Ryzen 5 2600 vs i7 8400

[Ricoxico]

I want to upgrade my pc:

(

 

CX COOLER MASTER MasterBox 5 Black 
- Fonte CORSAIR CX V2 600 Wat
- Board ASUS Z170 PRO GAMING
- INTEL Core i5-6600K (6Mb/3.5 GHz) 
- CM SEIDON 120V REFRIGERAÇÃO LÍQUIDA
- RAM 16Gb HyperX Savage DDR4 3000Mhz 
- SSD KINGSTON 480GB M.2 SATA 6Gbps
- HDD WD Desk Blue 1TB 3.5 SATA 64Gbs 
- ASUS GTX1060 6GB DDR5 STRIX 

) 

 

So I was looking forward to buy a new cpu kinda divided by this 2 cpu don't know if I should wait for the ryzen 3000 

Dont know if I should go for something like a i7 8700 or just stay a little bit cheaper and stay by the ryzen 5/i5 8400 and being Able to spend a little more in other things 

 I want a cpu that last me a lot of time I don't want to upgrade it like every year or so 

[BubblyCharizard]

6700/7700K is an option if you can find then cheap enough, as 4c/8t would be good for the next few years

 

unless going for a 2700(X) or the 9900K I'd keep the 6/7th gen and go 4c/8t with the kaby/skylake chips

[Ricoxico]

1 minute ago, BubblyCharizard said:

6700/7700K is an option if you can find then cheap enough, as 4c/8t would be good for the next few years

 

unless going for a 2700(X) or the 9900K I'd keep the 6/7th gen and go 4c/8t with the kaby/skylake chips

The 6700 is about 350€ and the 7700 more then 400€ and the 9900K is above 500€

Of course that maybe if I bought a 9900K I wouldn't have to upgrade it for a really long time but was kinda trying to find a middle ground like a "realible" "budget" cpu that will last a good while

[Wormhole]

7700k and oc it

[Crunchy Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Ricoxico said:

The 6700 is about 350€ and the 7700 more then 400€ and the 9900K is above 500€

Of course that maybe if I bought a 9900K I wouldn't have to upgrade it for a really long time but was kinda trying to find a middle ground like a "realible" "budget" cpu that will last a good while

6-core Ryzen 5s are the best budget CPU money can buy, excellent price/performance.

[Ricoxico]

Just now, Crunchy Dragon said:

6-core Ryzen 5s are the best budget CPU money can buy, excellent price/performance.

From what I can see the ryzen 5 comparing to the i7 8400 would not reach the 100% usage so that's good for someone like me that does a lot of multi-tasking 

So do you think the ryzen 5 will last in terms of performance  Specially when I have a 1060 and will take some time upgrading it 

[Mister Woof]

What do you want to upgrade for?

 

If just for gaming, the i5-6600k  with an overclock would still do pretty good, even though it's only 4c/4t.

 

It's not going to be night and day if you upgrade to either of those chips you listed, and in some cases, your performance will be worse depending on the game.

 

My son has an i3-8350k @ 4.8ghz. It does not struggle in games, at all. That's not much different than what you are using.

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, Ricoxico said:

From what I can see the ryzen 5 comparing to the i7 8400 would not reach the 100% usage so that's good for someone like me that does a lot of multi-tasking 

So do you think the ryzen 5 will last in terms of performance  Specially when I have a 1060 and will take some time upgrading it 

8400 is a Core i5. Are you talking about the Core i7 8700?

If you push any CPU to 100%, it will get there basically no matter what(in most fully functional cases).

 

I don't see Ryzen 5 CPUs being anywhere near obsolete any time soon, I expect to get at least 3-5 years of service out of my 1600 before eventually ditching it. It's a perfect pair for a 1060 as well.

[Ricoxico]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

What do you want to upgrade for?

 

If just for gaming, the i5-6600k  with an overclock would still do pretty good, even though it's only 4c/4t.

 

It's not going to be night and day if you upgrade to either of those chips you listed, and in some cases, your performance will be worse depending on the game.

 

My son has an i3-8350k @ 4.8ghz. It does not struggle in games, at all. That's not much different than what you are using.

Gaming 

And I really think I don't have a "bad" pc it has some "good" components like the gpu but sometimes games just stutter (and I'm not the type of person that runs all games at max settings I just stick to medium/high) 

Maybe would be better for me to buy a better monitor because mine only has 60hz than actually upgrading my pc at this moment

[Mister Woof]

Just now, Ricoxico said:

Gaming 

And I really think I don't have a "bad" pc it has some "good" components like the gpu but sometimes games just stutter (and I'm not the type of person that runs all games at max settings I just stick to medium/high) 

Maybe would be better for me to buy a better monitor because mine only has 60hz than actually upgrading my pc at this moment

 

Is your 6600k overclocked?

[Ricoxico]

2 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

 

Is your 6600k overclocked?

No 

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, Ricoxico said:

No 

Looks like 75% of i5-6600k's can get to 4.7ghz. 

 

You have possibly another 900mhz left in your tank.

