What clock speed does? Read below

[Premoz1]

So, I have been struggling that which one should I buy, amd ryzen 5 1600 or i5-8400. 1600 has more clock speed and +6 threads compared to 8400, and I watched few fps game tests. i5-8400 had 5-10 more fps on many games. So if i5-8400 gives few more fps, what does the 1600 do? What is its "speciality" compared to 8400? Thanks

[Sakkura]

The Ryzen 5 1600 has SMT/hyperthreading, which gives it another 20-40% performance in highly multithreaded workloads. More relevant to non-gaming stuff though.

 

The 1600 can also be overclocked, which helps its performance in everything. The 8400 is locked. Overclocking would almost nullify the advantage the 8400 has in games.

[DrDevinRX]

The R5 1600 has more threads than the i5. This can be used for content creation or streaming which requires more threads to operate smoothly. For example, you can more easily stream on a 1600 than on the 8400 without dropping frames both in-game and on stream. This may even allow you to stream at a lower x264 preset or with higher bitrate creating a better looking stream.

[IdiotPenguin]

9 hours ago, Sakkura said:

The Ryzen 5 1600 has SMT/hyperthreading, which gives it another 20-40% performance in highly multithreaded workloads. More relevant to non-gaming stuff though.

 

The 1600 can also be overclocked, which helps its performance in everything. The 8400 is locked. Overclocking would almost nullify the advantage the 8400 has in games.

Doesn’t the 8400’s turbo go up to 4ghz while 1600 can only oc to 3.6?

 

9 hours ago, IdiotPenguin said:

Doesn’t the 8400’s turbo go up to 4ghz while 1600 can only oc to 3.6?

Oh wait I was thinking about the boost clock heh sorry

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, IdiotPenguin said:

Doesn’t the 8400’s turbo go up to 4ghz while 1600 can only oc to 3.6?

The 8400 will turbo to 4GHz by default, but the 1600 can be manually overclocked to roughly 4GHz. The 8400 will still have a small advantage due to IPC.

[Premoz1]

Look at this pic.. It says that 1600 is better at video editing, content creating and vr gaming... But intel is 7% better in gaming. Btw that is not i5 8400 but its i7.. So should I get intel? Do I need those extra 6 threads? What I do on my pc: I play a game, I have web browser and discord turned on. And sometimes even spotify. So do I need those threads for them?

[IdiotPenguin]

8 hours ago, Premoz1 said:

Look at this pic.. It says that 1600 is better at video editing, content creating and vr gaming... But intel is 7% better in gaming. Btw that is not i5 8400 but its i7.. So should I get intel? Do I need those extra 6 threads? What I do on my pc: I play a game, I have web browser and discord turned on. And sometimes even spotify. So do I need those threads for them?

Not really. In some games having those extra threads would help slightly but that’s the minority so I think the 8400 is best. I don’t really know how accurate this picture is either but I’d still say 8400 for just gaming 

[Premoz1]

But I got 900€ Budget, and does that 7% really matter in only cpu? 

[GDRRiley]

8 hours ago, Premoz1 said:

Look at this pic.. It says that 1600 is better at video editing, content creating and vr gaming... But intel is 7% better in gaming. Btw that is not i5 8400 but its i7.. So should I get intel? Do I need those extra 6 threads? What I do on my pc: I play a game, I have web browser and discord turned on. And sometimes even spotify. So do I need those threads for them?

sniped

so that picture isn't that usefull, its just combine a bunch of data into a neat but mostly useless chart.

 

8 hours ago, Premoz1 said:

But I got 900€ Budget, and does that 7% really matter in only cpu? 

get a 1600

[Premoz1]

So I guess that it doesnt matter?

[IdiotPenguin]

6 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

get a 1600

 

7 minutes ago, Premoz1 said:

But I got 900€ Budget, and does that 7% really matter in only cpu? 

Yeah if you really just want a good all rounder just get an 1600

[LAwLz]

OP, core count, clock speed and things like SMT only matters when comparing processors using the same architecture against each other. As soon as you start looking at different architectures it becomes mostly irrelevant, and you instead have to look up benchmarks.

