Well, I usually don't like car analogies, but I will give this a shot.
So lets say I get a 2017 Corvette ZR1, but my buddy says "well thats good, but the Ferrari (pick your favorite) is the best, so don't settle for good enough". Seriously, thats what I hear you saying, and thats just silly.
More things CAN come into the equation. The 1600X is 6 core, and isn;t the 8600k also 6 core ? and the pricing ? Oh wait, you can't buy a 8400 or 8600k right now, not in stock.I'm not sure I'm getting the false equivalence obsession with i7-8700K vs R5 1600X comparisons here. If the goalposts have shifted again and absolute performance isn't important, merely "good enough for 60fps", then it's clear looking at benchmark after benchmark that the i5-8400 / i5-8600K is the far better bang-per-buck and more obvious comparison choice virtually matching the 8700K in 99.95% of game performance for 1600/1600X pricing. Not wanting to shell out for the most expensive i7 available is understandable, but are we really arguing $20 = an NVMe vs SATA, 1080 vs 1070 or Corvette vs Ferrari here? If that's true, then I'd love to know where you guys are shopping...
Doesn't sound like a good ad.More things CAN come into the equation. The 1600X is 6 core, and isn;t the 8600k also 6 core ? and the pricing ? Oh wait, you can't buy a 8400 or 8600k right now, not in stock.
But regardless, there are all sorts of considerations. My point is that good enough in GAMING but maybe better at something else, or less expensive might be a better buy for a user. Saying its silly to get good enough, sounds silly to me.
I'm not sure I'm getting the false equivalence obsession with i7-8700K vs R5 1600X comparisons here. If the goalposts have shifted again and absolute performance isn't important, merely "good enough for 60fps", then it's clear looking at benchmark after benchmark that the i5-8400 / i5-8600K is the far better bang-per-buck and more obvious comparison choice virtually matching the 8700K in 99.95% of game performance for 1600/1600X pricing. Not wanting to shell out for the most expensive i7 available is understandable, but are we really arguing $20 = an NVMe vs SATA, 1080 vs 1070 or Corvette vs Ferrari here? If that's true, then I'd love to know where you guys are shopping...
Oh wait, you can't buy a 8400 or 8600k right now, not in stock.
Wasn't a choice for the OP of the arbitrary thread title, sure. But of course it's a primary choice for most people looking for a mid-range chip. Literally every single review that reviewed it concludes that, including Anandtech's ("The Ones To Watch - Intel also sampled us the Core i5-8400, showing that six-core processors can cost less than $200. This processor, along with the Core i3-8100, will form the new backbone of general computing when using Intel components...") It's kinda obvious to everyone what the 1600 should be compared against...The 8600k wasn't a choice and the 8400 is a terrible choice because you never know if you are actually going to be able to maintain the 6 core turbo the way they have clocked the 8400.
I always thought it was the opposite - people stuff everything on Ultra for benchmarking and then regularly turn down a lot of "Pure Ultra" cr*p (Chromatic Aberration, Motion Blur, Lens Dirt, etc) simply because half of them are consistently so over-exaggerated they look absurd regardless of performance.It's that people overlook the actual settings they would be running their games at when evaluating the best gaming parts. When you actually play games and not scrounging out Benchmarks where the IQ is turned down to the point where the GPU isn't part of the equation, these CPU's are often tied.
This isn't fanboyism. What you are probably seeing is a difference in culture. I grew up on PC gaming. My first Video card was a TNT2 M64. People who started who gamed then or before it, no what a real struggle it was to maintain suitable frame rates. Specially if like myself during the Geforce 2 days I moved to a 1600x1200 monitor. It's hard to take the I need the fastest CPU absolutely because "framerates" seriously because it's impact in game play ability is almost nill nowadays.
Just like many Intel fans could not stomach the performance Ryzen brought to the table, many AMD fans cannot stomach the value Coffee Lake brings in return.It's just weird that ever since Coffee Lake's launch, the i5-8400/8600K are increasingly becoming "the elephant in the room" that those who recently purchased Ryzen's don't want to talk about, even though every single post-Ryzen (but pre Coffee-Lake) benchmark for the past 6 months was all about R5-1600 vs i5-7400/7500/7600...
