Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Ryzen 5 1600 or i5 8400?

4 hours ago, PhaseShift said:

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.

yeah that number is what you call an average. what i described is the cause for the number you see. if you don't understand basic maths i'm sorry but there's no making you understand this one. not that you even seem inclined to learn something. the only reality here is that if you had a lower end GPU you would see less stutters. or your other option is putting more load on the GPU. try turning on DSR for shits and giggle and you'll see all stutters disapeer

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 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

 

13 hours 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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TahoeDust said:

Is the 8600k 100% not an option?

Very expensive in my country (i.e India) totally out of budget. Even the R7 1700. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Storytellar said:

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? 

R5 1600 / i5 8400 (With stock cooler. no budget for addition cooler)

Asus B350 / z370 Mobo (strix)

DDR4 3000Mhz 8 GB Ram

GTX 1050ti GPU

M.2 250GB SSD

Corsair CX450M PSU

 

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, aSidSha said:

R5 1600 / i5 8400 (With stock cooler. no budget for addition cooler)

Asus B350 / z370 Mobo (strix)

DDR4 3000Mhz 8 GB Ram

GTX 1050ti GPU

M.2 250GB SSD

Corsair CX450M PSU

 

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.

 

 

Right. 

So if games aren't the highest priority I suppose Id recommend double ram at 2133/2400, the Ryzen CPU and to make sure the mobo has a highend audio component unless you have that part covered externally? 

 

That is just my opinion but I think gamewise the i5 is "overpowered" balance wise to the 1050ti so your usecase probably warrants more ram and more threads vs. Faster IPC. 

 

On many mobos today there is a "simple auto overclock" button you just press in the bios and let the system squeeze a little more out of your hardware (also don't forget to activate XMP) so you dont have to know or worry. 

 

With stock coolers I wouldnt personally recommend doing much more than that anyway. 

 

Hope this helps :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Storytellar said:

Right. 

So if games aren't the highest priority I suppose Id recommend double ram at 2133/2400, the Ryzen CPU and to make sure the mobo has a highend audio component unless you have that part covered externally? 

 

That is just my opinion but I think gamewise the i5 is "overpowered" balance wise to the 1050ti so your usecase probably warrants more ram and more threads vs. Faster IPC. 

 

On many mobos today there is a "simple auto overclock" button you just press in the bios and let the system squeeze a little more out of your hardware (also don't forget to activate XMP) so you dont have to know or worry. 

 

With stock coolers I wouldnt personally recommend doing much more than that anyway. 

 

Hope this helps :)

Thanks a bunch. This helps a lot, as a matter of fact i was just browsing about this and getting more interested in going for ryzen, when i saw your post. As for ram 16GB is again going out of budget, so i think i'll upgrade it later.

Games aren't highest priority but i would like to play AAA games in med-high settings without any frustration for atleast 2-3 years.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

yeah that number is what you call an average. what i described is the cause for the number you see. if you don't understand basic maths i'm sorry but there's no making you understand this one. not that you even seem inclined to learn something. the only reality here is that if you had a lower end GPU you would see less stutters. or your other option is putting more load on the GPU. try turning on DSR for shits and giggle and you'll see all stutters disapeer

Could you not be so condescending? I got what you are saying but you didn't explain why that will happen so I can't understand how lowering my avg fps is going to help my minimum fps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PhaseShift said:

Could you not be so condescending? I got what you are saying but you didn't explain why that will happen so I can't understand how lowering my avg fps is going to help my minimum fps.

Not trying to get in the middle of this but he did explain it. 

 

If your GPU is too fast for you CPU you get stutter. Simply put. 

 

Squinty did say that already. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aSidSha said:

Thanks a bunch. This helps a lot, as a matter of fact i was just browsing about this and getting more interested in going for ryzen, when i saw your post. As for ram 16GB is again going out of budget, so i think i'll upgrade it later.

Games aren't highest priority but i would like to play AAA games in med-high settings without any frustration for atleast 2-3 years.  

Thats cool mate.

I might suggest you see if a single 8GB stick is same price as 2x4 then. 

