The Best CPU & GPU Purchases of 2017

The Ryzen 1600 was great until Intel turned up with the i5 8400. Particularly for gamers the 8400 walks away with it.

Best mid range graphics is a toss up between GTX1060 and RX580, Nvidia still hold the high end. It's been a poor year for GPUs on the basis of supply and cost. For most of this year the same cards cost more than they did in 2016.

However seeing as all of these boards are effectively now the best part of 18 months old we should have a new generation in 6 months, if not less.
 
I got an rx 470 for super cheap when the 570 came out and it was definitively a bargain
 
dirtyferret said:
No love for the i5-8400?
Click to expand...
I think next year the i5-8400 is going to shine. Right now, because I'm buying a new PC it is just not Worth inveting in i5-8400. As long as you want to stay in budget I mean. Mobos are too expensive for my taste.
 
enemys said:
It got a lot of love in different articles, but it's not a definite hit yet. Better availability and lower priced mobos will make it shine, but these will only come next year.
Click to expand...
Yet the 8700k got love and it goes for $80-100 over msrp when you can find it in stock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainTom
I see not a dramatic price difference between 1600+350 and 8400 + 370. But RAM really make me suck. For the most cheap 16Gb pair price I can buy new ps4/xb1 today. It's crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainTom and Stark
LeroN said:
I see not a dramatic price difference between 1600+350 and 8400 + 370. But RAM really make me suck. For the most cheap 16Gb pair price I can buy new ps4/xb1 today. It's crazy.
Click to expand...
The R5-1600 is at 190 on Amazon since somedays, would be great if gets $25 off the monday xD
 
The chart header line says ~"vega 64 vs GTX 1080 FE is 5% slower on average @ 1440p"

Hell, I would gladly drop 5% now for the future benefits of a new gen gpu over an end of the line rehash of an old gen gpu.

That's what's great about chips. The same physical purchase, can improve drastically, free & easy, by programming & drivers.

We are seeing a rapid succession of double digit+ vega performance improvements from updated games & drivers.

The nvidia 1080 is pretty much mined out for such treasure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainTom and TempleOrion
One factor I consider when scouting new CPU's that most reviewers leave out is "operating cost".

I once used AMD cpu's exclusively because they were a bargain for similar performance, but then they became power hogs between all the wattage the chips themselves consumed plus the need for power-hungry coolers just to keep them at a decent operating temperature. Using my computer 16 hours a day 24/7, the extra electricity costs start to add up. Even all the heat generated by my old florescent-backlit LCD monitor was generating so much heat my a/c was running more in the Summer.

So I ended up moving to Intel (the fact even the fastest FX chip was about the speed of a mid-range i5 only made the decision easier.)

But now that the Ryzen CPU's appear to use less power than the Intel's with comparable performance for less money, AMD is likely to win me back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion
Good article. Got to love Steve for his professional views and the perspective he offers. Keep it up guys good work. happy to be here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve
Vulcanproject said:
The Ryzen 1600 was great until Intel turned up with the i5 8400. Particularly for gamers the 8400 walks away with it.

Best mid range graphics is a toss up between GTX1060 and RX580, Nvidia still hold the high end. It's been a poor year for GPUs on the basis of supply and cost. For most of this year the same cards cost more than they did in 2016.

However seeing as all of these boards are effectively now the best part of 18 months old we should have a new generation in 6 months, if not less.
Click to expand...

Techspot doesn't seem to think so. While their initial testing did show some areas where the i5-8400 comes out ahead of the R5 1600 at stock (https://www.techspot.com/review/1502-intel-core-i5-8400/page5.html), there were also some areas (including some games) where the R5 came out ahead. And on the gaming side, OC'ing the R5 mostly eliminated the i5's edge (https://www.techspot.com/review/1514-core-i5-8400-vs-overclocked-ryzen-5-1600/page6.html).

More importantly, though, the costs have switched a bit. The i5-8400 is now running more around $200USD ($10USD higher than when originally reviewed) than those initial comparisons, while the R5 1600 dropped to $190USD ($25USD cheaper than the original comparison). And cost is still a significant factor, particularly since you're force to use Z370 motherboards for the i5. The cheapest combination is going to run you about $320USD, whether full ATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/4cNqCy) or mATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/y3fHPs). In contrast, going with the R5 1600 & a B350 board will cost you about $280USD for a full ATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/XTrR6X0) or $250USD for a mATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DXbTRG)...& if you simply don't want to worry about overclocking at all, you can drop down to $240USD using a mATX A320 board (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pDjWgL).