 

Try that first. It's free. If you are satisfied with the results, then you can postpone your upgrade until Zen 2 or whatever Intel launches.

[ch3w2oy]

9 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

What do you want to upgrade for?

 

If just for gaming, the i5-6600k  with an overclock would still do pretty good, even though it's only 4c/4t.

 

It's not going to be night and day if you upgrade to either of those chips you listed, and in some cases, your performance will be worse depending on the game.

 

My son has an i3-8350k @ 4.8ghz. It does not struggle in games, at all. That's not much different than what you are using.

This is exactly what @Stefan Payne was talking about. This is why an "upgrade path" is at least a little important. When someone asks this question in 5 years and they have a 2600, wow, wont they have quite an upgrade path left on that motherboard.

[Mister Woof]

11 minutes ago, ChewToy! said:

This is exactly what @Stefan Payne was talking about. This is why an "upgrade path" is at least a little important. When someone asks this question in 5 years and they have a 2600, wow, wont they have quite an upgrade path left on that motherboard.

Except...why? Benchmarks show there isn't a huge difference in performance. Upgrades for very little gain per dollar.

 

If I had an unlocked i5 Skylake or better right now, I would not be upgrading.

 

And if he got the i7-6700k to begin with, he wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

My son's i3-8350k @ 4.8ghz is barely faster than his chip's capable of. They are almost identical. It is fine for gaming.

 

He's complaining about performance when a good portion of it is not being utilized.

 

As for someone coming here in 5 years with a 2600.....if using a 300 or 400 series board in 5 years from now, they will be missing out on a lot of features that a modern board would give them anyway. So I am not changing my stance.

 

I also don't see why we have to bring this up HERE, in this guy's thread?

 

I'm trying to help him out. Maybe I can help save him a few bucks by unleashing some free performance.

 

This gang mentality really does help to lend credence to the reputation LTT forums seems to have everywhere on the internet.

[ch3w2oy]

13 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

 

As for someone coming here in 5 years with a 2600.....if using a 300 or 400 series board in 5 years from now, they will be missing out on a lot of features that a modern board would give them anyway. So I am not changing my stance.

 

Like what? PCIE 4.0? DDR5? Maybe. I doubt it by 2020 though. PCIE 3.0 isn't even saturated by the best GPUs yet so that's a dead argument. DDR5 most likely wont be out by then. So what features are you talking about? As long as the CPU and GPU can run at full potential they don't need "extra" features, that's a luxury, not a necessity. 

[Mister Woof]

Just now, ChewToy! said:

Like what? PCIE 4.0? DDR5? Maybe. I doubt it by 2020 though. PCIE 3.0 isn't even saturated by the best GPUs yet so that's a dead argument. DDR5 most likely wont be out by then. So what features are you talking about? As long as the CPU and GPU can run at full potential they don't need "extra" features, that's a luxury, not a necessity. 

 

This does not help the OP; it only serves to further your personal attack.

[Mister Woof]

Actually, I'm just logging out and not returning. Good luck to everyone who comes in here looking for help only to be told to just keep buying more and more parts when they don't need to.

 

Goodbye.

[Ricoxico]

Just now, Plutosaurus said:

 

This does not help the OP; it only serves to further your personal attack.

Really thank you for your time and effort to helping me 

 

[Stefan Payne]

38 minutes ago, Ricoxico said:

I want to upgrade my pc:

(

 

CX COOLER MASTER MasterBox 5 Black 
- Fonte CORSAIR CX V2 600 Wat
- Board ASUS Z170 PRO GAMING
- INTEL Core i5-6600K (6Mb/3.5 GHz) 
- CM SEIDON 120V REFRIGERAÇÃO LÍQUIDA
- RAM 16Gb HyperX Savage DDR4 3000Mhz 
- SSD KINGSTON 480GB M.2 SATA 6Gbps
- HDD WD Desk Blue 1TB 3.5 SATA 64Gbs 
- ASUS GTX1060 6GB DDR5 STRIX 

) 

 

So I was looking forward to buy a new cpu kinda divided by this 2 cpu don't know if I should wait for the ryzen 3000 

Dont know if I should go for something like a i7 8700 or just stay a little bit cheaper and stay by the ryzen 5/i5 8400 and being Able to spend a little more in other things 

 I want a cpu that last me a lot of time I don't want to upgrade it like every year or so 

Either wait for Ryzen 3000 as its not t hat far away. Only a couple of months away. And your System is pretty decent anyway.

The PSU is something I'd think about replacing soon as that might cause trouble in the future.

 

As for the Plattform:
The LGA1151 Socket for 8k and 9k Series is essentially the same as your LGA1151 and only locked because of the BIOS, so artificially locked out. And with that knowledge, the 8 and 9k Series is all you can get for the "LGA1151 V2". With high certainty there is no other "upgrade Path".

For Ryzen, AMD said that AM4 will live through 2020.

So that means that there might be an additional series (Ryzen 4k) that might work in the AM4 Socket. Ryzen 3000 is already announced to be supported with AM4 Boards (though it might be possible that  not all AM4 Boards will get a new, Ryzen 3000 compatible BIOS).