 

Dual channel is slightly faster yes, but you would cap yourself to a future maximum of 16GB without having to exchance sticks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Storytellar said:

Dual channel is slightly faster yes.

Is the difference worth being concerned about. Although i don't think i would need more than 16GB in a long time, considering my use case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, aSidSha said:

Is the difference worth being concerned about. Although i don't think i would need more than 16GB in a long time, considering my use case. 

I personally dont think you can "feel" a difference in ram speed past 2000 mhz. 

You can test for it yea, but i doubt you can tell without testing. 

 

I also dont think in your situtation you should worry about single or dual, better imho to keep options open. 

 

RAM is a bottleneck you should not notice until you start running out of it, so more in some cases is better than faster. 

 

But for hardcore gaming with crazy hardware that is another story. 

 

My point is just that i feel 3000 mhz ram in an R5 or i5 with a 1050ti seems overbalanced as aposed to getting more ram at 2133 or 2400.

 

This is due to your mention of many open browsing tabs and the argument for more core/threads vs. Higher IPC that we discussed. 

 

Maybe if you are sure you wont need more than 16 ever you could afford 3x4 at 2133 vs 2x4 at 3000? 

 

This choise isnt going to ruin your experience either way btw. I am just,again, promoting balance ;)

Edited by Storytellar
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

my personal opinion to get 8400. correct me if I am wrong, for audio production you don't need that heavy cpu. Intel is more optimized in this case & faster IPC helps too. 6 core would be sweet spot. For AAA games, if you want hit high setting for next few years ahead consider gtx 1060. If you get 8400, you don't have to worry for higher speed memory much, rather I recommend to fit cheapest 16gb (2x 8gb kit) 2133mhz ram & maybe overclock them a bit. also normal ssd with bigger capacity as there wont be so huge speed difference.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fardin said:

my personal opinion to get 8400. correct me if I am wrong, for audio production you don't need that heavy cpu. Intel is more optimized in this case & faster IPC helps too. 6 core would be sweet spot. For AAA games, if you want hit high setting for next few years ahead consider gtx 1060. If you get 8400, you don't have to worry for higher speed memory much, rather I recommend to fit cheapest 16gb (2x 8gb kit) 2133mhz ram & maybe overclock them a bit. also normal ssd with bigger capacity as there wont be so huge speed difference.   

You are probably correct but there is a budget issue for him so the 16gb and 1060 has already been ruled out. 

 

AAA games does not sound like they are a priority. If they were I would totally agree with you ;)

 

But every opinion counts and perhaps the CPU choice is not even that important in this case. 

 

Thats why I was recommending the cheaper platform for one thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Storytellar said:

I personally dont think you can "feel" a difference in ram speed past 2000 mhz. 

You can test for it yea, but i doubt you can tell without testing. 

 

I also dont think in your situtation you should worry about single or dual, better imho to keep options open. 

 

RAM is a bottleneck you should not notice until you start running out of it, so more in some cases is better than faster. 

 

But for hardcore gaming with crazy hardware that is another story. 

 

My point is just that i feel 3000 mhz ram in an R5 or i5 with a 1050ti seems overbalanced as aposed to getting more ram at 2133 or 2400.

 

This is due to your mention of many open browsing tabs and the argument for more core/threads vs. Higher IPC that we discussed. 

 

Maybe if you are sure you wont need more than 16 ever you could afford 3x4 at 2133 vs 2x4 at 3000? 

 

This choise isnt going to ruin your experience either way btw. I am just,again, promoting balance ;)

Ram speed is not affecting prices much in my country 2400 and 3000 Mhz are priced very close. and if the performance difference is not noticeable in my case then i think i'll go for a 8GB stick for future upgrade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, aSidSha said:

 

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.

OC wouldn't be very complicated. Once you've done it you won't have to worry about it. But with ryzen you will want to tinker to get the full power out of it. Otherwise it won't be worth it. So if you don't think you want to do that. I will have to recommend intel chips

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PhaseShift said:

Could you not be so condescending? I got what you are saying but you didn't explain why that will happen so I can't understand how lowering my avg fps is going to help my minimum fps.

