Ryzen 5 1400 vs i3 8100

[david cassar]

I am going to upgrade my pc and I am currently deciding between the i3 8100 and ryzen 1400. I will only be gaming (apex legends and other battle royales) and the graphics card is a gtx 970. The i3 with an h310 motherboard and ram is only 10 euro cheaper than the ryzen with a b450 motherboard. What do you suggest I get?

[GGPLAYING]

Get the i3, it performs WAY better.

[Earnist_]

4 minutes ago, david cassar said:

I am going to upgrade my pc and I am currently deciding between the i3 8100 and ryzen 1400. I will only be gaming (apex legends and other battle royales) and the graphics card is a gtx 970. The i3 with an h310 motherboard and ram is only 10 euro cheaper than the ryzen with a b450 motherboard. What do you suggest I get?

no absolutely get the 1400 its over clockable and the b450 board you get for the 1400 will be compatible with all ryzen 3000 coming out later this year and 1400 is better than 8100 anyways 

[GGPLAYING]

Quote

no absolutely get the 1400 its over clockable and the b450 board you get for the 1400 will be compatible with all ryzen 3000 coming out later this year and 1400 is better than 8100 anyways 

1400 is cooler and more OC but i3 8100 is more stable in Apex and will get you about 13 extra frames.

[boey]

Just now, Earnist_ said:

no absolutely get the 1400 its over clockable and the b450 board you get for the 1400 will be compatible with all ryzen 3000 coming out later this year and 1400 is better than 8100 anyways 

Not all ryzen 3000. Very possible that Ryzens over 8 cores will need special motherboards(maybe X570?) which support quad-channel memory. AMD never stated ALL new ryzens until 2020 will be backwards compatible with all AM4 boards. Anything over 8 cores on dual-channel will bottleneck the CPU heavily and is probably a stupid decision

 

7 minutes ago, david cassar said:

I am going to upgrade my pc and I am currently deciding between the i3 8100 and ryzen 1400. I will only be gaming (apex legends and other battle royales) and the graphics card is a gtx 970. The i3 with an h310 motherboard and ram is only 10 euro cheaper than the ryzen with a b450 motherboard. What do you suggest I get?

If all you care about is gaming performance, then get the i3 and h310. If you want overclockability(and the possibility of upgrading to a decent 6 core ryzen or something) then get the b450 and ryzen 5 1400. 

[Earnist_]

the b450 board you will buy will be far better as you can just put in a ryzen 3000 cpu when they come out if you wanted and the 1400 is a better chip

[GGPLAYING]

In conclusion, get the one you like more, but of course since I am an Intel boi I recommend getting 8100.

[Earnist_]

1 minute ago, GGPLAYING said:

In conclusion, get the one you like more, but of course since I am an Intel boi I recommend getting 8100.

the board you will buy to use the 8100 is a dead end so get the b450 and ryzen 1400 good b450 boards will have 4 ram slots to so ignore the guys post above about dual channel bottle necks on anything over 8 cores because you can slot in 4 sticks if needed

[Azerafel]

5 minutes ago, _d0nut said:

Not all ryzen 3000. Very possible that Ryzens over 8 cores will need special motherboards(maybe X570?) which support quad-channel memory. AMD never stated ALL new ryzens until 2020 will be backwards compatible with all AM4 boards. Anything over 8 cores on dual-channel will bottleneck the CPU heavily and is probably a stupid decision

There's nothing indicating that the OP wants something with 8 cores. This would be a non issue.

[david cassar]

9 minutes ago, Azerafel said:

There's nothing indicating that the OP wants something with 8 cores. This would be a non issue.

I dont want anything with 8 cores. At this stage in time I just want a good cpu for gaming. I was thinking of getting the i3 8100 due to its greater single threaded performances but the fact that it only has 4 cores and 4 threads worries me. 

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, david cassar said:

I dont want anything with 8 cores. At this stage in time I just want a good cpu for gaming. I was thinking of getting the i3 8100 due to its greater single threaded performances but the fact that it only has 4 cores and 4 threads worries me. 

