PC GAMER CPU of the Year: Intel Core i5-8400

[IRobot23]

PCGAMER clearly see only INTEL here. To be honest, they are fanboys. Currently I don't get why people prefer less treads, higher clock speed and more money. Lets say that AMD would sell R5 16** with only 6 threads at 4,2GHz for price of i5 8400.

However I truly want to see pinnacle ridge as soon as possible. Maybe IMC will handle 4266MT/s DDR4.
With that speed we could see really low memory latency, if we add around 8ns to true latency of DRAM and decent core clocks to lower latency it could probably show 57-58ns in AIDA64.

 

[french toast]

I don't know how they came into making infinity fabric except that we know it allows great scalability. With Skylake-X we see a fixed memory clock, and it had mesh which suffered some latency compared to ring bus of the mainstream i5/i7 lines. But it wasn't as bad as infinity fabric, and the mesh could also be overclocked increasing it's performance as well. So, we know it's possible to separate the 2, and manipulate the speed. I am sure AMD is well aware of what improvements could be made. Larger L3 in theory could increase speed, but it just holds megabytes of memory vs GB of RAM. So, I don't know how plausible it would be to increase the size of L3 vs. performance benefits of adding another core. These are the tradeoffs that have to be made. We know that 7nm the SRAM will perform significantly faster(almost double).

Spoiler: Additional Information

Let's take a look at the 8 core processor. You have to take into account reducing size saves money, since they can make more CPU's per wafer. So, tradeoffs have to be made and those are the decisions that take place.

Okay, I think that's getting a little too off topic. If we were in a more appropriate thread I would theroize more with you.

Yes I agree, skylake X solution is better... hopefully this arrives with a significant upgrade in performance.
Personally I would rather have 50% more L3 than cores, would benefit single thread and gaming much better.

 

[IRobot23]

We saw almost no increase in athlon vs FX etc.
i7 7800X should easily match i7 8700K in games or even surpass it, if you just OC NB to 4GHz
As far as I know NB in skylake X is always below 3GHz

 

[TheELF]

The i3 8350K (7600K) isn't worth buying, because of the i5-8400 that outperforms it. Unless you spend ~$100 on cooling and overclock it 5.0GHz than it competes with it. So, back to not worth buying.
*note the 3.8-.4.0 clock speed of the i5-8400 shows you that you don't need high clock speeds to perform well in gaming.

~$120 vs ~$200 reason enough because you can get a much better GPU and a intel quad is no slouch,did you see the ACrigins comparison?

 

[tential]

~$120 vs ~$200 reason enough because you can get a much better GPU and a intel quad is no slouch,did you see the ACrigins comparison?

You can get a much better GPU for a $80 difference in price?

 

[goldstone77]

~$120 vs ~$200 reason enough because you can get a much better GPU and a intel quad is no slouch,did you see the ACrigins comparison?

$120?
My original statement.

The i3 8350K (7600K) isn't worth buying, because of the i5-8400 that outperforms it. Unless you spend ~$100 on cooling and overclock it 5.0GHz than it competes with it. So, back to not worth buying.
*note the 3.8-.4.0 clock speed of the i5-8400 shows you that you don't need high clock speeds to perform well in gaming.

Intel Core i3-8350K Coffee Lake Quad-Core 4.0 GHz LGA 1151 (300 Series) 91W BX80684I38350K Desktop Processor Intel UHD Graphics 6308 $189.99
Intel BX80684I38350K 8th Gen Core i3-8350K Processor $185.00
vs. ~$199 for the i5-8400 well the price has gone up in the last couple days.
Intel Core i5-8400 Coffee Lake 6-Core 2.8GHz (4.0 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 (300 Series) 65W BX80684I58400 Desktop $204.00
Intel Core i5-8400 Coffee Lake 6-Core 2.8 GHz LGA1151 (300 Series) 65W BX80684I58400 $210.05

BTW I started this thread for some of the commenters information. What is wrong with a truthful discussion about technical specifications? It's not fanboyism. It's theorycrafting.

PC GAMER CPU of the Year: Intel Core i5-8400
Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by goldstone77, Dec 14, 2017.

Intel Core i3-8100 and Core i3-8350K Review: RIP Ryzen 3?
By Steven Walton on October 9, 2017

Encoding and Rendering Performance
Given that the Ryzen 5 1500X matches the Core i5-7600K in our Premiere Pro CC workload I knew the 8350K would be close and it turned out to be a little slower, trailing the R5 1500X by a 7% margin. Meanwhile the i3-8100 comfortably beats its nearest competitor, the R3 1300X by a 10% margin.

So again the Core i3-8100 looks quite impressive. Out of the box, the 8350K isn't nearly as impressive and again it was much slower than the slightly more expensive 8400, 25% slower this time.