Yeah sorry. It's not lowering your fps that helps your minimums. You are removing the minimum by changing where the bottleneck of the system is. And by  doing you have a more playable experience because the framerate is more consistent.

 

You can demonstrate the reverse effect by downclocking you cpu. There will be more dips. 

 

And you can demonstrate having a slower card by downclocking the gpu (cpu at usual speed) and you will see less dips. 

 

Sure you lose some fps doing this but unless you're trying to game on a 144Hz screen it doesn't matter those extra frames only cause screen tearing and you don't see them. You'll be well over 60fps regardless with high settings. 

 

You might also be inclined to research which settings are CPU intensive and lower those specifically to give yourself more margin without sacrificing much. But that's highly variable from game to game and hard to measure the impact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aSidSha said:

Ram speed is not affecting prices much in my country 2400 and 3000 Mhz are priced very close. and if the performance difference is not noticeable in my case then i think i'll go for a 8GB stick for future upgrade.

Faster speed matters more than dual channel with ryzen. So my recommendation is 1stick 3000MHz 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fardin said:

my personal opinion to get 8400. correct me if I am wrong, for audio production you don't need that heavy cpu. Intel is more optimized in this case & faster IPC helps too. 6 core would be sweet spot. For AAA games, if you want hit high setting for next few years ahead consider gtx 1060. If you get 8400, you don't have to worry for higher speed memory much, rather I recommend to fit cheapest 16gb (2x 8gb kit) 2133mhz ram & maybe overclock them a bit. also normal ssd with bigger capacity as there wont be so huge speed difference.   

 

Until we get to the 1080 class of GPUs, the CPU barely matters as long as it has 4 cores. But you want to hit 2666 Mhz RAM. There is a performance uplift, even in Windows, between the base 2133 and 2666. After that, it's going to be minimal.

 

7 hours ago, aSidSha said:

Ram speed is not affecting prices much in my country 2400 and 3000 Mhz are priced very close. and if the performance difference is not noticeable in my case then i think i'll go for a 8GB stick for future upgrade.

I would recommend 16 Gb at between 2666 and 3000 Mhz (in a 2x 8 Gb setup) if you can fit it in.

 

As for your choice for CPU, what Music work do you do? What programs? Those are actually the important questions. It's not that Intel or Ryzen have a large processing power difference at these two CPUs (as they're both the best Price to Performance for both companies), but the optimization of the programs is what matters. Most programs are tuned to Intel's approach, so even if Ryzen is significantly better, certain programs would still run faster on Intel. (It's an issue for AMD in general. This used to happen with Internet Explorer for years when it came to webpages.) 

 

So my suggestion is to get a list of the top 5 programs you use, especially something that would use the CPU heavily, then look for some benchmarks. The Ryzen 5 1600 is a "stronger" CPU, but that might not matter for what you're up to. The 8400 is a great CPU, but if you start doing any Video or Rendering, the Ryzen is much better at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, aSidSha said:

R5 1600 / i5 8400 (With stock cooler. no budget for addition cooler)

Asus B350 / z370 Mobo (strix)

DDR4 3000Mhz 8 GB Ram

GTX 1050ti GPU

M.2 250GB SSD

Corsair CX450M PSU

 

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.

 

 

With the 1050ti either CPU will suffice.  I would go with the 1600 because the AM4 platform will support future upgrades, you can overclock Ryzen (even with the stock cooler), and you'll have better multi-tasking if you decide to stream or do any kind of content creation.

 

You won't be able to hit 100+ fps consistently in games, so the 8400 is kind of pointless.

CPU -AMD R5 2600X @ 4.15 GHz / RAM - 2x8Gb GSkill Ripjaws 3000 MHz/ MB- Asus Crosshair VII Hero X470/  GPU- MSI Gaming X GTX 1080/ CPU Cooler - Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3/ PSU - Seasonic G-series 550W/ Case - NZXT H440 (Black/Red)/ SSD - Crucial MX300 500GB/ Storage - WD Caviar Blue 1TB/ Keyboard - Corsair Vengeance K70 w/ Red switches/ Mouse - Logitech g900/ Display - 27" Benq GW2765 1440p display/ Audio - Sennheiser HD 558 and Logitech z323 speakers

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

Yeah sorry. It's not lowering your fps that helps your minimums. You are removing the minimum by changing where the bottleneck of the system is. And by  doing you have a more playable experience because the framerate is more consistent.

