Only one problem with that. world-wide, very few people have access to a microcenter, me included.
Only one problem with that. world-wide, very few people have access to a microcenter, me included.
Actualy it is 9% faster. When saying "faster than", one uses the smaller number as the denominator. 145/133 = 1.090, or 9% faster.Well according to their own readings at 1080p with a GTX1080Ti,
Core i5 8400 is just 8,3% faster on average frame rate against the default R5 2600 and only 5.1% faster at 1% min/fps.
R5 2600 OC to 4.2GHz is just 3,33% faster against the default Core i5 8400 and 6,67% faster at 1% min/fps
~$330 at the egg, and yes there are Ryzen bundles around as well.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3769761~330
Can we all agree, that at the same price, both are very capable gaming machines ? (unlike bulldozer) And the differences are not so big as to be noticeable during gameplay ?
Also, if you are buying a mid-line cpu/mem/motherboard, you probably won't be gaming at 1440p and 144 hz ? More like 1080p and 60 or something. Also, you probably won't have a 1080TI.
Make that $210 for 3200 CL14.Indeed, for example https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3797402 seems like a pretty good deal.
So about a $65 saving on the Ryzen 2600 bundle compared to the 8600K bundle, however B-Die memory such as the Trident Z 3200 CL14 series costs $230 compared to $170 for your regular Hynix (or E-Die?) CL16 3200 kits
Yes, not being a gamer, my points are probably close, but I can certainly buy your point also.Good points, though 144Hz 1080P monitors are pretty affordable these days. The difference is very noticeable for anyone that plays fast paced games and I would highly recommend one over a 60Hz panel.
Can we all agree, that at the same price, both are very capable gaming machines ? (unlike bulldozer) And the differences are not so big as to be noticeable during gameplay ?
Also, if you are buying a mid-line cpu/mem/motherboard, you probably won't be gaming at 1440p and 144 hz ? More like 1080p and 60 or something. Also, you probably won't have a 1080TI.
Make that $210 for 3200 CL14.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313711
Yes, not being a gamer, my points are probably close, but I can certainly buy your point also.
Bottom line I am trying to make, NOW the two are competitive, and depending on your use case, either might be the right choice for a certain person.
As Mark pointed out, different people, different needs. My main computer use needs lots of cores and threads. While I do game, and enjoy it it's at 4k. Not 1080p. If all you do it twitch gaming, on a high refresh 1080p monitor then the Intel option is likely a bit better. Beyond that, have an honest look at your use case and decide from there.Fair enough, wasn't aware that was B-Die, but $20 hardly changes the equation *that* much, right?
We're looking at $500 for the 8600K/Z370/CL16 3200 vs $475 for the 2600/B350/CL14 3200 and the 8600K will get significantly higher gaming performance at 5.0GHz compared to a 4.2GHz 2600/2600X: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...eview-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender/page-3
Even if we kept things completely apples to apples and used B-Die memory for the 8600K as well (even though thats not really needed based on my own experience), thats $540 vs $475, which amounts to a 13% higher price for a 20% performance gain - with a 1080 Ti, obviously slower GPUs won't benefit as much...
As Mark pointed out, different people, different needs. My main computer use needs lots of cores and threads. While I do game, and enjoy it it's at 4k. Not 1080p. If all you do it twitch gaming, on a high refresh 1080p monitor then the Intel option is likely a bit better. Beyond that, have an honest look at your use case and decide from there.
We're looking at $515 for the 8600K/Z370/Cl16 3200/Hyper 212 vs $455 for 2600X/B350/CL14 3200. (The same microcenter you chose for the Intel combo offers a $50 discount when bundling Pinnacle Ridge with a motherboard.)Fair enough, wasn't aware that was B-Die, but $20 hardly changes the equation *that* much, right?
We're looking at $500 for the 8600K/Z370/CL16 3200 vs $475 for the 2600/B350/CL14 3200
And this part becomes $555 vs. $455, a 22% higher price for a 20% performance gain on 1080 Ti.Even if we kept things completely apples to apples and used B-Die memory for the 8600K as well (even though thats not really needed based on my own experience), thats $540 vs $475, which amounts to a 13% higher price for a 20% performance gain - with a 1080 Ti, obviously slower GPUs won't benefit as much...
I see people saying that a system based on the i5 8400 is cheaper than an R5 2600 one, but in my country, they are pretty close to one another.
Intel system:
AMD system:
- i5 8400 - ~169E
- Gigabyte B360M D3H - ~78E or Asrock B360M Pro4 - ~83E
- G.Skill RipJawsV 3200MHz CL16 - ~156E
They are on par price wise! A few notes however:
- Ryzen R5 2600 - ~180E
- Asrock B350M Pro4 - ~64E
- G.Skill RipJawsV 3200MHz CL16 - ~156E
- I deliberately picked motherboards with at least some form of VRM cooling. Even if these processors are rated for 65W TDP, I always feel uneasy with motherboards that don't have even the dinkiest heatsink on the VRMs. Especially where I live, summer is very hot and I don't feel very safe with those VRMs hitting 100C+. Most people don't make it a habit to clean their case often, so air flow and heat dissipation takes a hit constantly.