Ryzen 5 1400 should be not only the more powerful option that allows to pair it with a bit faster GPUs, but it should give you a decent upgrade path and you can always overclock it.

[Brent744]

Being a fan of both platforms, In that price range I would recommend the Ryzen 5 1400. As previously stated, you can pair it with a more powerful gpu before bottlenecking and will be the better future proof option. With Ryzen gaining so much popularity, a lot of Dev's are beginning to develop their engine's utilizing more cores and threads.

[boey]

43 minutes ago, Azerafel said:

There's nothing indicating that the OP wants something with 8 cores. This would be a non issue.

I know. @Earnist_ said that all previous motherboards will be compatible with Ryzen 3000, which is not confirmed, that's why I said anything over 8 cores can't really survive on dual channel.

[Stefan Payne]

17 minutes ago, Earnist_ said:

quad channel is 4 sticks of ram your clearly uninformed

That's just total nonsense.

4 Sticks of RAM can be anything even Single Channel (i440BX), Dual Channel or even Quad Channel.

There isn't necessarily a correlation between the two.

And 4 Sticks of RAM are just 4 Sticks of RAM.

Quad Channel must be supported by the CPU and means that the CPU has 4 independant, 64bit wide Memory Channels. Wich Ryzen on AM4 does not have. Quad Channel is something you find on HEDT Plattforms - like TR4.

 

1 hour ago, david cassar said:

I am going to upgrade my pc and I am currently deciding between the i3 8100 and ryzen 1400. I will only be gaming (apex legends and other battle royales) and the graphics card is a gtx 970. The i3 with an h310 motherboard and ram is only 10 euro cheaper than the ryzen with a b450 motherboard. What do you suggest I get?

I'd go for Ryzen but look at the 1600 and 2600 versions as well. Those might be cheap if you're lucky.

Seen a 1600 for like 120€ or so.

 

The i3 doesn't come with SMT enabled and has rather low clocks.

1 hour ago, Azerafel said:

There's nothing indicating that the OP wants something with 8 cores. This would be a non issue.

Why should it?!
There might be reasons to upgrade in the future - for example the realization that more than 4 Cores might be a good idea.

1 hour ago, david cassar said:

I dont want anything with 8 cores. At this stage in time I just want a good cpu for gaming. I was thinking of getting the i3 8100 due to its greater single threaded performances but the fact that it only has 4 cores and 4 threads worries me. 

Why don't you want more than 4 Cores??
Why not look at the 6  Cores? The 8 Cores are a bit expensive but the 6 Cores are rather cheap.

 

The thing with the "Single Threadded Performance" has to be taken with a sack of salt as most of the Tests are done with high end parts that clock way higher than your thing.

The i3-8100 is locked at 3,6GHz - no Turbo, Boost or whatever.

Ryzen 5/1400 might be clocked a bit lower but comes with 8 Threads (=SMT Enabled), wich can give you a noticable boost, even in Gaming.

 

The people that tell you that you don't need more than 4 Cores for Gaming don't know what they are talking about.

Its the same shit that I had to hear a couple of times already - Dual Cores are bullshit because of low clockrates, Single Cores, because of high frequencys - are the way to go. The were wrong only a couple of years after the Introduction of Dual Core CPUs, there were the first games that required dual Core CPUs...

Then the claim that Quad Core CPUs are not needed and Dual Cores are all you'd ever need for Games because lower frequency and so on. They were wrong again.

 

Why should they be correct now when they were wrong the other times the Core Count of the CPUs was increased?!

Due to consoles, it might eventually take a bit longer, but the Games will benefit from more than 4 Cores or rather they already are.

 

So looking at 6 Cores makes sense and spending the money on that.

Here in Germany the Ryzen 5-1400 is around 110€ - a Ryzen 5/1600x (higher Base and Turbo, +2 Cores/4 Threads) is only around 15-20€ more. THAT is something you might be looking at. In your region prices might vary, so look at 1600 and 2600 as well....

 

 

[Emanbaird]

When i get home i can take a screen shot, or you can just google it.