 

Anyway, I'd wait, if possible.

Or get a Ryzen with a good supported Mainstream Motherboard and maybe upgrade to Ryzen 3000.

[ch3w2oy]

16 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

 

This does not help the OP; it only serves to further your personal attack.

I'm sorry. And I don't want you to go. It's not a personal attack. I'm genuinely curious because I chose the upgrade path as well.

 

To be fair, you were trying to convince people that upgrade paths weren't ideal in another similar thread. Not everyone can afford a 9900K and a $250 motherboard to power it efficiently. Upgrade paths are very important. I could't afford a 9900K, going this route will give an 8c/8t (maybe higher) chip very soon that is probably on par with the 9900K, for LESS money. Especially if the 2600X can sell for at least half it's value when I bought it.

 

I'm sorry OP. I apologize for the HIJACK!!! Wait for Zen 2!

[Stefan Payne]

20 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

Except...why? Benchmarks show there isn't a huge difference in performance.

That is for everyone to decide for themselves.

 

20 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

If I had an unlocked i5 Skylake or better right now, I would not be upgrading.

That is your decision, but there are games that don't run too well on 4 Core/4 Thread CPUs.

And upgrading on the Skylake Plattform makes little sense due to the Price of those CPUs...

 

BUT:
If he could upgrade to an i3-8350, it would be awesome and pretty cheap upgrade.

Or an i5-8400 or 9400. If that would work in his Board, that would be a possibility. But it doesn't.

 

So it might make sense to have an upgrade path.

 

20 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

And if he got the i7-6700k to begin with, he wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But he didn't. Why doesn't matter.

And that is why it makes sense to have an upgrade path. 
Because you might want to upgrade the CPU. But in this case, its not financially viable as the i7 CPUs that work in his Board rediculously expensive...

 

20 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

My son's i3-8350k @ 4.8ghz is barely faster than his chip's capable of. It is fine for gaming.

For the games YOU play, but we don't know what is played.

And for some it might be borderline...

But that's for each person to decide.

[ch3w2oy]

@Plutosaurus

All I was trying to show you is that THIS is exactly why an "upgrade path" would have benefited the OP. People that bought a 2600/2200G/2400G/1300/1400/1500/1600 used or new will have one hell of an upgrade path. You just cannot beat it. Not everyone can afford the best CPU at the time and this totally makes sense. Just because you can get the best chip of today doesn't mean everyone else can. Even getting the best chip you can afford, for some that might be a 2200G today and then in 3 or 5 years they can upgrade to 3600X/4600X and have damn good PC for another 5-10 years. 

[Stefan Payne]

33 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

As for someone coming here in 5 years with a 2600.....if using a 300 or 400 series board in 5 years from now, they will be missing out on a lot of features that a modern board would give them anyway. So I am not changing my stance.

Could you please specify what you mean about "modern features"???
Because right now we don't know how the X570 will look like and what it will bring. All we know is that it will be from AMD.

 

As for the CPU itself: We know that 3000 series will support PCIe 4.0, wich might be possible in some cheaper Boards with only 1 PCIe Slot connected to the CPU (Like the MSI B450I I have, probably not the ASUS X370-F because of the PCIe Switches). But that is OK, as there isn't really a big disadvantage for that feature right now.

Similar for USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10G/sec). It is nice to have but how do you use that??

 

The only possible use case that might make use of that bandwith is an external USB 3.1 gen2 Graphics Card - wich doesn't exist right now to my knowledge. As do such fast SSD that utilize that either...

So that leaves USB3.1 gen2 as "for future use"...

 

A S-ATA 10Gib or 12Gib/sec version isn't on the Horizon either. There is a SAS 12Gib/sec specification for SAS, but not for S-ATA at all.

It looks like there will be no "S-ATA 4" Specification. Or rather NVMe is the successor to S-ATA. As SSDs are the only things that can make use of the bandwith.

 

 

So that only leaves one thing that you might miss out on and that's PCIe 4.0, wich Ryzen 3000 series will (probably) come with.

 

But the real question should always be: "what does it do? How does it benefit me?"

There is however no real answer to this question right now as its not released yet. The most probable answer would be though that it is not much...

 

 

As for the Upgrade Path:
It was this bad and didn't matter because we were at a standstill and one Manufacturer had quasi a monopoly on CPUs and could do whatever they wanted to. Wich was not much. THAT was also the reason why it is still possible to use 10 year old Hardware and live quite well with it.

 

These things changed around 2 years ago, when there was something we haven't seen in the PC Area for almost a decade:
Competition.

And as I said earlier, with a good second Generation Socket 7 Board, you could upgrade from like a 90 or 133MHz Pentium to a whopping 400MHz (K6-2), if you had the right version of the ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Motherboard. And yes, I bought it new, in a Box, from a Store! and started with my 90MHz Pentium and later upgraded it to the mentioned K6-2/400.

Hell, you could even use a 450MHz Chip with some slight overclocking (6x75MHz, wich was working without any major problems). 

83MHz FSB however was not reliable...