its a pretty good CPU for high refresh rate gaming. I doubt a Ryzen, even at 4GHz, could provide the same framerates as my current setup, and I don't own a 1080 Ti (though I wish I did!)

Give me a game and settings, I'll let you know how Ryzen does. Also I'm obviously talking about GPU bound gaming which is what most gamers face most of the time.

 

[dj2017]

Steve, in this review you see things from a totally different perspective. Back then, the review was focusing on Intel's 8400 superiority in everything, trying maybe to balance a bit things in the conclusion. But from the first pages everything was very clear. Go for the 8400. Now in this review things are more balanced from the beginning, maybe even favoring Ryzen a bit.
Never mind...

 

[CheekyP]

Give me a game and settings, I'll let you know how Ryzen does. Also I'm obviously talking about GPU bound gaming which is what most gamers face most of the time.

Well playing Far Cry 5 at the moment (great game!) but I was talking more about MP games like BF1 and PUBG where I reduce settings to improve fps, unfortunately multiplayer is next to impossible to benchmark in an objective manner unless you just run around for 5 minutes in PUBG without getting shot... haha

My point is that, I don't run at ultra (GPU bound) settings on my GPU because I would be getting 60fps in most AAA titles - thus defeating the purpose of a 144Hz gaming monitor. So I run at medium to high settings and aim to get a 100+fps average, in which case a faster CPU *may* make a difference - I say may because I really haven't done any testing on this.

 

[Steve]

Steve, in this review you see things from a totally different perspective. Back then, the review was focusing on Intel's 8400 superiority in everything, trying maybe to balance a bit things in the conclusion. But from the first pages everything was very clear. Go for the 8400. Now in this review things are more balanced from the beginning, maybe even favoring Ryzen a bit.
Never mind...

Can you please give examples? I have no idea what you're talking about. I even pasted the conclusion in a comment above and selected parts that I went over again in this article. I think it's all in your head mate.

 

[Puiu]

Hey @Steve , great work as always. It's nice to see unbiased and thorough benchmarks (like you always do).

I have a single question, do you know why the Intel boards took so long to release? Even if they released the Coffee Lake CPUs really early I was mostly expecting these boards to come out in early February (late Feb at worst). Intel would have had a really nice head start against the Ryzen refresh but now everybody is saying to just wait and see what happens in a few weeks.

 

[Steve]

Hey @Steve , great work as always. It's nice to see unbiased and thorough benchmarks (like you always do).

I have a single question, do you know why the Intel boards took so long to release? Even if they released the Coffee Lake CPUs really early I was mostly expecting these boards to come out in early February (late Feb at worst). Intel would have had a really nice head start against the Ryzen refresh but now everybody is saying to just wait and see what happens in a few weeks.

There are loads of theories but honestly, I don’t really know, it’s a bit baffling. I’d have to do some serious research and have a good think about it to really comment properly. At a quick guess I’d say they were more focused on countering Ryzen at the high-end and stealing AMD’s thunder there. Then the security issues popped up and maybe that caused them to lose focus. We know the entire thing was rushed, it’s basically just been one big mess but it’s finally coming together, just in time for 2nd gen Ryzen

 

[dj2017]

Can you please give examples? I have no idea what you're talking about. I even pasted the conclusion in a comment above and selected parts that I went over again in this article. I think it's all in your head mate.

The previous review was starting with a 720p chart. My objections back then was that it shouldn't.
"Battlefield 1 brought disappointing numbers for Ryzen right off the bat." was what someone was reading under that chart.

"Some will say they are realistic as they show gamers how much difference they will really see under conditions they intend to play. The other side being that it's hiding how much faster the Intel CPUs are and with faster GPUs that margin will open up in the future."
That's something you latter read about 1080p results in the first page and while both options are mentioned, anyone who would like to be safe than sorry, will go with the second opinion.

Before that, about 8400's valuation
"You're essentially getting 7700K like performance (slightly better) for a much lower price, when looking at the MSRP anyway."

People are already sold to 8400. No reason to look at the other pages, other than curiosity maybe.

Of course in the second page we see Ryzen beating 8400. Should we have any doubts about which one is the better option? Nope.....
"Here we see something different to the results just shown when testing Battlefield 1. I'm not sure what it is about Civilization VI but the game runs significantly better on AMD's Ryzen CPUs when using a Radeon graphics card (when playing in the DirectX 12 mode).

It's hard to say if this is an indication of how future native DirectX 12 titles will perform on Ryzen in relation to Intel, or if this title is just some strange anomaly."
.........It's an anomaly. Or at least, when 8400 wins, it's crystal clear. The one time Ryzen wins. Well, that needs more investigation...