[RAM555789]

The i3 8100 will give you better gaming performance but the upgradability of the Ryzen may make it a better choice depending on your plans in the coming years. As for everyone saying he can just overclock to get better performance, it's a B45 board he's getting, the VRMs are going to suck. Also @david cassar the 4 cores 4 threads is not that big of an issue.

[Stefan Payne]

41 minutes ago, Emanbaird said:

it is indeed still only dual channel, all am4 sockets are dual channel not quad 

That is a correct statement.

 

 

As I said in the last Posting: Quad Channel is something you only find in Server and High End Desktop Plattforms.

The first AMD Socket with Dual Channel was the Socket F - wich had 2 Phenom or Bulldozer dies on one package. The next one was TR4 in form of the Threadripper. Though the Socket itself even has an octa channel Memory interface.

On Intel's side, its LGA2011 and 2066 have Quad Channel.

 

LGA115x and AM2, 3, 4 as well as FM1 and 2 (and the + Versions) only have a Dual Channel memory Interface.

 

The claim that whatever cores need more than 2 Channels is also not correct!

If you claim "but but Threadripper 29x0WX", that is NOT because of Memory but because thhe Scheduler is stupid and can't handle the NUMA thing.

[boey]

11 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That is a correct statement.

 

 

As I said in the last Posting: Quad Channel is something you only find in Server and High End Desktop Plattforms.

The first AMD Socket with Dual Channel was the Socket F - wich had 2 Phenom or Bulldozer dies on one package. The next one was TR4 in form of the Threadripper. Though the Socket itself even has an octa channel Memory interface.

On Intel's side, its LGA2011 and 2066 have Quad Channel.

 

LGA115x and AM2, 3, 4 as well as FM1 and 2 (and the + Versions) only have a Dual Channel memory Interface.

 

The claim that whatever cores need more than 2 Channels is also not correct!

If you claim "but but Threadripper 29x0WX", that is NOT because of Memory but because thhe Scheduler is stupid and can't handle the NUMA thing.

Well we’ll have to see how the improved infinity fabric performs

[Stefan Payne]

18 minutes ago, RAM555789 said:

The i3 8100 will give you better gaming performance

In some cases maybe but not always.

Just because its intel doesn't mean its better.

Because its only a 4 Thread CPU vs. 8 on AMD Side.

 

Quote

Also @david cassar the 4 cores 4 threads is not that big of an issue.

That depends on the Workload, generalizations are just bullshit.

And here you are just wrong.

 

Look here:

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-odyssey-test-gpu-cpu-2018

52fps for the Ryzen 3/2200G and 65 on the 2400G.

that's 13fps more, just because of the 8 Threads.

Or +25% more performance, just because SMT is enabled.

 

So you're clearly wrong here. 25% more is a pretty big deal.

 

And the 8100 is also there - got beten by the Ryzen 1400 as well - by 8fps or 14%.

So your claim is false.

Both that the i3 is faster and that the 8 Threads don't matter. Both could be proven false wit hthat Benchmark of Assasin's Creed Odyssey!

Quote

's a B45 board he's getting, the VRMs are going to suck

1) you have to see that in Context

2) is that VRM stuff overrated in many cases

3) is your statement bullshit as well, because there are B450 Boards with "decent VRM".

But then again, that's only important if you really want to overclock...

 

 

And why the heck did you rate my Post as funny?!

[david cassar]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

-snip-

 

 

I would gladly get a ryzen 5 1600 but in my region it costs like 60 euro more than the ryzen 5 1400 and being a student my budget is a bit limited. Also with a gtx 970 the difference in performance between the 1400 and 1600 should be negligible. Quick question. The b450 motherboard im getting has only 2 dimm slots so I was thinking that for now I will get a single 8 gb ddr4 stick so that in the future i would be able to upgrade. Will performance be impacted greatly by using a single channel 8gb stick or should it be fine?

[Mister Woof]

Personally, if you absolutely cannot wait until Ryzen 3000, I would pony up the extra few euros for the 2600. The cost difference isn't that big but the gains are.