Actually, I strongly recommend looking up benchmarks regardless.

 

What programs are you going to run? Any specific ones or broad categories?

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

The Ryzen 5 1600 has SMT/hyperthreading, which gives it another 20-40% performance in highly multithreaded workloads. More relevant to non-gaming stuff though.

Wow hold on... Where did you get the 20-40% number from?

I have always seen and heard that the benefit gives, in best case scenarios about 20% extra performance.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Premoz1 said:

Look at this pic.. It says that 1600 is better at video editing, content creating and vr gaming... But intel is 7% better in gaming. Btw that is not i5 8400 but its i7.. So should I get intel? Do I need those extra 6 threads? What I do on my pc: I play a game, I have web browser and discord turned on. And sometimes even spotify. So do I need those threads for them?

Where are those benchmarks from? They don't seem to align with the ones I have seen, and since it doesn't specify which programs were tested or with what settings, it makes me a bit suspicious.

 

For example that picture says the i5 is 40% slower than the R5 at video encoding, but if we look at benchmarks for Handbrake we see this:

x264 LQ:

i5 - 1333

R5 - 1155

Difference: i5 is 15% faster

 

x264 HQ

i5 - 35.6

R5 - 31.5

Difference - i5 is 13% faster

 

x265

i5 - 26.1

R5 - 21.2

Difference - i5 is 23% faster

 

 

So yeah... I wouldn't trust that source.

I think this also highlights my point that cores, threads or clock frequency is not an indicator of performance. 6 more threads, yet ~15% slower for video encoding, one of fairly rare workloads that scales really well with threads.

[Premoz1]

I would like to play rust, pubg, csgo, r6s,and fortnite and other games on 1080p And btw, just asking that is this motherboard good for 1600? I am going to get 16gb ram and 1 gpu, so could you tell me more about the spots on motherboard, that what TYPE of slots RAM uses, and what kind of slots gpu and other stuff uses?

 

Uhh, I just noticed that thing you sent from Handbrake.. But if that chart I sent says shit like that, how can I trust handbrake? 

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Premoz1 said:

I would like to play rust, pubg, csgo, r6s,and fortnite and other games on 1080p And btw, just asking that is this motherboard good for 1600? I am going to get 16gb ram and 1 gpu, so could you tell me more about the spots on motherboard, that what TYPE of slots RAM uses, and what kind of slots gpu and other stuff uses?

Where are you going to order it from? I think price is very important when deciding which CPU to go by.

I'd say the i5-8400 is overall the better chip, especially if you're primarily going to play games and do general computer tasks (web browsing, maybe some encoding if different kinds and so on).

But for a lot of tasks the R5 1600 comes pretty close, and if it is cheaper then it might be the better buy. With a bit of overclocking on the 1600 the difference becomes smaller and might disappear completely in a lot of cases.

 

If I were buying a motherboard for the 1600 today I would get one with the X470 chipset. They have X470 in the name. Can't say I have looked through all of them but I am pretty sure they are all good.

Something like the "Asus TUF X470-PLUS GAMING" or "Gigabyte X470 Aorus Ultra Gaming" should be good and come with all the features you might want and need, plus a bunch more.

 

RAM uses DIMM slots. All AM4 motherboards has DDR4 slots so you don't have to worry about that. Just make sure you DON'T get laptop RAM (SODIMM).

 

GPU goes into the PCIe slot.

 

 

I recommend you pick out some parts and then make a new thread, asking for suggestions and to make sure everything will fit together.

People are more than willing to help you get that stuff sorted, and it's always best to get advice BEFORE you order anything.

Just bear in mind that some people will try and push you to buy from their favorite brand, rather than what might be best for you.

 

7 hours ago, Premoz1 said:

Uhh, I just noticed that thing you sent from Handbrake.. But if that chart I sent says shit like that, how can I trust handbrake? 

The website I linked to is Anandtech. Very respected reviewing site.

Handbrake is the specific program they used to test encoding performance.

