ryzen Ryzen 5 1600 or i5 8400?

[Taf the Ghost]

3 hours ago, aSidSha said:

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/

 

Go with the Ryzen 5 1600. Get the RAM at 2666 or 2933, the lower the CAS the better. 2933 CAS 14 will serve you great. When setting up the RAM (since anything above 2666 is an overclock anyway), put all of the Cores to 3.7 Ghz and call it good.

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.

Sad bit is even before FailDozer, the statement was pretty set in place because of Intel's actions. Machiavellian, for sure, but they managed to always find a way to illegally shove AMD out of the market when they got too close. However, that was then & this is now. Some programs still run better on Intel because they've been tuned so highly to exploit the "Core" cores. That's just the reality, but the performance is so close it mostly doesn't matter now.

 

In this case, the 6c/12t can be leveraged. I'd recommend getting 16 Gb of RAM if possible, as the Dual Channel does matter a bit. @aSidSha will be better served with Ryzen in this instance this he has a Use Case that can use all of those threads. (Basically, he's not on Adobe products, so that's the big thing, haha.) He'll also have the option in 2 years to swap in a "Zen 2" CPU for a reasonable price that's potentially a large upgrade. 

 

As for Overclocking the CPU, you can poke around for guides on the board you buy, but the Ryzen 5 1600 will do 3.7 Ghz all-core OC on pretty much every chip. That should also not produce any thermal issues to worry about. Higher would come with a recommendation for better cooling.

[Taf the Ghost]

@aSidSha

 

For all of the bluster, the actual difference between Ryzen and Coffeelake in games doesn't show up until you're spending at least $500USD on a GPU. And, before that, you'll generally find that Ryzen appears "smoother". (It is more consistent with less micro-stutters, but it's hard to tease it out of testing.) So Intel being better at gaming won't show up in GPUs in that price range for another 5-6 years. And that's only with the current Ryzen CPUs. If the refresh at the start of 2018 brings the clocks up by about 10%, then even that goes away.

 

The issue is always, "do you use programs that can use more cores? And do those programs love Intel CPUs?". It's pretty much an Adobe problem, but it's real for some people. The 8700k is the best CPU for Graphic Workstations right now. It actually makes Intel's HEDT platform pretty worthless for where most of the sales will be.

[SquintyG33Rs]

25 minutes ago, aSidSha said:

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  and the whole point of me asking this question through this thread is, can I feel safe with Ryzen?    

i'm not arguing your comment here just clarifying what you think you mean in what you're saying... and other's talking about intel's core vs AMD's. first off there is no such thing... the x86 architecture itself was created a billion years ago at this point (for all intents and purposes), it's known as general compute, and most of the added instruction sets are "leased" from AMD to intel or vise vera depending on which one did it first. there are a few notable exceptions here in AVX2 and a couple others. most of the rest of the cores structure can't be leveraged by any type of software as it is something the CPU does on it's own. the caching algorithm and branch prediction (i think that's what they called it on ryzen). and if you test clock for clock, or what people refer to IPC the difference isn't as huge as people think it is. it does exist i think i remember it was 10~20%, but then again it's 7am and i haven't slept yet.... the main problem ryzen has is that it's scalability is limiting the raw speed it can function at. it's a design flaw... just like bulldozer had a humongous design flaw by having one ALU for what they called 2 cores. now this isn't that. this isn't as big a drawback and it makes their product infinitely more versatile for them. they can scale it across their product stack at 0 added cost. it's brilliant. but it's a problem for the consumer level where this loss in speed can really be felt. and intel kinda capitalized on this because the only thing they've changed in 3 years was the process node which only changes power consumption and what speed you can reach. as evident by the monstrous OC we can hit on kaby lake and coffee lake compared to skylake.

 

that's mostly fact with a bit of my own opinion on the matter but it doesn't change what i'd recommend you. intel is the capitalist pig but it doesn't change the fact that you are not an individual that can be bothered to have to debug your hardware to run your software optimally. the faster speed of the i5 will be felt more than what you will gain from ryzen (mainly because of the newly added 2 cores since last gen, otherwise it'd be a different story) and you will only shorten the gap with an overclock (which isn't guarantied and adds problems of it's own).

 

the motherboard IS more expensive here with Z370. but ryzen has it's own hidden cost in precise ram requirements that you are likely to get wrong on first try (don't trust stuff marked "for ryzen") and in 90% of cases going for a budget B350 board comes with poor VRM with no form of monitoring on it (it will probably die early if you're pushing a high voltage OC) excluding the crappy X370 boards that are also being sold. it's like the board builders expected it to do worse and so didn't make much high cost high quality models..... almost like they got less money out of the deal......

 

conspiracy asside... i think that's all i have to say on the topic.

 

AND IF IT WASN'T OBVIOUS ENOUGH YET I'D RATHER RECOMMEND RYZEN BUT IT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT THING FOR THE MAN AND HIS WORK.

[Goildzy]

Want no hassle. Go intel. Want more out of your value  i think ryzen is best way to go but thats me personal. I have reasons to believe we will meet a more threaded age lol.

[johnukguy]

If you are in the US, you can get a Ryzen 1700X for $209 right now and Frys have a Black Friday deal for a mobo/Ryzen 1600 combo for $189. Whatever way you look at it, those are really good prices.