For those that don't want to worry about the math, that means that, by choosing the R5 1600 instead of the i5-8400, you have anywhere from an extra $40USD to an extra $80 USD that you can a) use to get a better GPU, b) get a larger SSD (or add another HDD for secondary storage), c) buy an extra game or 2, or d) just save back for future purchases...while knowing that you're sacrificing little to no computing power to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion
GreenNova343 said:
Techspot doesn't seem to think so. While their initial testing did show some areas where the i5-8400 comes out ahead of the R5 1600 at stock (https://www.techspot.com/review/1502-intel-core-i5-8400/page5.html), there were also some areas (including some games) where the R5 came out ahead. And on the gaming side, OC'ing the R5 mostly eliminated the i5's edge (https://www.techspot.com/review/1514-core-i5-8400-vs-overclocked-ryzen-5-1600/page6.html).

More importantly, though, the costs have switched a bit. The i5-8400 is now running more around $200USD ($10USD higher than when originally reviewed) than those initial comparisons, while the R5 1600 dropped to $190USD ($25USD cheaper than the original comparison). And cost is still a significant factor, particularly since you're force to use Z370 motherboards for the i5. The cheapest combination is going to run you about $320USD, whether full ATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/4cNqCy) or mATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/y3fHPs). In contrast, going with the R5 1600 & a B350 board will cost you about $280USD for a full ATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/XTrR6X0) or $250USD for a mATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DXbTRG)...& if you simply don't want to worry about overclocking at all, you can drop down to $240USD using a mATX A320 board (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pDjWgL).

For those that don't want to worry about the math, that means that, by choosing the R5 1600 instead of the i5-8400, you have anywhere from an extra $40USD to an extra $80 USD that you can a) use to get a better GPU, b) get a larger SSD (or add another HDD for secondary storage), c) buy an extra game or 2, or d) just save back for future purchases...while knowing that you're sacrificing little to no computing power to do so.
Click to expand...
What games as you recall most sites have the i5-7600 beating the 1600 in gaming and the distance is even greater once both are OC. I checked the techspot review and the only game the 1600 showed better FPS was Civ VI and only with an AMD fury as their results with the Nvidia 1080ti were only separated by 1-2%. In all other games the 8400 had a lead regardless of GPU used.
 
Last edited:
It is nice to see AMD back in the game but there is no comparison with any of the high Intel chips Gen 4 and up and the prices on Ryzen really are higher than AMD was in the past but at least they are back in the game. The FX series with high heat and noise factor left them really nowhere except price by comparison.
 
GreenNova343 said:
Techspot doesn't seem to think so. While their initial testing did show some areas where the i5-8400 comes out ahead of the R5 1600 at stock (https://www.techspot.com/review/1502-intel-core-i5-8400/page5.html), there were also some areas (including some games) where the R5 came out ahead. And on the gaming side, OC'ing the R5 mostly eliminated the i5's edge (https://www.techspot.com/review/1514-core-i5-8400-vs-overclocked-ryzen-5-1600/page6.html).

More importantly, though, the costs have switched a bit. The i5-8400 is now running more around $200USD ($10USD higher than when originally reviewed) than those initial comparisons, while the R5 1600 dropped to $190USD ($25USD cheaper than the original comparison). And cost is still a significant factor, particularly since you're force to use Z370 motherboards for the i5. The cheapest combination is going to run you about $320USD, whether full ATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/4cNqCy) or mATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/y3fHPs). In contrast, going with the R5 1600 & a B350 board will cost you about $280USD for a full ATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/XTrR6X0) or $250USD for a mATX (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DXbTRG)...& if you simply don't want to worry about overclocking at all, you can drop down to $240USD using a mATX A320 board (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pDjWgL).

For those that don't want to worry about the math, that means that, by choosing the R5 1600 instead of the i5-8400, you have anywhere from an extra $40USD to an extra $80 USD that you can a) use to get a better GPU, b) get a larger SSD (or add another HDD for secondary storage), c) buy an extra game or 2, or d) just save back for future purchases...while knowing that you're sacrificing little to no computing power to do so.
Click to expand...

