ryzen Ryzen 5 1600 or i5 8400?

[aSidSha]

I'm planning a new build and I'm very confused between ryzen 5 1600 and i5 8400 (only these fit in my budget). According to many youtube reviews i5 8400 looks much better performance wise but then there is hyperthreading and future prospects. But i also have this notion in my head that "intel is intel". What to do??

 

I am a casual gamer and will be using this machine for some music production work. I usually web browse with multiple tabs open at the same time. Not very familiar very OC and wouldn't like to get into it if it's to much hassle.

 

New Build:

R5 1600 / i5 8400

Asus B350 / z370 Mobo

DDR4 3000Mhz 8 GB Ram

GTX 1050ti GPU

M.2 250GB SSD

Corsair CX450M PSU

[tp95112]

If you plan on overclocking to get better IPC then ryzen, if not intel

[SquintyG33Rs]

what's your usecase? do you even do anything that will use the threads? the core speed of ryzen is severely limiting for gaming and in that case i5 is the only real option even the new 4core i3 will do much better with a strong OC

[i_build_nanosuits]

7 minutes ago, aSidSha said:

I'm planning a new build and I'm very confused between ryzen 5 1600 and i5 8400 (only these fit in my budget). According to many youtube reviews i5 8400 looks much better performance wise but then there is hyperthreading and future prospects. But i also have this notion in my head that "intel is intel". What to do??

i would go with the i5-8400 for a gaming PC, and a R7 1700 for a workstation machine.

[Komplett]

Just now, SquintyG33Rs said:

what's your usecase? do you even do anything that will use the threads? the core speed of ryzen is severely limiting for gaming and in that case i5 is the only real option even the new 4core i3 will do much better with a strong OC

So wrong. Alot of games today make fine use of extra cores and threads. So the i5 isnt the only real option. 

[InertiaSelling]

The 8400 will provide a better gaming experience, but you will probably need a good cooling solution. The 1600 is cheaper in terms of platform cost, comes with a very good stock cooler, and provides better performance in multithreaded applications such as video editing. Depends on your use case.

[SquintyG33Rs]

1 minute ago, Komplett said:

So wrong. Alot of games today make fine use of extra cores and threads. So the i5 isnt the only real option. 

listen man don't fanboy over it. i have a 1700 too. i'm bringing facts not pipe dreams. the speed limitation is the only reason ryzen is behind intel and it's a serious hold back. and no, no games use more than 6 threads. most games are coded like shit (thanks ubisoft) and the ones that scale with your hardware well are so well coded to start off they run super well even on minimum specs (look at wolfenstein and DOOM)

[MyName13]

14 minutes ago, tp95112 said:

If you plan on overclocking to get better IPC then ryzen, if not intel

You don't increase IPC with overclocks...

 

10 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

The 8400 will provide a better gaming experience, but you will probably need a good cooling solution. The 1600 is cheaper in terms of platform cost, comes with a very good stock cooler, and provides better performance in multithreaded applications such as video editing. Depends on your use case.

i5 comes with a good enough stock cooler.

[tp95112]

9 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

You don't increase IPC with overclocks...

 

i5 comes with a good enough stock cooler.

Overclocking to help single threaded performance. Which ryzen lacks compared to Coffeelake still. 

[SquintyG33Rs]

4 minutes ago, tp95112 said:

Overclocking to help single threaded performance. Which ryzen lacks compared to Coffeelake still. 

only narrows the gap.. still stuck behind.

ultimately it's a money question.... buy what you can afford. consider total cost. i5 will perform better but it's more expensive because of the mobo

[resisq]

When thinking about the future, ryzen mobo's might be valid for ryzen 2 and 3, whereas intel requires a new chipset.

[PhaseShift]

2 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

listen man don't fanboy over it. i have a 1700 too. i'm bringing facts not pipe dreams. the speed limitation is the only reason ryzen is behind intel and it's a serious hold back. and no, no games use more than 6 threads. most games are coded like shit (thanks ubisoft) and the ones that scale with your hardware well are so well coded to start off they run super well even on minimum specs (look at wolfenstein and DOOM)

A few years ago I bought a 4670k instead of a 4770k because everyone was saying that games don't use 4 cores and they probably never will. So right now I'm suffering because my issue isn't that the cpu is not fast enough(I get about 90 fps avg in BF1 with a 1070) but that it is regularly hitting 100% usage while I'm playing cpu intensive games and I get freezes, stutter and so on. Right now the 8400 is better but in a few years...who knows. And also even if a game doesn't use 6 threads that doesn't mean that these 6 threads won't get maxed out when you factor in background proccesses (Windows, Chrome, Antivirus, etc.).

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, PhaseShift said:

.

Best thing ever for me was getting the i7 6700 on a cheap board than the i5 6600k on a overclocking board, no regrets.

[SquintyG33Rs]

30 minutes ago, PhaseShift said:

A few years ago I bought a 4670k instead of a 4770k because everyone was saying that games don't use 4 cores and they probably never will. So right now I'm suffering because my issue isn't that the cpu is not fast enough(I get about 90 fps avg in BF1 with a 1070) but that it is regularly hitting 100% usage while I'm playing cpu intensive games and I get freezes, stutter and so on. Right now the 8400 is better but in a few years...who knows. And also even if a game doesn't use 6 threads that doesn't mean that these 6 threads won't get maxed out when you factor in background proccesses (Windows, Chrome, Antivirus, etc.).