Moving on to Blender using the Ryzen Graphic 27 workload we see that the Core i3-8100 easily beats the R3 1300X, completing the task 11% faster. Meanwhile the 8350K was 5% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X and that margin will likely remain once both CPUs are overclocked and we'll look at that a little later on. It's also worth noting that the Core i5-8400 was 32% faster than the 8350K.

Corona takes better advantage of SMT it seems as here the Ryzen 5 1500X is almost able to match the Core i5-8400 and as a result it was almost 30% faster than the 8350K, good luck removing that margin via overclocking.

The Core i3-8100 was able to edge out the Ryzen 3 1300X though I suspect with a little tinkering the Ryzen CPU might be able to claim the lead here.

Here we see that the Core i3-8350K and Ryzen 5 1500X are again quite evenly matched and I suspect that will remain true once both are overclocked to the max. The 8350K was 20% slower than the Core i5-8400 this time while the Core i3-8100 beat the Ryzen 3 1300X with ease and there is no way the AMD CPU will make up the roughly 20% deficit through overclocking.

Gaming Performance
Please note all testing was conducted using Vega 64 Liquid Cooled since we’re mostly focusing on DX12 performance. My upcoming Core i5-8400 review will again feature both the GTX 1080 and Vega 64 graphics cards. Anyway when testing with Battlefield 1 we see a few interesting things.

Starting with the Core i3-8100 we see that the faster DDR4-3200 memory boosts the average frame rate by 10% and that was enough to overtake the stock R5 1500X. Even with the DDR4-2400 memory the 8100 was still 8% faster than the Ryzen 3 1300X. Meanwhile the higher clocked 8350K does well, maxing out the Vega 64 Liquid Cooled graphics card at 1080p using the ultra quality settings.

Next up we have Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation and this time the Ryzen 3 1300X gets dominated by the Core i3-8100. Even with the slower DDR4-2400 memory the 8100 was 21% faster than the R3 1300X. Once we paired the 8100 with DDR4-3200 it was able to match the R5 1500X. The 8350K streaked further ahead and was able to match the heavy batch result of the Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1700 CPUs.

When testing with Civilization the Core i3-8100 with the faster DDR4-3200 memory was 5% faster for the average frame rate and 9% for the minimum. So while using DDR4-2400 memory will limit the 8100 to Ryzen 3 1200 like performance, faster memory does give it an edge, at least when compared to Ryzen's out of the box performance. The R3 1300X was still slightly faster and not much slower than the 8350K in this game. Meanwhile the R5 1500X was considerably faster than the 8350K.

Finally we have F1 2017 and there the Core i3-8100 using DDR4-2400 memory was 13% faster than the Ryzen 3 1300X and just 3% slower than the R5 1500X. Increasing the memory speed allowed the 8100 to beat the R5 1500X by a convincing 7% margin.

The 8350K was a further 5% faster as it matched the 7600K but that meant it was still 9% slower than the Core i5-8400.

Power & Overclocking
The Coffee Lake Core i3 processors look good when it comes to power consumption. The 8100 is comparable to the Ryzen 3 1300X while the 8350K consumed a little more than the R5 1500X, placing it on par with the R5 1600.

Overclocking
Previously, when testing the Core i7-8700K I was able to get it to an incredible 5.2GHz using just 1.4 volts on the MSI Godlike. Using the same motherboard for the overclocking the 8350K was only good for 4.9GHz and that required 4.2 volts to stabilize the overclock. Despite trying various voltage settings I couldn't get the system to even boot into Windows at 5GHz without crashing.

It has been suggested that Intel cherry picked the review sample chips and that's why most reviewers managed 5GHz or better with reasonably tame voltages. I've yet to get my hands on a retail 8700K but when I do I'm keen to see how it goes.

Anyway, it was disappointing to find the 8350K hit a wall at 4.9GHz, though it has to be said that that's still an impressive overclock. The overclock boosted the Cinebench R15 multi-threaded score by 12%, but that wasn't enough to match a stock R5 1500X in this test. Once overclocked, the 1500X's score was increased by a further 13%.

The overclocked 8350K was able to close in on the overclocked Ryen 5 1500X in the Blender test but ultimately still loses out, even at 4.9GHz. The Core i3 CPU also runs much hotter despite having a far better AIO liquid cooler strapped on.

Finally, here's a look at power consumption after overclocking. At 4.9GHz the 8350K is a power pig, consuming much juice as the six-core 8700K. Compared to the Ryzen 5 1500X, which pushed system consumption up almost 20% higher once overclocked, the 8350K stepped on the gas peddle and pulled 40% more power. Needless to say, efficiency goes right out the window. You'd be better off aiming for lower voltages at 4.8 or maybe 4.7GHz and this is the approach I took recently with Intel's monstrous 16 and 18-core parts.