The cheapest boards I could find with VRM heatsinks where the ones I listed, I am very impressed with the ASrock B360M Pro4, it apparently has a 10 power phase VRM, but I'm willing to bet it's not true 10 power phase, as they have done something similar with the B350M Pro4 on the AM4 side, where it is sold as a 6+2, but it's more like a 3+2. Still better than the rest, just slightly false advertising. I checked for similar H310 boards, but the cheapest one with heatsinks was the ASUS TUF ATX model at a whopping 90E. Yeah, no.
If you are willing to make these concessions, then yes you can get H310 and B360 boards for as low as ~55E and 65E accordingly and you can get a B350 board starting at around ~57E, although it really is a no-brainer to fork the additional 7-8E to get a better board.
- RAM prices are nuts, but they are slightly better than they were a few months ago. Still, a kit of 16GB DDR4 starts at 145E at the time of this writing for 2400MHz sticks and that's only on one particular pair that I could find, the rest of them start at 150E and anything goes. 2133MHz, 2400MHz, 2666MHz, 3000MHz, 3200MHz, it's a toss-up and it makes no sense. At 156E, the sticks I picked are the best value, but are also very very close to the cheapest ones as well. Just goes to show how screwed this whole situation is.
I'm not sure if this particular kit which is CL16 will run at 3200MHz on AM4 systems, if it does, it's better than 2933MHz that's shown on the video, so you can see a small performance boost there already.
I'd personally pick the R5 2600, it's a better all-rounder as the video suggests. Both CPUs are trading punches and in most cases you'd be hard-pressed to tell a difference when using even a 1080Ti, let alone a more mid-range card that these systems will most usually be paired with.
You can overclock that R5 2600 as well, even with the stock cooler, although I wouldn't push it too far.
Yes, there is a case for the i5 8400 when gaming is the only concern AND you have hardware that can push it to the max, such as a fast GPU, but also a higher refresh rate monitor. But, I think that the percentage of people that would pull off this combo and not opt for a faster processor still, perhaps even with a Z370 board for overclocking, is pretty small all things considered.
With all of the above in mind, I'd pick the R5 2600, which is also the underdog and this way you vote with your money and hopefully help push competition and drive the prices down even further.
In any case, both CPUs and motherboards are great value, it's only a shame DDR4 and GPU prices are through the roof, otherwise these last 6 months would be some of the greatest for building any sort of PC.
The reason Intel is considered a bit cheaper (if running a 8400/B360) is that you can save a bit of money on DDR4-2666 instead 3200 because the platform is limited to 2666 speeds anyway, so anything faster is a waste. Your example proves exactly that - even with DDR4 3200 it will only run at 2666 speeds on that motherboard.
It's not a huge amount cheaper, I think 2666 is about $20 or $30 cheaper than 3200, and the CPU itself is slightly cheaper too. But the point is rather you can get slightly better gaming performance for slightly *less* money. Which makes Intel the better value for gaming *only* builds. For anything else, like productivity or even a mix of gaming and productivity I would choose the 2600 for the extra threads, even if it costs slightly more.
AMD needs to get out of the "value" box, imo. Conversations about AMD and Intel always seem to end with AMD being the value buy.
AMD needs to be the king of the hill performance buy, even if the price is high.
Intel scales with memory latency and speed in many scenarios. It may not be as dramatic as Ryzen, but limiting any build to cheap 2666 MHz DDR4 can really hurt it.
Intel scales with memory latency and speed in many scenarios. It may not be as dramatic as Ryzen, but limiting any build to cheap 2666 MHz DDR4 can really hurt it.
No... The platform as tested ($$$) will not take over 2666, and if you OC the Ryzen, it beats the 8400. You can't OC the 8400. And it was very close even without OC'ing.The benchmarks linked in this very thread indicate, that gaming performance is better with i5-8400 despite cheaper DDR dram and thus slightly lower system cost. Of course you can get further ahead of Ryzen with an i5-8400 when you invest in higher speed memory - but that's not the point.
No... The platform as tested ($$$) will not take over 2666, and if you OC the Ryzen, it beats the 8400. You can't OC the 8400. And it was very close even without OC'ing.
The 2600x is a bit faster than the 8400, for $20 more than the 2600. With the stock heatsink. The 8400 is also on a dead end platform. The platform cost on the 2600x is currently a bit higher. Should be closer to even when the B450 boards appear. Or pretty much even using a B350. Not saying the 8400 is bad, it isn't. But too many roadblocks, like no overclocking at all. Not even on the ram unless you go for a more expensive 370 motherboard.I don't see anything wrong with what Thala said? Its pretty much spot on. Stock vs stock, the 8400/2666 is a bit faster than the 2600/2933, at a slightly lower overall platform cost. They are both decent at gaming but if you had to pick a 'winner' then it would have to be the 8400, you can't go wrong with faster and cheaper, right?
The 2600 does indeed have the potential to overtake the 8400, but with an additional outlay of approximately $80 for an aftermarket HSF and B Die memory capable of CL14 3400 as shown in the HWUB video