Its guaranteed that Intel has the fastest platform for gaming in 2017 and 2018, without the need to upgrade anything. The onus is on AMD releasing something competitive in the future, but how long will we have to wait for that?Don’t forget am4 platform will be supported until zen+ but for intel, there is no guaranteed of anything
I'm not going to pay an extra ~$100 for a aftermarket cooler nor overclock my CPUs anyway. And besides, I prefer to stay at a 65w TDP.I agree, and the 8350K overclock requires a ~$100 cooler to be competitive with the 8400 in gaming.
I agree it's not logical from a price to performance basis.I'm not going to pay an extra ~$100 for a aftermarket cooler nor overclock my CPUs anyway. And besides, I prefer to stay at a 65w TDP.
1600x is within 10% difference of the i5 8400 in its performance in gaming also, it ages better like some said. So would you like a future proof mother board good for another 4 years of cpu upgrade and cpu with less decrease in gaming fps due to industry trend towards multicore or would you rather get intel 8400 for 10% more gaming performance now but shelling out more for an entire new platform when upgrading 4 years down the line? I highly doubt the current coffee lake i7 will compete with ryzen 2, 3, or whatever 4 years down the line. if amd does decrown intel's highest offering then, great, no new mb for amd users. if not, well, intel users still need to pay for a new mb for the flagship intel.Its guaranteed that Intel has the fastest platform for gaming in 2017 and 2018, without the need to upgrade anything. The onus is on AMD releasing something competitive in the future, but how long will we have to wait for that?
Maybe, AMD will finally match current Intel levels in gaming in 2019 with Zen 2, which is great and all BUT... that's in 2 years. And that's not even a guarantee, that's a hope from my part, that AMD fixes the weaknesses in IPC and the IF latency issues with Zen 2.
What do you mean they don't publish turbo clocks anymore?
They do for the 8400:
https://ark.intel.com/products/126687/Intel-Core-i5-8400-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4_00-GHz
And all the other Coffe Lake cpu's as far as I can tell. Here's the 8600K:
https://ark.intel.com/products/126685/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz
1600x is within 10% difference of the i5 8400 in its performance in gaming also, it ages better like some said. So would you like a future proof mother board good for another 4 years of cpu upgrade and cpu with less decrease in gaming fps due to industry trend towards multicore or would you rather get intel 8400 for 10% more gaming performance now but shelling out more for an entire new platform when upgrading 4 years down the line? I highly doubt the current coffee lake i7 will compete with ryzen 2, 3, or whatever 4 years down the line. if amd does decrown intel's highest offering then, great, no new mb for amd users. if not, well, intel users still need to pay for a new mb for the flagship intel.
No, I meant gaming performance. Check YouTube. 1600x is within 10% performance difference of 8400In absolute performance? Of course not. In gaming performance (which is the topic of this thread) you may be surprised.
Ponder this - which CPU is faster for gaming, an i7 4790K from 2014, or a Ryzen 1800X from 2017? Spoiler alert - it's not the 1800X
The 8400 is about 20% ahead of the 1600X when running a 1080 Ti (I posted this earlier, but you seem to have missed it)No, I meant gaming performance. Check YouTube. 1600x is within 10% performance difference of 8400
In older titles, 4790k pulls ahead in average fps but in modern titles, you can clearly see 1800x has greater and more consistent averages. Its minimal does not dip as much and as a gamer, I would perfer lower average but not dipping below 60 FPS minimal on my 60hz monitor as oppose to higher average but minimal lows dipping below 60.
In any case, if you just want to game in older titles, there is no need for you to upgrade in the first place.
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..
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".
I agree, and the 8350K overclock requires a ~$100 cooler to be competitive with the 8400 in gaming.
The 1600 is a great processor for the price if you plan on using it for the applications it excels. Using it on a 60HZ monitor the FPS difference between Ryzen and Intel is mostly academic. Also, using a mid grade video card like a 1060/480/580 will reduces the gap between intel and AMD ~10%FPS.It's like I said, if all you care about is games (which I suppose is the topic of this thread), then the 8400 is the better choice. I use my computer for a lot more and can benefit from having 12 threads, so I am not too concerned about a 10-20% decrease. There are also cases where the 1600 is faster, and that should be more common in the future. Also, I run at 1440p, so this again makes it that much more of a non issue for me.
I don't know why numbers like this keep getting thrown around. You can get a solid HSF for much cheaper. Now if you're talking closed loop cooling, then sure. Unless the situation has changed since I last looked into it though, a closed loop cooler doesn't overclock much better than a good HSF. The advantage is in noise.