That TechDeals video on YT, that was linked in another thread, comparing the i7-8700 (K and non-K) CFL, with the Ryzen 7 1700 (OC and non-OC), showed that in a couple of games, higher mins for Ryzen. I think that they were both DirectX 12 games. Running on a 1080ti.
However, this value may end up being overshadowed by availability problems. Hope it gets better soon.
I assume that the choices were left for a specific reason. Because why not a 1500x and so on. I assume it was the choice of someone who wanted 8 or more threads. A 8600k wouldn't be a bad choice. But given the selection available there is a substantial savings with a 1600x and not just $20. That said I would still recommend a 8700k unless I knew the budget constraints.The 8400 has been in stock here in the UK all week for almost £10 less than the R5 1600. It still is at time of writing. Just wondering where all this massive "money saving" thing is because even in the USA, $20 that separates i5-8600K vs R5-1600X and $0 between 8400 vs 1600 is nothing like $240 i5-7600K vs $130 FX 8350 disparities of yesteryear, where picking two nearest CPU's actually saved you $100.
Wasn't a choice for the OP of the arbitrary thread title, sure. But of course it's a primary choice for most people looking for a mid-range chip. Literally every single review that reviewed it concludes that, including Anandtech's ("The Ones To Watch - Intel also sampled us the Core i5-8400, showing that six-core processors can cost less than $200. This processor, along with the Core i3-8100, will form the new backbone of general computing when using Intel components...") It's kinda obvious to everyone what the 1600 should be compared against...
And unless you have a faulty cooler, desktop Turbo's are solid. It's only laptops where the Turbo's will be dropped for Base freqs due to power constraints if under heavy load for a long time usually as part of a motherboard's 15-35w TDP target to stay within cooling / power "brick" limitations.
I am not talking about ultra I am talking about playable high IQ. Kind of like HardOCP reviews their video cards. Though I know of several people that build a machine because "I want Ultra everything". It doesn't take ultra settings to minimize the impact of the CPU choice.I always thought it was the opposite - people stuff everything on Ultra for benchmarking and then regularly turn down a lot of "Pure Ultra" cr*p (Chromatic Aberration, Motion Blur, Lens Dirt, etc) simply because half of them are consistently so over-exaggerated they look absurd regardless of performance.
Probably to a degree. Keep in mind that when you are responding to me I am not suggesting the 1600x is the CPU to get for a gaming PC (even if it is what I would probably get, but those reasons aren't all gaming related).As someone who started with a 286 + 1MB RAM and MS-DOS 2.0, I totally understand where you're coming from. It's just weird that ever since Coffee Lake's launch, the i5-8400/8600K are increasingly becoming "the elephant in the room" that those who recently purchased Ryzen's don't want to talk about, even though every single post-Ryzen (but pre Coffee-Lake) benchmark for the past 6 months was all about R5-1600 vs i5-7400/7500/7600...
This topic goes back all the way to SB when people were debating a 2500k vs a 2600k. At what point are purchasing a placebo and does making that purchase affect other choices negatively. If you are budgeting $1000 to a machine and dedicating 38% of that to a CPU, that impacts all the other part decisions greatly. Or 28% at $1500. It is still worth noting that the best "gaming" CPU won't give you the best gaming performance if it affects the other choice you make. Still as noted by me about a dozen times. With out any qualifiers an 8700k and probably a 8600k are going to be better purchases.Edit : Reading between the lines, everyone knows exactly what the real honest price equivalents of everything is (R3 1300 = i3-7100 / 8100, R5 1600 = i5-8400 / 8600K, R7 1700/1800 = i7-8700 / 8700K), but since Intel bumped everything down a notch with CFL, it's no longer a massive win for AMD and people seem to want to talk around that issue rather than directly address it...
