Will the ryzen 5 1400 give me the same performance as the i5 7600k?

[Thund3rB1rd]

I'm planning to build a pc, and i'm deciding between those 2 cpus. I plan to play Overwatch, BF1, For Honor, and Ghost Recon.

 

[Princess Luna]

Get the 1600x and you're certain to have a better cost to performance faced Intel current i5's

[Xenift]

I doubt it will match the 7600k in terms of performance, however in terms of price of course.

[Guest Darth Revan]

Definitely not. It's most likely going to beat it in cinebench which once again nobody cares about and a couple of cpu heavy programs. But for the most part it's going to beaten.

[DocSwag]

No idea. Wait for benchmarks and then decide  

[J400]

probably not in gaming performance, but if you are budget focused and have to buy a mid range graphics card, you wont see much difference in framerates, and you will be paying 80 dollars less. not to mention if you get faster memory (3200+) it will outperform the intel equivalent

proof:

 

[stealth80]

I love these posts:

 

[EPPHO]

It probably won't

[porina]

There's no need to a crystal ball, the R5 1400 will be slower in like for like comparisons, unless you're horribly GPU limited. You might save a little on the CPU cost and not needing a separate cooler, but the equivalent mobos are better value on the Intel side. At stock clocks the Intel will be faster. Unless AMD do something radically different with R5 than R7, the Intel will OC further too. Combined with better overall IPC with Intel, and a much more mature system, the 1400 to me doesn't make sense if you can afford the 7600k. The only two reasons for going 1400 are if you need to save the pennies, or you know for sure whatever you're doing is so un-demanding on CPU it doesn't matter. Edit: ok, 3rd reason, you do things that can make big use of SMT, maybe it can extract more value there.

[dizmo]

Wait for benchmarks and see. We're only a few weeks away from its release.

I don't imagine we'll see a huge difference, but who knows. Maybe they have a nice surprise for us.

Also, it depends what you plan on playing on. I'm guessing since you're looking at more budget friendly options, it's a 1080p 60hz monitor?

 

27 minutes ago, J400 said:

probably not in gaming performance, but if you are budget focused and have to buy a mid range graphics card, you wont see much difference in framerates, and you will be paying 80 dollars less. not to mention if you get faster memory (3200+) it will outperform the intel equivalent

proof:

 

Very interesting video. Clearly I need to hold off on my Ryzen build until it's matured more.

14 minutes ago, porina said:

There's no need to a crystal ball, the R5 1400 will be slower in like for like comparisons, unless you're horribly GPU limited. You might save a little on the CPU cost and not needing a separate cooler, but the equivalent mobos are better value on the Intel side. At stock clocks the Intel will be faster. Unless AMD do something radically different with R5 than R7, the Intel will OC further too. Combined with better overall IPC with Intel, and a much more mature system, the 1400 to me doesn't make sense if you can afford the 7600k. The only two reasons for going 1400 are if you need to save the pennies, or you know for sure whatever you're doing is so un-demanding on CPU it doesn't matter. Edit: ok, 3rd reason, you do things that can make big use of SMT, maybe it can extract more value there.

A little? I wouldn't call almost $100 a little. Plus you can get much cheaper motherboards that still allow for overclocking.

The cooler that comes with it likely won't be adequate though.

If he's playing on a 60hz monitor, he likely doesn't need to go too crazy and can save the money.

[zMeul]

in gaming? not

[stealth80]

so many assumptions, just wait. Keep in mind games are starting to use those extra threads now and it will become common place in the future. If these R5's can be clocked to around 4.5ghz I think AMD could be onto a winner, but yet again it's crystal ball stuff. Look how well a 4790k over clocked compared to a 5820k.... remember by reducing the amount of cores theyre also reducing the die size which "normally" leads to higher over clocks. But again, I'm speculating we need to wait for benchmarks

[Aphexxis]

I would say comparable to the 3770-4770k.

[Polakki]

No. Prob same as 3770...

[AkhTwo]

4 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

Definitely not. It's most likely going to beat it in cinebench which once again nobody cares about and a couple of cpu heavy programs. But for the most part it's going to beaten.

 

It's 40% less price for around 10-15% performance loss. I'd happily take it.