This is how they used to publish turbo speeds: turbo bin matrix depending on number of cores loaded. They no longer do this for 8th gen.
This is how they used to publish turbo speeds: turbo bin matrix depending on number of cores loaded. They no longer do this for 8th gen.Even older chips only published max turbo for single core. 6600K: [...]
Seems like they are publishing turbo speeds as they always have.
$257 recommended price? woot, good luck finding such pricing in the current consumer marketYeah the i5-8400 is the best budget 6 core CPU out right now, and I would build a mid-range system using it if I needed a new mid-range build.
Where are you seeing this priced that high? The highest I've seen it was $200 over at Newegg.$257 recommended price? woot, good luck finding such pricing in the current consumer market
All of which are sold out. Go see ones that are still available and check their price. they much closer to the i7 ranges than i5s.Where are you seeing this priced that high? The highest I've seen it was $200 over at Newegg.
Probably due to folks buying them for Xmas, which is to be expected. I would wait until the middle of January anyway.All of which are sold out. Go see ones that are still available and check their price. they much closer to the i7 ranges than i5s.
I agree. but however the 8700 is around twice as much as the 8400. The later is more suited for a mid-range or even a budget build.PCGamer is obviously a gaming focused website so it makes sense they chose a 8400. Personally I think the 8700 is the better cpu. That may sound crazy but for me part of purchasing is future proofing and I suspect the 8700 will last longer than the 8400 in much the same way the 2600k has outlasted the 2500k. 8700k is overkill for gamers but hey, we are computer geeks.
PCGamer is obviously a gaming focused website so it makes sense they chose a 8400. Personally I think the 8700 is the better cpu. That may sound crazy but for me part of purchasing is future proofing and I suspect the 8700 will last longer than the 8400 in much the same way the 2600k has outlasted the 2500k. 8700k is overkill for gamers but hey, we are computer geeks.
PCGamer is obviously a gaming focused website so it makes sense they chose a 8400. Personally I think the 8700 is the better cpu. That may sound crazy but for me part of purchasing is future proofing and I suspect the 8700 will last longer than the 8400 in much the same way the 2600k has outlasted the 2500k. 8700k is overkill for gamers but hey, we are computer geeks.
You are right, the 8700 is the more future proof CPU. You will probably get an extra year or two of useful life out of it as a gaming CPU compared to the 8400.
The other angle though is that the $120 you save today can be put into a more powerful GPU - its enough to go from a GTX 1060 to 1070, or RX580 to Vega 56 if you prefer the red team.
Recommended price is actually $187.00, which is what I paid on October the 12th.$257 recommended price? woot, good luck finding such pricing in the current consumer market
That's why If I were building today, I would go with the 1600X. Unless you need every last fps, the 1600X should age much better. It will also be considerably better at many non gaming tasks. If you're someone who games but also does a fair bit of x264, the 1600X will probably be the better choice.
Resolution also matters. 1080p at 120/144Hz, maybe go for the 8700. 1440p/4K at 60Hz, Id go for the 1600.
The expressoin is "a bird in the hand", etc. I would take the proven faster gaming performance of the 8400 today vs some theoretical "aging better" from the 1600. As you said, the 1600 (x) is at a deficit now of 10 to 20 percent, so even if it "ages better", who knows when if ever it will catch up, much less surpass the 8400. And one can turn around the "good enough" argument that is a favorite of AMD fans to the 8400 as well. Even if the 1600 someday catches up or passes the 8400, I seriously doubt it will be enough faster than the 8400 will still not be very close and "good enough".Why 1600X and not 1600? Its cheaper and you don't need to get a HSF with the 1600, and should be good to OC to 3.8GHz with the Wraith HSF.
I agree the 1600/1600X should age better but it's also coming from behind in terms of IPC, so for the next 2 or so years the 8400 will still be faster than a 1600. Maybe by 2019 or 2020 we will see 6C/6T start to bottleneck games like 4C/4T does today, but even then, Ryzen 1600 has quite a deficit to make up.
Looking at PCGamers chart with a 1080 Ti the 8400 sits about 20% faster than a stock 1600X and 25% faster than a 1600, although if you overclock the Ryzen 5 chips naturally the margin will narrow, probably to about 10% if you can get 4GHz on the 1600. Of course, not everyone overclocks, so in that case the 8400 wins easily. If you overclock, you can make a case for Ryzen 5 because at or near 4GHz it is 'close enough' to the 8400 that you will probably not notice the difference, and as you said if you run anything else that needs the extra threads the 1600 will win out.
On your point about resolution, yes definitely it matters. As I said earlier, the 8400 is ideal for 144Hz gaming as it comes close enough to the 8700K in this respect while being significantly cheaper.
At 1440P and especially 4K, CPU makes a much smaller difference, though assuming a 1.5x increase in GPU power from Volta, we *may* see 1440P be somewhat CPU bound in 2018 in some titles as the CPU vs GPU equation changes with each generational leap in GPU power.
The expressoin is "a bird in the hand", etc. I would take the proven faster gaming performance of the 8400 today vs some theoretical "aging better" from the 1600. As you said, the 1600 (x) is at a deficit now of 10 to 20 percent, so even if it "ages better", who knows when if ever it will catch up, much less surpass the 8400. And one can turn around the "good enough" argument that is a favorite of AMD fans to the 8400 as well. Even if the 1600 someday catches up or passes the 8400, I seriously doubt it will be enough faster than the 8400 will still not be very close and "good enough".
The problem with the Core i5 8600 is the Z370 boards, the cheapest one is at $105 when the cheapest AM4 B350 at only $50.
The extra $50 can be put for faster RAM on the RYZEN that will close the performance difference to single digits.
Also the 8600 lacks the upgradability of the AM4 platform (Up to 8C 16T Ryzen 2).
If cheap H310 boards were available today the Core i5 8600 could be the better option, but with only the expensive Z370 boards any advantages 8600 has, disappears.
Incorrect, 8600K @ 5GHz dominates Ryzen @ 4GHz, even with fast memory:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3157-intel-i5-8600k-review-overclocking-vs-8700k-8400/page-2
The difference is definitely not 'single digits' as you claim. Maybe against a stock 8400, but not a 8600K @ 5GHz.
I agree. The 8400 is just sitting in a bad position today. If the motherboards were cheaper, then it would be different. But there just are very few situations where the 8400 wins.If cheap H310 boards were available today the Core i5 8400 could be the better option, but with only the expensive Z370 boards any advantages 8400 has, disappears.
Don't forget that is a great feature that virtually no one actually uses. Why put in a shiny new high-end chip into a motherboard with out-of-date ports and slow memory.Don’t forget am4 platform will be supported until zen+ but for intel, there is no guaranteed of anything
because it makes no difference in cpu performance and it saves money?Don't forget that is a great feature that virtually no one actually uses. Why put in a shiny new high-end chip into a motherboard with out-of-date ports and slow memory.
Memory speed certainly makes a difference, and for those who are upgrading top CPUs year after year money isn't the driver (money often isn't even a consideration). Don't get me wrong, the ability is great. Just very few people actually do that.because it makes no difference in cpu performance and it saves money?
how often do people upgrade rams when switching out a cpu into the same socket?Memory speed certainly makes a difference, and for those who are upgrading top CPUs year after year money isn't the driver (money often isn't even a consideration). Don't get me wrong, the ability is great. Just very few people actually do that.
I agree, and the 8350K overclock requires a ~$100 cooler to be competitive with the 8400 in gaming.I think the 8400 will overall be better than the 8350K, even in all types of gaming.