In the comments we had a dialog where I was insisting that you can't predict how games will perform in today's processors. Game engines change, new optimizations for Ryzen processors could be introduced, requirements could change asking for at least 8 cores/threads. You insisted that you can do good enough predictions, I pointed at some results proving my point, you replied that you have improved your testing.
What was certain in the last review, now it is not
"Which CPU will offer the best experience in 2-3 years time is anyone's guess, I wouldn’t dare waste your time speculating about such a thing."


Let me be clear here. I should shut the h up. I mean, I read the review I was expecting to read a year ago, with a few extra points in favor of Ryzen in the conclusion as icing on the cake, and I make you regret it. I should shut up now.

 

[dj2017]

There are loads of theories but honestly, I don’t really know, it’s a bit baffling. I’d have to do some serious research and have a good think about it to really comment properly. At a quick guess I’d say they were more focused on countering Ryzen at the high-end and stealing AMD’s thunder there. Then the security issues popped up and maybe that caused them to lose focus. We know the entire thing was rushed, it’s basically just been one big mess but it’s finally coming together, just in time for 2nd gen Ryzen

Maybe they didn't had chipsets ready. Maybe they have done something that was introducing new security vulnerabilities like those in ASMedia chipsets and had to redesign them. If I remember correctly, Z370 was based on Kaby Lake PCH, while the new chipsets are based on Cannon Lake PCH. So maybe they needed more time and we should also expect a better version of Z370.

 

[Steve]

The previous review was starting with a 720p chart. My objections back then was that it shouldn't.
"Battlefield 1 brought disappointing numbers for Ryzen right off the bat." was what someone was reading under that chart.

"Some will say they are realistic as they show gamers how much difference they will really see under conditions they intend to play. The other side being that it's hiding how much faster the Intel CPUs are and with faster GPUs that margin will open up in the future."
That's something you latter read about 1080p results in the first page and while both options are mentioned, anyone who would like to be safe than sorry, will go with the second opinion.

Before that, about 8400's valuation
"You're essentially getting 7700K like performance (slightly better) for a much lower price, when looking at the MSRP anyway."

People are already sold to 8400. No reason to look at the other pages, other than curiosity maybe.

Of course in the second page we see Ryzen beating 8400. Should we have any doubts about which one is the better option? Nope.....
"Here we see something different to the results just shown when testing Battlefield 1. I'm not sure what it is about Civilization VI but the game runs significantly better on AMD's Ryzen CPUs when using a Radeon graphics card (when playing in the DirectX 12 mode).

It's hard to say if this is an indication of how future native DirectX 12 titles will perform on Ryzen in relation to Intel, or if this title is just some strange anomaly."
.........It's an anomaly. Or at least, when 8400 wins, it's crystal clear. The one time Ryzen wins. Well, that needs more investigation...

In the comments we had a dialog where I was insisting that you can't predict how games will perform in today's processors. Game engines change, new optimizations for Ryzen processors could be introduced, requirements could change asking for at least 8 cores/threads. You insisted that you can do good enough predictions, I pointed at some results proving my point, you replied that you have improved your testing.
What was certain in the last review, now it is not
"Which CPU will offer the best experience in 2-3 years time is anyone's guess, I wouldn’t dare waste your time speculating about such a thing."


Let me be clear here. I should shut the h up. I mean, I read the review I was expecting to read a year ago, with a few extra points in favor of Ryzen in the conclusion as icing on the cake, and I make you regret it. I should shut up now.

Well I think you've come to a conclusion. I don't feel like there is anything I need address at this point so I'm going to tick the resolved box on this one

 

[msroadkill612]

Re Cinebench: "Intel enjoys (barely noticeable) greater single core performance while Ryzen’s many threads thanks to the use of SMT gives it superior (curb stomps intel by ~50%) multi-threaded performance."

I hate that unqualified use of "better or worse", when it clearly doesn't reflect the very relevant reality of by how much or degree.

 

[Steve]

Re Cinebench: "Intel enjoys (barely noticeable) greater single core performance while Ryzen’s many threads thanks to the use of SMT gives it superior (curb stomps intel by ~50%) multi-threaded performance."

I hate that unqualified use of "better or worse", when it clearly doesn't reflect the very relevant reality of by how much or degree.

Yeah that's what the bloody graphs are for LOL

 

[Vulcanproject]

Those gaming tests though, especially the AC: Origins one which is a very modern title with a very well threaded engine and points to the future of games. The gap is really huge even to the overclocked 1600. If it's productivity you are buying for, more threads are what you want, but if it's gaming the 8400 is where it is at.

Intel still somehow manage to get away with locking their processors. If the 8400 overclocked then really the Ryzen lineup would be pretty much obsolete. This strategy must still be paying off for them at retail to still get away with it.