With the prices you pay 8400 and 8600k is very good value.The 8400 has been in stock here in the UK all week for almost £10 less than the R5 1600. It still is at time of writing. Just wondering where all this massive "money saving" thing is because even in the USA, $20 that separates i5-8600K vs R5-1600X and $0 between 8400 vs 1600 is nothing like $240 i5-7600K vs $130 FX 8350 disparities of yesteryear, where picking two nearest CPU's actually saved you $100.
Wasn't a choice for the OP of the arbitrary thread title, sure. But of course it's a primary choice for most people looking for a mid-range chip. Literally every single review that reviewed it concludes that, including Anandtech's ("The Ones To Watch - Intel also sampled us the Core i5-8400, showing that six-core processors can cost less than $200. This processor, along with the Core i3-8100, will form the new backbone of general computing when using Intel components...") It's kinda obvious to everyone what the 1600 should be compared against...
And unless you have a faulty cooler, desktop Turbo's are solid. It's only laptops where the Turbo's will be dropped for Base freqs due to power constraints if under heavy load for a long time usually as part of a motherboard's 15-35w TDP target to stay within cooling / power "brick" limitations.
I always thought it was the opposite - people stuff everything on Ultra for benchmarking and then regularly turn down a lot of "Pure Ultra" cr*p (Chromatic Aberration, Motion Blur, Lens Dirt, etc) simply because half of them are consistently so over-exaggerated they look absurd regardless of performance.
As someone who started with a 286 + 1MB RAM and MS-DOS 2.0, I totally understand where you're coming from. It's just weird that ever since Coffee Lake's launch, the i5-8400/8600K are increasingly becoming "the elephant in the room" that those who recently purchased Ryzen's don't want to talk about, even though every single post-Ryzen (but pre Coffee-Lake) benchmark for the past 6 months was all about R5-1600 vs i5-7400/7500/7600...
Edit : Reading between the lines, everyone knows exactly what the real honest price equivalents of everything is (R3 1300 = i3-7100 / 8100, R5 1600 = i5-8400 / 8600K, R7 1700/1800 = i7-8700 / 8700K), but since Intel bumped everything down a notch with CFL, it's no longer a massive win for AMD and people seem to want to talk around that issue rather than directly address it...
It doesn't take maxing out IQ to bring on a GPU bottleneck. Let's say you in your example which you choose benchmarks that highlighted the largest delta between the 8700/7700K CPU's. Noting the Project Cars bench has an issue because that delta is abnormally large for what we know of as the performance delta. That Project cars delta being what it is, if you increased your IQ to bring the system down to your comfort spot 100/60FPS. You are right in the Window of the 1600x, which means that at your given IQ settings, in your given game, the two CPU's would be indistinguishable. Why because you brought the the GPU bottleneck down to a point that that the two CPU's would be performing the same. That is in a non-Fallout 4 worst case scenario in performance delta's.
That's always been my point. If you buy a game and you decide where you want to sit in performance. You buy a GPU and CPU to give you that performance. You generally are running with enough eye candy to put the more expensive item (the GPU) to real work. When you do that most CPU's will look the same. When you get a game later that can't run as well, you don't get another CPU. You get a new GPU. Maybe it's twice as good, in the old games you set the IQ higher in the newer game you set the IQ again to maintain your performance window you are looking for. In all likelihood your new settings will recreate the same situation as before which is again a GPU bottlenecked setup that will equalize a lot of CPU's.
Even with a only for gaming system. CPU choice doesn't matter nearly as much as all of the posts imply based on CPU bottlenecked testing.
Yields may not be problematic, but these chips are aggressively clocked for their TDP, so it looks to me like binning might be a problem. This is somewhat confirmed by the 8400 being available in bigger quantities from day one. This is just a thought though, maybe people who know better can chime in.That surprises me a little. Intel can't claim yields as a problem since 14nm is quite mature by now. So what's really the issue here?
Yep. We needed a bit lower clocked 8700k. So the 8700k was 8800k.Yields may not be problematic, but these chips are aggressively clocked for their TDP, so it looks to me like binning might be a problem. This is somewhat confirmed by the 8400 being available in bigger quantities from day one. This is just a thought though, maybe people who know better can chime in.