 

You can demonstrate the reverse effect by downclocking you cpu. There will be more dips. 

 

And you can demonstrate having a slower card by downclocking the gpu (cpu at usual speed) and you will see less dips. 

 

Sure you lose some fps doing this but unless you're trying to game on a 144Hz screen it doesn't matter those extra frames only cause screen tearing and you don't see them. You'll be well over 60fps regardless with high settings. 

 

You might also be inclined to research which settings are CPU intensive and lower those specifically to give yourself more margin without sacrificing much. But that's highly variable from game to game and hard to measure the impact. 

Thanks! I'll try DSR to see if that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PhaseShift said:

Thanks! I'll try DSR to see if that helps.

The only problem with dsr is if you're not scaling up by 4 (4k on 1080p screen) it looks fuzzy and blury and honestly bad. And 4k isn't something we can render in most games... Except maybe csgo and league but nobody cares to do that on them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 

As for your choice for CPU, what Music work do you do? What programs? Those are actually the important questions. It's not that Intel or Ryzen have a large processing power difference at these two CPUs (as they're both the best Price to Performance for both companies), but the optimization of the programs is what matters. Most programs are tuned to Intel's approach, so even if Ryzen is significantly better, certain programs would still run faster on Intel. (It's an issue for AMD in general. This used to happen with Internet Explorer for years when it came to webpages.) 

 

So my suggestion is to get a list of the top 5 programs you use, especially something that would use the CPU heavily, then look for some benchmarks. The Ryzen 5 1600 is a "stronger" CPU, but that might not matter for what you're up to. The 8400 is a great CPU, but if you start doing any Video or Rendering, the Ryzen is much better at it.

I use Cubase and FL Studio and with them a lot of plugins, which are generally very CPU hungry. I have looked up a couple of videos on the internet, please let me know what do you make of them?

http://www.scanproaudio.info/2017/03/02/amd-ryzen-first-look-for-audio/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Most programs are tuned to Intel's approach, so even if Ryzen is significantly better, certain programs would still run faster on Intel.

This why I have this notion in my head that "Intel is Intel". I feel you can't go wrong with Intel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aSidSha said:

This why I have this notion in my head that "Intel is Intel". I feel you can't go wrong with Intel.

so many things wrong with that statement... they've built their image with marketing and years of just existing. but the reality is that their product stack is very carefully crafted artificially to give you not the best they can build for the cost but the cheapest thing they can sell you for that amount of money. they are very much a capitalist business first and foremost at this point. and there is fundamentally so many things Wrong with that (for us the consumer, because we're told it's a consumer market.... but it's not). things are changing finally this year because somehow AMD hasn't lost enough money to be unable to pull off Ryzen. but this is still very much an underdog fight for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

so many things wrong with that statement... they've built their image with marketing and years of just existing. but the reality is that their product stack is very carefully crafted artificially to give you not the best they can build for the cost but the cheapest thing they can sell you for that amount of money. they are very much a capitalist business first and foremost at this point. and there is fundamentally so many things Wrong with that (for us the consumer, because we're told it's a consumer market.... but it's not). things are changing finally this year because somehow AMD hasn't lost enough money to be unable to pull off Ryzen. but this is still very much an underdog fight for them.

I think my statement could be wrong subjectively by not entirely. As you said 'years of existing', which brings a lot of experience, knowledge and understanding of software that other companies make and maybe tie ups with them. AMD has done well, there's no doubt about that and they definitely have pulled Intel out of their comfort zone. But remember when Ryzen came out it had so many problems which eventually got fixed but people who went with Ryzen had to go through that time.

So my point being I'm not the kind of consumer or "enthusiast" who would go through all that trouble to bring "change" in this market. I just want to be safe and comfortable when i make a purchase. I'm more like a common man in this context :P and the whole point of me asking this question through this thread is, can I feel safe with Ryzen?    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×