 

It is entirely possible that neither website is lying (Anandtech nor the image you linked), but because they might have used different programs they might have gotten different results.

That's why I said I find it suspicious that your website did not specify which program they used. That makes it impossible to validate their findings by running the same tests.

[Coaxialgamer]

9 hours ago, Premoz1 said:

Look at this pic.. It says that 1600 is better at video editing, content creating and vr gaming... But intel is 7% better in gaming. Btw that is not i5 8400 but its i7.. So should I get intel? Do I need those extra 6 threads? What I do on my pc: I play a game, I have web browser and discord turned on. And sometimes even spotify. So do I need those threads for them?

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The website I linked to is Anandtech. Very respected reviewing site.

Handbrake is the specific program they used to test encoding performance.

 

It is entirely possible that neither website is lying (Anandtech nor the image you linked), but because they might have used different programs they might have gotten different results.

That's why I said I find it suspicious that your website did not specify which program they used. That makes it impossible to validate their findings by running the same tests.

 

Well that chart actually came from AMD themselves , so , ya know ...

 

Although i wouldn't necessarily doubt those results in particular , they just happen to be irrelevant given that it compares the r5 1600 to the i5 7600 , an older non-SMT quad core with lower clocks , which was indeed a terribly buy when ryzen came out and did actually lose out in gaming .

[Premoz1]

Yeah, but amd could be lying because of course they want to make their processors look a lot better compared to intel.. 

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Wow hold on... Where did you get the 20-40% number from?

I have always seen and heard that the benefit gives, in best case scenarios about 20% extra performance.

Best case is really dependent on how unrealistic of a workload you'll accept. 3DMark Firestrike physics tends to be around 40% or even more. Some stuff approaches 100% scaling.

[Coaxialgamer]

1 hour ago, Premoz1 said:

Yeah, but amd could be lying because of course they want to make their processors look a lot better compared to intel.. 

AMD ( or intel ) cannot legally put out outright fake information . That's simply illegal .

 

What they can do is cherry pick data points to a point where it's not relevant anymore , and basically misleading , in an effort to make themselves look good.

[Premoz1]

14 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

AMD ( or intel ) cannot legally put out outright fake information . That's simply illegal .

 

What they can do is cherry pick data points to a point where it's not relevant anymore , and basically misleading , in an effort to make themselves look good.

Yes, so basically its lying. That is exactly what I meant

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Best case is really dependent on how unrealistic of a workload you'll accept. 3DMark Firestrike physics tends to be around 40% or even more. Some stuff approaches 100% scaling.

I see...

Well, bringing up scenarios from synthetic benchmarks that doesn't correlate to normal, real world results seems disingenuous to me.

I think it's better to quote numbers that people can expect when using their computer. From what I have seen 0-20% seems to be about right for that.

 

 

4 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Well that chart actually came from AMD themselves , so , ya know ...

 

Although i wouldn't necessarily doubt those results in particular , they just happen to be irrelevant given that it compares the r5 1600 to the i5 7600 , an older non-SMT quad core with lower clocks , which was indeed a terribly buy when ryzen came out and did actually lose out in gaming .

Oh I see. I missed that it was comparing the 1600 vs the 7600, rather than the 8400.

Didn't know it was a benchmark from AMD either.

OP, you can safely ignore that picture. If a benchmark comes directly from AMD, Intel, Nvidia or some other manufacture, then it is pretty safe to assume that it is misleading and not telling the full story.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I see...

Well, bringing up scenarios from synthetic benchmarks that doesn't correlate to normal, real world results seems disingenuous to me.

I think it's better to quote numbers that people can expect when using their computer. From what I have seen 0-20% seems to be about right for that.

It was just an example, there are real-world examples too.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1261?vs=836

 

Identically clocked CPUs with hyperthreading the main difference. 53% difference in Agisoft Stage 1. 30% in Winrar. 34% in 7zip. 38% in Truecrypt. Less in a bunch of other stuff, of course; some benefits less from HT, other stuff just isn't threaded enough or bottlenecked by something else (like the GPU in games).