4670k was like 5 years ago...... and i don't know who told you any of that but they were full of shit. i never said games will never use more than x cores but all tests we can do right now show that the difference in speed of the intel chips aver the ryzen ones give them a clear advantage. and that's not likely to go away. because hyper-threading aside they are still both 6 core parts sold in exactly the same price category. and i don't see why you'd complain about buying an i5 instead of an i7. you saved yourself some cash. you could have bought yourself a 2700k if you were so sour, the changes since then were minimal until now (once OC'ed). remember that the year after that people were recommending the unlocked Pentium even for small budget builders. to be honest it's really your fault. you overestimated your system and bought a GPU that was much too powerful. i have a friend that did the same thing, except worse... 1080+4690k. can't stop laughing at him

[tp95112]

3 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

only narrows the gap.. still stuck behind.

ultimately it's a money question.... buy what you can afford. consider total cost. i5 will perform better but it's more expensive because of the mobo

Thats why, i usually just go with intel cause Ryzen is good when you add the additional overclocking

[SquintyG33Rs]

1 hour ago, resisq said:

When thinking about the future, ryzen mobo's might be valid for ryzen 2 and 3, whereas intel requires a new chipset.

agreed. not many people upgrade like that though

[SquintyG33Rs]

Just now, tp95112 said:

Thats why, i usually just go with intel cause Ryzen is good when you add the additional overclocking

ryzen is always good. not for pure gaming though

[tp95112]

1 minute ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

ryzen is always good. not for pure gaming though

Yup

[pyrojoe34]

As others have said, the i5-8400 will be better for pure gaming, the R5-1600 will be better bang for the buck and better performance in most multi-threaded use cases. The thing that sucks about the 8400 is you don't have the option to OC it in the future to squeeze more life out of it. You can't go wrong with either one though but if you get the 1600 you should definitely be OCing it.

[TahoeDust]

Is the 8600k 100% not an option?

[Storytellar]

I have recently built a 8350K machine for a client who had the mindset to upgrade platform and leave headroom for future upgrades if valid later on. 

 

Rough synthetic benchmarking with just OC genie without manual OC at 4.1 GHz was actually really surprising, but imho a PC is about balance and need. 

 

I should note this build had an AiO water cooler and a 1060 6GB.

 

But @aSidSha

Can you tell us more about what other components you have or plan to use as well as what you want the build for? 

 

Others have mentioned Coffee for games, Ryzen for "workloads" and that is correct from what I have tested. 

[PhaseShift]

54 minutes ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

4670k was like 5 years ago...... and i don't know who told you any of that but they were full of shit. i never said games will never use more than x cores but all tests we can do right now show that the difference in speed of the intel chips aver the ryzen ones give them a clear advantage. and that's not likely to go away. because hyper-threading aside they are still both 6 core parts sold in exactly the same price category. and i don't see why you'd complain about buying an i5 instead of an i7. you saved yourself some cash. you could have bought yourself a 2700k if you were so sour, the changes since then were minimal until now (once OC'ed). remember that the year after that people were recommending the unlocked Pentium even for small budget builders. to be honest it's really your fault. you overestimated your system and bought a GPU that was much too powerful. i have a friend that did the same thing, except worse... 1080+4690k. can't stop laughing at him

I wasn't arguing your point I just meant that while the i5 is better right now in 3 years time it might be limited by the fact that it has no hyperthreding. Now about the gpu...I said in my post that my problem is not avg fps, it's the cpu hitting 100% usage causing stuttering and freezing so even if I had bought a 1060 (for example) I would still have the exact same problem.

[SquintyG33Rs]

10 minutes ago, PhaseShift said:

I wasn't arguing your point I just meant that while the i5 is better right now in 3 years time it might be limited by the fact that it has no hyperthreding. Now about the gpu...I said in my post that my problem is not avg fps, it's the cpu hitting 100% usage causing stuttering and freezing so even if I had bought a 1060 (for example) I would still have the exact same problem.

no you wouldn't because it stutters because the CPU is occupied and doesn't feed the information to the GPU basically the GPU works too fast and so it ends up with nothing to do and no image to show on monitor so it shows the same image again. a slower GPU won't show the stutters because the CPU can keep up.

[Komplett]

5 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

listen man don't fanboy over it. i have a 1700 too. i'm bringing facts not pipe dreams. the speed limitation is the only reason ryzen is behind intel and it's a serious hold back. and no, no games use more than 6 threads. most games are coded like shit (thanks ubisoft) and the ones that scale with your hardware well are so well coded to start off they run super well even on minimum specs (look at wolfenstein and DOOM)

BF1, use almost all cores on my CPU with even load. It works perfectly fine unless you need 144fps in every single game.

[PhaseShift]

1 hour ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

no you wouldn't because it stutters because the CPU is occupied and doesn't feed the information to the GPU basically the GPU works too fast and so it ends up with nothing to do and no image to show on monitor so it shows the same image again. a slower GPU won't show the stutters because the CPU can keep up.

Stuttering is cause by drops in fps to a really low number. In BF1 I usually get drops from 90 to 10-20 fps for a split second when the cpu maxes out. I don't get how being with a 1060 and getting drops from 60 to 10-20 fps is going to solve my issue.