Solved

Why does everyone hate i5 6400?

Everysingle thread that talks about the 6400 has atleast one guy or more going "Durr just buy the 6500 cuz theres much higher clock."

Firstly the improvement clockwise is 7% not 20 or something idiotic like that. Secondly, the performance diffrence in gaming is mostly 0-3FPS. Sometimes the 6400 even gains one over the 6500.

So 3FPS improvement(if that) is worth 20$ or so? No its not and you know it.
11 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about hate 6400
  1. For me yeah 3 FPS and a higher clock rate are worth it. Question is, is it worth it to you. Plus while it may be 3 FPS on average now what will the difference be in another year or so as resource usage goes up...might be 5+ by then. hard to say it's worth but your mind seems made up so why ask?
  2. That extra 7% doesn't seem like much until you find yourself maxing out the 6400. Your not going to find an extra 7% anywhere else especially for a negligible cost.
  3. if $20 breaks your budget, then there's nothing wrong with the 6400. But There's also nothing wrong with paying an extra $20 for the increased performance.
  4. how exactly would the 6400 "gain" something over the 6500?
    they use the very same chip, same architecture but the 6400 is slower clocked and is therefore weaker in any situation.

    500MHz can be quite a bit. 2,7 GHz is a bit too little for gaming AAA titles by now.
    that is an improvement of roughly 15%

    in synthetic benchmarks the single core performance is 8% higher, the multi core performance 12%

    also it's for a few exception the same speed as an i3-6100 in games. is this worth the 50€?
  5. Isokolon said:
    how exactly would the 6400 "gain" something over the 6500?
    they use the very same chip, same architecture but the 6400 is slower clocked and is therefore weaker in any situation.

    500MHz can be quite a bit. 2,7 GHz is a bit too little for gaming AAA titles by now.
    that is an improvement of roughly 15%

    in synthetic benchmarks the single core performance is 8% higher, the multi core performance 12%

    also it's for a few exception the same speed as an i3-6100 in games. is this worth the 50€?



    I believe SWIM is just salty that other people can afford high end CPU's.
  6. LongUsername said:
    Everysingle thread that talks about the 6400 has atleast one guy or more going "Durr just buy the 6500 cuz theres much higher clock."

    Firstly the improvement clockwise is 7% not 20 or something idiotic like that. Secondly, the performance diffrence in gaming is mostly 0-3FPS. Sometimes the 6400 even gains one over the 6500.

    So 3FPS improvement(if that) is worth 20$ or so? No its not and you know it.


    At stock clocks it's over 18% faster. With turbo it's 9% faster. Not sure where you're getting 7%. Depending on the task it may be significant. Plus, people do more than just game with a PC.
  7. Best answer
    It comes down to the person's situation and what they consider 'value' since it can be subjective to some. As uguv suggested the 6500 is 18.5% faster at stock base speeds, it's around 9% faster with turbo boost clocks. That not based on comparing the max turbo but the slightly lower than advertised turbo boost that would apply if all 4 cores are loaded. Keep in mind if the 6400 says 'up to' 3.3ghz that's 1 core fully maxed out. When all 4 cores are fully used turbo boost drops a bit to around 3.1ghz. Same for the 6500, instead of 3.6 it would be around 3.3ghz.

    So between 9-18% more performance for 11% more cost (at least going by current u.s. prices). Prices will change value. It also depends on the person's upgrade habits. If it's someone who upgrades every time something new hits the shelf and they're only going to have the cpu for a few months to a year it may not make as much difference. For those who want to keep their cpu for 3, 4, 5yrs before upgrading you're looking at $5/yr and during those years someone may be stuck with a locked cpu they can't do much with to make it faster.

    Another option is to buy the 6400 to save $20, try and sell it after a few months to a year and take around a $50 or more loss on it depending what they're able to get out of it. Then turn around and buy a better cpu. It's generally less overall cost to just invest in a better cpu up front. Most people can afford $20 if they save another week or two and that's not going to be a long wait time, not months or anything. Not when it comes to a longer term investment, it's a pc not a meal at a restaurant or basket of groceries, something purchased repeatedly and in short time frames.

    Same with a tv, most people keep their tv around for awhile. At least a year or two, often longer. It's not worth pinching $20 over the course of years to end up with a smaller screen or fewer connection options that could easily bite someone down the road. It might seem trivial but if the cheaper tv only has 2 inputs instead of 3 and 18mo later someone needs that 3rd input they can either deal with 2 and put up with the hassle, buy the tv they should have to begin with or buy some sort of adapter that's liable to cost more than the original price difference. Rarely does saving a few dollars now pay off.

    In the end if 2.7ghz were all the speed needed, no gains were to be had from higher clock speeds, then the i7's would all be 2.7ghz rather than 4 - 4.5ghz.
  8. first of all the 6500 is 18.5% faster than the 6400 not 7%. Using Turbo frequencies is misleading as the stock cooler can;t sustain max turbo on these. Second, it only costs an extra $10-$15 at actual retail pricing. In the high end you usually pay way more for gains....gtx1080 is 50% more money for 20% more speed type thing but the i5-6500 vs 5400 is paying <5% more for almost 20% more speed...that's why the 6400 is hated on...you can do way better for the cost of three Starbucks coffees.
  9. Frequency the i5-6500 is 15-16% faster stock frequency, 8% faster turbo frequency.

    Benchmarks the i5-6500 is 5-7% faster in benchmark scores.

    Passmark - https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2599&cmp%5B%5D=2578

    Userbenchmark - http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6400-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6500/3512vs3513

    Gameplay comparison using a GTX 1060 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipCH_qPvDe8

    Perhaps the gap would be larger if using a high-end GPU such as the GTX Titan X.

    More benchmarks compared using a GTX 980 Ti - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-8XG6uhK4

    Now they both have the i3-7350K to compete with for same/less price.

    Cinebench R15 Multi-Core = 12% difference:

    i5-6500 - 565
    i5-6400 - 497
  10. I don't think people really hate the i5 6400. At least I hope people don't hate it. It's just in a bad place in the general lineup.

    Also, if a program or game hasn't been recompiled or otherwise optimized to take advantage of the new instruction sets that allow for the greater IPC, IPC means f#ck all and clock speed reigns supreme. The first example off the top of my head is Planetside 2 running on the 64bit client, because it can bottleneck every CPU in existence, from a lowly celeron to an overclocked 5960x. For a game that needs to run on a lot of variations of older hardware, and is F2P, not much of the underlying code has been optimized to run on the newer stuff, fearing it may break compatibility with legacy hardware. Thus, every extra mhz counts directly towards FPS gains. For a proper example with numbers, a G3258, 4690k, 4790k, i7 920, i7 870 (Xeon W3540), Phenom 965BE, 955BE, 1066T and 5960x all running at 4ghz yield the same fps, within margin of error, with the same stock 980ti and 16gb RAM. FX CPU's are garbage tier for this game and engine, and with an FX8320 at 5ghz+, it's still less than half as good as my i5 4460, and 1/3 as good as a 4790k. Overclock any k sku intel CPU, and any FX gets instantly sunk. I'm not saying every game makes FX CPU's this miserable, just this game. And H1Z1, Arma2, Arma3, and every asian action fantasy MMO ever (like TERA and BNS). Older, less optimized stuff.
    /rant

    TL;DR there is an upper limit to "IPC gains". With the way things are going, non-turbo clock speeds still matters quite a bit to single core performance, which is still important to many, many people. Like me.
  11. I don't hate it. It just isn't price properly.
Ask a new question

Read More

Performance Intel i5