I bring up Project cars because it isn't indicitive of actually gaming on any of these CPU's as the delta between it and the 7700/8700 exceeds the worst case scenario of what the CPU's would look like if all that ever mattered was CPU performance. There is something wrong with that benchmark. If project cars were all you played it would be one thing but you shouldn't make purchasing decisions on an outlier specially if its not something you would play.If we were to use Project Cars as a point of reference, the 1600X wouldn't even be able to hit my (personal) sweetspot of 100fps avg/60fps min at higher IQ because it can't even average 100fps on lower settings in the first place (its averaging 89fps overclocked, 85fps stock) Further increasing IQ will only bring those averages and mins down even more, unless you are suggesting the 1600x is completely bottlenecking the framerate and increasing IQ won't incur a performance penalty?
It's never been about good enough, this is getting tiring. My point was never about good enough gaming. It's about the over focus on CPU bottleneck gaming, which isn't a realistic look at gaming in general. I would say the same if someone was bringing up a i3 8100 vs. a 8700k. Which is don't focus on the CPU bottleneck benches if you are normal user doing normal gaming specially if you are working on a budget and spending more on the CPU will cost you in more important areas.On the topic of 'good enough', yes the 1600X is good enough for gaming. It maintains >60fps mins in most AAA titles as far as I'm aware. I would happily game on a 1600X if that was all I had, or all I could afford. But it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are better options out there, but they do cost a bit more money. Even the i5 8400 costs a bit more once you take into account Z370 mobo prices.
Agreed which is why for the thirteenth time I would, without a budget a 8700 is certainly the CPU to get (if you can get it).Budget permitting, I would go with a faster CPU than a 1600X for gaming. I spend hundreds of hours gaming per year. An extra $100 on a faster CPU is a good investment if it provides noticeable improvements to gameplay. That's how I see it.
To me it look like a 1800x and most of those probably end up in tr or epyc.
My 350 board I ordered day one. It was only the 370 Taichi that I had to wait 3 weeks on. The 1800x went in the B350 pro4 board when they came in 5 days later. Then when the Taichi shipped I got a 1700x, and swapped procs.The R7-1800x was broadly-available from day one, though. Granted the price may have kept demand for it down (as well it should have), but still. There was no problem buying one. The boards . . . that was a different story.
Yeaa the entire 6c line is practucally waporware and paperlaunch. We dont have a clearer picture before dec/jan as to the binning. Look at 7700k and 1600x prices. They havnt moved as i can tell the last two weeks. When they do go down like 15%-20% its because the cfl 6c is comming in meaningfull numbers. Intel is a huge machine and will get production up full steam in 3 months. Then we will see effect and can judge the binning. Its really nice processors. When they come for real they will have impact.What's surprising is even the non-k 8700 is out of stock in a lot of places. It wasn't binned as aggressively as the k, I don't think?
Just like many Intel fans could not stomach the performance Ryzen brought to the table, many AMD fans cannot stomach the value Coffee Lake brings in return.
However, this value may end up being overshadowed by availability problems. Hope it gets better soon.
I also purchased Ryzen just before CFL and will soon build a CFL system (ETA next week), and I have no regret concerning my 1600X purchase. Considering what I payed for the Ryzen build and what I'll pay for the Coffee Lake build, perf/dollar for my workloads is mostly the same.I purchased Ryzen just before Coffee Lake and I will freely admit that Coffee Lake is the faster CPU. It is faster even at the same price as Ryzen. I personally think Ryzen needs a price cut to be competitive.
WOW
Totally loving the debate!! Socrates and Plato would be proud.
So as the OP, a couple of things:
Keep it up everyone!
- Yes, @Markfw the Ryzen 1600X never dropped below 60FPS in those charts. But here's the thing... I am putting a lot of money into this build. A budget of $2500. And I plan to keep the processor/motherboard I buy for a bit. Hence, I want it to handle the games that I like now, and those that come down the pike in the next 2 to 4 years. Games are trending to toward using more of the CPU and it's threads. Given that, I have way more faith in the 8700K over the Ryzen 1600X at keeping pace with those games. And with 6C/12T, I think the 8700K will do that better than even the 7700K (answers #2).