Intel is still clearly the high end leader with the 8700k *and* the value leader with the 8400. Seems like the best of both to me. For a gaming only build, I still would not pick Ryzen at any price point.
Intel is still clearly the high end leader with the 8700k *and* the value leader with the 8400. Seems like the best of both to me. For a gaming only build, I still would not pick Ryzen at any price point.@frozentundra123456
Shifting Intel to the value brand is the first step AMD needs to make. Everybody always says being the value brand isn't the best option.
Don't really have time to hunt down reviews....What happens to the cpus in the video if one wants to do some game streaming while playing?
If you or Mark have data which proves anything I said in my post is incorrect, or a "lie" or exaggeration in regard to gaming applications , you are welcome to refute it with facts. And how is overclocking a red herring? It is actually a place where AMD has an advantage. If you want to ignore overclocking, the advantage is even more clear for the 8400.
Edit: A direct quote from the Techspot article:
The stock out of the box Ryzen 5 2600 performance can be achieved for roughly the same price as the budget Core i5-8400 build, and given the Intel CPU was faster overall this makes it the better value choice for gamers.
The overclocked configuration will require an upgraded cooler, but for the results shown here you’ll also need a quality motherboard and premium Samsung B-die memory. I priced all this up and you’ll be paying ~$420 for the Core i5-8400 platform, while the overclocked Ryzen build is more like $500 with a basic air-cooler.
So if you’re strictly gaming the 20% price premium of the overclocked Ryzen build can’t be easily justified for a 7% average gain. Alternatively, you could spend $500 on the Coffee Lake build and get the 8600K with a basic air cooler, enable MCE, and you’ve got an unstoppable gaming rig.
You need to pay attention. I never even quoted any of your posts (before you quoted mine) or accused you of lying, it was another poster.If you or Mark have data which proves anything I said in my post is incorrect, or a "lie" or exaggeration in regard to gaming applications , you are welcome to refute it with facts. And how is overclocking a red herring? It is actually a place where AMD has an advantage. If you want to ignore overclocking, the advantage is even more clear for the 8400.
Maybe you should pay attention to what you post then. Refer to posts 90 and 94 in this thread.You need to pay attention. I never even quoted any of your posts (before you quoted mine) or accused you of lying, it was another poster.
Ryzen 5 2600 needs 4.2 Ghz, DDR4-3400 and 6 more threads to beat Intels i5-8400 by a small margin of 5%. Really impressive from Coffeelake and just confirms that AMD is still subpar in gaming with Pinnacle Ridge. Intel will extend its lead with Coffeelake 8C later this year.
As per the article, at an extra cost of 80.00, which allows one to move up to a faster intel cpu, or put it into a better dgpu. Additionally, there is no guarantee that all chips will be able to reach 4.2 ghz.Blame Intel for not offering hyperthreading on their skus
But the thing is, it beats the 8400 when pushed and since most of us overclock, i'll take it
Subpar gaming that matches Intels? C'mon dude
Yes, although it probably can. The problem is the TDP has to be raised above 65 watts. I saw an article last night about it. I am heading out to work and dont have time to look it up again. Anyway, all core turbo is supposed to be 4.3, but at 65 watt TDP intel claims it can run 4.3 for a short burst and maintains 4.1 to 4.2 on more sustained loads. Some motherboards throttle it even lower, but some gaming boards allow more than 65 watts and maintain 4.3.It's the 8700 that may have trouble maintaining all core turbo with the supplied cooler. That's been fairly widely reported.
Don't worry man, it's just free advice on the internet.
I wouldn't trust a guy that hopes he's wrong about what he is saying, either.
If I were you I would actually try to read the entire post before commenting though. Perhaps then you wouldn't give a response about what is happening now when somebody explains to you what happened in the past and is making predictions about the future. See this as a free RTFM tip.
I really do hope none of this will bite you in the arse, but Murphy is quite a bitch and yours seems particular tasty.
Edit: none of this is meant to be inflammatory. As stated, this is just free advice on the internet.
Nothing beats experience, use yours!
With kind regards,
stAbb
It's the 8700 that may have trouble maintaining all core turbo with the supplied cooler. That's been fairly widely reported.
Per HWUB testing the stock cooler leads to thermal throttling at 75W TDP and above. Problem is the results were obtained with direct access to fresh 21C air. Raise the thermal ceiling above that baseline and you might end up with throttling even at 65W TDP, meaning the stock cooler may leave performance on the table in CPU intensive scenarios.Yes, although it probably can. The problem is the TDP has to be raised above 65 watts.
Per HWUB testing the stock cooler leads to thermal throttling at 75W TDP and above. Problem is the results were obtained with direct access to fresh 21C air. Raise the thermal ceiling above that baseline and you might end up with throttling even at 65W TDP, meaning the stock cooler may leave performance on the table in CPU intensive scenarios.
Whether that may affect gaming performance or not is quite hard to assess, especially on 8400 (gaming loads are considerably lighter, also 8400 did ok in CB15 with stock cooler). Intel's stock cooler is an outright insult for the 8700 price point though.
I know, I think I saw around 1.3V on my 8700 before going manual and keeping voltage bellow 1.2V even at max clocks. VCCIO and VCCSA also went off the charts on my board once RAM oc was enabled.The cooler sucks, but the real problem is that most boards go overboard on the voltage. Especially if MCE enhancement is on. My 8700 is perfectly happy at 1.85 volts at 4.5 all core (yes, it does that). At default the board would have been throwing nearly twice the voltage at it.
The cooler sucks, but the real problem is that most boards go overboard on the voltage. Especially if MCE enhancement is on. My 8700 is perfectly happy at 1.85 volts at 4.5 all core (yes, it does that). At default the board would have been throwing nearly twice the voltage at it.
1.85v's isn't something I'd brag about. /s
but some gaming boards allow more than 65 watts and maintain 4.3.
He said the same happens to IntelIn the back of my mind, I also thought something was off about those Star Wars: Battlefront II results.
Turns out the game was bugged after all. Having to ALT-TAB just to gain a 20 to 30% performance increase for Ryzen? That's ridiculous.
Core i7 7800X vs. Ryzen 5 2600, 37 Game Benchmark
Well, so the 2600 edges out the 7800x at half the price and a stock cooler vs custom water for the 7800x ! Impressive.
Pretty sure they upgraded the HSF to get 4.2GHz, you can get about 4.0GHz with the stock 2600 cooler, it was mentioned in the video.
The 7800X is pretty overpriced for what it is, plus its a HEDT platform (X299) so I'm surprised that it was compared to the 2600 which is on the mainstream AM4 platform. That's like comparing an i5 8400 to a TR 1900X and concluding the 8400 is 'impressive' for gaming by beating a CPU costing over twice as much. Bizarre choice of comparison, but it is what it is.