Can you tell me where in this graph is the 4790k and which/what games are tested? I see no validity in your claim.The 8400 is about 20% ahead of the 1600X when running a 1080 Ti (I posted this earlier, but you seem to have missed it)
http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-8th-gen-processors-deliver-a-huge-jump-in-performance/
WRT to the 4790K, show me where the 1800X beats it, because I don't see it:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
The 4790K wins in avg, 1% lows and 0.1% lows in all the games tested, even in heavily multithreaded titles like Watchdogs 2
The 1600 is a great processor for the price if you plan on using it for the applications it excels. Using it on a 60HZ monitor the FPS difference between Ryzen and Intel is mostly academic. Also, using a mid grade video card like a 1060/480/580 will reduces the gap between intel and AMD ~10%FPS.
Liquid coolers(240, 280, 320, etc) can offer better cooling unless you are talking about the D-15, which again puts you around the ~$100(closed AIO).
Edit: I was talking about the 8350K ~5GHz.
Can you tell me where in this graph is the 4790k and which/what games are tested? I see no validity in your claim.
Still not a valid benchmark. Just the fact that ryzen performs worse with multi threading on already is against intuition and really make me question the benchmarks.I actually linked to it at Gamers Nexus... It's right underneath my comment?!
I'll link it again: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
I actually linked to it at Gamers Nexus... It's right underneath my comment?!
I'll link it again: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
So, mind telling me what great ports you got from Z270 to Z370? And the soon to be Z390. Oh, that's right. Nothing.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.
A couple things to note about the review.
One being the date: By Steve Burke Published March 02, 2017 at 8:59 am. That is release date for Ryzen, which had several bugs to work out, and have mostly been polished out now.
Here is a newer benchmark
By Steve Burke Published April 11, 2017 at 9:00 am
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4
- EVGA GTX 1080 FTW1 FPS will vary from title to title
Which still proves my point - even the newer benchmarks will show the 4790K outperformning the 1800X. Not by much, but its still a bit faster and we are talking about a 2014 chip against a 2017 chip. So any predictions of Ryzen 2 grandeur compared to current CFL CPUs in a gaming sense are to be taken with a grain of salt until proven otherwise.
Liquid coolers(240, 280, 320, etc) can offer better cooling unless you are talking about the D-15, which again puts you around the ~$100(closed AIO).
Edit: I was talking about the 8350K ~5GHz.
So, mind telling me what percent of computer users switched from Z270 to Z370, or will switch from Z370 to Z390. Oh, that's right, far under 1%.So, mind telling me what great ports you got from Z270 to Z370? And the soon to be Z390. Oh, that's right. Nothing.
My concern isn't the upgradeablity, but the ability of being able to get a replacement motherboard a few years down the road. And not something crappy either.So, mind telling me what percent of computer users switched from Z270 to Z370, or will switch from Z370 to Z390. Oh, that's right, far under 1%.
My point is that very few people upgrade from one generation to the next. Yes, some enthusiasts do. But even then, money is often not the object. If you are going from 6700K to 7700K to 8700K to 9700K, the motherboard cost probably isn't a concern. The vast, vast, vast majority of users will never do so. CPU upgradability on a motherboard is great, but it really isn't used much.
The 8350K is a money grab to entice overclockers or suckers who think they can get a good deal on a quad core and hopefully hit 5k ghz with. For $184 + 100+ for air or realistically $115-140 for a good* 240-280mm AIO you're approaching 8600k base price plus a cheap $30 air cooler at about $300. A far far better deal than overclocking. At this stage, if I'm spending $300 for cpu and cooler, you might as well go with the i7 and spend $100-150 more, the chip will last you longer and be max performance now, even at stock speeds.
Budget wise, the 1600 (norm and X version) win out by a long shot even with a $30 cooler, let alone a $60-100 noctua heatsink. At $200 the 8400 wins out for raw perf. even with a more expensive z370.
*: Lets be honest here, you want to spend money for a quality AIO if overclocking and pushing 5ghz limits and that means spending far more than the $90-100 for a DH15 heatsink. You can do just fine with the 12/14 models too for overclocking.
Again, that falls into the, its a great feature but very few people use it category. Out of the dozens and dozens of computers I've used at home and work (earlier in my career I was ususaly the one setting up / fixing computers in labs and offices) never once has a motherboard gone bad. And if one would go bad, I would assume that in many cases it is so old that a new computer is probably a justifiable purchase.My concern isn't the upgradeablity, but the ability of being able to get a replacement motherboard a few years down the road. And not something crappy either.
While this is true, i did have a motherboard die on me before a year and a half after I built the rig. And I don't tend to build $499 systems either.Again, that falls into the, its a great feature but very few people use it category. Out of the dozens and dozens of computers I've used at home and work (earlier in my career I was ususaly the one setting up / fixing computers in labs and offices) never once has a motherboard gone bad. And if one would go bad, I would assume that in many cases it is so old that a new computer is probably a justifiable purchase.
I'm not arguing against reusing sockets. Reusing sockets is great when it doesn't hamper the CPU. But, most people just get another $499 computer special rather than deal with replacing broken motherboards.