Doing that turns the scatter plot red, at least where it counts, and even the Ryzen 7 1700 stacks up pretty well. Again we see that with motherboard costs factored in, Ryzen is a much better value proposition for these productivity workloads.

This by no means represents all gaming but we feel like the results are pretty typical for CPU intensive DirectX 11 titles. Ryzen is usually more competitive in the modern DX12 games. Keeping that in mind let's see how F1 2017 pans out.


Here we see that the Core i3-8100 to the i5-8400 are the best value options of Intel's sub $200 Coffee Lake lineup and they are considerably better value in this game compared to Ryzen.

Even with the motherboard pricing factored in, Intel remains comfortably ahead and while Ryzen's performance is respectable, it's not comparable to the Core i3-8100 and Core i5-8400 in terms of value. Again the 8350K is pretty poor in comparison though its price to performance is quite similar to that of the R3 1300X.

...the Core i3-8100 is a bit special at $120, a price that nearly makes it a Ryzen 3 killer. I say nearly because right now we're missing one key ingredient: affordable motherboards.

Wrapping It Up
We're aware that we didn't factor in the price of a cooler for the Core i3-8350K in the scatter plots above and that will further reduce its appeal. We don't think we need to get into it too much more, the 8350K is a pretty poor value even if you consider its overclocking capabilities.

At least you'll have to buy a $20 cooler and you're not hitting 4.9GHz on a budget cooler. I was up around 90 degrees with a 240mm AIO liquid cooler, so expect around 4.5GHz with a basic air-cooler. That's a 13% bump over stock, so you'll be lucky to extract 10% more performance. At best it will match the Core i5-8400 while costing more, consuming more power and running hotter.

As it happens, the Core i3-8350K really is a worthy successor to the 7350K: they both suck equally in respect to their own product lines.

 

[epsilon84]

I agree the 8400 is the better choice than the 8350K since they are both around the same price. The 8350K with a decent air cooler actually ends up being more expensive than a 8400.

With the exception of games that rely heavily on single threaded performance, the 8400 generally beats a 8350K @ 5GHz.

To be honest in 2017 going into 2018, buying a near $200 4C/4T CPU for gaming is a waste of money, even one that overclocks to 5GHz. The 8400 or 1600 would be my picks at this price point.

 

[TheELF]

$120?
My original statement.

Look at all the gaming benches you posted! There is zero reason for anybody to overclock the i3-8350k since the i3-8100 does just as well!
The overclock only makes sense for "productivity" (if your GPU broke down or something)

 

[epsilon84]

Look at all the gaming benches you posted! There is zero reason for anybody to overclock the i3-8350k since the i3-8100 does just as well!
The overclock only makes sense for "productivity" (if your GPU broke down or something)

The gaming benches only show a stock 8350K, which isn't that much faster than a stock 8100 (4GHz vs 3.6GHz)

You would see a bigger spread at 5GHz vs 3.6GHz. Still, I wouln't buy a 8350K over a 8400, especially when they cost the same. The extra 2 cores will be more useful in upcoming games than the extra 1GHz of clockspeed.

I'm not saying that a 8350K can't achieve good framerates when overclocked, as I said its pretty much on par with a 8400 (+/- 10%) depending on how thread aware the game is. However, that performance parity comes at an extra cost in cooling, and power consumption.

Anyhow, I feel Gamers Nexus does a pretty good job of covering this topic:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...ew-overclocking-vs-i5-8400-r5-1600x?showall=1

 

[goldstone77]

Look at all the gaming benches you posted! There is zero reason for anybody to overclock the i3-8350k since the i3-8100 does just as well!
The overclock only makes sense for "productivity" (if your GPU broke down or something)

If under budget constraints I can see buying a the i3-8100 for a gaming CPU.
If you had to buy a whole system minus monitor
PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Jp8LvV
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Jp8LvV/by_merchant/
CPU: Intel - Core i3-8100 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor ($121.73 @ Newegg Marketplace)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock - Z370M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($101.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($184.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate - Constellation ES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI - GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB GAMING X 4G Video Card ($151.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design - Focus G (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - EVO Edition 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $705.64
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-12-25 04:36 EST-0500
+50 for a 1060 3GB
+120 for a 1060 6GB
+83 for a i5-8400
The real question comes into play when looking at getting a 1060 or a 8400.

 

[epsilon84]

Just a FYI for potential 8400 buyers that the 8600K is currently $230 at Microcenter. For a $30 price difference I think its worth it if your budget permits. Yes you will need a HSF for the 8600K, but even a $20 HSF like an EVO 212+ should be good for a moderate 4.8GHz overclock, so we are looking at ~$250 for a 4.8GHz 8600K vs $200 for a 3.8GHz 8400. Is an extra $50 worth an extra 1GHz? You decide.