According to Techspot i5 8400 is notably faster than the Ryzen 1600 even when it is heavily overclocked in 720p, slightly faster in 1080p and all this data includes the outlier that is Civ 6. If you don't play that one game the gap is even wider in favour of the 8400.

There isn't a huge amount in it but you basically are forced into heavily overclocking the 1600 to 4GHz which isn't always possible (my friend's sample only does 3.8GHz) to get mostly inferior gaming performance to the 8400 right out of the box. You pays your money and takes your choice. 8400 can be harder to get hold of right now and the boards are more expensive, but it'll only last another couple months.

Considering other outlet data on the 8400 (e.g PC Gamer) I have seen and comparisons with various cards the 8400 holds strong and is faster in most scenarios, often significantly so.
 
Vulcanproject said:
According to Techspot i5 8400 is notably faster than the Ryzen 1600 even when it is heavily overclocked in 720p, slightly faster in 1080p and all this data includes the outlier that is Civ 6. If you don't play that one game the gap is even wider in favour of the 8400.

There isn't a huge amount in it but you basically are forced into heavily overclocking the 1600 to 4GHz which isn't always possible (my friend's sample only does 3.8GHz) to get mostly inferior gaming performance to the 8400 right out of the box. You pays your money and takes your choice. 8400 can be harder to get hold of right now and the boards are more expensive, but it'll only last another couple months.

Considering other outlet data on the 8400 (e.g PC Gamer) I have seen and comparisons with various cards the 8400 holds strong and is faster in most scenarios, often significantly so.
Click to expand...

"Measurably", I'll give...but I'm not sure that "noticeably" qualifies when their average was just under 8% at 720p (153 vs. 142), & only 1.5% at 1080p (132 vs. 130)... or that at 1440p (albeit a resolution where the GPU starts holding your system back) the i5 technically lost to the OC'd Ryzen CPU (107 vs. 108, or a -1% drop).

Of course, I suppose we should throw out the Civilization VI results, since they actually showed the R5 1600 outperforming the i5-8400 (even without an OC), since that's not "fair"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainTom and TempleOrion
GreenNova343 said:
"Measurably", I'll give...but I'm not sure that "noticeably" qualifies when their average was just under 8% at 720p (153 vs. 142), & only 1.5% at 1080p (132 vs. 130)... or that at 1440p (albeit a resolution where the GPU starts holding your system back) the i5 technically lost to the OC'd Ryzen CPU (107 vs. 108, or a -1% drop).

Of course, I suppose we should throw out the Civilization VI results, since they actually showed the R5 1600 outperforming the i5-8400 (even without an OC), since that's not "fair"...
Click to expand...

11 percent faster at minimum frame rates is the noticeable takeaway at 720p, including the Civ 6 data.....

It's fair, but it's also an outlier that skews average results, just like how Resident Evil 7 heavily skews average results for 4GB cards like the RX570 against 3GB cards like the GTX1060, since it's pretty much that sole game where the extra memory makes a huge difference at 1080p. Despite the fact the GTX1060 is usually faster most other games. Which makes it fair to highlight outliers.

Averages only tell you so much, but you're relying on them heavily and hanging onto them as if they say everything. They don't really.

I also note you had nothing to say about my point that overclocking isn't always consistent and and it isn't for everyone. Anything less than a 4GHz OC and you have further lowered results. Maybe you also think that good 4GHz 1600 parts are common and that reviewers aren't nearly always sent handpicked parts....

You made a decent case for Ryzen 1600 yet i5 8400 makes a strong case for itself browsing gaming results from around the interwebs.
 
Last edited:
Got my R5 1600 and B350 motherboard for a combined total of $182 before rebate, thanks to MicroCenter. After rebate, it'll be $167. How much was the i5 8400 with motherboard again? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion
OK you are a clearcut winner with that combination at that price and that has always been the edge of AMD however no comparison to the performance of my 4 year old Devils Canyon 4790K with Msi Pc Mate motherboard though less than 1/3 the price of course originally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
  • Locked
The Best GPU for Every Price Point
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
m3tavision
m3tavision
TechSpot
GPU Shootouts of This Generation and Pricing Update: Nvidia RTX 4000, AMD Radeon 7000 & Intel Arc
Replies
20
Views
349
HardReset
H
TechSpot
Is Your Older Ryzen CPU Fast Enough for the RTX 4080?
2
Replies
42
Views
509
scavengerspc
scavengerspc

Latest posts

Back