 

It's faster out of the box than the 1400, and the extra cores will come in handy.

 

You won't need to upgrade at all probably in the next 3+ years if you get the 2600 now, but you will probably regret it later if you get the 1400.

 

If the price difference is too high, consider a used secondhand 1600.

[RAM555789]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

In some cases maybe but not always.

Just because its intel doesn't mean its better.

Because its only a 4 Thread CPU vs. 8 on AMD Side.

 

That depends on the Workload, generalizations are just bullshit.

And here you are just wrong.

 

Look here:

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-odyssey-test-gpu-cpu-2018

52fps for the Ryzen 3/2200G and 65 on the 2400G.

that's 13fps more, just because of the 8 Threads.

Or +25% more performance, just because SMT is enabled.

 

So you're clearly wrong here. 25% more is a pretty big deal.

 

And the 8100 is also there - got beten by the Ryzen 1400 as well - by 8fps or 14%.

So your claim is false.

Both that the i3 is faster and that the 8 Threads don't matter. Both could be proven false wit hthat Benchmark of Assasin's Creed Odyssey!

1) you have to see that in Context

2) is that VRM stuff overrated in many cases

3) is your statement bullshit as well, because there are B450 Boards with "decent VRM".

But then again, that's only important if you really want to overclock...

 

 

And why the heck did you rate my Post as funny?!

Your looking at one single game to say that the Ryzen 1400 is better than the i3 8100, here are 2 videos that show a wider variety of games were the i3 8100 performed on par or better than the Ryzen 1400.  (also the whole page is in Russian and I can't get it to translate so I can't read the information in it)

As for overclocking its pretty clear that the OP is on a pretty tight budget and has now pointed on he is looking at only has 2 dimm slots which while not guaranteed decreases the likelihood of the board being anything decent for overclocking, and that's assuming the OP even has the budget to get a cooler. 

As I pointed out the first time, the i3-8100 will have better gaming performance in more cases than the Ryzen 5 1400, however I am advocating for the Ryzen due to its better upgrade path. It would be best if the OP could get the Ryzen 1600 but his budget seems stretched pretty thin.

I rated your post as funny because it was extremely amusing seeing you quote and criticize half the thread rather than simply answer the OP.

 

 

[david cassar]

1 minute ago, RAM555789 said:

-snip-

 

 

I am reusing my cooler from a previous build and its quite a decent cooler (definitely better than stock). I'm confident that if I were to overclock the ryzen 1400 i could probably get 3.8ghz out of it.

[RAM555789]

1 hour ago, david cassar said:

I would gladly get a ryzen 5 1600 but in my region it costs like 60 euro more than the ryzen 5 1400 and being a student my budget is a bit limited. Also with a gtx 970 the difference in performance between the 1400 and 1600 should be negligible. Quick question. The b450 motherboard im getting has only 2 dimm slots so I was thinking that for now I will get a single 8 gb ddr4 stick so that in the future i would be able to upgrade. Will performance be impacted greatly by using a single channel 8gb stick or should it be fine?

Only having 1 stick will have a pretty noticeable performance impact, its up to you to decide whether or not its worth the extra cost to upgrade to 16GB as game requirments for RAM have been slowly creeping up. I'll link a video that demonstrates pretty well the difference between dual and single channel in games.

 

To add on, while you can run most games perfectly fine with 8GB of RAM, you will struggle to run programs like google chrome in the background, as more of your RAM gets eaten up by these programs.

 

[Ja55ie]

4 hours ago, david cassar said:

I am going to upgrade my pc and I am currently deciding between the i3 8100 and ryzen 1400. I will only be gaming (apex legends and other battle royales) and the graphics card is a gtx 970. The i3 with an h310 motherboard and ram is only 10 euro cheaper than the ryzen with a b450 motherboard. What do you suggest I get?

I have the i3-8100, it seems to be more than enough for the gaming I do (paired with an RX 580). I would recommend the 8100 with a B360 mobo so you can upgrade in the future.